Awake in a dead universe

If the philosophy of materialism were correct, man would be a personal being living in an impersonal universe.

Quotes and comments;

1. ''The fact man is a person and a personality isolates him from ultimate reality. It leaves him awake in a dead universe..." [1.]

- Secular man sees himself as a person in an impersonal universe. He can't find an explanation for this anomaly, but he's sure that one exists. (Don't all the books on creativity tell the reader to assume that the answer exists, and that all he has to do is discover it?)

The Christian sees himself as a person in a personal universe, and as such is not isolated from ultimate reality. The universe isn't a strange (foreign) place, but a home that was created and crafted with him in mind.

Secular man on the other hand, cannot help but see himself as an alien. (i.e. alienated) Without God life can only seem a very strange (unexplainable) thing. (It would be normal to be a planet or a moon, but not to be a living, breathing, being; and one with a profound consciousness of his situation.)

Is this behind the fascination with aliens? Is the SETI project (etc.) at heart a projection of this feeling of being an alien? Having rejected God man has become alienated from the universe, and seeks a sign that his fear he's all alone isn't true. He seeks a sign that he was correct in his intuition of a godless universe. If aliens are found (other than himself of course) then he feels that the universe won't feel as strange anymore, and his doubts will be quelled.

Secular man is the only alien we know of, and he's projected himself onto (into) the heavens. Looking into the splintered mirror of Humanism he sees himself everywhere. (He wants to find aliens, but he's afraid of them finding him; for he knows that should they exist it will be hard to be the God he now imagines himself to be.)

Notes;
1. Noble Savages - R. J. Rushdoony p. 70. (Available online at Chalcedon.edu; originally titled 'The politics of pornography')
- He's speaking about the modern humanistic worldview.
2. Van Til would deny that this is possible, but if there is no God, man is alone in the universe. At some level he will feel that loneliness, and will feel lonely to the extent he is sure god does not exist. (I doubt if any man is 100 percent sure God does not exist.) Modern man seeks to assuage this loneliness in the pages of SF, but it seems like cold comfort to me. (FTL travel seems as impossible as Darwinism to me.) It's an attempt to shield himself from the cold and to keep himself warm by the storytelling fire.
3. R. speaks of ways modern man tries to escape the alienation of personality; e.g. in pornography. (I think we see in drugs a desire to escape personality.) In the world of porn man becomes a thing or a beast. and escapes the problems and pains of personhood.
4. For Van Til, the belief one lives in a personal universe has an effect on one's consciousness.
5. That secular man feels alienated from the universe can be seen in recent examples of sf novels that feature mankind building not merely new worlds, but new universes. (e.g. Karl Schroeder) Most of these 'universes' are of a micro sort; but still, they're self-contained and independent entities, and especially designed for men to live in. I see this as unspoken (unrealized?) desire for the universe described in Genesis. Because of who he is, and what is nature is, man cannot help but find the picture of a created universe (created as a home) appealing.

Darwinism and musturbation

Albert Ellis coined the horrid phrase 'musturbation' to refer to the absolutes people impose on life, which then (according to his theory) cause them unneeded misery, but I think it could be better applied to Darwinists and their continual claims that x and y 'must' have been the result of evolution.

Quotes and comments;

1. 'Fish chew by sending their food on an assembly line to the back of the mouth. Mammals chew by positioning food for the teeth. Can evolution explain this difference? Science Daily was sure of it.
''The difference in chewing shows that animals have changed the way they chew and digest their food and that evolution must have played a role.'' [1.]

- The author has no right to say evolution 'must' have played a role. He can't possibly know this. If he wanted to be accurate and honest he would write; ''If we accept evolution as a fact, evolution must have have played a role." ie. his claim is only as true as evolutionary theory; it's not an independent fact, but only a deduction from a system.

I'm tired of evolutionists excusing this kind of fallacy by dismissing it as merely writing in a popular style. If scientists want special respect, then they should they deserve it by writing in a careful, logically valid manner. e.g. a theoretical opinion should never be stated as a fact. (In this case, no one observed the claim that is made; therefore it cannot ever be a fact.)

Why 'must' evolution have played a role? Because we know evolution is true. As usual, evolution is used to to prove evolution.

Notes;
1. Chewing on Evolutionary Stories - Creation/Evolution Headlines July 03
2. One wonders what the author meant when he claimed 'evolution' must have played a role in the difference chewing methods. What exactly is the definition of evolution that he's using? Are we supposed to just guess? The vagueness of the term makes it sorely lacking in content.

The red queen and the arms race

A brief post on the idea of the evolutionary arms race.

Quotes and comments;

1. 'An interdisciplinary team at the University of Miami got their heads together and appealed to an evolutionary notion called the “Red Queen” hypothesis, and claimed it provides a “Pattern in Escalations in Insurgent and Terrorist Activity” that is neutral regarding the good guys and the bad guys. It resembles, they argue, how pedators and prey evolve in nature. [1.]

- I see no evidence of the 'arms race' that is supposed to be going on. What we really see in most species is stasis. How anyone can hold to the arms race idea in the face of all the evidence for stasis I don't know. If an animal (insect, etc.) doesn't change in tens of millions of years, how can there have been an arms race going on?

The authors are basing their theory on a theory in other words. They're not dealing with the real world, but with textbooks. What passes for science here is a theory based on a myth. (I guess we could call it myth science.) I see no evidence this theory is correct. I see no directional movement in how big or fast animals are. e.g. We see evidence in fossils that animals in the past were generally larger than animals now. I see no compelling evidence they were slower. I see no more than trivial (and temporary) effects of predator on prey or vice versa.

2. ''The authors realized that human armies are much more complex, but chose to omit all the factors involving human intellect, choice and planning, and make their theory completely amoral...'

- They give us an amoral theory of a moral phenomenon. I can't see how that is going to work. Treating human beings like things is the essence of scientism, and there is no reason to think it will ever produce true knowledge. True science does not treat men like machines or like numbers.

Summary;
The alleged arms race is about as real as the Red Queen. Let's call it jabberwocky.

Notes;
1. Can evolutionary theory explain terrorism? Creation/Evolution Headlines July 02

The biggest fish story of them all

Darwinism is full of tall tales, but the biggest whopper of them all is the idea fish left the oceans and became the first animals, filling a barren earth with animal life forms. We might call it the cosmic fish story.

Quotes and comments;

1. The non-evolution of Coelacanth:
“The fish provided an immediate link to our dim evolutionary past, resembling the lobe-fin fish that were likely the first to leave the water and take to land, ultimately begetting the amphibians, reptiles and mammals we see today, including the human race.” - Matt Walker [1.]

- In my humble opinion, this scenario is the biggest fish story ever told, and one of the biggest reasons I dumped evolution for creation. It's as silly as it is stupid.

How wildly impossible is it?

It's akin to saying birds left the air to become fish :=}
It's akin to saying lions left the Serenghetti for life as crabs on the ocean floor.
It's akin to saying books voluntarily left the library and threw themselves into the flames...
It's akin to a cup of tea turning itself into a cup of coffee. (Perhaps the cream went sour.)
It's akin to a jukebox turning into a potato chip dispensing machine.
It's akin to a salmon turning itself into a bear so it can gorge on blueberries.
It's akin to Hitler turning into a dove and flying off for the hills.
It's akin to a textbook turning into the word of God, utterly devoid of error.
It's akin to a dinosaur turning into a iceberg or a glacier.
It's akin to fire turning into water turning into earth turning into air.
It's akin to college professors all turning in their tenure for life as private tutors or wandering salesmen.
It's akin to all of our politicians suddenly telling nothing but the truth till the end of time.
It's akin to a cloud becoming a dragon, who then becomes a cloud again.
It's akin to a cat turning itself inside out and becoming a dog.

2. 'The narrator [of a video] claimed that the lobed fins “represent the first rudimentary legs which enabled the ancestral amphibians to drag themselves from the water, and begin the colonization of the dry land.” [1.]

- It's interesting that Darwinists like Walker can get fish to drag themselves from the water, while most of us can't manage to drag our teenagers away from the computer :=}

W note the equivocation of speaking of the 'colonization' of the dry land. (At the heart of Darwinism is an equivocation fallacy.)
Perhaps this sin of colonization is the reason these transformed fish later were forced to reenter the ocean. Perhaps it was a ruling from some equivalent of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

What caused the fish to drag themselves out of their watery beds for life on dry land?
Was it the promise of credit cards? A house in the suburbs? Cable TV? A McDonald's Happy meal?
Perhaps, as another other mountain climber remarked, the answer was simply, ''because it was there". (I do wonder though, who they used for Sherpa guides.)

Summary;
Did I convince you how silly I think this idea is yet?
It's not actually an idea (or theory) at all, but a necessary deduction from the basic theory. i.e. if the theory is true, this fish story has to be true. This isn't science but rationalist speculation and philosophy.

Q. How can non-creationists believe this? A. They have to.


Posted by; M. Johnson @notentirelyserious.com

Notes;
1.The Evolution of… Come Again? Creation/Evolution Headlines July 01/2011
- Even if the story were true it the C. wouldn't qualify as an 'immediate' link. If there are many quite large steps in between the Coelacanth and man, I see no reason to call it an immediate link.
- This is a sad way to write, as there's no way you should designate something as a fact when it's only speculation. This is a Darwinian story, and should not be presented as a fact. Only things people have directly observed even deserve consideration as facts.
2. At the heart of Darwinism is an equivocation fallacy.
3. The Coelacanth hasn't changed in its entire history, still hasn't learned to walk, and like this story, never will. It's amazing how Darwinists can turn stasis into evolution; it's as remarkable as fish turning into mammals.
Q. What enables all this to happen?
A. The power of story.
Natural selection isn't the driving engine of Evolution, the human imagination is; no miracle is impossible for it to accomplish.

The long, cold stare of stasis; or, all roads lead to Down House

When you read the popular science press you continually come upon articles that purport to offer more evidence for the veracity of evolutionary theory. The question for today is whether this evidence is discovered or manufactured.

Quotes and comments;

1. "The eyes are more complex than those known from contemporaneous trilobites and are as advanced as those of many living forms. They provide further evidence that the Cambrian explosion involved rapid innovation in fine-scale anatomy as well as gross morphology, and are consistent with the concept that the development of advanced vision helped to drive this great evolutionary event.'' [1.]

- The arthropod eyes being referred to do not provide evidence for rapid evolution of vision capacity. Only if one believes cosmic evolution is a fact, can this be seen as evidence of E. Only if one already accepts e. theory can this be interpreted as evidence for E. This doesn't prove evolution; the theory proves this is evidence! i.e. if you start out with e. you have to end up with evolution, there's no other answer that can arise.

If E. is true, everything is evidence for evolution :=} It's a circular defense of evolution in terms of evolution. i.e. we know this is evidence for evolution. How do we know this? We know this because we know E. is true. If you accept that E. is absolutely, without a doubt, true, no evidence can possibly refute the theory.

2. "Their discovery reveals that some of the earliest animals possessed very powerful vision; similar eyes are found in many living insects, such as robber flies.
Sharp vision must therefore have evolved very rapidly, soon after the first predators appeared during the 'Cambrian Explosion' of life that began around 540 million years ago.'' [1.]

- Why do they say vision 'must' have evolved rapidly? They say this because they know the theory isn't a theory but a fact, and so it can't be wrong. E. could no more be wrong than that it's possible to wake up tomorrow to find gravity had disappeared.

3. "Given the tremendous adaptive advantage conferred by sharp vision for avoiding predators and locating food and shelter, there must have been tremendous evolutionary pressure to elaborate and refine visual organs.'' [1.]

- Evolutionary pressure? What's that? Is it like the pressure of a gas? The pressure of gas after a bad meal? The pressure in a propane tank? Has anyone observed evolutionary pressure? Since we know it was a tremendous pressure I assume this means they were able to measure it :=}
This isn't empirical science, it's just storytelling. There isn't any 'pressure' that produces the mutations that supposedly create all body plans.

We see in examples like this how theory manufactures evidence, and this evidence is then used to support the theory. i.e. it's not the data that produce the so called evidence, but the theory that produces the evidence. When you find a fossil (etc.) you don't observe evidence, you observe some data. No one has ever seen evidence; as evidence is manufactured by a rational process.

The whole concept of evidence is non-empirical. Evidence is a philosophical concept in origin; and is based on the assumption truth exists, and that one can find support for propositions. (esp. via observation) For evidence to exist, one must have a theory of truth to base your claims; for if there is no truth, there can be no evidence. (It was Van Til's position that there is no autonomous method for truth, and he spoke of the necessity of scripture.)

This is the dangerous position the evolutionist is in. By claiming E. is a certain fact, as certain as anything knowledge possessed by humankind, they have made it impossible to refute, and all contra evidence (such as this is in my view) is interpreted in a way friendly to the theory, or if this seems impossible, it's just ignored.

Let's say the theory is false; this means that the people who accept it unconditionally would never be able to refute the theory.... as all the data must be interpreted in such a way as to provide more evidence the theory is correct. By claiming it to be not a theory but a fact they've placed themselves in a prison of their own making. To claim a theory is a fact is imprison critical thought.

By insisting E. isn't a theory but a fact, the Darwinist protects himself from self doubt and from non-evolutionary critique. If E. is a certain fact he need not concern himself with critiques of E. theory, and can just brush them aside with a wave of his hand. By claiming he can tell us what the true nature of reality is, man has usurped the role of God, for to claim that x is a fact is to claim omniscience. (Apparently an omniscient God is impossible, but an omniscient human being isn't :=}

As I've said before, finite, fallible, and fallen man is incapable of determining facts, and if he's wise he will resist the temptation to do so. It was Van Til's opinion that the only facts (truth) man has access to come from the special revelation we call the Bible.

M. Johnson [frfarer at gmail.com]

Notes;
1. Complex Arthropod Eyes Found in Early Cambrian; Creation/Evolution Headlines June 29
2. 'A side-by-side comparison of the fossil imprint with a living insect eye shows virtually no difference in complexity.'
- As is usual, no evolutionary progress is seen in the history of an animal kind; the animal appears out of nowhere, and remains almost identical to end of its years on earth. This looks like a refutation of the theory to me, but then no one is paying me to defend Darwinism.
3. 'In their concluding paragraph, they affirmed use of the phrase “Cambrian explosion” as a real event. They could offer no explanation for the evolution of these eyes, nor did they put forward any transitional forms.
- If there really was a 'Cambrian explosion' then what gets exploded is the myth of Darwinism, for this is not what he assumed and predicted, nor what he thought he had proved with his armchair speculations. Since Darwinists know E. is true, this can't be the case however, and feel they've got nothing to worry about :=}
4. I'm referring to Cornelius Van Til
5. Why we need to prove evolution if it's already a fact is a matter for another day.

Using a story for a bridge

The chasm between man and chimp continues to trouble evolutionary theorists.

Quotes and comments;

1. 'Mosley quoted John Shea, professor of palaeoanthropology at Stony Brook University in New York, making a remark that casts doubt on the whole evolutionary story: “There's such a huge gulf between ourselves and our nearest primate relatives, gorillas, chimpanzees and bonobos,” he said, putting his faith in a big IF: “If that gap were populated by other hominids, we’d see that gap as not so much a gulf but rather a continuum with steps on the way.” [1.]

- That evolutionists keep trying to account for the 'gulf' (chasm) between man and chimp shows me that this is a problem they find disturbing, one that causes doubts in the theory itself. For the theory to have any credibility, evolutionists will have to come up with a plausible story that can bridge the miles wide gap between man and ape.

The Christian who accepts the Genesis account doesn't believe this gap will ever be filled, and that the only 'bridge' across it will forever be a story. The materialist stares at all the evidence he could need for rejecting Darwinism, but he turns his back on it. He prefers having no answer to accepting the biblical account of creation.

The greatest mistake our thinkers have made is to call man an animal; this is the source of endless errors in science, culture, theology and about every important subject there is. The uniqueness of man is obvious, but Darwinists won't admit it, as their theory won't allow uniqueness.
Calling man an animal isn't observational science, as man's uniqueness is what we observe not his identity. It's comical that people make this claim in the face of the evidence against it; you'd be closer to the mark if you insisted a sparrow was a fish.

It's clear to me that human beings and animals do not belong in the same category.

M. Johnson

Notes;
1. Avoid Confusion: Disbelieve Paleoanthropologists; Creation/Evolution Headlines
June 28/2011
1. 'Mosley quoted John Shea, professor of palaeoanthropology at Stony Brook University in New York, making a remark that casts doubt on the whole evolutionary story: “There's such a huge gulf between ourselves and our nearest primate relatives, gorillas, chimpanzees and bonobos,” he said, putting his faith in a big IF: “If that gap were populated by other hominids, we’d see that gap as not so much a gulf but rather a continuum with steps on the way.”
Too bad all the species of Homo that Mosley discussed in his article appear just as equidistant from chimpanzees as the rest of us.'
3. Evolutionists have been unwilling to abandon the chain of being idea; that there are small steps all the way from the supposed first cell to man himself. Shea just assumes that such gradation existed among the human races that once (supposedly) existed. The Christian who accepts Genesis, denies that such races existed, and affirms that there has never been more than one human race.
4. '...a commentary in PNAS, Bernard Wood wrote, “The origin of our own genus remains frustratingly unclear.”
- That paleoanthropologists can't figure out the origin of the human species is good evidence you would think that the model they're using is wrong. Apparently it's taboo however to question the Darwinian model.
All we get from these people is hype and wild stories; stories that are endlessly changing. (Trying to pin these guys down to anything is like trying to pin down the location of an electron.)
The science content approaches zero.