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]

quote="McCulloch"

Now you are bringing in Lubenow's credentials as a part of the evidence supporting the allegation of racism. Is Lubenow a recognized expert on human fossil records?

Absolutely.

Who recognizes him as such?

Thousands of people, if not hundreds of thousands and millions of people in coming years.

How many peer reviewed scientific journals has his hypotheses been published in?

Several.

What has the been the reaction of his peers?

Marvellous, if not astounding!

Why is he presented as a leading expert in this field when the leading experts in this field have more advanced degrees than he does?

Because he is more expert than most of the leading experts in this field who have more advanced degrees than he does.

If a scientific theory was proven to be racist, that does not mean that it is necessarily wrong.

That would depend upon whether one thinks racism is right or wrong.

Why don't you try to prove "neo-Darwinism" is incorrect rather than try to prove that it is racist?

Because Lubenow had done the 'proving' that neo-Darwinism is both scientifically incorrect and racist. All I have to do is claim him as an authority on the human fossil record and neo-Darwinist racism, especially when neo-Darwinist theorists of human evolution out of the progenitors of African apes have no scientific definition of either race or racism, but must resort to American English dictionaries for such information.

[Cathar1950]

Jose wrote:

I wonder...have we beaten this topic to death?

I guess not.
I think he is mixing up words.
I wonder if Lubenow is a racist? Maybe if you dig deep.
I think he wanted to sell books. It catches the eye of hopeful creationist that don't want to appear politically incorrect.

Lubenow continually resorts to the argument that overlaps between species falsify human evolution. Once it is realized that this argument is based on a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, Lubenow's book loses much of its force.

(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_lubenow.html)
It also helps that his readers misunderstand evolutionary theory.

The major theme of Bones of Contention is that the various species of hominid cannot form an evolutionary sequence because they overlap one another in time.

Firstly, he argues that a species cannot survive once it has given rise to a new species. Unlike many other creationists, he does at least attempt to give some justification for this. Supposedly, the newer, fitter descendant species, would, because of its superiority, drive its parent species to extinction. The argument is incorrect because members of the parent species may live in a separate region from the new species. If the species come into contact again, there may be no competition because they have diverged enough to occupy different ecological niches. (Many scientists would argue that even the requirement for a separate region is unnecessary.) Additionally, it is a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory to claim that a new species is "superior", in an absolute sense, to its parent species. Typically, both species will be "superior" at living in their own niches.

jcrawford wrote:

Because Lubenow had done the 'proving' that neo-Darwinism is both scientifically incorrect and racist. All I have to do is claim him as an authority on the human fossil record and neo-Darwinist racism, especially when neo-Darwinist theorists of human evolution out of the progenitors of African apes have no scientific definition of either race or racism, but must resort to American English dictionaries for such information.

I have fail to see any proving being done but mostly i see some kind of premature victory celebration. Because you claim Lubenow as an authority does not make you valid The evidence is slim highly prejudice and suspect. the reason for no scientific definition for racism as has been explained to you ad nauseum is it is cultural in nature.
I found the following interesting.
Here sin is part of his scientific evidence and of course the fall.
I question the fall of man completely even on theological grounds.
the Sin stuff is just preaching. I bet this is where al the races come from.
sin good old sin. I tell you there is some racism going on under his ideas.
Where do his conclusions end? he doesn't say racism is wrong. Maybe this is why he is not attacking evolution directly. Evolution kind of neuters racism as an idealogy or category. Where does his theory lead? I bet racism.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... humans.asp

Christian creationist anthropologist Marvin Lubenow describes the evidence of a sin nature in the (allegedly pre-Adamic) human fossil record, including examples of cannibalism, and injury due to violence, scalping and disease, including syphilis. He writes: ‘Most pre-Adamite and old-Earth advocates seem to be unfamiliar with the extent of this human fossil evidence and may not realize the full significance of what they are proposing when they place the bulk of the human fossils prior to the Fall of the Biblical Adam. … The human fossil record reveals the pre-Adamite theory to be in error. … We find in [the human fossils] the conditions we would expect to find after the Fall of Adam, not before.’11

Here was an interesting review. I can claim this guy an authority and prove I am right. By just saying so right?
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... 8?v=glance

Hmm, you'd think for such a paradigm breaking book Lubenow would have the credentials necessary for this critical analysis. No, Ph.D. in anthropology (or even in the biological sciences for that matter), no published peer-reviewed journal articles dealing with the issue at hand. If he's so correct in this, why didn't he ever submit his work to the scientific journals (where REAL science is done afterall)? He must be afraid of honest criticsim, that's why you publish to those who already agree with you, it's called preaching to the choir.
oh wait, it's probably because of the conspiracy...yeah that's it.

[McCulloch]

How many peer reviewed scientific journals has his hypotheses been published in?

Several.

Would you cite a few?

What has the been the reaction of his peers?

Marvellous, if not astounding!

citations and examples please.

Why is he presented as a leading expert in this field when the leading experts in this field have more advanced degrees than he does?

Because he is more expert than most of the leading experts in this field who have more advanced degrees than he does.

Since neither you nor I are recognized experts in this field, a bit more than an unsupported assertion is warranted as an answer to this question.

If a scientific theory was proven to be racist, that does not mean that it is necessarily wrong.

That would depend upon whether one thinks racism is right or wrong.

Actually no. One could argue that it is racist to think that certain diseases are more prevalent in certain racial groups (Sickle Cell Anemia, Tay-Sachs Disease) but science has shown that they are.

Why don't you try to prove "neo-Darwinism" is incorrect rather than try to prove that it is racist?

Because Lubenow had done the 'proving' that neo-Darwinism is both scientifically incorrect and racist. All I have to do is claim him as an authority on the human fossil record and neo-Darwinist racism, especially when neo-Darwinist theorists of human evolution out of the progenitors of African apes have no scientific definition of either race or racism, but must resort to American English dictionaries for such information.

All you have to do is demonstrate conclusively that he is an authority on human fossil records etc, present his arguments and conclusions and refute the arguments against his position made by other authorities in the field. And in this case, show that he has not been using non-standard meanings of well understood English words.

[micatala]

jcrawford wrote:
Because Lubenow had done the 'proving' that neo-Darwinism is both scientifically incorrect and racist. All I have to do is claim him as an authority on the human fossil record and neo-Darwinist racism, especially when neo-Darwinist theorists of human evolution out of the progenitors of African apes have no scientific definition of either race or racism, but must resort to American English dictionaries for such information.


McCulloch:

All you have to do is demonstrate conclusively that he is an authority on human fossil records etc, present his arguments and conclusions and refute the arguments against his position made by other authorities in the field. And in this case, show that he has not been using non-standard meanings of well understood English words.

Even if all of this is done, it still does not prove that neo-Darwinism is a racist theory. He must show, and has repeatedly refused to do so, that there is some kind of discrimination or oppression occurring based on prejudice, and that it is being done by the the theory itself. If you claim a theory is racist, it seems to me you need to show the theory is actually engaging in racism. However, theories don't engage in racism, people do. So far, all we have are repeated assertions of racism with no evidence.

Because Lubenow had done the 'proving' that neo-Darwinism is both scientifically incorrect and racist. All I have to do is claim him as an authority on the human fossil record and neo-Darwinist racism, especially when neo-Darwinist theorists of human evolution out of the progenitors of African apes have no scientific definition of either race or racism, but must resort to American English dictionaries for such information.

I have fail to see any proving being done but mostly i see some kind of premature victory celebration. Because you claim Lubenow as an authority does not make you valid The evidence is slim highly prejudice and suspect.

Yes, jcrawford seems incapable of making his arguements in any kind of objective way, and either refuses to define, or refuses to acknowledge the meaning of the terms he does use.

As has been pointed out, it doesn't matter if main stream evolutionary biology is right or wrong about the particular classifications it makes, the simple act of making the classifications is not racism.

