Culture Darwinism News

Did you know that creationists are liberals? Or something?

Spread the love

We missed the memo too, but here it is.

Earlier today, I noted that longtime New York Times writer Nicholas Wade decided to plow right into a defense of good old-fashioned Darwinian eugenic genetics, in his recent book, A Troublesome Inheritance.

We don’t know why.

Anyway, a reviewer writes in “The liberal creationists”:

Nicholas Wade, the New York Times’ chief genetics reporter, has published 1,052 articles in the newspaper of record since 1983. For most of this century, Wade has been methodically waging war in the Science section of the NYT against the liberal creationist myth that race isn’t real. He has now written a definitive book on the existence of biological differences among races, A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History, which will be published on May 6.

In his new book, Wade writes:

Ever since the first modern humans dispersed from the ancestral homeland in northeast Africa … the populations on each continent have evolved largely independently of one another as each adapted to its regional environment. … Because of these divisions in the human population, anyone interested in recent human evolution is almost inevitably studying human races, whether they wish to or not.

To Wade, race isn’t just skin deep. In fact, he finds the visual differences between races less significant than the behavioral. Evolution’s strategy for adapting to radically different environments is to “keep the human body much the same but change the social behavior.” More.

The bad guy that reviewer Sailer, who is obviously Darwin’s man, fingers here is Stephen Jay Gould (1941–2002)—who was as anti-creationist as they come, if facts matter.

But it figures, if Darwinians are going to attack someone, they will say he is a “creationist.” After all, they have to fit Gould into a category that their herd of independent minds is used to subjecting to a two-minute hate.

Facts didn’t evolve so as to be understood, it turns out.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

13 Replies to “Did you know that creationists are liberals? Or something?

  1. 1
    ScuzzaMan says:

    Did the article have an actual point?

    I read it twice but couldn’t find one.

    Not even the end quote seemed to make sense in the context.

    Unless … well, I have long observed that the neo-Darwinians dont like to talk about race much. They especially dont like to talk about it in the context of their new definition of “species”, which renders much of Earth’s human population into a myriad of separate species, which in turn raises troublesome thoughts such as those referred to somewhat obliquely in the article.

    Creationists may not be liberal in the modern use of the term, but many are liberal in the old sense, believing that every authority must be questioned, that we must learn to think and choose for ourselves, that responsibility cannot be evaded by transferring allegiance (and thus, decision-making powers) to any human god-proxy (i.e. by idolatry), that each individual has the God-given right to make their own choices as well as the God-given obligation to reap what we sow.

    Thus, the implied “solution” in the article, that a modern scientific society ought to be some kind of apartheid system with different laws/policies applying to different (scientifically-defined (of course!)) ‘races’, never occurs in the older liberal context, because government in that context is concerned only with those negative (or fallen) aspects of human nature which are common to all humanity.

    This is not to say that I, or creationists, agree with this person’s views on race and racial differences. On the contrary. But what it does mean is that the question is wholly moot; such differences are beyond the purview of any policy I would countenance.

  2. 2
    Robert Byers says:

    If the newspapers welcome this WAde then behind the scences they are giving his ideas thumbs up.
    All this with president Obama in office!!
    I got a hunch they will not be saying englishmen are the top dogs.
    If they did THEN it would be racism.
    The only way one can tell is by looking at results on a controlled experiment.
    The experiment is history and its settled.
    The winners were the ones whose languiage we are speaking and the vwinners are mankind who simply was taught and easily mastered any subject.
    Its obvious. Scoring after they ball were brought up is not scientific controls.
    Creationists can make money on this.
    We should not shy away because of its sad and ugly features.
    Its time to make another evolutionist embarrassment.
    Will someone ask President obama in public what he thinks about genes and race and smarts??
    I’d watched that event.

  3. 3
    Dionisio says:

    Does the term ‘liberal’ have the same meaning or connotation in the USA as in Europe?
    Does the term ‘liberal’ have the same meaning it had many years ago? IOW, has it always meant the same?
    Does the term ‘race’ have the same meaning in different languages?
    BTW, I think in Spanish the term ‘race’ (raza) is also used to distinguish between dog breeds, like for instance a golden retriever and a Labrador, or cat types, like tabby orange or Persian, in addition to being used in reference to human ethnicity. Now, are those uses equivalent? Are the terms ‘race’ and ‘breed’ interchangeable?
    Also, the Spanish word ‘raza’ (race) is used to name the historical date of the alleged discovery of some Caribbean islands by an Italian sailor working for the Spanish royalties by the end of the 15th century. Later the discoverers turned conquerors introduced cheap African labor to work in some of those islands, after the original local inhabitants practically disappeared from the scene for various reasons. Much later cheap Asian labor also sneaked into some of those islands. Eventually people from different ethnic backgrounds settled in some of those islands and got mixed.

