Defending the Paradigm

People friendly to the theory of evolution have spent the past 150 plus years creating and defending Darwinian myth. A major part of this project has been to promote Darwin as an original thinker. To do this people have had to lie and deceive people as to the truth. The most prominent victim of this process has been the creationist Edward Blyth.

Quotes and comments;

1. "May not then, a large proportion of what are considered species have descended from a common parentage?" - Edward Blyth [1837]
- Although Charles Darwin stole the idea of natural selection  and despite the fact this is well attested and well known by scholars, he is still given credit for it. In the 1830s a man by the name of Edward Blyth published articles on natural selection; these articles were read by CD and he annotated them in his own handwriting. It was one of these articles (published Jan/1837) that caused CD to begin his famous notebook/s on evolution. Despite all this CD never gave Blyth any credit for the idea, nor did he (at first) even mention him. From the very start he took credit for the idea, and called the theory of evolution he outlined in the Origins ''his'' theory.

From the very start scholars have known this, and people friendly to E. theory have gone along with the game and given credit to Darwin despite his obvious and flagrant plagiarism. In a recent book on Darwin's predecessors Rebecca Stott doesn't even mention Blyth; doesn't even give him a mention in the book... although she mentions most other figures in this story. (i.e. the idea of evolution thru the ages.)

- Despite the fact Loren Eiseley (an e.) wrote a book on Blyth and his influence on Darwin Stott deliberately refuses to mention him. This isn't a matter of ignorance but a deliberate attempt on her part to rewrite history, to present a mythical version of reality.
Q. "Why would she do this?
A. "People who are especially hostile to any idea of creation (and Stott is one such person) don't want creationists to get any credit for anything. They see the fact Blyth came up with the idea of natural selection as especially unfortunate and especially dangerous.
Q. "Why?
A. "According to textbook orthodoxy, natural selection [NS] is the very core of modern e. theory. To give credit for it to Blyth means that it's entirely wrong to say creationists don't come up with important ideas; it means it's wrong to say creation can't lead to good ''scientific'' ideas... and these people refuse to allow the public to consider such a ''heretical'' view. Stott (and others obviously) is very willing to rewrite history and to present a myth in its place to further this project.

- We see in the divinization of Darwin by supporters of E. theory that there is no reason to believe they're being honest about the subject of origins, and much reason to believe they're engaged in lying, deceit and obfuscation.

Notes; 02/04/2013

1. Darwin and the mysterious Mr. X - Loren Eisley [1979]
- a wonderful read, by a great writer.
2. Stott's book is a farce from beginning to end. e.g. despite promises she skates lightly (very lightly) over the ancients... apparently in an effort to present evolution as a scientific idea rather than what it is, a philosophical idea.
- I abandoned the book quite early, in disgust, but the index shows no reference to Blyth or to Eiseley. (She does have 6 references to "book burnings'' however... all the while she's engaged in a version of one herself.)
- Ch. 1. (Darwin's list) pretends to cover all the ''modern day'' precursors to e. theory... but does not mention Blyth. The list was added to later additions after CD had been rebuked for ignoring earlier writers on evolution. (If you want to know what kind of ''character'' CD had, consider the fact he had the audacity to disavow any influence from his grandfather.)
- I'm not aware of any collection of Blyth's work... and it's easy to imagine why. i.e. Darwin's supporters want his work ignored and utterly forgotten. (We see here an example of how science is done; one does everything one can do publicize views one is friendly toward, and buries opposing views. How anyone can pretend science is neutral is astounding. It's anything but.)
- to promote the myth of evolution as a scientific idea Stott begins with Aristotle... though this isn't even remotely the origin of the idea. (She curiously claims Darwin never read Aristotle or Epicurus. Even if we could believe this claim most other scholars of his day did.)
3. We're told continually be the champions of scientism that ''science is self-correcting'' but here's an instance where it is not. In fact the situation is worse now than it was when Eiseley published his book.
4. It's too bad our evangelical supporters of e. haven't read Eiseley's book.
Q. "How do you know they haven't?
A. "I'm trying to give them the benefit of the doubt.
- Anyone who knows the truth of this case can only be repelled by such grotesqueries as "Darwin Day'' in the churches.
5. Daniel Dennett, in one of the most absurd statements I've ever read, claims Darwin was the greatest scientist who ever lived.... but perhaps he meant the greatest plagiarist and was misquoted.

The amazing, fantastical Eugenie Scott

Apologists for Darwinism are famous for making extreme statements, but perhaps the most extreme I've come across was uttered by Eugenie Scott.

Quotes and comments;
1. Eugenie Scott can be seen (briefly) in the second C. S. Lewis documentary where she points to herself and says, ''I'm a scientist, and I don't know any evidence against evolution.''  [1.]

-  As someone who switched from evolution to a creationist perspective after reading many critiques of evolution, I'm staggered by this claim. What in the world could she mean by such a statement? Is this just another case of someone employing the ''big lie'' strategy, or can she really mean this in some way? Here are some possibilities; choose the one you think most likely.

Multiple choice
a. she can't see any evidence but she hasn't been looking
b. she's blindfolded
c. she's got a bag on her head
d. she's under the influence of heavy medication
e. she's doing a comedy routine
f. she isn't a scientist
g. she doesn't know what the word evidence means
h. she's incapable of telling the truth
i. she was the inspiration for the Pinocchio story
j. she's allergic to the truth
k. she has a phobia about being honest
l. she's really Richard Dawkins wearing a bad wig
m. she was an ostrich in a previous life
n. she's a robot under the control of selfish genes
o. she doesn't know what evolution means
p. she's taking part in a biggest lie competition
q. she's an anti-christian
r. she's an anti-creationist
s. she's an actor in a sitcom
t. she's a political hack
u. evolution is her religion
v. she believes in the big lie approach to rhetoric and persuasion
w. she believes the public is 'stupid' enough to believe her
x. she believes the lie is more effective than the truth
y. she imagines people naively think she's honest
z. being on camera causes her to make a fool of herself
Or; all of the above




- Michael Johnson

Notes; 14/02/2013
1. C. S. Lewis and Evolution [Youtube]
- Why she points to her chest is unknown at this time, but scientific studies are under way even as we speak.
- The most surprising thing about this clip is that her nose doesn't grow a foot or so as she speaks. It actually does tremble a bit as if the Pinocchio effect were going to happen but then it stops.
2. It's quite possible she's not being honest at all, and like a political hack is just giving a sound bite response to her opponents. As she's famous for being disingenuous, it's likely she's merely trying to score points; i.e. by denying there is any evidence against evolution she's more less denouncing all critics of evolution as idiots.
3. By making her statement as strong as possible she risks having it dismissed as political overstatement or even being laughed at, but she hopes to persuade [naive] people that despite what critics say, E. is undeniably correct. i.e. it's her way of degrading her opponents. The person who hears her is supposed to ask themselves, ''how could anyone question such an undeniable fact as evolution? there must be something very wrong or twisted with such people.'' (In a larger sense this is called demonizing or dehumanizing one's opponent.)
4. To my ears her statement is as strange as saying ''I don't see any evidence against the idea people are basically good.''
5. This is a person who openly advocates lying and dishonesty to her peers, so we can't be surprised at her statement, but we can wonder why she expects anyone to believe her. Though Scott fancies herself clever, she's naive and foolish to think a strategy built on lies will work long term. (It's no sin to be wrong, but it is a sin to deliberately lie and deceive; especially when this concerns the young.)
   "I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak,
For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned." - Matt 12:36-7
6. She can only get away with such a bizarre statement in a society where Darwinists control the education system and ban all criticism of E. theory.
7. I suppose she might mean that while she's familiar with the critiques of E. theory she hasn't come across any that have prompted her to abandon the idea.
- I think it depends on what she means by evolution. If a person is convinced they live in a godless, materialist universe then some form of ''natural'' evolution (or transformism) HAS to be true. I take it Scott is saying something like, "I'm convinced materialism is true.''
8. If she's being even remotely honest here she cannot mean that she doesn't see some problems with some of the subsidiary components of E. theory.
- She's likely ignoring the OOL problem, and would [lazily] contend that it's not part of the E. theory.
9. I'm not a scientist but I don't see any evidence she's telling the truth.

The Roundness of Evolution

One of the more amusing comments made about evolution recently is one by the American theologian Michael Peterson.

Quotes and comments;
1. In the video 'C. S. Lewis and Evolution' a theologian is quoted as saying;
"Evolution shares equal status with the roundness of the earth, it's revolution around the sun and the molecular composition of matter.''  [1.]

- Doesn't our theologian understand the difference between physical objects and living organisms? Doesn't he understand they can't legitimately be compared? e.g. the cell is at least a trillion times more complex than a grain of sand. If Peterson was the expert in philosophy and logic that he claims to be he'd know this renders analogies across these realms exercises in deceit and obfuscation.

Our evolutionary apologist seems to have forgotten that no one denies the roundness of the earth,  heliocentricity, or atomic structure, while they do have grave doubts about evolution, and many deny it altogether. If he had ears to hear this would tell him something... but perhaps he has his fingers in his ears.

We might as what has the ''roundness'' of the earth got to do with genetics and biological complexity? Maybe the superiority of evolution (as a solution to the mystery of origins) rests in its being a round theory.

Overheard at a recent BioLogos convention;

"It's the roundness of the theory that finally convinced me of its veracity. It's a theory that's as round as the earth, or as the belly of a gourmand.''

"It's the plumpness, the globularity of the idea that impresses me. It possesses a bold circularity that  verges on an almost mystical cylindricity."

"I myself admire the globosity of the idea, it shares a certain geometric relation to the curve in Darwin's nose."

"No other theory in science even approaches the rotundity of this theory... it leaves a man fully satisfied, and enlarges his thinking in all areas.''
"Well, said my friend, well said.''

"I would say that we see in evolution a theory that is plump without being bloated. It has a perfection of roundness that we will likely not see again."

"It's always been my contention that the more round an idea is the more closely it approximates reality... and since  no theory has more roundness than evolution this means it is a certain fact. A man can no more deny it than he can deny his own belly. It's as necessary to science as good suspenders to a pair of pants."

