Religions > Atheism > TOBS: Public Schools Science Education: What Biology teachers are forced to teach
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"JaBrIoL" |
| Date: |
23 Sep 2003 11:03:59 AM |
| Object: |
TOBS: Public Schools Science Education: What Biology teachers are forced to teach |
Why do so many science teachers in America promote mindless, chance
evolution as fact? One reason is that "Darwinist fundamentalists . . .
control the science departments in many universities," says Phillip E.
Johnson, law professor at the University of California at Berkeley.
Johnson points out: "In some cases biology professors have been
forbidden to tell students that there is any reason to doubt the claim
that mindless material processes could and did create the wonders of
biology."
Scientist and engineer Murphy O'Dean observes: "Rather than discard a
theory that does not stand up to fact, the direction of 'evolutionary
science' has become a statement of faith that 'evolution must be
true.'" Conflicting evidence and the lack of evidence are either
ignored or explained away.
Why? Michael Behe, molecular biologist, says in Darwin's Black Box:
"Many people, including many important and well-respected scientists,
just don't want there to be anything beyond nature. They don't want a
supernatural being to affect nature." But true science does not ignore
contrary evidence in order to advance preferred ideas. Nor do all
scientists believe evolution.
The Brazilian magazine Veja asked Carlo Rubbia, winner of the Nobel
Prize for Physics, "Do you believe in God?" While not acknowledging a
personal God, he did admit: "The more you observe nature, the more you
perceive that there is tremendous organization in all things. It is an
intelligence so great that just by observing natural phenomena I come
to the conclusion that a Creator exists."
.
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: Public Schools Science Education: What Biology teachers are forced to teach |
26 Sep 2003 04:15:06 PM |
|
|
"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0309230803.4dc0a314@posting.google.com...
Why do so many science teachers in America promote mindless, chance
evolution as fact?
Because it's fact. Well, the mindless part, anyway. Evolution is most
certainly not "chance".
One reason is that "Darwinist fundamentalists . . .
What on earth is that? Is someone who accepts the germ theory of disease a
germ fundamentalist?
control the science departments in many universities," says Phillip E.
Johnson,
Darwinists SHOULD control the science departments. Darwinism, unlike
creationism, is science.
law professor
*LAW* professor? Commenting on BIOLOGY?
at the University of California at Berkeley.
Johnson points out: "In some cases biology professors have been
forbidden to tell students that there is any reason to doubt the claim
that mindless material processes could and did create the wonders of
biology."
There is no reason to believe that biology arose from an intelligence.
Scientist and engineer Murphy O'Dean observes: "Rather than discard a
theory that does not stand up to fact, the direction of 'evolutionary
science' has become a statement of faith that 'evolution must be
true.'"
It is not a statement of faith, it is a statement based on 140 years of
accumulated evidence and reasoning.
Conflicting evidence
What conflicting evidence? Care to share some examples?
and the lack of evidence
Lack of evidence? Few things are more suported by evidence than evolution,
and more evidence is being found almost daily.
are either
ignored or explained away.
There is no need to "ingore" or "explain away" this supposed "contrary
evidence", since it doesn't exist.
Why? Michael Behe, molecular biologist,
and religious nut with an agenda
says in Darwin's Black Box:
"Many people, including many important and well-respected scientists,
just don't want there to be anything beyond nature. They don't want a
supernatural being to affect nature."
That's because "goddidit" is the ultimate in intellectual dishonesty and
poor science. In troduce magic into the equation and you can postulate any
wacky notion you please.
But true science does not ignore
contrary evidence in order to advance preferred ideas.
What contrary evidence?
Nor do all
scientists believe evolution.
Yup. There are plenty of bad scientists out there.
The Brazilian magazine Veja asked Carlo Rubbia, winner of the Nobel
Prize for Physics,
Physics? Not biology?
"Do you believe in God?" While not acknowledging a
personal God, he did admit: "The more you observe nature, the more you
perceive that there is tremendous organization in all things. It is an
intelligence so great that just by observing natural phenomena I come
to the conclusion that a Creator exists."
Who created the creator?
--
Chris
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: Public Schools Science Education: What Biology teachers are forced to teach |
26 Sep 2003 05:39:40 PM |
|
|
"Peacenik" <criskity1@insightBBB.ReplaceBBBwithBBandPutDotComAfterItcom>
wrote in message news:u%1db.155349$mp.83867@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0309230803.4dc0a314@posting.google.com...
Why do so many science teachers in America promote mindless, chance
evolution as fact?
Because it's fact. Well, the mindless part, anyway. Evolution is most
certainly not "chance".
Nobel laureate Jacques L. Monod, for one, used this chance-equals-cause
line of reasoning. "Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, [is] at the very
root of the stupendous edifice of evolution," he wrote. "Man knows at last
that he is alone in the universe's unfeeling immensity, out of which he
emerged only by chance." Note he says: 'BY chance.' Monod does what many
others do-he elevates chance to a creative principle. Chance is offered as
the means by which life came to be on earth.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OG" |
|
| Title: Re: Public Schools Science Education: What Biology teachers are forced to teach |
26 Sep 2003 06:58:49 PM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:Me3db.1903448$Bf5.272418@news.easynews.com...
"Peacenik" <criskity1@insightBBB.ReplaceBBBwithBBandPutDotComAfterItcom>
wrote in message news:u%1db.155349$mp.83867@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0309230803.4dc0a314@posting.google.com...
Why do so many science teachers in America promote mindless, chance
evolution as fact?
Because it's fact. Well, the mindless part, anyway. Evolution is most
certainly not "chance".
Nobel laureate Jacques L. Monod, for one, used this chance-equals-cause
line of reasoning. "Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, [is] at the
very
root of the stupendous edifice of evolution," he wrote. "Man knows at last
that he is alone in the universe's unfeeling immensity, out of which he
emerged only by chance." Note he says: 'BY chance.' Monod does what many
others do-he elevates chance to a creative principle. Chance is offered as
the means by which life came to be on earth.
Isn't God wonderful - he makes the world so that life can come about without
needing intervention.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Abbott" |
|
| Title: Re: Public Schools Science Education: What Biology teachers are forced to teach |
30 Sep 2003 09:35:58 PM |
|
|
My stuff at the bottom. It's a copy of a letter that I sent to my, uh,
nephew-in-law.
Jerry Abbott
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:Me3db.1903448$Bf5.272418@news.easynews.com...
"Peacenik" <criskity1@insightBBB.ReplaceBBBwithBBandPutDotComAfterItcom>
wrote in message news:u%1db.155349$mp.83867@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0309230803.4dc0a314@posting.google.com...
Why do so many science teachers in America promote mindless, chance
evolution as fact?
Because it's fact. Well, the mindless part, anyway. Evolution is most
certainly not "chance".
Nobel laureate Jacques L. Monod, for one, used this chance-equals-cause
line of reasoning. "Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, [is] at the
very
root of the stupendous edifice of evolution," he wrote. "Man knows at last
that he is alone in the universe's unfeeling immensity, out of which he
emerged only by chance." Note he says: 'BY chance.' Monod does what many
others do-he elevates chance to a creative principle. Chance is offered as
the means by which life came to be on earth.
Dear Brandon,
I've had trouble in getting started with giving you my opinion of
Creationism.
Let me give my brief summary first: it's crooked. Creationism is a
pseudoscientific doctrine, which, like astrology, has fundamental
assumptions that never are really proved. When you try to find the proof,
you get a lot of talk "about" the proof (in the Bible, whether they say so
or not), you hear references to alleged proofs (thumping the Bible), you are
invited to read several books though which the proof is presumably scattered
(commentaries on the Bible) ... but you never really see the proof.
Astrology is the same way: the closer you question an astrologer, the more
elusive the explanation is for the manner in which the arrangement of the
planets influences people's lives. Does it work by light? Then why don't t
he brighter lights along the street, or the headlights of a passing car,
also have astrological influence? Is it gravity? You can prove that
concentrations of terrestrial matter (a mountain that you pass while
driving) exert more gravitational pull on you than Jupiter does, because of
the greater distance of Jupiter. But the more you try to pin the astrologer
down on the facts, the more you try to get to how astrology works, the more
elusive his meaning becomes.
