Man is a curious cat
It's my opinion that curiousity comes from our God given nature. Without the particular kind of curiousity man has there wouldn't be science or philosophy as we know them.
- We need to ask why man is so eager to know things that have no basis in survival. (Darwinism tells us this motive is the basis of all behavior.) We need to ask why mankind has been so diligent over the millennia in his relentless curiousity about the universe. Man has been so careful in his investigations that I don't think he's overlooked a thing. This shouldn't be taken for granted (as materialists do) but should be a cause for wonder.
- I think it's safe to say man is curious about things that relate to his nature. i.e. what we are curious about tells us something of what we are like; what human nature is like.
- Man isn't only curious about sex; he's curious about a thousand and one things, including the subject of Origins. But we rarely stop to ask why. It's easy to imagine some (hypothetical) intelligent species that's not interested in its origins. Why is man interested in his origins? I suspect that it's because those origins are important to him. If all (or most) these impulses (to curiousity) come from god; then our interest in origins is god's way of calling us.... of prompting us to ask the right questions.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Psychologizing the Origins debate
It's a favorite ploy of evolutionists to attack creationists by claiming they are anti-science. (That no creationist claims to be anti-science doesn't seem to matter.)
In a recent article two psychologists (pretending to be scientists) claimed that the 'anti-science' of creationists had its source in their upbringing. [1.]
Comments;
- To psychologize an 'opponent' (fellow citizen) is an uncivil act. It's both patronizing and rude. (This tactic became popular with Freud; who had some of the silliest ideas on evolution you could imagine; taken from a clown called Huston Smith I believe.) The idea is that you attack a viewpoint by offering some speculation on how a person got that viewpoint. You ignore the argument and concentrate on biography. This is, in my opinion, just another form of the ad hominem argument. What should be dealt with is creationist argument, not the personal background of the person who holds this position. (That E.s so often resort to slander and other 'rhetorical' techniques is evidence of how weak their own position is.)
- this game can of course be played with anyone and against anyone; even our psychologists. (Don't you wish people who deny the soul would stop calling them psychologists? Psychology means the study of the soul. Don't they have any integrity at all?) Does their background nullify their position on Origins? (Are the opinions of the elite worthless because they belong to the exploitive, pampered class? Should we, like Pol Pot, consider the educated class and their opinions of no worth?)
- once again, E.'s (suffering from a lack of good arguments) use slander to attack the c. position. They tell us creationists are anti-science. On the contrary; to doubt Darwinism is Not to be against science. At best (even if e. were science) this would only qualify as being against one small aspect of the current scientific orthodoxy. (Is to oppose something some politician says to be against politics? to be against government?)
- While Creationists aren't 'anti-science' many are wary of what's going on in the scientific community, and they have every right to be. What we see is that scientists will take money from anyone, and are willing to do anything. That's surely something to be concerned about. S. researchers (etc.) have taken hundreds of billions from the u.s. military alone. (If not trillions by now; and it's certainly trillions worldwide.) Many of them (if not most) are willing to get involved in any kind of program; whether this is weaponry or other things. We see them take hundreds of billions from governments to get involved in many dubious programs. (I'm not claiming all of this is dangerous or negative.) We see masses of them willing to do absolutely anything. They apparently have no ethical or moral standards whatsoever. Shouldn't people be wary of this? Isn't it their civil duty?
- scientists have been responsible for many evil developments in the past (bombs, nuclear weapons, poisonous gases, spying techniques, etc.) so it's clear that they constitute a danger in our midst. (One would like to see them list publicly what limits they are willingly to stand by; if any.)
- apparently our authors believe citizens should just allow scientists to do whatever they please. If that's the case they should come out and say so. (Do they believe scientists in communist countries should be allowed to do whatever they want? Do they believe Nazi scientists had a right to do whatever they wanted?)
- to be against some things scientists do (with tax dollars, by the way) is not to be against science. Science isn't a person, and there's no such thing as generic 'science' in any event. (e.g. if I'm against murder can I be said to be anti-human?) This is a bad argument; if we can even call it an argument.
- the whole evolutionary view flounders on the problem of origins of life. It's impossible (on some blind chemical basis) to get living organisms from inert materials; and I fail to see how it's 'anti-science' to point this out. [4.]
Notes;
1. Reference; Darwin’s Ethics: All and/or None 05/22/2007
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200705.htm#20070522a
- Propaganda: Anti-evolutionism as anti-science – An article in Science tried to analyze the “childhood origins of adult anti-science behavior.” Paul Bloom and Deena Skolnick Weisberg considered creationism and resistance to evolutionary theory as examples of anti-scientific attitudes, and portrayed them as childish behaviors that were not properly overcome through education. Surprisingly, they admitted that common sense contributes to resistance to evolution.
They ended, “This is the current situation in the United States, with regard to the central tenets of neuroscience and evolutionary biology. These concepts clash with intuitive beliefs about the immaterial nature of the soul and the purposeful design of humans and other animals, and (in the United States) these beliefs are particularly likely to be endorsed and transmitted by trusted religious and political authorities.” The idea is that scientists and educators need to be aware of these “anti-science” tendencies in their efforts to teach science – a science that is congruent with materialistic neuroscience and evolution.' (Apparently they momentarily forgot that we're all just mindless animals, or reactionary bags of chemicals.)
2. If the authors want a completely passive citizenry they should say so openly. (This would also involve not blaming people for being passive when that tactic suits the authors.)
3. One wonders, if man has no mind or soul, and his behavior is simply a matter of chemical reactions in the brain, what basis they have for criticizing people for holding creationist beliefs. This makes no sense to me. Neuro-psychology is no psychology at all. (ie. psychology literally means, the study of the soul.) If these people were honest they would stop referring to what they do as psychology. (Maybe we can call it brainiology, brainism, physicalism, or materialism.)
- one wonders why they don't call themselves chemists.
- apparently they don't realize the implications of their own position; they certainly don't seem willing to acknowledge this. If all human thought is merely chemical reaction there can be no basis for morality or ethics; or for the finger pointing and scolding engaged in by our authors.
4. This has been admitted by many of the top biologists of our day.
In a recent article two psychologists (pretending to be scientists) claimed that the 'anti-science' of creationists had its source in their upbringing. [1.]
Comments;
- To psychologize an 'opponent' (fellow citizen) is an uncivil act. It's both patronizing and rude. (This tactic became popular with Freud; who had some of the silliest ideas on evolution you could imagine; taken from a clown called Huston Smith I believe.) The idea is that you attack a viewpoint by offering some speculation on how a person got that viewpoint. You ignore the argument and concentrate on biography. This is, in my opinion, just another form of the ad hominem argument. What should be dealt with is creationist argument, not the personal background of the person who holds this position. (That E.s so often resort to slander and other 'rhetorical' techniques is evidence of how weak their own position is.)
- this game can of course be played with anyone and against anyone; even our psychologists. (Don't you wish people who deny the soul would stop calling them psychologists? Psychology means the study of the soul. Don't they have any integrity at all?) Does their background nullify their position on Origins? (Are the opinions of the elite worthless because they belong to the exploitive, pampered class? Should we, like Pol Pot, consider the educated class and their opinions of no worth?)
- once again, E.'s (suffering from a lack of good arguments) use slander to attack the c. position. They tell us creationists are anti-science. On the contrary; to doubt Darwinism is Not to be against science. At best (even if e. were science) this would only qualify as being against one small aspect of the current scientific orthodoxy. (Is to oppose something some politician says to be against politics? to be against government?)
- While Creationists aren't 'anti-science' many are wary of what's going on in the scientific community, and they have every right to be. What we see is that scientists will take money from anyone, and are willing to do anything. That's surely something to be concerned about. S. researchers (etc.) have taken hundreds of billions from the u.s. military alone. (If not trillions by now; and it's certainly trillions worldwide.) Many of them (if not most) are willing to get involved in any kind of program; whether this is weaponry or other things. We see them take hundreds of billions from governments to get involved in many dubious programs. (I'm not claiming all of this is dangerous or negative.) We see masses of them willing to do absolutely anything. They apparently have no ethical or moral standards whatsoever. Shouldn't people be wary of this? Isn't it their civil duty?
- scientists have been responsible for many evil developments in the past (bombs, nuclear weapons, poisonous gases, spying techniques, etc.) so it's clear that they constitute a danger in our midst. (One would like to see them list publicly what limits they are willingly to stand by; if any.)
- apparently our authors believe citizens should just allow scientists to do whatever they please. If that's the case they should come out and say so. (Do they believe scientists in communist countries should be allowed to do whatever they want? Do they believe Nazi scientists had a right to do whatever they wanted?)
- to be against some things scientists do (with tax dollars, by the way) is not to be against science. Science isn't a person, and there's no such thing as generic 'science' in any event. (e.g. if I'm against murder can I be said to be anti-human?) This is a bad argument; if we can even call it an argument.
- the whole evolutionary view flounders on the problem of origins of life. It's impossible (on some blind chemical basis) to get living organisms from inert materials; and I fail to see how it's 'anti-science' to point this out. [4.]
Notes;
1. Reference; Darwin’s Ethics: All and/or None 05/22/2007
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200705.htm#20070522a
- Propaganda: Anti-evolutionism as anti-science – An article in Science tried to analyze the “childhood origins of adult anti-science behavior.” Paul Bloom and Deena Skolnick Weisberg considered creationism and resistance to evolutionary theory as examples of anti-scientific attitudes, and portrayed them as childish behaviors that were not properly overcome through education. Surprisingly, they admitted that common sense contributes to resistance to evolution.
They ended, “This is the current situation in the United States, with regard to the central tenets of neuroscience and evolutionary biology. These concepts clash with intuitive beliefs about the immaterial nature of the soul and the purposeful design of humans and other animals, and (in the United States) these beliefs are particularly likely to be endorsed and transmitted by trusted religious and political authorities.” The idea is that scientists and educators need to be aware of these “anti-science” tendencies in their efforts to teach science – a science that is congruent with materialistic neuroscience and evolution.' (Apparently they momentarily forgot that we're all just mindless animals, or reactionary bags of chemicals.)
2. If the authors want a completely passive citizenry they should say so openly. (This would also involve not blaming people for being passive when that tactic suits the authors.)
3. One wonders, if man has no mind or soul, and his behavior is simply a matter of chemical reactions in the brain, what basis they have for criticizing people for holding creationist beliefs. This makes no sense to me. Neuro-psychology is no psychology at all. (ie. psychology literally means, the study of the soul.) If these people were honest they would stop referring to what they do as psychology. (Maybe we can call it brainiology, brainism, physicalism, or materialism.)
- one wonders why they don't call themselves chemists.
- apparently they don't realize the implications of their own position; they certainly don't seem willing to acknowledge this. If all human thought is merely chemical reaction there can be no basis for morality or ethics; or for the finger pointing and scolding engaged in by our authors.
4. This has been admitted by many of the top biologists of our day.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Matter has no Potential
Another post that tries to refute the claim there is no difference between human beings and animals. (In my opinion, this 'idea' only has traction because of our socialist education system.)
- Perhaps the greatest difference between animals and humans is that humans have potential and animals do not.
- look at monkeys; we've known them at least 5000 years... and we've seen no progress at all. (Nor will we ever in my opinion.)
- compare this with the progress of human beings over this time.
- what I'm mainly referring to here is the educability of human beings vs. animals. (eg. a child taken from a primitive jungle tribe, who might otherwise have lived a simple life, can become with education a scientist. No animal can even begin to demonstrate the same potential.)
- Evolutionists who claim there is no difference between men and animals are utterly wrong; this is as fallacious an idea as there can be. (Surely no ape would be this foolish; this willfully hypocritical.)
- as far as I know, there is no animal potential movement. (As far as I know, no animals sit around dreaming about transcending themselves and becoming something else; as the clowns in the meta-human group do.)
Notes;
1. I wonder if there are any Abraham Maslows among the apes :=)
2. One wonders how, if animals show no potential (for leaps of progress) now, they somehow had this ability in the fog of the past.
- Perhaps the greatest difference between animals and humans is that humans have potential and animals do not.
- look at monkeys; we've known them at least 5000 years... and we've seen no progress at all. (Nor will we ever in my opinion.)
- compare this with the progress of human beings over this time.
- what I'm mainly referring to here is the educability of human beings vs. animals. (eg. a child taken from a primitive jungle tribe, who might otherwise have lived a simple life, can become with education a scientist. No animal can even begin to demonstrate the same potential.)
- Evolutionists who claim there is no difference between men and animals are utterly wrong; this is as fallacious an idea as there can be. (Surely no ape would be this foolish; this willfully hypocritical.)
- as far as I know, there is no animal potential movement. (As far as I know, no animals sit around dreaming about transcending themselves and becoming something else; as the clowns in the meta-human group do.)
Notes;
1. I wonder if there are any Abraham Maslows among the apes :=)
2. One wonders how, if animals show no potential (for leaps of progress) now, they somehow had this ability in the fog of the past.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Equivocation in the Origins debate
Much of the confusion in the 'Origins' debate is based on equivocation of language.
- As an example, we're told that the claim animals don't use tools has been disproved; but this depends on a confusion in language. eg. is a rock or a twig really the same as a diesel engine or a microscope? :=)
- The sentence/claim Is true if it's written; 'animals and human beings don't use the same tools, or use tools in the same way.' (They don't think about tools in the same way; envision tools in the same way.) Animals just use objects they find (even if they modify them in slight ways, they don't create objects that don't exist independently). eg. an ape might peel a bit of bark from a twig, but you could find similar twigs that have been 'peeled' by the forces of nature. An animal doesn't envision an object that has never existed. An animal doesn't invent tools for objects that lie outside its ordinary needs. (As far as I know, animals only use 'tools' for the purpose of acquiring food.)
- I know of no animal that makes tools for making tools. (Or tools for making tools for making tools.)
- if we want to correct (clarify) the statement 'only human beings make tools' we can rewrite it to say 'only human beings make machines'. [i.e. A device consisting of fixed and moving parts that modifies mechanical energy and transmits it in a more useful form.]
- if anyone wants we could count up the tools invented by human beings, and the number 'invented' by animals. (Only the willfully blind would think these totals belong in the same category.)
- What's called in evolutionary literature the use of tools by animals, or the making of tools, seems to me to be merely instinctual behavior. I don't see this as evidence of conscious foresight and imagination.
- the same holds true for the statement; 'only man uses language' - stated this way it can be claimed this is false; but if written 'no animal uses language in the way man does' it's correct. Human language is more than communication; and to conflate the two (communication and language) is an error. What animals have are communication techniques; they do not have language in the human (symbolic) sense. No animal thinks about language; no animal has a philosophy of language. No animal has written language. (One could go on, but I think this suffices.)
- most of these mistakes (of equivocation) stem from a failure to define terms. In my opinion it's utterly mistaken to use terms like language for both human beings and animals. This is a failure of analysis; a failure of definition; a failure of distinction.
Notes;
1. the example of apes making spears (if true) is certainly interesting. I wonder however (and this is pure speculation) if this isn't a case of apes imitating human behavior. (Apes are great mimics; I remember seeing a photo of an ape pretending (on its own, not as a trained act) to smoke a cigarette butt. To what extent animals mimic human behaviors I don't know; and I can't recall reading anything on the subject. Apparently some parrots, on their own, have been known to mimic human speech.)
- there's an amazing bit of animal imitation you can find on YouTube; a Lyre bird (if one can believe one's eyes, and the assurances of David Attenborough) imitates the sound of a camera, a car alarm, and other human artifacts it has heard.
2. The 'spears' made (supposedly) by apes aren't really spears at all of course. i.e. do they have metal or stone tips? do they have poisoned tips?
- As an example, we're told that the claim animals don't use tools has been disproved; but this depends on a confusion in language. eg. is a rock or a twig really the same as a diesel engine or a microscope? :=)
- The sentence/claim Is true if it's written; 'animals and human beings don't use the same tools, or use tools in the same way.' (They don't think about tools in the same way; envision tools in the same way.) Animals just use objects they find (even if they modify them in slight ways, they don't create objects that don't exist independently). eg. an ape might peel a bit of bark from a twig, but you could find similar twigs that have been 'peeled' by the forces of nature. An animal doesn't envision an object that has never existed. An animal doesn't invent tools for objects that lie outside its ordinary needs. (As far as I know, animals only use 'tools' for the purpose of acquiring food.)
- I know of no animal that makes tools for making tools. (Or tools for making tools for making tools.)
- if we want to correct (clarify) the statement 'only human beings make tools' we can rewrite it to say 'only human beings make machines'. [i.e. A device consisting of fixed and moving parts that modifies mechanical energy and transmits it in a more useful form.]
- if anyone wants we could count up the tools invented by human beings, and the number 'invented' by animals. (Only the willfully blind would think these totals belong in the same category.)
- What's called in evolutionary literature the use of tools by animals, or the making of tools, seems to me to be merely instinctual behavior. I don't see this as evidence of conscious foresight and imagination.
- the same holds true for the statement; 'only man uses language' - stated this way it can be claimed this is false; but if written 'no animal uses language in the way man does' it's correct. Human language is more than communication; and to conflate the two (communication and language) is an error. What animals have are communication techniques; they do not have language in the human (symbolic) sense. No animal thinks about language; no animal has a philosophy of language. No animal has written language. (One could go on, but I think this suffices.)
- most of these mistakes (of equivocation) stem from a failure to define terms. In my opinion it's utterly mistaken to use terms like language for both human beings and animals. This is a failure of analysis; a failure of definition; a failure of distinction.
Notes;
1. the example of apes making spears (if true) is certainly interesting. I wonder however (and this is pure speculation) if this isn't a case of apes imitating human behavior. (Apes are great mimics; I remember seeing a photo of an ape pretending (on its own, not as a trained act) to smoke a cigarette butt. To what extent animals mimic human behaviors I don't know; and I can't recall reading anything on the subject. Apparently some parrots, on their own, have been known to mimic human speech.)
- there's an amazing bit of animal imitation you can find on YouTube; a Lyre bird (if one can believe one's eyes, and the assurances of David Attenborough) imitates the sound of a camera, a car alarm, and other human artifacts it has heard.
2. The 'spears' made (supposedly) by apes aren't really spears at all of course. i.e. do they have metal or stone tips? do they have poisoned tips?
Monday, May 11, 2009
The difference of man, and the difference it makes
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
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
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.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
