Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Ideologies of Intellect
"One of the world's most eminent scientists was embroiled in an extraordinary row last night after he claimed that black people were less intelligent than white people and the idea that 'equal powers of reason' were shared across racial groups was a delusion.
"James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner for his part in the unravelling of DNA who now runs one of America's leading scientific research institutions, drew widespread condemnation for comments he made ahead of his arrival in Britain today for a speaking tour at venues including the Science Museum in London."
"The 79-year-old geneticist reopened the explosive debate about race and science in a newspaper interview in which he said Western policies towards African countries were wrongly based on an assumption that black people were as clever as their white counterparts when 'testing' suggested the contrary. He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade."
"Dr Watson stated at the weekend that he is 'inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa... because all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really'. He went on to argue that although one hopes that everyone, regardless of ethnicity, has equal powers of reason 'people who have to deal with black employees find this not true'."
Peace and blessings,
The following excerpts were taken from the first two articles below. I heard aboutJames Watson's (link to bio: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1962/watson-bio.html) comments a few weeks ago. In terms of his claim that there may be differences between the intellect of Africans and that of Europeans, I don't see a problem with that statement per se. Given the different experiences of people who grew up in different environments (e.g. Africans, Asians, Indians, Europeans, etc...), I think it is plausible for there to be some differences in intellect to a certain extent. Much of our cognitive development and how we approach and solve problems in influenced by the environment we grow up in and how we interact with that environment. Therefore, insofar as different groups of people lived in different environments, I would expect to see some differences in how their cognitions and their approach to solving problems, namely because certain problems are more or less salient in certain environments, and therefore the type of environment we grow up in will determine the nature and extent of our interaction with that environment. The problem I have is with his statement that Africans are less intelligent that Europeans, because to utter such as thing suggests that certain peoples' intellect is "better" than others. All men were created in God's image (Genesis 1:27) and He shows no partiality (2 Chronicles 19:7; Job 34:19). Furthermore, He instructs us to not show partiality towards our fellow brothers and sisters (Leviticus 19:15; Deuteronomy 1:17). Despite these instructions, however, there appears to be something in our sinful nature that makes it easy for us to not only make distinctions between one another, but to associate value judgments based on these distinctions. Now it's obvious that God created a wide variety of difference cultures and ethnicities, and we should celebrate these differences as reflecting God's beauty and brilliance. The problem comes when we attach more value to certain groups or characteristics than others, because then we are showing partiality.
Another issue I have with Watson's claim is that his so-called evidence is suspect. For a world renowned molecular biologist to claim in 2007 that Africans are not as intelligent as Europeans, and to base this claim on IQ tests in the 1990s that showed some differences between racial groups, is problematic. For one, many have argued that IQ tests are flawed and biased. Also, I don't see how he can have the audacity to suggest that Africans are not as intellegent as Europeans, given that many humanity's intellectual contributions to the understanding of the world (e.g. science, philosophy, mathematics) either originated or was epitomized and "borrowed" from the Egyptians, who are North Africans. Lastly, no one can dispute the fact that life began in Africa, which would explain why Africa is home of the first university in the world, the
University of Timbuktu.
In the book Dreamkeepers: Successful Teachers of African American Children (Gloria Ladson-Billings, 1997), the author recalls a teacher who told her students in her math class about the African Orgins of Algebra, and how the first definitive evidence of the use of Algebra were found in the writings of Ahmes, an Egyptian mathmetician who lived around 1700 B. C.
In closing, I just pray that we get to a point where we can celebrate difference as one of God's may gifts to human kind, and to view these differences not as our limited, flawed nature wants us to view them, but how God our Creator views them. Given that we did not create any aspect of our being (e.g. brain), we are in no position say one group's intellect is better than another's. To start passing value judgments on people's intellect is to suggest that we know everything there is to know about intellect, and history clearly shows us otherwise, lol. What do you think? What are your thoughts on Watson's comments? Do you think that groups of people can generally differ in their intellect? Stay blessed, encouraged, and speekonit...
1)theory on race and intelligence
2)The basis for Watson's assertion
3)Watson responds to critics
4)Watson's institute does not cosign on his theory
"James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner for his part in the unravelling of DNA who now runs one of America's leading scientific research institutions, drew widespread condemnation for comments he made ahead of his arrival in Britain today for a speaking tour at venues including the Science Museum in London."
"The 79-year-old geneticist reopened the explosive debate about race and science in a newspaper interview in which he said Western policies towards African countries were wrongly based on an assumption that black people were as clever as their white counterparts when 'testing' suggested the contrary. He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade."
"Dr Watson stated at the weekend that he is 'inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa... because all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really'. He went on to argue that although one hopes that everyone, regardless of ethnicity, has equal powers of reason 'people who have to deal with black employees find this not true'."
Peace and blessings,
The following excerpts were taken from the first two articles below. I heard about
Another issue I have with Watson's claim is that his so-called evidence is suspect. For a world renowned molecular biologist to claim in 2007 that Africans are not as intelligent as Europeans, and to base this claim on IQ tests in the 1990s that showed some differences between racial groups, is problematic. For one, many have argued that IQ tests are flawed and biased. Also, I don't see how he can have the audacity to suggest that Africans are not as intellegent as Europeans, given that many humanity's intellectual contributions to the understanding of the world (e.g. science, philosophy, mathematics) either originated or was epitomized and "borrowed" from the Egyptians, who are North Africans. Lastly, no one can dispute the fact that life began in Africa, which would explain why Africa is home of the first university in the world, the
In the book Dreamkeepers: Successful Teachers of African American Children (Gloria Ladson-Billings, 1997), the author recalls a teacher who told her students in her math class about the African Orgins of Algebra, and how the first definitive evidence of the use of Algebra were found in the writings of Ahmes, an Egyptian mathmetician who lived around 1700 B. C.
In closing, I just pray that we get to a point where we can celebrate difference as one of God's may gifts to human kind, and to view these differences not as our limited, flawed nature wants us to view them, but how God our Creator views them. Given that we did not create any aspect of our being (e.g. brain), we are in no position say one group's intellect is better than another's. To start passing value judgments on people's intellect is to suggest that we know everything there is to know about intellect, and history clearly shows us otherwise, lol. What do you think? What are your thoughts on Watson's comments? Do you think that groups of people can generally differ in their intellect? Stay blessed, encouraged, and speekonit...
1)
2)
3)
4)
Labels: African, DNA, Egypt, European, God, ideologies, intelligence, James Watson, science
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Loving to Agitate
Peace and blessings,
Now i'm not really an insect person, but the Gadfly is a particularly interesting insect, given 1) its characteristic behavior and 2) who this behavior affects. A Gadfly is a type of fly that annoys livestock. Yeah that's right, all they do is basically agitate livestock. Even more interesting, however, is
While at a Christian leadership conference last November, one of the speakers said something that resonated deeply with me. He said that as Christians, EVERY (social) situation that we find ourselves in (e.g. a meeting, an event, a discussion, an organization, etc...) should be different (changed) simply because we are in it. This is not to say that it is something about us that people should pay attention to, because first and foremost it is not us but God through us, and we are called to be humble. What it is saying is that when people see and interact with us, they should see that God lives in and works through us. This idea of the Gadlfy was also expressed by
"You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste (its strength, its quality), how can its saltness be restored? It is not good for anything any longer but to be thrown out and trodden underfoot by men. You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a peck measure, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all in the house." (Matthew 5:13-15)
The conference speaker's statement, and its scriptural justification, deeply resonated with me on two levels. For one, the statement resonated with me because pragmatically, it makes sense. Since we have been saved by, and thus called to represent JC, then this representation should be evident through our daily actions. Again, this is not to say that we intentionally draw attention to ourselves as if we're saying "look at me, the super holier-than-thou Christian." This should never be our motivation for doing anything. On another level, the statement resonated with me because it causes me to constantly evaluate my life and ask the following questions: Am I letting my light shine in every situation that I find myself in? Am I decreasing so that God can increase and get the glory?
No what's the connection between what I've just mentioned and the ugly insect at the beginning of the post? The connection, at least in my opinion, will easily be seen once the Gadfly's actions are explained in further detail. As mentioned earlier, the Gadlfy is known for annoying livestock. Although the term "annoying" tends to have a negative connotation, there are times when being annoying can be a positive and loving thing. If the purspose of annoying someone or something is to preserve their life (e.g. it could very well be the case that if not agitated by the Gadfly, some livestock would die in their sleep through choking or through some other means), then such agitation is warranted. Similarly, I think that we as Christians have a similar calling, to agitate those persons, structures, and ideologies that seek oppress and destroy. Through LOVE, we should constantly be letting our light shine in a way that represents JC in a world that often tries to suppress Him. In terms of being a loving agitator, JC was the best to do it. During his ministry, he showed unconditional love for prostitutes, criminals, and sinners, while at the same time changing (spiritually, mentally, socially, and in some cases physically) every situation He was apart of. In Matthew 10:34-35 he says
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to part asunder a man from his father, and a daughter from her mother, and a newly married wife from her mother-in-law--"
What I take from this is that although JC loved us so much as to die for us and incur the burden for our sins, he also came to "shake things up" so that people can follow Him. Given that Jesus was a revolutionary (e.g. he challenged the oppressive structures and advocated for the marginalized) in addition to being our Savior and Redeemer, we are called to "shake things up" in our groups, organizations, communities, and sometimes even our families, so that God's light can be seen through us.
What do you think? What do you think it means to be a Gadfly? To let your light shine in all situations? Weigh in and speekonit...
Labels: agitate, Christians, communities, gadfly, God, humble, ideologies, JC, love, Matthew, mental, ministry, organizations, social, society, spiritual
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
