Bones of Contentions.

Creationist professor Marvin Lubenow contends in his 2004 edition of "Bones of Contention" that all neo-Darwinist theories about the origins and evolution of the human race are a scientific form of racism. Being somewhat familiar with the several claims, arguments and ramifications of his thesis, I am prepared to discuss, debate and defend his claim that neo-Darwinist theories of human origins and evolution are theoretically racist should anyone care to discuss, debate and defend evolutionist theories to the contrary.

Hello Percy:Thanks for the advice. I know that both evolutionism and racism are highy debatable and 'hot' topics so I feel it is in our common interest to know that Lubenow adequately documents, demonstrates and clarifies his distinctions between charges of scientific racism against a "theory," the theorists, and all followers of, believers in, and supporters of, the "theory."Neither Lubenow nor I would dare to accuse any posters on this forum of harboring racist views or of being racists themseleves. Since Lubenow speaks so eloquently for himself in his 2004 edition of "Bones of Contention," I would only use his basic theses as the basis of support for my own interpretation, understanding and presentation of the inherent racial implications in neo-Darwinst theories of the human race's evolution out of non-human African primates.Since we both know that the topic can be 'touchy,' I will keep my posts in context with the following interpretation of Lubenow's theses:Neo-Darwinst theories about the origin and evolution of species are a form of scientific racism when applied to any or all members of the human race because dividing and separating our human ancestors into different species reduces and degrades them to an inferior and unequal biological status regarding their natural human capacity of inter-fertility, sexual reproduction and breeding with all other members of the current human race.It is a form of scientific racism to theorize that Middle Eastern and European Neanderthal people and Homo erectus people in Asia and Africa were not fully human but were rather an evolutionary subspecies of humanity which became extinct. (Sub-humanism) To be fully human as a race or species means being capable of inter-fertility with all other people.It is racial and scientific prejudice against people of Middle Eastern, European and Asian descent when theories of evolution deny their Neanderthal or Homo erectus ancestry and insist on substituting an African line of descent for them today. Since evolutionists maintain that Neanderthals and Homo sapiens both evolved from H. Erectus, either in Europe or Africa, there is no scientific reason or justification to assert that Homo erectus people in Asia were not the ancestors of today’s Asian people. All changes in human skull shapes, sizes and structural facial contours may be attributable to the passing of the Ice Age and the advent of current climatic conditions around the world.It is a racist scenario to theorize that both European and Middle Eastern Neanderthals and Asian Homo erectus types of people were eliminated and replaced by more highly evolved Homo sapiens who originally migrated from Africa and didn’t or wouldn’t interbreed with other humans simply because evolutionists label them as a separate species of humans who couldn’t sexually reproduce with other humans even if they wanted to.It is a form of scientific racism against people of Muslim, Jewish and Christian ancestry and descent who believe that some human ancestors were descendants of Abraham and that all of their human ancestors were descended from Noah's family, to theorize that Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus Christ shared common genealogical ancestry with a mythological Homo sapiens woman named Eve in Africa who is theoretically associated, identified, categorized and classified with a species of hon-human primates who are then also claimed to have evolved from some other non-human "species" in Africa.

I am using the 1996 edition of the American Oxford dictionary to define race, racial, racist and racism since concepts and definitions of racism must first be related to definitions and concepts of race. I can copy it here if anyone requests it.Obviously, I am also going by Lubenow's definitions and concepts of racism as published in his 2004 edition of "Bones of Contention," and wish it was on a CD in order for me to copy verbatim definitive sections of his complete thesis.Personally, I don't feel qualified to define anything and would prefer to just go by the professional opinions of Oxford or some other good dictionary.Also, I don't know how to quote posts on this forum so any help there would be appreciated.

How do I reply with a quote since when I press the reply icon it only says "Reply without a quote." Thank you.

Adminjar: Message 18 of 28
07-24-2005 03:29 PM Reply to: Message 17 by jcrawford"at the bottomof this message you will find links to threads on how to do most anything here. In addition, when posting a reply you will find links to both HTML and dBCodes located on the left side of the input window."Sorry. I haven't been able to figure out how to quote a post other than like this.

Chiroptera: Message 19 of 29
07-24-2005 03:31 PM Reply to: Message 17 by jcrawford"Hello, jcrawford, and welcome to EvC."Hello and thanks for replying."There are two types of quote boxes:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How do I reply with a quote since when I press the reply icon it only says "Reply without a quote." Thank you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------and .... "I'm still befuddled. Mind if I quote posts this way?"

Nozyned: Message 23 of 30
07-24-2005 05:52 PM Reply to: Message 16 by jcrawfordRe: A definition of racism"I think, though no one else has asked directly, that we do need to know what you and Lubenow are using for a definition of racist."I am using the 1996 edition of the American Oxford dicrionary to define race, racial, racism and racist. I think a good definition of race is also necessary since definitions and concepts of racism must refer to race. Lubenow quotes Charles Winick (Dictionary of Anthroplogy) defining racism as "the inherent superiority of certain races and stirs up prejudice and hatred for races said to be inferior."Lubenow also points out that the 1944 edition of the Oxford Universal Dictionary does not even have an entry for "racism," and that Darwinists originally used the terms "species" and "race" interchangably."Others seem to be asking indirectly by discussing different ideas of what may or may not be racist."One of the problems is that evolutionists don't accurately define race and often say that is merely a social concept or construct. Do social scientists define race?"There will probably be multiple meanings for the word and it is necessary for us all to come to some agreement on the terms used before the discussion can continue."Hopefully. If not, then what? End of discussion?"Mirriam webster online gives: (Dictionary by Merriam-Webster: America's most-trusted online dictionary)
racism:
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
- racist /-sist also -shist/ noun or adjectiveCould you connect this definition to the statements you made to show how it applies?"Yes, but I prefer Oxford's definition of race to Webster's since we are dealing with issues concerning the origins of the whole human race.

Dictionary entries for definitions of terms in The American Edition of the The Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus published in New York and Oxford by the Oxford University Press in 1996:Race: noun.
1 each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics.
2 a tribe, nation, etc., regarded as a distinct ethnic stock.
3 the fact or concept of division into races (discrimination based on race).
4 a genus, species, breed or variety of animals, plants or micro-organisms.
5 a group of persons, animals or plants connected by common descent.
6 any great division of living creatures (the feathered race, the four-footed race).
7 descent; kindred (of noble race; separate in language and race).
8 a class of persons etc., with some common feature (the race of poets).1 and 2 include and refer to stock, tribe, nation, people, folk, clan and family.
7 includes and refers to blood, descent, breed, kin, kindred, family, stock, line and lineage.
8 see CLASS, noun.racial: adjective.
1 of or concerning race (racial diversities; racial minority).
2 on the grounds of or connected with difference in race (racial discrimination; racial tension).racialism: noun. = RACISMracism: noun.
1a a belief in the superiority of a particular race; prejudice based on this.
1b antagonism toward other races, especially as a result of this.
2 the theory that human abilities, etc., are determined by race.1 includes and refers to racialism, apartheid, jim crowism, chauvinism and bigotry.racist: noun. see SUPREMACIST.
racist: adjective. racialist, prejudiced, chauvinistic, bigoted.

PaulK: Message 34 of 40
07-25-2005 03:29 AM Reply to: Message 33 by jcrawford"The relevant definitions for "racism" as it is usually understood are 1) and 2). Are these the ones you intend to refer to ?"Not exlusively, since I find 4, 5 and 6 equally pertinent and don't see why Oxford would include all 8 interpretaions if they were not equally relevent or applicable to a meaningful definition of 'race.'

