Search This Blog

Saturday, November 13, 2010

Is Darwinism bad for the world?

From the time of the Greeks men had sought for a way to explain away God.

By the way, if you do not want your quote to be "mined", don't say it.  Those who accuse me of misusing quotes had better be able to prove it.  Show us how a quote was taken out of context and we will listen, until then quit making baseless accusations.

This is being written in series with -

Darwin and Eugenics - the 20th Century Black Death and the secret shame of the 21st Century

There was a DVD released awhile back that was quite compelling - Collision - Is Christianity Good for the World?   It details the debates and the behind the scenes dialogue and interaction between Atheist author Christopher Hitchens and pastor Douglas Wilson.  I have discussed the movie before in a post entitled Upon conundrums, fools and thought processes

I hope you have read those two posts so that you will be prepared for this one.  If you did read the Black Death post and scanned the comments, you will see a lot of commentary about how right or wrong Darwin was and what kind of man, etc.  Frankly that doesn't amount to a hill of beans.   What was John Gacy like when he wasn't raping and murdering little boys?  What if Mao was a great joke-teller after a couple of rounds?  What matters is the result of his actions.  No one cares anymore whether Charles Darwin was a good guy.  But what about what he did?

DARWINISM HAS BEEN DISASTROUS FOR THE WORLD!

Charles Darwin?  He had an atheopathic grandfather, a hypocritical father and a wife who wanted to have a nice, neat Christianity and hoped that her husband would comply.  Charles would occasionally give some lip service to the church to make life bearable and respectable for his wife, but he hated God and sought for ways to eradicate Him from society.  His hate was not always a bright, burning flame.  The untimely death of his daughter did not lead him to seek mercy for his sins but rather to despise a God he deemed unjust.  Too much pride and too little guidance created the man who created the intellectual plague of the last two centuries.  Had he grown up in a home of logic and authority and love and Godliness there may well have been another like William Wells who would get credit for the blight that is Darwinism, we will never know. 

I wish Charles Darwin had seen God in the wondrous creation he studied and come to faith. No such luck.  Darwin lived the life he lived and popularized an unproved hypothesis and millions of innocent humans have therefore been slaughtered.  So he will just have to settle for part of the blame.

Edward Blyth actually proposed in detail the workings of natural selection and identified them as a part of God's creation and design.   It is clear now that Darwin plagiarized Blyth more than any other source, as this site asserts with authority.  So what that means is that if there had been no Darwin there might been another with the same foolishness.   It was inevitable that the elitists of the time would find something to hang their atheistic hat on.  Lamarck had been a swing and a miss, Darwin became a hit.

Prejudice, ignorance and folly.   These are the ingredients of Darwinism.  Prejudice is reflected in the elitist snobbery of a Richard Dawkins who would be sliced and diced neatly in a debate with Jonathan Sarfati or any other leading creationist scientist or, for that matter someone like David Berlinsky.   Darwinists think they are so brilliant and yet their science is so messy and idiotic.  Things just *poof* into existence by magic and then someone comes along and uses lyrical language to try to weave a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Prejudice against non-whites.   Darwinists were dismissive of "The Negro" as a lesser form of almost human and therefore were fine with slavery and expected that they would be exterminated over time as less able life forms.  Darwinists were prejudiced against anyone born with an affliction or birth defect.  They suggested sterilization for "lesser" humans and the execution of anyone who did not "measure up" to the standards of Francis Galton and other Eugenicists.   Eugenics was at the root of the Holocaust, as I demonstrated in my last post.   It is historical fact.  Government schools don't like to teach awkward things like this but by the turn of the 19th to 20th Century Eugenics was being widely accepted around Europe and America.   Woodrow Wilson was inspired to segregate the military and Eugenics allowed for "Jim Crow" laws to be passed in the South.  George Bernard Shaw proposed that every person come before a court to present an argument for why they should be allowed to live in society.  Margaret Sanger spearheaded the drive to murder babies, especially black babies and babies born to the poor!

The world is sadly lacking in critical thinking and a working knowledge of world history.   Americans are sadly lacking in knowing their own history.  Lazy minds accept shallow philosophies and fairy tale science as they concentrate on meeting their own needs and desires.   A selfish and narcissistic world will believe just about anything as long as you let them go do what they want to do.  People are settling for second-rate educations and pop culture philosophy while texting and facebooking and mollification of self.  So it goes for the average American.

