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?

[Moseley]

This is a brilliant series of inisights, because evolution only makes “sense” in HINDSIGHT — not as it is (supposedly) happening.

At each point of mutation, if there is no intelligence guiding a process, the mutation does not “KNOW” which direction is “better.”

Therefore, each step is EQUALLY likely to move in ANY direction — even back from where it came.

Without any intelligence to determine that this pathway is BETTER, the process cannot work.

But that is because each step is SMALLER than people realize. Each step is a very TINY baby step, too small in and of itself to have any evolutionary advantage or disadvantage. Only MANY steps cumulatively can produce a more adaptively succesful or unsuccessful specimen.

[Moseley]

This is excellent and deserves emphasis:

NOTICE THE SUBTITLE OF DARWIN’S BOOK: PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE OF LIFE

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Origin_of_Species_title_page.jpg

[consultant]

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

kinda killed the rest of anything you had to say after that. it's obvious you have no understanding of the theory of evolution.

[tacticalogic]

What is the point of hating evoution? You might as well hate gravity, or relativity, or quantuum mechanics.

It is true that men tend to pursue women they perceive as attractive. It is equally true that women tend to pursue men they perceive as successful. This was going on long before there was ever a "theory of evolution".

[allmendream]

Well she certainly reacted in a manner typical of Creationists when confronted with contrary data!!!

I mean the logical quality of her refutation was just amazing, along with her obvious rationality and supreme command of the nature of the evidence and the conclusions one could draw from it!

[betty boop]

... evolution only makes “sense” in HINDSIGHT — not as it is (supposedly) happening.

Excellent insight, Moseley! Indeed, what is it exactly that Darwinist theory actually predicts?

Thank you so very much for your kind words of support!

[tacticalogic]

DO YOU HATE EVOLUTION, TOO?

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

What happens if we find out that somebody convinced her she should hate evolution because Darwin is a white guy?

[Secret Agent Man]

She won’t lose mates because she’s black, but she will if her normal way of dealing with stuff she doesn’t like is flipping out.

There is a right way to oppose evolution. Not going bonkers is the right way.

[qam1]

Liberals live a lifestyle too decadent and selfish to have many kids if they have them at all

Fewer Liberal Children = fewer Liberal genes = fewer Liberals in the future

Do you love evolution with a passion, yet?

[Alamo-Girl]

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?

SO very true, dearest sister in Christ!

Order does not arise from chaos in an unguided physical system. Period.

But as if required as Lewontin says to disallow a "Divine foot in the door" - some would have us believe that life emerged by random happenstance.

But the math does not support it. Self-organizing complexity and cellular automata have guides to the system. Even in chaos theory, there are initial conditions.

And the word "random" - a mathematical term - does not accurately apply to physical systems because the system is unknown and unknowable. Which is to say we cannot know the full number and types of dimensions or fields/particles which have no direct or indirect measurable effect.

For instance, a series of numbers extracted from the extension of pi may appear random if the observer cannot see the calculation even though those numbers are in fact, highly determined by calculating the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter.

[gundog]

This whole piece is so stupid I urge you to ask the mods to remove it.

Amen.

[xzins]

One has to wonder what makes them think they are so valuable?

Different circumstances, and they would be oven bait.

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

[betty boop]

But as if required as Lewontin says to disallow a "Divine foot in the door" — some would have us believe that life emerged by random happenstance.

But if life emerged by means of random happenstance, then what can Life possibly mean? Or put yet another way, what value can it have?

Plus there seems to be another difficulty: If everything that exists (including the human mind) is the product of random happenstance, then how can the world be knowable by means of the human mind in the first place? If everything that is, is the result of a random cause, then what is there to know? And by what means can it be known?

It seems to me that Darwinist theory is up to its eyeballs in epistemic difficulties of this nature.

Darwinists seem quite calculating and deliberate in tossing Natural Law theory — which principally holds that there is a deep correspondence between the world of Nature and its comprehensibility by the human mind — out the window. Or to put it another way, NLT proposes that the logic of the world is the same logic utilized by the human mind seeking to understand the world. Without that correspondence, there is nothing to know and no way to know it.

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.

As you say, dearest sister in Christ:

... some [e.g., Lewontin, Dawkins, Pinker, Monod, et al] would have us believe that life emerged by random happenstance.

But the math does not support it. Self-organizing complexity and cellular automata have guides to the system. Even in chaos theory, there are initial conditions.

And the word "random" — a mathematical term — does not accurately apply to physical systems because the system is unknown and unknowable. Which is to say we cannot know the full number and types of dimensions or fields/particles which have no direct or indirect measurable effect.

Amazingly well-said, indeed! I so agree....

Thank you ever so much, dearest sister, for your deeply insightful essay/post!

[tacticalogic]

But if life emerged by means of random happenstance

Evolution = abiogenesis?

[PapaBear3625]

Because a Black woman wouldn’t put up with their nonsense.

I think you nailed it.

Men value having a woman who will put up with our nonsense, and who will give us minimal nonsense in return. A woman who is patient with our limitations and appreciative of what we give. The value of such a woman is greater than rubies, as Proverbs 31:10 explains.

Conversely, a woman who is the opposite of that, who does not put up with our foibles, yet expects us to put up with everything she dishes out, is of negative value. We'd rather do without a woman at all than live with such, as in Proverbs 25 "Better to live on a corner of the roof than share a house with a quarrelsome wife".

A woman who is unwilling to put up with any nonsense should accept that men will not stay with her longer than it takes to unload a deposit of sperm, if even that.

[Moseley]

It is true that men tend to pursue women they perceive as attractive. It is equally true that women tend to pursue men they perceive as successful. This was going on long before there was ever a "theory of evolution".

Of course, but in the absence of evolution, it is widely (not universally but widely) understood -- as is true -- that WHICH WOMEN A MAN FINDS ATRACTIVE is a matter of PERSONAL TASTE, so that there can be someone for everyone.

But the theory of evolution changes this to the idea that certain women are BETTER than others, and certain women (as Carr obviously felt) are evolutionary TRASH, to be tossed out with the garbage.

I am attracted to a certain type of woman, in various physical characteristics and personality traits that are *ATYPICAL* of the type of women most other men pursue. Women that other men salivate over, I couldn't care less about. I may acknowledge that, like a well-painted masterpiece painting or an excellent luxury car, a woman is objectively beautiful YET have NO personal interest in or desire for that (admittedly beautiful) woman whatsoever. Moreover, the fact that other men are attracted to a woman means absolutely nothing to me -- couldn't care less.

On the other hand, women who make my socks sweat and make my heart turn into a puddle of jello are typically NOT sought after by most other men, to my total bewilderment. A woman I would kill to get (so to speak), whom to me is the most perfect woman ever to live, other men aren't even trying to get.

If God INTENTIONALLY created many different types of men and women and painstakingly PROVIDED for each person someone "right" for them, then no one is better or worse than anyone else. And God did not forget anyone or leave anyone out. (Of course, we can, I believe, screw up God's plans. If we fail to cure our temper or learn about relationships, if we get fat or cause all kinds of conflict or problems in our lives, the man or woman God intended for us may have significant doubts about the wisdom of being with us. But even though we may screw up God's plans, God planned for everyone to have someone who cares about them.)

But evolution suggests that only one type of woman is superior, and all others are evolutionary trash destined for the junk heap of history. Only one type of woman leads to improvement of the human species, and all others are "BAD" for humanity.

[allmendream]

Perhaps the evolution that YOU were taught by ignorant creationist sources suggests such things.

To those who actually know and understand evolutionary theory - genetic diversity is generally understood to be a healthier trait in a species than there being only one “superior” variation.

Humans are stronger as a species for there being human populations adapted to equatorial climates and there being human populations adapted to polar climates.

There is not just one variation of human skin color that is “GOOD” and all others that are “BAD”.

That is based upon a total lack of understanding of the actual theory. Which is all too typical of creationists.

[Moseley]

She won’t lose mates because she’s black, but she will if her normal way of dealing with stuff she doesn’t like is flipping out. There is a right way to oppose evolution. Not going bonkers is the right way.

Of course. No one can defend as appropriate or reasonable Carr's breakdown in class. Her fit is entirely inappropriate.

But what could possibly make a woman feel so threatened and angry as to behave like that? What about evolution would make a woman feel so de-valued and so hurt as to lash out that way?

Women don't act that way unless they feel VERY hurt and disrespected and threatened and rejected as worthless at a fundamental level.

What is it about hearing that animals choose a mate based upon evolutionary superior characteristics could make a woman so hurt and rejected as to lash out like that? Why would she talk about evolution killing black people?

Secret Agent Man, I've learned enough about women to know that *EVERY* woman will react that way if she feels deeply hurt and deeply rejected for who she is. Try it. Try making a woman you have chosen as the "right" woman for you FEEL as if she is worthless, she is trash, and inferior. ONE THING: Will you let me watch? (Just to see the change in your understanding, not because I want to see a train wreck.)

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

[PapaBear3625]

Do you hate evolution with a passion, yet?

The Theory of Evolution is not something to hate, nor something to love. It is just an observation that:

1) Genetic characteristics get propagated from parent to offspring, and

2) Characteristics that improve the survival of descendents are more likely to be propagated than characteristics that impede survival.

Take the example of the peacock, that the professor was starting to get into when the woman flipped out. On the surface, having a large gaudy tail would not seem to be an asset for survival. It takes bodily energy to grow it, it's heavy, cumbersome, and a general handicap to survival. Yet female peacocks select for it in males.

The fact that it's a handicap to the males is precisely WHY females select for it.

Male peacocks to not participate in the raising of their offspring. They just contribute sperm. It's not important how many survive, as long as at least one does per area. But BECAUSE that silly tail is such a handicap, the ones who do survive are the ones with superior strength, energy, and resistance to parasites. These characteristics get passed on to female as well as male offspring. And the whole point of the game is to produce as many superior female offspring which survive to have their own chicks.

[Moseley]

No, that is what evolution teaches.

Now, it may be independently the case that genetic diversity creates a healthy population.

But what evolutionists TEACH is very specifically that animals and individuals SELECT their mate based upon characteristics that are perceived to be SUPERIOR to others. This causes evolutionary characteristics to dominate, and less adaptive characteristics to die out. That is the essence of evolution's process of NATURAL SELECTION.

While it is coincidentally true that genetic diversity provides the opportunity to choose the BETTER over the WORSE candidates, evolution DOES NOT teach that animals or individuals SELECT a mate on the basis of creating genetic diversity.

What evolution teaches to the average woman who already feels disrespected is that other women are BETTER than she is, and will be chosen to IMPROVE the human race by getting rid of her, kicking her to the curb, rejecting her, and eliminating her characteristics from the human race.