EDITORrnThomas FlemingrnMANAGING EDITORrnTheodore PappasrnSENIOR EDITOR, BOOKSrnChilton Williamson, ]r.rnEDITORIAL ASSISTANTrnMichael WashburnrnART DIRECTORrnAnna Mycek-WodeckirnCONTRIBUTING EDITORSrnHarold O.j. Brown, Katherine Dalton,rnSamuel Francis, George Garrett,rnE. Christian Kopff, Clyde WilsonrnCORRESPONDING EDITORSrnBill Kauffman, ]acob Neusner,rnJohn Shelton Reed, Momcilo SelicrnEDITORIAL SECRETARYrnLeann DobbsrnPUBLISHERrnAllan C. CarlsonrnPUBLICATION DIRECTORrnGuy C. ReffettrnPRODUCTION SECRETARYrnAnita CandyrnCIRCULATION MANAGERrnRochelle FrankrnA publication of The Rockford Institute.rnEditorial and Advertising Offices:rn934 North Main Street, Rockford, IL 61101rnEditorial Phone: (815)964-5054.rnAdvertising Phone: (815) 964-5811.rnSubscription Department: P.O. Box 800,rnMount Morris, IL 61054. Call 1-800-877-5459.rnFor information on advertising in Chronicles,rnplease call Rochelle Frank at (815) 964-5811.rnU.S.A. Newsstand Distribution by Eastern NewsrnDistributors, Inc., 1130 Clevelarrd Road,rnSandusky, OH 44870.rnCopynght © 1995 by The Rockford Institute.rnAll rights reserved.rnChronicles (ISSN 0887-5731) is publishedrnmonthly for $39.00 per year by The RockfordrnInstitute, 934 North Mam Street, Rockford,rnIL 61103-7061. Second-class postage paidrnat Rockford, IL and additional mailing offices.rnPOSTMASTER: Send address changes tornChronicles, P.O. Box 800, Mount Morns,rnIL 61054.rnThe views expressed in Chronicles are thernauthors’ alone and do not necessarily reflectrnthe views of The Rockford Institute or of itsrndirectors. Unsolicited manuscripts cannot bernreturned unless accompanied by a self-addressedrnstamped envelope.rnChroniclesrnVol. 19, No. 6 June 1995rnPrinted in the Unitt-d States of AmericarnPOLEMICS & EXCHANGESrnOn Intelligencernand RacernSamuel Francis is among America’s bestrnpublicists. It is thus painful to read hisrnpraise (March 1995) of three materialist,rnpro-robot scientists, particularly thernmost materialist of the three, for whomrncivilization is determined by cold versusrnhot climates and their “cognitive demands.”rnIn Philippe Rushton laudatio,rnFrancis quotes the barbaric passage: “therncognitive demands of manufacturing sophisticatedrntools and making fires, clothing,rnand shelters (as well as regulatingrnthe storage of food . . .) would have selectedrnfor higher average intelligence levelsrnthan in the less cognitively demandingrnenvironment in sub-Saharan Africa.rnThose individuals who could not solvernthese problems of survival would haverndied o u t . . . ” Well, well, I did not knowrnthat this kind of primitive Darwinismrnwas still around.rnI ask Messrs. Rushton and Francis:rnWhy, then, is Egypt’s civilization higherrnthan that of the Eskimos? Why has Indiarnproduced a greater architecture, poetry,rnand dance than Siberia? Why didrnAmerican Indians produce the Maya,rnAztec, and Inca empires amid a generallyrnhot climate, and the Canadian Indiansrnnothing of the sort?rnThe danger of talking about race isrnthat such talk soon ends in determinism.rnAnd the question arises: What factorsrndetermined the determinist savant?rn—Thomas MolnarrnRidgewood, NJrnDr. Francis Replies:rnWhile I cannot speak for Professor Rushton,rnthe questions raised by ThomasrnMolnar in criticism of the former’s evolutionaryrntheory of racial differences inrncognitive ability do not seem to mc to invalidaternthe Rushton thesis. Contrary tornDr. Molnar’s caricature of the Rushtonrntheory as “cold versus hot climate” determinism,rnRushton argues that environmentalrnchallenges in some regionsrnserved to select for populations withrnhigher (largely hereditary) cognitive abilities.rnClimatic temperature is only onernsuch determinant that is particulariy relevantrnto racial differences between thernancestors of Northern Europeans andrnAsians on the one hand and those of sub-rnSaharan Africans on the other during thernIce Age. It remains plausible that, ifrnhigher cognitive abilities flourishedrnin Egypt, India, or Central America,rnthey did so because of the presence ofrnselective pressures other than climaticrntemperature, while such pressures didrnnot exist in certain other regions whererncivilization never arose.rnWithout a careful examination of thernprehistories of these civilizations, it is notrnpossible to specify what those pressuresrnmight have been, but it would providernuseful work for students of civilization torninvestigate the matter.rnWith regard to the “three materialist,rnpro-robot scientists” (Murray, Herrnstein,rnand Rushton), they do not seem torndiffer from all other scientists, physicalrnand social, in their scientific methodologyrnand assumptions. It is curious thatrnfew people object when those methodologiesrnand assumptions are applied tornany natural or social phenomena otherrnthan race. Only when they are appliedrnto the study of racial differences arernthe standard and commonly acceptedrnmethodologies and assumptions ofrnmodern science questioned and denouncedrn—as “materialism,” “Darwinism,”rn”determinism,” and other epithets.rnEven those who do question modernrnscience on philosophical grounds seemrnto suspend their objections convenientlyrnwhen it comes to modern medical, engineering,rnand industrial applications of itsrnpresuppositions.rnAs for “determinism,” I have torndismiss this as something of a bugaboo.rn”Determinism” as I understand it meansrnsimply the idea that all events have necessaryrnand sufficient causes. In the firstrnplace, I know of no one who seriouslyrnargues that by themselves the geneticrnbases of cognitive skills compel any particularrnbehavior. In the second place,rnwhether one accepts the abundantrnempirical evidence for genetic differentiationsrnin behavior or not, surely no onerndenies that something caused some peoplesrnto create and others not to createrncivilizations, and whatever that somethingrnmight be, it is surely no less “deterministic”rnthan human intelligence andrnthe genetic forces that in large partrndetermine it.rn4/CHRONICLESrnrnrn