- Michael Johnson  [frfarer at gmail.com]

Notes;
1. CS Lewis and Evolution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNNUPN3-WeM&feature=youtu.be
"Evolution shares equal status with the roundness of the earth, it's revolution around the sun and the molecular composition of matter.'' - theologian Michael Peterson
2. I had no idea the earth was round; when I went to school it was called a ''bumpy spheroid'' as I remember.

Wanted; a simple universe

In the philosophy (or worldview) of Materialism we see a desire for simplicity. The Humanist wants a building block universe, that he can play with as a child plays with lettered blocks or Leggos.

Quotes and comments;
1.  'An ancient and persistent danger is the demand for simplicity. There  is a pronounced resentment on the part of very many men against knowledge that is beyond their capacity.  [1.]
- Materialism is the demand for simplicity. The whole point of reductionism is that it 'simplifies' things; but at what point, and where, does this process become oversimplification? or simplification into falsehood? The materialist claims that the idea of design is unnecessary; but I think we can read this to mean that it's too complicated, too complex. The materialist wants (and even insists) that everything be simple; and thus he contends that the wonders of creation are but the 'productions' of mindless, physical forces. This is the demand for simplicity with a vengeance.

The modern cosmologist doesn't imagine that anything is beyond his capacity, but yet I see his rejection of Christianity as an example of resentment. He both resents and is frustrated by the doctrine of creation by God. Since it eludes his analysis or ability to analyze, he rejects it. The univere must be simple he inists. Why? I want it to be, that's why. (It's not a good answer, but it's the only one he has.)

Why this demand for 'cosmological simplicity'? I think it stems from a desire not to have God in one's experience; a way to get Him out of the universe.

What if life isn't simple? We know that many want it to be simple, but what if it's not. The picture of the universe given to us in the bible isn't simple, it's highly complex. People are prone to object to this or that event or doctrine by saying, ''but I can't understand such a thing'' or "I don't understand how that can be right'' and other objections. They want to turn God into somebody's grand daddy and the universe into a child's toybox. They want all motion to obey simple equations and all objects to be as simple as rocks. Their rejection of anything they can't understand is a disguised version of the demand for simplicity, and thus requires the rejection of God' predestinating governance of the universe.

Let's do a small word study;
Simple;
Having or composed of only one thing, element, or part.
- you can see how simple fits with a monist/ic view of the universe.
adj. Not involved or complicated; easy: a simple task.
- i.e. so simple that purely physical forces could somehow fabricate the wonders of living organisms.
Having or manifesting little sense or intelligence.
- the desire for simplicity is a rejection of intelligence and a preference for the non-intelligent; a preference for the impersonal over the personal. Why? This makes things easier to understand and explain. (We've all heard evolutionists complain that if creation were true it would be impossible for them (i.e. autonomously) to explain a lot of things.)
Single; not complex; not infolded or entangled; uncombined; not compounded; not blended with something else; not complicated.
- the materialist denies that the world could be a 'blend' of creation and evolution. This wouldn't be simple enough for him. (One wonders at times if anything could be simple enough for him.)
Not given to artifice, stratagem, or duplicity; undesigning; sincere; true. - for the materialist design simply isn't (not remotely) simple enough. It is art and what he wants is chance. i.e. you can't 'scientifically' explain a great painting. Why? It's art; not the product of necessity. The desire for simplicity is the desire for human autonomy; the idea man doesn't need God or revelation.
- Behind every method (i.e. scientific methodology) is an idea of what the universe is like; and since materialism posits a very simple universe it employs a simple method. i.e. all things must be the result of matter in motion, of observable actions (and reactions) in the physical realm. In other words; since m. posits an impersonal universe persons must be left out of all causation. (Such a method can't give you truth, but only a conclusion made in conformity with the model.)

One can only laugh at people who criticize Christianity without ever having read a serious (orthodox) book on systematic theology, and who can't even be bothered to look up the Westminster Confession. They proudly parade their ignorance and expect to be taken seriously. They want to see it as a simple superstition and thus one not even worthy of study; but they confuse their desire for reality. If I believe one thing it's that the universe is not simple, that it is instead, highly complex, far too complex for human beings to fully comprehend. (Surely the mass confusion in most of the sciences is a good indication the reality of the universe, and of our experience within it, is not simple!)

I don't know why  anyone but a textbook writer would want the universe to be simple. (This is akin to wanting your spouse or your child to be simple.... but far worse.) To go further, and to insist the universe (etc.) is simple is sheer madness. Why should it be? to satisfy the simple minded? to satisfy the materialist? to satisfy the atheist? Scripture gives us a very different picture of things, and I have far more confidence its declaration of a highly complex, personal and transcendent universe.

 I hope we can be forgiven for feeling sadness at the fact men can never agree on ultimate issues, but to deny antithesis is to desire simplicity over truth. This is not a simple universe, and the antithesis Scripture speaks of (and which will continue to the end of history) is a part of this 'complexity' I spoke of earlier. The Humanist doesn't like the idea of the saved and unsaved, the regenerate and the unregenerate, the righteous and the unrighteous (etc.) and so rejects and denies them; this however doesn't change the reality of our situation. He too desires simplicity over truth and reality.

The desire for a simple universe involves a denial and rejection of Mystery. Humanism insists that all knowledge is theoretically available to man. (i.e. he may not know x at the present time, but in time he will, or it is possible that he may). Humanism declares that nothing is beyond man's abilities and capacities. (In its extreme forms it declares that even if God existed, man has the capacity to do all this 'God' could do, and to know all this God could know. In other words it denies any creator/creature distinction.) None of these claims can be proven, and so this remains but apostate man's great boast.
Humanism wants a simple universe where man can be a god, and where indeed he can become the God; i.e. controlling all things by the word of his power. i.e. controlling all things in terms of his will and by his power. Alas; this side of the multiverse, no such universe exists.

- Mike Johnson

Notes; 11/11/2012
1. Foundations of Social Order - R.J. Rushdoony p.78
- available for reading online at Chalcedon.edu
3. A great irony has recently developed in that this desire for a simple (materialist) universe has run in to problems with fine tuning (arguments) and as a result cosmologists have had to imagine a multiverse as an escape route (i.e. from creation and theism). It appears the 'simple universe' may not be so simple after all. When man rejects God he subjects himself to continual frustration.
4. We all know the simple idea of evolution given to us by Charles Darwin is false (don't we?) and it's now only a matter of time before its given up. (Atheists needn't worry though, as new simple stories will take its place... they always do.) As the cosmologists have sought to save their simple model of the cosmos by postulating the unobservable, so the Darwinists have sought to save the simple idea of E. by postulating unobservable events (and even ones that violate known discoveries). They postulate mythical creatures and mythical events and processes. In the process their simple theory becomes far from the simple thing it once was... as scientific (i.e. imaginary) 'gargoyles' now hang from Darwin's tree.
Materialist theories of Origins become more and more ungainly, as did Ptolemy's astronomy in its day. (How the multiverse advocates can laugh at Ptolemy's epicycles is beyond me; they were child's play compared with an infinite number of universes.
6. Humanism denies that God (if he exists) and man are really any different. It claims God and man exist on the same level, and are basically the same kind of entity. It denies the creator/creature distinction that is vital to biblical Christianity. It's only because he's a Humanist that Richard Dawkins feels free to criticize God. If one accepts Scripture and what it says about God then his criticisms are utterly absurd and meaningless. (e.g. apart from God there is no absolute standard for right and wrong as He himself is that standard.) His criticisms show us that he desires to live in a simple universe; but this u. he wants is an impossibility and a delusion. (The building blocks of his universe don't add up and are nothing but an incoherent confusion.)
7. The Humanist wants a simple God that doesn't speak and that doesn't interfere in man's affairs.
8. In its incessant desire to simplify the universe, Humanism reduces Jesus Christ to a man, one teacher among many. (We can see Humanism as itself being a reductionism; as being inherently reductionistic.)
9. In his desire for simplicity the materialist speaks (every other minute it would seem) of evolution; but we know that no such thing as generic E. exists. When asked to point to this E. he perhaps points to a change within a bacterial population. ''there'' he says, ''there is evolution.'' What he has pointed to isn't e. but some usually small change. So we ask; what is this e.? is it minute changes? is it life from non-life? is it m2m evolution? is it cosmic (stellar) evolution? what is it? All he has is a word; not an understandable or testable theory.
11. The simplest idea of all is materialism. Richard Dawkins underwrote an advertising campaign in Britain, where buses bore a banner saying ''God probably doesn't exist, so go on and enjoy your life.'' (Why the banner added the probable I don't know.) That about sums about materialism; it's really that simple.

The hatred of creation

The Humanist of today sees the expungement of creation as a theological necessity. It's the one doctrine he cannot allow to flourish.

Quotes and comments;

1. 'Aristotle described, in his Politics, the great political leader as a "god among men" and stated that "for for men of preeminent virtue there is no law - they themselves are the law.''  [1.]
- the claim political leaders can do as they please is a theological claim, as it denies preeminence to God and gives it to men instead. (This claim was put into infamous form by the post ww2 British politician who claimed that the 'government' could order the death of every infant born with blue eyes if it so wanted.) [2.]
Man as god is a comical figure in that he is then 'god' over a world he didn't make! Hardly a god-like position to be in.

2. 'Because man is a religious creature, the god concept is inescapable to his thinking.  Man will either serve the true God or create a false one.  [3.]
- ie. the 'right' to absolute power and rule is always given to some person or group; eg. the right to make laws, the right to be exempt from those laws, etc. Man cannot escape his created nature.

Humanism is the project of the divinization of man. For man to be god (i.e. to play the role of god) he must get rid of the idea and concept of creation; for clearly if the world (and man himself) was created then man cannot very well be god. This being the case the humanist must wage all out warfare on the doctrine of creation; going so far as to ban it from his schools, even ban criticism of it.

If the world was created man can only play at being god, for he cannot be the true God since he isn't creator; but if some form of the E. story were true then man could indeed claim to be god since he would clearly be ultimate. (Of course if aliens came onto the scene they might displace him as god... but this appears to be a risk he's willing to take. We might well wonder if the atheist truly wants to find superior aliens or whether he's just claiming that he does. It's one thing to bow down to a spirit but clearly another to bow down to a 12 foot tall intelligent insect.)

If there was/is no Creator then man can claim, with some merit (or persuasiveness) to have created himself. i.e. he was the ape who taught himself to speak, to think, to use logic and thus transformed himself into this god called man.

3. 'The premise of the bible is God's assertion of total sovereignty over all creation and all men. [4.]
- This is perhaps the root of secular man's hatred of the very idea of creation. i.e. if the world (including man) was created then God has sovereign rights over all things, and man is but a poseur when he tries to usurp the role of God.

- Mike Johnson

Notes;
1. Politics of guilt and pity - R. J. Rushdoony  p.312
- available online at Chalcedon.edu
2. Why his name hasn't gone down in infamy is a tribute to pr efforts I suppose; as it should be as well known as Hitler's or Stalin's.
3. p. 313
4. p. 325

Thank God for Sunday

 Early creeds began by an affirmation of creation. e.g. "I believe in God the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth...'' Contrary to the claims of atheists (old and new) a concern for the crucial importance of creation is nothing new or distinctively American. The doctrine of creation is the foundation for all truly biblical theology.

 Quotes and comments;
1. 'Because God is the creator he is also the redeemer. Schaff's observations here are especially pertinent:

     ''As to creation, Irenaeus and Tertullian, most firmly rejected the hylozoic and demiurgic of paganism and gnosticism, and taught, according to the book of Genesis, that God made the world, including matter, not, of course, out of any material, but out of nothing, or, to express it positively, out of his free, almight will, by his word. This free will of God, a will of love, is the supremely unconditioned, and all conditioning cause and final reason of all existence, precluding every idea of physical force or emanation. Every creature, since it proceeds from the holy will of God, is in itself, as to its essence, is good. Evil, therefore, is not an original and substantial entity, but a corruption of nature, and hence can be destroyed by the power of  redemption. Without a correct doctrine of creation there can be no true doctrine of redemption, as all the Gnostic systems show."  [1.]

- It's because God created man (and was the only one who could have) that it's only God who can redeem man (rescue him, save him) from his fallen and sinful nature. There is no human remedy for man's condition, and thus his only hope is divine salvation.
Note;
1. Foundations of Social Order - R.J. Rushdoony p.7-8 [Phillip Schaff/Church History/2/540]
2. ''Every creature, since it proceeds from the holy will of God, is in itself, as to its essence, is good.''
- I take it Schaff is here speaking of the original creation; i.e. before the Fall.

Richard Dawkins and the appearance of design

Quotes and commants;

1.  Richard Dawkins likes to respond to creationist claims of design by saying they are merely the appearance of design. (We'll leave aside for the moment how it is an entity can see the appearance of design if all is matter in motion.) We remind him that the appearance of design can in fact be the reality of design. e.g. For over a millenia people were sure that heiroglyphics had the appearance of code, but were unable to understand it. Then finally in the 1800s the Rosetta stone was decoded and it became a reality that this was not merely the appearance of design but in fact was truly design.

2.  Appearance
a. apparent likeness; external show; how something appears to others.
- seen from a great distance two boats may appear to be of the same type; on closer inspection one might be a fishing boat and one might be a yacht; or both may be fishing boats. ie. to say some x appears to be a y might be correct or incorrect.

- Dawkins of course claims that this appearance of design is mistaken... and I of course claim it is he who is mistaken. Our ability to detect design (ID) is still primitive; but I believe progress is being made in this area, as various tools are being developed. (e.g. W. Gitt's rules for Universal Information) [1.]

3. Why is it people see evidence for Design in living organisms (etc.) if we humans are but accidental congregates of matter in motion? e.g. a rock can't see design; chemicals can't detect design... I see no way mere matter could see beyond the material (or even mistakenly do so). Seeing design is evidence for the argument human beings transcend the merely material. If matter were all there was there would be nothing to see beyond matter. (This wouldn't even make sense would it?) Materialism gives us the odd (if not comical) picture of matter claiming to see something that transcends matter.

- Dawkins has studied rhetoric quite extensively and is a master of the logical fallacy. His book the 'God Delusion' might have (more accurately) been titled the 'Fallacy Delusion'
He shows us what can be done by deceiving people with fallacies of one sort or another.
or; A critical examination of his work might well be called 'The fallacy delusion.'

- His use of the 'appearance' claim isn't actually an example of a fallacy but an example of rhetoric. In this stratagem (used by Darwin to great effect) you appear to make a concession to your opponent (thus showing yourself to be a reasonable fellow, amenable to argument) but then you pull the rug out from under him by taking it back. e.g. "Yes, I admit that we see design in nature,  but... (wait for it) .... it's merely the appearance of design."


Notes;
1. Without Excuse - Werner Gitt

You are not your brain

The good news is that your are not your brain; even if a christian professor says you are. The Naturalism that tells us 'you are just your brain' means the death of psychology as we know it and replacing it with neuro-reductionism. A biblical conception of man is replaced with a mechanical model of matter in motion.

Quotes and comments;

1. 'But, eminent neuroscientist Professor Joseph LeDoux (1997), who adheres to this view, admitted that he and his fellow neuroscientists are unable to explain this fact: “We have no idea how our brains make us who we are.” (Horgan 1999).  [1.]

- This reductionist view is radically simplistic. e.g. it ignores the fact the human brain is largely fashioned by human behavior. If a human being led a completely inhuman life (e.g. with no contact with human beings) this person would end up a thing, a radically non-human entity, and its brain would show the effects of this.

We can agree with the statement a brain is necessary to be fully human; but this doesn't mean it is the brain that makes us human. This is akin to saying it's a piano that makes music, or it's a piano that produces the Moonlight Sonata; and this ignores the fact an intelligent agent sat down and worked on the composition for years, and that a score was written down and that a musician read the score and hit the keys. To borrow the analogy; is it the piano that makes us human? is it the composer? is it the score? or is it the musician?

2. ''But why did such a large brain evolve in a group of small, primitive, tree-dwelling mammals, more similar to rats and shrews than to mammals conventionally judged as more advanced? And with this provocative query I end, for we simply do not know the answer to one of the most important questions we can ask (Gould 1977, p. 191).  [1.]

- We should ask whether this is a scientific question or not; and how we would knows. (If we assume that biblical creation is true, is this question scientific? i.e. can it be scientific if it has nothing to do with reality?) Are why questions scientific? (I'm sure I've read people who claim that they're not.) Aren't why questions metaphysical or theological?
To know whether a question is 'scientific' or not one would have to know the nature of reality and the truth about the past. Neither or these can be known empirically or through observational science.

3. 'Despite this total lack of understanding we are told to continue to study the brain in order to learn what makes us human.

- People might be better off studying the big toe in order to learn what makes us human. At least In this case we could have the hope they'd make a lot fewer mistakes. This is akin to studying the fingers to find out what music is.

Neuroscientists should ask themselves (on a daily basis) who it is that is studying the brain... as they seem to forget or ignore this seemingly crucial factor. A strict adherence to theory would necessitate the claim that it is the brain that is studying the brain. i.e. electrical impulses are 'studying' electrical impulses. In that case why should we (whoever we is in this scenario) place any trust in the 'conclusions' made by these electrical impulses?

4. 'This is the view of Christian psychiatrist and evolutionist Dr. Curt Thompson. For him the brain and its so-called reptilian, paleomammalian and paleocortex also serve as evidence for the “similarities between humans and animals . . . that we are deeply connected to the rest of creation” (Thompson 2010, p. 41).

- The idea of a reptile part of the human brain reminds me of David Icke and his idea that our political elite are really intelligent alien reptiles that have taken on human form. I really don't know what idea is sillier.

Evolutionists look in the brain and see 'similarities' to reptiles; but are these similarities or only the appearance of similarity? Is there any necessary connection between similarity and identity? Does similarity prove an e. heritage? Does the fact the piano and the guitar both have strings mean that one evolved from the other? They sure look similar, and doesn't that prove an evolutionary ancestry?

Mankind and animals are indeed deeply connected but the reason isn't evolution but creation. i.e. the fact all of the passengers on this planet has the same creator (and have the same Lord).

- it's not the human brain that is reptilian, it's mad claims such as this. It's especially sad that such ideas have crept (and snaked) their way into the church.  (If everything can be blamed on the reptilian brain then what happens to the doctrine of sin?)

5. 'One thing seems fairly certain; the “magnifying glass” enabled evolutionists—secular and Christian—to see that the human soul does not exist.

- This assumes that the soul can be seen; but the 'soul' can't be seen any more than information can be seen. (When you talk to someone over the phone do you see the words coming down the wire or coming down from space? When you copy your novel onto a CD do you see the words when you look at the disc?)
The soul (that which the term refers to) is very real, but it's not a thing that can be seen.

6. "Bit by experimental bit, neuroscience is morphing our conception of what we are. The weight of evidence now implies that it is the brain, rather than some nonphysical stuff, that feels, thinks, and decides . . . It means there is no soul to spend its postmortem eternity blissful in Heaven or miserable in Hell (Churchland 2002, p. 1).

- I note that she writes of 'what' we are, rather than who we are. Under reductionism the personal disappears (in the model) and is replaced with the impersonal. (Seeming odd behavior for personal agents to be engaged in wouldn't you think?

Is the phrase 'the weight of evidence' scientific? are scientists now weighing evidence :=} C. here confuses evidence with data. What is commonly called 'evidence' refers not to data but to interpretations about data; in other words it refers to arguments given to persuade people that a particular 'reading' of the data is correct.

6a. "...it is the brain, rather than some nonphysical stuff, that feels, thinks, and decides . . . ''
- this is classic reductionism, and shows us the person disappearing beneath the swamp of theory. C. is required thus to say that a brain wrote the words we quoted; that it wasn't a person but a chunk of meat. (We might wonder what meat could know about world, let alone these philosophical issues.) One wonders how a chunk of meat decides things.

Without a theory or model of information what scholars give us is drivel like this. Their materialism has rendered them incapable of understanding.

7. ''[N]euroscience is now completing the Darwinian revolution, bringing the mind into the purview of biology. My claim, in short, is this: all of the human capacities once attributed to the immaterial mind or soul are now yielding to the insights of neurobiology . . . . [W]e have to accept the fact that God has to do with brains—crude though this may sound (Murphy 2006b, pp. 88, 96).

- This is a shocking statement.... but this is the 'revenge' materialism takes on people; it renders them devoid of understanding.
Never mind what the Bible says... right? The idea is that since the bible says nothing about science it can be ignored in dealing with 'scientific' questions. (Never mind that it protects people from faddish ideas like brainology.)

So; God desires relationships with brains? is that the idea? Why create a planetary world in that case? Brains in a vat would work just as well if brains were all God was dealing with.

It's comical to me how easily our intellectuals are willing to give up mind and soul. I guess we have a right in this case to call them mindless commentators... or mindless commentators on the mind. You'd have thought that intellectuals would be the last to surrender the mind, but apparently the desire for respectability with scientists is too much for them to resist.

What we call the mind results from the interaction of brain and information. Just as a piano without a musician produces no music, so matter without information cannot produce mind. The ability to think, feel and decide (etc.) depends upon the programming of the brain. The only source for such programming is an intelligent and personal agent. The materialist goes wrong when he or she imagines that the brain 'evolved' by some natural process, that it's the result of matter plus time plus chance. (As a crude analogy we can say that as chickens only come from chickens so mind only comes from mind.)
What we call mind can be equated with the software that programs hardware; in no way is it the same as hardware.

What we call mind is a capacity human beings have. I think it's better to think of it as a verb rather than a noun. What we call a person (or personhood) is also a capacity of human beings (that has been programmed into us). (As birds have migratory instincts, so human beings possess the ability to be a person.)

To be a person means human beings have various capacities; these include the capacity to see oneself as single unit over time; the ability hold or live out different roles (e.g. daughter, friend, wife, mother, etc.) the capacity to decide; to see oneself as responsible and having duties; to envision the future; to think in moral terms; to have a relationship to God; to have relationships with other persons; to make sacrifices; to be courageous; to be creative; to see oneself as a person living in history; the capacity to see oneself as both unique and similar; and so on.

To say a brain is capable of all this is akin to saying a piano is capable of composing a concerto. Brains don't have relationships anymore than pianos do.

8. 'Elsewhere Murphy said that a “massive amount of evidence” suggests that we no longer “need to postulate the existence of a soul or mind in order to explain life and consciousness” (Brown, Murphy, and Malony 1998, p. 17)

- This amounts to saying ''materialists claim there is no need to postulate the existence of a soul or mind...'' Well; I guess that's true isn't it?  (What's at stake here is not the felt needs of various individuals but the truth of things.)
Evidence doesn't suggest anything... what they call evidence are arguments made defending materialism.
- any data set can be 'explained' in many different ways. Explanations are cheap and philosophers should know this. To fall down in front of this explanation of the human is mere capitulation to the spirit of the age. (An explanation is basically just a story someone is telling.)

- Michael Johnson

Notes;
1. What Makes Us Human, and Why It Is Not the Brain: A Creationist Defense of the Soul - by Callie Joubert
2. 'According to the official primer of the Society for Neuroscience (Carey 2006), the “world’s largest organization of scientists and physicians dedicated to understanding the brain, spinal cord, and peripheral nervous system,” entitled Brain Facts. A primer on the brain and nervous system, “the brain is what makes us human” (Carey 2006, p. 4).
- since most creatures have brains this statement cannot be strictly true. It can only be true if we say ''it's the human brain that makes us human.'' (The trouble with this definition is that doesn't tell us what 'human' is.)
3. 'According to this “triune” theory, the reptilian brain is not only the most innermost portion of the brain, but also the oldest and most primitive portion of the brain, and the so-called rational section (the paleocortex or neocortex) is what makes people human. To debate the theory would take us beyond the scope of this paper. What is significant is that evolutionist and professor of physics, James Trefil at George Mason University described the theory as “simple, elegant, clear, and completely wrong” (Trefil 1997, p. 75).
- so why doesn't Thompson take Trefil's word for it? i.e. he's a fellow evolutionist and has great credentials.
4. 'Thompson, however, compares neuroscience with a magnifying glass because it helps us to see things about ourselves we are not otherwise able to see.
- His idea seems to be that the more you reduce something the more understandable it becomes. I wonder if this would work on a painting or on a poem :=} To look at a painting on a sub-atomic scale would make it impossible to comprehend... and the more one increased magnification the more incomprehensible it would become. People like Thompson doesn't understand the relevance of information theory, and they don't understand that you can't study information the way you study the physical. They don't understand that a radically new method is required.
- if we look at human beings through a microscope the person disappears and is replaced by meat which is replaced by electrical impulses. Reductionism is the death of the person. (Did Jesus come to earth to save electrical impulses or brain cells?) Materialism means replacing the church with the laboratory.
5. '[T]his perspective is monistic to the core; it conceives of human behavior as resulting from the nervous system—including the brain—which was, according to this perspective (and to most modern scientists who studied psychological phenomena), shaped by evolutionary processes such as natural selection.(Geher 2006, p. 185)
- G. doesn't seem to recognize the difference between 'resulting from the nervous system' and 'mediated through' the nervous system.
- this reductionist approach is grossly inadequate as it ignores a person's interaction with the world. ie. I could easily claim that human behavior results from a person interacting with their environment. To limit consciousness to the brain is to reduce it to electricity.
- I deny that there is a process (i.e. mechanism) called natural selection. i.e. I deny natural selection is a process or mechanism. Darwinists have reified this abstract concept and turned it into a real entity.
- In the physicalist model human beings are purely accidental products; brain bound entities within the 'prison' of their skull. I see no way any god or God should have a right to judge such a being.
- The physicalist can give us no reason to believe an impersonal universe can produce a personal being. (He apparently prefers to accept this impossibility rather than the 'impossibility' of believing in a creator God.)
6. '...a physicalist account of human nature does not conflict with the biblical view on bodies and souls, because “the Bible has no clear teachings here” (Murphy 2006a, pp. ix, 4).
- This isn't all that surprising a claim (though it should be) as liberals don't think the bible has any clear teachings on anything. (Or so they claim.) Percival Lowell used to claim Mars was replete with a global canal system. I leave it to you to decide which of these two claims is more accurate.
- Liberals use the bible as a kind of peep stone... with which to pull theological rabbits out of a hat. e.g. ''Oh look, there is no soul after all. Guess the bible is wrong again!"
7. ''The present epidemic of such neuroprefixed pseudo-disciplines as neuroaesthetics, neuroeconomics, neuro-sociology, neuropolitics, neurotheology, neurophilosophy, and so on” is built on the idea not that a “human life requires having a brain in some kind of working order,” but “that to live a human life is to be a brain in some kind of working order (Tallis 2010, p. 3).
- and these are but a few of the new neuro sciences.
- The theistic evolutionist tells the christian he must accept the edicts of science; but he doesn't tell him which one. All of them perhaps? Can 'science' tell us which of the above are true sciences and which are not? (Maybe I should ask my brain.
- Confusing the brain and the person is akin to confusing a book and its author. This is like inviting a book out for lunch, and ignoring the author.

The patterns of creation; or, the Pattern maker

The god of theistic evolution is very much a return to Deism, with its empty speculation about the cosmos.

Quotes and comments;
1. "See that you make them after the pattern for them, which was shown to you on the mountain. - Ex. 25:40

- God gave precise instructions on how the tabernacle was to be built, and how things like the ephod and the breastplate were to be constructed; but yet the theistic evolutionist tells us that God took no part in designing this planet or the life forms that inhabit it. Do they have an explanation for this contradictory behavior? I see in these activities confirmation of special creation and the particular care with which God created all things.

We see that God takes an interest in details, that He himself is possessed of a creative imagination. (I think we see that God has pleasure not only in creation but in the particulars of creation.) Why would a God who cares about the design of clothes for the high priest not care about the design of the eagle or the bear? The theistic evolutionist gives us a God who has no interest in anything... and I find this very strange indeed. Surely the more intelligent a person is the more interested they are in being creative and the more they enjoy the details of things.

The god of theistic evolution is not the God of the Bible, as he's merely a passive spectator and not an active creator. Instead of a God whose works man finds awesome and wondrous theistic e. gives us a god who is amazed by what has happened during evolution. ("How is all this possible?" he must ask himself. "I wish I had someone to tell me.")

To replace creation with e. requires a person to adopt a new god as well.

We might add that the same people who find passages like the above embarassing also find special creation embarassing. For one reason or another they don't want a 'hands on' God, they don't want a God who is interested in particulars and in small things. They want a god content to stand far off and to beam at them like a parent watching his child perform on stage. (The theistic evolutionist wants more credit for 'discovering' some thing than he wants to give God for creating it; and since God didn't actually create anything all the credit goes to man for having understood the uncreated world. An uncreated world makes man the wisest being in the universe.) Charles Darwin called evolution a grand view of life, and it certainly is if your objective is to glorify man.

The theistic evolutionist believes in a schema that has no empirical warrant; no one has ever seen such a thing as life emerge spontaneously from non-life and no one has the slightest idea of how such a thing could even be possible. (One wonders where all his critical powers have disappeared to.) The study of the world has devolved into an attempt to save naturalism from its critics.

2. "Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. - Luke 12:7

- Jesus told people that their hairs were all numbered. Since the t.e. doesn't believe god was involved in creation they give us the odd picture of a God who didn't create the human hair but merely numbers
them.

We also read in the bible that God wrote the  ten commandments with his own hand on stone tablets. How does the T.E. understand this in terms of his distant god who had no part in creation? We might wonder what right God has to give laws to creatures he never created. (Special creation speaks of a God who both created man and gave him the law; and both man and the law are the 'image' of the same God.)

Summary; 
The idea of a purely naturalistic evolution being responsible for all life on earth (and not all OECs go this far) involves a radical 'rewriting' of the entire bible.
- Michael Johnson
Notes;
1. How do we explain the hands off approach of 'naturalistic' evolution with the very hands on example of writing the Law? Again there's a contradiction here. Genesis tells us of a God who created man out of the dust (or the ground) and Exodus tells us of a God who wrote His law on the 'dust' (i.e. stone) of the ground. We see real participation in the physical world. (We might think of Jesus writing in the dust of the ground as well... perhaps some verse from the Law? e.g. perhaps ''both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.'' Perhaps just the word both?)

Living on a star; or, a world of miracles

Quotes and comments;

1. 'If we once realize all this earth as it is, we should find ourselves in a land of miracles: we shall discover a new planet at the moment that we discover our own. Among all the strange things that men have forgotten, the most universal and catastrophic lapse of memory is that by which they have forgotten that they are living on a star.  [1.]

- Most people have a false idea of a miracle; they seem to think that it's an impossible event made possible only by the direct violation of natural law by God... whereas the biblical meaning is a sign; ie. a sign or indicator of God's presence. I think we see miracles more clearly if we see them as expressions of God's wisdom rather than (merely) God's power. e.g. they don't violate 'natural law' so much as they utilize it in ways unknown (at least as yet) to mankind.

As an example; vision isn't a violation of 'natural law' but a brilliantly designed utilization of it. e.g. a cell phone would seem miraculous to primitive men and a violation of all they know about the world, but it of course isn't a violation of natural law but a utlilization of it.

We do indeed live in a land of miracles (as Chesterton refers to it) and the main reason we don't think so is because we've been told so by our teachers. e.g. the only reason we don't see the flight of a bird as a miracle is because we've been told that it's not. We've been told that it's the product of blind chance when in fact it's a sign of an omniscient mind.

 Let's step into the shoes of our forefathers for a moment and assume that a person invented and created the eagle or the sparrow. What kind of person would that have to be? What kind of mind would be sufficient for such a wonder? We know that it would require an intelligence so far beyond our own that we can't even imagine it.

- Michael Johnson

Notes;
1. The Defendant - G. K. Chesterton p. 100  [A defense of planets]
- by star he means a planetary body in motion.
1a. I'm reminded of another passage from GKC;
''Thou hast hanged the world upon nothing,' said the author of the Book of Job, and in that sentence wrote the whole appalling poetry of modern astronomy. -  Chesterton - The Defendant p.98
- this is what I think he is referring to when he says men have forgotten that they live upon a star.
2. Materialism has blinded men to the miracles all around them. It's akin to wearing sunglasses in church.
3. Reductionism is akin to standing on your head in an effort to get closer to reality.

It's facts that impede science

A frequent complaint or charge made by atheists (etc.) against creation (or any use of creation in science) is that a belief in creation (i.e. God did it) puts and end to scientific progress.  I reject such a charge, as I don't think it holds water. The fact a person thinks God was responsible for creating something doesn't tell him how He did it, and it's the desire to understand the 'mechanics' involved that drives the creationist scientist.

What I do think hampers discovery is the oft repeated tendency of scientists to say 'x is a fact.' This is a big red light (or stop sign) that tells people nothing is left to do and that they should look elsewhere to make discoveries.

Let's start with a seemingly banal example. e.g. "It's a fact that the vitamin C made in factories is the same as the vitamin C found in oranges.'' Well; that's the end of investigation isn't it? If it's a fact we don't need to look into it any further, we don't need to think about it any more. The matter has been settled. End of story.

Does the experience of eating an orange not matter? Does the experience of growing an orange tree not matter? Does the sight and feel and smell of an orange not matter? Does peeling an orange not matter? (Scientists often seem to forget that life is more than a matter of chemistry.) How do we know that these factors don't have an affect on the body and even on how the body responds to vitamin C?

Scientists seem to love saying "X is a fact." e.g. We often hear the claim that evolution is a fact. Well; if it's a fact, that's the end of the story; and no other explanation needs to be sought. In my opinion it's this lust for facts that is the real impediment to investigation and thought. When people claim they know x is a fact they give to themselves an omnipotence of thought no one possesses. There are some questions human beings are simply incapable of answering. (Why should it be otherwise?)

Our human experience in this infinitely connected universe is far too complicated for us to be able to discern many facts... if we can discern any at all. In my view (apart from the most banal matters) it's better to pursue the truth than to arrive at a fact. (As they say, it's better to travel than to arrive.)

- Michael Johnson

YE vs OE creation; the battle of beginnings

If you don't like humor, or aren't willing to look at the YE/OE debate in a humorous way (for at least a minute) don't bother to read the following.

Quotes and comments;

1. 'There is an East Prussian story about a teacher who discussed Matthew 5:39: “If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” during a religious instruction class.

 One farmer was rather indignant when his son told him this, and when he met the teacher in a meadow he put this command to the test. He asked the teacher whether he practiced that which he taught the children. The reply was, “But of course, it stands in the Bible.” The farmer then lashed out and struck the teacher down with a powerful blow to his face. When he struggled to his feet, the farmer quoted, “Turn to him the other also,” and dealt him another heavy blow on his left cheek. Being a Bible student, the teacher countered with, “With the measure you use, it will be measured to you—and even more” (Mark 4:24), and in his turn struck the farmer. This resulted in an exchange of blows where every blow was accompanied by a biblical quotation.

 At that moment, the landowner traveled past and saw the fight. He stopped and sent his servant to investigate. The servant ran to the combatants, watched them for a while, and then walked back at a leisurely pace. He reported that nothing much was the matter, they were only explaining Holy Scriptures to each other. [1.]

- Almost sounds like YE and OE creationists going at it doesn't it? (I've had a look at those blacksmith arms on John Lennox, and I'm not sure whether I'm up for thrashing out some scripture passages with him.)

Notes;
1. In the beginning was information/ch. 14. - Werner Gitt

Naturalism vs science

In this post I'll offer a response and critique to the lecture 'Intelligent design' by Steven Goldberg. [1.] Goldberg discusses ID but gets things badly wrong; he either doesn't understand the ID position or he has misrepresented it. (It's hard to say how informed he is on the subject as he only makes reference to a single book; Darwin's black box by Michael Behe.)

Quotes and comments;

1. Goldman says ID violates the basic principle of 'science' (first formulated by Adelard he claims) that natural science must only explain things in terms of natural phenomenon. [2.] I don't find this legitimate or even possible. e.g. how would he explain his own thinking (e.g. his definition of science) in terms of 'natural' phenomenon? It also assumes there is such a thing as 'natural' phenomenon. Did Adelard think the universe was created or uncreated? If he created, how could things be 'natural'? He has to ignore himself for one thing! This seems extremely odd. But how would he explain a plow? Is it the product of natural forces?

Isn't he equivocating when he uses 'natural' and compares it to what Adelard meant by natural?

2. Adelard claimed that  nature 'must' be treated as a closed system. Must? where does this must come from? Must (i.e. a moral absolute) isn't a natural phenomenon! This makes his whole claim absurd. If all is matter in motion there are no moral or ethical requirements or standards. This is the Achilles heel of the Naturalist myth. This ethical (moral?) absolute has been interjected into the proceedings by an intelligent and moral agent.... who then goes on to tell us we 'must' treat 'nature' as a closed system. i.e. this moral claim is coming from outside the system!

Adelard even uses the example of the rainbow in his dialogue. e.g. ''why is there a rainbow?" he asks his nephew. "Because God put it there for a reminder.''
"No, no; I want an explanation of how it occurs....'' says A.
We see here how people confuse levels of explanation... and go horribly wrong when they insist there is only one explanation for things. e.g. a rainbow. Explanation happens on several levels.

3. G. claims ID is simply an argument from ignorance... but this is completely wrong. i.e. the idea isn't that evolution (materialism) can't explain x so this means God did it. The argument is, rather, 'we  know how complex systems arise, and it's as the product of design by intelligent agents.'

4. G. tells us that we see evidence of 'self-organization' in technology... and uses the example of the automobile. This is a pointless exercise in equivocation. You can't jump from 'self-organization' of inert matter to some analogy of 'organization' within a human community of inventors. This is meaningless. i.e. he's comparing the 'self-organization' of the free market to the self-organization of inert matter, and this amounts to treating sand and human beings as the same kinds of things. He seems to miss the obvious point that human beings can invent things while matter cannot.

5. His theme song is "ID might even be right but it has nothing to do with science." Why? A. It isn't helpful. He of course fails to give the ID side where they offer evidence ID is helpful. e.g. the claim of junk DNA was suspect because it violated what we would expect from design.


Summary;
We can ask a key question at this point, 'does Naturalism work for things created by intelligent agents?' (e.g. human beings) and the obvious answer is no. This means that Naturalism is not a complete method for doing science.

I see little acknowledgment on his part that in dealing with living organisms (and their design) we are dealing with something unique... or with the possibility this may require a new approach to study and to understanding. e.g. we can't apply the same method of study we do to a rock that we do to a poem.

What we need at this stage of biological study is not so much critique of ID but some constructive ideas. People like G. (and he's far from the worst) want to stomp all over ID while it's barely gotten out of the egg stage and begun to walk. I don't see ID as an explanation for all things, but as adding another level of explanation. I believe it can make positive contributions to our thinking, and that one way it does this is to provide a counter to the reductionism that seems to have taken over the sciences in our day. While the materialist reduces all things, the ID proponent looks at things from the other direction, as if they were engineered and designed. To ban ID is to forfeit the benefits of conversation and debate (and to engage in monologue).

 Why might we think X was intelligently designed? a. if it is better (more efficient) than human design in this area. b. if it shows evidence of information. c. if x has features we find in highly sophisticated human technology. e.g. error checking programs, redundancy, maintenance programs, etc.

The materialist looks at the data and says, ''let's assume nothing was designed by an intelligent being'' while the ID proponent says, ''let's assume X did in fact have an intelligent designer.'' (I'm putting this in as simple a form as possible; as people like Dembski advocate using a filter of sorts before assuming, for the sake of research, x was designed.) We live in a society where most things were designed by intelligent agents, so it's not a matter of asking if anything was designed, but of how many things were designed. (As an aside I find it comical that people living in huge cities, sitting on the thirtieth floor, surrounded by technology, can be against the very idea of design.) ID in this light is a kind of 'natural' counterpart to materialism.

Whether the materialist (or the evolutionist) likes it or not, the universe has a huge amount of intelligent design in it; the question is only whether or not all of it came from human beings. i.e. intelligent design is a metaphysical reality. The materialist must tell us how it came to be that electrons and quarks have given birth (as it were) to intelligent design. i.e. there is nothing in a particle that would lead anyone to think it is capable of foresight, intelligence, creativity, will or purpose... but yet we see all of this in music, art, and technology.

I thought this lecture was the poorest of the series, but having said that, the series is very interesting and helpful. Highly recommended.

- Michael Johnson

Notes;
1. TTC The science wars - Steven Goldman/lecture 23. Intelligent design and the scope of science
2. Adelard of Bath (Latin: Adelardus Bathensis) (c. 1080 – c. 1152) was a 12th century English natural philosopher. (Not to be confused with Abelard
'Adelard also displays original thought of a scientific bent, raising the question of the shape of the Earth (he believed it round) and the question of how it remains stationary in space, and also the interesting question of how far a rock would fall if a hole were drilled through the earth and a rock dropped through it...' - Wiki
- why should we all be forced to obey rules for 'science' invented 900 years ago?
3. - he says no theory can have the status of a fact... which is interesting. 'It is a category error to say any scientific theory can be a fact; Not e. theory, not general relativity and not quantum theory.' That's quite an interesting comment.
- I agree; but I didn't expect him to say so.
4.  - if 'scientific truth' is changing as fast as it is... why should anyone believe a word of it? - it's vital to note that while theories are challenged... the underlying Naturalism never is.
5. Since Behe is a colleague of his at LeHigh it might have been more interesting to have him come in for a conversation than give this one sided lecture.

But I don't need God

One of the major myths of our time is the idea that now that we have 'science' we don't need God. Few things could be further from the truth.

Quotes and comments;

1.  'Professor Francisco Ayala explained in detail why Darwinism ruled out theism, namely that it negated the need for an intelligent creator because “Darwin’s greatest contribution to science” is that he led the way to prove that natural law can create all that is real, and no need exists for an intelligent creator because “organisms could now be explained . . . as the result of natural processes, without recourse to an Intelligent Designer” [1.]

- What natural law? There is no 'natural law' that can write genetic code. This is an empty boast, a dry cloud drifting in a clear sky. What we call natural laws do Not create codes; to do this requires an intelligent mind.

Darwin came up with a story about how creatures might (having magically come into being) change from one species to another, but this story doesn't in any way affect reality. i.e. it need not have anything to do with reality. e.g. a certain advance in the stock market can be explained in any almost infinite number of ways. The idea that we don't need a Creator because Charlie dreamt up a story is comical but not convincing. The fact he knew little or nothing about genetics allowed him to speculate freely, with no restraint from reality.

"But I don't need God,'' a fisherman once told me during a conversation about Christianity. At the time I told him, ''it's not about whether you think you need God but whether God exists.'' Today I'd tell him; yes, you do need God. Without God you would not would exist. It's sad that many people in our day seem to prefer an impossible story to the reality of a creator God.

- Michael Johnson



Notes;
1. Why Orthodox Darwinism Demands Atheism - Jerry Bergman 
(Ayala 2007, p. 8567).
2. Liberal theologians like to say ''we don't need God all we need is the idea of god.'' If all we had was an idea of God we wouldn't be here.

Reality vs magic

Richard Dawkins talks about the 'magic of reality' and I think that's a good way to characterize the materialist view of the universe, as reality from that perspective can only be a kind of magic trick, a kind of illusion perpetrated by the powerful on the masses.

Quotes and comments;

1. "...science is about finding material explanations of the world . . . Religion, on the other hand, is about humans thinking that awe, wonder and reverence are the clue to understanding a God-built Universe . . . There is a fundamental conflict here, one that can never be reconciled until all religions cease making claims about the nature of reality. (Cobb and Coyne) [1.]

- The good professors (assuming there is such a thing) tell us that 'religions' shouldn't make claims about reality, but many philosophers of science say that 'science' shouldn't make claims about reality. Has this escaped their notice? From Kant and onward, the consensus in philosophy is that science deals with experience, not reality. People like Coyne just ignore this and claim 'science' can tell us about reality. This puts them in the position of being anti-philosophical or anti-rational.

For a materialist to speak of reality is comical, as there is no warrant in this worldview for talk about reality. What would this reality be? Whose reality would it be? Who gets to decide? If all of us are merely animals which animal's view of things should be taken as the real one?
On which level does reality exist? On the micro (nano) level or on the macro level?
Is there only one reality or many realities?

Only Christianity can offer a grounded view of reality; as reality is what the Creator wants it to be and what He proclaims it is. It's the providential governance of the universe by the One intelligent enough to have created it, and the One powerful enough to control it. There is no reality apart from this.

- Michael Johnson

Notes;
1. Why Orthodox Darwinism Demands Atheism - Jerry Bergman
Full quote;
" science is about finding material explanations of the world . . . Religion, on the other hand, is about humans thinking that awe, wonder and reverence are the clue to understanding a God-built Universe . . . There is a fundamental conflict here, one that can never be reconciled until all religions cease making claims about the nature of reality. The scientific study of religion is indeed full of big questions that need to be addressed, such as why belief in religion is negatively correlated with an acceptance of evolution (Cobb and Coyne 2008, p. 1049,

- That 'need' to be addressed? Really? Did they forget that the universe is merely matter in motion? There is then no moral or intellectual need for anything.
It's worthy of note that atheists can never seem to speak in terms that are consistent with their worldview. They need to ask themselves why this is.

The idea Christianity can be studied scientifically is simple nonsense, a product a materialist reductionism. What would such a farce entail? Weighing Christ before and after the crucifixion? Counting the words in genesis? Human beings aren't things to be measured, as if they were asteroids or cucumbers.

2. They sadly mischaracterize 'religion', as Christians (their main focus of attack) do not think that awe and reverence are a 'clue' to understanding the universe. As the authors well know; orthodox Christians believe that special revelation is the key to understanding human experience and ultimate reality. It's unfortunate they can't get such a basic as this straight, and we have to wonder at their ability to get other things correct.

3. Perhaps what we need more than a 'scientific' study of religion is a scientific study of atheism. (We might begin by counting the hairs on heads of the new atheists, and then dividing by four. That should make it properly scientific.)
- Over and over we see people making the mistake of confusing science with Materialism. This works quite well with things, but people aren't things.

Seven Days that divide the world

In this post I want to take a look at another chapter in the book 'Seven Days' by John Lennox (Appendix A. A brief background to Genesis)

Quotes and comments;

119. 'Young [Edward J.] also points out that Genesis 1. has certain features that would be unusual in straight [narrative] prose.' [1.]
- I would guess that the prose has 'unusual' features because the event/s are unusual. (People seem to forget this rather obvious point.)

120. C. John Collins tells us the prose in unusual 'because of the highly patterened way of telling it all.'
- This claims seems to ignore the actual events; i.e. perhaps the events were highly patterned. (We might expect this if mathematics is the language of God or the language of creation.) The bible tells us that Jehovah is the God of order, not disorder. (Commentators seem to forget that this was a perfect world being created; i.e. a perfect world being created by a perfect God.)

120. 'The Genesis text come to us from the ancient Near East, and so any attempt to understand it will be enriched by a knowledge of the literature and culture of the time.
- Is that true? Does the text come from the Near East? Lennox here is following the higher critics approach. I agree with those scholars who believe the text predates the Flood of Noah's day, and that it may well go back to Adam. Lennox doesn't even mention such an idea, let alone consider it.

If he's wrong about when and where the text originated his turning to post flood culture to interpret it is going to lead him into nothing but error. (Here's a case where turning to 'science' to interpret scripture can lead people astray, and not be helpful at all.)

Reformed theology stresses the necessity and importance of letting scripture interpret scripture.... but the 'higher' critics have abandoned that approach for what they call science.

120. Of the writing of Genesis Lennox tells us 'this would mean that it dates from around the fifteenth to the thirteenth centuries B.C.
- That seems pretty strange to me. Are we to believe that a man (Noah) who lived over six hundred years didn't manage to find time to write down a creation account? You might think that someone who lived in the pre-flood world, survived the Flood, and then went on to live in the post flood world might have thought his story worth preserving :=}

OECs claim to take the Bible as authoritative (and I have no doubt they believe they do) but in reality they treat people like Noah (Adam, etc.) as mythical figures. e.g. are we really to believe that people who lived over nine hundred years never bothered to invent any kind of script? A picture script such as ancient Chinese could have been invented by any 'ordinary' human being, let alone superior ones. (I don't believe there ever was a human generation without writing.) Are we supposed to believe that men who could build a 450 foot long ship couldn't sketch out a stick man figure or the 'picture' (ideogram) of a boat? I find such an idea comical.

The fact we haven't discovered this writing doesn't mean it didn't exist; i.e. an argument from science shouldn't be confused with an argument from science. It's my opinion that most OECs have absorbed too much Darwinian thinking. (i.e. ancient man wasn't some kind of brute evolving into the 'superior' human of modern times; he was at least as intelligent as us if not more intelligent.

More than a few OECs tell us that Genesis came after creation stories such as the Enuma Elish and Gilgamesh, and liberals tell us it was a written at the time of the exile. (ie. 600 b.c.) Doesn't it strike anyone as strange that God's people should only have become interested in creation after their pagan neighbors? I find such claims utterly nonsensical. eg. Genesis tells us God spoke to Adam. Why wouldn't he have written this down? Are we to believe God told Adam nothing about the creation? Are we to believe he wouldn't have written an account of Eve's creation down? If God spoke to you wouldn't you write it down? We're told God spoke to Noah. Wouldn't we expect him to write an account of this?

Lennox seems to accept the 'critical' account of Genesis, rather than the Reformed view. (I suppose he would say he's following the 'evangelical' view.)

124. Lennox seems to lean toward seeing Genesis 1. (etc.) as a response to pagan culture. e.g. the sun is presented simply as a light as opposed to a god. I disagree with this approach, and see pagan cultures (e.g. Egypt) as the reactionary ones. I see their ideas (e.g. polytheism) as a reaction against the monotheism of Noah or an Abraham. We know from the story of Babel that it didn't take men long to begin rebelling against God.

Michael Johnson

Notes;
1. Seven Days that divide the world - John Lennox

Review of Who Made God?

One of the better books I've read recently is 'Who Made God?' by Edgar Andrews. He is 'Emeritus professor of Materials at the university of London, and an international expert on the science of large molecules' among other things. He's long been involved in the debate over Origins and once famously (with A. E. Wilder-Smith) debated Richard Dawins at Oxford.

Quotes and comments;

1. He begins the book by quoting the SF writer Iain Banks as saying ''I'm an evangelical atheist; religions are cultural artifacts. We make God, not the other way around... Religion is one way to explain the universe, but eventually science comes along and explains it...'' [1.]

- Banks usually writes better than this, but we'll presume he did in fact say this. There's so much that's wrong with these statements one hardly knows where to begin. It's hard to know why he would see atheist as good news to exclaim to people; that's certainly not how Bertrand Russell saw it, as the basic message is one of nihilism.

I would agree with him that most religions are cultural artifacts, but so are all worldviews and philosophies. While c. is a revealed religion, it of course is to a significant extent a cultural product... but this doesn't nullify the truth of it.

Banks says ''we make God'' but this is only partly correct; men do in fact create gods but they haven't created Jehovah (the I AM of the bible) and the very idea is absurd. When men find out about the true and living God they don't like Him at all and invent substitutes for Him. This claim is really a boast in that it makes man superior to God; i.e. how great can god be if he's only a creation of man?

Banks tells us "eventually science comes along and explains it....'' Eventually? I guess he thinks it's simply a matter of time. He's personified science here; as 'science' doesn't explain anything, people do.... or at least they attempt to. What scientists do, in the main, isn't to explain things, but to describe things, to describe how they work. The idea 'science' can explain all things is scientism and as a claim it's patently false. e.g. scientists can't tell us why, in terms of materialism, bits of matter we call human beings should care about Origins at all, why some of these bits should think atheism to be good news, or why creationists should lose their jobs.

2. Although Andrews denies the book was written as response to 'The God Delusion' it would seem to be so, at least in motivation. In that book (and elsewhere) Dawkins claims to be interested in the question who made God; whether he is or not I can't say, but his perplexity is founded on the failure to acknowledge the creator/creature distinction that is vital to orthodox Christianity. Man and God don't exist on the same (metaphysical) level; God is a transcendent being. i.e. He created the universe (of time and space) and He transcends it.

As Andrews points out, the 'who made god question' arises when people fail to define God correctly. i.e. God is defined (in the bible) as an uncreated and eternal being, and as such it makes no sense to ask who made him. e.g. who created an uncreated being is logically nonsensical. Since it must be the greater that defines the lesser, the only one who can define God is God. God tells Moses "I AM that I AM'' which theologians believe means God is beyond definition; he is eternal and self-existent. It is God who defines things, not man who defines God.

Any god that could be defined by man would not be the creator God of the bible. Dawkins simply refuses to deal with the God who is and so his question is meaningless. (His question might make sense if he asked it of Dagon; i.e. god of the Philistines)

It's the essence of scientism to claim that no question is beyond man's ability to answer; but this arrogant spirit is decidedly unbiblical. The bible teaches that some things are forever beyond man's ability to discern or comprehend, and that is especially the case when it comes to many things about God. e.g. we cannot comprehend an eternal being; we can't comprehend a personal being without a body; creation out of nothing; special creation (esp. the creation of mankind) Mystery is an integral part of our lives whether we like it or not.

Dawkins claims that Christianity makes no sense as it can't answer his questions; but he can't answer ours either. e.g. where did matter come from? is matter eternal? how can that be? how did living organisms 'emerge' from inert matter? etc. He's a materialist by faith (or so he claims) while I'm a creationist by faith.

Dawkins admits that the likelihood of a living organism 'emerging' from inert matter is very minute, but he claims that as long as there is any chance of this happening at all, that this 'miracle' will, given enough time, one day happen. i.e. he claims that any mathematical possibility is enough to allow the materialist to do away with the God Hypothesis. Andrews effectively refutes this line of argument. (On p. 157. he deals with a claim by Dawkins that a marble statue could theoretically wave its arm... and he also deals with a claim by Dawkins that a cow could, theoretically, jump over the moon.)

I don't know how Dawkins comes up with these 'illustrations' but they seem to be founded on his belief that given enough time Anything is possible. The claim isn't scientific but philosophical, and as Andrews points out it doesn't take reality into effect... as it's a purely mathematical construct. (I don't know how Dawkins can object to miracles if he believes anything is possible.)

3. I found his chapters on Information theory and mutations (ch. 12 and 15.) especially helpful. Andrews has a real knack for making difficult subjects understandable to the non-expert. Chapter 14. is a critique of neo-Darwinism.

Summary; This brief review doesn't do justice to the book. My wish is that some of the flock that read Dawkins would read this response to him, as I think he has effectively answered all of the objections and claims Dawkins makes.

Michael Johnson [frfarer@gmail.com]

Notes;
1. The God Hypothesis - Edgar Andrews 2009
- He has written several other books on the creation/evolution debate. I've read and can recommend two earlier books, 'From Nothing to Nature' and 'Christ and the cosmos'
2. If we take God as our hypothesis (and reject materialism) we see that all the information (and design) we see in living organisms had to have come from the mind of God. Take some time to meditate on that; try to imagine what incredible intelligence and creativity must necessarily be implied. A Being who could create such a myriad of awesome creatures and place them within a self-sustaining system can surely (as scripture tells us) do anything. What could not such a God do? We're talking about intelligence so far beyond ours that it's impossible to really grasp.
- We see in this Creator a Being who has the power to make good on all the promises revealed to us in scripture; staggering though they may be. Since He made man from the dust, is there some reason he can't bring all people back and give them eternal life? If I look at the design we find in living creatures I see no limit on what the Creator can do. The Bible tells us He created the heavens and the earth (and all that are in them) and it tells us he will one day create a new heaven and earth. The wisdom and power we see displayed in the creation give us reason to believe this possible.

On the age of the earth

I've done quite a lot of study recently on the 'age problem' that divides the church and come to the following conclusions.

Quotes and comments;
1. 'For the Aristotelian and Platonic mind, the Bible is a crude book. For the biblically governed mind the Greek philosophers are airy bubbleheads living in the clouds of their foolish minds. Each to the other appears ridiculous, but the important question is not one of appearance but of truth. If the God of the bible is denied, there is nothing. [1.]

A. the bible clearly seems to speak (indirectly) of a young earth and a young universe.
B. Consensus science speaks of an old earth and an old universe.
C. I agree with those who say there is no way to determine (autonomously) an absolute age for the earth or universe.
D. I believe the young earth [YE] position is better scripturally, theologically and logically.
E. Old earth creationists [OECs] claim to take the scripture as authoritatively as YECs but I don't find that to be the case; I find that they in fact take consensus science as their ultimate authority.
F. It's my view that OECs are far too naive in their acceptance of consensus science, especially in this regard.
G. I find OECs are not nearly sceptical and critical enough when it comes to consensus science.
H. I find that OECs (for the most part) don't critically examine long ages for the earth, and that they don't understand the philosophical basis for these constructs.
- to accommodate long ages OECs have to ignore the global testimony of a world wide flood, and prefer instead a 'theory' invented by men who wanted to destroy Genesis.
I. I find that OECs are not critical of radiometric dating (or other dating techniques).
J. I find that OECs are far too accepting of Uniformitarianism.
K. I find that OECs confuse Naturalism with science.
L. I find that OECs accept the myth of neutrality in science.
- they want common ground with unbelievers and imagine they have found it in science; whereas the only true common ground men have is creation.
M. We should insist that commentators be honest in their treatment of scripture. eg. if OECs can't reconcile consensus science and scripture they should admit this rather than engage in fanciful 'interpretation'.
N. I would ask that OECs give up the 'argument' that if the earth is not old God must be deceiving us. This is a bad argument, that is really only rhetoric and not an argument at all. It is a claim that comes close to blasphemy, is arrogant and full of hubris. The claim isn't really one made against YECs but against God. ie. ''if the earth isn't old then you (God) are deceiving me.'' The implication is that it's impossible for the OEC to be wrong. This is a foolish thing for any man to say, let alone a Christian.
- we can see how silly the 'deceit' argument is by looking at some examples from ordinary life. eg. Is God deceiving us when it appears the sun orbits the earth? Is God deceiving us when we think color exists in things themselves? Is God deceiving us when stars appear like points of silver light? We should never confuse (or conflate) appearance with deception. We live in a vastly complex (complicated) environment, and almost daily discoveries of complexity in biology are perhaps indicators that the 'physical' universe might be a lot (a very lot) more complicated than consensus science at this time imagines (i.e. what if the physical constitution of the universe is as complex as the biological realm?)
O. OECs are far too interested in finding favor with secular scientists, and far too fearful of contradicting or questioning them.
P. More humility is needed on all sides, especially on the part of OECs. We shouldn't pretend to know things that can't be known. e.g. from a philosophical standpoint there is no way we can know for certain the age of the earth or universe. This seems obvious to me, but I don't recall an OEC ever saying so. (OECs in general seem to agree with secular scientists that philosophy has no relevance in the modern world; and I find this an unfortunate stance to take.)
Q. I see little evidence OECs understand how long ages came into being or why.
R. I see little evidence OECs are familiar with the YE critique of old ages. (They're not only unfamiliar with it, they're unwilling to look at it. i.e. they just don't wan to know, don't want to be bothered.)
S. I see little evidence most OECs are willing to engage in serious discussion on this issue; esp. face to face discussion.
T. I see a lot of bullying by OECs, a lot of mockery and insult. I see people saying ''since I have a better degree than you, you must accept what I say.'' (I see the authority being shifted from scripture to educational certificate.)
U. I think it's wrong to try and settle this conflict by insisting everyone just accept whatever consensus science says. I think we should be interested in the truth not in merely getting along.
V. I think people should be allowed to follow their conscience on this matter and not be bullied into adopting some position merely because some leader insists on it.
X. Whatever the truth is, my study has taught me that the subject is far more complex than most people think. Students are taught that this is a simple issue, and that 'science' has absolute answers for age questions... when this is not the case.
Y. In a syncretistic age (as ours surely is) it is painful to go against consensus; and we must make allowances for this... not expecting more from others than we expect from ourselves.
Z. An examination of the future should caution us to avoid absolute statements, and to be sceptical of claims of absolute truth. Most such claims ever made have long ago bitten the dust. We need to remember that any age for the earth is a philosophical construct not a reading from a clock.

Addendum;
1. I think Christians (creationists) should caution secular scientists against making absolute claims about the age of the earth, and to call them back to a more humble approach to science.
2. I think creationist should try to encourage a more humble approach to science; one that is content with theory instead of lusting after fact.
3. Under the influence of materialism scientists have become the most arrogant of people when in fact they should be the most humble. Christians need to do more to point out the weakness of the materialist position.
4. The fact most OECs accept man's 'evolution' from some kind of ape-like creature [eg. Polkinghorne] shows how prone they are to uncritically accepting Naturalist science, and the fact they can accept such an anti-biblical concept makes it no surprise that they can accept long ages. (One wonders what they couldn't accept.) Where is the critical spirit they like to turn against Orthodox Christianity? When it comes to Naturalist science it seems to depart them utterly. (One has to work hard to find a critical study by an OEC of anything in consensus science.)
5. What I want more than anything else is for people to be honest. Let's stop pretending. (eg. that it was really snow that covered the mountains in Gen. 7. What was the ark? a
skidoo :=} If we can't understand, we can't understand, and we should admit it. (e.g. if we can't understand how the earth can be young in a universe so big, let's admit it.)
6. No one reads the text of the bible perfectly, and no one ever will. (Only in heaven can anyone hope to acquire a perfect understanding of it. e.g. it would be nice to sit down with some author and ask him just exactly what he intended.
7. If the debate provokes people to serious study and reflection then maybe it's all for the good; but if it just prompts people to dismiss the other 'side' then I think the fallout is mostly negative. ie. debate can be very helpful while scorn and contempt never is.
- the church as a whole has little experience with the issue of a purported long age for the earth and the seeming discrepancy of this with scripture, and so is currently floundering as people try to deal with this 'new' subject. I personally don't think any OEC has offered any plausible solution to the problem, or any helpful way of dealing with it. (I think it's vain to find a naturalistic answer to the problem, as Naturalism is the problem.)
* - Long ages are a conclusion based on Uniformitarian thinking, and as such are as true or false as U. itself is. (Since we know U. isn't absolutely true, we can conclude that no age of the earth it 'offers' can be absolutely true.)
8. OECs tend to hold a naive view of man's fallen nature, and actually seem to believe that man is basically good. They seem to forget (or even deny) that man is in active rebellion against God and His word. They seem to reject any notion that man's fallen nature can affect the way he does science.
9. We end up having different views on the age of the earth for two basic reasons; a. where we come from (our family origin and our life history) and b. the grace God has given to us. We will thus never all have the same views on things (not this side of heaven at least).
10. OECs seem more concerned with apologetic success than declaring the word of God. They seem to ignore that the bible tells us the natural man will be offended by the word of God... ie. apart from grace. (They will say, ''yes, the natural man will be offended by the gospel, but we're not talking about the gospel here but about mythical history that somehow found its way into scripture." Mythical? On whose authority?)

- M. Johnson

Notes;
1. Institutes of Biblical law, vol. 3 - R. J. Rushdoony p/54
2. 'In reality, the debate about the age of the universe is a conflict of worldviews—a conflict between the evolutionary, naturalistic, uniformitarian interpretations of some of the scientific data, on the one hand, and on the other hand the exegetically strong and historically orthodox young-earth creationist understanding of Scripture and the interpretations of the same data and more data based on biblical assumptions. - T Mortenson/response to Dembski
3. 'Dembski sees and comments on philosophical naturalism’s control of biology, (Dembski 1999, pp. 97–121; 2005, chapters 2, 4, 5, and 13),13 but he seems to overlook or be indifferent to that same philosophical domination of geology and astronomy, which has resulted in the claim about millions of years. - TM
- why is it wrong for Naturalism to dominate biology but okay for it to dominate geology and cosmology?

The psychology of evolution

I've looked at several dozen creation/ist videos posted on YouTube, and have found that almost every one of them has abusive comments posted; often foul, obscene, and vituperous. These are comments filled with rage and hatred. The question is this; what is there about Darwinism that leads people to become so foul mouthed, rude and obscene?

- The psychology seems both simple and clear. I think most of the people who make these comments (and they strike me as quite young, mainly teenagers or people in their early twenties) are kids who grew up in Christian homes. (In many cases these are the kids of pastors and missionaries.) I assume they have parents who are both Christians and creationists. When it comes time to rebel these kids find Darwinism a great tool to use in their rebellion. It gives them an excuse to reject the faith of their parents. i.e. ''since we know Evolution is true, the bible is wrong about creation; and if it's wrong about creation there's no reason to believe it about anything'' (or so they tell their parents).

In their rebellious phase they easily see Evolution as being modern and sophisticated (it's neither) while they see creation and Christianity as being outdated and silly. i.e. non-scientific.

The hatred they spew isn't really against the speakers (most of whom have PHDs, while these kids probably haven't finished high school) but against their parents. They have adopted E. as a way of spiting their parents and as a way of inflicting pain on them. Darwinism becomes the road to separation. Their motivation behind rejecting creation and accepting E. is rebellion.
While they might be hesitant to curse their parents (sadly this isn't always the case) they can mock and ridicule creationists.

Most of these kids know precious little about the E. they celebrate, and seem to imagine someone has made Richard Dawkins the official authority on what E. is or is not. About all they know about E. are sound bites by Dawkins; e.g. ''e. is simply change over time.'' The fact they know so little about the 'theory' of evolution allows them great confidence in its verity. If they studied it (e.) in detail they would see how riddled with problems the story is; and how little it can explain. (A little e. is a dangerous thing; and all most kids get in gov. schools are 'facts' they're told to memorize; i.e. they're being taught Evolution (i.e. M2M) the way kids in the USSR were taught communism.)

They seem blissfully unaware of the atheist source of evolution. They might want to ask themselves why it is Dawkins offers such a dumbed down definition of evolution. e.g. is he trying to formulate a definition so vague and watered down that it's impossible to refute? It's as if a creationist defined creation as 'stasis over time' i.e. if you see stasis you see evidence of creation. Well; since we see stasis therefore we have proof of creation. (Anyone convinced?)

All this is to be expected when christian parents send their children to be educated by atheists, secularists and humanists; in a system dominated by an evolutionary spirit. Evolution isn't science it's a worldview, and represents the spirit of the age (an increasingly pagan age). We see this influence in the way once Christian students reject creation and accept Evolution, and we see it in their foul speech and lack of respect for parents. These kids apparently have no idea how to treat others.

Only the most naive believe this conversion to evolution has much (if anything) to do with science. (In my experience most of these haters of creation aren't even in the sciences.) Adopting Darwinism isn't about biology but it's a circumspect way of adopting atheism.

Since these kids rejected Christianity on the basis of E. they feel the need to 'refute' creation, which atheists who grew up in atheist homes don't feel... and so they haunt any creationist web page and try to refute what creationists have said. i.e. if they can't then their rationale for atheism collapses. Since they have so little ammunition in the form of arguments they depend upon rhetoric, obscenity and name calling, etc.

Summary;
What we see in the great animus toward creation among the youth is really an animus against Christians and Christianity. It's no surprise that the most enthusiastic supporters of the e. story are the fiercest critics and haters of Christianity. The idea of cosmic evolution is an old (old) story and was invented as a way of escape from Godly religion and from the Creator. It gave men a rationale for declaring themselves not responsible to God. It serves the same purpose now. The psychology of evolution is a rejection of the Creator (and the creaturehood this entails) and a declaration of independence and autonomy.

Many young people in the church turn their hostility toward biblical Christianity into hostility against creation and an advocacy of evolution; this allows them to remain in the church on the one hand, but to be separate from it as well. Hand in hand with an adoption of evolution is an adoption of liberal theology, antinomianism, a god of process, and so forth. They remain (marginally) in the church but have an entirely different religion from their grandfathers.

Where does the desire to mock and ridicule and name call come from? Does it stem from the ridicule they themselves suffered from classmates and teachers for a one time belief in creation? Did they adopt e. to escape this critique and ridicule? Have they now externalized this pain by attacking creationists? (Parents are expecting far too much of their children if they expect them to be 'creation evangelists' in secular (government) schools. Children should be students, not teachers. It's not their job or their proper role to instruct their evolutionist teachers.)

In my opinion it's far better for Christian young people to learn evolution theory before they get taught it at school. Too many young Christians are completely bowled over by the presentation and are unable to see the falseness and inadequacy of it. They should learn evolution theory from a critical standpoint, as they will be very unlikely to get a critical presentation in a govrnment school. Christian students who meet evolution for the first time in school haven't been properly prepared.

- Michael Johnson

Notes;
1. I haven't included quotes; the internet is a foul enough place already without giving you examples of this type of comment. They're readily available.
2. It never ceases to amaze me how small and petty anti-creationists are; they sneer and curse, mock and ridicule, slander and name call. Can't they realize how bad they look?
3. I wish someone would collect a book's worth of these comments and publish them so future generations could see what idiocy was extant in our time.
4. These people (ranting and raving like politicians at a convention) remind me of first generation atheists, as they are clearly excited (enthused) about their new faith. Kids growing up in multi-generational atheism have no such fanaticism in attacking creation or creationists. (We'll have to see how excited they still are when they reach their seventies and eighties.)
5. These kids would do well to ask themselves why this subject provokes them into fury, and why they allow themselves to treat others so badly.
6. These kids have abandoned far more than just a belief in creation; they've abandoned civility, manners, a concern for the truth, treating your neighbor as yourself, respect for parents, humility, and a great deal more.
7. What we see in all this is the curse of anonymity. Where man becomes anonymous he becomes barbaric and uncivilized. In the bible we see the antithesis of anonymity; where every man is held accountable and no one is allowed to wear a mask. A civilized society must fight against any and all anonymity. One way to restrain human depravity is to make it essential that all men need to protect their good name. (I suggest people reject the very concept of anonymous comments.) We see to have forgotten that men (starting with Adam) were given names for a purpose, and that purpose is to hold men accountable. We see that people who set aside their names also set aside their decency and morality. Anonymity works like an intoxicant robbing people of their prudence and manners, and is an invitation to profligacy.