It's my contention that Richard Dawkins is the most self-deluded human being on the planet. On the one hand he claims man is some kind of robot controlled by 'selfish' genes, but then he goes on to criticize everything under the sun; including God, the Bible, Christians, Christianity, Design, Jesus Christ, and much more. This is all a joke. A person with his bizarre views on human beings has no basis for doing any of this.
In his book the God Delusion Dawkins engages in a vicious attack on Christianity. The fact he has no basis for doing so doesn't seem to bother him. As soon as he picks up his pen to write another of his venomous rants against Christianity, he seems (conveniently) to forget everything he's claims to believe about man. (e.g. that man is a gene carrying robot, with no free will, and hence without moral responsibility for what he does, etc.) He should be held to write in conformity with what he says he believes. He has no basis for his critique; his rants are schoolboy exercises in hypocrisy. (Can't the man remember from one moment to the next what he believes :=) The man has no basis for even a knowledge of reality; let alone have a basis for morality, for truth, for justice, or for anything else. If man is a mindless gene carrying bag of chemicals life is a complete illusion. If it's an illusion (which it has to be under his scheme) he has no basis for criticism. [1.]
Quotes and comments;
1. ‘The atheist view is correspondingly life-affirming and life-enhancing, while at the same time never being tainted with self-delusion, wishful thinking, or the whingeing self-pity of those who feel that life owes them something.’ - Dawkins (God Delusion p. 361) [2.]
- This has the ring of the old poem 'The captain of my soul' and all that; but Dawkins claims man is just the slave of his genes, so the bravado is a tad over the top, not to mention delusional. (i.e. isn't it the point of the selfish gene mythology that man's desires are somehow put into him to motivate him to do things for the sake not of self but for the sake of his genes; i.e. that he's deluded into thinking he does x for reasons of his own, but in fact he does x because his genes manipulate him in doing so?)
- how does he know he's not self-deluded?
- this is a joke coming from someone who claims man (not Dawkins himself of course :=) is a tool of his genes; that man is a gene carrying robot. That this is a complete contradiction doesn't seem to bother him in the slightest!
- he's certainly self deluded if he thinks what he's said makes any sense. If his selfish gene theory is correct man is totally self-deluded; and delusion is his normal waking state! (Hence the title; Dawkins and the Self delusion)
- if what d. says is true, then the self is a delusion.
- anyone who imagines (hopes, dreams) that inert matter can somehow turn itself into a living organism is utterly and totally self deluded.
- anyone who imagines pond scum could become a human being by suffering thousands of copying errors is totally self deluded.
- if d. imagines his views aren't contradictory he's self deluded
- if d. imagines he can say one thing in the lab and another outside the lab and be taken seriously as a thinker he's self deluded.
- the idea inert matter could somehow turn itself into a cell is wishful thinking on steroids.
2. ‘Instead I shall define the God Hypothesis more defensibly: there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us. This book will advocate the alternate view: any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution.’ (emphases in original; p. 31).''
- well isn't that a pretty way of putting it :=) And what does gradual evolution involve? a series of random accidents, a series of mutations (copying mistakes) and errors. What d. (and his gang of clowns) is claiming is that intelligence only comes about when pond scum suffers a huge number of deleterious mutations! This is clearly impossible; but to an atheist the implausibility of the story doesn't matter. All that matters is whether you can get naive people to believe this monstrous story. (Not only is Dawkins a freakish character, but Darwinism itself is a freakish outbreak in history. Darwinism is an omen of terrible calamities; it's an omen of collapse and revolution.) The most appalling thing about Darwinism is its utter stupidity. To claim pond scum can become a human being by suffering a long string of copying errors is stupid beyond belief. (If you doubt this, go and try it; subject pond scum to all the mutations you want; zap it day and night for a hundred years.... it won't become a human being... but yet this, stripped of window dressing, is the story.
3. 'Those who believe in irreducible complexity are ‘no better than fools’ (p. 129).
- one wonders how he knows this; after all he's just a mindless robot obeying the orders of his (its?) genes.
- I guess it's alright for him to engage in slander and juvenile name calling about creationists. Is this because (as he claims) there is no such thing as right and wrong? (Inconsistent as he is, he often forgets that this is what he believes... and gives the world a seething lecture on some misdeed or other :=)
4. The man’s arrogance is palpable. At one point, having attacked irreducible complexity, he says:
‘… we on the science side must not be too dogmatically confident.’ (p. 124)
- that strike anyone as self-delusion :=) This is the most dogmatic person I've ever come across. (Not to mention obnoxious and repellent.)
5. 'Indeed, philosopher and Marxist Terry Eagleton opened his own review of The God Delusion with these words:
‘Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology.’
- if Rich Dawkins imagines he knows anything about Christianity or theology he's totally deluded. (He's one of these people who think they are experts in all subjects by virtue simply of being clever. What he knows of biblical theology is junk he's picked up from heretical theologians like Spong. He's an ignoramous who imagines he knows what he's talking about. The self-delusion is comical. What makes the situation something other than comedy is that his youthful admirers know even less than he does, and so, regretfully, are taken in by his hokum.)
6. ‘… and we would abandon [evolution] overnight if new evidence arose to disprove it. No real fundamentalist would ever say anything like that. … But my belief in evolution is not fundamentalism, and it is not faith, because I know what it would take to change my mind, and I would gladly do so if the necessary evidence were forthcoming.’ (p. 283)
- does anyone believe that? Does Dawkins believe it. E. theory has been disproved many times over but d. hasn't given it up. If d. doesn't believe he's a fundamentalist he's self-deluded. There never was a more fervent fundamentalist than him.
- the belief in materialism is indeed a faith. That d. doesn't see this is evidence of his self-delusion. (Origin of life experiments have been a complete failure, and no scientist on the planet can tell us how inert matter can magically 'self assemble' itself into a living organism. This has been admitted by the leading scientists and philosophers of the day.)
- so why doesn't he tell us what it would take to get him to change his mind. (I think Carl the Sagan wanted a huge sign in the night sky; and didn't Gordon Stein want the lecturn to rise up five feet from the floor :=)
7. 'The professor is on record as saying something very different the previous year:
‘I believe, but I cannot prove, that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all “design” anywhere in the universe is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection.’
- in 'The god delusion' dawkins tells us his views aren't a matter of faith, but here he admits that he can't prove them. That's a good definition of faith isn't it? The man is drowning in self-delusion. (Or is it that he writes so much he can't keep track of what he says? Or is it that he's as double minded and unstable as the sea?)
‘I do not, by nature, thrive on confrontation. I don’t think the adversarial format is well designed to get at the truth …’ (p. 281)
- why does he engage in confrontation then?
- if he doesn't think the adversarial format is well designed to get at the truth why does he employ it?
- why does he behave in a way he says he opposes? Is he so deluded he doesn't realize this is what he's doing?
8. ‘Nobody knows who the four evangelists [gospel writers] were, but they almost certainly never met Jesus personally.’ (p. 96)
- this is simply false; Dawkins doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. If he really believes this claim it must have been something he picked up from some apostate scholar. (The gospel of John was written by one of Christ's original disciples for goodness sake.) Dawkins is gullible and naive when it comes to repeating bits of gossip that he likes. (He doesn't examine the evidence at all; as he scolds cs for not doing.) He's so gullible that he actually seems to have deluded himself into thinking he's an expert on Christianity.
9. ‘It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never lived at all …’ (p. 97)
- No, it's not. This is simply more self-delusion.
