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