Do you HATE Evolution? Black Student Throws a Fit in Florida Evolution Class

Cure Socialism ^ | March 22, 2012 | Jonathon Moseley

[Dilbert San Diego]

Hate to stir things up, but, why is it common for prominent black men to have white wives, but not the reverse?? If we’re talking about perceived superior mates and all that, do we really want to go there, talking about how people choose mates????????

[going hot]

EEEVVVIIILLLution!

[GOPPachyderm]

Evolution is inherently racist. There is only one race - the human race.

[dragonblustar]

black men to have white wives, but not the reverse??

Robert DeNiro

[SkyDancer]

Because a Black woman wouldn’t put up with their nonsense.

[xzins]

That is an amazing article. Thanks.

Evolution’s message to us all is: you’re probably worthless.

God’s message is: “For God so loved the world He gave his only begotten Son...”

[DManA]

Peacock is code language for black woman? News to me.

This whole piece is so stupid I urge you to ask the mods to remove it.

[PetroniusMaximus]

The lady is clearly having a psychotic event.

[MCCC]

Its no wonder it upset the child....have a look at the title page of Dawrin's original work.....,http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Origin_of_Species_title_page.jpg What is the next line: or the PRESERVASION OF FAVOURED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE

[svcw]

Black men haven’t been chickafied yet.

[NEMDF]

Agreed. It is a strange post.

[Morgana]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2862192/posts?q=1&;page=51

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

Working and making money is a method of staying alive, it shouldn’t become the reason for living.

Likewise, natural selection is a method for nature to develop “better” creatures, but developing “better” creatures shouldn’t become our conscious goal.

That’s called “Eugenics” and brought us Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Planned Parenthood.

[Lady Lucky]

I thought the “rule” was mainly for men, and Thackeray’s rule applies to females: “A woman with fair opportunities, and without an absolute hump, may marry whom she likes.”

[Hegewisch Dupa]

You were close - but it's ELVIS-lution.

[Lady Lucky]

EVOLUTION IS A DIRECT AND VIOLENT ASSAULT ON THE WORTH AND DIGNITY AND SELF IDENTITY OF HUMAN BEINGS, TEARING DOWN THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF THEMSELVES, AND PITTING BROTHER AGAINST BROTHER AND SISTER AGAINST SISTER, IN AN UNGODLY COMPETITION. Evolution breeds violence, hatred, depression, and despair.

Hey, maybe she was confusing it with capitalism!

[RC one]

the perception of natural advantages conferred to light skinned Americans within the given ecosystem (America) perhaps?

[Talisker]

Do you hate evolution with a passion, yet?

Have you lost your mind?

Evolution exists, like the law of gravity. And just like the law of gravity, you can't apply it as the cause of everything. But it does exist.

Selective breeding is a good example, whether in animals, plants, or humans - some traits are preserved and extended, some traits are not. These are facts. It doesn't mean you have to believe there's no Creator. You just have to apply things properly.

"Hating" a law of nature, a fact seen a billion times a day around us, is idiotic.

And BTW, the woman in the video was obviously mentally deranged before evolution ever got into the picture. She seemed just as likely to go off because of the color the walls were painted, as evolution. Get a grip.

[going hot]

You must mean the imperial war mongor lackeys of the capitalist satan?

[SunTzuWu]

Do you hate evolution with a passion, yet?

The problem isn't evolution. The problen is stupid people.

[Westbrook]

> Evolution is inherently racist. There is only one race - the human race.

Agree 100%. Could not have said it better.

[Lady Lucky]

mongor lackeys

That's RACISS!

[Sherman Logan]

PRESERVASION OF FAVOURED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE

For what it's worth, when Darwin wrote this the word "race" had not yet acquired many of its present day connotation. Nazism, eugenics, etc. were all in the future.

"Race" at the time meant roughly the same as "species," and it was used for plants and animals as well as people. Considering how much he wrote, there is surprisingly little evidence Darwin was racist, even by today's standards. He probably accepted the conventional wisdom (believed scientific) of his day that some groups of humans were inherently superior to other groups. But since he wrote so little about it, it obviously wasn't a big issue for him.

[nerdwithagun]

Bringing up this woman is a bad idea in the debate over evolution. She was A) psychotic, acting violently and a second video of what happens after she is being pulled out by the police shows her being tazed. B) A nasty racist making violent threats at white people. In fairness, her racism might be caused by her being psychotic.

[Matchett-PI]

Why Darwinists Reject Evolution

"....Darwinists specifically do not believe in evolution, being that they reject its very possibility (i.e., directional change into an intrinsically higher state). Rather, they believe in change, a very different thing. In this regard, they are very much like progressives, who also believe in change, but not genuine progress, since their metaphysic abolishes any absolute standard by which real progress can be measured. ..."

[Moseley]

Peacock is code language for black woman? News to me.

No, of course not. But the class was being taught about how evolution means individuals choosing the "SUPERIOR" choice for mating over the "INFERIOR" choice, and that life IMPROVES over time when the "BETTER" mates are chosen instead of the "WORSE" mates.

Carr, as a Black woman, has internalized the assumption that she, as a Black woman, is the inferior choice, and that -- according to evolution -- men are going to choose BETTER women than her, and that THAT IS A GOOD THING.

Her being rejected by men is the essence of evolution and long-term improvement of the human race.

Hate to stir things up, but, why is it common for prominent black men to have white wives, but not the reverse?? If we’re talking about perceived superior mates and all that, do we really want to go there, talking about how people choose mates????????

That's the ASSUMPTION that I believe is animating Carr's violent reaction. True or untrue, Black women perceive that EVEN BLACK MEN would rather have a White woman than Carr.

So evolution = rejecting Black women like Carr as being the bottom of the trash heap.

And if you want to talk about self-esteem issues among young women, evolution teaches that they have no value in and of themselves, but only in competition for a man's seed in relation to other "better" women.

A proper understanding of Christian thinking teaches that DIFFERENT MEN WILL WANT DIFFERENT THINGS because God intended and planned for our differences and diversity. So where one woman is different from other women, THERE IS A MAN WHO WILL PREFER HER AS AN INDIVIDIUAL.

But evolution teaches that there is only one "best" type of woman, and that *ALL* men are going to prefer that one type of woman, ranking all other women as "WORSE" or inferior.

So under an evolutionary mindset, most women will "lose" out to the "best" superior women.

[qam1]

So this Black woman is obviously perceiving that evolution means that men will choose the SUPERIOR candidate for mating and reproduction, and evolution produces "improvement" over time by men selecting SUPERIOR women -- meaning NOT HER.

Whereas Christianity teaches the value and infinite worth of E V E R Y human being in God's eyes,

Soooo Christian men don't look at looks or other charactericts when choosing a mate?

Suuuuurrrrre!!!

This article is just stupid

[Calvin Locke]

Go watch the video. Drudge had the FAU story linked last night. I had to go searching for the easily found video.

For whatever reason, by the time the cameras came out, she was on her way to almost full melt-down mode. Then the death threats started.

The story itself is of interest because of the meltdown.

[Eva]

This might not have been as spontaneous as it is portrayed to be.

The left has been turning against Darwin and his buddy, who came up with the survival of the fittest theory for quite a while. it just doesn’t fit with the endangered species act and the socialist nanny state.

As this woman points out, it’s also in conflict with post modernist progressivism, which holds that all history is nothing but a work of fiction, a meta narrative, designed to oppress the brown people and prop up the Western White Male.

Barack Obama has even mentioned this theme in speeches, saying that our country was not founded on survival of the fittest. (little bit of cognitive dissonance there).

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

Evolution also implies that the black race is inferior to the white race because blacks are one evolutionary step closer to the primate class.

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

sorry, forgot to add...according to post-bellum Democrats.

Fat fingered this morning.

[Matchett-PI]

"The problem isn't evolution. The problen is stupid people."

A major proof of a higher intelligence is curiosity.

The UNcurios would never even think to ask, "Which theory of evolution are you talking about?"

[TexasCajun]

The only thing missing was her jumping on the teacher's desk.

...just another episode of.

Black Girls Gone Wild !!

[count-your-change]

The woman hates evolution because she assumes it to be so.
And that by implication she is being short changed by an evolutionary process. Just some of the nonsense that we can set aside if we believe “the truth will set you free” as Christ said.

[Joe Brower]

"it's ELVIS-lution"

Hah! Beat me to it. That song still cracks me up.

[Moseley]

Evolution exists, like the law of gravity.

Evolution is a HYPOTHESIS which has never been tested and cannot be tested or confirmed pursuant to the Scientific Method.

Evolution is not a theory, in the technical sense. It is not a law.

Evolution is a HYPOTHESIS which is put forward to try to explain the observable world.

But to make it remotely scientific, the evolutionary hypothesis must be TESTED by a repeatable experiment under controlled conditions which is capable of proving or disproving the hypothesis. Experiments must then be REPEATED under varying conditions by various neutral and independent researchers at different locations.

Remember cold fusion? Cold fusion was "proven" as a cheap, clean, limitless energy source by laboratory experiments in Utah. But nobody could reproduce those results anywhere else in any other laboratory. This produced whispers (unfairly) of fraud or deceit.

The evolutionary hypothesis not only has not ever been tested, but it is of course incapable of being tested. Even if we found life on another planet, that would not tell us where life came from on Earth.

The very first things that we learn about science -- and then promptly forget -- is the LIMITATIONS of science and the unprovable assumptions on which scientific analysis is based. There are some things that science can do and somethings it simply cannot. Science is simply not valid outside of its zone of competence.

THE PROBLEM IS that evolutionists refuse to DEFINE what evolution is.

We can very simply "prove" that evolution has never been proven: Evolutionists refuse to DEFINE it.

How can you "prove" something you have never defined?

Evolutionists flip flop around like a freshly-caught fish on a dock, between ORIGIN Of life, DRIFT within species, never-proven transitions BETWEEN species, or just the existence of species that are now longer living.

When evolution is discussed, evolutionists CHANGE CHANNELS RAPIDLY between these different concepts of evolution, yet claim that it has been proven.

[Pecos]

No stranger than the rants encountered here any time Romney’s religion is mentioned.

[allmendream]

The theory of evolution doesn’t teach that blacks are inferior in any way shape or form - other than if they live where their skin filters out too much sunlight and they cannot synthesize enough vitamin D and they don’t take vitamin D supplements - then they might get rickets.

Black skin is absolutely a “superior” adaptation in Africa - otherwise the lighter skinned variations would have predominated over the generations.

Moreover acceptance of the theory of evolution no more necessitates the idea that God did not create humans than acceptance of the theory of nuclear fusion means that God did not create our Sun.

[Hegewisch Dupa]

Honest to God - had heard it in a while; now I’ve walking around the office humming and smiling

[Nifster]

You mean you forgot about Ginny Thomas Clarence’s wife????

[N3WBI3]

I’d also like to point out that two mating peacocks are gay...

Female peafowl are called peahens... So there might be even more to this..

[alexander_busek]

"Hating" a law of nature, a fact seen a billion times a day around us, is idiotic.

Thanks for your clear and concise refutation of the author's argument!

What, after all, could be sillier than attacking a scientific explanation for an observed natural phenomenon merely because it causes some people to suffer self-esteem issues?

Regards,

[Alamo-Girl]

Evolution’s message to us all is: you’re probably worthless.

God’s message is: “For God so loved the world He gave his only begotten Son...”

Indeed, dear brother in Christ!

And if people don't wake up and stop listening to those who would do politics under the color of science, the result will be infanticide on top of abortion:

Steven Pinker, Harvard Professor of Psychology (a "soft" science) - recognized by the National Academy of Sciences with the Troland Award for an evolutionary basis for language - obviously influential and respected - rationalized infanticide in this New York Times article:

Neonaticide forces us to examine even that boundary. To a biologist, birth is as arbitrary a milestone as any other. Many mammals bear offspring that see and walk as soon as they hit the ground. But the incomplete 9-month-old human fetus must be evicted from the womb before its outsize head gets too big to fit through its mother's pelvis. The usual primate assembly process spills into the first years in the world. And that complicates our definition of personhood.

What makes a living being a person with a right not to be killed? Animal-rights extremists would seem to have the easiest argument to make: that all sentient beings have a right to life. But champions of that argument must conclude that delousing a child is akin to mass murder; the rest of us must look for an argument that draws a smaller circle. Perhaps only the members of our own species, Homo sapiens, have a right to life? But that is simply chauvinism; a person of one race could just as easily say that people of another race have no right to life.

Peter Singer - Princeton Professor of Bioethics (ahem...) well known for his animal liberation work has similar ideas about abortion:

Singer states that arguments for or against abortion should be based on utilitarian calculation which weighs the preferences of a woman against the preferences of the fetus. In his view a preference is anything sought to be obtained or avoided; all forms of benefit or harm caused to a being correspond directly with the satisfaction or frustration of one or more of its preferences. Since a capacity to experience the sensations of suffering or satisfaction is a prerequisite to having any preferences at all, and a fetus, at least up to around eighteen weeks, says Singer, has no capacity to suffer or feel satisfaction, it is not possible for such a fetus to hold any preferences at all. In a utilitarian calculation, there is nothing to weigh against a woman's preferences to have an abortion; therefore, abortion is morally permissible.

Similar to his argument for abortion, Singer argues that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood—"rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness"[20]—and therefore "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living."[21]

By Pinker's argument there is no qualitative difference between a human and an insect and thinking there is a difference is tantamount to racism. And Singer would no doubt agree because animal liberation activists have a very low bar for what is autonomous, rational and self-conscience.

And then there is Richard Dawkins, Oxford zoologist and activist for atheism who had this to say about God:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

And of course, Lewontin who is an evolutionary biologist and geneticist had this to say in his review of Sagan's book:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.

They are sowing the wind, they will reap the whirlwind.

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. - Gal 6:7

God's Name is I AM.

[Joe Brower]

"Stuffin' Martha's Muffin" was another classic of Mojo and Skid Roper.

I first saw Mojo Nixon in San Diego in the mid-80s when he was with the Beat Farmers. "California Kid" and "Happy Boy" are classics.

[Mike Darancette]

Carr obviously perceives that BEING BLACK IS ASSUMED (by many) to be INFERIOR and that evolution means that men CHOOSE women based upon what is perceived to be SUPERIOR qualities.

That's what generations of Black "Leaders" have been telling people so why shouldn't she believe it to be true?

[<1/1,000,000th%]

...evolution teaches that this Black woman is INFERIOR to other women, to be discarded and rejected in the evolutionary march toward perfection.

This is not what biology teaches. This author is delusional.

[TexasCajun]

Jonatha Carr must not have read:

[Teotwawki]

Selective breeding is a good example".....

Of evolution? I suppose it depends on what you mean by evolution. Creationists don't have a problem with selective breeding but if you start with dogs, no matter how many generations you selectively breed, you still end up with a dog. Now if you could selectively breed to the point where you end up with something other than a dog, I'll be impressed.

[Hegewisch Dupa]

Not like her name comes up on a daily (weekly, monthly, or really, even yearly) basis - but when ever it does, I can’t help thinking “I want to be IN Martha Quinn”