Creationists never provide any positive proof of their claims. I mean it:
never. They have not once proposed an experiment by which God's existence
could be falsified in principle. But unless someone does that, he's not
doing science. Every scientific theory either gains acceptance by having
hundreds, or thousands, of people trying to falsify it, to disprove it,
through testing and survives the tests, or fails a crucial test and is
discarded. Among the surviving major theories are: the theory of universal
gravitation, the heliocentric model for the solar system, the atomic theory,
and biological evolution. The latest additions to the list are relativity
and quantum mechanics.
But the Creationists behave as if they didn't need to prove that God created
the Earth 10,000 years ago. That want us to agree with them that they are
right if a particular alternative theory (evolution) is wrong. But,
scientifically, that's not how it works. In science, your theory is not
proved if my theory is disproved, since there could be a third theory, which
might or might not have occurred to anybody.
So what do the Creationists do instead of proving their case? They make
mockeries. They strike dignified poses in front of audiences, they use
scientific jargon thickly, and they mock their opponents. How do you mock an
honest researcher? It's easy. You wait until he discovers that he has made
a mistake in his work, and publishes a retraction or a correction in a
peer-reviewed journal. Then you jump all over him for not being exactly
right the first time. Creationist do that a lot.
With all the talking that Creationists do, it's easy to forget that they
have a burden of proof that they never undertake to bear. Not only do their
mockeries not disprove evolution, but, furthermore, even if they did it
wouldn't be enough to prove them right. They would still have to show,
scientifically (which means by experiment), that God exists. They must also
show, by experiment, why the Earth must be only 10,000 years old, despite
having human remains that test 50,000 years old by radiocarbon dating,
despite having rocks that test three billion years old by measuring the
ratios of radioisotopes in the uranium decay series, and why light from
galaxies across the universe from us, billions of lightyears away, can
nonetheless be seen though our telescopes.
Besides mockery, Creationists depend heavily on their audience's ignorance.
For example, you said that you began to lose belief in evolution when you
found that it clashed with the second law of thermodynamics. I've read
Creationist literature, too, and I think that you refer to their estimate
for the probability of biogenesis. One Creationist criticism mocks an
experiment in which complex organic molecules were produced from simple
precursors (simulating the early atmosphere of Earth) by an electric spark
or by ultraviolet light. There was a means for removing the more complex
molecules from the source of thermodynamic agitation, which, said the
Creationists, wouldn't exist in nature.
But such things do exist in nature. For one thing, large molecules have
dipole electric fields, places where the positive charge or negative charge
predominates. From a distance, you don't feel any effect, but up close
these fields make the molecule sticky. That's why, for example, water is
"wet" (clings to your hand). A large molecule with a positive charge here
and a negative charge there, a "zwitterion," which is typical of amino
acids, sticks better than a small molecule with less electrostatic
structure. The means for removing a large molecule, once it forms by
ultraviolet light (or whatever) is this very stickiness: they form organic
layers at the bottom of tidewater pools, and the water above them absorbs
ultraviolet light before it can damage them. That's a natural counterpart
to the isolation or "trap" used in the experiment.
The Creationists don't tell you that Nature isn't as random or unselective
as they represent it. Nature's laws restrict the ways in which matter and
energy relate to each other, and where there's no particular restriction,
some outcomes are more probable than others. If you didn't know that, you
might give equal statistical weight to all of the possible outcomes, and
that would introduce an error in your estimate of the probabilities. Also
Nature makes provisions that Creationists don't like to talk about.
You're right: in the fossil record there are "gaps and holes." What does
that mean? It means that the scientists who have accepted the idea of
evolution, at least as a general principle, aren't cheating. There are
gaps, and (as a rule) the gaps aren't filled with fakes. Once, when
somebody did manufacture a fraud, he was caught and lost his reputation.
Was it the Creationists who caught him? No. It was the "evolutionists" who
did that; the Creationists merely came along, much later, and applied their
usual mockery. The name of the fraud was "Piltdown Man."
Various groups have made much political hash out of that fraud, and not all
of them are Creationists. I quote from:
http://www.boneclones.com/BH-014.htm
--- top of quote ---
Piltdown Man Skull 1912 Fraud, This skull is a replica of the so-called
Dawson's "Dawn Skull," which had been unearthed in a gravel pit in Sussex,
England by Charles Dawson in 1912. The specimen had a hominid cranium with
modern size brain and a primitive apelike jaw, and was found near the teeth
of extinct animals dated at 5 million years old. For 40 years the skull
bones of "Dawn Man" were considered genuine, and influenced much
anthropological theory, particularly that a larger brain led the
evolutionary way toward modern humans. In 1953 two anatomists and an
archeologist exposed Piltdown Man as a hoax. The "find" turned out to be a
modern human cranium and the mandible of a modern orangutan, buried along
with the bones of the extinct animals. Unfortunately, this hoax misdirected
anthropologists for some time, contributing to the original rejection of the
Taung Child (which had the jaw of a human and the brain of an ape, a
reversal of the English Piltdown man (fraud), and also suggesting that
pre-sapiens existed in Europe, a view which has since been discredited.
--- end of quote ---
Everything in that quote is fair, except for the last phrase, "a view which
has since been discredited." To discredit a claim is not to disprove it; it
means only that the claim has been convincingly portrayed as implausible.
But even that much isn't true for the proposed existence of pre-sapients
hominids in Europe about a million years ago. It remains possible that H.
erectus was there, maybe even using fire, though probably he became sapiens
fairly quickly (within 200,000 years or so) after arriving in Europe (i.e.,
by 800,000 years ago). Notice that the quote does not say how or why the
existence of pre-sapiens hominds in Europe was discredited. The
Creationists aren't responsible for this misrepresentation: it's probably an
echo of a different pseudoscientific doctrine, originally by the Frankfort
School and Franz Boas, that laid the groundwork for "social" anthropology.
Social anthropology should be understood in contrast to the actual science
of anthropology, which must now be specifically designated as physical
anthropology.
The hominid fossil record is incomplete because hominids lived in savanna,
in woodland, and in grasslands. Fossils form when animals die and fall into
places where their bones can be preserved or mineralized (i.e., muddy sea
bottoms, or, on land, in bogs). Hominid bones usually did not, so their
fossil remains are relatively scarce.
But there are indeed pre-human hominid fossil remains. Among them:
Heidelberg Man and Vertesszoelloes Man, including specimens from Swanscombe
in England and from Steinheim in Germany, both about 250,000 years old.
There are a number of fossil remains, all around 100,000 years old,
scattered across Europe: Fontechevade in France; Saccopastore, just outside
of Rome; Ehringsdorf, in Germany; Ganovice, in Slovakia; and Krapina in
Croatia. They are clearly above the erectus-sapiens threshold, little
different from modern Europeans, but do some do show primitive
characteristics such as brow ridges.
Older hominid fossils, more divergent with modern Man, occur in Africa. One
of them, Australopithicus robustus, is not in Man's direct line of
descent--he's a "cousin" hominid, distinguished by heavier jawbones and a
sagittal crest of bone on top of his head. Our ancestor species was Homo
erectus, which occurred in several racial forms, of which Heidelberg man was
a European variant. Homo erectus himself descended from the earlier Homo
habilis, which arose in Africa alongside Australopithicus robustus. Both H.
habilis and A. robustus descended from the earlier Australopithicus
afarensis, which seems to have come from Australopithicus anamensis, which
was among the very first hominids, appearing about 5 million years ago.
When I said "appearing," I didn't mean "by magic." A. anamensis had
ancestors earlier than himself, and his own species was the branch leading
in our direction from a split having another branch leading toward the
modern chimpanzee.
I've been working backwards in time. Let me go back yet further and then
come forward again.
Fifty million years ago, there were no primates. There were monkeys, but
none of them were apes or hominids. A mutation among them produced a
variant called Aegyptopithecus, the first ancestor of all the genera of apes
and hominids that followed. Proconsul, which was the first actual primate,
descended from Aegyptopithecus.
Proconsul, whose remains have been dated to about 23 million years ago, spun
off variants (races) which diverged genetically to the point where they were
different species, then different genera. Some of the variants became
extinct, but others didn't. Among those that survived were the gibbons
(diverged 15 million years ago), the orangutans (diverged 11 million years
ago), the gorillas (diverged 7 million years ago), and the chimpanzees
(diverged 5 million years ago). What was left of Proconsul's line in our
direction, following the chimpanzee split was the family of hominids.
