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?

[jwu]

I was speaking to JW.
At least Chimp is open and is not acusing any one of being racist.
I can relate to Christians and Jews and even other faiths. I just can't relate to his ideas or understand them in a rational manner.
Noah lost his penis? I don't remember that. I thought it was just somomy.
Hard to believe I missed that. Not as much as Noah I guess. I bet he did a lot more of his drinking behind locked doors.

To me? Are you sure you don't mean someone else?

[Cathar1950]

LOL
No, jcrawford.
Sorry about the mix up.

[McCulloch]

You[r] description of Neo-Darwinist theory is in error and misunderstood by you. Asian and Europeans did evolve from early or archaic Homo sapiens in Asia and Europe before that they were from Africa as Homo sapiens just like the rest of us.

How can I be in error when you make such contradictory remarks as those in the above statement?

The remarks are not contradictory. They reflect a different viewpoint of humanity's pre-history. The neo-darwininst view reflected in the remarks called contradictory by jcrawford is that some species of the genus Homo migrated to Europe and Asia before Homo sapiens. These species have been extinct. Homo sapiens migrated to Europe and Asia from Africa and are the progenitors of modern humans in Europe and Asia. Lubenow's view, as presented by jcrawford, is that the archaic hominids in Europe and Asia were not other species of Homo but actually Homo sapiens. They were not extinct but the progenitors of modern humans in Europe and Asia.

Why the others are gone we don't know but they are.

[/quote]

The others? What others are gone? You make it sound like modern Asian and European people didn't equally evolve from early human ancestors in their own parts of the world.

Perhaps jcrawford could cite an example of any other mammalian species which has "equally evolved from early ancestors in their own [separate] parts of the world." He seems to be stuck on the idea that somehow our species has multiple separate origins.

[T]he African Eve Model of necessity forces all former species and sub-species of human beings on the planet into extinction in order to make way for our common ancestry and descent from one woman of one tribe of one human race in Africa 120,000ya.

JCrawford again shows his ignorance of the African Eve Model. The African Eve Model does not necessitate the extinction of other species of the genus Homo. Had some of these other hominids survived, the African Eve Model would still be valid. The African Eve Model simply stated is that the species Homo sapiens evolved in Africa. mDNA evidence indicates that one particular individual can be identified as a person that all current living members of the species Homo sapiens can claim as an ancestor. She was not the only nor was she the first Homo sapiens. But due to the relatively small size of the Homo sapiens population at the time and interbreeding, we all apparently can call this single individual one of our ancestors.

By denying the existance of, and common ancestry from, an Asian Eve, a European Eve and a Middle Eastern Eve, the African Eve Model of human evolution is implicitly racist and detrimental towards people who claim that neither they nor their human ancestors are of African heritage, culture, wisdom and tradition.

Just who are these multitudes of people who claim that "neither they nor their human ancestors are of African heritage, culture, wisdom and tradition." My geneologically tracable ancestors are from Scotland and Ireland. Their ancestors, as far as we can tell, were part of the greater Celtic culture which apparently spread westward through Europe. Their origins ulimately seem to be from the middle east and before that Africa. My ancestral heritage, culture, wisdom and tradition are derived from that long and mostly undocumented path. The only ones that I know of who deny the African origins are white supremacists and other racist motivated groups. Perhaps jcrawford could provide some other examples of individuals and groups who feel racially discriminated against because some scientists claim that their ultimate origin is from Africa.

[Chimp]

I don't know how I could be more direct. Every one could belive they came from any place they wanted to. But the genetics and linguistics all point to Africa. The first humans can from there and all humans are related to them. If it makes you feel any better it is not that far from the middle east.
You need to come up with any clear reasonable idea. So far all you have done is call folks that see evolution racist with no justification except a poorly written book and Your personal view of Jesus and the Bible. None of which accounts for different racial attributes or the fact we are all connected.
Do you think they just got off the floating box with Noah and said I guess I will be something else? Try reading another book.

Thats not really fair. Chimp clearly believes in the bible as the source of everything, hence, Adam and Eve, and Noah's ark (which is the only interesting point here).

We are all decendants from the 8 people coming from the Ark, minus one losing his Penis (Noa). I assume Chimp has scientific evidence for believing this. And he will show us.. Right Chimp?

Before blindly kicking off an unwarranted attack on a position you have
fabricated...make sure you aim your barb a little better.

[Scrotum]

I don't know how I could be more direct. Every one could belive they came from any place they wanted to. But the genetics and linguistics all point to Africa. The first humans can from there and all humans are related to them. If it makes you feel any better it is not that far from the middle east.
You need to come up with any clear reasonable idea. So far all you have done is call folks that see evolution racist with no justification except a poorly written book and Your personal view of Jesus and the Bible. None of which accounts for different racial attributes or the fact we are all connected.
Do you think they just got off the floating box with Noah and said I guess I will be something else? Try reading another book.

Thats not really fair. Chimp clearly believes in the bible as the source of everything, hence, Adam and Eve, and Noah's ark (which is the only interesting point here).

