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?

[Cathar1950]

jcrawford wrote:

If there is no fossil evidence for human evolution in one single book which can provide it, why should anyone believe in neo-Darwinist evolutionists who keep repeating over and over again (ad infinitum) that they have evidence of human evolution from some non-human ancestor of African apes without providing any evidence of it?

There is lots of evidence from many sources. Yo have chosen to ignore it.
I don't understand the rest of your gibberish.
jcrawford wrote:

Thank you for your scientific forthrightness. Since "us" human beings comprise the one and only human race, the question about our human ancestry now devolves upon consideration of whether all of our human ancestors were equal members of our human race. Since it is an oxymoron to divide the human race into different and separate 'species,' do you think it possible to include neo-Darwinist 'species" in our ancestral human race? If not, on what basis can you say that neo-Darwinist theories of human speciation within the previous human race are not racist speculations?

I am having trouble following you logic or meaning.
It only become an oxymoron when you state all species of humanoids are different races. No one else agrees. In fact it sounds twisted.

[QED]

In all my child-like innocence I fail to see what the issue is here. Animals that can pair-up and produce offspring through sex are classified as being of the same species. As far as I know every human male is capable of mating with every human female on the planet hence we are all of the same species. I don't know when the term species was first used, but at some point someone decided to invent the term 'race' to apply it to the word 'human' in order to provide a collective term for our species.

Now if a neanderthal or any other extinct hominid of either sex turned up one day (quite how I don't know) we would have at our disposal a very simple test to determine if he/she should be scientifically classified as being of our species. What do we make of this then? Of course this hypothetical situation is never going to occur so we can spare our blushes and proceed with what is probably a better test anyway which is to compare the anatomy of our hypothetical couple and use this as an assessment of the likelihood of reproductive compatibility.

Of course comparative anatomy sounds to some to have shades of the Nazi party about it and it is a fact that during this unfortunate period in history the Nazis borrowed scientific terms and concepts such as those coined by Ernst Haeckel and other evolutionists, and applied them to their own twisted activities. So what? The Nazis were also declaring God to be on their side. Should this make us also reject God by association?

I may be missing something in jcrawfords argument and I'm no expert in this field, but I do want to understand what all the fuss is about because I simply can't see a problem.

[McCulloch]

Within the genus Homo there are species: habilis, georgicus, erectus, ergaster, antecessor, heidelbergensis, neanderthalensis, floresiensis and sapiens. 'Human race' is a non-technical non-scientific term used to refer to the species, Homo sapiens.

Since race, racism and racist are "non-technical non-scientific" terms which may be legally applied in reference to members of the species, Homo sapiens, on what basis could you deny that classifying Homo heidlebergensis (or any other neo-Darwinist 'species' in human history for that matter) as not belonging to the 'Human race,' is not a scientific form of racism?

Sorry, did I say that "race, racism and racist are 'non-technical non-scientific' terms"? I did not intend to. Homo sapiens is a species. Homo heidlebergensis was another species. If jcrawford has evidence that Homo heidlebergensis still exists and the they can breed with Homo sapiens, please present that evidence to a peer reviewed journal of paleo-somethingorother. If the evidence is convincing, Homo heidlebergensis will be re-classified as a sub-species of Homo sapiens. As far as I know, genetically linked identifiable populations within a species are called variously breeds, sub-species and races. Classifying Homo heidlebergensis as not belonging to the 'human race' = Homo sapiens, could be considered racism if and only if there were convincing evidence that Homo heidlebergensis had been misclassified as a species when they should have been classified as Homo sapiens.

[Jose]

Before any evidence is produced against, or in favor of, the division of human beings into "separate" 'species' by neo-Darwinist biolologists based on paleoanthropological discoveries and observations of the human fossil record, might it not be wise to scientifically define the difference between a human 'race' and a human 'species?'

Otherwise, how shall we ever know whether neo-Darwinists are not using the two terms and concepts interchangably, and simply applying the term 'species' to other human beings in history in order to side-step and avoid the 'politically correct' issues of race and racism inherent in their 'scientific' theories?

So, here we are, back to the basic problem. We have defined the difference between a human "race" and a human "species," but you've chosen to ignore it. Here: I'll try again.

--species: any group of individuals that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. That is: all humans now living are (to the best of our knowledge), the same species.

--race: a genetically-related subgroup within a species

By these definitions, "The Human Race" is a misuse of the term "race." That's OK, though, because conversational English often expands the definitions of words, making them less precise.

Where your whole argument comes crashing down is in pretending that science attempts to subdivide a "race" into "separate species." This makes no sense. It requires using the definition of "race" that is valid only in the context of the term, "The Human Race," alongside the scientific definition of "species." As such, it is nothing but word games, and has no validity.

You have also refused to acknowledge the definition of "racism," as the belief by one "race" that they are superior to other "races." This has absolutely nothing to do with classification of organisms into species.

But, perhaps it might be more helpful if you were to tell us the definitions that you use for these terms. None of us will ever understand what you're trying to say otherwise. So tell us: how do you define "race," "species," and "racism"?

[jcrawford]

Homo sapiens is a species. Homo heidlebergensis was another species. If jcrawford has evidence that Homo heidlebergensis still exists and the they can breed with Homo sapiens, please present that evidence to a peer reviewed journal of paleo-somethingorother. If the evidence is convincing, Homo heidlebergensis will be re-classified as a sub-species of Homo sapiens.

Since H. heidlelbergensis is neither erectus nor neanderthal in morphology, but is an 'early' or 'archaic' form of sapiens, such fossil types are only considered to be another "species" of humans for the sole purpose of dividing people of African, Asian and European ancestry and descent into neo-Darwinist classifications which then may be arranged in an evolutionary order proceeding from apes to humans.

As far as I know, genetically linked identifiable populations within a species are called variously breeds, sub-species and races. Classifying Homo heidlebergensis as not belonging to the 'human race' = Homo sapiens, could be considered racism if and only if there were convincing evidence that Homo heidlebergensis had been misclassified as a species when they should have been classified as Homo sapiens.

H. heidlebergensis has been previously classified as both erectus and early sapiens. Now all such early forms of sapiens in Europe are all classified as Neanderthals by African Eve theorists who need to disassociate and disconnect Asians and Europeans from their own native ancestry by genetically linking them back to Africa through African Eve. There is no scientific reason for denying the existance of an Asian Eve and a European Eve or a Middle-Eastern Eve other than neo-Darwinist racial desparation to link all members of the whole human race to a shared common ancestry with African apes.

Denying the existance of Asian, European and Middle Eastern Eve is a form of scientific racism.

[jwu]

There is no scientific reason for denying the existance of an Asian Eve and a European Eve or a Middle-Eastern Eve other than neo-Darwinist racial desparation to link all members of the whole human race to a shared common ancestry with African apes.

Wha?

You're not making any sense. How is all humans sharing the same ancestors racist? It's quite the opposite...

Denying the existance of Asian, European and Middle Eastern Eve is a form of scientific racism.

And besides...since when do creationists accept all these eves? If i recall correctly they only propose one Eve, most likely the Middle Eastern one.

[Cathar1950]

jcrawford wrote:

Since H. heidlelbergensis is neither erectus nor neanderthal in morphology, but is an 'early' or 'archaic' form of sapiens, such fossil types are only considered to be another "species" of humans for the sole purpose of dividing people of African, Asian and European ancestry and descent into neo-Darwinist classifications which then may be arranged in an evolutionary order proceeding from apes to humans.

That was a really long sentence that said nothing.
That is not their purpose. It is classification nothing more.

There is no scientific reason for denying the existance of an Asian Eve and a European Eve or a Middle-Eastern Eve other than neo-Darwinist racial desparation to link all members of the whole human race to a shared common ancestry with African apes.

Denying the existance of Asian, European and Middle Eastern Eve is a form of scientific racism.

Where did all these Eves come from?
Do you think each sprang up alone and started their own groups.
Linking all members is not racism. Your theory is slander.

[McCulloch]

H. heidlebergensis has been previously classified as both erectus and early sapiens. Now all such early forms of sapiens in Europe are all classified as Neanderthals by African Eve theorists who need to disassociate and disconnect Asians and Europeans from their own native ancestry by genetically linking them back to Africa through African Eve. There is no scientific reason for denying the existance of an Asian Eve and a European Eve or a Middle-Eastern Eve other than neo-Darwinist racial desparation to link all members of the whole human race to a shared common ancestry with African apes.
Denying the existance of Asian, European and Middle Eastern Eve is a form of scientific racism.

According to you and Lubenow. Lubenow believes that the other scientists in this field are incorrect. So what does he do? He publishes a book aimed at a popular religious audience. Your Lubenow stands alone against his peers. I am not qualified to evaluate his evidence. Nor is anyone here (please speak up if you are). So please show me where Lubenow has convinced his peers of his position.

Let me see if I am getting the picture straight.
Lubenow asserts that the various branches of the human race (Homo sapiens) are descended from European, Middle-eastern and African progenitors.
The neo-darwinists assert that all of the human race (Homo sapiens) are descended from African progenitors.

Lubenow is not scientifically racist but the neo-darwinists are, because they deny the humanity of the neandertals and others who Lubenow claim as ancestors.

[micatala]

But, perhaps it might be more helpful if you were to tell us the definitions that you use for these terms. None of us will ever understand what you're trying to say otherwise. So tell us: how do you define "race," "species," and "racism"?

I notice jcrawford slid right by this one.

Previously, when asked this question, jcrawford gave us 8 different definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary and said we could use any or all of them.

Not very helpful, to say the least.

I continue to assert that whether we classify heidelbergis, neanderthal, rudolfensis, chimpanzees, or pond scum to the same or different species is irrelevant to the question of racism.

If jcrawford can't show that some group is suffering demonstrable harm on the basis of being racially classified, as has been previously asked of him, then he has no grounds for his claims. In addition, in my book, he needs to prove motive and show that the racism logically follows from the science to establish that there is such a thing as 'neo-Darwinist racist/racial theories.'

[Jose]

H. heidlebergensis has been previously classified as both erectus and early sapiens. Now all such early forms of sapiens in Europe are all classified as Neanderthals by African Eve theorists who need to disassociate and disconnect Asians and Europeans from their own native ancestry by genetically linking them back to Africa through African Eve. There is no scientific reason for denying the existance of an Asian Eve and a European Eve or a Middle-Eastern Eve other than neo-Darwinist racial desparation to link all members of the whole human race to a shared common ancestry with African apes.

Denying the existance of Asian, European and Middle Eastern Eve is a form of scientific racism.

Here's what the data tell us.

1. Humans originated in Africa.
2. A group of them migrated along the coast to Asia.
3. A group of these migrated north and then west into Europe and the Middle East.

If we were to try to trace human lineages to the first woman in each region, we'd have a European Eve and a Middle Eastern Eve, both of whom are descended from the Asian Eve, and all of whom are descended from the African Eve.

You seem to be pretending that humans originated in each continent separately? I realize that there used to be the "multiple origins" hypothesis, but that makes no sense at all genetically.

I am not qualified to evaluate his [Lubenow's] evidence. Nor is anyone here (please speak up if you are). So please show me where Lubenow has convinced his peers of his position.

I'm probably reasonably well qualified. As near as I can tell, he's all wet, and is misusing English as well.