I read an angry letter from an evolutionist (are they all angry?) who said that belief in creation was just faith; and that you didn't need faith to believe in evolution. (As it was all so plainly true.) The man clearly didn't know what faith meant. [1]
I see in his comment evidence how the insistence by Darwinists that E. is a fact has distorted people's ability to think straight. People seem to be losing their grip on what rationality consists of; of fact truth is, of what facts are, of what faith is; of how our finiteness affects us, and of what knowledge is.
Quotes and comments;
A. "Atheism is an ABSENCE of faith, not a presence.
Evolution requires NO faith, since it is known to happen, has been observed to happen, and makes testable predictions." [2.]
- The man is apparently under the delusion that if he believes X to be true, it is true; and that someone else believes non-x, what they believe is false, and believed only on faith. Such a person has no idea what faith is, nor does he know what knowledge is. All knowledge is based on faith in certain basic assumptions.
The heavy handed insistence evolution is a fact (and E. is conveniently not defined) disparages things like belief, theory, supposition, opinion, etc. There is nothing wrong with these concepts; and in reality (if that matters in the emotionally supercharged environment we live in) these are all we have. We don't have facts. (If fact is defined as certain knowledge of reality.) This is the painful truth of our existence.
For Evolution (M2M) to be a fact it would have to conform exactly to reality; for that to happen we'd have to know that reality existed, what it was, and have to know it perfectly. (and to know we knew it, and how we knew it; and that we were correct in all our suppositions about it.) We'd have to believe we were capable of knowing reality.
For the E. this means believing (on faith I might add) that a random physical process could create a mind capable of knowing reality. It means believing that the chemical reactions in the brain are inherently rational. For E. to be a fact, we'd have to know how living organisms could emerge from inert matter. There is no scientific basis for believing this, and whoever does believe it believes it on faith.
Before we could say evolution was a face we'd have to know how some 'primitive' bit of protoplasm could 'evolve' into complex animals, and that one of these could magically (going contrary to entropy) evolve into a human being.
For E. to be fact we'd have to believe that the impersonal can give birth to the personal; that the non-intelligent can give birth to intelligence. We'd have to believe that random chance can produce complex, specified information. We'd have to believe the chemicals can produce the genetic code. These are a few of the things we'd have to know for E. to be a fact. The reality is that none of these things are certain knowledge. This means that M2M evolution cannot possibly be a fact.
To say E. isn't a fact doesn't mean it doesn't have some approximation to reality. That's another story. To say there are few (if any) facts doesn't mean all beliefs are equally valid. To say there are no facts doesn't mean that some reality doesn't exist, by which we could judge their approximate veracity.
When he says E. is a fact he shows us he's been deceived by his school teachers. In his ignorance of philosophy he thinks knowledge is a simple thing. In his ignorance of biology (and of critiques of E. theories) he imagines the origins of living organisms is a simple matter. If he wants to come to a better understanding of the issues at hand he's got a lot of work to do. Understanding can't be had by simply affirming the distortions and half truths taught in our government schools.
Conclusion;
If all is matter in motion then no such thing as freedom exists. This being the case why is our evolutionist so mad? Why is he mad at all. On his worldview, the creationist can't help believing what he does. (He might want to ask himself if all is matter in motion, acting in terms of physical laws, why do people have varying ideas about origins?)
Notes;
1. Faith; 'The assent of the mind to the truth of a proposition or statement for which there is not complete evidence; belief in general. - John Locke [Century Dictionary]
2. Polarized reaction to atheists’ refusal to debate CMI - Creation.com
- A letter to the website (Creation.com) reads;
"Atheism is an ABSENCE of faith, not a presence.
Evolution requires NO faith, since it is known to happen, has been observed to happen, and makes testable predictions. Furthermore it has nothing at all to do with the making of the world—that is the province of astrophysics and geology." - Gregory Tingey
- He's wrong that evolution (M2M) has nothing to do with the 'making' of the world. The supposed 'emergence' of living organisms from inert matter certainly is a matter that lies within the domain of evolutionary theory. (The theory purports to give an account for all life on earth.) Has he forgotten Darwin's famous drawing of the tree of life? Has he forgotten his claim the first primordial cell 'emerged' from a warm pond?
2. Faith;
- The root of faith is trust. Everyone who believes in M2M evolution does so on the basis of trust. i.e. they believe (trust) that the things their professors and teachers told them were accurate. (I can assure not all of them were.) They also trust that reality exists, and that they know what it consists of. They have faith that man is capable of understanding reality. They trust that man's mind can comprehend and express true propositions. They trust that the popular apologists for evolution are telling the truth. They trust that living organisms can somehow spontaneously emerge from inert matter. (And so on.) They also trust that anyone who disagrees with them is inescapably wrong. (Which means they trust that something called truth exists; a claim many of our professors deny by the way.)
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
The cosmos of the middle ages
Today I want to talk briefly about a book called Kepler's Witch. In an effort to get people to read the book (one of the best I've read in years) I'll give a few quotes, and then offer a way for people to experience the cosmos as people did in the middle ages.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'Surprisingly, the difficulty in adapting to the new placement of the earth in relation to the other heavenly bodies was not primarily that it spelled the downfall of human dignity. Later generations seemed to think that the geocentric model promoted the dignity of humanity’s place in the universe, as the apple of God’s eye, while the Copernican system turned this around and set the earth spinning meaninglessly through a meaningless universe.
This is not quite accurate, for Aristotle never thought of the earth as a special place or the apple of anybody’s eye. The earth occupied the lowest position in the cosmos, where all things chaotic and all things corruptible eventually settled. [1.]
- If you want to know how people saw the cosmos, how they thought of it, you need to go at on a cloudless night and life flat on the ground, and stare up at the stars. The effect is to feel one's self at the bottom of a well. It was this 'view' of things that people had in the middle ages.
B. Kepler's witch.
- The witch in the title refers to Kepler's mother. The book gives us a detailed look at a witch trial; a look that's both gruesome and sad. She apparently was an intelligent but had little or no schooling, and was unable to read. [2.]
What we see in this account is people making connections between events, and then blaming things on people. e.g. One man told the court he got sick after drinking something Kepler's mother had given him. He then made the (false) connection she had poisoned him deliberately. Ironically, it's this ability to draw connections and inferences that lies behind the human ability to do science.
C. 'The world beneath the sphere of the moon was the privy of the universe, where living things came into existence and then died away, where sooner or later all life returned to rot. Only the heavens were eternal; only the heavens were divine. Redefining the earth as a planet, as Copernicus did, actually set the earth into the heavens with the other planets and raised property values all around. [1.]
- It's sad the way Humanist writers have deliberately falsified the medieval view of the cosmos. Even today we continually hear this absurd claim that Copernicus dethroned man, and that heliocentrism was a great humiliation for man... and other such nonsense. These are lies and distortions. (Anyone who wants to critique Christianity can find lots of honest material, they surely don't have to resort to lies and distortion.) Most people who talk this way don't have a clue what they're talking about.
How people saw the cosmos in the Middle Ages is immensely complicated, and I think it's impossible to know with any exactitude. [Ch. 4 gives a good overview of the Copernican controversy.]
It was Christians who brought in the new heliocentric view, and contrary to the ignorant claims of professors and school teachers in our day, they in no way saw this as destroying human dignity... quite the contrary. The textbooks of our universities are full of anti-Christian slander and bigotry. (It appears that once such lies have been told, succeeding generations of professors just parrot them. Who after all bothers to check on the veracity of comments they approve of?)
D. 'In 1593, Kepler wrote a short dissertation, supported by his friend Christopher Besold, imagining what the earth would look like to people living on the moon. This would be revised several times in his life and finally published as Kepler’s Somnium, his Dream, after his death.
The purpose of this dissertation was to demonstrate Copernicus’s idea that the earth moves very rapidly, rotating and revolving around the sun, but the people living on the earth cannot see or feel this. [4.]
- This is the kind of thought experiment later made famous by people like Einstein.
- It's a slander on people like Kepler for atheists to claim that Christians can't do science. (Not to mention being an absurd denial of reality.)
Summary; Kepler's Witch is a great book. It's more of a biography than a book about science. You get a real feel for the times he lived in. It's a wonder he was able to accomplish so much given the times he lived in. (e.g. the middle of the Thirty years war.) The contrast between his harried life and Newton's relatively placid one, couldn't be more stark. As an independent thinking Lutheran, he was hounded from town to town as a heretic, experienced much illness and poverty, and most of his children died very young. Throughout all the 'chaos' of society in turmoil he continued to search for a grand cosmic harmony that he believed must exist.
Notes;
1. Kepler's Witch - James A. Connor/p. 61
2. That we can go from her to Kepler in one generation is a refutation of Darwinism in itself.
3. While it's true that many of the ideas and speculations of men like Kepler etc. were wrong, this is how progress (toward truth) is usually made. i.e. we walk up stairs that are crooked and maybe even broken... but yet we walk up despite this. In fact, at least looking back, it's the only way we can walk.
4. KW p. 80
Quotes and comments;
A. 'Surprisingly, the difficulty in adapting to the new placement of the earth in relation to the other heavenly bodies was not primarily that it spelled the downfall of human dignity. Later generations seemed to think that the geocentric model promoted the dignity of humanity’s place in the universe, as the apple of God’s eye, while the Copernican system turned this around and set the earth spinning meaninglessly through a meaningless universe.
This is not quite accurate, for Aristotle never thought of the earth as a special place or the apple of anybody’s eye. The earth occupied the lowest position in the cosmos, where all things chaotic and all things corruptible eventually settled. [1.]
- If you want to know how people saw the cosmos, how they thought of it, you need to go at on a cloudless night and life flat on the ground, and stare up at the stars. The effect is to feel one's self at the bottom of a well. It was this 'view' of things that people had in the middle ages.
B. Kepler's witch.
- The witch in the title refers to Kepler's mother. The book gives us a detailed look at a witch trial; a look that's both gruesome and sad. She apparently was an intelligent but had little or no schooling, and was unable to read. [2.]
What we see in this account is people making connections between events, and then blaming things on people. e.g. One man told the court he got sick after drinking something Kepler's mother had given him. He then made the (false) connection she had poisoned him deliberately. Ironically, it's this ability to draw connections and inferences that lies behind the human ability to do science.
C. 'The world beneath the sphere of the moon was the privy of the universe, where living things came into existence and then died away, where sooner or later all life returned to rot. Only the heavens were eternal; only the heavens were divine. Redefining the earth as a planet, as Copernicus did, actually set the earth into the heavens with the other planets and raised property values all around. [1.]
- It's sad the way Humanist writers have deliberately falsified the medieval view of the cosmos. Even today we continually hear this absurd claim that Copernicus dethroned man, and that heliocentrism was a great humiliation for man... and other such nonsense. These are lies and distortions. (Anyone who wants to critique Christianity can find lots of honest material, they surely don't have to resort to lies and distortion.) Most people who talk this way don't have a clue what they're talking about.
How people saw the cosmos in the Middle Ages is immensely complicated, and I think it's impossible to know with any exactitude. [Ch. 4 gives a good overview of the Copernican controversy.]
It was Christians who brought in the new heliocentric view, and contrary to the ignorant claims of professors and school teachers in our day, they in no way saw this as destroying human dignity... quite the contrary. The textbooks of our universities are full of anti-Christian slander and bigotry. (It appears that once such lies have been told, succeeding generations of professors just parrot them. Who after all bothers to check on the veracity of comments they approve of?)
D. 'In 1593, Kepler wrote a short dissertation, supported by his friend Christopher Besold, imagining what the earth would look like to people living on the moon. This would be revised several times in his life and finally published as Kepler’s Somnium, his Dream, after his death.
The purpose of this dissertation was to demonstrate Copernicus’s idea that the earth moves very rapidly, rotating and revolving around the sun, but the people living on the earth cannot see or feel this. [4.]
- This is the kind of thought experiment later made famous by people like Einstein.
- It's a slander on people like Kepler for atheists to claim that Christians can't do science. (Not to mention being an absurd denial of reality.)
Summary; Kepler's Witch is a great book. It's more of a biography than a book about science. You get a real feel for the times he lived in. It's a wonder he was able to accomplish so much given the times he lived in. (e.g. the middle of the Thirty years war.) The contrast between his harried life and Newton's relatively placid one, couldn't be more stark. As an independent thinking Lutheran, he was hounded from town to town as a heretic, experienced much illness and poverty, and most of his children died very young. Throughout all the 'chaos' of society in turmoil he continued to search for a grand cosmic harmony that he believed must exist.