And the fissioning continued within the hominid family. It also continued
within the ape family, as, for example, Ramapithecus evolved toward the
modern orangutan. At one time, Ramapithecus was believed to be an ancestor
of Australopithecus, but that view has been disproved by DNA testing, and
the theoretical antiquity of the hominid family shrunk from 11-14 million
years to only five million years. However, ape evolution isn't the important
part of our discussion: hominid evolution is.
A. anamensis became, among other species, A. afarensis about four million
years ago. A. afarensis became, among others, A. robustus and H. habilis
about 2.8 million years ago. Australopithicus robustus lasted a good while.
His latest remains are only about a million years old. But he did
eventually become extinct. H. habilis became H. erectus, perhaps while
still in Africa, and perhaps among other unknown species which are now
extinct. About 1.5 million years ago, H. erectus (or some of them) left
Africa and started wandering through Asia and Europe, generally following
coastlines and river valleys. The modern human racial variation probably
originated between the separated groups of H. erectus, caused by
geographical isolation and by differences in climate, with H. sapiens
inheriting the racial variation from erectus.
(There was some backflow of European genes to Africa. The so-called
"Mitochondrial Eve" was an African woman who lived about 150,000 years ago,
whose matrilineal line included a female ancestor from Europe. The
monnicker hung on her is a misnomer: she's more like a Mitochondrial great
aunt.)
The transition to sapiens, a gradual thing in itself, did not occur at the
same time for the separated groups of erectus. It happened in Europe first,
probably impelled by cold winter weather and the scarcity of winter food.
Cold weather favors the development of a larger brain size, as a safeguard
to freezing. A periodic scarcity in food favors the development of mental
agility, to anticipate hunger and to provide for need in advance. The
erectus-sapiens threshold was crossed in Europe about 800 kya (or 800,000
years ago). The Asian sapiens appeared about 200 kya. The African sapiens
began to appear only 30,000 years ago, and the transition might not be
complete as yet. It is debatable whether the aborigines of Australia and
Indonesia are sapiens even today; they may still be erectus.
Genuine hominid fossils, as well as artifacts going back much further than
the Creationists' estimate of the world's age, do exist, though the fossil
record is, as I said, not complete.
You said, "I never found it possible to fully put forth one hundred precent
faith in the theory, as it seemed to have steadily increasing gaps and
holes. Also top scientists have continue to conclude that the fossil records
are not up to par with the theory that is currently developed." What is it
that you question here? The principle of evolution, or the interpretation
of paleontological details? Those are two different matters, though the
Creationists might hope that you will get them confused. If the former, why?
If the latter, which details?--it's not something to be vague about.
Jerry Abbott
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sally" |
|
| Title: Re: Public Schools Science Education: What Biology teachers are forced to teach |
01 Oct 2003 05:58:40 AM |
|
|
"Jerry Abbott" <j.n.a@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:h4reb.4353$iD1.432@news02.roc.ny...
Dear Brandon,
I've had trouble in getting started with giving you my opinion of
Creationism.
Let me give my brief summary first: it's crooked.
Jerry,
In my opinion, your views on Creationist psuedoscience and your explanation
of human evolution are bang on the nose. I have saved your notes for my own
use.
But, I'm puzzled. In a previous email I was tempted to respond with some
facts on the genetics of human diversity and the fallacy of selecting one
particular dimension of variation, white versus black, from a genetics
standpoint. But your evolution screed suggests that you probably already are
aware of this. How can you know so much about the topic and still have your
particular views on race and white supremacy?
Sally
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: Public Schools Science Education: What Biology teachers are forced to teach |
01 Oct 2003 10:37:30 AM |
|
|
"Sally" <sallyx.parkinsx@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:blec6q$avum1$1@ID-40408.news.uni-berlin.de...
"Jerry Abbott" <j.n.a@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:h4reb.4353$iD1.432@news02.roc.ny...
Dear Brandon,
I've had trouble in getting started with giving you my opinion of
Creationism.
Let me give my brief summary first: it's crooked.
Jerry,
In my opinion, your views on Creationist psuedoscience and your
explanation
of human evolution are bang on the nose. I have saved your notes for my
own
use.
But, I'm puzzled. In a previous email I was tempted to respond with some
facts on the genetics of human diversity and the fallacy of selecting one
particular dimension of variation, white versus black, from a genetics
standpoint. But your evolution screed suggests that you probably already
are
aware of this. How can you know so much about the topic and still have
your
particular views on race and white supremacy?
Sally
I also found that to be a very well-written and non-confrontational article.
I'm saving it too.
I know nothing about Jerry, so I can't comment specifically on any views he
may or may not have. But as a general statement, people have the ability to
"compartmentalize" beliefs and knowledge. It's not unusual. As a specific
ferinstance, I used to talk via ng with a guy who is a senior Oracle DBA.
Very intelligent, perceptive, and rational individual. Except that he is a
devout Christian and believes in literal creation (not necessarily a given,
of course). I noticed that during discussions/arguments about this subject,
his rationality and logic went right out the window. His style of debate was
entirely different from a discussion about secular subjects -- in fact, if
all identification were stripped, you wouldn't believe it was the same
person.
If you believe the author of "Phantoms in the Brain" (whose name is too
long to remember), there is an actual 'structure' of the brain that supports
a tendency in people to form strong belief/loyalty structures. This is
actually adaptive in nature, and operates below the rational level. It is
alleged to be rquired for encouraging tribal loyalty, and therefore would
operate most strongly in situations that promote an "us/them" viewpoint.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Abbott" |
|
| Title: Re: Public Schools Science Education: What Biology teachers are forced to teach |
01 Oct 2003 02:21:51 PM |
|
|
I also found that to be a very well-written and non-confrontational
article.
I'm saving it too.
I know nothing about Jerry, so I can't comment specifically on any views
he
may or may not have. But as a general statement, people have the ability
to
"compartmentalize" beliefs and knowledge. It's not unusual. As a specific
ferinstance, I used to talk via ng with a guy who is a senior Oracle DBA.
Very intelligent, perceptive, and rational individual. Except that he is a
devout Christian and believes in literal creation (not necessarily a
given,
of course). I noticed that during discussions/arguments about this
subject,
his rationality and logic went right out the window. His style of debate
was
entirely different from a discussion about secular subjects -- in fact, if
all identification were stripped, you wouldn't believe it was the same
person.
I know that type of mentality. Devout Christians often make reliable
researchers, but they leave their religion in the parking lot before they
enter the lab. They don't pray in order to gain understanding about what
they study; they test and observe, and speculate, and test and observe...the
same as an atheist scientist might do.
The difference, as you say, emerges when you challenge them on their
beliefs. The Christian, most likely, has been indoctrinated from his
childhood to believe in God, Jesus, angels, and maybe saints and the Virgin
Mary. The indoctrination occurred at all levels, both intellectual and
visceral. Brainwashing so profound isn't easily overcome.
Now, you and Sally have made a mistake in comparing me with such a person.
I did not begin life in a racist home, nor was I exposed to racist
propaganda through the media for hours each day. The advertisements that I
saw in magazines didn't preach racism at me. The situation comedies I
watched didn't tell me that the White race had anything special going for
it.
Quite the opposite, in fact.
As the result of being raised by Christians, I was a Christian until late in
my teenage years. As the result of watching Jewish controlled TV with
liberal agendas both overt and subtle, I was a semi-socialist liberal for
many years.
But I was honest. I kept my eyes open. I noticed things that didn't fit or
didn't seem right. I ignored the discomfort of probing my beliefs with
skepticism; I'd had practice in doing that when I was questioning my
religious beliefs some years earlier.
What really made the scales fall from my eyes was a debate with other
atheists in an online forum. I'd noticed the extent of US foreign aid to
Israel, and wondered (electronically) aloud what we Americans were getting
for all that money, and why should one little country receive such a big
fraction of our help. As soon as I'd posted those questions, I was "jumped
on" by three Zionists in the most rabidly attack-dog fashion you can
imagine. I was greatly surprised by their manner, since until then they'd
seemed like reasonable people who could debate any subject in a reasonable
way.
They challenged me to answer questions that I lacked answers for, but,
rather than give in to them, I researched. And the more I learned, the less
liberal I became, and the less friendly I felt toward Jews. For the first
time, I learned about Deir Yassin. I learned that Israel was what it has
since been called by others: a bandit state. I learned about the USS
Liberty attack. I had not known of such villainy before; my "education" had
very carefully screened such things out. And then I began to wonder why
_that_ was done...
Question by question, I learned and became de-liberalized.
If you believe the author of "Phantoms in the Brain" (whose name is too
long to remember), there is an actual 'structure' of the brain that
supports
a tendency in people to form strong belief/loyalty structures. This is
actually adaptive in nature, and operates below the rational level. It is
alleged to be rquired for encouraging tribal loyalty, and therefore would
operate most strongly in situations that promote an "us/them" viewpoint.
That's basically right. Except that to be adaptive, it has to be
advantageous, either to the believer's own survival, or to the survival of
his genes. In this falling world, a public attachment to the beliefs that I
have isn't adaptive; it's contrary to survival on a personal level.
A belief can be right or wrong. It can be held so firmly that contrary
evidence won't shake it: these are irrational beliefs. But it can also be
held conditionally, subject to revision, as a scientist holds his theories.
Which am I? I think that I've probably made that clear.
Now. Which are you?
Jerry Abbott
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Abbott" |
|
| Title: Re: Public Schools Science Education: What Biology teachers are forced to teach |
01 Oct 2003 01:59:26 PM |
|
|
Dear Brandon,
I've had trouble in getting started with giving you my opinion of
Creationism.
Let me give my brief summary first: it's crooked.
Jerry,
In my opinion, your views on Creationist psuedoscience and your
explanation
of human evolution are bang on the nose. I have saved your notes for my
own
use.
But, I'm puzzled. In a previous email I was tempted to respond with some
facts on the genetics of human diversity and the fallacy of selecting one
particular dimension of variation, white versus black, from a genetics
standpoint. But your evolution screed suggests that you probably already
are
aware of this. How can you know so much about the topic and still have
your
particular views on race and white supremacy?
Sally
You'd have figured it out soon, anyway, Sally. The answer to your question
is that _I think I'm right_ about race. I'm in a position from which I can
disregard political considerations, laugh at peer pressure, and tell society
to go to hell, if I have to. In other words, I have a real freedom, rather
than a theoretical one, to say what I really think. It's you, not I, who
labors under an illusion, and that illusion was probably not of your own
creation.
Someone in my position doesn't need to be especially brave to assert the
worth of his race. But others who have done it have encountered enemies,
often Jews, who explored his vulnerabilities, chose one, and destroyed him,
at least to the extent of preventing him from having further influence.
Until I looked it up, just now, I'd thought that "screed" was a pejorative
term, applied to someone's writing as a smear. But Merriam-Webster says
it's only "a lengthy discourse" or "an informal piece of writing."
You could respond at length with whatever ideas you have about the sameness
of the extant hominid races. There are a number of ways I could reply, and
I think that I would choose the sort of arguments I gave to an
anthropologist, Professor Wolpoff, first. You can find those arguments
here:
http://sdebug.org/posts/wolpoff.html
Jerry Abbott
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence Seib" |
|
| Title: Re: Public Schools Science Education: What Biology teachers are forced to teach |
01 Oct 2003 04:38:48 PM |
|
|
"Jerry Abbott" <j.n.a@frontiernet.net> wrote in message news:<iuFeb.7598$LQ6.2485@news01.roc.ny>...
Jerry,
In my opinion, your views on Creationist psuedoscience and your
explanation
of human evolution are bang on the nose. I have saved your notes for my
own
use.
But, I'm puzzled. In a previous email I was tempted to respond with some
facts on the genetics of human diversity and the fallacy of selecting one
particular dimension of variation, white versus black, from a genetics
standpoint. But your evolution screed suggests that you probably already
are
aware of this. How can you know so much about the topic and still have
your
particular views on race and white supremacy?
Sally
snip
Someone in my position doesn't need to be especially brave to assert the
worth of his race. But others who have done it have encountered enemies,
often Jews, who explored his vulnerabilities, chose one, and destroyed him,
at least to the extent of preventing him from having further influence.
Somewhat paranoid, it sounds like you beleive there is a
race conspiracy going on.
You could respond at length with whatever ideas you have about the sameness
of the extant hominid races. There are a number of ways I could reply, and
I think that I would choose the sort of arguments I gave to an
anthropologist, Professor Wolpoff, first. You can find those arguments
here: http://sdebug.org/posts/wolpoff.html
Well I have had similar ideas, thought them up on my own.
The trouble is that there never was any proof of them, and
finaly I decided I was just wrong. Along came the bell curve,
which I was suspicious of, and sure enough, it was proved to be a bunch of
bunk.
Larry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Abbott" |
|
| Title: Re: Public Schools Science Education: What Biology teachers are forced to teach |
02 Oct 2003 12:19:42 AM |
|
|
Someone in my position doesn't need to be especially brave to assert the
worth of his race. But others who have done it have encountered
enemies,
often Jews, who explored his vulnerabilities, chose one, and destroyed
him,
at least to the extent of preventing him from having further influence.
Somewhat paranoid, it sounds like you beleive there is a
race conspiracy going on.
There is a race conspiracy going on, and it has nothing to do with paranoia.
There's plenty of evidence to persuade a normal person that this is the
case, though there are too many people who, perhaps because of fear, don't
want to know.
Investigate, if you dare, Bernard Baruch's authority over Allied deployments
during World War 1, and read his own statements in describing his role
before Congress after the war. In a hearing before a Congressional
Committee, Mr. Baruch revealed that he had the authority to determine where
US and Allied (i.e., British) war materiel would be deployed, which means
that a Jew was running the war however he saw fit, which is why the British
Navy in the Far East couldn't get British aircraft for air cover during
their defense of British possessions in Malaya. When the HMS Repulse and
HMS Prince of Wales went into Malayan waters, they had no fighter aircraft
support, as the result of which they were sunk, and down with them went the
British Empire in the East.
Also, it appears that there was a widespread scam, originating in the United
States, whereby a great deal of defective ammunition was sold to the
governments with whom the U.S. government was allied. Millions of rounds of
small arms ammunition sent from America were absolutely useless, and so were
a large proportion of the shells, reportedly with disastrous results. The
money paid for the defective munitions was never refunded, and so the costs
had to be borne by the taxpayers of the purchasing country. Colonel A.H.
Lane reported that after the war an "investigating committee" was appointed,
with a Jewish chairman, "to try and stop the many ugly stories and rumours
which were circulated . . . but the preliminary evidence was so damning that
in a few weeks" the investigation "was shut down and no report issued except
'that it was not in the public interests,' etc., that a report should be
made."
Read about Paul Warburg's work to take from Congress its constitutional
authority to coin money and regulate its value, and transfer that power to a
private association of mostly Jewish bankers: the Federal Reserve.
Did you know that a Louis T. McFadden, after investigating a conspiracy
among these Jewish bankers, survived two assassination attempts, and fell to
a successful third one, shortly before he was to give a complete report to
Congress? He had already said this:
"Mr. Chairman, there is a condition in the Treasury of the United States
which would cause American citizens, if they knew what it was, to lose all
confidence in their Government. That is a condition that Roosevelt will not
have investigated. He has brought with him from Wall Street, James Warburg,
the son of Paul M. Warburg. Mr. Warburg is head of the Bank of Manhattan Co.
Mr. Warburg, alien born and the son of an alien who did not become
naturalized here until several years after this Warburg's birth, is a son of
a former partner of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., a grandson of another partner, a
nephew of a former partner, and a nephew of a present partner. He holds no
office in our Government, but I am told that he is in daily attendance at
the Treasury, and that he has private quarters there. In other words, Mr.
Chairman, Kuhn, Loeb & Co. now control and occupy the United States
Treasury." Quoted by A.N. Field
Did you know that President Kennedy displeased the Jewish bankers by trying
to restore to Congress their regulatory function over the nation's money?