Meanwhile, there are parts of the world suffering and desperate for a meal and a form of shelter.   Millions of Africans have died because Rachel Carson wrote a book of lies called "Silent Spring" and in banning DDT we sentenced millions to death by malaria.   Birds?  They were doing fine then and they are doing fine now.  There are swarms of "glue kids"  but the world doesn't know or care that they are raped and abandoned to die, digging through trash heaps for food and soon dead from their addiction and lack of nutrients.


credit


The world doesn't WANT to know about Islamic terrorists killing Christians in Iraq and Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle East.   They prefer not to know about genocide in Africa and the dehumanization of little and not-so-little girls in Thailand and Russia and elsewhere.  Slavery is still being practiced, just not in the USA.  Piracy is a constant threat - across the ocean from us.  

The world worries about Haiti for a couple of weeks and then looks away, while the poor wander the broken streets and seek food and shelter in the wreckage of what had been substandard housing before the disaster struck.   An earthquake hits Eastern Europe and we notice for a day, then forget all the people in Serbia afraid to leave their ruined homes for fear even that will be snatched away from them.


Prejudice, ignorance and folly.   What difference does it make if Darwin's prejudices were commonly held by his peers?  His peers were not the ones who, like John Newton, devoted lives to ending slavery.   Christians were involved in that.  Elitists were busy being elite.   They were busy being ignorant.  Charles Lyell deliberately fudged his findings on the Niagara Falls erosion records in order to support his now ridiculous claim of Uniformitarianism.  Haeckel made his phony charts.  Darwin wrote his ignorant books.  Oh, I will give them ignorance.   Men of science of the 19th Century did not know much about the makeup of organisms, they did not know of DNA and could not comprehend the implications of information.

Ignorance continues to this day.   What is artificial?  Seriously?  You cannot find a dictionary?  Do you have no knowledge of root words?   Artist.  Artisan.  Artifice.  Artificial.  Please...It is obvious that organisms are designed.   It is painfully obvious.  No one expects to sneeze and produce a Led Zep CD and yet somehow "science" tells us that matter and time made themselves, life made itself and information just appears our of thin air.  Darwin's ignorance was at least understandable because he did not know what we know today.  If you are a Darwinist today, ignorance is not something you can hide behind.   You know better.

Do not listen to them when they tell you that you do not understand Naturalism.   It is quite simple.  Naturalists believe that all things just happened to happen.   They are lousy philosophers.  They steal their morality from Christians, but only part of it, the parts they like at the time.   If all things simply evolved by natural forces what makes you think you have free will?  Are you not just a haphazard compilation of atoms that happen to function to reproduce more like you?  What is the basis for your reason, for your morality?  From whence come your absolutes?  You do not have a clue!

God created the world.  God created authority.   He established governance by rule of law.  He created life and information and time and space and, heck, the ingredients for banana bread.   God made everything and the evidence supports this.   Organisms have too much information, too much inherent instinctive behavior that makes no sense in an evolutionary world, too much symbiosis, too much complexity and they have been static since we began observing them looking for evolution.   Scientists bombard organisms with radiation, fiddle with their food and their environment and all kinds of things and never get anything to evolve.  

Prejudice is elitist, it is mean-spirited and it is egotistical.

Ignorance is curable through education and thinking.   But if you choose to remain ignorant, then you become a fool.  Here is a commenter revealing ignorance to the point of folly:

""1) I expect to find a supernatural force, a God, who made the Universe and all within it.

2) I may or may not find a supernatural force is the best explanation for the Universe and all within it.

3) I will not find nor will I consider a supernatural force as an explanation for the Universe and all within it.

I've got news for you...these are worldviews!"


"A. Surely it's not hard to see that both (1) and (3) are not scientific. And since you've clearly subscribed to (1), you're engaging in mere pseudo-science on this blog. You're obviously blind to that, but that's your problem, nobody else's."

These are the words of someone who has taken ignorance to the point of folly.  Any simple application of logic can see that all three are worldviews.   It is also clear that Darwinists rigidly adhere to viewpoint number three.  Number two is the philosophy of many, including a lot of the Intelligent Design folks.  I have been converted to belief in worldview number one.  No one goes forth on intellectual journeys without a worldview and if one cannot even know this about himself, how great is his folly!

Folly is the way of the naturalist.   Folly is the way of the Darwinist.  Folly sees that life consists of intricately and remarkably complex organic machines more exquisite in form and design than anything man can make and calls it an accident.  Folly sees a Universe with logical laws and common design formats and calls it blind chance.  Folly then believes he can reason with his accidental, illogical and purposeless mind?   How can one even be sure of existence if everything is the result of randomness?   What is a naturalist's touchstone?

Here is a good quote from the comments thread:

"Nazis didn't kill Jews using superior biological traits, but by mechanical means for which the shoe could as easily have been on the other foot (i.e. Jews using weapons, gas chambers etc. to kill Aryans). A group temporarily having superior military or other advantages is well outside what Darwin was describing."

"A conscious decision is not exempt from natural selection" (Highboy)

You still don't seem to understand the difference between artificial and natural selection. All I can do is encourage you to do some reading with an open mind instead of being in full defensive mode all the time."

Wait a minute, you are a naturalist?  Do you not believe you arose via natural means?  If man came about by natural means, then shoving Jews into ovens is no different than a wolf taking a fawn by the throat.  Natural creatures doing what comes naturally.   From whence comes this concept of "artificial" to the naturalist?  Logically explain to me how you conceive of this...because if you will allow for anything other than natural occurrences then you are beginning to take those first logical steps towards acknowledging purpose and eventually an Initiator of that purpose.   Tread carefully, my illogical friend!

You see, an artist or an artisan does something creative.   Abstract thought, creativity, of what use are those to the survival of a species?  Contemplating the meaning of the Universe conflicts with getting off your butt and hunting up dinner!  Darwinists fail to see that our conscience, our creativity, our ability to consider abstract thoughts are gifts from God, they are slight impersonations of the original Thinker.  Self-awareness is typical of vertebrates, certainly even fish let alone dogs...but we do not see any sign of abstract thinking by any living creatures other than man.  We alone are three-part creatures designed to mimic our Maker - body, soul and spirit.

On the other hand, bees do intricate calculations on the fly in seconds with variables that would confound a Cray supercomputer.  Organisms do things that we are still struggling to comprehend and are designed in ways that we copy and we have the audacity to deny that there is a Designer?  That is tremendous folly.  

"The fool hath said in his heart, 'there is no God.'" 



Back to science and pseudo-science.  This has been a serious post, so a bit of hilarity at the end would be appropriate.  I would insist that Darwinism is pseudo-science.   The laughable stories that are published in support of Darwinism are sometimes just too hilarious for words.   How about this for example?  I will insert a comment or two...or ten or...

My Grandson The Rock

by Robert Krulwich

Rocks aren't alive. Life is.

So think of them as separate. Rocks over here; life over there.  (He starts well and then quickly goes astray)

Then along come Robert Hazen and his colleagues with their study, "Mineral Evolution," published in the American Mineralogist and all of a sudden categories shatter. I'm amazed. I hadn't thought of this, even remotely.

Here's what they found:
Pulsar and the surrounding disk of rubble
NASA/JPL-Caltech/R. Hurt (SSC)

What the bits and pieces of a star might look like after a supernova.

Might? Or what a science fiction writer might use for a plot device.   In fact, Darwinism is pretty much all science fiction.   Trouble is, H.G. Wells and Isaac Asimov and Robert Heinlein and Phillip K Dick were just telling stories and they were honest about it.  Jules Verne was using his imagination and admitting it.  J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis were able to separate fantasy from reality.   Darwinists?  Not so much... 

When Professor Hazen tells the story of how minerals formed in the universe, he begins 13 plus billion years ago with a burst of energy, then a cooling, then gravity takes over and we get stars.

Operative word here?  Story!  There is no way Hazen can prove any of this and in fact what scientists say about stars is just more story.   We do not see stars forming nor do we have any way to conceive of them forming except from the death of dying stars...but then how would those stars have formed?  The formation of stars, like the formation of the Universe and the formation of life and the formation of information?   These are all things Darwinists have no answers for other than stories...

Eventually a few of those stars blow up — that's how some stars die — and in a blaze of intense heat, we get the first 12 or so minerals: atoms forged by starbursts. Carbon, nitrogen, silicon, iron all come from stars. Dr. Hazen says the universe's original minerals include (and this is kind of cool) diamonds, as in Lucy in the Sky With… teeny bits of diamond dust floating in deep space.

Well now, where is the proof for this?  What a fairy tale!   Other big bangers tell it in very different ways but they can never explain just exactly WHAT was the singularity at the beginning of the bang, where did it come from, how did it bang, why does the Universe seem to have balanced radiation and what is up with the red shift away from Earth?   Why does it appear that probably hydrogen was the predominant element available at Creation, which is how God tells it?   There are no formulas that anyone has proposed that make sense or can be observed or tested about any of this nonsense!

Then gravity keeps on pulling dust together, forming asteroids. Those asteroids collide, baby planets form, then bigger planets, then planets with volcanoes and planets with plate tectonics that pull rocks on the surface down under, melting them, freezing them. Then water appears and trillions of drips later, rocks have water molecules locked inside them and if you stop there, 10 billion years after creation, and count all the minerals that have evolved, the number has grown from the original 12 to about 1,500. That's 1,500 different ways to organize atoms into topaz and feldspar and clay and iron and all those words that end in "ite."

So how did hard rocks get bent like pliable taffy, huh?

Not a bad number, 1,500.
Rock formation nearly as old as the Earth.
Dirk Wiersma/Photo Researchers, Inc
So the cabbage patch grew and grew and when the cabbages got very very big, little babies began to appear and Mommy and Daddy searched the whole cabbage patch to find the very bestest baby and that is how we got you! 
At more than 3 billion years old, this formation is one of the oldest rocks on the planet.

Measured no doubt by one of those long-age undependable methods that cannot be calibrated?

Now comes the surprise. About 3.5 billion years ago, here on our planet, life began. No one knows how, people argue about why, but one would think the presence of life would be a ho-hum for the minerals. They're rocks. What do they care?

Seriously.   There is a law of biogenesis that states that life comes only from life.  So-called scientists just ignore science when they claim that life just formed.   Sure.  Toyotas just form.  Skyscrapers just form.  Ballpoint pens just form.   Something comes from nothing all the time, right?   Oh, doggone those laws of thermodynamics!

But life is a great sculptor. One very early form of pond scum figured out how to exhale oxygen into the air, and soon (well, not THAT soon, but soon enough) our atmosphere had enough oxygen to create rust, to combine with organic chemicals to make creatures with shells and bones and those creatures died and became rocks. What is coral but a clump of dead skeletons? Look at the White Cliffs of Dover — that's a heap of dead plankton.
Cliffs of Dover
iStockphoto.com 
The White Cliffs are very good evidence for a world-wide flood.   Only a remarkable set of circumstances could form so many creatures that could grow to such a remarkable magnitude to produce such a calcium graveyard...a world-wide flood with available warm water, lots of it, and reduced numbers of predators.  Check out this logical explanation of the white cliffs (which include fossils of other creatures).
Excerpt in blue:   "White chalk is composed almost entirely of calcium carbonate. This calcium carbonate, a very pure type of limestone, consists of billions of microorganisms including foraminifera and calcareous algae, coccoliths and rhabdoliths. Today, these microorganisms live in the upper 300–600 feet (91–183 m) of the open seas. When these microorganisms die, their calcium-rich shells accumulate on the bottom of the ocean floor, often almost 15,000–16,000 feet (4.6–4.9 km) below the surface. These shells cover about one-quarter of the surface of the earth today. It is estimated that these remains take up to 10 days or longer to reach the ocean floor and reportedly accumulate at a rate of .5–3 inches (1.25–7.5 cm) per thousand years."

Some very white cliffs!

The very very bestest baby in the who-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-ole patch!

Life is such a changeling, it created plants with roots that can rip rocks apart (slowly, but that's what they do) and worms that can ingest rocks and break them into soil. So let's step back and ask, how many new minerals have been created by living things on Earth?

Remember we start with 1,500 minerals before life.

After life, the number jumps to 4,500.

Life begets rocks! Whoa!

Seriously?  This is supposed to be science?  Minerals are not elements.  All the components of every mineral was present when the Earth was formed.   This guy was not there when life was formed and he frankly is just throwing suppositions out there like they were facts.  Do not be fooled by Darwinist Fairy Tales.  Rocks don't make life.  Rocks don't decide things, they do not create things, they have no power.

Rocks Of Ages

Oh please.  Jesus Christ is the Rock of Ages.  Is this an intentional slap in God's face or what?

We all know that living things need minerals. When you eat a raisin, you are putting iron in your blood. We drink milk to put calcium in our bones. So we need minerals. What I didn't know is that minerals, in some sense, need us. The presence of life on Earth nearly tripled the rock population.

More like the will of God and a world-wide flood provided vast layers of sedimentary rocks.  Not life.  Death and destruction due to sin. God caused the rains to fall and the subterranean waters to spout and the tectonic plates to subduct and the volcanoes and earthquakes and possibly threw in a comet while he was at it and the entire planet was remade.   New atmosphere.  New ecosystem.  Fresh start.  By the way, if you want to talk population a study of populations and a look at the number of people now living you would count back to almost exactly the time that Noah and his family stepped off of the Ark.  Hmmm, yeah, we use REAL science that is testable and fasifiable to measure population growth patterns. 

In our broadcast, (click the "Listen" button above to hear our dramatic version of this story), Professor Hazen says: "This is it.  It's the coevolution of life and rocks.  Rocks make life. Life makes rocks."

So who made the first rocks?  Who made the first life?  This is supposed to be SCIENCE?!



I have spared you this audio portion, although you can go to the link to hear it.  I also declined to include Shari Lewis talking with Lamb Chop and Charlie Horse.   Darn, I forgot Hush Puppy!

Of course this makes sense. We are, during our four score and twenty, a delicate package of water, organic chemistry and minerals held together, perhaps, by something like will. Then, when we die, we go ashes to ashes back into the ground and become minerals again until those same minerals get reorganized into plants, which get eaten by a cow that gets made into a Whamburger that gets eaten by a child who goes out and throws a Frisbee. I guess it's no surprise the two sides dance with each other.

DANCE with each other?  Hard to keep up with these new, complicated ideas provided by naturalistic atheistic science.   Want to understand origins?  I hope you dance!  Hahahahahahahaha!

"Of course this makes sense? 'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe.

"held together by something like will???!!!"   What will?  Whose will?  Hebrews 1:3 says that God is holding everything together - The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

I just didn't realize that the more life there is, the more rocks there are. Who knew? When you think about it, it seems so beautiful.

The more rocks in your head, you mean?  When you think about it, it seems like a complete chump story intended for people with pea brains and no longing to actually understand things.  A remarkably juvenile representation of a silly fairy tale.

Special thanks to Chris Impey of Arizona State University who mentions Bob Hazen's study in his new book How It Ends: From You To The Universe, (Norton, 2010).  That's how I found out about it.

Meanwhile, I found about a different source via a different book - The Bible.  The Bible says God created all things by His Word and that He sustains all things.   Bob Hazen wants to suggest that rocks create themselves and life and then life returns the favor by creating rocks.   Which one do you choose?  God or "All mimsy were the borogoves,  And the mome raths outgrabe?" 

Honest fantasy writers admit it, like Lewis Carroll - Jabberwocky!



Jabberwocky


`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
  Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
  And the mome raths outgrabe.

"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
  The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
  The frumious Bandersnatch!"


He took his vorpal sword in hand:
  Long time the manxome foe he sought --
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
  And stood awhile in thought.


And, as in uffish thought he stood,
  The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
  And burbled as it came!


One, two! One, two! And through and through
  The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
  He went galumphing back.


"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
  Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
  He chortled in his joy.





`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
  Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
  And the mome raths outgrabe.



dshaw@jabberwocky.com


 

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

"By the way, if you do not want your quote to be "mined", don't say it."

?? Mining quotes is taking quotes out of context. You understand that, right? And just about anything can be taken out of context, so the only way to protect against it would be to say nothing at all.

"Those who accuse me of misusing quotes had better be able to prove it. Show us how a quote was taken out of context and we will listen, until then quit making baseless accusations."

Jon Woolf did exactly that with your most recent mined quote, and his accusation was not baseless.

You claimed to have authority on your side when in fact that authority was completely arguing against your side, namely that science would benefit even more, not less, from placing their research in the evolutionary framework.

"Things just *poof* into existence by magic"

Wow, what an amazing case of projection. In science this never happens, but you see a lot of it in the Bible.

Jon Woolf said...

"Is Darwinism bad for the world?"

No.

Next question?

"Charles would occasionally give some lip service to the church to make life bearable and respectable for his wife, but he hated God and sought for ways to eradicate Him from society."

Something that few if any creationists know: when he boarded HMS Beagle in 1831, Charles Darwin was a creationist. He did not accept his grandfather's ideas on the mutability of species. He took a highly literal view of the Bible, and accepted William Paley's idea that the natural sciences were the best way for Man to discover and understand the laws by which God had Created the world. The things he saw during the voyage, and the things he learned while analyzing his notes and specimens, are what convinced him that evolution had happened.

[insert drearily repetitive rant on the evils of 'Darwinism' and the vileness of 'Darwinists']

Darwin himself was implacably against slavery. He was also as egalitarian and anti-racist as most Victorian Englishmen could be. He saw morality as a positive trait in human evolution, no matter its source. He disliked and distrusted Galton's ideas on racial purity and eugenics, thinking that natural selection would provide well enough, and that attempts to artificially speed and control selection (ie, eugenics) would inevitably backfire.

Your attempts to smear and slander Darwin are simply wrong, Radar.

Not to mention the fact that they come from a descendant of traitors and slavers.

radar said...

First, Woolf has not explained his quote mining charge and I am still waiting.

Second the issue is primarily Darwinism and not Darwin but if you think Darwin was a Christian when he boarded the Beagle you are not a fan of history. The captain of the ship soon regretted bringing on board a man who was not a man of faith and he was moved to write a tome decrying Darwin after the voyage.

Henry "Lighthorse" Lee was a hero, one of the founders of the country and one of the leaders of the Revolutionary war. My family includes bronze stars, purple hearts and other awards given for service to this country. I have no record of traitors or slavers in my line of descent.

Your personal attack on me, Jon Woolf, reveals once again that you have nothing worth saying. You are taking an article that decries Darwinism and again trying to make it about Darwin by building up his character...in ignorance. Charles Darwin was never a creationist and never a Christian.

No matter what Darwin was, Darwinism is terrible for the world.

Whoever Bob was, foul language and vulgarity gets your comment removed. People with sufficient intelligence to make an argument can do so without resorting to cursing and vile commentary. Don't come back.

radar said...

Jon Woolf has to accept that Kirschner comment because it was said and it was true. Many scientists have said something like it. Research does not involve Darwinism but a patina of Darwin is put on things to get by the religious zealots in charge of "science." Sometimes the Darwinists slip up and admit to it.

Jon Woolf is also getting personal. Did you serve your country, Woolf? You do not know my family. You are getting kind of slimy when you say I am from slavers and traitors. You also display pitiful ignorance of history.

http://americanrevwar.homestead.com/files/lee.htm

Henry was a soldier and was so distinguished as to be named the orator at George Washington's funeral.

We are descended from another offspring of Henry, not Robert. But Robert was a man of honor who was against the Civil War, turned down leadership of the North to remain true to his home state, Virginia. Both sides of the conflict admired Robert E Lee.

By what right do you cast aspersions at my family? Are you a veteran? Are you a historian (obviously not).

Jon Woolf said...

Radar, you're entirely too easy to wind up.

Under the law that held at the time, Henry Lee was a traitor. As Governor of Virginia he swore to obey the British Crown, then joined the Continental Congress in raising rebellion against the Crown. That's high treason. General Robert E. Lee owned slaves, and broke his oath as an officer in the United States Army in order to serve in the Confederate States Army, defending slavery and racism. And you proudly claim kinship with both men.

Of course, I don't actually believe that either man was a traitor. Even if they were, their misdeeds don't taint you. I hold no truck with the concept of blood attainder. But if you condemn what I said about you, yet use the same kind of reasoning to attack Charles Darwin, well ... do I really need to go on?

First, Woolf has not explained his quote mining charge and I am still waiting.

Yes, I did. You just missed it. "Quote mining" is a propaganda tactic in which the propagandist takes a single sentence or sentence fragment, removes it from its proper context, and twists it so that it appears to say something the person who said it never meant. Creationists do it all the time. You did it very specifically with the comment by Marc Kirschner, and I posted a link to prove that. He did not mean what you claim he meant.

radar said...

Someone, anyone, take a stab at defending Darwinism and why the resulting millions of deaths is okay because...

radar said...

Oh, MK meant what he said. He said it as a lament and I will grant you that. But it was true. If he was lying in order to build up to his assertions then it would be wrong for me to quote him. If he was not lying, the quote was accurate.

As to comparing Darwin to the Lees? I am pretty familiar with Darwin and My "Origin" was printed in the 19th Century, by the way. I wanted to be a bit sympathetic with him, as his upbringing was difficult. His grandfather was an atheopathic curmudgeon and his father was a complete hypocrite, professing Christian faith as to be acceptable to the community while scoffing at it privately. How often has a so-called "man of the cloth" been a wolf in sheep's clothing, as Jesus said? This was the mortar and pestle of Darwin's youth.

I work with teens. Few things hurt teenagers more than parents who pretend to be something they are not. So while you may not understand it I frankly lamented CD's upbringing. The death of his daughter was the final fork in his philosophical road. Would he turn to the callow faith of his father or take up his grandfather's mantle and rage against the God he blamed for taking her life? We know the answer.

Do some research on Darwin's father and grandfaher. Note my post on Captain FitzRoy. Both men began the voyage as friend and, after the publication of Darwin's book, opponents. The HMS Beagle voyage turned FitzRoy to God while it gave Darwin his excuse to abandon Him. Oddly enough FitzRoy was far better known at the time of the voyage and for several years thereafter...

Anonymous said...

"Someone, anyone, take a stab at defending Darwinism and why the resulting millions of deaths is okay because..."

By millions of deaths, you're referring to the holocaust, or the casualties of wars, what?

Easy. It's not okay.

But it has nothing to do with Darwin's theory of evolution.

Care to explain why the Nazis banned books on Darwinian evolution?

Your constant attempts to demonize Darwin, people who accept the theory of evolution (of any faith), atheists, what-have-you, are as dishonorable as they are dishonest. You're a poor representative of the Christian faith.

Anonymous said...

"Woolf has not explained his quote mining charge and I am still waiting."

Waiting for what exactly? Woolf explained it AND it's linked to earlier in this comment thread right here.

"If he was lying in order to build up to his assertions then it would be wrong for me to quote him."

I saw somewhere earlier on your blog where you defended just the opposite position.

"If he was not lying, the quote was accurate."

Is the concept of taking something out of context to twist its meaning really that hard to grasp? Can someone on your own side maybe straighten you out on this? It seems like if Jon Woolf said the sky was blue you'd try to claim it was orange with pink polka dots.

Anonymous said...

"1) I expect to find a supernatural force, a God, who made the Universe and all within it.

2) I may or may not find a supernatural force is the best explanation for the Universe and all within it.

3) I will not find nor will I consider a supernatural force as an explanation for the Universe and all within it.

I've got news for you...these are worldviews!"

"A. Surely it's not hard to see that both (1) and (3) are not scientific. And since you've clearly subscribed to (1), you're engaging in mere pseudo-science on this blog. You're obviously blind to that, but that's your problem, nobody else's."

"These are the words of someone who has taken ignorance to the point of folly. Any simple application of logic can see that all three are worldviews."

And a simple reading of the words above would show that I did not argue against that. So your accusation that "[t]hese are the words of someone who has taken ignorance to the point of folly" is entirely unfounded.

"It is also clear that Darwinists rigidly adhere to viewpoint number three."

If a Darwinist is someone who accepts Darwin's theory of evolutions, then they can fall under 2 or 3.

To prove that they fall under 3, you would have to demonstrate (not just claim) that they started with the presupposition that they would not find a supernatural force, as opposed to undertaking research in good faith and then not finding a supernatural force.

This is where your own adherence to (1) already gets in your way. You insist that there must be a supernatural force, and if someone doesn't find evidence for it, it must be because they were opposed to it from the outset.

That's where you haven't properly made your case, Radar.

"Number two is the philosophy of many, including a lot of the Intelligent Design folks."

What percentage of the ID folks would you say do not believe in God? I suspect just about all of them believe in God a priori, with very few exceptions (which perhaps you can name), and if that's true, that would speak against your assertion - IDers most likely largely fall under (1), with perhaps some under (2).

"I have been converted to belief in worldview number one."

And once you approach science with that worldview, you are starting with the outcome. You have become that of which you accuse others. You're indulging in pseudo-science.

"No one goes forth on intellectual journeys without a worldview"

That's right, but what matters is the worldview one uses while engaging in scientific work, and if that worldview happens to be 1 or 3, then one is not being scientific and will engage in inferior science.

"and if one cannot even know this about himself, how great is his folly!"

Indeed. Something tells me you don't even see the irony of your statement.

radar said...

Incomprehensible commenters! Anonymous, you are arguing with yourself.

"1) I expect to find a supernatural force, a God, who made the Universe and all within it.

2) I may or may not find a supernatural force is the best explanation for the Universe and all within it.

3) I will not find nor will I consider a supernatural force as an explanation for the Universe and all within it."

I pointed out that all three were worldviews and the commenter said only one of them was scientific. Well almost all Darwinists adhere to point three, so you Darwinists are not scientific? Because this is the standard Darwinist worldview.

If point one is invalid, you have to throw me away but also Newton and Kelvin and Bacon and Von Braun and Pasteur and...well science as we know it would not exist.

Point two is the stated point of many of the Discovery Institute folks. In fact, a logical person today would begin at point two and then be won over to point one when it becomes obvious that Someone designed and created everything.

All three are stated worldviews of scientists. Anyone can see this unless they are rather dull-minded. My teen class readily understands, so if you do not then you have a gradeschool level of understanding.

I do not care whether Jon Woolf thinks the sky is pink. I do not go to his website and copy his words and critique them, it is much more useful to critique Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens and PZ Myers and other such blind adherents to naturalism.
Woolf likes to comment often and usually wants to lead us down rabbit trails. I go when they interest me.

Anonymous said...

1) I expect to find a supernatural force, a God, who made the Universe and all within it.

2) I may or may not find a supernatural force is the best explanation for the Universe and all within it.

3) I will not find nor will I consider a supernatural force as an explanation for the Universe and all within it."

I pointed out that all three were worldviews and the commenter said only one of them was scientific. Well almost all Darwinists adhere to point three, so you Darwinists are not scientific? Because this is the standard Darwinist worldview.


One who believes in evolution can fall under any of the choices above. There are many christians who believe in evolution. WHAT DOES "DARWINISM" MEAN???? We really can't get anywhere until you define this term.

lava

Jon Woolf said...

"I do not go to his website and copy his words and critique them, it is much more useful to critique Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens and PZ Myers and other such blind adherents to naturalism."

Of course it is -- because their outspoken antitheism makes it easier for you to demonize them. I, on the other hand, am not even atheistic, let alone antitheistic, so you don't have that easy out with me. If you want to challenge me, you have to do it on the science -- and you can't do that, because you don't know the science.

"Woolf likes to comment often and usually wants to lead us down rabbit trails."

An apt metaphor, though not in the way you think. I am, after all, a wolf, and wolves hunt rabbits. I try to lead you in hunting science, facts, reality. It's really too bad that you don't want to follow.

Anonymous said...

"I pointed out that all three were worldviews and the commenter said only one of them was scientific."

That's right, only the middle one is compatible with actual science. That's hardly a matter of controversy is it?

"Well almost all Darwinists adhere to point three,"

A completely unfounded claim. First of all, you can't even define "Darwinist" in any coherent way that lines up with all the different ways in which you use it.

Second, you're ignoring the possibility that they adhere to worldview (2) and their research (actual research, not exclamations of "it's obviously designed!") has not indicated a supernatural force.

"so you Darwinists are not scientific?"

Busy agreeing with yourself, are you? You make an unfounded claim and draw a conclusion from that?

"Because this is the standard Darwinist worldview."

No, (2) is just as compatible with it, and as lava pointed out, even (1) can be.

"If point one is invalid, you have to throw me away"

It's not an invalid worldview, any more than any other, it's just not one that's compatible with science, which is why we're certainly glad to "throw you away" in any and all matters scientific - and it seems some commenters have done exactly that, rightly so.

"but also Newton and Kelvin and Bacon and Von Braun and Pasteur and..."

Can you demonstrate how any of those used the expectation of the supernatural? They had an expectation of order, which was useful in their work. The expectation of the supernatural, not so much. Actually not at all.

"well science as we know it would not exist."

Science as we know it, i.e. modern science, was for the most part brought about by scientists (Christian or otherwise) who kept God and religion out of their scientific work. They practiced the scientific method, which emphasized reason and experimentation, and eschewed supernatural explanations.

None of the people you mention here used the supernatural in any of their (successful) scientific work.

"Point two is the stated point of many of the Discovery Institute folks."

This is stated where exactly?

"In fact, a logical person today would begin at point two"

So far, that would be correct...

"and then be won over to point one when it becomes obvious that Someone designed and created everything."

... and this is where your adherence to (1) slides in.

Perhaps someday you can actually discuss science in a rational manner on your blog, as Jon Woolf incessantly invites you to do. Instead you're sadly addicted to pasting ill-founded "gotcha" posts.

Anonymous said...

"All three are stated worldviews of scientists."

Can you provide examples of scientists stating (3)?

"Anyone can see this unless they are rather dull-minded."

You really can't have a rational discussion for two minutes without attempting to insult others, can you?

"My teen class readily understands, so if you do not then you have a gradeschool level of understanding."

Poor logic here, Radar. It's easily possible (and far more likely) that we have more facts at our command than your teen class and therefore don't fall for what Uncle Radar is telling us in class.

BTW, where do you teach, and do you have any teaching qualifications? What do you teach, and who are the teens you teach?

"I do not care whether Jon Woolf thinks the sky is pink."

No, but if he said the sky was blue, you'd say it was pink.

"I do not go to his website and copy his words and critique them, it is much more useful to critique Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens and PZ Myers and other such blind adherents to naturalism."

As Jon Woolf has pointed out, those people are easy for you to demonize, though each of them is far more knowledgeable and accomplished than you.

"Woolf likes to comment often and usually wants to lead us down rabbit trails. I go when they interest me."

I've seen some of those rabbit trails, and they're completely out of your reach. You feign disinterest, but you either don't understand how completely they've falsified the "scientific" aspects of your worldview, or you have some inkling and you're terrified to go there, because for you so much is invested in your religion.

Anonymous said...

"All the components of every mineral was present when the Earth was formed. This guy was not there when life was formed and he frankly is just throwing suppositions out there like they were facts."

Maybe after writing that second sentence, you should have examined the first one again. There's a real mental disconnect there.

Anonymous said...

Why not look at the example in Radar's post? Is the story My Grandson The Rock a true story? DebB

Anonymous said...

"Why not look at the example in Radar's post? Is the story My Grandson The Rock a true story? DebB"

I'd have to check out the sources to see what evidence they had/used. The way it's written, it's kind of entertainy, as if written for children (I guess because it's not a "science blog", but a "sciencey blog" - yes, I went to the link to read the original without Radar's constant interjections).

I'm not sure how that would relate to my comment, if that's what you were referring to. Radar's mental disconnect is there loud and clear. He makes an assertion like "All the components of every mineral was present when the Earth was formed" and in the very next breath points out that "This guy was not there when life was formed and he frankly is just throwing suppositions out there like they were facts". Well then where does Radar get his information exactly?

It's a weird thing to behold indeed when people mistake the Bible for a science textbook.

"There is a law of biogenesis that states that life comes only from life. So-called scientists just ignore science when they claim that life just formed. Sure. Toyotas just form. Skyscrapers just form. Ballpoint pens just form."

Wow, that's pretty disingenuous. The law of biogenesis referred to complex forms of life. Nobody is claiming today that complex forms of life just form, and the "so-called scientists" that you mock here research something else entirely, something you are obviously not acquainted with.

"Something comes from nothing all the time, right? Oh, doggone those laws of thermodynamics!"

... which contradict the idea of something being created from nothing. Like the notion of Creation. Oh doggone those laws of thermodynamics indeed.

radar said...

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2009/01/liberal-fascism-gods-law-godwins-law.html