Discoverer of DNA retires over race row saying blacks not as clever as whites

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7062382.stm

Interesting article from the BBC News website today. James Watson who won the Nobel Peace Price for co discovering DNA retired after causing a scandal over his statement that African social policies were doomed to failure as they were all based on the assumption that blacks are as intelligent as whites whilst all scientific data suggests otherwise.

It strikes me that although he's the only scientist to have publicly said this I'm fairly certain that most evolutionary based scientits probably share his views, as he is obviously one of the most eminent scientists in the world and along with Richard Dawkins and Francis Crick one of the few modern scientists who most people have heard of.

What I find particularly interesting regarding this in terms of creation vs evolution and scientific agenda. It is always stated (by evolutionary scientists) that creationism musn't be taught in schools as Christian scientists have an agenda that conflicts with modern values and science.

Well it seems to me that evolutionary scientists are more at odds with modern values, but it is more subversive.

I remember years ago being shocked reading the radical and frankly disturbing personal views of the some of the greatest scientific and literary figures such as BF Skinner, Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan etc who in their personal writings argued for shocking things like mass human sterilisations and the like to secure the evolutionary progress of the human species.

I think that the public at large would be shocked and disturbed if they realised how the great evolutionary scientific minds of our era actually worked. :o

It's a good story (but just consider whether it matters how intelligent you are if you are governing a country, surrounded by advisors and following flawed social policies anyway)

Thye guy was actually really really misquoted and his remarks, when in the report, have been utterly taken out of context by the media.

Still, makes a good story for people to be outraged at, ruin someone's career, but succeeed in diverting public opinion from things that might be more important that a erroneous news story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7062382.stm

Interesting article from the BBC News website today. James Watson who won the Nobel Peace Price for co discovering DNA retired after causing a scandal over his statement that African social policies were doomed to failure as they were all based on the assumption that blacks are as intelligent as whites whilst all scientific data suggests otherwise.

It strikes me that although he's the only scientist to have publicly said this I'm fairly certain that most evolutionary based scientits probably share his views, as he is obviously one of the most eminent scientists in the world and along with Richard Dawkins and Francis Crick one of the few modern scientists who most people have heard of.

What I find particularly interesting regarding this in terms of creation vs evolution and scientific agenda. It is always stated (by evolutionary scientists) that creationism musn't be taught in schools as Christian scientists have an agenda that conflicts with modern values and science.

Well it seems to me that evolutionary scientists are more at odds with modern values, but it is more subversive.

I remember years ago being shocked reading the radical and frankly disturbing personal views of the some of the greatest scientific and literary figures such as BF Skinner, Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan etc who in their personal writings argued for shocking things like mass human sterilisations and the like to secure the evolutionary progress of the human species.

I think that the public at large would be shocked and disturbed if they realised how the great evolutionary scientific minds of our era actually worked. :o

---

Huh-huh-huh. You said, scientits. Huh-huh-huh-huh.

One mustn't forget that scientists are still human beings given to the same imperfections as the rest of the race. Many times a theory is "proven" when said scientist goes in search of evidence to prove an ideal already formulated in his/her mind. That standing I would agree with him solely on the basis that said African gov't hadn't had hundreds of years of experience, but not on any basis relative to color of skin. Human beings are the race and we choose to divide by color of skin or ethnicity. We're all made from the same materials so the potential is there for any one or group of persons to be as intelligent as another.

i think there is truth to some race are evolving more rapidly then other race. I doubt that fact will ever be public but environment does play a huge part on peoples evolution. Its all very complex, no group of race is exactly the same. Many factors in each persons life determines the difference. But again there is truth to some race can evolve faster then others. Like how I think living in tribes are a way to slow down evolution, but to live in big cities and especially discovering the world like a scientist can increase the pace of evolution.

Humans are no more exempt from differences than any other species of animal that share this planet take for example the canid. Is a German Shepard the same as a dingo or a jackal ?Are all the apes the same ?Are all birds the same ?Are all fish the same? The list goes on and humans are no exception Julius "Marvelous" Rain you have made a valid point.

yea we can actually determine canines development. We can breed certain animals like canines into better breeds or atleast different ones. Others evolve on their own out in the wild to adapt to thier environment. We can creat hybrid plants and animals. (I myself have had a hybrid cichlid and tried to breed them). We have and can do many things to other living organics in this world. Who knows maybe one day it will be us humans whom are the onces being develop, into other than what we only know as humans now ;)

This would come from a guy with the name USALOVESTHEWHITEGUY. ha ha ha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boozeboxer

This would come from a guy with the name USALOVESTHEWHITEGUY. ha ha ha

---

Get it right winoboxer!! USA LOVES THE KLITSCHKOS

People still live in the Stone Age.

The whole Universal consoiusness 's think that we the people in charge of what happens to Urantia or planet Earth are mostly insane.
That is the physical mess we are in due to white skinned styled thinking.
(The consiusness that uses) : the same ones that started slavery and or bending the use of any natural thing; especially against its own free will is soon to come to a close.
We have two sides to our brains one side is analytical and the other side more adapt to emotion, one is male energy one is female.
Depends on what side of the fence you stand on to which perspective you take on whos crazy and who isnt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Julius "Marvelous" Rain

yea we can actually determine canines development. We can breed certain animals like canines into better breeds or atleast different ones. Others evolve on their own out in the wild to adapt to thier environment. We can creat hybrid plants and animals. (I myself have had a hybrid cichlid and tried to breed them). We have and can do many things to other living organics in this world. Who knows maybe one day it will be us humans whom are the onces being develop, into other than what we only know as humans now ;)

---

Yeah, everything about dogs can be extrapolated and applied to humans. Smaller dogs live longer than bigger dogs, so therefore smaller humans live longer than bigger humans, right? It's harder to house train little dogs, so midgets tend to take a leak on the carpet too.

Gentlemen, you've just successfully compared an apple to an orange.

Of course you have tribesmen who are dumb as a post and Europeans who can make atom bombs, but what of the European who just couldn't hack it and dropped out of school and the African who immigrated and got a PhD from Harvard?

By virtue of me being black and you being white doesn't automatically proclude you as being more intelligent than me like a German Shepherd is more intelligent than a chihuahua.

When you already have an idea of the result you're looking for you tend to collect evidence that backs it up and ignore things that would refute it.

How can anyone truely judge intelligence. It's virtually impossible as there is a vast differential between education levels, skill levels and specialities...
Education varies from country to country, from community to community, it may be of a far higher standard in one area than it's neighbour.
Furthermore the most intelligent person from Community A may be a genius mathematically, with the ability to calculate and equate numbers instantly, yet he may lack in creativity, the understanding of the arts and he may be poorly able to comprehend literature.

The most intelligent person in community may be an academic unrivalled in his/her ability to perceive and understand even the most riddled literal poetry and literature, yet may be considerably behind person A in terms of mathematical ability.
So how can we truely judge?
Even IQ testing is an unfair examination of aptitude. To undertake to this examination one most conform to one specific way of undertaking the exam-one method of thinking. This will actually limit the ability of the person to perform to their highest ability as it will not allow the individual to approach the examination in their own prefered way.

The final point that i feel i must raise is simplistic and only an opinion.
Your mind is what you make of it. It doesn't matter what colour, race, height or creed you are, your mind is your own to expand if you wish or alternatively to close and corrupt as the people who still continue to discriminate against their fellow man have.

hitmandonny and Liquid I love you both. :lickish: You said it better than I ever could.

we should all read more to further our understanding of everything. If only each person in the world could read :(

Why do you want everyone to read? I would prefer a middle age literacy level and be among the very elite with my education.

In simplier terms, that statement is true but ignorant at the same time. The reason light skinned societies are on a whole more adavancved than dark skinned societies is because the lighter skinned people are so because of the climate they lived in and vice versa. Dark skinned people lived in prodominantly tropic regions where technology isn't exactly needed for people to get by as farming is fairly easy all year round. Because light skinned people lived in harsher cold climates, they need to create things to aid their struggle. When you're making things for farming, it's bound to happen that you'll stumble upon other things as well.

It is a shame tho that they have all but abandoned a man who revolutionized science because of one thing he said that isn't 100% inaccurate. Europeans were more technologicaly advanced (here's the mix up between actual intelligence and how its applied) than africans because they had to be to maintain life where they lived. More environmental challenges (or challenges in general) make way for new technological adavances. Having technology doesn't necessarialy indicate learning potential but people who have experienced a more scientific based culture will on the whole know more about things than those who are more rural/spiritual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boozeboxer

Why do you want everyone to read? I would prefer a middle age literacy level and be among the very elite with my education.

---

thats pretty selfiish



that sounds like what an elite christian church member would say.

ur not an archbishop are you ???

Selfish??? I didn't know we were talking about selfish? I am just talking hypothetically........It would be okay to be one of the few that is literate. That is all. No I dont go to church, but if the shoe fits were it, if the truth hurts, bear it.