quote:

Well, it is apparent some evolutionists, like Watson, still haven't got the message.

quote:

Have you ignored everything I’ve posted so far about James Watson in this thread? It certainly appears that way.

quote:

So? Plenty of 'Christians' haven't got the message either. Plenty of bad apples or misinformed people or misrepresented people in any camp.

quote:

Watson is a racist who bases his racist ideas on genetics; this is generally agreed upon even amongst those who like him. Nothing you have said contradicts that.

quote:

This is what I answered in post #65.

I linked to an article there about this specific topic, which I asked you to read, but based on your subsequent responses it’s pretty clear that you didn’t. I also posted a quote from Watson, in which he made it clear that he does not think any race is “superior” to another, which is the definition of racism. However, not only did you have nothing to say in response to this; you continued to claim that Watson believes some races are “superior” to others even after I had just quoted him that he doesn’t.

Now, do you have anything to say about the actual information I’m bringing up, other than just what’s “generally agreed upon”? If you consider something being generally agreed upon to be proof that it’s true, than by that standard you should accept evolution as proven also.

quote:

... there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.

quote:

Well, in the post you just linked, it posts the following quote by Watson:

quote:

... there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.

Then the author of the blog goes on to defend this statement rather vociferously. You may not see this as adhering to the technical definition of racism, but I think it draws a pretty straight line between intelligence, race, evolution, and our social policy that results from that.

quote:

Again, read my post #65. There’s an important distinction here that you aren’t making.

The actual evidence for what Watson was talking about—that testing data shows a difference in intelligence, and that within the past year some of the genes responsible for this difference have been identified—is not based on evolution, it’s based on psychometrics and genetics. This evidence, and the conclusion it leads to, is exactly the same whether you approach it from an evolutionary or creationist point of view. However, in the quote from Watson that you posted, he was attempting to say more than just that this difference existed: he was trying to explain why it existed. Evolution is one possible explanation, since for a group of people who became adapted to living in a savannah environment, traits such as physical fitness would have favored by natural selection more than intelligence would have.

This data can also be explained from a creationist point of view; I’ve seen creationists claim that the reason Africans have a lower average intelligence than Caucasians is because they’re descended from Ham, who was the least intelligent of Noah’s sons. Since Watson is an evolutionist, though, it’s to be expected that the way he explains this data is from an evolutionary perspective. Since this evidence and its conclusion can be explained from both a creationist and evolutionary point of view, there is nothing uniquely evolutionary about it.

quote:

This is all fine and good, but do you understand, that logically, this does not deny the premise that evolution can be used as a basis to rationalize racism?

Even if one claimed creationism could do the same, it doesn't contradict that notion?

quote:

Of course it doesn’t. Other people have pointed out multiple times in this thread that people who have racist ideals will use whatever excuses they can think of to rationalize them, and those excuses can include evolution, creationism, or any number of other ideas. However, it does not say anything unique about the theory of evolution that it is one of the dozens of ideas which have the potential to be misinterpreted in this way.

quote:

A more meaningful question to ask is, does the theory of evolution actually support racism? As has been pointed out by me and other people here, the answer to that question is no.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

And my regular, uncontradicted point is, that can change tomorrow.

quote:

No NO No NO NO! Even if it were proven that Group A differs from Group B on characteristic X, and that this difference is 100% genetic, this has no bearing on whether B's are natural slaves, inferior, worth less, less human, or anything.

Science has no inferioritometers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

No NO No NO NO! Even if it were proven that Group A differs from Group B on characteristic X, and that this difference is 100% genetic, this has no bearing on whether B's are natural slaves, inferior, worth less, less human, or anything.

Science has no inferioritometers.

I said nothing about slaves or inferiority; the point stands.

quote:

Science has no racism-is-justifiedometers, either.

Just for definitional purposes, what is racism? Racism is the belief that...

What would be a scientific finding that supported racism?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
My worldview does not allow for science to trump other considerations, so no scientific finding of the day could change my view that racism is fundamentally wrong.

quote:

If one's worldview is such that allows science to trump any other consideration, then a scientific finding that showed there were substantive differences between races (for example in terms of intelligence) would cause one to be fundamentally a racist - that is, as discriminating based on race.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

Well, in the post you just linked, it posts the following quote by Watson:

quote:

... there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.

Then the author of the blog goes on to defend this statement rather vociferously. You may not see this as adhering to the technical definition of racism, but I think it draws a pretty straight line between intelligence, race, evolution, and our social policy that results from that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
This is all fine and good, but do you understand, that logically, this does not deny the premise that evolution can be used as a basis to rationalize racism?

quote:

It can and has been used to rationalize racism. I think we can agree on that. But I would dispute "logically". It is no more logical to use evolution to rationalize racism than it is to use Christianity for the same purpose.

quote:

There is no straight line from any findings on differences and any one social policy. That is where your argument consistently fails. Differences among peoples does not compel the adoption of discriminatory social policy against them. It may even favour policy in their favour, like requiring employers to make special arrangements for people who need special hearing devices or opening public spaces to guide dogs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

There is no straight line from any findings on differences and any one social policy. That is where your argument consistently fails. Differences among peoples does not compel the adoption of discriminatory social policy against them. It may even favour policy in their favour, like requiring employers to make special arrangements for people who need special hearing devices or opening public spaces to guide dogs.

Well, it’s important to note that Watson specifically drew a connection between the presumed inferior intellect of Africans and social policy. You may say we aren’t ‘compelled' to do so, but obviously one can be influenced to do so.

quote:

Which social policy? I don't say there would not be social policy implications. But differences do not compel a social policy of oppression. If they did, we would be compelled to take action against those who are mentally retarded instead of providing for their special needs.

quote:

Let us note, too, that differences--even in intellect--do not necessarily imply inferiority, especially in individuals. Suppose we did eventually find that the average IQ of Africans is 5 points less than the average IQ of Caucasians. Does that have social policy implications for how we handle the applications of individuals to take post-graduate courses or be employed as a CEO? Does it mean we need to take any special action at all, positive or negative? Why? Should we judge individuals on the basis of an aggregate average?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

then it would follow those with lower capabilities [this can be determined with an objective test] are less [this requires an inferioritometer] than those with more capable brains.

quote:

Humans are taller than housecats (and our austrolopithecene ancestors), that doesn't mean that short people are 'less' than human. Or that humans are an exceedingly inferior variety of giraffe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Which social policy? I don't say there would not be social policy implications. But differences do not compel a social policy of oppression. If they did, we would be compelled to take action against those who are mentally retarded instead of providing for their special needs.

Well, comparing Africans to the mentally retarted would be one instance of racism in my mind.

quote:

quote:

Let us note, too, that differences--even in intellect--do not necessarily imply inferiority, especially in individuals. Suppose we did eventually find that the average IQ of Africans is 5 points less than the average IQ of Caucasians. Does that have social policy implications for how we handle the applications of individuals to take post-graduate courses or be employed as a CEO? Does it mean we need to take any special action at all, positive or negative? Why? Should we judge individuals on the basis of an aggregate average?

Well, that would depend on what we thought humans are. If we accept the evolutionary notion that humans are merely 'more intelligent animals', that our human capabilities are simply the product of enhanced cognitive capabilites, then it would follow those with lower capabilities are less than those with more capable brains.

quote:

Don't forget that those with a lower intellectual capacity because of retardation factors also used to suffer a great deal of discrimination. It is not retardation and African that is being compared, but the treatment of those really (mentally retarded) and allegedly judged to have a lower intellect.

What does lower intellect compel in the way of social policy? We have learned in the cases of those really affected that positive attention to their special needs allows many to live independent lives of human dignity. And even those who cannot live independently, can still be treated as humans.

Remembering that in connection with race, nothing has been demonstrated yet, why would any information on differing intellectual abilities dictate a specific social policy?

quote:

I think you are erroneously assuming that any finding would show all those of one race less capable than all those of another. The fact that many people of African descent have done well in higher education indicates this is not the case. The most that any measure could give us is a difference in average capacity. And that tells us nothing about individual capacities.

quote:

So you have not answered the question. As essentialsaltes has said, men and women also differ, on average, in various capacities. This was once used to justify excluding women from certain professions (e.g. police work). Today, we operate on the basis of individual ability, not gender-based averages. Why would the same not apply for alleged racial differences in intellectual capacity?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

One interesting thing about evolution as a theory is that it seems adept at taking old ideas (racism, eugenics, atheism) and giving them the patina of 'science'.