In the last three centuries or so we've seen the voyage from the Personal to the Impersonal.
- the rejection of Creation for the fool's gold of Materialism has had many negative consequences. One of the great themes that we can see played out is the descent from Personalism into the void of Impersonalism. This process has affected every aspect of human life.
- We can even define Humanism as the move from Personalism to Impersonalism. We can see the expression of this in all things, in all areas of life.
- The examples are manifold; The Personal God (who created all things) is replaced with a Deist (impersonal) god, and this god has been replaced by no god. (i.e. Materialism.)
- The Providence of God was replaced by Natural law, and this has been replaced by law.... and now by legislation. God's moral law (based on god's character has been replaced by morality, and now by civil utility. (So called.)
- this process has gone on in all areas of man's life; the personal becoming the impersonal. (Secular writers sometimes call this, if they bother to address the subject at all, the desacralization of civilization. This misses the point. We don't see the sacred becoming secular; we see the Personal becoming impersonal.)
- the ground of being used to be the Creator and his providential governance of the universe; the ground of being now is the void... the random motion of sub-atomic particles... (or if you prefer, fluctuations in the void.)
- Language used to be founded upon the character and wisdom of God. Words referred to (created) universals. Now words are merely arbitrary symbols, or sounds meant to deceive the naive. Words mean what the political elite say they are... or so we are told. (They mean one thing in the morning and another thing after tea.)
- man as the image of god is replaced by 'man' as an animal... and then as mindless animal... and then by mindless gene carrier... and then by man as a bag of chemicals.
- special revelation is replaced by something called human reason. (Which no one can sensibly define.)
- ethics and morality is replaced with psychology... and then with pills.
- love is replaced with sex.
- art is replaced with mass produced entertainment. (Distractionism for androids.)
- truth is replaced with pr and political hucksterism... (If words don't mean anything you'd be a fool to tell the truth.)
- the family, community and church are replaced by the state.
- responsibility is replaced with the compassion of social workers who know that no one is to blame for anything... as we're all just matter in motion.
- creation is replaced with some kind of explosion we're told... (A perfect symbol for the irrationalism that results from embracing Materialism.)
Notes;
a. this is a vast subject, and it would take a book to deal with it adequately.
b. in our day this move is 'exasperated' by the move from country to city. Man now lives an anonymous existence in a mass society, in an increasingly impersonal civilization.
- the country is replaced by the city...
- owning property is replaced by a ticket to the welfare state...
- play is replaced by spectatorism... (A deservedly ugly term for puerile behavior.)
c. what does all this mean? It means the death of man. There is no room for a personal man in an impersonal universe. (If you think that's extreme, check out the internet and you'll find people who insist that 'we need to become machines...' One wonders who this 'we' is.)
Monday, June 30, 2008
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
The evolution of evolutionary apologetics
In this post I want to make a few comments about a lecture by Steven Goldman on Evolution. (The evolution of evolution.)
Quotes and comments.
1. Goldman's version of Darwin doesn't sound like Darwin to me... it sounds like neo-Darwinism.
2. He tells us, 'for Darwin there were no species.... only individuals.'
- Why then did he write a book on the origin of species?
3. G. tells us if there was food for everyone there would be no evolution (i.e. that evolution depends on competition.)
- If that's the case why did creatures leave the oceans (where there Is food for everyone) to go on the land where you say there isn't? (This lack of food is a strange idea.... it's more untrue than true... on the whole it's not true.)
4. G. tells us that, ' in time 'real' novelty emerges....' and 'Darwin claimed you could get something entirely new.
- what does that mean? what does he mean by 'real novelty'? He seems to be trying hard to avoid mention of information; as no new information is produced... that being the case how can you get 'real novelty.' (Doesn't sound very scientific does it?)
- Darwin claimed you could get something entirely new. This is doubtful... but even if it happened it wouldn't survive. How can you get something new by making a copying mistake? That's the question. It seems to me that what apologists like Goldman are just playing games here; pretending they don't understand genetics, that they don't understand the variations possible with genetics. (e.g. all human beings are unique; and one couple could theoretically have billions of unique children.) Why the appeal to a dumbed down ignorance?
5. Goldman seems to agree with S. Gould that if we 'replayed' the tape we would have a totally different set of creatures.... "this is a very exciting idea... ' Goldman says, thrilling to his subject... 'very liberating.'
- One can only wonder why. On the basis insanity is exciting :=) I really don't understand this kind of reaction. What is exciting about this? I don't see how we could possibly ask for a more staggering collection of amazing creatures. (I can't help thinking of the verse in the bible that tells us natural man is by nature ungrateful and unthankful. G. gives us a great illustration of this :=) It's really beyond belief. [A more radical denial of creation would be hard to imagine.] The natural man cannot bring himself to offer thanks to his Creator. He cannot. He will not.
6. 'By 1900 Darwinian evolution was comatose.... but 'scientists' were convinced nontheless that evolution was true.'
- Why? Because of the supposed (imagined) relationships he tells us. I don't buy this at all. People insisted that evolution was true because they wanted it to be true. There was little evidence that could be pointed to, and in fact most of the evidence pointed against evolution. (If you discount the evolutionary framework forced onto the fossil record.) People rejected the mechanism, G. tells us. (Gee; what mechanism? Darwin had none.)
6. Goldman perpetuates the myth Mendel's paper was published in an obscure journal...
- it wasn't obscure.... it was even in 11? u.s. university libraries... in well over a hundred libraries? (It was deliberately ignored because evolutionists felt it would hurt Darwin.)
7. G.tells us the 'new' Darwinism was a blend (sounds Charlie-like) of Darwinism and Mendel.
- One wonders why one would need Darwin? Of course one doesn't. This is just PR; trying to save the theory by 'saving' Darwin. So called 'neo-Darwinism' has nothing to do with Darwin. Evolutionists use Darwin's name because they're afraid that if they repudiate Darwin (say he was wrong) this will hurt the theory of evolution. (That they think and behave this way shows how afraid they are their theory will collapse under scrutiny.) Darwin is dead; but evolutionists refuse to bury him.
8. Goldman talks about natural selection 'powering' the evolution process.
- natural selection could no more 'power' (embarassing personification) evolution than Darwin's pigeon breeders could produce a new species. Natural selection is a conservative process; as any honest scientist will tell you.
9. G. goes on to tell us 'disproving spontaneous generation' (which he pretends was only an 'old wives' tale) was one of the small triumphs of 19th century science.
- I guess we should all be so lucky as to have such a 'small' triumph.
- When you hear people using such pathetic rhetoric you know they have a strong bias... and you know they will never tell you the truth on the subject they're discussing. This was no 'small' triumph. G. only denigrates it because he has an axe to grind.
- for evolution to be true, spontaneous generation has to be true. This is the problem materialists face. Many people have tried top solve it, and have all failed utterly.
10. 'Darwin focused on individuals... but the new Darwinists focus on populations... Darwin was back on the top of the heap again.' (i.e. with the emergence of neo-Darwinism.)
- so why do we still talk about Darwin. Darwin is dead; he cannot be revived. Darwin is nothing but a brand name. (And how ironic this brand is so famous on campus where brands are so looked down on.)
11. G. talks about the Miller experiments... and claims 'we now know he got it all wrong....' (i.e. now we know better what the 'conditions' of the early earth was.) 'But it was still important work.'
- This is nothing but a bluff. We don't know, and we never will, what those conditions were. To think otherwise is to believe in magic; to believe scientists can produce magical results. The idea scientists can answer every question is a faith claim. (In my view an absurd faith claim) I call this scientism. It is utterly impossible to know what these conditions were; though many people are willing to tell 'just so' stories about it, and to pretend they know... and to deceive students into believing these fantasy stories. Some things (i would say many things) are forever beyond our ability to know. This is just the way things are; it does no good to pretend otherwise.
12. Goldman talks about 'organisms' that live by deep sea vents 'never having seen the sun...'
- I thought all creatures had ascended from the first living form... if this is true, these deep sea creatures would have a connection (albeit distant) with the sun, etc. You can't preach a theory of continuity and then pretend whenever convenient it doesn't exist; either 'life' exists on a continuum of ascent or it doesn't.)
13. G. gives us the Darwinian fairy tale that, 'life first emerged by these deep sea vents.
- As far as I can see this is impossible. (Life is an abstraction of course. Life can't emerge; some living form has to emerge.)
14. G. admits we can't account for the origin of life, but we now have computer models that can do it.
- I guess we could call this salvation by animation.
15. G. talks repeatedly of 'random' changes...
- you cannot prove a change is random. (I'm restricting this to biology.)
16. He ends by giving us one of the silliest of all the Darwinian fairy tales; the one where some 'life' form [prokaryotes] just happened to find one day it had the capacity for photosynthesis. i.e. by some fortuitous mutation (loss of information) it got a radically new ability.
- This is nonsense on stilts. (Stilts made of water.) The only reason people accept this is because they have no idea how impossible it is... or what is being talked about. This is the magical creation of information. He might as well say, "one day mother nature waved her magic wand, and photosynthesis emerged, the first true cell emerged." (And all the Materialists lived happily ever after.
- this is all silliness on paper stilts.... It's shameful this should be taught to students as fact (And it only happens for political reasons) There is no proof of this, and there never will be. As Goldman himself admits, 'this is all just hand waving.' I agree. Why then do you insist on claiming it's a fact? Why do you go to the courts to have the power of the state enforce such idiot notions? (And what is the power of the state? The military.)
17. G. tells us that, somehow (no one knows how) the first cell magically appeared.
- Is this any different than saying, ''once upon a time mother nature gave birth to the first cell?"
18. Goldman keeps repeating his complaint that evolution is 'still' a scandalous idea... (In his best whining annunciation.)
- As if 'scandal' (i.e. error) has something to do with the passage of time.
- This is as stupid as saying 'murder' is still a scandalous idea, or incest is 'still' a scandalous idea. (Or Marxism, or Christianity, etc.) This is the 'progressivism' of the Left; where if things don't move in the direction of Statist Collectivization, it's all 'scandalous' don't you know. Of course at the very same time most evolutionists insist there is no direction in evolution - so go figure. It makes no sense to me.
- This makes as much sense as for me to complain that Materialists and atheists still (still I say, still) refuse to admit that evolution is impossible. This debate has gone on for millennia, and I assume it will continue to go on as long as there are humans alive to debate it.
Notes;
1. Steven Goldman; Lecture #22; Life; The evolution of evolution (Science in the 20th century - The Teaching Company)
2. 'It has been pointed out that there is, within each individual, the potential to produce the full range of variation possible within the species; Darwin found that all the fancy types of pigeon, for example, could be produced after several generations by breeding from the common rock pigeon. When the environmental circumstances are unfavorable to one particular type of variation, it may decline almost to the point of extinction. Yet all the time that other variants of the same species survive, there is the potential for that variant to reemerge when the environment changes. This is most likely the case with the light- and dark-colored peppered moths in England.' - Ian Taylor/'In the Minds of Men'/ch.6
3. "If we do not accept the hypothesis of spontaneous generation [of life from non-living matter], then at this one point of the history of development [evolution] we must have recourse to the miracle of a supernatural creation." Ernst Haeckel (1876, 1:348) Taylor/ch. 7.
4. Chapter 7. of Taylor concerns the origin of life issue.
5. Goldman loses credibility by his caricature of debate over spontaneous genertaion. Just compare his version with taylor's and tell me who you think is the real scholar. (I realize we're comparing a chapter from a book with a 30 minute lecture, but it's revealing all the same.)
5. ' Haeckel had put his finger on the real need for spontaneous generation when he said, "This hypothesis is indispensable for the consistent completion of the non-miraculous history of creation" (Haeckel 1876, 1:348), and this is as true today as it was in 1876.' - Taylor/ch 7.
6. Like 99.99 percent of evolutionary apologists he brings back the Scopes trial.
- if he really knew what went on you'd think he'd be ashamed to mention the trial. (But I suppose he's relying on the ignorance of his listeners.)
7. Like most evolutionary apologists Goldman relies heavily on the idea the rock layers are a kind of clock, that shows us the progression of 'evolutionary' history.
- what evolutionists will Never do is subject the idea of rock chronology to criticism. (And with very good reason.) It's impossible to prove chronology by succession in rock layers. (i.e. it's impossible to prove how long the layers took to form.)
8. Listening to Goldman reminded me of the old classic 'Elephant Talk' - by King Crimson
Quotes and comments.
1. Goldman's version of Darwin doesn't sound like Darwin to me... it sounds like neo-Darwinism.
2. He tells us, 'for Darwin there were no species.... only individuals.'
- Why then did he write a book on the origin of species?
3. G. tells us if there was food for everyone there would be no evolution (i.e. that evolution depends on competition.)
- If that's the case why did creatures leave the oceans (where there Is food for everyone) to go on the land where you say there isn't? (This lack of food is a strange idea.... it's more untrue than true... on the whole it's not true.)
4. G. tells us that, ' in time 'real' novelty emerges....' and 'Darwin claimed you could get something entirely new.
- what does that mean? what does he mean by 'real novelty'? He seems to be trying hard to avoid mention of information; as no new information is produced... that being the case how can you get 'real novelty.' (Doesn't sound very scientific does it?)
- Darwin claimed you could get something entirely new. This is doubtful... but even if it happened it wouldn't survive. How can you get something new by making a copying mistake? That's the question. It seems to me that what apologists like Goldman are just playing games here; pretending they don't understand genetics, that they don't understand the variations possible with genetics. (e.g. all human beings are unique; and one couple could theoretically have billions of unique children.) Why the appeal to a dumbed down ignorance?
5. Goldman seems to agree with S. Gould that if we 'replayed' the tape we would have a totally different set of creatures.... "this is a very exciting idea... ' Goldman says, thrilling to his subject... 'very liberating.'
- One can only wonder why. On the basis insanity is exciting :=) I really don't understand this kind of reaction. What is exciting about this? I don't see how we could possibly ask for a more staggering collection of amazing creatures. (I can't help thinking of the verse in the bible that tells us natural man is by nature ungrateful and unthankful. G. gives us a great illustration of this :=) It's really beyond belief. [A more radical denial of creation would be hard to imagine.] The natural man cannot bring himself to offer thanks to his Creator. He cannot. He will not.
6. 'By 1900 Darwinian evolution was comatose.... but 'scientists' were convinced nontheless that evolution was true.'
- Why? Because of the supposed (imagined) relationships he tells us. I don't buy this at all. People insisted that evolution was true because they wanted it to be true. There was little evidence that could be pointed to, and in fact most of the evidence pointed against evolution. (If you discount the evolutionary framework forced onto the fossil record.) People rejected the mechanism, G. tells us. (Gee; what mechanism? Darwin had none.)
6. Goldman perpetuates the myth Mendel's paper was published in an obscure journal...
- it wasn't obscure.... it was even in 11? u.s. university libraries... in well over a hundred libraries? (It was deliberately ignored because evolutionists felt it would hurt Darwin.)
7. G.tells us the 'new' Darwinism was a blend (sounds Charlie-like) of Darwinism and Mendel.
- One wonders why one would need Darwin? Of course one doesn't. This is just PR; trying to save the theory by 'saving' Darwin. So called 'neo-Darwinism' has nothing to do with Darwin. Evolutionists use Darwin's name because they're afraid that if they repudiate Darwin (say he was wrong) this will hurt the theory of evolution. (That they think and behave this way shows how afraid they are their theory will collapse under scrutiny.) Darwin is dead; but evolutionists refuse to bury him.
8. Goldman talks about natural selection 'powering' the evolution process.
- natural selection could no more 'power' (embarassing personification) evolution than Darwin's pigeon breeders could produce a new species. Natural selection is a conservative process; as any honest scientist will tell you.
9. G. goes on to tell us 'disproving spontaneous generation' (which he pretends was only an 'old wives' tale) was one of the small triumphs of 19th century science.
- I guess we should all be so lucky as to have such a 'small' triumph.
- When you hear people using such pathetic rhetoric you know they have a strong bias... and you know they will never tell you the truth on the subject they're discussing. This was no 'small' triumph. G. only denigrates it because he has an axe to grind.
- for evolution to be true, spontaneous generation has to be true. This is the problem materialists face. Many people have tried top solve it, and have all failed utterly.
10. 'Darwin focused on individuals... but the new Darwinists focus on populations... Darwin was back on the top of the heap again.' (i.e. with the emergence of neo-Darwinism.)
- so why do we still talk about Darwin. Darwin is dead; he cannot be revived. Darwin is nothing but a brand name. (And how ironic this brand is so famous on campus where brands are so looked down on.)
11. G. talks about the Miller experiments... and claims 'we now know he got it all wrong....' (i.e. now we know better what the 'conditions' of the early earth was.) 'But it was still important work.'
- This is nothing but a bluff. We don't know, and we never will, what those conditions were. To think otherwise is to believe in magic; to believe scientists can produce magical results. The idea scientists can answer every question is a faith claim. (In my view an absurd faith claim) I call this scientism. It is utterly impossible to know what these conditions were; though many people are willing to tell 'just so' stories about it, and to pretend they know... and to deceive students into believing these fantasy stories. Some things (i would say many things) are forever beyond our ability to know. This is just the way things are; it does no good to pretend otherwise.
12. Goldman talks about 'organisms' that live by deep sea vents 'never having seen the sun...'
- I thought all creatures had ascended from the first living form... if this is true, these deep sea creatures would have a connection (albeit distant) with the sun, etc. You can't preach a theory of continuity and then pretend whenever convenient it doesn't exist; either 'life' exists on a continuum of ascent or it doesn't.)
13. G. gives us the Darwinian fairy tale that, 'life first emerged by these deep sea vents.
- As far as I can see this is impossible. (Life is an abstraction of course. Life can't emerge; some living form has to emerge.)
14. G. admits we can't account for the origin of life, but we now have computer models that can do it.
- I guess we could call this salvation by animation.
15. G. talks repeatedly of 'random' changes...
- you cannot prove a change is random. (I'm restricting this to biology.)
16. He ends by giving us one of the silliest of all the Darwinian fairy tales; the one where some 'life' form [prokaryotes] just happened to find one day it had the capacity for photosynthesis. i.e. by some fortuitous mutation (loss of information) it got a radically new ability.
- This is nonsense on stilts. (Stilts made of water.) The only reason people accept this is because they have no idea how impossible it is... or what is being talked about. This is the magical creation of information. He might as well say, "one day mother nature waved her magic wand, and photosynthesis emerged, the first true cell emerged." (And all the Materialists lived happily ever after.
- this is all silliness on paper stilts.... It's shameful this should be taught to students as fact (And it only happens for political reasons) There is no proof of this, and there never will be. As Goldman himself admits, 'this is all just hand waving.' I agree. Why then do you insist on claiming it's a fact? Why do you go to the courts to have the power of the state enforce such idiot notions? (And what is the power of the state? The military.)
17. G. tells us that, somehow (no one knows how) the first cell magically appeared.
- Is this any different than saying, ''once upon a time mother nature gave birth to the first cell?"
18. Goldman keeps repeating his complaint that evolution is 'still' a scandalous idea... (In his best whining annunciation.)
- As if 'scandal' (i.e. error) has something to do with the passage of time.
- This is as stupid as saying 'murder' is still a scandalous idea, or incest is 'still' a scandalous idea. (Or Marxism, or Christianity, etc.) This is the 'progressivism' of the Left; where if things don't move in the direction of Statist Collectivization, it's all 'scandalous' don't you know. Of course at the very same time most evolutionists insist there is no direction in evolution - so go figure. It makes no sense to me.
- This makes as much sense as for me to complain that Materialists and atheists still (still I say, still) refuse to admit that evolution is impossible. This debate has gone on for millennia, and I assume it will continue to go on as long as there are humans alive to debate it.
Notes;
1. Steven Goldman; Lecture #22; Life; The evolution of evolution (Science in the 20th century - The Teaching Company)
2. 'It has been pointed out that there is, within each individual, the potential to produce the full range of variation possible within the species; Darwin found that all the fancy types of pigeon, for example, could be produced after several generations by breeding from the common rock pigeon. When the environmental circumstances are unfavorable to one particular type of variation, it may decline almost to the point of extinction. Yet all the time that other variants of the same species survive, there is the potential for that variant to reemerge when the environment changes. This is most likely the case with the light- and dark-colored peppered moths in England.' - Ian Taylor/'In the Minds of Men'/ch.6
3. "If we do not accept the hypothesis of spontaneous generation [of life from non-living matter], then at this one point of the history of development [evolution] we must have recourse to the miracle of a supernatural creation." Ernst Haeckel (1876, 1:348) Taylor/ch. 7.
4. Chapter 7. of Taylor concerns the origin of life issue.
5. Goldman loses credibility by his caricature of debate over spontaneous genertaion. Just compare his version with taylor's and tell me who you think is the real scholar. (I realize we're comparing a chapter from a book with a 30 minute lecture, but it's revealing all the same.)
5. ' Haeckel had put his finger on the real need for spontaneous generation when he said, "This hypothesis is indispensable for the consistent completion of the non-miraculous history of creation" (Haeckel 1876, 1:348), and this is as true today as it was in 1876.' - Taylor/ch 7.
6. Like 99.99 percent of evolutionary apologists he brings back the Scopes trial.
- if he really knew what went on you'd think he'd be ashamed to mention the trial. (But I suppose he's relying on the ignorance of his listeners.)
7. Like most evolutionary apologists Goldman relies heavily on the idea the rock layers are a kind of clock, that shows us the progression of 'evolutionary' history.
- what evolutionists will Never do is subject the idea of rock chronology to criticism. (And with very good reason.) It's impossible to prove chronology by succession in rock layers. (i.e. it's impossible to prove how long the layers took to form.)
8. Listening to Goldman reminded me of the old classic 'Elephant Talk' - by King Crimson
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Devolution
Contra the fallacy the Bible teaches stasis
'As C. S. Lewis rightly said, when man sinned he brought into being a human species which was not the species which God created.' - Arthur Custance
Evolutionists like to pretend that Christianity (and the Bible) deny variation. They're continually criticizing creationists for maintaining that the world is exactly as it was created by God. This is not what the Bible teaches, or what modern creationists claim. Let's look at some examples.
a. the world was created perfect; it is not so now
b. Mankind (through Adam) fell; the consequences were mortality, pain in child birth, etc.
c. the creation was somehow (in ways hard to determine) affected negatively by the Fall... and survival became more difficult
d. a world that was meant to survive on plant eating... became one that featured predators.
e. the flood radically changed the features of the planet
f. mankind began to live less and less long.
g. man became a rebel against the Creator.
h. men had (by animal breeding) created many 'new' species of animals... or at least different in some way. (Not to mention the same with plant domestication.)
- What's usually ignored in all this, is the various breeding attempts by man. Animal and plant breeding is an activity millennia long... and we have little idea of what the results of it were. The question I have is; 'how many 'species' of animals and plants that we see in the world today (or even in the rocks) are the result of man's deliberate interference with the creation? How many were the inadvertent result of man's activities?
- I think it's certainly true that many 'species' have 'emerged' after the creation. (All this depends a lot on how species is defined.) I doubt whether any new 'kinds' have emerged. (I consider the idea fish became felines utterly impossible.)
- it's my conviction that what we see in the world is not evolution, but mutability. (I'd like to call it devolution, but the word seems to have comic book overtones, or sound like an idea from science fiction. (I seem to remember a story on devolution from Larry Niven, in Analog I think.) I think in time people will reject the idea of evolution for that of devolution. Mutations destroy information, and this sink hole can never lead to the progression of creation outlined in the theory of Neo-Darwinism. Despite what evolutionists claim, creationists have learned a lot since Darwin, and they are far more aware of change within the created order. In this restricted way Darwinism has been a good thing for creationists. (That being said, the social toll has been devastating.)
- No one doubts that the world changes. What we're debating is the manner in which it changes, the direction in which it changes. In my view entropy and mutation lead to devolution, not evolution. (Evolution really only means change; but its come to mean a progressive, or 'upward' change... and I see this as impossible.) The change isn't from death to life, but from life to death. (I believe it's only because of the incredible measures taken by the Creator to protect against mutation that the creation hasn't already died out.) If you're keeping up with recent discoveries in biology (or trying to keep up) you'll have noticed the many, and intricate measures there are to combat change within the copying process. Having said that I don't see any necessary reason for life on earth ending in the foreseeable future. I'm merely talking here about the direction of change.
- I don't like the term micro-evolution, but we seem to be stuck with it. I define it as the change in the created kinds over time. I think Mutability is a better word, but I doubt evolutionists (materialists) can be persuaded to use it.
- I'll end with a question. If there had been in the past a creation event somewhat akin to the one portrayed in Genesis, isn't devolution what you would expect to see?
Notes;
1. Lewis/the problem of pain p.83/85
2. Animal breeding (from Topics)
- 'Linnaeus introduced his system of plant classification in his Systema Naturae in 1735 and in this and subsequent editions there is no hint that one species is related to another through some ancestral form. Himmelfarb claims that in the final edition of his Systema Naturae published in greatly expanded form thirty-one years after the first, Linnaeus tentatively suggested that the original number of species created may have been multiplied by interbreeding one species with another (Himmelfarb 1968, 170)
- Himmelfarb (1968, 170) quotes Knut Hagberg's Carl Linnaeus (London: 1952, 197) who in turn quotes from Linnaeus' Dissertation on Perloris (1744) to show that Linnaeus conceded that it was "possible for new species to arise", and Himmelfarb adds that Linnaeus was held suspect by orthodox Christians for saying so.
3. Lamarckism (is it really dead?)
- Lamarck might have been fooled by the variations he saw. (e.g. a bird's beak getting longer let's say.) There are variations; but the question is, 'where do they come from?' i.e. are they 'acquired' from without or from within? i.e. are they the result of acquiring new information? or are they the result of the expression of 'unused' genetic information? are they the result of mutations?
'As C. S. Lewis rightly said, when man sinned he brought into being a human species which was not the species which God created.' - Arthur Custance
Evolutionists like to pretend that Christianity (and the Bible) deny variation. They're continually criticizing creationists for maintaining that the world is exactly as it was created by God. This is not what the Bible teaches, or what modern creationists claim. Let's look at some examples.
a. the world was created perfect; it is not so now
b. Mankind (through Adam) fell; the consequences were mortality, pain in child birth, etc.
c. the creation was somehow (in ways hard to determine) affected negatively by the Fall... and survival became more difficult
d. a world that was meant to survive on plant eating... became one that featured predators.
e. the flood radically changed the features of the planet
f. mankind began to live less and less long.
g. man became a rebel against the Creator.
h. men had (by animal breeding) created many 'new' species of animals... or at least different in some way. (Not to mention the same with plant domestication.)
- What's usually ignored in all this, is the various breeding attempts by man. Animal and plant breeding is an activity millennia long... and we have little idea of what the results of it were. The question I have is; 'how many 'species' of animals and plants that we see in the world today (or even in the rocks) are the result of man's deliberate interference with the creation? How many were the inadvertent result of man's activities?
- I think it's certainly true that many 'species' have 'emerged' after the creation. (All this depends a lot on how species is defined.) I doubt whether any new 'kinds' have emerged. (I consider the idea fish became felines utterly impossible.)
- it's my conviction that what we see in the world is not evolution, but mutability. (I'd like to call it devolution, but the word seems to have comic book overtones, or sound like an idea from science fiction. (I seem to remember a story on devolution from Larry Niven, in Analog I think.) I think in time people will reject the idea of evolution for that of devolution. Mutations destroy information, and this sink hole can never lead to the progression of creation outlined in the theory of Neo-Darwinism. Despite what evolutionists claim, creationists have learned a lot since Darwin, and they are far more aware of change within the created order. In this restricted way Darwinism has been a good thing for creationists. (That being said, the social toll has been devastating.)
- No one doubts that the world changes. What we're debating is the manner in which it changes, the direction in which it changes. In my view entropy and mutation lead to devolution, not evolution. (Evolution really only means change; but its come to mean a progressive, or 'upward' change... and I see this as impossible.) The change isn't from death to life, but from life to death. (I believe it's only because of the incredible measures taken by the Creator to protect against mutation that the creation hasn't already died out.) If you're keeping up with recent discoveries in biology (or trying to keep up) you'll have noticed the many, and intricate measures there are to combat change within the copying process. Having said that I don't see any necessary reason for life on earth ending in the foreseeable future. I'm merely talking here about the direction of change.
- I don't like the term micro-evolution, but we seem to be stuck with it. I define it as the change in the created kinds over time. I think Mutability is a better word, but I doubt evolutionists (materialists) can be persuaded to use it.
- I'll end with a question. If there had been in the past a creation event somewhat akin to the one portrayed in Genesis, isn't devolution what you would expect to see?
Notes;
1. Lewis/the problem of pain p.83/85
2. Animal breeding (from Topics)
- 'Linnaeus introduced his system of plant classification in his Systema Naturae in 1735 and in this and subsequent editions there is no hint that one species is related to another through some ancestral form. Himmelfarb claims that in the final edition of his Systema Naturae published in greatly expanded form thirty-one years after the first, Linnaeus tentatively suggested that the original number of species created may have been multiplied by interbreeding one species with another (Himmelfarb 1968, 170)
- Himmelfarb (1968, 170) quotes Knut Hagberg's Carl Linnaeus (London: 1952, 197) who in turn quotes from Linnaeus' Dissertation on Perloris (1744) to show that Linnaeus conceded that it was "possible for new species to arise", and Himmelfarb adds that Linnaeus was held suspect by orthodox Christians for saying so.
3. Lamarckism (is it really dead?)
- Lamarck might have been fooled by the variations he saw. (e.g. a bird's beak getting longer let's say.) There are variations; but the question is, 'where do they come from?' i.e. are they 'acquired' from without or from within? i.e. are they the result of acquiring new information? or are they the result of the expression of 'unused' genetic information? are they the result of mutations?
Monday, June 23, 2008
We're all creation scientists now
Quotes and comments;
1. In lecture 21 of his series on Science in the Twentieth century, Steven Goldman tells us that 'science is one; 'there is no such thing as Marxist science, black science, Islamic science, (etc.) or Christian science....'
- There's a lot of truth in this; but he fails to mention the fact all science is creation science. How can I say such a heretical thing? Well; it's creation science because it's investigating the creation. If the world (and man) were created by a Designer, all science is creation science.
- to qualify as science, any particular field of study must deal with the real (created) world. (e.g. Psychoanalysis wouldn't qualify :=)
- it's easy to say 'science is one' but what is it about? What is its object? This is what's controversial. Is the world a product of Accidentalism in a materialist universe? Or is the world a product of an Intelligent Designer? Some will say it doesn't matter. Perhaps at this point in the program (of describing all things) it for the most part doesn't; but at some point it will matter. (i.e. when the program switches from description to primary explanation.)
- there's no reason to flee in horror from the term creation science. It's quite possible to study a created entity; and it happens all time. (e.g. Reverse engineering.) And this is not restricted to material creation; it also applies to so called genetic engineering. People study these new (altered) products all the time. (That's an example of creation science; like it or not.)
Notes;
1. Lecture 21; Techno-science and globalization (The Teaching Company)
1. In lecture 21 of his series on Science in the Twentieth century, Steven Goldman tells us that 'science is one; 'there is no such thing as Marxist science, black science, Islamic science, (etc.) or Christian science....'
- There's a lot of truth in this; but he fails to mention the fact all science is creation science. How can I say such a heretical thing? Well; it's creation science because it's investigating the creation. If the world (and man) were created by a Designer, all science is creation science.
- to qualify as science, any particular field of study must deal with the real (created) world. (e.g. Psychoanalysis wouldn't qualify :=)
- it's easy to say 'science is one' but what is it about? What is its object? This is what's controversial. Is the world a product of Accidentalism in a materialist universe? Or is the world a product of an Intelligent Designer? Some will say it doesn't matter. Perhaps at this point in the program (of describing all things) it for the most part doesn't; but at some point it will matter. (i.e. when the program switches from description to primary explanation.)
- there's no reason to flee in horror from the term creation science. It's quite possible to study a created entity; and it happens all time. (e.g. Reverse engineering.) And this is not restricted to material creation; it also applies to so called genetic engineering. People study these new (altered) products all the time. (That's an example of creation science; like it or not.)
Notes;
1. Lecture 21; Techno-science and globalization (The Teaching Company)
Saturday, June 21, 2008
The Gee Word
Can you believe in God without being a creationist? It appears that some people imagine you can.
Quotes and comments;
1. In a post on the Nature blog, Henry Gee 'argued that creationists cannot embrace the science that gave us modern health care and cheap travel and abjure other parts like evolution.' (note #1.)
- Really? Sez who? It appears that people do exactly what you say they can't. Hmm... maybe you don't make the rules after all :=)
- well, if one can't ever reject some bit of 'scientific' knowledge, I don't know how that body of knowledge would ever change or grow. Do you?
- I'm still trying to figure out what cheap travel has to do with evolution. Would this involve creatures (or evolution itself) riding (for free) on the back of just so stories? Would this be the free tickets evolutionists use to fly back and forth to conferences attacking creationism? Would this refer to the free use of cars some professors get?
- I'm not sure I know what health care has to do with Darwinism. Ah, I get it, this is the cheap travel Gee is talking about; evolutionists are trying to ride the back of health care to success and fame when they have no right to steal such a ride :=) They're trying to make mileage out of something they had no part in.
2. 'He [Gee] likened creationists to those wanting to return to the Dark Ages and live like Bedouins. Though he claimed to believe in God (as a Jew), Gee ended his tirade against Biblical creationism with...'
- how you can believe in god and not be a creationist I don't know. I can only imagine it involves possessing a talent I don't have.
- one wonders who these people are who want to return to the (so called) Dark Ages. (The only folk I know of are the extreme Greens; who would like to see 90 percent of the human population die out. I wrote a short piece recently on one such fellow; name of Pianka.)
- this is the new/old trick of trying to tie a philosophical world view in with technology. Evolutionary theory has nothing to do with modern technology. (Or ancient technology for that matter; or pyramid technology; or alien technology... if such exists :=) Our level of technology would be the same as it is if no one had ever heard of Darwin, if no one had ever heard of evolution. To conflate evolutionary theory and technology is just more myth making.
- Bedouins?
3. "I object to the cheap, wilful [sic], nasty traduction of my religious faith by a group of people who would pervert it to further their questionable political ideals. I call on all scientists of faith to join me in its damnation, and to educate certain in the evolutionary biology community of the rank and damning illogicality of their position.''
- those are harsh words indeed Mr. Gee. (I think the English call this getting your knickers in a twist.) One wonders if Mr. Gee would like to be spoken to in these terms.
- This is once again the charge the idea of creation and ID has something to do with the Republican party of the United States. It's hard to imagine a more ridiculous charge. In popular terms (in the West at least) the idea of design in nature is associated with William Paley. As far as I know, Paley (an Anglican clergy person) was a Deist and a socialist. (And this in a day when being a socialist in England was a dangerous thing to be.) So the idea that creation doctrine is somehow 'right wing' (do we really need to use these comic book terms?) is just fallacious. (But maybe facts don't matter in 'Nature' magazine.)
- Mr. Gee; one really must watch all those adjectives. As an editor you should know that this is considered a sign of poor writing.
4. "I object to the cheap, wilful [sic], nasty traduction of my religious faith..."
- traduction? huh? Now there's a word you don't here often. The Webster's 1913 says the word is obsolete, but gives the meaning as;
1. Transmission from one to another.
4. The act of transferring; conveyance; transportation. [R.] The traduction of brutes." Sir M. Hale.
(Hmm... I wonder if this has anything to do with the cheap travel he was talking about.)
- but then again, maybe the meaning of the word has evolved in the last few decades. (Transmigration being another cheap form of travel I guess.)
- I think he meant to use the word traduce. (As far as I can tell traduction isn't a form of traduce. But maybe I'm wrong; of course it's usually evolutionists who are wrong, but there are rare cases where creationists have been wrong... so it's possible :=)
- speaking of cheap forms of travel; let's say you're a lizard, and you hang out on this island in the pacific... and you want to hit the mainland for a little R+R, what do you do? You could buy a plane ticket, or you could evolve into a bird and travel for free.
- The word traduction is as obsolete as Darwinism itself. (A foul bird's nest of a theory, fabricated by unconnected bits and bods, twigs and scraps. Any self-respecting intellectual ought to have flown the polluted shell long ago.)
- I assume he means that these creationists (whom he seems to know very well; even the inner motivations of their hearts) have 'changed' his religious faith (i.e. the faith he holds) into something else. I wonder why he doesn't, as far as I can tell, tell us what his 'faith' is. (Is he afraid Richard Dawkins will jump on him?)
- this is a fiery sermon for someone who believes man is just an animal, that has no freedom, and no mind, and is just a robotic gene carrier. Evolutionists when they get angry always seem to forget the implications of the world view they hold. Their world view denies any possibility of truth, yet they give wild sermons damning people for holding 'false' beliefs. This makes no sense that I can see.
- if evolutionary Deism were true this tirade would make no sense. For one thing, the words with which it's composed wouldn't have any necessary connection to reality; they would just be arbitrary sounds... not connected to absolute truth or to Universals. (It's long been my contention that language only makes sense in terms of biblical creation.)
- these are foul and uncivil remarks... and I'm continually surprised at a group of people who pretends to respect all groups and opinions, allows itself to be so uncivil to people it brands as creationists (as if that was all they were) and then denounces them like prigs holding an Inquisition. ("Are we not men? Do we not bleed?")
- damnation Henry? Surely you don't believe in anything as primitive as Hell? (I do wish evolutionists would try to write as evolutionists; surely they have no right to use terms like damnation.)
5. "I call on all scientists of faith to join me in its damnation, and to educate certain in the evolutionary biology community of the rank and damning illogicality of their position.''
- logic henry? Logic makes no sense in terms of evolution. If evolution were true there would be no logic. The fact we have logic is evidence e. isn't true. What is popularly known simply as logic is based on the idea of Universals. But universals are exactly what evolution denies. E. theory paints a picture of a chain of being, of continuity among all things, of ceaseless flux within the world and all its forms. There could be no logic if this were the case. In logic A is A, or non-A. There are no 'A's in the 'world' of evolution. Again; if man's mind were just a series of chemical reactions logic would have no meaning. (As I've said before, 'logic only makes sense in terms of biblical creation.) Language is also based on created universals; e.g. the created 'kinds' of Genesis.
Notes;
1. Reference; Doubters Defy Darwin Dogma 06/29/2006
'Nature decided to join the blogosphere in April as part of its initiative for openness, in the aftermath of recent scientific scandals over peer review (06/13/2006). One of the first experiments was a Nature Blog in April about the fish-o-pod Tiktaalik (04/06/2006). After getting worked up over some creationist responses to the find, Gee [Henry] jumped into the fray. He argued that creationists cannot embrace the science that gave us modern health care and cheap travel and abjure other parts like evolution. He likened creationists to those wanting to return to the Dark Ages and live like Bedouins. Though he claimed to believe in God (as a Jew), Gee ended his tirade against Biblical creationism with...' (Creation/Evolution Headlines)
2. Yes, I know we're all guilty from time to time of this stupid, lazy, nasty, idiotic, juvenile habit of using too many adjectives... throwing them around as profligately as Darwinian just so stories. (I may even have done it myself.)
3. What do you mean there's no such word as bods? Does this mean I've invented a new word?
4. I'm assuming Gee holds the textbook view of evolution. Since he says everyone must accept all of science, I assume this applies to him as well. (Is there then no room for difference of opinion?)
Quotes and comments;
1. In a post on the Nature blog, Henry Gee 'argued that creationists cannot embrace the science that gave us modern health care and cheap travel and abjure other parts like evolution.' (note #1.)
- Really? Sez who? It appears that people do exactly what you say they can't. Hmm... maybe you don't make the rules after all :=)
- well, if one can't ever reject some bit of 'scientific' knowledge, I don't know how that body of knowledge would ever change or grow. Do you?
- I'm still trying to figure out what cheap travel has to do with evolution. Would this involve creatures (or evolution itself) riding (for free) on the back of just so stories? Would this be the free tickets evolutionists use to fly back and forth to conferences attacking creationism? Would this refer to the free use of cars some professors get?
- I'm not sure I know what health care has to do with Darwinism. Ah, I get it, this is the cheap travel Gee is talking about; evolutionists are trying to ride the back of health care to success and fame when they have no right to steal such a ride :=) They're trying to make mileage out of something they had no part in.
2. 'He [Gee] likened creationists to those wanting to return to the Dark Ages and live like Bedouins. Though he claimed to believe in God (as a Jew), Gee ended his tirade against Biblical creationism with...'
- how you can believe in god and not be a creationist I don't know. I can only imagine it involves possessing a talent I don't have.
- one wonders who these people are who want to return to the (so called) Dark Ages. (The only folk I know of are the extreme Greens; who would like to see 90 percent of the human population die out. I wrote a short piece recently on one such fellow; name of Pianka.)
- this is the new/old trick of trying to tie a philosophical world view in with technology. Evolutionary theory has nothing to do with modern technology. (Or ancient technology for that matter; or pyramid technology; or alien technology... if such exists :=) Our level of technology would be the same as it is if no one had ever heard of Darwin, if no one had ever heard of evolution. To conflate evolutionary theory and technology is just more myth making.
- Bedouins?
3. "I object to the cheap, wilful [sic], nasty traduction of my religious faith by a group of people who would pervert it to further their questionable political ideals. I call on all scientists of faith to join me in its damnation, and to educate certain in the evolutionary biology community of the rank and damning illogicality of their position.''
- those are harsh words indeed Mr. Gee. (I think the English call this getting your knickers in a twist.) One wonders if Mr. Gee would like to be spoken to in these terms.
- This is once again the charge the idea of creation and ID has something to do with the Republican party of the United States. It's hard to imagine a more ridiculous charge. In popular terms (in the West at least) the idea of design in nature is associated with William Paley. As far as I know, Paley (an Anglican clergy person) was a Deist and a socialist. (And this in a day when being a socialist in England was a dangerous thing to be.) So the idea that creation doctrine is somehow 'right wing' (do we really need to use these comic book terms?) is just fallacious. (But maybe facts don't matter in 'Nature' magazine.)
- Mr. Gee; one really must watch all those adjectives. As an editor you should know that this is considered a sign of poor writing.
4. "I object to the cheap, wilful [sic], nasty traduction of my religious faith..."
- traduction? huh? Now there's a word you don't here often. The Webster's 1913 says the word is obsolete, but gives the meaning as;
1. Transmission from one to another.
4. The act of transferring; conveyance; transportation. [R.] The traduction of brutes." Sir M. Hale.
(Hmm... I wonder if this has anything to do with the cheap travel he was talking about.)
- but then again, maybe the meaning of the word has evolved in the last few decades. (Transmigration being another cheap form of travel I guess.)
- I think he meant to use the word traduce. (As far as I can tell traduction isn't a form of traduce. But maybe I'm wrong; of course it's usually evolutionists who are wrong, but there are rare cases where creationists have been wrong... so it's possible :=)
- speaking of cheap forms of travel; let's say you're a lizard, and you hang out on this island in the pacific... and you want to hit the mainland for a little R+R, what do you do? You could buy a plane ticket, or you could evolve into a bird and travel for free.
- The word traduction is as obsolete as Darwinism itself. (A foul bird's nest of a theory, fabricated by unconnected bits and bods, twigs and scraps. Any self-respecting intellectual ought to have flown the polluted shell long ago.)
- I assume he means that these creationists (whom he seems to know very well; even the inner motivations of their hearts) have 'changed' his religious faith (i.e. the faith he holds) into something else. I wonder why he doesn't, as far as I can tell, tell us what his 'faith' is. (Is he afraid Richard Dawkins will jump on him?)
- this is a fiery sermon for someone who believes man is just an animal, that has no freedom, and no mind, and is just a robotic gene carrier. Evolutionists when they get angry always seem to forget the implications of the world view they hold. Their world view denies any possibility of truth, yet they give wild sermons damning people for holding 'false' beliefs. This makes no sense that I can see.
- if evolutionary Deism were true this tirade would make no sense. For one thing, the words with which it's composed wouldn't have any necessary connection to reality; they would just be arbitrary sounds... not connected to absolute truth or to Universals. (It's long been my contention that language only makes sense in terms of biblical creation.)
- these are foul and uncivil remarks... and I'm continually surprised at a group of people who pretends to respect all groups and opinions, allows itself to be so uncivil to people it brands as creationists (as if that was all they were) and then denounces them like prigs holding an Inquisition. ("Are we not men? Do we not bleed?")
- damnation Henry? Surely you don't believe in anything as primitive as Hell? (I do wish evolutionists would try to write as evolutionists; surely they have no right to use terms like damnation.)
5. "I call on all scientists of faith to join me in its damnation, and to educate certain in the evolutionary biology community of the rank and damning illogicality of their position.''
- logic henry? Logic makes no sense in terms of evolution. If evolution were true there would be no logic. The fact we have logic is evidence e. isn't true. What is popularly known simply as logic is based on the idea of Universals. But universals are exactly what evolution denies. E. theory paints a picture of a chain of being, of continuity among all things, of ceaseless flux within the world and all its forms. There could be no logic if this were the case. In logic A is A, or non-A. There are no 'A's in the 'world' of evolution. Again; if man's mind were just a series of chemical reactions logic would have no meaning. (As I've said before, 'logic only makes sense in terms of biblical creation.) Language is also based on created universals; e.g. the created 'kinds' of Genesis.
Notes;
1. Reference; Doubters Defy Darwin Dogma 06/29/2006
'Nature decided to join the blogosphere in April as part of its initiative for openness, in the aftermath of recent scientific scandals over peer review (06/13/2006). One of the first experiments was a Nature Blog in April about the fish-o-pod Tiktaalik (04/06/2006). After getting worked up over some creationist responses to the find, Gee [Henry] jumped into the fray. He argued that creationists cannot embrace the science that gave us modern health care and cheap travel and abjure other parts like evolution. He likened creationists to those wanting to return to the Dark Ages and live like Bedouins. Though he claimed to believe in God (as a Jew), Gee ended his tirade against Biblical creationism with...' (Creation/Evolution Headlines)
2. Yes, I know we're all guilty from time to time of this stupid, lazy, nasty, idiotic, juvenile habit of using too many adjectives... throwing them around as profligately as Darwinian just so stories. (I may even have done it myself.)
3. What do you mean there's no such word as bods? Does this mean I've invented a new word?
4. I'm assuming Gee holds the textbook view of evolution. Since he says everyone must accept all of science, I assume this applies to him as well. (Is there then no room for difference of opinion?)
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Solving the chicken and the egg problem
Chicken and egg problems are the result of faulty thinking; i.e. the fallacy of Monism. The Monist will never solve these problems. (e.g. in a Monistic universe there is no creator to create the chicken.) What came first? the chicken... that's the answer of the creationist. The Monist can't ever come up with an answer.
- In Monism every reduces to One. (Hence Reductionism.) This means that nothing exists outside this one. It means that all is basically one, made of one thing. (This leads to the chain of Being idea.) The famous riddle of the chicken and the egg (which I can still remember musing over as a lad of 6 or 7, on long rides in the school bus) stems from a rejection of biblical creation, and the adoption of a Monistic world view. Monism has created (pardon the pun) a great many problems that need not exist. There is no answer to man's deepest questions from within this restricted mindset.
- since we're chirping away here about eggs; imagine you're inside an egg... could you understand reality? i.e. if you had no idea of what existed outside the egg, all your ideas about reality would be wrong.
Notes;
1. 'The chicken or the egg causality dilemma arises from the expression "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" Chickens hatch from eggs, but eggs are laid by chickens, making it difficult to say which originally gave rise to the other. To ancient philosophers, the question about the first chicken or egg also evoked the questions of how life and the universe in general began.[1] Cultural references to the chicken and egg intend to point out the futility of identifying the first case of a circular cause and consequence. - Wikipedia
Aristotle (384-322 BC) was puzzled by the idea that there could be a first bird or egg and concluded that both the bird and egg must have always existed:
2. "If there has been a first man he must have been born without father or mother – which is repugnant to nature. For there could not have been a first egg to give a beginning to birds, or there should have been a first bird which gave a beginning to eggs; for a bird comes from an egg." The same he held good for all species, believing, with Plato, that everything before it appeared on earth had first its being in spirit." Wiki
3. Another example of the chicken and egg problem is, 'what came first, language or intelligence?'
- In Monism every reduces to One. (Hence Reductionism.) This means that nothing exists outside this one. It means that all is basically one, made of one thing. (This leads to the chain of Being idea.) The famous riddle of the chicken and the egg (which I can still remember musing over as a lad of 6 or 7, on long rides in the school bus) stems from a rejection of biblical creation, and the adoption of a Monistic world view. Monism has created (pardon the pun) a great many problems that need not exist. There is no answer to man's deepest questions from within this restricted mindset.
- since we're chirping away here about eggs; imagine you're inside an egg... could you understand reality? i.e. if you had no idea of what existed outside the egg, all your ideas about reality would be wrong.
Notes;
1. 'The chicken or the egg causality dilemma arises from the expression "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" Chickens hatch from eggs, but eggs are laid by chickens, making it difficult to say which originally gave rise to the other. To ancient philosophers, the question about the first chicken or egg also evoked the questions of how life and the universe in general began.[1] Cultural references to the chicken and egg intend to point out the futility of identifying the first case of a circular cause and consequence. - Wikipedia
Aristotle (384-322 BC) was puzzled by the idea that there could be a first bird or egg and concluded that both the bird and egg must have always existed:
2. "If there has been a first man he must have been born without father or mother – which is repugnant to nature. For there could not have been a first egg to give a beginning to birds, or there should have been a first bird which gave a beginning to eggs; for a bird comes from an egg." The same he held good for all species, believing, with Plato, that everything before it appeared on earth had first its being in spirit." Wiki
3. Another example of the chicken and egg problem is, 'what came first, language or intelligence?'
Monday, June 16, 2008
Uniformitarianism, and other Victorian myths
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Lyell's concept of uniformity had four components. First, he quite reasonably assumed that the natural laws are constant. Scientific inquiry of any kind is impossible if we cannot assume that, for example, the laws holding the planets in orbit or the laws of chemical affinity have not been constant.' - Ian Taylor
- because we can't prove 'laws' have always been constant we can never go beyond theory; i.e. all scientists can give us are theories, they can never (despite the screeching of school teachers) give us facts. Science is always and forever part philosophy, part metaphysics. The person who is properly humble not only accepts this, but embraces it.
