Believing in Race Makes One A Darwinist?

I had a friend and supporter of IronInk write in asking me to respond to this article;

I will write a few words but the articles I link below completely demolishes the premise of the article in the first link;

We are told by the author of the article of her listening to a pod-cast. She learned from that podcast of;

“Their two-part Episode 19 – in which they discussed National Geographic  2018 article about race being a primarily made-up label with no scientific or genetic basis – reminded me about Acts 17:26.”

So, race has no scientific or genetic basis, per this idiot podcast (a view that is even heard from many if not most pulpits today) and yet the second article linked above clearly demonstrates that when one needs a bone marrow transplant suddenly race is real.

A USA Today article from 2019 also reinforces that idea;

“It’s difficult for any (multiracial) person to find a match on the registry,” Schatz said, explaining that while white people have a 77% chance of finding a perfect match on the registry, people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds have much lower odds.

Latinos, for instance, have a 46% chance of finding a match, and blacks have a 23% chance of a match, according to Schatz.

She didn’t know how likely it is to find a multiracial match though the registry, only that the chances are even lower for people like Ailani, whose life now depends on it.”

Look, though it seems painfully obvious, you can’t tell me that “there is no such thing as race,” or that, “race is a social construct,” or that, “race is merely about pigment,” (all jejune drippings we get from modern clergy as well as others) and then turn around and tell me that the genetic realities of race become an obstacle when doing a bone marrow transplant. Clearly, race exists and no amount of denial is going to change that reality.

Further, this also makes it clear that believing that race is real does not make one a Darwinist anymore than believing that “Fudruckers” is the best Burger joint makes one a hamburger. Darwin, and his intellectual heirs may have wrongly obsessed over race, and even made wrong conclusions and theories regarding race, but Darwin did not invent race anymore than Newton invented gravity.

Elsewhere in the first linked article we find,

  And when did people start buying into the hideous notion that one race was superior to another?

Superiorities and inferiorities run through all the distinct races. Look at the National Basketball Association (NBA) and you’ll discover by way of observation that Blacks are, generally speaking, superior athletes when compared to other races. Likewise, when one looks at building beautiful civilizations, one discovers that White Christians are, generally speaking, superior at building beautiful civilizations to other races. Secondly, all superiorities of all races in all fields is completely according to the God of the Bibles appointment and sovereignty so that no race should boast as if their superiority is by their genius absent of God’s ordaining decrees.

So, there is nothing hideous in the notion that differing superiorities and inferiorities run through different races.

In conclusion, we quite agree that there is indeed one human race but within that one human race God has, in His providence, created a diversity of races. Further, within the diversity of each race God has, in His providence, ordained a diversity of ethnicities within each race.

This is clearly hinted at in Acts 17:26

26 From one man he made all the nations…

One man… many nations. Keep in mind that nations in the NT understanding means “a descent from a common patriarch.”

God Himself is both One and Many and the creation that fell from His hand is likewise both One and Many. The reality of race is one illustration of the creational One and Many. The different races though descending all from their Father Adam are a portrayal of God’s unity and diversity.

So, remember there is just one race, and all the distinct races God ordained comprise the human race.

Author: jetbrane

I am a Pastor of a small Church in Mid-Michigan who delights in my family, my congregation and my calling. I am postmillennial in my eschatology. Paedo-Calvinist Covenantal in my Christianity Reformed in my Soteriology Presuppositional in my apologetics Familialist in my family theology Agrarian in my regional community social order belief Christianity creates culture and so Christendom in my national social order belief Mythic-Poetic / Grammatical Historical in my Hermeneutic Pre-modern, Medieval, & Feudal before Enlightenment, modernity, & postmodern Reconstructionist / Theonomic in my Worldview One part paleo-conservative / one part micro Libertarian in my politics Systematic and Biblical theology need one another but Systematics has pride of place Some of my favorite authors, Augustine, Turretin, Calvin, Tolkien, Chesterton, Nock, Tozer, Dabney, Bavinck, Wodehouse, Rushdoony, Bahnsen, Schaeffer, C. Van Til, H. Van Til, G. H. Clark, C. Dawson, H. Berman, R. Nash, C. G. Singer, R. Kipling, G. North, J. Edwards, S. Foote, F. Hayek, O. Guiness, J. Witte, M. Rothbard, Clyde Wilson, Mencken, Lasch, Postman, Gatto, T. Boston, Thomas Brooks, Terry Brooks, C. Hodge, J. Calhoun, Llyod-Jones, T. Sowell, A. McClaren, M. Muggeridge, C. F. H. Henry, F. Swarz, M. Henry, G. Marten, P. Schaff, T. S. Elliott, K. Van Hoozer, K. Gentry, etc. My passion is to write in such a way that the Lord Christ might be pleased. It is my hope that people will be challenged to reconsider what are considered the givens of the current culture. Your biggest help to me dear reader will be to often remind me that God is Sovereign and that all that is, is because it pleases him.

