Wednesday, April 23, 2008

More Bee S. from evolutionists

A charming article about bees was damaged badly by ad hominem remarks made against the ID community, by people who apparently have little or no idea what they're talking about.

Quotes and comments;

1. 'With an air of triumph, LiveScience announced that Caltech scientists have won one against ID:
"Proponents of intelligent design, which holds that a supreme being [sic] rather than evolution is responsible for life’s complexities, have long criticized science [sic] for not being able to explain some natural phenomena, such as how bees fly. Now scientists have put this perplexing mystery to rest." 1.

- when I read something as stupid as this I have a temptation to fall into despair. Are these people truly this ignorant (of ID), or are they deliberately lying? It's usually difficult to know.
- ID theory (of which I'm not a proponent) does Not state that a 'supreme being' is responsible for life. (If someone within the movement does, they should be quoted.)
- the author (or team of authors) states that ID proponents have criticized 'science.' This is fallacious and incoherent. Science is a word; you can't criticize a word. This is the fallacy of personification.
- I suppose it's necessary to point out (yet again) that to describe something is NOT to explain it. (Is this somehow too difficult for these geniuses to comprehend?) The ID argument (correct me if I'm wrong) is Not that certain animal behaviors or organs can't be described (whoever said this?) but that they can't be accounted for by a purely materialistic account of the universe.
- let's reiterate previous posts; it's one of the basics of intellectual life that you present your opponent's position fairly and accurately. Why is it evolutionists refuse to do this? One would like to know. If evolutionary theory is a fact, and creation a fantasy story, why would one need to lie about things?
- in a defense of evolutionist writers I would point out that most seem unaware that the subject of 'philosophy of science' even exists. Their writing shows an abysmal ignorance of any reflective debate on the deeper issues of science; of what science is, of what scientific explanations are; of what s explanations can and cannot achieve; of the difference between description and explanation; etc.

2. ''They are also pleased that a simple thing like bee flight can no longer be used as an example of science failing to explain a common phenomenon.'

- I have news for these authors; 'science' doesn't explain anything. Scientists make attempts to explain things. That it isn't good enough to describe this honestly, is evidence that evolutionists need to turn their theories into a religion. This is shown clearly in their continual personifying of science. (I'm amazed at how unreflective they seem to be about doing this.) What we see is a desire to turn a process engaged in by fallible, finite (sinful) human beings into some kind of god like Person... a person who is infallible, infinite and utterly neutral and good.

3. " Proponents of intelligent design, or ID, have tried in recent years [sic] to promote the idea of a supreme being [sic] by discounting science [sic] because it can’t explain everything in nature.''

- one wonders why they don't use quotations for these charges. Is it because they don't know what they're talking about?
- who in ID is 'discounting science'? Who?
- the fact of the matter (if this counts :=) is that the ID thinkers I'm aware of do not believe this at all.
- once again we have to remind the authors that there is a world of difference between 'science' and materialism. ID people don't 'discount' science, they deny that materialism can fully account for the organisms that populate the planet. (etc.)

4. “People in the ID community [who?] have said that we don’t even know how bees fly,” [Douglas] Altshuler [Caltech] said. “We were finally able to put this one to rest. We do have the tools to understand bee flight and we can use science to understand the world around us.”

- who in the ID community denied we can use science to understand the world around us? Who? (I'll tell you who; no one, that's who.) And why all this lying and deceit? If they're going to lie repeatedly (and stupidly) in a single article why should we believe they're honest in what they say about Origins? We can all see clearly that they're perfectly willing to lie repeatedly, to slander, to deceive. If they would do it here, why wouldn't they do it elsewhere?
- again science is personified. (Do the authors even realize they're doing this?) They should have said 'the scientific method' not 'science.'

Notes;
1. I found this story at Creation/Evolution Headlines; Step Aside, Creationists: Darwinists Figured Out How Bees Fly 01/10/2006
2. 'The research revolved around fairly mundane lab work, observing bees with high-speed cameras and robotic sensors, in different concentrations of oxygen and with varying payloads to analyze their aerodynamic principles. They mainly discovered that the insects use principles different than those of airplanes and helicopters. There was no mention of how these flight mechanisms evolved. It was even subtitled, “Robotic wings mimic insects’ rapid beat and could inspire new designs.”

Friday, April 11, 2008

The ruse-ter gives a wake up call

Saving the world from Design

- Bruce Alberts, former president of the National Academy of Sciences now at UC San Francisco, underscored that point of contention forcefully in a commentary in Cell [2005] about science education that he gave the alarming title, “A Wakeup Call for Science Faculty.”

Quotes and comments;

1. "For example, why spend a lifetime, constrained by the laws of physics and chemistry, trying to obtain a deep understanding of how cells accumulate mutations and become cancerous if one can postulate a supernatural step for part of the process? Yet we can be certain that, without the deep understanding that will eventually come from insisting on natural explanations, many powerful cancer therapies will be missed.''

- apparently the man has a crystal ball he gazes into so he can make these prophecies.

- that this man would allow himself to make such a venal accusation shows us how morally bankrupt the Darwinian elite is. This is pure slander; nothing more than fear mongering... that has nothing whatever to back it up. In other words it's a complete lie. Boiled down it amounts to saying; ''if you allow these ID people to have a voice in our society millions will die (unnecessarily) from cancer. The vileness of that is almost beyond belief. So I ask you, ''do you think Mr. Alberts is willing to be honest about the subject of Origins?"

- there is apparently no bottom to what some evolutionists will do to defend Darwinism; no depth to which they won't sink in their lies, deceit and slander. Every vicious, underhanded technique known to political mudslingers is being used. Alberts' portrayal of Id theory is such a pathetic caricature it's hard to believe an intelligent person wrote it. He's either totally ignorant of the subject, or he's an outrageous liar.

2. "The idea that intelligent design theory could be part of science is preposterous.''

- That sentence makes no sense. It's only meaningful if he rewrites it to say ID is preposterous to me. When he makes this a flat claim, he's making a universal claim that is simply false. (i.e. many people don't find it preposterous at all.) You'd think an educated person would know this much. But then again Alberts is speaking like a political hack; and as we all know the basis of politics is lying about your opponent, impugning his motivations, distorting his position, etc. (When's the last time you heard a politician give an accurate portrayal of his opponent's position?) Unfortunately in the c/e debate the evolutionists insist on making the whole thing a political street fight (i.e. a fight for power) rather than an intellectual debate.

3. ''It is of course only by insisting on finding natural causes for everything observed in nature that science has been able to make such striking advances over the past 500 years. There is absolutely no reason to think that we should give up this fundamental principle of science now.''

- again Alberts relies for success on totally distorting what ID theorists say about science. (Is this because he knows he can't win if he speaks honestly?) Creationists of course believe in secondary causes; and affirm that most practical science should be done in this manner. But since Alberts has no interest in the truth he pretends otherwise. (A big danger in vilifying your opponent is that people who know the subject can see what you're doing. Albert is either an ignoramus or he's an outrageous liar.)

- You know a writer is hot and bothered when he makes numerous mistakes in a paragraph, or in this case in a single sentence. The pretense here is that all real' scientists have always been materialists. This is of course utterly untrue. In fact it was Christians and creationists who insisted science be done on 'naturalistic terms.' What they meant by this was that although God was the ultimate cause of all things, each thing to be studied also had a secondary cause... and that this could be discovered. Their pursuit of secondary causes (the terminology has it's source in Aristotle) in no way did away with their belief in Creation and in a creator. ("It's the glory of God to hide a thing, and the glory of a prince to discover it.'' I belief that's close to the quote from Proverbs that was so beloved by the scientists of the 16th and 17th centuries.) The point is simple; it was not materialism that led to all the advances in science, but what might be called a naturalistic methodology. (These are radically different things.)

- Albert tells us there's no reason to give up a naturalistic methodology now. I think most creationists would agree with him. Since we're talking about ID theorists here, I don't know of a one who thinks we should do this. What they have recommended is that we add Intelligent Design thinking to some intractable problems. (This has been called an avenue of last resort by some of them.) To say that since all problem heretofore have been solved in one way so we must never think in any other way is like making a trip from Vancouver to England by car.... getting to the Atlantic ocean and then instead of getting out of the car and into a boat saying, ''well we got this far by car we should keep on travelling by car."

- but in any event there's more than one way to look at problems, and more than one way of solving them. In my view it's a mistake to try and force everyone into a single mold and say, ''this is the only way we'll ever think or act.'' This kind of thing has no place in science. People will only obey these edicts if they are forced to; and this of course requires a Totalitarian state.

4. ''As I write, the Kansas State Board of Education has just changed the definition of science in revisions to the Kansas State Science Standards to one that does not include “natural explanations” for natural phenomena. What more proof do we need for the massive failure of our past teaching of biology, physics, chemistry, and earth sciences at high schools, colleges, and universities throughout the United States?"

- what he's saying is 'everyone must think exactly the way I do.''
- isn't it interesting that a generation that rebelled against a marriage ceremony that required a woman to agree to obeying her husband, now wants to force everyone to obey the evolutionary priesthood. ''Will you honor and obey darwin?'' is increasingly the question one has to agree to get anywhere in the academic world. You simply have no right to disagree with the gurus of evolution. You have to submit to this doctrine no matter what you think about it.
- the real massive failure of our universities has been the failure to teach the importance of freedom and liberty.
- to insist on 'natural' (and just what does that meaningless word mean?) explanations for all things is simply materialism, or atheism as it's popularly known.

Summary; it's my contention that this conflict would largely (not wholly) disappear if we went to a private model of education. It's socialism (Statism) that fuels this conflict, that makes it possible. Because universities and schools are largely State financed (and controlled) people like alberts can diss anyone who disagrees with him... he can treat them with contempt. A private model would make him much less hostile to people with different views. It's well known that Statism leads to arrogance; the more the state takes over all things, the more arrogant its managers (etc.) become. The intense hostility (and outright repression) of the e. elite is a direct product of Socialism in education.

Notes;
1. If materialism were true, it would make sense to exclude design thinking from science. But if materialism were true we wouldn't be here to debate the issue.
The fallacy at the heart of m. is to ignore intelligence. To pretend to be able to explain all things the m. must pretend human beings don't exist. (Isn't this a tad strange :=) What do I mean? The materialist can't even begin to explain the computer without reference to an intelligent designer, without reference to intelligent design. (All design is intelligent actually.) So here we have a grand philosophical theory that pretends it can explain all things, but it can't explain a toaster, let alone a computer. I'm still baffled as to how people can overlook such a monumental blunder or failing in the theory.

Wednesday, April 9, 2008

The old Darwinian toothache blues again

In this post I want to make some comments on a news item about the Narwhal.

Quotes and comments;

1. 'Unicorns exist – in the north sea. Not horses, these are marine mammals, called narwhals, a kind of whale that sports a unique spiraling tooth that gives them the appearance of a unicorn. Scientists have puzzled for centuries over what these tusks are for. Leading theories were that males used them for joisting to defend territory, or they were artifacts of sexual selection. Now, scientists from Harvard School of Dental Medicine under Martin Nweeia think they have solved the mystery. The tusk is lined with ten million tiny nerve connections that give this unusual tooth an extremely sensitive probe into the temperature, salinity and pressure of the icy water in which they live. With the proteinaceous membrane on the outer surface connected to the nerves inside, it acts as an antenna of sorts, guiding the animals to their prey in the deep water or sensing the environment at the surface.

- one could imagine that the story of the Unicorn came about when someone found a Narwhal 'tooth' washed up on the beach... and then imagined it came from some (terrestrial) animal. Their ignorance of narwhals allowed them the 'freedom' to speculate... and they just assumed it was only animals that had 'horns' and so some animal must exist with a horn like this. We see here how easily we can get led astray by our ignorance and by our ideas. Reality is often far different than we think.

2. 'The tooth on males can be up to nine feet long, yet is resistant to breakage. It grows in a spiral pattern straight out without curving, as with elephant tusks. No other mammal has a tooth anything like it; the press release states, “there is no comparison in nature and certainly none more unique in tooth form, expression, and functional adaptation.”

- the evolutionist must tell us what the narwhal evolved from... and from what this 'tooth' evolved. The committed evolutionist cannot allow anything to be unique; all creatures must have evolved from certain more 'primitive' ancestors. So we await the invention of the narwhal story. The more we learn about the creation the more we see how fallacious the idea of evolution is; how impossible it is. We see how out of touch with reality it is, and how it exists only in the fantasy world of textbooks.

- The more we see of reality the more inadequate our theories look. For anyone whose heart has not turned to stone, the discoveries that are being made about the creation are a humbling experience. There is no way some form of chemical Accidentalism can account for what we see. (That at least is my opinion.) Every day the evolutionary pretense becomes harder to defend.

- the term Narwhal is related to the word for corpse; i.e. on account of the white color of this whale. In my view it is evolutionism that is the corpse. Evolutionary materialism hasn't been done in by clever arguments by creationists, but by reality. The discoveries made by scientists in the last couple of decades (let's say starting with DNA) have been the hammer that's smashed the e. idea to pieces. (That's not perhaps the best imagery or symbolism....) As we gaze ever further into the 'heart' of things, as we see more and more how incredibly complex things are, as we see how codes are at the heart of all living things, it gets harder and harder to believe this is just a product of random chance working blindly and mindlessly on inert matter.

- the 9 foot long tooth of the Narwhal is just one more stake through Darwin's heart. (What would Darwin say if he read this story? Probably something like, ''It's not impossible to imagine that this developed from....'' No; it's not impossible to imagine the impossible; sf and fantasy writers do it every day... but that doesn't make it real, true, or possible. I can imagine that Darwin was really a bible believing creationist whose been badly misunderstood by all his readers... but this doesn't make it true :=)

3. - 'Leading theories were that males used them for joisting to defend territory, or they were artifacts of sexual selection.'

- look at how dumb the earlier e. ideas on the tooth were. While we can excuse people for ignorance, there's more involved here. Early ideas were based on the Darwinian myth of nature 'red in tooth and claw' that all of life is at heart a murderous struggle with others for dominance and survival. (The conflict model of life.) For the naive Darwinian all of life is either about sex, food, or battle; therefore all organs must be explained in these terms... and this usually done in a simple minded way. (e.g. ''oh look, a long horn, looks like a spear, must be used for fighting.'') Here we see how a powerful idea can 'bend' all the data into its orbit... causing an adherent to see everything in terms of the idea. (As an aside; even within the e. community the 'harmony' model of the world is gaining ground even as the conflict model loses ground. This isn't evidence non-creationists are abandoning E. as a paradigm, but it's evidence of how theory affects observation and speculation... of how ideas are at the heart of what we think we see in the world.)

- we see in the Narwhal (what we see everywhere) that living creatures (and all their parts and systems) are almost infinitely more complicated than people imagined. If e. is to survive it (at the very least) will have to change radically to deal with all this new complexity. The key problem e's have is to find a way to account for the obvious intelligence we see when we look at creatures at the cellular level. The so called nano machines and the codes responsible for them are clearly (to many at least) evidence of intelligence... in fact they are intelligent machines if you prefer. Can anyone look that far behind 'nature's veil' and still believe in Accidentalism? (In my opinion materialist philosophers will one day rue the day the microscope was invented.)

- if materialism were true (in some other universe; let's say one created by NASA maybe :=) there would be no Narwhals, at best there would be pond scum.... forever.

- what we see in this tooth (sensor) is how incredibly sensitive some animals (organs) are to the environment; how adept they are at sensing the vagaries of the environment... to detecting minute changes... to knowing it on a very detailed level. It's no doubt fanciful but we could compare the project we call science to a narwhal tooth. In our case we could say this 'sensor' is growing generation by generation... getting more sensitive to the reality we live in. As this 'tooth' (antenna) grows we learn more and more about the world. We become more acutely aware of the incredible detail in things. We are becoming ever more sensitive as it were. The instruments we build are like the narwhal's tooth. But as we learn more about the complexity of living things our ideas about the world will have to change... will undoubtedly change as well. What we are percieving, in a way we have never done before, is how intelligent all things are. While this is great news for creationists, it's bound to be a toothache for materialists.

Notes;
1. I found this story at Creation/Evolution headlines; Marine Unicorn Tusk is a Precision Sensor 12/13/2005

Tuesday, April 8, 2008

The sci is falling, the sci is falling

Chicken Little has a sigh attack

'Donald Kennedy in Science 12/16/05, in an editorial about science education, warned about terrible consequences if science educators don’t help students think critically about things like intelligent design:
"Second, the future of the world is at stake! That’s not melodrama.''

Quotes and comments;

1. Yes it is Mr. Kennedy. Exclamation points are always melodrama. Your little song and dance is as phoney as a TV soap opera. There are more scientists every day, and their numbers are increasing rapidly. (Think of china alone.) The idea the world is in danger from a lack of scientists is just another silly bit of Darwinian melodrama. Just one more bit of slander; just one more bit of play acting.

2. How it helps 'science' to insist students accept the fallacies of Materialism I don't know. (Materialism is utterly bankrupt as a philosophical view; it's been refuted by almost every philosopher down through the centuries. It's recent resuscitation is a reactionary event; more political than philosophical. But if an atheist is honest he must be a materialist, and so he must adopt an utterly fallacious world view... and simply pretend that it makes sense, pretend that he can build an integrated view of things based on it's absurdities and impossibilities.)

3. "In addition to full-time scientists, we need educated citizens who can think critically about the science and technology choices so prominent in contemporary political life."

- Kennedy tells us he wants citizens who can think critically. I find that to be a farce. If this is what he wants why does he demand people just accept whatever he says? (To accept whatever the educational elite says about evolution.) That makes no sense. Perhaps Kennedy should take a course in logic.

- and who are these 'citizens' who must think critically? That makes no sense in terms of materialism, as thoughts are just chemical reactions and man has no freedom in any event. Maybe Kennedy can tell us how chemicals can not only 'think' but think 'critically'.

- if man is just an animal why should he behave rationally or properly or in the way the pc elite think he (or it) should? Evolutionary theory can't provide a foundation for any of the things Mr. Kennedy wants. He's playing the game of ignoring (and defying) his premises when he argues. In other words he has to deny evolutionary theory when he makes his plea and his argument. He can't argue from evolutionary premises; but must borrow concepts and terminology from theism.

4. "If the electorate distrusts science and doesn’t understand how scientists explore and interrogate the natural world, how will they vote on issues ranging from stem cell research and global climate change to the teaching of intelligent design in our schools?"

- It's not 'science' the electorate distrusts it's scientists.

5. It's utterly pathetic the way creationists (or even mere critics of evolutionary theory) are now being blamed for every other problem on the planet. (Have these people no integrity at all? And where are all the editors who are supposed to keep writers honest and fair?)

Notes;
1. Evolutionists are being disingenuous when they speak about the need for critical thinking in their students.
- do the schools teach critical thinking? teach logic? For the most part no. So much for the great desire to have students engage in critical thinking :=)
- does forbidding any criticism of evolutionary theory sound like a concern for critical thinking?
- Educators like Sloan Wilson (see my post 'The art of manipulating students') have been busy devising programs for forcing students to accept evolutionary teachings. A great many papers have been written recently on how you can deceive and manipulate students into getting them to accept evolutionary doctrine. Does that sound like a concern for critical thinking?
3. All this hysteria reminds me of Jonathan Swift;
"I hope no reader imagines me so weak to stand up in the defence of real Christianity, such as used in primitive times (if we may believe the authors of those ages) to have an influence upon men's belief and actions. To offer at the restoring of that, would indeed be a wild project: it would be to dig up foundations; to destroy at one blow all the wit, and half the learning of the kingdom; to break the entire frame and constitution of things; to ruin trade, extinguish arts and sciences, with the professors of them; in short, to turn our courts, exchanges, and shops into deserts..." ('On Abolishing Christianity')

Friday, April 4, 2008

Teaching and the End of Darwinism

It's my contention that the current 'success' of evolutionary theory is due to the fact it is taught to people in a dishonest way. (Not to be cute about it; by lies, bullying and deception.) I think we could send Darwinism back to the intellectual rubbish heap where it belongs if it were taught in an honest manner.

Here's what such an account might (in outline form) look like.

A. Most cosmologists (those working within a materialist framework) believe the universe emerged from some kind of big bang; that is from some kind of explosion. The theory tells us that once upon a no-time a no-thing exploded into being. No one knows how something can come from nothing, but this is the best idea cosmologists have been able to come up with. This theory (or speculation) would seem clearly to defy what we know about the physical laws of the universe; but cosmologists see no other alternative so they claim this must have been possible. This idea would seem to violate the 2nd law, and so violate the most basic law of the universe... but we're told it happened anyway.

B. After this explosion the universe (if we can call it that) somehow formed itself into galaxies, planets and stars. No one knows how this could have happened, but it obviously did... just look up at the night time sky.

C. After planets formed living organisms somehow emerged. No one knows how life can come from non-life, but it obviously happened... as R. Dawkins is out on tour giving lectures for big money. That this violates the most basic law of biology is a problem; no one knows how this could have happened. (So called 'Miller' or origin of life, experiments have consistently failed for over 80 years.) That code doesn't happen by accident is acknowledged; but somehow it happened... as if it didn't materialism wouldn't be true, and we know it is true, therefore it happened.

D. Somehow this original product of cosmic Accidentalism managed to 'evolve' upward, creating ever new species. This was done through the brilliant strategy of making a lot of copying mistakes. That mutations can't create information, but only destroy it would seem to make this impossible. No one knows how this can happen.

E. Then one day, an ape decided to evolve into a human being. It did this by using the old technique of copying mistakes. No one has a clue how this is possible... but it surely did; and R. Dawkins is evidence of it.

Summary;
I've been heavy handed here I admit, but this is (in my opinion) an honest account of true evolutionary theory. All the basics of the 'theory' are impossible. Students should be taught that these basic elements violate what we know about physical laws; that the theory is inherently anti-scientific. They should be told that the theory cannot be proven, and that it is essentially metaphysical speculation... that it is basically an ancient bit of greek philosophy. (And no doubt precedes the greeks.) They should be told that it is basically a necessary conclusion of a world view called Materialism. (i.e. if one adopts materialism one must adopt evolution as an explanation for living forms.)

If E. were taught this way the air would go out of the evolutionary balloon. It would not mean the end of evolution as a theory of course. There have always been theists and atheists, and there always will be. There have always been covenant people, and there have always been non-covenanters. If the bible is the word of the creator god, this will always be the case.

I find it sad that people can speak honestly in this debate. Teachers have a special duty to be honest I believe, and it's horrible that they are willing to lie to students about the Origins issue. Teach the theory of evolution by all means; but teach it honestly. It is most assuredly not a fact. In my opinion it's not even a theory, but I'm no doubt in a small minority on that score. What's called 'evolution' in our day is basically just old fashioned atheism in a fancy dress. Darwinism gives people a way to pretend the religion of materialism is really science.

Is it science to think the universe came from nothing... and without a cause? (That denies everything we know about physics.) Is it science to believe life came from non-life? (That denies all we know about biology.) Is it science to believe intelligence comes from matter? (That denies all we know about intelligence and about matter.) Is it science to believe personality comes from the non-personal? (That denies all we know about psychology and about matter.)

Notes;
1. Is there any way to get people to teach evolutionary theory honestly? Not that I know of. Is there any way to reduce the influence Darwinism has in our colleges? Sure; stop giving them State funding; reduce the amount of socialism; turn all schools private.
2. I wrote this post mainly in jest. As long as we have a socialist State dominating all things I see no way of defeating Darwinism. A limited government model would reduce the influence of evolutionary ideas greatly; so I see this as the best hope. Until then people must be diligent about refuting the absurdities of Materialism in any way they can. (As well as presenting a positive model of creation; showing how it is essential to renewing the arts and sciences, which under Darwinism have gone so horribly astray.)
3. Just as there will always be creationists, there will always be materialists. People are different for one thing, and because they are they will view vital issues differently. (It's mainly collectivist policy that demands we view all people as the same, when clearly they are not. As an aside I'd point out that evolutionists assume people are all the same when they demand everyone believe in evolution. They do this though they cannot prove it, and in fact know it's false.)