We are all decendants from the 8 people coming from the Ark, minus one losing his Penis (Noa). I assume Chimp has scientific evidence for believing this. And he will show us.. Right Chimp?

Before blindly kicking off an unwarranted attack on a position you have
fabricated...make sure you aim your barb a little better.

So no evidence then Chimp?

Gosh, that was a surprise.

[micatala]

I don't know how I could be more direct. Every one could belive they came from any place they wanted to. But the genetics and linguistics all point to Africa. The first humans can from there and all humans are related to them. If it makes you feel any better it is not that far from the middle east.
You need to come up with any clear reasonable idea. So far all you have done is call folks that see evolution racist with no justification except a poorly written book and Your personal view of Jesus and the Bible. None of which accounts for different racial attributes or the fact we are all connected.
Do you think they just got off the floating box with Noah and said I guess I will be something else? Try reading another book.

Scrotum:
Thats not really fair. Chimp clearly believes in the bible as the source of everything, hence, Adam and Eve, and Noah's ark (which is the only interesting point here).

We are all decendants from the 8 people coming from the Ark, minus one losing his Penis (Noa). I assume Chimp has scientific evidence for believing this. And he will show us.. Right Chimp?

Chimp:
Before blindly kicking off an unwarranted attack on a position you have
fabricated...make sure you aim your barb a little better.

Scrotum:
So no evidence then Chimp?

Gosh, that was a surprise.

Hmmm. Scro, are you suffering from a case of mistaken identity here?

The inner most quote above is from Cathar1950. I don't see in any of the last few pages that Chimp has subscribed to biblical literalism. Here he is taking issue with jcrawford's contention that Asians, Europeans, and Africans do not necessarily share the same 'African Eve' ancestor.

With regards to Noah losing a treasured part of his anatomy, and the subsequent 'curse', see Genesis, chapter 10, starting in verse 18. There is nothing in the text about Noah losing anything, other than consciousness and his clothes from drinking too much wine. His son Ham 'saw his nakedness,' and as a result Noah cursed Ham's son Canaan. This so called
curse of Ham has been used

. . . by some members of major Abrahamic religions to justify racism and the enslavement of people of African ancestry, who were thought to be descendants of Ham (often called Hamites), either through Canaan or his older brothers. This racialist theory was common during the 18th-20th centuries, but has been largely abandoned even by the most conservative theologians since the mid-20th century.

In my view, both those who would use the 'curse of Ham' and those in the late 19th and early 20th centuries who used Darwinistic metaphors to promote racism, committed the error of creating their own 'fantasy versions' of what the text or theories actually said. THus, their beliefs and positions really say nothing about the Bible in the first case and the Theory of Evolution in the second.

If I warp and twist your words to make you appear racist or use my twisting of your words to justify racism, this does not make you a racist. It only makes me a twister of words, dishonest, etc.

[Cathar1950]

Well said micatala. Some of it I am sorry for inadvertanly caused. I got some one mixed up or some one did and I tried to fix it.
There were racist uses of the Noah story. In the Jewish stories there is the sodomy and maybe the penis story. It is hard to say there are a lot of them. The OT is always alluding to other stories. It is interesting to see how they relate to other ancient stories some even older then the bibles.

[Jose]

The others? What others are gone? You make it sound like modern Asian and European people didn't equally evolve from early human ancestors in their own parts of the world.

Perhaps jcrawford could cite an example of any other mammalian species which has "equally evolved from early ancestors in their own [separate] parts of the world." He seems to be stuck on the idea that somehow our species has multiple separate origins.

Well, there is (or used to be) an alternate theory that multiple origins might have been possible. It is now ruled out on the basis of genetic data--both the DNA sequence studies and plain old understanding of how genetics works. So, jcrawford is following an old idea that has been discredited. In jcrawford's favor, we should recognize that this was an actual scientific theory at one time; however, there is no reason besides intransigence to continue to think it reasonable.

[jcrawford]

Except that it doesn't take "genetically superiority" to outcompete in all cases - a numerical advantage can be completely sufficient, or economical advantages. If i recall correctly the latter is currently thought to be the decisive factor. Apparently there was more trade between the sapiens sapiens groups than between the neanderthalensis, which gave the sapiens sapiens an edge in terms of survival. That has little to do with genes, it's a more of a cultural thing.

Whatever the case, any theory (scientific or cultural) which accounts for, and justifies belief in, the survival and extinction of different populations of human beings based on racial, morphological or cultural differences, is racist.

[Chimp]

Except that it doesn't take "genetically superiority" to outcompete in all cases - a numerical advantage can be completely sufficient, or economical advantages. If i recall correctly the latter is currently thought to be the decisive factor. Apparently there was more trade between the sapiens sapiens groups than between the neanderthalensis, which gave the sapiens sapiens an edge in terms of survival. That has little to do with genes, it's a more of a cultural thing.

Whatever the case, any theory (scientific or cultural) which accounts for, and justifies belief in, the survival and extinction of different populations of human beings based on racial, morphological or cultural differences, is racist.

Glad we cleared that up...evolution does not base the survival or any species
on racial, morphological or cultural differences. It merely observes that it did
happen.