Evolutionist Discrimination in Public Education.

[jcrawford]

There are currently five categories which the U.S. legally recognizes in which persons may voluntarily identify and classify themselves as, according to their self-evident, self-recognized and self-identified common ancestral racial traits of national and geographic origins. None of these categories are Homo sapiens.

http://atlas.usafa.af.mil/meo/Discri~1.htm

http://www.withylaw.com/distopic.htm

http://www.wvf.state.wv.us/eeo/NO.htm

http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/dcr/Basis.htm

http://www.niehs.nih.gov/oeeo/national.htm

As far as the U.S. legal system is concerned, there does not seem to be any legally protected class of persons called Homo sapiens or any ancestral category of persons named Homo erectus from whom Homo sapiens are believed by neo-Darwinists to have descended.

Since it may reasonably be considered to be a violation of their civil rights to have their human ancestors related to, or called, anything other than what the U.S. Government recognizes as legally protected classes of persons, I respectfully submit that teachers and students in U.S. public school systems who publically volunteer to self-identify and self-classify themselves as members of any of the legally recognized and protected classes of persons established by law, may not be involuntarily labeled and classified as Homo sapiens in public schools without their written consent or the written consent of their parents or legal guardians.

Otherwise, if state governments continue to mandate and impose evolutionary neo-Darwinist beliefs and teachings about the human ancestry of the five legitimate racial catagories in which students and teachers have voluntarily chosen to identify and classify themselves as, then public school students and teachers have every right to sue the state for civil rights violations and a redress of racial and ancestral grievances.

[micatala]

Obviously everyone is free to participate or not participate in threads as they see fit.

My humble suggestion, however, is that this thread should be ignored. We are merely going over the same tired territory that we went over ad nauseum in the Bones of Contention Thread. John is very consistent, and he is not, in my opinion, going to change his views or engage the issue in a reasonable manner. His posts are characterized by wild, unsubstantiated assertions (see all the equals signs above for one small example) that seem mostly calculated to provoke emotional response while evading logical discourse.

[McCulloch]

In Europe any grade school kids knows the difference between Communism, Socialism and Marxism. Not in this country even educated adults Marxism = Socialism = Communism = Liberal = Atheist = left and so on.

In America, Marxism = Socialism = Communism = Liberal = Atheist = left and totalitarian neo-Darwinism. They all add up to scientific racism and facism.
That's what the Muslims don't like about America. The neo-Darwinists have turned us into social, scientific and atheistic imperialists.

I personally think that JCrawford's response only reinforces the accuracy of Cathar's point. Now, let's please get back to debating the issue and away from pointless labeling and name calling.

There are currently five categories which the U.S. legally recognizes in which persons may voluntarily identify and classify themselves as, according to their self-evident, self-recognized and self-identified common ancestral racial traits of national and geographic origins. None of these categories are Homo sapiens.

Perhaps the reason why the US and other jurisdictions do not recognize Homo sapiens as a classification of human is the rather self-evident one that all humans are Homo sapiens. "Homo sapiens" is the term used by biological scientists to refer to our species. If you disagree with this term or with the taxonomy commonly used by scientists, then post your objection and reasons for it in Should humans be removed from animal classification?

[jcrawford]

jcrawford

I've been told by some in this forum that I should be nice to you and not point out the obvious problem you seem to be having with...shall we say the real world, this despite the fact you spew your racist... shall we say refuse all over the people of this forum. I'll do my

While I don't demand that you go from being grumpy to nice overnight, it is nice to hear from you in a more mellow mood, Grumpy, since there is no advantage to either of us in calling other posters names or making wild charges against them personally . I think that's called ad hominem comments and remarks which only serve to distract poster's attention from the intellectual ideas in the topic under discussion and debate. However, I do appreciate your earnest endeavors to do your whatever in this regard.

PS Dion, I appologize on John's behalf, he didn't know what he was doing, Grumpy Dion...That's just not right.

I apologize to both you and Dion, Grumpy, for considering you all the same person, but Dion looks so much like you in his picture that I actually thought he was you. Now that I know that he is just using your picture and is not really you, I shall refrain from lumping you all together and confusing Dion with Grumpy.

Maybe now that we have sorted out, re-established and asserted our own unique personal identities, you, I and Dion can discuss the topic of imposing neo-Darwinist species of African ancestry on other racial groups in America a little more intelligently.

[jcrawford]

Now, let's please get back to debating the issue and away from pointless labeling and name calling.

I second the emotion.

There are currently five categories which the U.S. legally recognizes in which persons may voluntarily identify and classify themselves as, according to their self-evident, self-recognized and self-identified common ancestral racial traits of national and geographic origins. None of these categories are Homo sapiens.

Perhaps the reason why the US and other jurisdictions do not recognize Homo sapiens as a classification of human is the rather self-evident one that all humans are Homo sapiens.

It's not self-evident at all that any human being is Homo sapiens other than neo-Darwinist race theorists who are within their right to self-label themselves as such. All other racial groups are equally entitled to establish their own ancestral origins for purposes of census-taking and legally upholding their civil rights when denied them.

"Homo sapiens" is the term used by biological scientists to refer to our species.

Homo sapiens is a term used by biological scientists to refer to only one of their species since neo-Darwinists claim ancestral descent from many species. Human beings, people and persons are the terms normally used to refer to themselves by most racial groups and government in the U.S. and neo-Darwinists have no right to impose their ancestral labels on other racial groups in public institutions.

[Dion]

jcrawford

Gosh! You seem to be a trifle upset by my comments.

Still, you do appear to be handling your anger in the best possible way. That's right - let it all out - call me whatever insulting name you can think of. I'm sure you'll feel much better for it. I have to say, however, that ‘cultural, social or scientific’ are not terms that I would normally consider abusive - but you obviously come at these things from a different angle. (Though I think 'French' is taking things a little too far. There are limits you know, old chap!)

My apologies are also extended to the few sane Americans who may be reading these diatribes and polemics, since ever since Darwinism came to America, half of the country seems to be in a perpetual psychological state of neo-Darwinization.

That would be the sane half.

Wanna bet? What do you think civil rights laws exist for, if not to protect five racial classes of human beings from each other, and to provide a legislative process whereby contestants can settle political disputes over past racial injustices?

Civil rights laws exist to protect peoples’ civil rights. Not to suggest that any person, regardless of ethnic origin, may not belong to the species Homo sapiens sapiens; i.e. that they are not human.

BS. International scientists don't run this country any more than any other group of international conspirators do. Just look at the mess international scientists have created up till now. The American people won't even let American scientists dominate them, much less international anti-American scientists.

I am very far from being anti-American; indeed I have always had a considerable fondness and respect for America and the American people. You must understand, therefore, that we international scientific conspirators are only trying to take over America for your own good!

Tell me, do you live in a cabin in the mountains and spend a lot of your time polishing your rifle and muttering dark things about the Federal Government?



I did ponder for some time on what further reply I should make to your post; but how does one respond meaningfully to such total gibberish?



Except for the term ‘colonialist’, of course. No one has ever called me a colonialist before. It’s true I actually was born in one of the colonies where my father was stationed with the Royal Navy. But still, colonialist? It is more than two hundred years since 1776 you know. OK. So you made a terrible mistake, I know, but you really must try to get over it and move on.

Anyway, I’m sure Her Majesty would have you back if you asked nicely.


Colonialist? Hmm? Does have a certain ring to it, don’t you think?

I wonder how easy it would be to change my screen name …

[McCulloch]

There are currently five categories which the U.S. legally recognizes in which persons may voluntarily identify and classify themselves as, according to their self-evident, self-recognized and self-identified common ancestral racial traits of national and geographic origins. None of these categories are Homo sapiens.

Perhaps the reason why the US and other jurisdictions do not recognize Homo sapiens as a classification of human is the rather self-evident one that all humans are Homo sapiens.

It's not self-evident at all that any human being is Homo sapiens other than neo-Darwinist race theorists who are within their right to self-label themselves as such. All other racial groups are equally entitled to establish their own ancestral origins for purposes of census-taking and legally upholding their civil rights when denied them.

Would you be able to identify a 'racial group' of humans who, contrary to their civil rights, believe and have expressed the belief that they are descended from something other than Homo sapiens?

"Homo sapiens" is the term used by biological scientists to refer to our species.

Homo sapiens is a term used by biological scientists to refer to only one of their species since neo-Darwinists claim ancestral descent from many species.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that biological taxonomy was in use prior to the development of the theory of evolution. This taxonomy is a useful way to categorize the life forms on our planet, regardless of your views about how these life forms got here. Within that taxonomy, humans fit within the mammals, the primates as a species scientists call Homo sapiens. Until you find that one group of humans are incapable of interbreeding with another group of humans, the human race is one species, by definition.
Evolutionary scientists believe that this one species, to which we belong, has evolved from one other species. This other species evolved from one other species and so forth back to a common ancestral species for all of the great apes.
Some creation scientists believe that this one species, to which we belong, was created by a direct act of supernatural being (God).
Either way, humans (AKA Homo sapiens) are one species. As I understand your position, you are claiming that some of the fossils which evolutionary scientists have identified as other species of Homo are, in fact, the same species (i.e. would have been able to interbreed with) as modern humans. Therefore it is your contention that, for instance, the Neanderthals (called by evolutionary scientists Homo neanderthalensis) belong as part of the species Homo sapiens. What I do not understand is why you do not make your claim as such. Why is it that you seem to want to dismantle the quite useful taxonomy used by both evolutionary and creation biologists? I have created a thread, Should humans be removed from animal classification? for this topic.

