Fodder Alert

For those who missed the annual presidential spin machine, here’s CNN’s State of the Union video page. Notice to all Christians who missed it: in the first two minutes of part 4 Bush says there should be peace in the Middle East by the close of this year—2008. Well, at least he’s doing his part to make sure it happens this year.

Fire up the rumor mill, folks. This has “next bestseller” all over it.

History’s Lesson: Good and Bad

This continues the line of thought from the last major post.

If you recall from WWII history, the Nazis performed an unparalleled number of experiments on humans in a very short amount of time. They kept meticulous records, as they did in all circumstances, and built entire libraries of scientific information based on their results. Granted, they were aiming at a predetermined conclusion, so it was rigged, but they utilized “science” as their justification for murder and mutilation. That’s just as bad as people doing the same in the name of religion. The Nazi’s scientific conclusion was, for instance, that those with darker skin, with larger noses, from Jewish ancestry, or with darker eyes were predisposed to criminality. Since being a criminal is a bad thing, those who fell into those categories were sequestered and dealt with in ferocious ways.

[By the way, their data collection was that of correlational studies—that there might be a correlation between physical traits and criminality—which is completely different than strict cause-and-effect studies. Correlational studies many times are inconclusive at best because there are not effective ways to account for known and unknown variables. You cannot gather correlational data and say that it shows a definitive cause-and-effect.]

I am concerned whenever science is allowed to place value on certain individuals due to ethnicity or genetic make-up. I do not think assignment is within the domain of science. Yet, it seems we are headed back that way, down the road most traveled.

The catch-22 is that I don’t think science has a real choice in the matter. The advances in genomics leads down the path of investigating genetic predisposition, whether they want it to or not. Find the future alcoholics, flag them and get them in a program at an early age—show the detriments of alcohol and scare them straight. Find the future criminals, flag them and get them in a program at an early age—teach them to empathize by six months old and they will even cry at puppy commercials. Find the future abusers, flag them and get them in a program—empathy training with a heavy dose of familial and societal attachment. These ideas are such a small leap from where we are now.

We already use intelligence testing for placement (SAT or college entrance exam anyone?) and promotion, so why not utilize “the gifts God gave us” and include genetic testing as well. Find the sports star at age six and train them for the Olympics. Find the born leader and groom them to take over your multi–billion-dollar company. On the flip side, if we find the felony-minded, we have the opportunity to make our part of the world that much safer. Who wants to live in a bad neighborhood, anyways?

Problem is, who decides bad and good? Not the scientist; they can only say what is or isn’t. Good and bad are beyond their scope. But so far, they are the only ones speaking up.

This brings us back to the Nazis and evolution. The Nazis pursued justification through scientific means, making them seem like the voice of authority. The evolutionist’s claim of science currently positions them as the authority . . . but they come up empty when confronted with ideas like “all men are created equal”. How could you arrive at equality when evolution clearly states that all are not equal?

And, more poignantly, Martin Luther King, Jr. is hailed as a hero of the entire human race and as one who fought for justice. But if, according to evolution, he was not equal because of his ethnicity, why would evolutionists call him a hero? What do you do with a man who fights for equality when equality, according to evolutionary belief, is a myth? By their standard, he would be considered a subverter who was fighting for something that did not exist and was not his to obtain. This puts evolutionists in a tough spot.

If evolution is true, then we are not all created equal and King is bad. But if we are all created equal, King is a hero and that is good.

I am thankful that scientists cannot dictate what is good or bad, including which people are good or bad.

MLK Photos

One of the many presentations available online about Martin Luther King, Jr. This one is hosted by Slate.

An Evolutionary Argument for Slavery

I think it is interesting how you will not hear someone arguing a pro-slavery position nowadays, even though it has only been a little over one hundred years since slavery has been abolished. This post comes from an exchange with a prior psychology professor (a black female) about race and slavery.

My argument is for slavery from an evolutionary point of view. In other words, if humans are believed to have evolved from apes, I think it is arguable that slavery is an allowable, logical deduction. This is obviously not what I believe (either that humans came from apes, or that slavery is a good thing), but it is an interesting thought exercise.

The thought goes like this:

1. Evolution states that various species came into being from random or selected mutations over long periods of time.
   
2. It states that these changes are positive in that “survival of the fittest” is ensured through the changes.
   
3. It also states that these subsequent species came into being precisely because they were better in one way or another, regardless of how you categorize that: faster, smarter, stronger, smaller, more venom, more protection, more egg-laying capacity, ability to breathe in both air and water, ability to fly, etc.
   
4. These statements give rise to a flow of thought related to species hierarchy: a human is better than an ape, which is better than a weasel, which is better than a frog, which is better than an amoeba. This flow can be stated in reverse order, like this:
   

amoeba —> frog —> weasel —> ape —> human

So far, so good. Pretty generic stuff. We will quickly admit that an amoeba does not have the same rights, value or position as a human.

Following a great many articles and vast research, including, most interestingly, genomics, scientists have concluded that the first humans were located in Africa and subsequently spread from there in several waves. The first wave was into Egypt, the second was into various regions of Africa. The third was into the Middle East, India, Australia (the Aboriginal tribes), and Asia. The final wave, they say, was into the European nations, which would make caucasoids the latest “race” to evolve, while Africans would be the earliest.

With this in mind, the entire flow could be stated like this:

amoeba —> frog —> weasel —> ape —>

human {African —> Egyptian —>

Middle Eastern/Indian/Aboriginal/Asian —>

Caucasian}

If we can readily admit that an amoeba does not have the same rights, value and position as an ape, and that an ape does not have the same rights, value and position as a human, it should not be difficult to think that later iterations of humans are therefore higher in the hierarchy of human evolution.

And if we admit that, then it is a short leap to say, therefore, that certain humans, based on the evolutionary scale, are more progressed . . . better, in other words, according to evolutionary assertion #3 above.

Let’s talk about slavery for a minute. A slave, in short, is a person who is held in non-compensated servitude by another. By definition, the slave, is “less than” the owner in at least one way (position), but is usually considered “less than” in many ways. We may treat the family pet as if they were dear to our heart, but we would not grant them the same position, value or rights as a child within the family structure. The animal is still property and may be treated as such. And if it came to a choice between the pet or the child, it shouldn’t be difficult to agree which should be saved. Property can be replaced, but people can’t.

As far as slavery goes, they were considered property. They had no recognized value, rights or position because they were less than. I can’t imagine the average person saying that a Black person is “less than” today, but it almost seems that this is what some of the sciences are insinuating if we follow their line of thinking through to the end.

I think a serious evolutionist should look at this argument. Glibly saying that all humans, regardless of ethnic ancestry, have equal and inherent value is a serious misappropriation of evolution’s main tenets. Evolution clearly shows that one is better, and the other worse. So if you think slavery is wrong or bad, you can’t expect evolution to help prove that. Why? Well, because evolution will always highlight progress in successive iterations, not equality from the earliest to the most recent. The most recent is the most fit, the earliest is the least fit.

On the other hand, if evolution is taken to be true, then there is no grounds to say that slavery is wrong or bad. Slavery would be, at the very least, logically allowable. If evolution is true, it is no worse for the better and more recent iterations of humans to rule over the earlier “less than” iterations, than it is for an owner to rule over a dog. I think that if evolution is true, this could be one logical deduction.

I hope your emotions are pricked by the thought that evolution provides logical and (most notably) scientific grounds for slavery. And I hope you are repulsed by this thought. If not, then I fear we have learned nothing from history, but instead have accepted something sinister without greater scrutiny. More on that later.

MLK Day

Hope is one of the greatest gifts ever given to the human race. I believe that mankind has been given one of clearest pictures of true hope in the African American heritage, but especially as it is seen within the Black churches across the world, and specifically by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Here’s to you. Here’s to hope.

Can They Sue Us?

Is it considered slander if a child equates their latest “porcelain deposit” to Thomas the Train?

See the mugshot of the accused below. See how she tries to blend into the background. Obviously guilty.

Everyone’s A Comedian

Amy took Kayla to run some errands the other day. While they were out, Amy had Kayla try on a few pairs of shoes and asked her which ones she liked. As Amy narrowed it down to two pairs, Kayla made her choice clear with one, shall we say, word of warning to her mother.

“You can get those shoes for me, but I won’t wear them.”

Thought

Without love, man finds no great home.

Samuel’s Fauxcut

Samuel was born with a natural fauxhawk. It has grown to the point where it won’t stick straight up, so it ends up being his first comb-over. Now, at about six months old, we decided to give him his first haircut. It’s kinda funny when you notice for the first time that a third of his cranial height was due to hair.

Hair to spare:



Post-cut:

Books

“Those books weren't made for walking!”
—Said to Kayla as she walked across books she had piled on the floor