I read in Scientific American once that there's just one gene combination or something that affects the pigment of the skin, which really doesn't influence anything too much else, which makes race quite an inconsequential genetic characteristic.
And another thing about intelligent design: Wouldn't the designer make us too unintelligent to destroy the environment, could we just be unimportant cogs in the design or maybe the designer is just experimenting to see what happens in th design. . .?
Race is really more than skin color. There are other genetic differences between Europeans and Africans and Asians, which is why there are differing rates for certain diseases and disorders.
And not just diseases, disorders, but other physical characteristics, some stereotype worthy, others more subtle or matter of fact.
I think the point they were making is that those genetic differences are geographical and don't create a different species or something like that.
I forget the biological degrees of different species. . .when they can't reproduce together, etc., so I can't be entirely clear on what I'm trying to say.
I thought the definition of "same species" is "can breed together and produce viable young".
I think racists would try to sell human gentic variety as being akin to different "breeds" like it is with canines, but it's pretty obvious to all but the most biased observer that dogs have a much wider phenological (if I'm not misusing the term) variety than humans.