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?

[McCulloch]

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?

Is jcrawford admitting that the "one human race" means the same thing as the "one human species"?

Has jcrawford found any instances of modern biologists who classify parts of the one human species as separate species?

Is jcrawford willing to condemn as racist those physicians who have identified that certain diseases (Tay Sachs for instance) are exclusive to some "races"?

Does jcrawford have any evidence that certain now extinct members of the genus, Homo, are the same species as Homo sapiens?

[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?

Is jcrawford admitting that the "one human race" means the same thing as the "one human species"?

Has jcrawford found any instances of modern biologists who classify parts of the one human species as separate species?

Is jcrawford willing to condemn as racist those physicians who have identified that certain diseases (Tay Sachs for instance) are exclusive to some "races"?

Does jcrawford have any evidence that certain now extinct members of the genus, Homo, are the same species as Homo sapiens?

Absolutely, on all four counts, in accordance with the scientific principle that there is only one observable human race and species.

[McCulloch]

Is jcrawford admitting that the "one human race" means the same thing as the "one human species"?
Has jcrawford found any instances of modern biologists who classify parts of the one human species as separate species?
Is jcrawford willing to condemn as racist those physicians who have identified that certain diseases (Tay Sachs for instance) are exclusive to some "races"?
Does jcrawford have any evidence that certain now extinct members of the genus, Homo, are the same species as Homo sapiens?

Absolutely, on all four counts, in accordance with the scientific principle that there is only one observable human race and species.

Let me guess. The affirmative answer to the second is related to the affirmative answer to the fourth. Would jcrawford please provide some of the evidence that evolutionary biologists have been mistaken in their classification of the various species of genus Homo into separate species?

[Cathar1950]

McCulloch wrote:

Let me guess. The affirmative answer to the second is related to the affirmative answer to the fourth. Would jcrawford please provide some of the evidence that evolutionary biologists have been mistaken in their classification of the various species of genus Homo into separate species?

Some evidence would be nice. But if all you have is The book BOC I don't see the point. I did notice there was a request of fossils. This would take volumes of books. This I think is in another forum. They are starting to sound alike.
jcrawford wrote:

Absolutely, on all four counts, in accordance with the scientific principle that there is only one observable human race and species.

I think that is it McCulloch. Yes on all four counts. Notice that it is all in accordance with the Scientific principle That there is only one race and species.
I would say it is not a scientific principle. I think that was his answer in total.
jcrawford wrote:

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.

I read a study and the dna of Neanderthal seem to indicate that they were a separate or a sub-species. Neanderthal and Homo Erectus both seem to be another species. If they still survived we might have to give them rights or protection. I wonder why you don't add apes to you Brotherhood of man. To answer your bottom line. "Is there only one human race or not?". The answer is yes today there is only one human race, Us!

[micatala]

McCulloch wrote:
Is jcrawford admitting that the "one human race" means the same thing as the "one human species"?
Has jcrawford found any instances of modern biologists who classify parts of the one human species as separate species?
Is jcrawford willing to condemn as racist those physicians who have identified that certain diseases (Tay Sachs for instance) are exclusive to some "races"?
Does jcrawford have any evidence that certain now extinct members of the genus, Homo, are the same species as Homo sapiens?

jcrawford wrote:
Absolutely, on all four counts, in accordance with the scientific principle that there is only one observable human race and species.


McCulloch
Let me guess. The affirmative answer to the second is related to the affirmative answer to the fourth. Would jcrawford please provide some of the evidence that evolutionary biologists have been mistaken in their classification of the various species of genus Homo into separate species?

QUestions 2 and 4 are red herrings anyway.

In my view, whether evolutionary biologists have made any 'mistakes' in their classifications of fossil hominids into species is irrelevant to the question of whether racism is involved if it cannot be shown that racist behavior or attitudes are present.

If I make a mistake in my observation of an individual and believe he is of African descent when he is really of Asian descent, there is no racism involved unless I engage in discriminatory, abusive, or oppressive behavior against the individual because of my classification of him as African, or unless I believe and/or make statements that this individual is inferior to me or others who are not of African descent.

[Jose]

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."

You're quite welcome. Let's just be sure that the words we use have clear meanings. (see below)

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?

I dunno...as individuals, they may well consider people to be of different races, but based on genetic data, I don't see any clear criteria for doing so.

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?

Of course not. Some were slime, or goo, or pond scum, or whatever you'd like to call it. I'm proud of my heritage.

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?

That's my question to you. When do you draw the line? Are our lobe-finned ancestors part of "The Human Race"? Or do you think you look different enough from a fish to consider the fish to be a different species?

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?

I didn't meet them, so I don't know their names. I'm also not sure how easily I can trace them beyond Africa.

You realize what you're saying here, don't you? You're accepting the fact that the last common ancestor of humans and chimps is not only a member of "The Human Race," but so are all of its descendents--including chimps. If we go back to my pondscum, from whom all life is descended (yes, including you), then every living thing on the planet is part of "The Human Race," from leeches to dandelions to cholera bacteria.

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 don't understand the question. Neandertals were a cousin-species, not in our direct line of descent. The ergasters were in our line of descent, as far as we know so far, but since they are a different species, I'm perfectly happy if they think I'm different than they are.

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.

OK, so you do draw a line. How do you decide which species were "the first African people on earth"? Do you count their ancestors, or do you consider them to be non-human? Are they non-human because they aren't African, or because they don't look "human," or what?

Unfortunately, you go off on a tangent here, using terminology that doesn't exist in conversational English or in the scientific terminology that I know. You're inventing a term here, "scientific racism," but not defining it. Either we have to agree upon a definition, or we have to agree that the term is meaningless. If you choose a definition that imbues the word "racism" with something different than its understood usage in conversational English or in more technical language, then we're done. It's a farce.

That aside, can you justify your statement above, that "there is no evidence of it"? [No evidence of what, by the way? I may be confused by the vague referent of "it."]

[jcrawford]

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.

Since race, racism and racist are "non-technical non-scientific" terms which may be legally applied in reference to members of the species, Homo sapiens, on what basis could you deny that classifying Homo heidlebergensis (or any other neo-Darwinist 'species' in human history for that matter) as not belonging to the 'Human race,' is not a scientific form of racism?

[jcrawford]

Would jcrawford please provide some of the evidence that evolutionary biologists have been mistaken in their classification of the various species of genus Homo into separate species?

Before any evidence is produced against, or in favor of, the division of human beings into "separate" 'species' by neo-Darwinist biolologists based on paleoanthropological discoveries and observations of the human fossil record, might it not be wise to scientifically define the difference between a human 'race' and a human 'species?'

Otherwise, how shall we ever know whether neo-Darwinists are not using the two terms and concepts interchangably, and simply applying the term 'species' to other human beings in history in order to side-step and avoid the 'politically correct' issues of race and racism inherent in their 'scientific' theories?

So, let's hear it from all you neo-Darwinist evolutionists who claim to have evolved and descended from African ape ancestors via African Eve. You have every right to claim that your ancestors swung from arboreal treetops although I myself am a living descendent of early Homo sapiens in Europe, namely, Homo Heidelbergensis, and resent the ignominious fact that you racially claim that my Belizian wife is descended from non-human ancestors of African apes, monkeys and chimpanzees.

[Cathar1950]

micatala wrote:

If I make a mistake in my observation of an individual and believe he is of African descent when he is really of Asian descent, there is no racism involved unless I engage in discriminatory, abusive, or oppressive behavior against the individual because of my classification of him as African, or unless I believe and/or make statements that this individual is inferior to me or others who are not of African descent.

Well-said micatala. I have never discriminated against a Neanderthal. I wouldn't think of it.
Jose wrote:

Unfortunately, you go off on a tangent here, using terminology that doesn't exist in conversational English or in the scientific terminology that I know. You're inventing a term here, "scientific racism," but not defining it. Either we have to agree upon a definition, or we have to agree that the term is meaningless. If you choose a definition that imbues the word "racism" with something different than its understood usage in conversational English or in more technical language, then we're done. It's a farce.

That aside, can you justify your statement above, that "there is no evidence of it"? [No evidence of what, by the way? I may be confused by the vague referent of "it."]

Well said and correct. Some one said something about a red herring?
Sometimes I wonder if I am in a debate and discussion or watching a mental disorder. I really thought I had seen everything. I see many people who understand evolution. It is a part of life. In science it is foundational. It is not even open for debate any more then "does the sun shine at night?”
Some place it does. It is the science of change involved in everything living or not living. Things change and adapt. it is the way of the universe and biological entities are good at it and they are creative. It is always in relationship to the environments, which includes weather, ancestry, climate, and even religion.
Show me any human study and any one of us could show the principles of evolution at work and historically obvious to the casual observer with no education. Yet people that do not believe in evolution because that is not what the bible says to them and the bible is the truth and all their religion, faith, hopes, beliefs, and fears are based upon their view of the subject they call evolutionist every name in or out of the bible. I would think that any evolutionist (sane human being) would be the last people to be racist. They understand that racism is bullshit and evil in either atheist or theist terms. So when some idiot says evolution is racist I have to wonder about their sincerity, honesty and sanity
.
Jcrawford wrote:
So, let's hear it from all you neo-Darwinist evolutionists who claim to have evolved and descended from African ape ancestors via African Eve. You have every right to claim that your ancestors swung from arboreal treetops although I myself am a living descendent of early Homo sapiens in Europe, namely, Homo Heidelbergensis, and resent the ignominious fact that you racially claim that my Belizian wife is descended from non-human ancestors of African apes, monkeys and chimpanzees.

If you’re human, then the answer is yes. Do you some how think you better then the rest of us?
Some of your relatives flop around in mud. It is fun.
Some eat their young. That doesn’t sound like fun.

[jcrawford]

Some evidence would be nice. But if all you have is The book BOC I don't see the point. I did notice there was a request of fossils. This would take volumes of books. This I think is in another forum. They are starting to sound alike.

If there is no fossil evidence for human evolution in one single book which can provide it, why should anyone believe in neo-Darwinist evolutionists who keep repeating over and over again (ad infinitum) that they have evidence of human evolution from some non-human ancestor of African apes without providing any evidence of it?

On the other hand, I have Lubenow's scientifically documented listing of 371 human fossils which show no evidence of human evolution out of Africa and none of you dare refer to any sequence of human fossils which prove that human beings in Africa evolved or descended from African ape ancestors.

I think that is it McCulloch. Yes on all four counts. Notice that it is all in accordance with the Scientific principle That there is only one race and species. I would say it is not a scientific principle. I think that was his answer in total.

Why is it not a scientific principle that there is only one human race and species? What scientific principle dictates that there are multiple human races and species? What evidence is this strange 'scientific' principle of dividing human beings into races and 'species' based on, if not neo-Darwinist race theories?

I read a study and the dna of Neanderthal seem to indicate that they were a separate or a sub-species. Neanderthal and Homo Erectus both seem to be another species. If they still survived we might have to give them rights or protection. I wonder why you don't add apes to you Brotherhood of man. To answer your bottom line. "Is there only one human race or not?". The answer is yes today there is only one human race, Us!

Thank you for your scientific forthrightness. Since "us" human beings comprise the one and only human race, the question about our human ancestry now devolves upon consideration of whether all of our human ancestors were equal members of our human race. Since it is an oxymoron to divide the human race into different and separate 'species,' do you think it possible to include neo-Darwinist 'species" in our ancestral human race? If not, on what basis can you say that neo-Darwinist theories of human speciation within the previous human race are not racist speculations?