Religious Discrimination and Scientific Racism.

Discussion in 'Science' started by jcrawford, Sep 11, 2005.

  1. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
  2. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.

     
  3. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  4. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  5. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  6. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  7. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    "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.
     
  8. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
  9. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.

    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.

    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.
     
  10. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0

    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.
     
  11. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    "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.
     
  12. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    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:
    This conclusion was reached by comparing DNA, not simply fossils.
     
  13. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  14. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.

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

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  16. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  17. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  18. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    What all depends? Whether or not a division is racist or not?

    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.

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

    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 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.
     
  19. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  20. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.

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

    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.

    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.

    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 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.
     

Share This Page

Loading...