Re: Race: real or imagined?

WSN,

I don't know anybody foolish enough to argue that homo sapiens are not
animals. But acknowledging this does not mean accepting as a reasonable
starting point the assumption that human behavior is both sociological and
biological. What aspects of the behavior of any animal are biological must
be shown empirically and theoretically, not assumed as reasonable. Such
assumptions lead to errors because one imposes a conceptual framework on
reality rather than constructing ideas about reality. The demand for an a
priori assumption of the biological basis for human behavior is like
demanding that we assume as a reasonable starting point that there is a
theological basis for human behavior, and that those who deny this are
just knee-jerk ideologues. As for the social aspects of human behavior, we
don't have to assume, as we have ample evidence for this. But can
sociobiology show us a behavioral gene? Can sociobiology show us how
collective hominid behavior is the result of hormone levels? Sure, we have
drives, reflexes, and capacities, but where is the demonstration of
instinct? Until these are shown it cannot be reasonable to assume that
there is a link. Until these are shown there is no reason for treating
sociobiology as anything more than a theology (and the similarities are
striking all the way around). The premise of the argument is wrong: not
assuming a biological basis to social behavior does not rule out a
biological basis, rather not assuming this is what creates the open mind.
Finally, rejecting sociobiology is not the same as rejecting the
evolutionary framework since sociobiology is inconsistent with the logic
of modern biological evolution and genetics.

Sincerely,
Andy Austin