James Watson — Why does he say the things he does?

_{William Dembski

October 16, 2007

Culture, Darwinism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Anybody willing to offer predictions about when Darwinists will be getting back big time into the eugenics business?

Africans are less intelligent than Westerners, says DNA pioneer
SOURCE: news.independent.co.uk

. . . His views are also reflected in a book published next week, in which he writes: “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.”

Comments

"Firstly I believe in a higher power, in fact I believe Yahweh exists. I don’t worship Him however, I have read the Bible and he’s a monster" Maybe you need to actually do the hard work and stop reading it like it was a newspaper written yesterday for your personal consumption and not ancient documents written to people in a different culture and place. Sure that takes some hard work and thinking, but that seems preferable to this knee jerk ignorance you display don't you think ?Jason Rennie_{October 17, 2007
October
10
Oct
17
17
2007
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

"Do you think it’s Ok to own people, keep slaves? I would hope not yet I can’t find anything in the Bible telling me it’s wrong to own slaves, can you?" Actually there is plenty you just need to know enough cultural background to understand what is going on, especially give the slavery in the OT is not the chattel slavery of the American South that was a catalyst towards the American Civil War.Jason Rennie_{October 17, 2007
October
10
Oct
17
17
2007
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

"We should be able to lock these darwinoid loonies up! They’re advocating genocide. Jim Watson is using hate speech, and should be charged as such (no less than the men at Jasper, TX)." Although I think hate speech laws are truly evil things, I must say that I agree with this sentiment in part. If these sorts of idiotic laws are on the books then they need to be applied equally. At least if there were either they would quickly get off the books, always good to see bad laws removed, or else at least the true face of much of Darwinism would come to light.Jason Rennie_{October 17, 2007
October
10
Oct
17
17
2007
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

"It might be “commendable” to be honest, like Watson has, about what Darwinism really means. But if he genuinely embraces this ideology without a shred of ethical objection…that’s just revolting." I agree his behavior is revolting. I would not use the word commendable to describe it. But it is refreshing that he is willing to be honest unlike so many of his cohort. It is the honesty that is a good thing not the opinion itself.Jason Rennie_{October 17, 2007
October
10
Oct
17
17
2007
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

[...] Fury at DNA pioneer’s theory: Africans are less intelligent than Westerners Celebrated scientist attacked for race comments: “All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really” By Cahal Milmo Published: 17 October 2007 Comment/link at Uncommon Descent [...]» Fury at DNA pioneer’s theory_{October 17, 2007
October
10
Oct
17
17
2007
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

If you mix red, yellow, and blue paint !(the three primary colors for a material object) you will get the black color,,,Thus the all the information for color, when talking about a MATERIAL object is in the black color...Is this clear enough for you?" The calculations I used, are just "back of napkin" figures to give me a ballpark figure at what the evolutionary scenario is required to generate,,, The main point of the whole post was that the genome lost information!!!! to reiterate the main point: Of special note: Adcock et al. (7) clearly demonstrate the actual extinction of an ancient mtDNA lineage belonging to an anatomically modern human, because this lineage is not found in living Australians. Although the fossil evidence provides evidence of the continuity of modern humans over the past 60,000 years, the ancient mtDNA clearly does not, providing an excellent example of why the history of any particular locus or DNA sequence does not necessarily represent the history of a population. Adcock et al.’s particularly this : clearly demonstrate the actual extinction of an ancient mtDNA lineage belonging to an anatomically modern human, This is losing mtDNA information instead of gaining it,,,,and believe me lotf,,,if they would of found totally new mtDNA sequences, instead of a lost mtDNA sequence, the "proof of evolution" would have been paraded on every newspaper headline and science magazine cover in America!bornagain77_{October 17, 2007
October
10
Oct
17
17
2007
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT}

