ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, December 21, 2013

The NYT dips a toe into HBD

Steve Sailer observes that the lead science writer at the New York Times is flirting with dropping the seventh veil of science:
Fewer ideas have been more toxic or harmful than the idea of the biological reality of race, and with it the idea that humans of different races are biologically different from one another. For this understandable reason, the idea has been banished from polite academic conversation. Arguing that race is more than just a social construct can get a scholar run out of town, or at least off campus, on a rail. Human evolution, the consensus view insists, ended in prehistory.

Inconveniently, as Nicholas Wade argues in A Troublesome Inheritance, the consensus view cannot be right. And in fact, we know that populations have changed in the past few thousand years—to be lactose tolerant, for example, and to survive at high altitudes. Race is not a bright-line distinction; by definition it means that the more human populations are kept apart, the more they evolve their own distinct traits under the selective pressure known as Darwinian evolution. For many thousands of years, most human populations stayed where they were and grew distinct, not just in outward appearance but in deeper senses as well.
Interesting to see it stated so clearly: "the consensus view cannot be right". I imagine we're going to be seeing that phrase on a regular basis over the next few years. Let's list a few of the obvious candidates:

Racial equality (check)
Global warming
String theory
Evolution by natural selection
Neo-Keynesian economics
Monetarism
Sexual equality

Which one do you think will survive longest? I'm going to go with Neo-Keynesian economics. I bet they'll be able to retrofit debt in there just well enough to remain nominally viable.

Labels:

72 Comments:

Blogger Tank December 21, 2013 9:07 AM  

I'm guessing string theory or evolution, because most people don't understand the theory itself or the criticisms.

Although they may not say it out loud, most people have already noted that racial equality, sexual equality and global warming are not "right."

Blogger Crude December 21, 2013 9:15 AM  

Monetarism, because the incentive to BS about it and the ability to clearly expose it as wrong is a lot more difficult.

Blogger tz December 21, 2013 9:16 AM  

I'm not sure if neo-Keynesianism is MMT - modern monetary theory or not. If so it will die in the next crash. It will become neo-neo-neo Keynsianism that the only thing in common is a call formthe government to interfere with and micromanage the market. Forget the price/quantity minutiae.

TENS has already had addions and subtractions. It will still be called evolution, and it will be unnatural and not vwry selective, but they won't give up on an mechanistic, amoral explanation of origins.

Blogger D.J. December 21, 2013 9:42 AM  

I guess that whether or not string theory lasts a long while, it won't cause a ping on the radar among most of society. It's esoteric, technical, and probably has no impact on how most people live their day-to-day lives.

Evolution will hang on because so many people have a vested interest in denying an external source of the universe (and therefore an external source of ethics), preferring immorality or amorality. Essentially this is not a fight about how life came to be, but a fight against religion in general in Christianity in particular over how people ought to live. Just as in Isaac Asimov's Foundation, scientists are trying to fulfill the role of priests in today's society, giving all the answers to the laity while keeping the secrets to themselves.

Neo-Keynesianism will hang on because of the vested interest of those in power to spend money to buy loyalty in exchange for comfort/access/power/what have you. However, I think this is the one to go first. People have to live in the real world, and this affects people directly on a day-to-day level, and so the discontinuities are easier to see, and people will more easily rebel against it. Especially if they can benefit by doing so. I could easily see people rebelling against Neo-Keynesianism but holding onto evolution by natural selection in order to have the maximum license to do what they want to. I think it's ultimately less important than Evolution By Natural Selection because that one is ultimately a fight over religion and the soul, whereas this is 'merely' a fight about this life.

Monetarism: Similar to the above point.

Global warming and sexual equality already have broad masses in revolt against them, and I think they will fall sooner than the others.

Anonymous Anonymous December 21, 2013 9:51 AM  

Sexual equality and racial equality will last as long as the country lasts. They are both accompanied by political power (i.e blacks and women vote), so it will never be in the political interests of the Democratic Party to alienate about 2/3 of the electorate (women + minorities). Intellectually, they may fall. But it will all be 'under the table,' as it is today. This country will publicly lie to itself even as it privately disbelieves it until this country is gone. The only way to overthrow it is to end one-person, one-vote.

anon

Anonymous WinstonWebb December 21, 2013 9:57 AM  

These will ALL hang on much longer than anyone suspects. After all, most people still believe that the human tongue has a "flavor map" because their elementary school physical science teacher said so. Even though that idea was proved to be bullshit almost 40 years ago.

MPAI definitely applies here.

Anonymous Stilicho December 21, 2013 10:00 AM  

I'd go with monetarism. The reason the liberals found in palatable after Keynesianism observably failed in the 70's was the fact that, despite Friedman's free market rhetoric, monetarism is still a command and control economic theory. Liberals really like that part along with the power of a monetarist Fed, They will struggle to hold on to that. Why they might even modify the theory to hold that all debt of the monetary authority should be held by the central bank which can forgive the interest which Paul owes to Peter. Government debt then becomes the primary source of the "benevolent" monetary inflation sought by the monetarists and the source of all economic "growth" n'est pas? Any past crashes may have been caused by debt, but they'll argue that it was that evil private sector debt.

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein December 21, 2013 10:24 AM  

String Theory, because it is the least likely to spectacularly blow up in our face during the next decade or so.

Blogger IM2L844 December 21, 2013 10:25 AM  

It seems like a bizarre juxtaposition to me that those who vehemently insist that "humans are just another animal in the forest" are usually the same ones who just as vehemently insist on jumping even further to the right than most Christians to deny microevolution when it comes to humans. Most Christians, on the other hand, have consistently accepted microevolution for all species while acknowledging that humans are a special case on a different level.

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein December 21, 2013 10:28 AM  

TENS, also, because there is some truth to it.

Anonymous Martin December 21, 2013 10:29 AM  

"..the consensus view cannot be right."
As the late, great Michael Crichton said: " When you talk about 'Consensus', you're talking about Politics, not Science."

Anonymous indyjones December 21, 2013 10:39 AM  

I will go with Keynesianism as well. It may eventually be called neo-neo-neoKeynesianism but Keynesianism gives the government manipulation rights to "correct" the faults in capitalism. They are not going to give up the ability to reward friends and punish enemies using tools from stimulus to tax policy.

Blogger Nate December 21, 2013 10:41 AM  

Wouldn't retro-fitting debt into neo-keynesian economics require them to invent yet another definition of inflation?

Anonymous YIH December 21, 2013 10:46 AM  

Also ''The most provocative claims in this book involve the genetic basis of human social habits. What we might call middle-class social traits—thrift, docility, nonviolence—''
It's what I've been saying for some time, wherever you find Africans you find the conditions of sub-saharan Africa. The western half of Hispaniola, Detroit and of course Africa itself.
Humans being different than talking wild animals? It's a no-brainer to me.

Anonymous Ras Al Ghul December 21, 2013 10:47 AM  


The money quote:

" The most provocative claims in this book involve the genetic basis of human social habits. What we might call middle-class social traits—thrift, docility, nonviolence—have been slowly but surely inculcated genetically within agrarian societies"

The ideas that will last the longest are the ones that are least understood by most people and the ones that aren't "understood" on the ground.

So racial and sexual equality will die first because they are readily observably false..

Global warming is already going because they've changed it to climate change, again observably false.

The others will last in some form for a good long time.

Anonymous Will Best December 21, 2013 10:53 AM  

The order in which these occurs depends largely on how F'd up you think things will get before they get better.

Since I think the US can plod along ala Japan for two decades, I think the global warming admission will have to come before the economic ones.

Sexual equality is interesting and could go different ways. I think in some SHTF world war scenario it will come to ahead before people figure out the economic reasons we are all fighting. Or it could come about when the Japanese perfect sex robot technology and 60% of the men drop out of the dating/resource pool necessitating polygamy.

I think the only way evolution gets admitted as wrong is if the lefties all die.

Anonymous Stilicho December 21, 2013 10:55 AM  

Wouldn't retro-fitting debt into neo-keynesian economics require them to invent yet another definition of inflation?

Aren't they using price inflation now?

Anonymous John December 21, 2013 11:35 AM  

It's seems clear that most here accept "the idea that humans of different races are biologically different from one another", but also clear that most don't accept the theory of evolution. What is the alternative theory as to how human races became biologically different from one another if not by different selection pressures caused by living in different areas over many thousands of years? As theories go, it always seemed like a plausible one, but I'd be curious as to alternative theories you have.

It could be that I'm confusing evolution with natural selection, but I thought natural selection was the salient feature of the theory of evolution. Anyway, how to explain belief in HBD with non-belief in evolution? Is the alternative theory about how races are biologically different that God made different races, and that they were different from the beginning?

Blogger Nate December 21, 2013 12:05 PM  

"Aren't they using price inflation now?"

Last I counted they had 5 definitions of inflation.

Blogger rycamor December 21, 2013 12:10 PM  

Question begging in the initial assumption: "Fewer ideas have been more toxic or harmful than the idea of the biological reality of race".

I would say, based on what we have observed over the past century, the converse is true. Whitewashing, failing to take differences into account in all our dealings has led only to disaster.

OpenID cailcorishev December 21, 2013 12:19 PM  

"Fewer ideas have been more toxic or harmful than the idea of the biological reality of race"

Too bad he didn't try to back that claim up with some evidence. It might be interesting to argue whether more harm has been done by the idea of race or by the refusal to admit that race exists.

John, yes, you're confusing evolution with natural selection. We all understand that a particular lineage will change over time, as breeding and other pressures affect it. Livestock breeders have understood that for centuries -- keep breeding your whitest, meatiest, most prolific rabbits and butchering the others, and after a while you have a breed of whiter, meatier, more prolific rabbits than before. When that happens in nature without human breeders choosing the traits, it's natural selection.

That didn't require all those livestock breeders to believe that enough such breeding and environmental pressures could eventually result in donkeys. That's "evolution," and no matter how much evolutionists tell you that natural selection leads naturally to evolution, they can't explain why except to say "billions and billions of years" as if that's a reason.

So it's completely consistent to think that God created human beings (and all other species), and then those species adapted over time to their local environments, resulting in different breeds/races within species.

Anonymous John December 21, 2013 12:23 PM  

cailcorishev, thanks for the explanation.

Blogger IM2L844 December 21, 2013 12:26 PM  

...but also clear that most don't accept the theory of evolution.

I've already addressed this. Every Christian I know accepts the concept of microevolution. That is, evolutionary divergence within species or possibly even higher levels given the lack of agreement within biological classification for the concept of "species".

Anonymous Rex Little December 21, 2013 12:39 PM  

Is string theory even a consensus view now? I thought it was just one of those speculative ideas that physicists played around with to see if it went anywhere. Certainly no one gets beat up for denying it like they do with the other examples.

Anonymous Noah B. December 21, 2013 12:47 PM  

WRT string theory -- I don't claim to understand it, but what I've read is that it hasn't actually been used to predict anything and therefore is not testable as a hypothesis. Does anyone here understand it well enough to have an informed opinion about it?

Blogger hamad uzair December 21, 2013 12:49 PM  

Forex Latest News, Forex Trading Tips, latest forex trading business updates, trading updates, forex trading latest news, forex brokers directory, forex brokers list, Dollars news affairs, Stock Markets, stock market news, stock market analysis, technology news, international forex markets, international forex business news and all updates about Forex Trading
ForexAffairs.Com

Anonymous Jack Amok December 21, 2013 1:34 PM  

I agree Neo-Keynesian economics will outlast them all. It gives governments justification for spending more money, so even if it "dies" it'll get resurrected fairly quickly.

Anonymous DonReynolds December 21, 2013 1:46 PM  

Global warming will disprove itself (like the cure for cancer from apricot pits) but will continue its status as a religious cult or nature worship of one kind or another. We already see this.
.
Evolution by natural selection is a religious issue. It should not be, but it is. Fortunately, people are never called upon to defend or reject evolution by natural selection except in parlor conversation.

Racial equality is the most confused idea, filled with contradiction and falsehoods. Some insist there are no races. Race is merely a social construct. Anyone with two eyes in their head knows that race is not a figment of their scary imagination. The same people who insist that race does not exist are the same people who insist on racial privileges and historical reparations for certain races that "do not exist." So they are talking out both sides of their mouth. There is a possibility of a widespread race conflict that will put to rest the silly idea that races do not exist. Of course they exist and we deal with that fact every single day. Not only are the races different, but they are rivals and their respective interests conflict. Some would say that interbreeding between the races will make race irrelevant. That has happened to a certain extent but it has not created enough confusion through mixing to render the topic moot.

Sexual equality between men and women seems to be an old Celtic idea that limped along for centuries. There has been no such equality in the rest of the world until it was forced upon them. Men and women are not the same, nor will they become the same in the future. Will there come a time when women do not vote? Yes. The same time as when very many men do not vote as well. Democracy is not likely to survive and those who manage the institutions of society will not feel the need to obtain permission and approval from low-information voters.

I will add three more that Vox did not mention:

Disability equality will also get trashed to the extent that physical and mental handicaps will no longer be a reason for distinction and certainly not create any special considerations. This is primarily a function of wealth. We toy with the idea of creating a barrier-free society and accommodation for the handicapped because we are wealthy enough to do so. When society is no longer wealthy, it will be subordinated to more vital activities and budgetary considerations. It is much cheaper to drop them into the welfare safety net than make the world convenient.

Sexual preferences are a very broad category and involve what are still criminal acts as well as the idea of two aging dykes playing house together. If you believe the police state will wither and die for lack of money, I would agree with you. But it is not at all clear whether the end of the police state will usher in a new age of freedom or theocracy. If we go the route of freedom, then homosexuals (etc) will be continue to exist under cautious toleration, but with hard limits. If we go the way of theocracy, the most they can hope for is to create their own remote or island republics or reservations.

Class distinction is more difficult to do away with. No society tried harder to deal with this than the Russian and Chinese Communist experiments and were completely unrestrained in their quest to meld the classes. They failed and proof of that is the fact that some of the most powerful oligarchs today are Russian and Chinese. The egalitarian ideal has failed repeatedly and will fail again. The only question is.....How much more will it cost in human suffering before the egalitarian ideal is no longer considered fair and equitable? Probably much more.

Blogger Nate December 21, 2013 1:47 PM  

I'm going with evolution... because its a religion.

Say what you want about economists... but when something fails enough they will eventually start to question it. Even Krugman.

evolution?

pure religion.

Blogger chuck December 21, 2013 2:01 PM  

Which one do you think will survive longest?

1) String theory
Among other things, string theory is mathematics. I expect is to last at least as long as the Pythagorean Theorem. It also works well for describing quantum gravity, and is effectively unique at that.

2) Evolution by natural selection.
The evidence for this is very strong and the conditions for it to hold are not particularly strict: reproduction, variation, differential survival rates. Makes for good computer algorithms among other things. Indeed, one could argue that many things, economies for instance, are subject to the same general evolutionary rules.

Blogger Random December 21, 2013 2:05 PM  

It is much cheaper to drop them into the welfare safety net than make the world convenient.

What frightens me as a wheelchair-bound man is what happens when people realize it's even cheaper to have no accommodation AND no safety net.

Guess I can always just hope my savings lasts or my family helps out.

Anonymous Concerned Rabbit Hunter December 21, 2013 2:08 PM  

"Since I think the US can plod along ala Japan for two decades, I think the global warming admission will have to come before the economic ones."

Japan does not have as many vibrant and unproductive peoples as the US has.

Anonymous Nathan December 21, 2013 2:25 PM  

The cracks are showing in string theory, though. It might be elegant math, but that's all it is. Certain versions of it postulate claims that cannot be experimentally proven ever. That's not "we don't have the tech to test it now," that's there is no way to test certain claims. In other words, theoretical physics has moved to faith and there are disturbing parallels to AGW in the way string theory is funded, is dominant in the discussion, and how it squeezes out alternate theories.

Anonymous DonReynolds December 21, 2013 2:35 PM  

It is much cheaper to drop them into the welfare safety net than make the world convenient.

Random....."What frightens me as a wheelchair-bound man is what happens when people realize it's even cheaper to have no accommodation AND no safety net."

I share your anxiety, believe me. And you already know that mobility issues are not the only problems that many handicapped persons face. Some are blind, some have mental issues, some have degenerative illnesses.....the variety is almost endless actually. And many individuals have multiple issues simultaneously or acquire other problems as they age.
.
And to make the future even more scary, Obamacare has convinced a good many people that we need death panels to decide whether you or I are worth the expensive treatments that might be necessary to keep us working or even alive. Such ethical considerations have not had any proper debate in our "democratic" society. This was a cold-blooded invention by the architects of Obamacare to restore the stop-loss mechanism, they had stripped away as an unethical provision of private insurance.

Blogger RobertT December 21, 2013 2:40 PM  

The lipid hypothesis ...

