An apologia for Materialism; Reflections on the course 'The philosophy of science' by Jeffrey Kasser
Comments;
1. Kasser spent the entire course ignoring the fact there cannot be truth under the rubric of materialism. On the one hand academics deny absolute truth... but then they tell us 'everything scientists say is true.' This is all a joke. If all is particles in motion there cannot be truth. If that is all the 'mind' is there cannot be truth. People like Kasser cannot bring these things together... and so they pretend. If the universe was what they say it is, none of what they hold as true... could be known, or could be true.
2. Science disproves materialism;
- this course has been nothing but an apologia for status quo (materialist, naturalistic) science. He asks No tough questions. (You'll notice that the one thing our hyper critical professors never question is Materialism.) It's introductory level at best, but it's even worse than that, in that it in no way ever doubts Materialism; and defends it at every step of the way. (i.e. if the mind is just matter in motion why should what it claims be true?) Obviously matter can't be rational or intelligent... and so science disproves materialism. (i.e. if all were matter in motion there would be no minds, no rationality, and no science.)
3. Science and reality;
- what people like Kasser won't ever admit is that this project called science can never tell us what reality is. This being said; none of their claims can possibly be true. (To be true a claim must conform to reality.)
- to say that the explanation of things provided to us by Reductionism takes us to a more fundamental level is a mere claim; it can't in any way be proved. This is a fallout from the impersonalism of Materialism; in the end the most fundamental entities are not persons by particles that barely have mass. This is a bizarre view of things! Here we have intelligent people saying quarks are more important (fundamental) than they are... not to mention God. Materialists can never tell us at what level reality exists at. Is it the macro level? Is it the micro level? Is it the holistic level? Is it the particular level? They can't say. So in the end Materialist science is mute about the key questions human beings ask. So let's not get overly excited by the religion of scientism. What is now called science (a better word would be technology) can only be a 'tool' for man to use; not a source of ultimate truth.
- What's called 'science' in our day (i.e. methodological naturalism) cannot tell us what reality is, or even if such a thing exists. Only the doctrine of biblical creation can provide mankind with a basis for reality; can tell us what reality is. And it's only this doctrinal truth that can make sense of science. The philosophy of Materialism makes utter nonsense of science.
- We're supposed to believe that a deformed ape can do all the things scientists have done in the last couple centuries. We're supposed to believe that an ape that suffered a few mutations (copying errors) somehow (no one can imagine how) gained some incredible new capacities and abilities. (Apparently the idea is that the more you damage something the better it gets.) I find this 'idea' utterly bizarre, and utterly impossible. The dumbed down portrait of reality given to us by the Darwinists can't possibly be true. (Want to test this? Take an ape and bit by bit eliminate the information contained in its DNA. My prediction is this; it will get progressively stupider and stupider until it dies.)
- does anyone imagine a human being would get smarter and smarter if we eliminated information?
- Science can't tell us what; truth is; what reality; what right and wrong are; what justice is; what love is; what goodness; what the mind is; what language is; etc. etc. The idea this limited methodology should be laureled as the only standard of truth is true insanity. Kasser never admits the radical limitations of methodological naturalism. The idea we can rely on instrumental measurement as a guide to our lives is silly beyond belief.
Notes;
1. 'The philosophy of science' - Jeffrey Kasser (The Teaching Company)
2. I don't recommend this course. Kasser is hostile to Christianity, to Creation, and even to theism; despite the now typical pleadings of neutrality.
3. If you're thinking of listening to this series; try the first lecture first. It has some very nasty innuendoes on it.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Monday, June 9, 2008
Another refutation of Materialism
- We can refute materialism by pointing out that the grand reductionist program does not, and cannot work. Some mad dreamers have imagined that all things could be reduced to chemistry and then to the basics of physics; not only animal behavior, but all forms of human behavior.
Quotes and comments;
1. “The ultimate aim of the modern movement in biology is in fact to explain all of biology in terms of physics and chemistry” - Francis Crick
- If Materialism were true its grand explanatory scheme 'should' work. But if chess can't be reduced to atoms in motion; if poetry can't, if language can't,; if the philosophy of science can't, if art can't, (etc.) then Materialism is a fallacious view of the universe. But obviously the reductionist program doesn't work. (The people who think it does couldn't put together enough members to field a soccer team.)The only way it can be made to work is to claim that human experience is a total illusion. (To go to such lengths to save a theory; to murder man to save a philosophical theory is utter irrationalism.)
- Can the creation/evolution debate be reduced to physics? Can belief in God? Can the rejection of god? Materialism is a program that can't ever be brought to fruition; it's impossible. The fact it cannot is all the evidence we need that the world view it espouses is false.
- For 'mysterious' reasons all this is almost never pointed out to students.
- so why doesn't it matter that Materialism has been refuted many times over? Man in his Fallenness (and rebellion) refuses to admit defeat, refuses to honor his creator.
- this is a short post I realize; but nothing more needs to be said. Materialism has, throughout all history, been seen as false and inadequate account of reality. It has been refuted more times than can be counted. People only affirm it because they loathe the alternative.
Notes;
1. The two quotes below are from; 'The Origin of Consciousness [Part I]
by Bert Thompson, Ph.D. and Brad Harrub, Ph.D.
a. As Sir Francis Crick put it: “The ultimate aim of the modern movement in biology is in fact to explain all of biology in terms of physics and chemistry” (1966, p. 10, emp. added).
b.Emil du-Bois-Reymand (1818-1896), the founder of electrochemistry, and Hermann von Helmholtz (1812-1894), the famed German physiologist and physicist who was the first to measure the speed of nerve impulses, agreed: “All the activities of living material, including consciousness, are ultimately to be explained in terms of physics and chemistry."
2. Does anyone want to explain the Armenian or the Jewish holocausts of in terms of physics?
Quotes and comments;
1. “The ultimate aim of the modern movement in biology is in fact to explain all of biology in terms of physics and chemistry” - Francis Crick
- If Materialism were true its grand explanatory scheme 'should' work. But if chess can't be reduced to atoms in motion; if poetry can't, if language can't,; if the philosophy of science can't, if art can't, (etc.) then Materialism is a fallacious view of the universe. But obviously the reductionist program doesn't work. (The people who think it does couldn't put together enough members to field a soccer team.)The only way it can be made to work is to claim that human experience is a total illusion. (To go to such lengths to save a theory; to murder man to save a philosophical theory is utter irrationalism.)
- Can the creation/evolution debate be reduced to physics? Can belief in God? Can the rejection of god? Materialism is a program that can't ever be brought to fruition; it's impossible. The fact it cannot is all the evidence we need that the world view it espouses is false.
- For 'mysterious' reasons all this is almost never pointed out to students.
- so why doesn't it matter that Materialism has been refuted many times over? Man in his Fallenness (and rebellion) refuses to admit defeat, refuses to honor his creator.
- this is a short post I realize; but nothing more needs to be said. Materialism has, throughout all history, been seen as false and inadequate account of reality. It has been refuted more times than can be counted. People only affirm it because they loathe the alternative.
Notes;
1. The two quotes below are from; 'The Origin of Consciousness [Part I]
by Bert Thompson, Ph.D. and Brad Harrub, Ph.D.
a. As Sir Francis Crick put it: “The ultimate aim of the modern movement in biology is in fact to explain all of biology in terms of physics and chemistry” (1966, p. 10, emp. added).
b.Emil du-Bois-Reymand (1818-1896), the founder of electrochemistry, and Hermann von Helmholtz (1812-1894), the famed German physiologist and physicist who was the first to measure the speed of nerve impulses, agreed: “All the activities of living material, including consciousness, are ultimately to be explained in terms of physics and chemistry."
2. Does anyone want to explain the Armenian or the Jewish holocausts of in terms of physics?
Friday, June 6, 2008
Who or what is God?
The scientific elite offer themselves as substitute for God
Quotes and comments;
1. "And even though some may find it distressing that science recognizes no god, forcing it to do so will only produce bad science." (editorial rant in Nature/1.)
