<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
<title>AgnosticWeb.com - Race, materialism and genes</title>
<link>https://agnosticweb.com/</link>
<description>An Agnostic&#039;s Brief Guide to the Universe</description>
<language>en</language>
<item>
<title>Race, materialism and genes</title>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>An excellent essay as a book review:-http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/09/a_troubling_book_nicholas_wades_genetic_theory_of_race_and_history.html-&amp;quot;Anyway, &amp;#147;adaptations&amp;#148; are fairly well understood and &amp;#147;racial&amp;#148; differences remain obvious though unexplained.-&amp;#13;&amp;#10;&amp;quot;However, the important point is that Wade joins the long parade of materialist, physicalist philosophers who wish to reduce man to mere matter, the better to understand him -- or so they think. Though this reductionist view dates back to the ancients, it was revisited when Darwin wrote that human behavior was a product of &amp;#147;instincts&amp;#148; since he thought humans are only animals.-&amp;quot;But this theory was discredited by the end of the 19th century just as by the end of the 20th century the &amp;#147;genes are destiny&amp;#148; theory fell into disrepute. The latter became embarrassingly clear when Richard Dawkins concocted his frothy notion of &amp;#147;selfish genes&amp;#148;. Strange that materialists deny volition to humans while bestowing it on genes which are, after all, only proteins.&amp;quot;--&amp;quot;Wade admits as much when he writes that free will can veto any genetic predilection. But this admission unravels Wade&amp;apos;s argument, for as David Berlinski writes, &amp;#147;there can be no slippage&amp;#148; in a materialist, Darwinian system where everything must contribute to the organism&amp;apos;s survival -- which free will decidedly does not do.&amp;quot; -&amp;#13;&amp;#10;&amp;quot;Indeed, under materialism the problem of self-refutation becomes a stumbling block. To wit: if Wade&amp;apos;s own &amp;#147;thinking&amp;#148; results from the mere excretion of chemicals, why would it be reliable? And why would a materialistic, accidental process like Darwinian evolution produce a reliable brain?&amp;#13;&amp;#10; -&amp;quot;Is the &amp;#147;answer&amp;#148; that all ideas are explainable by physical processes, except when they are not? Thus, Wade exempts himself from his own genetic proclivities.&amp;quot;-&amp;#13;&amp;#10;Lots of fodder here from discussion. Again Darwin and eugenics are related, or conflated?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
<link>https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=17248</link>
<guid>https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=17248</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 06 Dec 2014 20:50:12 +0000</pubDate>
<category>Introduction</category><dc:creator>David Turell</dc:creator>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
