Key Words blogger Daniel MacIntyre has noticed my reference to his blog and has posted some “corrections”–of my “mistakes.”
First of all, the professor seems to think that I have a problem with the idea that God is smarter than Darwin. I don’t. God beats Darwin any day of the week and six times on Sunday. This is easily exemplified by the fact that I have attacked Darwinists before – most recently in an article posted only one month prior.
If “Darwinists” are wrong about evolution, then that means the Creator failed to equip the biological portion of His Creation with the kind of sophisticated, elegant, and ingenious design that Darwin and his successors have come up with. Evolution, after all, is a mechanism that not only provides for tremendous innovation and refinements in biological systems, it’s also a tuning and repair mechanism that allows an ecosystem to replace species killed off by disease, disaster, or ordinary extinction. What’s more, evolutionary scientists are claiming to derive their detailed knowledge of this simple yet powerful system through observation of nature (i.e. of Creation), but if God failed to create it, then that means they are inventing a superior system without His help. That would mean scientists are at least acting smarter than God, assuming a smart God might have some reason for implementing a stupid design that was inferior to what unbelievers could come up with.
So yes, I think he’s got quite a significant problem with Darwin and company acting like more intelligent designers than God, whether he realizes it or not.
Second, the professor thinks the “geographically isolated” argument is mine – it’s not. It’s standard evolutionary theory. If you don’t have an isolated population, you don’t develop distinct characteristics, you simply have a range. In other words, if you are all in the same gene pool, you do not have a distinct race.
Hogwash. Geographical isolation, like other forms of isolation, produce separate species, not separate “races.” Racism is not part of “standard evolutionary theory.” Humans are all in the same gene pool, which is why Bob Jones University felt it necessary to ban interracial dating until just recently. From an evolutionary perspective, the only “distinct race” is the human race.
Third, the professor has an issue with is the concept that populations in Africa were isolated from other populations by geography. If the author would look at a map, he might notice that Africa is a relatively large body of land. He might also notice that large portions of it don’t actually lie on the same lines of latitude as most of Europe and Asia. Further investigation will reveal that, according to modern science, for about 5 million years, there was this big desert blocking traffic as well, which only briefly relented around seven thousand years ago (only to return to it’s desert state about two thousand years ago).
Tell it to the Bedouins. If you’re familiar enough with modern science to know the history of deserts in Africa, you know enough to realize that the best available evidence (from genetics, etc) indicates that all modern humans are descended from African descendants. It doesn’t take a frikken space program for a clever species like homo sapiens to get out of Africa. Or back in again.
Fourth, the professor seems to be under the impression that science will lead to racial tolerance and prove the equality of men of all races. Actually, evolution has been used by a wide range of bigots to justify intolerance and “prove” the superiority of one race over another.
Just as they’ve used the Bible to achieve the same proof. So bigots claim they have some kind of reputable basis for their bigotry–so what? If a bigot tries to justify his bigotry, that doesn’t automatically mean they’re right. What science proves is that “race” is a misnomer, and an arbitrary and foolish criterion for dividing mankind into “them” versus “us”. But it’s up to us to take what science shows us, and then respond in an ethically sound manner.
Fifth, the professor has completely gone off on a tangent. The article he linked to is not an attack on evolution. It is an attack on the idea that apologizing to a liberal for ANY offense – whether real or imagined – is a good idea. The professor leaves completely unchallenged my central tenet – that apologizing to a liberal never leads to a good outcome and in fact, an apology is to liberals, what blood in the water is to sharks.
Heh, as if such silly and self-congratulatory bluster deserved an intelligent response? He wants me to take seriously a charge that the reaction against Watson is because of the apology rather than because of the original racist remarks? No, I think I addressed the only part of the original screed that had any intellectual merit, and if you read the comments to the original post, you’ll find the two Key Words co-hosts discussing the same issue I did. And discussing it in such a way as to defend the idea that there are actual differences of intelligence between races, as if this were even a meaningful concept. Apparently they’ve completely missed the point about the bias of the IQ test creators, the questionable correlation between IQ and genuine intelligence, and other problems with the “studies” they cite.
At least he was good for giving ER a couple extra links. I didn’t even know he’d replied until I saw the bump in my visitor log. Thanks!