The Risk of Science and Race
Posted on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 04:44:42 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
The New York Times has an article that lays out the risk very clearly, it is the EXPECTATION that more research in genetics will indeed prove innate differences in the races in physical and mental attributes. And if there is one thing we can know about the history of science, scientists will find what they look for. Consider this:
“Regardless of any such genetic variation, it is our moral duty to treat all as equal before God and before the law,” Perry Clark, 44, wrote on a New York Times blog. It is not necessary, argued Dr. Clark, a retired neonatologist in Leawood, Kan., who is white, to maintain the pretense that inborn racial differences do not exist.“When was the last time a nonblack sprinter won the Olympic 100 meters?” he asked. “To say that such differences aren’t real,” Dr. Clark later said in an interview, “is to stick your head in the sand and go blah blah blah blah blah until the band marches by.”
First, to answer the good doctor's question, Alan Welles of Scotland won the Olympic gold medal in 1980. Prior to that, Valery Borzov of the then-Soviet Union won the 100 meters in the 1972 Olympics. Prior to that, Armin Hary of Germany won the 100 meter dash in 1960. 1956? White American Bobby Joe Morrow. To wit, from 1956 to 1980, white men won 4 of 7 100 meter dash Olympic gold medals. Presumably, for the good doctor, all these genetic changes occurred since 1980. MORE.
A further point for the good doctor to consider, when was the last time an African runner won the Olympic 100 meter dash? Answer. Never has a African runner won the Olympic 100 hundred meter dash.
Another question to consider is why no Chinese or Indian man has ever even medalled in the 100 meter dash. We are talking about one third of the world's population. Even if genetic differences could explain some degree of superiority for blacks, how could it explain the complete lack of Chinese or Indian medalists?
The point here is that scientists fall in love with their "science." And ignore that which stands in the way of their pet theories.
Just as those who propose differences in intelligence ignore the fact that "innate intelligence" has never even been close to being defined in any serious way.
I am always wary of those who propose such theories because one has to wonder what lies behind their belief in their pet theories?
And in the end, the reality is the study of genetics and intelligence is all pseudo-science at this time anyway. Maybe someday it will be more, but right now the patina of objectivity that calling this "science" brings should be stripped of these efforts. This is akin to calling alchemy science.
| < Chavez Embrace of Castro Remains Strong | Bernie Kerik, Rudy and Larry Ray > |
