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?

[jcrawford]

Since jcrawford made the claim, it is up to him to validate it. I would accept self-identification. If jcrawford can provide evidence that "since most people who identify themselves as Christians of African descent tend to think that all neo-Darwinist theories about their origins from African ape ancestors are just another form of scientific racism and discrimination against them." then his obligation to support his statement with evidence would be met, in my opinion.
If jcrawford has some other statistically valid way of supporting his statement, then he is also free to present it.

That's certainly a liberal offer on your part here, McCulloch, since it would take a Gallup poll to get sample opinons of all Christians of African descent.
Why don't we just conduct a poll of Christians of African descent on this thread and ask what their opinions are on the matter?

Except that in the normal course of debate, you should first have the evidence before you make a statement of fact. jcrawford has made a claim. He has stated it as fact, not opinion. He should, therefore, already have some evidence to support that statement of fact.

I have some evidence to support that statement whether it is a fact or not. It's what all the Christian people of African descent that I know believe. How many people of African descent do I know? Hundreds. Not one of them thinks that the first African people originated from ape and monkey ancestors.

The choice is still his

• provide the evidence to support his claim or
• admit that the claim he has made is only his own subjective unsupported opinion, a hypothesis.

If jcrawford is willing to admit that what was presented by him as a statement of fact was, in fact, a hypothesis, then we can progress to the next step of finding ways to test the validity of that hypothesis.

All right. Based on personal experiences, observations and knowledge, Crawford's hypothesis is that most, if not all, Christians of African descent tend to think that all neo-Darwinist theories about their origins from African ape ancestors are just another form of scientific racism and discrimination against them.

How might we test the validity of Crawford's Hypothesis on this forum without getting the opinion of most Christians of African descent? Why don't we just get the opinions of all Christians of African descent on this thread?

I appreciate your scientific assistance here, McCulloch.

[jcrawford]

Even if jcrawford produced a scientifically done poll with 100% of African Christians thinking neo-Darwinism is racist, it would not settle the issue, and would in fact say very little about the truth or falsity of the claim.

You're jumping the gun, micatala, since the claim is not about whether neo-Darwinism is racist or not, but that most Christians of African descent tend to think that it is. Even a 51% poll confirmation of that fact would settle that claim.

[Cathar1950]

You have switched topics JW. The claim "is about whether neo-Darwinism is racist or not". Then you moved to "most Christians of African descent tend to think that it is". Many People might believe that the British are Jews that does not make them Jews. maybe the only people you know believe this does not make it correct.

[jcrawford]

You have switched topics JW. The claim "is about whether neo-Darwinism is racist or not".

That's the original claim.

Then you moved to "most Christians of African descent tend to think that it is".

Yes, to back up my claim that neo-Darwinism is racist, I suggested that most Christians of African descent would tend to agree with me.

If you can't you handle claims that support other claims, what good is peer review?

[micatala]

Equating polling your friends with scientific peer review is one of the bigger leaps of logic that I have ever seen.

Asking people sitting in the front row of a Rolling Stones concert what they think of rock and roll would give you a more objective opinion than your poll would of the truth of your racism claim.

[jcrawford]

Equating polling your friends with scientific peer review is one of the bigger leaps of logic that I have ever seen.

I didn't equate it with "scientific" peer review. I just said "peer review." You're the one who took the leap to science.

Asking people sitting in the front row of a Rolling Stones concert what they think of rock and roll would give you a more objective opinion than your poll would of the truth of your racism claim.

How would asking Rolling Stones fans if they thought rock and roll was racist be more objective than asking Christians of African descent if they thought neo-Darwinist theories about their origins from ape and monkey ancestors were racist?

Do you think any of the posters on this thread might be Christians of African descent?

[Nyril]

Asking people sitting in the front row of a Rolling Stones concert what they think of rock and roll would give you a more objective opinion than your poll would of the truth of your racism claim.

As funny as this is, I once went with some friends to a Rolling Stones concert and our tickets ended up being front row. I don't particularly care for it, if you were curious.

I have some evidence to support that statement whether it is a fact or not. It's what all the Christian people of African descent that I know believe. How many people of African descent do I know? Hundreds. Not one of them thinks that the first African people originated from ape and monkey ancestors.

Well, obviously not. Your question was vague. You could be asking if they thought their ancestors were apes or monkeys, or if they shared the same ancestors that apes and monkeys shared. You shouldn't find anyone on this board that believes the first, and the second is the general extrapolation for the TOE.

[Cathar1950]

I don't know all the people you know or what they belive. If they are creationist and do not believe in evolution then they might think anything.
Do they know that all of us came from Africa and that we are all humans?
I know many Afro-American Christians some are evolutionist some are not. I know none that think it is racist. I do think that an argument that the Bible and the Judeao-Christian religion and Bible are racist has much better argument. Most would think the inherent racism of the Bible is antiquated .

[McCulloch]

All right. Based on personal experiences, observations and knowledge, Crawford's hypothesis is that most, if not all, Christians of African descent tend to think that all neo-Darwinist theories about their origins from African ape ancestors are just another form of scientific racism and discrimination against them.

It seems as if Crawford's views are not representative of YECs let alone all Christians, therefore, I strongly suspect that the sample set of Christians of African descent personally known by Crawford is unlikely to be a representative sample. Further, given the obvious bias of the observer, I would doubt that the observations have been collected without bias and observer influence.

How might we test the validity of Crawford's Hypothesis on this forum without getting the opinion of most Christians of African descent? Why don't we just get the opinions of all Christians of African descent on this thread?

Statistical validity. I strongly doubt that the sample set of Christians of African descent who are active in this forum are a representative sample of the population of Christians of African descent for the same reason that I believe that the sample set of All Christians who are active on this forum are not a representative sample of the population of all Christians. If such a poll were to be conducted, it would prove virtually nothing other than the technical ability to conduct such a poll.
Edited to include a rather important left out word.

[Chimp]

I suspect you could count his "sample" on one finger...errr...hand

He has yet to successfully defend any of his claims. His inability to produce
any convincing evidence is inversely proportional to his zeal for asserting
ad nauseum repetio.