Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Darwinism the root of the culture of death: expert
LifeSiteNews ^ | 2/17/12 | Kathleen Gilbert

Posted on 02/17/2012 4:17:50 PM PST by wagglebee

WASHINGTON, February 17, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - What do Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, “father of the sexual revolution” Alfred Kinsey, Lenin, and Hitler have in common?

All these pioneers of what some call the culture of death rooted their beliefs and actions in Darwinism - a little-known fact that one conservative leader says shouldn’t be ignored.

Hugh Owen of the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation told an audience on Capitol Hill before the March for Life last month that the philosophical consequences of Darwinism has “totally destroyed many parts of our society.”

Owen pointed to Dr. Josef Mengele, who infamously experimented on Jews during the Holocaust, Hitler himself, and other Nazi leaders as devotees of Darwinism who saw Nazism and the extermination of peoples as nothing more than a way “to advance evolution.” Darwinism was also the “foundation” of Communist ideology in Russia through Vladimir Lenin, said Owen, who showed a photograph of the only decorative item found on Lenin’s desk: an ape sitting on a pile of books, including Darwin’s “Origin of Species,” and looking at a skull.

“Lenin sat at this desk and looked at this sculpture as he authorized the murder of millions of his fellow countrymen, because they stood in the way of evolutionary progress,” Owen said. He also said accounts from communist China report that the first lesson used by the new regime to indoctrinate religious Chinese citizens was “always the same: Darwin.”

In America, the fruit of Darwinism simply took the form of eugenics, the belief that the human race could be improved by controlling the breeding of a population.

Owen said that Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, a prominent eugenicist, promoted contraception on the principles of evolution. “She saw contraception as the sacrament of evolution, because with contraception we get rid of the less fit and we allow only the fit to breed,” he said. Sanger is well-known to have supported the spread of “birth control,” a term she coined, as “the process of weeding out the unfit.”

Alfred Kinsey, whose “experiments” in pedophilia, sadomasochism, and homosexuality opened wide the doors to sexual anarchy in the 20th century, also concluded from Darwinist principles that sexual deviations in humans were no more inappropriate than those found in the animal kingdom. Before beginning his sexual experiments, Kinsey, also a eugenicist, was a zoologist and author of a prominent biology textboook that promoted evolution.

Owen, a Roman Catholic, strongly rejected the notion that Christianity and the Biblical creation account could be reconciled with Darwinism. He recounted the story of his own father, who he said was brought up a devout Christian before losing his faith when exposed to Darwinism in college. He was to become the first ever Secretary General of the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

“The trajectory that led from Leeds and Manchester University to becoming Secretary General of one of the most evil organizations that’s ever existed on the face of the earth started with evolution,” said Owen.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: abortion; communism; cultureofdeath; darwinism; deatheaters; eugenics; fascism; gagdadbob; lifehate; moralabsolutes; onecosmosblog; prolife
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 401-450451-500501-550 ... 651-669 next last
To: exDemMom; betty boop

eDM wrote: ‘What, exactly, is the supposed evidence that would definitively prove evolution but doesn’t actually exist? If you have that evidence, it is scientifically sound, and your experiments/observations are repeatable by any knowledgeable life scientist, why haven’t you published it yet?’

Truthfully neither evolution nor creation can be considered science because you can not go back and repeat history. On a micro/natural adaptation level - yes - proven, confirmed and agreed on by both groups [see last link below].

eDM wrote: ‘The burden of proof is really on you [WHO? Which group claims the science is settled as fact?] to produce it. On the science side, we have countless thousands of pieces of evidence that support the ToE as the mechanism responsible for the diversity of life that we see today.’

Well what evidence do you [or evolution] have exDemMom to prove macro-evolution? Change from one kind into another has never been proven and zero missing links found.

If you have a love of truth no matter where it leads, integrity, and are open minded then maybe you could examine the creation interpretation of the same evidence and see how completely the puzzle pieces fit together in defense of the Bible.

101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html


451 posted on 03/07/2012 6:41:07 AM PST by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 444 | View Replies]

To: mitch5501
Thank God for you, dear mitch5501, for your encouragements are timely and greatly appreciated!


452 posted on 03/07/2012 7:51:18 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 448 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish; exDemMom; betty boop; mitch5501; BrandtMichaels
Thank you so very much, dear sister in Christ, for your engaging and insightful essay-posts!

exDemMom, Karl Popper is notorious for his observation (paraphrased) that the more a theory withstands attempts at falsifying it, the more confident we can be in the theory - and conversely, theories which cannot be falsified are not trustworthy. In today's lingo, we would call such theories "just so" stories.

Herein is the great difference between disciplines.

In the "historical" sciences like archeology, anthropology, Egyptology, evolution biology - the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Theirs are "just so" stories based on spotty evidence in the historical record.

In the "hard" sciences like physics and chemistry, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Their theories are subject to empirical tests, observations and falsification attempts (Popper.) Indeed, the more attempts to falsify a theory that are made and fail - the more confident we are in the theory.

However, our greatest confidence stems from the discipline of mathematics (not a science) where the observations are subjected to mathematical "proofs."

And for me, the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences (Wigner) is like God's copyright notice on the Cosmos.

Click here for more recent observations about that unreasonable effectiveness.

More importantly, the flurry of activity that ensued following Jones's discovery suddenly connected a bewildering variety of areas in mathematics and physics, and penetrated even into string theory—the current most promising attempt to reconcile general relativity with quantum mechanics.

In particular, string theorists Hirosi Ooguri and Cumrun Vafa discovered that the number of complex topological structures that are formed when many strings interact is related to the Jones polynomial. Furthermore, the leading string theorist Ed Witten demonstrated that the Jones polynomial affords new insights in one of the most fundamental areas of research in modern physics, known as quantum field theory.

The lesson from this very brief history of knot theory is remarkable. First, it was the active effectiveness of mathematics that came into play. Physicists needed a model for the atom, and when knots appeared to provide the appropriate tool, a mathematical theory of knots took off. When a better mathematical model (in the form of the Bohr atom) was discovered, mathematicians did not abandon knot theory. Driven only by their curiosity, they continued to explore the properties of knots for many decades. The mere possibility of understanding the properties of knots and the principles that govern their classification was seen by most mathematicians as exquisitely beautiful and essentially irresistible. However, then came the surprising passive effectiveness of mathematics. Unexpectedly, the Jones polynomial and knot theory in general turned out to have wide-ranging applications in string theory.

What makes this story even more striking is the following fact. Recall that Thomson started to study knots because he was searching for a theory of atoms, then considered to be the most basic constituents of matter. By a remarkably circular twist of history, knots are now found to provide answers in string theory, our present-day best effort to understand the constituents of matter! So knot theory emerged from an attempt to explain physical reality, then it wandered into the abstract realm of pure mathematics—only to eventually return to its ancestral origin. Isn't this absolutely amazing?

Personally, I have about as much confidence in "just so" theories from refereed journals of the historical sciences as I have in political commentary from the politically correct journalistic community of the mainstream media.

For instance, the geologists who disagreed with the orthodox "just so" consensus story of Egyptology in reference to the age of the Sphinx were treated horribly by them. How dare they dispute the "just so" consensus story?!

Ben Stein's "Expelled" exposed such orthodoxies and how people who questioned the "just so" stories were treated. And in response, Stein himself is held up to ridicule. How dare he question our ethics?!

What childishness in the historical sciences!

If they were "hard" sciences, each attempt to falsify would be embraced as yet another opportunity to increase confidence in the theory.

I have much more confidence in mathematics and physics theories than in any "just so" story from a historical science discipline.

God's Name is I AM.

453 posted on 03/07/2012 8:40:51 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 449 | View Replies]

To: mitch5501; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; metmom; Whosoever

“What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard,and what no human mind has conceived {are} the things God has prepared for those who love him” -1 Cor 2;9


I could put this on a flag and march around, my bunny hole, like an idiot drunk with new wine.. The concept makes the mind reel with possibilities..


454 posted on 03/07/2012 10:57:15 AM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 448 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
I could put this on a flag and march around, my bunny hole, like an idiot drunk with new wine.. The concept makes the mind reel with possibilities..

LOLOL! And yet, no matter how wonderful the imagination - we couldn't even think of what God has planned for us! (I Cor 2:9)

455 posted on 03/07/2012 11:12:05 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 454 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom; spirited irish; Matchett-PI; allmendream; Alamo-Girl; MrB; Agamemnon; hosepipe; ...
And who is Karl Popper? Is he some great biologist, who discovered some seminal concepts of biology that help to shape the study of biological science as we practice it today?

No, according to Wikipedia, he was a philosopher trained in psychology, who worked at an economics school. Why should some non-scientist's philosophical musings hold more weight than the observations of actual scientists?

Well, maybe it's part time to be handing out

PhD's

to scientists, you think?

If they want to divorce themselves from philosophy, then perhaps they need to give up those degrees they're so proud of and stop owning the label of doctor of philosophy.

456 posted on 03/07/2012 11:23:43 AM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 445 | View Replies]

To: metmom; exDemMom; spirited irish; Matchett-PI; allmendream; Alamo-Girl; MrB; Agamemnon; hosepipe
*exasperated sigh*

part time = past time.

Try this again.....

Well, maybe it's past time to be handing out

PhD's

to scientists, you think?

If they want to divorce themselves from philosophy, then perhaps they need to give up those degrees they're so proud of and stop owning the label of doctor of philosophy.

457 posted on 03/07/2012 11:28:20 AM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 456 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

I fear I missed you.

Ping to posts 456 and 457.


458 posted on 03/07/2012 11:29:18 AM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 457 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish
[ The lie is the father of contradiction, hypocrisy, betrayal, insincerity, treachery, envy, lust, hate, contempt, and murder. It is the thought, word, deed, and sign of cunning and intended ill will. Through mocking, belittling, and other tactics of psychological bullying in conjunction with deliberate silence (repressing truth) and the twisting and redefining of words the liar deceives others of the right to know truth.

I know.. beautiful ain't it.. What drama, what acting, what method..... The beauty of all the traps, gambits, false trails and intellectual cul d'sacs.. is amazing to behold.. Science fiction must appear to be real and be logical else whats the point..

Smart alecks have a circuitous path to negotiate.. A virtual war of ideas to dodge and weave in.. Its divine in its origin I believe.. The path humans must travel to survive sane is pure genius.. Human life can easily drive you bonkers.. So many traps..

Traps of givernment, religion, drugs, sex, money, family dysfunction, friendship associations, various forms of vanity, and more.. Its an honor to be associated with a God that thought up this "maze"... Humans are indeed like a rat in a maze..

Jesus was brilliant in the phrase he said to the Apostles.. "You MUST become like "this" little child, OR you will never see "heaven".. Pure genius.. God I think is a genius.. Is God COOL or WHAT?..

459 posted on 03/07/2012 11:31:20 AM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 450 | View Replies]

To: metmom
LOLOL! Great catch!
460 posted on 03/07/2012 12:04:17 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 457 | View Replies]

To: metmom

What I notice is the total avoidance of whether Popper’s ‘musings’ were right or wrong. Shouldn’t that be the true focus of a ‘scientist’?

Rather than worrying about whether these particular Sneetches have ‘stars on thars’? Perhaps it really is true that “you can’t teach a Sneetch”.


461 posted on 03/07/2012 1:53:08 PM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 456 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
Truthfully neither evolution nor creation can be considered science because you can not go back and repeat history. On a micro/natural adaptation level - yes - proven, confirmed and agreed on by both groups [see last link below].

No, you can't go back in time to observe history, but there is enough evidence in the fossil record to piece together how evolution has proceeded throughout the last few billions of year.

Well what evidence do you [or evolution] have exDemMom to prove macro-evolution? Change from one kind into another has never been proven and zero missing links found.

Seriously, I find ridiculous the creationist claims that a lightning-fast process of microevolution is in effect, but the gradual process of macroevolution cannot possibly occur. If, in fact, rapid microevolution occurred, humans should have seen massive speciation occurring after the biblical floods that presumably wiped out all life (plant and animal) on earth, except for the few organisms that Noah could cram aboard his boat (along with enough food and bedding to last several months). That kind of speciation within the last 4-5 thousand years would have been recorded in written history. It's not. The literal creationist concept of rapid microevolution is supported neither by science nor by the Bible.

I should also point out that the idea of "missing links" is a red herring. Since we cannot produce from the fossil record an example of every generation of any species to show its evolution over time, literal creationists will always bring up that claim of "missing links".

462 posted on 03/08/2012 3:42:30 AM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 451 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
In the "historical" sciences like archeology, anthropology, Egyptology, evolution biology - the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Theirs are "just so" stories based on spotty evidence in the historical record.

In the "hard" sciences like physics and chemistry, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Their theories are subject to empirical tests, observations and falsification attempts (Popper.) Indeed, the more attempts to falsify a theory that are made and fail - the more confident we are in the theory.

Well, I have to say that this is the first time I've ever seen this supposed demarkation made between "historical" sciences and "hard" sciences. Biology most certainly is a real-time science, and I'm fairly certain that most people would consider my specialty, biochemistry, as a hard science. The study of evolution and evolutionary relationships is as subject to empirical tests, observation, and falsification as any physics experimentation. Evolutionary biologists simply cannot escape the absolute requirement to formulate hypotheses and their companion null hypotheses. And there is a strong mathematical component to the biological sciences.

In any case, I don't jump into literal creation threads to debate the science; literal creationists do not, as far as I can tell, care about the science, and will always come up with another unscientific objection no matter how much evidence is presented, making discussing the science nearly impossible.

I jump in because I don't like to see people defaming and denigrating scientists for having chosen science as a career. As far as the anti-science is concerned, I really don't care; literal creationism doesn't kill people like some other forms of anti-science, and it's unlikely that literal creationists will ever be making policy decisions about the funding of scientific inquiry. Just stay away from demonizing scientists for being scientists.

463 posted on 03/08/2012 4:09:02 AM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 453 | View Replies]

To: metmom

You might want to look up what a Ph.D. is, and what the word philosophy means.

While the word “philosophy” can mean the study of existentialist nonsense, and it is possible to get a Ph.D. in that field, the word has other meanings. Literally, it means “love of knowledge”, from “philo”=”loving” and “sophia”=”knowledge” or “wisdom”.

A Ph.D. is a degree awarded for demonstrating an ability to conduct high-quality research in a field. It is most certainly an appropriate degree to award to scientists.


464 posted on 03/08/2012 4:23:53 AM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 457 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
What I notice is the total avoidance of whether Popper’s ‘musings’ were right or wrong. Shouldn’t that be the true focus of a ‘scientist’?

I didn't do that because I have observed many times that quotes are often taken out of context where using them to support the literal creationist view is concerned. Since I didn't want to spend the time tracking down the writings of Popper to see what he really said, in context, I did not address the validity of the quotes as presented here.

It is a common gambit of advocates of literal creationism to cherry-pick quotes that supposedly support their position, and then present the quotes as if they come from someone who is so important to science that every scientist must be intimately familiar with every aspect of their work. Until this thread, I had never heard of Popper. He isn't discussed in the history that we learn in freshman level science classes.

465 posted on 03/08/2012 4:40:25 AM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 461 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
"Until this thread, I had never heard of Popper. He isn't discussed in the history that we learn in freshman level science classes."

Wow. Looks like the indoctrination was quite complete.

466 posted on 03/08/2012 5:57:24 AM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 465 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom; spirited irish; betty boop; mitch5501; BrandtMichaels; wagglebee; YHAOS; metmom; ...
Perhaps you have misjudged your correspondents on this thread?

As far as I know, none of us are anti-science. And to whatever extent we are anti-scientIST, we direct our indignation towards individual scientists who have been promoting their own political or ideological agenda under the color of science. Chief among these are the Eugenicists (the topic of this thread) and such "scientists" as Dawkins, Pinker, Singer and Lewontin.

In my view, mainstream scientists ought to be just as indignant about such abuses as we are. Science should be about gaining knowledge not political/ideological power.

Also, any person who believes in The Creator of "all that there is" is a Creationist - as YHAOS has tried to explain. Within that belief there are many different understandings of God's revelations both in Scripture and in nature.

There are fewer than 40 sentences in Genesis 1 versus myriad research material in libraries around the world concerning the physical world around us. We Creationists have many ways of viewing the one in the light of the other.

We are not all "Young Earth Creationists."

I for instance consider myself both YEC and OEC. There may be not a single other Christian on this forum who agrees with me. And that does not matter.

My views are much closer to those of Jewish Physicist Gerald Schroeder though obviously I would not agree with him on everything. He is Jewish, I am Christian.

Nevertheless, like Dr. Schroeder, I keep Relativity and Inflationary Theory in mind while reading Genesis.

For instance, here we are rocketing through space at over 500,000 miles per hour and yet we cannot sense it. Neither can we sense relativistic time - that a week from our present space/time coordinates is equal to an equivalent 15 billion years from the inception space/time coordinates. Nor can we sense the proportion of cosmos to quantum.

In our view, there is no conflict whatsoever between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 - or between Scripture and the physical evidence we see in nature.

Further, I perceive Genesis describing the creation of both spiritual and physical, heaven and earth - from God's perspective not man's. The Creator was the only observer of Creation.

And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. - Genesis 2:9

He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God. - Revelation 2:7

And again,

These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and [there was] not a man to till the ground. – Genesis 2:4-5

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. - Hebrews 11:3

In other words, I see the perspective of Scripture changing from inception to Adam at the bottom of Genesis 4 when Adam is banished to mortality. Man is appointed 7,000 years, a week. Approximately 6,000 years have elapsed since then (Jewish calendar) and the last 1,000 will be Christ's millennial reign on earth, the Sabbath.

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. – Genesis 2:17

And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. – Genesis 5:5

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. – 2 Peter 3:8

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ. - Colossians 2:16-17

Except for some early Christians (e.g. Epistle of Barnabas, Enoch) - I may stand alone in the belief that man is appointed 7,000 years with the last 1,000 being Christ's reign on earth.

But it doesn't matter to me at all if no one here agrees with my understanding of the matter. Even so, I am a Creationist. And I am not anti-science.

God's Name is I AM.

467 posted on 03/08/2012 9:24:36 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 463 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

Yeah, right......


468 posted on 03/08/2012 9:47:27 AM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 464 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
I for instance consider myself both YEC and OEC. There may be not a single other Christian on this forum who agrees with me. And that does not matter.

My views are much closer to those of Jewish Physicist Gerald Schroeder though obviously I would not agree with him on everything. He is Jewish, I am Christian.

Nevertheless, like Dr. Schroeder, I keep Relativity and Inflationary Theory in mind while reading Genesis.

Imagine that, a creationist who understands relativity. Sounds like my family with two girls who are physics majors.

But it doesn't matter to me at all if no one here agrees with my understanding of the matter. Even so, I am a Creationist. And I am not anti-science.

Ditto.....

The label of *anti-science* is just a pejorative used to discredit one's opponents. I see tactics like that as indicating the person lobbing the accusation has nothing of substance in his (or her) arsenal.

Just as when Godwin can be invoked, chalk it up as a win.

469 posted on 03/08/2012 10:29:34 AM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 467 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom; metmom; betty boop; All
Duh. My bad.

that a week from our present space/time coordinates is equal to an equivalent 15 billion years from the inception space/time coordinates

should be:

that 15 billion years from our present space/time coordinates is equal to an equivalent week from the inception space/time coordinates

Need ... more ... coffee ... before typing.

470 posted on 03/08/2012 10:50:31 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 467 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
"The study of evolution and evolutionary relationships is as subject to empirical tests, observation, and falsification as any physics experimentation."

I'm thinking that you are using a definition of 'empirical' that allows plenty of room for imposing philosophical beliefs on the results.

As opposed to "depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, especially as in medicine."

Those who control the meaning of terms, control the debate.

471 posted on 03/08/2012 10:50:53 AM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 463 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; betty boop; exDemMom; spirited irish; mitch5501; BrandtMichaels; wagglebee; YHAOS; ...

[ I for instance consider myself both Y{oung}EC and O[ld}EC. There may be not a single other Christian on this forum who agrees with me. And that does not matter. ]

Interesting insight.. whos to know.. which..

The earth could be billions of years old with life in the millions.. and mankind in the thousands..

-OR-

The whole shooting match could be in the thousands..

-OR-

Humans could have been around for millions..


I ask myself WHY does it really matter?..
What good does it do me to know either..
Except as entertainment.. or bragging rights to appear smarter..
BUT I could get my livelihood from being some sort of “expert” on one of the options..

The reasons for “believing” one or the other of these (and more) options.. could be endless..
I have to agree with you.. both are possible.. maybe even probable...

I would like to believe humans are the result of God giving the EVIL ANGELS a second chance.. giving the prodigal son metaphorical story new life.. Making us all evil SOB’s.. with some choosing to NOT REBEL against God “this time”..

Otherwise why did God make humans in the first place?..
Adding “Satan” to the pot was pure genius..
When I look at humans there are indeed some evil SOB’s out there..

I could go on but why bore everbody?...


472 posted on 03/08/2012 10:52:21 AM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 467 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Sounds like my family with two girls who are physics majors.

Wonderful! Congratulations, dear sister in Christ!

And yes, I shall chalk it up as a "win."

Thank you for your encouragements!

473 posted on 03/08/2012 10:53:06 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 469 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
You never, ever, bore me dear hosepipe!

Thank you so very much for sharing your musings and insights!

474 posted on 03/08/2012 10:55:03 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 472 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom; BrandtMichaels; Alamo-Girl; metmom; spirited irish; GourmetDan
... there is enough evidence in the fossil record to piece together how evolution has proceeded throughout the last few billions of year.

Please note: There is a dearth of evidence to support the theory of a common ancestor. Yet Darwinists continue to promote the idea of a common ancestor: They want there to be a common ancestor; for it obviates the need for a creator God.

There was nothing "gradual" about the Cambrian explosion. And predecessor transitional life forms are simply absent from the fossil record.

Macroevolution is perhaps the greatest Myth of our age....

475 posted on 03/08/2012 11:10:00 AM PST by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 462 | View Replies]

To: mitch5501; Alamo-Girl; betty boop; spirited irish; Agamemnon; wagglebee; hosepipe; All

God bless you, dear mitch5501! Thank you for your kind words of encouragement.


476 posted on 03/08/2012 12:05:26 PM PST by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 448 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
"There was nothing "gradual" about the Cambrian explosion. And predecessor transitional life forms are simply absent from the fossil record."

Which is why Stephen J. Gould came up with his theory of 'punctuated equilibrium', not only for the Cambrian 'explosion' but for all of macro-evolution.

You remember punk-eek, right? The theory that 'predicted' that the evidence wouldn't exist to explain why the evidence doesn't exist?

Prolly satisfies the 'empirical' definition that some scientists like to use...

477 posted on 03/08/2012 1:08:38 PM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 475 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
I'm thinking that you are using a definition of 'empirical' that allows plenty of room for imposing philosophical beliefs on the results.

Empirical means based on observation. Learning to make empirical observations is part of that scientific "indoctrination" that all scientists must learn as part of the process of becoming scientists. There is no room for the imposition of philosophical beliefs onto the results of one's research.

Either my PCR experiment shows that a particular gene is expressed, or it doesn't. Where is the philosophical belief in that?

478 posted on 03/08/2012 4:52:27 PM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 471 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; exDemMom; metmom
We are not all "Young Earth Creationists."

Thank you, Alamo-Girl for the ping and for expressing your endorsement of at least some of my views.

It’s true, I think, that in attempting to fold 14 Billion years (or 7 Billion years, or 3.5 Billion years, or whatever it may be) into ten thousand years (or six thousand years), those Christians who have chosen to identify themselves with a YEC scientific explanation of God’s creation, have selected a very steep and high mountain to surmount, but I wish them every success for I understand that their theories about the duration of God’s creation is secondary to the knowledge of the salvation of Christ and of God’s love (and that He is The Creator), these being understandings we all share, and it may be that Alamo-girl’s forays into Relativity and Inflationary Theory might serve as their answer. As always in science, theories are subject to further discovery (or so I am told).

And exDemMom, please forgive me for disagreeing, but in your schooling of metmom on the meaning of Philosophy, I believe you commit a fundamental error in equating the gathering of information (the primary task of Science) with wisdom. Wisdom is so very much more than that.

479 posted on 03/08/2012 5:02:00 PM PST by YHAOS (you betcha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 467 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe; Alamo-Girl; betty boop; spirited irish; Matchett-PI; GourmetDan; BrandtMichaels; ...
"I ask myself WHY does it really matter?.. What good does it do me to know either.."

I used to wonder that after I heard someone ask the same question.Then I thought what if I'm adopted and my biological father was the owner of Microsoft or some such.I reckon I'd be pretty keen to find out then!

As it happens,my heavenly Father happens to own the entire universe and He said I will "inherit all things".

"I could put this on a flag and march around, my bunny hole, like an idiot drunk with new wine.."

LOL! Myself I like to go outside at night and drink in the view of the cosmos while rubbing my hands together maniacally muttering..."and it's all mine...aaaaallll mine!"

"The concept makes the mind reel with possibilities.."

Aint that the truth! It's enough to give us an inkling of how Belshazzar must have felt...."Then the king's countenance was changed, and his thoughts troubled him, so that the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote one against another"...except obviously in a good way.

