Jump to content


Photo

Richard Dawkins Shows His Racism.


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
43 replies to this topic

#41 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 09 September 2011 - 11:48 AM

Now your getting into messy politics. Here is some info on genetics from a biblical worldview:
Noah and Genetics:
http://genesisflood....h-and-genetics/


Rico: the article you gave a link to was very good. Thanks.

#42 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 09 September 2011 - 12:20 PM

I just want to make a comment about the video in the OP, because I never directly addressed it.

“Ape” is really nothing more than a classification. It is no different than “vertebrate” or “mammal”. If the uniting characteristics of a group are x y z, and humans possess characteristics x y z, then humans are considered part of that group.

I hope that no creationist would be offended if I called them a mammal. Humans have hair, mammary glands, and all the other features we use to define mammals. Therefore, humans are mammals. To call a human an ape is the same sort of thing. Humans have all the features used to classify an ape, therefore humans are apes.

However, I realize that the word ape comes along with other connotations. “Ape” makes us think of chimpanzees and gorillas, so I can see why it might be offensive to creationists. I think, for this reason, Dawkins was out of line when he used this term. That being said, I have read books by Dawkins and I don’t get the impression that he’s a racist. Even in the video, he called himself an ape before labelling the other man as such. He should not have imposed the label onto someone else, but I disagree that racism was his motivation to do so.

#43 rico

rico

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 669 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Jesus, computers, physics, video games, philosophy, epistomology
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • USA

Posted 09 September 2011 - 07:23 PM

Rico: the article you gave a link to was very good. Thanks.

Your Welcome; as Isabella commented we're mammals, but I noticed Dawkins used the term 'African Ape' is that in reference to the perceived Mitochondrial lineages to African apes? http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC1945034/ There are also Asian Apes... I say this in a slightly different context; because I was trying to find the 3 Mitochondrial lineages Robert mentions in the article. I know about Gen. Chapter 10 and the Table of Nations, but I mean in the genomes themselves... There are many different models for this on wikipedia/ probably internet, I just thought I'd have fun finding this out./or where is Roberts genome data he's using, Skittle was fun to mess with?? It's mostly greek to me, HA... Have a good night all :-)
Edit: Also Dawkins called himself an Ape too, the narrator was probably off context. In our worldview, we're all decendants of an advanced culture of Babalonian Indians. (also see Vance Nelson, session 10: http://ldbc.info/media/media.htm) and Paul James-Griffiths talks more about Genesis ancient culture: http://www.edinburgh...up.org/video/34 I fastforwarded through about the first 13 minutes. The word 'Arian' comes up.

#44 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 09 September 2011 - 11:32 PM

Your Welcome; as Isabella commented we're mammals, but I noticed Dawkins used the term 'African Ape' is that in reference to the perceived Mitochondrial lineages to African apes?


I would assume that when Dawkins says “African ape”, he is referencing the popular Out of Africa hypothesis. For those who are not familiar, this hypothesis states that modern humans first appeared in Africa and subsequently spread to Europe and the rest of the world.

In terms of racial diversity, this hypothesis has a couple important implications:

1) It suggests that all of the races share a common beginning. That is, humanity originated in Africa and all living humans can trace their ancestry back to this point.

2) It suggests that all of the races have had the same amount of time to evolve, which means there is no race that is “more evolved” or “less evolved” relative to another.

There is nothing racist about the Out of Africa hypothesis. In fact, I think this hypothesis promotes racial equality because it completely goes against the mentality that one race is somehow superior to another.

And just a quick note, because it seems to be a common area of confusion: humans did not come from chimpanzees (or any other extant ape). According to the theory, humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor that was neither a human nor a chimpanzee.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users