Culture Intelligent Design science education

Education prof: Upend science to benefit the oppressed

Spread the love

Published in a Springer journal:

Another University of Alberta professor published a piece in the Canadian Journal of Science, Math, Technology, and Education, saying that to simply teach students science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) is objectively bad, apparently because it cultivates, and I am listing this directly from the document:

“[P]atriarchy, heteronormativity, white supremacy, Eurocentrism, (neo-)colonialism, ableism, classism, labor inequity, anthropocentrism, and/or others.”Keean Bexte, “University of Alberta prof calls for upheaval of science to benefit the “oppressed”” at Rebel Media

Marc Higgins and colleagues’ paper (open access) is here. From the opening:

It has been argued many times over the course of decades and across diverse paradigms that science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education practices-as-usual (re)produce systems of dominance: be it patriarchy, heteronormativity, white supremacy, Eurocentrism, (neo-)colonialism, able-ism, classism, labor inequity, anthropocentrism, and/or others. Thankfully, there are many who are doing the critical and creative work of (re)opening STEM education to the possibility of eco-social justice to-come through a plurality of productive approaches, orientations, and stances: anti-oppressive, anti-racist and critical race-based, decolonizing and de/colonizing, queer, Indigenous, gender-equitable, post-colonial, community-based and participatory, critical place-based, inter-species, and many more.

Yes. We are a long way from tools of oppression like the Pythagorean theorem and force = mass x acceleration.

One gets the impression that many people in science think that the social justice warriors are not serious and that after a certain point, they will just go away. That is the mistake of the people in science.

Going away is not the SJWs reputation elsewhere. Consider the social sciences: Did the Sokal hoax, now over twenty years old, result in any change? Social scientists were hoaxed again recently, by totally crazy stuff, and still don’t – and really can’t – care.

It stays crazy because the capacity for reform is a target of the infestation.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

See also: The rigor mortis of science: The war on measurement itself has commenced

and

Sokal hoaxes strike social sciences again
and

Which side will atheists choose in the war on science? They need to re-evaluate their alliance with progressivism, which is doing science no favours.

13 Replies to “Education prof: Upend science to benefit the oppressed

  1. 1
    ScuzzaMan says:

    I’m still not clear about how exactly telling lies about reality to the oppressed is going to help them out of that condition?

    The professor didn’t say …

  2. 2
    Bob O'H says:

    ScuzzaMan – I’m not sure that’s what they are suggesting. I think the argument is that STEM education teaches ways of thinking that come from a narrow perspective, and this means that people not brought up in a similar culture could suffer. Which, I think, is fair enough. I just wish they would write this stuff in a way that makes it readable by STEM educators.

  3. 3
    News says:

    Bob O’H, what they mean is that you should not be teaching concepts like objectivity, precision, correct answers, and so forth. They’ve made it plain enough in many documents.

    They mean that they won’t stop until you really BELIEVE that 2 + 2 = 5 if the Party says so.

    Many people have had to live the experience before they understand.

  4. 4
    Bob O'H says:

    News – I doubt these people make anything plain in their documents. Have you read them? They’re so opaque physicists are using them as black bodies.

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    According to Bob, simply teaching straight up science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM),,,

    “teaches ways of thinking that come from a narrow perspective, and this means that people not brought up in a similar culture could suffer. Which, I think, is fair enough.”

    And then Bob goes on to lament

    “I just wish they would write this stuff in a way that makes it readable by STEM educators.”

    So apparently Bob agrees with the paper’s overall conclusions, that were highlighted in the OP, that simply teaching STEM promotes “[P]atriarchy, heteronormativity, white supremacy, Eurocentrism, (neo-)colonialism, ableism, classism, labor inequity, anthropocentrism, and Bob apparently personally wishes the paper was easier to read so that it could be more widely disseminated to STEM educators.,,,

    ,,, again, the paper states,,,

    to simply teach students science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) is objectively bad, apparently because it cultivates, and I am listing this directly from the document:
    “[P]atriarchy, heteronormativity, white supremacy, Eurocentrism, (neo-)colonialism, ableism, classism, labor inequity, anthropocentrism, and/or others.”Keean Bexte, “University of Alberta prof calls for upheaval of science to benefit the “oppressed”” at Rebel Media

    If any statement ever clearly reflected the fact that American Universities are now dominated by left wing indoctrination instead of by education, that statement is it.

    No matter how Bob and other’s in left wing academia try to spin it, that statement is patently false.

    First off, if anything has been ‘the great equalizer’ in the recent dramatic drop in suffering, hunger, and poverty in the world, it has been better education, particularly better education in the basics, i.e. STEM.

    Progress in the global war on poverty – 2016
    Almost unnoticed, the world has reduced poverty, increased incomes, and improved health more than at any time in history.
    The headlines on any given day suggest a world under siege. War. Terrorism. Refugees. Disease. Recession. Famine. Climate change. But beneath these often very real problems, something remarkable has been happening, something on a more epochal level that has gone almost completely unnoticed.

    Global poverty has fallen faster during the past 20 years than at any time in history. Around the world hunger, child death, and disease rates have all plummeted. More girls are getting into school. In fact, never before have so many people, in so many poor countries, made so much progress in reducing poverty, increasing incomes, improving health, reducing conflict and war, and spreading democracy.

    Some of these gains – especially the declines in poverty and child mortality – rank among the greatest achievements in history. Yet few people are aware that they are even happening. Most people believe that, apart from a few special cases such as China and India, developing countries by and large remain hopelessly mired in poverty, stagnation, and dictatorship. Yet the reality is quite different: A major transformation is quietly under way, affecting the lives of hundreds of millions of people in nearly every corner of the world.,,,,

    Meanwhile, millions more poor people have access to clean water and basic sanitation facilities. The share of people living in chronic hunger has been cut nearly in half, with better nutrition and lower rates of stunted growth in children. Prior to 1980 just half of girls in developing countries completed primary school; now 85 percent do. Less than 50 percent of adult females could read and write, but today global female literacy has passed 93 percent.

    Perhaps most remarkable of all are the widespread improvements in basic health. Diarrhea killed 5 million children a year in 1990, but less than 1 million in 2014. Malaria deaths have been cut by half since 2000, and deaths from tuberculosis and HIV have both fallen by one-third. Because of better nutrition, greater access to immunizations, and success in fighting diseases, life expectancy at birth has increased from 50 years in 1960 to 65 years today.

    The biggest health gains have been for children. In 1960, some 22 percent of children born in developing countries died before their fifth birthday, a horrifyingly high percentage. But today, less than 5 percent do. Remarkably, the improvements have been truly global: The rate of child death has declined in every country in the world since 1980 (at least where data are available). And, as fewer children die, parents are having fewer of them. Fertility rates have fallen from 5 children per adult woman in the 1960s to 2.5 today,
    https://www.csmonitor.com/World/2016/0207/Progress-in-the-global-war-on-poverty

    Moreover, contrary to what Bob, people in left wing academia, and Darwinists in general, believe, people from ‘other cultures’ have been shown to have the same basic mathematical aptitude as supposedly “white supremacist”,

    Geometric Principles Appear Universal in Our Minds – May 2011
    Excerpt: Villagers belonging to an Amazonian group called the Mundurucú intuitively grasp abstract geometric principles despite having no formal math education,,, Mundurucú adults and 7- to 13-year-olds demonstrate as firm an understanding of the properties of points, lines and surfaces as adults and school-age children in the United States and France,,,
    http://www.wired.com/wiredscie.....-geometry/

    This finding simply is not expected according to what Charles Darwin himself presupposed about his own theory. Darwin himself presupposed the “civilized races” to be intellectually superior to the “savage races” through the world

    “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla”
    – Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1874, p. 178

    In fact, if anything has been the great ‘dis-equalizer’ among men, it has been the undermining of the Christian concept of all men being created ‘equal before God’, i.e. ‘endowed by their Creator’ as stated in the Declaration of Independence.

