Our Colleges and Universities Produce

Educated Fools

© O. R. Adams Jr. 2011


I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth, if it be such as would obliged them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives. – Professor Thomas Gold, quoting from Tolstoy, 1989[1]

The above statement, repeated by the late professor Gold, a great scientist and Professor of Cornell University, in his article, WHAT'S WRONG WITH SCIENCE?, is mild to what takes place in our colleges and universities today, now that political correctness has taken over the thinking. It controls much of science and the faculty. Truth and valid science must take a backseat to what is "politically correct." In many areas, we truly have nothing but a world of make-believe. The areas most affected are those touched by Darwinian evolution, feminism, homosexuality, man-made global warming, and use of our hydrocarbon resources. In our greatest institutions of higher learning, it is not safe to even venture an idea or a possibility that is not politically correct, and to present anything to the contrary is unforgivable. It can cost you your position in the institution. Generally speaking, in our colleges and universities, and even in most of our grade schools and high schools, executives and faculty must parrot the politically correct agenda, and the students must follow and answer accordingly on their tests and examinations. Education has been replaced by indoctrination. It produces fools who are supposed to be the best educated. Those who believe the leftist ideas with which they are indoctrinated have lost their ability to use reason and common sense. Others who follow along are just plain cowards.

There are people who have no college education that display more ability to reason and use common sense than many of our well-educated modern "intellectuals" with all of their degrees.

There are a few exceptions to what I say about our colleges and universities in this paper. Some of the smaller and more Christian oriented ones still use some reason and commons sense, and have not caved in to much of the liberal agenda. But this does not include my own alma mater, Southern Methodist University, who has gone with the flow, and caved in to much of the agenda – particularly on homosexuality and homosexual marriage.

A prime example of the capitulation to the leftist liberal agenda is Harvard University. Lawrence H. Summers was a highly qualified and well educated economist. He served as Secretary of the Treasury under President Clinton for two years, and resigned to become President of Harvard in 2001. In 2005, he made a great mistake. In an academic conference, he suggested that the reason fewer women make careers in mathematics and science and that there were fewer women professors in science and engineering might be more due to the desires and aptitudes of women, than to discrimination against them.[2] This set off an uproar among the faculty members. The radical feminist organization, National Organization of Women (NOW ) called for his resignation.[3] After a vote of no confidence by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, and the continuing uproar on the matter, Summers submitted his resignation.[4]

Prior to the time when such feminist insanity took over in our institutions of higher learning, scientists and professionals did research on the differences in aptitudes of men and women, and boys and girls, and published professional articles on such things. It was common knowledge that boys tended to excel more than girls in math and science courses, and girls tended to excel more than boys in courses involving language and such things. Girls tended to excel in spelling, for example. If even a suggestion, such as Summers made, can result in such an uproar, what do you think the research and  publication of such a paper would result in today, in our liberal academic world? But where more academic freedom exists such work does still go on.

Renato M.E. Sabbatini, PhD, holds a doctorate in neurophysiology from the Faculty of Medicine of the University of São Paulo at Ribeirão Preto, Brazil, and was a guest scientist and post-doctoral fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Neurobiology in Munich, Germany. He is currently chairman of medical informatics and adjunct professor at the Faculty of Medical Sciences of the State University of Campinas, in Campinas, Brazil; and is associate editor and chairman of the editorial board of "Brain & Mind" Magazine. In 1997, he wrote the very comprehensive and informative article, Are There Differences between the Brains of Males and Females?[5] The following are excerpts from it:

That men and women are different, everyone knows that.

But, aside from external anatomical and primary and secondary sexual differences, scientists know also that there are many other subtle differences in the way the brains from men and women process language, information, emotion, cognition, etc.

One of the most interesting differences appear in the way men and women estimate time, judge speed of things, carry out mental mathematical calculations, orient in space and visualize objects in three dimensions, etc. In all these tasks, women and men are strikingly different, as they are too in the way their brains process language. This may account, scientists say, for the fact that there are many more male mathematicians, airplane pilots, bush guides, mechanical engineers, architects and race car drivers than female ones.

On the other hand, women are better than men in human relations, recognizing emotional overtones in others and in language, emotional and artistic expressiveness, esthetic appreciation, verbal language and carrying out detailed and pre-planned tasks. For example, women generally can recall lists of words or paragraphs of text better than men (13).

The "father" of sociobiology, Edward O. Wilson, of Harvard University (10), said that human females tend to be higher than males in empathy, verbal skills, social skills and security-seeking, among other things, while men tend to be higher in independence, dominance, spatial and mathematical skills, rank-related aggression, and other characteristics.

When all these investigations began, scientists were skeptical about the role of genes and of biological differences, because cultural learning is very powerful and influential among humans. Are girls more prone to play with dolls and cooperate among themselves than boys, because they are taught to be so by parents, teachers and social peers, or is it the reverse order?

However, gender differences are already apparent from just a few months after birth, when social influence is still small. For example, Anne Moir and David Jessel, in their remarkable and controversial book "Brain Sex" (11), offer explanations for these very early differences in children:

"These discernible, measurable differences in behaviour have been imprinted long before external influences have had a chance to get to work. They reflect a basic difference in the newborn brain which we already know about -- the superior male efficiency in spatial ability, the greater female skill in speech." ...

What do you think would have happened to Dr. Sabbatini at Harvard, or some of our other colleges and universities had he published such an article, today. Truth is completely irrelevant to our liberal academia of today. Only political correctness counts in their little fantasy worlds.

Moreover, we see from the above quotation from Sabbatini's paper that the Faculty of Arts and Sciences would have to know that the research and writings of their own Professor E. O. Wilson directly supported what President Summers merely suggested about the possible differences of men and women. Professor Wilson was still with Harvard, and in the science department involved in the vote of no confidence. Clearly, the radical feminists were in charge, and all that counted was what was politically correct. Truth, honesty, and academic freedom are irrelevant. In addition, the following is a quote from Wikipedia about Professor Wilson:

In the final chapter of the book Sociobiology and in the full text of his Pulitzer Prize-winning On Human Nature, Wilson argues that the human mind is shaped as much by genetic inheritance as it is by culture (if not more). There are limits on just how much influence social and environmental factors can have in altering human behavior.[6]

This must drive the NOW feminists up the wall. These radicals believe that the only differences between men and women are either cultural or caused by discrimination against women. The feminist movement has done great harm to our schools, our young men and women, our military forces, and our country.

Judge Robert Bork, in his great book, Slouching Towards Gomorrah, 1996, contends that the feminist movement was even more harmful to our country than the homosexual movement, although he wrote that book before the homosexual movement was in full swing. He gives many examples of how things similar to what happened to Summers have harmed our institutions of higher learning, and our military forces. He thought that the feminist movement, along with the other liberal agendas, may have gone so far that our country is irredeemably on its way to self destruction. He gives many specific examples to support all of his contentions. Certainly our American values, and American way of life, together with our basic freedoms, are in critical danger. In the book on this website, As We Sodomize America,[7] I quote from Bork at length on these matters, and the information can be found by a word search using the name, Bork. But as bad as the feminist movement is, I believe that the homosexual movement is doing even more harm and is even more dangerous to our country, and our freedoms. And all of this leftist destruction is being done and supported by our college educated "intellectuals."

A good example of the homosexual part of it was the vicious attack against General Peter Pace, whose picture is below to the right. Marine Corps General Peter Pace was Chairman of our Joint Chiefs of Staff. In March, 2007, he expressed his opposition to allowing homosexuals in the military services. He also said:Peter Pace official portrait.jpg

I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts.

General Pace's statement of the truth brought a firestorm of criticism against him from all angles. Freedom of speech is far from safe in this country, no matter how true it is. It must be "politically correct" and consistent with liberal and homosexual dogma. General Pace was effectively forced to resign as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and retire from the service. Anticipation of a 'contentious' confirmation process on Capitol Hill prompted the decision to replace Gen. Peter Pace as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when his term ends in September [2007], U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said. What a loss this was to the country of this highly decorated Four Star General. [8] Although I think that George W. Bush was a good president, this happened during his last term, and I consider it a blot on his record. He and Gates bowed to the Democrat Senate, the homosexualists, and the "intellectuals."       

With the election of our Harvard educated President Barack Hussein Obama, with the Democrats in control in Congress, the allowing of open practicing homosexuals into our military forces was assured. Not only will our service men and women be forced to closely associate with those engaging in the depraved acts of sodomy, with the sexual advances and assaults common to that element, they will also be unnecessarily exposed to the deadly AIDS virus. Homosexuals, by federal regulation, are not allowed to be blood donors, and for good reason. There is no test that will definitively determine whether a person is a carrier of this deadly HIV virus. There has always been a window, from a few months to a few years, in which a person may contract this virus, have it in their body, and it cannot be detected by test. The HIV virus, and resulting AIDS, can be contracted in a number of ways. Established ways are through the contact of saliva or blood of a contaminated person, as well as through sexual relations. A very common way is through blood transfusions. Not all of the ways that this deadly virus may be contracted are known. There are established cases where people have contracted the disease, and the way in which it was done was not determined, but the common ways named were ruled out. What is going to happen if a person needs a blood transfusion from a buddy in a battle area, and when people have to handle wounded and bloody soldiers in the fields of combat?[9]

Barack Obama was well indoctrinated with all of the radical liberal dogma at Harvard, and by his socialist and communist friends in and around the Chicago area. The "intellectuals" consider him one of them. I consider him an educated fool.  