After he was murdered, Johnson became president, and his first act was to
rescind Kennedy's executive order with one of his own. (Later, Johnson
would become the first president to betray his country by using his office
to lend aid and comfort to an enemy who had initiated acts of war against a
lightly armed ship of the US Navy in international waters, on 8 June 1967.
The ship: the USS Liberty. The country that attacked us: Israel.)
I could go on like this for quite a while. But no doubt you're weary of
information overload already. That happens quickly, you know, when you want
to dismiss a valid hypothesis as a "crackpot theory" without bothering to
refute the evidence marshalled in its favor. But you needn't really dig
into the little-known details of US history. There've been plenty of Jews
who have bragged, in print, about what they have done, are doing, and will
do. There've been a few Jews, rare and noble Jews, who once were highly
placed in Zionist circles, but who repented of Zionist aims and have tried
to make us aware of what's going on.
You could respond at length with whatever ideas you have about the
sameness
of the extant hominid races. There are a number of ways I could reply,
and
I think that I would choose the sort of arguments I gave to an
anthropologist, Professor Wolpoff, first. You can find those arguments
here: http://sdebug.org/posts/wolpoff.html
Well I have had similar ideas, thought them up on my own.
The trouble is that there never was any proof of them, and
finaly I decided I was just wrong.
WHY did you decide that you were wrong (and, by extension, that I am wrong
now)? You are "hand waving".
Along came the bell curve,
which I was suspicious of, and sure enough, it was proved to be a bunch of
bunk.
Proved HOW? Present your case, please. No handwaving except in connection
with what we've agreed on, understand already, and need not repeat.
In your opinion, is the racial gap in average IQ of about 15 points real?
If so, then does it signal a relative deficit of Black intelligence or
something else. If something else, what?
How do you explain the proportionate over-representation of Whites and
Asians in intellectually demanding science courses in the universities, and
the proportionate underrepresentation of Blacks?
Jerry Abbott
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence Seib" |
|
| Title: Re: Public Schools Science Education: What Biology teachers are forced to teach |
03 Oct 2003 09:10:14 AM |
|
|
"Jerry Abbott" <j.n.a@frontiernet.net> wrote in message news:<OzOeb.7716$Yd4.706@news01.roc.ny>...
Someone in my position doesn't need to be especially brave to assert the
worth of his race. But others who have done it have encountered
enemies,
often Jews, who explored his vulnerabilities, chose one, and destroyed
him,
at least to the extent of preventing him from having further influence.
Somewhat paranoid, it sounds like you beleive there is a
race conspiracy going on.
There is a race conspiracy going on, and it has nothing to do with paranoia.
There's plenty of evidence to persuade a normal person that this is the
case, though there are too many people who, perhaps because of fear, don't
want to know.
snip rant.
I suppose a male WASP, knowing that he has all the advantages in
the world, might fear the anger of those he has repressed, or
might fear the loss of his unfair advantages.
If there is a conspiracy, they have done a rotten job at
making life better for themselves. What you do not see is
that if we could look at the world through color blind and
sexist blind glasses, everyone would be better off.
Larry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Abbott" |
|
| Title: Re: Public Schools Science Education: What Biology teachers are forced to teach |
03 Oct 2003 02:06:54 PM |
|
|
snip rant.
I suppose a male WASP, knowing that he has all the advantages in
the world, might fear the anger of those he has repressed, or
might fear the loss of his unfair advantages.
If there is a conspiracy, they have done a rotten job at
making life better for themselves. What you do not see is
that if we could look at the world through color blind and
sexist blind glasses, everyone would be better off.
That casual use of "if" represents what is actually an insurmountable
hurdle, since the natural law of life is competition for resources, struggle
for mastery, and it has never been otherwise. You might as well say that if
everyone would obey the law, there wouldn't need to be any jails, or if
everyone would be polite, there'd never be any fights. You can as
efficaciously lecture two bucks fighting over the right to mate with the
does as lecture human groups on the importance of multiracial harmony.
The problem for my race isn't fundamentally that we have acquired the
animosity of other races. The problem is that Whites are disunited, prone
to undercutting each other for selfish gain or for superficial political
goals, not imbued with a sense of race consciousness, not empowered by
racial loyalty. The Jews are, in this respect, far better off than Whites,
and it shows in their ability to dominate the political and financial
systems of the world despite their small proportion of its population. If
we had the clannishness that they have, it would not matter what any other
racial group throught of us, just as it didn't matter, in the long run, what
the American Indians thought of us.
We are, in one respect, superior to the Jews. Specifically, we don't need
our conquests subsidized by foreign groups. We can take care of the costs
quite nicely "in-house" by means of our own industrious enterprise and
energy, whereas they seldom do, which indicates that in general they cannot.
But this is a superiority that won't matter unless we first gain a general
racial unification, a sense of our identity as a people, and an incentive to
work, at long last, for our own advancement and not let ourselves be bled
for foreign interests.
Jerry Abbott
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence Seib" |
|
| Title: Re: Public Schools Science Education: What Biology teachers are forced to teach |
06 Oct 2003 02:44:43 PM |
|
|
"Jerry Abbott" <j.n.a@frontiernet.net> wrote in message news:<iNjfb.9793$l66.8137@news01.roc.ny>...
snip rant.
I suppose a male WASP, knowing that he has all the advantages in
the world, might fear the anger of those he has repressed, or
might fear the loss of his unfair advantages.
If there is a conspiracy, they have done a rotten job at
making life better for themselves. What you do not see is
that if we could look at the world through color blind and
sexist blind glasses, everyone would be better off.
That casual use of "if" represents what is actually an insurmountable
hurdle, since the natural law of life is competition for resources, struggle
for mastery, and it has never been otherwise. You might as well say that if
everyone would obey the law, there wouldn't need to be any jails, or if
everyone would be polite, there'd never be any fights. You can as
efficaciously lecture two bucks fighting over the right to mate with the
does as lecture human groups on the importance of multiracial harmony.
Human beings are social creatures, for the most part we do
geat along.
The problem for my race isn't fundamentally that we have acquired the
animosity of other races. The problem is that Whites are disunited, prone
to undercutting each other for selfish gain or for superficial political
goals, not imbued with a sense of race consciousness, not empowered by
racial loyalty. The Jews are, in this respect, far better off than Whites,
and it shows in their ability to dominate the political and financial
systems of the world despite their small proportion of its population. If
we had the clannishness that they have, it would not matter what any other
racial group throught of us, just as it didn't matter, in the long run, what
the American Indians thought of us.
What you call your race, as you yourself have noted,
is a very small similarity in your genes, We are all
brothers and sisters compared to most other animal
species.
We are, in one respect, superior to the Jews. Specifically, we don't need
our conquests subsidized by foreign groups. We can take care of the costs
quite nicely "in-house" by means of our own industrious enterprise and
energy, whereas they seldom do, which indicates that in general they cannot.
But this is a superiority that won't matter unless we first gain a general
racial unification, a sense of our identity as a people, and an incentive to
work, at long last, for our own advancement and not let ourselves be bled
for foreign interests.
I have a better idea. Why don't we all interbred and get rid of
races once and for all.
Larry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Abbott" |
|
| Title: Re: Public Schools Science Education: What Biology teachers are forced to teach |
06 Oct 2003 06:07:46 PM |
|
|
snip rant.
I suppose a male WASP, knowing that he has all the advantages in
the world, might fear the anger of those he has repressed, or
might fear the loss of his unfair advantages.
If there is a conspiracy, they have done a rotten job at
making life better for themselves. What you do not see is
that if we could look at the world through color blind and
sexist blind glasses, everyone would be better off.
That casual use of "if" represents what is actually an insurmountable
hurdle, since the natural law of life is competition for resources,
struggle
for mastery, and it has never been otherwise. You might as well say
that if
everyone would obey the law, there wouldn't need to be any jails, or if
everyone would be polite, there'd never be any fights. You can as
efficaciously lecture two bucks fighting over the right to mate with the
does as lecture human groups on the importance of multiracial harmony.
Human beings are social creatures, for the most part we do
geat along.
Humans--in fact, all primates--are tribal creatures. They normally practice
a dual-moral code, with preference to the in-group, and a more stand-offish
(when not hostile) attitude toward foreigners. The surest way to cause
social trauma in a primate society is to mix tribes together. It nearly
always causes bloody conflict. When separated, tribal groups establish a
territory and patrol it, defending it from competitors.