Notes;
1. Kepler's Witch - James A. Connor/p. 61
2. That we can go from her to Kepler in one generation is a refutation of Darwinism in itself.
3. While it's true that many of the ideas and speculations of men like Kepler etc. were wrong, this is how progress (toward truth) is usually made. i.e. we walk up stairs that are crooked and maybe even broken... but yet we walk up despite this. In fact, at least looking back, it's the only way we can walk.
4. KW p. 80
Monday, February 22, 2010
Telling lies for Darwin
For some people the origins debate isn't about science at all; it's merely one front in a war against Christianity.
Quotes and comments;
A. "Unfortunately in this debate a position between two sides, which you seem to adopt, is hardly tenable. It is a culture war whose outcome will have immense consequences, so a book to be useful must unequivocally take a side and defend it vigorously. A position of supposed neutrality (which is hardly possible) necessarily serves one side despite the author's intention to remain unbiased. [1.]
- I was listening to an interview with Stephen Meyer today, and he mentioned that his book had generally received good reviews... including those on Amazon. The Darwinists didn't like all this and decided (via somebody on some Darwinist site, Panda's Thumb was it?) to dump on the book and drive it down in the ratings. They encouraged opponents of creation and ID to go to the Amazon site and give the book a one star rating. (Let me just add that people who review books they haven't read are lower on the intellectual scale than termites.) So in a day or two 30-40 people had all given it a 1 star rating and driven the ratings down from 4.5 to 4. [2.]
My question is this; do you think people who do this are going to be honest about the Origins debate? Do you think they're going to be honest in answering questions? in writing papers? in discussing the evidence, in revealing their true beliefs?
It's interesting that people who don't have the time to read the book (this being the usual excuse materialists give for not reading creationist material) but they do have the time to write fake reviews. One wonders if their articles and papers are any more honest than their reviews.
What's even worse are the fake reviews that get published in science magazines. For years people have been reviewing anti-Darwinian, and creationist books without having read them. (Are they scared to?) What makes this ironic is that a popular icon of the Darwinist movement is the story where Galileo offers to show the 'bishops' of the church evidence for his new cosmology, but they refuse to look through his telescope. "See,'' they tell us, "this is what Christians are like. They're scared to look at the evidence."
Well; whether or not materialists want to look at it or not, the evidence against them and in favor of creation is there waiting for them.
The Amazon incident shows how degraded the origins debate has become, as the Darwinists now resort to any manner of foul tactics to try and defend their collapsing theory. We don't see people discussing science and we don't see honest debate. What we see are bully tactics and suppression of discussion.
Notes;
1. 'Seeking god in science' - Bradley Monton; preface/9
- According to the author of this note, (this person seems to know the future you'll notice) books and articles can't concern themselves with the truth about reality, but must be 'useful' in the struggle to destroy Christianity. (The author of this note seems to imagine there are only two sides in the debate.) It's clear to me that the origins debate isn't about science in the minds of many materialists. What they're doing is using 'science' to attack Christianity. (This is their version of the 'wedge' strategy.)
- Ever notice how the pc types love the warfare metaphor?
2. I heard the interview on a radio show called Sound Rezn. They want to defend reason I guess, but they apparently can't spell it. The show claims to provide 'truth for a sound bite culture' or somesuch nonsense. They feature flashy rock and roll theme music, a snappy tv news style, etc. They want to defend Christianity, but you can see at a glance how has influenced who. I find this cheap imitation of pop culture sad and embarrassing. (But maybe that's just my curmudgeon gene speaking.)
Quotes and comments;
A. "Unfortunately in this debate a position between two sides, which you seem to adopt, is hardly tenable. It is a culture war whose outcome will have immense consequences, so a book to be useful must unequivocally take a side and defend it vigorously. A position of supposed neutrality (which is hardly possible) necessarily serves one side despite the author's intention to remain unbiased. [1.]
- I was listening to an interview with Stephen Meyer today, and he mentioned that his book had generally received good reviews... including those on Amazon. The Darwinists didn't like all this and decided (via somebody on some Darwinist site, Panda's Thumb was it?) to dump on the book and drive it down in the ratings. They encouraged opponents of creation and ID to go to the Amazon site and give the book a one star rating. (Let me just add that people who review books they haven't read are lower on the intellectual scale than termites.) So in a day or two 30-40 people had all given it a 1 star rating and driven the ratings down from 4.5 to 4. [2.]
My question is this; do you think people who do this are going to be honest about the Origins debate? Do you think they're going to be honest in answering questions? in writing papers? in discussing the evidence, in revealing their true beliefs?
It's interesting that people who don't have the time to read the book (this being the usual excuse materialists give for not reading creationist material) but they do have the time to write fake reviews. One wonders if their articles and papers are any more honest than their reviews.
What's even worse are the fake reviews that get published in science magazines. For years people have been reviewing anti-Darwinian, and creationist books without having read them. (Are they scared to?) What makes this ironic is that a popular icon of the Darwinist movement is the story where Galileo offers to show the 'bishops' of the church evidence for his new cosmology, but they refuse to look through his telescope. "See,'' they tell us, "this is what Christians are like. They're scared to look at the evidence."
Well; whether or not materialists want to look at it or not, the evidence against them and in favor of creation is there waiting for them.
The Amazon incident shows how degraded the origins debate has become, as the Darwinists now resort to any manner of foul tactics to try and defend their collapsing theory. We don't see people discussing science and we don't see honest debate. What we see are bully tactics and suppression of discussion.
Notes;
1. 'Seeking god in science' - Bradley Monton; preface/9
- According to the author of this note, (this person seems to know the future you'll notice) books and articles can't concern themselves with the truth about reality, but must be 'useful' in the struggle to destroy Christianity. (The author of this note seems to imagine there are only two sides in the debate.) It's clear to me that the origins debate isn't about science in the minds of many materialists. What they're doing is using 'science' to attack Christianity. (This is their version of the 'wedge' strategy.)
- Ever notice how the pc types love the warfare metaphor?
2. I heard the interview on a radio show called Sound Rezn. They want to defend reason I guess, but they apparently can't spell it. The show claims to provide 'truth for a sound bite culture' or somesuch nonsense. They feature flashy rock and roll theme music, a snappy tv news style, etc. They want to defend Christianity, but you can see at a glance how has influenced who. I find this cheap imitation of pop culture sad and embarrassing. (But maybe that's just my curmudgeon gene speaking.)
The quest for certainty
Human beings seek certainty. The trouble with this, is that there is no certainty to be had. [1]
We can see this in the area of Origins. Darwinists like to claim that Evolution isn't a theory but a fact. By this they mean that it's certain knowledge. There's only one thing wrong with this claim; it's false. When you study the subject of Origins you see a collection of uncertainties that somehow is supposed to add up to a certainty.
A partial list of the uncertainties that somehow lead to the certainty of evolution;
First of all we have the subject of the origins of matter. There is no certain knowledge of how matter was created; and many have claimed it's eternal.
We have the matter of planet formation. There is no certain knowledge of how this happened.
There is the matter of the origin of living organisms here on earth. Again there is no certainty as to how this happened. Even materialists admit they have no idea how life spontaneously emerged.
Then we have the uncertain matter of how complex organisms came into being.
Then we have the matter of how highly complex information came into being. Again there is no certain knowledge to be had.
We can skip a few points and talk about human beings. There is no certain knowledge to be had as to their origin; nor is there with respect to things like intelligence and language.
To make a long story brief, what we see is a long string of uncertainties that our school teachers and professors insist (with vehemence) add up to the certainty called evolution. This is a claim that has no warrant in reality. It's a claim that has no basis in sound thinking. You can't add a bunch of uncertainties up and get a certainty.
There is nothing wrong with saying that evolution (M2M) is a theory. Somewhere along the way our thinking (at least at the elite level) has gone seriously wrong. People insist on making claims of certainty when such things are denied to them. We don't live in such a universe. The universe we live in is one where we must live with uncertainty. (This is not really a bad thing, though it's made out to be.)
There's nothing wrong with answering basic questions by saying; ''well, here's the consensus opinion on that,'' or ''here's our best ideas on that,'' or ''here's what some people and groups think''. The educational elite has no moral right to pass off a collection of uncertainties as a certain fact. This is an abuse of their responsibility to students, and to the public.
The basic problem here, as I see it, is the collectivization of the education process by the state; by the political process and the political elite. Were it not for the complete domination of the educational process by the political elite we would not have nearly so many people telling us Evolution was a certainty. It's only because students have been brainwashed on this issue that they become such fierce defenders of evolution, and such fierce opponents of creation. They've been brainwashed, but they don't seem to mind, or to even be aware that they were. (This is how one sided their education has been.) A decentralization of the education process would lead to a more balanced approach on issues like Origins.
Unfortunately it's a tendency of human beings to claim to know more than they do, and to claim to have certain knowledge when they don't.
Notes;
1. I won't be going into mathematics in this post.
We can see this in the area of Origins. Darwinists like to claim that Evolution isn't a theory but a fact. By this they mean that it's certain knowledge. There's only one thing wrong with this claim; it's false. When you study the subject of Origins you see a collection of uncertainties that somehow is supposed to add up to a certainty.
A partial list of the uncertainties that somehow lead to the certainty of evolution;
First of all we have the subject of the origins of matter. There is no certain knowledge of how matter was created; and many have claimed it's eternal.
We have the matter of planet formation. There is no certain knowledge of how this happened.
There is the matter of the origin of living organisms here on earth. Again there is no certainty as to how this happened. Even materialists admit they have no idea how life spontaneously emerged.
Then we have the uncertain matter of how complex organisms came into being.
Then we have the matter of how highly complex information came into being. Again there is no certain knowledge to be had.
We can skip a few points and talk about human beings. There is no certain knowledge to be had as to their origin; nor is there with respect to things like intelligence and language.
To make a long story brief, what we see is a long string of uncertainties that our school teachers and professors insist (with vehemence) add up to the certainty called evolution. This is a claim that has no warrant in reality. It's a claim that has no basis in sound thinking. You can't add a bunch of uncertainties up and get a certainty.
There is nothing wrong with saying that evolution (M2M) is a theory. Somewhere along the way our thinking (at least at the elite level) has gone seriously wrong. People insist on making claims of certainty when such things are denied to them. We don't live in such a universe. The universe we live in is one where we must live with uncertainty. (This is not really a bad thing, though it's made out to be.)
There's nothing wrong with answering basic questions by saying; ''well, here's the consensus opinion on that,'' or ''here's our best ideas on that,'' or ''here's what some people and groups think''. The educational elite has no moral right to pass off a collection of uncertainties as a certain fact. This is an abuse of their responsibility to students, and to the public.
The basic problem here, as I see it, is the collectivization of the education process by the state; by the political process and the political elite. Were it not for the complete domination of the educational process by the political elite we would not have nearly so many people telling us Evolution was a certainty. It's only because students have been brainwashed on this issue that they become such fierce defenders of evolution, and such fierce opponents of creation. They've been brainwashed, but they don't seem to mind, or to even be aware that they were. (This is how one sided their education has been.) A decentralization of the education process would lead to a more balanced approach on issues like Origins.
Unfortunately it's a tendency of human beings to claim to know more than they do, and to claim to have certain knowledge when they don't.
Notes;
1. I won't be going into mathematics in this post.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
The Darwinists; and manufacturing problems
Anytime anyone disagrees with our Socialist elite they're branded as ignorant and bigoted. No one is allowed to disagree with them on any subject; and most especially the matter of Origins. Their long campaign to force everyone to accept their views continues on relentlessly.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'Britain is giving a “birthday present to Darwin,” wrote Andrew Copson for The Guardian, in the form of national curriculum for primary schools that will mention evolution for the first time – and prohibit teaching of creationism or intelligent design in science lessons. [1.]
- Notice how the Darwinian elite equate themselves with Britain itself. Britain of course isn't a person and can't hand out any birthday presents. (Let alone to some bones.)
B. 'The addition of evolution to elementary school curriculum was in response to a letter promoted by the British Humanist Association and signed by “scientists and experts.”
“Those who care about public reason are routinely shocked by opinion polls and surveys showing high levels of credence given to the idea of intelligent design. The most recent poll purported to demonstrate that a majority of Britons think that it should be taught alongside evolution in schools.
To solve this problem, we have to know what causes it and there are two reasons why you might prefer the idea of intelligent design to that of evolution." [1.]
- Problem? What problem? There's no problem here; only one manufactured by an atheist elite. This is called manufacturing problems. Here's how it works. Some elitist sees something he doesn't like. He then calls this a problem, and gets others in his tribe to call it a problem. To get people to pay attention they claim this 'problem' will have negative consequences for the country and maybe the world, and who knows... maybe even the universe. Then you ask your friends in Government to write some legislation forcing everyone to accept the 'solution' you've created to solve this 'problem' that is now threatening the well being of the entire planet (and perhaps the moon as well).
What this person really wants is for it to be illegal for anyone to hold a different view on origins than his own. (This sounds very much like the Thirty Years war to me; where it was illegal to hold certain theological views.)
Who cares what the majority of people think? Who cares who pays the taxes; who cares who has to fight the wars; who cares who makes the country function? That doesn't matter; all that matters is that the atheist elite get their way and force everyone to accept their ideas, and to brainwash children as they see fit. That's all that matters. (And people don't obey their masters, civilization will collapse, and the moon and stars will go out.)
B. "You may do so because your prior ideological convictions, mostly to do with religious belief, simply don’t allow you to accept the evidence that is presented to you. Or you may do so because you genuinely do not know of the evidence for evolution, have never had it explained to you, or because you just don’t understand it. In a society as decreasingly religious as England, it is impossible to believe that most of the people who do not accept evolution are motivated by ideology rather than ignorance. This means that the best way to solve the problem is through better education and that is what makes the inclusion of evolution in the science curriculum as early as possible so important.''
- I find that so repellent I don't have words for it. What he's saying is that if you're not an atheist it's because you're ignorant.
It apparently has never occurred to this savior of the nation, that he has biases of his own. He appears too self-deluded to contemplate such a thing. How a materialist, atheist and evolutionist can imagine (even for a second) he has no ideological convictions beggars the imagination.
How is such delusion possible? Is it a lack of educational training? Has he studied no philosophy? no logic? (Perhaps this is a 'problem' that needs to be fixed. Perhaps we need to get the government to force students to study logic and philosophy. A person can only be so self-deluded for two reasons; either it's a lack of education, or it's a refusal to accept the evidence.)
We see the old game of 'what you believe is religion, and what I believe is science'. This pretense has been tiresome for a long time. What this person has, and what people who believe in creation have, is a worldview. What we have here is not religion (whatever that means or doesn't mean) vs science; but one wview vs another wview.
I find it offensive to hear people claim I only believe in creation because I refuse to accept the evidence. This is schoolboy rhetoric. I'm well acquainted with the evidence as set out by all sides. (I'm sure I know the issues at least as well as Mr. Copson.) It's the height of incivility to claim people who don't agree with you are merely ignorant. (Did Frederick Hayek disagree with Marx because he was ignorant?)
What Mr. Copson is advocating isn't education (which we already have) but brainwashing. He's such a militant ideologue that he's willing to ignore the needs, abilities and desires of children and parents completely. They don't matter. All that matters is that everyone believes exactly the same things he does. (Is he willing to enforce all of his beliefs on people or only those relating to origins? How far is he willing to go to force everyone to march to the same drum beat?)
If you want to know where all this tyranny is headed all you have to do is look at the sad case of East Germany. While the country existed it was held up by our Leftists as some kind of utopia; not a word was spoken against it. In reality it was hell on earth, where every aspect of life (including science) was controlled by state bureaucrats. To this day our Socialist elite refuses to discusses the subject. Where are the books? Where are the movies? Where's the discussion? It's like no such place ever existed. [2.]
Summary; in the end the Socialists always come for your children. They offer a great many things, and all they want is your liberty, your soul (conscience) and your children.
Notes;
1. Darwin Marketed to Kids: Creation/Evolution Headlines 11/10/2009
2. How a Christian Family Stood Up to Tyranny: Creation/Evolution Headlines 11/10/2009
'When the Berlin wall fell 20 years ago, Dorothee Hubner first dared to think, “Are we allowed to leave and finally be free?” Her story and that of her parents Gerhard and Gertraude, scientists trapped in East Germany, was told by Andrew Curry, a freelance writer, in Science.
As an example of how scientists were impacted by socialist tyranny in East Germany;
"The pressure went beyond career and travel to petty indignities. Party members were given the best lab times. Non–party members could only use equipment between 1 a.m. and 3 a.m.," Gerhard recalls.
- This at least is better than how creationists are currently treated, as they get no lab time at all in many or most cases.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'Britain is giving a “birthday present to Darwin,” wrote Andrew Copson for The Guardian, in the form of national curriculum for primary schools that will mention evolution for the first time – and prohibit teaching of creationism or intelligent design in science lessons. [1.]
- Notice how the Darwinian elite equate themselves with Britain itself. Britain of course isn't a person and can't hand out any birthday presents. (Let alone to some bones.)
B. 'The addition of evolution to elementary school curriculum was in response to a letter promoted by the British Humanist Association and signed by “scientists and experts.”
“Those who care about public reason are routinely shocked by opinion polls and surveys showing high levels of credence given to the idea of intelligent design. The most recent poll purported to demonstrate that a majority of Britons think that it should be taught alongside evolution in schools.
To solve this problem, we have to know what causes it and there are two reasons why you might prefer the idea of intelligent design to that of evolution." [1.]
- Problem? What problem? There's no problem here; only one manufactured by an atheist elite. This is called manufacturing problems. Here's how it works. Some elitist sees something he doesn't like. He then calls this a problem, and gets others in his tribe to call it a problem. To get people to pay attention they claim this 'problem' will have negative consequences for the country and maybe the world, and who knows... maybe even the universe. Then you ask your friends in Government to write some legislation forcing everyone to accept the 'solution' you've created to solve this 'problem' that is now threatening the well being of the entire planet (and perhaps the moon as well).
What this person really wants is for it to be illegal for anyone to hold a different view on origins than his own. (This sounds very much like the Thirty Years war to me; where it was illegal to hold certain theological views.)
Who cares what the majority of people think? Who cares who pays the taxes; who cares who has to fight the wars; who cares who makes the country function? That doesn't matter; all that matters is that the atheist elite get their way and force everyone to accept their ideas, and to brainwash children as they see fit. That's all that matters. (And people don't obey their masters, civilization will collapse, and the moon and stars will go out.)
B. "You may do so because your prior ideological convictions, mostly to do with religious belief, simply don’t allow you to accept the evidence that is presented to you. Or you may do so because you genuinely do not know of the evidence for evolution, have never had it explained to you, or because you just don’t understand it. In a society as decreasingly religious as England, it is impossible to believe that most of the people who do not accept evolution are motivated by ideology rather than ignorance. This means that the best way to solve the problem is through better education and that is what makes the inclusion of evolution in the science curriculum as early as possible so important.''
- I find that so repellent I don't have words for it. What he's saying is that if you're not an atheist it's because you're ignorant.
It apparently has never occurred to this savior of the nation, that he has biases of his own. He appears too self-deluded to contemplate such a thing. How a materialist, atheist and evolutionist can imagine (even for a second) he has no ideological convictions beggars the imagination.
How is such delusion possible? Is it a lack of educational training? Has he studied no philosophy? no logic? (Perhaps this is a 'problem' that needs to be fixed. Perhaps we need to get the government to force students to study logic and philosophy. A person can only be so self-deluded for two reasons; either it's a lack of education, or it's a refusal to accept the evidence.)
We see the old game of 'what you believe is religion, and what I believe is science'. This pretense has been tiresome for a long time. What this person has, and what people who believe in creation have, is a worldview. What we have here is not religion (whatever that means or doesn't mean) vs science; but one wview vs another wview.
I find it offensive to hear people claim I only believe in creation because I refuse to accept the evidence. This is schoolboy rhetoric. I'm well acquainted with the evidence as set out by all sides. (I'm sure I know the issues at least as well as Mr. Copson.) It's the height of incivility to claim people who don't agree with you are merely ignorant. (Did Frederick Hayek disagree with Marx because he was ignorant?)
What Mr. Copson is advocating isn't education (which we already have) but brainwashing. He's such a militant ideologue that he's willing to ignore the needs, abilities and desires of children and parents completely. They don't matter. All that matters is that everyone believes exactly the same things he does. (Is he willing to enforce all of his beliefs on people or only those relating to origins? How far is he willing to go to force everyone to march to the same drum beat?)
If you want to know where all this tyranny is headed all you have to do is look at the sad case of East Germany. While the country existed it was held up by our Leftists as some kind of utopia; not a word was spoken against it. In reality it was hell on earth, where every aspect of life (including science) was controlled by state bureaucrats. To this day our Socialist elite refuses to discusses the subject. Where are the books? Where are the movies? Where's the discussion? It's like no such place ever existed. [2.]
Summary; in the end the Socialists always come for your children. They offer a great many things, and all they want is your liberty, your soul (conscience) and your children.
Notes;
1. Darwin Marketed to Kids: Creation/Evolution Headlines 11/10/2009
2. How a Christian Family Stood Up to Tyranny: Creation/Evolution Headlines 11/10/2009
'When the Berlin wall fell 20 years ago, Dorothee Hubner first dared to think, “Are we allowed to leave and finally be free?” Her story and that of her parents Gerhard and Gertraude, scientists trapped in East Germany, was told by Andrew Curry, a freelance writer, in Science.
As an example of how scientists were impacted by socialist tyranny in East Germany;
"The pressure went beyond career and travel to petty indignities. Party members were given the best lab times. Non–party members could only use equipment between 1 a.m. and 3 a.m.," Gerhard recalls.
- This at least is better than how creationists are currently treated, as they get no lab time at all in many or most cases.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
An introduction to Intelligent Design
For people who want a brief introduction to Intelligent Design I can recommend an essay in the book 'Debating design; from Darwin to DNA. In this post I'll comment briefly on the essay 'Who's afraid of ID?' by Angus Menuge.
Quotes and comments;
p/32. 'Intelligent Design (ID) argues that intelligent causes are capable of leaving empirically detectable marks in the natural world. Aspiring to be a scientific research program, ID purports to study the effects of intelligent causes in biology and cosmology. It claims that the best explanation for at least some of the appearance of design in nature is that this design is actual. Specifically, certain kinds of complex information found in the natural world are said to point convincingly to the work of an intelligent agency. [1.]
A prominent critic of ID that Menuge discusses is Barbara Forrest.
p/33. 'According to Forrest, the ID movement is “the most recent – and most dangerous – manifestation of creationism” (Forrest 2001, 5).
- This remark makes no sense to me. If all is matter in motion (as F. believes) how can anything be dangerous? i.e. if nothing has meaning, how can anything matter? If all is merely matter in motion why should it matter what happens; why should it matter that particles collide with particles?
What she's doing is taking theistic ideas and using them (without warrant) to attack ID. She's forgetting that she's merely a bit of matter drifting through the void. She forgets that her worldview renders everything meaningless. She's playing the game of placing bits and parts of her worldview in airtight compartments... and pretending they have nothing to do with one another.
There's no way the theory of evolution allows one to say anything is good or bad. One wonders how she manages to ignore this. If she wants us to take the evolutionary wview seriously shouldn't she take it seriously herself? In other words; while she claims to be a Materialist, she's using theistic ethics. Because she can't live in terms of her professed wview she pretends her metaphysics have nothing to do with her ethics. Apparently she thinks ethics is something one can fabricate out of thin air.
p/33. Furthermore, Forrest contends, ID “really has nothing to do with science”.
- That's a strange remark for a mindless bit of matter to make. Is she again forgetting who she is? that she's a mindless bit of matter drifting in a cosmic void? One might wonder how a mindless bit of matter can know such a thing?
One might wonder how a universal such as 'science' could exist in a materialistic (chance) universe. Once again she has no warrant for making her statement. Apparently she thinks she can ignore her wview whenever she happens to find it inconvenient. Apparently an intellectual doesn't need to demonstrate coherence in his or her thinking.
This remark by Forrest is typical of what we see in the science establishment. What we see is not a concern for truth, but an attempt by members of a certain group (materialists) to take over an entire field of endeavor. This has happened many times in the past; an obvious example being how humanists took over what were once christian universities. The current project to take over science (in the name of Materialism) is just more of the same. To see this all you have to do is ignore the noble sounding rhetoric and focus on the actions of this group.
33. [Forrest feels that] 'The real goal, apparently, is to make scientists think of the religious
implications of their work.'
- Can she know the 'real' goal of ID proponents without talking to them, without getting to know them? She's very talented if she can. (I get tired of academics telling us they have inside knowledge as to what people 'really' think, into what they're 'really' doing. All this mystification goes back to Freud who claimed to know what was going on with people far better than they knew themselves.
If we're all just bits of mindless matter one wonders how these crystal ball gazers can know these things. (For one thing they have to assume all people are the same; and this would mean believing all people are the same as they are. (Assuming everyone is the same is one of the major mistakes intellectuals of our day make.)
45. 'Of course, critics may claim that the real reason that proponents of ID find it difficult to publish is that they are mixing science and religion. This was commonplace in the writings of Newton, but modern science believes that the objectivity of its results depends on excluding religious interpretations.
- Science isn't a person; therefore it has no beliefs, nor can it. Over and over we see materialists like Forrest trying to conflate materialism and science.
Notes;
1. Debating design; from Darwin to DNA - editors; M. Ruse and W. Dembski
- essay; Who's afraid of ID? by Angus Menuge
Quotes and comments;
p/32. 'Intelligent Design (ID) argues that intelligent causes are capable of leaving empirically detectable marks in the natural world. Aspiring to be a scientific research program, ID purports to study the effects of intelligent causes in biology and cosmology. It claims that the best explanation for at least some of the appearance of design in nature is that this design is actual. Specifically, certain kinds of complex information found in the natural world are said to point convincingly to the work of an intelligent agency. [1.]
A prominent critic of ID that Menuge discusses is Barbara Forrest.
p/33. 'According to Forrest, the ID movement is “the most recent – and most dangerous – manifestation of creationism” (Forrest 2001, 5).
- This remark makes no sense to me. If all is matter in motion (as F. believes) how can anything be dangerous? i.e. if nothing has meaning, how can anything matter? If all is merely matter in motion why should it matter what happens; why should it matter that particles collide with particles?
What she's doing is taking theistic ideas and using them (without warrant) to attack ID. She's forgetting that she's merely a bit of matter drifting through the void. She forgets that her worldview renders everything meaningless. She's playing the game of placing bits and parts of her worldview in airtight compartments... and pretending they have nothing to do with one another.
There's no way the theory of evolution allows one to say anything is good or bad. One wonders how she manages to ignore this. If she wants us to take the evolutionary wview seriously shouldn't she take it seriously herself? In other words; while she claims to be a Materialist, she's using theistic ethics. Because she can't live in terms of her professed wview she pretends her metaphysics have nothing to do with her ethics. Apparently she thinks ethics is something one can fabricate out of thin air.
p/33. Furthermore, Forrest contends, ID “really has nothing to do with science”.
- That's a strange remark for a mindless bit of matter to make. Is she again forgetting who she is? that she's a mindless bit of matter drifting in a cosmic void? One might wonder how a mindless bit of matter can know such a thing?
One might wonder how a universal such as 'science' could exist in a materialistic (chance) universe. Once again she has no warrant for making her statement. Apparently she thinks she can ignore her wview whenever she happens to find it inconvenient. Apparently an intellectual doesn't need to demonstrate coherence in his or her thinking.
This remark by Forrest is typical of what we see in the science establishment. What we see is not a concern for truth, but an attempt by members of a certain group (materialists) to take over an entire field of endeavor. This has happened many times in the past; an obvious example being how humanists took over what were once christian universities. The current project to take over science (in the name of Materialism) is just more of the same. To see this all you have to do is ignore the noble sounding rhetoric and focus on the actions of this group.
33. [Forrest feels that] 'The real goal, apparently, is to make scientists think of the religious
implications of their work.'
- Can she know the 'real' goal of ID proponents without talking to them, without getting to know them? She's very talented if she can. (I get tired of academics telling us they have inside knowledge as to what people 'really' think, into what they're 'really' doing. All this mystification goes back to Freud who claimed to know what was going on with people far better than they knew themselves.
If we're all just bits of mindless matter one wonders how these crystal ball gazers can know these things. (For one thing they have to assume all people are the same; and this would mean believing all people are the same as they are. (Assuming everyone is the same is one of the major mistakes intellectuals of our day make.)
45. 'Of course, critics may claim that the real reason that proponents of ID find it difficult to publish is that they are mixing science and religion. This was commonplace in the writings of Newton, but modern science believes that the objectivity of its results depends on excluding religious interpretations.
- Science isn't a person; therefore it has no beliefs, nor can it. Over and over we see materialists like Forrest trying to conflate materialism and science.
Notes;
1. Debating design; from Darwin to DNA - editors; M. Ruse and W. Dembski
- essay; Who's afraid of ID? by Angus Menuge
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Darwinism; solving problems that don't exist
It's my contention that what's popularly known as Darwinism is a project devoted to solving non-existent problems. These 'problems' are caused by adopting the worldview of Materialism. I'll look briefly at one example.
Quotes and comments;
A. The “evolutionary cost of males,” a problem that perplexed Darwin, was addressed in a press release posted by Science Daily. [1. full quote in notes]
- How strange do you have to be, to be perplexed by a 'problem' (non-existent) like this? Is it necessary to point out that this isn't a problem at all; that only the philosophically deluded imagine it's a problem? (Don't we have enough problems? Do we really need to invent problems for ourselves? But I guess it's a good make-work project.) Only if one accepts Materialism (with its necessary correlate Evolution) is this a problem.
This is an example of the kind of pseudo science that dominates so much of academia. What for instance would be the point of such an 'investigation'? What would one do with the results? Anything? What's the relationship between this 'study' and the real world? What's the connection to society? What good is such 'research'? Why would one bother? Apparently questions like these don't matter when one has access to the public trough.
Evolutionary theory makes 'problems' out of everything; and then materialists go out and try to 'solve' these non-existent problems... and all this nonsense is called science. Because the basic assumption (materialism) is wrong; this world view produces a never ending series of false conclusions and false theories. In trying to present explanations (stories) for why things are the way they are, they produce a seemingly endless list of problems to be solved. This is Pandora's box with a vengeance. Being based on a false assumption, the theories it generates can never be true. It ends up being a make work project to last for eternity. (In other words, this is every academic's dream come true.)
Only those deluded by Darwinism wonder why sex exists. This 'problem' only occurs to people who see human beings as animals, or as bits of matter in motion. [If they really don't know the answer, they can try reading the bible.] This is just one example of all the 'problems' that spring up when people abandon biblical creation.
B. As an example of how deluded this kind of Darwinian thinking can get;
“We are proposing a new way to look at religion – as a strategy to advance evolutionary goals,” announced Yexin Jessica Li at Arizona State University in Tempe. [2.]
- This goofball has 'solved' another non-existent problem; namely how to give an evolutionary account of religion. (i.e. 'Since there isn't a god how do we explain the prevalence of religion? This is a very big problem that we need to work on... if only we could get funding.')
Once your basic assumption is wrong, everything you come up with will be wrong. (i.e. once Materialism is adopted, evolution is necessarily adopted; and once E. is adopted as the basis for explanation, all your explanations will be wrong.)
Summary; in my opinion the only reason we get useless 'research' like this is that we suffer under a Socialist system of government. No one would waste their time with this kind of thing if the State wasn't paying for it, and wasn't making it possible. It's hard for me to imagine that any person would devote themselves to such a question on their own, and it's hard for me to imagine any private concern financing such a clownish undertaking. What we see here isn't true science, but political and social faddishness.
Notes;
1. Darwinizing Everything: Creation/Evolution Headlines 11/16/2009
Nov 16, 2009 — 150 years after The Origin of Species, it’s clear that Darwin succeeded in one thing: granting biologists free rein to speculate about how everything under the sun evolved.
Composite explanation for sex: The “evolutionary cost of males,” a problem that perplexed Darwin, was addressed in a press release posted by Science Daily. Researchers at the University of Oregon, some of whom are male, were able to reassure themselves that the benefits of males outweigh their costs. “Many scientists have argued that outcrossing [e.g., sex] has evolved to avoid the genetic consequences of inbreeding, while others have emphasized the role that outcrossing plays in generating the genetic variation necessary for evolutionary change,” explained Patrick Phillips. So which is it? “Our work shows that both of these factors are important,” he said, while admitting earlier, “biologists going all the way back to Charles Darwin have been puzzled why sexual reproduction via outcrossing exists at all.”
- The professors claim to know why reproduction exists, but they don't tell you how it came about. (That they can't is a trade secret.)
2. see above; under Romantic Religion
3. How people can claim we don't have enough scientists when we have people wasting time on such trivial and pointless pursuits as this I don't know. (But then again maybe these people aren't real scientists at all.)
Quotes and comments;
A. The “evolutionary cost of males,” a problem that perplexed Darwin, was addressed in a press release posted by Science Daily. [1. full quote in notes]
- How strange do you have to be, to be perplexed by a 'problem' (non-existent) like this? Is it necessary to point out that this isn't a problem at all; that only the philosophically deluded imagine it's a problem? (Don't we have enough problems? Do we really need to invent problems for ourselves? But I guess it's a good make-work project.) Only if one accepts Materialism (with its necessary correlate Evolution) is this a problem.
This is an example of the kind of pseudo science that dominates so much of academia. What for instance would be the point of such an 'investigation'? What would one do with the results? Anything? What's the relationship between this 'study' and the real world? What's the connection to society? What good is such 'research'? Why would one bother? Apparently questions like these don't matter when one has access to the public trough.
Evolutionary theory makes 'problems' out of everything; and then materialists go out and try to 'solve' these non-existent problems... and all this nonsense is called science. Because the basic assumption (materialism) is wrong; this world view produces a never ending series of false conclusions and false theories. In trying to present explanations (stories) for why things are the way they are, they produce a seemingly endless list of problems to be solved. This is Pandora's box with a vengeance. Being based on a false assumption, the theories it generates can never be true. It ends up being a make work project to last for eternity. (In other words, this is every academic's dream come true.)
Only those deluded by Darwinism wonder why sex exists. This 'problem' only occurs to people who see human beings as animals, or as bits of matter in motion. [If they really don't know the answer, they can try reading the bible.] This is just one example of all the 'problems' that spring up when people abandon biblical creation.
B. As an example of how deluded this kind of Darwinian thinking can get;
“We are proposing a new way to look at religion – as a strategy to advance evolutionary goals,” announced Yexin Jessica Li at Arizona State University in Tempe. [2.]
- This goofball has 'solved' another non-existent problem; namely how to give an evolutionary account of religion. (i.e. 'Since there isn't a god how do we explain the prevalence of religion? This is a very big problem that we need to work on... if only we could get funding.')
Once your basic assumption is wrong, everything you come up with will be wrong. (i.e. once Materialism is adopted, evolution is necessarily adopted; and once E. is adopted as the basis for explanation, all your explanations will be wrong.)
Summary; in my opinion the only reason we get useless 'research' like this is that we suffer under a Socialist system of government. No one would waste their time with this kind of thing if the State wasn't paying for it, and wasn't making it possible. It's hard for me to imagine that any person would devote themselves to such a question on their own, and it's hard for me to imagine any private concern financing such a clownish undertaking. What we see here isn't true science, but political and social faddishness.
Notes;
1. Darwinizing Everything: Creation/Evolution Headlines 11/16/2009
Nov 16, 2009 — 150 years after The Origin of Species, it’s clear that Darwin succeeded in one thing: granting biologists free rein to speculate about how everything under the sun evolved.
Composite explanation for sex: The “evolutionary cost of males,” a problem that perplexed Darwin, was addressed in a press release posted by Science Daily. Researchers at the University of Oregon, some of whom are male, were able to reassure themselves that the benefits of males outweigh their costs. “Many scientists have argued that outcrossing [e.g., sex] has evolved to avoid the genetic consequences of inbreeding, while others have emphasized the role that outcrossing plays in generating the genetic variation necessary for evolutionary change,” explained Patrick Phillips. So which is it? “Our work shows that both of these factors are important,” he said, while admitting earlier, “biologists going all the way back to Charles Darwin have been puzzled why sexual reproduction via outcrossing exists at all.”
- The professors claim to know why reproduction exists, but they don't tell you how it came about. (That they can't is a trade secret.)
2. see above; under Romantic Religion
3. How people can claim we don't have enough scientists when we have people wasting time on such trivial and pointless pursuits as this I don't know. (But then again maybe these people aren't real scientists at all.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
