Questioner
Senior Member
- Nov 26, 2019
- 1,593
- 84
- 50
- Banned
- #1
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00HL2GNFG/?tag=ff0d01-20
The new Structural Systematic Philosophy as has been developed in higher academia, has more or less debunked, or at least rendered it an archaic little 19th century relic, which it arguably always was to begin with, despite myths and fables to the contrary.
Having been a part of academic thought as far back as the pre-Socratic philosophers, as well as independent contemporaries of Darwin like Holmes, with mankind's physical relations to animals even having been a component of religious theologies, and various systems, religious, civil, legal, or otherwise based on them, ranging from the religious to the secular, despite the popular myths, fables, and archaic or nonsensical teleologies to the contrary, such as that of the Humanist sect or cult and is quasi-theistic or mythical worship of Francis Bacon's scientific or inductive methology as an institution, in an almost quasi-Catholic or superstitious fashion, as opposed to it really being little to nothing more than a rather dated 15-16th century industry with some pragmatic or economic uses and functions, but worth little to nothing more than that, as thinking men and women, particularly those with a business and real world sense understand, soon to be rendered obsolete, extinct, or replaced by computer and informational sciences as the new front for discovery altogether, with most outdated and archaic 19th century scientific propaganda on mass media being little more than anti-intellectual fodder for those stunted at a 6th grade reading level, primarily merely preying on the superstitious and misinformative awe which media addicts who don't or barely ever read books still give to it as an institution, but which no one with any real world or economic savvy, or who has ever so much as read more than a few books on a well-rounded variety of subject matter, like the CEOs in the Ted Talks would ever give it to to begin with.
The universe, of course, is a creation of God, or a Supreme Being a higher intelligence and intelligent design, whatever limited or archaic purposes the quaint little theory of evolution fits into this is more or less irrelevant for the foreseeable future (except perhaps to that minority of socially and emotionally arrested individuals whose obsession with talking about and promoting pop notions and fables intermingled with archaic political nonsense about "evolution" is inversely proportional to their sex life or actual "mating" success that involves the civilized notion or "content", along with them typically having the traits more associated with being at the bottom of the evolutionary and genetic hierarchy, which cares nothing for quaint myths and fables such as "equality" and whatnot, far from a thinking man or woman in any field, whether business, sciences, arts, or one requiring the political savvy of a woman like Thatcher).
So now that evolution is debunked, we can safely remove it as a part of general curriculums in public schools and universities in America and Britain, limiting it to a "niche" subject or elective solely for the minority of people who pursue jobs or careers in archaic 19th century biological or natural sciences where it is still relevant.
Replacing it instead with the new Creationist structural systematic philosophy as a mandatory subject of learning and curricula, which inarguably provides a much sounder scientific and philosophical basis for young school and college students of the 21st century and beyond, than outdated 19th century fluff, often being more inclined to confuse our students who tend to bastardize and misinterpret it down to the lowest common denominator, coming out of some schools with an understanding of something far more akin to "X-Men" or "Ninja Turtles" than whatever said archaic 19th century biologies (or the archaic 16th century Baconian scientific or inductive method altogether).
I'm sure some rather sheltered and unintelligent individual, and the children they sadly raise or borderline abuse with their simplistic archaism and insipidity, will immediately object to this not out of truth or intellect, but merely out of archaic holdovers, and their inability to adapt to new knowledge, learning and information available as of the 21st century, the type of idiots that John Stuart Mill erroneously referred to as "conservative".
I'm sure many of them will still cling to evolution, or their archaic and outdated popular ideas, fables, and opinions of it as though it was a Bible, or a gun, wanting to shelter their children from the real world, and prevent them of learning the intricacies of Creation as per the structural systematic philosophy, preferring instead to continue to indoctrinate and shelter their children, hoping they'll cling instead to their parents out of date 19th century beliefs about evolution and biology.
Ideally, perhaps were the state to just remove the children from the custody of backwards idiots, mouth breathers, and Neanderthals like this, that would be ideal, however in the meantime, I suppose if parents really object to new 21st century philosophy, Creationism, and such being taught to children, the minority of those idiots may be simply allowed to homeschool their children, as sad as this would be in its enforcement of independence and hostility to novelty, innovation, and critical thinking, while the better raised and more intellectually apt children go on to learn about the new Creationist philosophies in the public schools and universities of the future, but in the meantime, this may just sadly be a generational reality in relation to parental and child rearing ineptitude... sigh...
The new Structural Systematic Philosophy as has been developed in higher academia, has more or less debunked, or at least rendered it an archaic little 19th century relic, which it arguably always was to begin with, despite myths and fables to the contrary.
Having been a part of academic thought as far back as the pre-Socratic philosophers, as well as independent contemporaries of Darwin like Holmes, with mankind's physical relations to animals even having been a component of religious theologies, and various systems, religious, civil, legal, or otherwise based on them, ranging from the religious to the secular, despite the popular myths, fables, and archaic or nonsensical teleologies to the contrary, such as that of the Humanist sect or cult and is quasi-theistic or mythical worship of Francis Bacon's scientific or inductive methology as an institution, in an almost quasi-Catholic or superstitious fashion, as opposed to it really being little to nothing more than a rather dated 15-16th century industry with some pragmatic or economic uses and functions, but worth little to nothing more than that, as thinking men and women, particularly those with a business and real world sense understand, soon to be rendered obsolete, extinct, or replaced by computer and informational sciences as the new front for discovery altogether, with most outdated and archaic 19th century scientific propaganda on mass media being little more than anti-intellectual fodder for those stunted at a 6th grade reading level, primarily merely preying on the superstitious and misinformative awe which media addicts who don't or barely ever read books still give to it as an institution, but which no one with any real world or economic savvy, or who has ever so much as read more than a few books on a well-rounded variety of subject matter, like the CEOs in the Ted Talks would ever give it to to begin with.
The universe, of course, is a creation of God, or a Supreme Being a higher intelligence and intelligent design, whatever limited or archaic purposes the quaint little theory of evolution fits into this is more or less irrelevant for the foreseeable future (except perhaps to that minority of socially and emotionally arrested individuals whose obsession with talking about and promoting pop notions and fables intermingled with archaic political nonsense about "evolution" is inversely proportional to their sex life or actual "mating" success that involves the civilized notion or "content", along with them typically having the traits more associated with being at the bottom of the evolutionary and genetic hierarchy, which cares nothing for quaint myths and fables such as "equality" and whatnot, far from a thinking man or woman in any field, whether business, sciences, arts, or one requiring the political savvy of a woman like Thatcher).
So now that evolution is debunked, we can safely remove it as a part of general curriculums in public schools and universities in America and Britain, limiting it to a "niche" subject or elective solely for the minority of people who pursue jobs or careers in archaic 19th century biological or natural sciences where it is still relevant.
Replacing it instead with the new Creationist structural systematic philosophy as a mandatory subject of learning and curricula, which inarguably provides a much sounder scientific and philosophical basis for young school and college students of the 21st century and beyond, than outdated 19th century fluff, often being more inclined to confuse our students who tend to bastardize and misinterpret it down to the lowest common denominator, coming out of some schools with an understanding of something far more akin to "X-Men" or "Ninja Turtles" than whatever said archaic 19th century biologies (or the archaic 16th century Baconian scientific or inductive method altogether).
I'm sure some rather sheltered and unintelligent individual, and the children they sadly raise or borderline abuse with their simplistic archaism and insipidity, will immediately object to this not out of truth or intellect, but merely out of archaic holdovers, and their inability to adapt to new knowledge, learning and information available as of the 21st century, the type of idiots that John Stuart Mill erroneously referred to as "conservative".
I'm sure many of them will still cling to evolution, or their archaic and outdated popular ideas, fables, and opinions of it as though it was a Bible, or a gun, wanting to shelter their children from the real world, and prevent them of learning the intricacies of Creation as per the structural systematic philosophy, preferring instead to continue to indoctrinate and shelter their children, hoping they'll cling instead to their parents out of date 19th century beliefs about evolution and biology.
Ideally, perhaps were the state to just remove the children from the custody of backwards idiots, mouth breathers, and Neanderthals like this, that would be ideal, however in the meantime, I suppose if parents really object to new 21st century philosophy, Creationism, and such being taught to children, the minority of those idiots may be simply allowed to homeschool their children, as sad as this would be in its enforcement of independence and hostility to novelty, innovation, and critical thinking, while the better raised and more intellectually apt children go on to learn about the new Creationist philosophies in the public schools and universities of the future, but in the meantime, this may just sadly be a generational reality in relation to parental and child rearing ineptitude... sigh...
