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]

Yes, I agree we should leave jcrawford to "run the field he plays alone," but before I sign off . . .

I really don't know why you people are bothering to engage this guy. There are more productive and informative topics on this board. Heh...like, all of them. Seriously, you people need to recognize when you're getting your chain yanked, and just move on.

Agreed

. . . . and then notice that, after having been asked multiple times to actually give us citations from Lubenow and to actually settle on one unambiguous definition of racism, jcrawford, on page 26 of the thread, actually does both.

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.

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. Since the 1800s and the rise of evolution with its “scientific racism,” the emphasis has been on genetic superiority. Evolution deals with mutational changes in the genes, which are the very stuff of life. Hence it is obvious that evolution is not only the cause of that alleged “inherent superiority,” but according to Darwin, evolution also preserves that “inherent superiority.” When applied to humans, this “inherent superiority” of some race or group over others is properly called “racism.”

Third, racism always involves prejudice and rejection - active or passive, latent or expressed. Whereas the qualities of love, acceptance and respect always unite, racism, with its prejudice, hatred and rejection, always divides. That is why racism is evil. A “loving racist” is a contradiction in terms. And because evolution is racist, evolution is an evil philosophy. Almost everyone focuses on the alleged “scientific” aspects of evolution. Few ever consider the moral implications and ethical consequences of evolution.

The concept that some entities are inherently superior or “more fit” is basic to evolution. Evolutionists believe that two similar entities existing in the same environment cannot coexist indefinitely. Over time, one of them will acquire some slight mutational advantage, usually in feeding, defense or reproductive mechanisms, so that it will simply out-compete the other. It will survive, being more favored or “more fit.” The other entity, being less favored or less fit, will eventually die out. In other words, evolutionists claim that nature works by what Darwin called “natural selection” to cut out the weak and thus allow the strong to proliferate.

Leaving aside that I had already suggested pretty much these definitions, one might ask "Why does he finally respond to our very simple and straightforward requests?"

Simple. Because he is afraid he is going to lose his audience.

Further confirmation that he is just trolling, as has been pointed out by others.

Also, if you have been reading his whole thread, you will see that the arguments he now offers had already been refuted here and here and again towards the bottom of this page (and actually several more places that I am not bothering to reference), where it states in part.

micatala:
In addition, I believe you left something out of one of your definitions of racism, namely the bolded definition above. It says in full:

Quote from Oxford Dictionary:
the theory that distincitive human characteristics and qualities are determined by race.

micatala:
By your own definitions, and whatever definition of race you want to use, evolution is not racist. It does not include prejudice or a belief in superiority. It does not include the theory that "distinctive human characteristics and qualities are determined by race."

In other words, we had already addressed the issue of "superiority", which is not present in evolutionary theory as claimed by jcrawford, because evolutionary theory doesn't consider one species superior to another, particularly not in terms of how they should be treated, but only describes the genetic, and other differences that can be observed.

The specific false charges of racism by jcrawford were subsequently well refuted again by Chimp.

Finally...

Quote: jcrawford
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. Since the 1800s and the rise of evolution with its “scientific racism,” the emphasis has been on genetic superiority. Evolution deals with mutational changes in the genes, which are the very stuff of life. Hence it is obvious that evolution is not only the cause of that alleged “inherent superiority,” but according to Darwin, evolution also preserves that “inherent superiority.” When applied to humans, this “inherent superiority” of some race or group over others is properly called “racism.”

CHIMP
This is Lubenow's (and jcrawford's) own misconception of the theory of
natural selection. There are no value judgements involved...no one is
sitting in judgement of the mutations ( thats more in the theology realm ).
When things are described in terms of fitness, it's a value neutral term.

Quote: jcarawford
The concept that some entities are inherently superior or “more fit” is basic to evolution. Evolutionists believe that two similar entities existing in the same environment cannot coexist indefinitely. Over time, one of them will acquire some slight mutational advantage, usually in feeding, defense or reproductive mechanisms, so that it will simply out-compete the other. It will survive, being more favored or “more fit.” The other entity, being less favored or less fit, will eventually die out. In other words, evolutionists claim that nature works by what Darwin called “natural selection” to cut out the weak and thus allow the strong to proliferate.

CHIMP
This is where Lubenow equates superiority with fitness, incorrectly.
The last three sentences are more or less correct. Having incorrectly
ascribed a perjorative conotation to "fitness", he is now free to use it
liberally.

The Happy Humanist wrote:
All: Please observe my refusal to rise to the bait. Now go thou and do likewise.

jcrawford:
Sure, sure. Rise to the occasion and get thee hence in abject debate defeat and concession to Lubenow's contentions of evolutionary racism inherent in all neo-Darwinist 'scientific' theories of African peoples genetic descent from some mysterious common ancestor of non-human African apes once upon a time in ancient Africa.

Again, jcrawford showing he is afraid of losing his audience. As has HH, I am now signing off permanently from the thread. I think we have left a sufficiently good record of the absolute intellectual bankruptness of jcrawford and his arguments, and there is no more to be gained by entertaining his disingenuous tactics, ambiguous and false arguments, and unsubstantiated, arrogant, and fantastic claims.

The radiometric dating debate can be continued in other appropriate threads, of which there are several, including Does Radiometric Dating Yield Inaccurate Results and More on Potassium Argon Dating . Perhaps upnorthfan would even start a new thread based on the information from ICR.

[jcrawford]

Yes, I agree we should leave jcrawford to "run the field he plays alone," but before I sign off . . .

. . . . notice that, after having been asked multiple times to actually give us citations from Lubenow and to actually settle on one unambiguous definition of racism, jcrawford, on page 26 of the thread, actually does both. Leaving aside that I had already suggested pretty much these definitions, one might ask "Why does he finally respond to our very simple and straightforward requests? Simple. Because he is afraid he is going to lose his audience. Further confirmation that he is just trolling, as has been pointed out by others.