@bornagain77 It is commonly known that the black color, when referring to a material object, is a mixture of all the other colors combined,,,whereas it is also commonly known that white light is a mixture of all the other colors combined when referring to light! Sorry still lost me, it's a scientific fact that white light is a combination of colours, what does material object colour combined (to paraphrase) actually mean? Colour is just different wavelenghts of light. To the numbers - aren't you including all differences in your calculation and not just the beneficial changes?lotf_{October 17, 2007
October
10
Oct
17
17
2007
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

correction: this statement: Thus, unless evolution came to a complete stop, 80 million SNP have been required to be generated since the ancient Australian lived. should read: Thus, unless evolution came to a complete stop, (2000 x 60,000) 120 million SNP have been required to be generated since the ancient Australian lived.bornagain77_{October 17, 2007
October
10
Oct
17
17
2007
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT}

@Patrick Sorry I posted before I had seen your post. I shall stay on track now.lotf_{October 17, 2007
October
10
Oct
17
17
2007
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

Firstly I'd like to apologise for this hijack. Now then: @Borne Society decides [morals] based on what foundation? What works basically, a society that is founded on destructive principles will not survive. If society decides the rape of children is ok, is it? Sodom had decided such. They deserved to be destroyed. A society that decides rape of children is Ok will not last long. I consider it wrong of course what sane man wouldn't? To Sodom - didn't Lot allow the men who came for the angels to rape his daughters? I don't remember the passage that condems Lot's behaviour, could you point it out for me? Slavery in the bible was more like employment than your recent history slavery such Americans practiced towards blacks So a slave could choose not to work for his\her master? They could change masters? Do you have a cite for this? I have studied Roman history and this is not how the Romans saw their slaves for sure, they were property. We have different moral codes then, to me 'owning' someone is abhorant, every man should be born free and equal. Ah yes, another who has read the bible without any understanding of historical context or cultural context. Wow you got that from one sentence? Impressive. If a tad nasty, you Christians... If God deems it morally correct to kill, under specific circumstances (just like we do), then as creator, he must necessarily have both the moral authority and the right motive for doing so. I'm sorry but the killing of children can never be morally justified in my opinion, we'll have to disagree on that one. This is why I choose not to worship him, quite the opposite. You need to do your homework before spewing forth venom against things you have so small an understanding of. Thanks for the advice, if you could supply me with the passages condeming Lot that would be a great start don't you think?lotf_{October 17, 2007
October
10
Oct
17
17
2007
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT}

lotf, Seekandfind, Borne, and others, I'd be best if this discussion does not turn into a Luciferian vs Christian religious debate. If you want to have such a debate I suggest you keep it to private emails. Thanks.Patrick_{October 17, 2007
October
10
Oct
17
17
2007
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT}

Lotf, When you tan did your genome pick up information for your original skin color? In short, No it did not. We are talking about information that is already present in the parent species genome. It is commonly known that the black color, when referring to a material object, is a mixture of all the other colors combined,,,whereas it is also commonly known that white light is a mixture of all the other colors combined when referring to light! The figure of 100,000-300,000 generations is given by evolutionists themselves, since monkey and man split. 1% difference between man and chimp genome is approx. equal to 35 x 10^6 35,000,000 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) difference 1/2 that is = 17.5 x 10^6 so approx. 18 X 10^6 SNPs divided by 3 x 10^5 (300,000) generations equals 6 x 10^1 = 60 SNP per generation average required for successful evolutionary scenario. Evolutionists grudgingly admit that at least 999 out of 1000 SNP to DNA will be deleterious before any "hypothetical" beneficial SNP will occur. thus, 60 Beneficial SNP x 1000 Total SNP required = 60,000 SNP required to generate the average of Beneficial SNP required per generation for chimp like ancestor to reach man. 40,000 year old human fossil, at average of 20 years per generation = 2000 generations of humans since ancient Australian lived. Thus, unless evolution came to a complete stop, 80 million SNP have been required to be generated since the ancient Australian lived. Evolutionists do a song and dance about genetic or mutational drift to get around the obvious implications of genetic entropy and "mutational load" revealed by inbreeding and the deleterious mutation rate itself. Yet the ancient Australian, though required by the evolutionary scenario to have a significant (detectable) amount of "mutational drift" from modern humans in 40,000 years is still found within human range for genome variability when compared to modern Aborigine.bornagain77_{October 17, 2007
October
10
Oct
17
17
2007
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT}

"Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so." Looks like Watson is reasoning correctly IF Darwinism were true. Amazing how so many very intelligent people can be, at the same time, such educated fools. LOTF: "Society decides, you shouldn’t look to a description of reality for moral guidance." That is pure tripe. Society decides based on what foundation? Personal opinion? Subjective feelings? What? No one can invent moral values. They are all based on absolute, objective values. Try to invent a new moral value. You cannot. If society decides the rape of children is ok, is it? Sodom had decided such. They deserved to be destroyed. "Do you think it’s Ok to own people, keep slaves? I would hope not yet I can’t find anything in the Bible telling me it’s wrong to own slaves, can you?" You mis-read the bible on all hands and seriously need a course in biblical interpretation, historicity, and it's cultural-historical contexts. Slavery in the bible was more like employment than your recent history slavery such Americans practiced towards blacks. In fact the word is often interchangeable with servant or even employee. Too bad you didn't do your homework huh, or you would've known that. "I don’t worship Him however, I have read the Bible and he’s a monster." Ah yes, another who has read the bible without any understanding of historical context or cultural context. And worse, without any serious reasoning - and then judges and accuses God of evil based on his own ignorance and bad interpretations. "every man ... on the planet ...drunkards family"? Surely you jest! I've seen worse clap trap than this but yours is up high on the list of stupid interpretations. 1. The charges against the God of the bible are, and always have been, the same over the centuries. Cruelty, killing, injustice etc. These charges have been answered over and over again ad infinitum, ad nauseaum. Perhaps you should at least try to find some of those answers. There are tons of sites that deal with those very issues, many do so intelligently. 2. If God gave mankind it's moral sense - which the bible clearly states - then how could the same God act contrarily to those very moral sentiments that allow man to judge moral issues? i.e. men are mistaken and use clouded judgment whenever they attempt to judge God as you have. He is not on trial. You are. 3. If God deems it morally correct to kill, under specific circumstances (just like we do), then as creator, he must necessarily have both the moral authority and the right motive for doing so. In your example (Noah) we clearly see that "every imagination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil and that continuously" (btw Noah only got drunk after the flood). So why should not a creator have authority to remove such a corrupt race from wherever? By what objective moral principle do we have the right to judge God for destroying what he made? As great executive magistrate of the universe it is both his right and duty to do so when that morally endowed race becomes auto-destructive and a menace to order. And such action would keep moral the spreading of selfishness (and thus suffering) throughout the world. 4. The Canaanites, for another example, were notoriously known for their disgusting practices in idolatry - state endorsed prostitution, child sacrifice, incestuous, homosexual and pedophilic state endorsed religious rites and the list goes on. You need to do your homework before spewing forth venom against things you have so small an understanding of.Borne_{October 17, 2007
October
10
Oct
17
17
2007
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

@bornagain77 I don't follow a lot of what you're saying so i'd like to ask a couple of questions which may help if you don't mind. it is east to see they have more information for skin color, (in material, black contains all the information of the other colors) How does black contain all the information of the other colours? When I get a tan (and I go from a light brown colour to almost black) have I gained information? we find that 60,000 total mutations are required per generation to even generate the 60 beneficial ones they are required to have for a successful evolutionary scenario. Can you let me know where your figures are from to make this calculation? Thanks, this does seem an issue.lotf_{October 17, 2007
October
10
Oct
17
17
2007
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT}

RE: I don’t worship Him however, I have read the Bible and he’s a monster. If this same YHWH gave these people life and human life is His to give, I don't see why it is a problem if He takes it away. It would be a problem if you or I did it, but why would be a problem if YHWH did it ? He gives, he preserves and He takes away. Thus it has always been.SeekAndFind_{October 17, 2007
October
10
Oct
17
17
2007
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

@kairosfocus Firstly I believe in a higher power, in fact I believe Yahweh exists. I don't worship Him however, I have read the Bible and he's a monster. What of the situation where one has such disproportionate power that there is no threat of effective confrontation? Like Yawweh deciding to kill every man, woman and child on the planet apart from a drunkard's family? it came out very plainly that Evo Mat cannot ground the credibility of the mind or the binding nature of morality. I'm new here and don't visit often so I missed that but it begs the question where do other primates get their morality from do you think?lotf_{October 17, 2007
October
10
Oct
17
17
2007
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT}

"Do you think it’s Ok to own people, keep slaves? I would hope not yet I can’t find anything in the Bible telling me it’s wrong to own slaves, can you?" The Biblical line is that it's ok if they are from neighboring countries, but not your own (see Leviticus 25:44).MacT_{October 17, 2007
October
10
Oct
17
17
2007
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT}

@mattghg So on what basis do we decide which of these natural urges are ok and which aren’t? Society decides, you shouldn't look to a description of reality for moral guidance. Do you think it's Ok to own people, keep slaves? I would hope not yet I can't find anything in the Bible telling me it's wrong to own slaves, can you?lotf_{October 17, 2007
October
10
Oct
17
17
2007
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

I'd like to hear anyone's comments on the following study and how it relates to the IQ of different races ( and even between genders ) : ----------------------------------- http://www.libreopinion.com/members/standarteslc/race06.html In his epic book, The Story of Man, Professor Carleton S. Coon (former President of the American Association of Anthropologists) wrote that the weight of the average Black brain is 1249 grams, compared to the weight of 1380 grams of the average White brain, and that the average cubic capacity of the Black brain is 1316 cubic centimeters, and was 1481 cubic centimeters in the White Man. He also found that brain weight and size is greatest in Whites, with Orientals second, Blacks third, and Australian aborigines last. The differences in brain size between the races is in large part due to the differing sizes and shapes of the skull. Any anatomist, for example, can look at a skull and instantly tell you if it belongs to the White or Black race, and this is born out by the fact that when a person's body is found, that person's race can be determined even if it is completely decomposed and only the skeleton is remaining. The Black skull is narrow with a low forehead. It is not only smaller but is thicker than that of the average White. The hardness and thickness of the Black skull has much to do with their success as boxers, for they can generally absorb more blows to the head than their White counterparts. The area of the brain termed the cerebral cortex is the most recently evolved and most complex part of the brain. It governs the most advanced types of mental activity, such as mathematical ability and other forms of abstract reasoning. Dr. Coon wrote that there is a considerable difference between the Black brain and the White. The frontal lobe of the Black forebrain is less developed than that of the White. Thus, their ability in the performance of thinking, planning, communication, and behavior is more limited than in Whites. Professor Coon also found that this area of the Black brain is thinner and less grooved on the outer surface than in that of a White person, and that the development of this part of the brain ceases at an earlier age in the Black, thus limiting further intellectual advancement. Nor is Dr. Coon alone in his conclusions. The following researchers, in the listed years, using different procedures, showed the differences to run from 2.6 to 7.9% in favor of Whites: Todd (1923), Pearl (1934), Simmons (1942), and Connolly (1950). In 1980, Khang-cheng Ho and associates, working at the Case Western Institute of Pathology, determined that White men had brains 8.2% larger than those of Black men, while White women had brains 8.1% larger than those of Black women. (Women's brains are smaller than men's if measured absolutely, but larger in proportion to their body size). Back to topSeekAndFind_{October 17, 2007
October
10
Oct
17
17
2007
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT}

"In the world today one nation stands head and shoulders above all others in economic and military acheivement." (sic) All together now: We are number one! We are number one! Wait . . . I hope you don't mean . . . Switzerland?MacT_{October 17, 2007
October
10
Oct
17
17
2007
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT}

[...] this scenerio, you have design detection without identifying the designer, or knowing how it was... DaveScot: I think what needs to be kept in mind here is there’s more than enough variance within [...]WILL Darwinists get back into the eugenics business? | Uncommon Descent_{October 17, 2007
October
10
Oct
17
17
2007
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

I think what needs to be kept in mind here is there's more than enough variance within same-race or same-gender groups to make it unreasonable to render judgements about individuals via statistical characteristics of the large group. The kerfluffle about which race has the highest average IQ is ridiculous. How many of you happen to know that east asians have a higher average IQ than caucasions? Yet a few thousand caucasions who travelled thousands of miles in rickety wooden sailing ships dominated hundreds of millions of east asians for much of recent history. So much for what a slightly higher IQ gets you in the real world, eh? For me the proof of the pudding is always in the tasting. In the world today one nation stands head and shoulders above all others in economic and military acheivement. And guess what - it's the nation with the most racial diversity in its population and individual equality codified into its laws. Never argue with success. Serving four years in the United States Marine Corps opened up my eyes to the truth that racial features are no measure of a man. Heart, courage, honor, and brotherhood formed by common values and goals are what counts and I'm happy to report that people of all races, ethnic categories, and religious belief can display these virtues in great abundance working side by side. Focus on what unites us not what divides us.DaveScot_{October 17, 2007
October
10
Oct
17
17
2007
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT}

lotf you asked, What parent species have the human ‘races’ adapted ‘away’ from? The parent HUMAN species is what has been adapted away from!!!! Dr. Behe asserted that the Edge of Evolution is somewhere between orders and species, and due to the varying definition for the morphology of all animal groups this is probably the best definition for the current state of scientific evidence of how animals have been classified. Yet, because of the inherent interest in studying human origins, science now has enough genetic evidence, besides the morphological evidence, to solidly infer that Humans are a unique species that has indeed been created separate from the over-arching Homo group. That is to say, that information is required, by a preponderance of the available evidence, to have been inserted at a "Adam and Eve" level, yet I believe the information is at a earlier date than is currently given by popular biblical definition! The current state of science has humans migrating out of Africa 50,000 years ago. Current African populations have more Genetic information as well, it is east to see they have more information for skin color, (in material, black contains all the information of the other colors) (I also argue more information for shape as evidenced by the vast diversity of African populations in size) In this study for ancient Austrailian DNA we have clear evidence of Genetic Entropy being obeyed!: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=33358 Of special note: Adcock et al. (7) clearly demonstrate the actual extinction of an ancient mtDNA lineage belonging to an anatomically modern human, because this lineage is not found in living Australians. Although the fossil evidence provides evidence of the continuity of modern humans over the past 60,000 years, the ancient mtDNA clearly does not, providing an excellent example of why the history of any particular locus or DNA sequence does not necessarily represent the history of a population. Adcock et al.'s (7 And this analysis of the preceding study http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/multiregional.html points out that the range of the 40,000 year old mtDNA is within the range of modern humans. Thus we have hard proof of the loss of information and also have hard proof that the genetic variation is within the range of modern humans! Neat Huh? As well the evolutionary theory requires a lot of Genetic "juggling" in order to avoid problems with inbreeding and with the number of deleterious mutations they are required to generate in order to get the "hypothetical beneficial ones they need! The figure of 100,000-300,000 generations is given by evolutionists since monkey and man split, and let’s even give the evolutionists the benefit of a doubt and say that the ancient genome was only halfway between modern man and chimps (1% of 3.5 x 10^9 = 35 x 10^6), then .5 times 35 x 10^6 equals 17.5 x 10^6 beneficial SNP that are required to be generated for man to exist in the evolutionary scenario of the top limit of 3 x 10^5 generations given by evolutionists between monkey-like ancestor and man. Thus approx. 18 x 10^6 divided by 3 x10^5 equals 6 x 10^1 = 60 beneficial SNP required per generation.. Yet even using the evolutionists low end estimate for deleterious mutations of 999 out of 1000, we find that 60,000 total mutations are required per generation to even generate the 60 beneficial ones they are required to have for a successful evolutionary scenario. That, my friend, is a lot of "required" genetic "juggling" within the 2000 generations between the ancient Australian and the modern Aborigine. Yet once again the hard evidence has betrayed the materialist/evolutionist!!!!!bornagain77_{October 17, 2007
October
10
Oct
17
17
2007
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT}

Jason Rennie wrote: “I think it is good when Darwinists like Watson some out and speak the truth as they see it.” I agree. If you’re going to talk the talk, then walk the walk. Darwinism leads to this type of thinking, and any Darwinist who says otherwise either doesn’t believe his own beloved theory or doesn’t understand its implications.shaner74_{October 17, 2007
October
10
Oct
17
17
2007
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

LOTF etc: First, let us note that BA77, in 16, has put his finger on a gaping hole in the racist case against Africans [and BTW, do I come across as mentally deficient and moronic . . . this kinda gets personal now! ;-) ]:
“We found an enormous amount of diversity within and between the African populations, and we found much less diversity in non-African populations . . . . Only a small subset of the diversity in Africa is found in Europe and the Middle East, and an even narrower set is found in American Indians.”
Second, on the side-point raised, where do you think binding moral claims and outrage over perceived violations comes from? (Relative to non-theistic worldviews . . . and noting that when we quarrel we hold others to the expectation that they will acknowledge the binding nature of moral obligation. Since this blog is not about theology, I won't take you up in details on your assertions about the God of the Bible. Just let's note that the balance of the case is arguably not what your summary polemics implies. For a start, have a look here.) Here's a hint, on the source for the core moral teaching that underlies our law codes, from Locke's citation of the magisterial C 16 - 17 Anglican Theologian Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity in his 2nd Essay on Civil Govt:
. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant. [Ch 2 Section 5, cf. discussion in Rom 2:6 - 15, 13:8 - 10 etc]
Mr Watson's worldview impels him and otehrs to rejectt he notion of a common human nature, which immediately flows formt eh understanding that we are made by God in his image. The direct result is precisely to undermine morality and much else besides. So, I go with Russ in 15:
But many Darwinists are apparently choosing their theory for its implications, not for its ultimate truth. Exposing ALL of its implications may force them to reexamine the truth more dispassionately.
Finally but one, I observe: I treat others with respect (if they deserve to be treated so) because it makes sense for me to live without confrontation. What of the situation where one has such disproportionate power that there is no threat of effective confrontation? [See where we get Darwinism as an ideological prop for genocide at the hands of the Stalins and Hitlers of this world from?] Which brings out the Judaeo-Christian rebuttal tot he idea that You don’t need Yahweh to tell you how to act. As say Rom 2:6 - 15 highlights, you have an intuitive morality in you as an endowment from God, the one we call in some guises conscience guided by right reason, and in others, the candle of the Lord. THAT is why we recognise that we are bound by moral principle, and it is why we are capable of right reason too. Just go back over the recent thread [Aug 20 was it, on humourously Quote-mining Darwin on ID]; where it came out very plainly that Evo Mat cannot ground the credibility of the mind or the binding nature of morality. So, it has a major and indeed self referentially incoherent explanatory gap in its claim to be an account of the cosmos from hydrogen to humans. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{October 17, 2007
October
10
Oct
17
17
2007
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT}

@lotf humans are social creatures that live in groups where some behaviour, murder for instance, is considered taboo or outright wrong So is it wrong? According to Darwinism our 'nature' is responsible for a lot of things, like murder itself! So on what basis do we decide which of these natural urges are ok and which aren't?mattghg_{October 17, 2007
October
10
Oct
17
17
2007
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT}

Watson's comments clearly show he does not know the literature on human intelligence, and is way out of his depth scientifically. His is a peculiar kind of arrogance that trusts in his own infallibility. If you look, you'll find that the scientific community is pretty unanimous in its condemnation of Watson in this case (see today's posting at Pharyngula for one, and links to more).MacT_{October 17, 2007
October
10
Oct
17
17
2007
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT}

We should be able to lock these darwinoid loonies up! They're advocating genocide. Jim Watson is using hate speech, and should be charged as such (no less than the men at Jasper, TX). Not to mention in prison, the darwinists might find God, and finally understand intelligent design.Nochange_{October 17, 2007
October
10
Oct
17
17
2007
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT}

@bornagain77 What parent species have the human 'races' adapted 'away' from?lotf_{October 17, 2007
October
10
Oct
17
17
2007
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT}

@Berceuse It's not the law that holds people back it's our nature, humans are social creatures that live in groups where some behaviour, murder for instance, is considered taboo or outright wrong. I guess you would be saying this nature comes from the creator? It's possible I guess but after reading the Bible I get the impression that Yahweh is quite the opposite, He kills and murders for half the book at least. Is it do as I say not as I do?lotf_{October 17, 2007
October
10
Oct
17
17
2007
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply