The problem with all the arguments about IQ and race is that we can't really measure IQ and we don't really know what it is. Until we can, arguments are meaningless. I am certainly more knowledgeable than the President, but am I smarter? Could I have made it to the Presidency with his advantages? I don't know, but I doubt I have his "political instincts." But I do know more than him about evolution, history, global warming, and anything else in Wikipedia, excepting baseball. U.S. Grant was a brilliant soldier and writer, but a failed president and businessman. So what was his IQ? If we only knew about his political and business careers, we would think he was pretty dumb.

IQ is the "liberal creationism" but not because the other side has the science. Neither side has any science. All that science can say now is that the factors that affect IQ--however IQ is defined--are hopelessly intertwined.

I agree.

I believe you could create a memory test and scientifically determine that white people have better memories than black people. Setting aside the 'what is race' issue, I don't think anyone could argue against it. But when you use a loaded term that doesn't bare any scientific basis, 'Intelligence', you better be able to define that term to at least some rigor.

If someone can point me to this scientific definition of intelligence, I would in all sincerity be very interested to read it. Likewise, what tangible thing does the IQ test really measure?