Editing Theodosius Dobzhansky (section)

=== Debate about race ===
Theodosius Dobzhansky and [[Ashley Montagu]] debated the use and validity of the term "race" over a period of many years without reaching an agreement. Montagu argued that [[Race (human categorization)|"race"]] was so laden with toxic associations that it was a word best eliminated from science completely. Dobzhansky argued that science should not give in to the misuses to which it had been subjected, and that the concept of [[Race (biology)|animal and plant races]] has been important in biology; the [[Modern synthesis (20th century)|modern synthesis]] used the concept for describing the [[Divergent evolution|diverging]] biological populations differing in gene frequencies. This was done in hopes that its foundation in [[population genetics]] would undermine the deeply ingrained social prejudices associated with "race".<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Farber|first=Paul Lawrence|year=2015|title=Dobzhansky and Montagu's Debate on Race: The Aftermath|journal=Journal of the History of Biology|volume=49|issue=4|pages=1–15|doi=10.1007/s10739-015-9428-1|pmid=26463495|s2cid=27698937}}</ref>

His concern with the interface between humans and biology may have come from different factors. The main factor would be the race prejudice that contributed in Europe that triggered [[WWII]]. His concern also dealt with religion in human life which he speaks about in his book ''The Biology of Ultimate Concern'' in 1967. "The pervasiveness of genetic variation provides the biological foundation of human individuality".<ref name=Ayala/> Dobzhansky talks about in great detail that "human nature has 2 dimensions: the biological, which mankind shares with the rest of life, and the cultural, which is exclusive to humans."<ref name=Ayala/> Both of these are believed to have come from "biological evolution and cultural evolution".<ref name=Ayala/>

Dobzhansky sought to put an end to the pseudoscience that purports genetic makeup to determine race, and thus rank in society. Harrison E. Salisbury wrote in a [[New York Times]] review of Dobzhansky's book ''Heredity and the Future of Man'' that Dobzhansky could not, together with other scientists, agree upon what defines a race. Dobzhansky stated that a true bloodline for man could not be identified. He did not believe that a person's genetic makeup decided whether or not he would be a great man but rather that man "has the rare opportunity 'to direct his evolution'".<ref name="NYT1964">{{cite news |title=Books of The Times; The Future of Man |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1964/12/19/archives/books-of-the-times-the-future-of-man.html |access-date=8 March 2023 |work=The New York Times |date=19 December 1964}}</ref>