That was really the first to be widely attacked with the same tools the other side depends on, science and research ... and the postulates presented in such books as Good Calories, Bad Calories and Grain Brain are pretty much the consensus of informed people today ... but science and the government continue to push the food pyramid as the scientific formula for healthy living. I just heard a grain product advertising on the radio yesterday; citing the government's position that their grain product was heart healthy. When the public consensus finally flips on these issues, I wonder how many people will be drug out in the street and shot for killing all the people who listened to them.

These issues are more than philosophical debates, they are life and death debates. And right now, death is winning.

Anonymous Ferd December 21, 2013 3:28 PM  



Unfortunately, based on the great propaganda machine known as "Public Schools". I believe all these will survive in their present state for many years. I suppose i need a new circle of friends but most are either unaware of the great discussions or could care less.

The majority if Americans don't the difference between Neo-Keynsian and Neonatal.

Evolution will always be the preferred method of transmogrification.

And, sexes are equal dontcha know!! Did you see the story of the cheerleader who is a second looey in the Army Special Forces serving in Afghanistan? Woo Hoo!! Go team!!!

Oh, and i predict string theory is tied in knots and going down quickly!!

OpenID cailcorishev December 21, 2013 3:35 PM  

RobertT, that's a good point. The lipid hypothesis has been thoroughly debunked -- was before it started, really. We have heaps and heaps of evidence against it, both from our increasing understanding of how the body works and from the anecdotal evidence of numerous people who ignored the experts. And yet most people -- even people who have friends who have lost weight and gained health eating bacon every day, who have asked and had it all explained to them and been given books like GCBC and web links for further study, who have seen the official blood work of their low-carbing, grain-avoiding family and friends showing perfect levels of everything -- still say things like, "Yeah, but if I use whole wheat pasta, that's healthy, right? I mean, surely you're not saying whole grains are bad, are you?" There's just no competing with beliefs that are reinforced multiple times every day by multiple authoritative sources, until the person in question is ready to ignore the conventional wisdom on principle. He has to be ready to disbelieve the conventional wisdom simply because it is the conventional wisdom; then you can reach him, but rarely before.

So I wouldn't expect any of these other beliefs to die out in the populace as long as the elites and the MSM continue to push them. So then the question becomes: which of these beliefs will the elites abandon first? On that basis, I'd have to pick string theory; they really don't have a dog in that fight, as far as I know.

Anonymous Discard December 21, 2013 3:36 PM  

Don Reynolds: I once worked with special education kids, i.e., crazy, crippled, and stupid. Huge sums are spent on people who will never do any work at all. People in Burma love their offspring too, but they can't afford to devote all the efforts of a lot of well-trained professionals to potty training teenagers. I'm not mean, I really liked some of my little charges, but they're going to die in warehouses in 20 years.

Blogger Random December 21, 2013 4:21 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Eric December 21, 2013 4:29 PM  

I'm gonna say Keynesianism, because the people in charge are profiting hansomely from it. Economies are complicated enough they can always excuse failures by saying "Oh, the stimulus did work! Just imagine how much worse things would have been if you didn't let me blow a trillion dollars."

Anonymous inhumanist December 21, 2013 4:51 PM  

Although I don't think string theory is a consensus view now, I think it will become one if the others are taken from the mockers and God haters. They will claim they've never liked the big bang anyways; steady state/cyclical/open cosmology has always been at war with linear/closed/rational cosmology.

Anonymous DonReynolds December 21, 2013 5:07 PM  

Discard......."Don Reynolds: I once worked with special education kids, i.e., crazy, crippled, and stupid. Huge sums are spent on people who will never do any work at all. People in Burma love their offspring too, but they can't afford to devote all the efforts of a lot of well-trained professionals to potty training teenagers. I'm not mean, I really liked some of my little charges, but they're going to die in warehouses in 20 years."

I think you may be wrong, but on in degree. I think the economic realities will close many of the services and facilities and the few that remain will seem like warehouses by comparison and yes, there will be kids dumped there (and adults). But I honestly believe, many of them will go back to being cared for by their own families. It may be uneven for many of them, but the warehouses will be very limited and accept only the worst of the cases. These warehouses may not be public operated at all..... I fully expect the various churches to get more involved in this sort of work. This is where some Christian compassion will make a big difference. This is what Christian charity is all about.

Anonymous Matt December 21, 2013 5:27 PM  

Is string theory even a consensus view now? I thought it was just one of those speculative ideas that physicists played around with to see if it went anywhere. Certainly no one gets beat up for denying it like they do with the other examples.

It's certainly not a consensus view among physicists. It's probably not even close to a majority. It turns out that large chunks of the supersymmetry theory under-girding string theory is in fact falsifiable, and LHC has been gradually falsifying more and more of it at a pretty rapid clip.

The theory can be salvaged by making it more convoluted and less elegant, but each successive time this happens the louder the exasperated sighs and eye rolls get among non-string theorists. (Which is most physicists. Contra the popular press, fundamental high energy theory is a small subsection of physics. Most physicists work on tabletop phenomena much closer to the practical level - solid state, optics, atoms and molecules, etc.)

Anonymous inhumanist December 21, 2013 5:31 PM  

Big bang haters write their manifesto at www.cosmologystatement.org

Anonymous Contaminated NEET December 21, 2013 5:45 PM  

Global warming will last as long as the current elite hold power. They've invested too much of their credibility into it to back off, and they've thoroughly convinced themselves.

Blogger rycamor December 21, 2013 5:46 PM  

Nate December 21, 2013 1:47 PM

I'm going with evolution... because its a religion.

Say what you want about economists... but when something fails enough they will eventually start to question it. Even Krugman.

evolution?

pure religion.


I will have to agree. Evolution will keep changing shape around the facts, coming up with ever more tortured explanations, in order to keep its toehold. It is sufficiently ambiguous to be endlessly re-interpreted. Kinda like the Western PC/SWPL reinterpretation of Eastern mysticism.

Anonymous cheddarman December 21, 2013 6:28 PM  


The coming deflationary crash will shake the foundations of all of these myths as they are are propped up by governments living beyond their means. Pop the debt bubbles, and their artificial means of support quickly unravel. The cultural marxist gate keepers in academia will become irrelevant.

String theory will become irrelevant, as only scientists living off the public tit really care about it. Take away their grant money, and they will be too busy working menial jobs to defend it

The myths of racial equality and sexual equality are luxuries we will soon not be able to afford.

Evolution will be seen as the party line of the people who could not deliver the economic goods, i think young people will choose not to believe it out of spite.

Global warming is being disproved by the weather even as we speak

i think the economic myths will last the longest. I dont think there will be a world wide precious metals basis for money until Jesus rules over the nations with a rod of iron.

Blogger rycamor December 21, 2013 6:55 PM  

"Evolution will be seen as the party line of the people who could not deliver the economic goods, i think young people will choose not to believe it out of spite."

That's actually pretty funny. You might be right.

Anonymous bob k. mando December 21, 2013 7:28 PM  

Dr. Jerry dips his toe into the pub ed disaster:
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/chaosmanor/

Anonymous Discard December 21, 2013 7:39 PM  

DonReynolds: I stand semi-corrected. The big families people once had could manage to care for a damaged member, but not a single mom with two kids, one of them healthy. Churches will take up some of the weight, but they will find themselves caring for too many non-believers' kids if they don't draw some lines. I think it likely that improved technology will do the pre-natal sorting, and abortion will be the fix. I've always opposed abortion, but I see it coming. It's cheaper than warehousing.

Anonymous Niobium December 21, 2013 8:48 PM  

I think it's really fantastic and an amazing coincidence that out of all the religions that have asserted that it's most powerful practioners are also God's most special and virtuous people, Christianity is the only one that is true.

Anonymous PhillipGeorge(c)2013 December 21, 2013 9:05 PM  

Just disambiguate race from ethnicity.
The differences are fairly trivial. Everyone got off the same boat 4 to 5 thousand years ago.
All economic theory is people modelling chaos/ irreducible complexity; which cannot be done.

Anonymous bob k. mando December 21, 2013 9:11 PM  

Niobium December 21, 2013 8:48 PM
that out of all the religions that have asserted that it's most powerful practioners are also God's most special and virtuous people, Christianity is the only one that is true.



uh, Christianity asserts that the Jews are God's 'chosen people'.

dumbass.

Anonymous kh123 December 21, 2013 9:18 PM  

"I think it's really fantastic."

Glad we could help.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 21, 2013 9:20 PM  

I find it more remarkable that Modern Christianity, in many variations, doesn't hold its most powerful practitioners to be God's most special and virtuous people. Supercessionism is out of favor in popular religion. Elite Catholics now acknowledge Jews as "elder brothers" in religion. To many, including Christian Zionists, Israel is obviously Israel. Protestants following Karl Barth no longer acknowledge a right to national identity and national self-expression within Christ, that is, a sacred church/nation... other than the Jewish one. Anglicans reject the idea that the Church of England was and should be again the Church for England and the English people, at home and in the diaspora. You are more likely to hear the Archbishop of Canterbury calling for more legal acknowledgement of sharia than calling for the supremacy of Christians of English blood. And so on.

Earlier, in eras where Christianity was powerful among whites, so that the white world was "Christendom", things were very different. But now that popular Christianity has rejected that chauvinistic mentality and is doing rather badly in white countries, rhetorical shots at Christian supremacism miss their mark.

Anonymous lozozlo December 21, 2013 9:23 PM  

@Stickwick

As you are a physicist, may I ask for you to give us your opinion regarding string theory?

Matt seemed to have a good post about it, but the more input the merrier, right?

I am a physics noob so beyond F = MA I can't tell you much. :-)

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 21, 2013 9:23 PM  

And belatedly I realize that I and others have been trolled. I'll drop that topic.

I think string theory is most likely to be dropped, because it can be without stirring up too much political trouble.

Anonymous lozozlo December 21, 2013 9:27 PM  

@Cail

I have just stared (mostly) on paleo and since you mentioned it (well at least the lipid hypothesis which is a piece of the paleo puzzle) could I ask you for the web links and what the acronym GCBC is for?

Thanks!

Anonymous lozozlo December 21, 2013 9:28 PM  

oh is GCBC = Good Calories, Bad Calories?

Anonymous paradox December 21, 2013 9:32 PM  

bob k. mando


uh, Christianity asserts that the Jews are God's 'chosen people'.

dumbass.


Uh... no... it doesn't efftard. Christianity asserts that the Hebrews (Israel of the OT) were God's chosen people. Not some heretical Pharisee cult. As of the NT, God's chosen is the Church (Israel).

Anonymous lozozlo December 21, 2013 9:33 PM  

Guess I can always just hope my savings lasts or my family helps out.

For most people in most times of history, family *was* your safety net, your welfare, your (disability/unemployment) insurance, etc...

I have a feeling that this phenomenon will return as the welfare state dies due to lack of funds.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 21, 2013 9:37 PM  

I think "evolution" can continue indefinitely, as it causes no trouble to believers to ban evolutionary, Darwinian thought whenever that's convenient to the party line.

Boasian Anthropology has been dominant for an age, to the exclusion Darwinian thinking on race. It troubles believers not at all to think that Darwin is right, and anyone who does not say so is an ignorant God-bothering redneck who should be excluded from Academia, and also to think that Darwin is wrong, and that anyone who follows Darwinian logic when it comes to human beings is a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews and should be excluded from academia.

When not only the poorly catechized common believers in the religion of political correctness find that un-troubling, but your state-subsidized academic priesthood shows no strain at sustaining that level of double-think for most of a century, there are no contrary facts that you need fear.

Anonymous zen0 December 21, 2013 10:01 PM  

Uh... no... it doesn't efftard. Christianity asserts that the Hebrews (Israel of the OT) were God's chosen people. Not some heretical Pharisee cult. As of the NT, God's chosen is the Church (Israel).

Were it that simple!

What you have to ask yourself is....Chosen for what?

And where do the faithful servants (patriarchs and matriarchs) fit in, as they predated the covenant of Sinai and lived well before the sacrifice of Christ.

Anonymous zen0 December 21, 2013 10:03 PM  

PS

Also, the blog host has declared that a link is not an argument.

Just so you know.

Anonymous Laz December 21, 2013 10:25 PM  

Churches will take up some of the weight, but they will find themselves caring for too many non-believers' kids if they don't draw some lines.

I wouldn't worry about that too much. Around here (D-FW) they won't give you food, even formula, if aren't a member.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 21, 2013 10:33 PM  

Racial equality - need a racial revolution to overturn
Global warming - need a big change in the academic priesthood to overturn
String theory - need a small change in the academic priesthood to overturn
Evolution by natural selection - need a revolution to overturn
Neo-Keynesian economics - need a revolution (or several) to overturn
Monetarism - need a revolution (or several) to overturn
Sexual equality - need a religious revolution to overturn

I think one measure of a dogma's resistance to change is: do you need a court order?

