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.

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.

'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!!!

Of course, all men, whether they have chosen to accept Christianity or not, are attracted to certain characteristics and features in a potential mate.

However, different men are often attracted to DIFFERENT types of women.

I have seen this clearly: Among all non-religious, non-Christian men, before I became a Christian, my fraternity brothers would enjoy the swimsuit episode of Sports Illustrated when it arrived from the mail man. It was amazingly clear how different guys liked VERY DIFFERENT women.

The women who turned my knees to jello, other frat guys would quickly dismiss as uninteresting, and flip the page. The women whom they were salivating over, meant absolutely nothing to me, and were not attractive to me at all. I could see the objective fact that those women were beautiful. But I felt nothing for those women, no interest or desire whatsoever.

What men are attracted to in a woman is DIFFERENT for different men. That is because God intended and planned for diversity.

But evolution assumes that there is only *ONE* "BEST" type of woman for evolutionary success.

Evolution convinces us that there is only a small circle of *BEST* women and all the rest are INFERIOR losers.

In reality, there are many different types of women, and different types of men interested in them.

"....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. ..."

Gagdad Bob's insight bears repeating. Indeed, to me, with this observation he nails the "bottom line" epistemic problem of Darwinist theory.

Darwinism holds that Nature uses natural selection to (blindly as it were) produce "better" or fitter species: Species change; they "progress." But absent an absolute standard or criterion of judgment, how can we speak of progress at all? It seems all we really can speak about is directionless change in directionless Nature....

But if Nature is directionless, then where do all its observable regularities come from?

Thanks so very much for the outstanding link, dear Matchett-PI!

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.