Okay, so you start off with Franklin, explaining that Watson cites one of her unpublished works, a work that was published in the SAME issue of Nature, with a co-author, which just happened to be the main evidence for the structure of the DNA molecule...seem a bit odd to you? And basically, yes, I think Watson is given a lot more credit than he ever deserved, but that's normal in the politics of science, so who cares?
So...I read the article - and it was a huge waste of time. This is why I hate the "blogosphere". These people could do with a LOT of editing, as he contradicts himself from section to section, cites dubious articles to make his main points while using out of context quotes from legitimate papers to try to strengthen his specious reasoning and far reaching conclusions - in essence exactly what I thought the article would be, except longer, and all the while the evidence points in the exact opposite direction.
Oh...did I mention that his points are all founded on psychology by PhD's in psycholology? I think there are 2 geneticists he actually quotes in that damn article, and it's just to attack their character, rather than their work. If that's the kind of crap that GNXP allows on their boards I'm glad I haven't heard of it, cause it's a huge waste of time.
And all the dealing this guy does? Each argument he makes can be invalidated by the simple assertion that the research he quotes provides only correlations, not causations. The difference is that correlations don't necessarily mean anything, but they might, and more study is needed. I agree that more study is needed, as nothing has been conclusively shown.
Your style of writing reminds me a lot of the bloggers. Lots of name calling and generally dismissive posturing backed by spurious and unsupported evidence.
Watson has done a lot for science, and genetics research, but any good scientist should know that you're only as good as your last theory. I stand behind what I said, and I see no reason to change my opinion based on anything you've written. Maybe you should look into some philosophy and social justice pieces. I would recommend first a great study of misuse of statistical data titled: True But Wrong (forget author). Then check out Mestizo Identity. Very interesting takes on categorizations, how they're used, and how they came about. Gives you a better idea of what you mean when you say "race".