- 'natural law' is another myth. It's a human invention; no one can prove such a thing exists. What I'm referring to is the idea the seeming laws of the universe occurred by some kind of fiat decree of matter... that they're just the 'mechanical' result of the big bang, or the constitution of matter, or somesuch. (Maybe they are, maybe they're not; but it can't be proved in either case.)
- as Lyell's theory of Niagra Falls was a matter of bias and unfounded belief, so is the theory of evolution. (The theory that Charles Darwin so graciously claimed as his own. He got away with stealing the theory because he had the Victorian qualifications others lacked.) As many have remarked, the picture of evolution painted in the 'Origins' is a kind of biological Uniformitarianism.
- what a comic spectacle it is to see the debauched Marxists of today accepting as their own these Victorian prejudices and fantasy stories.
2. 'Implicit in this assumption [Uniformitarianism] is the belief that God has never at any time violated those laws by intervention.' - Ian Taylor
- but why shouldn't god ever intervene in his creation? Human beings do this all the time, in their own more limited creations. (Not that we would expect god to be capricious and immoral as is the case with man.)
- Uniformitarianism is one of the silliest ideas ever invented. One hates to interject psychology into science, but it's hard not to see the desire of a country gentlemen in this; the desire that things not change... that he can live comfortably on his land rents... and not be disturbed... that 'life' trudge slowly along in the way the gentry want it to go.
3. 'Second, Lyell assumed that the earth's geological features were caused entirely by processes we see taking place today. Again, this is reasonable but excludes the possibility of large-scale catastrophic events, whether or not they were divinely originated.' - Taylor
- Reasonable? What's reasonable about it. There's hubris in the pretense only what can be known by man is real or important or true.
4. 'Third, he assumed that the geological changes are always slow, gradual, and steady...' - Taylor
- like the changes in a gentleman's income.
Notes;
1. 'In the Minds of Men' - Ian T. Taylor (Online edition)
2. 'Measurement of the rate of recession of Niagara Falls has been made periodicially since 1841, the date of Lyell's visit, and these published figures show that, far from exaggerating, the local inhabitant was too conservative. A rate of four or five feet a year is closer to the facts (Tovell 1979, 16). - Taylor
- you couldn't ask for a better demonstration of bias in action than the fact Lyell ignored local information of 3 feet, and used a figure of 1 foot instead. This is fraudulent however you look at it.
3. 'Today's geologist prefers to adopt a cautious figure of twelve thousand years, made on the basis of radiometric tests carried out on some pieces of buried wood discovered in the blocked St. David's gorge, which was part of the original Niagara spillway (Tovell 1979, 17). However, the blocked gorge of Niagara is a story beyond the present purposes, which are to illustrate how a preconception in the mind of one man, Charles Lyell, contributed significantly to the subsequent complete change of mankind's worldview.' - Taylor
- 'science' can't prove how old N. Falls is. Only human observation could have done that.
- I see this as an analogy for most of the science done by Victorian gentlemen. (Including the prime example C. Darwin.) It was based on a specious mix of ignorance and bias.
1. 'Lyell's concept of uniformity had four components. First, he quite reasonably assumed that the natural laws are constant. Scientific inquiry of any kind is impossible if we cannot assume that, for example, the laws holding the planets in orbit or the laws of chemical affinity have not been constant.' - Ian Taylor
- because we can't prove 'laws' have always been constant we can never go beyond theory; i.e. all scientists can give us are theories, they can never (despite the screeching of school teachers) give us facts. Science is always and forever part philosophy, part metaphysics. The person who is properly humble not only accepts this, but embraces it.
- 'natural law' is another myth. It's a human invention; no one can prove such a thing exists. What I'm referring to is the idea the seeming laws of the universe occurred by some kind of fiat decree of matter... that they're just the 'mechanical' result of the big bang, or the constitution of matter, or somesuch. (Maybe they are, maybe they're not; but it can't be proved in either case.)
- as Lyell's theory of Niagra Falls was a matter of bias and unfounded belief, so is the theory of evolution. (The theory that Charles Darwin so graciously claimed as his own. He got away with stealing the theory because he had the Victorian qualifications others lacked.) As many have remarked, the picture of evolution painted in the 'Origins' is a kind of biological Uniformitarianism.
- what a comic spectacle it is to see the debauched Marxists of today accepting as their own these Victorian prejudices and fantasy stories.
2. 'Implicit in this assumption [Uniformitarianism] is the belief that God has never at any time violated those laws by intervention.' - Ian Taylor
- but why shouldn't god ever intervene in his creation? Human beings do this all the time, in their own more limited creations. (Not that we would expect god to be capricious and immoral as is the case with man.)
- Uniformitarianism is one of the silliest ideas ever invented. One hates to interject psychology into science, but it's hard not to see the desire of a country gentlemen in this; the desire that things not change... that he can live comfortably on his land rents... and not be disturbed... that 'life' trudge slowly along in the way the gentry want it to go.
3. 'Second, Lyell assumed that the earth's geological features were caused entirely by processes we see taking place today. Again, this is reasonable but excludes the possibility of large-scale catastrophic events, whether or not they were divinely originated.' - Taylor
- Reasonable? What's reasonable about it. There's hubris in the pretense only what can be known by man is real or important or true.
4. 'Third, he assumed that the geological changes are always slow, gradual, and steady...' - Taylor
- like the changes in a gentleman's income.
Notes;
1. 'In the Minds of Men' - Ian T. Taylor (Online edition)
2. 'Measurement of the rate of recession of Niagara Falls has been made periodicially since 1841, the date of Lyell's visit, and these published figures show that, far from exaggerating, the local inhabitant was too conservative. A rate of four or five feet a year is closer to the facts (Tovell 1979, 16). - Taylor
- you couldn't ask for a better demonstration of bias in action than the fact Lyell ignored local information of 3 feet, and used a figure of 1 foot instead. This is fraudulent however you look at it.
3. 'Today's geologist prefers to adopt a cautious figure of twelve thousand years, made on the basis of radiometric tests carried out on some pieces of buried wood discovered in the blocked St. David's gorge, which was part of the original Niagara spillway (Tovell 1979, 17). However, the blocked gorge of Niagara is a story beyond the present purposes, which are to illustrate how a preconception in the mind of one man, Charles Lyell, contributed significantly to the subsequent complete change of mankind's worldview.' - Taylor
- 'science' can't prove how old N. Falls is. Only human observation could have done that.
- I see this as an analogy for most of the science done by Victorian gentlemen. (Including the prime example C. Darwin.) It was based on a specious mix of ignorance and bias.
Friday, June 13, 2008
The young earth and the problem of Deception
One problem with taking the Bible at its word, is that a plain reading of it seems to present us with a very young earth.
- So how can the world (not to mention the universe) be a mere 6,000 years old? I don't know. About all I can say, is this; if the world is only six thousand years old, the universe isn't what we think it is. Or maybe a better way to put it is... the 'world' isn't what our theories say it is.
- The Christian shouldn't find this all that strange; not if he reverences God's word, and the testimony of the prophets. If Christianity is true, then the universe is not what the physicists claim it is. (Or not merely what they say it is.)
- if there is a creator God then the universe is not what the textbooks tell us it is. There is no room for God in the physics model; no room for a dimension outside the universe.
- if there are spirits the universe is not what it seems, or not what it is painted to be.
- if there are miracles the universe is not what it seems.
- if the Fall (portrayed in Genesis) really happened the universe is not what it seems.
- if God once spoke to the prophets the universe is not what it seems.
- if God created matter the universe is not what it seems.
- if there is a heaven and a hell, the universe is not what it seems.
- if man has (or is) an eternal spirit, the universe is not what it seems.
- if the Trinity is true... then the universe is not what our physicists imagine it to be.
- if the Incarnation really happened, the universe is not what it seems.
And so have I proved the world is 6,000 years old? (Or some small number.) No. But I think what I've said is true; and I think it's quite possible the 'universe' isn't what the learned think it is.
The critique of Christian liberals (and I'm sorry I don't have a better word for them) is likely to be their favorite; ''if what you say is true God has deceived us all, because the universe certainly appears to be 14 billion years old.''
- Well; that's a good and fair question I suppose... it's certainly been used to great effect by them. So let's look at it. Does God deceive men? (Is the universe we see mere appearance, and deceptive appearance at that?)
- All you have to do is look up at the daytime sky to get your answer. The sun certainly appears to be going around the earth. So yes, it appears that God does deceive men. (i.e. with the way He's arranged our habitation among the stars.) But has God in fact deceived men? Is God to blame for man's ignorance? Is God to blame for men's limitations? Is there any other way things could be arranged? We are on shaky ground indeed if we accuse god of deceiving men. God can do no evil we are told. (To really answer this question, if we could, we'd have to know what is meant by deceive. When men deceive they do so for personal gain, to exploit others, and so on. We can't attribute such motives to god. If god indeed 'deceives' (or appears to) men it might be for man's own good, or for inscrutable reasons of His own.
- The most popular views of physicists and philosophers keep changing. I think it would be foolish to imagine the latest views will be the final ones. (A book of recent years proclaimed 'The end of science' - I can't imagine him being correct.) Christian liberals used to insist Christians adopt the eternal model of the universe. A creation out of nothing was a silly fairy tale they declared. (Apparently they no longer take this line :=)
- Isn't it far more likely man deceives (deludes) himself? than that god does so? (Surely God doesn't need to help man in this task man is already so very fond of.)
Notes;
1. “We need always to keep in mind that the theories we currently believe to be true are just as falsifiable as the theories we look back on as having been falsified”
—Mary Hesse, philosopher of science, as quoted by Dr Steven Goldman in the Teaching Company series Science Wars, lecture 24; to which he added, “And the theories we currently hold to be true are as likely to be falsified in the next hundred years as the theories we look back on as having been falsified in the last hundred years.” He pointed out that almost nothing scientists believed in 1900 about the atom, the cell, genetics, space, time, the earth or the universe is considered valid today.' [found on c/e headlines front page]
2. Augustine said we must interpret the bible in terms of the 'science' of the day. (The trouble with this, is that it would have led to Ptolemaic astronomy.... and did.) This passage, so beloved by liberals, in fact proves the opposite of what they imagine.
3. Deliberate deceit is a nasty business; and so anyone would surely want to be cautious in assigning such a thing to the Creator. [Deceive; be false to; be dishonest with; cause someone to believe an untruth.]
AHD; 1. To cause to believe what is not true; mislead. 2. Archaic To catch by guile; ensnare.
a. To practice deceit. b. To give a false impression: appearances can deceive.
4. The bible does speak of god hiding his face from man.
5. Pro 25:2 [It is] the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honor of kings [is] to search out a matter. (But what does this mean you ask? Hard to say.)
6. Ian Taylor says of Percival Lowell; 'His faith in the idea of intelligent life on Mars led him to dedicate the
last twenty years of his life to find proof by the study of the "canals" The proof never came but
he died convinced and was buried next to his telescope.' (In the Minds of Men/ch. 7.)
- I wonder if Hugh Ross thinks God deceived him. (If you don't know; Ross if forever claiming that if evolution never happened God has deceived us all... as it's that obvious. He says the same about the 14.234 billion years for the universe, etc. Yes, scientists of the past were often wrong, but the scientific majority of our day Cannot be wrong.)
- human beings are forever seeing things that don't exist... as we see through spectacles made of desires, fears and ideas. (The lens of which have been polished by long ages of desire and speculation.)
7. 'It is fair to ask, Why was Lowell so misguided? Certainly not because he was a crank. An astute businessman, proficient in a number of languages, a degree in mathematics from Harvard, socially accepted among both the scientific and business communities, he had credibility almost beyond measure. And yet he was so obviously wrong. There is little question but that he was committed to an idea. In turn his idea committed him to a fairly sizable financial investment for the observatory, which still functions to this day although not for the exclusive study of Mars. The idea and the investment then became master of his life and he spent his remaining twenty-two years totally given to the study of Mars. Interestingly, it seems that it was just this intensity of commitment that enabled him to see what he believed in even though the object of his belief did not actually exist. This is a psychophysiological phenomenon related to human vision and has itself been the object of study by psychologists for a number of years, although it seems that the results of these studies have not been applied very well to astronomers (Young 1971). Taylor/ch. 7.
8. I can hear the criticism this will get; "all right for you... you're not a member of academia, you don't associate in scientific circles... easy for you to suggest the u. isn't what it appears to be.'' All true.
- So how can the world (not to mention the universe) be a mere 6,000 years old? I don't know. About all I can say, is this; if the world is only six thousand years old, the universe isn't what we think it is. Or maybe a better way to put it is... the 'world' isn't what our theories say it is.
- The Christian shouldn't find this all that strange; not if he reverences God's word, and the testimony of the prophets. If Christianity is true, then the universe is not what the physicists claim it is. (Or not merely what they say it is.)
- if there is a creator God then the universe is not what the textbooks tell us it is. There is no room for God in the physics model; no room for a dimension outside the universe.
- if there are spirits the universe is not what it seems, or not what it is painted to be.
- if there are miracles the universe is not what it seems.
- if the Fall (portrayed in Genesis) really happened the universe is not what it seems.
- if God once spoke to the prophets the universe is not what it seems.
- if God created matter the universe is not what it seems.
- if there is a heaven and a hell, the universe is not what it seems.
- if man has (or is) an eternal spirit, the universe is not what it seems.
- if the Trinity is true... then the universe is not what our physicists imagine it to be.
- if the Incarnation really happened, the universe is not what it seems.
And so have I proved the world is 6,000 years old? (Or some small number.) No. But I think what I've said is true; and I think it's quite possible the 'universe' isn't what the learned think it is.
The critique of Christian liberals (and I'm sorry I don't have a better word for them) is likely to be their favorite; ''if what you say is true God has deceived us all, because the universe certainly appears to be 14 billion years old.''
- Well; that's a good and fair question I suppose... it's certainly been used to great effect by them. So let's look at it. Does God deceive men? (Is the universe we see mere appearance, and deceptive appearance at that?)
- All you have to do is look up at the daytime sky to get your answer. The sun certainly appears to be going around the earth. So yes, it appears that God does deceive men. (i.e. with the way He's arranged our habitation among the stars.) But has God in fact deceived men? Is God to blame for man's ignorance? Is God to blame for men's limitations? Is there any other way things could be arranged? We are on shaky ground indeed if we accuse god of deceiving men. God can do no evil we are told. (To really answer this question, if we could, we'd have to know what is meant by deceive. When men deceive they do so for personal gain, to exploit others, and so on. We can't attribute such motives to god. If god indeed 'deceives' (or appears to) men it might be for man's own good, or for inscrutable reasons of His own.
- The most popular views of physicists and philosophers keep changing. I think it would be foolish to imagine the latest views will be the final ones. (A book of recent years proclaimed 'The end of science' - I can't imagine him being correct.) Christian liberals used to insist Christians adopt the eternal model of the universe. A creation out of nothing was a silly fairy tale they declared. (Apparently they no longer take this line :=)
- Isn't it far more likely man deceives (deludes) himself? than that god does so? (Surely God doesn't need to help man in this task man is already so very fond of.)
Notes;
1. “We need always to keep in mind that the theories we currently believe to be true are just as falsifiable as the theories we look back on as having been falsified”
—Mary Hesse, philosopher of science, as quoted by Dr Steven Goldman in the Teaching Company series Science Wars, lecture 24; to which he added, “And the theories we currently hold to be true are as likely to be falsified in the next hundred years as the theories we look back on as having been falsified in the last hundred years.” He pointed out that almost nothing scientists believed in 1900 about the atom, the cell, genetics, space, time, the earth or the universe is considered valid today.' [found on c/e headlines front page]
2. Augustine said we must interpret the bible in terms of the 'science' of the day. (The trouble with this, is that it would have led to Ptolemaic astronomy.... and did.) This passage, so beloved by liberals, in fact proves the opposite of what they imagine.
3. Deliberate deceit is a nasty business; and so anyone would surely want to be cautious in assigning such a thing to the Creator. [Deceive; be false to; be dishonest with; cause someone to believe an untruth.]
AHD; 1. To cause to believe what is not true; mislead. 2. Archaic To catch by guile; ensnare.
a. To practice deceit. b. To give a false impression: appearances can deceive.
4. The bible does speak of god hiding his face from man.
5. Pro 25:2 [It is] the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honor of kings [is] to search out a matter. (But what does this mean you ask? Hard to say.)
6. Ian Taylor says of Percival Lowell; 'His faith in the idea of intelligent life on Mars led him to dedicate the
last twenty years of his life to find proof by the study of the "canals" The proof never came but
he died convinced and was buried next to his telescope.' (In the Minds of Men/ch. 7.)
- I wonder if Hugh Ross thinks God deceived him. (If you don't know; Ross if forever claiming that if evolution never happened God has deceived us all... as it's that obvious. He says the same about the 14.234 billion years for the universe, etc. Yes, scientists of the past were often wrong, but the scientific majority of our day Cannot be wrong.)
- human beings are forever seeing things that don't exist... as we see through spectacles made of desires, fears and ideas. (The lens of which have been polished by long ages of desire and speculation.)
7. 'It is fair to ask, Why was Lowell so misguided? Certainly not because he was a crank. An astute businessman, proficient in a number of languages, a degree in mathematics from Harvard, socially accepted among both the scientific and business communities, he had credibility almost beyond measure. And yet he was so obviously wrong. There is little question but that he was committed to an idea. In turn his idea committed him to a fairly sizable financial investment for the observatory, which still functions to this day although not for the exclusive study of Mars. The idea and the investment then became master of his life and he spent his remaining twenty-two years totally given to the study of Mars. Interestingly, it seems that it was just this intensity of commitment that enabled him to see what he believed in even though the object of his belief did not actually exist. This is a psychophysiological phenomenon related to human vision and has itself been the object of study by psychologists for a number of years, although it seems that the results of these studies have not been applied very well to astronomers (Young 1971). Taylor/ch. 7.
8. I can hear the criticism this will get; "all right for you... you're not a member of academia, you don't associate in scientific circles... easy for you to suggest the u. isn't what it appears to be.'' All true.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Science disproves Materialism
An apologia for Materialism; Reflections on the course 'The philosophy of science' by Jeffrey Kasser
Comments;
1. Kasser spent the entire course ignoring the fact there cannot be truth under the rubric of materialism. On the one hand academics deny absolute truth... but then they tell us 'everything scientists say is true.' This is all a joke. If all is particles in motion there cannot be truth. If that is all the 'mind' is there cannot be truth. People like Kasser cannot bring these things together... and so they pretend. If the universe was what they say it is, none of what they hold as true... could be known, or could be true.
2. Science disproves materialism;
- this course has been nothing but an apologia for status quo (materialist, naturalistic) science. He asks No tough questions. (You'll notice that the one thing our hyper critical professors never question is Materialism.) It's introductory level at best, but it's even worse than that, in that it in no way ever doubts Materialism; and defends it at every step of the way. (i.e. if the mind is just matter in motion why should what it claims be true?) Obviously matter can't be rational or intelligent... and so science disproves materialism. (i.e. if all were matter in motion there would be no minds, no rationality, and no science.)
3. Science and reality;
- what people like Kasser won't ever admit is that this project called science can never tell us what reality is. This being said; none of their claims can possibly be true. (To be true a claim must conform to reality.)
- to say that the explanation of things provided to us by Reductionism takes us to a more fundamental level is a mere claim; it can't in any way be proved. This is a fallout from the impersonalism of Materialism; in the end the most fundamental entities are not persons by particles that barely have mass. This is a bizarre view of things! Here we have intelligent people saying quarks are more important (fundamental) than they are... not to mention God. Materialists can never tell us at what level reality exists at. Is it the macro level? Is it the micro level? Is it the holistic level? Is it the particular level? They can't say. So in the end Materialist science is mute about the key questions human beings ask. So let's not get overly excited by the religion of scientism. What is now called science (a better word would be technology) can only be a 'tool' for man to use; not a source of ultimate truth.
- What's called 'science' in our day (i.e. methodological naturalism) cannot tell us what reality is, or even if such a thing exists. Only the doctrine of biblical creation can provide mankind with a basis for reality; can tell us what reality is. And it's only this doctrinal truth that can make sense of science. The philosophy of Materialism makes utter nonsense of science.
- We're supposed to believe that a deformed ape can do all the things scientists have done in the last couple centuries. We're supposed to believe that an ape that suffered a few mutations (copying errors) somehow (no one can imagine how) gained some incredible new capacities and abilities. (Apparently the idea is that the more you damage something the better it gets.) I find this 'idea' utterly bizarre, and utterly impossible. The dumbed down portrait of reality given to us by the Darwinists can't possibly be true. (Want to test this? Take an ape and bit by bit eliminate the information contained in its DNA. My prediction is this; it will get progressively stupider and stupider until it dies.)
- does anyone imagine a human being would get smarter and smarter if we eliminated information?
- Science can't tell us what; truth is; what reality; what right and wrong are; what justice is; what love is; what goodness; what the mind is; what language is; etc. etc. The idea this limited methodology should be laureled as the only standard of truth is true insanity. Kasser never admits the radical limitations of methodological naturalism. The idea we can rely on instrumental measurement as a guide to our lives is silly beyond belief.
Notes;
1. 'The philosophy of science' - Jeffrey Kasser (The Teaching Company)
2. I don't recommend this course. Kasser is hostile to Christianity, to Creation, and even to theism; despite the now typical pleadings of neutrality.
3. If you're thinking of listening to this series; try the first lecture first. It has some very nasty innuendoes on it.
Comments;
1. Kasser spent the entire course ignoring the fact there cannot be truth under the rubric of materialism. On the one hand academics deny absolute truth... but then they tell us 'everything scientists say is true.' This is all a joke. If all is particles in motion there cannot be truth. If that is all the 'mind' is there cannot be truth. People like Kasser cannot bring these things together... and so they pretend. If the universe was what they say it is, none of what they hold as true... could be known, or could be true.
2. Science disproves materialism;
- this course has been nothing but an apologia for status quo (materialist, naturalistic) science. He asks No tough questions. (You'll notice that the one thing our hyper critical professors never question is Materialism.) It's introductory level at best, but it's even worse than that, in that it in no way ever doubts Materialism; and defends it at every step of the way. (i.e. if the mind is just matter in motion why should what it claims be true?) Obviously matter can't be rational or intelligent... and so science disproves materialism. (i.e. if all were matter in motion there would be no minds, no rationality, and no science.)
3. Science and reality;
- what people like Kasser won't ever admit is that this project called science can never tell us what reality is. This being said; none of their claims can possibly be true. (To be true a claim must conform to reality.)
- to say that the explanation of things provided to us by Reductionism takes us to a more fundamental level is a mere claim; it can't in any way be proved. This is a fallout from the impersonalism of Materialism; in the end the most fundamental entities are not persons by particles that barely have mass. This is a bizarre view of things! Here we have intelligent people saying quarks are more important (fundamental) than they are... not to mention God. Materialists can never tell us at what level reality exists at. Is it the macro level? Is it the micro level? Is it the holistic level? Is it the particular level? They can't say. So in the end Materialist science is mute about the key questions human beings ask. So let's not get overly excited by the religion of scientism. What is now called science (a better word would be technology) can only be a 'tool' for man to use; not a source of ultimate truth.
- What's called 'science' in our day (i.e. methodological naturalism) cannot tell us what reality is, or even if such a thing exists. Only the doctrine of biblical creation can provide mankind with a basis for reality; can tell us what reality is. And it's only this doctrinal truth that can make sense of science. The philosophy of Materialism makes utter nonsense of science.
- We're supposed to believe that a deformed ape can do all the things scientists have done in the last couple centuries. We're supposed to believe that an ape that suffered a few mutations (copying errors) somehow (no one can imagine how) gained some incredible new capacities and abilities. (Apparently the idea is that the more you damage something the better it gets.) I find this 'idea' utterly bizarre, and utterly impossible. The dumbed down portrait of reality given to us by the Darwinists can't possibly be true. (Want to test this? Take an ape and bit by bit eliminate the information contained in its DNA. My prediction is this; it will get progressively stupider and stupider until it dies.)
- does anyone imagine a human being would get smarter and smarter if we eliminated information?
- Science can't tell us what; truth is; what reality; what right and wrong are; what justice is; what love is; what goodness; what the mind is; what language is; etc. etc. The idea this limited methodology should be laureled as the only standard of truth is true insanity. Kasser never admits the radical limitations of methodological naturalism. The idea we can rely on instrumental measurement as a guide to our lives is silly beyond belief.
Notes;
1. 'The philosophy of science' - Jeffrey Kasser (The Teaching Company)
2. I don't recommend this course. Kasser is hostile to Christianity, to Creation, and even to theism; despite the now typical pleadings of neutrality.
3. If you're thinking of listening to this series; try the first lecture first. It has some very nasty innuendoes on it.
Monday, June 9, 2008
Another refutation of Materialism
- We can refute materialism by pointing out that the grand reductionist program does not, and cannot work. Some mad dreamers have imagined that all things could be reduced to chemistry and then to the basics of physics; not only animal behavior, but all forms of human behavior.
Quotes and comments;
1. “The ultimate aim of the modern movement in biology is in fact to explain all of biology in terms of physics and chemistry” - Francis Crick
- If Materialism were true its grand explanatory scheme 'should' work. But if chess can't be reduced to atoms in motion; if poetry can't, if language can't,; if the philosophy of science can't, if art can't, (etc.) then Materialism is a fallacious view of the universe. But obviously the reductionist program doesn't work. (The people who think it does couldn't put together enough members to field a soccer team.)The only way it can be made to work is to claim that human experience is a total illusion. (To go to such lengths to save a theory; to murder man to save a philosophical theory is utter irrationalism.)
- Can the creation/evolution debate be reduced to physics? Can belief in God? Can the rejection of god? Materialism is a program that can't ever be brought to fruition; it's impossible. The fact it cannot is all the evidence we need that the world view it espouses is false.
- For 'mysterious' reasons all this is almost never pointed out to students.
- so why doesn't it matter that Materialism has been refuted many times over? Man in his Fallenness (and rebellion) refuses to admit defeat, refuses to honor his creator.
- this is a short post I realize; but nothing more needs to be said. Materialism has, throughout all history, been seen as false and inadequate account of reality. It has been refuted more times than can be counted. People only affirm it because they loathe the alternative.
Notes;
1. The two quotes below are from; 'The Origin of Consciousness [Part I]
by Bert Thompson, Ph.D. and Brad Harrub, Ph.D.
a. As Sir Francis Crick put it: “The ultimate aim of the modern movement in biology is in fact to explain all of biology in terms of physics and chemistry” (1966, p. 10, emp. added).
b.Emil du-Bois-Reymand (1818-1896), the founder of electrochemistry, and Hermann von Helmholtz (1812-1894), the famed German physiologist and physicist who was the first to measure the speed of nerve impulses, agreed: “All the activities of living material, including consciousness, are ultimately to be explained in terms of physics and chemistry."
2. Does anyone want to explain the Armenian or the Jewish holocausts of in terms of physics?
Quotes and comments;
1. “The ultimate aim of the modern movement in biology is in fact to explain all of biology in terms of physics and chemistry” - Francis Crick
- If Materialism were true its grand explanatory scheme 'should' work. But if chess can't be reduced to atoms in motion; if poetry can't, if language can't,; if the philosophy of science can't, if art can't, (etc.) then Materialism is a fallacious view of the universe. But obviously the reductionist program doesn't work. (The people who think it does couldn't put together enough members to field a soccer team.)The only way it can be made to work is to claim that human experience is a total illusion. (To go to such lengths to save a theory; to murder man to save a philosophical theory is utter irrationalism.)
- Can the creation/evolution debate be reduced to physics? Can belief in God? Can the rejection of god? Materialism is a program that can't ever be brought to fruition; it's impossible. The fact it cannot is all the evidence we need that the world view it espouses is false.
- For 'mysterious' reasons all this is almost never pointed out to students.
- so why doesn't it matter that Materialism has been refuted many times over? Man in his Fallenness (and rebellion) refuses to admit defeat, refuses to honor his creator.
- this is a short post I realize; but nothing more needs to be said. Materialism has, throughout all history, been seen as false and inadequate account of reality. It has been refuted more times than can be counted. People only affirm it because they loathe the alternative.
Notes;
1. The two quotes below are from; 'The Origin of Consciousness [Part I]
by Bert Thompson, Ph.D. and Brad Harrub, Ph.D.
a. As Sir Francis Crick put it: “The ultimate aim of the modern movement in biology is in fact to explain all of biology in terms of physics and chemistry” (1966, p. 10, emp. added).
b.Emil du-Bois-Reymand (1818-1896), the founder of electrochemistry, and Hermann von Helmholtz (1812-1894), the famed German physiologist and physicist who was the first to measure the speed of nerve impulses, agreed: “All the activities of living material, including consciousness, are ultimately to be explained in terms of physics and chemistry."
2. Does anyone want to explain the Armenian or the Jewish holocausts of in terms of physics?
Friday, June 6, 2008
Who or what is God?
The scientific elite offer themselves as substitute for God
Quotes and comments;
1. "And even though some may find it distressing that science recognizes no god, forcing it to do so will only produce bad science." (editorial rant in Nature/1.)
- People who say 'science' doesn't recognize any god don't know how to write. Science isn't a person and can't recognize anything.
- Scientists who believe they don't recognize any god are mistaken; they recognize themselves as god. The idea men (some elites) can do whatever they want is evidence some people imagine they are god; that they have some right to play god over other people. This belief in no way allows them to escape god; in fact they've made themselves god... and all the rest of us must obey them, and suffer their assaults on us.
- This is an interesting bit of bravado. Why does the author of this piece of religion bashing personify science? Why doesn't he say scientists instead of science? If he did (and he should have) his sentence would read 'scientists recognize no god.' But this would be both false and a bit too bold I guess. The only correct way for the sentence to be written is; 'many scientists don't recognize a god.' (But even that would be false as they recognize themselves, or the State, as god.) The claim that to recognize god leads to 'bad' science is simply false. So the whole thing ends up being nonsense.
- the rest of us are expected (of course) to recognize the new god of science, or scientism, or the scientific elite... however you want to describe it. (And yes I do find that distressing.) The secular elite have worked hard to destroy language; to use words as weapons. They've succeeded in destroying words like god and religion; and so we must use other words; creator, belief system, world view, etc. Instead of using the word God we can use the term 'ultimate authority' - for this is what God is. God is the ultimate authority, and lawmaker. So when evolutionists say they don't recognize any god they're just blowing smoke; they recognize themselves and they recognize the state. We all bow the knee; some to false gods (like the state, like human desire) and some bow the knee to the creator of heaven and earth. Take your pick.
- If people like this are going to use the word god we have eveery right to demand they define the word they're using. To the Christian God refers to the supreme being portrayed in the bible; to man's creator and savior. Since the materialist doesn't believe that, he needs to define god in secular terms or not use the word. No one can escape the doctrine of God; man either accepts the creator or makes a god out of some other idea, or institution. Ultimate authority is an inescapable concept. There are basically 3 options; the creator, the self, or other men. Modern man is a polytheist, and he holds both Self and the State (other men) to be gods. (These aren't the only gods modern man has. The minor gods include; science, democracy, sports, sexual perversity, etc.)
Note;
1. Tony Reichhardt, “Religion and science: Studies of faith,” Nature 432, 666 - 669 (09 December 2004); doi:10.1038/432666a.
2. Dictionary definitions of god;
- something that dominates: something that is so important that it takes over somebody's life ( informal )
worshiping the false god of fame. (Encarta)
- a person or thing of supreme value (Mirriam/Webster)
- A person or thing deified and honored as the chief good; an object of supreme regard. Webster's/1913.
- Any person or thing exalted too much in estimation, or deified and honored as the chief good. W/1828
3. Some other definitions of god; ultimate authority; source of law; who or what you'd like to have defend you in a fight; source of greatest power.
- as there is only one true God (the creator of heaven and earth) there is only one true definition. (Definition is the wrong term.) If men reject the Creator they must come up with substitutes. These substitutes must to some extent take the place of god in terms of attributes; and so have power, authority, rule, knowledge, etc.
- the problem with what we might call 'Greek' philosophy is that definitions tend to be generic, or nominal. Biblical Christianity on the other hand gives concrete definitions. Greek definitions tend to be idealistic, a matter mainly of words and names, of imaginary conceptions. Under the Greek influence language degenerates into a word game. (e.g. god can stand for almost anything, whereas in Christianity God must have only one definition.)
4. A major problem that arises when people reject the true God, is that they replace Him with a false god. (e.g. Statism, scientism, Materialism, etc.)
4. I get tired of the false claim science only began to develop under atheists. (I guess this nonsense is what passes for scholarship in the modern university.) Scientific study was alive and well before Darwin ever came on the scene.
Quotes and comments;
1. "And even though some may find it distressing that science recognizes no god, forcing it to do so will only produce bad science." (editorial rant in Nature/1.)
- People who say 'science' doesn't recognize any god don't know how to write. Science isn't a person and can't recognize anything.
- Scientists who believe they don't recognize any god are mistaken; they recognize themselves as god. The idea men (some elites) can do whatever they want is evidence some people imagine they are god; that they have some right to play god over other people. This belief in no way allows them to escape god; in fact they've made themselves god... and all the rest of us must obey them, and suffer their assaults on us.
