Darwinians are now determined to make it all about race?

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 3, 2014

Darwinism, Intelligent Design, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

If not, how to interpret this?

Earlier, we mentioned “Prominent science writer insists Darwinian evolution is ongoing, wants to revive “conversation” about race” and “Geneticists use code words for race, science writer says,” but no one paid much attention.

And we didn’t think that in the age of epigenetics, jumping genes, and bacteria grabbing genes from dead bax, they’d be such dam fools as to follow through with a book advocating the very stuff we could safely and conveniently junk.

Shows what we know! Here, from Wall Street Journal:

A 2009 appraisal of the available genome-wide scans estimated that 14% of the genome has been under the pressure of natural selection during the past 30,000 years, long after humans left Africa. The genes under selection include a wide variety of biological traits affecting everything from bone structure and diet to aspects of the brain and nervous system involving cognition and sensory perception.

The question, then, is whether the sets of genes under selection have varied across races, to which the answer is a clear yes. To date, studies of Caucasians, Asians and sub-Saharan Africans have found that of the hundreds of genetic regions under selection, about 75% to 80% are under selection in only one race. We also know that the genes in these regions affect more than cosmetic variations in appearance. Some of them involve brain function, which in turn could be implicated in a cascade of effects. “What these genes do within the brain is largely unknown,” Mr. Wade writes. “But the findings establish the obvious truth that brain genes do not lie in some special category exempt from natural selection. They are as much under evolutionary pressure as any other category of gene.”

Let me emphasize, as Mr. Wade does, how little we yet know about the substance of racial and ethnic differences …

Yes, well, if the human race subsisted successfully for millennia without this information, how important is it?

What disease does it cure?

Reviewer Charles Murray predicts controversy, based on past experience.

Cat. Pigeons. Betting shop closed for Sabbath observance.

See also: The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (human evolution)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Axel, Everyone knows that IQ tests don't tell you very much (in absolute terms) about an individual. So ironically, while screening job applicants is an important practical application for IQ tests, it's not the most interesting one. Because if you test a thousand or a million individuals, you will be able to make very accurate predictions about what sort of average grades the group will get, what percentage will go to college, the group's average income, what percentage will be doctors or lawyers or engineers or laborers, and other things. Our sick, corporatist society is obsessed with political correctness and obsessed with the asserting (rather than proving) that the gaps on social statistics are purely due to institutional racism, white privilege, or some other boogyman that justifies guilt tripping white Americans into racial redistribution schemes. IQ tests provide powerful contrary evidence. Namely, that the black-white gaps are not anyone's fault and we do not need to blame Europeans or take their stuff. The gaps are "natural" and we can't do that much about them. Does that magically mean we shouldn't be concerned about it? Of course not. If there were no racial gaps on IQ tests, then we would have powerful evidence that black people are, after all, currently being oppressed. God never defined high intelligence as a good. Men (in particular, liberal atheists) did that. I don't feel the need to denigrate people with low intelligence (as opposed to people with high intelligence who are just wrong), or shun them or talk down to them. Liberals atheists are the ones who wanted to abort all the children of low-intelligence people. Liberals (in general) are the ones who prize intelligence above all, because of course intelligence is man's only weapon against God. Don't fall into their trap. Respect the science. If you disagree with it, fine, but disagree on scientific terms and not theological terms.Timmy_{May 10, 2014
May
05
May
10
10
2014
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PDT}

Yes, I get your point clearly, Timmy, but my misgiving, and a grave one at that, was that the limited competency of IQ tests as a measure of intelligence needs to be emphasised in our sick, corporatist society. Dr Mengele would have been no slouch academically, but could any sane person equate his academic abilities with intelligence, properly so-called. How often do we hear someone say, either admiringly or by way of an excuse, 'Oh but he/she is very intelligent.' When those IQ tests are referred to, since the media, indeed, our culture, would cast intelligence as being coterminous with the worldly, analytical intelligence, alone, no accompanying caveats are issued. Indeed, until Francis took the helm, in the Catholic Church, my own church, ambition, had historically almost become the sovereign Christian virtue, whereas it is identified as a singularly pernicious vice in the Gospels and Epistles. Of course, they will say, 'Well, it's for the greater glory of God,' but one wonders at the depth of the Christian zeal involved. Still, 'all things work together for good...', and God can turn our deficiencies to good purpose. The fee-paying schools in the UK have turned out to be one of the last bastions of the faith. So, yes, I do sympathize with you in the matter of your hands being tied when you need to set the kinds of tests that would be relevant to gauging the aptitude of the candidates for the various posts in your company. But I couldn't help lamenting the carelessness of your thinking with regard to those African American candidates, allowing your disappointment and disaffection to harbour and indeed communicate your poor opinion of their intelligence, evidently on the basis of vocational IQ tests. When campaigning liberal atheists try to usurp God's role in defining the good, it inevitably leads to a madness driven by their own bigotry, set on recasting society in its own image. The first casualty is always common sense and true freedom, as opposed to the license they favour. Conservative atheists are a bit more subtle. I know I've not always used my intelligence with the conscientiousness and care I should have (... like yesterday, for example!), so don't take offence, if you don't see it my way.Axel_{May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT}

Axel @ 37: The academic, political, and media establishment punishes against anyone who deviates from the Darwinian "absolutely no design" orthodoxy. Do you think that they should also punish sociologists and psychometricians (or anyone for that matter) who point out the overwhelming consensus of IQ data: namely that east asians outscore europeans who outscore latin americans who outscore africans? Do you think they should also punish people who argue for the more doubtful--but still strongly supported--theory that IQ is ~50% inherited? Yes, there are a variety of studies that challenge both of these theories, more the latter than the former. For example, James Flynn of the Flynn Effect points to a study of white and black children, fathered in Germany by American soldiers after WWII. The blacks outscored the whites on IQ. There are others. Robert @ 38: IQ doesn't measure free will, or the soul, so what are you talking about? Eventually, computer programs will be able to score perfectly on an IQ test. That doesn't mean they have a soul or free will. A person could score an IQ of 50, or 150, they're still a person in either case.Timmy_{May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT}

I don’t see down’s as anything more then interference with the triggering mechanism for memory. So you completely ignore the medical fact that people with Down's syndrome have an extra chromosome? Which, I might add, has nothing to do with memory. There is nothing wrong with their thinking abilities as souls. The average IQ of an adult/adolescent with Down's is about 50, which corresponds to an 8 or 9 year old child. Their thinking abilities clearly would be affected by this.Barb_{May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT}

Timmy I don't see down's as anything more then interference with the triggering mechanism for memory. There is nothing wrong with their thinking abilities as souls. however the memory interferes with thinking as does alcohol. Yes there is superior and inferior people groups in history relative to intelligence. however its all of the free will and then place and time.Robert Byers_{May 7, 2014
May
05
May
7
07
2014
11:54 PM
11
11
54
PM
PDT}

In one of his essays - possibly, The Perennial Philosophy - Aldous Huxley contended that what prompts races and peoples to be more worldly wise, or less worldly wise, than others, is the disposition of their hearts, what they set their hearts on. One of the examples he cited was that of the Mayan Indians, not advanced peoples, I believe, according to the canons of Western corporatism; but then, the pedagogy of the School of the Americas was never very effective in raising educational standards even among its own favoured, if ever so slightly 'wayward' pupils. 'Your bunker is ready, Senor.' Yet, they had been great mathematicians and astronomers, having, as early as the first century AD, independently introduced the number, 'zero'. Under the sub-heading, What Drove the Mayan, the brief explanation relating to their mythology and religion has strong resonances with the theme we have to repeatedly bring up on UD concerning science's origins in Christianity. As regards the higher educational standards of the Zulu schoolchildren, it really should be no matter for wonderment. All races and peoples were equally endowed. If the Inuit had been led by God as the Jewish people were, they would today be the intellectual top dogs mankind. And I don't doubt the same would apply to troglodytes. In the early part of the last century, my mother went to a village school in Wales, in which three grades were taught in the same class-room at the same time! Despite the crypto-fascism of the Tories, never far below the surface (and, for a while, at least, before WWII, greatly excited by the emergence of Mussolini and Hitler), the UK was imbued with the Christian ethos, far from perfect to be sure, since it viewed the second Commandment as negotiable, but that small mustard seed was a sufficiently powerful force for good, to show up the very genuine need today for smaller classes, and a discipline no-one knows how to regain - since they rejected Christian common-sense along with Christian principles, long, long ago. The schools of those Zulu children and the children, themselves, would be a very enlightened throw-back to those early years of the last century here in the UK. Those children would be docile in the true sense of the word, i.e. 'teachable'. Self-motivation would surely be a whole lot easier for children with a non-dysfunctional family background, too. I would imagine that here, in the UK, dysfunctional family backgrounds would be all too common. One of the worst consequences of the economic pillaging of the Have Nots by the Haves - particularly on top of the militant secularisation of the country. When the people at the top get things wrong, the problems created by them for the people further down the line, increase exponentially. When they get it right, vice versa. Endless synergies are created.Axel_{May 7, 2014
May
05
May
7
07
2014
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT}

I appreciate it. I didn't develop a fascination with the science of intelligence and heredity until fairly recently--but when I did it was for exactly the same reasons I became fascinated with ID. Wherever people's arguments are being ignored and their lives ruined, you can surely bet that something interesting is at stake.Timmy_{May 7, 2014
May
05
May
7
07
2014
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

..and the 'heartless rancour', which I had intended to say, was not meant in any condescending sense.Axel_{May 7, 2014
May
05
May
7
07
2014
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

You're right, Timmy. I apologise unreservedly, because that what such mindless rancour and heartless calls for. I want to address some points about the nature and fashioning of intelligence a bit later.Axel_{May 7, 2014
May
05
May
7
07
2014
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT}

Robert:
Memory is not intelligence. its just memorizing things.
Is being able to memorize things a measure of intelligence? What about winners on “Jeopardy!”? They can (or have) memorized a lot of trivia. Does that make them more intelligent than others?
These silly tests do not measure intelligence or rather wisdom, understanding, and knowledge as the bible defines intelligence. They measure learnt things and learnt processes.
How does the Bible define intelligence?
Its for kids and kids easily would get better marks then when they do it 30 years later.
Yes, but if a child has a learning disability and their IQ is tested early on, their education can be rearranged, so to speak, to help them learn more easily. For example, my daughter was diagnosed with a learning disability in the 2nd grade. Accomodations were made for her to have additional time testing as well as tutoring if needed. Taking the test 30 years later won’t help anything. And before you argue that my daughter is stupid, she is an honor student.
Its all about kids picking things up in time and place.
I think you may have missed the entire point of education.
True intelligence is shown by results in things of life.
Such as…what? Handling difficult matters? What type of matters? What results do you mean?
Thats why one must conlude superior civilizations are smarter ones.
Not necessarily. Rome was a superior civilization for its time, but it fell nonetheless. Just because you are smart doesn’t mean you act smart.
As a reflection on those people. Surely a original people and others just immigrate and are BROUGHT UP no different then a child being born in that place.
What? Learn to type coherent sentences.
I agree and inst one can measure intelligence. We always did in history. It was by comparing results in accomplishments.
Yes, we can measure intelligence. So what? Accomplishments fade over time. A PhD earned in the 1960s is vastly different than a PhD earned today. Why? More knowledge to disseminate, for one thing.
Its not about tests for teenagers who are studious because of their demographics. That is cheating.
Demographics do not equal intelligence.
All kids in the world would get good marks even in the worst countries. Yes to identity but do a proper investigation.
All the kids in the world do not get good marks, whether in the best or worst countries. Again with the not making any sense.
Blacks are not inferior but instead are simply lower class southerners or city yankees/ethnics. Blacks are simply segregated englishmen. They are not Africans.
Holy crap. You actually believe this. There’s a news story now about a young African-American man who was accepted at all eight Ivy League universities. (http://abcnews.go.com/US/ny-teen-accepted-to-all-ivy-league-schools-makes-pick/story?id=23529292) I guess he’s way smarter than you, right?
They are more intelligent then europeans a century ago.
A century ago Europe was in the middle of the Industrial Revolution. Do you have any basis for your beliefs, any evidence to back them up?
its all just about assimulation into a English civilization.
You do know that some of the great ancient civilizations were in Africa, right? Like Egypt, for example?
Are you black??
Robert, your racist, misogynist views don’t add anything to any discussion. You can believe whatever he wants, but I am truly sick of reading through your idiocy.Barb_{May 7, 2014
May
05
May
7
07
2014
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT}

Robert @ 31: I appreciate that you present your views on race, intelligence, and IQ in a friendly way--unlike Axel. But these are your personal views, and unfortunately they do not sync up very well with any theories/data I've ever seen… Do you feel compelled to talk about the "superiority" or "inferiority" (whatever the heck that is supposed to mean) of a person with Down's syndrome? A person's humanity is totally independent of their genetic traits, that's a theological fact.Timmy_{May 7, 2014
May
05
May
7
07
2014
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT}

Timouthy. You are very wrong. Memory is not intelligence. its just memorizing things. These silly tests do not measure intelligence or rather wisdom, understanding, and knowledge as the bible defines intelligence. They measure learnt things and learnt processes. Its for kids and kids easily would get better marks then when they do it 30 years later. Its all about kids picking things up in time and place. True intelligence is shown by results in things of life. Thats why one must conlude superior civilizations are smarter ones. As a reflection on those people. Surely a original people and others just immigrate and are BROUGHT UP no different then a child being born in that place. I agree and inst one can measure intelligence. We always did in history. It was by comparing results in accomplishments. Its not about tests for teenagers who are studious because of their demographics. That is cheating. All kids in the world would get good marks even in the worst countries. Yes to identity but do a proper investigation. Blacks are not inferior but instead are simply lower class southerners or city yankees/ethnics. Blacks are simply segregated englishmen. They are not Africans. They are more intelligent then europeans a century ago. its all just about assimulation into a English civilization. By the way Evangelical blacks and immigrant blacks do much better and very well on these tests i heard. for whats its worth about these tests. Are you black??Robert Byers_{May 6, 2014
May
05
May
6
06
2014
10:16 PM
10
10
16
PM
PDT}

Barb @ 27: I agree with everything you wrote, so only a few comments follow:
Would you say that there are certain jobs for which IQ is less important than, say, emotional intelligence?
Of course. But those jobs might only be abundant in a wealthy society, just as jobs that reward high IQ are only abundant in a wealthy society. Charles Murray has long argued (and I think, persuasively) that as our civilization has become wealthier, it has tended to stratify based on cognitive ability.
Although there are instances of lower-intelligence parents having normal-intelligence children
Well it's more than just instances. Regression to the mean (in either direction) is normal for all biological traits.
And you really can’t discount environment. There are scientists and leaders who are the products of ghettos and housing projects. At some point, their environment changed—or a teacher took an interest in them—and they progressed beyond what society would expect.
I would put a different spin on it: our society is good at identifying high-IQ people and helping them maximize their abilities, and we give special attention to high-IQ blacks for political reasons. That's where environment (education) factors in. Obviously we want to give everyone a good environment, since everyone is better off being smarter. But people who win the genetic lottery will benefit a lot more from a cognitively rich environment than someone who lost. For example, Ben Carson would still have been a smart guy even if he'd been born a slave 200 years ago--but significantly less smart than he actually is today. Environment is the difference.
Sad but true. Although there are some outliers.
When you have a big population (as we humans do), it's less outliers and more just one continuous distribution. @ Axel: Heard it all before, yawn.Timmy_{May 6, 2014
May
05
May
6
06
2014
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT}

'Your claim about Zulu/British children should be followed by about a dozen qualifiers. Why did you leave them out?' In the absence of further particulars, it seemed fair to assume that the survey had been carried out on a 'like for like' basis. What the article certainly did not say was what you said, i.e. that they were 'African natives'. I expect the walls of their classrooms were not built of mud. They could even have had pens and papers. We've heard a lot from you about how congenitally dumb your 'blacks' are, but nothing about the reign of terror they live under all the time - not conductive to peaceful reflection: 'being stopped for being in charge of a motor vee-hicle while in possession of a dark skin;' a prison population (privatised by good old 'whitey', of course) that dwarfs Stalin's former Gulag Archipelago, in fact larger than the rest of the entire world's incarcerated population, I believe. They finally did find a way to bring back slavery. And all these factors are supposed to be propitious for honing the intellect?Axel_{May 6, 2014
May
05
May
6
06
2014
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT}

So, you tacitly concede, Timmy, that you are an imbecile, by omitting to comment, never mind, agree that our assumptions are pivotal to our intelligence, and the process of their development far too abstruse and complex to be accessible to the worldly, analytical intelligence alone; indeed, the latter is a liability to those who view the analytical intelligence, rather than wisdom, as definitive. They want what they feel they are good at prized above everything, so are unwilling to accept the precedence of wisdom. As for your remark about Keynes, like a bull in a china shop, you expose yourself to further ridicule by seeking to disparage his intelligence - never mind that Bertrand Russell said he never came away from an argument with Keynes without feeling rather foolish! Not that both of them couldn't be fools in some areas. Keynes was, for instance, in favour of eugenics, a common folly of liberal, atheist intellectuals of that time. I expect you're a neoliberal, so have the brass neck to disparage Keynes who saved the world from the first Great Depression (no ifs or buts about it), while being complicit in what seems uncommonly like driving the global economy to a cataclysmic destruction. You made not the most cursory mention of the crucially contributory environmental factors affecting the statistics on young African Americans, and even blithely rabbited on about black people, as if Africa didn't exist! Very scholarly. Jist cain't hide your characteristically bilious, anti-African American racism, can you? Any gauge of analytical intelligence only makes sense in terms of the subject's personal circumstance and environment. But it is the unitive intelligence, the path to wisdom that is the source and foundation of all other forms of intelligence. How you can have been accepted for tertiary-level studies beats me.Axel_{May 6, 2014
May
05
May
6
06
2014
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT}

Timmy continues,
Everything should be considered; why bother with science otherwise? The reason that IQ is especially interesting is because it correlates strongly with job performance and is an unusually effective way to screen applicants.
Would you say that there are certain jobs for which IQ is less important than, say, emotional intelligence? An example might be a counselor at a university or school. Being smart is needed, obviously, but isn’t being empathetic also equally important? Funny you should mention job performance. As a team leader a couple of years ago, I developed and administered a competency test for a group of medical transcriptionists. One person, who had worked at this particular job for the past 4 years, failed the test. This person knew a few things about getting the job done and what knowledge was required, but she was one of the dumbest people I’d ever met.
Unfortunately, the political establishment severely punishes disparate impact, which means that few businesses can get away with tests of any kind…since they disproportionately favor asians and whites over blacks and hispanics.
The political establishment believes in tolerance above all else.
IQ is about 50% inherited and 50% environment. I say “inherited” and not “genetic” because the precise mechanism of inheritance remains unknown, although genes seem to be involved. Though I don’t see how it could be anything other than something in the code.
It probably does reside in the DNA. Although there are instances of lower-intelligence parents having normal-intelligence children; one case involved two Down’s syndrome parents who had a perfectly normal child. And you really can’t discount environment. There are scientists and leaders who are the products of ghettos and housing projects. At some point, their environment changed—or a teacher took an interest in them—and they progressed beyond what society would expect.
It’s also key to not to confuse environment with education. There are a plethora of factors that mostly relate to how you are treated by your parents, education included. However, it’s also very important to note that the higher your IQ, the easier you are to educate. That’s one of many feedback mechanisms.
I would say that’s true, although I’ve met my share of people who are convinced they know everything already and don’t need to know anything else. Typically, these people tend not to be college educated. It seems that there’s a correlation between high IQ and humility.
What is racism? If by “racism” we mean, judging people by something other than their actions, I agree.
Actions are the best judge of a person’s character. I’m using the common definition of racism which refers to judging people based on skin color and nationality.
But if we judge people by their actions, that means black people will be disproportionately poorer, less well educated, and more likely to be in prison, than asians. A lot of powerful people aren’t okay with that, which is why 1) we are forced to participate in racial favoritism and 2) we are forced to accept the establishment’s explanation of “institutional racism/white privilege”–while dissenters are systematically targeted for ruin.
Sad but true. Although there are some outliers.Barb_{May 6, 2014
May
05
May
6
06
2014
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT}

Robert Byers @ 25:
Now its not about lame iQ tests. That is a primitive test of a person, usually while a kid, mere knowledge. It doesn’t test wisdom, understanding or general sharpness.
Have you ever seen an IQ test, or tried to compare it to say a final from high school social studies or the SAT? General sharpness is precisely what IQ tests focus on, "level of education" (i.e., knowledge) is precisely what it tries to avoid.
Probably most teenagers get higher IQ results the adults in their 50?s .?Yet surely the kids are dumber.
You just made that up. And if teens are outscoring adults, that surely suggests they are smarter, not dumber.
Its just logical that intelligent people, at that moment in time, get hugher scores but its still just a tendency for intelligent people to know more.
Yeah? The more intelligent you are, the better you are at learning, and the more likely you are to have an interesting in learning. It's feedback.
Yet knowing more is not intelligence. Its just growing up in the right demographics.
"Knowing more" is NOT just "growing up in the right demographics."
its a error to regard tests as anything more then testing memory. Thats not smarts. its just memory.
Sorry, but memory is understood to be a major component of IQ; that is, intelligence.
Everyone is born equal with a thinking soul.
Obviously.
There is no innate intelligence.
Yeah, and all design is illusory. Because dogma > evidence.
The rest are still rising and can without any problem.
The reason "racist science" is making another comeback is because black people are most decidedly not all rising, despite the government's herculean efforts, and we have a perfectly sensible and obvious theory to explain why. It's just a theory that happens to be politically incorrect. Like ID.Timmy_{May 6, 2014
May
05
May
6
06
2014
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT}

Just to be clear. Yes intelligence is measurable in mankind. We always said that about persons and bigger identities. The holocaust and the Black thing made CONCLUSIONS immoral and almost illegal. Times are changing quickly. We are all becoming free to say who was and is the smartest of segregated identities. It was settled centuries ago. We are still living in the results. We are speaking the language of the winners. The losers just migrated to the winners or were taught by the winners. Its still this way obviously. One can judge nations and so identities by results. Now its not about lame iQ tests. That is a primitive test of a person, usually while a kid, mere knowledge. It doesn't test wisdom, understanding or general sharpness. Probably most teenagers get higher IQ results the adults in their 50's . Yet surely the kids are dumber. Its just logical that intelligent people, at that moment in time, get hugher scores but its still just a tendency for intelligent people to know more. Yet knowing more is not intelligence. Its just growing up in the right demographics. its a error to regard tests as anything more then testing memory. Thats not smarts. its just memory. its a coincidence smart people have memorized more but its not a true test. Everyone is born equal with a thinking soul. There is no innate intelligence. Its all just picking stuff up depending on where you live and choose. Yet there are results ten years later. You can't beat results but you can interpretate them. Howeverr this is a very Abglo american civilization and europeans come a distant second. The rest are still rising and can without any problem. However they had to be raised by us. obviously.Robert Byers_{May 5, 2014
May
05
May
5
05
2014
08:56 PM
8
08
56
PM
PDT}

Barb @ 22:
This leads me to question, is IQ the only measure of intelligence that should be considered? What about social or emotional intelligence?
Everything should be considered; why bother with science otherwise? The reason that IQ is especially interesting is because it correlates strongly with job performance and is an unusually effective way to screen applicants. Unfortunately, the political establishment severely punishes disparate impact, which means that few businesses can get away with tests of any kind...since they disproportionately favor asians and whites over blacks and hispanics.
Some people are smarter than others. Is this due to genetics or due to education? If there truly is no way to increase one’s IQ because of genetics, then why don’t colleges and universities perform IQ tests on prospective students? Why bother educating them?
IQ is about 50% inherited and 50% environment. I say "inherited" and not "genetic" because the precise mechanism of inheritance remains unknown, although genes seem to be involved. Though I don't see how it could be anything other than something in the code. It's also key to not to confuse environment with education. There are a plethora of factors that mostly relate to how you are treated by your parents, education included. However, it's also very important to note that the higher your IQ, the easier you are to educate. That's one of many feedback mechanisms.
I don’t believe that racism can be truly justified.
What is racism? If by "racism" we mean, judging people by something other than their actions, I agree. But if we judge people by their actions, that means black people will be disproportionately poorer, less well educated, and more likely to be in prison, than asians. A lot of powerful people aren't okay with that, which is why 1) we are forced to participate in racial favoritism and 2) we are forced to accept the establishment's explanation of "institutional racism/white privilege"--while dissenters are systematically targeted for ruin. Axel @ 23: The data we have for African natives is relatively poor, but it cannot be seriously claimed that their average IQ exceeds 75. East asians score about 5 points above American whites. Nobody really disputes this. Your claim about Zulu/British children should be followed by about a dozen qualifiers. Why did you leave them out? IQ tells you a lot less about how an individual is going to preform academically or on the job than about how a group is going to perform. The larger the group, the more telling IQ becomes. For example, it is no surprise that Europe is more prosperous than South America which is more prosperous than Africa. Funny you should bring up Keynes, the Darwin of economics, in a discussion about monolithic establishment dogmas that are total rubbish.Timmy_{May 5, 2014
May
05
May
5
05
2014
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT}

I don't think you are talking about the average IQ of African Africans, are you, Timmy? Do you not think that the average IQ of Asians would be higher than that of Caucasian Americans and Brits? Zulu children perform far better academically that British children. Did you know that? Are you aware that you, yourself, might, effectively, be an imbecile, even though you might have an IQ close to 200? You can have an encyclopaedic mind and use flawless logic, but if your assumptions are deeply flawed, and they usually are with 'brain-boxes', as Keynes said of Hayek's logic in a review of one of his books, you end up in Bedlam.Axel_{May 5, 2014
May
05
May
5
05
2014
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT}

Timmy @ 21 brings up some good points:
Does IQ measure intelligence? Yes. Is IQ inherited? Yes, about 50%. Do “blacks” have less IQ than “asians”? Yes, the average is about 20 points lower with a standard deviation of 15.
This leads me to question, is IQ the only measure of intelligence that should be considered? What about social or emotional intelligence?
However, just as we cannot permit a Divine Foot to get in the door, we cannot permit the dogma of institutional racism to be challenged. Too much money and power ride on them both. I don’t understand why people freak out when this is explained to them. We already accept that some people are smarter than others, and that human traits are inherited.
Some people are smarter than others. Is this due to genetics or due to education? If there truly is no way to increase one’s IQ because of genetics, then why don’t colleges and universities perform IQ tests on prospective students? Why bother educating them?
Yes, some people have used racism to justify evil actions. So what? People used science to build mustard gas and nuclear bombs. Does that mean we throw out science?
I don’t believe that racism can be truly justified. We don’t throw science out because of the atomic bomb, but we do ask scientists to have some accountability for their actions.Barb_{May 5, 2014
May
05
May
5
05
2014
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

I'd think ID types would be a little more sympathetic to those who dissent from the politically correct scientific consensus. Racist science is exactly analogous to design science. They are both tremendous threats to the academic/political establishment. And since they are both overwhelmingly supported by the evidence, the establishment's only play is to smear and ignore. Does IQ measure intelligence? Yes. Is IQ inherited? Yes, about 50%. Do "blacks" have less IQ than "asians"? Yes, the average is about 20 points lower with a standard deviation of 15. Is this consistent with other social data? Yes, blacks score far below asians on all measures of academic achievement. Yes, blacks have much lower incomes than asians. Yes, blacks commit far more crime than asians. However, just as we cannot permit a Divine Foot to get in the door, we cannot permit the dogma of institutional racism to be challenged. Too much money and power ride on them both. I don't understand why people freak out when this is explained to them. We already accept that some people are smarter than others, and that human traits are inherited. Yes, some people have used racism to justify evil actions. So what? People used science to build mustard gas and nuclear bombs. Does that mean we throw out science? Also, be fair to the Darwinists. When we are wailing about how Darwinism promotes evil through racism, how often does Gould get cited? The Mismeasure of Man directly challenged racist science. There are many inconvenient truths.Timmy_{May 5, 2014
May
05
May
5
05
2014
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT}

However white men have been the most intelligent and still are. the rest were taught and brought up on a principal of equality. Without us they would all be still eating each other. A lot of the whites. I won’t mention names. Well, that's it. The stupidest thing I'll read on the Internet all day.Barb_{May 5, 2014
May
05
May
5
05
2014
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

morally there never was anything wrong about saying there was racial superiority. The holocaust and the black issue made in immoral but this is passing. Its wrong and unintelligent and unbiblical.
Acts 10:34, 35 declares that God isn’t partial. So it is unbiblical to state that there is racial superiority. In case you’re confused. Which you appear to be.Barb_{May 5, 2014
May
05
May
5
05
2014
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT}

Jeremiah 17:9 does not refer to any particular ethnic group or race. Does it? Everybody and their cousins seem included. Nobody is left out. That may explain Auschwitz, 2001-Sept-11 and many other horrendous atrocities committed by this race known as 'humans' not so long ago. So let's focus in on the main question raised by the author of the OP that started this thread. That is the question of timing: why now? BTW, [off topic] did you know that in Russian language 'horror show' means 'good'? ;-)Dionisio_{May 5, 2014
May
05
May
5
05
2014
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT}

Darwinians are now determined to make it all about race?

