Darwinism Still Corrupts Culture

first_imgThe bad fruits of Social Darwinism are well known. Less well known are ongoing negative influences of modern Darwinian ideas on human behavior.How Do You Correct Behavior Based on Fake Science?Have you been led to believe that men are naturally more promiscuous because sperm cells are cheap? that women are more choosy because eggs are costly? It’s all bunk. Phys.org just published the following headline: “Data should smash the biological myth of promiscuous males and sexually coy females.” That’s strong wording: smash, myth. New findings are teaching the opposite: men can be coy, and women promiscuous. But both ideas, being based on Darwinian ideas that people are just animals, can have unspeakably horrible consequences for marriage, family, and civilization.The article is merciless in its attack on this myth:These ideas, which are pervasive in Western culture, also have served as the cornerstone for the evolutionary study of sexual selection, sex differences and sex roles among animals. Only recently have some scientists – fortified with modern data – begun to question their underlying assumptions and the resulting paradigm.If Thomas Kuhn were still living, he would have here a great new illustration of his theory of paradigm shifts and scientific revolutions. The article fingers Charles Darwin himself as the mastermind of this fake science. His disciples took it and ran with it.These simple assumptions are based, in part, on the differences in size and presumed energy cost of producing sperm versus eggs – a contrast that we biologists call anisogamy. Charles Darwin was the first to allude to anisogamy as a possible explanation for male-female differences in sexual behavior.His brief mention was ultimately expanded by others into the idea that because males produce millions of cheap sperm, they can mate with many different females without incurring a biological cost. Conversely, females produce relatively few “expensive,” nutrient-containing eggs; they should be highly selective and mate only with one “best male.” He, of course, would provide more than enough sperm to fertilize all a female’s eggs.Surely this notion was tested, right? The article explains how Angus Bateman, a botanist, ran some experiments one time in 1948 on fruit flies (not human fly-by-nighters). Telling a whopper from this miniscule test, he alleged that the promiscuous-male-choosy-female scenario “was a near-universal characteristic of all sexually reproducing species.” In 1972, Robert Trivers amplified on the idea, talking about males’ “cheap investment” in sperm. Read the following quote, and think about what sexually active guys in dorm rooms are supposed to think about normal behavior after evolutionary biology class:In other words, females evolved to choose males prudently and mate with only one superior male; males evolved to mate indiscriminately with as many females as possible. Trivers believed that this pattern is true for the great majority of sexual species.The problem is, it isn’t true! The article explains many counter-examples. Men have just as much reason to be careful about their sex cells. It’s not the number; it’s the biological cost, the article explains. Semen contains many compounds that are expensive to produce. Men can run out of sperm. Consequently, males have every reason to be “choosy” about mating, too. Think of the consequences of poorly-tested bad ideas:The problem is, modern data simply don’t support most of Bateman’s and Trivers’ predictions and assumptions. But that didn’t stop “Bateman’s Principle” from influencing evolutionary thought for decades.Now get this: the article—still founded on evolutionary notions that people are just animals—makes matters even worse. Based on the latest Darwinian notions about sex, the article claims that females tend to be just as promiscuous as males. Think about how that will influence college students!If you think nobody teaches “Bateman’s Principle” any more these days, look at another post on Phys.org that came about the same time, like two ships passing in the night. Steiner Branslet writes about “One night stand regrets.” Another study supposedly shows that women have more regrets than men about casual sex. Look what it’s based on:“Women and men differ fundamentally in their sexual psychology,” says Professor Buss. “A key limitation on men’s reproductive success, historically, has been sexual access to fertile women. These evolutionary selection pressures have created a male sexual mind that is attentive to sexual opportunities.