Is racism scientific?

[Wootah]

Is racism scientific?

Answer seems yes.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com ... -says/amp/

Isn't our racism just part of our sin nature?

[EarthScienceguy]

All of racism is scientific.

Hitler used evolution to support his views on the "master race."
Evolutionary views placed pygmies in zoo's.

To “get past� the fact that Darwin was a racist, we must be willing to undo science that begins by assuming that non-European features are sub-human. But the “hierarchy of man� is rooted in the fundamental assumptions of the “Descent of Man,� the idea that Darwin popularized. Rooting it out would call so many things into question as to produce a crisis. What will we be left with?

Indeed. But then an even bigger problem looms: In any Darwinian scheme, someone must be the subhuman. If not the current lot (formerly, the “savages,� currently the Neanderthals and/or Homo erectus), who will it be?

If they aren’t found, the Darwinist is looking down the maw of some sort of creationism. It need not be theistic creationism. But it does mean that a momentous event happened with explicable swiftness, like the Big Bang or the origin of language, findings naturalists do not like precisely because of their creationist implications.

Surely these are the true reasons Darwinists simply can’t confront the race issue and get past it, and so they resort to long-winded special pleading.

paleontologist Günter Bechly

[Bust Nak]

To “get past� the fact that Darwin was a racist, we must be willing to undo science that begins by assuming that non-European features are sub-human.

We did that decades ago in the 1940s.

What will we be left with?

Plain old evolution?

In any Darwinian scheme, someone must be the subhuman. If not the current lot (formerly, the “savages,� currently the Neanderthals and/or Homo erectus), who will it be?

Don't [you] mean prehumen? Neanderthals and Homo erectus are both human species.

If they aren’t found, the Darwinist is looking down the maw of some sort of creationism...

By found, presumably [you] mean finding the fossils of? Why would it matter if the fossils aren't found? We don't need to revert to creationism before and we wouldn't start now, with or without fossils. What would imply any sort of "momentous event?"

Surely these are the true reasons Darwinists simply can’t confront the race issue and get past it...

But we already got past it decades ago, like I said, in the 40's.

paleontologist Günter Bechly.

Well he isn't here to defend himself, care to put yourself in his shoes and have a go, EarthScienceguy?

[Tcg]

To “get past� the fact that Darwin was a racist,

There is nothing to get past. He wasn't a racists.

• "Charles Darwin's research to prove evolution was motivated by his desire to end slavery
  
  The historians have also discovered letters written by Darwin's sisters, cousins and aunts that reveal the family as highly active abolitionists. Darwin's grandfather and uncles were also key members of the anti-slavery movement.
  
  The pair claim in a new book that Darwin partly chose to highlight the common descent of man from apes to show that all races were equal, as a rebuttal to those who insisted black people were a different, and inferior, species from those with white skin."
  
  https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/scienc ... avery.html

Tcg

[Danmark]

All of racism is scientific.

Hitler used evolution to support his views on the "master race."
Evolutionary views placed pygmies in zoo's.

To “get past� the fact that Darwin was a racist, we must be willing to undo science that begins by assuming that non-European features are sub-human. But the “hierarchy of man� is rooted in the fundamental assumptions of the “Descent of Man,� the idea that Darwin popularized.

I've seldom seen such absolute nonsense strong together so consistently before. You've supported NOTHING you claim about race or science. What Hitler or some other nut who did not understand science did is irrelevant. Neither Darwin nor evolution teaches racism or even that race is a scientific concept. It is a social construct used by racists, not scientists.
Today, the mainstream belief among scientists is that race is a social construct without biological meaning
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... sts-argue/

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 44 by Danmark]

Don't you know that when it comes to discussing what scientists say, actually reading what the scientists say isn't what's important, it's what best fits the creationist narrative?

Why would someone like Earthscienceguy actually care about the stated words of scientists, when participating in a discussion about the stated words of scientists?

[Danmark]

My elder sister-in-law has been changed since about 3 years, like me that became religious since 10 years..
And she accepts and submits that she is lower than men!

You and EarthScienceguy appear to support racism and sexism.

Nadia Murad recently won a share of the Nobel Peace Prize.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nobel-peac ... 019-10-13/

She was awarded this prize for standing up to the ultra bigoted ISIS and others who believe raping women is appropriate punishment for not sharing the religion of the rapists.

It is hard for me to think of a lower form of human life than the racists and religious bigots who claim others are lower forms of life and may be raped or murdered for not holding the 'correct' religious views or for having been born the 'wrong' gender.

Just because your religious views appear (to you) to support such cruelty, hatred and unfairness, does not justify those absurd and evil beliefs. I don't believe such inhumanity comes from religious texts. it comes from the perverted heart.

[marco]

Nadia Murad recently won a share of the Nobel Peace Prize.

I don't think we need evidence against idiotic claims about women. It is even demeaning to discuss them, for it seems to accord the author a status of parity that is surrendered in the expression of such views. That the Koran advises husbands to beat their disobedient wives may well be the source of the problem.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 47 by marco]

I agree wholeheartedly. We should not need further evidence of the nonsense or "idiotic" nature of certain religious claims. But as I understand the rules of this forum, I am not allowed to do much EXCEPT provide evidence. All three Abrahamic religions have announced their various biases against women. You and I and any good student of culture, history and religion know why this is. It is because those religions came from an extremely patriarchal culture. The only thing that is extraordinary is that to a limited extent both Judaism and Christianity have outgrown those ancient prejudices while Islam is headed that direction tho' lagging far behind.

But back to the point about Forum Rules. As long as those rules allow the advocacy for "idiotic" [your word] claims about women and race; as long as the Forum allows racist and misogynist or plainly dishonest views at all, what can we do but counter with evidence?

[marco]

All three Abrahamic religions have announced their various biases against women. You and I and any good student of culture, history and religion know why this is. It is because those religions came from an extremely patriarchal culture. The only thing that is extraordinary is that to a limited extent both Judaism and Christianity have outgrown those ancient prejudices while Islam is headed that direction tho' lagging far behind.

Wordsworth observed that the child is father of the man; he didn't add that the child's views, that become the man's views, are sometimes derived from hatred and prejudice learned from the parent. Much of religious reverence is nothing more than father worship. It is extremely hard to break free of such bondage, especially if all around you the world is chanting prejudice in unison. One's voice is then discordant and in some places one's life becomes a fragile possession.

But back to the point about Forum Rules. As long as those rules allow the advocacy for "idiotic" [your word] claims about women and race; as long as the Forum allows racist and misogynist or plainly dishonest views at all, what can we do but counter with evidence?

I wasn't advocating acceptance of misogynistic or racist views. Sometimes the very expression of some views says all that need to be said about the expresser, and meeting the views with dignified discussion accords a courtesy that is unmerited. But I take your point that we should not permit religious views that lead to considerations of a woman's inferiority or that of a race. But then we cannot quote Saint Paul or we consider the Koran verboten, and we must desert our holy bible in places.

Proof of folly often comes in its expression. We can still warn or ban when an advocate crosses a line. But I am in complete agreement with you.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 43 by Tcg]

Really

Darwin didn’t hide his view that his evolutionary thinking applied to human races as well as to animal species. The full title of his seminal 1859 book was On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. He followed up more explicitly in The Descent of Man, where he spelled out his racial theory:

The Western nations of Europe . . . now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors [that they] stand at the summit of civilization. . . . The civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races through the world.