Spouting Darwin; but do not live by Darwin

Actually, as David Friedman points out, it is progressives who are most against the implications of Darwinism and the theory of evolution. Friedman writes:

“But people who are against taking seriously the implications of evolution, strongly enough to want to attack those who disagree, including those who teach those implications, are quite likely to be on the left.

Consider the most striking case, the question of whether there are differences between men and women with regard to the distribution of intellectual abilities or behavioral patterns. That no such differences exist, or if that if they exist they are insignificant, is a matter of faith for many on the left. The faith is so strongly held that when the president of Harvard, himself a prominent academic, merely raised the possibility that one reason why there were fewer women than men in certain fields might be such differences, he was ferociously attacked and eventually driven to resign.

Yet the claim that such differences must be insignificant is one that nobody who took the implications of evolution seriously could maintain. We are, after all, the product of selection for reproductive success. Males and females play quite different roles in reproduction. It would be a striking coincidence if the distribution of abilities and behavioral patterns that was optimal for one sex turned out to also be optimal for the other, rather like two entirely different math problems just happening to have the same answer.

The denial of male/female differences is the most striking example of left wing hostility to the implications of Darwinian evolution, but not the only one. The reasons to expect differences among racial groups as conventionally defined are weaker, since males of all races play the same role in reproduction, as do females of all races. But we know that members of such groups differ in the distribution of observable physical characteristics–that, after all, is the main way we recognize them. That is pretty strong evidence that their ancestors adapted to at least somewhat different environments.

There is no a priori reason to suppose that the optimal physical characteristics were different in those different environments but the optimal mental characteristics were the same. And yet, when differing outcomes by racial groups are observed, it is assumed without discussion that they must be entirely due to differential treatment by race. That might turn out to be true, but there is no good reason to expect it. Here again, anyone who argues the opposite is likely to find himself the target of ferocious attacks, mainly from people on the left.”

http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.co.nz/2008/08/who-is-against-evolution.html

Child's Play

6 Benefits of Roughhousing for Kids

By THERESE BORCHARD

http://psychcentral.com/lib/6-benefits-of-roughhousing-for-kids/0007973

I’ve attended one play dates too many when parents flinch at the first sign of physical engagement between two kids.

“No wrestling, guys,” a protective mom will say, breaking up the fun. “We don’t want anyone to get hurt.”

I understand the rationale. I realize kids do collect injuries when they clutch each other in a full nelson. But I’m not alone in thinking our culture has gone to the other extreme in the name of safety. In their refreshing book, The Art of Roughhousing: Good Old-Fashioned Horseplay and Why Every Kid Needs It, authors Anthony T. DeBenedet, MD and Lawrence J. Cohen not only articulate the benefits of roughhousing, but also offer over a hundred fun exercises to try at home.

Here’s their claim: “Play—especially active physical play, like roughhousing—makes kids smart, emotionally intelligent, lovable and likable, ethical, physically fit, and joyful.” Let’s look at each benefit more carefully.

1. Roughhousing makes kid smart.

This is fascinating: Roughhousing fertilizes our brain. For real. This kind of physical play releases a chemical called brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) which really is like fertilizer for our brains. Roughhousing stimulates neuron growth within the cortex andhippocampus regions of the brain, responsible for memory, learning, language, and logic. Animal behaviorists have found that the youngsters of the smarter species engage in physical play, so it isn’t surprising that roughhousing actually boosts school performance. Who knows? If your kid wrestles everyday, he might win a scholarship to Yale!

2. Roughhousing builds emotional intelligence.

Because roughhousing helps children develop skills in reading the emotions of others—Is he going for my gut? Or is he going to grab me over the head?—as well as manage their own emotions—I am not going to hit him in the gut or grab him over the head—they are well prepared to navigate successfully through the emotional adult world: reading a boss’s mood, knowing how to challenge a co-worker, being able to hang with the family during the holidays. Moreover kids learn how to regain self-control, which makes them more confident in their emotional lives.

3. Roughhousing makes kids more likable.

This is true for four reasons. First, physical play builds friendships and other relationships, and this is especially true for boys, who don’t gush all over each other, much less say “I like you.” Roughhousing can be a declaration of friendship or affection not only for elementary school boys, but for young men, as well. Second, kids who roughhouse are able to distinguish between innocent play and aggression; therefore, it helps children develop social and problem-solving skills. Third, youngsters who physically play learn how to take turns. If they are playing right, each person will get a chance to chase, and to be chased. No one person should be “it” the entire time. Finally, roughhousing teaches kids the concept of leadership and negotiation. Think about the rules that go into physical games. Everyone needs to agree, which is wonderful preparation for professional success as well as committed relationships.

4. Roughhousing makes children ethical and moral.

Interestingly enough, the animals with the highest level of moral development also engage in the most play, especially physical play. One way we can measure moral behavior in animal play is by observing “self-handicapping,” when the stronger animal holds back his strength when playing with a weaker or smaller opponent. Humans do this too, and especially parents, when physically engaging with their children.

Write DeBenedet and Cohen:

When we roughhouse with our kids, we model for them how someone bigger and stronger holds back. We teach them self-control, fairness, and empathy. We let them win, which gives them confidence and demonstrates that winning isn’t everything. We show them how much can be accomplished by cooperation and how to constructively channel competitive energy so that it doesn’t take over.

5. Roughhousing makes kids physically fit.

This one is obvious. But physical fitness isn’t just about body strength, say the authors. It involves complex motor learning, concentration, coordination, body control, cardiovascular fitness, and flexibility. So free play is going to offer different benefits than, say, gym class.

6. Roughhousing brings joy.

As a species, humans are hard-wired for roughhousing, so the body and mind are happy when we let it happen. According to studies in neuroscience, when the play circuits in the brains of mammals are activated, they feel joy.

A study done in a school

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/01/free_the_children.html#comments

Nothing became Everything

Kiwiblog
Scott (490) Says:
February 24th, 2010 at 11:18 am

The theory of evolution boils down to this — in the beginning for no particular reason, nothing exploded and became everything. For no particular reason everything became planets and stars and became an orderly universe with laws we can understand. For no particular reason intelligent life evolved, with thinking and morals. But thinking and morals is really all just a joke. We are the products of a heartless universe who does not care about us. The universe is one giant killing machine that allows only the fittest to survive. There is no moral code, love is but a figment of our imagination, there is no free will, no afterlife, nothing of any value whatsoever.

But here we are — thinking, feeling, loving, caring. Darwinism makes no sense. It does not explain the human condition nor can it form the basis of a workable moral society.

Neither can it be scientifically proved. How was the gap from nonlife to life bridged? How did nothing explode? Where is even one good example of evolution in action? I don’t know of any.

Evolution is a fairytale resting on a fantasy. The fantasy is we can escape from moral responsibility towards God by believing he isn’t there.

Genesis 1:31 God looked over all He had made and He saw that it was very good.