Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Coffee!!: Darwinism as support for racism

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I have sometimes been excoriated for saying that Darwinism has been used to support racism.

Well, here is a classical modern day example, from no less a luminary than John Derbyshire:

First, the rational grounds. If a species is divided into separate populations, and those populations are left in reproductive isolation from each other for many generations, they will diverge. If you return after several hundred generations have passed, you will observe that the various traits that characterize individuals of the species are now distributed at different frequencies in the various populations. After a few ten thousands of generations, the divergence of the populations will be so great they can no longer cross-breed; and that is the origin of species. This is Biology 101.

We see the same differences in traits that we don’t think of as directly physical, what evolutionary psychologists sometimes refer to as the “BIP” traits — behavior, intelligence, and personality. Two of the hardest-to-ignore manifestations here are the extraordinary differentials in criminality between white Americans and African Americans, and the persistent gaps in scores when tests of cognitive ability are given to large population samples.

There is a huge academic literature on the gaps in cognitive test results, practically all of it converging on the fact that African American mean scores on cognitive tests fall below the white means by a tad more than one white standard deviation. There is in fact so much data on this now that we have meta-studies — studies of the studies: the one best-known to me is the meta-study by Roth et al. in 2001, which covered 39 studies involving nearly six million test-takers. That one standard deviation on cognitive testing has been so persistent across so many decades, a friend of mine, an academic sociologist, calls it “the universal constant of American sociology” — it’s like the speed of light in physics.

Etc.

Read the rest here.

I’m sure glad that I would be unable to demonstrate that I am an African or an American or an African-American. I’d feel so depressed hearing this that I would probably drop out of school, and maybe get frustrated and … well, if a crime got committed, would reserve my defence.

By the way: Apologies to those who entered recent Uncommon Descent contests, so far unjudged. I was assigned a long chapter of a book on a subject I had never researched. I have not forgotten you. Indeed, I can’t. My Calendar persecutes me every morning. I will get to your entries as soon as I turn in the chapter.

Some people fear God rather than men. I fear men more than Calendars.

Note: In the combox at 2, Allan MacNeill, ever a source of entertainment to our list, has implied that I am a racist. Precisely because I should be working, I am motivated to tell a funny story instead:

About twenty years ago, dear friends and I were having lunch in a restaurant here, shortly after the birth of their first son. They asked me a question: How would they describe the race of their son? One parent was overseas Chinese and the other was of African descent. They had decided to be Canadian citizens, and were energetically learning the names of the provinces, great rivers, etc., for a citizenship exam.

I was flummoxed by the “son” question because it wasn’t something that I had ever considered.

(I so much wish they had asked me instead about the names of the provinces, the great rivers, the mountain ranges, … gee, I could have told them all that in a flash. I was born on the prairie and used to live on the banks of the mighty Yukon.)

Okay, I said, “Just call him a kid. A Canadian kid. And if there is ever any trouble, get in touch with me about it. No one in this country has the right to bug you about this.” It worked.

