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.