Q&A: Racism and Evolution
Racism and Evolution
Question
Hello
Is there any logic to the common humanistic claim that all races are equal in their intelligence together with adherence to the theory of evolution, according to which human development is accidental? As is well known, there is a veto in the scientific world according to which a scientist—no matter how senior—must not claim that African and Hispanic races, for example, are on average less intelligent (and similarly regarding women versus men), and even when Crick uncovered DNA and said such things, they shut him up. How does this fit with the sweeping consensus in favor of evolution? Is it possible that all the different human races, which developed separately—or at least branched off separately and underwent completely different developmental processes—would all arrive at the same brain? Or is science forced to subordinate itself to morality for educational reasons and provide the masses with a “noble lie”? On the other hand, if there really is no difference in IQ and the like between the races, isn’t that itself puzzling for the theory of evolution?
I will try to offer an answer that raises another difficulty: the soul that was breathed into man—in all races—is spiritual and one in its “nature,” and that is what gives him, in the ends of the earth and in all sorts of different cultures, the capacity to reach equal intelligence (statistically, of course).
But if so, one could ask—especially according to the voluntarists—how this capacity of the soul appears throughout the entire human species and in none of the other life forms on the planet. How did this miracle happen? Was the soul inherited (like a genetic element??)? And could such inheritance exist even among races that had no contact with each other for tens or hundreds of thousands of years? Or do you think one should say that the soul is a kind of spiritual “energy” found, כביכול, in the air, and once the human species reaches a certain level of brain development it picks it up everywhere, like a radio picks up radio waves. That might explain why all human beings have a soul together with the evolutionary fact that there was no contact between them that could have enabled a mutual connection.
Answer
Of course it is possible that there are differences in average intelligence. I would bet that there are. And it is true that it is not politically correct to say this or even to publish it. On the other hand, it is not necessary that there be differences. The law of large numbers could be valid here as well.
Discussion on Answer
Thank you for the important and thought-provoking information.
Maybe it is better to sharpen the question from another perspective—if the process of evolution is not directed from above and the development of the human races did not begin from a single race (and even if it did, it split into its branches long before more and more improvements in evolutionary development took place), then if all this is true, what is the a priori probability that all the groups would be equal in intelligence? How could it be that clear differences between short Bushmen and Aryans, or the tall Maasai tribes, between Negroid skulls and European-type skulls—stopped only at bodily differences while the cognitive ones did not?! For the assumption is that even cultural differences would disappear by the second generation. If, for example, a native of Papua New Guinea were raised in the US by an adoptive family, the assumption is that despite his primitive background, if he is talented he could become a professor at Harvard. What is the probability of that, unless there is a guiding hand striving that all groups be in the image of God? Or, as I suggested, that the soul is what generates the equality and not the brain. (What does that even mean?)
And the other side—according to which there really are differences, and political correctness does not allow scientists to express this—raises sadness about the state of science in other areas as well. What will happen if the findings—as Michi believes—show a high probability for the existence of the Creator, or for the antiquity of the Jewish people in its land—will political correctness then too cause the scientific community to unanimously keep silent?! Who exactly are we relying on here?
As for Rabbi Michi’s answer about the law of large numbers, I’m not sure I understood it, though I have not yet had the chance to reread what he wrote in the past on that law. When I do, I will review it.
P.S. Of course, even if there are differences between the races—their slightness is still astonishing. There is a clear and unmistakable similarity, and all human beings are capable of abstract thought, speech, and more. We do not find intermediate ape-like stages that have primitive thinking and the like. It seems that once Homo sapiens achieved a cognitive leap, it did not stop and encompassed all human beings at an equal level, or close to it. And for that too, one must find a satisfying explanation.
To the questioner,
First of all, it wasn’t Crick who said this, but his partner in the discovery, Watson (the less brilliant one).
Second, Crick and Watson did not uncover DNA, only its structure.
Third, the whole discussion of races is scientifically problematic because there is so much mixture that it is hard to identify races and assign a given individual to a race. Everyone is mixed to one degree or another (usually to a very great degree).
Fourth, it is very difficult to isolate the genetic component from the social one, and therefore such a claim usually only indicates a racist mindset—since there is nothing that gives it more validity than the social hypothesis.
Fifth, clearly political correctness also plays a role here.