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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

“But this problem rarely seems to catch the attention of Darwinists — and other professional atheists.”

Well, all you can infer from this is I do not necessarily regard "Darwinists" as "scientists" — because so many of them seem to be actively proselytizing atheists: e.g, Dawkins; Lewontin; Singer; Monod; Pinker; Dennett; et al.

I do not know how it would be possible to do science absent the idea of universal Truth. I do not know how a scientist can function absent this idea. And yet if he's an atheist, he must; because universal Truth is grounded in the Being of God — I Am that Am —and nowhere else. Atheists reject God in principle....

You claim not to be an atheist, allmendream, rather a Christian presumably in good standing.

So, why do you sound like an atheist?

I ask this question in the spirit of the common-sensical principle: "If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably duck."

???

I very strongly suspect you'll agree that the physical-chemical aspects are not the entire story, that the whole of a living organism is greater than the sum of its parts.

Certainly I agree with this statement, dearest sister in Christ! But I'm not sure about our friend allmendream....

Thank you ever so much for writing and your kind words of support!

I can infer from this that you cannot argue against a scientific theory about a principle you say you accept (evolution) without calling those who accept the theory “Darwinists” and insinuating that they are atheists.

You deny you did so and said I must have hallucinated such - but there it is in black and white.

You now double down on your tendency to do so, while denying you would EVER do such a thing; and make an insinuation that I am an atheist.

That right there is really funny.

As is typical with creationists, when found out of their depths on a scientific subject, have to pull out their “big guns” - namely “you must be an ATHEIST!” to go along with threats of imminent hellfire and damnation.

How typical that creationists cannot argue against a scientific theory without arguing against atheism.

Thanks again for posting. I couldn’t ask for a better demonstration of the intellectual dead end creationism leads to and the baseless and crude debate tactics creationists engage in.

Bless you dearest sister in Christ. I will pray for you.

It is not the case that humans are the most complex organism we know about. The respiratory system of birds, for example, is far more complex and efficient than the mammalian system.

Actually it was careless of me to say that "humans are the most complex organism we know about." What I should have said is: the human brain — an astronomically complex, non-locally ordered, distributed information processing "machine" which undergirds all processes of the human mind and its perceptions and thoughts — is the single most complex system in Nature.

"Bird-brains" need not apply for this distinction!

BTW, I did not "make this up." I've been reading the mathematicians engaged in theoretical biology these days. It seems to me that some of Darwin's worst critics are mathematicians. Most of the rest are physicists.

Also I do not know why people think there is any such thing as "junk" DNA.

My reason for wondering is not "scientific," rather "philosophical."

Philosophers of Natural Law theory have long propounded the idea that "Nature is parsimonious," or relentlessly economical. The entire logic of "Occam's Razor" arguably rests on this presupposition.

In short, Nature doesn't "do junk."

What we think of as "junk" may simply indicate something about which we are presently ignorant.

At least, I wouldn't rule that out as a possibility.

Thank you so very much for your series of thoughtful essay/posts (all three!) exDemMom, which I found highly instructive/constructive!

If you are seeking a mate, do you want your mate to be a close relative, or would you rather not be related to your mate?

That is a social convention, which has nothing to do with the hypothesis or evolution. Absent social convention, and absent growing up being annoyed (emotionally) at close relatives, yes people would be just as likely, perhaps more likely, to be attracted to relatives than to strangers unlike them. On a closely related issue, people also select for a mate most likely to deliver reproductive success (in other words, the most "fit" mate, in the sense of "survival of the fittest").

That is absolute fantasy. That is evolutionists assuming the conclusion. If you cannot prove your case, simply assume it to be true, argue from your assumptions and then PRETEND you proved something.

Way too much of modern "science" has become the skillful but dishonest manipulation of assumptions, and redefining the terms. If you can't compare apples to oranges, take two apples and PRETEND one of the apples is an orange. That's modern science.

You are simply assuming -- as necessary to believe in the religion of evolution -- that people choose a mate based on UTILITARIAN characteristics.

Anyone with a passing familiarity with the human race -- looking at it without blinders on -- will have to admit that humans do things for reasons that are anything but utilitarian or wise.

People select a mate based on whether they like the same movies or rock bands or board games.

However, even if you accept the concept of evolution, natural selection does not CHOOSE diversity. Diversity happens. Diversity is good. But it is NOT a product of natural selection. Diversity occurs in spite of natural selection.

