Man Under Materialism

Reply Sat 21 Sep, 2013 05:46 am


Of all the lies that are told about advocates of intelligent design, the one that has had the most success in diverting the debate on life's origins holds that ID is simply about contesting the age of the earth in favor of Scriptural literalism. See, for example, Kevin D. Williamson's grossly ill-informed, not to mention bigoted, diatribe at National Review Online the other day.

Not only is ID not about that, it actually is about issues that are far more profound -- and relevant to NRO's readers, you would think.

Like what issues? Well, Discovery Institute's Stephen Meyer had a rich and fruitful discussion with Michael Medved on the radio yesterday. The topic under examination was the picture of a human being assumed by our country's system of limited, Constitutional government -- and the very different, indeed profoundly alien picture of a human being under materialist assumptions.

I thought it would be helpful to list briefly the key points as Meyer conveyed them. The Constitution assumes:

  • Free will, hence the capacity for self-governance.
  • Moral responsibility hence accountability under the law.
  • Intrinsic dignity of the human being, hence inalienable human rights.
  • Unchanging moral principles and a stable human nature, making possible a stable system of Constitutional law.

In contrast, under the materialistic picture of reality pervasive in our culture, you get this:

  • Not free will, but determinism.
  • Since moral ideas evolve and are instinctive rather than a matter of choice, moral responsibility and accountability are undermined.
  • No conception of a design or purpose behind life, therefore the erosion of the concepts of human dignity and inalienable rights.
  • Since human nature evolves and moral law evolves, the supreme law governing our political system is also infinitely malleable.

The clash of these conceptions of man and morality raises the question of whether the American system can survive the triumphant dissemination of Darwinian materialism -- that is, if the way of thinking about human nature that gave rise to that system in the first place has been widely rejected.

- See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/09/the_idea_of_man076781.html#sthash.gGb3Ja5L.dpuf
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 3 • Views: 9,431 • Replies: 71
No top replies

Reply Sat 21 Sep, 2013 08:30 pm
how a basically strait forward explanation of how life developed in biological and biochemical terms has somehow been appended with an expanded list of insane propositions that , if they wouldn't be so damned annoying, theyd be laughable.

When "Scientific Creationism" crashed and burned under the direction of the US Supreme Court decision of Edwards v Aguillard, The Modern Intelligent Design Movement was founded and developed by one person, a lawyer who spent time in trying to propose Lawyerly arguments against the mature science of biological evolution and its sub disciplines. This individual, one Phillip Johnson, was taken up and made a chairperson of the quickly and deeply funded "Discovery Institute" with its cler goal and mission to base all biological science upon Biblical "Truths"

You cannot deny that because there is a deep set of tracks that follow the history and mission statements of the DI. They can deny it all they wish, but, as you've often said gunga(of course I paraphrase) ,", If you didn't wanna be quoted you shoulda kept your damned mouth shut in the first place".

0 Replies
Reply Sat 21 Sep, 2013 08:32 pm
PS, is the Discovery Institute ever published any real science or is it still just a shill for the Ahmanson family.

When a
scientific organization" is founded with a single mission in mind, that being the destruction of the natural sciences like biology, geology, geochronometry, and molecular biology, then its not really a science invested in dispassionate investigations. Its a thumping tub for religious Fundamentalism.

0 Replies
Reply Sat 21 Sep, 2013 09:04 pm
You should go look at his source, the self-described "Evolution News." It's pretty damned funny. It's basically a source for ID bullshit.
Reply Sat 21 Sep, 2013 11:17 pm
I did. When I saw the crap by Steve Meters posing as a scientist whose works are reviewed by those reputable scientists, I wondered how badly their "quotes" were mined out of context.

Meyers worked as an exploration "geophysicist" in the 90's. He was a field geophysicist of a type we call "juggies" (after the picke em up and put em down methods of deploying seismic recorders called geophones or "Jugs"). He was never a big deal asa geophysicist , although he would have us want to believe that. Meyers went on and got his Phd in philosophy pf science, not a hard science as his books make us believe.
His writing is full of half trutchs and omissions of facts and evidence. His views and his "birth" as an IDer came as a result of doing a philosophical based defence of Philip Johnsons book "Darwin in Trial".
He did the apologia based on Gould's scathing review of Johnson's book. Gould;s comments were sort-of the same types that weve said herein,(and I paraphrase cause I don't have interest enough to revisit the exact review by SJ Gould.)
"Id normally dismiss this type of pseudo=science as unworthy of rebuttal were it not for the fact that some public schools are now considering adopting much of Johnsons (Impolite word ) within their biology curriculum"...(Gould wrote this in 1992 ,after Edwards but before Dover)
0 Replies
Reply Sun 22 Sep, 2013 04:01 am

Newt Gingrich once stated the problem of evolutionism and morality about as succinctly as is possible in noting that the question of whether a man views his neighbor as a fellow child of God or as a meat byproduct of random processes simply has to affect human relationships.

Basically, every halfway honest person with any brains and talent who has taken any sort of a hard look at evolution in the past 60 years has given up on it and many have denounced it. A listing of fifty or sixty such statements makes for an overwhelming indictment of that part of the scientific community which goes on trying to defend evolution and they (the evolosers) have a favorite term ("quote mining") which they use to describe that sort of argument.

My own response to that is to note what I view as the ultimate evolution quote by the noted evolutionist (actually, FORMER evolutionist) Jeffrey Dahmer:


"If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…"

Jeffrey Dahmer, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, Nov. 29, 1994.

Dahmer converted to Christianity before he died. The basic tenets of true religion appear to be inprinted upon most of us biologically which is the only reason that Islammic societies and "secular humanist" societies like Britain and Canada function at all. A psychopath like Dahmer is basically somebody on whom that imprint did not take. For those guys, it has to be written down somewhere, and it has to be written down accurately; the bible does that. Telling somebody like Dahmer that we all evolved from "lucky dust" is a formula for getting people killed.

Evolution was the basic philosophical cornerstone of communism, naziism, the various eugenics programs, the out of control arms races which led to WW-I and WW-II, and all of the grief of the last 150 years. Starting from 1913, Europe had gone for a hundred years without a major war. They didn't even have to think. All they needed to do was act cool, go to church, have parades, formal balls, attend board meetings, and they'd still be running the world today; they'd be so fat and happy they'd not know what to do with themselves. Instead, they all got to reading about Darwinism, fang and claw, survival of the fittest and all the rest of that nonsense, and the rest as they say is history.

The most interesting analysis of that sad tale is probably Sir Arthur Keith's "Evolution and Ethics"

Keith apparently viewed belief in evolution as some sort of duty of the English educated classes, nonetheless he had a very clear vision of the problems inherent in it and laid it out in no uncertain terms:

From Sir Srthur Keith's "Evolution and Ethics:

Chapter 3

The Behavior of Germany Considered from an Evolutionary Point of View in 1942

VISITORS TO GERMANY IN 1934 FOUND AN emotional storm sweeping through masses of the people, particularly the more educated. The movement had much in common with a religious revival. The preacher in this case was Adolf Hitler; his doctrine was, and is, tribalism; he had stirred in the emotional depths of the German people those long-dormant tribal feelings which find release and relief in mutual service; men and women who had been leading selfish lives or were drifting aimlessly were given a new purpose in life: service to their country the Third Reich. It is worth noting that Hitler uses a double designation for his tribal doctrine National Socialism: Socialism standing for the good side of the tribal spirit (that which works within the Reich); aud Nationalism for the ethically vicious part, which dominates policy at and outside the German frontiers.

The leader of Germany is an evolutionist not only in theory, but, as millions know to their cost, in the rigor of its practice. For him the national "front" of Europe is also the evolutionary "front"; he regards himself, and is regarded, as the incarnation of the will of Germany, the purpose of that will being to guide the evolutionary destiny of its people. He has brought into


modern life the tribal and evolutionary mentality of prehistoric times. Hitler has confronted the statesmen of the world with an evolutionary problem of an unprecedented magnitude. What is the world to do with a united aggressive tribe numbering eighty millions!

We must not lose sight of the purpose of our visit to Germany; it was to see how far modern evolutionary practice can provide us with a scientific basis for ethical or moral behavior. As a source of information concerning Hitler's evolutionary and ethical doctrines I have before me Mein Kampf, extracts from The Times covering German affairs during the last twenty years, and the monthly journal R.F.C. (Racio Political Foreign Correspondenee), published by the German Bureau for Human Betterment and Eugenics and circulated by that bureau for the enlightenment of anthropologists living abroad. In the number of that journal for July 1937, there appears in English the text of a speech given by the German Fuhrer on January 30, 1937, in reply to a statement made by Mr. Anthony Eden that "the German race theory" stood in the way of a common discussion of European problems. Hitler maintained his theory would have an opposite effect; "it will bring about a real understanding for the first time." "It is not for men," said the Fuhrer, "to discuss the question of why Providence created different races, but rather to recognize that it punishes those who disregard its work of creation." I may remark incidentally that in this passage, as in many others, the German Fuhrer, like Bishop Barnes and many of our more intellectual clergy, regards evolution as God's mode of creation. God having created races, it is therefore "the noblest and most sacred duty for each racial species of mankind to preserve the purity of the blood which God has given it." Here we have expounded the perfectly sound doctrine of evolutionary isolation; even as an ethical doctrine it should not be condemned. No German must be guilty of the "greatest racial sin" that of bringing the fruits of hybridity into the world. The reproductive "genes" which circulate within the frontiers of Germany must be kept uncontaminated, so that they may work out the racial destiny of the German people without impediment. Hitler is also a eugenist. Germans who suffer from


hereditable imperfections of mind or of body must be rendered infertile, so that "the strong may not be plagued by the weak." Sir Francis Galton, the founder of eugenics, taught a somewhat similar evolutionary doctrine namely, that if our nation was to prosper we must give encouragement to the strong rather than to the weak; a saving which may be justified by evolution, but not by ethics as recognized and practiced by civilized peoples. The liberties of German women are to be sacrificed; they must devote their activities to their households, especially to the sacred duty of raising succeeding generations. The birth rate was stimulated by bounties and subsidies so that the German tribe might grow in numbers and in strength. In all these matters the Nazi doctrine is evolutionist.

Hitler has sought on every occasion and in every way to heighten the national consciousness of the German people or, what is the same thing, to make them racially conscious; to give them unity of spirit and unity of purpose. Neighborly approaches of adjacent nations are and were repelled; the German people were deliberately isolated. Cosmopolitanism, liberality of opinion, affectation of foreign manners and dress were unsparingly condemned. The old tribal bonds (love of the Fatherland, feeling of mutual kinship), the bonds of "soil and blood," became "the main plank in the National Social program." "Germany was for the Germans" was another plank. Foreign policy was "good or bad according to its beneficial or harmful effects on the German folk now or hereafter." "Charity and humility are only for home consumption" a statement in which Hitler gives an exact expression of the law which limits sympathy to its tribe. "Humanitarianism is an evil . . . a creeping poison." "The most cruel methods are humane if they give a speedy victory" is Hitler's echo of a maxim attributed to Moltke. Such are the ways of evolution when applied to human affairs.

I have said nothing about the methods employed by the Nazi leaders to secure tribal unity in Germany methods of brutal compulsion, bloody force, and the concentration camp. Such methods cannot be brought within even a Machiavellian system of ethics, and yet may be justified by their evolutionary result.


Even in that result we may harbor a doubt: can unity obtained by such methods be relied on to endure?

There are other aspects of Nazi policy which raise points which may be legitimate subjects of ethical debate. In recent years British men of science have debated this ethical problem: an important discovery having been made a new poison gas, for example is it not the duty of the discoverer to suppress it if there is a possibility of its being used for an evil purpose? My personal conviction is that science is concerned wholly with truth, not with ethics. A man of science is responsible for the accuracy of his observations and of his inferences, not for the results which may follow therefrom. Under no circumstances should the truth be suppressed; yet suppression and distortion of the truth is a deliberate part of Nazi policy. Every anthropologist in Germany, be he German or Jew, was and is silenced in Nazi Germany unless the Hitlerian racial doctrine is accepted without any reservation whatsoever. Authors, artists, preachers, and editors are undone if they stray beyond the limits of the National Socialist tether. Individual liberty of thought and of its expression is completely suppressed. An effective tribal unity is thus attained at the expense of truth. And yet has not the Church in past times persecuted science just in this Hitlerian way? There was a time, and not so long ago, when it was dangerous for a biologist to harbor a thought that clashed in any way with the Mosaic theory of creation.

No aspect of Hitler's policy proclaims the antagonism between evolution and ethics so forcibly as his treatment of the Jewish people in Germany. So strong are the feelings roused that it is difficult for even science to approach the issues so raised with an unclouded judgment. Ethically the Hitlerian treatment of the Jews stands condemned out of hand. Hitler is cruel, but I do not think that his policy can be explained by attributing it to a mere satisfaction of a lust, or to a search for a scapegoat on which Germany can wreak her wrath for the ills which followed her defeat of 1918. The Church in Spain subjected the Jews to the cruelty of the Inquisition, but no one ever sought to explain the Church's behavior by suggesting that she had a


lust for cruelty which had to be satisfied. The Church adopted the Inquisition as a policy; it was a means of securing unity of mind in her flock. Hitler is an uncompromising evolutionist, and we must seek for an evolutionary explanation if we are to understand his actions. When the Huguenots fled to Germany they mingled their "genes" with those of their host and disappeared as an entity. The Jews are made of other stuff: for two thousand years, living amid European communities, they have maintained their identity; it is an article of their creed, as it is of Hitler's, to breed true. They, too, practice an evolutionary doctrine. Is it possible for two peoples living within the same frontiers, dwelling side by side, to work out harmoniously their separate evolutionary destinies? Apparently Hitler believes this to be impossible; we in Britain and in America believe it to be not only possible, but also profitable.

It must not be thought that in seeking to explain Hitler's actions I am seeking to justify them. The opposite is the case. I have made this brief survey of public policy in modern Germany with a definite object: to show that Dr. Waddington is in error when he seeks to place ethics on a scientific basis by a knowledge of evolutionary tendencies and practice.

Chapter 4

Human Life: Its Purpose or Ultimate End

IN THE COURSE OF GATHERING INFORMATION concerning man's morality and the part it has played and is playing in his evolution, I found it necessary to provide space for slips which were labeled "Life: Its Ultimate and Proximate Purposes." Only those who have devoted some special attention to this matter are aware of the multitude of reasons given for the appearance of man on earth. Here I shall touch on only a few of them; to deal with all would require a big book. The reader may exclaim: Why deal with any of them! What has ultimate purpose got to do with ethics and evolution! Let a man with a clearer head and a nimbler pen than mine reply. He is Edward Carpenter, who wrote Civilization: Its Cause and Cure (1889).


It is from the sixteenth edition (1923) I am to quote, p. 249:

If we have decided what the final purpose or Life of Man is, then we may say that what is good for that purpose is finally "good" and what is bad for that purpose is finally "evil."

If the final purpose of our existence is that which has been and is being worked out under the discipline of evolutionary law, then, although we are quite unconscious of the end result, we ought, as Dr. Waddington has urged, to help on "that which tends to promote the ultimate course of evolution." If we do so, then we have to abandon the hope of ever attaining a universal system of ethics; for, as we have just seen, the ways of national evolution, both in the past and in the present, are cruel, brutal, ruthless, and without mercy. Dr. Waddington has not grasped the implications of Nature's method of evolution, for in his summing up (Nature, 1941, 150, p. 535) he writes "that the ethical principles formulated by Christ . . . are those which have tended towards the further evolution of mankind, and that they will continue to do so." Here a question of the highest interest is raised: the relationship which exists between evolution and Christianity; so important, it seems to me, that I shall devote to it a separate chapter. Meantime let me say that the conclusion I have come to is this: the law of Christ is incompatible with the law of evolution as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed. Clearly the form of evolution which Dr. Waddington has in mind is not that which has hitherto prevailed; what he has in mind is a man made system of evolution. In brief, instead of seeking ethical guidance from evolution, he now proposes to impose a system of ethics on evolution and so bring humanity ultimately to a safe and final anchorage in a Christian haven.

Reply Sun 22 Sep, 2013 05:01 am
First off, the truth of the way nature works (evolution in this case) isn't affected even slightly by the moral trappings some people choose to wrap it in. Evolution is simply a part of natural biology, the incontrovertible evidence for it fossilized into rocks and recorded in DNA for all open minds to see.

Secondly, if people can't find ways to behave in morally and socially acceptable manners then the problem is in the people, not in nature.

Lastly, if you need an imaginary supernatural father figure to make you do what you know is morally right, then go ahead and believe that. Just recognize that your delusion is no better than any of the other million delusions on the planet, and that none of it has anything to do with the validity of evolution (or nature in general) which operates entirely above and beyond all human failings.
Reply Sun 22 Sep, 2013 05:14 am
A listing of fifty or sixty such statements makes for an overwhelming indictment of that part of the scientific community which goes on trying to defend evolution and they (the evolosers) have a favorite term ("quote mining") which they use to describe that sort of argument.

"Yhats because the very quotes that the Cretinists take from scientists are usually doctored, or are merely argument introductory phrases where a topic is introduced as a negative phrase.
An interesting thing was that, THESE same 50 "mined" quotes were followed up by NCSE folks and the very scientists who were quoted by the Cretinists, had not spoken the exact words that were attributed to them.

That's the dishonesty of quote mining, its inaccurate quotes, made with fraudulent claims, by dishonest people .


Basically, every halfway honest person with any brains and talent who has taken any sort of a hard look at evolution in the past 60 years has given up on it and many have denounced it
. Its a series of interlocking scientific disciplines that command the work in evolutionary discoveries. As far as I know, there is no credible piece of real evidence to refute it. (These frequent harangues from gungasnake notwithstanding, but as one can see, there not a jot of credible evidence that gunga can put his finger on) He tries to cover that fact by engaging in silly shock statements about science and engaging in "quote mining " gems that he selects from the religious based literature and pamphlets of the Discovery Institute and the Institute for Creation Research.
(I always get a kick from a group of people who call themselves and "Institute for Creation Research" when they have no research other than to read technical papaers and try to confuse the general public that there is a "Controversy" about evolution among real scientists.). They never do any basic research on the subjects by themselves

Reply Sun 22 Sep, 2013 05:39 am
This position you take, as a conservative, fits with the discoveries that the "conservative brain" has a much enlarged amygdala (which is the center for fear responses)

NOW, are you conservative because of your bigger amygdala or is your amygdala swelling because you are a conservative?

A test for us all would be to pose a hypothetical situation wherein e meet up with a totally new individual and engage that individual with a convincing argument. Do you meet that opportunity with

2 no-fear
0 Replies
Reply Sun 22 Sep, 2013 06:14 am
Pointing out that Gunga Dim is a conservative is very much to the point. He believes what he believes for political reasons, not because the evidence points him to a belief. This is polemics, and you see it with Oralloy and David, too. They have a political belief, and that conditions how they see the world. Their comments at this site are polemic--they are motivated by a desire to promote their own political world view, but more than that, to denigrate those who do not believe as they do.

It undoubtedly won't be long before Gunga Dim starts up his rant about how "Darwinism" launched wars in Europe, which had previously been peaceful. I love it when he does that, because it's a monumental display of gross ignorance. It's all of a part with his references to morality, something about which he cares not on iota, other than to use it as a polemical tool.
Reply Sun 22 Sep, 2013 08:02 am
First off, the truth of the way nature works (evolution in this case) isn't affected even slightly by the moral trappings some people choose to wrap it in.

There actually are flavors of junk science which are relatively harmless. Evolution is not one of those; evolution is a junk science ideological doctrine with something like 200,000,000 dead human bodies to it credit.
Reply Sun 22 Sep, 2013 08:06 am



0 Replies
Reply Sun 22 Sep, 2013 08:08 am
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
0 Replies
Reply Sun 22 Sep, 2013 09:57 am
wow, it didn't take long for gunga to post his wacko world view.

His amygdala must be as big as a watermelon
0 Replies
Reply Sun 22 Sep, 2013 11:47 am
gungasnake wrote:

First off, the truth of the way nature works (evolution in this case) isn't affected even slightly by the moral trappings some people choose to wrap it in.

There actually are flavors of junk science which are relatively harmless. Evolution is not one of those; evolution is a junk science ideological doctrine with something like 200,000,000 dead human bodies to it credit.

You're not even challenging my point, all you're doing it demonstrating it.

The fact that you have an ignorance-based personal fear of something, doesn't change the truth of it at all. Evolution is a part of nature, it alway has been and always will be, whether you like it or not.

You seem to be willfully refusing to accept something which is logically and factually incontrovertible, just because of the injustices you erroneously assign to it. If somehow you were to be convinced of the fact of evolution, would it change the way you treat people? Would you suddenly go on an immoral killing spree just because people had evolved through natural processes? Is it only fear of supernatural retribution that keeps you in line? Somehow I doubt it. If so, then you have no inner sense of morality at all.
0 Replies
Reply Sun 22 Sep, 2013 09:21 pm

The big lie which is being promulgated by evolutionists is that there is some sort of a dialectic between evolution and religion. There isn't. In order to have a meaningful dialectic between evolution and religion, you would need a religion which operated on an intellectual level similar to that of evolution, and the only two possible candidates would be voodoo and Rastifari.

The dialectic is between evolution and mathematics. Professing belief in evolution at this juncture amounts to the same thing as claiming not to believe in modern mathematics, probability theory, and logic. It's basically ignorant.

Evolution has been so thoroughly discredited at this point that you assume nobody is defending it because they believe in it anymore, and that they are defending it because they do not like the prospects of having to defend or explain some expect of their lifestyles to God, St. Peter, or some other member of that crowd.

To these people I say, you've still got a problem. The problem is that evolution, as a doctrine, is so overwhelmingly STUPID that, faced with a choice of wearing a sweatshirt with a scarlet letter A for Adulteror, F for Fornicator or some such traditional design, or or a big scarlet letter I for IDIOT, you'd actually be better off sticking with one of the traditional choices because, as Clint Eastwood noted in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly:

God Hates IDIOTS Too...

The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.

Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.

For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.

In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once.

All of that was the best case. In real life, it's even worse than that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.

And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.

Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE.

Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events.

And, if you were starting to think that nothing could possibly be any stupider than believing in evolution despite all of the above (i.e. that the basic stupidity of evolutionism starting from 1980 or thereabouts could not possibly be improved upon), think again. Because there is zero evidence in the fossil record (despite the BS claims of talk.origins "crew" and others of their ilk) to support any sort of a theory involving macroevolution, and because the original conceptions of evolution are flatly refuted by developments in population genetics since the 1950's, the latest incarnation of this theory, Steve Gould and Niles Eldredge's "Punctuated Equilibrium or punc-eek" attempts to claim that these wholesale violations of probabilistic laws all occurred so suddenly as to never leave evidence in the fossil record, and that they all occurred amongst tiny groups of animals living in "peripheral" areas. That says that some velocirapter who wanted to be a bird got together with fifty of his friends and said:


Guys, we need flight feathers, and wings, and specialized bones, hearts, lungs, and tails, and we need em NOW; not two years from now. Everybody ready, all together now: OOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

You could devise a new religion by taking the single stupidest doctrine from each of the existing religions, and it would not be as stupid as THAT.

But it gets even stupider.

Again, the original Darwinian vision of gradualistic evolution is flatly refuted by the fossil record (Darwinian evolution demanded that the vast bulk of ALL fossils be intermediates) and by the findings of population genetics, particularly the Haldane dilemma and the impossible time requirements for spreading genetic changes through any sizeable herd of animals.

Consider what Gould and other punk-eekers are saying. Punc-eek amounts to a claim that all meaningful evolutionary change takes place in peripheral areas, amongst tiny groups of animals which develop some genetic advantage, and then move out and overwhelm, outcompete, and replace the larger herds. They are claiming that this eliminates the need to spread genetic change through any sizeable herd of animals and, at the same time, is why we never find intermediate fossils (since there are never enough of these CHANGELINGS to leave fossil evidence).

Obvious problems with punctuated equilibria include, minimally:

  • It is a pure pseudoscience seeking to explain and actually be proved by a lack of evidence rather than by evidence (all the missing intermediate fossils). In other words, the clowns promoting this BS are claiming that the very lack of intermediate fossils supports the theory. Similarly, Cotton Mather claimed that the fact that nobody had ever seen or heard a witch was proof they were there (if you could SEE them, they wouldn't BE witches...) This kind of logic is less inhibiting than the logic they used to teach in American schools. For instance, I could as easily claim that the fact that I'd never been seen with Tina Turner was all the proof anybody should need that I was sleeping with her. In other words, it might not work terribly well for science, but it's great for fantasies...


  • PE amounts to a claim that inbreeding is the most major source of genetic advancement in the world. Apparently Steve Gould never saw Deliverance...

  • PE requires these tiny peripheral groups to conquer vastly larger groups of animals millions if not billions of times, which is like requiring Custer to win at the little Big Horn every day, for millions of years.

  • PE requires an eternal victory of animals specifically adapted to localized and parochial conditions over animals which are globally adapted, which never happens in real life.

  • For any number of reasons, you need a minimal population of any animal to be viable. This is before the tiny group even gets started in overwhelming the vast herds. A number of American species such as the heath hen became non-viable when their numbers were reduced to a few thousand; at that point, any stroke of bad luck at all, a hard winter, a skewed sex ratio in one generation, a disease of some sort, and it's all over. The heath hen was fine as long as it was spread out over the East coast of the U.S. The point at which it got penned into one of these "peripheral" areas which Gould and Eldredge see as the salvation for evolutionism, it was all over.

The sort of things noted in items 3 and 5 are generally referred to as the "gambler's problem", in this case, the problem facing the tiny group of "peripheral" animals being similar to that facing a gambler trying to beat the house in blackjack or roulette; the house could lose many hands of cards or rolls of the dice without flinching, and the globally-adapted species spread out over a continent could withstand just about anything short of a continental-scale catastrophe without going extinct, while two or three bad rolls of the dice will bankrupt the gambler, and any combination of two or three strokes of bad luck will wipe out the "peripheral" species. Gould's basic method of handling this problem is to ignore it.

And there's one other thing which should be obvious to anybody attempting to read through Gould and Eldridge's BS:

They don't even bother to try to provide a mechanism or technical explaination of any sort for this "punk-eek"

They are claiming that at certain times, amongst tiny groups of animals living in peripheral areas, a "speciation event(TM)" happens, and THEN the rest of it takes place. In other words, they are saying:


ASSUMING that Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM) happens, then the rest of the business proceeds as we have described in our scholarly discourse above!

Again, Gould and Eldridge require that the Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM) happen not just once, but countless billions of times, i.e. at least once for every kind of complex creature which has ever walked the Earth. They do not specify whether this amounts to the same Abracadabra-Shazaam each time, or a different kind of Abracadabra-Shazaam for each creature.

I ask you: How could anything be stupider or worse than that? What could possibly be worse than professing to believe in such a thing?
0 Replies
Reply Sun 22 Sep, 2013 09:26 pm

Evolution's Secret
IknowHimDoYou <[email protected]>
Friday 04 July 2003 12:23:15
no references


The Secret Behind the Propaganda
by Margaret Helder (Botanist)

"Everybody" knows, one might suppose, that evolution is about facts and
the creation model is about belief. Certainly this was the message of the
PBS TV series entitled "Evolution." An internal memo sent to PBS stations
stated concerning evolution, "All known scientific evidence supports
evolution. New discoveries over the past 150 years have all supported the
validity of the theory of evolution." (PBS Internal Memo. 2001. The
Evolution Controversy: Use it or lose it. Evolution Project/WGBH Boston.
June 15, p. 5). The memofurther defined a scientific theory as a "higher
level of understanding that ties 'facts'together" (p. 5). As to the
creation model, the memo dismissed it as "not science. It is part of a
religious belief system . . ." (p. 6). Such statements and other similar
ones over the years have convinced many that science in general and
evolution in particular are based on observations from the natural world
and thus they are empirically or factually based. The interesting thing is
that this is not the modern understanding of science among scientists
them-selves. They have long since abandoned much concern for actual data.

The modern outlook on science is readily apparent from remarks by
scientists about their discipline. It was David Hull, a well-known philosopher
of science, who wrote as early as 1965 that ". . . science is not as
empirical as many scientists seem to think it is. Unobserved and even
unobservable entities play an important part in it. Science is not just
the making of observations: it is the making of inferences on the basis of
observations within the framework of a theory."t Within this statement we
see what appears to be a balance between facts and interpretation or
theory. Dr. Hull, however, had a dubious grasp of what constituted data.
The previous year, he had written concerning the concept of descent with
modification from a common ancestor (phylogeny or evolution): "The first
factor in the phylogenetic program and the only one that is of an
empirical nature is phylogeny, but even phylogeny is not a brute fact to
be discovered merely by looking and seeing. Phylogeny, the subject matter
of phylogenetic taxonomy, is an abstraction. It is an abstraction in two
respects. First, it is inferred almost exclusively from morphological,
genetical, paleontological, and other types of evidence and is not
observed directly."2 His thoughts concerning evolutionary descent, we
discover, were merely conclusions, not directly indicated by the evidence.

Views on the nature of science were actually in a state of flux at the
time that Dr. Hull wrote these papers. Karl Popper in 1934 had pointed out
that no theory in science could ever be proven true. The only altemative,
he suggested, was to try to prove that theories were false. Those
well-tested theories which had not been falsified or disproven on the
basis of experimental data, would then qualify for the designation of
scientific theory. The only catch was that many areas of scientific
research did not meet these criteria. Theories which could not be
falsified, were said to be metaphysical (belief-based) rather than
scientific. Accordingly an editorial in the scientific journal Nature in
1981 pointed out that both Darwinism and the idea that God created the
world, were metaphysical theories since "the course of supposed past
evolution cannot be rerun.3 However, such embarrassing characterizations
of Darwinism as nonscientific were on their way out. Thomas Kuhn had
published his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, in 1962
thereby ushering in a post-empirical age in scientific understanding.

According to Thomas Kuhn, all science must be conducted in terms of a
unifying set of ideas. Without such a theoretical system, said Kuhn, facts
were meaningless and science nonexistent. According to philosopher of
science, Del Ratzsch, in his recent book, Science and its Limits, this
primacy of theory over data has had enormous implications for the practice
of science. The result is that empirical data are not that important to
science anymore. According to Dr. Ratzsch: "in arguing that we have no
paradigm-independent access to some ultimate reality and that paradigm
choices are in part value choices made by scientists, Kuhn is moving the
ultimate court of appeal concerning correct pictures of reality away from
the world itself [data] and toward the informed consensus of scientists.4
Dr. Ratzsch further pointed out, "Since there is no complete and stable
and independent external reality to which we have access, there is no
particular point in talking about truth in science...."

So what do modern scientists do with data? What they do is to interpret
their data in terms of the current scientific paradigm. They do not seek
to falsify any paradigm such as evolution because paradigms are not
supposed to be easily toppled. Individual falsifying facts won't cause a
paradigm to be rejected. Even a lot of contrary data will have little
effect on a paradigm. Evolution of course is the most obvious_paradigm
which is largely immune to the influence of empirical data. Cosmology is

The most obvious casualties of this new definition of science are the
concepts of reality and truth. Biologists Mark Siddall and Arnold Kluge,
in 1997, for example, suggested that "'the search for truth' was a
misguided venture in science from the start and one that has no basis in
reality.5 They further opined that "Truth, though not irrelevant to
science, is nonetheless irrelevant to the choice among scientific
theories, because it is unknowable." Nevertheless these authors conclude
that the good news is that we will keep on doing science. They depict the
situation thus: "0ur assertions regarding the terminal elusiveness of this
truth may be seen by some as troubling or even nihilistic. We counter that
it is the impossibility of achieving truth that ensures the continuation
of scientific endeavor, and that guarantees our perpetual realization of
that which is more valuable than truth itself understanding."

Science has definitely come a long way. Initially in the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries, actual observations (empirical data) were highly
valued. In some cases they were esteemed too highly. Some people like
eighteenth century Scottish philosopher David Hume declared that there was
no reality other than what our senses could discover. The material world
was all there was. Gradually theory came to be more important until at the
present time empirical data are often ignored. Not all scientists,
however, support the Kuhnian appeal to consensus among scientists. To -
Settle, another philosopher of science, deplored the situation. "Many
thinkers, seeing that the search for truth is an unending quest, abandon
it (in despair perhaps) and settle for agreement with their fellows. If
they are right that it is consensus rather than truth that ought to be
aimed for in science, then the picture that emerges . . . is gloomy.6 The
worst aspect of the situation is that scientists so dogmatically defend
interpretations which are based only on consensus. "But what is vacuous is
to abandon truth as regulative and then to agree to something's being so.
And it undermines science rather than affirms it, since it rules out
appeal to reality, it rules out striving to be objective."

It is evident that modern scientists do not attempt to prove paradigms
or impor ) tant theories like evolution wrong. They merely interpret their
data in terms of the paradigm. Evolution is a philosophical starting
point, not an observation. As Siddall and Kluge remark: "Biologists are no
more immune to the requirements of a sound philosophical foundation than
are these other sciences if our occupation ever is to be more than a
simple cataloguing of the experiences of our senses. Evolutionary biology,
and phylogenetics in particular, demands this even more because, like the
quantum physicist, we are not able to observe that which we seek to

Another biologist, Andrew Brower characterized "descent with
modification'' as a circular argument or a metaphysical assumption. "There
is clearly an ontological leap between tests of individual observations
and tests of 'descent with modification, if the latter is even testab]e
without tautology.7 If 'the background knowledge: of descent with
modification' underlying cladistics is not testable by independent means,
it would seem to be more a metaphysical First Principle like vitalism or
orthogenesis than a component of a Popperian hypothetico-deductive
approach." In other words, evolution is not falsifiable, but is an a
priori assumption.

Christians, on the other hand, typically take a much more traditional
or empirical approach to science. They expect that when contrary data are
pointed out, that the hearer's response will be to reject the paradigm.
All too often however, the hearer minimizes the significance of the data,
calling them merely "anomalous" or poorly understood. Most supporters of
evolution theory expect that the obvious problems will eventually be
solved and in the meantime they concentrate on less controversial aspects
of the paradigm.

For the present, consensus by scientists is indeed used as a major point
in favor of a paradigm. Individuals arguing from a minority position
already have a major strike against them. Some scientists also claim that
science is an all or nothing proposition with no room for a critical
evaluation of individual aspects of the discipline. It was Hull who
articulated the all or none principle. He was referring specifically to
evolutionary versus numerical [empirical] categorizing of organisms, and
this same argument is used today against the creation model. "Are the
inductive inferences made by evolutionists in reconstructing phylogeny
sufficiently warranted? .... Any decision ... must rest on the advances of
the various sciences using the techniques of discovery and justification
which they do use. Hence, induction is justified by an induction! The
arguments presented by the empiricists against evolutionary
reconstructions if sound would annihilate not just evolutionary taxonomy
but all empirical science.8 According to him, it is pointless to contest
scientific speculations on the basis of data, because the whole scientific
enterprise holds together. If some theorizing is acceptable, then all of
it is beyond challenge.

Since the importance of empirical data in science has long since been
down-graded to a subsidiary importance relative to theory, the PBS
statements concerning evolution and creation are all the more interesting.
The PBS memo implied that evolution could easily have been falsified by
negative empirical evidence. On the contrary, scientists have devoted
their best efforts to protecting evolution theory from negative data. In
actual fact, it is the creation model supporters today who so frequently
appeal to empirical evidence (such as the coded nature and information
content of DNA) and the evolutionists who so blissfully fail to recognize
significance of these very same data. Indeed, when all is said and done,
the essence of much modern science is that it is not empirical at all but
rather post-empirical or theory based. That's quite a difference. Maybe
PBS should run a new creation-based series to alert the public to the real


1. David Hull. 1965. The effect of essentialism on taxonomy?two thousand
years of stasis (II). British Journalfor the Philosophy of Science 16
2. David Hull. 1964. Consistency and monophyly. Systematic Zoology 13 (1):
3. Editorial. 1981. How true is the theory of evolution? Nature 290 March
12: 75-76.4. Del Ratzsch. 2000. Science and Its Limits: The Natural
Sciences in Christian Perspective. InterVarsity Press. pp. 191.
5. Mark Siddall and Arnold Kluge. 1997. Probabilism and phylogenetic
inference. Cladistics 13: 313-336.
6. Tom Settle. 1979. Popper on "When is a Science not a Science
"Systematic Zoology" 28: 521-529.
7. Andrew Brower. 2000. Evolution is not a necessary assumption of
cladistics. Cladistics 16: 143-154.
8. David Hull. 1967. Certainty and circularity in evolutionary taxonomy.
Evolu-tion 21 (1): 174-189.


This author has broken through the propaganda that is taught in schools
and colleges as ?fact?. To bad so any have been brainwashed and don?t
even know it. Some in these NG actually think they are evolutionary
products with no purpose and just an organism on the path to who knows
where (because direction/purpose means a Director-Almighty God to whom
they will bow and confess sooner or later).

Contrasting the above with the Christian, who knows who he is, why he is
here and where he is going presents a gulf that seems impassable between
the two.

well, to each their own destiny...
0 Replies
Reply Sun 22 Sep, 2013 09:39 pm
In forming a judgement of evolutionism, you must at some point consider the circumstances under which it arose and the most probable set of reasons for its rise to dominance.

You've heard of the Medelin Cartel, El Pino, Pablo Escobar, the Pagans, and all of the other drug dealers of our times. The truth is, all together they probably don't add up to a hill of beans compared to the operations of the British empire in the 19'th century. At least one major eastern city was set up for no other reason than to serve as a conduit for Indian opium into China and an entire war was fought to protect the opium trade.

Now, you don't need to be Albert Einstein to comprehend that for a supposedly Christian nation to be engaging in this sort of business must have created at least two problems on an organizational level. One was the question of motivating men to fight and die for such causes:

"For God, Bonnie Queen Vickie, and the Opium Trade, CHARGE!!!!!!" probably wouldn't get it...

The other problem which springs to mind immediately would be that which the CEO or chairman of the board of the East India Company must have faced in conducting board meatings. Picture it:


"Gentlemen, I have some good news, and I have some bad news. The good
news is that profits are up 73.2% on a volume of trade which has
increased 27% over the same three-month period last year, and that all
of our operations appear to be running smoothly. Indigenous peoples of
India, Burma, China, and several other areas with a propensity to cause
problems are now happily stoned out of their minds on our products, and
are causing no further trouble."

"The bad news is that we're all probably going to spend the next
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years roasting on a barbecue pit
for this s**t..."

Now picture Chuck Darwin walking into this scene and telling all of these people that they're sitting around worrying over nothing, and that the only moral law in nature is "The Survival of the Fittest". Can you not see all of those peoples' eyes lighting up, their hair standing straight up, and somebody screaming "By Jove, I think he's got it?"

I mean, it doesn't even matter what led Darwin to devise the theory of evolution. In any normal time or set of circumstances, he'd have either been laughed to scorn, hanged, or burned. He succeeded precisely because he solved several major problems for the Godfathers of 140 years ago.
0 Replies
Reply Mon 23 Sep, 2013 06:31 am
"supporting the paradigm" is merely a way to discount all the century and a half of findings and evidence that have changed and refined the theiry. Something that your belief system does not allow.
Anything that doesn't place human kind on a pedestal by a benevolent god is a heresy.
Too bad that ths heresy's loaded with facts and evidence that cannot be denied by reasonable minds.
Ignoring it is like ignoring magnetism.
Im continually amazed at how you like to "temper" your worldview (which is basically religious) by inserting a personal plea for pangenesis. If pangenesis, why not evolution. Both are not unreasonable and evolution has waaaaay more evidence to support it. You claim that (in your worldview) the planet is but a few tens of thousands of years old. This flies in the face of the evidence and mathematics of physics , chemistry and geology, let alone biological evolution as evidenced by fossils. Do you value science but deny certain parts of their findings? YOU must have flunked biology really badly many years ago. You seem to refuse to understand the facts of evolution. Instead you want to cling to a fairy tale that has no basis of fact nor any evidence to support it.
0 Replies
Reply Mon 23 Sep, 2013 07:21 am
You keep speaking as though some sort of rational process were involved here. Nonsense. Gunga Dim has his right-wing, christian political agenda, and the only thought involved is how to pervert statements about science and history to support his various theses. He's never been entirely honest about his religious views, only referring to them tangentially, and he's also a crypto-racist, who won't come out and honestly admit to that, either.

You give him far too much credit. He's a reactionary robot, marching in lock-step to a conservative christian, racist, neo-nazi doctrine.

Related Topics

  1. Forums
  2. » Man Under Materialism
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/23/2024 at 11:15:03