A critique of British Columbia's new 'social justice' course for high school students
- I make it a habit not to read the daily paper. I looked at the front page today (of the Vancouver Sun) and was more disgusted than usual. The B.C. government (ie. the political and socialist elite that masquerades as conservatives) have decided to bring in a 'social justice' course for high school students. (Sounds decidedly Marxist to me.) The course was designed by homosexual advocates. Not by parents of course. (That would be too radical.) I see this as an evil development. (And shows you why the NDP crowd is very happy with premier Campbell. They probably wouldn't have dared to this themselves... though they'd have loved to.) It's basically a course in anti-Christianity; an anti-civilization course that is an utter repudiation of all Western civilization has stood for.) In every case it teaches (in the guise of 'discussion') the opposite of what Christian civilization has taught.
- this isn't a course in social justice but in social injustice. The injustice of a small radical elite taking control of the gov. education system and using it to force their neo-pagan religion on unsuspecting students. It's the injustice of driving christianity out of the schools under the name of being against religion in the schools... and then replacing it with a new religion. (This is called hypocrisy in anybody's books.)
- the writer of the celebratory article calls it a course in the new 'isms.' But it's the 'isms' favored by the extremist left. (The long list of lunacy includes; heterosexism, speciesism, racism (of course) genderism, ableism, sexism, ageism, humanism, imperialism, environmentalism, and so on.... all the great causes of the tenured class. (Mcdonaldism, Walmartism, Bushism, and so on.) There's no critique of the evils of communism, statism, marixism, unionism, special interestism, evolutionsim, materialism... etc. What kids will get will be hymns of praise to every left wing bit of lunacy now favored by the faddists on campus and a condemnation of everything the pampered left don't like. There will be praise of libertarianism, creationism, of markets, of biblical christianity, of freedom... or anything the left is waging war on.
- why am I posting this critique on a blog about biblical creation? The answer is simple; this course in social injustice is radically anti-creationist. The reality of who man is counts for nothing to the 'advocates' (ie. revolutionaries) behind this absurdist course. (I'm reminded again of the title of a book by Thomas Sowell; 'Is reality optional?" Well these people think so. They've been educated by the old Left that sees man as a blank slate... clay that can be molded into any form desired by the political elite. (ie. the new soviet man that was the object of Stalin's machinations.) They seemingly are still stuck in this mode of thinking despite the efforts of people like Stephen Pinker to persuade them of the fallaciousness of such a view. This course is all about denying reality; denying the reality of God and of creation.
- This whole story is a case study in the importance of the doctrine of biblical creation. One reason even christian parents go along with these courses is that they don't understand the importance of the Book of Genesis, and the doctrine of creation; how it affects all areas of life. The idea of a 'tabula rasa' is the strained construct of philosophical thinking. It has no connection with the real world. Babies are born with a distinct nature; that possess the image of God... and thus are not empty vessels that can be twisted into any desired shape by a political elite. When I say this I understand all too well that deformations of man can happen... but it always involves radical damage to both man and society. Only christianity gives us a model for social conduct that is in full agreement with man's nature; that gives us a moral code that conforms to reality. What we see in politically correct (read marxist) codes is a radical contempt for the reality of who man is. Man is not an empty blob (a blank slate) neither is he an just another animal. He is a creature made in the image of god; and more than this he is an eternal spirit.
- And so, if this course goes ahead, kids will be taught about the Jainist doctrine of 'speciesism' - the idea it's evil to think animals are less important (less deserving of rights) than human beings. The fact we're surrounded by thousands of stores selling dead meat makes this rank hypocrisy. Every left wing doctrine is on display in this new pagan religion course; the new pagan religion of the State. (Showing us the education mafia isn't against religion in the schools but only against christianity. Thus showing themselves incredibly hypocrites.) This is a major attack on christianity.... and almost no one was shown speaking out against it. Is this because no one did; or no one was given a voice by the cheerleaders who wrote the article? I suspect both.
- here we see the sad results of christian pietism; the retreat from the world, and secluding one's self within the walls of the church. But what can you expect of people who's great prayer is that the world will end in the next day or two? (Of people who make crap like 'Left Behind' a great best seller.) Christian's in canada have already surrendered the world to their enemies. It's clear what is going to be the agenda; the total extinction of christians and christianity. We are now being governed by the worst people our society has to offer. I find it hard to believe we've fallen so far we let a school curriculum be written by homosexual activists. It's hard for me to accept the idea parents (and C. parents) will put up with this evil. That this couldn't have been imagined a generation ago shows how rapidly things are moving.
- To force teenagers to go endure such an indoctrination process against their will is the opposite of justice. This is the totalitarian spirit of the Left at work. These people hate freedom; and will refuse to allow anyone to be free. They are forcing their demented smorgasbord of pagan religions onto the citizenry. As is usual in Canada, I doubt if anyone will even rouse themselves to raise a whisper in protest. And, as usual, this whole deplorable travesty will be applauded by the mainstream clergy. (A group that has never heard of a Humanist idea it didn't think was great.)
- We see a plethora of newly invented words by the Left; ie. heterosexism (the evil idea the heterosexuality is the norm of society) This is of course lunacy; a total denial of reality. (If it weren't the norm none of us would be here.) And so I ask you; ''if the educational elite are willing to deny reality in this area why should you believe what they say about the subject of origins? ie. evolution. I see no reason to believe they're no just as willing to deny reality in that area. (And so on with all the rest.) If they're willing to make (under 'speciesism') the claim there is no difference between animals and people (no one truly believes this lie of course) then why wouldn't they make imaginary claims about evolution? Again there's no reason to believe they haven't. What we see in our schools (and no; they don't belong to the teacher's union) is the establishment of a new pagan religion. The political elite aren't interested in truth... but in forcing people to conform to their new religion. None of this has anything to do with truth; just as evolution has nothing to do with the truth.
- the editors (with their typical subtlety) go on to show us why we need such a course. (Apparently they didn't need it.) On the front page they have a photo that reminds us of the anti-Asian riots of a hundred years ago. (No one can ever be allowed to forget anything.. unless the Left did it... then it's buried forever.) They pick on an easy target of course. The Left tell us a hundred times a day how evil we are; never in all history has any group of people had to endure such a vicious and never ending attack upon their culture, themselves, etc. What we seen a virulent sadism that has no parallel in all history. (These people have been taught by their professors to hate themselves and apparently its the one thing from their college days they can't get over. It apparently never occurred to them to ask to all the endless criticisms of the west; 'you say it was all evil... but evil compared to what? what happened in the USSR? in Maoist china? in old India? compared to what?'' It seems such an obvious question; so why didn't they ask it? I imagine they enjoyed trashing their parents and grandparent; enjoyed playing at revolution. (Welfare style Socialism is a kind of revolution for wimps. You get to have a big salary and a nice home while dismantling civilization; and you don't have to carry a gun.... and you'll be safely dead before things get too serious... and the mass killings start, and the Gulag reopens.)
- this is the inevitable result of two things; parents not taking responsibility... and socialism. Despite what christian liberals say the size of the state does matter. I remember some clueless seminary professor chiding conservatives; ''contrary to what some right wing economists say it's not the size of the state that matters that is dangerous.... but whether or not the state is just.'' It was like listening to a child... and he couldn't have been more wrong. Take this course in paganism; it wouldn't exist if it were not for the socialist state. Socialism makes courses like these not oddities in upper class communities but the norm for everyone in the country... and only a huge state can do that. I could add numerous examples in all areas. The bigger the state gets the more corrupt it gets; there's no way around it. A huge state can be controlled by a very small number of people... through top down management. The bigger the state the worse the people at the top get.
- let's see now; you can't teach creation, or ID or even critique evolution... but you have to teach heterosexism and speciesism! How can anyone take this lunacy seriously? How can anyone take these political extremists seriously? This is literally insane. (And all dumped on us by people who like to paint themselves as relativists! They're against racism but are engaged in a war against christians. (Who are continually being stripped of their rights.) The hypocrisy of these people is a sight to behold. (And all paid for with the tax dollars of the people they're waging war against!) If that's not social injustice the phrase is meaningless.
- if Marxist indoctrination like this can be called education, then we can see why dumping a crucifix in some urine can be called art. It's important that people realize that this is all part of the spirit of the age. Does anyone imagine that people who call bags of excrement tacked onto gallery walls art are not willing to lie about origins? Evolution is the modern art of the science world. Truth doesn't come come into it. Llet's not forget that the same people who tell us evolution is true... tell us the drippings of Jackson Pollack are art, that a blank canvas is art... and so on. (If there ever was a blank canvas scientifically speaking it's evolution. The theory has nothing going for it. It's devoid of meaningful evidence for its veracity.) I wonder how anyone can take people who play these games seriously.
Notes;
1. some of these words are so newly minted that they're not in dictionaries or on spell checkers.... and yet the concepts are going to be forced into a high school curriculum!
2. the homosexual advocates are playing the equivocation game when they object to heterosexuality being the norm. In a descriptive (and therefore scientific sense) it obviously is the norm. No one could honestly deny that. They're using the word in another sense. (Thus defining their own terms.)
3. What semiary professor? Mr. Heaven in a nightclub.
4. The Sun calls these riots 'Our lasting shame' - never mind the fact no one alive was there... no; this is 'our' lasting shame. (ie. something we can never escape being punished for, no matter what we do.) This is more marxist idiocy; as if people could or should have shame for things they had no part in. How stupid do you have to be to believe that? This is part of the leftist program of instilling class guilt (or societal guilt, or whatever idiot monicker is being used up on the hill these days.) People must (MUST) be made of feel eternally guilty.... as this is used to demoralize all opposition to collectivist programs. Guilty people are apathetic, hard to motivate, easy to manipulate, rarely ever complain about what the gov. is doing, etc. So the people must be made (in a hundred different ways, and on an daily basis) to feel guilty. Guilty for what? For anything; for everything; for eating, drinking and breathing if it comes to that.
Saturday, September 1, 2007
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Searching out the glory of God in creation
Some quotes from the essay by T.M. More (The Glory of Kings) and a few comments.
1. 'Christian theology has maintained from the beginning that God is revealing himself and his will in the things he has made.'
- The most obvious message I get from revelation is that the Creator is so much more intelligent than us that there is no comparison. We cannot imagine how God did the things he did; how he created the universe... how he created living creatures. In our day when we have been allowed to look within the cell we cannot believe the ever new levels of complexity we see. We are staggered by the imagination, the wisdom and the intelligence of the Creator. What we see is beyond our wildest imagination. We see evidence of a Mind that is a universe beyond us in ability and depth.
In the complexity of creation we see evidence that god can do the (seeming) impossible. This gives us reason to believe there are few if any limits on what God can do. In his great power and intelligence we see reasons to believe that God can make good on the staggering promises that fill the testimony of His word.
- In creation we see the staggering power of God. In the vast expanse of the universe (far too large for us to comprehend) we see evidence of his surpassing power. A god who has this power can do the these he has said he will do. If He can created trillions of galaxies, each filled with countless billions of stars he can bring man back from the grave and give him eternal life. If he has this power he has the power to govern the whole universe according to his counsel.
2. "The heavens declare the glory of god."
- This means god deserves praise and honor for the magnificent splendor of the star filled universe. At the heart of materialism is the refusal to give honor and praise to god for His creation. The psychology of m. can be expressed by a clenched fist. Natural man is greedy to recieve his own honor and praise, and cannot give to another what he desires for himself. He feels that to give honor and praise to God is to withhold honor and praise from man.
3. “It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out” (Proverbs 25:2)
- I've always been a bit puzzled by what 'the glory of kings' refers to. I assume it means this is a 'royal' privilege... or that it's the best thing a king can do. I'm not sure.
- at any event it means we shold search things out; and so we have here a basis for true science.
- when it says God conceals things I assume this means that things are far more 'glorious' than people imagine... that it's only when we look closely that we begin to see how wondrous the creation really is.
- we get hints here of the true relationship between God and man; between the Creator and his creation (and vice regent) man. God creates the universe (this is his privilege, for which we give him great glory) and man investigates what God has created... this is His great privilege.
- Let's look at what's happening in biology today; people are looking (at the nano) level at the complexities of the cell. This wouldn't be much fun (or small g. glorious) if the cell was something like a blob of jello. (Which is what people once thought.) What an incredible privilege we've been given to uncover what to earlier generations was hidden. But whatever honor and praise we give to the people who have made discoveries in these areas, shouldn't come close to the honor and praise we give to God. What we say in a soft voice about man's discoveries should be shouted and sung with a loud voice about their Creator. (Unfortunately this is often not the case in our modern era; where men are so full of pride and vainglory that they don't want to give honor to god. But let's be serious here; it's not even on the same scale to discover something as it is to create it. These activities are not on the same level. When man refuses to give honor to God for the creation, he shows how small a being he is... and how little he deserves honor and praise.)
4. In the article Moore talks about how he views 'creation theology' and gives six steps for its practice. (The essay is taken from the online christian journal 'Implications'.)
Notes;
1. Glory
- 1300, "magnificence," from O.Fr. glorie, from L. gloria "great praise or honor," of uncertain origin. Gk. doxa "expectation" (Homer), later "opinion, fame," and ultimately "glory," was used in Biblical writing to translate a Heb. word which had a sense of "brightness, splendor, magnificence, majesty," and this was subsequently translated as L. gloria, which has colored that word's meaning in most European tongues. (Online etymological dictionary)
Some quotes from the essay by T.M. More (The Glory of Kings) and a few comments.
1. 'Christian theology has maintained from the beginning that God is revealing himself and his will in the things he has made.'
- The most obvious message I get from revelation is that the Creator is so much more intelligent than us that there is no comparison. We cannot imagine how God did the things he did; how he created the universe... how he created living creatures. In our day when we have been allowed to look within the cell we cannot believe the ever new levels of complexity we see. We are staggered by the imagination, the wisdom and the intelligence of the Creator. What we see is beyond our wildest imagination. We see evidence of a Mind that is a universe beyond us in ability and depth.
In the complexity of creation we see evidence that god can do the (seeming) impossible. This gives us reason to believe there are few if any limits on what God can do. In his great power and intelligence we see reasons to believe that God can make good on the staggering promises that fill the testimony of His word.
- In creation we see the staggering power of God. In the vast expanse of the universe (far too large for us to comprehend) we see evidence of his surpassing power. A god who has this power can do the these he has said he will do. If He can created trillions of galaxies, each filled with countless billions of stars he can bring man back from the grave and give him eternal life. If he has this power he has the power to govern the whole universe according to his counsel.
2. "The heavens declare the glory of god."
- This means god deserves praise and honor for the magnificent splendor of the star filled universe. At the heart of materialism is the refusal to give honor and praise to god for His creation. The psychology of m. can be expressed by a clenched fist. Natural man is greedy to recieve his own honor and praise, and cannot give to another what he desires for himself. He feels that to give honor and praise to God is to withhold honor and praise from man.
