Notes on language; the deadly effects of Darwinian grammar

In this post I want to make some comments on the effect of Darwinism on language. I'll use an article from the current issue of 'Discover' magazine as an example.

Quotes and comments;

1. 'Instinct tells us that sharks are more deadly than delicious fatty foods. Instinct is wrong.' [1.]

- The problem with this claim is the use of the word 'deadly' for both these dangers. E.s seem to delight in abusing language, in endless conflation. A shark is a positive threat, a living organism, a predator that attacks; to put it simply, fat is not. Fat is not an active living entity for one thing. We willingly ingest fat; it does not ingest us. [2.]

Instinct is wrong? Instinct can never be wrong from an evolutionary point of view; instincts just are, they're not right or wrong. There is no right or wrong in evolution. (I wish evolutionists would take their own theory seriously; and stop pretending it is what it is not.) Saying instinct is wrong amounts to saying evolution is progressive, and you know where it's going, and how. Wrong is a theistic concept, and is meaningless apart from it.

We can by this example see how desperate science types are to trash 'traditional' views... to pretend only 'science' can give real answers to questions.

If I like fatty foods and ingest them, they do not consist of a danger; they're a 'risk' I've decided to accept for the sake of pleasure. You cannot call that a 'deadly' danger.

Sharks want to kill, fats do not (they don't want anything).

I get tired of this endless abuse of language in our sci mags. (Are vagueness, imprecision, conflation, obfuscation considered good method these days?)

Fats may kill but they don't lead you left bleeding and torn in the water; they don't deprive you of vitality and effectiveness in your life the way missing an arm or a head might. i.e. the effects are utterly different. (We need fats, although certain kinds of processed fats can be harmful. i.e. it's not the 'instinct' that leads us astray, but the modern food processing industry... you would think this would be an important caveat.)

They ignore the fact different things are dangerous at different times; e.g. we don't fear fats when out for a swim in the ocean, or fear sharks when eating a hamburger. (at least few of us do.)

Fatty foods are not deadly; the fact some (processed ones) can be deadly does not give anyone a warrant for conflating fat and deathly risk. Claiming the fatty foods are deadly amounts to saying x = y; where x is fat and y is deadly, and this is just false. i.e. fatty foods are more than just deadly (if in fact they are; we need to remind readers that much of the modern campaign to vilify fats stems from a belief vegetarianism is a righteous lifestyle and eating meat is evil).
They are delicious, necessary, comforting, healthy, and at times the only available choice, etc. ie. you cannot say F = D; as F includes more than D. (To vilify fatty foods is to hold liberty cheap; something only people with liberty do.)

We see here the desire of the educated to look down on the masses; to imagine the latest findings in Nature = God's own truth. The authors are laughing at the poor deluded masses. (Maybe we should put them on a fat-free diet to atone for their sins, and see how they do.)

You can't equate a death occasioned by great terror, with a death of contented debauchery. You can't equate all dangers; this makes no sense. (Is it good method to claim x, y, and z are all the same thing?)

For better or worse we face many different dangers; some come from without and some come from our own hand. To say fats are deadly is like saying sharks and alcohol are both deadly entities; ignoring the fact one has a mission to see you as a piece of meat and the other is self inflicted. (Is this kind of confusion good method?)

The shark has an aim and an intent while fat does not.

A shark attack is a hundred percent negative, while eating fatty foods is not. (Without fats in our diet our brains would atrophy and implode; no fat = no brain.)

A shark has been designed (in part) as a killing machine; it is what it is becausse of its status as predator.

We can't conflate all fats; there is nothing 'deadly' about natural fats. eg. is salmon deadly? (Is it good method to ignore important distinctions?)

Sharks are hostile, fats are not. (We'll not mention the fact sharks have fat in them, as we don't want to confuse readers who've been victimized by the bad writing of sci mags. Yes; in this sense, fats can be deadly :=}

You can't conflate dying over decades with dying in minutes. (Is it good method to ignore time factors?) I don't think many people would be terrified of shark attacks if they resulted in death over 3-5 decades.

This isn't science; it's PC goofiness. (We used to have the Left wing, and the right wing; now we need a new wing for the politically correct crowd. The PC wing I guess.)

You can see the obvious motivations behind this silly claim. What we see is an attempt to derive morals from science; the attempt to bridge the gap between description and prescription; something that David Hume insisted could not be done. The unstated message is clear (and I find it sad that so much science is now written up as secular sermon) ''don't eat meat; save the planet by becoming a vegetarian."

This attitude reminds me of something taken from Star Trek; the next generation... where humans no longer 'enslave' animals for the purpose of eating them. (In slave we have more conflation, as the same term is used for animals and humans; where it's only applicable for humans.)

You'd have better luck trying to persuade sharks to quit eating meat, than you would at persuading human beings to stop eating fatty foods. Christianity tells us that men have been given the freedom (by God) to eat what they will in the post incarnation era. Each person must decide for themselves what is best, what best conforms to their conscience. We have no right to ever violate God's will for our lives (revealed through his laws and commandments) but we do have the right to eat meat and fatty foods. They are not deadly; what is deadly is sin.

Summary;
- Behind the Darwinian misuse of language lies a monistic model of reality; the idea that all things (being merely matter in motion) are essentially one, and are connected in a chain of being from a common ancestry. (That this is speculative vision imposed on reality will become clear in the years to come, if I'm any good at guessing, as even with the evolutionary camp people are beginning to question and even reject the common ancestor idea.)
This is the rationale (conscious or unconscious) for using the same terms for both animals and humans (for all things in fact). e.g. animal behavior described in moral terms, the conflation of animal 'tool making' and human tool making, the 'language' of animals and humans, and so on. This abuse has become rampant, and constitutes a danger to any traditional notion of civilization.

- Mike Johnson

Notes;
1. Discover; July/August 2011
What You Don't Know Can Kill You
'Instinct tells us that sharks are more deadly than delicious fatty foods. Instinct is wrong. Risk analysts take on evolution.'
2. Why is fat delicious if it's a negative thing? The materialist has to explain this in evolutionary terms.
3. Man before the Fall was a vegetarian, and only after the Fall became a meat eater. During the era of Israel, there were strict dietary laws. After Christ men were given the right to eat as they thought best. In heaven? I don't know. It may be that we won't eat there at all. I take this to mean (contra Vegetarians, and Paleos) that there is no one diet that is best for all people at all times.