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?

 

[UTEOTW]

Well, I think most sceintists would say that there is no scientific basis for race. There is often more diversity within a "race" than there are differences between races. So from a scientific point of view, such behavior is illogical. Here was a recent popular article of the subject.

http://www.discover.com/issues/mar-05/features/human-study-thyself/

Now, sorry for the spam, but I would like to copy over some related questions that were a little off topic in the thread I posted them, but that might get better traction here.

Now, this could very easily be a slippery slope fallacy, they usually are if you use the phrase "slippery slope," but maybe not. To show that it is, someone needs to point out where you can logically draw the dividing line.

The issue here is that certain students think that they deserve special treatment because of their religious beliefs. Because they do not accept modern biology (and really, a group of high school students, their parents and their high school teachers are the BEST judge of the validity of a complex scientific theory), they feel that they should be given special consideration with regard to university admissions. Everyone else must attend schools with certified science classes, but since they object to science, they should be given special consideration and allowed in on their grades even though the grades are in classes that are subpar.

John's question is whether this should extend to all religions and interests. And it is a reasonable question. Should we allow students of other faiths to throwout whatever subjects might not agree with their own beliefs? In science and other areas, too. Should holocaust deniers be let in, their history lesson excused because it is what they believe? (This is a good analogy. Both YEers and holocaust deniers go in with preconceived notions, based on nothing substantial, that allow them to trumpet anything that even sounds good to their position, without regard to factual content, and to ignore the overwhelming evidence against their position.)

What about other religions? If some folks wanted to teach re-incarnation as part of their biology class, would you stand in solidarity with them if they were denied the use of their grades for entry in the university or do you hypocritically only support groups that share your specific set of beliefs?

What if some parents do not believe that their kids should be made to think that they can fail. As a result, they choose schools that teach some sort of new math where there are no wrong answers, just alternative ways to solving the problem. Should they be let in?

How about some other real life controversies?

Should churches be given exemptions to zoning laws?

Should church bells be except from local noise ordinances?

What about people who believe in the use of illegal drugs in their religious ceremonies? Should they be given excemptions?

Should people be allowed to serve their unerage children wine with meals if it is part of their believes?

What if someone wants to practice human sacrifice and has volunteers ready to go?

Could you please tell us just how we should define the line that tells us what religious practices and beliefs should allow for excemptions from the standards under which everyone has to live and which ones should remain as standards for everyone regardless of their beliefs?

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by 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?

The scientists I read have all been saying that current racist attitudes such as choosing to deny some humans a right to live in a neigborhood or the right to have a certain kind of job are totally unwarrented by any findings of science.

That's about all I have every heard about "race" from scientists. They say that the current humanity is all one species, one race.

Concerning Neandertals, scientists want to pin down an answer to the mystery as to whether they were a separate species. To that end, they gather as much evidence as they can. They managed to analyze some dna from a neandertal. They compare the morphology of the individuals, including children as well as adults. Their current concensus is that the variations of the neandertals from homo sapiens is enough to consider them a different species.

Of course, due to believing in evolution, it is also true that scientists believe neandertals and homo sapiens once had a common ancestor.

 

[Daisy]

In genetics and medicine, race is a valid topic for study. For instance, Tay Sachs disease is almost exclusive to those of Ashkenazi Jewish, French-Canadian or Cajun ancestry, while sicle cell anemia is found in those of African descent.

There have been studies as to whether the race of the patient affects the treatment heart patients receive. There are also studies about whether and how race affects how a patient reacts to a particular drug or treatment.

So, no, race and racism are not beyond the purvue of scientific inquiry.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by 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.

The terms "religious discrimination and scientific racism" are typically, and unfortunately, used by Christians who simply don't like the views of someone else. Use of these terms in this manner results in us not being taken seriously, and it damages the credibility of the Christian witness.

 

[jcrawford]

I see that we are off to a confusing start here. Before we get any further into the discussion, let's see if we can develop a consensus about (1) whether or not there is such a thing as 'the human race' to begin with, and (2) whether scientists should recognize all human beings as belonging to one human race or not.

See if you can answer 1 and 2 with a simple yes or no. If not, then add additional comments if you like. Thanks for participating in this enquiry.

 

[Daisy]

"The human race" is a literary term refering to the species. If you say there is "one human race" do you mean to preclude other concept of races, such as Caucasian and Inuit within the human race? Are you limiting race to genetics or do you include culture?

"Race" has more than one definition. If you start off with one, then switch in the middle without warning, the result is confusion rather than enlightenment. Unless we are all talking about the same concept, this will be fruitless.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Daisy:
"The human race" is a literary term refering to the species. If you say there is "one human race" do you mean to preclude other concept of races, such as Caucasian and Inuit within the human race? Are you limiting race to genetics or do you include culture?

"Race" has more than one definition. If you start off with one, then switch in the middle without warning, the result is confusion rather than enlightenment. Unless we are all talking about the same concept, this will be fruitless.

I'm not "starting off" with any particular definition of 'race,' even as "a literary term referring to the species," as you put it, since once you include the human concept of 'species' in any definition of 'race,' we are confusing the issue at the outset, unless we can clarify the difference between concepts of 'race' and 'species,' regarding different members of the 'human race.'

That's why I asked you if you recognize there really is such a thing as 'the human race,' scientific determinations notwithstanding. What I am trying to get at here is; let's say that you believe that there actually is such an entity as 'the human race' whether scientists can confirm it or not, or whether, on the other hand, you don't believe such an entity exists yet scientists confirm it's existance. Would scientific opinion sway you from your basic belief that the 'human race' exists or not?

The point I am trying to arrive at here, is that if there is no 'human race,' how can there be any racial divisions within it? I'm sure that you get the gist of my enquiry here, since any concept of racial diversity must first assume the existance of the 'human race' in the first place. No?

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by jcrawford:
I'm not "starting off" with any particular definition of 'race,' even as "a literary term referring to the species," as you put it, since once you include the human concept of 'species' in any definition of 'race,' we are confusing the issue at the outset, unless we can clarify the difference between concepts of 'race' and 'species,' regarding different members of the 'human race.'

That there is the problem - if you refuse to "start off" with a particular definition of what you're talking about, how can anyone know what they are agreeing or disagreeing with?

Please do clarify what you consider to be the differences between 'race' and 'species' as this distinction is crucial to the discussion.

That's why I asked you if you recognize there really is such a thing as 'the human race,' scientific determinations notwithstanding. What I am trying to get at here is; let's say that you believe that there actually is such an entity as 'the human race' whether scientists can confirm it or not, or whether, on the other hand, you don't believe such an entity exists yet scientists confirm it's existance. Would scientific opinion sway you from your basic belief that the 'human race' exists or not?

Well, that all depends on how you define it and whether the definition changes in the middle of the paragraph. If you use a single word to embrace several distinct concepts, each of us will probably be arguing about a different concept using the same word. I doubt that will get us very far.

The point I am trying to arrive at here, is that if there is no 'human race,' how can there be any racial divisions within it? I'm sure that you get the gist of my enquiry here, since any concept of racial diversity must first assume the existance of the 'human race' in the first place. No?

No. If you have one race and one race only to which all humans belong, then you cannot have subsequent racial divisions within the one race. You cannot use the same word to include everyone and, at the same time, distinquish between them. It is logically inconsistent.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by jcrawford:
whether or not there is such a thing as 'the human race' to begin with

The phrase "the human race" is not a scientific term. It is a term of used in common vernacular. Scientifically, all humans alive today are homo sapien (being of the genus Homo and species sapien). By this understanding, all humans today belong to the same species. Race is not a classification of life forms. If one uses the term "human race" to refer to species, the yes, all humans belong to that same "race".

The definition of "race" is simply a population of humans distinguished from other populations, most commonly by traits such as skin color and facial features. There are three basic "races": Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid. All ethnic groups fit into one or more of these three race types. But it's important to note that race is not a scientific basis in antropology.

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by Johnv:
The definition of "race" is simply a population of humans distinguished from other populations, most commonly by traits such as skin color and facial features. There are three basic "races": Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid. All ethnic groups fit into one or more of these three race types. But it's important to note that race is not a scientific basis in antropology.

"Race" is rather crude and imprecise term.

I saw an interesting show on Nova recently. An anthropologist was tracing the migration of human populations using genetic markers, (when they appear, who all shares which ones); the older the population, the fewer and less varied the markers. He collected photographs and DNA samples from various isolated populations as part of his study. For instance, there was some question whether the Aborigines of Australia, New Zealand and Tasmania arrived by sea from Africa or overland through India. Because the population tested in India had a marker shared with the Aborigines but not with the Africans, he determined that the path was overland.

 

[Daisy]

There is an article in this month's Trends in Ecology and Evolution on tracing the migration of man through genetic markers associtated with the Y-chromosone ~~ "biogeograpy" they call it.

