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."
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
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.)
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Who is man? Why is he the way he is?
Creation and the body
In the modern world there is a great deal of speculation about who or what human beings are. There is much speculation of what mind is, what intelligence is. People ask whether man can exist without a body, and other questions. We even have people who claim man 'should' evolve past being human, and become a machine. In my view most of this thinking is fallacious and based on a confusion over mankind's real nature.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Many have in recent years discussed the nature of the body/spirit interaction. Herman Bavinck (1854—1921) came to a conclusion which brings out a nice distinction with intriguing implications.'
"The body, although it is not the cause of all these activities of the spirit, is the instrument of them. It is not the ear which hears but the spirit of man which hears through the ears. . . . To the extent, therefore, that the body serves as a tool and instrument of the spirit, it exhibits a certain resemblance to and gives us some notion of the way in which God is busy in the world.'' - Bavinck
- A question I find intriguing question is this; 'why do human beings have the particular bodies they have? To elaborate; why do we have the particular senses we have? Why do we experience the matter/energy universe in the way we do? Why is our hearing so acute? Why is our vision what it is? Why so many connections in the brain? Why is human memory so great? Why is our sense of music so exquisite? Why do we have such great creativity in music and in the arts? Why is human potential so great? Why do we look as we do? Why do we feel as we do? etc. etc.
- few people (even Christians) seem to ask these questions. (I think we see in this, the pernicious influence of Darwinism at work.)
- Bavinck seems to be saying that the human body (i.e. the way it works, its capacities, etc.) gives us a glimpse into the workings of God in the universe. What do I mean?
- I assume god has a purpose for giving man the faculties he has. (I think it was George Macdonald who said, if god wanted to see a play he would create a Shakespeare. If this has some validity, then God has created us for some purpose; has created our bodies the way they are for some purpose.
- Can it be that He wants to see through our eyes? hear through our ears? etc. But why the specifics of the human body? If we take the bible at its word I think the implication is obvious; the human body (at least at the time of the original creation, and before the Fall) is the best possible vehicle for this purpose.
- In other words; the human body was made perfect; a perfect vehicle for experiencing the universe; for experiencing the physical universe; the perfect vehicle for life in the material realm. (i.e. as the earth was the perfect planet, so man was the perfect body, the perfect vehicle for an intelligent Spirit to become incarnate in.)
- When I say the 'human' body was a 'perfect' vehicle I'm implying this was the opinion of God; or this was his view of the matter; at least for His purposes. Man then is the perfect 'fit' between the material universe and Spirit. [The 'Darwinian' answer, that all things that exist do so because they led to reproductive success, makes no sense to me. In no way can this adequately explain the specifics of the human body and the human person. Evolutionary theory can't account for the greatness of man; they can't account for his potential; it can't account for Mozart, Beethoven, etc.]
- it's not merely' that the universe was designed, or that man was designed; but that the 'fit' between them was designed. i.e. they were designed with this 'fit' in mind. The universe is what it is because of what man is; man is what he is because of what the universe it. And this 'fit'? It has the specific nature it has because of who God is, and because of what his plans for the universe are. (Specifically; this 'fit' has its specific nature or quality, because from the very beginning, from before the universe came into being, the Incarnation of one member of the Trinity was part of the Plan. Man is what he is, his 'body' is what it is, because God had determined that the human form was the most perfect way for God to experience the physical universe. i.e. the best vehicle for God to walk the earth, to experience material existence.
- I think I'm accurate in claiming that this is the view that Arthur Custance held; or at least close to it. (I'm sympathetic to it.)
- this is clearly speculative; but I think it's far closer to the truth than the Materialist view that man is who he is (has the body he has) simply by way of random chance and chemical accident.
Notes;
1. Arthur Custance; Journey out of Time/ch. 9/p.12
- the post above was just some thoughts I had on reading his chapter 'The interdependence of spirit and body: the biblical and theological view.'
2. 'Since man was designed for life on earth and appointed its "manager" (Genesis 1:26(56)), he naturally was equipped with a physical means of interaction with the material world.' - A. Custance
- I think it's accurate to say that man is what he is, his body is what 'it' is, because of man's appointed role on earth. (e.g. mathematics is an ability man has because of the command to take dominion over the earth; musical ability exists because of the command to glorify the Creator; and so on.)
3. ' In his discussion of the Judaic beliefs, Gundry [R.H.] observes that when we turn to Jewish literature of the Intertestamental and New Testament period, God is seen as making the body to suit the spirit which it contains "just as the potter suits a vessel to its intended contents." [Ch.9/p. 17]
- if this is true, the implication would seem to be that man's 'body' is what it is, because of who the Son [of God] is; ie. because who Jesus is. Can we say anything more specific? It would seem that man's body is as it is because of the nature of the work Jesus had to do in his incarnation, in his earthly life. (e.g. man is sensitive emotionally because Jesus had to be; logical because Jesus had to be; capable of love because Jesus needed to be; capable of courage because Jesus needed to be, etc. )
- one might object that this doesn't explain why human hearing is so great, or eyesight so great, or why man's musical or mathematical potential is so great. I can't think of an answer to this; so perhaps the above is only a partial answer to this question.
In the modern world there is a great deal of speculation about who or what human beings are. There is much speculation of what mind is, what intelligence is. People ask whether man can exist without a body, and other questions. We even have people who claim man 'should' evolve past being human, and become a machine. In my view most of this thinking is fallacious and based on a confusion over mankind's real nature.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Many have in recent years discussed the nature of the body/spirit interaction. Herman Bavinck (1854—1921) came to a conclusion which brings out a nice distinction with intriguing implications.'
"The body, although it is not the cause of all these activities of the spirit, is the instrument of them. It is not the ear which hears but the spirit of man which hears through the ears. . . . To the extent, therefore, that the body serves as a tool and instrument of the spirit, it exhibits a certain resemblance to and gives us some notion of the way in which God is busy in the world.'' - Bavinck
- A question I find intriguing question is this; 'why do human beings have the particular bodies they have? To elaborate; why do we have the particular senses we have? Why do we experience the matter/energy universe in the way we do? Why is our hearing so acute? Why is our vision what it is? Why so many connections in the brain? Why is human memory so great? Why is our sense of music so exquisite? Why do we have such great creativity in music and in the arts? Why is human potential so great? Why do we look as we do? Why do we feel as we do? etc. etc.
- few people (even Christians) seem to ask these questions. (I think we see in this, the pernicious influence of Darwinism at work.)
- Bavinck seems to be saying that the human body (i.e. the way it works, its capacities, etc.) gives us a glimpse into the workings of God in the universe. What do I mean?
- I assume god has a purpose for giving man the faculties he has. (I think it was George Macdonald who said, if god wanted to see a play he would create a Shakespeare. If this has some validity, then God has created us for some purpose; has created our bodies the way they are for some purpose.
- Can it be that He wants to see through our eyes? hear through our ears? etc. But why the specifics of the human body? If we take the bible at its word I think the implication is obvious; the human body (at least at the time of the original creation, and before the Fall) is the best possible vehicle for this purpose.
- In other words; the human body was made perfect; a perfect vehicle for experiencing the universe; for experiencing the physical universe; the perfect vehicle for life in the material realm. (i.e. as the earth was the perfect planet, so man was the perfect body, the perfect vehicle for an intelligent Spirit to become incarnate in.)
- When I say the 'human' body was a 'perfect' vehicle I'm implying this was the opinion of God; or this was his view of the matter; at least for His purposes. Man then is the perfect 'fit' between the material universe and Spirit. [The 'Darwinian' answer, that all things that exist do so because they led to reproductive success, makes no sense to me. In no way can this adequately explain the specifics of the human body and the human person. Evolutionary theory can't account for the greatness of man; they can't account for his potential; it can't account for Mozart, Beethoven, etc.]
- it's not merely' that the universe was designed, or that man was designed; but that the 'fit' between them was designed. i.e. they were designed with this 'fit' in mind. The universe is what it is because of what man is; man is what he is because of what the universe it. And this 'fit'? It has the specific nature it has because of who God is, and because of what his plans for the universe are. (Specifically; this 'fit' has its specific nature or quality, because from the very beginning, from before the universe came into being, the Incarnation of one member of the Trinity was part of the Plan. Man is what he is, his 'body' is what it is, because God had determined that the human form was the most perfect way for God to experience the physical universe. i.e. the best vehicle for God to walk the earth, to experience material existence.
- I think I'm accurate in claiming that this is the view that Arthur Custance held; or at least close to it. (I'm sympathetic to it.)
- this is clearly speculative; but I think it's far closer to the truth than the Materialist view that man is who he is (has the body he has) simply by way of random chance and chemical accident.
Notes;
1. Arthur Custance; Journey out of Time/ch. 9/p.12
- the post above was just some thoughts I had on reading his chapter 'The interdependence of spirit and body: the biblical and theological view.'
2. 'Since man was designed for life on earth and appointed its "manager" (Genesis 1:26(56)), he naturally was equipped with a physical means of interaction with the material world.' - A. Custance
- I think it's accurate to say that man is what he is, his body is what 'it' is, because of man's appointed role on earth. (e.g. mathematics is an ability man has because of the command to take dominion over the earth; musical ability exists because of the command to glorify the Creator; and so on.)
3. ' In his discussion of the Judaic beliefs, Gundry [R.H.] observes that when we turn to Jewish literature of the Intertestamental and New Testament period, God is seen as making the body to suit the spirit which it contains "just as the potter suits a vessel to its intended contents." [Ch.9/p. 17]
- if this is true, the implication would seem to be that man's 'body' is what it is, because of who the Son [of God] is; ie. because who Jesus is. Can we say anything more specific? It would seem that man's body is as it is because of the nature of the work Jesus had to do in his incarnation, in his earthly life. (e.g. man is sensitive emotionally because Jesus had to be; logical because Jesus had to be; capable of love because Jesus needed to be; capable of courage because Jesus needed to be, etc. )
- one might object that this doesn't explain why human hearing is so great, or eyesight so great, or why man's musical or mathematical potential is so great. I can't think of an answer to this; so perhaps the above is only a partial answer to this question.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
The Existence of the Soul
Materialists (and this would include most evolutionists) deny the existence of the soul. They claim they've looked for it, but can't find it; and thus they 'regretfully' inform us that Christianity has been refuted. One of my favorite writers is Arthur Custance. He disagrees with the Materialist claim, and I agree with him. The following quotes are taken from his book 'Journey out of Time'.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'But as Paul Weiss rightly observed, the trouble may be that we have not yet designed the right kind of research tools or methods:
"Maybe our concept of our nervous system is equally inadequate and insufficient, because so long as you use only electrical instruments, you get only electrical answers; if you use chemical detectors, you get chemical answers; and if you determine numerical and geometric values, you get numerical and geometrical answers. So perhaps we have not yet found the particular kind of instrument that tells us the next unknown." (1.)
- Weiss wonders if the reason we haven't detected the soul is that we haven't developed the right instruments; i.e. instruments capable of detecting it. Maybe, but maybe we have 'instruments' that reveal the existence of the soul; maybe things like literature, poetry, art and music, are the things that reveal to us the human soul. (i.e. we don't look for chemicals, electricity, etc. but we look for reason, language, creativity, beauty, music, etc.)
- in other words, 'War and Peace' can't be written by chemicals obeying chemical laws. If a creature is capable of great art it thus reveals to us evidence of having a soul.
- a problem might be defining the soul. The word soul seems to stand for what is supra-animal in man; ie. his specifically human abilities. (e.g. his consciousness, self-consciousness, consciousness of others, his ability to think, imagine, reason, his abilities to be creative, his abilities to use language, his abilities to use mathematics, etc.)
- soul isn't so much an object, than it is a complex of abilities.
Notes;
1. Arthur Custance; Journey out of Time - Arthur Custance/ch. 8/p.2 [Free online]
2. some people might object and say birds have music, so this either proves birds have souls, or that men do not. I deny the birds (animals) have music. There is no meaningful relationship or connection between a genetically given 'signal' system and music. (I'm listening to 'The well tempered clavier' by Bach as I write this.) Music is a difficult thing to write about, but we all recognize the difference between the mechanical chirping of birds and great music.
3. Some people might object to my proposal and say that many animals have beauty. So they do; but they don't create beauty, they are beautiful. This is akin to the difference between a beautiful young woman, and a painting of a beautiful young woman. The one isn't art, while the other is. Only the human soul can consciously and freely create beauty. Created beauty is thus evidence of the soul.
4. We might say that the soul can do what mere matter in motion cannot.
5. ''It is seemingly impossible to quantify human behavior. Thus psychology is doomed to remain an art of
uncertain value so long as it depends upon introspection and observation only. There are no instruments yet
designed to quantify the almost infinite variety and complexity of response of which the human psyche is
capable. While the behavior of the body is often highly predictable (and so encourages "mechanistic" interpretations), the response of the human soul very seldom is . . . which suggests it is not operating as a mechanism and therefore almost certainly does not arise as an outgrowth of pure mechanism in the first place.'' [A.C. ch. 8. page 2; the intro to the Weiss quote.]
Quotes and comments;
1. 'But as Paul Weiss rightly observed, the trouble may be that we have not yet designed the right kind of research tools or methods:
"Maybe our concept of our nervous system is equally inadequate and insufficient, because so long as you use only electrical instruments, you get only electrical answers; if you use chemical detectors, you get chemical answers; and if you determine numerical and geometric values, you get numerical and geometrical answers. So perhaps we have not yet found the particular kind of instrument that tells us the next unknown." (1.)
- Weiss wonders if the reason we haven't detected the soul is that we haven't developed the right instruments; i.e. instruments capable of detecting it. Maybe, but maybe we have 'instruments' that reveal the existence of the soul; maybe things like literature, poetry, art and music, are the things that reveal to us the human soul. (i.e. we don't look for chemicals, electricity, etc. but we look for reason, language, creativity, beauty, music, etc.)
- in other words, 'War and Peace' can't be written by chemicals obeying chemical laws. If a creature is capable of great art it thus reveals to us evidence of having a soul.
- a problem might be defining the soul. The word soul seems to stand for what is supra-animal in man; ie. his specifically human abilities. (e.g. his consciousness, self-consciousness, consciousness of others, his ability to think, imagine, reason, his abilities to be creative, his abilities to use language, his abilities to use mathematics, etc.)
- soul isn't so much an object, than it is a complex of abilities.
Notes;
1. Arthur Custance; Journey out of Time - Arthur Custance/ch. 8/p.2 [Free online]
2. some people might object and say birds have music, so this either proves birds have souls, or that men do not. I deny the birds (animals) have music. There is no meaningful relationship or connection between a genetically given 'signal' system and music. (I'm listening to 'The well tempered clavier' by Bach as I write this.) Music is a difficult thing to write about, but we all recognize the difference between the mechanical chirping of birds and great music.
3. Some people might object to my proposal and say that many animals have beauty. So they do; but they don't create beauty, they are beautiful. This is akin to the difference between a beautiful young woman, and a painting of a beautiful young woman. The one isn't art, while the other is. Only the human soul can consciously and freely create beauty. Created beauty is thus evidence of the soul.
4. We might say that the soul can do what mere matter in motion cannot.
5. ''It is seemingly impossible to quantify human behavior. Thus psychology is doomed to remain an art of
uncertain value so long as it depends upon introspection and observation only. There are no instruments yet
designed to quantify the almost infinite variety and complexity of response of which the human psyche is
capable. While the behavior of the body is often highly predictable (and so encourages "mechanistic" interpretations), the response of the human soul very seldom is . . . which suggests it is not operating as a mechanism and therefore almost certainly does not arise as an outgrowth of pure mechanism in the first place.'' [A.C. ch. 8. page 2; the intro to the Weiss quote.]
Monday, December 1, 2008
Darwinism and the Invention of Delusion
In this post I'll try (briefly) to make the case Darwinism is based on the argument from silence fallacy. To do so I'll look at a few comments made by Gines Morata (a research scientist from Spain).
Quotes and comments;
1. " I often tell my students that they do not have to invent anything; in biology everything has already been invented. What they have to do is find out the solution chosen by evolution.
2. 'In the context of this statement, Morata was talking about his enjoyment of science as a kind of detective work. “The interesting aspect of it is that biological solutions are unpredictable and often very inelegant; there is a lot of tinkering in biology,” he asserted. “This is because there is no design, only chance and necessity.” As examples, he pointed to “useless” DNA, introns and genetic subdivisions that do not appear associated with morphological landmarks. (1.)
- Morata is a prime example of evolutionists developing idea based on ignorance; i.e. the so called argument from silence. i.e. evolutionists base their theory of origins on the little they know (or think they know) since they (we) know so very little the theory can't possibly be right; and is certain to be wrong. (This is like basing your idea of ancient sea travel on the wrecks you find; since (up till recently) you only found them in shallow water it was considered wisdom to say in ancient times men only sailed along the coastlines and never across open bodies of deep water. We now find this is utterly untrue. Evolutionists are in the same boat; they developed their theories (sub theories within E. theory) based on a similar ignorance. We are now finding out (repeatedly) that these theories are wrong. It's my view that the grand evolutionary theory (macro-evolution) is similarly an argument from silence.
Notes;
1. Reference; Evolution as Inventor Creation/Evolution headlines 12/05/2006
2. Morata is guilty of personification when he talks about nature 'inventing' things. Only intelligent persons invent things. (I don't consider monkeys using sticks inventing things; they certainly don't invent sticks :=)
3. evolution isn't a person (one gets weary of saying these things.) The fact evolutionists so often commit these errors shows how wrong headed their thinking is. (It often seems to me, that false ideas lead to fallacious grammar.)
- 'evolution' doesn't choose anything; certainly not solutions.
4. one wonders on what basis he decides the 'solutions' of nature aren't inelegant? which of his (selfish) genes is making this judgment?
5. one wonders how he knows there is no design; and which of his genes is responsible for this conclusion? and on what basis?
- evolutionists who follow Dawkins are endlessly (or so it seems) telling us we're just collections of selfish genes, that don't have us in mind, who use us for their own purposes... but when they sit down to write they seem to totally forget all this priceless knowledge. Why is it then that they don't write in a manner consistent with what they claim to believe? The simple answer is that they can't. To try to do so leads to incoherence and absurdity. (If you doubt me; try it.)
6. How does morata know what is 'useless' as he puts it? He doesn't; he's just using (again) an argument from silence. ie. since I can't see any use for X, there isn't one. This is one of the worst, and most common, mistakes made by evolutionists. (Over and over it's shown to be wrong.)
- one would like to know which of his genes is telling him this.
7. Since nature has supposedly invented everything, I wonder if it invented Darwinism :=) Did it invent soccer? Pop music? Tiddly winks?
Quotes and comments;
1. " I often tell my students that they do not have to invent anything; in biology everything has already been invented. What they have to do is find out the solution chosen by evolution.
2. 'In the context of this statement, Morata was talking about his enjoyment of science as a kind of detective work. “The interesting aspect of it is that biological solutions are unpredictable and often very inelegant; there is a lot of tinkering in biology,” he asserted. “This is because there is no design, only chance and necessity.” As examples, he pointed to “useless” DNA, introns and genetic subdivisions that do not appear associated with morphological landmarks. (1.)
- Morata is a prime example of evolutionists developing idea based on ignorance; i.e. the so called argument from silence. i.e. evolutionists base their theory of origins on the little they know (or think they know) since they (we) know so very little the theory can't possibly be right; and is certain to be wrong. (This is like basing your idea of ancient sea travel on the wrecks you find; since (up till recently) you only found them in shallow water it was considered wisdom to say in ancient times men only sailed along the coastlines and never across open bodies of deep water. We now find this is utterly untrue. Evolutionists are in the same boat; they developed their theories (sub theories within E. theory) based on a similar ignorance. We are now finding out (repeatedly) that these theories are wrong. It's my view that the grand evolutionary theory (macro-evolution) is similarly an argument from silence.
Notes;
1. Reference; Evolution as Inventor Creation/Evolution headlines 12/05/2006
2. Morata is guilty of personification when he talks about nature 'inventing' things. Only intelligent persons invent things. (I don't consider monkeys using sticks inventing things; they certainly don't invent sticks :=)
3. evolution isn't a person (one gets weary of saying these things.) The fact evolutionists so often commit these errors shows how wrong headed their thinking is. (It often seems to me, that false ideas lead to fallacious grammar.)
- 'evolution' doesn't choose anything; certainly not solutions.
4. one wonders on what basis he decides the 'solutions' of nature aren't inelegant? which of his (selfish) genes is making this judgment?
5. one wonders how he knows there is no design; and which of his genes is responsible for this conclusion? and on what basis?
- evolutionists who follow Dawkins are endlessly (or so it seems) telling us we're just collections of selfish genes, that don't have us in mind, who use us for their own purposes... but when they sit down to write they seem to totally forget all this priceless knowledge. Why is it then that they don't write in a manner consistent with what they claim to believe? The simple answer is that they can't. To try to do so leads to incoherence and absurdity. (If you doubt me; try it.)
6. How does morata know what is 'useless' as he puts it? He doesn't; he's just using (again) an argument from silence. ie. since I can't see any use for X, there isn't one. This is one of the worst, and most common, mistakes made by evolutionists. (Over and over it's shown to be wrong.)
- one would like to know which of his genes is telling him this.
7. Since nature has supposedly invented everything, I wonder if it invented Darwinism :=) Did it invent soccer? Pop music? Tiddly winks?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
