Race and Challenging Discourses

I found Michael Stebbin's book Sex, Drugs, & DNA pretty interesting, and not a difficult read. Enough subtle humor to string it all along so you hardly know you got it from the Science and Engineering library! Definite liberal bias. Well if I had more time I'd like to explore the topics of the book more in depth, but seeing as class is starting and i haven't looked at the book in a little bit now, I've lost the meaningful passages. Here's a few i was able to rummage through and find again... The book covers science in general, stem cells, cloning, sex, gender, genetically modified stuff, race global warming, bioterrorism and such, the pending flu pandemic, drugs, healthcare, and science education..

"Remember: race is only a controversial issue because of racism. If it weren't for prejudice, race would be about as interesting as the genetics of hair color or any other run of the mill physical trait."

I do agree with this statement. Race (especially tied to ethnicity and as referenced in discourse) is essentially a culturally established category. While there are clear differences between people deriving from different geographic localities, they are more or less as inconsequential as eye color, just given cultural weight especially because of the history surrounding racial "discovery" and imperialism.

"One notion that has cropped up among those interested in ensuring racial equality is that there is no biological or indeed genetic basis for race. This is, of course, preposterous. There are undisputed biological differences between different populations in the world - from disease susceptibility to alcohol tolerance - and some of those difference happens to correspond with race. The real question for some time has been to what extent are there biological differences between different races."

here's the numbers he gives:

about 3 billion nucleotides in the human genome

99.9% of them are the same between any two individuals

so about 3 million differ

"10% of human genetic differences lie between people from different continents"

so that's only 300,000 nucleotides in difference corresponding to race

"the majority of the differences [between individuals] are common to all races and thus existed before the human peanut butter was spread around the world"

As I said, different but no more so (in fact less so) than other differences is the human genome. Indeed I can vary more from another person who looks like me than from a person of the exact opposite racial spectrum (strange thought), just in less visible, or invisible ways.

And on evolution/creationism in schools:

"What they all common is that they invoke God to explain the natural world and that they believe there has been a vast anti-Christian conspiracy amongst non-Christians and scientists to undermine their faith. Either way, the issue boils down to teaching faith in science classes rather than teaching proven science. The same people who want creationism taught as an alternative to evolution would be up in arms if a Muslim community announced that they would teach from the Koran in a science class.

If you ask a creationist if there is anything that could convince them that strict creationism does not provide a rational explanation of the real world, the answer is invariably 'No.' Thus, rational discourse over scientific findings ... falls apart through rigid unscholarly rhetoric based on religious extremism. This has prevented most fundamentalist Christian children from learning that there is nothing in the theory of evolution that really threatens the Christian faith."

It does boil down to a knee-jerk reaction to say "no" to something that seems alien (especially when it's surrounded by the controversy that evolution/creationism is. I can't tell you how many sermons were taught to me, mostly in youth group, about how to combat the evil that was evolution the big bang). And indeed Christianity and evolution can peacefully coexist in an individuals beliefs.

Of course such absolute rejection and denial without true engagement in any rational discussion or discourse isn't monopolized by evolution/creationism. Turn on Fox News if you're a democrat, or watch a Michael Moore documentary if you're a republican (or indeed look at anything which you fundamentally disagree with) and most likely you will find it hard to truly engage the piece on any real level. Instead you will probably criticize and challenge the discourse, and generally further justify your own opinions. Then switch to something that agrees with your opinions. You will likely feel engaged, but most likely it's more mental self-congratulations and reassurance than anything else. The problem with this means of engagement is that no one gets anywhere. They just reinforce their beliefs and clash with those who don't agree. That's why people always say not to talk about religion or politics.