How Atheistic Is Darwinism?
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Many evolutionary biologists argue that the theory of evolution is religiously neutral. Why then, does Nature, arguably the most widely read pro-evolution journal in the world, seem to go out of its way to glorify atheism and present religion as an evolutionary artifact? Clearly, whatever evolved as an adaptation by an unguided process cannot have any claim to Truth or correspondence to reality. Faith is contrasted with science, the closest thing man can ever come to knowledge of what is really out there. It goes without saying that this assumption leads to a completely atheistic view of the universe. Consider the latest issue:
2. 'Rapprochement or human sacrifice? In an Editorial in the July 12 issue,1 Nature praised theistic evolutionist Francis Collins of the Human Genome Project for “reaching out, from an exalted position in the world of science, to the realm of faith” in his new book, The Language of God (Free Press, 2006). While calling his overture a “laudable ambition,” the editors also expressed anti-religious sentiments when criticizing the moral positions of religious leaders who oppose presumably scientific positions about stem cells and condom use:
- there is nothing scientific about stem cells; there is nothing scientific in being in favor of using them; there is nothing scientific about not wanting to use them. One wonders why people can't see this. The fact a scientist takes a position on it has nothing to do with making that position 'scientific.' This is a joke.
3. "They ['religious' leaders] also irritate or enrage those (probably comparable in number) who are agnostics and atheists. After all, to many people, including scientists, the world simply makes more sense without the existence of God, and religious interventions are either offensive or irrelevant."
- one gets tired of these silly word games. These intellectual children never stop to define 'religion' for us; and play the game of pretending secular, e. humanism isn't a religion. (The word religion is obsolete, and needs to be replaced with world view.)
- makes sense? makes sense? is that a scientific theory of some kind... pray tell us all about it.
- apparently they can't imagine that christians are offended by atheism, and the things atheists do. (Like tearing down churches, like turning churches into museums for atheism, like endless disparagement, like banning churches by zoning bylaws, like forcing down steeples and stopping church bells, and on and on...
4. "In response, some scientists are tempted either to publicly dismiss religious belief, or else to argue stridently against it. The latter approach is valuable in that it exposes religious dogmas to rational consideration and leads to their abandonment where they conflict with reality.''
- that's real pc precious that is. Apparently we're supposed to believe the secular elite don't hold dogmatic positions. Yeah right.
- reality? now what's that boys? Is that a 'scientific' concept? Tell me what reality is... and how you know it. Prove that such a thing as reality exists, and how you know it.
- one gets tired of the idiot claim christians aren't rational. (And who is speaking anyway? some mindless bag of chemicals? some mindless gene carrier? who? what? and how do chemicals know what is or is not rational?)
5. 'The editorial also pointed out Collins’ book was “unsparing in its criticism of both creationism and intelligent design,” but then was not impressed by his case for a Creator of any kind: “Even so, his reasons for believing in God and for becoming a devout Christian are unlikely to sway anyone who doesn’t already believe.”
- now boys, you aren't being nice to Francis. Here he went out of his way to dump on creationists and ID people and you smack him for it. That's being ungrateful.
6. Erika Check reported on Collins’ book in the same issue.2 Her opening lines were not particularly friendly to religion:
"Is it really possible to combine dedication to science with belief in God? In a new book, prominent US scientist Francis Collins sets out his case for combining a strong religious faith with a zeal for the scientific method. But his views have already sparked debate, with critics suggesting that more talk of religion is the last thing that science needs."
- apparently debate is an evil of some kind :=)
- I know you're trying desperately to be sophisticated Erika but you apparently don't realize personification is a logical fallacy. Science isn't a person, and it therefore has no needs. Science is a word. Okay? Got it?
7. "Many scientists disagree strongly with such arguments. Some suggest that science is on the defensive today – not just in the United States – and that society needs exactly the opposite of what Collins suggests: less talk about faith and more about reason."
- dear Erika, you haven't thought very deeply about issues philosophical have you? All human beings operate in terms of faith, even those really, really clever people called scientists. (And even yourself Erika.)
- in this single issue of your lovely magazine people have spoken as if truth exists, as if rationality exists, as if we know whether things make sense or not, as if a thing called reason exists, as if reality exists, as if people knew what was right or wrong in terms of stem cell use, as if moral truth existed, that it's possible for a person to know what society needs (is anyone really that smart Erika? even you? and isn't society an abstraction anyway?) and so on. It takes faith to believe these things Erika. They can't be proved Erika.
8. "Religious concerns are largely behind the US law restricting federal funding of stem-cell research, for example. And many feel threatened by the influence of intelligent design in science education.''
- you seem to know what religion is Erika. (And I presume what it is not.) Maybe you'd like to define it for us, and then tell us why the definition you favor (out of the many dozens, if not hundreds) should be taken as valid.
- tell us what a 'religious concern' is Erika. We'd like to know. (And we'd like to know How you know this.)
- do you or don't you believe in a democratic society Erika?
- we all feel threatened Erika.
Summary;
The atheist requires a great deal of faith to be able to believe the materialistic account of the universe.
a. He or she has to believe the universe somehow popped into existence on its own... gave birth to itself... somehow. As far as I'm concerned this is impossible, and makes no sense.
b. the atheist has to believe that living forms somehow 'emerged' from inert chemicals. Again, I find this impossible... but the atheist has to find the faith to believe this incredible story. (Unless they just accept this idea and others as if they were some kind of cultural furniture.)
c. the atheist has to believe that the first two miracles happened, then he has to believe living organisms somehow climbed a ladder of biological sophistication.... a ladder of information.... a ladder with no rungs... Somehow the necessary information 'emerges' out of the void to make this possible.
d. the atheist has to believe intelligence came from non-intelligence.
e. the atheist has to believe personality emerged from the non-personal.
f. these are just a few of the impossibilities the atheist has to hold by faith. None of these can be proven... they are faith claims.
Notes;
1. source; http://creationsafaris.com/crev200607.htm#20060712a
07/12/2006
2. Erika Check, “Genomics luminary weighs in on US faith debate,” Nature 442, 114-115(13 July 2006) | doi:10.1038/442114b; Published online 12 July 2006.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Creation and the Greeks
If you listen to the professors who currently parade on campus, they will tell you the ancient Greeks didn't know anything about the creator God revealed to us in the Bible and especially in the book of Genesis. In a recent course from TTC, David Roochnik (in a series on Plato's Republic) assures us that Plato didn't know anything about the God of the bible. (He compares the concept of the 'good' with the the biblical idea of God.) This is the story that students are being given; and have been for at least a couple generations I guess. (In the last year or two I've heard this from Joseph Koterski and from Peter Kreeft.) I believe this is modern myth making, and is utterly false.
My main reason for believing this notion is false is that it flatly contradicts what the bible says. Genesis makes it clear that all mankind had a single parenting couple. It makes clear the whole world was repopulated after the Flood from a single family. If this is true it's nonsense to claim the Greeks didn't know of the creator Noah talked about. (It's common to speak of the Greeks as if they popped up from under a rock, but they clearly can be traced back to earlier groups in the middle east.) It not only contradicts the bible to believe the Greeks were ignorant of a creator God, it violates common sense and what we know of history.
Our secular (Humanist) professors like to pretend the Greeks didn't have knowledge of earlier civilizations because they want everyone to believe that the Greeks invented all things. (Over the years I'm sure I've heard one or another professor credit the Greeks with the invention of all things.) They do this because they want their students to believe that its Humanism (autonomous reason, working independently of god's revelation) that is responsible for everything good thing on earth. This story is a myth; and worse than this it's an intellectual scandal. The Greeks were well aware of the knowledge of earlier civilizations (the Egyptian, the Babylonian, etc.) and stole from them liberally. (You notice they weren't big on footnotes, the Greeks, and that they refused to give anyone credit for the ideas they stole.) The Greeks (of the Periclean age let's say) travelled widely... and had for centuries. It's ridiculous to pretend they didn't know of ancient Israel, of Abraham, of Job and of Noah. It's ridiculous to say they weren't aware of the Genesis account of creation. (Both in the form written down by Moses, and in earlier accounts.)
