I am 5'10" tall, born and raised in Western society. I am taller than my most of my ancestors, but only marginally taller than my father. He grew up in India, but his family was non-vegetarian in a village of pure vegetarians.
We might have been able to be a little taller if we understood nutrition a bit better, but it's probably within an inch or so. Our height is limited by genetics, not by environment.
It stands to reason that if physical attributes like height are subject to genetic determinism, aspects of our brain & mind should be too. Now, comparing brains to height is very reductive, since the brain is infinitely more complex. But there's a probably a pretty good reason why my father and I have very good memories, and are fairly intelligent people. But we're also not superstar athletes, or great artists. Genetics and environment have optimized our brains in a certain way. And I'm already seeing the same traits in my 1 year old son.
But isn't that the beauty of genetic determinism? Isn't that the beauty of all of us having vastly different life experiences? I don't lament the fact that I don't have the genetics of Usain Bolt, but I can admire and appreciate his prowess. Similarly, I don't lament the fact that I'm not a great creative like Picasso or Mozart. Something about their genetics and environment allowed them to achieve greatness in areas I am not capable of. And that's fantastic, because our society is enriched because of this diversity.
I think a society that celebrates the individual, gives them the resources and environment to achieve whatever they're capable of, and thus, reach the limits of their own genetics is one I'd like to live in. Realistically, most of us are not even close to be limited by our genetics, but man, how awesome would it be if we were?
And if you don't believe in creationism and also don't believe that intelligence is subject to evolution, then you need some very good explanation where intelligence comes from in the first place.
Worse it comes absolutely loaded with social and political implications. It doesn't describe anything we can really point to, but is just a highly charged, culturally variable label we place on a cluster of outward appearances (e.g. excess or lack of melanin, hair or eye color, height).
You might be able to tell if a particular individual is likely to have a lack of melanin or blue eyes from DNA, but you can't say genetic differences are caused by race. That in the famous words of Pauli is not even wrong.
It's a category error, and even if it were useful it also inverts the causality. We apply the label "race" to a cluster of possibly DNA influenced outward markers. We humans cause "race" and apply it to people. Not genetics.
Using a poorly defined term like race in an argument like this is worse than just poor reasoning. It will confuse people at best and cause harm at worst.
It's not unacceptable because people are afraid of the truth or something.
It's unacceptable because it's incoherent, vacuous and empty. It adds nothing to the discourse.
Either you're making a scientific point or you're just complaining that people get upset when you discuss race. Which is it?