- This is an interesting bit of bravado. Why does the author of this piece of religion bashing personify science? Why doesn't he say scientists instead of science? If he did (and he should have) his sentence would read 'scientists recognize no god.' But this would be both false and a bit too bold I guess. The only correct way for the sentence to be written is; 'many scientists don't recognize a god.' (But even that would be false as they recognize themselves, or the State, as god.) The claim that to recognize god leads to 'bad' science is simply false. So the whole thing ends up being nonsense.
- the rest of us are expected (of course) to recognize the new god of science, or scientism, or the scientific elite... however you want to describe it. (And yes I do find that distressing.) The secular elite have worked hard to destroy language; to use words as weapons. They've succeeded in destroying words like god and religion; and so we must use other words; creator, belief system, world view, etc. Instead of using the word God we can use the term 'ultimate authority' - for this is what God is. God is the ultimate authority, and lawmaker. So when evolutionists say they don't recognize any god they're just blowing smoke; they recognize themselves and they recognize the state. We all bow the knee; some to false gods (like the state, like human desire) and some bow the knee to the creator of heaven and earth. Take your pick.
- If people like this are going to use the word god we have eveery right to demand they define the word they're using. To the Christian God refers to the supreme being portrayed in the bible; to man's creator and savior. Since the materialist doesn't believe that, he needs to define god in secular terms or not use the word. No one can escape the doctrine of God; man either accepts the creator or makes a god out of some other idea, or institution. Ultimate authority is an inescapable concept. There are basically 3 options; the creator, the self, or other men. Modern man is a polytheist, and he holds both Self and the State (other men) to be gods. (These aren't the only gods modern man has. The minor gods include; science, democracy, sports, sexual perversity, etc.)
Note;
1. Tony Reichhardt, “Religion and science: Studies of faith,” Nature 432, 666 - 669 (09 December 2004); doi:10.1038/432666a.
2. Dictionary definitions of god;
- something that dominates: something that is so important that it takes over somebody's life ( informal )
worshiping the false god of fame. (Encarta)
- a person or thing of supreme value (Mirriam/Webster)
- A person or thing deified and honored as the chief good; an object of supreme regard. Webster's/1913.
- Any person or thing exalted too much in estimation, or deified and honored as the chief good. W/1828
3. Some other definitions of god; ultimate authority; source of law; who or what you'd like to have defend you in a fight; source of greatest power.
- as there is only one true God (the creator of heaven and earth) there is only one true definition. (Definition is the wrong term.) If men reject the Creator they must come up with substitutes. These substitutes must to some extent take the place of god in terms of attributes; and so have power, authority, rule, knowledge, etc.
- the problem with what we might call 'Greek' philosophy is that definitions tend to be generic, or nominal. Biblical Christianity on the other hand gives concrete definitions. Greek definitions tend to be idealistic, a matter mainly of words and names, of imaginary conceptions. Under the Greek influence language degenerates into a word game. (e.g. god can stand for almost anything, whereas in Christianity God must have only one definition.)
4. A major problem that arises when people reject the true God, is that they replace Him with a false god. (e.g. Statism, scientism, Materialism, etc.)
4. I get tired of the false claim science only began to develop under atheists. (I guess this nonsense is what passes for scholarship in the modern university.) Scientific study was alive and well before Darwin ever came on the scene.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
The strange new grammar of Darwinism
'Why Creationism is Wrong' - Sarah Crown reports in the Guardian Unlimited on biologist Steve Jones’ speech to a crowd at an English bank holiday, the Hay Festival.
Quotes and comments;
1. "Apparently, 100m Americans believe in creationism," said Jones, peering bright-eyed over the top of his lecter. "As I said to my publisher I don't mind if they burn my books so long as they buy them first ... "
- Oh yes; creationists are book burners... Of course it's the evolutionists who are the censors in the issue of origins, so this is a pathetic farce of a joke. It's evolutionists who are doing everything in their power to suppress any critique of evolution, and suppress any mention of creationism or ID. So I ask you, why would you take seriously what such a b.s. artist has to say about origins? (Is it creationists who are going to court to have the teaching of evolution stopped?)
2. 'After gaining the audience's sympathy with a few well-aimed gags at the creationists' expense ("I'm not sure why Americans deny the truth of evolution, when the evidence [he gestures to a slide of pictures of George Bush juxtaposed with photographs of apes appears on the screen behind him] is all around them ...")
- wow; gee that's real funny. George bush isn't any smarter than an ape... I can't stop laughing.... help me.
- I wonder why anyone believes a clown like this would speak honestly about origins; or why they believe he would ever be honest about the evidence for and against evolution. The man clearly has no respect for the truth.
3. 'Darwin's definition of evolution is 'descent with modification', or as Jones put it, "genetics plus time", a theory so elegantly simple that "it could even be physics".
- the idea evolution is 'descent with modification' cannot be true. Why? If you trace the mythical process back you end up with a first organism. See the problem? the first organism has no ancestor, it cannot therefore be the product of descent. This formulation of e. has thus been refuted.
- genetics plus time is a meaningless phrase, and it's certainly not a theory. This is like saying Shakespeare is words plus time.
- The claim evolution is 'genetics plus time' an interesting comment, because one of my main criticisms of Materialism is that if it's true all things (all) must be explained in terms of physics. (i.e. evolution Has to be physics.) This can't of course be done, thus disproving both materialism and evolution. (i.e. if Materialism isn't true, then evolution can't be true.)
4. 'He illustrated the principle [evolution] with examples from linguistic development and, more lengthily, from the progression of the HIV epidemic.'
- the idea you can demonstrate evolution from linguistics is a joke. Human language is a creation of intelligent being. (Either man or god.) You cannot prove materialism by relying on an example of personal intelligence and invention. This is intellectual charlatanism; mere verbal sleight of hand.
5. “There are,“ he [Jones] concluded, “intelligent designers out there. But they work for the pharmaceutical industry.“
- what Jones thinks is a joke, I find very interesting. Here we have a materialist who admits (necessarily) that there are intelligent designers around... but who denies that God is one of them. (Or denies god exists I suppose.) So what is he saying; he's saying that intelligent designers are the result of the big bang. He's saying intelligent designers 'evolved' from rocks. I for one can't even begin to believe this. Jones refers to natural selection as the great principle of evolution (nonsense) but it's more accurate to say that continuity is the great principle of evolution. This principle states that evolution is a continuous process; that nothing can exist that did not have a precursor. This means in our example that intelligence must have existed in the big bang; that it must have existed in hydrogen, that it must have existed in molecules and electrons. Does anyone really believe this? [see note on Panpsychism] If they do I wish they would tell us who they are; I wish they would be open about this. But of course people like Jones keep quiet about this; they'd rather wave pictures of George Bush... and mock the so called c. right.
6. 'The aim of the talk, he explained, is to establish the testability and therefore prove the truth of evolution. After gaining the audience’s sympathy with a few well-aimed gags at the creationists’ expense ...he waltzed them off at top speed on a whistle-stop tour of evidence for that evolution, this fundamental theory which he described as “the grammar of biology”.
- the 'grammar' of biology? Here (yet again) we see how materialists (evolutionists) misuse language; how they use terms (steal in other words) they have no right to. The grammar of biology is an ID term if ever there was one. Only persons use grammar; only intelligent, personal agents. In no way can this terminology be founded on materialism.
- evolutionary theory is the 'grammar' of biology? One wonders what that means; if it's not just a bit of purple prose. Grammar is simply defined as 'the rules of language.' I fail to see in what sense e.t. can be the rules of biology. This could only be the case if 'biology' were a language; if organisms were the creations of language. But I don't think this is something Jones believes; so why then is he using this language. Evolutionists often call DNA a code; but they have no right to speak of codes, as codes are only written by intelligent persons. (Acting intentionally and with purpose.)
7. Since Jones refers to the 'grammar' of biology, let's look at a definition.
Grammar;
'In what follows, therefore, grammar will be generally employed in its primary sense, as denoting the mode in which words are connected in order to express a complete thought, or, as it is termed in logic, a proposition.
- Encyclopedia Britannica/1911
- So then; is Jones telling us that living organisms express thoughts or propositions? Is biology a kind of logic Steve? Is that what you mean? (Well I don't think so.) The trouble with ET is that it's so ugly a theory its advocates feel a need to dress it up in flowery language.)
- if ET is grammar, the just so stories it relies on are incoherent. We might more accurately say that darwinism is a theory in search of a grammar. People like Jones pretend they know the 'rules' behind evolution, but in reality they have no idea how to make the theory work. i.e. they can't find the rules of the supposed evolution of molecule to man transformation. E. writing is little more coherent (meaningful) than chicken scratching.
- I see no evidence Jones accomplished his goals of establishing the testability of evolution (whatever that means) or of proving evolution. To state a goal isn't to accomplish it. He doesn't even come close to doing these things. He's talking about what is misleadingly called micro-evolution. (Micro-evolution as a term is intellectual charlatanism. The variations referred to have Nothing to do with molecule to man evolution.) Nothing he said (at least in the report) related in any way to macro-evolution.
Summary;
- the reason people like Crown are so sure Darwinism is true (apart from some kind of strange national pride) is; a. they've been taught a pack of lies and half truths, b. that they've never been exposed to solid critiques of e. theory, and c. never been given evidence for creation or intelligent design. (Not to mention that almost none of them have ever read the bible; and that all they know about Christianity are lying 'critiques' from atheists. Hardly a one of them knows any biblical theology; all they know is the idiot pronouncements of a heretical and atheist clergy.)
Notes;
1. PANPSYCHISM (Gr. ray, all; Jivxn, soul)
- 'A philosophical term applied to any theory of nature which recognizes the existence of a psychical element throughout the objective world. In such theories not only animals and plants but even the smallest particles of matter are regarded as having some rudimentary kind of sensation or "soul," which plays the same part in relation to their objective activities or modifications as the soul does in the case of human beings. Such theories are the modern scientific or semi-scientific counterparts of the primitive animism of savage races, and may be compared with the hylozoism of the Greek physicists. In modern times the chief exponents of panpsychist views are Thomas Carlyle, Fechner and Paulsen: a similar idea lay at the root of the physical theories of the Stoics.' (Britannica/1911)
2. I heard Charles Kors (in a lecture) say that while the European professor didn't feel the need to entertain his class with a few jokes, that American professors did. Apparently this may not be completely true. It appears that jokes are about all Jones has to offer.
3. Darwin wasn't the only eccentric to design, or try to design, a new language. He and his followers have been the most successful however. They've twisted and distorted lanaguage so that darwinian newspeak would hardly be recognizible to people of 200 years ago.
4. "The aim of the talk, he explained, is to establish the testability and therefore prove the truth of evolution.'
- if that was his aim (and not merely to ridicule creationists and make simple authoritative claims about e.) he failed totally.
Quotes and comments;
1. "Apparently, 100m Americans believe in creationism," said Jones, peering bright-eyed over the top of his lecter. "As I said to my publisher I don't mind if they burn my books so long as they buy them first ... "
- Oh yes; creationists are book burners... Of course it's the evolutionists who are the censors in the issue of origins, so this is a pathetic farce of a joke. It's evolutionists who are doing everything in their power to suppress any critique of evolution, and suppress any mention of creationism or ID. So I ask you, why would you take seriously what such a b.s. artist has to say about origins? (Is it creationists who are going to court to have the teaching of evolution stopped?)
2. 'After gaining the audience's sympathy with a few well-aimed gags at the creationists' expense ("I'm not sure why Americans deny the truth of evolution, when the evidence [he gestures to a slide of pictures of George Bush juxtaposed with photographs of apes appears on the screen behind him] is all around them ...")
- wow; gee that's real funny. George bush isn't any smarter than an ape... I can't stop laughing.... help me.
- I wonder why anyone believes a clown like this would speak honestly about origins; or why they believe he would ever be honest about the evidence for and against evolution. The man clearly has no respect for the truth.
3. 'Darwin's definition of evolution is 'descent with modification', or as Jones put it, "genetics plus time", a theory so elegantly simple that "it could even be physics".
- the idea evolution is 'descent with modification' cannot be true. Why? If you trace the mythical process back you end up with a first organism. See the problem? the first organism has no ancestor, it cannot therefore be the product of descent. This formulation of e. has thus been refuted.
- genetics plus time is a meaningless phrase, and it's certainly not a theory. This is like saying Shakespeare is words plus time.
- The claim evolution is 'genetics plus time' an interesting comment, because one of my main criticisms of Materialism is that if it's true all things (all) must be explained in terms of physics. (i.e. evolution Has to be physics.) This can't of course be done, thus disproving both materialism and evolution. (i.e. if Materialism isn't true, then evolution can't be true.)
4. 'He illustrated the principle [evolution] with examples from linguistic development and, more lengthily, from the progression of the HIV epidemic.'
- the idea you can demonstrate evolution from linguistics is a joke. Human language is a creation of intelligent being. (Either man or god.) You cannot prove materialism by relying on an example of personal intelligence and invention. This is intellectual charlatanism; mere verbal sleight of hand.
5. “There are,“ he [Jones] concluded, “intelligent designers out there. But they work for the pharmaceutical industry.“
- what Jones thinks is a joke, I find very interesting. Here we have a materialist who admits (necessarily) that there are intelligent designers around... but who denies that God is one of them. (Or denies god exists I suppose.) So what is he saying; he's saying that intelligent designers are the result of the big bang. He's saying intelligent designers 'evolved' from rocks. I for one can't even begin to believe this. Jones refers to natural selection as the great principle of evolution (nonsense) but it's more accurate to say that continuity is the great principle of evolution. This principle states that evolution is a continuous process; that nothing can exist that did not have a precursor. This means in our example that intelligence must have existed in the big bang; that it must have existed in hydrogen, that it must have existed in molecules and electrons. Does anyone really believe this? [see note on Panpsychism] If they do I wish they would tell us who they are; I wish they would be open about this. But of course people like Jones keep quiet about this; they'd rather wave pictures of George Bush... and mock the so called c. right.
6. 'The aim of the talk, he explained, is to establish the testability and therefore prove the truth of evolution. After gaining the audience’s sympathy with a few well-aimed gags at the creationists’ expense ...he waltzed them off at top speed on a whistle-stop tour of evidence for that evolution, this fundamental theory which he described as “the grammar of biology”.
- the 'grammar' of biology? Here (yet again) we see how materialists (evolutionists) misuse language; how they use terms (steal in other words) they have no right to. The grammar of biology is an ID term if ever there was one. Only persons use grammar; only intelligent, personal agents. In no way can this terminology be founded on materialism.
- evolutionary theory is the 'grammar' of biology? One wonders what that means; if it's not just a bit of purple prose. Grammar is simply defined as 'the rules of language.' I fail to see in what sense e.t. can be the rules of biology. This could only be the case if 'biology' were a language; if organisms were the creations of language. But I don't think this is something Jones believes; so why then is he using this language. Evolutionists often call DNA a code; but they have no right to speak of codes, as codes are only written by intelligent persons. (Acting intentionally and with purpose.)
7. Since Jones refers to the 'grammar' of biology, let's look at a definition.
Grammar;
'In what follows, therefore, grammar will be generally employed in its primary sense, as denoting the mode in which words are connected in order to express a complete thought, or, as it is termed in logic, a proposition.
- Encyclopedia Britannica/1911
- So then; is Jones telling us that living organisms express thoughts or propositions? Is biology a kind of logic Steve? Is that what you mean? (Well I don't think so.) The trouble with ET is that it's so ugly a theory its advocates feel a need to dress it up in flowery language.)
- if ET is grammar, the just so stories it relies on are incoherent. We might more accurately say that darwinism is a theory in search of a grammar. People like Jones pretend they know the 'rules' behind evolution, but in reality they have no idea how to make the theory work. i.e. they can't find the rules of the supposed evolution of molecule to man transformation. E. writing is little more coherent (meaningful) than chicken scratching.
- I see no evidence Jones accomplished his goals of establishing the testability of evolution (whatever that means) or of proving evolution. To state a goal isn't to accomplish it. He doesn't even come close to doing these things. He's talking about what is misleadingly called micro-evolution. (Micro-evolution as a term is intellectual charlatanism. The variations referred to have Nothing to do with molecule to man evolution.) Nothing he said (at least in the report) related in any way to macro-evolution.
Summary;
- the reason people like Crown are so sure Darwinism is true (apart from some kind of strange national pride) is; a. they've been taught a pack of lies and half truths, b. that they've never been exposed to solid critiques of e. theory, and c. never been given evidence for creation or intelligent design. (Not to mention that almost none of them have ever read the bible; and that all they know about Christianity are lying 'critiques' from atheists. Hardly a one of them knows any biblical theology; all they know is the idiot pronouncements of a heretical and atheist clergy.)