Just recently I came across the following ancient 'hymn' while reading 'In the minds of men' by Ian Taylor.
'Pettinato provides the translation to this remarkable hymn of praise written, it will be recalled, a thousand years before the biblical text and thus completely refuting the notion of oral tradition:
"Lord of heaven and earth
the earth was not, you created it
the light of the day was not, you created it,
the morning light you had not (yet) made exist."
(Pettinato 1981, 244)
- are we supposed to believe the Greeks were unaware of such hymns?
One day all this professorial Greek worship will come to an end, and the people who perpetuated the myth will be in disgrace. The idea the ancient Greeks didn't know the creator will be exposed for the deliberate campaign of deceit it is. The idea the Greeks invented all things will simply be laughed at.
Notes;
1. Arthur Custance makes a case for Monotheism being the view held by the most ancient peoples in; Doorway paper #34. (From monotheism to polytheism)
2. 'In the Minds of Men' - Ian Taylor/ch. 14. (Online here)
3. I remember reading once that 'Jewish' traders had established themselves in Greece, long before the time of Socrates, but I'm afraid I can't find the reference.
4. I believe the Greeks went (very early on in their existence as a people) from a belief in the true creator God, to a debauched polytheism, to a rejection of that polytheism to agnosticism and even materialism. (The so called Greek gods seem much more like characters out of a satiric play than anything else. It's hard to imagine anyone ever believed they had real existence.)
5. This is speculation on my part, but are we supposed to believe that the idea 'all is water' wasn't influenced by Genesis? Are we supposed to believe that the dialogues of Plato weren't 'influenced' by the book of Job? Isn't Plato's idea of the forms just a secularized version of the creation account?
6. One day someone will write a book refuting the 'groupie' adulation of the Greeks, and become world famous. (I hope it will be you.)
My main reason for believing this notion is false is that it flatly contradicts what the bible says. Genesis makes it clear that all mankind had a single parenting couple. It makes clear the whole world was repopulated after the Flood from a single family. If this is true it's nonsense to claim the Greeks didn't know of the creator Noah talked about. (It's common to speak of the Greeks as if they popped up from under a rock, but they clearly can be traced back to earlier groups in the middle east.) It not only contradicts the bible to believe the Greeks were ignorant of a creator God, it violates common sense and what we know of history.
Our secular (Humanist) professors like to pretend the Greeks didn't have knowledge of earlier civilizations because they want everyone to believe that the Greeks invented all things. (Over the years I'm sure I've heard one or another professor credit the Greeks with the invention of all things.) They do this because they want their students to believe that its Humanism (autonomous reason, working independently of god's revelation) that is responsible for everything good thing on earth. This story is a myth; and worse than this it's an intellectual scandal. The Greeks were well aware of the knowledge of earlier civilizations (the Egyptian, the Babylonian, etc.) and stole from them liberally. (You notice they weren't big on footnotes, the Greeks, and that they refused to give anyone credit for the ideas they stole.) The Greeks (of the Periclean age let's say) travelled widely... and had for centuries. It's ridiculous to pretend they didn't know of ancient Israel, of Abraham, of Job and of Noah. It's ridiculous to say they weren't aware of the Genesis account of creation. (Both in the form written down by Moses, and in earlier accounts.)
Just recently I came across the following ancient 'hymn' while reading 'In the minds of men' by Ian Taylor.
'Pettinato provides the translation to this remarkable hymn of praise written, it will be recalled, a thousand years before the biblical text and thus completely refuting the notion of oral tradition:
"Lord of heaven and earth
the earth was not, you created it
the light of the day was not, you created it,
the morning light you had not (yet) made exist."
(Pettinato 1981, 244)
- are we supposed to believe the Greeks were unaware of such hymns?
One day all this professorial Greek worship will come to an end, and the people who perpetuated the myth will be in disgrace. The idea the ancient Greeks didn't know the creator will be exposed for the deliberate campaign of deceit it is. The idea the Greeks invented all things will simply be laughed at.
Notes;
1. Arthur Custance makes a case for Monotheism being the view held by the most ancient peoples in; Doorway paper #34. (From monotheism to polytheism)
2. 'In the Minds of Men' - Ian Taylor/ch. 14. (Online here)
3. I remember reading once that 'Jewish' traders had established themselves in Greece, long before the time of Socrates, but I'm afraid I can't find the reference.
4. I believe the Greeks went (very early on in their existence as a people) from a belief in the true creator God, to a debauched polytheism, to a rejection of that polytheism to agnosticism and even materialism. (The so called Greek gods seem much more like characters out of a satiric play than anything else. It's hard to imagine anyone ever believed they had real existence.)
5. This is speculation on my part, but are we supposed to believe that the idea 'all is water' wasn't influenced by Genesis? Are we supposed to believe that the dialogues of Plato weren't 'influenced' by the book of Job? Isn't Plato's idea of the forms just a secularized version of the creation account?
6. One day someone will write a book refuting the 'groupie' adulation of the Greeks, and become world famous. (I hope it will be you.)
Thursday, July 17, 2008
The Attack of the Giant Sea Sponge
Psych Prof Advocates Human/Chimp Hybrids – But only to Offend Christians - By Hilary White
Quotes and comments;
1. WASHINGTON, July 28, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In an op ed piece in the LA Times, David P. Barash, a professor of psychology at the University of Washington, says that reproductive facilities should work towards creating a race of human/chimpanzee hybrids, but, he admits, only because it would offend Christians.
- Gee; why not do it to offend Muslims and Jews?
2. 'Some geneticists have postulated that their distant evolutionary ancestors may have interbred with those of chimps, and Barash argues that this means there is no moral difference between a human being and a chimpanzee, or indeed, between a human being and a sea sponge.'
- don't you just love these idiot tales from Darwinia. (I think we can assume many of these myth makers have similar motivations to Barash.)
- there isn't a molecule of evidence for this repulsive story. (But then many evolutionists so love to to spit on creationists, that evidence doesn't matter. Some of these people are consumed with hatred.)
- I ask you; would you believe a word this man has to say to you about origins? (And he's merely being more honest than many of his like 'minded' colleagues.)
- I remind you that professors like this like to pretend to be great experts on ethics. (They love being appointed to ethics committees, and get paid a hundred or more dollars an hour to drink coffee and chat people up... or so I'm told.) But this great expert' doesn't know the difference between a human being and a sponge. (Does this mean he also likes to offend sponges :=)
- so why would the LA Times publish such a thing? to offend Christians?
- why would anyone continue to buy this paper? to offend Christians? That sounds irrational to be sure; but so is the story and its publication; not to mention its author.
- here's the endgame of materialism; people are no different than sea sponges... and we know how they get treated. (One wonders why he didn't say no different than rocks.)
- contra idiocy like this, only persons can be moral; but this simple and basic truth is unavailable to the consistent materialist. (With its incumbent continuity among all things.)
3. 'The psychology professor looks forward to the day when IVF facilities will create human/animal hybrids. He reveals, however, that his motivation is not a pure interest in advancing science, but his hatred for “know-nothing anti-evolutionism,” and “religious fundamentalists,” who hold human life to be sacred.'
- psychology professor! You know how debauched and depraved academia is when clowns like this dress up as psychology professors. (Psychology originally referred to the study of the soul.) At least they should sail under an honest flag; but playing word games is all the rage on campus... and no one acts with integrity or honesty. This anti-Christian should call himself what he is, a chimp who hates Christianity and human beings. (Or maybe he should call himself a sea sponge that hates human beings.)
- this kind of demented hatred is the product of not wanting to be a human being, not wanting to be a man. Mr. Barash (mr. Embarashing) wants to live like an animal; he doesn't want to be restrained and governed by the biblical model of man. He wants to be half boy and half animal; and spend his life frolicking on campus the way the dogs do.
4. 'Barash says he advocates interbreeding humans with animals not because it would be a good idea in itself, but because it would offend believers. “In these dark days of know-nothing anti-evolutionism,” he writes, “with religious fundamentalists occupying the White House, controlling Congress and attempting to distort the teaching of science in our schools, a powerful dose of biological reality would be healthy indeed.”
- why is it creatures like barash can't say the word christian? why is it they always use the word 'religious' instead.
- there are no c. fundamentalists in the white house that I know of; certainly not the war mongering socialist george bush.
- how does a chimp know all this? how does a sea sponge?
- healthy? what's healthy and how does this sea sponge know it?
- reality? reality! this from a man who claims there's no moral difference between a human being and a sea sponge! Pretty funny stuff.
5. 'Barash says that creating animal/human hybrids would effectively quash the belief that “the human species, unlike all others, possesses a spark of the divine and that we therefore stand outside nature.”
- if there's no difference (this from our expert on reality) why is it men have these beliefs and animals don't? why is it men have 'psychologists' (or used to) and animals don't?
- how does he know all this? is he a sea sponge prophet?
- you know; I don't see animals suggesting these schemes... I wonder why? after all there's no difference between us. (Or no difference that you highly educated professor can see.)
- if we don't stand outside nature why is he giving us this fool's lecture? I don't see him lecturing sea sponges and other marine creatures.
- if man isn't different why is it people' like this want to offend others in the most vile way they can imagine. I can't see a sea sponge engaging in such fantasies of rage and revenge. I don't see any animals trying to offend sea sponges. (Or even nasty old crabs.)
6. “Should geneticists and developmental biologists succeed once again in joining human and nonhuman animals in a viable organism,” Barash writes, “it would be difficult and perhaps impossible for the special pleaders to maintain the fallacy that Homo sapiens is uniquely disconnected from the rest of life.”
- once again? what's that all about?
- how does Mr. chimp know all this? Is he using a sea sponge for a crystal ball?
- life? there's no such thing as life; there's only various living creatures.
- if Mr. chimp doesn't believe he's uniquely 'disconnected' (whatever that means) why is he a college professor? I don't see sea sponges devoting their lives to teaching lies about human beings and the world in general. (Maybe he's too obsessed with his perverted fantasies to notice such things.)
7. 'One of the ideological offshoots of Darwinsim is radical environmentalism, advocates of which hold that human beings are a kind of virus threatening the earth’s ecosystems. According to the pure materialist philosophy, the environmental threat is directly the fault of “a bogus ‘faith based’ worldview,” the “Judeo-Christian proclamation of radical discontinuity between people and the rest of ‘creation.’”
- only a nitwit who stopped his reading with Lynn White's brief essay could believe such drivel. All people believe human beings and animals belong to radically separate groups.
- intellectual driftwood like this have apparently never studied the destructive practices of communist nations and most 'primitive' tribes. (They seem to know as much about the subject as sea sponges.)
Notes;
1. If human life isn't 'sacred' (as he claims) why does he care what goes on in the world? I don't see animals showing any concern? Why does he care about science? I don't see sea sponge conferences on science. I don't see animals caring about arcane arguments over origins and philosophical questions of continuity or discontinuity. His main claim is so utterly absurd it's a wonder anyone can make it. (Clearly no one believes these claims; not even their most vocal champions.)
2. If there's no moral difference between a human being and a chimp or a sea anemone (sorry, sponge) how can there be any moral difference between human beings? This makes no sense; i.e. if moral differences (or differences in general) don't exist, there can't be any moral standard by which to judge people. (But I guess this is a little too profound for our professor.)
3. If we're going to have such experiments I nominate this moron for the human partner.
- What? you find that comment offensive? If you do you've got all the evidence you need that you are different from a chimp or a sea sponge. They (could they have understood the comment) wouldn't have been offended in the slightest.
4. All 'there is no difference' arguments are self-refuting; because if there truly is no difference there can be no argument. (i.e. if all is one, there is no way way to make a claim, there is no truth, and there is no falsity.)
If there is no moral difference between a human being and a bee (humming) why is Barash getting upset?
Quotes and comments;
1. WASHINGTON, July 28, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In an op ed piece in the LA Times, David P. Barash, a professor of psychology at the University of Washington, says that reproductive facilities should work towards creating a race of human/chimpanzee hybrids, but, he admits, only because it would offend Christians.
- Gee; why not do it to offend Muslims and Jews?
2. 'Some geneticists have postulated that their distant evolutionary ancestors may have interbred with those of chimps, and Barash argues that this means there is no moral difference between a human being and a chimpanzee, or indeed, between a human being and a sea sponge.'
- don't you just love these idiot tales from Darwinia. (I think we can assume many of these myth makers have similar motivations to Barash.)
- there isn't a molecule of evidence for this repulsive story. (But then many evolutionists so love to to spit on creationists, that evidence doesn't matter. Some of these people are consumed with hatred.)
- I ask you; would you believe a word this man has to say to you about origins? (And he's merely being more honest than many of his like 'minded' colleagues.)
- I remind you that professors like this like to pretend to be great experts on ethics. (They love being appointed to ethics committees, and get paid a hundred or more dollars an hour to drink coffee and chat people up... or so I'm told.) But this great expert' doesn't know the difference between a human being and a sponge. (Does this mean he also likes to offend sponges :=)
- so why would the LA Times publish such a thing? to offend Christians?
- why would anyone continue to buy this paper? to offend Christians? That sounds irrational to be sure; but so is the story and its publication; not to mention its author.
- here's the endgame of materialism; people are no different than sea sponges... and we know how they get treated. (One wonders why he didn't say no different than rocks.)
- contra idiocy like this, only persons can be moral; but this simple and basic truth is unavailable to the consistent materialist. (With its incumbent continuity among all things.)
3. 'The psychology professor looks forward to the day when IVF facilities will create human/animal hybrids. He reveals, however, that his motivation is not a pure interest in advancing science, but his hatred for “know-nothing anti-evolutionism,” and “religious fundamentalists,” who hold human life to be sacred.'
- psychology professor! You know how debauched and depraved academia is when clowns like this dress up as psychology professors. (Psychology originally referred to the study of the soul.) At least they should sail under an honest flag; but playing word games is all the rage on campus... and no one acts with integrity or honesty. This anti-Christian should call himself what he is, a chimp who hates Christianity and human beings. (Or maybe he should call himself a sea sponge that hates human beings.)
- this kind of demented hatred is the product of not wanting to be a human being, not wanting to be a man. Mr. Barash (mr. Embarashing) wants to live like an animal; he doesn't want to be restrained and governed by the biblical model of man. He wants to be half boy and half animal; and spend his life frolicking on campus the way the dogs do.
4. 'Barash says he advocates interbreeding humans with animals not because it would be a good idea in itself, but because it would offend believers. “In these dark days of know-nothing anti-evolutionism,” he writes, “with religious fundamentalists occupying the White House, controlling Congress and attempting to distort the teaching of science in our schools, a powerful dose of biological reality would be healthy indeed.”
- why is it creatures like barash can't say the word christian? why is it they always use the word 'religious' instead.
- there are no c. fundamentalists in the white house that I know of; certainly not the war mongering socialist george bush.
- how does a chimp know all this? how does a sea sponge?
- healthy? what's healthy and how does this sea sponge know it?
- reality? reality! this from a man who claims there's no moral difference between a human being and a sea sponge! Pretty funny stuff.
5. 'Barash says that creating animal/human hybrids would effectively quash the belief that “the human species, unlike all others, possesses a spark of the divine and that we therefore stand outside nature.”
- if there's no difference (this from our expert on reality) why is it men have these beliefs and animals don't? why is it men have 'psychologists' (or used to) and animals don't?
- how does he know all this? is he a sea sponge prophet?
- you know; I don't see animals suggesting these schemes... I wonder why? after all there's no difference between us. (Or no difference that you highly educated professor can see.)
- if we don't stand outside nature why is he giving us this fool's lecture? I don't see him lecturing sea sponges and other marine creatures.
- if man isn't different why is it people' like this want to offend others in the most vile way they can imagine. I can't see a sea sponge engaging in such fantasies of rage and revenge. I don't see any animals trying to offend sea sponges. (Or even nasty old crabs.)
6. “Should geneticists and developmental biologists succeed once again in joining human and nonhuman animals in a viable organism,” Barash writes, “it would be difficult and perhaps impossible for the special pleaders to maintain the fallacy that Homo sapiens is uniquely disconnected from the rest of life.”
- once again? what's that all about?
- how does Mr. chimp know all this? Is he using a sea sponge for a crystal ball?
- life? there's no such thing as life; there's only various living creatures.
- if Mr. chimp doesn't believe he's uniquely 'disconnected' (whatever that means) why is he a college professor? I don't see sea sponges devoting their lives to teaching lies about human beings and the world in general. (Maybe he's too obsessed with his perverted fantasies to notice such things.)
7. 'One of the ideological offshoots of Darwinsim is radical environmentalism, advocates of which hold that human beings are a kind of virus threatening the earth’s ecosystems. According to the pure materialist philosophy, the environmental threat is directly the fault of “a bogus ‘faith based’ worldview,” the “Judeo-Christian proclamation of radical discontinuity between people and the rest of ‘creation.’”
- only a nitwit who stopped his reading with Lynn White's brief essay could believe such drivel. All people believe human beings and animals belong to radically separate groups.
- intellectual driftwood like this have apparently never studied the destructive practices of communist nations and most 'primitive' tribes. (They seem to know as much about the subject as sea sponges.)
Notes;
1. If human life isn't 'sacred' (as he claims) why does he care what goes on in the world? I don't see animals showing any concern? Why does he care about science? I don't see sea sponge conferences on science. I don't see animals caring about arcane arguments over origins and philosophical questions of continuity or discontinuity. His main claim is so utterly absurd it's a wonder anyone can make it. (Clearly no one believes these claims; not even their most vocal champions.)
2. If there's no moral difference between a human being and a chimp or a sea anemone (sorry, sponge) how can there be any moral difference between human beings? This makes no sense; i.e. if moral differences (or differences in general) don't exist, there can't be any moral standard by which to judge people. (But I guess this is a little too profound for our professor.)
3. If we're going to have such experiments I nominate this moron for the human partner.
- What? you find that comment offensive? If you do you've got all the evidence you need that you are different from a chimp or a sea sponge. They (could they have understood the comment) wouldn't have been offended in the slightest.
4. All 'there is no difference' arguments are self-refuting; because if there truly is no difference there can be no argument. (i.e. if all is one, there is no way way to make a claim, there is no truth, and there is no falsity.)
If there is no moral difference between a human being and a bee (humming) why is Barash getting upset?
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Creation (and appreciation) vs. Materialism (and criticism)
All of academia (or so it would seem) has given itself over to the mania of criticism. It doesn't matter what course you take, what you get is the same; a critique of traditional, Christian society by so called political correctness. One might think this is the only subject being taught. PC is a new religion invented by professors, and it's used to radically critique all things. If x violates these standards, it's condemned; if it conforms it's accepted.
- and so students are taught to run before they can walk; the ignorant critique the learned, and wisdom is replaced by political opportunism.
- appreciation is lost, and a petulant mania for criticising all things takes its place. Students are taught to be unthankful, ungrateful... to look for things to complain about. Those that adopt such a way of looking at things quickly lose the ability to appreciate the world. (e.g. how good things are, how tough it is to produce goodness and order... or how rare these things are.) They have no ability to give credit or accolades. They are encouraged to tear things down.
- unfortunately the Christian church (as a whole) has followed the same course. It's sad, but not surprising, to see college educated Christians espouse the very same beliefs as those who despise the Faith. (Is there no humanist fad they haven't adopted?) But I don't suppose we can expect anything different. If a Christian gets a humanist education what can one expect... but a humanist.
- the basis of all this confusion in the church is the idea of common ground. Christians somehow imagine they can have a common ground with those who despise Christ. With the physical world this is at least theoretically possible, but with the human world it's utterly impossible. There can't be a common ground when you come to values. (i.e. as opposed to physical data.)
- what's all this got to do with creation you ask? (We are supposed to be thinking about creation here.) I think it's got a lot to do with creation, and I'll try to give some reasons for saying so.
a. Worship;
- what we have here is a belief in a world created by God vs. a world that just happened by accident... in some kind of naturalistic process. In other words, if the world was created we have someone to thank and praise; if it wasn't we have no one to thank and praise.
b. Accountability;
- if the world happened by accident we aren't responsible to anyone; we don't owe anyone anything (let alone obedience) and we aren't subordinate to anyone. If the world was created (and us with it) then we are (or may well be) responsible to Someone. We may well have duties and obligations... and we are subordinate.
c. Reality;
- The humanist mania for criticism that we are suffering under is based on the idea reality is a human construct. Reality isn't seen as objective (existing apart from humankind) but as a subjective creation, a social invention. Reality is then something that can be constructed in any way the elite want. The idea is then that the old 'reality' must be torn down to pave the way for some utopian vision. The way to do this is criticism, and so the populace is subjected to the most radical, pervasive, and ruthless program of criticism the world has ever seen. (From what I've seen I would say that nothing has been spared. No group of people has ever suffered such a social and psychological assault. I suppose the closest parallel would be the communist attacks under Mao and similar leaders.)
- the Christian view is that there is an objective reality. (Only biblical creation can provide a basis for reality.) Reality is then not a thing that can be invented, a thing to be manipulated by the elite... not a toy for the political elite to play with. (I'm speaking in terms of pretty wide generalizations; mankind has always attempted to manipulate reality to some degree.) If reality is given man should appreciate the world not critique it as if it were some badly produced play. If reality is objective one should live in terms of it; to do so one seeks to find out what that reality is. A Christian believes he or she finds that knowledge in the Bible.
d. Under Materialism man gives no credit to anyone for anything; all things were invented by human beings. God is given credit for nothing. (This is true even of things m's can't account for, like the origin of life, the origin of intelligence, the origin of language, and so on.) Because all these things supposedly just emerged out of the void by some cosmic accident there is no basis for appreciation. It means that the world an all in it aren't valued correctly; that they end up being grossly misvalued. (And some things are correspondingly over valued.) Awe is replaced by complacency and apathy.
- if 'life' is as ubiquitous as the Sagans of the world claim it becomes hard to appreciate it as being the wondrous and indeed miraculous 'thing' the Bible claims that it is. Materialism leads to under appreciation, to a lack of sensitivity to our real situation. (And I would argue that this leads to a callousness with regard to the world and to our uniqueness.)
e. Reverence;
- If we and our world are mere cosmic accidents we need have no reverence for anything we find on the planet. (This or any other one.) If all is an accident nothing is worth preserving. We see here the basis of the mania some have for genetic engineering. If nothing was created all is up for grabs. If nothing was created all can be replaced. Some would say that materialism results in nothing being held sacred; that nothing on earth is sacred if all was an accident. The Christian I think has to see things differently. For him the creation isn't sacred (not exactly) and only God is holy. But man can be seen as having a 'sacred' duty to his Creator to take care of the creation. Man was given the earth as a home; he was made a steward over it. I see this as a duty to return to god (as best he can) the world he was given; that he should not 'tamper' with the creation in terms of genetic re-engineering. (I realize some disagree; maybe more than some.) I can't help but think it should make a difference whether one sees this world and its myriad creatures as the creation of God or the result of Accidentalism.
f. Psychology:
- If reality is a human construct all suffering must be blamed on human agents. One wonders what the effect of this on human psychology will be. What kind of person is the perpetual critic? What does it do to a person to never find anything praiseworthy or even acceptable? what does it do to a person to be endlessly criticized over everything he says, thinks or does? How does this affect politics? how does this affect the arts? (So much of the arts has become merely a whining and an attack on others. We seem drowning in the negative, the ugly, the gross.) What does this do to marriage and family? (Does it mean no one can ever now be content?)
g. Standards;
- under Materialism there are no objective standards, only subjective ones. This means criticism has an unlimited field of expression. Anything goes; nothing is exempt. There is literally no criticism that can't be made. (And they have.) Extremism is given a free rein. The only standard are the feelings that happen to percolate in the human breast. The worst human emotions become the basis of social critique. (e.g. envy, hatred, jealousy, cowardice, perverseness, vengeance, cruelty, etc.) Christianity is restrained by the moral standard of god's law. There is thus (or should be) a plethora of things outside criticism. (e.g. marriage, family, honesty, worship, prayer, charity, property, etc.) So much of the social criticism we see in our society is (in terms of C.) a critique of what is good; an attempt to destroy what is good.
h. Ingratitude;
- what does it say about man (about human nature) that he has been given a wonderful world like earth as a home but he despises it? What does it say about him that he so despises his gift he claims he has received no gift at all? (I think evolution theory is more a matter of psychology, than it it's a matter of science. Who is man? He's a creature who will thank a clerk for doing their job, but who won't give thanks to the Creator for the gift of a world.) Materialism encourages man in this hardness of heart.
i. Creation vs. a man-made world
- if there is no creator god, man is the ultimate intelligence on earth. This notion (deluded though I think it is) leads the idea the man-made object is superior to the 'natural' (created) product. A further problem is that because people think the living forms all happened by accident they don't have anywhere near the full appreciation they should have of the complexity of these organisms. Materialists have been making this same mistake (lost in this same fog) since at least the days of Haeckel. (When he imagined the 'cell' was little more than a dab of mud.) They have consistently undervalued the complexity of living things, and continue to do so. If creation were the product of an infinitely wise Being then we could expect to find an expression of this vast intelligence in what He created. Creation might not only be more complex than we can now imagine, it (and the codes that inform it) might be more complex than we can ever comprehend. (For this reason I'm opposed to genetic tampering, to genetic engineering.)
Notes;
1. If what I've said is true, why doesn't it seem to make a difference in people's lives whether they adopt creation as their model of origins? I'll try to answer that in my next post. (I don't think I have much to offer on the subject however.)
- is it because while many claim to believe in creation (or in some creation model) they don't really believe it at all? Maybe we can't. Maybe a true belief in creation is as much a gift of grace as salvation, as regeneration.
2. Who is man? He's a creature who will blame god for earthquakes, but not give him credit for the world that quakes. (As an aside I believe ancient man deliberately built structures that were earthquake proof. As an example of this, some of the large structures made of interfitted stone slabs of huge size.)
3. 'Thus, the German evolutionary biologist Ernst Haeckel would refer to the cell as a simple "homogeneous globule of plasm." To Haeckel a living cell seemed no more complex than a blob of jello.' - Steven Meyers (I've lost the reference.)
4. I don't know, but I expect most Christians are not opposed to genetic engineering.
5. Political Correctness is a new religion that is almost the opposite of biblical Christianity.
- and so students are taught to run before they can walk; the ignorant critique the learned, and wisdom is replaced by political opportunism.
- appreciation is lost, and a petulant mania for criticising all things takes its place. Students are taught to be unthankful, ungrateful... to look for things to complain about. Those that adopt such a way of looking at things quickly lose the ability to appreciate the world. (e.g. how good things are, how tough it is to produce goodness and order... or how rare these things are.) They have no ability to give credit or accolades. They are encouraged to tear things down.
- unfortunately the Christian church (as a whole) has followed the same course. It's sad, but not surprising, to see college educated Christians espouse the very same beliefs as those who despise the Faith. (Is there no humanist fad they haven't adopted?) But I don't suppose we can expect anything different. If a Christian gets a humanist education what can one expect... but a humanist.
- the basis of all this confusion in the church is the idea of common ground. Christians somehow imagine they can have a common ground with those who despise Christ. With the physical world this is at least theoretically possible, but with the human world it's utterly impossible. There can't be a common ground when you come to values. (i.e. as opposed to physical data.)
- what's all this got to do with creation you ask? (We are supposed to be thinking about creation here.) I think it's got a lot to do with creation, and I'll try to give some reasons for saying so.
a. Worship;
- what we have here is a belief in a world created by God vs. a world that just happened by accident... in some kind of naturalistic process. In other words, if the world was created we have someone to thank and praise; if it wasn't we have no one to thank and praise.
b. Accountability;
- if the world happened by accident we aren't responsible to anyone; we don't owe anyone anything (let alone obedience) and we aren't subordinate to anyone. If the world was created (and us with it) then we are (or may well be) responsible to Someone. We may well have duties and obligations... and we are subordinate.
c. Reality;
- The humanist mania for criticism that we are suffering under is based on the idea reality is a human construct. Reality isn't seen as objective (existing apart from humankind) but as a subjective creation, a social invention. Reality is then something that can be constructed in any way the elite want. The idea is then that the old 'reality' must be torn down to pave the way for some utopian vision. The way to do this is criticism, and so the populace is subjected to the most radical, pervasive, and ruthless program of criticism the world has ever seen. (From what I've seen I would say that nothing has been spared. No group of people has ever suffered such a social and psychological assault. I suppose the closest parallel would be the communist attacks under Mao and similar leaders.)
- the Christian view is that there is an objective reality. (Only biblical creation can provide a basis for reality.) Reality is then not a thing that can be invented, a thing to be manipulated by the elite... not a toy for the political elite to play with. (I'm speaking in terms of pretty wide generalizations; mankind has always attempted to manipulate reality to some degree.) If reality is given man should appreciate the world not critique it as if it were some badly produced play. If reality is objective one should live in terms of it; to do so one seeks to find out what that reality is. A Christian believes he or she finds that knowledge in the Bible.
d. Under Materialism man gives no credit to anyone for anything; all things were invented by human beings. God is given credit for nothing. (This is true even of things m's can't account for, like the origin of life, the origin of intelligence, the origin of language, and so on.) Because all these things supposedly just emerged out of the void by some cosmic accident there is no basis for appreciation. It means that the world an all in it aren't valued correctly; that they end up being grossly misvalued. (And some things are correspondingly over valued.) Awe is replaced by complacency and apathy.
- if 'life' is as ubiquitous as the Sagans of the world claim it becomes hard to appreciate it as being the wondrous and indeed miraculous 'thing' the Bible claims that it is. Materialism leads to under appreciation, to a lack of sensitivity to our real situation. (And I would argue that this leads to a callousness with regard to the world and to our uniqueness.)
e. Reverence;
- If we and our world are mere cosmic accidents we need have no reverence for anything we find on the planet. (This or any other one.) If all is an accident nothing is worth preserving. We see here the basis of the mania some have for genetic engineering. If nothing was created all is up for grabs. If nothing was created all can be replaced. Some would say that materialism results in nothing being held sacred; that nothing on earth is sacred if all was an accident. The Christian I think has to see things differently. For him the creation isn't sacred (not exactly) and only God is holy. But man can be seen as having a 'sacred' duty to his Creator to take care of the creation. Man was given the earth as a home; he was made a steward over it. I see this as a duty to return to god (as best he can) the world he was given; that he should not 'tamper' with the creation in terms of genetic re-engineering. (I realize some disagree; maybe more than some.) I can't help but think it should make a difference whether one sees this world and its myriad creatures as the creation of God or the result of Accidentalism.
f. Psychology:
- If reality is a human construct all suffering must be blamed on human agents. One wonders what the effect of this on human psychology will be. What kind of person is the perpetual critic? What does it do to a person to never find anything praiseworthy or even acceptable? what does it do to a person to be endlessly criticized over everything he says, thinks or does? How does this affect politics? how does this affect the arts? (So much of the arts has become merely a whining and an attack on others. We seem drowning in the negative, the ugly, the gross.) What does this do to marriage and family? (Does it mean no one can ever now be content?)
g. Standards;
- under Materialism there are no objective standards, only subjective ones. This means criticism has an unlimited field of expression. Anything goes; nothing is exempt. There is literally no criticism that can't be made. (And they have.) Extremism is given a free rein. The only standard are the feelings that happen to percolate in the human breast. The worst human emotions become the basis of social critique. (e.g. envy, hatred, jealousy, cowardice, perverseness, vengeance, cruelty, etc.) Christianity is restrained by the moral standard of god's law. There is thus (or should be) a plethora of things outside criticism. (e.g. marriage, family, honesty, worship, prayer, charity, property, etc.) So much of the social criticism we see in our society is (in terms of C.) a critique of what is good; an attempt to destroy what is good.
h. Ingratitude;
- what does it say about man (about human nature) that he has been given a wonderful world like earth as a home but he despises it? What does it say about him that he so despises his gift he claims he has received no gift at all? (I think evolution theory is more a matter of psychology, than it it's a matter of science. Who is man? He's a creature who will thank a clerk for doing their job, but who won't give thanks to the Creator for the gift of a world.) Materialism encourages man in this hardness of heart.
i. Creation vs. a man-made world
- if there is no creator god, man is the ultimate intelligence on earth. This notion (deluded though I think it is) leads the idea the man-made object is superior to the 'natural' (created) product. A further problem is that because people think the living forms all happened by accident they don't have anywhere near the full appreciation they should have of the complexity of these organisms. Materialists have been making this same mistake (lost in this same fog) since at least the days of Haeckel. (When he imagined the 'cell' was little more than a dab of mud.) They have consistently undervalued the complexity of living things, and continue to do so. If creation were the product of an infinitely wise Being then we could expect to find an expression of this vast intelligence in what He created. Creation might not only be more complex than we can now imagine, it (and the codes that inform it) might be more complex than we can ever comprehend. (For this reason I'm opposed to genetic tampering, to genetic engineering.)
Notes;
1. If what I've said is true, why doesn't it seem to make a difference in people's lives whether they adopt creation as their model of origins? I'll try to answer that in my next post. (I don't think I have much to offer on the subject however.)
- is it because while many claim to believe in creation (or in some creation model) they don't really believe it at all? Maybe we can't. Maybe a true belief in creation is as much a gift of grace as salvation, as regeneration.
2. Who is man? He's a creature who will blame god for earthquakes, but not give him credit for the world that quakes. (As an aside I believe ancient man deliberately built structures that were earthquake proof. As an example of this, some of the large structures made of interfitted stone slabs of huge size.)
3. 'Thus, the German evolutionary biologist Ernst Haeckel would refer to the cell as a simple "homogeneous globule of plasm." To Haeckel a living cell seemed no more complex than a blob of jello.' - Steven Meyers (I've lost the reference.)
4. I don't know, but I expect most Christians are not opposed to genetic engineering.
5. Political Correctness is a new religion that is almost the opposite of biblical Christianity.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
An argument against abolishing creationism
In the last couple years there has been much talk about abolishing creationism. In some countries various bills have been presented that would do just this. In this post I want to argue against such an undertaking.
- Many people are under the impression any talk of creation will ruin the American economy. Any criticism of evolutionary theory will destroy all science and technology. (General Electric will be ruined.) Any teaching of ID will destroy the minds of young children. And on and on it goes. Medicine will be destroyed. The American empire will collapse. The moon will fall. Witches will be burnt. The stock market will crash. (As foreign investors flee a country gone mad.) Tenure will be abolished. Although I agree that these are worthy concerns, I do think they've been exaggerated. It's true that the stock of GE might fall, but the company won't be ruined. We need to keep our wits about us, and not become paranoid.
- forgive my levity, but I do think some of these fears are exaggerated.
- I want to argue against this proposal as I said, and so I'm going to give some reasons for voting against such propositions. Not everyone will agree with all of my arguments, but I hope enough of them will be persuasive enough that I will make my case to the satisfaction of most.
1. What would our sophisticated tv hosts have to mock if we were to abolish creation in the nation? Might they not find other more sacred things to attack? certain government policies perhaps? racial quota systems? the glorious welfare state? the American empire? fast foods? even Wall Street itself, the stock market, or even (dare I even mention it) the free market itself? No, let us not take this risk. Let's keep creationism around for our great wits to kick around.... let's give them some trivial thing to busy themselves with. It's the prudent course. Let's not risk some revolution, let's not go the way of the Russian czar.
2. Surely we don't want to take the risk of having people like Richard Dawkins (Ken Miller, Stephen Pinker, Sam Harris, William Irvine, etc.) attacking the State itself? These are men of fierce disposition and sharp tongue. We don't want to have them attacking truly sacred things. No, better not to outlaw creationism. I realize that many people are bound to ban it completely, but I fear this is a grave mistake. Let our wits and sophisticates exhaust their high spirits on banal and trivial things; like pro sports, church steeples, and creationism. To ban these things (as several senators are wont to do) would give these people nothing to fight against, and they would come looking for new targets. Their opposition to creation (McDonald's, etc.) is based on personal psychology. These are put who must condemn and denounce; it's necessary to their constitutions. They need to feel superior to the masses. This is the basis of their great loathing for creation.
3. It's not a matter of creation being true or false. (Though any college educated teacher of kindergarten knows how obviously false it is.) It's rather a matter of needing something for people to fight against. All societies need scape goats, and they need internal enemies. The educated elite need something to fight against as well. The ridiculous doctrine of creationism gives people all this and more. Let's not destroy a good thing.
4. Since the liberal members of the church appear to be too busy to object to this proposal I've taken it upon myself to do so. I apologize for this, as I'm well aware I cannot do the fine job they would no doubt be able to do. I realize they're probably busy with more import issues (one immediately thinks of the Ethanol concerns and the necessity of getting gay materials into the kindergartens) but I really do think someone should address this issue. (When a better defense than mine appears I will withdraw this feeble effort from the site.)
- One of my main concerns was to address the issue before some bible thumper took up the cause. If we allow them to argue against this proposed bill I'm afraid we don't have a chance of defeating it. These people bring out a great hate in our sophisticates, and I'm afraid they will pass the bill out of some unreflective impulse. I repeat myself, but I believe it's in our best interest to keep creationism around. I hope I've been persuasive in my arguments; but I fear I haven't been.
Addendum; further arguments made to bolster what I fear is a weak case.
5. Some have suggested that we need to go further than banning creationism in the schools and in the public square, that we need to ban it in the churches as well. They say that bible classes that are now beings spent talking about creation should be spent talking about science. And while one wishes this were the case I really doubt if it would be successful in most cases. We need to accept the fact that there's just so much the befuddled minds of the masses can take in in a week. I believe they need a day of rest to allow their over worked minds time to relax, the better to absorb the great ideas of science afresh on a Monday morning.
- No one regrets the time wasted on creation sermons more than I do, but I think it's best to let sleeping dogs lie in most cases. If we destroy creationism in the church it will be hard to keep it alive among the general public. After all; if we're going to have it around as a safety valve and scapegoat someone has to believe in it. So I think this suggestion (noble as it is in motivation) is ill advised, and I caution against it.
7. One of the great advantages of keeping creationism around is that it provides people with a continual example of how silly and backward fundamentalist Christianity is. Surely we don't want to lose this great resource? Think of all the converts it gains liberal religion on a weekly basis. No, no; we mustn't kill the goose that daily lays a golden egg. If the Fundies were to abandon 6 day creationism they'd immediately gain in respectability and have to be taken a lot more seriously. Let's not be rash here. We've got a great thing going, let's not wreck it.
8. We are told that abolishing creationism will reduce social tension in our society; that this horrible conflict between the sane defenders of evolution and the irrational defenders of creation. I won't deny that, but it misses the point. People love to separate themselves into factions; it's the great passion of the human heart. Whatever we think of it, it's simply human nature to do so. To abolish creationism would simply move this conflict to another area. Order is best maintained by having people divide up over trivial issues. If they don't have trivial issues to separate over they will separate over serious ones. It's far better to have people in conflict over creationism than over far more important issues; like the place of race, the nature of the state, and so on. Here conflicts can escalate into violence and even war. No imagines this will happen over Darwin. People can get themselves all wound up over Darwin, but I doubt anyone will go to war over him. No; it's essential for maintaining the status quo that we get people to fight over trivial matters. (We especially don't want intelligent people getting involved in fighting over serious matters.)
9. Some have suggested creationists be required to wear special ribbons or badges [with Noah's ark on them perhaps] to mark them out. Again I would caution against such a plan. (I know that people maintain this would solely have the purpose of protecting children from people out to destroy them.) As I've said too many times already (or so I fear) we don't want to lose this great social resource. If we went with the ribbon proposal creationists would be afraid to defend creationism and so it would quickly die out and become useless to us.
10. Those who favor abolishing creationism (as most intelligent people do) claim that it's utterly useless in science and in the lab so we must get rid of it. It hampers and limits true science they say; it would even destroy science if given a chance. I don't like to say it but I think this verges on hysteria. I really do. Not one in a hundred Christians believes creationism has any place in the lab or in the world of commerce. But I think all this misses the point. I think science needs creationism. Why do I speak such a heresy? I'll tell you. The Fundie doctrine of creation daily shows the world how great science is and how dumb bible religion is. This alone is reason to vote against the bill. (I plead with people to think seriously on this.) We need creationism around to show people the superiority of reason. (After all, its clear to even a child that Noah never invented any technologies. All this primitive had was a raft of some sort. If he'd known science he'd have built himself a space ship to escape the flood with. Forgive the levity; but it's a serious point.)
- it's clear to anyone that even such a great man (supposedly) as Abraham never even had a refrigerator. And why? Because he was a creationist, instead of being a scientist. Let's not be rash. Let's not be hasty. If you're winning a war you don't switch tactics. Let's not get impatient. Let's not get drunk on success and make a serious blunder.
11. For those who would abolish creationism (to save the economy, to save the nation from some dark age to come) I would say that we should keep it for the sake of teaching evolution. In this this isn't obvious to some of you let me make the case. The public finds e. a hard concept to comprehend. (We need to admit this.) The great advantage of having creationism around is that we have something to compare e. to. By comparing it to creationism the student can more easily see how e. must be true. He sees the absurdity of the creationist position, and then reasons, 'well if c. is false, e. must be true.' This is really the best we can hope for in most cases. Without creationism around I suggest that it would be almost impossible to convince people of evolution.
12. Some who want to abolish creationism say we must do so as to prevent it being taught to the young. Again I disagree. (I worry about disagreeing so many times with accepted wisdom. Can I really be disagree so often and be right?) I say let the Fundamentalists teach creation to their children. I recommend it highly, and love to see them buying these creationist books for the kiddies. Why? Years later when they come to college (or even earlier for the intelligent) we can show them how absurd this creationism is, and by doing so utterly ruin their simple faith in the bible. (What a joy it is to disillusion one of these kids.)
13. To those who want to abolish creationism (for the best of all reasons, for wanting to defend the young and the ignorant, etc.) I say do we? do we really want to lose this great source of fun? Let's admit it gentlemen (and gentle women... if there are any) don't we enjoy demolishing the silly arguments put forward by the creationists? Is there a better sport available to some of us? (Would we really want to see that ridiculous museum closed down?) And the added bonus is that by demolishing these arguments we strike a blow against Book religion.
14. Beating up on creationists is a kind of rough sport for nerds if you will. It takes the place among them of football or ice hockey. Better they carve up creationists than our esteemed political leaders. Better that they be anti-creationists than anti-socialists. (I fear the appeal of Libertarianism to our young.) And think of the increased self-esteem they get in the bargain.
15. Although abolishing creationism is considered a most wise proposition by most intelligent people I think we should reconsider. Think of what might happen. As things stand now, evolutionists are united in their opposition to creationism. What will happen without this buffer? Will evolutionists fall to fighting amongst themselves and so damage the image of the theory in the public eye? I fear this might well happen; human nature being such a contrary thing. (How this contrary spirit could have evolved I'm not quite sure... but obviously it must have.) Will the fight become so unrestrained that people will deliver themselves of the critiques of the theory that at present they are with holding? Will some devastating critique emerge? Can we take the chance? No; keep c. around to keep us all together. Better to fight creationists than to fight each other.
Notes;
1. With apologies to Jonathan Swift.
- Many people are under the impression any talk of creation will ruin the American economy. Any criticism of evolutionary theory will destroy all science and technology. (General Electric will be ruined.) Any teaching of ID will destroy the minds of young children. And on and on it goes. Medicine will be destroyed. The American empire will collapse. The moon will fall. Witches will be burnt. The stock market will crash. (As foreign investors flee a country gone mad.) Tenure will be abolished. Although I agree that these are worthy concerns, I do think they've been exaggerated. It's true that the stock of GE might fall, but the company won't be ruined. We need to keep our wits about us, and not become paranoid.
- forgive my levity, but I do think some of these fears are exaggerated.
- I want to argue against this proposal as I said, and so I'm going to give some reasons for voting against such propositions. Not everyone will agree with all of my arguments, but I hope enough of them will be persuasive enough that I will make my case to the satisfaction of most.
1. What would our sophisticated tv hosts have to mock if we were to abolish creation in the nation? Might they not find other more sacred things to attack? certain government policies perhaps? racial quota systems? the glorious welfare state? the American empire? fast foods? even Wall Street itself, the stock market, or even (dare I even mention it) the free market itself? No, let us not take this risk. Let's keep creationism around for our great wits to kick around.... let's give them some trivial thing to busy themselves with. It's the prudent course. Let's not risk some revolution, let's not go the way of the Russian czar.
2. Surely we don't want to take the risk of having people like Richard Dawkins (Ken Miller, Stephen Pinker, Sam Harris, William Irvine, etc.) attacking the State itself? These are men of fierce disposition and sharp tongue. We don't want to have them attacking truly sacred things. No, better not to outlaw creationism. I realize that many people are bound to ban it completely, but I fear this is a grave mistake. Let our wits and sophisticates exhaust their high spirits on banal and trivial things; like pro sports, church steeples, and creationism. To ban these things (as several senators are wont to do) would give these people nothing to fight against, and they would come looking for new targets. Their opposition to creation (McDonald's, etc.) is based on personal psychology. These are put who must condemn and denounce; it's necessary to their constitutions. They need to feel superior to the masses. This is the basis of their great loathing for creation.
3. It's not a matter of creation being true or false. (Though any college educated teacher of kindergarten knows how obviously false it is.) It's rather a matter of needing something for people to fight against. All societies need scape goats, and they need internal enemies. The educated elite need something to fight against as well. The ridiculous doctrine of creationism gives people all this and more. Let's not destroy a good thing.
4. Since the liberal members of the church appear to be too busy to object to this proposal I've taken it upon myself to do so. I apologize for this, as I'm well aware I cannot do the fine job they would no doubt be able to do. I realize they're probably busy with more import issues (one immediately thinks of the Ethanol concerns and the necessity of getting gay materials into the kindergartens) but I really do think someone should address this issue. (When a better defense than mine appears I will withdraw this feeble effort from the site.)
- One of my main concerns was to address the issue before some bible thumper took up the cause. If we allow them to argue against this proposed bill I'm afraid we don't have a chance of defeating it. These people bring out a great hate in our sophisticates, and I'm afraid they will pass the bill out of some unreflective impulse. I repeat myself, but I believe it's in our best interest to keep creationism around. I hope I've been persuasive in my arguments; but I fear I haven't been.
Addendum; further arguments made to bolster what I fear is a weak case.
5. Some have suggested that we need to go further than banning creationism in the schools and in the public square, that we need to ban it in the churches as well. They say that bible classes that are now beings spent talking about creation should be spent talking about science. And while one wishes this were the case I really doubt if it would be successful in most cases. We need to accept the fact that there's just so much the befuddled minds of the masses can take in in a week. I believe they need a day of rest to allow their over worked minds time to relax, the better to absorb the great ideas of science afresh on a Monday morning.
- No one regrets the time wasted on creation sermons more than I do, but I think it's best to let sleeping dogs lie in most cases. If we destroy creationism in the church it will be hard to keep it alive among the general public. After all; if we're going to have it around as a safety valve and scapegoat someone has to believe in it. So I think this suggestion (noble as it is in motivation) is ill advised, and I caution against it.
7. One of the great advantages of keeping creationism around is that it provides people with a continual example of how silly and backward fundamentalist Christianity is. Surely we don't want to lose this great resource? Think of all the converts it gains liberal religion on a weekly basis. No, no; we mustn't kill the goose that daily lays a golden egg. If the Fundies were to abandon 6 day creationism they'd immediately gain in respectability and have to be taken a lot more seriously. Let's not be rash here. We've got a great thing going, let's not wreck it.
8. We are told that abolishing creationism will reduce social tension in our society; that this horrible conflict between the sane defenders of evolution and the irrational defenders of creation. I won't deny that, but it misses the point. People love to separate themselves into factions; it's the great passion of the human heart. Whatever we think of it, it's simply human nature to do so. To abolish creationism would simply move this conflict to another area. Order is best maintained by having people divide up over trivial issues. If they don't have trivial issues to separate over they will separate over serious ones. It's far better to have people in conflict over creationism than over far more important issues; like the place of race, the nature of the state, and so on. Here conflicts can escalate into violence and even war. No imagines this will happen over Darwin. People can get themselves all wound up over Darwin, but I doubt anyone will go to war over him. No; it's essential for maintaining the status quo that we get people to fight over trivial matters. (We especially don't want intelligent people getting involved in fighting over serious matters.)
9. Some have suggested creationists be required to wear special ribbons or badges [with Noah's ark on them perhaps] to mark them out. Again I would caution against such a plan. (I know that people maintain this would solely have the purpose of protecting children from people out to destroy them.) As I've said too many times already (or so I fear) we don't want to lose this great social resource. If we went with the ribbon proposal creationists would be afraid to defend creationism and so it would quickly die out and become useless to us.
10. Those who favor abolishing creationism (as most intelligent people do) claim that it's utterly useless in science and in the lab so we must get rid of it. It hampers and limits true science they say; it would even destroy science if given a chance. I don't like to say it but I think this verges on hysteria. I really do. Not one in a hundred Christians believes creationism has any place in the lab or in the world of commerce. But I think all this misses the point. I think science needs creationism. Why do I speak such a heresy? I'll tell you. The Fundie doctrine of creation daily shows the world how great science is and how dumb bible religion is. This alone is reason to vote against the bill. (I plead with people to think seriously on this.) We need creationism around to show people the superiority of reason. (After all, its clear to even a child that Noah never invented any technologies. All this primitive had was a raft of some sort. If he'd known science he'd have built himself a space ship to escape the flood with. Forgive the levity; but it's a serious point.)
- it's clear to anyone that even such a great man (supposedly) as Abraham never even had a refrigerator. And why? Because he was a creationist, instead of being a scientist. Let's not be rash. Let's not be hasty. If you're winning a war you don't switch tactics. Let's not get impatient. Let's not get drunk on success and make a serious blunder.
11. For those who would abolish creationism (to save the economy, to save the nation from some dark age to come) I would say that we should keep it for the sake of teaching evolution. In this this isn't obvious to some of you let me make the case. The public finds e. a hard concept to comprehend. (We need to admit this.) The great advantage of having creationism around is that we have something to compare e. to. By comparing it to creationism the student can more easily see how e. must be true. He sees the absurdity of the creationist position, and then reasons, 'well if c. is false, e. must be true.' This is really the best we can hope for in most cases. Without creationism around I suggest that it would be almost impossible to convince people of evolution.
12. Some who want to abolish creationism say we must do so as to prevent it being taught to the young. Again I disagree. (I worry about disagreeing so many times with accepted wisdom. Can I really be disagree so often and be right?) I say let the Fundamentalists teach creation to their children. I recommend it highly, and love to see them buying these creationist books for the kiddies. Why? Years later when they come to college (or even earlier for the intelligent) we can show them how absurd this creationism is, and by doing so utterly ruin their simple faith in the bible. (What a joy it is to disillusion one of these kids.)
13. To those who want to abolish creationism (for the best of all reasons, for wanting to defend the young and the ignorant, etc.) I say do we? do we really want to lose this great source of fun? Let's admit it gentlemen (and gentle women... if there are any) don't we enjoy demolishing the silly arguments put forward by the creationists? Is there a better sport available to some of us? (Would we really want to see that ridiculous museum closed down?) And the added bonus is that by demolishing these arguments we strike a blow against Book religion.
14. Beating up on creationists is a kind of rough sport for nerds if you will. It takes the place among them of football or ice hockey. Better they carve up creationists than our esteemed political leaders. Better that they be anti-creationists than anti-socialists. (I fear the appeal of Libertarianism to our young.) And think of the increased self-esteem they get in the bargain.
15. Although abolishing creationism is considered a most wise proposition by most intelligent people I think we should reconsider. Think of what might happen. As things stand now, evolutionists are united in their opposition to creationism. What will happen without this buffer? Will evolutionists fall to fighting amongst themselves and so damage the image of the theory in the public eye? I fear this might well happen; human nature being such a contrary thing. (How this contrary spirit could have evolved I'm not quite sure... but obviously it must have.) Will the fight become so unrestrained that people will deliver themselves of the critiques of the theory that at present they are with holding? Will some devastating critique emerge? Can we take the chance? No; keep c. around to keep us all together. Better to fight creationists than to fight each other.
Notes;
1. With apologies to Jonathan Swift.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)