Who is man? Why is he the way he is?

Creation and the body

In the modern world there is a great deal of speculation about who or what human beings are. There is much speculation of what mind is, what intelligence is. People ask whether man can exist without a body, and other questions. We even have people who claim man 'should' evolve past being human, and become a machine. In my view most of this thinking is fallacious and based on a confusion over mankind's real nature.

Quotes and comments;

1. 'Many have in recent years discussed the nature of the body/spirit interaction. Herman Bavinck (1854—1921) came to a conclusion which brings out a nice distinction with intriguing implications.'
"The body, although it is not the cause of all these activities of the spirit, is the instrument of them. It is not the ear which hears but the spirit of man which hears through the ears. . . . To the extent, therefore, that the body serves as a tool and instrument of the spirit, it exhibits a certain resemblance to and gives us some notion of the way in which God is busy in the world.'' - Bavinck

- A question I find intriguing question is this; 'why do human beings have the particular bodies they have? To elaborate; why do we have the particular senses we have? Why do we experience the matter/energy universe in the way we do? Why is our hearing so acute? Why is our vision what it is? Why so many connections in the brain? Why is human memory so great? Why is our sense of music so exquisite? Why do we have such great creativity in music and in the arts? Why is human potential so great? Why do we look as we do? Why do we feel as we do? etc. etc.
- few people (even Christians) seem to ask these questions. (I think we see in this, the pernicious influence of Darwinism at work.)

- Bavinck seems to be saying that the human body (i.e. the way it works, its capacities, etc.) gives us a glimpse into the workings of God in the universe. What do I mean?
- I assume god has a purpose for giving man the faculties he has. (I think it was George Macdonald who said, if god wanted to see a play he would create a Shakespeare. If this has some validity, then God has created us for some purpose; has created our bodies the way they are for some purpose.
- Can it be that He wants to see through our eyes? hear through our ears? etc. But why the specifics of the human body? If we take the bible at its word I think the implication is obvious; the human body (at least at the time of the original creation, and before the Fall) is the best possible vehicle for this purpose.
- In other words; the human body was made perfect; a perfect vehicle for experiencing the universe; for experiencing the physical universe; the perfect vehicle for life in the material realm. (i.e. as the earth was the perfect planet, so man was the perfect body, the perfect vehicle for an intelligent Spirit to become incarnate in.)

- When I say the 'human' body was a 'perfect' vehicle I'm implying this was the opinion of God; or this was his view of the matter; at least for His purposes. Man then is the perfect 'fit' between the material universe and Spirit. [The 'Darwinian' answer, that all things that exist do so because they led to reproductive success, makes no sense to me. In no way can this adequately explain the specifics of the human body and the human person. Evolutionary theory can't account for the greatness of man; they can't account for his potential; it can't account for Mozart, Beethoven, etc.]

- it's not merely' that the universe was designed, or that man was designed; but that the 'fit' between them was designed. i.e. they were designed with this 'fit' in mind. The universe is what it is because of what man is; man is what he is because of what the universe it. And this 'fit'? It has the specific nature it has because of who God is, and because of what his plans for the universe are. (Specifically; this 'fit' has its specific nature or quality, because from the very beginning, from before the universe came into being, the Incarnation of one member of the Trinity was part of the Plan. Man is what he is, his 'body' is what it is, because God had determined that the human form was the most perfect way for God to experience the physical universe. i.e. the best vehicle for God to walk the earth, to experience material existence.

- I think I'm accurate in claiming that this is the view that Arthur Custance held; or at least close to it. (I'm sympathetic to it.)

- this is clearly speculative; but I think it's far closer to the truth than the Materialist view that man is who he is (has the body he has) simply by way of random chance and chemical accident.

Notes;
1. Arthur Custance; Journey out of Time/ch. 9/p.12
- the post above was just some thoughts I had on reading his chapter 'The interdependence of spirit and body: the biblical and theological view.'
2. 'Since man was designed for life on earth and appointed its "manager" (Genesis 1:26(56)), he naturally was equipped with a physical means of interaction with the material world.' - A. Custance
- I think it's accurate to say that man is what he is, his body is what 'it' is, because of man's appointed role on earth. (e.g. mathematics is an ability man has because of the command to take dominion over the earth; musical ability exists because of the command to glorify the Creator; and so on.)
3. ' In his discussion of the Judaic beliefs, Gundry [R.H.] observes that when we turn to Jewish literature of the Intertestamental and New Testament period, God is seen as making the body to suit the spirit which it contains "just as the potter suits a vessel to its intended contents." [Ch.9/p. 17]
- if this is true, the implication would seem to be that man's 'body' is what it is, because of who the Son [of God] is; ie. because who Jesus is. Can we say anything more specific? It would seem that man's body is as it is because of the nature of the work Jesus had to do in his incarnation, in his earthly life. (e.g. man is sensitive emotionally because Jesus had to be; logical because Jesus had to be; capable of love because Jesus needed to be; capable of courage because Jesus needed to be, etc. )
- one might object that this doesn't explain why human hearing is so great, or eyesight so great, or why man's musical or mathematical potential is so great. I can't think of an answer to this; so perhaps the above is only a partial answer to this question.

The Existence of the Soul

Materialists (and this would include most evolutionists) deny the existence of the soul. They claim they've looked for it, but can't find it; and thus they 'regretfully' inform us that Christianity has been refuted. One of my favorite writers is Arthur Custance. He disagrees with the Materialist claim, and I agree with him. The following quotes are taken from his book 'Journey out of Time'.

Quotes and comments;

1. 'But as Paul Weiss rightly observed, the trouble may be that we have not yet designed the right kind of research tools or methods:
"Maybe our concept of our nervous system is equally inadequate and insufficient, because so long as you use only electrical instruments, you get only electrical answers; if you use chemical detectors, you get chemical answers; and if you determine numerical and geometric values, you get numerical and geometrical answers. So perhaps we have not yet found the particular kind of instrument that tells us the next unknown." (1.)

- Weiss wonders if the reason we haven't detected the soul is that we haven't developed the right instruments; i.e. instruments capable of detecting it. Maybe, but maybe we have 'instruments' that reveal the existence of the soul; maybe things like literature, poetry, art and music, are the things that reveal to us the human soul. (i.e. we don't look for chemicals, electricity, etc. but we look for reason, language, creativity, beauty, music, etc.)

- in other words, 'War and Peace' can't be written by chemicals obeying chemical laws. If a creature is capable of great art it thus reveals to us evidence of having a soul.

- a problem might be defining the soul. The word soul seems to stand for what is supra-animal in man; ie. his specifically human abilities. (e.g. his consciousness, self-consciousness, consciousness of others, his ability to think, imagine, reason, his abilities to be creative, his abilities to use language, his abilities to use mathematics, etc.)

- soul isn't so much an object, than it is a complex of abilities.

Notes;
1. Arthur Custance; Journey out of Time - Arthur Custance/ch. 8/p.2 [Free online]
2. some people might object and say birds have music, so this either proves birds have souls, or that men do not. I deny the birds (animals) have music. There is no meaningful relationship or connection between a genetically given 'signal' system and music. (I'm listening to 'The well tempered clavier' by Bach as I write this.) Music is a difficult thing to write about, but we all recognize the difference between the mechanical chirping of birds and great music.
3. Some people might object to my proposal and say that many animals have beauty. So they do; but they don't create beauty, they are beautiful. This is akin to the difference between a beautiful young woman, and a painting of a beautiful young woman. The one isn't art, while the other is. Only the human soul can consciously and freely create beauty. Created beauty is thus evidence of the soul.
4. We might say that the soul can do what mere matter in motion cannot.
5. ''It is seemingly impossible to quantify human behavior. Thus psychology is doomed to remain an art of
uncertain value so long as it depends upon introspection and observation only. There are no instruments yet
designed to quantify the almost infinite variety and complexity of response of which the human psyche is
capable. While the behavior of the body is often highly predictable (and so encourages "mechanistic" interpretations), the response of the human soul very seldom is . . . which suggests it is not operating as a mechanism and therefore almost certainly does not arise as an outgrowth of pure mechanism in the first place.'' [A.C. ch. 8. page 2; the intro to the Weiss quote.]

Darwinism and the Invention of Delusion

In this post I'll try (briefly) to make the case Darwinism is based on the argument from silence fallacy. To do so I'll look at a few comments made by Gines Morata (a research scientist from Spain).

Quotes and comments;

1. " I often tell my students that they do not have to invent anything; in biology everything has already been invented. What they have to do is find out the solution chosen by evolution.

2. 'In the context of this statement, Morata was talking about his enjoyment of science as a kind of detective work. “The interesting aspect of it is that biological solutions are unpredictable and often very inelegant; there is a lot of tinkering in biology,” he asserted. “This is because there is no design, only chance and necessity.” As examples, he pointed to “useless” DNA, introns and genetic subdivisions that do not appear associated with morphological landmarks. (1.)

- Morata is a prime example of evolutionists developing idea based on ignorance; i.e. the so called argument from silence. i.e. evolutionists base their theory of origins on the little they know (or think they know) since they (we) know so very little the theory can't possibly be right; and is certain to be wrong. (This is like basing your idea of ancient sea travel on the wrecks you find; since (up till recently) you only found them in shallow water it was considered wisdom to say in ancient times men only sailed along the coastlines and never across open bodies of deep water. We now find this is utterly untrue. Evolutionists are in the same boat; they developed their theories (sub theories within E. theory) based on a similar ignorance. We are now finding out (repeatedly) that these theories are wrong. It's my view that the grand evolutionary theory (macro-evolution) is similarly an argument from silence.