    What Your Biology Teacher Didn’t Tell You About Charles Darwin – Phil Moore / April 19, 2017
    Excerpt: ,,, the British thinker who justified genocide.,,,
    The full title of his seminal 1859 book was On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. He followed up more explicitly in The Descent of Man, where he spelled out his racial theory:
    “The Western nations of Europe . . . now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors [that they] stand at the summit of civilization. . . . The civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races through the world.”
    – C. Darwin,,,
    Christian reformers had spent decades in the early 19th century teaching Britain to view non-European races as their equals before God. In a matter of years, Darwin swept not only God off the table, but also the value of people of every race with him.
    Enabling Genocide
    Victorian Britain was too willing to accept Darwinian evolution as its gospel of overseas expansion. Darwin is still celebrated on the back of the British £10 note for his discovery of many new species on his visit to Australia; what’s been forgotten, though, is his contemptible attitude—due to his beliefs about natural selection—toward the Aborigines he found there. When The Melbourne Review used Darwin’s teachings to justify the genocide of indigenous Australians in 1876, he didn’t try and stop them. When the Australian newspaper argued that “the inexorable law of natural selection [justifies] exterminating the inferior Australian and Maori races”—that “the world is better for it” since failure to do so would be “promoting the non-survival of the fittest, protecting the propagation of the imprudent, the diseased, the defective, and the criminal”—it was Christian missionaries who raised an outcry on behalf of this forgotten genocide. Darwin simply commented, “I do not know of a more striking instance of the comparative rate of increase of a civilized over a savage race.”,,,
    https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/what-your-biology-teacher-didnt-tell-you-about-charles-darwin

    Words & Dirt – Quotes 10-21-2015 – by Miles Raymer
    Excerpt: Let us try to translate the most famous line of the American Declaration of Independence into biological terms:
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
    According to the science of biology, people were not ‘created’. They have evolved. And they certainly did not evolve to be ‘equal’. The idea of equality is inextricably intertwined with the idea of creation. The Americans got the idea of equality from Christianity, which argues that every person has a divinely created soul, and that all souls are equal before God. However, if we do not believe in the Christian myths about God, creation and souls, what does it mean that all people are ‘equal’? Evolution is based on difference, not on equality. Every person carries a somewhat different genetic code, and is exposed from birth to different environmental influences. This leads to the development of different qualities that carry with them different chances of survival. ‘Created equal’ should therefore be translated into ‘evolved differently’.,,,
    So here is that line from the American Declaration of Independence translated into biological terms:
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men evolved differently, that they are born with certain mutable characteristics, and that among these are life and the pursuit of pleasure.
    http://www.words-and-dirt.com/.....0-21-2015/

    In fact, Darwinian ‘unequal’ thinking led to the unimaginable horrors witnessed in the supposed Atheistic Socialistic Utopias of the 20th century,

    Horrors of Mao’s Darwinist Utopia Described October 9, 2018 – David F. Coppedge
    Excerpt: Marx and Darwin were friends. Darwinism was the “scientific justification” for Marx’s views, he said. Marxism spawned Leninism (Lenin kept a figurine of a monkey examining a human skull, sitting on a pile of books, including Darwin’s Origin). Leninism gave rise to Stalinism (Stalin became an atheist reading a copy of Darwin’s Origin). Stalin instituted the Great Terror, in which people were rounded up in the middle of the night and shot or sent to brutal work camps and gulags, where many died. Stalinism inspired Mao Zedong, also a Marxist-Leninist and Darwinian. (And let’s not forget Hitler’s love for all things Darwinian),,, Let’s recap Mao’s idea of progress. In 1958 to 1962, Chairman Mao launched a program to catch up to the West. He called it “The Great Leap Forward.”
    According to The Independent UK, “Mao’s Great Leap Forward ‘killed 45 million in four years’.”
    https://crev.info/2018/10/horrors-maos-darwinist-utopia-described/

    Moreover, according to Charles Darwin (and Darwinists), Women were also considered biologically and intellectually inferior to men.

    The intelligence gap that Darwinists believed existed between males and females was not minor, but of a level that caused some evolutionists to classify the sexes as two distinct psychological species, males as Homo frontalis and females as Homo parietalis. In The Descent of Man, Darwin argued –
    “The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man’s attaining to a higher eminence in whatever he takes up, than can a woman—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands.”
    In The Origin of Species, natural selection was developed along-side of sexual selection. Males were like animal breeders, shaping women to their liking by sexual selection on the one hand along with the recognition men were exposed to far greater selective pressures than women, especially in war and competition for mates, food, and clothing on the other hand. From Darwin’s perspective, males have evolved further than females from a Darwinian perspective.
    As Jerry Bergman explains, “Natural selection would consequently operate far more actively on males, producing male superiority in virtually all skill areas.”
    http://www.darwinthenandnow.co.....of-terror/

    Thus, whenever a left wing academic tells you that STEM leads to “[P]atriarchy, heteronormativity, white supremacy, Eurocentrism, (neo-)colonialism, ableism, classism, labor inequity, anthropocentrism,” you can be absolutely certain that you are being sold a gigantic left wing bill of goods.

    If anything has ever led to tremendous racial and gender inequality in the world, it certainly has not been basic STEM education but has been indoctrination into the godless left wing secular ideology that is rooted in ‘Darwinian inequality of races and genders’.

    As to being made in the image of God and “STEM” education in general, it turns out that “very young children’s learning and thinking are strikingly similar to much learning and thinking in science”

    Children Act Like Scientists – October 1, 2012
    Excerpt: New theoretical ideas and empirical research show that very young children’s learning and thinking are strikingly similar to much learning and thinking in science. Preschoolers test hypotheses against data and make causal inferences; they learn from statistics and informal experimentation, and from watching and listening to others. The mathematical framework of probabilistic models and Bayesian inference can describe this learning in precise ways.
    http://crev.info/2012/10/child.....cientists/

    So again, the basic aptitude for “STEM” education is there from the get go.

    Moreover, although the purported evidence for human evolution is far more illusory than most people realize, it is interesting to note exactly where leading Darwinists themselves honestly admit that they have no real clue how a particular trait in humans could have possibly evolved.

    Leading Evolutionary Scientists Admit We Have No Evolutionary Explanation of Human Language – December 19, 2014
    Excerpt: Understanding the evolution of language requires evidence regarding origins and processes that led to change. In the last 40 years, there has been an explosion of research on this problem as well as a sense that considerable progress has been made. We argue instead that the richness of ideas is accompanied by a poverty of evidence, with essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,,
    (Marc Hauser, Charles Yang, Robert Berwick, Ian Tattersall, Michael J. Ryan, Jeffrey Watumull, Noam Chomsky and Richard C. Lewontin, “The mystery of language evolution,” Frontiers in Psychology, Vol 5:401 (May 7, 2014).)
    Casey Luskin added: “It’s difficult to imagine much stronger words from a more prestigious collection of experts.”
    https://evolutionnews.org/2014/12/leading_evoluti/

    Best Selling author Tom Wolfe was so taken aback by this honest confession by leading Darwinists that he wrote a book on the subject. Wolfe provided a précis of his argument:

    “Speech is not one of man’s several unique attributes — speech is the attribute of all attributes!”
    – Wolfe

    “Speech is 95 percent plus of what lifts man above animal! Physically, man is a sad case. His teeth, including his incisors, which he calls eyeteeth, are baby-size and can barely penetrate the skin of a too-green apple. His claws can’t do anything but scratch him where he itches. His stringy-ligament body makes him a weakling compared to all the animals his size. Animals his size? In hand-to-paw, hand-to-claw, or hand-to-incisor combat, any animal his size would have him for lunch. Yet man owns or controls them all, every animal that exists, thanks to his superpower: speech.”
    —Tom Wolfe, in the introduction to his book, The Kingdom of Speech

    In other words, although humans are fairly defenseless creatures in the wild compared to other creatures, such as lions, bears, and sharks, etc.., nonetheless, humans have, completely contrary to Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking, managed to become masters of the planet, not by brute force, but simply by our unique ability to communicate information and, more specifically, infuse information into material substrates in order to create, i.e. intelligently design, objects that are extremely useful for our defense, shelter, in procuring food, furtherance of our knowledge, and also simply for our pleasure.

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    And although the ‘top-down’ infusion of immaterial information into material substrates, that allowed humans to become ‘masters of the planet’, was rather crude to begin with, (i.e. spears, arrows, and plows etc..), this top down infusion of immaterial information into material substrates has become much more impressive over the last half century or so.
    Specifically, the ‘top-down’ infusion of mathematical and/or logical information into material substrates lies at the very basis of many, if not all, of man’s most stunning, almost miraculous, technological advances in recent decades.

    Here are a couple of articles which clearly get this ‘top-down infusion of information’ point across:

    Describing Nature With Math By Peter Tyson – Nov. 2011
    Excerpt: Mathematics underlies virtually all of our technology today. James Maxwell’s four equations summarizing electromagnetism led directly to radio and all other forms of telecommunication. E = mc2 led directly to nuclear power and nuclear weapons. The equations of quantum mechanics made possible everything from transistors and semiconductors to electron microscopy and magnetic resonance imaging.
    Indeed, many of the technologies you and I enjoy every day simply would not work without mathematics. When you do a Google search, you’re relying on 19th-century algebra, on which the search engine’s algorithms are based. When you watch a movie, you may well be seeing mountains and other natural features that, while appearing as real as rock, arise entirely from mathematical models. When you play your iPod, you’re hearing a mathematical recreation of music that is stored digitally; your cell phone does the same in real time.
    “When you listen to a mobile phone, you’re not actually hearing the voice of the person speaking,” Devlin told me. “You’re hearing a mathematical recreation of that voice. That voice is reduced to mathematics.”
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/p.....-math.html

    Recognising Top-Down Causation – George Ellis
    Excerpt: page 5: A: Causal Efficacy of Non Physical entities:
    Both the program and the data are non-physical entities, indeed so is all software. A program is not a physical thing you can point to, but by Definition 2 it certainly exists. You can point to a CD or flashdrive where it is stored, but that is not the thing in itself: it is a medium in which it is stored.
    The program itself is an abstract entity, shaped by abstract logic. Is the software “nothing but” its realisation through a specific set of stored electronic states in the computer memory banks? No it is not because it is the precise pattern in those states that matters: a higher level relation that is not apparent at the scale of the electrons themselves. It’s a relational thing (and if you get the relations between the symbols wrong, so you have a syntax error, it will all come to a grinding halt). This abstract nature of software is realised in the concept of virtual machines, which occur at every level in the computer hierarchy except the bottom one [17]. But this tower of virtual machines causes physical effects in the real world, for example when a computer controls a robot in an assembly line to create physical artefacts.
    Excerpt page 7: The assumption that causation is bottom up only is wrong in biology, in computers, and even in many cases in physics, ,,,
    The mind is not a physical entity, but it certainly is causally effective: proof is the existence of the computer on which you are reading this text. It could not exist if it had not been designed and manufactured according to someone’s plans, thereby proving the causal efficacy of thoughts, which like computer programs and data are not physical entities.
    http://fqxi.org/data/essay-con.....s_2012.pdf

    On top of that stunning fact, the universe and life itself are now both also found to be ‘information theoretic’ in their most foundational basis.

    Dr. Vedral, who is a Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, and who is also a recognized leader in the field of quantum mechanics, states, “The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena.”

    “The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena.”
    Vlatko Vedral – Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, and CQT (Centre for Quantum Technologies) at the National University of Singapore, and a Fellow of Wolfson College – a recognized leader in the field of quantum mechanics.

    It is hard to imagine a more convincing scientific proof that we are made ‘in the image of God’ than finding both the universe, and life itself, are both ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis, and that we, of all the creatures on earth, uniquely possess an ability to understand and create information, and, moreover, have come to ‘master the planet’ precisely because of our unique ability infuse information into material substrates.

    Genesis 1:26
    And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

    John 1:1-4
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life, and that life was the Light of men.

    Perhaps a more convincing proof that we are made in the image of God, and that our lives truly do have meaning and purpose, could be if God Himself became a man, defeated death on a cross, and then rose from the dead to prove that He was indeed God.
    And that is precisely the claim of Christianity:

    Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity and Christianity – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4QDy1Soolo

    Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words “The Lamb”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tmka1l8GAQ

    Verses:

    Colossians 1:15-20
    The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

    MATTHEW 28:18
    And Jesus came and spoke unto them, saying, “All power is given unto Me in Heaven and on earth.

  7. 7
    R J Sawyer says:

    BA77

    Darwin himself presupposed the “civilized races” to be intellectually superior to the “savage races” through the world…

    …Moreover, according to Charles Darwin (and Darwinists), Women were also considered biologically and intellectually inferior to men.

    Yes, Darwin suffered from the same racial and misogynistic biases that had been supported in Europe by centuries of blindly followed Christian teachings. The truth is, for his day, Darwin would be considered less racist and misigynistic than was the norm for Europe.

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    R J Sawyer, contrary to the delusional Darwinian thinking that you desperately want to believe in, racial and misogynistic biases are, as was already referenced, ‘baked into’ Darwinian thinking.

    The proof is in the pudding.

    For prime example, Darwinian Eugenics, as Richard Weikart has meticulously documented, was foundational to the supposed ‘scientific justification’ behind Hitler’s genocidal madness.

    Richard Weikart – List of Books
    https://www.amazon.com/Richard-Weikart/e/B001K8IQ6G

    Likewise, Darwinian misogyny, although not as pronounced as Darwinian eugenics, also rears its ugly head from time to time,,,

    Darwin’s Misogyny
    Anika Smith
    September 15, 2006, 3:36 PM
    “It’s official, men have higher IQs than women.” Incredibly, that was an actual headline last week.,,,
    According to Rushton, evolution holds the key to explaining the differences he sees between men and women:

    It is thought the difference may date back to the Stone Age, with women seeking out men who are more intelligent than them in a bid to pass on the best genes to their children.
    “Some people have suggested it evolved because women prefer men who are more intelligent than they are for husbands,” said the professor.

    Because of Rushton’s blatant and unapologetic chauvinism, many will dismiss him as an outlier, an aberration who misuses the authority of Darwin’s theory in order to support his agenda.
    In fact, this is only the most recent example of a long tradition of Darwinists who claim that science supports their sexism, a lineage that goes back to Darwin himself.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2006/09/darwins_misogyny/

    Whereas on the other hand, despite whatever propaganda about Christianity you may have mindlessly absorbed from left wing academics, racial and gender equality is ‘baked into’ Christianity.

    There are many stories of Jesus blatantly breaking racial and gender norms of his day. ,,,, Such as the “Woman at the Well”

    Jesus the Barrier Breaker
    Christ’s example reveals that love overcomes labels
    JAMES T BRADFORD ON JANUARY 16, 2018
    Excerpt: First, Jesus broke through the racial barrier. This is the barrier that the Samaritan woman initially reacted to: “You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?” (John 4:9). Racial prejudice ran deep between Jews and Samaritans. Jesus’ Jewish listeners had nowhere to put the parable of the Good Samaritan, because the star of the story was, yes, a Samaritan.
    Jesus also broke through the gender barrier. This is what first shocked the disciples when they got back from their shopping trip. They were “surprised to find him talking with a woman.” (John 4:27). Jewish rabbis would pray, “I am thankful that I am neither a Gentile nor a woman.” They considered Samaritan women, in particular, to be unclean from birth.
    https://influencemagazine.com/practice/jesus-the-barrier-breaker

    And also let’s not forget that is was a woman, not a man, who was first to see the resurrected Lord. Which is remarkable in its own right since the testimony of women was considered to be far less trustworthy than that of a man.

    Moreover, it can be, and has been, forcefully argued that, historically, Christianity is The Best Thing That Ever Happened to Women:

    Christianity: The Best Thing That Ever Happened to Women
    Excerpt: Sue Bohlin writes that it’s not true, as some feminists charge, that Christianity is anti-female and horribly oppressive to women. In fact, nothing has elevated the status and value of women as biblical Christianity.,,,
    As a result of Jesus Christ and His teachings, women in much of the world today, especially in the West, enjoy more privileges and rights than at any other time in history. It takes only a cursory trip to an Arab nation or to a Third World country to see how little freedom women have in countries where Christianity has had little or no presence.{19} It’s the best thing that ever happened to women.
    https://bible.org/article/christianity-best-thing-ever-happened-women

    If that is not plain enough for you RJS, in Galatians Paul plainly states this,,,

    Galatians 3:28-29
    There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

    Thus, despite whatever left wing lies you mindlessly regurgitate as the faithful Darwinbot, (i.e. mindless meat robot), that you are, your anti-Christian claims simply do not even pass the smell test of possibly being true.

  9. 9
    EricMH says:

    Reminds me of Ayn Rands criticism of society and the reason for objectivism. It is only the people who accept objective reality who carry our society forward.

  10. 10
    john_a_designer says:

    For those who have attempted to read and understand Higgin’s et al paper and feel bewildered and confused let me translate it for you. What is saying is, we are smarter than you because we know how to string together a lot of polysyllabic words which we made up. (I must concede they do have a talent for rhetorical ingenuity and deception. Joseph Goebbels would be impressed.) Their argument is not based on logic or reason but on equivocation, obfuscation and every other logical fallacy you find in books on logic. The idea of epistemological or moral truth is a white western and therefore oppressive idea. The truth is that there is no truth— which is of course self-refuting, but I digress. The bottom line is that they are the enlightened ones. They occupy a position in the ivory tower of academia. They identify with the oppressed. Therefore, they can tell everyone else what to believe and think.

    Ironically, that is exactly the ploy that are regular interlocutors try to use. Never try to understand the ID’ist arguments. Never employ logic and reason to make a logically valid arguments. Just obstruct and obfuscate and double down on naturalistic/materialistic dogmatism. If that doesn’t work the first time they come back and try the same “arguments” again and again and again. Then complain, when my side gets frustrated with this tactic and calls them out on it, that they are not being treated nicely or civilly.

  11. 11
    Dean_from_Ohio says:

    As a STEM teacher at the college level, I will use all the academic freedom needed to condemn this sort of dangerous thinking. It is against the Engineering Code of Ethics (promulgated by the National Society of Professional Engineers) to teach this crap, or even discuss it as if it could be true or valid.

    Here’s the first part of the Code of Ethics (https://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics):

    —————————————-

    I. Preamble

    Engineering is an important and learned profession. As members of this profession, engineers are expected to exhibit the highest standards of honesty and integrity. Engineering has a direct and vital impact on the quality of life for all people. Accordingly, the services provided by engineers require honesty, impartiality, fairness, and equity, and must be dedicated to the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. Engineers must perform under a standard of professional behavior that requires adherence to the highest principles of ethical conduct.

    I. Fundamental Canons

    Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties, shall:

    1. Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
    2. Perform services only in areas of their competence.
    3. Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
    4. Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
    5. Avoid deceptive acts.
    6. Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.

    II. Rules of Practice

    1. Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
    a. If engineers’ judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property, they shall notify their employer or client and such other authority as may be appropriate.
    b. Engineers shall approve only those engineering documents that are in conformity with applicable standards.
    c. Engineers shall not reveal facts, data, or information without the prior consent of the client or employer except as authorized or required by law or this Code.
    d. Engineers shall not permit the use of their name or associate in business ventures with any person or firm that they believe is engaged in fraudulent or dishonest enterprise.
    e. Engineers shall not aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering by a person or firm.
    f. Engineers having knowledge of any alleged violation of this Code shall report thereon to appropriate professional bodies and, when relevant, also to public authorities, and cooperate with the proper authorities in furnishing such information or assistance as may be required.

    Here are additional excerpts from the Code:

    III. Professional Obligations

    1. Engineers shall be guided in all their relations by the highest standards of honesty and integrity.
    a. Engineers shall acknowledge their errors and shall not distort or alter the facts.

    […]
    e. Engineers shall not promote their own interest at the expense of the dignity and integrity of the profession.

    2. Engineers shall at all times strive to serve the public interest.
    a. Engineers are encouraged to participate in civic affairs; career guidance for youths; and work for the advancement of the safety, health, and well-being of their community.
    […]
    c. Engineers are encouraged to extend public knowledge and appreciation of engineering and its achievements.
    d. Engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development[1] in order to protect the environment for future generations.

    3. Engineers shall avoid all conduct or practice that deceives the public.
    a. Engineers shall avoid the use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact or omitting a material fact.

