Thursday, May 29, 2008

Our difficulty in imagining god as creator

In a bit of a change of pace I want to write a brief piece about the difficulty many people have in imagining god as creator

- I think most people have trouble imagining God as the (personal) creator of the earth. It's not that they doubt He has the power to create a world or a universe. (i.e. to start some kind of a process going, etc.) But most people seem to have great trouble imagining god as the creator of all the myriad of creatures we see around us. (Or even of a much more limited number of kinds.) I have this problem as well; not intellectually so much, but emotionally. A god who created a cat kind let's say, seems much too.... too what? too personal? too much like a human artist? too small? too concerned for detail? too much like an engineer? too much like your brother in law the architect? too much like a scientist?

- I think this 'problem' (or what other word shall we use?) stems from our much too deistic view of God. (And clearly many people want a deistic god.) I think people find a god who designed the ears of a cat a little too... too what? obsessive? too interested in things... too concerned with details? I think so. Obviously a god who decides if a cat gets a tail or not is going to be concerned with how a man lives his life. (etc.)

- I don't know if part of the problem is that we imagine it would have taken God a lot (really a lot) of time. I think the problem is more one of 'why would He do it?' e.g. why would he design some marvellous (incredible) underwater creature almost no one ever sees? Why bother? It seems maybe as if this is a 'too small' thing for god to be doing. But maybe we think this because we don't appreciate the greatness of the ten thousand creatures we see around us. As far as any one of us goes, there are far too many creatures to number in a lifetime; even a Patriarchal lifetime. (I suppose Adam was the last man to be able to number all the creatures.)

- is it because we aren't creative ourselves (speaking of most of us) that we can't understand God as Creator? I don't think children have any trouble imagining god creating a squirrel or a bird... or anything at all. (Ask a child, ''if you had been god which animal would you have made?'' or ''what animal would you like to have made?") I think they feel 'instinctively' that it would have been great fun... a deep source of joy. I think it was, and Genesis seems to indicate this when god is portrayed as saying of the creation, that it was very good. (see notes)

- No doubt part of our 'hesitancy' to accept the idea of a creator has to do with anxiety over what this means to man as a whole, and to ourselves as individuals. i.e. if god designed the glass lattice work of the Euplectella aspergillum one has to assume he designed man with as much care for detail, function and aesthetics. ("We are fearfully and wonderfully made,'' declared David.) I think we worry about the implications of this focused attention, and the manifold implications of it. Even in what claims to be the Christian church there is a running away from the importance of the doctrine of Creation. (And it might be okay as some musty, old doctrine... of the kind penned by Puritans... but not okay as a living reality.) If man was created by God then it makes sense to believe it is this Creator who knows man best; knows his purpose, his capacities and abilities, knows how best he should live. Maybe this idea (and its implications) is at the heart of our reluctance to take Creation seriously. (Not to mention the outright hostility of some people.)

- For the Deist God is the ultimate cause of the creation, but had little to do with it. (In some forms of deism God had no idea even of what the creation would end up looking like. I'm not sure what I can do to give an idea of this kind of abstract view; but let's compare it to dropping a cup of paint onto a canvas from a hundred feet in the air.... we'd have no idea what 'design' would occur.) In this view the myriad creation just sort of happened by accident. God created some basic laws, and maybe matter, and then 'mixed' the two (sorry for that inadequacy of that :=) and then stepped back to see what would happen. In this view god in no way designed a cat's whiskers or an elephant's trunk... these just 'evolved' in response to environmental pressures. Many people find this comforting in that it provides a god whose not concerned with details... and thus, presumably, not concerned with the details of man either. (He may not even have created man; and may have been very surprised to meet this strange fellow called Adam.) In this view man is not made in the image of god, and thus has no responsibility toward God. (The implications of deism are profound. e.g. if god did not create man then man really has no reason to praise or worship god.)

- At one point in the psalms David asks of God, ''what is man that thou art mindful of him?" I think the expresses some of the bafflement we have about God. When we look at all the bizarre (to us at least) creature of the world we wonder why God made them. (i.e. if he did, why did he?) We get a strong feeling that we just can't know; that if God is the Originator of all things we are living inside a mystery. (or; inside mystery) If this is our 'fate' then there are things we can never know. (Or at least not in this life time; but maybe that's what heaven is for... maybe heaven will give us a chance to learn things we can never know otherwise.) Many people (especially those of a more curious bent) find it intolerable that there may be things one can't know simply by human endeavor. Clearly this is an 'existential' reality; but it seems to be the principle of the thing that bothers folk. (As I write this I'm listening to 'And Sometimes God Hides' by Robert Fripp.)

- And so here we are. We claim (because we're Christians) to believe in creation... but truth be known, we find the whole idea rather disturbing. Rather than a source of comfort and joy we find it a source of anxiety. We see it as a source of conflict with non-Christians and secular folk. We fear that if we embrace a full orbed doctrine of creation, it will make demands of us. Yes we want to affirm a doctrine of creation; but we want to look at it from a good distance... like a beautiful painting or a photo of the earth as seen from the moon. Creation as aesthetics; yes... but creation as theology... well, no.

Notes;
1. Hebrew for towb (good)
a) pleasant, agreeable (to the senses)
b) pleasant (to the higher nature)
c) good, excellent (of its kind)
d) good, rich, valuable in estimation
- in some contexts it means beautiful, fair,
- the word can mean good in the sense of kindness. (I'm not sure if that is involved here; but the bible says many times that god cares for, and takes care of, his creatures. see Job)
2. As pure speculation (a rarity in blog world) I would note that the root of 'towb' can mean 'a pleasant smell.' Now that's about as 'earthy' as one can get. (Can we assume this was because there was no death yet? that all things were still fresh and new, that the process of decay had yet begun?
3. 'Pie Jesu' - by Robert Fripp
4. Mathew Henry on Genesis 1:31 ("And God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good.")
"The work of creation was a very good work. All that God made was well-made, and there was no flaw nor defect in it. 1. It was good. Good, for it is all agreeable to the mind of the Creator, just as he would have it to be; when the transcript came to be compared with the great original, it was found to be exact, no errata in it, not one misplaced stroke. Good, for it answers the end of its creation, and is fit for the purpose for which it was designed. Good, for it is serviceable to man, whom God had appointed lord of the visible creation. Good, for it is all for God’s glory; there is that in the whole visible creation which is a demonstration of God’s being and perfections, and which tends to beget, in the soul of man, a religious regard to him and veneration of him.'' - Mathew Henry on Genesis 1:31

Monday, May 26, 2008

The cartoon called Evolution

Having failed repeatedly to demonstrate even the possibility of evolution in Origin of Life' experiments, evolutionists have now taken to 'proving' evolution with computer programs.

Quotes and comments;

1. “With a grant from the National Science Foundation, a group is adapting a research platform called Avida to enable undergraduates to watch digital organisms called Avideans develop complex functions through replication, mutation, and natural selection.” According to Robert Pennock, this computer program “lets students see that evolution works as advertised” and is a good way to teach about science, states another proponent of Avida.

- My comments will be of a general nature; for a technical critique see the link at Note #1.

- I consider this kind of animation evolution to be the most pernicious attack on the idea of creation. In my opinion this program is bogus, and in no way shows students what has happened during the history of earth. It does not show how living forms emerged. It only claims to do these things. These animated versions of evolution are pure Hollywood.

- the people who put out these programs are either deluded in what they imagine they've done, or they think students are too clueless to figure out the errors in the programs. (e.g. One gross error is that these are programs designed by intelligent beings to deceive people into imaging they are seeing some replication of a supposed process called evolution. They are designed to have certain results occur. They do not replicate reality.)

- these animation programs are a house of cards; impressive, but paper thin. At the slightest touch of logic they collapse. They are programs designed to deceive people. They're as true to life as Mickey Mouse. What we see in them writ large is the psychology of self-deception. (i.e. if we read them in the best possible light.) As the cartoon is designed to amuse, these evolutionary cartoons are meant to deceive. They're as neutral as a road runner cartoon. They're wish fulfillment on parade. I get the impression this is supposed to be the big knock out punch meant to flatten all anti-evolutionary critics. (Or to at least so confuse people that they become uncritical.)

- this amounts to fabricating evidence. Almost no one who sees these programs is in any position to analyze them skillfully. (And you'll notice that they escape almost all critique from fellow evolutionists.) This is like playing poker with a card up your sleeve. It's very difficult for people to see the errors (and biases) embedded into these programs. I consider them pernicious in the extreme.

- even if these programs were designed properly (which they're not) they wouldn't prove that they had anything to do with reality. You can build a million and one models of X, but this doesn't mean even one of them in any real way replicates X. (Even if the model did replicate reality, which I assume is impossible, it seems to me that what you would have proven would be that some Intelligent being or beings designed the code behind the universe :=)

- the story (and film) 'The Sorcerer's Apprentice' had a nice 'Hollywood' ending; but It's hard to see how we can undo the harm done by these animations of evolution. (Perhaps I'm taking them too seriously... but I've seen all kinds of people utterly taken in by them.) This is a kind of magic being engaged in; doing the hard work of science through the magic tricks of computer animation. In my view Darwinism has been utterly falsified as a theory... only in the make believe world of computer graphics does it have a chance of enchanting and deceiving people.

- I guess Darwin is the old sorcerer; but in this case the young magicians don't think the old guy has got it anymore. He can't get the job done anymore so he needs some new virtual magic.

Notes;
1. Evaluation of neo-Darwinian Theory using the Avida Platform - Royal Truman (Part 1.)
2. We need more people with expertise in this field to take a critical look at what is going on.
3. One example of how this cartoon model of science works. In this case the 'Niklas' computer model. Based on its results (is that the word?)
"The startling possibility is that evolution has found essentially all the locally optimal ways of being a terrestrial plant (ignoring the fine morphology associated with leaves, reproductive organs, roots, etc., as well as major modifications in the way living plants grow and reproduce compared with these early plants), and that it explored the morphogenetic space in just about one geological period. The Niklas study opens up the possibility that evolution is able to find essentially all the locally optimal morphologies consistent with a given underlying developmental system on geological timescales. That is, all the processes associated with variation (point mutation, recombination, hybridization, gene conversion, insertion and deletion, post-transcriptional changes in mRNA processing, etc.) are able to effectively explore fitness landscapes on geological timescales; evolution is able solve [sic] the np-hard problem of exploring the rich combinatorial potential embedded in the genome in the order of 10-20 million years."
- This is an example of the kind of cartoon logic students are now being subjected to. [From an article by Charles Marshall explaining the so called Cambrian explosion.] You tell me how many people are capable of analyzing this verbiage. Evolutionists have given up trying to prove e. in the real world; they're now drawing up scenarios (often based on computer programs) so obscurantist that no one will be able to understand them. If any declines to believe such scenarios, they will be patted on the head and told, ''you just don't understand... so what can I say?" - reference; Charles R. Marshall, “Explaining the Cambrian ‘Explosion’ of Animals,” Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Vol. 34 (Volume publication date May 2006)
4. I see these programs as evidence materialists can't answer critiques of evolution, and that they realize it's been falsified as science.
5. These animated evolution programs are as close to reality as the Scopes trial movie, 'Inherit the wind'. The movie is a total travesty... and the evolutionary priesthood still endorses it... just like they do the lie of evolution.

Thursday, May 22, 2008

Creation and animal rights

Is there any such thing as animal rights? What are they, and what are they not? To try and answer these questions I'll comment on the following article.

The Aftereffects of Evolutionism - Dominique Tassot (Online at CSSHSQJ)

Quotes and comments;

1. 'On October 30, 1991 the Environment Commission of the European Parliament adopted a resolution presented by Mr. F Amendola, Italian "ecologist" delegate, on the "universal rights of the animals."

- Animals can't have rights, they can only be given rights. What rights animals have are those given to them by God, and delineated for us in the Bible. The only 'rights' animals have is to be treated as the Law of God requires. (see note 1.) Biblical doctrine teaches that all things in the world belong to God; this then is the foundation of any Christian view of animals.
- what we see here is the imposition of 'Buddhist' (Jainist) or pantheistic ideas on the peoples of Europe. (Not all of whom accept these 'Eastern' ideas.) Apparently the only separation of 'state' and 'religion' that humanists care about is a separation from Christianity.

2. 'It is thus the most profound and the most vital concept of Christianity which a Commission of the European Parliament has agreed to reject. The listing of motives shows this well; it would be ridiculous if it were not staggering. Read only the following:
"The animal is born, it learns, it is curious, runs, eats, keeps up relations with its kind, mates ... It is neither better nor worse than we, only different.''

- Gee; I wonder if all that's a fact? You know, like evolution is a fact. I wonder if this is as true as it is that the earth orbits the sun :=)
- We see here the vacuity of Humanism; with our friend flapping his gums as stupidly as a flag flopping in the wind. (And making as much sense.) When man rejects his creator he becomes an idiot. You'll notice that there's no reference to morality in this little scenario. But then the idea animals somehow have universal rights is utterly dependent on the morality the author here ignores. So man must be moral, while animals are not; but wait, I thought they weren't better or worse. So then is being moral no better than being immoral, or amoral? That seems the obvious implication.

- the author is making a moral judgment when he says animals aren't better or worse. What then is the basis of his moral world view? How does he know his moral vision to be true? Does it reflect anything in the real world, or merely some subjective feelings he has?

- we might ask him how he knows universal laws are valid? Where does he get this idea of universality from? Universal rights imply universal duties. Universal rights imply universal law. So where does this universal law come from? And how does he know? (These are just a few of the tough questions we could ask him.)

- Man is merely different he says. (How's that for being scientific :=) If being different is no impediment to equal rights we might have to grant them to computers. While it's true they're different (and not very good to run) they do think, or some say they do; they solve problems, they have energy requirements, etc.

3. " ... suffering, joy, love, self-awareness, altruism, the sense of communication, the capacity for analysis and for problem solving or cultural heredity are not the exclusive attribute of the human species, since in certain particular cases some of these characteristics are even more present in individuals belonging to other species. These prerogatives suffice to grant the individual which has them (the animal) ... the right to have its own requirements taken into consideration on an equal level [with man]... Civilization cannot flourish unless it is closely linked with the abolition of discrimination. The dynamics which has permitted to overcome antinomies like lord-slave, aristocrat-plebeian, black-white, man-woman, healthy-handicapped, heterosexual-homosexual, has opened up, historically speaking, fundamental advances in terms of the quality of life. The recognition of rights of individuals not belonging to the human species represents a logical consequence of this tendency."

- if you ever wanted to know how idiotic man can become when he rejects his Creator you now know. Unbelievable. (I wonder if he really believes this or is just playing the crowd.) But we might ask if a creature can have a right it can't understand? And how would we know the answer to this question?

4. "some of these characteristics are even more present in individuals belonging to other species."

- Really? Too bad he didn't tell us exactly what this mythical creature is. It would have been nice to know. But I guess one of the perks of working for the State is immunity from having to back up one's statements.

- well if animals are equal with men, this clown should give up his role in government and send his cat in to do his job. (It could no doubt prowl about legislative corridors as well as he could... and might even be as talented as doing nothing and wasting time as any other gov. bureaucrat :=)

5. "The recognition of rights of individuals not belonging to the human species represents a logical consequence of this tendency.'' (i.e. this tendency toward total democracy.)

- well I guess that's true. One major problem with Humanism is that it never knows when to stop, or where to set a limit or boundary. Having rejected the god given moral law, it has no sense of right and wrong. It goes in one direction until it crashes... then goes back in the other direction until it crashes. Having rejected God it has no standard of truth. Since it doesn't know what truth is it just drifts back and worth with the winds of fad.
- of course all this talk of democracy is as phony as paper money and brass rings. To have complete democracy you'd need to get rid of government, and I don't see this life time politicians having any interest in doing themselves out of a job :=) Instead, the power of the pols gets stronger and stronger... no equality there.

- when these clowns say men and animals should be equal, they mean the average man should be treated like an animal, no better than an animal. They're in no way referring to themselves. They for sure don't imagine they (the political elite) should have the same rights as animals. So this is all a ruse; merely one more way to degrade man, to steal his dignity, to so demoralize him he can used like a tool, a mere barnyard resource.... so demoralized he won't fight back.

6. "Civilization cannot flourish unless it is closely linked with the abolition of discrimination.''

- how's that for some nice horse manure. (Not that I don't think horse manure isn't equal to any other kind of manure :=) Our secular pols are of course very big on discrimination. They discriminate endlessly (and viciously) against Christians. They endless attack property rights, and those who would defend them. They discriminate against creationists. They discriminate against private business. They discriminate in favor of the state. They discriminate against anyone who opposes them in any way. They discriminate in favor of atheism and evolution. (One could go on and on.) It's of course utter nonsense to say any society can be without discrimination. These are merely words meant to deceive the naive, and to excuse the guilty. (To legislate is to discriminate. No society can exist unless it discriminates. Our pols are unique I suppose in maintaining this pretense of neutrality.)