Even the beloved disciple,the same one that leant on Jesus breast at the last supper,didn't fare too well when he saw Jesus as He really is!..."And I turned to see the voice that spake with me....And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead"

I suppose that if we could comprehend much more than we do,our heads might explode.At the very least we would be running around as though our hair was on fire.Which,incidently,I expect quite a few of us might well be doing soon should these times turn out to be 'the' time!

480 posted on 03/08/2012 5:19:42 PM PST by mitch5501 ("make your calling and election howsure: for if ye do these things ye shall never fall")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 472 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
"Either my PCR experiment shows that a particular gene is expressed, or it doesn't. Where is the philosophical belief in that?"

When you claim that it 'evolved' and that 'evolutionary relationships' can be inferred from it.

"The study of evolution and evolutionary relationships is as subject to empirical tests, observation, and falsification as any physics experimentation."

481 posted on 03/08/2012 6:14:13 PM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 478 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom; metmom; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; GourmetDan; allmendream

Dear exDemMom,

I had hoped you took so long in responding b/c you were busy reading the links I provided [posts #443 & #451 of this thread iirc] and possibly expanding your mind regarding the many varied possibilities for interpreting the geologic and fossil evidence.

Question1: If we assume a much shortened time span for the Earth and Universe, say something corresponding to mankind’s written history, would we not also expect to see that natural adaptations have, in fact, taken place at a very much increased pace over evolutionary speculations?

Question2: If we assume a worldwide flood, could that natural disaster and subsequent smaller ones have dramatically increased the stress and micro-evolutionary changes for those same affected lifeforms?

I perused your homepage and must assume that you are 10 or more years younger than I [50] and have been heavily submersed in liberal academic circles that do not allow other biblical speculations regarding natural history. I pray for you to continue reading and studying much of that with which you currently dis-agree [as I did over the last 10-15 years].

Seriously, I find obvious the evolutionist claims that a lightning-fast process of microevolution [which has been observed] is in effect, but the gradual process of macroevolution cannot possibly occur b/c it has neither been observed nor fossil evidence found.

If, in fact, the Bible specs for Noah’s Ark are true then we could conclude:

a.) loads of storage space for approx 20k animal kinds ~ say something on the order of a 3 tiered modern day ocean going barge,

b.) worldwide evidence of quickly buried and fossilized lifeforms in situ among many varied sedimentary layers representing the uniqueness of both for each and every environmental habitat, &

c.) several ancient civilizations to have recorded similar legendary stories...

http://shipsonstamps.org/Topics/html/arche.htm

I should also point out that the idea of “missing links” is NOT a red herring. Since we have produced from the fossil record an examples of more species in history than are found today.

In fact Dr. Walt Brown PhD has speculated with his hydroplate theory all my prior claims and much more in the link:

Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html


482 posted on 03/08/2012 6:38:28 PM PST by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 462 | View Replies]

To: mitch5501; hosepipe

LOL ~ mitch5501 ~ your musings remind me of that strange Irishman from Brave Heart

“I’m the most wanted man on my island. Except I’m not on my island of course”

and

“The Lord tells me he can get me out of this mess, but he’s pretty sure you’re f*(!~d.”

Can’t recall that characters name right now though...


483 posted on 03/08/2012 6:54:43 PM PST by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 480 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels; All

correction for end of prior post #2.

Since we have produced from the fossil record MANY examples of more species in history than are found today.

The character from Brave Heart in prior post was Stephen ~ not aware of any last name provided.


484 posted on 03/08/2012 7:29:52 PM PST by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 482 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Indeed. Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!
485 posted on 03/08/2012 9:05:22 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 475 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS
I join with you in wishing success to all our fellow Creationists though we may not yet have a consensus understanding of the issues involved - for ultimately, as you say, such thoughts are "secondary to the knowledge of the salvation of Christ and of God’s love (and that He is The Creator)"

Praise God!!!

Thank you for sharing your insights, dear YHAOS!

486 posted on 03/08/2012 9:08:51 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 479 | View Replies]

To: mitch5501
I suppose that if we could comprehend much more than we do,our heads might explode.At the very least we would be running around as though our hair was on fire.Which,incidently,I expect quite a few of us might well be doing soon should these times turn out to be 'the' time!

So very true. Thank you for sharing your insights, dear mitch5501!

487 posted on 03/08/2012 9:10:31 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 480 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
Thank you for sharing your insights, dear BrandtMichaels, and thank you for the links!
488 posted on 03/08/2012 9:12:04 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 482 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; exDemMom; betty boop; mitch5501; BrandtMichaels; wagglebee; YHAOS; metmom

Alamo-Girl to exDemMom: Perhaps you have misjudged your correspondents on this thread?

Spirited: It is not so much a case of misjudging as it is of a freely made choice to accept one set of conceptions (i.e., Godless evolutionism, something from nothing) rather than another, special creation ex nihil-—God IS.

Tragically, America increasingly resembles the now dead Marxist Communist Soviet Union.

Though Marxist Communism billed itself as scientific and of course evolutionary it was in fact attempting to “scientifically” annihilate the Christian conception of man made in the spiritual image of the Triune God and replace that with a Buddhist conception of a collective unconscious, a quiet type of pantheism.

Central to this attempt is absolute mind control. This being the case, scientifically-engineered New Soviet Man is no longer an individual soul/spirit with a mind of its’ own but rather a part of the collective unconscious for whom the Party (Orwell’s Big Brother) is the One-Mind.

Natan Sharansky, a dissident in the former Marxist-Communist Soviet Union refused to “lose” his individual soul/spirit and was as a result accused of non-conformist thought. Sharansky describes the Soviet Union as a spiritual tyranny where,

“there were no dissidents (because) they were simply killed immediately.”

As a result of psychological and physical terror-tactics-—inversion of meaning, propaganda of the lie, re-education, hate crime laws, speech codes, and other mind-control tactics, everyone became double thinkers.

To outside observers notes Sharansky, double thinkers appear as true believers:

“everybody says the same thing, everybody votes the same way, everybody speaks with passion.”

But it is an illusion caused by fear of speaking the truth. These people, he noted,

“live with self-censorship throughout their lives. Since the regime demands loyalty right from childhood, many don’t even notice. They just automatically control how they express themselves.”

But when a “fear society disappears or becomes weak, people suddenly start saying what they feel,” Sharansky commented, and “It’s such a big relief.”