    8. Engineers shall accept personal responsibility for their professional activities, provided, however, that engineers may seek indemnification for services arising out of their practice for other than gross negligence, where the engineer’s interests cannot otherwise be protected.
    […]
    b. Engineers shall not use association with a nonengineer, a corporation, or partnership as a “cloak” for unethical acts.

    Footnote 1 “Sustainable development” is the challenge of meeting human needs for natural resources, industrial products, energy, food, transportation, shelter, and effective waste management while conserving and protecting environmental quality and the natural resource base essential for future development.

    —————————————-

    If the kind of moral sewage described in the original post comes my way, I’ll have a lot to write about to the appropriate professional and public authorities, and a lot to say to my students and colleagues. It’s possible for the NSPE leadership to be corrupted in the way that the Boy Scout leadership was, but I pray it will not. In any event, without a love for truth, the entire engineering enterprise is shipwrecked with a loss of all hands.

  12. 12
    john_a_designer says:

    Dean_from_Ohio,

    Unfortunately, I am afraid that the SJW’s will just dismiss Code of Ethics you have listed above as just another example of oppressive “patriarchy, heteronormativity, white supremacy…” etc.

    The real problem with SJW thinking is that it based on a dishonest bait and switch tactic. You can’t just proclaim something to be unjust unless you are using an objective standard. But secular progressive SJW’s posits no such standard. At its roots it’s morally subjective and relativistic. Obviously a subjective standard cannot be an objective standard. The problem is that these people are motivated by power and passion not truth, reason and logic– they claim to be right because they believe they are right. Claims to the contrary this thinking is not progressive because it provides no way for us to measure progress.

    To paraphrase C.S. Lewis: Moral progress “means not just changing, but changing for the better.”

    “There are two reasons for saying it belongs to the same class as mathematics. The first is, as I said in the first chapter, that though there are differences between the moral ideas of one time or country and those of another, the differences are not really very great — not nearly so great as most people imagine — and you can recognize the same lay running through them all: whereas mere conventions, like the rule of the road of the kinds or clothes people wear, may differ to any extent. The other reason is this. When you think about these differences between the morality of one people and another, do you think that the morality of one people is ever better or worse than that of another? Have any of the changes been improvements? If not, then of course there could never be any moral progress. Progress means not just changing, but changing for the better. If no set of moral ideas were truer or better than any other, there would be no sense in preferring civilized morality to savage morality, or Christian morality to Nazi morality. In fact, of course, we all do believe that some moralities are better than others. We do believe that some of the people who tried to change the moral ideas of their own age were what we would call Reformers or Pioneers — people who understood morality better than their neighbors did. Very well then. The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is something different from either. You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as a real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people’s ideas get nearer to that real Right than others. Or put it this way. If your moral ideas can be truer, and those of the Nazis less true, there must be something — some Real Morality — for them to be true about. The reason why your idea of New York can be truer of less true than mine is that New York is a real place, existing quite apart from what either of us thinks. If when each of us said ‘New York’ each means merely ‘The town I am imagining in my own head’, how could one of us have truer ideas than the other? There would be no question of truth or falsehood at all.”
    (from Mere Chtistianity.)

    In other words, without an interpersonal objective standard there is no such thing as better, no basis for criminal justice or universal human rights. Again, I don’t see how a moral subjectivist has any kind of basis for any kind of rational argument. How am I obligated to give any consideration to someone else’s moral opinions if they are presented by him as just his subjective moral opinions? How do we reach any kind of consensus in a society where there is no kind of objective standard for morality, law and human rights?

  13. 13
    Dean_from_Ohio says:

    john_a_designer @ 12,

    Oh, I know the SJWs hate truth, whether in engineering or not. They are coming. But this code of ethics is a defensible place we can fight from for the truth. To quote from the literature of our day, they are coming. They have a cave troll. But we will make them fear this chamber before we fall back.

    Solzhenitsyn told us that the Soviets steamrolled over all sorts of objective truth, both moral and technological. In his book The First Circle, he described the slave camps where scientists and engineers were required to produce technology for the State. Generally, they couldn’t, of course, so the Soviets had to steal it from the West. But the Big Lie was more important than anything else, and the parasite of Communism eventually killed its host.

    Cave troll or no, we are going to make the SJWs fear the encounter, if we can.

Leave a Reply