It's my view that the project we call science is based on a fallacious foundation. The view that all things must be explained in a reductionistic and materialist manner is a grave mistake, and one that needs to be remedied if the project is going to get back on the right track.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'But because the mechanical view has a perfect right of existence in a part of the territory which history has gradually assigned to natural science, and has indeed led in it to various valuable results, many have drawn the conclusion that natural science is the only true science, and that the mechanical solution is the only
true solution of all phenomena. [1.]
- It's my view that we need to divide the sciences up into the physical sciences, the animal sciences, and the human sciences. Each requires its own methodology and guiding principles. It is therefore a category mistake to treat human beings as if they were (merely) physical objects. I define scientism as treating human beings as if they were physical objects, or mere animals. In scientism we see the imperialistic spirit of man's intellect at work. Since man was created in God's image, he was created with a capacity and a 'will' to see things in terms of a 'total' picture. (i.e. in terms of God's providence) When men reject God they replace his Providence with a 'totalizing' worldview of their own; thus scientism. [2.]
B. 'Robert Mayer, for instance, the discoverer of the law of the conservation of energy, completely excluded from this law the entire domain of psychical life, and considered it a great error to identify things physical and psychical. [3.]
- To insist all phenomena in the universe be studied and explained in terms of a single methodology is a philosophical decision. There is nothing in the data which shows this to be correct or that necessitates such a choice.
Notes;
1. The philosophy of revelation - Herman Bavinck/p.87
2. Another way of seeing this drive is as one for unity. Because man was created in the image of God he seeks unity in his worldview. (We can see this drive as evidence such unity exists.)
3. ibid p.101
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Creation and the fear of reality
Conventional wisdom tells us that to be considered scientific, a theory cannot violate any of the known facts of science. It's my contention that consensus accounts of fossils commonly commit just this error. I look at one example of this below.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'The standard dinosaur fossilization story holds that the reptiles were crossing a stream and got caught in a rising river. But no rising streams today deposit fossil graveyards.' [1.]
- This rather typical account of fossilization goes against what we know; this means that it's not a scientific theory. (I've read many times that a 'theory' that goes against what we know cannot be considered a scientific theory... even if one day it turns out to be true. i.e. all theories to be considered scientific must extrapolate from known observations.) If you deny a known observation in your theory it cannot be considered scientific.
In this case the evolutionary account of dinosaur fossils seeks to evade the truth (of the Flood) by inventing a story that goes contrary to known observations. e.g. we don't see massive fossilized 'bonebeds' formed by tropical storms do we? Therefore, we have good reason to reject this as a scientific theory.
B. 'Tropical storms, however, are known to drive water ashore and devastate landscapes, washing over whatever animals lie in their paths. The tropical storm model may be an improvement over the flooded stream scenario, but it is equally true that today's hurricane storm surges don't produce fossil graveyards either! [1.]
C. 'Eberth cited hurricanes as the reason why dinosaur fossils "are often found preserved so exquisitely."2 And yet "exquisite" fossil preservation is not a byproduct of even the most powerful of today's hurricanes. A more catastrophic event is needed that could carry much more sediment to deeply bury the remains and keep them from decaying. None of today's natural processes are adequate to explain the centrosaur and other fossil graveyards.' [1.]
- What we see here are evolutionists who refuse to make the obvious conclusion. They avoid talking of massive floods because they want (at all costs) to avoid mention of Noah's flood; i.e. of a worldwide catastrophe. Darwinism was born in the gentle world of Lyellian gradualism and Uniformitarianism. It was a self-conscious repudiation of the catastrophic model of Genesis. Now that the data demand a return to the catastrophic model, Darwinists are loathe to take the plunge. They fear giving comfort to the hated fundamentalist and biblical creationist. Fearing the truth, they take refuge in stories they know very well can't be true. Reality is something (in this case) they can't face. We might say that true science is something they can't face.
We see something similar in the refusal of evolutionists to deal with the implications of genetic code. They know very well that only intelligent agents are capable of writing code, but they can't face the implications, so they invent stories to account for the code that they know aren't true.) As the Eliot said, ''man cannot bear too much reality." The atheist likes to charge the theist with this accusation, but he needs to take a look in the mirror as well. (I think all men cringe from various aspects of reality.)
Summary;
Everyone knows that the so called fossil layers don't get laid down gradually, but yet Darwinists claim that this is who they were formed. The theory contradicts everything we actually observe. We don't see animal fossils being formed gradually. In my opinion the consensus view of the fossil layers should not be considered scientific. We don't see this happening today, but we're supposed to believe it happened in the past. When we do see rock layers laid down we see it being done catastrophically.
M. Johnson
Notes;
1. Canadian 'Mega' Dinosaur Bonebed Formed by Watery Catastrophe - by Brian Thomas
2. 'It makes more sense to interpret this fossil graveyard as a result of one of the many tsunami-like waves that gradually pulsed over the continents during the course of the year-long Flood event.' [above]
Quotes and comments;
A. 'The standard dinosaur fossilization story holds that the reptiles were crossing a stream and got caught in a rising river. But no rising streams today deposit fossil graveyards.' [1.]
- This rather typical account of fossilization goes against what we know; this means that it's not a scientific theory. (I've read many times that a 'theory' that goes against what we know cannot be considered a scientific theory... even if one day it turns out to be true. i.e. all theories to be considered scientific must extrapolate from known observations.) If you deny a known observation in your theory it cannot be considered scientific.
In this case the evolutionary account of dinosaur fossils seeks to evade the truth (of the Flood) by inventing a story that goes contrary to known observations. e.g. we don't see massive fossilized 'bonebeds' formed by tropical storms do we? Therefore, we have good reason to reject this as a scientific theory.
B. 'Tropical storms, however, are known to drive water ashore and devastate landscapes, washing over whatever animals lie in their paths. The tropical storm model may be an improvement over the flooded stream scenario, but it is equally true that today's hurricane storm surges don't produce fossil graveyards either! [1.]
C. 'Eberth cited hurricanes as the reason why dinosaur fossils "are often found preserved so exquisitely."2 And yet "exquisite" fossil preservation is not a byproduct of even the most powerful of today's hurricanes. A more catastrophic event is needed that could carry much more sediment to deeply bury the remains and keep them from decaying. None of today's natural processes are adequate to explain the centrosaur and other fossil graveyards.' [1.]
- What we see here are evolutionists who refuse to make the obvious conclusion. They avoid talking of massive floods because they want (at all costs) to avoid mention of Noah's flood; i.e. of a worldwide catastrophe. Darwinism was born in the gentle world of Lyellian gradualism and Uniformitarianism. It was a self-conscious repudiation of the catastrophic model of Genesis. Now that the data demand a return to the catastrophic model, Darwinists are loathe to take the plunge. They fear giving comfort to the hated fundamentalist and biblical creationist. Fearing the truth, they take refuge in stories they know very well can't be true. Reality is something (in this case) they can't face. We might say that true science is something they can't face.
We see something similar in the refusal of evolutionists to deal with the implications of genetic code. They know very well that only intelligent agents are capable of writing code, but they can't face the implications, so they invent stories to account for the code that they know aren't true.) As the Eliot said, ''man cannot bear too much reality." The atheist likes to charge the theist with this accusation, but he needs to take a look in the mirror as well. (I think all men cringe from various aspects of reality.)
Summary;
Everyone knows that the so called fossil layers don't get laid down gradually, but yet Darwinists claim that this is who they were formed. The theory contradicts everything we actually observe. We don't see animal fossils being formed gradually. In my opinion the consensus view of the fossil layers should not be considered scientific. We don't see this happening today, but we're supposed to believe it happened in the past. When we do see rock layers laid down we see it being done catastrophically.
M. Johnson
Notes;
1. Canadian 'Mega' Dinosaur Bonebed Formed by Watery Catastrophe - by Brian Thomas
2. 'It makes more sense to interpret this fossil graveyard as a result of one of the many tsunami-like waves that gradually pulsed over the continents during the course of the year-long Flood event.' [above]
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Science and reality
At the foundation of the scientific enterprise is a belief in objective reality, but is there such a thing, and can we know what it is.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'The same is true with reference to the problem of the ultimate nature of that reality which must be accepted unless we are willing to sink into solipsism. Whether we take the theistic standpoint here, or accept some one of the different forms of monism, we do not attain to our conception of the nature of reality by the way of experience, but must permit ourselves to be led by metaphysical reasoning on the basis of observation. - Herman Bavinck [1.]
- There can never be a scientific definition of reality. Science is utterly dependent upon some idea of reality, and since reality cannot be defined by science (by naturalism) science is dependent upon a certain metaphysical notion of what reality is. (Science and metaphysics are as intimately connected as body and soul.) A belief in creation, or a belief in materialism are both acts of faith. No matter what view of reality we adopt, we have not made a discovery, but have made a faith based commitment.
When philosophers deal with reality they can do little more than ask questions. (i.e. if they reject scripture) e.g. what is reality? are there different levels? is reality different for different creatures? who gets to define reality? does reality exist? is reality objective or subjective? is reality physical or mental? is it changing or unchanging? can it be known? how can it be known? how can we be sure of our epistemology? and so forth.
In centuries past this question used to be answered simply (if superficially) by claiming reality was what human senses experience. With the invention of new instruments of inquiry and examination (eg. telescopes, microscopes, etc.) this answer is increasingly inadequate. We now know of a 'greater universe' that exists 'outside' of normal human perception. This brings up questions such as 'does reality exist on the microscopic level? the sub-atomic level? on the sub-atomic?' Does reality exist on the level of rational thought or on the level of chemical reaction? i.e. are thoughts merely chemical reactions?
Having rejected Christianity the humanist has no way of determining what reality is. He doesn't know what it is, or on what level to even seek it. His empirical science can't tell him what it is. What he's done is to abandon the question and to accept a kind of naive realism; but this is a view that has no basis in his materialist worldview.
Summary;
Biblical Christianity gives us a view of reality. This view is based on an original creation of all things by God, and by his providential governance of the universe thereafter. We can draw a banal analogy. Let's picture a train set and a track (the kind many of us had as kids) or a racing car set up. Does reality exist at the level of the cars going around the track, or does reality exist at the level of the person with the controls? The materialist claims reality consists of the track and the motion of the cars, while the creationist claims reality exists at the level of the person at the controls.
Notes;
1. The Philosophy of Revelation - Herman Bavinck/p.92
Quotes and comments;
A. 'The same is true with reference to the problem of the ultimate nature of that reality which must be accepted unless we are willing to sink into solipsism. Whether we take the theistic standpoint here, or accept some one of the different forms of monism, we do not attain to our conception of the nature of reality by the way of experience, but must permit ourselves to be led by metaphysical reasoning on the basis of observation. - Herman Bavinck [1.]
- There can never be a scientific definition of reality. Science is utterly dependent upon some idea of reality, and since reality cannot be defined by science (by naturalism) science is dependent upon a certain metaphysical notion of what reality is. (Science and metaphysics are as intimately connected as body and soul.) A belief in creation, or a belief in materialism are both acts of faith. No matter what view of reality we adopt, we have not made a discovery, but have made a faith based commitment.
When philosophers deal with reality they can do little more than ask questions. (i.e. if they reject scripture) e.g. what is reality? are there different levels? is reality different for different creatures? who gets to define reality? does reality exist? is reality objective or subjective? is reality physical or mental? is it changing or unchanging? can it be known? how can it be known? how can we be sure of our epistemology? and so forth.
In centuries past this question used to be answered simply (if superficially) by claiming reality was what human senses experience. With the invention of new instruments of inquiry and examination (eg. telescopes, microscopes, etc.) this answer is increasingly inadequate. We now know of a 'greater universe' that exists 'outside' of normal human perception. This brings up questions such as 'does reality exist on the microscopic level? the sub-atomic level? on the sub-atomic?' Does reality exist on the level of rational thought or on the level of chemical reaction? i.e. are thoughts merely chemical reactions?
Having rejected Christianity the humanist has no way of determining what reality is. He doesn't know what it is, or on what level to even seek it. His empirical science can't tell him what it is. What he's done is to abandon the question and to accept a kind of naive realism; but this is a view that has no basis in his materialist worldview.
Summary;
Biblical Christianity gives us a view of reality. This view is based on an original creation of all things by God, and by his providential governance of the universe thereafter. We can draw a banal analogy. Let's picture a train set and a track (the kind many of us had as kids) or a racing car set up. Does reality exist at the level of the cars going around the track, or does reality exist at the level of the person with the controls? The materialist claims reality consists of the track and the motion of the cars, while the creationist claims reality exists at the level of the person at the controls.
Notes;
1. The Philosophy of Revelation - Herman Bavinck/p.92
Monday, July 12, 2010
The philosophical basis of Science
Despite popular notions to the contrary, you can't do science without doing philosophy. The two are inextricably intertwined and connected.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'This is already evident from the fact that the science of nature, although it has in many respects the advantage over the mental sciences, still utilizes, and is compelled to utilize, all sorts of ideas which are not derived from experience, but are present from the very start. Ideas like " thing " and " property," " matter " and " force," " aether " and " movement," " space " and " time," " cause " and " design," are indispensable to natural science ; but they are derived from metaphysics.'' - Herman Bavinck [1.]
- Let's examine just one of these concepts; causation. People normally speak in terms similar to; 'X caused Y' and we normally accept such statements as meaningful or even conclusive. The question is why we should. We could easily ask, 'but what caused X?' or 'did x cause Y by itself or were other factors involved?' We just take it for granted that 'X caused Y' is a valid explanation, and don't see that this is a decision based upon philosophical ideas and theories. We accept as valid what is an arbitrary decision. We could demand the causal chain be extended several or many places. We could demand that the cause by presented in terms not of a single unit but in terms of systems. The point is that causation is inherently philosophical, and this makes science inherently philosophical.
We often hear in our day the claim that religion must be kept out of science. This sounds like a valid objection to some people, but they fail to realize that the claim really means we should keep metaphysics out of science, and I think I've shown that this can't be done. All scientific thinking is grounded in some kind of metaphysics, whether people realize it or not. The biblical creation that many Humanists object to is merely one kind of metaphysical view.
B. 'Haeckel once said that the eye and the ear are so marvellously constructed that they might seduce us into believing in a creation according to a definitely thought-out plan of construction. But he steels himself against the " seduction." And thus he betrays the fact that the so-called conflict between science and faith lies not in the realm of the physical, but in that of the metaphysical ; concentres not in nature, but in God. What nature is to us is determined by what we think of Godand who he is for us. [2.]
- In my opinion, when a Richard Dawkins speaks about the appearance of design he's admitting that he knows God. His rejection of god has nothing to do with the data, but solely with his aversion to God, and the 'horrors' he imagines have resulted from such a belief. When Charles Darwin spoke of the eye and the flower as making him sick to his stomach, he was admitting he knew god existed. (I take it he was sick all the time because so much of the world reminded him of god's existence.)
If men are 'seduced' into a belief in creation who is doing the seducing? If the answer is man himself, then we have the curious case of a bit of matter seducing other bits of matter to belief in divine creation. (If anyone is being seduced, I don't think it's those who believe in creation.)
The decision to accept or reject the design argument doesn't lie in the data, but in a decision based on metaphysics. The claim that the design argument is rejected on the basis of science is simply false. This claim depends upon a particular (philosophical) conception and definition of science. i.e. upon a particular methodology. This methodology is founded upon a particular metaphysical view. i.e. materialism. Materialism is not a scientific view, and in no way can it be proved.
Notes;
1. Bavinck - Philosophy of Revelation/88
2. ibid/103
Quotes and comments;
A. 'This is already evident from the fact that the science of nature, although it has in many respects the advantage over the mental sciences, still utilizes, and is compelled to utilize, all sorts of ideas which are not derived from experience, but are present from the very start. Ideas like " thing " and " property," " matter " and " force," " aether " and " movement," " space " and " time," " cause " and " design," are indispensable to natural science ; but they are derived from metaphysics.'' - Herman Bavinck [1.]
- Let's examine just one of these concepts; causation. People normally speak in terms similar to; 'X caused Y' and we normally accept such statements as meaningful or even conclusive. The question is why we should. We could easily ask, 'but what caused X?' or 'did x cause Y by itself or were other factors involved?' We just take it for granted that 'X caused Y' is a valid explanation, and don't see that this is a decision based upon philosophical ideas and theories. We accept as valid what is an arbitrary decision. We could demand the causal chain be extended several or many places. We could demand that the cause by presented in terms not of a single unit but in terms of systems. The point is that causation is inherently philosophical, and this makes science inherently philosophical.
We often hear in our day the claim that religion must be kept out of science. This sounds like a valid objection to some people, but they fail to realize that the claim really means we should keep metaphysics out of science, and I think I've shown that this can't be done. All scientific thinking is grounded in some kind of metaphysics, whether people realize it or not. The biblical creation that many Humanists object to is merely one kind of metaphysical view.
B. 'Haeckel once said that the eye and the ear are so marvellously constructed that they might seduce us into believing in a creation according to a definitely thought-out plan of construction. But he steels himself against the " seduction." And thus he betrays the fact that the so-called conflict between science and faith lies not in the realm of the physical, but in that of the metaphysical ; concentres not in nature, but in God. What nature is to us is determined by what we think of Godand who he is for us. [2.]
- In my opinion, when a Richard Dawkins speaks about the appearance of design he's admitting that he knows God. His rejection of god has nothing to do with the data, but solely with his aversion to God, and the 'horrors' he imagines have resulted from such a belief. When Charles Darwin spoke of the eye and the flower as making him sick to his stomach, he was admitting he knew god existed. (I take it he was sick all the time because so much of the world reminded him of god's existence.)
If men are 'seduced' into a belief in creation who is doing the seducing? If the answer is man himself, then we have the curious case of a bit of matter seducing other bits of matter to belief in divine creation. (If anyone is being seduced, I don't think it's those who believe in creation.)
The decision to accept or reject the design argument doesn't lie in the data, but in a decision based on metaphysics. The claim that the design argument is rejected on the basis of science is simply false. This claim depends upon a particular (philosophical) conception and definition of science. i.e. upon a particular methodology. This methodology is founded upon a particular metaphysical view. i.e. materialism. Materialism is not a scientific view, and in no way can it be proved.
Notes;
1. Bavinck - Philosophy of Revelation/88
2. ibid/103
Sunday, July 11, 2010
The importance of the doctrine of creation
I believe the doctrine of creation has a vital importance to every area of thought and life. Today I'm going to post a long quote by the Reformed theologian Herman Bavinck that shows how broad this influence is.
Quotation;
A. 'The doctrine of creation maintains the divinity, the goodness and sacredness of all created things. In this world man now receives his own independent place. He is of kin to all the world, formed out of matter, earthy of the earth ; nothing natural is strange to him. But in one respect he is different from all creatures ; he
is the son, the image, the similitude of God, his offspring. Thereby he is elevated above animal and angel, and destined and fitted for dominion over all the world.
'In this relation of man to God and to the world is the foundation laid and the origin given of all science and art. For how can it be explained that man through his senses can observe the world, and through his intelligence can know and understand it ? Whence this wonderful correspondence of knowing and being? What is the basis of the belief that the conception and the thought in the human brain are no imagination and no hallucination, but correspond with the reality ? What is the ground for the harmony between subject and object, the ego and the non-ego ?
'What is the root from which springs the unity of the laws of existence, the ideas of our thinking, the norms of
our actions ? In what do physis, gnosis, and ethos find their common systema? What is the foundation of the
symbolism of nature, not in the sense of an unfounded nature-theosophy, but in the sense in which Christ saw in the world a parable of the kingdom of heaven ; in the sense in which Goethe said that " all transitory things
are but a parable " ; in the sense in which Drummond in " the natural law " detected an analogy of the law of the spirit?
'On what, in a word, are founded comparison, metaphor, poetry, art, and all science and all culture ? On what else do they rest but on the confession that one word, one spirit, one divine intelligence lies at the foundation of all things and maintains their unity and mutual relations ?
Notes;
1. The philosophy of Revelation - Herman Bavinck/p. 107
- I found the book available free online. As I remember it, I found it at Archive.org
- Although the lectures that compose the book were given in 1908, I find them as interesting as anything written in our day. Reading them gives you a good feel for how the debate was being handled a century ago. (Bavinck was a contemporary of Ernst Haeckel for example.)
Quotation;
A. 'The doctrine of creation maintains the divinity, the goodness and sacredness of all created things. In this world man now receives his own independent place. He is of kin to all the world, formed out of matter, earthy of the earth ; nothing natural is strange to him. But in one respect he is different from all creatures ; he
is the son, the image, the similitude of God, his offspring. Thereby he is elevated above animal and angel, and destined and fitted for dominion over all the world.
'In this relation of man to God and to the world is the foundation laid and the origin given of all science and art. For how can it be explained that man through his senses can observe the world, and through his intelligence can know and understand it ? Whence this wonderful correspondence of knowing and being? What is the basis of the belief that the conception and the thought in the human brain are no imagination and no hallucination, but correspond with the reality ? What is the ground for the harmony between subject and object, the ego and the non-ego ?
'What is the root from which springs the unity of the laws of existence, the ideas of our thinking, the norms of
our actions ? In what do physis, gnosis, and ethos find their common systema? What is the foundation of the
symbolism of nature, not in the sense of an unfounded nature-theosophy, but in the sense in which Christ saw in the world a parable of the kingdom of heaven ; in the sense in which Goethe said that " all transitory things
are but a parable " ; in the sense in which Drummond in " the natural law " detected an analogy of the law of the spirit?
'On what, in a word, are founded comparison, metaphor, poetry, art, and all science and all culture ? On what else do they rest but on the confession that one word, one spirit, one divine intelligence lies at the foundation of all things and maintains their unity and mutual relations ?
Notes;
1. The philosophy of Revelation - Herman Bavinck/p. 107
- I found the book available free online. As I remember it, I found it at Archive.org
- Although the lectures that compose the book were given in 1908, I find them as interesting as anything written in our day. Reading them gives you a good feel for how the debate was being handled a century ago. (Bavinck was a contemporary of Ernst Haeckel for example.)
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Revelation as the basis for knowledge
Reformed theology claims that revelation (both special and general) is the basis for knowledge; not only the knowledge of God, but of human freedom, and much else.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'This testimony of self-consciousness, combining dependence and freedom in one, is further the basis of religion, and likewise of morality.' Herman Bavinck [1.]
- I take him to mean that while 'science' claims man is not free; both special revelation and general revelation tell us that he is. i.e. the bible says man is free, and we experience a consciousness of freedom. If then we are to maintain that man is free, we will have to rely on revelation as our only foundation for this belief.
B. 'In view of the universality and the spontaneity of religion many have assumed an innate idea of God. But this representation is scarcely well conceived, and the name is somewhat unfortunately chosen. Of course, in the strict sense of the term innate ideas do not exist. They savor rather of rationalism and of a mysticism which separates man from the world, than of a Christian theism which finds God's eternal power and divinity revealed in the works of his hands.
It is the mind of man, with all of its peculiar nature and organization, its intellect and reason, heart and conscience, desire and will, and with the ineradicable consciousness of its dependence and freedom, that is innate, brought into the world in principle and germ at birth, not acquired later phylogenetically or ontogenetically. [1.]
- In more simple terms; man both knows that God exists, and knows himself to be a free and responsible agent because of his inherited nature, of his inherent intellectual capacities. Man is who he is because Adam was created in the image of God, and because we are all his descendents made in his image.
C. 'Thus, when man grows up and develops in accordance with the nature implanted in him, not in detachment from the world and the social organism, but in the environment in which a place was assigned to him at birth, he attains as freely and as inevitably to the knowledge and service of a personal God as he believes in his own existence and that of the world.
He does not invent the idea of God nor produce it ; it is given to him and he receives it. Atheism is not proper to man by nature, but develops at a later stage of life, on the ground of philosophic reflection ; like scepticism, it is an intellectual and ethical abnormality, which only confirms the rule. [2.]
- Materialism isn't a necessary deduction from the data (as atheists claim) but is instead a way to escape revelation. (As the apostle Paul says in Romans; men know God, but don't like to retain this knowledge nor give thanks, but suppress the truth...) We read continually in the scientific press that scientists claim man isn't free, but is as bound as any other bit of matter; but yet scientists themselves admit to the experience of human freedom (e.g. S. Pinker). In terms of Bavinck; they know by revelation they are free, but they deny this in their science. They honor the conclusions of their scientific methodology above the revelation of both experience and scripture.
It's harder to get the materialist to admit he knows God, that he has had experience of god, but we might ask him where freedom can come from other than the Transcendent. When he admits he can find no answer for the origin of living organisms on the earth isn't he admitting a need for the Transcendent? When he admits he can't find a source for absolute truth isn't he admitting a need for the Transcendent? When he admits he doesn't know what reality is, or whether it exists, isn't he admitting a need for the Transcendent?
D. 'By nature, in virtue of his nature, every man believes in God. And this is due in the last analysis to the fact that God, the creator of all nature, has not left himself without witness, but through all nature, both that of man himself and that of the outside world, speaks to him. In self-consciousness God makes known to us man, the world, and himself. [2]
Notes;
1. Philosophy of Revelation - Herman Bavinck/78.
- Although these lectures were given in 1908 they still remain relevant.
2. p. 79
Quotes and comments;
A. 'This testimony of self-consciousness, combining dependence and freedom in one, is further the basis of religion, and likewise of morality.' Herman Bavinck [1.]
- I take him to mean that while 'science' claims man is not free; both special revelation and general revelation tell us that he is. i.e. the bible says man is free, and we experience a consciousness of freedom. If then we are to maintain that man is free, we will have to rely on revelation as our only foundation for this belief.
B. 'In view of the universality and the spontaneity of religion many have assumed an innate idea of God. But this representation is scarcely well conceived, and the name is somewhat unfortunately chosen. Of course, in the strict sense of the term innate ideas do not exist. They savor rather of rationalism and of a mysticism which separates man from the world, than of a Christian theism which finds God's eternal power and divinity revealed in the works of his hands.
It is the mind of man, with all of its peculiar nature and organization, its intellect and reason, heart and conscience, desire and will, and with the ineradicable consciousness of its dependence and freedom, that is innate, brought into the world in principle and germ at birth, not acquired later phylogenetically or ontogenetically. [1.]
- In more simple terms; man both knows that God exists, and knows himself to be a free and responsible agent because of his inherited nature, of his inherent intellectual capacities. Man is who he is because Adam was created in the image of God, and because we are all his descendents made in his image.
C. 'Thus, when man grows up and develops in accordance with the nature implanted in him, not in detachment from the world and the social organism, but in the environment in which a place was assigned to him at birth, he attains as freely and as inevitably to the knowledge and service of a personal God as he believes in his own existence and that of the world.
He does not invent the idea of God nor produce it ; it is given to him and he receives it. Atheism is not proper to man by nature, but develops at a later stage of life, on the ground of philosophic reflection ; like scepticism, it is an intellectual and ethical abnormality, which only confirms the rule. [2.]
- Materialism isn't a necessary deduction from the data (as atheists claim) but is instead a way to escape revelation. (As the apostle Paul says in Romans; men know God, but don't like to retain this knowledge nor give thanks, but suppress the truth...) We read continually in the scientific press that scientists claim man isn't free, but is as bound as any other bit of matter; but yet scientists themselves admit to the experience of human freedom (e.g. S. Pinker). In terms of Bavinck; they know by revelation they are free, but they deny this in their science. They honor the conclusions of their scientific methodology above the revelation of both experience and scripture.
It's harder to get the materialist to admit he knows God, that he has had experience of god, but we might ask him where freedom can come from other than the Transcendent. When he admits he can find no answer for the origin of living organisms on the earth isn't he admitting a need for the Transcendent? When he admits he can't find a source for absolute truth isn't he admitting a need for the Transcendent? When he admits he doesn't know what reality is, or whether it exists, isn't he admitting a need for the Transcendent?
D. 'By nature, in virtue of his nature, every man believes in God. And this is due in the last analysis to the fact that God, the creator of all nature, has not left himself without witness, but through all nature, both that of man himself and that of the outside world, speaks to him. In self-consciousness God makes known to us man, the world, and himself. [2]
Notes;
1. Philosophy of Revelation - Herman Bavinck/78.
- Although these lectures were given in 1908 they still remain relevant.
2. p. 79
Friday, July 9, 2010
Belief in an age of evolution
I want to make a few comments about a popular new book on apologetics, as it concerns the general area of creation and evolution.
Quotes and comments;
The quotes are from a review of The Reason for God by Timothy Keller.
A. 'He asserts that Genesis 1 is a poem (p. 93), that the interpretation is up for debate, and that many Christians with a high view of Scripture have no problem accepting evolution without embracing materialism.' [1.]
- Theistic evolution can itself be seen as a poem; a hymn of praise to Darwin and the secular spirit of the age. The idea Gen. 1. is mere poetry is certainly a radical rewriting of the original text. (One problem here is that in our day 'poetry' is seen as fanciful and untrue, mere imagery. In other words, the problem is that too many Christians have adopted a humanistic view of poetry. In the bible, and in orthodox theology, some of the most important verses in the bible come in the outward form of poetry. e.g. some of the Psalms.) The ancients certainly didn't take the view that if a claim was made in the form of a poem it was necessarily untrue. The form of poetry actually fits the creation far better than does prose. Imagine how poor Gen 1. would sound put in the form of prose.
B. 'Keller asserts that belief in evolution does not necessarily lead to materialistic philosophy (p. 88), but does not offer any actual evidence to back up his statement...'
- I see this kind of thing all the time in reading people who affirm theistic evolution. The strategy they employ is to equivocate in the use of the word evolution. They claim to believe in evolution, but the 'evolution' they defend isn't the theory as it's presented by secular authorities at all. There is absolutely no room for god in the textbook evolution taught in our schools. The 'theory' of evolution is a simple (necessary) deduction from Materialism. If you're a m. you have to be an evolutionist; there's no other answer. Yes; you can believe that the earth was a space colony, planted by intelligent beings in the distant past, but your ultimate explanation for the origin of life has to be 'mechanical' evolution. Keller's claim is empty. If you look around you see that adopting e. leads to secularism and materialism. The evidence seems conclusive to me.
When people like Keller say they believe in evolution they seem to be talking out of both sides of their mouth. They want to appease both the biblical creationist and the atheistic materialist.
Since evolution is presented as a blind and random process, theistic evolutionists are claiming god used a random process. This seems hard to believe or accept. The implication is that man is a random, chance product. This makes all human experience an accidental process and product. It's pretty obvious (to me at least) how this leads directly to heresies like process theology. (e.g. what connection can there be between the character of god and man the accidental product? what connection can there be between the unchanging law of god and an ever evolving primate?)
C. 'Interestingly, at the end of his chapter, Keller affirms that ‘God did not originally make the world to have disease, hunger, and death in it’ (p. 96). However, according to Keller’s long-age evolutionary interpretation, disease, hunger and death were around from the beginning.
- The theistic evolutionist always wants to have things both ways. No matter what the issue, he wants to adopt both the secular materialist view And the biblical view. He can't decide which of two roads to take, so he stands in the intersection and waits for things to blow over. (Wait; is that a bus coming?)
D. 'Obviously, Keller’s view of sin is warped by his theistic evolutionary beliefs; in fact, he identifies ‘original sin’ not as due to Adam’s disobedience in Eden (as the Apostle Paul does in Romans 511), but as ‘humanity’s inherent pride and self-centeredness’ (p. 167).
- A major problem with this view is that it almost necessarily presents us with a time when mankind was not fallen. i.e. if we trace man's history backward we'd come to a time man hadn't yet developed this pride and self-centeredness. We'd come to a time 'man' was an innocent creature. (Keller's view of original sin is far from orthodox. The biblical view of sin isn't self-centeredness, but rebellion against god. The sin isn't pride but a desire to be god.)
E. 'He affirms that ‘when human beings turned from God the entire warp and woof of the world unraveled. Disease, genetic disorders, famine, natural disasters, aging, and death itself are as much the result of sin as are oppression, war, crime, and violence’ (p. 170).
- And when was this? If Genesis is just myth we'd like to know when this 'event' took place... but the theisitic e.s. don't tell us. (It might seem then that their story is the mythical one.)
Theistic evolutionists are the product of 'public' (statist) education. If you send children to statists schools they Will come out as e.s. The reason for this isn't the great case teachers (and later professors) make for evolutionary theory, but simply the fact e. is everywhere accepted and spoken of as a fact beyond controversy. Take any course whatsoever, and the teacher will bring evolution into it; talking about it as if it were a certain and as settled a fact as the chemical makeup of water. It's this factor that turns students into (largely unthinking) evolutionists.
Notes;
1. The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism by Timothy Keller - reviewed by Lita Cosner
- Of course there's no such thing as belief in general. People don't have 'belief' but believe in various propositions or claims. (e.g. people have a belief in christianity, but they also have a belief in evolution, creation, or theistic evolution. (Theistic evolution seems like an oxymoron to me.)
2. There are many fine Christians who believe in theistic evolution and a long age of the earth. My comments shouldn't be construed to claim otherwise. I just don't feel the position is intellectually or spiritually consistent.
- one of my favorite creationist writers, Arthur Custance, believed in a long age for the earth.
3. It takes a lot of courage to defend the biblical model of creation, and I find it hard to blame people who aren't up to the challenge. I think they're wrong, but I know how difficult it can be.
4. If evolution is as scientific as people like Keller claim, one wonders why we don't hear of a belief in theistic gravity, or theistic chemistry.
5. I'm not knocking Keller personally, I'm just using this book as an example of very common thinking within the church.
6. Perhaps God used evolution to create the world because he didn't want our educated Christians (liberals) to be embarassed when they interact with their atheistic peers.
Quotes and comments;
The quotes are from a review of The Reason for God by Timothy Keller.
A. 'He asserts that Genesis 1 is a poem (p. 93), that the interpretation is up for debate, and that many Christians with a high view of Scripture have no problem accepting evolution without embracing materialism.' [1.]
- Theistic evolution can itself be seen as a poem; a hymn of praise to Darwin and the secular spirit of the age. The idea Gen. 1. is mere poetry is certainly a radical rewriting of the original text. (One problem here is that in our day 'poetry' is seen as fanciful and untrue, mere imagery. In other words, the problem is that too many Christians have adopted a humanistic view of poetry. In the bible, and in orthodox theology, some of the most important verses in the bible come in the outward form of poetry. e.g. some of the Psalms.) The ancients certainly didn't take the view that if a claim was made in the form of a poem it was necessarily untrue. The form of poetry actually fits the creation far better than does prose. Imagine how poor Gen 1. would sound put in the form of prose.
B. 'Keller asserts that belief in evolution does not necessarily lead to materialistic philosophy (p. 88), but does not offer any actual evidence to back up his statement...'
- I see this kind of thing all the time in reading people who affirm theistic evolution. The strategy they employ is to equivocate in the use of the word evolution. They claim to believe in evolution, but the 'evolution' they defend isn't the theory as it's presented by secular authorities at all. There is absolutely no room for god in the textbook evolution taught in our schools. The 'theory' of evolution is a simple (necessary) deduction from Materialism. If you're a m. you have to be an evolutionist; there's no other answer. Yes; you can believe that the earth was a space colony, planted by intelligent beings in the distant past, but your ultimate explanation for the origin of life has to be 'mechanical' evolution. Keller's claim is empty. If you look around you see that adopting e. leads to secularism and materialism. The evidence seems conclusive to me.
When people like Keller say they believe in evolution they seem to be talking out of both sides of their mouth. They want to appease both the biblical creationist and the atheistic materialist.
Since evolution is presented as a blind and random process, theistic evolutionists are claiming god used a random process. This seems hard to believe or accept. The implication is that man is a random, chance product. This makes all human experience an accidental process and product. It's pretty obvious (to me at least) how this leads directly to heresies like process theology. (e.g. what connection can there be between the character of god and man the accidental product? what connection can there be between the unchanging law of god and an ever evolving primate?)
C. 'Interestingly, at the end of his chapter, Keller affirms that ‘God did not originally make the world to have disease, hunger, and death in it’ (p. 96). However, according to Keller’s long-age evolutionary interpretation, disease, hunger and death were around from the beginning.
- The theistic evolutionist always wants to have things both ways. No matter what the issue, he wants to adopt both the secular materialist view And the biblical view. He can't decide which of two roads to take, so he stands in the intersection and waits for things to blow over. (Wait; is that a bus coming?)
D. 'Obviously, Keller’s view of sin is warped by his theistic evolutionary beliefs; in fact, he identifies ‘original sin’ not as due to Adam’s disobedience in Eden (as the Apostle Paul does in Romans 511), but as ‘humanity’s inherent pride and self-centeredness’ (p. 167).
- A major problem with this view is that it almost necessarily presents us with a time when mankind was not fallen. i.e. if we trace man's history backward we'd come to a time man hadn't yet developed this pride and self-centeredness. We'd come to a time 'man' was an innocent creature. (Keller's view of original sin is far from orthodox. The biblical view of sin isn't self-centeredness, but rebellion against god. The sin isn't pride but a desire to be god.)
E. 'He affirms that ‘when human beings turned from God the entire warp and woof of the world unraveled. Disease, genetic disorders, famine, natural disasters, aging, and death itself are as much the result of sin as are oppression, war, crime, and violence’ (p. 170).
- And when was this? If Genesis is just myth we'd like to know when this 'event' took place... but the theisitic e.s. don't tell us. (It might seem then that their story is the mythical one.)
Theistic evolutionists are the product of 'public' (statist) education. If you send children to statists schools they Will come out as e.s. The reason for this isn't the great case teachers (and later professors) make for evolutionary theory, but simply the fact e. is everywhere accepted and spoken of as a fact beyond controversy. Take any course whatsoever, and the teacher will bring evolution into it; talking about it as if it were a certain and as settled a fact as the chemical makeup of water. It's this factor that turns students into (largely unthinking) evolutionists.
Notes;
1. The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism by Timothy Keller - reviewed by Lita Cosner
- Of course there's no such thing as belief in general. People don't have 'belief' but believe in various propositions or claims. (e.g. people have a belief in christianity, but they also have a belief in evolution, creation, or theistic evolution. (Theistic evolution seems like an oxymoron to me.)
2. There are many fine Christians who believe in theistic evolution and a long age of the earth. My comments shouldn't be construed to claim otherwise. I just don't feel the position is intellectually or spiritually consistent.
- one of my favorite creationist writers, Arthur Custance, believed in a long age for the earth.
3. It takes a lot of courage to defend the biblical model of creation, and I find it hard to blame people who aren't up to the challenge. I think they're wrong, but I know how difficult it can be.
4. If evolution is as scientific as people like Keller claim, one wonders why we don't hear of a belief in theistic gravity, or theistic chemistry.
5. I'm not knocking Keller personally, I'm just using this book as an example of very common thinking within the church.
6. Perhaps God used evolution to create the world because he didn't want our educated Christians (liberals) to be embarassed when they interact with their atheistic peers.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Creation, materialism and the placebo effect
There are many reasons to doubt the Materialist explanation of the universe. The placebo effect is just one of these.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'Patients given antidepressants in the clinical trials we analysed showed substantial, clinically meaningful improvement. But so did those given placebos, and the difference between the drug response and the placebo response was not great. The question is not whether antidepressants work, but why they work. Is it because the chemical in the pill specifically targets depression, or is it because of the placebo effect?
- I maintain the placebo effect disproves materialism. I haven't seen a materialist explanation that makes sense, or deals with the data.
B. 'They can make people feel sick, and they can make them feel better. Placebo effects are part of a broader phenomenon – the power of suggestion to change how people feel, how they behave, and even their physiology.' p.102
- The materialist has to explain to us how a 'suggestion' (an immaterial or spiritual entity) can affect the brain and the mind.
C. 'In his seminal article on the ‘pharmacology of placebos’, Wolf described a number of experimental demonstrations of the ability of a placebo to reverse the effects of an active medication.
- I'm just a layman, but doesn't this indicate the mind (spirit) is more powerful than matter (brain). I don't know how you explain this in terms of strict materialism. (It only goes to show that human beings are 'infinitely' more complex than any of the standards academic or scientific models of man.)
D. 'Physicians do not sysematically prescribe placebos to their patients. Hence they have no way of comparing the effects of the drugs they prescribe to placebos. When they prescribe a treatment and it works, their natural tendency is to attribute the cure to the treatment. But there are thousands of treatments that
have worked in clinical practice throughout history. Powdered stone worked. So did lizard’s blood and crocodile dung, and pig’s teeth and dolphin’s genitalia and frog’s sperm. [1.]
- Isn't this evidence that it's a mistake to treat human beings as if they were mere clumps of matter? Doesn't this suggest we'd be better off to treat people as the spiritual beings Christianity claims they are?
Notes;
1. The emperor's new drugs - Irving Kirsch/p.56
2. 'Because of the power of the placebo effect, almost anything that is believed in seems to work for some types of medical problems. That is why the late Arthur K. Shapiro described the history of medicine as largely the history of the placebo effect. It is also why clinical experience alone cannot tell us whether a particular
physical substance is an effective treatment. [1.]
- Can we say medicine made so little progress for so long because of the placebo effect?
3. 'Studies of the placebo effect reveal that, all else being equal, taking placebo pills four times per day is more effective than taking them only twice a day; brand-name placebos are more effective than placebos presented as generic drugs; placebo injections are more effective than placebo pills; and more expensive placebos are better than cheaper ones. p.110
- The materialist is going to have to give us an explanation for this. I don't see how he's going to do it.
4. 'Placebos can yield substantial clinical benefit that can last for months or even years. p.113
Quotes and comments;
A. 'Patients given antidepressants in the clinical trials we analysed showed substantial, clinically meaningful improvement. But so did those given placebos, and the difference between the drug response and the placebo response was not great. The question is not whether antidepressants work, but why they work. Is it because the chemical in the pill specifically targets depression, or is it because of the placebo effect?
- I maintain the placebo effect disproves materialism. I haven't seen a materialist explanation that makes sense, or deals with the data.
B. 'They can make people feel sick, and they can make them feel better. Placebo effects are part of a broader phenomenon – the power of suggestion to change how people feel, how they behave, and even their physiology.' p.102
- The materialist has to explain to us how a 'suggestion' (an immaterial or spiritual entity) can affect the brain and the mind.
C. 'In his seminal article on the ‘pharmacology of placebos’, Wolf described a number of experimental demonstrations of the ability of a placebo to reverse the effects of an active medication.
- I'm just a layman, but doesn't this indicate the mind (spirit) is more powerful than matter (brain). I don't know how you explain this in terms of strict materialism. (It only goes to show that human beings are 'infinitely' more complex than any of the standards academic or scientific models of man.)
D. 'Physicians do not sysematically prescribe placebos to their patients. Hence they have no way of comparing the effects of the drugs they prescribe to placebos. When they prescribe a treatment and it works, their natural tendency is to attribute the cure to the treatment. But there are thousands of treatments that
have worked in clinical practice throughout history. Powdered stone worked. So did lizard’s blood and crocodile dung, and pig’s teeth and dolphin’s genitalia and frog’s sperm. [1.]
- Isn't this evidence that it's a mistake to treat human beings as if they were mere clumps of matter? Doesn't this suggest we'd be better off to treat people as the spiritual beings Christianity claims they are?
Notes;
1. The emperor's new drugs - Irving Kirsch/p.56
2. 'Because of the power of the placebo effect, almost anything that is believed in seems to work for some types of medical problems. That is why the late Arthur K. Shapiro described the history of medicine as largely the history of the placebo effect. It is also why clinical experience alone cannot tell us whether a particular
physical substance is an effective treatment. [1.]
- Can we say medicine made so little progress for so long because of the placebo effect?
3. 'Studies of the placebo effect reveal that, all else being equal, taking placebo pills four times per day is more effective than taking them only twice a day; brand-name placebos are more effective than placebos presented as generic drugs; placebo injections are more effective than placebo pills; and more expensive placebos are better than cheaper ones. p.110
- The materialist is going to have to give us an explanation for this. I don't see how he's going to do it.
4. 'Placebos can yield substantial clinical benefit that can last for months or even years. p.113
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Confusion between origins and development
A great deal of the confusion that exists in the Creation/Evolution debate stems from a failure to distinguish between origins and development.
Quotes and comments;
A. "The idea of evolution was like the kindling of a torch which suddenly cast a brilliant light upon the mysterious processes of nature, the dark recesses of creation, and gave us the simple, nay, the only possible explanation of them ; evolution is the magic formula through which we learn the secret of the apparently insoluble riddle of the origin and development of the infinite variety of terrestrial creatures." [1.]
- The basic flaw in evolutionary theory (as it's presented in textbooks, etc.) is that origin and development are conflated. These are utterly different phenomenon. To confuse them is a category mistake, and to consign yourself to wandering in a swamp of error. If Darwinists had restricted themselves to giving us a theory of development, they would have been on solid ground. Evolutionary theory can (theoretically) be helpful in showing us the development that has occurred since the time of the original creation. What the theory cannot do is show us how the biological world originated.
I agree with those who claim it's a mistake to think 'evolution' can be successfully employed to explain the origin of anything. (Development yes; origin no.) [2.]
Summary;
In my opinion, a christian can be an evolutionist in terms of development, but he cannot be one in terms of origins. (i.e. if he wants to remain orthodox, and true to the intent of scripture.)
M. Johnson
Notes;
1. Philosophy of revelation - Bavinck/p.43 [quoting L. Reinhardt]
2. What are commonly referred to as species, are, in terms of biblical creation theory, developments from basic animal kinds. (i.e. a much larger or broader classification)
3. These two realms of inquiry (origins and development) are the equivalent (roughly) of 'micro-evolution' and of 'macro-evolution.'
4. There's a connection here to Greek philosophy; with the debate over being and becoming.
Quotes and comments;
A. "The idea of evolution was like the kindling of a torch which suddenly cast a brilliant light upon the mysterious processes of nature, the dark recesses of creation, and gave us the simple, nay, the only possible explanation of them ; evolution is the magic formula through which we learn the secret of the apparently insoluble riddle of the origin and development of the infinite variety of terrestrial creatures." [1.]
- The basic flaw in evolutionary theory (as it's presented in textbooks, etc.) is that origin and development are conflated. These are utterly different phenomenon. To confuse them is a category mistake, and to consign yourself to wandering in a swamp of error. If Darwinists had restricted themselves to giving us a theory of development, they would have been on solid ground. Evolutionary theory can (theoretically) be helpful in showing us the development that has occurred since the time of the original creation. What the theory cannot do is show us how the biological world originated.
I agree with those who claim it's a mistake to think 'evolution' can be successfully employed to explain the origin of anything. (Development yes; origin no.) [2.]
Summary;
In my opinion, a christian can be an evolutionist in terms of development, but he cannot be one in terms of origins. (i.e. if he wants to remain orthodox, and true to the intent of scripture.)
M. Johnson
Notes;
1. Philosophy of revelation - Bavinck/p.43 [quoting L. Reinhardt]
2. What are commonly referred to as species, are, in terms of biblical creation theory, developments from basic animal kinds. (i.e. a much larger or broader classification)
3. These two realms of inquiry (origins and development) are the equivalent (roughly) of 'micro-evolution' and of 'macro-evolution.'
4. There's a connection here to Greek philosophy; with the debate over being and becoming.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Stasis vs Evolution
One major line of data that sheds doubt on the veracity of evolutionary theory concerns the matter of stasis. Since this was not predicted by the theory, and is in fact the opposite of what the theory predicted, it serves as strong counter evidence.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'Science Daily reported that the world’s oldest fig wasp fossil has been discovered on the Isle of Wight. “The fossil wasp is almost identical to the modern species, proving that this tiny but specialized insect has remained virtually unchanged for over 34 million years.” [1.]
- Gee; I thought nothing made sense other than in terms of evolution. I guess this story of the wasp doesn't make sense then. I guess 'stasis' doesn't make sense then either. I guess living fossils don't make sense. I guess all these hundreds of 'anomalies don't make sense. (Maybe it's Dobzhansky's famous edict is what doesn't make sense.) [3.]
I guess the fact various creatures don't change over tens of millions of years (even as much as 100 million years or more if we're to believe our betters) doesn't make sense either. (Maybe it's the theory of evolution that doesn't make sense.)
Maybe it's these long ages (attributed to fossils) that doesn't make sense. I'm not so surprised that there's no 'progress' in evolution; what surprises me is that lack of devolution. If these age claims were correct I would expect to see a lot more genetic deterioration.
Summary;
It's clear to me that stasis isn't the exception, it's the rule. If the data is really what's important (as evolutionists claim) then it's time for the textbooks to be changed to reflect these new discoveries. What doesn't make sense to me is how people can still believe in the theory of M2M evolution in the face of all the evidence against it. On the one hand 'evolution' is presented as an unstoppable force that controls all things, but then we see numerous examples of stasis. Apparently the all transforming mechanism of evolution isn't so powerful after all.
If the wasp were the only example of 'stasis' we have, the data could easily be ignored - but we have hundreds of examples of so called stasis. Evolutionary theory only makes sense if people are willing to ignore this data.
Notes;
1. Fossils Without Evolution Creation/Evolution Headlines 06/18/2010
2. ' Dr. Steve Compton of London’s Natural History Museum stated an evolutionary theory rescue device called “give the mystery a name” when he said, “Although we often think of the world as constantly changing, what this fossil gives us is an example of something remaining unchanged for tens of millions of years – something which in biology we call ‘stasis’.” [above]
- As far as I'm concerned the refutation of evolutionary theory is staring him in the face, but he doesn't have the courage to admit it.
3. "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"
- T. Dobzhansky
4. 'Science Daily tossed in a little humor on that point in its headline: “World’s Oldest Fig Wasp Fossil Proves That If It Works, Don’t Change It.” But is that an evolutionary law of nature? If monkeys worked, why did they change into humans, and why are there still monkeys?' [above]
- This well known saying refers of course to human beings, and to human behavior, to human intentionality, etc. It's utterly bogus to use this phrase in conjunction with the blind, random forces of evolutionary change. ( If this 'law of science' (cough) were true there would be no evolutionary change. I guess it depends on what we call change. I see no evidence one animal kind transformed into another kind. All I see are fairly trivial variations on a theme.)
5. 'The article mentions a 100-million-year old fossil of a gecko “the same sophisticated method of toe adhesion that allows it to walk easily on vertical and even inverted surfaces - a capability that served it well when it was skittering away from dinosaurs then, or is skipping through the jungles of Southeast Asia today.” [above]
- Does anyone really believe that? Does anyone really believe the Gecko hasn't changed in one hundred million years? (This is a number far too large to be rationally comprehended in my view.) During this time continents broke apart, mountain ranges rose and fell, seas appeared and disappeared, lemurs turned into leprechauns, dinosaurs turned into butterflies... and the gecko never changed. Really?
Quotes and comments;
A. 'Science Daily reported that the world’s oldest fig wasp fossil has been discovered on the Isle of Wight. “The fossil wasp is almost identical to the modern species, proving that this tiny but specialized insect has remained virtually unchanged for over 34 million years.” [1.]
- Gee; I thought nothing made sense other than in terms of evolution. I guess this story of the wasp doesn't make sense then. I guess 'stasis' doesn't make sense then either. I guess living fossils don't make sense. I guess all these hundreds of 'anomalies don't make sense. (Maybe it's Dobzhansky's famous edict is what doesn't make sense.) [3.]
I guess the fact various creatures don't change over tens of millions of years (even as much as 100 million years or more if we're to believe our betters) doesn't make sense either. (Maybe it's the theory of evolution that doesn't make sense.)
Maybe it's these long ages (attributed to fossils) that doesn't make sense. I'm not so surprised that there's no 'progress' in evolution; what surprises me is that lack of devolution. If these age claims were correct I would expect to see a lot more genetic deterioration.
Summary;
It's clear to me that stasis isn't the exception, it's the rule. If the data is really what's important (as evolutionists claim) then it's time for the textbooks to be changed to reflect these new discoveries. What doesn't make sense to me is how people can still believe in the theory of M2M evolution in the face of all the evidence against it. On the one hand 'evolution' is presented as an unstoppable force that controls all things, but then we see numerous examples of stasis. Apparently the all transforming mechanism of evolution isn't so powerful after all.
If the wasp were the only example of 'stasis' we have, the data could easily be ignored - but we have hundreds of examples of so called stasis. Evolutionary theory only makes sense if people are willing to ignore this data.
Notes;
1. Fossils Without Evolution Creation/Evolution Headlines 06/18/2010
2. ' Dr. Steve Compton of London’s Natural History Museum stated an evolutionary theory rescue device called “give the mystery a name” when he said, “Although we often think of the world as constantly changing, what this fossil gives us is an example of something remaining unchanged for tens of millions of years – something which in biology we call ‘stasis’.” [above]
- As far as I'm concerned the refutation of evolutionary theory is staring him in the face, but he doesn't have the courage to admit it.
3. "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"
- T. Dobzhansky
4. 'Science Daily tossed in a little humor on that point in its headline: “World’s Oldest Fig Wasp Fossil Proves That If It Works, Don’t Change It.” But is that an evolutionary law of nature? If monkeys worked, why did they change into humans, and why are there still monkeys?' [above]
- This well known saying refers of course to human beings, and to human behavior, to human intentionality, etc. It's utterly bogus to use this phrase in conjunction with the blind, random forces of evolutionary change. ( If this 'law of science' (cough) were true there would be no evolutionary change. I guess it depends on what we call change. I see no evidence one animal kind transformed into another kind. All I see are fairly trivial variations on a theme.)
5. 'The article mentions a 100-million-year old fossil of a gecko “the same sophisticated method of toe adhesion that allows it to walk easily on vertical and even inverted surfaces - a capability that served it well when it was skittering away from dinosaurs then, or is skipping through the jungles of Southeast Asia today.” [above]
- Does anyone really believe that? Does anyone really believe the Gecko hasn't changed in one hundred million years? (This is a number far too large to be rationally comprehended in my view.) During this time continents broke apart, mountain ranges rose and fell, seas appeared and disappeared, lemurs turned into leprechauns, dinosaurs turned into butterflies... and the gecko never changed. Really?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)