Re: Race: real or imagined?

On Wed, 8 Dec 1999, Richard N Hutchinson wrote:

> Since this is all presented scientifically, it needs to be refuted
> scientifically.

I am at a disadvantage not having seen the book, but wouldn't a
comparative/historical study of reproductive practices be sufficient
refutation? 

> That is unfortunate, but just as with the so-called
> scientific creationists, if their "science" is not refuted with science,
> then their opponents are made to look like the ones with only ideology,
> and something to hide.

The commonly accepted notion that science transcends all ideology is also
utilized by the creationists, particularly in Kansas, where they have
adopted the strategy of claiming that they are keeping evolution out of
the schools because it is "bad science".  Though the support of
creationism in the sciences is quite low, matters stand otherwise with
sociobiology and evolutionary psychology, which have become the
establishment and the institutional support behind theories such as
Rushton's.  That is why blow-for-blow arguments about specific claims in
cases like this are becoming difficult if not impossible to win, and why
such theories continue to proliferate, to accumulate professional acclaim
and to become popularized because of media attention to the sensationalism
created by the fights.  

-- 
Boris Stremlin
bc70219@binghamton.edu