Many claim that just because Charles Darwin was a man of his zeitgeist—racist and sexist—this does not mean that his theory necessarily leads to racism (or, sexism) even though it could and does not mean that Darwinian evolutionists de jour must therefore necessarily be racists (or, sexists).
Now, let us begin with a circumlocution.
A recent journal Science paper by Carter T. Butts noted:
Despite extensive efforts at public science education, polling over the past 30 years has consistently shown that about 40 to 45% of Americans believe that humans were supernaturally created in the past 10,000 years.1
A natural interpretation of this finding is that U.S. science education is failing to reach nearly half of the population, and that widespread belief in recent human origins reflects basic scientific illiteracy. However, the reality is more complex: Many of those who reject evolutionary theory are aware of the scientific consensus on the subject, and such rejection is not always associated with low scientific literacy. Similar results have been found for beliefs regarding anthropogenic climate change.
On page 321 of this issue, Friedkin et al. provide a key step toward understanding this phenomenon by introducing a simple family of models for social influence among individuals with multiple, interdependent beliefs.2
Butts also notes:
Simulation studies have shown that individuals' beliefs regarding the reliability or veracity of other individuals' testimony can radically alter both the probability of obtaining group consensus and the nature of the consensus view where obtained… examples of pluralistic ignorance arise when group members falsely believe themselves to be unusual in violating a group norm, and thus conceal their behavior and attitudes from others. This concealment then reinforces the false belief.
Riotously, the Disclosure newsletter noted, “He never considers the possibility that people don’t believe in Darwinian evolution because they know it isn’t true.”3 He also never considers the possibility that people don’t believe in anthropogenic climate change but do believe in naturally occurring climate change cycles. Recall that a mere few decades ago the issue was global freezing which because global warming but since the specific claim of “warning” required too many bothersome facts then they issue became a catch all generic “climate change”—and it is generic even when prefaced with anthropogenic since any and all change counts as change: hey, they climate changed about five times since I woke up this morning.
An example of how this issue is being (mis)handeled in our very day is as per a New Observer Online article which notes:
Two scientific studies have definitively confirmed that genes determine brain size and intelligence—and that these are inherited traits, unaffected by environment.
The studies—both published in major scientific journals—conclusively disprove the lies put out by the race-denying “environmentalists” who claim that all races are equal and that all people are born “blank slates.”4
Let us pause to note a couple of noteworthy issues.
By environmentalists what is contextually meant is basically the nature vs. nurture issue thus, “genes determine brain size and intelligence” rather than “environment.”
As an FYI: Judeo-Christian-Biblical theology would reject the tabula rasa/blank slate concept as we are born with the noetic effects of the fall and/or a sin nature.
The article continues:
The first study, published in the journal Molecular Psychiatry, titled “Shared genetic aetiology between cognitive functions and physical and mental health in UK Biobank and 24 GWAS consortia,” revealed a definitive link between cranial capacity—that is, brain size—and intelligence…
As detailed by Professor J. Philippe Rushton in his book Race, Evolution and Behavior, the average cranial capacity of Mongoloid Asiatics is 1,335 cm3, Caucasoids 1,341 cm3, and Negroids 1,284cm3—all differences, he notes, which are “highly significant within studies.”
What all these studies put together means is that brain size, intelligence, and cognitive ability vary from race to race, and are inherited and unaffected by environment.
These racial differences in intelligence are in turn the cause of differences in racial psychology and group racial behavior, as reflected in racial crime rates, social adaptability, and economic achievement.
The claim that cranial capacity/brain size correlates to intelligence (whatever that is) is fascinating on a few levels: 1) the queen ant and queen bee can be seen to be very intelligent and yet they brains are miniscule yet, more to my point 2) why is it that Darwinian evolutionists view Neanderthals, who had larger brains that do we, as wooden club swinging dullards?
Note that the New Observer Online article iron foots the data and instantly goes from slight differences in cranial capacity/brain size to cognitive functions, physical and mental health, psychology, behavior, crime rates, social adaptability, economic achievement, etc. This is merely rehash trash from the eugenics days when peoples’ head sizes were measured and they were thus categorized accordingly—not according to science but the worldview-philosophy of Darwinism, evolutionism and scientism.
There are even papers such as on The polygenic profile of Russian football players, Does the polygenic profile determine the potential for becoming a world-class athlete? Insights from the sport of rowing. We are quickly moving towards a society much as envisioned in the movie “GATACA” wherein your genetic makeup is mapped before birth and that determines the fields into which you will be placed for career, etc. This, of course, will lead to pre-natal genetic manipulation so as to make people suitable for certain tasks—made that way by task masters by any other name.
A paper by Saskia P. Hagenaars, et al. notes:
In addition, highly significant associations were observed between the cognitive test scores in the UK Biobank sample and many polygenic profile scores, including coronary artery disease, stroke, Alzheimer’s disease, schizophrenia, autism, major depressive disorder, body mass index, intracranial volume, infant head circumference and childhood cognitive ability.5
Read “observed” as “interpreted” and note that polygenes is basically defined as genes “whose individual effect on a phenotype is too small to be observed, but which can act together with others to produce observable variation.”
The same paper also notes (with editorial notes from the Disclosure newsletter6):
Greater polygenic risk for diastolic and systolic blood pressure (obtained from International Consortium for Blood Pressure), and body mass index were all associated with lower educational attainment (β of −0.02, −0.04 and −0.09, respectively) [in other words, they claim fat people with high blood pressure do slightly worse in school].
A polygenic profile for greater height was associated with higher educational attainment (β=0.07) [tall people do slightly better in school]. Higher verbal-numerical reasoning scores were associated with lower polygenic risk for body mass index (β=−0.03), and a polygenic profile for greater height (β=0.02) and higher systolic blood pressure (β=0.01) [if you are good at problem solving, you will probably be skinny, taller, and have higher blood pressure].
Also, you may obtain a college degree but it may come at a cost as the paper notes:
Perhaps counter-intuitively, our results indicated that the genetic variants associated with obtaining a college degree were also related to higher genetic risk of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and autism, which for bipolar disorder and autism support the findings from a previous study.
I bet'cha did not know that there are “genetic variants associated with obtaining a college degree,” ponder that before applying and wasting all of that time and money—no wonder so many “smart” people are nuts.
There is another item of interest in the form of a paper by the Royal Society’s journal Open Biology which “discovered the actual genes responsible for bigger brain sizes after comparing the genomes of 28 mammals with different brain sizes.”7. You can tell how very happy they are because the paper is titled “Science Confirms: Genes Determine Brain Size” when in reality the titled should be “Scientists Claim to have Confirmed: Genes Determine Brain Size” this is because science is a tool and it is the scientist who use that tool that make such claims, confirm, etc.
Of course, as Atahualpa Castillo-Morales, et al., note as of a mere two months ago, “the precise evolutionary drivers of brain size expansion in mammals and its relation to behavioural ability are still unclear and remain a topic of much interest and debate.”8
Lastly, note one important note by Disclosures, “Evolution doesn’t justify racism because the theory of evolution is false.” Thus, try as they may old time racists and neo-eugenicists can attempt to base racism upon Darwinism as may have and yet, the conclusion will be false because the premise is false.
For some correlations to this, see the “Use, Abuse and Misuse of Darwin” section of From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist, Part 12 of 13.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.
- 1. Gallup, Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design
- 2. Carter T. Butts, “Why I know but don't believe”, Science, October 21, 2016 AD, pp. 286-287
- 3.Volume 21, Issue 2, November 2016 AD
- 4.“Science Confirms: Genes Determine Brain Size”, New Observer Online, October 5, 2016 AD, pp. 286-287
- 5.“Shared genetic aetiology between cognitive functions and physical and mental health in UK Biobank (N=112151) and 24 GWAS consortia,” Molecular Psychiatry, January 26, 2016 AD, pp. 1624-1632
- 6.Volume 21, Issue 2, November 2016 AD
- 7. See note 4.
- 8. Atahualpa Castillo-Morales, et al., “Neocortex expansion is linked to size variations in gene families with chemotaxis, cell–cell signaling and immune response functions in mammals,” Open Biology, October 5, 2016 AD