Friday, February 29, 2008

Six blind men and an elephant called the world

One of my favorite stories from world literature is the story of the six blind men who are instructed to examine an elephant, and then give their opinion on what they think it is.

I think most people are familiar with the story; one fellow examines the nose and says he thinks the creature is a snake, and so on... with each man examining a different part of the elephant and coming up with a different idea on what the animal is. (And all are wrong of course.)
- the parallels with the subject of man's origins seems too obvious to delineate in detail. There are many different ideas of how the universe, our home world, and man himself came into being. We have materialism, Vitalism, pantheism, biblical creationism, theistic evolution, space colonies, etc. all as ideas on how man came to be living on earth in our day. The question then is this; ''why is it we have so many different ideas on the subject of origins?" (Why people seem to care so much is another question. The level of interest may not be as high as some people believe, as I read a report recently that only 4 percent of Follywood celebrities had any interest in the subject :=)

We have so many different ideas on origins because people are looking at different parts of the elephant, so to speak. People are informed in their attempts by their world views; they restrict their efforts to only a limited amount of the evidence available.... they only look in one direction..... they only access a limited set of possible answers. No one has the time or the inclination to examine the whole elephant... so each man does a little examination and then boldly comes out with his idea on what the mystery creature is. Indeed the situation is even more complicated; it seems no one is willing to let the creature be what it is, but wants instead to force their own interpretation onto it. We see this even within the Christian camp, where there are quite acrimonious disagreements over what the elephant is.

What I see so prevalent in the 'discussion' is that our six blind men don't really want to talk to each other. They don't want to be confused by reports from elsewhere.... by evidence they don't see... by evidence not under their direct touch... They don't speak.... why? because they don't trust each other? don't like each other? don't think they need each other? want to claim the prize (for being correct) for themselves? not share it? I don't know the answers to these questions. I'm just another blind man trying to do his best. Only if there is indeed a creator God is there any final answer to this riddle.

Notes;
1. elephants are big but the subject of Origins is bigger. (Okay, that was my little joke.) People in the evolutionist side of the debate (i.e. materialism) say that origins is just one more problem to solve, no different than any other. I don't think this is true. I believe the subject of origins is in a wholly different category. It can't be settled by observation or experiment... and I think the philosopher probably has a better chance of comprehending the solution than the scientist. We can debate the subject all we want but it seems clear we will kick the bucket not knowing. For this reason I would like to see more restraint shown (on all sides) on this issue; a little more humility.
2.A Jainist version of the story says that six blind men went to determine what the elephant was like.
'The blind man who touches a leg says the elephant is like a pillar; the tail-toucher claims it's like a rope; the one who feels the trunk compares it to a tree branch; the man who felt the ear says the elephant is like a hand fan; the belly-toucher asserts it's like a wall; and the tusk feeler insists the elephant feels like a solid pipe.
A wise man explains to them;
All of you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently because each one of you touched the different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all those features what you all said.
This resolves the conflict, and is used to illustrate the principle of living in harmony with people who have different belief systems, and that truth can be stated in different ways.' - from Storymall.com
3. In an abridged version of the parable rendered into verse by U.S. poet, John Godfrey Saxe (1816-1887), six blind men went to see an elephant--each felt just a portion of the huge beast-trunk, tusks, side etc. and then, as Saxe concluded:
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong.
Though each was partly in the right,
They all were in the wrong.

Saturday, February 23, 2008

Eli Wiesel vs. creationists

Elie Wiesel Gathers Nobel Laureates to Urge Kansas to Nix ID (09/19/2005)
'Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel has gathered 38 Nobel prize winners to join him in urging the Kansas school board to reject their new science standards that question evolution. According to MSNBC News, their document calls evolution an “indispensable” foundation of biology.

In this post I want to comment on this story.

Quotes and comments;

1. I fail to see what this situation has to do with Wiesel. You'd think that he more than most would know better than to celebrate big central gov. over local government. The centralization of government power was the great evil of the twentieth century. Centralization is the core of all tyranny. You'd think someone like Wiesel would be against some central authority enforcing standards on some smaller group.

2. The fact the Nazis were motivated largely by evolutionism (through Haeckel and others) seems to have escaped Wiesel. Amazing.

3. Evolution theory isn't indispensable to anything but atheism and materialism. Scientists got along with with perfectly well before Charles Darwin popularized the old philosophical idea of the Greeks.
- And of course atheists consider evolution indispensable for waging cultural warfare against Christianity.

4. We see here how fame goes to people's heads. Wiesel (like some Hollywood starlet) somehow imagines he's an expert on all things, and that he has a right to tell distant people how to educate their children. Sound familiar Elie? sound something like Germany? I wonder how he'd like it if people from Kansas tried to enforce their educational standards on everyone in Israel?

5. We see here how fame goes to people's heads. Wiesel somehow imagines he has a right to tell distant people how to educate their children. Sound familiar Elie? He somehow imagines he's also an expert on biology. I wonder how he'd like it if people from Kansas tried to enforce their educational standards on everyone in Israel?

6. What I find strange in episodes like this (where the political elite joins hands with the evolutionary priesthood to suppress all dissent to the theory of evolution) is that they don't take the further step of banning it altogether. (Though recently in Europe there's been some talk among the pols of doing this; and in the old communist countries this was in fact done.) But if anti-evolution (as they call it) is so incredibly dangerous for high school students - so dangerous they're no one is allowed to even critique it - why isn't it dangerous for adults as well?
- The evolutionist elite are already working to ban what they call 'creationism' in private schools as well. And one wonders how long it will be before they try to ban it in the home as well. Christians need to realize that people like these will never stop. If Christians give in here, they will face even fiercer battles down the road.

7. It's sad to see a Nazi survivor team with up the evolutionary priesthood to try and destroy not only any mention of creation, any critique of evolution, but intellectual and political liberty as well. What a legacy.

Notes;
1. The only answer as I see it are private schools. I remain opposed to all government run schools; and believe everyone should educate their own children. The gov. school is the prime source of political tyranny in our day. There has never been a tyrant that hasn't taken over the schools, and run them in his own name.

Thursday, February 21, 2008

Smoky the bear vs. the creationists

Training Park Interpreters: Some Guests are Less Welcome than Others (CSSHS Journal)

Quotes and comments;

1. 'In a sad commentary on intolerance in our society, parks personnel in Canada and the United States have identified some citizens from these two countries as unwelcome influences. An article with suggestions on how to handle these unwelcome "guests" was printed in the Newsletter of interpretation Canada (Alberta Section): vol.10, no.3, November 1989, p.7. It was based on a United States National Parks training paper. The message of the article was that parks' interpreters must never lose the upper hand in dealing with creationists.'
- this is so bizarre it's almost impossible for me to believe.
- the greatest enemies of Christianity (and creation in general) are people who work within the socialist government structure. They apparently see the State as the major weapon in trying to destroy Christianity. (And our socialist seminary professors say nothing; but only heap ever more praise on the collectivist model of politics. )
- one wonders what this has to do with government. (One thing you find with socialists is that they never tell you what they think the limits of the State are. I get the distinct impression they don't think there are any.

2. 'A naturalist, when faced with someone who objects to his/her remarks about dinosaurs, or the age of rocks, is advised not to say that everyone is entitled to their own opinions. No, No! That is too conciliatory. The interpreter is rather to "evaluate" the creationist. Is the person a "gentle, soft-spoken" type who is easily cowed? The article recommends that the interpreter allow this person to speak at the end of the proceedings, when most of the crowd will have dispersed and will not hear him/her.'
- yes people; these are your tax dollars hard at work.

3 'If, alternatively, the creationist is an "aggressive shouting bully who is looking for a fight," then the interpreter is to be more aggressive too. The "bully" is to be told firmly that he must be quiet. If that does not work, the creationist is to be pushed into agreeing to some compromising definitions. Try to get him to define religion in general the article advises: "With a bit of prompting, you can get something like 'a person's concept of the Order of the Universe and his place within it, based on the written or spoken word of other people.'"
- we see a clear example here of how the war against Christianity relies very heavily upon playing the definition game. (All definition must be taken away from Christianity; i.e. all things must be redefined in terms of secular Humanism... if at all possible. We see in all this the clear substitution of one religion (C.) with another; namely evolutionary Humanism.)

4. 'Then prompt the audience to define science, the article recommends, in terms like: "Science is a concept of the Order of the Universe, and one's place within it, based on observation, experiment, and closely controlled logic."
- there are many things wrong with this bit of bumper sticker philosophy.
a. there is no such thing as a generic science.
b. there is no agreed upon definition of science.
c. science here is personified; science is word, it's an activity engaged in by different sorts of people... it is not a person.
d. science is something people do, far more than it is a concept.
e. the idea science is a concept of one's place in the universe is rather unusual one. Few people would say this.
f. science is based on observation; but clearly this definition of science wasn't... so it refutes itself. You don't see definitions of science buried in rock layers or hanging from trees.
g. we might ask if this definition of science was formulated on the basis of experiments. Obviously it was not.
h. 'closely controlled logic' - hmm... I wonder what that means. But if man's thoughts are just chemical reactions, and he has no mind, what is logic? Obviously if that's all that is, logic evaporates. If thought is just chemical reaction then thoughts can't be true or false... and there can be no logic.
i. this statement obviously has little to do with doing science; what it really is is a definition of materialism; what we have here is a definition from metaphysics, not a statement of what science is.

5. 'If the creationist persists in his remarks, the interpreter is advised to call the police to "protect the group."
- that's a remarkable and frightening statement. Unbelievable.
- the police wouldn't be called in to defend the group (please) but to protect the e. guide from being made a fool of. (And why is it all park guides must worship at the altar of Darwin? This is so bizarre it boggles the mind.)
- what we see here is that to give most people political power is to ruin them. It goes to their head and makes them act in vile and repressive ways.
- have these people NO sense of fairness? Apparently not.

Summary;
- this article is important because we get an inside glimpse of how government really works; of how the state has been re-envisioned as a tool of evolutionary Humanism. We don't usually get glimpses like this, as great pains are taken to hide what the political elite do... and what methods they use. We see the great stress on redefining all terms to make them conform to e. materialism... we see the deliberate, premeditated attack on Christians. We see the deliberate attempt to bully and silence all opponents of evolution. (And you pay for all of this folks.) What we see is the great evil caused by socialism. The more powerful the state becomes the more Christians will be persecuted. (And still our seminary professors heap endless praise on socialism. Kind of makes you wonder whose side they're on.)

Notes;
1. Editor's Note: Reprinted from Creation Science Dialogue, Vol. 17, No. 1
("Spring Dialogue," March 1990),
p.3, published by Creation Science Association of Alberta, Box 9075, Station E, Edmonton, Alberta T5P 4K1, Canada.
2. Newsletter of Interpretation? (Shades of Orwell.)
3. the parallels with communism are eerie; how in the old USSR people weren't allowed to question communism. (The ussr was sometimes referred to as the Bear.)
4. I don't know if the situation is still the same; as far as I know it is... if not worse.
5. I would like to get my hands on all these 'memos' that are sent out by bureaucrats, telling them how to wage war on Christians.
6. This attack on creationism has nothing to do with the legitimate functions of the state. What we see here is people usurping the resources of the state to fight a cultural battle.

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Should the word nature be eliminated?

Should the word nature be eliminated? - an audio lecture by John Hedley-Brooke (Available at the Faraday Institute)

My one word answer is yes.

Quotes and Comments;

1. He talks about Robert Boyle who wanted to do away with the word nature. (1686) In an article Boyle had mentioned 8 different meanings (or uses) of the word nature; and gave what he felt would be more precise words.

2. He mentions some theologian (Pannenberg?) as saying 'the reason the word nature became popular? and endured? was that people wanted to avoid using the word creation.'

Has evolution (theory) made monkeys of us all?

Primetime for “primates” - by Mark Looy (aig/2005)

In this post I'm going to make some comments on the above article.

Background: In 2005 the primates running the London Zoo put on a special exhibit, where 'scantily clad' human beings were put in a cage next to some apes.

1. 'Zoo spokeswoman Polly Wills was quoted by the AP to freely admit the exhibit’s evolution agenda; the zoo, she says, wants to teach “members of the public that the human is just another primate.”
- but if man is 'just another primate' (whatever that means) why does he have to be taught this? This makes no sense. The fact our PC elite think they have to teach human beings that they're really just apes is all the evidence a sensible person would need to see that the claim is false.
- if she believes this why is she involved in running a zoo? I don't see 'primates' doing this. Apes and monkeys could care less about the world beyond the reach of their appetites. The fact human beings operate zoos is all the evidence a person should need to know that man is not an animal.
- let me state that I don't think a single person on earth really (truly) believes they are just an animal. That they might state publicly that they do is just more evidence (as if we needed anyone) that man has a rather large streak of perversity in him. In my opinion the main reason people publicly claim that man is just an animal is that they know this will offend some people. (Which of course is more evidence man is not an animal.)
- In addition to this there's a political motivation behind bizarre programs such a this. ie. if man is just an animal he (it?) needs to be treated as an animal. i.e. needs a zookeeper. The political elite then see themselves (if we're correct in our speculations) as zookeepers for the 'animal people' that make up the general populace.

2. 'As a visible way to buttress this evolutionary claim, the zoo has the three men and five women displayed next to (but separated by a fence) their “primate relatives.” (The AP writer used these hackneyed words, “primate relatives,” which are so commonly seen in most zoos today).
- if man is just a primate why not have apes run the government? why not have apes run a zoo for humans?
As I said earlier, I don't believe the elite for a moment think of themselves as apes or animals; all this insistence that man is just an animal is merely an expression of contempt by the ruling elite. If the elite really believe this why don't they shuck their clothes and their million dollar apartments, etc. and go and live in the jungle somewhere?

3. One of the people in the cage pretending to be an ape said;
“A lot of people think humans are above other animals. When they see humans as animals here, it kind of reminds us that we’re not that special.”
- one wonders why governments spend so much time and money teaching self-esteem courses then? That makes no sense either; and is more evidence people don't really believe this twaddly that they are only animals. If kids are just animals why try to boost their self-esteem? and does it make any sense to claim an animal has low self-esteem? I can't see that it does. I don't see anyone giving self-esteem classes for monkeys.

4. 'This is not the first time a zoo has put humans on exhibit. A few years ago, the Copenhagen, Denmark zoo had two humans on display next to some primates, and it featured evolutionary themes as well. See Zoo displays humans.
Most shameful, a racist exhibit appeared 100 years ago in the Bronx Zoo of New York (and in other places, such as St. Louis, Missouri). At the Bronx Zoo, a Pygmy, a man by the name of Ota Benga, was put on display as evidence of a missing link between humans and an apelike ancestor.'
- to put human beings in a cage and call them animals is an act of blasphemy; a gob of spit directed at the Creator. And let me predict that the people who engaged in this stunt (exploiting the feeble minded) will one day look to all as foolish and repulsive as the people who put Ota Benga on display.

5. "Because our DNA is similar to the chimpanzee (a primate), it is assumed that we are therefore somehow related and that humans are nothing more than primate animals.
Similar DNA, however, does not mean common ancestry—the similarity (and there are major differences anyway) can be interpreted in terms of a Creator who uses the same DNA molecule in creating different types of creatures, whether they are elephants, chimpanzees or ants.'' - Monty White
- In creating a unified world it is a necessity to use the same basic components as it were. It's essential for the whole creation to have the same DNA; otherwise you don't have one creation, but many... and there would be chaos, not harmony as the result.

Notes;
1. this post is similar to the last post, but I hadn't read this article at the time.

Monday, February 11, 2008

Humans on display at London zoo

Crowds go ape over ‘humans’ zoo exhibit: Scantily clad homo sapiens act natural in London zoo enclosure

I think this stunt gives us a parable for looking at the damage evolutionary theory has done to people. So let's take a look at some of the buffoonery that went on.

Quotes and comments;

1. 'Caged and barely clothed, eight men and women monkeyed around for the crowds Friday in an exhibit labeled “Humans” at the London Zoo.
- this display really should have been set up outside Cambridge and Oxford where it belongs; where the idiot theory of evolution came from. And the people scratching themselves should be professors and the Darwinist clergy. (How about Denis Alexander from Faraday Institute; I think he should be there.... he could throw banana skins at the Christian anti-evolutionists who come by.)

2. “Warning: Humans in their Natural Environment” read the sign at the entrance to the exhibit, where the captives could be seen on a rock ledge in a bear enclosure, clad in bathing suits and pinned-on fig leaves. Some played with hula hoops, some waved. Visitors stopped to point and laugh, and several children could be heard asking, “Why are there people in there?”
- this at least gives us some hope not everyone in Britain is suffering from Darwinian dementia :=) Or as the bible says; ''out the mouths of babes and sucklings.'' (You have to be horribly educated, or miseducated to get the idea you're an animal.)
- one wonders why they insisted on having their own cage. If they truly believed they were just primates like any other primates you'd have thought they'd have gone into the ape or chimp cage... and had a great inter-primate party. The great fool (as kind a term as I can muster) Richard Dawkins thinks it would be a great idea to produce a man/chimp hybrid (called in evolutionary circles the humanzee). I think we should give him every opportunity to try and do so. In fact I think we should give him his own key to the chimp cage.

3. London Zoo spokeswoman Polly Wills says that’s exactly the question the zoo wants to answer. “Seeing people in a different environment, among other animals ... teaches members of the public that the human is just another primate,” Wills said.
- really? Are you just another primate Polly? and what pray tell does that mean? If that's the case why are you imprisoning fellow primates dear? Isn't that anti-primatism? I don't see apes having zoos full of human beings dear. What right have you got to imprison other animals dear?
- why didn't you put yourself in a cage Polly dear? and why isn't Richard Dawkins there? (scratching his spotty behind with the rest of his befuddled victims.)

4. 'The exhibit puts the three male and five female “homo sapiens” amid their primate relatives. While their neighbors might enjoy bananas and a good scratch, these eight have divided interests, from a chemist hoping to raise awareness about apes to a self-described actor/model and fitness enthusiast. For others, the aping around is just another forum for rampant exhibitionism and self-promotion.'
- all the eight were described as 'white.' Gee; I wonder why? It wouldn't be very pc to put folk from the Barbados in the cage would it? And why isn't this a case of racism to have only so called 'whites' in the cage? (The fact the perpetrators of this stunt took such care to be politically correct is all the evidence we need man is not an animal.)

5. 'Melissa Wecker, 21, was disappointed that the humans were wearing swimsuits beneath their fig leaves. “They’re not doing anything. It looked lots better on the news,” she complained.
- gee Polly... I don't see apes or monkeys doing that. How come? If man is just a 'primate' why does he wear clothes. Do you wear clothes Polly dear? and why pray tell.

6. 'Tom Mahoney, 26, decided to participate after his friend sent him an e-mail about the contest as a joke. Anything that draws attention to apes, he said, has his support.
“A lot of people think humans are above other animals,” he told the Associated Press. “When they see humans as animals, here, it kind of reminds us that we’re not that special.”
- another genius graduate of the government school system. He's not above animals he claims; but why then does he insist on 501 different so called rights? I don't animals getting all these rights.
- want a bet he doesn't see himself as special :=) But he's learned his lessons well. This is exactly what the political elite want people to believe. i.e. ''you're no better than a barnyard animal... so do as you're told." It's amazing to me that people just go along with this campaign to debase themselves. Does old Tom imagine the politicians of Britain think of themselves as just animals? (I didn't see any pols inside the cage by the way :=)

7. Mark Ainsworth, 21, heard about the Human Zoo on the news.
- the human zoo! That strikes me as pornographic; but I suppose it's a good term for what Darwinian ideology has done to people. i.e. made animals out of them.

“I’ve lived in this country for nine years and have never come to a zoo,” said Ainsworth. “This exhibit made us come to the zoo. Humans are animals too!”
- wow; now there's a lad whose an obvious graduate of government indoctrination. Sounds like a bright lad doesn't he?
- this is too sad to be comical... at least for me. Here's a young man who has learned his lessons well.

8. 'Like the rest of their caged neighbors, the humans had a variety of toys to keep them entertained — board games, music, paints, and balls.
They are being treated as animals, complete with keepers, but are allowed to go home each night at closing time.
- I wonder if they also had the BBC.

9. 'When visitor Peter Bohn, 42, saw the “animals” juggling, he stopped and had a good laugh.
“It’s hilarious,” he said. “It turns everything upside down. It makes you think about the humans in relation to the animals.”
- what it ought to make you think about is all the negative effects of Darwinian teaching.

10. 'After three hours, Mahoney was still having fun, except for when the wind picks up. But, he added, “I wouldn’t do it if I didn’t enjoy it.”
- three hours! If he believes he's just a primate why doesn't he intend to spend the rest of his life inside a cage at the zoo?

Conclusion; this is a priceless metaphor (symbol) for what the teaching of darwinism has done to people. It seems to have caused serious brain damage in at least some people. The trillion dollar education system labors to make man believe he's just an animal. If that's the case one wonders why anyone bothers. We don't educate animals do we? so why should we educate this animal called man?
Darwinism has degraded people to an incredible extent. It has stolen their birthright, that they were created in the image of God. Darwinism strips people of their dignity. The zoo of course is a symbol for what the political elite intend to make of our cities. People will be deprived of all opportunity to own land and forced to live in little boxes in huge mega cities... and be treated like animals at the zoo. They will have no rights but no responsibilities.... and they will be given lots of toys to play with. (And get the BBC of course; or maybe we should call it Zoo TV.
This silly stunt (no doubt financed by tax dollars) reveals the contempt the political elite have for the people.

The fact man creates zoos should be all the evidence anyone needs that he is not an animal. If further evidence is needed, we point to the fact human beings also protest the very existence of zoos... declaring them to be morally wrong. We could also point to the fact some people come to zoos to watch animals. We could point to the fact people pay to do so. We could point to the fact some people make money operating zoos. We could point to the fact people write about zoos. To believe (or to say one believes) man is just an animal one has to ignore all that evidence. (And endless amounts more.) Animals do none of these things.
Maybe the best evidence man isn't an animal is that he will freely (at least for a time) willing enter a cage and pretend to be something he's not. This doesn't prove he's dumber than the ordinary animal, only that he's more perverse. The fact some people get a kick out of masquerading as zoo animals is also evidence man is not an animal. The fact some of our political elite think it's a great joke to force students to accept the 'fact' they're just animals is even more evidence.

Sunday, February 10, 2008

Evolution for Dummies. A response to Fredric Hereen, and his article 'Making the easy sale' (Nature/2006)

Quotes and comments;

1. Article summary;
'In this modern parable for Nature’s “Futures” page, Heeren tells the story of a future when everyone owns a PAD, a Personal Advice Device. This smart, well-proven program provides the best options, displayed on our retinas, as we navigate through life’s decisions. But a problem develops for creationists when their young people start using it to evaluate claims from their preachers, such as “There is no evidence that primitive hominids ever existed.” Young people equipped with PADs find themselves looking at a sequence of hominid skulls with increasing cranial capacities over time. Those denominations whose leaders most insistently dismiss evolution have the most ‘splaining to do — until someone comes up with a PAD that thinks like we do: it rationalizes away anything its owner dislikes.'

- Best options? oh really? according to whom? forced upon us by whom? according to what standard? a relativist standard? a political statist standard? Let's be serious. The idea some PAD device could provide people with the 'best options' is laughable. Does the device program itself? is it neutral? obviously not. Are all devices the same? is that state going to enforce only a pc version it approves of?
- apparently biblical creation is going to be disproved by imagery; by showing people a sequence of 'hominid' skulls with increasing cranial capacity. That's so laughable one doesn't know where to begin. (And again we ask; who is going to draw up such a sequence?) What is or isn't a 'hominid' skull is a matter of great controversy; and it's impossible to prove the varying opinions one gets. Is there such a thing as a hominid? doesn't this just assume evolution? i.e. instead of proving it. (In my opinion there is no such thing as hominids; this is an evolutionary myth. All that has ever existed has been human beings and apes. There never was an 'progression' from one to the other. Such a thing is clearly impossible. It would require massive amounts of new information, and mutations only destroy information, they don't create it.)
- the fact you can take a number of skulls and arrange them in some kind of a pattern says nothing about evolution... or how the 'hominids' supposedly evolved into man. There are endless ways you could arrange the skulls used in textbook illustrations of so called hominid evolution. What kind of arrangement you get depends on what you're trying to prove. (The skulls aren't labled after all.) Human skulls come in many sizes and shapes; as do apes and monkeys. If you throw into the mix distortions caused by disease, malnutrition, burial damage, etc. you have a hopeless mix that is impossible to untangle. Any image of 'hominid evolution' is a work of art, not a piece of science.
- The idea great skull size is a sure indicator of higher intelligence is fallacious, both logically and scientifically.
- The idea lower layers in the fossil record are sure indicators of greater age is unprovable. Anomalies exist in abundance. The simple syllogism; the lower the older is logically fallacious. This is merely an assumption of the E. model. (And one I think is false.) The biblical model assigns most rock layers (and most fossils) to the Noahic flood; to the actual year long event, or to the several centuries thereafter..... when the great cataclysm worked its way out.
- So we can conclude by saying any such sequence of images would be entirely misleading. Of course we have to admit that evolutionists have been very successful at using deceptive imagery in the creation/evolution debate. (My favorite example of this is the infamous Nebraska Man, complete with family, that was illustrated on the evidence of a pig's tooth :=) Evolutionists hate serious debate; they much prefer fooling students with pretty pictures. (ie. of things that never happened.)
- I guess we could call this 'Evolution for Dummies' or evolution for the illiterate. (Soon the textbooks won't have any words in them at all, only nice pictures drawn by the Haeckels of the world.)
- of course what evolutionists don't like (and try to rationalize away) is evidence for the Creator, and the truth of his word.

2. 'People have come to trust their PADs implicitly. More than their spouses. More than their pastors. What human being can compete with this advice from a mind programmed to think according to our individual tastes, but immeasurably smarter, continuously updated from a world of information according to our present needs?
- isn't it interesting to find that this device has a mind, while human beings, our professors tell us, do not :=) Gee. I wonder how that works?
- the PAD device imagined (so naively) by Hereen is obviously a substitute for God. The idea that men don't need moral truth but merely information goes at least back to Aristotle. (And no doubt a lot further.) This is the basic pretense of Humanism; that man doesn't need special revelation, but only more and more information.
- but if this device is 'immeasurably' smarter (whatever that means) than people how would people know this? how would they know how to use such a device? how would they know how to use the information it provides? how could they know it was true or false information? The only way to use such a device would be to accept (ie. believe) whatever it told you. (And again I say; who is programming it? are people going to be told? will they know? will it be a tool of the collectivist state? I would imagine so.)

3. "That might have been fine in the day when, to check out that claim, a person would have had to sit down at a PC and hunt around for hours — who has time for that? But now for those who have PADs, questions like that get answered with just a few thoughts and a quick menu selection on their retinas. Presto — they're looking at a sequence of hominid photos with increasing cranial capacities over time. And seeing is believing, even if you've been home-schooled and never heard of evolution except as a naughty word. The result: anti-evolution leaders were voted out by an informed electorate.''
- the idea you can get the truth of a matter with a click is the most naive (not to mention idiotic) idea there has ever been.
- 'seeing is believing' Fred tells us. Really? That doesn't sound like science to me. If seeing were believing the sun would go around the earth.
- the dig against homeschooling is unjustified; and not a little revealing. (That a statist would slam it isn't surprising. "All hail the glorious and all powerful state.") Home schooled children are much better educated than the gov. schooled, and usually know more about evolution, not less. (Of course in government schools creation is a 'naughty' word, and one that's in fact illegal in many places... thanks to authoritarians like Hereen.)

4. 'It suggested that several of the questions were based on false preconceptions.'
- can Hereen possibly be that naive? How does this device know what is a false preconception? This is laughable. Hereen apparently doesn't know what a 'preconception' (better presupposition) is. Presuppositions (basic assumptions) aren't true or false; that's why they're pre-suppositions. i.e. they come before everything else; they're the foundation on which one builds out a world view. One doesn't prove materialism or theism; one adopts one or another because it better fits how one wants to view the world. Materialism isn't true or false in the philosophical sense; instead it's a basic life commitment. (As is a belief in creation.)

5. "It shouldn't be," said the biologist, "because the more genetics or history our bodies share with other animals, the greater the wonder at what we humans uniquely experience: morality, humour, literature, science, faith."
- that makes no sense to me. It's incoherent.... without meaningful content.
- sez who?
- the fact humans have humor, literature, etc. and animals do not, is strong evidence man did not evolve from the fruit fly.
- the fact humans and animals share some 'genetics' says nothing about evolution. It in no way proves man evolved from wombats.
- of course evolution can in no way provide us with a basis for morality. Animals aren't moral, they just are. If men are just animals why should they be moral. If man is just an animal, morality is a delusion. (But then again Hereen just rationalizes that evidence away; as he does all the rest of the evidence.)

Conclusion; a better title for this 'parable' would be 'Destroying Christian faith for fun and profit.' A truly venal bit of work. (But at least he made his easy sale to Nature; always ready to buy the latest bit of spit lobbed at biblical creation.)

p.s. In a cutesy note at the end of the 'parable' (sf short would be a better term) we're told Hereen is writing a book on evolution... and is afraid he'll evolve into something other than human before he's done. I'll give him my opinion. It is utterly impossible for chemicals (or the laws of physics if you will) to write code; i.e. to create genetic code. If anyone is under the illusion this is possible they need to read up on the matter.

Saturday, February 9, 2008

AAAS president rails against ID

In this post I will respond to the above article which is posted in part here

Quotes and comments;

1. "The problem is that ID advocates attempt to dress up religious beliefs to make them look like science. By redefining what is and isn’t science, they also put the public—particularly young people—at risk of being inadequately prepared to live in modern society." - Alan Leshner
- if all were matter in motion there would be no problems. Do rocks have problems? The fact Leshner imagines he has a problem is evidence he's not mere matter in motions as he claims.
- once again (for the millionth time) we have evolutionists (who are really pantheists in my opinion) pretending they don't have religious beliefs... it's only the Christians who have 'religious' beliefs. Religion has been defined so many ways you could fill a book with them, but one of the better ones states that religion is a set of connected beliefs having to do with ultimate concerns. If we use that definition we see that everyone has a religion; has religious beliefs. (If Leshner wants to distinguish Materialism from Christianity, he should say so.) It makes no sense for Leshner to pretend he has no religion; that he has no basic beliefs about matters of utlimate concern. All this endless talk by evolutionists about religion is a mere smoke screen. The great irony is that people (like L.) who accuse creationists of deception are lying through their teeth, and engaged in a massive campaign of deceit.
- people like Leshner are the ones who are engaged in redefining science. (i.e. from a search for truth to methodological naturalism.) For him to accuse Creationists of doing what his crowd have specialized in seems utter hypocricy.
- the idea he's worried about ID negatively affecting how people are able to live in modern society is a farce. How he can utter such drivel is beyond me. (He probably has a great future in politics; but then again maybe that's what he's engaged in already.)

2. ''Twenty-first-century citizens are regularly required to make decisions about issues that have heavy science- and technology-related content, such as medical care, personal security, shopping choices, and what their children should be taught in school.''
- shopping choices? shopping choices?
- of course under the teacher (union) domination of the gov. school system parents are deliberately given no say in what they're children are taught. (Good socialists like Leshner believe children belong to the State; ie. to the political elite.)

3. ''There is an important distinction between a belief and a theory. ID is cast by its proponents as a scientific theory, an alternative to evolution, but it fails the criteria for achieving that status. In our business, a theory is not an educated guess nor, emphatically, is it a belief.''
- of course evolution is a belief. Leshner apparently doesn't understand what a belief is. Finite and fallible creatures aren't capable of anything beyond belief. To have certain knowledge we'd have to know everything (and accurately) about everything. (And I don't think even a genius like L. is up to the task :=) If evolution weren't a belief no one would ever give it up; as so many have.... having looked critically at it they see it is inadequate and fallacious.... that it cannot account for reality.
- here we have L. defining and redefining concepts to conform to his own basic presuppositions.
- it's interesting that he calls big science a business; which it certainly is... but at least he admits it.
- of course a theory is an educated guess.

4. ''Scientific theories attempt to explain what can be observed, and it is essential that they be testable by repeatable observations and experimentation."
- it's more accurate to say that scientific theories attempt to explain experience not observation as Leshner puts it. (Would there be no science if we didn't have eyesight?) One hears thunder, one doesn't see it. One feels the wind, one doesn't see it. (and so on.)
- well; if we apply this rule consistently it denies the big bang as theory as well as evolution. No one saw the imagined evolution of the planet; no one saw 'life' come from inert matter.... etc.
- has Leshner tested his own definitions of science? has he observed his definitions? has he tested them? ie. are definitions empirical? if not (and they aren't) they must be thrown out to conform to his ideas on science.

5. "In fact, “belief” is a word you almost never hear in science. We do not believe theories. We accept or reject them based on their ability to explain natural phenomena, and they must be testable with scientific methodologies.''
- here's a man in desperate need of a course in philosophy. He says scientists accept or reject a theory. Okay; and why would they do that Mr. Leshner? Obviously they accept a theory because they believe it to be true. Leshner seems impossibly naive in his statements.
- is the 'theory' the universe popped out of nothing one day testable? We do know that the idea life emerged spontaneously from inert matter to be false; because we've tested the idea innumerable times. This falsification however has not stopped evolutionists from believing in it.

6. 'He repeats several talking points of the anti-ID position: (1) evolution is just as much a theory as gravity...'
- anyone who repeats this tired old canard is not a serious thinker, but merely a clown. The analogy is utterly unjustified and inappropriate; it compares biology with physics for one thing. (You can drop an apple and it will fall to the ground; but it won't bounce up a cat, or even an orange.)
- gravity of course can't be seen (at least I've never seen any :=) one sees the effect of gravity, or gravity in action... but one doesn't see gravity. One is then in the position of trying to infer the nature of something from its effects. (Not too dissimilar from the kind of project ID is involved in.) So, what exactly IS gravity? as far as I can tell, no one knows.

7. [Leshner tell us that] 'evolutionary does not attempt to answer the religious questions of whether God was behind evolution, “because it is a matter of belief that is outside our realm,”
- this is disingenuous as the matter of orgins is also outside the realm of observational science. No one saw the proposed big bang; no one can tell us what was there before the big bang. (And origins is a religious question for most people; unless like L. you've redefined the issue out of existence.) No one saw 'life' magically emerge from chemicals. etc.
- how does L. know what a 'religious' question is? does he observe religious questions? why as an empiricist does he even talk about such things?
- how does he know what is and isn't within the realm of 'science' as he defines it? Does he know this by observation?

8. 'ID can rightfully be taught in humanities or philosophy courses but not in the science class; “Redefining science to get a particular belief into the classroom simply isn’t educationally sound,” he [L.] says.
- this is exactly what the materialists (naturalists) have done. This is the old rhetorical technique of accusing your opponent of your own sin. (i.e. before he accuses you of it himself.)
- It's always comical to hear materialists speaking of moral absolutes; when materialism can in no way provide a basis for such beliefs.
- I guess this is one of Leshner's core beliefs. (But are his beliefs about science scientific? of course not. His beliefs about science are motivated by his world view of evolutionary materialism. In other words, his beliefs about science are part of his religious view.)

Monday, February 4, 2008

Smithsonian Reversal Over ID Noticed by Big Science

Quotes and comments;

1. 'Both 'Nature' and 'Science' (06/09/2005) noticed the Smithsonian’s flip-flop over co-sponsoring The Privileged Planet at their Natural History Museum this month (see 06/01/2005 entry). Both noted the quandary that the Smithsonian found itself in. They could not back out because of a contract, but under pressure from evolutionists, did not want to appear to endorse intelligent design. This led them to return the $16,000 fee so that they would not appear to be cooperating with the Discovery Institute, and to remove their co-sponsorship while allowing the event to go forward.'
- In honor of Superbowl Sunday let's all sing; ''The laaand of the freeee... and the hooome of the braaave."

2. 'Their basis for claiming the film violated their scientific research policy was explained by anthropologist Richard Potts, chair of the museum’s human origins program:
"But it was very clear that the film was trying to situate science within the wider realm of belief. The idea that human beings have been placed on Earth to discover the principles of the universe is not a position that stems from science; it is a metaphysical and religiously based conclusion.''
- Does Potts imagine he doesn't have any beliefs? Could he really be that naive? Does he really imagine that materialism and evolutionism aren't beliefs? Does he imagine he holds absolute truth? (If he does that itself is a religious belief.)
- once again we are presented with some clown who's going to tell us what science is. (As if it were some physical object we could measure, and not an ever changing process governed by societal beliefs.) The idea an anthropologist (of all people) telling us what science is and isn't is more than a little comical.
- I've got news for Potts; all ideas are metaphysically based. This man needs to take a course in philosophy. (And the news is even worse Richard; materialist evolution is also a religion.)
-The word religion is obsolete, and needs to be replaced with a substitute; either belief system or worldview.
- 'in philosophy it's considered a fallacy to impugn someone's motives for saying things...' i.e. you deal with What they said, not Why they said it.
- one way philosophers determine whether a statement is 'religious' is to ask 'is it falsifiable?' So we can ask; 'is Potts' belief in materialism and evolution falsifiable?' It doesn't sound like it is, does it? (At the heart of every wview is a web of presuppositions, which are accepted without being proven, without being provable. Potts has his; William Dembski has his, and I have mine. The idea evolutionary materialism is rooted in provable scientific fact is simply fallacious.)

Notes;
1. I came across this 'article' at Creation/Evolution headlines.
2. Listening to a CD of pop music oldies I came across the song, 'Land of the Brave' by a Jody Miller. (1965) I doubt if such a song would be popular in our day.