- People who say 'science' doesn't recognize any god don't know how to write. Science isn't a person and can't recognize anything.
- Scientists who believe they don't recognize any god are mistaken; they recognize themselves as god. The idea men (some elites) can do whatever they want is evidence some people imagine they are god; that they have some right to play god over other people. This belief in no way allows them to escape god; in fact they've made themselves god... and all the rest of us must obey them, and suffer their assaults on us.
- This is an interesting bit of bravado. Why does the author of this piece of religion bashing personify science? Why doesn't he say scientists instead of science? If he did (and he should have) his sentence would read 'scientists recognize no god.' But this would be both false and a bit too bold I guess. The only correct way for the sentence to be written is; 'many scientists don't recognize a god.' (But even that would be false as they recognize themselves, or the State, as god.) The claim that to recognize god leads to 'bad' science is simply false. So the whole thing ends up being nonsense.
- the rest of us are expected (of course) to recognize the new god of science, or scientism, or the scientific elite... however you want to describe it. (And yes I do find that distressing.) The secular elite have worked hard to destroy language; to use words as weapons. They've succeeded in destroying words like god and religion; and so we must use other words; creator, belief system, world view, etc. Instead of using the word God we can use the term 'ultimate authority' - for this is what God is. God is the ultimate authority, and lawmaker. So when evolutionists say they don't recognize any god they're just blowing smoke; they recognize themselves and they recognize the state. We all bow the knee; some to false gods (like the state, like human desire) and some bow the knee to the creator of heaven and earth. Take your pick.
- If people like this are going to use the word god we have eveery right to demand they define the word they're using. To the Christian God refers to the supreme being portrayed in the bible; to man's creator and savior. Since the materialist doesn't believe that, he needs to define god in secular terms or not use the word. No one can escape the doctrine of God; man either accepts the creator or makes a god out of some other idea, or institution. Ultimate authority is an inescapable concept. There are basically 3 options; the creator, the self, or other men. Modern man is a polytheist, and he holds both Self and the State (other men) to be gods. (These aren't the only gods modern man has. The minor gods include; science, democracy, sports, sexual perversity, etc.)
Note;
1. Tony Reichhardt, “Religion and science: Studies of faith,” Nature 432, 666 - 669 (09 December 2004); doi:10.1038/432666a.
2. Dictionary definitions of god;
- something that dominates: something that is so important that it takes over somebody's life ( informal )
worshiping the false god of fame. (Encarta)
- a person or thing of supreme value (Mirriam/Webster)
- A person or thing deified and honored as the chief good; an object of supreme regard. Webster's/1913.
- Any person or thing exalted too much in estimation, or deified and honored as the chief good. W/1828
3. Some other definitions of god; ultimate authority; source of law; who or what you'd like to have defend you in a fight; source of greatest power.
- as there is only one true God (the creator of heaven and earth) there is only one true definition. (Definition is the wrong term.) If men reject the Creator they must come up with substitutes. These substitutes must to some extent take the place of god in terms of attributes; and so have power, authority, rule, knowledge, etc.
- the problem with what we might call 'Greek' philosophy is that definitions tend to be generic, or nominal. Biblical Christianity on the other hand gives concrete definitions. Greek definitions tend to be idealistic, a matter mainly of words and names, of imaginary conceptions. Under the Greek influence language degenerates into a word game. (e.g. god can stand for almost anything, whereas in Christianity God must have only one definition.)
4. A major problem that arises when people reject the true God, is that they replace Him with a false god. (e.g. Statism, scientism, Materialism, etc.)
4. I get tired of the false claim science only began to develop under atheists. (I guess this nonsense is what passes for scholarship in the modern university.) Scientific study was alive and well before Darwin ever came on the scene.
Quotes and comments;
1. "And even though some may find it distressing that science recognizes no god, forcing it to do so will only produce bad science." (editorial rant in Nature/1.)
- People who say 'science' doesn't recognize any god don't know how to write. Science isn't a person and can't recognize anything.
- Scientists who believe they don't recognize any god are mistaken; they recognize themselves as god. The idea men (some elites) can do whatever they want is evidence some people imagine they are god; that they have some right to play god over other people. This belief in no way allows them to escape god; in fact they've made themselves god... and all the rest of us must obey them, and suffer their assaults on us.
- This is an interesting bit of bravado. Why does the author of this piece of religion bashing personify science? Why doesn't he say scientists instead of science? If he did (and he should have) his sentence would read 'scientists recognize no god.' But this would be both false and a bit too bold I guess. The only correct way for the sentence to be written is; 'many scientists don't recognize a god.' (But even that would be false as they recognize themselves, or the State, as god.) The claim that to recognize god leads to 'bad' science is simply false. So the whole thing ends up being nonsense.
- the rest of us are expected (of course) to recognize the new god of science, or scientism, or the scientific elite... however you want to describe it. (And yes I do find that distressing.) The secular elite have worked hard to destroy language; to use words as weapons. They've succeeded in destroying words like god and religion; and so we must use other words; creator, belief system, world view, etc. Instead of using the word God we can use the term 'ultimate authority' - for this is what God is. God is the ultimate authority, and lawmaker. So when evolutionists say they don't recognize any god they're just blowing smoke; they recognize themselves and they recognize the state. We all bow the knee; some to false gods (like the state, like human desire) and some bow the knee to the creator of heaven and earth. Take your pick.
- If people like this are going to use the word god we have eveery right to demand they define the word they're using. To the Christian God refers to the supreme being portrayed in the bible; to man's creator and savior. Since the materialist doesn't believe that, he needs to define god in secular terms or not use the word. No one can escape the doctrine of God; man either accepts the creator or makes a god out of some other idea, or institution. Ultimate authority is an inescapable concept. There are basically 3 options; the creator, the self, or other men. Modern man is a polytheist, and he holds both Self and the State (other men) to be gods. (These aren't the only gods modern man has. The minor gods include; science, democracy, sports, sexual perversity, etc.)
Note;
1. Tony Reichhardt, “Religion and science: Studies of faith,” Nature 432, 666 - 669 (09 December 2004); doi:10.1038/432666a.
2. Dictionary definitions of god;
- something that dominates: something that is so important that it takes over somebody's life ( informal )
worshiping the false god of fame. (Encarta)
- a person or thing of supreme value (Mirriam/Webster)
- A person or thing deified and honored as the chief good; an object of supreme regard. Webster's/1913.
- Any person or thing exalted too much in estimation, or deified and honored as the chief good. W/1828
3. Some other definitions of god; ultimate authority; source of law; who or what you'd like to have defend you in a fight; source of greatest power.
- as there is only one true God (the creator of heaven and earth) there is only one true definition. (Definition is the wrong term.) If men reject the Creator they must come up with substitutes. These substitutes must to some extent take the place of god in terms of attributes; and so have power, authority, rule, knowledge, etc.
- the problem with what we might call 'Greek' philosophy is that definitions tend to be generic, or nominal. Biblical Christianity on the other hand gives concrete definitions. Greek definitions tend to be idealistic, a matter mainly of words and names, of imaginary conceptions. Under the Greek influence language degenerates into a word game. (e.g. god can stand for almost anything, whereas in Christianity God must have only one definition.)
4. A major problem that arises when people reject the true God, is that they replace Him with a false god. (e.g. Statism, scientism, Materialism, etc.)
4. I get tired of the false claim science only began to develop under atheists. (I guess this nonsense is what passes for scholarship in the modern university.) Scientific study was alive and well before Darwin ever came on the scene.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
The strange new grammar of Darwinism
'Why Creationism is Wrong' - Sarah Crown reports in the Guardian Unlimited on biologist Steve Jones’ speech to a crowd at an English bank holiday, the Hay Festival.
Quotes and comments;
1. "Apparently, 100m Americans believe in creationism," said Jones, peering bright-eyed over the top of his lecter. "As I said to my publisher I don't mind if they burn my books so long as they buy them first ... "
- Oh yes; creationists are book burners... Of course it's the evolutionists who are the censors in the issue of origins, so this is a pathetic farce of a joke. It's evolutionists who are doing everything in their power to suppress any critique of evolution, and suppress any mention of creationism or ID. So I ask you, why would you take seriously what such a b.s. artist has to say about origins? (Is it creationists who are going to court to have the teaching of evolution stopped?)
2. 'After gaining the audience's sympathy with a few well-aimed gags at the creationists' expense ("I'm not sure why Americans deny the truth of evolution, when the evidence [he gestures to a slide of pictures of George Bush juxtaposed with photographs of apes appears on the screen behind him] is all around them ...")
- wow; gee that's real funny. George bush isn't any smarter than an ape... I can't stop laughing.... help me.
- I wonder why anyone believes a clown like this would speak honestly about origins; or why they believe he would ever be honest about the evidence for and against evolution. The man clearly has no respect for the truth.
3. 'Darwin's definition of evolution is 'descent with modification', or as Jones put it, "genetics plus time", a theory so elegantly simple that "it could even be physics".
- the idea evolution is 'descent with modification' cannot be true. Why? If you trace the mythical process back you end up with a first organism. See the problem? the first organism has no ancestor, it cannot therefore be the product of descent. This formulation of e. has thus been refuted.
- genetics plus time is a meaningless phrase, and it's certainly not a theory. This is like saying Shakespeare is words plus time.
- The claim evolution is 'genetics plus time' an interesting comment, because one of my main criticisms of Materialism is that if it's true all things (all) must be explained in terms of physics. (i.e. evolution Has to be physics.) This can't of course be done, thus disproving both materialism and evolution. (i.e. if Materialism isn't true, then evolution can't be true.)
4. 'He illustrated the principle [evolution] with examples from linguistic development and, more lengthily, from the progression of the HIV epidemic.'
- the idea you can demonstrate evolution from linguistics is a joke. Human language is a creation of intelligent being. (Either man or god.) You cannot prove materialism by relying on an example of personal intelligence and invention. This is intellectual charlatanism; mere verbal sleight of hand.
5. “There are,“ he [Jones] concluded, “intelligent designers out there. But they work for the pharmaceutical industry.“
- what Jones thinks is a joke, I find very interesting. Here we have a materialist who admits (necessarily) that there are intelligent designers around... but who denies that God is one of them. (Or denies god exists I suppose.) So what is he saying; he's saying that intelligent designers are the result of the big bang. He's saying intelligent designers 'evolved' from rocks. I for one can't even begin to believe this. Jones refers to natural selection as the great principle of evolution (nonsense) but it's more accurate to say that continuity is the great principle of evolution. This principle states that evolution is a continuous process; that nothing can exist that did not have a precursor. This means in our example that intelligence must have existed in the big bang; that it must have existed in hydrogen, that it must have existed in molecules and electrons. Does anyone really believe this? [see note on Panpsychism] If they do I wish they would tell us who they are; I wish they would be open about this. But of course people like Jones keep quiet about this; they'd rather wave pictures of George Bush... and mock the so called c. right.
6. 'The aim of the talk, he explained, is to establish the testability and therefore prove the truth of evolution. After gaining the audience’s sympathy with a few well-aimed gags at the creationists’ expense ...he waltzed them off at top speed on a whistle-stop tour of evidence for that evolution, this fundamental theory which he described as “the grammar of biology”.
- the 'grammar' of biology? Here (yet again) we see how materialists (evolutionists) misuse language; how they use terms (steal in other words) they have no right to. The grammar of biology is an ID term if ever there was one. Only persons use grammar; only intelligent, personal agents. In no way can this terminology be founded on materialism.
- evolutionary theory is the 'grammar' of biology? One wonders what that means; if it's not just a bit of purple prose. Grammar is simply defined as 'the rules of language.' I fail to see in what sense e.t. can be the rules of biology. This could only be the case if 'biology' were a language; if organisms were the creations of language. But I don't think this is something Jones believes; so why then is he using this language. Evolutionists often call DNA a code; but they have no right to speak of codes, as codes are only written by intelligent persons. (Acting intentionally and with purpose.)
7. Since Jones refers to the 'grammar' of biology, let's look at a definition.
Grammar;
'In what follows, therefore, grammar will be generally employed in its primary sense, as denoting the mode in which words are connected in order to express a complete thought, or, as it is termed in logic, a proposition.
- Encyclopedia Britannica/1911
- So then; is Jones telling us that living organisms express thoughts or propositions? Is biology a kind of logic Steve? Is that what you mean? (Well I don't think so.) The trouble with ET is that it's so ugly a theory its advocates feel a need to dress it up in flowery language.)
- if ET is grammar, the just so stories it relies on are incoherent. We might more accurately say that darwinism is a theory in search of a grammar. People like Jones pretend they know the 'rules' behind evolution, but in reality they have no idea how to make the theory work. i.e. they can't find the rules of the supposed evolution of molecule to man transformation. E. writing is little more coherent (meaningful) than chicken scratching.
- I see no evidence Jones accomplished his goals of establishing the testability of evolution (whatever that means) or of proving evolution. To state a goal isn't to accomplish it. He doesn't even come close to doing these things. He's talking about what is misleadingly called micro-evolution. (Micro-evolution as a term is intellectual charlatanism. The variations referred to have Nothing to do with molecule to man evolution.) Nothing he said (at least in the report) related in any way to macro-evolution.
Summary;
- the reason people like Crown are so sure Darwinism is true (apart from some kind of strange national pride) is; a. they've been taught a pack of lies and half truths, b. that they've never been exposed to solid critiques of e. theory, and c. never been given evidence for creation or intelligent design. (Not to mention that almost none of them have ever read the bible; and that all they know about Christianity are lying 'critiques' from atheists. Hardly a one of them knows any biblical theology; all they know is the idiot pronouncements of a heretical and atheist clergy.)
Notes;
1. PANPSYCHISM (Gr. ray, all; Jivxn, soul)
- 'A philosophical term applied to any theory of nature which recognizes the existence of a psychical element throughout the objective world. In such theories not only animals and plants but even the smallest particles of matter are regarded as having some rudimentary kind of sensation or "soul," which plays the same part in relation to their objective activities or modifications as the soul does in the case of human beings. Such theories are the modern scientific or semi-scientific counterparts of the primitive animism of savage races, and may be compared with the hylozoism of the Greek physicists. In modern times the chief exponents of panpsychist views are Thomas Carlyle, Fechner and Paulsen: a similar idea lay at the root of the physical theories of the Stoics.' (Britannica/1911)
2. I heard Charles Kors (in a lecture) say that while the European professor didn't feel the need to entertain his class with a few jokes, that American professors did. Apparently this may not be completely true. It appears that jokes are about all Jones has to offer.
3. Darwin wasn't the only eccentric to design, or try to design, a new language. He and his followers have been the most successful however. They've twisted and distorted lanaguage so that darwinian newspeak would hardly be recognizible to people of 200 years ago.
4. "The aim of the talk, he explained, is to establish the testability and therefore prove the truth of evolution.'
- if that was his aim (and not merely to ridicule creationists and make simple authoritative claims about e.) he failed totally.
Quotes and comments;
1. "Apparently, 100m Americans believe in creationism," said Jones, peering bright-eyed over the top of his lecter. "As I said to my publisher I don't mind if they burn my books so long as they buy them first ... "
- Oh yes; creationists are book burners... Of course it's the evolutionists who are the censors in the issue of origins, so this is a pathetic farce of a joke. It's evolutionists who are doing everything in their power to suppress any critique of evolution, and suppress any mention of creationism or ID. So I ask you, why would you take seriously what such a b.s. artist has to say about origins? (Is it creationists who are going to court to have the teaching of evolution stopped?)
2. 'After gaining the audience's sympathy with a few well-aimed gags at the creationists' expense ("I'm not sure why Americans deny the truth of evolution, when the evidence [he gestures to a slide of pictures of George Bush juxtaposed with photographs of apes appears on the screen behind him] is all around them ...")
- wow; gee that's real funny. George bush isn't any smarter than an ape... I can't stop laughing.... help me.
- I wonder why anyone believes a clown like this would speak honestly about origins; or why they believe he would ever be honest about the evidence for and against evolution. The man clearly has no respect for the truth.
3. 'Darwin's definition of evolution is 'descent with modification', or as Jones put it, "genetics plus time", a theory so elegantly simple that "it could even be physics".
- the idea evolution is 'descent with modification' cannot be true. Why? If you trace the mythical process back you end up with a first organism. See the problem? the first organism has no ancestor, it cannot therefore be the product of descent. This formulation of e. has thus been refuted.
- genetics plus time is a meaningless phrase, and it's certainly not a theory. This is like saying Shakespeare is words plus time.
- The claim evolution is 'genetics plus time' an interesting comment, because one of my main criticisms of Materialism is that if it's true all things (all) must be explained in terms of physics. (i.e. evolution Has to be physics.) This can't of course be done, thus disproving both materialism and evolution. (i.e. if Materialism isn't true, then evolution can't be true.)
4. 'He illustrated the principle [evolution] with examples from linguistic development and, more lengthily, from the progression of the HIV epidemic.'
- the idea you can demonstrate evolution from linguistics is a joke. Human language is a creation of intelligent being. (Either man or god.) You cannot prove materialism by relying on an example of personal intelligence and invention. This is intellectual charlatanism; mere verbal sleight of hand.
5. “There are,“ he [Jones] concluded, “intelligent designers out there. But they work for the pharmaceutical industry.“
- what Jones thinks is a joke, I find very interesting. Here we have a materialist who admits (necessarily) that there are intelligent designers around... but who denies that God is one of them. (Or denies god exists I suppose.) So what is he saying; he's saying that intelligent designers are the result of the big bang. He's saying intelligent designers 'evolved' from rocks. I for one can't even begin to believe this. Jones refers to natural selection as the great principle of evolution (nonsense) but it's more accurate to say that continuity is the great principle of evolution. This principle states that evolution is a continuous process; that nothing can exist that did not have a precursor. This means in our example that intelligence must have existed in the big bang; that it must have existed in hydrogen, that it must have existed in molecules and electrons. Does anyone really believe this? [see note on Panpsychism] If they do I wish they would tell us who they are; I wish they would be open about this. But of course people like Jones keep quiet about this; they'd rather wave pictures of George Bush... and mock the so called c. right.
6. 'The aim of the talk, he explained, is to establish the testability and therefore prove the truth of evolution. After gaining the audience’s sympathy with a few well-aimed gags at the creationists’ expense ...he waltzed them off at top speed on a whistle-stop tour of evidence for that evolution, this fundamental theory which he described as “the grammar of biology”.
- the 'grammar' of biology? Here (yet again) we see how materialists (evolutionists) misuse language; how they use terms (steal in other words) they have no right to. The grammar of biology is an ID term if ever there was one. Only persons use grammar; only intelligent, personal agents. In no way can this terminology be founded on materialism.
- evolutionary theory is the 'grammar' of biology? One wonders what that means; if it's not just a bit of purple prose. Grammar is simply defined as 'the rules of language.' I fail to see in what sense e.t. can be the rules of biology. This could only be the case if 'biology' were a language; if organisms were the creations of language. But I don't think this is something Jones believes; so why then is he using this language. Evolutionists often call DNA a code; but they have no right to speak of codes, as codes are only written by intelligent persons. (Acting intentionally and with purpose.)
7. Since Jones refers to the 'grammar' of biology, let's look at a definition.
Grammar;
'In what follows, therefore, grammar will be generally employed in its primary sense, as denoting the mode in which words are connected in order to express a complete thought, or, as it is termed in logic, a proposition.
- Encyclopedia Britannica/1911
- So then; is Jones telling us that living organisms express thoughts or propositions? Is biology a kind of logic Steve? Is that what you mean? (Well I don't think so.) The trouble with ET is that it's so ugly a theory its advocates feel a need to dress it up in flowery language.)
- if ET is grammar, the just so stories it relies on are incoherent. We might more accurately say that darwinism is a theory in search of a grammar. People like Jones pretend they know the 'rules' behind evolution, but in reality they have no idea how to make the theory work. i.e. they can't find the rules of the supposed evolution of molecule to man transformation. E. writing is little more coherent (meaningful) than chicken scratching.
- I see no evidence Jones accomplished his goals of establishing the testability of evolution (whatever that means) or of proving evolution. To state a goal isn't to accomplish it. He doesn't even come close to doing these things. He's talking about what is misleadingly called micro-evolution. (Micro-evolution as a term is intellectual charlatanism. The variations referred to have Nothing to do with molecule to man evolution.) Nothing he said (at least in the report) related in any way to macro-evolution.
Summary;
- the reason people like Crown are so sure Darwinism is true (apart from some kind of strange national pride) is; a. they've been taught a pack of lies and half truths, b. that they've never been exposed to solid critiques of e. theory, and c. never been given evidence for creation or intelligent design. (Not to mention that almost none of them have ever read the bible; and that all they know about Christianity are lying 'critiques' from atheists. Hardly a one of them knows any biblical theology; all they know is the idiot pronouncements of a heretical and atheist clergy.)
Notes;
1. PANPSYCHISM (Gr. ray, all; Jivxn, soul)
- 'A philosophical term applied to any theory of nature which recognizes the existence of a psychical element throughout the objective world. In such theories not only animals and plants but even the smallest particles of matter are regarded as having some rudimentary kind of sensation or "soul," which plays the same part in relation to their objective activities or modifications as the soul does in the case of human beings. Such theories are the modern scientific or semi-scientific counterparts of the primitive animism of savage races, and may be compared with the hylozoism of the Greek physicists. In modern times the chief exponents of panpsychist views are Thomas Carlyle, Fechner and Paulsen: a similar idea lay at the root of the physical theories of the Stoics.' (Britannica/1911)
2. I heard Charles Kors (in a lecture) say that while the European professor didn't feel the need to entertain his class with a few jokes, that American professors did. Apparently this may not be completely true. It appears that jokes are about all Jones has to offer.
3. Darwin wasn't the only eccentric to design, or try to design, a new language. He and his followers have been the most successful however. They've twisted and distorted lanaguage so that darwinian newspeak would hardly be recognizible to people of 200 years ago.
4. "The aim of the talk, he explained, is to establish the testability and therefore prove the truth of evolution.'
- if that was his aim (and not merely to ridicule creationists and make simple authoritative claims about e.) he failed totally.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Darwinism and Dementia
Many people in our societies have a fear of science, or a fear of scientists. Is there good reason for such distrust? Or is it just a kind of baseless anxiety, based on bias and poor information? We see in the quote below that people have a solid basis for their fears. Darwinism has led to an intellectual dementia in many of our academics and professors. Having embraced the myth of evolution they have lost their moral grounding. They've filled the vacuum created by rejecting Christianity with wild ideas, speculations and subjective feelings. This has allowed them to advocate all manner of ideas and schemes that are truly evil.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Popular science reporter Forest Mims III heard a chilling round of applause at a meeting of scientists, reported World Net Daily. When lizard expert Eric R. Pianka suggested it would be a good thing if airborne ebola killed off 90% of the human population, he got a standing ovation – and an award. At a meeting of the Texas Academy of Science, the audience also liked his suggestion that bird flu could do the job, and chuckled when he suggested it was time to sterilize everyone on Earth. “We’re no better than bacteria,” Pianka said in his polemic on overpopulation.
- When people like this say 'we're no better than bacteria,' we ask that they speak for themselves. Pianka may believe that he's (personally) no better than bacteria, (and he may be right for all I know) but he has no right to speak for anyone else.
- the man is clearly demented... and so I ask you, why do you take people like this seriously when they speak on the origins issue? We see here clearly the kind of idea induced dementia that reigns on our campuses. Much of what is passed off (to students) as science is really just emotional prejudice. (e.g. evolutionism)
- Pianka has no basis for making this kind of claim; but apparently he's too witless to realize this. If mankind is no better than bacteria, then it's no worse either; and if it's no worse why worry about overpopulation. His argument thus refutes itself. If he believes he's no better than bacteria why is he giving us all a lecture? (I don't remember hearing any lectures by bacteria lately.) This makes no sense at all. This is just one more example of how Materialism defeats itself.
- the people who gave him a standing ovation are no better than he is... and maybe no better than bacteria at seeing a stupid statement. (I notice that didn't get together and all drink some doped up kool-aid. Why? Well it's obvious; the 'too many' people they refer to are people of a lower and and superfluous kind. These genocidal maniacs always have other people in mind; never themselves.)
2. 'After praising the Ebola virus for its efficiency at killing, Pianka paused, leaned over the lectern, looked at us and carefully said, “We've got airborne 90 percent mortality in humans. Killing humans. Think about that.” (note #2.)
- One thing that disturbs me about this presentation is that it comes close to soliciting large scale acts of terrorism of the kind he outlines. i.e. if it would be a good thing for this to happen, wouldn't it be a good idea for someone to do it?
- What he's [Pianka] doing here is trying to solve what he thinks is a problem... in a non moral way. The orthodox Christian position is that an end must be accomplished in a moral way. (i.e. bad means don't give good ends; the end does Not justify the means.) He takes this approach because he doesn't believe in objective morality; doesn't believe in God or in God's law. So if you have no moral answer what do you do? You get a big stick and say if you don't do x I'll bash you. If that doesn't work you just kill the people who wont' go with the program (as Lenin and Stalin did to the 'kulaks') The biblical position is that all solutions to problems must be moral; i.e. they must not violate god's law. (The consistent darwinist doesn't believe in moral solutions to problems.)
- what you see here (and you see this everywhere it seems) is that when e's want to rebuke people they belittle them; ie. they call them 'no better than animals,' or 'no more than bags of chemicals' or 'mindless gene carriers' or 'the slaves of genes,' etc. E's seem to have this intense desire to degrade human beings. (This is obviously a generalization.) I see this over and over. Human beings have never been as savagely abused as they have in recent decades by evolutionists. The irony here is that if all these arguments are true, they're self-refuting. i.e. if this is all man is why worry about what might happen to him? But these are all unsupported claims; they can in no way be proved. And so I ask people; 'why do you believe what these people tell you about Origins?' Are you really interested in the opinions of someone who thinks you're just a mindless slave of a set of genes? or that you're no better than bacteria?
'One of Pianka's earliest points was a condemnation of anthropocentrism, or the idea that humankind occupies a privileged position in the Universe. He told a story about how a neighbor asked him what good the lizards are that he studies. He answered, “What good are you?” (see note #2.)
- His point is obvious I think. (i.e. only 'scientists' are valuable... everyone else can be tossed onto the flames.)
- If mankind is no better than lizards or bacteria why worry if we all die out? This argument refutes itself.
- if man is no better than bacteria, the implication is that no animal is better than bacteria... and if that's the case why this fervor to save them?
Notes;
1. Reference; Scientists Cheer Theoretical Holocaust (Creation/Evolution Headlines 04/02/2006)
2. Meeting Doctor Doom - Forrest M. Mims III
3. What then is dementia; behaving or thinking in contradiction to god's moral law. To the extent a man isn't thinking in terms of god's law he is out of his mind. Any decision that violates god's law cannot be good; cannot do anything but harm... and is in fact demented.
4. You want the definition of bacteria? Okay.
- Bacterium; n.; pl. Bacteria (#). [NL., fr. Gr., , a staff: cf. F. bactérie. ] (Biol.)
1. A microscopic vegetable organism, belonging to the class Algæ, usually in the form of a jointed rodlike filament, and found in putrefying organic infusions. Bacteria are destitute of chlorophyll, and are the smallest of microscopic organisms. They are very widely diffused in nature, and multiply with marvelous rapidity, both by fission and by spores. Certain species are active agents in fermentation, while others appear to be the cause of certain infectious diseases.'
- I think you see why Pianka chose to compare mankind with bacteria.
- a professor who can't tell the difference between bacteria and people is lucky to have a job. (He sure wouldn't get one from me.)
5. If man is no better than bacteria how would Pianka know this? Why should he in that case trust his mind? Why does he thinks words mean anything? Why does he imagine this concept of anthropomorphism means anything? Why should he imagine his rejection of it is valid? etc.
- it's strange to hear people say things like mankind doesn't occupy a privileged position in the universe. How can anyone utter such a transparently false statement? Pianka here isn't trying to make an honest statement. It's obvious that man does hold a privileged position; but here he our professor denies it. (And why would anyone believe a person like this on the origins issue?) Most people are naive about academics; they imagine these people are devoted to the truth. Here we see a man (and he's not alone by any means; only a little more extreme) who is showing us how he has no trouble telling blatant lies, how he's going out of his way to deceive people, how he's hiding his true ideas, etc. He's not engaged in science. Lizardology is just a ruse, that gives him a soap box for his bizarre political ideas.
6. Pianka dreams of 90 percent of the human race dying off. I wonder if he's taken any time to imagine what that would do to science? do to culture? do to civilization? Surely it would end all these things. So wonders how you can idolize science but then dream of a holocaust that would bring it to an end? (In canada David Suzuki dreamed of a Y2K event that would kill off 90 percent of the population. For some reason he was never condemned for this... and continued on as if he'd never said it, and was recently proclaimed one of Canada's greatest citizens. What a mad world we live in.)
7. Scientists apparently wonder why they face so much criticism and fear from the public. (Well, look no further guys.) People fear that scientists like Pianka will one day get control of the resources they need to effect their dark dreams.
8. That Pianka has a savior complex is obvious from looking at the obituary he's posted. (So eager was he to paint this idealized portrait of himself, he put it up before he died.) Self-idolatry.com
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Popular science reporter Forest Mims III heard a chilling round of applause at a meeting of scientists, reported World Net Daily. When lizard expert Eric R. Pianka suggested it would be a good thing if airborne ebola killed off 90% of the human population, he got a standing ovation – and an award. At a meeting of the Texas Academy of Science, the audience also liked his suggestion that bird flu could do the job, and chuckled when he suggested it was time to sterilize everyone on Earth. “We’re no better than bacteria,” Pianka said in his polemic on overpopulation.
- When people like this say 'we're no better than bacteria,' we ask that they speak for themselves. Pianka may believe that he's (personally) no better than bacteria, (and he may be right for all I know) but he has no right to speak for anyone else.
- the man is clearly demented... and so I ask you, why do you take people like this seriously when they speak on the origins issue? We see here clearly the kind of idea induced dementia that reigns on our campuses. Much of what is passed off (to students) as science is really just emotional prejudice. (e.g. evolutionism)
- Pianka has no basis for making this kind of claim; but apparently he's too witless to realize this. If mankind is no better than bacteria, then it's no worse either; and if it's no worse why worry about overpopulation. His argument thus refutes itself. If he believes he's no better than bacteria why is he giving us all a lecture? (I don't remember hearing any lectures by bacteria lately.) This makes no sense at all. This is just one more example of how Materialism defeats itself.
- the people who gave him a standing ovation are no better than he is... and maybe no better than bacteria at seeing a stupid statement. (I notice that didn't get together and all drink some doped up kool-aid. Why? Well it's obvious; the 'too many' people they refer to are people of a lower and and superfluous kind. These genocidal maniacs always have other people in mind; never themselves.)
2. 'After praising the Ebola virus for its efficiency at killing, Pianka paused, leaned over the lectern, looked at us and carefully said, “We've got airborne 90 percent mortality in humans. Killing humans. Think about that.” (note #2.)
- One thing that disturbs me about this presentation is that it comes close to soliciting large scale acts of terrorism of the kind he outlines. i.e. if it would be a good thing for this to happen, wouldn't it be a good idea for someone to do it?
- What he's [Pianka] doing here is trying to solve what he thinks is a problem... in a non moral way. The orthodox Christian position is that an end must be accomplished in a moral way. (i.e. bad means don't give good ends; the end does Not justify the means.) He takes this approach because he doesn't believe in objective morality; doesn't believe in God or in God's law. So if you have no moral answer what do you do? You get a big stick and say if you don't do x I'll bash you. If that doesn't work you just kill the people who wont' go with the program (as Lenin and Stalin did to the 'kulaks') The biblical position is that all solutions to problems must be moral; i.e. they must not violate god's law. (The consistent darwinist doesn't believe in moral solutions to problems.)
- what you see here (and you see this everywhere it seems) is that when e's want to rebuke people they belittle them; ie. they call them 'no better than animals,' or 'no more than bags of chemicals' or 'mindless gene carriers' or 'the slaves of genes,' etc. E's seem to have this intense desire to degrade human beings. (This is obviously a generalization.) I see this over and over. Human beings have never been as savagely abused as they have in recent decades by evolutionists. The irony here is that if all these arguments are true, they're self-refuting. i.e. if this is all man is why worry about what might happen to him? But these are all unsupported claims; they can in no way be proved. And so I ask people; 'why do you believe what these people tell you about Origins?' Are you really interested in the opinions of someone who thinks you're just a mindless slave of a set of genes? or that you're no better than bacteria?
'One of Pianka's earliest points was a condemnation of anthropocentrism, or the idea that humankind occupies a privileged position in the Universe. He told a story about how a neighbor asked him what good the lizards are that he studies. He answered, “What good are you?” (see note #2.)
- His point is obvious I think. (i.e. only 'scientists' are valuable... everyone else can be tossed onto the flames.)
- If mankind is no better than lizards or bacteria why worry if we all die out? This argument refutes itself.
- if man is no better than bacteria, the implication is that no animal is better than bacteria... and if that's the case why this fervor to save them?
Notes;
1. Reference; Scientists Cheer Theoretical Holocaust (Creation/Evolution Headlines 04/02/2006)
2. Meeting Doctor Doom - Forrest M. Mims III
3. What then is dementia; behaving or thinking in contradiction to god's moral law. To the extent a man isn't thinking in terms of god's law he is out of his mind. Any decision that violates god's law cannot be good; cannot do anything but harm... and is in fact demented.
4. You want the definition of bacteria? Okay.
- Bacterium; n.; pl. Bacteria (#). [NL., fr. Gr., , a staff: cf. F. bactérie. ] (Biol.)
1. A microscopic vegetable organism, belonging to the class Algæ, usually in the form of a jointed rodlike filament, and found in putrefying organic infusions. Bacteria are destitute of chlorophyll, and are the smallest of microscopic organisms. They are very widely diffused in nature, and multiply with marvelous rapidity, both by fission and by spores. Certain species are active agents in fermentation, while others appear to be the cause of certain infectious diseases.'
- I think you see why Pianka chose to compare mankind with bacteria.
- a professor who can't tell the difference between bacteria and people is lucky to have a job. (He sure wouldn't get one from me.)
5. If man is no better than bacteria how would Pianka know this? Why should he in that case trust his mind? Why does he thinks words mean anything? Why does he imagine this concept of anthropomorphism means anything? Why should he imagine his rejection of it is valid? etc.
- it's strange to hear people say things like mankind doesn't occupy a privileged position in the universe. How can anyone utter such a transparently false statement? Pianka here isn't trying to make an honest statement. It's obvious that man does hold a privileged position; but here he our professor denies it. (And why would anyone believe a person like this on the origins issue?) Most people are naive about academics; they imagine these people are devoted to the truth. Here we see a man (and he's not alone by any means; only a little more extreme) who is showing us how he has no trouble telling blatant lies, how he's going out of his way to deceive people, how he's hiding his true ideas, etc. He's not engaged in science. Lizardology is just a ruse, that gives him a soap box for his bizarre political ideas.
6. Pianka dreams of 90 percent of the human race dying off. I wonder if he's taken any time to imagine what that would do to science? do to culture? do to civilization? Surely it would end all these things. So wonders how you can idolize science but then dream of a holocaust that would bring it to an end? (In canada David Suzuki dreamed of a Y2K event that would kill off 90 percent of the population. For some reason he was never condemned for this... and continued on as if he'd never said it, and was recently proclaimed one of Canada's greatest citizens. What a mad world we live in.)
7. Scientists apparently wonder why they face so much criticism and fear from the public. (Well, look no further guys.) People fear that scientists like Pianka will one day get control of the resources they need to effect their dark dreams.
8. That Pianka has a savior complex is obvious from looking at the obituary he's posted. (So eager was he to paint this idealized portrait of himself, he put it up before he died.) Self-idolatry.com
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Refuting Materialism
“Whether you’re a believer or not, the quest to understand this magnificent, frightening, exhilarating world that we live in is just as much a moral demand laid upon us as ‘love your neighbor.’ People who don’t want to know the way the world is are spiritually dead.” - Michael Ruse
Quotes and comments;
- This is the kind of quote (from e's) that annoys me. Ruse has no business saying such a thing. He has no basis for saying it; no foundation for such an utterance.
- the usual definition of m. states that the u. consists solely of matter in motion. Where then is there room for belief? Do atoms and electrons believe in things? do they have beliefs? This is rubbish. Matter acts, it does not (and cannot) believe.
Believe;
a. ' To exercise belief in; to credit upon the authority or testimony of another; to be persuaded of the truth of, upon evidence furnished by reasons, arguments, and deductions of the mind, or by circumstances other than personal knowledge; to regard or accept as true; to place confidence in; to think; to consider; as, to believe a person, a statement, or a doctrine.
- so i ask you; does matter think? reason? argue? consider? etc. Of course not. Therefore I conclude materialism is a fallacious view of the universe. (At best it is woefully inadequate.)
- and Ruse talks about the 'quest' for understanding the the origins of the world and of mankind. Again, he has no business talking in this way. Matter doesn't engage in quests. [Quest; the act of seeking; search; as to go in quest of game; in quest of a lost child; in quest of property.] Matter isn't seeking anything; and most assuredly isn't seeking understanding. Therefore we conclude m. is a false view of reality.
- Ruse speaks of moral demands. Again, a materialist has no basis for speaking of morals, or of moral obligations. Matter acts mechanically; it cannot do right or wrong. Matter just is; it is under no obligations. Only persons have obligations. therefore we conclude m. is a false view of the universe.
- we'll let you come up with your own explanation of why it's illegitimate for a Materialist to speak of people as being spiritually dead.
- the fact Michael Ruse has delivered himself of such a noble sentiment shows us that people can't live in terms of materialism; they cannot live consistently in terms of what the philosophy states and claims. (There isn't one consistent Materialist on the planet.)
- the fact Ruse feels these sentiments is all the evidence he needs that he is not merely matter in motion.
Notes;
1. Reference; 'The Harvard Gazette [2006] held a panel discussion on “How Do We Teach Evolution.” Richard Lewontin sees the first priority as convincing the doubters that animals do evolve. Reporter Bob Brustman ended with a surprising quote from Michael Ruse: “Whether you’re a believer or not, the quest to understand this magnificent, frightening, exhilarating world that we live in is just as much a moral demand laid upon us as ‘love your neighbor.’ People who don’t want to know the way the world is are spiritually dead.”
2. The obvious question I guess (at least to some) is this; 'how is it materialists can speak this way? how is it they speak as if they were theists?' There isn't a single answer. Some people of course talk this way out of a desire to deceive people. Some people live in two mental worlds as it were; somehow managing to write books as if they believed in materialism, but then living as if they didn't. Some people seem unaware of the implications of Materialism. To some extent this 'double mindedness' stems from growing up in a culture that still retains vestiges of a biblical Christianity. To some extent this is a matter of language. Our languages are deeply theistic; and there really aren't ways to express (communicate) a self-consistent materialism. (I don't know how such a language could even be created.) To some extent this 'split mindedness' is a matter of all men bearing the image of god. (However slightly or radically altered you might think that image now is.)
- to some extent (perhaps a great extent) this is a matter of reasoning forward from a basic presupposition. (i.e. of materialism.) If one's basic assumption is that all that exists is matter, then one concludes, ''well, gee whiz, I guess matter (in its guise as man) can think, can engage in a quest for understanding, can care about origins, etc. (One can't reason backward from 'spiritual' man to materialism; one can only reason forward from an assumption of materialism. When one does this a person ignores the evidence in favor of a theory.)
- there is no scientific theory that even pretends to explain how it is atoms and chemicals can care about the ultimate origins of man and universe. It's surely clear that the desire to understand, that the feeling of obligation, etc. aren't 'things' extant in matter. But this is all the materialist has to work with. If he's honest he has to say these things exist in the structure of matter; but he knows this isn't the case. His only escape then is to say that the desire to understand is an 'emergent' quality. This seems to satisfy many m's but I see it as weak and illegitimate. This is like saying personal and spiritual qualities spring into existence out of nothing; but this is just what materialism denies. The human qualities ruse referred to can only exist because of a 'not-natural' arrangement of matter. (This in our day we call information.) We all know this, but some of us refuse to admit it.
Quotes and comments;
- This is the kind of quote (from e's) that annoys me. Ruse has no business saying such a thing. He has no basis for saying it; no foundation for such an utterance.
- the usual definition of m. states that the u. consists solely of matter in motion. Where then is there room for belief? Do atoms and electrons believe in things? do they have beliefs? This is rubbish. Matter acts, it does not (and cannot) believe.
Believe;
a. ' To exercise belief in; to credit upon the authority or testimony of another; to be persuaded of the truth of, upon evidence furnished by reasons, arguments, and deductions of the mind, or by circumstances other than personal knowledge; to regard or accept as true; to place confidence in; to think; to consider; as, to believe a person, a statement, or a doctrine.
- so i ask you; does matter think? reason? argue? consider? etc. Of course not. Therefore I conclude materialism is a fallacious view of the universe. (At best it is woefully inadequate.)
- and Ruse talks about the 'quest' for understanding the the origins of the world and of mankind. Again, he has no business talking in this way. Matter doesn't engage in quests. [Quest; the act of seeking; search; as to go in quest of game; in quest of a lost child; in quest of property.] Matter isn't seeking anything; and most assuredly isn't seeking understanding. Therefore we conclude m. is a false view of reality.
- Ruse speaks of moral demands. Again, a materialist has no basis for speaking of morals, or of moral obligations. Matter acts mechanically; it cannot do right or wrong. Matter just is; it is under no obligations. Only persons have obligations. therefore we conclude m. is a false view of the universe.
- we'll let you come up with your own explanation of why it's illegitimate for a Materialist to speak of people as being spiritually dead.
- the fact Michael Ruse has delivered himself of such a noble sentiment shows us that people can't live in terms of materialism; they cannot live consistently in terms of what the philosophy states and claims. (There isn't one consistent Materialist on the planet.)
- the fact Ruse feels these sentiments is all the evidence he needs that he is not merely matter in motion.
Notes;
1. Reference; 'The Harvard Gazette [2006] held a panel discussion on “How Do We Teach Evolution.” Richard Lewontin sees the first priority as convincing the doubters that animals do evolve. Reporter Bob Brustman ended with a surprising quote from Michael Ruse: “Whether you’re a believer or not, the quest to understand this magnificent, frightening, exhilarating world that we live in is just as much a moral demand laid upon us as ‘love your neighbor.’ People who don’t want to know the way the world is are spiritually dead.”
2. The obvious question I guess (at least to some) is this; 'how is it materialists can speak this way? how is it they speak as if they were theists?' There isn't a single answer. Some people of course talk this way out of a desire to deceive people. Some people live in two mental worlds as it were; somehow managing to write books as if they believed in materialism, but then living as if they didn't. Some people seem unaware of the implications of Materialism. To some extent this 'double mindedness' stems from growing up in a culture that still retains vestiges of a biblical Christianity. To some extent this is a matter of language. Our languages are deeply theistic; and there really aren't ways to express (communicate) a self-consistent materialism. (I don't know how such a language could even be created.) To some extent this 'split mindedness' is a matter of all men bearing the image of god. (However slightly or radically altered you might think that image now is.)
- to some extent (perhaps a great extent) this is a matter of reasoning forward from a basic presupposition. (i.e. of materialism.) If one's basic assumption is that all that exists is matter, then one concludes, ''well, gee whiz, I guess matter (in its guise as man) can think, can engage in a quest for understanding, can care about origins, etc. (One can't reason backward from 'spiritual' man to materialism; one can only reason forward from an assumption of materialism. When one does this a person ignores the evidence in favor of a theory.)
- there is no scientific theory that even pretends to explain how it is atoms and chemicals can care about the ultimate origins of man and universe. It's surely clear that the desire to understand, that the feeling of obligation, etc. aren't 'things' extant in matter. But this is all the materialist has to work with. If he's honest he has to say these things exist in the structure of matter; but he knows this isn't the case. His only escape then is to say that the desire to understand is an 'emergent' quality. This seems to satisfy many m's but I see it as weak and illegitimate. This is like saying personal and spiritual qualities spring into existence out of nothing; but this is just what materialism denies. The human qualities ruse referred to can only exist because of a 'not-natural' arrangement of matter. (This in our day we call information.) We all know this, but some of us refuse to admit it.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
There cannot be a young earth
A young earth is impossible Christian Liberals say.
Browsing the ASA site, I saw a brief book recommendation.... where we read something like ''fossil corral reefs, etc. mean that a young age for the earth cannot be true...'' (note 1.)
- Cannot be true? Really? The only way this statement can be true is that if human beings are capable of knowing absolute truth. We than have to ask this person ''do you believe men are capable of knowing things about the perceived universe in an absolute sense.'' If they say yes, as they must, we ask, ''can you prove that?" Of course they cannot.
- My conclusion is that it is always wrong to say x cannot be true. (X being some orthodox biblical doctrine.) I call this scientism; though perhaps there's a better term for it. It's human pride (and ambition, etc.) that provokes people to make absolute statements. Isn't it obvious that finite, fallible and fallen creatures can't formulate absolute statements? (i.e that are accurate) It's the great heresy of Humanism to think man can make absolute statements. (We ever see through a glass darkly.) It's sad to see Christians fall into this humanist heresy. They seem to have been taken in by the secular delusion that science must proceed by absolute claims. A study of history shows this to be fallacious. Apart from special revelation all man has ever had has been ideas, theories, speculations. (The nearer a person is to looking at physical' reality in the present the closer he can come to making an objective statement; the further away he is from this the further he will be from even the possibility of making an absolute claim of any objective validity.) There is nothing wrong with all this; this is the situation God has placed us in... for very good reasons of His own. Our problem is not our finiteness, but our sin.
- It may look to some people (or to most people, or to all people) that corrals reefs make a young earth look impossible. But a Christian should not ever say this 'cannot' be the case. The universe may not be what we imagine it to be. (e.g. it might not be a 'physical' universe at all. It might be a spiritual universe... a mental construct of some kind... or who knows what.) The inability to say 'cannot' is no hardship, either on any of us personally, or on the 'scientific enterprise' as a whole. We all need greater humility, and restraining ourselves from saying cannot' (from making absolute claims) is simply one way to express that humility. We can say, 'I see no way the world can be as young as the Bible says,'' be we cannot say the world cannot be young. (And what is young anyway? The 'young earth' was an invention of people like Lyell and others. Something is 'young' only relative to something else.)
- To know (in an absolute sense) the earth was not 'young' a person would literally have to know everything, and to know all things perfectly. (Such of course is impossible.) I realize that most 'old earthers' will find this an unconvincing argument... but I don't see any way around it. That it wounds human pride doesn't negate its force. If a Christian respects and honors the word of God as he should I don't see how he can in good conscience say a pretty clear implication of the text cannot be true. (Do I need to remind people that many of these 'cannot' statements have been proven wrong?)
- To prevent being misunderstood; let me say that I in no way insist that Christians believe the earth is young... only that they not say it 'cannot' be young. (You cannot force people to believe things in any event.) A plain reading of the bible appears to speak of an earth 6-10,000 years old. We must at least leave a possibility (no matter how slim) that this could be correct. We must at least leave some possibility that we could be wrong. (Or shall we say human beings are incapable of error?)
Notes;
1. The book I refer to is 'God and Evolution' by David Wilcox. This book is on the ASA recommended list; and it's blurb reads; "While discussing the earth’s age, Wilcox does a creditable job of showing that, logically, a young earth is not possible given evidence from geology and fossil coral reefs."
2. A great problem with so called 'theistic evolution' (which isn't evolution at all in my opinion) is simply this; 'how can its advocates make it seem real?" The materialist (atheist) doesn't admit to seeing any evidence of God in the world; and most Christians don't see any evidence of god in evolution. It looks for all the world like a fat, cushy pillow to sit on while one's straddling the fence. The whole point of evolutionary theory is that it does away with the need for god. (Atheism or materialism predates evolutionary theory; it's no secret what came first. T.e. seems a political strategy to me, and not scientific at all. (Not all old earthers accept evolution of course; Arthur Custance being a notable case.)
3. The theistic evolutionist tells the young earth creationist; 'you must accept the 'decrees' of science. If the 'best' scientists of the day say x is true, we must all accept this... whether we want to or not.' But yet the theistic evolutionists doesn't accept the claim that God has nothing to do with evolution... that evolution is a purely naturalistic process. So he doesn't follow his own rule. (i.e. he tells the YE Christian to just accept what 'science' says, but he doesn't do this himself.)
4. I'm not entirely dissatisfied with the model that states the earth (or a 'recreated' earth) might be young, while the universe itself is old. This might be easiest to picture if we see it in terms of science fiction imagery. In an 'old' universe god might have taken an 'uninhabitable' planet, and then made it fit for earthly creatures to live in. (Sf writers call this terraforming.) I neither accept it or reject it outright. (Having said that I don't hold out much hope for it.)
- Kim Stanley Robinson wrote a trilogy of novels a few years ago on 'terraforming' Mars.
5. Terraforming definition from Wikipedia;
- the application of technology for the purpose of influencing the global properties of a planet. The goal of this theoretical task is usually to make other worlds habitable for life.
- Perhaps the best-known type of planetary engineering is terraforming, by which a planet's surface conditions are altered to be more like those of Earth. Other terms used for particular types of planetary engineering include caeliforming, for the creation of an Earth-like atmosphere, and ecopoiesis for the introduction of an ecology to a lifeless environment.
Browsing the ASA site, I saw a brief book recommendation.... where we read something like ''fossil corral reefs, etc. mean that a young age for the earth cannot be true...'' (note 1.)
- Cannot be true? Really? The only way this statement can be true is that if human beings are capable of knowing absolute truth. We than have to ask this person ''do you believe men are capable of knowing things about the perceived universe in an absolute sense.'' If they say yes, as they must, we ask, ''can you prove that?" Of course they cannot.
- My conclusion is that it is always wrong to say x cannot be true. (X being some orthodox biblical doctrine.) I call this scientism; though perhaps there's a better term for it. It's human pride (and ambition, etc.) that provokes people to make absolute statements. Isn't it obvious that finite, fallible and fallen creatures can't formulate absolute statements? (i.e that are accurate) It's the great heresy of Humanism to think man can make absolute statements. (We ever see through a glass darkly.) It's sad to see Christians fall into this humanist heresy. They seem to have been taken in by the secular delusion that science must proceed by absolute claims. A study of history shows this to be fallacious. Apart from special revelation all man has ever had has been ideas, theories, speculations. (The nearer a person is to looking at physical' reality in the present the closer he can come to making an objective statement; the further away he is from this the further he will be from even the possibility of making an absolute claim of any objective validity.) There is nothing wrong with all this; this is the situation God has placed us in... for very good reasons of His own. Our problem is not our finiteness, but our sin.
- It may look to some people (or to most people, or to all people) that corrals reefs make a young earth look impossible. But a Christian should not ever say this 'cannot' be the case. The universe may not be what we imagine it to be. (e.g. it might not be a 'physical' universe at all. It might be a spiritual universe... a mental construct of some kind... or who knows what.) The inability to say 'cannot' is no hardship, either on any of us personally, or on the 'scientific enterprise' as a whole. We all need greater humility, and restraining ourselves from saying cannot' (from making absolute claims) is simply one way to express that humility. We can say, 'I see no way the world can be as young as the Bible says,'' be we cannot say the world cannot be young. (And what is young anyway? The 'young earth' was an invention of people like Lyell and others. Something is 'young' only relative to something else.)
- To know (in an absolute sense) the earth was not 'young' a person would literally have to know everything, and to know all things perfectly. (Such of course is impossible.) I realize that most 'old earthers' will find this an unconvincing argument... but I don't see any way around it. That it wounds human pride doesn't negate its force. If a Christian respects and honors the word of God as he should I don't see how he can in good conscience say a pretty clear implication of the text cannot be true. (Do I need to remind people that many of these 'cannot' statements have been proven wrong?)
- To prevent being misunderstood; let me say that I in no way insist that Christians believe the earth is young... only that they not say it 'cannot' be young. (You cannot force people to believe things in any event.) A plain reading of the bible appears to speak of an earth 6-10,000 years old. We must at least leave a possibility (no matter how slim) that this could be correct. We must at least leave some possibility that we could be wrong. (Or shall we say human beings are incapable of error?)
Notes;
1. The book I refer to is 'God and Evolution' by David Wilcox. This book is on the ASA recommended list; and it's blurb reads; "While discussing the earth’s age, Wilcox does a creditable job of showing that, logically, a young earth is not possible given evidence from geology and fossil coral reefs."
2. A great problem with so called 'theistic evolution' (which isn't evolution at all in my opinion) is simply this; 'how can its advocates make it seem real?" The materialist (atheist) doesn't admit to seeing any evidence of God in the world; and most Christians don't see any evidence of god in evolution. It looks for all the world like a fat, cushy pillow to sit on while one's straddling the fence. The whole point of evolutionary theory is that it does away with the need for god. (Atheism or materialism predates evolutionary theory; it's no secret what came first. T.e. seems a political strategy to me, and not scientific at all. (Not all old earthers accept evolution of course; Arthur Custance being a notable case.)
3. The theistic evolutionist tells the young earth creationist; 'you must accept the 'decrees' of science. If the 'best' scientists of the day say x is true, we must all accept this... whether we want to or not.' But yet the theistic evolutionists doesn't accept the claim that God has nothing to do with evolution... that evolution is a purely naturalistic process. So he doesn't follow his own rule. (i.e. he tells the YE Christian to just accept what 'science' says, but he doesn't do this himself.)
4. I'm not entirely dissatisfied with the model that states the earth (or a 'recreated' earth) might be young, while the universe itself is old. This might be easiest to picture if we see it in terms of science fiction imagery. In an 'old' universe god might have taken an 'uninhabitable' planet, and then made it fit for earthly creatures to live in. (Sf writers call this terraforming.) I neither accept it or reject it outright. (Having said that I don't hold out much hope for it.)
- Kim Stanley Robinson wrote a trilogy of novels a few years ago on 'terraforming' Mars.
5. Terraforming definition from Wikipedia;
- the application of technology for the purpose of influencing the global properties of a planet. The goal of this theoretical task is usually to make other worlds habitable for life.
- Perhaps the best-known type of planetary engineering is terraforming, by which a planet's surface conditions are altered to be more like those of Earth. Other terms used for particular types of planetary engineering include caeliforming, for the creation of an Earth-like atmosphere, and ecopoiesis for the introduction of an ecology to a lifeless environment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
