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.

[ST88]

Now you're saying that it's racist because of the entire race's ancestors being apes. Leaving aside the truth of either of those statements, what is it -- exactly you find racist about the theory?

Everything that neo-Darwinist theories say about the origins of the human race out of Africa is a scientific form of racism since all the particulars in such theories deal with both the origins of the entire historic human race and the origins of each and every particular population group in human history.

I keep reading that over and over again to get a clue as to what you're talking about, but your inferences escape me.

You appear to be suggesting that because races other than Africans must have necessarily evolved from Africans, it follows that the subsequent races are thought of as "more evolved"; is this it? Are you claiming that Asians, for example, are thought of as "more evolved" than Africans because the Asian plains were populated later in human history?

[jcrawford]

As you say, you and I are, indeed, classified in the Hominidae, among the great apes.

Not as I say, Jose. Including and labeling the Human Family, Kingdom and Race as sub-members of the neo-Darwinist racial family of Great Apes wasn't my idea! Apes are a different 'kind' of life-form than human beings are. Don't you agree?

However, that classification is not based on evolutionary theory; it's based on the characteristics that we happen to have in common.

Yes, of course Jose, but aren't we such marvellous creatures as to warrant our own taxonomic classification of Human Kingdom, Family and Race? If only to biologically distinguish ourselves from a dumb neo-Darwinist family of apes who couldn't 'intelligently design' a phyologenetic taxonomy if their banana supply depended on it?

TCB;

[Jose]

As you say, you and I are, indeed, classified in the Hominidae, among the great apes.

Not as I say, Jose. Including and labeling the Human Family, Kingdom and Race as sub-members of the neo-Darwinist racial family of Great Apes wasn't my idea! Apes are a different 'kind' of life-form than human beings are. Don't you agree?

I thought you did say it. It was in a previous post. Still, it wasn't your idea, nor was it mine, nor was it the idea of any Darwinist of any flavor. It started with Linneaus.

Are apes a different kind of life form? It depends on how you define "kind." Genetically and anatomically, we're pretty darned similar. Maybe that's why eating Chimpanzees enabled SIV to hop to humans and become HIV. Still, there are enough differences to warrant classifying the other apes as different species from us--which, according to your definition, is racism.

You can't have it both ways, and say that classifying some of our relatives as other species is racism, while at the same time insisting that others of our relatives are a different kind of life-form. Either they're all part of the Human Race, or it's not "racism" to call them different species. Make up your mind.

However, that classification is not based on evolutionary theory; it's based on the characteristics that we happen to have in common.

Yes, of course Jose, but aren't we such marvellous creatures as to warrant our own taxonomic classification of Human Kingdom, Family and Race? If only to biologically distinguish ourselves from a dumb neo-Darwinist family of apes who couldn't 'intelligently design' a phyologenetic taxonomy if their banana supply depended on it?

We have our own taxonomic classification. It's called "humans." Unfortunately, the characteristics that define the animal kingdom, the eutherian mammals, the primates, and the hominidae also happen to fit us. There's no biological reason to pretend that we are somehow "special" just because we can have philosophical discussions. That idea is based on ancient peoples' attempts to understand their world, in the absence of any scientific information. The bible happens to present it in the form of Genesis. Other peoples' explanations present it differently. What's common among them is usually that some extra-powerful Being did things to make the world the way it is, and then either left, or provided us with free will and covenants that he wouldn't change things again for a while. Seen from the viewpoint of >2000 years ago, sure, people seem special. Seen from the viewpoint of genetic and molecular analysis, we're just one of many slight variations on the general theme of living things. Far from bothering me because I've "lost my special purpose," that information helps me understand other life forms much better, and gives me a much deeper understanding of my real place in the universe.

[Sender]

As you say, you and I are, indeed, classified in the Hominidae, among the great apes.

Not as I say, Jose. Including and labeling the Human Family, Kingdom and Race as sub-members of the neo-Darwinist racial family of Great Apes wasn't my idea! Apes are a different 'kind' of life-form than human beings are. Don't you agree?

I thought you did say it. It was in a previous post. Still, it wasn't your idea, nor was it mine, nor was it the idea of any Darwinist of any flavor. It started with Linneaus.

Are apes a different kind of life form? It depends on how you define "kind." Genetically and anatomically, we're pretty darned similar. Maybe that's why eating Chimpanzees enabled SIV to hop to humans and become HIV. Still, there are enough differences to warrant classifying the other apes as different species from us--which, according to your definition, is racism.

You can't have it both ways, and say that classifying some of our relatives as other species is racism, while at the same time insisting that others of our relatives are a different kind of life-form. Either they're all part of the Human Race, or it's not "racism" to call them different species. Make up your mind.

