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?

[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?

No debate = default on the part of those neo-Darwinist race theorists who deny the existance of the whole human race and substitute their evolutionist version of modern human 'species' of Homo sapiens in place of it.

[McCulloch]

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?

Jcrawford is, in reality, posing three separate questions:

1. Is the topic of race beyond the purview of scientific enquiry?
2. Are the topics of racism and discrimination beyond the purview of scientific enquiry?
3. Is the topic of religion beyond the purview of scientific enquiry?

That there are identifiable hereditary physiological differences between groups of individuals within a single species is evident. In our species, these differences involve skin pigmentation, hair, skull shape and other attributes. If this is what is meant by race, then the origins of racial differences is certainly a legitimate field of scientific study to be conducted by evolutionary biologists.
Racism defined as irrational discrimination based on race is a legitimate field of scientific study to be conducted by sociologists and anthropologists.
Religion itself is a very wide topic. The evolution of human religions should be studied by anthropologists. The impact of religion on human society should be studied by sociologists. The impact of religion on individual humans should be studied by psychologists. Specific claims made by specific religions (six day creation, world wide flood, disease caused by spiritual demons) should be studied by scientists with expertise in the appropriate areas.

[micatala]

No debate = default on the part of those neo-Darwinist race theorists who deny the existance of the whole human race and substitute their evolutionist version of modern human 'species' of Homo sapiens in place of it.

In my case, I haven't replied until now because the initial post is fraught with the faulty assumption that scientific racism even exists. It doesn't, as has been shown in the BOC thread.

In addition, the above quote makes the faulty assumption that there is such a thing as a 'neo-Darwinist race theorist' (there isn't that I have been shown) and that neo-Darwinism denies the existence of the human race (it doesn't).

[youngborean]

Here's some history of racist science in America.

http://www.ferris.edu/isar/arcade/eugenics/movement.htm

I don't know if this is the be all and end all of the discussion, hopefully it can be a starting point. But it certainly connects a history of genetic research with the eugenics movement in America.

[Scrotum]

I don't know if this is the be all and end all of the discussion, hopefully it can be a starting point. But it certainly connects a history of genetic research with the eugenics movement in America.

Oh Yes, before the Second World War, United States admired germany for there huge scientific discoveries. But ofcourse..... We dont want to talk about that do we.

[Glee]

How about the history of racism in general, how it came about and when it became unPC to relate to it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

Hmmm, always present to a certian degree, became much more apparent in the 18th century, when america needed some slaves and became very unpopular around the 1940's. (as an aside, the conlonization of both America and Australia involved quite a lot of racism, and was during pre-darwinian times.)

They actually have an extra article on scientific racism in particular, both pre and post Darwin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

"Racism is the belief that people of different races differ in value."

There are always fringe groups who will come up with some wacko theories, whether it be in science or in religion, but under my knowledge of the current theory of evolution, and science standards, all people alive today belong to the same species and all have the same value.

Having a look at the article on scientific racism, the current racial theorists are very heavily critised and on the outer of the scientific circle... the last quote from the article would be

In applying the term to works completed in the past, however, runs the risk of ahistoricism. Some of the work of Charles Darwin, for example, contains many statements which would be considered racist (or "scientific racism") in the current scientific and cultural context, but in their time were either typical for their Victorian context or even less racist than many contemporary scientific views.

I wonder what those other views would have been...

[youngborean]

There are always fringe groups who will come up with some wacko theories, whether it be in science or in religion, but under my knowledge of the current theory of evolution, and science standards, all people alive today belong to the same species and all have the same value.

I generally agree with that statement. But it only takes one psycho to sour it for everyone. Christianity seems to be taking this sort of treatment right now based on the actions of some professed Christians in America. The reality of history seemed to be that many prominent people were into eugenics as supported by these racist scientists until WWII, when they discovered what the Nazis were doing and it was outlawed.


Here is a list of prominent people past and present. One of whom served as the director of the national museum of Natural History pre WWII.

Raymond B. Cattell

David Irving

Harry Laughlin

Kevin MacDonald

Madge Thurlow Macklin

Edward Miller

Roger Pearson

Stanley D. Porteus

William Shockley

Glayde Whitney

You can read more about them here:

http://www.ferris.edu/isar/bios/homepage.htm

[micatala]

Here's some history of racist science in America.

http://www.ferris.edu/isar/arcade/eugenics/movement.htm

I don't know if this is the be all and end all of the discussion, hopefully it can be a starting point. But it certainly connects a history of genetic research with the eugenics movement in America.

THis is an interesting article. As noted by scrotum, the eugenics movement basically died out after WWII, and so is pretty irrelevant to charges that evolutionary biology as it exists today is racist.

I noted the organization posting this article is ISAR (the Institute for the Study of Academic Racism) at Ferris State University in Michigan. If you look at the mission of this institute, it describes itself as having not only an educational role, but also an activist role. It seeks to enlist students in understanding and fighting racism. One article by the director of the institute supports the U of Michigan and its affirmative action program of admissions against opponents, including the Bush Administration and other 'right wing' allies.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make by citing this article. I think we can all agree that racism was rampant in western civilization throughout the 19th and into the 20th century. A large segment of the white American and European population of that time would be considered racist by today's standards. Certainly this population included a number of scientists, Darwin arguably among them, as well as those who are clearly racist and are mentioned in the article.

The posted question for the thread is whether race or racism is a legitimate subject of scientific investigation. The eugenics movement, despite gaining some traction in early 20th century scientific circles, was also vehemently opposed by many scientists. The ISAR article notes the following concerning Jon Alfred Mjoen, a leader in the European eugenics movement:

From 1915 on a group of Norwegian biologists led by Otto Mohr denounced Mjoen for his scientific incompetence. Nevertheless, Mjoen, an active member of the governing Liberal Party, found considerable support for his eugenic ideas among government officials.

Like Lapouge, Mjoen was much more highly regarded in America than he was in his native Norway. Osborn introduced him as "the leader in the vigorous movement of race hygience in Scandinavia." This, despite the fact that no Norwegian geneticists worked with Mjoen or contributed to his journal Den Nordiske Rase. Mjoen did find important supporters in Sweden and Denmark, however, including the internationally renowned geneticists Hermann Nilsson-Ehle and Wilhelm Johannsen.

Clearly, even at a time when racism was considered 'mainstream,' those who would misuse science to further racist ends were opposed from within the scientific community. Today, we know that the arguments given under the guise of science to support eugenics were deeply flawed (and that is putting it kindly).

It seems to me the eugenics movement consisted of people who were racist to begin with, and appropriated the 'trappings' of science to try and make their racism seem more legitimate, and to promote their racist social policies. It really says nothing about the larger scientific theory of evolution, certainly not about the theory as it exists today.

[youngborean]

I don't think I ever mentioned about today. Although new issues seem to arise that could make way for a new batch of scientific racists. My point was that the history of geneticists in America included a large number of racists. I would agree that the theory shouldn't judge in itself. However, the nature of any study of heredity leaves the door wide open for racists. That is why we should always be on guard. I don't really know that we can assume that we have moved passed the racist history and assume that all scientists will be inherently above this type of research in the future.