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.

[Cathar1950]

If we "are all Africans," in accordance with the neo-Darwinist African Eve Model, then why can't some African-Americans complain about the inherent racism in all neo-Darwinst racial theories of African people's evolution from non-human ancestors of Great Apes?

Because it isnt true and they got other real things to complain about.
Are you sure your not talking about social darwinism?
So what if Eve was in Africa 120,00 years ago so was Adam about 70,000 years ago. I bet they didn't even know each other.

[micatala]

any evidence of inherent racism within any part of evolutionist theory may rightly be called a scientific form of racism after it's discovery by Lubenow.

There is no evidence of racism within evolutionary theory, period. No oppression, no intent to denigrate, no ascribing of superiority on the basis of superficial racial characteristics, nothing. No matter how many times you repeat it, it is still wrong.


You have this stange idea that if a person does not like some aspect of himself, in this case the heritage of his species, he can accuse those who have documented the heritage of denigration. THis is simply and profoundly wrong.

You have no more grounds for accusing evolutionary biologists of racism or evolution of being a racist theory than I would for accusing people of ethnic hatred for referring to me as of Italian heritage, as that is what I am. Nor would it make any sense for me to accuse historians and sociologists or whoever is responsible for creating a theory national classifications. I know you refuse to believe the overwhelming evidence for evolution, and this is your right. But the fact remains that the case for evolution is very strong, has stood up to scientific testing and review for over 100 years, and is perfectly reasonable. Even if one wants to disbelieve the fact of evolution, at the very least, one should allow that it is a reasonable explanation that seeks to be consistent with all the evidence that we have.

[USIncognito]

I tried to post a reply yesterday, but it apparently disappeared into the Matrix, and given some of the excellent and thoughtful responses lately, I hate to offer a "look just say it" question to jtroll, but here it is.

...Even if evolution is racist... how exactly does that nullify the findings of the geologic, paleontological, biogegraphic, genetic and fossil record that evidences evolution having occured?

A week or two ago D. James Kennedy devoted an hour of his Coral Ridge teleministry to his pathetic attempt to debunk evolution. Yet in around 54 minutes of non-sales/fundraising air time - he didn't really address evolutionary theory at all. He talked a lot about Communism (which is an economic theory of the mid-1800s, was perverted by the Bolsheviks {more details on this if you don't know your Marx or your history}), Nihlism (philosophy that had nothing to do with biology) and presented a long list of pre-1850s scientists who were Christian. As if any of that addressed things like biogeography, atavisms, homologous structures or genetic and fossil evidence.

I've got a question for Kennedy and jtroll - how exactly does Stalin being a statist dictator out for himself and Isaac Newton being a Christian make fossil finds like Turkana Boy or genetic evidence like Endogenous Retroviral Insertions go away?

Oh. And I might have mentioned this before (or elsewhere, the tired racism argument just will not die), but jtroll like to address exactly why the Baptists in America split before the Civil War and why? These charges of evolutionary theory being racist only grow more ironic when one studies how the Southern Baptists justified slavery via the Bible just as Dawin was publishing Origins that says we're all one kind, and the fact that that mentality existed through Jim Crow (witness the people protesting the integration of Little Rock High School with signs saying "God demands segregation") compared with evolution that says that all human beings regardless of superficial appearances?

So tell me John Troll - why was the Southern Baptist Convention created? To fight racism, or to promote and sanctify it?

[Cathar1950]

micatala Your Italian? I better check my buddy list.
I added you I hope my mom dosn't find out, she is Scottish.

jcrawford you need to stay away from what ever sites you visit.
They are giving you some bad info.

Are you guys sure he isn't talking about Social-Darwinism?
I think neo-Darwinism is just updated due to new discoveries and science
since Darwin's time. Darwin was just scratching the surface.
He was on to something.
On the other hand some people non-Darwinist seem to be on something.

[jcrawford]

quote="Cathar1950"

Your mistake is that you assume that because the human species came out of Africa as well as other hominids that it is racist. You idea itself smacks of racism by thinking anyone that thinks because we come from Africa is belived to be less then human.

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.

[jcrawford]

If we "are all Africans," in accordance with the neo-Darwinist African Eve Model, then why can't some African-Americans complain about the inherent racism in all neo-Darwinst racial theories of African people's evolution from non-human ancestors of Great Apes?

Because it isnt true and they got other real things to complain about.

They? You said that we are all Africans. What other "real" things do we or "they" have to complain about? 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?

[jcrawford]

There is no evidence of racism within evolutionary theory, period. No oppression, no intent to denigrate, no ascribing of superiority on the basis of superficial racial characteristics, nothing. No matter how many times you repeat it, it is still wrong.

No matter how many times you deny it, Lubenow's well documented research and thesis shows evidence of the intrinsic scientific racism inherent in all theories of human evolution. For instance: If theories about human origins and evolution were predicated on the 'scientific' assumption and premise that the whole human race originated and evolved out of China, India, Europe or the Middle East, wouldn't such racial theories rightly be considered to be a scientific form of racism?

You have no more grounds for accusing evolutionary biologists of racism or evolution of being a racist theory than I would for accusing people of ethnic hatred for referring to me as of Italian heritage, as that is what I am.

Leaving your own ethnic heritage aside for the moment, Lubenow documents how neo-Darwinist theories are historically racist.

But the fact remains that the case for evolution is very strong, has stood up to scientific testing and review for over 100 years, and is perfectly reasonable.

Neo-Darwinist theories have always been historically racist.

Even if one wants to disbelieve the fact of evolution, at the very least, one should allow that it is a reasonable explanation that seeks to be consistent with all the evidence that we have.

Scientific evidence in support of neo-Darwinist racial theories about the origins and ancestry of African people should not be admitted in a court of American law.

[micatala]

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.

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.

micatala Your Italian? I better check my buddy list.
I added you I hope my mom dosn't find out, she is Scottish.

Actually only half Italian. Mom's side is Czech. I can get along with anyone, even the Scottish

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. 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. It is an old and tired and long discredited song.

[jcrawford]

I tried to post a reply yesterday, but it apparently disappeared into the Matrix, and given some of the excellent and thoughtful responses lately, I hate to offer a "look just say it" question to jtroll, but here it is.

My sympathies go out to you, since I have experienced similar frustrating experiences when trying to respond to a long post. That's why I just keep my responses as short as I can and move on to the next 'naturally selected' quotations.

...Even if evolution is racist... how exactly does that nullify the findings of the geologic, paleontological, biogegraphic, genetic and fossil record that evidences evolution having occured?

It doesn't "nullify" them, since Lubenow uses the paleoanthropological human fossil record itself to demonstrate that African people didn't originate, evolve or descend from African apes at all.

I've got a question for Kennedy and jtroll - how exactly does Stalin being a statist dictator out for himself and Isaac Newton being a Christian make fossil finds like Turkana Boy or genetic evidence like Endogenous Retroviral Insertions go away?

Jtroll doesn't know anything about ERI, but according to Lubenow, Turkana Boy falsifies neo-Darwinst racial theories of African people descending from Great Apes, let alone having much in common with their non-human ancestors.

[jcrawford]

jcrawford you need to stay away from what ever sites you visit.
They are giving you some bad info.

You ought to check out the evo-creo discussion/debates on some other popular website forums just to find out where these civil discourses are culturally and politically headed.