The uniqueness of human beings is under persistent attack in academic circles. In this post I want to look at one example (of thousands) and try and refute it.
Quotes and comments;
1. “The fact that the birds act in favor of a future need as opposed to the current one challenges the hypothesis that this ability is unique to humans.” [1.]
- I don't remember anyone saying animals can't act in terms of future need. Did anyone say this? I assume what they're referring to is planning for the future. (Some have claimed this was a human distinctive.) But do we know the birds are planning for the future? Couldn't we say they're just acting by instinct? e.g. the way they make nests or migrate. (Would they say building a nest is planning for the future?)
- the problem here is (as usual) equivocation. (This problem pops up daily in reading about Origins, etc.) These authors are conflating the 'planning' of animals with the planning of human beings. It's clear animals act (in some way) as if they were planning for the future, but the mistake is to equate this with what human beings do. When the bear fattens itself up for winter hibernation is it really 'planning' for the future? Does it picture itself asleep in some cave wasting away if not for the added fat? I doubt it.
- my point is that there is no such generic thing as planning; no such generic as planning for the future. When people say 'scrub jays are just like us' they're committing the fallacy of equivocation.
- no guys; scrub jays are Not like us. (I don't see them doing studies of humans and their ability to plan for the future :=) I don't see them planning away on how they can get tenure or a government grant.
- the old claim (formulated in a simple way) may well be false; but what is true, is that no animal plans for the future in the way human beings do. The planning abilities of man are unique; no animal foresees or thinks about the future in the way human beings do.
- human abilities are so obviously unique that it baffles me why we have armies of Darwinists insisting this isn't true. Why this campaign to deny reality? (I don't see animals engaged in a similar campaign.) The social pendulum (at least on campus) has swung so far (away from creation) that it has reached the lofty heights of silliness. The denial of human uniqueness seems to be part of a new 'nature religion' that's in the works. By denying his uniqueness man bows down to 'nature' and does homage. (He humbles himself as it were.)
Notes;
1. Science Is for the Birds - Creation/Evolution Headlines 05/19/2007
Birds, with all their variety and functionality, are a never-ending source of study for scientists. Here are some recent feathery findings:
- Memory masters: Scrub jays are like us: they can plan ahead, regardless of mood. Current Biology did a study that proved these common western birds can cache tomorrow’s breakfast regardless of their motivational state. The authors said, “The fact that the birds act in favor of a future need as opposed to the current one challenges the hypothesis that this ability is unique to humans.”
- I don't know what they mean by the motivational state of a bird. How would they know? They seem to be conflating human motivation and bird motivation. Do birds even have motivation? Isn't it wrong to use the same word for men and birds? Just asking guys.
- are they claiming the birds are 'sacrificing' for the future?
2. simple eating and drinking can be seen as taking care of future needs; but would we want to say animals are planning for the future when they eat and drink?
3. The title is taken from the book by Mortimer Adler
Monday, May 11, 2009
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
The man is a machine fallacy
David Brooks, a conservative columnist for the New York Times, wrote in an editorial entitled “The Age of Darwin” that evolution has become the “unifying grand narrative” of the modern age. [2007]
Quotes and comments;
1. "And it occurred to me that while we postmoderns say we detest all-explaining narratives, in fact a newish grand narrative has crept upon us willy-nilly and is now all around. Once the Bible shaped all conversation, then Marx, then Freud, but today Darwin is everywhere....
According to this view, human beings, like all other creatures, are machines for passing along genetic code. We are driven primarily by a desire to perpetuate ourselves and our species....''
- Human beings aren't machines Mr. Brooks. Not even close. The idea man is a machine for passing on code is the most idiotic idea anyone has ever dreamed up. This is just an analogy of course; and a misleading one. Machines are tools invented by human beings, to do work. It would be more accurate to call evolutionary theory a machine, than it is to call human beings machines. (In this case the 'work' would be to eradicate Christianity.)
- Gee David; I thought postmoderns denied the existence of truth. What's this 'truth' you're talking about?
- evolution isn't a 'newish' narrative at all; as even school children should know. It's been around for at least 2 thousand years. (But apparently PMs aren't big on reading books; at least not history books.)
- Look around NY sometime Mr. Brooks. Do you see people driven primarily by a desire to reproduce themselves? Give me a break.
- note that an important (to say the least) implication of what Brooks (or the genes that use him for a mouthpiece) is saying; the inescapable implication is that life is an illusion. (So then we have 'science' not revealing the truth, or reality, but telling us life is an illusion created for us by some genes.)
2. "Evolution doesn’t really lead to anything outside itself. Individuals are predisposed not by innate sinfulness or virtue, but by the epigenetic rules encoded in their cells.''
- we might wonder how he knows this, but let's ask him a question; ''why then do some people affirm atheism (materialism) and some affirm creation?" (And why are they so bothered by the debate over origins?) And why are you taking time out from procreating to tell us this?
- you speak of code. Let's talk about code then. Even if what you say is true, who wrote this code? who programmed these rules into human beings?
Notes;
1. Reference article; Creation - Evolution Headlines 4/27/2007
Quotes and comments;
1. "And it occurred to me that while we postmoderns say we detest all-explaining narratives, in fact a newish grand narrative has crept upon us willy-nilly and is now all around. Once the Bible shaped all conversation, then Marx, then Freud, but today Darwin is everywhere....
According to this view, human beings, like all other creatures, are machines for passing along genetic code. We are driven primarily by a desire to perpetuate ourselves and our species....''
- Human beings aren't machines Mr. Brooks. Not even close. The idea man is a machine for passing on code is the most idiotic idea anyone has ever dreamed up. This is just an analogy of course; and a misleading one. Machines are tools invented by human beings, to do work. It would be more accurate to call evolutionary theory a machine, than it is to call human beings machines. (In this case the 'work' would be to eradicate Christianity.)
- Gee David; I thought postmoderns denied the existence of truth. What's this 'truth' you're talking about?
- evolution isn't a 'newish' narrative at all; as even school children should know. It's been around for at least 2 thousand years. (But apparently PMs aren't big on reading books; at least not history books.)
- Look around NY sometime Mr. Brooks. Do you see people driven primarily by a desire to reproduce themselves? Give me a break.
- note that an important (to say the least) implication of what Brooks (or the genes that use him for a mouthpiece) is saying; the inescapable implication is that life is an illusion. (So then we have 'science' not revealing the truth, or reality, but telling us life is an illusion created for us by some genes.)
2. "Evolution doesn’t really lead to anything outside itself. Individuals are predisposed not by innate sinfulness or virtue, but by the epigenetic rules encoded in their cells.''
- we might wonder how he knows this, but let's ask him a question; ''why then do some people affirm atheism (materialism) and some affirm creation?" (And why are they so bothered by the debate over origins?) And why are you taking time out from procreating to tell us this?
- you speak of code. Let's talk about code then. Even if what you say is true, who wrote this code? who programmed these rules into human beings?
Notes;
1. Reference article; Creation - Evolution Headlines 4/27/2007
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Materialism and the death of Reason
Materialism and the death of reason
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Can the totality of the brain be described in terms of its neurons? Is consciousness an artifact of the movement of signals in the brain? Can the complexity of the brain be described in terms of its evolutionary history? Does the hardware define the software that runs on it? György Buzsáki attempted to address these questions from an evolutionary standpoint in a “Connections” essay in Nature.
- There are many problems with the materialist/evolutionary view of man; and one of the biggest is the question of 'what is reason'? Materialists like to use the word reason, and do so with reckless abandon - but what is it? Recent research in neurobiology makes the old problem much deeper, much more complicated. If there is no mind, as many Materialists now claim, and all we have is the 'firing' of neurons, what is reason? We don't hear many attempts at answering this question.
- The argument against Christianity (so popular among tenured professors) and creation is usually couched as an argument from 'reason' against 'superstition' - so if there is no such thing as reason this 'argument' falls flat on its face.
- So we ask the materialist, what is this 'reason' you keep talking about? We really need an answer on this... but I don't think materialists have one. (Is it just the bile of the brain as some have said? If so, why should anyone pay any attention to this bile?)
Again we see how the 'new atheism' hasn't been able to integrate the new findings from scientific research. It's really a worldview that is very old; and one rooted in a non-intelligent view of the universe. (i.e. in a view that doesn't require intelligent design.)
Notes;
1. Reference; Questions to Ask a Reductionist Neurobiologist 03/21/2007 (Evolution and Creation Headlines)
'Can the totality of the brain be described in terms of its neurons? Is consciousness an artifact of the movement of signals in the brain? Can the complexity of the brain be described in terms of its evolutionary history? Does the hardware define the software that runs on it? György Buzsáki attempted to address these questions from an evolutionary standpoint in a “Connections” essay in Nature last week.
2. Definitions of reason;
A. 'the capacity to reflect, analyze and think in an orderly and logical manner as opposed to an Irrational and Emotional manner. - Hexham
B. 'The intellectual ability to apprehend the truth cognitively, either immediately in intuition, or by means of a process of inference. - FOLDOP
- if this is what we mean by reason; then if you accept the claims of the evolutionary neurobiogists, reason doesn't exist. (And it's just another victim of reductionism.)
3. A brief example of 'neuro talk' (by Buzsaki)
“The interaction and interference of multiple brain rhythms often gives rise to the appearance of ‘noise’ in an electroencephalogram. This noise is the most complex type known to physics and reflects a metastable state between the predictable behavior of oscillators and the unpredictability of chaos.”
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Can the totality of the brain be described in terms of its neurons? Is consciousness an artifact of the movement of signals in the brain? Can the complexity of the brain be described in terms of its evolutionary history? Does the hardware define the software that runs on it? György Buzsáki attempted to address these questions from an evolutionary standpoint in a “Connections” essay in Nature.
- There are many problems with the materialist/evolutionary view of man; and one of the biggest is the question of 'what is reason'? Materialists like to use the word reason, and do so with reckless abandon - but what is it? Recent research in neurobiology makes the old problem much deeper, much more complicated. If there is no mind, as many Materialists now claim, and all we have is the 'firing' of neurons, what is reason? We don't hear many attempts at answering this question.
- The argument against Christianity (so popular among tenured professors) and creation is usually couched as an argument from 'reason' against 'superstition' - so if there is no such thing as reason this 'argument' falls flat on its face.
- So we ask the materialist, what is this 'reason' you keep talking about? We really need an answer on this... but I don't think materialists have one. (Is it just the bile of the brain as some have said? If so, why should anyone pay any attention to this bile?)
Again we see how the 'new atheism' hasn't been able to integrate the new findings from scientific research. It's really a worldview that is very old; and one rooted in a non-intelligent view of the universe. (i.e. in a view that doesn't require intelligent design.)
Notes;
1. Reference; Questions to Ask a Reductionist Neurobiologist 03/21/2007 (Evolution and Creation Headlines)
'Can the totality of the brain be described in terms of its neurons? Is consciousness an artifact of the movement of signals in the brain? Can the complexity of the brain be described in terms of its evolutionary history? Does the hardware define the software that runs on it? György Buzsáki attempted to address these questions from an evolutionary standpoint in a “Connections” essay in Nature last week.
2. Definitions of reason;
A. 'the capacity to reflect, analyze and think in an orderly and logical manner as opposed to an Irrational and Emotional manner. - Hexham
B. 'The intellectual ability to apprehend the truth cognitively, either immediately in intuition, or by means of a process of inference. - FOLDOP
- if this is what we mean by reason; then if you accept the claims of the evolutionary neurobiogists, reason doesn't exist. (And it's just another victim of reductionism.)
3. A brief example of 'neuro talk' (by Buzsaki)
“The interaction and interference of multiple brain rhythms often gives rise to the appearance of ‘noise’ in an electroencephalogram. This noise is the most complex type known to physics and reflects a metastable state between the predictable behavior of oscillators and the unpredictability of chaos.”
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
The fallacy of the homology argument; Darwin's fear of mathematics
The fallacy of the homology argument
The argument that homology refutes creation, and proves evolution is [nearly] as old as it is fallacious. Homology in no way proves descent from a common ancestor. The argument isn't scientific, it's religious and rhetorical.
Let's take a look at a couple forms of the argument (claim would be more accurate).
Quotes and comments;
1. "From a purely practical point of view, it is incomprehensible that a turtle should swim, a horse run, a person write, and a bird or bat fly with structures built of the same bones. An engineer could design better limbs in each case. But if it is accepted that all of these skeletons inherited their structures from a common ancestor and became modified only as they adapted to different ways of life, the similarity of their structures makes sense. F. Ayala [Encyclopedia Britannica]
2. "What could be more curious," asks Darwin, "than that the hand of a man, formed for grasping, that of a mole for digging, the leg of the horse, the paddle of the porpoise, and the wing of the bat, should all be constructed on the same pattern, and should include the same bones, in the same relative positions?" Darwin [Origins]
'It would be "hopeless," Darwin warns, to explain this pattern of similarity by functional utility...' (Let me add in passing that it's much like Darwin to try and discourage any investigation of subjects that could refute or undermine his theory.)
- Darwin conveniently ignores mathematics in all this. As we know, we can find mathematical patterns everywhere in natural world. (e.g. the Fibonacci ratio can be found in all manner of things.) I don't hear any modern day Darwin calling that curious and incomprehensible. Mathematical patterns and ratios can be found almost everywhere in creation. (The Fibonacci sequence isn't the only mathematical ratio we see in 'nature'.) These patterns and ratios are the opposite of the randomness that evolutionary theory insists on.
- Ever the great rhetorician, Darwin ignores mathematics because it doesn't suit his argument. Origins for him is a debate; a debate to be won by any method, fair or foul. (i.e. if math can help you win over the audience use it, if you think it will hurt you, leave it out. I don't consider such an approach scholarly. But Darwin isn't interested in the truth, but in winning the debate. One can only wonder at the motivation of people who see life as a debate.
- DNA is composed of four 'letters' in various arrangements. Is that curious and incomprehensible? [This in no way proves evolution, but is evidence for creation. i.e. as only intelligence can create code.]
- all creatures are 'composed' largely of water. Is that curious and incomprehensible?
- the backbone (bones attached) of a salmon looks much like a tree with branches. Is that curious and incomprehensible?
- this is a poor argument, and it's not meant to illuminate the subject, but to deceive the ignorant with its 'blatant simplicity'.
Notes; Fibonacci; Wiki
- "Fibonacci sequences appear in biological settings,[34] in two consecutive Fibonacci numbers, such as branching in trees, arrangement of leaves on a stem, the fruitlets of a pineapple,[35] the flowering of artichoke, an uncurling fern and the arrangement of a pine cone.[36] In addition, numerous poorly substantiated claims of Fibonacci numbers or golden sections in nature are found in popular sources, e.g. relating to the breeding of rabbits, the spirals of shells, and the curve of waves[citation needed]. The Fibonacci numbers are also found in the family tree of honeybees."
The argument that homology refutes creation, and proves evolution is [nearly] as old as it is fallacious. Homology in no way proves descent from a common ancestor. The argument isn't scientific, it's religious and rhetorical.
Let's take a look at a couple forms of the argument (claim would be more accurate).
