Here’s some food for dinner table discussion:
Recently, Dr. James Watson, who won the Nobel Prize for his discoveries in the field of DNA research, was caught making a “scandalous” assertion. “There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically,” he wrote. In simple terms: White Europeans are inherently smarter than Black Africans. The Sunday Times in London quoted Watson as saying, “All our social policies are based on the fact that [African peoples'] intelligence is the same as ours–whereas all the testing says not really.”
Coming from an atheistic worldview founded on evolution, this makes total sense. A purely “scientific” perspective offers absolutely no reason to think that men of different races and ethnicities must be equal in intellectual, emotional, or moral capacities. That notion is simply sentimental, wishful thinking. Words like “value”, “dignity”, and “equality” have no place in the realm of cold, hard scientific “facts.” They belong to the old-fashioned, dim-witted worldview called Theism. A truly rationalistic and realistic approach can waste no time worrying about offending archaic sensibilities.
Why then did Dr. Watson later apologize for his remarks?
Your guess is as good as mine.
Hi there,
I happened to stumble across your interesting blog via a link relating to George Steiner’s Real Presences. Then I saw this post – which puzzled me a bit, because I wasn’t sure exactly what point you were making.
I had a look back at the original Sunday Times article, and it seemed fairly clear to me why Watson might want to apologise – assuming he was quoted accurately. The whole area of quantifying ‘intelligence’ is such a scientific & methodological minefield. Plus there is such a diverse array of historical, geographical, cultural etc elements to factor into any possible ‘explanation’ of why all world communities haven’t developed the same or as ‘far’ as others. (See for example the remarkable Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond for an eye-opening & perfectly ‘scientific’ perspective.)
So some of the statements attributed to Watson seem to me crass to say the least. A statement like ‘all the testing says not really’ would require almost impossible certainty not only about the ‘facts’ resulting from these ‘tests’ but also the methodological status of those ‘facts’.
Compared to this the earlier attributed statement ‘There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically’ might seem relatively anodyne – on the surface.
One could see it as a special case of a more general (and more anodyne) statement like ‘There is no firm reason to anticipate that the capacities and features of populations of living things of the same species but geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically’.
But singling out ‘intellectual capacities’ for special mention does rather imply the existence of coherent methodologies for quantifying & comparing those very intellectual capacities. In fact we would need to be clear not only about the intellectual capacities themselves but perhaps more significantly that we had successfully identified variations in those intellectual capacities which could be demonstrated as being linked to evolutionary rather than other influences. So I don’t think we avoid the minefield.
I’m not sure what an ‘atheistic worldview founded on evolution’ is exactly, but I take it this could mean the worldview of one who (a) does not have or does not assume a god; (b) considers current evolutionary theory as a better explanation for the diversity of life than alternative explanations on offer; and for whom (b) lends additional support for (a).
If so I would probably put myself in that category. But for a number of reasons, including the ones given above, the statements attributed to Watson do not ‘make total sense’ to me.
What also doesn’t quite make sense to me is the assumption you seem to be making that this kind of ‘equality’ (versus inequality) in terms of observable and measurable features and behaviour – even if it was possible to demonstrate such things scientifically – should have any connection with the idea of ‘equality’ (versus inequality) in respect of ethical concepts like ‘value’ and ‘dignity’. Or that anyone with a ‘scientific perspective’ would necessarily make that assumption either.
I would also question your assertion that concepts like value, dignity and equality have any necessary connection with theism, such that to abandon theism commits one to abandoning concepts as important as these.
This is my own rather long-winded ‘guess’ as to why Watson may have regretted the statements attributed to him.
Thanks,
Chris Lawrence
thinking makes it so
Hello Chris,
Thanks for taking the time to add your thoughtful response.
I confess I was being sarcastic and provocative by asking why Dr. Watson would apologize for his ‘alleged’ remarks – though it seems unnecessary to call them alleged, since Watson appears to have a history of making controversial statements, The Sunday Times is fairly reputable, and in his apology he did not actually deny having said what was written.
The most probable reason Watson apologized is that he wanted to avoid being pegged a racist, thereby ending his prestigious career blacklisted by the politicized institutions that fund his research. A hundred years ago there would have been no need for an apology. The white world would have nodded its head in agreement, “Yes. We already knew that our colored cousins in Africa are evolutionarily inferior.”
Though Guns, Germs, and Steel may list a host of other factors that contribute to the less advanced conditions of the currently “developing world”, there is no non-theological reason to assume that it’s an either/or situation. What Diamond says may be true. But the implications of Watsons statements may be true, also. As you mentioned, the methodology and resulting certainty of the ‘facts’ about human intellectual capacities are questionable. But that’s the problem. They are indeterminate at this point. So scientifically, we cannot say that Blacks are inferior to Whites, but neither can we say with certainty that they are not inferior.
I did indeed jump categories, from observable features such as intellectual capacity to ethical ideas such as value and dignity. But the connection doesn’t seem that distant. Dogs have some measure of intelligence, etc., but nothing near the capacity of humans. This is probably one of the reasons why a man who kills a dog might merely be reprimanded, fined or even jailed for a few years (see the case of footballer Michael Vick in the US), while a man who kills a fellow human may very well get life in prison, if not the death penalty. Is not part of what determines the gravity of the crime the dignity and worth of the victim? It would be insane to send someone to prison for squashing a beetle.
Of course this argument is simplistic, and I’m no philosopher. I’m sure that there is an abundance of much deeper and more intricate philosophical positions on the matter. But whose theory is correct?
At its worst, a foundation built upon the atheistic version of evolution can lead to racial ‘aristocraticism’, eugenics, genocide, etc. At its best, there is uncertainty. An uncertainty that will most likely allow for many (those who, not nearly as thoughtful as yourself, comprise 99% of the world’s population – I read on your blog that you studied philosophy at Cambridge, a privilege that a miniscule portion of earth’s population enjoys) to leave room in the back of their minds for the notion that white Europeans are more evolutionarily advanced, contributing to an already existing sense of superiority among many whites and increasing inferiority complexes among people with darker skin.
The theistic (specifically Christian) perspective allows for a much firmer (albeit less scientific) conviction that all races are indeed truly equal. Though our respective societies’ economies and technological developments may differ, Christianity teaches that we are all created in the image of God – with intellectual, emotional, artistic, etc., capacities determined by gifting rather than race – and therefore intrinsically, inestimably, and equally valuable.
Thanks again for your response, and I look forward to checking out more of your blog soon,
George
(the amateur aficionado)
Hi George,
Thank you so much for your response, which raises a whole bundle of interesting issues.
You may be right about ‘alleged’ – I was being ultra cautious. You may also be right about why Watson apologised.
I’m intrigued though by expressions like ‘evolutionarily inferior’ & the idea that science’s inability to decide if one race is inferior to another represents some sort of moral issue that only theology can resolve. I don’t think it’s that science hasn’t yet come up with subtle enough tests to know whether or not race/species x is inferior to race/species y. It’s more that evolutionary theory and relative values like superiority/inferiority are pretty much unrelated.
If variation in a quantifiable and hereditary feature could confer survival advantage (eg peak running speed in cheetahs) then, using this example, a greater number of ‘faster’ cheetahs will survive & reproduce than ‘slower’ cheetahs, other things being equal. But a faster cheetah isn’t in general ‘superior’ to a slower cheetah. Its speed is superior, but that doesn’t make it superior.
Relating this to the human intelligence example, then it is theoretically possible to construct some metric (probably boiling down to = mark attained in an ‘intelligence test’ of a certain specific type) which it might be theoretically possible to establish as hereditary. We might theoretically be able to relate this metric to specific races in a statistically significant way. But in practice it would be fraught with difficulty – particularly in proving it was hereditary enough for ‘evolution’ to be a possible explanation. And even if that hurdle was overcome, we’d still have to map the metric to common/familiar/everyday notions of ‘intelligence’. And even then we would only be able to say one group had evolved superior ‘intelligence’ to another group, not that the first group had evolved to be in general ‘superior’ to the other – ie that relatively higher ‘intelligence’ conferred ‘superiority’.
The point I’m trying to make is that it’s not so much that science is incomplete or leaves the issue of inferiority/superiority in doubt, it’s more that the whole idea of using science to decide whether one group is inferior or superior to another is misguided.
But that doesn’t mean the only alternative is to leap into theism. (I’ll get to this in a minute.)
I appreciate what you’re saying about the possible connection between ‘observable features such as intellectual capacity [and] …ethical ideas such as value and dignity’. I think though that the ultimate reason we don’t send someone to prison for squashing a beetle is not that beetles are ‘lower creatures’, but that we are not beetles. Having said that, the ethics of our relations to non-human organisms is a hotly debated area (see eg Peter Singer on animal rights). If there is a rule of thumb (eg for issues of animal cruelty) the criterion is probably assumed ability to suffer rather than assumed ability to think.
(Sidebar: It is ironic to speculate that, if there were people who actually did derive their ethics from evolutionary theory, they might conclude the penalty for squashing a beetle ought to be more severe than the penalty for homicide, as insects are probably the most evolutionarily successful group of organisms on the planet. They make up more than half of all known living organisms; and in diversity represent over 90% of life forms – beetles themselves accounting for about 25%…)
I agree it is possible to feed selected evolutionary principles into a demonic mixer & come out with Nazi genocide. But a similar sort of appliance could take in bits of Christian thought & turn out the Crusades or the Inquisition. Added to which historic European anti-Semitism (which fanned at least some of the flames of the Holocaust) was not unconnected with the Christian contention that the Jews rejected Jesus and had him killed.
I am not saying that ‘therefore religion is bad’. But I’m doubtful that a ‘specifically Christian’ teaching about us being ‘all created in the image of God’ automatically entails a conclusion of universal human equality. The support the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa gave to apartheid until the 1980s is enough counter-evidence, without having to call in Southern Baptist opposition to US civil rights or go even further back in history.
The point is that individuals, whether they are believers or non-believers, evolutionary biologists or bricklayers, decide their ethics for themselves. For a believer this will no doubt include deciding which strands of teaching to accept and live by and which to reject. But it is impossible to draw a boundary round one set of statements (and interpretations of statements) and coherently declare that set to be (say) the ‘true Christian teaching’. Every Christian splinter group (if not every Christian) in history has done the same and come up with a different set.
And I’m not sure I can accept your ‘Cambridge’ implication yet. Are you saying that principles drawn from science (or more specifically from evolutionary biology) are too dangerous for the majority who have not been lucky enough to study philosophy at Cambridge? So this majority would be advised to take the safer Christian option, ie to believe the reason we should see all humans as equal is that we have all been created by God in the image of God?
A problem I have with this, apart from the lack of any independent evidence, is that it prompts a whole lot of further questions, and therefore choices between different possible interpretations. If God made us in his image, did he or did he not also make (eg) chimpanzees or springboks or dolphins – or even oak trees – in his own image?
If he did, then what is it about himself that he copied across to these various creatures? And does our principle of universal equality now have to apply to all of them?
If he did not, then that suggests a very ‘anthropomorphic’ concept of God. What right do we have to assume God is human-like? Is it that Jesus was human and he was the son of God, so therefore God must be human-like in some sense? Isn’t there a concern that rather than God having created us in his image we might, in our understandably anthropocentric way, have got it wrong & in fact made God in our image?
I think the orthodox interpretation is that God made humans in his image but not all other creatures – or at least not in the same way. But this then imposes a problematic dogma on a key area of science. All the available evidence supports the view that humans evolved from non-human ancestors – specifically, for example, that present-day humans and present-day gorillas, chimpanzees etc share common ancestors. If God made humans in his image but not chimpanzees, how did this copy-making come about? At what point did it happen? Was evolution (with all its random variation and cruel wasteful selection) the mechanism whereby an ethical God intentionally created humans? And so on and so on.
The point I’m trying to make is that if we construe the ‘God’s image’ principle literally then it doesn’t simplify or clarify things at all – certainly not enough to deduce an ethical position from. But if we construe it metaphorically then it wouldn’t be robust enough to deduce an ethical position from either – if ‘in God’s image’ is a metaphor then it could only be a summary label for an ethical position, not the foundation of it.
I think most of all I disagree with the idea that important ethical issues like universal equality boil down to a choice between evolution/science on the one hand and religious belief on the other. We can choose how much information we want to be open to, how much we want to absorb, and how much we want to analyse it. But it is a fallacy to think that we or anyone can deduce our ethical principles from any statement of what is the case. I think it is therefore wrong to assume that just because someone thinks such and such is factually the case (about evolution for example), then his or her ethical principles must be such and such.
Similarly we can choose whether or not to follow a religious faith, and if we choose to follow one we can choose which one & how we want to follow it. Part of that choice is itself an ethical choice. Even if we then abandon our ethical autonomy and deduce all our subsequent choices from the religious faith we have chosen, I cannot see how we can absolve ourselves from our original delegation or abnegation.
Thank you again for inspiring what has turned out to be quite a meander of thought!
Chris
thinking makes it so
[...] answer (and yet another meander on that eternal mix of ethics, evolution and religious belief) see: http://amateuraficionado.com/2008/02/26/dr-watsons-woes/ Chimpanzee Beetle Cheetah James D Watson Jared Diamond: Guns Germs and Steel South African Dutch [...]
Chris,
You raise some important points. Thought-provoking and challenging. I look forward to responding soon.
George
Chris,
Thank you for your insightful comments.
I found your “meandering” very interesting, and I’d love to continue conversing about the new questions you raised. If you don’t mind I will start several (at least two for now–and perhaps more depending upon the need) new blog posts to which I will assign the various strains of thought in this discussion. The first topic I am labeling “The Scientific Determination of Value” (very broad, I know, but it’ll begin with this idea of the role of science in the evaluation of superiority). The second I will call “Human Dignity Derived from Christian Teaching,” which will involve some of the specific questions you posed regarding the imago dei (oh, how I wish I really knew Latin…). Obviously, it’s all related, but this will help me keep things straight in my head.
Thanks!
George