NosyNed: Message 35 of 42
07-25-2005 11:04 AM Reply to: Message 32 by jcrawford"It may be that a century ago race and species were used interchangably that is no longer the case. There has been much, recent discussion of 'race' in the literature and we have had a discussion of it here. The geneticists (and I don't think in this case it is evolutionary biologists as much as geneticists but it maybe both) are pointing out that there is not a good genetic determination of race (which I guess means the evolutionists would agree)."If geneticists or evolutionists can't, won't or don't scientifically define 'race,' how can we be sure that they don't accidently, inadvertently or intentionally classify some racial variety of the human race (eg: Neandertalensis, erectus and ergaster) as a different and separate "species," since the only true test of our common ancestral humanity is biological interfertily and human fossils don't tell us who they reproduced with or didn't."Why is it a "problem" if evolutionists don't define race and how can they be called racist if they don't even define the term?"If evolutionists can't scientifically distinguish between the historical racial diversity within the human race and human species, because of inadequate definitions or scientific methods of differentiation, they may be inadvertently guilty of associating and identifying some racial observations with, and as different and separate human species. Since the only biological test of true and full humanity lies in interfertilty tests, evolutionists merely assume and postulate that Neandertal and Homo erectus types were a different 'species' and not equal biological members of the one and only human race. That's a racist theory."Thanks for suppling the AO definitions in a subsequent post. Now can you logically connect those to evolutionary theory?"You're welcome. The logical connection is that since neo-Darwinist theorists have no definitive understanding or concept of 'race,' they are prone to make racial and racist remarks about the origin and evolution of the human race."As noted above, geneticist are specifically denying that your definition 2 of racism:
(2 the theory that human abilities, etc., are determined by race.)
is true."That's only because they don't distinguish between race and species concerning the human race and subscribe to racial and racist neo-Darwinist theories of the human race's origin and evolution from an African species of ape. BTW; it's not my defifition of race; it's Oxford's."Your definition 1b is a personal matter not one of an area of scientific study."Again, it's not a personal matter, but a dictionary or scientific defintion of race that is the subject of our inquiry."The contention that definition 1 applies because we not that some other species (species not races) have gone extinct isn't sensible to me. Could you elaborate further on Lubenow's logic?"Lubenow's thesis leads one to conclude that the division of the whole human race into different and separate species by evolutionists is merely a racist ploy to argue that some primitive African people (Homo ergaster, rudolfensis, erectus or habilis) were direct decendents of some species of African apes.

"In terms of the biblical Eve perhaps, but in terms of mitochondrial Eve that isn't in fact the case. We are all descendants of one woman, but that is quite diffrent to all having come from one woman. Mitochondrial Eve was only one woman within a population not the only woman, it is simply that due to the way mitochondria are inherited the descendants of her mitochondria are the only ones still extant in the population of modern humans."African Eve herself could have been a direct descendent of Adam and Eve since no one really seems to know for certain where or who her genetic mother came from according to DNA tests.

"Racism" as it is commonly understood deals with divisions within the modern human species - divisions which are more social than biological. Even the distinction between Neanderthals and modern humans has a more solid biological basis. So any extension of the concept of "racism" to extinct hominid species (or sub-species) needs to establish that it is a valid extension of the current usage of "racism".not to redefine "racism" based on a dictionary definition of race."We have no other definition of race to go by other than that of a good dictionary like Oxford, since evolutionists don't biologically define race and usually substitute "species" for any racial differences between human fossils. Besides, without knowing what race is, how can anyone define racism?

"I really don't see what the problem is. Whether we have distinct species, Homo erectus, H. heidelbergensis, H. rudolfensis, H. floriensis, H. neanderthalensis, and H. sapiens, or whether we lump them altogether in the same species is largely irrelevant."Hardly irrelevent when neo-Darwinists have been trying to associate and link the human race to a species of African apes for well over 100 years now since the ultimate purpose of evolutionist theory is to prove the origin of species. If all the many diversified members of the human race who ever lived on earth are only considered racial varieties of the one and only human race, then it would be more difficult for neo-Darwinist racial theorists to associate and prove the human race's common ancestry and genetic descent from a race or "species" of non-human primates in Africa. At it stands now, the Multi-regional Continuity Model of human evolution prefers to regard Neandertals, Homo erectus and sapiens as one species, but the African Eve people believe that gives way to charges of evolutionary racism, so they prefer to dehumanize our Neanderthal ancestors by labelling them an extinct "species" with whom modern sapiens didn't want to interbreed. Either way, all neo-Darwinist theories of human origins in, and evolution out of, the continent of Africa, are a form of scientific racism.

"Oh NO! Say it's not true! Lumpers vs. splitters is the very soul of academic debate and now you say it's irrelevant?! Aren't careers made and broken over these crucials distinctions? ***shudders***"Really! I love the way Lubenow divides neo-Darwinists up into Wolpoff lumpers and Tattersall splitters. If Tattersall had his way, he'd divide the present human race up into six hundred different species! Of course, 599 of them would be extinct since neo-Darwinists can only tolerate one human species at a time.

"The prevailing theory of of human evolution has all of the races evolving from a common ancestor in direct line. There is no suggestion of one race being more "highly evolved" than another. The races all belong to the same species, there is more genetic variation within races than between races for characters associated with 'IQ", so where is the racism?"What's your scientific definition of racism (based on a scientific definitin of race, of course) and how do you distinguish between current members of the human race and former racial varieties which neo-Darwinists call 'different and separate' species?