Quotes and comments;
1. "From a purely practical point of view, it is incomprehensible that a turtle should swim, a horse run, a person write, and a bird or bat fly with structures built of the same bones. An engineer could design better limbs in each case. But if it is accepted that all of these skeletons inherited their structures from a common ancestor and became modified only as they adapted to different ways of life, the similarity of their structures makes sense. F. Ayala [Encyclopedia Britannica]
2. "What could be more curious," asks Darwin, "than that the hand of a man, formed for grasping, that of a mole for digging, the leg of the horse, the paddle of the porpoise, and the wing of the bat, should all be constructed on the same pattern, and should include the same bones, in the same relative positions?" Darwin [Origins]
'It would be "hopeless," Darwin warns, to explain this pattern of similarity by functional utility...' (Let me add in passing that it's much like Darwin to try and discourage any investigation of subjects that could refute or undermine his theory.)
- Darwin conveniently ignores mathematics in all this. As we know, we can find mathematical patterns everywhere in natural world. (e.g. the Fibonacci ratio can be found in all manner of things.) I don't hear any modern day Darwin calling that curious and incomprehensible. Mathematical patterns and ratios can be found almost everywhere in creation. (The Fibonacci sequence isn't the only mathematical ratio we see in 'nature'.) These patterns and ratios are the opposite of the randomness that evolutionary theory insists on.
- Ever the great rhetorician, Darwin ignores mathematics because it doesn't suit his argument. Origins for him is a debate; a debate to be won by any method, fair or foul. (i.e. if math can help you win over the audience use it, if you think it will hurt you, leave it out. I don't consider such an approach scholarly. But Darwin isn't interested in the truth, but in winning the debate. One can only wonder at the motivation of people who see life as a debate.
- DNA is composed of four 'letters' in various arrangements. Is that curious and incomprehensible? [This in no way proves evolution, but is evidence for creation. i.e. as only intelligence can create code.]
- all creatures are 'composed' largely of water. Is that curious and incomprehensible?
- the backbone (bones attached) of a salmon looks much like a tree with branches. Is that curious and incomprehensible?
- this is a poor argument, and it's not meant to illuminate the subject, but to deceive the ignorant with its 'blatant simplicity'.
Notes; Fibonacci; Wiki
- "Fibonacci sequences appear in biological settings,[34] in two consecutive Fibonacci numbers, such as branching in trees, arrangement of leaves on a stem, the fruitlets of a pineapple,[35] the flowering of artichoke, an uncurling fern and the arrangement of a pine cone.[36] In addition, numerous poorly substantiated claims of Fibonacci numbers or golden sections in nature are found in popular sources, e.g. relating to the breeding of rabbits, the spirals of shells, and the curve of waves[citation needed]. The Fibonacci numbers are also found in the family tree of honeybees."
Monday, March 23, 2009
The odd and funny theory of evolution; Darwinism as critical theory
Darwinism as critical theory
Stephen Gould claimed that best proof of evolutionary theory was that many things in the world appeared odd and funny. I'd like to say a few things about this statement.
Quotes and comments;
''The theory of natural selection would never have replaced the doctrine of divine creation if evident, admirable design pervaded all organisms. Charles Darwin understood this, and he focused on features that would be out of place in a world constructed by perfect wisdom. ... Darwin even wrote an entire book on orchids to argue that the structures evolved to ensure fertilization by insects are jerry-built of available parts used by ancestors for other purposes. Orchids are Rube Goldberg machines; a perfect engineer would certainly have come up with something better. This principle remains true today. The best illustrations of adaptation by evolution are the ones that strike our intuition as peculiar or bizarre.'' S. Gould [1]
- Is this first claim true? I don't think so; I think Gould was just bluffing. He's trying to make his argument sound powerful, by saying that without its veractiy there would be no Darwinism in our day. I don't believe this claim. Evolution theory is simply a deduction made from materialism; and so all Materialists are required to be evolutionists. There have been evolutionists as long as there have been materialists; as long as men have rebelled against their creator.
- design does pervade all organisms; but apparently prof. Gould wants 'admirable' design. (And I suppose he thinks he should be the one to define admirable :=)
- it's interesting to me that Gould relies on intuition for a belief in Macro-evolution. You notice that the 'intuition' that leads people to believe in creation is mocked and ridiculed; but when intuition leads one to a belief creation isn't true, well that's another story, that's okay.
- as almost always the fact creation happened (at least) millenia ago isn't ever admitted into the conversation. This is a disingenuous bit of rhetoric. [2]
- how many times do creationists have to say it; 'the world of today is not the world of the original creation'. It's the opposite of scholarship to pretend people are making claims they in fact are not making. Where's the intellectual integrity? It was unworthy of Gould to pretend any creationist claims the world today is the world God made. What we see today are the descendents of the original creation. (Do these people want to pretend they've never heard of the Fall? Do they want to pretend they've never heard of entropy? never heard of mutations?)
- this 'argument' demanding perfection can be seen as a subset of the Marxist (socialist) argument of saying social situation X is evil... and basing the claim on a standard of perfection. i.e. x is wrong, (bad, etc.) because it fails to measure up to my standard of perfection. So the perfectionist standard is applied in both cases.
- God isn't an engineer for one thing. Man isn't a machine and the program of portraying man in this way leads to a constant string of errors.
2. "Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution -- paths that a sensible God would never tread but that a natural process, constrained by history, follows perforce.'' Gould [3]
- What's the scientific content of 'odd' and 'funny'? Does the fact Gould (supposedly) found something odd or funny mean it is? Based on what standard? Do these words mean anything at all. I've heard of odd numbers, but what can the concept 'odd arrangement' mean?
- it's comical that Gould would claim 'funny' and 'odd' intuitions are the 'proof' of evolutionary theory. That's supposed to be science?
- how does g. know what a 'sensible' god is? (I suppose it would be a creator very much like himself :=) This again is meaningless rhetoric. This is a feigned deism (god made in man's image).
- Gould seems to have placed great importance on his intuitions; but one wonders what validity they could have; especially if he's the product of such an odd and funny process as evolution. Wouldn't the product of such an odd and funny process be itself odd and funny? Why then should anyone take those intuitions seriously? This isn't science, it's rhetoric; and we've got Charlie himself to blame for it. (He spent twenty years trying to make 'Origins' a masterpiece of rhetoric; and he succeeded.)
Notes;
1. Stephen J. Gould, Ever Since Darwin (New York: W.W. Norton, 1977), 91.
2. Many times I've liked to have said to these guys; ''Life is more than a debate fellows. Can't we speak honestly? Must everything you write be constructed for purposes of winning a debate?" It's too much to ask I guess. The search for truth has been replaced by an obsessing with winning the debate; ie. by lies, deceit, straw men arguments, ad hominem arguments, by concealment, by trivialization, etc. etc. every trick in the debater's handbook.
3. Stephen J. Gould, The Panda's Thumb (New York: W.W. Norton, 1980), pp. 20-21.
4. I'm of course defending a Biblical model of creation in this post.
Stephen Gould claimed that best proof of evolutionary theory was that many things in the world appeared odd and funny. I'd like to say a few things about this statement.
Quotes and comments;
''The theory of natural selection would never have replaced the doctrine of divine creation if evident, admirable design pervaded all organisms. Charles Darwin understood this, and he focused on features that would be out of place in a world constructed by perfect wisdom. ... Darwin even wrote an entire book on orchids to argue that the structures evolved to ensure fertilization by insects are jerry-built of available parts used by ancestors for other purposes. Orchids are Rube Goldberg machines; a perfect engineer would certainly have come up with something better. This principle remains true today. The best illustrations of adaptation by evolution are the ones that strike our intuition as peculiar or bizarre.'' S. Gould [1]
- Is this first claim true? I don't think so; I think Gould was just bluffing. He's trying to make his argument sound powerful, by saying that without its veractiy there would be no Darwinism in our day. I don't believe this claim. Evolution theory is simply a deduction made from materialism; and so all Materialists are required to be evolutionists. There have been evolutionists as long as there have been materialists; as long as men have rebelled against their creator.
- design does pervade all organisms; but apparently prof. Gould wants 'admirable' design. (And I suppose he thinks he should be the one to define admirable :=)
- it's interesting to me that Gould relies on intuition for a belief in Macro-evolution. You notice that the 'intuition' that leads people to believe in creation is mocked and ridiculed; but when intuition leads one to a belief creation isn't true, well that's another story, that's okay.
- as almost always the fact creation happened (at least) millenia ago isn't ever admitted into the conversation. This is a disingenuous bit of rhetoric. [2]
- how many times do creationists have to say it; 'the world of today is not the world of the original creation'. It's the opposite of scholarship to pretend people are making claims they in fact are not making. Where's the intellectual integrity? It was unworthy of Gould to pretend any creationist claims the world today is the world God made. What we see today are the descendents of the original creation. (Do these people want to pretend they've never heard of the Fall? Do they want to pretend they've never heard of entropy? never heard of mutations?)
- this 'argument' demanding perfection can be seen as a subset of the Marxist (socialist) argument of saying social situation X is evil... and basing the claim on a standard of perfection. i.e. x is wrong, (bad, etc.) because it fails to measure up to my standard of perfection. So the perfectionist standard is applied in both cases.
- God isn't an engineer for one thing. Man isn't a machine and the program of portraying man in this way leads to a constant string of errors.
2. "Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution -- paths that a sensible God would never tread but that a natural process, constrained by history, follows perforce.'' Gould [3]
- What's the scientific content of 'odd' and 'funny'? Does the fact Gould (supposedly) found something odd or funny mean it is? Based on what standard? Do these words mean anything at all. I've heard of odd numbers, but what can the concept 'odd arrangement' mean?
- it's comical that Gould would claim 'funny' and 'odd' intuitions are the 'proof' of evolutionary theory. That's supposed to be science?
- how does g. know what a 'sensible' god is? (I suppose it would be a creator very much like himself :=) This again is meaningless rhetoric. This is a feigned deism (god made in man's image).
- Gould seems to have placed great importance on his intuitions; but one wonders what validity they could have; especially if he's the product of such an odd and funny process as evolution. Wouldn't the product of such an odd and funny process be itself odd and funny? Why then should anyone take those intuitions seriously? This isn't science, it's rhetoric; and we've got Charlie himself to blame for it. (He spent twenty years trying to make 'Origins' a masterpiece of rhetoric; and he succeeded.)
Notes;
1. Stephen J. Gould, Ever Since Darwin (New York: W.W. Norton, 1977), 91.
2. Many times I've liked to have said to these guys; ''Life is more than a debate fellows. Can't we speak honestly? Must everything you write be constructed for purposes of winning a debate?" It's too much to ask I guess. The search for truth has been replaced by an obsessing with winning the debate; ie. by lies, deceit, straw men arguments, ad hominem arguments, by concealment, by trivialization, etc. etc. every trick in the debater's handbook.
3. Stephen J. Gould, The Panda's Thumb (New York: W.W. Norton, 1980), pp. 20-21.
4. I'm of course defending a Biblical model of creation in this post.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
The New Humility
- People like the late Carl Sagan became famous for telling people how human beings had been humbled by discoveries in science. (1.) Have they?
The story (and story it is) went something like this. Man in previous times (in the middle ages say) was an incredibly proud and vain character. He believed the earth was at the center of the universe, and not only that, he believed the universe had been created for him. Imagine. He imagined he was a very special creature; separate from, and lord over the animals. It was all delusion, and 'science' had demonstrated the falsity of it.
The earth was not the center of the universe; it was just an ordinary rock, with an ordinary sun, in one of Billions of galaxies. The earth wasn't special at all. Since the universe was so huge, the earth couldn't be special. Darwin then discovered that man was indeed just an animal. So there; on three broad fronts man had been radically humbled; if not humiliated.
That's the story. What I'm wondering is this; ''where's all this new humility?" I've been looking for it and I can't find it. Some of our popular enthusiasts for Darwin are the least humble people around. (Sagan wasn't exactly known for his humility, and neither is Dawkins.) Surely this is the most arrogant age in all history.
No one is more arrogant toward God than the new atheists. No age has been more arrogant toward the human body. There is a radical arrogance toward the genetic structure of living organisms. (Hence genetic engineering.) So I ask; ''where is the humility?"
No age has been so arrogant toward tradition, toward marriage, pregnancy, children, childhood and family. "So where is this science rendered humility we keep hearing about?"
Our political elite have a radical arrogance when it comes to destroying individual liberty, and to abolishing property rights. "So where is the humility?" Our age has produced nuclear weapons. Our age adopts the methodology of 'if it can be done, do it.' "So where is the humility?"
Our society brings children and teenagers up on Internet pornography; caring not a whit for its effects. It brings children up on mindless TV, music and movies. Our elite push hard for continual economic expansion; by any means fair or foul. We are told that the population must grow steadily. "So where is the humility?"
Creationists are ridiculed and mocked. They're kept out of universities. They're silenced from speaking. They're expelled if they do. "So where's the humility guys? I've looked everywhere but I don't see any."
Notes;
1. Sagan spoke of 'demotions to human pride.' (See 'Copernicus and the tale of the pale blue dot' - Dennis Danielson [Essay can be found online here.]
2. "As Sagan’s phrase “Demotions to human pride” suggests, he and others see the so-called demotion of earth by Copernicus as part of a larger pattern. This approach sees the earth dethroned by Copernicus; the sun and in turn the Milky Way dethroned by subsequent astronomers; the species homo sapiens dethroned by Darwin; and reason or spirit dethroned by Freud." - above
The story (and story it is) went something like this. Man in previous times (in the middle ages say) was an incredibly proud and vain character. He believed the earth was at the center of the universe, and not only that, he believed the universe had been created for him. Imagine. He imagined he was a very special creature; separate from, and lord over the animals. It was all delusion, and 'science' had demonstrated the falsity of it.
The earth was not the center of the universe; it was just an ordinary rock, with an ordinary sun, in one of Billions of galaxies. The earth wasn't special at all. Since the universe was so huge, the earth couldn't be special. Darwin then discovered that man was indeed just an animal. So there; on three broad fronts man had been radically humbled; if not humiliated.
That's the story. What I'm wondering is this; ''where's all this new humility?" I've been looking for it and I can't find it. Some of our popular enthusiasts for Darwin are the least humble people around. (Sagan wasn't exactly known for his humility, and neither is Dawkins.) Surely this is the most arrogant age in all history.
No one is more arrogant toward God than the new atheists. No age has been more arrogant toward the human body. There is a radical arrogance toward the genetic structure of living organisms. (Hence genetic engineering.) So I ask; ''where is the humility?"
No age has been so arrogant toward tradition, toward marriage, pregnancy, children, childhood and family. "So where is this science rendered humility we keep hearing about?"
Our political elite have a radical arrogance when it comes to destroying individual liberty, and to abolishing property rights. "So where is the humility?" Our age has produced nuclear weapons. Our age adopts the methodology of 'if it can be done, do it.' "So where is the humility?"
Our society brings children and teenagers up on Internet pornography; caring not a whit for its effects. It brings children up on mindless TV, music and movies. Our elite push hard for continual economic expansion; by any means fair or foul. We are told that the population must grow steadily. "So where is the humility?"
Creationists are ridiculed and mocked. They're kept out of universities. They're silenced from speaking. They're expelled if they do. "So where's the humility guys? I've looked everywhere but I don't see any."
Notes;
1. Sagan spoke of 'demotions to human pride.' (See 'Copernicus and the tale of the pale blue dot' - Dennis Danielson [Essay can be found online here.]
2. "As Sagan’s phrase “Demotions to human pride” suggests, he and others see the so-called demotion of earth by Copernicus as part of a larger pattern. This approach sees the earth dethroned by Copernicus; the sun and in turn the Milky Way dethroned by subsequent astronomers; the species homo sapiens dethroned by Darwin; and reason or spirit dethroned by Freud." - above
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Why do so many people want to write?
- It's my opinion that so many people in our day want to be writers because they lack meaningful lives; and that they lack meaningful lives because under a socialist system they do less and less for themselves, and have more and more done for them.
- it's my contention that socialism renders most people superfluous.
- we can see this in the c. community. Whereas Christians once to do everything for themselves, now they let the godless (pagan) state do everything. Socialism has rendered the church a hollow shell, and empty husk. Christians let the state do everything; from operation hospitals, to daycare; to schooling for children (even children's lunches!) to taking care of the 'disabled' and weak, to taking care of the elderly, to handing out food stamps, and on and on and on.
- the result has been a church that has little or no function. The result has been that the church has no place for the 'heroic' as our professors put it. Christianity once had great appeal because it was where the action was, it was where people went for a challenge, where they went to live heroic lives. Christians were once people who did things; now they're people who just consume things; people who daily beg the state to do more for them. Socialism has thus thrust a dagger into the heart of the church, into the heart of christians. Christians are now the living dead; superfluous at best, pathetic at worst. (The intellectuals in the church, who should have been working against this development, have in fact led the campaign to bring it about; and thus have failed so badly there's no words for what they've done, or more accurately, not done.)
- and so the consumer Christian, who lives off handouts from the state, lives a meaningless life. He still wants self esteem however, so he hits upon the 'brilliant' idea of becoming a writer. He imagines he'll become successful (how hard can it be?) and garner the self-esteem he desires. His views will become well known, he'll become important, people will now respect him; maybe he'll be influential in getting some good done in the world. (ie. get some more socialist legislation passed.) All this is an almost complete waste of time, energy and talent. We have far more writers than we could possibly need. (No one could read a tiny amount of what's written each year, let alone read one book in a million of all that have been published.)
- Most would be writers have little or no talent; they just want to feel important, they want society to value them. (In a small community or tribe, the would be writer would be valued for their ability to think, to express things, to tell stories, etc.) They really want to be heroes, to do good, to battle 'evil' and so forth. But since the socialist state does everything for them, they have no 'heroic' tasks to challenge them. (Every healthy adult wants challenges, wants to do good for others.) So instead of building schools or businesses, people sit down at a keyboard and write some drivel. Instead of building and running a home for the elderly, they write a detective story, or a fantasy trilogy about dragons. Instead of getting married and having a family, they write romance novels. Instead of fighting the Leviathan called the state (growing every day) they write some novel about some person who has lost their faith.
- It's my view that we want to write because we are made in the image of God. I can't imagine an animal wanting to write. (An animal would have nothing to write about for one thing.) The fact so many millions of people daily sit down to write, in the hopes of one day getting published, is evidence that Materialism is a false doctrine, and evidence Creation is true. I say this for various reasons;
a. if one truly believed thoughts are just random chemical reactions why would one write?
b. if one truly believed there is no truth why would one write?
c. if one believed there is no freedom, why would one try to persuade?
d. if one believed people were just animals why would one want to enlighten them? Why would one try to reason with them?
e. if one believed people are just drones being manipulated by instincts (or 'selfish genes) why would one want to write? Wouldn't writing just be an exercise in delusion?
f. if one believed people were just animals why would one speak in moral terms to people, why would one try to persuade them to act in moral ways?
g. if one believed people were just animals why would one try to get people to laugh?
- I could go on, but I think the point has been made. We write because we bear the image of god. (ie. we're no gene carriers, but image bearers.) In other words, we write because we are like, in a small (reflected) way like God. This means we care about truth, about beauty, about morality, about justice, about others, about meaning, and so on. If, for one reason or another, we can't live out these things, we settle for the substitute of writing about them.
- a critic might say, ''well why do some atheists write then?" For the same reason Christians do. Believing matter is all there is don't change the fact the atheist is made in the image of god. (Although a life of sin can and does diminish or suppress that image.)
- what I've tried to do here is use the doctrine of creation to examine some crucial issues of our day. In this case I've used it to look at political schemes, and at the example of writer's envy. The nanny state has an absurdly low view of human beings; it treats adults like children; it gives people no challenges, and no room to fully express their potential. (Socialism is a potential killer, and it produces people who never mature. A consumeroid (an ugly term for an ugly reality) can never become a mature adult. Socialism clips people's wings, it keeps them in a cage... no matter how well cared for. Socialism is a self-worth project for political hacks. However much it does for them it does the opposite for the people they pretend to care for.)
- the sad fact is that most writer wanne-be's are couch potatoes; and they have nothing to offer us. Their desire for heroism and for self-esteem is being squandered on fruitless projects. What they need to do is put down their pens and live out the Christian life; to stop writing and start living.
- This in no way should be construed as meaning I don't value writers and thinkers. I read every day, because I value such people, and what they can offer. This being said, the sad truth is that most people who dream of being writers have no real talent at all. Great writers are as rare as great composers. What the writer wanne-be wants is to be taken seriously. (But under socialism he's nothing but a cog in a great machine, he's anonymous, superfluous, and utterly ignored by all.)
- It's my opinion that so many people in our day want to be writers because they lack meaningful lives; and that they lack meaningful lives because under a socialist system they do less and less for themselves, and have more and more done for them.
- it's my contention that socialism renders most people superfluous.
- we can see this in the c. community. Whereas Christians once to do everything for themselves, now they let the godless (pagan) state do everything. Socialism has rendered the church a hollow shell, and empty husk. Christians let the state do everything; from operation hospitals, to daycare; to schooling for children (even children's lunches!) to taking care of the 'disabled' and weak, to taking care of the elderly, to handing out food stamps, and on and on and on.
- the result has been a church that has little or no function. The result has been that the church has no place for the 'heroic' as our professors put it. Christianity once had great appeal because it was where the action was, it was where people went for a challenge, where they went to live heroic lives. Christians were once people who did things; now they're people who just consume things; people who daily beg the state to do more for them. Socialism has thus thrust a dagger into the heart of the church, into the heart of christians. Christians are now the living dead; superfluous at best, pathetic at worst. (The intellectuals in the church, who should have been working against this development, have in fact led the campaign to bring it about; and thus have failed so badly there's no words for what they've done, or more accurately, not done.)
- and so the consumer Christian, who lives off handouts from the state, lives a meaningless life. He still wants self esteem however, so he hits upon the 'brilliant' idea of becoming a writer. He imagines he'll become successful (how hard can it be?) and garner the self-esteem he desires. His views will become well known, he'll become important, people will now respect him; maybe he'll be influential in getting some good done in the world. (ie. get some more socialist legislation passed.) All this is an almost complete waste of time, energy and talent. We have far more writers than we could possibly need. (No one could read a tiny amount of what's written each year, let alone read one book in a million of all that have been published.)
- Most would be writers have little or no talent; they just want to feel important, they want society to value them. (In a small community or tribe, the would be writer would be valued for their ability to think, to express things, to tell stories, etc.) They really want to be heroes, to do good, to battle 'evil' and so forth. But since the socialist state does everything for them, they have no 'heroic' tasks to challenge them. (Every healthy adult wants challenges, wants to do good for others.) So instead of building schools or businesses, people sit down at a keyboard and write some drivel. Instead of building and running a home for the elderly, they write a detective story, or a fantasy trilogy about dragons. Instead of getting married and having a family, they write romance novels. Instead of fighting the Leviathan called the state (growing every day) they write some novel about some person who has lost their faith.
- It's my view that we want to write because we are made in the image of God. I can't imagine an animal wanting to write. (An animal would have nothing to write about for one thing.) The fact so many millions of people daily sit down to write, in the hopes of one day getting published, is evidence that Materialism is a false doctrine, and evidence Creation is true. I say this for various reasons;
a. if one truly believed thoughts are just random chemical reactions why would one write?
b. if one truly believed there is no truth why would one write?
c. if one believed there is no freedom, why would one try to persuade?
d. if one believed people were just animals why would one want to enlighten them? Why would one try to reason with them?
e. if one believed people are just drones being manipulated by instincts (or 'selfish genes) why would one want to write? Wouldn't writing just be an exercise in delusion?
f. if one believed people were just animals why would one speak in moral terms to people, why would one try to persuade them to act in moral ways?
g. if one believed people were just animals why would one try to get people to laugh?
- I could go on, but I think the point has been made. We write because we bear the image of god. (ie. we're no gene carriers, but image bearers.) In other words, we write because we are like, in a small (reflected) way like God. This means we care about truth, about beauty, about morality, about justice, about others, about meaning, and so on. If, for one reason or another, we can't live out these things, we settle for the substitute of writing about them.
- a critic might say, ''well why do some atheists write then?" For the same reason Christians do. Believing matter is all there is don't change the fact the atheist is made in the image of god. (Although a life of sin can and does diminish or suppress that image.)
- what I've tried to do here is use the doctrine of creation to examine some crucial issues of our day. In this case I've used it to look at political schemes, and at the example of writer's envy. The nanny state has an absurdly low view of human beings; it treats adults like children; it gives people no challenges, and no room to fully express their potential. (Socialism is a potential killer, and it produces people who never mature. A consumeroid (an ugly term for an ugly reality) can never become a mature adult. Socialism clips people's wings, it keeps them in a cage... no matter how well cared for. Socialism is a self-worth project for political hacks. However much it does for them it does the opposite for the people they pretend to care for.)
- the sad fact is that most writer wanne-be's are couch potatoes; and they have nothing to offer us. Their desire for heroism and for self-esteem is being squandered on fruitless projects. What they need to do is put down their pens and live out the Christian life; to stop writing and start living.
- This in no way should be construed as meaning I don't value writers and thinkers. I read every day, because I value such people, and what they can offer. This being said, the sad truth is that most people who dream of being writers have no real talent at all. Great writers are as rare as great composers. What the writer wanne-be wants is to be taken seriously. (But under socialism he's nothing but a cog in a great machine, he's anonymous, superfluous, and utterly ignored by all.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
