Posted on 06/27/2009 7:55:19 PM PDT by Fichori
June 26, 2009 — Evolution of rape? No way. Sharon Begley won’t let the evolutionary psychologists get away with their tales about how rapists, molesters, and cheaters can’t help themselves because evolution made them that way. The Science Magazine blog Origins seems to be cheering her on.
Science writer Sharon Begley, who in 2007 returned to her old job at Newsweek after 5 years of writing the “Science Journal” column for The Wall Street Journal, has long reported skeptically about anything smacking of biological determinism. In the 29 June issue of Newsweek, she pens a 4300-word critique of evolutionary psychology, the theory that modern human behavior—including everything from mate choice to child abuse to warfare—is the result of evolutionary adaptations that took place 100,000 or more years ago. Her piece, titled “Why Do We Rape, Kill and Sleep Around?” concludes, as the subtitle puts it, “The fault, dear Darwin, lies not in our ancestors, but in ourselves.”
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
You don't know either. Don't kid yourself.
“Now professor, please elaborate with your academic qualifications to dispute that stated fact you are so noticeably uncomfortable with...”
Your eminence: That evolution occurs from heterosexual reproduction is as obvious as the sunrise this morning.
What I actually asked you is to provide context around your statement that anyone would actually deny that obvious fact.
Something that you do not wish to do, so much so that it has made you cranky and has you spewing out red-herrings like “I’m an atheist”.
So please, show me some evidence of your declaratory decree that somehow for some folks, the necessary prerequisite, sexual reproduction, is not required for evolution to occur - or, if you wish, simply drop the subject and issue your next decree denying the obvious.
“There is no part of evolution left standing.”
Good lord, you are farther gone than most “creation science” types.
If what you said is even remotely true, there sure is a growing and evolving cottage industry trying to prove that something that doesn’t exist, doesn’t exist.
Again, you can make reasoned scientific arguments against elements of evolution many grounds, but you have to come up with alternatives - and “creation science” has provided nothing worthy as an alternative, except, an alternate reality for some folks to reside.
And let’s just put this “homeschooling/self-selecting set” BS right to bed.
The assertion is that Christian homeschoolers will fair much better on any science test than your secular humanist/atheist educated public school student.
The counter assertion is that this comparison is invalid because the HSers are a “self-selecting set”.
Now, if the HSers were a “self selecting set”, that would mean that at 5 yrs old or so, those with a proficiency in science told their parents to homeschool them. And, of course, that is nonsense.
The only tangential way that the “self-selecting” label can apply to the set of homeschoolers is that homeschooling parents tend to be those who care about the education of their children to the point of being heavily personally involved, with the result of better educated children (averaging in the 85th percentile).
The only assertion that this proves is the superiority of the SYSTEM of homeschooling, and, well, yes - Thank you for agreeing. It in no way invalidates the assertion that homeschoolers do better in science than secular/atheist/Darwinist educated students.
The parents are educating kids from a variety of talents and abilities. They are not just educating those who do well academically, in science or other subjects.
Exactly, and these parents aren’t hung up with God to the point that they socialize children to move away from Him, so naturally the results are what they are.
You are an evo zombie!
You and evolution are dead, and live only in the mystic ceremonies of evo-true believers.
Sketches and graphic renderings are not evidence, and that is all the evos have ever produced.
“You are an evo zombie!”
BRAINS!!!!! BRAAAAAINS!!!!!!!
oh wait - none to be had on a creation science thread.......
“Sketches and graphic renderings are not evidence, and that is all the evos have ever produced.”
Egads man! You’ve gone positively batty!
You’re dumber than a box of rocks if you really think that there is no scientific evidence for evolution, and for an “old earth”. Do you really think that all research is is drawing pictures?
There is none!
Nothing but hopes and dreams of the walking dead.
“Nothing but hopes and dreams of the walking dead.”
I don’t suppose you have any peer-reviewed science to back that up, do you?
Uh, yes, of course. The assertion that the set of homeschooled children is self-selected doesn't have to mean that the kids themselves made the choice to be part of the set. Their parents made it. As I suspected, you really don't understand the concept.
Your assertion is that the Christian element of those homeschoolers' education is a significant factor. You can't demonstrate that without controlling for other factors, such as the influence of "parent...who care about the education of their children to the point of being heavily personally involved."
As I suspected, you’re arrogant and believe you are more intelligent than others because of your worldview (EVERY lib thinks this way).
SO WHAT if the parents selected it?
Are you asserting that ONLY THE PARENTS OF THE SMART KIDS choose homeschooling? Nonsense.
You have not adequately proven that homeschoolers are a “self selecting set” that explains away significant differences in academic achievement and understanding of science.
Yes, the Christian element DOES factor in because when you’re teaching from the Truth instead of from a basis of error, you can’t help but have more correct outcomes.
I see that, in your last sentence, you do agree that the homeschooling system IS superior. We can agree on that.
Asking for "peer-reviewed" proof of a negative condition?
Hey, you're a real scientist! (as evos reckon things)
“Asking for “peer-reviewed” proof of a negative condition?”
No, not at all, I simply wanted to see the research on the walking dead that the Creatards had come up with.
I guess I’ll have to wait.
We have you!
Not at all. I merely believe that you don't understand the concept of a "self selected set."
Are you asserting that ONLY THE PARENTS OF THE SMART KIDS choose homeschooling?
No, of course not. I'm asserting that kids whose parents are actively engaged in and committed to their schooling will do better than those whose parents aren't. I don't think it means they're "smart kids;" I think it means that for the same level of natural intelligence, the involvement of the parents will make a difference. Homeschoolers obviously have engaged, committed parents, so it is not a surprise to me that they do better.
The point is that you have to be very careful about what conclusions you draw from that. Homeschoolers aren't representative of the population of students as a whole--it's a "self-selected" group of kids from families with engaged, committed parents. There are also lots of other factors, such as (off the top of my head) economic class, environment, educational level of the parents, marital status of the parents, and so on that would have to be accounted for before you could determine what the effect of homeschooling per se was. And that's even before you get to the question of whether the Christian element is significant.
Yes, the Christian element DOES factor in because when you’re teaching from the Truth instead of from a basis of error, you can’t help but have more correct outcomes.
That's what's called begging the question.
I see that, in your last sentence, you do agree that the homeschooling system IS superior. We can agree on that.
Not quite. I agree that having the parents actively involved in their kids' education is important. Homeschooling is an example of that, but not the only one.
“We have you!”
You’re an amusing guy. You’ve learned how to defend “creation science” well - make short proclamations, resist actual intellectual dialog and refuse to discuss any actual science at all.
Unfortunately you fall short with your persuasion. Please keep trying.
I gave you the intelligent dialogue, and you simply handwaved it away.
The lack of hard evidence is the most significant feature of ther TOE. Until some hard evidence comes along, you cannot use the word ‘science’ with a straight face pal. The sketches and diagrams, along with the plaster models, plastic models, and digital renderings are for the true believers and the uninformed. Not useful here.
“The lack of hard evidence is the most significant feature of ther TOE”
you’re deluded.
No, I’m informed.
I have reasonable standards, which require real palpable evidence, not just intense belief with smoke and mirrors, presented by a government supported propaganda ministry.
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.