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.

[jcrawford]

I think, jcrawford, that your invitation was fine. I think you paraphrased BoC's basic thesis adequately. It just failed to convince us that its author had a working knowledge of evolution (and possibly English as well). If, in the face of the commentary you've received, most of which seems to me to be pretty much along the same lines, you would like to offer more convincing support for Lubenow's ideas, then give us some of Lubenow's reasoning directly. Give us some quotes of his most important arguments.

I'm pretty sure we've given you the rebuttals of his arguments. However, if you don't yet accept these rebuttals, and think that L. has a stronger case, tell us what he says and why you think its convincing. I'm not going to insist that you read a bunch of scientific literature, but will instead try to summarize the important parts. Do the same for us, and summarize the important parts of L.'s work.

I appreciate your POV here, Jose but I don't want to be reduced to typing up the details of Lubenow's arguments, fossil listings and scientific notations verbatim just for the sake of people who refuse to spend 20 bucks on a reference text of their own. I think people are going to have to get Lubenow's book in order to debate the data in page after page just as I have several editions of Darwin's "Descent of Man" and can point to the racism in his book by chapter, page, paragraph and line.

Even though I am also discussing and debating the revolutionary concepts and data in Lubenow's book on other websites, I have yet to find one other poster who can even accurately quote from the book, let alone carry on a reasonably intelligent discussion, conversation or debate regarding the subject matter of its contents.

Regarding the details of the human fossil record, no one here seems to have any information on the 371 human fossil specimens Lubenow lists and documents scientifically as showing no evidence of their evolution from one 'species' of human into another, much less any evidence for any human evolution in Africa out of African ape ancestors. As more and more Christians get their hands on Lubenow's book, even highschool students will be able to charge neo-Darwinist theorists with scientific racism, relentlessly.

[jcrawford]

Also, it is not an ethical issue whether data are good or bad, but a practical one (do the data accurately reflect the conditions and do they support or refute the hypothesis?) - it only becomes an ethical issue when a scientist deliberately misleads with bad data. That's what peer-review is for. The academic circle inspects the work to ensure that the data were collected properly and that the conclusions are sound."

But what if everyone in "the academic circle" is deliberately misleading themselves and the public with "bad" data? Who polices the "peer-review' ethicists who have no ethical standard of right and wrong outside of their 'scientific opinions' of what constitutes good science, bad science and junk science? What ethical system is used to prevent academic peer circles from becoming elitist, supremacist and racist?

Real and junk science are likewise not ethical postulations but practical ones according to the scientific methodology. Does the work further our understanding of the natural world? Does it properly employ the scientific method? Do the hypotheses deal with the entirety of the data?

Although this sounds pretty smug, I still see no way for a small circle of 'peer-scientists' to determine whether any of their theories are racist or not. That's why Lubenow's theories can't be refuted by non-ethical neo-Darwinists who can't even define 'race' and 'racism' within the context of science.

Racism is an ethical postulation (a wrong ethical postulation, but such nonetheless) which states that one human life has greater moral worth than another on the basis of superficial characteristics like skin colour. Therefore, it is not science. Do you see the difference?

All I see is an "ethical postulation" which you state is a non-scientific definition of racism in which science and scientists are exempt or exonerated a priori. Since neo-Darwinists postulate on the basis of superficial characteristics like skull size and shape, that each successive 'species' of humans is more highly evolved, complex and intelligent than the 'species' it evolved from, it attaches far greater worth to modern Homo sapiens than to the first African 'species' of people (Homo habilis) who are said to have directly descended from non-human forms of African primates once upon a time in neo-Darwinist Africa.

[jcrawford]

But if you want to discuss the theory of evolution, it is based on four general and well-documented observations about the world of the present and in no way involves a discussion of race. Here it is, the much-disputed yet indisputable Theory of Evolution (cornets):

a.) Every organism produces more offspring than will actually survive to maturity.

b.) There is variation among these offspring.

c.) These variations are inheritable from one generation to the next.

d.) In each generation, the survivors do so because they possess some advantage over the ones that do not. Because they survive, they will pass that advantage on to the next generation. Over time, incidence of said advantage will increase in the general population.

If anything, this disproves racism on any quantifiable level, since all the 'races' of humans that exist today do so because they survived until the Malthusian trap was broken by the Industrial Revolution. At any rate, racism cannot be scientific at all because it makes an incorrect ethical judgment. Ethical judgments of any sort have no place in a process that demands results be quantifiable and measurable.

You're really confusing me here since if racism and "ethical judgements" have no place in 'science,' how did you arrive at the conclusion that
"all the 'races' of humans that exist today do so because they survived until the Malthusian trap was broken by the Industrial Revolution.?"

Do you have any scientific evidence that there is more than one human race on earth today? I know that neo-Darwinist race theorists like to divide the past human race up into multiple 'species' based on theory alone without evidence, but this is the first time I've encountered neo-Darwinist theories of multiple human races.

But you can see that the entire presumption is based on an ethical qualification and is therefore not science, correct?

I have no idea what your presumptions are based on other than a philosophical system of enquiry which may be both unethical and unscientific at the same time.

Firstly, all evidence for backing up an argument must appear on the forum. If you provide us with a link to a website, good. If you provide us with direct quotes, better.

Are you sure about these forum rules of yours here. Can you direct me to that part of the forum rules which says that "all evidence for backing up an argument must appear on the forum?

Also, to qualify as good sound scientific publication (as every scientist worth his salt knows), the results must be peer reviewed just in case the author made an error or an improper procedural step or an unwarranted conclusion.

What if all the peer-reviewers are a bunch of neo-Darwinist race theorists whose theories are prejudicial towards, and discriminate against, Christian creation scientists a priori?

If you can prove that Lubenow's studies have been subjected to a serious peer review, I'll drop the point. If not, the point remains against your argument.

The only way that I can prove that some of Lubenow's scientific observations have been peer-reviewed once or twice is by giving you the documentation of such instances in Lubenow's book itself, which I can't afford to do any more than you can afford to buy the book for yourself.

BTW: I don't see any evidence of the origin and evolution of 'species' in your a,b,c,d, system, cornets and other fanfare not withstanding.

[jcrawford]

Now what are you going to do? One source, Lubenow, says one thing. Another source, me, says another. We could thumb our noses at each other, or we could do something constructive.

Reading up on the latest theories, models, scenarios and teachings about human evolution might be more constructive than comparing yourself to an expert on the human fossil record like Lubenow is. I promise to buy your next book on the details of human evolution once it is published.

[FreddieFreeloader]

Now what are you going to do? One source, Lubenow, says one thing. Another source, me, says another. We could thumb our noses at each other, or we could do something constructive.

Reading up on the latest theories, models, scenarios and teachings about human evolution might be more constructive than comparing yourself to an expert on the human fossil record like Lubenow is. I promise to buy your next book on the details of human evolution once it is published.

I know that it's not the best argument, but since you insist on appealing to the authority of Martin Lubenow, and refused present his evidence "on demand" in the U of CA rejects creationism thread, you should be aware that Lubenow has no education in biology or geology, but a Master of Theology and an MSc in anthropology.

Still, you claim that he has falsified the common theories regarding evolution and the fossil record. I'm not saying that he couldn't be an "expert on the human fossil record", but his degrees suggest that there are greater experts. However if you would just present his evidence (as you seem to be quite familiar with it) you could do away with this speculation about his expertise and push the discussion in a more constructive direction than this "he says so" rhetoric.

[Chimp]

Jcrawford,

can you not see how lame it is to make so many obnoxious posts, and as
your final defence say you are not going to present any evidence?

In my copy of Darwin's 'Lube-now is full of Sh-t' all of Marv's theories
are refutted by the same acedemic standard you adopt.

[MagusYanam]

But what if everyone in "the academic circle" is deliberately misleading themselves and the public with "bad" data? Who polices the "peer-review' ethicists who have no ethical standard of right and wrong outside of their 'scientific opinions' of what constitutes good science, bad science and junk science? What ethical system is used to prevent academic peer circles from becoming elitist, supremacist and racist?

That would require a conspiracy theory of such a vast scale that no one would buy it. The academics that peer-review each others' work are of a broad spectrum of belief systems and political values, and (normally) leave such beliefs and political values to the side while considering the relevance of the conclusions to the data.

(For the most part, scientists simply aren't elitists, supremacists or racists - and I should know, since my father is a geophysicist who is none of the above. None of his colleagues have demonstrated themselves to be any of the above. Stop using the cultural oppression argument: it's old, it's boring, it's been done to death and it hasn't proven its validity.)

Science doesn't deal with the qualitative, with ethics. But there are ethics involved nonetheless with the practise and application of science (not with the results or the conclusions - in other words, the science itself). Falsifying the data is both unethical practise and bad science. Poor construction of an experiment is not unethical practise, but it is bad science. The difference between the ethics of scientific practise and the validity of the science should be clear.

Just because the scientist doesn't allow his own conscience to influence the data and the conclusions doesn't mean he doesn't have one or that he doesn't use it. But the peer review process judges the strength of the conclusions with regard to the data - nothing more, no other agenda.

Although this sounds pretty smug, I still see no way for a small circle of 'peer-scientists' to determine whether any of their theories are racist or not. That's why Lubenow's theories can't be refuted by non-ethical neo-Darwinists who can't even define 'race' and 'racism' within the context of science.

In that case, Lubenow's argument is not science - so stop treating it as such. 'Racism' demands a qualitative assessment which belongs in a completely different context, therefore science cannot be 'racist'. In other words, Lubenow's argument is self-defeating. The way I see it, you (and presumably, Lubenow) are trying to superimpose a qualitative agenda onto a community that concerns itself wholly with the quantifiable. You're just tilting at windmills, seeing a giant that isn't there.

All I see is an "ethical postulation" which you state is a non-scientific definition of racism in which science and scientists are exempt or exonerated a priori.

Exactly. Scientists can be racists (it's happened before, though it's very uncommon now), but the science itself cannot, since racism (whatever definition you want to use) makes at some point a prejudgment of the moral worth of a human being based on superficial characteristics - that's why it's wrong. Science cannot do that.

Science can say that hominid A has a shorter stature or a larger jaw or a smaller nose than a modern human, but it can't say that hominid A is of any greater or lesser moral consideration than a modern human. Do you see the difference? Science can't be racist.

What if all the peer-reviewers are a bunch of neo-Darwinist race theorists whose theories are prejudicial towards, and discriminate against, Christian creation scientists a priori?

Then they're supposed to put all that aside and look at how the conclusions represent the data. The scientific community has been listening all along to arguments for Christian creation science, not prejudging them. However, they simply don't tally with the data we have collected - the age of the world by whichever method you like being the most prominent example.

Scientists have been trained not to value the theory above the data - the observable and repeatable are king. If the theory doesn't represent the data it is to be thrown away or altered. The reason the theory of evolution is still accepted today by the academic community is because the evidence still indicates it to be the best model for the way life works.

Are you sure about these forum rules of yours here. Can you direct me to that part of the forum rules which says that "all evidence for backing up an argument must appear on the forum?

Gladly.

5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence.

Hearsay is not evidence, and unless you can get us some quotes or some URL's - something physical and legible, in other words - hearsay is all you've presented for support in your arguments. In addition,

13. Appeals and challenges to decisions made by moderators should not be made in public. The proper channel is to send a PM to a moderator and to discuss it directly and in private.

You have a problem with my moderating, you send me a PM. Consider this a warning. Please read the forum rules and adhere to them from now on.

[Jose]

Regarding the details of the human fossil record, no one here seems to have any information on the 371 human fossil specimens Lubenow lists and documents scientifically as showing no evidence of their evolution from one 'species' of human into another, much less any evidence for any human evolution in Africa out of African ape ancestors. As more and more Christians get their hands on Lubenow's book, even highschool students will be able to charge neo-Darwinist theorists with scientific racism, relentlessly.

Maybe there are a lot of people here with information on these fossil specimens, but since you seem unwilling to tell us which ones they are, how can we even begin to discuss them? I would also like to ask you what the heck you mean by "evolution from one 'species' of human into another." Do you really think that the evolution of new species occurs by means of an older species suddenly going *pop* and turning into a new species?

I also note that, while those who have been hornswaggled by Lubenow may be perfectly able to charge scientists with "scientific racism," I can also charge you with stealing automobiles and painting them pink. The issue is not whether someone can charge someone else with something, but whether there is any merit in the charge.

All I see is an "ethical postulation" which you state is a non-scientific definition of racism in which science and scientists are exempt or exonerated a priori. Since neo-Darwinists postulate on the basis of superficial characteristics like skull size and shape, that each successive 'species' of humans is more highly evolved, complex and intelligent than the 'species' it evolved from, it attaches far greater worth to modern Homo sapiens than to the first African 'species' of people (Homo habilis) who are said to have directly descended from non-human forms of African primates once upon a time in neo-Darwinist Africa.

You make two errors here. First, you suggest that a non-scientific definition of racism doesn't count. This is wacky. What counts is the normal definition of racism, not some wacky thing that Lubenow dreamed up.

Your second error, which you seem to persist in making despite numerous explanations, is that there is no such thing as "more highly evolved". There is no progression to "betterness" in evolution. There is no "greater worth" of modern species compared to older species. That malarky of evolution being some kind of progression to superior kinds is not true. It's a fairy tale. Many people believe it, for some reason, but it's not science. Unless you are completely misrepresenting Lubenow's thesis, his claim of "racism" is based on a falsehood. Why do you insist on pushing it, when it's wrong?

You're really confusing me here since if racism and "ethical judgements" have no place in 'science,' how did you arrive at the conclusion that "all the 'races' of humans that exist today do so because they survived until the Malthusian trap was broken by the Industrial Revolution.?"

Do you have any scientific evidence that there is more than one human race on earth today? I know that neo-Darwinist race theorists like to divide the past human race up into multiple 'species' based on theory alone without evidence, but this is the first time I've encountered neo-Darwinist theories of multiple human races.

What are you talking about? There is a commonly used definition of "race." It may not be genetically accurate as applied to humans, but no one has pretended that people do not refer to people of other skin colors as being different "races." Since this is the situation that exists at the present time, why can't we talk about it without surprising you?

And, why do you insist on misusing the term "racism"? The fact that races exist does not make people "racists." "Racists" are dorks who think their own race is superior to others. You know this, obviously, or you wouldn't use the false caricature of evolution as a "progression to superior, more highly-evolved states" as the basis of your claim of so-called "scientific racism." Yet, you seem to want to characterize people who describe differences between groups of people as "racists" simply because the differences exist.

You also misuse the very terms you speak about. If you are going to get worried that science classifies some of our ancestors as different species, why do you call science "racist" instead of "speciesist"?

What if all the peer-reviewers are a bunch of neo-Darwinist race theorists whose theories are prejudicial towards, and discriminate against, Christian creation scientists a priori?

And what if Christian schoolteachers are prejudicial towards, and discriminate against, scientific facts? Look, the fact that you can claim a conspiracy against you doesn't make such a conspiracy exist. It's easier, certainly, than admitting that your claims are wrong, and that the data upon which they are based are wrong and/or misinterpreted. I presume that the latter problem is the reason you won't give us any quotes from Lubenow's book.

But if you want to discuss the theory of evolution, it is based on four general and well-documented observations about the world of the present and in no way involves a discussion of race. Here it is, the much-disputed yet indisputable Theory of Evolution (cornets):

a.) Every organism produces more offspring than will actually survive to maturity.

b.) There is variation among these offspring.

c.) These variations are inheritable from one generation to the next.

d.) In each generation, the survivors do so because they possess some advantage over the ones that do not. Because they survive, they will pass that advantage on to the next generation. Over time, incidence of said advantage will increase in the general population.

BTW: I don't see any evidence of the origin and evolution of 'species' in your a,b,c,d, system, cornets and other fanfare not withstanding.

This statement of yours is proof of your lack of understanding of how evolution works. You have been taken in by Lubenow and by other charlatans who claim that species appear by some mystical kind of transmogrification, in which one type of creature suddenly becomes a different kind of creature. Discard that notion, because it's wrong. What Magus described is correct. It is also consistent with the theory that "every species reproduces according to its kind." Until you learn how evolution works, your claims of what it says cannot be taken seriously.

Now what are you going to do? One source, Lubenow, says one thing. Another source, me, says another. We could thumb our noses at each other, or we could do something constructive.

Reading up on the latest theories, models, scenarios and teachings about human evolution might be more constructive than comparing yourself to an expert on the human fossil record like Lubenow is. I promise to buy your next book on the details of human evolution once it is published.

I am not comparing myself to "an expert." I am saying that what Lubenow says--or what you say he says--is no more significant than what I say. Scientific issues are not "won" by the guy with the most degrees. They are "won" on the basis of what is most consistent with the data. The key here is for you to provide us with some of the data. No, I'm not saying you need to re-type his whole book. I'm asking you to start by giving us the data upon which he bases just one small part of his grand scheme.

But, as you say, "reading up on the latest theories, models, scenarios and teachings about human evolution might be more constructive." You might try it--by reading the actual science, and not restricting yourself to Lubenow. Alternatively, you could actually tell us some of the things Lubenow says, so we can compare his statements with the latest theories, models, etc. I don't see much point in any of us posting any of the vast quantity of real data until you provide us with the appropriate comparison: that portion of it that Lubenow uses.

[otseng]

Are you sure about these forum rules of yours here. Can you direct me to that part of the forum rules which says that "all evidence for backing up an argument must appear on the forum?

The rule is:
5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence.
The evidence doesn't need to be per se "on this forum", but it does need to be provided. Simply referring to an entire book is not in good form for debate. At a minimum, you should state a few quotes from the book and the page number. I do not think this is too much to ask. Especially since this thread itself is 36 pages long. Much time and typing would've been saved if quotes would have been provided earlier.

It is very frustrating for people to hear that they simply need to read the book in order to engage in a debate. Just like it would be frustrating for me if someone kept telling me I need to read the Origin of Species in order to understand evolution. Or if I kept telling someone they need to read the Bible to understand creationism.

So, please do not refer to an entire book as your evidence. Type out specific things in the book that you would like to use as evidence and post it here and reference the page number. My bet is that this thread will be less contentious if you do this.

[McCulloch]

If you can prove that Lubenow's studies have been subjected to a serious peer review, I'll drop the point. If not, the point remains against your argument.

The only way that I can prove that some of Lubenow's scientific observations have been peer-reviewed once or twice is by giving you the documentation of such instances in Lubenow's book itself, which I can't afford to do any more than you can afford to buy the book for yourself.

Since jcrawford's entire argument seems to hinge on Lubenow's expertise, I would expect some evidence to be presented supporting Lubenow being a recognized expert in this field. In which peer reviewed journals has Lubenow's anti-race theories been published? What recognition has been given to Lubenow as to his expertise in this field? Which other recognized experts in this field support Lubenow's conclusions? Please be specific.