On the other hand, there are rich and complex geologic, fossil, and astronomical records to be examined, as well as the molecular mechanisms of evolution which I can observe directly in the lab.

But to observe the "rich and complex geologic, fossil, and astronomical records to be examined" you have to stack assumption on assumption, miles high.

Take astronomical: Do you know HOW distances are supposedly measured? I sure do. And it would make you sick to your stomach if having an accurate distance actually mattered to you. The idea that we have the foggiest idea how far away or how old objecs are in universe would make you feel safer in a roller coaster if you actually understood the astronomical record.

Distances are key, because astrophyscial processes and types are all keyed to our ASSUMPTIONS about distance, when then create ASSUMPTIONS about brightness.

And don't get me started about the speed of light. Day #1 in science class is usually (if well done) to identify the unprovable ASSUMPTIONS that we use in science. For example, how do you know that the speed of light has remained constant over time? We don't. WE GUESS. We just assume constancy over time and throughout the universe. We have no idea. Using today's speed of light, we think we can calculate distance. But what if the expanding fabric of the universe is the cause of a vastly slower speed of light today than at the beginning? Waves travel through a medium -- FASTER the denser the medium.

Similarly, with the geologic record, formations that scientists claim to have been formed over millions of years were created almost INSTANTANEOUSLY during the eruption of Mt. St. Helens. The same structures we are told represent millions of years occurred in days or weeks right before our very eyes.

Elsewhere, strata that we are told represent millions of years of activity can be found with fossils of trees crossing "millions" of years of strata.

And there is no escaping the fact that what was written there came from the imagination of the author

Not true. Adam and Eve walked with God and talked to Him face to face. So it is no based on the imagination of the author but by direct conservation with the Creator.

By the way, if early humans lived as long as Genesis describes: (a) Moses could have talked directly to Adam's great grand-son, face to face and (b) skeletons that are claimed to be pre-homo sapiens would be the natural result of a 1,000 year old man. The bones of the skull continue to grow, causing the eybrow ridges to grow thicker, etc. A 1000 year old man would have a skeleton exactly like what is claimed to be pre-humans.

"If God created Adam out of dust — the dust INCLUDES the DNA."
It seems to me this is not necessarily so. That is, I suspect DNA is not "in" the "dust" — if we take "dust" to mean physical matter

This seems to be part of the problem where there is a lot of hair-splitting going on.

No, DNA is not "in" the dust. DNA and every other part of a biological body was created FROM the dust.

God, using the raw materials on the Earth ("dust") created a human body in all of its details.

So God created the DNA, using the materials on the Earth.

God created the very concept of DNA.

God created the rules by which the world operates.

God created the rules of chemistry which cause the DNA to do what DNA does.

God created the programming of sequences on the DNA which cause the programming to produce a certain result in biology.

There seems to be the idea that, using evolution, God created man out of dust, but the DNA is an entirely separate issue.

Well, you have done a good job of convincing me that you are hopelessly and irreversibly scientifically illiterate.

I can’t even wrap my head around what you must believe the nature of the world and the universe are, with no physical laws, no constants... ugh.

Repeating nonsense that you read on some charlatan literal creationist advocacy site does not equate to discussing science. In order to discuss science, you must understand science in the first place.

I have never insinuated any such thing, allmendream. Are you hallucinating?

In just a week, I've been accused by two pro-evolution correspondents of saying things I specifically did not say.

And in just one paragraph in his post 259, allmendream not only did that but also instructed me in what I know (as if he could read my mind) and threw up a strawman which asserts - now get this - that he can demonstrate his knowledge which I specifically did not question in the first place! (the post to which he replied)

You can question my credentials all you want - but can you dispute my knowledge of the subject? It would be hard to do so considering how little you know of it and how easily I can demonstrate my knowledge of it.

Jeepers ... that last line reminds me of a peacock strutting his feathers and quaking.

Except in this case bb did specifically say what I said that she had said - moreover she took the occasion of me quoting her saying what she had just DENIED she said - by doubling down and making the exact SAME argument - conflating acceptance of a scientific theory with atheism - by claiming I had to be an atheist.

It is amusing to me that creationists cannot seem to argue against a scientific theory without making an argument against atheism - making baseless accusations of atheism - and/or condemning those who disagree to hell.

I guess that is what one is reduced to when making an argument from ignorance.

Thanks for posting sister in Christ. I will pray for you.

conflating acceptance of a scientific theory with atheism - by claiming I had to be an atheist.

You don't HAVE to be an atheist to believe in evolution. Many Christians believe in evolution (without, in my opinion, thinking it through). It is the official position of the Catholic Church -- NOT approving of evolution in any way -- but accepting that one *MAY* believe that God could have used various possible mechanisms, including evolution, to create the world. The official Catholic Church position is WE DON'T REALLY KNOW precisely how God created the world. Some try to suggest that the Catholic Church endorses evolution. No, that's false. The Pope simply says we're not going to fight about it. Let's focus on what really matters. St. Paul says the same thing in the New Testament. The church should get on with the things that are important, and avoid squabbles about side issues.

However, the argument for the "God used evolution" hypothesis is that heck, it is not logically impossible for both to be true. That is not a strong endorsement.

My argument is that while one cannot exclude the possibility of both God and evolution, the MESSAGE of God is 100% incompatible with evolution. While you can believe in the EXISTENCE of God and also evolution, YOU CANNOT BELIEVE IN THE MESSAGE OF THE CHRISTIAN GOD FROM THE BIBLE AND ALSO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION. Evolution is incomptabible with Christian (Judeo-Christian) teaching.

Your retelling of the position on evolution of the Catholic Church is about as accurate as the other things you have posted on this thread - that being completely inaccurate.

Here is what Pope Benedict XVI said recently about evolution....

“there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”

Do you think the Pope, a renowned Biblical scholar - has failed to think things through? Do you think the Pope doesn't believe in the message of the Christian God?

Well, you have done a good job of convincing me that you are hopelessly and irreversibly scientifically illiterate.

I can’t even wrap my head around what you must believe the nature of the world and the universe are, with no physical laws, no constants... ugh.

Repeating nonsense that you read on some charlatan literal creationist advocacy site does not equate to discussing science

But that IS science. And I learned that from advanced college-level science courses in secular, government universities.

One begins the study of science (if done properly) by understanding the assumptions upon which it is built and the limits of science's tools and inquiries.

However, modern, spoiled, politicized "scientists" promptly forget and ignore those assumptions and limitations. It is a fundamental principle of science, indeed logic, that you have to KNOW the limtations of your tool or methodology. If you apply it OUTSIDE its zone of validity, then what you get is nonsense. For example, there are complex equations which are valid only within a well-identified zone, and are gobbledegook outside of that zone of validity.

Just like geometry rests on unprovable assumptions or axioms, science also rests upon unprovable assumptions.

These are clearly understood and taught as the foundation of science -- but completely ignored by under-informed practitioners.

The key assumptions that science rests upon include the assumption that the laws of physics are constant over time and constant throughout space.

WHY? This begs the question: Who enacted the laws of physics? Who spoke those laws into existence?

The concept of uniform laws of physics throughout space and time is a fundamentally RELIGIOUS concept, resting upon an unstated assumption of a Creator God or Creator intelligence. Like the granddaughter who says in the city she gets her milk from a carton, after her grandfather shows how he milks a cow to get milk, those scientists don't wish to THINK ABOUT the question WHERE DID THE LAWS OF PHYSICS COME FROM?

However, if the universe began with a Big Bang explosion from an infinitessimally small point, expanding outward, why would it be assumed that the laws of physics, such as the speed of light or other "constants" are really constant?

You can question my credentials all you want — but can you dispute my knowledge of the subject?

Dear allmendream, neither Alamo Girl nor I has ever called into question your credentials and expertise as a working scientist. Not once, not ever.

Frankly, we have no use for argumentum ad hominem debate tactics. They are "all heat and no light," thus thoroughly counterproductive; and therefore to be avoided in principle.

And so, we don't question your bona fides, on principle.

Capice?

I didn't mention my credentials on this thread - the only mention of them was your supposed charity in not questioning them.

My point is that you are free to question my credentials (which I didn't mention) all you want - but that it would be difficult for you to dispute my knowledge on the subject - seeings as how easily I can demonstrate it and how little you know of it.

And yes, ad hominem attacks are all heat and no light - and in such a vein do I view all such attempts you and your cohort make in attempting to make it personal and about my specific religious beliefs.

But when the going gets tough for creationists when arguing against a scientific theory they don't really understand well, making an argument against atheism or accusing anyone who disagrees of atheism seems a convenient fallback argument.

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.