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

I would like to point out the fact that Genetic Entropy (devolution) is apparent in human races from Africans! http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/01/990125073157.htm Tishkoff; Andrew Clark, Penn State; Kenneth Kidd, Yale University; Giovanni Destro-Bisol, University "La Sapienza," Rome, and Himla Soodyall and Trefor Jenkins, WITS University, South Africa, looked at three locations on DNA samples from 13 to 18 populations in Africa and 30 to 45 populations in the remainder of the world. "We found an enormous amount of diversity within and between the African populations, and we found much less diversity in non-African populations," Tishkoff told attendees today (Jan. 22) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Anaheim. "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." (SHHHH, don't tell the more evolved (master race) scientists they actually have less information than Africans! Also I recently found that Genetic Entropy is noticeable in ancient 40,000 year old human DNA. http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/multiregional.html A quote of Special Note from the article! The authors concluded that the "loss" of the ancient mtDNA variation seen in ancient Australian could explain how Neanderthals do not share mtDNA with modern humans. Although I am not intimately familiar with this ancient DNA study they are analyzing, I am very confident this evidence they are talking about will strictly conform to the principle of Genetic Entropy (devolution) and will be discernible as the loss of genetic diversity as human races have adapted away from the parent species!bornagain77_{October 17, 2007
October
10
Oct
17
17
2007
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT}

That makes evolution no less true.
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. Of course the same thing could be said about IDists or Creationists. But unlike Darwinists, design-believers have presented their worldviews for scrutiny for thousands of years. There are no "trade secrets" of Theism, something which cannot be said of Darwinism.russ_{October 17, 2007
October
10
Oct
17
17
2007
04:06 AM
4
04
06
AM
PDT}

To lotf: Think about our own law system. If murder being illegal is the only thing holding back those who are sincerely planning a homicide, I would be very worried. Said individuals would probably go ahead with it anyway. But one usually doesn't think, "Oh, the law says I can't do it, too bad." Rather, one has an intrinsic knowing of its egregiousness. This is speculative, yes, but do you think our most fundamental ethical principles are something we've learned from what our government has written down on paper? So why have the law against murder, then? One could come up with many reasons, but without it we would probably have the deranged acting horribly without retribution, for we'd have nothing to charge against them. Or it can serve as a barrier for those who actually think they're justified (i.e. Raskolnikov) in killing another. Yes, I know Raskolnikov did murder anyway, but he also, fearing being caught, suffered through hellish paranoia afterwards. Point is, I doubt people behave in certain ways "because God said so." Rather, God's word could be viewed as an ethical primer of the image we are created in.Berceuse_{October 17, 2007
October
10
Oct
17
17
2007
02:30 AM
2
02
30
AM
PDT}

By the way I recommend people read DNA, the book by Watson. It is an excellent account of the history of the finding and subsequent science associated with DNA including the human genome. But in it you will see this so called perceptive scientist blindly hail evolutionary theory. I got the feeling Watson was a committed atheist from reading the book and subsequently saw this verified in other places.jerry_{October 17, 2007
October
10
Oct
17
17
2007
02:12 AM
2
02
12
AM
PDT}

There was an article several years ago about Norman Borlaug who some have called the greatest American of all. Unknown to nearly everyone, he is responsible for bringing the green revolution to most of the world and saving more lives than anyone in history with his ideas for growing food. There was one place in the world where Borlaug had not succeeded in creating the green revolution but was currently trying to do so. Guess where and and guess who was fighting him on this project? This has nothing to do with James Watson but is indicative on how certain groups think.jerry_{October 17, 2007
October
10
Oct
17
17
2007
02:04 AM
2
02
04
AM
PDT}

Peter Singer: “The life of a newborn baby is of less value than a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee” (Darwin Day in America). WOW.....I can understand a Darwinist equating human newborns with those of other animals, but "less value"??? Why?Berceuse_{October 17, 2007
October
10
Oct
17
17
2007
01:58 AM
1
01
58
AM
PDT}

Your Christian God (mentioned again I notice) is not required to reject eugenics, as a non christian but believer I have no doubt humans are equal based on simple observation. Also I treat others with respect (if they deserve to be treated so) because it makes sense for me to live without confrontation. You don't need Yahweh to tell you how to act. Work it out yourself.lotf_{October 17, 2007
October
10
Oct
17
17
2007
01:45 AM
1
01
45
AM
PDT}

"...it still does not mean they should not be afforded the same respect, opportunity, and priviledge as others." Why? In the Christian worldview, EVERYONE is made in the image of God. In the consistent darwinist worldview e.g. Peter Singer: "The life of a newborn baby is of less value than a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee" (Darwin Day in America). So, why should treat others with respect???Robo_{October 16, 2007
October
10
Oct
16
16
2007
11:40 PM
11
11
40
PM
PDT}

"It is really impossible to exaggerate how destructive the Darwinist world view is to human civilization." These are my general thoughts about Darwinism as well (strict, naturalistic Darwinism, that is). But you know what evolutionists say to that, Jehu? "That makes evolution no less true." From a certain angle, this is correct. Scientific progress, from a completely empirical standpoint, has nothing to do with the emotions of observers. However, the world isn't all about science. And I think that if the moral bankruptcy of evolution were really true, we would never have found it to be morally outrageous in the first place. The very fact that we do have an ethical objection to eugenics and the like is troublesome for Darwinism. Where does it come from? 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.Berceuse_{October 16, 2007
October
10
Oct
16
16
2007
11:09 PM
11
11
09
PM
PDT}

The idea of equality of the races and sexes is a Christian value straight out of the New Testament. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Galations 3:28 "Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all." Colosians 3:11 What do you think Thomas Jefferson was referring to when he said, "all men are created equal"? With out this Christian value democracy and human rights would not have developed in Western Civilization. Why do you think that only Christian Civilizations developed the concept of human rights and the institutions to protect them? This idea of equality which is fundamental to Christian values and the Christian world view is contrary to the logic of Darwinism. It is really impossible to exaggerate how destructive the Darwinist world view is to human civilization.Jehu_{October 16, 2007
October
10
Oct
16
16
2007
10:48 PM
10
10
48
PM
PDT}

Are you being sarcastic interested ? I think it is good when Darwinists like Watson some out and speak the truth as they see it. Better than the insulting and disingenuous drivel from someone like Eugenie Scott that wants to play nicey nicey.Jason Rennie_{October 16, 2007
October
10
Oct
16
16
2007
10:18 PM
10
10
18
PM
PDT}

yeah...his consistency is to be lauded.interested_{October 16, 2007
October
10
Oct
16
16
2007
10:09 PM
10
10
09
PM
PDT}

"Anybody willing to offer predictions about when Darwinists will be getting back big time into the eugenics business?" They've been there since Sanger started Planned Parenthood and never got out of the game. We shouldn't be surprised that someone like Watson who embraces an a-telic Darwinist account of life embraces ideas like this. Without some conception of the equality of all men provided by (to cite one good example) The Imago Dei, there is no reason to think that all men are equal, and we should applaud Watson for at least being honest and taking his Darwinism seriously. It makes a nice change from the dubiously honest rhetoric we are normally treated too.Jason Rennie_{October 16, 2007
October
10
Oct
16
16
2007
10:04 PM
10
10
04
PM
PDT}

What's particularly awkward is that, hey - James Watson can simply say 'Look, I'm just following the data where it leads. It's not more invalid if it upsets egalitarians than if it upsets creationists.' But the response can be that what the data may say isn't necessarily whole story, and that regardless of whatever capacities Watson asserts various races may have, it still does not mean they should not be afforded the same respect, opportunity, and priviledge as others. But then that would be tantamount to admitting that people can disagree about what data demands we think when it comes to controversial subjects, and we can't have that either. What can be done?nullasalus_{October 16, 2007
October
10
Oct
16
16
2007
09:48 PM
9
09
48
PM
PDT}

i have always thought we should be open to this discussion. it seems like no one wants to discuss it because it is not politically correct... take a look at major league sports, is there not some argument there based on micro-evolution that african americans are more suited to particular sports? if so, then is it possible that a corollary could be true? hey, it bothers me to even think about it, but we should be open to truth. regardless it would not affect issues of equality in my mind....because even were it generally true, i assure you that many many of african descent could be proven to be far more intelligent than me. similarly, i can be shown to be far more athletic (which is not saying much i assure you) than many african americans. so at the end of the day the discrepancy is not enough to warrant any radical decisions...... regardless, i have also always thought that is presented a very awkward elephant in the room for darwinists.interested_{October 16, 2007
October
10
Oct
16
16
2007
09:23 PM
9
09
23
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply