For some months I've been trying to apply the rigors of logic to the Origins debate. In this post I want to look at the fallacy of suppressed evidence. (As Hurley tells us, logic is the process of examining arguments, for the purpose of determining their validity or falsity.)
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Chapter 1 explained that a cogent argument is an inductive argument with good reasoning and true premises. The requirement of true premises includes the proviso that the premises not ignore some important piece of evidence that outweighs the presented evidence and entails a very different conclusion. If an inductive argument does indeed ignore such evidence, then the argument commits the fallacy of suppressed evidence. - Hurley/164
- Evolutionists continually commit the fallacy of suppressed evidence. (This is one of the fallacies of presumption.) They give arguments for the truth of evolution, but ignore the unwanted evidence from OOL experiments, and ignore the fact life only comes from life (Pasteur). Scientists know of no way simple chemicals can spontaneously arrange themselves into living organisms. This important piece of evidence leads to the conclusion evolution is impossible. i.e. if it can't get started how can it be a valid idea? (e.g. if X never came into being, X doesn't now exist.)
- The E. is actually saying; since we don't have any idea how simple chemicals can spontaneously arrange themselves into living organisms, we know that evolution (M2M) is true. (Doesn't look like a good argument to me.)
Notes;
1. 'This fallacy is classified as a fallacy of presumption because it works by creating the presumption that the premises are both true and complete when in fact they are not.
- the argument pretends that all you need to do to prove evolution is to show some kind of change. No. To prove E. you also have to show how the whole show got started. (This the E.s don't do.)
2. M2M = molecules to man (evolution)
3. A common e. argument goes like this; 'if we look at the fossil record we see that the life forms of the past were superseded by those that came later. We assume the earlier ones were transformed into those we now see. This change (or transformation) is conclusive evidence that e. is a fact. The fallacy here is suppressed evidence. Evolution (M2M) can't be a fact if simple chemicals can't spontaneously arrange themselves into living organisms; and as far as we know they cannot. (This has been admitted by most e.s and atheists; including Dawkins.)
- for this reason E.s don't like to talk about OOL issues; and if pinned down will simply shrug and say; 'we know it happened, we just don't know how.' That isn't science; that's merely their metaphysical bias. (Which we all have.)
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Creation, Evolution, and seduction
Quotes and comments;
1. 'In this fascinating volume, Mike Hansell [Built by animals] looks at the extraordinary structures that animals build--whether homes, traps, or courtship displays--and reveals what science can tell us about this incredible behavior. We look at wasp's nests, leaf-cutting ants, caddis flies and amoebae, and even the extraordinary bower bird, who seduces his mate with a decorated pile of twigs, baubles, feathers, and berries.'
- Gee Mike. Why would a male bird need to 'seduce' a female bird? (These are real birds right? not chicks from the 60's?) Is it trying to get the female to act in an immoral way? to get her to leave her family? to violate tradition? to commit a self-destructive act? Maybe the 'rascal' is trying to corrupt her?
- I don't get it. Animals don't need to be seduced; they are instinctually driven to procreate. (Again we see how E.s abuse language; how they shamelessly speak of animals in human terms; how they engage in equivocation.) Birds need to be seduced to mate about as much as they need to be seduced to fly. [Darwinism works to destroy the truth, the rationality and the usefulness of language.]
- one wonders who is being seduced; birds or modern day collegiates :=)
- I often wonder how it is our educated class have been persuaded to abandon the priceless heritage of Christianity for the 'baubles, twigs and feathers' of Darwinism. (Maybe it's the berries.) They get so very little for 'coming across.' About all that they get is sexual licence; and perhaps a rationale for nihilism. (But maybe that's all they want.)
- The spirit of the age has seduced them; but having said that I don't know how helpful it is. (It's almost impossible for the young person of today to resist this call. I suppose it will have to run its course. In time I'm confident people will see the absurdist implications of Reductionism and will rebel against the project... but until then we'll have to content ourselves with pointing out the obvious.) [1.]
Notes;
1. Evolution theory is a subset of Reductionism, which is a deduction from Materialism.
1. 'In this fascinating volume, Mike Hansell [Built by animals] looks at the extraordinary structures that animals build--whether homes, traps, or courtship displays--and reveals what science can tell us about this incredible behavior. We look at wasp's nests, leaf-cutting ants, caddis flies and amoebae, and even the extraordinary bower bird, who seduces his mate with a decorated pile of twigs, baubles, feathers, and berries.'
- Gee Mike. Why would a male bird need to 'seduce' a female bird? (These are real birds right? not chicks from the 60's?) Is it trying to get the female to act in an immoral way? to get her to leave her family? to violate tradition? to commit a self-destructive act? Maybe the 'rascal' is trying to corrupt her?
- I don't get it. Animals don't need to be seduced; they are instinctually driven to procreate. (Again we see how E.s abuse language; how they shamelessly speak of animals in human terms; how they engage in equivocation.) Birds need to be seduced to mate about as much as they need to be seduced to fly. [Darwinism works to destroy the truth, the rationality and the usefulness of language.]
- one wonders who is being seduced; birds or modern day collegiates :=)
- I often wonder how it is our educated class have been persuaded to abandon the priceless heritage of Christianity for the 'baubles, twigs and feathers' of Darwinism. (Maybe it's the berries.) They get so very little for 'coming across.' About all that they get is sexual licence; and perhaps a rationale for nihilism. (But maybe that's all they want.)
- The spirit of the age has seduced them; but having said that I don't know how helpful it is. (It's almost impossible for the young person of today to resist this call. I suppose it will have to run its course. In time I'm confident people will see the absurdist implications of Reductionism and will rebel against the project... but until then we'll have to content ourselves with pointing out the obvious.) [1.]
Notes;
1. Evolution theory is a subset of Reductionism, which is a deduction from Materialism.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Al Gore and the new Indulgences scam
Al Gore, and Johann Tetzel; soul brothers [3.]
The charade of the wealthy buying 'carbon credits' is a new version of an old game; namely the practice [popularized by the old Catholic church] of buying indulgences. It's the game of paying for the right to sin; paying for the right to be immune from any penalty for sin; the game of allowing the rich to say one thing and do another. In my opinon, 'cap and trade' is a re-run of an old game.