I believe that this definition from http://www.evfit.com/glossary.htm, which pre-dates Darwin is useful to all biological scientists regardless of their view on the evidence about evolution.

• Homo sapiens - Carl Linnaeus named our species Homo sapiens in his Systema Naturae published in 1758. J R and P H Napier write: "In 1758 it must have seemed rather controversial to place man squarely in the animal kingdom, but anatomical characteristics compelled Linnaeus to do so." Linnaeus cited the inscription at the Temple of Apollo at Delphi: 'Nosce te ipsum' (know thyself). "Linnaeus implied, first, that man is the only being capable of studying his own anatomy and physiology and his moral and political propensities and, second, that this self-knowledge is the first step on the road to wisdom. This concept underlies the use of what would otherwise seem the rather smug adjective with which Linnaeus named the human race Homo sapiens, or wise man."

[Scrotum]

Carl von Linne was Swedish man. Hence, an evil heathen atheist... Like We all Swedes are...


You cant use HIM as reference

[Cathar1950]

First I would like to apologize for using = signs micatala and I was not name calling. I didn't use the = because I am lazy. I wanted to just list them and say they are all considered equal because I am lazy.
Although my little fingers did get irate when I read "pinky".
I was just saying that we Americans can take the most complex ideas and make them look stupid when entering the public forum because they are not understood. It seems that if it doesn't fit on a bumper sticker it is not fit for consumption or consideration. Science=politics=religion=bumpersticker=ok. Kind of look at it as a truth table?
micatala wrote:

My humble suggestion, however, is that this thread should be ignored. We are merely going over the same tired territory that we went over ad nauseum in the Bones of Contention Thread. John is very consistent, and he is not, in my opinion, going to change his views or engage the issue in a reasonable manner. His posts are characterized by wild, unsubstantiated assertions (see all the equals signs above for one small example) that seem mostly calculated to provoke emotional response while evading logical discourse.

What micatala wrote=what Cathar1950 feels.
It does seem redundant ad nauseum.
Discrimination in education occurs and should not is an interesting topic and we have laws to prevent it but it still happens. But it has nothing to do with evolution except that it has evolved. Well Simpsons are on, got to go.

[jcrawford]

It's not self-evident at all that any human being is Homo sapiens other than neo-Darwinist race theorists who are within their right to self-label themselves as such. All other racial groups are equally entitled to establish their own ancestral origins for purposes of census-taking and legally upholding their civil rights when denied them.

Would you be able to identify a 'racial group' of humans who, contrary to their civil rights, believe and have expressed the belief that they are descended from something other than Homo sapiens?

Since it is not "contrary to their civil rights" for a racial group to "express the belief" and legal claim, that their ancestors were human beings like themselves and not some neo-Darwinist species of Homo sapiens or Homo erectus, any racial group in America is would be legally identifiable and entitled to "believe and have expressed the belief that they are descended from something other than Homo sapiens."

Since most racial groups in America are on record as having declared their origin and descent from a supernatural Being, the question becomes inverted to ask which racial group denies it's origin and descent from a supernatural Being and insists instead, on asserting that all racial varieties of human beings in America descended from African ancestors? I would humbly submit that it is mainly white biology professors of European ancestry who try to impose their own neo-Darwinist version of racial ancestry on other racial groups in America.

[jcrawford]

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that biological taxonomy was in use prior to the development of the theory of evolution. This taxonomy is a useful way to categorize the life forms on our planet, regardless of your views about how these life forms got here. Within that taxonomy, humans fit within the mammals, the primates as a species scientists call Homo sapiens. Until you find that one group of humans are incapable of interbreeding with another group of humans, the human race is one species, by definition.

Yes, I follow your logical rationale here, McCulloch, but since racial groups other than Anglo-Saxon neo-Darwinists don't find "that one group of humans are incapable of interbreeding with another group of humans," but statistically find that all leading theorists of neo-Darwinist race theories are mainly self-identified Homo sapiens of Anglo-Saxon descent, they are equally justified in claiming and asserting their own unique racial ancestry despite neo-Darwinist objections to the contrary. See my post #13 or 14 for further detailed elaboration.