Culture Darwinism Intelligent Design

Real clear racism?

Spread the love

Further to “Darwinians are now determined to make it all about race?, Real Clear Science informs us, “Race Is Real. What Does that Mean for Society?” :

Perhaps the solution is to do a better job of teaching this distinction to the public, but thus far the media and academy have been no help whatsoever. As Wade points out, instead of explaining that race is real but racism is wrong, they are presenting the assertion that race is imaginary as a reason that racism is wrong, and branding as a racist anyone who suggests that evolution might happen to humans too. Since human evolution has indeed been “recent, copious and regional,” we are seeing that what we’ve been taught is “racist” is actually just true.

File:A small cup of coffee.JPG Mug’s eye view: Does it mean that as long as you front Darwin, you can be a racist while saying racism is wrong?

9 Replies to “Real clear racism?

  1. 1
    Robert Byers says:

    They are indeed pushing what was always called racist by the left wing. Now its okay because they say so.
    I say its too late.
    they can’t bring back the racial ideas. They lost and they must be forced into final surrender.
    Its a chance for creationism.
    Not just YEC but ID.
    \There is no evidence race/sex makes intellectual difference. its all absurd reasonings from limited data.
    I don’t know all what they say but its always the same thing.
    Its crazy and incredible how so easily they can expect to be respected for racial concepts.
    This is how the Nazi’s did it so easily and others.
    Once the establishment like something it sails through fine.
    the way to hit them is on the issue of British superiority and European superiority.
    Then they will cry foul! they are not pushing whites and men and so someone is giving them thumbs up.
    This is a chance for origin issues and other issues in our nations.

  2. 2
    Barb says:

    \There is no evidence race/sex makes intellectual difference. its all absurd reasonings from limited data.

    Robert, are you quoting someone here? Because you’ve made it very plain that you do believe that race and sex contribute to intellectual differences.

    the way to hit them is on the issue of British superiority and European superiority.

    *sigh*

  3. 3
    OldArmy94 says:

    Darwinians always have a hard time going where their noses lead them. They are going to have to face up to this issue without embracing such an absurd dichotomy.

  4. 4
    Timmy says:

    The apparent differences between various racial/ethnic/whatever population groups are well within the bounds of microevolution, even for a 6000 year timescale.

    Any ID criticism of Wade that fails to recognize this is just being dishonest.

    Yes, anyone (even a Darwinist) can be “racist”, as long as they have the facts on their side. If the facts say that there are no racial or group differences of any kind whatsoever, then racism is in conflict with the facts. So, what are the facts?

    Is anyone really disputing the factuality of Wade’s arguments?

    Crickets.

  5. 5
    Robert Byers says:

    Barb
    You misunderstand me despite my constant equation.
    No there is no difference by genes or innateness etc.
    Yes there is a difference in results because of other reasons.
    my sister can be more intelligent then me but not because of genes/brain.
    However someone could say shes smarter then me at this time. Fair and square.
    15 year olds are smarter then 10 years old. however its not genetic or from the brain. Just the older knows/learnt more.
    Yes the English people were the most intelligent in human history and the winners. Everyone else was educated, assimulated, or just coming up short.
    Its really about protestant motivation and the British were more protestant.
    in fact its really the evangelical/puritan motivation and america is a controled experiment on this by way of the North/south thing.

    Anyways its such a hoot to see racial/sexual claims for superiority/inferiority based on evolutionary concepts.
    I say its a chance to advance suddenly creationism.
    They are screwing up most dumbly.
    YEC is shy of these things and so I think it should be ID

  6. 6
    Timmy says:

    Robert,

    Your brain is a physical part of your body. Every other aspect of your body is programmed from inherited code. There is no theory of anything, anywhere, in which the brain is magically exempt. What’s your basis for disagreement, other than blind faith?

    It may well be that each of us receive an identical mind or soul, but that’s theology (not science) and there isn’t the slightest ounce of proof to say that our souls are all indistinguishable. In any case, the mind interacts with the brain and the brain interacts with the mind. Newton got a better brain than I did. What possible end is achieved by denying this?

    -Timmy (title showing up as Anonymous)

  7. 7
    Barb says:

    Robert:

    Barb
    You misunderstand me despite my constant equation.

    I misunderstand you because your grammar makes little sense and you need to work on sentence construction.

    No there is no difference by genes or innateness etc. Yes there is a difference in results because of other reasons.

    What are some of those reasons: educational level? Social background?

    my sister can be more intelligent then me but not because of genes/brain.
    However someone could say shes smarter then me at this time. Fair and square.

    If she’s smarter than you, then what would you say is the reason? She studies harder in school?

    15 year olds are smarter then 10 years old. however its not genetic or from the brain. Just the older knows/learnt more.

    Then how do you explain child prodigies who, at ages 5-10, can understand difficult scientific concepts like photosynthesis? If that’s not genetic, then what?

    Yes the English people were the most intelligent in human history and the winners. Everyone else was educated, assimulated, or just coming up short.

    Your ignorance of history is astonishing. So the Egyptian empire was nothing? King Tut? The Chinese dynasties? Again, nothing? Alexander the Great? Genghis Khan?

    Its really about protestant motivation and the British were more protestant.

    No, it’s not. Not in the slightest. Try reading a history book for a change.

    in fact its really the evangelical/puritan motivation and america is a controled experiment on this by way of the North/south thing.

    The evangelical/Puritan motivation is long gone. The “north/south” thing ended over 150 years ago.

    Anyways its such a hoot to see racial/sexual claims for superiority/inferiority based on evolutionary concepts.

    It surprises me that Darwin’s racist views are now coming back in vogue.

    I say its a chance to advance suddenly creationism. They are screwing up most dumbly.
    YEC is shy of these things and so I think it should be ID

    Advance it in what way, exactly? That all men really are created equal?

  8. 8
    Robert Byers says:

    Barb
    Yes. Advance that evolution leads or demands that human moral and intellectual abilities are innate and beyond free will. WHILE creationism teaches all men are truly created equal and its just free will plus information that determines moral and intellectual differences.
    This is a great chance for creationisam bUT YEC is shy because it brings up ugly sad things from the past and a fear evolutionism could promote more problems again.
    so i think iD people should do it.

    by the way i say prodigy’s are nothing more then kids with better memories. those kids are as dumb as the rest but have memorized certain things.
    its just memory. In fact its always things that are JUST about memory.
    in fact savants are the most obvious evidence for this.
    Intelligence is a hard thing to get and theres no quick fix.

    nevertheless there are real results that can be measured. its the done by the rise of the western(protestant) civilization.
    Proof in the pudding.
    THEN the others simply copy us with no problem. Yet without us they would still be eating each other.

  9. 9
    Acartia_bogart says:

    It is not difficult to see how racism could evolve through natural selection. This doesn’t mean that one race is superior, more intelligent, stronger, or whatever. People who look like you are more likely to share more genes with you (i.e., be more closely related). It would enhance your fitness to do things in favour of people who look like you. By definition, this is racism. But this does not mean that evolution and natural selection are racist.

    Up until not too long ago, it would be fair to say that everyone was racist. We lived in small homogenized groups. we would be distrustful of new people in the community, especially new people who looked differently. But in modern society, racism must fade away if we are to live successfully as a society.

Leave a Reply