A Response to Herr Professor Regarding Evolution and Racism, and Watson

Posted by Anthony on October 20, 2007

Herr Professor, writing here, wants to take me to task for some of the things that I said in this post, here.

I thank the gentleman for taking the time to read my entry though as I read his I did begin to doubt that he really did read mine. Besides the standard skeptical psychoanalysis one has come to expect (think: Dawkins’s argument that religious tendencies are ‘misfires.’ We should be weeding out people with the religion gene, don’t you agree?), I had my first ever experience of being described as racist and somehow siding with Dr. Watson’s alleged ‘racist allegations.’

I think one need only read my entry to see clearly that I did not in fact do this, but it does give me the opportunity to clarify things. But let’s take it in order.

We know that Herr Professor has excellent reflexes as he wastes no time in jumping to conclusions. Putting the ‘hyper’ in hyperbole, he describes my post ,saying,

“he gives us a good demonstration of skewing the facts to make a biased point, namely, that Watson proves you should never trust a scientist.” (emphasis mine)

That is not the case at all. My blog entry argues that scientists can provide helpful and useful material. It also argues that there is an observable pattern of people deferring to scientists- even about things we have no basis for thinking they are qualified to address. Herr Professor seems to understand this and actually concedes it since he first quotes me, and then makes his own comment:

“”[Horvath said that] scientists are people just like the rest of us and there is no reason to believe that they are especially more logical or rational than anyone else… or more ethical.”

Nor are they any less logical, rational, or ethical than other people, on average.”

That is already an admission of my point. It is also out of step with most atheistic attitudes out there since skeptics almost uniformly seem to believe quite the opposite. At least, they do think that scientists (and atheists!) are indeed more logical and rational than other people. And ethical, too? Presumably, the way you hear them talk, though I can’t say I’ve heard many admit that one. I also said, “A scientist that makes an ethical declaration is probably speaking outside his field.” And that is usually true.

If we have no reason to think that scientists really are specially privileged to speak to ethical questions or even to behave ethically- and Herr Professor seems to agree that they aren’t- then why are we asked to defer to them left and right? Utterly absent from his post is any reference to some of the other examples I gave. For example, what about the Spina Bifida ‘experiment’ where more than a dozen SB children died in a test to see if people would defer to scientists who said that the children had no chance? Apparently, many people would defer. Not mentioned in my post but a good example of that (and mentioned elsewhere on my blog) is the infamous Milgram experiment, where it is notable that the ’scientist’ deferred to was a biologist. Dawkins would be proud.

I also mentioned the Tuskegee Study. And not mentioned, but worthy of mention would be Margaret Sanger’s eugenics advocacy also targeting black Americans. That three out of the four examples here seem to target black people would seem to imply that for all of Herr Professor’s bluster, scientists have on occasion thought that experimenting on black people was acceptable. I’ll leave it for the evolutionary scientists to sort out just why that is.

Now, I did struggle to discern where I agreed with Watson on a genetic basis for racism. I don’t see where I spoke to that at all. Allow me to go on the record. That genetics can affect intelligence I think is obvious. I have trouble believing that Herr Professor has not heard of Downs Syndrome. He is a professor, after all. That means he’s smart. Right? But just in case, here is a refresher of this genetic ailment that impacts cognizance. That genetics may influence intelligence I think is, if you will pardon the pun, a no-brainer.

I think that what is going on here is that even secular humanists are aware that when Darwinism is logically employed and talk begins of biologic inferiority, the gulags, extermination camps, forced sterilization, and syphilis projects are, historically speaking, not far off. The moral depravity of these types of operations is discernible even to relativists, so in my view, I think that makes them hyper-sensitive to even making observations about genetic differences.

But the fact that I would acknowledge such realities does not mean that I am promoting racism. Nor do I think that Downs Syndrome children should be aborted. The difference is this: Darwinism is essentially survival of the fittest. It makes logical sense that ‘inferior’ genes be kept out of the pool. Racism makes sense from a Darwinist point of view. Darwinists deny this, mainly because the attitude is so obviously abhorrent that even they can see it.

But their denial cannot come out of their Darwinism. This rejection of racism has to emerge from some other place, some moral code of some kind. Here is a case of wanting to have one’s cake and eat it too, for they wish to think that they can act as though there is an objective moral code while denying that there is one while denying that Darwinism provides one. A yucky one.

Though I am ready to allow a certain amount of truth to Watson’s view that intelligence may be affected by genetics, the professor forgets or does not know that I am not an evolutionist.  When an evolutionist begins making such observations, people quite naturally tuck their children away where they are safe.  But there is little need fear such an observation by a pro-life, anti-euthanasian Christian.  I believe that all people have value and can’t be reduced to reproductive machines. If the Darwinist believes people have value on other terms (and they often do), they are acting inconsistent with their own principles. They are getting their views from somewhere else, but if Darwinism is true there shouldn’t be any other place to generate those principles.

Quickly, Herr Professor makes a mistake when referencing my point about the criminality gene. He says, “Yep, that’s right. Watson’s universally-denounced, racist, and ignorant remarks are actually preaching the Gospel!” My point was that if a genetic basis for ‘criminality’ was found, it would not actually being telling us Christians anything new. This is all part of a trend in scientific circles to take what the theologians have always said and recast it in naturalistic terms. But that topic can wait for a future post.

What I did want to address is another one of Herr Professor’s points in regards to my comments about the School Board in Maine.

[Horvath said] The conclusion by the school board: Because 5 15 year olds reported having sex, make birth control pills available to 500 students without parental knowledge or consent.

Is this ethical? Moral? Are sociologists in a position to make this judgment? What about school board officials?

Apparently, the answer is supposed to be no: the ‘ethical’ answer would be 5 pregnant teens and/or aborted babies. But you can’t trust school boards to make that kind of ethical choice. They’re going to be listening to the ‘actual facts’ that scientists ‘ascertain,’ like the fact that a lot of sexually-active teens don’t feel comfortable discussing their sex lives with mom and dad, let alone asking them for contraceptives. So you see, school boards, like scientists, are not to be trusted, because they base their ethical decisions on actual facts instead of on traditional dogmas. But the blame, ultimately, belongs to the scientists, and especially ‘Darwinists.’ (emphasis mine)

Here again we see some hyperbole. I didn’t say ‘no’ they shouldn’t be trusted. It is not that scientists and school boards are not to be trusted, but that they shouldn’t be necessarily deferred to. After all, they are- the Professor agrees- just like us. The larger point which I think was clear in my entry is that school boards and scientists should stick to the jobs that they’ve been given. School boards have the job, I would say, of speaking to educational matters, not health issues. If a middle school has fifteen year olds in it, my suggestion was that maybe they should spend less time focusing on the fact that they have sexually active fifteen year olds in their midst and focus instead on the fact that … they have fifteen year olds in middle school!

The Professor replaces one set of dogmas for another. Alluding to the reality that there are more people sexually active than are admitting to it, he seems to think that it is ethical and appropriate for a school to deal with that issue in the first place. That in fact is the issue I was addressing, and it is interesting to me that he doesn’t want to speak to it.