However, that classification is not based on evolutionary theory; it's based on the characteristics that we happen to have in common.

Yes, of course Jose, but aren't we such marvellous creatures as to warrant our own taxonomic classification of Human Kingdom, Family and Race? If only to biologically distinguish ourselves from a dumb neo-Darwinist family of apes who couldn't 'intelligently design' a phyologenetic taxonomy if their banana supply depended on it?

We have our own taxonomic classification. It's called "humans." Unfortunately, the characteristics that define the animal kingdom, the eutherian mammals, the primates, and the hominidae also happen to fit us. There's no biological reason to pretend that we are somehow "special" just because we can have philosophical discussions. That idea is based on ancient peoples' attempts to understand their world, in the absence of any scientific information. The bible happens to present it in the form of Genesis. Other peoples' explanations present it differently. What's common among them is usually that some extra-powerful Being did things to make the world the way it is, and then either left, or provided us with free will and covenants that he wouldn't change things again for a while. Seen from the viewpoint of >2000 years ago, sure, people seem special. Seen from the viewpoint of genetic and molecular analysis, we're just one of many slight variations on the general theme of living things. Far from bothering me because I've "lost my special purpose," that information helps me understand other life forms much better, and gives me a much deeper understanding of my real place in the universe.

What's with the "most civil debater" under your name? Is that just another way to pat ourselves on the back and comfirm we are great? Come on folks, it's a silly imo. I mean who decided that? How many people was up for that? This gets funnier all the time.

[Jose]

What's with the "most civil debater" under your name? Is that just another way to pat ourselves on the back and comfirm we are great? Come on folks, it's a silly imo. I mean who decided that? How many people was up for that? This gets funnier all the time.

It is pretty silly, isn't it? As I understand it, in December, Otseng put up a bunch of things for people to vote for. People voted. Frankly, I don't know how many people voted.

It's pretty ironic, isn't it? Some of the folks I've debated with haven't much cared for the results of that vote. But then, that's the way of voting. I don't much care for the results of the 2004 elections, but that's how it worked out. I guess the appellation is a result of my stunning writing style, and the fact that I don't call people doodoo-heads when I disagree with them.

And, like everyone here, I know my arguments are right, so there's no point in being uncivil.

[Sender]

And, like everyone here, I know my arguments are right, so there's no point in being uncivil. [/quote]

My sentiments exactly. It really is hard to be humble isn't it? Even moreso until getting humbled.

[Jose]

That's part of what makes it so much fun. Here we are, all convinced we're right, but there are these other guys who just don't buy it. This leads to a general feeling of "huh?" The fun part of having these discussions is that we not only learn better ways of crafting our arguments, but we also learn from the other guys. "Gee...maybe my argument isn't so good after all." or: "Hmmm...although I know (or maybe kinda think) that my view is right, these other guys have different views--and must have come to them through perfectly valid mechanisms. Maybe they aren't just trying to make fun of me, but are actually sincerely trying to help me learn something." After all, we can't ever learn anything new if we always talk to people who think the exact same things that we do.

What puzzles me is that it seems to be so easy to get into such intense arguments. It seems to me that science and religion are--or should be--entirely compatible, yet there are those who are ready to hurl obscenities when the idea is mentioned (not here, though, thanks to otseng). We had a letter to the editor in our newspaper a while back, saying that anyone with a Darwin Fish on their car should be arrested for a hate crime. Hence my avatar: fish with feet and little crosses for eyes. It's too small to see clearly, though.

[Sender]

[quote="Jose"]That's part of what makes it so much fun. Here we are, all convinced we're right, but there are these other guys who just don't buy it. This leads to a general feeling of "huh?" The fun part of having these discussions is that we not only learn better ways of crafting our arguments, but we also learn from the other guys. "Gee...maybe my argument isn't so good after all." or: "Hmmm...although I know (or maybe kinda think) that my view is right, these other guys have different views--and must have come to them through perfectly valid mechanisms. Maybe they aren't just trying to make fun of me, but are actually sincerely trying to help me learn something." After all, we can't ever learn anything new if we always talk to people who think the exact same things that we do.

Are you talking to you are me? lol

[Chimp]

No, he meant me

Actually ( in my relatively short time here ) I have seen Jose defuse some
of the more tense debates ( which had degenerated into posturing ) using
his calm "voice". Then again he and I haven't butted heads....yet

[Sender]

No, he meant me

Actually ( in my relatively short time here ) I have seen Jose defuse some
of the more tense debates ( which had degenerated into posturing ) using
his calm "voice". Then again he and I haven't butted heads....yet

You have avoided my question, what did you mean by "serious debater"?