7 thoughts on “Believing in Race Makes One A Darwinist?”

  1. I have seen the insightful idea that those modern creationist Christians who accept PC race-doctrines deny evolution in BIOLOGY, but accept it in SOCIOLOGY. In other words, they refuse to give in to the world when it claims that animal species just evolved by themselves, but they give in to the world when they think that it was good, natural and inevitable that human societies have EVOLVED from “primitive” patriarchal societies into comfortable modern egalitarian societies. They feel uncomfortable when they see that the Law of Moses permitted slavery, and seek to ignore it or explain it away, and think that all slavery today would be criminal and sinful – which is a clear concession to modernism.

    They accept and even applaud the way we have “evolved” away from the bigoted patriarchal systems of ancient (and not even so ancient) times. And along with other hierarchical ideas, sense of race was obviously part and parcel of pre-modern patriarchal worldview. Therefore, social evolution OK, biological evolution not OK. That is basically their position.

    Btw, in the 1911 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica, Karl Marx was praised precisely for having powerfully promoted the idea of social evolution (according to him, social morality changes along with changes in technology, or “means of production”), thus complementing the work of Darwin:,_Heinrich_Karl

    “In the same year as Darwin’s epoch-making work on the origin of species there appeared also Marx’s work Zur Kritik der politischen Ökonomie, where he explains in concise sentences in the preface that philosophy of history which has for the theory of the transformation or evolution of social organisms the same significance that the argument of Darwin had for the theory of the transformation of biological organisms.”

    1. Marx rejoiced to see Darwin’s day and was glad.

      So… Kinists are the only ones being consistent here in rejecting both Darwinian based biological Evolution and Darwinian based sociological evolution.

      1. The whole modern myth of PROGRESS, which has so powerful a hold over minds and imaginations of men today, even those who consider themselves believers – what else is that but another name for “social evolution”?

        Just take this academic superstition of history evolving into ever better and better direction, through the guidance of some Deistic providence:

        “Whig history (or Whig historiography) is an approach to historiography that presents history as a journey from an oppressive and benighted past to a “glorious present”.[1] The present described is generally one with modern forms of liberal democracy and constitutional monarchy”

        How many modern Christians would feel comfortable if they actually returned to the days of Abraham – that is, the days of violent patriarchal warlordism?

  2. Those Christians who take Original Sin seriously should cultivate the idea that all the modern comforts they are currently enjoying could disappear in a twinkling on an eye, and they could fall back into the ruthless “state of nature” where fallen human beings seek to devour each other. In other words, they should not ungratefully take their full bellies and safe sleep for granted.

    And of course, it is written:

    “But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?”

  3. Greetings Sir,

    I have been receiving emails from Iron Ink for about 2 yrs and I always enjoy reading them. I am trying to learn more about kinism. At this point it is a highly contentious term and I would like to know more about it. I believe that my husband and myself are of this persuasion but whenever race is brought up in conversation at our church, the claim being made is that it is sinful. . I don’t believe it is a sin.. Im not able to effectively defend the arguments being made against kinism because I am learning myself. Our eyes have recently been opened to so many things we thought we knew, from the War between the States, or what we thought we knew about the “Civil war” to what we thought we knew about Hitler and the jews. All lies, especially the one about not seeing color and only whites are racist. I don’t know why my husband and I are being made aware of so many issues that the church seems to be completely in the dark about, nothing special about us, they just seem to be very real threats and you are the only one we have found to write about it plainly in your articles.

    I recently got into a conversation at church about kinism, it got a bit heated. I was attempting to make a case that it is not sinful to be a kinist. I sent my Pastor your blog and asked for him to look at it and give me his thoughts. This is what he shared with me:

    “I finally got around to reading through this article. My initial response is that there is nothing objectionable to noting differences between cultures or races on a very broad level. A couple of things that do create a fairly serious problem:

    The derogatory tone toward his opponents (ie. “per this idiot podcast”) is not in line with 2 Tim 2:24-26. That same attitude comes out in his other posts and some of the comments that he makes on his blog. Most people that adopt this posture are struggling with pride, though I admit I do not know this man at all;
    It is unclear to me what the significance of this observation is simply stated on its own. What is he arguing to be the impact or importance of these broad “superiorities”? Is he just saying Italians are good at pasta and Indians at curry? Is he saying we should remain distinct based on physiological differences? If he is arguing for a separation of the races (which he does in other posts and comments), then he is dividing the family of God into unbiblical distinctives and is teaching something contrary to the gospel (Acts 17:26; Rom. 3:29; 1 Cor. 12:12-13; Gal. 3:28; Gal. 2:12, 14; Rev. 5:9). Though his conclusion is not clear based only on this article, his other writings make abundantly clear what his objective is.
    I found the Iron Ink blog and looked around at the content. And I want to say in no uncertain terms that this man is not behaving as a Christian. He is unapologetically a kinist which is patently and obviously against the Bible’s teaching of the unity of the body of Christ. He links to articles like, “Top Ten Reasons ‘Anti Semite’ Is a Compliment” in which the writer tries to redefine the term to make it ok. He equates kinism with the rejection of Darwinian social evolution, but in fact is a rejection of the texts I listed above. I am not saying things too strongly when I say this man is teaching poison that will only serve to divide the body of Christ.

    I would strongly encourage you to remove yourselves from the mailing list of this blog and not allow yourself to be influenced by such a man. Though not everything he says is without merit (of course), he will not encourage you to embrace the body of Christ which is one and does not recognize distinctions of value and/or belonging based on race. In fact, knowing you are sympathetic to such a man could serve to greatly alienate brothers and sisters in our current church and cause tremendous division. I’d be happy to sit down with you to talk through these things in more detail. Hope I didn’t say it too strongly. Love you lots.


    I’m sure you are busy but I thought it couldn’t hurt to try and reach you and attempt to get your feedback on what he has said.

    I thank you for your time in reading this and hope to hear back.


    Rachelle Smith

    1. Hello Rachelle,

      Thank you for your thoughtful correspondence. For now, I am going to point out to you three resources that will help you on the “What is Kinism?” question. Later I will respond to your Pastors woefully lacking response. It really is shot through with holes. However, most clergy make these kinds of mistakes and category errors that he makes. As such, I’ve dealt with those errors over and over again and will seek to point out his contradictions and inconsistencies.

      Here are the sources you should access to understand more about Kinism…

      1.) This article is an excellent explanation of Kinism that demonstrates its Biblical support. If you have any questions please ask me to help you out.

      2.) Here are all of the links to a 6 part audio podcast series seeking to explain basic kinism 101

      3.) Finally, I am giving a link to a book you should purchase. This book is an anthology of quotes demonstrating that in my promotion of Kinism I am merely echoing the Church from throughout the ages. These are quotes from Church Fathers in every age. I am not the one who has gone off the Biblical Christianity rails. It is those (like your Pastor) who have gone off the rails. I am merely normal.

      You can access this book on line so you can cut and paste quotes you like and send them to your “Pastor.”

  4. Alienists, or neo-babelists as I call the men, often argue that kinism “divides the body of Christ.” But as the apostle Paul argued, this body, like the human body, has distinct members. Thus, the lung and the liver are united in the body, but the body will die if these organs don’t exercise their separate and distinctive functions.

    In I Cor. 12:13, Paul states that the Christian body is united in one Spirit. Among the entities so united are “Jew and Greek.” This spiritual union doesn’t abolish those physical ethnic identities, any more than unity in the spirit abolishes male and female. To claim otherwise is the heresy of Gnosticism. Even in heaven, nations will exist within the unity of common salvation. (Rev. 21:24)

    If the neo-babelists, wish to take their argument to its logical conclusion, they should condemn the separation of families into separate households and the preference family members have for one another. Perhaps they will label this affection “familism” and equate it with “racism.” It wouldn’t surprise me if this actually came to pass. Many of our churchmen today crave more than anything else the blessing of the goddess Equality, and the worldly approval that blessing brings.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *