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.

[micatala]

Lubenow's credentials and his level of arguement have already been shown to be sadly lacking here.

A further perusal of a review of Lubenow's book reveals the following.

The major theme of Bones of Contention is that the various species of hominid cannot form an evolutionary sequence because they overlap one another in time.

Firstly, he argues that a species cannot survive once it has given rise to a new species. Unlike many other creationists, he does at least attempt to give some justification for this. Supposedly, the newer, fitter descendant species, would, because of its superiority, drive its parent species to extinction. The argument is incorrect because members of the parent species may live in a separate region from the new species. If the species come into contact again, there may be no competition because they have diverged enough to occupy different ecological niches. (Many scientists would argue that even the requirement for a separate region is unnecessary.) Additionally, it is a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory to claim that a new species is "superior", in an absolute sense, to its parent species. Typically, both species will be "superior" at living in their own niches.

This argument is so broad that it would not only disprove human evolution but all evolution; Lubenow is basically asserting that a species cannot split into two species. Obviously this is not the view of speciation accepted by evolutionists, since it would follow that the number of living species could never increase. Nor, in fact, is it a view of speciation generally accepted by creationists, most of whom believe that many living species descended from the same biblical 'kind'. In fact, this argument is so weak that even Answers in Genesis has abandoned it; as they correctly point out, "... there's nothing in evolutionary theory that requires the main group to become extinct."

In other words, not only does Lubenow have no credentials, he also has no understanding of what evolution actually says and what it doesn't say, and his scholarship doesn't even meet the low standards of much of creationist literature. And you are resting your case on this guy's credibility and logical skills?



I know, I know, this is your story and your sticking to it, sticking to it, sticking to it, sticking . . . . .

[jcrawford]

The African Eve Model may be considered as racist as any scientific theory or 'model' which premised or 'predicted' that the whole human race originated in, and evolved out of, China, India or Europe could be considered racist.

Isn't the teaching of human evolution out of Africa in public schools "real," and worth complaining about if it is a degrading form of scientific racism and a derogatory and defamatory racial theory?

In the first case, the correct answer is "the scientific theory or model is not racist at all wherever you postulate the origination area."

In the second case, since the hypothesis is false, has been shown false, and no credible evidence or arguements have been made in its support, the statement is moot.

Denying whole population segments of the present human race the right to have equally evolved from former human 'species' in their own geographic areas and excluding them from participating in, and contributing to, any 'scientific' discussion, debates or teachings of neo-Darwinst race theories about their national origins and ancestry, in nothing short of racism.

In the second case, Lubenow has proved the hypothesis of the intrinsic racialism inherent in all neo-Darwinst theories of human origins and evolution out of 'Africa.'

By the way, I am now signed up on christianforums.net so if you can point me to the threads you claimed existed where there are people who actually claim that some humans are not actually human but are instead a species of non-human primate, I stand ready to see if this is really true, or if it all amounts to silly insults being thrown around, like you are doing in this thread.

You'll have to find your own way around Christianforums since I won't be there to guide you.

I can get along with anyone, even the Scottish

Of what ethnic origin do you think 'Crawford' is? LOL

Yes, I think jcrawford may be confusing neo-Darwinism with social Darwinsim, perhaps on purpose so he can play the race card and hope to deceive people.

What is the difference between neo-Darwinism and Social Darwinism?

I know I am being a bit harsh on him in this thread, but it is hard to come to any other conclusion than the whole effort is a calculated smear campaign intentionally done without any consideration of intellectual honesty.

I don't think you are being to "harsh" on me, considering my smearing of neo-Darwinist race theories concerning the common ancestry of African people and African apes.

It is an old and tired and long discredited song.

Fortunately, Lubenow's 2004 scholarly thesis has put a new spin on it.

[micatala]

Neo-Darwinist theories have always been historically racist.

False.