3. “It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out” (Proverbs 25:2)
- I've always been a bit puzzled by what 'the glory of kings' refers to. I assume it means this is a 'royal' privilege... or that it's the best thing a king can do. I'm not sure.
- at any event it means we shold search things out; and so we have here a basis for true science.
- when it says God conceals things I assume this means that things are far more 'glorious' than people imagine... that it's only when we look closely that we begin to see how wondrous the creation really is.
- we get hints here of the true relationship between God and man; between the Creator and his creation (and vice regent) man. God creates the universe (this is his privilege, for which we give him great glory) and man investigates what God has created... this is His great privilege.
- Let's look at what's happening in biology today; people are looking (at the nano) level at the complexities of the cell. This wouldn't be much fun (or small g. glorious) if the cell was something like a blob of jello. (Which is what people once thought.) What an incredible privilege we've been given to uncover what to earlier generations was hidden. But whatever honor and praise we give to the people who have made discoveries in these areas, shouldn't come close to the honor and praise we give to God. What we say in a soft voice about man's discoveries should be shouted and sung with a loud voice about their Creator. (Unfortunately this is often not the case in our modern era; where men are so full of pride and vainglory that they don't want to give honor to god. But let's be serious here; it's not even on the same scale to discover something as it is to create it. These activities are not on the same level. When man refuses to give honor to God for the creation, he shows how small a being he is... and how little he deserves honor and praise.)
4. In the article Moore talks about how he views 'creation theology' and gives six steps for its practice. (The essay is taken from the online christian journal 'Implications'.)
Notes;
1. Glory
- 1300, "magnificence," from O.Fr. glorie, from L. gloria "great praise or honor," of uncertain origin. Gk. doxa "expectation" (Homer), later "opinion, fame," and ultimately "glory," was used in Biblical writing to translate a Heb. word which had a sense of "brightness, splendor, magnificence, majesty," and this was subsequently translated as L. gloria, which has colored that word's meaning in most European tongues. (Online etymological dictionary)
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Evolution and playing god
I remember hearing a scholar claim that Darwinism led to the 'cult of the artificial...' He referred to Gordon Childe's book 'Man makes himself'
- I think I finally understand this. ie. as long as god made the world... and controlled it, man couldn't do anything about it..... he just had to accept his situation. But; if man was Not created... if it was just some physical process.... then man could take ahold of that process... and use it as a tool to make his every dream come true. (Or such at least is the hope.)
- that a theory about biology should lead to the 'cult of the artificial' is a major irony.
- when evolutionists rhapsodize about 'evolution' what they are really excited about is this conrol over reality. What they fear about creationism is that they might lose this control over biological reality. They fear creationists will say; ''no; creation is from god... so you can't touch it... you can't tamper with it... you can't change it... it's holy...."
- I think I finally see the source of the wild emotion; the wild hatred... the passion.... the will to tyranny and suppression. The modern humanist (inside and outside the church) wants control over reality.... they want the power to play god. Their fear of creationists is the fear c's will take this power away from them... or hamper its exercise.
- so what do the evolutionists want? This is the question I'm only beginning to explore. They want increased life spans; they want increased health. Some want increased intelligence; increased power. Some want to create man/robot beings.
- Few among the humanist elite want these things for all people; but want them for the elite... they invisage the creation of super people.... a super elite... that will rule the masses.... They envision an elite that is truly superior; not just superior in name... an elite that will live longer, be more intelligent, more powerful, more talented, healthier, immune from disease, etc.
- this is what the creation evolution debate is really all about; or this is at the core of it for its elite proponents. The defenders of evolution imagine there are huge amounts of money and power at stake in this struggle.
- People invovled with drug companies are major supporters of the attempt to destroy creationism; as our the political elite. The hopes and dreams involved with genetic engineering are at the heart of this battle. No amount of intellectual refutation will make evolutionism go away. The theory is utterly without warrant; the dumbest idea man has ever had; but this doesn't matter to the evolutionist elite. This isn't about truth... it's about power.
- In conclusion I'll say that I think the evolutionist elite are worrried about nothing. I don't think there are more than a handful of christians who have any desire to stop genetic engineering. (I think they're wrong, but I understand I'm in a tiny minority.)
I remember hearing a scholar claim that Darwinism led to the 'cult of the artificial...' He referred to Gordon Childe's book 'Man makes himself'
- I think I finally understand this. ie. as long as god made the world... and controlled it, man couldn't do anything about it..... he just had to accept his situation. But; if man was Not created... if it was just some physical process.... then man could take ahold of that process... and use it as a tool to make his every dream come true. (Or such at least is the hope.)
- that a theory about biology should lead to the 'cult of the artificial' is a major irony.
- when evolutionists rhapsodize about 'evolution' what they are really excited about is this conrol over reality. What they fear about creationism is that they might lose this control over biological reality. They fear creationists will say; ''no; creation is from god... so you can't touch it... you can't tamper with it... you can't change it... it's holy...."
- I think I finally see the source of the wild emotion; the wild hatred... the passion.... the will to tyranny and suppression. The modern humanist (inside and outside the church) wants control over reality.... they want the power to play god. Their fear of creationists is the fear c's will take this power away from them... or hamper its exercise.
- so what do the evolutionists want? This is the question I'm only beginning to explore. They want increased life spans; they want increased health. Some want increased intelligence; increased power. Some want to create man/robot beings.
- Few among the humanist elite want these things for all people; but want them for the elite... they invisage the creation of super people.... a super elite... that will rule the masses.... They envision an elite that is truly superior; not just superior in name... an elite that will live longer, be more intelligent, more powerful, more talented, healthier, immune from disease, etc.
- this is what the creation evolution debate is really all about; or this is at the core of it for its elite proponents. The defenders of evolution imagine there are huge amounts of money and power at stake in this struggle.
- People invovled with drug companies are major supporters of the attempt to destroy creationism; as our the political elite. The hopes and dreams involved with genetic engineering are at the heart of this battle. No amount of intellectual refutation will make evolutionism go away. The theory is utterly without warrant; the dumbest idea man has ever had; but this doesn't matter to the evolutionist elite. This isn't about truth... it's about power.
- In conclusion I'll say that I think the evolutionist elite are worrried about nothing. I don't think there are more than a handful of christians who have any desire to stop genetic engineering. (I think they're wrong, but I understand I'm in a tiny minority.)
Saturday, June 23, 2007
The faith claims of evolutionsists are not science
- the acrimony that surrounds the creation/evolution debate is an intellectual embarassment.
- people seem to have parked their wits and their ethics at the door of the debating hall.
- to forbid the criticism of evolution theory in schools is NOT science, but a religious demand.
- getting judges to define science is not science, but politics.
- to claim people are insane, wicked, ignorant or stupid if they don't believe in darwinism, is not science... but a faith claim.
- to claim one can have absolute knowledge about origins is not science... but a faith claim.
- to claim life can come from non-life (without direction from an intelligent agent) is not science... but a faith claim.
- the claim any explanation of origins other than a naturalistic one is not science, but a faith claim.
- to use the gov. to force one view of origins on people is not science... but politics.
- to claim naturalism can give man absolute truth is not science but a faith claim.
- to tell lies about the many 'proofs' of evolution theory is not science but faith propagation.
- to invent stories about evolution is not science but evangelism.
- to treat creationists with contempt and hatred is not science.
- to imagine all people are the same isn't science, but a faith claim.
- to insist all people hold the same view of origins (ie. e.) isn't science... but a demand of faith.
- to bar professors and teachers from employment is not science but tyranny and persecution.
- the bitterness involved in this debate clearly has nothing to do with science. In fact very little in this debate has anything to do with science. Atheists (and other non-theists, or non-creationists) have confused evolution theory and atheism, and have pretended their atheism is science. Atheism is not science, it's a faith claim.
- the low level on which evolutionists conduct themselves in this debate is an intellectual embarassment.
- I don't deny some creationists haven't acted badly as well. Teaching small children to sing anti-evolution songs would be (in my opinion) an example of this. I consider this akin to liberals having toddlers wear 'Bush is a war criminal' t-shirts. It's one thing to teach children songs of praise to god - and I think this not only proper, but wonderful - but it is another thing entirely to teach them songs that are purely negative in nature. You won't find that taught in the book of Genesis Ken; or anywhere else in the bible for that matter.
- the acrimony that surrounds the creation/evolution debate is an intellectual embarassment.
- people seem to have parked their wits and their ethics at the door of the debating hall.
- to forbid the criticism of evolution theory in schools is NOT science, but a religious demand.
- getting judges to define science is not science, but politics.
- to claim people are insane, wicked, ignorant or stupid if they don't believe in darwinism, is not science... but a faith claim.
- to claim one can have absolute knowledge about origins is not science... but a faith claim.
- to claim life can come from non-life (without direction from an intelligent agent) is not science... but a faith claim.
- the claim any explanation of origins other than a naturalistic one is not science, but a faith claim.
- to use the gov. to force one view of origins on people is not science... but politics.
- to claim naturalism can give man absolute truth is not science but a faith claim.
- to tell lies about the many 'proofs' of evolution theory is not science but faith propagation.
- to invent stories about evolution is not science but evangelism.
- to treat creationists with contempt and hatred is not science.
- to imagine all people are the same isn't science, but a faith claim.
- to insist all people hold the same view of origins (ie. e.) isn't science... but a demand of faith.
- to bar professors and teachers from employment is not science but tyranny and persecution.
- the bitterness involved in this debate clearly has nothing to do with science. In fact very little in this debate has anything to do with science. Atheists (and other non-theists, or non-creationists) have confused evolution theory and atheism, and have pretended their atheism is science. Atheism is not science, it's a faith claim.
- the low level on which evolutionists conduct themselves in this debate is an intellectual embarassment.
- I don't deny some creationists haven't acted badly as well. Teaching small children to sing anti-evolution songs would be (in my opinion) an example of this. I consider this akin to liberals having toddlers wear 'Bush is a war criminal' t-shirts. It's one thing to teach children songs of praise to god - and I think this not only proper, but wonderful - but it is another thing entirely to teach them songs that are purely negative in nature. You won't find that taught in the book of Genesis Ken; or anywhere else in the bible for that matter.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
The Biotic message: a review of the book by Walter Remine, by Donald Batten
Quotes and comments;
1. "ReMine’s treatment of the origin of life is good. I particularly liked the way he dealt with some of the bluffs of evolutionists who try to dilute the improbability argument with irrelevant analogies. For example, the exact arrangement of the cards in a deck just after it is shuffled is highly improbable, but nevertheless an improbable arrangement happens every time. This confuses the point entirely."
- only someone who totally fails to understand the situation, or someone who is being deliberately deceptive, would imagine this card trick analogy addresses the problem. We're not looking for an 'improbable' result, we're looking for a highly specific result; not just any improbablitity. The point is ths; it is highly unlikely (improbable) we will find a naturalistic explanation. We're not looking for the improbable. We're looking for life; not for improbabilities. We're looking for the concrete, not the abstract. We're looking for the meaningful, not the meaningless.
- if David Hume were here he'd no doubt call this a faulty analogy. Cards are human artifacts; that being the case it would appear to be misleading for a natualist to use them for an analogy to biology.
- cards aren't codes; their arrangements are meaningless; they don't carry information. (Apparently this is all too complicated for richard dawkins to understand.)
- we might (for the sake of humor) say that finding a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life is as likely as producing one of Shakespeare's plays by shuffling a deck of cards :=)
Quotes and comments;
1. "ReMine’s treatment of the origin of life is good. I particularly liked the way he dealt with some of the bluffs of evolutionists who try to dilute the improbability argument with irrelevant analogies. For example, the exact arrangement of the cards in a deck just after it is shuffled is highly improbable, but nevertheless an improbable arrangement happens every time. This confuses the point entirely."
- only someone who totally fails to understand the situation, or someone who is being deliberately deceptive, would imagine this card trick analogy addresses the problem. We're not looking for an 'improbable' result, we're looking for a highly specific result; not just any improbablitity. The point is ths; it is highly unlikely (improbable) we will find a naturalistic explanation. We're not looking for the improbable. We're looking for life; not for improbabilities. We're looking for the concrete, not the abstract. We're looking for the meaningful, not the meaningless.
- if David Hume were here he'd no doubt call this a faulty analogy. Cards are human artifacts; that being the case it would appear to be misleading for a natualist to use them for an analogy to biology.
- cards aren't codes; their arrangements are meaningless; they don't carry information. (Apparently this is all too complicated for richard dawkins to understand.)
- we might (for the sake of humor) say that finding a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life is as likely as producing one of Shakespeare's plays by shuffling a deck of cards :=)
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Inherently wind; a Hollywood history of the Scopes trial - audio lecture by David Menton
Quotes and comments;
- in the lecture he's referring to the Spencer Tracy movie.
- the music at times is deliberately off key; the worst renditions of 'old time religion' I've ever heard...
- I've seen this movie and in my opinion it's totally fallacious; no different than what the soviets did... soviet style propaganda... at its worst.
1. Scopes claimed he never taught the kids evolution... he claimed the kids were coached by the lawyers.. (he only taught 2 weeks of a biology course... when the regular teacher got sick...)
2. The textbook scopes was using was racist to the core.... ie. whites are vastly superior.... (this is what the great liberals of the time were defending.)
3. Nothing in this movie is true... it's almost 100 percent false... soviet propaganda at its worst.... (the makers of this movie were total liars and hypocrites)
- why you would anyone believe anything evolutionists say when they produced such a total lie as this movie? The theory of evolution is as factual as this movie.
4. - in a 1925 cartoon Bryan is shown throwing over a cliff all these great things; animal husbandry, navigation, the whole of agriculture, the law of gravity, mathematics, mechanical engineering, medicine, x-ray technology... and other things.. all for doubting darwin. (And evolutionists are even more lying and deceitful in our day. The very same garbage goes on constantly; just recently some clown claimed creationism would stop all progress in medicine and science. The lies never end; even if they are cartoonish lies... Who in the e. community protests against this slander? Know anyone?
5. In my experience evolutionists are about as honest as this movie. Try to find one that's spoken out against this movie... try to find even one, in all these decades! They've been tarred by their own brush; as this vast silence condemns them.
6. As just a small example of the movie's dishonesty; in the film Scopes is put in jai... but not in real life. (Bryan dies on the courtroom floor as another example; of which the movie replete from beginning to end. Bryan is asked if he's ever read the 'Origins' by Darwin; he says no, he doesn't need to read stuff like that. In fact Bryan had read Origins many years earlier. And on and on it goes.)
7. In my own opinion this is the most blasphemous movie the americans have ever produced. (As Henry Miller referred to his own work; 'it's a gob of spit in the face of God.)
8. H. L. Mencken (in his obituary of b.) said of Bryan; "he was filled with an almost pathological hatred of all learning..." (Bryan was a highly educated man; and this shows you the kind of price you pay for denying the lunacy of darwinism.)
9. Highly recommended. Christians need to realize evolutionists are lying through their teeth when they promote darwinism as a fact... and that they will go to any lengths to spread lies about both evolution and creation.
10. - but even this movie gives glory to God in its own way. It shows us the truth of what the bible says; "no one speaketh the truth, no not one." (and "the poison of asps is under their tongue.") The bible tells us men (naturally) do not tell the truth if they think it will hurt them; and that they lie whenever they think they can gain from that lie.
11. - the movie came out in 1960. I wonder what influence it had on provoking the creation movement? (The play came out in 1955.) The Genesis Flood came out in 1961. (Although I think it had been several years in the writing.)
12. I assume the movie (and the play?) were produced to 'coincide' with the 100th anniversary of the publication of the 'Origins.' There was a big conference in Chicago in 1959.
13. I'd like to ask christian liberals, who claim to believe in evolution a question. If evolutionists are so willing to lie in a movie like this why do you believe what they say? Why do you believe they're being honest when they write about evolution? Doesn't it ever occur to you that they're lying?
14. - that e's have to resort to lies, deceit and mockery is surely proof they have no scientific or rational arguments to make... it's evidence they don't believe their own theory.
15. - when christians send their children to government (humanist, evolutionist) schools they're robbing their childrren of their inheritance; the priceless inheritance of god's word... of a christian education and a christian worldview.
16. - since evolution is a form of pantheism... and nature worship it has no place in gov. schools... (That are supposedly neutral in religious matters.)
17. - the fact teachers force this piece of propaganda on students is evidence the ruling mindset of the gov. schools is religious in nature. This movie isn't science and its blatantly false.... there is no legitimate reason to show it. It's being shown as anti-christian propaganda and as religious evangelism (for pantheism.)
Resources;
a. Summer for the gods: the Scopes trial and America’s continuing debate over science and religion by Edward J. Larson - reviewed by Carl Wieland
Quotes and comments;
- in the lecture he's referring to the Spencer Tracy movie.
- the music at times is deliberately off key; the worst renditions of 'old time religion' I've ever heard...
- I've seen this movie and in my opinion it's totally fallacious; no different than what the soviets did... soviet style propaganda... at its worst.
1. Scopes claimed he never taught the kids evolution... he claimed the kids were coached by the lawyers.. (he only taught 2 weeks of a biology course... when the regular teacher got sick...)
2. The textbook scopes was using was racist to the core.... ie. whites are vastly superior.... (this is what the great liberals of the time were defending.)
3. Nothing in this movie is true... it's almost 100 percent false... soviet propaganda at its worst.... (the makers of this movie were total liars and hypocrites)
- why you would anyone believe anything evolutionists say when they produced such a total lie as this movie? The theory of evolution is as factual as this movie.
4. - in a 1925 cartoon Bryan is shown throwing over a cliff all these great things; animal husbandry, navigation, the whole of agriculture, the law of gravity, mathematics, mechanical engineering, medicine, x-ray technology... and other things.. all for doubting darwin. (And evolutionists are even more lying and deceitful in our day. The very same garbage goes on constantly; just recently some clown claimed creationism would stop all progress in medicine and science. The lies never end; even if they are cartoonish lies... Who in the e. community protests against this slander? Know anyone?
5. In my experience evolutionists are about as honest as this movie. Try to find one that's spoken out against this movie... try to find even one, in all these decades! They've been tarred by their own brush; as this vast silence condemns them.
6. As just a small example of the movie's dishonesty; in the film Scopes is put in jai... but not in real life. (Bryan dies on the courtroom floor as another example; of which the movie replete from beginning to end. Bryan is asked if he's ever read the 'Origins' by Darwin; he says no, he doesn't need to read stuff like that. In fact Bryan had read Origins many years earlier. And on and on it goes.)
7. In my own opinion this is the most blasphemous movie the americans have ever produced. (As Henry Miller referred to his own work; 'it's a gob of spit in the face of God.)
8. H. L. Mencken (in his obituary of b.) said of Bryan; "he was filled with an almost pathological hatred of all learning..." (Bryan was a highly educated man; and this shows you the kind of price you pay for denying the lunacy of darwinism.)
9. Highly recommended. Christians need to realize evolutionists are lying through their teeth when they promote darwinism as a fact... and that they will go to any lengths to spread lies about both evolution and creation.
10. - but even this movie gives glory to God in its own way. It shows us the truth of what the bible says; "no one speaketh the truth, no not one." (and "the poison of asps is under their tongue.") The bible tells us men (naturally) do not tell the truth if they think it will hurt them; and that they lie whenever they think they can gain from that lie.
11. - the movie came out in 1960. I wonder what influence it had on provoking the creation movement? (The play came out in 1955.) The Genesis Flood came out in 1961. (Although I think it had been several years in the writing.)
12. I assume the movie (and the play?) were produced to 'coincide' with the 100th anniversary of the publication of the 'Origins.' There was a big conference in Chicago in 1959.
13. I'd like to ask christian liberals, who claim to believe in evolution a question. If evolutionists are so willing to lie in a movie like this why do you believe what they say? Why do you believe they're being honest when they write about evolution? Doesn't it ever occur to you that they're lying?
14. - that e's have to resort to lies, deceit and mockery is surely proof they have no scientific or rational arguments to make... it's evidence they don't believe their own theory.
15. - when christians send their children to government (humanist, evolutionist) schools they're robbing their childrren of their inheritance; the priceless inheritance of god's word... of a christian education and a christian worldview.
16. - since evolution is a form of pantheism... and nature worship it has no place in gov. schools... (That are supposedly neutral in religious matters.)
17. - the fact teachers force this piece of propaganda on students is evidence the ruling mindset of the gov. schools is religious in nature. This movie isn't science and its blatantly false.... there is no legitimate reason to show it. It's being shown as anti-christian propaganda and as religious evangelism (for pantheism.)
Resources;
a. Summer for the gods: the Scopes trial and America’s continuing debate over science and religion by Edward J. Larson - reviewed by Carl Wieland
Friday, May 18, 2007
The incredible universe
Quotes and comments;
1.“Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” (D.M.S. Watson, 1929)
- Because this is such a famous quote in the literature I want to take a closer look at it.
- what does incredible mean? I don't know what W. meant by it but the dictionary definition is this;
"Not credible; surpassing belief; too extraordinary and improbable to admit of belief; unlikely; marvelous; fabulous."
- when the evolutionist says belief in creation is incredible; he's really saying the creator isn't worthy of belief, confidence or trust. (ie. not credible)
- the bible implies there is no such thing as an honest evolutionist, but this man comes closer than most as he admits the real reason he affirms a belief in Evolution.
- a thing isn't false just because someone finds it incredible.
- because a man thinks x is unlikely doesn't mean it isn't true. (The examples would be legion.)
- what Watson is really saying is this ''if something is beyond my ability to comprehend it can't be true..." but isn't he really saying; ''if I wouldn't like something to be true I will claim it's not true... I will claim it's too fantastic to be true." But it's not the extraordinary he objects to but a personal creator. (Which is why the bible strongly implies there are no honest atheists; ie. no honest evolutionists. The bible affirms repeatedly that all men know god.)
- reality has nothing to do with our ability to comprehend it. (This is decidedly the case for the materialist. ie. since he's mere matter why does he 'think' he 'should' be able to 'comprehend' the universe? I can't see he has any answer to that question; certainly no logical, coherent or rational one.) This is simply fallacious reasoning. (It is true that if man has been created by god he has a basis for believing he can comprehend the universe.)
- in fact Watson naively assumes he should be able to comprehend the universe. (In my opinion this naive feeling has its source in the fact he was made in the image of god.) Not being theologically sophisticated he takes this 'natural' belief for granted. But it's surely the case that if he were mere matter he would have no such feeling. His naive belief witnesses to the fact he bears the image of god. But because he doesn't want the creator to be Lord in his life he can't give god his due, he can't credit god for his emotional, intellectual and spiritual make up.
- what's incredible is not the creation, but man's stubborn refusal to admit it.
- of course, if instead of teaching evolution in our schools kids were taught that men created the earth (in some terraforming project) they'd say; "wow, that's incredible." I don't think they'd find it hard to believe at all. (It's only the identity of the creator that makes men reluctant to accept the idea of creation.)
Quotes and comments;
1.“Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” (D.M.S. Watson, 1929)
- Because this is such a famous quote in the literature I want to take a closer look at it.
- what does incredible mean? I don't know what W. meant by it but the dictionary definition is this;
"Not credible; surpassing belief; too extraordinary and improbable to admit of belief; unlikely; marvelous; fabulous."
- when the evolutionist says belief in creation is incredible; he's really saying the creator isn't worthy of belief, confidence or trust. (ie. not credible)
- the bible implies there is no such thing as an honest evolutionist, but this man comes closer than most as he admits the real reason he affirms a belief in Evolution.
- a thing isn't false just because someone finds it incredible.
- because a man thinks x is unlikely doesn't mean it isn't true. (The examples would be legion.)
- what Watson is really saying is this ''if something is beyond my ability to comprehend it can't be true..." but isn't he really saying; ''if I wouldn't like something to be true I will claim it's not true... I will claim it's too fantastic to be true." But it's not the extraordinary he objects to but a personal creator. (Which is why the bible strongly implies there are no honest atheists; ie. no honest evolutionists. The bible affirms repeatedly that all men know god.)
- reality has nothing to do with our ability to comprehend it. (This is decidedly the case for the materialist. ie. since he's mere matter why does he 'think' he 'should' be able to 'comprehend' the universe? I can't see he has any answer to that question; certainly no logical, coherent or rational one.) This is simply fallacious reasoning. (It is true that if man has been created by god he has a basis for believing he can comprehend the universe.)
- in fact Watson naively assumes he should be able to comprehend the universe. (In my opinion this naive feeling has its source in the fact he was made in the image of god.) Not being theologically sophisticated he takes this 'natural' belief for granted. But it's surely the case that if he were mere matter he would have no such feeling. His naive belief witnesses to the fact he bears the image of god. But because he doesn't want the creator to be Lord in his life he can't give god his due, he can't credit god for his emotional, intellectual and spiritual make up.
- what's incredible is not the creation, but man's stubborn refusal to admit it.
- of course, if instead of teaching evolution in our schools kids were taught that men created the earth (in some terraforming project) they'd say; "wow, that's incredible." I don't think they'd find it hard to believe at all. (It's only the identity of the creator that makes men reluctant to accept the idea of creation.)
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Evolutionists as Zealots
I want to discuss a brief quote by the evolutionist and anti-creationist Ben Bova.
"Already the creationists are using political clout to tamper with biology teaching. Give them the political power and they will outlaw any ideas that they do not agree with. Evolution is merely one of many ideas that these zealots attack.” (B. Bova, Omni magazine, 10/1980, p. 35)
Comments;
- you notice how no one refers to themself as a zealot :-)
- so I ask you does this 'observation' strike you as scientific? People like Bova like to insist all of life should be scientific; but this is a mere pretense, and one they rapidly abandon everytime they get upset (zealous) about something. They jealously guard the political advantages they have gained in the last couple generations. The zealously guard their faith against all criticisms and opposition.
- the first pretense of this quote is that evolution doctrine is scientific and that creation doctrine is not. (In fact evolution isn't science but philosphy; and ancient philosophy at that. In addition it's anti-scientific; as it's opposed to some basic laws of science; ie. the law of biogenesis, the laws of Thermodynamics, etc.)
- Bova convenientyly ignores the fact if matter is all that exists truth does not and cannot exist. If he were true to his evolutionary worldview (wview)he wouldn't pretend there was any truth or falsehood involved in this (or any other) issue. (Atoms whirling through space can't be true or false, lie or tell the truth. If all is matter there can be no reality, only varying perceptions of the data.)But he likes to preach too much to be consistent with what he believes. He ignores the fact if matter is all there is there can't be right and wrong. Materialism denies the existence of moral truth; but yet Bova (in his zeal) conveniently 'forgets' this. The materialist who moralizes (which is what he's doing) is the biggest hypocrite going.
- Bova ignores the fact that zealous evolutionists have used political clout to throw creation doctrine out of the schools; have used it to attack christianity on a daily basis in those same schools... and have effectively have it outlawed. (So great is the zeal of atheists for their philosophy of life.)
- once upon a time it would have been called 'taxation without representation' to be have no say in what goes on in your community. I guess the idea you can pay to have your opponents force their philosophical views on you is scientific. Apparently bova believes this kind of tyranny is scientific. (We see here why government schools are an abomination. People should pay for the education they want; not get anti-christian education for 'free.' The control of education should be a local matter; in fact an individual or family matter.) There is nothing 'scientific' about a handful of bureaucrats in washington or ottawa deciding what children should be taught. This idea is no more scientific than the theory of evolution; both are elitist philosophies of life that give power to the political elite. But then again; maybe oligarchies are inherently more scientific than decentralized democracies :-)
- never mind that the zealots of the new PC religion are everyday using their poltical power to ban everything they don't agree with.
- Bova calls creationists zealots. This is merely rhetoric; and poor rhetoric at that. Zeal just means ardor, passion; and is cloesly connected to the more commonly used word jealous.
- evolutionists like to brand creationists as zealots; but no one promotes and defends their beliefs with more jealous ardor than evolutionists. Their use of the word zealot isn't accurate, but merely defamatory.... mere name calling. (Is there anything scientific about calling people zealots? is that a scientific term?)
- Bova apparently believes only minorities can be zealots; or that the state religion (of Darwinism) should never be resisted. (Zealots were originally a small group in Israel who resisted the Roman occupation.)
- you might have noticed that no one calls themselves a zealot. This is a term reserved exclusively for others. (This shows the hypocricy of the usage. If a term is only ever used for one's opponents we see evidence of hypocricy.)
- apparently the 'idea' evolutionists can take money from creationists (by force) and use it to propogate evolution is science :=) Such a use of Statist tyranny can't be defended by science. (Despite the pretense of 'scientific socialism' postulated by Engels and Marx.) The idea schools should be Statists institutions has nothing to do with science. (Neither does the idea of tenure :-)
- Bova seems to forget that on this basis of his own wview he is only a clump of matter, a cloud of atoms falling through space. He forgets he has no intellectual basis for any of his pronuncements. Only if there is a creator can there be truth, morality, ethics, reality and justice. If matter is all there is ''whirl is king."
I want to discuss a brief quote by the evolutionist and anti-creationist Ben Bova.
"Already the creationists are using political clout to tamper with biology teaching. Give them the political power and they will outlaw any ideas that they do not agree with. Evolution is merely one of many ideas that these zealots attack.” (B. Bova, Omni magazine, 10/1980, p. 35)
Comments;
- you notice how no one refers to themself as a zealot :-)
- so I ask you does this 'observation' strike you as scientific? People like Bova like to insist all of life should be scientific; but this is a mere pretense, and one they rapidly abandon everytime they get upset (zealous) about something. They jealously guard the political advantages they have gained in the last couple generations. The zealously guard their faith against all criticisms and opposition.
- the first pretense of this quote is that evolution doctrine is scientific and that creation doctrine is not. (In fact evolution isn't science but philosphy; and ancient philosophy at that. In addition it's anti-scientific; as it's opposed to some basic laws of science; ie. the law of biogenesis, the laws of Thermodynamics, etc.)
- Bova convenientyly ignores the fact if matter is all that exists truth does not and cannot exist. If he were true to his evolutionary worldview (wview)he wouldn't pretend there was any truth or falsehood involved in this (or any other) issue. (Atoms whirling through space can't be true or false, lie or tell the truth. If all is matter there can be no reality, only varying perceptions of the data.)But he likes to preach too much to be consistent with what he believes. He ignores the fact if matter is all there is there can't be right and wrong. Materialism denies the existence of moral truth; but yet Bova (in his zeal) conveniently 'forgets' this. The materialist who moralizes (which is what he's doing) is the biggest hypocrite going.
- Bova ignores the fact that zealous evolutionists have used political clout to throw creation doctrine out of the schools; have used it to attack christianity on a daily basis in those same schools... and have effectively have it outlawed. (So great is the zeal of atheists for their philosophy of life.)
- once upon a time it would have been called 'taxation without representation' to be have no say in what goes on in your community. I guess the idea you can pay to have your opponents force their philosophical views on you is scientific. Apparently bova believes this kind of tyranny is scientific. (We see here why government schools are an abomination. People should pay for the education they want; not get anti-christian education for 'free.' The control of education should be a local matter; in fact an individual or family matter.) There is nothing 'scientific' about a handful of bureaucrats in washington or ottawa deciding what children should be taught. This idea is no more scientific than the theory of evolution; both are elitist philosophies of life that give power to the political elite. But then again; maybe oligarchies are inherently more scientific than decentralized democracies :-)
- never mind that the zealots of the new PC religion are everyday using their poltical power to ban everything they don't agree with.
- Bova calls creationists zealots. This is merely rhetoric; and poor rhetoric at that. Zeal just means ardor, passion; and is cloesly connected to the more commonly used word jealous.
- evolutionists like to brand creationists as zealots; but no one promotes and defends their beliefs with more jealous ardor than evolutionists. Their use of the word zealot isn't accurate, but merely defamatory.... mere name calling. (Is there anything scientific about calling people zealots? is that a scientific term?)
- Bova apparently believes only minorities can be zealots; or that the state religion (of Darwinism) should never be resisted. (Zealots were originally a small group in Israel who resisted the Roman occupation.)
- you might have noticed that no one calls themselves a zealot. This is a term reserved exclusively for others. (This shows the hypocricy of the usage. If a term is only ever used for one's opponents we see evidence of hypocricy.)
- apparently the 'idea' evolutionists can take money from creationists (by force) and use it to propogate evolution is science :=) Such a use of Statist tyranny can't be defended by science. (Despite the pretense of 'scientific socialism' postulated by Engels and Marx.) The idea schools should be Statists institutions has nothing to do with science. (Neither does the idea of tenure :-)
- Bova seems to forget that on this basis of his own wview he is only a clump of matter, a cloud of atoms falling through space. He forgets he has no intellectual basis for any of his pronuncements. Only if there is a creator can there be truth, morality, ethics, reality and justice. If matter is all there is ''whirl is king."
Monday, May 14, 2007
Creation vs. science so called
An item I read recently on the Web caught my attention; not for its profundity but for its absurdity.
1. "...to require teachers to give serious consideration to creationism is as unjustified as requiring them to teach other doctrines – such as astrology, alchemy and phrenology...” (Stephen G. Brush, The Science Teacher 4/1981, p. 33)
- this is comical because all three of these (what B. calls pseudo-sciences) were once considered science; and cutting edge science at that.
- the bible condemns and forbids astrology; and did so while it was considered the science of its day.... when it was very influential in the highest political circles of the ancient world. The bible forbad astrology long before John Dewey and the Humanists came to town. (In fact astrology is just the idea men are controlled by material forces; which in fact is very similar to modern secular beliefs of environmental determinism.)
- one of the major reasons science developed in the west was because the bible forbad magic and astrology, numerology and fortune telling.
- Phrenology is an expression of materialism; which the bible is utterly opposed to. P. was intended to be an empirical and scientific psychology; a secular substitute for ethics and for biblical morality. It was based on the idea there is no mind as such, and that mental abilities are really just actions of the brain; that it's the phyaical brain that is all that matters. (Not much different than the ideas of our day in fact. In fact something akin to phrenology IS taught in the schools. If matter is all that exists; if there is no mind but only brain, then some form of 'phrenology' is all there is left to the materialist. It makes little difference whether he's 'reading' internal configurations' or external bumps.)
- Alchemy of course was considered hi-tech science at one time; even if it was surrounded with all kinds of magic, ritual, superstition and the like. (One might call it a precursor of the modern idea of inorganic evolution; an idea I consider as absurd as alchemy... if not more absurd as the changes in inorganic evolution are supposed to have occurred without any intelligent assistance :-)
- the bible tells us to judge men by their fruits; ie. by the lives they lead... not by the bumps on their skull. (And not by the words they speak; their 'pc' professions.) As always the bible is far superior to any of the humanist substitutes men invent to replace it.
- the true science of orgins is creation. The Truth of the matter is the world was created. It's only because men have rebelled against their creator that they reject creation for the humanist substitute of evolution. Calling e. science doesn't make it true. (Which it obviously isn't; having been refuted more thoroughly than any theory on record.)
- In fact many pseudo sciences are taught in the government schools; ie. Marxism, materialism, evolutionism, and the like.
Note; quote taken from 'The Baloney Detector: your guide to clear thinking' (A valuable online resource; where David Coppedge uses the evolution/creation debate to teach people thinking skills... and how to read more wisely.)
An item I read recently on the Web caught my attention; not for its profundity but for its absurdity.
1. "...to require teachers to give serious consideration to creationism is as unjustified as requiring them to teach other doctrines – such as astrology, alchemy and phrenology...” (Stephen G. Brush, The Science Teacher 4/1981, p. 33)
- this is comical because all three of these (what B. calls pseudo-sciences) were once considered science; and cutting edge science at that.
- the bible condemns and forbids astrology; and did so while it was considered the science of its day.... when it was very influential in the highest political circles of the ancient world. The bible forbad astrology long before John Dewey and the Humanists came to town. (In fact astrology is just the idea men are controlled by material forces; which in fact is very similar to modern secular beliefs of environmental determinism.)
- one of the major reasons science developed in the west was because the bible forbad magic and astrology, numerology and fortune telling.
- Phrenology is an expression of materialism; which the bible is utterly opposed to. P. was intended to be an empirical and scientific psychology; a secular substitute for ethics and for biblical morality. It was based on the idea there is no mind as such, and that mental abilities are really just actions of the brain; that it's the phyaical brain that is all that matters. (Not much different than the ideas of our day in fact. In fact something akin to phrenology IS taught in the schools. If matter is all that exists; if there is no mind but only brain, then some form of 'phrenology' is all there is left to the materialist. It makes little difference whether he's 'reading' internal configurations' or external bumps.)
- Alchemy of course was considered hi-tech science at one time; even if it was surrounded with all kinds of magic, ritual, superstition and the like. (One might call it a precursor of the modern idea of inorganic evolution; an idea I consider as absurd as alchemy... if not more absurd as the changes in inorganic evolution are supposed to have occurred without any intelligent assistance :-)
- the bible tells us to judge men by their fruits; ie. by the lives they lead... not by the bumps on their skull. (And not by the words they speak; their 'pc' professions.) As always the bible is far superior to any of the humanist substitutes men invent to replace it.
- the true science of orgins is creation. The Truth of the matter is the world was created. It's only because men have rebelled against their creator that they reject creation for the humanist substitute of evolution. Calling e. science doesn't make it true. (Which it obviously isn't; having been refuted more thoroughly than any theory on record.)
- In fact many pseudo sciences are taught in the government schools; ie. Marxism, materialism, evolutionism, and the like.
Note; quote taken from 'The Baloney Detector: your guide to clear thinking' (A valuable online resource; where David Coppedge uses the evolution/creation debate to teach people thinking skills... and how to read more wisely.)
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Chimps are more evolved than humans
Yes; that's what I read this morning in the local paper (Vancouver Sun).
Comments;
- here we see what happens when people imagine 'science' is the only avenue to knowledge.
- here we see what happens when people refuse to abandon a false theory; ie. they just make it more and more absurd as they try to save it; they make more and more absurd claims based on false assumptions and presuppositions.
- try to imagine that claim having been made 100 or so years ago; no one would have accepted it. But today darwinism is so entrenched in our society that no one bats an eye when absurd claims like this are made. There seems to be no critique of the theory in academic circles, and so people can make any ridiculous claim they want.
- this is horrible science, but great comedy. (I have no doubt chimps are more reality based than evolutionists at any rate :-)
Yes; that's what I read this morning in the local paper (Vancouver Sun).
Comments;
- here we see what happens when people imagine 'science' is the only avenue to knowledge.
- here we see what happens when people refuse to abandon a false theory; ie. they just make it more and more absurd as they try to save it; they make more and more absurd claims based on false assumptions and presuppositions.
- try to imagine that claim having been made 100 or so years ago; no one would have accepted it. But today darwinism is so entrenched in our society that no one bats an eye when absurd claims like this are made. There seems to be no critique of the theory in academic circles, and so people can make any ridiculous claim they want.
- this is horrible science, but great comedy. (I have no doubt chimps are more reality based than evolutionists at any rate :-)
Sunday, April 8, 2007
Thinking about Creation
98.2 Percent of Evolutionist Arguments are Misleading.
You hear the claim in the popular press every other day that apes and human beings have a 98 percent similarity in DNA. This claim is probably bogus, but even if it were true it would only be misleading if not meaningless. (You can find some background material here.)
- This 'fact' they claim shows apes and men are really the same; and that evolution theory is true. This arguement (it's not really an arguement) is utterly misleading, (Adler once wrote a book; 'The difference of man and the difference it makes') as it trivializes the importance of differences.
- I'll give you an example of how misleading it is; I can say that most things on earth are composed mainly of water; does that mean there's no real difference between a man and a pond?
- this is all just a numbers game, and only appears to have relevance. Two chemical compounds can be 99.9 percent identical, but one be harmless to ingest, and the other fatal. Two numbers can be almost identical but one wins the lottery and the other wins nothing.
- one can make a computer and a washing machine from identical parts; does that mean they're the same?
- one has to ask the evolutionists some questions; ''if this is as meaningful as you claim why do men do a million and one things apes don't do?'' ie. read books, have governments, write endless laws, have courts, study logic, read poetry, name the stars, build microscopes and telescopes, study history, do archaeology, etc. etc.
- why some people think this is wonderful news is hard to say. ("The heart is deceitful and wicked above all things.") You'd think this would be a source of horror not glee. If man is just an ape his life would be as meaningless as that of an ape. If people really believe what they say about this why don't they abandon civilization and take up munching on grass? It's ever the case with evolutionists that they say one thing but do another. We can see by the way they live that they don't really believe what they say. I'll give just one example out of thousands that could be given. Every year in the u.s.a. alone thousands of new laws are passed. No ape has ever passed a single law in all recorded time. If this 98.2 percent figure is meaningful shouldn't apes pass 98.2 percent as many laws as human beings?
- if these numbers are meaningful why aren't apes 98.2 percent as evil as man? (in fact why are they so utterly unlike men?)
- if this tells us anything at all it tells us how important seemingly small differences can be; but to even say this would be misleading. We can make guns or plows from steel; the fact they're made of almost the same material is meaningless.
- but why talk about chemistry and biology, why not talk about physics? The evolutionist could say "it's a well known fact that apes and men share exactly the same particles... 100 percent the same... but creationists won't admit it.''
- ''it's a well known scientific fact that apes and men are made of the same minerals and chemicals but creationists won't admit it.'' etc.
You hear the claim in the popular press every other day that apes and human beings have a 98 percent similarity in DNA. This claim is probably bogus, but even if it were true it would only be misleading if not meaningless. (You can find some background material here.)
- This 'fact' they claim shows apes and men are really the same; and that evolution theory is true. This arguement (it's not really an arguement) is utterly misleading, (Adler once wrote a book; 'The difference of man and the difference it makes') as it trivializes the importance of differences.
- I'll give you an example of how misleading it is; I can say that most things on earth are composed mainly of water; does that mean there's no real difference between a man and a pond?
- this is all just a numbers game, and only appears to have relevance. Two chemical compounds can be 99.9 percent identical, but one be harmless to ingest, and the other fatal. Two numbers can be almost identical but one wins the lottery and the other wins nothing.
- one can make a computer and a washing machine from identical parts; does that mean they're the same?
- one has to ask the evolutionists some questions; ''if this is as meaningful as you claim why do men do a million and one things apes don't do?'' ie. read books, have governments, write endless laws, have courts, study logic, read poetry, name the stars, build microscopes and telescopes, study history, do archaeology, etc. etc.
- why some people think this is wonderful news is hard to say. ("The heart is deceitful and wicked above all things.") You'd think this would be a source of horror not glee. If man is just an ape his life would be as meaningless as that of an ape. If people really believe what they say about this why don't they abandon civilization and take up munching on grass? It's ever the case with evolutionists that they say one thing but do another. We can see by the way they live that they don't really believe what they say. I'll give just one example out of thousands that could be given. Every year in the u.s.a. alone thousands of new laws are passed. No ape has ever passed a single law in all recorded time. If this 98.2 percent figure is meaningful shouldn't apes pass 98.2 percent as many laws as human beings?
- if these numbers are meaningful why aren't apes 98.2 percent as evil as man? (in fact why are they so utterly unlike men?)
- if this tells us anything at all it tells us how important seemingly small differences can be; but to even say this would be misleading. We can make guns or plows from steel; the fact they're made of almost the same material is meaningless.
- but why talk about chemistry and biology, why not talk about physics? The evolutionist could say "it's a well known fact that apes and men share exactly the same particles... 100 percent the same... but creationists won't admit it.''
- ''it's a well known scientific fact that apes and men are made of the same minerals and chemicals but creationists won't admit it.'' etc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)