We’re just trying to figure out why they picked now to do this.
Bottom line, the central point of this thread seems to be the timing for this subject to be brought up by those who did. Just notice the bold word 'now' in the above quoted statements, originally written by the author of the OP that started this thread. Could their timing be related to the visible fact that they seem to be running out of arguments in most discussions lately? Could it be a red herring? Anyway, hard for me to tell. But the main question of this thread seems valid: why do they bring this up now? I guess only they can answer it.Dionisio_{May 5, 2014
May
05
May
5
05
2014
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT}

Posted this under another tread, but it seems to fit in here too: Does the term ‘race’ have the same meaning in different languages? BTW, I think in Spanish the term ‘race’ (raza) is also used to distinguish between dog breeds, like for instance a golden retriever and a Labrador, or cat types, like tabby orange or Persian, in addition to being used in reference to human ethnicity. Now, are those uses equivalent? Are the terms ‘race’ and ‘breed’ interchangeable? Also, the Spanish word ‘raza’ (race) is used to name the historical date of the alleged discovery of some Caribbean islands by an Italian sailor working for the Spanish royalties by the end of the 15th century. Later the discoverers/conquerors introduced cheap African labor to work in some of those islands, after the original local inhabitants practically disappeared from the scene for various reasons. Much later cheap Asian labor also sneaked into some of those islands. Eventually people from different ethnic backgrounds settled in some of those islands and got mixed.Dionisio_{May 5, 2014
May
05
May
5
05
2014
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT}

However white men have been the most intelligent and still are.
1) That sounds like smartism, and 2) Asians have a higher average IQ than whites.Jehu_{May 4, 2014
May
05
May
4
04
2014
11:57 PM
11
11
57
PM
PDT}

It could only be that evolutionism must demand, at least as a option, the issue that race, or very segregated populations under selection, can lead to inferior/superior qualities. They said it in the past and they say it now quietly and NOW they must say it loudly. morally there never was anything wrong about saying there was racial superiority. The holocaust and the black issue made in immoral but this is passing. Its wrong and unintelligent and unbiblical. yet it was always fair and square . White people everywhere deserve a apology. men too regarding the girls. This is a chance for creationism. The world is fed up with racial/sex ideas about intelligence or morals. they would be very open to creationism using this to attack the evolutionary concepts behind smartism. Yes you can measure folks but its simple common sense that it matters where you grow up in time and place. There is no such thing as intelligence coming from innate brains. Its all motivation upon information. We should bang a gong about this. Evolutionists are stupid to think the time is ripe for the old racial ideas. They just smell if its not white men then they can get away with it. However white men have been the most intelligent and still are. the rest were taught and brought up on a principal of equality. Without us they would all be still eating each other. A lot of the whites. I won't mention names.Robert Byers_{May 4, 2014
May
05
May
4
04
2014
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT}

The concept of race turned out to be pretty useless for several reasons. One, the basis on which we assign it (skin color, largely) is of no consequence when measuring individual differences in things that are immediately important (math ability, say), and two, it turned out that there was far more variation in those important characteristics within each notional race than there was between them. That doesn't mean that people with ancestories in one part of the world or another have not inherited group characteristics. Why is 80% of the NBA of sub-Saharan ancestory? That population received pressure for being tall and slender for heat dissipation. You won't find any Inuits (pressure for conserving heat, ergo short and stocky) among the NBA or fashion models, for that matter. Forensic anthropologists can make pretty good bets on "race" from skull features, but again, we're all one species and gradually blending with more travel. American "blacks" are on average 35% European descent(Thomas Jefferson wasn't the only one), and red heads are gradually disappearing (one allele, recent Scots-Irish origin, getting swamped).tkeithlu_{May 4, 2014
May
05
May
4
04
2014
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply