The Origins debate isn't really about creation or evolution so much as it's about theism vs materialism. One person who realizes this better than most is Philip Johnson. I want to comment on a few passages from his book.
Quotes and comments;
1. Speaking of Naturalism Johnson writes, "Under any of those names this philosophy assumes that in the beginning were the fundamental particles that compose matter, energy and the impersonal laws of physics. To put it negatively, there was no personal God who created the cosmos and governs it as an act of free will. It God exists at all, he acts only through inviolable laws of nature and adds nothing to them. In consequences, all the creating had to be done by the laws and the particles, which is to say by some combination of random chance and lawlike regularity." [1.]
- In his book he asks the reader to learn to ask good questions; so let's try a few. We need to ask what particles and physical laws can or do create. Can particles acting in terms of physical law actually create anything, or anything complex? We need to ask what we mean by create.
Create;
- late 14c., from L. creatus, pp. of creare "to make, bring forth, produce, beget," related to crescere "arise, grow"
- Can particles really 'bring forth' anything other than particles? I see no reason to believe they can beget life. (Create seems originally have been a word closely or even solely connected with birth. e.g. to create an infant)
1. 'To produce through artistic or imaginative effort
- I see no reason to believe particles are capable of artistic or imaginative effort. (Although a look at some modern art makes one wonder of human beings are capable of artistic effort :=}
2. 'To bring into being; cause to exist; specifically, to produce without the prior existence of the material used, or of other things like the thing produced; produce out of nothing.
3. 'To make or produce from crude or scattered materials; bring into form; embody: as, Peter the Great created the city of St. Petersburg; Palladio created a new style of architecture.
- To create a city is a banal accomplishment compared to the creation of a cell. E.s like to talk about some imagined 'primitive' cell; but it's our cities that are more legitimately called primitive, not cells. (If I look at a cell I don't see any neon advertising for 24 hr. a day sex shops, gambling casinos or hamburger joints.)
I see no evidence undirected chemical reactions can produce anything genuinely new; or to keep on producing genuinely new products. Chemicals beget chemicals not machines; physical laws cause cars to rust not to be manufactured.
(Compared to the riches of the biosphere, the 'begats' of chemistry produce a boring book indeed.)
4. 'To design, invest with a new form, shape, &c.
- Inert matter is unable to transcend itself; it takes intelligence and imagination to transcend the material realm, and it takes intentionality and purpose to want to do this. (A rock has no more desire to transcend or transform itself than a dictator does; rocks are the greatest couch potatoes on the planet... unlike teenagers they don't even dream of doing anything or of changing; they have less passion than the elderly on their death beds.)
The big problem for the materialist, as he tries to persuade people of his philosophy, is the task of explaining the genuinely new entity in the world. A cell is a million times more complex than a computer, but no one would even pretend to explain a computer without a reference to intelligence. He has an unsolvable puzzle on his hands, and it's one he's created for himself.
The main engine of progressive e. given in our textbooks has, for a long time, been mutations. This creates big problems for the e. theorist as mutations are negative in their actions. The question then is, 'how can mistakes create something new and of value?' To illustrate the conundrum I offer the following analogy;
Imagine we have a statue, and imagine we've grown tired of it and want a new one. We're cheap or we have no money so we say to a sculptor, turn this old block of stone (the statue) into a new one. If the sculptor agrees, the new statue he produces will of necessity be smaller than the old one. Each time we engage in this procedure the statue will be smaller. In the end we will end up with a grain of sand.
A few creationists have recently begun saying that mutations can indeed create new information. If this is so (and it might be) it's only because this possibility was designed into the genetic blueprint. i.e. if cosmic evolution were true, it wouldn't be possible for mutations to add anything new. It's only because organisms were created that such a possibility even exists. I see no way this could have happened by accident.
5. Creature;
- late 13c., "anything created," also "living being," from O.Fr. creature (Mod.Fr. créature), from L.L. creatura "thing created," from creatus, pp. of L. creare "create" (see create). Meaning "anything that ministers to man's comforts" (1610s), after I Tim. iv 4
- Create originally referred to either living organisms or to things made by living organisms; especially man himself.
The word create originally referred mainly to procreation. Since particles can't reproduce they can't procreate. If all you have are particles you have a dead world, an eternally dead world.
6. Creator;
- c.1300, "Supreme Being," from Anglo-Fr. creatour, O.Fr. creator (12c., academic and liturgical, alongside popular creere, Mod.Fr. créateur), from L. creator "creator, author, founder," from creatus (see create). Translated in O.E. as scieppend (from verb scieppan; see shape). Not generally capitalized until KJV. General meaning "one who creates" is from 1570s.
- It's my view that create originates in testimony of a creator God. ("In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,'' may have been the first words ever spoken (by an angel) to Adam; the first words he ever heard.) I find that giving to particles the divine power of creation is the most absurd notion man has ever spoken. Chemical evolution denies the necessity of intelligence, imagination and personhood. (A strange view to be championed by intelligent, imaginative, persons.)
I find the idea of a mindless, accidental creation both impossible and nauseating. I reject it with the disdain I would treat a mud pie. I find it loathsome that human beings will not honor their creator, or at the very least acknowledge his work. To deny the Creator is akin to claiming a troop of monkeys wrote the plays of Shakespeare.
Chemical evolution is a counterfeit creation story. It's so preposterous it's akin to claiming Arthur's sword was a natural product, a mere product of rock formation, as natural as the rock it was embedded in.
Chemical evolution requires that particles possess God's wisdom; that they possess the information needed to create all the original living forms. As far as I know we don't have microscopes powerful enough to detect this, but as Darwinists like to say, I'm sure it's only a matter of time until we do. (Skeptics will want to know where particles got this information content, but it's clear that it was produced with the big bang, when normal physical laws didn't exist and so this was possible. It's true that we don't yet know how this happened, but there's a general feeling among scientists that in a matter of 5-10 years we'll know.)
2. ‘Science’, in the strong sense, deals with repeatable events under precisely controlled conditions, and these testable results are to be valid across time, location and experimenter. Although all conclusions should still be treated as tentative descriptive models, even incomplete understanding can lead to advances in technology and medicine. Christians certainly approve of this form of knowledge acquisition, when applied in beneficial ways not contrary to God’s commandments. However, scientific methodologies available to interpret historical and geological events are, unfortunately, far less reliable. [2.]
- The game people like Sam Harris etc. play is to conflate real (hard) science with such philosophical speculations as neo-Darwinism. Darwinism is to science what plastic fruit is to a full course meal. It's little more than comical to say creationists are against science. This is like saying one is against food because one doesn't like Haggis. (Darwinism is to science what a carriage drawn to the moon by encapsulated dew drops is to a space ship. It's an imaginative story yes; but it won't get you anywhere.)
This is a far more important question than many realize. It's not just a philosophical 'game' as it were. Take a mouse; do its 'thoughts' reflect an external reality? How well do they reflect reality? how much of reality do they reflect? We can ask similar questions of human beings.
Is there any way for us to know if our thoughts reflect an external reality? Is there a way to know how well they do this? It's absurd to speak of facts if we can't answer these questions.
How well do the 'thoughts' (let's be liberal) of a goldfish reflect the reality of the ocean? Should we rely on it for information about the seas? Would it be a good guide for navigation? We might imagine that it thinks it knows all there is to know about water. It might even consider itself an
expert.
3. ‘By information I mean a message that conveys meaning, such as a book of instructions.’ [3.]
- We find no information in particles, but perhaps this is only because we haven't looked hard enough. We see no guidelines on how to construct a biological organism. (Perhaps someone forgot to write the manual, or forgot to enclose it.) We can say that particles were created by an intelligent agent, but they're not intelligent in and of themselves. They don't need intelligence and (thus?) don't have it. They're the blind leading the blind
Particles don't require these functions and so don't have them. It's important to stress that in the story of cosmic evolution these mechanisms at one time didn't exist. (For me this is all the data I need to reject Materialism.) The claim of chemical evolution is as believable to me as the claim one could safely drive across the country in a car without brakes or a steering wheel.
People who deny creation are like those who deny their own faces in a mirror. One hardly finds their protestations believable.
4. "When a mutation makes a bacterium resistant to antibiotics, for example, it does so by disabling its capacity to metabolize a certain chemical. There is a net loss of information and of fitness in a general sense, but there is a gain in fitness in specific toxin-filled environments.'' [4.]
- Human beings themselves provide far better evidence for a source of creation than do bacteria. Why do men look into bacteria when they should be looking into their own hearts? Is there something they're trying to escape?
Human society in our day (as I suppose it is in every day) is an especially toxin filled environment... and some people do indeed do well in it. e.g. Darwinists. We might think of Humanism as a loss of information.
5. ‘One convenient way of expressing this distinction is to say that the standard examples of micro-evolution are all of horizontal evolution, while the grand creative process should be called vertical evolution." [5.]
- The materialist is of all people the one with the least amount of hope for his position; he's literally climbing the walls in search of an answer. Chemical evolution is a riddle invented by the few to torture the many. A far more rational approach is agnosticism.
6. "Whereas the drafting committee had defined science as the human activity of seeking natural explanations, the board substituted that "science is the human activity of seeking logical explanations for what we observe in the world around us." [6.]
- The idea 'science' is about seeking natural' explanations is founded on the pretense that there's only one kind of explanation; that there's only way level of explanation. We need to stress that there are many ways of defining terms (especially important terms). This can be seen by a brief look at any dictionary. The attempt to define science in a single sentence (or entry) is a comical enterprise at best.
Modernists (especially of the atheist sort) have attempted to define science in a way it never was in the past. They've tried to narrow the definition until it becomes equal to materialism and reductionism. i.e. they've applied reductionism to the idea of science as they apply it to everything else. They want to make science a guild or closed shop; where only card carrying atheists may apply. (It's perhaps unnecessary to point out how undemocratic this agenda is.)
Science;
1. In a general sense, knowledge, or certain knowledge; the comprehension or understanding of truth or facts by the mind.
Webster 1828
2. Accumulated and established knowledge, which has been systematized and formulated with reference to the discovery of general truths or the operation of general laws; knowledge classified and made available in work, life, or the search for truth; comprehensive, profound, or philosophical knowledge. - W/1913
7. Johnson says that students should have the right to judge the merits of Neo-Darwinism;
‘Is the "evolution" that biologists observe merely a matter of variation within preexisting species or types, or is it a genuine creative process that over time can produce new complex organs and new kinds of organism?’ [7.] (p. 72).
* - I find it odd that students are encouraged to decide for themselves what is morally right and wrong, to decide whether or not to have sex or even an abortion, but they're not allowed to decide whether or not Darwinism can fully account for the life forms on the planet. This is akin to telling a small child what shoes he must wear but letting himself decide whether or not to cross the hiway. Again we see an anti-democratic spirit at work in the schools when it comes to the creation/evolution debate.
8. ‘For example, Scientific American editor-in-chief John Rennie urged scientists on university admissions committees to notify the Kansas governor and the state board of education that "in light of the newly lowered education standards in Kansas, the qualifications of any students applying from that state in the future will have to be considered very carefully"’ (p. 80).
- The worst bullies in the educational system are not students, but teachers, professors and outside agitators like Rennie. This is a vile and utterly uncivil threat levelled at students and their parents.
Why would anyone think Rennie is going to be honest about the Origins debate?
8. "Gould takes for granted that all such questions are within the magisterium of science." [8.]’ (p. 98).
- I find comical the idea science (i.e. scientists) will define what is and isn't religion. This is like a thief defining property rights, or a child telling his parents what his rights are and what their duties are.
9. "For example, Richard Dawkins commented that science is compatible with religion if the latter means only feelings of awe at the wonders of the universe or the fundamental laws of physics." [9.]
- I have to admit I rarely find myself in awe over the fundamental laws of physics; no doubt this is a personal failing. The atheist wants to restrict religion to feeling; but wouldn't that make his own feelings religious? What then of his feeling that there is no God; wouldn't that qualify as a religious feeling?
10. "They [the Darwinists] realise that it is safer to allow God a shadowy existence in human subjectivity than to run the risk that this very threatening presence will burst into objective reality. That is when we hear the standard vague reassurances that "many people believe in both God and evolution", or that "science does not say that God does not exist", or that "science and religion are separate realms."’ [10.]
- It's my view that science and religion are as separate as body and soul. I believe that as man is a single unit so is truth; as man has various aspects so has investigation into human experience. As man is in the universe, so is science within Revelation (or creation).
Realm;
1. A community or territory over which a sovereign rules; a kingdom.
- Ideally the sciences are provinces within the kingdom of God. In general terms we can say that 'science' and 'religion' are provinces within the same kingdom. To see a conflict between science and religion is taking an atomistic approach when a holistic approach is what's called for.
If Materialism is consistently applied it leads to the death of man, and how strange it is that men should construct philosophies that lead to their own extinction. What happened to the will to survive? Did it begin to die off with the advent of Darwinism? Maybe people on the whole aren't all that thrilled with being apes (in drag). That some few are is certainly true; but then again we do have some funny parades now days don't we? I wouldn't take seriously anything purple people eaters have to say about Origins.
Extremophile enthusiasm for Darwinism is something I don't understand; even though I accepted Evolution (M2M) when I was a teenager and maintained it all through my twenties. Why some people are so fanatic about it is beyond me, as it seems a horrid nightmare of an idea.
If there were no self how could there be facts? Aren't facts conclusions made by persons? ie. by selves. If there is no self who (what?) is it that believes x to be true? Do particles believe things? Don't you have to think to believe?
If we reduce everything down to the particle level how do we answer the question of reality; what then becomes of reality? What then is it? Is there any reality at the particle level? I can't imagine there is, but it would be a funny kind of reality if there were. If we reduce everything to the particle level we lose rationality, and words are only noise and thoughts only chemical reactions. To take everything to the particle level is to live beneath our station, it's to live without any awareness of who we are.
If we take things down (way, way down) to the particle level who is there to say what is reality. Reality is, after all, a pronouncement made by a person. If there are no selves there is therefore no reality. (The Biblical creationist of course believes that it is the Creator who makes the pronouncement of what reality is.)
If there are no selves who is going to compose the agreement (consensus) needed to create the facts of reality? If there is no self there is no reality and if there is no reality there are no facts. This unfortunately means for the materialist that nothing he says can be true.
11. "The irony is that eliminative materialism itself is fatal to science, since it implies that even the scientists are not really conscious and that their boasted rationality is really rationalization." [11.]
- The atheist claims he doesn't need a metaphysical basis for his opinions, but this is like a man saying he has no need of a place to stand, or a fish saying it has no need of water, or a bird saying it has no need of sky. It's true that the atheist is able to speak about morality and ethics (etc.) but his words have no necessary connection to reality. e.g. you might succeed in selling a gullible person a non-existent island, but the sale doesn't make the island appear.
The materialist is in the position of trying to live on a non-existent island. (The only way he can survive is to catch a ride from a creationist with a boat.)
Ideas not rooted in reality will necessarily disappear. The rejection of intelligent creation is an idea that cannot and will not stand the test of time. Materialism is a non-existent island floating in the void.
- Mike Johnson [frfarer at Gmail.com]
Notes;
1. The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism by Phillip E. Johnson; 2000 p.13
2. p. 37
3. p. 42
4. p.46
5. p.128
6. p.68
7. p.72
8. p.98
9. p.100
10. p.141
11. p.119
12. Note; Would it be correct to say that what the Materialist calls emergence the creationist calls transcendence?
Transcend;
1. To exist above and independent of (material experience or the universe):
- The Materialist claims that intelligence is an emergent quality, while the creationist claims it's a transcendent entity. i.e. it's independent of matter because it's not the produce of matter but of information (that is embedded in matter). I think that what we call 'life' is also a transcendent entity; that all life forms are not merely 'emergent' phenomenon but transcendent realities.
13. I need to note that I borrowed these quotations from a review by Royal Truman. I read the book some years ago but didn't make any notes. Since he's a writer I respect I read the review even though I'd read the book.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Friday, December 16, 2011
Materialism and the mindless game
Today I want to make a few comments about the book 'The way of the Cell' by Franklin M. Harold [2001]
Quotes and comments;
1. ‘The bedrock premise of this book is that life is a material phenomenon, grounded in chemistry and physics … The findings of biologists … compel us to admit that we humans, like all other organisms, are transient constellations of jostling molecules, brought forth by a mindless game of chance devoid of plan or intent’. [1.]
- The data in no way compel people to think anything; they can't... they're impersonal and mute.
The fact chemistry and physics are involved in biological organisms in no way necessitates that this is All that is involved.
