Is racism scientific?

[Wootah]

Is racism scientific?

Answer seems yes.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com ... -says/amp/

Isn't our racism just part of our sin nature?

[Bust Nak]

Darwin did not believe that Caucasians, the negro and Australian are the same species.

Why would you believe that? See below for what he actually says.

You have to get your time correct. Before Darwin proposed his evolutionary hypothesis he did support abolition, even in his first book entitled "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" Darwin did not go through the evolution of man.

Right, because he feared religious backlash.

But then in his second work written in 1871, "The descent of man" this is when he made many of his racist claims. It seems his evolutionary theory turned him into a racist.

Or he held the same views through out and only stated them in the second book because that's what the book is about?

I am having difficulty finding such an argument, can you post a link to it? I would like to see his exact wording.

Here is one passage:

"We have now seen that a naturalist might feel himself fully justified in ranking the races of man as distinct species... On the other side of the question, if our supposed naturalist were to enquire whether the forms of man kept distinct like ordinary species, when mingled together in large numbers in the same country, he would immediately discover that this was by no means the case... In many parts of the same continent he would meet with the most complex crosses between Negroes, Indians, and Europeans; and such triple crosses afford the severest test, judging from the vegetable kingdom, of the mutual fertility of the parent-forms...Hence the races of man are not sufficiently distinct to co-exist without fusion; and this it is, which in all ordinary cases affords the usual test of specific distinctness... When the races of man diverged at an extremely remote epoch from their common progenitor, they will have differed but little from each other, and been few in number; consequently they will then, as far as their distinguishing characters are concerned, have had less claim to rank as distinct species, than the existing so-called races."

Is that enough to convince you that while Darwin did think Caucasians are the best, he is coming at it from a cultural sense?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 60 by Daedalus X]

Darwin's theory, on the other hand, is racist. It claims that when members of a race become isolated they will evolve at different rates based on their environments. Selection pressure will create a more advanced population if it has to deal with harsh and deadly winters, compared to people who live in a tropical paradise where the living is easy.

This is not at all what Darwin's theory says. It says that if members of a species are geographically isolated or otherwise subject to a new environment that they must survive in, or die, then members of the population who can best adapt will have a better chance of surviving, This group will have offspring with the beneficial characteristics, and eventually these beneficial characteristics will become fixed in the population and a new species may result over time, or the same species may obtain certain physical changes that are more suitable to the new environment.

These selective pressures do not mean they are "more advanced" ... it just means they have adapted to the new environment via whatever changes the selective pressure caused. And there is also nothing in ToE about a change in environment always meaning different rates of evolutionary change. The rate of change can be faster, or slower, depending on the specifics of the environmental changes, how fast they happen, etc. Finally, we have many examples of species who survive in harsher environments that are not more advanced or "smarter" than those in warmer environments. They just have a different set of characteristics which evolved to suit the environment they find themselves in.

The Theory of Evolution itself is not racist, and humans are just one of millions of species it applies to and operates on. But you seem to have a poor understanding of its basics based on the quote above. Penguins are not necessarily more advanced than Toucans.

[Danmark]

Darwin did not believe that Caucasians, the negro and Australian are the same species.

Why would you believe that? See below for what he actually says.

You have to get your time correct. Before Darwin proposed his evolutionary hypothesis he did support abolition, even in his first book entitled "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" Darwin did not go through the evolution of man.

Right, because he feared religious backlash.

But then in his second work written in 1871, "The descent of man" this is when he made many of his racist claims. It seems his evolutionary theory turned him into a racist.

Or he held the same views through out and only stated them in the second book because that's what the book is about?

I am having difficulty finding such an argument, can you post a link to it? I would like to see his exact wording.

