[_ Old Earth _] Historical race concepts

[Lewis]

Historical race concepts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_race_concepts

Race (human classification)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_classification)

 

[Barbarian]

Historical race concepts have varied across cultures and over time, and have been controversial for social, political and scientific reasons. Until the 19th century, race was thought by many to constitute an immutable and distinct type or species which shared particular racial characteristics, such as body constitution, temperament and mental capacities.

Actually much later than that, for some groups:
Yet the prophecy again has its obverse side. Somehow they have only gone so far and no farther. The Japhethites and Semites have, sooner or later, taken over their territories, and their inventions, and then developed them and utilized them for their own enlargement. Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.
Henry Morris, Director of the Institute for Creation Research, The Beginning Of the World, Second Edition (1991), pp. 147-148

Evolutionary theory shows that there are no biological human races. But that doesn't stop some people.

 

[Lewis]

Japheth = light bright or fair skinned . Shem = brown dusky or olive skinned. Ham = hot heated or burned or burnt skinned. King James Bible Genesis 6
These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.

 

[Lewis]

What the human Genome tells us about race' it really is none. something that I have been preaching for years. But you can't tell stupid man that. Cultural differences yes, but that is about it. Hey we split up at the tower of Babal so what do you expect.

http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-01-03.htm

 

[Barbarian]

What the human Genome tells us about race' it really is none. something that I have been preaching for years. But you can't tell stupid man that. Cultural differences yes, but that is about it.

Yep. The fact is, there is more genetic variation within any "race" you could set up, than there would be between "races." That's how it is. The Institute for Creation Research, is stuffed with prunes.

 

[TOG]

Yep. The fact is, there is more genetic variation within any "race" you could set up, than there would be between "races." That's how it is. The Institute for Creation Research, is stuffed with prunes.

The fact is that there is more genetic variation within any "political party" you could set up, than there would be between "political parties". That's how it is. There are no "political parties". There is also no genetic difference between "nations". They don't exist either. Unless, of course, you admit that maybe... just maybe, there might be classifications, including nationality, political affiliation and, yes, even race, that are based on something besides genetics. People were classified into races long before anyone knew what genes were. It's not based on genetics, but appearance.

The TOG​

 

[Barbarian]

The fact is that there is more genetic variation within any "political party" you could set up, than there would be between "political parties". That's how it is.

That's because political parties, like "races" are social constructs, with no biological reality at all.

There are no "political parties".

Like races, they are merely social conventions, not biological entities.

There is also no genetic difference between "nations". They don't exist either.

See above.

Unless, of course, you admit that maybe... just maybe, there might be classifications, including nationality, political affiliation and, yes, even race, that are based on something besides genetics.

That was the point. The ICR definition is completely wrong, and it does great evil. Blacks are not inferior intellectually or spiritually to other groups. You are as likely to be a good genetic match for a Hutu from Rwanda, as you are to be a good genetic match for the person next door.

People were classified into races long before anyone knew what genes were. It's not based on genetics, but appearance.

See above. Appearances are only appearances. But genes are quite another thing. If you understand this, you surely understand why Morris was so egregiously wrong about "Hamites."

Darwin's conclusion, that skin color and appearance in general are determined by sexual selection, that is, societal norms about attractiveness, has been confirmed.

 

[Lewis]

Barbarian wrote
Like races, they are merely social conventions, not biological entities.

You hit the nail on the head.

 

[Vaccine]

I hate to point this out but Darwinism is intrinsically racist. According to his ideas we share a common ancestor with other apes. We can trace a person X lineage back to a point where it is non-human ape. Let's say that was 346,255 generations ago. We can trace person Y lineage back also, say 342,788 generations ago. Somebody is going to be closer to a non-human ape and somebody else is going to be farther away.

If Adam was just a symbol, some people are more descended from other animals and some other people are less descended from other animals. However, if Adam was a literal person, we are all descendants from him. All men are equal. Some may be short, some tall, some light hair, some dark hair, etc, but "He hath made of one blood all nations of men." Acts 17:26

The ICR definition is completely wrong, and it does great evil.

Don't you mean Henry Morris is wrong? Not everyone shares his racist ideas:

"Where Did the Races Come From?
by John D. Morris, Ph.D.
Waiting in airports and long airplane rides have become a way of life for the ICR staff scientist. Imagine my appreciation when two black servicemen engaged me in a delightful conversation about creation the other day.
As it turned out, both men were dedicated Christians, but had no previous teaching on creation, although both knew evolution had to be wrong, based on the clear statements of Scripture.
Finally, they asked the question which they had always wanted to ask, but had never dared to: Where did the races come from?
Perhaps I was reading too much into their comments, but I felt like weeping (and still feel like weeping) as I recognized what generations of racial prejudice had done to these two men. From Darwin on down, evolutionists have preached that the Negro race was lower on the evolutionary scale, much closer to the apes than the Caucasian. As a matter of fact the whole concept of race is evolutionary, not Biblical, for"God hath made of one blood all nations of men" (Acts 17:26). All of mankind springs from our first parents, Adam and Eve, and then through Noah's family. The Biblical distinction is between national groups, and especially languages, not skin color or other physical characteristics. These two men, and probably many blacks, had been bludgeoned by evolutionary dogma into questioning their own self-worth, wondering if their standing before God was equal to that of other ethnic groups.
Actually, the Biblical model regarding the origin of physical characteristics is easily the best historical and scientific explanation. Starting with Noah's family, the creation model postulates a "racially mixed" population, with much biological potential for variation. As family groups were isolated by language barriers, environmental factors allowed particular traits already present to be expressed more frequently, while genes coded for other characteristics were not favored and were eventually suppressed.
Genetically speaking, the differences between the various races are extremely small. All are of the same species, are interfertile, and produce fertile offspring. The most noticeable difference is in skin color, but the fact is, we are all the same color; some people just have a little more of that color than others. Skin shade is due to the amount of a substance called melanin in the skin; the more melanin, the darker the skin. Racially mixed individuals can parent children who are all the way from quite dark to quite light, or anywhere in between. The predominant shade for freely interbreeding individuals would be brown.
While prejudice, persecution, and racial hatred follow directly from the application of evolutionary teaching, some have even proposed racism in the name of Christianity. The Christian must not allow himself or herself to think this way. The Lord Jesus certainly didn't. He was likely neither white nor black, but somewhere in between. He died to provide all men the opportunity for eternal life (II Peter 3:9, for example). Indeed, heaven will be populated by "a great multitude . . .of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues (who will) stand before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes" (Revelation 7:9), all redeemed by His blood. In the end, all racism, as well as racial distinctions, will be abolished.
*Dr. John Morris is President of ICR."
http://www.icr.org/article/where-did-races-come-from/

 

[Barbarian]

I hate to point this out but Darwinism is intrinsically racist.

In fact, almost all people of European descent were racists in the 1800s. Darwin was considered to be not a racist by his peers because his theory led him to believe that all humans were of common descent and entitled to freedom, dignity, and the right to the products of their own labor. The creationist captain of the Beagle violently disagreed with Darwin, stating that some races were better off as slaves.

According to his ideas we share a common ancestor with other apes.

Which is why racism is a foolish idea. Not all creationists are racists, of course, but creationism provides the intellectual support racism needs.

We can trace a person X lineage back to a point where it is non-human ape. Let's say that was 346,255 generations ago. We can trace person Y lineage back also, say 342,788 generations ago. Somebody is going to be closer to a non-human ape and somebody else is going to be farther away.

Nope. Evidence indicates we are all descended from a single human female.

If Adam was just a symbol

Evolutionary theory does not require that Adam was "just a symbol."

some people are more descended from other animals and some other people are less descended from other animals.

That's a creationist notion, completely contrary to evolutionary theory, which shows that there are no biological human races. Agassiz, one of Darwin's great opponents, and the last world class biologist to be a creationists thought something like your idea.

Barbarian observes:
The ICR definition is completely wrong, and it does great evil.

Don't you mean Henry Morris is wrong?

His book was widely circulated among creationists. None of them objected to it in spite of him being the leader of the largest creationist organization. They weren't all racists, but none of them thought he should be called out on it. Imagine what would happen if a real scientist were to say something like that. He'd be in serious trouble, likely losing his job.

Not everyone shares his racist ideas:

Enough for him to keep his job.

John Morris is less of a racist than his father:

Genetically speaking, the differences between the various races are extremely small.

I appreciate the improvement, but Morris is dead wrong about this. There are no "races", genetically speaking. There is more variation within any "races" you might designate, than there would be between them. Morris just backed off a little from some of the worst slander.

Morris projects:

While prejudice, persecution, and racial hatred follow directly from the application of evolutionary teaching,

Apparently, he's decided people are dumb enough to believe there was no racism before Darwin. Darwin's theory led to the research that demonstrated that races don't even exist outside of our own human prejudices. But creationism has had a little trouble keeping up, as Morris and Son demonstrate.

some have even proposed racism in the name of Christianity.

His dad, for example. He's certainly less of a racist than his father, but he's still convinced that there are genetically-identifiable races.

 

[Lewis]

Darwin himself was racist
http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Darwin_himself_was_racist

 

[Milk-Drops]

Darwin himself was racist
http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Darwin_himself_was_racist

As Barbarian had pointed out. Most of high English society was fascist. However Darwin was socially progressive by comparison. It however doesn't impact modern evolutionary thoery.