In January I offered my take on The 10,000 Year Explosion and called it a most A Most Dangerous Book. I suggested that Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending had fired an early salvo in a battle that is going to reshape or destroy our culture, and probably our world, in the next 20-30 years (the time frame is mine.) The book does not aim to solve the "Nature vs Nurture" conundrum but presents evidence from the field of population genetics to support their theory that, contrary to conventional wisdom in evolution and sociology, evolution has been speeding up in the last 10,000 years rather than remaining static. As more and more evidence accrues elucidating the influence of genetics on behavior and population abilities, a clash is inevitable between science and political correctness. I commented:
In Race, Ethnicity, and the Genetic Time Bomb I discussed the coming collision between the accumulating body of scientific data regarding human evolution and differentiation, and the PC shibboleth that all men and all populations are exactly equivalent. The corollary to this assumption has become conventional wisdom, ie that any differences in outcome between populations can only be the result of discrimination by the powerful against the weak. Various iterations of this assumption have become so deeply ingrained in science and society that it is considered a career destroyer to publicly question the idea.
I cautioned in that post that as the science accumulates, the demarcation between scientific investigation and social transgression would become increasingly difficult to maintain. Simply asserting that a minority group may have different levels of ability can mean academic death. Now, more than ever before, the legacy of Darwin, supported by evolutionary biology, is bringing political (ideological and religious) shibboleths into stark question. Both the left and the right have exhibited an unconscious splitting in their relationship to Darwin's monumental achievement and this is the field of interest of Apes or Angels, by Neil Troost. This slim, readable volume could well be considered a companion piece to Cochran and Harpending's book. Dr. Troost unflinchingly examines the distortions of both left and right that interfere with an understanding of the meaning of Darwin's theory and the implications of our growing knowledge of evolutionary biology that is putting flesh onto the skeleton of evolution.
In his introduction, he describes the conflictual relationship of both left and right to Darwin and his implications:
While we can thank Darwin for identifying our family tree and disabusing us of our wishful thinking, we are less certain of his revelations of human diversity. As modern genetics increasingly supports Darwin's observations on human variability, the West is embroiled in a political war over the interpretation and meaning of these findings. Secular humanism, set adrift from Christianity in part because of Darwin, now opposes the facts of human inequality first pointed out in 1871 by the great naturalist. As in Galileo's day, science is under siege for discovering uncomfortable truths. Pope's are no longer the enemy, but doctrinaire liberals within the scientific community are! Darwin, the immortal hero of science, gave us ideas that offend both sides in the culture wars. Liberals generally accept evolution and make it a foundation of their materialism, but they despise the idea that human races might be unequal. Conservative Christians hate the idea of evolution without god, but, until recently, they accepted biological inequality without debate. To understand who we are we must have the courage to follow Darwin's route to human nature, clearing the brush of superstition and myth while recognizing that our common humanity may not be enough to overcome the problems of extreme diversity. Struggle and strife, part of the basis of evolution, may well be ineradicable.
Dr. Troost spends the first part of the book reviewing Darwin's theories and some of the implications of his findings. He has a habit of asking obvious but dangerous questions:
(p. 30) Belief in inequality is not racist if we are talking about biological facts. Darwin was against slavery but accepted inequality. If I see a Kenyan runner and runners from Italy or Belgium, I am not a racist if I "stereotype" Kenyans by predicting victory in a marathon based upon race and nationality. This is simply scientific generalization based upon evidence. Racism is either a false generalization used denigratingly or the use of a true generalization to suppress or punish people. One can believe in the fact of inequality and treat people as individuals, knowing that group differences are statistical. As Steven Pinker put it: "equality refers to fair treatment and not human biology."
Sadly, a significant proportion of the population will take offence at his statements and accuse him of racism for merely acknowledging reality. At the same time Dr. Troost offers ample ammunition for the religious right to attack. He has little tolerance for Supernaturalism.
(p. 106) Evolution does produce increased diversity, complexity, amount, and scope of life. Is this the work of a divine agency? Since such an agency is unnecessary for evolutionary purposes, it is illogical that a purposeless process would result in process.
Between the Cosmologists who can theorize that the universe evolved out of nothing (quantum fluctuations in the vacuum) and evolutionary biologists, it is clear that a plausible, scientifically consistent explanation can encompass our origins and development without the necessity of a deity. Faith in G-d must be maintained, if at all, in contradistinction to science. (Whether religion has instrumental utility is another and longer discussion altogether, barely touched upon by Dr. Troost.)
If Darwin erodes the philosophical underpinnings of religion, leaving the religious right adrift, the greater danger going forward is that work in evolutionary biology will erode the philosophical underpinnings of the liberal ideal, leaving the left adrift.
As we understand how genes and genetic controls respond to environmental effects, we will be able to approach the answers to explosive questions, such as:
What is "g", the measure of general intelligence often described by IQ? What genes encode for what proteins that lead to more efficient nerve conduction, more complex neural networks, and the resulting advantages in mentation and better problem solving that are the core biological substrate of intelligence?
At that point, the finding that certain genes are over-represented in some populations and under-represented in other populations is going to create problems that our society, crippled by PC imposed elective mutism in relation to such subjects, will have great difficulty metabolizing; synthesizing our knowledge in ways which do not threaten social cohesion and amity will only be possible if we can talk about forbidden topics in a candid manner.
For the last 100 years we have known that there are persistent, reliable differences in IQ between groups and for the last 50 years there has been a mountain of material published attempting to deny the implications of such distinctions. Dr. Troost's contribution is useful in illuminating just how heavily the scientific data weighs in one direction.
Recent Comments