Posted on 03/22/2012 7:44:32 AM PDT by 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?
Therefore there is no good way for a male to “cheat” by producing lots of testosterone to, for example, grow a magnificent rack of antlers - without an equal and opposite hit on the immune system.
So if a female deer sees those amazing antlers - but the buck looks diseased and sickly - she will take a pass. But if the buck has amazing antlers denoting high testosterone production - AND he has a healthy coat and looks fit as a fiddle - she is going to go for that!
He demonstrated that he had a very healthy immune system - while he was growing an impressive rack of antlers - fueled by testosterone production.
“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.”
*******************************************************
The linked piece is an incredibly stupid overreach of inference. Remember, ASSUMPTION IS THE MOTHER OF ALL FOUL-UPS. This woman is mentally ill and could have snapped in an Accounting 101 class and started to rage on about “it doesn’t balance”. We shouldn’t read into the situation anymore than is actually in it—a sad bi-polar breakdown.
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?
I'll wager that among the people who profess not to believe in evolution I could show them a picture of Janet Reno and get nearly universl agreement that she is not someone they would describe as an attractive woman.
No I don't.
Being attracted to a particular characteristic in a mate is ITSELF an evolutionarily-significant characteristic, which may tend to be passed to offspring. As long as a characteristic is not fatal, there will be a large diversity of characteristics passed along. Thus some of us are tall, some are short, some are dark haired and some are blond. Some are exceptionally fast. Others are very strong.
There is an advantage to a diversity of characteristics in a population. The environment may favor those who thrive in hot weather at the moment. Next year we may start an Ice Age, and cold-tolerant characteristics may be favored.
Also, keep in mind that whatever one's preference in mates, one can only select from among potential mates WHO HAVE SURVIVED to mating age.
You’re welcome! I agree. :)
What kind of question is that? I mean, what's the equal sign doing in there?
You are trying to draw me into an acknowledgement that Darwinist evolution is about the origin of species, not the origin of Life. Okay. I so acknowledge.
But the problem of origin of Life does not go away: If matter is all that there is, then it must — all by itself — in some way account for the origin of Life. For we observe that ours is a living universe, or at least one primed for life.
There is a deep "mystery" of an ersatz religious quality embedded in the notion of abiogenesis, a/k/a biopoiesis: How inorganic matter bootstraps itself into organic (i.e., "living") matter.
I do not see rocks bootstrapping themselves into life forms. So on the basis of direct observation, I assume that inorganic matter has no capability to do this.
No wonder you want to make sure that we do not conflate evolution with abiogenesis!
But again, the problem of the origin of Life does not go away, even if Darwinists aren't interested in the problem. How can they be — when their own presuppositions entertain only "naturalistic" (i.e., materialistic) explanations?
And yet what kind of a science can biology be, if it refuses to ask the most essential question that ostensibly belongs to a science of Life (biology = study of Life): What is Life itself? And how can we answer that question, if we do not know what the origin of Life is?
Thank you for writing, tacticalogic. Long time no see!
Kind of going off on a tangent here, she was not personally attacked by anyone.
You can’t justify her tantrumm as her being personally offended by the theory of evolution itself. It is not the same as someone that has a relationship with her deliberately trying to hurt her and make her feel worthless. One is a theory that is easily objected to without taking it personally as a pointed attack right at you. The other cannot be taken any other way than that.
It shows irrationality and immaturity not to be able to properly distinguish between the two. In short, you do not react to a professor posing a theory you totally object to, and an intimate person you know deliberately attempting to make you feel like garbage. If she can’t figure that out, she is not a grown up woman, but a child.
Do you not understand the difference between atheism, and believing that God created life with the ability to evolve? Many people do, and you insult them every time you post something like that.
Of course I do, tacticalogic.
I am a very strong proponent of the idea that "God created life with the ability to evolve."
But still there is a problem: If Darwinists want to promote inorganic matter as the magic genie that alone makes life and consciousness possible, then they have to "bump off God" first.
If I "insult you" by stating the obvious, I am very sorry for your pain....
So would you be a “Darwinist” as well - if you accept that life can (and does) evolve?
Is it possible to accept evolution and NOT be a “Darwinist”?
Is it possible to accept evolution through natural selection of genetic variation and NOT be a “Darwinist”?
Are all “Darwinists”, by your definition, also atheists?
You sure seem to think so based upon your previous posts.
And there’s the sticker. A totally naturalistic explanation cannot be proposed without “bumping off” God. Either Mankind and the Universe “like Topsy just growed” or it is a product of creation and a Creator.
The premise of the argument presented in the article is everyone should hate "evolution", not philosophical naturalism, and your arguments play directly into that. Being a proponent of evolution, I'd think you'd know better.
Absolutely!
Genesis 1 and 2 are very clear that the Creation is ever-created and sustained by the Logos of God, Alpha to Omega. That is to say, the Creation was made to evolve in space and time, from its Beginning (origin) to its End (final consummation).
That is to say: I don't need to be a Darwinist to grasp the idea of "evolution."
To your question — "Are all 'Darwinists', by your definition, also atheists?" — my answer would be: Not necessarily. However, hard-core materialists can probably be reliably placed in that category. Cf.: Dawkins, Lewontin, Pinker, Singer, Monod, et al. (Not to mention their "fan clubs.")
On the contrary, the young lady who objected to what the professor was saying may have been the only person in the room who was not a "philosophical naturalist." I do feel fairly assured that the professor was such, and therefore a Darwinist as well (and thus very likely a materialist; the two just go hand-in-hand, like peanut butter and jelly).
I do not think the young lady's objection was the least bit irrational. It seems she understands the "fundamentals" of Darwinism better than the Darwinists purport to do....
On what evidence? It's also possible somebody convniced her she should hate evolution because Darwin was a white guy.
Indeed: There is no third causal alternative that I can see.
Perhaps if such folks could be disabused of the widely prevailing notion nowadays that faith and reason, science and philosophy (including theology, the "queen of metaphysics") are necessarily mutually-exclusive, basic intellectual sanity could be restored. They are not mutually-exclusive: This notion posits a false dichotomy. What they are instead, are complementary knowledge domains — which have been mutually assisting one another for some seven millennia by now.
This I suppose would be news to those people who hold human history in so much contempt that evidently they believe the world only started on the day they were born....
The main Homeschool Ping List handles the homeschool-specific articles. I hold both the Homeschool Ping List and the Another Reason to Homeschool Ping list. Please freepmail me to let me know if you would like to be added to or removed from either list, or both.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.