"In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." –John 16:33

Tag: Commie professor

Too much STEM?

This is just a short beef on a truly clueless article titled Stemming the STEM Obsession. One of the absurd quotes in the article captures the flavor of the whole thing:

Cutting [humanities] to produce math and sciences wizzes would be a mistake because subjects like literature, philosophy, and ethics teach more than technical skills—they teach students how, when and why to use these skills. What’s more, evidence suggests that learning these subjects actually improves STEM performance!

The reality is that math and science majors are required to take a whole lot more humanities classes than humanities majors are required to take math and science classes. I know of no STEM major who believes humanities classes, when well taught, do not improve their academic experience. The “when well taught” part is the rub and the “why” part of the above quote is especially troubling in a society and culture that rejects the reality of objective truth.  There is NO reason to use any of your skills for any other reason than personal preference when good and bad are just opinions. If the humanities students were required to take something more rigorous than the typical, watered-down math and science classes required for their majors they might not write such ridiculous articles.

Is this evil?

I have been following a discussion in the comments of a blog where a good number of fairly thoughtful people hang out. Some of the blog posts are pretty interesting, but the discussion that occurs after the posts is often even more enlightening than the posts themselves. The author of the blog engages in the comments along with several PhD’s in (I think I have this right) Math, Physics and Chemistry. The less credentialed people are equally as competent in their participation.

Atheist and skeptics show up there on a semi-regular basis. I am just going to put a couple of the comments here that are toward the bottom (at this point) and let them speak for themselves. The whole interchange was really quite interesting. As part of a longer discussion, a fellow with the moniker Jeannette, an atheist who I think actually believes she is making a coherent argument responds to commenter BillT’s observation about what she had previously written (link to comments):

From BillT:

Jeanette,

As I said before, good and bad are relative to a goal.

And this is what is so sad. Ted Bundy raped, tortured and murdered untold numbers of women but all you can say is that it might be bad if by doing that he didn’t achieve his goal. He was by any rational definition a monster. A heinous, depraved and evil man. But you say he’s only bad relative to his goal which it’s very, very likely he achieved (he certainly thought he did). What has it come to Jeanette that you can’t say he was “a heinous, depraved and evil man” and have it mean something other that he didn’t achieve his goal or that it’s meaningless. What has it come to?

Response by Jeanette:

I can certainly say he performed “heinous, depraved and evil” actions. Ted Bundy’s actions were horrendously bad according to my moral perspective—my goal of human flourishing / fulfillment for all.

I also believe his actions were bad according to his own stated goal of freedom, but I may be wrong. They might have been good according to his goals. I can’t know for sure.

I don’t think Ted Bundy—the person—was good or bad. I think that is also a meaningless statement. It was his behavior and the consequences they caused that were good/bad as measured against a goal.

Who owns the definition of what it means to be “Latino?”

I have been disabused of the notion that “journalists” at the New York Times are anything other than doctrinaire race-baiters for a long time, but it is nice to be reminded now and again why I quit reading them a couple of decades ago. As a member of a Hispanic majority family we have experienced, up close an personal the whole “your not really a Mexican unless you are a liberal value, anglo-male hating victim” (see here and here for a couple of examples). The abjectly racist article in the Times is described in an article by RedState titled New York Times Says Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio Are Not Latino. Enjoy.

Betty Blonde #477 – 06/04/2010
Betty Blonde #477
Click here or on the image to see full size strip.

The world is upside down

I honestly had never heard the term “social justice warrior” until a few months ago when my kids talked about it. It is the perfect sarcastic description for people who exhibit the type of appalling behavior captured so well in this political cartoon. Now that it is on my radar, I am seeing it everywhere. Articles titled The Modern College Experience and Radical Feminists and White Racists, both at TownHall, are examples of some of the push back that is starting to occur. The push back is probably too little, too late, but at least enough of it is happening in places where even old fogies like me can read them. Those two example are really bad, but an article that is even more scary whose title I will not include here describes the entire phenomena as it applies to terrorism and the Jewish community. It surely does seem like something bad is coming.

Betty Blonde #437 – 03/21/2010
Betty Blonde #437
Click here or on the image to see full size strip.

People you least suspect think about stuff deeply

I got into a great conversation about “being” with a couple of middle age guys at work. I never would have suspected they even thought about stuff, but they were both well versed. The son of one of the guys was taking what sounded to be like a very good class on epistemology at a public high school in Hillsboro. The conversation was a welcome relief from the goofiness of Kelly’s doctoral level Sociology class up at University of Washington.

Kelly’s professor made the statement in class that “Modern intellectuals are not concerned with the origins of the categories of understanding. It is not a relevant debate anymore.”

“Categories of Understanding” is a subject engaged by Aristotle (at least the categories part) and Kant. It well may be true that this subject is not of a great amount of relevance to the subject at hand, but to state as a fact something that “modern intellectuals” do in general is pompous posturing to the extreme. Is the professor so ignorant as to think she can speak for modern intellectuals. That kind of statement is hard to take coming from a real intellectual, but it was made by, of all things, a Sociology professor. There might be a few true intellectuals out there who are Sociology professors (Rodney Stark comes to mind), but they have to be few and far between. Maybe the “modern” modifier puts it into a different category where “modern” intellectuals really are not intellectuals at all. I guess I should give them the benefit of a doubt.

Betty Blonde #429 – 03/09/2010
Betty Blonde #429
Click here or on the image to see full size strip.

Talking about God at graduate school

Commie ProfessorA couple of talks with Kelly and Christian the last couple of days reminded me of the old Commie Professor posts from their undergrad days. Christian has a brilliant cohort in his PhD program who is a little older than most of the other graduate students, probably in his mid-thirties.  He presented at the same conference as Christian earlier this week and was able to hang out with the Arizona State group in the evening, something he normally does not get to do because he also has a full time job and a family, so he does not have time. He is a very serious guy and brought up that he started to understand better why free will is not incompatible with an omnipotent God. It is nice to find fellow travelers in the bastions of “rationality” common to secular universities.

The same day, Kelly messaged me from her graduate level Sociology class. Suffice it to say the conversation was barely coherent. The condescension is the hardest thing to take, especially from people handicapped by the morally relativistic indoctrination that is preeminent in colleges of all stripes, but especially within the liberal arts departments of secular universities. You can see our conversation below the comic strip.

Betty Blonde #421 – 02/25/2010
Betty Blonde #421
Click here or on the image to see full size strip.

Kelly J Chapman (kjchapma@uw.edu)
 
 
durkheim is fascinating because he sees the same thing that we see
 
he sees the world
 
and comes to the opposite conclusion from the exact same facts
 
Kelly J • Mon, 12:21 PM
 
Kelly J Chapman (kjchapma@uw.edu)
 
 
I don’t know how Kant can argue for moral behavior without divinity
 
that argument is flawed
 
he says you can adhere to morality without divinity, but morality doesn’t exist without divinity
 
i’m having a great time with my response to Durkheim
 
i’m so excited
 
everyone in that class is silly
 
seriously they are
 
i’m beyond hyped
 
they essentially told me that religion was a nice panacea for people
 
and you can live “at peace” with subjectivism and religion
 
slash spirituality
 
so i said “how can you do that”
 
Kelly J • Mon, 12:38 PM
 
 
 
Hahaha!!! Don’t go to high, but that is what I felt when I realized all the atheist, skeptics and scoffers were truly fools.
 
Mon, 12:38 PM
 
Kelly J Chapman (kjchapma@uw.edu)
 
 
“that is diluted that completely cancels the point of religion”
 
Kelly J • Mon, 12:38 PM
 
 
 
YES!!!!
 
Cools
 
What did they say?
 
Mon, 12:38 PM
 
Kelly J Chapman (kjchapma@uw.edu)
 
 
Durkheim makes two points
 
Kelly J • Mon, 12:38 PM
 
 
 
What are they?
 
Mon, 12:38 PM
 
Kelly J Chapman (kjchapma@uw.edu)
 
 
well he asks two things
 
Kelly J • Mon, 12:39 PM
 
 
 
You nailed it exactly.
 
Mon, 12:39 PM
 
Kelly J Chapman (kjchapma@uw.edu)
 
 
how can ‘divine reason’ which i am interpreting to be ‘objective truth’
 
give rise to so many varying human worldviews, if it truly exists and is truly immutable
 
and
 
Kelly J • Mon, 12:39 PM
 
 
 
There is no point, even to life and existence, if there is no God and religion.
 
Mon, 12:39 PM
 
Kelly J Chapman (kjchapma@uw.edu)
 
 
how can we believe in divine reason if it can’t be scientifically tested
 
the last one is a softball
 
scientific reason/logic is in itself an immaterial idea
 
you can’t use it to prove your argument if your argument says it doesn’t really exist
 
but that’s hard too because you have to use reason to say that
 
when can you not use reason
 
Kelly J • Mon, 12:40 PM
 
 
 
Yes. The funny deal is that it CAN be tested, but science is not the only domain for the discovery of truth. They ALWAYS talk like only science can reveal truth when in reality the only way you can make a case for the ability of science to say ANYTHING is through philosopy.
 
Mon, 12:41 PM
 
Kelly J Chapman (kjchapma@uw.edu)
 
 
he also says that ideas are purely immaterial and then admits that they may originate in reality, but he can’t have it both ways
 
Kelly J • Mon, 12:41 PM
 
 
 
Hahaha! That is great.
Mon, 12:42 PM
 
Kelly J Chapman (kjchapma@uw.edu)
 
 
Reasoning itself is dependent on the reality of the immaterial so you can’t say that the immaterial is not real because reason itself is immaterial
 
Kelly J • Mon, 12:42 PM
 
 
 
Cool.
 
Mon, 12:42 PM
 
Kelly J Chapman (kjchapma@uw.edu)
 
 
i read that article i found online which helped a lot
 
Kelly J • Mon, 12:42 PM
 
 
 Send it to me.
 
Mon, 12:42 PM
 
Kelly J Chapman (kjchapma@uw.edu)
 
 
saying that he mischaracterizes Judaism and Christianity
 
which both explicitly reject totenism and idolatry
 
(Islam kind of does too, and Buddhism is pretty ascetic which also doesn’t fit into his argument)
 
In Judaism and Christianity God reveals himself in solitude for the most part
 
it is highly personal
 
this rejects the social nature of religion where people find God through “collective feeling”
 
which is what Durkheim says the true nature of every religion is
 
how do i respond to the ‘religion gives comfort so its ok’ argument – i find that extremely condescending
 
Kelly J • Mon, 12:49 PM
 
 
 
Yes it is. Religion gives NO comfort to those who do acknowledge God as God.
 
Tell them Christianity is not a comforting religion to those who don’t bow their knee. Neither is Islam and Judasim.
 
Mon, 12:52 PM
 
Kelly J Chapman (kjchapma@uw.edu)
 
 
does this make sense
 
Why adhere to anything if it is not true? If it is just a myth society has created to comfort itself? By this reason, the religious are willfully ignorant of reality and the point of religion is completely moot. Religion gives no true comfort to those who cannot acknowledge religious truth as objective truth. It is condescending to hold true to the idea that the immaterial is false while allowing that religion gives comfort to people and must be tolerated.  The basis of this argument is founded on some subjective morality, and imposes that morality on others.
 
Kelly J • Mon, 12:52 PM
 
 
 
The objective truth described in Christianity is extremely harsh to people who work against it.
 
Very nicely said.
 
Are you writing a response to something?
 
Mon, 12:53 PM
 
Kelly J Chapman (kjchapma@uw.edu)
 
 
yes
 
Kelly J • Mon, 12:53 PM
 
 
 
Will you flunk if you say the wrong thing?
 
Mon, 12:53 PM
 
Kelly J Chapman (kjchapma@uw.edu)
 
 
nah it’s a grad course
 
she may go on my committee
 
Kelly J • Mon, 12:54 PM
 
 
 
Does she hate you?
 
Mon, 12:54 PM
 
Kelly J Chapman (kjchapma@uw.edu)
 
 
i don’t mind pushing back a little
 
no
 
Kelly J • Mon, 12:54 PM
 
 
Hahaha. That is a good reason. She will pass you.
 
Well that is good. It also might make your quals easier.
 
Mon, 12:55 PM
 
Kelly J Chapman (kjchapma@uw.edu)
 
 
she won’t sit in on my quals until my dissertation
 
several years down the road
 
Kelly J • Mon, 12:55 PM
 

Public campaign for Kelly to start drawing again

Commie professorOne of the great joys of this blog when the kids were in their undergraduate degrees was the reports they brought to us about happenings during class surrounding certain of their ultra-politically correct professors. Sometimes, even usually, they arrived via text messages from their phones in real-time. When I started writing about those events, Kelly drew me a Commie Professor logo to go with those blog posts.

I am quite happy to say this is all happening again in Kelly’s grad school experience. Good grief, she lives in SEATTLE, a veritable hotbed of anarchism and histrionic coffee house emotings. It is as close as one can get to Portlandia without actually being in Portland, but with the potential for anarchist rioting. The purpose of this post is to serve as a public shaming of Kelly to get her to illustrate and describe her encounters in the coffee shops, classrooms, conferences and gala events she attends so that this momentous time of her life as a grad student can be documented properly. She has committed to this and now it is time to put up.

The difference between graduate school experiences between Kelly and Christian (down in Tempe) is fairly stark. Part of that might have to do with the differences in the cultures of the schools. I think the bigger difference is between the nature of the material they are studying. Kelly’s anecdotes about school tend toward the absurd–almost like during her undergraduate degree. Christian has lots of anecdotes that are equally as interesting, but in a completely different way.

Serious is not the right word to describe what I think when Christian talks about his school and his work although the what he does definitely falls into that category. The work is so cerebrally intense that I do not think the people in his program have much time for consideration of much out of their academic domain. It is just very, very interesting. It is not just the work he and his compatriots do. It is also their interactions.

The difficulty of the material, the personalities and wide ranging cultures (different parts of the US, India, China, etc.), the research sponsors from important laboratories, think tanks, universities and industry, the frantic and frenetic race to understand insanely difficult problems before someone else with an off the charts IQ and an insane work ethic beats you to it–all of that is just jaw droppingly interesting. What these people do is beyond the boundaries of my understanding. In Christian’s case, it is down in the bowels of very hard math guided by his professor who just became a Fellow of the IEEE and is associated with all the luminaries in his areas of research. I am trying to figure out how to write about this in a compelling way to describe the extremely fascinating daily workings of Christian’s degree, but I might not ever be able to do it adequately. I will try if I get it figured out.

In the meantime, I am going to keep browbeating Kelly with continued public shamings until she starts sending me some illustrations and anecdotes I can publish here.

Betty Blonde #354 – 11/24/2009
Betty Blonde #354
Click 
here or on the image to see full size strip.

An article on the ignorance and evil of Marxist Feminism and Women’s Studies programs

There is little doubt that radical aspects of some stripes of feminism have done great damage to American society. There has been some pretty serious push-back against much of this ideology, not only by the likes of constitutional lawyer Phyllis Schlafly, but even by many avowed feminists intellectuals like Camille Paglia and Christiana Hoff Sommers. I ran into an incredible article titled Marxist Feminism’s Ruined Lives that starkly addresses this. It is on the evils of a particularly insidious variety of feminism called Marxist Feminism. This article is a must read for anyone with school age daughters. It was written by Mallory Millet, the sister of one of a radical feminist “intellectual” named Kate Millet who authored a notorious screed on feminism titled Sexual Politics.

Mallory spent years as an ex-pat in third world countries and it opened her eyes to the frivolity and evil of the Kate’s ideology. She was stunned when she finally returned to the United States and learned what Kate was doing.  The following is part of a prayer-like question and response heard by Mallory at a “consciousness-raising” event to which Kate invited her on her return to the United States:

“And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied.
“By taking away his power!”
“How do we do that?”
“By destroying monogamy!” they shouted.
“How can we destroy monogamy?”

Their answer left me dumbstruck, breathless, disbelieving my ears. Was I on planet earth? Who were these people?

“By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!” they resounded.

Mallory thoughts on hearing this mantra are telling:

… I had seen factory workers and sex-slaves chained to walls.

How could they know? Asia is beyond our ken and, as they say, utterly inscrutable, and a kind of hell I never intended to revisit. I lived there, not junketed, not visited like sweet little tourists — I’d conducted households and tried to raise a child. I had outgrown the communism of my university days and was clumsily groping my way back to God.

How could twelve American women who were the most respectable types imaginable — clean and privileged graduates of esteemed institutions: Columbia, Radcliffe, Smith, Wellesley, Vassar; the uncle of one was Secretary of War under Franklin Roosevelt — plot such a thing? Most had advanced degrees and appeared cogent, bright, reasonable and good. How did these people rationally believe they could succeed with such vicious grandiosity? And why?

This article is a must read for anyone who has daughters heading off to college–especially to Women’s Studies programs. There is much to conclude from Mallory’s observations and she has many observations. One of the scariest one’s is this:

By the time Women’s Studies professors finish with your daughter, she will be a shell of the innocent girl you knew, who’s soon convinced that although she should be flopping down with every boy she fancies, she should not, by any means, get pregnant. And so, as a practitioner of promiscuity, she becomes a wizard of prevention techniques, especially abortion.

The goal of Women’s Liberation is to wear each female down to losing all empathy for boys, men or babies.

Please read the whole article.

Betty Blonde #168 – 03/09/2009
Betty Blonde #168
Click 
here or on the image to see full size strip.

Cinco de Mayo flame war on NCSU facebook pages

Day 985 of 1000

The commie professor--last day of schoolWhat a great way to finish her undergraduate career–defending her cultural heritage against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  There were some pretty powerful accusations made against NCSU Dining services for featuring sombreros and chocolate mustaches.  Kelly and Christian defended their cultural heritage against these whining, perpetual victims and their racist invective.  It reminded me of the commie professor and was great fun.  Here are a just a few excerpts:

First, the bigoted invective:

To my Wolfpack Family,

Our NCSU Webpage states:
“At NC State, our diversity makes us strong. We will continue to initiate academic curricula and courses, research areas, outreach programs and a campus culture where diversity of ideas and people is embraced.”

Words cannot describe the tremendous pride I felt this past summer when I served as an Orientation Leader with NC State New Student Orientation. I had the opportunity to welcome over 4,000 first year students, transfer students, and their families to our Wolfpack community. We presented an open script play and then led a discussion which focused on diversity, stereotypes, and the community we would like to build at NC Sate. The “Cinco De Case-o” event in which sombreros and fake mustaches were given to students goes completely against NCSU’s statement and the efforts of our students and faculty who are attempting to truly create an inclusive community. A community in which everyone is respected and accepted for who they are.

I know every single student and faculty member at one point or another have felt excluded or ridiculed. I want you to think back to that moment, to relive the emotions and thoughts that were going through your head. That is exactly how the students who associate themselves with the Mexican culture currently feel. The fact that NCSU Dining has reflected and downgraded the rich Mexican culture to simply “sombreros” and “mustaches” is not only “uncool” but completely disrespectful.

It is not okay to make a mockery out of a culture. It is not okay for our institution to support and celebrate stereotypes. We are the future leaders of our Nation. If we are unable to create a welcoming, inclusive environment on this campus how will we be able to create it for our nation?

I hope that we can all take this event and transform it into something positive. I hope this can serve the purpose of making our students and faculty realize that we are far from having “a campus culture where diversity of ideas and people are embraced.”

Respectfully,
Yaseline Muñoz

Kelly’s response:

As a Mexican-American woman I find it incredibly offensive that people view the “sombrero/mustache” thing as a hurtful, negative stereotype. It’s fun! It’s not a mockery, it does not exclude or make anyone feel unwelcome. In fact I think it is amusing! It’s a celebration. I figure any positive attention to Mexico, no matter how superficial, is a positive thing. It opens a dialogue about culture. When we start getting offended at something as innocuous and well-intentioned as this, that dialogue shuts down fast.

More invective:

Kelly Chapman if you do not take offense to the Mexican culture simply being portrayed with “sombreros and mustaches” that is good. I am glad that you can look at this issue in a positive manner.

However, the problem here is the fact that we are supporting stereotypes and encouraging them among this university that is filled with scholars and the future leaders of our Nation.

More of Kelly’s response:

Are you saying we can’t have fun with hats and still be scholarly? Oh dear, oh dear, what a horrible stereotype you are making of Mexicans!

Christian’s response:

I for one am Mexican & am outraged at the fact that this isn’t available every day.

At least the Irish get to drink green beer without a bunch of PC moralization on WPS

It went on like this for quite some time.  Kelly and Christian absolutely won the Facebook “like” vote and fun was had by all except the pseudo-victims.

Betty Blonde #108 – 12/15/2008

Betty Blonde #108
Click here or on the image to see full size strip.

How to be a REAL rebel on campus — revisiting the Commie Professor

Day 954 of 1000

The commie professor comes up in conversationI like to read the Thinking Christian blog.  There are some blog posts there about a recent movie that featured a college Philosophy professor who asked all his students to state their unbelief in God.  Some contrary commenters to those poses objected to this portrayal as, in a rough paraphrase, an unfair stereotype.  The blog author rightly stated that the movie is a work of fiction and so what.

I agree with that assessment, but at the same time, it reminded me of the blog posts I put up here about Kelly’s and Christian’s “commie professor” for Freshman Composition.  I think they were the only ones in their class who consistently argued against this professors laughable logic.  There were a few who agreed with them but did not say anything.  There were others that agreed with the professor most of the time, but with Kelly and Christian on a few things.

This professor was anti-God, anti-gun, pro-abortion, anti-traditional marriage, pro-drug legalization, etc., etc.  It does not take much effort on most college campuses to take those positions.  All you have to do is go along with the zeitgeist.  If you want to be a rebel, you need to stand with the opposite of all those positions.  I went to college in the mid-1970’s.  Not much has really changed.  The people who think they are free-thinking, inclusivist rebels aren’t.

Betty Blonde #96 – 11/27/2008
Betty Blonde #96
Click here or on the image to see full size strip.

Freshman level fluff classes

Day 728 of 1000

Kelly's commie writing professorLorena’s first day of class was last Friday.  Christian and Kelly’s first day of class is tomorrow.  I got a timely reminder of what college is like yesterday afternoon when my buddy at work received the following text from his college Freshman son:

Philosophy is full of creepy people and the instructor is also fairly sketchy looking…

He laughed out loud when he got the message.  He showed it to me and I laughed, too.  It reminded me of some of the messages Kelly sent from her writing class with the commie professor.  You can read about it here.  This year Kelly and Christian both are scheduled for all technical classes all the time.  Both of them have technical writing classes this semester, but that is as close as it gets.  I am thankful the non-reality based, leftist, humanist classes are now over, but they were kind of fun while they lasted.  On the other hand it is pretty maddening to pay for classes that teach nothing good and a lot of material that is objectively wrong.

More fun with the commie professor

Day 99 of 1000

Commie profThe following is the transcript of Kelly’s texting from today’s class. It speaks for itself.

Kelly
in communism, ALL ppl who work a socially useful job get whatever they need whenever they need it
mantra switches from “me, me, me, s***w you” to “US”
we TRANSCEND
we are above the fray
8:58 AM

it’s a beautiful thought but should’nt we be free to choose whether we want to be selfish or sharing?
from the Marxist perspective there is no human nature

me
Exactly.  You are forced into stuff.  I work with my Russian buddies and they HATE communism.
9:02 AM

Kelly
how are you going to change human nature? it’s very unlikely that you’re going to change  you’re forcing everyone to subscribe to the same view… under capitalism you have the freedom to choose to be selfish or sharing
in capitalism you’re rewarded for being greedy. socialism is different
9:04 AM

Kelly
this guy thinks he’s so smartttt

me
They kill people off.

Kelly
how are you going to remove human nature from this equation?
9:07 AM

Kelly
the only ppl who are going to go to med school are the ones who want to help other people, not the ones who make money. socialism rewards people for making the right decisions
9:09 AM

Kelly
two things: who decides what’s right and what gets rewarded under socialism and how can you depend on the good of people if you know that people are so greedy? human nature is impossible to remove

Kelly
these kids are getting brainwashed

The commie prof promulgates the preeminence of the Gospel of Thomas

Commie professorWell, the commie prof is at it again.  Christian called me after class today to tells us their professor had told them that all the other gospels were based on the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas that is dated from around 150 A.D.  Many years after virtually all the gospels.  Only fringe scholars of the likes of Elaine Pagels and Marcus Borg hold to such a theory and it has been thoroughly debunked since it was popularized by the radical Jesus Seminar in the 1990’s.  Here is a link to an article by Craig Blomberg, a reputable New Testament scholar, that puts it all in context.  Here is a good lay level discussion of the topic by Tim Keller.

After that, our commie went on to say that their was too much time between when the events happened to when it was written down.  Christian told him that people who were alive when the events happened were also alive when the gospels were written down and that, in the case of John, there is an eyewitness account.  The prof’s response was to ask Christian if he could remember what he was doing seven years ago and then change the subject.  This is too pathetic even to take the time to post the links that refute this goofiness.  I wonder what he thinks we know about the life of Julius Caeser.

Update:  In the meantime, Kelly sends the following text message:

Hey Dad, the professor is crazy… he brought up the Gospel of Thomas which is like directly contradicted in my New Testament textbook, said that Cain and Abel were possibly homosexual and when Christian argued that the Gospels came from direct sources to Jesus and not from inaccurate oral traditions, he countered with “Well, do you remember what you were doing seven years ago?”

Update II: The kids walked out of their commie prof class and into their New Testament class.  The N.T. professor showed the Craig-Ehrman debate where Craig (to be very gracious) demonstrates that Bart Ehrman is either dishonest or not a serious scholar or both.  The title of the debate is “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?”  You can see the debate on YouTube here.

Continued conversation with the kid’s commie teacher

Day 81 of 1000

Christian and Kelly's commie teacherAs many already know, Kelly and Christian take a “writing” class at the community college where the dear leader of the class lectures on the evils of all things Christian, the beauty of communism and atheism, and the righteousness of drug legalization and abortion.  Today’s topic was Christianity.  He said he spoke about Christianity because we live in Raleigh.  He would have made his outrageous, silly arguments about Hindu if we lived in India.  Kelly read up a little over at the Wintery Knight blog to prepare and got a nice response after she tweeted Mr. Wintery Knight himself.

The “good” professor went on for about a half an hour about the evil’s of the organized church, for which the kids would have had a great deal sympathy if it were not for the his smuggness and arrogance.  Like all stories, that of the organized church has two sides.  He mentioned nothing about universities, hospitals, scientific method, the printing press, and all the other great foundings and inventions inspired by Christianity.

At the point when he made the claim that Adam and Eve could not have existed because of the scientific evidence for evolution, Christian raised his hand and said, “There is just as much scientific evidence against macroevolution as there is for it.”

“You don’t believe in evolution!” exclaimed the professor incredulously with a look of disdain and horror.

“We DO believe in microevolution.  It is grossly arrogant for you NOT to question your own beliefs when it comes to evolution” said Kelly.  “That is what you are demanding from us.”

The professor said, “Evolution is established scientific fact” and used several of the standard canards (fossil record, etc.) to establish his point.

Then they were off to the races.  Fortunately, during homeschool, Christian and Kelly had read books like The Victory of Reason:  How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success by Rodney Stark, Understanding Intelligent Design:  Everything You Need to Know in Plain Language by William Dembski and Sean McDowell, Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Greg Koukl, and Intellectuals by Paul Johnson.  The professor was armed with shibboleths about the truth of macroevolution and quotes from John Shelby Spong about the virgin birth.  John Shelby Spong!?!!  You have to be WILDLY out of touch with both current scholarship and reality if you quote John Shelby Spong about virtually anything.  He quotes the losers like Noam Chomsky and Bertrand Russell, too.

It is frustrating.  Here is a writing a professor who fervently believes he is making students question their beliefs through these profoundly silly arguments.  The subject matter is objectionable, but this guy’s incompetence is even more objectionable.  He does not appear to understand the difference between scientific method and historic method (very important in discussion of the resurrection).  Neither does he understand that it is impossible to argue for the primacy of scientific method without consideration of its philosophical underpinings.  I guess I should be grateful he is incompetent with respect to his arguments–he does nothing to get the kids to question their faith or worldview.  Still, a lot of taxpayer money is wasted on professors like this throughout the land.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén