Culture Darwinism

What role did “evolution” play in Dylann Roof’s motives?

Spread the love

Readers will long be haunted by the memory of the 21-year-old gunman who opened fire earlier this month in a historic, mainly African American church in Charleston, South Carolina, killing nine.

David Klinghoffer, at Evolution News & Views, offers the following:

Dylann Roof’s apparent “manifesto” deals a little with themes of pseudo-scientific racism:

Negroes have lower [IQs], lower impulse control, and higher testosterone levels in generals. These three things alone are a recipe for violent behavior. If a scientist publishes a paper on the differences between the races in Western Europe or Americans, he can expect to lose his job. There are personality traits within human families, and within different breeds of cats or dogs, so why not within the races?

A horse and a donkey can breed and make a mule, but they are still two completely different animals. Just because we can breed with the other races doesnt make us the same.

But beyond that there was none of the evolutionary chatter you find at some neo-Nazi and white supremacist sites. Now, though, the mainstream media are rejoicing at the revelation that a racist group that evidently inspired Roof is headed by a man who is also a donor to Republican candidates.

But, more significantly,

When I read these articles, I noted that the official spokesman for Holt’s group is a person called Jared Taylor, best known for leading another, slightly more polished white nationalist web publication, American Renaissance. These organizations have their different emphases and preoccupations. While the Council of Conservative Citizens is obsessed by “black-on-white” crime, American Renaissance has as one of its specialties science-flavored, notably evolutionary, justifications for racism. In the media coverage I’ve seen, the latter fact has gone unmentioned. More.

Not really a surprise, actually. Modern racism is Darwinian in character. Growing up in Canada, I (O’Leary for News, b. 1950) didn’t run into much full-blown racism (as distinct from lots of ethnic grievance-mongering, driven more by grief or self-pity than hatred). But the racism I did hear was fully Darwinian in the sense of survival of the fittest, superior genetic pools, etc.

Significantly, these concepts were largely unknown to the general public before Darwinism began to be taught in the schools. The new concepts certainly did not create racism but they lent it the respectability of science. Thus, not surprisingly, there is indeed an “evolution” component to many North American mass murders.

The Darwin-in-the-schools lobby has made sure that the only proposed form of evolution most people in North America are even familiar with is Darwinism (natural selection acting on random mutations, roughly translated—with Darwin’s approval—as “survival of the fittest”). So we can bet that when apparent mass murderers say “evolution,” they mean Darwinian evolution, and not any other kind.

Worse, Darwinism is not like other evolution theories. The fact that Darwin was—like most Brit gents of his day—a racist often obscures the fact that race theory is not incidental to his theory of speciation, it is fundamental.

It explains, just for example, the need to heavily weight the balance in favour of Neanderthal man being a separate human species, with the usual easy speculation as to why the Neanderthals “died out,” as opposed to just being assimilated by waves of later migrants, as the genomic data suggest. Separate human species are needed to prop up the theory, and races are supposed to be heading toward speciation.

One factor that prevents any constructive discussion of these matters is that the legislators one would expect to be most concerned about racism, on account of the support visible minorities give them, also market Darwinism to their campus progressive base—presumably hoping (perhaps with good cause) that their much larger minority base will never find out how much their favoured candidates are in the tank for Darwin.

It would be an act of decency and fairness on the part of a person they trust to let them know. Don’t expect any legacy medium to confront these politicians about it.

And all the while, constructive understandings of evolution, that do not involve any racist assumptions—and are indeed contrary to them (horizontal gene transfer, epigenetics, etc)—go unexplored.

Which is why I say: Stop all teaching of Darwinism in the schools now. Or else, teach it in context, giving significant time for evidence-based approaches to evolution.

See also: Neanderthal Man: The long-lost relative turns up again, this time with documents

Follow UD News at Twitter!

47 Replies to “What role did “evolution” play in Dylann Roof’s motives?

  1. 1
    Lee Spetner says:

    The teaching of neo-Darwinian evolution must stop because it lacks any scientific support. My latest book, The Evolution Revolution, shows this in detail and offers another theory that accounts for all the evolution the Darwinian theory cannot. It is outrageous that neo-Darwinian evolution is taught as if it were science.

  2. 2
    News says:

    Yes, and when the smoke clears, Dr. Spetner, I will get back to your book.

    Currently, it is the social damage I have been focusing on.

    I am especially concerned by the perpetration of this damage by persons one would have expected to take a quite different view.

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    Dr. Spetner, having received a PhD in physics from MIT in 1950, you might find this recent study interesting:

    Babies are born with a grasp of physics, researchers claim – April 2015
    Babies have an innate understanding of the way the world works and will pay more attention to objects if they appear to defy the basic laws of physics, a pioneering study has found.,,,
    The findings support the contention that humans are born with some kind of core knowledge about how things should work which acts as a template on which babies begin to learn about the world around them, the scientists said.
    “Our research suggests that infants use what they already know about the world to form predictions. When these predictions are shown to be wrong, infants use this as a special opportunity for learning,” said Lisa Feigenson, a psychologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.,,,
    The study looked at the way 11-month-old babies responded to seeing a ball apparently rolling through a solid wall. In another experiment, a toy car could be seen rolling off a ledge into mid-air without falling.
    On both occasions, the gaze of the babies became significantly longer compared to parallel tests where the ball and toy car did what the babies expected and were stopped by the wall or fell to the floor respectively.
    The study also found that when surprised in this way, the babies were more likely to become interested in the objects. They would bang the ball for instance against a surface as if to test its solidity, while they would drop the car to see if it fell to the floor.
    The observations support the idea that when babies are surprised by something that goes against their core knowledge, they used it as a chance to learn more about the world, Professor Feigenson said.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/n.....53133.html

    a friend of mine on facebook commented:

    This is what intrigued me:

    Our daughter, who will get married n 2 weeks, while she was in Mom’s womb, responded adversely to stimuli.

    We were at a hospital getting a sonogram. We saw her clearly. A nurse nserted a needle through Mom’s belly and into the sac in order to draw fluid and do testing.

    As soon as the needle entered the sac, that baby quickly huddled over away from it. That kid sensed something foreign and moved away.

    Babies are sentient beings.

  4. 4
    daveS says:

    Are separate human species really necessary to prop up the theory? I would have thought that a one-human-species scenario could be just as likely under “Darwinism”. For example, if geography had been such that it was impossible for groups to split off and become reproductively isolated.

  5. 5
    Hangonasec says:

    Hahaha! Took a few days. Has there been a mass killing you people haven’t spun to demonise the opposition?

    Modern racism is Darwinian in character

    Only if you are as clueless as your average white-supremacist as to what ‘Darwinian’ selection actually means.

  6. 6
    Bob O'H says:

    I think this paragraph from Kinghofer’s piece is worth quoting:

    Guilt by association is a nasty business. It’s often very selective, too. It leaves things out that don’t fit the desired narrative.

  7. 7
    Seversky says:

    What role did “evolution” play in Dylann Roof’s motives?

    I was just waiting for that one to appear.

    According to his step-mother, he was brought up in a religious home, so what role did religion play in this killing?

  8. 8
    wd400 says:

    New low.

  9. 9
    Seversky says:

    Lee Spetner

    The teaching of neo-Darwinian evolution must stop because it lacks any scientific support. My latest book, The Evolution Revolution, shows this in detail and offers another theory that accounts for all the evolution the Darwinian theory cannot. It is outrageous that neo-Darwinian evolution is taught as if it were science.

    No, what’s outrageous is all the physicists, engineers, computer programmers, lawyers, surgeons, plumbers whatever who think they understand biology better than biologists. If they’re so damned smart and think it’s so damned easy then why didn’t they go into it instead of becoming physicists, engineers, lawyers, etc?

    Of course, if you have a bunch of biologists tearing into physics for the sterility of string theory or pointless multiverse speculations then at least you can go for a tu quoque I suppose.

  10. 10
    REC says:

    “What role did “evolution” play in Dylann Roof’s motives?”

    None.

    Did the slavers in Charleston or the segregationists that followed cite Darwin? Did Roof?

    Darwin didn’t invent racism or slavery. And Origins wasn’t the text used in the South to defend either. The Bible was.

    http://www.shilohtrenton.org/s.....-06-11.pdf

  11. 11
    Roy says:

    Recurrent low.

  12. 12
    Mapou says:

    Roy:

    Recurrent low.

    It’s obviously striking a very sensitive nerve. It’s fun to watch. I say, hit the Darwinists and the other brain-dead atheists with every arrow in the quiver. Give them a taste of their own medicine.

  13. 13
    Carpathian says:

    This article is propaganda.

  14. 14
    Mapou says:

    Evolution is propaganda.

  15. 15
    Silver Asiatic says:

    The racial elements in Charles Darwin’s writing, the eugenicist implications, are often brushed aside as ugly but incidental, a mere byproduct of his time and place. Yet the myth of European superiority over inferior dark peoples continues to percolate in some evolutionary thinking, a century and more after the close of the Victorian era. It seems to have found an eager student in a disturbed young man named Dylann Roof.

    It’s sad that innocent church-goers were brutally attacked because of that kind of Darwinian thinking. But it’s not suprising. We see evidence of similar thought here on UD all the time where evolutionists cannot even understand that their theory is destructive of moral standards in general. The outrage we hear when some fairy obvious facts are mentioned is at best, the product of very shallow thinking and more likely just totally bogus.

    If you’re going to pretend to be a theist, just admit it.

  16. 16
    steveh says:

    Ten days of furious Googling! And after so many desperate searches for every permutation of “Dylann”. “Roof”, “Darwin”. “Evolution”, “Natural”, “Selection”, “Finches” and “Barnacles” etc. by the management and (pro-ID) community, during which time, the deaths of nine innocent human beings apparently merited no mention whatsoever – this is all you can now come up with: An ENV article and a manifest which features only two of the search terms (“Dylann” and “Roof”) you so desperately wanted to find.

  17. 17
    goodusername says:

    Ten days of furious Googling! And after so many desperate searches for every permutation of “Dylann”. “Roof”, “Darwin”. “Evolution”, “Natural”, “Selection”, “Finches” and “Barnacles” etc. by the management and (pro-ID) community, during which time, the deaths of nine innocent human beings apparently merited no mention whatsoever – this is all you can now come up with

    Yeah, not worth mentioning until a link (regardless of how tenuous or dubious) to Darwinism could be found. It looks like it took a while. But I figured eventually they’d find something on par with, “The former room-mate of the third cousin of Dylann’s second grade teacher…”, and that would be enough for someone to say “It’s sad that innocent church-goers were brutally attacked because of that kind of Darwinian thinking.”

  18. 18
    anthropic says:

    Darwinian thinking absolutely plays a big role in some forms of racism. And, in fact, the shooters at Columbine specifically cited Darwinism as helping to justify their behavior, though it was not racially motivated.

    That said, I agree with the critics: Roof seems a stretch. Not all racism and hatred comes from Darwinism.

  19. 19
    Robert Byers says:

    I;m not haunted as its a small matter relative to how many people are murdered.
    by the way I understand balacks do more crime towards whites etc and its possible from identity hostility motives and so indeed do it more and the definition should not be the other way around. Anyways its still very very little on anyside and irrelevant to the midering that goes on and that not much relative.
    I don’t like a attempt of the left to say whites hurt blacks more due to “racia;” ideas. Nope. the other way around as far as stas and motives are included.

    HOWEVER indeed they push black inferiority stuff in those circles. WAdes book and THE BELL CURVE and others.
    So these ideas are from evolutionary presumptions including breeding concepts.
    There is a iossue with human intelligence being scored on DNA concepts.
    They all say genes affect smarts.
    Dp people make conclusions.
    However its still just a few evil people who do evil.
    Creationists can’t say these ideas have any relevance to evil. Its just evil.
    They would do it anyways . They simply seek excuses.

    Creationists should be careful about cause and effect. The other side does that to us.
    People must be able to say anuthing about anything without being responsible for evil /crackpots.

  20. 20
    leodp says:

    Racism can find support in Darwin as the theory depends upon one subspecies ascending over others. It requires there to be an ‘inferior’ and ‘superior’ subspecies in order to advance. This was not lost on Darwin and many of his followers who were quick to draw application to the ‘inferior’ African races (in their sick and incorrect view).
    But I was more impressed that so many of those in the same church and near the victims publically forgave Dylann Roof, refusing to give in to hate and retributive violence. Some even explicitly called on him to repent and give his life to Christ. So the work of Christ in this horrible affair was far more evident, redemptive and remarkable than anything Darwin’s ideas may have had to do with it.

  21. 21
    Robert Byers says:

    leodp
    how can the dead forgive? The bible doesn’t say to forgive people but only if they repent. God doesn’t forgive without repentance so why would man have that command.?
    I still think this is more about the “:race” issue then murder. Murders and big killing sprees are common enough. I think the motives behind the motive to murder and that behind the act IS more important to the Obamas of this world.
    In fact its trivial. Its only the murders that matter which includes intent to murder.

    Its not true Darwin saw anyone as racialy inferior. He went out of his way to say they are not. He made examples of primitive natives who had been civilized.
    Just darwin. The rest did right away insist race eqialed smarts/morals.
    Chuck gets a bad rap.
    He did say women were intellectually biologically inferior but they don’t mind that those who know.
    Women are not and just human beings made in Gods image and so impossible for there to be differences between men and women in smarts.
    There are in motivations and results but that explains all.

  22. 22
    anthropic says:

    Robert 21: “Women are not and just human beings made in Gods image and so impossible for there to be differences between men and women in smarts.”

    Men and women use their brains differently, though their IQs are on average pretty close. However, white male IQs are more extreme in their distribution than white females, dominating both the high and low ends.

    Interestingly, the situation is striking different in the African American community. AA females are far more likely to have high IQs than AA males.

    Best explanation I’ve heard is that male cognitive development may be more sensitive to environment than female. Good environments (and by good I’m talking about in the womb, too!) benefit boys more, bad environments hurt boys more. Diet, family structure, education background all play huge roles.

    Sadly, cognitively gifted AA males face special burdens growing up, as they are mocked for “acting white.” AA females can achieve academically with far less blowback, which is another reason they dominate high IQs in that group.

  23. 23
    Bob O'H says:

    Racism can find support in Darwin as the theory depends upon one subspecies ascending over others.

    No, actually it doesn’t – it requires variation between individuals, not groups. So if you’re going to use Darwin’s ideas then you’re going to have to work harder.

    If you’re going to use modern evolutionary theory then you’re going to have to work even harder, as we now know that the conditions for selection to happen at the group level are fairly strict, and also that the overall genetic divergence between human populations is small.

  24. 24
    Virgil Cain says:

    There isn’t any modern evolutionary theory, Bob.

  25. 25
    Virgil Cain says:

    Seversky:

    No, what’s outrageous is all the physicists, engineers, computer programmers, lawyers, surgeons, plumbers whatever who think they understand biology better than biologists.

    And yet biologists can’t answer the most simple biological question- what makes an organism what it is? And they sure as heck can’t answer any question with respect to evolutionism.

  26. 26
    leodp says:

    “The break between man [and his nearest allies] will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead as present between the negro or Australian (aborigine) and the gorilla.” — Darwin, in the Decent of Man
    A quick Google pops up a dozens of articles defending Darwin and denying that he was a racist and the natural implications when you apply his theory to humans. He was a “man of his Victorian times” and “it’s really not true” and so on. But the truth is, philosophical application of his theory in Nietzsche (and others) and political application in the Nazis, and the inescapable nihilistic implications to our culture in general have lead to great evil and have undermined the previous Christian-based claim that all people are created in God’s image and endowed by our Creator with rights, dignity and purpose. If we’re here by accident then there is no purpose in our existence nor a moral order intrinsic to reality nor a universal moral law binding on either governments or individuals. In fact a firm basis for trusting our own reason is removed. (Why should we trust our designed-by-chance, selected for reproductive advantage brains with lofty conclusions?) The modern concept of ‘human rights’ presupposes a moral order and the special moral value of human life and evaporates to become a thing of wish or myth that can just as easily be dispensed with by anyone with power over others.

  27. 27
    goodusername says:

    leodp,

    Racism can find support in Darwin as the theory depends upon one subspecies ascending over others. It requires there to be an ‘inferior’ and ‘superior’ subspecies in order to advance. This was not lost on Darwin and many of his followers who were quick to draw application to the ‘inferior’ African races (in their sick and incorrect view).

    Darwin was attempting to explain the diversity of life around us. His answer was that species originate by splitting into populations, which develop into subspecies, which develop into species. Thus you have an increase of diversity – you have multiple species and subspecies where you originally had one.
    Obviously there are times when subspecies that were separate come in contact and compete and a subspecies may become extinct. But it’s hardly a necessary part of the process. In fact, it’s the opposite process – it’s a reduction in diversity.

    “The break between man [and his nearest allies] will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead as present between the negro or Australian (aborigine) and the gorilla.” — Darwin, in the Decent of Man

    Darwin isn’t talking about evolution here, he’s talking about extinction. He’s addressing the issue of breaks in the taxonomic tree. He’s claiming that it’s because of extinctions.
    If all breeds of dog except chihuahuas went extinct, the break between dogs and wolves would suddenly be much greater.

    As for the Nazis, they were primarily obsessed with racial purity. Hitler, and many other Nazis, were not Darwinists, and it shows. Darwin rarely spoke of anything like racial purity, and when he did he believed it was an unhealthy thing for a species or population.
    The importance of racial purity was spread by people like Gobineau and H. S. Chamberlain who, by the way, were opponents of evolution, and were heroes of Hitler.

  28. 28
    leodp says:

    “Pity thwarts the whole law of evolution, which is the law of natural selection. It preserves whatever is ripe for destruction; it fights on the side of those disinherited and condemned by life; by maintaining life in so many of the botched of all kinds, it gives life itself a gloomy and dubious aspect.” — Nietzche
    It was a short German logical trip from “The Will to Power” to Mein Kampf. And apparently Dylann Roof was a Nazi fan.

  29. 29
    ringo says:

    Both of my parents grew up in the 60’s and were huge civil right activist. They both graduated with a degree in psychology. My father got his doctorate from Rice University. His professors at the time were Darwinist. My parents are both hard core liberal Democrats and they both believe that black people are less evolved than white people. My parents are good people and they do not hate anyone, but they have been so indoctrinated into thinking this kind of garbage that they cannot help but look at people of color through Darwinian lenses. I find this to be the dirty little secret among those on the left. So, I wondered for a long time why they cared about African American rights if they believed they were less evolved. From other conversations I have had with them it turns out that they feel sorry for them more than anything. I was somewhat shocked.

    It is amazing how different people look when you realize that they are ALL created in God’s image. The Darwinian paradigm is a terrible way to look at the world (and unscientific). Until we see only one race of men and women (equal in every way) in this world we will either hate or feel sorry for other people.

    To be fair, I cannot speak for everyone who believes in the Darwinian Fairy tale, but that has been my experience growing up and listening to conversations between my parents and their “progressively intellectual” friends.

  30. 30
    leodp says:

    Ringo: must be an interesting story of how, coming from that background, you arrived at such a dramatically different conclusion!

  31. 31
    Robert Byers says:

    leodp
    Your right that evolutionist thinkers , I think almost all, were sayinbg race matters in smarts. Yet you are wrong in saying Darwins ideas lead to this conclusion. He directly said no.
    He saw no reason for selection to have time or need to select on race for smarts.

  32. 32
    Robert Byers says:

    anthropic
    I disagree with you. We don’t use our brains differently. We simply have different motives and so different attention and so different memory operations.
    IQ means nothing about mechanism.
    Africans women would have more iQ then men because generally women stay even down the road these days.
    Probably a pride motivation does affect the males.
    yet thats not it all. The black women simply are more like the other women in motives. The men are all over the place because our motives are.
    Yet its impossible for there to be a difference in smarts between the sexes by the thinking machine. Its just motivation.
    We think with our heart as the bible says. which is immaterial. We just use our memory(the mind) to organize our thoughts.

  33. 33
    anthropic says:

    Hey, Robert. I’m afraid the facts are the facts: While cogitating, men tend to use more of the gray matter in the brain than women, while women rely more on the white matter than men. Vive la difference!

    PS Judging by their test answers, some of my students use the don’t matter.

  34. 34
    Axel says:

    anthropic, I think Robert is substantially correct. Any change in grey matter use would be a consequence, rather than causative.

    In the UK, since 1980, when, under Thatcher, the Conservatives began working to destroy the welfare-state, the educational performance of school-girls has often been reported to have improved very markedly.

    They have inherited a political astuteness by way of a gender-based psychological inheritance, so that they are more security-minded than males in the first place – though not ordinarily in a happy, welfare state, such as to subjugate their more spiritual orientation to worldly vaulting ambition. Unless a Thatcher type, when all best are off.

    I believe there are a number of factors involved, but there is evidence to suggest that many with a more endemically-spiritual, less worldly and more practical intelligence, under certain circumstances can prove to be high-flyers in terms of worldly intelligence.

    Perhaps it is more noticeable in politics than in most spheres, notably, perhaps, among trade-union leaders. However, after a former Butcher’s boy, Martin McGuinness, a top IRA leader and now, I believe joint Premier of N. Ireland, had been engaged in a colloquy relating to the Troubles in Northern Ireland with a Guards Colonel seconded to the Intelligence Services, the latter said he felt as if he had been talking with a someone of the level of intelligence of a Brigadier. And he was only a Colonel, himself!

    The point I mean to make is that there are indications that there are people with an intelligence habitually less orientated in a worldly direction, who are more easily able to adapt their intelligence to worldly matters with notable success than people of unambiguously worldly intelligence are able to develop their spiritual intelligence.

    However, the whole question of intelligence, seems to be more a matter of the WILL, however deep-seated and subconcious, than of any quantity of grey or white matter. The whole of scripture is predicated on such voluntarism, at least in terms of spiritual understanding and good sense.

    We can, indeed, see that it is more than vindicated when we consider the depths of folly of the world-views, and consequent assumptions, totally lacking in good sense, upon which many highly-accredited academics are capable of even basing their lives and careers – not to speak of the related hypotheses that will unerringly (mis)inform the burden of their intellectual studies.

    It was reported in newspapers that after giving birth, the intelligence of mothers measurable decreases. Here, we see a wonderfully-appropriate re-orientation of the mother’s mind to a more spiritual, emotional intelligence.

    For this reason, I suspect that sub-Saharan Africans are potentially more intelligent in the worldly sense than other ethnic types. After living at the barely viable margins of existence, the Kalahari bushmen and the Australian aborigines, I suspect would be too spiritually immersed for the orientation of their intelligence to be reversed. Were it desirable!!!!

  35. 35
    Axel says:

    All of the above reflections ultimately stem from the idea postulated, I believe, by Bergson, and referred to by Aldous Huxley in his essay on comparative religion, The Perennial Philosophy, that the brain is actually a reducing valve, preventing our being overwhelmed by divine truth, the Beatific Vision, to the detriment of a necessary concern for our survival in time.

    The evidence seems to me to support it. Hallucinogens, such as LSD and mescalin would counter the action of the reducing valve, normally protecting the dominance of the worldly intelligence.

  36. 36
    Silver Asiatic says:

    ringo – interesting observations. I’ve seen similar things – the feeling of white-guilt and condescending to black people as if they’re lesser human beings is common from left-wing advocates. That has caused a lot of harm – falsely believing that certain races lack inherent human capabilities. In the U.S. there’s similar racisim (ehnicism) towards Hispanic people.
    Some of that is because of historic animosities between England and Spain, but it’s also because of skin color and language.

  37. 37
    Axel says:

    Also, a massive desire for superiority, Silver, I think. An expression of tribalism.

  38. 38
    ringo says:

    To Leodp:

    “Ringo: must be an interesting story of how, coming from that background, you arrived at such a dramatically different conclusion”!

    It is interesting to say the least! At least today, Rice University has a few professors in their science department that do not believe in the Darwinian Fairy Tale. So they
    are moving in the right direction.

  39. 39
    velikovskys says:

    SA:
    ringo – interesting observations. I’ve seen similar things – the feeling of white-guilt and condescending to black people

    So have I, though I have seen worse coming from non Darwinians.

    as if they’re lesser human beings is common from left-wing advocates.

    Or that they have been systematically oppressed by a decidedly non left wing government , grow up in the South in the sixties SA?

    That has caused a lot of harm – falsely believing that certain races lack inherent human capabilities

    So your thesis is the South was a leftish paradise, good conservatives in Alabama were forced to enslave blacks because of fear of liberals, then for the next 100 years were forced to endure and participate in the sometimes violent suppression of blacks.

    Later those crafty liberals supported Civil Rights legislation, some ending up buried in Mississippi. All the while brave conservatives fought for the black race by providing special seating on buses, special water fountains, poll taxes, special fiery displays, special high quality schools.

    Until those intolerant liberals ruined the tradition with all those pesky laws and National Guard.

    In the U.S. there’s similar racisim (ehnicism) towards Hispanic people.

    Yes,Texans are well know as being left wing liberals.

  40. 40
    anthropic says:

    Axel 34 “However, the whole question of intelligence, seems to be more a matter of the WILL, however deep-seated and subconcious, than of any quantity of grey or white matter. The whole of scripture is predicated on such voluntarism, at least in terms of spiritual understanding and good sense.”

    So women “will” the use of their white matter more than men? Men “will” the use of their gray matter more than women? Geniuses “will” the use of their brain more than ordinary folk?

    There seem to be two errors here. One is the notion that equal means the same. Men and women have equal dignity and value, as they are equally created Imago Dei. But that does not mean that they are the same.

    This is obviously true regarding body shape, organs, and hormones. Why it cannot be true regarding the brain is a mystery.

    The second error is the assertion that lower IQ folks are that way because they lack the will to be smarter. True, many slower students give up trying in school, but this is usually because they experience repeated failure. Low IQ leads to failure leads to giving up, rather than giving up leads to failure leads to low IQ.

    I’ve had some experience with this, as I’ve been a teacher for 20 years.

  41. 41
    Axel says:

    ‘Men and women have equal dignity and value, as they are equally created Imago Dei. But that does not mean that they are the same.’

    I couldn’t agree more. We’re thinking in different categories. Your idea of ‘smart’ is antithetical to mine. It is you who seem to think that my saying women aren’t the same is a slur on them, when, were the difference an issue, as you see it, I would rate their intelligence higher than mens.

    And just in case, that’s not clear, I went on to suggest that that higher emotional intelligence could be ‘degraded’ down to the level of a worldly intelligence, which you deem to be ‘smartness’. Your idea of intrinsic intelligence, smartness is, imo, a degradation of intelligence properly so-called (which it seldom ever is). The very concept of wisdom has become increasingly foreign in our society. Even the church has historically equated a high worldly intelligence with virtue, almost the sovereign virtue – always for the glory of God, of course! A nice little ‘get out’, there.

    ‘The second error is the assertion that lower IQ folks are that way because they lack the will to be smarter. True, many slower students give up trying in school, but this is usually because they experience repeated failure. Low IQ leads to failure leads to giving up, rather than giving up leads to failure leads to low IQ.’

    On the conscious level they try, but deep down they do not want riches badly enough (which are very hard to come by even for highly-educated people. A lot of toil at minimum). The man who goes into the betting shop may seem to be fixated on riches, but those who really are, scrimp and save and then invest in a much safer ‘industry’. They really want it badly enough to ‘defer their pleasure’.

    There are successful gamblers but relatively very few, even among ‘smart’ people. But they want it so badly, the atmosphere and fun at the big carnivals such as Royal Ascot and Cheltenham count for far less than for most people. They don’t want great adrenaline-rushes to the head, but want to retain a cool head, because they are focused on one thing alone. No romance in their soul whatsoever. Of course, that is at the extreme end of the spectrum, but it’s true in principle.

    Einstein wasn’t that good at Maths and got a friend or friends to do his maths for him. I bet he would have loved to be good at maths, too. But he would not have willed to be good at it sufficiently keenly. He didn’t have the aptitude of professional mathematicians, so why strain unduly with the other great gifts he had, which would then have probably atrophied, anyway?

    Genius is another matter. It’s not mere, high intelligence. It’s a gift. Not necessarily in return for any virtue on the part of the recipient, but a gift for a reason only God would know. Some footballers are given it.

    Inch-perfect passing from forty yards: not an inch too high or too low, not an inch too far to the left or to the right. Judging instantly under great pressure where, while running with the ball, to best pass the ball to the feet of another player running in position to receive it, while taking in the dangers of interception of such a pass from the movements of other players. That is a genius just as surely as Einstein’s was.

    Just look a this bloke, Eden Hazard, a Belgian- particularly when it gets around the 1.40 mark.

  42. 42
    Axel says:

    I think my case is supported by the intellectual gifts autistic savants. Notice the symbiosis of impaired, emotional intelligence with a dedicated, extraordinary faculty. A degradation of a person’s more healthily-rounded intelligence.

    It’s as if God is mocking man’s idolatry of the worldly, analytical intelligence.

    Sorry. Here is the video I meant to link in the post above:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YG4POuNyj6k

  43. 43
    ringo says:

    Velikovskys, here is my thesis: There are different types of conservatives. There are those who have bought into the “survival of the fittest” mentality (Darwinism) and have used that to justify their racism throughout history (this would be your DEMOCRATS (not just southern) of the late 1800’s through most of the 1900’s (remember that more Republicans than Democrats favored the passing of Civil Rights legislation in the 1960’s). Then there would be your big greedy corporate monsters (mainly Republican) – the Rockefeller’s and Vanderbuilts during the Gilded Age were also Social Darwinist (even though some would call themselves “religious or Christian”) They were the “cream will rise to the top” and “God only helps those who help themselves” type of conservatives.

    Remember LBJ and his so called “War on Poverty”. Not many people know that LBJ was against the 1957 Civil Rights Bill along with a very high percentage of Democrats – some who were NOT southern democrats (Wayne Morse of Oregon, Warren Magnuson of Washington, James Murray of Montana, Mike Mansfield of Montana and Joseph O’Mahoney of Wyoming). Not many people know that it was Eisenhower who tried to get the 1957 bill passed and that the Democrats did everything they could to keep it from passing. Every single Republican voted for that Bill.

    Then, Velikovskys, there are conservatives (depending on how you define it) like William Jennings Bryan who is also known for his role in the famous Scopes Trial. Bryan was a man of God, who took a hard stance against government corruption, corporate greed and the teachings of Darwin. He was for the little man and did what he could to give a voice to all people. Read this article from Time Magazine comparing Darwin to Bryan. http://time.com/3600148/willia.....an-darwin/

    But, Bryan did not feel sorry for people. He believed, like many Christians, that every man and woman are equal in God’s eyes. He did not allow himself to be indoctrinated by this dangerous fairy tale. He believed like I do, that sometimes God helps those who can not help themselves.

  44. 44
    anthropic says:

    Axel 41,42

    Hey, Axel. You are perfectly free to use your own definition of intelligence if you wish. The one I’m using is standard, however: the one measured by IQ.

    There’s been lots of talk about different kinds of intelligence, but what it really boils down to are different skills. Skills are wonderful — wish I had more of them! — but they are not general cognitive ability (Spearman’s “g”) as typically measured by IQ tests.

    And g matters HUGELY. To income. To crime rates. To college success. To marriage. To health. To longevity.

    Meanwhile, hyped substitutes like emotional intelligence are much less efficacious in predicting outcomes. In fact, criminals often have very high EQs, which enables them to use and manipulate other people. The murderers in New York did precisely that to get help in their escape.

    I am not aware of any studies showing that women have, on average, a higher IQ than men. There are fewer white Forrest Gumpettes than Gumps, to be sure, but there are also fewer Einsteinettes than Einsteins.

    As I said in an earlier post, the one exception to this seems to be among African-Americans, where women dominate the upper levels. However, that seems to be cultural rather than genetic.

  45. 45
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Vel

    Or that they have been systematically oppressed by a decidedly non left wing government , grow up in the South in the sixties SA?

    I take a more historical view of leftism with roots in the 16th century reformation through the enlightenment to today’s version. But you might do well to read ringo’s 43 for a follow up on his commentary.

    So your thesis is the South was a leftish paradise, good conservatives in Alabama were forced to enslave blacks because of fear of liberals, then for the next 100 years were forced to endure and participate in the sometimes violent suppression of blacks.

    Slavery was condemned by the Church in 1741.

    Later those crafty liberals supported Civil Rights legislation, some ending up buried in Mississippi. All the while brave conservatives fought for the black race by providing special seating on buses, special water fountains, poll taxes, special fiery displays, special high quality schools.

    I’d call that quite a lot of incoherent moral outrage for a person who espouses an amoral philosophy. If you want to discuss how Darwinism destroys moral standards I’d be glad to do that.

    Yes,Texans are well know as being left wing liberals.

    Rracism against Hispanics is limited to Texas. It’s alive and well in Obama’s America.

  46. 46
    Robert Byers says:

    anthropic
    its not a fact we have these mythical grey/white places in our brains.
    Its not a fact it shows where intelligence comes from.
    Its historic in Christendom to see all mankind as equally created with thev same potential for smarts. anyone else prove otherwise.
    Yes identity is everything but that only because of things picked up including motivations.
    there is no difference between men and women or rather between people. yet in motives there is a difference and so different results.
    Iys up to you to prove who is smarter. iQ means nothing but a test of a person at that moment. Any curves are explained by identity and motives.
    I expect Black females to beat black males AT THIS POINT in human history in North America. It makes sense because all women are doing better and well in school and life. or rather they are motivated to pay attention to the general society. Men don’t as much and concentrate all their lives. Winning here and losing there.
    Anyways Christianity teaches we are souls(immaterial0 and thats where we think. We think in the afterlife with no brain needed.
    I say the brain is only a giant memory machine meshed to our soul.
    Ask your class if girls are not as smart or use the same brain juices as boys!!

  47. 47
    anthropic says:

    Robert 46

    Yes, white and gray matter in the brain are facts. You can see an illustration of them at national library of medicine: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medline...../18117.htm

    Their overview: “The tissue called “gray matter” in the brain and spinal cord is also known as substantia grisea, and is made up of cell bodies. “White matter”, or substantia alba, is composed of nerve fibers.”

    Yes, it is a fact that men and women tend to use gray and white matter differently when thinking. In fact, according to Web MD…

    “Notably, male brains contain about 6.5 times more gray matter — sometimes called ‘thinking matter” — than women. Female brains have more than 9.5 times as much white matter, the stuff that connects various parts of the brain, than male brains.”
    http://www.webmd.com/balance/f.....fer?page=2

    No, it is not up to me to prove who is smarter. Why would I try to prove something I don’t believe? As I said before, male/female IQs tend to be pretty equal on average except among African-Americans. And since you now say you expect the AA difference, I don’t have to prove that, right?

    By the way, while Christianity does teach there is an immaterial part of us, I’ve never heard the claim that our thinking apparatus is solely immaterial. If you have scriptural authority that says so, please share it!

    Recall that our ultimate destination isn’t to be disembodied spirits in heaven, but to have glorified material bodies living in a new, improved but material Earth. Matter isn’t evil, nor inferior.

Leave a Reply