I'm sure professor Harold knows a lot, and a lot more than I do, but I fail to see how he can know that life is a 'mindless game of chance' without having access to a more than earthly (sized) library. Has he managed to communicate with Micromegas I wonder :=}
The trouble for the materialist is that if the universe is a mindless game of chance we couldn't possibly know it. This claim has nothing to do with empirical science, and we ask the professor to admit it. He claims that there is no plan or intent to anything in the universe, but isn't he a bit afraid he's only expressing his ignorance? All he can properly say is that he doesn't see any... or admit that he doesn't want to see any. If he's what he says he is (or is he only talking about us non-tenured folk) then how can he expect mere matter in motion, a product of a mindless game of chance to know the deepest reality (realities) of the universe?
What's so ironic about his proclamation is that he knows full well that we see more than chemistry and physics in the cell. (Matter and physics give you chemistry, they don't give you a living cell, they don't give you information, they don't give you code, they don't give you machines.) Professor Harold is asking far more from these humble servants than they can possibly deliver.
2. 'Consistent with the theme of ‘biological organization’ (p. xi), the avowed purpose of the book ‘is to assess how far we have come toward a scientific understanding of the phenomenon
of life’ (p. ix).
- The scientific understanding? as opposed to the understanding? I'm intrigued by why he adds the adjective. Understanding is understanding is it not? I suspect that by scientific understanding he means materialist understanding. i.e. an understanding of 'life' in terms solely of materialism. We need to ask then if that would constitute understanding. If creation is true then it does not, as at best the materialist could only have a partial understanding. If the goal of research is a complete understanding why would a scientist insist on a purely materialist model. Is he interested in understanding or in materialism?
3. ‘...living things differ from nonliving nonliving ones most pointedly in their capacity to maintain, reproduce and multiply states of matter characterized by an extreme degree of organization’ (p. xi).
- Is this the biggest differentiation between living and non-living things? Is the difference between inert matter and living organism one solely of the degree of organization? I suppose that's one way you could look at it, but it's not one I find intellectually fulfilling. There is far more than organization going on here. You could organize a bunch of sand grains in an incredibly complex way and never get them to fly away or reproduce. As a physicalist he's too focused on the material to see what an inadequate explanation this is.
4. 'Natural selection emerges as the preeminent creative force to which we owe all the marvels of biology’ (p. 192).
- If natural selection were the creative force behind the biosphere we wouldn't owe it a thing as it's not a person. (It's not even a mechanism for that matter.) Calling natural selection a creative force is like calling the wind or the rain a creative force; we might as well worship the sun and the moon.
Calling natural selection a creative force is like calling a pencil sharpener the creative force behind a poem or essay. Harold apparently conflates an effective force and a creative force; but this is a difference as large as that between a chisel and a sculptor, a fire and a blacksmith.
If everything is merely matter in motion and the unintended product of a mindless game of chance why do we (humans) look at the world and experience awe? If all is chemistry and physics where is this awe coming from, and why do we experience living forms as marvels? How is it matter is in awe of matter?
Harold might have been better off studying the word marvel than reading the lastest diatribe by Dawkins, and would have learned more.
Marvel;
1. Strong surprise; astonishment.
- Why should matter be surprised and astonished at matter?
2. One that evokes surprise, admiration, or wonder
3. To wonder at; be struck with surprise at; be perplexed with curiosity about:
- If we could tune in on them would we here grains of sand singing hymns of praise to rocks :=} Is it right for Harold to marvel, but the problem is that he doesn't let his wonder instruct him; he acknowledges it briefly and then moves on, when he should sit and ponder the lesson to be learned. i.e. ''how is it a bag of chemicals is filled with wonder?'' or ''what are the implications of this astonishment and awe?" Rather than listen to this still small voice he escapes into theory, saving himself from discomfiting thoughts.
Marvel;
- c.1300, "miracle," also "wonderful story or legend," from O.Fr. merveille "a wonder," from V.L. *miribilia, alt. from L. mirabilia "wonderful things," from neut. pl. of mirabilis "strange or wonderful," from mirari "to wonder at," from mirus "wonderful" (see smile).
- To call something a marvel is to call it a miracle. The theologian C. Van Til was adamant that all men know God, and when we hear an atheist like Harold call the living organism a marvel it's my view that he's admitting his awareness of the creator. (At some level he knows there is a creator. This sounds confusing but we're all aware that people can know something but be unwilling to admit it. e.g. the pro athlete who won't admit he's not good enough, the would-be writer, the man who needs help but won't admit it, and so on.)
I'm sure he wouldn't agree, but his language gives him away. (Maybe we can say that his language center knows there's a Creator :=} I don't think the use of words is entirely arbitrary; in fact I think it's close to the opposite. (We might say that prof. Harold is looking at the marvels of the world and smiling, but that he doesn't know why.) I'll believe in materialism when I see a rock smile and wink its eye.
5. ‘...no cosmic plan, only molecules whose writhings and couplings underlie and explain all that the cell does’ (p. 65).
- To say that molecules explain all that the cell does (and I think this even incorrect on a banal level) is akin to saying the wheels and springs inside a watch explain all there is about it. It's akin to calling the ocean a nice reflective surface that does a good job of reproducing clouds.
I suppose I'm jealous of his expertise and learning, but how is it he knows there is no cosmic plan? I wonder if I could get him to share with me his methodology. This is akin to enjoying a tasty bowl of soup and looking for the cook inside the empty soup tin.
6. 'In Chapter 8 Harold tries to unravel the early history of life and regrets ‘that more than three quarters of that history does not lend itself to public display, for it is wholly the record of microbial life’ (p. 159).
- Life isn't a matter of numbers or statistics. Like the angry Earthman in Voltaire's Micromega, I refuse to accept the quantitative analysis of life on earth as authoritative, as telling us anything about meaning or importance.
Why the regret Prof. Harold? Ask yourself how it is that a bit of matter, a transient constellation of molecules, feels regret. (We know why Jesus wept, but why do you?) If all is matter in motion then nothing can be other than what it is, nothing could have been other than what it was. There is no reason for regret in materialism. Chemicals know nothing of regret, they don't long for things that don't exist, they feel no loss or sorrow. (Am I missing something? Perhaps I've not looked into a microscope long enough.
Prof. H. regrets that he can't share what he knows with his audience, but chemicals have no desire to share anything; so how is it he has this feeling? Aren't the bigger marvels his feelings of awe, wonder and regret?
Can there really be a history of microbial life? Can we have history without persons? No one ever witnessed the events you write about, and therefore can't give us a history of it. You can't separate history from intelligent, personal agents.
7. 'After expressing his concerns about tree problems he still has the ‘courage’ to say,
‘The great tree is likely to be seen as one of the triumphs of biology in the twentieth century’ (p. 162).
- How is it a product of mindless chance, chemistry plus time can know what the verdict of future generations will be upon a Darwinian construct? If all is matter in motion how can anything be a triumph? Does matter triumph over matter?
How is it courage exists in a mindless universe of matter in motion? Don't these stirrings of courage tell us the materialist vision is false? Does one rock admire another rock's willingness to fall? (Has anyone heard such a story? If the rocks could speak is this what they would say?) When I see rocks marching as soldiers in line behind some great bolder, or when I see them cheering such a parade, is when I'll believe in Materialism.
To rejoice, to know what it is to feel this elation in triumph is to experience the fallacy of materialism in one's own bosom. To see the fallacy of m. all one has to do is meditate upon one's feeling of joy. (no bit of matter has ever experienced it.) The simplest hymn the homeliest congregation has ever sung refutes materialism.
I hate to be pedantic, but the phrase twentieth century can't have any meaning in terms of a consistent materialism. It's akin to dating the genealogy of mice or ducks by the first opening of Disneyland. (I hate to be called pedantic at any rate.)
8. 'In spite of the fact that the ‘tree’ is badly tangled at the present time, and we understand less than we thought we knew in the past few decades, Harold and others maintain their ‘faith’ in a
phylogenetic tree.
- The phylogenetic tree is so tangled it looks like a ball of fishing twine on the bottom of the skiff after a rough day out in the bay. With each passing year, and each passing rock of the boat it gets more and more tangled. Trying to make sense of it is akin to reading the future from animal entrails.
9. ‘The postulate of a single universal ancestor, its biblical overtones notwithstanding, rests on a solid foundation of fact’ (p. 169).
- We can only surmise from this that prof. Harold has a very liberal definition of fact. (Was he the one who defined evolution as change?) To claim a factual foundation for chemical evolution is akin to saying there's a factual foundation for Vulcans.
10. ‘The most compelling argument [for common ancestry] comes from the discovery that all extant organisms employ the same genetic code’ (p. 169).
- I don't know how an ecosystem could work any other way, but then again I know so little when compared to prof. Harold. Could we imagine a global ecosystem that didn't have a single code?
If you were designing a planet professor Harold, would you or would you not base it on a single genetic code? [3.]
11. '‘No satisfying scheme of this kind is presently on the books, and I have none to offer … The origin of life appears to me as incomprehensible as ever, a matter for wonder but not for explication’ (p. 251).
- On p.169 he told us chemical evolution has a solid basis in fact, but now he seems to have changed his mind :=} It's a fact, but it's incomprehensible? Apparently.
He's not satisfied by his inability to explain chemical e. to be able to show us how it could be true; but why if he's merely a bag of chemicals why is he dissatisfied? In his feelings of frustration, and dissatisfaction he has all the evidence he needs for realizing m. isn't (and can't) be true. A desire for rational comprehension can't be explained by chemicals plus physics. If the professor would pay more attention to his own experience and less to textbooks he might find his way out of the tangled maze of theory he's stuck in.
Do rocks care about being intellectually satisfied? Man's longing for understanding is all the evidence he needs that Materialism is false.
12. 'Harold recognizes that these types of study constitute ‘historical’ science where the tools are ‘soft’; ‘hard science is stymied … the trail is too cold, the traces too faint’ (p. 252).
- Well; let's stop pretending Evolution is a fact in that case. The only fact in this scenario is that there are no facts.
13. ‘We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity’ (p. 205).
- The dialogue of chance and necessity? Is that anything like the dialogue of nose and finger?
As a matter of principle? what principle? what principle does matter adhere to? what principle do chemicals hold near and dear? If all were matter in motion the idea of principles would be a delusion.
14. Harold also concedes that, ‘a chance origin [of life] commands much less respect than it did a decade or two ago, for two reasons.’ The first is the enormous improbability (not enough time and atoms for all the necessary trials). The second reason is that ‘science cannot really deal with unique events, which are effectively miraculous’ (p. 239).
- As Cornelius Van Til said; all men know God.
If all were simply chemicals plus physics it' hard for me to understand how there could be unique events; but I suppose this is only my naivete at work, fooling me into believing there's a need for a creator. I'm sure prof. Harold knows better. As far as I know, there are no unique events in chemistry, and there are no unique events in terms of physics. Whence then comes the unique event?
15. 'The general scientific consensus that there was a naturalistic origin of life about four
billion years ago is accepted because, first, there is no ‘palatable alternative...’
- If people don't find creation a 'palatable' alternative I would think it's because their taste buds are out of whack.
All he's saying is, 'creation can't be true, because I don't like it.' Why the 'thoughts' of a bag of chemicals should be determinative as to the constitution of the universe is something the atheist doesn't tell us. - Life is full of things we don't like, and I suspect the ultimate nature of reality is just one more.
16. ‘...absent the presumption of a terrestrial and natural genesis there would be no basis for scientific inquiry into the origin of life’ (p. 237).
- Is there such a thing as a 'scientific' inquiry into the origin of life. Harold tells us elsewhere that he doesn't think there is! Did he forget that he also told us, ‘science cannot really deal with unique events, which are effectively miraculous’ [239.]
- M. Johnson
Notes;
1. The Way of the Cell: Molecules, Organisms and the Order of Life by Franklin M. Harold; 2001 review by Wayne Frair (pp. 254–255)
- my comments are based on a review of the book. (I missed the book when it came out.)
2. We might call Darwinism 'The way of the Sell'
3. You should be thankful there's only one genetic code professor; since you can't explain where the one we have came from imagine how embarassing it would be not to be able to explain several.
4. '...Harold’s summary of how he conceives that, strictly by chance (naturalistic) processes, life could have begun: presence of diverse localized and abundant organic molecules; compartmentation; stream of energy; mounting levels of complexity; energy flux to organization; transmissible, executable, alterable and repeatedly-tested genetic code (pp. 250–251)
- Didn't he tell us everything was a matter of chemistry and physics? I see a whole lot here that isn't chemicals or physics!
Let's not forget that it all has to work together, and all has to come together at the right time.
What does complexity have to do with chemicals? Is there a chemical called complexity? Is there a chemical called compartmentation?
5. ‘… but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations’ (p. 205).
- Does he know himself better than we suspect, or was he merely having an off day?
Detailed accounts? there are no accounts period.
Quotes and comments;
1. ‘The bedrock premise of this book is that life is a material phenomenon, grounded in chemistry and physics … The findings of biologists … compel us to admit that we humans, like all other organisms, are transient constellations of jostling molecules, brought forth by a mindless game of chance devoid of plan or intent’. [1.]
- The data in no way compel people to think anything; they can't... they're impersonal and mute.
The fact chemistry and physics are involved in biological organisms in no way necessitates that this is All that is involved.
I'm sure professor Harold knows a lot, and a lot more than I do, but I fail to see how he can know that life is a 'mindless game of chance' without having access to a more than earthly (sized) library. Has he managed to communicate with Micromegas I wonder :=}
The trouble for the materialist is that if the universe is a mindless game of chance we couldn't possibly know it. This claim has nothing to do with empirical science, and we ask the professor to admit it. He claims that there is no plan or intent to anything in the universe, but isn't he a bit afraid he's only expressing his ignorance? All he can properly say is that he doesn't see any... or admit that he doesn't want to see any. If he's what he says he is (or is he only talking about us non-tenured folk) then how can he expect mere matter in motion, a product of a mindless game of chance to know the deepest reality (realities) of the universe?
What's so ironic about his proclamation is that he knows full well that we see more than chemistry and physics in the cell. (Matter and physics give you chemistry, they don't give you a living cell, they don't give you information, they don't give you code, they don't give you machines.) Professor Harold is asking far more from these humble servants than they can possibly deliver.
2. 'Consistent with the theme of ‘biological organization’ (p. xi), the avowed purpose of the book ‘is to assess how far we have come toward a scientific understanding of the phenomenon
of life’ (p. ix).
- The scientific understanding? as opposed to the understanding? I'm intrigued by why he adds the adjective. Understanding is understanding is it not? I suspect that by scientific understanding he means materialist understanding. i.e. an understanding of 'life' in terms solely of materialism. We need to ask then if that would constitute understanding. If creation is true then it does not, as at best the materialist could only have a partial understanding. If the goal of research is a complete understanding why would a scientist insist on a purely materialist model. Is he interested in understanding or in materialism?
3. ‘...living things differ from nonliving nonliving ones most pointedly in their capacity to maintain, reproduce and multiply states of matter characterized by an extreme degree of organization’ (p. xi).
- Is this the biggest differentiation between living and non-living things? Is the difference between inert matter and living organism one solely of the degree of organization? I suppose that's one way you could look at it, but it's not one I find intellectually fulfilling. There is far more than organization going on here. You could organize a bunch of sand grains in an incredibly complex way and never get them to fly away or reproduce. As a physicalist he's too focused on the material to see what an inadequate explanation this is.
4. 'Natural selection emerges as the preeminent creative force to which we owe all the marvels of biology’ (p. 192).
- If natural selection were the creative force behind the biosphere we wouldn't owe it a thing as it's not a person. (It's not even a mechanism for that matter.) Calling natural selection a creative force is like calling the wind or the rain a creative force; we might as well worship the sun and the moon.
Calling natural selection a creative force is like calling a pencil sharpener the creative force behind a poem or essay. Harold apparently conflates an effective force and a creative force; but this is a difference as large as that between a chisel and a sculptor, a fire and a blacksmith.
If everything is merely matter in motion and the unintended product of a mindless game of chance why do we (humans) look at the world and experience awe? If all is chemistry and physics where is this awe coming from, and why do we experience living forms as marvels? How is it matter is in awe of matter?
Harold might have been better off studying the word marvel than reading the lastest diatribe by Dawkins, and would have learned more.
Marvel;
1. Strong surprise; astonishment.
- Why should matter be surprised and astonished at matter?
2. One that evokes surprise, admiration, or wonder
3. To wonder at; be struck with surprise at; be perplexed with curiosity about:
- If we could tune in on them would we here grains of sand singing hymns of praise to rocks :=} Is it right for Harold to marvel, but the problem is that he doesn't let his wonder instruct him; he acknowledges it briefly and then moves on, when he should sit and ponder the lesson to be learned. i.e. ''how is it a bag of chemicals is filled with wonder?'' or ''what are the implications of this astonishment and awe?" Rather than listen to this still small voice he escapes into theory, saving himself from discomfiting thoughts.
Marvel;
- c.1300, "miracle," also "wonderful story or legend," from O.Fr. merveille "a wonder," from V.L. *miribilia, alt. from L. mirabilia "wonderful things," from neut. pl. of mirabilis "strange or wonderful," from mirari "to wonder at," from mirus "wonderful" (see smile).
- To call something a marvel is to call it a miracle. The theologian C. Van Til was adamant that all men know God, and when we hear an atheist like Harold call the living organism a marvel it's my view that he's admitting his awareness of the creator. (At some level he knows there is a creator. This sounds confusing but we're all aware that people can know something but be unwilling to admit it. e.g. the pro athlete who won't admit he's not good enough, the would-be writer, the man who needs help but won't admit it, and so on.)
I'm sure he wouldn't agree, but his language gives him away. (Maybe we can say that his language center knows there's a Creator :=} I don't think the use of words is entirely arbitrary; in fact I think it's close to the opposite. (We might say that prof. Harold is looking at the marvels of the world and smiling, but that he doesn't know why.) I'll believe in materialism when I see a rock smile and wink its eye.
5. ‘...no cosmic plan, only molecules whose writhings and couplings underlie and explain all that the cell does’ (p. 65).
- To say that molecules explain all that the cell does (and I think this even incorrect on a banal level) is akin to saying the wheels and springs inside a watch explain all there is about it. It's akin to calling the ocean a nice reflective surface that does a good job of reproducing clouds.
I suppose I'm jealous of his expertise and learning, but how is it he knows there is no cosmic plan? I wonder if I could get him to share with me his methodology. This is akin to enjoying a tasty bowl of soup and looking for the cook inside the empty soup tin.
6. 'In Chapter 8 Harold tries to unravel the early history of life and regrets ‘that more than three quarters of that history does not lend itself to public display, for it is wholly the record of microbial life’ (p. 159).
- Life isn't a matter of numbers or statistics. Like the angry Earthman in Voltaire's Micromega, I refuse to accept the quantitative analysis of life on earth as authoritative, as telling us anything about meaning or importance.
Why the regret Prof. Harold? Ask yourself how it is that a bit of matter, a transient constellation of molecules, feels regret. (We know why Jesus wept, but why do you?) If all is matter in motion then nothing can be other than what it is, nothing could have been other than what it was. There is no reason for regret in materialism. Chemicals know nothing of regret, they don't long for things that don't exist, they feel no loss or sorrow. (Am I missing something? Perhaps I've not looked into a microscope long enough.
Prof. H. regrets that he can't share what he knows with his audience, but chemicals have no desire to share anything; so how is it he has this feeling? Aren't the bigger marvels his feelings of awe, wonder and regret?
Can there really be a history of microbial life? Can we have history without persons? No one ever witnessed the events you write about, and therefore can't give us a history of it. You can't separate history from intelligent, personal agents.
7. 'After expressing his concerns about tree problems he still has the ‘courage’ to say,
‘The great tree is likely to be seen as one of the triumphs of biology in the twentieth century’ (p. 162).
- How is it a product of mindless chance, chemistry plus time can know what the verdict of future generations will be upon a Darwinian construct? If all is matter in motion how can anything be a triumph? Does matter triumph over matter?
How is it courage exists in a mindless universe of matter in motion? Don't these stirrings of courage tell us the materialist vision is false? Does one rock admire another rock's willingness to fall? (Has anyone heard such a story? If the rocks could speak is this what they would say?) When I see rocks marching as soldiers in line behind some great bolder, or when I see them cheering such a parade, is when I'll believe in Materialism.
To rejoice, to know what it is to feel this elation in triumph is to experience the fallacy of materialism in one's own bosom. To see the fallacy of m. all one has to do is meditate upon one's feeling of joy. (no bit of matter has ever experienced it.) The simplest hymn the homeliest congregation has ever sung refutes materialism.
I hate to be pedantic, but the phrase twentieth century can't have any meaning in terms of a consistent materialism. It's akin to dating the genealogy of mice or ducks by the first opening of Disneyland. (I hate to be called pedantic at any rate.)
8. 'In spite of the fact that the ‘tree’ is badly tangled at the present time, and we understand less than we thought we knew in the past few decades, Harold and others maintain their ‘faith’ in a
phylogenetic tree.
- The phylogenetic tree is so tangled it looks like a ball of fishing twine on the bottom of the skiff after a rough day out in the bay. With each passing year, and each passing rock of the boat it gets more and more tangled. Trying to make sense of it is akin to reading the future from animal entrails.
9. ‘The postulate of a single universal ancestor, its biblical overtones notwithstanding, rests on a solid foundation of fact’ (p. 169).
- We can only surmise from this that prof. Harold has a very liberal definition of fact. (Was he the one who defined evolution as change?) To claim a factual foundation for chemical evolution is akin to saying there's a factual foundation for Vulcans.
10. ‘The most compelling argument [for common ancestry] comes from the discovery that all extant organisms employ the same genetic code’ (p. 169).
- I don't know how an ecosystem could work any other way, but then again I know so little when compared to prof. Harold. Could we imagine a global ecosystem that didn't have a single code?
If you were designing a planet professor Harold, would you or would you not base it on a single genetic code? [3.]
11. '‘No satisfying scheme of this kind is presently on the books, and I have none to offer … The origin of life appears to me as incomprehensible as ever, a matter for wonder but not for explication’ (p. 251).
- On p.169 he told us chemical evolution has a solid basis in fact, but now he seems to have changed his mind :=} It's a fact, but it's incomprehensible? Apparently.
He's not satisfied by his inability to explain chemical e. to be able to show us how it could be true; but why if he's merely a bag of chemicals why is he dissatisfied? In his feelings of frustration, and dissatisfaction he has all the evidence he needs for realizing m. isn't (and can't) be true. A desire for rational comprehension can't be explained by chemicals plus physics. If the professor would pay more attention to his own experience and less to textbooks he might find his way out of the tangled maze of theory he's stuck in.
Do rocks care about being intellectually satisfied? Man's longing for understanding is all the evidence he needs that Materialism is false.
12. 'Harold recognizes that these types of study constitute ‘historical’ science where the tools are ‘soft’; ‘hard science is stymied … the trail is too cold, the traces too faint’ (p. 252).
- Well; let's stop pretending Evolution is a fact in that case. The only fact in this scenario is that there are no facts.
13. ‘We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity’ (p. 205).
- The dialogue of chance and necessity? Is that anything like the dialogue of nose and finger?
As a matter of principle? what principle? what principle does matter adhere to? what principle do chemicals hold near and dear? If all were matter in motion the idea of principles would be a delusion.
14. Harold also concedes that, ‘a chance origin [of life] commands much less respect than it did a decade or two ago, for two reasons.’ The first is the enormous improbability (not enough time and atoms for all the necessary trials). The second reason is that ‘science cannot really deal with unique events, which are effectively miraculous’ (p. 239).
- As Cornelius Van Til said; all men know God.
If all were simply chemicals plus physics it' hard for me to understand how there could be unique events; but I suppose this is only my naivete at work, fooling me into believing there's a need for a creator. I'm sure prof. Harold knows better. As far as I know, there are no unique events in chemistry, and there are no unique events in terms of physics. Whence then comes the unique event?
15. 'The general scientific consensus that there was a naturalistic origin of life about four
billion years ago is accepted because, first, there is no ‘palatable alternative...’
- If people don't find creation a 'palatable' alternative I would think it's because their taste buds are out of whack.
All he's saying is, 'creation can't be true, because I don't like it.' Why the 'thoughts' of a bag of chemicals should be determinative as to the constitution of the universe is something the atheist doesn't tell us. - Life is full of things we don't like, and I suspect the ultimate nature of reality is just one more.
16. ‘...absent the presumption of a terrestrial and natural genesis there would be no basis for scientific inquiry into the origin of life’ (p. 237).
- Is there such a thing as a 'scientific' inquiry into the origin of life. Harold tells us elsewhere that he doesn't think there is! Did he forget that he also told us, ‘science cannot really deal with unique events, which are effectively miraculous’ [239.]
- M. Johnson
Notes;
1. The Way of the Cell: Molecules, Organisms and the Order of Life by Franklin M. Harold; 2001 review by Wayne Frair (pp. 254–255)
- my comments are based on a review of the book. (I missed the book when it came out.)
2. We might call Darwinism 'The way of the Sell'
3. You should be thankful there's only one genetic code professor; since you can't explain where the one we have came from imagine how embarassing it would be not to be able to explain several.
4. '...Harold’s summary of how he conceives that, strictly by chance (naturalistic) processes, life could have begun: presence of diverse localized and abundant organic molecules; compartmentation; stream of energy; mounting levels of complexity; energy flux to organization; transmissible, executable, alterable and repeatedly-tested genetic code (pp. 250–251)
- Didn't he tell us everything was a matter of chemistry and physics? I see a whole lot here that isn't chemicals or physics!
Let's not forget that it all has to work together, and all has to come together at the right time.
What does complexity have to do with chemicals? Is there a chemical called complexity? Is there a chemical called compartmentation?
5. ‘… but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations’ (p. 205).
- Does he know himself better than we suspect, or was he merely having an off day?
Detailed accounts? there are no accounts period.
Friday, December 2, 2011
Afraid to fly
One of the major planks in the idea of cosmic evolution is the transformation of reptiles into birds. I find this notion highly improbable.
Quote and comments;
1. 'Many textbooks tell young people today that birds are modified reptiles. Suppose, they say, that millions of years ago the scales on some reptiles began to fray along the edges. In time, they say, the frayed scales turned into feathers and birds were born. [1.]
- Why would scales begin to fray?
What would cause this? (Scales are pretty tough things, and appear to be designed not to fray.) As far as I know, we don't see that happening in our day. Furthermore, it would appear that there are 'mechanisms' in place to see to it that scales don't fray.
If a scale is damaged this isn't duplicated in offspring. What would make a 'fraying' that was reproduced? Presumbably some mutation; but I've never heard of this particular mutation.
Isn't it likely that if this scenario were to happen that the reptiles with fraying scales would be less able to compete and thus die out? Does it help a human being to get skin disease? Does it help them if their skin starts to decay and fall off? Is a sweater getting better or worse when it starts to unravel? Does a shirt turn into a pair of pants by wearing out?
Would it help humans to lose finger nails I wonder.
A 'frayed' scale turns into a bird? Really? That doesn't sound like science to me. In reality frayed scales get dropped and is replaced by a normal (unfrayed) scale.
People seem to forget that a scale has a job to do; a frayed scale is thus reduced in its capacity to do its job. (A rope that begins to fray can resist less and less stress until it breaks; and here we see evolutionary theory hanging by a thread.)
A reptile with damaged scales would presumably be less able to move, less able to ward off attack, less able to retain moisture, and perhaps less able to camouflage themselves, and perhaps more. It's hard to imagine how this could be beneficial. [2.]
When these frayed scales turned into feathers I wonder which way they turned, because it was a hell of a trick. This is like a rag turning into a fur coat, or a toy wagon turning into a Cadillac. This is one of the secular miracles that Darwinism relies on. Everyone knows this is nothing but a story; spreading paper over a pothole.
2. 'Even the most clever rebuilding of a reptile cannot produce a bird. In fact, birds have very little in common with reptiles. [5.]
- The idea reptiles were transformed into birds has its source in a particular (Uniformitarian) interpretation of the fossil record. No one would dream of such an 'impossible' transfiguration without the fossil record; without a particular reading of the fossil record. (The fossil record we see in textbooks is a deliberate construct, and not a faithful representation of the real world.)
Summary;
"Doth the hawk fly by thy wisdom, [and] stretch her wings toward the south?" - Job 39:26
- No; the hawk flies because it was programmed by its creator to do so. It's not only intelligence that we see in the world, but divine wisdom. Wisdom is something over and above intelligence, as we can plainly see by observing intelligent people do and say stupid things. Wisdom in the sense meant here refers to seeing the whole picture, to seeing the entire ecological system and how it interacts.
- M. Johnson
Notes;
1. Designed for Flight - Paul Bartz
2. Scales functions;
'The scales of a snake primarily serve to reduce friction as it moves, since friction is the major source of energy loss in
snake locomotion. The ventral (or belly) scales, which are large and oblong, are especially low-friction, and some arboreal species can use the edges to grip branches. Snake skin and scales help retain moisture in the animal's body. - wiki
- It wouldn't surprise me if scales had undiscovered functions.
4. Scale functions
Movement;
The scales on some reptiles assist the reptile with movement. In the case of snakes, the snake's belly scales are able to grab onto tiny imperfections on surfaces and create friction to propel the snake forward.
Protection;
The thick, prickly scales on a reptile can help protect it from predators. They can make it difficult for predators to bite or attack the reptile, as well as cause injury to the predator.
In the case of other reptiles, the color of the scales can provide a defense against attack. One example of this is the non-venomous milk snake, whose black and red ringed pattern resembles that of the highly venomous coral snake.
Water Retention;
Reptiles living in the desert have evolved special adaptations that allow them to thrive in the hot and dry climate. The scales of many desert reptile species allow them to retain moisture by preventing the evaporation of water through the skin. This allows the animal to become dehydrated less frequently and require smaller amounts of water to survive.
Camouflage;
The scales of many reptile species are either plainly or elaborately colored to assist with camouflage. This includes certain species of leaf-tail geckos, who can completely blend in to surrounding tree trunks and branches in their natural environment. [ehow.com]
5. 'Even the most clever rebuilding of a reptile cannot produce a bird. In fact, birds have very little in common with reptiles. The entire being of the bird, from body to brain, has been specially designed for flight by a Creator who clearly knows everything there is to know about flight. - Bartz; above
6. I was thinking of giving this post the title 'Affrayed to fly' but resisted the temptation.
Quote and comments;
1. 'Many textbooks tell young people today that birds are modified reptiles. Suppose, they say, that millions of years ago the scales on some reptiles began to fray along the edges. In time, they say, the frayed scales turned into feathers and birds were born. [1.]
- Why would scales begin to fray?
What would cause this? (Scales are pretty tough things, and appear to be designed not to fray.) As far as I know, we don't see that happening in our day. Furthermore, it would appear that there are 'mechanisms' in place to see to it that scales don't fray.
If a scale is damaged this isn't duplicated in offspring. What would make a 'fraying' that was reproduced? Presumbably some mutation; but I've never heard of this particular mutation.
Isn't it likely that if this scenario were to happen that the reptiles with fraying scales would be less able to compete and thus die out? Does it help a human being to get skin disease? Does it help them if their skin starts to decay and fall off? Is a sweater getting better or worse when it starts to unravel? Does a shirt turn into a pair of pants by wearing out?
Would it help humans to lose finger nails I wonder.
A 'frayed' scale turns into a bird? Really? That doesn't sound like science to me. In reality frayed scales get dropped and is replaced by a normal (unfrayed) scale.
People seem to forget that a scale has a job to do; a frayed scale is thus reduced in its capacity to do its job. (A rope that begins to fray can resist less and less stress until it breaks; and here we see evolutionary theory hanging by a thread.)
A reptile with damaged scales would presumably be less able to move, less able to ward off attack, less able to retain moisture, and perhaps less able to camouflage themselves, and perhaps more. It's hard to imagine how this could be beneficial. [2.]
When these frayed scales turned into feathers I wonder which way they turned, because it was a hell of a trick. This is like a rag turning into a fur coat, or a toy wagon turning into a Cadillac. This is one of the secular miracles that Darwinism relies on. Everyone knows this is nothing but a story; spreading paper over a pothole.
2. 'Even the most clever rebuilding of a reptile cannot produce a bird. In fact, birds have very little in common with reptiles. [5.]
- The idea reptiles were transformed into birds has its source in a particular (Uniformitarian) interpretation of the fossil record. No one would dream of such an 'impossible' transfiguration without the fossil record; without a particular reading of the fossil record. (The fossil record we see in textbooks is a deliberate construct, and not a faithful representation of the real world.)
Summary;
"Doth the hawk fly by thy wisdom, [and] stretch her wings toward the south?" - Job 39:26
- No; the hawk flies because it was programmed by its creator to do so. It's not only intelligence that we see in the world, but divine wisdom. Wisdom is something over and above intelligence, as we can plainly see by observing intelligent people do and say stupid things. Wisdom in the sense meant here refers to seeing the whole picture, to seeing the entire ecological system and how it interacts.
- M. Johnson
Notes;
1. Designed for Flight - Paul Bartz
2. Scales functions;
'The scales of a snake primarily serve to reduce friction as it moves, since friction is the major source of energy loss in
snake locomotion. The ventral (or belly) scales, which are large and oblong, are especially low-friction, and some arboreal species can use the edges to grip branches. Snake skin and scales help retain moisture in the animal's body. - wiki
- It wouldn't surprise me if scales had undiscovered functions.
4. Scale functions
Movement;
The scales on some reptiles assist the reptile with movement. In the case of snakes, the snake's belly scales are able to grab onto tiny imperfections on surfaces and create friction to propel the snake forward.
Protection;
The thick, prickly scales on a reptile can help protect it from predators. They can make it difficult for predators to bite or attack the reptile, as well as cause injury to the predator.
In the case of other reptiles, the color of the scales can provide a defense against attack. One example of this is the non-venomous milk snake, whose black and red ringed pattern resembles that of the highly venomous coral snake.
Water Retention;
Reptiles living in the desert have evolved special adaptations that allow them to thrive in the hot and dry climate. The scales of many desert reptile species allow them to retain moisture by preventing the evaporation of water through the skin. This allows the animal to become dehydrated less frequently and require smaller amounts of water to survive.
Camouflage;
The scales of many reptile species are either plainly or elaborately colored to assist with camouflage. This includes certain species of leaf-tail geckos, who can completely blend in to surrounding tree trunks and branches in their natural environment. [ehow.com]
5. 'Even the most clever rebuilding of a reptile cannot produce a bird. In fact, birds have very little in common with reptiles. The entire being of the bird, from body to brain, has been specially designed for flight by a Creator who clearly knows everything there is to know about flight. - Bartz; above
6. I was thinking of giving this post the title 'Affrayed to fly' but resisted the temptation.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
The museum delusion
Museums devoted to displaying the Darwin story have carefully, and deliberately painted a false picture of the fossil record. I wonder how many people are aware of the deceptions involved in this supposedly educational enterprise.
Quotes and comments;
1. "Paleontologists have found 432 mammal species in the dinosaur layers….But where are these fossils? We visited 60 museums but did not see a single complete mammal skeleton from the dinosaur layers displayed at any of these museums.'' [1.]
- Here is plain proof that evolutionists are deliberately falsifying the fossil record so as to create a delusory myth in the minds of the public. How can anyone trust the people who do this kind of thing? Why would anyone expect people like this to be honest when talking about the origins debate? They clearly have no interest in the truth, but care only about propagating a myth.
- Here is clear evidence that refutes the great Darwinian myth, as these collections just should not happen according to textbook theory. Anyone who accepts cosmic evolution in the light of these findings does so despite the evidence not because of the evidence.
Many (most?) natural history museums have more to do with the muses than with science, and are shrines to materialism and cosmic evolution.
2. 'Werner also learned that dinosaur-containing rock layers have "fossilized examples from every major invertebrate animal phylum living today," and that dinosaurs were mixed in with varieties of fish, amphibians, "parrots, owls, penguins, ducks, loons, albatross, cormorants, sandpipers, avocets, etc." [1.]
- The Darwinian myth has been carefully manufactured, and bears little relationship to reality. The museums are temples devoted to cosmic evolution, as the scenarios they paint (and present) are fictional... and are very little different than Disneyland. One day they'll be seen as the amusement parks they really are.
This is a prime example of what's known as the engineering (or manufacturing) of consent. The success of Darwinism is almost entirely due to the false (iconic) pictures and images evolutionists have invented and painted for the public mind. Without the (false) images the words would mean nothing.
3. “Few are aware of the great number of mammal species found with dinosaurs. Paleontologists have found 432 mammal species in the dinosaur layers; almost as many as the number of dinosaur species. These include nearly 100 complete mammal skeletons." [4.]
- Fossils are the sacred relics of Evolution, the sacred stones of naturalist religion, and the natural history museum is the modern Pantheon, where the inner sanctum always seems to feature that lumbering saint of Darwinism, the dinosaur.
These Darwinian displays are a good example of the Potemkin village, as they're utterly fake and bear little resemblance to reality. The fact you display a bone is meaningless in itself, as it's the context that makes all the difference. In most cases it's not the bones that are displayed that is important, it's the bones that are not displayed which is crucial. These displays could be compared to the sets Hollywood used to make and use, and they have as little educational value.
Summary;
Museum directors see themselves as guardians of cosmic evolution and as members of an elite who is going to cure the common folk of their delusions, since they're too incompetent to do it on their own. (Curators of museums now see themselves as curators of the soul.) What we have in many of these deceptive presentations is a more up to date version of Piltdown Man.
- M. Johnson
Notes;
1. Dinosaur Fossil 'Wasn't Supposed to Be There' - by Brian Thomas
Full quotation; 'Medical doctor Carl Werner actually used fossil-related criteria as a test for evolution. He reasoned that if the evolutionary story were true and that dinosaurs lived in a unique "Age of Reptiles," and if everyday natural processes were responsible for their fossilization, then no fossils of creatures from other "ages"—for example, creatures that had not yet evolved—should be mixed up with dinosaur fossils.
But Werner found that a fossil mixture of very different kinds was typical. He told Creation magazine:
''Paleontologists have found 432 mammal species in the dinosaur layers….But where are these fossils? We visited 60 museums but did not see a single complete mammal skeleton from the dinosaur layers displayed at any of these museums.''
3. Bird Fossils Offer Clues to Dinosaur Question
by Brian Thomas
'Similarly swampy menageries characterize many Cretaceous fossil sites. For example, one study of fossilized dinosaur skin stated that the Lance Formation in North America contained "remains of cartilaginous and bony fishes, amphibians, champsosaurs, turtles, lizards, snakes, crocodilians, pterosaurs, dinosaurs, birds, and mammals."4
Also, an inventory of fossils in the Straight Cliffs Formation at the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah reported "plants, petrified wood, leaves, carbonized wood, pollen, corals, bryozoans, snails, clams, ammonoids, sharks, fish, salamanders, frogs, turtles, lizards, crocodiles, pterosaurs, dinosaurs, [and] mammals."5 The researchers also reported fossilized birds in the layers above.
4. “Few are aware of the great number of mammal species found with dinosaurs. Paleontologists have found 432 mammal species in the dinosaur layers;3 almost as many as the number of dinosaur species. These include nearly 100 complete mammal skeletons. But where are these fossils? We visited 60 museums but did not see a single complete mammal skeleton from the dinosaur layers displayed at any of these museums. This is amazing. Also, we saw only a few dozen incomplete skeletons/single bones of the 432 mammal species found so far. Why don’t the museums display these mammal fossils and also the bird fossils?”
Living fossils: a powerful argument for creation
Don Batten interviews Dr Carl Werner, author of Living Fossils (Evolution: the Grand Experiment vol. 2)
5. Evolutionists treat the fossil record like a Rosetta stone when they have no right to. i.e. they have no outside (objective) source to use to interpret the data. If the bible is what it claims to be then the Biblical creationist has the 'Rosetta stone' needed. (E. theory isn't objective; though it's treated as if it were.)
6. After I wrote this post I was surprised to find a copy of Living Fossils at the library. I suppose someone must have donated it, because whoever runs the place is fiercely anti-creation. (You find many more books condemning any kind of creation than you find books by creationists; not to mention every book by an evolutionist you can think of.) I recommend it highly. It's a joy to look it, apart from being informative and challenging.
Quotes and comments;
1. "Paleontologists have found 432 mammal species in the dinosaur layers….But where are these fossils? We visited 60 museums but did not see a single complete mammal skeleton from the dinosaur layers displayed at any of these museums.'' [1.]
- Here is plain proof that evolutionists are deliberately falsifying the fossil record so as to create a delusory myth in the minds of the public. How can anyone trust the people who do this kind of thing? Why would anyone expect people like this to be honest when talking about the origins debate? They clearly have no interest in the truth, but care only about propagating a myth.
- Here is clear evidence that refutes the great Darwinian myth, as these collections just should not happen according to textbook theory. Anyone who accepts cosmic evolution in the light of these findings does so despite the evidence not because of the evidence.
Many (most?) natural history museums have more to do with the muses than with science, and are shrines to materialism and cosmic evolution.
2. 'Werner also learned that dinosaur-containing rock layers have "fossilized examples from every major invertebrate animal phylum living today," and that dinosaurs were mixed in with varieties of fish, amphibians, "parrots, owls, penguins, ducks, loons, albatross, cormorants, sandpipers, avocets, etc." [1.]
- The Darwinian myth has been carefully manufactured, and bears little relationship to reality. The museums are temples devoted to cosmic evolution, as the scenarios they paint (and present) are fictional... and are very little different than Disneyland. One day they'll be seen as the amusement parks they really are.
This is a prime example of what's known as the engineering (or manufacturing) of consent. The success of Darwinism is almost entirely due to the false (iconic) pictures and images evolutionists have invented and painted for the public mind. Without the (false) images the words would mean nothing.
3. “Few are aware of the great number of mammal species found with dinosaurs. Paleontologists have found 432 mammal species in the dinosaur layers; almost as many as the number of dinosaur species. These include nearly 100 complete mammal skeletons." [4.]
- Fossils are the sacred relics of Evolution, the sacred stones of naturalist religion, and the natural history museum is the modern Pantheon, where the inner sanctum always seems to feature that lumbering saint of Darwinism, the dinosaur.
These Darwinian displays are a good example of the Potemkin village, as they're utterly fake and bear little resemblance to reality. The fact you display a bone is meaningless in itself, as it's the context that makes all the difference. In most cases it's not the bones that are displayed that is important, it's the bones that are not displayed which is crucial. These displays could be compared to the sets Hollywood used to make and use, and they have as little educational value.
Summary;
Museum directors see themselves as guardians of cosmic evolution and as members of an elite who is going to cure the common folk of their delusions, since they're too incompetent to do it on their own. (Curators of museums now see themselves as curators of the soul.) What we have in many of these deceptive presentations is a more up to date version of Piltdown Man.
- M. Johnson
Notes;
1. Dinosaur Fossil 'Wasn't Supposed to Be There' - by Brian Thomas
Full quotation; 'Medical doctor Carl Werner actually used fossil-related criteria as a test for evolution. He reasoned that if the evolutionary story were true and that dinosaurs lived in a unique "Age of Reptiles," and if everyday natural processes were responsible for their fossilization, then no fossils of creatures from other "ages"—for example, creatures that had not yet evolved—should be mixed up with dinosaur fossils.
But Werner found that a fossil mixture of very different kinds was typical. He told Creation magazine:
''Paleontologists have found 432 mammal species in the dinosaur layers….But where are these fossils? We visited 60 museums but did not see a single complete mammal skeleton from the dinosaur layers displayed at any of these museums.''
3. Bird Fossils Offer Clues to Dinosaur Question
by Brian Thomas
'Similarly swampy menageries characterize many Cretaceous fossil sites. For example, one study of fossilized dinosaur skin stated that the Lance Formation in North America contained "remains of cartilaginous and bony fishes, amphibians, champsosaurs, turtles, lizards, snakes, crocodilians, pterosaurs, dinosaurs, birds, and mammals."4
Also, an inventory of fossils in the Straight Cliffs Formation at the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah reported "plants, petrified wood, leaves, carbonized wood, pollen, corals, bryozoans, snails, clams, ammonoids, sharks, fish, salamanders, frogs, turtles, lizards, crocodiles, pterosaurs, dinosaurs, [and] mammals."5 The researchers also reported fossilized birds in the layers above.
4. “Few are aware of the great number of mammal species found with dinosaurs. Paleontologists have found 432 mammal species in the dinosaur layers;3 almost as many as the number of dinosaur species. These include nearly 100 complete mammal skeletons. But where are these fossils? We visited 60 museums but did not see a single complete mammal skeleton from the dinosaur layers displayed at any of these museums. This is amazing. Also, we saw only a few dozen incomplete skeletons/single bones of the 432 mammal species found so far. Why don’t the museums display these mammal fossils and also the bird fossils?”
Living fossils: a powerful argument for creation
Don Batten interviews Dr Carl Werner, author of Living Fossils (Evolution: the Grand Experiment vol. 2)
5. Evolutionists treat the fossil record like a Rosetta stone when they have no right to. i.e. they have no outside (objective) source to use to interpret the data. If the bible is what it claims to be then the Biblical creationist has the 'Rosetta stone' needed. (E. theory isn't objective; though it's treated as if it were.)
6. After I wrote this post I was surprised to find a copy of Living Fossils at the library. I suppose someone must have donated it, because whoever runs the place is fiercely anti-creation. (You find many more books condemning any kind of creation than you find books by creationists; not to mention every book by an evolutionist you can think of.) I recommend it highly. It's a joy to look it, apart from being informative and challenging.
Friday, November 25, 2011
Deconstructing natural selection
One of the great myths of our day is the idea of a creative natural selection. In this post I'll make a couple comments on a review of the book 'Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome' by John C. Sanford
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Any trait such as intelligence, speed or strength depends on gene characteristics and environmental factors (nutrition, training, etc.) For example, height is about 30% (h2 = 0.3) heritable. For complex traits such as ‘fitness’ heritability values are low (i.e. 0.004). ‘This is because total fitness combines all the different types of noise from all the different aspects of the individual.’ Low heritability means bad genotypes are very difficult to eliminate. Survival becomes primarily a matter of luck, and not better genes: [1.]
- When darwin famously said that 'nature' could do more than animal breeders he wasn't being honest, but what he failed to mention was crucial; if you take animals that have been bred for a purpose and then turn them loose, those specially bred charactersistics will soon disappear and the animal will revert to norm.
The godlike creative powers of natural selection is an utter myth.
2. 'Furthermore, almost all mutations are recessive, camouflaging their presence and hindering selection against them (pp. 56, 76). Another consideration, not explicitly brought out in this book, is that key environmental factors (disease, temperature, mutation, predators, etc.) affecting survival vary over time. Strong selection must be present for a huge number of generations if fixation of a (temporarily) favourable trait throughout a population is to occur. Relaxation for just a few generations could undo this process, since selection for a different trait would then be at the expense of the preceding one.
- The textbook model of how n.s. works is a rationalistic construct bearing little resemblance (in most cases) to reality.
3. 'We must recognize clearly this lack of strong correlation between a mutation (whether having a positive or negative effect) and reproductive success. It is a fact of nature, yet most people attribute incorrectly near miraculous creative powers to natural selection.
- The collapse of the natural selection myth leaves Darwinism in tatters... a flag reduced to a few threads.
4. '...the degradation of the human genome (in the presence of such high mutations rates, preponderance of deleterious mutations and lack of huge expendable proportions of offspring) cannot be avoided...'
- I see no way progressive evolution is possible under these circumstance.
5. 'In the 1950s, one of the most famous population geneticists, John Burdon Sanderson Haldane, presented an observation known as ‘Haldane’s dilemma’ (p. 128): it would take (on average) 300 generations to select a single new mutation to fixation. However, his calculations were only for independent, unlinked mutations. He assumed constant and very strong selection for a single trait, which is not realistic. The interference by hundreds of random mutations was not taken into account. Even so, selection for only 1,000 specific and adjacent mutations could not happen in all putative evolutionary time. There is no way an ape-like creature could have been transformed into a human (p. 129). Man and chimp differ at roughly 150 million nucleotide positions (p. 130) and humans show remarkably little variation worldwide.
- The actual case is far more extreme than Haldane could possibly have known. The famous Darwinian icon of a line of apes being slowly transformed into a human being is a completely fallacious invention. It's a travesty of education that this bit of propaganda is featured in textbooks for children.
- M. Johnson
Notes;
1. A review of Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by John C. Sanford, Ivan Press, Lima, New York, 2005 - by Royal Truman
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Any trait such as intelligence, speed or strength depends on gene characteristics and environmental factors (nutrition, training, etc.) For example, height is about 30% (h2 = 0.3) heritable. For complex traits such as ‘fitness’ heritability values are low (i.e. 0.004). ‘This is because total fitness combines all the different types of noise from all the different aspects of the individual.’ Low heritability means bad genotypes are very difficult to eliminate. Survival becomes primarily a matter of luck, and not better genes: [1.]
- When darwin famously said that 'nature' could do more than animal breeders he wasn't being honest, but what he failed to mention was crucial; if you take animals that have been bred for a purpose and then turn them loose, those specially bred charactersistics will soon disappear and the animal will revert to norm.
The godlike creative powers of natural selection is an utter myth.
2. 'Furthermore, almost all mutations are recessive, camouflaging their presence and hindering selection against them (pp. 56, 76). Another consideration, not explicitly brought out in this book, is that key environmental factors (disease, temperature, mutation, predators, etc.) affecting survival vary over time. Strong selection must be present for a huge number of generations if fixation of a (temporarily) favourable trait throughout a population is to occur. Relaxation for just a few generations could undo this process, since selection for a different trait would then be at the expense of the preceding one.
- The textbook model of how n.s. works is a rationalistic construct bearing little resemblance (in most cases) to reality.
3. 'We must recognize clearly this lack of strong correlation between a mutation (whether having a positive or negative effect) and reproductive success. It is a fact of nature, yet most people attribute incorrectly near miraculous creative powers to natural selection.
- The collapse of the natural selection myth leaves Darwinism in tatters... a flag reduced to a few threads.
4. '...the degradation of the human genome (in the presence of such high mutations rates, preponderance of deleterious mutations and lack of huge expendable proportions of offspring) cannot be avoided...'
- I see no way progressive evolution is possible under these circumstance.
5. 'In the 1950s, one of the most famous population geneticists, John Burdon Sanderson Haldane, presented an observation known as ‘Haldane’s dilemma’ (p. 128): it would take (on average) 300 generations to select a single new mutation to fixation. However, his calculations were only for independent, unlinked mutations. He assumed constant and very strong selection for a single trait, which is not realistic. The interference by hundreds of random mutations was not taken into account. Even so, selection for only 1,000 specific and adjacent mutations could not happen in all putative evolutionary time. There is no way an ape-like creature could have been transformed into a human (p. 129). Man and chimp differ at roughly 150 million nucleotide positions (p. 130) and humans show remarkably little variation worldwide.
- The actual case is far more extreme than Haldane could possibly have known. The famous Darwinian icon of a line of apes being slowly transformed into a human being is a completely fallacious invention. It's a travesty of education that this bit of propaganda is featured in textbooks for children.
- M. Johnson
Notes;
1. A review of Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by John C. Sanford, Ivan Press, Lima, New York, 2005 - by Royal Truman
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Darwinism and the theology of perfection
Some popular apologists for cosmic evolution like to make the argument that because certain organs or processes in the biological world aren't perfect, this means they weren't created. We'd like to disagree.
Quotes and comment;
1. 'First, Dawkins levels the charge that much of what exists in nature is far from perfectly designed and is only good enough. [1.]
- The idea of perfection requires a standard, and since the evolutionist has no standard (for perfection) he's got no right to employ the term in his arguments. Perfection is an evaluation, and such valuation can only be made by a personal agent. In the case of the animal world, only the one who created the kinds knows what the standard of perfection is. When Genesis tells us god declared the creation to be very good, we assume this means perfect, but the text doesn't say this. When God says it was very good this means that the creation was what he intended it to be.
Dawkins plays the game of pretending he's never heard about the Fall, and that nowhere in the bible does it say (after the Fall) that anything is perfect; in fact it says the opposite, and points out the the whole earth is under a curse, and moans and travails...
It's unrealistic (unscientific?) to imagine a perfect creation would remain that way under conditions of entropy. One wonders what possible warrant e.s can have for demanding perfect 6,000 years after creation.
A common reason e.s give for rejecting creation is the idea x or y (e.g. the eye) isn't perfect. This is a strange and illegitimate argument, as they have taken a concept from geometry and applied it to living organisms. This is what we call a category mistake. There is no warrant for applying a geometric standard to something biological. (That said we know that there's not even any such thing as a perfect triangle; for geometry deals with 'imaginary' objects; and so it's perfection is ideal not physically real.)
The evolutionist claims that if god created everything it would be perfect. I'm not sure who first came up with this argument (and it has the whiff of ancient Greece about it) but it's simply fallacious. The argument depends upon men being able to know exactly who god is and how he would do things. If evolutionists read a little theology they'd know that this is not the Biblical view at all. Cornelius Van Til was from a line of thinkers who thought God was far beyond man's full comprehension.
This bit of Darwinian theology is a straw man argument, as there is nothing in the bible that would lead anyone to think this is a perfect world. (I can see how someone might get that idea if the first two chapters were as far in Genesis as they got, since there's a sense in which the world was perfect before the Fall; but after the Fall we are told the earth was cursed.)
As an aside; when God declares the creation to be good; to be very good, he isn't saying this in the sense he's surprised or pleased with how things came out, as if he were saying ''boy it came out as good as I'd hoped'' or somesuch. No; he's saying this for the benefit of mankind, as He is well aware of what is going to happen, and He wants to see that the blame for the coming 'imperfection' goes where it should.
We have no right to employ the standard of perfection to living organisms; and even more especially to man. Unfortunately this is what we so often do; and you can ride the train and hear people complain about the fact their jobs aren't perfect, their marriages aren't perfect, their lives aren't perfect, and so on. You'd think they were triangles and squares at heart, or had been so in a previous life. They then go about solving the problem of imperfection; getting rid of an imperfect mate and beginning a search for a perfect one, and so on.
It's interesting to me that the best the evolutionist can do to critique the Genesis account is to hold it up to a fallacious, unrealistic and bogus standard.
In an entropic universe there is no way that there could still be perfection 6,000 (or more) years after creation. No biblical creationist denies mutations and damage to the genome; the universe being what it is, this is inevitable. The bible does not say the world is perfect, and even the atheist is well aware that it doesn't. ("The creation moaneth and travaileth,'' we read in Romans.) The 'imperfections' that we see in the world (and in ourselves) are just what we would expect given the Genesis account of creation. (I seem to remember reading that each individual inherits as many as 60 mutations. At this rate there would have been a lot of damage in 6,000 years.)
One response you get from atheists is ''well since you people think all things are possible with god, then god could have maintained a perfect creation, and if he's all good, as you say, then he would have. Since the world isn't perfect god doesn't exist.''
This isn't science, it's speculation. It might be even be true that God could have done this, but we're told that this is not what he did. The whole creation fell under a curse because of man's sin. (This may have been more a matter of withholding of grace as it were, instead of an active curse. i.e. perfection might have required a continuing work on God's part to maintain it, and when the fall occurred God ended or curtailed this upholding of things.)
- M.D. Johnson
Notes;
1. River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life by Richard Dawkins - Reviewed by Raymond G. Bohlin
2. Perfect; adj
- early 13c., from O.Fr. parfit (11c.), from L. perfectus "completed," pp. of perficere "accomplish, finish, complete," from per- "completely" + facere "to perform" (see factitious). Often used in English as an intensive (perfect stranger, etc.). The verb meaning "to bring to full development" is recorded from late 14c.
A. Completely corresponding to a description, standard, or type: a perfect circle; a perfect gentleman.
- the general image is of a craftsman making some object (e.g. a chair) gradually putting it together, finishing it, perfecting it, making it as close to the model as possible. (We all know it won't stay 'perfect' for long :=} The Darwinist is in the hopeless position of trying to explain perfection as the result of a long line of accidents and chance events.
b. Being without defect or blemish: a perfect specimen.
Quotes and comment;
1. 'First, Dawkins levels the charge that much of what exists in nature is far from perfectly designed and is only good enough. [1.]
- The idea of perfection requires a standard, and since the evolutionist has no standard (for perfection) he's got no right to employ the term in his arguments. Perfection is an evaluation, and such valuation can only be made by a personal agent. In the case of the animal world, only the one who created the kinds knows what the standard of perfection is. When Genesis tells us god declared the creation to be very good, we assume this means perfect, but the text doesn't say this. When God says it was very good this means that the creation was what he intended it to be.
Dawkins plays the game of pretending he's never heard about the Fall, and that nowhere in the bible does it say (after the Fall) that anything is perfect; in fact it says the opposite, and points out the the whole earth is under a curse, and moans and travails...
It's unrealistic (unscientific?) to imagine a perfect creation would remain that way under conditions of entropy. One wonders what possible warrant e.s can have for demanding perfect 6,000 years after creation.
A common reason e.s give for rejecting creation is the idea x or y (e.g. the eye) isn't perfect. This is a strange and illegitimate argument, as they have taken a concept from geometry and applied it to living organisms. This is what we call a category mistake. There is no warrant for applying a geometric standard to something biological. (That said we know that there's not even any such thing as a perfect triangle; for geometry deals with 'imaginary' objects; and so it's perfection is ideal not physically real.)
The evolutionist claims that if god created everything it would be perfect. I'm not sure who first came up with this argument (and it has the whiff of ancient Greece about it) but it's simply fallacious. The argument depends upon men being able to know exactly who god is and how he would do things. If evolutionists read a little theology they'd know that this is not the Biblical view at all. Cornelius Van Til was from a line of thinkers who thought God was far beyond man's full comprehension.
This bit of Darwinian theology is a straw man argument, as there is nothing in the bible that would lead anyone to think this is a perfect world. (I can see how someone might get that idea if the first two chapters were as far in Genesis as they got, since there's a sense in which the world was perfect before the Fall; but after the Fall we are told the earth was cursed.)
As an aside; when God declares the creation to be good; to be very good, he isn't saying this in the sense he's surprised or pleased with how things came out, as if he were saying ''boy it came out as good as I'd hoped'' or somesuch. No; he's saying this for the benefit of mankind, as He is well aware of what is going to happen, and He wants to see that the blame for the coming 'imperfection' goes where it should.
We have no right to employ the standard of perfection to living organisms; and even more especially to man. Unfortunately this is what we so often do; and you can ride the train and hear people complain about the fact their jobs aren't perfect, their marriages aren't perfect, their lives aren't perfect, and so on. You'd think they were triangles and squares at heart, or had been so in a previous life. They then go about solving the problem of imperfection; getting rid of an imperfect mate and beginning a search for a perfect one, and so on.
It's interesting to me that the best the evolutionist can do to critique the Genesis account is to hold it up to a fallacious, unrealistic and bogus standard.
In an entropic universe there is no way that there could still be perfection 6,000 (or more) years after creation. No biblical creationist denies mutations and damage to the genome; the universe being what it is, this is inevitable. The bible does not say the world is perfect, and even the atheist is well aware that it doesn't. ("The creation moaneth and travaileth,'' we read in Romans.) The 'imperfections' that we see in the world (and in ourselves) are just what we would expect given the Genesis account of creation. (I seem to remember reading that each individual inherits as many as 60 mutations. At this rate there would have been a lot of damage in 6,000 years.)
One response you get from atheists is ''well since you people think all things are possible with god, then god could have maintained a perfect creation, and if he's all good, as you say, then he would have. Since the world isn't perfect god doesn't exist.''
This isn't science, it's speculation. It might be even be true that God could have done this, but we're told that this is not what he did. The whole creation fell under a curse because of man's sin. (This may have been more a matter of withholding of grace as it were, instead of an active curse. i.e. perfection might have required a continuing work on God's part to maintain it, and when the fall occurred God ended or curtailed this upholding of things.)
- M.D. Johnson
Notes;
1. River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life by Richard Dawkins - Reviewed by Raymond G. Bohlin
2. Perfect; adj
- early 13c., from O.Fr. parfit (11c.), from L. perfectus "completed," pp. of perficere "accomplish, finish, complete," from per- "completely" + facere "to perform" (see factitious). Often used in English as an intensive (perfect stranger, etc.). The verb meaning "to bring to full development" is recorded from late 14c.
A. Completely corresponding to a description, standard, or type: a perfect circle; a perfect gentleman.
- the general image is of a craftsman making some object (e.g. a chair) gradually putting it together, finishing it, perfecting it, making it as close to the model as possible. (We all know it won't stay 'perfect' for long :=} The Darwinist is in the hopeless position of trying to explain perfection as the result of a long line of accidents and chance events.
b. Being without defect or blemish: a perfect specimen.
Monday, November 21, 2011
The miracle of abiogenesis
I don't think many people realize that cosmic evolution requires a series of miracles.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'German pathologist Rudolf Virchow succeeded in formulating the ‘law of biogenesis’ (‘all cells from cells’) in 1855, and Frenchman Louis Pasteur used it to refute the idea of spontaneous generation in 1864. [1.]
- A materialist origin for the biosphere would have to violate the law of biogenesis; but wait, aren't we told we can't believe in miracles because they violate natural law, and that nothing can violate natural law? The theory of evolution necessitates a miracle then, as it requires a violation of natural law. The idea life can 'emerge' from non-life cannot be called science as it goes against all that we know.
2. 'Twenty years later in 1855 Rudolf Virchow proposed an important extension of cell theory that "All living cells arise from pre-existing cells". ("Omnis cellula e celula") This statement has become what is known as the "Biogenic law". This idea flew in the face of current doctrine. It implied that there was no spontaneous creation of cells from non-living matter. [3.]
- I find it comical that the champions of naturalistic science have adopted a theory (cosmic evolution) that requires a violation of natural law. Life from non-life is an a-theistic miracle. Why is so few of our academics and scientists seem to care?
- M. Johnson
Notes;
1. A review of Science as a Way of Knowing: The Foundations of Modern Biology by John A. Moore; Book Review by Alex Williams
2. 'In natural science, abiogenesis or biopoesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose. - wiki
3. http://kentsimmons.uwinnipeg.ca/cm1504/celltheory.htm
Quotes and comments;
1. 'German pathologist Rudolf Virchow succeeded in formulating the ‘law of biogenesis’ (‘all cells from cells’) in 1855, and Frenchman Louis Pasteur used it to refute the idea of spontaneous generation in 1864. [1.]
- A materialist origin for the biosphere would have to violate the law of biogenesis; but wait, aren't we told we can't believe in miracles because they violate natural law, and that nothing can violate natural law? The theory of evolution necessitates a miracle then, as it requires a violation of natural law. The idea life can 'emerge' from non-life cannot be called science as it goes against all that we know.
2. 'Twenty years later in 1855 Rudolf Virchow proposed an important extension of cell theory that "All living cells arise from pre-existing cells". ("Omnis cellula e celula") This statement has become what is known as the "Biogenic law". This idea flew in the face of current doctrine. It implied that there was no spontaneous creation of cells from non-living matter. [3.]
- I find it comical that the champions of naturalistic science have adopted a theory (cosmic evolution) that requires a violation of natural law. Life from non-life is an a-theistic miracle. Why is so few of our academics and scientists seem to care?
- M. Johnson
Notes;
1. A review of Science as a Way of Knowing: The Foundations of Modern Biology by John A. Moore; Book Review by Alex Williams
2. 'In natural science, abiogenesis or biopoesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose. - wiki
3. http://kentsimmons.uwinnipeg.ca/cm1504/celltheory.htm
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Evidence for a young earth
Most people you talk to (outside of some small church circles) think the idea we live on a young earth is an absurd notion; they think this because they've never been acquainted with any good arguments for the young earth position. Contrary to what people think, there are many good reasons to question an old age for the earth, and to affirm a young earth.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'No scientific method can prove the age of the earth and the universe, and that includes the ones we have listed here. Although age indicators are called “clocks” they aren’t, because all ages result from calculations that necessarily involve making assumptions about the past. Always the starting time of the “clock” has to be assumed as well as the way in which the speed of the clock has varied over time. Further, it has to be assumed that the clock was never disturbed. [1.]
- The article I just quoted from contains a long list of evidences for a young earth. It includes a link to an article or essay for each one mentioned. It's a great resource for anyone interested in this subject.
Notes;
1. Age of the earth; 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe - by Don Batten
Quotes and comments;
1. 'No scientific method can prove the age of the earth and the universe, and that includes the ones we have listed here. Although age indicators are called “clocks” they aren’t, because all ages result from calculations that necessarily involve making assumptions about the past. Always the starting time of the “clock” has to be assumed as well as the way in which the speed of the clock has varied over time. Further, it has to be assumed that the clock was never disturbed. [1.]
- The article I just quoted from contains a long list of evidences for a young earth. It includes a link to an article or essay for each one mentioned. It's a great resource for anyone interested in this subject.
Notes;
1. Age of the earth; 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe - by Don Batten
Saturday, November 19, 2011
There are no scientific laws
I want to make a few comments on a review I read of the book 'Music to move the stars' written by Jane Hawking. It's about her marriage to the physicist Stephen Hawking.
Quotes and comments;
1. "...a Creator God was an awkward obstacle for an atheistic scientist whose aim was to reduce the origins of the universe to an unified package of scientific laws, expressed in equations and symbols." [1.]
- There's no such thing as scientific laws. The term 'scientific law' is a pretense meant to steal glory from God and to bring glory to man. The 'laws' we see (if you want to call our formulation of observed regularities laws) aren't scientific but universal; they have nothing to do with man as they aren't inventions but discoveries. (To the extent they're accurate formulations.)
So called 'scientific laws' are only human inventions to the extent they're false; then they become inventions along the lines of fantasy.
I don't see why the existence of God should be an obstacle to studying the universe. This makes no sense to me. Without God there would be no universe and no one to study it.
The major problem with Materialism is the drive to reduce things; to reduce the higher to the lower, to reduce the immaterial to the material. The great danger in this project is that the personal universe ends up becoming (in the eyes of adherents) an impersonal one; and that intelligence gets replaced by the material, and the intentional by chance. Far too many scientists in our day confuse reductionism as a tool to be used in research with a reductionism as a philosophy of life, as a worldview.
2. 'She [Jane] adds that, as a direct result of the focus of modern cosmologists on mathematics, the concept of a personal God became irrelevant for these scientists because, in their mind, their calculations diminished ‘any possible scope for a Creator’
- I wonder where people like Hawking think mathematics comes from? I wonder how they imagine mathematics is possible, or how it's possible for them to do math. I wonder if they even ask these questions. People are far too apt to take their capacities and abilities for granted. Evolutionary theory can't begin to explain how it is men have the intellectual potential they do. This ought to give them pause to question their materialist worldview. You're in a poor (not to mention hopeless) situation if your basic worldview can't even begin to account for your own existence!
The materialist is too interested in the creation, and not interested enough in the creator. It surely makes sense to think that the creator is much more 'interesting' (awesome) than His creation. Surely the One who created mathematics and creatures capable of comprehending mathematics is someone worth getting to know. The christian believes the creator has far more interesting 'tricks' up His sleeve than the material universe (astounding as it is) Hawking has become obsessed with. ("We as of yet see through a glass darkly...") [2.] The apostle Paul (in Romans) speaks of those who worship the creation rather than the creator, and this is what Hawking appears to have done.
If you walk into a room and see equations covering a blackboard do you imagine no one wrote them?
Does the fact you can describe an object (e.g. a pyramid) in mathematical terms mean it wasn't created by someone?
3. "...‘they could not envisage any other place or role for God in the physical universe. Concepts which could not be quantified in mathematical terms as a theoretical reflection of physical realities, whether or not the actual existence of those physical realities was proven, were meaningless." (p. 155).
- People are making a category mistake when they imagine they can understand all things (especially God!) in terms of mathematics. God is far too great and too transcendent to be comprehended by mathematics. Hawking has made the cardinal mistake of ignoring the creator/creature distinction. He somehow imagines he can comprehend all of reality, but has no reason to believe a trousered ape is capable of any such thing. His own worldview (e.g.Darwinism) makes his statements about God and ultimate reality absurd. As Darwin hiimself said, ''why should we pay any attention to what an ape says about reality?" (I'm paraphrasing.)
A materialist is someone who has their nose pressed so tightly to the 'tree' they're studying that they can't see the forest; they're blinded by the physical. (The Hawking equation; Materialism = Reductionism = Absurdity)
4. "...many scientists ‘arrogantly even aspire to become gods themselves by denying the rest of us our freedom of choice and disputing our right to ask the question “Why?” in relation to the origins of the universe and the origins of life. They claim that the question is as … inappropriate, as it would be to ask why Mt. Everest is there.''
- Did these people forget that they're just animals, mere bits of matter, that their thoughts are just chemical reactions? It would appear so. Who are they to tell anyone what's appropriate? If all is matter in motion nothing is appropriate or inappropriate. People will never stop asking why in any event; it's a question from the heart, a question that's part of us, a question we were meant to ask.
The reductionist has a dreary tendency to speak of human beings as if they're all the same. This comes from their reducing human beings to the physical, and the physical to the chemical. On the cellular level it's true that we are much alike (though we don't even lose our individuality at that level; you have to reduce people to the atomic level to destroy all their individuality) and this is why the reductionist lumps all people together. His reductionism leads him to feel that what he thinks is right for him must be right for everyone; that's what he thinks is true must be true for everyone.
We don't ask why Mt. Everest is there because a mountain is not a person. (You wouldn't think we'd have to explain this, but apparently, in the case of the hardboiled atheist we do.) It's typical of course for the materialist to ignore personality and individuality... although there's something comical about a personal being denying the importance of personhood. (It's akin to a cat denying the importance of whiskers, or a bird denying the importance of wings.)
5. "They dismiss the suggestion that the question ‘Why’ is the prerogative of theologians and philosophers rather than scientist because, they say, theologians are engaged in the “study of fantasy.”
- It's true that some theologians are engaged in the study of fantasy, but so are some scientists. [e.g. the multiverse, imaginary time, etc.] The fact that many theologians are studying false gods and false scripture doesn't prove that a living creator God doesn't exist, or that He hasn't given us His revealed word.
Reductionism means the 'extinction' of the theologian or the moralist (the artist, etc.) as all studies must be reduced to physics. There's a great imperialism involved in the reductionist project, as it allows only a physicalist account of the universe (and that includes the 'universe' of human beings).
As someone who takes the creationist perspective, I believe that much of Darwinism is a study of fantasy; especially as it involves the 'just so' stories that populate the 'soft' sciences. e.g. evolutionary psychology, Darwinist literary critique, evolutionary sociology, etc.
6. "Their theories reduce the whole of Creation to a handful of material components."
- The biggest problem with reductionism is that it does away with intelligence as an integral part of the universe. (I find it comical that some of our most intelligent people deny the role of intelligence. This is akin to fish denying the role of gills, or birds denying the role of feathers.) Materialism is, at best, half an adequate account of the universe. The materialist is akin to the 'head' of a coin denying that a 'tail' side exists; it's akin to the cover of a book denying the pages exist.
- M. D. Johnson
Notes;
1. 100. Stephen Hawking: the closed mind of a dogmatic atheist; A review of Music to Move the Stars by Jane Hawking - Book Review by Jerry Bergman
2. "Now we see things imperfectly, like puzzling reflections in a mirror, but then we will see everything with perfect clarity. All that I know now is partial and incomplete, but then I will know everything completely, just as God now knows me completely.'' 1 Cor 13:12 [NLT}
3. I've gotten so far behind on my reading list, that I've taken to reading book reviews to try and catch up.
Quotes and comments;
1. "...a Creator God was an awkward obstacle for an atheistic scientist whose aim was to reduce the origins of the universe to an unified package of scientific laws, expressed in equations and symbols." [1.]
- There's no such thing as scientific laws. The term 'scientific law' is a pretense meant to steal glory from God and to bring glory to man. The 'laws' we see (if you want to call our formulation of observed regularities laws) aren't scientific but universal; they have nothing to do with man as they aren't inventions but discoveries. (To the extent they're accurate formulations.)
So called 'scientific laws' are only human inventions to the extent they're false; then they become inventions along the lines of fantasy.
I don't see why the existence of God should be an obstacle to studying the universe. This makes no sense to me. Without God there would be no universe and no one to study it.
The major problem with Materialism is the drive to reduce things; to reduce the higher to the lower, to reduce the immaterial to the material. The great danger in this project is that the personal universe ends up becoming (in the eyes of adherents) an impersonal one; and that intelligence gets replaced by the material, and the intentional by chance. Far too many scientists in our day confuse reductionism as a tool to be used in research with a reductionism as a philosophy of life, as a worldview.
2. 'She [Jane] adds that, as a direct result of the focus of modern cosmologists on mathematics, the concept of a personal God became irrelevant for these scientists because, in their mind, their calculations diminished ‘any possible scope for a Creator’
- I wonder where people like Hawking think mathematics comes from? I wonder how they imagine mathematics is possible, or how it's possible for them to do math. I wonder if they even ask these questions. People are far too apt to take their capacities and abilities for granted. Evolutionary theory can't begin to explain how it is men have the intellectual potential they do. This ought to give them pause to question their materialist worldview. You're in a poor (not to mention hopeless) situation if your basic worldview can't even begin to account for your own existence!
The materialist is too interested in the creation, and not interested enough in the creator. It surely makes sense to think that the creator is much more 'interesting' (awesome) than His creation. Surely the One who created mathematics and creatures capable of comprehending mathematics is someone worth getting to know. The christian believes the creator has far more interesting 'tricks' up His sleeve than the material universe (astounding as it is) Hawking has become obsessed with. ("We as of yet see through a glass darkly...") [2.] The apostle Paul (in Romans) speaks of those who worship the creation rather than the creator, and this is what Hawking appears to have done.
If you walk into a room and see equations covering a blackboard do you imagine no one wrote them?
Does the fact you can describe an object (e.g. a pyramid) in mathematical terms mean it wasn't created by someone?
3. "...‘they could not envisage any other place or role for God in the physical universe. Concepts which could not be quantified in mathematical terms as a theoretical reflection of physical realities, whether or not the actual existence of those physical realities was proven, were meaningless." (p. 155).
- People are making a category mistake when they imagine they can understand all things (especially God!) in terms of mathematics. God is far too great and too transcendent to be comprehended by mathematics. Hawking has made the cardinal mistake of ignoring the creator/creature distinction. He somehow imagines he can comprehend all of reality, but has no reason to believe a trousered ape is capable of any such thing. His own worldview (e.g.Darwinism) makes his statements about God and ultimate reality absurd. As Darwin hiimself said, ''why should we pay any attention to what an ape says about reality?" (I'm paraphrasing.)
A materialist is someone who has their nose pressed so tightly to the 'tree' they're studying that they can't see the forest; they're blinded by the physical. (The Hawking equation; Materialism = Reductionism = Absurdity)
4. "...many scientists ‘arrogantly even aspire to become gods themselves by denying the rest of us our freedom of choice and disputing our right to ask the question “Why?” in relation to the origins of the universe and the origins of life. They claim that the question is as … inappropriate, as it would be to ask why Mt. Everest is there.''
- Did these people forget that they're just animals, mere bits of matter, that their thoughts are just chemical reactions? It would appear so. Who are they to tell anyone what's appropriate? If all is matter in motion nothing is appropriate or inappropriate. People will never stop asking why in any event; it's a question from the heart, a question that's part of us, a question we were meant to ask.
The reductionist has a dreary tendency to speak of human beings as if they're all the same. This comes from their reducing human beings to the physical, and the physical to the chemical. On the cellular level it's true that we are much alike (though we don't even lose our individuality at that level; you have to reduce people to the atomic level to destroy all their individuality) and this is why the reductionist lumps all people together. His reductionism leads him to feel that what he thinks is right for him must be right for everyone; that's what he thinks is true must be true for everyone.
We don't ask why Mt. Everest is there because a mountain is not a person. (You wouldn't think we'd have to explain this, but apparently, in the case of the hardboiled atheist we do.) It's typical of course for the materialist to ignore personality and individuality... although there's something comical about a personal being denying the importance of personhood. (It's akin to a cat denying the importance of whiskers, or a bird denying the importance of wings.)
5. "They dismiss the suggestion that the question ‘Why’ is the prerogative of theologians and philosophers rather than scientist because, they say, theologians are engaged in the “study of fantasy.”
- It's true that some theologians are engaged in the study of fantasy, but so are some scientists. [e.g. the multiverse, imaginary time, etc.] The fact that many theologians are studying false gods and false scripture doesn't prove that a living creator God doesn't exist, or that He hasn't given us His revealed word.
Reductionism means the 'extinction' of the theologian or the moralist (the artist, etc.) as all studies must be reduced to physics. There's a great imperialism involved in the reductionist project, as it allows only a physicalist account of the universe (and that includes the 'universe' of human beings).
As someone who takes the creationist perspective, I believe that much of Darwinism is a study of fantasy; especially as it involves the 'just so' stories that populate the 'soft' sciences. e.g. evolutionary psychology, Darwinist literary critique, evolutionary sociology, etc.
6. "Their theories reduce the whole of Creation to a handful of material components."
- The biggest problem with reductionism is that it does away with intelligence as an integral part of the universe. (I find it comical that some of our most intelligent people deny the role of intelligence. This is akin to fish denying the role of gills, or birds denying the role of feathers.) Materialism is, at best, half an adequate account of the universe. The materialist is akin to the 'head' of a coin denying that a 'tail' side exists; it's akin to the cover of a book denying the pages exist.
- M. D. Johnson
Notes;
1. 100. Stephen Hawking: the closed mind of a dogmatic atheist; A review of Music to Move the Stars by Jane Hawking - Book Review by Jerry Bergman
2. "Now we see things imperfectly, like puzzling reflections in a mirror, but then we will see everything with perfect clarity. All that I know now is partial and incomplete, but then I will know everything completely, just as God now knows me completely.'' 1 Cor 13:12 [NLT}
3. I've gotten so far behind on my reading list, that I've taken to reading book reviews to try and catch up.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
The word of life
Erwin Schrodinger wrote a book called 'What is life?' and the question remains one of perennial interest. I believe we find the only true answer to this question in the Bible.
Quotes and comments;
1. "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with god and the word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by Him, and without him was not anything made that was made.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.'' - [John 1:1-4]
- For Christianity life is a matter of intelligence, the wisdom of the all powerful, all knowing, eternal God. The source of all things is the intelligence and wisdom of God.
Life is for the Christian a revelation of God, it's evidence of God's existence. In life we see something of God and God's nature. It is God revealing himself to us. We take life for granted for the same reason fish take water for granted, but in doing so we make a grievous mistake. We should meditate on the miracle that is life, for it is not the 'natural' product of matter plus time that the Materialist tells us it is.
In living organisms we see how God can make the impossible possible. Every day we stare at miracles on every side. Without the wisdom and creativity of God all that would exist (at best) would be inert matter. We often hear people wonder 'why there is something rather than nothing' and the answer is God. We look around and say with wonder, 'it's impossible that this should exist' - and without God, it would be.
In some sense life is something all organisms and God share, for God is alive even as we are alive; God lives even as we live. All creatures are animated by the divine intelligence that created and informed them at the Creation. We can think of life as intelligence and wisdom. All creatures are the 'incarnation' of divine intelligence.
2. John (1 John 1:1,3) speaks of Jesus as the 'word of life.'
- In creation we see the word of life made manifest. Life on the earthly realm can only come from life, and God is life itself. What we call life is better seen as intelligence; it can have no merely physical origin.
3. 'Because God made all things, all things are revelational of God; they witness to the triune God. [3.]
- In the creation we see that the wisdom of God makes the impossible possible or manifest. In terms of human wisdom the universe is impossible, but yet it exists. The incongruity of our existence is more something to praise than to puzzle over. Some people say the universe is impossible, some say that God is impossible, and if we rely on human understanding this will be as far as we get. The fact the impossible exists is evidence that our understanding is incomplete, is evidence of something beyond us, something transcending us.
We have no evidence life can come from non-life, this phantasm is something no one has observed. What we do have (in the gospel of John and elsewhere) are the observations and experience of men and women who saw in the figure of Jesus, Life itself. It's to our great demerit that men will search test tubes for signs of life, but will not search the scriptures for the 'living word' - for Life itself. The word was the origin of life, and He is not hiding and is available for all to see.
4. 'Others have called attention to the fact ''in the beginning'' can also mean ''at the root of the universe.'' [4.]
- The true tree of life has Christ at its base; for Christ is the 'common ancestor' of all creatures.
5. "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. - John 1:14
- We see in the incarnation (the son of God, walking as man in the world) something of the 'mechanics' of creation; for living organisms (including man) are the 'incarnations' of God's wisdom; they are god's wisdom made manifest, they are god's wisdom clothed in flesh. The creatures (kinds) of the original creation were words (small w) made flesh... small harbingers of the day the Word would be made flesh.
'Peter speaks of life as grace from God.' [6]
- This verse appears to be referring to spiritual grace granted to the christian, but I think it can be seen in a more general light as well. i.e. our existence can be seen as an act of favor and goodness freely given to us by God.
The life given to Adam was a gift, an act of grace, and we all share in that gift. There is nothing in matter that merits life; life is unmerited grace.
- M. Johnson
Notes;
3. Gospel of John - R. J. Rushdoony p. 2.
- book available free online at Chalcedon.org
4. above
5. In Genesis we're told that god 'breathed' into Adam and he became a living soul. I wonder if we can translate this as god spoke to Adam and he became a living soul. i.e. it was the 'word' (the intelligence) of God that brought clay alive.
- in psalm 33:6 we're told that the heavens were made by the ''breath of his mouth.''
6. 'Peter speaks of life as grace from God.' [1 Peter 3:7] above p.6
Grace;
a. 'An act of kindness or favor accorded to or bestowed on another; a good turn or service freely rendered.'
7. John 1:14
Quotes and comments;
1. "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with god and the word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by Him, and without him was not anything made that was made.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.'' - [John 1:1-4]
- For Christianity life is a matter of intelligence, the wisdom of the all powerful, all knowing, eternal God. The source of all things is the intelligence and wisdom of God.
Life is for the Christian a revelation of God, it's evidence of God's existence. In life we see something of God and God's nature. It is God revealing himself to us. We take life for granted for the same reason fish take water for granted, but in doing so we make a grievous mistake. We should meditate on the miracle that is life, for it is not the 'natural' product of matter plus time that the Materialist tells us it is.
In living organisms we see how God can make the impossible possible. Every day we stare at miracles on every side. Without the wisdom and creativity of God all that would exist (at best) would be inert matter. We often hear people wonder 'why there is something rather than nothing' and the answer is God. We look around and say with wonder, 'it's impossible that this should exist' - and without God, it would be.
In some sense life is something all organisms and God share, for God is alive even as we are alive; God lives even as we live. All creatures are animated by the divine intelligence that created and informed them at the Creation. We can think of life as intelligence and wisdom. All creatures are the 'incarnation' of divine intelligence.
2. John (1 John 1:1,3) speaks of Jesus as the 'word of life.'
- In creation we see the word of life made manifest. Life on the earthly realm can only come from life, and God is life itself. What we call life is better seen as intelligence; it can have no merely physical origin.
3. 'Because God made all things, all things are revelational of God; they witness to the triune God. [3.]
- In the creation we see that the wisdom of God makes the impossible possible or manifest. In terms of human wisdom the universe is impossible, but yet it exists. The incongruity of our existence is more something to praise than to puzzle over. Some people say the universe is impossible, some say that God is impossible, and if we rely on human understanding this will be as far as we get. The fact the impossible exists is evidence that our understanding is incomplete, is evidence of something beyond us, something transcending us.
We have no evidence life can come from non-life, this phantasm is something no one has observed. What we do have (in the gospel of John and elsewhere) are the observations and experience of men and women who saw in the figure of Jesus, Life itself. It's to our great demerit that men will search test tubes for signs of life, but will not search the scriptures for the 'living word' - for Life itself. The word was the origin of life, and He is not hiding and is available for all to see.
4. 'Others have called attention to the fact ''in the beginning'' can also mean ''at the root of the universe.'' [4.]
- The true tree of life has Christ at its base; for Christ is the 'common ancestor' of all creatures.
5. "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. - John 1:14
- We see in the incarnation (the son of God, walking as man in the world) something of the 'mechanics' of creation; for living organisms (including man) are the 'incarnations' of God's wisdom; they are god's wisdom made manifest, they are god's wisdom clothed in flesh. The creatures (kinds) of the original creation were words (small w) made flesh... small harbingers of the day the Word would be made flesh.
'Peter speaks of life as grace from God.' [6]
- This verse appears to be referring to spiritual grace granted to the christian, but I think it can be seen in a more general light as well. i.e. our existence can be seen as an act of favor and goodness freely given to us by God.
The life given to Adam was a gift, an act of grace, and we all share in that gift. There is nothing in matter that merits life; life is unmerited grace.
- M. Johnson
Notes;
3. Gospel of John - R. J. Rushdoony p. 2.
- book available free online at Chalcedon.org
4. above
5. In Genesis we're told that god 'breathed' into Adam and he became a living soul. I wonder if we can translate this as god spoke to Adam and he became a living soul. i.e. it was the 'word' (the intelligence) of God that brought clay alive.
- in psalm 33:6 we're told that the heavens were made by the ''breath of his mouth.''
6. 'Peter speaks of life as grace from God.' [1 Peter 3:7] above p.6
Grace;
a. 'An act of kindness or favor accorded to or bestowed on another; a good turn or service freely rendered.'
7. John 1:14
Monday, October 31, 2011
Doing science in the clouds
We often hear the charge that biblical creation is inimical to science. In an essay written some years ago John King did a good job of refuting this claim.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Apart from the biblical doctrine of creation there can be no science since a unified theory of scientific knowledge becomes impossible in the absence of a created order or a receptive human mind.' [1.]
- Apart from the biblical doctrine of creation there can be no unified theory of scientific knowledge, as materialism separates the human knower from the known universe. Only in the biblical model are man and universe parts of an integrated whole; as the One who made man made the universe, and He blessed man with the ability to know the universe. The materialist definitions of man and universe make the universe [theoretically] unknowable. i.e. if all were in fact mere matter in motion there would be no one to know, and nothing to be known; there would merely be various bits of matter. (Does one rock know another rock?) The universe and man were made as hand and glove for each other; and man was blessed not only with a transcendent capacity to understand and comprehend, but with the desire to do so.
In the materialist model both man and universe are mere accidents, wildly improbable incidents without cause or meaning; and neither was made for the other. It is a wild improbability that the accident man even exists, and he has no inherent (or integral) connection with the world or with the universe. Materialist science thus has no unified theory of scientific knowledge. This makes their typical definitions of 'science' inadequate at best, as they want to define science without giving us a unified theory of scientific knowledge. Lacking such a theory their definitions are bit more bits of matter circulating in the void. If all is matter in motion so are definitions; if matter has no cause, truth or meaning neither do definitions.
Man only has the ability to understand the universe because he had/has a creator who transcends the universe; our ability to transcend matter comes from a creator who transcends matter. I see no other explanation for this, and no other explanation for science. While the materialist likes to laud science over biblical faith, he has no explanation for its very existence or for man's ability to understand. Materialism as an explanation stands as far beneath creation as an adequate model as the monkey stands beneath man. It's a gross and gibbering thing, a mere howling at the moon. It can't account for science any more than a chimp can account for itself.
2. '...since knowledge must be grasped by a knowing mind it is a personal concept and, thus presupposes a cosmic personalism. [1.]
- In our day we forget that all knowledge is (on one level) personal, as it is always knowledge grasped by a personal being. This makes all knowledge personal knowledge. The materialist presents us with a picture of an impersonal universe, and thus creates a chasm between man the personal agent and an impersonal universe. So great and wide is this chasm that the materialist usually turns his back on it and walks away. Since he can't deal with it he ignores it. Biblical creation (I hesitate to call it a model) on the other hand gives us a personal universe, and thus we don't have the radical divide between the personal knower and the universe.
The materialist struggles to give us an explanation for how we can have personal agents in an impersonal universe. I find all the stories on how this could have happened implausible. By any common reading of the laws of physics personal agents have no right to exist, and should not exist... but yet they do, and yet here we are. The materialist likes to focus his science on the material because he can't comprehend what looks back at him in the mirror. He thinks he understands the known but he can't understand the knower; but in that case how can he be sure he knows the universe. i.e. if he doesn't understand himself how can he be sure of what he claims to know? Knowledge doesn't exist in a void; it is always knowledge held by a personal agent. Apart from biblical creation, the biggest threat to materialism is always skepticism.
3. 'Van Til has repeatedly argued the only alternatives to christian theism are fate... and flux...' [1.]
- i.e. all is the fate of physical cause and effect or all is chance. The materialist must found any unified theory of scientific knowledge on either fate or flux. (The usual thinker flip flops between these alternatives and fails to give us a consistent account.) If all is fate then no freedom of thought or action is possible, and thus no true science can exist, as man can only say what he is fated to say. If all is flux truth doesn't and can't exist, as there is no objective reality only the subjective perception of an ever changing parade.
All men are presented with the choice between a personal (infinite) being and fate or flux; and all science (all scientific endeavors) must be founded on one of the three views of the universe. We thus have the science of fate, the science of flux or the science of the personal.
- M. Johnson
Notes;
1. Creation according to the scriptures; a presuppositional defense of literal, six day creation edited by Andrew Sandlin (Ch. 10. Creation and science - John King p. 103)
- available free online at Chalcedon.org
2. Materialism always has the challenge of explaining rationality in an irrational universe (of personality in an impersonal universe, of intelligence in a non-intelligent universe; of morality in an amoral universe; of life in an inert universe). Since the challenge materialism faces is so daunting its advocates much prefer attacking Christianity than defending their own position :=} One can hardly blame them. I certainly wouldn't want to play Sisyphus for them.
3. Many materialists like to call creation a myth, but the biblical view is that it is materialism which is the myth. Van Til saw the idea the world and man can come from the collisions of atoms as a great myth. It's surely the most implausible idea ever to tumble from the forehead of man. He saw Naturalist science as founded on the the myth of materialism. ("One day a fish walked out of the sea and uttered a syllogism..." or "One day a big fish washed up on the seashore and out walked a philosopher...")
4. Since Van Til believed the bible to be the infallible word of the creator God he claimed that modern (naturalistic) science was doomed to failure, and that the bigger its claims the more fallacious they would turn out to be. The bible and materialist science cannot both be correct about the origins of the universe, of the world, of living organisms or of man himself. He was of the opinion materialist science would never find the answers to the big questions. The textbook science of our day is only correct to the extent it restricts itself to being descriptive. (If man were truly good, as the Humanist usually insists he is, he would, in humility, restrict himself to empirical description. Any description of the creation is at the same time a word of praise to its creator. Any science that denies to God the 'ownership' [authorship] of the universe has gone from praise to blasphemy and idolatry.)
5. The biblical model' of reality is dualistic, while the materialist model is monistic. I don't see how these can both be correct. We thus have two models of science; the dualistic one (of c. theism) and the monistic one of materialism. (i.e. if all is matter in motion, all is one) We thus have a transcendent realm in the theistic model and have none in the monistic model. This means the materialist model (being monist) can't ever get outside or beyond itself .
- in the Naturalistic model matter somehow (we can't imagine how, but we only know it did) managed to transcend itself and become man; become a personal, intelligent, self-aware consciousness. There is no explanation for how this might have happened; nor will there ever be. It's simply held by apostate man as an article of faith. It defies any expectation of we can have for physical matter. (We base our lives on an expectation matter will NOT transcend itself; for our lives would be impossible were this to happen on a regular basis :=} For this to happen matter would have to act in a way matter has never be known to act; it would have to defy its own constitution.
6. Since man can only understand what is rational, it follows that the universe must be rational for man to understand it; and for it to be rational it must have been created by a rational being in terms of a rational plan or design. If there were a godless universe, if such a thing were possible (and let's posit one for the sake of argument) it would be an irrational chaos and thus unknowable. I can't imagine a rational creature existing in such a universe, but if we were to drop one into it he would be able to understand nothing, for you can't understand the purely irrational. If any creature were to emerge in such a universe it would itself be irrational, and thus you would have an irrational creature trying to understand the irrational.
- Having said this I can't imagine an irrational universe nor any kind of intelligent creature in it. I see no way there can be intelligence in an irrational universe, and the fact we are intelligent creatures is evidence to me ours was created a rational universe.
7.
116. 'In addition to a created order, however, science requires a receptive mind.'
- i.e. is man capable of understanding reality? is he willing to accept the truth? etc. The bible tells us that man is not willing to accept the truth of his situation, and that only the gift of grace will allow him to do so. (The poets more readily admit this than scientists; ''Man cannot bear too much reality..'' as one of them has written.) It's a hard thing to admit the verity of a proposition you 'naturally' hate.
- when King speaks of science he means a true science; one rooted in reality.
8.
117. '...ethics and knowledge are intimately related.'
- We can say that all knowledge is both personal and ethical; as all knowledge requires an honest submission to the truth. As far as the ethical basis of knowledge pertains to science the questions are this; does something called the truth exist, can we know it, and are scientists able and willing to submit to it?
(If God does not exist, facts do not exist, and we're reduced to fighting over access to Tiamat's bones.) Truth requires a truth teller; and if there is no transcendent creator God, we are all sub gods engaged in perpetual conflict over the right to tell stories to the masses.
- secular thinkers like to counter the c. claim that the Fall has affected science by turning him into a rebel that can't affirm God by saying ''science is self-correcting.'' This means that even if c.s were correct in their views science as a whole wouldn't be affected as the continuing community will eventually weed out false ideas... even out of a miserly, self-serving spirit. How true is this? If all the scientists in a group are unregenerate and rebels against God will they ever correct the errors this mindset has caused them to make? We can't equate all errors, as some have deeper spiritual significance than others. e.g. will atheists ever correct the 'truth' of materialism? will atheists ever correct the 'truth' of cosmic evolution? Since science is only an abstraction and not a personal being it can't transcend the fallenness of natural man.
- the secular scientist assures us all that his motives in research are solely good. We need to worry about a lot of people surely, but not about scientists as they are the snow that falls upon and covers the soil and refuse of humanity, turning it from foul to fair. We need to be naive indeed to accept such a self-congratulatory and self-covering [defensive] message. This message contradicts what we are told in biology textbooks of course; where we are presented with a view of life that features an amoral struggle of all against all for survival and prominence. If the Darwinian message is true the claim of a messianic science cannot be.
9.
118. '...in the Babylonian account man is basically created from an evil substance (Kingu's blood) by evil gods. Evil is thus a metaphysical problem, built into the fabric of the universe, and thus an unalterable quality.'
- In the modern Darwinian account man is the descendent of apes and thus the 'evil' he does stems from his animal ancestry. (How it is man is far worse in the evil he does is rarely explained.) Evil is thus seen (as it was for the Babylonians) as a metaphysical problem not an ethical one. When people see evil as a metaphysical problem they provide 'technical' solutions to evil, not ethical or moral one, and this tends to mean they recommend statist solutions rather than personal; the solution then becomes political rather than spiritual. To make evil metaphysical is to bring the nose of political tyranny into the communal tent.
- Materialist science is inherently statist, and we see this working out of its potential all around us. e.g. since all evil is metaphysical all problems are technical problems and this thus requires a statist solution; and statist solutions require abandoning individual liberty and conscience. Despite the claims of its apologists, naturalistic science doesn't offer an escape from metaphysics, only an escape from Christian metaphysics. (There is no escape from metaphysics.) People have a choice of liberty under God's law, or tyranny under man's law; and this applies as much (or more) to science as it does to everything else. Since the secular scientist agrees with the statist policy makers he deludes himself into thinking he's free to do science as he pleases, but he only needs to look at the biblical creationist to see how free he really is. (There's no such thing as science outside a worldview or model; we either do science under the 'model' of biblical creation or under some other model; and since models are made by persons there can be no neutral model or any neutral science.)
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Apart from the biblical doctrine of creation there can be no science since a unified theory of scientific knowledge becomes impossible in the absence of a created order or a receptive human mind.' [1.]
- Apart from the biblical doctrine of creation there can be no unified theory of scientific knowledge, as materialism separates the human knower from the known universe. Only in the biblical model are man and universe parts of an integrated whole; as the One who made man made the universe, and He blessed man with the ability to know the universe. The materialist definitions of man and universe make the universe [theoretically] unknowable. i.e. if all were in fact mere matter in motion there would be no one to know, and nothing to be known; there would merely be various bits of matter. (Does one rock know another rock?) The universe and man were made as hand and glove for each other; and man was blessed not only with a transcendent capacity to understand and comprehend, but with the desire to do so.
In the materialist model both man and universe are mere accidents, wildly improbable incidents without cause or meaning; and neither was made for the other. It is a wild improbability that the accident man even exists, and he has no inherent (or integral) connection with the world or with the universe. Materialist science thus has no unified theory of scientific knowledge. This makes their typical definitions of 'science' inadequate at best, as they want to define science without giving us a unified theory of scientific knowledge. Lacking such a theory their definitions are bit more bits of matter circulating in the void. If all is matter in motion so are definitions; if matter has no cause, truth or meaning neither do definitions.
Man only has the ability to understand the universe because he had/has a creator who transcends the universe; our ability to transcend matter comes from a creator who transcends matter. I see no other explanation for this, and no other explanation for science. While the materialist likes to laud science over biblical faith, he has no explanation for its very existence or for man's ability to understand. Materialism as an explanation stands as far beneath creation as an adequate model as the monkey stands beneath man. It's a gross and gibbering thing, a mere howling at the moon. It can't account for science any more than a chimp can account for itself.
2. '...since knowledge must be grasped by a knowing mind it is a personal concept and, thus presupposes a cosmic personalism. [1.]
- In our day we forget that all knowledge is (on one level) personal, as it is always knowledge grasped by a personal being. This makes all knowledge personal knowledge. The materialist presents us with a picture of an impersonal universe, and thus creates a chasm between man the personal agent and an impersonal universe. So great and wide is this chasm that the materialist usually turns his back on it and walks away. Since he can't deal with it he ignores it. Biblical creation (I hesitate to call it a model) on the other hand gives us a personal universe, and thus we don't have the radical divide between the personal knower and the universe.
The materialist struggles to give us an explanation for how we can have personal agents in an impersonal universe. I find all the stories on how this could have happened implausible. By any common reading of the laws of physics personal agents have no right to exist, and should not exist... but yet they do, and yet here we are. The materialist likes to focus his science on the material because he can't comprehend what looks back at him in the mirror. He thinks he understands the known but he can't understand the knower; but in that case how can he be sure he knows the universe. i.e. if he doesn't understand himself how can he be sure of what he claims to know? Knowledge doesn't exist in a void; it is always knowledge held by a personal agent. Apart from biblical creation, the biggest threat to materialism is always skepticism.
3. 'Van Til has repeatedly argued the only alternatives to christian theism are fate... and flux...' [1.]
- i.e. all is the fate of physical cause and effect or all is chance. The materialist must found any unified theory of scientific knowledge on either fate or flux. (The usual thinker flip flops between these alternatives and fails to give us a consistent account.) If all is fate then no freedom of thought or action is possible, and thus no true science can exist, as man can only say what he is fated to say. If all is flux truth doesn't and can't exist, as there is no objective reality only the subjective perception of an ever changing parade.
All men are presented with the choice between a personal (infinite) being and fate or flux; and all science (all scientific endeavors) must be founded on one of the three views of the universe. We thus have the science of fate, the science of flux or the science of the personal.
- M. Johnson
Notes;
1. Creation according to the scriptures; a presuppositional defense of literal, six day creation edited by Andrew Sandlin (Ch. 10. Creation and science - John King p. 103)
- available free online at Chalcedon.org
2. Materialism always has the challenge of explaining rationality in an irrational universe (of personality in an impersonal universe, of intelligence in a non-intelligent universe; of morality in an amoral universe; of life in an inert universe). Since the challenge materialism faces is so daunting its advocates much prefer attacking Christianity than defending their own position :=} One can hardly blame them. I certainly wouldn't want to play Sisyphus for them.
3. Many materialists like to call creation a myth, but the biblical view is that it is materialism which is the myth. Van Til saw the idea the world and man can come from the collisions of atoms as a great myth. It's surely the most implausible idea ever to tumble from the forehead of man. He saw Naturalist science as founded on the the myth of materialism. ("One day a fish walked out of the sea and uttered a syllogism..." or "One day a big fish washed up on the seashore and out walked a philosopher...")
4. Since Van Til believed the bible to be the infallible word of the creator God he claimed that modern (naturalistic) science was doomed to failure, and that the bigger its claims the more fallacious they would turn out to be. The bible and materialist science cannot both be correct about the origins of the universe, of the world, of living organisms or of man himself. He was of the opinion materialist science would never find the answers to the big questions. The textbook science of our day is only correct to the extent it restricts itself to being descriptive. (If man were truly good, as the Humanist usually insists he is, he would, in humility, restrict himself to empirical description. Any description of the creation is at the same time a word of praise to its creator. Any science that denies to God the 'ownership' [authorship] of the universe has gone from praise to blasphemy and idolatry.)
5. The biblical model' of reality is dualistic, while the materialist model is monistic. I don't see how these can both be correct. We thus have two models of science; the dualistic one (of c. theism) and the monistic one of materialism. (i.e. if all is matter in motion, all is one) We thus have a transcendent realm in the theistic model and have none in the monistic model. This means the materialist model (being monist) can't ever get outside or beyond itself .
- in the Naturalistic model matter somehow (we can't imagine how, but we only know it did) managed to transcend itself and become man; become a personal, intelligent, self-aware consciousness. There is no explanation for how this might have happened; nor will there ever be. It's simply held by apostate man as an article of faith. It defies any expectation of we can have for physical matter. (We base our lives on an expectation matter will NOT transcend itself; for our lives would be impossible were this to happen on a regular basis :=} For this to happen matter would have to act in a way matter has never be known to act; it would have to defy its own constitution.
6. Since man can only understand what is rational, it follows that the universe must be rational for man to understand it; and for it to be rational it must have been created by a rational being in terms of a rational plan or design. If there were a godless universe, if such a thing were possible (and let's posit one for the sake of argument) it would be an irrational chaos and thus unknowable. I can't imagine a rational creature existing in such a universe, but if we were to drop one into it he would be able to understand nothing, for you can't understand the purely irrational. If any creature were to emerge in such a universe it would itself be irrational, and thus you would have an irrational creature trying to understand the irrational.
- Having said this I can't imagine an irrational universe nor any kind of intelligent creature in it. I see no way there can be intelligence in an irrational universe, and the fact we are intelligent creatures is evidence to me ours was created a rational universe.
7.
116. 'In addition to a created order, however, science requires a receptive mind.'
- i.e. is man capable of understanding reality? is he willing to accept the truth? etc. The bible tells us that man is not willing to accept the truth of his situation, and that only the gift of grace will allow him to do so. (The poets more readily admit this than scientists; ''Man cannot bear too much reality..'' as one of them has written.) It's a hard thing to admit the verity of a proposition you 'naturally' hate.
- when King speaks of science he means a true science; one rooted in reality.
8.
117. '...ethics and knowledge are intimately related.'
- We can say that all knowledge is both personal and ethical; as all knowledge requires an honest submission to the truth. As far as the ethical basis of knowledge pertains to science the questions are this; does something called the truth exist, can we know it, and are scientists able and willing to submit to it?
(If God does not exist, facts do not exist, and we're reduced to fighting over access to Tiamat's bones.) Truth requires a truth teller; and if there is no transcendent creator God, we are all sub gods engaged in perpetual conflict over the right to tell stories to the masses.
- secular thinkers like to counter the c. claim that the Fall has affected science by turning him into a rebel that can't affirm God by saying ''science is self-correcting.'' This means that even if c.s were correct in their views science as a whole wouldn't be affected as the continuing community will eventually weed out false ideas... even out of a miserly, self-serving spirit. How true is this? If all the scientists in a group are unregenerate and rebels against God will they ever correct the errors this mindset has caused them to make? We can't equate all errors, as some have deeper spiritual significance than others. e.g. will atheists ever correct the 'truth' of materialism? will atheists ever correct the 'truth' of cosmic evolution? Since science is only an abstraction and not a personal being it can't transcend the fallenness of natural man.
- the secular scientist assures us all that his motives in research are solely good. We need to worry about a lot of people surely, but not about scientists as they are the snow that falls upon and covers the soil and refuse of humanity, turning it from foul to fair. We need to be naive indeed to accept such a self-congratulatory and self-covering [defensive] message. This message contradicts what we are told in biology textbooks of course; where we are presented with a view of life that features an amoral struggle of all against all for survival and prominence. If the Darwinian message is true the claim of a messianic science cannot be.
9.
118. '...in the Babylonian account man is basically created from an evil substance (Kingu's blood) by evil gods. Evil is thus a metaphysical problem, built into the fabric of the universe, and thus an unalterable quality.'
- In the modern Darwinian account man is the descendent of apes and thus the 'evil' he does stems from his animal ancestry. (How it is man is far worse in the evil he does is rarely explained.) Evil is thus seen (as it was for the Babylonians) as a metaphysical problem not an ethical one. When people see evil as a metaphysical problem they provide 'technical' solutions to evil, not ethical or moral one, and this tends to mean they recommend statist solutions rather than personal; the solution then becomes political rather than spiritual. To make evil metaphysical is to bring the nose of political tyranny into the communal tent.
- Materialist science is inherently statist, and we see this working out of its potential all around us. e.g. since all evil is metaphysical all problems are technical problems and this thus requires a statist solution; and statist solutions require abandoning individual liberty and conscience. Despite the claims of its apologists, naturalistic science doesn't offer an escape from metaphysics, only an escape from Christian metaphysics. (There is no escape from metaphysics.) People have a choice of liberty under God's law, or tyranny under man's law; and this applies as much (or more) to science as it does to everything else. Since the secular scientist agrees with the statist policy makers he deludes himself into thinking he's free to do science as he pleases, but he only needs to look at the biblical creationist to see how free he really is. (There's no such thing as science outside a worldview or model; we either do science under the 'model' of biblical creation or under some other model; and since models are made by persons there can be no neutral model or any neutral science.)
Monday, October 10, 2011
The depressing news about Darwinism
A modern curse emanating from academia is the field called evolutionary psychology. I want to make a few comments on how it views depression.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'It's reasonable to speculate that the reason depression exists is that it is an adaptive response, hard wired into us because it has survival value.' [1.]
- Is this a 'reasonable' claim, or is it just Darwinian storytelling? It's only 'reasonable' if you insist on believing in evolutionary theory - if you do, then it's not only reasonable but necessary. The textbooks tell students all behavior exists because of an evolutionary adaptation that produced advantages in the battle for survival. This being the case, O'Connor Must believe depression has survival value. Darwinism has seriously led him astray. (In my view, Darwinism is a dementia that renders bright, educated people into fools.) [2.]
A belief in Darwinism leads to many similar (and absurd) ideas; not only does depression have survival value, but every other mental condition, including sexual perversion, violence and every other negative behavior. [3.]
2. 'Depression 'may be adaptive for the species if it gets us to retreat in the face of danger or overwhelming obstacles, or cease misguided efforts to get what we want if if just no available, or step back from situations that might just work out if we leave them alone.' [1.]
- We need to be depressed to do these things! What it takes to do these things in intelligence, not depression. How then does such a ridiculous idea get transcribed into our school books? Simple. The Darwinian model posits a proto man who has no real intelligence so he relies on depression to get him to act in a wise or intelligent fashion. The biblical model denies such a creature ever existed. It doesn't see depression as a positive thing.
- M. Johnson
Notes;
1. Undoing Perpetual Stress - Richard O'Connor p. 247.
2. Hard wired? If he means a gene that directly causes depression that seems doubtful.
3. Are we supposed to believe human beings could exist without depression? Are we supposed to believe that one day man will evolve into a creature who no longer gets depressed? (O'Connor is someone who believes human misery is caused by a failure of the central nervous system to evolve to meet the stresses of modern life.)
Quotes and comments;
1. 'It's reasonable to speculate that the reason depression exists is that it is an adaptive response, hard wired into us because it has survival value.' [1.]
- Is this a 'reasonable' claim, or is it just Darwinian storytelling? It's only 'reasonable' if you insist on believing in evolutionary theory - if you do, then it's not only reasonable but necessary. The textbooks tell students all behavior exists because of an evolutionary adaptation that produced advantages in the battle for survival. This being the case, O'Connor Must believe depression has survival value. Darwinism has seriously led him astray. (In my view, Darwinism is a dementia that renders bright, educated people into fools.) [2.]
A belief in Darwinism leads to many similar (and absurd) ideas; not only does depression have survival value, but every other mental condition, including sexual perversion, violence and every other negative behavior. [3.]
2. 'Depression 'may be adaptive for the species if it gets us to retreat in the face of danger or overwhelming obstacles, or cease misguided efforts to get what we want if if just no available, or step back from situations that might just work out if we leave them alone.' [1.]
- We need to be depressed to do these things! What it takes to do these things in intelligence, not depression. How then does such a ridiculous idea get transcribed into our school books? Simple. The Darwinian model posits a proto man who has no real intelligence so he relies on depression to get him to act in a wise or intelligent fashion. The biblical model denies such a creature ever existed. It doesn't see depression as a positive thing.
- M. Johnson
Notes;
1. Undoing Perpetual Stress - Richard O'Connor p. 247.
2. Hard wired? If he means a gene that directly causes depression that seems doubtful.
3. Are we supposed to believe human beings could exist without depression? Are we supposed to believe that one day man will evolve into a creature who no longer gets depressed? (O'Connor is someone who believes human misery is caused by a failure of the central nervous system to evolve to meet the stresses of modern life.)
Saturday, October 8, 2011
An argument against long ages
One of the biggest problems with textbook evolutionary theory is the widespread phenomenon of stasis.
Quotes and comments;
In responding to a critique of evolutionary theory that featured an argument from stasis, an evolutionist stated;
1. "There is no written rule that says a lineage has to die out just because an offspring develops a beneficial mutation. The theory of evolution explains how species change over time, it doesn’t say that all species must change over time.'' [1.]
- Textbook theory tells us all organisms suffer mutations on a regular basis; how can that not lead to change if this goes on for millions of years! How many mutations would there be over 10 million, or 50 million years? Just one mutation a year would mean millions of mutations; and what if there were dozens (or more) a generation? Stasis over millions of years seems clearly impossible given all the mutations involved. To me, stasis disproves long ages (i.e. millions of years.)
2. "As long as a species can survive in its environment and pass on its genetic information to its offspring, it can survive indefinitely. It doesn’t mean that the “living fossil” didn’t speciate, it just means those possible splits died out while the original lineage was able to always successfully reproduce even into today." [1.]
- Some Darwinists like to define evolution simply as change; so change is obviously at the heart of the theory, and this makes stasis a huge challenge, whether some people want to admit it or not. According to the reader above, evolution theory not only explains change it explains lack of change. Is any theory that flexible a scientific theory at all? How could one disprove such a self-contradictory theory? [3.]
- This evolutionist wants us to believe the superior version died out and in the inferior original surived! That is Not what evolution textbooks teach. For a mutation to survive it has to have an advantage.
- Evolutionary theory as I was taught it states that as conditions change animals must change; that the ones best adapted to changing conditions will survive. According to the textbooks conditions on earth have changed radically, not only once but many times over the history of life forms on the planet. How then can there be stasis for millions of years? [6.]
- M. Johnson
Notes;
1. Living fossils and evolution, and does it matter if ‘junk DNA’ has functions? [Q+A]
Don Batten
2. People who favor creation like to point to 'living fossils' as evidence against evolutioary theory, and evidence for creation.
3. "Yes [says the evolutionist] I believe that animals have changed greatly over time (evolution), but some animals and plants were so well adapted to the environment that they did not need to change. So I am not bothered at all by living fossils."
'This added hypothesis says that some animals did not evolve. But if a theory can be so flexible, adding hypotheses that predict the opposite of your main theory, one could never disprove the theory.' - Werner
4. 'All organisms undergo mutations. There is no special mechanism that prevents mutations such that many organisms can remain the same for supposedly hundreds of millions of years.
5. 'Remarkable stasis of a fossil ostracode with soft parts'
'This article remarks on an example of 425 million years of stasis: In that time-frame, evolution by mutations and natural selection has supposedly changed some (unidentified) worm into all the species of fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals (including elephants and mice, and of course, us). At the same time all the land plants have supposedly evolved. Such is the claimed power of evolution to change things, and yet these ostracodes remained unchanged (and many others ‘dated’ even older).
6. 'Note also that according to the evolutionary story, the predators for organisms have supposedly evolved and this means that the environment for virtually every organism changes. Furthermore, even the idea that the physical environment has remained stable contradicts evolutionary notions of global mass extinction events such as the Permian extinction (supposedly at 225 Ma) and the Cretaceous extinction (65 Ma), through both of which the ostracodes and many other examples of ‘living fossils’ remained unchanged.'
Quotes and comments;
In responding to a critique of evolutionary theory that featured an argument from stasis, an evolutionist stated;
1. "There is no written rule that says a lineage has to die out just because an offspring develops a beneficial mutation. The theory of evolution explains how species change over time, it doesn’t say that all species must change over time.'' [1.]
- Textbook theory tells us all organisms suffer mutations on a regular basis; how can that not lead to change if this goes on for millions of years! How many mutations would there be over 10 million, or 50 million years? Just one mutation a year would mean millions of mutations; and what if there were dozens (or more) a generation? Stasis over millions of years seems clearly impossible given all the mutations involved. To me, stasis disproves long ages (i.e. millions of years.)
2. "As long as a species can survive in its environment and pass on its genetic information to its offspring, it can survive indefinitely. It doesn’t mean that the “living fossil” didn’t speciate, it just means those possible splits died out while the original lineage was able to always successfully reproduce even into today." [1.]
- Some Darwinists like to define evolution simply as change; so change is obviously at the heart of the theory, and this makes stasis a huge challenge, whether some people want to admit it or not. According to the reader above, evolution theory not only explains change it explains lack of change. Is any theory that flexible a scientific theory at all? How could one disprove such a self-contradictory theory? [3.]
- This evolutionist wants us to believe the superior version died out and in the inferior original surived! That is Not what evolution textbooks teach. For a mutation to survive it has to have an advantage.
- Evolutionary theory as I was taught it states that as conditions change animals must change; that the ones best adapted to changing conditions will survive. According to the textbooks conditions on earth have changed radically, not only once but many times over the history of life forms on the planet. How then can there be stasis for millions of years? [6.]
- M. Johnson
Notes;
1. Living fossils and evolution, and does it matter if ‘junk DNA’ has functions? [Q+A]
Don Batten
2. People who favor creation like to point to 'living fossils' as evidence against evolutioary theory, and evidence for creation.
3. "Yes [says the evolutionist] I believe that animals have changed greatly over time (evolution), but some animals and plants were so well adapted to the environment that they did not need to change. So I am not bothered at all by living fossils."
'This added hypothesis says that some animals did not evolve. But if a theory can be so flexible, adding hypotheses that predict the opposite of your main theory, one could never disprove the theory.' - Werner
4. 'All organisms undergo mutations. There is no special mechanism that prevents mutations such that many organisms can remain the same for supposedly hundreds of millions of years.
5. 'Remarkable stasis of a fossil ostracode with soft parts'
'This article remarks on an example of 425 million years of stasis: In that time-frame, evolution by mutations and natural selection has supposedly changed some (unidentified) worm into all the species of fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals (including elephants and mice, and of course, us). At the same time all the land plants have supposedly evolved. Such is the claimed power of evolution to change things, and yet these ostracodes remained unchanged (and many others ‘dated’ even older).
6. 'Note also that according to the evolutionary story, the predators for organisms have supposedly evolved and this means that the environment for virtually every organism changes. Furthermore, even the idea that the physical environment has remained stable contradicts evolutionary notions of global mass extinction events such as the Permian extinction (supposedly at 225 Ma) and the Cretaceous extinction (65 Ma), through both of which the ostracodes and many other examples of ‘living fossils’ remained unchanged.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)