The genetic code that undergirds all life forms on our planet looks increasingly complex, the more researchers study it.
Quotes and comments;
A. May 06, 2010 — The leading science journal [Nature] reported the discovery of a second genetic code – the “code within the code” – that has just been cracked by molecular biologists and computer scientists.
...The new code is called the Splicing Code. It lives embedded within the DNA. It directs the primary genetic code, in very complex but now predictable ways, how and when to assemble genes and regulatory elements.
'Heidi Ledford led off with an article called “The code within the code.” Tejedor and Valcárcel followed with “Gene regulation: Breaking the second genetic code.' [1.]
- Evolutionists and materialists have No business using concepts and words like code. They claim to be materialists, and insist that no intelligence lies behind creation (living organisms) but yet they persist in using words like code. This is deeply dishonest. (As Cornelius Van Til would say; they give evidence that they know God, but yet they deny him.) If people are going to be materialists they ought to speak as materialists. If being a creationist is such a great sin why do they persist in speaking in terms of intelligence and design? Why do they speak as creationists if creation is an absurdity? People like this are speaking out of both sides of their mouth, to use the old phrase. The fact they don't know what else to say, the fact they don't have other concepts to use, should be all the evidence they need that materialism can't account for the data.
B. “Understanding a complex biological system is like understanding a complex electronic circuit.”
- A materialist has no right to compare anything biological with a humanly created machine. The great hero of atheism David Hume said so himself. (Has he been tossed onto the same bonfire he once consigned all metaphysical books to?) He denied the validity of the organism to machine analogy, but now we see materialists themselves using this analogy in their comparisons.
Is it necessary to point out the electronic circuits are designed. I don't know of any that have 'emerged' from the action of lightning on barren rocks.
C. "This time there is no simple table – in its place are algorithms that combine more than 200 different features of DNA with predictions of RNA structure.''
- Are we to believe algorithms are the product of wind and rain? I might believe some Hollywood movies are the product of wind and rain, but not this splicing code.
Summary;
The great pretense of materialism is that every phenomenon can be explained purely in terms of physical law. If people want to be intellectually fulfilled materialists (or atheists) they're going to have to come up with in explanation for genetic code in terms of physical law. They need to tell us the physics of code formation. I see no way this can be done myself. Can you really have symbols without intelligent, personal agents to create them? I think the whole idea is absurd; like accounting for the development of the computer in terms of weather patterns. In the specified complexity of the DNA complex, materialism has met its match. It hangs like a corpse from the living tree of code.
Notes;
1. Breakthrough: Second Genetic Code Revealed 05/06/2010
May 06, 2010 — It’s sometimes difficult to assess the impact of a scientific paper when it is first published, but one that came out on the cover of Nature today has potential to equal the discovery of the genetic code. The leading science journal reported the discovery of a second genetic code – the “code within the code” – that has just been cracked by molecular biologists and computer scientists. Moreover, they used information technology – not evolutionary theory – to figure it out.
2. While the evidence against the Darwinist model continues to pile up, christian liberals continue to deny there's even a single valid argument against it. They continue to claim the creationists have nothing going for them, and that the Darwin model is utterly sound. I can only wonder what they're looking at when they make these claims.
3. If Materialism is dead what (false system) will replace it? I can see three alternatives; out right atheism (I know there's a God but I don't give a damn), some kind of space colony idea (the creator isn't divine), or a vague kind of agnosticism (I have no idea what happened, but I don't really care).
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
And seeing they see not
Richard Dawkins made a career out of painting a picture of the human eye as a defective bit of engineering. Recent discoveries however, made since he first made his public splash, have continued to show how wrong he was.
Quotes and comments;
A. May 07, 2010 — Darwinists have claimed for years that the human eye is an example of bad design, because it is wired backwards – the photoreceptors are located behind a tangle of blood vessels and other material. But then in 2007, German scientists found that cone-shaped cells called Müller cells act like waveguides that transmit the light through the tangles straight into the photoreceptors.
Now, more facts have come to light about those Müller cells (also called retinal glial cells). Researchers at the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa have found out that they do far more than just conduct light to the photoreceptors. Kate McAlpine reported for New Scientist that Müller cells offer several advantages. They act as noise filters, tuners and color focusers...' [1.]
- The bad design (of the eye) argument is simply a bad argument; not to mention a glaring example of man's ingratitude and fallenness. We might call it a badly designed argument. Man's heart, and thus his thinking, shows more signs of being degraded than do man's physical organs. The eye is a masterpiece; especially compared with the darkness of man's thinking and philosophy.
Would that people could think as clearly as they see. It's sad that people can't think as truthfully as they see. This of course can't be. Our minds don't adjust, readjust and focus automatically, to see to it that we percieve things accurately and helpfully. With our thinking we're largely on our own. We see a compelling example of this in the constant nagging criticisms of the eye by Darwinian apologists. They use their god given abilities to complain and condemn, instead of using them to praise and worship. Their hatred of god turns them into blind men talking about ugliness of the sunset. They put on dark sunglasses and complain about the day being cloudy. Anyone who isn't dazzled by the glories of the human eye is ideologically blind.
From an evolutionary point of view nothing can be defective. Since there are no standards and no goals nothing can be said to fail or be deficient. When Darwinists speak of things being badly designed they're not speaking as evolutionists, but as engineers. They're engaged in criticism when they have no basis for their analysis or conclusions.
We see in this example how much (if not most) Darwinist criticism of design is based on ignorance. People like Dawkins somehow convince themselves that they possess complete knowledge about various aspects of biology. In this they show their spiritual and moral blindness, as this pretense stems from a desire to condemn creationism rather than stem from a desire for the truth.
B. 'However, Kenneth Miller, a biologist at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island cautions that this doesn’t mean that the backwards retina itself helps us to see. Rather, it emphasises the extent to which evolution has coped with the flawed layout. “The shape, orientation and structure of the Müller cells help the retina to overcome one of the principal shortcomings of its inside-out wiring,” says Miller.
- When the heart is 'wired wrong' a person will always end up twisting the data in their own favor. If a person is committed to evolutionism (as Miller is) they will always find a way to see things in an evolutionary light. They just put on their Darwin glasses, and presto! They see evidence for evolution everywhere they look. (In fact they're staring into the multiple mirrors of their own worldview.)
We see in this example how intensely some people hate God. Their worldview bias has so completely twisted their thinking that they see darkness where they should see light. Though they claim that what they hate are certain 'fallacious' theological doctrines (e.g. Providence) it's clear to me that what they hate is the true and living triune God.
Notes;
1. Can Darwin Be Rescued from a New Eye Discovery? Creation/Evolution Headlines 05/07/2010
- The above link contains block quotes from the pertinent article and is well worth reading.
2. 'These findings were made by Amichai Labin and Erez Ribak at Technion and published in Physical Review Letters.1 In the abstract, they said, “The retina is revealed as an optimal structure designed for improving the sharpness of images.” Their findings specifically argued against the idea that the retina is poorly wired.' [above]
Quotes and comments;
A. May 07, 2010 — Darwinists have claimed for years that the human eye is an example of bad design, because it is wired backwards – the photoreceptors are located behind a tangle of blood vessels and other material. But then in 2007, German scientists found that cone-shaped cells called Müller cells act like waveguides that transmit the light through the tangles straight into the photoreceptors.
Now, more facts have come to light about those Müller cells (also called retinal glial cells). Researchers at the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa have found out that they do far more than just conduct light to the photoreceptors. Kate McAlpine reported for New Scientist that Müller cells offer several advantages. They act as noise filters, tuners and color focusers...' [1.]
- The bad design (of the eye) argument is simply a bad argument; not to mention a glaring example of man's ingratitude and fallenness. We might call it a badly designed argument. Man's heart, and thus his thinking, shows more signs of being degraded than do man's physical organs. The eye is a masterpiece; especially compared with the darkness of man's thinking and philosophy.
Would that people could think as clearly as they see. It's sad that people can't think as truthfully as they see. This of course can't be. Our minds don't adjust, readjust and focus automatically, to see to it that we percieve things accurately and helpfully. With our thinking we're largely on our own. We see a compelling example of this in the constant nagging criticisms of the eye by Darwinian apologists. They use their god given abilities to complain and condemn, instead of using them to praise and worship. Their hatred of god turns them into blind men talking about ugliness of the sunset. They put on dark sunglasses and complain about the day being cloudy. Anyone who isn't dazzled by the glories of the human eye is ideologically blind.
From an evolutionary point of view nothing can be defective. Since there are no standards and no goals nothing can be said to fail or be deficient. When Darwinists speak of things being badly designed they're not speaking as evolutionists, but as engineers. They're engaged in criticism when they have no basis for their analysis or conclusions.
We see in this example how much (if not most) Darwinist criticism of design is based on ignorance. People like Dawkins somehow convince themselves that they possess complete knowledge about various aspects of biology. In this they show their spiritual and moral blindness, as this pretense stems from a desire to condemn creationism rather than stem from a desire for the truth.
B. 'However, Kenneth Miller, a biologist at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island cautions that this doesn’t mean that the backwards retina itself helps us to see. Rather, it emphasises the extent to which evolution has coped with the flawed layout. “The shape, orientation and structure of the Müller cells help the retina to overcome one of the principal shortcomings of its inside-out wiring,” says Miller.
- When the heart is 'wired wrong' a person will always end up twisting the data in their own favor. If a person is committed to evolutionism (as Miller is) they will always find a way to see things in an evolutionary light. They just put on their Darwin glasses, and presto! They see evidence for evolution everywhere they look. (In fact they're staring into the multiple mirrors of their own worldview.)
We see in this example how intensely some people hate God. Their worldview bias has so completely twisted their thinking that they see darkness where they should see light. Though they claim that what they hate are certain 'fallacious' theological doctrines (e.g. Providence) it's clear to me that what they hate is the true and living triune God.
Notes;
1. Can Darwin Be Rescued from a New Eye Discovery? Creation/Evolution Headlines 05/07/2010
- The above link contains block quotes from the pertinent article and is well worth reading.
2. 'These findings were made by Amichai Labin and Erez Ribak at Technion and published in Physical Review Letters.1 In the abstract, they said, “The retina is revealed as an optimal structure designed for improving the sharpness of images.” Their findings specifically argued against the idea that the retina is poorly wired.' [above]
Monday, June 28, 2010
Mr. Charles Darwin, and the case of the man slain by lightning
According to Charles Darwin the evil and suffering in the world made it impossible for him to believe in God. If we're to take him at his word, this was the factor that led him to develop a substitute for the idea of creation.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'A world so full of cruelty and pain he [Darwin] could not reconcile with the omniscience, the omnipotence, the goodness of God. An innocent and good man stands under a tree and is struck by lightning. "Do you believe," asks Darwin of his friend Gray, " that God slew this man on purpose ? Many or most people believe this. I cannot and will not believe it." [1.]
- I notice that he first says he cannot believe it, but then he quickly adds he won't believe it. Well, what is it? I think it's the latter.
In examining this troubling event we need to begin by stating the obvious; that however you look at it, the man is still dead. Whether the man was killed by God (through intermediate means) or by lightning he's still dead. If you were going to die would you rather by killed by God or by lightning? If God is the ultimate cause (behind the lightning) then at least you have the hope that a life beyond the grave exists, and that you might find a greater and more rewarding life in heaven than you had on earth. If there is no God behind the lightning you have no hope of further existence. It's clear to me at least that one is far better off getting 'slain' by God than by lightning. As I see it, the only reason to wish for lightning is the fear the after life will be something horrible. [2.]
If lightning is all there is, then there is no purpose in life. Is it meaningful to get slain by a bolt of electricity thrown down randomly, and hitting its mark by chance? If there is no god there is no ultimate meaning and purpose. I don't see how this is preferable to a universe of meaning and purpose. As usual with 'theological' matters, Darwin just doesn't think deeply enough. He's far to ready to spurn God at the slightest provocation. He wants the universe to conform to his own ideas (Victorian to the core) of propriety and order, and if it doesn't he decides there can't be a God. He apparently believed that if God truly existed he would be a Victorian gentleman.
He looked around and saw a world of pain and suffering and decided that since this was no way he himself would run the universe that this meant god did not exist. (He really seems to have believed that God either had to be a Victorian or he didn't exist; that these were the only two options available.) He seems to have believed that since the world wasn't the way it 'ought' to be this meant there was no god. (This is the kind of theological thinking rampant in the church today. Darwin would feel right at home in the church of England of our time.)
Summary;
Charles Darwin is a classic Rationalist in the sense he wasn't willing to believe anything he couldn't understand. He seemed to believe that his mind was capable of determining reality. This belief makes no sense in terms of his evolutionary beliefs however. If man is just an evolved bit of pond scum why should he be able to comprehend reality? He rejected the bible because it didn't make sense to him, because it seemed fallacious. If someone had told him the theories of our day he would have rejected them as nonsensical as well. There's a humility in accepting the creation account of Genesis that is utterly absent from evolutionary thinking. Is creation a mystery? Most assuredly.
Notes;
1. The philosophy of revelation - Herman Bavinck/p.12
2. I'm always puzzled by people who claim they can't imagine wanting to go to heaven. (Let's assume for the sake of argument it exists.) I can think of many reasons for wanting to go. In particular I'd like to know the true answer to this puzzle of Origins. I'd like to know exactly when and how the whole thing happened. (I'll admit that I can't comprehend what people might do for eternity... but maybe we'll learn the answer to that conundrum as well.)
Addendum;
B. 'The discovery of the so-called law of " natural selection " brought him accordingly a real feeling of relief, for by it he escaped the necessity of assuming a conscious plan and purpose in creation. Whether God existed or not, in either case he was blameless. The immutable laws of nature, imperfect in all their operations, bore the blame for everything, while at the same time guaranteeing that the world is not a product of chance and is progressing as a whole towards a better condition. [1.]
- This view is popular in many theological circles today. It's the source of what's popularly none as anti-Calvinism. God is absolved of all evil by claiming the idea of Providence is an evil invention of Jean Calvin, and has nothing to do with 'true' Christianity. It's not an exaggeration (or a joke) to say that Charles Darwin is the most influential theologian of the modern world.
It's vital to realize that the idea of progress is essential to the thinking of Darwinian theology. The world is not only in a state of constant flux, but it's in a constant state of progress, that it's getting better and better in every way. (We might call this a kind of Fabian eschatology.) For this reason these theologians encourage people to abandon the Bible and to embrace the spirit of the age. The thinking of the bible is obsolete in a world of constant change they tell us. There are no moral absolutes, there is only change; and as the biological world has evolved ever upward, so shall the spiritual world. The only sin is to resist change.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'A world so full of cruelty and pain he [Darwin] could not reconcile with the omniscience, the omnipotence, the goodness of God. An innocent and good man stands under a tree and is struck by lightning. "Do you believe," asks Darwin of his friend Gray, " that God slew this man on purpose ? Many or most people believe this. I cannot and will not believe it." [1.]
- I notice that he first says he cannot believe it, but then he quickly adds he won't believe it. Well, what is it? I think it's the latter.
In examining this troubling event we need to begin by stating the obvious; that however you look at it, the man is still dead. Whether the man was killed by God (through intermediate means) or by lightning he's still dead. If you were going to die would you rather by killed by God or by lightning? If God is the ultimate cause (behind the lightning) then at least you have the hope that a life beyond the grave exists, and that you might find a greater and more rewarding life in heaven than you had on earth. If there is no God behind the lightning you have no hope of further existence. It's clear to me at least that one is far better off getting 'slain' by God than by lightning. As I see it, the only reason to wish for lightning is the fear the after life will be something horrible. [2.]
If lightning is all there is, then there is no purpose in life. Is it meaningful to get slain by a bolt of electricity thrown down randomly, and hitting its mark by chance? If there is no god there is no ultimate meaning and purpose. I don't see how this is preferable to a universe of meaning and purpose. As usual with 'theological' matters, Darwin just doesn't think deeply enough. He's far to ready to spurn God at the slightest provocation. He wants the universe to conform to his own ideas (Victorian to the core) of propriety and order, and if it doesn't he decides there can't be a God. He apparently believed that if God truly existed he would be a Victorian gentleman.
He looked around and saw a world of pain and suffering and decided that since this was no way he himself would run the universe that this meant god did not exist. (He really seems to have believed that God either had to be a Victorian or he didn't exist; that these were the only two options available.) He seems to have believed that since the world wasn't the way it 'ought' to be this meant there was no god. (This is the kind of theological thinking rampant in the church today. Darwin would feel right at home in the church of England of our time.)
Summary;
Charles Darwin is a classic Rationalist in the sense he wasn't willing to believe anything he couldn't understand. He seemed to believe that his mind was capable of determining reality. This belief makes no sense in terms of his evolutionary beliefs however. If man is just an evolved bit of pond scum why should he be able to comprehend reality? He rejected the bible because it didn't make sense to him, because it seemed fallacious. If someone had told him the theories of our day he would have rejected them as nonsensical as well. There's a humility in accepting the creation account of Genesis that is utterly absent from evolutionary thinking. Is creation a mystery? Most assuredly.
Notes;
1. The philosophy of revelation - Herman Bavinck/p.12
2. I'm always puzzled by people who claim they can't imagine wanting to go to heaven. (Let's assume for the sake of argument it exists.) I can think of many reasons for wanting to go. In particular I'd like to know the true answer to this puzzle of Origins. I'd like to know exactly when and how the whole thing happened. (I'll admit that I can't comprehend what people might do for eternity... but maybe we'll learn the answer to that conundrum as well.)
Addendum;
B. 'The discovery of the so-called law of " natural selection " brought him accordingly a real feeling of relief, for by it he escaped the necessity of assuming a conscious plan and purpose in creation. Whether God existed or not, in either case he was blameless. The immutable laws of nature, imperfect in all their operations, bore the blame for everything, while at the same time guaranteeing that the world is not a product of chance and is progressing as a whole towards a better condition. [1.]
- This view is popular in many theological circles today. It's the source of what's popularly none as anti-Calvinism. God is absolved of all evil by claiming the idea of Providence is an evil invention of Jean Calvin, and has nothing to do with 'true' Christianity. It's not an exaggeration (or a joke) to say that Charles Darwin is the most influential theologian of the modern world.
It's vital to realize that the idea of progress is essential to the thinking of Darwinian theology. The world is not only in a state of constant flux, but it's in a constant state of progress, that it's getting better and better in every way. (We might call this a kind of Fabian eschatology.) For this reason these theologians encourage people to abandon the Bible and to embrace the spirit of the age. The thinking of the bible is obsolete in a world of constant change they tell us. There are no moral absolutes, there is only change; and as the biological world has evolved ever upward, so shall the spiritual world. The only sin is to resist change.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Exploding the neutrality myth
When different people look at Mt. St. Helen's (or any other peak) do they see the same mountain?
The 30 year anniversary of the Mt. St. Helen's volcano gives us a clear example of how data is interpreted differently by people with different worldviews, concerns and objectives. (The event was recalled in many popular science magazines.) The creationist sees confirmation of the biblical model of geology, while the Evolutionist (apparently) sees no such thing. Neutrality in science is as obsolete a concept as it is in politics, economics or anything else.
Quotes and comments;
A. ' May 18, 2010 — Thirty years ago this day, May 18, 1980, Mt. St. Helens blew up. The catastrophic eruption not only shocked the area around the mountain, it shocked scientists into a new realization of the power of catastrophist geology.
Steve Austin did considerable on site research about the event; some of his conclusions or findings include;
- A mudflow produced a 1/40th scale model of the Grand Canyon in one day.
- Badlands topography along the Toutle River was formed in days, not thousands of years.
- Logs uprooted by the blast were being planted in upright positions at the bottom of Spirit Lake, giving the appearance they had grown in that position. This was reminiscent of the Yellowstone fossil forests.
- A layer of peat buried in Spirit Lake has the texture and appearance of a coal deposit forming. [1.]
B. 'But strangely, Nature News mentioned none of these things. [1.]
- Whenever evolutionists see their model refuted they just ignore the evidence and carry on as if nothing happened. As I've said before; Darwinism isn't a search for truth, but a methodology and a work project. i.e. it is the attempt to explain all things in terms of materialism. (There is little concern for whether or not this is leading to an accurate picture of what happened in the past or what our current reality is.) We could simplify this by calling it an apologetic for materialism. The evolutionist will speak truthfully if he thinks what he says is going to support this worldveiw model, but if he sees data that refute the model he either says nothing or distorts and lies about what he knows. He acts as if he were fighting a war, not as if he were searching for truth.
C. 'She [Janet Fang] mentioned new theories about how magma rises to the surface through conduits, and new realizations of the power of landslides and lateral blasts during eruptions. But she said nothing about any of the points that Steve Austin found so interesting about Mt. St. Helens. Neither did the writers for Live Science or National Geographic. Were they even looking at the same mountain?' [1.]
- Were they looking at the same mountain? Yes, and no. She's looking at the mountain with materialist eyeglasses, while Austin is looking at it with creationist eyeglasses. She can't afford to see evidence the Darwinian (materialist) view of geology is wrong. She can't afford (or so she feels) to give credence to any creationist views on the volcanic event. ("Give no comfort to thine enemy,'' as the Left says.) Future generations will sadly shake their heads.
Notes;
1. Mt. St. Helens Recalls Overturned Paradigms Creation/Evolution Headlines 05/18/2010
2. For Austin’s latest views on the lessons from the blast, see his article this month on ICR, “Supervolcanoes and the Mount St. Helen's Eruption.”
3. 'The complete silence about Steven Austin’s research at Mt. St. Helen's by the secular media is stunning. Is it because his credentials are lacking? No; he has a PhD from the University of Pennsylvania. Is it because his field work was unexceptional? No; he was the only one to don scuba gear and dive to the bottom of Spirit Lake, and use sonar to map the lake bottom. Is it because his findings with the canyons and stratification lacked significance? No; they were revolutionary and explanatorily rich. [1.]
- the silence on this issue is significant. The Darwinists know they've been refuted and so the best they think they can do is ignore the issue. This shows us what a farce the idea of 'scientific' neutrality is.
4. 'Dr. Austin visited the mountain numerous times after the eruption, and even took a team scuba-diving in Spirit Lake to study the effects of waterlogged trees sinking in the peat sediments at the bottom. Some of the lessons from Mt. St. Helens for catastrophic flood geology were summarized in his 1986 monograph, “Mt. St. Helens and Catastrophism,” published by ICR. [1.]
The 30 year anniversary of the Mt. St. Helen's volcano gives us a clear example of how data is interpreted differently by people with different worldviews, concerns and objectives. (The event was recalled in many popular science magazines.) The creationist sees confirmation of the biblical model of geology, while the Evolutionist (apparently) sees no such thing. Neutrality in science is as obsolete a concept as it is in politics, economics or anything else.
Quotes and comments;
A. ' May 18, 2010 — Thirty years ago this day, May 18, 1980, Mt. St. Helens blew up. The catastrophic eruption not only shocked the area around the mountain, it shocked scientists into a new realization of the power of catastrophist geology.
Steve Austin did considerable on site research about the event; some of his conclusions or findings include;
- A mudflow produced a 1/40th scale model of the Grand Canyon in one day.
- Badlands topography along the Toutle River was formed in days, not thousands of years.
- Logs uprooted by the blast were being planted in upright positions at the bottom of Spirit Lake, giving the appearance they had grown in that position. This was reminiscent of the Yellowstone fossil forests.
- A layer of peat buried in Spirit Lake has the texture and appearance of a coal deposit forming. [1.]
B. 'But strangely, Nature News mentioned none of these things. [1.]
- Whenever evolutionists see their model refuted they just ignore the evidence and carry on as if nothing happened. As I've said before; Darwinism isn't a search for truth, but a methodology and a work project. i.e. it is the attempt to explain all things in terms of materialism. (There is little concern for whether or not this is leading to an accurate picture of what happened in the past or what our current reality is.) We could simplify this by calling it an apologetic for materialism. The evolutionist will speak truthfully if he thinks what he says is going to support this worldveiw model, but if he sees data that refute the model he either says nothing or distorts and lies about what he knows. He acts as if he were fighting a war, not as if he were searching for truth.
C. 'She [Janet Fang] mentioned new theories about how magma rises to the surface through conduits, and new realizations of the power of landslides and lateral blasts during eruptions. But she said nothing about any of the points that Steve Austin found so interesting about Mt. St. Helens. Neither did the writers for Live Science or National Geographic. Were they even looking at the same mountain?' [1.]
- Were they looking at the same mountain? Yes, and no. She's looking at the mountain with materialist eyeglasses, while Austin is looking at it with creationist eyeglasses. She can't afford to see evidence the Darwinian (materialist) view of geology is wrong. She can't afford (or so she feels) to give credence to any creationist views on the volcanic event. ("Give no comfort to thine enemy,'' as the Left says.) Future generations will sadly shake their heads.
Notes;
1. Mt. St. Helens Recalls Overturned Paradigms Creation/Evolution Headlines 05/18/2010
2. For Austin’s latest views on the lessons from the blast, see his article this month on ICR, “Supervolcanoes and the Mount St. Helen's Eruption.”
3. 'The complete silence about Steven Austin’s research at Mt. St. Helen's by the secular media is stunning. Is it because his credentials are lacking? No; he has a PhD from the University of Pennsylvania. Is it because his field work was unexceptional? No; he was the only one to don scuba gear and dive to the bottom of Spirit Lake, and use sonar to map the lake bottom. Is it because his findings with the canyons and stratification lacked significance? No; they were revolutionary and explanatorily rich. [1.]
- the silence on this issue is significant. The Darwinists know they've been refuted and so the best they think they can do is ignore the issue. This shows us what a farce the idea of 'scientific' neutrality is.
4. 'Dr. Austin visited the mountain numerous times after the eruption, and even took a team scuba-diving in Spirit Lake to study the effects of waterlogged trees sinking in the peat sediments at the bottom. Some of the lessons from Mt. St. Helens for catastrophic flood geology were summarized in his 1986 monograph, “Mt. St. Helens and Catastrophism,” published by ICR. [1.]
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Creation doesn't mean perfection
Darwinist apologists continue to misrepresent ID and creationist based thinking. Is it because they don't know any better? Or is it because they want to spread disinformation?
Quotes and comments;
A. 'John Avise in PNAS wrote a paper labeling ID as “religious creationism” but then used religious arguments in a science journal to attack it.
"Intelligent design (ID)—the latest incarnation of religious creationism—posits that complex biological features did not accrue gradually via natural evolutionary forces but, instead, were crafted ex nihilo by a cognitive agent. Yet, many complex biological traits are gratuitously complicated, function poorly, and debilitate their bearers." [1.]
- The trouble with critics of 'creationism' is that they don't read the material. A very high percentage of them are utterly ignorant of the subject they critique. They're either afraid to read the material, or are so arrogant they don't think they need to. The objections Avise rises have been answered over and over again... but apparently he doesn't realize this. (Has the man ever read Cornelius Hunter? Has he read any creationist author?)
Critics like Avise make the same mistakes over and over. (Can they really be mistakes by now?) A prime 'mistake' they make is to ignore the the biblical doctrine of the Fall. Even if you take the position that the Fall had no physical effects on the creation apart from Adam and Eve, there is still thousands of years of genetic decay to deal with. A perfect creation six thousand years ago obviously would not be perfect today. (No creationist denies genetic mutation.) Avise has no valid basis for saying anything is 'gratuitiously' complicated. This makes no sense. An artist creates as he sees fit. It makes no sense for a critic to say some element is 'gratuitous'. At best this is an argument from silence. i.e. 'as far as I can tell, this appears to be unnecessary.'
After six thousand years one would expect that some things would not function as well as they once did. (Despite claims like this made by darwinists, the animal world seems to function beautifully as far as I can tell.) Mutations have taken their toll over the millenia. I don't see anyone who denies this. No creationist I know of claims that things are perfect now. Biblical creationists claim that all creatures were perfect once (ie. when first created) but they don't claim they're perfect now. A key christian doctrine is that this is a fallen world. Has Mr. Avise never heard this?
Mr. Avise talks about evolutionary forces. Forces eh? This sounds like the science of Star Wars. I don't consider speculation about vague 'forces' to be scientific. (It's far more scientific to refer to intelligence as a source of information than it is to rely on some non-personal, reified force or forces.) What is this force anyway? No force can create specified complex information.
B. ''Furthermore, such dysfunctional traits abound not only in the phenotypes but inside the genomes of eukaryotic species."
- Contra Mr. Avise, nothing can be 'dysfunctional' in evolution. If there is no goal there can be no failure to realize a goal. Mr. Avise is smuggling teleology into evolutionary theory.
C. "Here, I highlight several outlandish features of the human genome that defy notions of ID by a caring cognitive agent."
- Does mr. Avise have a clue what he's talking about. ID doesn't specify a 'caring cognitive agent'. If he doesn't know that much he's not qualified to comment on ID.
He doesn't seem to realize that if he's going to brand x as 'outlandish' he has to have a standard for doing so. His problem is that e. theory gives him no such standard. There is no basis for a materialist to say x is outlandish. (He doesn't seem to understand the implications of his own worldview.)
D. "Gross imperfection at the molecular level presents a conundrum for the traditional paradigms of natural theology as well as for recent assertions of ID, but it is consistent with the notion of nonsentient contrivance by evolutionary forces.
- I can only laugh when I read Darwinists attempting to do theology. Contra Mr. Avise, imperfection presents no problem for traditional Christian theology. I have no idea where he gets this idea. ("The whole creation moans in travail," says the apostle Paul... as it awaits its perfection in the new heavens and earth.) I don't think 'imperfection' presents a problem for ID either. [see above]
A materialist has no basis for talking about imperfection as he has no standard of perfection. (Doesn't he realize this?) Perfection is a meaningless concept in e. theory; this makes imperfection a meaningless concept as well. (This makes the adjective 'gross' utterly pointless; Avise has no standard of perfection, thus no basis for a scale of imperfection.)
Notes;
1. Media Continues to Denounce ID, Crown Darwin Creation/Evolution Headlines 05/14/2010
May 14, 2010 — The news media and journals continue to publish one-sided statements against intelligent design (ID) – even though scientific evidence continues to support design on many fronts.'
2. Some creationists don't even make the claim all creatures were once perfect. (I don't think ID advocates do, and theistic evolutionists don't; if you call them creationists.)
3. 'John Avise in PNAS wrote a paper labeling ID as “religious creationism” but then used religious arguments in a science journal to attack it: i.e., “God wouldn’t make the world this way” [1.]
- Cornelius Hunter wrote a couple books dealing with this issue. I recommend them to Mr. Avise. His thesis is that the basic arguments Charles Darwin used to promote 'his' theory of evolution were basically arguments showing Christian doctrine and ideas were false; and that since they were false evolution must be true.
- Apparently Charles Darwin is Mr. Avise's idea of a great theologian.
4. Apparently tenure has so corrupted modern academia that it's considered acceptable for 'scholars' to write about things they know nothing about.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'John Avise in PNAS wrote a paper labeling ID as “religious creationism” but then used religious arguments in a science journal to attack it.
"Intelligent design (ID)—the latest incarnation of religious creationism—posits that complex biological features did not accrue gradually via natural evolutionary forces but, instead, were crafted ex nihilo by a cognitive agent. Yet, many complex biological traits are gratuitously complicated, function poorly, and debilitate their bearers." [1.]
- The trouble with critics of 'creationism' is that they don't read the material. A very high percentage of them are utterly ignorant of the subject they critique. They're either afraid to read the material, or are so arrogant they don't think they need to. The objections Avise rises have been answered over and over again... but apparently he doesn't realize this. (Has the man ever read Cornelius Hunter? Has he read any creationist author?)
Critics like Avise make the same mistakes over and over. (Can they really be mistakes by now?) A prime 'mistake' they make is to ignore the the biblical doctrine of the Fall. Even if you take the position that the Fall had no physical effects on the creation apart from Adam and Eve, there is still thousands of years of genetic decay to deal with. A perfect creation six thousand years ago obviously would not be perfect today. (No creationist denies genetic mutation.) Avise has no valid basis for saying anything is 'gratuitiously' complicated. This makes no sense. An artist creates as he sees fit. It makes no sense for a critic to say some element is 'gratuitous'. At best this is an argument from silence. i.e. 'as far as I can tell, this appears to be unnecessary.'
After six thousand years one would expect that some things would not function as well as they once did. (Despite claims like this made by darwinists, the animal world seems to function beautifully as far as I can tell.) Mutations have taken their toll over the millenia. I don't see anyone who denies this. No creationist I know of claims that things are perfect now. Biblical creationists claim that all creatures were perfect once (ie. when first created) but they don't claim they're perfect now. A key christian doctrine is that this is a fallen world. Has Mr. Avise never heard this?
Mr. Avise talks about evolutionary forces. Forces eh? This sounds like the science of Star Wars. I don't consider speculation about vague 'forces' to be scientific. (It's far more scientific to refer to intelligence as a source of information than it is to rely on some non-personal, reified force or forces.) What is this force anyway? No force can create specified complex information.
B. ''Furthermore, such dysfunctional traits abound not only in the phenotypes but inside the genomes of eukaryotic species."
- Contra Mr. Avise, nothing can be 'dysfunctional' in evolution. If there is no goal there can be no failure to realize a goal. Mr. Avise is smuggling teleology into evolutionary theory.
C. "Here, I highlight several outlandish features of the human genome that defy notions of ID by a caring cognitive agent."
- Does mr. Avise have a clue what he's talking about. ID doesn't specify a 'caring cognitive agent'. If he doesn't know that much he's not qualified to comment on ID.
He doesn't seem to realize that if he's going to brand x as 'outlandish' he has to have a standard for doing so. His problem is that e. theory gives him no such standard. There is no basis for a materialist to say x is outlandish. (He doesn't seem to understand the implications of his own worldview.)
D. "Gross imperfection at the molecular level presents a conundrum for the traditional paradigms of natural theology as well as for recent assertions of ID, but it is consistent with the notion of nonsentient contrivance by evolutionary forces.
- I can only laugh when I read Darwinists attempting to do theology. Contra Mr. Avise, imperfection presents no problem for traditional Christian theology. I have no idea where he gets this idea. ("The whole creation moans in travail," says the apostle Paul... as it awaits its perfection in the new heavens and earth.) I don't think 'imperfection' presents a problem for ID either. [see above]
A materialist has no basis for talking about imperfection as he has no standard of perfection. (Doesn't he realize this?) Perfection is a meaningless concept in e. theory; this makes imperfection a meaningless concept as well. (This makes the adjective 'gross' utterly pointless; Avise has no standard of perfection, thus no basis for a scale of imperfection.)
Notes;
1. Media Continues to Denounce ID, Crown Darwin Creation/Evolution Headlines 05/14/2010
May 14, 2010 — The news media and journals continue to publish one-sided statements against intelligent design (ID) – even though scientific evidence continues to support design on many fronts.'
2. Some creationists don't even make the claim all creatures were once perfect. (I don't think ID advocates do, and theistic evolutionists don't; if you call them creationists.)
3. 'John Avise in PNAS wrote a paper labeling ID as “religious creationism” but then used religious arguments in a science journal to attack it: i.e., “God wouldn’t make the world this way” [1.]
- Cornelius Hunter wrote a couple books dealing with this issue. I recommend them to Mr. Avise. His thesis is that the basic arguments Charles Darwin used to promote 'his' theory of evolution were basically arguments showing Christian doctrine and ideas were false; and that since they were false evolution must be true.
- Apparently Charles Darwin is Mr. Avise's idea of a great theologian.
4. Apparently tenure has so corrupted modern academia that it's considered acceptable for 'scholars' to write about things they know nothing about.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
The facts of life; the harsh realities
Most of the people who claim evolution is a fact don't know what a fact is, nor do they have a worldview that can provide them with a foundation for facts. As the Christian theologian Cornelius Van Til often said, 'before we can talk about facts we need to talk about the philosophy of facts.' Eugenie Scott is one apologist who believes M2M evolution is a fact. Is it?
Quotes and comments;
A. May 21, 2010 — In many public school science classrooms today, Darwinism is taught uncritically as a scientific fact. Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) defends that practice, and Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute (DI) contests it. [1.]
- People don't argue about things they consider to be facts; that people argue about e. theory is ample evidence it's not a fact. Scott claims (how she does this with a straight face I don't know) that 'real' scientists don't argue about evolution. This is utterly fallacious. If you read the literature you see that people who call themselves Darwinists or evolutionists argue continually about virtually every aspect of the grand theory. This argument (or conversation if you will) extends across everything thing from macro theories (e.g. gradualism vs punctuated equilibrium) to the fine details over whether some fossil belongs in one class or another, etc. etc. There is virtually Nothing that isn't hotly debated. (Apologists like Scott talk about the theory of evolution; but in reality there are many theories. These theories are somehow smuggled under one overarching theory of origins we might call Materialism.)
When Scott says M2M evolution is a fact she means that most scientists agree that some kind of materialist explanation for origins is undoubtedly true. This isn't anything like saying there is some one explanation that everyone agrees on. She's being disingenuous. To say that some materialist explanation must be true, is simply to say that no creationist account can be true. In other words, all these people are doing is telling us that they're Materialists. I only wish they were honest enough to admit this, instead of pretending 'evolution' is a scientific fact. This is little different than saying cosmology is a fact, or gravity is a fact. She's confusing the data with an explanation of the data.
Apart from all this, I'm of the opinion that the materialist explanations are woefully inadequate, and that they will never be able to give a valid explanation of human origins. Although she refuses to acknowledge them, many informed people have rejected the Darwinian (evolutionary) explanation for Origins. (To refuse to acknowledge people is one way to dehumanize them.) This means that her claim is disproved both from within the materialist camp and from without.
B. 'In Nature, Scott wrote a book review of How Science Works: Evolution. A Student Primer by R. John Ellis (Springer, 2010). [1.]
- We have here (again) another reification of science. This book (if the author wished to be rational) should have been titled 'How scientists work' not how 'science' works. (Science is an abstraction, and thus isn't required to do any work :=) Actually since Ellis can't possibly know how all scientists work his book should have been called 'How some scientists work'. Since it's a work about what he knows happened in the past it really should have been called 'How some scientists worked in the past' (subtitled; at least as far as I know; or at least according to what they told me) So why isn't it? I don't know; but I see a widespread attempt to reify science; to divinize it almost. It's to be the new god and the new religion; and so it must be spoken of as if it were a divine (infallible, etc.) being, and not some sloppy process engaged in by corrupt and fallible people.
Summary;
It seems clear to me that most of the 'facts' in our society are not things that have been discovered, but things that have been manufactured. Differentiating between the real and the manufactured can be an exceedingly difficult task. I'm against branding theories as facts, as this leads to a lack of prudent scepticism about scientific (political, etc.) claims. The materialist especially has no foundation for believing that man (in his view a random speck of matter falling through the void) can know what ultimate reality is. [2.]
- Mike Johnson [frfarer - at- Gmail.com]
Notes;
1. Should Darwin Get a Pass in Science Class? Creation/Evolution Headlines 05/21/2010
- I highly recommend the above article and commentary.
2. I won't get into it in this post (I've written on it before) a materialist like Scott has no way of even knowing what a fact is, let alone know whether M2M e. is a fact. i.e. if all is matter in motion in a 'cosmos' of flux nothing can be a fact. If all is constant change, nothing can stand still to be a standard for definition. As Van Til used to say; if all is mere matter in motion man is nothing but a white cap on a bottomless, shoreless ocean (of random chance). Scott forgets that on her worldview she's nothing more than matter in motion, a chance collection of chemical reactions. How then can she speak of facts? (She does; obviously; but when she does she's not speaking in terms of her own materialist worldview.)
3. For x to be a fact we would have to know x perfectly, and we can't know x perfectly unless we know the universe perfectly. Since this is impossible it's valid to say that there are no facts. This isn't the end of the world (as your grandmother might say) as we don't need facts. We can get by just fine with theories. It's evidence of scientism to claim x is a fact. This leaves no room for error, and just ignores the implications of our finiteness and possible blindness. (In the biblical view, man is finite, fallible and fallen, and to ignore or to deny this is to be in error.) Only an all wise, all knowing, all powerful creator God could know if X is a fact.
4. 'The problem with Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education is that she never received a good science education. She got a defective education from the triumphalist Julian Huxley era when logical positivism was in swing and Darwinism was presented as a done deal.' [1.]
- Unfortunately, this was/is true for most people. What students get isn't an education about scientific discoveries, but instruction in Materialist philosophy.
Quotes and comments;
A. May 21, 2010 — In many public school science classrooms today, Darwinism is taught uncritically as a scientific fact. Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) defends that practice, and Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute (DI) contests it. [1.]
- People don't argue about things they consider to be facts; that people argue about e. theory is ample evidence it's not a fact. Scott claims (how she does this with a straight face I don't know) that 'real' scientists don't argue about evolution. This is utterly fallacious. If you read the literature you see that people who call themselves Darwinists or evolutionists argue continually about virtually every aspect of the grand theory. This argument (or conversation if you will) extends across everything thing from macro theories (e.g. gradualism vs punctuated equilibrium) to the fine details over whether some fossil belongs in one class or another, etc. etc. There is virtually Nothing that isn't hotly debated. (Apologists like Scott talk about the theory of evolution; but in reality there are many theories. These theories are somehow smuggled under one overarching theory of origins we might call Materialism.)
When Scott says M2M evolution is a fact she means that most scientists agree that some kind of materialist explanation for origins is undoubtedly true. This isn't anything like saying there is some one explanation that everyone agrees on. She's being disingenuous. To say that some materialist explanation must be true, is simply to say that no creationist account can be true. In other words, all these people are doing is telling us that they're Materialists. I only wish they were honest enough to admit this, instead of pretending 'evolution' is a scientific fact. This is little different than saying cosmology is a fact, or gravity is a fact. She's confusing the data with an explanation of the data.
Apart from all this, I'm of the opinion that the materialist explanations are woefully inadequate, and that they will never be able to give a valid explanation of human origins. Although she refuses to acknowledge them, many informed people have rejected the Darwinian (evolutionary) explanation for Origins. (To refuse to acknowledge people is one way to dehumanize them.) This means that her claim is disproved both from within the materialist camp and from without.
B. 'In Nature, Scott wrote a book review of How Science Works: Evolution. A Student Primer by R. John Ellis (Springer, 2010). [1.]
- We have here (again) another reification of science. This book (if the author wished to be rational) should have been titled 'How scientists work' not how 'science' works. (Science is an abstraction, and thus isn't required to do any work :=) Actually since Ellis can't possibly know how all scientists work his book should have been called 'How some scientists work'. Since it's a work about what he knows happened in the past it really should have been called 'How some scientists worked in the past' (subtitled; at least as far as I know; or at least according to what they told me) So why isn't it? I don't know; but I see a widespread attempt to reify science; to divinize it almost. It's to be the new god and the new religion; and so it must be spoken of as if it were a divine (infallible, etc.) being, and not some sloppy process engaged in by corrupt and fallible people.
Summary;
It seems clear to me that most of the 'facts' in our society are not things that have been discovered, but things that have been manufactured. Differentiating between the real and the manufactured can be an exceedingly difficult task. I'm against branding theories as facts, as this leads to a lack of prudent scepticism about scientific (political, etc.) claims. The materialist especially has no foundation for believing that man (in his view a random speck of matter falling through the void) can know what ultimate reality is. [2.]
- Mike Johnson [frfarer - at- Gmail.com]
Notes;
1. Should Darwin Get a Pass in Science Class? Creation/Evolution Headlines 05/21/2010
- I highly recommend the above article and commentary.
2. I won't get into it in this post (I've written on it before) a materialist like Scott has no way of even knowing what a fact is, let alone know whether M2M e. is a fact. i.e. if all is matter in motion in a 'cosmos' of flux nothing can be a fact. If all is constant change, nothing can stand still to be a standard for definition. As Van Til used to say; if all is mere matter in motion man is nothing but a white cap on a bottomless, shoreless ocean (of random chance). Scott forgets that on her worldview she's nothing more than matter in motion, a chance collection of chemical reactions. How then can she speak of facts? (She does; obviously; but when she does she's not speaking in terms of her own materialist worldview.)
3. For x to be a fact we would have to know x perfectly, and we can't know x perfectly unless we know the universe perfectly. Since this is impossible it's valid to say that there are no facts. This isn't the end of the world (as your grandmother might say) as we don't need facts. We can get by just fine with theories. It's evidence of scientism to claim x is a fact. This leaves no room for error, and just ignores the implications of our finiteness and possible blindness. (In the biblical view, man is finite, fallible and fallen, and to ignore or to deny this is to be in error.) Only an all wise, all knowing, all powerful creator God could know if X is a fact.
4. 'The problem with Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education is that she never received a good science education. She got a defective education from the triumphalist Julian Huxley era when logical positivism was in swing and Darwinism was presented as a done deal.' [1.]
- Unfortunately, this was/is true for most people. What students get isn't an education about scientific discoveries, but instruction in Materialist philosophy.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Creation vs the new mythology
We're continually being told that modern culture is a battle between myth and science; between progressives who want to banish myth, and superstitious folk who prefer delusion to reality. Is this what's going on, or is something very different at work?
Quotes and comments;
A. '...the modern theologian, the modern philosopher and the modern scientist are agreed on the necessity of demythologization. Every major teaching of the evangelical faith is openly or covertly, expressly or by implication, demythologized.' - Cornelius Van Til [1.]
- The 'modernist' thinkers of today are all agreed that every area of life must be demythologized. (This means assuming God doesn't exist; and then asking 'Since god doesn't exist, what then must the case be?') The irony here is that their whole task is one of myth making. Their basic assumption (there is no God; that the creator God of the bible is an impossibility) can't be proved, and is thus only a myth.
Their 'grand' project of demythologizing is itself a myth; they claim to be demythologizing but are actually engaged in mythologizing of their own. They're exchanging one myth for another. The project is based on the pretense (and hubris) that the mind of man (in this time and place) can comprehend reality accurately, truly and comprehensively; that reality is what they think it is... and can be nothing more. From the Biblical point of view this claim is a myth.
They believe they can use the 'law' of non-contradiction to determine what can or cannot be; what can be real or can't be real; what can be true and what can't be true. Reality is thus determined by this 'law' of logic. This is another myth. Central to the conceit of demythologizing is the idea that if man can't understand x; x can't be true or real. This is another myth. There is a pretense here that nothing can be greater than man. This is another myth. (This way of looking at the world can be classified as Rationalism.)
Summary;
The fatal flaw of the new mythology is that if you take Materialism as your basic worldview stance (as your starting point for predication) you can't make sense of human experience. It's a myth to claim you can start with matter and end up with coherent and valid knowledge. An honest Materialist would have to describe all human experience in terms of physics. This would utterly destroy any attempt to acquire knowledge and find meaning.
Notes;
1. Cornelius Van Til; A christian theory of knowledge/p.333
2. The comical side of this whole subject is that the demythologizers seem to forget who they are when they engage in their critique of Christianity. They seem to forget that in terms of their own worldview, they're only bits of matter falling through the void; and that their thoughts are merely chemical reactions in a bowl of bone.
3. Not all non-Christians agree with the Rationalist approach of course. Academia is filled with Irrationalists; but they have little influence in the area of science. These are the people who claim nothing can be known; that truth doesn't exist; that everything is a word game; that all is relative; that all is illusion, etc. (The Rationalists and Irrationalists try the best they can to stay out of each other's way... and to leave each other with 'independent' spheres... and try not to criticize each other... lest they give comfort to biblical Christianity.)
Quotes and comments;
A. '...the modern theologian, the modern philosopher and the modern scientist are agreed on the necessity of demythologization. Every major teaching of the evangelical faith is openly or covertly, expressly or by implication, demythologized.' - Cornelius Van Til [1.]
- The 'modernist' thinkers of today are all agreed that every area of life must be demythologized. (This means assuming God doesn't exist; and then asking 'Since god doesn't exist, what then must the case be?') The irony here is that their whole task is one of myth making. Their basic assumption (there is no God; that the creator God of the bible is an impossibility) can't be proved, and is thus only a myth.
Their 'grand' project of demythologizing is itself a myth; they claim to be demythologizing but are actually engaged in mythologizing of their own. They're exchanging one myth for another. The project is based on the pretense (and hubris) that the mind of man (in this time and place) can comprehend reality accurately, truly and comprehensively; that reality is what they think it is... and can be nothing more. From the Biblical point of view this claim is a myth.
They believe they can use the 'law' of non-contradiction to determine what can or cannot be; what can be real or can't be real; what can be true and what can't be true. Reality is thus determined by this 'law' of logic. This is another myth. Central to the conceit of demythologizing is the idea that if man can't understand x; x can't be true or real. This is another myth. There is a pretense here that nothing can be greater than man. This is another myth. (This way of looking at the world can be classified as Rationalism.)
Summary;
The fatal flaw of the new mythology is that if you take Materialism as your basic worldview stance (as your starting point for predication) you can't make sense of human experience. It's a myth to claim you can start with matter and end up with coherent and valid knowledge. An honest Materialist would have to describe all human experience in terms of physics. This would utterly destroy any attempt to acquire knowledge and find meaning.
Notes;
1. Cornelius Van Til; A christian theory of knowledge/p.333
2. The comical side of this whole subject is that the demythologizers seem to forget who they are when they engage in their critique of Christianity. They seem to forget that in terms of their own worldview, they're only bits of matter falling through the void; and that their thoughts are merely chemical reactions in a bowl of bone.
3. Not all non-Christians agree with the Rationalist approach of course. Academia is filled with Irrationalists; but they have little influence in the area of science. These are the people who claim nothing can be known; that truth doesn't exist; that everything is a word game; that all is relative; that all is illusion, etc. (The Rationalists and Irrationalists try the best they can to stay out of each other's way... and to leave each other with 'independent' spheres... and try not to criticize each other... lest they give comfort to biblical Christianity.)
Friday, June 18, 2010
Prometheus and ethical review
Men deny that God exists so that they can play the role themselves; this is the heart and soul of all atheism and false religion. It's also the 'theology' behind genetic engineering.
Quotes and comments;
A. "The J. Craig Venter Institute says they have succeeded in creating the first living organism with a completely synthetic genome.
The team also added panic code that would kill the organism if it left the lab, and took part in a bioethical review before the project." [1.]
- An 'ethical' review by people who can't define ethics is comical. Evolutionary materialism cannot provide people with a foundation for ethics; and in fact denies that ethical truth exists. These reviews are nothing more than PR exercises... the process gone through to deflect public fears and criticism.
B. “It’s part of an ongoing process that we’ve been driving, trying to make sure that the science proceeds in an ethical fashion, that we’re being thoughtful about what we do and looking forward to the implications to the future,” Venter said.
- Venter has no idea what ethics even is, so how can do things ethically? There is no way to define ethics on a materialist basis. (The only way you can have absolute ethics is to have an absolute law giver. i.e. God.) This is a joke.
Science is an abstraction; therefore 'science' can't proceed ethically or unethically. It's people who engage in ethical (moral) behavior. It's people who violate standards. The idea these people can 'ethically' manage what they're doing is like asking Prometheus to write his own ethical code. I'm sure he went through a similar 'review' as the Venter group. (Wink, wink.)
They might be 'looking forward' to the implications of what they're doing, but they have no idea what those implications will be. (I might add that they're representing the entire human race in their activities; whether they want to admit it or not. Every human being on the planet will likely be affected by this new industry. The question is this; what right do they have to play with the fate of every human being who is now alive or will ever be alive? Maybe no one since Adam has had such a heavy weight on his shoulders. So of course they're going to say it's all safe; and that only positive results will incur. Nothing bad will ever happen... and if they do it won't be their fault.)
The trouble here (and the fear I have) is that there is no way to know how dangerous these 'experiments' are. These people can talk about safety all they want, but there's no way to know what the dangers are. There is no way to know what all this genetic engineering will lead to. I'm against it because there's no need for it. It's a huge risk that's unnecessary to take.
Notes;
1. Venter Group Plagiarizes Genetic Code Creation/Evolution Headlines 05/22/2010
'Live Science headlined the story, “First Live Organism with Synthetic Genome Created.” The word “created” was emphatic in the article; “the J. Craig Venter Institute says they have succeeded in creating the first living organism with a completely synthetic genome.”
2. 'It almost sounds like the lab created something entirely new from scratch – “artificial life.” New Scientist even used religious overtones, dubbing it an “Immaculate Creation.” [see above]
3. For what it's worth; I oppose the creation of 'artificial' life. I have an open mind with respect to the use of genetics to repair mutations. i.e. the attempt to reconstruct unmutated code. (This process involves the assumption human code was once perfect; but has now become rather badly damaged.)
Quotes and comments;
A. "The J. Craig Venter Institute says they have succeeded in creating the first living organism with a completely synthetic genome.
The team also added panic code that would kill the organism if it left the lab, and took part in a bioethical review before the project." [1.]
- An 'ethical' review by people who can't define ethics is comical. Evolutionary materialism cannot provide people with a foundation for ethics; and in fact denies that ethical truth exists. These reviews are nothing more than PR exercises... the process gone through to deflect public fears and criticism.
B. “It’s part of an ongoing process that we’ve been driving, trying to make sure that the science proceeds in an ethical fashion, that we’re being thoughtful about what we do and looking forward to the implications to the future,” Venter said.
- Venter has no idea what ethics even is, so how can do things ethically? There is no way to define ethics on a materialist basis. (The only way you can have absolute ethics is to have an absolute law giver. i.e. God.) This is a joke.
Science is an abstraction; therefore 'science' can't proceed ethically or unethically. It's people who engage in ethical (moral) behavior. It's people who violate standards. The idea these people can 'ethically' manage what they're doing is like asking Prometheus to write his own ethical code. I'm sure he went through a similar 'review' as the Venter group. (Wink, wink.)
They might be 'looking forward' to the implications of what they're doing, but they have no idea what those implications will be. (I might add that they're representing the entire human race in their activities; whether they want to admit it or not. Every human being on the planet will likely be affected by this new industry. The question is this; what right do they have to play with the fate of every human being who is now alive or will ever be alive? Maybe no one since Adam has had such a heavy weight on his shoulders. So of course they're going to say it's all safe; and that only positive results will incur. Nothing bad will ever happen... and if they do it won't be their fault.)
The trouble here (and the fear I have) is that there is no way to know how dangerous these 'experiments' are. These people can talk about safety all they want, but there's no way to know what the dangers are. There is no way to know what all this genetic engineering will lead to. I'm against it because there's no need for it. It's a huge risk that's unnecessary to take.
Notes;
1. Venter Group Plagiarizes Genetic Code Creation/Evolution Headlines 05/22/2010
'Live Science headlined the story, “First Live Organism with Synthetic Genome Created.” The word “created” was emphatic in the article; “the J. Craig Venter Institute says they have succeeded in creating the first living organism with a completely synthetic genome.”
2. 'It almost sounds like the lab created something entirely new from scratch – “artificial life.” New Scientist even used religious overtones, dubbing it an “Immaculate Creation.” [see above]
3. For what it's worth; I oppose the creation of 'artificial' life. I have an open mind with respect to the use of genetics to repair mutations. i.e. the attempt to reconstruct unmutated code. (This process involves the assumption human code was once perfect; but has now become rather badly damaged.)
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Creation and Interpretation
The Bible declares that the evidence for God's existence is clearly seen in the world and universe. Reformed theology claims that the reason men deny God's existence is that they interpret this general revelation incorrectly. Man's bias against God won't allow him to interpret the evidence faithfully.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'The knowledge of God as his creator is indelibly fixed in the constitution of every man. Calvin says it is infixed in his bowels. But the perversion of sin in the natural man is such that he constructs a view of himself and his world by which he seeks to suppress what, deep down in his being, he knows to be true about himself. Surrounded by the light of god's revelation the natural man, in his spiritual blindness perverts it and makes himself believe that it is a revelation of himself.' [1.]
- e.g. The evidence for Design has become almost impossible to deny in our day; but many people still resist the implications. Without grace they will interpret the data in any way but the way they should. I've read briefly in some writers who claim that while it's true that 'life' here on earth was designed - it wasn't by any creator God. It was man himself (they say) who 'engineered' all the living forms we see around us. (Or enough life forms were created to get the ball rolling as it were.) Our ancestors came from space and colonized (via some terra-forming process) a dead planet - miraculously bringing it to life. [2.]
B. 'Hamilton simply assumes from the fact of the presence of god's revelation to man that the natural man interprets it correctly. He confuses the revelation of God to man with sinful man's false interpretation of this revelation.' [1.]
- Van Til is responding to an apologist by the name of Floyd Hamilton.
The natural man represses a true knowledge of God 'by means of his basic assumption of human autonomy, of the contingency of the space-time facts of the world and the self-existence of its laws.' [3.]
- In other words; the materialist has a cosmology that makes creation impossible, and thus he cannot interpret the evidence correctly.
Notes;
1. A Christian theory of knowledge - Cornelius Van Til/p.265
2. e.g. Zecharia Sitchin ' Genesis Revisited'
- 'Zecharia Sitchin (born July 11, 1920) is an author of books promoting an explanation for human origins involving ancient astronauts. Sitchin attributes the creation of the ancient Sumerian culture to the Anunnaki, which he claims to be a race of extra-terrestrials from a hypothetical planet beyond Neptune called Nibiru, which he believes to be in an elongated, elliptical orbit in the Earth's own Solar System, asserting that Sumerian mythology reflects this view. - Wiki [An unreliable source I know; but in this case I think we can get away with it.]
3. Van Til p.264
Quotes and comments;
A. 'The knowledge of God as his creator is indelibly fixed in the constitution of every man. Calvin says it is infixed in his bowels. But the perversion of sin in the natural man is such that he constructs a view of himself and his world by which he seeks to suppress what, deep down in his being, he knows to be true about himself. Surrounded by the light of god's revelation the natural man, in his spiritual blindness perverts it and makes himself believe that it is a revelation of himself.' [1.]
- e.g. The evidence for Design has become almost impossible to deny in our day; but many people still resist the implications. Without grace they will interpret the data in any way but the way they should. I've read briefly in some writers who claim that while it's true that 'life' here on earth was designed - it wasn't by any creator God. It was man himself (they say) who 'engineered' all the living forms we see around us. (Or enough life forms were created to get the ball rolling as it were.) Our ancestors came from space and colonized (via some terra-forming process) a dead planet - miraculously bringing it to life. [2.]
B. 'Hamilton simply assumes from the fact of the presence of god's revelation to man that the natural man interprets it correctly. He confuses the revelation of God to man with sinful man's false interpretation of this revelation.' [1.]
- Van Til is responding to an apologist by the name of Floyd Hamilton.
The natural man represses a true knowledge of God 'by means of his basic assumption of human autonomy, of the contingency of the space-time facts of the world and the self-existence of its laws.' [3.]
- In other words; the materialist has a cosmology that makes creation impossible, and thus he cannot interpret the evidence correctly.
Notes;
1. A Christian theory of knowledge - Cornelius Van Til/p.265
2. e.g. Zecharia Sitchin ' Genesis Revisited'
- 'Zecharia Sitchin (born July 11, 1920) is an author of books promoting an explanation for human origins involving ancient astronauts. Sitchin attributes the creation of the ancient Sumerian culture to the Anunnaki, which he claims to be a race of extra-terrestrials from a hypothetical planet beyond Neptune called Nibiru, which he believes to be in an elongated, elliptical orbit in the Earth's own Solar System, asserting that Sumerian mythology reflects this view. - Wiki [An unreliable source I know; but in this case I think we can get away with it.]
3. Van Til p.264
Friday, June 11, 2010
Creation, science and definition
What is sometimes referred to as the cultural wars can be seen as a struggle over definition; over who gets to define what. This is perhaps the most important issue of our day, and too many people are asleep at that wheel when they should be paying attention.
Quotes and comments;
A. Defining life:
'With the stroke of a pen, South Korea decided that frozen human embryos are not life forms. PhysOrg reported that “The ruling means that human embryos that are in their early stage and are not implanted into a mother’s womb cannot be seen as human life forms,” even though they have a full complement of human DNA from a father and a mother. [1.]
- While the pretense is that this decision (and definition) is scientific, it's simply political expediency. No methodology (e.g. scientific naturalism) can provide us with definitions. This can only be done by persons, on the basis of a worldview. If politicians can define who is or is not human none of us has a foundation for human rights.
We read that the human embryo cannot be seen as human life; but cannot be seen as human life by whom? By corrupt politicians and lawless judges? By greedy businessmen and amoral investors?
This is covenant breaking man playing at being God. The South Korean elite are desperate to make some kind of mark in the international community... and I guess they see this as their best hope.
Under Humanist ideology no one apparently bothers to ask what God thinks. (Not even in the 'christian' community do our so called wise ask this question.) No; we must rely on human reason they tell us. In other words we must decide on the basis of our sinful and wicked hearts. These are the same people who declared God's law is also not a 'life form' if you will. No; it's a dead thing, fit only to be tossed in the waste bin with human embryos.
It's hardly surprising that people who sanction abortion would deny human embryos are human beings. (Nothing that gets in the way of their plans to play god will be called human... we can be sure of that.) This is another example of what happens when concepts are defined by man in terms of man. Our society is becoming Humanist dictionary writ large.
It's not surprising that a political elite that has the courts define science will then turn around and have them define human life. The one follows the other like night follows day. If you take definition away from scripture and hand it to politicians you can expect them to define all things in terms favorable to their own desires and plans. (All things are now being defined in terms that involve the worship of man.) The source of definition in a society plays the role of God in that society.
For the biblical creationist all definition belongs to god and is found in god's word (i.e. the Bible) Biblical c. is the only defense we have against the new idolatry of man. To get a quick and easy look at how far we've gone down the road to Humanist idolatry compare the 1828 dictionary of Noah Webster with the latest edition of Webster's (or any current edition of another dictionary). To get an even better picture of what's happening compare biblical definitions with modern humanist definitions. These new works are actually books of theology; religious documents. (We might call them the 'holy books' of the new atheism.)
- M. Johnson
Notes;
1. Stem Cells: Hope, Politics, Charity, and Clarity Creation/Evolution Headlines 05/30/2010
2. Humanism can be seen as a project that tries to define all of life in terms of man; but fails utterly in the attempt to find coherence and agreement in the process. The only way Humanist definitions gain traction is by having them imposed by the State.
Quotes and comments;
A. Defining life:
'With the stroke of a pen, South Korea decided that frozen human embryos are not life forms. PhysOrg reported that “The ruling means that human embryos that are in their early stage and are not implanted into a mother’s womb cannot be seen as human life forms,” even though they have a full complement of human DNA from a father and a mother. [1.]
- While the pretense is that this decision (and definition) is scientific, it's simply political expediency. No methodology (e.g. scientific naturalism) can provide us with definitions. This can only be done by persons, on the basis of a worldview. If politicians can define who is or is not human none of us has a foundation for human rights.
We read that the human embryo cannot be seen as human life; but cannot be seen as human life by whom? By corrupt politicians and lawless judges? By greedy businessmen and amoral investors?
This is covenant breaking man playing at being God. The South Korean elite are desperate to make some kind of mark in the international community... and I guess they see this as their best hope.
Under Humanist ideology no one apparently bothers to ask what God thinks. (Not even in the 'christian' community do our so called wise ask this question.) No; we must rely on human reason they tell us. In other words we must decide on the basis of our sinful and wicked hearts. These are the same people who declared God's law is also not a 'life form' if you will. No; it's a dead thing, fit only to be tossed in the waste bin with human embryos.
It's hardly surprising that people who sanction abortion would deny human embryos are human beings. (Nothing that gets in the way of their plans to play god will be called human... we can be sure of that.) This is another example of what happens when concepts are defined by man in terms of man. Our society is becoming Humanist dictionary writ large.
It's not surprising that a political elite that has the courts define science will then turn around and have them define human life. The one follows the other like night follows day. If you take definition away from scripture and hand it to politicians you can expect them to define all things in terms favorable to their own desires and plans. (All things are now being defined in terms that involve the worship of man.) The source of definition in a society plays the role of God in that society.
For the biblical creationist all definition belongs to god and is found in god's word (i.e. the Bible) Biblical c. is the only defense we have against the new idolatry of man. To get a quick and easy look at how far we've gone down the road to Humanist idolatry compare the 1828 dictionary of Noah Webster with the latest edition of Webster's (or any current edition of another dictionary). To get an even better picture of what's happening compare biblical definitions with modern humanist definitions. These new works are actually books of theology; religious documents. (We might call them the 'holy books' of the new atheism.)
- M. Johnson
Notes;
1. Stem Cells: Hope, Politics, Charity, and Clarity Creation/Evolution Headlines 05/30/2010
2. Humanism can be seen as a project that tries to define all of life in terms of man; but fails utterly in the attempt to find coherence and agreement in the process. The only way Humanist definitions gain traction is by having them imposed by the State.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Creation and pharmacology
Today I want to offer a brief post on the the philosophy of medicine.
I was looking at the 2nd edition of 'Feeling Good' by David Burns the other day. In this edition he added a long section on pharmacological medications. (e.g. anti-anxiety and anti-depression drugs.) A cynical person might wonder why he did this, as the first edition promoted the idea of dealing with anxiety and depression (etc.) without the use of drugs. A long list of medications is listed, along with all their side effects. These drugs can cause dozens, if not hundreds of problems, including death.
- I can't help wondering how a doctor can (in good conscience) prescribe these drugs, knowing all the harmful effects that they can (and do) cause. The first rule of medicine used to be 'do no harm.' So what happened to that? At some point in the business of medicine this mandate fell by the wayside.
When you look at what these drugs are made of you realize that these are largely a collection of toxic (poisonous) compounds. These are substances that have never (as far as we know) existed in the history (long or short) of the universe. Why then are they being injected into the bloodstreams of human beings? What is the philosophical rationale for such a procedure? How can substances that have never existed in the history of human beings (or of the earth itself) be considered either beneficial or necessary to the health of human beings?
- I can't see how this procedure makes sense on either an evolutionary or a creationist basis. How could we possibly have a need for substances that have never existed in the history of the universe?
Summary;
I find the use of these chemical compounds a dubious practice. I see no reason why they should be necessary. They didn't (as far as I know or can imagine) exist in the perfect setting of Eden, so why would they be needed now? They aren't in any way a natural product? Many if not most of them are toxic substances. I don't see any Biblical injunction against them, but neither do I see a warrant for them. I think we need to do some serious thinking on this issue. I've seen nothing on this subject myself, and am puzzled as to why this is.
I was looking at the 2nd edition of 'Feeling Good' by David Burns the other day. In this edition he added a long section on pharmacological medications. (e.g. anti-anxiety and anti-depression drugs.) A cynical person might wonder why he did this, as the first edition promoted the idea of dealing with anxiety and depression (etc.) without the use of drugs. A long list of medications is listed, along with all their side effects. These drugs can cause dozens, if not hundreds of problems, including death.
- I can't help wondering how a doctor can (in good conscience) prescribe these drugs, knowing all the harmful effects that they can (and do) cause. The first rule of medicine used to be 'do no harm.' So what happened to that? At some point in the business of medicine this mandate fell by the wayside.
When you look at what these drugs are made of you realize that these are largely a collection of toxic (poisonous) compounds. These are substances that have never (as far as we know) existed in the history (long or short) of the universe. Why then are they being injected into the bloodstreams of human beings? What is the philosophical rationale for such a procedure? How can substances that have never existed in the history of human beings (or of the earth itself) be considered either beneficial or necessary to the health of human beings?
- I can't see how this procedure makes sense on either an evolutionary or a creationist basis. How could we possibly have a need for substances that have never existed in the history of the universe?
Summary;
I find the use of these chemical compounds a dubious practice. I see no reason why they should be necessary. They didn't (as far as I know or can imagine) exist in the perfect setting of Eden, so why would they be needed now? They aren't in any way a natural product? Many if not most of them are toxic substances. I don't see any Biblical injunction against them, but neither do I see a warrant for them. I think we need to do some serious thinking on this issue. I've seen nothing on this subject myself, and am puzzled as to why this is.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Infinite complexity, intelligence, and miracle
As someone who tries his best to keep up with discoveries in biology, I sense that a sea change is about to occur in Evolutionary theory. The ideas of Charles Darwin are so out of date now that they're obsolete. Materialists will have to come up with a new paradigm to replace the old model, if they want to stay in the explanation game.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'Ten years after the Human Genome Project was completed, now we know: biology is “orders of magnitude” more complicated than scientists expected. So wrote Erika Check Hayden in Nature. [1.]
- It's a constant stream of statements like this that point to a coming paradigm shift in Evolutionary theory. What this will consist of I don't know; nor do I think anyone Can know. Atheists won't abandon naturalism, but what they'll come up with to replace the outdated theory being propagated in the schools and in the media now is anyone's guess. [3.] Darwinists haven't begun to come to grips with this new (unexpected) complexity. Their current theory isn't up to the job of describing or explaining what they see in new biological discoveries, and so it will have to be scrapped. Old theories are little able to deal with orders of magnitude problems.
B. 'Geneticists expected to find 100,000 genes in the human genome; the count is more like 21,000. But with them came a huge surprise in the accessory molecules – transcription factors, small RNAs, regulators – all arranged in dynamic interacting networks that boggle the mind. Hayden compared them to the Mandelbrot set in fractal geometry that unveils deeper levels of complexity the closer you look.' [1.]
- It's clear that no simple Darwinian analogies with animal breeding can begin to account for what researchers are now seeing, as the veil over biology is being lifted. The creationists are being proved correct in their critiques of natural selection and neo-Darwinism, and the evolutionary elite can't forgive them for it. (This hostility includes the ones inside the church, as well as the ones outside.) It's simply 'unacceptable' as they say for for a bunch of 'fundamentalists' to be right, and the academic elite to be wrong.
C. ''When we started out, the idea was that signalling pathways were fairly simple and linear,” says Tony Pawson, a cell biologist at the University of Toronto in Ontario. “Now, we appreciate that the signalling information in cells is organized through networks of information rather than simple discrete pathways. It’s infinitely more complex.”
- There's no way the bucket shop ideas of Darwin can deal with a reality that's 'infinitely' more complex. (This is as true for the neo-Darwinists, as they too rely on mere chance plus time to work the miracles we see in biology. Isn't 'infinitely complex' a good synonym for miracle? What could produce such complexity but infinite intelligence? [2.]
- I wonder how any simple theory can account for infinite complexity. I see no way this can be founded on mere matter in motion. Simple material reactions don't have this kind of capacity.
D. 'Hayden acknowledged that the “junk DNA” paradigm has been blown to smithereens. “Just one decade of post-genome biology has exploded that view,” she said, speaking of the notion that gene regulation was a straightforward, linear process – genes coding for regulator proteins that control transcription.'
- In retrospect I think that the demise of the junk DNA idea will be seen as the end of the old paradigm.
E. 'The plethora of small RNAs produced by these non-coding regions, and how they interact with each other and with DNA, was completely unexpected when the project began.'
- When you see phrases like 'was completely unexpected' you know that big changes are coming in theory. If it only happened once or twice, the old theory might (might) be able to accomodate it; but this kind of thing is happening frequently now, and has occurred scores of times.
Notes;
1. Human Genome 'Infinitely More Complex' Than Expected Creation/Evolution Headlines 04/05/2010
April 05, 2010 — Ten years after the Human Genome Project was completed, now we know: biology is “orders of magnitude” more complicated than scientists expected. So wrote Erika Check Hayden in Nature News March 31 and in the April 1 issue of Nature.
2. Miracle;
"What are miracles? They are the acts and manifestations of a Spiritual Power in the universe, superior to the powers and laws of matter. Channing, Perfect Life, p. 248. [Century dictionary]
- Is that not one purpose of a miracle? i.e. to show that the physical universe is not ultimate, that there exists a superior power.
3. I have a feeling (for what it's worth) that atheists will end up adopting a theory of origins based on the earth having once been a space colony.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'Ten years after the Human Genome Project was completed, now we know: biology is “orders of magnitude” more complicated than scientists expected. So wrote Erika Check Hayden in Nature. [1.]
- It's a constant stream of statements like this that point to a coming paradigm shift in Evolutionary theory. What this will consist of I don't know; nor do I think anyone Can know. Atheists won't abandon naturalism, but what they'll come up with to replace the outdated theory being propagated in the schools and in the media now is anyone's guess. [3.] Darwinists haven't begun to come to grips with this new (unexpected) complexity. Their current theory isn't up to the job of describing or explaining what they see in new biological discoveries, and so it will have to be scrapped. Old theories are little able to deal with orders of magnitude problems.
B. 'Geneticists expected to find 100,000 genes in the human genome; the count is more like 21,000. But with them came a huge surprise in the accessory molecules – transcription factors, small RNAs, regulators – all arranged in dynamic interacting networks that boggle the mind. Hayden compared them to the Mandelbrot set in fractal geometry that unveils deeper levels of complexity the closer you look.' [1.]
- It's clear that no simple Darwinian analogies with animal breeding can begin to account for what researchers are now seeing, as the veil over biology is being lifted. The creationists are being proved correct in their critiques of natural selection and neo-Darwinism, and the evolutionary elite can't forgive them for it. (This hostility includes the ones inside the church, as well as the ones outside.) It's simply 'unacceptable' as they say for for a bunch of 'fundamentalists' to be right, and the academic elite to be wrong.
C. ''When we started out, the idea was that signalling pathways were fairly simple and linear,” says Tony Pawson, a cell biologist at the University of Toronto in Ontario. “Now, we appreciate that the signalling information in cells is organized through networks of information rather than simple discrete pathways. It’s infinitely more complex.”
- There's no way the bucket shop ideas of Darwin can deal with a reality that's 'infinitely' more complex. (This is as true for the neo-Darwinists, as they too rely on mere chance plus time to work the miracles we see in biology. Isn't 'infinitely complex' a good synonym for miracle? What could produce such complexity but infinite intelligence? [2.]
- I wonder how any simple theory can account for infinite complexity. I see no way this can be founded on mere matter in motion. Simple material reactions don't have this kind of capacity.
D. 'Hayden acknowledged that the “junk DNA” paradigm has been blown to smithereens. “Just one decade of post-genome biology has exploded that view,” she said, speaking of the notion that gene regulation was a straightforward, linear process – genes coding for regulator proteins that control transcription.'
- In retrospect I think that the demise of the junk DNA idea will be seen as the end of the old paradigm.
E. 'The plethora of small RNAs produced by these non-coding regions, and how they interact with each other and with DNA, was completely unexpected when the project began.'
- When you see phrases like 'was completely unexpected' you know that big changes are coming in theory. If it only happened once or twice, the old theory might (might) be able to accomodate it; but this kind of thing is happening frequently now, and has occurred scores of times.
Notes;
1. Human Genome 'Infinitely More Complex' Than Expected Creation/Evolution Headlines 04/05/2010
April 05, 2010 — Ten years after the Human Genome Project was completed, now we know: biology is “orders of magnitude” more complicated than scientists expected. So wrote Erika Check Hayden in Nature News March 31 and in the April 1 issue of Nature.
2. Miracle;
"What are miracles? They are the acts and manifestations of a Spiritual Power in the universe, superior to the powers and laws of matter. Channing, Perfect Life, p. 248. [Century dictionary]
- Is that not one purpose of a miracle? i.e. to show that the physical universe is not ultimate, that there exists a superior power.
3. I have a feeling (for what it's worth) that atheists will end up adopting a theory of origins based on the earth having once been a space colony.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
The Fear of Creation
I've been thinking about how our liberal theologians (with their Humanist hermeneutic) seem to be highly concerned about the creationist movement. I see people who are becoming afraid that the 'christianity' they've treated as a game, as idle speculation, just might be, real. It seems obvious to me that they don't want Christianity to be real; that this is their greatest nightmare. They've spent their 'careers' treating Christianity as a humanist invention, as a cloak for their left wing humanism, and now they see evidence (in creationist claims) that it might be real.
Since having Christianity be real, (and having people treat it as if it were real) is something they hate, they fight against any and all creationist claims. They deny (without much if any study) that any of these claims are real. They claim that all evidence for creation is false, and that all critiques of Evolution are false. A great fear that creation is true has come upon them. If creation is true after all; it means all their liberal (Humanist) theology is wrong. They know enough to know that they are damned if Biblical creation turns out to be real. At the very least, they will have to repent and be converted... but do they want to? And can they, at this late date do so? It's one thing to mock creation (and Biblical Christianity) if you think it unreal, it's another thing to have this mocked thing become real. Will they dare to mock it if they have to admit it's real?
- This then is their dilemma, and why they hate and fear the creationist movement so much.
I don't want to generalize, but most theologians who have come out as opponents of creation can be roughly categorized as followers of process theology. [1.] At the heart of PT is the idea that if we can't understand something it can't be true. This has emotional force, but intellectually speaking it's transparently false. The Process theologian simply refuses to accept mystery. This is a case of intellectual and spiritual pride.
A. 'Since the fall of Adam, apostate mankind has assumed its own essential deity. Man is assumed to be a participant in deity. When he uses teh laws of logi, and in particular the law of non-contradiction, as he must, then he takes for granted this inherent divinity of man. He assumes that his logic is legislative for the nature of reality. Whatever esists, he assumes, must be exhaustively penetrable by the logical powers of man.' [2.]
- Why an evolved apes should be capable of determining reality is something that the student isn't told. It makes no sense, and so can only be pronounced as a verity, not defended as a claim. If men truly had such an ability it would surely be evidence against Darwinism and evolution.
Man hates the true and living god because he wants to be god himself; as a result we get the absurdities of process theology. We see in these speculations the unspoken belief man is divine. (There might be some kind of god, but if there is both this god and man participate in the same process of evolution.) The god of PT (open theism) is a 'god' who exists on the same level as man. He knows more (at least now) and he has more power (for now) but he/it exists on the same level as man. It's a denial of the creator/creature distinction. It claims to be avant garde, but it's about as sophisticated as Homer and the Iliad.
Notes;
1. The kind of theologians I'm referring to can be identified (in a less than perfect way) with people who agree with the position taken by the Biologos Foundation. (see previous post.) People like Ian Barbour, John Cobb, Francis Collins, John Polkinghorne, Ken Miller, etc. (People involved in process theology.)
- The main defense of process theology that I've seen is the argument from evil. i.e. the idea that since evil exists in the world this means that God is either not all powerful, or not all good.
2. Cornelius Van Til - The christian theory of knowledge/p.145.
3. Process theologians boldly claim that there is no reason to disbelieve consensus theories of Evolution. I don't know how anyone who's familiar with the literature can say such a thing. Creationists websites put out relevant critiques of E. theory on a daily basis. (See Creation.com, Creation Evolution Headlines, Science update from ICR, and many others)
Since having Christianity be real, (and having people treat it as if it were real) is something they hate, they fight against any and all creationist claims. They deny (without much if any study) that any of these claims are real. They claim that all evidence for creation is false, and that all critiques of Evolution are false. A great fear that creation is true has come upon them. If creation is true after all; it means all their liberal (Humanist) theology is wrong. They know enough to know that they are damned if Biblical creation turns out to be real. At the very least, they will have to repent and be converted... but do they want to? And can they, at this late date do so? It's one thing to mock creation (and Biblical Christianity) if you think it unreal, it's another thing to have this mocked thing become real. Will they dare to mock it if they have to admit it's real?
- This then is their dilemma, and why they hate and fear the creationist movement so much.
I don't want to generalize, but most theologians who have come out as opponents of creation can be roughly categorized as followers of process theology. [1.] At the heart of PT is the idea that if we can't understand something it can't be true. This has emotional force, but intellectually speaking it's transparently false. The Process theologian simply refuses to accept mystery. This is a case of intellectual and spiritual pride.
A. 'Since the fall of Adam, apostate mankind has assumed its own essential deity. Man is assumed to be a participant in deity. When he uses teh laws of logi, and in particular the law of non-contradiction, as he must, then he takes for granted this inherent divinity of man. He assumes that his logic is legislative for the nature of reality. Whatever esists, he assumes, must be exhaustively penetrable by the logical powers of man.' [2.]
- Why an evolved apes should be capable of determining reality is something that the student isn't told. It makes no sense, and so can only be pronounced as a verity, not defended as a claim. If men truly had such an ability it would surely be evidence against Darwinism and evolution.
Man hates the true and living god because he wants to be god himself; as a result we get the absurdities of process theology. We see in these speculations the unspoken belief man is divine. (There might be some kind of god, but if there is both this god and man participate in the same process of evolution.) The god of PT (open theism) is a 'god' who exists on the same level as man. He knows more (at least now) and he has more power (for now) but he/it exists on the same level as man. It's a denial of the creator/creature distinction. It claims to be avant garde, but it's about as sophisticated as Homer and the Iliad.
Notes;
1. The kind of theologians I'm referring to can be identified (in a less than perfect way) with people who agree with the position taken by the Biologos Foundation. (see previous post.) People like Ian Barbour, John Cobb, Francis Collins, John Polkinghorne, Ken Miller, etc. (People involved in process theology.)
- The main defense of process theology that I've seen is the argument from evil. i.e. the idea that since evil exists in the world this means that God is either not all powerful, or not all good.
2. Cornelius Van Til - The christian theory of knowledge/p.145.
3. Process theologians boldly claim that there is no reason to disbelieve consensus theories of Evolution. I don't know how anyone who's familiar with the literature can say such a thing. Creationists websites put out relevant critiques of E. theory on a daily basis. (See Creation.com, Creation Evolution Headlines, Science update from ICR, and many others)
Friday, June 4, 2010
The Templeton attack on Christianity
The Templeton Foundation prides itself on being hated by all the wrong people. They claim that the fact 'extremists' like Richard Dawkins young earth creationists both hate them shows the world how right their 'moderate' position is. I don't think it shows this at all. They support a kind of vitalistic (theistic) evolution. One of their pet projects in the Biologos Foundation. I reject the 'conciliatory' position they've adopted, and will take a brief look at it in this post.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'Over the past six months or so, the evangelical world has been debating a series of statements and papers by Dr. Bruce Waltke, sponsored by the BioLogos Foundation. BioLogos, founded by Dr. Francis Collins, claims to be "a reliable source of scholarly thought on contemporary issues in science and faith. It highlights the compatibility of modern science with traditional Christian beliefs." [1.]
- Collins is a big favorite with the Templeton gang. Christians who accept and defend evolution are much beloved by atheists and anti-creationists.
B. 'Dr. Waltke insists that he is an ardent believer in "the infallibility (as to its authority) and inerrancy (as to its Source) of Scripture."2 Yet he also insists: "I believe that creation by the process of evolution is a tenable Biblical position, and, as represented by BioLogos, the best Christian apologetic to defend Genesis 1-3 against its critics."
- Are Christians 'called' upon to defend individual Bible passages? I'm not sure, but I don't think they are.
- Notice that he says evolution is a tenable belief. This means it's a defensible belief. It does not mean (necessarily) that it (E.) is true. I find this interesting. Is he admitting it's not true? Obviously it's easy to defend Evolution in this society, where almost everyone is sent to a government controlled school, that is in turn controlled by materialists and anti-Christians.
C. 'In a paper released by BioLogos in late 2009, Dr. Waltke listed eleven "Barriers to Accepting the Possibility of Creation by Means of an Evolutionary Process."
'Dr. Waltke defined the evolutionary process as:
"The sufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about the development of present living kinds from simpler earlier kinds, including the emergence of man from a common ancestor with apes.'' [1.]
- It's nice to see that he defined Evolution honestly. (This is a novel approach indeed.)
- He's basically basing his whole argument on mutation. How he imagines copying mistakes can create a library of new information I have no idea. This is clearly impossible. (Give your head a shake Bruce.)
D. 'In the same paper, Dr. Waltke said about creation:
"Since "creation" involves "ordered existence," creation by the process of evolution implies--so it seems to me--the Creator's intelligence guiding the process, not a process by unguided, purposeless chance.6
- Now he's starting to waffle. Evolution guided by the Creator's intelligence is Not evolution. This is the fallacy of equivocation! He says he believes in evolution, but then the 'evolution' he believes in isn't evolution at all. This is Not the consensus science definition of evolution. The court mandated definition includes no creator, and W. assuredly knows this. How does he think he can get away with playing this game? What he's doing is transparently fallacious.
E. 'For several years now, various authors and spokespersons within the ID movement have accused ICR and other recent creation proponents of hindering evangelism because "no one" will talk to us if we hold such "silly" positions. Dr. Waltke's video comments reflect that thinking:
"I think that if the data is overwhelmingly in favor, in favor of evolution, to deny that reality will make us a cult, some odd group that's not really interacting with the real world.
To deny the reality would be to deny the truth of God in the world and would be to deny truth….also our spiritual death in witness to the world that we're not credible, that we are bigoted, we have a blind faith and this is what we're accused of.
I think it is essential to us or we'll end up like some small sect somewhere that retained a certain dress or a certain language. And they end up so…marginalized, totally marginalized, and I think that would be a great tragedy for the church, for us to become marginalized in that way." [1.]
- This is sad and pathetic. It's pretty obvious isn't it, that this defense of Evolution isn't really a concern with what the bible actually says. It's also not about whether Evolution (M2M) is true or not. What this is about is maintaining 'credibility' with people who reject Christianity and creation. This is a strange witness indeed. Has prof. Waltke not noticed what has happened in Europe where 'liberals' adopted all of his proposals many decades ago? Has he not noticed the utter collapse of the church in Europe? (Or has he been too busy inventing fake arguments for defending evolution?)
The approach he recommends is not only dishonest, it's suicidal. The calling of Christians is to proclaim the truth, not to conform to the wisdom of the academic world. The calling is to proclaim the gospel. Some will accept it and some will reject it. This is not to be the concern of the apologist. No one (and this includes the people at Biologos) can argue people into the kingdom of God. No one can argue people into accepting Christianity and creation. (Has Waltke forgotten the ministry of the Holy Spirit?)
- It's always interesting to me how people like W. care so much more about atheists than they do about fellow Christians. How is this? (You can ask this question a hundred times and not get a single answer.)
- I disagree with Waltke entirely. The evidence is overwhelmingly against evolution and in favor of Christianity. (It doesn't sound like he has even begun to keep up with the evidence against evolution. In fact he sounds like one of those 'liberals' who refuse to read anything critical of their beloved evolution.) His whole case revolves around maintaining face with Christ hating atheists. (A strange witness indeed.) The approach he advocates is the antithesis of how the apostles operated.
- Waltke talks about a blind faith. This would seem to be clear evidence he hasn't kept up with the origins debate in even a trivial way. Is he unaware of the mountains of evidence creationists have gathered? Has he read even one percent of it? There's a difference between faith and blind faith, and it's sad to see him accuse creationists of having nothing but blind faith. (Is it okay to lie about fellow Christians professor Waltke?)
On the contrary, it's people like Waltke who come a lot closer to blind faith. e.g. we know from biological study that life does not come from non-life. To believe otherwise is a matter of blind faith. (I could go on, and do so at length.) To imagine that the libraries of complex, specified information needed as a foundation for the plethora of living forms in the world came about by chemical accident is something I consider both impossible and preposterous. There is no way this could have happened. You can't get Shakespeare's plays by throwing letters into the wind. At the heart of Darwinian 'theory' is an absurd claim that complex, specified information issues out of the void.
Summary;
The claim that theistic evolution is the 'best' view of origins is based on the idea of the golden mean. The golden mean supposedly takes the middle (mean) position between two extreme positions, and thus is the best approach to take on an issue. The idea of the golden mean is a fallacy; one that's based upon the assumption there is no such thing as absolute truth, that truth is a human invention. It denies the idea of absolute truth; and thus denies the idea any biblical doctrine is true. It assumes that the bible (and Christianity) is a human invention.
Notes;
1. Creation by Evolution - by Henry Morris III, D.Min.
[Understanding the Theological Hazards of Bruce Waltke, BioLogos, and the New Darwinian Evangelicals]
2. BioLogos is funded by the Templeton Foundation, which has awarded prizes and grants to Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Catholics, evangelical Christians, and atheists. Its support of evolution-based science research is ongoing. [above]
3. When I speak about Evolution I'm referring to molecules to man evolution. (M2M)
Quotes and comments;
A. 'Over the past six months or so, the evangelical world has been debating a series of statements and papers by Dr. Bruce Waltke, sponsored by the BioLogos Foundation. BioLogos, founded by Dr. Francis Collins, claims to be "a reliable source of scholarly thought on contemporary issues in science and faith. It highlights the compatibility of modern science with traditional Christian beliefs." [1.]
- Collins is a big favorite with the Templeton gang. Christians who accept and defend evolution are much beloved by atheists and anti-creationists.
B. 'Dr. Waltke insists that he is an ardent believer in "the infallibility (as to its authority) and inerrancy (as to its Source) of Scripture."2 Yet he also insists: "I believe that creation by the process of evolution is a tenable Biblical position, and, as represented by BioLogos, the best Christian apologetic to defend Genesis 1-3 against its critics."
- Are Christians 'called' upon to defend individual Bible passages? I'm not sure, but I don't think they are.
- Notice that he says evolution is a tenable belief. This means it's a defensible belief. It does not mean (necessarily) that it (E.) is true. I find this interesting. Is he admitting it's not true? Obviously it's easy to defend Evolution in this society, where almost everyone is sent to a government controlled school, that is in turn controlled by materialists and anti-Christians.
C. 'In a paper released by BioLogos in late 2009, Dr. Waltke listed eleven "Barriers to Accepting the Possibility of Creation by Means of an Evolutionary Process."
'Dr. Waltke defined the evolutionary process as:
"The sufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about the development of present living kinds from simpler earlier kinds, including the emergence of man from a common ancestor with apes.'' [1.]
- It's nice to see that he defined Evolution honestly. (This is a novel approach indeed.)
- He's basically basing his whole argument on mutation. How he imagines copying mistakes can create a library of new information I have no idea. This is clearly impossible. (Give your head a shake Bruce.)
D. 'In the same paper, Dr. Waltke said about creation:
"Since "creation" involves "ordered existence," creation by the process of evolution implies--so it seems to me--the Creator's intelligence guiding the process, not a process by unguided, purposeless chance.6
- Now he's starting to waffle. Evolution guided by the Creator's intelligence is Not evolution. This is the fallacy of equivocation! He says he believes in evolution, but then the 'evolution' he believes in isn't evolution at all. This is Not the consensus science definition of evolution. The court mandated definition includes no creator, and W. assuredly knows this. How does he think he can get away with playing this game? What he's doing is transparently fallacious.
E. 'For several years now, various authors and spokespersons within the ID movement have accused ICR and other recent creation proponents of hindering evangelism because "no one" will talk to us if we hold such "silly" positions. Dr. Waltke's video comments reflect that thinking:
"I think that if the data is overwhelmingly in favor, in favor of evolution, to deny that reality will make us a cult, some odd group that's not really interacting with the real world.
To deny the reality would be to deny the truth of God in the world and would be to deny truth….also our spiritual death in witness to the world that we're not credible, that we are bigoted, we have a blind faith and this is what we're accused of.
I think it is essential to us or we'll end up like some small sect somewhere that retained a certain dress or a certain language. And they end up so…marginalized, totally marginalized, and I think that would be a great tragedy for the church, for us to become marginalized in that way." [1.]
- This is sad and pathetic. It's pretty obvious isn't it, that this defense of Evolution isn't really a concern with what the bible actually says. It's also not about whether Evolution (M2M) is true or not. What this is about is maintaining 'credibility' with people who reject Christianity and creation. This is a strange witness indeed. Has prof. Waltke not noticed what has happened in Europe where 'liberals' adopted all of his proposals many decades ago? Has he not noticed the utter collapse of the church in Europe? (Or has he been too busy inventing fake arguments for defending evolution?)
The approach he recommends is not only dishonest, it's suicidal. The calling of Christians is to proclaim the truth, not to conform to the wisdom of the academic world. The calling is to proclaim the gospel. Some will accept it and some will reject it. This is not to be the concern of the apologist. No one (and this includes the people at Biologos) can argue people into the kingdom of God. No one can argue people into accepting Christianity and creation. (Has Waltke forgotten the ministry of the Holy Spirit?)
- It's always interesting to me how people like W. care so much more about atheists than they do about fellow Christians. How is this? (You can ask this question a hundred times and not get a single answer.)
- I disagree with Waltke entirely. The evidence is overwhelmingly against evolution and in favor of Christianity. (It doesn't sound like he has even begun to keep up with the evidence against evolution. In fact he sounds like one of those 'liberals' who refuse to read anything critical of their beloved evolution.) His whole case revolves around maintaining face with Christ hating atheists. (A strange witness indeed.) The approach he advocates is the antithesis of how the apostles operated.
- Waltke talks about a blind faith. This would seem to be clear evidence he hasn't kept up with the origins debate in even a trivial way. Is he unaware of the mountains of evidence creationists have gathered? Has he read even one percent of it? There's a difference between faith and blind faith, and it's sad to see him accuse creationists of having nothing but blind faith. (Is it okay to lie about fellow Christians professor Waltke?)
On the contrary, it's people like Waltke who come a lot closer to blind faith. e.g. we know from biological study that life does not come from non-life. To believe otherwise is a matter of blind faith. (I could go on, and do so at length.) To imagine that the libraries of complex, specified information needed as a foundation for the plethora of living forms in the world came about by chemical accident is something I consider both impossible and preposterous. There is no way this could have happened. You can't get Shakespeare's plays by throwing letters into the wind. At the heart of Darwinian 'theory' is an absurd claim that complex, specified information issues out of the void.
Summary;
The claim that theistic evolution is the 'best' view of origins is based on the idea of the golden mean. The golden mean supposedly takes the middle (mean) position between two extreme positions, and thus is the best approach to take on an issue. The idea of the golden mean is a fallacy; one that's based upon the assumption there is no such thing as absolute truth, that truth is a human invention. It denies the idea of absolute truth; and thus denies the idea any biblical doctrine is true. It assumes that the bible (and Christianity) is a human invention.
Notes;
1. Creation by Evolution - by Henry Morris III, D.Min.
[Understanding the Theological Hazards of Bruce Waltke, BioLogos, and the New Darwinian Evangelicals]
2. BioLogos is funded by the Templeton Foundation, which has awarded prizes and grants to Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Catholics, evangelical Christians, and atheists. Its support of evolution-based science research is ongoing. [above]
3. When I speak about Evolution I'm referring to molecules to man evolution. (M2M)
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Child of Nature? or child of God?
Man can only separate himself from God (i.e. deny he is a created being) by making himself one with nature. Although he rejects the idea of being a creature made by God, he soon finds he doesn't really like thinking of himself as an animal either.
Man can either be a child of God or a child of nature. This is his dilemma. This is the choice he has to make. In our day a lot of people are trying to be both. They claim they are trousered and skirted apes, but they don't want to see themselves as one with nature either. e.g. they want to have laws that apply to humans but not to animals... all the while claiming to be animals. They want to say x is 'unnatural' behavior, all the while claiming to be the offspring of mother nature. They claim to be followers of logic (over 'superstition') but contradict themselves at every other step along their crooked way.
These contradictions speak to man of the fallaciousness of his non-christian world views. (We can see these contradictions as a revelation of God.) Man proclaims his independence from God by declaring his animal origins, but yet he knows better, he knows he's not an animal. We can see evidence of this knowledge in all the laws he creates for himself... or should I say creates for others. He says one thing (in the classroom) and does the opposite when he steps outside the classroom. Wanting to be rational, he ends up being irrational. Darwin offered him a way to escape God, and he went down the rabbit trail... only to find himself in an intellectual and spiritual dead end. He doesn't want to be an animal or a man it would appear. He doesn't want to be a child of God or a child of nature.... but he can't see a way out.
Summary;
Caught in a dilemma he can't find a solution for, modern man tends to cop out by ignoring the problem. "Oh well, why don't we forget the whole thing. Thinking is such a drag. Let's try that new restaurant, and have a bottle of wine. Philosophy! Who needs it."
Man can either be a child of God or a child of nature. This is his dilemma. This is the choice he has to make. In our day a lot of people are trying to be both. They claim they are trousered and skirted apes, but they don't want to see themselves as one with nature either. e.g. they want to have laws that apply to humans but not to animals... all the while claiming to be animals. They want to say x is 'unnatural' behavior, all the while claiming to be the offspring of mother nature. They claim to be followers of logic (over 'superstition') but contradict themselves at every other step along their crooked way.
These contradictions speak to man of the fallaciousness of his non-christian world views. (We can see these contradictions as a revelation of God.) Man proclaims his independence from God by declaring his animal origins, but yet he knows better, he knows he's not an animal. We can see evidence of this knowledge in all the laws he creates for himself... or should I say creates for others. He says one thing (in the classroom) and does the opposite when he steps outside the classroom. Wanting to be rational, he ends up being irrational. Darwin offered him a way to escape God, and he went down the rabbit trail... only to find himself in an intellectual and spiritual dead end. He doesn't want to be an animal or a man it would appear. He doesn't want to be a child of God or a child of nature.... but he can't see a way out.
Summary;
Caught in a dilemma he can't find a solution for, modern man tends to cop out by ignoring the problem. "Oh well, why don't we forget the whole thing. Thinking is such a drag. Let's try that new restaurant, and have a bottle of wine. Philosophy! Who needs it."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)