[Coyoteman]

From the article:

And there's the rub. For more than 30 years, left-leaning academics - notably residing in the humanities and, to a lesser extent, the social sciences - have been strongly opposed to using evolutionary theory to help make sense of human behavior, in part because their professional training emphasizes the role of social learning and cultural traditions, and - perhaps even more - because they fear the possible findings.

Perhaps we need more rational, conservative academics.

Conservative does not necessarily mean theocon. There are a lot of other -cons, most of whom were already -cons when theocons were still voting Democratic.

[Sherman Logan]

the disgraceful pseudoscience of The Bell Curve and its ilk, promoting the false claim that if any trait or tendency is "in the genes," there's nothing that society can do.

The author lost me here. The science of The Bell Curve has not been successfully challenged. And the book doesn't claim what the author says it does.

[Sherman Logan]

There are actually several pretty good evolutionary arguments against continued human evolution in advanced societies.

A couple:

1. We modify the environment to suit us, removing the pressure for us to adapt to the environment.

2. In modern societies, those who are least successful in that society’s terms tend to reproduce at a much higher rate than those who are most successful. If anything, this may be an example of anti-evolution. It’s difficult to envision this not having some impact over many generations.

[count-your-change]

Galileo's experience with the Catholic Church is brought up when an example is needed to illustrate the unscientific intolerance of deviation from the orthodoxy of the day.
Today the orthodoxy that claims it is the all embracing truth is the evolution doctrine in all it's expressions. Imagine the reaction in the houses of worship of learning and science to someone who dissents from that “beyond all doubt or question” doctrine of evolution. We need not imagine, they would first be branded with that dread epithet, “Creationist” and see their livelihood and reputation savaged.
Now perhaps if they recanted their heresy they might be allowed to be left alone so long as they remain silent.
The actors since the days of Galileo have changed in a bit of role reversal but the script is the same.
At least Galileo wasn't accused of corrupting the nation's youth.
The author says that various groups twist the theory of evolution to their needs. True enough but the author also fails to note that evolution is said to be random, undirected by intelligence, so who can say evolution would not produce a result that might be considered undesirable in the social context of today? And that despite individual responses to the amount of nature/nurture they receive.
What in evolutionary theory would make this unlikely or impossible?
“ But the fact that something has been misused in the past does not make it bad, or even untrue. Moreover, applying evolution to understanding ourselves offers, for example, a potentially powerful antidote to some of the things that the left fears the most: ethnocentrism and racism. That's because evolution emphasizes the underlying biological commonality shared by all members of the species Homo sapiens, regardless of superficial differences. As for sexism, doesn't that reside in differential valuing of the sexes, not in the struggle to understand them?”
Nor does it make it true. Evolution theory may emphasize “commonality” it does not emphasize equality, in fact it makes inequality justifiable on a genetic basis if not a social one.
Far from evolution theory being twisted into racism and ethnocentrism, these are simply the fruits of the poison tree, Evolution.

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP