Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

130 leading geneticists say Nicholas Wade’s Troublesome Inheritance “misrepresents” evolution

arroba Email

From Nature News:

“A Troublesome Inheritance“, by science journalist Nicholas Wade, was published in June by Penguin Press in New York. The 278-page work garnered widespread criticism, much of it from scientists, for suggesting that genetic differences (rather than culture) explain, for instance, why Western governments are more stable than those in African countries. Wade is former staff reporter and editor at the New York Times, Science and Nature.

But the letter — signed by a who’s who of population genetics and human evolution researchers, and to be published in the 10 August New York Times — represents a rare unified statement from scientists in the field and includes many whose work was cited by Wade. “It’s just a measure of how unified people are in their disdain for what was done with the field,” says Michael Eisen, a geneticist at the University of California, Berkeley, who co-drafted the letter.

Here, we’d wondered when the toffs would get round to even talking about it. Of course any schoolgirl cabal can do “unified” “disdain” – better than these guys, actually. Here’s what these guys don’t want to discuss: Darwinism—formed in a period when racism was a normal point of view—makes racism science. Hey, it wasn’t tooled in our shop. Cat. Pigeons.

See also: The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (human evolution)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Darwin's ideas do work in limited ways and what Wade speculates on, falls into this limited domain where Darwin works. You will never be able to convince anyone with any brains that selection does not work in any situation. So with the scrambling and mixing of human alleles over thousands of generations and different environments there will be occasions where certain alleles become predominant in certain environments due to selection. No one in ID argues against that. At least they shouldn't. So what is the big deal about what Wade is saying. This is all he is saying. There is tendency to attack on both sides of the fence and it gets in the way a lot. This tendency to attack prevents understanding. We complain against the anti-ID people when they do this but others may be just as guilty. jerry
Look, Sirius, I, yer news writer, am just a Canadian. I wandered in looking for a phone years ago, and people thought I might be useful behind the counter. Turned out so. Put the way you do, yes. No one wants to confront the inherent racism of Darwin's theory, though they do want to profit from its enforcement in the school system. Just think of all the well-paid drivel that can be fronted in tax-funded textbooks! So yes, in one sentence, that is the problem. Added: It's why they can't talk about it openly. Why that guy Jogalekar went south for no particular reason at SciAm except he made that one mistake of taking Darwinism seriously enough to praise its logical racist result. All their other guys probably stopped well short of that. News
To simplify: What you are saying is that Wade has put them on the spot. Deny Wade and you must confront Darwin. Confronting Darwin would be a mortal sin. Agree with Wade? Then you are a racist. Is that more or less it? Sirius
Of course any schoolgirl cabal can do “unified” “disdain” – better than these guys, actually.
I can attest to that! :) Joe
Somewhere James Watson just fell off a chair DavidD
It's a load questions, BA77, which that guy decided to raise on the way out. Others still with their feet in the water, choose to denounce him. News
The 278-page work garnered widespread criticism, much of it from scientists, for suggesting that genetic differences (rather than culture) explain, for instance, why Western governments are more stable than those in African countries.
But I thought, for a Darwinist, Darwinism explained everything including culture? and this:
The book, Wade said, “argues that opposition to racism should be based on principle, not on the anti-evolutionary myth that there is no biological basis to race.”
But on what gene(s) is the objective moral principle of equality to be located??? As a Theist, I have no trouble locating the objective moral principle of equality,,
,,,We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,, http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/ John 4:9 The Samaritan woman said to him, "You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?" (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.)
Whereas the Darwinist has a huge problem trying to justify the moral 'principle' of equality:
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla" ? Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man Women were biologically and intellectually inferior to men, according to Darwin. The intelligence gap that Darwinists believed existed between males and females was not minor, but of a level that caused some evolutionists to classify the sexes as two distinct psychological species, males as Homo frontalis and females as Homo parietalis. In The Descent of Man, Darwin argued - “The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man’s attaining to a higher eminence in whatever he takes up, than can a woman—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands.” In The Origin of Species, natural selection was developed along-side of sexual selection. Males were like animal breeders, shaping women to their liking by sexual selection on the one hand along with the recognition men were exposed to far greater selective pressures than women, especially in war and competition for mates, food, and clothing on the other hand. From Darwin’s perspective, males have evolved further than females from a Darwinian perspective. As Jerry Bergman explains, “Natural selection would consequently operate far more actively on males, producing male superiority in virtually all skill areas.” http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2013/08/darwin-zealots-reign-of-terror/
related notes; Social Darwinism:
From Darwin to Hitler - Richard Weikart - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_5EwYpLD6A The Biology of the Second Reich - Explore the influence of Social Darwinism on German militarism in the years leading up to World War I in this fascinating 14-minute documentary featuring historian Richard Weikart. http://darwintohitler.com/ also see 'EXPELLED' for a short history on Eugenics

Leave a Reply