- 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.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
