Here is one example: https://evolutionnews.org/2018/09/once-again-about-the-word-darwinism/
Here is how we responded: Reckoning With Human Zoos
Here is another example (referenced link therin, and the following article that was so bad we decided against linking to it): Realism in Science and Scripture
Here is how I responded: How does the isolation of Tasmania impact recent universal ancestry?
Here is another example responded to by @jongarvey that was repeated over and over for literally years, even though I’m sure the person referenced knew better: The racist Adam | The Hump of the Camel
@jongarvey most recently (and quite helpfully) commented on this last year: Playing the racist card | The Hump of the Camel .
It is always hard to respond to race baiting. Usually it presents you with a lose-lose proposition, where you can’t really get around it without talking directly about race. But people are so bad at talking about race that it becomes a big morass, which is exactly what makes race baiting so effective in the end.
Basically, the conversation at times has gone like:
-
Some scientist says that X is true, and we have a ton of evidence for it.
-
I say well, that isn’t exactly right, because you forgot Y, so you should probably stop saying X.
-
The first scientist responds, but Y is racist (or some variant of this).
-
So now I’m in a serious bind. Y certain is not racist, but now my only path forward is to engage the emotionally charged topic of race, starting from the deficit of trying to live down a public accusation of racist ideas. Very early on in this, the first scientist slinks off, while I navigate the mine field.
-
Now, in the aftermath, everyone forgets the first point I made, that X may not be actually that well supported by the evidence. Rather, people are debating back and forth whether or not my counter example Y is racist.
So, you can see, race baiting is incredibly effective at deflecting legitimate criticism. The cases we’ve seen it have been very charged.
My general approach, where I think it has worked out best, is where we take advantage of the moment, to really make progress in our understanding of race and racism. Independent of my scientific points on population genetics of Adam and Eve, these questions of race are really important.
When I have responded at my best (e.g. Reckoning With Human Zoos and How does the isolation of Tasmania impact recent universal ancestry?), it has been an opportunity to humanize the neglected and abused among us. It was meaningful and valuable to learn together about Ota Benga, and about Tasmania’s colonization. There is value in talking about these things in the end.
Race baiting, ultimately, is a profoundly dehumanizing way to exploit race and racism. The challenge is to respond in a humanizing way.