intelligent design schools

EVOLUTION

Fearing Darwin the administrators hunker down clinging to their faith, but their god is good and will not abandon them. No one, after all, wants to leave a child behind with the rapture fast approaching - the second coming (Hilary?) This impending NCLB Armageddon will separate the sheep from the goats and the administrators are taking some heat, being the scape goats. Natural selection would dictate that parents could choose where to send their kids to school - and schools that couldn't attract any schoolmates would die off and the species would be more fit. This genetic algorithm's form of artificial intelligence - recombination, crossover, mutation and evaluation of fitness - is clearly blasphemous to the keepers of the faith. Only the school administration et al has a direct relationship to their god. Sex/reproduction has to be kept out of the schools - the species can survive with a little more prayer for insight from the intelligent designer (storks delivering wisdom). The proles need guidance from their shepherds, and shackled down, not to wonder to the school of their benighted choosing. These school children are needed nutrients (state funding) for the maggot infestion that is failing unfit schools.

third party foul

COERCION

Evidence points to inequality of decision making. Some people routinely make good choices as judged by society while others routinely shoot themselves in the foot. The scientific management model of modern liberals assumes rough genetic equality with observed differences explained mostly by environment. Using a diminishing marginal utility model, they can explain lazy unmotivated peoples behavior. How some people actually accomplish things like having transportation to and from this thing called a job to pay for their food and shelter is explained away as benefiting from past wealth/opportunistic chance. Problems of society are posited as though a solution exists rather than an eternal plague of humanity. Wealth redistribution (theft) is a favored solution of the modern liberal progressives. With a little articulate moral gymnastics they don't see this as stealing nor coercive. Classical liberals on the other hand assume genetic inequality (some are dumb) but have the hubris to know that third parties (even the elite minds) make even stupider decisions than stupid people would have made for their own lives. This is because third parties are often isolated from any negative feedback loops that the individual more directly experiences and use to adjust their behaviour. Human evolution since the dawn of civilization has only been 10 thousand years - only a blink of the eye in evolutionary time. Humans ultimately only have hunter/gatherer brain power. Classical liberals often appear looking foolish by acknowledging societal problems often have no government solution, but modern liberals throw out answers and remove all doubt.

an inconvenient dogma

GLOBAL WARMING

What if it doesn't happen - what if the globe stays the same temperature? It seems pretty high and mighty of the new comi-enviros to assume that humans are powerful enough to alter climate on a permanent basis. Yes over a millenia but unlikely over a century. What, first the decree that we are no more than advanced chimpanzees then we are extra special earth wreckers. Can't they make up their mind? Are we or are we not part of earths natural system. Is or is not what we do natural or are we supra natural. The earth is always changing, sulfuric volcanoes atmosphere was replaced by bacteria, fungi, plant and later animal atmosphere. Are we Gods who have to maintain the present (statist) balance or can we rely on natures designer, who probably built in mechanisms that would counteract rapid climate change. Of all the greenhouse gasses CO2 is but one. Of all the systems that regulate earths climate, the greenhouse effect is but one. Yet Al Gore has determined that the debate is over and that earthlings have but ten years to act or else kaput.

school bossing

EDUCATION

If natural selection biology has been taught in public schools for almost a century and half the public currently believes in creationism, then what would be the fear of intelligent design being mentioned? This and a myriad of other petty disputes in public schools can easily be avoided to the satisfaction of most parents (if not the mind indoctrinators). A lack of Darwinian knowledge does very little harm to society at large when compared to the blatant economic illiteracy of the public. That is a very comical situation unto itself: the progressive elite, priding ones self on being knowledgeable, looking down upon those poor religious fools, anti-Walmart, yet not understanding something as simple as Ricardo's law of comparative advantage (specialise in what your country does best, trade for the rest), or the law of demand's negative slope (raising the minimum wage, will decrease the number of entry level low skilled jobs). Here is a novel idea: Why not have the state put a dollar sign above every k-12 pupils head, and let schools public and private compete by offering high quality education similar to the U.S. college market, which is the best in the industrialised world, as opposed to the government monopoly in k-12 education. This could be known as a "school voucher" program or "school choice". This may be heresy in the modern liberal progressive church but i thought they were for choice. Instead, they burn at the stake any reform effort that doesn't conform to their universalist doctrine.

nature nuture soul

GENETICS AND FREE CHOICE

The progressive view regarding where human actions originate from is a non individual fault proposition. Biology is discounted by progressives (radicals not to long ago believed that even gender traits were learned) believing in a blank slate that is written on by environment - genome project be damned. These progressive environmentalists also discount the human soul sometimes even denying its existence. Common people do not make their own choices - that is the duty of elites. They believe if only humans were born and raised in a nurturing environment all would be well. Society at large is responsible for all evil - systemic triumphantalism. They wish to strictly control this developmental environment - and resort to their beloved scientific modeling and government coercion tactics (it takes a village i.e. the state). All is chance and random - there is no higher purpose in their vision - and they have received their superior vision for society not from their soul, or derived from reason, but through sheer emotional revelation. This religious wishful thinking dictates 'these people would not choose this for themselves, lets help them with what they really want.' Contrary to this vision are the soulful who believe humans are judged on their own self actualization and will to change the inherent path of fate that biology and environment try to dictate - a hierarchy of powers is prevalent. Biology is cruel - quite the opposite of egalitarian values - people are born with vastly different skills and flaws. These are very innate irregardless of environment - environment being mostly just the expression of ones biology. However, personal responsibility and accountability still exist as articulaters and arbiters of ones genetically encoded fate. At some point in ones life, while climbing maslow's pyramid, the soul has the potential to be expressed if the individual wants to modify, although not completely able to escape fate. This is everyones mission if they are willing to choose it, before they self destruct.

natural rights of the unborn

ABORTION

Roe v wade was not decided correctly and now is a supper dupper precedent. Well born humans have a right not to be killed and the courts are not supposed to legislate nor invent new constitutional rights. Ultimately a line has to be drawn somewhere in between conception and birth. Killing an infant one hour old would be a crime handed down by societal evolution from antiquity. Killing an infant before birth is viewed as somehow different. A civilization that allowed or encouraged killing infants would not survive more than a few generations. Womens liberation was the main justification of unlimited abortions, seems how evolution had played a dirty trick on women who engaged in casual sex as opposed to men. So two competing claims of rights are best decided on a state by state basis and through the legislative process as the constitution says all rights not granted explicitly to the federal government are retained by the states and their people. That is the best way for legitimacy of the rule of law and civilized society to be upheld. It is when the elites in robes' actions are indistinguishable from sovereign rulers evoking divine rights, that sets us back to medieval times instead of advancing society like they fantasize they are doing.

urban darwin

THE UNDERCLASS

In the olden days men selected women to be their mate based on the probability on giving birth and raising healthy offspring to reproductive age. This evolved preference included child bearing hips, ample breasts, and a overall healthy bodytype. An aesthetically pleasing face would not directly affect genetic transmission success but obviously increased the attention received from the opposite sex. In the olden days women submitted to a suitor based on his ability to provide protection and appearance of healthy genetic traits. Parenting skills that transferred health and stability to the next generation had an advantage. Natural selection was responsible for the bulk of the human race up into the industrial revolution. A reward in genetic terms is the propagation of ones own dna. But since the industrial revolution the reward is much easier to obtain without darwinian filtering. Women die less frequently during childbirth. Conception and carrying a child to term are achieved at a much higher rate. Infants regularly advance into adulthood now that disease and nature are more in check. In fact, the reward is a disincentive for people the more materially rich they are (the irony of post modernism ) due to increased financial burdens and the availability of 'safe sex.' Those left having many offspring are generally poorer, less intelligent (due to high correlation between wealth and intelligence), and of weaker dna/parenting skills (weaker as defined by the pre-industrial revolution natural selection process). But current societal advancement perpetuates this demographic through the marvels of modern science and socialist transfer payment supports. In the olden days rampant promiscuity was kept in check by famine, disease, warfare and societal pressure. But in post modern deconstructivist society, uber promiscuity is rewarded (the propagation of ones dna) and assuming that the trait is learned via environment and/or genes it is perpetuated ad-infinitum, with the possibility of overrunning the more selective.

sodomy or trans-fats

GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION

Which is more dangerous to society: sodomy or trans-fats? And should the government force individuals to abandon them? The human rectum did not evolve for the purpose of intercourse. This is not a value statement - it is a fact. Damaging disease transfer probability are much greater through anal sex than vaginal. HIV and trans-fats, which may cause heart problems, both lead to death. All humans eventually die (currently 100% deathrate in your lifetime!) - presumably governments only regulate to prevent unjust premature death. Heart disease affects older people, HIV the younger. Which is more important to society? If the government banned sodomy (which is a new constitutionally protected right...) it would have very little impact on HIV. The rest of us would still be subsidizing through taxes millions in research into the disease and millions for medical treatment. And the same is true of heart disease. Ban trans-fats and it will make minimal impact on overall death rates. So in a free society why should government ban either? Why not let people make their own choices and let their personal cost/benefit dictate their further behaviour in any particular practice. Its when their cost gets transferred to others that society ceases to be free.

brave new cell research

STEM CELLS

Now with these stem cells they can clone one person and repeat multiple times (how egalitarian). That way everyone would be equal (and identical). Don't worry multiculturalism won't go away. Everyone will be randomly assigned a culture (so poverty tourists can still travel the world to see other colorful cultures). Disease, disability, physical and mental diversity finally conquered by the new immortals! Now who do we pick as the archetypal human? To be fair and eliminate the (societal imposed) differences between the sexes we need a hermaphrodite, capable of reproducing with either sex organ (although reproduction would only be needed every thousand years or so with the immortal clones having a right to die with dignity). Preferably someone who is a cross in equal proportions of all the worlds ethnicitys (which are constructs anyways). A little genetic modification will insure that the offspring of the clones don't regress to the former mean. In case some of the clones and/or their offspring gain an unfair advantage and express differences from the others (other than assigned culture) the state would step in and naturally select the deviants to be neutralized.