Teaching evolution - the communist style
David Sloan Wilson gives advice on how to teach Evolution in the communist style
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Biology teachers face increasing difficulty from students coming into class with bad feelings about evolution Many pro-evolution teachers will be attracted to methods that have a demonstrable track record of relieving tensions and facilitating the process of getting students to accept Darwin’s theory. David Sloan Wilson (Binghamton U, NY) has just the thing. Writing in PLoS Biology, he introduced Evolution for Everyone, or EvoS for short, with the upbeat title, “Evolution for Everyone: How to Increase Acceptance of, Interest in, and Knowledge about Evolution”
2. "Evolution is famously controversial, despite being as well established as any scientific theory."
- this is known as the big lie. It's utterly fallacious that E. theory is as well established as any scientific theory. No one really believes that; no one. So tell me; why would you then believe anything this man has to say? He's told you a blatant lie; letting you know he's more than willing to deceive his students and the public. Can we back up this claim? Surely. It's a deliberate case of obfuscation to compare theories about inanimate things and biological organisms. (It's fallacious to compare human beings and tree frogs as well.) Anyone knows that there are many orders of difference when it comes to complexity between a rock and a fish, let alone a human being. (You often read of evolutionists who use this absurd comparison of evolution to the shape of the earth. Not only is this comparing apples to oranges; it's comparing agates to apple software designers.) People who compare the two are engaged in a deliberate attempt to deceive their readers. One needs entirely different kinds of theories to try to explain or account for living organisms and inert materials. (e.g. rocks don't have DNA code)
- the radical disagreements among evolutionists of the 'slow as you go' school (Dawkins), and the 'hopeful monster' model (i.e. Gould, etc.) show us that what Wilson has said is a lie. (There are no similar fallings out over the speed of light.) The fact creationists (of various kinds) have made many telling critiques of e. theory, and have offered differing models is also evidence Wilson is blowing smoke. He's bluffing; and doing a very poor job of it.
3. "These beliefs ['Christian'] are patently self-serving and it should surprise no one that an authoritative scientific theory would be pressed into the same kind of service. It is the job of intellectuals to see through such arguments and not be taken in by them.''
- he plays the old game of defending E. by condemning Christians and Christianity. (To apply the standards of today to the past is a child's game; and is philosophically irrelevant. This is also a bizarre thing for an e. to do, as e's claim morality must continually change to keep up to changing conditions. i.e. that there is no absolute unchanging standard. But what does Wilson do? he ignores his own theory and applies the pc standard of today to a time in the past. By his own standards he has no right to do this.
- if man is just an animal it's ridiculous to say he has some intellectual duty to do x or y. That makes no sense. Where does this so called duty come from? (Is Wilson telling us man is free to make moral choices? But if man is just an accident of his chemical past where does this freedom come from. Under materialism there is no foundation for moral freedom. Evolutionists know this; but when they write their articles they pretend they don't.
- if man is just an animal without a mind why should anyone believe he can see through arguments. Dawkins tells us man is a kind of robot that is used as a tool by 'his' genes. Why should we believe a gene carrier can know true from false? How does any animal know true from false. (If all is particles in motion there could be no such thing as truth in any event.) Maybe Wilson would like to tell us what truth is. If all were merely matter in motion, the idea of truth would be meaningless.
4. "Moreover, the deep philosophical issues associated with topics such as morality, determinism, and social equality are increasingly being approached from a modern evolutionary perspective and are among the topics to be discussed in the course.''
- that of course is a joke. If one applies E. theory consistently one utterly obliterates morality. Social equality! What a farce. Evolution is the story of the struggle to be superior; the struggle to attain inequality. For a Darwinist to engage in the moral debate he has to deny e. theory. (As Dawkins tells us; outside the 'lab' he's an anti-darwinist.) In other words he has to be a hypocrite.
- if e. were true there would be no philosophical issues of any kind. Animals aren't philosophers. The fact people are interested in moral and philosophical issues is all the evidence anyone should need to see how fallacious e. theory is. It could never have 'given birth' to human beings. The fact human beings are so radically different from animals is all the evidence we need to know e. theory is false.
- Wilson claims bad people use the ideas of the time to push their own power agendas. Well we could easily make a case that this is what evolutionists like himself are doing.
5. 'Wilson says that for millennia, people have considered humankind categorically different from other creatures in their mental, moral and aesthetic abilities. “We are obviously unique in some respects,” he acknowledges, “but in exactly what way needs to be completely rethought.” Students are encouraged to view human infanticide along the same lines as they did for animals, and to do the same for human warfare, learning, and culture – all of which the teacher can demonstrate are present in varying degrees in the natural world. Such directness might seem worrisome to a biology teacher. Wilson reassures the reader that, in practice, the method actually produces compliant students...'
- I never cease to be amazed at the horrors that go on daily in our universities. It's astounding to me that Wilson is willing to be so honest about how he tries to manipulate his students into getting them to buy whatever crap he puts on the table. I'm amazed he states openly that his goal is compliant students.
- what we see here is how e. theory is used as a weapon for destroying christian morality. It's obvious that our elite are using e. theory to destroy c. morality and to rationalize a new pagan morality. (As Wilson told us earlier, ideas are often used for pernicious purposes, and here we see evidence of this; we see that wilson is doing exactly what he condemned others for. His advocacy (and I only use him as a handy example) of evolution is self serving; he believes its acceptance will further his philosophical and social goals. The pc crowd use e. as a defense of abortion, promiscuity, homosexuality, anti-christianity, and most of their other party planks.
6. "We are obviously unique in some respects...''
- you get the feeling that it caused him great pain to admit this :=) This urge to demean and degrade human beings is an extremely strange one; this kind of perversity is rare indeed. In some respects indeed! His very article is all the evidence we need to know that he's not an animal. This is so far from the daily concerns of an animal that it's a universe apart. These are not concerns for food or for mating. One wonders how the man can be so blind. What one sees here is a determined rebellion against god. So full of hate is the man for his Creator that he would rather call himself an animal that acknowledge he's made in the image of God. If Wilson really thinks he's little different from an ape (and I don't believe in his heart he believes this) I want him to try and translate his article in sign language to the nearest ape he can find. (I'd like to be there when he tries to communicate the idea of scientific theory :=)
Notes;
1. I came across this story at Creation/Evolution Headlines.
2. what you see in people like Wilson is a radical contempt for the views of others; a radical contempt for students. This is authoritarianism on stilts. (It's the USSR all over again; as this is exactly the way their professors treated students.)
3. In his article Wilson admits that evolutionists in the past used evolution theory for many immoral purposes; but he wants us to believe that in the present day all this is changed, and that no evolutionists push the theory for bad reasons. Sure. The truth is very different; evolution theory is being used as a way to rationalize all manner of immoral behaviors. (The fact is that evolutionism can't be used for any moral purpose. Why? For one thing it's a false theory; and for another it was a bit of metaphysical speculation that had the purpose of denying God. Evolutionary theory has no positive value; it has a wholly pernicious effect on everything it touches.)
4. evolutionists claim endlessly that E. is the foundation of biology; nonsense. Macro E. has nothing to do with biology. You can study biology (biological organisms) perfectly well without knowing a thing about darwinian theory.
5. people like Wilson wouldn't even Dream of telling you the truth about the origins issue. (And one day they will suffer the price for the charade they're playing; as they will end up on the intellectual rubbish pile.)
6. he gives his students Dennett's 'Dangerous Idea' to read. Well it's not surprising then that some young impressionable students might get taken in by this corrupt piece of hate speak. (e.g. let's send creationists to concentration camps) It would be hard for them to tell truth from error in the book. This is basically influence your students by giving them a bunch of lies to read. That this piece of hate speech could be recommended on the campuses of our society shows how far we've fallen. This is almost identical to the kind of material students got under the nazis. (ie. if you don't like a group; mock them, marginalize them, deny them their rights, put them in concentration camps...) I really can't beleive theis kind of thing is going on. (Don't forget it was the professors who led the nazi movement; and teh communist movement. Thse trumped up little morons believe they have some right to tyrannize people... to force them to adopt their views... and to punish them if they don't. Tyrannies are always led by university professors and the intellectuals.)
7. I doubt if these results (if you want to believe them :=) could be replicated; but even if they were one could easily imagine other reasons for their 'success.' Obviously if students see that a 'teacher' (indoctrinator) is intensely motivated to have them change their views... they will go along with the program to get the grade they want; especially knowing that fanatics like wilson penalize students severely for showing any resistance to the program. (Often failing people for offering any critique of the program; or in this case of evolution theory.) Most students hate fanatics like this and just want to get away from them... get on with their studies and their lives. Wilson sounds like the archetypal bully; that unfortunately abound on the modern campus. For some reason people like this are allowed to bully their students with immunity.
8. what I find interesting about ranting like this is how it denies what goes on elsewhere on the campus. Has Wilson never heard of postmodernism? of Deconstructionism? Hasn't he heard that the reader is the only one who knows what a text means? what right then does he have to impose his reading of 'darwin' on other people? Doesn't he know that all readings are equally valid? I say this half jokingly; but I think he needs to answer these questions. How is it he can ignore them? (as he so obviously does.) These are good secular colleagues; on what basis does he reject their ideas? (The irrationalism of the modern campus is profound; you have everybody contradicting everybody... but no one seems to care :=) It's really bedlam.
9. if Wilson really doesn't human beings should engage in a ruthless fight for survival why is he trying so hard to destroy creationists and the creationist model? On the one hand he tells us we must all be moral now (now that evolution has stopped happening I suppose) but on the other hand he's involved in a rather brutal attempt to eradicate the creationist model. This makes no sense, and can only be called irrationalism.
10. I'm still astounded that almost (almost?) no one in the secular camp condemned Dennett for his vile suggestion creationists should be sent to concentration camps. This tells you a lot about our modern evolutionists. (And how many people with a Jewish background condemned him? I can't think of any.) That despite all this most mainstream Christian clergy call themselves evolutionists is beyond comprehension. (And how many of them condemned Dennett? None that I know of.)
11. In all this you see the evils of the socialist system, and of tenure in particular. Does anyone believe Wilson would bully his students like this if he was operating in a free market system? (Once upon a time professors were paid by students on an individual basis.) But since he has the full weight of the State (that evil U.S. empire as professors like to call it) behind him he can treat students like dogs.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Darwinism and the demise of art
Device to root out all evil - article in the Vancouver Sun
Quotes and comments;
I rarely read the local rag of a newspaper, but I just happened to look through it the other day and was immediately reminded of why I don't.
1. 'It’s a case of “Not in my back yard, but maybe yours.”
A controversial piece of public art depicting an inverted church will soon be removed from Harbour Green Park.'
- We see a photo of some monstrosity of a sculpture. It appears to be about 30 feet high, and is an inverted church (with steeple) and the steeple is planted in the ground. This bit of humanist excrement is entitled 'rooting out all evil.' This foul entity has been 'standing' on public park land for the last 18 months. It was purchased by some fools to 'celebrate' an art festival. They paid the artist $300,000 dollars for it. (And who says hate doesn't pay?) This is socialism in action, where the political elite force their views on the rest of the populace. The pretense of socialism is that some oligarchy of the political elite will gather (i.e. steal) the resources of a society and use them to help ordinary people. A bigger joke has never been invented; and I offer this sculpture as evidence. Does this have anything to do with helping ordinary people? Is it what ordinary people would want? Doesn't it in fact show a hatred and contempt for ordinary people? The miseducated clowns who do these things show by these actions how totally alienated from the populace they are.
2. 'Although an offer was made to donate the piece to the city on a long-term loan, Weaving said Wednesday: “We’re recommending it come out in part because of the mixed public responses.”
That includes, she said, concern from area residents that the seven-metre-high piece blocks view corridors and takes too much of a small patch of green space.
“Some people have also contacted us to say that they feel the subject matter isn’t appropriate,” said Weaving.
- In any sane society this kind of hate speech wouldn't be allowed. (Can you imagine these people offending Muslims in this way? Can you imagine them exhibiting an upside down mosque, called "Rooting out all evil''? How about a statue of Darwin upside down in a toilet bowl 'rooting out all evil' or a bust of Marx in a tank of urine? Not bloody likely. How about a sculpture portraying the State as the root of all evil?
- and what pray tell does this have to do with a public park? I'm long tired of socialists using public spaces (and public funds) to set up anti-Christian artifacts.