To determine if a society is fear-based, Sharansky applies what he defines as the “town square test.” In this test, if you,

“can go to the center of town (i.e.,Free Republic) and publicly express your views without being punished (by FR’s thought-police), you have a free society” even though that society may not be just.

However, if you are “punished for your views you live in a fear society,”said Sharansky.

“In such societies there are always three types of population:

True believers, who accept the ideology...dissidents, who take risks to speak publicly; and double thinkers, who have doubts or disagreements about the official ideology but are afraid to express them publicly.”

In conclusion, Sharansky notes that the level “of dissidence is always a function of how tough the regime is.” (The Power of Freedom, published in The American Enterprise, Apr/May 2005, pp. 38-39)

Measured by Sharanskys’ town-square test we can see that America has been descending into a fear-based society for over eighty years. Already we can see the three types of population.

1. Those “who take risks to speak publicly” exemplified by Free Republics ‘truth warriors”

2. those “who have doubts or disagreements about the ideology but are afraid to express them publicly.”

3. true-believers who serve as “gate-keepers” and/or thought police. It is their job to publicly shame, rebuke, and ridicule all who dare to speak truth to lies.

In this light we can see all three types right here in FR.

There is one other group of people-—Big Brother, also known as the West’s Progressive ‘elites.’ The real evil comes from within this group.

simultaneously replaced by green-progressive totalitarianism, the three types of population described by Sharansky come into focus. In general, Progressive Liberals are the true believers. Rabid zealots, brazen liars, rebels against all authority, they freely destroy, transgress, scoff, demean, blaspheme, demonize, and otherwise psychologically terrorize the large body of fearful double thinkers.


489 posted on 03/09/2012 2:33:56 AM PST by spirited irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 467 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
exDemMom, Karl Popper is notorious for his observation (paraphrased) that the more a theory withstands attempts at falsifying it, the more confident we can be in the theory - and conversely, theories which cannot be falsified are not trustworthy. In today's lingo, we would call such theories "just so" stories.

I know I already responded to this post, but I have been thinking about why this particular person, who is relatively unknown among scientists, should have such importance to literal creationists. (I can't say he is completely unknown; he may have been mentioned, but he certainly does not have the importance of, e.g., Robert Koch.)

I think the reasoning behind elevating his importance must go something like this:

  1. Popper stated that all theories must withstand attempts at falsification.
  2. The Theory of Evolution has never been falsified.
  3. The Theory of Evolution cannot possibly be true (according to the literal creationist).
  4. Therefore, no one has ever tried to falsify it.

Of course, that kind of reasoning is extremely circular. It serves the purpose of trying to convince people who do not know or understand the scientific method that life scientists avoid using the scientific method. Of course, that is not true. We most certainly use the scientific method. It is because of countless attempts at falsification over the last ~170 years that the theory has been revised multiple times: revisiting and refining ideas is what science is all about.

490 posted on 03/09/2012 3:18:25 AM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 453 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom; Alamo-Girl
I think the reasoning behind elevating his importance must go something like this:

Popper stated that all theories must withstand attempts at falsification. The Theory of Evolution has never been falsified. The Theory of Evolution cannot possibly be true (according to the literal creationist). Therefore, no one has ever tried to falsify it.

Of course, that kind of reasoning is extremely circular.


Please, actually read Popper, not paraphrases of folks who purport to have read him.

who is relatively unknown among scientists

It's always a mistake to assume one's own ignorance to be characteristic of others in one's own profession.
Karl Popper is generally regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century. He was also a social and political philosopher of considerable stature, a self-professed ‘critical-rationalist’, a dedicated opponent of all forms of scepticism, conventionalism, and relativism in science and in human affairs generally, a committed advocate and staunch defender of the ‘Open Society’, and an implacable critic of totalitarianism in all of its forms. One of the many remarkable features of Popper's thought is the scope of his intellectual influence. In the modern technological and highly-specialised world scientists are rarely aware of the work of philosophers; it is virtually unprecedented to find them queuing up, as they have done in Popper's case, to testify to the enormously practical beneficial impact which that philosophical work has had upon their own.
So much for his being "relatively unknown among scientists."
491 posted on 03/09/2012 3:50:23 AM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 490 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish
Very informative and engaging! Thank you for sharing your insights, dear spirited irish!
492 posted on 03/09/2012 8:07:08 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 489 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
Thank you so much for that outstanding excerpt and for sharing your insights, dear aruanan!


493 posted on 03/09/2012 8:09:31 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 491 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom; spirited irish; aruanan; betty boop; mitch5501; BrandtMichaels; wagglebee; YHAOS; ...
Your logic is flawed - you start with the false statement: "Popper stated that all theories must withstand attempts at falsification."

Again, to paraphrase, he said that the more a theory survives attempts to falsify it, the more confident we can be in the theory. We cannot be confident in theories which cannot be falsified.

In my view, so-called "theories" in the historical sciences - e.g. evolution biology, archeology, anthropology, Egyptology - are more akin to paradigms. Or if you prefer a blueprint into which new evidence is fit.

But unlike the hard sciences (e.g. physics) where falsification of the theory causes the theory to be discarded - if the evidence will not fit the historical science paradigm, then it is explained away with a "just-so" amendment to the story.

betty boop has mentioned the Cambrian explosion not fitting the evolution theory of gradual change over time. The response was the "punctuated equilibrium" amendment - a "just so" story.

More examples of things that do not fit the paradigm:

Dr. Schroeder points to the thirty plus body plans that seemingly appeared out of nowhere in the Cambrian explosion - and despite subsequent near complete extinctions - no new body plans arose in the fossil record.

Amoeba, for instance, do not die of old age - so what is the selection advantage to programmed cell death? Likewise, there is a temporal non-locality of cells achieving maintenance and repair before the need.

All of this without even mentioning the impossibility of the information content (DNA) arising by unguided natural phenomena. Crick, after all, did not embrace panspermia (alien seeding) without cause. Ditto for Dawkins.

And then there is the rise of autonomy, syntax and semiosis and more. Jeepers, even the question "what is life v. non-life/death in nature" - which is vital to the hard sciences asked to explain the rise of complexity in biological systems - is of almost no interest at all in the historical sciences.