  4. 4
    Barb says:

    Robert Byers unloads,

    If the newspapers welcome this WAde then behind the scences they are giving his ideas thumbs up. All this with president Obama in office!!

    What does this have to do with President Obama? Most of the people who do have differences with his policies and administration are closet racists.

    I got a hunch they will not be saying englishmen are the top dogs.
    If they did THEN it would be racism.

    Why would Englishmen be the top dogs? The sun set on the British Empire a long time ago.

    The only way one can tell is by looking at results on a controlled experiment.
    The experiment is history and its settled.

    A controlled experiment to determine which race is superior?

    The winners were the ones whose languiage we are speaking and the vwinners are mankind who simply was taught and easily mastered any subject.

    I have news for you, pookie: The Chinese invented written language, fireworks, and gunpowder, among other things. The most spoken language in the world is Mandarin Chinese. So if, for any reason, you had the delusion that the winners were white people, you’re wrong.

    Its obvious. Scoring after they ball were brought up is not scientific controls.

    WTF?

    Creationists can make money on this. We should not shy away because of its sad and ugly features.

    Actually, that would be the Christian thing to do, Robert. Read Acts 10:34 and 35 sometime. God isn’t partial, why should humans be?

    Its time to make another evolutionist embarrassment.

    I think Wade already did that.

    Will someone ask President obama in public what he thinks about genes and race and smarts?? I’d watched that event.

    President Obama, unlike you, can write and speak in coherent sentences. Unlike you, he is a former Constitutional law professor and the past editor of the Harvard Law Review. He is far smarter than you ever will be. Try toning down the racist idiocy, Robert, it does you no favors.

  5. 5
    tragic mishap says:

    Evolution’s strategy for adapting to radically different environments is to “keep the human body much the same but change the social behavior.”

    Well isn’t that conveniently unfalsifiable?

  6. 6
    tjguy says:

    the liberal creationist myth that race isn’t real.

    He is right that creationists do not believe in more than one race, the human race.

    We don’t claim there are no differences between various people groups, but all are human. There is no sub human race or separate half ape species. The variation in people groups comes from genetic drift, environmental pressures, and natural selection selecting the best genetic set for a particular environment, including skin color. Whites are not superior to blacks and neither are blacks superior to people of any other skin color.

    I can understand why this guy wants to try and create different races, but how can he say one “race” is “more evolved” or ” more human” than any other?

    What science is this based on?

    If you hold to an amoral worldview such as atheism, this kind of an idea can have terrifying consequences as we have already experienced in the past.

  7. 7
    Robert Byers says:

    Barb
    You don’t understand my comments.
    I don’t know if Obama really got his stuff fair and square. its all affirmative action outright or hidden.
    I’m only saying that in a African presidency the bringing up of racial/intelligence results, surely to the loss of blacks, is hilarious.
    Anyways someone should ask him!

    you have a wrong idea of human accomplishment. Its a english civilization and not a oriental one.
    We all speak english, despite its original paucity of numbers, because of moral and intellectual dominance. The Chinese are simply numerous and exclusive to themselves. iN fact its case in point how numbers is secondary to intelligence etc.

    The point is that creationism, both yEC/ID , have a chjance here to squeeze evolutionism on these matters.
    the world is fed up with racial ideology. Evolutionists seeing a chance to bring it back it a chance for creationists to embarrass them and discredit them to the billions.
    Intelligence is entirely of the free will acting on whats before a person.
    All babies are born equal as thinking beings. tHey bring no intelligence with them. This is the biblical view and obvious surely by now.
    yet there is measurable differences in time and place.
    There is a chance here for creationism to take advantage of.

  8. 8
    Barb says:

    Robert continues,

    You don’t understand my comments.

    That’s putting it mildly.

    I don’t know if Obama really got his stuff fair and square. its all affirmative action outright or hidden.

    Even if he got into Harvard by affirmative action, so what? You don’t get to be the editor of the Harvard Law Review without some intelligence of your own. And you certainly don’t get to stay at Harvard for four years without keeping your grades up. Affirmative action has nothing to do with that. Maybe he got into Harvard because his SAT/ACT scores were light years ahead of yours.

