Human evolution and inferior races

[seer]

Do you understand "Methodological Naturalism." This view of naturalism makes no judgment as to 'knowledge and beliefs beyond its turf in the physical world.

But that has nothing to do with what I said. The point being that you take certain things as fact (that men have souls) that can not be demonstrated empirically.

No problem. The fundamental view of human nature is still within "Methodological Naturalism," but the nature of the soul is not, nor is the fundamental basis of theism.

No Shuny, it is fundamental to what man is. If man is both physical and spiritual then naturalism doesn't have the whole picture - it would actually be missing the most important aspect of man, literally the eternal nature of man.

If they were isolated they would be best adapted to the environment they were isolated in. No bras ring on this on.

Early evolutionists do not get you any brass ring when they give opinions based on a very limited view of evidence and cultural beliefs. If you want to debate this further, let's deal with contemporary views and evidence of evolution in science.

Again, you said my OP on this thread was "muddled" - it was not.

[klaus54]

Define inferiority and superiority in humans without reference to cultural bias. Only then can this discussion of whether or not biological evolution leads to superior and inferior "races" move forward without talking past each other.

[Outis]

I'm totally ignorant of how science explains the origin of ethnicities, so explain to me in layman's terms how certain races of people being genetically inferior (intellectually, physically, etc.) to other races is scientifically erroneous in the context of human evolution.

Evolution does not lead to "superior" or "inferior" at all. Discard those concepts from your inquiry, and you may have a reasonable question. Include them, and you are doing nothing more than attempting to perpetuate the "Evolution is racist" dishonesty that has plagued anti-evolutionary apologetics for several decades.

[Outis]

I think it is at least possible in theory - that some races, if they were isolated, could be genetically inferior - mentally or physically.

Again, there is no such thing as "genetically superior" or "genetically inferior." Those evaluations do not come from science--they come from either (a) a poorly argued attempt to apply science to social engineering (eugenics), or (b) a dishonest attempt to equate evolution with moral judgements.

Note that does not mean you are being dishonest--but the argument is.

[Outis]

That wasn't the conclusion of Charles Darwin, nor Ernst Haeckel who came to nearly every single conclusion Darwin did.

Nor were the evils of slavery apparent to our 18th century Founding Fathers. Both ideas are products of their time. Does that, then, mean that the modern theory of evolution is somehow contaminated by the non-scientific addenda that some attempted to add to it? If you answer yes, then you must also condemn, and reject, the Constitution for the same logic.

[Outis]

Even if it is not based on race, in a godless universe there could not be ontological equality. Some are smarter, some are more athletic, some are more cunning or ambitious, some more lazy, more emotional, less emotional, etc... And I would think that these genetic traits could spread through isolated races. Nevertheless, even if they do not breakdown on racial lines, they would breakdown individually.

Perhaps ontological equality is not possible in your understanding of a "godless universe." Your inability to comprehend something this simple does not, however, indicate that such a thing does not exist. It merely indicates that you have little or no ability (or willingness) to accept any worldview save yours in anything but disparaging terms.

[klaus54]

Perhaps ontological equality is not possible in your understanding of a "godless universe." Your inability to comprehend something this simple does not, however, indicate that such a thing does not exist. It merely indicates that you have little or no ability (or willingness) to accept any worldview save yours in anything but disparaging terms.

Not sure what Seer means by ontological equality. Is there a metric for it?

[Outis]

Not sure what Seer means by ontological equality. Is there a metric for it?

No. Regardless of the worldview used, ontological equality is a philosophical statement, not a measurable or quantifiable status.

[Carrikature]

Here is my original argument: I think it is at least possible in theory - that some races, if they were isolated, could be genetically inferior - mentally or physically.

As has been explained, you need to drop the assumption of universal standard. None exists. Hence, inferiority is only in terms of a specific environmental context. A given individual could be superior in one context and inferior in another. "Genetically inferior" as you use it derives from failing to understand that context is key.

[phank]

As has been explained, you need to drop the assumption of universal standard. None exists. Hence, inferiority is only in terms of a specific environmental context. A given individual could be superior in one context and inferior in another. "Genetically inferior" as you use it derives from failing to understand that context is key.

There's a scene in Peter and the Wolf where two birds regard one another as inferior because each has an ability the other lacks. Are women genetically superior or inferior to men because of their different plumbing? Even IQ tests are composites of lots of individual tests, so that whether there even exists such a thing as "Big G" is impossible to determine.

I still recall in one company I was in in Vietnam, we had a big athletic guy and a skinny short guy. And the big guy was stronger, and faster, and had better motor coordination, and was physically superior in every obvious respect. Except in one firefight, the little guy was able to get behind a tree and the big guy could not, and got hit. Physical superiority? Uh, sure.

[klaus54]

Interesting conversation! I note that anti-evolvatarians want to use 19th century views on human inferiority/superiority as an argument against biological evolution, which is abusus non tollit usum while they themselves need to have an (undefined as far as I can ken) notion of inferiority. Hoist by their own petard.

[seer]

Perhaps ontological equality is not possible in your understanding of a "godless universe." Your inability to comprehend something this simple does not, however, indicate that such a thing does not exist. It merely indicates that you have little or no ability (or willingness) to accept any worldview save yours in anything but disparaging terms.

Ok, I'll bit - show me how it is possible.

[seer]

As has been explained, you need to drop the assumption of universal standard. None exists. Hence, inferiority is only in terms of a specific environmental context. A given individual could be superior in one context and inferior in another. "Genetically inferior" as you use it derives from failing to understand that context is key.

So if an isolated race survived just fine because they had the advantage of a lot of game and fertile ground, but generally had a lower IQ than other races they would not be inferior? Why not?

[seer]

No. Regardless of the worldview used, ontological equality is a philosophical statement, not a measurable or quantifiable status.

Let me get this right, ontological equality is not measurable or quantifiable but you still think it is possible in a godless universe? BTW - ontological equality is more theological than philosophical.

[Outis]

Ok, I'll bit - show me how it is possible.

How can I show you anything when you, ab initio, have already rejected that it is possible?

The definition of ontological equality that you are using is "all (people) are created equal in the sight of God." You have already categorically rejected as a "legal fiction" that any other form of ontological equality for persons can possibly exist. No argument I give can overcome your subjective (and unwarranted) rejection.

You are the horse that can be brought to water, but refuses to drink. Until you stop refusing to see, no one can show you anything.

Let me get this right, ontological equality is not measurable or quantifiable but you still think it is possible in a godless universe? BTW - ontological equality is more theological than philosophical.

As you use the term, yes. You reject that any other use of the term is possible, but your rejection is your choice--not reality.