Search This Blog

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Just so you are aware that Darwinists are brainwashed liars...and they justify it by the very Darwnism they espouse!

There is such a thing as the Law of Biogenesis.  It has been tested repeatedly and falsifiable but every time it comes out the same - no life from non-life.   But what does a Darwinist say?

 "There is no law of Biogenesis"   Jon Woolf.

"I suppose you say the same about Gravity?"  Me

"No, because the Law of Gravitation has been observed to be true in every place and every time we've tried to measure it. Sound theoretical and mathematical arguments indicate that gravity should hold at all places and all times. No one has been able to produce similar evidence or theoretical/mathematical arguments about biogenesis. "  Jon Woolf.




Lie.   But Darwinists are used to lying:

"Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening." - Richard Dawkins

Well of course.   The Tooth Fairy is real, too.   Also, Darwinists believe that lying is perfectly fine in that it is part of the evolution of mankind!

Lying—a survival strategy?

Published: 26 October 2010(GMT+10)
Photo stock.xchng
Whispering
In these heady post-modern days, it has become fashionable for Darwinian aficionados to ascribe human traits, both good and bad, to our alleged animal heritage. Of course, once God has been scrubbed from the picture of origins, everything is up for grabs—our aesthetic pleasures, highest aspirations, kindest gestures, and noblest actions are no more than a firing of neurons or the interactions of chemicals.1 This, claim the modernists, is a scientifically rational conclusion.

For instance, one recent undergraduate textbook purports to explain romantic love in this way: “It is true people choose their spouse because they loved him or her, but the likely reason that they have a propensity to fall in love … is because over thousands of generations, ancestors who had this emotional package left more offspring than those who did not.”2

Why be good?

But, evolutionary psychologists go much further than merely claiming to explain things like sexual attraction. Their ‘science’ can be pressed into service to explain not only the good, but also the bad and the ugly. In the aforementioned book, we read (emphasis added) that “The Darwinian world-view dislodges any divine scheme as an explanation of how we behave, and in its place puts the notion that we should perform such behaviours as maximized the reproductive success of our ancestors”.3 Notice the blatant rejection of God or Scripture, and the implied substitution of an historical Fall of man, with the naturalistic evolutionary scheme. To the discerning, this is a clear case of ‘experts’ fobbing off their readers with scientism, not science. Yet, how many readers of such things are sufficiently astute that they perceive what’s behind the claims? Referring to the inhabitants of ancient Nineveh, God told Jonah that this “great city” was populated by people “that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand.”4 Things are little different today.

We are all, in fact, ‘Born to sin’, though in the modernist’s mind, this has nothing to do with the biblical doctrine of ‘Original Sin’ and everything to do with our animal ancestry.

Increasingly, such theorising is becoming part of the mainstream, and neuroscientists are becoming ever bolder in their claims to understand why we think and behave as we do. It’s really a case of, ‘moral relativism meets neuroscience’. Accountability is out of the window because “All we can ever know are the guesses or interpretations our mind creates about what is going on. … no two people ever interpret anything in exactly the same way.”5
 
So, what’s right for you is not necessarily right for me—it’s classic post-modern thinking. Logically, once this rationale for human behaviour is taken on board, nothing is sacred, nothing is profane—all is amoral and finds its cause in our animal origins.

Born to sin

www.bbcfocusmagazine.com
Born sin
We are all, in fact, “Born to sin”, though in the modernist’s mind, this has nothing to do with the biblical doctrine of ‘Original Sin’ and everything to do with our animal ancestry. According to that ‘fount of all knowledge’, the BBC—which would be more aptly named the Biased Broadcasting Company in view of its clear bias against biblical Christianity—the reason why you’re “Born to sin” is that “nature wants you to be bad”. They deemed this revelation important enough to plaster it across the front page of BBC Focus magazine earlier this year.6
 
The article to which this cover referred alleges to explain “The science of the seven deadly sins” and reaches the conclusion that our “darkest thoughts” are due to the way we were “wired for sin” during millions of years of evolution of humans from our animal ancestry.

Measuring sin scientifically?

Just how did the scientists ‘establish’ these truths? Imagine that you want to understand the ‘sins’ of wrath and lust? It’s easy—just wire up your willing subjects to a brain scan and watch what happens: “So psychologists and neurologists have been hurling insults and showing pornography to their volunteers to get those sin neurons firing.”7 You have to keep in mind that this article was not written as a spoof—this was not April Fools Day—and while the tone was clearly tongue in cheek, it was purporting to teach science, albeit that it was also a deliberate attempt to subvert the doctrine of Sin as taught in the Bible.

What this BBC Focus article does reveal is that the word sin is still in people’s vocabulary, in spite of attempts to expunge the word from society, such as the removal of sin from the Oxford Junior Dictionary in 2009—see the box at the end of this article! The authors of the BBC magazine article describe those who indulge in sin (lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride) as “sinners” and “offenders”—but offensive to whom? And offending against what? It is obvious that the idea of sin being offensive to God, the Creator, and offending against His standards, is far from their thoughts.8

Why tell the truth?

In a similar vein, the author of an article in a recent issue of New Scientist purports to give us an explanation of lying. Remember, however, that the ‘divine scheme’ is now out of the window. Unsurprisingly, therefore, laws given by God to a sinful people are completely ignored—no mention here of “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”9 But if there are no absolutes—and lying is not a sinful act of rebellion against the explicit command of God—why do humans indulge in it? Answer: “ … we lie to ourselves … [b]ecause we fear that we do not have the strength and courage to face the truth of our situation. … We lie in our private and work lives, to friends and family and colleagues … because we need people to like us.”10 Do you see the self-serving nature of this ‘explanation’? Lying is something that helps us survive “the terror of being invalidated” and we do it to avoid facing the truth, and so that people will like us—and this, remember, is from one of the world’s most-read science magazines!

What is truth?

…once absolutes are denied, lies are merely aberrations of the mind that help us mitigate our most destructive tendencies. ‘Lying gives us the temporary delusion that our personal and social worlds are intact, that we are loved, that we are safe…’

But if there is no such thing as truth, in an absolute sense, on what basis can a lie be defined anyway? For the Darwinian neuroscientists who are investigating humanity’s propensity to lie, we can’t really know what the truth is. “Unlike lies, truths require evidence to support them. But no matter how much evidence we accumulate, our truths will always be approximations and absolute certainty will exist only in our fantasies.”11 Interestingly, opinions of this nature pose an intractable problem for theistic evolutionists who claim that we don’t have to choose between God and evolution.12 The attitude of mind exhibited by the author of the last quotation is something which the Apostle Paul deplored when he bemoaned people that were “Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”13
 
However, once absolutes are denied, lies are merely aberrations of the mind that help us mitigate our most destructive tendencies. “Lying gives us the temporary delusion that our personal and social worlds are intact, that we are loved [whatever that really means!], that we are safe … ” And while the author of the New Scientist article acknowledges that lying to ourselves and others may actually be damaging our brains, she offers the following advice to her readers: “In our personal, professional and collective social lives it looks as if we may have no choice but to confront uncertainty [by lying] if we are to survive—and survive well. So we will need to be very careful in future about choosing the situations in which we lie. All lies have networks of consequences we did not expect or intend.”14 In other words, ‘don’t worry yourself about whether it’s wrong to lie (it isn’t) but be careful lest you damage yourself in the process’!

A moral compass?

Ironically, the last sentence of our last quotation is more profoundly apt than the author intended or realised. Put simply, a lie is a sin against the Lord God, so “be sure your sin will find you out.”15 Earlier, we saw that there was an acknowledgement that sin was offensive in some way. The Bible reveals that this is because men and women live in defiance of the laws and person of God—transgressions of thought, word and action are violations against our Creator, one who is supremely Holy and Righteous and who must and will judge all sins—His perfect justice demands this.

Without a moral compass, the maverick scientists who purport to ‘explain’ sin … are completely clueless. They’ve cast themselves adrift on an ocean of illogicality, without any landmarks by which they might get their bearings. … They and those who follow them are madly oblivious to the dangers and perils of such an attitude.

Without a moral compass, the maverick scientists who purport to ‘explain’ sin, and those who have written about their work, are completely clueless. They’ve cast themselves adrift on an ocean of illogicality, without any landmarks by which they might get their bearings. Not only do they flatly refuse to acknowledge the port from which they set sail (i.e. their true origins), they have no idea where they are heading (heaven or hell), neither do they seem to care! They and those who follow them are madly oblivious to the dangers and perils of such an attitude.

Concluding thoughts

But for those who will acknowledge their personal sin against God and turn from it (repentance), the prospects couldn’t be brighter. “If we confess our sins, [God] is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”16 Sin is serious and lying to ourselves about this is foolish—lies will not help you survive! Rather, Jesus Himself said, “you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”17 This is good news and it is based on the certain promise of God, not the whims of fickle human beings. If God sets a person free, they’re free indeed! Do you, dear reader, know Christ as your Saviour? Have you confessed your sins to God and gratefully thanked Him for sending the Lord Jesus Christ to pay the price for those sins, thus reconciling you to Himself? If not, I exhort you to read more about the problem with you and me and God’s rescue plan.

Related articles

Further reading

References

  1. See, for example, Statham, D., Are we nothing more than a bag of chemicals? Return to text.
  2. Chapter 16, Darwin in the Mind, in: 99% Ape: How evolution adds up, Silvertown, J. (ed.), The [British] Natural History Museum in association with the Open University, 2008, p. 174. Return to text.
  3. Chapter 17, Why be good?, in: 99% Ape: How evolution adds up, Silvertown, J. (ed.), The [British] Natural History Museum in association with the Open University, 2008, p. 184. Return to text.
  4. Jonah 4:11, King James version. Return to text.
  5. Rowe, D., Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies … , New Scientist 206(2765), 19 June 2010, p. 28. Return to text.
  6. ‘Born to sin: Why nature wants you to be bad’ is the prominent cover—together with an apple with a bite taken out of it (an obvious allusion to Genesis 3)—of BBC Focus magazine, issue 212, February 2010. Return to text.
  7. Ref. 7, p. 28. Return to text.
  8. The wicked in his proud countenance does not seek God; God is in none of his thoughtsPsalm 10:4, NKJV. Return to text.
  9. Exodus 20:16 KJV; also Deut. 5:20. Return to text.
  10. Ref. 6. Return to text.
  11. Ref. 6. Return to text.
  12. See Anderson, D., Viva la evolution? A response to Dennis Alexander. Return to text.
  13. 2 Timothy 3:7, KJV. Return to text.
  14. Ref. 6. Return to text.
  15. Numbers 32:23, KJV. Return to text.
  16. 1 John 1:9, KJV. Return to text.
  17. John 8:32, NKJV. Return to text.

The information on this site can change lives—former atheists tell us so. Why? Because it’s information people haven’t heard before. So keep it coming by supporting the researchers and writers at CMI.

 

 

7 comments:

Jon Woolf said...

It has been tested repeatedly and falsifiable but every time it comes out the same - no life from non-life.

Really? You took an entire planet with a suitable environment (whatever that is), let it percolate for 1,000,000,000 years, and confirmed that getting natural, unassisted biogenesis is impossible? You did this repeatedly, under every possible combination of solar mass, solar radiation, planetary mass, orbital radius, planetary composition, atmospheric composition, oceanic composition, and bona fortuna? And you can show empirically that not one of those combinations provides any chance of life originating naturally?

Now who's lying, Radar?

Anonymous said...

Nothing more hilarious than a YEC accusing others of lying.

10 Lies Peddled by Answers In Genesis

You lose again, Radar.

radar said...

Anonymous commenters wow what a surprise...

So, Jon, if we don't test the laws of thermodynamics for billions of years and gravity for billions of years they are not laws, either? We have been proving the laws of gravity, thermodynamics and biogenesis for hundreds of years. When a hypothesis is testable, and verifiable, and falsifiable and gives the same results over and over it is a law. Biogenesis is a law. Darwinism has been falsified. Try to overcome your brainwashing and think on it.

radar said...

I urge you all to go to the "ten lies" link. Then compare those statements to those actually made at Answers in Genesis and on this blog. I am confident that you will not be fooled by the anonymous commenter and his half-brained linked page.

BTW Jon Woolf I went ahead and checked out your website. You are very big on fantasy and science fiction. You are incredibly wrong about the rocks of SE Indiana. The vast majority of sea creatures found fossilized were living and we can tell by their fossils. Bivalves quickly become single shells but almost all fossilized bivalves in the Cincinnatian rocks are whole. This is true of trilobites, found upright and apparently alive when buried. Your characterization of an area I know exceedingly well is completely wrong. I am sure I have spent more days in that region observing and collecting fossils and arrowheads than you have hours...

Hawkeye® said...

Radar,
Sorry I haven't commented in awhile. I've been busy. But know that I am with you in spirit.

(:D) Best regards...

Jon Woolf said...

"When a hypothesis is testable, and verifiable, and falsifiable and gives the same results over and over it is a law."

Agreed. Well, "law" as scientists use the term, which means "so well supported that it would be foolish to withhold at least provisional assent."

"We have been proving the laws of gravity,..."

Yes.

"...thermodynamics..."

Yes.

"...and biogenesis ..."

No.

The experiments conducted by Pasteur and others in the mid-19th century were intended to disprove the doctrine of spontaneous generation of flies and other complex lifeforms. They were never intended to address the problem of the origin of simple organisms such as archaebacteria.

The Miller-Urey experiment, and other similar experiments conducted over the last fifty-odd years, generally feature 'test environments' that amount to a few quarts, or in some cases a few gallons, of water and chemicals. Put them all together and you might reach a total of a couple hundred cubic meters, tested over maybe a coupe of years of actual running time. If you think that you can validly extrapolate from 200 cubic meters tested for 2 years to 1,300,000,000,000,000,000 cubic meters that had around 1,000,000,000 years to percolate ... well, I can think of several words that would apply, but "scientific" isn't one of them. For that matter, "sensible" isn't either.

"You are incredibly wrong about the rocks of SE Indiana. The vast majority of sea creatures found fossilized were living and we can tell by their fossils. Bivalves quickly become single shells but almost all fossilized bivalves in the Cincinnatian rocks are whole."

[snicker.wav] Right. Throughout the Cincinnatian, you find more trilobite bits than whole trilobites. Entire blocks full of crinoid fragments. Broken cephalopods, clam shells, snail shells, brachiopod shells -- I've seen 'em all, in great numbers. In fact, the only Cincinnatian-area fossil I've never seen a broken specimen of is Zygospira, which is so small that it's near impossible to break one without completely destroying it.

"Your characterization of an area I know exceedingly well .."

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Anonymous said...

That's what's so nice about Radar's blog: you post 2 lines of text and you get about 20 hilarious lines back.

Radaractive: always good for comic relief.

Just one question though, Radar: do you have a problem with anonymous commenters?