    I’m only saying that in a African presidency the bringing up of racial/intelligence results, surely to the loss of blacks, is hilarious.
    Anyways someone should ask him!

    Like they asked him for his birth certificate?
    Like I posted earlier, tone down the racism. It make you look stupid.

    you have a wrong idea of human accomplishment. Its a english civilization and not a oriental one.

    Says you. The Chinese have accomplished quite a bit. It does not help your argument to ignore facts you find inconvenient.

    We all speak english, despite its original paucity of numbers, because of moral and intellectual dominance.

    Well, that’s it for today. The stupidest thing I’ll read on the Internet all day.
    You are, without a doubt, the most misogynistic, ignorant racist person I’ve met, either in real life or on the Internet. Have a cookie.

    The Chinese are simply numerous and exclusive to themselves. iN fact its case in point how numbers is secondary to intelligence etc.

    Exclusive to themselves? Do you know how much is imported from China? Or how much we export to China? Nixon opened relations with China in the 1970s. Are you truly ignorant of this fact?
    Oh, and the Chinese do outperform most other nationalities—including Americans—on standardized tests. What does that tell you about their intelligence?

    The point is that creationism, both yEC/ID , have a chjance here to squeeze evolutionism on these matters.

    Except for those of us who aren’t racists.

    the world is fed up with racial ideology. Evolutionists seeing a chance to bring it back it a chance for creationists to embarrass them and discredit them to the billions.

    It will take far more than mere accusations of racism to discredit evolution in the eyes of billions.

    Intelligence is entirely of the free will acting on whats before a person.

    Intelligence is acquiring knowledge and putting that knowledge to practical use, which in turn leads to developing wisdom.

    All babies are born equal as thinking beings. tHey bring no intelligence with them. This is the biblical view and obvious surely by now.

    We are born with the capacity of intelligence, yes. But you are arguing that English-speaking white people are more intelligence than other races. WHICH GOES COMPLETELY AGAINST WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS.
    Again, read Acts 10:34, 35. God is not racist; why are you?

    yet there is measurable differences in time and place.

    Time and place for what? Education? Education is not equal amongst nations. THIS DOES NOT PROVE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM THAT WHITE PEOPLE ARE INTELLECTUALLY SUPERIOR. If you doubt that, I invite you to visit the southern portion of the United States, because you will find some of the most ignorant people to ever walk the Earth living there.
    If whites are intellectually superior, why do other nations best them in standardized testing?
    Are racism and low IQ related (http://www.psychologytoday.com.....nd-in-hand)?

    There is a chance here for creationism to take advantage of.

    Oh, and intelligent people know not to end sentences with prepositions.

  9. 9
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: Dr. Craig’s Personal Journey to Faith – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRk7Q7S6Gyw

  10. 10
    EDTA says:

    I don’t disagree that the Western world is in decline. As that accelerates, scores on standardized tests show a decline here. No disagreement. Who will win out in another hundred years is anybody’s guess. (I’m guessing nobody actually.)

    However, Western civilization overtook Eastern some time ago, as far as technological and intellectual progress goes. So the Chinese can have all the credit for gunpowder and fireworks, the basic compass, printing and paper, etc. We’ll take credit for everything else from around A.D. 1300 to today: better farming practices, modern sanitation (ok, that one’s fairly recent), lenses (telescopes, microscopes, eyeglasses), modern physics, modern astronomy, electricity and electronics (telegraph, telephone, vacuum tubes, transistors, miniaturization, computers, radio, television), modern chemistry, modern pharmacology, the scientific method, the fireplace (as opposed to just making a fire in the middle of your house); automated, mass-produced paper production and printing, machine-controlled weaving, interchangeable parts and assembly lines.

    Not that we won’t forsake all our progress someday. And I wish the Chinese and others well. But for now, I’ll remain a somewhat proud Westerner.

  11. 11
    Robert Byers says:

    Barb
    How can you deny one can measure intelligence and then tell me to measure it by these tests??
    Yes you can measure intelligence in persons or people.
    the results have been in for centuries.
    Your speaking their language.
    the most intelligent people were the English and Scottish identies and where they colonized.
    In fact i say its really the evangelical/puritan influence that led to this result.
    A minority influence raised the British world above the rest of the protestant nations.
    Everyone else was educated by this or immigrated and was BROUGHT UP by assimulation. Segregation simply adding some interference one way or the other.

    I am confident in the innate soul equality of man.
    there is no innate difference HOWEVER you are very wrong to say that means there is no difference between peoples and persons.
    Its not a ‘ism.
    Its the truth and should be taught to everyone.
    its a liberal belief in mankind but still demands mankind to do the earning.
    to say that oriental or African countries are the equal of us is to ignore the equation of hugh numbers accomplishing nothing and barely feeding themselves.
    its a great embarrassment that old china with its billions only now offers some a better life then being in a rice paddy all day.
    Its a sad truth.
    i wish them well but they have to smarten up and no excuses.
    This is a world getting smarter and better.
    We still are top dog but they could catch up. They just need to copy and not invent.

  12. 12
    Piotr says:

    Robert Byers:

    Your speaking their language.

    the most intelligent people were the English and Scottish identies and where they colonized.

    How come that some of them are not smart enough to produce a correct English sentence? How does this pretension to intellectual superiority account for your chaotically rambling racist nonsense?

  13. 13
    Barb says:

    Robert continues,

    , Barb, How can you deny one can measure intelligence and then tell me to measure it by these tests??

    I don’t deny you can measure intelligence. However, I’m not so sure that IQ is the best way to measure the worth of a person.

    Yes you can measure intelligence in persons or people. the results have been in for centuries. Your speaking their language.

    It’s “you’re”, Robert. Learn to speak the language if you’re going to claim it’s the “best” language.

    the most intelligent people were the English and Scottish identies and where they colonized.

    Citation needed. Paper, monograph, anything? Prove what you’re saying. Provide evidence.

    In fact i say its really the evangelical/puritan influence that led to this result.

    What you say is irrelevant unless it’s backed up by evidence. Got any?

    A minority influence raised the British world above the rest of the protestant nations.

    The British more or less conquered the world (at that time) by military might, not by education.

    Everyone else was educated by this or immigrated and was BROUGHT UP by assimulation.

    No, everyone else was not educated by this. The ancient Greeks had philosophy, science, and mathematics before the British did. The Chinese had written language before the British did. The ancient Romans had a system of government before the British did.
    You are profoundly ignorant of history, among other things.

    Segregation simply adding some interference one way or the other.

    So, segregation is bad? Or good? I can’t tell what you’re trying to say here.

    I am confident in the innate soul equality of man.
    there is no innate difference HOWEVER you are very wrong to say that means there is no difference between peoples and persons.

    Read the Bible sometime. What does Acts 10:34,35 day? Does God view people differently or not? Of course there are differences between peoples (skin color, nationality, etc) but this does not mean that one nationality is favored over another. Are you really not getting this point? For someone who decries Darwin, you sure are buying into his racist views.

    Its not a ‘ism.

    Google “racism” sometime. You might actually learn something.

    Its the truth and should be taught to everyone.

    What, that white people are better than others?

    its a liberal belief in mankind but still demands mankind to do the earning.

    Earning what? Robert, learn to speak the language or at least write coherent sentences.

    to say that oriental or African countries are the equal of us is to ignore the equation of hugh numbers accomplishing nothing and barely feeding themselves.

    Non sequitur. I’m not arguing that the standard of living is different between America and China or Africa; I’m arguing that favoring one race of people over another is unchristian and stupid.

    its a great embarrassment that old china with its billions only now offers some a better life then being in a rice paddy all day.

    That is the fault of the government, not the people. And it does not dismiss what the Chinese accomplished over the centuries, either.

    Its a sad truth.

    What, communism is bad? Really? You don’t say!

    i wish them well but they have to smarten up and no excuses.

    Well, they are smarter than you. But people can only do so much with what they’re given. If the government prevents people from getting an education, then what? Immigration isn’t always possible.
    I work for a private university in Atlanta and we have a lot of international students, including Chinese, Koreans, Africans, Europeans, and so on. Believe me, they aren’t stupid at all. Most are in medical school.

    This is a world getting smarter and better.

    Really? The Bible says otherwise (Matthew chapter 24; 1 Timothy 3:1-5). The world is not getting better. It might be getting smarter, but that would be due to the proliferation of knowledge readily available on the Internet.

    We still are top dog but they could catch up. They just need to copy and not invent.

    Invention something new is better than copying an invention of someone else. That you don’t understand this says volumes about your intelligence (or lack thereof).

Leave a Reply