racist rhetoric

[Larry Gorbet]

Ronald Kephart <rkephart at unf.edu> wrote:

>And in any case, Celso has beaten me to to the
>punch with the above, which for me defines the root of the problem I
>have with much of evolutionary psychology, and indeed much of
>psychology in general.
>
>The hypotheses that these folks construct about "race" and
>"intelligence," or "race" and whatever, seem to always accept folk
>categories ("race," "intelligence") as analytic categories. For
>example, they take "black" and "white" to be real biological
>entities, they look at some "IQ" test scores, and conclude that they
>have found genetically determined differences between genetically
>determined groups on a genetically determined trait.

This characterization of evolutionary psychology is outrageously
inaccurate.  What Kephart has done is take the views of a *minority*
of evolutionary psychologists and attributed them to all.  In other
words, he has very inaccurately stereotyped, presumably based on
those who get the most media publicity?  Of the half dozen or so
folks at my institution I might call evolutionary psychologists (in
departments of anthropology, biology, and psychology), exactly zero
accept, for example, the biological category of "race" for modern
humans.

If anybody out there believes what Kephart has written, what evidence
supports your view?

- Larry