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.
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
Monday, February 18, 2013
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.
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.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
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.
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.
Monday, November 12, 2012
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
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
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
Sunday, September 23, 2012
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.
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.
Thursday, May 24, 2012
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
