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?

[Jose]

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.

See what I mean? What's this "one sunny day" business? Do you really think that "mutation" means that creatures suddenly go *pop* and turn into something else? You think that's natural selection? Be realistic! Have you ever seen anything go *pop* and turn into something else? Of course not . Genetics doesn't work that way. You're born, you live your life, and you die. That's true whether you're human, monkey, frog, or pond scum. You might want to look at this post for a longer explanation to our vast audience. "One sunny day" --sheesh.

[micatala]

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.

Yes, neo-Darwinism does describe the spread of humans out of Africa into Asia and Europe. This has been explained numerous times. However, as explained ad nauseum above, simply providing an explanation of what has occurred or might have occurred is not racism because it doesn't meet the definition of racism. Even if this explanation is wrong, it still does not constitute racism, by definition. This again is where you seem to refuse to use words in anything like the normal way.

As far as the second part of your statement, this makes absolutely no sense at all. Who exactly denied early and archaic homo sapiens an 'equal opportunity' to evolve? Certainly not neo-Darwinists; they weren't around then. How is observing that a species is extinct the same as genocide, even if the observation were in error? How could neo-Darwinists commit genocide against anybody who lived thousands of year before there were any neo-Darwinist? Do neo-Darwinists possess some kind of supernatural power so that they can simply 'declare' species, past or present, extinct and 'poof' they and all their fossil evidence past a certain date magically disappears?

[Jose]

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.

Yikes, micatala. I'd managed to miss that post. This is more evidence of jcrawford's private notion of what evolution is. He rails against a figment of his imagination.

Archaic hominids of different species than ours being denied equal opportunity to evolve???? Where does this kind of idea come from? What makes people "believe in" the idea that creatures (or humans or plants or anything else) "evolve" because they want to? Or that they can choose what to evolve into? "Gee...I'm too short to be a basketball star. I guess I'd better evolve into a taller person." That doesn't work. The overall notion bespeaks utter ignorance of genetics, mutation, and basic developmental biology. (I suppose the developmental biology can be excused, since the fundamental knowledge has only been available for a couple of decades, and is just beginning to filter into textbooks. Not surprisingly, someone who graduated more than a few years ago is likely not to have been exposed to it.)

It seems to me, that if you want to fight the teaching of evolution, you should figure out what it is, so you don't look silly making absurd claims.

On the other hand, that probably won't work. Once you figure out what it is, you can no longer convince yourself it's not right. So you either have to misunderstand it, or be willing to promulgate falsehoods.

[jcrawford]

See what I mean? What's this "one sunny day" business? Do you really think that "mutation" means that creatures suddenly go *pop* and turn into something else? You think that's natural selection? Be realistic! Have you ever seen anything go *pop* and turn into something else? Of course not . Genetics doesn't work that way. You're born, you live your life, and you die. That's true whether you're human, monkey, frog, or pond scum. You might want to look at this post for a longer explanation to our vast audience. "One sunny day" --sheesh.

Yeah, you're right Jose. "One sunny day" really is a useless superlative embellishment in describing the scenerio of one species gradually mutating into another over thousands if not millions of years in accordance with the neo-Darwinist time-scale. Of course, species just don't go *pop* and turn into something else overnight. How silly of me. I'd better stick to 'once upon a time' in any future references to neo-Darwinist mythologies of human evolution out of African ape ancestors. Thanks for the literary tip, old buddy.

[jcrawford]

Yes, neo-Darwinism does describe the spread of humans out of Africa into Asia and Europe. This has been explained numerous times. However, as explained ad nauseum above, simply providing an explanation of what has occurred or might have occurred is not racism because it doesn't meet the definition of racism. Even if this explanation is wrong, it still does not constitute racism, by definition.

By definition, it constitutes a form of scientific racism when either a minority or majority of Americans are theoretically denied their true racial origins and ancestry. Telling all American people that all of their ancestors evolved from some woman in England or Germany is racist.

Who exactly denied early and archaic homo sapiens an 'equal opportunity' to evolve? Certainly not neo-Darwinists; they weren't around then.

Since, as you say, neo-Darwinist theorists weren't around when early and/or archaic tribes of H. sapiens in Asia and Europe evolved into modern Asian and European nations, it's obviously only in the racist neo-Darwinist African Eve 'theory' that early and/or archaic sapiens in Asia and Europe are denied an equal opportunity to evolve into full-fledged human beings like Charles Darwin. Don't you understand the difference between overt acts of racism and racist ideologies and theories based on ancestral genealogies of human beings?

How is observing that a species is extinct the same as genocide, even if the observation were in error?

If the observation of a human 'species' is in error or is actually impossible to 'observe,' as creationists would contend, then any theory based on that false notion which subsequently falsely classifies and labels that 'species' as exinct is a theoretical form of scientific racism against the living descendents of that 'species.'

How could neo-Darwinists commit genocide against anybody who lived thousands of year before there were any neo-Darwinist?

It's a genocidal 'theory', micatala, in which neo-Darwinists intelligently design a 'theoretical' scenario that early and/or archaic human beings in Asia and Europe became extinct upon the arrival of a genetically superior breed of sapiens 'migrating' out of Africa. The reason African Eve theorists have to kill off all early/archaic sapiens in Asia and Europe is to squash any Multi-regional Continuity theories of ancestral human origins in those areas and link all human ancestors to Africa in order to fulfill Darwin's original prediction that all mankind originated from some form of anthropoid apes in Africa.

Do neo-Darwinists possess some kind of supernatural power so that they can simply 'declare' species, past or present, extinct and 'poof' they and all their fossil evidence past a certain date magically disappears?

Believe it or not, Darwin, the original Darwinists and neo-Darwinist theorists today do use supernatural powers inherent in the human mind and in human intelligence to imagine, concoct theories about, and believe in, human evolution in and out of ancient Africa.

[jcrawford]

It seems to me, that if you want to fight the teaching of evolution, you should figure out what it is, so you don't look silly making absurd claims.

On the other hand, that probably won't work. Once you figure out what it is, you can no longer convince yourself it's not right. So you either have to misunderstand it, or be willing to promulgate falsehoods.

But Jose, I do understand both the Multi-regional Continuity and African Eve Models of human evolution and am using one racist model to condemn both. You don't seem to have an inkling or clue about the details or racial implications inherent in either model, least of all, according to the extensive listing and data on the human fossil record that Lubenow has provided me with. If you could just show me the fossil or genetic evidence of Asian and European people's entire extinction prior to, during or after the arrival of a breed or race of genetically superior African Homo sapiens on their continents, instead of simply reiterating and regurgitating, ad nauseum, that 'natural selection' did it, or 'geneticists say this or that,' I will fold up my cards, grab my creationist hat and be 'outta' this forum in a moment. It's a promise.

[micatala]

If the observation of a human 'species' is in error or is actually impossible to 'observe,' as creationists would contend, then any theory based on that false notion which subsequently falsely classifies and labels that 'species' as exinct is a theoretical form of scientific racism against the living descendents of that 'species.'

If it is impossible to observe, as you say, then what reason do you have for believing you are descended from species that are extinct, according to evolutionary biology? If there is no way to determine for sure what the actual ancestry is (which I do not agree with, but am allowing for the sake of arguement), then you have no reason to complain if someone makes a different classification than you, unless they engage in discrimination, abuse or oppression on the basis of this wrong classification.

This is not happening, so there is no racism.

Your contentions don't meet the definition of racism. In fact, they can't meet the definition of racism, unless you show actual oppression, abuse, etc. on the basis of the classification. Classification, even false classification, in and of itself is not racism.

[jcrawford]

If it is impossible to observe, as you say, then what reason do you have for believing you are descended from species that are extinct, according to evolutionary biology?

There is no evidence that early Homo sapiens in Asia or Europe became extinct or that Asian and European populations were ever 'replaced' by decendents of early African sapiens as the African Eve racial 'theory' of common ancestry proclaims.

If there is no way to determine for sure what the actual ancestry is (which I do not agree with, but am allowing for the sake of arguement), then you have no reason to complain if someone makes a different classification than you, unless they engage in discrimination, abuse or oppression on the basis of this wrong classification.

This is not happening, so there is no racism.

Teaching American students in U.S. public high schools a theory of origins which partially claims that the distant ancestors of Asian and European students became extinct after being replaced in Asia and Europe by more genetically advanced African people who migrated there 100tya is racially discriminatory, abusive and oppressive.

Your contentions don't meet the definition of racism. In fact, they can't meet the definition of racism, unless you show actual oppression, abuse, etc. on the basis of the classification. Classification, even false classification, in and of itself is not racism.

Racial discrimination based on scientific theories and teachings about national, ethnic or ANCESTRAL origins may not only be found and claimed to be psychologically abusive and oppressive of certain public school students by their psychologists in a court of U.S. law, but also determined by that court to be in violation of U.S. law and the student's civil rights.

[nikolayevich]

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.

Jose has a point actually... You can't caricature what he believes and use it against him as if you have just shown how "ridiculous" it is. You can believe that the overall evolutionary viewpoint is counter to what you believe or ridiculous in light of a, b, c... but you have to go through the motions of elaborating a, b and c objections and not summing up your reaction alone and using it as though it will convince someone.

On the other hand, that probably won't work. Once you figure out what it is, you can no longer convince yourself it's not right. So you either have to misunderstand it, or be willing to promulgate falsehoods.

I can only disagree because there are issues related to evolution and pre-evolution which are either unknowable or based on assumptions (as with every type of belief), and because of this, we can only be so bold as to say that evolution is what fits much of the data. But not that everyone else is ignorant or lying. Actually, I think that with every belief, there are signs that we shut our eyes to the truth at times, as humans (speaking of myself also). This is why we can have myriad evolutionists with extremely different beliefs in other areas. For instance God or no god, right or wrong, etc. Everyone can agree on something, but can also be wrong in other areas (even where they are experts on the same). It means we have to respect that if someone has a different view, it's not necessarily due to ignorance or neglect. Brilliant engineers have engineered junk for instance (I'm thinking of Buckminster Fuller, who eventually introduced geodesic domes to architecture--not junk--but preceded them with some ridiculously useless things).

But Jose, I do understand both the Multi-regional Continuity and African Eve Models of human evolution and am using one racist model to condemn both. You don't seem to have an inkling or clue about the details or racial implications inherent in either model, least of all, according to the extensive listing and data on the human fossil record that Lubenow has provided me with.

Let's try not to get overly zealous about the fact an evolutionist who is likely not a racist, does not associate evolution with racism. Try to wind it down a notch and treat everyone on the board like they have the same capacity as you do to understand. Statements about "inklings or clues" tend to make everyone else look at you and say, who is this guy wagging his finger and why doesn't he just deliver the data.

If you could just show me the fossil or genetic evidence of Asian and European people's entire extinction prior to, during or after the arrival of a breed or race of genetically superior African Homo sapiens on their continents, instead of simply reiterating and regurgitating, ad nauseum, that 'natural selection' did it, or 'geneticists say this or that,' I will fold up my cards, grab my creationist hat and be 'outta' this forum in a moment. It's a promise.

Now, that looked almost like a respectable beginning to a question, but you encumber with the "reiterating... regurgitating... ad nauseum" etc.

How about simply:

What is the fossil or genetic evidence of Asian and European people's entire extinction prior to, during or after the arrival of a breed or race of genetically superior African Homo sapiens on their continents?

As a creationist myself I'm interested in the response to such a question unadorned by the rant.

[jcrawford]

If you could just show me the fossil or genetic evidence of Asian and European people's entire extinction prior to, during or after the arrival of a breed or race of genetically superior African Homo sapiens on their continents, instead of simply reiterating and regurgitating, ad nauseum, that 'natural selection' did it, or 'geneticists say this or that,' I will fold up my cards, grab my creationist hat and be 'outta' this forum in a moment. It's a promise.

Now, that looked almost like a respectable beginning to a question, but you encumber with the "reiterating... regurgitating... ad nauseum" etc.

How about simply:

What is the fossil or genetic evidence of Asian and European people's entire extinction prior to, during or after the arrival of a breed or race of genetically superior African Homo sapiens on their continents?

As a creationist myself I'm interested in the response to such a question unadorned by the rant.

I do tend to embellish some of my arguments with the same flamboyant vernacular and vocabulary which is utilized against me sometimes. It seems I have an irrepressible flair for the dramatic on occasion.

In answer to your above question about "fossil or genetic evidence of Asian and European people's entire extinction," there is none. Thanks for your appreciated contribution to the discussion. Let's see what evidence the neo-Darwinsts present to the contrary.