Sunday, September 28, 2014

Evolution Professor: Every Year I Give My Students “The Talk”

Your Tax Dollars at Work.

Well it’s fall again and the beginning of a new school year. That means evolution professors will be warming up their religious indoctrination messages for their unsuspecting students. A cynical and unfair criticism? No, actually, metaphysical and value-laden messages, sometimes explicit and sometimes implicit, are rampant in the life sciences. In fact evolutionists are certain they area right and so make no attempt to hide their absurdities. Consider David Barash, evolution professor paid by your tax dollars at the University of Washington. Barash gives a special lecture each fall to indoctrinate his young charges. He calls it “The Talk” (yes, evolutionists really are that pompous and condescending) and he happily tells the world about it today in the New York Times.

Barash explains that in “The Talk” he reveals to his students three hard truths that have demolished pillars of religious faith and undermined belief in an omnipotent and omni-benevolent God.

First, evolutionists have discovered and demonstrated that evolution is fully capable of creating the incredible world of biology. Evolutionists such as Barash do not deny the “wonderful complexity” of the biological world. But they are certain that “an entirely natural and undirected process, namely random variation plus natural selection, contains all that is needed to generate extraordinary levels of non-randomness.”

To understand what evolutionists mean by this rather astonishing claim of spontaneous generation it is worth returning to Chapter 6 of Origins where Darwin explained the evolution of the eye. Darwin went through some mental gymnastics about how a light sensitive spot could have arisen and then enhanced through slow, gradual change via natural selection. And he made a religious argument straight from the pen of David Hume about how God wouldn’t work like man, so we ought not infer design from complexity anyway. And finally Darwin shifted the burden of proof to the skeptic, saying it was up to the skeptic to prove his idea of spontaneous generation to be impossible—otherwise it stands.

This defense of Darwin’s became the template of how evolutionists handle complexity. They set the bar very low for themselves. So when Barash informs his students that the evolution of biology’s “wonderful complexity” is a solved problem, he is simply misrepresenting the science.

In fact, since Darwin the science has revealed the exact opposite. The inexorable march of science has shown over and over that biology is more exotic, subtle and complex than Darwin and the evolutionists ever dreamed of. Even the blind evolution of a single protein is impossible by any realistic measure.

Barash’s second “hard truth” for his students is that human beings are not distinct, other than being a separate species, from the other animals. Furthermore, no “supernatural trait has ever been found in Homo sapiens.” You may think you are conscious, but that is merely a manifestation of so many molecules in your skull.

And finally Barash reveals to his class that evolutionists have shown belief in an omnipresent, omni-benevolent God to be futile. After all,

just a smidgen of biological insight makes it clear that, although the natural world can be marvelous, it is also filled with ethical horrors: predation, parasitism, fratricide, infanticide, disease, pain, old age and death — and that suffering (like joy) is built into the nature of things. The more we know of evolution, the more unavoidable is the conclusion that living things, including human beings, are produced by a natural, totally amoral process, with no indication of a benevolent, controlling creator.

In other words, there is unmerited suffering, therefore the species must have been created by the blind, amoral process of evolution. An all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing Creator would never have intended for such a thing.

It’s all about religion.

Imagine for a moment that you believed in this religion, that you believed in Darwin’s God. Then of course you would require evolution to be true. It would have to be. And of course you would see complexity as a minor bump in the road.

You see the science is driven by the religion. It always has been.

So there you have it, The Talk. The evolutionist’s scientific absurdity is exceeded only by his religious fundamentalism and hypocrisy.

It is pathetic and sad to see the silliness of evolution. But what is truly astonishing is that evolutionists are oblivious to their own shtick. They shout it from the rooftops, unaware of their own absurdity. They are like the drunk at the party who doesn’t know he is drunk while everyone else stands back in embarrassment for him.

Your tax dollars at work.

24 comments:

  1. I don't understand why it is necessary for a professor to marry his science to his atheism. It certainly isn't appropriate to introduce such views to his students in science classroom. If evangelical Christian professors were to do this the lawsuits would be flying. I wish these jokers would at least take the time to understand belief before they jump in that arenas of theology, philosophy or atheistic pulpit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you sure he's an atheist? All I see is him trying to disconnect biology from religion. About 12,000 Christian Clergy have signed a letter supporting evolution and the teaching of evolution to our children. Would you classify them as atheist as well? (Clergy Letter Project, try Googling it)

      Delete
    2. Ted:

      Thanks for the comment. Atheism is often the favored target and I have explained many times that atheism is not at play here. Evolutionary thought is religious--theism, not *a*theism.

      Delete
  2. Per your article, Professor Barash says, no “supernatural trait has ever been found in Homo sapiens.” Love is just an illusion. Intuition, a special effect. And reason? Just whirling molecules.

    Therefore, by his own logic, his own logic is not reliable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Prove love or intuition is supernatural?

      Delete
    2. How, on naturalism, is the mind, an emergent property of the brain, able to affect the brain itself if it's an illusion?

      Delete
    3. Ted,

      "About 12,000 Christian Clergy have signed a letter supporting evolution and the teaching of evolution to our children. Would you classify them as atheist as well?"

      I would not classify them as atheists, just confused.

      "Prove love or intuition is supernatural?"

      It would first be necessary to define what you mean when you use the term 'supernatural'.

      Delete
  3. Furthermore, no “supernatural trait has ever been found in Homo sapiens.” You may think you are conscious, but that is merely a manifestation of so many molecules in your skull."

    I wonder if there will be a evolutionist trait found in the near future?



    ReplyDelete
  4. Re the materialistic notion:

    Furthermore, no “supernatural trait has ever been found in Homo sapiens.” You may think you are conscious, but that is merely a manifestation of so many molecules in your skull.

    But logically, if you think you are conscious, then you must be conscious. And to be conscious means you must have a conscious, otherwise you could not be conscious. Hello.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This "talk" clearly violates the establishment clause. And it's strange that not one student cares enough to stand up for their rights.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I disagree Joe. The establishment clause does not apply, neither would the professor's talk pass the Lemon test, the standard by which the Establishment clause is evaluated. It goes like this:
      1. The statute must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religious affairs.
      Barash is addressing a problem many of his students have, the reconciling their religious beliefs while studying science, an issue facing many teachers. He addresses it head on rather than trying to skirt around it. Science doesn't address the idea of a deity and shouldn't accommodate it just because some people want to.
      2. The statute must not advance or inhibit religious practice.
      In what way is his talk preventing people from religious practices? Is it stopping from people believing? Stopping them from attending service? Not in the least.
      3. The statute must have a secular legislative purpose. He's teaching a class to the best of his abilities, nothing legislative about it.

      No, the establishment clause isn't being violated in any way.

      Delete
    2. The bottom line here is double standard by those who control academia. To be fair, Churches used the same double standard when they ran academia many years ago. So while the religious side is certainly appalled by "The Talk" [perhaps rightly so], they should also recall that not long ago the same standards ruled when they ran things. Ultimately each individual student will have to stand up for their own beliefs.

      Delete
    3. Ted- the talk violates the establishment clause. There isn't any problems with religion and science. There is a problem with materialism and science. There is a problem with evolutionism and science.

      And finally there isn't any evidence "that living things, including human beings, are produced by a natural, totally amoral process, with no indication of a benevolent, controlling creator.?" The guy is a LIAR.

      Delete
    4. Ted H:
      In what way is his talk preventing people from religious practices? Is it stopping from people believing? Stopping them from attending service? Not in the least.

      By that logic Creation can be taught in public schools, with baraminology taught in biology classes. Dr Hedin course should be reinstated with the whiny atheists who called for its censorship arrested for false pretense.

      Delete
  6. “an entirely natural and undirected process, namely random variation plus natural selection, contains all that is needed to generate extraordinary levels of non-randomness.”

    That's nothing more than standing up on stage before the Congregation and parroting a popular religious affirmation

    no “supernatural trait has ever been found in Homo sapiens.”

    It's funny, though I've not commented here previously, the religious affirmation above is a complete lie. They do believe or allow in the supernatural, how else can one explain how dirt mixed with various chemical cocktails and the power of physics accomplished anything as complex as life ? They are also open to life coming from an Extraterrestrial sources, but by their own rules, the biblical God must be disqualified. There are certainly many religious fables provided, but as yet no NATURAL Experiments as yet proving that supernatural must be discounted as an option.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Scientists are okay with multi-verse, which is supernatural.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not a religion. It's science and being expressed in scientific terms. If you disagree, I would suggest some homework.

      Delete
    2. How is the multiverse "supernatural"?

      Delete
    3. Multiverse cosmology isn't religous, but it is ridiculous. It's amazing the lengths some people will go to to avoid the fine-tuning problem.

      Delete
    4. Multiverse holds that there are other universes out there where the laws of nature are different than they are here. That's supernatural. It's just that the supernatural stuff is happening somewhere else.

      Delete
    5. Natchuster, "Multiverse holds that there are other universes out there where the laws of nature are different than they are here. That's supernatural.
      _______

      They knew full well what you meant and also understood the reality of the subject, but they're driven by an deep neanderthal instinct to respond to an outsider coming into what they consider their yard. I've seen the same behavior many times when I walk my dog to town from our ranch and he pisses on a post or tree along someone else's property. At that point other town dogs stroll by, notice the presence of an outside interloper and instinctively driven by their inner-animal find the need to lift their leg on your post. Two of them had the a greater bladder capacity to soak the area, others like Ian merely dribbled. Just like in real life. But it's the symbolic meaning that counts.

      The idea of Multi-Universe Nat is not religious, it's been well documented on Film.

      -

      Delete
  8. What religion does this Barash come from?
    Is it the true faith?
    indeed his talk seems strangely poorly done. it is silly conclusions or rather silly that these simple conclusions prove anything.
    Can't get mad at it?
    If a prof can opine as such COULD a creationist prof say the opposite. or would he get fired? Hmmmm.

    Ask this prof to present his top three scientific biological evidences for evolution!
    I got a hunch this one will do worse then the others. The others do pretty bad.
    I say to evolutionists PROVE IT.
    YEC and ID are today knocking down the walls.
    Even this cat having to give THE TALK means he needs too.
    the kids otherwise would see nothing wrong with their God/genesis ideas even after passing the course.
    by the way what has this prof patented to make him more to listen to then our ancient science leaders who always saw a creator!

    ReplyDelete