Richard Cohen is a liberal leftist columnist, who writes for the Washington Post, and other news organizations around the country. He reflects the liberal thinking of the general run of America's media. Cohen is well educated – he attended both New York University and Columbia University. He wrote an article published in the Albuquerque Journal, 8-23-2011, Perry Lacks Intellectual Rigor,[10] attacking the qualifications for president of Texas Governor Rick Perry who recently entered the race for the Republican nomination for president. Cohen claims that he isn't sufficiently "intellectual." The following are excerpts from his asinine article:

Whatever global warming might or might not have done to polar bears, it has put Rick Perry's presidential candidacy at risk. The Texas governor clings to an ice flow of diminishing credibility, emerging in just about a week's time as intellectually unqualified to be president. He engaged in a brief dialogue with a child about evolution and came out the loser. Perry said there are some gaps in the theory. If so, he is one. [Emphasis added.]

Maybe more important, Perry waxed wrongly on global warming. He rejected the notion that it is at least partially a product of industrialization, asserting that "a substantial number of scientists have manipulated data" to make it appear that mankind - our cars, trains, automobiles, not to mention China's belching steel mills - is the culprit. He said that an increasing number of scientists have challenged this notion and that, in conclusion, he stood with them - whoever they might be. In Appleton, Wis., Sen. Joe McCarthy's skeleton rattled a bit. ...

Perry has given us a glimpse of what happens when his ideology collides with reality. Ideology wins and it does so not on the up and up, but by cheating a bit - in the case of global warming with the fictitious numbers and false charges. ...

Old Texas hands repeatedly urge us not to liken Perry to Bush just because they both are from Texas and are religious.

Granted. But the similarities are there and unavoidable - not just the accent, but in a way of thinking. Perry's insistence that evolution is a "theory that's out there," but so is creationism - in other words, they have parity. [Emphasis added.] ...

... It's not his thinking I fear. It's the lack of any at all.

Let us first examine the import of what Cohen says about global warming. He quite obviously has swallowed the "man-made global warming" propaganda of the left, hook, line, and sinker. What Cohen says about it is not only contrary to the evidence, but the statement about who was manipulating data has been proved false. It is the global warmers who got caught with their pants down on manipulating and falsifying data. Their most revered data and graph on man-made global warming, the "Hockey Stick" graph and data were proved to be not only contrary to established facts, but false and fraudulent in their compilation and presentation. A number of "scientists" got in deep trouble over it. Instead of Perry cheating a bit, it is clearly Cohen. And if he has kept up at all with the news, Cohen would have to know that his statements are not true. But to a liberal like Cohen, facts and truth are irrelevant. To be an "intellectual," as I am sure Cohen considers himself, you must accept the side that is politically correct, and according to the left. What Perry said was entirely correct, which was "a substantial number of scientists have manipulated data" to make it appear that there was global warming and that it was substantially "man-made."[11]

On "evolution," Cohen, like all of the liberal elitists who consider themselves intellectuals, believes you must accept Darwinian evolution, as it is taught in our major schools today, as the Gospel. It leaves no room for the Christian religion, which Perry admittedly accepts. At a minimum, a true Christian believes that God created the heavens and the earth, and the living things on it. Modern Darwinian evolution holds that all life came about by pure accident, when some kind of one-celled amoeba accidentally came about, from some kind of primeval soup that somehow accidentally came about when all of the many necessary ingredients for life somehow accidentally happened to get together. They of course have no evidence to support such a fantasy, and it is mere theory, but it is taught as fact, and people such as Cohen apparently accept it as fact. It leaves no room for intelligent design in nature, as supported by many scientists. The atheists and evolutionists, which in a number of cases are one and the same, fight strenuously to keep the teaching of the facts about intelligent design in nature out of all science classes in our schools. They go to court to stop it. Because recognizing the evidence of intelligent design in nature is the death knell of modern Darwinian evolution as taught in the science classes in our schools, today. They, knowingly, willfully, and falsely argue that it is religious creationism, when they know well that it is not. Recognizing the intelligent design in nature is not at all religious, because the evidence does not show who or what the designer was, or how many designers there may have been. But is does follow that if something was intelligently designed, it was intentionally created by someone or something. To that extent it is "creationism," although not in the religious sense.

Most, if not all of the greatest minds in recorded history recognized intelligent design in nature. These include: Johannes Kepler. (1571-1630) Without question, Kepler was the greatest mathematician and scientist of his time, and perhaps of all time. Sir Isaac Newton. (1642-1727) Who many consider the greatest scientist and mathematician of all times. Leonhard Euler. (1707-1783) I consider Euler to probably be the greatest mathematical and scientific genius of all time. Michael Faraday. (1791-1867) It is said of Faraday: "When we consider the magnitude and extent of his discoveries and their influence on the progress of science and industry, there is no honor too great to pay to the memory of Michael Faraday—one of the greatest scientific discoverers of all time." Louis Pasteur. (1822-1895) Some consider him the greatest biologist of all time whose work saved more human lives than that of any other scientist. James Clark Maxwell. (1831-1879) Certainly Maxwell stands tall among the greatest scientists in history. Thomas Alvin Edison. (1847-1931) Edison is considered one of the most prolific inventors in history, holding 1,093 U.S. patents in his name, as well as many patents in the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. Albert Einstein. ((1879-1955) Einstein "was a German-born Swiss-American theoretical physicist, philosopher and author who is widely regarded as one of the most influential and best known scientists and intellectuals of all time. He is often regarded as the father of modern physics."[12]

Einstein's statement of the intelligent design in nature could not be more clear:

You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of scientific minds without a peculiar religious feeling of his own . . . . His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. (Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, New York, 1954, p. 40.)

Of course Cohen and his ilk do not do not consider those who believe in intelligent design in nature, such as the above, to be "intellectuals," because they were not modern Darwinian evolutionists, and they believed in intelligent design in nature. Cohen undoubtedly considers himself, and those who think like him to be the intellectuals. In truth, Cohen is a mental midget when compared to the eight scientists named above. I consider him to be one more example of an educated fool.

Also, there are more than just "gaps" in the evolutionary theory, as posed by Rick Perry. Besides intelligent design, the actual evidence is very much against the Darwinian evolutionary theory. All plants and animals would have had to come from the same source. So why would not animals be changing to plants and plants to animals, now? One would have had to come from the other, and which one came first? Unless someone can come up with some other kind of fantastic theory, whereby plant and animal life both came from this one-cell amoeba at the same time. Or unless the dreamed up one-cell amoeba didn't turn into either, and produced both. All of this is pure fantasy, based on no scientific evidence whatsoever, but it is taught to our students as fact.

Darwin, himself admitted that the "Cambrian Explosion" was against his theory and could not be explained by him. That term is used because so much life appeared so suddenly that it was considered an "explosion" of life, which occurred 500 to 600 million years ago. Since that time, a number of those forms of life have become extinct. These are evidentiary facts that are completely contrary to Darwinian Evolution, which is not based on fact. In recent years, some evolutionists have tried to use the "snowball earth" theory to try to explain what Darwin couldn't explain – the Cambrian Explosion. Some of the ideas are that prior to the Cambrian period, the earth was covered with snow – prohibiting animal life. That the snow receded and life sprang up. From what? Or that sea animals or fish  rather suddenly crawled out of the ocean to become land animals. Can't you just see all of these fish and ocean animals crawling out of the ocean and suddenly becoming land animals. Why aren't they still doing it? If you put them out on land, and they can't get back to the water, they die. And if life could not survive under the snow how did the plants and vegetation survive that the animals would need to live on. Did the plants crawl out of the ocean, too? The ideas that evolutionists come up with to try support the theory is more than fantastic – it often becomes ridiculous. And it is published as science in scientific journals. 

"Scientists" have continually tried to come up with the evidence for the missing link between man and an ape or apelike creature. First, there was the "Neanderthal Man" which was considered by some to be an early man. "French Paleontologist Marcellin Boule declared that Neanderthal was not human, and not even ancestral to humans." This became generally accepted, and left no fossil evidence for the transition. Then came the fake and fraudulent "Piltdown Man" in 1912. This served as the evolutionists "missing link" for decades. "In 1953 Joseph Weiner, Kenneth Oakley, and Wilfred Le Gros Clark proved the Piltdown skull, though perhaps thousands of years old, belonged to a modern human, while the jaw fragments were more recent and belonged to a modern orangutan. The jaw had been chemically treated to make it look like a fossil, and its teeth had been filed down to make it look human. Weiner and his colleagues concluded that Piltdown man was a forgery." So there went another missing link – it is still missing. We also see another case of fraud in science in an effort to shore up that which is politically correct. In my research, I have found no real evidence of any species of animal becoming another species of animal. And certainly not a plant becoming an animal, or vice-versa. I have examined such arguments as: "The ancestors of whales once strode on land on four legs, just as other mammals do. Over time, as they evolved to dwell in water, their front legs became flippers while they lost their back legs and hips, although modern whales all still retain traces of pelvises, and occasionally throwbacks are born with vestiges of hind limbs." I have not found them backed up by good evidence. And even if it were true, it would still be the same type of mammal – it would not be a different species. There are animals that live in both the land and the water. Actually, nature has built safeguards in animals against creating new species – even by interbreeding. Certainly, there is provable evolution within species, but most of what is said about one species changing to another species of animal is unsupported evolutionary propaganda.[13]

Another thing that evolutionists cannot explain is why humans are the only ones pondering these problems of evolutionary theory. Why aren't apes and monkeys and other animals doing the same thing? Why is it that only humans have evolved to where they write books, paint pictures, invent boats, automobiles, airplanes, and computers? Yet humans are comparative newcomers to this world. When I was in high school, I heard the theory advanced that it was because people walked upright and had well developed thumbs. The evolutionists seem to have left those theories and tried to develop ideas and theories on humans having a rather sudden and large increase in their brain sizes. But why? And how? None of them really answer these questions at all. There is only one explanation that I have ever found that fits the facts, and it is not science. It is the following from Genesis, 1:27-28, King James Version of the Bible:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Evolutionists fight strenuously to keep evidence against Darwinian evolution and the evidence of intelligent design in nature hidden from students in everyway that they can. This is the opposite of good science. In good science all evidence and ideas, and all sides on a controversial subject should be examined and tested. In the end, the truth will win out.

Unfortunately, this is not the way things work in our schools, today, in many areas. Even discussion of anything contrary to the politically correct side of controversial subjects will not be allowed. It must be accepted without question. A person can lose his position and his career if he expresses anything to the contrary. With this atmosphere, our colleges and universities turn out what I call educated fools – people that show no ability to use objective reasoning and common sense.

I like what I have heard about Rick Perry, so far. I like the fact that he appears to have Christian beliefs. He sounds like a true conservative, and the kind of man we need for our President. I certainly hope that we can get rid of the "intellectual" that occupies that office today.

[1] http://s8int.com/wrong-science2.html

[2] http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2005/01/17/summers_remarks_on_women_draw_fire?pg=full

[3] http://www.now.org/press/01-05/01-20-Harvard.html 

[4] http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/education/21cnd-harvard.html

[5] http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n11/mente/eisntein/cerebro-homens.html

[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._O._Wilson#Sociobiology

[7] ../Import/As We Sodomize America.docx

[8] See the article on this website, under Articles, Destroying Morale and Morality in Our Armed Forces and Exposing our Troops to AIDS, http://www.americantraditions.org/Articles/Destroying%20Morale%20and%20Morality%20in%20Our%20Armed%20Forces%20and%20Exposing%20Our%20Troops%20to%20AIDS.htm

[9] See the above referred to article and the articles on this website, A President Who Promotes Sodomy, http://www.americantraditions.org/Articles/A%20President%20Who%20Promotes%20Sodomy.htm; Homosexuals are Destructive to Our Military Forces, http://www.americantraditions.org/Articles/Homosexuals%20are%20Destructive%20to%20Our%20Military%20Forces.htm; and The Depraved Excesses of Homosexual Lifestyles, http://www.americantraditions.org/Articles/The%20Depraved%20Excesses%20of%20Homosexual%20Lifestyles.htm.

[10] The article may be read online, under a different title, at: http://www.presstelegram.com/ci_18733354?source=rss_emailed

[11] On "man-made global warming," see the articles on this website, The Make-Believe World of Global Warming, http://www.americantraditions.org/Articles/The%20Make-Believe%20World%20of%20Global%20Warming.htm ; and Update on Global Warming or Global Cooling, http://www.americantraditions.org/Articles/Update%20on%20Global%20Warming%20or%20Global%20Cooling.htm.

[12] The Make-Believe World of Darwinian Evolution, on this website under Articles, http://www.americantraditions.org/Articles/The%20Make-Believe%20World%20of%20Darwinian%20Evolution.htm

[13] Except for the ideas on the "snowball earth" theory, the statements in this paper on evolution and intelligent design in nature are supported with information and references in various articles on this website, under the heading, Evolution and Intelligent Design, in Articles, http://www.americantraditions.org/articles.htm.