7. 'Now when we look for the intellectual error which underlies this manner of pretending to equality between man and the animals, we see it appear clearly in the theory of evolution. If man descends from the ape, there is nothing in man which is not also found, at least in embryonic fashion, in animals.'

- far too many Christians still imagine that the c/e debate is merely some abstract question about origins. They don't seem to have a clue how this subject affects every aspect of their lives. This poor deluded man is merely being more consistent in his thinking than most evolutionary proponents. But even he of course can't live consistently in terms of his stated world view. He'd have to be a vegetarian for one thing. But on his own world view, there is no basis for saying animals are better than plants, or even that man is better than a plant. Evolution is an acid that digests morality. The evolutionist can only be a hypocrite when he speaks of morality. If he really thought he was a mere animal he wouldn't be a politician would he? No, he'd have to disband all government and live like the animals do. (And maybe this explains the origin of some of the so called primitive jungle tribes. Maybe their original members were evolutionists who decided to live out their world view in a consistent manner, and so went back to the land as it were.)

- I notice that animals don't grant each other equal rights :=) But I guess that doesn't matter. You can blame a lot of the current silliness about animals on the fact so few people nowdays (living in concrete bunkers called cities) have any real contact with animals. (Knowing a pet is like having negative knowledge of animals.) When the average person lived on a family farm, they didn't have these 'exalted' ideas about animals.
- of course the modern nonsense about animals goes far deeper than merely talking about giving them rights. (Should they get pensions I wonder? jobs with the government? free medical care :=) These kinds of things have (till now) merely been harmless play acting for the most part. What has been pernicious has been the attempts by e. professors to draw lesson on how to live from animal behavior. (I read an article once about some poor woman who had studied lemurs and imagined human beings could learn how to construct better marriage arrangements from imitating this little fur ball. One is staggered by the stupidity of such things. One might as well try to draw moral lessons from shapes in the clouds.)

Notes;
1. I'm not exactly sure how many laws in the Bible relate to animals. They include; the right of a work animal to feed, rest, safety from mutilation, shelter? there's a law against unequal yoking, there's a law or two about bird nests, but not much more that I can recall. It's more a case of man having duties, rather than animals having rights. (Since man is a steward over God's creation, he is responsible to God for how he treats animals.)
2. To do this topic more justice we'd have to look at what is an animal? and what is a right? (Orthodox Christianity states that rights come only from God. i.e. a man cannot have a right that God doesn't give him. I assume the same rule would apply to animals.)
- I would want to say that only persons can have rights, and that animals are not persons.
3. Editor's Note: Translated and reprinted with permission from Science et Foi, No. 24, 2nd Quarter 1992, published by CESHE (Cerde Scientifique et Historique), F-02800 Vendeuji, France.
4. I could have easily chosen a similar story of more recent vintage; but I've been reading through all the issues of CSSHSQJ and happened across this article.
5. 'Genesis shows us certain kinds distinguished by God from the beginning for being associated with man; on the sixth day, "God made the wild animals according to their kind, the domestic animals according to their kind, and all the animals that move along the ground according to their kind. And God saw that it was good" (Gen. 1:25).
- the bit about domestic animals struck me as odd; I looked and don't see this in any translation I can easily find. I see translations that say cattle or even livestock, but not domestic animals. (The word for 'cattle' can be translated as domestic animals; but the context here would seem to preclude it in this case.)

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Manufacturing Facts (Smokestack Philosophy)

What is a fact anyway?

Materialists keep insisting evolution is a fact. But what is a fact? Does any such thing exist? To examine this question I'll take a look at a rather wild statement from the 'Defend Science' website. The author (whose name I wasn't able to ascertain) is rather animated about the evil creationists he sees around him. So let's take a look at a few of the things he's upset about. (note 1.)

Quotes and comments;

1. "And that is not all: Here we are in the 21st century, and the head of the government himself, George W. Bush, refuses to acknowledge that evolution is a scientific fact! THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
The President claims: “On the issue of evolution, the verdict is still out on how God created the earth,” and then sits smugly by while Creationists carry out an assault against evolution in classrooms, museums, libraries, government bookstores, and even IMAX movies and science theaters.

2. "No, Mr. President, the verdict is NOT out on evolution. EVOLUTION IS A FACT -- IT IS ONE OF THE MOST WELL-ESTABLISHED AND WELL-DOCUMENTED FACTS IN THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE. TO DENY AND ATTACK EVOLUTION IS TO DENY AND ATTACK ONE OF THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL FACTS ABOUT ALL OF NATURE AND REALITY AND ONE OF THE MOST CRUCIAL FOUNDATION STONES OF ALL OF MODERN SCIENCE. (caps in original.)

- it's an obvious sign of hysteria when an author writes in cap letters. This is juvenilia. (The equivalent of a child having a temper tantrum.)

- But ignoring the cap explosion, let's ask a simple question; "what exactly is a fact?" Is there any such thing? how would we determine this? can it be determined? Many philosophers, thinkers, and theologians deny that any such thing as a fact exists. Man is finite, fallible, and fallen, and thus is incapable to determining facts. (A well known objection to the idea of 'facts' is that a person would have to know everything in the universe, and know it accurately, to be able to tell us what a fact is.) My own view is that only the creator God of the bible knows fact from fiction in any ultimate sense. (And this explains the necessity for special revelation.) Evolution is a theory, not a fact. Obviously this isn't good enough for people who want to use the theory in their political struggles.

3. Let's zoom in a bit.

Fact; n. (1913) L. factum; fr. facere, to make or do. see feat, affair, benefit.
- 1539, "action," especially "evil deed," from L. factum "event, occurrence," lit. "thing done," from neut. pp. of facere "to do." Usual modern sense of "thing known to be true" appeared 1632, from notion of "something that has actually occurred."

- It makes a lot of difference whether you see fact as something that happens, or see it as something that is made; i.e. fashioned. Is truth what is, what happens - or is it what is made; what is constructed? Speculation is a basic ingredient in any so called fact you can mention. Any fact has at least one, and usually several tasty bits of speculation embedded in it. (Think of a fact as a loaf of bread. Any so called fact has gone through a lengthy 'baking' process.)

A. 'Any thing done, or that comes to pass; an act; a deed; an effect produced or achieved; an event. Witnesses are introduced into court to prove a fact. Facts are stubborn things. To deny a fact knowingly is to lie. - Webster/1828

- the idea of fact seems to have drifted over the years from an original idea of something real or something that happened to the idea of knowledge. i.e. we know x to be true. i.e. from the realm of action to the realm of knowledge.

- a fact cannot be an idea; or a speculation. People have confused these two matters; and have likely done so intentionally. i.e. they want their theories to be seen as facts.

B. Reality, truth.
- The theologian Cornelius Van Til was famous (or infamous) for claiming there were (apart from revelation) no facts. He was, I think, referring to the idea of fact as truth. i.e. the realm of knowledge. Certainly things happen; but then people insist on putting some spin on them; and then declaring that their version of what happened is true. i.e. a fact. They insist their view of causation is a fact; their idea of responsibility, of motive, etc. These of course aren't facts; as Vtil was right to point out. You can't go from an event to a theory of causation without leaving the idea of fact behind; what you end up with isn't fact but speculation.

4. Maybe the hysteric who wrote this could tell us what reality is, and how they know this. One what level does this reality exist? (i.e. on what scale of being? Does reality exist on the macro level? On the micro level? On the particle level? Or what? And how does one know? Immanuel Kant denied man could know ultimate reality. If this' capster' knows better maybe he can enlighten us all. And what is the scientific basis for claims about reality? Can 'science' tell us what reality? Can anyone? How would we know? Is reality measurable? Can we observe it? Is it something everyone could agree on? Does it even exist?

5. I realize most scientists loathe philosophy, but when they enter the arena they must be prepared to start answering some tough questions. I for one can't take these opinions seriously. People who have no knowledge of philosophy can't expect to be taken seriously when they start spouting nonsense about facts, reality, etc.

6. Apparently this overwrought author has forgotten that 'modern science' was flourishing long before Darwin came along.

7. Because atheists, materialists, and Humanists think e. is true, doesn't make it true. If one is a materialist one is forced to be an evolutionist, this position on origins has nothing to do with discoveries in the created order, it's a simple necessity of adopting this world view. It's the height of arrogance to say there is no controversy here. (In my opinion evolution theory cannot be true, because 'life' cannot come from non-life. That's science; not the Darwinian fairy tale of spontaneous generation.)

8. How is saying evolution is a fact any different from saying materialism (atheism) is a fact?

Notes;
1. The Darwin Empire Strikes Back 03/14/2006 (Creation/Evolution Headlines)
'It would seem the ID republic is imprisoned on its own ice-world of Hoth, scrambling to escape as the empire has mobilized its machinery against the rebels. The AAAS, for instance, held its “Evolution on the Front Line” event in St. Louis and has posted its weaponry on its Center for Public Engagement with Science and Technology website, along with portraits of its commanding generals: Eugenie Scott, Ken Miller and the rest.
2. What is reality? (This needs a separate post.)
3. I went to the 'Defend Science' website but was unable to see who wrote this 'cap' attack.
4. Apparently these people believe that people who call themselves scientists can live outside any moral or ethical law. Is this a fact? or an opinion? how does he know this? Is this a scientific discovery?
5. The main complaint seems to be that evil right wing Christians are slowing down the rate of scientific inquiry in certain areas. Well; how does Mr. Caps know things are moving too slow or too fast? (Many would think things are moving much too rapidly.) Is his idea things are moving too slow a fact? or an opinion?
6. Mr. caps apparently thinks people have no right to have a say in how their tax dollars are being used. Is this a fact? or is it merely his opinion? and how does he know? Is his view scientific? political? personal? arbitrary? Is this supposed to be science? was this 'fact' discovered on one of the missions to Mars? was it discovered in the jungles of the Amazon?
7. Is materialism a fact? or an opinion? is it a scientific discovery? or a religious commitment? how would one know? Is atheism a fact or an opinion?
8. Mr. Caps thinks he has a right to exactly the kind of world he wants, and that anything less than this is 'unacceptable' as he taps out repeatedly, like a mantra. Well; is that a fact? or is it an opinion? Does anyone get to live in a society exactly to their liking? Isn't that a tad unrealistic Mr. Caps? All societies have their 'conservative' and 'liberal' elements; have people who look to the past, and people who look to the future, and people who want to preserve the status quo. All societies are mixes of many different kinds of people. Apparently Mr. Caps is unaware of this; or wishes everyone was a clone of himself.
9. Mr. Caps seems to think a 'scientist' (whatever that is) can do exactly what he or she pleases. (As an aside was Mr. Kinsey a 'scientist' or a pervert?) He seems to think this is some kind of right I gather. Well is there such a right? Is it a fact a scientist can do exactly as he pleases? Or is it an opinion? A power claim? A faith claim? or what? And how is it we know this? Do we know it via the experimental method? By observation? By definition?
11. I wonder if this person finds reality acceptable :=) This is the revolutionary spirit; i.e. nothing but an exact replica of what I hold in my mind to be the ideal society is acceptable. Tens (and tens) of millions have died on account of that spirit. (And speaking of reality, nothing could be more unrealistic than the revolutionary spirit this 'capster' espouses.) How is this different from saying I find people different than myself unacceptable?
12. The irony in all this is that evolutionary theory can't give people any foundation for the moral outrage this person is engaging in. There is no morality in evolution. If we are all animals morality is a meaningless delusion. So only if e. is not true does anyone of what this Darwinian says make any sense. If (as Dawkins insists) man is just a mindless robot, a mere gene carrier deluded by 'his' genes, then none of this moral outrage makes any sense. This is the irrationalism that we see over and over in the c/e debate. If one has no free will one cannot be blamed for one's behavior and haranguing people is irrational. If one is a slave of one's genes it makes no sense to call people evil. If we are all animals then it makes no sense to talk of right and wrong. The evolutionist cannot bring his world view together; he's a radically split personality. On the one hand he says man is an animal, and then he says 'oh wait, man is Not just an animal.' He says 'man is controlled by his genes; but yet man is morally evil if he doesn't do what I say.'
13. What you'll notice is the old rhetorician's trick of condemning an idea by associating it with a person you know your audience loathes. e.g. G. Bush. (Well I'm little but critical of the Bushter, but I'm not going to dump my radical doubts about E. because Bush claims to have some doubts as well.) But obviously the slimeball argument goes; G. Bush is an evil man, G. Bush is a creationist; therefore creationism is evil. This is grossly offensive 'reasoning' if you want to call it reasoning.
14. The Capster (Mr. Caplock? Mr. Brainlock?) claims the evil Christian right is waging a war on some phantom he calls science. Is this a fact? or is it opinion? or delusion? or slander? and how do we know? did he discover this by the scientific method? is this claim science? (And can science tell us what science is?)
- addendum; the author of this declaration isn't the only evolutionist to get the 'cap attack. There was the infamous case of the National Geographic getting infantile with their type set. ['What they cannot ignore, however, is that large majorities in the public sector oppose the Darwin-only policy in education. That means the public also has become a target of abuse. This was obvious 17 months ago with the notorious National Geographic Nov. 2004 cover story, “Was Darwin Wrong?” answered inside with a paternal foot-stomp in bold 250-point type, NO]
- from Creation/Evolution Headlines
15. Because some Christians are against some things some scientists are doing is in no way equivalent to being opposed to what all scientists are doing, or the scientific project in general. This is simply fallacious reasoning.
16. The 'Defend Science' website is guilty in its very name of personification. Science isn't a person. Nor is there any universal entity we can call science.
17. As far as I know in times past only physical things or occurrences were called facts... theories weren't called facts. A fact was something that had happened. i.e. we saw the ship sank; therefore it was a fact that the ship sank. i.e. a 'fact' had to have eye witnesses. (This doesn't mean they were always correct.) A theory, by its very nature, can't be a fact. It is rather an attempt to explain puzzling phenomena.
18. Let's be clear; 'scientists' have Always complained about the lack of funding (the divine right to have tax dollars; the divine right to get one's snout in the public trough :=) and interference, and in public ignorance, etc. So let's not get hysterical about it.
19. The great joke here is that while the Capster denounces Christian moralism (or whatever he calls it), he yet he demands the right to steal people's money... and demands the gov. defend this right to steal. He also demands people allow this theft, demands they don't retaliate, etc. All of this depends on the veracity of moral truth; which evolutionism would make impossible. This is irrrationalism on stilts. On the one hand he denounces morality, but all the while depending on it for his existence. (One wonders why if 'scientists' can do as they please... defy all moral law and tradition... everyone cannot play this game? i.e. why should people in lab coats be exempt from the laws everyone else has to obey? On the basis of materialism there is no possible answer... except that of power politics.)
20. The amount of energy, materials, time, resources, money, etc. that go into convincing people evolution theory is true is so considerable as to be almost incalculable. Never have people spent so much (even if against their will) to have their own beliefs destroyed. I see this as possibly the most bizarre social incident in the history of mankind. Surely trillions of dollars have been spent to get people to believe this bit of philosophical speculation. There are literally millions of people working daily at the project. They endless fabricate 'just so' stories designed to deceive naive students. They fill textbooks with phoney pictures and fallacious claims. (One could go on and on.) Darwinism has Nothing to do with science at all; are we supposed to believe that if Darwin hadn't come along science would have ground to a halt?) At the very least it has no necessary relation to mainstream science. (Has it got anything to do with gravity? electricity, energy? heat? light? magnetism? etc. This is what real science is about.) Darwinism is just Materialism, disguised (and tottering) under a large and silly hat. (You know... the kind English royalty wear at 'important' horse races and cricket matches :=) One wonders why they don't they spend all this money (etc.) on teaching logic? (Oh wait, I think I know.)
21. Darwinism should be left behind. It was a product of the Industrial revolution, of a time where the elite imagined all things would be made anew; and that everything people in the past believed was wrong. The Victorians lived (for a dizzying moment) at the top of a tall wave. They imagined England would rule the world forever, and they couldn't imagine their new gurus could be wrong about anything. So great was their mania they thought every idea they ever dreamed up just had to be true.
22. When evolutionists say evolution is a fact one wonders what they mean. Do they mean evolutionary theory isn't subject to refutation? If that's the case, E. isn't science; as most definitions insist a theory be subject to revision and refutation.

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

The Definitional Imperative

I'm getting weary of hearing professors pontificate about 'religion' and 'science' when no such things exist. In an effort to make this a better world I've decided to clear up the confusion in this area. Despite what you've heard (my fellow earthlings) there is no conflict between 'science' and religion.' This is a fabricated conflict. This won't take long so read on.

Religion and science
- it's popular among professors to distinguish 'science' from 'religion.' These are made out to be separate entities. I believe this is mistaken. I reject the word religion in favor of the term world view. When we do this we see it makes no sense to say 'science' is a separate thing from a world view; rather we see that each different world view has its own distinctive view of science.

So we say that 'science' is a part of a world view. This helps clear things up; so we see that evolutionary theory no way conflicts with Materialism, and that creationism in no way conflicts with Christianity. (And young earth creationism in no way conflicts with 'Fundamentalism.') This way of looking at things is concrete, and not 'idealistic' and this is why it works. It's weakness is that it lacks rhetorical appeal... and makes far too much sense. It also lacks appeal as a weapon to club opponents with. (I assume therefore that it's doomed :=)

Monday, May 19, 2008

What is reason?

To take a look at the question what is reason? I'll comment on a book review (by Michael Ruse) of 'Breaking the Spell' by Daniel Dennett

Quotes and comments;

1. 'Ruse expressed both philosophical and historical problems with the book. Dennett treats religion as a “delusion” that is all “smoke and mirrors” and therefore “a rationally justified belief system” it is not.'

- Rationally justified? If man has no mind where does this mythical entity called reason come from? And what is it? Materialists use the word reason endlessly, but never define it. (Or do so rarely you'd never know it.) If man is a mindless, meat machine the idea of reason is a joke.

- The fact Dennett thinks reason exists (and that he's able to think rationally) should be all the evidence he needs that he's not the matter-accident he claims human beings are. If he were he would not be able reason at all. Materialism cannot give a believable account of rationality. (This is one of the nasty little secrets materialists work so hard to keep quiet.)

- it's comical to have people who claim man has no mind (does Dennett think he's a rare exception :=) then go on to tell us x is a delusion, and y is not. How would they know? Did their chemicals tell them this?

2. Maybe we can make some progress by looking at a definition of reason.

Reason; American Heritage dictionary
d. The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence.

- if reason is just logic we should say so. i.e. Instead of saying we need to abandon 'religion' and base all our decisions on reason, we should say, 'we should decide all things on the basis of logic.' Okay. But what kind of logic? and why should we do this?'

4. Logic of course needs premises to work on; this is the fly in the soup for materialists. When they say we need to rely on logic, they're ignoring the fact logic needs premises... and logic can't tell us what premises to use. Before we can engage in logic we need basic premises (presuppositions, assumptions) to work with. So all people like Dennett are really saying is 'we need to rely on presuppositions.' Is this helpful? Isn't it instead just a joke. Men can reason, but there is no such thing as reason. To speak of reason as a noun is to commit the fallacy of personification. Reason can't decide anything for us.
- Logic can't operate in a void, and so there is no escape from the need to adopt basic presuppositions. And these by their very nature can't be proved. Christianity is the adoption of a certain collection of evidences for a Creator and a Savior, and atheism (or materialism) is a leap of faith based on a rejection of that evidence.

5. So what is reason? the answer is that no one in the secular community seems to know. Because this is more than a little embarrassing, it's something kept from people. (i.e. all the world apparently depends on a mysterious x that no one can even define, let alone defend.) From the Christian view reason is a God given ability to think logically and coherently. We can reason only because we were created in the image of God.

6. Reason is defined many times as being rational, which is defined as using reason. And so we can say; to look for truth in the dictionary is to trudge endlessly inside a wheel of words.

Notes;
1. Reason is an old fashioned word; it makes no sense in terms of evolutionary materialism. As usual we see the sad practice of materialists using theistic language. (They have no language of their own.)
2. Reason - 'The intellectual ability to apprehend the truth cognitively, either immediately in intuition, or by means of a process of inference. - FOLDOP
3. I'm actually commenting on the following;
Ruse Gives Dennett Poor Grade on “Evolution of Religion” Book 02/02/2006
'It was interesting to see what Michael Ruse would say, therefore, in a review of Daniel Dennett’s new book Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (Viking/Allen Lane, 2006), which appeared in Nature this week. (Creation/Evolution Headlines)
4. 'Dennett’s assumption is that religion has evolved by natural selection just like everything else and therefore has no validity when it talks about God, truth, or the natural world.'
- well if that's the case it's also true of evolutionary theory. If 'religion' (and we don't defend religion around here) is invalid because it 'evolved' then the same is true of materialism and its ugly sister evolutionism.

Thursday, May 15, 2008

Darwinism and the demise of Literature

I want to take a look at the curse of literary Darwinism in this post.

Quotes and comments;

1. 'Harold Fromm in Science1 reviewed Gottschall’s new book on literary Darwinism (see 01/27/2006 entry). Like Gottschall, he argued that an evolution-informed approach to literary criticism is superior because it provides quantifiable certitude:

" For years, scholars in the literary humanities have struggled to achieve at least a semblance of the certitude possible in the sciences, although none of the major schools of analysis--whether Freudian, mythic, Marxian, deconstructive, or socially constructive--could make a claim to the sort of falsifiability that quickly winnows scientific theories [sic]. But a running theme throughout 'The Literary Animal' is the need for quantitative methods that could provide solid foundations for philosophical and aesthetic claims."

- I find stuff like this absurd. Here we have an evolutionist who refuses to take his own theory seriously. Why do I say this? Take a look at the last sentence. Do animals have the 'need for quantitative methods...'? I don't think so; not that I know of. (And I have an expert here at my feet, rolling around on his back... and rubbing his nose on the carpet.) So why is it that man-the-animal would have such needs? This is all nonsense. On the one hand he insists (in defiance of biblical creationists) that man is just an animal, but then he goes on to expound upon this need for a method that would give a foundation for philosophical and aesthetic claims. Huh? That doesn't fit together at all. You would think he's clearly talking about two completely different creatures :=)

- We see here the inherent irrationalism of evolutionary theory. Evolution is a form of Monism (much akin to pantheism), and like all monistic world views it renders all it touches absurd. It flip flops between rationalism and irrationalism; between seeing man as an animal and seeing man as a creature made in the image of God. And we're just supposed to ignore this wild contradiction. I for one, cannot. (That others can I realize; the bible calls this suppressing the truth (of revelation) in unrighteousness.) To be a literary Darwinist you must ignore the the truth, you must play the game of pretend. i.e. you pretend man is just an animal... but you write your essay as if you were a human being.) The evolutionist cannot bring the various components of his world view together; they're really at war with one another. (As Dawkins says; 'when I leave the lab... I stop being a Darwinist.' One wonders when he was last in a lab... but that's another topic.)

- imagine two dogs; one says to the other; ''I feel a strong need to find some quantitative method that will provides us a sold foundation for our philosophical and aesthetic claims.'' (How someone like Gottschall can admit such a motivation - as his quest for philosophical justification - and then call himself an animal I don't know. That he feels such a need is all the evidence he needs to know that he is not an animal.)

- to try and make a 'science' out of literature is assinine. This isn't science but scientism; where all subjects are treated like rocks falling down a hill. You see here the one sidedness of Materialism. Materialism can't deal with people or with meaning. When it tries (as even our author admits) it just ends up being absurd. You'd think people would realize the implications of this. That one can't treat people like rocks (like mere matter in motion) is surely all the evidence a person needs that materialism is a fallacious theory of the universe.

- literary Darwinism is just another expression of the death of man (school of philosophy or theology) so popular with our pampered academics. Make no mistake about; materialism = evolutionism = the death of man. The mindless gene carrier promulgated by Dawkins and the like is not man as he's been traditionally known; is not man at all. So what then is this entity we used to call man; one scientist referred to it as a 'bag of chemicals.' Welcome to literary Darwinism.

- literary Darwinism makes as much sense as giving your dog a book for his birthday.

Notes;
1. Jonathan Gottschall is co-editor of a series of essays on literary darwinism, entitled, The Literary Animal: Evolution and the Nature of Narrative (eds Gottschall, J. & Wilson, D. S., Northwestern Univ. Press, Evanston, Illinois, 2005).
2. Literary animal? there is no such thing; never has been; never will be. The idea is a contradiction in terms (Materialist evolution cannot come to terms with the fact of man's uniqueness. This is its fatal flaw.)
3. we see here the arrogance of the modern day professor.
4. If Huxley was Darwin's bulldog, I guess we could call Gottschall, Darwin's Chihuahua.'
5. It's surely easy to see how destructive this kind of reductionism is; if people looked at literature this way no one would read... the way no 'libs' read the bible anymore. (We might see this as a secular higher criticism... if that makes any sense.)
6. Literature (literary) has its root in letters, and so writing, grammar. I'll remind these professors that animals don't write; this makes literary Darwinism an oxymoron.
7. We might call Darwinism a new literary form. (i.e. the just so story)
8. It seems to me we have a choice; we either give up Darwinism, or we give up Literature.
9. You sometimes wonder if professors of this ilk don't imagine that the purpose of literature is to give a job to a professor :=)

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Anti-evolutionary Mischief Day

The journal Science devoted three articles in eight days to the intelligent design controversy. So let's take a look and see what's got them so animated.

Quotes and comments;

1. Many strategies are discussed for battling the nemesis known as ID (and anti-evolution in general.)

2. 'Last but not least, Holden talks about the value of Darwin Day – or, make that Darwin Week:
"Another means of spreading the word are Darwin celebrations on campus that coincide with the biologist’s 12 February birthday. The College of Charleston started a “Darwin Week” 6 years ago to combat attempted antievolution “mischief” in the state legislature, says Dillon.

- Anti-evolution mischief... that's rich. But maybe we should start up a anti-evolution mischief day. (Heh, if we're going to be accused of this crime, we might as well do it right?) Let's see on Feb/12 evil creationists could go out and paint any of Darwin's statues red... or hang some old clothes on it. Who knows what mischief lurks in the heart of your average creationist :=)
- apparently folks in England used to have something called a Mischief Night, so we do have a precedent here.

- I'm personally waiting for Marx Day, Freud day, and Nietzsche day. (Listen to Rick Roderick's 'inspired' lecture paying tribute to these 'masters of suspicion' if you want to know where people like Dillon and Holden are coming from. He flies, baby... flies.)

Notes;
1. Lecture series from 'The Teaching Company'; The Self Under Siege - Rick Roderick; lecture 1. 'The Masters of Suspicion' (In the lecture he tells us, that after Darwin, Marx, Freud and Nietzsche no one can believe in Christianity any longer. He assures us anyone who believes in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is obviously infantile. This series is one long gob of spit directed against Christianity and Christians. I'm astounded TTC published it. I don't see a similar course attacking Islam and Muslims in this vile, repulsive manner. I wonder why not.)
2. 1. Mischief;
- c.1300, "evil condition, misfortune, need, want," from O.Fr. meschief (Fr. méchef), verbal noun from meschever "come or bring to grief, be unfortunate" (opposite of achieve), from mes- "badly" (see mis- (2)) + chever "happen, come to a head," from V.L. *capare "head," from L. caput "head" (see head). Meaning "harm or evil considered as the work of some agent or due to some cause" is from 1480. Sense of "playful malice" first recorded 1784. Mischief Night in 19c. England was the eve of May Day and of Nov. 5, both major holidays, and perhaps the original point was pilfering for the next day's celebration and bonfire; but in Yorkshire, Scotland, and Ireland the night was Halloween. The useful M.E. verb mischieve (c.1330) has, for some reason, fallen from currency.
3. Reference; Darwinists Bemoan Creation/ID Obstinance, Strategize to Improve Darwin Image 02/10/2006 (Creation/Evolution Headlines)
4. I'm kidding, I'm kidding.

Monday, May 12, 2008

Darwin Day for Dummies

I realize we need another post on Darwin Day, maybe even less than we need Darwin Day itself, but I can't resist the temptation to point out some of the absurdities of the thing. To do so I'll comment on the following discussion.

Liberal Pastors Rally to Defend Darwin on “Evolution Sunday” 02/11/2006

Quotes and comments;

1. Not only are schools and communities rising to make Darwin Day an occasion for standing up against creationism and intelligent design (see MSNBC and LiveScience), many churches are joining the celebration of what Darwin symbolizes: the triumph of human reason over revelation. MSNBC states “more than 400 churches of many denominations – most of them in the United States – have agreed to participate in ‘Evolution Sunday’ by giving a sermon, holding classes or sponsoring discussions.”

- I don't know why anyone should think this odd; so called 'liberal' (liberal with the truth at any rate) churches always teach the opposite of what the bible teaches. Pick any subject and what they teach is radical, revolutionary, humanism. In politics they teach socialism and communism; in business they teach State ownership; in marriage they teach promiscuity and libertinism; they favor homosexuality, they defend abortion, and so on.

2. 'The number 400 may be a serious underestimate. Michael Zimmerman, a biology professor and dean of the University of Oshkosh, put out an appeal to churches to sign a letter affirming evolution. He got over 10,000 responses to his Clergy Letter Project, all of whom are listed on his website by name, church and city. The letter they supported states that the Bible is not meant to be taken literally; “Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.” The stories from Genesis contain “timeless truths” about God and man and nature, but did not actually happen.

- one wonders how he knows this. If the bible doesn't explain itself, it has no truth, and can mean anything a reader wants it to... therefore it means nothing. It certainly didn't transform the heart of Darwin, or of the liberal clergy.
- Z. gives us a false dichotomy. (i.e. either scientific information or heart transforming fuzzies.) The bible instead gives truth.

3. 'The second paragraph proclaims that science and religion are completely separate spheres, and that denying evolution amounts to ignorance and blasphemy (by denying the “God-given faculty of reason”).

- Oh yes, here the libs offer a new definition of blasphemy. Well, why not? They've redefined everything else.... making everything into its opposite. (A good definition for the satanic.) Good is evil, evil is good, the bible is false, humanism is true, hell is losing an election, heaven is a good meal, the family is a couple homosexuals and a fireplace, etc.
- how can science and religion (even allowing such things exist, which they don't) be completely seperate if they share so many things; namely language, the human mind, human nature, logic, a view of reality, etc.

4. "We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist."

- it's nice to hear a lib clergy person speak of the 'timeless' (really? timeless?) truths of the bible... but I wonder what he can possibly mean. I thought the whole point of lib theology was that there Were no timeless truths :=) Somebody is being less than honest here. (I'm sure Darwin wouldn't approve of such deception... but then again.) The whole key to lib theology is that since the 'world' is ever evolving (turning on the spit of Humanism) morality must change (evolve) as well.
- it's such a shame he didn't tell us what these timeless truths are. (But maybe he forgot.... being so unused to discussing them.) Oh wait, I bet I know what they are; a. man is basically good, b. but women are even better, c. and homosexuals are better yet, d. it's love makes the world go round, e. we should all be be nice to cats and dogs.

5. "We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests."

- I wonder how they know this; I thought science and religion were completely seperate realms. How then can a clergy person have a right to comment on science? I don't get it.
- what knowledge would that be? that clergy persons evolved from monkeys?
- what achievements? the Darwin awards?

6. "To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children."

- Truth? I thought the whole point of lib theology was that there was no such thing as truth.... only the ever evolving opinions of the moment.
- let's see evolution isn't a theory? is this what he means? does he mean it's just philosophy? well, I'm amazed... I finally found something I can agree with a lib on :=)
- But of course evolution is a theory; to claim X is true, but to have no idea how it could be.... is to be in serious danger of losing even one's theory status. (i.e. materialists have NO idea how living organisms emerged on this planet.... this means evolution cannot possibly be a fact. At best it can be a theory... but in my opinion it's not a theory even, only speculation.
- our children? our children? hmm... sounds like Marxism to me.

7. "We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator."

- well gee; this isn't what evolutionists teach now is it? I thought you said you accepted evolutionary theory as a fact, as truth... but now you tell us the human mind is a gift of God. What's going on here? are you perhaps speaking out of both sides of your mouth? (I cannot abide this double speak one gets from the lib clergy.)
- but maybe when he speaks of god he doesn't mean god in a way the ordinary person does. Maybe he doesn't even believe god exists. (As is the case with many lib clergy.) Maybe he's one of those people who define god as human idealism... or the compassionate community... that speaks thru the advocate for social responsibility... maybe that's the god that gave this gift... though that's admittedly hard to see.
- I have to admit I find all this a little confusing... let's see, it's the will of the creator (who doesn't exist, and doesn't have a will) that we reject creationism in favor of evolutionism. Have I got that right? (But how does he know this? the bible after all is just a collection of fairy tales... written by primitive nomads... that doesn't speak to us in our day... so how would he know what the will of this imaginary being is?

8. "To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris.. "

- you got to love these people... they have turned every Christian doctrine upside down, but yet insist (vehemently) that they are Christians! (And not only this, the claim that they, and only they, are the true Christians.) Clearly words are just tools to be used for the task of the moment for these people.
- having said this I sure would like to know what this loving plan of salvation for humanity is all about. (Humanism by another name?) Gee, it sure sounds exciting.
- what is this reason he's talking about? (From what I can gather reason is any idea the libs like.)

9. "We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth."

- forms of truth? I wonder what that means? what form of truth is the bible? (oh I forgot, libs don't use the bible) what form of truth is Christianity I wonder? (oops) what form of truth is the baptized humanism the lib clergy preach? what form of truth is evolutionary theory?

Summary;
- when I read stuff like this I despair. People who are supposed to be shepherds are seen to be wolves. Are these clergy persons so clueless they don't understand evolution theory is the very opposite of Christianity? (Being great opponents of true Christianity I'm sure they are.) Their defense of Darwinism is utter hypocricy. They don't believe a word of this nonsense, which is no doubt why so many of them signed the pledge. (i.e. they wouldn't dare to reveal their true opinions) They love lies, deceit and pretense.
- all this reminds me of ancient Israel, where pagan gods were brought into the very temple... and worshipped publicly on 'every' green hill.... where people pretended to believe in Yaweh, but had their own household gods, and trafficked with Moloch and other abominations. The unregenerate heart is ever the same. If it adopts true religion it does so in pretense, and works to pervert the truth, to exchange the truth for lies.

Notes;
1. I found this story (discussion) at Creation/Evolution Headlines.
1. I've looked through the list of Darwinist 'churches' and notice that a fair smattering aren't even Christian in name; i.e. Unitarians and the like.
2. At lib churches every Sunday is 'Darwin' Sunday. This is the real joke.
3. I wouldn't be surprised if the old Soviet Union had a Lysenko Day.
4. I see on rereading this post I speak of Zimmerman as a member of the clergy when apparently he's not. (But I assume he wrote his letter in with some clergy help, and the letter is speaking in the voice of the clergy.)

Friday, May 9, 2008

What is religion?

Since Darwinists keep referring to ID as 'merely' religion I thought I should take a look at just what religion is or is not. To do so I'll make comments on the article below.

Attempts to Marginalize ID as Religion Abound - Michael Francisco Evolution news and views

Quotes and comments;

1. 'It’s no secret that critics of intelligent design desperately want to link design theory with religion. The critics know how guilt-by-association will make it much easier to simply ignore and marginalize the actual arguments.'

2. 'The article (1.) quoted Lawrence Krauss, a long time critic of intelligent design, as saying, “It's a cop–out to say design theory is not religious." Apparently Krauss considers intelligent design to be religious, with the clear implication being that intelligent design is not science.'

- I think the best way to deal with such a charge is to get Krauss to define religion. If he's not willing to do so (and I doubt if he is) then he's not really saying anything, merely quacking like a duck.

- in my view evolutionary Humanism is a religion... although I don't recommend using the term religion, as it no longer has any meaning. Once (at least in the West) religion meant Christianity; this is no longer the case. The term world view is a far better terms. (On this particular point I would say ID is not a world view; while evolutionary Humanism certainly is.)

- Krauss is taking the parochial (and narrow) view that 'religion' is a set of ideas about a supreme being. (Apparently he hasn't heard of Buddhism and Zen, etc.) What he's trying to do is win the debate by defining the terms in a way friendly to his cause. This is a child's game; if we all could do this we could all win every debate we entered.

3. 'In the AP article about Gonzales, the author was careful to point out that Gonzalez “identifies himself only as a Protestant,” making the personal religious viewpoint of the design theorist apparently relevant. However, the same author made no mention of Lawrence Krauss’s religious identification. Anti-religious views of leading Darwinists have been well-documented, but are typically ignored by the media, courts, and of course, the Darwinists.

- in my view atheism is Not anti-religious. It is in truth one of the major religions (world views) in our day. Whether it is or isn't religious depends on who gets to define the terms. Atheism is certainly a religion in God's view. (I can't remember who it was, but someone defined religion as any view of God; i.e. theism, agnosticism, or atheism.)
- I challenge anyone to come up with a meaningful definition of religion that everyone will accept. It simply can't be done in my opinion.

4. 'The AP article reports Gonzalez's observation that “Darwinism does not mandate followers to adopt atheism; just as intelligent design doesn't require a belief in God.”

- this is a good point, and one the ID critics never bring up. (Are they really unaware of all those staunch defenders of evolution within the church? In my opinion many of the most severe critics of any kind of creationism, or of any critique of Darwinism are the people who call themselves theistic evolutionists. You or I might find this bizarre, but there it is... it can't be denied.)

- another big problem in this debate (which is so confused because it uses such confused terminology) is this talk about God. God is a word without content. The bible doesn't talk about some generic idea called god, but about a real being named Jehovah, etc. One can talk meaningfully about Yahew, but not about God. One can talk meaningfully about a Creator but not about a word. One can talk meaningfully about Jesus Christ, but not about ultimate Goodness.

5. So what then is religion. Irving Hexham (2.) tells us there are hundreds of definitions. But let's look at a popular dictionary to see what it says.

Religion; American heritage dictionary.
- ETYMOLOGY: Middle English religioun, from Old French religion, from Latin religi, religin-, perhaps from religre, to tie fast. See rely.

1a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. 2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order. 3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. 4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
- Any kind of evolutionary belief is consistent with #4.

- Rely;
1. To be dependent for support, help, or supply: relies on her parents for tuition.
2. To place or have faith or confidence: relied on them to tell him the truth.

- We could say that religion is what a man ultimately relies on in his life. e.g. is it his political party? his church? his race? his country? his money? his fists? In terms of ultimate ideas, religion is what one has confidence in, what one has faith in. The materialist no less than the theist must hold his metaphysics (what reality is, who man is, etc.) on faith. You can't prove the case for materialism any more than you can prove the case for a form of theism.

- some say the root of religion is 'religre' to tie fast. This would imply a religion is a set of public beliefs that has sanctions attached to it. (i.e. penalties for violating standards, and rewards for conforming.) We can see how communism would easily qualify for a religion under this understanding.

- the idea that all people in a 'community' should be bound by rules has been considered a main element of religion since ancient times... and what do we find now? We find evolutionists demanding that 'scientists' (science) be bound by rules drawn up by an E. elite. We find that the teaching of biology should be bound by rules drawn up by the same elite. Man can't escape his nature; man has been called by many a 'religious' animal. (I would prefer religious being.) I think this is basically correct; but I wouldn't expect that people in this fractured society could ever agree on what this amounted to. This is why I prefer world view.
- It's in man's (religious) nature to seek to understand who he is, and what ultimate reality is. It's in his nature to set up a system of what is right and wrong. It's in his nature to try and force people to commit to a system of beliefs, and to be bound by them. It's in man's nature to collect around such systems... and to force others to accept them or be forced out.

- part of metaphysics is the concern with definition. We see this urge strongly expressed in the American opponents to ID. They want to define all things in terms of their wview. This urge to definition is clearly a religious' urge.
- We could define religion as the attempt to define all the key concepts and things in a society, and the attempt to force others to accept those definitions, with sanctions and rewards handed out for conformity or violation. (We might call this the Definitional Imperative.)

6. When Evolutionists refer to any critique of Darwinism as being religiously motivated they presumably have in mind a definition of religion like the one offered by Noah Webster (1828.)

Religion; n. [L. religio, from religo, to bind anew; re and ligo, to bind. This word seems originally to have signified an oath or vow to the gods, or the obligation of such an oath or vow, which was held very sacred by the Romans.]
a. Religion, in its most comprehensive sense, includes a belief in the being and perfections of God, in the revelation of his will to man, in man's obligation to obey his commands, in a state of reward and punishment, and in man's accountableness to God; and also true godliness or piety of life, with the practice of all moral duties.

- Webster was giving a basically Christian definition of religion. But I think he's much on the mark (as usual) when he points to the essence of religion as obligation.

Obligation; (American heritage dictionary)
1. To constrain by physical, legal, social, or moral means.'

- The evolutionist who tries to constrain all teaching on origins to materialist evolution is clearly involved in a religious undertaking. We've seen evolutionists (materialists) use every means possible to make sure evolution is the only account of origins students know of. One has an obligation to 'science' we're told. One has an obligation to tell students the truth. One has an obligation to the economy, to medicine, to fight superstition, etc. That evolutionists (atheists) use the courts in their fight, shows that they see evolution as the preferred State religion.

- I offer my own definition of religion; what one imagines one's obligations to be, and why one thinks this to be the case. i.e. one's rationale for what one believes a man's obligations in life are. (And so; Libertarianism is a religion where one is only obligated to self; and communism is a religion where one is obligated to serve the State.)

Notes;
1. 'A recent AP article in the Hawk Eye about the treatment of Guillermo Gonzalez at Iowa State University highlights two common variants of this guilt-by-religion fallacy.
2. 'Hundreds of different definitions of religion exist each reflecting either a scholarly or a DOGMATIC bias depending in the last resort on the PRESUPPOSITIONS of the person making the definition. Religion clearly contains intellectual, RITUAL, SOCIAL and ETHICAL elements, bound together by an explicit or implicit BELIEF in the REALITY of an unseen world, whether this belief be expressed in SUPERNATURALISTIC or IDEALISTIC terms. - Irving Hexham
3. It makes sense to talk of world views; it makes little or no sense to talk of religion. There is no such thing as religion. It's as meaningful to speak of apples and toasters as both being entities; they are, but having said that one hasn't contributed much to human understanding. Materialists like to see themselves as progressive; why then are they still using this obsolete word religion? why haven't they adopted a term better suited to the modern world?
- the Bible speaks of true and false religion; but in the above I was referring to a generic definition.

Wednesday, May 7, 2008

The myth of Creation

The case against Christianity; proved

A popular way to attack Christianity is to claim that Christians and the Bible are against science. Unfortunately too many Christians have responded to this criticism by denying it. This just won't do. I think it's beyond dispute that this charge has at least some merit to it. In this post I'll look at one rather infamous example of this anti-science bias.

We have a famous example of Christians being wrong in this area. As you know for many centuries Christians criticized the idea the universe was eternal. That the universe was eternal was the sure knowledge of all the scientists of the day. The idea anyone could deny such an obvious fact of science was hard for many scientists to accept. Christians who denied the eternality of the universe were scolded for believing in fairy tales and in the words of an old book. They were rebuked for holding back progress in science. "Things only make sense in terms of an eternal universe,'' they were told. "Astronomy only makes sense in terms of an eternal universe," the cosmologists added. ("Alchemy only makes sense in terms of an eternal universe,'' Christians were told.)

But, alas, Christians wouldn't give up their superstitious belief in Genesis, and so continued to believe in creation. (And out of nothing! and in an instant!) It was incomprehensible to the eternalists that people could be so stubborn.

And so it is to this day. While many of our educated Christians have switched to a belief in an eternal universe, most of the uneducated Christians still believe in the old tale about creation in time. (As if that made any sense!) So we have to admit the charges are true. All we can hope for is that the new public education movement will be able to eradicate such fantastic notions.

Notes;
1. From an essay found in an old book. I no longer have the book, having lost it in a storm at sea. (Unfortunately I've forgotten the title as well.)
2. No, I'm not making this all up. I leave invention to the evolutionists, they're far better at making things up, than we poor creationists. In fact they've made a science of it.

Tuesday, May 6, 2008

The infamous Christian attack on science

'One of the most harmful accusations that has ever been brought against the Church is the claim that it has always been against science in particular and progress in general.' - Edward Coleson (see notes)

Comments;

1. I hate to admit it, but there's a lot of truth to this charge. Christian thinkers in the last few centuries were (and this is sad to report) very much opposed to the science of alchemy and even (alas) astrology. Later they were against Phrenology and Eugenics. It will do Christians no good to deny these things, as the evidence is undeniable.

2. But on a serious note. This is an ironic charge, as without Truth we cannot even know what progress is... or even if it's possible. What is called progress is usually merely what the political rulers of the day want. (As we know, the Russian revolution - instigated by Lenin and German gold - was called by its leaders great progress. It was not called this by the tens of millions who died in the barbarism that followed.)
- Progress is a meaningless concept in terms of evolutionary theory; as supposedly it (E.) is non-teleological, and has no goal or ideal in mind.

3. To make good on this bogus charge (of Christians being against science) atheist scholars have done their best to trash the so called Middle Ages; claiming falsely that there was no material progress, that there were no inventions, etc. (Humanist (revisionist) history is largely a collection of lies and distortions directed against Christians and Christianity. This is not all it is, but this is what is specializes in; especially works of the last 200 years.)

4. In my opinion it's meaningless to say Christians are against science. What could that possibly mean? (Are all Christians the same? Hardly.) This is as stupid and false a charge as any that's ever been levelled. There is no proof of it at all. To be against some one thing (lets say Phrenology) is not to be against 'science.' I can't imagine how it's even possible to be against science, as science is a universal. No group at any time has been against all science. What is usually being referred to is being against a particular bit of technology... or some new way of doing things.
- Many Christians were against phrenology because its adherents offered it as a purely materialistic explanation of human behavior.

Notes;
1. Galileo: Martyr for Science? - Edward Coleson (Online at CSSHSQJ)
2. Christians were also against the idea of vestigial organs, and the Darwinian fantasy called foetal recapitulation (i.e. of evolution) How silly is it that evolutionists called this fantastic notion a 'law of nature, a law of biology'?
- 'The theory formulated by E.H. Haeckel that individuals in their embryonic development pass through stages similar in general structural plan to the stages their species passed through in its evolution.' (When I was growing up this was scientific orthodoxy, and Christians were mocked for not accepting it. Now I check Wikipedia and I'm told the theory is no longer accepted.)
3. Having defended c. against the attacks of atheists let me point out that the c. must not make a god out of 'science' as so many Humanists have done. By this I mean the idea there are no limits to what men can do... that nothing possible should be called evil, that nothing should be out of bounds. I mean the idea the earth belongs to man and he can do with it as he pleases. No. The world (and all in it) belong to god.
4. You can't be against science and progress because these are just words; people who make these charges are philosophically naive at best.
5. Christians can only be against technology and/or science if what people say or do violates god's word or god's law. (If this happens Christians must ''contend for the faith once and for all given to the saints...'' - Jude) What does this imply? In brief I would say it involves a critique of all materialist accounts of human life. It involves a refutation of all reductionism. It denies man is an animal, or can be treated as an animal. etc. (This is a complicated subject, and no one has all the answers.)
5. We should note that it's true that Christians have at times opposed technological innovations. The early Christians (for instance) were against the new technology called crucifixion.

Saturday, May 3, 2008

Evil before Darwin

The evil before Darwin defense

Evolutionists have responded to books like Richard Weikart's (From 'Darwin to Hitler')1. by saying, "this is meaningless... Darwin had nothing to do with atrocities committed by the Nazis. There was evil before Darwin after all."

Some comments;

1. This is true; but it misses the point. We can't ignore Hitler simply because there was evil before him can we?

2. This defense is disingenuous for a number of reasons. Evolutionists have long been pounding the drum and blaming Christianity for all kinds of evil... But was there not evil before Christ came among men? (Bringing light to the darkness) So if we're going to absolve Darwinism we must on the same grounds absolve Christianity. You can't play this game only one way.

3. People who say this (if not merely acting as defense attorneys for Darwin) miss the point. The bible tells us "we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against spirits...'' Whether one sees this 'literally' or not, the point is crucial. Satan wants to destroy men; he wants not merely to destroy their relationship to god... but to degrade and humiliate men as well, to make them do evil things... to make men act as ungodly as possible.
To have success at this he must switch up his tactics from time to time. Let's picture it this way; Satan calls out to man continually to do evil... but he must play a different song at times. If one 'trick' won't work he switches to another. (eg. if the racism card doesn't work, try the nationalist one, the political one, the greed one, the fear one, the lust one, etc.) All these 'tricks' have been successful for him during the long ages. In other words, there isn't just one 'motive' for the evil deeds men do.

4. The Darwin ploy (survival of the fittest and all that) worked, and worked incredibly well in the 20th century. To brush all this off is to miss the point. Evil always comes disguised, (the bible says Satan comes disguised as an angel of light) it comes in the guise of good. The song changes but the musician remains the same. This is not to say man is innocent... or that he's merely played like a fiddle... but because times change, Satan must always find new ways to get man to commit mahem... to do his will. (Not that he needs many entirely new tricks... the old ones can be recycled continually.)

5. The non-christian won't find this at all convincing, as he doesn't believe Satan (or evil spirits) exist. But there's truth even to a figurative understanding of what I've said. If you look at history (and everyone should) you see that evil always abounds... but that its form changes continually. The speeches change, the rationales change, the targets change... but an irrational will to do evil is always there.

6. In my view Darwin had a horrid influence on the years 1850-1950. It won't do to pretend he didn't. (If we decide to absolve him, we must absolve all the other thinkers and gurus in history.)

Notes;
1. Audio lecture by Weikart; From Darwin to Hitler
2. One reviewer claimed Darwin wasn't at all responsible because great evils were done prior to 1850... but this is naive at best. Evolution wasn't (despite what your idiot textbook tells you) invented by Darwin. French thinkers had been writing on evolution for at least 100 years prior... and evolutionism goes back in a more benign form to at the least the early Greeks. (To what extent evolution theory inspired their campaigns against the barbarians I don't know... I've never heard the subject discussed.)
3. It's interesting that despite all the endless critiques of Christianity... I don't remember one apologist dismissing the problem at hand by saying ''oh well, there was evil before Christianity.'' no; they tried to deal with the criticisms.