The faint light of evolution

- I want to take a brief look at a famous quote (by Dobzhansky) in the creation/evolution debate.

Quotes and comments;

- If you've done any reading on the origins debate you've come across the following quote many times. "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution." [1.]
I want to try and refute this comment. (Let's say it doesn't make any sense to me.)

- The sentence as written is illogical and false. [A universal negative is an impossible thing to prove; and there's no warrant I can see, to put things in this kind of absolute form.] If it were written correctly it would read; ''To a materialist, nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.'' Why?

a. No one has the right to make universal statements for every member of mankind.
b. D. can't possibly know if his claim is accurate.
c. the 'light' of evolution may be poetry but I don't know what it means. In my (humble) opinion there is precious little 'light' shone on biology or origins by evolutionary theory. (In honor of such notions as dark matter and dark energy, I propose to call evolution theory dark light.) The 'light of evolution' motif is 'borrowed' from the Bible where wisdom is referred to as the light of God. (The idea is that we understand the world by the light of God's word.)
d. this statement assumes evolutionary theory is correct; an opinion I reject (and with what I consider considerable warrant)
e. the statement assumes no other explanation can exist; again, D. can't know this to be the case.

- In my opinion (contra D.) it's far closer to the truth to say, ''nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of creation." [I admit the veracity of what is confusingly called micro-evolution.] We might say rather, that the origin and existence of living organisms is best explained by the creation model.

- Why might this be so? In a nutshell, because the evolutionary model can't explain a great many things. (e.g. the origin of living organisms from inert matter, the creation of complex information, an account of sex, an account of human intelligence, an account of personality, an account of how 'progress can happen in the light of mutation and decay, an account of how all the information we see on earth now could exist in the first living organism, etc.)

Notes;
1. "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" is a 1973 essay by the evolutionary biologist and Russian Orthodox Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky, criticising anti-evolution creationism and espousing theistic evolution. The essay was first published in the American Biology Teacher, volume 35, pages 125-129.
The term "light of evolution"—or sub specie evolutionis—had been used earlier by biologist Julian Huxley. - Wiki

2. 'Dobzhansky then goes on to describe the diversity of life on Earth, and that the diversity of species cannot be best explained by a creation myth because of the ecological interactions between them. - "
- biblical creationists don't account for anything by a creationist myth, but by the historical doctrine of creation. (ie. they believe the creation accout found in Genesis to be a historical record.)
- his argument here seems weak. I don't see why ecological interactions can't be accounted for by creation (the creation of animal kinds by an all wise, all knowing God). This makes no sense to me. (I guess his god isn't all that bright, or has no knowledge of the future, or of how animals will interact.)
- 'The fact that evolution occurs explains the interrelatedness of the various facts of biology, and so makes biology make sense.' - "
- I don't see why 'interrelatedness' can't be designed. Isn't any piece of complicated software an example of interrelatedness? (The coding certainly didn't evolve.)

3. 'The notion of the "light of evolution" came originally from the Jesuit priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, whom Dobzhansky much admired. In the last paragraph of the article, de Chardin is quoted as having written the following:
"(Evolution) is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must henceforward bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow — this is what evolution is.'' - Wiki
- I'm afraid I can't have much respect for anyone who took de Chardin seriously. In my opinion the man was a charlatan, and a misguided mystic. (i.e. he turned evolution into a kind of vitalistic god. e.g. we must all bow down to this god.)

The difference of man and the music it makes

Do videos of birds 'dancing' in time to music tell us anything about the nature of music? Do they refute the idea music is a uniquely human phenomenon?

Quotes and comments;

A. 'Now that the ability to respond to music is found in another branch of animals, the puzzle is even greater. W. Tecumseh Fitch [in the same issue of Current Biology] said another theory about the evolution of music (that it was unique to humans) “bites the dust.” [1.]

- I sometimes wonder at the stupid things people say. (Yes; I've made some myself, but we won't get into that here; not on My blog :=)
How anyone can deny music is unique to human beings I don't know. The fact birds 'dance' in 'time' (apparently) to music doesn't refute this theory for several reasons I can think of off the top of my head.

a. The birds didn't create this music.
b. No animals produce music in the true sense of the word)
c. What the authors call 'dancing' isn't the same thing as human dancing.
d. We don't know why the birds do what they do... apparently the music triggers some instinctual response. (I don't know if the birds engage in behavior they don't otherwise engage in... but I doubt it.)
e. The music made by man (at its highest level at least) is concerned with beauty. Animals know nothing of beauty, and have no interest in it, or ability to appreciate it.
f. True music can involve words and music in an integrated manner; this is something beyond any animal.
g. True music (as opposed to the sounds and calls of animals)... is intellectual, creative and imaginative (not sounds made by rote). One could go on.

- The evolutionist explanation of bird sounds is one of survival and reproduction; that's all it can be from this point of view. Music made by human beings utterly transcends (even if it sometimes includes) such concerns. This the e. has to deny. If a bird could respond to the 'Messiah' by Handel, it wouldn't be responding to anything but the most banal elements in the score and in the production. It certainly wouldn't be aware this was about Jesus Christ, or about prophecy, Incarnation, Atonement, praise and worship.
As I've said many times on this blog, evolutionary theory can't account for anything that's uniquely human. All it can do (after a fashion) is give us possible stories on how various animal traits and behaviors might have emerged. The theory has virtually nothing to say about what is uniquely human; and therefore has no value when it comes to discussions about the uniquely human.

- If evolutionary theory can't explain music, I can't see that it has any right to comment upon it... or to deny it's a unique possession of human beings. [2.] I don't understand why evolutionists insist on denying the obvious. Can't they see that this eventually backfire on them?

To say music isn't unique to humans is like saying physics isn't unique to humans, or that literary theory isn't unique to humans. I get weary of all these absurd remarks made in the defense of Darwinism. If we're really interested in coming to the truth about our origins what does it profit us all to deny the obvious? How does this help us make any progress? (Creationists have had to eat a lot of crow; and I think it's time evolutionists did the same. i.e. many cherished ideas about Origins have bitten the dust on both sides, and intellectual integrity demands we acknowledge this, and stop pretending otherwise.)

Notes;
1. Quick picks; Creation/Evolution Headlines 05/28/2009
#10. Bird happy feet:
'Hilarious videos of birds dancing to the beat of rock music have been circulating on the net for awhile (see NPR and PhysOrg). Some of the videos were actually part of a serious science project. Harvard scientists were surprised to discover “Spontaneous Motor Entrainment to Music in Multiple Vocal Mimicking Species,” Current Biology reported.1 This uncovered a mystery, because “Why humans produce and enjoy music is an evolutionary puzzle.” Now that the ability to respond to music is found in another branch of animals, the puzzle is even greater. Why this should be surprising, since birds sing, was not explained. W. Tecumseh Fitch, though, in the same issue of Current Biology2 said another theory about the evolution of music (that it was unique to humans) “bites the dust.”
2. “Why humans produce and enjoy music is an evolutionary puzzle.” [see above]

The Second Coming and the new creation

Because the Second Coming is one of the major reasons given by non-Christians for rejecting the idea of creation (and especially of biblical creation) it needs to be addressed in any creationist apologetic. In this post I'll examine this doctrine in the light of an essay by C. S. Lewis. [1.]

Quotes and comments;

A. 'The doctrine of the Second Coming is deeply uncongenial to the whole evolutionary or developmental character of modern thought. We have been taught to think of the world as something that grows slowly towards perfection, something that "progresses" or "evolves." Christian Apocalyptic offers us no such hope.'

- The theory of evolution gives no basis for a doctrine of evolutionary progress. This idea has been tacked onto it without warrant. ie. there is nothing in the idea of mutation (copying mistakes and their inherent damage to the organism) to warrant the idea of continual progress. In addition, I agree with those who say the idea of progress makes no sense in terms of evolution. (Progress only makes sense in terms of christian theology and biblical doctrine.) This is just one more of the darwinian fables that have been added to the theory itself; added onto it to make it more palatable to the modern mindset. (E. theory in itself is as bleak and barren an idea as there is.) Other addons include stories that claim to account (without warrant) plausible scenarios of the origin of life; stories that claim to account for intelligence, reason, self-consciousness, personality, mathematics, language, etc.

- If there had been no 'first coming' (i.e. creation) the second coming would have no solid foundation. It's only because the Son created the world, that it makes sense he should redeem it on the one hand, and to recreate it on the other. The second coming bears with it the idea of a new heaven and a new earth. i.e. the old earth is judged, so that it might be replaced with a new cosmology entirely. The work of Christ (in the second coming) should not be seen as merely judgmental, but be seen, in a more ultimate sense, as positive and creative.

B. 'It does not even foretell (which would be more tolerable to our habits of thought) a gradual decay. It foretells a sudden, violent end imposed from without; an extinguisher popped onto the candle, a brick flung at the gramophone, a curtain rung down on the play - "Halt!"
To this deep-seated objection I can only reply that, in my opinion, the modern conception of Progress or Evolution (as popularly imagined) is simply a myth, supported by no evidence whatever.

- Many evolutionists have labored hard to conflate the terms progress and evolution. In doing so they have ignored the theory itself, and have substituted (for the public) a sugar coated version of a process that involves continual decay. (What is called evolution is really a hollowing out of creation from within; a kind of 'dry rot' working away at the foundations of the world.)

C. ''I say "evolution, as popularly imagined:" I am not in the least concerned to refute Darwinism as a theorem in biology. There may be flaws in that theorem, but I have here nothing to do with them. There may be signs that biologists are already contemplating a withdrawal from the whole Darwinian position, but I claim to be no judge of such signs. It can even be argued that what Darwin really accounted for was not the origin, but the elimination, of species, but I will not pursue that argument.

- In my opinion Lewis took Darwinism took much to heart; although late in life he seemed to become more critical of it. We see in this quote that he was on the right track, as this is a prescient remark.

D. ''Fuller research into the origins of this potent myth [Neibulung Ring/Wagner] would lead us to the German idealists and thence (as I have heard suggested) through Boehme back to Alchemy. Is the whole dialectical view of history possibly a gigantic projection of the old dream that we can make gold)?

- I guess he means the idea the 'superior' can be formed from the 'base'. (i.e. out of lead we can get gold; i.e. that if 'nature' can do this automatically as it were, then why can't man do it by reason and experiment? (Whether the alchemists were influenced by the ancient Greek evolutionists I don't know.)

E. 'But a great many of the changes produced by evolution are not improvements by any conceivable standard. In battle men save their lives sometimes by advancing and sometimes by retreating. So, in the battle for survival, species save themselves sometimes by increasing, sometimes by jettisoning their powers. There is no general law of progress in biological history.

- There can't be a rational idea of progress under the evolutionary wview because the process is supposedly random and mindless; a process that is the opposite of teleological.

F. 'And, thirdly, even if there were, it would not follow - it is, indeed, manifestly not the case - that there is any law of progress in ethical, cultural, and social history.

- There can't be any coherent idea of progress under the evolutionary wview. Human beings are just animals adapting to ever changing conditions; therefore what they do, believe and say is just the natural response to environmental input (on the behalf of the survivors for existence.) i.e. there can be no right or wrong, merely those who survive and those who do not.

G. 'The idea which here shuts out the Second Coming from our minds, the idea of the world slowly ripening to perfection, is a myth, not a generalization from experience.

- This statement had more force in the years just after ww2 than it does today (after decades of relative peace) but it's still valid. The very idea of perfection makes no sense in terms of M2M evolution. To have perfection you have to measure things against a standard, and the e. wview can't provide you with one. (Ideals only make sense in terms of the biblical wview.)

H. 'One of the most famous predictions was that of poor William Miller in 1843. Miller (whom I take to have been an honest fanatic) dated the Second Coming to the year, the day, and the very minute. A timely comet fostered the delusion. Thousands waited for the Lord at midnight on March 21st, and went home to a late breakfast on the 22nd followed by the jeers of a drunkard.
Clearly, no one wishes to say anything that will reawaken such mass hysteria. We must never speak to simple, excitable people about "the Day" without emphasizing again and again the utter impossibility of prediction. We must try to show them that that impossibility is an essential part of the doctrine.

- While some non-Christians like to mock the idea of an end to history (didn't Gaiman and Pratchett write a novel on the subject?) our secular friends haven't been without their own doomsayers. (I'm known as a master of the understatement.) It seems that we're continually bombarded with predictions of doom from the left side of the theatre. (The global warming fiasco playing out presently being just one such case.) The biblical position is that no one knows when the 'end' will come; the secular left on the other hand seems to know (like Miller himself) to the day and the hour when doom is going to strike. (You might want to acquire the charts of Al Gore... apparently he's willing to let them go cheap.)

While Christians see the second coming as a matter of Providence, non-Christians see it as solely being the work of man... and for this reason are even more anxious when it comes to looking toward the future. (I just read an essay on ecology and sf by Brian Stableford, and he wrote that many among the 'Greens' feel that it is already too late to prevent an inevitable environmental meltdown. I think he mentioned Kim Robinson as being in this camp.)

There's an irony in the fact so many of our educated elite both disbelieve in a second coming, and are waiting daily for some kind of man made apocalypse. (I suppose it's possible the two will be one and the same... but I tend to doubt it.)

I. 'The doctrine of the Second Coming has failed, so far as we are concerned, if it does not make us realize that at every moment of every year in our lives Donne's question "What if this present were the world's last night?" is equally relevant.'

- That sounds like good advice, but I don't think it's practical. I do think however, that it's something we should remind ourselves of from time to time. (I mean, we can't really live like that can we? I know I can't.) The idea isn't to obsess about the second coming, but instead, to keep focused on the long obedience (as someone called the christian life).

J. 'Some day (and "What if this present were the world's last night?") an absolutely correct verdict - if you like, a perfect critique - will be passed on what each of us is.'

- What alarms us in this (and I include myself) is the idea a perfectly just judge will be sitting on the bench, and not a sentimentalist like Charles Dickens. It's no wonder few of us like the idea of a final judgment. (We don't want life to be trivial, but we don't want it to be as serious as this.) Because we don't like the idea of a second coming, we have good reason not to like the idea of creation. In a truly biblical theology the two things can't be separated.

Notes;
1. The World's Last Night - C. S. Lewis [all quotes are from this essay]
- This is one of Lewis's best essays, and I recommend it highly.

The tree of life; a creationist Christmas card

A brief meditation on trees.

- Trees have been an important symbol for human beings as long as far back as history can tell us. It seems that all worldviews try to usurp the image for themselves, and to use it in a way that conforms to their own beliefs. [1.]

- In our day the evolutionary tree of life has become a major worldview symbol; as it supposedly represents a snapshot of the history of the planet. The idea of the evolutionary tree has come under a lot of criticism in recent years by evolutionists themselves, and would appear to be on the way out. (One hears of new models that use the imagery of shrubs and the like.)

- The biblical idea is that all of life is related by the person of God and by the reality of His creation. While the materialist presents us with evolution (M2M) as what relates all of life, with Christianity it's the person and action of God. What connects all things is the fact the world was created by God; that all things were created; that in the beginning all things bore the imprint of their creator. (After the Fall this imprint is still there, but has been corrupted to some extent.)

- Darwin took the idea of a tree of life from the bible, and twisted it around to suit his own purposes. In my opinion it's time we reclaimed it. The only reason we find an abundance of living organisms on earth is because the Creator planted them here. (Man too being a creature planted here by God.) At the root of all living things is God, and His work of creation. (The 'flowering' of the original creation has its foundation in that creation as well; i.e. was inherent within the original design.)

- Life can only come from an intelligent source. Life isn't rooted in matter, plus time plus chance; but in the person of the triune God. At the bottom of all things isn't mindless matter, but the infinite mind of God. Darwin had it wrong; just as all the evolutionists from Democritus to Dawkins have had it wrong. The life forms we see all around us don't give us an idea of what matter is like, but of what God is like. It's a mistake to abstract life and turn it into an entity on its own, but 'life' can be seen as a symbol for God. (Just one of many that we find in the bible.)

Notes;
1. Tree of life;
'The concept of a tree of life as a many-branched tree illustrating the idea that all life on earth is related has been used in science, religion, philosophy, mythology, and other areas. A tree of life is variously,
a. a motif in various world theologies, mythologies, and philosophies;
b. a mystical concept alluding to the interconnectedness of all life on our planet;
c. a metaphor for common descent in the evolutionary sense. - Wiki
2. If the flood of Genesis was truly a worldwide event (as I believe it was) then we might expect most or all of the trees that stood before the Flood were swept away in the cataclysm. This being the case we can understand how people in the post-flood era might have been supremely impressed by the newly growing forests they saw springing up around them. (I suppose we can even understand how some of them might have come to worship these trees; that were reknitting and restitching the world together again.)

The Atheist Christmas card

The Atheist Christmas card
- a short story by M. Johnson


So you get what appears to be a Christmas card. This is strange because you don't know anyone who's a Christian, or even anyone who bothers with the holidays. You open the envelope, and it is indeed a Christmas card.

There's a typical card scene, with some wise men, and up above them, in a deep blue sky, are sprinkled a generous throw of stars. One of them is especially bright. It of course is the star of Bethlehem. I'm sure you've all seen the card.

You go to open the card, but then it suddenly hits you. "Oh no," you think to yourself. "Don't tell me someone's converted. Please don't let it be one of my friends... at least not anyone I like, not anyone I hang out with." It couldn't be. It would be terrible. You haven't got so many friends you can afford to lose one.

But you don't want to think about it, so you open the card. It's not the typical card. There's no fancy lettering, no cheery angels pretending to blow trumpets. All that's there is a single block quote.

"The universe has no purpose and no plan, and since a hundred suns explode every year in our galaxy, at this very moment some race is dying in the depths of space. Whether that race has done good or evil during its lifetime will make no difference in the end: there is no divine justice, for there is no God."

The card is signed, yours truly, Arthur C. Clarke

The End

Notes;
1. The quote is taken from 'The Star' - by Arthur C. Clarke
2. Written by M. Johnson [frfarer-at-Gmail.com] 12/22/09

Science fiction and God

I've been doing a brief study of early science fiction; looking at it from a Christian and creationist point of view. In this post I want to look at one of the most famous short stories in the genre.

The Star - Arthur C. Clarke [see note #1. for summary of plot]

Quotes and comments;

A. 'It is three thousand light years to the Vatican. Once, I believed that space could have no power over faith, just as I believed that the heavens declared the glory of God's handiwork. Now I have seen that handiwork, and my faith is sorely troubled.'

B. "Well, Father," he would say at last, "it goes on forever and forever, and perhaps Something made it. But how you can believe that Something has a special interest in us and our miserable little world--that just beats me."

- Why call earth a 'miserable' little world? What makes earth mean, shameful or contemptible? [the meanings of miserable] You see this kind of comment a lot in science fiction - and why? What sense does it make? Do all the imaginary worlds of science fiction somehow make earth less of a miracle? Less of an incredible place? Isn't it these writers who are the miserable little ones? (to use their own words)

- How does the vastness of space (with its vast emptiness as well) diminish the wonder of earth? Earth could only be a 'miserable' place if there was some planet more wonderful... but how could such a thing be? And there is no such place.... such a place only exists' in the imagination of the sf writer... and I've never come across a planet yet that could be described as better than earth. (I don't think it's possible to imagine a planet more wonderful than earth; and maybe that ought to tell us something.) I realize that some dreamers have claimed earth could be improved on (e.g. no earthquakes, even more mild weather, etc.) but these critiques have largely been shown to be based on ignorance... i.e. the earth seems indeed to be the best of all possible worlds.

- Why would anyone see earth as contemptible? as cheap? These are cavalier remarks, not worthy of serious consideration... made only to make a point, made only in the service of rhetoric, in the service of winning an argument. (i.e. no one really thinks earth is mean, shameful or contemptible.)

- Why is it so hard for the natural man to give thanks?

- If the earth is a miserable place why aren't the opinions of its inhabitants also miserable; i.e. mean, shameful and contemptible? But somehow natural man believes his ideas about things are anything But miserable; despite his place of origin.

C. 'Will my report on the Phoenix Nebula end our thousand years of history? It will end, I fear, much more than that.

- Clarke here is hinting that discoveries made by scientists (about the physical universe) can have devastating effects on religious beliefs, specifically on christian beliefs. (This is the old fear, or hope, that 'science' will kill off all religious ideas.)

D. 'The Rubens engraving of Loyola seems to mock me as it hangs there above the spectrophotometer tracings. What would you, Father, have made of this knowledge that has come into my keeping, so far from the little world that was all the universe you knew? Would your faith have risen to the challenge, as mine has failed to do?

- The idea is that people in the past were Christians only because they were ignorant. i.e. yes, great scientists like Kepler, etc. were Christians, but only because they knew so little. If they had known what Arthur Clarke knew, they too would have lost their faith, they too would have been atheists.

On the book you are holding the words are plain to read. AD MAJOREM DEI GLORIAM, the message runs, but it is a message I can no longer believe. Would you still believe it, if you could see what we have found?
- i.e. to the greater glory of god.

E. 'We knew, of course, what the Phoenix Nebula was. Every year, in our galaxy alone, more than a hundred stars explode, blazing for a few hours or days with thousands of times their normal brilliance before they sink back into death and obscurity. Such are the ordinary novae--the commonplace disasters of the universe.

- Why is an exploding star a disaster? maybe stars have to explode, maybe they have to explode to keep the universe in existence... but why should it be seen as a bad thing? [disaster has its root in star; i.e. a bad event caused by a certain 'conjunction' of the stars. In other words the idea is one of astrology.] It's certainly not a tragedy.

F. 'When the star had exploded, its outer layers had been driven upward with such speed that they had escaped completely from its gravitational field. Now they formed a hollow shell large enough to engulf a thousand solar systems, and at its center burned the tiny, fantastic object which the star had now become--a White Dwarf, smaller than the Earth, yet weighing a million times as much.'

G. 'No one seriously expected to find planets. If there had been any before the explosion, they would have been boiled into puffs of vapor, and their substance lost in the greater wreckage of the star itself. But we made the automatic search, as we always do when approaching an unknown sun, and presently we found a single small world circling the star at an immense distance. It must have been the Pluto of this vanished solar system, orbiting on the frontiers of the night. Too far from the central sun ever to have known life, its remoteness had saved it from the fate of all its lost companions.
- Would it be possible for a planet to survive a supernova?

H. 'The passing fires had seared its rocks and burned away the mantle of frozen gas that must have covered it in the days before the disaster. We landed, and we found the Vault.'

I. 'Its builders had made sure that we would. The monolithic marker that stood above the entrance was now a fused stump, but even the first long-range photographs told us that here was the work of intelligence.'
- Our narrator can spot intelligence, even from outer space. (Maybe Clarke was into this ID stuff.)

J. 'A little later we detected the continent-wide pattern of radioactivity that had been buried in the rock. Even if the pylon above the Vault had been destroyed, this would have remained, an immovable and all but eternal beacon calling to the stars. Our ship fell toward this gigantic bull's-eye like an arrow into its target.'

K. 'Our original purpose was forgotten: this lonely monument, reared with such labor at the greatest possible distance from the doomed sun, could have only one meaning. A civilization that knew it was about to die had made its last bid for immortality.

- Not only can they recognize design (and not merely the appearance of design, as Squawkins would say) they can detect meaning.

L. 'We have examined many of these records, and brought to life for the first time in six thousand years the warmth and beauty of a civilization that in many ways must have been superior to our own.

- Over and over, like some kind of (Tibetan) mantra, we hear how these imagined alien civilizations are superior to our own. (I guess this is some kind of warped utopianism. ie. if utopia isn't possible on earth, it might be possible on some alien world. Why? We're not told.)

M. 'One scene is still before my eyes--a group of children on a beach of strange blue sand, playing in the waves as children play on Earth.'
- Our narrator can detect not only design, but knows play when he sees it.

N. 'And sinking into the sea, still warm and friendly and life-giving, is the sun that will soon turn traitor and obliterate all this innocent happiness.'

- So very often aliens are seen as innocent; as unfallen you might say. i.e. man is some awful brute, some evil creature, but aliens are innocent and good; like good angels you might say.

O. 'This tragedy was unique. It is one thing for a race to fail and die, as nations and cultures have done on Earth. But to be destroyed so completely in the full flower of its achievement, leaving no survivors - how could that be reconciled with the mercy of God?

- Clarke sets this up by mentioning the innocence of the aliens (or at least of their children)
- Is the story a comment on the Christian doctrine of a final judgment?
- The idea is this; a supernova wiped out a planet, therefore (since god is merciful) is no God. i.e. if there was a god this couldn't have happened. (How might god have prevented it? we're not told)

P. 'My colleagues have asked me that, and I have given what answers I can. Perhaps you could have done better, Father Loyola, but I have found nothing in the Exercitia Spiritualia that helps me here. They were not an evil people: I do not know what gods they worshiped, if indeed they worshiped any.
But I have looked back at them across the centuries, and have watched while the loveliness they used their last strength to preserve was brought forth again into the light of their shrunken sun. They could have taught us much: why were they destroyed?'

- This is special pleading of a radical sort... one hears the most immoral of lawyers speaking.
- Our narrator not only knows design when he sees it; he knows these people weren't evil. I guess this means they were unfallen. (As in Perelandra by C S Lewis.) I doubt this is what Clarke means; as I don't think he'd have said humans are evil either.
- How can he possibly know they could have taught an alien species anything? It seems implausible to me.
- Why were they destroyed? This sounds like it was an intentional act. i.e. he could have said, 'why did they die?' or 'why did they have to die?' or 'why did the star have to explode?' etc.

Q. 'I know the answers that my colleagues will give when they get back to Earth. They will say that the universe has no purpose and no plan, that since a hundred suns explode every year in our galaxy, at this very moment some race is dying in the depths of space. Whether that race has done good or evil during its lifetime will make no difference in the end: there is no divine justice, for there is no God.'

- This sounds like the old argument; there is no divine justice, therefore there is no god. That sounds like a good argument, but is it? To know whether or not it is, we have to know what divine justice is. The trouble for the atheist is that he doesn't know what it is, and has no way of knowing what it is. What he does is borrow the Christian idea of justice, and then use it as an argument against Christianity. i.e. if there is no god there cannot be such a thing as divine justice (or any kind of justice for that matter) If man rejects god he rejects any meaningful idea of divine justice. This being the case, his argument for the non-existence of god collapses.

- If there is no God, we can't know whether a race was good or evil. (That so many aliens are seen as good, in an ideal (unfallen sense) looks like projection. ie. looks like an expression of how the sf writer sees himself.
- the story is so well told that we might forget that it's all imaginary. As far as we know there are no alien races... so the claim some race is dying somewhere in space all the time (a bleak a view of the universe as I've ever come across) is more special pleading... of an extreme sort. (I don't believe for a second this is true.)

R. 'This I could have accepted, hard though it is to look upon whole worlds and peoples thrown into the furnace. But there comes a point when even the deepest faith must falter, and now, as I look at the calculations lying before me, I know I have reached that point at last.'

- For all his foppish atheism, Clarke was from the old school in that he wanted to have good reasons for rejecting the God of Christianity. (Among young writers atheism is so taken for granted that no reason seems necessary. ie. C. isn't something you need a good argument to reject, it's just an embarassment to avoid.) He wanted to say, ''I would have like to have believed, but the evidence you see was all against its being true."

S. 'We could not tell, before we reached the nebula, how long ago the explosion took place. Now, from the astronomical evidence and the record in the rocks of that one surviving planet, I have been able to date it very exactly. I know in what year the light of this colossal conflagration reached our Earth. I know how brilliantly the supernova whose corpse now dwindles behind our speeding ship once shone in terrestrial skies. I know how it must have blazed low in the east before sunrise, like a beacon in that oriental dawn.
There can be no reasonable doubt: the ancient mystery is solved at last. Yet, oh God, there were so many stars you could have used. What was the need to give these people to the fire, that the symbol of their passing might shine above Bethlehem?

- How's that for a kicker! In case you didn't get it (people reading blogs read so quickly and carelessly) what Christians call the star of Bethlehem (that led the wise men to the crib where the baby Jesus lay) was the very star that destroyed this wonderful and innocent alien civilization. Clarke earlier in his story mentions blasphemy ('It is arrogance--it is perilously near blasphemy--for us to say what He may or may not do.') and here he was surely stepped into it with both feet. He compares the death of an alien civilization to a bit of celebration fireworks. He's accusing god of not caring a whit for this alien civilization. (He could have used so many other stars we're told.) Why might this be? I suppose it could only be that God only cares about human beings. This seems odd, so we have to restate the idea as; god doesn't exist, since a god that only cared about one intelligent race wouldn't be a god at all. (i.e. an evil demon at best) i.e. the Christian God can't be God, since he doesn't care about these wonderful aliens.

Summary; 5/5
- The story is an argument against God's existence, based on the amount of evil in the world that happens to the innocent. This is an old argument, but it's survived for the reason it's the most powerful, the most emotionally compelling.
- Clarke seems to be saying, if the God of the bible is real, I don't want to believe in God. Since I don't believe any real God would act like the way the God of the bible acts, I don't believe the God of the bible is the true God. (That at least seems to be the point made by the story.)
- Clarke's message is this; that if the god of the bible exists, he's the worst monster imaginable; one who snuffs out a cosmic civilization every day.
- His choice of a narrator is brilliant. Portraying his critiques of Christianity as sincere questions of someone losing their faith, adds power to the story.
- You have to have a special (twisted?) kind of imagination to turn a beautiful Christ card image celebrating the birth of Jesus, and turn it into a vicious against Christianity. (I read an essay once where the author claimed sf was all about tearing down icons; we see that spirit at work in this story.)

Notes;
1. Summary of 'The Star' - by Arthur C. Clark [won Hugo for 1956; published 1955]
- A spaceship is sent from earth to investigate a supernova (why they would have to travel there I don't know). One of their member is a Jesuit priest, who is an astrophysicist. They discover that one planet has survived the blast (would this be possible?). They discover signs of intelligent life on this planet. It seems that aliens who had lived on one of the inner planets (Clarke seems to have imagined an earth like solar system; one that as far as we know is unique) left some kind of monument to their 'race' on this outer planet... somehow knowing or hoping it would survive the blast and thus leave a record of their existence. Why they would do this we're not told. (Maybe they had sf writers of their own.)
- the story can be found online.
2. That I happened to read this story today (i.e. so close to Christmas) was a fluke. I've been doing a bit of a study of science fiction, going through the best of the stories from the early days. (I started with the 1930s.)
- this is not an article, just rough notes I made as I was reading. (Not notes I made after reading it.)
3. This story is reminiscent of an earlier story called 'Rescue Party (1946). I believe this was his first published story. In it the earth's sun is about to go nova. Aliens aliens show up to save some of the doomed earthlings... but don't find any. The aliens in the story are part of some 'group' that goes around the universe saving civilizations from exploding stars. I think we can take this as evidence this was a theme he'd been thinking of a long time before he wrote The Star.
4. There's a small book that features some letters passed between CS Lewis and Arthur Clarke. It's not all that interesting, but you might want to at least read the letters. (There are only a few.)

The evolution of Creationism, and other darwinian fables

As Darwinism continues to expand into more areas of culture and society, the ideas get ever more absurd, and the explanations ever more dubious.

Quotes and comments

A. 'If you are a creationist, you can’t help yourself, because evolution made you that way. It might have also made you moral and religious, especially if you are a woman. These and other evolutionary stories are making the rounds.

Evo-creationism: New Scientist says humans may be primed to believe in creation. Studies show that humans tend to see purpose in things. That can only mean they evolved that tendency, said some psychologists at Boston University. A good education can help cure them of this and show them that the world is really without purpose or design.' [1.]

- This makes no sense to me. On what basis should we be 'cured' of what the evolutionary process instills in us? Maybe these gurus of scientism could tell us this. What standard are they using for this diagnosis? (i.e. this diagnosis of the 'sick' populace.) If all is evolution they can only be using a standard that evolved. Why then should we accept one thing evolution has given us and not another? and on what basis?

Instead of curing creationism (a soviet sounding idea) why shouldn't we cure people of the evolved tendency to criticize theism? Why should we 'cure' anyone at all? Isn't the idea of 'disease' just an evolved concept? By what standard do we judge worldviews? By some evolved standard? If all is evolution there can be no right or wrong, so how do we judge anything? (Other than by hypocritical bias of course.)

- If creationism evolved well then obviously evolutionism evolved; and so maybe the gurus can tell us how natural selection managed to do both at the same time. Is mother nature schizophrenic?

- Despite continual attempts to confuse the issue, only biblical theology teaches creation by an all wise, all good, personal creator. This alone shows how fallacious this 'idea' is.

- I guess if a belief in creation is an evolved tendency animals must have it (to some extent) as well. They then need to tell us how animals evolved their creationist tendencies. (If animals have it, then plants must have it, etc.)

- I wonder if these people imagine there's any purpose in what they do? I wonder if they imagine there's any purpose in their so called study?

- If the world is without purpose so is this study, and so is everything.

- How do these gurus know there is no purpose in the world? Is this a conclusion of their evolved thinking? If it is, this statement cant be true or false.

- They say there's no design in the universe. How do they know this? Did some evolved chemicals in their brain tell them this? (Weren't their studies designed?) This is a mere claim, it's not a fact. (Perhaps their evolved chemicals have deceived them into believing there's no design; and their selfish genes have presented them with what they want to see; namely a materialistic universe.) People who play this game don't seem to understand that their claims can be used against them.

- Clearly there's design in the universe. We live in the middle of an ocean of things designed by human beings. The question isn't whether there is design, but whether or not there is extra-human design. (Materialists have to explain how atoms or particles can engage in intelligent, purposeful design; and I've seen no creditable account of this.)

- Evolutionists are making sillier claims all the time, as they push the theory into ever more areas. What's next? the evolution of anti-creationism? the evolution of creation apologetics? the evolution of anti- anti-creationism? the evolution of punctuated equilibrium theory? the evolution of the hopeful monster theory of evolution? the evolution of atheist apologetics? the evolution of an anti-creationist judiciary? the evolution of an anti-creationist, cultural snobbery? (One wonders where the humorists are, as we've long since passed into the land of the absurd, with all these endless attempts to explain all of life in terms of Charles Darwin's beard.)

- Never in the history of science has a theory become so bloated and overextended. A simple observation of nature has been turned into a major worldview. [2.] Natural selection has gone from an accurate observation of how 'nature' weeds out certain individuals within a group, to a fallacious, and semi-mystical theory that pretends to account for all aspects of human and non-human existence.

Summary; Evolutionary theory can't account for 'creationism' anymore than it can account for the color of my socks.

Notes;
1. The Evolution of Creationism and Other Intangibles: Creation/Evolution Headlines 03/06/2009
2. Natural selection was written about by men like Edward Blyth long before Darwin appropriated the idea and pretended it was his own. The Darwinists still pretend this was Darwin's idea; despite all the talk we hear about science being self-correcting. (Apparently the Darwin myth trumps all.)

The basis of proof

Since the subject of creation is intimately connected to the question of God, I want to take a brief look at it. Some Christians have claimed that there is a proof (or proofs) for God. One of the most interesting (at least to me) is the one given by Cornelius Van Til.

Quotes and comments;

A. "The absolutely certain proof of the truth of Christianity is that unless its truth be presupposed, there is no proof of anything." [1.]

- The basic idea behind this proof is that if you deny the truths of Christianity, you have no foundation for believing anything.

- What then is this Truth that men presuppose? They assume we have a universe (and not a multiverse), they assume order, they assume uniformity in space and time, they assume man is rational, they assume man can know things, they assume such a thing as reality exists, they assume that man is the same everywhere, they assume the validity of language, they assume the validity of language, they assume the future will be like the past, etc.

Van Til's point is that only Christianity gives men a basis (a solid foundation) for believing these things to be true. The non-Christian can (and does) assume them to be true, but he has no basis for doing so. Since he has no foundation for these presuppositions (and all of our knowledge is dependent upon them) he can't prove they are true. He may feel they are necessary 'fundaments' of knowledge, but he has no reason to believe they're true.

- Because of our culture, and because of the style and content of our education, most people take these presuppositions for granted. Taking these things for granted leads to a diminishment of the Faith, a falling away from biblical Christianity. In our day we have atheist apologists who tell us (e.g. Michael Shermer) that there is no need for religion in the modern age. They're able to say this because they fail to see any need to account for their own presuppositions. (Philosophical pragmatism leads to agnosticism and then to atheism.)

- The only real escape hatch people have for this argument is to plead the reliability of common sense. (This was the tack taken by Lenin.) I don't think this works, as the person who adopts this stance has no basis for believing it. About all he can say is; ''well, common sense works... and that's good enough for me." Okay; but what does 'it works' mean? By what standard do you judge whether or not it works? Do you rely on your feelings about it? Apparently.

- My point here is not just to rebuke non-Christians for making use of biblical presuppositions without giving credit, but to point out that their project leads inevitably to intellectual and scientific (not to mention spiritual) error. The long list of the truths of Christianity isn't exhausted by the ones I gave.

The Truth of Christianity includes the idea of a creator god and a personal universe. If men deny God they end up with shallow and false ideas of reality. e.g. the view of man provided by the impersonal model (of materialist science) is vastly different than the view of man given to us by the Personal model of Christianity. An impersonal view of the universe leads to an impersonal view of man. (And so we get man as animal, man as machine, man as chemicals, man as illusion, etc.)

Summary; does this argument provide a proof for the existence of God? Is it a strong argument or a weak argument? You'll have to decide for yourself. (I don't personally think that there are any conclusive proofs for the existence of God; but having said that, I think this argument has a lot to say for it.)

Notes;
1. Christian theory of knowledge - Cornelius Van Til p.224
2. Some have said that there are valid proofs for the existence of God; the only reason that men reject them is that they're fallen, and thus unwilling to acknowledge the veracity of the arguments. (This is one reason for the fact the arguments are rejected, but I'm not sure it's the only one.)

The bible, science and explanation

Nature Physics recently devoted a special issue to Charles Darwin. Various articles tried to find some connection between the speculations of the Victorian guru and modern physics. (I guess in a random universe anything is possible.) I want to comment briefly on a comment made by the agnostic theologian Michael Shermer. He tells us that there's no role for religion to play in the modern world.

Quotes and comments;

A. 'This raises the question whether religion will retreat entirely from saying anything about nature. Shermer feels it should. “Why did religion not [not?] fall into disuse with the rise of science? The reason is that it is no longer the job of religion to explain the natural world. That is what science does, and it does so spectacularly.” [1.]

- This begs the question as to what religion is, but let's leave that aside.
- The idea religion has a 'job' is interesting. I don't see any warrant for it however. Religion is a word; not being a person it can't have a job. The bible doesn't explain the natural world, it gives us an account of its creation. i.e. it gives us a reason for its existence. It doesn't explain natural phenomenon, rather it looks at the creation and gives God the glory for it. Shermer seems confused on these issues. (If he's being honest that is.) Whoever said it was the job of 'religion' (whatever that is) to explain the natural world? No one that I know of.

- When a scientist describes what he sees in the world, he's not giving us an explanation for how the world (and living organisms) came to be. What he's doing is very different from what the bible is doing. The bible is giving us a history of major creation events; and of certain important historical events. It's not experimental or theoretical science, but history.

- Shermer is making a common mistake when he makes 'religion' into an abstract concept. The Christian is not defending religion; he's defending Christianity. Christianity is not an abstract concept. It's a concrete, historical account of God's covenant with man. Christian theology is historical; it gives us an account of how we (and the planet) got here. It's up to scientists to describe the world they find themselves in. The bible doesn't try to describe the natural world, or to explain physical operations in it. The bible is mainly concerned with man's relationship to god; and with man's relationships to other men within that larger (covenantal) relationship. We can simplify this and say that Christian theology deals [mainly] with the past and science with the present. (This is a gross simplification, but it might help.)

- Shermer seems to have been influenced by the 'higher' critics, who see the bible as mythology and not as history. (If it is just mythology then his comments have validity; if it's not they don't.)

Notes;
1. Physicists Bow to Darwin: Creation/Evolution Headlines 03/18/2009

Evolution; the co-opting of biology by materialism

One of the most popular explanations for complex biological organisms is to claim they co-opted their machinery from other organisms. This strikes me as a ploy that in the long run can't work. Let's take a brief look at the subject of Photosynthesis.

Quotes and comments;

A. "Although the last word on the origins of oxygen-making photosynthesis isn’t in,” writes Mitch Leslie in Science, “researchers say they are making progress. One thing is for certain, however: Without this innovation, Earth would look a lot like Mars.” [1.]

B. “Envisioning the steps that led to this complex biochemistry is mind-boggling.” ["]
- In other words, we don't have a clue.

C. 'All he could suggest in terms of an evolutionary story were two scenarios: (1) bacteria co-opted existing machinery used for other functions; and (2) bacteria shared their technology by lateral gene transfer. ["]

- We get this constantly; if an evolutionist is asked to account for the existence of some X he says, ''it co-opted something.'' Well, what happens if you keep pushing that 'idea' backwards? Sooner or later you are left with something that was so basic (the famous first cell) it had nothing to co-opt. But it can't be co-option all the way down. Somebody (as it were) has got to come up with something on their own, instead of just 'borrowing' it from someone else. The idea X co-opted existing machinery just avoids the basic problem. The grim reality for materialists is that they have no way to create the complex information that they need. The idea inert matter can create information (can create intelligent code) is surely the most hopeless idea out there.

- Lateral gene transfer can be seen as just another way for X to co-opt existing machinery.

- What we see here is the co-opting of biology by materialists. There's no way materialism can account for photosynthesis, let alone for the first living organisms. Darwinism (or M2M evolution) is a dead theory. Only the momentum of history and the power of the educational bureaucracy keep it in a position of dominance.

- The power of the evolutionary bureaucracy is so great that everyone is forced to adopt M2M evolution as a theory to survive. Evolution is taught as truth because the educational elite has voted it the theory they like best. That it's dead in the water doesn't seem to bother too many people. (They like Darwin the way they like Castro. It hardly matters if their ideas are true.)

Notes;
1. Evolution of Photosynthesis: A Theory in Crisis Creation/Evolution Headlines 03/23/2009
2. Co-opt; take or assume for one's own use.
- To commandeer, appropriate or take over. - Wiki
- of an elected group) to make someone a member through the choice of the present members
3. Cosmologists claim they know what happened a trillionth of a second after the big bang; but apparently they can't tell us what happened 10 billion years later on planet earth that led to the first living organism. That seems a bit out of whack to me.
4. M2M = molecules to man.

Science fiction seen through an ID lens

I've been reading some early science fiction lately, and I thought I'd take a look at a famous sf story in terms of Intelligent design.

Quotes and comments;
Martian Odyssey - Stanley Weinbaum [1.] This story, from 1934, involves a kind of travelogue of a man's journey across Mars, with an alien sidekick. The plot is thin, and mainly exists as a device to let Weinbaum picture some odd life forms. (He was famous in his all too brief career for his depictions of aliens.) The tale is told to some buddies after the ordeal is over.

1. "'There'd been water in it [canal] sometime, though. The ditch was covered with what looked like a nice green lawn. Only, as I approached, the lawn moved out of my way!'
'Eh?' said Leroy.
'Yeah, it was a relative of your biopods. I caught one, a little grass-like blade about as long as my finger, with two thin, stemmy legs."

- This is the old 'life is everywhere' motif, that was so common in early sf and in the early Darwinian imagination.

2. "'That freak ostrich,' explained the narrator. 'At least, Tweel is as near as I can pronounce it without sputtering. He called it something like 'Trrrweerrll!"

- Our hero discovers an alien (i.e. Martian) Not only is 'life' everywhere; but intelligent life too is everywhere, it would appear. (It's just that kind of universe I guess.)

3. "But the clincher was when I noticed a little black bag or case hung about the neck of the bird-thing! It was intelligent. That or tame, I assumed. Anyway, it clinched my decision. I pulled out my automatic and fired into what I could see of its antagonist."

- He apparently discovered the 'ostrich' was intelligent by using design theory. i.e. "Hmm, looks like a bag or case, therefore we must have an intelligent agent."
- Our hero apparently sees no trouble distinguishing intelligent from non-intelligent life (the ostrich is being attacked by some kind of plant) and no trouble thinking intelligent life is more important.

4. "Anyway, I put up my gun and said 'Aw, don't mention it,' or something of the sort, and the thing came over and we were pals."

- You can laugh if you want; but things haven't changed all that much. (Some, it's true.) It's still considered commonplace that aliens and man can be friends... naivete still reigns. In a real sense sf is about seeking cosmic friends. (One can't be friends with evil creationists, but one can be friends with aliens from Mars or Betelgeuse :=)

5. "I reached for a match, but the Martian fished into his pouch and brought out something that looked like a glowing coal; one touch of it, and the fire was blazing - and you all know what a job we have starting a fire in this atmosphere!
'And that bag of his!' continued the narrator. 'That was a manufactured article, my friends; press an end and she popped open - press the middle and she sealed so perfectly you couldn't see the line. Better than zippers."

- The two cosmic friends start up a fire to fight off the cold of the Martian night; again our hero has no trouble spotting intelligent design. How does he know? I'm not sure, but he compares it to a design he knows (zippers) and considers this bag an improvement. He thinks he knows it was manufactured, but I'm not sure how... I guess he compares it to items he's familiar with (e.g. with items that work by pressing something)

6. 'Well, we stared at the fire for a while and I decided to attempt some sort of communication with the
Martian. I pointed at myself and said 'Dick'; he caught the drift immediately, stretched a bony claw at me
and repeated 'Tick.' Then I pointed at him, and he gave that whistle I called Tweel; I can't imitate his accent. Things were going smoothly; to emphasize the names, I repeated 'Dick,' and then, pointing at him, 'Tweel.'

- Our hero just assumes that all aliens will have personal names. (Evolutionists often operate with assumptions that don't spring from a materialist worldview.)
- He just assumes it will be possible to communicate with the alien. (We take communication for granted; since it comes so easily. We don't see it as evidence of design.)

7. 'Tweel understood my diagram all right. He poked his beak at it, and with a great deal of trilling and clucking, he added Deimos and Phobos to Mars, and then sketched in the earth's moon!
'Do you see what that proves? It proves that Tweel's race uses telescopes - that they're civilized!'

- Our hero is making deductions about intelligence (and the quality of it); he sees things as evidence of intelligence. (i.e. x can only be the result of intelligence.)

8. "Our minds simply looked at the world from different viewpoints, and perhaps
his viewpoint is as true as ours. But - we couldn't get together, that's all. Yet, in spite of all difficulties, I liked Tweel, and I have a queer certainty that he liked me."

- In the origins debate both sides accuse one another of having 'queer certainties' they can't prove :=) We certainly look at things from different viewpoints. (Are different viewpoints necessarily proof one is wrong? are different viewpoints necessarily contradictory? Is it true that only one viewpoint is true, and the others wrong? It depends on whether they're talking about the same thing in the same way. Our views differ because we look at things in terms of different wviews.)
- Martians and humans really can be said to have different world views! Maybe we could call them different planetary views.

9. " In fact, I'm not so sure but that he couldn't teach our highly praised human intelligence a trick or two."

- Over and over in sf you see human intelligence disparaged. I'm not at all sure where this idea (feeling) comes from. I don't know what this motif expresses. Repeatedly we see aliens who are more intelligent than human beings. (As if IQ somehow could be applied to both aliens and humans, as if it were some kind of generic quality... as if some kind of disembodied intelligence existed.) I suppose if intelligent life is everywhere, spread profligately throughout the universe, it's only 'reasonable' to expect a lot of aliens will be more intelligent than humans. (Intelligence defined by what can be produced in terms of technology?)

10. "'He is a desert creature,' ejaculated the little biologist, Leroy.
'Huh? Why?
'He drink no water - he is adapted for sand storm"

- We might call this an evolutionary assumption; it assumes the creature evolved to adapt to desert conditions. The idea Mars might have once been a lush planet seems out of the question. The idea Tweel was created doesn't seem in the picture either. (i.e. evolution is just assumed)

11. "By noon they were shoulder high. I looked into a couple - all just the same, broken at the top and empty. I examined a brick or two as well; they were silica, and old as creation itself!' [They stumble across a long line of small pyramids.]
We, and Tweel, and those plants out there, and even the biopods are carbon life; this thing lived by a different set of chemical reactions. It was silicon life!'

- The hope 'life' could have a different basis than carbon has long been a theme in sf. (It expands the possibilities for finding alien life forms.)

12. "Lord! That queer creature Do you picture it? Blind, deaf, nerveless, brainless - just a mechanism, and yet - immortal Bound to go on making bricks, building pyramids, as long as silicon and oxygen exist, and even afterwards it'll just stop. It won't be dead. If the accidents of a million years bring it its food again, there it'll be, ready to run again, while brains and civilizations are part of the past."

- Here we have a picture of what 'life' might be like without creation. i.e. this is about the only 'life' form materialism could give us. (I doubt if even such a thing as this is possible; because it would have to have had some kind of information content you'd think... and where would it have acquired it.) If m. were true this is the best we could hope for... this is what we would be.

13. "Tweel had his glass pistol out, pointing it at her. I grabbed his arm, but he tried to push me away. He pointed at her and said, 'No breet! No breet!' and I understood that he meant that the Fancy Long thing wasn't alive."

- Apparently Tweel could tell the difference between design and the appearance of design. (Maybe he'd read something from the Dawkins library.)

14. "The people of the mud cities along the canals.' Jarvis frowned, then resumed his narrative. 'I thought the dream-beast and the silicon-monster were the strangest beings conceivable, but I was wrong."

- One of the positive things sf can do is to show us that our ideas of what is or is not conceivable might be wrong. i.e. we can be sure something is inconceivable and be wrong. (I won't press an obvious example.)

- By employing his imagination the sf writer can picture things for us that aren't a part of our everyday intellectual furniture. i.e. maybe our ideas about X are wrong. It gives the writer a canvas on which to present ideas and pictures that would seem out of place in an ordinary novel.

15. "I don't know; maybe there's still another intelligent race on the planet, or a dozen others. Mars is a queer little world."

- The mars of sf is certainly a queer world in any event. It's the old 'anything is possible' idea that has been so dominant in sf. (This is really the beating heart of sf.) It's turning out that not as much is possible as was once assumed; but this is still a very strong idea. The very size of the universe gives the idea a strength that will be hard to exhaust.
- Intelligence seems to be imagined as merely a matter of chemical accident in this story; i.e. a simple thing. (In the early days of sf everything seems to have looked simple. One reason for this is that people didn't yet realize how complex things were, or how exquisitely designed things were. This was before the discovery of DNA of course, before the discovery of the genetic code. Imagination raced far ahead of what was truly known; as I suppose it always does.)

16. "I looked in; there was a light somewhere below, and I was curious to see it. It didn't look like a
flame or torch, you understand, but more like a civilized light, and I thought that I might get some clue as to the creatures' development."

- Again, our hero is pretty sure he knows design when he sees it. (Even on another planet.) Not only does he think he can tell artificial light from 'natural' light; but he thinks he can determine a creature's degree of intelligence from its artifacts.

17. "The light was curious; it sputtered and flared like an old arc light, but came from a single black rod set in the wall of the corridor. It was electric, beyond doubt. The creatures were fairly civilized, apparently."

- Intelligence is seen in terms of what a 'species' can produce in terms of technology. The idea seems to be that the more sophisticated the device, the greater the intelligence behind it.

18. "We saw plenty of strange things. There were machines running in some of the corridors, but they didn't seem to be doing anything - just wheels turning."

- He assumes he can tell what a machine is by its appearance. How? I suppose by its similarity to machines he knows of.

Summary; in the early days of sf, the rancorous debate over origins hadn't begun, and so we get to see a less self conscious expression of evolutionary materialism. (I didn't give you the end of the story because I want you to read it if you haven't. It's not a deep story, but it's great fun.) I think I've shown that it was once considered obvious that a person could tell whether or not something was designed.
- M. Johnson [frfarer -at- gmail.com]

Notes;
1. Martian Odyssey can be found online at Free sf reader list [freesflist.blogspot.com]

The importance of the animal/human distinction

As I follow the Origins debate I've noticed an increasing frequency in the last few years of people politicizing evolutionary theory. One of the most far fetched examples can be read below.

Quotes and comments;

1. 'A new practical use for Darwinism has come to light: natural security. Two recent articles claim that we can learn from evolution how best to protect ourselves.

A. Natural security: Darwinism can be practical, thinks Rafe Sagarin, an ecologist at Duke University. Science Daily reported that he is using Darwinian principles to write and speak about “Natural Security: A Darwinian Approach to a Dangerous World” Sagarin thinks the Department of Homeland Security is going about it all wrong. More guards, guns, and gates – this is not how organisms defend themselves, he said. Invoking “a mode of thinking—informed by Charles Darwin’s insights into life’s struggle for survival and fecundity,” Sagarin is looking at security from the point of view of the evolutionary arms race: “If I’m an adaptive organism, how would I cope with this?”

- The idea (metaphor) of an 'evolutionary arms race' is myth making. This attributes human behavior and thinking to animals. Animals don't think about how to respond to threats, they just react instinctively.

B. "In nature, a threat is dealt with in several ways. There’s collectivism, where one meerkat sounds the alarm about an approaching hawk, or camouflage, where the ptarmigan hides in plain sight. There’s redundancy, like our wisdom teeth, or unpredictable behavior, like the puffer fish’s sudden, spiky pop.
Under the unyielding pressure of 3.5 billion years of evolution, the variety of defenses is beyond counting. But they all have a few features in common. A top-down, build-a-wall, broadcast-your-status approach “is exactly the opposite of what organisms do,” Sagarin says. [1.]

- One of the major mistakes made by evolutionists is to ignore the animal/human distinction. This error sabotages a great deal of the writing (and ideas) of evolutionists. Once you make this mistake, you cannot be correct. Human beings aren't animals; they belong in a category of their own, and to conflate the two groups (categories) is to pave the way for countless errors. This bit of Darwinian 'insight' is nonsense. On what basis can you make a connection between animal defensive strategies and human beings living in a technological civilization? The only connection is imaginary.
The author suffers from a delusion of competence. (We see here yet another failed attempt to pretend darwinism has some relevance to the real world.)

- Since animals act in terms of instinct (in case the professor doesn't know) one wonders how this can be of help to human beings, who have to deal with non-instinctual ingenuity. Animals are equipped to deal with animals; they have no defenses against humans. Animals are the targets of animals in search of food or territory, and this determines how they defend themselves. That this isn't necessarily the case with human beings doesn't need to be pointed out I hope. That the tactics used by animals would be useful when used by humans is pure fancy; it hasn't got a thing to back it up. (Like most of what evolutionists try to pass off as science.) This isn't science; it's just one more attempt to persuade people that evolutionary theory has something to contribute to modern life. (It's a theory that's contributed nothing to technology, and nothing positive to modern life. If it disappeared tomorrow no one would even notice, let alone miss it.)

- You might have noticed that Darwinism always ends up agreeing with the views of Politically Correct university professors. Odd how that happens; must be random chance I guess. (Sometimes called Darwin's wax nose.) Darwin is always interpreted in tune with the political/social ethos of the social elite of the time; with the Victorians this meant social Darwinism, empire and colonialism, now it means something approximating the opposite. (That nose sure gets a workout.)

- We already know how professors deal with a dangerous world; they lobby for tenure, and the right to keep opponents out of the guild.

Notes;
1. Can Evolution Keep You Safe? Creation/Evolution Headlines 02/25/2009

A cretaceous history of the world

"I gave a short talk some time ago on flood geology. In an effort to give people some 'peg' to hang the ideas on, I used an illustration of some chalk. It went something like this;

"When a teacher writes on a chalk board, the chalk itself likely holds a more important message than anything he writes. That piece of chalk comes from limestone that was laid down during or after the Great Flood of Noah's day. It speaks of God's judgment, of the utter destruction of the pre-Flood world; of a judgment on wickedness. That bit of chalk, that looks so banal, that seems to have no voice of its own, holds the equivalent of volumes of theology and history. Think of the billions of minute sea creatures that were squashed together to form the limestone beds.

"Every mark upon the board can be a reminder of the great flood; can be a reminder of the mercy that allowed anyone to escape that apocalypse. We can see in it a small example of how God can and does turn evil into good."

Well, I probably went a little bit overboard. In any event, after the class was dismissed, I left the room and went upstairs for the service. When I came back after the service to pick some things up that I'd left behind I noticed someone had written something on the black board.
In large letters there was the word 'Not' - and then a short note that claimed the chalk we use now isn't real chalk at all. "As usual, Mr J., you're way behind the times. Flood geology has been disproved, and you'd do well to give it up. It just won't wash."

- It might be a surprise to many evolutionists, but anyone who tries to express a creationist message in most churches will receive great opposition. This is most especially the case with any kind of young earth creation or with flood geology. (Since most Christians have been educated in government schools this can't be a surprise.) The story of how chalk is formed that is taught to most students now days is very different from the one I gave. [1.]

- An explanation of chalk deposits from a flood geology perspective can be found below. [2.]

- Chalk is a fascinating substance. For those who don't know, it's composed of a multitude of mircro-organisms squashed together. (There's the ocean you see, and the ocean you don't see. An invisible sea is teaming with mirco-organisms far too small to be seen with the unaided eye. Millions can swim in a glass of water.) We can learn from a humble piece of chalk how rewarding it is to look more closely at the created world we find ourselves in. We take for granted things that are really stupendous miracles.
The real expansion of the universe isn't happening at the macro level of stars and galaxies, but at the micro level, where ever increasing magnification expands our view of both creation and God. The deeper we go, the more there is to see.

Notes;
1. Chalk;
' Chalk is a soft, white, porous sedimentary rock, a form of limestone composed of the mineral calcite. It forms under relatively deep marine conditions from the gradual accumulation of minute calcite plates (coccoliths) shed from micro-organisms called coccolithophores.' - Wiki
2. Can Flood geology explain thick chalk beds? by Andrew A. Snelling
3 One of the rewarding things about the origins debate is that you're always learning. I gave this nice illustration (at least I thought so) and got rebuked for it. So I went and looked for some articles on chalk. I found quite a few. It appears there has been considerable debate among creationists on whether the chalk beds (cliffs of Dover, etc.) can be explained by flood geology, and to what extent. [I don't think that even one evolutionist in a thousand is aware that creationists have disagreements over issues.] So even if I was wrong (and I don't think I was) I still learned from the experience. This is a subject so vast that no one can always be right; it's just impossible. I think everyone has a bit of the truth, but that much of what happened is still beyond our understanding. I think it's quite likely human beings will never know what really happened. In the meantime the subject of origins is a pursuit that can keep one busy until they breathe their last.
4. It's too bad we don't have more creationists working on these (and other) problems. I think considerable progress could be made (and one day will be made) if this were the case.
5. The above was, of course, a purely fictional account. (I wouldn't dare talk about flood geology at any church I know of.)

The flaw at the heart of evolutionary theory

Today I want to take a brief look at what I think is a major flaw in evolutionary theory. (Once you get past the impossible hurdle of getting life from non-life, this would be the next biggest problem.)

Quotes and comments;
A. “Earth’s creatures come in all sizes, yet they (and we) all sprang from the same single-celled organisms that first populated the planet. So how on Earth did life go from bacteria to the blue whale?” [1.]

- I think the major problem the theory of evolution has, can be simply but accurately described in this way; since 'evolution' has no way of creating new information, all the information we see expressed in the millions of life forms today had to be contained in the primordial cell that evolutionists imagine one time (3-4 billion years ago) existed. Everything thing we see had to have been lying dormant in that first cell; the fish that fill the seas, the birds that fill the air, even human abilities such as mathematics. I find this utterly impossible. I can't even imagine such a thing.
Such a notion can only be called some kind of secular mysticism.

- You'll notice that none of the books that praise the legacy of Darwin deal with this problem. It's suppressed in all the textbooks and utterly ignored by the evolutionary apologists.

Notes;
1. Darwin in the Air Creation/Evolution Headlines 01/11/2009
Evolutionary leaps;
'Science Daily last month claimed that “Life On Earth Got Bigger In 2-million-fold Leaps.” Assuming common ancestry as fact, the article began, “Earth’s creatures come in all sizes, yet they (and we) all sprang from the same single-celled organisms that first populated the planet. So how on Earth did life go from bacteria to the blue whale?” Good question. The answer, according to Jonathan Payne at Stanford, is that “It happened primarily in two great leaps, and each time, the maximum size of life jumped up by a factor of about a million.”
- How's that for a leap of faith. You can believe it if you want to I guess.
2. Payne explained, “The fossil record indicates pretty clearly that you need a eukaryotic cell to make that first size jump.” [above]
- In other words, the current explanation of the how the fossil rocks were form has to (just has to) be right. It couldn't possibly be wrong. (Isn't it about time some people started asking whether there's something drastically wrong with the model?) I continue to think the model is radically mistaken, and that a catastrophic model is needed.

Is Anything Possible?

In this post I want to take a brief look at a common claim among people who write about evolution, that anything is possible.

Quotes and comments;

A. ' Time to rewrite the textbooks again. The story of plant evolution is wrong. Lignin, a chemical that gives wood its stiffness, was thought to be unique to land plants. Now it has been found in red algae, reported Science Daily, with the title, “Billion-year Revision Of Plant Evolution Timeline May Stem From Discovery Of Lignin In Seaweed.” [1.]

“The pathways, enzymes and genes that go into making this stuff are pretty complicated, so to come up with all those separately would be really, really amazing,”says Denny. “Anything is possible, but that would be one hell of a coincidence.” [1.]

- There's a big problem with this statement; contrary to Denny, anything is Not possible. I read this comment ("anything is possible") continually from evolutionists, but it's simply not true. Students should not be deceived in this manner. (As an example; squaring the circle isn't possible.) You can either dismiss this as simply careless use of language (as defenders of E. would) or you can claim that this is a deliberate attempt to foster in students a state of mind that's willing to accept any claim at all. (i.e. as long as it bears the Darwin trademark, or the E. stamp of approval.)

- To say that anything is possible comes close to saying that if we can conceive of something it has to be true. This would be a kind of secular version of the Ontological argument for the existence of God. i.e. that we can imagine a perfect Being, means this Being exists. (If he didn't exist, He wouldn't be perfect.) Evolutionists tend to think that if they can imagine something happening this means it probably did. This is not a rational argument, but only wishful thinking.

- If anything is possible, it's opposite would also be possible.

- To say anything is possible creates an intellectual atmosphere where criticism has a hard time being taken seriously; where logic has a hard time being taken seriously. (If anything is possible, then all of what we now take for scientific truth might be false. If anything is possible, no physical law is truly a law.)

- Anything is possible only if you abandon mathematics and logic.

- Anything is possible sounds like the world of your average fantasy trilogy, not like the real world we live in. (To say anything is possible, is to say reality doesn't exist.)

- To say anything is possible is to dream, not to think rationally.

- I maintain that it's impossible for a rock to turn into a human being. (I don't care how long said rock hangs in space, or orbits a star. We might as well imagine a rock cracking open and a human being crawling out.)
E. theory (molecules to man) is replete with impossible claims and imagined scenarios. Over and over, known science is abandoned in favor of metaphysical storytelling of a kind that only has a place in science fiction. (e.g. one of the basics of science is that life only comes from life; but this knowledge is abandoned in E. theory, as if it didn't exist, or didn't matter.)

Notes;
1. Plant Lignin Found in Red Algae Creation/Evolution Headlines 01/29/2009

Mother Nature is Dead

Around a hundred years ago Nietzsche sent a crazy man around telling everyone that god was dead. I think it's time to give the guy a new message; namely "Mother Nature is dead''. New discoveries in biology (thanks to ever improved microscopes, etc.) have made belief in mindless nature obsolete.

Quotes and comments;

A. 'Electric eels are inspiring a new generation of fuel cells. Science Daily reported that a remarkable fusion of engineering and biology may lead to tiny electronic devices that run on biology’s own energy currency, ATP.
“Engineers long have known that great ideas can be lifted from Mother Nature, but a new paper by researchers at Yale University and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) takes it to a cellular level.” [1.]

- The idea of lifting ideas from nature seems an unspoken admission of intelligent design. How else would one find 'ideas' in matter? i.e. matter 'informed' with ideas.

- Maybe someone can tell me why the word mother is added to nature in this sentence. (As if nature wasn't bad enough from a Christian perspective.) Sooner or later people are going to wake up to the fact that the old idea of a mindless nature (dependent solely upon the laws of physics) is dead. (Even though she's dead we have masses who still insist on worshipping her.)

B. “Nerve cells, which move information rather than energy, can fire rapidly but with relatively little power,” the article said...' [1.]

- As mere matter doesn't trade in information this is more evidence of intelligent design. As I see it, the evidence of intelligent design in biological life forms is obvious; all that remains to decide is who the designer or designers were.

Notes;
1. Living Better Bioelectrically Creation/Evolution Headlines 10/04/2008
2. In the above I'm referring to the secular (materialist) concept of 'nature' here, rather than the pantheistic concept.