Gee, you just can't win with evos. First, they call you a troll for not supplying the data they demand, on demand, and then, when you finally get around to giving them a tid-bit of info which they so inquisitively demand, in your own good time, they still call you a troll because they think you are afraid of losing your audience. Really! As if I still believe in Santa Claus, the tooth fairy and neo-Darwinist fantasies about evolutionist or creationist trolls.

[jcrawford]

Leaving aside that I had already suggested pretty much these definitions, one might ask "Why does he finally respond to our very simple and straightforward requests?"

Simple. Because he is afraid he is going to lose his audience.

Further confirmation that he is just trolling, as has been pointed out by others.

As happy Humanist says: The best way to react to a perceived troll is to just ignore it and only respond to posts on threads that one knows no one is trolling on and leave the evolutionist or creationist troll alone so that they can troll to their hearts content and no one will pay any attention to them. That way, they just get to say what they have to say and no one can refute them without calling them a troll.

[jcrawford]

Also, if you have been reading his whole thread, you will see that the arguments he now offers had already been refuted ...

In other words, we had already addressed the issue of "superiority", which is not present in evolutionary theory as claimed by jcrawford, because evolutionary theory doesn't consider one species superior to another, particularly not in terms of how they should be treated, but only describes the genetic, and other differences that can be observed.

If neo-Darwinist 'species' are not 'naturally selected' to adapt and survive because of their superior genetic abilities to find an ecological niche in which to thrive and survive, what biological advantages can genetic mutations be said to offer a new species in order to ensure it's survival?

[jcrawford]

The specific false charges of racism by jcrawford were subsequently well refuted again by Chimp.

This is where Lubenow equates superiority with fitness, incorrectly. The last three sentences are more or less correct. Having incorrectly ascribed a perjorative conotation to "fitness", he is now free to use it liberally.

Chimp seems to be rationalizing Lubenow's liberal usage of the term, 'fitness,' here rather than refuting Lubenow's charges of racism. Your machinations are laughable.

As has HH, I am now signing off permanently from the thread.

He quits! Throws up his hands in disgust and says that he can't, won't or flatly refuses to debate or discuss evolution anymore. He resigns in ignominious defeat after failing to establish his theory that jcrawford is either an evolutionist or creationist troll. He concedes defeat at the hands of an evolutionary theorist who dares call neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution racist. By refusing to continue discussing and debating the relevant issues of human evolution and racism, he loses the debate by default because he is powerless to argue with an intelligently designed argument that claims neo-Darwinist teachings of evolution in public schools are "racist to the core," as quoted from the 2004 edition of "Bones of Contention by Marvin L. Lubenow.

[jcrawford]

I think we have left a sufficiently good record of the absolute intellectual bankruptness of jcrawford and his arguments, and there is no more to be gained by entertaining his disingenuous tactics, ambiguous and false arguments, and unsubstantiated, arrogant, and fantastic claims.

You still haven't refuted Lubenow's public charges of scientific racism in all neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution from chimp/monkey and ape ancestors. How could you? You haven't even read the book.

Perhaps upnorthfan would even start a new thread based on the information from ICR.

Now that we have micatala conceding defeat regarding neo-Darwinist racial species of the past human race, upnorthfan, remember what I told you about it being premature and untimely to diffuse the November 5 blast. Can you believe it? Neo-Dars inviting you to start a new thread based on 'scientific' information from ICR? What next? Creation scientists teaching in public schools?

[Chimp]

I think what will happen sooner...is the thread will be locked for rule
violations.

4. Stay on the topic of debate. If a topic brings up another issue, start another thread.
5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence

I have explained to you how the theory of natural selection cannot be
racist, because it fails to ascribe superiority, which according to Lubenow
is a requirement for racism.

Don't post irrelevancies....if you can't defend your position on this simple
point then you aught to exercise the better part of valour.

[Sender]

I think what will happen sooner...is the thread will be locked for rule
violations.

4. Stay on the topic of debate. If a topic brings up another issue, start another thread.
5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence

I have explained to you how the theory of natural selection cannot be
racist, because it fails to ascribe superiority, which according to Lubenow
is a requirement for racism.

Don't post irrelevancies....if you can't defend your position on this simple
point then you aught to exercise the better part of valour.

I know this will not help my popularity in this forum, but I jc want you to feel wlecome here. We all have our own way of doing things, and believe me, I am no "cyber saint". We ALL could use a lesson in humility. Stick around, I read your posts. Maybe minimize the arrogance a little bit, and keep on posting baby.

[jcrawford]

I have explained to you how the theory of natural selection cannot be
racist, because it fails to ascribe superiority, which according to Lubenow
is a requirement for racism.

Neo-Darwinist theories of human origins and evolution by 'natural selection' are racist because they not only "ascribe" superiority and supremacy to the theories and theorists themselves, but racially classify themselves and others as a superior 'species' to any other past 'species' of the human race.

[jcrawford]

I know this will not help my popularity in this forum, but I jc want you to feel wlecome here.

Well, thank you upnorthfan. It's very gracious of you to take such risks with your popularity. As far as I am concerned everyone else is welcome on this thread also.

We all have our own way of doing things, and believe me, I am no "cyber saint". We ALL could use a lesson in humility.

Labeling posters a troll is more a lesson in humilation than humility.

Stick around, I read your posts. Maybe minimize the arrogance a little bit, and keep on posting baby.

Thanks, I'll try, but it's not easy to minimize the arrogance when dealing with maximization of ignorance. Cheers.