Truly, the difference between the disciplines - hard sciences v historical sciences - cannot be easily reconciled:

The Physics of Symbols

Many biologists consider physical laws, artificial life, robotics, and even theoretical biology as largely irrelevant for their research. In the 1970s, a prominent molecular geneticist asked me, "Why do we need theory when we have all the facts?" At the time I dismissed the question as silly, as most physicists would. However, it is not as silly as the converse question, Why do we need facts when we have all the theories? These are actually interesting philosophical questions that show why trying to relate biology to physics is seldom of interest to biologists, even though it is of great interest to physicists. Questioning the importance of theory sounds eccentric to physicists for whom general theories is what physics is all about. Consequently, physicists, like the skeptics I mentioned above, are concerned when they learn facts of life that their theories do not appear capable of addressing. On the other hand, biologists, when they have the facts, need not worry about physical theories that neither address nor alter their facts. Ernst Mayr (1997) believes this difference is severe enough to separate physical and biological models: "Yes, biology is, like physics and chemistry, a science. But biology is not a science like physics and chemistry; it is rather an autonomous science on a par with the equally autonomous physical sciences."

There are fundamental reasons why physics and biology require different levels of models, the most obvious one is that physical theory is described by rate-dependent dynamical laws that have no memory, while evolution depends, at least to some degree, on control of dynamics by rate-independent memory structures. A less obvious reason is that Pearson's "corpuscles" are now described by quantum theory while biological subjects require classical description in so far as they function as observers. This fact remains a fundamental problem for interpreting quantum measurement, and as I mention below, this may still turn out to be essential in distinguishing real life from macroscopic classical simulacra. I agree with Mayr that physics and biology require different models, but I do not agree that they are autonomous models. Physical systems require many levels of models, some formally irreducible to one another, but we must still understand how the levels are related. Evolution also produces hierarchies of organization from cells to societies, each level requiring different models, but the higher levels of the hierarchy must have emerged from lower levels. Life must have emerged from the physical world. This emergence must be understood if our knowledge is not to degenerate (more than it has already) into a collection of disjoint specialized disciplines.

Yet Pattee's warning of disjointed specialized disciplines is what we see to this very day.

The big thinkers come from theology, philosophy, physics and mathematics - they do not arise from the historical sciences.

In my view, when the Theory of Evolution falls - it will not be because of Biologists - and it will not be because of Creationists, Philosophers and Theologians - it will fall because of the Mathematicians and Physicists who were invited by the Biologists to their table.

The hard sciences do not bow to paradigms.

494 posted on 03/09/2012 8:53:35 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 490 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; exDemMom; GourmetDan; spirited irish; aruanan; mitch5501; BrandtMichaels; wagglebee; ...
... there is a temporal non-locality of cells achieving maintenance and repair before the need.... All of this without even mentioning the impossibility of the information content (DNA) arising by unguided natural phenomena. Crick, after all, did not embrace panspermia (alien seeding) without cause. Ditto for Dawkins.... And then there is the rise of autonomy, syntax and semiosis and more. Jeepers, even the question "what is life v. non-life/death in nature" — which is vital to the hard sciences asked to explain the rise of complexity in biological systems — is of almost no interest at all in the historical sciences.

These remarks deserve deep consideration, dearest sister in Christ!

It seems exDemMom rephrased Popper's statement, quote: "Popper stated that all theories must withstand attempts at falsification," when he didn't say that at all. What he said (in effect) was: "keep on trying to falsify your theories; the more they can survive falsification tests, the more confidence we can have that our theories are correct, thus reliable."

This is precisely what the historical sciences, most notably including Darwinist theory, refuse to do. They don't try to falsify their theory. Rather, they select evidence on the basis of what can validate their theory and ignore all the rest — anything to uphold the "just-so story," even though it is increasingly difficult to do that.

You gave Stephen Jay Gould's punctuated equilibrium theory as an example of an attempt to circumvent what the fossil record shows (or rather doesn't show). Gould was evidently well aware that contemporary paleontologists were not so much discovering evidence of evolutionary "change" as evidence of stasislack of change in species over vast periods of time. (So much for Darwinian "gradualism.")

No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change over millions of years, at a rate too slow to really account for the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. — Niles Eldredge, Reinventing Darwin: The Great Evolutionary Debate, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1996

Yet as Gould explained:

Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome... brings terrible distress.... They may get a little bigger or bumpier. But they remain the same species and that's not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as "no data." If they don't change, it's not evolution so you don't talk about it. — Stephen Jay Gould, Lecture at Hobart and William Smith College, 1980

And that takes care of that!

Dearest sister in Christ, you mentioned "a temporal nonlocality of cells achieving maintenance and repair before the need." Which smacks of a non-local final cause at work. Of course, all consideration of "final cause" has been banished from science ever since Sir Francis Bacon first propounded the Scientific Method.... Final causes always speak to purposes and goals that the other three causes (formal, material, efficient) "serve."

Though systematically "banished" from science, I do not know how it is possible to explain biological function without respect to the purpose the function serves. And this would be a final cause.

Thank you ever so much, dearest sister in Christ, for your superb, fascinating essay/post! And thank you for the link to Pattee — his observations are well worth our deep consideration.

495 posted on 03/09/2012 10:36:56 AM PST by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 494 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom; Alamo-Girl
I have been thinking about why this particular person, who is relatively unknown among scientists . . .

“Relatively unknown? Really?!

Your declaration strains credulity.

Sir Karl Popper (1902 – 1994), an implacable critic of totalitarianism, is one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century, and also a social and political philosopher of considerable stature. He was a famed and dedicated opponent of all forms of scepticism, conventionalism, and relativism in science and in human affairs generally, and unprecedented in the scope of his intellectual influence among both Scientists and Philosophers.

You can find words to this effect (and many more) in any reputable encyclopedia of philosophy (such as The Oxford Companion to Philosophy ).

I think the reasoning behind elevating his importance must go something like this:

I think you need to regear your thinking.

496 posted on 03/09/2012 6:16:16 PM PST by YHAOS (you betcha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 490 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Whoops! Sorry, dear betty. Didn't mean to step on your lines.

( ^8 }

497 posted on 03/09/2012 6:20:21 PM PST by YHAOS (you betcha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 495 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
Whoops! aruanan looks like I stepped on your lines too.

sorry

498 posted on 03/09/2012 6:26:03 PM PST by YHAOS (you betcha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 491 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish; Alamo-Girl; exDemMom; betty boop; mitch5501; BrandtMichaels; wagglebee; metmom
Tragically, America increasingly resembles the now dead Marxist Communist Soviet Union.

Well said, Spirited.

And, of course, central to this “absolute mind control” you mention is what passes as “education” in Western Civilization.

I would prefer that government, particularly federal government, have nothing to do with education. I would prefer to ban governmental authority from asserting any control over the minds of the people. I do not trust government to discern (intellectually) the true from the false. I do not trust government to honestly report what is true and what is false, in the unlikely event it does stumble over them in the dark. This has always been true, and it is doubly true with respect to the “One-Mind” indoctrination you describe.

We are discussing, among other things, state control of science education at the elementary and secondary level. In a representative republic, you don’t get a categorical edict from the appropriate governing board or commission; so a representative republic must be done away with, and be replaced with a Socialist/Progressive regime. Welcome to the new USSSA . . . comrade.

But, if it seems the only way to resolve what we believe to be a critically important interest in the teaching of science is to violate a critically important fundamental principle of representative government, then that sort of circumstance ought to impress us with the serious need for a reappraisal of our understanding of the relationship between government and education, or to surrender to the local ruling Progressive Commissar.

Our universities have become cesspools of Socialist/Marxist thought control and I don’t see any groundswell of resistance coming from the ‘Science Community.’

Yet, many a Darwinian Imam would claim that the right of conscience says exactly nothing about where we should look to find intermediate fossils, or to know which animals offer good prospects for the development of drugs and vaccines. Nor does it bring us any insights on antibiotic resistance or the practical applications of DNA sequencing. Likewise, the same criticism is directed against the idea of government by the consent of the governed and many another liberal concept of Eighteenth Century Enlightenment. These ideas, they (many of our scientist friends) say, are mere useless, nay even harmful, philosophical concepts, and so inferior therefore as to be unworthy of contemplation at all.

Why should we not, in many instances, believe that our Scientist friends are “hopeless dogmatists of some forlorn doctrine seeking to evict all non-phenomenal or spiritual reality from human cognizance altogether”?

Whenever they are overcome by a momentary seizure of candor, are we not regaled with thinly veiled threats of jail or the removal of our children from their homes for abuse? Or, failing that, a threat to deny our children the benefits of a higher education unless we unreservedly embrace Darwinism and eschew all Christian beliefs that might be construed as contrary to the Theory of Evolution?

Despite the multitude of blessings that The Enlightenment has reigned down upon their heads, many of our science friends still have not come to appreciate that you cannot have freedom of inquiry without freedom of conscience (I’ve said it before . . . expect the likelihood that I’ll say it again).

We have witnessed people in this forum suggest that raising a child in a Christian home is a form of child abuse, and threaten the removal of the child from its home as a reasonable protective action (if, of course, all opposition to secular Darwinian philosophy does not cease immediately). In Pop Cult, witness the estimable Dawkins say the same thing.

Similarly, we have witnessed people in this forum declare that homeschoolers should just flatly, with or without benefit of an entrance exam, be denied entrée to any accredited college or university.

Likewise, it has been proposed that the states regulate homeschooling entirely out of existence.

In the meantime, we find ourselves subjected to the usual sensitivity malarkey, the standard Marxist/Socialist bromides, maladroit history studies, the ubiquitous PC bravo sierra, and always (ALWAYS) in the name of diversity we must all think alike. If all else fails, check your nearest university, and, increasingly a public school near you.

Indeed, one poster on this forum (since departed from same), well known to many of us, went so far as to declare himself one who is not a friend of academic freedom (and he, I think, is not alone in this sentiment). This is an astounding declaration to come from an adherent of a discipline so completely dependent on the right of free inquiry for its viability and its integrity, and on Western Civilization for its very continued existence.

Yet, when one raises these issues, the response is at once the familiar sound of crickets. Our friends who count themselves as among those who are Darwinian Mullahs wish only to argue philosophy and religion under the colour of science in an effort to inoculate themselves from rebuttal.

Everyone knows it is Stalinist Progressives, not Christians, who infest the campi of our universities like maggots on a carcass, and who have seized control of research funding. Everyone knows that it is these same Progressives who represent the totalitarian thinking we hear endlessly from the cultural cesspool that Western Civilization has become, and that is meant to destroy the freedom of inquiry so painfully erected by Western Civilization these past two thousand years. And, finally, everyone knows that this savagery has now spread into our general popular and political culture and that we stand but one or two elections away from complete socialist subjugation.

In the meantime, our erstwhile friends, these same Darwinian Mullahs, stand mute.

More than once, I have stated that I would be very glad to know that I am mistaken in my assessment, and to receive directions where I may go to join in the desperate struggle to reclaim Western culture from Marxist/Socialist savages, but I think no such place exists and that there is no such desperate struggle, other than among Conservatives and Christians.

I have received, sadly, no invitation in response.

499 posted on 03/09/2012 7:21:13 PM PST by YHAOS (you betcha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 489 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS; Alamo-Girl; betty boop; BrandtMichaels; wagglebee; metmom; exDemMom

YHAOS: We are discussing, among other things, state control of science education at the elementary and secondary level

Spirited: The central concern of mind-control is control of conscience. This is due to the fact that all law-—including ‘He made them man and woman’— is grounded in transcendent morality originating with either the gods, as was the case with the ancients or with the supernatural living God.

Transcendent morality is of the spirit, either of the naturalistic gods as the pagans thought or of the supernatural Spirit of God. And man’s conscience is of his soul/spirit, meaning it is neither a movement of chemicals nor neurological predispositions as Gnostic antitheists teach.

Marxist Communists were both Gnostic Manicheans and positivists, which means that science and by extension naturalism (which excludes the supernatural) is the only source of knowledge. The Soviet Union thus represents an attempt by Gnostic positivist antitheists to efface the image and voice of God from man and his conscience.

But can man who is without doubt both Dr. Jekyl and evil Mister Hyde take hold of such enormous power (Tolkien’s One Ring) without falling into great evil? The witness of the Soviet Union where from 60,000,000-100,000,000 men, women, and children were liquidated literally screams “no!”

As you pointed out, the secular state controls science education, meaning that just as was the case in the Soviet Union, science “is the only source of knowledge” and the only people capable of “knowing” and/or correctly interpreting “knowledge” are Gnostic adepts occupying positions of power and influence throughout our culture, meaning from Hollywood to academia, the White House, Congress, Supreme Court, etc.

Knowledge is power. And as a wise man once noted, power corrupts but absolute power corrupts absolutely. The “One Ring” fell into the eagerly outstretched hands of Marxists with the result of incomprehensible evil. No less than that will happen here if and when absolute power falls into the outstretched hands of our own Gnostic “elitists.”


500 posted on 03/10/2012 3:28:13 AM PST by spirited irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 499 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 401-450451-500501-550 ... 651-669 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson