Evolution has served as the justification for countless forms of racism and sexism through the ages. Darwin himself maintained that "[man] attains a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can women" and goes so far as to say that it's really unfair to compare their achievements (Darwin). Darwin disciple and father of social psychology, Gustave Le Bon, states that "[even in] the most intelligent races [there] are large numbers of women whose brains are closer in size to those of gorillas than to the most developed male brains" (Gold 104). Lest there be any confusion he further states that "women represent the most inferior forms of human evolution and...are closer to children and savages than to adult, civilized man." As shocking as these statements sound, it is really no wonder that they should come from the founders of a system in which value is based on strength rather than essence.

With regard racism, evolution's record is just as bad. In 1904, an African pygmy named Ota Benga was caged with an orangutan at an American zoo and held up as history's missing link. Those who objected to the inhumane display were "criticized on the basis that they did not accept evolution's theories" (Bergman). Evolution, after all, believes that "some races are inferior and closer to the lower primates, suggesting that blacks had evolved from the strong but less intelligent Gorilla" (Bergman). What better way to justify the mistreatment of blacks than to maintain that they are simply an under evolved life form. Though there have certainly been racists historically who built their hatred on misapplication of scripture, the Bible is clear that there is "neither Jew nor Greek", "slave nor free", "male nor female", for all are the same in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:28). Evolution can make no such claim.

The fact of the matter, of course, is that most people who embrace evolution, fail to live out their beliefs in any consistent way. The animal rights movement and radical environmentalists are likewise embracing an ideology for which they have no adequate philosophical base. If they are naturalists, as virtually all are, then it is foolish to expect humans to place the concerns of the "lower" beasts ahead of their own. After all, we are further up the evolutionary chain and should not be expected to thwart our upward push so as to help those species which have failed to adapt as quickly. Demanding that humans treat animals with compassion is utterly inconsistent. Evolution, after all is built on the survival of the fittest, not on compassion for the weak. One might argue that compassion is an evolved trait, but if it is, it is an irrational hiccup which could never survive the cold, brutal push of nature. Charity has no place in evolution. The pattern of the jungle is one of competition and self-interest, kill or be killed. Why should humans behave any differently? If we are just sophisticated beasts, why shouldn't we eat the meat of other animals when other animals are certainly willing to eat meat, even our meat? The bottom line is that evolutionists are expecting man to be (act) more noble than the beast (which he is!) without having a sufficient foundation for making such a claim.