Comments

Quote:

Why so quickly resort solely to biological explanations?

The answer is that this is what serious dedication to Naturalism demands. I hope more macroevolution-believing scientists say the same thing because it means they are finally getting real about what they teach. Mr. Watson has only taken Naturalism to its obvious conclusion and then spoken his mind. He is absolutely right, too: if natural selection and random chance are responsible for creation, then there is no such thing as equality. The chances of creation itself are so miniscule it took a timeline of almost infinite proportions, let alone accounting for multiple races of equal results.

Of course, the absurdity of these statements will then allow the mass public to see their nonsense for what it is: a selfish excuse to run from responsibility for their actions and ultimately, from God.

The comments track very well with his reductionistic, materialistic scientism.

Whatever that means. Maybe he should have invoked magic instead. Maybe a witch cast an evil spell on Africa. Non-magical explanations for persistent poverty such as colonialism or AIDS are no more and no less "reductionist" or "materialistic" than genes. In fact the Soviet Communists who outlawed "Mendel-Morganism" swore by materialism more reverently than anybody. You're just throwing around empty, rhetorical buzz-words.

But it seems odd that a man of such great learning and accomplishment would be so scientifically naive. Almost any debate in science has a nature vs. nurture component, and for Watson to boil everything down to DNA seems myopic at best.

It seems odd that somebody quoting Bill Demski thinks they know enough to condescend to James Watson about biology. He only ushered in the age of molecular biology and built up the most important scientific research lab in history. There is no evidence he boils "everything" down to DNA - it's just what inspires him. It is his life's work, and you and six billion other people are benefiting from that preferential focus. It's one thing to be criticized for being wrong, but it's another thing entirely to get criticized because you approach problems from a unique vantage point.

If differering "races" have different IQ or test scores, could some of that difference be explained by life experiences, nutrition, and educational opportunities? Why so quickly resort solely to biological explanations?

How in the world do you know how "quickly" he resorted to those explanations? And how do you know he resorts "solely" to biological explanations. Maybe there is good reason to suspect your alternative explanations can't plausibly account for all the evidence. To give just one example, black children raised by white parents develop IQs some 20 points below their white siblings. That natural experiment controls for education, income, nutrition, parenting, and almost every other variable you can think of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study

I'd say that alone warrants a healthy dose of pessimism, and there is plenty more than that.

Perhaps James Watson should pick up the Good Book.

Riiiight, because there is that one part of the bible that discusses genetics, and how genetics have no bearing on economic questions, and how that makes Jesus angry.

And you accuse Watson of "boil[ing] everything down to" something???

The reason this is even brought up here is to capitalize on an unsettling scientific controversy so you can beat the Christian anti-science drum: 'See, scientists are Genocidal, race-hating Satanists, avert thine eyes from their modern lies back to comforting faith!!'

whats the use of having a high IQ ? the Chinese behave like savages - millions killed in communist rule, concentration camps, thousands of executions per year, female infanticide, eating snakes, dogs, cats etc. The Germans created WWII and conducted the holocaust.

Rock, be an equal-opportunity cultural critic:

Whats the use of having a high IQ? The Americans behave like savages--millions of Native Peoples killed, Abu Graib and Guantanamo torture camps, thousands of civilians killed in Iraq, abortion on demand, eating animals raised in inhumane factory farms, etc. The Americans created the Iraq War and armed the muhajideen, and continue to do business with terrorists in Saudi Arabia, imperiling the world.

By the way, Rock, my wife is Chinese. Look into your own savagery, beginning with your blatant ugly racism. See you in church.

By the way, Rock, my hunch is you're a Republican. Correct?

Patrick, you're a leftist, right? Heaven help us. Your knee-jerk reaction is misplaced. rock was simply noting that, despite higher average IQ's, East Asians are nonetheless capable of cruelty and bad behavior. I know as a proper leftist you believe Western man is responsible for the vast majority of evil in the world, but guess what, it's the human condition. Whites are not the cancer you leftists think we are. Evil is ubiquitous.

Kudos, Mr. Clinton. You pegged Mr. Guthrie's motive quite well, I'd say. And you know your science.

Taking it for granted that the American evangelical movement is free from the taint of eugenics in it's history isn't a good assumption. Like racism, few largely "white" Americans groups can honestly claim not to be tainted.

Dennis L. Durst, an Assistant Professor of Theology at the Sack School of Bible and Ministry at Kentucky Christian College, wrote this article in the Ethics and Medicine journal.

My source isn't open, but perhaps if you google it, you can find it on line?

Evangelical Engagements With Eugenics, 1900-1940

...Learning from the Mistakes of History
From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that we cannot generalize about "the evangelical response" to the American eugenics movement. Instead, we must speak of varied responses. The rhetoric of the eugenicists seeped into the discourse of Christian social reformers. Sometimes evangelical social reformers employed derogatory terminology for persons with diseases or mental disabilities, even to the point of calling the full humanity and worth of such persons into question. Evangelical criticisms of eugenics came somewhat late in its development as a movement in American culture. By 1940, some 30 states had involuntary sterilization laws on the books.31 Whatever opposition evangelicals might have mustered toward negative eugenics in those states, it was clearly nothing like the scale of their opposition, for example, to the teaching of evolution in the public schools...

31 Ian Robert Dowbiggin, Keeping America Sane: Psychiatry and Eugenics in the United States and Canada, 1880-1940, Cornell Studies in the History of Psychiatry (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1997), viii.

DiverCity, so good to see your sunny posts gracing this blog again. I was wondering what happened to you and hoping you were o.k. I forgive you, once again, for putting words in my mouth. And I'm sure Rock can defend himself quite well.

Well thank you, Patrick. It's nothing personal. I just know that the leftist ideology to which you incline generally views the wrongs of Westerners as somehow more wrong than those of groups who are minorities in the West. They're not. Egalitarianism is on the way out, given science's steady march toward understanding the human genome and the various alleles involved in human intelligence. What will supplant egalitarianism? That is the rub. Once the blank slate memeplex comes crashing down, who knows? Egalitarians and universalists tried to link equal treatment under the law, which is absolutely necessary, IMO, to the false premise that all groups of humans are equal in, among other things, intelligence, behavioral propensities, and as the liberal Bush so stupidly states, love of freedom. Now that we know this is false, what is a good egalitarian to do? Go back to the (good) liberal principle that everyone is entitled to equal OPPORTUNITY rather than equality of OUTCOMES.

The issue of the casual attitude so many of the population of this mation display regarding reproduction of a human resulting from irresponsible and unsafe sexual behavior is of grave concern to me. So many of our population care not about the possibility of contributing DNA that has a strong probability for the liklihood of transmitting through their DNA undesirable mental and physical conditions that will compromise the ability of the child to participate in accepted human activity. In my own family, there exists the strong likelihood for genetically transfered compromises that will affect the amount and difficulty for regulating the production of cholesterol. Fortunately, the reality of this possibility to occur in future generations of family members was a serious consideration when the decision to reproduce was made. I believe that genetics and the influence DNA has on the reproductive product would be a valuable inclusion to a schools Biology educational classes. Ones belief in God is not relevant. The health of the our nation's future generations is the priority to be addressed. Providing global educational opportunities in a manner than can be comprehended is the next priority. It is everyone's responsibility to work together to make the world a better place for everyone.