- this isn't art, it's simple hatred. The great irony is that the people who support this kind of infamy claim man is just a mindless, soulless animal. But I don't see animals doing this. I don't see animals getting upset over ideas and world views. But if man is just an animal (or some robotic gene carrier) there is no truth.... and therefore this 'statement' is irrational and meaningless. The claim 'religion' (and he's referring to Christianity) is the root of all evil makes no sense if evolutionary theory is correct. In a materialist universe there would be no evil and there would be no truth. (The fact people believe that evil and truth exist is all the evidence we need that the materialist view of the universe is fallacious.)
- What we see here is how modern Humanism (ie. Darwinism) destroys art. True art is about beauty; humanist art is about political ideology. (Can you imagine anything more reactionary than this bit of art?) The whole idea of art has been turned upside down. This isn't art meant to give pleasure to the public, but to vent the petty hatred of the artist. And who buys this crap? No one; which is why the 'art world' has to get friends in politics to buy it, using tax dollars. No one is going to buy a gob of spit that's been directed at them. What we see here is political corruption; where the resources of the State are stolen and distributed to friends.
- the socialist elite have been forcing the crap on us for long enough. (Could a 200 foot statue of Stalin be any worse?) What these people are doing with sculptures like this (and less offensive examples pollute the city from one end to the other) is giving us the finger. One wonders how long Canadians will put up with this stuff. (The so called artist couldn't even get this bit of junk exhibited in New York!)
- I never cease to be amazed out the outrageous things our humanist pols allow themselves. No one but Christians are treated this way. (Imagine them mocking native groups this way.) Their so called pluralism is a joke; a pretense. Their defense of 'religious' rights is a pretense. Their so called love of diversity is a pretense. (They deserve awards for hypocricy.) There is apparently no bit of anti-Christian hatred they won't allow themselves.
3. Device to root out Evil (A photograph is available online at the link above.)
- One wonders how Oppenheim can be so clueless. Was there no evil in the USSR? Is the man totally unread? The idiocy of people like this is beyond belief. In reality they don't present arguments they just spew their hatred. (Evil of course has no meaning if man is just an animal; or if man is just chemical reactions; or just atomic particles.) The world view presented by people like this is irrationalism on stilts. These are the people who never said a word against the evils of communist countries. For anyone associated with government to buy or display their 'art' work (fart work is more like it) is immoral.
4. 'Vancouver Biennale chairwoman Michaela Frosch said the Oppenheim piece is “a very important work because of the magnitude of the artist’s reputation worldwide.”
- that makes no sense at all. The fact the artist has some big reputation among some tiny coterie of people says Nothing about a particular work of art.
- if man is just an animal (as the darwinists claim) there is no room for art in the world... art has no basis; as animals don't create art. The 'purpose' of art in the evolutionary model is functional; i.e. it can only exist if it helps reproductive success. This in effect destroys art. Only biblical christianity gives us a sold basis for art. Art is intimately connected with the creation; i.e. the creation of the universe by god. Art in effect agrees with god; that all things were created good. (In a limited sense it tries to express the goodness and perfection of the original creation.) It tries to show the sadness of a fallen world. (It also attempts to show the glory of a holy god.) The Darwinian knows nothing of true art; and this monstrosity is an example of this. This upside down church (and admittedly much modern theology IS upside down) isn't art at all; it's just writing in pictures for people too stupid to read. It's a little sermon in block letters; or the kind of 'sign language' you see in airports. It's a kind of 'concrete' bumper sticker... or a kind of editorial. This has nothing to do with real art; and the credit goes to Charles Darwin. (Who compiled a book of photographs showing the 'identity' of human and ape expressions; photos now known to have been rigged.)
5. “Some people have also contacted us to say that they feel the subject matter isn’t appropriate,” said Weaving.
- this sculpture for me is a perfect picture of Humanism; i.e. all things get turned wrong side up. How so? People are governed by an elite who hate them; true values are spit on, while depravity and debauchery are praised; the individual is devalued, while the state and special interest groups prosper; people are forced to finance their enemies; good is called bad, and evil is called good; God is spat upon, while god's enemies are celebrated; Christianity is vilified while atheism is celebrated; the church is attacked while a porno culture is vaunted; the family is hated, while anti-family forces are celebrated; and on and on and on.
- this bit of eye pollution is a grossly ugly artifact (and modern sculptors speak of their productions in gross terms; i.e. pieces of shit, etc.) so one has to be demented to want to exhibit it. How many of the deluded debutantes who did this actually went down and gazed fondly at this thingoid? How much time have any of them spent with it? (And why isn't it considered vandalism?) In effect we're being forced to pay for this 'artist' to dump on us. (And I'm sure you recall that some artists have actually exhibited their waste products as art.)
Notes;
1. 'Device to Root Out Evil was purchased from Oppenheim by Vancouver’s Benefic Foundation for $300,000 in 2006. The foundation subsequently offered it to the city on long-term loan.' (I'd like to know why some tax lawyers would want to buy and exhibit such a work of art. You tell me. Did they write the whole thing off as a tax deduction :=)
2. I have to apologize for this post. It's poorly written. Why? Because this thing offended me deeply, and got to me. (To write in haste is to repent in leisure as they say.)
3. The public may not have paid for this thing directly, but they certainly paid for it indirectly.
4. The newspaper article was badly written itself, so I'm not going to feel too bad. Nowhere in it was there a mention that this 'sculpture' was viciously anti-Christian. But this is hardly surprising as the 'editorial stance' of the paper is highly antagonistic toward Christianity. (And fully reflects the anti-Christian views of the billionaire owners.)
5. Am I defending all the church is and does? By no means. A big problem is that there is no such thing as a generic church. (Just as there is no such thing as generic Christianity; to say nothing of some generic religion.)
What there are is many very different churches with very different witnesses in the world.
6. It's sad that people would put up with this kind of abuse. (This kind of apathy is the fruits of Pietism I guess.) If people weren't concerned about the blasphemy of it, or the insult to Christians, you think at least they'd be offended that it ruined the view.
Quotes and comments;
I rarely read the local rag of a newspaper, but I just happened to look through it the other day and was immediately reminded of why I don't.
1. 'It’s a case of “Not in my back yard, but maybe yours.”A controversial piece of public art depicting an inverted church will soon be removed from Harbour Green Park.'
- We see a photo of some monstrosity of a sculpture. It appears to be about 30 feet high, and is an inverted church (with steeple) and the steeple is planted in the ground. This bit of humanist excrement is entitled 'rooting out all evil.' This foul entity has been 'standing' on public park land for the last 18 months. It was purchased by some fools to 'celebrate' an art festival. They paid the artist $300,000 dollars for it. (And who says hate doesn't pay?) This is socialism in action, where the political elite force their views on the rest of the populace. The pretense of socialism is that some oligarchy of the political elite will gather (i.e. steal) the resources of a society and use them to help ordinary people. A bigger joke has never been invented; and I offer this sculpture as evidence. Does this have anything to do with helping ordinary people? Is it what ordinary people would want? Doesn't it in fact show a hatred and contempt for ordinary people? The miseducated clowns who do these things show by these actions how totally alienated from the populace they are.
2. 'Although an offer was made to donate the piece to the city on a long-term loan, Weaving said Wednesday: “We’re recommending it come out in part because of the mixed public responses.”
That includes, she said, concern from area residents that the seven-metre-high piece blocks view corridors and takes too much of a small patch of green space.
“Some people have also contacted us to say that they feel the subject matter isn’t appropriate,” said Weaving.
- In any sane society this kind of hate speech wouldn't be allowed. (Can you imagine these people offending Muslims in this way? Can you imagine them exhibiting an upside down mosque, called "Rooting out all evil''? How about a statue of Darwin upside down in a toilet bowl 'rooting out all evil' or a bust of Marx in a tank of urine? Not bloody likely. How about a sculpture portraying the State as the root of all evil?
- and what pray tell does this have to do with a public park? I'm long tired of socialists using public spaces (and public funds) to set up anti-Christian artifacts.
- this isn't art, it's simple hatred. The great irony is that the people who support this kind of infamy claim man is just a mindless, soulless animal. But I don't see animals doing this. I don't see animals getting upset over ideas and world views. But if man is just an animal (or some robotic gene carrier) there is no truth.... and therefore this 'statement' is irrational and meaningless. The claim 'religion' (and he's referring to Christianity) is the root of all evil makes no sense if evolutionary theory is correct. In a materialist universe there would be no evil and there would be no truth. (The fact people believe that evil and truth exist is all the evidence we need that the materialist view of the universe is fallacious.)
- What we see here is how modern Humanism (ie. Darwinism) destroys art. True art is about beauty; humanist art is about political ideology. (Can you imagine anything more reactionary than this bit of art?) The whole idea of art has been turned upside down. This isn't art meant to give pleasure to the public, but to vent the petty hatred of the artist. And who buys this crap? No one; which is why the 'art world' has to get friends in politics to buy it, using tax dollars. No one is going to buy a gob of spit that's been directed at them. What we see here is political corruption; where the resources of the State are stolen and distributed to friends.
- the socialist elite have been forcing the crap on us for long enough. (Could a 200 foot statue of Stalin be any worse?) What these people are doing with sculptures like this (and less offensive examples pollute the city from one end to the other) is giving us the finger. One wonders how long Canadians will put up with this stuff. (The so called artist couldn't even get this bit of junk exhibited in New York!)
- I never cease to be amazed out the outrageous things our humanist pols allow themselves. No one but Christians are treated this way. (Imagine them mocking native groups this way.) Their so called pluralism is a joke; a pretense. Their defense of 'religious' rights is a pretense. Their so called love of diversity is a pretense. (They deserve awards for hypocricy.) There is apparently no bit of anti-Christian hatred they won't allow themselves.
3. Device to root out Evil (A photograph is available online at the link above.)
- One wonders how Oppenheim can be so clueless. Was there no evil in the USSR? Is the man totally unread? The idiocy of people like this is beyond belief. In reality they don't present arguments they just spew their hatred. (Evil of course has no meaning if man is just an animal; or if man is just chemical reactions; or just atomic particles.) The world view presented by people like this is irrationalism on stilts. These are the people who never said a word against the evils of communist countries. For anyone associated with government to buy or display their 'art' work (fart work is more like it) is immoral.
4. 'Vancouver Biennale chairwoman Michaela Frosch said the Oppenheim piece is “a very important work because of the magnitude of the artist’s reputation worldwide.”
- that makes no sense at all. The fact the artist has some big reputation among some tiny coterie of people says Nothing about a particular work of art.
- if man is just an animal (as the darwinists claim) there is no room for art in the world... art has no basis; as animals don't create art. The 'purpose' of art in the evolutionary model is functional; i.e. it can only exist if it helps reproductive success. This in effect destroys art. Only biblical christianity gives us a sold basis for art. Art is intimately connected with the creation; i.e. the creation of the universe by god. Art in effect agrees with god; that all things were created good. (In a limited sense it tries to express the goodness and perfection of the original creation.) It tries to show the sadness of a fallen world. (It also attempts to show the glory of a holy god.) The Darwinian knows nothing of true art; and this monstrosity is an example of this. This upside down church (and admittedly much modern theology IS upside down) isn't art at all; it's just writing in pictures for people too stupid to read. It's a little sermon in block letters; or the kind of 'sign language' you see in airports. It's a kind of 'concrete' bumper sticker... or a kind of editorial. This has nothing to do with real art; and the credit goes to Charles Darwin. (Who compiled a book of photographs showing the 'identity' of human and ape expressions; photos now known to have been rigged.)
5. “Some people have also contacted us to say that they feel the subject matter isn’t appropriate,” said Weaving.
- this sculpture for me is a perfect picture of Humanism; i.e. all things get turned wrong side up. How so? People are governed by an elite who hate them; true values are spit on, while depravity and debauchery are praised; the individual is devalued, while the state and special interest groups prosper; people are forced to finance their enemies; good is called bad, and evil is called good; God is spat upon, while god's enemies are celebrated; Christianity is vilified while atheism is celebrated; the church is attacked while a porno culture is vaunted; the family is hated, while anti-family forces are celebrated; and on and on and on.
- this bit of eye pollution is a grossly ugly artifact (and modern sculptors speak of their productions in gross terms; i.e. pieces of shit, etc.) so one has to be demented to want to exhibit it. How many of the deluded debutantes who did this actually went down and gazed fondly at this thingoid? How much time have any of them spent with it? (And why isn't it considered vandalism?) In effect we're being forced to pay for this 'artist' to dump on us. (And I'm sure you recall that some artists have actually exhibited their waste products as art.)
Notes;
1. 'Device to Root Out Evil was purchased from Oppenheim by Vancouver’s Benefic Foundation for $300,000 in 2006. The foundation subsequently offered it to the city on long-term loan.' (I'd like to know why some tax lawyers would want to buy and exhibit such a work of art. You tell me. Did they write the whole thing off as a tax deduction :=)
2. I have to apologize for this post. It's poorly written. Why? Because this thing offended me deeply, and got to me. (To write in haste is to repent in leisure as they say.)
3. The public may not have paid for this thing directly, but they certainly paid for it indirectly.
4. The newspaper article was badly written itself, so I'm not going to feel too bad. Nowhere in it was there a mention that this 'sculpture' was viciously anti-Christian. But this is hardly surprising as the 'editorial stance' of the paper is highly antagonistic toward Christianity. (And fully reflects the anti-Christian views of the billionaire owners.)
5. Am I defending all the church is and does? By no means. A big problem is that there is no such thing as a generic church. (Just as there is no such thing as generic Christianity; to say nothing of some generic religion.)
What there are is many very different churches with very different witnesses in the world.
6. It's sad that people would put up with this kind of abuse. (This kind of apathy is the fruits of Pietism I guess.) If people weren't concerned about the blasphemy of it, or the insult to Christians, you think at least they'd be offended that it ruined the view.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Mother Nature as a Talking Dummy
In 2005 the magazine 'Science' gave its award of 'Breakthrough of the year' to ''Evolution in Action,'' - a series of findings that ostensibly help us understand how evolution works.
(Elizabeth Culotta and Elizabeth Pennisi; Science/2005)
Some quotes, and some comments;
1. "Today evolution is the foundation of all biology, so basic and all-pervasive that scientists sometimes take its importance for granted. At some level every discovery in biology and medicine rests on it, in much the same way that all terrestrial vertebrates can trace their ancestry back to the first bold fishes to explore land. Each year, researchers worldwide discover enough extraordinary findings tied to evolutionary thinking to fill a book many times as thick as all of Darwin’s works put together."
- Oh my, it's the silly fairy tale about the 'bold' fishes who left the nice and friendly sea to explore the hostile land. Gee; that was a favorite of mine when I was 2 years old... I remember it with great fondness. It didn't have any words to it, but then again it didn't have to. (Such is the greatness of darwinianism :=)
- I don't believe this story for a second. No one was there to see this wild and incredible adventure take place, so it cannot be science, but can only be philosophical speculation. I regard it as a complete fantasy. This is Not something fish do; want to do, or can do. It is totally impossible.
2. Our authors say, ''evolution is the foundation of all biology...''
- I'm afraid not. What evolution is the foundation of, is all evolutionary biology. (But I guess that doesn't sound too impressive does it? No wonder people prefer to lie than tell the truth when they write :=) Actually E. isn't the foundation of anything. Reality is the foundation of biology. In fact it's god's creation that's the foundation of biology. All people are creationists whether they like it or not. There many levels involved in a statement this broad of course; we could say that language is the foundation of biology; we could say that world view is the foundation of biology.
- the pretense of this statement is the faith claim that there is only one way to look at things; that there's only one way to account for the living creatures that make pleasant (and challenging) our lives on this planet. This isn't true of course, but it doesn't stop people like this from trying to convince students that this is the case. (Hey; if we're just animals trying to outcompete each other why be honest?) I assume the authors know better. I assume they refuse to do their readers the honor of telling them the truth. (What sad bastards we are that we can't talk honestly and openly about origins. We'll all go to our graves clutching our petty little lies to our chest.)
3. ''... all terrestrial vertebrates can trace their ancestry back to the first bold fishes to explore land.''
- how any sane person can believe man's ancestors were fish is beyond me. (But heh, I believed it once myself. When I say I believed it, I mean I just accepted what I was told without really thinking about it.) Doesn't it matter that the thing is impossible? Doesn't that matter?
- it's a personification fallacy to call fish 'bold.' That makes no sense; but it happens so often in evolutionary writing that people just take it for granted I guess. Fish aren't bold; only persons are bold. (Like when they tell bald faced lies to people.... when they tell huge lies and hope desperately they'll get away with it... that people won't realize they're lying.)
4. As your average school teacher tells her first graders. ''You know if I try very, very hard I can imagine how all this happened. Once upon a time there was a little fish that was very, very bold. One day he told his parents (Mr. and Mrs. Timidfish) that he was going to explore the land. ''I jumped up very high and I saw it... and now I'm going to explore it, so please pack me a lunch.'' His parents begged him not to go. "It will be incredibly dangerous my bold son,'' said his father Casper Timidfish. But the son (Hercules Timidfish) went anyway. "He always was brave,'' said his mother, weeping a few tears. (In the process turning the sea salty... and that was how the sea evolved it's salt content... as the tears engaged in a fiercesome struggle for survival and the ocean evolved rapidly under the stimulus of this new competition. And that's why we now call the sea the ocean.) When he reached the shore the little fish huffed and puffed and made himself swell to twice his normal size. When the keeper of the sea/land boundary came over to look at him he looked him straight in the eye and said, ''I'm not afraid landkeeper. Let me pass.'' The keeper was so stunned by hearing all this that he fainted and the little fish walked out of the water and onto the land. The land was muddy and he wished he'd brought his boots with him... and this is how he evolved his feet."
5. I predict that one day people will laugh at Darwinian fairy tales (like the fish taking to land story) as the greatest source of humor on the planet. (And they accuse us creationists of not making predictions :=)
Notes;
1. the fact evolutionists become creationists, and creationists become evolutionists is all the evidence we need that there is more than one way to look at the data of biology or any other data. Data is mute. Data has 'words' attributed to it; the way a ventriloquist 'attributes' words to a dummy.
2. In the same issue editor Kennedy tells us;
''We have to put the pieces together, and it could not be a more important challenge: As the evolutionary geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky once said, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”
- the light of evolution eh? I wonder if that's like the 'inner light' the Quakers talk about :=) This is a bit of blasphemy evolutionists like to quote; it's their equivalent of a bible verse. Of course this phrase is a 'take-off" on the bible, and the claim nothing makes sense except in the light of god's word. ("The fear of god is the beginning of wisdom,'' etc.)
- this is more personification. Evolution isn't a person; it sheds no light. Evolution is a theory, and a theory that makes all of life absurd. It's a theory that makes life impossible to understand; that creates puzzles for people that can't be solved because they're based on a fallacious idea. (e.g. there is no explanation for how life 'emerged' spontaneously on earth... because no such thing happened.)
4. 'Kennedy pointed to his favorite example of the new light: a case of microevolution in stickleback fish. The findings, however meager, are not as important as the process, Kennedy explained: “The exciting thing about evolution,” he said, “is not that our understanding is perfect or complete but that it is the foundation stone for the rest of biology.”
- We here this claim continually. (It goes out every day like a Islamic call for prayer.) But saying something doesn't make it so. What we see here is a kind of new age theology; that you can create any reality you want simply by repeatedly affirming it.
- it's bizarre for a materialist to refer to a foundation stone as there could be no such thing as truth in a m. universe. (Foundation stone is more biblical imagery of course. Christ was the corner stone that Israel's leaders rejected. Whether K. knows it or not he's compared Darwin (or at least Darwinism) to Jesus Christ. But man (or human theory) cannot be the foundation for truth; only God can be a foundation for truth. Darwinism has (since it's debut) a foundation for error. All the sciences (and arts) would have been much better off without this ancient bit of metaphysical speculation. It has contributed nothing of positive value; but has only thrust delusions and fallacies upon generations of students. It is utterly superfluous to true science. (True science is based on observation, testing, language, and logic; it has no need of the evolutionary hypothesis.)
5. I came across this story at Creation/Evolution headlines.
(Elizabeth Culotta and Elizabeth Pennisi; Science/2005)
Some quotes, and some comments;
1. "Today evolution is the foundation of all biology, so basic and all-pervasive that scientists sometimes take its importance for granted. At some level every discovery in biology and medicine rests on it, in much the same way that all terrestrial vertebrates can trace their ancestry back to the first bold fishes to explore land. Each year, researchers worldwide discover enough extraordinary findings tied to evolutionary thinking to fill a book many times as thick as all of Darwin’s works put together."
- Oh my, it's the silly fairy tale about the 'bold' fishes who left the nice and friendly sea to explore the hostile land. Gee; that was a favorite of mine when I was 2 years old... I remember it with great fondness. It didn't have any words to it, but then again it didn't have to. (Such is the greatness of darwinianism :=)
- I don't believe this story for a second. No one was there to see this wild and incredible adventure take place, so it cannot be science, but can only be philosophical speculation. I regard it as a complete fantasy. This is Not something fish do; want to do, or can do. It is totally impossible.
2. Our authors say, ''evolution is the foundation of all biology...''
- I'm afraid not. What evolution is the foundation of, is all evolutionary biology. (But I guess that doesn't sound too impressive does it? No wonder people prefer to lie than tell the truth when they write :=) Actually E. isn't the foundation of anything. Reality is the foundation of biology. In fact it's god's creation that's the foundation of biology. All people are creationists whether they like it or not. There many levels involved in a statement this broad of course; we could say that language is the foundation of biology; we could say that world view is the foundation of biology.
- the pretense of this statement is the faith claim that there is only one way to look at things; that there's only one way to account for the living creatures that make pleasant (and challenging) our lives on this planet. This isn't true of course, but it doesn't stop people like this from trying to convince students that this is the case. (Hey; if we're just animals trying to outcompete each other why be honest?) I assume the authors know better. I assume they refuse to do their readers the honor of telling them the truth. (What sad bastards we are that we can't talk honestly and openly about origins. We'll all go to our graves clutching our petty little lies to our chest.)
3. ''... all terrestrial vertebrates can trace their ancestry back to the first bold fishes to explore land.''
- how any sane person can believe man's ancestors were fish is beyond me. (But heh, I believed it once myself. When I say I believed it, I mean I just accepted what I was told without really thinking about it.) Doesn't it matter that the thing is impossible? Doesn't that matter?
- it's a personification fallacy to call fish 'bold.' That makes no sense; but it happens so often in evolutionary writing that people just take it for granted I guess. Fish aren't bold; only persons are bold. (Like when they tell bald faced lies to people.... when they tell huge lies and hope desperately they'll get away with it... that people won't realize they're lying.)
4. As your average school teacher tells her first graders. ''You know if I try very, very hard I can imagine how all this happened. Once upon a time there was a little fish that was very, very bold. One day he told his parents (Mr. and Mrs. Timidfish) that he was going to explore the land. ''I jumped up very high and I saw it... and now I'm going to explore it, so please pack me a lunch.'' His parents begged him not to go. "It will be incredibly dangerous my bold son,'' said his father Casper Timidfish. But the son (Hercules Timidfish) went anyway. "He always was brave,'' said his mother, weeping a few tears. (In the process turning the sea salty... and that was how the sea evolved it's salt content... as the tears engaged in a fiercesome struggle for survival and the ocean evolved rapidly under the stimulus of this new competition. And that's why we now call the sea the ocean.) When he reached the shore the little fish huffed and puffed and made himself swell to twice his normal size. When the keeper of the sea/land boundary came over to look at him he looked him straight in the eye and said, ''I'm not afraid landkeeper. Let me pass.'' The keeper was so stunned by hearing all this that he fainted and the little fish walked out of the water and onto the land. The land was muddy and he wished he'd brought his boots with him... and this is how he evolved his feet."
5. I predict that one day people will laugh at Darwinian fairy tales (like the fish taking to land story) as the greatest source of humor on the planet. (And they accuse us creationists of not making predictions :=)
Notes;
1. the fact evolutionists become creationists, and creationists become evolutionists is all the evidence we need that there is more than one way to look at the data of biology or any other data. Data is mute. Data has 'words' attributed to it; the way a ventriloquist 'attributes' words to a dummy.
2. In the same issue editor Kennedy tells us;
''We have to put the pieces together, and it could not be a more important challenge: As the evolutionary geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky once said, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”
- the light of evolution eh? I wonder if that's like the 'inner light' the Quakers talk about :=) This is a bit of blasphemy evolutionists like to quote; it's their equivalent of a bible verse. Of course this phrase is a 'take-off" on the bible, and the claim nothing makes sense except in the light of god's word. ("The fear of god is the beginning of wisdom,'' etc.)
- this is more personification. Evolution isn't a person; it sheds no light. Evolution is a theory, and a theory that makes all of life absurd. It's a theory that makes life impossible to understand; that creates puzzles for people that can't be solved because they're based on a fallacious idea. (e.g. there is no explanation for how life 'emerged' spontaneously on earth... because no such thing happened.)