10. ‘The creationists are right that, if genuine irreducible complexity could be properly demonstrated, it would wreck Darwin’s theory. … But I can find no such case. … Many candidates for this holy grail of creationism have been proposed. None has stood up to analysis.’ (p. 125)
- in my opinion he's just plain wrong. As someone [Alex Williams] I read recently said, 'life itself is irreducibly complex.' Materialists have no explanation for this, and so (at least as things stand now) Darwin's theory has been wrecked. I think Dawkins is self-deluded if he thinks this doesn't disprove Evolution. i.e. if e. can't get off the ground it's a fallacious theory. (All the evidence we have now strongly supports the view this is the case.)
11. 'For instance, his attempt at a refutation of the bacterial flagellum motor is straight out of Kenneth Miller’s discredited book Finding Darwin’s God, an argument that is as fallacious as it is audacious.10 Surprisingly he even gets his facts wrong, claiming that:
‘The flagellar motor of bacteria … drives the only known example, outside of human technology, of a freely rotating axle.’ (p. 130)
‘It has been happily described as a tiny outboard motor (although by engineering standards—and unusually for a biological mechanism—it is a spectacularly inefficient one.’ (pp. 130–131)
'On the contrary, Dawkins is apparently ignorant of the F1 ATPase motor,11 direct observations of the rotation of which were published in Nature in 1997; that same year, several scientists shared the Nobel Prize for Chemistry for this discovery. Also, the bacterial flagellum motor is 100% efficient at cruising speed.12 Such errors hardly inspire confidence.'
- if Dawkins imagines he's a scholar he's sadly deluded. (This is one of a long string of errors the man makes; and makes continually.)
12. 'Chapter 4 ‘contains the central argument of my book’, says Dawkins, and he gives a useful six-point summary of it (pp. 157–158). To précis this yet further: It is tempting to explain design using the watchmaker analogy but this is false because the Designer then needs an explanation (again misconstruing the designer as having a beginning in the first place, as well as explaining away the fact that God is not composed of different parts).
- his central argument (get out your trumpet) is that design should be abandoned because it only takes us back to the creator, but doesn't explain the origin of the creator. I don't know why this would impress anybody. All worldviews (e.g. materialism and c.) have to start somewhere; are based on foundational assumptions. With m. we have the eternality of matter, and with c. we have the eternality of God. Does the fact Dawkins can't explain the eternality of matter mean we have to abandon materialism and evolution? We're finite (fallen, fallible) creatures; we're not god; we don't know everything and we never will. This means that unproven (and unprovable) assumptions are at the heart of all worldviews. In other words, whether Dawkins realizes it or not (whether he wants to admit it or not) he believes in materialism on faith. (The c. also believes in creation on faith.) This doesn't mean both ms and cs can't gather evidence for their positions; but evidence isn't (and can't be) proof.
If Dawkins doesn't realize this he's self-deluded.
13. 'In chapter seven, the missionary zeal of this apostle of atheism becomes very apparent indeed. His thesis is that morality needs neither God nor religion and that the Bible’s standards of morality are abhorrent.'
- Morality isn't a person; therefore it has no needs.
- If his argument is that we don't need 'religion' or god to live moral lives he's wrong. We are who we are because we were created by god. If we weren't created by god we wouldn't have any moral concerns at all. (Certainly not the ones we do have.) Of course it's my view that without god we wouldn't exist at all. (Nor would any 'alien' beings.)
- but he's wrong even in a more banal way. Morality is always a public entity (if I can call it that). It's not a private invention or a private matter. i.e. people have the moral concerns and values they do because they are part of a culture, part of a society. This public nature of morality makes it a 'religuous' matter. All morality is religious. I don't like to use the term religion as it has lost most or all of its meaning. I prefer to use the more precise (technical) term world view. So if we use the term worldview the question becomes, 'do we need a wview to live moral lives?' The answer to that is yes.
- and I've already answered the question do we need god. The answer is yes. Animals know nothing of morality. If we were created (as e.s claim) in the image of animals we wouldn't have any moral values.
- If Dawkins imagines we don't need god or religion (read wview) to lead morally upright lives he's self-deluded.
14. 'His thesis is that morality needs neither God nor religion and that the Bible’s standards of morality are abhorrent.
- Dawkins makes extensive use of the straw man argument to condemn the bible's standards of morality. This aside, we'd like to know how a collection of genes has any basis for judging standards of morality. (Gee; don't these genes make slaves out of human beings :=) The problem the materialist has is finding a basis for morality. If he agrees with the Dawkins view of man there can't possibly be any morality; any 'morality' would only be an illusion.
- since Dawkins is so ignorant of the bible let me say that the standard is god's law, not the behavior of human beings. (How anyone can get such a basic thing wrong I don't know.) God's holiness is an afront to fallen man; so we shouldn't be surprised Dawkins finds it at times abhorrent. (Is Dawkins aware we're not living in old testament Israel? Is he aware that Jesus Christ has come? Just asking. His obsession with the old testament is mainly irrelevant.)
- since Dawkins doesn't believe in right and wrong, what right does he have to judge any standard of morality. He's self-deluded if he imagines he can find a basis for morality in the random action of matter, or in the reproductive strategies of selfish genes. (His sermons denouncing Christianity are hypocricy on stilts.)
15. ‘… there are other teachings in the New Testament that no good person should support. I refer especially to the central doctrine of Christianity: that of ‘atonement’ for ‘original sin’. 251
- should? should? Is Dawkins forgetting that he claims man is a mindless robot that has no free will, that operates strictly in terms of instructions it receives from the genes it's obliged to carry around? Why is it the man thinks he can speak out of both sides of his mouth? (Maybe he possesses two tongues like some other dirt loving creatures :=)
- Dawkins has no basis for talking in terms of should. He's up to his old game of saying one thing as a scientist (when was the last time he was in the lab I wonder) and another thing as populist muckraker. He seems to think there doesn't have to be a connection between the realm of facts and the realm of values. Here's more self-delusion. If there's no connection his words are meaningless, simply the quacking of duck. (Apparently reality doesn't matter.)
- why is he telling people they should do x when people aren't free? This makes no sense. His claim (based on his own biological theory) is irrational. He's telling people to do something they have no power to do. If their genes tell them to believe in the Atonement they will; and if their genes tell them not to accept it they won't. End of story.
- how deluded do you have to be to give sermons to people who aren't free?
16. 'As an aside, Dawkins never tells us how he defines a ‘good person’. Indeed, he bandies about such terms as ‘good’ and ‘evil’ (often when indulging in ad hominem remarks about his detractors) quite brazenly and fails to justify his inconsistent absolutist position. So,
‘… Hitler and Stalin were, by any standards, spectacularly evil men.’ (p. 272)
- by any standards? Not by the standards of a certain Richard Dawkins; who claims there is no such thing as right and wrong. How he can say this and then call what these men did evil I have no idea. (He must be a complete scatterbrain.) If he imagines he can contradict himself so brazenly (and on so many occasions) and be taken seriously by serious thinkers he's deluded. This is intellectual buffoonery.
- by any standards? No. Not by their own standards, not by the standards of at least some of their followers.
17. ‘To cap it all, Adam, the supposed perpetrator of the original sin, never existed in the first place: an awkward fact …’ (p. 253)
- and how does Dawkins (the gene bag) know this? Obviously he can't know this; but as usual, he plays to a god-like omniscience. (After all; he is a clever boy, and if he imagines a thing to be true, well it must be.) If he truly thinks he can know this he's self-deluded. (The man truly seems to think he has some god like knowledge of all things; from the origin of life to all of history to the beginnings of matter, to the mind of god, to an accurate view of all history... apparently no knowledge of anything has been denied him. Amazing.)
18. "This teaching [the atonement], which lies at the heart of New Testament theology, is almost as morally obnoxious as the story of Abraham setting out to barbecue Isaac..."
- this from the man who told us he wasn't going to go out of his way to offend people. Does he really believe the things he says? It's hard to believe that he does.
Notes;
1. - none of his criticisms (eg in god delusion) make any sense in terms of his e. worldview. Not a single one of them can be founded on materialism; not one of them makes sense in terms of his gross reductionism. (eg. if I deny truth I have no basis for saying anything is wrong.) Is Dawkins so blind he can't see this?
- a criticism (or a proposition) must be constructed out of the materials a person's worldview provides them. eg. if a person (eg. dawkins) denies right and wrong they have no basis for criticizing behavior as wrong. This is intellectual buffoonery; but yet this is what dawkins does from one end of his rant to the other. This is a farce. I don't know if dawkins doesn't understand this or if he's a deliberate fraud.
- if he really were just a gene bag he wouldn't care about atheism at all. (I guess he can't see this.) Why would he? Or why would the genes he ferries around? Are we supposed to believe genes carry about philosophical issues? If what he says about humans beings were true, people's sole concern would be procreation; producing as many progeny as possible. I don't see this happening. (Dawkins I believe has but a single child.) I really wonder how many times this theory has to be refuted; the evidence against it is mountainous. Dawkins's life is one long refutation of his own theory.
2. reference; quotes are from a review of the 'God Delusion by Philip Bell [Creation.com]
3. 'Similarly, leading philosopher Alvin Plantinga argues5 that Dawkins’ forays into philosophy could be called sophomoric were it not a grave insult to most sophomores.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/marapr/1.21.html
4. d. tells us he doesn't like a confrontational approach; but clearly he does. This is what turns his crank, this is what gets his kite to fly. (If he loves science' so much why isn't he working in the lab or in the field?)
5. Dawkins of course doesn't deserve a tiny fraction of the attention he gets. It's a sad commentary on the low intellectual standards of our day that he does. Never since the days of stalin and mao has a buffoon gotten so much ill deserved attention. He's not even a fourth rate thinker. (And he rates far lower as far as civility and decency of any kind goes.)
6. I await his massive tome attacking the evils of communism. (Communism is a basic deduction from materialism; it's called dialectical materialism of course. If god isn't absolute, then the man and the State must be.) I await his book attacking how evil atheism and communism are. I await his book showing how impossible the doctrine of materialism is.
- communism has its own view of the atonement; there the individual must be sacrificed to the state; family members must be killed to atone for the 'crimes' of anti-party rebels; etc. (I await the Dawkins book on the horrors of sacrifice in the communist system.)
- people need to understand that this attack on Christianity is a rationale for tyranny. (i.e. a planned tyranny the societal elite would like to implement.)
- In trying to destroy Christianity (a big goal for a little man) Dawkins is merely following in the footsteps of people from Roman emperors to Philosophers like Voltaire to communist dictators like Lenin, Stalin and Mao. I have a question for him; "Richard, do you really want to go down this path again?"
7. It's a great weariness (at least for me) to respond to a blasphemous atheist like Dawkins. One wonders what good it can possibly do; but yet God (in his word) commands us to answer the skeptic and the naysayer, and so this becomes a duty. The c. is told to tear down every artifice raised up against the word and the person of Christ. I'm not one of those who thinks Dawkins is in any way a superior thinker or writer. [Brits seem especially prone to this bit of thing.] I think he's a buffoon; the classic village atheist. On a purely intellectual level he's not worth a dismissive wave of the hand.
8. A great fallacy we see in Dawkins (and his comic book version of reality) is the pretense that all people are the same. His entire argument depends upon this; upon the claim everyone in the world is identical to Uncle Richie. Nothing could be more fallacious. Christianity teaches that all human beings are unique. If true, this reduces Dawkins to ashes. (The man seems to be such an egomaniac that he really believes he, for reasons unknown to the rest of us, has gotten hold of absolute truth. This is a man living in fantasyland.)
9. Contra Dawkins; the worst idea on earth is materialism (atheism). No worldview (religion) has done more to harm people; nothing else comes close.
- he likes to pretend that 'religion' (which he conveniently never seems to define) is the worst evil on earth. There is no creditable evidence for this. The greatest evil on earth (by magnitudes) is Collectivism. (This, incidentally, is what Dawkins believes in. His self-delusion knows no end.)
10. Dawkins ignores the fact that the worst 'Christians' in history were people only pretending to be Christians. (a la Machiavelli's advice for the prince to appear good. Think George Bush.)
Monday, June 29, 2009
Friday, June 26, 2009
The eyeless evolutionist
Christopher Hitchens wrote an article not too long ago wherein he claimed to have proved evolution and disproved creation in a single blow. I don't find his idea as exciting as he does, and want to take a look at it.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Whereas the likelihood that the post-ocular blindness of underground salamanders is another aspect of evolution by natural selection seems, when you think about it at all, so overwhelmingly probable as to constitute a near certainty.' - Hitchens [1.]
- His basis idea is that since natural selection caused the cave salamander to lose its eye, this means natural selection is able to create an eye. This is simply a mistake in logic. e.g. If a con artist manages to steal the savings of the heir to a family fortune, does that mean the heir necessarily has the ability to build a fortune? Does the fact he can lose a fortune mean he can create one?)
- Creationists don't deny that natural selection worked to eliminate the eyesight of the cave salamander. (Or the eyesight of blind cave fish.) It's easy to ruin something. (Let's look at an analogy; any vandal can destroy a great painting, but does this mean he can create one?)
"Proving that someone can fall down the mountain (Improbable or otherwise) is hardly proof that he could have climbed up there in the first place. That’s the general problem with many alleged proofs of evolution: it’s not that the changes are too small, but that they are going in the wrong direction." - J. Sarfati [4.]
2. "The creationists (to give them their proper name and to deny them their annoying annexation of the word intelligent) invariably speak of the eye in hushed tones.'' - Christoper Hitchens
- One would like to ask him, ''and don't you?'' Anyone who doesn't speak of the eye in hushed tones is a strange character indeed. Here I think we see a main problem with materialists. Not only do they not want to praise god for his creation, they feel the need to mock people who do. I'm baffled by people who mock the wonders of our world.
- What we see here is how Materialism works to destroy wonder in people. i.e. if things just happen by mindless accident why get excited about them? i.e. if the wonders of the world can happen by random chance how great can they be? We all know that this is not the way the world works. Does great software code come about by dripping ones and zeros onto a page a la Jackson Pollack? Can a monkey write great code by throwing feces at the wall? We all know (unless deluded by 'education') that the more complex a thing is the more intelligence it took to create it.
3. 'It’s only once we shake our own innate belief in linear progression and consider the many recessions we have undergone and will undergo that we can grasp the gross stupidity of those who repose their faith in divine providence and godly design.'' - Hitchens
- Well; it' nice to get a lecture in civility from a barbarian I guess. Too bad he didn't feel a need to get his facts straight, or feel the need to write to a creationist about his great breakthrough. (I wonder if he ran naked through the streets crying eureka :=) The man is so full of himself that he can't imagine his 'insight' has been long ago answered. Maybe he looked up salamander in the index of his bible; ''let's see... no, nothing on salamanders; therefore Cs have nothing to say on the subject."
- Hitchens is as blind as his salamander. Since he likes turning questions around; we'll ask, ''why is it he speaks in such hushed tones about eyeless salamanders?" Apparently it's only things that cast a bad light on Christianity that produces a 'hush' in the hearts of atheists like Hitchens. (A kind of spirituality in reverse I guess you could call it.)
- Hitchens speaks of the 'dialectical usefulness' of asking questions in reverse. (Is this evidence of the vestigial organ of Marxism I wonder :=)
- To the old atheist question 'why do some people believe in god?' maybe he ought to ask, 'why is it some people don't want to believe in god?"
- Hitchens is such a talented person that he not only asks questions in reverse he gets everything in reverse. He looks at evidence for creation and manages (with the skill of a contortionist) to see evidence for Darwinism.
- One reason Es like Hitchens don't see much is that they don't want to. They continually bring up old arguments (disposed of long ago by creationist writers) because they can't be bothered to keep up to date with creationist writing. (They seem to be blind to C. books when they browse book stores, and blind to C. websites when they surf the net. They see about as much as blind salamanders or blind cave fish.)
- You surely have to be blind not to be able to recognize the wonder of the human eye. (If that's not something to speak about in hushed tones what is? If that's not a reason to praise god what is?)
Notes;
1. Losing Sight of Progress; How blind salamanders make nonsense of creationists' claims - b; July 21, 2008 Slate
2. Christopher Hitchens; blind to salamander reality - Jonathan Sarfati
3. 'Dawkins must be willingly ignorant of what creationists teach, or is deceitfully knocking down a straw man. After all, why should his ethics be trusted under his own belief system when Dawkins has agreed that ultimately evolution ‘leads to a moral vacuum … in which [people’s] best impulses have no basis in nature’, and scoffed at the idea of righteous indignation and retribution against child murderers and other vile criminals?' - Sarfati
- Dawkins is the most dishonest writer I know of. (Not to mention the strangest.) In a piece he wrote recently, he said we should treat people no differently than machines; that since we don't punish a machine that malfunctions, neither should we a human being. Does this mean I can put him on the shelf or throw him out with the trash :=)
4. 'This is the crux of Hitchens’ argument. Yet this is his own blind spot. Proving that someone can fall down the mountain (Improbable or otherwise) is hardly proof that he could have climbed up there in the first place. That’s the general problem with many alleged proofs of evolution: it’s not that the changes are too small, but that they are going in the wrong direction.' - Sarfati
- the response by Sarfati to Hitchens is excellent. (see note 2.)
5. So why do I title this short piece the 'Eyeless evolutionist'? I do so because if we had to rely on materialism (and thank god we don't) we wouldn't have any eyes. If there were any living organisms at all (and there wouldn't be) they would be blind.
6. The blind salamander would be a good mascot for the Darwinists.
7. What does it say about Es that they get excited about eyeless creatures, but dump all over the human eye for being badly designed?
8. Hitchens mocks people who get excited about the human eye, but gets excited himself about a blind (eyeless) salamander. What kind of darkness has descended on such a person? What kind of a philosophical, epistemological cave is he trapped in?
10. 'Whereas the likelihood that the post-ocular blindness of underground salamanders is another aspect of evolution by natural selection seems, when you think about it at all, so overwhelmingly probable as to constitute a near certainty. - Hitchens
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Whereas the likelihood that the post-ocular blindness of underground salamanders is another aspect of evolution by natural selection seems, when you think about it at all, so overwhelmingly probable as to constitute a near certainty.' - Hitchens [1.]
- His basis idea is that since natural selection caused the cave salamander to lose its eye, this means natural selection is able to create an eye. This is simply a mistake in logic. e.g. If a con artist manages to steal the savings of the heir to a family fortune, does that mean the heir necessarily has the ability to build a fortune? Does the fact he can lose a fortune mean he can create one?)
- Creationists don't deny that natural selection worked to eliminate the eyesight of the cave salamander. (Or the eyesight of blind cave fish.) It's easy to ruin something. (Let's look at an analogy; any vandal can destroy a great painting, but does this mean he can create one?)
"Proving that someone can fall down the mountain (Improbable or otherwise) is hardly proof that he could have climbed up there in the first place. That’s the general problem with many alleged proofs of evolution: it’s not that the changes are too small, but that they are going in the wrong direction." - J. Sarfati [4.]
2. "The creationists (to give them their proper name and to deny them their annoying annexation of the word intelligent) invariably speak of the eye in hushed tones.'' - Christoper Hitchens
- One would like to ask him, ''and don't you?'' Anyone who doesn't speak of the eye in hushed tones is a strange character indeed. Here I think we see a main problem with materialists. Not only do they not want to praise god for his creation, they feel the need to mock people who do. I'm baffled by people who mock the wonders of our world.
- What we see here is how Materialism works to destroy wonder in people. i.e. if things just happen by mindless accident why get excited about them? i.e. if the wonders of the world can happen by random chance how great can they be? We all know that this is not the way the world works. Does great software code come about by dripping ones and zeros onto a page a la Jackson Pollack? Can a monkey write great code by throwing feces at the wall? We all know (unless deluded by 'education') that the more complex a thing is the more intelligence it took to create it.
3. 'It’s only once we shake our own innate belief in linear progression and consider the many recessions we have undergone and will undergo that we can grasp the gross stupidity of those who repose their faith in divine providence and godly design.'' - Hitchens
- Well; it' nice to get a lecture in civility from a barbarian I guess. Too bad he didn't feel a need to get his facts straight, or feel the need to write to a creationist about his great breakthrough. (I wonder if he ran naked through the streets crying eureka :=) The man is so full of himself that he can't imagine his 'insight' has been long ago answered. Maybe he looked up salamander in the index of his bible; ''let's see... no, nothing on salamanders; therefore Cs have nothing to say on the subject."
- Hitchens is as blind as his salamander. Since he likes turning questions around; we'll ask, ''why is it he speaks in such hushed tones about eyeless salamanders?" Apparently it's only things that cast a bad light on Christianity that produces a 'hush' in the hearts of atheists like Hitchens. (A kind of spirituality in reverse I guess you could call it.)
- Hitchens speaks of the 'dialectical usefulness' of asking questions in reverse. (Is this evidence of the vestigial organ of Marxism I wonder :=)
- To the old atheist question 'why do some people believe in god?' maybe he ought to ask, 'why is it some people don't want to believe in god?"
- Hitchens is such a talented person that he not only asks questions in reverse he gets everything in reverse. He looks at evidence for creation and manages (with the skill of a contortionist) to see evidence for Darwinism.
- One reason Es like Hitchens don't see much is that they don't want to. They continually bring up old arguments (disposed of long ago by creationist writers) because they can't be bothered to keep up to date with creationist writing. (They seem to be blind to C. books when they browse book stores, and blind to C. websites when they surf the net. They see about as much as blind salamanders or blind cave fish.)
- You surely have to be blind not to be able to recognize the wonder of the human eye. (If that's not something to speak about in hushed tones what is? If that's not a reason to praise god what is?)
Notes;
1. Losing Sight of Progress; How blind salamanders make nonsense of creationists' claims - b; July 21, 2008 Slate
2. Christopher Hitchens; blind to salamander reality - Jonathan Sarfati
3. 'Dawkins must be willingly ignorant of what creationists teach, or is deceitfully knocking down a straw man. After all, why should his ethics be trusted under his own belief system when Dawkins has agreed that ultimately evolution ‘leads to a moral vacuum … in which [people’s] best impulses have no basis in nature’, and scoffed at the idea of righteous indignation and retribution against child murderers and other vile criminals?' - Sarfati
- Dawkins is the most dishonest writer I know of. (Not to mention the strangest.) In a piece he wrote recently, he said we should treat people no differently than machines; that since we don't punish a machine that malfunctions, neither should we a human being. Does this mean I can put him on the shelf or throw him out with the trash :=)
4. 'This is the crux of Hitchens’ argument. Yet this is his own blind spot. Proving that someone can fall down the mountain (Improbable or otherwise) is hardly proof that he could have climbed up there in the first place. That’s the general problem with many alleged proofs of evolution: it’s not that the changes are too small, but that they are going in the wrong direction.' - Sarfati
- the response by Sarfati to Hitchens is excellent. (see note 2.)
5. So why do I title this short piece the 'Eyeless evolutionist'? I do so because if we had to rely on materialism (and thank god we don't) we wouldn't have any eyes. If there were any living organisms at all (and there wouldn't be) they would be blind.
6. The blind salamander would be a good mascot for the Darwinists.
7. What does it say about Es that they get excited about eyeless creatures, but dump all over the human eye for being badly designed?
8. Hitchens mocks people who get excited about the human eye, but gets excited himself about a blind (eyeless) salamander. What kind of darkness has descended on such a person? What kind of a philosophical, epistemological cave is he trapped in?
10. 'Whereas the likelihood that the post-ocular blindness of underground salamanders is another aspect of evolution by natural selection seems, when you think about it at all, so overwhelmingly probable as to constitute a near certainty. - Hitchens
Thursday, June 25, 2009
From free energy to free information
- Most people believe that at least some things are impossible. It's my view that Materialism is impossible. (ie. as an adequate explanation for the world we live in.) In this post I will compare Materialism to the perpetual motion machine.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'The scene shifts to America, where, in 1812, a man named Charles Redheffer appeared in Philadelphia with a curious machine that, he claimed, would never stop. The public, eager for wonders, flocked to see the machine. Bets, some of them quite large, were made over the proof or disproof that Redheffer’s machine actually worked as claimed.'
- Isn't Darwinism something similar? I'm convinced (6 days out of 7) that it is. The 'just so' stories are the equivalent of deliberately fake perpetual motion machines. These stories are fraudulent, but they're cleverly enough designed to fool a gullible public. The dream of materialism is just as impossible (and foolish) as the dream of the perpetual motion machine (with its claim to offer free energy.) In both cases the claim is made that it's possible to get something for nothing; the charlatan who offers his model of the PM machine is claiming we can get free energy, and the Darwinist claims he can get free information.
- The people who play these games know they don't work. I'm convinced most Evolutionists know the theory is impossible; they know that inert matter cannot somehow 'assemble' itself into a living organism. They know that this would take information, and that there is no source of this information in their scheme. To be able to sell evolutionary theory in the face of skepticism they need to continually invent new models of how this could work. These 'models' don't fool knowledgable people but they fool an uninformed public. (And better yet they fool the masses of school teachers and educationists.)
- the Darwinists have been at this game a long time; from the early days of Huxley and his monkeys at the type writers; the Miller-Urey test tube experiment; and the recent computer simulations such as the 'Weasel' game popularized by Dawkins. [There have been many others.] It's been as easy to poke holes in these models as it was to see the flaws in PM machines. (e.g. the M-U experiment was rigged by using a trap; and even at that it produced nothing of importance. Without the trap (equivalent in our analogy to the hidden source of energy in the PM machine) it would have produced nothing.
- I realize I might be accused of the weak analogy fallacy; but I'm not drawing a 'physical' comparison, but drawing a comparison to the motivations involved, and in particular to the dishonesty involved. (I don't claim all Darwinists are phonies; only that most of the informed ones are.)
- A great many of the stories we hear from Darwinists are as fraudulent as perpetual motion machines. The people who come up with them know they're fake; they know they don't work. There is however, a great deal to be gained by deceiving the public into believing these stories. (The gains include money, power, fame, harming one's opponents, gaining support for philosophical beliefs, political advantage, etc.)
- It's clear to me that there are things in the universe that are impossible; if there weren't I don't see how there could be such a 'thing' as reality. If anything were possible we would have every reason to think we were living in some kind of fantasy world, or in some kind of virtual reality. To say that some things are impossible is to say that there are limits to what can happen. I don't understand why it's often called 'anti-scientific' to point this out.
- Can a person be wrong about this, can he be mistaken as to what he thinks is impossible? Sure; but if a person has integrity he must be honest enough to say whether or not he thinks a thing is impossible. (The first duty of an 'intellectual' (as intellectual) is to be honest.) I might be wrong that it's impossible for inert matter to assemble itself into a living organism, but I don't think so. I think it's utterly impossible. That being the case I have to say so.
Notes;
1. The reference I used was the chapter on the perpetual motion machine in 'Beyond Reason' (Eight Great Problems That Reveal the Limits of Science) by A. K. Dewdney.
- D. is in no way to blame for my analogy; he makes no such connection.
2. 'The scene shifts to America, where, in 1812, a man named Charles Redheffer appeared in Philadelphia with a curious machine that, he claimed, would never stop. The public, eager for wonders, flocked to see the machine. Bets, some of them quite large, were made over the proof or disproof that Redheffer’s machine actually worked as claimed.' - D/32
3. 'Redheffer could not conceal his amazement at the device shown to him by these sober, respectable citizens. Privately he offered Sellers a great deal of money if only he would reveal the principle by which the
machine operated. Sellers may have replied, “Why, the principle is the same as that employed by your own good self: chicanery!” - Dewdney/33
- a famous inventor and engineer put together a PM machine of his own (Robert Fulton) to fool Redheffer.
4. Most of these perpetual motion machines were deliberate fakes, and were used by con men to fleece the public. (e.g. charging admission to view the wondrous machine)
5. Educationist was a term Richard Mitchell liked to use.
6. The PM fad went on for several centuries, and in the early days at least, some inventor types honestly imagined they had succeeded in accomplishing the impossible.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'The scene shifts to America, where, in 1812, a man named Charles Redheffer appeared in Philadelphia with a curious machine that, he claimed, would never stop. The public, eager for wonders, flocked to see the machine. Bets, some of them quite large, were made over the proof or disproof that Redheffer’s machine actually worked as claimed.'
- Isn't Darwinism something similar? I'm convinced (6 days out of 7) that it is. The 'just so' stories are the equivalent of deliberately fake perpetual motion machines. These stories are fraudulent, but they're cleverly enough designed to fool a gullible public. The dream of materialism is just as impossible (and foolish) as the dream of the perpetual motion machine (with its claim to offer free energy.) In both cases the claim is made that it's possible to get something for nothing; the charlatan who offers his model of the PM machine is claiming we can get free energy, and the Darwinist claims he can get free information.
- The people who play these games know they don't work. I'm convinced most Evolutionists know the theory is impossible; they know that inert matter cannot somehow 'assemble' itself into a living organism. They know that this would take information, and that there is no source of this information in their scheme. To be able to sell evolutionary theory in the face of skepticism they need to continually invent new models of how this could work. These 'models' don't fool knowledgable people but they fool an uninformed public. (And better yet they fool the masses of school teachers and educationists.)
- the Darwinists have been at this game a long time; from the early days of Huxley and his monkeys at the type writers; the Miller-Urey test tube experiment; and the recent computer simulations such as the 'Weasel' game popularized by Dawkins. [There have been many others.] It's been as easy to poke holes in these models as it was to see the flaws in PM machines. (e.g. the M-U experiment was rigged by using a trap; and even at that it produced nothing of importance. Without the trap (equivalent in our analogy to the hidden source of energy in the PM machine) it would have produced nothing.
- I realize I might be accused of the weak analogy fallacy; but I'm not drawing a 'physical' comparison, but drawing a comparison to the motivations involved, and in particular to the dishonesty involved. (I don't claim all Darwinists are phonies; only that most of the informed ones are.)
- A great many of the stories we hear from Darwinists are as fraudulent as perpetual motion machines. The people who come up with them know they're fake; they know they don't work. There is however, a great deal to be gained by deceiving the public into believing these stories. (The gains include money, power, fame, harming one's opponents, gaining support for philosophical beliefs, political advantage, etc.)
- It's clear to me that there are things in the universe that are impossible; if there weren't I don't see how there could be such a 'thing' as reality. If anything were possible we would have every reason to think we were living in some kind of fantasy world, or in some kind of virtual reality. To say that some things are impossible is to say that there are limits to what can happen. I don't understand why it's often called 'anti-scientific' to point this out.
- Can a person be wrong about this, can he be mistaken as to what he thinks is impossible? Sure; but if a person has integrity he must be honest enough to say whether or not he thinks a thing is impossible. (The first duty of an 'intellectual' (as intellectual) is to be honest.) I might be wrong that it's impossible for inert matter to assemble itself into a living organism, but I don't think so. I think it's utterly impossible. That being the case I have to say so.
Notes;
1. The reference I used was the chapter on the perpetual motion machine in 'Beyond Reason' (Eight Great Problems That Reveal the Limits of Science) by A. K. Dewdney.
- D. is in no way to blame for my analogy; he makes no such connection.
2. 'The scene shifts to America, where, in 1812, a man named Charles Redheffer appeared in Philadelphia with a curious machine that, he claimed, would never stop. The public, eager for wonders, flocked to see the machine. Bets, some of them quite large, were made over the proof or disproof that Redheffer’s machine actually worked as claimed.' - D/32
3. 'Redheffer could not conceal his amazement at the device shown to him by these sober, respectable citizens. Privately he offered Sellers a great deal of money if only he would reveal the principle by which the
machine operated. Sellers may have replied, “Why, the principle is the same as that employed by your own good self: chicanery!” - Dewdney/33
- a famous inventor and engineer put together a PM machine of his own (Robert Fulton) to fool Redheffer.
4. Most of these perpetual motion machines were deliberate fakes, and were used by con men to fleece the public. (e.g. charging admission to view the wondrous machine)
5. Educationist was a term Richard Mitchell liked to use.
6. The PM fad went on for several centuries, and in the early days at least, some inventor types honestly imagined they had succeeded in accomplishing the impossible.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Manufacturing mystery
While true mysteries exist, others aren't real, but have been manufactured.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Well-known physicist Paul Davies says in a recent Nature article [1.] that ‘the origin of life remains one of the great outstanding mysteries of science’. What he means, of course, is the naturalistic origin of life—i.e. how chemicals could have become living cells without supernatural design.' [2.]
- This is a mystery only if you want it to be. The origin of 'life' is only a mystery if people want it to be. Almost anything can be a mystery if you insist the 'problem' be solved in a particular way. (e.g. getting myself lunch is only a problem if I insist on doing so without getting up from my chair, and without getting any outside assistance :=)
- Is the problem of squaring the circle a great mystery of science? Is discovering how we might travel back in time a great mystery of science? i.e. is it a problem or is it an impossibility? (Is making each person on earth perfectly equal a problem or an impossibility.) What we have here is an impossibility being paraded as a problem and a mystery. (A cynic might claim that people like Davies are selling mystery.) Is turning stones into bread a problem (mystery) or is it an impossibility?
2. 'Addressing what he calls the ‘burning question of astrobiology ’he lists only two possible alternatives: ‘Was the origin of known life a freak accident, or the expected outcome of intrinsically bio-friendly laws of physics?’ Creation is excluded from the start.'
- Davies creates his mystery by excluding creation. We can easily create mysteries by restricting our parameters. (e.g. human flight would indeed be a problem if we excluded using machines, or any other item but our naked bodies.) We might sit around and muse on the great mystery of how we might be able to fly. Some might even deny it was possible; while others would no doubt claim that, "one day science will discover the answer." Others will petition the gov. for a grant to study the subject.
- He's offering us the either or fallacy, and hoping we'll take it.
Notes;
1. Davies, P., A quantum recipe for life, Nature 437(7060):819, 6 October 2005.
- http://cosmos.asu.edu/publications/articles/AQuantumRecipeForLife%20Oct05.pdf
- I've read the article and it's just a bunch of hand waving. Unless I'm mistaken he actually talks about atoms evolving! (I wasn't aware you could have 'evolution' without reproduction. I wasn't aware inert matter could evolve.)
2. Huff and Bluff - Can ‘quantum magic’ save chemical evolution?
by Carl Wieland and Jonathan Sarfati [19 June 2006]
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Well-known physicist Paul Davies says in a recent Nature article [1.] that ‘the origin of life remains one of the great outstanding mysteries of science’. What he means, of course, is the naturalistic origin of life—i.e. how chemicals could have become living cells without supernatural design.' [2.]
- This is a mystery only if you want it to be. The origin of 'life' is only a mystery if people want it to be. Almost anything can be a mystery if you insist the 'problem' be solved in a particular way. (e.g. getting myself lunch is only a problem if I insist on doing so without getting up from my chair, and without getting any outside assistance :=)
- Is the problem of squaring the circle a great mystery of science? Is discovering how we might travel back in time a great mystery of science? i.e. is it a problem or is it an impossibility? (Is making each person on earth perfectly equal a problem or an impossibility.) What we have here is an impossibility being paraded as a problem and a mystery. (A cynic might claim that people like Davies are selling mystery.) Is turning stones into bread a problem (mystery) or is it an impossibility?
2. 'Addressing what he calls the ‘burning question of astrobiology ’he lists only two possible alternatives: ‘Was the origin of known life a freak accident, or the expected outcome of intrinsically bio-friendly laws of physics?’ Creation is excluded from the start.'
- Davies creates his mystery by excluding creation. We can easily create mysteries by restricting our parameters. (e.g. human flight would indeed be a problem if we excluded using machines, or any other item but our naked bodies.) We might sit around and muse on the great mystery of how we might be able to fly. Some might even deny it was possible; while others would no doubt claim that, "one day science will discover the answer." Others will petition the gov. for a grant to study the subject.
- He's offering us the either or fallacy, and hoping we'll take it.
Notes;
1. Davies, P., A quantum recipe for life, Nature 437(7060):819, 6 October 2005.
- http://cosmos.asu.edu/publications/articles/AQuantumRecipeForLife%20Oct05.pdf
- I've read the article and it's just a bunch of hand waving. Unless I'm mistaken he actually talks about atoms evolving! (I wasn't aware you could have 'evolution' without reproduction. I wasn't aware inert matter could evolve.)
2. Huff and Bluff - Can ‘quantum magic’ save chemical evolution?
by Carl Wieland and Jonathan Sarfati [19 June 2006]
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Putting aside God; The deference of the Darwinists
An editorial in Nature began, in bold print, “With all deference to the sensibilities of religious people, the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside.”
Comments;
- The person who wrote this doesn't seem to know what deference is.
- Deference; [Webster's]
1. Deference marks an inclination to yield one's opinion, and to acquiesce in the sentiments of another in preference to one's own.
2. A yielding in opinion; submission of judgment to the opinion or judgment of another. Hence, regard; respect. We often decline acting in opposition to those for whose wisdom we have a great deference.'
- so where's the deference? I guess it's missing; like all those billions of missing links. (But as we're aware, being able to write and think isn't necessary for getting published in popular science magazines :=)
- Contra the editorial, it's not 'religious' people who believe man was created in the image of god, but only Christians. (As far as I know, few 'orthodox' Jews believe this in our day. Buddhists, Hindus, New Agers, etc. don't believe this.)
- the author doesn't merely say 'can be put aside' but says 'surely can be put aside.' (e.g. like the old photos of grandpa on the farm, holding a shovel and pointing to the cow.)
- and why should we put aside the 'idea' man is made in the image of God? Well; it's obvious; life emerged from non-life during the age of miracles; and a fish became a lizard that became a rat that became a pig that became a boy; and the boy grew up and wrote Origin of species. And who in their right mind can argue with that? The fact that it's impossible isn't nearly as important as the fact it's true :=)
- but, as ever is the case, natural man 'puts aside' truth for his own delusions. Clearly man should defer to his Maker, but this goes against the (fallen) grain.
Notes;
1. this is yet one more 'argument' that depends on creating a dichotomy between Darwinism/Materialism (which is Not a religion) and Christianity which Is a religion. i.e. The block letters spell out for the whole class to see; evolution good; creation bad. (The word 'religion' is meaningless in our day. Finite beings can only act in terms of faith; whether that faith is in Materialism, Theism, or something else.)
2. If we want to converse rationally on the subject of Origins, we must exchange the obsolete term religion, for the the term world view. (A term that can be defined precisely.)
- if Christians keep using the term religion, they have no way of making progress in this debate; they will lose before they begin.
Notes;
1. Reference; Science Journals Make Dogmatic Atheist Statements Creation/Evolution Headlines 08/08/2007
Comments;
- The person who wrote this doesn't seem to know what deference is.
- Deference; [Webster's]
1. Deference marks an inclination to yield one's opinion, and to acquiesce in the sentiments of another in preference to one's own.
2. A yielding in opinion; submission of judgment to the opinion or judgment of another. Hence, regard; respect. We often decline acting in opposition to those for whose wisdom we have a great deference.'
- so where's the deference? I guess it's missing; like all those billions of missing links. (But as we're aware, being able to write and think isn't necessary for getting published in popular science magazines :=)
- Contra the editorial, it's not 'religious' people who believe man was created in the image of god, but only Christians. (As far as I know, few 'orthodox' Jews believe this in our day. Buddhists, Hindus, New Agers, etc. don't believe this.)
- the author doesn't merely say 'can be put aside' but says 'surely can be put aside.' (e.g. like the old photos of grandpa on the farm, holding a shovel and pointing to the cow.)
- and why should we put aside the 'idea' man is made in the image of God? Well; it's obvious; life emerged from non-life during the age of miracles; and a fish became a lizard that became a rat that became a pig that became a boy; and the boy grew up and wrote Origin of species. And who in their right mind can argue with that? The fact that it's impossible isn't nearly as important as the fact it's true :=)
- but, as ever is the case, natural man 'puts aside' truth for his own delusions. Clearly man should defer to his Maker, but this goes against the (fallen) grain.
Notes;
1. this is yet one more 'argument' that depends on creating a dichotomy between Darwinism/Materialism (which is Not a religion) and Christianity which Is a religion. i.e. The block letters spell out for the whole class to see; evolution good; creation bad. (The word 'religion' is meaningless in our day. Finite beings can only act in terms of faith; whether that faith is in Materialism, Theism, or something else.)
2. If we want to converse rationally on the subject of Origins, we must exchange the obsolete term religion, for the the term world view. (A term that can be defined precisely.)
- if Christians keep using the term religion, they have no way of making progress in this debate; they will lose before they begin.
Notes;
1. Reference; Science Journals Make Dogmatic Atheist Statements Creation/Evolution Headlines 08/08/2007
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Evolutionists and intellectual posturing
Evolutionists continually tell us that there's no difference between apes and humans. (They insist on this despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary.) Let's take a look at yet another example.
Quotes and comments;
1. The article quotes Sommer, an evolutionary anthropologist, saying: “It’s untenable to talk of dividing humans and humanoid apes because there are no clear-cut criteria – neither biological, nor mental, nor social.’” [1.]
- my question is this; why would anyone believe what these people have to say about the subject of Origins? i.e. if these poseurs can't (or won't) admit the most obvious reality on the planet, why should we believe they are going to be honest about the origins issue? (Or about anything else.)
- Not clear-cut criteria? Really? I can give you dozens; but I'll content myself with one. Have you ever read anything by [Jurgen] Habermas? Here's one clear cut difference. Human beings write tedious philosophical tomes that no one on earth has any interest in reading... while apes do not :=)
- Aren't there any intellectual standards anymore? Why is it Evolutionists are allowed to lie so outrageously? It's my conviction that not one person on this planet honestly believes there is no difference (of a categorical difference) between man and apes. I don't believe that one person on this planet honestly believes apes and humans belong in the same class. Despite all this Evolutionists every day get up in class and say the very opposite. In my opinion this eviscerates their credibility. I don't mind if they claim E. is true until the cows come home; but I do object to them telling outrageous lies to young students.
Notes;
1. Reference; Evolution to the Rescue for Abused Ape [Creation/Evolution Headlines; 04/05/2007]
'Activists are trying to ditch the “species barrier” that allows such discrimination. The article quotes Sommer, an evolutionary anthropologist, saying: “It’s untenable to talk of dividing humans and humanoid apes because there are no clear-cut criteria – neither biological, nor mental, nor social.’”
- I take it some folk thought some ape was being mistreated. (It was being imported into Australia for medical research purposes.)
2. Do apes (like Habermas) claim that there's great value in imagining an ideal world? that we need some utopian vision to motivate us to improve our social behavior?
- if you still doubt there's no clear-cut difference between human beings and apes I suggest you read 'The theory of Communicative Action' - in 2 volumes. (This should remove any doubts you have; and well before you reach the end.)
3. This is the same crowd that pretended no evil was going on in the USSR. The point? They don't care a fig for honesty or the truth. (If they do I'd like to see some evidence for it.)
- try reading the 'Gulag Archipelago' and tell me how these professors managed to miss all that; tell me how they ignore it to this day; tell me how they can pretend to see no danger in Collectivization. In modern academia few people have any interest in truth. They're too busy studying techniques of manipulation to have an interest in intellectual integrity.
- are we supposed to believe they couldn't see the evidence staring them in the face? that they couldn't see the evidence shining in the sky?
4. Read the 'Gulag' and tell me there's no difference between human beings and animals. (It's the most telling document of our time; but I doubt if one professor in a thousand has even read a chapter.) Animals are incapable of such evil machinations.
Quotes and comments;
1. The article quotes Sommer, an evolutionary anthropologist, saying: “It’s untenable to talk of dividing humans and humanoid apes because there are no clear-cut criteria – neither biological, nor mental, nor social.’” [1.]
- my question is this; why would anyone believe what these people have to say about the subject of Origins? i.e. if these poseurs can't (or won't) admit the most obvious reality on the planet, why should we believe they are going to be honest about the origins issue? (Or about anything else.)
- Not clear-cut criteria? Really? I can give you dozens; but I'll content myself with one. Have you ever read anything by [Jurgen] Habermas? Here's one clear cut difference. Human beings write tedious philosophical tomes that no one on earth has any interest in reading... while apes do not :=)
- Aren't there any intellectual standards anymore? Why is it Evolutionists are allowed to lie so outrageously? It's my conviction that not one person on this planet honestly believes there is no difference (of a categorical difference) between man and apes. I don't believe that one person on this planet honestly believes apes and humans belong in the same class. Despite all this Evolutionists every day get up in class and say the very opposite. In my opinion this eviscerates their credibility. I don't mind if they claim E. is true until the cows come home; but I do object to them telling outrageous lies to young students.
Notes;
1. Reference; Evolution to the Rescue for Abused Ape [Creation/Evolution Headlines; 04/05/2007]
'Activists are trying to ditch the “species barrier” that allows such discrimination. The article quotes Sommer, an evolutionary anthropologist, saying: “It’s untenable to talk of dividing humans and humanoid apes because there are no clear-cut criteria – neither biological, nor mental, nor social.’”
- I take it some folk thought some ape was being mistreated. (It was being imported into Australia for medical research purposes.)
2. Do apes (like Habermas) claim that there's great value in imagining an ideal world? that we need some utopian vision to motivate us to improve our social behavior?
- if you still doubt there's no clear-cut difference between human beings and apes I suggest you read 'The theory of Communicative Action' - in 2 volumes. (This should remove any doubts you have; and well before you reach the end.)
3. This is the same crowd that pretended no evil was going on in the USSR. The point? They don't care a fig for honesty or the truth. (If they do I'd like to see some evidence for it.)
- try reading the 'Gulag Archipelago' and tell me how these professors managed to miss all that; tell me how they ignore it to this day; tell me how they can pretend to see no danger in Collectivization. In modern academia few people have any interest in truth. They're too busy studying techniques of manipulation to have an interest in intellectual integrity.
- are we supposed to believe they couldn't see the evidence staring them in the face? that they couldn't see the evidence shining in the sky?
4. Read the 'Gulag' and tell me there's no difference between human beings and animals. (It's the most telling document of our time; but I doubt if one professor in a thousand has even read a chapter.) Animals are incapable of such evil machinations.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
The Darwinist's Dilemna
Back in the days when Darwin was dozing away on Luadanum, it was easy to dream up stories to explain the world of nature. Everything seemed simple; about as complex as jello. (Someone called this the blob era of science.) This is no longer the case. The biological world has been revealed to be impossibly complex. Decade after decade we get an increasingly complex picture of living organisms. Evolutionists as a result are finding it harder and harder to account for this complexity. They're finding it harder to dream up good stories.
- as one example (of thousands) let's take a brief look at the cilium.
'While we’re on the subject, let’s look at a cellular device that recently got more praise: the cilium. This little rod-like projection on most cells is doing more work than previously thought. “Appreciation is now growing for primary cilia,” said Christenson and Ott in Science, primary cilia being “the nonmotile counterparts, present as a single copy on the surface of most cell types in our body.”
If primary cilia don’t beat and wave like the moving kind, what do they do? Well, for one thing, “they function as unique antenna-like structures, probing the extracellular environment for molecules that are recognized by the receptors they bear. This sensory function allows primary cilia to coordinate numerous intercellular signaling pathways that regulate growth, survival, and differentiation of cells during embryonic development and maintenance of healthy tissues.” New research shows that a suite of molecules move in a coordinated fashion in and out of the cilium, creating a powerful switch by which cells can turn on and off a set of signaling pathways. That’s pretty cool for an complex antenna previously thought to be nothing more than a little bitty hair on a tiny cell.' [1.]
- well; it's not too difficult to come up with an explanation of the cilia if it's nothing but a hair (not really, but relatively) but it's another order of magnitude to give an account of the newly discovered wonder of the cilia. This is just one example of the task facing the evolutionist. (What I've called the Darwinist dilemna.)
- the evolutionist can either ignore this new complexity, or he can attempt to account for it... and end up showing he can't. He doesn't want to do either, but he has little choice.
- Evolutionary theory was so successful in the culture (taking it over almost completely) because it had so little work to do; because of this people didn't realize how weak the theory was. It had few difficult questions to address; and once these were attended to it was a kind of clear sailing. Now however it has struck an iceberg called complexity. The world of living organisms is now seen to be billions? of times more complex than anyone imagined. (It's impossible to put a number on this of course; we might as well have said trillions.) Simple analogies to animal breeding just aren't going to cut it any more. [2.]
Notes;
1. Reference; Harnessing Cellular Machines for Humans; Creation/Evolution Headlines 07/20/2007
2. The analogy Darwin used was a false one.
3. The cell;
'In the early twentieth century, the cell was viewed as essentially a blob of protoplasm (a collection of gelatin molecules). And although the inner workings were not yet understood, it was assumed the first cell developed through a process of chemical evolution (abiogenesis). The following is a quote from Ernest Haeckel, who was affectionately known as Darwin's bulldog.
“ ‘not composed of any organs at all, but consist entirely of shapeless, simple, homogeneous matter … nothing more than a shapeless, mobile, little lump of mucus or slime, consisting of albuminous combination of carbon.’ - creationwiki - cell biology
4. Laudanum;
'Darwin desperately tried many different therapies, within the limitations of medical science of his time. He took all kinds of medicines, including bismuth compounds and laudanum... - Wiki/Charles Darwin's illness
- how much Laudanum he used I don't know; but there's a dreamy quality to a lot of his writing (to his reasoning) that seems to indicate it might have been a lot. (e.g. "It's not impossible to imagine...") I haven't come across any writers who refer to his Laudanum use.
- this is clearly speculation on my part, and not meant as an ad hominem argument. (If everyone else can speculate on his health problems I suppose I can.) Obviously his use of L. doesn't affect the truth or falsity of his arguments.
- as one example (of thousands) let's take a brief look at the cilium.
'While we’re on the subject, let’s look at a cellular device that recently got more praise: the cilium. This little rod-like projection on most cells is doing more work than previously thought. “Appreciation is now growing for primary cilia,” said Christenson and Ott in Science, primary cilia being “the nonmotile counterparts, present as a single copy on the surface of most cell types in our body.”
If primary cilia don’t beat and wave like the moving kind, what do they do? Well, for one thing, “they function as unique antenna-like structures, probing the extracellular environment for molecules that are recognized by the receptors they bear. This sensory function allows primary cilia to coordinate numerous intercellular signaling pathways that regulate growth, survival, and differentiation of cells during embryonic development and maintenance of healthy tissues.” New research shows that a suite of molecules move in a coordinated fashion in and out of the cilium, creating a powerful switch by which cells can turn on and off a set of signaling pathways. That’s pretty cool for an complex antenna previously thought to be nothing more than a little bitty hair on a tiny cell.' [1.]
- well; it's not too difficult to come up with an explanation of the cilia if it's nothing but a hair (not really, but relatively) but it's another order of magnitude to give an account of the newly discovered wonder of the cilia. This is just one example of the task facing the evolutionist. (What I've called the Darwinist dilemna.)
- the evolutionist can either ignore this new complexity, or he can attempt to account for it... and end up showing he can't. He doesn't want to do either, but he has little choice.
- Evolutionary theory was so successful in the culture (taking it over almost completely) because it had so little work to do; because of this people didn't realize how weak the theory was. It had few difficult questions to address; and once these were attended to it was a kind of clear sailing. Now however it has struck an iceberg called complexity. The world of living organisms is now seen to be billions? of times more complex than anyone imagined. (It's impossible to put a number on this of course; we might as well have said trillions.) Simple analogies to animal breeding just aren't going to cut it any more. [2.]
Notes;
1. Reference; Harnessing Cellular Machines for Humans; Creation/Evolution Headlines 07/20/2007
2. The analogy Darwin used was a false one.
3. The cell;
'In the early twentieth century, the cell was viewed as essentially a blob of protoplasm (a collection of gelatin molecules). And although the inner workings were not yet understood, it was assumed the first cell developed through a process of chemical evolution (abiogenesis). The following is a quote from Ernest Haeckel, who was affectionately known as Darwin's bulldog.
“ ‘not composed of any organs at all, but consist entirely of shapeless, simple, homogeneous matter … nothing more than a shapeless, mobile, little lump of mucus or slime, consisting of albuminous combination of carbon.’ - creationwiki - cell biology
4. Laudanum;
'Darwin desperately tried many different therapies, within the limitations of medical science of his time. He took all kinds of medicines, including bismuth compounds and laudanum... - Wiki/Charles Darwin's illness
- how much Laudanum he used I don't know; but there's a dreamy quality to a lot of his writing (to his reasoning) that seems to indicate it might have been a lot. (e.g. "It's not impossible to imagine...") I haven't come across any writers who refer to his Laudanum use.
- this is clearly speculation on my part, and not meant as an ad hominem argument. (If everyone else can speculate on his health problems I suppose I can.) Obviously his use of L. doesn't affect the truth or falsity of his arguments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)