By your logic, if I simply observe a black person and make the comment that "she is a black person" I would be racist in your eyes because I have made a classification based on observable phenomenon.

Even if I was wrong in my classification, and the person wasn't really black but was native american, I would still not be racist, not by any of the definitions of racism that have been offered by either you or the others on this thread.

I'm throwing you this softball again, jcrawford. See if you can actually take a swing at it this time instead of just dodging. Try not to miss!!

[Cathar1950]

I don't really have a bone to pick with this guy and I am not an expert in this field maybe not even an expert in any field or an expert on experts.
I do see some flaws that have been picked up on(mostly his whole thinking) and can see their point. I don't see his.

jcrawford wrote:
Because he is more expert than most of the leading experts in this field who have more advanced degrees than he does.

What kind of answer is that?Who says he is "more expert", you?
jcrawford wrote:

That would depend upon whether one thinks racism is right or wrong.

Bet you he is racist or his ideas logical go there. Anyone want to bet?
Sin , fall of Man, Come on we know where this is going. lol.
These fossils(with their primitive less-human condition) is the result of the fall. He said it I didn't(Lubenow) or as we like to call him at the shop ML. Where did they find most of these fossils? In Africa of course. Therefor the Africans are more sinful (poor looking fossils) then every one else. Yep he is racist. I am making all this scenario up. Kind of like ML.
McCulloch wrote:

All you have to do is demonstrate conclusively that he is an authority on human fossil records etc, present his arguments and conclusions and refute the arguments against his position made by other authorities in the field. And in this case, show that he has not been using non-standard meanings of well understood English words.

I have to disagree with you strongly on this one McCulloch. I don't think he has

demonstrate conclusively

anything.
Oh sorry I miss read you. Well I am still sticking with my statement following and agree with your modest list of requirements. Do you really think he can do that? he kind of reminds me of the dvd documentary" Mr. Death" it is about this guy who is an authority of executions because he fixed electric chairs , made gallows and gas chambers. Well some guy in Canada wrote this book about the holocaust never happened . The used Mr. Death as a expert witness. He went to Poland did some awful field research and came back and said there was no evidence in his opinion and he could not see how it was possible. His limited mind could not see or imagine what the records have shown to have happened. They used IBM cards for Christ's sake and trains. They still find bones in the fields. They still have survivers, pictures and witness. He reminds me of ML.

[jcrawford]

quote="micatala"

As has been pointed out, it doesn't matter if main stream evolutionary biology is right or wrong about the particular classifications it makes, the simple act of making the classifications is not racism.

Since dividing the present human race into differerent and separate 'species' based on physical characteristics and culture alone, would obviously be racist, doing the same sort of classification to the present human race's ancestors for the sole evolutionary purpose of linking a primitive 'species' of people to a 'species' of apes is a scientific form of racism, especially when those people are African people.

By your logic, if I simply observe a black person and make the comment that "she is a black person" I would be racist in your eyes because I have made a classification based on observable phenomenon.
Even if I was wrong in my classification, and the person wasn't really black but was native american, I would still not be racist, not by any of the definitions of racism that have been offered by either you or the others on this thread.

In both of these examples, the other person would obviously need to be in agreement with your "observation" of their racial classification. In any event, calling any member of the human a different 'species' without their consent certainly would be racist, no?

If you refuse to acknowledge the overwhelming fossil evidence that there were numerous hominid species living for millions of year before modern humans, that is not going to stop the court from considering it. Your charges of racism will still be found groundless.

In considering the nature of "hominid species," the court would also have to decide whether the children of U.S. taxpayers and voters have the civil right not to be called "hominids" in public schools.

Evolutionary biologists have made no racist assumptions. You and Lubenow simply assert that they do to further your own purpose of slandering them.

Lubenow and I try not to slander anyone personally by simply pointing out that is it the original neo-Darwinist theories of human origins, evolution and common descent from African ape ancestors that are a scientific form of racism, and are therefore racist theories about the common ancestry of the human race.