Here is one passage:

"We have now seen that a naturalist might feel himself fully justified in ranking the races of man as distinct species... On the other side of the question, if our supposed naturalist were to enquire whether the forms of man kept distinct like ordinary species, when mingled together in large numbers in the same country, he would immediately discover that this was by no means the case... In many parts of the same continent he would meet with the most complex crosses between Negroes, Indians, and Europeans; and such triple crosses afford the severest test, judging from the vegetable kingdom, of the mutual fertility of the parent-forms...Hence the races of man are not sufficiently distinct to co-exist without fusion; and this it is, which in all ordinary cases affords the usual test of specific distinctness... When the races of man diverged at an extremely remote epoch from their common progenitor, they will have differed but little from each other, and been few in number; consequently they will then, as far as their distinguishing characters are concerned, have had less claim to rank as distinct species, than the existing so-called races."

Is that enough to convince you that while Darwin did think Caucasians are the best, he is coming at it from a cultural sense?

Well done, Bust Nak!
This directly refutes ESGuy's claim. This refutation becomes even more powerful as one continues reading Darwin's The Descent of Man:

Every naturalist who has had the misfortune to undertake the description of a group of highly varying organisms, has encountered cases ... precisely like that of man; and if of a cautious disposition, he will end by uniting all the forms which graduate into each other, under a single species; for he will say to himself that he has no right to give names to objects which he cannot define.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Des ... 5.djvu/191
[emphasis mine]
What Darwin wrote is exactly the position of scientists today; one cannot give the name 'race' to objects (or groups of people] which one cannot define. And in the earlier passage Darwin sets out perfectly why such definitions are impossible. Race is a social construct, not a scientific one. Darwin knew it and it holds true today.

[Daedalus X]

Is that enough to convince you that while Darwin did think Caucasians are the best, he is coming at it from a cultural sense?

I don't see anything about culture. And I did wonder what you cut out in that first ellipsis.

We have now seen that a naturalist might feel himself fully justified in ranking the races of man as distinct species; for he has found that they are distinguished by many differences in structure and constitution, some being of importance.

Important differences in structure and constitution are cultural differences?

I am sure that Darwin did believe that all human races had a common ancestor and could interbreed, and if allowed to do so would eventually form a homogenous population. But that does not negate his belief that the negro and Australian Aboriginal races were inferior at that time. Since then they have slowly closed the gap a bit, mostly in places like the UK, USA, France etc, but not so much in sub-Saharan Africa.

[Danmark]

Daedalus X wrote:

I don't see anything about culture. And I did wonder what you cut out in that first ellipsis.

I am sure that Darwin did believe that all human races had a common ancestor and could interbreed, and if allowed to do so would eventually form a homogenous population. But that does not negate his belief that the negro and Australian Aboriginal races were inferior at that time. Since then they have slowly closed the gap a bit, mostly in places like the UK, USA, France etc, but not so much in sub-Saharan Africa.

You don't have to wonder. I posted the URL from which you can go page by page, forward or back
Please site reference, book and page or URL where Darwin claimed a 'race' was superior genetically to another 'race' of the species homo sapiens. Otherwise your claim has no more support than an unsupported grunt from a dog.

But let us suppose arguendo that Darwin made such value judgements on race despite the fact he actually wrote there is no difference. Suppose that. Now explain why everything, every jot and title from a 19th Century scientist has to be absolutely true, to prove whether or not race exists today as a scientific distinction.

[Bust Nak]

I don't see anything about culture.

If we are the same species, then what else could it be? Elsewhere Darwin stated, "as it is improbable that the numerous and unimportant points of resemblance between the several races of man in bodily structure and mental faculties (I do not here refer to similar customs) should all have been independently acquired, they must have been inherited from progenitors who had these same characters."

And I did wonder what you cut out in that first ellipsis.

The first ellipsis was a summary for reason "a naturalist might feel himself fully justified in ranking the races of man as distinct species."

Important differences in structure and constitution are cultural differences?

No, he was referring to physical differences here, but he noted the same is true for genera of monkeys.

I am sure that Darwin did believe that all human races had a common ancestor and could interbreed, and if allowed to do so would eventually form a homogenous population. But that does not negate his belief that the negro and Australian Aboriginal races were inferior at that time. Since then they have slowly closed the gap a bit, mostly in places like the UK, USA, France etc, but not so much in sub-Saharan Africa.

