Is racism scientific?

Debate and discussion on racism and related issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Wootah
Savant
Posts: 9161
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 186 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Is racism scientific?

Post #1

Post by Wootah »

Is racism scientific?

Answer seems yes.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com ... -says/amp/

Isn't our racism just part of our sin nature?
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826

"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image :)."

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12235
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Post #81

Post by Elijah John »

Danmark wrote:
If "Daedalus X" has other passages he cannot comprehend, I will be happy to 'translate' for him.

OTOH, if he doesn't understand Darwin, perhaps he should not offer opinions based on his poor understanding.
Moderator Comment

Please make your points without personal remarks, such as commenting on another's level of understanding, especially to a third party.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #82

Post by Danmark »

Re: a passage of Darwin's
Daedalus X wrote:
I read this many times over and there was no intelligible thought found.
Interesting. Darwin's works are considered among the greatest ever written.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672905/

User avatar
Daedalus X
Apprentice
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 7:33 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 12 times

Post #83

Post by Daedalus X »

Bust Nak wrote: 19th century English is a bit hard to read.
19th century Darwin is not so bad, but 21st century grammar takes a bit of getting used to. I figured out what you were trying to say. Without an article before the word 'reason', I was reading it as a verb instead of a noun. Call it blindness from expectation.
Bust Nak wrote:The first ellipsis was a summary for reason "a naturalist might feel himself fully justified in ranking the races of man as distinct species."
Translates to this.
Translation wrote:The first ellipsis was a summary for the reason why "a naturalist might feel himself fully justified in ranking the races of man as distinct species."
I still wonder why you left out that reason. Was it the fact that it did not support your argument?
Darwin wrote:for he has found that they are distinguished by many differences in structure and constitution, some being of importance. These differences have, also, remained nearly constant for very long periods of time. Our naturalist will have been in some degree influenced by the enormous range of man, which is a great anomaly in the class of mammals, if mankind be viewed as a single species. He will have been struck with the distribution of the several so-called races, which accords with that of other undoubtedly distinct species of mammals. Finally, he might urge that the mutual fertility of all the races has not as yet been fully proved, and even if proved would not be an absolute proof of their specific identity.
You are trying to say that Darwin thought the differences between the races were unimportant and just skin deep. But, Darwin actually wrote "many differences in structure and constitution, some being of importance." So, your position is totally the opposite to what Darwin wrote. The rest of the quote does very little to support the skin deep theory as well.

There is no more scientific evidence for the skin deep theory than there is for the flat Earth theory. The main reason why anyone believes in the skin deep theory has to do with political correctness and trying to avoid the label of "racist".

Can we agree that negros and Europeans had a common ancestor going back many years, possibly thousands of generations ago. Do you really think that the human brain has not evolved in those many generations? If you think the brain has evolved, do you really think it evolved at the same rate in every different population group, giving us our modern brains which are now equal in all population groups, yet the people within the groups have a tremendous amount of variation in their brain function? If you think that evolution is egalitarian, then you are not talking about science you are talking about Marxism.

Take a look at Sam Harris taking about the 'Bell Curve' and the important differences between the races.


User avatar
Daedalus X
Apprentice
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 7:33 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 12 times

Post #84

Post by Daedalus X »

Danmark wrote: For example:
"Every naturalist who has had the misfortune to undertake the description of a group of highly varying organisms, has encountered cases (I speak after experience) precisely like that of man; and if of a cautious disposition, he will end by uniting all the forms which graduate into each other, under a single species; for he will say to himself that he has no right to give names to objects which he cannot define."
Imagine a group of birds living in a mild climate, call them group A, they eat the plentiful fruit and multiply to the point of overcrowding. Some of the birds, call them group B, begin to make their home in the mountain range next door, they get used to the cold and evolve to be able to eat the pine nuts that are the only food source available in the cold winter. Some of the birds, call them group C, continue to migrate down the other side of the mountain and find themselves in a dessert where they have to adapt to eat cactus for food and water to cope with the tremendous heat. Then some of the birds, group D, will climb another range of mountains. Then some will go down the other side of the mountain, call them group E, to find themselves in the same place where group A lives. They have media a very long circular journey.

We find that group E has evolved so much that they can no longer form fertile offspring with group A. Even though, it appears that A and E are a different species, our naturalist will call them a single species because the forms graduate into each other. B, C and D can form fertile offspring with both A and E.

But suppose that groups B, C and D become extinct, then A and E would become different species.

So, you can see that even if we call two creatures one species, there can be a great deal of variation between them. When Darwin concluded that men were all one species, he did not do so because they were all so similar, he did so despite the tremendous difference that he saw in humans. If Darwin had thought humans were just skin deep different then he would have never written "misfortune to undertake" as if this was going to be a difficult task to decide if we have one or more species.

