The evolutionists change their story again…

4 thoughts on “The evolutionists change their story again…”

1. Differences among populations
   This is very big news, actually. Putting evolution aside, the more that’s known about brain development the harder it will be to maintain the claim that all human populations have exactly the same behavioral propensities (e.g., IQ). Not that it won’t remain the official truth for a very long time yet to come. It will be interesting though in a horrible sort of way to watch what happens. Think of the Larry Summers to-do at Harvard, on steroids, combined with the race-baiting we now have over every possible issue relating to race.

   Rem tene, verba sequentur.

   • interesting…
     As a creationist, who is not committed to egalitarianism, I’m not sure what I think of the work of those analyzing human differences, who usually end up referencing the theory of evolution, trying to come up with evolutionary reasons for such differences. (I note that this new dogma, that human evolution is still occurring, contradicts the previous dogma, that it has been finished for some time. Even Stephen Jay Gould, a committed evolutionist and egalitarian, noted in several of his books, e.g. “The Mismeasure of Man”, how inegalitarians who tried to use evolution to support their explanations had to come up with alternate explanations once the understanding of how evolution proceeded changed. Gould thought this cast doubt on inegalitarianism, but to me, this goes to show the weakness of the evolution model, in its infinite elasticity in order to account for new findings. A lot like liberalism; the theory of evolution is forever evolving…) I’m not surprised to see people noticing trends amongst populations, but for obvious reasons, I can’t accept their typical explanations. Still, I’m glad to see brave individuals pursuing such types of research (in terms of the themes), and I certainly wish them well in their efforts to understand humanity in its variations.

     I agree, that whatever findings are uncovered, it will be [I]verboten to mention them outside of obscure journals; certainly not in the wider public sphere of discourse. It will be interesting, therefore, to watch as it unfolds, since, in the age of the ‘net, things are hard to keep under wraps…

     • Big and little evolution
       It seems to me the particular sort of evolution at issue here shouldn’t bother Intelligent Design types or most creationists since it doesn’t relate to the origin of species but only to the distribution of traits within populations. Presumably most people who reject the big Darwinian claims would nonetheless agree that if there’s a gene that makes you resistant to malaria but also sometimes causes a fatal disease that gene would end up a lot more common in Equatorial Africa than Lappland.

       On the general point, it seems to me that if someone has an explanation that does explain some things to some extent it ought to get developed even though whoever is working on it is almost certain to exaggerate its overall importance.

       Rem tene, verba sequentur.

       • certainly, microevolution, post-Creation, within species…
         … is plausible enough; after all, no-one would argue that we haven’t done our own sort of “artificial selection”, in terms of breeding dogs, cats, cattle, etc., into a myriad of different breeds. The science of Mendel is certainly sound… Where I differ from the evolutionists, is in terms of their believing such to be random, a la natural selection; I instead see the hand of Providence still guiding any such process…

         And thus, I certainly welcome study of human differences, and want to see what we can learn about God’s creation of us.

Comments are closed.