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?

[McCulloch]

Yes, Jose, since most Christians of African descent tend to think that all neo-Darwinist theories about their origins from African ape ancestors are just another form of scientific racism and discrimination against them.

Is there any statistical evidence of this belief? I would think that most Christians of African descent would either think that neo-Darwinist theories of all human origins from African ape ancestors is either scientific denial of biblical truth or theistic evolution. I don't believe that most of them would think that it is racism and discrimination.

Scientific denial of African biblical origins is only possible with alternative neo-Darwinst race theories of original African descent from common ancestors of African apes.

jcrawford has made the claim that "since most Christians of African descent tend to think that all neo-Darwinist theories about their origins from African ape ancestors are just another form of scientific racism and discrimination against them." This is a simple to understand claim. We can easily understand who most Christians of African descent are. We could determine in a statistically valid way if most of these people believed that neo-darwinism is a form of scientific racism and discrimination. However, jcrawford's claim, like many of his other claims, is presented here without evidence. He has been asked to provide evidence. Instead, he has posted, "Scientific denial of African biblical origins is only possible with alternative neo-Darwinist race theories of original African descent from common ancestors of African apes." I really do not know what this statement means. I do know that it is not evidence to substantiate jcrawford's claim.

[micatala]

jcrawford has made the claim that "since most Christians of African descent tend to think that all neo-Darwinist theories about their origins from African ape ancestors are just another form of scientific racism and discrimination against them." This is a simple to understand claim. We can easily understand who most Christians of African descent are. We could determine in a statistically valid way if most of these people believed that neo-darwinism is a form of scientific racism and discrimination. However, jcrawford's claim, like many of his other claims, is presented here without evidence. He has been asked to provide evidence. Instead, he has posted, "Scientific denial of African biblical origins is only possible with alternative neo-Darwinist race theories of original African descent from common ancestors of African apes." I really do not know what this statement means. I do know that it is not evidence to substantiate jcrawford's claim.

No, it is not evidence.

One is left to wonder a little bit what the bolded statement does mean. As near as I can tell, he is saying that you can only try to make a scientific (by which I think he means neo-Darwinist) case against the Biblical theory that people originated in Africa, but positing a different neo-Darwinist theory saying people originated in Africa but as descendants of apes.

On the other hand, maybe he is saying the Bible originated in Africa, and that you can only deny this by saying people are descended from apes.

Either one makes about as much sense.

[jcrawford]

jcrawford has made the claim that "since most Christians of African descent tend to think that all neo-Darwinist theories about their origins from African ape ancestors are just another form of scientific racism and discrimination against them." This is a simple to understand claim. We can easily understand who most Christians of African descent are. We could determine in a statistically valid way if most of these people believed that neo-darwinism is a form of scientific racism and discrimination.

How could we determine in a statistically valid way if "most of these people" believed that neo-Darwinism is a form of scientific racism and discrimination? How would you go about identifying them?

[McCulloch]

jcrawford has made the claim that "since most Christians of African descent tend to think that all neo-Darwinist theories about their origins from African ape ancestors are just another form of scientific racism and discrimination against them." This is a simple to understand claim. We can easily understand who most Christians of African descent are. We could determine in a statistically valid way if most of these people believed that neo-darwinism is a form of scientific racism and discrimination.

How could we determine in a statistically valid way if "most of these people" believed that neo-Darwinism is a form of scientific racism and discrimination? How would you go about identifying them?

I am not sure. Since jcrawford made the claim, it is up to him to validate it. I would accept self-identification. If jcrawford can provide evidence that "since most people who identify themselves as Christians of African descent tend to think that all neo-Darwinist theories about their origins from African ape ancestors are just another form of scientific racism and discrimination against them." then his obligation to support his statement with evidence would be met, in my opinion. If jcrawford has some other statistically valid way of supporting his statement, then he is also free to present it. The point here is that jcrawford has made a statement. Others believe that it may not be valid or correct. jcrawford has been asked to abide by the rules governing this forum and provide evidence to support his statement. So far he has provided none. jcrawford should either

• provide whatever support for his statement that he has and defend it or
• he should withdraw the statement from the debate as unsupported.

The decision is his.

[jcrawford]

jcrawford has made the claim that "since most Christians of African descent tend to think that all neo-Darwinist theories about their origins from African ape ancestors are just another form of scientific racism and discrimination against them." This is a simple to understand claim. We can easily understand who most Christians of African descent are. We could determine in a statistically valid way if most of these people believed that neo-darwinism is a form of scientific racism and discrimination.

How could we determine in a statistically valid way if "most of these people" believed that neo-Darwinism is a form of scientific racism and discrimination? How would you go about identifying them?

I am not sure. Since jcrawford made the claim, it is up to him to validate it. I would accept self-identification. If jcrawford can provide evidence that "since most people who identify themselves as Christians of African descent tend to think that all neo-Darwinist theories about their origins from African ape ancestors are just another form of scientific racism and discrimination against them." then his obligation to support his statement with evidence would be met, in my opinion.

If jcrawford has some other statistically valid way of supporting his statement, then he is also free to present it.

That's certainly a liberal offer on your part here, McCulloch, since it would take a Gallup poll to get sample opinons of all Christians of African descent.

Why don't we just conduct a poll of Christians of African descent on this thread and ask what their opinions are on the matter?

[Cathar1950]

Take a poll? First who are those people that belive this.
Even if there were some who did belive that it was racist. They would be wrong. Now we are not only presenting your opinion but your talking for imaginary people.
jcrawford wrote:

Yes, Jose, since most Christians of African descent tend to think that all neo-Darwinist theories about their origins from African ape ancestors are just another form of scientific racism and discrimination against them.

Who are these "Most Christians of African descent"? If you have to make a large poll to show this why would you say it. It sounds worse then made up.

[McCulloch]

Since jcrawford made the claim, it is up to him to validate it. I would accept self-identification. If jcrawford can provide evidence that "since most people who identify themselves as Christians of African descent tend to think that all neo-Darwinist theories about their origins from African ape ancestors are just another form of scientific racism and discrimination against them." then his obligation to support his statement with evidence would be met, in my opinion.
If jcrawford has some other statistically valid way of supporting his statement, then he is also free to present it.

That's certainly a liberal offer on your part here, McCulloch, since it would take a Gallup poll to get sample opinons of all Christians of African descent.
Why don't we just conduct a poll of Christians of African descent on this thread and ask what their opinions are on the matter?

Except that in the normal course of debate, you should first have the evidence before you make a statement of fact. jcrawford has made a claim. He has stated it as fact, not opinion. He should, therefore, already have some evidence to support that statement of fact. The choice is still his

• provide the evidence to support his claim or
• admit that the claim he has made is only his own subjective unsupported opinion, a hypothesis.

If jcrawford is willing to admit that what was presented by him as a statement of fact was, in fact, a hypothesis, then we can progress to the next step of finding ways to test the validity of that hypothesis.

[micatala]

I agree.

I would also point out that polls do not determine truth. Even if jcrawford produced a scientifically done poll with 100% of African Christians thinking neo-Darwinism is racist, it would not settle the issue, and would in fact say very little about the truth or falsity of the claim.

[McCulloch]

I agree.
I would also point out that polls do not determine truth. Even if jcrawford produced a scientifically done poll with 100% of African Christians thinking neo-Darwinism is racist, it would not settle the issue, and would in fact say very little about the truth or falsity of the claim.

In this case a poll would have done. The claim that jcrawford has made and has been asked to support, according to the rules, is, "most people who identify themselves as Christians of African descent tend to think that all neo-Darwinist theories about their origins from African ape ancestors are just another form of scientific racism and discrimination against them."
Jcrawford has made a claim about the beliefs of a certain segment of people. A statistically valid poll would validate that claim. You would be correct to point out that even if jcrawford's claim about the beliefs of that segment of people turned out to be true, the beliefs themselves could be false. jcrawford seems to have tried to use argumentum ad populum to support his case, but it appears as if he could not even get that right. I reserve the right to update the opinion stated in the previous sentence, once the evidence which jcrawford is obliged to supply has been reviewed.

[jcrawford]

Take a poll? First who are those people that belive this. Even if there were some who did belive that it was racist. They would be wrong. Now we are not only presenting your opinion but your talking for imaginary people.

Who are these "Most Christians of African descent"? If you have to make a large poll to show this why would you say it. It sounds worse then made up.

Since most Christians of African descent that I know tend to think that all neo-Darwinist theories about their origins from African ape ancestors are just another form of scientific racism and discrimination against them, I wouldn't be surprised that most, if not all, Christians of African descent do also.