Further to PBS’s “shocking” revelation about long-ago humans (“we met and mated with other types of human” and “40 kya human bones contain Neanderthal and current genes,” one couldn’t help wondering about last year’s apparent attempt to revive Darwinian racism, in the form of science writer Nicholas Wade’s Troublesome Inheritance.
In the increasingly Soviet system that governs the evolution elite today, science writer Ash Jogalekar was supposed to know that he should privately agree with the premise of the “Dark Enlightenment” in which non-racists are “creationists” but—publicly—mildly disparage the book. He made the mistake of actually saying he liked it:
That mainly shows us the power that Darwin’s name exercises over a large swatch of the U grad public. Just invoking his sacred name sanitizes what they would all otherwise be screaming about as “racism!” A few of them get it.
The people who disagree with this direction for research are sometime forced to act in bad faith, as Scientific American did with Jogalekar (who really did get fired). They ostensibly fired him, Soviet-style, over a lack of sufficient repudiation of physicist Feynman for being a jerk around women. All poor Jog had said was, maybe it was more acceptable in mid-century than now (and let’s face it, Jog probably doesn’t know; no way is he old enough). It was utterly nothing unless the mag was trying to get rid of him anyway over Troublesome, but didn’t want to have to discuss that. Book was well named, anyway.
All which said, the book appears to have sunk out of sight, in a well-managed PR operation:
- Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #81,110 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #45 in Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Anthropology > Physical
- #121 in Books > Medical Books > Basic Sciences > Genetics
- #184 in Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Social Sciences > Specific Demographics > Ethnic Studies
The moral of which is, PR will cover if one floats what sounds like racism as an implication of Darwinism, as long as one disparages what one is promoting. Or what?
Compare Steve Meyer Darwin’s Doubt:
- Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,270 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #35 in Books > Christian Books & Bibles > Theology > Creationism
- #45 in Books > Science & Math > Evolution > Organic
- #56 in Books > Science & Math > Biological Sciences > Paleontology
Lower overall but higher in areas of actual science interest.
But can anyone imagine the same deadtree/hairhead media hosting a serious discussion of the implications of the Cambrian explosion, despite the many thoughtful people who obviously care?
Follow UD News at Twitter!
See also: Scientific American may be owned by Nature, but it is run by Twitter