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?

[Chimp]

Whatever the case, any theory (scientific or cultural) which accounts for, and justifies belief in, the survival and extinction of different populations of human beings based on racial, morphological or cultural differences, is racist.

Whoa! Are you calling Lubenow a racist?

[Cathar1950]

Chimp, I have been calling Lubenow a closet racist for some time now.
It is good to see jcrawford almost admit it.
The whole thing is the worse agument I have heard for some one over 3 years old. And 3 year olds are pretty cleaver.

[jcrawford]

The evidence, if you'd care to look at it and throw out Lubenow's misleading book, is that our species migrated out of Africa and displaced a different species with whom they could not interbreed. It's as racist as talking about lions outcompeting tigers.

There were no H. sapiens in Asia or Europe until the African population expanded enough and migrated there. There were erectus (or if you'd rather, ergaster) there, but so what? They were anatomically different, no matter what Lubenow says.

Obviously, you are not familiar with the specifics and details of the human fossil record in either Asia, Africa or Europe, Jose, and have no idea what you are talking about when you compose such naive statements based on neo-Darwinst race theories as those posted immediately above and below.

The "archaic" humans in Asia did leave descendents. They co-existed with our species for some time. Eventually, our species took over. That's why we don't find modern examples of erectus in those locations or anywhere else.

Assuming that "our species" descended from genetically superior African Homo sapiens, Jose, how did we "take over" over the world from genetically inferior human beings already on the planet for hundreds of thousands of years? How might you account for their genocidal extermination other than by neo-Darwinist race theories? BTW, Jose, I'm neither Homo sapiens nor homosexual. I'm nothing but a man, otherwise scientifically defined as a male human being. Are you a Homo sapiens, Jose? How would you know? Did some 'scientists' tell you so? How would you like it if some 'scientists' genetically determined that you were either a heterosexual or a homosexual without considering your own opinion of yourself?

Besides--who cares?

Are you kidding, Jose? Scientists care. Homosexuals care. Homo sapiens care. Millions of other non-Homo sapiens, non-scientists and non-homosexuals like me care. Don't you care whether your original ancestors were created by God or mutated from some African apes in accordance with racist theories of 'natural selection' and genetic supremacy? Why not?

Africa or "eden" gives the same result. Our species came from somewhere, and diversified by evolutionary processes into the many different groups of people who now exist. The difference between evolution and creation is that the different "races" are merely the results of different environmental selection (according to evolutionary theory), but the result of god's punishment according to biblical creation. Which is more racist?

That's quite a theory you've got there, Jose. However, it's a false choice since the real question is whether either doctrine of human origins should be taught as 'science' in public schools, seeing how both systems of thought may be considered to be racist by either Christians or Darwinists in our public school systems.

[jcrawford]

Chimp, I have been calling Lubenow a closet racist for some time now.

Calling Lubenow a "closet racist" only draws attention to the fact that besides calling Darwin and Ian Tattersall racists, he calls all theories and models of human evolution intrinsically and inherently racist, whether they are based on Darwin's original racist theories or not.

[micatala]

Whatever the case, any theory (scientific or cultural) which accounts for, and justifies belief in, the survival and extinction of different populations of human beings based on racial, morphological or cultural differences, is racist.

Well, let's see. I'm assuming you must mean by 'accounts for' that the theory 'gives a reason or explanation for,' otherwise you would not think that neo-Darwinism is racist.

This means the Bible is racist since it accounts for and justifies belief in the extermination of numerous 'races' (Amalekites, Hittites, Perezites, etc. etc.) by the Hebrews on the basis of cultural differences.

It means God is racist, at least according to the Bible, since it ascribes to God ultimate responsibility for the extermination of the same afore-mentioned people.

It means that the vast majority of historians and many historical works are racist, since history is chock full of one group of peoples trying to exterminate each other, and historians offer all sorts of reasons for this. Ditto for psychologists, sociologists, and theologians.

If one considers 'lifestyle' a cultural difference, then Christian interpretations that allow for the eventual extermination of 'sinners' is racist because they are living a sinful lifestyle.

The same goes for Christian theories which include the eventual extermination of non-Christians, since cleary religious belief is a cultural attribute.

Young-earth creationism is arguably racist because it believes in and justifies the near extermination of the entire human race in the Noahic flood.

Believers in the rapture and the literal interpretation of the Book of Revelations (or the Left Behind Series) are racist.

Should I go on?

[jcrawford]

jcrawford wrote:

The evolutionists racist "take" on this is that a genetically superior breed, race or tribe of early African Homo sapiens migrated out of Africa about 100tya and outbreeded and replaced all other early Asian and archaic European Homo sapiens who subsequently became extinct and left no descendents themselves. (African Eve theory)

That ancestral scenario is nothing but a racial dream of world conquest by 'scientists,' and belongs in the category of ancient mythology or science fiction.

This is not evolutionary theory. No where does it say they out breed other Homo sapiens and replaced them. The people you speak of are not there.
The Homo sapiens are still there. Your the only one presenting mythology.
There is no racial dream of conquest by evolutionist. And they are not racist.

Apparently you are not familiar with the details of the African Eve Model of modern human evolution out of Africa to the extent that you can present it here rationally for the edification of our fellow readers and posters. Remaining ignorant of Lubenow's theses and contentions only serves to your disadvantage in this discussion of the human fossil record of our ancestor's remains in Asia, Africa and Europe.

Please supply some evidence of early Asian and archaic European Homo sapiens ancestors having ever stepped foot in Africa.

[jcrawford]

jcrawford wrote:

Knowledge of Biblical Eve is not based on theory but on an historically acknowleged written testament; whereas any 'scientific' theories of human evolution are based on racial myths about the ancestral and geographic origins of various human populations.

It is not an historically acknowledged testament. It is a Myth and not even the original myth. You seem to have the two backwards.

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

[jcrawford]

There are two hypotheses being proposed regarding human origins:

You left out the very important and influential Multi-regional Continuity Model of human evolution in which leading evolutionists like Wolpoff and Thorne and many Chinese paleoanthropologists make a reasonably scientific case against the intrinsic and inherent claims of genetic superiority and supremacy implicit in the African Eve Model of racial evolution.

Of course, the MRCM is condemned by Afro-Eve evos as being explicitly racist, and rightfully so since that theory also associates the original African people with apes in order to prove Darwin's theory on the origin of 'species.' What AEM and MRCM theorists aren't prepared to deal with at all though, are Christian charges that both 'models' of human evolution out of Africa are intrinsically, inherently and ultimately racist.

[jcrawford]

Should I go on?

No need, since none of these beliefs are currently being taught in public schools whereas racist neo-Darwinist theories of human history are.

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.

[micatala]

jcrawford wrote:
Whatever the case, any theory (scientific or cultural) which accounts for, and justifies belief in, the survival and extinction of different populations of human beings based on racial, morphological or cultural differences, is racist.

micatala:
Well, let's see. I'm assuming you must mean by 'accounts for' that the theory 'gives a reason or explanation for,' otherwise you would not think that neo-Darwinism is racist.

This means the Bible is racist since it accounts for and justifies belief in the extermination of numerous 'races' (Amalekites, Hittites, Perezites, etc. etc.) by the Hebrews on the basis of cultural differences.

It means God is racist, at least according to the Bible, since it ascribes to God ultimate responsibility for the extermination of the same afore-mentioned people.

It means that the vast majority of historians and many historical works are racist, since history is chock full of one group of peoples trying to exterminate each other, and historians offer all sorts of reasons for this. Ditto for psychologists, sociologists, and theologians.

If one considers 'lifestyle' a cultural difference, then Christian interpretations that allow for the eventual extermination of 'sinners' is racist because they are living a sinful lifestyle.

The same goes for Christian theories which include the eventual extermination of non-Christians, since cleary religious belief is a cultural attribute.

Young-earth creationism is arguably racist because it believes in and justifies the near extermination of the entire human race in the Noahic flood.

Believers in the rapture and the literal interpretation of the Book of Revelations (or the Left Behind Series) are racist.

Should I go on?

No need, since none of these beliefs are currently being taught in public schools whereas racist neo-Darwinist theories of human history are.

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.




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.

In addition, the historical examples most certainly ARE taught in many schools, both public and private. The religious examples may well be considered or discussed in private schools, and possibly even in comparative religion classes, etc. in public schools.