Biochemical Soul Musings on Nature, Science, Evolution, Biology, and Education


John Derbyshire Claims Barack Obama Will Kill Science

Trust me - there is a good scientific reason for being racist

"Trust me - there is a good scientific reason for being racist"

In an incoherent leap of bad logic, John Derbyshire over at the National Review (I know – why did I even bother reading it?) has come to the conclusion that an Obama Administration will kill science (his article title: “Will Obama Kill Science?”).

However, upon reading his incredibly ridiculous argument, it becomes clear that he only thinks Obama will kill one aspect of science: the science that he believes will eventually, inevitably prove that some races are better and smarter than others.

Why does he think this? It’s not clear. His only real argument is that Obama once wrote a piece for NPR in which he criticized someone for wanting to package racism in science.

Basically, his argument is: “Barack Obama is black. So Obama is anti-racist. Therefore, any science dealing with the nature of human variation will be outlawed by an Obama administration.”

He also does some rambling on Barack’s “cultural Marxist” upbringings, and some anecdotes about researchers not being funded when they want to study differences between races. One of the funny aspects of the article is that the initial paragraphs only hint at the actual subject of the article. He hints at future biological discoveries with

“metaphysical implications more disturbing than were those of quantum mechanics... “The conceptual revolution among human-sciences researchers has in fact already taken place. This is not widely understood because (a) news outlets are very reluctant to report it, (b) powerful political forces have an interest in suppressing it, and (c) researchers prefer getting on quietly with their work to having their windows broken by mobs of angry protestors.”

One can only think, “Wait. What is he talking about?” He certainly dares not explicitly state what his entire article is about. Then he says,

“Most people still think of human-science controversies in terms of nature/nurture. As a matter of real scientific dispute, that is all long gone…The dust of battle has pretty much settled now, in science departments if not in the popular press, and nature is the clear victor. Name any universal characteristic of human nature, including cognitive and personality characteristics. Of all the observed variation in that characteristic, about half is caused by genetic differences. You may say that is only a half victory; but it is a complete shattering of the nurturist absolutism that ruled in the human sciences 40 years ago, and that is still the approved dogma in polite society, including polite political society, today.”

Oh, I see. I think he’s hinting that race is real and determined by genetics and that genetic differences in race will show that some are “better” than others.”

“That dam now has more cracks than the surface of Europa and water is spraying out all over. The only thing that could stop a complete collapse would be the power of government …”

In other words, “Oh, we’re so close…our racism is almost supported by science! Only the government can stop it now!” I particularly like his use of the phrase "human-science enthusiasts" which seems to be a euphemism for "people with a vested interest in proving physical and mental inequalities between races." He rambles some more and then ends with,

“We are about to find out whether our traditional devotion to free speech and free enquiry can survive real, incontrovertible results from the human sciences; and in particular, in the event of an Obama victory, whether that devotion can survive under a left-liberal administration headed by a cultural Marxist — an administration much more interested in shoring up the soft totalitarianism of “diversity” and “multiculturalism” than in permitting the discovery of true facts about human nature.”

He finishes still without ever having acknowledged the actual subject the entire article alludes to. However, he clearly means to state that the “human-sciences” will soon show real differences in race at the genetic level and he strongly hints that this will show differences in actual equality and intelligence.

What a douchebag! It is also quite clear that he knows next to nothing about molecular biology, population genetics, or genomics.

Read it for a laugh.

Update (10/8, 2PM): Welcome Pharyngulites (or whatever the correct term for Pharyngula lovers is). PZ Myers over at Pharyngula has now linked to my post and he has his own, much more eloquent take on this piece, and a good batch of comments following it.

Update 2 (10/8, 6PM): Michael White at Adaptive Complexity has picked up on this issue and has some very good comments as well, linking the issue back to James Watson's infamous remarks on race and intelligence. Go check it out.


Democrats, Religion, and Faith-Based Initiatives

Obama "loves" Jesus

Today in his Pharyngula blog, PZ Myers went off on Democrats for highlighting their commitment to religion and faith and the compassionate accomplishments faith-based groups can make in the world.

Let me first say that in essence, and in principle, I am in complete agreement with PZ. Liberals, progressives, and the Democratic party that we liberals, in general, vote for would serve in an ideal world as the pusher of the rational, scientific, and secular agenda. Instead, what we have seen with Barack Obama is a re-cooption of the Christian and evangelical vote – or at least an attempt to get those voters back – by reemphasizing the Democratic Parties Christian roots.