4. 'Kennedy pointed to his favorite example of the new light: a case of microevolution in stickleback fish. The findings, however meager, are not as important as the process, Kennedy explained: “The exciting thing about evolution,” he said, “is not that our understanding is perfect or complete but that it is the foundation stone for the rest of biology.”
- We here this claim continually. (It goes out every day like a Islamic call for prayer.) But saying something doesn't make it so. What we see here is a kind of new age theology; that you can create any reality you want simply by repeatedly affirming it.
- it's bizarre for a materialist to refer to a foundation stone as there could be no such thing as truth in a m. universe. (Foundation stone is more biblical imagery of course. Christ was the corner stone that Israel's leaders rejected. Whether K. knows it or not he's compared Darwin (or at least Darwinism) to Jesus Christ. But man (or human theory) cannot be the foundation for truth; only God can be a foundation for truth. Darwinism has (since it's debut) a foundation for error. All the sciences (and arts) would have been much better off without this ancient bit of metaphysical speculation. It has contributed nothing of positive value; but has only thrust delusions and fallacies upon generations of students. It is utterly superfluous to true science. (True science is based on observation, testing, language, and logic; it has no need of the evolutionary hypothesis.)
5. I came across this story at Creation/Evolution headlines.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Communism, Darwinism, and the Catholic church
'Mexicans, religious or not, have no problem with Darwinism, and cannot understand their American neighbors who get so uptight about it. That’s the gist of an article by Antonio Lazcano, a Mexican biology professor and origin-of-life researcher, who was given lengthy press in Science this week (11/04/2005) under the heading “Global Voices of Science.”
Quotes and comments;
1. "I am always amused when I am asked by my American colleagues about the problems and pressures they imagine I face in Mexico because of my interest in life’s beginnings. However, pressure to include creationism in public pedagogical and research settings has been primarily a phenomenon in the United States. Only twice during my 30 years of teaching about evolutionary biology and research into the origins of life, have I encountered religious-based opposition to my work. In both cases, it came from evangelical zealots from the United States preaching in Mexico. One of the little recognized U.S. imports into Mexico is a small flow of creationists, who, through religion, are trying to impose their fundamentalist beliefs and hinder the teaching of Darwinian evolution in all levels of schooling. ''
- when someone writes 'I'm always amused by x' you can be confident he's flying the bull flag. Lazcano is clearly Not amused.
- I'm always amused (well, not always) by how people around the world seem intent of putting the adjective 'Darwinian' in front of evolution. Why are they so intent to give this rather odious man credit for an idea that already existed a couple millennia before he was born. Charles Darwin in no way invented evolution. He was basically a popularizer, a man who freely plagiarized other thinkers. Darwin had many precursors in France and other countries. And the biggest irony is that the evolutionary theory taught in our day has almost nothing to do with the ideas delineated in the 'Origins of species, and the survival of favored races' published in 1859. The 'theory' has been totally overhauled since then. (Why? It clearly didn't work.) So why does Lazcano call it 'Darwinian' evolution? (Why give this imperialist gringo credit :=)
2. "Our understanding of the origin and early stages of biological evolution still has major unsolved problems, but they are recognized by the scientific community as intellectual challenges, and not as requiring metaphysical explanations, as proponents of creationism would have it.'' - Antonio Lazcano
- materialism of course IS a metaphysical explanation. (Doesn't he know this?)
- the snide pretense here is that if you're a creationist there are no intellectual challenges. Again I have to ask how anyone can believe this. (The only explanation would appear to be profound ignorance. I consider myself a creationist and see intellectual challenges everywhere. I really don't understand such a statement.) Naturalism or materialism, are world view (wview) positions taken on faith; adopting one or the other doesn't do away with challenges. One could easily make the case that the challenges (at least in a largely secular society like ours) are greater for the creationist; at least in some respects. (The RATE project undertaken by ICR is just one example of creationists engaged in trying to solve an intellectual challenge.)
- one reason Darwinism reigns in Mexico is that Mexico was one of the first communist countries... one of the first to have a communist (i.e. atheistic, materialist) education system; a system which remains virtually unchanged as far as I know. (I'm no expert.) Children are taught from day one that materialism is the correct metaphysical position to take, and that evolution is a fact.
- despite Lazcano's attempts at bluffing, materialists have no way of explaining how the living organisms on this planet 'emerged.' One wonders how he can then possibly know that it's true. The truth is that there is no possible way the intelligent codes of life could have just happened by some kind of chemical Accidentalism.
- we see here a clash of world views. This is what makes 'progress' seemingly impossible in the c/e debate. If your basic presupposition in life is materialism, you will necessarily become an evolutionist; you have no other choice. If you start with theism, you will necessarily become a creationist; you have no choice. And at the risk of annoying people by repeating ourselves; neither materialism, nor theism can be proved. People should be free to make their own choices in this; to follow the dictates of their conscience. These things aren't properly a matter for government edicts and legislation. To legislate E. is to legislate materialism and atheism.
- what we see here is the sad influence of the Catholic church in Latin America; right down the line they've denied biblical revelation and given the people humanism instead. (One thinks of the idiocy of Liberation theology.) The clergy (at least at the top) push Darwinism, and speak as if no criticism of it is even imaginable. Why? Because this fits into the humanist theology they push. (See the views of George Coyne below.)
- when Lazcano insists a materialist explanantion for life is possible, he's really saying nothing is impossible. He has a faith that an answer will be found. Why? because this is what he wants. I see no way he can know this. The idea he can know nothing is impossible is absurd. We know that many things are impossible. We know that it's impossible for animal breeders to turn a dog into a cat. It's not 'religious' or mystical to say so. We know that when we wake up tomorrow the 2nd law won't have vanished or reversed itself; that would be impossible. It's impossible that we can give an explanation in physics for why one person favors creation and one evolution. (Materialism demands a materialist explanation for all thngs and this is clearly impossible.) There are many things that are impossible; and it's possible to know what they are. I contend that a materialist explanation for the origins of the living 'things' on earth is one of these things.
- it seems to me that if you believe in the 'laws of physics' you must believe that some things are impossible; that the two go hand in hand. The idea the incredibly complex codes of life just happened by accident isn't scientific but anti-scientific. This 'idea' (hope) violates all we know about biology; e.g. that life doesn't come from non-life. Someone who affirms a belief in the ultimacy of 'physical' law cannot at the same time claim nothing is impossible. Laws make some things possible, and other things impossible.
Notes;
1. The RATE project looked into radiometric dating methods; looking for ways they might be mistaken; explained in other ways.
1. A good article along these lines is Evolution's Thermodynamic Failure
By Granville Sewell
3. to say nothing is impossible... that we can find m. answers to all problems given time... is like saying 'yes a perpetual motion machine seems impossible, but that's only a religous superstition... given time we will build one.''
4. Lazcano comes to the u.s. to villify c's, but doesn't want any c's to be allowed into mexico. Sounds fair right? (I wonder why millions cross the border despite the collectivist utopia of mexico.)
5. Lazcano calls creationists zealots. Now I don't want to call him a zealot, but he is very enthusiastic and committed to a cause :=) If Materialism were a true view of the universe he'd have to explain, in terms of physical law, why people only refer to their opponents as zealots, and don't apply it to people on their own side :=)
6. George Coyne;
“Intelligent design isn’t science even though it pretends to be.... If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science.” ' Coyne continued arguing that the faithful should abandon the concept of a dictator God or designer God creating a Newtonian “clockwork universe” and instead embrace the concept of God as “encouraging parent” using evolution to achieve his ends – allowing, participating and loving, but not intervening.' (from C/E headlines)
7. 'A photo in the article shows an elementary school in a small Mexican town, where “children celebrate Darwin’s birthday (12 February) with a ceremony and display of murals on his life and theory.”
- well this is clearly a joke. It's school teachers who 'celebrate' Darwin. This smacks of little children being made to sing hymns of praise to Chairman Mao. (I'm sure this 'celebration' must be deeply moving.) It's obvious that children can't understand even the obsolete evolutionary ideas of darwin... let alone the current puddle of obfuscation.
'Mexicans, religious or not, have no problem with Darwinism, and cannot understand their American neighbors who get so uptight about it. That’s the gist of an article by Antonio Lazcano, a Mexican biology professor and origin-of-life researcher, who was given lengthy press in Science this week (11/04/2005) under the heading “Global Voices of Science.”
Quotes and comments;
1. "I am always amused when I am asked by my American colleagues about the problems and pressures they imagine I face in Mexico because of my interest in life’s beginnings. However, pressure to include creationism in public pedagogical and research settings has been primarily a phenomenon in the United States. Only twice during my 30 years of teaching about evolutionary biology and research into the origins of life, have I encountered religious-based opposition to my work. In both cases, it came from evangelical zealots from the United States preaching in Mexico. One of the little recognized U.S. imports into Mexico is a small flow of creationists, who, through religion, are trying to impose their fundamentalist beliefs and hinder the teaching of Darwinian evolution in all levels of schooling. ''
- when someone writes 'I'm always amused by x' you can be confident he's flying the bull flag. Lazcano is clearly Not amused.
- I'm always amused (well, not always) by how people around the world seem intent of putting the adjective 'Darwinian' in front of evolution. Why are they so intent to give this rather odious man credit for an idea that already existed a couple millennia before he was born. Charles Darwin in no way invented evolution. He was basically a popularizer, a man who freely plagiarized other thinkers. Darwin had many precursors in France and other countries. And the biggest irony is that the evolutionary theory taught in our day has almost nothing to do with the ideas delineated in the 'Origins of species, and the survival of favored races' published in 1859. The 'theory' has been totally overhauled since then. (Why? It clearly didn't work.) So why does Lazcano call it 'Darwinian' evolution? (Why give this imperialist gringo credit :=)
2. "Our understanding of the origin and early stages of biological evolution still has major unsolved problems, but they are recognized by the scientific community as intellectual challenges, and not as requiring metaphysical explanations, as proponents of creationism would have it.'' - Antonio Lazcano
- materialism of course IS a metaphysical explanation. (Doesn't he know this?)
- the snide pretense here is that if you're a creationist there are no intellectual challenges. Again I have to ask how anyone can believe this. (The only explanation would appear to be profound ignorance. I consider myself a creationist and see intellectual challenges everywhere. I really don't understand such a statement.) Naturalism or materialism, are world view (wview) positions taken on faith; adopting one or the other doesn't do away with challenges. One could easily make the case that the challenges (at least in a largely secular society like ours) are greater for the creationist; at least in some respects. (The RATE project undertaken by ICR is just one example of creationists engaged in trying to solve an intellectual challenge.)
- one reason Darwinism reigns in Mexico is that Mexico was one of the first communist countries... one of the first to have a communist (i.e. atheistic, materialist) education system; a system which remains virtually unchanged as far as I know. (I'm no expert.) Children are taught from day one that materialism is the correct metaphysical position to take, and that evolution is a fact.
- despite Lazcano's attempts at bluffing, materialists have no way of explaining how the living organisms on this planet 'emerged.' One wonders how he can then possibly know that it's true. The truth is that there is no possible way the intelligent codes of life could have just happened by some kind of chemical Accidentalism.
- we see here a clash of world views. This is what makes 'progress' seemingly impossible in the c/e debate. If your basic presupposition in life is materialism, you will necessarily become an evolutionist; you have no other choice. If you start with theism, you will necessarily become a creationist; you have no choice. And at the risk of annoying people by repeating ourselves; neither materialism, nor theism can be proved. People should be free to make their own choices in this; to follow the dictates of their conscience. These things aren't properly a matter for government edicts and legislation. To legislate E. is to legislate materialism and atheism.
- what we see here is the sad influence of the Catholic church in Latin America; right down the line they've denied biblical revelation and given the people humanism instead. (One thinks of the idiocy of Liberation theology.) The clergy (at least at the top) push Darwinism, and speak as if no criticism of it is even imaginable. Why? Because this fits into the humanist theology they push. (See the views of George Coyne below.)
- when Lazcano insists a materialist explanantion for life is possible, he's really saying nothing is impossible. He has a faith that an answer will be found. Why? because this is what he wants. I see no way he can know this. The idea he can know nothing is impossible is absurd. We know that many things are impossible. We know that it's impossible for animal breeders to turn a dog into a cat. It's not 'religious' or mystical to say so. We know that when we wake up tomorrow the 2nd law won't have vanished or reversed itself; that would be impossible. It's impossible that we can give an explanation in physics for why one person favors creation and one evolution. (Materialism demands a materialist explanation for all thngs and this is clearly impossible.) There are many things that are impossible; and it's possible to know what they are. I contend that a materialist explanation for the origins of the living 'things' on earth is one of these things.
- it seems to me that if you believe in the 'laws of physics' you must believe that some things are impossible; that the two go hand in hand. The idea the incredibly complex codes of life just happened by accident isn't scientific but anti-scientific. This 'idea' (hope) violates all we know about biology; e.g. that life doesn't come from non-life. Someone who affirms a belief in the ultimacy of 'physical' law cannot at the same time claim nothing is impossible. Laws make some things possible, and other things impossible.
Notes;
1. The RATE project looked into radiometric dating methods; looking for ways they might be mistaken; explained in other ways.
1. A good article along these lines is Evolution's Thermodynamic Failure
By Granville Sewell
3. to say nothing is impossible... that we can find m. answers to all problems given time... is like saying 'yes a perpetual motion machine seems impossible, but that's only a religous superstition... given time we will build one.''
4. Lazcano comes to the u.s. to villify c's, but doesn't want any c's to be allowed into mexico. Sounds fair right? (I wonder why millions cross the border despite the collectivist utopia of mexico.)
5. Lazcano calls creationists zealots. Now I don't want to call him a zealot, but he is very enthusiastic and committed to a cause :=) If Materialism were a true view of the universe he'd have to explain, in terms of physical law, why people only refer to their opponents as zealots, and don't apply it to people on their own side :=)
6. George Coyne;
“Intelligent design isn’t science even though it pretends to be.... If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science.” ' Coyne continued arguing that the faithful should abandon the concept of a dictator God or designer God creating a Newtonian “clockwork universe” and instead embrace the concept of God as “encouraging parent” using evolution to achieve his ends – allowing, participating and loving, but not intervening.' (from C/E headlines)
7. 'A photo in the article shows an elementary school in a small Mexican town, where “children celebrate Darwin’s birthday (12 February) with a ceremony and display of murals on his life and theory.”
- well this is clearly a joke. It's school teachers who 'celebrate' Darwin. This smacks of little children being made to sing hymns of praise to Chairman Mao. (I'm sure this 'celebration' must be deeply moving.) It's obvious that children can't understand even the obsolete evolutionary ideas of darwin... let alone the current puddle of obfuscation.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Theistic evolution; as clear as mud
Charles Krauthammer goes on an anti-ID rant.
Quotes and comments;
1. “Let’s be clear. Intelligent design may be interesting as theology, but as science it is a fraud.” He called it “ridiculous to make evolution the enemy of God.”
- How can something be interesting as theology and fraudulent as science? That makes no sense to me. I can only assume K's view of theology is very, very low; i.e. pure fantasy. Only if you think theology has no relation to reality could this statement make any sense.
2. He finds it “more elegant, more simple, more brilliant, more economical, more creative, indeed more divine” to picture, in the beginning, “a single double-stranded molecule, pliable and fecund enough to give us mollusks and mice, Newton and Einstein” even if it also produced the Kansas State Board of Education, he ended with a smirk.
- let's see if I've got this story correct; in the beginning 'a single double-stranded molecule' apparently exploded and gave us the universe we know today. I wonder how K. knows this. (Double stranded you say! Almost sounds as if he were there doesn't it :=) Well; what he's done is make this molecule god. And let's be clear, there is no such molecule; never was and never will be. This is a joke. But if such molecule existed it would have to have in it; intelligence, foresight, personality, will, goals, ability to do math, etc. etc. Let's be clear, this is a complete fantasy. But even if such a thing existed K. has divinized matter.
- I wonder what would happen if we exploded a molecule today? would a universe spring into being? would annoying American columnists explode into existence? I have my doubts :=)
- I don't understand how people can imagine hydrogen gas has the ability to morph into Newton and Einstein. (Or even G. Bush for that matter.) How can they imagine intelligence comes from non-intelligence? (Well; only because they want to. These are people who want molecules for god; they want nothing to do with a real creator god. In the psalms david wonders where a man could flee from god; that no matter where man went god would be there. Apparently K. thinks he can flee into some kind of mythical molecule.
- the game that people like K. play is to use the word evolution in equivocal ways. In other words he pretends theistic evolution and Materialistic evolution are the same thing. This is intellectually dishonest. These are totally different things; and it's a sad commentary on K. that he plays this marked card. Evolution is an inherently materialistic theory; it has no god in it... and that's the whole point. (It incenses many e's to have the two origin theories confused in this way.) When K. says it's ridiculous to say E. is an enemy of god he's holding up a theistic evolution card. But E. isn't theistic, it's materialist.... and obviously Materialism Is an enemy of god. But K. isn't honest enough to say this.
His whole article is playing around with words; i.e. it depends on creating confusion based on using one word (E.) in two radically different ways. Let's be clear about one thing, E. was invented (as far as we know; or in the West) by the ancient greek materialist philosophers. People who like to call themselves christians but who loathe the orthodox biblical views on most things have created this hybrid called theistic evolution to escape from God. (You don't have to obey exploding molecules, or worship them, or be responsible to them.... in fact you can totally ignore them; after all, isn't man far greater than this molecule god?)
- what Pat Robertson had to say (the exploding mouth, he's sometimes called) has nothing to do with ID. What E's hate about ID is it's critique of evolution theory. To call it anti-science is very strange; since much of what scientists do is critique and test theories. Most people hold that to be a scientific theory the theory must be falsifiable. So how can you know this if you don't critique it? E's want darwinism to be beyond criticism; which itself is an anti-science view. They don't want students to see that the emperor has no clothes. (The emperor goes to the judge and says; 'make it illegal for anyone to say I don't have any clothes on.'') So let's be clear; there is nothing anti-science about holding E. theory up to criticism and testing. It's merely arbitrary to say one theory is beyond criticism. To make such a claim is to admit one is afraid the theory is bogus.
Notes;
1. I can't say I understand why K. is called a 'conservative' columnist. Is it because he never met a war he didn't like? Is it beicause he's a supporter of the american empire? Or is it because the word conservative has no more meaning in our day than the word evolution.
2. I find it comical that not only judges, clergy, movie directors, and newspaper columnists are all certain they know what science is and is not. (What is it that makes these people believe such an absolute definition exists?) If we had any sense of humor we'd all fall over laughing.
3. We might ask K. ''is there an absolute definition of art? of music? of an editorial? of justice? of fair taxation? of fair play? of democracy? of a just war?" Let's be clear; all this furor over what is science is power politics at its most odious. What's going on here is using language to marginalize one's world view opponents. This is the old Gamscian idea, used so widely by the communists, of using language as a weapon.
Quotes and comments;
1. “Let’s be clear. Intelligent design may be interesting as theology, but as science it is a fraud.” He called it “ridiculous to make evolution the enemy of God.”
- How can something be interesting as theology and fraudulent as science? That makes no sense to me. I can only assume K's view of theology is very, very low; i.e. pure fantasy. Only if you think theology has no relation to reality could this statement make any sense.
2. He finds it “more elegant, more simple, more brilliant, more economical, more creative, indeed more divine” to picture, in the beginning, “a single double-stranded molecule, pliable and fecund enough to give us mollusks and mice, Newton and Einstein” even if it also produced the Kansas State Board of Education, he ended with a smirk.
- let's see if I've got this story correct; in the beginning 'a single double-stranded molecule' apparently exploded and gave us the universe we know today. I wonder how K. knows this. (Double stranded you say! Almost sounds as if he were there doesn't it :=) Well; what he's done is make this molecule god. And let's be clear, there is no such molecule; never was and never will be. This is a joke. But if such molecule existed it would have to have in it; intelligence, foresight, personality, will, goals, ability to do math, etc. etc. Let's be clear, this is a complete fantasy. But even if such a thing existed K. has divinized matter.
- I wonder what would happen if we exploded a molecule today? would a universe spring into being? would annoying American columnists explode into existence? I have my doubts :=)
- I don't understand how people can imagine hydrogen gas has the ability to morph into Newton and Einstein. (Or even G. Bush for that matter.) How can they imagine intelligence comes from non-intelligence? (Well; only because they want to. These are people who want molecules for god; they want nothing to do with a real creator god. In the psalms david wonders where a man could flee from god; that no matter where man went god would be there. Apparently K. thinks he can flee into some kind of mythical molecule.
- the game that people like K. play is to use the word evolution in equivocal ways. In other words he pretends theistic evolution and Materialistic evolution are the same thing. This is intellectually dishonest. These are totally different things; and it's a sad commentary on K. that he plays this marked card. Evolution is an inherently materialistic theory; it has no god in it... and that's the whole point. (It incenses many e's to have the two origin theories confused in this way.) When K. says it's ridiculous to say E. is an enemy of god he's holding up a theistic evolution card. But E. isn't theistic, it's materialist.... and obviously Materialism Is an enemy of god. But K. isn't honest enough to say this.
His whole article is playing around with words; i.e. it depends on creating confusion based on using one word (E.) in two radically different ways. Let's be clear about one thing, E. was invented (as far as we know; or in the West) by the ancient greek materialist philosophers. People who like to call themselves christians but who loathe the orthodox biblical views on most things have created this hybrid called theistic evolution to escape from God. (You don't have to obey exploding molecules, or worship them, or be responsible to them.... in fact you can totally ignore them; after all, isn't man far greater than this molecule god?)
- what Pat Robertson had to say (the exploding mouth, he's sometimes called) has nothing to do with ID. What E's hate about ID is it's critique of evolution theory. To call it anti-science is very strange; since much of what scientists do is critique and test theories. Most people hold that to be a scientific theory the theory must be falsifiable. So how can you know this if you don't critique it? E's want darwinism to be beyond criticism; which itself is an anti-science view. They don't want students to see that the emperor has no clothes. (The emperor goes to the judge and says; 'make it illegal for anyone to say I don't have any clothes on.'') So let's be clear; there is nothing anti-science about holding E. theory up to criticism and testing. It's merely arbitrary to say one theory is beyond criticism. To make such a claim is to admit one is afraid the theory is bogus.
Notes;
1. I can't say I understand why K. is called a 'conservative' columnist. Is it because he never met a war he didn't like? Is it beicause he's a supporter of the american empire? Or is it because the word conservative has no more meaning in our day than the word evolution.
2. I find it comical that not only judges, clergy, movie directors, and newspaper columnists are all certain they know what science is and is not. (What is it that makes these people believe such an absolute definition exists?) If we had any sense of humor we'd all fall over laughing.
3. We might ask K. ''is there an absolute definition of art? of music? of an editorial? of justice? of fair taxation? of fair play? of democracy? of a just war?" Let's be clear; all this furor over what is science is power politics at its most odious. What's going on here is using language to marginalize one's world view opponents. This is the old Gamscian idea, used so widely by the communists, of using language as a weapon.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
The evolution of the CD
Has the reductionist vision been falsified?
Quotes and comments; (concerning a review by Michael A. Goldman, of a book by Sahotra Sarkar in Science,1 Molecular Models of Life: Philosophical Papers on Molecular Biology (MIT Press, 2005).
1. 'The Human Genome Project (HGP) was filled with promise. Walter Gilbert claimed in 1992 that it would bring about “a change in our philosophical understanding of ourselves... one will be able to pull a CD out of one’s pocket and say, ‘Here’s a human being; it’s me!’”
- in my view there's something deeply ironic about a materialist holding out a CD and saying; ''this is me.'' (This is a rejection of dualism with a vengeance.) The irony is that this is such a good picture of how materialism reduces man to an object; how it dehumanizes and degrades him.
2. "Nor, as Sarkar points out, did we imagine that there were so few genes, such a complex relation between genes and the protein forms they encode, and so much genetic material of unknown function."
- the moral of the story is ever the same; man is much more complex than any materialist ever imagined. It's a faith in materialism that keeps people like Gilbert ever making the same mistake of underestimating complexity. (And we can predict materialists will always make this mistake. It's the price you pay for rejecting an Intelligent creator.)
3. Walter Gilbert claimed in 1992 that it would bring about “a change in our philosophical understanding of ourselves... one will be able to pull a CD out of one’s pocket and say, ‘Here’s a human being; it’s me!’”
- only someone with strong bias against Christianity could be as foolish as to hold up a cd and say this is me. (Or imagine such a thing.) The pretense is that man is a simple machine; cobbled together by some series of accidents. (A product of accidentalism, to use Rusher's phrase.) And since he's a product of blind chance (put together by a blind and senile cobbler) he can't be hard to figure out; there can't be any real depth to him (or it I guess we should say; as m. reduces man from a person to a thing) and certainly not any impenetrable depth. Man is a like a rubic's cube; hard for some to solve, but eminently solvable. To have such a vision you have to reject the idea of a soul or a spirit in man; and you have to reject the idea he/it had an intelligent Creator. If man had God for a creator we have reason to believe he has depths scientists will never plumb.... that he has a complexity scientists will never fully understand.
