Religious Discrimination and Scientific Racism.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

"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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

"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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.