Where's The NCSE?
by chunkdz
Since the 1950's high school biology textbooks have focused less and less on the concept of race. This follows naturally the scientific refutation of the various arguments upon which the race concept was built. Over the decades science has debunked theories of race based upon facial features, cranial capacity, brain weight, skeletal differences, language, IQ testing, blood type, polygenism, psychometrics – the list goes on.
By the 1970s, it had become clear that (1) most human differences were cultural; (2) what was not cultural was principally polymorphic – that is to say, found in diverse groups of people at different frequencies; (3) what was not cultural or polymorphic was principally clinal – that is to say, gradually variable over geography; and (4) what was left – the component of human diversity that was not cultural, polymorphic, or clinal – was very small.
A consensus consequently developed among anthropologists and geneticists that race as the previous generation had known it – as largely discrete, geographically distinct, gene pools – did not exist. (Marks, 2007)
But a puzzling new trend in Biology textbooks has begun since the 1990's. The race concept has enjoyed a renaissance, reformulated under the umbrella of genetics. Puzzling, because human populations exhibit far less genetic variation than is usually required for non-humans to be considered a race or sub-species. (Templeton, 1998) Ann Morning from NYU explains the trend.
This article analyzes 80 biology textbooks published from 1952 to 2002 to reveal that U.S. biology texts have pursued the topic of race with renewed vigor in recent years. Moreover, textbooks have redefined race as genetic without furnishing empirical evidence for this framing. The textbooks’ transformation sheds light on the broader relationship between race and science in the United States, where claims about racial difference have not only drawn instrumentally and selectively from empirical research, but at times forgo scientific grounding altogether. (Morning, 2008)
High school textbooks? Forgoing scientific grounding altogether? Without furnishing empirical evidence? Going against the commonly accepted scientific research? Reviving a debunked and scientifically unsupported worldview?
I'll bet Eugenie Scott and the "Defenders of Science Education" at the NCSE are revving up to take on this threat which has already infected our children's biology textbooks, right? Don't count on it. Some worldviews are immune to scientific scrutiny. As Morning says:
"Yet for all it's apparent dependence on scientific rationale, the biological race concept has demonstrated a curious autonomy from science."
January 6th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Conclusion: the NSCE (read: atheists) are a bunch of racists.
Comment by Raevmo — January 6, 2009 @ 6:45 pm
January 6th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
NCSE
Comment by Raevmo — January 6, 2009 @ 7:14 pm
January 6th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
It’s not clear to me that this "renewed vigor" in discussing race has anything to do with emphasizing a biological concept of race. I have no doubt that many of these textbooks they studied are horrid, but aren't they mostly talking about things like what genes effect melanin levels in the skin or what genes increase the risk of various diseases? If what they are saying is that the only difference between what we socially call "races" is irrelevant minor genetic differences that doesn't seem objectionable or contrary to the historical trend of deemphasizing biological race concepts. If anything textbooks tend to sacrifice accuracy in favor of political correctness.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 6, 2009 @ 7:17 pm
January 6th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Predictably, I bring you science and you screech and fling poo.
Comment by chunkdz — January 6, 2009 @ 7:27 pm
January 6th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
From the paper:
Is something wrong with high school textbooks mentioning this? It would be surprising if the phenotypic "clusters" that we observe have no genetic basis, and indeed they do have a genetic basis. Reporting these facts in school books does no harm at all.
Comment by Raevmo — January 6, 2009 @ 7:41 pm
January 6th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
You didn't bring us science, chunkdz, you brought us musings of a sociologist, who happens to think that race is a social construct. Well, geneticists don't agree with that: genetic differences between races exist and there are well-known medical consequences of that. (That is mentioned by Morning, but conveniently omitted by chunkdz.)
And is it any wonder that biology textbooks present the biological viewpoint instead of the sociological one? Do you want it otherwise?
Comment by olegt — January 6, 2009 @ 7:54 pm
January 6th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
Yeah. It's wrong. If I scan your DNA for the allele for sickle cell anemia I can not determine your race from that. There is no reason to assume that discovery of a certain genotype should indicate a certain phenotype. For instance, most cases of Tay Sachs disease currently are not found in Jewish populations.
Comment by chunkdz — January 6, 2009 @ 8:06 pm
January 6th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Perhaps you missed the links to the writings of Marks and Templeton. Templeton has this to say:
Here's an article on Templeton if you just want some quick quotes.
And Here's a piece on Marks.
http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.or...
Comment by chunkdz — January 6, 2009 @ 8:21 pm
January 6th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
chunkdz:
How dishonest can you get? Nobody claims that the sickle cell allele is sufficient to detect race. The claim is simply that there is a significant correlation between phenotypic racial characteristics (such as skin color) and genetic makeup. Based on multiple genes. That's just a fact.
There is a very good reason: genotype predicts phenotype.
Again, that's just a single gene. Genotype consists of multiple (in the limit all) genes. Has anybody ever identified Jews based on this gene?
Comment by Raevmo — January 6, 2009 @ 8:23 pm
January 6th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Umm, the point was that the textbooks are conflating the two. Did you read the article?
Comment by chunkdz — January 6, 2009 @ 8:29 pm
January 6th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
I did read the article, chunkdz. I have explained above what I think of it.
If you don't like to call population groups (like African American) races, call it whatever you want, but genetic differences between groups exist and that fact is acknowledged by Templeton:
And if you read Morning, she explicitly mentions that textbook discuss racial genetic differences primarily in light of medical issues. So lay off textbooks and go fly a kite, chunkdz.
Comment by olegt — January 6, 2009 @ 8:46 pm
January 6th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Can you be more specific about how Eugenie Scott's worldview relates to this article? You seem certain the NCSE will not address this issue even if it's valid, but I don't understand how you reach that conclusion.
Comment by don provan — January 6, 2009 @ 8:59 pm
January 6th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
The problem is that you think that skin color is a phenotypic racial characteristic when skin color is actually attributable to any of a number of different genetic factors and any number of different "races". Conversely, similar genetic markers can be shared by any number of different races. The whole notion is vacuous and a diversion from solid science.
Comment by chunkdz — January 6, 2009 @ 9:20 pm
January 6th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Why should we have one standard for humans and a different standard for the rest of the biosphere? Human genetic variation does not even approach the commonly accepted levels used to denote a sub-species in non-humans.
Who said they don't exist? But categorizing these differences as racial differences is a waste of time, unless you want to preserve the notion of race for some political use. As geneticist Lluis Quintana-Murci was quoted in the July 2008 Scientific American, "There is no race."
Comment by chunkdz — January 6, 2009 @ 9:53 pm
January 6th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
I wasn't talking about Eugenie's worldview.
Comment by chunkdz — January 6, 2009 @ 9:55 pm
January 6th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
chunkdz,
Do you really think that authors of biology textbooks "want to preserve the notion of race for some political use"? Or are you just determined to make a mountain out of a molehill?
Comment by olegt — January 6, 2009 @ 10:08 pm
January 6th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
I'm perfectly open to the idea that they are simply ignorant about what science really says about race. Like this (from the Human Genome Project)
Comment by chunkdz — January 6, 2009 @ 10:35 pm
January 6th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
chunkdz,
In 2003 the Department of Energy sponsored a workshop entitled Human Genome Variation and 'Race'. The proceedings were published in a special issue of Nature Genetics. A number of knowledgeable scientists contributed to the workshop. Here is an excerpt from Francis Collins's paper What we do and don't know about 'race', 'ethnicity', genetics and health at the dawn of the genome era.
Comment by olegt — January 6, 2009 @ 11:41 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 12:29 am
Olegt, the biological blurriness cited by Francis Collins is accurate. It is in the political realm that race has acquired its black and white perspective.
Comment by Bradford — January 7, 2009 @ 12:29 am
January 7th, 2009 at 2:41 am
Professor of evolutionary biology muses:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...
Comment by Pez — January 7, 2009 @ 2:41 am
January 7th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
While I have taken my fair share of shots at the NCSE, and the NCSE is certainly in my view a Dawkinist neo-atheist organization in a cheap tuxedo fighting for a secular humanistic education system in which reverential discussion of God is banned, this bit about race defies common sense.
You don't need an anthropologist to figure out that the everyday concept of race has a tangible relationship to ethnically distributed features. Sometimes what we once thought was due to race was due to something else, (e.g., nutrition and its relationship to the height of Asians), but often enough, racial differences are real, measurable, and physical.
The fact that certain biologists and anthropologists are disseminating ideas that race is a figment of our imagination demonstrates to me that science is not objective, but subjective, and subject to the whims and fads of intellectual Shaman, who some of us rely on to tell us what is "really real."
Who you gonna believe? Science, or your lying eyes?
Comment by William Wallace — January 7, 2009 @ 12:42 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Olegt,
Here's what I glean from the Collins piece.
1) Race is ill defined.
2) Genetics can predict a persons ancestral origin.
3) Sometimes ancestral origin can correlate to the social construct of race, but the distinction is quite blurry.
Now contrast Collins rather circumspect view of race with the photograph at the top of the OP. This photo is from a 1998 Biology textbook and featured the caption:
What possible good is this statement? What does it teach high schoolers about evolution? That the unlabeled photographs above are representative of 4 sub-species of homo sapiens?
The caption, if there should be one at all, should read:
Comment by chunkdz — January 7, 2009 @ 1:39 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Whose worldview were you talking about?
Comment by don provan — January 7, 2009 @ 1:46 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
So what I see here is that you would like to expunge "evolved" from the caption, but the fact that evolution is responsible for the observed diversity is one thing that scientists do all agree on.
Comment by don provan — January 7, 2009 @ 1:55 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Well, we could say the same thing about the caste system. No doubt that you will find many genetic similarities within castes. It is likely that you will find considerable common ancestry, geographic clustering and interbreeding within castes. You'll probably be able to find prevalence of hereditary disease and junk DNA genetic markers within castes. You could probably even find superficial similarities such as skin color within castes.
So by this weird reasoning, science should be perfectly justified in making "caste" a biological category. In fact, this is what has been done with racial grouping. A societal categorization has been conflated with the same biological category that differentiates African wildcats from domestic cats.
The kicker is that human variance does not approach the accepted standards for what should be considered a subspecies or race. The race label in humans is a social construct, not a scientific one. Science has determined that humans should not be subclassified (ie: homo sapiens africanus). Yet textbooks continue to refer to "races" of humans. Preposterous.
Comment by chunkdz — January 7, 2009 @ 2:02 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
The issue is not the word evolved, Don. It's "race".
Do you think that the observed clinal differences in human populations rise to the level where we can subdivide homo sapiens into various races or sub-species? If not, then why include it in a high school biology textbook?
Comment by chunkdz — January 7, 2009 @ 2:08 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
There seems to mostly be agreement here. I think we all agree:
1) The concept of "biological race" doesn't fit humans. Biologically speaking there is only one race, the human race.
2) The concept of "social/cultural race" clearly exists and there are correlations between various genetic factors and these socially labeled groups.
The confusion arises as these two concepts of biological race and cultural race are mixed and matched. The sociologist claims science textbooks are confusing these two terms. The counter-claim seems to be that insufficient evidence has been provided for this claim and that it might be only the sociologist who is confusing these two terms. Do we all agree with this?
PS: Well to be more clear the sociologist's claim is that there is a significant trend of textbooks confusing these two definitions, not there there exist examples of these two definitions being confused.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 7, 2009 @ 2:09 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
The captioned photo I mentioned above was from a Biology textbook, so a high school student is likely to conclude that the young dark skinned fellow on the left represents a certain biological race of humans. Which one, and why, is left to the readers imagination.
So no, I don't agree that Ann Morning is the confused one. When a biology textbok talks about various races of canis lupus and felis silvestris, we know what they mean. Is a high school student expected to know that when the textbook talks about various races of homo sapiens they are only talking about the "social" definition of race?
Comment by chunkdz — January 7, 2009 @ 2:37 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
chunkdz,
I'd be happy with your summary of Collins's position if you added
That's a direct quote, and it isn't out of context. In fact, it's one of the main points of that paragraph.
Comment by olegt — January 7, 2009 @ 2:50 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
olegt,
Kind of a weak statement, but I guess it's about as valid as
Is your quote supposed to convince me that biology text books should classify humans by race using stereotypical photographs, medical records and DNA markers? I mean, yes I applaud them that the dark skinned fellow no longer has a bone through his nose, but what scientific precept specifically allows us to divide humans into various subspecies?
Comment by chunkdz — January 7, 2009 @ 3:02 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
chunkdz,
If it's a weak statement, I see no reason for you to object to it.
Comment by olegt — January 7, 2009 @ 3:43 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
olegt,
When did I object to it? I think race has biological connections. So does the caste system. Should we then make a biological category based on a person's caste?
Comment by chunkdz — January 7, 2009 @ 3:58 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
So then your complaint is that readers of these textbooks are likely to confuse the definition of race? Perhaps the textbook could do more to prevent the reader from incorrectly applying their own connotation, but can you really blame the textbook for the readers connotation?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 7, 2009 @ 4:01 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Huh? If I'm a Biology student reading a Biology textbook in a Biology class I have every right to expect that the Biology textbook will use a Biological definition of race and NOT some fuzzy Sociology definition. Especially after we just finished the chapter about different races of cats.
Comment by chunkdz — January 7, 2009 @ 4:11 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Did you actually read the textbooks in question? It seems like you are assuming an awful lot of context that doesn't follow from Morning's paper. You can also expect the students reading your textbook to understand the English language and in the English language many words have different meanings in different contexts. You are simply assuming that the context of this particular word is not adequately specified. I haven't read these textbooks either, so I'm not willing to make that assumption. Maybe they are poorly written, maybe they are clearly written. Regardless, a few confusingly worded sidebars is hardly enough to condemn the quality of the book.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 7, 2009 @ 4:29 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
chunkdz wrote:
I'm afraid the caste system has not been around long enough to create substantial genetic differences. But if it did then perhaps biology textbooks in India will mention them.
Comment by olegt — January 7, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Olegt,
That is not true.
Hopefully those textbooks won't turn castes into a biological category.
Comment by chunkdz — January 7, 2009 @ 5:51 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Nobody "condemned the quality" of the books. Morning simply analyzed a trend.
You are starting to sound like one of those apologists for the planethood of Pluto, Todd. After all, the word "planet" can have different meanings in different contexts, and Pluto does go around the Sun like all the other planets, not to mention that for 70 some years it was perfectly acceptable to call Pluto a planet.
Well get over it. Pluto's not a planet, and humans are a single race. It may have once been asserted that humans could be divided into subspecies, just as Linnaeus said. It may have even been nascently scientific for good old Carl to classify homo sapiens asiaticus as melancholy, yellow and greedy while homo sapiens europeanus was generally sanguine, pale and clever.
But modern science has shown rather conclusively that homo sapiens sapiens is just that – a single species with clinal variations. There are no races of the species homo sapiens. Period.
Furthermore, any biological correlation to the social construct of race is tenuous, fluid, non-concordant, and fuzzy at best. Therefore I suggest that while heredity might be a useful correlate where genetics is concerned, race is not and does not belong in biology textbooks.
Comment by chunkdz — January 7, 2009 @ 6:14 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
If that were true, then it would be more logical for you to suggest the following rewording of the caption: "Scientists disagree about how and when different aspects of human diversity represented by the people above evolved." In your suggested rewrite, you eliminated the word "evolved". Why?
I know nothing about it, but I'm perfectly willing to concede Ann Morning's position if you like. I just want to know what this has to do with Eugenie Scott or the NCSE. If this is really a problem, why shouldn't I expect the NCSE to work to resolve it?
Comment by don provan — January 7, 2009 @ 6:22 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
chunkdz:
Let me repeat once again from the article:
There's no point in denying it: obvious geographical differences in human morphological phenotypes ("races") have a genetic basis.
Chunkdz is trying to appear very PC here, but we all know that he doesn't give a damn about that but instead is trying to discredit the NCSE. That's the whole point of his post.
Comment by Raevmo — January 7, 2009 @ 6:39 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
If I screen your DNA and find a mutation for Tay Sachs I could possibly trace your ancestry to Ashkenazi Jews, or to Louisiana cajuns, or to certain French Canadians. But for all I know you might be black, white, red, or yellow. You might be tall, short, you might be from Alaska, you might have black hair or blond hair.
Even Risch, who you cite, is reluctant to define what human races actually are.
The point being that you, like many generations before you, find it convenient to try to find some biological classification for humans that mirrors your perception of them. They look like subspecies of humans therefore they MUST BE subspecies of humans. However science doesn't care what Raevmo or anybody else thinks something looks like. Mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome studies have shown that the genetic variance of humans does not reach the level required to define any subspecies of homo sapiens.
Comment by chunkdz — January 7, 2009 @ 8:09 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
chunkdz:
I see you remember that my ancestry is Ashkenazi Jews. But no matter how often I say it, you keep ignoring that the genetic cluster analyses referred to above are not based on a single gene. You are obviously just a dishonest blowhard.
Comment by Raevmo — January 7, 2009 @ 8:39 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Raevmo,
Nice try. The cluster analyses compared non-coding DNA sequences which mutate more readily in locally isolated populations. As such they presumably have little bearing on morphological phenotype, which you equate with "race".
Tell me moron, if race is so evidently a biological and genetic classification what then is the scientific nomenclature for the various sub-species of humans?
Comment by chunkdz — January 7, 2009 @ 8:53 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
Blacks are obviously less intelligent than all of the other races. The most evident indicator of this is a much greater percentage of them are deluded by theism, unlike lighter-skinned races (even the yellow man).
One only needs to look at that ignoramus "Dr." Martin Luther King Jr. or that dimwitted Barack Hussein Obama to see breathtaking examples of this.
Darwin said it, Hunter said it, Watson said it, and goshdarnit, if you don't believe it then you're just another stupid anti-science fundie who needs to die so we Homo sapiens novus can ascend to our rightful philosopher-king thrones!
Comment by angryoldfatman — January 7, 2009 @ 10:57 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
So Angry, troll much? Between outright insults from chunkdz and silly trolling from Angry the ID camp is looking rather childish today.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 7, 2009 @ 11:19 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Interesting how Todd's brain exhibits selective recall. Fascinating phenomenon.
Comment by chunkdz — January 7, 2009 @ 11:26 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
So you think your calling Raevmo a moron is mature behavior?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 7, 2009 @ 11:29 pm
January 8th, 2009 at 12:01 am
Todd:
That was satire, not trolling.
Comment by Bradford — January 8, 2009 @ 12:01 am
January 8th, 2009 at 12:13 am
Todd:
I'm no psychologist, but I believe Raevmo's having called him a "dishonest blowhard" just prior to that may have had something to do with it. You must have missed that one. poopy head.
Comment by Rob R. — January 8, 2009 @ 12:13 am
January 8th, 2009 at 12:18 am
Lol! Todd, it's nothing to be ashamed of. Selective memory is an evolved defense mechanism. I just happen to find it fascinating.
Comment by chunkdz — January 8, 2009 @ 12:18 am
January 8th, 2009 at 12:24 am
Comment by Bradford — January 8, 2009 @ 12:24 am
January 8th, 2009 at 6:19 am
The caste system as an example refuting the idea of race is laughable, considering Internet Darwinists cite far weaker evidence in their more ambitious claims that speciation has already been observed in the lab–e.g., claims that Diane Dodd's research (Dodd 1989) observed speciation because 8 out of 10 fruit flies surveyed preferred to mate with partners who ate the same food while only 2 out of 10 were observed to mate with partners eating a disparate diet.
Comment by William Wallace — January 8, 2009 @ 6:19 am
January 8th, 2009 at 10:39 am
No, that was both. It was an inflammatory post likely to generate an emotional response.
By all means, refresh my memory. Show me all the places I've directly called someone a moron. I keep my ridicule general and avoid personal insults, and in any case where I might have strayed from that I'm sure my post was correctly deleted or moved to the memory hole. For example, I might say, "You'd have to be a moron to jump to absolute conclusions about text books that you haven't even read based on the mere assumption that they are using a particular word out of context." Does that imply I've called you a moron?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 8, 2009 @ 10:39 am
January 8th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Todd,
Simmer down there, pork chop. I was just noting that while you were busy insulting "the ID camp" because of my insult, you ignored the insult that insulted me in the previous insulting post from the "NON-ID camp".
I just don't want anybody to get the impression that you are biased or anything.
Comment by chunkdz — January 8, 2009 @ 11:28 am
January 8th, 2009 at 11:55 am
Todd Berkebile wrote:
What trolling? You don't believe what Charles Darwin – the father of evolutionary theory – or James Watson – the Nobel-prize-winning co-discoverer of the DNA structure – said? What did they say that you object to, and why?
Are they not proper scientists? Do you need quotes from more scientists to be convinced, because (as we all know) scientific consensus is scientific fact, yes?
Or is it the whole idea that you reject out of hand? Because if it is, why is your position any different than the typically stupid Christian fundamentalist who mumbles claptrap about all individuals "standing level at the foot of the cross" – whatever the hell that's supposed to mean?
As for Hunter, how can you object to the very textbook at the center of the landmark Scopes trial? Doing so would put you on the side of the ignorant hillbillies who won that case and helped spark the dreaded Dominionist science-destroying movement of today.
And do you really think it's a coincidence they share the delusions about the same mythical god-man that the "Dr." Martin Luther King, Jr. had? Of course not, there's no such thing as coincidence when the nefarious religionists are crawling around. They have been leading their less-evolved cousins down the primose path to use as a tool – I daresay, a weapon – against the true lovers of mankind, the human species of the near future, Homo sapiens novus.
Comment by angryoldfatman — January 8, 2009 @ 11:55 am
January 8th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
No scientist or person of reason considers scientists to be infallible. Only religion has the concept of infallibility as some special power of popes, prophets, and ancient manual writers. No scientist or person of reason would assume that the personal views of a scientist are automatically correct simply because they have made valuable scientific discoveries.
Of course if you consider it logical to reject science because some scientists are bad people then is it equally valid to reject religion because some priests and holy men are bad people? Or do you have some apologetic excuse for their bad behavior?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 8, 2009 @ 12:36 pm
January 8th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Todd Berkebile wrote:
Really? Tell me what failings we are talking about in regards to Darwin, Watson, and other scientists who think that blacks are intellectually inferior to practically all other races.
Exactly! Which is why religiosity is indicative of the lower mental function of the African-derived blacks and, to a similar extent, the darker Hispanic races.
Why are you speaking of a singular scientist? I mentioned two. Oh, I get it, you're trying to imply this is some isolated thing with some crazy guy's personal thoughts. I would have thought so too, but Darwin put it straight out in his ostensibly scientific book "The Descent of Man" – far from isolated personal speculation, wouldn't you say? Especially since he was drawing from research done by the prominent scientists of his time. You know, real research, the type that the Discovery Institute talks about but never does? Science!
Besides, Todd, what's wrong with what Darwin, Watson, et al thought about race? Isn't it the empirically proven truth? If the truth is harsh, should we cover it up and lie about it?
What bad things are we talking about? How is it bad? If it's science, it's the truth. The truth, no matter how unpleasant, can't be bad can it? Truth is good. Science is good. So those who do science are always doing good.
Comment by angryoldfatman — January 8, 2009 @ 1:26 pm
January 8th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Did you not even read this thread, which starts out with several scientific studies showing that biological race concepts do not apply to humans? chunkdz's whole argument is that science has disproved race (which no one is disagreeing with) and yet some textbooks still discuss race (where chunkdz assumes they mean biological race and not cultural race).
Did you not understand what "No scientist or person of reason considers scientists to be infallible" means?
Well, technically the truth is neither good nor bad, it just is. My opinion is that a person acting based on truth is more likely to do good than a person acting on falsehood.
Do you really think that second sentence follows from the first sentence being true? Fascinating, apparently you have little regard for logic.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 8, 2009 @ 3:58 pm
January 8th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Provan,
I have no problem saying that phenotypic differences evolve. I do have a problem with saying that these differences determine various races of homo sapiens.
My revised caption tells the truth about race. Science has determined via mRNA and Y-Chromosome data that there is only one race of humans. Period. It is wrong for a biology textbook to say otherwise.
Science textbooks are teaching our children a theory that has been repeatedly debunked. The NCSE, being defenders of Science should consider fighting this threat. But unfortunately this theory does not go away so easily. As Morning says, the theory of race in humans keeps reinventing itself over the years and appears to be doing so once again.
If not the NCSE then who would you suggest to fight this threat to science education? Eugenie's already got the infrastructure for such a fight.
(I notice in another thread that you said that your comments were deleted in this thread Don. If so it was not intentional and I apologize. Are you still able to post in this thread?)
Comment by chunkdz — January 8, 2009 @ 6:19 pm
January 8th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
How many times must this be repeated before you acknowledge it? No one is denying this statement. You have yet to show evidence that even one modern biology textbook is making an argument for biological race. The article you link merely says that mention of race has become more frequent, but from what I can tell is talking about social concepts of race.
You persist in saying this and have shown no evidence that its true. Have you read even one of these textbooks you are so certain about?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 8, 2009 @ 11:07 pm
January 9th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
But your revised caption also eliminated the word "evolve". It sounds as if you didn't mean to eliminate that word, so I assume you accept that my caption is the better replacement.
I'm not questioning NCSE's role. I'm asking why you said that NCSE wouldn't act:
The prediction of the NCSE's reaction to Ann Morning's paper which I have bolded above seems to me to be the core point of the OP, but for some reason you refuse to even acknolwedge it, let alone defend it. Do you want to just retract it?
The day after I posted the note you just responded to, I couldn't find it, even after doing the appropriate refreshes. I thought it had been deleted, but there it is, so I must have been mistaken. Please accept my apologies.
Comment by don provan — January 9, 2009 @ 12:40 pm
January 9th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Todd,
Let me remind you once again.
The caption in this Modern Biology Textbook reads:
"Scientists disagree about how and when different racial groups, some of which are represented by the people above, evolved."
Do you really expect me to believe that the Biologists who wrote the Biology Textbook are only concerned with the "social concept" of race? When they speak of scientists wondering how races evolved do you really think they're talking about "social scientists" wondering about the "societal evolution" of "social races"?
The silly thing is that even if you are right – it STILL doesn't belong in a Biology Textbook!
Or let me offer a different analogy.
An Astronomy Textbook shows an image of Pluto with the caption:
Teachers and parents express concern that perhaps the textbook is presenting false, outdated, and debunked information. But Todd Berkebile of toddberkebile.com says there is no need for concern.
"They're only talking about planethood in the traditional, socially understood way. Pluto has traditionally been called a planet since it was discovered. And anyway my friend Raevmo is a scientist and he says Pluto looks just like a planet and it shares many of the same characteristics as planets such as being big, being made of rock, and going around the Sun."
Comment by chunkdz — January 9, 2009 @ 1:48 pm
January 9th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Provan,
I also eliminated the word "people". I guess I don't like people either.
I don't think Eugenie's necessarily unwilling, just conflicted. She'd have to fight the very establishment which she defends.
No, but I will adopt a more hopeful tone. How about:
"We await with great anticipation the day when the NCSE defends our children from this thoroughly debunked pseudoscience."
Comment by chunkdz — January 9, 2009 @ 2:09 pm
January 9th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
That's a good example.
It has nothing to do with "debunking". Pluto didn't change. They just tightened up the official definition.
Race is a term that has many uses and misuses. Humans have rapidly evolved and diversified over the last few thousand years, but never in complete isolation from one another.
Notice how Marks makes reference to "race as the previous generation had known it".
Comment by Zachriel — January 9, 2009 @ 2:41 pm
January 9th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
I'm not particularly concerned why you rewrote it the way you rewrote it as long as you concede that my proposal captures the one change you've supported, which is that the term "race" should not be used in the caption, and that, therefore, mine's the caption that actually captures your position.
If your point is that the NCSE cannot be effective at policing the scientific education establishment for general reasons having nothing to do with race, then why don't you just say that instead of bringing it up in the context of discussing this paper?
OK. In that case, you can discuss with actual scientists whether it's pseudoscience or whether one paper constitutes being thoroughly debunked. If those issues are settled in your favor, we'll see how the NCSE reacts. But this was true from the beginning, so I'm still a little puzzled why you brought the NCSE up at all. Why not something more general, like "We await the day when there's general outrage…"?
Comment by don provan — January 9, 2009 @ 3:01 pm
January 9th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Provan,
No, I don't see much point telling high schoolers that scientists are unsure when and how big lips, slanty eyes, and dark skin evolved. Apparently you do.
I actually do think the NCSE would be very effective at fixing this.
Find me a single credible scientist who subscribes to the view that humans should be biologically classified by race and I'll consider it. I'm pretty sure that idea died with the last eugenics movement.
Comment by chunkdz — January 9, 2009 @ 3:56 pm
January 9th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
I wouldn't expect you to believe anything no matter how evident it might be. However I think our social concepts of race applies to the book caption that has you so riled up. Our social concepts of race focus largely on minor irrelevant differences such as skin color, hair color, eye color and facial features. The following sentence seems true:
"Scientists disagree about how and when different skin colors, hair colors, eye colors and common facial features, some of which are represented by the people above, evolved."
As such the caption, while perhaps not optimal, is completely consistent with a non-biological notion of race. People are curious about where the diversity of the human species arose and genetics has something to say about that curiosity. Are you suggesting that it should be taboo to mention that features like eye, hair, and skin color are controlled by genetics?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 9, 2009 @ 4:00 pm
January 9th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Todd,
Fine. Then just replace the face on the left with that of the next President of the United States and see if the original caption is of any use at all to a high school biology student.
Comment by chunkdz — January 9, 2009 @ 4:21 pm
January 9th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
The author of the textbook thought there was a point. Where do our opinions come into it, so long as he isn't saying anything wrong like labeling such differences "race"?
Now I'm entirely confused. So you expect the NCSE to be effective at dealing with this issue appropriately? Why did you say I shouldn't count on it, then?
I'll leave you to discuss whether textbook passages are commonly suggesting something different with people that actually understand the issues such as Ann Morning, olegt, and Eugenie Scott. Unless you think one or more of them should be ignored for some reason?
Comment by don provan — January 9, 2009 @ 5:41 pm
January 9th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Provan,
Probably.
We're having a discussion.
Actually, if he's going to say that the people in the photos represent the various races I think he SHOULD give us the labels. I wonder why he didn't.
No shit.
I expect that you could be effective at shooting yourself in the head. I'm not counting on it happening.
Thanks for visiting!
Comment by chunkdz — January 9, 2009 @ 6:51 pm
January 9th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Yes, we're having a discussion, and in the discussion you denied any interest in anything in that caption other than the use of the term "race". If you have other reasons for rewriting the caption in other ways, then by all means, let's discuss them.
We've already agreed that he shouldn't say the people represent races. Why do you bring up what he should do if we let him do what we already agreed he shouldn't do?
You aren't counting on me shooting myself in the head because it would hurt me to shoot myself in the head. Why are you not counting on the NCSE to correct this problem? You said it was because Eugenie Scott was "conflicted", and I understood you to mean that that was because of the conflict of interest inherent in the NCSE being both advocate and police of the scientific education community. That suggests a structural problem making the NCSE ineffective at in general at policing. But you now say the NCSE is effective in general. So let's try again: why you think the NCSE won't do what you think it should in this specific case now that we've ruled out the explanation that the NCSE is just in general "conflicted"?
Comment by don provan — January 9, 2009 @ 7:15 pm
January 9th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Zachriel,
Here's one I find useful.
Comment by chunkdz — January 9, 2009 @ 7:23 pm
January 9th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
Provan,
I thought you said you were leaving.
Comment by chunkdz — January 9, 2009 @ 7:57 pm
January 9th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
—David Hull, 1998
—Massimo Pigliucci and Jonathan Kaplan, 2003
Comment by Raevmo — January 9, 2009 @ 8:02 pm
January 9th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Raevmo,
My argument is on scientific, not moral standing.
As for Pugliucci and Kaplan, race and ecotype are not the same. It makes perfect sense to point out the adaptive advantages of certain populations. It makes no sense to conflate the two.
Do you think that the captioned textbook photo in question was referring to ecotypes? If so, why would they assume that the reader can tell a persons ecotype from a neck-up photo?
Comment by chunkdz — January 9, 2009 @ 8:38 pm
January 10th, 2009 at 12:22 am
Quote from Raevmo
Hi Raevmo
Curious what you or anyone thought of "The Bell Curve" which was referenced in another linked article in this thread by a poster named Pez which documents a scientist who didn't like the philosophical conclusions of a book that I presume was scientific (looked at statistical data anyway)
here
Its been a long time since I read the book and I didn't like the conclusions but I thought it might be accurate if philosophically distasteful. Yet the quote from Massimo Pigliucci and Jonathan Kaplan would seem to lend credence to the books conclusions. Was the book "science"? It would seem that everyday scientist look to use science to bolster their philosophical views yet criticize IDist when they do the same.
Comment by tomh — January 10, 2009 @ 12:22 am
January 10th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Nope. But I will if you retract the things you've said about Eugenie Scott and the NCSE that you're unwilling to defend.
Comment by don provan — January 10, 2009 @ 3:52 pm
January 10th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Provan,
Let Eugenie prove me wrong. I sincerely hope the science defenders defend science, and the NCSE already has the infrastructure for such a fight. But I'm not holding my breath for the reasons that I've already stated.
Comment by chunkdz — January 10, 2009 @ 8:38 pm
January 10th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
And the fact that you have yet to demonstrate that they are not being scientifically accurate doesn't effect your judgment that they should be fighting against this? At worst you are upset about some confusing grammar, perhaps it is the NCTE that ought to be concerned.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 10, 2009 @ 9:44 pm
January 11th, 2009 at 4:00 am
Huh? What reasons? You have yet to give a single reason why the NCSE will not fight for this specific issue. The only reason you've given is
which sounds very much like a problem being effective to me, but then you immediately flipflopped on it with
Nothing you've said has suggested there's any reason for us to think Eugenie Scott or the NCSE wouldn't weigh in on this particular issue.
Comment by don provan — January 11, 2009 @ 4:00 am
January 11th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Don Provan said:
then three seconds later said:
Sorry Don, we don't have time for your obtuse act. You are boring, repetitive and self contradictory.
I made it clear in the OP that the racial worldview "demonstrates a curious autonomy from science." Although the NCSE could be very effective at fighting this worldview, they would have to fight the very establishment they claim to defend. I look forward to the fight, should Eugenie ever decide to take on the establishment.
Comment by chunkdz — January 11, 2009 @ 1:22 pm
January 11th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Todd,
More boring hand waving, Todd?
As I've already pointed out, if you are willing to overlook this then logically you would be willing to overlook an astronomy book that calls Pluto a planet. In my book that makes you a stupid bore.
Comment by chunkdz — January 11, 2009 @ 1:32 pm