Bones of Contention.
Moderator: Moderators
Bones of Contention.
Post #1Creationist 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.
Post #91
quote="perfessor"
"Who is suffering from racial discrimination? This is the simple question you must answer. The answer cannot be "everyone", by definition."
The whole human race is suffereing from racial discrimination by neo-Darwinsts who classify former ancestral members of the human race as different and separate 'species?'
"If, as you have implied, the Neandertal line is alive and well present day, then this counters your argument, since they are no longer classified as such and are granted all rights shared by other humans."
Classifying Neandertal descendents as Homo sapiens is racist.
"Are vikings being denied voting rights? I'm one quarter viking, BTW, and I always vote at least once."
You are confusing civil rights and political racism with neo-Darwinist racial theories of human evolution.
"Now: please answer the question from my earlier post. Who is being victimized by racial discrimination as a result of evolutionary theory?"
We all are, since neo-Darwinists infer that all members of the human race are racial descendents of some woman named African Eve or some common ancestor of some species or race of sub-human African apes.
"Who is suffering from racial discrimination? This is the simple question you must answer. The answer cannot be "everyone", by definition."
The whole human race is suffereing from racial discrimination by neo-Darwinsts who classify former ancestral members of the human race as different and separate 'species?'
"If, as you have implied, the Neandertal line is alive and well present day, then this counters your argument, since they are no longer classified as such and are granted all rights shared by other humans."
Classifying Neandertal descendents as Homo sapiens is racist.
"Are vikings being denied voting rights? I'm one quarter viking, BTW, and I always vote at least once."
You are confusing civil rights and political racism with neo-Darwinist racial theories of human evolution.
"Now: please answer the question from my earlier post. Who is being victimized by racial discrimination as a result of evolutionary theory?"
We all are, since neo-Darwinists infer that all members of the human race are racial descendents of some woman named African Eve or some common ancestor of some species or race of sub-human African apes.
Post #92
quote="micatala"
"We could consider other definitions, but the point is that it doesn't really matter what definition you use. If there is no discrimination or oppresion, there is no racism."
Why do you only accept your definition of 'racism' and reject Oxford's dictionary definition of race as irrelevent to the concept of 'racism.'
"In addition, it has already been pointed out that, although the races we currently speak of have characteristics which are genetically determined, the concept of race itself is not an evolutionary concept. "
Is 'racism' an evolutionist concept? If not, where are you coming from?
"Thus, evolution and evolutionary biologists are not racist, at least not in the course of doing their scientific work (of course, if they are members of the Klan, that is another story, but that is unrelated to evolution or their work as biologists)."
No one said that evolutionists or biologists were racists. Lubenow's thesis is just that neo-Darwinist 'theories' of human evolution are racist.
"You should be able to answer how evolution is racist without quibbling about the definition of race. "
Quibbling? You want to tell me what racism is without even knowing what a race is?
"Alternatively, since you insist evolution is racist, then go ahead and give us your definition of race by which you come to that conclusion, and then explain with specifics how the racism is occuring with examples. "
I told you. I use the American edition of the Oxford Dictionary as reference for the meaning of the term 'race.' Based on that definition, dividing our human ancestors up into different and separate 'species' is a scientific form of racism.
Who's hurt and discriminated against by such neo-Darwinist racism? All the modern descendents of our human ancestral members of the former human race.
"We could consider other definitions, but the point is that it doesn't really matter what definition you use. If there is no discrimination or oppresion, there is no racism."
Why do you only accept your definition of 'racism' and reject Oxford's dictionary definition of race as irrelevent to the concept of 'racism.'
"In addition, it has already been pointed out that, although the races we currently speak of have characteristics which are genetically determined, the concept of race itself is not an evolutionary concept. "
Is 'racism' an evolutionist concept? If not, where are you coming from?
"Thus, evolution and evolutionary biologists are not racist, at least not in the course of doing their scientific work (of course, if they are members of the Klan, that is another story, but that is unrelated to evolution or their work as biologists)."
No one said that evolutionists or biologists were racists. Lubenow's thesis is just that neo-Darwinist 'theories' of human evolution are racist.
"You should be able to answer how evolution is racist without quibbling about the definition of race. "
Quibbling? You want to tell me what racism is without even knowing what a race is?
"Alternatively, since you insist evolution is racist, then go ahead and give us your definition of race by which you come to that conclusion, and then explain with specifics how the racism is occuring with examples. "
I told you. I use the American edition of the Oxford Dictionary as reference for the meaning of the term 'race.' Based on that definition, dividing our human ancestors up into different and separate 'species' is a scientific form of racism.
Who's hurt and discriminated against by such neo-Darwinist racism? All the modern descendents of our human ancestral members of the former human race.
Post #93
Dude, dude, go back and read your definition. If the entire human race is being discriminated against, that's not racism.jcrawford wrote:The whole human race is suffereing from racial discrimination by neo-Darwinsts ....perfessor wrote:"Who is suffering from racial discrimination? This is the simple question you must answer. The answer cannot be "everyone", by definition."
If I understand you right - classifying Neandertals as a separate species is racist - and classifying them as Homo Sapiens is also racist - tell me, what would not be racist???jcrawford wrote:Classifying Neandertal descendents as Homo sapiens is racist.perfessor wrote:"If, as you have implied, the Neandertal line is alive and well present day, then this counters your argument, since they are no longer classified as such and are granted all rights shared by other humans."
You know, if your argument was that bad science was victimizing humanity by "hiding the truth" or some such piffle, I could at least understand your point. But your racism charge makes no sense. While you are correct that "all members of the human race are racial descendents of some woman named African Eve or some common ancestor", you have utterly failed to show how that denigrates anyone.jcrawford wrote:We all are, since neo-Darwinists infer that all members of the human race are racial descendents of some woman named African Eve or some common ancestor of some species or race of sub-human African apes.perfessor wrote:"Now: please answer the question from my earlier post. Who is being victimized by racial discrimination as a result of evolutionary theory?"
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."
Post #94
quote="perfessor"
"If the entire human race is being discriminated against, that's not racism."
Why not? Isn't the entire human race as much a race, as any other?
"If I understand you right - classifying Neandertals as a separate species is racist - and classifying them as Homo Sapiens is also racist - tell me, what would not be racist???"
Classifying all human beings (dead or alive) as full and equal members of the human race would not be racist. Categorizing our human ancestors as different and separate 'species' is racist.
"You know, if your argument was that bad science was victimizing humanity by "hiding the truth" or some such piffle, I could at least understand your point. But your racism charge makes no sense. "
It makes sense to me ever since I read Lubenow's revolutionary thesis.
"While you are correct that "all members of the human race are racial descendents of some woman named African Eve or some common ancestor", you have utterly failed to show how that denigrates anyone."
The African Eve theory utterly denigrates all ancestral claims to original Chinese, Indian, European, Near East, Asian, Australian and Native American origin by associating their human ancestors with non-human ancestors of African apes.
"If the entire human race is being discriminated against, that's not racism."
Why not? Isn't the entire human race as much a race, as any other?
"If I understand you right - classifying Neandertals as a separate species is racist - and classifying them as Homo Sapiens is also racist - tell me, what would not be racist???"
Classifying all human beings (dead or alive) as full and equal members of the human race would not be racist. Categorizing our human ancestors as different and separate 'species' is racist.
"You know, if your argument was that bad science was victimizing humanity by "hiding the truth" or some such piffle, I could at least understand your point. But your racism charge makes no sense. "
It makes sense to me ever since I read Lubenow's revolutionary thesis.
"While you are correct that "all members of the human race are racial descendents of some woman named African Eve or some common ancestor", you have utterly failed to show how that denigrates anyone."
The African Eve theory utterly denigrates all ancestral claims to original Chinese, Indian, European, Near East, Asian, Australian and Native American origin by associating their human ancestors with non-human ancestors of African apes.
Post #95
This again begs the question, which has been asked repeatedly, how are you deciding which fossils represent humans and which do not?. Is homo habilis human? Why are why not? Is Turkana boy? Why or why not? What about Lucy? Is a chimp human? why or why not? Is a chimp who lived 100,000 years ago human? Why or why not?jcrawford wrote:Classifying all human beings (dead or alive) as full and equal members of the human race would not be racist. Categorizing our human ancestors as different and separate 'species' is racist.
You have refused, even though it has been explained that you should be able to do it, to say how evolution is a racist theory without having a definition of race. OK. Let's go back to your definitions.
Which of these 8 are you using? You have accused evolutionists of not being able to define race. Specify exactly what you mean by race. Then say exactly what you mean by the human race.Race: noun.
1 each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics.
2 a tribe, nation, etc., regarded as a distinct ethnic stock.
3 the fact or concept of division into races (discrimination based on race).
4 a genus, species, breed or variety of animals, plants or micro-organisms.
5 a group of persons, animals or plants connected by common descent.
6 any great division of living creatures (the feathered race, the four-footed race).
7 descent; kindred (of noble race; separate in language and race).
8 a class of persons etc., with some common feature (the race of poets).
Here also are your definitions related to racism.
I note you left out the definition of racialism. Our library's Oxford English defines it as.racial: adjective.
1 of or concerning race (racial diversities; racial minority).
2 on the grounds of or connected with difference in race (racial discrimination; racial tension).
racialism: noun. = RACISM
racism: noun.
1a a belief in the superiority of a particular race; prejudice based on this.
b antagonism toward other races, especially as a result of this.
2 the theory that human abilities, etc
Classifying all human beings (dead or alive) as full and equal members of the human race would not be racist. Categorizing our human ancestors as different and separate 'species' is racist.., are determined by race.
1 includes and refers to racialism, apartheid, jim crowism, chauvinism and bigotry.
racist: noun. see SUPREMACIST.
racist: adjective. racialist, prejudiced, chauvinistic, bigoted.
I will note that all the examples cited in our Oxford relate to modern human races, as I have noted before. Obviously language can be an ambiguous thing, but common usage is certainly a good guide, perhaps the best guide in deciding what words mean. Common usage (as I have pointed out before) would say that when using racism and race in the same context, the latter would refer to our usual modern races (eg. black, white, asian, etc.).belief in the superiority of a particular race leading to prejudice and antagonsim towards people of other races
In addition, I believe you left something out of one of your definitions of racism, namely the bolded definition above. It says in full:
By your own definitions, and whatever definition of race you want to use, evolution is not racist. It does not include prejudice or a belief in superiority. It does not include the theory that "distinctive human characteristics and qualities are determined by race." Evolution merely explains the fossil and other data that we have concerning life on earth. The fact that you don't like the explanation does not make the explanation racist.the theory that distincitive human characteristics and qualities are determined by race.
Your entire arguement is based on misusing words in order to make the slanderous charge the evolution is a racist theory.
Post #96
Gee whiz, micatala. I was gearing up to say just that as I read your post, and then you went ahead and did it yourself! I agree completely. The entire purpose of this silliness of defining "racist" in a vague way is so that this flavor of anti-evolutionists can say "evolution is racist" and have other people who don't know the facts believe that teaching or accepting evolution causes ethnic tension. It's all a trick, based on the tradition of misleading by using private definitions of terms. It's worse, and more despicable, in this case, because the users of the terms (eg Lubenow) know perfectly well what the standard definition is, yet persist in using the term incorrectly.micatala wrote:Your entire arguement is based on misusing words in order to make the slanderous charge the evolution is a racist theory.
I wonder...have we beaten this topic to death?
Panza llena, corazon contento
Post #98
This is more a point of...err...technical order...it was very confusing
trying to sort out who was saying what in some of the posts...seemed
like a crazy person arguing with himself.
if you want to quote someone, you can hit the quote button, which
does the auto quotes...or
you can do it manually...
[ + quote + ] <-- start of quote ( remove "+"'s )
Words that will be quoted
[ + / + quote + ] <-- end of quote
Each quote needs the start and end tag to read correctly....it's easy to
make a mistake...use the preview button ( spell check wouldn't hurt either
)
trying to sort out who was saying what in some of the posts...seemed
like a crazy person arguing with himself.
if you want to quote someone, you can hit the quote button, which
does the auto quotes...or
you can do it manually...
[ + quote + ] <-- start of quote ( remove "+"'s )
Words that will be quoted
[ + / + quote + ] <-- end of quote
Each quote needs the start and end tag to read correctly....it's easy to
make a mistake...use the preview button ( spell check wouldn't hurt either
)Post #99
Yes, we have probably beaten it to death. However, I would at least like to see if jcrawford can provide straightforward answers to the following questions.
As far as the language problem, which I suppose I have beat to death enough, I think the last thing I would say to follow up on Jose's point is that the usage is really the key. When Lubenow or anybody else yells 'racist', most people, because of how the term is used, will assume the meaning is that there is an accusation of oppression or discrimination of one of the modern races (white, black, etc.) on the part of members of one of the other races. This is the crux of the misuse going on here.
It is not so much that these particular examples of fossils that are so important, although they are certainly relevant, but the main question. Unless you define all life on earth to be human, you have to have a definition deciding what is human and what is not. Where do you draw the line?How are you deciding which fossils represent humans and which do not?. Is homo habilis human? Why are why not? Is Turkana boy? Why or why not? What about Lucy? Is a chimp human? why or why not? Is a chimp who lived 100,000 years ago human? Why or why not?
As far as the language problem, which I suppose I have beat to death enough, I think the last thing I would say to follow up on Jose's point is that the usage is really the key. When Lubenow or anybody else yells 'racist', most people, because of how the term is used, will assume the meaning is that there is an accusation of oppression or discrimination of one of the modern races (white, black, etc.) on the part of members of one of the other races. This is the crux of the misuse going on here.
Post #100
For a term to be racist ( in the common usage ) there needs to be
malice of some form as well as an attempt to segregate.
Quantifying and categorizing doesn't specifically denote racism,
especially considering we are talking about species, not races.
Given my nick...I'll tackle this one...
A chimp(Pan troglodytes) is not human ( homo sapien ). Chimps
and humans cannot have offspring from a union of chimp/human.
To be human, chimps would be capable of interbreeding with humans.
malice of some form as well as an attempt to segregate.
Quantifying and categorizing doesn't specifically denote racism,
especially considering we are talking about species, not races.
Given my nick...I'll tackle this one...
A chimp(Pan troglodytes) is not human ( homo sapien ). Chimps
and humans cannot have offspring from a union of chimp/human.
To be human, chimps would be capable of interbreeding with humans.
