Recently on NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams there was a story about how new discoveries have disproved the myth that women were less intelligent mathematicians and less able to perform mathematically than their male counterparts. Evidently for years the comparative ability and intelligence of women have been called into question. This continues even in modern academic circles.
Since the evidence was so overwhelming against the notion that women were less intelligent, the question was asked "where did these thoughts and speculations originally come from?" Quite interestingly enough, none of the professionals interviewed could give an answer or even reference a particular study as to how and when the myth that women were less intelligent than men in math began. Well, of course in my many debates with atheists and in reading many blogs regarding evolutionary and naturalistic thought, it didn't take me long to find the answer that many of these "supposed" professors missed, overlooked and I believe intentionally minimized to further promote their naturalistic agenda.
"[Man] attains a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can women—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, history, painting, sculpture, music (inclusive of both composition and performance), history, science, and philosophy, the two lists would not bear comparison. We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages... [that] the average mental power in man must be above that of women." ~ Charles Darwin, "The Descent of Man in Relation to Sex" (New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1896), 564.
Engels wrote to Marx, "Darwin, whom I am just now reading, is splendid." ~ Conway Zirkle, "Evolution, Marxian Biology and the Social Scene", Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1959, pp.85-87
Marx wrote back to Engels on December 19, 1860, saying, "This is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view."~ Conway Zirkle, Evolution, "Marxian Biology and the Social Scene", Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1959, pp.85-87
There's more. Darwin spoke the following concerning women's abilities:
"powers of intuition, of rapid perception, and perhaps of imitation are characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a past and lower state of civilisation." ~ Charles Darwin, "The Descent of Man, The Modern Library", New York, p. 873.
"[Even in] the most intelligent races [there] are large numbers of women whose brains are closer in size to those of gorillas than to the most developed male brains. This inferiority is so obvious that no one can contest it for a moment; only its degree is worth discussion." ~ Stephen Jay Gould, "The Mismeasure of Man" (New York: Norton, 1981), 104-105.
In the world of Darwinian Evolution SIZE really does matter, but common sense doesn't.
Darwin and most modern evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins who continue to hold to evolutionary theory as a viable science, the size of the brain indicates intelligence. A woman's brain being smaller (closer to the size of a Gorilla's brain) makes her less intelligent. In fact Mr. Dawkins himself has said that new atheists in particular must push harder to make their naturalistic agenda heard and respected. "Women represent the most inferior forms of human evolution and...are closer to children and savages than to an adult, civilized man. They excel in fickleness, inconstancy, absence of thought and logic, and incapacity to reason. Without a doubt, there exists some distinguished women, very superior to the average man, but they are as exceptional as the birth of any monstrosity, as for example, of a gorilla with two heads. Consequently, we may neglect them entirely." ~ Stephen Jay Gould, "The Mismeasure of Man" (New York: Norton, 1981), 104-105.
David N. Menton, Ph.D., The Religion of Nature: Social Darwinism, St. Louis MetroVoice, September 1994, Vol. 4, No. 9, said that based on Darwin's tenets and beliefs many anthropologists bought into the "brain size" issue even falsifying the evidence to make it fit their presuppositional thinking and racial and gender biases and discrimination.
Who's the culprit? Darwinian Evolutionary Theory that taught and continues to teach that women were less intelligent, less capable and less important to society than men.
This is big business and there are major implications for professors and individuals willing to step out and expose the many lies of evolution. As preachers and ministers, we have a mandate to "be instant in season, out of season;" (2 Tim. 4:2) This topic usually genders much debate from supporters of evolution and naturalism. Opponents usually use the bible as an emotion tool to suggest that God despises women throughout scripture but the opposite is actually true.
The fight is on against creationism as Professor Dawkins outlines. However creationism when it comes to the place of women is much superior on all fronts than evolutionary theory. Example:
- Women are created from the same "stuff" as men. In other words man was made in the "Image" and "Likeness" of God, therefore women share those same attributes, not the attributes of an animal or Gorilla or Ape as evolutionists love to point out. (Gen. 1:27 ~ "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.")
- In God's system women are called to be leaders, used by God to deliver Israel. (Deborah, Ruth, Esther etc.)
- In the Old Testament, women are very instrumental in the survival of both the family and the nation.
- In the Old Testament, the critic is hard pressed to find ONE instance where God endorses the rape, molestation or abuse of women.
- In the Old Testament women were able to approach and receive from God without a male intermediary, indicating that women had every ability as an equal with men to access God.
- Women are valued and honored throughout the biblical narrative and considered to be smart both spiritually and naturally. (Pr. 12:4, 31:10)
- In the New Testament the blood of Jesus levels the playing field of traditions even within a patriarchal society by calling women and men equal in Christ Jesus. (Gal. 3:28 ~ "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.")
I thought it interesting to see how vehemently and avvid some individuals are in stating that evolution is a valid system. As we can see Darwainian evolution is the worst possible mix of confusion for anyone to adopt and accept. Theistic evolution is an even worse proposition no matter how badly many of us want to find a scientific ground or basis by which to defeat the criticisms of the enemy.
Why not simply just believe God and HIS WORD? After all the criticism it still stands the test.
Nex time I'll discuss the rank racism of Darwainian Evolution. Stay tuned.
Blessed!
Resources:
The Face That Demonstrates The Farce Of Evolution ~ Hank Hanegraaff
The Case For A Creator ~ Lee Strobel
Handbook Of Biblical Evidences ~ John Ankerberg & John Weldon
Evolution is satanism at its core. Stalin, Hitler, Mao...all adhered to evolution, and as a result slaughtered millions and millions of people. Dawkins and his ilk, should spend some time remembering these facts of history.
ReplyDeletePrisoners during Mao's era, would undergo "re-education", whereby they would be taught evolution. From a societal prospective, the acceptance of evolution can become many things (slavery, abortion, class distinction, euthanasia, moral relativism, statism, etc.), and most always lends itself to promoting tyrannical leaders into positions of power.
As you have thoroughly pointed out Pastor, evolution does NOT elevate man, it lowers him and robs him of his God given rights. In my mind, it is part and parcel of Satan's lie: "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." This would require some lengthy exegisis to make the complete connection, but suffice to say, for Dawkins and many in our world, hunger for knowledge is but a facade for a hunger to become like the MOST HIGH.
May God continue to energize His saints like the good Pastor and the many followers of Jesus Christ, who appreciate this blog.
Jim, Edmonton
Jim,
ReplyDeleteI've read and commented on a particular atheist blog on this subject and it amazes me that this is NEVER brought up...right along with the fact that they don't want to deal with abiogenesis or make some excuse to say that bacteria growth on nonliving matter is a process of abiogenesis. That's a farce and totally unscientific.
That's the problem evolution pretends to be scientific while it hold out classism, discrimination and all the worts elements of SIN as something good.
Thank God for you my friend because your assessments are right on point. The analogy with the Tree of Knowledge is IT!
I was speaking to some University Students today about the Lie of Dawkins in the name of education. As a church and body of Christ we must reach out now like never before.
God Bless.
Well speaking of mathematics.
ReplyDeleteThe mathematical probability of a SINGLE CELL coming about by chance is 1/10340,000,000, the fraction 1 divided by 1 followed by 340 million zeros!
And then this cell must live long enough to reproduce. Not to say the chances that bacteria will need to become a living cell. Oxygen will be needed, but when they say that there is no Oxygen in the atmosphere in the begining of evolution.
I've always asked myself how much faith does it take to believe evolution,(remember the probability)then how much faith to believe God created the cosmos in six days. When we have the Holy Spirit within us.
Beckrl,
ReplyDeleteGreat info brutha! I believe that evolution and naturalism as a whole is a faith proposition.
There are so many unfounded leaps and NO evidence to back their claims it's a "decided" belief system.
That faith is different than ours in that we have evidence. Our faith is a "step" whereas the naturalist faith is a LEAP.
I was debating an atheist on this very issue. The definition of biblical faith is assurance, and hope future expectation or certainity. The naturalist faith is only a possibility and their hope is a "wish" and uncertainty, those are primary differences.
Thanks my friend!
Dear Bro. Burnett.
ReplyDeleteI wanted to thank you for bringing up this topic. Unfortunately, I have experienced more respect as a woman amongst the kind hearted unbelievers (not the outwardly debase unbelievers), than born again Christians, on the topic of women ie "women's sphere".
The passages of 1 Tim 2:12-15 are taken by most Christians as God's command for all women, for all time, and by far, Christians are far more guilty than Darwin, in believing and teaching the commandments of men as doctrines of God.
In our secular world, the world sees gifted honourable women (and not so honourable women) in all positions of society, but in gatherings of people claiming to be in the Light of Christ, they see ignorant oppression of Holy Spirit filled women.
I think it is ridiculous to argue with the world, when they in practice towards women show that they dont view her as an ape or a lesser being. Those spiritual and physical battles have been fought and have brought about a certain amount of respect and dignity towards women in our society. Even though I think it will always be necessary to emphasize treating our neighbor as we would like to be treated, I think on this topic, Christians are the ones who are in desperate need of understanding that Eve's sin was forgiven, she can be trusted with God's Word, we dont need fabric on our head to pray in an assembly, etc. If we dont address the Church on this topic, because we're too afraid, our comments about Darwin will appear hypocritical.
I have been verbally attacked when this topic has been brought up on christian websites, and generally the ones who participate in the discussion are not willing to be honest about portions of the Bible they know are dealing with societal norms such as slavery, polygamy, divorce etc, but will crucify anyone disagreeing with them
on this issue.
I know from your article that that is not how you regard women, and I greatly appreciate that, and appreciate you taking on atheist on this topic, but I disagree with the opinion that the culprit is Darwinism,... all discrimination against women is rooted in the enmity of the serpent against the woman and her Christ.
Thanks for listening.
Diane