At worst you are upset about some confusing grammar…

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.

Huh? What reasons? You have yet to give a single reason…

then three seconds later said:

The only reason you've given is…

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.

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.

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

I don't think Eugenie's necessarily unwilling, just conflicted. She'd have to fight the very establishment which she defends.

which sounds very much like a problem being effective to me, but then you immediately flipflopped on it with

I actually do think the NCSE would be very effective at fixing this.

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.

chunkdz: 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.

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.

Nope. But I will if you retract the things you've said about Eugenie Scott and the NCSE that you're unwilling to defend.

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.

I thought you said you were leaving.

Nope. But I will if you retract the things you've said about Eugenie Scott and the NCSE that you're unwilling to defend.

recently philosophers and biologists have gone through great pains to essentially deny the existence of biological human races

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.

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?

The nature of biological species is a moral issue only for those people who ground human rights in human nature.

—David Hull, 1998

Biological research on race has often been seen as motivated by or lending credence to underlying racist attitudes; in part for this reason, recently philosophers and biologists have gone through great pains to essentially deny the existence of biological human races. We argue that human races, in the biological sense of local populations adapted to particular environments, do in fact exist; such races are best understood through the common ecological concept of ecotypes. However, human ecotypic races do not in general correspond with ‘folk’ racial categories, largely because many similar ecotypes have multiple independent origins. Consequently, while human natural races exist, they have little or nothing in common with ‘folk’ races.

—Massimo Pigliucci and Jonathan Kaplan, 2003

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?

I thought you said you were leaving.