Are The Religious More Tolerant Than Social Scientists?

A new book by science writer Nicholas Wade seeks to explore the possible connection between evolution and race but in a recent op ed the author points out that in some ways religious people have become more tolerant than those social scientists who think of themselves as being warriors against racism and ignorance.

The book, A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History, is being attacked by those Ivory Tower profs in the social sciences. But with this attack they have proven themselves to have essentially become anti-intellectual and anti-science as the genome project expands humanity’s knowledge about the building blocks of our biology.

In a June 22 Wall Street Journal op ed, Mr. Wade seeks to expose the ignoramuses in the so-called social sciences.

The problem, as Wade sees it, is that the social sciences have become so hardbound with their claim that “race” is only a “social construct” that they are purposefully ignoring the scientific evidence that is being discovered by geneticists that race truly does have a genetic component.

Despite the truth that is emerging from genetic research, though, the social sciences cannot get past their now obviously incorrect assumption that race is only in our imagination.

The big problem, according to the author, is that with their societal pressure and campaigns of political correctness in our nation’s oppressive universities, professors of the social sciences are preventing real scientists from learning just what part race plays in our makeup. He then notes that genetic scientists are discovering that there are some differences between the genes of the peoples living in our major areas of population, and these facts seem to make the lie to the long held, nearly religious beliefs of the PC social scientists.

I should note that I am the one saying “real scientists,” not Wade. This is because “social science” isn’t science at all. Genetics is, sure, but social science is only so much voodoo and guesswork.

Regardless, Wade closed his WSJ piece with a very interesting point, the one that gave me my headline above.

In the confrontation between religion and evolution in the 19th century, believers eventually perceived that they could not cast Darwin out with a pitchfork and didn’t need to. Faith, as long as it didn’t overreach, could coexist with science, and all but fundamentalists have accepted that arrangement. Social scientists too could safely agree to live with Darwin, once they accept that evolutionary differences between human groups can today be explored without the return of racism.

So, religious people have been proven to be more open minded, tolerant, and accepting of science than those “social scientists” who have proclaimed themselves the most tolerant humans in history!

That is quite a truth, isn’t it?

Shortlink:

Posted by on June 24, 2014.
Filed under Asshats, Big government, corruption, Culture, Culture Of Corruption, Democrats, Leftist Tolerance, Liberals, Science.
Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago-based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites such as Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com and BigJournalism.com, RightWingNews.com, CanadaFreePress.com, RightPundits.com, StoptheACLU.com, Human Events Magazine, among many, many others. Additionally, he has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs to discuss his opinion editorials and current events.He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the new book "Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture" which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is also the owner and operator of PubliusForum.com. Feel free to contact him with any comments or questions, EMAIL Warner Todd Huston: igcolonel .at. hotmail.com"The only end of writing is to enable the reader better to enjoy life, or better to endure it." --Samuel Johnson

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • Paul Hooson

    For some people, religion teaches a lot of moderation and respect for others. My father was one of the first soldiers in Korea in 1950 when the million man Chinese PLA overran 90% of South Korea. One day a superior officer asked my dad what job he did on the outside in the states, and my dad told him he had been a baker since he was 16 years old. His superior officer asked if he any objections working with an all African American and Korea kitchen staff. My father had always been a respectful Catholic and had no problem whatsoever with African Americans as the neighborhood where my father lived was largely African American. – My father found that Catholic religious services were not always available in war times, so he would go to a Buddhist Temple to pray, feeling that it’s all the same God we worship, regardless of our church or skin color. – And my father was kind of proud of me when I attended a Jehovah’s Witness Kingdom Hall for a while and even hosted Bible study groups at my home, telling me that I sure brought some very fellows over to the house.

    Religion made my father very tolerant of others and respectful of other faiths. And I liked the overall tolerant views of the Jehovah’s Witnesses that had many African American and other people of color who were congregation members. Compared to many White Evangelicals and Baptists, the Jehovah’s Witnesses were seemingly liberals, although very religious. Their philosophy was best described as “For me and my house” as doing right in the eyes of God, and not concerned with imposing their expectations on others like many so-called Christian conservatives often do.

    On the other hand, I had one Catholic nun as a teacher that was very prejudiced when it came to religion. She believed that God only lived in the Catholic Church, and that God was not present in other churches which I think is a terrible prejudiced view. God does live in all churches, synagogues and mosques, temples, etc. – Some people or churches don’t always act right, but God is there if people want God to be. One of my Jewish friends always referred to the time he went to the syngogue as going to “Gospel” because it was life lessons in how to live right and have a generous spirit towards others taken from the word of God. I thought that was a beautiful attitude.

    • Jwb10001

      Paul could you just once not give us your autobiography, or if you must could you manage to produce a readers digest version?

      • Paul Hooson

        Faith is a thought provoking process, JWB.

        • Jwb10001

          Seriously Paul this is a blog no one reads 1000 word essays here.

          • jim_m

            Meh, it was only 415 words. But yes, I seem to recall that the issue that every topic is about him has come up before…

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Nearly as often as he comments…

          • warnertoddhuston

            I… I hope you men just in the reply sections cuz… uh….

          • Jwb10001

            Of course, I’ve always thought the idea is to read the post then comment, not read the post and then post another post about yourself and how your life is something everyone needs to hear about.

      • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

        That would be why I spare myself reading his comments…

        • jim_m

          I’ll wait until the biography comes out.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            I shan’t read, let alone purchase, that either.

      • jim_m

        The scary part is that I think that was the Reader’s Digest version.

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      Yeah, one or two points and brevity is more likely to get a positive response.

      You had some good points, btw, but you need to issue machetes so we can cut through the verbiage.

  • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

    That (religious [Western] people more open minded, tolerant, and accepting than “Social Scientists”) has been obvious to anyone paying reasonably close attention for quite a while now.

    • Walter_Cronanty

      Amen

  • Commander_Chico

    A very confused post, given that some religious people are intolerant of basic natural science. They are still fighting Darwin in Texas.

  • JWH

    In the confrontation between religion and evolution in the 19th century, believers eventually perceived that they could not cast Darwin out with a pitchfork and didn’t need to. Faith, as long as it didn’t overreach, could coexist with science, and all but fundamentalists have accepted that arrangement. Social scientists too could safely agree to live with Darwin, once they accept that evolutionary differences between human groups can today be explored without the return of racism.

    I think the phrase “all but fundamentalists” is key here.

  • alohasteve

    CLASS ACT:
    Amy Adams gives up 1st Class seat to US Soldier…

    http://commoncts.blogspot.com/2014/06/amy-adams-gives-up-first-class-seat-for.html