I read an angry letter from an evolutionist (are they all angry?) who said that belief in creation was just faith; and that you didn't need faith to believe in evolution. (As it was all so plainly true.) The man clearly didn't know what faith meant. [1]
I see in his comment evidence how the insistence by Darwinists that E. is a fact has distorted people's ability to think straight. People seem to be losing their grip on what rationality consists of; of fact truth is, of what facts are, of what faith is; of how our finiteness affects us, and of what knowledge is.
Quotes and comments;
A. "Atheism is an ABSENCE of faith, not a presence.
Evolution requires NO faith, since it is known to happen, has been observed to happen, and makes testable predictions." [2.]
- The man is apparently under the delusion that if he believes X to be true, it is true; and that someone else believes non-x, what they believe is false, and believed only on faith. Such a person has no idea what faith is, nor does he know what knowledge is. All knowledge is based on faith in certain basic assumptions.
The heavy handed insistence evolution is a fact (and E. is conveniently not defined) disparages things like belief, theory, supposition, opinion, etc. There is nothing wrong with these concepts; and in reality (if that matters in the emotionally supercharged environment we live in) these are all we have. We don't have facts. (If fact is defined as certain knowledge of reality.) This is the painful truth of our existence.
For Evolution (M2M) to be a fact it would have to conform exactly to reality; for that to happen we'd have to know that reality existed, what it was, and have to know it perfectly. (and to know we knew it, and how we knew it; and that we were correct in all our suppositions about it.) We'd have to believe we were capable of knowing reality.
For the E. this means believing (on faith I might add) that a random physical process could create a mind capable of knowing reality. It means believing that the chemical reactions in the brain are inherently rational. For E. to be a fact, we'd have to know how living organisms could emerge from inert matter. There is no scientific basis for believing this, and whoever does believe it believes it on faith.
Before we could say evolution was a face we'd have to know how some 'primitive' bit of protoplasm could 'evolve' into complex animals, and that one of these could magically (going contrary to entropy) evolve into a human being.
For E. to be fact we'd have to believe that the impersonal can give birth to the personal; that the non-intelligent can give birth to intelligence. We'd have to believe that random chance can produce complex, specified information. We'd have to believe the chemicals can produce the genetic code. These are a few of the things we'd have to know for E. to be a fact. The reality is that none of these things are certain knowledge. This means that M2M evolution cannot possibly be a fact.
To say E. isn't a fact doesn't mean it doesn't have some approximation to reality. That's another story. To say there are few (if any) facts doesn't mean all beliefs are equally valid. To say there are no facts doesn't mean that some reality doesn't exist, by which we could judge their approximate veracity.
When he says E. is a fact he shows us he's been deceived by his school teachers. In his ignorance of philosophy he thinks knowledge is a simple thing. In his ignorance of biology (and of critiques of E. theories) he imagines the origins of living organisms is a simple matter. If he wants to come to a better understanding of the issues at hand he's got a lot of work to do. Understanding can't be had by simply affirming the distortions and half truths taught in our government schools.
Conclusion;
If all is matter in motion then no such thing as freedom exists. This being the case why is our evolutionist so mad? Why is he mad at all. On his worldview, the creationist can't help believing what he does. (He might want to ask himself if all is matter in motion, acting in terms of physical laws, why do people have varying ideas about origins?)
Notes;
1. Faith; 'The assent of the mind to the truth of a proposition or statement for which there is not complete evidence; belief in general. - John Locke [Century Dictionary]
2. Polarized reaction to atheists’ refusal to debate CMI - Creation.com
- A letter to the website (Creation.com) reads;
"Atheism is an ABSENCE of faith, not a presence.
Evolution requires NO faith, since it is known to happen, has been observed to happen, and makes testable predictions. Furthermore it has nothing at all to do with the making of the world—that is the province of astrophysics and geology." - Gregory Tingey
- He's wrong that evolution (M2M) has nothing to do with the 'making' of the world. The supposed 'emergence' of living organisms from inert matter certainly is a matter that lies within the domain of evolutionary theory. (The theory purports to give an account for all life on earth.) Has he forgotten Darwin's famous drawing of the tree of life? Has he forgotten his claim the first primordial cell 'emerged' from a warm pond?
2. Faith;
- The root of faith is trust. Everyone who believes in M2M evolution does so on the basis of trust. i.e. they believe (trust) that the things their professors and teachers told them were accurate. (I can assure not all of them were.) They also trust that reality exists, and that they know what it consists of. They have faith that man is capable of understanding reality. They trust that man's mind can comprehend and express true propositions. They trust that the popular apologists for evolution are telling the truth. They trust that living organisms can somehow spontaneously emerge from inert matter. (And so on.) They also trust that anyone who disagrees with them is inescapably wrong. (Which means they trust that something called truth exists; a claim many of our professors deny by the way.)
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
The cosmos of the middle ages
Today I want to talk briefly about a book called Kepler's Witch. In an effort to get people to read the book (one of the best I've read in years) I'll give a few quotes, and then offer a way for people to experience the cosmos as people did in the middle ages.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'Surprisingly, the difficulty in adapting to the new placement of the earth in relation to the other heavenly bodies was not primarily that it spelled the downfall of human dignity. Later generations seemed to think that the geocentric model promoted the dignity of humanity’s place in the universe, as the apple of God’s eye, while the Copernican system turned this around and set the earth spinning meaninglessly through a meaningless universe.
This is not quite accurate, for Aristotle never thought of the earth as a special place or the apple of anybody’s eye. The earth occupied the lowest position in the cosmos, where all things chaotic and all things corruptible eventually settled. [1.]
- If you want to know how people saw the cosmos, how they thought of it, you need to go at on a cloudless night and life flat on the ground, and stare up at the stars. The effect is to feel one's self at the bottom of a well. It was this 'view' of things that people had in the middle ages.
B. Kepler's witch.
- The witch in the title refers to Kepler's mother. The book gives us a detailed look at a witch trial; a look that's both gruesome and sad. She apparently was an intelligent but had little or no schooling, and was unable to read. [2.]
What we see in this account is people making connections between events, and then blaming things on people. e.g. One man told the court he got sick after drinking something Kepler's mother had given him. He then made the (false) connection she had poisoned him deliberately. Ironically, it's this ability to draw connections and inferences that lies behind the human ability to do science.
C. 'The world beneath the sphere of the moon was the privy of the universe, where living things came into existence and then died away, where sooner or later all life returned to rot. Only the heavens were eternal; only the heavens were divine. Redefining the earth as a planet, as Copernicus did, actually set the earth into the heavens with the other planets and raised property values all around. [1.]
- It's sad the way Humanist writers have deliberately falsified the medieval view of the cosmos. Even today we continually hear this absurd claim that Copernicus dethroned man, and that heliocentrism was a great humiliation for man... and other such nonsense. These are lies and distortions. (Anyone who wants to critique Christianity can find lots of honest material, they surely don't have to resort to lies and distortion.) Most people who talk this way don't have a clue what they're talking about.
How people saw the cosmos in the Middle Ages is immensely complicated, and I think it's impossible to know with any exactitude. [Ch. 4 gives a good overview of the Copernican controversy.]
It was Christians who brought in the new heliocentric view, and contrary to the ignorant claims of professors and school teachers in our day, they in no way saw this as destroying human dignity... quite the contrary. The textbooks of our universities are full of anti-Christian slander and bigotry. (It appears that once such lies have been told, succeeding generations of professors just parrot them. Who after all bothers to check on the veracity of comments they approve of?)
D. 'In 1593, Kepler wrote a short dissertation, supported by his friend Christopher Besold, imagining what the earth would look like to people living on the moon. This would be revised several times in his life and finally published as Kepler’s Somnium, his Dream, after his death.
The purpose of this dissertation was to demonstrate Copernicus’s idea that the earth moves very rapidly, rotating and revolving around the sun, but the people living on the earth cannot see or feel this. [4.]
- This is the kind of thought experiment later made famous by people like Einstein.
- It's a slander on people like Kepler for atheists to claim that Christians can't do science. (Not to mention being an absurd denial of reality.)
Summary; Kepler's Witch is a great book. It's more of a biography than a book about science. You get a real feel for the times he lived in. It's a wonder he was able to accomplish so much given the times he lived in. (e.g. the middle of the Thirty years war.) The contrast between his harried life and Newton's relatively placid one, couldn't be more stark. As an independent thinking Lutheran, he was hounded from town to town as a heretic, experienced much illness and poverty, and most of his children died very young. Throughout all the 'chaos' of society in turmoil he continued to search for a grand cosmic harmony that he believed must exist.
Notes;
1. Kepler's Witch - James A. Connor/p. 61
2. That we can go from her to Kepler in one generation is a refutation of Darwinism in itself.
3. While it's true that many of the ideas and speculations of men like Kepler etc. were wrong, this is how progress (toward truth) is usually made. i.e. we walk up stairs that are crooked and maybe even broken... but yet we walk up despite this. In fact, at least looking back, it's the only way we can walk.
4. KW p. 80
Quotes and comments;
A. 'Surprisingly, the difficulty in adapting to the new placement of the earth in relation to the other heavenly bodies was not primarily that it spelled the downfall of human dignity. Later generations seemed to think that the geocentric model promoted the dignity of humanity’s place in the universe, as the apple of God’s eye, while the Copernican system turned this around and set the earth spinning meaninglessly through a meaningless universe.
This is not quite accurate, for Aristotle never thought of the earth as a special place or the apple of anybody’s eye. The earth occupied the lowest position in the cosmos, where all things chaotic and all things corruptible eventually settled. [1.]
- If you want to know how people saw the cosmos, how they thought of it, you need to go at on a cloudless night and life flat on the ground, and stare up at the stars. The effect is to feel one's self at the bottom of a well. It was this 'view' of things that people had in the middle ages.
B. Kepler's witch.
- The witch in the title refers to Kepler's mother. The book gives us a detailed look at a witch trial; a look that's both gruesome and sad. She apparently was an intelligent but had little or no schooling, and was unable to read. [2.]
What we see in this account is people making connections between events, and then blaming things on people. e.g. One man told the court he got sick after drinking something Kepler's mother had given him. He then made the (false) connection she had poisoned him deliberately. Ironically, it's this ability to draw connections and inferences that lies behind the human ability to do science.
C. 'The world beneath the sphere of the moon was the privy of the universe, where living things came into existence and then died away, where sooner or later all life returned to rot. Only the heavens were eternal; only the heavens were divine. Redefining the earth as a planet, as Copernicus did, actually set the earth into the heavens with the other planets and raised property values all around. [1.]
- It's sad the way Humanist writers have deliberately falsified the medieval view of the cosmos. Even today we continually hear this absurd claim that Copernicus dethroned man, and that heliocentrism was a great humiliation for man... and other such nonsense. These are lies and distortions. (Anyone who wants to critique Christianity can find lots of honest material, they surely don't have to resort to lies and distortion.) Most people who talk this way don't have a clue what they're talking about.
How people saw the cosmos in the Middle Ages is immensely complicated, and I think it's impossible to know with any exactitude. [Ch. 4 gives a good overview of the Copernican controversy.]
It was Christians who brought in the new heliocentric view, and contrary to the ignorant claims of professors and school teachers in our day, they in no way saw this as destroying human dignity... quite the contrary. The textbooks of our universities are full of anti-Christian slander and bigotry. (It appears that once such lies have been told, succeeding generations of professors just parrot them. Who after all bothers to check on the veracity of comments they approve of?)
D. 'In 1593, Kepler wrote a short dissertation, supported by his friend Christopher Besold, imagining what the earth would look like to people living on the moon. This would be revised several times in his life and finally published as Kepler’s Somnium, his Dream, after his death.
The purpose of this dissertation was to demonstrate Copernicus’s idea that the earth moves very rapidly, rotating and revolving around the sun, but the people living on the earth cannot see or feel this. [4.]
- This is the kind of thought experiment later made famous by people like Einstein.
- It's a slander on people like Kepler for atheists to claim that Christians can't do science. (Not to mention being an absurd denial of reality.)
Summary; Kepler's Witch is a great book. It's more of a biography than a book about science. You get a real feel for the times he lived in. It's a wonder he was able to accomplish so much given the times he lived in. (e.g. the middle of the Thirty years war.) The contrast between his harried life and Newton's relatively placid one, couldn't be more stark. As an independent thinking Lutheran, he was hounded from town to town as a heretic, experienced much illness and poverty, and most of his children died very young. Throughout all the 'chaos' of society in turmoil he continued to search for a grand cosmic harmony that he believed must exist.
Notes;
1. Kepler's Witch - James A. Connor/p. 61
2. That we can go from her to Kepler in one generation is a refutation of Darwinism in itself.
3. While it's true that many of the ideas and speculations of men like Kepler etc. were wrong, this is how progress (toward truth) is usually made. i.e. we walk up stairs that are crooked and maybe even broken... but yet we walk up despite this. In fact, at least looking back, it's the only way we can walk.
4. KW p. 80
Monday, February 22, 2010
Telling lies for Darwin
For some people the origins debate isn't about science at all; it's merely one front in a war against Christianity.
Quotes and comments;
A. "Unfortunately in this debate a position between two sides, which you seem to adopt, is hardly tenable. It is a culture war whose outcome will have immense consequences, so a book to be useful must unequivocally take a side and defend it vigorously. A position of supposed neutrality (which is hardly possible) necessarily serves one side despite the author's intention to remain unbiased. [1.]
- I was listening to an interview with Stephen Meyer today, and he mentioned that his book had generally received good reviews... including those on Amazon. The Darwinists didn't like all this and decided (via somebody on some Darwinist site, Panda's Thumb was it?) to dump on the book and drive it down in the ratings. They encouraged opponents of creation and ID to go to the Amazon site and give the book a one star rating. (Let me just add that people who review books they haven't read are lower on the intellectual scale than termites.) So in a day or two 30-40 people had all given it a 1 star rating and driven the ratings down from 4.5 to 4. [2.]
My question is this; do you think people who do this are going to be honest about the Origins debate? Do you think they're going to be honest in answering questions? in writing papers? in discussing the evidence, in revealing their true beliefs?
It's interesting that people who don't have the time to read the book (this being the usual excuse materialists give for not reading creationist material) but they do have the time to write fake reviews. One wonders if their articles and papers are any more honest than their reviews.
What's even worse are the fake reviews that get published in science magazines. For years people have been reviewing anti-Darwinian, and creationist books without having read them. (Are they scared to?) What makes this ironic is that a popular icon of the Darwinist movement is the story where Galileo offers to show the 'bishops' of the church evidence for his new cosmology, but they refuse to look through his telescope. "See,'' they tell us, "this is what Christians are like. They're scared to look at the evidence."
Well; whether or not materialists want to look at it or not, the evidence against them and in favor of creation is there waiting for them.
The Amazon incident shows how degraded the origins debate has become, as the Darwinists now resort to any manner of foul tactics to try and defend their collapsing theory. We don't see people discussing science and we don't see honest debate. What we see are bully tactics and suppression of discussion.
Notes;
1. 'Seeking god in science' - Bradley Monton; preface/9
- According to the author of this note, (this person seems to know the future you'll notice) books and articles can't concern themselves with the truth about reality, but must be 'useful' in the struggle to destroy Christianity. (The author of this note seems to imagine there are only two sides in the debate.) It's clear to me that the origins debate isn't about science in the minds of many materialists. What they're doing is using 'science' to attack Christianity. (This is their version of the 'wedge' strategy.)
- Ever notice how the pc types love the warfare metaphor?
2. I heard the interview on a radio show called Sound Rezn. They want to defend reason I guess, but they apparently can't spell it. The show claims to provide 'truth for a sound bite culture' or somesuch nonsense. They feature flashy rock and roll theme music, a snappy tv news style, etc. They want to defend Christianity, but you can see at a glance how has influenced who. I find this cheap imitation of pop culture sad and embarrassing. (But maybe that's just my curmudgeon gene speaking.)
Quotes and comments;
A. "Unfortunately in this debate a position between two sides, which you seem to adopt, is hardly tenable. It is a culture war whose outcome will have immense consequences, so a book to be useful must unequivocally take a side and defend it vigorously. A position of supposed neutrality (which is hardly possible) necessarily serves one side despite the author's intention to remain unbiased. [1.]
- I was listening to an interview with Stephen Meyer today, and he mentioned that his book had generally received good reviews... including those on Amazon. The Darwinists didn't like all this and decided (via somebody on some Darwinist site, Panda's Thumb was it?) to dump on the book and drive it down in the ratings. They encouraged opponents of creation and ID to go to the Amazon site and give the book a one star rating. (Let me just add that people who review books they haven't read are lower on the intellectual scale than termites.) So in a day or two 30-40 people had all given it a 1 star rating and driven the ratings down from 4.5 to 4. [2.]
My question is this; do you think people who do this are going to be honest about the Origins debate? Do you think they're going to be honest in answering questions? in writing papers? in discussing the evidence, in revealing their true beliefs?
It's interesting that people who don't have the time to read the book (this being the usual excuse materialists give for not reading creationist material) but they do have the time to write fake reviews. One wonders if their articles and papers are any more honest than their reviews.
What's even worse are the fake reviews that get published in science magazines. For years people have been reviewing anti-Darwinian, and creationist books without having read them. (Are they scared to?) What makes this ironic is that a popular icon of the Darwinist movement is the story where Galileo offers to show the 'bishops' of the church evidence for his new cosmology, but they refuse to look through his telescope. "See,'' they tell us, "this is what Christians are like. They're scared to look at the evidence."
Well; whether or not materialists want to look at it or not, the evidence against them and in favor of creation is there waiting for them.
The Amazon incident shows how degraded the origins debate has become, as the Darwinists now resort to any manner of foul tactics to try and defend their collapsing theory. We don't see people discussing science and we don't see honest debate. What we see are bully tactics and suppression of discussion.
Notes;
1. 'Seeking god in science' - Bradley Monton; preface/9
- According to the author of this note, (this person seems to know the future you'll notice) books and articles can't concern themselves with the truth about reality, but must be 'useful' in the struggle to destroy Christianity. (The author of this note seems to imagine there are only two sides in the debate.) It's clear to me that the origins debate isn't about science in the minds of many materialists. What they're doing is using 'science' to attack Christianity. (This is their version of the 'wedge' strategy.)
- Ever notice how the pc types love the warfare metaphor?
2. I heard the interview on a radio show called Sound Rezn. They want to defend reason I guess, but they apparently can't spell it. The show claims to provide 'truth for a sound bite culture' or somesuch nonsense. They feature flashy rock and roll theme music, a snappy tv news style, etc. They want to defend Christianity, but you can see at a glance how has influenced who. I find this cheap imitation of pop culture sad and embarrassing. (But maybe that's just my curmudgeon gene speaking.)
The quest for certainty
Human beings seek certainty. The trouble with this, is that there is no certainty to be had. [1]
We can see this in the area of Origins. Darwinists like to claim that Evolution isn't a theory but a fact. By this they mean that it's certain knowledge. There's only one thing wrong with this claim; it's false. When you study the subject of Origins you see a collection of uncertainties that somehow is supposed to add up to a certainty.
A partial list of the uncertainties that somehow lead to the certainty of evolution;
First of all we have the subject of the origins of matter. There is no certain knowledge of how matter was created; and many have claimed it's eternal.
We have the matter of planet formation. There is no certain knowledge of how this happened.
There is the matter of the origin of living organisms here on earth. Again there is no certainty as to how this happened. Even materialists admit they have no idea how life spontaneously emerged.
Then we have the uncertain matter of how complex organisms came into being.
Then we have the matter of how highly complex information came into being. Again there is no certain knowledge to be had.
We can skip a few points and talk about human beings. There is no certain knowledge to be had as to their origin; nor is there with respect to things like intelligence and language.
To make a long story brief, what we see is a long string of uncertainties that our school teachers and professors insist (with vehemence) add up to the certainty called evolution. This is a claim that has no warrant in reality. It's a claim that has no basis in sound thinking. You can't add a bunch of uncertainties up and get a certainty.
There is nothing wrong with saying that evolution (M2M) is a theory. Somewhere along the way our thinking (at least at the elite level) has gone seriously wrong. People insist on making claims of certainty when such things are denied to them. We don't live in such a universe. The universe we live in is one where we must live with uncertainty. (This is not really a bad thing, though it's made out to be.)
There's nothing wrong with answering basic questions by saying; ''well, here's the consensus opinion on that,'' or ''here's our best ideas on that,'' or ''here's what some people and groups think''. The educational elite has no moral right to pass off a collection of uncertainties as a certain fact. This is an abuse of their responsibility to students, and to the public.
The basic problem here, as I see it, is the collectivization of the education process by the state; by the political process and the political elite. Were it not for the complete domination of the educational process by the political elite we would not have nearly so many people telling us Evolution was a certainty. It's only because students have been brainwashed on this issue that they become such fierce defenders of evolution, and such fierce opponents of creation. They've been brainwashed, but they don't seem to mind, or to even be aware that they were. (This is how one sided their education has been.) A decentralization of the education process would lead to a more balanced approach on issues like Origins.
Unfortunately it's a tendency of human beings to claim to know more than they do, and to claim to have certain knowledge when they don't.
Notes;
1. I won't be going into mathematics in this post.
We can see this in the area of Origins. Darwinists like to claim that Evolution isn't a theory but a fact. By this they mean that it's certain knowledge. There's only one thing wrong with this claim; it's false. When you study the subject of Origins you see a collection of uncertainties that somehow is supposed to add up to a certainty.
A partial list of the uncertainties that somehow lead to the certainty of evolution;
First of all we have the subject of the origins of matter. There is no certain knowledge of how matter was created; and many have claimed it's eternal.
We have the matter of planet formation. There is no certain knowledge of how this happened.
There is the matter of the origin of living organisms here on earth. Again there is no certainty as to how this happened. Even materialists admit they have no idea how life spontaneously emerged.
Then we have the uncertain matter of how complex organisms came into being.
Then we have the matter of how highly complex information came into being. Again there is no certain knowledge to be had.
We can skip a few points and talk about human beings. There is no certain knowledge to be had as to their origin; nor is there with respect to things like intelligence and language.
To make a long story brief, what we see is a long string of uncertainties that our school teachers and professors insist (with vehemence) add up to the certainty called evolution. This is a claim that has no warrant in reality. It's a claim that has no basis in sound thinking. You can't add a bunch of uncertainties up and get a certainty.
There is nothing wrong with saying that evolution (M2M) is a theory. Somewhere along the way our thinking (at least at the elite level) has gone seriously wrong. People insist on making claims of certainty when such things are denied to them. We don't live in such a universe. The universe we live in is one where we must live with uncertainty. (This is not really a bad thing, though it's made out to be.)
There's nothing wrong with answering basic questions by saying; ''well, here's the consensus opinion on that,'' or ''here's our best ideas on that,'' or ''here's what some people and groups think''. The educational elite has no moral right to pass off a collection of uncertainties as a certain fact. This is an abuse of their responsibility to students, and to the public.
The basic problem here, as I see it, is the collectivization of the education process by the state; by the political process and the political elite. Were it not for the complete domination of the educational process by the political elite we would not have nearly so many people telling us Evolution was a certainty. It's only because students have been brainwashed on this issue that they become such fierce defenders of evolution, and such fierce opponents of creation. They've been brainwashed, but they don't seem to mind, or to even be aware that they were. (This is how one sided their education has been.) A decentralization of the education process would lead to a more balanced approach on issues like Origins.
Unfortunately it's a tendency of human beings to claim to know more than they do, and to claim to have certain knowledge when they don't.
Notes;
1. I won't be going into mathematics in this post.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
The Darwinists; and manufacturing problems
Anytime anyone disagrees with our Socialist elite they're branded as ignorant and bigoted. No one is allowed to disagree with them on any subject; and most especially the matter of Origins. Their long campaign to force everyone to accept their views continues on relentlessly.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'Britain is giving a “birthday present to Darwin,” wrote Andrew Copson for The Guardian, in the form of national curriculum for primary schools that will mention evolution for the first time – and prohibit teaching of creationism or intelligent design in science lessons. [1.]
- Notice how the Darwinian elite equate themselves with Britain itself. Britain of course isn't a person and can't hand out any birthday presents. (Let alone to some bones.)
B. 'The addition of evolution to elementary school curriculum was in response to a letter promoted by the British Humanist Association and signed by “scientists and experts.”
“Those who care about public reason are routinely shocked by opinion polls and surveys showing high levels of credence given to the idea of intelligent design. The most recent poll purported to demonstrate that a majority of Britons think that it should be taught alongside evolution in schools.
To solve this problem, we have to know what causes it and there are two reasons why you might prefer the idea of intelligent design to that of evolution." [1.]
- Problem? What problem? There's no problem here; only one manufactured by an atheist elite. This is called manufacturing problems. Here's how it works. Some elitist sees something he doesn't like. He then calls this a problem, and gets others in his tribe to call it a problem. To get people to pay attention they claim this 'problem' will have negative consequences for the country and maybe the world, and who knows... maybe even the universe. Then you ask your friends in Government to write some legislation forcing everyone to accept the 'solution' you've created to solve this 'problem' that is now threatening the well being of the entire planet (and perhaps the moon as well).
What this person really wants is for it to be illegal for anyone to hold a different view on origins than his own. (This sounds very much like the Thirty Years war to me; where it was illegal to hold certain theological views.)
Who cares what the majority of people think? Who cares who pays the taxes; who cares who has to fight the wars; who cares who makes the country function? That doesn't matter; all that matters is that the atheist elite get their way and force everyone to accept their ideas, and to brainwash children as they see fit. That's all that matters. (And people don't obey their masters, civilization will collapse, and the moon and stars will go out.)
B. "You may do so because your prior ideological convictions, mostly to do with religious belief, simply don’t allow you to accept the evidence that is presented to you. Or you may do so because you genuinely do not know of the evidence for evolution, have never had it explained to you, or because you just don’t understand it. In a society as decreasingly religious as England, it is impossible to believe that most of the people who do not accept evolution are motivated by ideology rather than ignorance. This means that the best way to solve the problem is through better education and that is what makes the inclusion of evolution in the science curriculum as early as possible so important.''
- I find that so repellent I don't have words for it. What he's saying is that if you're not an atheist it's because you're ignorant.
It apparently has never occurred to this savior of the nation, that he has biases of his own. He appears too self-deluded to contemplate such a thing. How a materialist, atheist and evolutionist can imagine (even for a second) he has no ideological convictions beggars the imagination.
How is such delusion possible? Is it a lack of educational training? Has he studied no philosophy? no logic? (Perhaps this is a 'problem' that needs to be fixed. Perhaps we need to get the government to force students to study logic and philosophy. A person can only be so self-deluded for two reasons; either it's a lack of education, or it's a refusal to accept the evidence.)
We see the old game of 'what you believe is religion, and what I believe is science'. This pretense has been tiresome for a long time. What this person has, and what people who believe in creation have, is a worldview. What we have here is not religion (whatever that means or doesn't mean) vs science; but one wview vs another wview.
I find it offensive to hear people claim I only believe in creation because I refuse to accept the evidence. This is schoolboy rhetoric. I'm well acquainted with the evidence as set out by all sides. (I'm sure I know the issues at least as well as Mr. Copson.) It's the height of incivility to claim people who don't agree with you are merely ignorant. (Did Frederick Hayek disagree with Marx because he was ignorant?)
What Mr. Copson is advocating isn't education (which we already have) but brainwashing. He's such a militant ideologue that he's willing to ignore the needs, abilities and desires of children and parents completely. They don't matter. All that matters is that everyone believes exactly the same things he does. (Is he willing to enforce all of his beliefs on people or only those relating to origins? How far is he willing to go to force everyone to march to the same drum beat?)
If you want to know where all this tyranny is headed all you have to do is look at the sad case of East Germany. While the country existed it was held up by our Leftists as some kind of utopia; not a word was spoken against it. In reality it was hell on earth, where every aspect of life (including science) was controlled by state bureaucrats. To this day our Socialist elite refuses to discusses the subject. Where are the books? Where are the movies? Where's the discussion? It's like no such place ever existed. [2.]
Summary; in the end the Socialists always come for your children. They offer a great many things, and all they want is your liberty, your soul (conscience) and your children.
Notes;
1. Darwin Marketed to Kids: Creation/Evolution Headlines 11/10/2009
2. How a Christian Family Stood Up to Tyranny: Creation/Evolution Headlines 11/10/2009
'When the Berlin wall fell 20 years ago, Dorothee Hubner first dared to think, “Are we allowed to leave and finally be free?” Her story and that of her parents Gerhard and Gertraude, scientists trapped in East Germany, was told by Andrew Curry, a freelance writer, in Science.
As an example of how scientists were impacted by socialist tyranny in East Germany;
"The pressure went beyond career and travel to petty indignities. Party members were given the best lab times. Non–party members could only use equipment between 1 a.m. and 3 a.m.," Gerhard recalls.
- This at least is better than how creationists are currently treated, as they get no lab time at all in many or most cases.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'Britain is giving a “birthday present to Darwin,” wrote Andrew Copson for The Guardian, in the form of national curriculum for primary schools that will mention evolution for the first time – and prohibit teaching of creationism or intelligent design in science lessons. [1.]
- Notice how the Darwinian elite equate themselves with Britain itself. Britain of course isn't a person and can't hand out any birthday presents. (Let alone to some bones.)
B. 'The addition of evolution to elementary school curriculum was in response to a letter promoted by the British Humanist Association and signed by “scientists and experts.”
“Those who care about public reason are routinely shocked by opinion polls and surveys showing high levels of credence given to the idea of intelligent design. The most recent poll purported to demonstrate that a majority of Britons think that it should be taught alongside evolution in schools.
To solve this problem, we have to know what causes it and there are two reasons why you might prefer the idea of intelligent design to that of evolution." [1.]
- Problem? What problem? There's no problem here; only one manufactured by an atheist elite. This is called manufacturing problems. Here's how it works. Some elitist sees something he doesn't like. He then calls this a problem, and gets others in his tribe to call it a problem. To get people to pay attention they claim this 'problem' will have negative consequences for the country and maybe the world, and who knows... maybe even the universe. Then you ask your friends in Government to write some legislation forcing everyone to accept the 'solution' you've created to solve this 'problem' that is now threatening the well being of the entire planet (and perhaps the moon as well).
What this person really wants is for it to be illegal for anyone to hold a different view on origins than his own. (This sounds very much like the Thirty Years war to me; where it was illegal to hold certain theological views.)
Who cares what the majority of people think? Who cares who pays the taxes; who cares who has to fight the wars; who cares who makes the country function? That doesn't matter; all that matters is that the atheist elite get their way and force everyone to accept their ideas, and to brainwash children as they see fit. That's all that matters. (And people don't obey their masters, civilization will collapse, and the moon and stars will go out.)
B. "You may do so because your prior ideological convictions, mostly to do with religious belief, simply don’t allow you to accept the evidence that is presented to you. Or you may do so because you genuinely do not know of the evidence for evolution, have never had it explained to you, or because you just don’t understand it. In a society as decreasingly religious as England, it is impossible to believe that most of the people who do not accept evolution are motivated by ideology rather than ignorance. This means that the best way to solve the problem is through better education and that is what makes the inclusion of evolution in the science curriculum as early as possible so important.''
- I find that so repellent I don't have words for it. What he's saying is that if you're not an atheist it's because you're ignorant.
It apparently has never occurred to this savior of the nation, that he has biases of his own. He appears too self-deluded to contemplate such a thing. How a materialist, atheist and evolutionist can imagine (even for a second) he has no ideological convictions beggars the imagination.
How is such delusion possible? Is it a lack of educational training? Has he studied no philosophy? no logic? (Perhaps this is a 'problem' that needs to be fixed. Perhaps we need to get the government to force students to study logic and philosophy. A person can only be so self-deluded for two reasons; either it's a lack of education, or it's a refusal to accept the evidence.)
We see the old game of 'what you believe is religion, and what I believe is science'. This pretense has been tiresome for a long time. What this person has, and what people who believe in creation have, is a worldview. What we have here is not religion (whatever that means or doesn't mean) vs science; but one wview vs another wview.
I find it offensive to hear people claim I only believe in creation because I refuse to accept the evidence. This is schoolboy rhetoric. I'm well acquainted with the evidence as set out by all sides. (I'm sure I know the issues at least as well as Mr. Copson.) It's the height of incivility to claim people who don't agree with you are merely ignorant. (Did Frederick Hayek disagree with Marx because he was ignorant?)
What Mr. Copson is advocating isn't education (which we already have) but brainwashing. He's such a militant ideologue that he's willing to ignore the needs, abilities and desires of children and parents completely. They don't matter. All that matters is that everyone believes exactly the same things he does. (Is he willing to enforce all of his beliefs on people or only those relating to origins? How far is he willing to go to force everyone to march to the same drum beat?)
If you want to know where all this tyranny is headed all you have to do is look at the sad case of East Germany. While the country existed it was held up by our Leftists as some kind of utopia; not a word was spoken against it. In reality it was hell on earth, where every aspect of life (including science) was controlled by state bureaucrats. To this day our Socialist elite refuses to discusses the subject. Where are the books? Where are the movies? Where's the discussion? It's like no such place ever existed. [2.]
Summary; in the end the Socialists always come for your children. They offer a great many things, and all they want is your liberty, your soul (conscience) and your children.
Notes;
1. Darwin Marketed to Kids: Creation/Evolution Headlines 11/10/2009
2. How a Christian Family Stood Up to Tyranny: Creation/Evolution Headlines 11/10/2009
'When the Berlin wall fell 20 years ago, Dorothee Hubner first dared to think, “Are we allowed to leave and finally be free?” Her story and that of her parents Gerhard and Gertraude, scientists trapped in East Germany, was told by Andrew Curry, a freelance writer, in Science.
As an example of how scientists were impacted by socialist tyranny in East Germany;
"The pressure went beyond career and travel to petty indignities. Party members were given the best lab times. Non–party members could only use equipment between 1 a.m. and 3 a.m.," Gerhard recalls.
- This at least is better than how creationists are currently treated, as they get no lab time at all in many or most cases.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
An introduction to Intelligent Design
For people who want a brief introduction to Intelligent Design I can recommend an essay in the book 'Debating design; from Darwin to DNA. In this post I'll comment briefly on the essay 'Who's afraid of ID?' by Angus Menuge.
Quotes and comments;
p/32. 'Intelligent Design (ID) argues that intelligent causes are capable of leaving empirically detectable marks in the natural world. Aspiring to be a scientific research program, ID purports to study the effects of intelligent causes in biology and cosmology. It claims that the best explanation for at least some of the appearance of design in nature is that this design is actual. Specifically, certain kinds of complex information found in the natural world are said to point convincingly to the work of an intelligent agency. [1.]
A prominent critic of ID that Menuge discusses is Barbara Forrest.
p/33. 'According to Forrest, the ID movement is “the most recent – and most dangerous – manifestation of creationism” (Forrest 2001, 5).
- This remark makes no sense to me. If all is matter in motion (as F. believes) how can anything be dangerous? i.e. if nothing has meaning, how can anything matter? If all is merely matter in motion why should it matter what happens; why should it matter that particles collide with particles?
What she's doing is taking theistic ideas and using them (without warrant) to attack ID. She's forgetting that she's merely a bit of matter drifting through the void. She forgets that her worldview renders everything meaningless. She's playing the game of placing bits and parts of her worldview in airtight compartments... and pretending they have nothing to do with one another.
There's no way the theory of evolution allows one to say anything is good or bad. One wonders how she manages to ignore this. If she wants us to take the evolutionary wview seriously shouldn't she take it seriously herself? In other words; while she claims to be a Materialist, she's using theistic ethics. Because she can't live in terms of her professed wview she pretends her metaphysics have nothing to do with her ethics. Apparently she thinks ethics is something one can fabricate out of thin air.
p/33. Furthermore, Forrest contends, ID “really has nothing to do with science”.
- That's a strange remark for a mindless bit of matter to make. Is she again forgetting who she is? that she's a mindless bit of matter drifting in a cosmic void? One might wonder how a mindless bit of matter can know such a thing?
One might wonder how a universal such as 'science' could exist in a materialistic (chance) universe. Once again she has no warrant for making her statement. Apparently she thinks she can ignore her wview whenever she happens to find it inconvenient. Apparently an intellectual doesn't need to demonstrate coherence in his or her thinking.
This remark by Forrest is typical of what we see in the science establishment. What we see is not a concern for truth, but an attempt by members of a certain group (materialists) to take over an entire field of endeavor. This has happened many times in the past; an obvious example being how humanists took over what were once christian universities. The current project to take over science (in the name of Materialism) is just more of the same. To see this all you have to do is ignore the noble sounding rhetoric and focus on the actions of this group.
33. [Forrest feels that] 'The real goal, apparently, is to make scientists think of the religious
implications of their work.'
- Can she know the 'real' goal of ID proponents without talking to them, without getting to know them? She's very talented if she can. (I get tired of academics telling us they have inside knowledge as to what people 'really' think, into what they're 'really' doing. All this mystification goes back to Freud who claimed to know what was going on with people far better than they knew themselves.
If we're all just bits of mindless matter one wonders how these crystal ball gazers can know these things. (For one thing they have to assume all people are the same; and this would mean believing all people are the same as they are. (Assuming everyone is the same is one of the major mistakes intellectuals of our day make.)
45. 'Of course, critics may claim that the real reason that proponents of ID find it difficult to publish is that they are mixing science and religion. This was commonplace in the writings of Newton, but modern science believes that the objectivity of its results depends on excluding religious interpretations.
- Science isn't a person; therefore it has no beliefs, nor can it. Over and over we see materialists like Forrest trying to conflate materialism and science.
Notes;
1. Debating design; from Darwin to DNA - editors; M. Ruse and W. Dembski
- essay; Who's afraid of ID? by Angus Menuge
Quotes and comments;
p/32. 'Intelligent Design (ID) argues that intelligent causes are capable of leaving empirically detectable marks in the natural world. Aspiring to be a scientific research program, ID purports to study the effects of intelligent causes in biology and cosmology. It claims that the best explanation for at least some of the appearance of design in nature is that this design is actual. Specifically, certain kinds of complex information found in the natural world are said to point convincingly to the work of an intelligent agency. [1.]
A prominent critic of ID that Menuge discusses is Barbara Forrest.
p/33. 'According to Forrest, the ID movement is “the most recent – and most dangerous – manifestation of creationism” (Forrest 2001, 5).
- This remark makes no sense to me. If all is matter in motion (as F. believes) how can anything be dangerous? i.e. if nothing has meaning, how can anything matter? If all is merely matter in motion why should it matter what happens; why should it matter that particles collide with particles?
What she's doing is taking theistic ideas and using them (without warrant) to attack ID. She's forgetting that she's merely a bit of matter drifting through the void. She forgets that her worldview renders everything meaningless. She's playing the game of placing bits and parts of her worldview in airtight compartments... and pretending they have nothing to do with one another.
There's no way the theory of evolution allows one to say anything is good or bad. One wonders how she manages to ignore this. If she wants us to take the evolutionary wview seriously shouldn't she take it seriously herself? In other words; while she claims to be a Materialist, she's using theistic ethics. Because she can't live in terms of her professed wview she pretends her metaphysics have nothing to do with her ethics. Apparently she thinks ethics is something one can fabricate out of thin air.
p/33. Furthermore, Forrest contends, ID “really has nothing to do with science”.
- That's a strange remark for a mindless bit of matter to make. Is she again forgetting who she is? that she's a mindless bit of matter drifting in a cosmic void? One might wonder how a mindless bit of matter can know such a thing?
One might wonder how a universal such as 'science' could exist in a materialistic (chance) universe. Once again she has no warrant for making her statement. Apparently she thinks she can ignore her wview whenever she happens to find it inconvenient. Apparently an intellectual doesn't need to demonstrate coherence in his or her thinking.
This remark by Forrest is typical of what we see in the science establishment. What we see is not a concern for truth, but an attempt by members of a certain group (materialists) to take over an entire field of endeavor. This has happened many times in the past; an obvious example being how humanists took over what were once christian universities. The current project to take over science (in the name of Materialism) is just more of the same. To see this all you have to do is ignore the noble sounding rhetoric and focus on the actions of this group.
33. [Forrest feels that] 'The real goal, apparently, is to make scientists think of the religious
implications of their work.'
- Can she know the 'real' goal of ID proponents without talking to them, without getting to know them? She's very talented if she can. (I get tired of academics telling us they have inside knowledge as to what people 'really' think, into what they're 'really' doing. All this mystification goes back to Freud who claimed to know what was going on with people far better than they knew themselves.
If we're all just bits of mindless matter one wonders how these crystal ball gazers can know these things. (For one thing they have to assume all people are the same; and this would mean believing all people are the same as they are. (Assuming everyone is the same is one of the major mistakes intellectuals of our day make.)
45. 'Of course, critics may claim that the real reason that proponents of ID find it difficult to publish is that they are mixing science and religion. This was commonplace in the writings of Newton, but modern science believes that the objectivity of its results depends on excluding religious interpretations.
- Science isn't a person; therefore it has no beliefs, nor can it. Over and over we see materialists like Forrest trying to conflate materialism and science.
Notes;
1. Debating design; from Darwin to DNA - editors; M. Ruse and W. Dembski
- essay; Who's afraid of ID? by Angus Menuge
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Darwinism; solving problems that don't exist
It's my contention that what's popularly known as Darwinism is a project devoted to solving non-existent problems. These 'problems' are caused by adopting the worldview of Materialism. I'll look briefly at one example.
Quotes and comments;
A. The “evolutionary cost of males,” a problem that perplexed Darwin, was addressed in a press release posted by Science Daily. [1. full quote in notes]
- How strange do you have to be, to be perplexed by a 'problem' (non-existent) like this? Is it necessary to point out that this isn't a problem at all; that only the philosophically deluded imagine it's a problem? (Don't we have enough problems? Do we really need to invent problems for ourselves? But I guess it's a good make-work project.) Only if one accepts Materialism (with its necessary correlate Evolution) is this a problem.
This is an example of the kind of pseudo science that dominates so much of academia. What for instance would be the point of such an 'investigation'? What would one do with the results? Anything? What's the relationship between this 'study' and the real world? What's the connection to society? What good is such 'research'? Why would one bother? Apparently questions like these don't matter when one has access to the public trough.
Evolutionary theory makes 'problems' out of everything; and then materialists go out and try to 'solve' these non-existent problems... and all this nonsense is called science. Because the basic assumption (materialism) is wrong; this world view produces a never ending series of false conclusions and false theories. In trying to present explanations (stories) for why things are the way they are, they produce a seemingly endless list of problems to be solved. This is Pandora's box with a vengeance. Being based on a false assumption, the theories it generates can never be true. It ends up being a make work project to last for eternity. (In other words, this is every academic's dream come true.)
Only those deluded by Darwinism wonder why sex exists. This 'problem' only occurs to people who see human beings as animals, or as bits of matter in motion. [If they really don't know the answer, they can try reading the bible.] This is just one example of all the 'problems' that spring up when people abandon biblical creation.
B. As an example of how deluded this kind of Darwinian thinking can get;
“We are proposing a new way to look at religion – as a strategy to advance evolutionary goals,” announced Yexin Jessica Li at Arizona State University in Tempe. [2.]
- This goofball has 'solved' another non-existent problem; namely how to give an evolutionary account of religion. (i.e. 'Since there isn't a god how do we explain the prevalence of religion? This is a very big problem that we need to work on... if only we could get funding.')
Once your basic assumption is wrong, everything you come up with will be wrong. (i.e. once Materialism is adopted, evolution is necessarily adopted; and once E. is adopted as the basis for explanation, all your explanations will be wrong.)
Summary; in my opinion the only reason we get useless 'research' like this is that we suffer under a Socialist system of government. No one would waste their time with this kind of thing if the State wasn't paying for it, and wasn't making it possible. It's hard for me to imagine that any person would devote themselves to such a question on their own, and it's hard for me to imagine any private concern financing such a clownish undertaking. What we see here isn't true science, but political and social faddishness.
Notes;
1. Darwinizing Everything: Creation/Evolution Headlines 11/16/2009
Nov 16, 2009 — 150 years after The Origin of Species, it’s clear that Darwin succeeded in one thing: granting biologists free rein to speculate about how everything under the sun evolved.
Composite explanation for sex: The “evolutionary cost of males,” a problem that perplexed Darwin, was addressed in a press release posted by Science Daily. Researchers at the University of Oregon, some of whom are male, were able to reassure themselves that the benefits of males outweigh their costs. “Many scientists have argued that outcrossing [e.g., sex] has evolved to avoid the genetic consequences of inbreeding, while others have emphasized the role that outcrossing plays in generating the genetic variation necessary for evolutionary change,” explained Patrick Phillips. So which is it? “Our work shows that both of these factors are important,” he said, while admitting earlier, “biologists going all the way back to Charles Darwin have been puzzled why sexual reproduction via outcrossing exists at all.”
- The professors claim to know why reproduction exists, but they don't tell you how it came about. (That they can't is a trade secret.)
2. see above; under Romantic Religion
3. How people can claim we don't have enough scientists when we have people wasting time on such trivial and pointless pursuits as this I don't know. (But then again maybe these people aren't real scientists at all.)
Quotes and comments;
A. The “evolutionary cost of males,” a problem that perplexed Darwin, was addressed in a press release posted by Science Daily. [1. full quote in notes]
- How strange do you have to be, to be perplexed by a 'problem' (non-existent) like this? Is it necessary to point out that this isn't a problem at all; that only the philosophically deluded imagine it's a problem? (Don't we have enough problems? Do we really need to invent problems for ourselves? But I guess it's a good make-work project.) Only if one accepts Materialism (with its necessary correlate Evolution) is this a problem.
This is an example of the kind of pseudo science that dominates so much of academia. What for instance would be the point of such an 'investigation'? What would one do with the results? Anything? What's the relationship between this 'study' and the real world? What's the connection to society? What good is such 'research'? Why would one bother? Apparently questions like these don't matter when one has access to the public trough.
Evolutionary theory makes 'problems' out of everything; and then materialists go out and try to 'solve' these non-existent problems... and all this nonsense is called science. Because the basic assumption (materialism) is wrong; this world view produces a never ending series of false conclusions and false theories. In trying to present explanations (stories) for why things are the way they are, they produce a seemingly endless list of problems to be solved. This is Pandora's box with a vengeance. Being based on a false assumption, the theories it generates can never be true. It ends up being a make work project to last for eternity. (In other words, this is every academic's dream come true.)
Only those deluded by Darwinism wonder why sex exists. This 'problem' only occurs to people who see human beings as animals, or as bits of matter in motion. [If they really don't know the answer, they can try reading the bible.] This is just one example of all the 'problems' that spring up when people abandon biblical creation.
B. As an example of how deluded this kind of Darwinian thinking can get;
“We are proposing a new way to look at religion – as a strategy to advance evolutionary goals,” announced Yexin Jessica Li at Arizona State University in Tempe. [2.]
- This goofball has 'solved' another non-existent problem; namely how to give an evolutionary account of religion. (i.e. 'Since there isn't a god how do we explain the prevalence of religion? This is a very big problem that we need to work on... if only we could get funding.')
Once your basic assumption is wrong, everything you come up with will be wrong. (i.e. once Materialism is adopted, evolution is necessarily adopted; and once E. is adopted as the basis for explanation, all your explanations will be wrong.)
Summary; in my opinion the only reason we get useless 'research' like this is that we suffer under a Socialist system of government. No one would waste their time with this kind of thing if the State wasn't paying for it, and wasn't making it possible. It's hard for me to imagine that any person would devote themselves to such a question on their own, and it's hard for me to imagine any private concern financing such a clownish undertaking. What we see here isn't true science, but political and social faddishness.
Notes;
1. Darwinizing Everything: Creation/Evolution Headlines 11/16/2009
Nov 16, 2009 — 150 years after The Origin of Species, it’s clear that Darwin succeeded in one thing: granting biologists free rein to speculate about how everything under the sun evolved.
Composite explanation for sex: The “evolutionary cost of males,” a problem that perplexed Darwin, was addressed in a press release posted by Science Daily. Researchers at the University of Oregon, some of whom are male, were able to reassure themselves that the benefits of males outweigh their costs. “Many scientists have argued that outcrossing [e.g., sex] has evolved to avoid the genetic consequences of inbreeding, while others have emphasized the role that outcrossing plays in generating the genetic variation necessary for evolutionary change,” explained Patrick Phillips. So which is it? “Our work shows that both of these factors are important,” he said, while admitting earlier, “biologists going all the way back to Charles Darwin have been puzzled why sexual reproduction via outcrossing exists at all.”
- The professors claim to know why reproduction exists, but they don't tell you how it came about. (That they can't is a trade secret.)
2. see above; under Romantic Religion
3. How people can claim we don't have enough scientists when we have people wasting time on such trivial and pointless pursuits as this I don't know. (But then again maybe these people aren't real scientists at all.)
Monday, February 15, 2010
Darwingate
A key question of the day is whether we can trust the scientific establishment to be honest in their dealings with the general public. The widespread deceit involved in selling the global warming thesis has brought such concerns to a head.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'Scientists are only human. Objectivity may be a noble aspiration; empiricism a worthy goal – but recent scandals illustrate the propensity for large-scale manipulation and misdirection by the very people supposedly devoted to intellectual integrity. [1.]
B. "A week ago, hackers released 160 mb of emails, data, and computer code from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. The data extends back a decade, and rather clearly documents an astonishing pattern of manipulation of evidence, concealment of doubts about whether the validity of global warming, destruction of data not favorable to global warming, fantasizing violence against prominent climate skeptic scientists, and a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. The data reveal extensive scientific misconduct and even criminal fraud in the top echelons of the pro-global warming scientific community. [2.]
- It's my opinion (and I think it's backed up by Terabytes of evidence) that a similar scandal has been (and is) going on with regards to Darwinism.
There has been a huge amount of manipulation of evidence; as every story (on the subject of origins, etc.) in the popular media is given a favorable Darwinian spin.
There has been massive concealment of doubt. The popular press (e.g. the science magazines) refuses to allow doubt into the picture; scientists who do doubt keep quiet and are told to keep quiet.
There has been massive destruction of data; in that any data not supporting the Darwinian picture are thrown out. (e.g. any inconvenient dates of rocks or fossils)
There is massive abuse directed against skeptics of Darwinism within the scientific establishment. (e.g. emails expressing pure hate, denials of tenure, firings, etc.)
There has been a long campaign to keep skeptics from access to journals. One could go on; the similarities are massive.
- The notion that 'science' (i.e. scientists) is a neutral business is one of the great myths of our day. It's as neutral as grants from governments and businesses. It's as neutral as politics, and as neutral as human nature. The people who run PC science are committed enemies of anything creationist; and they've shown themselves willing to use any underhanded strategy on the book in their campaign to defend materialism and discredit creation.
- In our day the field known as science has been invaded by all kinds of non-scientific interests and agendas. We're no longer merely talking about things we can measure (e.g. speed of light) and describe, but about how people view the world, how they view other people and society. What happens is that political and philosophical views get confused with science; and deliberately confused in many cases. (This leads to calling what you like scientific, and what you don't like non-scientific, or even anti-scientific.) A goodly portion of what passes for science is no more scientific than snake oil. (e.g. evolutionary psychology)
- Does anyone imagine that the people involved in 'Climategate' would be honest about the Origins issue? (I sometimes wonder if anyone is.) The sad truth is that the more deeply people care about something the more likely they are to lie about it.
Notes;
1. Can Scientists Conspire to Mislead? Creation/Evolution Headlines 11/26/2009
2. Chris Mooney turns a climate trick - Evolution News
- an important article.
3. The PC Left has tried to sweep all this under the rug. Writers like Charlie Stross dismissed it as trivial, while Peter Watts claimed it was a non-story, merely the way science is done. ("There is none that telleth the truth, no not one.") Apparently things are too serious for anyone to be concerned about honesty.
- I remember this from reading Charlie's blog. [antipope.org]
Quotes and comments;
A. 'Scientists are only human. Objectivity may be a noble aspiration; empiricism a worthy goal – but recent scandals illustrate the propensity for large-scale manipulation and misdirection by the very people supposedly devoted to intellectual integrity. [1.]
B. "A week ago, hackers released 160 mb of emails, data, and computer code from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. The data extends back a decade, and rather clearly documents an astonishing pattern of manipulation of evidence, concealment of doubts about whether the validity of global warming, destruction of data not favorable to global warming, fantasizing violence against prominent climate skeptic scientists, and a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. The data reveal extensive scientific misconduct and even criminal fraud in the top echelons of the pro-global warming scientific community. [2.]
- It's my opinion (and I think it's backed up by Terabytes of evidence) that a similar scandal has been (and is) going on with regards to Darwinism.
There has been a huge amount of manipulation of evidence; as every story (on the subject of origins, etc.) in the popular media is given a favorable Darwinian spin.
There has been massive concealment of doubt. The popular press (e.g. the science magazines) refuses to allow doubt into the picture; scientists who do doubt keep quiet and are told to keep quiet.
There has been massive destruction of data; in that any data not supporting the Darwinian picture are thrown out. (e.g. any inconvenient dates of rocks or fossils)
There is massive abuse directed against skeptics of Darwinism within the scientific establishment. (e.g. emails expressing pure hate, denials of tenure, firings, etc.)
There has been a long campaign to keep skeptics from access to journals. One could go on; the similarities are massive.
- The notion that 'science' (i.e. scientists) is a neutral business is one of the great myths of our day. It's as neutral as grants from governments and businesses. It's as neutral as politics, and as neutral as human nature. The people who run PC science are committed enemies of anything creationist; and they've shown themselves willing to use any underhanded strategy on the book in their campaign to defend materialism and discredit creation.
- In our day the field known as science has been invaded by all kinds of non-scientific interests and agendas. We're no longer merely talking about things we can measure (e.g. speed of light) and describe, but about how people view the world, how they view other people and society. What happens is that political and philosophical views get confused with science; and deliberately confused in many cases. (This leads to calling what you like scientific, and what you don't like non-scientific, or even anti-scientific.) A goodly portion of what passes for science is no more scientific than snake oil. (e.g. evolutionary psychology)
- Does anyone imagine that the people involved in 'Climategate' would be honest about the Origins issue? (I sometimes wonder if anyone is.) The sad truth is that the more deeply people care about something the more likely they are to lie about it.
Notes;
1. Can Scientists Conspire to Mislead? Creation/Evolution Headlines 11/26/2009
2. Chris Mooney turns a climate trick - Evolution News
- an important article.
3. The PC Left has tried to sweep all this under the rug. Writers like Charlie Stross dismissed it as trivial, while Peter Watts claimed it was a non-story, merely the way science is done. ("There is none that telleth the truth, no not one.") Apparently things are too serious for anyone to be concerned about honesty.
- I remember this from reading Charlie's blog. [antipope.org]
Creation, evolution and epistemology
In reading a book a book on epistemology (by Nicholas Rescher) it struck me that the whole subject provided strong evidence against the veracity of evolutionary theory.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'The need for knowledge is part and parcel to our nature. A deep-rooted demand for information and understanding presses in on us, and we have little choice but to satisfy it. Once the ball is set rolling it keeps on under its own momentum—far beyond the limits of strictly practical necessity. [1.]
- In my opinion, Rescher has just refuted evolutionary theory, but doesn't see it.
If man is just an animal why does he have this need for knowledge? Why don't all animals have it then? This makes no sense to me. (But then I'm not up for tenure.)
It makes no sense to me to compare the quest for knowledge to the physics of a rolling ball. I must be missing something. (Maybe one of those obligatory courses in Darwinian indoctrination.) This is about as poor an analogy as I can imagine. Apparently all of man's intellectual heritage can be accounted for by the laws of motion.
B. 'For sure, knowledge brings great benefits. The relief of ignorance is foremost among them.We have evolved within nature into the ecological niche of an intelligent being. In consequence, the need for understanding, for “knowing one’s way about,” is one of the most fundamental demands of the human condition. [2.]
- Evolved into intelligence eh? We're supposed to believe that the loss of information possessed by a monkey leads to the wonder of human intelligence? I don't think that people who accept a 'howler' like that (speaking of monkeys) are thinking critically enough. I see no way that copying mistakes could lead to human intelligence. This is like trying to climb a mountain by falling down.
I'm still waiting for someone to explain how the loss of information (which is what mutations are) can lead to the gaining of new functions. If this were the case old age (with its loss of memory) would lead to ever increasing intelligence.
C. 'Knowledge is a situational imperative for us humans to acquire information about the world. Homo sapiens is a creature that must, by its very nature, feel cognitively at home in the world. The requirement for information, for cognitive orientation within our environment, is as pressing a human need as that for food itself. The basic human urge to make sense of things is a characteristic aspect of our makeup—we cannot live a satisfactory life in an environment we do not understand.'
- I see no evidence animals have this need. (I also see no evidence they need to go to school, or need an education.) I conclude therefore, that man is not an animal. The implication of this is that E. theory (as currently propagated in textbooks and in/on the popular media) is incorrect. Thus Rescher has shown the inadequacy of evolutionary (M2M) theory. I see this as evidence that even people who affirm Darwinism know (at the very least) that it's a woefully inadequate explanation of reality.
D. 'For us intelligent creatures, cognitive orientation is itself a practical need: cognitive disorientation is physically stressful and distressing.'
- Let's remember now that in terms of e. theory all human thinking, feeling and behavior must be explained in terms of various genes, that were produced by a process of blind chance and random mutation. Our question then is this; does E. theory do a good job of explaining man's deepest intellectual desires? (But perhaps you don't feel the pain over these questions that professor Rescher does.)
Rescher spoke earlier of the desire for philosophical coherence (between various truth claims). I ask you; is there a good Darwinian explanation for such a thing? Is there one that's true? Is there one that makes any sense? Is there one that's coherent? (Maybe good philosophers produce more progeny.)
- M. Johnson
Notes;
1. Epistemology - Rescher 2003 (Introduction; xvii)
2. To the best of my knowledge Rescher accepts the theory of evolution.
- Rescher needs some relief from ignorance himself. I see his belief in the Darwinism as part of the weary surrender by our intellectuals to the Darwinian bullies.
3. When using the term evolution in this post I'm referring to macro (M2M) evolution.
4. M. Johnson [frfarer at Gmail.com]
Quotes and comments;
A. 'The need for knowledge is part and parcel to our nature. A deep-rooted demand for information and understanding presses in on us, and we have little choice but to satisfy it. Once the ball is set rolling it keeps on under its own momentum—far beyond the limits of strictly practical necessity. [1.]
- In my opinion, Rescher has just refuted evolutionary theory, but doesn't see it.
If man is just an animal why does he have this need for knowledge? Why don't all animals have it then? This makes no sense to me. (But then I'm not up for tenure.)
It makes no sense to me to compare the quest for knowledge to the physics of a rolling ball. I must be missing something. (Maybe one of those obligatory courses in Darwinian indoctrination.) This is about as poor an analogy as I can imagine. Apparently all of man's intellectual heritage can be accounted for by the laws of motion.
B. 'For sure, knowledge brings great benefits. The relief of ignorance is foremost among them.We have evolved within nature into the ecological niche of an intelligent being. In consequence, the need for understanding, for “knowing one’s way about,” is one of the most fundamental demands of the human condition. [2.]
- Evolved into intelligence eh? We're supposed to believe that the loss of information possessed by a monkey leads to the wonder of human intelligence? I don't think that people who accept a 'howler' like that (speaking of monkeys) are thinking critically enough. I see no way that copying mistakes could lead to human intelligence. This is like trying to climb a mountain by falling down.
I'm still waiting for someone to explain how the loss of information (which is what mutations are) can lead to the gaining of new functions. If this were the case old age (with its loss of memory) would lead to ever increasing intelligence.
C. 'Knowledge is a situational imperative for us humans to acquire information about the world. Homo sapiens is a creature that must, by its very nature, feel cognitively at home in the world. The requirement for information, for cognitive orientation within our environment, is as pressing a human need as that for food itself. The basic human urge to make sense of things is a characteristic aspect of our makeup—we cannot live a satisfactory life in an environment we do not understand.'
- I see no evidence animals have this need. (I also see no evidence they need to go to school, or need an education.) I conclude therefore, that man is not an animal. The implication of this is that E. theory (as currently propagated in textbooks and in/on the popular media) is incorrect. Thus Rescher has shown the inadequacy of evolutionary (M2M) theory. I see this as evidence that even people who affirm Darwinism know (at the very least) that it's a woefully inadequate explanation of reality.
D. 'For us intelligent creatures, cognitive orientation is itself a practical need: cognitive disorientation is physically stressful and distressing.'
- Let's remember now that in terms of e. theory all human thinking, feeling and behavior must be explained in terms of various genes, that were produced by a process of blind chance and random mutation. Our question then is this; does E. theory do a good job of explaining man's deepest intellectual desires? (But perhaps you don't feel the pain over these questions that professor Rescher does.)
Rescher spoke earlier of the desire for philosophical coherence (between various truth claims). I ask you; is there a good Darwinian explanation for such a thing? Is there one that's true? Is there one that makes any sense? Is there one that's coherent? (Maybe good philosophers produce more progeny.)
- M. Johnson
Notes;
1. Epistemology - Rescher 2003 (Introduction; xvii)
2. To the best of my knowledge Rescher accepts the theory of evolution.
- Rescher needs some relief from ignorance himself. I see his belief in the Darwinism as part of the weary surrender by our intellectuals to the Darwinian bullies.
3. When using the term evolution in this post I'm referring to macro (M2M) evolution.
4. M. Johnson [frfarer at Gmail.com]
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
The appearance of design language
As each new discovery in cellular biology comes to light, the materialistic model sinks a little more, as it shows itself incapable of addressing the new complexities. Evidence for this claim can be seen in the numerous ID references within the texts written by evolutionists.
Quotes and comments;
A. Oct 10, 2009 — A discovery rivalling the elucidation of the genetic code is the structure of the ribosome – the “molecular machine” that translates the DNA code into proteins. [1.]
- David Hume once famously said that nothing in creation could legitimately compared to a machine, but yet modern evolutionists do this all the time.
e.g. Nobel prize winner Professor Ramakrishnan told BBC News that until the ribosome's atomic structure was determined, "we knew this was a large molecular machine that translated genetic code to make proteins, but we didn't know how it worked". [2.]
''Inside every cell in all organisms, there are DNA molecules. They contain the blueprints for how a human being, a plant or a bacterium, looks and functions. But the DNA molecule is passive. If there was nothing else, there would be no life.'' [1.]
- To refer to 'blueprints' in the cell is to borrow ID language. Maybe the authors could tell us whether these are blueprints, or only the appearance of blueprints.
B. "Based upon the information in DNA, ribosomes make proteins, oxygen-transporting haemoglobin, antibodies of the immune system, hormones such as insulin, the collagen of the skin, or enzymes that break down sugar." [and so much more]
- This is more ID language. One might like to ask them where this information comes from. We might ask Richard Dawkins if this is information? or only the appearance of information?
We see here that living organisms are dependent upon codes, complex information, and code reading machines. This refutes dumbed down theories of materialism. These researchers have Intelligence staring them in the face but an allegiance to materialism prevents them from seeing it. [In other words academic politics trumps truth.]
C. "An understanding of the ribosome’s innermost workings is important for a scientific understanding of life.''
- I don't like the way this proposition is phrased. It's confusing to speak of 'life' as if it were a thing. In my opinion this statement would better worded to read; ''An understanding of the ribosome's innermost workings is important for an understanding of how living organisms function." [The adjective 'scientific' adds nothing.]
In my opinion there is no such thing as life. All the myriad of living creatures are alive in different ways. While it's true many of the processes involved are the same or very similar, we shouldn't ignore the differences. (e.g. does it make sense to say pond scum and penguins both have life?)
Notes;
1. Chemistry Nobel Celebrates Cell Complexity: Creation/Evolution Headlines 10/10/2009
2. Noble prize for chemistry of life; BBC
3. 'Untangling the complexity of this multi-part system won three scientists the Nobel Prize for Chemistry (see BBC News). The winners are Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, Thomas Steitz and Ada Yonath.
4. As each new discovery in cellular biology comes to light, the materialistic model sinks a little more, as it shows itself incapable of addressing the subject at hand. The idea that physical laws acting upon matter could produce living organisms is looking more and more implausible. Time was supposed to be the hero that could accomplish miracles, but now this hero is stranded on a rock with the tide coming in. The water is now up to his neck, and rising fast.
Quotes and comments;
A. Oct 10, 2009 — A discovery rivalling the elucidation of the genetic code is the structure of the ribosome – the “molecular machine” that translates the DNA code into proteins. [1.]
- David Hume once famously said that nothing in creation could legitimately compared to a machine, but yet modern evolutionists do this all the time.
e.g. Nobel prize winner Professor Ramakrishnan told BBC News that until the ribosome's atomic structure was determined, "we knew this was a large molecular machine that translated genetic code to make proteins, but we didn't know how it worked". [2.]
''Inside every cell in all organisms, there are DNA molecules. They contain the blueprints for how a human being, a plant or a bacterium, looks and functions. But the DNA molecule is passive. If there was nothing else, there would be no life.'' [1.]
- To refer to 'blueprints' in the cell is to borrow ID language. Maybe the authors could tell us whether these are blueprints, or only the appearance of blueprints.
B. "Based upon the information in DNA, ribosomes make proteins, oxygen-transporting haemoglobin, antibodies of the immune system, hormones such as insulin, the collagen of the skin, or enzymes that break down sugar." [and so much more]
- This is more ID language. One might like to ask them where this information comes from. We might ask Richard Dawkins if this is information? or only the appearance of information?
We see here that living organisms are dependent upon codes, complex information, and code reading machines. This refutes dumbed down theories of materialism. These researchers have Intelligence staring them in the face but an allegiance to materialism prevents them from seeing it. [In other words academic politics trumps truth.]
C. "An understanding of the ribosome’s innermost workings is important for a scientific understanding of life.''
- I don't like the way this proposition is phrased. It's confusing to speak of 'life' as if it were a thing. In my opinion this statement would better worded to read; ''An understanding of the ribosome's innermost workings is important for an understanding of how living organisms function." [The adjective 'scientific' adds nothing.]
In my opinion there is no such thing as life. All the myriad of living creatures are alive in different ways. While it's true many of the processes involved are the same or very similar, we shouldn't ignore the differences. (e.g. does it make sense to say pond scum and penguins both have life?)
Notes;
1. Chemistry Nobel Celebrates Cell Complexity: Creation/Evolution Headlines 10/10/2009
2. Noble prize for chemistry of life; BBC
3. 'Untangling the complexity of this multi-part system won three scientists the Nobel Prize for Chemistry (see BBC News). The winners are Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, Thomas Steitz and Ada Yonath.
4. As each new discovery in cellular biology comes to light, the materialistic model sinks a little more, as it shows itself incapable of addressing the subject at hand. The idea that physical laws acting upon matter could produce living organisms is looking more and more implausible. Time was supposed to be the hero that could accomplish miracles, but now this hero is stranded on a rock with the tide coming in. The water is now up to his neck, and rising fast.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Burning man? Or the burning out of man?
The Burning Man festival in 2009 featured the theme of evolution. What were these lovable goofs up to this time? Let's take a look.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'One would think respectable scientists would distance themselves from this theater of the absurd. This year, however, four Darwinists welcomed it and joined in, and Nature gave them good press, calling it “a creative celebration of evolution.” As a matter of fact, “Evolution” was the theme of this year’s Burning Man Festival. [1.]
- A creative celebration of a process that doesn't exist? I guess burning a gigantic image of a man makes sense in that case.
This ritual burning of a man is interesting. Since Materialism involves the death of man (as traditionally known) I guess this is appropriate. [2.]
B. 'But what does the Burning Man rite have to do with evolutionary theory? Using a slew of evolutionary buzzwords, they tried to explain:
"This year, the 12-metre human shape hovered over a thorny forest – a tangled bank – atop a giant double helix. The DNA molecule provided a powerful artistic meme, representing both life’s capacity to evolve through genetics, and perhaps something that needs to be overcome through non-genetic evolutionary paths.''
- There is no such thing as life; when used this way the word is just an abstraction. Life has no capacity to evolve as 'life' is a mere abstraction. What we have in the world are living organisms; we do not have some entity called life floating around. (This kind of abstractionism is a relic of ancient Greek philosophy; where abstract qualities were thought to have actual existence. On a the popular level these abstractions of the philosophers were reified and turned into gods.)
Abstractions aren't alive, and they aren't intelligent; therefore they have no ability to create complex, specified information.
- To talk of DNA as an 'artistic' meme is to use the language of ID. (i.e. the creator as an artist)
- I thought everything was genetic when seen in a Darwinian light.
- How can something that's not genetic have an evolutionary path? (i.e. Evolution doesn't mean anything if it doesn't refer to genetics)
C. "Viewed from a different angle, the man seemed to float above a field of sea lilies, placing this celebration of human consciousness in an ancient evolutionary context.
The most striking image at this year’s Burning Man, expressed in various ways across the city, was the famous “ascent of man” progression from great ape through to modern human, with the Burning Man icon representing the next step."
- The burning out of man as a symbol for Darwinism; it's appropriate and powerful. What we see in Darwinism is the burning out of the old materialist world view. Recent discoveries about the cell have left the 'theory' too intelligently deficient to survive in the modern world.
People who imagine man 'evolved' from a great ape have been 'burning' too many funny cigarettes. This theory (bit of materialist speculation) was born in the days before information. [BI] It's a theory that cannot survive the recent (ongoing) discoveries in cell based information. (The burning man of darwinism doesn't have a leg to stand on... it's tottering and will soon fall.) The ape to man theory (painted picture) was created when people had no idea of the requirements for new and complex information... in a day when people didn't realize there was such a thing as the genetic code. Darwin's theory is as dead as the ashes from a fire.
D. "At a symposium entitled ‘Evolution and Society’, we asked how society has interpreted evolution and whether, despite its shadowy past, its principles can guide us to a much-needed behavioural shift towards sustainability.''
- Does this person know anything about evolutionary theory? Isn't he aware that 'evolution' has no principles? (Only persons have principles.)
What we see here is a synthetic mix of new age paganism and darwinism; a mix that has no coherence or meaning.
We see here how a word that once had some scientific meaning has now devolved into a word as meaningless as change. ["We need evolution, and we need it now."] It's suffered death at the hands of pop culture. We might look at the burning man as the going up in flames of a once useful word.
Having looked at a lot of photographs from the festival I have the impression evolution means not wearing a bra. (I guess this produces evolutionary change.) It apparently also has something to do with dressing up as an alien. (This must be the famous dress up gene at work I guess.)
E. "In the rampant transfer of culture at Burning Man, on a par with endosymbiotic events, we see hope."
- Hope? I thought all was merely matter in motion. Where did this ghost you call hope come from? (But I guess any otherworldly freak at all is allowed into the festival.) Hope can only be a delusion if materialism is the true worldview.
Endosymbiotic;
- 'An endosymbiont is any organism that lives within the body or cells of another organism, i.e. forming an endosymbiosis (Greek: ἔνδον endon "within", σύν syn "together" and βίωσις biosis "living"). Examples are nitrogen-fixing bacteria (called rhizobia) which live in root nodules on legume roots, single-celled algae inside reef-building corals, and bacterial endosymbionts that provide essential nutrients to about 10%–15% of insects."
- I guess they're calling themselves parasites; I don't know.
F. "Evolution is evoked here on many levels: the adaptation and thriving of the individual in this extreme environment, the various camps as interactive and artistic spaces, the city as it alters over the seven days and from year to year, exhibiting emergent properties of altruism, shared community and free expression.
- I can only laugh at hearing members of our pampered class call this sandbox for adults an extreme environment.
G. ‘Burners’ become extremophiles. With resources scarce in the desert, intense sharing is the most efficient practice, suggesting that humans may yet realize a sustainable evolutionary trajectory.''
- Apparently 'sustainability' means going to the supermarket and loading up the van with food and drink and taking it out to the desert.
- M. Johnson [frfarer at gmail.com]
Notes;
1. Darwinists Celebrate Raunchy Pagan Festival Creation/Evolution Headlines 10/10/2009
2. The book of Romans refers to the burning out of man; to homosexuality as the burnt out embers of man; of man in the final stages of his apostasy.
3. Burning man photos
Quotes and comments;
A. 'One would think respectable scientists would distance themselves from this theater of the absurd. This year, however, four Darwinists welcomed it and joined in, and Nature gave them good press, calling it “a creative celebration of evolution.” As a matter of fact, “Evolution” was the theme of this year’s Burning Man Festival. [1.]
- A creative celebration of a process that doesn't exist? I guess burning a gigantic image of a man makes sense in that case.
This ritual burning of a man is interesting. Since Materialism involves the death of man (as traditionally known) I guess this is appropriate. [2.]
B. 'But what does the Burning Man rite have to do with evolutionary theory? Using a slew of evolutionary buzzwords, they tried to explain:
"This year, the 12-metre human shape hovered over a thorny forest – a tangled bank – atop a giant double helix. The DNA molecule provided a powerful artistic meme, representing both life’s capacity to evolve through genetics, and perhaps something that needs to be overcome through non-genetic evolutionary paths.''
- There is no such thing as life; when used this way the word is just an abstraction. Life has no capacity to evolve as 'life' is a mere abstraction. What we have in the world are living organisms; we do not have some entity called life floating around. (This kind of abstractionism is a relic of ancient Greek philosophy; where abstract qualities were thought to have actual existence. On a the popular level these abstractions of the philosophers were reified and turned into gods.)
Abstractions aren't alive, and they aren't intelligent; therefore they have no ability to create complex, specified information.
- To talk of DNA as an 'artistic' meme is to use the language of ID. (i.e. the creator as an artist)
- I thought everything was genetic when seen in a Darwinian light.
- How can something that's not genetic have an evolutionary path? (i.e. Evolution doesn't mean anything if it doesn't refer to genetics)
C. "Viewed from a different angle, the man seemed to float above a field of sea lilies, placing this celebration of human consciousness in an ancient evolutionary context.
The most striking image at this year’s Burning Man, expressed in various ways across the city, was the famous “ascent of man” progression from great ape through to modern human, with the Burning Man icon representing the next step."
- The burning out of man as a symbol for Darwinism; it's appropriate and powerful. What we see in Darwinism is the burning out of the old materialist world view. Recent discoveries about the cell have left the 'theory' too intelligently deficient to survive in the modern world.
People who imagine man 'evolved' from a great ape have been 'burning' too many funny cigarettes. This theory (bit of materialist speculation) was born in the days before information. [BI] It's a theory that cannot survive the recent (ongoing) discoveries in cell based information. (The burning man of darwinism doesn't have a leg to stand on... it's tottering and will soon fall.) The ape to man theory (painted picture) was created when people had no idea of the requirements for new and complex information... in a day when people didn't realize there was such a thing as the genetic code. Darwin's theory is as dead as the ashes from a fire.
D. "At a symposium entitled ‘Evolution and Society’, we asked how society has interpreted evolution and whether, despite its shadowy past, its principles can guide us to a much-needed behavioural shift towards sustainability.''
- Does this person know anything about evolutionary theory? Isn't he aware that 'evolution' has no principles? (Only persons have principles.)
What we see here is a synthetic mix of new age paganism and darwinism; a mix that has no coherence or meaning.
We see here how a word that once had some scientific meaning has now devolved into a word as meaningless as change. ["We need evolution, and we need it now."] It's suffered death at the hands of pop culture. We might look at the burning man as the going up in flames of a once useful word.
Having looked at a lot of photographs from the festival I have the impression evolution means not wearing a bra. (I guess this produces evolutionary change.) It apparently also has something to do with dressing up as an alien. (This must be the famous dress up gene at work I guess.)
E. "In the rampant transfer of culture at Burning Man, on a par with endosymbiotic events, we see hope."
- Hope? I thought all was merely matter in motion. Where did this ghost you call hope come from? (But I guess any otherworldly freak at all is allowed into the festival.) Hope can only be a delusion if materialism is the true worldview.
Endosymbiotic;
- 'An endosymbiont is any organism that lives within the body or cells of another organism, i.e. forming an endosymbiosis (Greek: ἔνδον endon "within", σύν syn "together" and βίωσις biosis "living"). Examples are nitrogen-fixing bacteria (called rhizobia) which live in root nodules on legume roots, single-celled algae inside reef-building corals, and bacterial endosymbionts that provide essential nutrients to about 10%–15% of insects."
- I guess they're calling themselves parasites; I don't know.
F. "Evolution is evoked here on many levels: the adaptation and thriving of the individual in this extreme environment, the various camps as interactive and artistic spaces, the city as it alters over the seven days and from year to year, exhibiting emergent properties of altruism, shared community and free expression.
- I can only laugh at hearing members of our pampered class call this sandbox for adults an extreme environment.
G. ‘Burners’ become extremophiles. With resources scarce in the desert, intense sharing is the most efficient practice, suggesting that humans may yet realize a sustainable evolutionary trajectory.''
- Apparently 'sustainability' means going to the supermarket and loading up the van with food and drink and taking it out to the desert.
- M. Johnson [frfarer at gmail.com]
Notes;
1. Darwinists Celebrate Raunchy Pagan Festival Creation/Evolution Headlines 10/10/2009
2. The book of Romans refers to the burning out of man; to homosexuality as the burnt out embers of man; of man in the final stages of his apostasy.
3. Burning man photos
Monday, February 8, 2010
Creation science; an example
A common complaint made against creationists is that their ideas have no relevance within the field of practical science. I don't agree with this notion, and offer the following article on the Narwhal as evidence. I think Lightner does a good job of looking at the puzzle of the Narwhal tusk from the perspective of Biblical creation.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'In the past, some Christians mistakenly believed that all animals were created by God just as we see them today. While this view recognized God as Creator and that animals were well adapted to their environments, to insist on it ignores the real history of the world given in the Bible. Sea creatures were told after their creation to be fruitful, increase in number, and fill the seas (Genesis 1:21–22).
- i.e. This would mean going into new environments... and this would lead to changes (due to the influence of new environmental factors)
It's important to admit that many creationists in the past were wrong in their views on some things. Charles Darwin pointed out some flaws in the creationist thinking of his day. He pointed out that the claim all creatures were the same as they'd always been was false. He was correct in this, but he was incorrect in thinking this disproved creation and proved evolution.
B. 'In reality, a far bigger puzzle for the evolutionist is the origin of teeth in general. In most mammals teeth just happen to be in the right place for chewing. To an evolutionist, all structures such as eyes, teeth, and lungs are the result of random mutations (which add variety) and natural selection (which removes variety). While mutations and natural selection do occur, no such random process can be expected to create information to put well designed structures in the right place at the right time. [1.]
- Ever wonder why your teeth are in your mouth? according to evolution theory, it's just a fluke, as they could just as easily be in your feet :=)
C. 'Due to the effects of such catastrophes as the Curse and the global Flood, many harsh and different environments have arisen on the earth since creation. Thus it was important for creatures to be designed to have the built-in potential to vary, so as to be able to adapt and cope with changing environments.
D. 'As a veterinarian, there are several characteristics of the narwhal tusk that lead me to believe it is the result of degenerative changes affecting one of the teeth God originally created in the kind that gave rise to today’s narwhal. First, it is asymmetrical, that is it is found on one side, but not the other. Mammals are designed with bilateral symmetry; the left side of the animal is a mirror image of the right.12 When one side appears significantly different from the other, it is a sign of abnormality.
- I think this is a good example of how to use the idea of creation to look at the world. (This is not to say that what our author says is necessarily true; although it sounds as if it might be.)
E. The tusk is absent in over half the narwhal population (juveniles and most females). This indicates that it is not essential to survival. The tusk may provide some advantages to the narwhal in their limited arctic range; however, it is possible that the tusk is one of the reasons that they have such a limited range.'
F. 'Just as there is information that starts tooth growth, there is also information that stops it. It appears that something has happened to the information that stops tooth growth for one of the narwhal’s teeth, so a tusk develops.
- What we see here is an example of what materialists see as evolution (i.e. progressive evolution) and what c.s see as devolution, if I can use that term. The more I look at examples like this the more I'm struck by the idea that what we see in the world isn't evolution (i.e. an 'upward' move from molecules to man) but devolution. i.e. a degenerative process.
There's so much confusion on this issue because evolutionists continually conflate all change (large or small, directional or non-directional) with evolution. It's hard to believe this is done honestly and without polemical intent. Change however is not the same as evolution; and to treat it as if it was is to muddy the waters, making clear thinking impossible. [2.]
Notes;
1. The Enigmatic Narwhal - by Jean Lightner Creation.com
2. An example of the notion change equals evolution;
'Women are evolving fatter: New Scientist and PhysOrg said that natural selection is making women shorter, plumper and more fertile. “The take-home message is that humans are currently evolving,” said Stephen Stearns of the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center in Durham, North Carolina. “Natural selection is still operating.” - Creation/Evolution Headlines
- Contra Stearns, natural selection is Not evolution.
- Contra Stearns, women are not evolving. (Is it only women who are evolving? Is this fair in a PC world?) This is silliness, it really is. Obviously these 'number's are always going to fluctuate. Surely he can understand that much at least. Trivial changes in population figures (sorry) have nothing to do with M2M Evolution.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'In the past, some Christians mistakenly believed that all animals were created by God just as we see them today. While this view recognized God as Creator and that animals were well adapted to their environments, to insist on it ignores the real history of the world given in the Bible. Sea creatures were told after their creation to be fruitful, increase in number, and fill the seas (Genesis 1:21–22).
- i.e. This would mean going into new environments... and this would lead to changes (due to the influence of new environmental factors)
It's important to admit that many creationists in the past were wrong in their views on some things. Charles Darwin pointed out some flaws in the creationist thinking of his day. He pointed out that the claim all creatures were the same as they'd always been was false. He was correct in this, but he was incorrect in thinking this disproved creation and proved evolution.
B. 'In reality, a far bigger puzzle for the evolutionist is the origin of teeth in general. In most mammals teeth just happen to be in the right place for chewing. To an evolutionist, all structures such as eyes, teeth, and lungs are the result of random mutations (which add variety) and natural selection (which removes variety). While mutations and natural selection do occur, no such random process can be expected to create information to put well designed structures in the right place at the right time. [1.]
- Ever wonder why your teeth are in your mouth? according to evolution theory, it's just a fluke, as they could just as easily be in your feet :=)
C. 'Due to the effects of such catastrophes as the Curse and the global Flood, many harsh and different environments have arisen on the earth since creation. Thus it was important for creatures to be designed to have the built-in potential to vary, so as to be able to adapt and cope with changing environments.
D. 'As a veterinarian, there are several characteristics of the narwhal tusk that lead me to believe it is the result of degenerative changes affecting one of the teeth God originally created in the kind that gave rise to today’s narwhal. First, it is asymmetrical, that is it is found on one side, but not the other. Mammals are designed with bilateral symmetry; the left side of the animal is a mirror image of the right.12 When one side appears significantly different from the other, it is a sign of abnormality.
- I think this is a good example of how to use the idea of creation to look at the world. (This is not to say that what our author says is necessarily true; although it sounds as if it might be.)
E. The tusk is absent in over half the narwhal population (juveniles and most females). This indicates that it is not essential to survival. The tusk may provide some advantages to the narwhal in their limited arctic range; however, it is possible that the tusk is one of the reasons that they have such a limited range.'
F. 'Just as there is information that starts tooth growth, there is also information that stops it. It appears that something has happened to the information that stops tooth growth for one of the narwhal’s teeth, so a tusk develops.
- What we see here is an example of what materialists see as evolution (i.e. progressive evolution) and what c.s see as devolution, if I can use that term. The more I look at examples like this the more I'm struck by the idea that what we see in the world isn't evolution (i.e. an 'upward' move from molecules to man) but devolution. i.e. a degenerative process.
There's so much confusion on this issue because evolutionists continually conflate all change (large or small, directional or non-directional) with evolution. It's hard to believe this is done honestly and without polemical intent. Change however is not the same as evolution; and to treat it as if it was is to muddy the waters, making clear thinking impossible. [2.]
Notes;
1. The Enigmatic Narwhal - by Jean Lightner Creation.com
2. An example of the notion change equals evolution;
'Women are evolving fatter: New Scientist and PhysOrg said that natural selection is making women shorter, plumper and more fertile. “The take-home message is that humans are currently evolving,” said Stephen Stearns of the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center in Durham, North Carolina. “Natural selection is still operating.” - Creation/Evolution Headlines
- Contra Stearns, natural selection is Not evolution.
- Contra Stearns, women are not evolving. (Is it only women who are evolving? Is this fair in a PC world?) This is silliness, it really is. Obviously these 'number's are always going to fluctuate. Surely he can understand that much at least. Trivial changes in population figures (sorry) have nothing to do with M2M Evolution.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Childhood's end; the myth of man as child
A common strategy among evolutionists is compare the history of the human race (including its non-human ancestry) to the history of a human being. In this scenario the current stage of mankind is compared to that of a (developing) child.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'Science Daily reported on a paper from Current Biology called “The Origins and Evolution of Leadership” that puts Darwin in the lead. The authors “argue that due to ‘a hangover from our evolutionary past’ factors like age, sex, height and weight play a major part in the determining [sic] our choice of leaders.” [1.]
- The authors have bought into the myth of comparing human beings to children. I call this the 'Childhood's End' myth. This is the idea the human race is evolving from apes, and is now in what is called the childhood of man stage, and is 'progressing' toward adulthood. This is one of the main myths propagated by evolutionary theorists. (It was a favorite notion of the Darwinist Arthur C. Clarke.)
B. Here’s what Dr. Andrew King (Zoological Society of London) had to say:
" Evolution has fashioned principles governing leadership and followership over many millions of years. We need to ground the complex, even mystical, social phenomenon of leadership in science.
- Since all things are supposed to be explained by evolutionary theory (by order of the courts) I suppose we need to ground science itself in science. We would then need to ground scientific research in science; and ground grant mongering in science; and ground politics in science; and ground buffoonery and lies in science. (And we'd need a good scientific reason for doing all this of course.)
This is reductionism run amuck. Politics (leadership) has nothing to do with apes throwing jaw bones in the air, or anything else out of the Darwinian comic book. The so called 'leadership problem' has to do with man's desire to be god, and to play god in the lives of other people. By removing morality (and truth) from the subject, scientists can't tell us anything worth knowing.
C. "Through empirical observation, theoretical models, neuroscience, experimental psychology, and genetics, we can explore the development and adaptive functions of leadership and followership.''
- Let's reword that bit of sci preaching, and relate it to science. "Through empirical observation, theoretical models, neuroscience, experimental psychology, and genetics, we can explore the development and adaptive functions of science and science worship."
- Very rarely do these evolutionary 'psychologists' ever use their methods to look at themselves. Apparently they have some bias against looking into the mirror. (Or perhaps it's a fear of doing so.) They explain everyone but themselves by some imagined evolutionary history; where man was once an animal, then became a baby, and then a toddler, and then a child... and all the while progressing to the stage where he can leave childhood behind and become an 'overlord' in his own right.
Everything they don't like (including global warming) is explained by the fact human beings have evolutionary hangovers; ie. it's sin that makes men do wrong, but his animal ancestry. None of this applies to evolutionary scientists of course, as they've evolved faster than anyone else... and are now our overlords.
D. 'He sees overlap between human and animal leadership behaviors that point to evolutionary origins. He said, “By identifying such origins and examining which aspects are shared with other animals offers us [sic]
better ways of understanding, predicting and improving leadership today.”
- Let's rephrase that a bit; “By identifying such origins and examining which aspects are shared with other animals offers us better ways of understanding, predicting and improving the quality of scientific leadership today.”
- Perhaps, if we're lucky, all this will help improve the quality of ethics in the science community as well. Perhaps it will help us find a way to get scientists to be honest and open about what they're doing. (But I suppose that's just my inner animal deluding itself.)
Notes;
1. Who Explains Whom? Creation/Evolution Headlines 10/26/2009
2. The methods (if they can be called methods) by which it's determined we are now in a 'childhood' stage of development are not scientific or rigorous. Anyone is able to draw up whatever scheme they like.
3. I'm listening to Clarke's book on the Astounding days of science fiction, and I've never come across a man so in love with himself. (Every few paragraphs he feels the need to stop talking about other authors, or the magazine, and to tell us another of the marvelous things he's done.) I guess it's not only creationists who have a much too high view of themselves.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'Science Daily reported on a paper from Current Biology called “The Origins and Evolution of Leadership” that puts Darwin in the lead. The authors “argue that due to ‘a hangover from our evolutionary past’ factors like age, sex, height and weight play a major part in the determining [sic] our choice of leaders.” [1.]
- The authors have bought into the myth of comparing human beings to children. I call this the 'Childhood's End' myth. This is the idea the human race is evolving from apes, and is now in what is called the childhood of man stage, and is 'progressing' toward adulthood. This is one of the main myths propagated by evolutionary theorists. (It was a favorite notion of the Darwinist Arthur C. Clarke.)
B. Here’s what Dr. Andrew King (Zoological Society of London) had to say:
" Evolution has fashioned principles governing leadership and followership over many millions of years. We need to ground the complex, even mystical, social phenomenon of leadership in science.
- Since all things are supposed to be explained by evolutionary theory (by order of the courts) I suppose we need to ground science itself in science. We would then need to ground scientific research in science; and ground grant mongering in science; and ground politics in science; and ground buffoonery and lies in science. (And we'd need a good scientific reason for doing all this of course.)
This is reductionism run amuck. Politics (leadership) has nothing to do with apes throwing jaw bones in the air, or anything else out of the Darwinian comic book. The so called 'leadership problem' has to do with man's desire to be god, and to play god in the lives of other people. By removing morality (and truth) from the subject, scientists can't tell us anything worth knowing.
C. "Through empirical observation, theoretical models, neuroscience, experimental psychology, and genetics, we can explore the development and adaptive functions of leadership and followership.''
- Let's reword that bit of sci preaching, and relate it to science. "Through empirical observation, theoretical models, neuroscience, experimental psychology, and genetics, we can explore the development and adaptive functions of science and science worship."
- Very rarely do these evolutionary 'psychologists' ever use their methods to look at themselves. Apparently they have some bias against looking into the mirror. (Or perhaps it's a fear of doing so.) They explain everyone but themselves by some imagined evolutionary history; where man was once an animal, then became a baby, and then a toddler, and then a child... and all the while progressing to the stage where he can leave childhood behind and become an 'overlord' in his own right.
Everything they don't like (including global warming) is explained by the fact human beings have evolutionary hangovers; ie. it's sin that makes men do wrong, but his animal ancestry. None of this applies to evolutionary scientists of course, as they've evolved faster than anyone else... and are now our overlords.
D. 'He sees overlap between human and animal leadership behaviors that point to evolutionary origins. He said, “By identifying such origins and examining which aspects are shared with other animals offers us [sic]
better ways of understanding, predicting and improving leadership today.”
- Let's rephrase that a bit; “By identifying such origins and examining which aspects are shared with other animals offers us better ways of understanding, predicting and improving the quality of scientific leadership today.”
- Perhaps, if we're lucky, all this will help improve the quality of ethics in the science community as well. Perhaps it will help us find a way to get scientists to be honest and open about what they're doing. (But I suppose that's just my inner animal deluding itself.)
Notes;
1. Who Explains Whom? Creation/Evolution Headlines 10/26/2009
2. The methods (if they can be called methods) by which it's determined we are now in a 'childhood' stage of development are not scientific or rigorous. Anyone is able to draw up whatever scheme they like.
3. I'm listening to Clarke's book on the Astounding days of science fiction, and I've never come across a man so in love with himself. (Every few paragraphs he feels the need to stop talking about other authors, or the magazine, and to tell us another of the marvelous things he's done.) I guess it's not only creationists who have a much too high view of themselves.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Evolution is as much a fact as gravity
Anyone who's been keeping up with the Origins debate has heard the claim that evolution is as much a fact as gravity. [1]
Is it? Let's take a look.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'Starting with the great creationist physicist Michael Faraday in 1849, physicists have searched continually for a hidden relationship between gravity and the electromagnetic force. There is an ongoing effort to unify all four fundamental forces into a single equation or ‘theory of everything’, with no success thus far. Gravity remains the least understood force.' [2.]
- It seems odd to me that evolutionists would compare evolution with gravity, when gravity remains such a mysterious process. If they were more prudent they might rather say, that we understand the origin of life as little as we understand gravity. They don't say this because it would break the taboo against being honest with the public. [As they say in the hallowed halls of academe; 'there's no fun in being a teacher if you can't get students to believe things that aren't true.']
B. 'Gravity cannot be shielded in any way. Intervening objects, whatever their make-up, have no effect whatsoever on the attraction between two separated objects. This means that no antigravity chamber can be built in the laboratory.
Neither does gravity depend on the chemical composition of objects, but only on their mass, which we perceive as weight (the force of gravity on something is its weight — the greater the mass, the greater the force or weight.) Blocks composed of glass, lead, ice or even styrofoam, if they all have equal mass, will experience (and exert) identical gravitational forces. These are experimental findings, with no underlying theoretical explanation.' [2.]
- We might say (and I'm always eager to help evolutionists reformulate their theory) that the origin of living organisms is at least as mysterious as the process called gravity. We might also say that there is no underlying theoretical explanation for how life can come from non-life. Just as there's no way to explain gravity (we can only describe it) there's no way to explain abiogenesis and the 'emergence' of complex, specified information. [3.]
- What school teachers and professors hate most of all is to admit ignorance. It's only the great thinkers who seem capable of doing this.
C. 'Attempts to explain gravity have included invisible particles, called gravitons, that travel between objects. Cosmic strings and gravity waves have also been suggested, but none have been confirmed. We simply do not know how objects physically interact with each other over vast distances.' [2.]
- This being the case, why is it Darwinists insist on comparing evolution to a process so mysterious? I thought Evolution was a simple process, understandable to even a child or a fundamentalist.
Perhaps gravity arose by chance, in a warm, little pond; or perhaps at the side of a deep sea vent. Perhaps it rode into the universe on a stray comet. (What do you mean I'm not being serious? These are all serious answers aren't they?)
Summary;
When evolutionists say E. is as much a fact as gravity they of course are saying it's just as real a phenomenon. i.e. you can't deny it anymore than you can deny evolution. This is rhetorically powerful, but factually weak. The hard data of gravity is measurable; can be put into a neat equation. [4.] This can't be done for what's called evolution. (Never mind the problem of what kind of E. we're talking about.)
Evolution is most assuredly Not like gravity. It's a philosophical howler to compare rocks with living organisms for one thing. Evolution is not equal to biology, or to living organisms. These are the data; evolution is only an interpretation of the data. No one denies that living organisms exist; no one denies they had an origin. No one denies that organisms change over time. No creationist is denying any of these things. What were debating is the best explanation for these things; not that they exist.
E. apologists like to pretend that the origins issue is a simple one; as simple as an apple falling off a tree. Well, the subject isn't simple. It took a genius to figure out the basic law of gravity; it will take a greater than Newton to figure out the origin of complex (life giving) information. Let's not forget that what Newton did was 'merely' describe gravity; he didn't give us an account of what it is or where it came from. In a somewhat similar way biologists can describe living organisms, but they can't tell you what 'life' is, or where it came from, or how living organisms came to be. (I don't think anyone will ever be able to do this.) Scientists (at least theorists) have had a tendency in our time to become megalomaniacal in their thinking; to imagine they can answer any and all questions it's possible to ask. I see this as a delusion.
Notes;
1. 'A new article in Current Biology about Darwin Day celebrations quoted Johnjoe McFadden from the University of Surrey stating that "evolution is no longer just a theory. It is as much a fact as gravity or erosion." - Evolution News
2. Gravity the mysterious force - Donald DeYoung
3. Having said this, it may be possible one day to give a materialist explanation of gravity; but I don't think this will ever be possible for life forms.
4. 'The inverse-square nature of this equation is intriguing. After all, there is no essential reason why gravity should behave in this way. In a chance, evolving universe, some random exponent like r1.97 or r2.3 would seem much more likely. However, precise measurements have shown an exact exponent out to at least 5 decimal places, 2.00000. As one researcher put it, this result seems ‘just a little too neat.’ We may conclude that the gravity force shows precise, created design. Actually, if the exponent deviated just slightly from exactly 2, planet orbits and the entire universe would become unstable.' - DeYoung
6. A major reason why there is so much confusion in the origins debate is that people persist in using words in different ways. eg. theory and fact; sometimes theory is portrayed as less certain than a fact, and sometimes as being more certain. Fact is sometimes portrayed as mere data, but at other times as certain knowledge. (I sometimes wonder if we don't need a new vocabulary.)
Is it? Let's take a look.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'Starting with the great creationist physicist Michael Faraday in 1849, physicists have searched continually for a hidden relationship between gravity and the electromagnetic force. There is an ongoing effort to unify all four fundamental forces into a single equation or ‘theory of everything’, with no success thus far. Gravity remains the least understood force.' [2.]
- It seems odd to me that evolutionists would compare evolution with gravity, when gravity remains such a mysterious process. If they were more prudent they might rather say, that we understand the origin of life as little as we understand gravity. They don't say this because it would break the taboo against being honest with the public. [As they say in the hallowed halls of academe; 'there's no fun in being a teacher if you can't get students to believe things that aren't true.']
B. 'Gravity cannot be shielded in any way. Intervening objects, whatever their make-up, have no effect whatsoever on the attraction between two separated objects. This means that no antigravity chamber can be built in the laboratory.
Neither does gravity depend on the chemical composition of objects, but only on their mass, which we perceive as weight (the force of gravity on something is its weight — the greater the mass, the greater the force or weight.) Blocks composed of glass, lead, ice or even styrofoam, if they all have equal mass, will experience (and exert) identical gravitational forces. These are experimental findings, with no underlying theoretical explanation.' [2.]
- We might say (and I'm always eager to help evolutionists reformulate their theory) that the origin of living organisms is at least as mysterious as the process called gravity. We might also say that there is no underlying theoretical explanation for how life can come from non-life. Just as there's no way to explain gravity (we can only describe it) there's no way to explain abiogenesis and the 'emergence' of complex, specified information. [3.]
- What school teachers and professors hate most of all is to admit ignorance. It's only the great thinkers who seem capable of doing this.
C. 'Attempts to explain gravity have included invisible particles, called gravitons, that travel between objects. Cosmic strings and gravity waves have also been suggested, but none have been confirmed. We simply do not know how objects physically interact with each other over vast distances.' [2.]
- This being the case, why is it Darwinists insist on comparing evolution to a process so mysterious? I thought Evolution was a simple process, understandable to even a child or a fundamentalist.
Perhaps gravity arose by chance, in a warm, little pond; or perhaps at the side of a deep sea vent. Perhaps it rode into the universe on a stray comet. (What do you mean I'm not being serious? These are all serious answers aren't they?)
Summary;
When evolutionists say E. is as much a fact as gravity they of course are saying it's just as real a phenomenon. i.e. you can't deny it anymore than you can deny evolution. This is rhetorically powerful, but factually weak. The hard data of gravity is measurable; can be put into a neat equation. [4.] This can't be done for what's called evolution. (Never mind the problem of what kind of E. we're talking about.)
Evolution is most assuredly Not like gravity. It's a philosophical howler to compare rocks with living organisms for one thing. Evolution is not equal to biology, or to living organisms. These are the data; evolution is only an interpretation of the data. No one denies that living organisms exist; no one denies they had an origin. No one denies that organisms change over time. No creationist is denying any of these things. What were debating is the best explanation for these things; not that they exist.
E. apologists like to pretend that the origins issue is a simple one; as simple as an apple falling off a tree. Well, the subject isn't simple. It took a genius to figure out the basic law of gravity; it will take a greater than Newton to figure out the origin of complex (life giving) information. Let's not forget that what Newton did was 'merely' describe gravity; he didn't give us an account of what it is or where it came from. In a somewhat similar way biologists can describe living organisms, but they can't tell you what 'life' is, or where it came from, or how living organisms came to be. (I don't think anyone will ever be able to do this.) Scientists (at least theorists) have had a tendency in our time to become megalomaniacal in their thinking; to imagine they can answer any and all questions it's possible to ask. I see this as a delusion.
Notes;
1. 'A new article in Current Biology about Darwin Day celebrations quoted Johnjoe McFadden from the University of Surrey stating that "evolution is no longer just a theory. It is as much a fact as gravity or erosion." - Evolution News
2. Gravity the mysterious force - Donald DeYoung
3. Having said this, it may be possible one day to give a materialist explanation of gravity; but I don't think this will ever be possible for life forms.
4. 'The inverse-square nature of this equation is intriguing. After all, there is no essential reason why gravity should behave in this way. In a chance, evolving universe, some random exponent like r1.97 or r2.3 would seem much more likely. However, precise measurements have shown an exact exponent out to at least 5 decimal places, 2.00000. As one researcher put it, this result seems ‘just a little too neat.’ We may conclude that the gravity force shows precise, created design. Actually, if the exponent deviated just slightly from exactly 2, planet orbits and the entire universe would become unstable.' - DeYoung
6. A major reason why there is so much confusion in the origins debate is that people persist in using words in different ways. eg. theory and fact; sometimes theory is portrayed as less certain than a fact, and sometimes as being more certain. Fact is sometimes portrayed as mere data, but at other times as certain knowledge. (I sometimes wonder if we don't need a new vocabulary.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)