Doublespeak on Calling Out Racist Ideas?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Dan_Eastwood

Pardon me for being a thick-headed agnostic, but does this phrase:

… some similar elements to such models of the past …

refer to some doctrine that races (some some definition) may have been created separately? I’ll assume this is true for my remaining comments.

It refers to polygenesis, which I explained here: What is Polygenesis?. We’ve also discussed it here: Reckoning With Human Zoos.

There are two cannonnical types of polygenesis, one arose as a heresy in theology (center) and one arose as a now falsified theory in evolutionary science (right):

@swamidass

All three of these versions of origins are wrong.

The key claim of polygenesis is always in all cases:

@swamidass

• Humans are separated into distinct lineages (species or sub-species), with differences in biological abilities.
• These distinct sub-species persist to current day (denial of monophylogeny )

The suggestion was that in important and salient ways, the Genealogical Adam is like polygenesis, and this justifiably concern us. And, at the same time, we are not calling you out for racism.