Comments
BTW, I don't believe for a minute that if an African American was transplanted in infancy into an affluent home with the accompanying social, economic, and educational foundation, that their test scores would still suffer "one standard deviation". I am curious to find out if such studies have been conducted or not.Oramus
April 19, 2010
April
04
Apr
19
19
2010
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT
Prof. MacNeill, However, reading Derbyshire's opening remarks, pasted here (italics mine), clearly suggests his concluding remarks was simply a polite attempt at CYA.
.....but that racial disparities in education and employment have their origin in biological differences between the human races. Those differences are facts in the natural world, like the orbits of the planets. They can't be legislated out of existence; nor can they be "eliminated" by social or political action.
Oramus
April 19, 2010
April
04
Apr
19
19
2010
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT
Bilboe
Oh admit it, Allen. Derbyshire has just provided the amunition for the next Hitler to seize and use for who knows what evil ends.
That is not the issue nor the standard by which someone is racist or not. Derbyshire thinks that white people have evolved more intelligence that black people. Derbyshire is a racist. And it is because of his faith in Darwinism.Jehu
April 19, 2010
April
04
Apr
19
19
2010
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT
Allen McNeill
Who’s the racist, then?
Uh, Derbyshire is the racist. And he is a racist because he assumes Darwinism is the reason for the difference between distributions in test scores between blacks and whites. Hence, Derbyshire believes blacks are inferior to whites. Regardless if Derbyshire wants to cloak his racism behind advocating equal treatment, in his heart Derbyshire is a born-of-Darwin racist.Jehu
April 19, 2010
April
04
Apr
19
19
2010
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT
Oh admit it, Allen. Derbyshire has just provided the amunition for the next Hitler to seize and use for who knows what evil ends.Bilboe
April 19, 2010
April
04
Apr
19
19
2010
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT
Personally, I think it is racist to be accumulating a lot of information on these topics, for the same reasons as I think it prurient of a neighbour to spy on a neighbour she suspects of having an affair with the postman. I also do not understand why census forms require - or even ask - people to state the race they belong to. In many cases, who knows? In all cases, who cares?O'Leary
April 19, 2010
April
04
Apr
19
19
2010
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
To be very specific, nowhere in Derbyshire's presentation does he assert that the empirical fact that African-American's score lower on average on standardized tests means that they necessarilyshould be treated any differently because they are African-American. No, that was O'Leary's inference. Who's the racist, then?Allen_MacNeill
April 19, 2010
April
04
Apr
19
19
2010
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT
It might also be informative to discuss John Derbyshire's conclusions. Here they are:
"Thus there are both rational and empirical grounds for believing in intractable group differences between the big old inbred paleolithic populations of Homo sapiens. In the context of this discussion, there are two things that need saying about these differences. First, the differences are statistical. Any population contains variation. Variation within a population is the essence of biology. Those of you familiar with Charles Darwin's great classic On the Origin of Species will recall that three of the first five chapters have the word "variation" in the chapter title. Any population will contain individuals who are fat, thin, fast, slow, tall, short, and so on. And in the grand biological scheme of things, human population divergences are slight, the populations overlapping massively on most kinds of traits. To go back to that "universal constant of sociology," for instance: Given a one standard deviation gap between black and white means, one thing we can deduce from pure mathematics is that around six million African Americans score higher on cognitive tests than the average white test-taker. In LSAT terms, over 1,300 African American test-takers in 2007-2008 scored above the white mean. Second, the differences are abstract. Group differences are statistical truths. They exist in an abstract realm quite far removed from our everyday personal experience. They tell you nothing about the person you just met. Group differences are, for example, one degree more abstract than individual differences. We all acknowledge individual differences all the time: she's fat, he's thin, she's shy, he's outgoing, she's smart, he's dumb. We are all, to various degrees, aware of our own individual strengths and limitations. Certainly I am aware of mine. For example: My wife is a keen ballroom dancer. Because I love my wife, I did my best to become a ballroom dancer myself. For two years — two blessed years, ladies and gentlemen — I went along twice a week with her to the local Arthur Murray studio to take instruction. At the end of it, I still had two left feet. The instruction I received was like water poured on to a sheet of glass. Even at the things we are good at, most of us are not very good. I make my living by writing; yet I can name, in my own small personal acquaintance, a dozen people who are better writers than I am. That's not even to mention the Shakespeares and Tolstoys. Most of us are hopeless at most things, and mediocre at the rest. And yet — look! We don't lose sleep over this. We don't sink into rage and frustration at our own individual differences, or agitate for politicians to put balm on our psychic wounds. We accept our individual shortcomings with remarkable equanimity, playing the cards we've been dealt as best we can. That is the attitude of a healthy human being. To do otherwise would, most of us I'm sure would agree, be un-healthy. How much more unhealthy, then, to fret and rage and agitate about mere statistical abstractions?"
Does this sound like a justification for unequal opportunity or treatment on the basis of evolutionary theory? To me, it sounds like a conclusion that what matters most is individual differences, which cannot be adequately captured in statistical profiles. But, maybe O'Leary interprets Derbyshire's conclusions differently...Allen_MacNeill
April 19, 2010
April
04
Apr
19
19
2010
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply