Religious Discrimination and Scientific Racism

[jcrawford]

Since there seems to be a lot of confusion about what exactly constitutes the nature of religious discrimination and scientific racism, I thought it advisable to start a thread on the matter which might not become too discursive.

I'll open the conversation with the fact that most neo-Darwinist 'scientists' seem to believe, if not assert, that such topics as race, racism, religion and discrimination based on such categories are beyond the purvue of scientific enquiry.

The first question I would pose to supporters of neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution is whether you agree with the above presumptions and propositions. If so, why, and if not, why not?

[jcrawford]

Here's some history of racist science in America.

http://www.ferris.edu/isar/arcade/eugenics/movement.htm

I don't know if this is the be all and end all of the discussion, hopefully it can be a starting point. But it certainly connects a history of genetic research with the eugenics movement in America.

Thank you youngborean for linking us to that informative website on the history of racist science in Germany and America. What do you think of the human race? Can it be said to exist and to be scientifically observable or are racial and 'species' distinctions within it just fabrications of society and science? We sure would like to have you on our side of this exciting discussion and debate. Surely, you don't deny your own membership in our one and only human race. You don't belong to another race, do you?

[jcrawford]

I don't know if this is the be all and end all of the discussion, hopefully it can be a starting point. But it certainly connects a history of genetic research with the eugenics movement in America.

Oh Yes, before the Second World War, United States admired germany for there huge scientific discoveries. But ofcourse..... We dont want to talk about that do we.

Why not, since modern geneticists have chosen to involve themselves with neo-Darwinst beliefs about human ancestry? If they can trace the common ancestry of all human beings back to some African woman, surely they don't mind revealing their own common Anglo-Saxon origins and 'naturally selected' descent.

[jcrawford]

How about the history of racism in general, how it came about and when it became unPC to relate to it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

Hmmm, always present to a certian degree, became much more apparent in the 18th century, when america needed some slaves and became very unpopular around the 1940's. (as an aside, the conlonization of both America and Australia involved quite a lot of racism, and was during pre-darwinian times.)

They actually have an extra article on scientific racism in particular, both pre and post Darwin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

"Racism is the belief that people of different races differ in value."

There are always fringe groups who will come up with some wacko theories, whether it be in science or in religion, but under my knowledge of the current theory of evolution, and science standards, all people alive today belong to the same species and all have the same value.

Having a look at the article on scientific racism, the current racial theorists are very heavily critised and on the outer of the scientific circle... the last quote from the article would be

In applying the term to works completed in the past, however, runs the risk of ahistoricism. Some of the work of Charles Darwin, for example, contains many statements which would be considered racist (or "scientific racism") in the current scientific and cultural context, but in their time were either typical for their Victorian context or even less racist than many contemporary scientific views.

I wonder what those other views would have been...

Thanks to you, Glee, for a couple of insightful links to the topic of religious discrimination and scientific racism. Where do you stand on the subject of the human race being scientifically recognized and classified as different and separate fossil 'species' of one human race in history? Do you think that the European Neanderthals or the original African and Asian 'species' of human beings constituted a different human race?

Please join our unique debating team in defending the one and only human race to have ever walked on planet Earth.

[jcrawford]

I avoided this thread for a while, thinking it might be more on "scientific racism," but fortunately, you've gone into a discussion of real racism. I'll add a few useful notes:

So what's the bottom line, Jose? Is there only one human race or not?

Love to have you on our team, Jose, but until you grant full and equal humanity and human beingness to our Neanderthal and Homo erectus human ancestors and brothers, I don't see how you can include them in our one and only human race.

[Glee]

Thanks to you, Glee, for a couple of insightful links to the topic of religious discrimination and scientific racism. Where do you stand on the subject of the human race being scientifically recognized and classified as different and separate fossil 'species' of one human race in history? Do you think that the European Neanderthals or the original African and Asian 'species' of human beings constituted a different human race?

Please join our unique debating team in defending the one and only human race to have ever walked on planet Earth.

As i said, all people alive today are classified as homo sapiens. To have that same classification, all people must have been derived from a common ancestor - Branches of a tree don't generally grow back together again.

