Liberal Creationism?
I’m reluctant to start a thread on this theme, but that’s precisely the point William Saletan makes in his two recent “Human Nature” columns in Slate. The first article is entitled “liberal creationism.” Here is a brief snippet:
“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.”
As much as I hate to admit it, Saletan has a point: liberals like me are inclined to dismiss any claims of genetically mediated differences in intelligence among racial groups, regardless of what the research shows. If the research seems not to support our settled convictions, we just dismiss it.
How is this different from the Biblical literalists’ repudiation of evolution?
It is subject to statistically and scientifically sound refutation, for one thing.
A claim this poisonous should not be made lightly or glibly without exploring every possibility. I would start here:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2007/11/william-saletan.html
Barbara, Thanks for the reference. I’m not sure which claim you take to be poisonous. Surely, it is not the suggestion that liberals can be as dogmatic as any biblical fundamentalist.
No, the claim made in The Bell Curve as reinforced by Saletan and the inference that “liberal” devotion to egalitarianism is as much a matter of faith as (some) religious devotion to creationism, as demonstrated by how liberals have rejected “evidence” of differences in IQ among racial groups. I’m not even going to attempt a logical dissection of these claims.
If you are a statistics guru (I can barely understand it) try the following:
http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/523.html
Bravo for Barbara. I can’t believe this subject is still considered “controversial.” And I’d also question the assertion that fundamentalists have always based their “faith in human dignity” on Genesis. Fundamentalists have a long history of racism, and Bryan, who is mentioned, is an exquisite example. He never once lent his eloquence to attacking the apparatus of segregation. He even spoke in defense of the Ku Klux Klan at the 1924 Democratic Convention. So enough about the poor fundies who get beaten up by snotty self-deluding liberals.
Talk about being hoisted by your own petard –
Seriously, this is an interesting subject. There is a dogmatic element to scientific materialism. The area of genetic racial differences is just one where you see this. I certainly have no idea whether some racial groups are more intelligent than others, and for reasons I will discuss below, I don’t think it is all that important – but as Saletan points out, the reaction to anyone who suggests there is ought to make one suspicious of claims of scientific objectivity. Whether it’s genetics, the causes of global warming, the effects of pollution etc., there is a pattern among those who promote the secular scientific ideal to ignore or reject evidence that doesn’t fit their world view.
As I said, I don’t know a lot about this research, but common sense and common experience tells me that the idea that there may be physical and mental differences among different racial groups can’t be rejected out of hand. I think the reason secularists find this such a threatening idea is that they have nothing to fall back on if it is true, or if it shows that one group is “better” than another.
As a Christians, the idea ought not to bother us. First, because we ought to be taking people one at a time. More importantly, even if it is true, it says nothing about any particular person’s, or group’s, worth.
Here’s a different tack:
I was struck a year or so when the radio was playing excerpts from newly released Nixon White House tapes.
Nixon was discussing affirmative action and said flat out that white people were clearly smarter than black people.
While NIxon clearly felt that most black people would not benefit from affirmative action, he also said that, individually, there were many black individuals who COULD succeed, and that they oughtn’t to be kept back simply because they came from a group whose IQs were lower.
I think it’s probably true that certain ethnic and racial groups tend to have a higher incidence of alcoholism, depression, hyperactivity, out-of-wedlock births–and even lower IQs. (I fall into an ethnic group that has at least two of those traits, myself.)
I think we also have to say, “So what? Ought that to inform public policy and be used an excuse of some sort?” I think that’s what makes liberals nervous.
As Blake said, to generalize is to be an idiot, and even Richard Nixon seemed to understand that.
Oops, Sean beat me to that tack, and put it better than I did:
“As a Christians, the idea ought not to bother us. First, because we ought to be taking people one at a time. More importantly, even if it is true, it says nothing about any particular person’s, or group’s, worth.”
I think it ought to bother us that an idea with such little credibility is bandied about as if it were true, and as “truth,” it inevitably does color policy and other judgments. Whether or not it should, it does, and to accept it at face value as Jean and Sean say they do based on “experience” is really depressing to me. Go read the links I provided — the real issue is whether IQ is a measurable quantity or concept that is meaningful in the ways that it is stated to be by many social scientists.
“How is this different from the Biblical literalists’ repudiation of evolution?”
I would say that the weight of the scientific evidence is much, much stronger for evolution than for a genetic influence on IQ differences.
However, I would also say that racial issues (and perhaps gender issues) have become emotionally charged to the point where you have to be extremely careful about what you say, even in private.
Barbara,
I think you miss my point. As I said, I am not in a position to decide this issue one way or the other. My observation was simply this. There are myriad differences and trends among racial groups that are obvious and indisputable and clearly genetic – from skin and eye color to height, weight, body fat content, and bone structure. It seems to me that the hostility to the idea that apptitudes and behaviors of any kind might be influenced by biology is based on more than just the science. The evidence of this, it seems to me, is that when a behavior or aptitude or tendency is one that may make the person or group sympathetic – e.g. Irishmen or Native Americans being more susceptible to alcoholism – no one seems ready to reject it out of hand, but when it is one of the sacred cows, it can’t be true, and anyone who even suggests it is racist, or sexist or whatever.
As I said, I have absolutely no idea if some of these theories about IQ are true or not. I have read and seen arguments on both sides; but, frankly, I don’t care either way.
I get your drift. However, there are independent reasons for understanding the science supporting the claim that there is no single trait called intelligence that, like eye color is heritable, and that can be measured through something called an IQ test. It’s a pernicious belief for all kinds of reasons — whether it motivates helicopter parents to push their high IQ child into oblivion or whether it justifies a local populace not to bother repairing the leaky roof in the science lab at a rural school because those kids aren’t going to achieve much anyway.
You are crossing reality to state that such beliefs don’t matter.
“Their faith in human dignity rests on a literal belief in Genesis.”
It seems to me that given the importance of this invalid inference for Saletan’s argument, he’s just plain wrong. I believe that the dignity of the human person is rooted in her creation in the imago dei, but I do not believe the Genesis accounts of creation are historical in any way. They are best described as demythologizing myths. So, if the meta-physical belief is that human beings are bearers of the divine image, I fail to see how biology can overturn such a belief. It is always dangerous when scientists work outside their competency, just as it is when philosophers and theologians work outside theirs, arriving at conclusions about the physical world based on meta-physical presuppositions.
Based on what is presented in the post, there is not enough to assert with the same kind of confidence with which we speak of evolution that some races are across-the-board superior to others intellectually or physically. Given the genuine genetic differences among human beings, my non-scientific hypothesis, which maybe rooted in the kind of liberal creationism about with Saletan writes, I would imagine there are advantages and disadvantages to the genetic make-up of people of various races. Besides, I don’t think it so easy to control for environmental factors, both as regards health and intellectual development.
A recent article in the NYT went along these lines. At first it seemed that DNA provided no basis for dividing humans up into races, in fact it was taken to show postitively that there was no basis, apart from skin color and other obviously superficial differences. Subsequent investigation has pointed to some genetic differences along “racial” lines that might be more significant, e.g., in matters relating to health care. Some people are uncomfortable with any such finding.
No one, I am pretty sure, was talking about IQ.
As Christians we are supposed to believe that “racial” differences are ultimately insignificant for what matters most. I say “supposed to” because Christians have sometimes resorted to odd theories to justify enslavement of Africans. But certainly we do not believe that ultimately natural science is the measure of all things. Those who do may naturally be reluctant to discover that science does not support their social values. They can always resort to a little inconsistency.
I’m not angry about this thread, but reall ysad.
It strikes me as basic that science is emrpirical, replicable and hence verifiable and the vast contingent of science folk I know and also apprently arounfd the country reject ‘intelligent design” or “creationism”
I think we have a red hering here. Years ago, while teaching a course in psych in Harlem, we easily batted down The Bell Curve.
Saying that scientists or liberals today are looking to create a master race of some sort through eveolution is absurd.
If you wnat to talk to parents about designer children and technology, go ahead.
But trying to undermine science as materialism (of ciourse it’s dealing with the measuarble) is another ploy.
Those who continue to bring up intelligent design/creationism argumemnts strike me as those who want a simple minded “common sense” view of things as the Bible portrays and as occurs in other Christian teachings as well – a view that only deepens the cynicism of many beleiving scientists I know.
Meanwhile many of us happily acknowledge the METAphysical creation by our (loving) God, not the deistic orginator of the creationists imagination.
Sean, thanks for clarifying.
I’d only add that the whole idea of testing people’s IQs and then seeing whether they break along racial (or any other lines) often says more about the test (and those doing the testing) than it does about those tested.
Viz a viz creationism/intelligent design, anyone watch “Nova” last week? This issue was covered on the blog earlier this year (with reference to Sam Brownback, if I’m not mistaken). The “Nova” show was very informative.
Has anyone ever gotten around to defining “intelligence”?
Gabriel, that was the point of the second link I provided: a grueling statistical examination (with many links itself) of what is being measured by IQ tests and the amazing leap that has been made between IQ scores and the concept of a heritable trait called general intelligence.
Yes, but what is it that is being examined beyond the ability to give a certain kind of answer to a certain kind of question?
I recollect the instance of an IQ test given to children in Africa – “white” and “black”. Rather than relying on what was taught in schools, the test used problems. One of the questions concerned a maze. While the “white” children used pencils [with many erasures] to determine a successful sortie from the maze, the “black” children just studied the maze and then figured the route to get out.
Consider the aborigines in the Australian bush. How many “white” people would survive for more than two days?
Sean’s comment about the greater susceptibility of Irishmen to alcoholism seems not to take into account the several hundred thousand Irishmen who took Father Murphy’s pledge.
I’d a lapsus pennae [or whatever is the equivalent for a word processor]. It is not Father Murphy’s pledge, but Father Matthew’s pledge.
This article is a good scientific debunking of the William Saletan article.
http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Lewontin/
Here is the concluding paragraph:
“The consequence of this realization was the abandonment of “race” as a biological category during the last quarter of the twentieth century, an abandonment that spread into anthropology and human biology. However, that abandonment was never complete in the case of the human species. There has been a constant pressure from social and political practice and the coincidence of racial, cultural and social class divisions reinforcing the social reality of race, to maintain “race” as a human classification. If it were admitted that the category of “race” is a purely social construct, however, it would have a weakened legitimacy. Thus, there have been repeated attempts to reassert the objective biological reality of human racial categories despite the evidence to the contrary.”
There is no bioligical subgroup of humans known as a “race.” As is often the case in science , common sense is wrong. What is really happening is that religiously conservative who bought into the intelligent design kool aid [not all religions conservatives did so] who had their butts relentlessly kicked by science now seize upon this manufactured race issue as a tu quoque political argument. This conservative effort is based on bad science, bad logic and bad politics–a tridefecta.
Would anybody discount the following (from US News & World Report) because it uses the concept of race????
More Black Children Dying From Diabetes
Trend has been accelerating, U.S. figures show
By Steven Reinberg
Posted 11/15/07
THURSDAY, Nov. 15 (HealthDay News) — Black children with diabetes face a death rate twice as high as that for white children, new U.S. government research shows.
While this racial disparity has been evident for more than two decades, the trend has been accelerating among children ages 1 to 19, according to the study in the Nov. 16 issue of the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, published by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
How can we end race prejudice or racial discrimination if there is no such thing as race?
The point is, race is not necessarily and certainly not only a construct of genetically heritable traits.
The conditions that you point to, high blood pressure, diabetes and kidney disease are often studied as a function of race as if race were only a genetic construct — that is, in America, they are clearly more prevalent among those who are of African descent, but recent studies have thrown doubt on the supposition that they are predictably heritable — that is, associated with genetic traits that relate to African heritage — because Africans themselves are not at higher risk for these diseases. So these diseases in African Americans could be a function of environmental causation as much as “racial” (i.e., genetically inherited) factors. To say that something is seen more often in a group of people with presumably common genetic traits doesn’t make a trait inherited.
This is also the big question of environment over inherited. Plus there is the notion that environment can penetrate so much that it becomes part of the inherited. (So many Africans have disproven the fallacy by their ability given the opportunity)
For example would the makeup of many southern people be any different if there were no civil war or if the south had won the war?
The whole field of genetic inheritance, including the role of genetics in intelligence, has been made more difficult by the advances in the relatively new branch of genetics known as “epigenetics.”
Most people are familiar with the general notions of a genetic mutation, where an aberration occurs in the normal DNA sequence in a gene. The mutation can often be passed to successive generations. Many abnormalities can be traced to a DNA aberration–e.g., Down Syndrome, sickle cell anemia, Tay-Sachs disease, Huntington’s disease, cystic fibrosis.
Epigeneticists have discovered that some lifestyle choices and some environmental factors can stimulate the creation of inherited traits that are not the result of changes in the underlying DNA structure, and that these non-DNA modifications can be passed from generation to generation. Some of the epigenetic “marks” work by attaching to genes and controlling whether they are active or inactive during cell division. Epigenetics will likely make the nature vs. nurture debate even more complicated than it already is.
As an elementary school teacher, I taught children of all races and nationalities in San Francisco. I taught at the second, third and fourth grades.
Our school went from all white to one third black and two-thirds white when busing started, to half black and half white the second year of busing, to three-fourths black and one-fourth white the last year of busing.
When we returned to a neighborhood school, all of our children were Asian, majority Chinese, because the Chinese had bought up the houses of the whites who had fled to the suburbs when busing started.
I found no difference in so called “intelligence” among groups, but a huge difference in motivation between the Chinese and other students. A typical student conference with a non-English speaking Chinese father, occupation vegetable peeler in a restaurant in Chinatown.
Father grabs his copy of report card. Looks quickly for the grades. If one grade is below A, stabs page with finger and begins to berate child in Chinese. I interrupt to say to the child, “Tell your father that you are a very good student, etc.” Child is terrified and shakes head, “No.” Now Father bangs table with finger and shouts, “Berkeley! Berkeley! Berkeley!” Then he takes his copy of the report and leaves.
Since racial quotas are no longer allowed, the UC Berkeley undergraduate class is now more than 50% Chinese with the number increasing every year. A difference in intelligence? Hardly.
In addition to being outstanding in public school, the older children took the streetcar after school to Chinatown where they attended Chinese school from 5 till 8 pm. Then home by streetcar to the Sunset neighborhood. There was no concept of play or sports or social development on the part of these first generation Chinese parents. Everybody worked and school was the work of the child. Success or failure in school reflected not only on the parents, but on the entire extended family.
When I hear people complain that the Chinese are taking over our premier university, I think “They worked for it.”