Notes;
1. Reference; Evolution as Inventor Creation/Evolution headlines 12/05/2006
2. Morata is guilty of personification when he talks about nature 'inventing' things. Only intelligent persons invent things. (I don't consider monkeys using sticks inventing things; they certainly don't invent sticks :=)
3. evolution isn't a person (one gets weary of saying these things.) The fact evolutionists so often commit these errors shows how wrong headed their thinking is. (It often seems to me, that false ideas lead to fallacious grammar.)
- 'evolution' doesn't choose anything; certainly not solutions.
4. one wonders on what basis he decides the 'solutions' of nature aren't inelegant? which of his (selfish) genes is making this judgment?
5. one wonders how he knows there is no design; and which of his genes is responsible for this conclusion? and on what basis?
- evolutionists who follow Dawkins are endlessly (or so it seems) telling us we're just collections of selfish genes, that don't have us in mind, who use us for their own purposes... but when they sit down to write they seem to totally forget all this priceless knowledge. Why is it then that they don't write in a manner consistent with what they claim to believe? The simple answer is that they can't. To try to do so leads to incoherence and absurdity. (If you doubt me; try it.)
6. How does morata know what is 'useless' as he puts it? He doesn't; he's just using (again) an argument from silence. ie. since I can't see any use for X, there isn't one. This is one of the worst, and most common, mistakes made by evolutionists. (Over and over it's shown to be wrong.)
- one would like to know which of his genes is telling him this.
7. Since nature has supposedly invented everything, I wonder if it invented Darwinism :=) Did it invent soccer? Pop music? Tiddly winks?

The Flying Spaghetti Monster gets shot down

Many atheists in our day have taken to ridiculing the idea of a creator God, by way of inventing some very silly (fallacious) analogies. The most popular of these is probably the so called Flying Spaghetti Monster. (FSM) We're told this being created the world. People who doubt this are told to disprove it. "Since you can't disprove it, it must be real,'' we're told.
- the idea is that god is no more real than the FSM.

I'm astounded anyone thinks this is a good argument, or a meaningful analogy. The analogy has a fatal flaw; namely that hundreds of millions of people believe in God, while not a single person believes in the FSM. How anyone can think this is a good argument against theism I have no idea.

Why do people believe in a Creator? They do so on the basis of evidence and intuition. (No one believes in the FSM on the basis of evidence and intuition.) We also need to remember that atheists believe in a Materialist worldview on the basis of intuition. You can't strictly disprove either materialism or creation.

- If materialists want to deny the value of the theist's intuition (of God), they've at the same time, denied the value of their own intuition (that there is no God).

Notes;
1. There are many reasons this is a false analogy; for instance (as others have pointed out) Christians don't believe in God because His existence can't be disproved!
- e.g. Fearing the Spaghetti Monster - by Rachel Tullock

2. It's only intellectual buffoons like Dawkins who take these silly analogies seriously. No serious philosopher that I know of does.

Design as a tool in scientific thinking

Intelligent design as a tool in scientific thinking

Evolutionists often say to creationists; 'well how then do you do science if you're a creationist? How can you use ID to do science? Give us an example. In this post I'll try to do this. (Though I admit to not being a scientist.) I'll look at the subject of dreams. The brief answer of how you use the concept of design to do science is that, put simply, you look for non-Darwinian explanations for discoveries made by researchers. I'll compare how the Darwinist storyteller looks for an explanation of some dreaming aspect - and how an ID exponent can give an alternative explanation.

- I'm always annoyed by the fact that in most 'science' done today no only Darwinian biological explanations are considered. I consider this a bad way to think, a bad way to do science. If the basic assumption is wrong, all the this stuff is fallacious, almost a complete waste of time. The insistence that only evolutionary accounts need be considered, leads to ignoring other accounts that are far more reasonable.

Let's take a look at how one might do this. I'll use a couple examples from the decidedly Darwinian book 'The mind at Night' by Andrea Block. (A book about the dreaming mind.) In it we see Darwinian speculation run amuck.

Quotes and comments

1. 'Nonetheless, dreaming's roots in that basic animal model can be seen in the worldwide human propensity to have frequent dreams of being chased or confronting other frightening situations, according to Antti Revonsuo, a cognitive neuroscientist at the University of Turku in Finland.' (p/72)

- Have these people never seen children at play? Children are forever running; chasing each other, and being chased. Isn't this a more likely explanation? People, and especially children, are commonly chased by dogs, or get afraid that barking dogs will chase them. Literature is full of chase scenes, and this is especially true of movies and tv. (There are the 'chases' of war; there are all the cases of parents chasing children, trying to catch them, to give them a smack, or drag them into the house; etc. We need not go begging to Darwin to explain chases.

2. 'But how could mere mental rehearsal of survival skills be effective in improving those skills if they are just imagined, not physically carried out? The answer is that the brain is fooled into believing that its motor commands in dream plots actually have been followed. For instance, when we are being chased by a tiger or a threatening stranger in a dream and our brain issues the command to run or climb a tree to safety, the unique physiological conditions that prevail during sleep paralyze our muscles, preventing us from carrying out the command, but the brain nonetheless produces the experience of movement by sending copies of those motor commands to our sensory systems. (p/72)

- Let's see now; this would mean (since it's so undeniably true) that people who are good at flying dreams would be able to fly... or at the very least, be able to fly better than people who aren't good at flying dreams, or who don't have flying dreams at all. Gee; I wonder if anyone's studied this. I wonder if I could get a grant to study it :=)
- and what of all those dreams where the person just freezes and can't run? or the dreams where people wake up before getting caught?
- gee; wouldn't it be kind of confusing to proto man's small, evolving brain to imagine he's running when he isn't running :=)

3. "Dreamed action is experientially and neurophysiologically real," says Revonsuo. (He's talking about how dreaming about escaping a tiger by climbing a tree could help 'wire' the brain in some advantageous way.)

- climbing a tree in a dream won't help you climb one in real life. Being able to climb a tree is a skill one has to learn in the real world. (Apparently our professor hasn't climbed many trees :=)
- climbing a tree takes strength and agility, and just dreaming about climbing won't increase your strength one iota.
- let's not forget that the trees in dreams aren't real trees; and if one hasn't ever climbed a tree the 'climbing' a person does in his dreams isn't anything approaching real tree climbing.
- climbing a tree in a dream wouldn't help one do anything in real life; this is nonsense.

4. 'First, consider what is notably absent from our dreams. Studies conducted by Ernest Hartmann, a dream researcher at Tufts University, have shown that in adult dreams, walking, talking to friends, and
having sex were represented in dreams about as often as in real life, but reading, writing, and arithmetic rarely if ever appear, even though the dreamers in the study typically spent six hours daily engaged in
activities that fall into the three R's category. Revonsuo suggests these parts of waking life aren't reflected in most dreams because they are cultural latecomers.' - (p/74)

- you sometimes wonder if people read what they write! Block has told us repeatedly that 'tests' are a very common dream; e.g. being in a room being tested on a subject one hasn't studied and the like. (Did she forget having written that?)
- if this theory were true there would be none of these kinds (i.e. 'literate) of dreams. (I've had lots of dreams about books; reading titles off of books, being in libraries and bookstores; reading out of books.)
- a far more reasonable explanation (with unfortunately isn't nearly as exciting as these Darwinian fables) is that reading and writing aren't activities that are dangerous or anxiety ridden. i.e. they don't produce great emotions; they aren't powerfully emotional activities; and that this is why they aren't featured often in our dreams.

5. Speculations
- I think it's best to start with the idea there different kinds of dreams, and that these dreams have different purposes.
- it might be helpful to see the 'mind at night' as fulfilling purposes similar to a computer maintenance program. (e.g. defragging, system checks, error checks, compression, back up snapshots, etc.)
- I wonder if the 'mind at night' doesn't do the work of an internal monitor; checking up not only on the brain, but on the whole body; and perhaps using dreams to report on 'problems' it finds. (e.g. I once had a dream of a tooth breaking a few weeks before it happened for real.)
- as a creationist I think it's likely that the 'dreaming mind' has suffered some damage since mankind was first created; and I wonder what a more perfect dreaming mind would be like. (Perhaps in very 'hallucinagenic' dreams we see evidence of malfunction.)

Notes;
1. The mind at night - Andrea Block
2. Unfortunately; almost all the 'analysis' in this book is based on the belief the speculations of Darwin are correct. (If evolutionary theory is false, as I'm certain it is, then all of this analysis is wrong, utterly false, and worthless. But heh, it's real science, and that's all that matters. It doesn't matter if these 'ideas' are correct, but only that they're 'scientific'.
- over and over in the book people talk as if they could know about dreams hundreds of millions of years ago. Maybe they have some fossilized dreams they can show us.)

Creation vs. the mythology of hate crimes

Contra hate crimes (9/30/08)

In the morning rag we see yet another call that so called 'hate crimes' be punished more severely than 'ordinary' crimes. (Which according to the mythology aren't hate based.) I consider this a joke; as these are the same people who continually affirm relativism, and who deny that moral absolutes exist, or even that truth exists. (These things only exist when certain 'advocates' want them to I guess.)

Quotes and comments;

1. "Vancouver police have recommended that the case be prosecuted as a hate crime, said Const. Tim Fanning. The Criminal Code of Canada gives the courts the authority to impose heavier sentences if there's evidence the crime was motivated by hate based on such things as race, religion or sexual orientation." (A homosexual was assaulted; supposedly for holding hands with another male.)

- while I don't deny that certain crimes are motivated by hate; the current mythology of hate crimes depends on who gets to define a hate crime. This is the crux of the controversy. Many crimes that I would consider 'hate crimes' are never called hate crimes; e.g. burning down churches. (Because so many of these church arsonists are homosexuals? Because the political Left hates Christians?)

- social workers stealing children who have been spanked, or sending their parents to jail, can be seen as a hate crime, attacks on homeschooling, on Christian schools, and on and on.

