Jeremiah Wright has been overpopulating the news media, as of late. His controversial remarks and racially charged sermons have been so publicly scrutinized that many of us are ready to turn off the TV and scream, “I don’t care anymore!” So, when I tell you that you should listen to my opinion about one of his recent speeches, I fully accept that you might want to stone me.

This past Sunday evening, Rev. Wright gave a speech at the NAACP’s Freedom Fund dinner. His message seemed to be that “different” is not the same thing as “deficient” and that we are on the cusp of transforming society for the better. What I inferred from these two messages together was that social progress will arise out of accepting differences without judging them. What became clear to me, however, is that he has a warped a very dangerous understanding of what constitutes “difference.”

The Reverend summarized a few lines of academic research, one of which is Dr. Janice Hale’s book on the pedagogical incompatibility of African American children and a European-style educational system: “European and European American children have a left-brained cognitive, object-oriented learning style. And the entire educational learning system in the United States of America, back in the early ’70s, when Dr. Hale did her research was based on left-brained cognitive object-oriented learning style.” He proceeded to explain the difference between being left-brained and right-brained and generalized that African American children are right-brained, and European American children are left-brained.

To be perfectly forthright: This is wrong. It is unclear whether Wright has misunderstood the work he is citing or is just simplifying it for popular consumption. However, the scientific theory of individuals having different brain preferences (left versus right) that determine their cognitive abilities has been unanimously discredited. Although cultural differences do play an important role in many theories of racial disparity, there is no neurological distinction between African Americans and European Americans.

What disturbs me so much about Wright’s appeal to pseudo-science in his speech is that it seems so credible. Although he was not preaching in a church, he was certainly delivering this message from the pulpit. So, not only does his theory of difference bolster itself on the credibility of other individuals’ rigorous academic work, it takes on religious significance. Hence, when these claims are absorbed by members of the black church they are not just a scientific hypothesis but the truth of the matter.

The picture becomes even bleaker when we consider the context of this speech. As was communicated by the president of the Detroit chapter of the NAACP, its purpose was to reaffirm the centrality of the black church in the African American experience. If its role is central, and Wright is its spokesman, then his false theory of difference might be likewise central to how African Americans understand themselves. Racial divides in America are not just cultural, they are biological.

What is at stake here is nothing less than the relationship between scientific knowledge and moral judgment. What nefarious conclusions could one reach about our moral obligations to others if we believe, with scientific certitude, that they are fundamentally and irreversibly different than ourselves? The possibilities are frightening and were played out in tragic detail during the first half of the 20th century.

I would argue to my demise that the scientific process should be held completely separate from moral reasoning. They are so utterly different from one another in their scope and application that they cannot, and should not, communicate with one another. Hence, no scientific explanation of human nature should ever be used to support a moral conclusion about the world. Is this what Wright was doing in his speech? Yes.

He believes firmly that the way forward for the African American community is to acknowledge difference and accept it warmly. This is a wise and useful moral claim. However, to say that we must do so because the scientific evidence leaves us no other choice is to horrifically misunderstand what these two claims are about. Any community’s moral conception of the world must be held sacrosanct from the world they find themselves in, lest it be mistaken for just another problem to be solved. Although science can help us understand the world we are in, it must never be taken to describe the world we should strive for. And in mistaking this, the theology of Wright should be resisted.

Justin is a graduate student in religious studies at the University of California, Riverside. Thank you, Champaign.