However, from purely a practical standpoint I think this is the only way we can ever hope to have our government even begin to govern in the progressive way we think it should. Before I expound upon this, I want to mention Obama’s Faith-Based Initiatives plan.

Obama’s Faith-Based Initiatives
When I first heard that Obama wanted to expand Bush’s Faith-based initiatives, I was initially disgusted – for about thirty seconds. The time of disgust was so short because I learned what he really wanted to do. I found out about it by listening to his speech. In it, what he basically says is that the Faith-Based Initiatives were never run properly – they were only a photo-op for Bush to continue to receive evangelical support. Obama, on the other hand wants to rebuild the initiaives. He wants to support compassionate work and community service that these religion-backed organizations claim to want to work for. That’s fine with me for this reason:

“I'm not saying that faith-based groups are an alternative to government or secular nonprofits. And I'm not saying that they're somehow better at lifting people up. What I'm saying is that we all have to work together – Christian and Jew, Hindu and Muslim; believer and non-believer alike – to meet the challenges of the 21st century…

…First, if you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them – or against the people you hire – on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we'll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work.”

He’s essentially tearing down the faith-based initiatives and instead building secular-based initiatives, with the religious folks doing the work. Works for me. Personally, I could care less what your beliefs are if your focusing on helping others, regardless of their own faiths. If religion must exist – that’s the direction that I think it needs to focus its efforts. Personally, I think this was a genius move on Obama’s part for the reasons below.

Democratic Christianity
Based on everything I’ve read of Obama, I don’t believe that he is in reality a Christian. Everything about him (except what he actually says on the subject) screams agnostic. But he knows that this is a Christian nation (about 75%). You CANNOT get elected President if you are not Christian or at least deeply religious. So he has spent years crafting his Christian beliefs, developing his Jesus cred. And I’m glad he did.

Only by reclaiming the Christian vote can progressives ever hope to reshape this country. Thus, by highlighting the commitment and accomplishments of the Faithful within the Democratic Party at the Democratic National Convention, the Party may yet recapture those religious votes (or at least a small proportion of them).

Once we get more progressives in place, we can fix this fucked up educational system we have (No Child Left Behind? Don’t even get me started). Only by actually getting rational-minded people into office can we hope to erase the anti-intellectual blanket that has fallen over this country. It may be slow – or it may not happen at all – but you can be guaranteed that the Republican party cares not an ounce about education on true science, intellectualism, and reason.

Thus, the Democrats must, at minimum, act Christian. They must, as Obama has done many many times, proclaim that they have accepted Jesus Christ into a personal relationship. Some may believe it – others may do it for political reasons. But there is no doubt that this is absolutely necessary.

It would be nice to maintain my principles and say “no – we should not put faith and religion on a pedestal – we must not even allow it place within our politics.” But I feel this is naive (Note: I do NOT mean to imply that PZ Myers is naive - we absolutely NEED people like PZ in this world and in this debate - He understands all this much better than I, I'm sure. But he honorably sticks to his principles). Most adults in this country are too indoctrinated to ever be swayed with rhetoric. Most don’t even know what science really is. Consider the fact that somewhere between 50 to 70% of this country believes God had a direct hand in our own creation (depending on the poll), while a reciprocal percentage believes in evolution. Do you really expect that any of these people will vote for a self-proclaimed atheist?

This is obviously not a new argument. Everyone knows (everyone who cares anyway) that every President we’ve had has been Christian (at least in the public eye). Our only hope is to get our people into office by whatever means necessary, and hope we can train the next generation to use their brains properly.

Side Note: Some Christians may read my argument and say "Oh, so Democrats are only fake Christian." To that I would respond that to a large degree, most of the truly Christian Democrats I know walk alot closer to the line Jesus walked than most Republicans I know. Just take our Commander in Chief for example. I don't believe for one femtosecond that he was ever "born again". He, and every other publicly visible Christian in his administration act about as far from the actual teachings of Christ that you can get. How many people have died in Iraq now? Somewhere between 30,000 and 150,000? Oh that's right - according to Gen. Tommy Franks this administration doesn't "do body counts." And it is a well known fact that Karl Rove orchestrated his "brilliant" scheme to get the religious right behind Bush. This is why Democrats should continue with the course they are on with regards to religion. Bush and Rove already proved that Christian voters, by and large, are incredibly gullible.


You thought Bush was a leader Jesus would vote for?