Bones of Contention.

[jcrawford]

Creationist professor Marvin Lubenow contends in his 2004 edition of "Bones of Contention" that all neo-Darwinist theories about the origins and evolution of the human race are a scientific form of racism. Being somewhat familiar with the several claims, arguments and ramifications of his thesis, I am prepared to defend his claim that neo-Darwinist theories of human origins and evolution are theoretically racist should anyone care to debate and substantiate their claim to the contrary.

[jcrawford]

I think there's a problem that won't go away here. To me it seems as if jcrawford refuses to accept the very singular argument that is able to dismiss Lubenow's controversial allegation claiming it to be 'off-topic'. Thus he would continue to brush-off the refutation of the premise (occupying over 33 pages of discussion already) which currently serves as nothing more than a shop-window for Lubenow's product and a magnet for ill-feelings.

I haven't claimed anything to be "off-topic." However, if I am unable to relate what someone is referring to, to Lubenow's several theses about the human fossil record and human evolution out of Africa, I should be able to ask the poster to relate it to Lubenow's contentions and theses. As for ill-feelings, who has been experiencing any?

Is it not the case that his premise, that neo-darwinist evolution is racist, hinges on the misrepresentation that all evolution proceeds towards "superiority".

It's not a misrepresentation at all to say that neo-Darwinist theories and theorists historically claim superiority over other members of the human race and their ancestral histories.

By then refusing to discuss any attempts to show that this is a misrepresentation (by claiming the detail of any such discussion to be off-topic) it becomes impossible to debate with him the merits of the premise. Is this a reasonable assessment?

Not only is it not a reasonable assessment, it's a misrepresentation of the premises and postings of the discussion and debate so far.

[QED]

I haven't claimed anything to be "off-topic."

In my opinion you are blocking essential discussion...

I invited you to treat the theory of evolution by natural selection as a thought experiment. In this framework it is clearly irrelevant to talk about its applicability to one type of living creature or another -- indeed in the case of Genetic Programming the "experiment" is conducted within a computer in such a way as to "evolve" programs that solve complex problems so we can even consider the application of natural selection to non-living things.

Therefore, once again, I would like to have your opinion: do you accept that the theory you call the 'neo-darwinist evolutionary mechanism' is just as capable of 'blunting a tooth' as sharpening it? Now you can tell me that you don't understand the theory or you can say that you understand it but don't think it could work or you can answer the question with a straight yes or no, but you can't say you won't answer because it's not applicable to members of the present or past human race or that it's not capable of being observed nor 'scientifically' tested or demonstrated, because I'm only asking you about a thought-experiment.

Sorry, QED, but I just don't see the relevance of your post to the topic of the current thread.

And quoted above is an example of where you evade the discussion.

if I am unable to relate what someone is referring to, to Lubenow's several theses about the human fossil record and human evolution out of Africa, I should be able to ask the poster to relate it to Lubenow's contentions and theses.

Yet in earlier discussion you seem quite happy to talk at this level:

Not enough to turn humans into apes or vice versa since genetic mutations usually result in an irreplaceable loss of genetic information which may severely hamper the survival potential of that individual.

As for ill-feelings, who has been experiencing any?

As early as page three other contributors were expressing their opinions that you were trolling. Despite this the general conduct in this topic has been remarkably good so far. Having reviewed it all over again I simply request that you open yourself up to wider inquiry.

Is it not the case that his premise, that neo-darwinist evolution is racist, hinges on the misrepresentation that all evolution proceeds towards "superiority".

It's not a misrepresentation at all to say that neo-Darwinist theories and theorists historically claim superiority over other members of the human race and their ancestral histories.

We need to discuss what is meant by superiority.

By then refusing to discuss any attempts to show that this is a misrepresentation (by claiming the detail of any such discussion to be off-topic) it becomes impossible to debate with him the merits of the premise. Is this a reasonable assessment?

Not only is it not a reasonable assessment, it's a misrepresentation of the premises and postings of the discussion and debate so far.

Ok, so will you discuss the finer details of the meaning of superiority?

[MagusYanam]

It's not a misrepresentation at all to say that neo-Darwinist theories and theorists historically claim superiority over other members of the human race and their ancestral histories.

Yes it is, and allow me to explain why:

a.) Science cannot make value judgments. Since biology and geology deal with the data and only with the data, they cannot make any judgments on what is 'better' or what is 'worse'. That includes evolutionary theory. Superiority is a value judgment ergo, claiming superiority is not science, it is ideology.

Evolutionary theory makes no value judgment concerning the intrinsic value of a human life, whosever it is. If a scientist makes a value judgment thus, it is not as a scientist and should not be used in judging the worth of the science itself.

b.) All scientific publications are subject to rigorous peer review. This is to ensure that the scientists publishing their findings don't skew or ignore any pertinent data, and that the extrapolations and conclusions the scientists draw from that data are sound, e.g. not ideological.

Since Lubenow is not writing for the academic circle (his book falls firmly in the realm of popular literature) I doubt highly that it was subject to any serious sort of peer review. As such, any claims he makes about the practise of science or 'scientific' conclusions he draws are to be held suspect.

[Chimp]

Lubenow on Racism: (From Bones of Contention, BakerBooks, 2004)

Racism centers around three elements. First, racism always involves differences
in population groups. Often the differences involving racism are ethnic, tribal,
cultural, or even religious. Racism is not about the differences that are found
among individuals. The popular word for those differences is the term diversity.

I have no problem with this qualification of racism, although, one must ask why
Lubenow does this. We all know what racism is.

I don't know why Lubenow does this, but if you have no problem with this qualification
of racism, then we can at least use it, since I'm not sure that "we all know what racism
is," or even what the word 'race' means.

I was being sarcastic...the only reason he includes the racism "definition" is a preamble to
his lame charge.

Second, the crucial factor in racism is “inherent superiority.” Throughout most of history,
this “inherent” superiority was based on some vague belief that one’s own group was for
some reason superior to others.

Again he is stating the obvious.

Ok, good. Nothing is being rebutted here then.

Since the 1800s and the rise of evolution with its “scientific racism,” the emphasis has
been on genetic superiority.

This is an unsupported claim. Lubenow has made no connection from racism to science.

He includes over 1000 scientific quotes and footnotes to the many chapters in his book
on the scientific racism in neo-Darwinism.

Well pile it on...so far you have switched from the "Did so" defence,
to the "He did so" defence. It is the same as not having made any
claim for the purposes of debate. Are there any footnotes related to
the above quote?

Evolution concerns itself with mutation over time, not whether a certain trait or organism
is superior than another.

New survival traits and skills due to the natural selection of advantageous and beneficial
mutations and adaptations decide whether mutations are superior or inferior.

Re-read any of the many descriptions of natural selection...FYI you the opponent of a
theory do not get to re-write the theory to suit your purposes.

Claims to the contrary are mistaken, and deliberately deceptive. Lubenow does, rather
lamely, attempt to correlate a racist's notion of superiority to his "genetic superiority.
Why? Why would Lubenow twist things so?

Lubenow takes an historic view of evolutionism and refers to many horrible
19th and 20th century practices by neo-Darwinist 'scientists.'

By historic you mean irrelevant?

[jcrawford]

In my opinion you are blocking essential discussion...

First off, let me say that your tone in this post is quite moderate and reasonable. As far as my "blocking essential discussion" goes, I don't have the power to do so, and cordially invite all your POV's. At the same time though, if I don't see their relevence to Lubenow's thesis about neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution in and out of Africa, I feel justified in questioning the value of diversive abstractions and applications of neo-Darwinist theory.

And quoted above is an example of where you evade the discussion.

I failed to see how it was relevent and applicable to the topic of neo-Darwinist theories human evolution and invited you to show me.

[jcrawford]

if I am unable to relate what someone is referring to, to Lubenow's several theses about the human fossil record and human evolution out of Africa, I should be able to ask the poster to relate it to Lubenow's contentions and theses.

Yet in earlier discussion you seem quite happy to talk at this level:

I'm not sure which "discussion" you are referring to here. Remember, my basic assumptions and premises about evolutionist data are based on Darwin's 'Descent of Man' and Lubenow's 2004 edition of 'Bones of Contention,' Eldrige and Gould's theories of 'punk-eek' notwithstanding evolutionary competition from Cann, Stoneking and Wilson's model of Homo sapiens descent from 'African Eve.'

[jcrawford]

As for ill-feelings, who has been experiencing any?

As early as page three other contributors were expressing their opinions that you were trolling. Despite this the general conduct in this topic has been remarkably good so far. Having reviewed it all over again I simply request that you open yourself up to wider inquiry.

I understand the angst of the other 'contributors' in view of the serious charges of racism leveled against theories which they may 'scientifically' subscribe to, but that in no way warrants or justifies their 'labeling' either me a troll or Lubenow an non-expert on the human fossil record, especially when then haven't even read his thesis. Rather does it provide evidence of neo-Darwinist supremacist tendencies and proclivities to arbitrarily call (label, classify) people and their human ancestors names like 'troll' and Homo sapiens or erectus. Fortunately, I am 'thick-skulled' (Homo erectus and neandertalensis) enough to ward off their hostile 'sticks and stones' verbiage by loving them as misguided human brothers and descendents of my human race anyway.

We need to discuss what is meant by superiority.

You are right, seeing how concepts of superiority and supremacy are germane to neo-Darwinist racial theories about human evolution from an inferior species of non-human animals in Africa once upon a time.

[jcrawford]

Not only is it not a reasonable assessment, it's a misrepresentation of the premises and postings of the discussion and debate so far.

Ok, so will you discuss the finer details of the meaning of superiority?

Sure. Would you like to start out with a good dictionary definition? Oxford says it is the state of being superior.

[jcrawford]

It's not a misrepresentation at all to say that neo-Darwinist theories and theorists historically claim superiority over other members of the human race and their ancestral histories.

Yes it is, and allow me to explain why:

a.) Science cannot make value judgments.

That's obviously bull since some scientists obviously value 'science' above all other judgments.

Since biology and geology deal with the data and only with the data, they cannot make any judgments on what is 'better' or what is 'worse'.

Do you mean to say that geos and bios can't even make judgements on what is 'good' data and 'bad' data or determine whose or which 'data' is better? Did it ever occur to you to become a professional comedian? You sure are an evolutionary one.

Superiority is a value judgment ergo, claiming superiority is not science, it is ideology.

Good. Now scientists can't make "value judgements" about 'real' science, good science, bad science and junk science, thanks to you, since they're all EQUAL and none is any better that t'other.

I'm glad that you agree that science is not superior to religion and that both may be taught equally in public school systems.

[jcrawford]

Evolutionary theory makes no value judgment concerning the intrinsic value of a human life, whosever it is.

Wanna bet? Neo-Darwinist race theorists don't consider human embryos or Neanderthal descendents "human life."

If a scientist makes a value judgment thus, it is not as a scientist and should not be used in judging the worth of the science itself.

Why not? Since what you say about science and scientists is only a "value judgement" and everyone is equally entitled to make 'value judgements about the worth of any so-called 'science' or 'scientists.'