> then in our Darwinian might makes right mentality that many seem to subconsciously adopt, those of superior capability must rule tyrannically over those of inferior ability.
This is not the cause of prejudice you may assume it is. Two reasons:
1. Many people can separate the idea of statistical traits falling on a population-wide bell curve from it having any relevance to any individual within that population.
2. Prejudiced idiots will continue to be prejudiced idiots with or without such data.
Regardless, the data is what it is. Pretending it isn't won't fix anything and trying to supress it won't work either. "Equality through obscurity" will fall for the same reasons "Security through obscurity" fails.
Your comment re "Christian ethic" is so bizarre I'm not even going to address it. People can and do have equal rights despite having different traits. Every human is born with innate value and natural rights separate from any individualized traits.
Within the standard evolutionary worldview, where humans are just part of a continuum of life stretching back to lifeless chemicals in a primal ooze, there is no logical basis for inherent human rights. Any such rights can only at best be a pragmatic social construct to be discarded on a whim.
At any rate, it sounds like you are unaware of the history of your culture.
This is likely a category error. Natural facts don't necessarily have anything to do with moral facts. There are plenty of non-naturalistic arguments for natural rights.
There at least has to be something ontologically different between humans and other creatures for humans to have special status. But everything in naturalism is just reducible to physical laws, so everything is ontologically equivalent. Can't have a moral order with monism, since you need multiple things to have an order.
I don't see why the acceptance of morals facts requires attributing some special ontological status to humans. You would have to be assuming something about animals or humans that doesn't seem entailed by anything discussed thus far.
Furthermore, mathematical monism absolutely is compatible with a moral order and the world we experience, as but one counterexample.
In our finite world of tradeoffs, rights mean one thing must give way to another. For example, plants have lesser (no?) rights than humans, hence we eat plants and not humans.
Without a value ordering, which requires something other than monism, such common sense tradeoffs make no sense.
This is not the cause of prejudice you may assume it is. Two reasons:
1. Many people can separate the idea of statistical traits falling on a population-wide bell curve from it having any relevance to any individual within that population.
2. Prejudiced idiots will continue to be prejudiced idiots with or without such data.
Regardless, the data is what it is. Pretending it isn't won't fix anything and trying to supress it won't work either. "Equality through obscurity" will fall for the same reasons "Security through obscurity" fails.
Your comment re "Christian ethic" is so bizarre I'm not even going to address it. People can and do have equal rights despite having different traits. Every human is born with innate value and natural rights separate from any individualized traits.