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?

[betty boop]

It's also possible somebody convinced her she should hate evolution because Darwin was a white guy.

Oh pul-eeze....

Talk about a "straw man argument!"

[Moseley]

Being attracted to a particular characteristic in a mate is ITSELF an evolutionarily-significant characteristic, which may tend to be passed to offspring.

Absolutely false. This is simply you ASSUMING THE CONCLUSION -- which is a fundamental error of evolutionists.

You assume that the selection of a mate has a purpose in terms in terms of the type of offspring that will result, and that use your assumption to try to justify your erroneous conclusion.

A human being can (usually does) choose a mate based on how that mate makes THEM feel, without the slightest interest in any factor (conciously or subconsiciously) affecting their offspring.

A woman may marry a man simply because he makes her laugh. You will then want to concoct some strained assumption that laughter has some evolutionary benefit. No, that is circular reasoning trying to assume the end point and then use that to get you from her to there. Marrying someone who makes you laugh may have NO value other than FEELING GOOD RIGHT NOW in the present, without any long-term benefit, intended or accidental. In fact, a man who makes a woman laugh may be impractical, lazy, distracted from getting work done, always focused on jokes instead of providing for his family, having fun while procrastinating, etc. In other words a BAD provider for the children.

Similarly, animals may "choose" a mate for no other reason than phsyical proximity. In Alaska there may be an owl in mating season. In Maine is an owl whose mating with the Alaska owl would produce an evolutionary superior result. However, the Alaska owl is going to "choose" the owl in the next tree over, NOT the preferable choice living in Maine. The "choice" may be nothing more than whatever animal recognizably of the same species is CLOSEST. In fact, I would dare say that this the case 90%+ of the time.

Ever try to get a cat to eat? One would think it would make sense for a cat to eat when there is food. It may always be the same food. But whether the cat eats or not may have nothing to do with SELECTING the food, but just whatever mood the cat is in. So "selecting" a mate may be nothing more than whichever cat of the opposite sex is nearby when the finicky cat gets in the right mood.

Especially for animals with large RANGING territories, the very idea of "selection" is a fallacy. Whatever specimen happens to be somewhere nearby when the mood strikes may be all the "selection" that is going on. Following the scents, there is more "selection" derived from whether the wind is blowing from the East or the wind is blowing from the West than any evolutionary characteristic.

And any evolutionary pressure that might still exist is wiped out, erased, and overwhelmed where there is a significant amount of randomness such as which way the wind blows.

So the assumption that any choice of mate serves an evolutionary function is simply ASSUMING evolution as true in order to try to prove evolution.

[tacticalogic]

Strawman you say? They’re teaching things like “Critical Race Theory”, and you’re telling me that it’s just not possible someone convinced her of that. Only your assumptions and your conclusions can possibly be valid.

[allmendream]

What mechanism do you propose accomplishes evolution?

What evidence do you have that the teacher was doing anything OTHER THAN explaining the scientific principles behind a phenomena that you purportedly accept?

Would there be any way to teach the scientific principles of evolution without presenting a “Darwinist” argument?

Could you do so?

You don't think death threats are the least bit irrational in response to presentation of a theory you purport to accept?

[betty boop]

They’re teaching things like “Critical Race Theory”, and you’re telling me that it’s just not possible someone convinced her of that.

To that, my riposte:

If she's bright enuf to understand what a swindle Darwinism is, then maybe she's bright enuf to understand what a swindle “Critical Race Theory” is.

Whatever the case, you do not know this young lady from a hole in the ground. And so I believe it is extremely ill-advised of you to impute motives to her.

But such a thing — if you do it — falls squarely into the "straw man argument" category.

Sorry. Try again. But please do not further abuse this young lady. It seems to me, she has far more common sense than you have.

[PapaBear3625]

A woman may marry a man simply because he makes her laugh. You will then want to concoct some strained assumption that laughter has some evolutionary benefit. No, that is circular reasoning trying to assume the end point and then use that to get you from her to there. Marrying someone who makes you laugh may have NO value other than FEELING GOOD RIGHT NOW in the present, without any long-term benefit, intended or accidental. In fact, a man who makes a woman laugh may be impractical, lazy, distracted from getting work done, always focused on jokes instead of providing for his family, having fun while procrastinating, etc. In other words a BAD provider for the children.

Right. And if this was two hundred years ago, a woman selecting a bad provider just because he was funny would likely have resulted in her and her offspring starving to death. Today, not so much.

Natural selection only operates in an environment where non-optimum characteristics tend to result in death.

[betty boop]

Would there be any way to teach the scientific principles of evolution without presenting a “Darwinist” argument?.... Could you do so?

Certainly! I would simply refer you to Genesis 1 and 2.

These books do not purport to be "scientific" texts. But it seems to me that all of science — indeed, all of human rationality — is absolutely premised on them.

Whatever the case, read these texts — with an open mind and an open heart.

Maybe if you do, you will learn something new and valuable about cosmic and terrestrial evolution....

[tacticalogic]

Whatever the case, you do not know this young lady from a hole in the ground. And so I believe it is extremely ill-advised of you to impute motives to her.

Seems you've already done as much to the instructor and everyone else in the class.

[allmendream]

That would be a big zero.

Genesis 1 and 2 is no more an instruction on the scientific principles of evolution than it is an instruction on the scientific principles of nuclear fusion.

What do you think the mechanism of this evolution you say you believe in is?

Is it natural selection of genetic variation?

Would explaining the mechanism you say you believe in be a Darwinist argument?

[Tired of Taxes]

I hope she was expelled from the college and charged with assault or whatever charges apply. No one there seemed very afraid; they were laughing at her. But, there should be consequences for that kind of behavior.

[metmom]

Next....

[betty boop]

Seems you've already done as much to the instructor and everyone else in the class.

Well, as to the instructor, it seems reasonable to infer that he was a Darwinist giving instruction to his "pupils" with regard to Darwinist theory. As for the rest of the class, I cannot characterize them. If they're students, however, they are probably at the mercy of the instructor....

All I know is that one person in that room objected to the "instruction": the young lady who has so far drawn a considerable amount of scorn on this thread.

But certainly not from me.

I don't have impute any motive to the young lady at all to simply recognize that she may have been the only person in the room at the time who was troubled by the instruction. And it seems to me she had good logical grounds on which to object....

FWIW.

[Alamo-Girl]

When arguing they are little different than a rock, then they also argue they can be crushed.

So very true, dear brother in Christ! Evidently they are not thinking clearly.

[Alamo-Girl]

Truly, they are up to their eyeballs in "epistemic difficulties!"

But this problem rarely seems to catch the attention of Darwinists — and other professional atheists. Matter is king; random processes somehow cause matter to create "order" — but it's an order that cannot even be thought about really, since in Darwin's theory there is no (non-random) criterion by which the resulting order itself can be evaluated.

Indeed. Their reasoning gets twisted like a pretzel as they try to eliminate final cause (which suggests first cause) - without which it makes no sense to discuss purpose or function in nature. And of course biological systems are characterized by just that: purpose or function.

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

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

‘Every woman alive is capable of behaving that way if she feels deeply threatened and rejected in the core of who she is.’

I beg to differ. I have NEVER known a woman that acted that way or ever would act that way. Ive known women that have been humiliated by their husbands and left alone to pick up the pieces but they handled themselves with dignity and respect.

A women that finds her self worth in others especially in men may act that way when rejected. A woman that finds her self worth in God would not.

[betty boop]

Genesis 1 and 2 is no more an instruction on the scientific principles of evolution than it is an instruction on the scientific principles of nuclear fusion.

Oh pul-eeze, allmendream, will you stop torturing me with nonense like this? I never said Genesis was an instruction manual on "scientific principles." My claim is that it gives us humans the very CONTEXT in which scientific principles can arise in the first place.

What do you think the mechanism of this evolution you say you believe in is?

I do not believe evolution involves any concept of "mechanism" whatsoever, at least not at the level of first principles. The creative Word of God is not a "mechanism."

Would explaining the mechanism you say you believe in be a Darwinist argument?

Obviously not — on the basis of my own statements, above.

[Alamo-Girl]

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?

Oh so very true.

It's quite easy to find publications in Biology cataloging what life looks like - but precious few that discuss what life "is", e.g. Rosen.

Thank you so much for all your wonderful essay-posts, dearest sister in Christ!

[Alamo-Girl]

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.

That would be very helpful to everyone!

Thank you for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!

[TChad]

This woman is mentally ill and could have snapped in an Accounting 101 class

Not according to some posters here.

This is one of the sickest FR threads I can remember.

Hint to Freepers: Don't defend a hate-filled racist who is issuing death threats while she is having a mental breakdown. People will suspect that you are just as crazy as she is.

[spirited irish]

betty: This I suppose would be news to those people who hold human history in so much contempt

Spirited: But then time (unfolding story of history) itself is one of their primary enemies.

God the Father called all things into existence, set celestial bodies in motion and time began to tick away the days and the story of history to unfold. Its’ unfolding had one end and no other: the Kingdom of God.

Thus history itself is therefore an enemy. How to escape? By turning time back upon itself. By uncreating history/reality/mankind(Darwinism), Nietzsche’s eternal return, reincarnation.