Re: Politely written--hoping this doesn't start another round onbiology

On Sat, 20 May 2000, Spectors wrote:

>> The research commonly
>> referred to as "sociobiological" is in fact GENERALLY nothing more than
an
>> "ideological, knee-jerk" updating of "Original Sin" theology. 

>There are, for once, some interesting topics being discussed on the list,
>so I don't want to waste much time on this, but how, exactly, is
>sociobiology "nothing more than" and updating of original sin theology
>(and I hope I've made my suspicions concerning the former quite plain)?
>I
>think there are some theologians subscribed to this list, so perhaps they
>could enlighten us, but I, in any case, am opposed to the knee jerk
>equation of theology (including "original sin theology") with any
>reactionary or determinist social doctrine (properly identified or
>otherwise).

>In line with the recent push to make posts on topic, I should add that a
>reexamination of the role of theology is an important feature in the
>structures of knowledge of the contemporary world-system.


>Boris Stremlin
>bc70219@binghamton.edu


actually, Boris, socio-biology is not contradicting theology! One can
find many amazing similarities between racial interperatations of Bible
and socio-biological assesment of the superiority of some races. I BET
you. A a hard core white protestant or catholic would have no problems
with socio-biology, just as a secular supposedly atheist socio-biologist
would have no problems with religion. Remember that eugenic racist
discourses were the product of the 1930s, and took root in a highly 
prutanist country like the US.


Spector put nicely: socio-biology is an updated version of "Original Sin
Theology"


Mine Doyran
SUNY/Albany