The art of manipulating students

Teaching evolution - the communist style

David Sloan Wilson gives advice on how to teach Evolution in the communist style

Quotes and comments;

1. 'Biology teachers face increasing difficulty from students coming into class with bad feelings about evolution Many pro-evolution teachers will be attracted to methods that have a demonstrable track record of relieving tensions and facilitating the process of getting students to accept Darwin’s theory. David Sloan Wilson (Binghamton U, NY) has just the thing. Writing in PLoS Biology, he introduced Evolution for Everyone, or EvoS for short, with the upbeat title, “Evolution for Everyone: How to Increase Acceptance of, Interest in, and Knowledge about Evolution”

2. "Evolution is famously controversial, despite being as well established as any scientific theory."

- this is known as the big lie. It's utterly fallacious that E. theory is as well established as any scientific theory. No one really believes that; no one. So tell me; why would you then believe anything this man has to say? He's told you a blatant lie; letting you know he's more than willing to deceive his students and the public. Can we back up this claim? Surely. It's a deliberate case of obfuscation to compare theories about inanimate things and biological organisms. (It's fallacious to compare human beings and tree frogs as well.) Anyone knows that there are many orders of difference when it comes to complexity between a rock and a fish, let alone a human being. (You often read of evolutionists who use this absurd comparison of evolution to the shape of the earth. Not only is this comparing apples to oranges; it's comparing agates to apple software designers.) People who compare the two are engaged in a deliberate attempt to deceive their readers. One needs entirely different kinds of theories to try to explain or account for living organisms and inert materials. (e.g. rocks don't have DNA code)

- the radical disagreements among evolutionists of the 'slow as you go' school (Dawkins), and the 'hopeful monster' model (i.e. Gould, etc.) show us that what Wilson has said is a lie. (There are no similar fallings out over the speed of light.) The fact creationists (of various kinds) have made many telling critiques of e. theory, and have offered differing models is also evidence Wilson is blowing smoke. He's bluffing; and doing a very poor job of it.

3. "These beliefs ['Christian'] are patently self-serving and it should surprise no one that an authoritative scientific theory would be pressed into the same kind of service. It is the job of intellectuals to see through such arguments and not be taken in by them.''

- he plays the old game of defending E. by condemning Christians and Christianity. (To apply the standards of today to the past is a child's game; and is philosophically irrelevant. This is also a bizarre thing for an e. to do, as e's claim morality must continually change to keep up to changing conditions. i.e. that there is no absolute unchanging standard. But what does Wilson do? he ignores his own theory and applies the pc standard of today to a time in the past. By his own standards he has no right to do this.

- if man is just an animal it's ridiculous to say he has some intellectual duty to do x or y. That makes no sense. Where does this so called duty come from? (Is Wilson telling us man is free to make moral choices? But if man is just an accident of his chemical past where does this freedom come from. Under materialism there is no foundation for moral freedom. Evolutionists know this; but when they write their articles they pretend they don't.

- if man is just an animal without a mind why should anyone believe he can see through arguments. Dawkins tells us man is a kind of robot that is used as a tool by 'his' genes. Why should we believe a gene carrier can know true from false? How does any animal know true from false. (If all is particles in motion there could be no such thing as truth in any event.) Maybe Wilson would like to tell us what truth is. If all were merely matter in motion, the idea of truth would be meaningless.

4. "Moreover, the deep philosophical issues associated with topics such as morality, determinism, and social equality are increasingly being approached from a modern evolutionary perspective and are among the topics to be discussed in the course.''

- that of course is a joke. If one applies E. theory consistently one utterly obliterates morality. Social equality! What a farce. Evolution is the story of the struggle to be superior; the struggle to attain inequality. For a Darwinist to engage in the moral debate he has to deny e. theory. (As Dawkins tells us; outside the 'lab' he's an anti-darwinist.) In other words he has to be a hypocrite.

- if e. were true there would be no philosophical issues of any kind. Animals aren't philosophers. The fact people are interested in moral and philosophical issues is all the evidence anyone should need to see how fallacious e. theory is. It could never have 'given birth' to human beings. The fact human beings are so radically different from animals is all the evidence we need to know e. theory is false.

- Wilson claims bad people use the ideas of the time to push their own power agendas. Well we could easily make a case that this is what evolutionists like himself are doing.

5. 'Wilson says that for millennia, people have considered humankind categorically different from other creatures in their mental, moral and aesthetic abilities. “We are obviously unique in some respects,” he acknowledges, “but in exactly what way needs to be completely rethought.” Students are encouraged to view human infanticide along the same lines as they did for animals, and to do the same for human warfare, learning, and culture – all of which the teacher can demonstrate are present in varying degrees in the natural world. Such directness might seem worrisome to a biology teacher. Wilson reassures the reader that, in practice, the method actually produces compliant students...'

- I never cease to be amazed at the horrors that go on daily in our universities. It's astounding to me that Wilson is willing to be so honest about how he tries to manipulate his students into getting them to buy whatever crap he puts on the table. I'm amazed he states openly that his goal is compliant students.
- what we see here is how e. theory is used as a weapon for destroying christian morality. It's obvious that our elite are using e. theory to destroy c. morality and to rationalize a new pagan morality. (As Wilson told us earlier, ideas are often used for pernicious purposes, and here we see evidence of this; we see that wilson is doing exactly what he condemned others for. His advocacy (and I only use him as a handy example) of evolution is self serving; he believes its acceptance will further his philosophical and social goals. The pc crowd use e. as a defense of abortion, promiscuity, homosexuality, anti-christianity, and most of their other party planks.

6. "We are obviously unique in some respects...''

- you get the feeling that it caused him great pain to admit this :=) This urge to demean and degrade human beings is an extremely strange one; this kind of perversity is rare indeed. In some respects indeed! His very article is all the evidence we need to know that he's not an animal. This is so far from the daily concerns of an animal that it's a universe apart. These are not concerns for food or for mating. One wonders how the man can be so blind. What one sees here is a determined rebellion against god. So full of hate is the man for his Creator that he would rather call himself an animal that acknowledge he's made in the image of God. If Wilson really thinks he's little different from an ape (and I don't believe in his heart he believes this) I want him to try and translate his article in sign language to the nearest ape he can find. (I'd like to be there when he tries to communicate the idea of scientific theory :=)

Notes;
1. I came across this story at Creation/Evolution Headlines.

2. what you see in people like Wilson is a radical contempt for the views of others; a radical contempt for students. This is authoritarianism on stilts. (It's the USSR all over again; as this is exactly the way their professors treated students.)

3. In his article Wilson admits that evolutionists in the past used evolution theory for many immoral purposes; but he wants us to believe that in the present day all this is changed, and that no evolutionists push the theory for bad reasons. Sure. The truth is very different; evolution theory is being used as a way to rationalize all manner of immoral behaviors. (The fact is that evolutionism can't be used for any moral purpose. Why? For one thing it's a false theory; and for another it was a bit of metaphysical speculation that had the purpose of denying God. Evolutionary theory has no positive value; it has a wholly pernicious effect on everything it touches.)

4. evolutionists claim endlessly that E. is the foundation of biology; nonsense. Macro E. has nothing to do with biology. You can study biology (biological organisms) perfectly well without knowing a thing about darwinian theory.

5. people like Wilson wouldn't even Dream of telling you the truth about the origins issue. (And one day they will suffer the price for the charade they're playing; as they will end up on the intellectual rubbish pile.)

6. he gives his students Dennett's 'Dangerous Idea' to read. Well it's not surprising then that some young impressionable students might get taken in by this corrupt piece of hate speak. (e.g. let's send creationists to concentration camps) It would be hard for them to tell truth from error in the book. This is basically influence your students by giving them a bunch of lies to read. That this piece of hate speech could be recommended on the campuses of our society shows how far we've fallen. This is almost identical to the kind of material students got under the nazis. (ie. if you don't like a group; mock them, marginalize them, deny them their rights, put them in concentration camps...) I really can't beleive theis kind of thing is going on. (Don't forget it was the professors who led the nazi movement; and teh communist movement. Thse trumped up little morons believe they have some right to tyrannize people... to force them to adopt their views... and to punish them if they don't. Tyrannies are always led by university professors and the intellectuals.)

7. I doubt if these results (if you want to believe them :=) could be replicated; but even if they were one could easily imagine other reasons for their 'success.' Obviously if students see that a 'teacher' (indoctrinator) is intensely motivated to have them change their views... they will go along with the program to get the grade they want; especially knowing that fanatics like wilson penalize students severely for showing any resistance to the program. (Often failing people for offering any critique of the program; or in this case of evolution theory.) Most students hate fanatics like this and just want to get away from them... get on with their studies and their lives. Wilson sounds like the archetypal bully; that unfortunately abound on the modern campus. For some reason people like this are allowed to bully their students with immunity.

8. what I find interesting about ranting like this is how it denies what goes on elsewhere on the campus. Has Wilson never heard of postmodernism? of Deconstructionism? Hasn't he heard that the reader is the only one who knows what a text means? what right then does he have to impose his reading of 'darwin' on other people? Doesn't he know that all readings are equally valid? I say this half jokingly; but I think he needs to answer these questions. How is it he can ignore them? (as he so obviously does.) These are good secular colleagues; on what basis does he reject their ideas? (The irrationalism of the modern campus is profound; you have everybody contradicting everybody... but no one seems to care :=) It's really bedlam.

9. if Wilson really doesn't human beings should engage in a ruthless fight for survival why is he trying so hard to destroy creationists and the creationist model? On the one hand he tells us we must all be moral now (now that evolution has stopped happening I suppose) but on the other hand he's involved in a rather brutal attempt to eradicate the creationist model. This makes no sense, and can only be called irrationalism.

10. I'm still astounded that almost (almost?) no one in the secular camp condemned Dennett for his vile suggestion creationists should be sent to concentration camps. This tells you a lot about our modern evolutionists. (And how many people with a Jewish background condemned him? I can't think of any.) That despite all this most mainstream Christian clergy call themselves evolutionists is beyond comprehension. (And how many of them condemned Dennett? None that I know of.)

11. In all this you see the evils of the socialist system, and of tenure in particular. Does anyone believe Wilson would bully his students like this if he was operating in a free market system? (Once upon a time professors were paid by students on an individual basis.) But since he has the full weight of the State (that evil U.S. empire as professors like to call it) behind him he can treat students like dogs.