- Why is the christian view of man so offensive to the materialist? Again it's hard to say, but we can offer some suggestions. There's a certain type of m. scientist who wants to lay out exactly what man is, so that he can draw political inferences from it. The HGP was a kind of inventory; a kind of survey.
If man is just a gene carrier, it's the genes that are important, not man; and if the individual is not of any importance there are political implications. If it's the genes that are important they can be carried in other ways one assumes; even on a disk. There are implications of this as well. Maybe a society (or the world) doesn't need diversity if they have it (diversity) on disk. One could ask what kind of diversity do 'we' need? Maybe a lot is meaningless and can be got rid of. I could go on but I suppose your speculations here are as good as mine... as no one really knows what will (or might) happen.
- Of course many (most?) scientists will scoff at the idea there are things mankind shouldn't know. (Roger Shattuck wrote a book on this; 'Forbidden Knowledge') But I think this is one of those things; or would have been. The idea a person could be reduced to a cd is a nightmare vision. It would give the elite a frightful power; a power no human being is capable of handling in my opinion. But we seem to have escaped this nightmare; either by luck or by providence. Man is too complex to be reduced to plastic; despite the darkly dreams of the materialists.
- It's sad to hold this picture of Gilbert holding up a cd and saying ''this is me." Sad to see a human being so deluded; sad to see a man who thinks so little of himself; sad to see someone who's had his birthright stolen from him. He might as well hold up a photograph of himself and say 'this is me.' Such is the power of reductionism to belittle man. To reject God (defined as the creator of man and the world) is to become small; and more radically man rejects God the smaller he becomes.... until he disappears. (A death of god theology gets replaced by a death of man theology.) At the end of the reductionist road man becomes an it. In the mad (suicidal) dreams of some this would be a good thing, as it would pave the way for the next stage of evolution. If this ever happens (and one has to severely doubt it) it will because men adopted the reductionistic method of doing science.
- If what Gilbert said were true, I don't suppose 'we' (or the elite) would need men at all. (All they'd need would be a cd collection.) But why some people glory in such things is hard to understand; they seem to glory in the dehumanization of man. Why they do is hard to comprehend. I think the biblical view is that this expresses the same kind of spirit Satan showed when he tried to destroy Job. Satan ever hates men, and hates the creation. Why? Not because of how it is... but because of Who created it. If Satan had created teh world and man he would ever sing its praises; but because God has created it he wants to degrade and destroy it. (And man most especially.) I realize that's not going to satisfy the non-christian or the materialist... but if it doesn't he has to come up with his own explanation of why some men are so enthusiastic about reducing man to a CD. Is it simply a love of simplicity? Is it simply a love of doing science? of winning a prize? of solving a puzzle? Or is it something more, something more ominous? I see in the project a hatred of complexity; a hatred of the idea man is a 'spiritual' (i.e. being a spirit/body duality) and eternal being.
Notes;
1. "On the upside, Sarkar notes that at “the very least, the HGP has killed the facile genetic reductionism of the heyday of developmental genetics.” His dim view contrasts sharply with Robert Sinsheimer’s recent proclamation that the project “succeeded even beyond our hopes.”
2. I came across this review at Creation/Evolution Headlines; Human Genome Project: A “Worthwhile Failure” 11/20/2005
3. I'm currently reading 'The book of Joby' (Mark Ferrarri) so I've been thinking of Job lately.
Quotes and comments; (concerning a review by Michael A. Goldman, of a book by Sahotra Sarkar in Science,1 Molecular Models of Life: Philosophical Papers on Molecular Biology (MIT Press, 2005).
1. 'The Human Genome Project (HGP) was filled with promise. Walter Gilbert claimed in 1992 that it would bring about “a change in our philosophical understanding of ourselves... one will be able to pull a CD out of one’s pocket and say, ‘Here’s a human being; it’s me!’”
- in my view there's something deeply ironic about a materialist holding out a CD and saying; ''this is me.'' (This is a rejection of dualism with a vengeance.) The irony is that this is such a good picture of how materialism reduces man to an object; how it dehumanizes and degrades him.
2. "Nor, as Sarkar points out, did we imagine that there were so few genes, such a complex relation between genes and the protein forms they encode, and so much genetic material of unknown function."
- the moral of the story is ever the same; man is much more complex than any materialist ever imagined. It's a faith in materialism that keeps people like Gilbert ever making the same mistake of underestimating complexity. (And we can predict materialists will always make this mistake. It's the price you pay for rejecting an Intelligent creator.)
3. Walter Gilbert claimed in 1992 that it would bring about “a change in our philosophical understanding of ourselves... one will be able to pull a CD out of one’s pocket and say, ‘Here’s a human being; it’s me!’”
- only someone with strong bias against Christianity could be as foolish as to hold up a cd and say this is me. (Or imagine such a thing.) The pretense is that man is a simple machine; cobbled together by some series of accidents. (A product of accidentalism, to use Rusher's phrase.) And since he's a product of blind chance (put together by a blind and senile cobbler) he can't be hard to figure out; there can't be any real depth to him (or it I guess we should say; as m. reduces man from a person to a thing) and certainly not any impenetrable depth. Man is a like a rubic's cube; hard for some to solve, but eminently solvable. To have such a vision you have to reject the idea of a soul or a spirit in man; and you have to reject the idea he/it had an intelligent Creator. If man had God for a creator we have reason to believe he has depths scientists will never plumb.... that he has a complexity scientists will never fully understand.
- Why is the christian view of man so offensive to the materialist? Again it's hard to say, but we can offer some suggestions. There's a certain type of m. scientist who wants to lay out exactly what man is, so that he can draw political inferences from it. The HGP was a kind of inventory; a kind of survey.
If man is just a gene carrier, it's the genes that are important, not man; and if the individual is not of any importance there are political implications. If it's the genes that are important they can be carried in other ways one assumes; even on a disk. There are implications of this as well. Maybe a society (or the world) doesn't need diversity if they have it (diversity) on disk. One could ask what kind of diversity do 'we' need? Maybe a lot is meaningless and can be got rid of. I could go on but I suppose your speculations here are as good as mine... as no one really knows what will (or might) happen.
- Of course many (most?) scientists will scoff at the idea there are things mankind shouldn't know. (Roger Shattuck wrote a book on this; 'Forbidden Knowledge') But I think this is one of those things; or would have been. The idea a person could be reduced to a cd is a nightmare vision. It would give the elite a frightful power; a power no human being is capable of handling in my opinion. But we seem to have escaped this nightmare; either by luck or by providence. Man is too complex to be reduced to plastic; despite the darkly dreams of the materialists.
- It's sad to hold this picture of Gilbert holding up a cd and saying ''this is me." Sad to see a human being so deluded; sad to see a man who thinks so little of himself; sad to see someone who's had his birthright stolen from him. He might as well hold up a photograph of himself and say 'this is me.' Such is the power of reductionism to belittle man. To reject God (defined as the creator of man and the world) is to become small; and more radically man rejects God the smaller he becomes.... until he disappears. (A death of god theology gets replaced by a death of man theology.) At the end of the reductionist road man becomes an it. In the mad (suicidal) dreams of some this would be a good thing, as it would pave the way for the next stage of evolution. If this ever happens (and one has to severely doubt it) it will because men adopted the reductionistic method of doing science.
- If what Gilbert said were true, I don't suppose 'we' (or the elite) would need men at all. (All they'd need would be a cd collection.) But why some people glory in such things is hard to understand; they seem to glory in the dehumanization of man. Why they do is hard to comprehend. I think the biblical view is that this expresses the same kind of spirit Satan showed when he tried to destroy Job. Satan ever hates men, and hates the creation. Why? Not because of how it is... but because of Who created it. If Satan had created teh world and man he would ever sing its praises; but because God has created it he wants to degrade and destroy it. (And man most especially.) I realize that's not going to satisfy the non-christian or the materialist... but if it doesn't he has to come up with his own explanation of why some men are so enthusiastic about reducing man to a CD. Is it simply a love of simplicity? Is it simply a love of doing science? of winning a prize? of solving a puzzle? Or is it something more, something more ominous? I see in the project a hatred of complexity; a hatred of the idea man is a 'spiritual' (i.e. being a spirit/body duality) and eternal being.
Notes;
1. "On the upside, Sarkar notes that at “the very least, the HGP has killed the facile genetic reductionism of the heyday of developmental genetics.” His dim view contrasts sharply with Robert Sinsheimer’s recent proclamation that the project “succeeded even beyond our hopes.”
2. I came across this review at Creation/Evolution Headlines; Human Genome Project: A “Worthwhile Failure” 11/20/2005
3. I'm currently reading 'The book of Joby' (Mark Ferrarri) so I've been thinking of Job lately.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Darwinism is no laughing matter
In this post I want to make a few comments on an article that pretends to give an evolutionary account of laughter and humor.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'From slime to smile in 200 million years: some Darwinists feel they have explained the evolution of laughter. In all seriousness, EurekAlert announced, “The first laugh: New study posits evolutionary origins of two distinct types of laughter.” The story is about a new hypothesis by Matthew Gervais and David Sloan Wilson. The origin of comedy, they explain, was no laughing matter:
- of course the 'emergence' of comedy was no laughing matter. It (like everything else) was a matter of survival. (i.e of the fittest.) Well; let's ask ourselves is laughter now a matter of survival? The answer is no. And here we see a pattern that gets repeated continually in E. studies. We will be told X developed in one way; but that X no longer operates this way now. This is evidence to me the theory is wrong. The past and the present just don't add up; not only that they're radically at odds. We're told (with a great show of confidence) that all creatures evolved.... but that none are evolving now. Oh really. Sounds a bit odd to me. We're told that in the past (where fortunately no one was there to document it) life evolved from inert matter. Now of course this doesn't happen anymore.... but it did back then. This pattern is repeated ad nauseum in E. literature. One wonders how this can be. (I wonder if it's a laughing matter :=)
- all this is like the braggart who claims he can lift 300 pounds; but when you challenge him to do it says he has a bad back, come again next week.
2. "Using empirical evidence from across disciplines, including theory and data from work on mirror neurons, evolutionary psychology, and multilevel selection theory, the researchers detail the evolutionary trajectory of laughter over the last 7 million years. Evolutionarily elaborated from ape play-panting sometime between 4 million years ago and 2 million years ago, laughter arising from non-serious social incongruity promoted community play during fleeting periods of safety. Such non-serious social incongruity, it is argued, is the evolutionary precursor to humor as we know it.''
- only someone with no sense of humor could have written such a thing.
- but while our authors have no sense of humor, they do have quite an imagination. Imagine coming up with such a story and having no observational evidence. Impressive, dudes. (I await your sf trilogy.)
- there's an obvious problem with stories about the E. emergence of humor. If (as theory mandates) there can be no discontinuities in evolution, all of nature and indeed all of matter must contain 'humor particles' as it were. Not only must lizards have a sense of humor, fish must have a sense of humor; as must one celled organisms as well as primordial slime... and it gets worse, even atoms and sub-atomic particles must be humor endowed.... in fact hydrogen gas must in some manner have a sense of humor. (Heh, I know, we could call it laughing gas :=)
3. "Around 2 million years ago, human ancestors evolved the capacity for willful control over facial motor systems. As a result, laughter was co-opted for a number of novel functions, including strategically punctuating conversation, and conveying feelings or ideas such as embarrassment and derision.''
- my friends, if you really believe that the joke is on you. In my humble opinion Darwinism will turn out to be the biggest joke in human history. (It is utterly false, utterly impossible. It amounts to saying a rock can turn into prof. Einstein simply by hanging in space for a few years.) And while we can be tempted to laugh at people so deluded, we really ought to pity them.
- what they're asking us to believe is that the intensely personal expression of humor came from the non-personal. (To simplify things; they're telling us rocks are comedians.)
Notes;
1. I came across this story at CreationEvolution Headlines; where D.C. (I assume) has an excellent commentary on it.
2. I've been informed the David Sloan Wilson is definitely not a dude. Apologies.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'From slime to smile in 200 million years: some Darwinists feel they have explained the evolution of laughter. In all seriousness, EurekAlert announced, “The first laugh: New study posits evolutionary origins of two distinct types of laughter.” The story is about a new hypothesis by Matthew Gervais and David Sloan Wilson. The origin of comedy, they explain, was no laughing matter:
- of course the 'emergence' of comedy was no laughing matter. It (like everything else) was a matter of survival. (i.e of the fittest.) Well; let's ask ourselves is laughter now a matter of survival? The answer is no. And here we see a pattern that gets repeated continually in E. studies. We will be told X developed in one way; but that X no longer operates this way now. This is evidence to me the theory is wrong. The past and the present just don't add up; not only that they're radically at odds. We're told (with a great show of confidence) that all creatures evolved.... but that none are evolving now. Oh really. Sounds a bit odd to me. We're told that in the past (where fortunately no one was there to document it) life evolved from inert matter. Now of course this doesn't happen anymore.... but it did back then. This pattern is repeated ad nauseum in E. literature. One wonders how this can be. (I wonder if it's a laughing matter :=)
- all this is like the braggart who claims he can lift 300 pounds; but when you challenge him to do it says he has a bad back, come again next week.
2. "Using empirical evidence from across disciplines, including theory and data from work on mirror neurons, evolutionary psychology, and multilevel selection theory, the researchers detail the evolutionary trajectory of laughter over the last 7 million years. Evolutionarily elaborated from ape play-panting sometime between 4 million years ago and 2 million years ago, laughter arising from non-serious social incongruity promoted community play during fleeting periods of safety. Such non-serious social incongruity, it is argued, is the evolutionary precursor to humor as we know it.''
- only someone with no sense of humor could have written such a thing.
- but while our authors have no sense of humor, they do have quite an imagination. Imagine coming up with such a story and having no observational evidence. Impressive, dudes. (I await your sf trilogy.)
- there's an obvious problem with stories about the E. emergence of humor. If (as theory mandates) there can be no discontinuities in evolution, all of nature and indeed all of matter must contain 'humor particles' as it were. Not only must lizards have a sense of humor, fish must have a sense of humor; as must one celled organisms as well as primordial slime... and it gets worse, even atoms and sub-atomic particles must be humor endowed.... in fact hydrogen gas must in some manner have a sense of humor. (Heh, I know, we could call it laughing gas :=)
3. "Around 2 million years ago, human ancestors evolved the capacity for willful control over facial motor systems. As a result, laughter was co-opted for a number of novel functions, including strategically punctuating conversation, and conveying feelings or ideas such as embarrassment and derision.''
- my friends, if you really believe that the joke is on you. In my humble opinion Darwinism will turn out to be the biggest joke in human history. (It is utterly false, utterly impossible. It amounts to saying a rock can turn into prof. Einstein simply by hanging in space for a few years.) And while we can be tempted to laugh at people so deluded, we really ought to pity them.
- what they're asking us to believe is that the intensely personal expression of humor came from the non-personal. (To simplify things; they're telling us rocks are comedians.)
Notes;
1. I came across this story at CreationEvolution Headlines; where D.C. (I assume) has an excellent commentary on it.
2. I've been informed the David Sloan Wilson is definitely not a dude. Apologies.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Evolutionists, and the 'Whining Boy Blues'
In this post I want to comment on the unrealistic expectations most evolutionists seem to have about the creation model. I'm going to quote an example of this and then comment on it.
Darwin on Offense II: Strategy Sessions 10/17/2005
'The Geological Society of America, normally concerned with technical details of rocks and how many millions or billions of years old they are, devoted two “expansive sessions” at its annual meeting Oct 16-17, with 24 separate presentations dealing with strategies to oppose intelligent design (ID).
So how does a scientist or teacher defend evolution against trained attackers?
“Don’t,” suggests geoscientist Donald Wise from the University of Massachusetts. Instead, go after the deep flaws in ID. Take the human body, for instance, he says in his GSA presentation. It’s a great argument against ID. Anyone who has ever had back pain or clogged sinuses can testify to this.''
- That's so silly it's almost impossible to believe. Is Wise living in the real world? The Genesis account claims man was created 6-10,000 years ago. There have been many generations since then; with numerous mutations in man. (Not to mention the Fall, with whatever physical repercussions that involved.) Obviously the man of today is not the man god created; but a somewhat 'damaged' descendent. But the fact some people have back problems (usually caused by their own unhealthy lifestyles) says nothing about how well designed the back is, or how many people don't have back problems.
- That clogged sinuses refute ID is too silly for words. The bible doesn't present a fairy tale; life on earth isn't a kindergarten. The bible shows man's life as both wonderful and difficult. I see no way it could be otherwise. We don't live in the pages of a book (or in some ivory tower) but have our existence in a physical world. The fact god created man doesn't magically do away with entropy, mutation, or disease. The fact god created man doesn't prevent man from abusing his body.
- Where do people like Wise get these child like ideas from? I can't imagine where they get this idea the doctrine of creation means everyone would have some kind of perfect life... or be some kind of super hero immune from all problems. They certainly don't get it from the bible. I'm astounded that they seem to imagine they've made a meaningful critique of biblical creation with this kind of drivel.
Maybe Wise (when he gets a respite from his back pains) can tell us where the bible says creation means a trouble free life of physical perfection.
- This is a variation on the 'arguments' dawkins has made over the years on how badly the eye is designed. (And I thought mother nature did all things well :=) Apart from the fact dawkins had no idea what he was talking about, the complaints were silly; based on abysmal ignorance of the eye. In the 20 years or so since he first made this unwarranted claim there have been an enormous number of discoveries about the eye that blow his 'argument' out of the water; and many more discoveries await.
People like Wise make the same mistake repeatedly, and it's this; they focus on some single aspect of an organ (etc.) and isolate it, not only from the organ in total, but from the real world. They treat the organ as if it were a machine; and a simple machine whose parts work independently of each other. An organ like the eye isn't anything like that; so the 'analogy' is all wrong. In an organ like the eye you can't isolate functions and optimize them. The eye has many 'parts' that all work together; it's not one aspect that is important but the overall performance... not in a lab, but in the real world. If Dawkins understands this he gives no evidence of it that I've seen.
- Let's take the bad back example. You can't isolate a 'back' from the person, and you can't isolate the person from the real world or from the history of the world. ie. a 'back' isn't an independent unit (some kind of a machine). The back was beautifully designed; like all other aspects of the human body. The human body was designed to 'work' in a wide variety of environments and situations. It was designed to function for many kinds of persons and situations; e.g. professors or farmers. The back has to serve many different kinds of situations if I can put it like that. Obviously the design will be more or less 'ideal' for some occupations, for some kinds of activities. What we see in the design of the back is great flexibility; a kind of 'one size fits all' approach. You can't have a single design that works ideally for the desk bound academic and the fisherman or farmer.
Notes;
1. Whining boy blue is an old blues tune, that I first heard on a recording by that immortal duo 'Hot Tuna'. It seems to fit evolutionists and their endless complaints about creation, and their refusal to give glory to the Creator. (That was back in the days I was an evolutionist, and couldn't imagine anything different.)
2. The book that woke me out of my metaphysical slumber was 'Origins and Destiny' by Robert Gange. I noticed recently that the book is available free online.
Darwin on Offense II: Strategy Sessions 10/17/2005
'The Geological Society of America, normally concerned with technical details of rocks and how many millions or billions of years old they are, devoted two “expansive sessions” at its annual meeting Oct 16-17, with 24 separate presentations dealing with strategies to oppose intelligent design (ID).
So how does a scientist or teacher defend evolution against trained attackers?
“Don’t,” suggests geoscientist Donald Wise from the University of Massachusetts. Instead, go after the deep flaws in ID. Take the human body, for instance, he says in his GSA presentation. It’s a great argument against ID. Anyone who has ever had back pain or clogged sinuses can testify to this.''
- That's so silly it's almost impossible to believe. Is Wise living in the real world? The Genesis account claims man was created 6-10,000 years ago. There have been many generations since then; with numerous mutations in man. (Not to mention the Fall, with whatever physical repercussions that involved.) Obviously the man of today is not the man god created; but a somewhat 'damaged' descendent. But the fact some people have back problems (usually caused by their own unhealthy lifestyles) says nothing about how well designed the back is, or how many people don't have back problems.
- That clogged sinuses refute ID is too silly for words. The bible doesn't present a fairy tale; life on earth isn't a kindergarten. The bible shows man's life as both wonderful and difficult. I see no way it could be otherwise. We don't live in the pages of a book (or in some ivory tower) but have our existence in a physical world. The fact god created man doesn't magically do away with entropy, mutation, or disease. The fact god created man doesn't prevent man from abusing his body.
- Where do people like Wise get these child like ideas from? I can't imagine where they get this idea the doctrine of creation means everyone would have some kind of perfect life... or be some kind of super hero immune from all problems. They certainly don't get it from the bible. I'm astounded that they seem to imagine they've made a meaningful critique of biblical creation with this kind of drivel.
Maybe Wise (when he gets a respite from his back pains) can tell us where the bible says creation means a trouble free life of physical perfection.
- This is a variation on the 'arguments' dawkins has made over the years on how badly the eye is designed. (And I thought mother nature did all things well :=) Apart from the fact dawkins had no idea what he was talking about, the complaints were silly; based on abysmal ignorance of the eye. In the 20 years or so since he first made this unwarranted claim there have been an enormous number of discoveries about the eye that blow his 'argument' out of the water; and many more discoveries await.
People like Wise make the same mistake repeatedly, and it's this; they focus on some single aspect of an organ (etc.) and isolate it, not only from the organ in total, but from the real world. They treat the organ as if it were a machine; and a simple machine whose parts work independently of each other. An organ like the eye isn't anything like that; so the 'analogy' is all wrong. In an organ like the eye you can't isolate functions and optimize them. The eye has many 'parts' that all work together; it's not one aspect that is important but the overall performance... not in a lab, but in the real world. If Dawkins understands this he gives no evidence of it that I've seen.
- Let's take the bad back example. You can't isolate a 'back' from the person, and you can't isolate the person from the real world or from the history of the world. ie. a 'back' isn't an independent unit (some kind of a machine). The back was beautifully designed; like all other aspects of the human body. The human body was designed to 'work' in a wide variety of environments and situations. It was designed to function for many kinds of persons and situations; e.g. professors or farmers. The back has to serve many different kinds of situations if I can put it like that. Obviously the design will be more or less 'ideal' for some occupations, for some kinds of activities. What we see in the design of the back is great flexibility; a kind of 'one size fits all' approach. You can't have a single design that works ideally for the desk bound academic and the fisherman or farmer.
Notes;
1. Whining boy blue is an old blues tune, that I first heard on a recording by that immortal duo 'Hot Tuna'. It seems to fit evolutionists and their endless complaints about creation, and their refusal to give glory to the Creator. (That was back in the days I was an evolutionist, and couldn't imagine anything different.)
2. The book that woke me out of my metaphysical slumber was 'Origins and Destiny' by Robert Gange. I noticed recently that the book is available free online.
Monday, March 10, 2008
"It's a bird, it's a plan, it's a Darwinist in a parachute"
Archaeopteryx Meets Its Younger Grandpa, and Other Flights of Fancy 10/24/2005
In this short post I want to give you a quote from an article, and then offer a few comments.
Quote;
'Sankar Chatterjee of the Texas Tech group remarked that “The biplane wing configuration was probably a very first experiment in nature,” paralleling the human design of flight.
“It is intriguing to contemplate that perhaps avian flight, like aircraft evolution, went through a biplane stage before the monoplane was introduced,” said Chatterjee. “It seems likely that Microraptor invented the biplane 125 million years before the Wright 1903 Flyer.”
Comments;
- I find it strange that most evolutionists don't see to understand the implications of what they say. Chatterjee personifies nature, then he has this phantom person conducting an experiment. This is ludicrous. Matter doesn't perform experiments; only persons do.... only intelligent agents. There are no experiments going on here. People like this are deluded when they think they see experiments going on. (Where would 'mother nature' get the government grant money for one thing :=) They're seeing things that don't exist; they're reading human ideas into the created order. They're literally seeing things if this is what they really believe. What they think they see is really an anthropomorphic illusion.
- Matter doesn't invent anything. Only intelligent agents invent things. Chatterjee has no right to use such language.
- CHatterjee makes the fallacious parallel of bird evolution and plane evolution; adding the error of equivocation to his error of personification. To compare evolution to design is the equivalent of comparing design to evolution; so in effect he's affirmed the basic claim of ID :=)
- If man were really an animal as C. suggests, the Wright brothers wouldn't have made an airplane they'd have turned themselves into an airplane :=) The fact men don't go about things this way is a refutation of the evolutionary idea.
- This isn't science; it's comic relief. To say the Microraptor invented the biplane is as silly as saying penguins invented the tuxedo.
Notes;
1. An article on this [Wright brothers upstaged! Dinos invented biplanes] can be found at Eureka Alert
2. Chatterjee deserves some kind of silliness award for his ridiculous persnifications.
In this short post I want to give you a quote from an article, and then offer a few comments.
Quote;
'Sankar Chatterjee of the Texas Tech group remarked that “The biplane wing configuration was probably a very first experiment in nature,” paralleling the human design of flight.
“It is intriguing to contemplate that perhaps avian flight, like aircraft evolution, went through a biplane stage before the monoplane was introduced,” said Chatterjee. “It seems likely that Microraptor invented the biplane 125 million years before the Wright 1903 Flyer.”
Comments;
- I find it strange that most evolutionists don't see to understand the implications of what they say. Chatterjee personifies nature, then he has this phantom person conducting an experiment. This is ludicrous. Matter doesn't perform experiments; only persons do.... only intelligent agents. There are no experiments going on here. People like this are deluded when they think they see experiments going on. (Where would 'mother nature' get the government grant money for one thing :=) They're seeing things that don't exist; they're reading human ideas into the created order. They're literally seeing things if this is what they really believe. What they think they see is really an anthropomorphic illusion.
- Matter doesn't invent anything. Only intelligent agents invent things. Chatterjee has no right to use such language.
- CHatterjee makes the fallacious parallel of bird evolution and plane evolution; adding the error of equivocation to his error of personification. To compare evolution to design is the equivalent of comparing design to evolution; so in effect he's affirmed the basic claim of ID :=)
- If man were really an animal as C. suggests, the Wright brothers wouldn't have made an airplane they'd have turned themselves into an airplane :=) The fact men don't go about things this way is a refutation of the evolutionary idea.
- This isn't science; it's comic relief. To say the Microraptor invented the biplane is as silly as saying penguins invented the tuxedo.
Notes;
1. An article on this [Wright brothers upstaged! Dinos invented biplanes] can be found at Eureka Alert
2. Chatterjee deserves some kind of silliness award for his ridiculous persnifications.
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Language - Origins and Evolution - D. Tassot (article online at CSSHSJQ)
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Partisans of this theory [natural emergence fo language] hold that the difference between human language and the languages" of animals is not one of nature but of degree. 'Do such information methods, useful though they may be. infer the mental operations which make human language not merely a tool for communication but the substratum upon which thought deploys itself?'
- there's a category difference between communication and thought. (e.g. if you are standing in the way of an moving train and don't see it I can communicate the train to you by waving my arms , screaming, etc. without knowing even what language you speak. But I can't ask whether a stranger has a duty to do this without words, without language.)
2. 'The only animals, however, possessing a vocal tract capable of reproducing our words are birds, as for example the parrot and mynah. The question arises, then, how could we be descendants of the apes and inherit the characteristics of the birds'?
- well this is easy to explain; men are descended from apes while women are descended from birds :=)
3. 'Man was created in the image of the Word. He was prepared genetically to receive the word and to transmit it, not like something external that can be acquired or rejected, but like the essence of his own being. the innate difference which distinguishes him from other living creatures. It is the ultimate point of his being by which he communicates with the Supreme being, the specific resemblance with the Creator which enables him to ponder Creation, to know God and to love him.'
- one irony of the creation/evolution debate is that it makes no sense if the evolutionist is correct. Debate can't be accounted for by E. theory. You don't see animals having debates over ideas; and certainly not over origins. But if the Fabian biology of Darwinism is correct where does intellectual debate come from? A basic tenet of Darwinism is that there can be no discontinuities in the chain of being; no radical breaks... that all is a smooth progression of small incremental changes.
- Christians are mocked by e's and humanists for being 'people of the book' but all of us (C. and E. alike) are people of the word. Words are the air we breathe and the water we swim in. Evolutionary theory can't (in my opinion) give us any believable account of man's reliance on the word and the total 'rejection' of the word among animals. I see in this an unbridgable gap. Darwin stands at a chasm and knows he can never jump it. He called men apes, but apes haven't the slightest interest in words or in books. ''I can imagine an ape being able to jump the gap,'' he tells us, but his sad, dark eyes tell us otherwise; he knows better... he knows the gap can't be crossed... he knows his story is a lie.
- apes don't ponder the subject of origins. If by some miracle they could comprehend the idea they wouldn't care. Only because we are people of the word do we care about origins.... and we are only people of the word because we were created in the image of god.
4. 'Language has not, then, emerged progressively from a voiceless stage of creation. It was not invented to fulfill some material need of the first humans.'
- Adam at the beginning lived in a garden in Eden. He was a perfect being in a perfect world. All his needs were readily at hand. If the Gen. account is true we see that language has no evolutionary explanation. i.e. it was not 'invented' to help man be a better hunter or whatever. Language was given to man by god for the purpose of communication; not primarily communication with his fellow man, but for communication (or communion if you will) with God.
This answer to the origin of language also gives us the additional benefit of giving an account for the great depth of language, for it's complexity. As the example of the animals shows us, human language (the only form of communication that deserves to be called language) isn't necessary to physical survival. (It isn't any more necessary than mathematical abilities, logic ability, musical ability, art ability.) In my opinion e. theory cannot give a believable account of why man has such incredible intellectual abilities; these have nothing to do with the requirements for physical survival. (Some refer to this as over design. And yes, if man were just an animal that somehow had managed (with a gov. grant no doubt) to have evolved this would be over design. But man hasn't evolved, he was created; created for fellowship with the Creator God. It is only the 'requirements' of this relationship that can account for man's intellectual superiority. (Man isn't only superior to the animals, he belongs in a seperate class.)
- Arthur Custance believed that man's great capacities (intellectual, moral, spiritual) could best be accounted for by the fact - known to God from before the creation - one person of the Trinity would one day be incarnated as the god-man Jesus Christ. i.e. man had to be a suitable 'home' for God. The eternal Word had to be able to feel at home as it were in the body of a man. Whether he's right or not I don't know, but I find his idea worthy of consideration.
5. 'It [language] was there from the beginning. "In the beginning was the Word." The Word, the singularity that explains the origin of all things. It provided the means of relating with God. It was a prayer which was the first form and still remains the most perfect form of the human language.'
* - I don't think it's going too far to say language exists so that man can pray; so that he can sing praises to god; so he can tell his children about the creator; so he can instruct them in the law of god; so he can tell them how to live and how to conduct themselves; to warn them about hell and to encourage them with stories about heaven.
- an evolutionist doesn't need language, but a Christian most certainly does. If man is just an animal, all an E. needs to do is to be able to grunt and rub his belly. A Christian on the other hand needs to be able to read God's word and to sing psalms and hymns.
Notes;
1. The Custance book I referenced is 'Seed of the Woman'. (It's available free online.)
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Partisans of this theory [natural emergence fo language] hold that the difference between human language and the languages" of animals is not one of nature but of degree. 'Do such information methods, useful though they may be. infer the mental operations which make human language not merely a tool for communication but the substratum upon which thought deploys itself?'
- there's a category difference between communication and thought. (e.g. if you are standing in the way of an moving train and don't see it I can communicate the train to you by waving my arms , screaming, etc. without knowing even what language you speak. But I can't ask whether a stranger has a duty to do this without words, without language.)
2. 'The only animals, however, possessing a vocal tract capable of reproducing our words are birds, as for example the parrot and mynah. The question arises, then, how could we be descendants of the apes and inherit the characteristics of the birds'?
- well this is easy to explain; men are descended from apes while women are descended from birds :=)
3. 'Man was created in the image of the Word. He was prepared genetically to receive the word and to transmit it, not like something external that can be acquired or rejected, but like the essence of his own being. the innate difference which distinguishes him from other living creatures. It is the ultimate point of his being by which he communicates with the Supreme being, the specific resemblance with the Creator which enables him to ponder Creation, to know God and to love him.'
- one irony of the creation/evolution debate is that it makes no sense if the evolutionist is correct. Debate can't be accounted for by E. theory. You don't see animals having debates over ideas; and certainly not over origins. But if the Fabian biology of Darwinism is correct where does intellectual debate come from? A basic tenet of Darwinism is that there can be no discontinuities in the chain of being; no radical breaks... that all is a smooth progression of small incremental changes.
- Christians are mocked by e's and humanists for being 'people of the book' but all of us (C. and E. alike) are people of the word. Words are the air we breathe and the water we swim in. Evolutionary theory can't (in my opinion) give us any believable account of man's reliance on the word and the total 'rejection' of the word among animals. I see in this an unbridgable gap. Darwin stands at a chasm and knows he can never jump it. He called men apes, but apes haven't the slightest interest in words or in books. ''I can imagine an ape being able to jump the gap,'' he tells us, but his sad, dark eyes tell us otherwise; he knows better... he knows the gap can't be crossed... he knows his story is a lie.
- apes don't ponder the subject of origins. If by some miracle they could comprehend the idea they wouldn't care. Only because we are people of the word do we care about origins.... and we are only people of the word because we were created in the image of god.
4. 'Language has not, then, emerged progressively from a voiceless stage of creation. It was not invented to fulfill some material need of the first humans.'
- Adam at the beginning lived in a garden in Eden. He was a perfect being in a perfect world. All his needs were readily at hand. If the Gen. account is true we see that language has no evolutionary explanation. i.e. it was not 'invented' to help man be a better hunter or whatever. Language was given to man by god for the purpose of communication; not primarily communication with his fellow man, but for communication (or communion if you will) with God.
This answer to the origin of language also gives us the additional benefit of giving an account for the great depth of language, for it's complexity. As the example of the animals shows us, human language (the only form of communication that deserves to be called language) isn't necessary to physical survival. (It isn't any more necessary than mathematical abilities, logic ability, musical ability, art ability.) In my opinion e. theory cannot give a believable account of why man has such incredible intellectual abilities; these have nothing to do with the requirements for physical survival. (Some refer to this as over design. And yes, if man were just an animal that somehow had managed (with a gov. grant no doubt) to have evolved this would be over design. But man hasn't evolved, he was created; created for fellowship with the Creator God. It is only the 'requirements' of this relationship that can account for man's intellectual superiority. (Man isn't only superior to the animals, he belongs in a seperate class.)
- Arthur Custance believed that man's great capacities (intellectual, moral, spiritual) could best be accounted for by the fact - known to God from before the creation - one person of the Trinity would one day be incarnated as the god-man Jesus Christ. i.e. man had to be a suitable 'home' for God. The eternal Word had to be able to feel at home as it were in the body of a man. Whether he's right or not I don't know, but I find his idea worthy of consideration.
5. 'It [language] was there from the beginning. "In the beginning was the Word." The Word, the singularity that explains the origin of all things. It provided the means of relating with God. It was a prayer which was the first form and still remains the most perfect form of the human language.'
* - I don't think it's going too far to say language exists so that man can pray; so that he can sing praises to god; so he can tell his children about the creator; so he can instruct them in the law of god; so he can tell them how to live and how to conduct themselves; to warn them about hell and to encourage them with stories about heaven.
- an evolutionist doesn't need language, but a Christian most certainly does. If man is just an animal, all an E. needs to do is to be able to grunt and rub his belly. A Christian on the other hand needs to be able to read God's word and to sing psalms and hymns.
Notes;
1. The Custance book I referenced is 'Seed of the Woman'. (It's available free online.)
Monday, March 3, 2008
Is 'evolution' really a natural law?
Of the many supposed differences between 'science' and religion' (neither of which exist by the way) we're told that an important difference is that while evolution employs natural laws, creation employs miracles.
Really?
- is language a natural law?
- are words natural laws?
- is rhetoric a natural law?
- is interpretation a natural law?
- is evidence a natural law?
- is classification a natural law?
- are authority claims natural laws?
- are fake illustrations natural laws?
- are speculations natural laws?
- are extrapolations natural laws?
- are the chemical reactions inside people's brains natural laws?
- are lies natural laws?
- is bluffing a natural law?
- are stories based on bone fragments natural laws?
Just asking.
Really?
- is language a natural law?
- are words natural laws?
- is rhetoric a natural law?
- is interpretation a natural law?
- is evidence a natural law?
- is classification a natural law?
- are authority claims natural laws?
- are fake illustrations natural laws?
- are speculations natural laws?
- are extrapolations natural laws?
- are the chemical reactions inside people's brains natural laws?
- are lies natural laws?
- is bluffing a natural law?
- are stories based on bone fragments natural laws?
Just asking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)