- An example of this is Al (the hockey stick) Gore.... (with his super sized mansion, super sized houseboats, supersized lifestyle; supersized ego, etc.) He (or his pr firm) pretends his decadent and ultra wasteful lifestyle is made clean and noble by buying a few carbon credits. This strikes me as little more than comical.
We're staring at hypocricy the size of a 100 foot yacht. It all boils down to saying 'if you're rich you can live like an jerk and yet brag about being righteous. (And thus in Orwellian double speak; bad is really good.) So in the language of long ago, you can sin as you please and still get to heaven. (Nice work if you can get it I guess.)
- In my view scare mongering (lies, hype, deceit and b.s.) is a poor way to encourage a responsible attitude toward environmental concerns. In my opinion the eco movement has made a serious mistake with their decision to rely upon Socialism and the mega state as an approach to stewardship. In my opinion the better approach is to favor a widely dispersed private ownership and local government. I think that a belief in Creation is the foundation for responsible behavior. In biblical terms; the world was created by an all wise, all intelligent God. It belongs to God, and man is but a steward under god... and man must act in terms of conformity to God's law. This is the biblical approach; and sadly it's one that most people (even Christians) seem to have rejected.
- Al Gore is quite the guy; first he invented the internet, and then he invented global warming.
Notes;
1. If he really cared for protecting the environment we'd see evidence of it in his private life; but we don't. [Throw a few coins to the poor and wave like royalty.] As played by people like Gore environmentalism is just another socialist scam; whereby politicians gain more power and wealth.
2. If the planet does not belong to God it belongs to man. If it wasn't created by god it just happened by accident. The implications of this are immense. If it just happened by accident it doesn't matter what human beings do to it; how they change it; or even if they destroy it. (eg. genetic engineering is founded on the 'accidentalism' of Materialism. i.e. if no one created the world no one can be harmed by human intervention into the genetic process.)
3. Johann Tetzel was the famous monk who sold indulgences
- Johann Tetzel (1465 – 11 August 1519) was a German Dominican preacher remembered for selling indulgences and for a couplet attributed to him, "As soon as a coin in the coffer rings / the soul from purgatory springs. - Wiki
- Because of the great demand from associations that their favorite prayers, devotions, places of worship or pilgrimage, their processions and meetings, be enriched with indulgences, there was a tendency to forge documents declaring that such indulgences, sometimes of extraordinary character, had been granted. Indulgences were attached to many works that were not only good but also served the common good, both religious and civil: churches, hospitals, leprosaria, charitable institutions and schools, and also roads and bridges. - Wiki
The later Middle Ages saw the growth of considerable abuses, such as the unrestricted sale of indulgences by professional "pardoners"[3] (quaestores in Latin), who were sent to collect contributions to the project. In many cases the preaching of these, out of ignorance or shrewdness, went far beyond dogmatic teachings; some of them even dared to promise that the damned would be released from hell. Permission began to be granted to Catholic kings and princes, particularly on the occasion of Crusades, to retain for themselves a rather considerable part of the alms collected for the gaining of indulgences. The most well-known and debated question is the indulgence granted for building the new St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. - Wiki
5. If it weren't for the indulgences scheme Al Gore would be villified; but thanks to PC buffoonery he's claimed a champion of all the right causes. Nice trick.
- as a clever twist on all this, it now turns out Gore himself is in the business of selling indulgences. (Nice work if you can get it.)
6. It's not true by the way, that Gore invented the hockey stick; that was invented by a guy from Canada. (As I recall it was a fellow named Moose Lafleur :=)
The charade of the wealthy buying 'carbon credits' is a new version of an old game; namely the practice [popularized by the old Catholic church] of buying indulgences. It's the game of paying for the right to sin; paying for the right to be immune from any penalty for sin; the game of allowing the rich to say one thing and do another. In my opinon, 'cap and trade' is a re-run of an old game.
- An example of this is Al (the hockey stick) Gore.... (with his super sized mansion, super sized houseboats, supersized lifestyle; supersized ego, etc.) He (or his pr firm) pretends his decadent and ultra wasteful lifestyle is made clean and noble by buying a few carbon credits. This strikes me as little more than comical.
We're staring at hypocricy the size of a 100 foot yacht. It all boils down to saying 'if you're rich you can live like an jerk and yet brag about being righteous. (And thus in Orwellian double speak; bad is really good.) So in the language of long ago, you can sin as you please and still get to heaven. (Nice work if you can get it I guess.)
- In my view scare mongering (lies, hype, deceit and b.s.) is a poor way to encourage a responsible attitude toward environmental concerns. In my opinion the eco movement has made a serious mistake with their decision to rely upon Socialism and the mega state as an approach to stewardship. In my opinion the better approach is to favor a widely dispersed private ownership and local government. I think that a belief in Creation is the foundation for responsible behavior. In biblical terms; the world was created by an all wise, all intelligent God. It belongs to God, and man is but a steward under god... and man must act in terms of conformity to God's law. This is the biblical approach; and sadly it's one that most people (even Christians) seem to have rejected.
- Al Gore is quite the guy; first he invented the internet, and then he invented global warming.
Notes;
1. If he really cared for protecting the environment we'd see evidence of it in his private life; but we don't. [Throw a few coins to the poor and wave like royalty.] As played by people like Gore environmentalism is just another socialist scam; whereby politicians gain more power and wealth.
2. If the planet does not belong to God it belongs to man. If it wasn't created by god it just happened by accident. The implications of this are immense. If it just happened by accident it doesn't matter what human beings do to it; how they change it; or even if they destroy it. (eg. genetic engineering is founded on the 'accidentalism' of Materialism. i.e. if no one created the world no one can be harmed by human intervention into the genetic process.)
3. Johann Tetzel was the famous monk who sold indulgences
- Johann Tetzel (1465 – 11 August 1519) was a German Dominican preacher remembered for selling indulgences and for a couplet attributed to him, "As soon as a coin in the coffer rings / the soul from purgatory springs. - Wiki
- Because of the great demand from associations that their favorite prayers, devotions, places of worship or pilgrimage, their processions and meetings, be enriched with indulgences, there was a tendency to forge documents declaring that such indulgences, sometimes of extraordinary character, had been granted. Indulgences were attached to many works that were not only good but also served the common good, both religious and civil: churches, hospitals, leprosaria, charitable institutions and schools, and also roads and bridges. - Wiki
The later Middle Ages saw the growth of considerable abuses, such as the unrestricted sale of indulgences by professional "pardoners"[3] (quaestores in Latin), who were sent to collect contributions to the project. In many cases the preaching of these, out of ignorance or shrewdness, went far beyond dogmatic teachings; some of them even dared to promise that the damned would be released from hell. Permission began to be granted to Catholic kings and princes, particularly on the occasion of Crusades, to retain for themselves a rather considerable part of the alms collected for the gaining of indulgences. The most well-known and debated question is the indulgence granted for building the new St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. - Wiki
5. If it weren't for the indulgences scheme Al Gore would be villified; but thanks to PC buffoonery he's claimed a champion of all the right causes. Nice trick.
- as a clever twist on all this, it now turns out Gore himself is in the business of selling indulgences. (Nice work if you can get it.)
6. It's not true by the way, that Gore invented the hockey stick; that was invented by a guy from Canada. (As I recall it was a fellow named Moose Lafleur :=)
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Criticism of the death penalty as evidence of man's uniqueness
There is much campaigning nowadays about the evils of the death penalty; how it is cruel, inhuman, etc. and should be abolished. Much of this strikes me as hypocritical. Never in human history have so many claimed to believe man is just an animal; but yet here's a denial of the implications of such a claim.
- If man is just an animal, as the e.s claim, how can the death penalty be wrong. After all; animals kill animals all day long (handing out the death penalty as it were). No one says that's wrong. Therefore to say the death penalty is wrong one has to also claim that man is not an animal. This is the clear implication; but how many people are willing to admit this.
- Can you imagine an animal making such a claim? Animals (as far as we know) just accept the world as it is (even the human world it would seem) but human beings don't. Here's one more radical difference between man and the animals.
- If man is just an animal what foundation is there for being against one animal killing another? (The logical deduction is that man is not an animal; or killing an animal isn't wrong.)
- The irony here (if that's not too tame a word) is that on the one hand the materialist (E.) wants to claim man is just an animal so he can escape the limits of acting in a moral way; but then he finds he wants to insist on certain moral absolutes after all. He seems to 'forget' that if he is indeed just an animal he can't use moral arguments. Finding himself in such a bind he hopes people won't realize he's contradicting himself. What else can he do?
- In my opinion, the campaign to eliminate the death penalty is evidence man is not an animal; and that the people involved know (on some level) that this is the case. (You will notice that they don't try to get the State to prevent wolves from eating deer.) In other words, their actions give them away.
Notes;
1. Evolutionists rarely define what they mean by an animal; but a tentative definition is a creature that has no free will. (If man then is an animal, he has no free will. If he has no free will he can do no wrong. Therefore the death penalty isn't wrong.)
- and you see why the pc professor doesn't like logic.
- If man is just an animal, as the e.s claim, how can the death penalty be wrong. After all; animals kill animals all day long (handing out the death penalty as it were). No one says that's wrong. Therefore to say the death penalty is wrong one has to also claim that man is not an animal. This is the clear implication; but how many people are willing to admit this.
- Can you imagine an animal making such a claim? Animals (as far as we know) just accept the world as it is (even the human world it would seem) but human beings don't. Here's one more radical difference between man and the animals.
- If man is just an animal what foundation is there for being against one animal killing another? (The logical deduction is that man is not an animal; or killing an animal isn't wrong.)
- The irony here (if that's not too tame a word) is that on the one hand the materialist (E.) wants to claim man is just an animal so he can escape the limits of acting in a moral way; but then he finds he wants to insist on certain moral absolutes after all. He seems to 'forget' that if he is indeed just an animal he can't use moral arguments. Finding himself in such a bind he hopes people won't realize he's contradicting himself. What else can he do?
- In my opinion, the campaign to eliminate the death penalty is evidence man is not an animal; and that the people involved know (on some level) that this is the case. (You will notice that they don't try to get the State to prevent wolves from eating deer.) In other words, their actions give them away.
Notes;
1. Evolutionists rarely define what they mean by an animal; but a tentative definition is a creature that has no free will. (If man then is an animal, he has no free will. If he has no free will he can do no wrong. Therefore the death penalty isn't wrong.)
- and you see why the pc professor doesn't like logic.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Language; its many uses prove human uniqueness
As I study the Origins debate, I repeatedly come across the claim by Evolutionists that there is no difference between human beings and animals. Though I believe this is an absurd claim, I think it's necessary to address it. Today I want to look at some evidence from language.
Quotes and comments;
1. - 'Ordinary language, as most of us are at least vaguely aware, serves various functions in our day-to-day lives. The twentieth-century philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein thought the number of these functions to be virtually unlimited.
Thus, among other things, language is used to;
- ask questions
- tell stories
- tell lies
- guess at answers
- form hypotheses
- launch verbal assaults
- tell jokes
- flirt with someone
- give directions
- sing songs
- issue commands
- greet someone... and so on.' [1.]
- When you stop to think about all the things you can do with language, it truly is amazing how flexible language is.
- To be able to claim there is no difference between animals and human beings you have to be able to use language. (No animal can make such a claim or deny such a claim.)
- Animals don't use language to do any of these things. (At least not in the same way human beings do.) Imagine not being able to tell stories; not being able to sing songs; not being able to tell jokes; not being able to ask questions, etc. (And what would our pols do if they couldn't lie :=)
- The following is a partial list of some more things we can do with language; be sarcastic; use irony; form puns; form symbols; create metaphors; form analogies; write poetry; create rhymes; form equations; demonstrate logic; demonstrate illogic; criticize bad theories; do thought experiments; express worship; form arguments; form faulty arguments; to pretend we believe one thing when we believe another; to read; to write; to denounce religion; to praise political schemes; to write history; to offer evidence for metaphysical positions; to plagiarize; construct cosmologies; and so on.
- to insist, in the face of this evidence, there is no difference between human beings and animals would appear to be nothing more than ideological bias. (i.e. an exercise in buffoonery.)
Notes;
1. the above comes from; 'A concise introduction to logic' - Hurley p/78
2. And what would evolutionists do if they couldn't slander creationists? How poor Mr. Dawkins would suffer :=)But does anyone imagine animals engage in slandering other animals for their metaphysical views?
Quotes and comments;
1. - 'Ordinary language, as most of us are at least vaguely aware, serves various functions in our day-to-day lives. The twentieth-century philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein thought the number of these functions to be virtually unlimited.
Thus, among other things, language is used to;
- ask questions
- tell stories
- tell lies
- guess at answers
- form hypotheses
- launch verbal assaults
- tell jokes
- flirt with someone
- give directions
- sing songs
- issue commands
- greet someone... and so on.' [1.]
- When you stop to think about all the things you can do with language, it truly is amazing how flexible language is.
- To be able to claim there is no difference between animals and human beings you have to be able to use language. (No animal can make such a claim or deny such a claim.)
- Animals don't use language to do any of these things. (At least not in the same way human beings do.) Imagine not being able to tell stories; not being able to sing songs; not being able to tell jokes; not being able to ask questions, etc. (And what would our pols do if they couldn't lie :=)
- The following is a partial list of some more things we can do with language; be sarcastic; use irony; form puns; form symbols; create metaphors; form analogies; write poetry; create rhymes; form equations; demonstrate logic; demonstrate illogic; criticize bad theories; do thought experiments; express worship; form arguments; form faulty arguments; to pretend we believe one thing when we believe another; to read; to write; to denounce religion; to praise political schemes; to write history; to offer evidence for metaphysical positions; to plagiarize; construct cosmologies; and so on.
- to insist, in the face of this evidence, there is no difference between human beings and animals would appear to be nothing more than ideological bias. (i.e. an exercise in buffoonery.)
Notes;
1. the above comes from; 'A concise introduction to logic' - Hurley p/78
2. And what would evolutionists do if they couldn't slander creationists? How poor Mr. Dawkins would suffer :=)But does anyone imagine animals engage in slandering other animals for their metaphysical views?
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Chimp charity and other circus tricks
A couple years ago the popular science mags were all a gaggle over an experiment that supposed demonstrated a selfless act of charity by one chimp to another. [1.]
Comments;
Problem. You can prove almost anything you want with an experiment; especially one that is designed to prove some point; especially with convoluted and contrived (i.e. unnatural) situations.
- one wonders how this experiment is any different from teaching a bear to ride a bicycle. Does getting a bear to ride a bicycle prove bears like riding bikes? does it prove they build them? does it prove they enjoy recreational activities? does it prove they enjoy entertaining humans? does it prove they enjoy showing off? does it prove that they are by nature circus performers?
- i.e. In these kinds of experiments, you're manipulating the animal to act in the way you want.
Notes;
1. Chimp altruism; is it all true? Creation/Evolution Headlines 06/27/2007
2. The philosophy of experiments (experimentation) is a little studied subject. I can't find a single book on the subject. I can't even recall reading a single essay on the subject. (Is it a taboo subject or something :=)
- after more search I came across a title called 'The philosophy of Scientific Experimentation' - by Radder
3. - The question I have is this; just what do experiments prove? (especially those with animals or human beings) The more important question (and the more complex one) is this; 'what does a particular experiment prove?' (If anything.)
Comments;
Problem. You can prove almost anything you want with an experiment; especially one that is designed to prove some point; especially with convoluted and contrived (i.e. unnatural) situations.
- one wonders how this experiment is any different from teaching a bear to ride a bicycle. Does getting a bear to ride a bicycle prove bears like riding bikes? does it prove they build them? does it prove they enjoy recreational activities? does it prove they enjoy entertaining humans? does it prove they enjoy showing off? does it prove that they are by nature circus performers?
- i.e. In these kinds of experiments, you're manipulating the animal to act in the way you want.
Notes;
1. Chimp altruism; is it all true? Creation/Evolution Headlines 06/27/2007
2. The philosophy of experiments (experimentation) is a little studied subject. I can't find a single book on the subject. I can't even recall reading a single essay on the subject. (Is it a taboo subject or something :=)
- after more search I came across a title called 'The philosophy of Scientific Experimentation' - by Radder
3. - The question I have is this; just what do experiments prove? (especially those with animals or human beings) The more important question (and the more complex one) is this; 'what does a particular experiment prove?' (If anything.)
Thursday, May 21, 2009
The search for the god gene; and other bits of comedy
On the cover of a popular science magazine, not too long ago, I saw a headline, "Scientists search for the cause of religious faith." I'm sure you've seen similar article titles floating around.
Comments;
- In my opinion this kind of reductionism is absurd. Were the editors so blind they don't realize this means there's physical cause for a belief in Darwinism as well? Don't they see it? or do they pretend they don't?
- The dirty little secret of reductionism is this; not only would there have to be a material cause for belief in God, but there would have to be a cause for all beliefs; in aliens, monsters, reincarnation, astrology, Communism, the eternal universe, etc. This would include not merely 'big' beliefs, but would necessitate there being a physical cause of all human thoughts.
- This kind of radical reductionism means there there would even have to be a cause [a gene] for a belief in reductionism.
- The ancient philosopher Pyrrho said we should keep an open mind on things; because for every statement [A] that men make, we can find a corresponding non-A. that is also claimed. In other words, you will find men on both sides of every argument. (Gee; I wonder what gene explains that? Maybe the contrarian gene :=)
Notes;
1. Does anyone really believe you can explain the fact we have evolutionists and creationists on the basis of DNA?
Comments;
- In my opinion this kind of reductionism is absurd. Were the editors so blind they don't realize this means there's physical cause for a belief in Darwinism as well? Don't they see it? or do they pretend they don't?
- The dirty little secret of reductionism is this; not only would there have to be a material cause for belief in God, but there would have to be a cause for all beliefs; in aliens, monsters, reincarnation, astrology, Communism, the eternal universe, etc. This would include not merely 'big' beliefs, but would necessitate there being a physical cause of all human thoughts.
- This kind of radical reductionism means there there would even have to be a cause [a gene] for a belief in reductionism.
- The ancient philosopher Pyrrho said we should keep an open mind on things; because for every statement [A] that men make, we can find a corresponding non-A. that is also claimed. In other words, you will find men on both sides of every argument. (Gee; I wonder what gene explains that? Maybe the contrarian gene :=)
Notes;
1. Does anyone really believe you can explain the fact we have evolutionists and creationists on the basis of DNA?
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Man is a curious cat
Man is a curious cat
It's my opinion that curiousity comes from our God given nature. Without the particular kind of curiousity man has there wouldn't be science or philosophy as we know them.
- We need to ask why man is so eager to know things that have no basis in survival. (Darwinism tells us this motive is the basis of all behavior.) We need to ask why mankind has been so diligent over the millennia in his relentless curiousity about the universe. Man has been so careful in his investigations that I don't think he's overlooked a thing. This shouldn't be taken for granted (as materialists do) but should be a cause for wonder.
- I think it's safe to say man is curious about things that relate to his nature. i.e. what we are curious about tells us something of what we are like; what human nature is like.
- Man isn't only curious about sex; he's curious about a thousand and one things, including the subject of Origins. But we rarely stop to ask why. It's easy to imagine some (hypothetical) intelligent species that's not interested in its origins. Why is man interested in his origins? I suspect that it's because those origins are important to him. If all (or most) these impulses (to curiousity) come from god; then our interest in origins is god's way of calling us.... of prompting us to ask the right questions.
It's my opinion that curiousity comes from our God given nature. Without the particular kind of curiousity man has there wouldn't be science or philosophy as we know them.
- We need to ask why man is so eager to know things that have no basis in survival. (Darwinism tells us this motive is the basis of all behavior.) We need to ask why mankind has been so diligent over the millennia in his relentless curiousity about the universe. Man has been so careful in his investigations that I don't think he's overlooked a thing. This shouldn't be taken for granted (as materialists do) but should be a cause for wonder.
- I think it's safe to say man is curious about things that relate to his nature. i.e. what we are curious about tells us something of what we are like; what human nature is like.
- Man isn't only curious about sex; he's curious about a thousand and one things, including the subject of Origins. But we rarely stop to ask why. It's easy to imagine some (hypothetical) intelligent species that's not interested in its origins. Why is man interested in his origins? I suspect that it's because those origins are important to him. If all (or most) these impulses (to curiousity) come from god; then our interest in origins is god's way of calling us.... of prompting us to ask the right questions.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Psychologizing the Origins debate
It's a favorite ploy of evolutionists to attack creationists by claiming they are anti-science. (That no creationist claims to be anti-science doesn't seem to matter.)
In a recent article two psychologists (pretending to be scientists) claimed that the 'anti-science' of creationists had its source in their upbringing. [1.]
Comments;
- To psychologize an 'opponent' (fellow citizen) is an uncivil act. It's both patronizing and rude. (This tactic became popular with Freud; who had some of the silliest ideas on evolution you could imagine; taken from a clown called Huston Smith I believe.) The idea is that you attack a viewpoint by offering some speculation on how a person got that viewpoint. You ignore the argument and concentrate on biography. This is, in my opinion, just another form of the ad hominem argument. What should be dealt with is creationist argument, not the personal background of the person who holds this position. (That E.s so often resort to slander and other 'rhetorical' techniques is evidence of how weak their own position is.)
- this game can of course be played with anyone and against anyone; even our psychologists. (Don't you wish people who deny the soul would stop calling them psychologists? Psychology means the study of the soul. Don't they have any integrity at all?) Does their background nullify their position on Origins? (Are the opinions of the elite worthless because they belong to the exploitive, pampered class? Should we, like Pol Pot, consider the educated class and their opinions of no worth?)
- once again, E.'s (suffering from a lack of good arguments) use slander to attack the c. position. They tell us creationists are anti-science. On the contrary; to doubt Darwinism is Not to be against science. At best (even if e. were science) this would only qualify as being against one small aspect of the current scientific orthodoxy. (Is to oppose something some politician says to be against politics? to be against government?)
- While Creationists aren't 'anti-science' many are wary of what's going on in the scientific community, and they have every right to be. What we see is that scientists will take money from anyone, and are willing to do anything. That's surely something to be concerned about. S. researchers (etc.) have taken hundreds of billions from the u.s. military alone. (If not trillions by now; and it's certainly trillions worldwide.) Many of them (if not most) are willing to get involved in any kind of program; whether this is weaponry or other things. We see them take hundreds of billions from governments to get involved in many dubious programs. (I'm not claiming all of this is dangerous or negative.) We see masses of them willing to do absolutely anything. They apparently have no ethical or moral standards whatsoever. Shouldn't people be wary of this? Isn't it their civil duty?
- scientists have been responsible for many evil developments in the past (bombs, nuclear weapons, poisonous gases, spying techniques, etc.) so it's clear that they constitute a danger in our midst. (One would like to see them list publicly what limits they are willingly to stand by; if any.)
- apparently our authors believe citizens should just allow scientists to do whatever they please. If that's the case they should come out and say so. (Do they believe scientists in communist countries should be allowed to do whatever they want? Do they believe Nazi scientists had a right to do whatever they wanted?)
- to be against some things scientists do (with tax dollars, by the way) is not to be against science. Science isn't a person, and there's no such thing as generic 'science' in any event. (e.g. if I'm against murder can I be said to be anti-human?) This is a bad argument; if we can even call it an argument.
- the whole evolutionary view flounders on the problem of origins of life. It's impossible (on some blind chemical basis) to get living organisms from inert materials; and I fail to see how it's 'anti-science' to point this out. [4.]
Notes;
1. Reference; Darwin’s Ethics: All and/or None 05/22/2007
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200705.htm#20070522a
- Propaganda: Anti-evolutionism as anti-science – An article in Science tried to analyze the “childhood origins of adult anti-science behavior.” Paul Bloom and Deena Skolnick Weisberg considered creationism and resistance to evolutionary theory as examples of anti-scientific attitudes, and portrayed them as childish behaviors that were not properly overcome through education. Surprisingly, they admitted that common sense contributes to resistance to evolution.
They ended, “This is the current situation in the United States, with regard to the central tenets of neuroscience and evolutionary biology. These concepts clash with intuitive beliefs about the immaterial nature of the soul and the purposeful design of humans and other animals, and (in the United States) these beliefs are particularly likely to be endorsed and transmitted by trusted religious and political authorities.” The idea is that scientists and educators need to be aware of these “anti-science” tendencies in their efforts to teach science – a science that is congruent with materialistic neuroscience and evolution.' (Apparently they momentarily forgot that we're all just mindless animals, or reactionary bags of chemicals.)
2. If the authors want a completely passive citizenry they should say so openly. (This would also involve not blaming people for being passive when that tactic suits the authors.)
3. One wonders, if man has no mind or soul, and his behavior is simply a matter of chemical reactions in the brain, what basis they have for criticizing people for holding creationist beliefs. This makes no sense to me. Neuro-psychology is no psychology at all. (ie. psychology literally means, the study of the soul.) If these people were honest they would stop referring to what they do as psychology. (Maybe we can call it brainiology, brainism, physicalism, or materialism.)
- one wonders why they don't call themselves chemists.
- apparently they don't realize the implications of their own position; they certainly don't seem willing to acknowledge this. If all human thought is merely chemical reaction there can be no basis for morality or ethics; or for the finger pointing and scolding engaged in by our authors.
4. This has been admitted by many of the top biologists of our day.
In a recent article two psychologists (pretending to be scientists) claimed that the 'anti-science' of creationists had its source in their upbringing. [1.]
Comments;
- To psychologize an 'opponent' (fellow citizen) is an uncivil act. It's both patronizing and rude. (This tactic became popular with Freud; who had some of the silliest ideas on evolution you could imagine; taken from a clown called Huston Smith I believe.) The idea is that you attack a viewpoint by offering some speculation on how a person got that viewpoint. You ignore the argument and concentrate on biography. This is, in my opinion, just another form of the ad hominem argument. What should be dealt with is creationist argument, not the personal background of the person who holds this position. (That E.s so often resort to slander and other 'rhetorical' techniques is evidence of how weak their own position is.)
- this game can of course be played with anyone and against anyone; even our psychologists. (Don't you wish people who deny the soul would stop calling them psychologists? Psychology means the study of the soul. Don't they have any integrity at all?) Does their background nullify their position on Origins? (Are the opinions of the elite worthless because they belong to the exploitive, pampered class? Should we, like Pol Pot, consider the educated class and their opinions of no worth?)
- once again, E.'s (suffering from a lack of good arguments) use slander to attack the c. position. They tell us creationists are anti-science. On the contrary; to doubt Darwinism is Not to be against science. At best (even if e. were science) this would only qualify as being against one small aspect of the current scientific orthodoxy. (Is to oppose something some politician says to be against politics? to be against government?)
- While Creationists aren't 'anti-science' many are wary of what's going on in the scientific community, and they have every right to be. What we see is that scientists will take money from anyone, and are willing to do anything. That's surely something to be concerned about. S. researchers (etc.) have taken hundreds of billions from the u.s. military alone. (If not trillions by now; and it's certainly trillions worldwide.) Many of them (if not most) are willing to get involved in any kind of program; whether this is weaponry or other things. We see them take hundreds of billions from governments to get involved in many dubious programs. (I'm not claiming all of this is dangerous or negative.) We see masses of them willing to do absolutely anything. They apparently have no ethical or moral standards whatsoever. Shouldn't people be wary of this? Isn't it their civil duty?
- scientists have been responsible for many evil developments in the past (bombs, nuclear weapons, poisonous gases, spying techniques, etc.) so it's clear that they constitute a danger in our midst. (One would like to see them list publicly what limits they are willingly to stand by; if any.)
- apparently our authors believe citizens should just allow scientists to do whatever they please. If that's the case they should come out and say so. (Do they believe scientists in communist countries should be allowed to do whatever they want? Do they believe Nazi scientists had a right to do whatever they wanted?)
- to be against some things scientists do (with tax dollars, by the way) is not to be against science. Science isn't a person, and there's no such thing as generic 'science' in any event. (e.g. if I'm against murder can I be said to be anti-human?) This is a bad argument; if we can even call it an argument.
- the whole evolutionary view flounders on the problem of origins of life. It's impossible (on some blind chemical basis) to get living organisms from inert materials; and I fail to see how it's 'anti-science' to point this out. [4.]
Notes;
1. Reference; Darwin’s Ethics: All and/or None 05/22/2007
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200705.htm#20070522a
- Propaganda: Anti-evolutionism as anti-science – An article in Science tried to analyze the “childhood origins of adult anti-science behavior.” Paul Bloom and Deena Skolnick Weisberg considered creationism and resistance to evolutionary theory as examples of anti-scientific attitudes, and portrayed them as childish behaviors that were not properly overcome through education. Surprisingly, they admitted that common sense contributes to resistance to evolution.
They ended, “This is the current situation in the United States, with regard to the central tenets of neuroscience and evolutionary biology. These concepts clash with intuitive beliefs about the immaterial nature of the soul and the purposeful design of humans and other animals, and (in the United States) these beliefs are particularly likely to be endorsed and transmitted by trusted religious and political authorities.” The idea is that scientists and educators need to be aware of these “anti-science” tendencies in their efforts to teach science – a science that is congruent with materialistic neuroscience and evolution.' (Apparently they momentarily forgot that we're all just mindless animals, or reactionary bags of chemicals.)
2. If the authors want a completely passive citizenry they should say so openly. (This would also involve not blaming people for being passive when that tactic suits the authors.)
3. One wonders, if man has no mind or soul, and his behavior is simply a matter of chemical reactions in the brain, what basis they have for criticizing people for holding creationist beliefs. This makes no sense to me. Neuro-psychology is no psychology at all. (ie. psychology literally means, the study of the soul.) If these people were honest they would stop referring to what they do as psychology. (Maybe we can call it brainiology, brainism, physicalism, or materialism.)
- one wonders why they don't call themselves chemists.
- apparently they don't realize the implications of their own position; they certainly don't seem willing to acknowledge this. If all human thought is merely chemical reaction there can be no basis for morality or ethics; or for the finger pointing and scolding engaged in by our authors.
4. This has been admitted by many of the top biologists of our day.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Matter has no Potential
Another post that tries to refute the claim there is no difference between human beings and animals. (In my opinion, this 'idea' only has traction because of our socialist education system.)
- Perhaps the greatest difference between animals and humans is that humans have potential and animals do not.
- look at monkeys; we've known them at least 5000 years... and we've seen no progress at all. (Nor will we ever in my opinion.)
- compare this with the progress of human beings over this time.
- what I'm mainly referring to here is the educability of human beings vs. animals. (eg. a child taken from a primitive jungle tribe, who might otherwise have lived a simple life, can become with education a scientist. No animal can even begin to demonstrate the same potential.)
- Evolutionists who claim there is no difference between men and animals are utterly wrong; this is as fallacious an idea as there can be. (Surely no ape would be this foolish; this willfully hypocritical.)
- as far as I know, there is no animal potential movement. (As far as I know, no animals sit around dreaming about transcending themselves and becoming something else; as the clowns in the meta-human group do.)
Notes;
1. I wonder if there are any Abraham Maslows among the apes :=)
2. One wonders how, if animals show no potential (for leaps of progress) now, they somehow had this ability in the fog of the past.
- Perhaps the greatest difference between animals and humans is that humans have potential and animals do not.
- look at monkeys; we've known them at least 5000 years... and we've seen no progress at all. (Nor will we ever in my opinion.)
- compare this with the progress of human beings over this time.
- what I'm mainly referring to here is the educability of human beings vs. animals. (eg. a child taken from a primitive jungle tribe, who might otherwise have lived a simple life, can become with education a scientist. No animal can even begin to demonstrate the same potential.)
- Evolutionists who claim there is no difference between men and animals are utterly wrong; this is as fallacious an idea as there can be. (Surely no ape would be this foolish; this willfully hypocritical.)
- as far as I know, there is no animal potential movement. (As far as I know, no animals sit around dreaming about transcending themselves and becoming something else; as the clowns in the meta-human group do.)
Notes;
1. I wonder if there are any Abraham Maslows among the apes :=)
2. One wonders how, if animals show no potential (for leaps of progress) now, they somehow had this ability in the fog of the past.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Equivocation in the Origins debate
Much of the confusion in the 'Origins' debate is based on equivocation of language.
- As an example, we're told that the claim animals don't use tools has been disproved; but this depends on a confusion in language. eg. is a rock or a twig really the same as a diesel engine or a microscope? :=)
- The sentence/claim Is true if it's written; 'animals and human beings don't use the same tools, or use tools in the same way.' (They don't think about tools in the same way; envision tools in the same way.) Animals just use objects they find (even if they modify them in slight ways, they don't create objects that don't exist independently). eg. an ape might peel a bit of bark from a twig, but you could find similar twigs that have been 'peeled' by the forces of nature. An animal doesn't envision an object that has never existed. An animal doesn't invent tools for objects that lie outside its ordinary needs. (As far as I know, animals only use 'tools' for the purpose of acquiring food.)
- I know of no animal that makes tools for making tools. (Or tools for making tools for making tools.)
- if we want to correct (clarify) the statement 'only human beings make tools' we can rewrite it to say 'only human beings make machines'. [i.e. A device consisting of fixed and moving parts that modifies mechanical energy and transmits it in a more useful form.]
- if anyone wants we could count up the tools invented by human beings, and the number 'invented' by animals. (Only the willfully blind would think these totals belong in the same category.)
- What's called in evolutionary literature the use of tools by animals, or the making of tools, seems to me to be merely instinctual behavior. I don't see this as evidence of conscious foresight and imagination.
- the same holds true for the statement; 'only man uses language' - stated this way it can be claimed this is false; but if written 'no animal uses language in the way man does' it's correct. Human language is more than communication; and to conflate the two (communication and language) is an error. What animals have are communication techniques; they do not have language in the human (symbolic) sense. No animal thinks about language; no animal has a philosophy of language. No animal has written language. (One could go on, but I think this suffices.)
- most of these mistakes (of equivocation) stem from a failure to define terms. In my opinion it's utterly mistaken to use terms like language for both human beings and animals. This is a failure of analysis; a failure of definition; a failure of distinction.
Notes;
1. the example of apes making spears (if true) is certainly interesting. I wonder however (and this is pure speculation) if this isn't a case of apes imitating human behavior. (Apes are great mimics; I remember seeing a photo of an ape pretending (on its own, not as a trained act) to smoke a cigarette butt. To what extent animals mimic human behaviors I don't know; and I can't recall reading anything on the subject. Apparently some parrots, on their own, have been known to mimic human speech.)
- there's an amazing bit of animal imitation you can find on YouTube; a Lyre bird (if one can believe one's eyes, and the assurances of David Attenborough) imitates the sound of a camera, a car alarm, and other human artifacts it has heard.
2. The 'spears' made (supposedly) by apes aren't really spears at all of course. i.e. do they have metal or stone tips? do they have poisoned tips?
- As an example, we're told that the claim animals don't use tools has been disproved; but this depends on a confusion in language. eg. is a rock or a twig really the same as a diesel engine or a microscope? :=)
- The sentence/claim Is true if it's written; 'animals and human beings don't use the same tools, or use tools in the same way.' (They don't think about tools in the same way; envision tools in the same way.) Animals just use objects they find (even if they modify them in slight ways, they don't create objects that don't exist independently). eg. an ape might peel a bit of bark from a twig, but you could find similar twigs that have been 'peeled' by the forces of nature. An animal doesn't envision an object that has never existed. An animal doesn't invent tools for objects that lie outside its ordinary needs. (As far as I know, animals only use 'tools' for the purpose of acquiring food.)
- I know of no animal that makes tools for making tools. (Or tools for making tools for making tools.)
- if we want to correct (clarify) the statement 'only human beings make tools' we can rewrite it to say 'only human beings make machines'. [i.e. A device consisting of fixed and moving parts that modifies mechanical energy and transmits it in a more useful form.]
- if anyone wants we could count up the tools invented by human beings, and the number 'invented' by animals. (Only the willfully blind would think these totals belong in the same category.)
- What's called in evolutionary literature the use of tools by animals, or the making of tools, seems to me to be merely instinctual behavior. I don't see this as evidence of conscious foresight and imagination.
- the same holds true for the statement; 'only man uses language' - stated this way it can be claimed this is false; but if written 'no animal uses language in the way man does' it's correct. Human language is more than communication; and to conflate the two (communication and language) is an error. What animals have are communication techniques; they do not have language in the human (symbolic) sense. No animal thinks about language; no animal has a philosophy of language. No animal has written language. (One could go on, but I think this suffices.)
- most of these mistakes (of equivocation) stem from a failure to define terms. In my opinion it's utterly mistaken to use terms like language for both human beings and animals. This is a failure of analysis; a failure of definition; a failure of distinction.
Notes;
1. the example of apes making spears (if true) is certainly interesting. I wonder however (and this is pure speculation) if this isn't a case of apes imitating human behavior. (Apes are great mimics; I remember seeing a photo of an ape pretending (on its own, not as a trained act) to smoke a cigarette butt. To what extent animals mimic human behaviors I don't know; and I can't recall reading anything on the subject. Apparently some parrots, on their own, have been known to mimic human speech.)
- there's an amazing bit of animal imitation you can find on YouTube; a Lyre bird (if one can believe one's eyes, and the assurances of David Attenborough) imitates the sound of a camera, a car alarm, and other human artifacts it has heard.
2. The 'spears' made (supposedly) by apes aren't really spears at all of course. i.e. do they have metal or stone tips? do they have poisoned tips?
Monday, May 11, 2009
The difference of man, and the difference it makes
The uniqueness of human beings is under persistent attack in academic circles. In this post I want to look at one example (of thousands) and try and refute it.
Quotes and comments;
1. “The fact that the birds act in favor of a future need as opposed to the current one challenges the hypothesis that this ability is unique to humans.” [1.]
- I don't remember anyone saying animals can't act in terms of future need. Did anyone say this? I assume what they're referring to is planning for the future. (Some have claimed this was a human distinctive.) But do we know the birds are planning for the future? Couldn't we say they're just acting by instinct? e.g. the way they make nests or migrate. (Would they say building a nest is planning for the future?)
- the problem here is (as usual) equivocation. (This problem pops up daily in reading about Origins, etc.) These authors are conflating the 'planning' of animals with the planning of human beings. It's clear animals act (in some way) as if they were planning for the future, but the mistake is to equate this with what human beings do. When the bear fattens itself up for winter hibernation is it really 'planning' for the future? Does it picture itself asleep in some cave wasting away if not for the added fat? I doubt it.
- my point is that there is no such generic thing as planning; no such generic as planning for the future. When people say 'scrub jays are just like us' they're committing the fallacy of equivocation.
- no guys; scrub jays are Not like us. (I don't see them doing studies of humans and their ability to plan for the future :=) I don't see them planning away on how they can get tenure or a government grant.
- the old claim (formulated in a simple way) may well be false; but what is true, is that no animal plans for the future in the way human beings do. The planning abilities of man are unique; no animal foresees or thinks about the future in the way human beings do.
- human abilities are so obviously unique that it baffles me why we have armies of Darwinists insisting this isn't true. Why this campaign to deny reality? (I don't see animals engaged in a similar campaign.) The social pendulum (at least on campus) has swung so far (away from creation) that it has reached the lofty heights of silliness. The denial of human uniqueness seems to be part of a new 'nature religion' that's in the works. By denying his uniqueness man bows down to 'nature' and does homage. (He humbles himself as it were.)
Notes;
1. Science Is for the Birds - Creation/Evolution Headlines 05/19/2007
Birds, with all their variety and functionality, are a never-ending source of study for scientists. Here are some recent feathery findings:
- Memory masters: Scrub jays are like us: they can plan ahead, regardless of mood. Current Biology did a study that proved these common western birds can cache tomorrow’s breakfast regardless of their motivational state. The authors said, “The fact that the birds act in favor of a future need as opposed to the current one challenges the hypothesis that this ability is unique to humans.”
- I don't know what they mean by the motivational state of a bird. How would they know? They seem to be conflating human motivation and bird motivation. Do birds even have motivation? Isn't it wrong to use the same word for men and birds? Just asking guys.
- are they claiming the birds are 'sacrificing' for the future?
2. simple eating and drinking can be seen as taking care of future needs; but would we want to say animals are planning for the future when they eat and drink?
3. The title is taken from the book by Mortimer Adler
Quotes and comments;
1. “The fact that the birds act in favor of a future need as opposed to the current one challenges the hypothesis that this ability is unique to humans.” [1.]
- I don't remember anyone saying animals can't act in terms of future need. Did anyone say this? I assume what they're referring to is planning for the future. (Some have claimed this was a human distinctive.) But do we know the birds are planning for the future? Couldn't we say they're just acting by instinct? e.g. the way they make nests or migrate. (Would they say building a nest is planning for the future?)
- the problem here is (as usual) equivocation. (This problem pops up daily in reading about Origins, etc.) These authors are conflating the 'planning' of animals with the planning of human beings. It's clear animals act (in some way) as if they were planning for the future, but the mistake is to equate this with what human beings do. When the bear fattens itself up for winter hibernation is it really 'planning' for the future? Does it picture itself asleep in some cave wasting away if not for the added fat? I doubt it.
- my point is that there is no such generic thing as planning; no such generic as planning for the future. When people say 'scrub jays are just like us' they're committing the fallacy of equivocation.
- no guys; scrub jays are Not like us. (I don't see them doing studies of humans and their ability to plan for the future :=) I don't see them planning away on how they can get tenure or a government grant.
- the old claim (formulated in a simple way) may well be false; but what is true, is that no animal plans for the future in the way human beings do. The planning abilities of man are unique; no animal foresees or thinks about the future in the way human beings do.
- human abilities are so obviously unique that it baffles me why we have armies of Darwinists insisting this isn't true. Why this campaign to deny reality? (I don't see animals engaged in a similar campaign.) The social pendulum (at least on campus) has swung so far (away from creation) that it has reached the lofty heights of silliness. The denial of human uniqueness seems to be part of a new 'nature religion' that's in the works. By denying his uniqueness man bows down to 'nature' and does homage. (He humbles himself as it were.)
Notes;
1. Science Is for the Birds - Creation/Evolution Headlines 05/19/2007
Birds, with all their variety and functionality, are a never-ending source of study for scientists. Here are some recent feathery findings:
- Memory masters: Scrub jays are like us: they can plan ahead, regardless of mood. Current Biology did a study that proved these common western birds can cache tomorrow’s breakfast regardless of their motivational state. The authors said, “The fact that the birds act in favor of a future need as opposed to the current one challenges the hypothesis that this ability is unique to humans.”
- I don't know what they mean by the motivational state of a bird. How would they know? They seem to be conflating human motivation and bird motivation. Do birds even have motivation? Isn't it wrong to use the same word for men and birds? Just asking guys.
- are they claiming the birds are 'sacrificing' for the future?
2. simple eating and drinking can be seen as taking care of future needs; but would we want to say animals are planning for the future when they eat and drink?
3. The title is taken from the book by Mortimer Adler
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)