The problem for my race isn't fundamentally that we have acquired the
animosity of other races. The problem is that Whites are disunited,
prone
to undercutting each other for selfish gain or for superficial political
goals, not imbued with a sense of race consciousness, not empowered by
racial loyalty. The Jews are, in this respect, far better off than
Whites,
and it shows in their ability to dominate the political and financial
systems of the world despite their small proportion of its population.
If
we had the clannishness that they have, it would not matter what any
other
racial group throught of us, just as it didn't matter, in the long run,
what
the American Indians thought of us.
What you call your race, as you yourself have noted,
is a very small similarity in your genes, We are all
brothers and sisters compared to most other animal
species.
The tribal instinct is a big part of primate nature. Chimpanzees will
attack chimps from another troop who wander into their area. Humans have
this same instinct. Evolution put it into us, and it's not going to be
disposed of through propagandizing. Mix the races, and you will get a
bloody conflict sooner or later.
We are, in one respect, superior to the Jews. Specifically, we don't
need
our conquests subsidized by foreign groups. We can take care of the
costs
quite nicely "in-house" by means of our own industrious enterprise and
energy, whereas they seldom do, which indicates that in general they
cannot.
But this is a superiority that won't matter unless we first gain a
general
racial unification, a sense of our identity as a people, and an
incentive to
work, at long last, for our own advancement and not let ourselves be
bled
for foreign interests.
I have a better idea. Why don't we all interbred and get rid of
races once and for all.
Because that would rid the world of the highest potential for further
advancement. Nature proceeds through differentiation followed by selection
of the best, not through the amalgamation of the best and the worst.
Extinction is what is _supposed_ to happen to the inferior, as much now as
ever in the past.
Jerry Abbott
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Public Schools Science Education: What Biology teachers are forced to teach |
06 Oct 2003 07:11:40 PM |
|
|
"Jerry Abbott" <j.n.a@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:6Bmgb.2050$Or4.1887@news02.roc.ny...
snip rant.
I suppose a male WASP, knowing that he has all the advantages in
the world, might fear the anger of those he has repressed, or
might fear the loss of his unfair advantages.
If there is a conspiracy, they have done a rotten job at
making life better for themselves. What you do not see is
that if we could look at the world through color blind and
sexist blind glasses, everyone would be better off.
That casual use of "if" represents what is actually an insurmountable
hurdle, since the natural law of life is competition for resources,
struggle
for mastery, and it has never been otherwise. You might as well say
that if
everyone would obey the law, there wouldn't need to be any jails, or
if
everyone would be polite, there'd never be any fights. You can as
efficaciously lecture two bucks fighting over the right to mate with
the
does as lecture human groups on the importance of multiracial harmony.
Human beings are social creatures, for the most part we do
geat along.
Humans--in fact, all primates--are tribal creatures. They normally
practice
a dual-moral code, with preference to the in-group, and a more
stand-offish
(when not hostile) attitude toward foreigners. The surest way to cause
social trauma in a primate society is to mix tribes together. It nearly
always causes bloody conflict. When separated, tribal groups establish a
territory and patrol it, defending it from competitors.
The problem for my race isn't fundamentally that we have acquired the
animosity of other races. The problem is that Whites are disunited,
prone
to undercutting each other for selfish gain or for superficial
political
goals, not imbued with a sense of race consciousness, not empowered by
racial loyalty. The Jews are, in this respect, far better off than
Whites,
and it shows in their ability to dominate the political and financial
systems of the world despite their small proportion of its population.
If
we had the clannishness that they have, it would not matter what any
other
racial group throught of us, just as it didn't matter, in the long
run,
what
the American Indians thought of us.
What you call your race, as you yourself have noted,
is a very small similarity in your genes, We are all
brothers and sisters compared to most other animal
species.
The tribal instinct is a big part of primate nature. Chimpanzees will
attack chimps from another troop who wander into their area. Humans have
this same instinct. Evolution put it into us, and it's not going to be
disposed of through propagandizing. Mix the races, and you will get a
bloody conflict sooner or later.
You have confused tribal culture with the non-biological term "race".
Nations, City States, "races", are all artificial concepts, and represent
groups much bigger than our natural tribal instinct. Your real tribe is your
group of friends, the people at the watercooler, or the corner bar.
We are, in one respect, superior to the Jews. Specifically, we don't
need
our conquests subsidized by foreign groups. We can take care of the
costs
quite nicely "in-house" by means of our own industrious enterprise and
energy, whereas they seldom do, which indicates that in general they
cannot.
But this is a superiority that won't matter unless we first gain a
general
racial unification, a sense of our identity as a people, and an
incentive to
work, at long last, for our own advancement and not let ourselves be
bled
for foreign interests.
I have a better idea. Why don't we all interbred and get rid of
races once and for all.
Because that would rid the world of the highest potential for further
advancement.
Humans have taken over the globe, and with their livestock, represent the
bulk of the biomass on the land. We have launched robot spaceships to other
planets. We have peered into the heart of the atom. We have discovered our
ancestry of billions of years. What do you mean the highest potential for
advancement? Will hating our neighbors bring us closer to the stars?
Nature proceeds through differentiation followed by selection
of the best, not through the amalgamation of the best and the worst.
Actually, diversity is an important characteristic. Diversity makes a
species more robust, that is, more capable of surviving a changing or
diverse environment. Indeed, there is more diversity in the average human
tribe, than there is between tribes. In most tribes, you have the leader,
the loyal follower, the deep thinker, a cynic, the party guy, the lookout,
the right-hand man, etc.
Extinction is what is _supposed_ to happen to the inferior, as much now as
ever in the past.
In biology, extinction is the death of a species.
Jerry Abbott
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Abbott" |
|
| Title: Re: Public Schools Science Education: What Biology teachers are forced to teach |
07 Oct 2003 04:54:30 PM |
|
|
snip rant.
I suppose a male WASP, knowing that he has all the advantages in
the world, might fear the anger of those he has repressed, or
might fear the loss of his unfair advantages.
If there is a conspiracy, they have done a rotten job at
making life better for themselves. What you do not see is
that if we could look at the world through color blind and
sexist blind glasses, everyone would be better off.
That casual use of "if" represents what is actually an
insurmountable
hurdle, since the natural law of life is competition for resources,
struggle
for mastery, and it has never been otherwise. You might as well say
that if
everyone would obey the law, there wouldn't need to be any jails, or
if
everyone would be polite, there'd never be any fights. You can as
efficaciously lecture two bucks fighting over the right to mate with
the
does as lecture human groups on the importance of multiracial
harmony.
Human beings are social creatures, for the most part we do
geat along.
Humans--in fact, all primates--are tribal creatures. They normally
practice
a dual-moral code, with preference to the in-group, and a more
stand-offish
(when not hostile) attitude toward foreigners. The surest way to cause
social trauma in a primate society is to mix tribes together. It nearly
always causes bloody conflict. When separated, tribal groups establish
a
territory and patrol it, defending it from competitors.
The problem for my race isn't fundamentally that we have acquired
the
animosity of other races. The problem is that Whites are disunited,
prone
to undercutting each other for selfish gain or for superficial
political
goals, not imbued with a sense of race consciousness, not empowered
by
racial loyalty. The Jews are, in this respect, far better off than
Whites,
and it shows in their ability to dominate the political and
financial
systems of the world despite their small proportion of its
population.
If
we had the clannishness that they have, it would not matter what any
other
racial group throught of us, just as it didn't matter, in the long
run,
what
the American Indians thought of us.
What you call your race, as you yourself have noted,
is a very small similarity in your genes, We are all
brothers and sisters compared to most other animal
species.
The tribal instinct is a big part of primate nature. Chimpanzees will
attack chimps from another troop who wander into their area. Humans
have
this same instinct. Evolution put it into us, and it's not going to be
disposed of through propagandizing. Mix the races, and you will get a
bloody conflict sooner or later.
You have confused tribal culture with the non-biological term "race".
Nations, City States, "races", are all artificial concepts, and represent
groups much bigger than our natural tribal instinct. Your real tribe is
your
group of friends, the people at the watercooler, or the corner bar.