Christian dogmas on abortion, homosexual acts, the nature of marriage and sexual morality have been overturned over a century, due to a new elite (that is a revolution, even though a silent one), but my means of court orders, basically. The court says a think is right and to be protected from now on, and unless you can escalate to a contrary order from a higher court, you lose and it doesn't matter how much popular support you have.

Racial equality, "evolution" and sexual equality need court orders to overturn. Which means you need a new legally dominant elite.

String theory you can disagree with without going to jail or even without losing your job and being pilloried by the mass media. A change of consciousness by enough of the right people suffices.

Catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is sort of in the middle. It's law, but legislatures can overturn that. But I don't think it's the basis of important judicial decisions, yet. When it is, when judges go from nodding their heads at legislation full of CAGW (instead of dismissing it as irrational, as they do with theories they disapprove of) to striking things down because it is true, Brown vs. Board of Education style, then it will be above democracy, as so many things are now. Then you might need a revolution to get rid of it.

As others have said, any economic theory that warrants whoever controls the state to intervene in the economy, punishing their enemies and rewarding their friends, is going to find interested listeners. You might find even revolutionaries, once in power, might drift back to a theory like that. Even repeatedly.

Anonymous bob k. mando December 21, 2013 10:33 PM  

paradox December 21, 2013 9:32 PM
Uh... no... it doesn't efftard.



uh, yes, it does, efftard.

God does not fail to honor his covenants EVEN IF the humans that he made those covenants with need be punished along the way. the Abrahamic covenant will be honored and it will be honored with the genetic children of Abraham. Christianity is a 'new covenant' for all the world.

do you think that the Covenant of Ishmael has not been honored by God? perhaps you think the Christians are also supposed to supplant the Arabs as well as the Jews?

you'll notice that the difference between a race of people being 'chosen' of God and the universal offer of salvation ( Christian ) is no small thing.

further, it has ALWAYS been a Jewish principle that even the gentiles are called to repent and to be redeemed.

infantile intellects get hung up on Jonah spending 3 days in the belly of the great fish. that is NOT the point of the book.

the point of the book is that a Jonah, *a Jew*, was sent to Ninevah, *a gentile city*, to call them to repent. you'll keep in mind that this is all Old Testament. now, why is a Jew being sent to redeem a gentile city before Christ dies on the cross?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineveh#Biblical_Nineveh

i think it telling that Jonah spent so much time bitching and moaning that God forbore His judgment on the city.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jonah+1&version=KJV

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 21, 2013 10:34 PM  

Evolution by natural selection - need a religious revolution to overturn

Blogger RaptorArmageddon December 21, 2013 10:43 PM  

VD: If one embraces HBD, while simultaneously repudiating evolution by natural selection, what mechanism should they embrace to explain racial differences? Or do you simply mean evolution as a mechanism of speciation?

I think it will be string theory--until a clever mind comes up with a way to falsify it, why need it be untrue?

Anonymous bob k. mando December 21, 2013 10:57 PM  

RaptorArmageddon December 21, 2013 10:43 PM
If one embraces HBD, while simultaneously repudiating evolution by natural selection, what mechanism should they embrace to explain racial differences?



no one has EVER denied the ability to breed for specific characteristics. that's the whole basis of animal husbandry and has been known since at least the domestication of the dog, draft animals and food animals. if you're Old Earth of one type or another, that means we've known how to do this for over 100,000 years.

the lunacy of anti-HBD, is that Darwinian Evolution *demands* that there be differences between isolated populations ... yet they spend all day denying that such differences exist.

anti-HBD is so stupid only city slickers could believe in it.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 21, 2013 10:59 PM  

"Evolution" is a story that starts with the spontaneous self-generation of life, goes on with the creation of every species and sub-species that has ever existed through blind chance and Darwinian selection, and peaks with the creation of mankind, a species that has no sub-species (despite what your eyes and the mass of evidence tells us) and that has characteristics impossible within the Darwinian framework - a universal continuing miracle of all-nurture no-nature equality. Meanwhile everywhere in the world outside this miraculous bubble, Darwinian selection continues to create and destroy species at a brisk clip.

Belief in human biological diversity is compatible with lack of faith in this "evolution".

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 23, 2013 7:29 AM  

This ads some detail to the blurry way in which "climate change" dogma is becoming judge-made law.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts