While I doubt the idea of a multiverse in a physical sense, we do have a mulitverse in a philosophical sense. We have the personal universe of the Bible and we have the impersonal universe of Naturalism.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'The mindless nature of the post-Darwinian world is anti-rational. Mind is a late-comer in the universe and thus 'animal instincts' have a deeper roots and greater vitality. [1.]
- It's important to note that ancient Humanists saw nature as infused with reason, or a spirit of reason. The world presented to us by the Darwins is mindless; not only is God gone, but the reason that infused the universe and all things is gone as well.
The biblical view of the universe is that it was the creation of God, a creation of Mind. This means that man lives within a created order. This order is undergoing the effects of entropy to be sure, but it nontheless remains the work of an intelligent being. ("In Him we live and move and have our being.'') Mind then is no late-comer, but in fact preceded matter. The Christian who believes in the historicity of Genesis believes that mind existed from the very beginning.
The naturalist (or materialist) vision is very nearly the opposite to the Christian. It presents us with an impersonal universe, where mind is a very recent development, and an alien in an otherwise mindless environment. The universe was not created, it was not the product of a mind; it is thus alien to the mind of man. (It's often called a mere epiphenomenon.) Who knows if it's not a 'will-of-the-wisp' here today, gone tomorrow; a brief flower in a dead universe.
The implication is that feelings are deeper and more powerful than mind; and that instincts trump ethics. Man is not responsible in this model because he's a slave to his animal heritage.
The idea that mind is a late-comer has had enormous influence on intellectual thought; especially on the arts.
Romanticism replaced reason with feelings; especially sexual feelings. The emphasis was not on the rational but on the emotional. i.e. the inspiration came not from reasoning and logic, but from feelings and passion; even from the irrational, the ugly, the frightful, anything that could provoke intense, powerful feelings. The idea of a mindless universe had consequences, and we see them around us in abundance.
I see Darwinism as an example of Romanticism; i.e. of Romantic literature. There is the same appeal to the primitive, to the animal, to instinct and passion. The idea nature is a struggle, and the survival of the fittest is a kind of Gothic vision. The terrors of the castle are replaced by the terrors of the jungle and the horrors of the stone age past.
2. Eric Newton said of the Romantics, ''they can never rejoice in the normal.'' [2.]
- What do we see in Charles Darwin? A delight in the abnormal. (e.g. his love of parasites) What is the idea all human behavior has its origin in animal activity but a delight in the abnormal? e.g. music has its origin in the mating calls of birds we're told by the Darwins; love is simply the animal instinct to reproduce; politics is simply hens involved in creating a pecking order; etc.
We can see that he was a Romantic in that he shared no enthusiasm for people like Marx and the desire to rebel (and for revolution) but rather a desire to escape, a desire to retire within his estate and to dream. The 'Origins' was his ghoulish masterpiece; a tale of the forbidden, the frightening, the ugly and the grotesque.
- M. Johnson
Notes;
1. The death of meaning - R. J. Rushdoony p.58
- available to read online at Chalcedon.edu [must register]
2. " p.59
3. We note that naturalists have gone from denying the existence of God to denying the existence of mind.
4. As Rushdoony says in his book; for the materialist, supernatural inspiration (i.e. the Bible) must be replaced with natural inspiration. If God didn't create the universe, the mind of man must create it. (He can't do this in reality, but he replaces the creation model of Genesis with a model of his own devising.)
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Why what Jerry Coyne says isn't true
A few comments on a review of Jerry Coyne's book; 'Why evolution is true'.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Throughout this book, Coyne pontificates on what a Creator would not do. Incredibly, he asserts that a Creator would never make organisms that have convergent adaptations (p. 92). Consider man the creator. He uses convergent structures all the time as part of his designs. Caterpillar treads are convergent in military vehicles (tanks) and earthmoving equipment (caterpillar tractors). [1.]
- For Coyne to pretend he knows what a Creator would do is intellectual buffoonery; utterly without warrant. He has NO idea whatsoever what a creator would do. Like every atheist I know he denies and ignores the Creator/creature distinction. It's apparently impossible for him to imagine that God might be different than he is. He apparently believes his own mind to be ultimate and the determinator of all things; the standard for all judgment!
2. 'Coyne asserts that the unexplained origin of life is no problem for evolution because it is not part of evolutionary theory (p. 236). How convenient! In actuality, had the first cell arose by non-design means, it must have been the culmination of a long series of steps from more primitive life-forms and still-earlier quasi-life forms. If this is not evolution, then what is?
- Apparently the origin of life isn't a case of evolution because he says so. You see how huge the problem of the origin of life is for materialists when people like Coyne deny that it's part of E. theory. We see them running scared and hiding behind straw man attacks, ridicule and slander. It's evidence to me that they think the problem is unsolvable for them. If he included OOL in his definition he wouldn't be able to claim evolution is true. Why? Because he has no explanation for it. If you have no explanation you can't be right or wrong, and evolution can't be true or false.
OOL used to be a part of evolutionary theory, so what happened to make it drop out? A. No answer could be found, and all the OOL experiments were failures. How to deal with the colossal embarassment? Do what PR firms do; deny the problem exists. We see in Coyne's remark (and it's used by most evolutionists I'm familiar with) an admission of bafflement and defeat.
One wonders what's next; will evolutionists start claiming body plans aren't part of E. theory? that speciation isn't part of E. theory? that DNA isn't part of E. theory? that missing links aren't part of E. theory? that information isn't part of E. theory?
Some evolutionists claim OOL is part of e. theory and some claim it's not; so who should we believe? What game is being played here? Apparently were looking at two different groups; those who think E. theory should be completely free of problems, and those who feel it's alright to admit some problems. This looks like two different political strategies.
3. 'Predictably, Coyne would have us believe that “bad design” (as he and other evolutionists define it) could only imply that the Designer intentionally made things to look as if they had evolved.
- This is more Darwinian theology; and as Cornelius Hunter has pointed out, it's a main thrust in evolutionist rhetoric, as people can't resist speculating on what God would or would not do... should he exist. Let's turn the tables on them and point out that these theological speculations are scientific theories. Coyne has no idea what the Creator would or wouldn't do for the simple reason he doesn't (comprehensively) know the Creator. (You can't know what even another human being would do if you don't know them.)
4. 'Coyne tries to get around the humans-are-savages implications of evolution by pointing to societal advancements, such as the virtually universal rejection of the mortal gladiatorial combat of Roman times.
- We haven't gotten rid of 'gladiatorial combat' at all; all we've done is make it virtual, a spectacle of the screen. (Should the screens disappear one day, the physical combat will surely return, as the appetite seems as strong as ever.) The stronger response to Coyne's idea that man is getting better morally is that as a materialist he has no valid standard for judging such a thing. i.e. if all is matter in motion morality is at best an illusion.
Telling children they're really just animals seems like a funny thing to do if you expect them to become moral idealists when they become adults.
As W. notes, the 'progressivist' notion expounded by Coyne necessitates denying that there's anything wrong with abortion.
- M. Johnson
Notes;
1. Why evolution need not be true; A review of Why Evolution is True by Jerry A. Coyne - John Woodmorappe
2. 'In this review, I analyze the evolutionary arguments and do not generally attempt to present creationist alternatives, of which there are many, and almost none of which are even mentioned by Coyne. In fact, Coyne’s understanding of the creationist position is absolutely pathetic.
- Evolutionists like Coyne much prefer the old creationist arguments; some of which were admittedly poor and often without sufficient warrant. They don't want to know about more recent c. ideas because they are much more substantial and hard to refute or mock.
- Coyne uses old creationist ideas as ideas to mock, though they've long been abandoned by the creationist community, and replaced with new thinking and theories.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Throughout this book, Coyne pontificates on what a Creator would not do. Incredibly, he asserts that a Creator would never make organisms that have convergent adaptations (p. 92). Consider man the creator. He uses convergent structures all the time as part of his designs. Caterpillar treads are convergent in military vehicles (tanks) and earthmoving equipment (caterpillar tractors). [1.]
- For Coyne to pretend he knows what a Creator would do is intellectual buffoonery; utterly without warrant. He has NO idea whatsoever what a creator would do. Like every atheist I know he denies and ignores the Creator/creature distinction. It's apparently impossible for him to imagine that God might be different than he is. He apparently believes his own mind to be ultimate and the determinator of all things; the standard for all judgment!
2. 'Coyne asserts that the unexplained origin of life is no problem for evolution because it is not part of evolutionary theory (p. 236). How convenient! In actuality, had the first cell arose by non-design means, it must have been the culmination of a long series of steps from more primitive life-forms and still-earlier quasi-life forms. If this is not evolution, then what is?
- Apparently the origin of life isn't a case of evolution because he says so. You see how huge the problem of the origin of life is for materialists when people like Coyne deny that it's part of E. theory. We see them running scared and hiding behind straw man attacks, ridicule and slander. It's evidence to me that they think the problem is unsolvable for them. If he included OOL in his definition he wouldn't be able to claim evolution is true. Why? Because he has no explanation for it. If you have no explanation you can't be right or wrong, and evolution can't be true or false.
OOL used to be a part of evolutionary theory, so what happened to make it drop out? A. No answer could be found, and all the OOL experiments were failures. How to deal with the colossal embarassment? Do what PR firms do; deny the problem exists. We see in Coyne's remark (and it's used by most evolutionists I'm familiar with) an admission of bafflement and defeat.
One wonders what's next; will evolutionists start claiming body plans aren't part of E. theory? that speciation isn't part of E. theory? that DNA isn't part of E. theory? that missing links aren't part of E. theory? that information isn't part of E. theory?
Some evolutionists claim OOL is part of e. theory and some claim it's not; so who should we believe? What game is being played here? Apparently were looking at two different groups; those who think E. theory should be completely free of problems, and those who feel it's alright to admit some problems. This looks like two different political strategies.
3. 'Predictably, Coyne would have us believe that “bad design” (as he and other evolutionists define it) could only imply that the Designer intentionally made things to look as if they had evolved.
- This is more Darwinian theology; and as Cornelius Hunter has pointed out, it's a main thrust in evolutionist rhetoric, as people can't resist speculating on what God would or would not do... should he exist. Let's turn the tables on them and point out that these theological speculations are scientific theories. Coyne has no idea what the Creator would or wouldn't do for the simple reason he doesn't (comprehensively) know the Creator. (You can't know what even another human being would do if you don't know them.)
4. 'Coyne tries to get around the humans-are-savages implications of evolution by pointing to societal advancements, such as the virtually universal rejection of the mortal gladiatorial combat of Roman times.
- We haven't gotten rid of 'gladiatorial combat' at all; all we've done is make it virtual, a spectacle of the screen. (Should the screens disappear one day, the physical combat will surely return, as the appetite seems as strong as ever.) The stronger response to Coyne's idea that man is getting better morally is that as a materialist he has no valid standard for judging such a thing. i.e. if all is matter in motion morality is at best an illusion.
Telling children they're really just animals seems like a funny thing to do if you expect them to become moral idealists when they become adults.
As W. notes, the 'progressivist' notion expounded by Coyne necessitates denying that there's anything wrong with abortion.
- M. Johnson
Notes;
1. Why evolution need not be true; A review of Why Evolution is True by Jerry A. Coyne - John Woodmorappe
2. 'In this review, I analyze the evolutionary arguments and do not generally attempt to present creationist alternatives, of which there are many, and almost none of which are even mentioned by Coyne. In fact, Coyne’s understanding of the creationist position is absolutely pathetic.
- Evolutionists like Coyne much prefer the old creationist arguments; some of which were admittedly poor and often without sufficient warrant. They don't want to know about more recent c. ideas because they are much more substantial and hard to refute or mock.
- Coyne uses old creationist ideas as ideas to mock, though they've long been abandoned by the creationist community, and replaced with new thinking and theories.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Darwinism; Everything is permitted
With the widespread adoption of evolutionary theory and its eventual triumph in the university, a new 'liberality' was introduced that allowed mere storytelling to proliferate in academia. No longer did one need hard research to get ahead; all one needed was a good story. Doestoevsky might have been thinking of Charles Darwin when he said; if there were no god all was permitted.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Doestoevsky held that if there were no god all was permitted.' [1.]
- If there is no god then all is not only permitted, but many things are necessary. One of the inventions necessary when men reject the creator is a belief in evolution. People are then permitted to pronounce the most absurd claims of impossible things happening without a word of criticism. If one is an evolutionist all is permitted; even the ludicrous idea (story) that man was once a fish. (The recent book 'Your inner fish' might just as well have been titled 'Your inner algae'.)
i.e. Not only is adultery (porn, abortion, etc.) permitted, but Darwinian fairy stories are permitted as well. Writers are allowed to make absurd claims and receive nothing but accolades for them; e.g. life 'emerged' from non-life (in utter contradiction to what we know about biology).
Once God goes everything goes; not only in the moral realm but in the intellectual realm at all. The examples of this seem to be everywhere; e.g. the various multiverse models; art is whatever you say it is; words don't mean anything; there is no truth; there is no reality; pornography is a force for good; politicians should be able to do whatever they like; etc.
If men reject god they must take on all of God's roles in the universe; e.g. it's not only permitted for men to play god, they must play god. It's not only permitted to invent creation myths, men Must create origin myths. (In the minds of many it's not permitted to critique these new necessary myths.)
If there is no God there is no reality; all we have are billions of different views of what it might or might not be. Who is to say if there is or isn't reality, or what it is. If there is no creator God all cosmological views are permitted. Who is to say whether the pantheist or the polytheist, the materialist or the vitalist is correct? Who is to say we can ever know. All is permitted; not only in pornography, not only in sexual behavior, but in the intellectual and political realm as well. To reject God is to reject any final judge or arbiter; in banal language, it's to lose the referee in the game of life.
Darwin was on of the earliest (not the first by any stretch) to realize that now that Christianity was in decline any idea was permitted, and he made a career out of the implications of this insight. He convinced people that now that Genesis had been thrown out he had the best available substitute. He was permitted to make up wild stories and have them taken seriously.
- M. Johnson
Notes;
1. To be as Gods - R.J. Rushdoony p. 114
2. If man is god then who is there to limit his desires? With billions of people there is literally no end to desires. If there is no god who is to say whose desires are less than another's desires? Who is left to say one desire is better than another?
3. People like Dawkins want to restrict the 'permitted' to the sexual (and perhaps social) realm; but this approach reminds me of the king who stood on the beach in the face of an incoming (flooding) tide, raised his hand and said; ''thus far and no further." (Cosmic evolution for him takes the place of god; and is the 'standard' for what is or is not permitted.) He and his peers will find permission a strong tide to turn back.
4. When I use the term God I'm referring to the Triune God of the Bible.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Doestoevsky held that if there were no god all was permitted.' [1.]
- If there is no god then all is not only permitted, but many things are necessary. One of the inventions necessary when men reject the creator is a belief in evolution. People are then permitted to pronounce the most absurd claims of impossible things happening without a word of criticism. If one is an evolutionist all is permitted; even the ludicrous idea (story) that man was once a fish. (The recent book 'Your inner fish' might just as well have been titled 'Your inner algae'.)
i.e. Not only is adultery (porn, abortion, etc.) permitted, but Darwinian fairy stories are permitted as well. Writers are allowed to make absurd claims and receive nothing but accolades for them; e.g. life 'emerged' from non-life (in utter contradiction to what we know about biology).
Once God goes everything goes; not only in the moral realm but in the intellectual realm at all. The examples of this seem to be everywhere; e.g. the various multiverse models; art is whatever you say it is; words don't mean anything; there is no truth; there is no reality; pornography is a force for good; politicians should be able to do whatever they like; etc.
If men reject god they must take on all of God's roles in the universe; e.g. it's not only permitted for men to play god, they must play god. It's not only permitted to invent creation myths, men Must create origin myths. (In the minds of many it's not permitted to critique these new necessary myths.)
If there is no God there is no reality; all we have are billions of different views of what it might or might not be. Who is to say if there is or isn't reality, or what it is. If there is no creator God all cosmological views are permitted. Who is to say whether the pantheist or the polytheist, the materialist or the vitalist is correct? Who is to say we can ever know. All is permitted; not only in pornography, not only in sexual behavior, but in the intellectual and political realm as well. To reject God is to reject any final judge or arbiter; in banal language, it's to lose the referee in the game of life.
Darwin was on of the earliest (not the first by any stretch) to realize that now that Christianity was in decline any idea was permitted, and he made a career out of the implications of this insight. He convinced people that now that Genesis had been thrown out he had the best available substitute. He was permitted to make up wild stories and have them taken seriously.
- M. Johnson
Notes;
1. To be as Gods - R.J. Rushdoony p. 114
2. If man is god then who is there to limit his desires? With billions of people there is literally no end to desires. If there is no god who is to say whose desires are less than another's desires? Who is left to say one desire is better than another?
3. People like Dawkins want to restrict the 'permitted' to the sexual (and perhaps social) realm; but this approach reminds me of the king who stood on the beach in the face of an incoming (flooding) tide, raised his hand and said; ''thus far and no further." (Cosmic evolution for him takes the place of god; and is the 'standard' for what is or is not permitted.) He and his peers will find permission a strong tide to turn back.
4. When I use the term God I'm referring to the Triune God of the Bible.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Darwinism; a Spell check
Although Daniel Siegel is one of my favorite psychologists, his allegiance to Darwinism sometimes leads him astray. The following quotes come from his discussion of working with a twelve year old girl in therapy.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'The activation of survival reflexes and the emotion of fear push our cortical areas to find danger - sometimes when a threat is truly there, and sometimes when the sense of danger is only our brain's creation. Because this brain system checks for danger I call it the ''checker. The checker has survived over hundreds of millions of years, I said. It was helping [sic] animals long before there were humans, and it takes its job seriously.' [1.]
- This is an example of evolutionary indoctrination at its worst. What chance does a 12 yr old have to defend herself against the spell of such such authoritative pronouncements? The statement is a mess of personification, equivocation and wild speculation. None of it is empirical science. (Need we add that only persons have jobs, and that only persons can take things seriously?)
He tells her, ''these brain circuits have evolved over millions of years to keep us safe.'' (He's ignoring the fact that in textbook theory nothing in evolution happens for a purpose.) He knows nothing of the sort; all he's doing is quoting the latest biology textbook.
One can argue with him even from an materialist perspective; e.g. are these circuits the same now as they were at various points in the past? as they were a million years ago? 500 thousand years ago? five thousand years ago? five hundred years ago? He has no idea, nor does anyone else. (He has no idea if even cosmic evolution is true.) One should not teach children that x is a fact when it is only a hypothesis.
According to Siegel, we're supposed to believe that the 'crowning glory' (p.233) of our prefrontal capacity just happened by accident, but a series of mutations (or copying mistakes); but no one tells us how this would have been possible. The great unanswered question for E. theorists is how one can progress from pond scum to professor by a random series of mistakes - mistakes which amount to the Loss of information. To call Evolution a fact in the face of such a conundrum is without warrant.
All this Darwinian spin adds nothing to what he's doing - it's superfluous and non-scientific. (i.e. non-empirical.) These Darwinian tales are the ghosts of a secular world.
We're to believe that one day there were no humans, just animals, and then one day there Were humans. Okay. Where did all this brand new (exquisitely complex and profound) information come from? Had it been hiding under a rock? Tucked away in some library vault? He's handing his young patient a fantasy, as what he's claiming is impossible. This is not the way the world works and we all know it.
The evolutionary scenario of progressivism is akin to placing a string in your vest pocket and then later pulling it out to find it has a watch attached to it.
In this rather silly interview he tells her that animals without 'checkers' didn't survive while those that had them did. There is of course no evidence such deficient creatures ever existed or ever could exist. This is pure storytelling. The sad part of this Darwinian add on is that it is unnecessary and superfluous. One wishes Siegel (and others) would stick to the empiricial and avoid the metaphysical spin.
3. 'The 'checker' is devoted to our survival - and to passing along our checker genes for another hundred million years...' [3.]
- How Siegel came to write such a wondrous statement I don't know; neither do I know how he managed to attribute devotion to a program of the human brain. (Perhaps it was his devotion to Darwinism.) Devoted means to dedicate oneself to another with a vow. We see here another example of Darwinian smuggling; e.g. personification, equivocation, teleology, prophecy, reification, and speculation are all smuggled into the discussion... and all (supposedly) in the name of science.
Siegel apparently can't decide which evolutionary camp he wants to join; i.e. is the 'checker' interested in us humans or in these so called checker genes? (Ah; evolution; so many theories, and so little time to decide which of them is right :=}
4. 243. '...deep inside the 'checker' just wants to protect you.' [4.]
- This example of equivocation is more like incantation than observation. Only living creatures want things, and only persons want to protect human beings. [4.] It seems Darwinists can't resist the temptation to engage in equivocation and similar fallacies. (The monism of cosmic evolution makes this virtually inevitable. If you ignore the creator/creature distinction you have monism; and if you have monism you have personification and equivocation. Monism makes logical fallacy unavoidable. i.e. if all is one, there can be no differentiation, and logic depends upon differentiation.
- M. Johnson
Notes;
1. Mindsight - Daniel Siegel p. 243
- I realize I can be criticized for overreacting to an evolutionary account that was tailored for a twelve year old's understanding; but I think this is how most children come to believe the veracity of Darwinism. I suspect someone like Siegel can have much more influence than a biology teacher who is being paid to recite textbook orthodoxy. My big complaint it that there's no reason to add the Darwinian speculation to what he's saying. i.e. one doesn't have to speculate on the origins of the brain to discuss how it seems to work.
2. ''
3. Mindsight p.245
4. p.243
- Some animals (e.g. dogs) will 'protect' human beings, but we're dealing here with instincts and bonding not with the human desire to help.
5. One the one hand Siegel has a positive model of psychology to present; but at the same time he teaches that the brain is controlled by circuits that are hundreds of millions of years old and that get us to behave in destructive ways. So his foundation is a pessimisitic one, but he seems to just ignore it and tell us all will be well with a little meditation!
- The way I see it; the fact 'mindsight' can be so effective is evidence the Darwinian speculation he adopts is false.
- If man were what S. claims he is, the techniques he teaches couldn't possibly work. It's impossible for me to imagine these human capacities somehow 'emerged' from some copying mistakes, by random chemical accident. This concept makes no sense to me.
6. While atheists talk about the 'need' to separate science and religion, I'd like to advocate a separation of science and darwinism.
7. Devotion;
-early 13c., from O.Fr. devocion "devotion, piety," from L. devotionem (nom. devotio), noun of action from pp. stem of devovere "dedicate by a vow, sacrifice oneself, promise solemnly," from de- "down, away" (see de-) + vovere "to vow," from votum "vow" (see vow). In ancient Latin, "act of consecrating by a vow," also "loyalty, fealty, allegiance;" in Church Latin, "devotion to God, piety."
8. For fellow fishermen out there; progressive evolution is akin to towing a rope behind a boat and then having the rope turn into a net, complete with corks and leadline and outfitted with a buoy on the end :=}
9. One wonders what evolutionary indoctrination has to do with therapy for OCD. As I've said before; I see E. theory as utterly superfluous to 99.99 percent of science and medicine (let alone anything else). It's no more relevant to life as we live it than a novel by Arthur C. Clarke.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'The activation of survival reflexes and the emotion of fear push our cortical areas to find danger - sometimes when a threat is truly there, and sometimes when the sense of danger is only our brain's creation. Because this brain system checks for danger I call it the ''checker. The checker has survived over hundreds of millions of years, I said. It was helping [sic] animals long before there were humans, and it takes its job seriously.' [1.]
- This is an example of evolutionary indoctrination at its worst. What chance does a 12 yr old have to defend herself against the spell of such such authoritative pronouncements? The statement is a mess of personification, equivocation and wild speculation. None of it is empirical science. (Need we add that only persons have jobs, and that only persons can take things seriously?)
He tells her, ''these brain circuits have evolved over millions of years to keep us safe.'' (He's ignoring the fact that in textbook theory nothing in evolution happens for a purpose.) He knows nothing of the sort; all he's doing is quoting the latest biology textbook.
One can argue with him even from an materialist perspective; e.g. are these circuits the same now as they were at various points in the past? as they were a million years ago? 500 thousand years ago? five thousand years ago? five hundred years ago? He has no idea, nor does anyone else. (He has no idea if even cosmic evolution is true.) One should not teach children that x is a fact when it is only a hypothesis.
According to Siegel, we're supposed to believe that the 'crowning glory' (p.233) of our prefrontal capacity just happened by accident, but a series of mutations (or copying mistakes); but no one tells us how this would have been possible. The great unanswered question for E. theorists is how one can progress from pond scum to professor by a random series of mistakes - mistakes which amount to the Loss of information. To call Evolution a fact in the face of such a conundrum is without warrant.
All this Darwinian spin adds nothing to what he's doing - it's superfluous and non-scientific. (i.e. non-empirical.) These Darwinian tales are the ghosts of a secular world.
We're to believe that one day there were no humans, just animals, and then one day there Were humans. Okay. Where did all this brand new (exquisitely complex and profound) information come from? Had it been hiding under a rock? Tucked away in some library vault? He's handing his young patient a fantasy, as what he's claiming is impossible. This is not the way the world works and we all know it.
The evolutionary scenario of progressivism is akin to placing a string in your vest pocket and then later pulling it out to find it has a watch attached to it.
In this rather silly interview he tells her that animals without 'checkers' didn't survive while those that had them did. There is of course no evidence such deficient creatures ever existed or ever could exist. This is pure storytelling. The sad part of this Darwinian add on is that it is unnecessary and superfluous. One wishes Siegel (and others) would stick to the empiricial and avoid the metaphysical spin.
3. 'The 'checker' is devoted to our survival - and to passing along our checker genes for another hundred million years...' [3.]
- How Siegel came to write such a wondrous statement I don't know; neither do I know how he managed to attribute devotion to a program of the human brain. (Perhaps it was his devotion to Darwinism.) Devoted means to dedicate oneself to another with a vow. We see here another example of Darwinian smuggling; e.g. personification, equivocation, teleology, prophecy, reification, and speculation are all smuggled into the discussion... and all (supposedly) in the name of science.
Siegel apparently can't decide which evolutionary camp he wants to join; i.e. is the 'checker' interested in us humans or in these so called checker genes? (Ah; evolution; so many theories, and so little time to decide which of them is right :=}
4. 243. '...deep inside the 'checker' just wants to protect you.' [4.]
- This example of equivocation is more like incantation than observation. Only living creatures want things, and only persons want to protect human beings. [4.] It seems Darwinists can't resist the temptation to engage in equivocation and similar fallacies. (The monism of cosmic evolution makes this virtually inevitable. If you ignore the creator/creature distinction you have monism; and if you have monism you have personification and equivocation. Monism makes logical fallacy unavoidable. i.e. if all is one, there can be no differentiation, and logic depends upon differentiation.
- M. Johnson
Notes;
1. Mindsight - Daniel Siegel p. 243
- I realize I can be criticized for overreacting to an evolutionary account that was tailored for a twelve year old's understanding; but I think this is how most children come to believe the veracity of Darwinism. I suspect someone like Siegel can have much more influence than a biology teacher who is being paid to recite textbook orthodoxy. My big complaint it that there's no reason to add the Darwinian speculation to what he's saying. i.e. one doesn't have to speculate on the origins of the brain to discuss how it seems to work.
2. ''
3. Mindsight p.245
4. p.243
- Some animals (e.g. dogs) will 'protect' human beings, but we're dealing here with instincts and bonding not with the human desire to help.
5. One the one hand Siegel has a positive model of psychology to present; but at the same time he teaches that the brain is controlled by circuits that are hundreds of millions of years old and that get us to behave in destructive ways. So his foundation is a pessimisitic one, but he seems to just ignore it and tell us all will be well with a little meditation!
- The way I see it; the fact 'mindsight' can be so effective is evidence the Darwinian speculation he adopts is false.
- If man were what S. claims he is, the techniques he teaches couldn't possibly work. It's impossible for me to imagine these human capacities somehow 'emerged' from some copying mistakes, by random chemical accident. This concept makes no sense to me.
6. While atheists talk about the 'need' to separate science and religion, I'd like to advocate a separation of science and darwinism.
7. Devotion;
-early 13c., from O.Fr. devocion "devotion, piety," from L. devotionem (nom. devotio), noun of action from pp. stem of devovere "dedicate by a vow, sacrifice oneself, promise solemnly," from de- "down, away" (see de-) + vovere "to vow," from votum "vow" (see vow). In ancient Latin, "act of consecrating by a vow," also "loyalty, fealty, allegiance;" in Church Latin, "devotion to God, piety."
8. For fellow fishermen out there; progressive evolution is akin to towing a rope behind a boat and then having the rope turn into a net, complete with corks and leadline and outfitted with a buoy on the end :=}
9. One wonders what evolutionary indoctrination has to do with therapy for OCD. As I've said before; I see E. theory as utterly superfluous to 99.99 percent of science and medicine (let alone anything else). It's no more relevant to life as we live it than a novel by Arthur C. Clarke.
Friday, September 9, 2011
Man is basically good; right?
Why is it in a culture dominated by secular institutions we still have the media referring to destructive events in the natural world as acts of God? If evolution is a fact, how can anything be an act of God?
Quotes and comments;
1. "To condemn anything in the world of nature as evil is, logically, a heresy for humanism." [1.]
- To say that man is basically good, is in effect saying that nature is basically good. (i.e. since man is a product of nature, for him to be good, nature would have to be good.) Why is it then that we still hear Humanists speaking of natural disasters as acts of god? If they wanted to be consistent they would speak of these floods etc. as acts of nature.
They don't like to do this because this presents us with a nature that is not basically good; and if nature isn't basically good, neither can man himself be basically good. Since the basic tenet of Humanism is that man is basically good, you can see how Humanists shy away from speaking of the acts of nature.
All the arguments atheists use that feature showing how god does (or allows) evil things can be turned around and used against the naturalist position. e.g. parasites, viruses and earthquakes (etc.) don't disprove the existence of a good god, they disprove the existence of a good nature.
If nature isn't basically good then it can't be normative; can't provide a basis for ethics. (e.g. how do you get from mutations and disease to objective moral standards?)
M. Johnson
Notes;
1. To be as God - R.J. Rushdoony p.21
- free book online at Chalcedon.edu
2. Writers like de Sade and Max Stirner declared [above p.22] that no natural act (no act that happens in nature) can be evil or should be outlawed. People like Sam Harris who want to reintroduce ethics into the 'post christian' world are hypocrites who can't accept the obvious conclusions of naturalism. i.e. they want to insist that men are just animals, but they want to have the State force them to act like angels. They can't face the reality of their own position, and so must invent legislation to bind the lizard brained populace with. (Their position is as absurd as that of David Icke :=}
Quotes and comments;
1. "To condemn anything in the world of nature as evil is, logically, a heresy for humanism." [1.]
- To say that man is basically good, is in effect saying that nature is basically good. (i.e. since man is a product of nature, for him to be good, nature would have to be good.) Why is it then that we still hear Humanists speaking of natural disasters as acts of god? If they wanted to be consistent they would speak of these floods etc. as acts of nature.
They don't like to do this because this presents us with a nature that is not basically good; and if nature isn't basically good, neither can man himself be basically good. Since the basic tenet of Humanism is that man is basically good, you can see how Humanists shy away from speaking of the acts of nature.
All the arguments atheists use that feature showing how god does (or allows) evil things can be turned around and used against the naturalist position. e.g. parasites, viruses and earthquakes (etc.) don't disprove the existence of a good god, they disprove the existence of a good nature.
If nature isn't basically good then it can't be normative; can't provide a basis for ethics. (e.g. how do you get from mutations and disease to objective moral standards?)
M. Johnson
Notes;
1. To be as God - R.J. Rushdoony p.21
- free book online at Chalcedon.edu
2. Writers like de Sade and Max Stirner declared [above p.22] that no natural act (no act that happens in nature) can be evil or should be outlawed. People like Sam Harris who want to reintroduce ethics into the 'post christian' world are hypocrites who can't accept the obvious conclusions of naturalism. i.e. they want to insist that men are just animals, but they want to have the State force them to act like angels. They can't face the reality of their own position, and so must invent legislation to bind the lizard brained populace with. (Their position is as absurd as that of David Icke :=}
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)