The author, Clive Finlayson, believes the evidence is against Neanderthals' being direct ancestors of modern man:

<snip>

The extraction of DNA from Neanderthal fossils 21 (linkie!), 22, 23 and 24 and the comparison of this DNA with that of present-day and Upper Palaeolithic modern humans [43] indicates that Neanderthal genes have not contributed to the current gene pool [44]. In a study using computerized fossil reconstruction and geometric morphometrics, Ponce de León and Zollikofer showed that characteristic differences in cranial and mandibular shape between Neanderthals and modern humans were deep rooted and arose early during development, possibly prenatally, and were maintained throughout postnatal ontogeny. Currat and Excoffier have modelled the range expansion of modern humans into Europe and the nature of the possible contact with Neanderthals. They concluded that the absence of Neanderthal mtDNA sequences in modern Europeans today was compatible with a maximum of 120 admixture events between Neanderthals and modern humans during the 12 ka of their coexistence and that maximum interbreeding rates of the two populations should have been &lt 0.1%. This result is consistent with the ecological evidence that indicates differences in habitat exploitation between Neanderthals (heterogeneous vegetation mosaics) and modern humans (open plains habitats) in Europe. It also casts doubt on the validity of claims that a burial excavated in Lagar Velho, Portugal, reveals Neanderthal-modern human genetic admixture.

<snip>

Link to Article

(note: click on the numbered links above if you want to read about Neanderthal DNA).

This conclusion was reached by comparing DNA, not simply fossils.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Daisy:
If you have one race and one race only to which all humans belong, then you cannot have subsequent racial divisions within the one race. You cannot use the same word to include everyone and, at the same time, distinquish between them. It is logically inconsistent.

I agree. that's why I say that there is only one human race and species which has observable racial diversity and variation within it, and that any division, separation or classification of people into different races or species is racist.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Johnv:
If one uses the term "human race" to refer to species, the yes, all humans belong to that same "race".

On this we agree. All Homo sapiens may be said to belong the human race. It is reasonable and acceptable to use the terms Homo sapiens and human race interchangably since both terms encompass and include all living people.

The definition of "race" is simply a population of humans distinguished from other populations, most commonly by traits such as skin color and facial features. There are three basic "races": Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid. All ethnic groups fit into one or more of these three race types. But it's important to note that race is not a scientific basis in antropology.

Then where did you get your definition of 'race' from, if not the science of anthropology?

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by jcrawford:
I agree. that's why I say that there is only one human race and species which has observable racial diversity and variation within it, and that any division, separation or classification of people into different races or species is racist.

How can there be racial diversity if there is only one race? Any diversity could not be racial by that definition; it would have to be something other. Racism is impossible if there is only one race. As for division, one goes into one once and one time only.

A division by race may or may not be racist (it would depend on intent and methodology), but division by species would be speciesist rather than racist.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Daisy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jcrawford:
I agree. that's why I say that there is only one human race and species which has observable racial diversity and variation within it, and that any division, separation or classification of people into different races or species is racist.

How can there be racial diversity if there is only one race? Any diversity could not be racial by that definition; it would have to be something other. Racism is impossible if there is only one race. As for division, one goes into one once and one time only.

A division by race may or may not be racist (it would depend on intent and methodology), but division by species would be speciesist rather than racist. </font>[/QUOTE]It all depends on whether the observation and recognition of different and separate racial groups within a human species is scientific, cultural or religious.

Personally, I do not think that any science can ultimately determine racial classifications any more than establish human species, since any division and classification of humanity into different and separate races and species by scientists without the consent and permission of those being so labelled is ultimately racist if to their detriment.

As in medical science, so also in biological theory. Everyone has the right to a second and third opinion, as well as the right to choose whether to believe in a biological claim or not and to refuse treatment or being treated as if a scientific theory or diagnosis is applicable in their case.

 

[UTEOTW]

If you are given a diagnosis by a doctor, you certainly are free to get other medical opinions. It does not change the fact that there is only one correct diagnosis. No matter what that is, no matter how much you dread the diagnosis or wish that there was another cause, only one can be right.

In biology, the only correct diagnosis of the evidence is evolution. No atter how distasteful you may find it, no matter how much you may wish for another answer, only evolution can be correct. You may find it a bitter pill, but any other answer is incorrect and contrary to the symptoms.

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by jcrawford:
It all depends on whether the observation and recognition of different and separate racial groups within a human species is scientific, cultural or religious.

What all depends? Whether or not a division is racist or not?

Personally, I do not think that any science can ultimately determine racial classifications...

If, as you claim, there is only one race, then, by definition, there could be no divisions into separate races by science or by culture.

...any more than establish human species,...

Distinguish, I think, rather than establish. You think that human species should not or cannot be told from non-human species by scientists?

...since any division and classification of humanity into different and separate races and species by scientists without the consent and permission of those being so labelled is ultimately racist if to their detriment.

I remember reading about a chimpanzee, Washoe if I remember, who when separating photographs of humans and chimps into two piles, put her own photo in the people pile. She referred to other chimps as "black bugs", a term she coined herself. Is it racist, by your criteria, to insist that she does not belong the human species since it was her opinion that she did?

Since there are no living Neanderthals how can anything be to their detriment?

As in medical science, so also in biological theory. Everyone has the right to a second and third opinion, as well as the right to choose whether to believe in a biological claim or not and to refuse treatment or being treated as if a scientific theory or diagnosis is applicable in their case.

As UTEOTW said, getting another opinion doesn't change the fact. Geneticists can establish paternity and lineages by comparing DNA. So, even if you insist on including Neanderthals in with homo sapiens, they still will be only distant cousins with no direct lineage to anyone currently in the human race.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
If you are given a diagnosis by a doctor, you certainly are free to get other medical opinions. It does not change the fact that there is only one correct diagnosis. No matter what that is, no matter how much you dread the diagnosis or wish that there was another cause, only one can be right.

In biology, the only correct diagnosis of the evidence is evolution. No atter how distasteful you may find it, no matter how much you may wish for another answer, only evolution can be correct. You may find it a bitter pill, but any other answer is incorrect and contrary to the symptoms.

Unfortunately though, when applied to human beings and our human ancestors, evolutionist theories of multiple human 'specie's become unwittingly, inherently and inexorably racist by denying human origins and descent from any other geographic location or people than in Africa. The African Eve Model is especially racist because it presumes (without acceptable evidence) that modern Asians, Europeans and others could not possibly have evolved from early or archaic Homo sapiens in Asia and Europe because more 'highly advanced and evolved' Homo sapiens (read genetic superiority here) like African Eve's tribe migrated out of Africa causing all other 'sub-species' of human beings all over the world to become extinct. If that isn't a scientific scenario for racial conquest of the world by neo-Dawinist ape-lovers, I can't think of a more racist script.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Daisy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jcrawford:
[qb]It all depends on whether the observation and recognition of different and separate racial groups within a human species is scientific, cultural or religious.

What all depends? Whether or not a division is racist or not?</font>[/QUOTE]Yes. There doesn't seem to be a scientific theory or explanation of race or racism. Evolutionists use the term 'species' instead of race. Some of them say that 'race' is a social concept and is not subject to scientific observation while others say that human races can only exist with a human species. It's all very confusing and highly non-scientific.

If, as you claim, there is only one race, then, by definition, there could be no divisions into separate races by science or by culture.

That is correct. Although racial variety within the human race is observable and may be tracable to geographic origin and ancestry.

You think that human species should not or cannot be told from non-human species by scientists?

On the contrary, scientists ought to be able to distinguish between all members of the human race (fossilized or not) and other 'species' of non-human animals.

I remember reading about a chimpanzee, Washoe if I remember, who when separating photographs of humans and chimps into two piles, put her own photo in the people pile. She referred to other chimps as "black bugs", a term she coined herself. Is it racist, by your criteria, to insist that she does not belong the human species since it was her opinion that she did?

It may be racist against chimpanzees but it is not racist against other human beings, since Washoe is obviously not human and cannot file charges of religious discrimination or racism against evolutionists or creationists in a U.S. court of law. Animal rights activists can petition the govenment for better living conditions while Washoe is in human captivity, but Washoe herself would have to lead civil rights marches on Washington to get her full humanity recognized before she could vote for right-wing Republicans or leftist evolutionists in the Democratic party.

Since there are no living Neanderthals how can anything be to their detriment?

Many people alive today are descendents of early and archaic Homo sapiens who lived, and were buried alongside with, Neanderthal people. There is no evidence of early Homo sapiens extinction in Asia or of archaic Homo sapiens extinction in Europe. The African Eve theory of complete population replacement in Asia and Europe by genetically superior African tribes is nothing but a racist neo-Darwinist theory.

Geneticists can establish paternity and lineages by comparing DNA. So, even if you insist on including Neanderthals in with homo sapiens, they still will be only distant cousins with no direct lineage to anyone currently in the human race.

Geneticists rely on racial theories about human evolution out of Africa in order to include or exclude certain people in their ancestral genealogies about human origins.