Notes;
1. PANPSYCHISM (Gr. ray, all; Jivxn, soul)
- 'A philosophical term applied to any theory of nature which recognizes the existence of a psychical element throughout the objective world. In such theories not only animals and plants but even the smallest particles of matter are regarded as having some rudimentary kind of sensation or "soul," which plays the same part in relation to their objective activities or modifications as the soul does in the case of human beings. Such theories are the modern scientific or semi-scientific counterparts of the primitive animism of savage races, and may be compared with the hylozoism of the Greek physicists. In modern times the chief exponents of panpsychist views are Thomas Carlyle, Fechner and Paulsen: a similar idea lay at the root of the physical theories of the Stoics.' (Britannica/1911)
2. I heard Charles Kors (in a lecture) say that while the European professor didn't feel the need to entertain his class with a few jokes, that American professors did. Apparently this may not be completely true. It appears that jokes are about all Jones has to offer.
3. Darwin wasn't the only eccentric to design, or try to design, a new language. He and his followers have been the most successful however. They've twisted and distorted lanaguage so that darwinian newspeak would hardly be recognizible to people of 200 years ago.
4. "The aim of the talk, he explained, is to establish the testability and therefore prove the truth of evolution.'
- if that was his aim (and not merely to ridicule creationists and make simple authoritative claims about e.) he failed totally.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Darwinism and Dementia
Many people in our societies have a fear of science, or a fear of scientists. Is there good reason for such distrust? Or is it just a kind of baseless anxiety, based on bias and poor information? We see in the quote below that people have a solid basis for their fears. Darwinism has led to an intellectual dementia in many of our academics and professors. Having embraced the myth of evolution they have lost their moral grounding. They've filled the vacuum created by rejecting Christianity with wild ideas, speculations and subjective feelings. This has allowed them to advocate all manner of ideas and schemes that are truly evil.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Popular science reporter Forest Mims III heard a chilling round of applause at a meeting of scientists, reported World Net Daily. When lizard expert Eric R. Pianka suggested it would be a good thing if airborne ebola killed off 90% of the human population, he got a standing ovation – and an award. At a meeting of the Texas Academy of Science, the audience also liked his suggestion that bird flu could do the job, and chuckled when he suggested it was time to sterilize everyone on Earth. “We’re no better than bacteria,” Pianka said in his polemic on overpopulation.
- When people like this say 'we're no better than bacteria,' we ask that they speak for themselves. Pianka may believe that he's (personally) no better than bacteria, (and he may be right for all I know) but he has no right to speak for anyone else.
- the man is clearly demented... and so I ask you, why do you take people like this seriously when they speak on the origins issue? We see here clearly the kind of idea induced dementia that reigns on our campuses. Much of what is passed off (to students) as science is really just emotional prejudice. (e.g. evolutionism)
- Pianka has no basis for making this kind of claim; but apparently he's too witless to realize this. If mankind is no better than bacteria, then it's no worse either; and if it's no worse why worry about overpopulation. His argument thus refutes itself. If he believes he's no better than bacteria why is he giving us all a lecture? (I don't remember hearing any lectures by bacteria lately.) This makes no sense at all. This is just one more example of how Materialism defeats itself.
- the people who gave him a standing ovation are no better than he is... and maybe no better than bacteria at seeing a stupid statement. (I notice that didn't get together and all drink some doped up kool-aid. Why? Well it's obvious; the 'too many' people they refer to are people of a lower and and superfluous kind. These genocidal maniacs always have other people in mind; never themselves.)
2. 'After praising the Ebola virus for its efficiency at killing, Pianka paused, leaned over the lectern, looked at us and carefully said, “We've got airborne 90 percent mortality in humans. Killing humans. Think about that.” (note #2.)
- One thing that disturbs me about this presentation is that it comes close to soliciting large scale acts of terrorism of the kind he outlines. i.e. if it would be a good thing for this to happen, wouldn't it be a good idea for someone to do it?
- What he's [Pianka] doing here is trying to solve what he thinks is a problem... in a non moral way. The orthodox Christian position is that an end must be accomplished in a moral way. (i.e. bad means don't give good ends; the end does Not justify the means.) He takes this approach because he doesn't believe in objective morality; doesn't believe in God or in God's law. So if you have no moral answer what do you do? You get a big stick and say if you don't do x I'll bash you. If that doesn't work you just kill the people who wont' go with the program (as Lenin and Stalin did to the 'kulaks') The biblical position is that all solutions to problems must be moral; i.e. they must not violate god's law. (The consistent darwinist doesn't believe in moral solutions to problems.)
- what you see here (and you see this everywhere it seems) is that when e's want to rebuke people they belittle them; ie. they call them 'no better than animals,' or 'no more than bags of chemicals' or 'mindless gene carriers' or 'the slaves of genes,' etc. E's seem to have this intense desire to degrade human beings. (This is obviously a generalization.) I see this over and over. Human beings have never been as savagely abused as they have in recent decades by evolutionists. The irony here is that if all these arguments are true, they're self-refuting. i.e. if this is all man is why worry about what might happen to him? But these are all unsupported claims; they can in no way be proved. And so I ask people; 'why do you believe what these people tell you about Origins?' Are you really interested in the opinions of someone who thinks you're just a mindless slave of a set of genes? or that you're no better than bacteria?
'One of Pianka's earliest points was a condemnation of anthropocentrism, or the idea that humankind occupies a privileged position in the Universe. He told a story about how a neighbor asked him what good the lizards are that he studies. He answered, “What good are you?” (see note #2.)
- His point is obvious I think. (i.e. only 'scientists' are valuable... everyone else can be tossed onto the flames.)
- If mankind is no better than lizards or bacteria why worry if we all die out? This argument refutes itself.
- if man is no better than bacteria, the implication is that no animal is better than bacteria... and if that's the case why this fervor to save them?
Notes;
1. Reference; Scientists Cheer Theoretical Holocaust (Creation/Evolution Headlines 04/02/2006)
2. Meeting Doctor Doom - Forrest M. Mims III
3. What then is dementia; behaving or thinking in contradiction to god's moral law. To the extent a man isn't thinking in terms of god's law he is out of his mind. Any decision that violates god's law cannot be good; cannot do anything but harm... and is in fact demented.
4. You want the definition of bacteria? Okay.
- Bacterium; n.; pl. Bacteria (#). [NL., fr. Gr., , a staff: cf. F. bactérie. ] (Biol.)
1. A microscopic vegetable organism, belonging to the class Algæ, usually in the form of a jointed rodlike filament, and found in putrefying organic infusions. Bacteria are destitute of chlorophyll, and are the smallest of microscopic organisms. They are very widely diffused in nature, and multiply with marvelous rapidity, both by fission and by spores. Certain species are active agents in fermentation, while others appear to be the cause of certain infectious diseases.'
- I think you see why Pianka chose to compare mankind with bacteria.
- a professor who can't tell the difference between bacteria and people is lucky to have a job. (He sure wouldn't get one from me.)
5. If man is no better than bacteria how would Pianka know this? Why should he in that case trust his mind? Why does he thinks words mean anything? Why does he imagine this concept of anthropomorphism means anything? Why should he imagine his rejection of it is valid? etc.
- it's strange to hear people say things like mankind doesn't occupy a privileged position in the universe. How can anyone utter such a transparently false statement? Pianka here isn't trying to make an honest statement. It's obvious that man does hold a privileged position; but here he our professor denies it. (And why would anyone believe a person like this on the origins issue?) Most people are naive about academics; they imagine these people are devoted to the truth. Here we see a man (and he's not alone by any means; only a little more extreme) who is showing us how he has no trouble telling blatant lies, how he's going out of his way to deceive people, how he's hiding his true ideas, etc. He's not engaged in science. Lizardology is just a ruse, that gives him a soap box for his bizarre political ideas.
6. Pianka dreams of 90 percent of the human race dying off. I wonder if he's taken any time to imagine what that would do to science? do to culture? do to civilization? Surely it would end all these things. So wonders how you can idolize science but then dream of a holocaust that would bring it to an end? (In canada David Suzuki dreamed of a Y2K event that would kill off 90 percent of the population. For some reason he was never condemned for this... and continued on as if he'd never said it, and was recently proclaimed one of Canada's greatest citizens. What a mad world we live in.)
7. Scientists apparently wonder why they face so much criticism and fear from the public. (Well, look no further guys.) People fear that scientists like Pianka will one day get control of the resources they need to effect their dark dreams.
8. That Pianka has a savior complex is obvious from looking at the obituary he's posted. (So eager was he to paint this idealized portrait of himself, he put it up before he died.) Self-idolatry.com
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Popular science reporter Forest Mims III heard a chilling round of applause at a meeting of scientists, reported World Net Daily. When lizard expert Eric R. Pianka suggested it would be a good thing if airborne ebola killed off 90% of the human population, he got a standing ovation – and an award. At a meeting of the Texas Academy of Science, the audience also liked his suggestion that bird flu could do the job, and chuckled when he suggested it was time to sterilize everyone on Earth. “We’re no better than bacteria,” Pianka said in his polemic on overpopulation.
- When people like this say 'we're no better than bacteria,' we ask that they speak for themselves. Pianka may believe that he's (personally) no better than bacteria, (and he may be right for all I know) but he has no right to speak for anyone else.
- the man is clearly demented... and so I ask you, why do you take people like this seriously when they speak on the origins issue? We see here clearly the kind of idea induced dementia that reigns on our campuses. Much of what is passed off (to students) as science is really just emotional prejudice. (e.g. evolutionism)
- Pianka has no basis for making this kind of claim; but apparently he's too witless to realize this. If mankind is no better than bacteria, then it's no worse either; and if it's no worse why worry about overpopulation. His argument thus refutes itself. If he believes he's no better than bacteria why is he giving us all a lecture? (I don't remember hearing any lectures by bacteria lately.) This makes no sense at all. This is just one more example of how Materialism defeats itself.
- the people who gave him a standing ovation are no better than he is... and maybe no better than bacteria at seeing a stupid statement. (I notice that didn't get together and all drink some doped up kool-aid. Why? Well it's obvious; the 'too many' people they refer to are people of a lower and and superfluous kind. These genocidal maniacs always have other people in mind; never themselves.)
2. 'After praising the Ebola virus for its efficiency at killing, Pianka paused, leaned over the lectern, looked at us and carefully said, “We've got airborne 90 percent mortality in humans. Killing humans. Think about that.” (note #2.)
- One thing that disturbs me about this presentation is that it comes close to soliciting large scale acts of terrorism of the kind he outlines. i.e. if it would be a good thing for this to happen, wouldn't it be a good idea for someone to do it?
- What he's [Pianka] doing here is trying to solve what he thinks is a problem... in a non moral way. The orthodox Christian position is that an end must be accomplished in a moral way. (i.e. bad means don't give good ends; the end does Not justify the means.) He takes this approach because he doesn't believe in objective morality; doesn't believe in God or in God's law. So if you have no moral answer what do you do? You get a big stick and say if you don't do x I'll bash you. If that doesn't work you just kill the people who wont' go with the program (as Lenin and Stalin did to the 'kulaks') The biblical position is that all solutions to problems must be moral; i.e. they must not violate god's law. (The consistent darwinist doesn't believe in moral solutions to problems.)
- what you see here (and you see this everywhere it seems) is that when e's want to rebuke people they belittle them; ie. they call them 'no better than animals,' or 'no more than bags of chemicals' or 'mindless gene carriers' or 'the slaves of genes,' etc. E's seem to have this intense desire to degrade human beings. (This is obviously a generalization.) I see this over and over. Human beings have never been as savagely abused as they have in recent decades by evolutionists. The irony here is that if all these arguments are true, they're self-refuting. i.e. if this is all man is why worry about what might happen to him? But these are all unsupported claims; they can in no way be proved. And so I ask people; 'why do you believe what these people tell you about Origins?' Are you really interested in the opinions of someone who thinks you're just a mindless slave of a set of genes? or that you're no better than bacteria?
'One of Pianka's earliest points was a condemnation of anthropocentrism, or the idea that humankind occupies a privileged position in the Universe. He told a story about how a neighbor asked him what good the lizards are that he studies. He answered, “What good are you?” (see note #2.)
- His point is obvious I think. (i.e. only 'scientists' are valuable... everyone else can be tossed onto the flames.)
- If mankind is no better than lizards or bacteria why worry if we all die out? This argument refutes itself.
- if man is no better than bacteria, the implication is that no animal is better than bacteria... and if that's the case why this fervor to save them?
Notes;
1. Reference; Scientists Cheer Theoretical Holocaust (Creation/Evolution Headlines 04/02/2006)
2. Meeting Doctor Doom - Forrest M. Mims III
3. What then is dementia; behaving or thinking in contradiction to god's moral law. To the extent a man isn't thinking in terms of god's law he is out of his mind. Any decision that violates god's law cannot be good; cannot do anything but harm... and is in fact demented.
4. You want the definition of bacteria? Okay.
- Bacterium; n.; pl. Bacteria (#). [NL., fr. Gr., , a staff: cf. F. bactérie. ] (Biol.)
1. A microscopic vegetable organism, belonging to the class Algæ, usually in the form of a jointed rodlike filament, and found in putrefying organic infusions. Bacteria are destitute of chlorophyll, and are the smallest of microscopic organisms. They are very widely diffused in nature, and multiply with marvelous rapidity, both by fission and by spores. Certain species are active agents in fermentation, while others appear to be the cause of certain infectious diseases.'
- I think you see why Pianka chose to compare mankind with bacteria.
- a professor who can't tell the difference between bacteria and people is lucky to have a job. (He sure wouldn't get one from me.)
5. If man is no better than bacteria how would Pianka know this? Why should he in that case trust his mind? Why does he thinks words mean anything? Why does he imagine this concept of anthropomorphism means anything? Why should he imagine his rejection of it is valid? etc.
- it's strange to hear people say things like mankind doesn't occupy a privileged position in the universe. How can anyone utter such a transparently false statement? Pianka here isn't trying to make an honest statement. It's obvious that man does hold a privileged position; but here he our professor denies it. (And why would anyone believe a person like this on the origins issue?) Most people are naive about academics; they imagine these people are devoted to the truth. Here we see a man (and he's not alone by any means; only a little more extreme) who is showing us how he has no trouble telling blatant lies, how he's going out of his way to deceive people, how he's hiding his true ideas, etc. He's not engaged in science. Lizardology is just a ruse, that gives him a soap box for his bizarre political ideas.
6. Pianka dreams of 90 percent of the human race dying off. I wonder if he's taken any time to imagine what that would do to science? do to culture? do to civilization? Surely it would end all these things. So wonders how you can idolize science but then dream of a holocaust that would bring it to an end? (In canada David Suzuki dreamed of a Y2K event that would kill off 90 percent of the population. For some reason he was never condemned for this... and continued on as if he'd never said it, and was recently proclaimed one of Canada's greatest citizens. What a mad world we live in.)
7. Scientists apparently wonder why they face so much criticism and fear from the public. (Well, look no further guys.) People fear that scientists like Pianka will one day get control of the resources they need to effect their dark dreams.
8. That Pianka has a savior complex is obvious from looking at the obituary he's posted. (So eager was he to paint this idealized portrait of himself, he put it up before he died.) Self-idolatry.com
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Refuting Materialism
“Whether you’re a believer or not, the quest to understand this magnificent, frightening, exhilarating world that we live in is just as much a moral demand laid upon us as ‘love your neighbor.’ People who don’t want to know the way the world is are spiritually dead.” - Michael Ruse
Quotes and comments;
- This is the kind of quote (from e's) that annoys me. Ruse has no business saying such a thing. He has no basis for saying it; no foundation for such an utterance.
- the usual definition of m. states that the u. consists solely of matter in motion. Where then is there room for belief? Do atoms and electrons believe in things? do they have beliefs? This is rubbish. Matter acts, it does not (and cannot) believe.
Believe;
a. ' To exercise belief in; to credit upon the authority or testimony of another; to be persuaded of the truth of, upon evidence furnished by reasons, arguments, and deductions of the mind, or by circumstances other than personal knowledge; to regard or accept as true; to place confidence in; to think; to consider; as, to believe a person, a statement, or a doctrine.
- so i ask you; does matter think? reason? argue? consider? etc. Of course not. Therefore I conclude materialism is a fallacious view of the universe. (At best it is woefully inadequate.)
- and Ruse talks about the 'quest' for understanding the the origins of the world and of mankind. Again, he has no business talking in this way. Matter doesn't engage in quests. [Quest; the act of seeking; search; as to go in quest of game; in quest of a lost child; in quest of property.] Matter isn't seeking anything; and most assuredly isn't seeking understanding. Therefore we conclude m. is a false view of reality.
- Ruse speaks of moral demands. Again, a materialist has no basis for speaking of morals, or of moral obligations. Matter acts mechanically; it cannot do right or wrong. Matter just is; it is under no obligations. Only persons have obligations. therefore we conclude m. is a false view of the universe.
- we'll let you come up with your own explanation of why it's illegitimate for a Materialist to speak of people as being spiritually dead.
- the fact Michael Ruse has delivered himself of such a noble sentiment shows us that people can't live in terms of materialism; they cannot live consistently in terms of what the philosophy states and claims. (There isn't one consistent Materialist on the planet.)
- the fact Ruse feels these sentiments is all the evidence he needs that he is not merely matter in motion.
Notes;
1. Reference; 'The Harvard Gazette [2006] held a panel discussion on “How Do We Teach Evolution.” Richard Lewontin sees the first priority as convincing the doubters that animals do evolve. Reporter Bob Brustman ended with a surprising quote from Michael Ruse: “Whether you’re a believer or not, the quest to understand this magnificent, frightening, exhilarating world that we live in is just as much a moral demand laid upon us as ‘love your neighbor.’ People who don’t want to know the way the world is are spiritually dead.”
2. The obvious question I guess (at least to some) is this; 'how is it materialists can speak this way? how is it they speak as if they were theists?' There isn't a single answer. Some people of course talk this way out of a desire to deceive people. Some people live in two mental worlds as it were; somehow managing to write books as if they believed in materialism, but then living as if they didn't. Some people seem unaware of the implications of Materialism. To some extent this 'double mindedness' stems from growing up in a culture that still retains vestiges of a biblical Christianity. To some extent this is a matter of language. Our languages are deeply theistic; and there really aren't ways to express (communicate) a self-consistent materialism. (I don't know how such a language could even be created.) To some extent this 'split mindedness' is a matter of all men bearing the image of god. (However slightly or radically altered you might think that image now is.)
- to some extent (perhaps a great extent) this is a matter of reasoning forward from a basic presupposition. (i.e. of materialism.) If one's basic assumption is that all that exists is matter, then one concludes, ''well, gee whiz, I guess matter (in its guise as man) can think, can engage in a quest for understanding, can care about origins, etc. (One can't reason backward from 'spiritual' man to materialism; one can only reason forward from an assumption of materialism. When one does this a person ignores the evidence in favor of a theory.)
- there is no scientific theory that even pretends to explain how it is atoms and chemicals can care about the ultimate origins of man and universe. It's surely clear that the desire to understand, that the feeling of obligation, etc. aren't 'things' extant in matter. But this is all the materialist has to work with. If he's honest he has to say these things exist in the structure of matter; but he knows this isn't the case. His only escape then is to say that the desire to understand is an 'emergent' quality. This seems to satisfy many m's but I see it as weak and illegitimate. This is like saying personal and spiritual qualities spring into existence out of nothing; but this is just what materialism denies. The human qualities ruse referred to can only exist because of a 'not-natural' arrangement of matter. (This in our day we call information.) We all know this, but some of us refuse to admit it.
Quotes and comments;
- This is the kind of quote (from e's) that annoys me. Ruse has no business saying such a thing. He has no basis for saying it; no foundation for such an utterance.
- the usual definition of m. states that the u. consists solely of matter in motion. Where then is there room for belief? Do atoms and electrons believe in things? do they have beliefs? This is rubbish. Matter acts, it does not (and cannot) believe.
Believe;
a. ' To exercise belief in; to credit upon the authority or testimony of another; to be persuaded of the truth of, upon evidence furnished by reasons, arguments, and deductions of the mind, or by circumstances other than personal knowledge; to regard or accept as true; to place confidence in; to think; to consider; as, to believe a person, a statement, or a doctrine.
- so i ask you; does matter think? reason? argue? consider? etc. Of course not. Therefore I conclude materialism is a fallacious view of the universe. (At best it is woefully inadequate.)
- and Ruse talks about the 'quest' for understanding the the origins of the world and of mankind. Again, he has no business talking in this way. Matter doesn't engage in quests. [Quest; the act of seeking; search; as to go in quest of game; in quest of a lost child; in quest of property.] Matter isn't seeking anything; and most assuredly isn't seeking understanding. Therefore we conclude m. is a false view of reality.
- Ruse speaks of moral demands. Again, a materialist has no basis for speaking of morals, or of moral obligations. Matter acts mechanically; it cannot do right or wrong. Matter just is; it is under no obligations. Only persons have obligations. therefore we conclude m. is a false view of the universe.
- we'll let you come up with your own explanation of why it's illegitimate for a Materialist to speak of people as being spiritually dead.
- the fact Michael Ruse has delivered himself of such a noble sentiment shows us that people can't live in terms of materialism; they cannot live consistently in terms of what the philosophy states and claims. (There isn't one consistent Materialist on the planet.)
- the fact Ruse feels these sentiments is all the evidence he needs that he is not merely matter in motion.
Notes;
1. Reference; 'The Harvard Gazette [2006] held a panel discussion on “How Do We Teach Evolution.” Richard Lewontin sees the first priority as convincing the doubters that animals do evolve. Reporter Bob Brustman ended with a surprising quote from Michael Ruse: “Whether you’re a believer or not, the quest to understand this magnificent, frightening, exhilarating world that we live in is just as much a moral demand laid upon us as ‘love your neighbor.’ People who don’t want to know the way the world is are spiritually dead.”
2. The obvious question I guess (at least to some) is this; 'how is it materialists can speak this way? how is it they speak as if they were theists?' There isn't a single answer. Some people of course talk this way out of a desire to deceive people. Some people live in two mental worlds as it were; somehow managing to write books as if they believed in materialism, but then living as if they didn't. Some people seem unaware of the implications of Materialism. To some extent this 'double mindedness' stems from growing up in a culture that still retains vestiges of a biblical Christianity. To some extent this is a matter of language. Our languages are deeply theistic; and there really aren't ways to express (communicate) a self-consistent materialism. (I don't know how such a language could even be created.) To some extent this 'split mindedness' is a matter of all men bearing the image of god. (However slightly or radically altered you might think that image now is.)
- to some extent (perhaps a great extent) this is a matter of reasoning forward from a basic presupposition. (i.e. of materialism.) If one's basic assumption is that all that exists is matter, then one concludes, ''well, gee whiz, I guess matter (in its guise as man) can think, can engage in a quest for understanding, can care about origins, etc. (One can't reason backward from 'spiritual' man to materialism; one can only reason forward from an assumption of materialism. When one does this a person ignores the evidence in favor of a theory.)
- there is no scientific theory that even pretends to explain how it is atoms and chemicals can care about the ultimate origins of man and universe. It's surely clear that the desire to understand, that the feeling of obligation, etc. aren't 'things' extant in matter. But this is all the materialist has to work with. If he's honest he has to say these things exist in the structure of matter; but he knows this isn't the case. His only escape then is to say that the desire to understand is an 'emergent' quality. This seems to satisfy many m's but I see it as weak and illegitimate. This is like saying personal and spiritual qualities spring into existence out of nothing; but this is just what materialism denies. The human qualities ruse referred to can only exist because of a 'not-natural' arrangement of matter. (This in our day we call information.) We all know this, but some of us refuse to admit it.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
There cannot be a young earth
A young earth is impossible Christian Liberals say.
Browsing the ASA site, I saw a brief book recommendation.... where we read something like ''fossil corral reefs, etc. mean that a young age for the earth cannot be true...'' (note 1.)
- Cannot be true? Really? The only way this statement can be true is that if human beings are capable of knowing absolute truth. We than have to ask this person ''do you believe men are capable of knowing things about the perceived universe in an absolute sense.'' If they say yes, as they must, we ask, ''can you prove that?" Of course they cannot.
- My conclusion is that it is always wrong to say x cannot be true. (X being some orthodox biblical doctrine.) I call this scientism; though perhaps there's a better term for it. It's human pride (and ambition, etc.) that provokes people to make absolute statements. Isn't it obvious that finite, fallible and fallen creatures can't formulate absolute statements? (i.e that are accurate) It's the great heresy of Humanism to think man can make absolute statements. (We ever see through a glass darkly.) It's sad to see Christians fall into this humanist heresy. They seem to have been taken in by the secular delusion that science must proceed by absolute claims. A study of history shows this to be fallacious. Apart from special revelation all man has ever had has been ideas, theories, speculations. (The nearer a person is to looking at physical' reality in the present the closer he can come to making an objective statement; the further away he is from this the further he will be from even the possibility of making an absolute claim of any objective validity.) There is nothing wrong with all this; this is the situation God has placed us in... for very good reasons of His own. Our problem is not our finiteness, but our sin.
- It may look to some people (or to most people, or to all people) that corrals reefs make a young earth look impossible. But a Christian should not ever say this 'cannot' be the case. The universe may not be what we imagine it to be. (e.g. it might not be a 'physical' universe at all. It might be a spiritual universe... a mental construct of some kind... or who knows what.) The inability to say 'cannot' is no hardship, either on any of us personally, or on the 'scientific enterprise' as a whole. We all need greater humility, and restraining ourselves from saying cannot' (from making absolute claims) is simply one way to express that humility. We can say, 'I see no way the world can be as young as the Bible says,'' be we cannot say the world cannot be young. (And what is young anyway? The 'young earth' was an invention of people like Lyell and others. Something is 'young' only relative to something else.)
- To know (in an absolute sense) the earth was not 'young' a person would literally have to know everything, and to know all things perfectly. (Such of course is impossible.) I realize that most 'old earthers' will find this an unconvincing argument... but I don't see any way around it. That it wounds human pride doesn't negate its force. If a Christian respects and honors the word of God as he should I don't see how he can in good conscience say a pretty clear implication of the text cannot be true. (Do I need to remind people that many of these 'cannot' statements have been proven wrong?)
- To prevent being misunderstood; let me say that I in no way insist that Christians believe the earth is young... only that they not say it 'cannot' be young. (You cannot force people to believe things in any event.) A plain reading of the bible appears to speak of an earth 6-10,000 years old. We must at least leave a possibility (no matter how slim) that this could be correct. We must at least leave some possibility that we could be wrong. (Or shall we say human beings are incapable of error?)
Notes;
1. The book I refer to is 'God and Evolution' by David Wilcox. This book is on the ASA recommended list; and it's blurb reads; "While discussing the earth’s age, Wilcox does a creditable job of showing that, logically, a young earth is not possible given evidence from geology and fossil coral reefs."
2. A great problem with so called 'theistic evolution' (which isn't evolution at all in my opinion) is simply this; 'how can its advocates make it seem real?" The materialist (atheist) doesn't admit to seeing any evidence of God in the world; and most Christians don't see any evidence of god in evolution. It looks for all the world like a fat, cushy pillow to sit on while one's straddling the fence. The whole point of evolutionary theory is that it does away with the need for god. (Atheism or materialism predates evolutionary theory; it's no secret what came first. T.e. seems a political strategy to me, and not scientific at all. (Not all old earthers accept evolution of course; Arthur Custance being a notable case.)
3. The theistic evolutionist tells the young earth creationist; 'you must accept the 'decrees' of science. If the 'best' scientists of the day say x is true, we must all accept this... whether we want to or not.' But yet the theistic evolutionists doesn't accept the claim that God has nothing to do with evolution... that evolution is a purely naturalistic process. So he doesn't follow his own rule. (i.e. he tells the YE Christian to just accept what 'science' says, but he doesn't do this himself.)
4. I'm not entirely dissatisfied with the model that states the earth (or a 'recreated' earth) might be young, while the universe itself is old. This might be easiest to picture if we see it in terms of science fiction imagery. In an 'old' universe god might have taken an 'uninhabitable' planet, and then made it fit for earthly creatures to live in. (Sf writers call this terraforming.) I neither accept it or reject it outright. (Having said that I don't hold out much hope for it.)
- Kim Stanley Robinson wrote a trilogy of novels a few years ago on 'terraforming' Mars.
5. Terraforming definition from Wikipedia;
- the application of technology for the purpose of influencing the global properties of a planet. The goal of this theoretical task is usually to make other worlds habitable for life.
- Perhaps the best-known type of planetary engineering is terraforming, by which a planet's surface conditions are altered to be more like those of Earth. Other terms used for particular types of planetary engineering include caeliforming, for the creation of an Earth-like atmosphere, and ecopoiesis for the introduction of an ecology to a lifeless environment.
Browsing the ASA site, I saw a brief book recommendation.... where we read something like ''fossil corral reefs, etc. mean that a young age for the earth cannot be true...'' (note 1.)
- Cannot be true? Really? The only way this statement can be true is that if human beings are capable of knowing absolute truth. We than have to ask this person ''do you believe men are capable of knowing things about the perceived universe in an absolute sense.'' If they say yes, as they must, we ask, ''can you prove that?" Of course they cannot.
- My conclusion is that it is always wrong to say x cannot be true. (X being some orthodox biblical doctrine.) I call this scientism; though perhaps there's a better term for it. It's human pride (and ambition, etc.) that provokes people to make absolute statements. Isn't it obvious that finite, fallible and fallen creatures can't formulate absolute statements? (i.e that are accurate) It's the great heresy of Humanism to think man can make absolute statements. (We ever see through a glass darkly.) It's sad to see Christians fall into this humanist heresy. They seem to have been taken in by the secular delusion that science must proceed by absolute claims. A study of history shows this to be fallacious. Apart from special revelation all man has ever had has been ideas, theories, speculations. (The nearer a person is to looking at physical' reality in the present the closer he can come to making an objective statement; the further away he is from this the further he will be from even the possibility of making an absolute claim of any objective validity.) There is nothing wrong with all this; this is the situation God has placed us in... for very good reasons of His own. Our problem is not our finiteness, but our sin.
- It may look to some people (or to most people, or to all people) that corrals reefs make a young earth look impossible. But a Christian should not ever say this 'cannot' be the case. The universe may not be what we imagine it to be. (e.g. it might not be a 'physical' universe at all. It might be a spiritual universe... a mental construct of some kind... or who knows what.) The inability to say 'cannot' is no hardship, either on any of us personally, or on the 'scientific enterprise' as a whole. We all need greater humility, and restraining ourselves from saying cannot' (from making absolute claims) is simply one way to express that humility. We can say, 'I see no way the world can be as young as the Bible says,'' be we cannot say the world cannot be young. (And what is young anyway? The 'young earth' was an invention of people like Lyell and others. Something is 'young' only relative to something else.)
- To know (in an absolute sense) the earth was not 'young' a person would literally have to know everything, and to know all things perfectly. (Such of course is impossible.) I realize that most 'old earthers' will find this an unconvincing argument... but I don't see any way around it. That it wounds human pride doesn't negate its force. If a Christian respects and honors the word of God as he should I don't see how he can in good conscience say a pretty clear implication of the text cannot be true. (Do I need to remind people that many of these 'cannot' statements have been proven wrong?)
- To prevent being misunderstood; let me say that I in no way insist that Christians believe the earth is young... only that they not say it 'cannot' be young. (You cannot force people to believe things in any event.) A plain reading of the bible appears to speak of an earth 6-10,000 years old. We must at least leave a possibility (no matter how slim) that this could be correct. We must at least leave some possibility that we could be wrong. (Or shall we say human beings are incapable of error?)
Notes;
1. The book I refer to is 'God and Evolution' by David Wilcox. This book is on the ASA recommended list; and it's blurb reads; "While discussing the earth’s age, Wilcox does a creditable job of showing that, logically, a young earth is not possible given evidence from geology and fossil coral reefs."
2. A great problem with so called 'theistic evolution' (which isn't evolution at all in my opinion) is simply this; 'how can its advocates make it seem real?" The materialist (atheist) doesn't admit to seeing any evidence of God in the world; and most Christians don't see any evidence of god in evolution. It looks for all the world like a fat, cushy pillow to sit on while one's straddling the fence. The whole point of evolutionary theory is that it does away with the need for god. (Atheism or materialism predates evolutionary theory; it's no secret what came first. T.e. seems a political strategy to me, and not scientific at all. (Not all old earthers accept evolution of course; Arthur Custance being a notable case.)
3. The theistic evolutionist tells the young earth creationist; 'you must accept the 'decrees' of science. If the 'best' scientists of the day say x is true, we must all accept this... whether we want to or not.' But yet the theistic evolutionists doesn't accept the claim that God has nothing to do with evolution... that evolution is a purely naturalistic process. So he doesn't follow his own rule. (i.e. he tells the YE Christian to just accept what 'science' says, but he doesn't do this himself.)
4. I'm not entirely dissatisfied with the model that states the earth (or a 'recreated' earth) might be young, while the universe itself is old. This might be easiest to picture if we see it in terms of science fiction imagery. In an 'old' universe god might have taken an 'uninhabitable' planet, and then made it fit for earthly creatures to live in. (Sf writers call this terraforming.) I neither accept it or reject it outright. (Having said that I don't hold out much hope for it.)
- Kim Stanley Robinson wrote a trilogy of novels a few years ago on 'terraforming' Mars.
5. Terraforming definition from Wikipedia;
- the application of technology for the purpose of influencing the global properties of a planet. The goal of this theoretical task is usually to make other worlds habitable for life.
- Perhaps the best-known type of planetary engineering is terraforming, by which a planet's surface conditions are altered to be more like those of Earth. Other terms used for particular types of planetary engineering include caeliforming, for the creation of an Earth-like atmosphere, and ecopoiesis for the introduction of an ecology to a lifeless environment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)