You still have identified no bonified oppression or ill treatment, other than your not wanting to accept the overwhelming evidence that humans evolved from non-human species.

Any public high school student who thinks that neo-Darwinist theories about human origins and evolution are racist may consider themselves racially oppressed and ill-treated by high school science teachers who teach such "scientific" theories to adolescents in public schools.

Unless you can actually give us some objective, detailed criteria for how you distinguish between extinct species, it seems to me your logic leads to the conclusion that all extinct species are actually one species.

Since some evolutionists think that H. erectus and sapiens should be combined into one species and Lubenow simply regards H. erectus as a smaller version of H. neanderthalensis, and everyone seems to agree that H. habilis is just a collection of mismatched human and Australopithicine ape fossils, I see no further reason to continue to divide the fossilized remains of the human ancestors of our human race into different and separate species anymore.

So you and Lubenow are seriously saying austrelopithicus and hominids and trilobites are all one species, and anyone who asserts they are not is a racist.

Hardly. we just consider all fossilized 'species' of people to have been full and equal members of the human race, since they were after all, the ancestral forbears of it.

By the way, did you recall that even if all the species are one species you still have not shown that this would be racism?

Calling all people, living or dead, members of the human race and one species of Human beings, would not be racist.

[jcrawford]

quote="Cathar1950"

Lubenow continually resorts to the argument that overlaps between species falsify human evolution. Once it is realized that this argument is based on a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, Lubenow's book loses much of its force.

(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_lubenow.html)
It also helps that his readers misunderstand evolutionary theory.

The major theme of Bones of Contention is that the various species of hominid cannot form an evolutionary sequence because they overlap one another in time.

Firstly, he argues that a species cannot survive once it has given rise to a new species. Unlike many other creationists, he does at least attempt to give some justification for this. Supposedly, the newer, fitter descendant species, would, because of its superiority, drive its parent species to extinction. The argument is incorrect because members of the parent species may live in a separate region from the new species. If the species come into contact again, there may be no competition because they have diverged enough to occupy different ecological niches. (Many scientists would argue that even the requirement for a separate region is unnecessary.) Additionally, it is a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory to claim that a new species is "superior", in an absolute sense, to its parent species. Typically, both species will be "superior" at living in their own niches.

Talkorigins doesn't seem to understand Lubenow's theses any better than neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution out of African primates.

Have you studied the human fossil record or even read Lubenow's 2004 edition of "Bones of Contention?" I have his extensive listings and data of hundreds of human fossil specimens should you care to discuss any of them in your support of neo-Darwinist racial theories about any of them being different and separate 'human species.'

[jcrawford]

quote="McCulloch"

One could argue that it is racist to think that certain diseases are more prevalent in certain racial groups (Sickle Cell Anemia, Tay-Sachs Disease) but science has shown that they are.

I wouldn't agree with your premise then.

All you have to do is demonstrate conclusively that he [Lubenow] is an authority on human fossil records etc, present his arguments and conclusions and refute the arguments against his position made by other authorities in the field. And in this case, show that he has not been using non-standard meanings of well understood English words.

What do you think I've been doing on this forum for the past two weeks if not refuting neo-Darwinist racial theories of human evolution out of African primates?

[jcrawford]

quote="micatala"

He must show, and has repeatedly refused to do so, that there is some kind of discrimination or oppression occurring based on prejudice, and that it is being done by the the theory itself.

You can't say that I have "repeatedly refused" to show that there is "some kind of discrimination or oppression occurring based on prejudice, and that it is being done by the the theory itself." Lord knows if I haven't been trying.

If you claim a theory is racist, it seems to me you need to show the theory is actually engaging in racism. However, theories don't engage in racism, people do. So far, all we have are repeated assertions of racism with no evidence.

Since people don't "engage in racism" without some belief or 'theory' to support their prejudices, the origin of racism may be traced back to those racial beliefs or theories about the differences 'between' human beings in either the present or the past. This, neo-Darwinists do by dividing and classifying the former human race into different and separate 'species' for the sole purpose of establishing racial connections between the human ancestors of our race and some common ancestors of monkeys. What's so difficult about understanding that?

By your logic, if I simply observe a black person and make the comment that "she is a black person" I would be racist in your eyes because I have made a classification based on observable phenomenon.
Even if I was wrong in my classification, and the person wasn't really black but was native american, I would still not be racist, not by any of the definitions of racism that have been offered by either you or the others on this thread.

I'm throwing you this softball again, jcrawford. See if you can actually take a swing at it this time instead of just dodging. Try not to miss!!

Thanks for the re-run and second chance to refute your simple analogy. How would you be able to classify anyone as "black" or Native American" without their explicit consent, permission and agreement to the shared common usage of such terms?

Try calling "black" Americans Negroes or Native Americans 'Indians' these days to see what I mean. After all, concepts and appellations of 'race' are social constructs, aren't they? And neo-Darwinst evolutionary 'scientists' would prefer to divide their common human ancestors up into different and separate 'species' than races, wouldn't they?

If you still don't get the genetic drift of Lubenow's thesis about neo-Darwinist racial theories, try this scientific 'thought' experiment: Consider the difference between 'different' races and species of humankind and let me know why you think that the fossilized remains of our Asian neandertal and African erectus brothers and sisters shouldn't be regarded as full and equal members of the so-called modern 'Homo sapiens' human race.

[micatala]

By your logic, if I simply observe a black person and make the comment that "she is a black person" I would be racist in your eyes because I have made a classification based on observable phenomenon.
Even if I was wrong in my classification, and the person wasn't really black but was native american, I would still not be racist, not by any of the definitions of racism that have been offered by either you or the others on this thread.

I'm throwing you this softball again, jcrawford. See if you can actually take a swing at it this time instead of just dodging. Try not to miss!!

Thanks for the re-run and second chance to refute your simple analogy. How would you be able to classify anyone as "black" or Native American" without their explicit consent, permission and agreement to the shared common usage of such terms?

Try calling "black" Americans Negroes or Native Americans 'Indians' these days to see what I mean. After all, concepts and appellations of 'race' are social constructs, aren't they? And neo-Darwinst evolutionary 'scientists' would prefer to divide their common human ancestors up into different and separate 'species' than races, wouldn't they?

If you still don't get the genetic drift of Lubenow's thesis about neo-Darwinist racial theories, try this scientific 'thought' experiment: Consider the difference between 'different' races and species of humankind and let me know why you think that the fossilized remains of our Asian neandertal and African erectus brothers and sisters shouldn't be regarded as full and equal members of the so-called modern 'Homo sapiens' human race.

First off, thanks for using the quote feature. It really does help!

Second, thanks for taking the swing. I wouldn't say you got a hit, but you at least fouled it off. This response at least makes some sense to me.

Yes, we do commonly consider today the feelings and opinions of people who are a part of a race or culture that has experienced oppression in how we refer to them. The key is, as is true in the case of both Blacks and Native Americans, whether there has been a history of racism and oppression directed towards them. Also, the terms negroes, indians, and even more so some of the other terms that are explicitly racial epithets were explicitly intended and used to insult and degrade people of those races. Note that we have 'new terms' to refer to these races, Black and Native American. These terms, because they do not carry the connotations of the historical oppression and racism as the previous terms, are found to be acceptable pretty much universally. So, as I have said many times, the simple act of classification does not constitute racism . There has to be more to it.

In the case of your accusations, there is no history of oppression to speak of, so your analogy with Native Americans and Blacks does not even apply, and may even be found insulting by some. Nor is there an intention to use the terms of species classification as insultes or terms of degradation.

In any event, calling any member of the human a different 'species' without their consent certainly would be racist, no?

First off, you haven't clarified in the slightest who counts as a member of the human family and who does not.

You also bring up the issue of consent.

The short answer is, no it is not racist to refer to groups of individuals using a racial classification (or even a species classification) if there is reasonable objective reasons to do so, and there is not intent or history of racism with regards to the group or the terms used, even if they are used without consent of an individual of that race (or species).


