Posted on 11/21/2007 2:00:22 PM PST by shrinkermd
...wish these assurances were true. They aren't. Tests do show an IQ deficit, not just for Africans relative to Europeans, but for Europeans relative to Asians. Economic and cultural theories have failed to explain most of the pattern, and there's strong preliminary evidence that part of it is genetic. It's time to prepare for the possibility that equality of intelligence, in the sense of racial averages on tests, will turn out not to be true.
If this suggestion makes you angry—if you find the idea of genetic racial advantages outrageous, socially corrosive, and unthinkable—you're not the first to feel that way. Many Christians are going through a similar struggle over evolution. Their faith in human dignity rests on a literal belief in Genesis. To them, evolution isn't just another fact; it's a threat to their whole value system. As William Jennings Bryan put it during the Scopes trial, evolution meant elevating "supposedly superior intellects," "eliminating the weak," "paralyzing the hope of reform," jeopardizing "the doctrine of brotherhood," and undermining "the sympathetic activities of a civilized society."
The same values—equality, hope, and brotherhood—are under scientific threat today. But this time, the threat is racial genetics, and the people struggling with it are liberals.
Evolution forced Christians to bend or break. They could insist on the Bible's literal truth and deny the facts, as Bryan did. Or they could seek a subtler account of creation and human dignity. Today, the dilemma is yours. You can try to reconcile evidence of racial differences with a more sophisticated understanding of equality and opportunity. Or you can fight the evidence and hope it doesn't break your faith
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
Interesting beyond the evolution BS. I have been told by all these evolutionists that science doesn’t prove facts.
evolution meant elevating “supposedly superior intellects,” “eliminating the weak,” “paralyzing the hope of reform,” jeopardizing “the doctrine of brotherhood,” and undermining “the sympathetic activities of a civilized society.”
-
sounds like what to expect in a Hillary administration (Hillary openly supports the idea of evolution)
We were all created with equal rights, not equal abilities and intelligence. If it upsets you that some blacks have a lower average IQ, then get some wood, build a bridge, and get over it.
The next article poses the weaker arguments for environment and racism being the determining factors. This can be found: HERE.
He then points out, in his third article, that holding that differences in IQ is true does not mean you need to be racist. That article is: HERE.
The only reason he mentions evolution is to use it as an analogy of faith. That is the faithful have to either reject evolution (thought to be factual) or modify their views. Similarly, egalitarians and liberals have to either deny there are racial IQ differences or modify their views.
Perfectly stated. You are correct 100%. You will not get that kind logical thinking at Slate, one only gets the left turning spin I just read in that article.
"Race" has political baggage, so perhaps a different word would help.
To me, the idea that there exist group differences in skin color, morphology, specific disease vulnerabilities, and athletic capacities, is obvious. Why not group differences in intelligence?
The exploration of those differences (genetic or environmental) could yield advances in medicine, and other areas.
it’s not just that race has political baggage. It’s just that it isn’t a scientific concept.
I mean you can say that all blondes with blue eyes belong to one ‘race’ and redheads with green eyes form another ‘race’ and compare their iq’s. Or you can compare iq of people who are 6+ feet tall vs midgets. why focus on skin color?
Yep, it constantly amazes me that people can accept that there are differences in the physical abilities of the "races" but emphatically deny that there could be mental differences as well.
You make a good point, and I agree that "race" lacks precision.
But does it not have scientific meaning to say, for example, that "Asians" have a higher incidence of lactose intolerance than "Caucasians"?
Its a testable and falsifiable statement: "Asians (self-identified) have a higher incidence of lactose intolerance than Caucasians (self identified)".
The statement is made frequently, and taken as a "racial difference". It seems to have some predictive power.
I welcome true skepticism, though.
And given the mischief that racists have made, its warranted that we be suspicious of their bias.
Race is a pretty imprecise term. Are Native Americans a "race"?
amoung these three ancient races there are differences in physical appearance, physical ability etc. It is natural to assume that there are also differences in mental ability. To try and confuse the subject with all these other so called "races" is merely that, an attempt to confuse and disclaim the truth. The truth being that over and over again it has been demonstrated, and proven, that some difference in mental ability exists between the 3 original(and only)races. To deny this fact is to bury ones head in the sand.
Keep trying to make it a game of semantics, it will not change the facts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.