Final answer:
Reverend Minister Samuel Stanhope Smith argued that dark skin was a 'universal freckle' indicative of ontological equality, implying that race is 'skin deep.' Modern science upholds that the genetic factors influencing skin color are minimal and that race as a biological concept is not valid; instead, it is a sociocultural construction.
Step-by-step explanation:
Reverend Minister Samuel Stanhope Smith's argument that dark skin was a universal freckle; conveyed his belief in ontological equality. A similar saying today would be that "race is only skin deep." This sentiment reveals the understanding that skin color is a superficial characteristic resulting from evolutionary adaptations to sunlight in different geographic regions. This perspective asserts that race is not based on immutable biological factors but rather socio-economic constructions throughout history. Modern science supports the notion that the genetic variations that affect skin color, for example, are minor and that racial categories do not align with the complex spectrum of human genetic diversity. In the context of contemporary understanding, skin pigmentation is a result of directional selection, which posits that dark skin evolved to protect against the sun's ultraviolet radiation in sunny locations while lighter skin provided advantages in regions with less sunlight for adequate vitamin D synthesis. Consequently, Smith's perspective on skin color being merely a 'universal freckle' aligns with the scientific viewpoint that diminishes the biological significance of race and emphasizes the importance of recognizing ontological equality among all humans. It challenges the social implications and identities associated with skin color, which historically have informed prejudices like colorism, the belief that one skin tone is superior within a racial group.