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

Cure Socialism ^ | March 22, 2012 | Jonathon Moseley

[Moseley]

Here is evolution for you:

http://upressonline.com/2012/03/fau-student-threatens-to-kill-professor-and-classmates/ This is very sad. And it seems crazy at first.

BUT THINK ABOUT IT. It is obvious to me what is going on here. Yes, I am guessing / reading between the lines. But I think it is very clear.

The class was being taught about EVOLUTION:

A fellow classmate, Rachel Bustamante, was sitting behind Carr prior to her outburst and noticed she had been avoiding looking at the professor until 11:35 a.m. — that’s when she snapped. The classmate reported that Kajiura was discussing attraction between peacocks when Carr raised her hand to ask her question about evolution. She asked it four times, and became increasingly upset each time Kajiura’s answer failed to satisfy her.

DID YOU CATCH IT? The professor was discussing the evolutionary role of "attraction between peacocks."

In other words, how do animals / people choose a mate?

If you remember what evolution teaches, it teaches that INDIVIDUALS *MATE* BASED UPON PERCEIVED *SUPERIOR* CHARACTERISTICS for evolution.

So this Black woman Jonatha(?) 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.

What evolution means to Carr -- and who can blame her, logically? -- is that men are going to choose "BETTER" women than her, and she is not going to get chosen as a valuable person or desirable mate.

Hence, the discussion of how animals, like peacocks, CHOOSE A MATE based upon how they other one LOOKS.

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, and that every man and woman is not only valuable just for who they are, but infinitely valuable in God's heart, evolution teaches that this Black woman is INFERIOR to other women, to be discarded and rejected in the evolutionary march toward perfection.

Buried in her thinking must be the idea that Black men (so the cliche goes, true or untrue) prefer White women over Black women. (I suspect this flows from Blacks being persecuted and wanting the affirmation of being valued by a perceied more powerful class, not because there is anything inherently superior about White women over Black women in an evolutionary sense.)

God looks over the vast diversity of human types and characteristics, and says IT IS GOOD: ALL OF IT. All of the vast differences and variety. There is no "better" or "worse" in God's eyes. There is no human being more (or less) valuable than this Black woman Carr. Everyone is equally cherished in God's heart.

Somewhere, if we can learn to follow God's plans (which unfortunately is much more difficult and mysterious than it sounds, and can be a frustrating search), God knows the PERFECT CHOICE of a man for Jonatha Carr.

NO, the man isn't perfect, any more than Miss Carr is perfect. No one is perfect. Marriage involves the strange situation of two VERY IMPERFECT human beings trying to live a life together without killing each other. Therein lies the challenge of learning to APPLY God's principles in real life. Marriage is like the "lab class" in comparison with the "class lecture." We get to put into practice during the week what God tries to teach us on Sunday.

But God says that if Miss Carr can put her trust in God's hands, there is a perfect choice of a mate for her. God doesn't move on our time table, and God can be frustrating sometimes. But in God Miss Carr lacks nothing.

However, evolution tells Miss Carr that life is a hostile, adversarial, dog-eat-dog COMPETITION in which she is necessarily going to be the LOSER because (in her mind, as she has been bombarded with negativity) being a Black woman puts her at the bottom of the list of choices.

Evolution means survival of the fittest and (she thinks) that ain't her.

Can you see now why she yells "I HATE EVOLUTION!"

The question is:

DO YOU?

DO YOU HATE EVOLUTION, TOO?

For the very same reason that Miss Carr understandably hates evolution, shouldn't we all?

Evolution is not simply an irrelevant side show for those who believe in God.

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.

There is not a single human being alive whom God does not want. And there is not a single human being alive whom God wants any more than any other.

Yet evolution tells this young Black woman - and any one else who has ever, temporarily, felt inferior for a moment in time -- that she is destined to be discarded by life, that she is trash to be excluded and rejected by the world.

Do you hate evolution with a passion, yet?

[spirited irish]

” How to escape? By turning time back upon itself. By uncreating history/reality/mankind(Darwinism),...”

Spirited: I negelected to add that modern theories of evolution, i.e. Darwinism, assault time in a different way. They place time on an eternal escalator going ‘up, up, up.’

This way there can be neither stabilty nor tradition, let alone fixed truth-claims, moral absolutes, enduring principles, and natural law as there is only change-—change everlasting.

And what becomes of Jesus Christ, for imperial change bypasses Him as well?

[xzins]

I think it doesn’t even approach being worthless. This article is conjecture about what bothered her about the peacock discussion.

It is not about the behavior of the young lady.

So, the author’s theory is that the girl hated the notion that some are labeled inferior and that she might just be one of them. He used the classroom disturbance to launch a discussion of evolution’s teaching that some are superior and some are inferior.

It’s a reasonable discussion whether or not his theory about her behavior proves to be accurate. Her behavior was simply a launching pad for the discussion.

[Moseley]

No, that is what ignorant creationists teach about evolution - it is not at all a precept of evolutionary biology that there is only ONE trait that is “Superior” and all others are “Inferior”. Some traits are selected for by the environment and/or mate selection - other traits are selected against by the environment and/or mate selection. Add to that the fact that mate selection tends to be associative - and you find that short people tend to prefer short mates - tall people tend to prefer tall mates - dark haired people tend to prefer dark haired mates, etc, etc, etc. People tend to mate associatively for incisor length as well - although I have NEVER said to myself “Have you checked out the incisors on THAT babe?”. So it is not the case that only ONE trait is perceived by potential mates to be superior in all cases. A short blond male may prefer a short blond female over a tall brunette. I am tall and dark haired and I prefer a tall brunette (in general) to a short blond. That being the case, how could one say that mate selection determined one female to be superior and the other as a candidate for removal of those characteristics from the human race?

You are veering back and forth between what is observed apart from evolution and what is supposedly required by evolution.

You are assuming your conclusion, that a person's choice of mates DOES have an evolutionary purpose, rather than simply a PERSONAL PREFERENCE. You cannot shake yourself out of that assumption.

If God created diversity, than God would create A DIVERSITY OF DESIRES so that some men would desire certain types of women, and other men would desire other types of women, so that THERE IS SOMEONE FOR EVERYONE.

But you are trapped by force of habit in your assumption that mate selection must serve a UTILITARIAN purpose -- rather than just pleasing the individual in the short term. Evolution depends upon the idea that mate selection -- natural selection -- has a utilitarian dynamic. That is an unproven assumption. But one you have adopted very deeply.

I do prefer brunettes. I have seen many beautiful blondes, some of whom I personally am attracted to, but I am more attracted to brunettes than blondes. Maybe that is just my personal taste. Maybe there is no evolutionary or utilitarian meaning to that whatsoever.

If God made some women red heads, but no one was attracted to women with red hair, and as an iron rule "[ALL] Gentlemen prefer blondes" (which isn't true), then there would be no one desiring the red haired women. All men would prefer blondes, and no one would want the red heads. On the contrary, everyone likes different things. One man might melt at the sight of a brunette, while another one would crawl on his hands and knees for the chance to marry a red head.

Again, the topic is that the teaching of evolution in a public college (you can quibble about whether it is being taught perfectly or correctly) has made this female believe she is -- as she is being taught -- inferior, and destined by the march of progress for the trash bin of human evolution. She rants about hating evolution and asking the teacher how evolution kills black people.

Yes, her emotional tirade is bad behavior and is unacceptable behavior in class. But her question - though speaking from deep emotional hurt, feeling de-valued and cornered as worthless -- is quite poignant: DOES THIS MEAN THAT EVOLUTION KILLS OFF BLACK PEOPLE, PREFERRING WHITES AS SUPERIOR CHOICES FOR MATING. If even Black males (the cliche goes) would rather mate with a White woman than mate with her as a Black woman, then DOESN'T IT FOLLOW (IN HER UNDERSTANDING) THAT THE TEACHER IS TEACHING THE EVOLUTIONARY EXTINCTION OF BLACK PEOPLE IN PREFERENCE TO WHITE PEOPLE? NO doubt she has been burned by Black men she liked dating White women instead, SO SHE TAKES IT PERSONALLY.

[tacticalogic]

The only information I've seen about what the instructor was teaching was that it was about the mating behavior of peacocks. Can you please tell me why that is objectionable?

As far as the woman being treated scornfully, I don't think that has anything to do with the fact that she disageed with ToE, but with her means of expressing it. We have our disagreements, but if either of us expressed them in the manner and terms this woman did in the classroom I think we'd be justifiably banned/suspended and given a well deserved pounding by the forum membership for it.

[allmendream]

What kind of evolution is “The creative Word of God”? Was it spoken in the beginning and now whispered? In other words - is the “creative Word of God” still changing living things? So every time a bacteria adapts to a cold environment it is tuning in to the “creative Word of God”?

You said, in answer to if you could teach the scientific principles of evolution (you JUST SAID you accepted evolution) without making a “Darwinist” argument - you said you could - and it would be Genesis 1 and 2.

So will you stop torturing ME with nonsense?

And yes, any actual explanation of evolution, it is obvious to you - is a “Darwinist” explanation - unless it is strictly limited to Genesis 1 and 2 - thus no scientific argument at all.

Apparently you also think the rational response to being presented with a scientific principle is to rant and rave and make death threats. She made them directly - usually they are the death threat of eternal death - i.e. if one accepts evolution (as a scientific principle to those of you in Rio Linda) they are going to hell.

[allmendream]

I am basing it on scientific data upon mate selection.

People who are mates are not as genetically distinct as two strangers.

A rat raised with a mother given a lemon scent will respond better to a female with lemon scent.

This is not conjecture - it is fact - fact which -as with most of what evolutionary theory actually is - you are completely ignorant of.

It is most likely that she heard arguments like yours which made her both ignorant and crazy when the subject of evolution was being taught in a class she signed up for.

Actual scientific arguments about human evolution would have taught her that black skin is a beneficial adaptation for equatorial climates, and that there are plenty of men out there that are going to like black women, and that on an evolutionary basis - blacks seem to be doing just fine. Lots of diversity, a growing population, and plenty of mates to select from that will appreciate her particular brand of beauty.

[Alamo-Girl]

This article is conjecture about what bothered her about the peacock discussion.

It is not about the behavior of the young lady.

Indeed. She obviously went "postal" or had a psychotic break in response to either what the professor said - or she thought he said.

Perhaps she took the "inferior" remark personally - perhaps there was a recent break-up and that word was used as a sword against her or blacks in general?

[Andy from Chapel Hill]

God created evolution.

[xzins]

Her behavior has nothing to do with the discussion.

[tacticalogic]

You make it sound like ToE is responsible for the fact that being hateful, vindictive, rude and obnoxious generally tends to make it more difficult to find someone who wants to spend their life with you.

It sounds like the men she was dating found someone else more agreeable and she's looking for someone to blame for that and you're willing to go along with it as long as she's blaming Darwin.

[tacticalogic]

Her behavior has nothing to do with the discussion.

Her behaviour has everything to do with the comments made about her.

[betty boop]

Dear allmendream, haven't you in the past professed yourself to be a Christian? (I could be misremembering.)

If you are a Christian, then why do you seem to have so much difficulty with "the creative Word of God?"

Here's an interesting article that can help you grasp that concept: The Six Dawns. I hope you will read it.

Though I wonder whether this information can penetrate your obsessive belief that if something isn't "scientific," then it has no value — other than to the morons who live in Rio Linda, to which group you clearly assign me.

Thanksalot!

[xzins]

The discussion is about the darwinism’s consignment of human beings to inferiority.

The illustration kicking off that discussion is, as is every illustration, not the point.

[allmendream]

I am a Christian and I do believe in the Creative word of God AND evolution; as do millions of other Christians.

I find no contradiction between God using evolution as his creative mechanism involving life, just as God uses gravity and nuclear fusion to create stars and our Sun.

Would Genesis 1 and 2 be a good explanation for how God creates stars?

It certainly isn't a good explanation for how life changes over time in response to changing environments.

So is a bacteria tuning in to the “creative Word of God” every time it adapts to changing circumstances? Isn't there also a corresponding change in DNA?

How could one describe that change in DNA without it being a “Darwinist” argument?

Do you think it is possible to describe how that DNA changes without it being a “Darwinist” argument?

[betty boop]

Perhaps she took the "inferior" remark personally — perhaps there was a recent break-up and that word was used as a sword against her or blacks in general?

There are historical precedents that could make her fearful that she might be regarded as "inferior" — for instance, the three-fifths of a person language of the federal Constitution (finally corrected by the 13th & 14th amendments); or the eugenic character of Darwinist Margaret Sanger's ambitions with respect to preventing "inferior people" from breeding — the original raison d'être of her organization, Planned Parenthood. It seems that Sanger regarded black people as an "inferior people": She was a racist as well as a eugenicist....

Oh, and did I mention that Sanger was a thorough-going Darwinist?

We don't know what actually set the young lady off. Though her reaction seems disproportionate, I wouldn't necessarily call it irrational.

Thank you so much for your observations, dearest sister in Christ!

[allmendream]

You have a rather backwards view of our Constitution.

There was nothing in the 3/5ths provision that would make one race inferior to another. It established that those who were in a condition of involuntary servitude are not having their full interests recognized by the elected representatives of their state.

Nothing in the 13th or 14th Amendment “corrected” the notion that an elected representative of a ‘slave State’ did not fully represent the interests of someone in a condition of involuntary servitude - the 13th corrected that someone COULD be held in a condition of involuntary servitude - and the 14th established equal protection under the law.

It is usually liberals who hate and wish to denigrate our Constitution who make the argument that it said a black was less than fully human - and that is both incorrect - and a reprehensible smear on our foundational document.

[MD Expat in PA]

We don't know what actually set the young lady off. Though her reaction seems disproportionate, I wouldn't necessarily call it irrational.

Disproportionate but not irrational? Really? Really? Did you or Moseley even actually watch the video?

If you do be forewarned because every other word she uses is the F bomb in between threatening to kill her fellow students and the teacher and “wishing all you White Mother F’ers would die.”

That’s way more than “disproportionate” in my book.

I have a feeling I know what set her off and it had nothing to do with Darwin, Evolution, Sanger or eugenics. I highly doubt she could even spell eugenics live alone know what it is.

[betty boop]

Let me try this — a general explication of the creative Word of God in terms of Aristotelian causal language.

The Son of God is the creative Word of God — Logos Alpha and Omega — that is to say, from the Beginning to the End. Thus we have First Cause (the Beginning) and Final Cause (the Purpose for which the Beginning was made), and Immanent Cause in between.

The Creation is something that unfolds in space and time — that is, it evolves from a beginning to an end. Intervening causes are constrained or "entailed" by the Final Cause, for which the Beginning was made. Immanent Cause basically refers to the intervening "guides to the system" that were loaded into the system (so to speak) in the Beginning by God's Creative Word.

This is the causal context of the Creation, or of the Universe if you prefer. It is the context within which science (and everything else) happens.

This does not mean that God has to directly step in to effect change in, say, DNA (your example).

You ask me if it is possible to describe how DNA changes without resort to a Darwinist argument. But why use a "Darwinist" argument for anything having to do with DNA? Charles Darwin never even heard of DNA....

[betty boop]

I have a feeling I know what set her off....

Oh. And what would that be?

[tacticalogic]

The illustration kicking off that discussion is, as is every illustration, not the point.

Of course it's not the point. It is an illustration of the point (that's why it's called an "illustration"). The point being made is that she hates evolution to the point of threating to kill people for talking about it. And you should, too.