Well done Michael for continuing to deconstruct these really important issues.

It is interesting that social science in general tends to focus more on racism than eugenics. Both are clearly problematic forms of reductionism. But it is interesting that postmodern social scientists can pick and choose between them. Most are clear that racism is unacceptable, but many are less clear about the tradition of eugenicist thinking. Is this partly because of their confusion about the value of human life, particularly before birth?

Seamus Grimes

Huh^^ This Watson fellow sounds intelligent, but more than slightly misguided.

I have a personal mantra: “Speech should be factually correct firstly, and politically correct secondly.”
Which means, I’m all for political correctness. It keeps a lot of people from getting hurt by bigots who have no idea what they’re talking about.
That said, it is more important to be factually correct.
For example: I might get in trouble for saying men are stronger than women, physically. I might get some sort of stern talking-to by a women’s weightlifting club, and shown slides of all the little geeky nerd-boys, and on with the “it’s not right to say such a thing.”
But, it’s true. Most men are stronger than most women. They are genetically engineered to be such, and I won’t hesitate to say it, regardless of who might object.

But… Mr. Watson has a lack of -common- sense^^;; Even if he is correct in his presumption that Africans are less intelligent than Americans (I am not saying he’s right, I am saying -if- he’s right), then… keep that sort of knowledge under your hat^^;; You are certainly -not- going to help anyone by getting assassinated by a black-power group.

In another way of saying, we Americans may be stupider than the British^^ I don’t have any basis for saying such a thing, but just as an example.

If you were really sure of your convictions that one group is worse than another, then you’ll stand by them: he obviously wasn’t, since he issued that half-apology. So… if he is a Eugenicist, he’s a bad one^^;;

Anyway^^ Genetics are not all-deciding, but I believe they are mostly-deciding. They determine which of us will be smart, strong, fast, healthy; and that is -certainly- a powerful force, one that should try to be harnessed as soon as possible^^

To anyone I may have offended in this post: I’m sorry you feel offended^^

Have a nice day, all^^

Thank you, Michael, for mentioning that ‘transcendental dimension’.
What is more important: to be smart, strong, fast and healthy or to be kind, generous, forgiving and faithful?

Great article, Michael. Thanks for bringing this sad realities to the fore…

I really like the comments of the person who signs her comments “That Lesbian Down The Street”. If she reads this one
could she e-mail me to chit-chat?

Scientists should be wary of attacking the dominant ideology. This has priority over their theories, even when the latter are supported by evidence. There’s always evidence the other way.  A later age will sift truth from error - explaining, perhaps, that human beings are equal in their entitlement to respect: though often differing in other less important qualities, such as age, sex, colour, height and intelligence: and that small correlations between some of these properties, even if real, are mostly beside the point. 

I suggest that, in accordance with precedent, Dr Watson should be confined to the East Coast of the United States, and made to recite the penitential psalms daily.

If it’s o.k. with you, I’d rather not have James Watson’s intellectual liabilities.

Another great article!  It just shows what ignorance of the “trancendental dimension” can do. How ultimately pointless, crude and without class we all would become.  We would lose even the most basic civility in dealing with others.  I don’t want to say that as a pharisee - I feel deeply sorry for people with an impoverished world view.  I was like that myself.  Thanks for pointing to the truth.

Not infrequently I find myself surprised at how much coverage the Nobel Laureates receive, especially years, even decades, after their work or discoveries have passed.  James Watson has spoken “ideas” that are surreal it seems from day one after receiving the Nobel.  Despite his wanderings into areas where he knows not what he speaks we give the platform to such ramblings.  It’s quite easy say “Nobody believes such things”.  Yet unfortunately, there are those who take these ramblings as if they were intelligent science when the ideas belong back on the dung hill from whence they came.

As a former student in molecular biology, I should say that James Watson is an icon. Hence, he has not only the prestige, but the influence as many, many science students and scientists look up to him. But academic excellence is one thing, and good character is another. He should do good with the latter for him to become a model worth emulating.

Laura^^

I’m very happy that you like my posts^^ If you’d like to chit-chat, I’m reachable at ^^ (I’d contact you, except that there’s no viable way to do such on this site^^;;)

That said, I’m sure everyone else here is mature enough not to go throwing random crap at me^^;;

And, just for the purposes of not spamming up the posting area, I’ll do my best to throw some more insight into the discussion.

Francis^^
I know you’re not trying to bug me or anything, but your remark was a bit irking; just sorta copying my words and making light of them.
“What is more important: to be smart, strong, fast and healthy or to be kind, generous, forgiving and faithful?”
Well… when have I ever said that they were mutually exclusive? Both of them are very important, and I wonder why it’s falling on me to decide the very difficult question of which is -more- so.
I’m really interested in getting along, just so you know^^;;

Andrew^^
Very well said, and it doesn’t get said enough: the people the world looks up to need to take extra care of their morality. They’re in such a position to change the viewpoints of others, and it’s unfortunate when they misuse that influence.

Have a nice day, all^^

TLDTS - Can I take this one step further and get your thoughts on genetics and homosexuality? 

If genetics is “mostly-deciding”, “a powerful force, one that should try to be harnessed as soon as possible” would it be wrong for humanity to harness this force and make future generations “smart, strong, fast, healthy” and less gay? 

If intelligence is a quality which it is OK it genetically alter, what about sexual orientation?  If a ‘gay gene’ or genes are identified, would it be OK to screen for and selectively abort all unborn gay children?

did you hear that they’ve made a nobel prize for the scarecrow?

apparently he’s “outstanding in his field”

For TLDS: in no way was I trying to be irksome or to make light of your comments. That would have been discourteous. You made an important point. I wanted to make a further point for wider discussion: what are the qualities that ultimately matter? You are quite right to say these lists are not mutually exclusive.
However, when bio/technologists enter the discussion they always seize on the ‘smart, strong, swift and healthy’ attributes. They never, to my knowledge, mention kindness, generosity etc. This, I suppose, is because is because these latter attributes are taught; they are not innate qualities like intelligence and physique.
In this question the Nazis do lurk in the background for all of us. They wanted to create an ‘Ubermensch’ or master-race of blonde, beautiful Aryans. We all know why this idea is wrong. The ‘bricks’ of our personhood are our genes; the ‘mortar’ are the qualities that show our humanity - such as the list I enumerated.
So don’t take my comment as mocking you. It is deeply serious and I would like other commentators to share their reflections.

We should all be grateful to James Watson for widely-publicising the fact that many have long known, but has so far been hushed up: that if you are committed to evolution(ism) then you are absolutely of necessity a racist. Superior/inferior species, and races, are ineluctably an integral part of the package; wanting to believe in evolution(ism), and wanting to deny racism (or that you are a racist) is wanting to have your cake and eat it, your “dime and your donut”. People who have studied the origin and development of evolution(ism), such as Weikart, know that racism, and eugenics, were an inevitable, necessary outcome of Darwinism, and, indeed, that Charles Darwin himself prefigured them; he was, in effect, the grandfather of the Holacaust. Rightly, therefore, does Michael Cook say “ ... racism persists—not despite the progress of modern science but because of it”. As long as science/our society are committed to materialism, human life will continue to be valued lower and lower.
One thing: I thought the whole “IQ” business had been discredited years ago? Perhaps, like eugenics, it’s back with avengeance.

Now the comments are starting to get serious, and even a few intelligent observations have been made.  I’m glad that a few people are getting hip to the fact that strict evolutionism is an inherently reductionist proposition, denying the transcendent nature of the human person (and, even if without realizing so, denying the reality of free will), because it is founded on a purely material conception of reality.  I’m also glad that a few people are aware that there will inevitably be a split between materialists who favor an evolutionist perspective, such as our esteemed Dr., and materialists who favor a naive political correctness, where everyone is equal (except the unborn, of course), and we all have the inherent right to do anything we please, except declare someone’s sexual life style to be immoral.

That said, I would like to point out that even the science of intelligence is still in its infancy.  We fail to recognize the reality of the manifold nature of intelligence.  The primary reason people of African descent do not do well on IQ tests is not that they are unintelligent, but that their intelligence emphasizes gifts that are not tested on standard IQ tests, and deemphasizes some gifts that are tested.  IQ is not a single dimensional quantity.  There is a secondary reason African Americans do poorly on IQ tests, of course, and that is the fact that so many are raised in impoverished families.

One can point to differences among the races (and, even that concept is not as simple as we used to think) in every category of intellectual ability.  We can also find significant aggregate differences between men and women.  It would be more than uncharitable, however, to declare that this means one group is inherently more intelligent than another.  It would also be showing ignorance regarding the nature of intelligence to do so.  Such a declaration would be like declaring that apples are better than oranges, without providing any further instrumental context.