AAAS president rails against ID
In this post I will respond to the above article which is posted in part here
Quotes and comments;
1. "The problem is that ID advocates attempt to dress up religious beliefs to make them look like science. By redefining what is and isn’t science, they also put the public—particularly young people—at risk of being inadequately prepared to live in modern society." - Alan Leshner
- if all were matter in motion there would be no problems. Do rocks have problems? The fact Leshner imagines he has a problem is evidence he's not mere matter in motions as he claims.
- once again (for the millionth time) we have evolutionists (who are really pantheists in my opinion) pretending they don't have religious beliefs... it's only the Christians who have 'religious' beliefs. Religion has been defined so many ways you could fill a book with them, but one of the better ones states that religion is a set of connected beliefs having to do with ultimate concerns. If we use that definition we see that everyone has a religion; has religious beliefs. (If Leshner wants to distinguish Materialism from Christianity, he should say so.) It makes no sense for Leshner to pretend he has no religion; that he has no basic beliefs about matters of utlimate concern. All this endless talk by evolutionists about religion is a mere smoke screen. The great irony is that people (like L.) who accuse creationists of deception are lying through their teeth, and engaged in a massive campaign of deceit.
- people like Leshner are the ones who are engaged in redefining science. (i.e. from a search for truth to methodological naturalism.) For him to accuse Creationists of doing what his crowd have specialized in seems utter hypocricy.
- the idea he's worried about ID negatively affecting how people are able to live in modern society is a farce. How he can utter such drivel is beyond me. (He probably has a great future in politics; but then again maybe that's what he's engaged in already.)
2. ''Twenty-first-century citizens are regularly required to make decisions about issues that have heavy science- and technology-related content, such as medical care, personal security, shopping choices, and what their children should be taught in school.''
- shopping choices? shopping choices?
- of course under the teacher (union) domination of the gov. school system parents are deliberately given no say in what they're children are taught. (Good socialists like Leshner believe children belong to the State; ie. to the political elite.)
3. ''There is an important distinction between a belief and a theory. ID is cast by its proponents as a scientific theory, an alternative to evolution, but it fails the criteria for achieving that status. In our business, a theory is not an educated guess nor, emphatically, is it a belief.''
- of course evolution is a belief. Leshner apparently doesn't understand what a belief is. Finite and fallible creatures aren't capable of anything beyond belief. To have certain knowledge we'd have to know everything (and accurately) about everything. (And I don't think even a genius like L. is up to the task :=) If evolution weren't a belief no one would ever give it up; as so many have.... having looked critically at it they see it is inadequate and fallacious.... that it cannot account for reality.
- here we have L. defining and redefining concepts to conform to his own basic presuppositions.
- it's interesting that he calls big science a business; which it certainly is... but at least he admits it.
- of course a theory is an educated guess.
4. ''Scientific theories attempt to explain what can be observed, and it is essential that they be testable by repeatable observations and experimentation."
- it's more accurate to say that scientific theories attempt to explain experience not observation as Leshner puts it. (Would there be no science if we didn't have eyesight?) One hears thunder, one doesn't see it. One feels the wind, one doesn't see it. (and so on.)
- well; if we apply this rule consistently it denies the big bang as theory as well as evolution. No one saw the imagined evolution of the planet; no one saw 'life' come from inert matter.... etc.
- has Leshner tested his own definitions of science? has he observed his definitions? has he tested them? ie. are definitions empirical? if not (and they aren't) they must be thrown out to conform to his ideas on science.
5. "In fact, “belief” is a word you almost never hear in science. We do not believe theories. We accept or reject them based on their ability to explain natural phenomena, and they must be testable with scientific methodologies.''
- here's a man in desperate need of a course in philosophy. He says scientists accept or reject a theory. Okay; and why would they do that Mr. Leshner? Obviously they accept a theory because they believe it to be true. Leshner seems impossibly naive in his statements.
- is the 'theory' the universe popped out of nothing one day testable? We do know that the idea life emerged spontaneously from inert matter to be false; because we've tested the idea innumerable times. This falsification however has not stopped evolutionists from believing in it.
6. 'He repeats several talking points of the anti-ID position: (1) evolution is just as much a theory as gravity...'
- anyone who repeats this tired old canard is not a serious thinker, but merely a clown. The analogy is utterly unjustified and inappropriate; it compares biology with physics for one thing. (You can drop an apple and it will fall to the ground; but it won't bounce up a cat, or even an orange.)
- gravity of course can't be seen (at least I've never seen any :=) one sees the effect of gravity, or gravity in action... but one doesn't see gravity. One is then in the position of trying to infer the nature of something from its effects. (Not too dissimilar from the kind of project ID is involved in.) So, what exactly IS gravity? as far as I can tell, no one knows.
7. [Leshner tell us that] 'evolutionary does not attempt to answer the religious questions of whether God was behind evolution, “because it is a matter of belief that is outside our realm,”
- this is disingenuous as the matter of orgins is also outside the realm of observational science. No one saw the proposed big bang; no one can tell us what was there before the big bang. (And origins is a religious question for most people; unless like L. you've redefined the issue out of existence.) No one saw 'life' magically emerge from chemicals. etc.
- how does L. know what a 'religious' question is? does he observe religious questions? why as an empiricist does he even talk about such things?
- how does he know what is and isn't within the realm of 'science' as he defines it? Does he know this by observation?
8. 'ID can rightfully be taught in humanities or philosophy courses but not in the science class; “Redefining science to get a particular belief into the classroom simply isn’t educationally sound,” he [L.] says.
- this is exactly what the materialists (naturalists) have done. This is the old rhetorical technique of accusing your opponent of your own sin. (i.e. before he accuses you of it himself.)
- It's always comical to hear materialists speaking of moral absolutes; when materialism can in no way provide a basis for such beliefs.
- I guess this is one of Leshner's core beliefs. (But are his beliefs about science scientific? of course not. His beliefs about science are motivated by his world view of evolutionary materialism. In other words, his beliefs about science are part of his religious view.)
Monday, February 4, 2008
Smithsonian Reversal Over ID Noticed by Big Science
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Both 'Nature' and 'Science' (06/09/2005) noticed the Smithsonian’s flip-flop over co-sponsoring The Privileged Planet at their Natural History Museum this month (see 06/01/2005 entry). Both noted the quandary that the Smithsonian found itself in. They could not back out because of a contract, but under pressure from evolutionists, did not want to appear to endorse intelligent design. This led them to return the $16,000 fee so that they would not appear to be cooperating with the Discovery Institute, and to remove their co-sponsorship while allowing the event to go forward.'
- In honor of Superbowl Sunday let's all sing; ''The laaand of the freeee... and the hooome of the braaave."
2. 'Their basis for claiming the film violated their scientific research policy was explained by anthropologist Richard Potts, chair of the museum’s human origins program:
"But it was very clear that the film was trying to situate science within the wider realm of belief. The idea that human beings have been placed on Earth to discover the principles of the universe is not a position that stems from science; it is a metaphysical and religiously based conclusion.''
- Does Potts imagine he doesn't have any beliefs? Could he really be that naive? Does he really imagine that materialism and evolutionism aren't beliefs? Does he imagine he holds absolute truth? (If he does that itself is a religious belief.)
- once again we are presented with some clown who's going to tell us what science is. (As if it were some physical object we could measure, and not an ever changing process governed by societal beliefs.) The idea an anthropologist (of all people) telling us what science is and isn't is more than a little comical.
- I've got news for Potts; all ideas are metaphysically based. This man needs to take a course in philosophy. (And the news is even worse Richard; materialist evolution is also a religion.)
-The word religion is obsolete, and needs to be replaced with a substitute; either belief system or worldview.
- 'in philosophy it's considered a fallacy to impugn someone's motives for saying things...' i.e. you deal with What they said, not Why they said it.
- one way philosophers determine whether a statement is 'religious' is to ask 'is it falsifiable?' So we can ask; 'is Potts' belief in materialism and evolution falsifiable?' It doesn't sound like it is, does it? (At the heart of every wview is a web of presuppositions, which are accepted without being proven, without being provable. Potts has his; William Dembski has his, and I have mine. The idea evolutionary materialism is rooted in provable scientific fact is simply fallacious.)
Notes;
1. I came across this 'article' at Creation/Evolution headlines.
2. Listening to a CD of pop music oldies I came across the song, 'Land of the Brave' by a Jody Miller. (1965) I doubt if such a song would be popular in our day.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Both 'Nature' and 'Science' (06/09/2005) noticed the Smithsonian’s flip-flop over co-sponsoring The Privileged Planet at their Natural History Museum this month (see 06/01/2005 entry). Both noted the quandary that the Smithsonian found itself in. They could not back out because of a contract, but under pressure from evolutionists, did not want to appear to endorse intelligent design. This led them to return the $16,000 fee so that they would not appear to be cooperating with the Discovery Institute, and to remove their co-sponsorship while allowing the event to go forward.'
- In honor of Superbowl Sunday let's all sing; ''The laaand of the freeee... and the hooome of the braaave."
2. 'Their basis for claiming the film violated their scientific research policy was explained by anthropologist Richard Potts, chair of the museum’s human origins program:
"But it was very clear that the film was trying to situate science within the wider realm of belief. The idea that human beings have been placed on Earth to discover the principles of the universe is not a position that stems from science; it is a metaphysical and religiously based conclusion.''
- Does Potts imagine he doesn't have any beliefs? Could he really be that naive? Does he really imagine that materialism and evolutionism aren't beliefs? Does he imagine he holds absolute truth? (If he does that itself is a religious belief.)
- once again we are presented with some clown who's going to tell us what science is. (As if it were some physical object we could measure, and not an ever changing process governed by societal beliefs.) The idea an anthropologist (of all people) telling us what science is and isn't is more than a little comical.
- I've got news for Potts; all ideas are metaphysically based. This man needs to take a course in philosophy. (And the news is even worse Richard; materialist evolution is also a religion.)
-The word religion is obsolete, and needs to be replaced with a substitute; either belief system or worldview.
- 'in philosophy it's considered a fallacy to impugn someone's motives for saying things...' i.e. you deal with What they said, not Why they said it.
- one way philosophers determine whether a statement is 'religious' is to ask 'is it falsifiable?' So we can ask; 'is Potts' belief in materialism and evolution falsifiable?' It doesn't sound like it is, does it? (At the heart of every wview is a web of presuppositions, which are accepted without being proven, without being provable. Potts has his; William Dembski has his, and I have mine. The idea evolutionary materialism is rooted in provable scientific fact is simply fallacious.)
Notes;
1. I came across this 'article' at Creation/Evolution headlines.
2. Listening to a CD of pop music oldies I came across the song, 'Land of the Brave' by a Jody Miller. (1965) I doubt if such a song would be popular in our day.
Saturday, September 1, 2007
Creation, evolution, and social justice
A critique of British Columbia's new 'social justice' course for high school students
- I make it a habit not to read the daily paper. I looked at the front page today (of the Vancouver Sun) and was more disgusted than usual. The B.C. government (ie. the political and socialist elite that masquerades as conservatives) have decided to bring in a 'social justice' course for high school students. (Sounds decidedly Marxist to me.) The course was designed by homosexual advocates. Not by parents of course. (That would be too radical.) I see this as an evil development. (And shows you why the NDP crowd is very happy with premier Campbell. They probably wouldn't have dared to this themselves... though they'd have loved to.) It's basically a course in anti-Christianity; an anti-civilization course that is an utter repudiation of all Western civilization has stood for.) In every case it teaches (in the guise of 'discussion') the opposite of what Christian civilization has taught.
- this isn't a course in social justice but in social injustice. The injustice of a small radical elite taking control of the gov. education system and using it to force their neo-pagan religion on unsuspecting students. It's the injustice of driving christianity out of the schools under the name of being against religion in the schools... and then replacing it with a new religion. (This is called hypocrisy in anybody's books.)
- the writer of the celebratory article calls it a course in the new 'isms.' But it's the 'isms' favored by the extremist left. (The long list of lunacy includes; heterosexism, speciesism, racism (of course) genderism, ableism, sexism, ageism, humanism, imperialism, environmentalism, and so on.... all the great causes of the tenured class. (Mcdonaldism, Walmartism, Bushism, and so on.) There's no critique of the evils of communism, statism, marixism, unionism, special interestism, evolutionsim, materialism... etc. What kids will get will be hymns of praise to every left wing bit of lunacy now favored by the faddists on campus and a condemnation of everything the pampered left don't like. There will be praise of libertarianism, creationism, of markets, of biblical christianity, of freedom... or anything the left is waging war on.
- why am I posting this critique on a blog about biblical creation? The answer is simple; this course in social injustice is radically anti-creationist. The reality of who man is counts for nothing to the 'advocates' (ie. revolutionaries) behind this absurdist course. (I'm reminded again of the title of a book by Thomas Sowell; 'Is reality optional?" Well these people think so. They've been educated by the old Left that sees man as a blank slate... clay that can be molded into any form desired by the political elite. (ie. the new soviet man that was the object of Stalin's machinations.) They seemingly are still stuck in this mode of thinking despite the efforts of people like Stephen Pinker to persuade them of the fallaciousness of such a view. This course is all about denying reality; denying the reality of God and of creation.
- This whole story is a case study in the importance of the doctrine of biblical creation. One reason even christian parents go along with these courses is that they don't understand the importance of the Book of Genesis, and the doctrine of creation; how it affects all areas of life. The idea of a 'tabula rasa' is the strained construct of philosophical thinking. It has no connection with the real world. Babies are born with a distinct nature; that possess the image of God... and thus are not empty vessels that can be twisted into any desired shape by a political elite. When I say this I understand all too well that deformations of man can happen... but it always involves radical damage to both man and society. Only christianity gives us a model for social conduct that is in full agreement with man's nature; that gives us a moral code that conforms to reality. What we see in politically correct (read marxist) codes is a radical contempt for the reality of who man is. Man is not an empty blob (a blank slate) neither is he an just another animal. He is a creature made in the image of god; and more than this he is an eternal spirit.
- And so, if this course goes ahead, kids will be taught about the Jainist doctrine of 'speciesism' - the idea it's evil to think animals are less important (less deserving of rights) than human beings. The fact we're surrounded by thousands of stores selling dead meat makes this rank hypocrisy. Every left wing doctrine is on display in this new pagan religion course; the new pagan religion of the State. (Showing us the education mafia isn't against religion in the schools but only against christianity. Thus showing themselves incredibly hypocrites.) This is a major attack on christianity.... and almost no one was shown speaking out against it. Is this because no one did; or no one was given a voice by the cheerleaders who wrote the article? I suspect both.
- here we see the sad results of christian pietism; the retreat from the world, and secluding one's self within the walls of the church. But what can you expect of people who's great prayer is that the world will end in the next day or two? (Of people who make crap like 'Left Behind' a great best seller.) Christian's in canada have already surrendered the world to their enemies. It's clear what is going to be the agenda; the total extinction of christians and christianity. We are now being governed by the worst people our society has to offer. I find it hard to believe we've fallen so far we let a school curriculum be written by homosexual activists. It's hard for me to accept the idea parents (and C. parents) will put up with this evil. That this couldn't have been imagined a generation ago shows how rapidly things are moving.
- To force teenagers to go endure such an indoctrination process against their will is the opposite of justice. This is the totalitarian spirit of the Left at work. These people hate freedom; and will refuse to allow anyone to be free. They are forcing their demented smorgasbord of pagan religions onto the citizenry. As is usual in Canada, I doubt if anyone will even rouse themselves to raise a whisper in protest. And, as usual, this whole deplorable travesty will be applauded by the mainstream clergy. (A group that has never heard of a Humanist idea it didn't think was great.)
- We see a plethora of newly invented words by the Left; ie. heterosexism (the evil idea the heterosexuality is the norm of society) This is of course lunacy; a total denial of reality. (If it weren't the norm none of us would be here.) And so I ask you; ''if the educational elite are willing to deny reality in this area why should you believe what they say about the subject of origins? ie. evolution. I see no reason to believe they're no just as willing to deny reality in that area. (And so on with all the rest.) If they're willing to make (under 'speciesism') the claim there is no difference between animals and people (no one truly believes this lie of course) then why wouldn't they make imaginary claims about evolution? Again there's no reason to believe they haven't. What we see in our schools (and no; they don't belong to the teacher's union) is the establishment of a new pagan religion. The political elite aren't interested in truth... but in forcing people to conform to their new religion. None of this has anything to do with truth; just as evolution has nothing to do with the truth.
- the editors (with their typical subtlety) go on to show us why we need such a course. (Apparently they didn't need it.) On the front page they have a photo that reminds us of the anti-Asian riots of a hundred years ago. (No one can ever be allowed to forget anything.. unless the Left did it... then it's buried forever.) They pick on an easy target of course. The Left tell us a hundred times a day how evil we are; never in all history has any group of people had to endure such a vicious and never ending attack upon their culture, themselves, etc. What we seen a virulent sadism that has no parallel in all history. (These people have been taught by their professors to hate themselves and apparently its the one thing from their college days they can't get over. It apparently never occurred to them to ask to all the endless criticisms of the west; 'you say it was all evil... but evil compared to what? what happened in the USSR? in Maoist china? in old India? compared to what?'' It seems such an obvious question; so why didn't they ask it? I imagine they enjoyed trashing their parents and grandparent; enjoyed playing at revolution. (Welfare style Socialism is a kind of revolution for wimps. You get to have a big salary and a nice home while dismantling civilization; and you don't have to carry a gun.... and you'll be safely dead before things get too serious... and the mass killings start, and the Gulag reopens.)
- this is the inevitable result of two things; parents not taking responsibility... and socialism. Despite what christian liberals say the size of the state does matter. I remember some clueless seminary professor chiding conservatives; ''contrary to what some right wing economists say it's not the size of the state that matters that is dangerous.... but whether or not the state is just.'' It was like listening to a child... and he couldn't have been more wrong. Take this course in paganism; it wouldn't exist if it were not for the socialist state. Socialism makes courses like these not oddities in upper class communities but the norm for everyone in the country... and only a huge state can do that. I could add numerous examples in all areas. The bigger the state gets the more corrupt it gets; there's no way around it. A huge state can be controlled by a very small number of people... through top down management. The bigger the state the worse the people at the top get.
- let's see now; you can't teach creation, or ID or even critique evolution... but you have to teach heterosexism and speciesism! How can anyone take this lunacy seriously? How can anyone take these political extremists seriously? This is literally insane. (And all dumped on us by people who like to paint themselves as relativists! They're against racism but are engaged in a war against christians. (Who are continually being stripped of their rights.) The hypocrisy of these people is a sight to behold. (And all paid for with the tax dollars of the people they're waging war against!) If that's not social injustice the phrase is meaningless.
- if Marxist indoctrination like this can be called education, then we can see why dumping a crucifix in some urine can be called art. It's important that people realize that this is all part of the spirit of the age. Does anyone imagine that people who call bags of excrement tacked onto gallery walls art are not willing to lie about origins? Evolution is the modern art of the science world. Truth doesn't come come into it. Llet's not forget that the same people who tell us evolution is true... tell us the drippings of Jackson Pollack are art, that a blank canvas is art... and so on. (If there ever was a blank canvas scientifically speaking it's evolution. The theory has nothing going for it. It's devoid of meaningful evidence for its veracity.) I wonder how anyone can take people who play these games seriously.
Notes;
1. some of these words are so newly minted that they're not in dictionaries or on spell checkers.... and yet the concepts are going to be forced into a high school curriculum!
2. the homosexual advocates are playing the equivocation game when they object to heterosexuality being the norm. In a descriptive (and therefore scientific sense) it obviously is the norm. No one could honestly deny that. They're using the word in another sense. (Thus defining their own terms.)
3. What semiary professor? Mr. Heaven in a nightclub.
4. The Sun calls these riots 'Our lasting shame' - never mind the fact no one alive was there... no; this is 'our' lasting shame. (ie. something we can never escape being punished for, no matter what we do.) This is more marxist idiocy; as if people could or should have shame for things they had no part in. How stupid do you have to be to believe that? This is part of the leftist program of instilling class guilt (or societal guilt, or whatever idiot monicker is being used up on the hill these days.) People must (MUST) be made of feel eternally guilty.... as this is used to demoralize all opposition to collectivist programs. Guilty people are apathetic, hard to motivate, easy to manipulate, rarely ever complain about what the gov. is doing, etc. So the people must be made (in a hundred different ways, and on an daily basis) to feel guilty. Guilty for what? For anything; for everything; for eating, drinking and breathing if it comes to that.
- I make it a habit not to read the daily paper. I looked at the front page today (of the Vancouver Sun) and was more disgusted than usual. The B.C. government (ie. the political and socialist elite that masquerades as conservatives) have decided to bring in a 'social justice' course for high school students. (Sounds decidedly Marxist to me.) The course was designed by homosexual advocates. Not by parents of course. (That would be too radical.) I see this as an evil development. (And shows you why the NDP crowd is very happy with premier Campbell. They probably wouldn't have dared to this themselves... though they'd have loved to.) It's basically a course in anti-Christianity; an anti-civilization course that is an utter repudiation of all Western civilization has stood for.) In every case it teaches (in the guise of 'discussion') the opposite of what Christian civilization has taught.
- this isn't a course in social justice but in social injustice. The injustice of a small radical elite taking control of the gov. education system and using it to force their neo-pagan religion on unsuspecting students. It's the injustice of driving christianity out of the schools under the name of being against religion in the schools... and then replacing it with a new religion. (This is called hypocrisy in anybody's books.)
- the writer of the celebratory article calls it a course in the new 'isms.' But it's the 'isms' favored by the extremist left. (The long list of lunacy includes; heterosexism, speciesism, racism (of course) genderism, ableism, sexism, ageism, humanism, imperialism, environmentalism, and so on.... all the great causes of the tenured class. (Mcdonaldism, Walmartism, Bushism, and so on.) There's no critique of the evils of communism, statism, marixism, unionism, special interestism, evolutionsim, materialism... etc. What kids will get will be hymns of praise to every left wing bit of lunacy now favored by the faddists on campus and a condemnation of everything the pampered left don't like. There will be praise of libertarianism, creationism, of markets, of biblical christianity, of freedom... or anything the left is waging war on.
- why am I posting this critique on a blog about biblical creation? The answer is simple; this course in social injustice is radically anti-creationist. The reality of who man is counts for nothing to the 'advocates' (ie. revolutionaries) behind this absurdist course. (I'm reminded again of the title of a book by Thomas Sowell; 'Is reality optional?" Well these people think so. They've been educated by the old Left that sees man as a blank slate... clay that can be molded into any form desired by the political elite. (ie. the new soviet man that was the object of Stalin's machinations.) They seemingly are still stuck in this mode of thinking despite the efforts of people like Stephen Pinker to persuade them of the fallaciousness of such a view. This course is all about denying reality; denying the reality of God and of creation.
- This whole story is a case study in the importance of the doctrine of biblical creation. One reason even christian parents go along with these courses is that they don't understand the importance of the Book of Genesis, and the doctrine of creation; how it affects all areas of life. The idea of a 'tabula rasa' is the strained construct of philosophical thinking. It has no connection with the real world. Babies are born with a distinct nature; that possess the image of God... and thus are not empty vessels that can be twisted into any desired shape by a political elite. When I say this I understand all too well that deformations of man can happen... but it always involves radical damage to both man and society. Only christianity gives us a model for social conduct that is in full agreement with man's nature; that gives us a moral code that conforms to reality. What we see in politically correct (read marxist) codes is a radical contempt for the reality of who man is. Man is not an empty blob (a blank slate) neither is he an just another animal. He is a creature made in the image of god; and more than this he is an eternal spirit.
- And so, if this course goes ahead, kids will be taught about the Jainist doctrine of 'speciesism' - the idea it's evil to think animals are less important (less deserving of rights) than human beings. The fact we're surrounded by thousands of stores selling dead meat makes this rank hypocrisy. Every left wing doctrine is on display in this new pagan religion course; the new pagan religion of the State. (Showing us the education mafia isn't against religion in the schools but only against christianity. Thus showing themselves incredibly hypocrites.) This is a major attack on christianity.... and almost no one was shown speaking out against it. Is this because no one did; or no one was given a voice by the cheerleaders who wrote the article? I suspect both.
- here we see the sad results of christian pietism; the retreat from the world, and secluding one's self within the walls of the church. But what can you expect of people who's great prayer is that the world will end in the next day or two? (Of people who make crap like 'Left Behind' a great best seller.) Christian's in canada have already surrendered the world to their enemies. It's clear what is going to be the agenda; the total extinction of christians and christianity. We are now being governed by the worst people our society has to offer. I find it hard to believe we've fallen so far we let a school curriculum be written by homosexual activists. It's hard for me to accept the idea parents (and C. parents) will put up with this evil. That this couldn't have been imagined a generation ago shows how rapidly things are moving.
- To force teenagers to go endure such an indoctrination process against their will is the opposite of justice. This is the totalitarian spirit of the Left at work. These people hate freedom; and will refuse to allow anyone to be free. They are forcing their demented smorgasbord of pagan religions onto the citizenry. As is usual in Canada, I doubt if anyone will even rouse themselves to raise a whisper in protest. And, as usual, this whole deplorable travesty will be applauded by the mainstream clergy. (A group that has never heard of a Humanist idea it didn't think was great.)
- We see a plethora of newly invented words by the Left; ie. heterosexism (the evil idea the heterosexuality is the norm of society) This is of course lunacy; a total denial of reality. (If it weren't the norm none of us would be here.) And so I ask you; ''if the educational elite are willing to deny reality in this area why should you believe what they say about the subject of origins? ie. evolution. I see no reason to believe they're no just as willing to deny reality in that area. (And so on with all the rest.) If they're willing to make (under 'speciesism') the claim there is no difference between animals and people (no one truly believes this lie of course) then why wouldn't they make imaginary claims about evolution? Again there's no reason to believe they haven't. What we see in our schools (and no; they don't belong to the teacher's union) is the establishment of a new pagan religion. The political elite aren't interested in truth... but in forcing people to conform to their new religion. None of this has anything to do with truth; just as evolution has nothing to do with the truth.
- the editors (with their typical subtlety) go on to show us why we need such a course. (Apparently they didn't need it.) On the front page they have a photo that reminds us of the anti-Asian riots of a hundred years ago. (No one can ever be allowed to forget anything.. unless the Left did it... then it's buried forever.) They pick on an easy target of course. The Left tell us a hundred times a day how evil we are; never in all history has any group of people had to endure such a vicious and never ending attack upon their culture, themselves, etc. What we seen a virulent sadism that has no parallel in all history. (These people have been taught by their professors to hate themselves and apparently its the one thing from their college days they can't get over. It apparently never occurred to them to ask to all the endless criticisms of the west; 'you say it was all evil... but evil compared to what? what happened in the USSR? in Maoist china? in old India? compared to what?'' It seems such an obvious question; so why didn't they ask it? I imagine they enjoyed trashing their parents and grandparent; enjoyed playing at revolution. (Welfare style Socialism is a kind of revolution for wimps. You get to have a big salary and a nice home while dismantling civilization; and you don't have to carry a gun.... and you'll be safely dead before things get too serious... and the mass killings start, and the Gulag reopens.)
- this is the inevitable result of two things; parents not taking responsibility... and socialism. Despite what christian liberals say the size of the state does matter. I remember some clueless seminary professor chiding conservatives; ''contrary to what some right wing economists say it's not the size of the state that matters that is dangerous.... but whether or not the state is just.'' It was like listening to a child... and he couldn't have been more wrong. Take this course in paganism; it wouldn't exist if it were not for the socialist state. Socialism makes courses like these not oddities in upper class communities but the norm for everyone in the country... and only a huge state can do that. I could add numerous examples in all areas. The bigger the state gets the more corrupt it gets; there's no way around it. A huge state can be controlled by a very small number of people... through top down management. The bigger the state the worse the people at the top get.
- let's see now; you can't teach creation, or ID or even critique evolution... but you have to teach heterosexism and speciesism! How can anyone take this lunacy seriously? How can anyone take these political extremists seriously? This is literally insane. (And all dumped on us by people who like to paint themselves as relativists! They're against racism but are engaged in a war against christians. (Who are continually being stripped of their rights.) The hypocrisy of these people is a sight to behold. (And all paid for with the tax dollars of the people they're waging war against!) If that's not social injustice the phrase is meaningless.
- if Marxist indoctrination like this can be called education, then we can see why dumping a crucifix in some urine can be called art. It's important that people realize that this is all part of the spirit of the age. Does anyone imagine that people who call bags of excrement tacked onto gallery walls art are not willing to lie about origins? Evolution is the modern art of the science world. Truth doesn't come come into it. Llet's not forget that the same people who tell us evolution is true... tell us the drippings of Jackson Pollack are art, that a blank canvas is art... and so on. (If there ever was a blank canvas scientifically speaking it's evolution. The theory has nothing going for it. It's devoid of meaningful evidence for its veracity.) I wonder how anyone can take people who play these games seriously.
Notes;
1. some of these words are so newly minted that they're not in dictionaries or on spell checkers.... and yet the concepts are going to be forced into a high school curriculum!
2. the homosexual advocates are playing the equivocation game when they object to heterosexuality being the norm. In a descriptive (and therefore scientific sense) it obviously is the norm. No one could honestly deny that. They're using the word in another sense. (Thus defining their own terms.)
3. What semiary professor? Mr. Heaven in a nightclub.
4. The Sun calls these riots 'Our lasting shame' - never mind the fact no one alive was there... no; this is 'our' lasting shame. (ie. something we can never escape being punished for, no matter what we do.) This is more marxist idiocy; as if people could or should have shame for things they had no part in. How stupid do you have to be to believe that? This is part of the leftist program of instilling class guilt (or societal guilt, or whatever idiot monicker is being used up on the hill these days.) People must (MUST) be made of feel eternally guilty.... as this is used to demoralize all opposition to collectivist programs. Guilty people are apathetic, hard to motivate, easy to manipulate, rarely ever complain about what the gov. is doing, etc. So the people must be made (in a hundred different ways, and on an daily basis) to feel guilty. Guilty for what? For anything; for everything; for eating, drinking and breathing if it comes to that.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Searching out the glory of God in creation
Some quotes from the essay by T.M. More (The Glory of Kings) and a few comments.
1. 'Christian theology has maintained from the beginning that God is revealing himself and his will in the things he has made.'
- The most obvious message I get from revelation is that the Creator is so much more intelligent than us that there is no comparison. We cannot imagine how God did the things he did; how he created the universe... how he created living creatures. In our day when we have been allowed to look within the cell we cannot believe the ever new levels of complexity we see. We are staggered by the imagination, the wisdom and the intelligence of the Creator. What we see is beyond our wildest imagination. We see evidence of a Mind that is a universe beyond us in ability and depth.
In the complexity of creation we see evidence that god can do the (seeming) impossible. This gives us reason to believe there are few if any limits on what God can do. In his great power and intelligence we see reasons to believe that God can make good on the staggering promises that fill the testimony of His word.
- In creation we see the staggering power of God. In the vast expanse of the universe (far too large for us to comprehend) we see evidence of his surpassing power. A god who has this power can do the these he has said he will do. If He can created trillions of galaxies, each filled with countless billions of stars he can bring man back from the grave and give him eternal life. If he has this power he has the power to govern the whole universe according to his counsel.
2. "The heavens declare the glory of god."
- This means god deserves praise and honor for the magnificent splendor of the star filled universe. At the heart of materialism is the refusal to give honor and praise to god for His creation. The psychology of m. can be expressed by a clenched fist. Natural man is greedy to recieve his own honor and praise, and cannot give to another what he desires for himself. He feels that to give honor and praise to God is to withhold honor and praise from man.
3. “It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out” (Proverbs 25:2)
- I've always been a bit puzzled by what 'the glory of kings' refers to. I assume it means this is a 'royal' privilege... or that it's the best thing a king can do. I'm not sure.
- at any event it means we shold search things out; and so we have here a basis for true science.
- when it says God conceals things I assume this means that things are far more 'glorious' than people imagine... that it's only when we look closely that we begin to see how wondrous the creation really is.
- we get hints here of the true relationship between God and man; between the Creator and his creation (and vice regent) man. God creates the universe (this is his privilege, for which we give him great glory) and man investigates what God has created... this is His great privilege.
- Let's look at what's happening in biology today; people are looking (at the nano) level at the complexities of the cell. This wouldn't be much fun (or small g. glorious) if the cell was something like a blob of jello. (Which is what people once thought.) What an incredible privilege we've been given to uncover what to earlier generations was hidden. But whatever honor and praise we give to the people who have made discoveries in these areas, shouldn't come close to the honor and praise we give to God. What we say in a soft voice about man's discoveries should be shouted and sung with a loud voice about their Creator. (Unfortunately this is often not the case in our modern era; where men are so full of pride and vainglory that they don't want to give honor to god. But let's be serious here; it's not even on the same scale to discover something as it is to create it. These activities are not on the same level. When man refuses to give honor to God for the creation, he shows how small a being he is... and how little he deserves honor and praise.)
4. In the article Moore talks about how he views 'creation theology' and gives six steps for its practice. (The essay is taken from the online christian journal 'Implications'.)
Notes;
1. Glory
- 1300, "magnificence," from O.Fr. glorie, from L. gloria "great praise or honor," of uncertain origin. Gk. doxa "expectation" (Homer), later "opinion, fame," and ultimately "glory," was used in Biblical writing to translate a Heb. word which had a sense of "brightness, splendor, magnificence, majesty," and this was subsequently translated as L. gloria, which has colored that word's meaning in most European tongues. (Online etymological dictionary)
Some quotes from the essay by T.M. More (The Glory of Kings) and a few comments.
1. 'Christian theology has maintained from the beginning that God is revealing himself and his will in the things he has made.'
- The most obvious message I get from revelation is that the Creator is so much more intelligent than us that there is no comparison. We cannot imagine how God did the things he did; how he created the universe... how he created living creatures. In our day when we have been allowed to look within the cell we cannot believe the ever new levels of complexity we see. We are staggered by the imagination, the wisdom and the intelligence of the Creator. What we see is beyond our wildest imagination. We see evidence of a Mind that is a universe beyond us in ability and depth.
In the complexity of creation we see evidence that god can do the (seeming) impossible. This gives us reason to believe there are few if any limits on what God can do. In his great power and intelligence we see reasons to believe that God can make good on the staggering promises that fill the testimony of His word.
- In creation we see the staggering power of God. In the vast expanse of the universe (far too large for us to comprehend) we see evidence of his surpassing power. A god who has this power can do the these he has said he will do. If He can created trillions of galaxies, each filled with countless billions of stars he can bring man back from the grave and give him eternal life. If he has this power he has the power to govern the whole universe according to his counsel.
2. "The heavens declare the glory of god."
- This means god deserves praise and honor for the magnificent splendor of the star filled universe. At the heart of materialism is the refusal to give honor and praise to god for His creation. The psychology of m. can be expressed by a clenched fist. Natural man is greedy to recieve his own honor and praise, and cannot give to another what he desires for himself. He feels that to give honor and praise to God is to withhold honor and praise from man.
3. “It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out” (Proverbs 25:2)
- I've always been a bit puzzled by what 'the glory of kings' refers to. I assume it means this is a 'royal' privilege... or that it's the best thing a king can do. I'm not sure.
- at any event it means we shold search things out; and so we have here a basis for true science.
- when it says God conceals things I assume this means that things are far more 'glorious' than people imagine... that it's only when we look closely that we begin to see how wondrous the creation really is.
- we get hints here of the true relationship between God and man; between the Creator and his creation (and vice regent) man. God creates the universe (this is his privilege, for which we give him great glory) and man investigates what God has created... this is His great privilege.
- Let's look at what's happening in biology today; people are looking (at the nano) level at the complexities of the cell. This wouldn't be much fun (or small g. glorious) if the cell was something like a blob of jello. (Which is what people once thought.) What an incredible privilege we've been given to uncover what to earlier generations was hidden. But whatever honor and praise we give to the people who have made discoveries in these areas, shouldn't come close to the honor and praise we give to God. What we say in a soft voice about man's discoveries should be shouted and sung with a loud voice about their Creator. (Unfortunately this is often not the case in our modern era; where men are so full of pride and vainglory that they don't want to give honor to god. But let's be serious here; it's not even on the same scale to discover something as it is to create it. These activities are not on the same level. When man refuses to give honor to God for the creation, he shows how small a being he is... and how little he deserves honor and praise.)
4. In the article Moore talks about how he views 'creation theology' and gives six steps for its practice. (The essay is taken from the online christian journal 'Implications'.)
Notes;
1. Glory
- 1300, "magnificence," from O.Fr. glorie, from L. gloria "great praise or honor," of uncertain origin. Gk. doxa "expectation" (Homer), later "opinion, fame," and ultimately "glory," was used in Biblical writing to translate a Heb. word which had a sense of "brightness, splendor, magnificence, majesty," and this was subsequently translated as L. gloria, which has colored that word's meaning in most European tongues. (Online etymological dictionary)
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Evolution and playing god
I remember hearing a scholar claim that Darwinism led to the 'cult of the artificial...' He referred to Gordon Childe's book 'Man makes himself'
- I think I finally understand this. ie. as long as god made the world... and controlled it, man couldn't do anything about it..... he just had to accept his situation. But; if man was Not created... if it was just some physical process.... then man could take ahold of that process... and use it as a tool to make his every dream come true. (Or such at least is the hope.)
- that a theory about biology should lead to the 'cult of the artificial' is a major irony.
- when evolutionists rhapsodize about 'evolution' what they are really excited about is this conrol over reality. What they fear about creationism is that they might lose this control over biological reality. They fear creationists will say; ''no; creation is from god... so you can't touch it... you can't tamper with it... you can't change it... it's holy...."
- I think I finally see the source of the wild emotion; the wild hatred... the passion.... the will to tyranny and suppression. The modern humanist (inside and outside the church) wants control over reality.... they want the power to play god. Their fear of creationists is the fear c's will take this power away from them... or hamper its exercise.
- so what do the evolutionists want? This is the question I'm only beginning to explore. They want increased life spans; they want increased health. Some want increased intelligence; increased power. Some want to create man/robot beings.
- Few among the humanist elite want these things for all people; but want them for the elite... they invisage the creation of super people.... a super elite... that will rule the masses.... They envision an elite that is truly superior; not just superior in name... an elite that will live longer, be more intelligent, more powerful, more talented, healthier, immune from disease, etc.
- this is what the creation evolution debate is really all about; or this is at the core of it for its elite proponents. The defenders of evolution imagine there are huge amounts of money and power at stake in this struggle.
- People invovled with drug companies are major supporters of the attempt to destroy creationism; as our the political elite. The hopes and dreams involved with genetic engineering are at the heart of this battle. No amount of intellectual refutation will make evolutionism go away. The theory is utterly without warrant; the dumbest idea man has ever had; but this doesn't matter to the evolutionist elite. This isn't about truth... it's about power.
- In conclusion I'll say that I think the evolutionist elite are worrried about nothing. I don't think there are more than a handful of christians who have any desire to stop genetic engineering. (I think they're wrong, but I understand I'm in a tiny minority.)
I remember hearing a scholar claim that Darwinism led to the 'cult of the artificial...' He referred to Gordon Childe's book 'Man makes himself'
- I think I finally understand this. ie. as long as god made the world... and controlled it, man couldn't do anything about it..... he just had to accept his situation. But; if man was Not created... if it was just some physical process.... then man could take ahold of that process... and use it as a tool to make his every dream come true. (Or such at least is the hope.)
- that a theory about biology should lead to the 'cult of the artificial' is a major irony.
- when evolutionists rhapsodize about 'evolution' what they are really excited about is this conrol over reality. What they fear about creationism is that they might lose this control over biological reality. They fear creationists will say; ''no; creation is from god... so you can't touch it... you can't tamper with it... you can't change it... it's holy...."
- I think I finally see the source of the wild emotion; the wild hatred... the passion.... the will to tyranny and suppression. The modern humanist (inside and outside the church) wants control over reality.... they want the power to play god. Their fear of creationists is the fear c's will take this power away from them... or hamper its exercise.
- so what do the evolutionists want? This is the question I'm only beginning to explore. They want increased life spans; they want increased health. Some want increased intelligence; increased power. Some want to create man/robot beings.
- Few among the humanist elite want these things for all people; but want them for the elite... they invisage the creation of super people.... a super elite... that will rule the masses.... They envision an elite that is truly superior; not just superior in name... an elite that will live longer, be more intelligent, more powerful, more talented, healthier, immune from disease, etc.
- this is what the creation evolution debate is really all about; or this is at the core of it for its elite proponents. The defenders of evolution imagine there are huge amounts of money and power at stake in this struggle.
- People invovled with drug companies are major supporters of the attempt to destroy creationism; as our the political elite. The hopes and dreams involved with genetic engineering are at the heart of this battle. No amount of intellectual refutation will make evolutionism go away. The theory is utterly without warrant; the dumbest idea man has ever had; but this doesn't matter to the evolutionist elite. This isn't about truth... it's about power.
- In conclusion I'll say that I think the evolutionist elite are worrried about nothing. I don't think there are more than a handful of christians who have any desire to stop genetic engineering. (I think they're wrong, but I understand I'm in a tiny minority.)
Saturday, June 23, 2007
The faith claims of evolutionsists are not science
- the acrimony that surrounds the creation/evolution debate is an intellectual embarassment.
- people seem to have parked their wits and their ethics at the door of the debating hall.
- to forbid the criticism of evolution theory in schools is NOT science, but a religious demand.
- getting judges to define science is not science, but politics.
- to claim people are insane, wicked, ignorant or stupid if they don't believe in darwinism, is not science... but a faith claim.
- to claim one can have absolute knowledge about origins is not science... but a faith claim.
- to claim life can come from non-life (without direction from an intelligent agent) is not science... but a faith claim.
- the claim any explanation of origins other than a naturalistic one is not science, but a faith claim.
- to use the gov. to force one view of origins on people is not science... but politics.
- to claim naturalism can give man absolute truth is not science but a faith claim.
- to tell lies about the many 'proofs' of evolution theory is not science but faith propagation.
- to invent stories about evolution is not science but evangelism.
- to treat creationists with contempt and hatred is not science.
- to imagine all people are the same isn't science, but a faith claim.
- to insist all people hold the same view of origins (ie. e.) isn't science... but a demand of faith.
- to bar professors and teachers from employment is not science but tyranny and persecution.
- the bitterness involved in this debate clearly has nothing to do with science. In fact very little in this debate has anything to do with science. Atheists (and other non-theists, or non-creationists) have confused evolution theory and atheism, and have pretended their atheism is science. Atheism is not science, it's a faith claim.
- the low level on which evolutionists conduct themselves in this debate is an intellectual embarassment.
- I don't deny some creationists haven't acted badly as well. Teaching small children to sing anti-evolution songs would be (in my opinion) an example of this. I consider this akin to liberals having toddlers wear 'Bush is a war criminal' t-shirts. It's one thing to teach children songs of praise to god - and I think this not only proper, but wonderful - but it is another thing entirely to teach them songs that are purely negative in nature. You won't find that taught in the book of Genesis Ken; or anywhere else in the bible for that matter.
- the acrimony that surrounds the creation/evolution debate is an intellectual embarassment.
- people seem to have parked their wits and their ethics at the door of the debating hall.
- to forbid the criticism of evolution theory in schools is NOT science, but a religious demand.
- getting judges to define science is not science, but politics.
- to claim people are insane, wicked, ignorant or stupid if they don't believe in darwinism, is not science... but a faith claim.
- to claim one can have absolute knowledge about origins is not science... but a faith claim.
- to claim life can come from non-life (without direction from an intelligent agent) is not science... but a faith claim.
- the claim any explanation of origins other than a naturalistic one is not science, but a faith claim.
- to use the gov. to force one view of origins on people is not science... but politics.
- to claim naturalism can give man absolute truth is not science but a faith claim.
- to tell lies about the many 'proofs' of evolution theory is not science but faith propagation.
- to invent stories about evolution is not science but evangelism.
- to treat creationists with contempt and hatred is not science.
- to imagine all people are the same isn't science, but a faith claim.
- to insist all people hold the same view of origins (ie. e.) isn't science... but a demand of faith.
- to bar professors and teachers from employment is not science but tyranny and persecution.
- the bitterness involved in this debate clearly has nothing to do with science. In fact very little in this debate has anything to do with science. Atheists (and other non-theists, or non-creationists) have confused evolution theory and atheism, and have pretended their atheism is science. Atheism is not science, it's a faith claim.
- the low level on which evolutionists conduct themselves in this debate is an intellectual embarassment.
- I don't deny some creationists haven't acted badly as well. Teaching small children to sing anti-evolution songs would be (in my opinion) an example of this. I consider this akin to liberals having toddlers wear 'Bush is a war criminal' t-shirts. It's one thing to teach children songs of praise to god - and I think this not only proper, but wonderful - but it is another thing entirely to teach them songs that are purely negative in nature. You won't find that taught in the book of Genesis Ken; or anywhere else in the bible for that matter.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
The Biotic message: a review of the book by Walter Remine, by Donald Batten
Quotes and comments;
1. "ReMine’s treatment of the origin of life is good. I particularly liked the way he dealt with some of the bluffs of evolutionists who try to dilute the improbability argument with irrelevant analogies. For example, the exact arrangement of the cards in a deck just after it is shuffled is highly improbable, but nevertheless an improbable arrangement happens every time. This confuses the point entirely."
- only someone who totally fails to understand the situation, or someone who is being deliberately deceptive, would imagine this card trick analogy addresses the problem. We're not looking for an 'improbable' result, we're looking for a highly specific result; not just any improbablitity. The point is ths; it is highly unlikely (improbable) we will find a naturalistic explanation. We're not looking for the improbable. We're looking for life; not for improbabilities. We're looking for the concrete, not the abstract. We're looking for the meaningful, not the meaningless.
- if David Hume were here he'd no doubt call this a faulty analogy. Cards are human artifacts; that being the case it would appear to be misleading for a natualist to use them for an analogy to biology.
- cards aren't codes; their arrangements are meaningless; they don't carry information. (Apparently this is all too complicated for richard dawkins to understand.)
- we might (for the sake of humor) say that finding a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life is as likely as producing one of Shakespeare's plays by shuffling a deck of cards :=)
Quotes and comments;
1. "ReMine’s treatment of the origin of life is good. I particularly liked the way he dealt with some of the bluffs of evolutionists who try to dilute the improbability argument with irrelevant analogies. For example, the exact arrangement of the cards in a deck just after it is shuffled is highly improbable, but nevertheless an improbable arrangement happens every time. This confuses the point entirely."
- only someone who totally fails to understand the situation, or someone who is being deliberately deceptive, would imagine this card trick analogy addresses the problem. We're not looking for an 'improbable' result, we're looking for a highly specific result; not just any improbablitity. The point is ths; it is highly unlikely (improbable) we will find a naturalistic explanation. We're not looking for the improbable. We're looking for life; not for improbabilities. We're looking for the concrete, not the abstract. We're looking for the meaningful, not the meaningless.
- if David Hume were here he'd no doubt call this a faulty analogy. Cards are human artifacts; that being the case it would appear to be misleading for a natualist to use them for an analogy to biology.
- cards aren't codes; their arrangements are meaningless; they don't carry information. (Apparently this is all too complicated for richard dawkins to understand.)
- we might (for the sake of humor) say that finding a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life is as likely as producing one of Shakespeare's plays by shuffling a deck of cards :=)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
