“Mr Martinez:

It is grossly unfair to extrapolate form one individual — however prominent — to ‘all.’”

Like I pointed out: Nobel winner Darwinian microbiologist James Watson’s views are the views of his colleagues; and the only surprise is that he got caught—-you are naive

kairosfocus: “The evidence is that, having SEEN the horror of WW 2, racism is in abeyance in Evolutionary Materialist circles.”

Could we expect a Darwinist to say anything else?

While Darwinists were ratifying natural selection in the late 1930s and early 1940s in what the History of Science calls the “biological synthesis,” the Nazis were implementing natural selection in the field: accepting the conclusions of Darwin’s theory that no God exists, and that we are but modified animals, Hitler selected his enemies for extinction.

Ray

It is grossly unfair to extrapolate form one individual — however prominent — to “all.”

The evidence is that, having SEEN the horror of WW 2, racism is in abeyance in Evolutionary Materialist circles.

But, the underlying theory and worldview lend themselves to denying he intrinsic worth of a human being, thus to immoralities based on imposing power on perceived inferiors who are somehow unworthy. the habitual viciousness with which perceived dissidents are treated, starting with the sort of uncivil language that is ever so common, is telling. For, out of the abundance of teh heart, the mouth speaks. The current dilemmas on bioethics and imposed death as a “solution” to social or medical problems, is equally telling.

the inability to address teh above histry in a calm and objective fashin tells us the histry is plainly unfinished, too.

But, at the end of the day, racists are a plainly small and in-the-closet group among modern biologists; though I have heard Mr David Duke on shortwave radio, using IQ and biology arguments to bolster his racism: the subtlest part was conceding that Asians have a higher IQ than whites on average . . .

Let us — on both sides — not lose sight of fairness or truth towards those with whom we may differ.

GEM of TKI

“Or, to put it terms that even Ray might understand, the empirical evidence (as developed and analyzed by population geneticists) points to the conclusion that race [SNIP....] plays little or no significant role in intelligence.”

Nobel winner, Darwinian microbiologist James Watson, disagrees:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/s.....index.html

“Watson [says] he [is] “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours, whereas all the testing says not really.”

A person would have to be incredibly naive to believe that a person of Watson’s prominence and stature, that is, his gutter racism views, to be isolated or aberrational. Since Watson is a leading Darwinist we can deduce rightly that his view represents the view of all of his colleagues.

Again, the *only surprise* in the Watson incident is that he got caught.

Ray

I appreciate that Lewontin’s findings on intra vs inter-group variations on intelligence metrics are relevant empirical evidence that “race” is not a good discriminant on competitiveness of groups.

I would also imagine that in today’s culture — post WW 2 and post civil rights movement — racism should be at most a tiny minority, “in the closet” view among biologists.

However, that does but little to address my first concern: that there is a significant history that has to be come to terms with, and that that means taking a true and fair — not a sanitised — view of the history of evolutionary biology. (As has been aptly said by Santayana and others: If we refuse to face and to learn from history, we are doomed to repeat its worst chapters.)

Here, the lessons of history include the fact that H G Wells, by 1897 – 98, had publicly warned of the possible consequences of Social and racial Darwinism. Themes that — as Denyse and I have cited — are undeniably explicitly taught in CRD’s Descent of Man, and taught in ways that tie it to the very core of Darwinism 1.0; literally starting with the sub-itle of Origin of Species:

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

For instance,

1 –> Why was not h G Wells’ warning heard and heeded by scientists and the educated public, many of whom doubtless read his pioneering Science Fiction novel,or would have been in a position to hear its warning message had it been taken seriously?

2 –> Could a similar deafness to warnings be happening today — e.g. on the ID issue?

3 –> Also, it seems to me that the question of the ethics of science and the value placed on humans — e.g. quality of life [including mind/intelligence . . . ] vs inherent worth of the human being — is still an issue, one that speaks straight to a host of bio-ethics concerns as I have noted on.

And, more broadly, the there is the question that science (especially origins science) should be an unfettered (but intellectually and ethically responsible) empirically based search for the truth about our world.

I am particularly concerned over the increasingly evident imposition of Lewontinian, a priori materialism in the name of science, including through the actions of the US National Academy of Sciences. For, that is plainly the imposition and quasi-establishment of a dogma in the name of science, in ways that mislead the public on its effect on the proper goals of science and on the degree of warrant for its findings.

In short, a focus on Mr Martinez’ assertions, while failing to address weightier matters does very little to allay far weightier concerns on science and ethics. For, that comes across rather like the classic story of the boxer who took on the strawman, instead of his real challenger.

I therefore hope that the above concerns will be properly and fully addressed as Cornell and other relevant institutions continue to celebrate Darwin 200.

GEM of TKI

No’s 54 and 117.

Think of Stein in Ferris Bueller’s Day off, but with your name inserted:
“MacNeill? … MacNeill?”

For example, the average variation in IQ within any particular group of people is on the order of 12 units (i.e. the standard deviation from the average IQ, especially as defined as “G”, or “general intelligence”), whereas the average variation between women and men (or between African-Americans and European-Americans, or between Jews and non-Jews) is on the order of 3 to 4 IQ units. Indeed, some estimates of the latter variation place it less than 3 IQ units.

That is, the average difference in IQ between the dumbest and smartest person within any particular group of people is on the order of three to four times as great as the average difference in IQ between the dumbest and smartest person in two different groups of people.

Lewontin is an evolutionary biologist of the first rank, as was his colleague (and co-author) Stephen Jay Gould. Both of them argued tirelessly throughout their lives against any “evolutionary” justification for racism, sexism, and other forms of unequal treatment or opportunity.

Ergo, any assertion that evolutionary biologists in general, and those of us who began doing our science after World War II, are ipso facto “gutter” racists (or any other kind of racist) are nothing less than egregious lies, uttered by people who have no knowledge of the history of modern evolutionary biology and even less knowledge or care about modern science and its relationship to morals and ethics.

There was a time when that was generally true. It is not true now. That is simply a fact. It is not true due to changes in culture overcoming scientific racism and causing scientific challenges to such views, although Darwinists sometimes naturally fall back into racism. Also, the “pure” science that Allen promotes was a barrier to change of this sort, not a catalyst.