Healthy debate on evolution theory

I stumbled across this when visiting 'Pandas Thumb' http://www.pandasthumb.org/, it's a debate between two sci blogs regarding the New Republic article I linked to an earlier post called 'Conservatives and Evolution'.

I haven't taken sides on which blog is winning the day in the argument (it is quite long and goes back and forth between blogs), but I thought I would offer my responses to the questions posed by Todd Zywicki in his post on PT as a way to whet the appetite;

<>But if the problem is the influence of religious belief over science, then there is a more important point here that is relevant--the left (such as The New Republic, which conducted this survey) plainly have their own "religious" beliefs when it comes to scientific questions. If we understand "religious" in this context along the lines of "unquestioned truths taken on authority" that render "taboo" certain scientific topics of inquiry or which is impervious to rejection by evidence, then it is plain that in some areas the left has elevated "religious" belief over scientific inquiry by turning certain scientific questions into unquestionable articles of faith, rather than open questions subject for scientific inquiry.


AR: TZ isn't explicit yet what topics he thinks science has ruled 'off-limits', but his questionaire is revealing.

Here's a list of questions on which I suspect that if asked of leading leftist intellectualspolitical leaders would reveal among some of them the triumph of their "religious" faith over scientific inquiry:

1. Are differences between men's and women's aptitudes solely a result of society and culture, or is there an evolutionary basis for some of those distinctions?

<>AR: The answer is the latter. Obviously genetics plays a role in our aptitudes as well as society and culture. I despise this artificial philosophical distinction between nature and nurture that TZ is setting up - on the one side he places those who eschew any role for genetics in our differences, essentially a hardcore 'Nurture' position, and the other he fits everyone else under 'Nature'.


2. Do you think that schools should expose children to the scientific hypothesis that evolution has produced innate differences between men and women that partially explains differences in interests and aptitudes, or should they teach that all differences are socially-constructed?

AR: Yes.

-I do think TZ's project is interesting. IMO this snarkiness punctures the condescending tone of the NR piece.

3. Do you believe that Harvard's faculty was correct in censuring President Larry Summers for offering the hypothesis that differential performance by men and women in math and science achievement at elite universities may be in part the result of differential distribution of natural abilities in math and science between men and women at several standard deviations above the mean?

<>AR: Noting first that nothing this openly political was asked in the NR article, my answer to the question is two-fold; one I disagree with censuring him - on freedom of expression grounds, and think it wrong especially in the case of a university personage (prof., assit prof, lecuturer, whatever). For an institution of higher learning to use a weapon like censure is both medieval and repugnant. Two, I think he was intemperate, and even inaccurate in some of his statements. At the least he was 'undiplomatic'.

4. Do you believe that the theory of evolution applies to the evolution of mental traits as well as physiological traits?

<>AR: Yes. Though I admit to feeling queasy at the thought of how this will all play out. Science in general and evolution in particular don't have a great history when it comes to avoiding the taint of racisim or sexism. With the numbing horror of early eugenics programs and the push to find scientific basis for discrimination against certain races part of the love-hate relationship politics and science have, one cannot blame the scientific community for adopting a blanket 'no significant differences' attitude when it comes to investigating human genetics in the modern world. Who would credibly want to fund or endorse science with the specific aim of denigrating one group for another?

Just as we notice subtle and superficial differences in racial genetics like the presence of an epicanthic fold, we will also find similarily subtle and superficial differences in the genetic probabilities regarding our aptitude to run faster, or farther, to play chess, to have bigger or smaller breasts or penises, to be tall or fat, even to be alcoholic or not.

On the whole though, these differences between races are trivial when compared to the benefit our diversity gives us as a species, and to the bond this mutual genetic heritage has between us.

If Darwin (and the Human Genome Project, etc. etc.) have taught us anything at all, it is that no matter our apparent differences we are all human, and we are all kin.