“The quality of one’s sexual partner in short-term relationships plays a lesser role biologically for men. Assuming women did not avoid having sex with them, men who ran from woman to woman and got them pregnant would have scored best in the evolutionary race.Sounds like Bateman’s Principle, right? Sure. Men just act the way evolution makes them act. “Female choice—deciding when, where, and with whom to have sex— is perhaps the most fundamental principle of women’s sexual psychology,” says one of the evolutionists in the article, referring implicitly to the views of Darwin, Bateman and Trivers. How about the guys? “These evolutionary selection pressures have created a male sexual mind that is attentive to sexual opportunities.”Take these quotes and apply them to the dormitory. Think of all the blessed effects on marriage and family down the line; after all, “Culture does not change biology,” this article admonishes. We can’t fight natural selection. Nor should we.An overall explanation presumably lies in the fundamental differences between men and women.The study results support theories of parental investment and sexual strategy: men and women have throughout generations invested differently in their relationships and any children that resulted.We’re talking evolution psychology here.Of course, if humans are more than mere animals, the whole conversation is fake science. We have comprehensive instructions from an all-wise Creator on how we are are to choose our sexual behaviors. But to the consensus, that doesn’t qualify as science. They feel we must derive our sexual ethics from the blind processes of natural selection, which couldn’t care a whit about morals.Other Darwin Fake Science with Evil FruitBateman’s Principle is not the only example of fake science that corrupts culture. Here are more interested readers can investigate:Social Darwinism in 2017. Can you get away with racism today? Evolutionists appear to have no qualms. In a PNAS paper entitled, “Selection against variants in the genome associated with educational attainment,” no less than 15 evolutionists claim that Icelanders with less education have more kids. “The rate of decrease is small per generation but marked on an evolutionary timescale,” they say. “Another important observation is that the association between the score and fertility remains highly significant after adjusting for the educational attainment of the individuals.” Figure this conundrum out: “This is thus a striking case where a variant associated with a phenotype typically regarded as unfavorable could nonetheless be also associated with increased ‘fitness’ in the evolutionary sense.” Well, if that’s the case, might as well go with the flow. Quit school and have more sex. Darwinism is as Darwinism does.Myth-busting Neanderthal narrative takes decades. A lengthy piece in the New York Times shows how long it has taken to overcome what CEH calls “historical racism,” the myth that fossil humans were “other” than human. That’s why we give them other species names, like Homo neanderthalensis. NY Times reporter Jon Mooallem interviews the work of Clive Finlayson at Gibraltar who shows many reasons why “Neanderthals were people, too.” He tells how Frenchman Marcellin Boule in 1911 propagated the Neanderthal myth of stoop-shouldered, beetle-browed imbeciles on their way to the cave cookout. “A lot of what he said was wrong,” Mooallem finds from Finlayson. “Still, Boule’s influence was long-lasting. Over the years, his ideologically tainted image of Neanderthals was often refracted through the lens of other ideologies, occasionally racist ones.”LGBT tales. The inverse influence of culture on science is a fascinating area of philosophy. Check for it in a book review in Science Magazine this week, where Sheri Berenbaum wrestles with the normality of deviant gender roles while reviewing Cordelia Fine’s new book, Testosterone Rex Myths of Sex, Science, and Society (Norton, 2017). Approach this quote like a qualified observer of social influences on science, paying attention to Berebaum’s use of culturally-popular buzzphrases as she plays the academic “On the one hand this, but on the other hand that” game:I welcome and applaud Fine’s efforts to ground policy in science and to spotlight the false reasoning and dichotomies that appear in popular books and some policies (such as single-sex education). I also recognize (and regret) the long history—and present—of using biology to justify inferior treatment of women. This no doubt contributes to resistance to evidence of biological differences among those seeking gender equality.The challenge is not to dismiss biological explanations of sex differences but to articulate clearly their implications. We can accept that biology contributes to behavioral sex differences and simultaneously argue that gender inequalities are not intractable. Rather than rejecting biological differences, we must seek to reveal the nonsense in the arguments that brain and behavioral sex differences justify discrimination, segregation, and differential treatment of the sexes.Shocking but true. At Live Science, Jonathan Sadowsky of Case Western Reserve University tells about “the wild history of electroconvulsive therapy.” Early shock treatments were horrifying to watch; modern ones are milder, he says. While not directly tied to Darwinian theory, this article assumes the brain is merely a physical organ, and that shocking it with electrical impulses can help with “mental illnesses” that are assumed to be mere biological abnormalities. While some forms of depression have biological causes, what about mental illnesses that have a spiritual root or stem from true guilt? The following quote shows how scientific thinking is often tied to the culture of the day. This example is from the 1950s. Are scientists today culpable of such “medicalizing behavior”?At that time, ECT was also used as a “treatment” for homosexuality, then considered by psychiatrists to be an illness. This was not a major part of ECT practice, but this is not a comfort to gay people who received the treatment, for whom it could be traumatizing. The psychiatrists who used ECT in this way sincerely believed they were trying to help sick people, which serves as a warning against “medicalizing” behavior, and assuming that this will reduce stigma. This use of ECT did not last, in part because there was no evidence it did alter anyone’s sexuality. But it survived in the social memory of the therapy.Punish nations with carbon penance. Nature‘s editorial this week says, “Base the social cost of carbon on the science.” The very title assumes that science can speak definitively on something as global as climate a hundred years from now, when we can’t even predict the weather 15 days out. New unknowns and revisions come out weekly, as we have reported (1/18/17); just today, Phys.org said that humans, not climate, caused the extinction of megafauna in Australia 45,000 Darwin years ago. While not tied to Darwinian evolution directly, this editorial shares the assumptions of scientism and millions of years. Nature‘s anti-Trumpism comes out again in the article, accusing the new US president and his appointees of “disregard for science” even though the Editors acknowledge, “There is, of course, plenty of room for debate.”Fake science and false certainty. In closing, we should consider the views  of a Worldview op-ed column in Nature: “Anita Makri argues that the form of science communicated in popular media leaves the public vulnerable to false certainty.” Yet she argues that scientists should “Give the public the tools to trust scientists.” Mouthing Pontius Pilate, she begins, “What is truth?” Of the two groups she works in that are concerned with truth (scientists and journalists), she believes that journalists are doing a good job (despite all the evidence for fake news in the mainstream media, complained about by conservatives, like Breitbart News; see also Breitbart’s report on BBC’s admission they’ve been biased; meanwhile, New Scientist is overtly publishing a very biased and unscientific series, “Resisting Trump”). But “Scientists need to catch up, or they risk further marginalization in a society that is increasingly weighing evidence and making decisions without them.” Science is “losing its relevance as a source of truth,” she worries.Yet further reading reveals her faith in scientism. The only purveyors of fake news are the conservatives, she suggests with a link to another Nature story accusing Breitbart News of that. To Makri, scientists don’t tell lies; they just don’t have all the facts yet. Scientists may have gaps in their knowledge, but it will eventually catch up to the truth, because in scientism, science works as a truth generator in due time—the most reliable truth generator in the world. “Current debates about truth are far from trivial,” she ends. “More scientists and communicators of science need to get involved, update practices and reposition themselves in a way that gets with the times and shows that science matters — while it still does.” In other words, scientists don’t have a truth problem; just a talking points problem (echoed in Nature‘s interviews with three scientists about how to solve “post-truth predicaments”). One wonders what would be these “experts”‘ responses to the paradigms above about promiscuity, Neanderthals, electroshock therapy, racism and the other matters that have really hurt real people under the guise of “scientific truth.”After the historical and current examples we listed above, do you trust scientists when it comes to their pronouncements about how people should live and behave? Jesus said it succinctly with timeless wisdom: “You will know them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:15-20). A species puts out what is in its genes.One scientist wrote a letter to Nature that bears quoting. “Beware of scientists wielding red pens,” he titles his comment about censorship.By inviting scientists to take their ‘red pens to the Internet’ and grade online sources of science reporting, Phil Williamson implies that science is the primary and final voice in public discussion (Nature 540, 171; 2016). This disregards other ways in which people make sense of their lives through political debate, social context, personal connections or beliefs (see also D. Sarewitz Nature 522, 413–414; 2015). It stems from the naive myth of science as a disinterested producer of neutral truths.Science has a delicate relationship with society. Both have the right to speak and both shape one another — for better or worse. Governance and government rely increasingly on a science that is embedded in socio-political arenas populated by scientists, policymakers and citizens, among others. Not every expertise is equally credible, but a democratic society should allow each one to have a voice.To discredit them online may feel like defending the honour and public status of science, but it is a form of censorship. Science cannot impose its truths through power play — it must convince through symmetrical and open conversation. Whoa! Did you get that?In that second link, Sarewitz had said this:Scientists are not elected. They cannot represent the cultural values, politics and interests of citizens — not least because their values may differ significantly from those of people in other walks of life. A 2007 study on the social implications of nanotechnology, for instance, showed that nanoscientists had little concern about such technologies eliminating jobs, whereas the public was greatly concerned (see ‘A matter of perspective’). Each group was being rational. Nanoscientists have good reason to be optimistic about the opportunities created by technological frontiers; citizens can be justifiably worried that such frontiers will wreak havoc on labour markets. Unfortunately, such voices of reason are often drowned out by Big Scientism.(Visited 133 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img read more

Designers Gun For Gold: Here’s a look at why the 2012 Games are a fashion delight

first_imgIn 1948, London staged the XIVth Olympics, also known as the Austerity Olympics because of post-World War II rationing. The sporting headlines were dominated by Dutch sprinter Fanny Blankers-Koen, who won four golds in athletics. On the sidelines, though, history of a different kind was being written. The magical meeting,In 1948, London staged the XIVth Olympics, also known as the Austerity Olympics because of post-World War II rationing. The sporting headlines were dominated by Dutch sprinter Fanny Blankers-Koen, who won four golds in athletics. On the sidelines, though, history of a different kind was being written. The magical meeting between Rosita Jelmini and Ottavio Missoni was then viewed as just another Games romance-she was a shy 16-year-old daughter of an Italian shawl maker; he was a handsome 27-year-old Italian hurdler. They had discovered that in addition to their mutual love of sport, fashion featured high on their lust list. As fashion and love collided, they came together to form brand Missoni.Several decades later, the love affair between fashion and sport has morphed into a full-blown relationship, complete with whims, tantrums and doublespeak. So if you thought the Olympics was a sporting spectacle that purely played itself out on the track and field, think again. The 2012 London Games showcases fashion like never before. No longer are athletes satisfied with designing their own outfits, as Florence Griffith-Joyner once did to a stunned reception. Today, brands are a must on the tracks. After all, nothing screams patriotism louder than a designer label. Wear your support, and get ready to witness what Giorgio Armani describes as “the most fashionable Games ever.”Cedella Marley with Usain Bolt.JAMAICAN RUSHUsain Bolt, the world’s fastest man, will be sporting an outfit designed by Cedella Marley. Yes, the name rings a bell. The daughter of reggae god Bob, Cedella is behind the Jamaican team’s outfits. Complimenting the designerwear will be Puma shoes. The designs reflect the colours of the Caribbean, moving from yellow to green shades.advertisementDesigned by Cedella, the ‘military’ jackets for the Jamaican team are embroidered with a Bob Marley patch, accompanied by song lyrics on the back. Go Jamaica! STELLA FOR TEAM GBDesigner Stella McCartney has been one busy woman. How do you give a creative twist to an outfit that screams utility and comfort? Lycra is not the most fetching material to work with, but the designer has managed to give Team GB a fashion headstart at the Games. The Union Jack, redrawn in two shades of blue, which is the centrepiece of the British team’s official kit, has been disapproved by many fans for McCartney having largely jettisoned the trademark flag-red from her design. She has also created an Olympic Village-wear collection for participants to wear off the field, and for fans to buy. The red of the Union Jack has been used as trimming on many of the 590 individual articles created for Team GB by Adidas. River Island has also joined forces with Adidas to create a Team GB sportswear collection for both men and women, which is decked in red, white and blue, save for some cropped vests with metallic prints; hoodies with Union Jack motifs; and dresses with lion detailing.The Union Jack and its colours are predominant references in the designerwear for Team GB, with prices starting at 16 (Rs 1,400).RALPH ALL THE WAYThe US team has fashion icon Ralph Lauren as their outfitter. The Ralph Lauren 2012 Olympic Collection features reissued heritage pieces from the 1930s and 1940s, including fleece warm-ups, a cricket-collar shirt and sweatshirts with USA appliqus featuring an updated 1948 crest. The colour palette matches the countrys flagred, white and blue. In addition, newsboy caps are making quite a statement this Olympic season.Trust the US to take patriotic fervour to extremes.Angered at uniforms being made in China,Senator Bernie Sanders said: “When millions are unemployed in the US, why arent our Olympic uniforms being made here?”THE ITALIAN JOBItalian athletes are being clothed, naturally, by Giorgio Armani. Designed by his EA7 Emporio Armani sportswear label, the collection features 50 pieces of clothing and add-ons. The palette is white and midnight blue, the country’s competitive colours. To add a swatch of patriotic fervour, inside each garment are words from the Italian national anthem.Every Italian athlete will be issued a set of Armani luggage, with an asymmetrically-zipped tracksuit to wear on the podium, warm-up kit,shorts,trousers,shirts,shoes and tees.AZERI FASHION BIASThe Republic of Azerbaijan has certainly marked a spot for itself on the global fashion map. Having roped in European luxury brand Ermanno Scervino as their official Olympics outfitter, the countrys competitors are all set to make a statement on D-Day. Scervino has designed both formal and casual apparel for the athletes, to be worn by them both on and off the field. Flaunting the colours of the Azeri flag, the kit blends the blue, red and green shades with the crescent moon and eight-point star, symbols of the republics flag, and adds to them a touch of designer signature vibe. The uniform has a strong-shouldered, notch-lapel navy blue jacket of heavy stretch cotton, with white chino trousers for men and white pencil skirts for women.advertisementlast_img read more

Hidilyn Diaz wins silver in Asian Weightlifting Championships

first_imgFILE — Hidilyn Diaz of Philippines celebrate at the podium during the victory ceremony for the women’s 53kg weightlifting event during the 2018 Asian Games in Jakarta on August 21, 2018. / AFP PHOTO / MONEY SHARMAMANILA, Philippines— Olympic silver medalist Hidilyn Diaz moved up to a heavier weight class and still ended up on the medal podium.The Filipino weightlifting heroine carried 94 kilograms in the snatch and followed it up with a 115 lift in the clean and jerk for a 209-kg total to claim the silver medal late Monday in the 2019 Asian Weightlifting Championships in Ningbo, China. ADVERTISEMENT Duterte wants probe of SEA Games mess Don’t miss out on the latest news and information. MOST READ Hontiveros presses for security audit of national power grid LATEST STORIES SEA Games hosting troubles anger Duterte Panelo: Duterte ‘angry’ with SEA Games hosting hassles Rafael Nadal to face 63rd-ranked Leonardo Mayer in Barcelona Open The continental meet is a qualifier to the 2020 Tokyo Olympics, allowing Diaz to successfully position herself for an unparalleled fourth straight stint in the Olympics.The Asian Games gold medalist in the 53kg moved up to the 55kg class after Diaz’s weight category was scrapped.FEATURED STORIESSPORTSPrivate companies step in to help SEA Games hostingSPORTSPalace wants Cayetano’s PHISGOC Foundation probed over corruption chargesSPORTSSingapore latest to raise issue on SEA Games food, logistics Private companies step in to help SEA Games hosting Cayetano: Senate, Drilon to be blamed for SEA Games mess Philippine Arena Interchange inaugurated Sports Related Videospowered by AdSparcRead Next DA eyes importing ‘galunggong’ anew ‘Unlikely names’ put ‘ouster matrix’ in doubt – Lacson PLAY LIST 02:21‘Unlikely names’ put ‘ouster matrix’ in doubt – Lacson00:35Hidilyn Diaz wins Philippines’ first gold medal in 2018 Asian Games01:50Palace defends Duterte’s absences from Asean events02:42PH underwater hockey team aims to make waves in SEA Games01:44Philippines marks anniversary of massacre with calls for justice01:19Fire erupts in Barangay Tatalon in Quezon City01:07Trump talks impeachment while meeting NCAA athletes02:49World-class track facilities installed at NCC for SEA Games02:11Trump awards medals to Jon Voight, Alison Krauss View commentslast_img read more

De Jong makes Mainz move

first_imgTransfers De Jong swaps Galatasaray for Mainz Russell Greaves Last updated 1 year ago 03:15 1/6/18 FacebookTwitterRedditcopy Comments(0) Nigel De Jong Galatasaray Galatasaray Dergisi Transfers Mainz 05 Hannover 96 v Mainz 05 Galatasaray Bundesliga Süper Lig The Netherlands midfielder has joined the Bundesliga side in their quest to avoid relegation Mainz have completed a move for Nigel de Jong after the 81-time Netherlands midfielder opted to call time on his stay at Galatasaray.The 33-year-old was released from his deal with the Turkish club by mutual consent on Friday, with his switch to the Bundesliga confirmed soon after.Mainz sit 15th in the table and two points clear of the bottom three at the halfway point of the season but De Jong, formerly of Ajax, Manchester City, AC Milan and the LA Galaxy, is relishing a new challenge after signing until the end of the campaign. Article continues below Editors’ Picks Lyon treble & England heartbreak: The full story behind Lucy Bronze’s dramatic 2019 Liverpool v Man City is now the league’s biggest rivalry and the bitterness is growing Megan Rapinoe: Born & brilliant in the U.S.A. A Liverpool legend in the making: Behind Virgil van Dijk’s remarkable rise to world’s best player Deal @NDJ_Official hat bei #Mainz05 einen bis zum Sommer 2018 datierten Vertrag unterschrieben. Herzlich Willkommen Nigel!Mehr Infos in Kürze auf https://t.co/nsxvGm6sq3 pic.twitter.com/jb8Sh2E8ms — 1. FSV Mainz 05 (@1FSVMainz05) January 5, 2018 “I like Mainz’s story, the club has established itself in the Bundesliga off its own back,” De Jong, who had a spell in Germany with Hamburg, told the club’s official website.”I want to help the team and the club achieve its aims this season. I’m really pleased to be back in the Bundesliga, one of Europe’s top leagues.”last_img read more