Religious Discrimination and Scientific Racism

[jcrawford]

Since there seems to be a lot of confusion about what exactly constitutes the nature of religious discrimination and scientific racism, I thought it advisable to start a thread on the matter which might not become too discursive.

I'll open the conversation with the fact that most neo-Darwinist 'scientists' seem to believe, if not assert, that such topics as race, racism, religion and discrimination based on such categories are beyond the purvue of scientific enquiry.

The first question I would pose to supporters of neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution is whether you agree with the above presumptions and propositions. If so, why, and if not, why not?

[Cathar1950]

Maybe we were planted here by the Gods for food and labor.
jcrawford wrote:

It's time for Christians, Muslims and Jews to get rid of such racist teachings, exhibits and displays in publically funded state schools, libraries and museums like PS 101, UC and the Smithsonian.

I think the majority are not with you on that. I think they need to teach more and let you talk less.

[Cathar1950]

jcrawford wrote:

Obviously, you are neither speaking as a Christian nor a scientist here. What is your professional background anyway?

Both and as an educator.
I am retired and I am not a snake oil salesman.
What is yours?

[jcrawford]

So you are evidently of the position, then, that the Bible and Christianity are racist, and that that is OK, as long as it is not taught in public schools. I take it you think it would be fine if racist theories are taught in private schools.

Not at all. I'm just not as concerned about religious racism on this forum as you seem to be, because it is not being currently practiced, taught and financed to same extent in public high schools and state universities that scientific forms of neo-Darwinist racism and religious discrimination are supported and advocated by government instututions such as public schools and state 'universities.'

You conveniently ignored the point (or it went over your head?) that concluding racism in all the examples I provided is as ridiculous as you concluding neo-Darwinism is racist.

Why did you introduce such a "ridiculous" point and "conclusion" in the first place, then, since concepts of biblical racism have nothing to do with the racist 'science' of human evolution as taught in public schools today?

[jcrawford]

jcrawford wrote:

It's time for Christians, Muslims and Jews to get rid of such racist teachings, exhibits and displays in publically funded state schools, libraries and museums like PS 101, UC and the Smithsonian.

I think the majority are not with you on that. I think they need to teach more and let you talk less.

Lucky for you that I'm not employed by the state for the furtherance of it's current neo-Darwinist social agenda.

And you thought Social Darwinism was passe.

[jcrawford]

jcrawford wrote:

Obviously, you are neither speaking as a Christian nor a scientist here. What is your professional background anyway?

Both and as an educator.
I am retired and I am not a snake oil salesman.
What is yours?

The professional occupation whereby I have earned a living for the past 48 years is classified as clerical, whereas my religious profession is that of a Christian Creationist and ardent opponent of neo-Darwinist religious philosophy in science.

In what way were you a professional Christian, scientist and educator?
Do you have accredited degrees and work experience in all three vocational pursuits?

[Jose]

You conveniently ignored the point (or it went over your head?) that concluding racism in all the examples I provided is as ridiculous as you concluding neo-Darwinism is racist.

Why did you introduce such a "ridiculous" point and "conclusion" in the first place, then, since concepts of biblical racism have nothing to do with the racist 'science' of human evolution as taught in public schools today?

Ah. I see. Any counterargument that reveals the silliness of your thesis is easily shrugged off as "off topic." That's terribly convenient. But then, with such a fallacious thesis to start with, it's not really possible to defend it with any other approach. On all threads here where it has come up, it has repeatedly been shown to be intellectually depauperate (oooh I love that word) by both atheists and Christians.

If you really are such an "ardent opponent of neo-Darwinist religious philosophy in science," then you should study up on what evolutionary theory really is, and try to use valid arguments.

[jcrawford]

If you really are such an "ardent opponent of neo-Darwinist religious philosophy in science," then you should study up on what evolutionary theory really is, and try to use valid arguments.

Tell us Jose, what evolutionary theory really is, and while you are it, see if you can explain to our vast audience how the primitive ancestors of some African apes managed to change by genetic mutation into African people in accordance with the 'scientific' laws of 'natural selection' one sunny day in equatorial Africa not too long ago according to the evolutionist time-scale.

[micatala]

micatala:
You conveniently ignored the point (or it went over your head?) that concluding racism in all the examples I provided is as ridiculous as you concluding neo-Darwinism is racist.

jcrawford:
Why did you introduce such a "ridiculous" point and "conclusion" in the first place, then, since concepts of biblical racism have nothing to do with the racist 'science' of human evolution as taught in public schools today?

It was not the point I made that was ridiculous, it is your continued insistence that neo-Darwinism is racist, despite it being repeatedly shown to you in a plethora of different ways that:

1. neo-Darwinism includes no concept of 'racial superiority', no theory that some should have certain rights or privelages and others not.
2. neo-Darwinism is not racist because it does not promulgate abuse or oppression of anyone, neither on the basis of race, nor on the basis of any other classification.
3. neo-Darwinism has no a priori desire to show that humans are descended from apes or any other non-human species, or to show that one hominid species is superior in status to another. It has merely reached the conclusion that humans and other living primates share a common ancestral species
4. You don't understand neo-Darwinism.
5. You don't understand the word 'racism' or refuse to use it in a way that bears any resemblance to its common usage.


Your position is now so ridiculous that it seems you have been reduced to tacitly concluding that the Bible and Christianity and even historical scholarship are all inherently racist, by your own twisted logic.

As with the Bones of Contention thread, I think we have beaten this horse to death two or three times now, and it is time to move on.

[jcrawford]

1. neo-Darwinism includes no concept of 'racial superiority', no theory that some should have certain rights or privelages and others not.

The concept of racial superiority is inherent in neo-Darwinist theories and claims that the descendents of a tribe of African Homo sapiens re-populated Asia and Europe while early and archaic indigenous Homo sapiens in those areas are denied an equal opportunity to evolve into modern Asians and Europeans, and are instead declared extinct by some form of neo-Darwinst system of genocide.

2. neo-Darwinism is not racist because it does not promulgate abuse or oppression of anyone, neither on the basis of race, nor on the basis of any other classification.

That's a joke seeing how UC's oppression of, and discrimination against, Christian creationists is actually based on neo-Darwinist racial concepts of Asian and European human origins in and out of Africa, and their native ancestors extinction when some superior genetic strain of Homo sapiens migrated out of Africa and marched all over the entire earth once upon a time according to racist neo-Darwinist theories of 'natural history' and the 'natural selection' of the fittest for survival.

[jcrawford]

3. neo-Darwinism has no a priori desire to show that humans are descended from apes or any other non-human species, or to show that one hominid species is superior in status to another. It has merely reached the conclusion that humans and other living primates share a common ancestral species.

And just how did neo-Darwinists "merely" reach "the conclusion that humans and other living primates share a common ancestral species" without having first hypothesized and theorized such a 'conclusion' in the first place and having the desire to test, demonstrate and prove their racist theories?

4. You don't understand neo-Darwinism.

Then explain it to me in human terms instead of 'scientific' jibberish and double-talk.

5. You don't understand the word 'racism' or refuse to use it in a way that bears any resemblance to its common usage.

You haven't shown me why an African tribe of people which you think originated from australopithecine apes should be considered a different and separate 'species' of humans instead of being thought of as part of the human race. If you won't grant H. habilis, ergaster and erectus morphological types in Africa full and equal human status with people like you and I, then you are just subscribing to neo-Darwinist race theories that modern Europeans and early African people would not be interfertile even if found in the same geographic region at the same time.

Your position is now so ridiculous that it seems you have been reduced to tacitly concluding that the Bible and Christianity and even historical scholarship are all inherently racist, by your own twisted logic.

That position on my part is merely impugned in your above hypothesis about my logic. Why you even compare so-called 'scientific concepts of neo-Darwinism with your introduction to the Bible and Christianity is beyond my ken.

As with the Bones of Contention thread, I think we have beaten this horse to death two or three times now, and it is time to move on.

So move on. Personally, I like the thread and look forward to continuing the discussion with other posters if you have better things to do.