I do not believe the majority of Black people of Native American people will object to being referred to as such. A few might. However, since these terms are not intended as racial slurs, nor are they commonly considered such, there is no expectation that anyone needs permission or consent to use these terms. Nor would a person using these terms commonly be considered racist. They are part of the language of common usage and are simply not considered to be racist terms, even though they denote a racial classification.


In fact, I live in a state with a very large Native American population, and many Natives refer to each other as Indian and are fine if people of other races do so as well, as long as it is clear from the context that no insult is intended.

Again, since there is no intent to insult, nor a history of using the terms as insults or terms of degradation (at least on the part of evolutionary biologists or those who developed the modern theory of evolution), use of terms like 'homo erectus' or 'neanderthal' to refer to fossils or individuals of these groups, whether or not they are seperate species or races or not is not racist in the slightest. One might make the case that the term 'neanderthal' has been used in an insulting manner occasionally by some people, but this is a non-scientific bastardization of the scientific usage. This might be similar in a sense to how some have used the word 'heathen' from English translations of the Bible (or infidels in the Koran) as an insult.

In any case, because there is no history of oppression of the 'human race' on the basis of evolutionary theory, and because the terms do not commonly convey any sort of 'racial slur' connotation, your analogy does not hold. I suppose if one might consider Lubenow's book and your thread as an attempt to create these connotations.

micatala:
If you claim a theory is racist, it seems to me you need to show the theory is actually engaging in racism. However, theories don't engage in racism, people do. So far, all we have are repeated assertions of racism with no evidence.

jcrawford:
Since people don't "engage in racism" without some belief or 'theory' to support their prejudices, the origin of racism may be traced back to those racial beliefs or theories about the differences 'between' human beings in either the present or the past. This, neo-Darwinists do by dividing and classifying the former human race into different and separate 'species' for the sole purpose of establishing racial connections between the human ancestors of our race and some common ancestors of monkeys. What's so difficult about understanding that?

Yes, it is true that racists often have some sort of 'theory' or ideological underpinning to try to justify their racism. But it is fallacious to conclude that a theory is racist because racists use it as a justification, especially if the use is really a misuse. As has been pointed out earlier in this thread, white people have in the past (and even the present!) used the Bible to justify both slavery and racism. Does this mean the Bible is a racist book and Christianity a racist religion? It would seem by your logic that we would have to conclude so. I reject this logic as no logic at all.

This, neo-Darwinists do by dividing and classifying the former human race into different and separate 'species' for the sole purpose of establishing racial connections between the human ancestors of our race and some common ancestors of monkeys.

This comment deserves special mention because it again slanders neo-Darwinists (whoever they are) by ascribing false motives to them. Evolutionary biologists do not create classifications in order to achieve the end of linking men with monkeys, as you claim, they do so to create a language with which to discuss the fossil evidence and create an explanation for how the evidence became as we see it. The fact that they have concluded that humans have descended from a non-human species is incidental to the terminology, and is a conclusion based on the evidence, not a pre-determined goal that they wished to achieve. This is unfortunately a common false charge made against evolution and it is false and slanderous, especially when racist motives are falsely ascribed.

I can only guess that the reason creationists fall prey to this fallacy is that they are so emotionally committed to trying to denigrate evolution that they easily ascribe questionable motives to 'the enemy' that are not there at all.

And neo-Darwinst evolutionary 'scientists' would prefer to divide their common human ancestors up into different and separate 'species' than races, wouldn't they?

Although this comment was part of a quote I referred to above, it also deserves special mention because it again ascribes false motives. Scientists don't have any 'preference' about ascribing fossils to one species or another, or the same species. The simply try to classify them as best they can given the information they have. We could certainly get into the details about how the fossils have been classified, and whether the classifications are correct or not, but regardless, they are not racist classifications and although you have been trying (Lord knows) you still haven't shown they are (IMV because you and Lubenow are trying to prove something that is false).[/b]