But according to evolutionary theory, -all- species were at one time another species. So I can't really see people being discriminated against because they may or may not have had a different genetic background, without severe hypocrisy.

That being said, i find it hard to know where the classifications of species and kind are drawn. Chihuahuas and St Bernards are of the same speicies and kind whereas homo sapiens and homo erectus are not? Or homo sapiens and pan painiscus for that matter. Are any hominidae species interbreedable at all? to what extent? Bone structure and internal organs all seem fairly similar...

[McCulloch]

1. Do you personally think that the human race exists?

Since you, McCulloch and I all personally agree that the human race exists[...]

The term 'human race' is a misnomer used only by those ignorant of current biological science. There is a superfamily of primates, Hominoidea, which includes all apes. Within that superfamily, there is a family, Hominidae which includes all of the human-like apes the members of which are called hominoids. Within that family, there are a number of genus: Sahelanthropus, Orrorin, Ardipithecus, Australopithecus, Kenyanthropus and Homo. Within the genus Homo there are species: habilis, georgicus, erectus, ergaster, antecessor, heidelbergensis, neanderthalensis, floresiensis and sapiens. 'Human race' is a non-technical non-scientific term used to refer to the species, Homo sapiens.

2. If so, do you think that the human race and racial variations within it are scientifically observable?

Obviously, you have answered to 2nd question in the affirmative, so I am assuming that you would answer the 1st question in the affirmative also.

Within the species Homo sapiens, it has been postulated that there are identifiable sub-groups with inherited characteristics which we call races. The boundaries between the races is necessarily fuzzy since all races belong to the same species and can and do interbreed. Given increased mobility, multiculturalism and globalization we should expect that the racial differences will significantly diminish over the next several generations. So, to answer jcrawford's second question, I do think that racial variations within the species Homo sapiens can be scientifically observed but that observation will be difficult given the poorly defined boundaries and interbreeding.

[Jose]

I avoided this thread for a while, thinking it might be more on "scientific racism," but fortunately, you've gone into a discussion of real racism. I'll add a few useful notes:

So what's the bottom line, Jose? Is there only one human race or not?

Love to have you on our team, Jose, but until you grant full and equal humanity and human beingness to our Neanderthal and Homo erectus human ancestors and brothers, I don't see how you can include them in our one and only human race.

You must recognize, jcrawford, that "The Human Race" is a term used in conversational English to refer to "The Human Species," or "The Human Population," or "All of Us Humans." In that sense, it is like the conversational English use of the word "fruit." In conversational English, a fruit is sweet; tomatoes and eggplants are vegetables, not fruits. Nor are seedpods of beans or violets, or those little twirly things ("samaras") that maple trees produce. Scientifically, botanically, "fruit" is defined according to a specific anatomical origin, and all of these things are fruits.

Conversely, "The Human Race" does not use the term "race" as it is used when people do not put "The Human" in front of it. Then, "race" is used to refer to different subgroups within the overall population, with those subgroups divided into "races" on the basis of arbitrary criteria--usually the alleles of a few genes that determine skin color.

Scientifically (genetically), the term "race" refers to a subgroup within a species, that is not sufficiently different from other groups as to be called a "subspecies," and not so similar as to be called a "variety," or "breed," or "cultivar," or whatever term is used for that species. Color is rarely used as a defining criterion; genetic "distance" is.

If we are going to have this conversation, and if we are to get anywhere with it, we have to use the same terminology.

We must also, when we get to aspects of evolutionary theory, use the correct theory, and not a false caricature of it. This is a variation of using the same terminology.

So, using the conversational English defnition of "The Human Race," of course we all belong to "The Human Race."

Using scientific criteria, of course we can distinguish genetic variation among humans--among all humans except for identical twins derived from the same fertilized egg. This is true regardless of what "race" we may assign them to.

If you want to include all of our ancestors in this "Human Race," you may. However, you're going to run into argument when you get back far enough, and they look like shrews, or farther and they look like fish.

How closely-related must different individuals be to be a part of this "Human Race"? How long since our last common ancestor? You and I share a common ancestor--you could call him Noah if you like, or you could go back farther and call her Eve if you like. So, from any one of our ancestors, do all of their descendents count as members of The Human Race?

This is, after all, what you are asking us to do: take anyone in our immediate line of descent (e.g. H. ergaster) and call them members of "The Human Race," and take anyone in lines of descent that branched off our our own (e.g. H. neandertalensis) and likewise call them members of "The Human Race."

I ask you: how far back do you go? Where do you draw the line, and say "these are too unlike us to be part of The Human Race"? Do you ever draw such a line? Or do you suggest that none exists?

[youngborean]

Thank you youngborean for linking us to that informative website on the history of racist science in Germany and America. What do you think of the human race? Can it be said to exist and to be scientifically observable or are racial and 'species' distinctions within it just fabrications of society and science? We sure would like to have you on our side of this exciting discussion and debate. Surely, you don't deny your own membership in our one and only human race. You don't belong to another race, do you?

I am not sure how to answer this. I know I have a genetic history that is distinct from my spouse. But we both seem to be quite human. I would really just repeat what I said earlier and elaborate on it a bit. Science and Technology don't have inherent ethics associtated with them. They are only concerned with the advancement of knowledge from incrementally small steps (One invention and study at a time). It must therefore be assumed that scientists are not inherently ethical, but are like any other profession, comprising of a mix of world views. Therefore every advancement made should not compromise an agreed upon ethical standard. To me, no matter what science would end up saying about race, it would never trump the God (and state for legal reasoning) given rights of every member of the Human Population (to use Jose's wording). It would be dangerous and naive in light of history to believe that scientific information couldn't be used as a justification for tyranny, therefore we need to find an acceptable balance where science/technology can give us the things we want and that we are prepared as a society to justly handle the consequences.

[jcrawford]

So, to answer jcrawford's second question, I do think that racial variations within the species Homo sapiens can be scientifically observed but that observation will be difficult given the poorly defined boundaries and interbreeding.

I am going to stand on the scientific principle that there is only one human race and one human species with observable variation within it; and that all attempts to divide, separate, classify and label the one and only human race and species into different races and species are inherently racist.

Would anyone like to join my side of this debating society?

[jcrawford]

So, using the conversational English defnition of "The Human Race," of course we all belong to "The Human Race."

Thank you Jose, for admitting "conversational English" into the discussion and debate by substantiating the fact that "we all belong to "The Human Race."

Using scientific criteria, of course we can distinguish genetic variation among humans--among all humans except for identical twins derived from the same fertilized egg. This is true regardless of what "race" we may assign them to.

Scientists don't "assign" race to individuals, do they?

If you want to include all of our ancestors in this "Human Race," you may.

Thank you, Jose. Weren't all of your ancestors human?

However, you're going to run into argument when you get back far enough, and they look like shrews, or farther and they look like fish.

Since when did any human beings "look like fish," Jose?

How closely-related must different individuals be to be a part of this "Human Race"? How long since our last common ancestor? You and I share a common ancestor--you could call him Noah if you like, or you could go back farther and call her Eve if you like. So, from any one of our ancestors, do all of their descendents count as members of The Human Race?

Of course they do, Jose. Who do you think your family's ancestors were anyway? African Eve or Adam and Eve?

This is, after all, what you are asking us to do: take anyone in our immediate line of descent (e.g. H. ergaster) and call them members of "The Human Race," and take anyone in lines of descent that branched off our our own (e.g. H. neandertalensis) and likewise call them members of "The Human Race."

That's exactly right, Jose. How would you like it if H. ergaster and neanderthalensis didn't consider you to be a member of the one and only human race?

I ask you: how far back do you go? Where do you draw the line, and say "these are too unlike us to be part of The Human Race"? Do you ever draw such a line? Or do you suggest that none exists?

Good question Jose. We draw the line at the first African people on earth, by showing that neo-Darwinist theories about their origination from some non-human species of African ape ancestors are a form of scientific racism because there is no evidence of it.