True but Deadly

Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche once looked at Darwinism and it’s logical conclusions and did not like what he saw.  In “On the Use and Abuse of History for Life” (1873), Nietzsche panged at the consequences he foresaw:

If the doctrines of sovereign Becoming, of the liquidity of all…species, of the lack of any cardinal distinction between man and animal — doctrines which I consider true but deadly — are foisted on people for another generation with the frenzied instruction which is now customary, then it should take no one by surprise if people destroy themselves in egotistical trifles and misery, ossifying themselves in their self-absorption, initially falling apart and ceasing to be a people. Then, in place of this condition, perhaps systems of individual egotism, alliances for the systematic larcenous exploitation of those non-members of the alliance and similar creations of utilitarian nastiness will step forward onto the future scene.

While he may have correctly seen the inevitable consequences of Darwinian logic, taken to its logical conclusions, he nevertheless considered that doctrine ‘deadly’.  And he was right. Every time in the last 150 years (since Darwin’s OOS) that someone has seen those logical conclusions and decided to put them into practice ‘deadly’ and disastrous results have been witnessed.

As we can easily see in Richard Weikart’s book, “From Darwin to Hitler” World Was II was started because some men, backed and supported by the scientific elite of their time, believed that man should put Darwin’s ideas into social practice. Not only did this result in the holocaust but in the systematic slaughter of tens of thousands of mentally ill and physically deformed persons in Germany.In the description of Weikart’s latest book Hitler’s ethic was also see that:

Hitler was inspired by evolutionary ethics to pursue the utopian project of biologically improving the human race. This ethic underlay or influenced almost every major feature of Nazi policy: eugenics (i.e., measures to improve human heredity, including compulsory sterilization), euthanasia, racism, population expansion, offensive warfare, and racial extermination.

So Nietzsche’s “true but deadly” comment turns out to be true.

This necessarily requires of us that we answer the question – is it really true?

Thankfully, and in spite of the modern neo Darwinists persistent refusal to acknowledge these facts, we can now state with distinct, and yes scientific, authority that no, it isn’t true.

We know that evolution, as per “changes in allele frequencies over time” and as per “variation and adaptation” is true.
But over the time since Origin of Species, we still have no empirical evidence whatsoever that evolution is capable of doing anything more than the above, and that within the taxonomic family.

The only speciation events observable in the lab or the field are always within the family.  There are no examples of speciation as per a radical new change from one family into a completely different family – and that in spite of the hysterical ravings of such fanatical atheists as Richard Dawkins et al.

We now have Lenski’s 40,0000 generations of E. coli.  All that has been observed is minor adaptation.  They are still E. coli and not jelly fish.  Nor is there any reason to think they will ever become anything else.

Lenski’s experiments, if they demonstrate anything at all, show what Michael Behe calls the “edge of evolution” i.e. the limits of what random mutations and natural selection can accomplish.

The RNA world is a dead duck, mutations are notoriously negative in any organism and built-in error detection and correction mechanisms in the cell abound to assure as that neo Darwinism is also a dead duck. For, how can the very mechanisms which ensure a certain stability in cells and keep species in their respective families, also be the means by which they are mutated out of their own families!? It just doesn’t ring true.

So why do Darwinists persist in promoting it as though it were the ultimate truth?  But in their ill reasoning view it HAS to be true even if it is deadly!  As absolute materialists nothing else CAN be true!
As Harvard geneticist R. Lewontin stated so succinctly,

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.  It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.  Moreover the materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Curiously Lewontin also admited another rather frightening view when he said,

Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies, because they believe that small lies can serve big truths.
-Lewontin, R.C., The Inferiority Complex, New York Review of Books, 22 October 1981, p. 13.

So he at least, and supposedly many other scientists, blatantly lies? Is this not a strange statement? Scientists lie to your face and Lewontin condescends to give you  the benefit of the doubt of your stupidity by telling you that they lie? Yet are you still so willing to believe them!?  Hard to believe.  Why should anyone believe what the elite materialist scientists then tell us?

Thankfully not all scientists, and hopefully not all materialist (atheist) scientists lie to the public as easily as Lewontin.
But is this lying not also a part of the logic of Darwinism?  Indeed is it is.  For under Darwinism as Nietzsche saw clearly, there is no foundation for ethics, free will or morality of any kind other than a mere collective [or imposed] consent to any currently useful moral standard. A standard that can be changed upon any whim at all by the deciders.

Under such a baseless morality, anything goes.  This is nihilism.  The end of Darwinian thought is nihilism.  And that means that you have no more value than a worm with whom you allegedly share a common evolutionary heritage.

So why did Nietzsche and so many others nevertheless accept this nihilistic world view? Well Nietzsche was in love with his own sister and that clearly doesn’t fly with Judeo/Christian values; so, to remove the sting of conscience from such desires and willings Nietzsche with many thousands of others saw (and see) in materialist Darwinism a clear road out of all traditional taboos and the guilt of conscience and self-restraint that comes with it.

In other words, the real underlying reasons why many Darwinist remain incapable of abandoning their view is religious [metaphysical] and not scientific at all.

Darwinism has become a cult for many.  It MUST be true because there is no God or if there is he has nothing to care of his creation.

But Darwinism and its underlying, metaphysical materialist constructs are not true and can now be empirically demonstrated as such through legitimate design detection methods, statistical mechanics and the laws of probability, and indeed, lab and field experiments involving tens of thousands of generations wherein the opportunity for macro evolution abounds but none is ever observed.

However, as long as neo-Darwinism is continued to be promoted in public academia and the mass media, it will indeed remain deadly, no matter how untrue.

Biological Meta information

Meta information in DNA is another Darwinism killer. Meta information is information on information. “For example, a if a document is considered to be information, its title, location, and subject are examples of metainformation.” – SearchOracle.com Definitions

Or, to make a cake for example the list of ingredients is the primary information, and the instructions on how to assemble the ingredients is the meta-information.  “Evolution not only requires new information, it also requires extra new information about how to use that new information.” 

A biological case in point is the proverbial flagellum – again!

Q: How does the cell “know” how to assemble the 42 protein parts in the right order?
A: It doesn’t “know” anything. 

Yet, the information is there! It cannot be assembled in a random way without becoming virtually useless – and when assemblage errors do occur the results are immediately discarded by the cell!

So, there is meta information – behind the scenes information as it were. Information stored that indicates how other stored information is to be utilized. Meta information also tells the cell when errors occurred and to discard assembled pieces. 

Meta information = information on information = a Darwinists nightmare.

Of course there is no evolutionary explanation for the existence of meta in0formation.   Neither indeed can there be because it’s very existence implies intelligence and knowledge.   How is that, you may ask?  Because knowledge is an incontrovertible necessity of how to do the assembly and pre-knowledge is a intrinsic part of meta information!   Otherwise we get mere random processes – again. 

So in evolutionary randomness terms, where does this meta information come from? 

As an informatics professional, I know that random process do not create functional and useful (if not necessary) sophisticated machines like the flagellum or ATP synthase energy generator motors etc.   Random processes do not and cannot “know” when or if a machine is assembled correctly or not.   Thus random processes cannot create meta information!

Darwin isn’t feeling well at all now is he!  

Therefore, biological meta information is yet another large chunk of evidence for ID.  Is this not enough to convince the hard-line Darwinist of the error of his ideas?   Not usually because the hard-liner Darwinist has a hidden, or not so hidden, agenda of his own, and it is religious – materialism. 

That’s a problem in itself.   A metaphysical and psychological one and not logical or scientific at all.  

Now then, what about the other fact of redundant biological information?  The fact that the cell has information and structural backups! In case of error or failure we now know that the cell contains backup information and redundant parts – doubles that only come into play when errors or failures occur.

It all just happened by random mutations? Sorry, that is statistically and epistemologically impossible.  Knowledge (and thus intelligence) is a necessary ingredient.  And that both for error detection/correction as well as meta information.

If ID is true your car wouldn’t start

Old news but I was just re-reading this stuff.

James L. Powell, professor of geology and the former director and president of the L.A. County Museum of Natural History. In a video urging scientists to tell the public what’s what regarding intelligent design, he makes this ‘fatal’ argument against intelligent design :

    We have to say that if creationism is right and if there is an intelligent designer, then almost everything else we know about science is wrong. Then your flu vaccine wouldn’t work, your car wouldn’t start, there was no Hiroshima, and on and on and on.  – from youtube.com video

Q: How do guys like this get a degree!?!?

First he, like all other mis-informed and clumsy Darwinian fundamentalists, conflates creationism with ID. 

In fact, ID does not postulate a supernatural design.  ID does not rely on the bible for it’s central tenets.  ID can live with the possibility the design is the work of some super intelligent alien civilization.  ID can live without any proposal of any designer at all – it deals with evidence for design – not with identities of putative designers.

Many IDists are theists, some are deists and some agnostic.

Still, even pure creationism could not possibly lead to the strange conclusions proposed by Powell.  He speaks as though all real science has occurred in the last century, guided by materialism, rather than the historical fact that most of the great scientists who actually discovered the laws of physics and chemistry, were mostly creationists! Newton, Copernicus, Maxwell, Mendel…

So whence these incredible conclusions?  Obviously the prof. has a lot to learn about logic, cause and effect, the basis of science, the history of science and the nature of the universe.  His statement could not be more blatantly non sequitur (Latin for “it does not follow.” Describes a logical fallacy.  Most often used to indicate
something which does not follow logically, such as a stated conclusion
that is not supported by the facts.)  than it is.  Indeed, he makes no attempt to even justify his conclusions! No, reason, no evidence, nothing but hubris disguised as scientific authority.

Indeed, if a designer actually made the universe and decreed it’s laws, wherein does it follow that nothing works?! Powell obviously is suffering from the mental illness so eloquently described by Sir Fred Hoyle:

Although the new believers [Darwinists] had not a particle of evidence to support their statements on the matter, they asserted that the rabbit producing sludge (called soup to make it sound more palatable) was terrestrially located and that all chemical and biochemical transmogrifications of the sludge were terrestrially inspired. Because there was not a particle of evidence to support this view, new believers had to swallow it as an article of faith, otherwise they could not pass their examinations or secure a job or avoid the ridicule of their colleagues. So it came about from 1860 onward that new believers became in a sense mentally ill, or, more precisely, either you became mentally ill or you quitted the subject of biology, as I had done in my early teens. The trouble for young biologists was that, with everyone around them ill, it became impossible for them to think they were well unless they were ill, which again is a situation you can read all about in the columns of Nature [magazine].” (Hoyle, F., “Mathematics of Evolution,” [1987], Acorn Enterprises: Memphis TN, 1999, pp.3-4).

Clearly the level of intelligence demonstrated by so many fanatical Darwinists these days is drooping to all time lows.  Do any of them actually stop to think before opening their mouths?  Certainly isn’t showing if they do. 

Powell’s inane statement is surely one of the more outstanding among the mountainous slew of verbal diarrhea littering the Darwinist blogs – low down in the unfathomable depths of materialist ideological idiocy.

Darwinism and mental illness

 

Sir Frederick Hoyle said that for one to swallow Darwinism, one must need a certain amount of mental illness:

“So it came about from 1860 onward that new believers [in Darwinism] became in a sense mentally ill, or, more precisely, either you became mentally ill or you quitted the subject of biology, as I had done in my early teens.”  – Mathematics of Evolution, (1987) University College Cardiff Press (or Acorn Enterprises: Memphis TN, 1999, pp.3-4).  - my emphasis

Over the last 30 years or so I’ve had many occaisions to debate with evolutionists.  In person and on many various Internet forums and blogs. 

If there is one thing that occurs over and over again it the patent absence of keen logic amongst evolutions – theistic or atheistic. Thus over the past few years I’ve been compiling data and observing a glaring fact: Darwinists/atheists are unable to reason even the simplest forms of logical dialogue without getting bogged down in endless circles of typical logical fallacies.

Specifically, affirming the consequent, begging the question and the fallacy of the undistributed middle.

Over the past year I’ve discovered that I’m not alone in these observations.  And then just a few days ago I came upon this quote from astrophysicist Sir Frederick Hoyle. 

Hoyle’s comment was made many years ago but is more pertinent now than ever with the current controversy over Intelligent Design theory raging both in academia, in the courts and public debate forums.

I remember one such debate in which my atheist/Darwinist opponent claimed that there are no absolutes.  I asked him whether he thought 2+2 (in any conceivable universe) always = 4 or not and whether that was an absolute or not.

He claimed it was not an absolute.

He was a very bright young software developer & analyst.  So his very livelihood depended on the absolute truths of math.  Yet he would not change his mind for anything I could say.  His whole world view depended on denial of absolutes.

So we can see why a reversal of opinion on his part would have meant a powerful shock to his whole mental life and reason for living – a shock which in religious terms would be called “conversion”.

I’ve debated with many like him. The only ones who make the admission that indeed there are absolutes end up in the theist camp.

The very existence of logical absolutes is unaccountable under atheism. That’s why they almost invariably deny them (all while using them as such in their own argumentations – go figure).

So we see that indeed, atheist/Darwinist thinking cripples the mind and immunizes it against logic and common sense. 

And that is the logical consequence of denial of reality.  Psychiatric wards are full of people who started out denying realities. 

We witness this type of denial every day in the ID vs Evo debate.  Darwinists invariably ascribe to nature the powers of novel creation through random mutations + natural selection.  Mutations don’t usually create anything but problems or diseases (or nothing) so natural selection is assigned the role of creative agency. 

Then the ability to empirically detect design is rejected. But only in biology of course!   So who says biology can’t be included?  Darwinists do.  Why? Because they have some logical empirical method of demonstrating that design cannot be detected within biological structures?  Not at all.  No such method or even logical reason exists. 

So upon what basis do they auto-exclude ID detection from biological structures?  It is because to admit that design is detectable in nature as well as everywhere else is to admit the existence of the Designer once one determines that any natural system at all required an intelligence! 

To allow into one’s mind the fact that designed structures are detectable based on probabilistic methods and abductive reasoning applied to the incredible complex, coordinated concurrent information processing systems we now know are everywhere in living cells implies that Darwinism may not in fact be true.

But it MUST be true in their world view.  

Richard Lewontin – Harvard geneticist put as follows:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.  It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.  Moreover the materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

“Billions and Billions of Demons.”  Review of
“The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark,” by Carl Sagan. The New York Times Review of Books, January 9, 1997, pp.28-32,
p.31. Emphasis original)

- my bold

So therein lies the root of denial that leads Darwinists to that form of mental illness mentioned by Hoyle.  Hoyle was merely looking at the facts honestly. 

In his own words, 

“if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. “

Notice the bolded text.  This is a major factor in real life today for scientists.  Just look what they did to Dr. Richard Sternberg.  See Here.

That fear factor plays an important role in the denial of reality associated with atheism and Darwinism.

A whole slew of other examples of the “wrath of the scientific community” have arisen in this single area over the past 20 years or so.

The Darwinian scientific elite claim to have a monopoly on truth. What arrogance motivates them in this!

Darwinism/atheism require a denial of reality to adhere to.  This denial leads to relativistic thinking.  And this kind of thinking, being counter logical, leads to mental illness.  The inability to reason correctly.

I therefore close with this quote from Michel de Montaigne:

I prefer the company of peasants because they have not been educated sufficiently to reason incorrectly. 

Atheist society unveiled

Based partly on the article called Hellish Holland :
http://www.sspx.ca/Angelus/2004_FebMar/Hellish_Holland.htm

Here are a few excerpts :

“… its morals are the most corrupt in the whole world. Liberalism, the freedom to do whatever you want without regard to morality, is considered as a god, unrestrained by Catholicism or even natural law. If one tries to teach morality, he is labelled a fascist, because he is “imposing his own will upon all other free wills in the country.” When you respond that objective morality comes from God, they answer that this God is only “between your ears,” that “your god” is your choice and you “cannot impose Him on anyone else.”

“Holland’s Minister of Public Health, Mrs. Borst, recently spoke about a handicapped child who was killed after being born. (By the way, “borstis a Dutch word for “breast,” but in the minister’s case, she seems to have no heart beating in hers.) She said that, according to penal law, it is murder, but the Officer of Justice will not prosecute in this case because the mortal injection was given by the doctor after consultation with the parents. In any case, she declared this child had little chance of “achieving an acceptable level of value of human life.”

“My American readers will find very interesting the comment written me by one of their own:

This is exactly why America (morally speaking) is not as degenerated as Europe. As a people, we are not logical: we are sentimental. We cling to Christian morality not out of conviction, but out of very vague notions, some of which are good and some just feel-good sentimental. This is good in that it slows our fall into immorality, but it also makes it difficult for us to think correctly when given correct principles; we cling to our errors just as illogically as we cling to truth.“

“Liberalism has penetrated so deeply into Holland that, without inciting total chaos, its people have free access to all things-drugs, sex, and Satanism, etc. Few police patrol the streets because the Dutch believe too many police constitutes a fascist or “rightist” state. The result is that people are attacked, wounded, and killed in the streets without motive. Most crimes are committed by immigrants. The police arrive two hours later. “What’s the use?” they say, “If we arrest these criminals, the judge will set them free the next day because it is considered ‘racist’ to punish poor strangers.”

In one celebrated case, a man was keeping a house thief at bay with a samurai sword until police arrived. The police set the thief free because he was “a poor boy.” But the homeowner was incarcerated because he was “traumatizing the poor boy with a sword.”

 

Sounds like a great place to live and have a family huh? It ought to for the atheist at least!

Atheism, as I explain here, has no foundations for moral values except illusionary ones adopted for survival and convenience sake. There are no objective values in atheism inspite of the delusions atheists adopt to pretend there are.

The priest continues his witness :

“But hospitals in Holland are no longer places of healing. They are fearsome places where euthanasia is practiced nearly automatically. Doctors have invented a new kind of euthanasia called “mortification” where food and water are denied patients making them die of hunger and thirst, that is, they are starved to death. A 1997 report revealed that 55% of nursing home patients are dying from this lack of care called “mortification.”

Then he gives an example he knew of personally:

“…The woman was lying in the bed unable to move her hands because she was paralyzed. On the table was a cup of water. I gave her a drink and she drank voraciously. It was clear-she was dying from hunger and thirst. Nobody was there to feed her; this was the so-called mortification. And indeed, some days later, she died. I could do absolutely nothing to stop it because the entire social and political system has been organized this way. The only thing I could have done was put the woman in the trunk of a car and drive off to a normal country, but this was a crazy thought. There was nothing I could do but pray.

When I was in Holland, I was aware of three cases amongst our faithful caring for an ill family member because they did not want to give them over to these criminal medical facilities. Two men were each taking care of their mothers, and an elderly woman was taking care of her sister in the most difficult situation you can imagine. The woman ruined her back permanently; she will have terrible pains for the rest of her life because she damaged her back carrying her sister. Though he tended to his mother for years, one man was called a sadist by the nurses because he refused “mortification” for her. The other man was questioned for hours by ten doctors because he refused “mortification” for his mother.”

If you are not already shocked or enraged at this, that’s only the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Atheistic Darwinism provides absolutely no grounds for putting any kind of true, ultimate value on human life. As the bio-text books state, “You are an animal…you share a common heritage with earthworms...”

So why are we so suprised and shocked when those who take that literally as the real truth act like animals? And find no scruples to killing? Atheists deny this as the outcome of their doctrines but the witness here shows that the truth is otherwise.

Not only do people lose touch with humanity through atheism’s sophisms and pernicious doctrines, but they also lose touch with real logic and clear reasoning. This will come to epidemic proportions if the course continues as is all across the world. We will see dementia of unprecedented proportions. Reason is already dying out in the Darwinist, atheist controlled public school systems. Slowly but surely. It takes decades for the effect to start manifesting itself outwardly.

This slowness is due to the fact that most people want Judeo/Christian values but not the Judeo/Christian God. So the moral values endowed upon formerly Christian societies linger on as the spread of relativist moralities grow. The wound festers long before gangrene sets in and visible evidence, like what is seen in Holland, comes to the front windows of the worlds events watchers.

Is anybody listening? Yes. A lot of groups of fighting this kind of moral insanity. But not enough.

The irony is that while these European nations have so adamantly striven to eliminate the last vestiges of God and religion from their midst, Islam has made it’s inroads and the quiet “invasion of Europe” by Islamic “conquerors” is slowly taking place before our eyes. Eurabia is just around the coner and the Europeans have so little moral fibre left in them that they are already destined to lose the battle.

God help them.

America is only a few deacades behind Holland. If the atheistic Darwinists have their will be done, it will not be as in heaven but as in hell on earth.

Better make sure you stay in good health and are ready to suffer the conseuqences of “mortification”, rape, crime without justice etc..

America is a falling nation. A declining cilture. And, as all declining cultures exhibit as they fall, the signs of decandance and the rotting of moral fibre are all there :

• the extreme emphasis on external beauty (with accompanying health and mental anamolies),
• the obsession with all things sexual,
• the turning of the justice system into farce where money rules,
• the devalorization of life where animals have better protection and more rights than humans,
• the qualifying as “art, that which is intrinsically ugly, vulgar and demeaning,
• the emphasis on superficiality,
• the degradation of the weak and disabled
• the easy access to drugs
• the rise of all forms of sexual abuse
• the treating of evil people as merely dysfunctional or “malfunctioning units” (R. Dawkins)
• …. goes on and on

Very clear these days.

WWIII is inevitable due to all this. God has always, historically speaking, arranged through war the downfall of rotting nations and decaying civilizations. We will be no exception to the rule.

“If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it.
And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it. Jer 18:7 -10

This text describes in very concise terms, God’s governmental principle in dealing with the world’s nations. It’s simple. His patience is immense but not unquenchable.

Job also speaks of these principles of government of God :

“With him are strength and wise designs; he who is guided into error, together with his guide, are in his hands; He takes away the wisdom of the wise guides, and makes judges foolish; He undoes the chains of kings, and puts his band on them;
He makes priests prisoners, overturning those in safe positions; He makes the words of responsible persons without effect, and takes away the good sense of the old; He puts shame on chiefs, and takes away the power of the strong;” – Job 12:16-21

We can see these in our modern society – judges are fools, counsel is dying, reason is under persitent fire from those who think themselves most reasonable!

Sad but true. America as well all the other nations moving towards implemented atheistic world views need a return to Judeo/Christian values WITH their foundations in God. If the foundations are removed there can be no strength in the building. It will indeed be the “house built on sand”.

God make America blessable.

Darwinian discrimination at it’s worst

Here’s yet more examples of the idiocy of darwinian fundamentalist nerds.

As can be found here : “Robert Pennock is being paid by UCSD’s Council of Provosts and the Division of Biological Sciences to speak against intelligent design in a lecture that is free and open to the public in UCSD’s RIMAC Arena (which holds about 5000 people). Of course, these groups are all taxpayer-supported. Not only is this free event open to anyone, but TritonLink, the UCSD student website, on its main home-page, reports that Professor Pennock’s lecture is mandatory attendance for all freshmen: “All first-quarter freshmen are required to attend the event, which is open to the public”

Mandatory indoctrination. Good move huh? These people seem to have no end of the ridiculous, “hunt the witch” tactics they use to debunk contrary scienitific thought.

And to show there is no end of this glaring stupidity and censorship from these educated fools: Evoultion fundamentalist and bio text book author Larry Moran says,

Flunk the IDiots

Casey Luskin over at the Discovery Institute reported that University of California, San Diego Forces All Freshmen To Attend Anti-ID Lecture. Apparently, the university has become alarmed at the stupidity of its freshman class and has offered remedial instruction for those who believe in Intelligent Design Creationism.

Salvador Cordova has picked up on this at Dembski’s blog, Uncommon Descent in an article titled “Darwinian indoctrination required at UCSD? Or will the other side be heard someday?”. He notes that 40% of the freshman class reject Darwinism.

I agree with the Dembski sycophants that UCSD should not have required their uneducated students to attend remedial classes. Instead, they should never have admitted them in the first place. Having made that mistake, it’s hopeless to expect that a single lecture—even one by a distinguished scholar like Robert Pennock—will have any effect. The University should just flunk the lot of them and make room for smart students who have a chance of benefiting from a high quality education.

SOURCE: sandwalk.blogspot.com/2006/11/flunk-idiots.html

Worse still from this Moron : “Until you IDiots learn something about science you don’t deserve to take up space at a decent university. However, there’s still hope for you. There’s nothing in your comment to suggest that you’ve even reached the age of adulthood. Maybe you’ll get educated before you graduate from kindergarten. “

Here we are once again with the out-dated, easily falsified, BS that says ID scientists know nothing of science. Pure moronic drachenfutter. This guy should be thrown out on his butt and given a one way ticket to Baghdad.

Sore losers to say the best of these “scientists”, if one may abuse the term.

Hopefully none of them will be smart enough to figure out that these repressive actions will bring their own downfall. This kind of publicy funded brain washing and ill behavior, historically speaking, always tends to bring the opposite of the effect hoped for. So far, not only are none of them smart enough but they just keep making it worse!

Anyway,

Welcome to the Union of Soviet Socialist America

PS - Since I first wrote this article a lot has happened to confirm it’s truth.

I suppose one of the main widely publicized events is the denial of tenure at Iowa State to Guilmero Gonzalez – a highly respected astrophysicist with numerous peer-reviewed articles and awards. Denial based on prejudice entirely on Guillmero’s ID penchant – as can be seen on many articles across the web.
Evangelical atheist Hector Avalos started a smear campaign against him because he supports Intelligent Design theory. Avalos is an atheist and professor at ISU (head of the religious studies department… go figure) without the intellect to compete with the likes of Gonzalez.

More…

The Michael Reiss case in Britain.

The Euthyphro dilemma?

This is, and has been for centuries, considered by atheists and anti-moralists as the ultimate refutation of God. Specifically of Divine Command theory.

This dilemma basically goes as follows:

In Plato’s dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro, Socrates is attempting to understand the essence of piety and holiness:

Socrates: And what do you say of piety, Euthyphro? Is not piety, according to your definition, loved by all the gods?

Euthyphro: Certainly.

Socrates: Because it is pious or holy, or for some other reason?

Euthyphro: No, that is the reason.

Socrates: It is loved because it is holy, not holy because it is loved?

The dilemma Euthyphro faced is this: Is a thing good simply because the gods say it is? Or do the gods say a thing is good because of some other quality it has? If so, what is that quality? The problem stumped Euthyphro.

Russel put it this way:

If you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, you are then in this situation: Is that difference due to God’s fiat or is it not? If it is due to God’s fiat, then for God Himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God’s fiat, because God’s fiats are good and not good independently of the mere fact that he made them. If you are going to say that, you will then have to say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being, but that they are in their essence logically anterior to God

First, I refer interested parties to the following sites: http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5236
and : http://www.charlesgfinney.com/1840skeletons/sk_lecture23.htm

These 2 sites offer or some good responses to this issue and teh Moral Law of in general. I will quote from one or the other in some small measure here.

Basically, no being can make law. But no law can exist without sanctions. And no sanctions can exist without a Ruling, conscious Magistrate to adiminster them…reason it farther – the ultimate conclusions are obvious enough – God’s existence is necessary to the existence of ultimates moral values.

However, nothing is easier than defining this *dilemma* out of existence. Why? Because there is no dilemma in the 1st place!

The pretended dilemma argues what it does not understand and founds it’s argument on a falsity, an incorrect presumption – that the moral Law and God are two separate things.

So, in one phrase it may be undone – “God is the Law and the Law is God.”

God is the inspirited, incarnate, Living Law – they are one. Not independant entities.

What is said of God is exactly what may be said of the Moral Law “the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature”. Every thing that one can discern of all true objective moral realities can also be said of God himself.

And of course, this is the view of the bible and Christianity. “Anyone who does not love does not know God, because *God is love*.”

Love is good willing. It is benevolence. It is seeking the highest good. “Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.” “For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’”

The Law is One. An indivisible unit all summed up in one word “love” – agape – disinterested, unselfish good willing. And that so describes who and what God is, that the two are inseparable, immutable, unchangeable and eternally, mutually existent – one in the other.

Thus no God = no law and no law = no God. And thus the existence of God = existence of Law vice versa. So the very existence of a real, objective Moral Law running everywhere where there are sentient, self-deteminingbeings, is evidence of the existence of God.

Just as both philosophers (check Kant on this) and theologians and simple everyday people have been saying from times immemorial.

“Do as you would be done by” is the worlds oldest, most universal command. It describes love which describes the Moral Law which describes who God is and what he is like.

As for the so-called tautologies and contradictions involved with the infamous “dilemma”, they are the very well documented territory of Darwinism and atheism as any one know if they’d really done any proper homework on the issue.

Objective moral foundations in atheism don’t exist

This is not to say that atheists have no moral values. Most do. Sometimes very good ones too. But they are borrowed values. Values usually taken from Judeo/Christian roots, or from simple conscience or some assumed value in collective cultural agreements.

The question is not, however, whether atheists have morals. The question is what is the foundation of those morals. Upon what grounds of logic or reason have these morals been founded?

In the end, they have none. At least, nothing objective. Nothing truly, solidly or binding. And of course they have, in their own heads, no one to whom they are ultimately accountable.

There are a great many atheists who attempt to find grounds for their moral values without reference to any absolute Moral Law. This is normal. They want to have moral values but, not believing in God or absolutes, they are forced to find their grounds in something else. Invariably this something ends up being untenable and sometimes very illogical.

Some invent “objective” values based on materialist evaluations of the material consequences of actions. Others become relativists who, of course, can’t really practice what they claim to believe.

Relativism is self-contradictory by nature.

In my experience in debating moral foundations with atheists I’ve found that people who persist in attempting to demonstrate that there are no objective moral values, invariably dig in further to proving there are.

Obviously these types of people believe they are objectively “right”. But then , if what they say is true, they cannot be “right” or “wrong” about anything if what they state is true!

Relativism cuts its own throat.

They will often try to debunk objective moral values by pointing, as usual, at religions and the differences between them as being being immense. They tend to completely ignore the universality of morals and the universality of belief in a higher authority throughout all ages and in all peoples tribes and nations. Instead, they will focus on generally insignificant details in differences between one religion’s set of morals and anothers. Almost always centering attention on the outward workings of the underlying principles instead of the underlying principles themselves.
They will say something like the following I heard recently, “And where it [religion based morality] differs, all claims to objective morality vanish, because the claims are dependent upon a subjective opinion as to which deity is correct.“

Bad logic of course. This assumes that every specific religions deity is fundamentally different and opposite to every other. Another falsehood. They are in fact very similar in all fundamentals.
Moral values – their very existence – can easily lead us to conclude there must of necessity be some over-governing power to moral law. Atheists, of course, must deny this or become theists.
One of them said to me, “Like it or not, consensus response to material consequences is the way societies decide right from wrong.“

Frankly this is very off the mark. The way humans judge of morality is not according to material consequence but according to reason and then every consequence, material of other. But material consequence alone can never be the rule of judgment. It also requires some objective rule of evaluation for determining what consequences or more important than others.

Now one thing that has always both bothered me and amused me is this – atheists will often invade Internet debate forums on the subject and squeal and whine like little pigs, profanities and insults included, trying to tell you that there are no objective values. And the funny thing about this is that they are all objectively sure! They claim there are no absolutes and they are at once absolutely sure!

Do they think they’re doing some objective “good” in the universe by attending forums and debates to denounce objective morals, absolute values and/or God? Of course they do otherwise why do they bother?!

But how strange is this since, according to their own dogma, they really cannot because they also claim that there is no fundamental right or wrong! No fundamental truth or moral standard external to man. Thus what possible real “good” can debating the matter accomplish? None. All views are relative and the universe has no meaning. (Of course they all believe their own life has some inherent meaning which they invent out nothingness for themselves regardless of the universe being meaningless)
So what’s the point? It’s all useless in the end, in their view, and all views will perish in short time.

So their very presence is indication enough that they do indeed perceive a real objective absolute “truth” to exist. Otherwise they would know they are wasting time trying to objectively prove there is none.

And worse is that, like I said before, they focus on external details – (usually minor; polygamy, sanctions, how women are treated amongst various religions and etc.) – in the actual out-workings of law, to find their arguments against objectivity.

But even in this they must assume an underlying rule over-riding all. Thus any persistence in focusing on outward details is clearly a wrong approach.

Why don’t they focus on child rape? Find me a religion that has approved of this besides satanism or its cousins! There is none and never has been – except of course certain atheistic or demon sex cults who believe there are no objective morals and so they need not answer to anyone – like the NAMBLA member who was so insulted in a TV interview when the host asked him about the moral legitimacy of men in “love” (ie sexual) relations with very young boys.

Atheists assume underlying values which they are use to argue against objective values! Very strange indeed.

One said to me, “It is the human response to results that is the basis of what we consider ‘right’ and ‘wrong’“.

But again, Reason is what brings the moral considerations, not human response to material consequences. And upon what basis would the mere human response be sufficient for establishing an objective rule? Is this the way they live every day? I don’t think so, nor could they – they’d end up in the cell block of the asylum.

The atheist claims that we are the results of billions of unlikely concurrent, conjunctive
accidents – random mutations + selection. (Darwinism is it’s science.) So where do they get off inventing objective morals for themselves, or any morals at all? Or, where can they find a solid rule of moral action since they themselves are nothing like “solid” or meaningful? It never adds up.

We are, in the materialist view, without soul, spirit, heart (let all the artists in the world weep). Without free will (see Dawkins or Provine). Without anything but bio-chem processes in our brains and nervous systems that dictate what we are and even what we believe (Dawkins’ memes), yet they boldly state the contrary — when it serves their own purpose of course.

Again I was told, “All such claims [to a real objective morality] are comprehensively dismantled by studying the basis for any specific set of claims, the irreconcilable contradictions between competing claims, and the fluidity of claims over time. Every religion has its own ‘objective’ morality, and they are, to significant extents, mutually exclusive. “

First, their own proofs of being objectively right, are thus dismantled by the same rule of logic!
But no, their moral values are nothing like significantly different. Rather significantly similar!!

Thankfully there are virtually no “irreconcilable contradictions” nor is there any significant “fluidity over time”. All the most basic, fundamental Moral values remain unchanged over millennia.

It’s rather surprising they can’t see how obvious this is.

CS Lewis gives a quick list of fundamental values amongst very different religions through the ages in his book, “The Abolition of Man” now on-line here :

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/lewis/abolition1.htm#1

and the comparative list is here : http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/lewis/abolition4.htm

a few short quotes :
“I have not slain men” – ancient Egyptian – confession of a righteous soul – book of the dead

“in Nastrond I saw murderers” – Old Norse – Volospa 38,39 (nastrond=hell)
“do no murder” – Hebrew -exodus 20

“Slander not” – ancient Babylonian – Hymn to Samas
“do not bring a false witness against your neighbour” – Hebrew exodus 20
“utter not a word by which anyone could be wounded” – Hindu
“never do to others what you would not like them to do to you” – ancient Chinese – Analects of Confucius

“speak kindness…show good will” – Hymn to Samas
“men were brought into existence for the sake of men that they might do one another good” – roman Cicero De Off.
“man is mans delight” – Old Norse Havamal 47
“what good man regards any misfortune as no concern of his?” – roman Juvenal15, 140

“love your wife studiously. gladden her heart all your life” – ancient Egyptian – ere
“has he appraoched his neighbour’s wife?” – babylonian – List of Sins
“you shall not commit adultery” – Hebrew
“In Nastrond I saw beguilers of others’ wives” – Old Norse Volospa

“take no vengeance though they do you wrong” – Old Norse Sigdrifumal, 22
“do not avenge yourselves” – christian Paul

“I have not stolen” – Egyptian – confessions… ibid.
“do not steal” – Hebrew
“to wrong, to rob, to cause to be robbed” – Babylonian List of Sins
It simply isn’t true that there are so many contradictions in the base principles of morality. There is always and universally an underlying belief in justice, goodness, mercy, truth, faithfulness, loyalty, kindness, patience, love, humility, candor, honesty, fair play, benevolence…..

No exceptions outside of satanism and it’s relatives. And even the “values” of satanism prove atheists wrong!

In summary, the atheist ought to re-think his life. Perhaps : “Oh God, if there is a God, save my soul, if I have a soul.” would be an adequate prayer for him.

You don’t have a soul, you ARE a soul, you have a body.

Is there purpose in Darwinian life?

This is partly from an article on the uncommondecent site, which I made comments on. Only my own comments are here.
The article quotes from various school biology text books.

“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”

(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)

“Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life.”

(Stephen J Gould quoted in Biology, by Peter H Raven & George B Johnson (5th ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pg 15; (6th ed., McGraw Hill, 2000), pg. 16.)

“By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”

(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)

“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”

(Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed.. D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)

“Adopting this view of the world means accepting not only the processes of evolution, but also the view that the living world is constantly evolving, and that evolutionary change occurs without any ‘goals.’ The idea that evolution is not directed towards a final goal state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself.”

(Life: The Science of Biology by William K. Purves, David Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, & H. Craig Keller, (6th ed., Sinauer; W.H. Freeman and Co., 2001), pg. 3.)

“The ‘blind’ watchmaker is natural selection. Natural selection is totally blind to the future. … Humans are fundamentally not exceptional because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies and brains … Natural selection is a bewilderingly simple idea. And yet what it explains is the whole of life, the diversity of life, the apparent design of life.”

(Richard Dawkins quoted in Biology by Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reese. & Lawrence G. Mitchell (5th ed., Addison Wesley Longman, 1999), pgs. 412-413.)

“Of course, no species has ‘chosen’ a strategy. Rather, its ancestors—little by little, generation after generation—merely wandered into a successful way of life through the action of random evolutionary forces …. Once pointed in a certain direction, a line of evolution survives only if the cosmic dice continues to roll in its favor. … [J]ust by chance, a wonderful diversity of life has developed during the billions of years in which organisms have been evolving on earth.”

(Biology by Burton S. Guttman (1st ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pgs. 36-37.)

“It is difficult to avoid the speculation that Darwin, as has been the case with others, found the implications of his theory difficult to confront. … The real difficulty in accepting Darwin’s theory has always been that it seems to diminish our significance. Earlier, astronomy had made it clear that the earth is not the center of the solar universe, or even of our own solar system. Now the new biology asked us to accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.”

(Invitation to Biology, by Helena Curtis & N. Sue Barnes(3rd ed., Worth, 1981), pgs. 474-475.)

“The advent of Darwinism posted even greater threats to religion by suggesting that biological relationship, including the origin of humans and of all species, could be explained by natural selection without the intervention of a god. Many felt that evolutionary randomness and uncertainty had replaced a deity having conscious, purposeful, human characteristics. The Darwinian view that evolution is a historical process and present-type organisms were not created spontaneously but formed in a succession of selective events that occurred in the past, contradicted the common religious view that there could be no design, biological or otherwise, without an intelligent designer. … The variability by which selection depends may be random, but adaptions are not; they arise because selection chooses and perfects only what is adaptive. In this scheme a god of design and purpose is not necessary. Neither religion nor science has irrevocably conquered. Religion has been bolstered by paternalistic social systems in which individuals depend on the beneficiences of those more powerful than they are, as well as the comforting idea that humanity was created in the image of a god to rule over the world and its creatures. Religion provided emotional solace … Nevertheless, faith in religious dogma has been eroded by natural explanations of its mysteries, by a deep understanding of the sources of human emotional needs, and by the recognition that ethics and morality can change among different societies and that acceptance of such values need not depend on religion.”

(Evolution by Monroe, W. Strickberger (3rd ed., Jones & Bartlett, 2000), pg. 70-71)

“Nothing consciously chooses what is selected. Nature is not a conscious agent who chooses what will be selected. … There is no long term goal, for nothing is involved that could conceive of a goal.”

(Evolution: An Introduction by Stephen C. Stearns & Rolf F. Hoeckstra, pg. 30 (2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 2005).)

“[A]s E.O. Wilson puts it, a chicken is really the chicken genes’ way of making more copies of themselves. … [A]s an evolutionary biologist I believe that in some sense we exist solely to propagate the genes within us.”
(Animal Behavior: An Evolutionary Approach, by John Alcock, pgs 16, 609 (Sinauer Associates, Inc, 1998).)
——————–

“I believe that in some sense we exist solely to propagate the genes within us.”

This, of course, brings back to the table the underlying implications of such nonsense – rape, for example, is a biological adaptation to this end – so is every thing else including murder.

Darwinists may try, as some still erringly and vainly do, to get out of it but there is no way out. Not using reason. Of course the atheistDarwinist may attempt to “invent” purpose for himself, but that purpose is vain, unilateral and ultimately no pourpose at all since, by necessity, it exists within the overall meaninglessness of the universe.
Now if this “gene propagation as sole purpose” is true then a pertinent question forces it’s way to the front – WHY?

Why should we exist in the 1st place? Why should we “propagate the genes”? To what end? Why should humans, or anything else for that matter, *survive* at all?

According to all the above quotes, to no end whatsoever. Survival for survival’s sake! What a bore!

Another pertinent question arises: If there is no real purpose or meaning to life then what is the purpose or meaning of all these atheist Darwinist rantings and ravings?

And what purpose or meaning do these people think they are working towards?  Why bother even writing about it since it is all to perish into eternal oblivionanyway?  A feckless and useless existence is the only result!
Again, as CS Lewis so aptly said, “Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning…”
and :
“If naturalism were true then all thoughts whatever would be wholly the result of irrational causes…it cuts its own throat.”

This is self-evident.

Unfortunately, the atheistic Darwinist camp is incapable of seeing this. They have been brainwashed by years of Darwinist propaganda – everywhere – and thus are in serious need of de-programming!

Ex: I once asked a Darwinist/atheist that if there were no absolutes, no ultimate truths, no real purpose then “2+2 does not always necessarily = 4?”. He replied, “exactly”.

And he was “absolutely” sure!

A strange form of intellectualized insanity follows.

This man is an IT pro who necessarily relies on math to accomplish his day to day job! But in his mind 2+2 may equal something other than 4 somehow, somewhere over the rainbow.

Thankfully he lives in a happy contradiction between reality and his own ideas – applying math *as though it were true* inspite of himself!

This is the postmodern dilema/contradiction and it leads the society that adheres to this sophism, to intellectualized, virtual insanity. “If it’s true, then it can’t be true”.

In this sorry view, there is no answer and we should not be seeking one.

Reason itself slowly dies and is replaced by any idiocy you please – such as the above inane citations from the bio-text authors (based on this bizarre relativist metaphysic).

I’ve been noting the decline of true reason in the public for a while now.
It’s frightening to see the erroneous, faulty logic that more and more people use in public.

Like the pedophile who was interviewed on a major US TV network who was working hard to get sexual relations between men and little boys legalized. He spoke easily and without the slightest inclination to shame and when challenged on the morality of it, began whining about the purposeless universe where there are no absolutes etc… and thus there was no right or wrong involved!

“Who are you to claim this is wrong?!” From the atheistic stance there was no contradicting him! For as Provine displayed, “There are no ultimate foundations for ethics”, no free will and all is biologically pre-programmed by our genes!!

All is thus purely subjective and no objective values can exist – not under these anserine schemes wherein Darwinism plays a major role and gene propagation is the sole ulimatum!

I fear that a major “outbreak” of mental illness will ensue as a result of the flight from absolutes. A flight into chaos – moral and mental.

When you see sophists defending the bio-origins of rape – like Thornhill – it’s time to wake up and smell the poison. But Thornhill and cie, are merely taking Darwinism to it’s logical ends!

F. Shaeffer’s “death of reason” is at our doorsteps and becoming more visible each passing year.

And Darwinism is this new follys’ “science” – it doesn’t matter how ludicrous the explanations are – it must be thus because the postmodern, anti-absolute mindset requires it. To say the contrary threatens the whole relativist/darwinist edifice.

No prupose but gene propagation? What a boring, feckless mindset! No wonder the “Darwinist culture” states are all off the wall endlessly seeking sexual satisfaction!

It’s all over the TV’s, movies etc. and the racks of porn mags in every store just keep growing and getting more explicit and perverse each year!

Time for a radical change!
“Unless we return to the crude and nursery-like belief in objective values, we perish.” – CS Lewis

It also seems rather confusing that here we have this article showing what’s in the bio-books stating that there is no purpose but self propagation (i.e. selfishness) and no goals or direction in life, and at the same time we have another book just out called “Darwin Loves you” wherein the author attempts to banish all these ideas and give Darwinism some “purposeful” credibility.

See the book’s description here -> Darwin loves you

And this just happens to coincide with creationist/ID camp’s having been exposing the clear metaphysics involved over the past few years! Coincidince? I don’t think so.

They’ve been exposed. So the high priests of Darwinian fundamentalism and are now rushing to save the precious theory, once again, from inevitable public disaster seeking to reconcile it again to reason and common sense.

Glaring contradictions abound in the postmodern mindset indeed. When will these people awaken from their dream?

Sometimes I fear it will take another world war before the consequences of this atheistic Darwinian intellectual suicide are realized.

The Pope & Islam

A lot of fury and verbiage is flying around since the pope’s comments concerning Islam these days.

In my view he merely spoke the historical truth, as we know it, about the “prophet” and should never have made any apology for his words. And once again mulsims have proven it to be still true!!

Again political correctness rules – even in the Vatican!

Islam has shown itself over and over again to be a dangerous, bloodthirsty religion of conversion by the sword. Convert or die is practically all we hear these days. And yet the idiotic politically correct agenda still insists that all religions are equal and Islam is not all bad – just a minority group of radical fundamentalists within it.

Minority? On the contrary! All we see in the world today are muslim demonstrations, threats, riots, and threats of slaughter, terrorism, war, abuse of women and children, cruelty, torture…..

When will the inane media makers wake up and smell the blood? Only when it becomes their own I fear.

History clearly tells us that the “prophet” was a desert bandit who pillaged, murdered, raped and tortured. Then he made a religion out of it to justify his crimes and build up a huge army of fanatics who wished to profit from the same.

That’s what history tells us whether we like it or not.

Jesus Christ receives more verbal abuse, ridicule, hatred and mockery in the world than any other “religious” leader ever. But do we see great crowds of christians out on the streets breating forth threatings and slaughter for it all? For even one small Christ abasing cartoon or comments by muslims or even the abasing words of the Quaran concerning Him? No.
Jesus, on the contrary, tells us to love our enemies, bless them that curse us and pray for them that persecute us. He says, “do as you would be done by” – the golden rule.

Which do you refer? The sword hanging over your head requiring conversion to Allah on pains of death or a free will choice – with future consequences yes – but still free? Christ offers reconciliation and peace with God on a free choice basis.

Do you want to see what the Quaran teaches? Look at these short refs:

Koran: Husbands may beat their wives. (Surah 4:34)

“Do not take the Jews and Christians for friends”
(Surah 5:51)

“fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness”
(Surah 9:123)

“fight those who do not believe in Allah”
(Surah 9:29)

“and fight them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah”
(Surah 8:39)

“fight them; Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace”
(Surah 9:14)

“Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them”
(Surah 9:30)

Just a small sample but you ought to get the idea. But the worst part is that as soon as anyone steps outside the politically correct boundaries and speaks the truth, inevitably a majority of muslims will step out and prove it!

Steve Centanni, the Fox News reporter freed overrecently by his captors in Gaza said, “We were forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint…”
Yet still the mass media refuses to speak the truth – all in the name of tolerance – right to the idiotic extremes of our post-modern world wherein if the truth hurts it must be squashed and it’s proponents persecuted. We must not “hurt feelings” or some other such brutally foolish notions are now more important than truth – even in the once “all powerful, infallible” Vatican!

I ask, when did one ever witness Christ apologizing for speaking the truth? Never. And yes we crucified Him for it and I have no doubts would do so again if we could! Many are still doing so verbally with no qualms or reasoning at all.

Forced religion is no religion at all.

The pope should feel no shame in having spoken the historical truth and no apologies should have been made. No apology for telling the truth, under such circumstances, should ever be made by anyone anywhere. Including any truth spoken by a muslim.

We may be mistaken sometimes when we think we are speaking the truth but are in fact unwittingly uttering false information. But no shame is ever to accepted for speaking the truth. And no apology should be made for reciting history and recognizing it’s message.

I am no fan of popery, but this situation is an outrage against freedom of expression and indeed against truth itself.