As has been pointed out

. . . . . there is no such thing as scientific racism. Also, evolution as a theory does nothing to oppress anyone, either human or non-human, past or present. Evolution does not really consider "superiority of species" as a concept at all, certainly in no way that gives rights to some and not to others. Evolutionary biologists simply attempt to describe characteristics of various species, as part of what they do.

You have been asked to define racism. Your response was to give 8 different and sometimes mutally contradictory definitions and tell us to use all of them. In other words, you refuse to say what you mean by racism. If you can't define racist or racism, you can't claim that anything or anyone is racist, period.

Even when several of us gave you perfectly reasonable definitions of racism, including some of those you claimed to be using, you refused to say how the theory of evolution met these definitions, other then to say it was denigrating to tell people they were descended from a non-human species. It was then explained that this did not meet the definition of denigration. As I pointed out, just because you don't like the idea that X is your ancestor, simply pointing out that X is your ancestor, or is likely your ancestor, is not denigration.

Racism includes the idea that a segment of people have been oppressed or discriminated against on the basis of their racial characteristics. It includes the idea of one race being superior to others. It has been explained that Evolutionary biology does not do this.

As noted for the Nth time in this post, you have failed to produce any credible evidence that there is any harm or oppression or even denigration being done by evolutionary biology to anyone. All you have shown is that you are unhappy about a scientific conclusion that you wish not to accept as true.

Sorry, that ain't racism.

[jcrawford]

In other words, not only does Lubenow have no credentials, he also has no understanding of what evolution actually says and what it doesn't say, and his scholarship doesn't even meet the low standards of much of creationist literature. And you are resting your case on this guy's credibility and logical skills?

I've read Lubenow's original thesis in the 2004 edition of "Bones of Contention." Have you? Or are you just going by what his detractors say about him?

If you haven't read Lubenow, I question your own understanding of the neo-Darwinist theory of human evolution out of Africa and your own familiarity with the human fossil record which shows no such evolution, according to Lubenow.

Which human fossils would you like to choose to prove neo-Darwinist contentions that African people originated and evolved from some ancestors of African apes? Neanderthal Man, Java Man, Piltdown Man, Peking Man, Nebraska Man, Rhodesian Man, African Eve or Lucy?

As neo-Darwinists of fond of saying, put up or shut up.

[micatala]

Denying whole population segments of the present human race the right to have equally evolved from former human 'species' in their own geographic areas and excluding them from participating in, and contributing to, any 'scientific' discussion, debates or teachings of neo-Darwinst race theories about their national origins and ancestry, in nothing short of racism.

People don't have any right to determine, nor do they have any control over, who their ancestors are. That's life.

Anyone can participate in a scientific discussion. If they don't know how to do science, then they aren't going to get very far. If someone gets an F in biology because they don't understand biology, is that being racist?

This makes less sense then ever.

What is the difference between neo-Darwinism and Social Darwinism?

neo-Darwinism is a modern scientific theory.

Social Darwinism is a separate sociological theory, most often associated with Herbert Spencer. It is not considered a valid scientific theory, and is not part of ne-Darwinism, or even Darwinism for that matter. From http://www.answers.com/topic/social-darwinism:

Social Darwinism is a social theory which holds that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection affects not only the distribution of biological traits in a population, but that it affects human social institutions as well.

The term "Social Darwinism" is most closely associated with the writings of Herbert Spencer (who coined the phrase "survival of the fittest") and William Graham Sumner. In many ways Spencer's theory of 'cosmic evolution' has much more in common with the works of Lamark and August Comte than Charles Darwin. In regards to social institutions, however, there is a good case that Spencer's writings might be classified as 'Social Darwinism'. He argues that the individual (rather than the collectivity) is the unit of analysis that evolves, that evolution takes place through natural selection, and that it affects social as well as biological phenomenon. Regardless of how scholars of Spencer interpret his relation to Darwin, Spencer proved to be an incredibly popular figure in the 1870s, particularly in the United States. Authors such as Edward Youmans, William Graham Sumner, John Fiske, John W. Burgess, and other thinkers of the gilded age all developed theories of Social Darwinism as a result of their exposure to Spencer as well as Darwin.

Social Darwinism enjoyed widespread popularity in some European circles, particularly among ruling elites during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. During this period the global recession of the 1870s encouraged a view of the world which saw societies or nations in competition with one another for survival in a hostile world. This attitude encouraged increasing militarization and the division of the world into colonial spheres of influence. The interpretation of social Darwinism of the time emphasized competition between species and races rather than cooperation. In the time since then, evolutionary theory has de-emphasized inter-species competition as well as the importance of violent confrontation in general. Advances in both the social and natural sciences, therefore, have discredited many of the assumptions on which Social Darwinist theories were built.

It is worth noting that 'Social Darwinism' is a term used by Scholars to describe a style or trend in social theory, rather than a coherent school of thought with, for instance, a professional association or an explicit manifesto. The application of the term to 19th and 20th century modes of thought generally did not occur until after the publication of American historian Richard Hofstadter's Social Darwinism in American Thought in 1944, which codified it in the sense it is generally used today. As such, some historians have complained that it is an anachronistic label and to ask certain questions with it makes little sense. However, even within the field of academic history, the phrase is still widely used.

Because Social Darwinism came to be associated in the public mind with racism, imperialism, eugenics, and pseudoscience, such criticisms are sometimes applied (and misapplied) to any other political or scientific theory that resembles social Darwinism. Such criticisms are often levelled, for example, at evolutionary psychology. Similarly, capitalism, especially laissez-faire capitalism, is sometimes equated with Social Darwinism because it is thought by some to involve a "sink or swim" attitude toward economic activity. However, the fact that some Social Darwinists are advocates of capitalism does not imply that all capitalists are in favor Social Darwinism.

Hope this helps.

I've read Lubenow's original thesis in the 2004 edition of "Bones of Contention." Have you? Or are you just going by what his detractors say about him?

As I noted previously, I have not been able to locate a copy of Lubenow in any of the dozens of libraries in my local library's network. My guess is that those who reviewed it found it to be so poor as to be unfit for stocking on their shelves.

I would certainly consider looking at it first hand. As I noted previously, I've waded through Morris, Gish, and several other creationist books.

However, based on what you have said about it, and based on the review cited, I would not be too optimistic that my opinion will change upon reading it. Just because a reviewer pans a book that you like does not mean it is a bad review. The review contained many examples of problems with the book, so I see no reason to write it off as someone grinding an axe. If you would like to cite other reviews, I would be happy to check those out.

Alternatively, you could give a detailed response to the reviewers points. However, just claiming that the reviewer is biased is not going to be very effective with anyone.

[jcrawford]

You have been asked to define racism. Your response was to give 8 different and sometimes mutally contradictory definitions and tell us to use all of them. In other words, you refuse to say what you mean by racism. If you can't define racist or racism, you can't claim that anything or anyone is racist, period.

I told you that I am using the American edition of the Oxford Dictionary's definition of race and racism. Have you a better one?

Even when several of us gave you perfectly reasonable definitions of racism, including some of those you claimed to be using, you refused to say how the theory of evolution met these definitions, other then to say it was denigrating to tell people they were descended from a non-human species.

Who are "several of us" to give the world a new scientific definition of race and racism when Oxford has been in the business of defining words for over 700 years or more and 'several of you' may be reasonably considered to be nothing more than a bunch of local upstarts.

Racism includes the idea that a segment of people have been oppressed or discriminated against on the basis of their racial characteristics. It includes the idea of one race being superior to others. It has been explained that Evolutionary biology does not do this.

Despite your racial "explanations" and apologies for evolutionary biologists branding and labeling African people as the first progenitors of the human race, Lubenow proves that such neo-Darwinist theories are nothing but a Twentieth Century form of scientific racism.

As noted for the Nth time in this post, you have failed to produce any credible evidence that there is any harm or oppression or even denigration being done by evolutionary biology to anyone. All you have shown is that you are unhappy about a scientific conclusion that you wish not to accept as true.

As stated for the Nth time, Lubenow's thesis proves that all neo-Darwinst theories of human evolution are racist.

Sorry, that ain't racism.

According to Lubenow, all neo-Darwinst theories of human evolution are racist, and I'm inclined to agree with him since any theories of human descent from Chinese, Indian or European people would seem equally racist to me.

[jcrawford]

Denying whole population segments of the present human race the right to have equally evolved from former human 'species' in their own geographic areas and excluding them from participating in, and contributing to, any 'scientific' discussion, debates or teachings of neo-Darwinst race theories about their national origins and ancestry, in nothing short of racism.

People don't have any right to determine, nor do they have any control over, who their ancestors are. That's life.

Wow. It looks like you're really into subscribing to biological and political facism here.

[micatala]

micatala wrote:


You have been asked to define racism. Your response was to give 8 different and sometimes mutally contradictory definitions and tell us to use all of them. In other words, you refuse to say what you mean by racism. If you can't define racist or racism, you can't claim that anything or anyone is racist, period.

jcrawford:
I told you that I am using the American edition of the Oxford Dictionary's definition of race and racism. Have you a better one?

Quote: micatala
Even when several of us gave you perfectly reasonable definitions of racism, including some of those you claimed to be using, you refused to say how the theory of evolution met these definitions, other then to say it was denigrating to tell people they were descended from a non-human species.

jcrawford:
Who are "several of us" to give the world a new scientific definition of race and racism when Oxford has been in the business of defining words for over 700 years or more and 'several of you' may be reasonably considered to be nothing more than a bunch of local upstarts.

We used your definitions, we used Webster's definitions. Whichever definitions were used, the conclusion is irrefutably that evolutionary biology is not racist. Any reasonable person who has the patience to read through this whole thread will conclude the same.

micatala wrote:
jcrawford wrote:
Denying whole population segments of the present human race the right to have equally evolved from former human 'species' in their own geographic areas and excluding them from participating in, and contributing to, any 'scientific' discussion, debates or teachings of neo-Darwinst race theories about their national origins and ancestry, in nothing short of racism.


micatala:
People don't have any right to determine, nor do they have any control over, who their ancestors are. That's life.

jcrawford:
Wow. It looks like you're really into subscribing to biological and political facism here.

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha !!!

I take it you have picked out your own favorite set of people to be your ancestors? Are you saying we all have the right to pick our own ancestors?

Let's see. I'll take Jesus, Ghandi, Martin Luther King Junior, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, and Joe Dimaggio. Anyone who says I can't have them is a racist.

[Cathar1950]

Thank you for the info of social-darwinism. I suppose I should have done that. It seemed that jcrawford was talking about that rather then neo-darwinism. Then he might have a point. I just ordered the book thru my library system. We are connected to 76 libraries and they deliver to my home town library and I do it all on line. It is so cool. I keep them busy. But from the reviews It seems to be a Creationist propaganda and not done well. I ordered some other books on the subject that are more recent and up to date. It has been a long time since I have studied the subject. I will bet some of Lubenow's data is outdated. Anyone want to wager? I have noticed this habit among Christian bible believers. Evolution theory has come a long way since Darwin. Archaeology suffers from the same misuse. despite the strides it has made often old sources are used because it more redly supports the Creationist data. For one thing it was mostly biblical scholars doing the research. Just look at bibliographies and it sticks out. I don't buy this race stuff. It stinks and seems foolish. I don't buy into the part that they are trying to denigrate evolution. I think the are just stupid and ignorant in a cleaver sort of way.
It is like talking to children only children are brighter and funny.

[Chimp]

I'll be the fly in the ointment....

For the sake of argument...

If neo-darwinism is, in fact, racist...it doesn't invalidate the theory.

This whole tract is a red-herring. It provides a pat answer for someone
who cannot actually understand the data themselves and argue from a
position of knowledge.

Interviewer:
What are your views on evolution?

Interviewee:
While they make some interesting observations, neo-darwinism is
inherently racist.