Hm, well, there's lots to comment on so far. I'll go in last-in-first-out order.
It [racism] is a flawed belief that has caused human bbeings nothing but misery.
First, exactly whether racism is a flawed belief is what has been put up for debate here. Second, while yes, it has caused much misery, that doesn't make it a flawed belief in and of itself. Third, while it has caused much misery on large scales, it's arguable that it has prevented misery on small scales.
To briefly expand on my last point, consider why racism exists. I refer not to the ignorant redneck's desire to inflate his own ego, but to the somewhat subtler instinct. One evolutionary trait that most advanced animals seem to share is the ability to tell "us" from "them", whether it's "my wolf pack vs. your wolf pack", "my African tribe vs. your African tribe", or simply "my species vs. your species." I call this an evolutionary trait because since most animals seem to prefer not to eat their own kind, but rather to breed with them, selectively being mistrustful of other species and somewhat preferential to your own is obviously an asset. Also, since packs and tribes form around the principles of shared resources and mutual defense, preferentially trusting one's own tribe is also a sensible strategy.
I guess my point is that I believe racism itself is a naturally selected trait.
As for other traits, well, it's commonly held that skin color is selected best suit an individual to his expected exposure to the sun. Other gross physical features that different the so-called races are probably also naturally selected. However, it's extraordinarily difficult to tell whether the same thing applies to psychological features, such as mathematical skills or tendency towards criminal behavior. I would say, probably not. At least, not yet.
As already mentioned, evolution is a slow process. Not very long ago, people all over the world had very similar societies. It is only in the last hundred years that literacy has been anyhow close to common. So I doubt that such things could have been naturally selected yet. Also, I do not think there's much environmental pressure to be smarter than the average human: people seem to be just as sexually attracted to dumb people as they are to smart people (on average), and certainly you can survive long enough to breed despite being sublimely stupid, as evidenced by many of the people who spend their time arguing on the internet.
Now that I think of it, this doesn't address the question, which is much stronger. "Are some races genetically superior?" What does 'superior' mean here? Better fit for survival, I suppose. Maybe. The populations of Africa and India and China are certainly soaring, despite what Westerners consider to be deplorable living conditions. Maybe this means that Africans and Indians and Chinese are "genetically superior" to Caucasians...
-Erasmus