A race is another word for subspecies. How much between group variation
constitutes a division of subspecies is a big ambiguous, but the existence
of several races is not. Every racial group generally recognizes racially
foreign groups. The only source of denial is modern liberals, who, simply,
have gotten it wrong. A nation is what its Latin root term says it is: a
substantial body of people related by being born to a common ancestor. A
tribe is like a nation, but smaller. Your tribe is not necessarily the same
as your group of associates: you can choose to associate outside your tribe.
It isn't necessarily wise to do so, but you can.
We are, in one respect, superior to the Jews. Specifically, we
don't
need
our conquests subsidized by foreign groups. We can take care of the
costs
quite nicely "in-house" by means of our own industrious enterprise
and
energy, whereas they seldom do, which indicates that in general they
cannot.
But this is a superiority that won't matter unless we first gain a
general
racial unification, a sense of our identity as a people, and an
incentive to
work, at long last, for our own advancement and not let ourselves be
bled
for foreign interests.
I have a better idea. Why don't we all interbred and get rid of
races once and for all.
Because that would rid the world of the highest potential for further
advancement.
Humans have taken over the globe, and with their livestock, represent the
bulk of the biomass on the land. We have launched robot spaceships to
other
planets. We have peered into the heart of the atom. We have discovered our
ancestry of billions of years. What do you mean the highest potential for
advancement? Will hating our neighbors bring us closer to the stars?
Yes, and let me mention that my race must not find itself too few in numbers
to defend itself when the crunch comes in a few more decades. The human
population of Earth went from 5 billion to 6 billion in 12 years. At our
present rate of increase, we add a billion persons each 10 years. This will
not continue. Around 2050, there will begin a massive die-off of humankind,
mostly due to starvation, aggravated by disease. The race that survives
must be ours, or else it will be a return to an animal-level of
consciousness for Earthly life for perhaps millions of years.
Nature's laws about the struggle for existence are never repealed. All that
the liberal. save-the-rabble, feel-good policies have done is deferred the
competing for a while, but the result of that deferment will be a resumption
of the stuggle--with a vengeance. All the fighting and killing and starving
and filthy-living-spawned-disease-death and general mayhem that _should_
have been going on throughout this past hundred years will be repaid to
Nature as an inescapable debt.
Those technical achievements you mentioned, and may others like them, were
not distributed among humans in a level distribution by race. Some races
did much. Others did little. It is important that those who can do much
survive, if a choice between races must be made.
Nature proceeds through differentiation followed by selection
of the best, not through the amalgamation of the best and the worst.
Actually, diversity is an important characteristic. Diversity makes a
species more robust, that is, more capable of surviving a changing or
diverse environment. Indeed, there is more diversity in the average human
tribe, than there is between tribes. In most tribes, you have the leader,
the loyal follower, the deep thinker, a cynic, the party guy, the lookout,
the right-hand man, etc.
You fail to notice that mixture destroys diversity. Perhaps there is
something to be said for the existence of a stupid race that can jump high
to get the bananas, but unless you want to destroy his special nature
through interbreeding, you have to keep him apart from other races.
What does NOT happen when races mix is that the offspring inherit the "best"
of everything. They don't. In general mixture weakens characters or
destroys them. And human inheritance doesn't involve a smooth averaging of
traits from the two parents in their children; what really happens is that
portions of the child's structure--called Mendellian units--are separately
inherited from the parental gene pool and combined. It is possible for the
child of parents of greatly unequal size to become a big man with a small
heart--bedridden all his life because his heart can't pump enough blood to
let him get up and walk around. Like should mate with like, to avoid a
botched heredity.
Extinction is what is _supposed_ to happen to the inferior, as much now
as
ever in the past.
In biology, extinction is the death of a species.
Extinction is the death of any identifiable genetic type. It applies to any
group to which the word "genocide" might also be applied.
Jerry Abbott
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Haas" |
|
| Title: Re: Public Schools Science Education: What Biology teachers are forced to teach |
06 Oct 2003 03:16:09 PM |
|
|
In article <75ab6396.0310061144.7d80d25d@posting.google.com>,
lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu says...
"Jerry Abbott" <j.n.a@frontiernet.net> wrote in message news:<iNjfb.9793$l66.8137@news01.roc.ny>...
snip rant.
I suppose a male WASP, knowing that he has all the advantages in
the world, might fear the anger of those he has repressed, or
might fear the loss of his unfair advantages.
If there is a conspiracy, they have done a rotten job at
making life better for themselves. What you do not see is
that if we could look at the world through color blind and
sexist blind glasses, everyone would be better off.
That casual use of "if" represents what is actually an insurmountable
hurdle, since the natural law of life is competition for resources, struggle
for mastery, and it has never been otherwise. You might as well say that if
everyone would obey the law, there wouldn't need to be any jails, or if
everyone would be polite, there'd never be any fights. You can as
efficaciously lecture two bucks fighting over the right to mate with the
does as lecture human groups on the importance of multiracial harmony.
Human beings are social creatures, for the most part we do
geat along.
The problem for my race isn't fundamentally that we have acquired the
animosity of other races. The problem is that Whites are disunited, prone
to undercutting each other for selfish gain or for superficial political
goals, not imbued with a sense of race consciousness, not empowered by
racial loyalty. The Jews are, in this respect, far better off than Whites,
and it shows in their ability to dominate the political and financial
systems of the world despite their small proportion of its population. If
we had the clannishness that they have, it would not matter what any other
racial group throught of us, just as it didn't matter, in the long run, what
the American Indians thought of us.
What you call your race, as you yourself have noted,
is a very small similarity in your genes, We are all
brothers and sisters compared to most other animal
species.
We are, in one respect, superior to the Jews. Specifically, we don't need
our conquests subsidized by foreign groups. We can take care of the costs
quite nicely "in-house" by means of our own industrious enterprise and
energy, whereas they seldom do, which indicates that in general they cannot.
But this is a superiority that won't matter unless we first gain a general
racial unification, a sense of our identity as a people, and an incentive to
work, at long last, for our own advancement and not let ourselves be bled
for foreign interests.
I have a better idea. Why don't we all interbred and get rid of
races once and for all.
Larry
Problem is..... We have done a lot of this already but humans still can
"see" differences even when there aren't any. It seems our ability to do
this, that is, use nationalism to rally diverse groups of people behind a
common goal has brought us to where we are today. In the past when there
were just small groups it worked well but in a modern world I am afraid it
is just so much evolutionary baggage.
--
------
D. Haas
"Consistency requires you be as ignorant today as you were a year ago."
Bernard Berenson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Abbott" |
|
| Title: Re: Public Schools Science Education: What Biology teachers are forced to teach |
06 Oct 2003 06:14:43 PM |
|
|
snip rant.
I suppose a male WASP, knowing that he has all the advantages in
the world, might fear the anger of those he has repressed, or
might fear the loss of his unfair advantages.
If there is a conspiracy, they have done a rotten job at
making life better for themselves. What you do not see is
that if we could look at the world through color blind and
sexist blind glasses, everyone would be better off.
That casual use of "if" represents what is actually an insurmountable
hurdle, since the natural law of life is competition for resources,
struggle
for mastery, and it has never been otherwise. You might as well say
that if
everyone would obey the law, there wouldn't need to be any jails, or
if
everyone would be polite, there'd never be any fights. You can as
efficaciously lecture two bucks fighting over the right to mate with
the
does as lecture human groups on the importance of multiracial harmony.
Human beings are social creatures, for the most part we do
geat along.
The problem for my race isn't fundamentally that we have acquired the
animosity of other races. The problem is that Whites are disunited,
prone
to undercutting each other for selfish gain or for superficial
political
goals, not imbued with a sense of race consciousness, not empowered by
racial loyalty. The Jews are, in this respect, far better off than
Whites,
and it shows in their ability to dominate the political and financial
systems of the world despite their small proportion of its population.
If
we had the clannishness that they have, it would not matter what any
other
racial group throught of us, just as it didn't matter, in the long
run, what
the American Indians thought of us.
What you call your race, as you yourself have noted,
is a very small similarity in your genes, We are all
brothers and sisters compared to most other animal
species.
We are, in one respect, superior to the Jews. Specifically, we don't
need
our conquests subsidized by foreign groups. We can take care of the
costs
quite nicely "in-house" by means of our own industrious enterprise and
energy, whereas they seldom do, which indicates that in general they
cannot.
But this is a superiority that won't matter unless we first gain a
general
racial unification, a sense of our identity as a people, and an
incentive to
work, at long last, for our own advancement and not let ourselves be
bled
for foreign interests.
I have a better idea. Why don't we all interbred and get rid of
races once and for all.
Larry
Problem is..... We have done a lot of this already but humans still can
"see" differences even when there aren't any. It seems our ability to do
this, that is, use nationalism to rally diverse groups of people behind a
common goal has brought us to where we are today. In the past when there
were just small groups it worked well but in a modern world I am afraid it
is just so much evolutionary baggage.
That's not correct. Rather, a lot of humans can see differences that you
don't see. And it isn't so much that you don't see them, as that you have
been taught that it is polite to deny them.
And, no, nationalism isn't evolutionary baggage. It is what brought peoples
together so that their maximum powers could be realized. Peoples who won't
do this suffer a great disadvantage in struggles with peoples that do.
Nationalism is a political expression of tribalism, which operates in
accordance with primate behavior as evolved by natural law. Evolution has,
in the past, selected some species of hominids (e.g. Homo habilis) to
prevail and for other species (e.g. Australopithecus Robustus) to perish.
This is the law of nature, and the process, in a general sense, will never
stop. The denial that this is the reality is foolishness and weakness, and
a race that will not struggle for its own advancement will lose its place on
Earth.
Jerry Abbott
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Public Schools Science Education: What Biology teachers are forced to teach |
06 Oct 2003 07:09:36 PM |
|
|
"Jerry Abbott" <j.n.a@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:DHmgb.2053$Cu4.607@news02.roc.ny...
snip rant.
I suppose a male WASP, knowing that he has all the advantages in
the world, might fear the anger of those he has repressed, or
might fear the loss of his unfair advantages.
If there is a conspiracy, they have done a rotten job at
making life better for themselves. What you do not see is
that if we could look at the world through color blind and
sexist blind glasses, everyone would be better off.
That casual use of "if" represents what is actually an
insurmountable
hurdle, since the natural law of life is competition for resources,
struggle
for mastery, and it has never been otherwise. You might as well say
that if
everyone would obey the law, there wouldn't need to be any jails, or
if
everyone would be polite, there'd never be any fights. You can as
efficaciously lecture two bucks fighting over the right to mate with
the
does as lecture human groups on the importance of multiracial
harmony.
Human beings are social creatures, for the most part we do
geat along.
The problem for my race isn't fundamentally that we have acquired
the
animosity of other races. The problem is that Whites are disunited,
prone
to undercutting each other for selfish gain or for superficial
political
goals, not imbued with a sense of race consciousness, not empowered
by
racial loyalty. The Jews are, in this respect, far better off than
Whites,
and it shows in their ability to dominate the political and
financial
systems of the world despite their small proportion of its
population.
If
we had the clannishness that they have, it would not matter what any
other
racial group throught of us, just as it didn't matter, in the long
run, what
the American Indians thought of us.
What you call your race, as you yourself have noted,
is a very small similarity in your genes, We are all
brothers and sisters compared to most other animal
species.
We are, in one respect, superior to the Jews. Specifically, we
don't
need
our conquests subsidized by foreign groups. We can take care of the
costs
quite nicely "in-house" by means of our own industrious enterprise
and
energy, whereas they seldom do, which indicates that in general they
cannot.
But this is a superiority that won't matter unless we first gain a
general
racial unification, a sense of our identity as a people, and an
incentive to
work, at long last, for our own advancement and not let ourselves be
bled
for foreign interests.
I have a better idea. Why don't we all interbred and get rid of
races once and for all.
Larry
Problem is..... We have done a lot of this already but humans still can
"see" differences even when there aren't any. It seems our ability to
do
this, that is, use nationalism to rally diverse groups of people behind
a
common goal has brought us to where we are today. In the past when
there
were just small groups it worked well but in a modern world I am afraid
it
is just so much evolutionary baggage.
That's not correct. Rather, a lot of humans can see differences that you
don't see. And it isn't so much that you don't see them, as that you have
been taught that it is polite to deny them.
You are confused by superficial differences . Our species is very uniform
compared to other species because of a bottleneck in our evolution about
100,000 years ago. Indeed, there is more genetic diversity within the tribe
than between tribes. The content of our character really is more important
that the color of our skins.
And, no, nationalism isn't evolutionary baggage.
That is correct. Nationalism is an artificial designation. It replaced the
loyalties of the previous Feudal system.
It is what brought peoples
together so that their maximum powers could be realized. Peoples who
won't
do this suffer a great disadvantage in struggles with peoples that do.
There is a difference between biological adaptation and cultural adaptation.
Biological adaptation takes generations, and involves the slow replacement
of the old forms with the new form. For a people to adopt the concept of
nationalism, they just have to read a pamplet.
Nationalism is a political expression of tribalism, which operates in
accordance with primate behavior as evolved by natural law.
So is the idea that we are all brothers and sisters.
Evolution has,
in the past, selected some species of hominids (e.g. Homo habilis) to
prevail and for other species (e.g. Australopithecus Robustus) to perish.
This is the law of nature, and the process, in a general sense, will never
stop. The denial that this is the reality is foolishness and weakness,
and
a race that will not struggle for its own advancement will lose its place
on
Earth.
You are confusing your irrational hatred of certain ethnic groups with the
Theory of Evolution. Hatred is only one of many responses that evolution has
endowed us with. We also have the capability of love, compassion, thought
and foresight. And there is no reason why we can't recognize the entire
world as the "true tribe."
Jerry Abbott
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Abbott" |
|
| Title: Re: Public Schools Science Education: What Biology teachers are forced to teach |
07 Oct 2003 04:20:16 PM |
|
|
snip rant.
I suppose a male WASP, knowing that he has all the advantages in
the world, might fear the anger of those he has repressed, or
might fear the loss of his unfair advantages.
If there is a conspiracy, they have done a rotten job at
making life better for themselves. What you do not see is
that if we could look at the world through color blind and
sexist blind glasses, everyone would be better off.
That casual use of "if" represents what is actually an
insurmountable
hurdle, since the natural law of life is competition for
resources,
struggle
for mastery, and it has never been otherwise. You might as well
say
that if
everyone would obey the law, there wouldn't need to be any jails,
or
if
everyone would be polite, there'd never be any fights. You can as
efficaciously lecture two bucks fighting over the right to mate
with
the
does as lecture human groups on the importance of multiracial
harmony.
Human beings are social creatures, for the most part we do
geat along.
The problem for my race isn't fundamentally that we have acquired
the
animosity of other races. The problem is that Whites are
disunited,
prone
to undercutting each other for selfish gain or for superficial
political
goals, not imbued with a sense of race consciousness, not
empowered
by
racial loyalty. The Jews are, in this respect, far better off
than
Whites,
and it shows in their ability to dominate the political and
financial
systems of the world despite their small proportion of its
population.
If
we had the clannishness that they have, it would not matter what
any
other
racial group throught of us, just as it didn't matter, in the long
run, what
the American Indians thought of us.
What you call your race, as you yourself have noted,
is a very small similarity in your genes, We are all
brothers and sisters compared to most other animal
species.
We are, in one respect, superior to the Jews. Specifically, we
don't
need
our conquests subsidized by foreign groups. We can take care of
the
costs
quite nicely "in-house" by means of our own industrious enterprise
and
energy, whereas they seldom do, which indicates that in general
they
cannot.
But this is a superiority that won't matter unless we first gain a
general
racial unification, a sense of our identity as a people, and an
incentive to
work, at long last, for our own advancement and not let ourselves
be
bled
for foreign interests.
I have a better idea. Why don't we all interbred and get rid of
races once and for all.
Larry
Problem is..... We have done a lot of this already but humans still
can
"see" differences even when there aren't any. It seems our ability to
do
this, that is, use nationalism to rally diverse groups of people
behind
a
common goal has brought us to where we are today. In the past when
there
were just small groups it worked well but in a modern world I am
afraid
it
is just so much evolutionary baggage.
That's not correct. Rather, a lot of humans can see differences | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