Perhaps this would change your mind then:

"Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, etc, yet if their whole structure be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these are of so unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans are as different from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Fuegians on board the "Beagle," with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate."

[Yusef]

[Replying to post 39 by Yusef]

And she accepts and submits that she is lower than men!
Because she herself chose religion and nobody forced her.

In these posts quoting religious texts you are doing nothing but supporting the outdated and completely wrong views....

In these posts quoting scientists' texts of TODAY, you are doing nothing but supporting the non-advanced and many wrong views....

But we know better than this in 2019 and these outdated views should be discarded. IQ tests have shown that men and women...

Ohokay,
I only bring some of my own experiences;

1. I had an classic american car,
Once i carried one 27yo boy of our workers toward the terminal that he go to their village, then he wanted to open the door, he couldn't and asked me how this opens!!? I answered take this handle toward up. Again asked again asked and I replied the same answer then I myself opened the door.
Once other i was starting to going to go to work, then our neighbor an 80yo old woman asked me to carry her... i took her and saw what reaction she herself does! Then I saw quickly immediately opened the door!!!

Well,

[mrow][b]The Boy[/b][mcol][b]The Woman[/b][mcol][b]Points[/b] [row]Turk[col]Jew[col]Woman [row]Village[col]City[col]Woman [row]Male[col]Female[col]Boy [row]Fool[col]non-fool[col]Woman [row]12year school[col]Illiterate[col]Boy [row]non-Taqwa/Wara[col]Taqwa[col]Woman [row]Japhethic[col]Semitic[col]Woman [row]non-Spiritual[col]Believer[col]Woman [row]2[col]6[col][b]Points[/b]

... Holy books cannot be used as supporting sources for claims according to the stated rules for this forum subsection,..

in your viewpoints these are holy books,
But in our viewpoints these are Holy+Science books and the messengers are higher ranked than your scientists about the science.

...and if you try to support these ancient and outdated views with something other than your preferred holy book I think you will find that you cannot do it (and, in fact, modern science proves these old views are wrong).

check your test on the post 36
Algorithm turns you to the previous posts
Because your posts are repeatedly

[Yusef]

My elder sister-in-law has been changed since about 3 years, like me that became religious since 10 years..
And she accepts and submits that she is lower than men!

You and EarthScienceguy appear to support racism and sexism.

You and marcopolo appear to support Anarchism!

..Nadia Murad recently won a share of the Nobel Peace Prize.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nobel-peac ... 019-10-13/

She was awarded this prize for standing up to the ultra bigoted ISIS and others who believe raping women is appropriate punishment for not sharing the religion of the rapists.

Nadia Murad nor Nobel aren't our standard and it's not important what they believe.
Plus ISIS is a Sunni belief that we Shi'a people are against them much more than you.

It is hard for me to think of a lower form of human life than the racists and religious bigots who claim others are lower forms of life and may be raped or murdered for not holding the 'correct' religious views or for having been born the 'wrong' gender.

Just because your religious views appear (to you) to support such cruelty, hatred and unfairness, does not justify those absurd and evil beliefs. I don't believe such inhumanity comes from religious texts. it comes from the perverted heart.

It is hard for A for B for C up to the 7 billion people of the world that one be X and one be Y etc..
You and your idea is not important/standard/axle/criterion for us.


In my country there are tens races with thousands ideas..
Some of them are supporting Anarchism including the same Turks of villages! Not Turks of cities!
They love and enjoy the things we detest and unlike!
If you see many of them even other races in this era, they are supporting Anarchism exactly a thing like Gog & Magog will do!!!

I had a garden, then decided change it with a Minibus..
Then i wrote that in the shopping websites,
Then I saw a Minibus and sent him my link.. then he[turk] called me and told we are the same place your garden is!!![in a great city!!] We said Waawoo it's a great event maybe from God!! And he kissed my head and told o' son of the prophet, May we be killed for your forefathers.. I trusted at him and changed them. Then understood the Minibus is only 30 thousand dollars while my garden is 90!! Means 1/3 of that!! I told him we make that cancelled! He didn't agreed and told this is done! At all i have many experiences that these people enjoy anarchism and exact experience shows if:

• 1. We win, You win
  2. We nothing, You win
  3. We lose, You win

they choose number 4! Means we painfully lose and they win!! Or number 5! Means they lose and we lose also!!!

Well,
Our ideas from the very first step is difference!
How can we all be under a flag and a law!??
Take a while our enjoyments are their hardness and counter!!

Well,
An other example in this post appeared,
I told i carry 2 of the best races in my blood, Hashimite and Persian, also I have at least an other race in my blood, Bakhtiyari. And it made me emotionally that trusted to that animal although i cancelled that changing.. but i won't forget them
If you go to the post no. 36 ref:Today's science < The Real Science i mentioned that if emotionally conquer on the wisdom, it makes one fewer than animals and I admit that. Not like you i skip that and sau nope..
I should grow the more and upgrade myself the more and clear my foolishness the more

[Yusef]

[Replying to post 52 by EarthScienceguy]

Hi friend,
I provided an example for atheists at near 2012 and I searched and didn't find..
I exampled the starfish that there is under ocean and a crocodile tells it: o' starfish, do you know that there are manythings outside of the water including human, trees, clouds, mounts, sun, moon,..?
- nope! There isn't anything whole the world but water!
- I am going inside and outside of the water daily! And see! How do you deny!!?
- nope! I don't see. Therefore there isn't.

Well,
This our fool starfish has made itself as Standard/Axle/Criterion and thinks is the best and wisest.

It's like to one say: nope! There isn't any difference between Leopard, Jaguar, Tiger, Cat, Mouse, Caw and insist on that

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 67 by Yusef]

In these posts quoting scientists' texts of TODAY, you are doing nothing but supporting the non-advanced and many wrong views....

In what way? All you did was basically repeat my comment without any examples or elaboration. Science is far more advanced today than when the holy book you are referencing was written, and there is no doubt about that. It is a fact. At the time your holy book was written it was impossible for the writers to have science knowledge even remotely approaching what is known today ... simply because humans had not yet made the discoveries or achieved the understanding that we have today. Claiming that modern science is "non-advanced" and has "many wrong views" is a baseless comment that you did not even attempt to support. The old holy book you reference is not a science book, and the people who wrote it were no more scientifically literate than any other people of that day.

I only bring some of my own experiences;

Not sure what point this example was supposed to make. You describe a young man who did not now how to open a car door, and an old woman who did, then make a table giving points to each for various characteristics. What point were you trying to make that is relevant to this discussion?

But in our viewpoints these are Holy+Science books and the messengers are higher ranked than your scientists about the science.

That is an opinion, no doubt shared by others who think these old religious books have meaning or significance. But you cannot argue that they are science books, and certainly not that the "messengers" had science knowledge approaching that of modern scientists. There is virtually no evidence for that, but mountains of evidence to support the opposing view (ie. that these old holy books are nothing but fables and tales of the time, written by men and not angels or gods of any kind).

check your test on the post 36
Algorithm turns you to the previous posts
Because your posts are repeatedly

I don't understand this, or see anything in post 36 to "test." There you are just referencing old religious texts to support your opinions, but for those of us who are not religious and place no significance to these old religious texts, they are meaningless beyond being interesting literary pieces from history. Religion is not "a science", and "The Twelvers" were not scientists. This is just more story telling by old writers that has no relation to science, and the people of those times had no special insight into the future or any scientific knowledge more advanced than other "normal' scientists and philosophers of the day.

As for racism, the attitudes of the time these old religious texts were written where that women were basically property and "below" men, so it is not surprising to see them treated as they were back then and considered second class citizens (or worse). Islam still holds these views in many areas, and needs serious reform to bring those views into line with the modern world, and modern science. But that reform (supported by some ... see links below) is slow in coming because many refuse to see the old holy texts are they really are (entirely man made writings) and don't accept the outdated and harmful nature of many issues including the position of women in society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Reform_Movement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Modernism