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #85

Post by Danmark »

Daedalus X wrote:
Danmark wrote: For example:
"Every naturalist who has had the misfortune to undertake the description of a group of highly varying organisms, has encountered cases (I speak after experience) precisely like that of man; and if of a cautious disposition, he will end by uniting all the forms which graduate into each other, under a single species; for he will say to himself that he has no right to give names to objects which he cannot define."
Imagine a group of birds living in a mild climate, call them group A, they eat the plentiful fruit and multiply to the point of overcrowding. Some of the birds, call them group B, begin to make their home in the mountain range next door, they get used to the cold and evolve to be able to eat the pine nuts that are the only food source available in the cold winter. Some of the birds, call them group C, continue to migrate down the other side of the mountain and find themselves in a dessert where they have to adapt to eat cactus for food and water to cope with the tremendous heat. Then some of the birds, group D, will climb another range of mountains. Then some will go down the other side of the mountain, call them group E, to find themselves in the same place where group A lives. They have media a very long circular journey.

We find that group E has evolved so much that they can no longer form fertile offspring with group A. Even though, it appears that A and E are a different species, our naturalist will call them a single species because the forms graduate into each other. B, C and D can form fertile offspring with both A and E.

But suppose that groups B, C and D become extinct, then A and E would become different species.

So, you can see that even if we call two creatures one species, there can be a great deal of variation between them. When Darwin concluded that men were all one species, he did not do so because they were all so similar, he did so despite the tremendous difference that he saw in humans. If Darwin had thought humans were just skin deep different then he would have never written "misfortune to undertake" as if this was going to be a difficult task to decide if we have one or more species.
I confess I am baffled at your conclusion that using "misfortune to undertake" means something other than what the context shows, that a naturalist who at first tries to describe a group [race] within a species ends up realizing he cannot define those differences since they 'graduated into each other.'*

When you write, "When Darwin concluded that men were all one species, he did not do so because they were all so similar, he did so despite the tremendous difference that he saw in humans," you misstate what Darwin concluded.
Rather, he concluded 'men were all one species, he did so because they were all so similar, despite the superficial differences he saw in humans.'

What Darwin concluded is that features like shade of skin, type of hair, shape of nose and other superficial distinctions that may catch the eye are unimportant compared to the fact homo sapiens interbreeds and has the same range and type of intelligences across such artificial, social distinctions such as 'race.' When a species remains capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring, the minor nature and 'graduation' of differences is enhanced. It is only when they can no longer interbreed and produce fertile offspring that speciation occurs.



____________________
*"Every naturalist who has had the misfortune to undertake the description of a group of highly varying organisms, has encountered cases (I speak after experience) precisely like that of man; and if of a cautious disposition, he will end by uniting all the forms which graduate into each other, under a single species; for he will say to himself that he has no right to give names to objects which he cannot define."

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Post #86

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 82 by Daedalus X]
Take a look at Sam Harris taking about the 'Bell Curve' and the important differences between the races.

A longer audio of these two talking is here:



and some points that also fold into this discussion are:

1) There is more variation in intelligence levels (as measured by IQ tests) within a group rather than across groups (groups being "races" in this case). That is, the width of the distribution (bell curve width) is significant for all groups, but the curves overlap extensively and the issue is where the center of the distribution lies for each group, and whether the measured differences in average IQ levels between groups is significant and not due to biases in the tests themselves.

2) There are brilliant people in all groups, so there are no fundamental "race" characteristics that prevent anyone from any group having high IQ levels.

3) Social and economic issues are important. People who are born and grow up in economically depressed areas may not have the same access to education, opportunity, good diets, etc. which can influence their ability to learn and live healthy lives. They may be inherently "smart", but because of their socioeconomic environment they may not reach the same potential as the same group of people who grow up in different circumstances, and this can impact the IQ distribution curve and average values for a group.

So the question is how to explain the differences in the center (average) IQ values of different groups. How much of this is due to bias in the tests themselves? Are the differences enough to conclude, from unbiased scientific analysis, that IQ differences across groups (not only "races", but sex as well) are real? How can the socioeconomic impacts be quantified? There are many published studies (and opinions) on this subject such as this one:

https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/ ... 0years.pdf

The black-white gap, for example, has dropped from about 15 points in 1970 to 10 points now which is not a genetic cause:

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/ ... ronmental/

But it seems conclusive now from the genetics work of the last few decades that all Homo sapiens living on Earth today did evolve from a group of common ancestors in Africa, who appeared on the scene relatively recently on evolutionary time scales. The phenotypic differences in today's distribution of humans is small.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
Yusef
Banned
Banned
Posts: 470
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 4:39 pm
Location: His Earth
Contact:

Re: Racism

Post #87

Post by Yusef »

Yusef wrote:
Wootah wrote: Is racism scientific?

Isn't our racism just part of our sin nature?
hi,
I try reply as quoting from the maximum degree of scientific Source means The Religion..
Otherwise I will be nothing but a fool.


Well,

√ We have a phrase in our Shi'a-Islam names 'Mustadh'af' means poor/ignorant/unknow..
Mustadh'af many scientists such as Brian Cox, and or the first half of lifetime of Albert Einstein etc...
These scientists have had normal or above normal of capabilities of a human or at all the 9 items i provided.
And if the religion or its sciences arrive at them, they will accept/agree/submit immediately!
As the great scientist means Albert Einstein did and became Shi'a Muslim.


...also wrote:Well,
I meet/live/work among so many non-persian people that they tyrannies me everyday and i amaze about them and sometimes someone remind me the theory of evolution/darwin... and anytime I try put myself on their position and think about their minds, i can't Never!!
woww!!
My studies are only Religion and Science!
And I dislike read any else book.. such as Darwin's theories and opinions..
And I just have heard that one with name "Darwin" has said that all humans were monkey.
Not the more.
And here above in the above comment i meant the same while last night researched and found:
German scientists brought an opinion that a false viewpoint there is within many people that they are siding those weak people versus their oppositions!
And they and other scientists decided murder those people..

Well!
The same opinion is the same commandment of Shi'a-Islam that i brought in the post 36!
Means:
  • Shi'a Hadith
    Aql[Wisdom] is a favor/gift from God! And God Has Gave one a few, Gave one the more, Gave one the more and more up to the full! And we Ahl-ul-Bayit are the same those who Has Given us the full.
    And God ExpectS anyone depending on much wisdom one has.
    And God Made the Angels absolute Wisdom, and Made the Animals absolute emotion and the human both!
    So a human grow and make his wisdom conquered upon the emotion, he will be higher-ranked than the Angels! And if his emotion conquer on the wisdom, so he will be lower-ranked than the Animal.
Well,
This Hadith says yhe same theories but the theories command to kill animals, but the Hadith commands the animals to BE GROWING/CHANGING/UPGRADING toward out of animalship and arrive at Angelship every point that be starting!!

Yeah!
With this topic we will arrive at many useful facts/truths and we can solve some important parts of the crossword!

I example several concepts/experiences that proves the same theories/Hadith that the emotionally has been conquered upon the wisdom/fact/truth:
  • 1. This human rights and equate Male and Female
    2. Again this human rights that doesn't kill or cut hands of the thefts and adultery
    3. Someone see roaches/spiders etc and be fearful
    etc..
Example/experience:
3years ago I had a car that i was decided sell that. And an old man with a motorcycle mey me in the winter and asked me to sell to him with several months.. I agree and said thanks God that Put one such as this old man on my path that I could sell a car for him that on these cool wimters he can be with car instead of motorcycle... of course a 3200$ car i sold to him only 2700$. then after months a 700$ cheque of him he didn't pass and told me i don't want pay that!!! I told whattt??? Was this my answer!!??? Then i wanted report his cheque and many fool and emotionally people condemned me that: Do you want for 700$ jail him an old poor man!!? I replied: o' fools, why do you make me angry??? Why you fools don't condemn him and condemn just the reaction!!! Why don't tou check root of the problem and only see the last part of the problems??? He himself wants to jail himself not me!! If he was poor and didn't have money I would sell the car free completely! But he wants to reply badness in the good acted from me :( how much I be angry of you fools and emotional people that any hypocrisy deceive you :l
But an other our neighbor, except for that Jewish 80yo woman! an illiterate 80year oldwoman that is Persian told me: o' Yusef, jail him the dirty oldman that wants be rudely and don't forgive him!

Well,
See how much the growing/spirituality is important to judgement!
While many of those who condemned me were Persian too.
See this illiterate woman is grown up to a level that is higher than many Males!
That her wisdom is atleast 51% to 49% of her emotion.
I assume your beliefs are the better! Well, be soldier of God and convert me. By your own reasonings also tell me my wrong beliefs and why..>> :study:

User avatar
Neatras
Guru
Posts: 1045
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:44 pm
Location: Oklahoma, US
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Racism

Post #88

Post by Neatras »

Yusef wrote: As the great scientist means Albert Einstein did and became Shi'a Muslim.
Red flag. Claiming that Albert Einstein is a Muslim without any evidence goes against sub-forum policy here. It is an unsubstantiated claim, and MUCH worse, it attempts to assert that someone's stated religious position is false. This has been brought up before, so let us be perfectly clear:

Claiming someone is of a religion they do not claim to be a part of us bad etiquette.
Indeed, one could define science as reason’s attempt to compensate for our inability to perceive big numbers... so we have science, to deduce about the gargantuan what we, with our infinitesimal faculties, will never sense. If people fear big numbers, is it any wonder that they fear science as well and turn for solace to the comforting smallness of mysticism?
-Scott Aaronson

Online
User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Racism

Post #89

Post by William »

Neatras: Claiming someone is of a religion they do not claim to be a part of us bad etiquette.

William: It happens from time to time, and sometimes is just a product of confusion, which can be corrected.

A similar thing happened to me recently. A fellow Christian telling me that my world view was not aligned with Jesus' world view. This is another way of saying "You are not a True Christian" which is also considered 'bad etiquette' to make such suggestions.
Basically labeling someone something they are not is a mistake to avoid making. Better off to ignore the use of labels wherever possible.

User avatar
Yusef
Banned
Banned
Posts: 470
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 4:39 pm
Location: His Earth
Contact:

Re: Racism

Post #90

Post by Yusef »

I assume your beliefs are the better! Well, be soldier of God and convert me. By your own reasonings also tell me my wrong beliefs and why..>> :study:

Post Reply