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.