- hate crime legislation is just the radical Left taking care of its own; and exacting revenge on groups it doesn't like.

- in the USSR (where our pols get most of their ideas) there were all kinds of hate crimes; i.e. anything said about the ruling elite or anything the state did. To protest slave labor camps was a hate crime; to denounce communism was a hate crime, etc.

- so called 'hate crimes' depend on reading men's minds. (Pretty strange for a so called scientific age.) This is nothing but witchcraft... pretending judges have supernatural powers. Once you let judges (etc.) read people's minds you have lost all liberty... at least potentially. Again this was done in the Soviet Union; where gov. pols attributed all kinds of criminal motivations to commonplace behavior. Law must deal with behavior only; it cannot enter the realm of psychology and motivation and thoughts. This leads to the nightmare world of the totalitarian state.

- When a child is seduced, molested or raped by a homosexual, is it ever called a hate crime? In my experience this never happens, (although it's the worst hate crime there is.)

- So how is the subject of creation relevant to this story? The fact man was created by God, and was made in God's image is basic to all of life; and the subject of crime is no different. The only standard for law is God's holy character. It is only God who can provide man with absolute moral truth. Once human beings stray from God's law (revealed in the Bible) they run into endless errors. Both hatred and crime must be defined by God. Since all things belong to God, man himself belongs to God, and has a duty to obey his creator.

- it's easy to see how absurd this is; just imagine if the 'Right' were allowed to have exclusive right to define hate crimes! (Or some other group hated by the secular, socialist Left.)

- the idea of 'hate crimes' is intellectual and philosophical buffoonery.

Notes;
1. Source; Vancouver Sun; "Vancouver police have recommended that the case be prosecuted as a hate crime, said Const. Tim Fanning. The Criminal Code of Canada gives the courts the authority to impose heavier sentences if there's evidence the crime was motivated by hate based on such things as race, religion or sexual orientation.'
2. "It is a repulsive crime when people are attacked because of their colour, religion or sexual preference," Fanning said in an e-mail. "It is a crime committed out of ignorance and will never be tolerated."
3. I in no way condone the beating that went on here; we have laws against beating people up, and that's all that's needed. (In terms of christian theology, to simplify; law deals with outward behavior, and sin deals with what we might call inward behavior; with thoughts, feelings, motivations. e.g. murder is against the law, but rage is sin; adultery is against the law, but lust is sin. etc.)
4. "They that hate me love death.'' (i.e. says God)

The Pretense of Materialism

I've long agreed with philosophers who claim that Materialism is a fallacious theory, and one that should be tossed on the scrap heap. To illustrate this point consider the following quotes.

Quotes and comments;

1. 'At an appearance at a local bookstore in Washington D.C., a visitor asked Dawkins whether it was consistent for him to believe in determinism and then take credit for writing his book. [The God Delusion] Access Research Network tells how Dawkins hemmed and hawed, and then conceded he had to live as if determinism is false, and society must treat people as if they are responsible for their actions. He admitted “it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable.” (1.)

- I've long been tired of responding to Dawkins; but I suppose one must point out the obvious flaw in his argument. He admits to being inconsistent (a major intellectual flaw surely) but on the other hand he castigates Christians for being inconsistent! This is a joke. You can't both absolve yourself of sin X and then attack others for it. Give me a break.

- Materialism is self-refuting. As it involves believing contradictory things it can't be lived out. Isn't that evidence Richard, that it's not true? One would think so.

- Who or what is this 'society' Richard, that supposedly governs us? I thought selfish genes were in control.

- Society isn't a person Richard. You claim to rely on 'reason' for all your wisdom and knowledge, but then you engage in gross errors like personifying society. That's a logical fallacy (as I assume you know) and therefore does not qualify as reason.

- To pretend a is non-a is also a logical fallacy; and thus not reason; i.e. it's fallacious reasoning. To pretend man is free when he is not sounds a lot like religion to me; and false religion at that.

- to treat people as responsible when they're not is also a logical fallacy; unreason on stilts. This too smacks of the religion you say you hate. In fact you don't hate religion, you hate Christianity. This make-believe nonsense of pretending x is really y is religion of an idiot sort; a religion for people who don't want to face the truth of creation.

- Dawkins is continually chiding Christians for not being consistent (e.g. if they believe in heaven why don't they want to die? etc.) but yet he admits to being wildly inconsistent himself. No honest person can take such hypocricy seriously.

- Dawkins pillories c's for many various reasons; the joke is that he's engaging in moralism... when he has No basis for doing so. This is intellectual charlatanism. If his model of reality were correct there would be no moral truths, no moral realities; there couldn't be. The man has no right to give a moral critique of anything... but yet he writes voluminously on the subject. Are we supposed to belive he's so clueless he doesn't see the problem? Of course he does; he just pretends he doesn't see a problem. (eg. how can he write a book and make a lot of money, if he doesn't pretend there's no problem?) I'm sorry; this is nothing but a farce.

- Dawkins is all about pretense; his entire argument against 'religion' depends on a definition of religion that he hand picks to be favorable to his case. In my opinion his definition (religion is a belief in a supreme being) is meaningless. I think the word religion itself is bogus; or has become so in recent decades. A much better term (certainly if our aim is to communicate) is world view. (But maybe Dawkins has no desire to communicate.) If we take his book and replace the word religion with world view it would make no sense. The reason for this is simple; his argument is dishonest... and thus makes no sense. He likes to ignore the fact the communists (Marxists, Maoists, etc.) murdered approximately 200 million people in the 20th century alone. Why? Because of their world view beliefs.

- More pretense? Dawkins claims men are slaves of selfish genes, who manipulate them (in all ways, even in their thoughts) for the sake of their own reproductive success. Having delivered himself of the strangest bit of metaphysics known to man, he then goes on to pretend that 'truth' exists, and that he knows what it is! Can the man not see the contradiction. If his nightmare scenario were true, there would be no truth; there could be no truth. But since Dawkins doesn't mind pretending, he pretends this isn't the case, he pretends truth exists... and that he has a patent on it. I can't begin to take such twaddle seriously.

Notes;
1. reference source; Darwinist Anti-Creation Tactics Increase in fervor (C/E Headlines; 2006)

The faith of an atheist

How Atheistic Is Darwinism?

Quotes and comments;

1. 'Many evolutionary biologists argue that the theory of evolution is religiously neutral. Why then, does Nature, arguably the most widely read pro-evolution journal in the world, seem to go out of its way to glorify atheism and present religion as an evolutionary artifact? Clearly, whatever evolved as an adaptation by an unguided process cannot have any claim to Truth or correspondence to reality. Faith is contrasted with science, the closest thing man can ever come to knowledge of what is really out there. It goes without saying that this assumption leads to a completely atheistic view of the universe. Consider the latest issue:

2. 'Rapprochement or human sacrifice? In an Editorial in the July 12 issue,1 Nature praised theistic evolutionist Francis Collins of the Human Genome Project for “reaching out, from an exalted position in the world of science, to the realm of faith” in his new book, The Language of God (Free Press, 2006). While calling his overture a “laudable ambition,” the editors also expressed anti-religious sentiments when criticizing the moral positions of religious leaders who oppose presumably scientific positions about stem cells and condom use:

- there is nothing scientific about stem cells; there is nothing scientific in being in favor of using them; there is nothing scientific about not wanting to use them. One wonders why people can't see this. The fact a scientist takes a position on it has nothing to do with making that position 'scientific.' This is a joke.

3. "They ['religious' leaders] also irritate or enrage those (probably comparable in number) who are agnostics and atheists. After all, to many people, including scientists, the world simply makes more sense without the existence of God, and religious interventions are either offensive or irrelevant."

- one gets tired of these silly word games. These intellectual children never stop to define 'religion' for us; and play the game of pretending secular, e. humanism isn't a religion. (The word religion is obsolete, and needs to be replaced with world view.)
- makes sense? makes sense? is that a scientific theory of some kind... pray tell us all about it.
- apparently they can't imagine that christians are offended by atheism, and the things atheists do. (Like tearing down churches, like turning churches into museums for atheism, like endless disparagement, like banning churches by zoning bylaws, like forcing down steeples and stopping church bells, and on and on...

4. "In response, some scientists are tempted either to publicly dismiss religious belief, or else to argue stridently against it. The latter approach is valuable in that it exposes religious dogmas to rational consideration and leads to their abandonment where they conflict with reality.''

- that's real pc precious that is. Apparently we're supposed to believe the secular elite don't hold dogmatic positions. Yeah right.
- reality? now what's that boys? Is that a 'scientific' concept? Tell me what reality is... and how you know it. Prove that such a thing as reality exists, and how you know it.
- one gets tired of the idiot claim christians aren't rational. (And who is speaking anyway? some mindless bag of chemicals? some mindless gene carrier? who? what? and how do chemicals know what is or is not rational?)

5. 'The editorial also pointed out Collins’ book was “unsparing in its criticism of both creationism and intelligent design,” but then was not impressed by his case for a Creator of any kind: “Even so, his reasons for believing in God and for becoming a devout Christian are unlikely to sway anyone who doesn’t already believe.”

- now boys, you aren't being nice to Francis. Here he went out of his way to dump on creationists and ID people and you smack him for it. That's being ungrateful.

6. Erika Check reported on Collins’ book in the same issue.2 Her opening lines were not particularly friendly to religion:
"Is it really possible to combine dedication to science with belief in God? In a new book, prominent US scientist Francis Collins sets out his case for combining a strong religious faith with a zeal for the scientific method. But his views have already sparked debate, with critics suggesting that more talk of religion is the last thing that science needs."

