The Myth of Human Design

While all intelligent, informed people in our day deny the existence of divine design, a great many people still cling to the myth of human design. They will tell you that while the eye obviously evolved, and is not (as the ignorant believe) the product of some kind of creator; they will go on to tell you (not noticing the irony) that the camera is a product of human design. (And their chest will swell with pride, like a robin who's pulled up a worm.) No. This is not the case, but the main point is that it's not scientific. There is no scientific case to be made for placing the camera in a separate category than the eye. Both are simple arrangements of matter. In both cases, what appears to be design to the untrained eye, is really just a product of natural selection, and the blind processes of evolution. We need to drop our attachment to the humanist (anthrocentric) thinking. If we want to be scientific we must go where the evidence leads, and we must be consistent.

The foundation of evolution is that everything (everything) in the universe is the product of evolution. We can't make any exceptions if we want to remain scientific in our thinking. We can't take credit for what evolution has done. If we're going to take credit for the camera, we might as well claim credit for the eye.

This error in current thinking stems from the mistaken idea human beings have minds. This is an old error, and its one we're still working to abolish. People imagine that objects like cameras (or eyeglasses) have been designed by creatures with minds. No such creatures exist. The mind is an illusion. All that exists are brains. Human beings have brains, monkeys have brains, and bees have brains. Birds build nests, and human beings build boats; it's all the same thing. It isn't a mind that designs the hive of the bee or the nest of the bird, and it isn't a mind that designs the camera. What's involved is an instinctual behavior pattern that has evolved from natural selection. I'm not sure why people have a problem with this, but I suppose it goes back to cultural indoctrination and the remains of christian tradition.

It's only vanity that makes us think there's any difference between what we do when we build houses, and what beavers do when they construct damns. If we want to be rigorously scientific we must acknowledge (and admit) that our 'design capabilities' (instinctual behaviors) are simply a product of Darwinian evolution and natural selection. If we use 'blueprints' these are only instructions that have been given to us by our genes. The Copernican revolution will not be complete until we give up the idea of human design. This is a superstition that belongs to the past, and we should donate it to the flat earth people.

Notes;
1. 'If a man denies that there is design in nature, he can with quite as good reason deny that there is any design in any or in all the works ever executed by man. - Charles Hodge; What is Darwinism?/181

Stealing Creation

Quotes and comments;

1. 'A fourth objection has reference to beauty. According to
Mr. Darwin, flowers are not intentionally made beautiful, but those which happen to be beautiful attract insects, and by their agency are fertilized and survive.' [1.]

- It's plain to me that ideas like these are designed with the purpose of stealing the creation away from human beings. God created the world as a gift to mankind, designed it as a home for man; not only for utilitarian purposes, but for beauty. (How often God, through the words penned by the prophets, praises the beauty of creation. In these passages we see God (the Father), praising the work done by the Son and the Spirit.) Men like Charles Darwin, lost in a sad bitterness, try to steal that beauty away from us; and not even give the credit to demons or to men, but to nothing... to mere random chance. The perversity of this is great. [Men are instructed to praise God for His glorious works, but man-the-rebel wants all glory for himself, even if this means stealing the glory that belongs to God.]

- The message of the Bible is clear; God designed the world to be beautiful. It was made beautiful not for the sake of flowers (give me a break) but for the sake of God's image man. (Would God, one of whose names is Beautiful, not make a beautiful world? Being true to his character, he could not but make a beautiful world. Would the Son create for the Father a world that was not beautiful?)

- Materialists like to mock Christians for giving God the credit for all things, but they themselves want to give mere matter the credit for all things. The absurdity of it boggles the mind. (And now, now that the great 'hero' man man has 'emerged' on the scene, they want to give man the credit for all things. Well, take your pick I guess.)

Notes;
1. 'What is Darwinism?' - Charles Hodge/1878/p. 111 [A great book, one I recommend highly.]
2. "He hath made every [thing] beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end. - Ecclesiastes 3:11
3. In Genesis God declares the creation very good. The idea the beauty of the earth came about by a random series of chemical accidents is as stupid a belch as any man has ever delivered himself. (You see in statements like this, how the hatred of God leads man to make preposterous statements, how it guides and warps his thinking.)

Darwinism; A world gone to the dogs

Ever wondered how 'religious sentiment' came into being? Well, everyone's favorite guru knows.

Quotes and comments;

1. "Lower animals, especially the dog, manifest love, reverence, fidelity, and obedience; and it is from these elements that the religious sentiment in man has been slowly [2] evolved by a process of natural selection." - Charles Darwin [1.]

- That's what passes for wisdom in the sad world of Darwin/ism.

- Dogs manifest love he tells us. Still believe he was a candid and honest man? They manifest reverence, he says. [Was his dog sitting at his feet as he wrote, looking up at him with big 'please-give-me-a-treat' eyes?] This is a joke. He's using words the way vandals spray graffiti. Dogs aren't capable of love, or reverence. They're bundles of instincts. These words should never be used for animals. (One of the great positives creationist thinking brings to the table, is it's cleansing and edifying effect on language.) He's using words in the sloppy way a child would. This equivocation of terms is again, more of Darwin's rhetoric.

- At times the things Darwin says are so staggeringly stupid it's hard to believe. This bearded guru actually says that 'religious sentiment' (including Christianity) arose from dogs. How our Christian 'liberals' can defend this man as a Christian is beyond me. They either don't know the man, or they're lying. The man isn't simply a materialist, but he's an atheist, and a very bitter one at that. I mean how plainer can it be? I don't think even Richard Harris (sorry, Dawkins) would have been capable of declaring that Christianity has its roots in the 'love' of a dog for its master. It's outrageous. What more could the man do to make his feelings known? Did he have to go to the local parish and lift his leg against the side of the building?

- All this is comical of course. There's no way the bearded one could have known any of this stuff. [Although it's possible that his dog told him I guess.] He got his ideas from smoking a crooked pipe. This has nothing to do with science, with a careful examination of the world and its manifold creatures. This is story telling, myth making, and the hackings of a disillusioned and bitter man.

- Dogs have no fidelity at all. Offer one a steak and he'll hop the fence any day of the week. If a dog is 'loyal' it only means he knows where to get a good bed and breakfast. These words should never be applied to animals. That Darwin does, shows how perverse he was. He had an agenda, and it was to show how evil the world was, to show things in their worst possible light, to show things in their most perverse aspect. (Imagine a man who hates his neighbor, and going over to his house and criticizing everything in the house in the worst possible terms, and getting a huge kick out of it.)

- There's one little problem with Darwin's story about the dogs. He speaks of their love, and reverence (etc.) but he seems to have forgotten there were no humans around when dogs bounded onto the scene (having evolved from dogfish I guess). So where did all this 'reverence' and 'love' come from? To whom was it directed? To dogs? To cats? To the great, big, awesome bear?

- Come to think of it, you'd think that if Christianity came from our canine friends, it would feature a kinder, nicer, gentler kind of god... not like the Holy one presented to us in the bible. Wouldn't you? Then again, maybe the dog that got the idea had been kicked around a bit; and maybe it passed its 'pissed off' gene to its descendents. [Sorry; I meant to say ticked off gene.]

- This is a great example of how evolution theory turns everything it touches into golden turds. (Golden as in golden retriever.) The 'ideas' it comes up with are among the stupidest things human beings have ever come up with. (With or without a pipe.)

- While most gurus and fortune tellers gaze into crystal balls, Charles Darwin apparently gazed into the eyes of his pet dog to find out the origins of religion. With his massive intelligence and great learning, this was all he needed to do. It all came to him in a flash, the answer to one of life's great mysteries. If only you and I could have that kind of amazing brain. (I hope he at least gave the dog a treat.)

- Anyone who wants serious answers to the questions Darwin dealt with is going to have to go elsewhere.

Notes;
1. Descent of Man (vol. 1. p. 65) - Charles Darwin (Quote taken from, 'What is Darwinism?' by Charles Hodge.
2. Darwin liked to refer to the 'slow' process of evolution. We might ask he knew how fast or slow evolution supposedly operated. His use of 'slow' isn't based on any observations, but is instead a rhetorical device. He knows his readers will find 'his' theory implausible (as no one has ever seen this evolution he's talking about) so he deflects criticism by saying "well, it's a slow process..." i.e. so slow you can't see it. (Slow has no scientific meaning. It has no objective meaning, but is a purely relative term.)

Science fiction, creation and limits

There's a strong connection between science fiction and evolutionary theory. I want to make a few comments about the comment below.

Quotes and comments;

1. 'Spinrad complains that this light velocity limitation is;
"a pain in the neck to science fiction writers. The literary necessity for faster-than-light travel is all too obvious. Without it, we could have no stories of galactic empires, not much anthropological science fiction, few pictures of alien cultures or outré planets, a dearth of first-contact stories—in short, science fiction writers would be pretty much confined to our own solar system É . Thus hyperspace. Or overdrive. Or whatever it takes to get our literary spaceships from star to star in literarily usable time." [1.]

- In a similar way, materialists talk about evolution of this and that organ or creature, while ignoring the fact it's impossible to get life from non-life. This is their version of faster than light travel. They know it's impossible, but it's so much fun (and so profitable) to use, that they use it anyway. Think of all the 'just so' stories it makes possible. Without spontaneous generation a thousand Darwinian storytellers would be out of work.

- Like sf writers, Materialists don't want the limitation reality would lay upon their (metaphysical) speculations. At the very heart of fallen man is a hatred of limitations. ("You shall be as gods,'' was the temptation man originally fell for. It's the one he still suffers from, and will do so until the end of the age.) What this amounts to is a hatred of reality. Man hates his mortality, the extent of his life span, the limits of his intelligence, the frailty of the body, the contrariness of other people, etc. He wants to be as a god; he wants his every whim to come true. He wants to be the source of the Ultimate in the universe. While this has its comical side, it is also dangerous.

- Fallen man hates the fact the universe puts limits on his desires; that it places limits on his imagination. The usual response to this is to ignore reality, and to proceed as if it doesn't exist. In sf then we see the human heart at its most unrestrained. (i.e. acting as if reality didn't exist.) We see some writers even constructing fabricated worlds (and even 'universes') where there are no real limits; where man's merest whim results in the accomplished deed. (Writers posit connections between the mind and a planet that has been 'digitized' by nano-technology; where a mere command for an apple to fall from a tree, makes it fall, where the hero can say, ''let there be light,'' and light appears, etc.)

- In Darwinism 'literary necessity' (that makes sf writers use technology that is impossible) is replaced by metaphysical necessity. The Materialist needs a universe where life can spontaneously generate; can spontaneously emerge. His metaphysics demands it. This being the case, we get evolution whether it's possible or not. It doesn't seem to matter that it's impossible. If it's not possible the grand story of Materialism can't be told, and that's just unacceptable to many people.

- The connection here is obvious; science fiction and evolutionary theory are parts of a team; they work together. If sf needs faster than light travel [FTLT] it also needs spontaneous generation and evolution, if those distant parts of the galaxy are going to be populated. In the popular galactic empire stories we have two impossibilities put together. The task of the Hollywood director is to make it seem plausible. The school teacher has a tougher task, he or she has to try and make spontaneous generation seem plausible.

- As the sf writer hates being confined (limited) to the solar system, the materialist hates to be confined to reality. (Why reality isn't enough for him is another question.) So how do you get out of the sink of matter? You build a ladder out of stories and you haul yourself up; you build a bridge made out of stories and cross over from inert matter to living organism. (Think of it as crossing the void between galaxies if that will help :=) The stories the materialists use aren't plausible, but as Spinrad says, 'hyperspace, overdrive, whatever it takes.' In this case hyperbole; to go, not where no man has gone before, but to go beyond the truth. (What is exaggerated here is the public confidence some solution to this limit will be found.)

- Men want to use the 'literary spaceship' called Darwinism to escape from God, but their contraption isn't going to get off the ground. If it can't get started it ain't gonna fly.

- At the foundation of Materialism is an impossible story called spontaneous generation. At the foundation of Christianity is a possible story called Creation.

- MKE

Notes;
1. Science fiction: a Biblical perspective - David Laughlin

The humanzee; imagination gone wrong

A major concern of the decades to come will be that of genetic engineering. We might be able to get better look at this if we consider one of the more extreme of the projects some people have in mind.

Quotes and comments;
1. 'Even the progressive Scotsman newspaper seemed alarmed at experiments being proposed to breed human-animal chimeras. Dr. Callum MacKellar, from the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics, warned that little is stopping rogue scientists from inseminating a chimpanzee with human sperm in an attempt to produce a “humanzee.” After all, they’ve bred a liger (lion + tiger) zorse (zebra + horse), wholphin (whale + dolphin), lepjag (leopard and jaguar), and zonkey (zebra + donkey). The attempt of mating a human and an ape may not work, but it is within the range of possibility the offspring could be born alive. “Dr MacKellar said the resulting creature could raise ethical dilemmas, such as whether it would be treated as human or animal, and what rights it would have.” [1.]

- My immediate thought (or fear almost) was 'if this succeeded, would it disprove the biblical account of creation? I don't know the answer to this question. I can't imagine such an experiment working however. If apes are (as I believe) a separate kind I can't imagine this will work. I don't think 'inventions' such as the liger prove anything more than that these were originally one kind. (Having said that, these 'creations' don't exist in the wild as far as I know, as it's man who likes playing these kinds of demented games, not the animals involved. Man is ever the pervert, and has a fatal twist in his spine.)

- I remember reading of one fool who thought a 'humanzee' would be great; it would be a way to spit on creationists. (I suppose he meant it would disprove Genesis.)

2. 'Consider the statements of Professor Hugh McLachlan, professor of applied philosophy at Glasgow Caledonian University's School of Law and Applied Sciences. He couldn’t find an ethical pole star to prevent it. “If it turns out in the future there was fertilisation between a human animal and a non-human animal, it’s an idea that is troublesome, but in terms of what particular ethical principle is breached it”s not clear to me,” he said. “I share their squeamishness and unease, but I’m not sure that unease can be expressed in terms of an ethical principle.” [2.]

- That eloquently expresses the bankruptcy of the Materialist and the Evolutionary worldview. These people have no idea how to answer ethical questions. They can't answer them because they have no foundation for doing so. In rejecting god they reject ethics.

- For an answer we can go back to Genesis. God brought all the animals to Adam to have him name them; 'and he found none that was a suitable partner for him.' Here we see why these experiments are wrong. God made Adam a suitable partner in Eve. Although modern experiments wouldn't (I assume) use human victims, like experiments that took place in the early decades of the twentieth century did. This would be adultery, if nothing else.

- "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.'' (Would men like to have this done to them? Obviously not; therefore it's wrong to do it.)

- Is there a direct injunction against this in the Bible? I can't think of one. The laws against 'mixing' come to mind... but I don't see anything there really. I guess you could say there's a law against mixing seeds, but again I don't think there's anything solid or applicable.) (I have to admit to a fascination about these laws against mixing, but I won't bother anyone with that here.)

- Has man turned science into a god by doing this? Is this a rejection of god in that it's really an attempt to disprove genesis; no matter what the 'scientists' might say. (Any rejection of God comes under the injunction of not worshipping other gods.) Is this idolatry? I would think so.

- I think a good case could be made for saying there isn't a law against it; or that the only law against it is that it's insane.

- The bible tells us to praise god in all we do, to be thankful in all we do; to be grateful always... I think the humanzee enterprise would violate all of these commandments.

- We're told to glorify god in all that we do; that wouldn't be the case here. Man is trying to play god... and trying to bring glory to himself, not to god.

- The whole subject of genetic engineering, is a major problem for people in our day, and it's just coming into focus. If the progress in technological innovation continues... it's going to be a Huge problem. The trouble is that tech is run almost entirely by materialists, and they have no way of addressing the problem. The answer as I see is Creation; the fact God created the world and all that's in it. Man was giving the task of protecting what god had made. (To 'keep' the garden means to protect it, in the sense of guarding it against intruders and against harm.) Man still has this task. He is not only to protect the world but to protect god's image in the world. In regards to the subject at hand I see this to mean we are to protect the creation against those who would do unnatural things with it. (eg. trying to create humanzees) I think it's utterly wrong to create new life forms (ie. new kinds of beings) I think any 'humanzee' would be a violation of man's duty to protect the creation. (Man is to be a steward of the creation; not a usurper of the creation.) I draw a line between trying to undo the harm done by mutation, and the engineering of new products. (e.g. through gene splicing) There is no need to do engineer new products; this is a project meant to create money and fame. There is absolutely no need to do any of this.

- In my opinion materialists don't have ethical principles for anything; principles that are founded in reality. (The hint is the word principles; not moral absolutes, not truth, etc. No one has to obey a principle; this amounts to violating opinion.) The physical universe can't provide moral truths, so the materialist, if he's honest to his worldview, can have nothing to say about ethical matters. (In reality there are no ethical concerns, if all is matter; as you can't make the jump from matter to morals. Moral law isn't physical, therefore it doesn't even exist to the consistent materialist. He sits there and scratches his chin, but that's as far as he gets. (In a recent book an author asked, ''Why are some educated, intelligent people 'fundamentalists?" This gives you a hint.)

- We see here an illustration of why man needs a transcendent source for his conduct. While I think it's true that there is no direct injunction against such things as manufacturing a 'humanzee' it is still clearly wrong from a biblical view. (I've given the reasons above.) If you reject biblical Christianity then indeed you are left without any real reason to oppose such things. As I've said before, there's a terrible price to be paid for rejecting God and His word.

Notes;
1.Darwinian Ethics Launch Unexplored Blessings or Curses; Creation/Evolution Headlines; 04/30/2008
2. 'Half man, half chimp - should we beware the apeman's coming?' By Jenny Haworth
3. The tales of Cordwainer Smith are filled with such abominations as the proposed (drooled over) humanzee. They feature cat people and dog people and many others. (The collection called 'The best of Cordwainer Smith' is one of the most disturbing books I've ever read.) I don't think he approved of any of the engineering he described, but I do think he saw it all as inevitable. Sadly I tend to agree, but who can say; men actually migth become wise enough to reject such a temptation as this.

History, Revelation and Evolutionary theory

History, revelation and evolutionary theory

- I think Christianity has suffered a great deal from the notion that Genesis was somehow a revelation that Moses got from god. There is Nothing in Genesis to suggest this. To me, it's clearly history; and should be presented as history. That Moses was given credit by the scribes is about as meaningful as al gore being given credit for inventing the internet. He was a famous figure and so they gave him the credit. (Some say that Joseph [of Egypt fame] compiled the book, or most of it, from ancient records.)

- A popular position of e.s is that 'creationism' isn't science... Why? It's not science because its major tenets come from revelation. This isn't true (in my opinion) as Genesis is clearly meant to be history. The book of Genesis didn't come to Moses in a dream... nor did God dictate it to him. It's a collection of ancient documents; possibly in severely edited form. The creation account isn't revelation it's history. The account of the world before the Flood isn't revelation, it's history. The account of the Flood isn't revelation but history. Genesis has its source in ancient documents, in historical accounts of things experienced by the authors. (There are passages of engagement with God; but this wasn't revealed to Moses, nor did it happen to Moses. eg. when we're told God spoke to Noah, that God revealed things to Noah, this happened to Noah, and was likely written by Noah.)

- There is clearly a difference here between being told a flood is coming (revelation) and being in the flood, surviving it, and giving an account of the experience (history).

- The irony here is that secular e.s don't believe in revelation. When they claim creation science can't be real science because it's based on revelation they would seem to be making a disingenuous argument. ie. if there is no such thing as a revealed word from God, how can you dismiss creation science on the charge of revelation?

- There is nothing unscientific (or illegitimate) with investigating what historians have written, what they've told us about the world. (e.g. it was in no way unscientific to look for the Hittite people mentioned in the bible; nor is it unscientific to look for evidence of King David, or of Solomon.)

- What this has led to is the evolutionists mocking it and presenting a contrast between revelation and science. The conflict isn't between revelation and science but history and science. (Or history and evolutionary theory.)

Notes;
1. This post is a response to a book review [Amazon] of the book 'What science is, and how it works' - by Gregory Derry. According to the reviewer Derry makes a case in the book that creation science isn't real science. Claims like this serve the purpose of marginalizing people you don't agree with. There is no such thing as 'real' science. (What we have are claims that conform to reality, and claims that don't; and it's not always easy to know which is the case.)
2. Theistic evolutionists (an oxymoron if you want my opinion) keep insisting that Genesis was written by Moses, and so is deeply infected by the pagan culture of his day. In most of their books they don't even bring up the possibility Genesis is a collection of ancient family records, that go back all the way to the pre-Flood world, and indeed, right back to the Creation.

The broken mechanics of theistic evolution

- According to common defintion, theistic evolutionists are people who accept evolution as the 'mechanism' by which God created.

- The problem with this is that the 'mechanism' (natural selection) doesn't work. Critics of evolutionary theory have shown this over and over. (They've certainly convinced me.) So here we have Christians believing in a 'mechanism' that doesn't work. So what kind of a god uses a mechanism that doesn't work?

- I've gathered some quotes from evolutionists who claim NS doesn't work. (These come mainly from an article by Suzan Mazur; Altenberg! The Woodstock of evolution?)

Quotes;

A. 'Stanley Salthe, for instance, said he can’t get published in the mainstream media for his views, e.g.:
"Oh sure natural selection’s been demonstrated... the interesting point, however, is that it has rarely if ever been demonstrated to have anything to do with evolution in the sense of long-term changes in populations.... Summing up we can see that the import of the Darwinian theory of evolution is just unexplainable caprice from top to bottom. What evolves is just what happened to happen."

B. 'Jerry Fodor, another critic of natural selection argues “biologists increasingly see the central story of Darwin as wrong in a way that can’t be repaired.” His article “Why Pigs Don’t Have Wings” in the London Review of Books, in which he laid out his criticisms of natural selection, caused such a stormy aftermath that he joked to Mazur that he has taken refuge in the Witness Protection Program. He was apparently reluctant to talk to Mazur after being so besieged. “You can’t put this stuff in the press because it’s an attack on the theory of natural selection,” he told Mazur, even though he is convinced “99.99% of the population have no idea what the theory of natural selection is.” He’s not giving up on the grand evolutionary story – he is just convinced that whatever new mechanism emerges to explain evolution, it will not be selectionist.'
- He's not going to give up on evolution even though he admits the theory doesn't work; doesn't explain anything. That speaks volumes as far as I'm concerned.

C. "It’s not Yasgur’s Farm, but what happens at the Konrad Lorenz Institute in Altenberg, Austria this July promises to be far more transforming for the world than Woodstock. What it amounts to is a gathering of 16 biologists and philosophers of rock star stature – let’s call them “the Altenberg 16” – who recognize that the theory of evolution which most practicing biologists accept and which is taught in classrooms today, is inadequate in explaining our existence. It’s pre the discovery of DNA, lacks a theory for body form and does not accomodate [sic] “other” new phenomena.'' - Mazur

- From what I can gather theistic evolutionists don't even particularly care if this 'mechanism' doesn't work. They're more interested in going along to get along; and they have an intense fear of being ridiculed by their non-Christian colleagues, should they say anything that's not status quo. (Not that they'll admit it.)

- Isn't mechanism a strange word for a materialist to use? Mechanism means machine; and aren't the descendents of Hume supposed to deny the machine or design argument? In my opinion, they have no right to reject the design argument if they're going to use words like mechanism.

Notes;
1. Revolt in the Darwin Camp; Creation/Evolution Headlines 03/07/2008
- March 7, 2008 — With minor skirmishes, the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis (natural selection acting on random genetic mutations) has held sway in evolutionary theory since the 1930s. Now, discontent with the pre-eminence of natural selection is leading to a major skirmish between evolutionists to be fought at a conference this summer.
2. "A wave of scientists now questions natural selection's relevance, though few will publicly admit it. And with such a fundamental struggle underway, the hurling of slurs such as "looney Marxist hangover", "philosopher" (a scientist who can't get grants anymore), "crackpot", is hardly surprising. - mazur
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/03/at_scoop_freelance_reporter_su.html
3. The meeting seems largely to have come about because of Jerry Fodor's article Why Pigs Don't Have Wings.
In an act of near-heresy, Fodor wrote:
"In fact, an appreciable number of perfectly reasonable biologists are coming to think that the theory of natural selection can no longer be taken for granted. This is, so far, mostly straws in the wind; but it’s not out of the question that a scientific revolution – no less than a major revision of evolutionary theory – is in the offing. Unlike the story about our minds being anachronistic adaptations, this new twist doesn’t seem to have been widely noticed outside professional circles. The ironic upshot is that at a time when the theory of natural selection has become an article of pop culture, it is faced with what may be the most serious challenge it has had so far. Darwinists have been known to say that adaptationism is the best idea that anybody has ever had. It would be a good joke if the best idea that anybody has ever had turned out not to be true.

Theistic evolution and Dualism

When theistic evolutionists claim that while man's body evolved from the slime and eventually from the apes, man's mind was given to him directly by god, they're engaging in a form of dualism. They've created a split between the mind and body; they've made man not one but two; and two parts which have a radically different origin. (This is like saying one Person in the Trinity evolved from the slime, while the other two Persons didn't; or that they each had radically different origins, or came into being at radically different times.)

- Taking the Trinity seriously discourages the compromising speculation of the theistic evolutionists. (So called theistic evolution is neither biblical or 'scientific' (i.e. naturalistic) but simply Humanism.)

- The persons of the Trinity are in perfect harmony. Since man was made in the image of god; this leads me to think Adam was a harmonious whole, not some disparate mixture of animal and spirit. (With a brain cobbled together out of disparate parts; with a lizard brain, a lemur brain, and so on.) Man was created an embodied soul; he was created by God in complete form, not some ape like figure who got 'zapped'.

- Having adopted a faulty model of man, the theistic evolutionist goes on to adopt faulty models of psychology, sociology, theology and so on. He sees man as laboring under this primitive heritage; sees human problems as having their source in this primitive ancestry. This is radically unbiblical. Man's problem isn't that he has a conflict between his animal heritage and his spiritual endowment; but that he desires to rebel against God by committing sin.

Notes;
1. An excellent book on the Trinity is 'Trinity and Reality' by Ralph Allan Smith. (The whole book is posted online at books. google.com)

Marriage, Monogamy and instinct; how evolutionists misunderstand the subject

'Two articles that appeared the same day [3/19/2008] on Live Science are a study in contrasts. One was titled, “Surviving Infidelity: What Wives Do When Men Cheat.” The other was titled, “Are Humans Meant to Be Monogamous?” The thread that tied them together was evolution.' [1.]

Quotes and comments;
A. 'These differences [between male and female] may have deep evolutionary roots. “From a man’s perspective, sexual infidelity historically jeopardized his paternity certainty -- ‘mama’s baby, papa’s maybe,’” Buss said [David Buss is a professor of psychology at the University of Texas at Austin.] “Male sexual jealousy is, among other things, an adaptation designed to solve the problem of genetic cuckoldry.''

- What this person has done is to strip human beings of a rational mind. He's treating people like animals. A rational concern for fatherhood and paternity is turned into 'sexual jealousy.' He presents us with a picture of man as ape; a mindless, instinct driven animal. (Apparently professors are of a different species, as none of this stuff seem to apply to them.)

B. 'The second article went further. It openly proposed the idea that humans shouldn’t get hung up about marital fidelity (monogamy) because other animals are promiscuous, even happily so (see their sidelight, “Animal Sex: No Stinking Rules”).

- Animals aren't happy of course; they're incapable of it. (Not unless you define happiness as satisfying instincts.)
- Stinking rules? This is supposed to be science? Where would these clowns be (and their highly privileged lives) without 'stinking' rules? (And just what is the scientific meaning of a 'stinking' rule?)

C. "Evolutionary psychologists have suggested that men are more likely to have extramarital sex, partially due to the male urge to “spread genes” by broadcasting sperm.''

- There is no urge to spread genes; this is scientism and myth making. (Most humans who have ever lived have never even heard of genes.) What men are in quest of is pleasure, conquest, and status.
- Evolutionary psychologist is an oxymoron.
- Broadcasting sperm! The more evolutionary oriented a person is the more repellent their writing. (Of course if we're all just animals these stories are really just feces smearing.)

D. 'The article ended by claiming that monogamy is an unnatural thing – it is a societal, not biological, norm: “I don’t think we are a monogamous animal,” said Pepper Schwartz, a professor of sociology at the University of Washington in Seattle.... She added, ”Monogamy is invented for order and investment – but not necessarily because it’s ‘natural.’”

- Rejecting biblical Christianity leads to nonsense like this.
- Since humans aren't animals, so they can't be monogamous animals.
- One wonders why (apart from the perks) these people bother with this exercise in idiocy. What are we getting for our billions, but a mountain of b.s.
- Despite the professors, human beings were created to be loyal. (As the members of the Trinity are loyal.)
- If some animals are 'monogamous' how can monogamy not be natural?
- Again we see what happens when people reject the doctrine of sin; they turn into idiots.

- This whole nonsense falls apart when you point out that some humans (some groups even) are monogamous and some aren't. Doesn't that kill their darling theory? They have no explanation for this; none that makes any sense. (e.g. are some beavers 'monogamous' and some not?)

- What makes this story so foolish is that these evolutionists have conflated animal 'monogamy' with human monogamy. The two aren't remotely the same. Animals are 'monogamous' out of instinct; human beings are monogamous out of meaningful commitment, out of ideas on what is moral, out of a conception of revealed Truth. Only fools would equate the two (Darwinism is a kind ideological dementia.)

- We see in this witless farce of a story more evidence for how E. theory dehumanizes human beings; it's a grand project for the deconstruction of man, a project that has as its goal the unmanning of man, the death of man. (It's done with taxpayer dollars, and I firmly believe that people shouldn't be forced to pay for their own murder.)

- Only human beings get married. I guess this is too much for evolutionists to comprehend; as they clearly don't get the meaning, the implications of this. (E.s might understand animals to a limited extent, but they apparently have no understanding of human beings. That's the sad result of the scientism of our day.) Monogamy has as its root marriage; i.e. marrying [gamos] only once. It is utterly illegitimate to use monogamy in reference to animals. Animals do not marry. They never promise to honor and obey, to cherish and to nurture. Animals are incapable of making promises, or even understanding what promises are. Animals do not take vows in the presence of other people and of god. They don't wear a token of their vows. They are punished for violating a vow. A man or a woman can violate their marriage vows (and they do so out of sin, not because they are forced to do so because of their genes) but an animal can't violate its instincts. Here again this fanciful scenario falls to piece and shatters. Infidelity among marriage partners is a voluntary act; promiscuity among animals is instinct in action.

- Because evolutionists perversely insist on treating man as an animal they get everything wrong. The results of myth making are extremely harmful; negative to lives of couples, individuals and communities. (One wonders if these Darwinian profs say to their spouses, ''well sorry honey but my genes made me do it. You can't blame me. Richard Dawkins and Pepper Schwartz have exonerated me.")

- Human beings marry for a purpose; animals to not form units (unit restrictive, or not) for a purpose. There is no internal purpose to instinct; instinct is the opposite of purpose. (This despite how evolutionists try to manufacture purpose for them.) Any 'purpose' in animal instinct comes from outside the animals; i.e. it was designed into them by an Intelligent being. (The Triune God) Instincts (contra the E.s) didn't somehow develop; they were given in complete form to the kinds of the original creation.

- Promiscuous sex among animals doesn't corrupt them (the meaning of adultery) whereas adultery does corrupt human beings. (e.g. it hardens the heart, it renders people cold and suspicious, it brings shame and sadness, etc.) It's meaningless to apply the term adultery to animals. (In a sense Darwinism amounts to a misuse of language. The theory is impossible to put over without this abuse of language. You might hope professors would be concerned with such matters, but apparently not... at least when it comes to their pet theory.) Darwinism involves an attack on language, and thus on rationality itself. (i.e. if you use words improperly, you cannot make sense; your arguments will be irrational and illogical.) Since animals are creatures of instinct it's hard to see how they can be corrupted by the actions of another animal; even one of the pack. This is not the case with human beings, who can be corrupted by the actions of another.

- In true marriage the two become one; when adultery occurs this bond is broken, and the victim feels like half a person, or less. The intimate bond between the man and woman is broken. Animals don't have anything we can rightly call intimacy. (i.e. of an emotional and personal transparency and openness.) People feel altered by the experience; usually on a permanent basis. The bond people have between them is broken; but this bond doesn't only exist between them but resides in each of them individually. (This is why we say, 'the affair broke his or her heart'.)

- Unit formation isn't celebrated (not that animals are capable of it) in animal groupings. On the other hand marriage is usually the biggest celebration time the average person has.

- In an earlier time it wouldn't have been necessary to point out such basic matters, but Darwinism has had the effect of destroying traditional knowledge. As Dennett admits, and even celebrates, it's a great cultural acid. (Not that any acid can be universal. His dream of a universal acid is clearly Satanic.) The beautiful traditions of marriage have, under the pernicious influence of evolutionary theory, been replaced by groundless just so stories about animals. Darwinism is the great dumbing down of civilization. (We might liken it to the degenerate move from Monotheism into polytheism and pantheism that the ancients suffered.

Notes;
1. Adulterers: Evolution Made Us That Way 03/19/2008 [Creation/Evolution Headlines]
March 19, 2008 — Two articles that appeared the same day on Live Science are a study in contrasts. One was titled, “Surviving Infidelity: What Wives Do When Men Cheat.” The other was titled, “Are Humans Meant to Be Monogamous?” The thread that tied them together was evolution.
2. If you want to know how absurd it is to speak of monogamy in terms of animals try to imagine two animals getting married.
3. To pretend that 'natural selection' (whatever it's supposed to consist of this week) can account for all things is like saying the earth orbits the sun because of natural selection, because it thereby gains some evolutionary advantage, or reproductive advantage. If evolutionists were consistent they'd explain the tilt of the earth by natural selection; clearly there's an advantage in having the specific tilt the earth does. They would also account for the distance from the sun by natural selection. Isn't it clear that the earth was more successful than the other planets in gaining the optimum spot in the solar system? (What a colossal struggle that must have been! Surely the craters on the other planets can be accounted for by this struggle for existence.)