- apparently debate is an evil of some kind :=)
- I know you're trying desperately to be sophisticated Erika but you apparently don't realize personification is a logical fallacy. Science isn't a person, and it therefore has no needs. Science is a word. Okay? Got it?

7. "Many scientists disagree strongly with such arguments. Some suggest that science is on the defensive today – not just in the United States – and that society needs exactly the opposite of what Collins suggests: less talk about faith and more about reason."

- dear Erika, you haven't thought very deeply about issues philosophical have you? All human beings operate in terms of faith, even those really, really clever people called scientists. (And even yourself Erika.)
- in this single issue of your lovely magazine people have spoken as if truth exists, as if rationality exists, as if we know whether things make sense or not, as if a thing called reason exists, as if reality exists, as if people knew what was right or wrong in terms of stem cell use, as if moral truth existed, that it's possible for a person to know what society needs (is anyone really that smart Erika? even you? and isn't society an abstraction anyway?) and so on. It takes faith to believe these things Erika. They can't be proved Erika.

8. "Religious concerns are largely behind the US law restricting federal funding of stem-cell research, for example. And many feel threatened by the influence of intelligent design in science education.''

- you seem to know what religion is Erika. (And I presume what it is not.) Maybe you'd like to define it for us, and then tell us why the definition you favor (out of the many dozens, if not hundreds) should be taken as valid.
- tell us what a 'religious concern' is Erika. We'd like to know. (And we'd like to know How you know this.)
- do you or don't you believe in a democratic society Erika?
- we all feel threatened Erika.

Summary;
The atheist requires a great deal of faith to be able to believe the materialistic account of the universe.
a. He or she has to believe the universe somehow popped into existence on its own... gave birth to itself... somehow. As far as I'm concerned this is impossible, and makes no sense.
b. the atheist has to believe that living forms somehow 'emerged' from inert chemicals. Again, I find this impossible... but the atheist has to find the faith to believe this incredible story. (Unless they just accept this idea and others as if they were some kind of cultural furniture.)
c. the atheist has to believe that the first two miracles happened, then he has to believe living organisms somehow climbed a ladder of biological sophistication.... a ladder of information.... a ladder with no rungs... Somehow the necessary information 'emerges' out of the void to make this possible.
d. the atheist has to believe intelligence came from non-intelligence.
e. the atheist has to believe personality emerged from the non-personal.
f. these are just a few of the impossibilities the atheist has to hold by faith. None of these can be proven... they are faith claims.

Notes;
1. source; http://creationsafaris.com/crev200607.htm#20060712a
07/12/2006
2. Erika Check, “Genomics luminary weighs in on US faith debate,” Nature 442, 114-115(13 July 2006) | doi:10.1038/442114b; Published online 12 July 2006.

Creation and the Greeks

If you listen to the professors who currently parade on campus, they will tell you the ancient Greeks didn't know anything about the creator God revealed to us in the Bible and especially in the book of Genesis. In a recent course from TTC, David Roochnik (in a series on Plato's Republic) assures us that Plato didn't know anything about the God of the bible. (He compares the concept of the 'good' with the the biblical idea of God.) This is the story that students are being given; and have been for at least a couple generations I guess. (In the last year or two I've heard this from Joseph Koterski and from Peter Kreeft.) I believe this is modern myth making, and is utterly false.

My main reason for believing this notion is false is that it flatly contradicts what the bible says. Genesis makes it clear that all mankind had a single parenting couple. It makes clear the whole world was repopulated after the Flood from a single family. If this is true it's nonsense to claim the Greeks didn't know of the creator Noah talked about. (It's common to speak of the Greeks as if they popped up from under a rock, but they clearly can be traced back to earlier groups in the middle east.) It not only contradicts the bible to believe the Greeks were ignorant of a creator God, it violates common sense and what we know of history.

Our secular (Humanist) professors like to pretend the Greeks didn't have knowledge of earlier civilizations because they want everyone to believe that the Greeks invented all things. (Over the years I'm sure I've heard one or another professor credit the Greeks with the invention of all things.) They do this because they want their students to believe that its Humanism (autonomous reason, working independently of god's revelation) that is responsible for everything good thing on earth. This story is a myth; and worse than this it's an intellectual scandal. The Greeks were well aware of the knowledge of earlier civilizations (the Egyptian, the Babylonian, etc.) and stole from them liberally. (You notice they weren't big on footnotes, the Greeks, and that they refused to give anyone credit for the ideas they stole.) The Greeks (of the Periclean age let's say) travelled widely... and had for centuries. It's ridiculous to pretend they didn't know of ancient Israel, of Abraham, of Job and of Noah. It's ridiculous to say they weren't aware of the Genesis account of creation. (Both in the form written down by Moses, and in earlier accounts.)

Just recently I came across the following ancient 'hymn' while reading 'In the minds of men' by Ian Taylor.
'Pettinato provides the translation to this remarkable hymn of praise written, it will be recalled, a thousand years before the biblical text and thus completely refuting the notion of oral tradition:
"Lord of heaven and earth
the earth was not, you created it
the light of the day was not, you created it,
the morning light you had not (yet) made exist."
(Pettinato 1981, 244)
- are we supposed to believe the Greeks were unaware of such hymns?

One day all this professorial Greek worship will come to an end, and the people who perpetuated the myth will be in disgrace. The idea the ancient Greeks didn't know the creator will be exposed for the deliberate campaign of deceit it is. The idea the Greeks invented all things will simply be laughed at.

Notes;
1. Arthur Custance makes a case for Monotheism being the view held by the most ancient peoples in; Doorway paper #34. (From monotheism to polytheism)
2. 'In the Minds of Men' - Ian Taylor/ch. 14. (Online here)
3. I remember reading once that 'Jewish' traders had established themselves in Greece, long before the time of Socrates, but I'm afraid I can't find the reference.
4. I believe the Greeks went (very early on in their existence as a people) from a belief in the true creator God, to a debauched polytheism, to a rejection of that polytheism to agnosticism and even materialism. (The so called Greek gods seem much more like characters out of a satiric play than anything else. It's hard to imagine anyone ever believed they had real existence.)
5. This is speculation on my part, but are we supposed to believe that the idea 'all is water' wasn't influenced by Genesis? Are we supposed to believe that the dialogues of Plato weren't 'influenced' by the book of Job? Isn't Plato's idea of the forms just a secularized version of the creation account?
6. One day someone will write a book refuting the 'groupie' adulation of the Greeks, and become world famous. (I hope it will be you.)

The Attack of the Giant Sea Sponge

Psych Prof Advocates Human/Chimp Hybrids – But only to Offend Christians - By Hilary White

Quotes and comments;

1. WASHINGTON, July 28, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In an op ed piece in the LA Times, David P. Barash, a professor of psychology at the University of Washington, says that reproductive facilities should work towards creating a race of human/chimpanzee hybrids, but, he admits, only because it would offend Christians.
- Gee; why not do it to offend Muslims and Jews?

2. 'Some geneticists have postulated that their distant evolutionary ancestors may have interbred with those of chimps, and Barash argues that this means there is no moral difference between a human being and a chimpanzee, or indeed, between a human being and a sea sponge.'

- don't you just love these idiot tales from Darwinia. (I think we can assume many of these myth makers have similar motivations to Barash.)
- there isn't a molecule of evidence for this repulsive story. (But then many evolutionists so love to to spit on creationists, that evidence doesn't matter. Some of these people are consumed with hatred.)
- I ask you; would you believe a word this man has to say to you about origins? (And he's merely being more honest than many of his like 'minded' colleagues.)
- I remind you that professors like this like to pretend to be great experts on ethics. (They love being appointed to ethics committees, and get paid a hundred or more dollars an hour to drink coffee and chat people up... or so I'm told.) But this great expert' doesn't know the difference between a human being and a sponge. (Does this mean he also likes to offend sponges :=)
- so why would the LA Times publish such a thing? to offend Christians?
- why would anyone continue to buy this paper? to offend Christians? That sounds irrational to be sure; but so is the story and its publication; not to mention its author.
- here's the endgame of materialism; people are no different than sea sponges... and we know how they get treated. (One wonders why he didn't say no different than rocks.)
- contra idiocy like this, only persons can be moral; but this simple and basic truth is unavailable to the consistent materialist. (With its incumbent continuity among all things.)

3. 'The psychology professor looks forward to the day when IVF facilities will create human/animal hybrids. He reveals, however, that his motivation is not a pure interest in advancing science, but his hatred for “know-nothing anti-evolutionism,” and “religious fundamentalists,” who hold human life to be sacred.'

- psychology professor! You know how debauched and depraved academia is when clowns like this dress up as psychology professors. (Psychology originally referred to the study of the soul.) At least they should sail under an honest flag; but playing word games is all the rage on campus... and no one acts with integrity or honesty. This anti-Christian should call himself what he is, a chimp who hates Christianity and human beings. (Or maybe he should call himself a sea sponge that hates human beings.)
- this kind of demented hatred is the product of not wanting to be a human being, not wanting to be a man. Mr. Barash (mr. Embarashing) wants to live like an animal; he doesn't want to be restrained and governed by the biblical model of man. He wants to be half boy and half animal; and spend his life frolicking on campus the way the dogs do.

4. 'Barash says he advocates interbreeding humans with animals not because it would be a good idea in itself, but because it would offend believers. “In these dark days of know-nothing anti-evolutionism,” he writes, “with religious fundamentalists occupying the White House, controlling Congress and attempting to distort the teaching of science in our schools, a powerful dose of biological reality would be healthy indeed.”

- why is it creatures like barash can't say the word christian? why is it they always use the word 'religious' instead.
- there are no c. fundamentalists in the white house that I know of; certainly not the war mongering socialist george bush.
- how does a chimp know all this? how does a sea sponge?
- healthy? what's healthy and how does this sea sponge know it?
- reality? reality! this from a man who claims there's no moral difference between a human being and a sea sponge! Pretty funny stuff.

5. 'Barash says that creating animal/human hybrids would effectively quash the belief that “the human species, unlike all others, possesses a spark of the divine and that we therefore stand outside nature.”

- if there's no difference (this from our expert on reality) why is it men have these beliefs and animals don't? why is it men have 'psychologists' (or used to) and animals don't?
- how does he know all this? is he a sea sponge prophet?
- you know; I don't see animals suggesting these schemes... I wonder why? after all there's no difference between us. (Or no difference that you highly educated professor can see.)
- if we don't stand outside nature why is he giving us this fool's lecture? I don't see him lecturing sea sponges and other marine creatures.
- if man isn't different why is it people' like this want to offend others in the most vile way they can imagine. I can't see a sea sponge engaging in such fantasies of rage and revenge. I don't see any animals trying to offend sea sponges. (Or even nasty old crabs.)

6. “Should geneticists and developmental biologists succeed once again in joining human and nonhuman animals in a viable organism,” Barash writes, “it would be difficult and perhaps impossible for the special pleaders to maintain the fallacy that Homo sapiens is uniquely disconnected from the rest of life.”

- once again? what's that all about?
- how does Mr. chimp know all this? Is he using a sea sponge for a crystal ball?
- life? there's no such thing as life; there's only various living creatures.
- if Mr. chimp doesn't believe he's uniquely 'disconnected' (whatever that means) why is he a college professor? I don't see sea sponges devoting their lives to teaching lies about human beings and the world in general. (Maybe he's too obsessed with his perverted fantasies to notice such things.)

7. 'One of the ideological offshoots of Darwinsim is radical environmentalism, advocates of which hold that human beings are a kind of virus threatening the earth’s ecosystems. According to the pure materialist philosophy, the environmental threat is directly the fault of “a bogus ‘faith based’ worldview,” the “Judeo-Christian proclamation of radical discontinuity between people and the rest of ‘creation.’”

- only a nitwit who stopped his reading with Lynn White's brief essay could believe such drivel. All people believe human beings and animals belong to radically separate groups.
- intellectual driftwood like this have apparently never studied the destructive practices of communist nations and most 'primitive' tribes. (They seem to know as much about the subject as sea sponges.)

Notes;
1. If human life isn't 'sacred' (as he claims) why does he care what goes on in the world? I don't see animals showing any concern? Why does he care about science? I don't see sea sponge conferences on science. I don't see animals caring about arcane arguments over origins and philosophical questions of continuity or discontinuity. His main claim is so utterly absurd it's a wonder anyone can make it. (Clearly no one believes these claims; not even their most vocal champions.)
2. If there's no moral difference between a human being and a chimp or a sea anemone (sorry, sponge) how can there be any moral difference between human beings? This makes no sense; i.e. if moral differences (or differences in general) don't exist, there can't be any moral standard by which to judge people. (But I guess this is a little too profound for our professor.)
3. If we're going to have such experiments I nominate this moron for the human partner.
- What? you find that comment offensive? If you do you've got all the evidence you need that you are different from a chimp or a sea sponge. They (could they have understood the comment) wouldn't have been offended in the slightest.
4. All 'there is no difference' arguments are self-refuting; because if there truly is no difference there can be no argument. (i.e. if all is one, there is no way way to make a claim, there is no truth, and there is no falsity.)
If there is no moral difference between a human being and a bee (humming) why is Barash getting upset?

Creation (and appreciation) vs. Materialism (and criticism)

All of academia (or so it would seem) has given itself over to the mania of criticism. It doesn't matter what course you take, what you get is the same; a critique of traditional, Christian society by so called political correctness. One might think this is the only subject being taught. PC is a new religion invented by professors, and it's used to radically critique all things. If x violates these standards, it's condemned; if it conforms it's accepted.
- and so students are taught to run before they can walk; the ignorant critique the learned, and wisdom is replaced by political opportunism.
- appreciation is lost, and a petulant mania for criticising all things takes its place. Students are taught to be unthankful, ungrateful... to look for things to complain about. Those that adopt such a way of looking at things quickly lose the ability to appreciate the world. (e.g. how good things are, how tough it is to produce goodness and order... or how rare these things are.) They have no ability to give credit or accolades. They are encouraged to tear things down.

- unfortunately the Christian church (as a whole) has followed the same course. It's sad, but not surprising, to see college educated Christians espouse the very same beliefs as those who despise the Faith. (Is there no humanist fad they haven't adopted?) But I don't suppose we can expect anything different. If a Christian gets a humanist education what can one expect... but a humanist.

- the basis of all this confusion in the church is the idea of common ground. Christians somehow imagine they can have a common ground with those who despise Christ. With the physical world this is at least theoretically possible, but with the human world it's utterly impossible. There can't be a common ground when you come to values. (i.e. as opposed to physical data.)

- what's all this got to do with creation you ask? (We are supposed to be thinking about creation here.) I think it's got a lot to do with creation, and I'll try to give some reasons for saying so.

a. Worship;
- what we have here is a belief in a world created by God vs. a world that just happened by accident... in some kind of naturalistic process. In other words, if the world was created we have someone to thank and praise; if it wasn't we have no one to thank and praise.

b. Accountability;
- if the world happened by accident we aren't responsible to anyone; we don't owe anyone anything (let alone obedience) and we aren't subordinate to anyone. If the world was created (and us with it) then we are (or may well be) responsible to Someone. We may well have duties and obligations... and we are subordinate.

c. Reality;
- The humanist mania for criticism that we are suffering under is based on the idea reality is a human construct. Reality isn't seen as objective (existing apart from humankind) but as a subjective creation, a social invention. Reality is then something that can be constructed in any way the elite want. The idea is then that the old 'reality' must be torn down to pave the way for some utopian vision. The way to do this is criticism, and so the populace is subjected to the most radical, pervasive, and ruthless program of criticism the world has ever seen. (From what I've seen I would say that nothing has been spared. No group of people has ever suffered such a social and psychological assault. I suppose the closest parallel would be the communist attacks under Mao and similar leaders.)

- the Christian view is that there is an objective reality. (Only biblical creation can provide a basis for reality.) Reality is then not a thing that can be invented, a thing to be manipulated by the elite... not a toy for the political elite to play with. (I'm speaking in terms of pretty wide generalizations; mankind has always attempted to manipulate reality to some degree.) If reality is given man should appreciate the world not critique it as if it were some badly produced play. If reality is objective one should live in terms of it; to do so one seeks to find out what that reality is. A Christian believes he or she finds that knowledge in the Bible.

d. Under Materialism man gives no credit to anyone for anything; all things were invented by human beings. God is given credit for nothing. (This is true even of things m's can't account for, like the origin of life, the origin of intelligence, the origin of language, and so on.) Because all these things supposedly just emerged out of the void by some cosmic accident there is no basis for appreciation. It means that the world an all in it aren't valued correctly; that they end up being grossly misvalued. (And some things are correspondingly over valued.) Awe is replaced by complacency and apathy.

- if 'life' is as ubiquitous as the Sagans of the world claim it becomes hard to appreciate it as being the wondrous and indeed miraculous 'thing' the Bible claims that it is. Materialism leads to under appreciation, to a lack of sensitivity to our real situation. (And I would argue that this leads to a callousness with regard to the world and to our uniqueness.)

e. Reverence;
- If we and our world are mere cosmic accidents we need have no reverence for anything we find on the planet. (This or any other one.) If all is an accident nothing is worth preserving. We see here the basis of the mania some have for genetic engineering. If nothing was created all is up for grabs. If nothing was created all can be replaced. Some would say that materialism results in nothing being held sacred; that nothing on earth is sacred if all was an accident. The Christian I think has to see things differently. For him the creation isn't sacred (not exactly) and only God is holy. But man can be seen as having a 'sacred' duty to his Creator to take care of the creation. Man was given the earth as a home; he was made a steward over it. I see this as a duty to return to god (as best he can) the world he was given; that he should not 'tamper' with the creation in terms of genetic re-engineering. (I realize some disagree; maybe more than some.) I can't help but think it should make a difference whether one sees this world and its myriad creatures as the creation of God or the result of Accidentalism.

f. Psychology:
- If reality is a human construct all suffering must be blamed on human agents. One wonders what the effect of this on human psychology will be. What kind of person is the perpetual critic? What does it do to a person to never find anything praiseworthy or even acceptable? what does it do to a person to be endlessly criticized over everything he says, thinks or does? How does this affect politics? how does this affect the arts? (So much of the arts has become merely a whining and an attack on others. We seem drowning in the negative, the ugly, the gross.) What does this do to marriage and family? (Does it mean no one can ever now be content?)

g. Standards;
- under Materialism there are no objective standards, only subjective ones. This means criticism has an unlimited field of expression. Anything goes; nothing is exempt. There is literally no criticism that can't be made. (And they have.) Extremism is given a free rein. The only standard are the feelings that happen to percolate in the human breast. The worst human emotions become the basis of social critique. (e.g. envy, hatred, jealousy, cowardice, perverseness, vengeance, cruelty, etc.) Christianity is restrained by the moral standard of god's law. There is thus (or should be) a plethora of things outside criticism. (e.g. marriage, family, honesty, worship, prayer, charity, property, etc.) So much of the social criticism we see in our society is (in terms of C.) a critique of what is good; an attempt to destroy what is good.

h. Ingratitude;
- what does it say about man (about human nature) that he has been given a wonderful world like earth as a home but he despises it? What does it say about him that he so despises his gift he claims he has received no gift at all? (I think evolution theory is more a matter of psychology, than it it's a matter of science. Who is man? He's a creature who will thank a clerk for doing their job, but who won't give thanks to the Creator for the gift of a world.) Materialism encourages man in this hardness of heart.

i. Creation vs. a man-made world
- if there is no creator god, man is the ultimate intelligence on earth. This notion (deluded though I think it is) leads the idea the man-made object is superior to the 'natural' (created) product. A further problem is that because people think the living forms all happened by accident they don't have anywhere near the full appreciation they should have of the complexity of these organisms. Materialists have been making this same mistake (lost in this same fog) since at least the days of Haeckel. (When he imagined the 'cell' was little more than a dab of mud.) They have consistently undervalued the complexity of living things, and continue to do so. If creation were the product of an infinitely wise Being then we could expect to find an expression of this vast intelligence in what He created. Creation might not only be more complex than we can now imagine, it (and the codes that inform it) might be more complex than we can ever comprehend. (For this reason I'm opposed to genetic tampering, to genetic engineering.)

Notes;
1. If what I've said is true, why doesn't it seem to make a difference in people's lives whether they adopt creation as their model of origins? I'll try to answer that in my next post. (I don't think I have much to offer on the subject however.)
- is it because while many claim to believe in creation (or in some creation model) they don't really believe it at all? Maybe we can't. Maybe a true belief in creation is as much a gift of grace as salvation, as regeneration.
2. Who is man? He's a creature who will blame god for earthquakes, but not give him credit for the world that quakes. (As an aside I believe ancient man deliberately built structures that were earthquake proof. As an example of this, some of the large structures made of interfitted stone slabs of huge size.)
3. 'Thus, the German evolutionary biologist Ernst Haeckel would refer to the cell as a simple "homogeneous globule of plasm." To Haeckel a living cell seemed no more complex than a blob of jello.' - Steven Meyers (I've lost the reference.)
4. I don't know, but I expect most Christians are not opposed to genetic engineering.
5. Political Correctness is a new religion that is almost the opposite of biblical Christianity.

An argument against abolishing creationism

In the last couple years there has been much talk about abolishing creationism. In some countries various bills have been presented that would do just this. In this post I want to argue against such an undertaking.


- Many people are under the impression any talk of creation will ruin the American economy. Any criticism of evolutionary theory will destroy all science and technology. (General Electric will be ruined.) Any teaching of ID will destroy the minds of young children. And on and on it goes. Medicine will be destroyed. The American empire will collapse. The moon will fall. Witches will be burnt. The stock market will crash. (As foreign investors flee a country gone mad.) Tenure will be abolished. Although I agree that these are worthy concerns, I do think they've been exaggerated. It's true that the stock of GE might fall, but the company won't be ruined. We need to keep our wits about us, and not become paranoid.
- forgive my levity, but I do think some of these fears are exaggerated.

- I want to argue against this proposal as I said, and so I'm going to give some reasons for voting against such propositions. Not everyone will agree with all of my arguments, but I hope enough of them will be persuasive enough that I will make my case to the satisfaction of most.

1. What would our sophisticated tv hosts have to mock if we were to abolish creation in the nation? Might they not find other more sacred things to attack? certain government policies perhaps? racial quota systems? the glorious welfare state? the American empire? fast foods? even Wall Street itself, the stock market, or even (dare I even mention it) the free market itself? No, let us not take this risk. Let's keep creationism around for our great wits to kick around.... let's give them some trivial thing to busy themselves with. It's the prudent course. Let's not risk some revolution, let's not go the way of the Russian czar.

2. Surely we don't want to take the risk of having people like Richard Dawkins (Ken Miller, Stephen Pinker, Sam Harris, William Irvine, etc.) attacking the State itself? These are men of fierce disposition and sharp tongue. We don't want to have them attacking truly sacred things. No, better not to outlaw creationism. I realize that many people are bound to ban it completely, but I fear this is a grave mistake. Let our wits and sophisticates exhaust their high spirits on banal and trivial things; like pro sports, church steeples, and creationism. To ban these things (as several senators are wont to do) would give these people nothing to fight against, and they would come looking for new targets. Their opposition to creation (McDonald's, etc.) is based on personal psychology. These are put who must condemn and denounce; it's necessary to their constitutions. They need to feel superior to the masses. This is the basis of their great loathing for creation.

3. It's not a matter of creation being true or false. (Though any college educated teacher of kindergarten knows how obviously false it is.) It's rather a matter of needing something for people to fight against. All societies need scape goats, and they need internal enemies. The educated elite need something to fight against as well. The ridiculous doctrine of creationism gives people all this and more. Let's not destroy a good thing.

4. Since the liberal members of the church appear to be too busy to object to this proposal I've taken it upon myself to do so. I apologize for this, as I'm well aware I cannot do the fine job they would no doubt be able to do. I realize they're probably busy with more import issues (one immediately thinks of the Ethanol concerns and the necessity of getting gay materials into the kindergartens) but I really do think someone should address this issue. (When a better defense than mine appears I will withdraw this feeble effort from the site.)
- One of my main concerns was to address the issue before some bible thumper took up the cause. If we allow them to argue against this proposed bill I'm afraid we don't have a chance of defeating it. These people bring out a great hate in our sophisticates, and I'm afraid they will pass the bill out of some unreflective impulse. I repeat myself, but I believe it's in our best interest to keep creationism around. I hope I've been persuasive in my arguments; but I fear I haven't been.

Addendum; further arguments made to bolster what I fear is a weak case.

5. Some have suggested that we need to go further than banning creationism in the schools and in the public square, that we need to ban it in the churches as well. They say that bible classes that are now beings spent talking about creation should be spent talking about science. And while one wishes this were the case I really doubt if it would be successful in most cases. We need to accept the fact that there's just so much the befuddled minds of the masses can take in in a week. I believe they need a day of rest to allow their over worked minds time to relax, the better to absorb the great ideas of science afresh on a Monday morning.
- No one regrets the time wasted on creation sermons more than I do, but I think it's best to let sleeping dogs lie in most cases. If we destroy creationism in the church it will be hard to keep it alive among the general public. After all; if we're going to have it around as a safety valve and scapegoat someone has to believe in it. So I think this suggestion (noble as it is in motivation) is ill advised, and I caution against it.

7. One of the great advantages of keeping creationism around is that it provides people with a continual example of how silly and backward fundamentalist Christianity is. Surely we don't want to lose this great resource? Think of all the converts it gains liberal religion on a weekly basis. No, no; we mustn't kill the goose that daily lays a golden egg. If the Fundies were to abandon 6 day creationism they'd immediately gain in respectability and have to be taken a lot more seriously. Let's not be rash here. We've got a great thing going, let's not wreck it.

8. We are told that abolishing creationism will reduce social tension in our society; that this horrible conflict between the sane defenders of evolution and the irrational defenders of creation. I won't deny that, but it misses the point. People love to separate themselves into factions; it's the great passion of the human heart. Whatever we think of it, it's simply human nature to do so. To abolish creationism would simply move this conflict to another area. Order is best maintained by having people divide up over trivial issues. If they don't have trivial issues to separate over they will separate over serious ones. It's far better to have people in conflict over creationism than over far more important issues; like the place of race, the nature of the state, and so on. Here conflicts can escalate into violence and even war. No imagines this will happen over Darwin. People can get themselves all wound up over Darwin, but I doubt anyone will go to war over him. No; it's essential for maintaining the status quo that we get people to fight over trivial matters. (We especially don't want intelligent people getting involved in fighting over serious matters.)

9. Some have suggested creationists be required to wear special ribbons or badges [with Noah's ark on them perhaps] to mark them out. Again I would caution against such a plan. (I know that people maintain this would solely have the purpose of protecting children from people out to destroy them.) As I've said too many times already (or so I fear) we don't want to lose this great social resource. If we went with the ribbon proposal creationists would be afraid to defend creationism and so it would quickly die out and become useless to us.

10. Those who favor abolishing creationism (as most intelligent people do) claim that it's utterly useless in science and in the lab so we must get rid of it. It hampers and limits true science they say; it would even destroy science if given a chance. I don't like to say it but I think this verges on hysteria. I really do. Not one in a hundred Christians believes creationism has any place in the lab or in the world of commerce. But I think all this misses the point. I think science needs creationism. Why do I speak such a heresy? I'll tell you. The Fundie doctrine of creation daily shows the world how great science is and how dumb bible religion is. This alone is reason to vote against the bill. (I plead with people to think seriously on this.) We need creationism around to show people the superiority of reason. (After all, its clear to even a child that Noah never invented any technologies. All this primitive had was a raft of some sort. If he'd known science he'd have built himself a space ship to escape the flood with. Forgive the levity; but it's a serious point.)
- it's clear to anyone that even such a great man (supposedly) as Abraham never even had a refrigerator. And why? Because he was a creationist, instead of being a scientist. Let's not be rash. Let's not be hasty. If you're winning a war you don't switch tactics. Let's not get impatient. Let's not get drunk on success and make a serious blunder.

11. For those who would abolish creationism (to save the economy, to save the nation from some dark age to come) I would say that we should keep it for the sake of teaching evolution. In this this isn't obvious to some of you let me make the case. The public finds e. a hard concept to comprehend. (We need to admit this.) The great advantage of having creationism around is that we have something to compare e. to. By comparing it to creationism the student can more easily see how e. must be true. He sees the absurdity of the creationist position, and then reasons, 'well if c. is false, e. must be true.' This is really the best we can hope for in most cases. Without creationism around I suggest that it would be almost impossible to convince people of evolution.

12. Some who want to abolish creationism say we must do so as to prevent it being taught to the young. Again I disagree. (I worry about disagreeing so many times with accepted wisdom. Can I really be disagree so often and be right?) I say let the Fundamentalists teach creation to their children. I recommend it highly, and love to see them buying these creationist books for the kiddies. Why? Years later when they come to college (or even earlier for the intelligent) we can show them how absurd this creationism is, and by doing so utterly ruin their simple faith in the bible. (What a joy it is to disillusion one of these kids.)

13. To those who want to abolish creationism (for the best of all reasons, for wanting to defend the young and the ignorant, etc.) I say do we? do we really want to lose this great source of fun? Let's admit it gentlemen (and gentle women... if there are any) don't we enjoy demolishing the silly arguments put forward by the creationists? Is there a better sport available to some of us? (Would we really want to see that ridiculous museum closed down?) And the added bonus is that by demolishing these arguments we strike a blow against Book religion.

14. Beating up on creationists is a kind of rough sport for nerds if you will. It takes the place among them of football or ice hockey. Better they carve up creationists than our esteemed political leaders. Better that they be anti-creationists than anti-socialists. (I fear the appeal of Libertarianism to our young.) And think of the increased self-esteem they get in the bargain.

15. Although abolishing creationism is considered a most wise proposition by most intelligent people I think we should reconsider. Think of what might happen. As things stand now, evolutionists are united in their opposition to creationism. What will happen without this buffer? Will evolutionists fall to fighting amongst themselves and so damage the image of the theory in the public eye? I fear this might well happen; human nature being such a contrary thing. (How this contrary spirit could have evolved I'm not quite sure... but obviously it must have.) Will the fight become so unrestrained that people will deliver themselves of the critiques of the theory that at present they are with holding? Will some devastating critique emerge? Can we take the chance? No; keep c. around to keep us all together. Better to fight creationists than to fight each other.

Notes;
1. With apologies to Jonathan Swift.

Creation (and Personalism) vs Materialism (and Impersonalism)

In the last three centuries or so we've seen the voyage from the Personal to the Impersonal.

- the rejection of Creation for the fool's gold of Materialism has had many negative consequences. One of the great themes that we can see played out is the descent from Personalism into the void of Impersonalism. This process has affected every aspect of human life.

- We can even define Humanism as the move from Personalism to Impersonalism. We can see the expression of this in all things, in all areas of life.

- The examples are manifold; The Personal God (who created all things) is replaced with a Deist (impersonal) god, and this god has been replaced by no god. (i.e. Materialism.)

- The Providence of God was replaced by Natural law, and this has been replaced by law.... and now by legislation. God's moral law (based on god's character has been replaced by morality, and now by civil utility. (So called.)

- this process has gone on in all areas of man's life; the personal becoming the impersonal. (Secular writers sometimes call this, if they bother to address the subject at all, the desacralization of civilization. This misses the point. We don't see the sacred becoming secular; we see the Personal becoming impersonal.)

- the ground of being used to be the Creator and his providential governance of the universe; the ground of being now is the void... the random motion of sub-atomic particles... (or if you prefer, fluctuations in the void.)

- Language used to be founded upon the character and wisdom of God. Words referred to (created) universals. Now words are merely arbitrary symbols, or sounds meant to deceive the naive. Words mean what the political elite say they are... or so we are told. (They mean one thing in the morning and another thing after tea.)

- man as the image of god is replaced by 'man' as an animal... and then as mindless animal... and then by mindless gene carrier... and then by man as a bag of chemicals.

- special revelation is replaced by something called human reason. (Which no one can sensibly define.)

- ethics and morality is replaced with psychology... and then with pills.

- love is replaced with sex.

- art is replaced with mass produced entertainment. (Distractionism for androids.)

- truth is replaced with pr and political hucksterism... (If words don't mean anything you'd be a fool to tell the truth.)

- the family, community and church are replaced by the state.

- responsibility is replaced with the compassion of social workers who know that no one is to blame for anything... as we're all just matter in motion.

- creation is replaced with some kind of explosion we're told... (A perfect symbol for the irrationalism that results from embracing Materialism.)

Notes;
a. this is a vast subject, and it would take a book to deal with it adequately.
b. in our day this move is 'exasperated' by the move from country to city. Man now lives an anonymous existence in a mass society, in an increasingly impersonal civilization.
- the country is replaced by the city...
- owning property is replaced by a ticket to the welfare state...
- play is replaced by spectatorism... (A deservedly ugly term for puerile behavior.)
c. what does all this mean? It means the death of man. There is no room for a personal man in an impersonal universe. (If you think that's extreme, check out the internet and you'll find people who insist that 'we need to become machines...' One wonders who this 'we' is.)

The evolution of evolutionary apologetics

In this post I want to make a few comments about a lecture by Steven Goldman on Evolution. (The evolution of evolution.)

Quotes and comments.

1. Goldman's version of Darwin doesn't sound like Darwin to me... it sounds like neo-Darwinism.

2. He tells us, 'for Darwin there were no species.... only individuals.'
- Why then did he write a book on the origin of species?

3. G. tells us if there was food for everyone there would be no evolution (i.e. that evolution depends on competition.)
- If that's the case why did creatures leave the oceans (where there Is food for everyone) to go on the land where you say there isn't? (This lack of food is a strange idea.... it's more untrue than true... on the whole it's not true.)

4. G. tells us that, ' in time 'real' novelty emerges....' and 'Darwin claimed you could get something entirely new.
- what does that mean? what does he mean by 'real novelty'? He seems to be trying hard to avoid mention of information; as no new information is produced... that being the case how can you get 'real novelty.' (Doesn't sound very scientific does it?)

- Darwin claimed you could get something entirely new. This is doubtful... but even if it happened it wouldn't survive. How can you get something new by making a copying mistake? That's the question. It seems to me that what apologists like Goldman are just playing games here; pretending they don't understand genetics, that they don't understand the variations possible with genetics. (e.g. all human beings are unique; and one couple could theoretically have billions of unique children.) Why the appeal to a dumbed down ignorance?

5. Goldman seems to agree with S. Gould that if we 'replayed' the tape we would have a totally different set of creatures.... "this is a very exciting idea... ' Goldman says, thrilling to his subject... 'very liberating.'

- One can only wonder why. On the basis insanity is exciting :=) I really don't understand this kind of reaction. What is exciting about this? I don't see how we could possibly ask for a more staggering collection of amazing creatures. (I can't help thinking of the verse in the bible that tells us natural man is by nature ungrateful and unthankful. G. gives us a great illustration of this :=) It's really beyond belief. [A more radical denial of creation would be hard to imagine.] The natural man cannot bring himself to offer thanks to his Creator. He cannot. He will not.

6. 'By 1900 Darwinian evolution was comatose.... but 'scientists' were convinced nontheless that evolution was true.'

- Why? Because of the supposed (imagined) relationships he tells us. I don't buy this at all. People insisted that evolution was true because they wanted it to be true. There was little evidence that could be pointed to, and in fact most of the evidence pointed against evolution. (If you discount the evolutionary framework forced onto the fossil record.) People rejected the mechanism, G. tells us. (Gee; what mechanism? Darwin had none.)

6. Goldman perpetuates the myth Mendel's paper was published in an obscure journal...

- it wasn't obscure.... it was even in 11? u.s. university libraries... in well over a hundred libraries? (It was deliberately ignored because evolutionists felt it would hurt Darwin.)

7. G.tells us the 'new' Darwinism was a blend (sounds Charlie-like) of Darwinism and Mendel.

- One wonders why one would need Darwin? Of course one doesn't. This is just PR; trying to save the theory by 'saving' Darwin. So called 'neo-Darwinism' has nothing to do with Darwin. Evolutionists use Darwin's name because they're afraid that if they repudiate Darwin (say he was wrong) this will hurt the theory of evolution. (That they think and behave this way shows how afraid they are their theory will collapse under scrutiny.) Darwin is dead; but evolutionists refuse to bury him.

8. Goldman talks about natural selection 'powering' the evolution process.

- natural selection could no more 'power' (embarassing personification) evolution than Darwin's pigeon breeders could produce a new species. Natural selection is a conservative process; as any honest scientist will tell you.

9. G. goes on to tell us 'disproving spontaneous generation' (which he pretends was only an 'old wives' tale) was one of the small triumphs of 19th century science.

- I guess we should all be so lucky as to have such a 'small' triumph.
- When you hear people using such pathetic rhetoric you know they have a strong bias... and you know they will never tell you the truth on the subject they're discussing. This was no 'small' triumph. G. only denigrates it because he has an axe to grind.

- for evolution to be true, spontaneous generation has to be true. This is the problem materialists face. Many people have tried top solve it, and have all failed utterly.

10. 'Darwin focused on individuals... but the new Darwinists focus on populations... Darwin was back on the top of the heap again.' (i.e. with the emergence of neo-Darwinism.)

- so why do we still talk about Darwin. Darwin is dead; he cannot be revived. Darwin is nothing but a brand name. (And how ironic this brand is so famous on campus where brands are so looked down on.)

11. G. talks about the Miller experiments... and claims 'we now know he got it all wrong....' (i.e. now we know better what the 'conditions' of the early earth was.) 'But it was still important work.'

- This is nothing but a bluff. We don't know, and we never will, what those conditions were. To think otherwise is to believe in magic; to believe scientists can produce magical results. The idea scientists can answer every question is a faith claim. (In my view an absurd faith claim) I call this scientism. It is utterly impossible to know what these conditions were; though many people are willing to tell 'just so' stories about it, and to pretend they know... and to deceive students into believing these fantasy stories. Some things (i would say many things) are forever beyond our ability to know. This is just the way things are; it does no good to pretend otherwise.

12. Goldman talks about 'organisms' that live by deep sea vents 'never having seen the sun...'

- I thought all creatures had ascended from the first living form... if this is true, these deep sea creatures would have a connection (albeit distant) with the sun, etc. You can't preach a theory of continuity and then pretend whenever convenient it doesn't exist; either 'life' exists on a continuum of ascent or it doesn't.)

13. G. gives us the Darwinian fairy tale that, 'life first emerged by these deep sea vents.

- As far as I can see this is impossible. (Life is an abstraction of course. Life can't emerge; some living form has to emerge.)

14. G. admits we can't account for the origin of life, but we now have computer models that can do it.

- I guess we could call this salvation by animation.

15. G. talks repeatedly of 'random' changes...

- you cannot prove a change is random. (I'm restricting this to biology.)

16. He ends by giving us one of the silliest of all the Darwinian fairy tales; the one where some 'life' form [prokaryotes] just happened to find one day it had the capacity for photosynthesis. i.e. by some fortuitous mutation (loss of information) it got a radically new ability.

- This is nonsense on stilts. (Stilts made of water.) The only reason people accept this is because they have no idea how impossible it is... or what is being talked about. This is the magical creation of information. He might as well say, "one day mother nature waved her magic wand, and photosynthesis emerged, the first true cell emerged." (And all the Materialists lived happily ever after.

- this is all silliness on paper stilts.... It's shameful this should be taught to students as fact (And it only happens for political reasons) There is no proof of this, and there never will be. As Goldman himself admits, 'this is all just hand waving.' I agree. Why then do you insist on claiming it's a fact? Why do you go to the courts to have the power of the state enforce such idiot notions? (And what is the power of the state? The military.)

17. G. tells us that, somehow (no one knows how) the first cell magically appeared.

- Is this any different than saying, ''once upon a time mother nature gave birth to the first cell?"

18. Goldman keeps repeating his complaint that evolution is 'still' a scandalous idea... (In his best whining annunciation.)

- As if 'scandal' (i.e. error) has something to do with the passage of time.
- This is as stupid as saying 'murder' is still a scandalous idea, or incest is 'still' a scandalous idea. (Or Marxism, or Christianity, etc.) This is the 'progressivism' of the Left; where if things don't move in the direction of Statist Collectivization, it's all 'scandalous' don't you know. Of course at the very same time most evolutionists insist there is no direction in evolution - so go figure. It makes no sense to me.

- This makes as much sense as for me to complain that Materialists and atheists still (still I say, still) refuse to admit that evolution is impossible. This debate has gone on for millennia, and I assume it will continue to go on as long as there are humans alive to debate it.

Notes;
1. Steven Goldman; Lecture #22; Life; The evolution of evolution (Science in the 20th century - The Teaching Company)
2. 'It has been pointed out that there is, within each individual, the potential to produce the full range of variation possible within the species; Darwin found that all the fancy types of pigeon, for example, could be produced after several generations by breeding from the common rock pigeon. When the environmental circumstances are unfavorable to one particular type of variation, it may decline almost to the point of extinction. Yet all the time that other variants of the same species survive, there is the potential for that variant to reemerge when the environment changes. This is most likely the case with the light- and dark-colored peppered moths in England.' - Ian Taylor/'In the Minds of Men'/ch.6
3. "If we do not accept the hypothesis of spontaneous generation [of life from non-living matter], then at this one point of the history of development [evolution] we must have recourse to the miracle of a supernatural creation." Ernst Haeckel (1876, 1:348) Taylor/ch. 7.
4. Chapter 7. of Taylor concerns the origin of life issue.
5. Goldman loses credibility by his caricature of debate over spontaneous genertaion. Just compare his version with taylor's and tell me who you think is the real scholar. (I realize we're comparing a chapter from a book with a 30 minute lecture, but it's revealing all the same.)
5. ' Haeckel had put his finger on the real need for spontaneous generation when he said, "This hypothesis is indispensable for the consistent completion of the non-miraculous history of creation" (Haeckel 1876, 1:348), and this is as true today as it was in 1876.' - Taylor/ch 7.
6. Like 99.99 percent of evolutionary apologists he brings back the Scopes trial.
- if he really knew what went on you'd think he'd be ashamed to mention the trial. (But I suppose he's relying on the ignorance of his listeners.)
7. Like most evolutionary apologists Goldman relies heavily on the idea the rock layers are a kind of clock, that shows us the progression of 'evolutionary' history.
- what evolutionists will Never do is subject the idea of rock chronology to criticism. (And with very good reason.) It's impossible to prove chronology by succession in rock layers. (i.e. it's impossible to prove how long the layers took to form.)
8. Listening to Goldman reminded me of the old classic 'Elephant Talk' - by King Crimson

Devolution

Contra the fallacy the Bible teaches stasis

'As C. S. Lewis rightly said, when man sinned he brought into being a human species which was not the species which God created.' - Arthur Custance

Evolutionists like to pretend that Christianity (and the Bible) deny variation. They're continually criticizing creationists for maintaining that the world is exactly as it was created by God. This is not what the Bible teaches, or what modern creationists claim. Let's look at some examples.

a. the world was created perfect; it is not so now
b. Mankind (through Adam) fell; the consequences were mortality, pain in child birth, etc.
c. the creation was somehow (in ways hard to determine) affected negatively by the Fall... and survival became more difficult
d. a world that was meant to survive on plant eating... became one that featured predators.
e. the flood radically changed the features of the planet
f. mankind began to live less and less long.
g. man became a rebel against the Creator.
h. men had (by animal breeding) created many 'new' species of animals... or at least different in some way. (Not to mention the same with plant domestication.)

- What's usually ignored in all this, is the various breeding attempts by man. Animal and plant breeding is an activity millennia long... and we have little idea of what the results of it were. The question I have is; 'how many 'species' of animals and plants that we see in the world today (or even in the rocks) are the result of man's deliberate interference with the creation? How many were the inadvertent result of man's activities?

- I think it's certainly true that many 'species' have 'emerged' after the creation. (All this depends a lot on how species is defined.) I doubt whether any new 'kinds' have emerged. (I consider the idea fish became felines utterly impossible.)

- it's my conviction that what we see in the world is not evolution, but mutability. (I'd like to call it devolution, but the word seems to have comic book overtones, or sound like an idea from science fiction. (I seem to remember a story on devolution from Larry Niven, in Analog I think.) I think in time people will reject the idea of evolution for that of devolution. Mutations destroy information, and this sink hole can never lead to the progression of creation outlined in the theory of Neo-Darwinism. Despite what evolutionists claim, creationists have learned a lot since Darwin, and they are far more aware of change within the created order. In this restricted way Darwinism has been a good thing for creationists. (That being said, the social toll has been devastating.)

- No one doubts that the world changes. What we're debating is the manner in which it changes, the direction in which it changes. In my view entropy and mutation lead to devolution, not evolution. (Evolution really only means change; but its come to mean a progressive, or 'upward' change... and I see this as impossible.) The change isn't from death to life, but from life to death. (I believe it's only because of the incredible measures taken by the Creator to protect against mutation that the creation hasn't already died out.) If you're keeping up with recent discoveries in biology (or trying to keep up) you'll have noticed the many, and intricate measures there are to combat change within the copying process. Having said that I don't see any necessary reason for life on earth ending in the foreseeable future. I'm merely talking here about the direction of change.

- I don't like the term micro-evolution, but we seem to be stuck with it. I define it as the change in the created kinds over time. I think Mutability is a better word, but I doubt evolutionists (materialists) can be persuaded to use it.

- I'll end with a question. If there had been in the past a creation event somewhat akin to the one portrayed in Genesis, isn't devolution what you would expect to see?

Notes;
1. Lewis/the problem of pain p.83/85
2. Animal breeding (from Topics)
- 'Linnaeus introduced his system of plant classification in his Systema Naturae in 1735 and in this and subsequent editions there is no hint that one species is related to another through some ancestral form. Himmelfarb claims that in the final edition of his Systema Naturae published in greatly expanded form thirty-one years after the first, Linnaeus tentatively suggested that the original number of species created may have been multiplied by interbreeding one species with another (Himmelfarb 1968, 170)
- Himmelfarb (1968, 170) quotes Knut Hagberg's Carl Linnaeus (London: 1952, 197) who in turn quotes from Linnaeus' Dissertation on Perloris (1744) to show that Linnaeus conceded that it was "possible for new species to arise", and Himmelfarb adds that Linnaeus was held suspect by orthodox Christians for saying so.
3. Lamarckism (is it really dead?)
- Lamarck might have been fooled by the variations he saw. (e.g. a bird's beak getting longer let's say.) There are variations; but the question is, 'where do they come from?' i.e. are they 'acquired' from without or from within? i.e. are they the result of acquiring new information? or are they the result of the expression of 'unused' genetic information? are they the result of mutations?

We're all creation scientists now

Quotes and comments;

1. In lecture 21 of his series on Science in the Twentieth century, Steven Goldman tells us that 'science is one; 'there is no such thing as Marxist science, black science, Islamic science, (etc.) or Christian science....'

- There's a lot of truth in this; but he fails to mention the fact all science is creation science. How can I say such a heretical thing? Well; it's creation science because it's investigating the creation. If the world (and man) were created by a Designer, all science is creation science.

- to qualify as science, any particular field of study must deal with the real (created) world. (e.g. Psychoanalysis wouldn't qualify :=)

- it's easy to say 'science is one' but what is it about? What is its object? This is what's controversial. Is the world a product of Accidentalism in a materialist universe? Or is the world a product of an Intelligent Designer? Some will say it doesn't matter. Perhaps at this point in the program (of describing all things) it for the most part doesn't; but at some point it will matter. (i.e. when the program switches from description to primary explanation.)

- there's no reason to flee in horror from the term creation science. It's quite possible to study a created entity; and it happens all time. (e.g. Reverse engineering.) And this is not restricted to material creation; it also applies to so called genetic engineering. People study these new (altered) products all the time. (That's an example of creation science; like it or not.)

Notes;
1. Lecture 21; Techno-science and globalization (The Teaching Company)