St. Darwin’s Death or A Theory In Ruins

The Darwinian propaganda juggernaut is a lot like a T-Rex: huge, stupid, vicious and utterly intolerant of dissension.  But it’s slowing down.

Its engine is broken down to the point that it can no longer provide the force necessary to keep its velocity.  The engine runs on gas (hot air) and the hot air is the only thing keeping the machine from completely falling apart.


In my last article I talked about the implications of finding the abstract concept of ZERO and the decimal point encoded in the genome. Those implications, by themselves, dismantle at least 90% of the Darwinian juggernaut -making it slowly devolve into a rusty old truck ready for the scrap heap where it always belonged.

Discoveries such as shCherback’s ruin Darwinian hopes for a badly needed religious revival of the metaphysical materialist underpinning of the whole schema.  Yes, Darwinism is a religion. It’s called Metaphysical Naturalism -a very old religion to boot. This is the religion of the atheists, or materialists if you will.  It origins myth is Darwinism (the modern synthesis or neo-Darwinism).

The drivers of this rusting old  junk heap of a machine are still at the wheel but they’re finding it harder and harder to steer, harder and harder to keep it on its course and harder to keep it moving.

Here’s a short list of reasons why Darwinism, like its master St. Charles, the prophet of materialism, is dead already:

*Genetic entropy

-shows that neutral and harmful mutations are far more numerous than beneficial ones and that therefore
-shows that genomes are devolving not evolving
-the mechanism that leads to mutational meltdown cannot be the same mechanism by which ~10 million life forms arose n earth
-all by itself Gentropy (new word if you please) should have eliminated Darwinism as a viable theory

*Information theory

-Nature has no mind and abstractions only exist in minds
-Information itself is metaphysical, not matter or energy as atheist Darwinism hold
-Specifically, encoded prescriptive or algorithmic information cannot arise by any natural means since codes are universally symbolic sign systems. Sign systems are universally abstract & arbitrary requiring a conceiver. Abstractions do not and cannot exist in nature as nature has no mind or ability to conceptualize.
-Since codes cannot arise by any stochastic process this means DNA was designed, as shCherbak stated, it must be artificial.  This too, all by itself and for obvious reasons, reduces Darwinism to dust & ashes

*Statistical mechanics

-By this I refer to probability & statistics applied to genomes and their structures
-The vast quantity of well structured, functional machines working in genomes -with purpose- requires instructions for the assembly of their component parts, DNA/RNA contain these instructions
-The parts of any compound components requiring precise assembly, must be precisely shaped, sized, fitted and implemented with materials capable of resisting environmental pressures such as sheer, compression, friction etc. inherent in any machine. To assume that blind unguided nature somehow stumbled up so many of such objects of the right shape, materials, properties and sizes by mutation, and that they accidentally happen to work together, is insanely ludicrous and defies everything we know of the laws of probability & mechanical engineering;
-Functional, useful, compound nano machines and the instructions necessary to assemble them cannot be symbolically encoded  by any random mutational process;  symbols do not exist in nature, they are conceptually determined (mind); no more than computer programs can write themselves by juggling millions of bits for all eternity could ever create an operating system
-Genomes are far far greater, and strictly regulated, than any human designed OS is and probably ever will be
-The combinatorial dependencies created by biological nano machines are a statisticians nightmare.  They are humongous in number, and this also rules out any chance of random mutations + selection creating any of these machines, their assembly instructions and the assembly machinery itself. Machine parts must be in correct position, size, shape, etc. with each other or you end up with a literal combinatorial “explosion” of the machine itself in the cell. Combinatorial explosions are exponential. This complicates things for Darwinian theory infinitely, to the point of no return.

*Inter cooperating nano machines

-Biological machines cannot ‘know’ what to do, where to go etc. yet are assembled for and function for clear precise purposes in genomes
-Hundreds if not thousands of such machines exist in the genomes of any complex species
-If the Darwinian mechanism of mutations + selection could create such machines we should see useless ones scattered everywhere in genomes; but we don’t. We always find perfectly functional machines and clear purpose
-The Darwinians respond to such facts with their usual mere denial. Denial of these being “real” machines -its just a metaphor they claim. But it is no analogy. As Yockey proved that the genetic is is mathematically identical to human devised codes and languages, this applies to biological nano machines as well. They are real machines as much as any automobile motor or space shuttle are real machines.

*The fossil record

-The fossil record is sorely lacking in intermediate forms; such forms should number in the billions given the number of species and their vast differences from the so-called “last universal common ancestor”
-Biological explosions such as the Cambrian or Avalonian reveal species showing up complete, fully adapted suddenly (in geochrono terms) with no know ancestors
-A very curious thing that Darwinists never seem to grasp is that when they claim something found in the fossil record is an ancestor or a link to some other newer species, they are already assuming the validity of Darwinism. In other words, in order to claim anything is an ancestor of any other thing, one has to assume Darwinism is true beforehand. This is not only a logical fallacy but a very foolish lack of thinking on their part
-In Darwinism every living and every dead thing is an intermediate. So why bother shouting so loudly, “Hey we have found an intermediate!”. Really? Well seeing that everything is, by default, an intermediate, the only response is, “So? Who cares? Everything and everyone is an intermediate”.
-Another fundamental problem with pretending anything is a link to something else, is that no fossil ever comes with its pedigree inscribed in it. Such pedigrees are only and always assigned by the Darwinian discoverer of the fossil. Based on what? It’s always based on his assumption that the theory is true! Hardly scientific. Thus, imagination is the closest thing to the reality of alleged intermediate forms.

*Laboratory experiments

-Lenski‘s experiments, if they reveal anything, tell us that you can only get E.coli out E.coli
-These experiments have produced over 56K generations of E.coli; this is equivalent to approximately 1 million years of human generations. But there’s a very serious flaw in this whole thing.  Consider: In the corresponding time it has taken humanity’s alleged last common ancestor to evolve into homo sapiens from some primitive primate, which is allegedly about 2.3 million years, E.coli has done nothing but trivial adaptation to one unique environmental stress. And that with information loss!
Think about that is reference to Darwinist devised time lines. Humans supposedly came about 2.3 million years ago? Wow, in all that time E.coli are still E.coli, but homo sapiens is endowed with such a vast number of traits, not found in its alleged ancestors that one is at a complete loss to explain how such vast changes could have all happened in such a ridiculously short time.  We’re talking millions of uninterrupted beneficial mutations to get from some advanced ape-like ancestor to full fledged human. In just a bit less time than that, poor E. coli has managed only a couple of trivial mutations!

The real question here is, “Why do Darwinists continue to believe their own inane drone hypothesis, when faced with such salient anomalies?  Well, the only real, honest answer to that is, “by faith”. Blind faith to boot. For, the very experiments designed to show us all Darwinian evolution in action, have shown us all almost nothing worth noting, very trivial evolutionary change. And that in approximately the same amount of time (2.3 million years mind you – not 2.1 or 2.4) it allegedly took humans to evolve from some dimwitted cave dwelling creature into homo sapiens!

Such gratuitous credulity is hardly based on the results of these experiments, or any others. Its based rather on religion, Metaphysical Naturalism, i.e. good old self contradictory atheism. Or, if you please, on wishful thinking.

Much more could be written here, but suffice it to say that neo Darwinism should have been buried years ago. However, seeing as how metaphysics underlies its whole raison d’être and that devout Darwinian adepts refuse to abandon it.  They won’t leave the materialist religion they rely on for their personal sense of psychological security in their world view. Thus, we have seen no funeral.

What we are seeing today is a veritable “scientific community” version of “Weekend at Bernies”, where the cadaver is propped up and made to appear alive. This is exactly current Darwinism, the new corpse. Propped up by hype, propaganda and lots of story telling (should I mention “threatenings and slaughter”?) to divert the public attention away from Bernie’s true condition.

Of course, all this was very frustrating and confusing for Paulie, the mob hit man who, falling for the ruse, was still trying to kill poor dead Bernie.

Another Headache for Darwin

In 2008 Vladimir ShCherbak published information his book “The Codes of Life” with a chapter entitled “The Arithmetical Origin of the Genetic Code”.  (Biosemiotics Volume 1, 2008, pp 153-185 – http://www.springerlink.com/content/t85w0h771510j187)

The discoveries covered in this are yet another wonderful refutation of Darwinism.

Of course, we know beforehand that the Darwinians will deny these clear implications, as they always do when any discovery challenges their secular humanism (a religion) based theory.  That’s because Darwinism is materialism’s origins myth.

For example shCherbak writes,

“There seems to be but one conclusion: the genetic code is itself a unique structure of arithmetical syntax. The arithmetical syntax is separated from natural events by the unbridgeable gap between the fundamental laws of nature and the abstract codes of the human mind (Barbieri, 2005). Chemical evolution, no matter how long it took, could not possibly have stumbled on the arithmetical language and initialized the decimalization of the genetic code. Physics and chemistry can neither make such abstractions nor fit the genetic code out with them.”

“The zero is the supreme abstraction of arithmetic. Its use by any alphabet, including the genetic code, can be an indicator of artificiality.”

“First, a general and the most forcible argument: it has been found that the genetic code is governed directly by the arithmetical symbol of zero. This striking fact is verified simultaneously by several independent orderlinesses – logical, arithmetical, and semantical… Incidentally, such an acting zero alone might be sufficient to assume an artificial nature of the genetic code.”

Zero is indeed and abstraction, as is the decimal point.  Only minds can entertain abstractions. Nature, being mindless, cannot therefore create or use abstract data like this. Abstractions don’t exist in nature’s matter and energy.

Indeed, the very definition of the word abstract is as follows:

1. thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances: an abstract idea.
2. expressing a quality or characteristic apart from any specific object or instance, as justice, poverty,  and speed.
3. theoretical; not applied or practical: abstract science.
4. difficult to understand; abstruse: abstract speculations.
…
8. an idea or term considered apart from some material basis or object.
9. an abstract work of art.

Note: removed unrelated definitions (related to arts)

Abstractions are only and always conceptual, requiring a mind.  Thus Nature, DNA and life as a whole, cannot know or understand abstract concepts like zero and the decimal point.  Matter and energy alone cannot abstract.

The very obvious conclusion of the existence of abstraction being used in the genetic code is a proof – not a mere evidence – that the genetic code was created by a mind, and intelligence.

ShCherbak states this very clearly in his statement- that I repeat for emphasis, “Incidentally, such an acting zero alone might be sufficient to assume an artificial nature of the genetic code.“

An “artificial origin” is the same as “intelligently designed”.

There is no other source for abstraction but mind and only mind can understand it.

Is this thus the end of Darwinism?

Well the truth is that Darwinism died many years ago with the discovery of the genetic code itself.  How so? Code is a symbol system.  Codes do not write themselves. Codes are conventions of symbols contrived to represent something other than themselves.  Algorithms cannot create themselves. No random process can create algorithmic symbol systems. Algorithms, being instructions and how to do something – like make a blueberry pie or build car -  require a mind.

As Dr. David Abel explains,

“Not even Descriptive semantic information is achievable by inanimate physicodynamics (Pattee, 1972, 1995, 2001). Measuring initial conditions in any experiment and plugging those measurements appropriately into equations (e.g., physical “laws”) is formal, not physical. Cybernetic programming choices and mathematical manipulations are also formal.

The specific term PI originated out of a need to qualify the kind of information being addressed in peer-reviewed scientific literature. Shannon measured only probabilistic combinatorial uncertainty. Uncertainty is not information. It is widely recognized that even reduced uncertainty (“R,” poorly termed “mutual entropy”) fails to adequately describe and measure intuitive information. Intuitive information entails syntax, semantics and pragmatics. Syntax deals with symbol sequence, various symbol associations, and related arbitrary rules of grouping. Semantics deals with the meanings represented within any symbol system. Pragmatics addresses the formal function of messages conveyed using that symbol system.” – http://www.scitopics.com/Prescriptive_Information_PI.html

More information and several articles one should read to grasp the concepts discussed can be found here.

Again Abel notes,

“No one has ever observed PI flow in reverse direction from inanimate physicodynamics to the formal side of the ravine—the land of bona fide formal pragmatic “control.” The GS Principle states that selection for potential function must occur at the molecular-genetic level of nucleotide selection and sequencing, prior to organismic existence (Abel, 2009b, d).

Differential survival/reproduction of already-programmed living organisms (natural selection) is not sufficient to explain molecular evolution or life-origin (Abel, 2009b). Life must be organized into existence and managed by prescriptive information found in both genetic and epigenetic regulatory mechanisms. The environment possesses no ability to program linear, digital folding instructions into the primary structure of biosequences and biomessages.

The environment also provides no ability to generate Hamming block codes (e.g. triplet codons that preclude noise pollution through a 3-to-1 symbol representation of each amino acid) (Abel and Trevors, 2006a, 2007). The environment cannot decode or translate from one arbitrary language into another. The codon table is arbitrary and physicodynamically indeterminate. No physicochemical connection exists between resortable nucleotides, groups of nucleotides, and the amino acid that each triplet codon represents. Although instantiated into a material symbol system, the prescriptive information of genetic and epigenetic control is fundamentally formal, not physical.”

What he is saying, for those not used to the terms of reference and concepts of the laws and nature of information, is that Darwinism cannot be true because matter + energy, random mutations + “selection” (a mere filter) cannot create abstractions like codes and symbol systems.  It just doesn’t happen. No more than your rose bush can do arithmetic.  Math is abstract in itself, nature knows nothing out it.

Therefore this arithmetical nature of the genetic code, with its zero and decimal, its algorithmic information, cannot be natural. This is a defeater for Darwinian evolution – period.

The current generation of elder Darwinian fanatics will never accept these obvious facts, it counters their whole world view and makes them nervous and insecure.  That’s why the Darwinistas are so enraged, utterly out to lunch, LOUD and adamantly resistant.  They are the new inquisition. It’s about religion for them, not science, whether they confess this “sin” or not.

This was revealed by one of their own, who at least was honest enough to admit it. Richard Lewontin,

“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.”

‘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.

Well we can take his word for it, right? Well um … if you can trust a scientist that tells you that he lies!   This is nevertheless a very strange statement. He says the materialism is absolute, and we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. But atheism has no absolutes!

The Darwinists only logical response to this is to claim panspermia, an extra-terrestrial origin for DNA.  But that only pushes the problem back one step, for then we need to ask, “How did they get here?” Now, supposing that the ETs themselves are DNA based will only leave us with the same question of the origin of life.

It will of course take a long time before these perfectly logical conclusions are accepted – perhaps the next generation of students of biology and other related domains will accept the truth. We’ll have to wait till this generation dies off.

The Atheist That Still Doesn’t Get It

In my last article I posted in response to an atheist that claimed that I don’t understand, atheism, metaphysics, information, evidence etc..  I attempted to show how atheists don’t understand their own position by using some of his claims and dismantling their obvious errors.  Not surprisingly this same atheist has once again responded with the same insistence and of course, the same errors.  He has still not seen any light.  Of course not, he would have to off his blinders to see any light.

So here, once again, I’ll post some of his further misguided comments and respond. This time for the last time as I’ve learned over the years that arguing with adamantly religious atheist fundamentalists is a waste of time.  They cannot see because they don’t want to see and thus live in perpetual denial of reality and darkness.

So let’s deal with his first, unsurprising because almost universal with watheists, but utterly wrong claim,

“Evidence for atheism? No, atheism is the default position.”

This is a ubiquitous claim amongst atheists but still very wrong and that for several reasons:

1. Who says atheism is the default position?

Can anyone seriously make this claim and back it up?  No.  It is a positive claim to knowledge that no atheist possesses.  Worse – Can atheists prove this? Have they proved this? No they have not and no they cannot.

The claim assumes, or rather presumes, that metaphysical beliefs, religion and faith if you please, are taught and learned from early childhood.  It assumes that no metaphysical concepts exist in initially in very young children.  It also assumes,  (once again revealing that the atheist here doesn’t understand that he has a positively chosen position, a religious belief),  that atheism is a non position – no position at all!  This is rather amazing persistence in the foolishness of denial of reality that is atheism.  Yet, this same atheist implores me to open up comments so he (in his own mind) can refute what I’m saying here!  He has not understood the real nature of atheism yet, but still wants to refute it!

2.  If atheism is the default position, where is the proof of this?

The atheist wrongly assumes that a default position doesn’t require proof.  If this were the default position it still requires proof that it ought truly be the default position.  Back to square one! More atheist circular reasoning that they their default cognitive dissonance creating position hinders them from detecting.

3. There is ever mounting evidence that atheism is not the default position.

Dr. Justin L. Barrett is senior researcher at University of Oxford’s Centre for Anthropology and Mind and the Institute for Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology.  Barrett has published studies demonstrating that metaphysical beliefs or innate or born in humans.  His research, which is also based on or associated with the research of many others who have come to the same conclusions, is that humans are born with a natural propensity to believe in God, purpose in life, and they demonstrate a clear recognition of designed artifacts versus natural ones right from the earliest stages of cognition.  Here is a link to a short article.  Dr. Barrett has even written a book on the subject called Born Believers: The Science of Children’s Religious Belief.

As one commenter of the book put it,

“A fascinating and readable account of why religious beliefs are perfectly normal and virtually universal. In an age of atheism, this book will challenge widespread assumptions that nonbelief is the default and that children must be indoctrinated to believe.  Jam-packed with insight and wit, Born Believers should be required reading for all parents and for anyone else interested in the spiritual lives of children.”  — Robert A. Emmons, Professor of Psychology, University of California

Barrett stated,

“The preponderance of scientific evidence for the past 10 years or so has shown that a lot more seems to be built into the natural development of children’s minds than we once thought, including a predisposition to see the natural world as designed and purposeful and that some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose,” – on BBC Radio “4 Today”.
“If we threw a handful on an island and they raised themselves I think they would believe in God.”

I may also point to the work of Paul Bloom of the Department of Psychology, Yale University, USA.  His essay called, “Religion is natural”, Bloom says,

“The proposal here is that there are certain early-emerging cognitive biases that give rise to religious belief. These include body–soul dualism and a hyper-sensitivity to signs of agency and design. These biases make it natural to believe in Gods and spirits, in an afterlife, and in the divine creation of the universe. These are the seeds from which religion grows.”

Many other recent research articles could be noted.

Atheists are once again shown to be off in their logic and metaphysics.  Once again, I provide solid and simple reasoning and evidence whereas the atheist provides bare assertions.    Assertions that, no matter how universal, inevitably turn out to be false.

Thus you can see why the atheists next statement is also wrong,

“The claims that need evidence are the positive claims “there is a God” or “there is no God”. 

Worse, or perhaps better, I’m not sure, the atheist says,

“Atheism is simply the position of not accepting the positive claims. Without evidence either way I am agnostic. But I am also an atheist. Your writing undoubtedly betrays your lack of awareness of this position.”

Here is the atheist has modified his definition of himself in contradictory ways.  First he states that atheism, previously a mere absence of belief, is now a refusal to accept evidence – which is exactly what I’ve been saying all along!  So has he accepted this at last?  Apparently no, as he is very confused as well.  How so?  He now claims to be an atheist agnostic.  But the two are mutually exclusive! One cannot be an agnostic and an atheist at the same time.   Agnostics are not atheists, they simply claim they don’t know whether their is a God or not, and many also claim that such knowledge is unattainable.  Atheists, on the other hand do not believe in God at all, and many, such as this atheist friend of ours here, adamantly refuse all evidence pointing to a supreme being.  “Curiouser and curiouser”!

Then he adds,

“Not only that, but even if you do attack atheism it doesn’t prove theism true.”

This is rather surprising since I stated clearly in the previous article that proving any specific evidence for God wrong does not prove there is no God. Obviously the reverse is true. Proving atheist counter propositions to God to be false doesn’t prove there is a God.  And?

Then he insults my academic and experiential credentials – a bachelors degree in informatics plus many years of experience in information technologies – by stating,

“As for your not understanding information, you don’t. The idea that you think information necessitates a mind is just a nonsense.”

Obviously our friend is very uniformed on information himself.  As he follows with this,

“Are the ice core records not information? Are tree-rings not information? Are soil layers not information? If they are then information obviously doesn’t need a mind, and if not explain why DNA is information and these things are not.”

Here we see a very common and glaring error committed by atheists attempting to refute the laws of information and the nature of  specified information. Once again the atheist fails to discern between information and the medium in which it is stored, even though I clearly explained this here.  Also here and here as well.  Not clearly enough apparently, or he didn’t read it.

Our atheist antagonist commits intellectual suicide here, not realizing that this very statement proves him wrong.

Ice cores, tree rings, soil layers etc. are information? No they are not.

However, a mind can derive information from them by obtaining previous knowledge on interpretation of ice layering properties etc..  The information on conditions of the various eras when the ice was formed exists only in a mind that can reason upon its natural properties. It is not structured information contained in the ice itself.  This is not specified information.  It isn’t algorithmic at all.  Not is it encodedm, the code exist in the mind of the interpreter alone.

The same thing applies to tree rings, soil layers, and the color of stars, a benzene molecule etc.  These things merely are what they are.  Information derived by understanding their nature and condition is completely other and can only be derived by a mind using logic.  Logic is a property only of minds.   Rocks have no logic.  Rocks carry only derivable information.

The information contained in DNA is however another matter altogether – again as I previously explained in the original article.  It is algorithmic, prescriptive and descriptive information such as one finds in a recipe or a set of plans for building a car. It’s information doesn not point only to itself but describes whole information systems constructed with proteins by long sequential algorithmically ordered molecules of amino acids.

I suggest those interested in a real understanding of information read the published papers of Dr David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors here.  Their work and lucent reasoning is devastating to both atheism and it’s origins myth Darwinism.

Here’s a short excerpt on their work from Biosemiotic Research Trends,

Genomic instructions are a form of what Abel (Abel, 2002, Abel and Trevors, 2005) calls prescriptive information. Such a clarifying descriptor of information is necessary to distinguish mere Shannon combinatorial uncertainty and Kolmogorov complexity from functional algorithmic strings. Algorithms steer events and behaviors towards predictable usefulness.  Prescriptive information utilizes a sign system to either instruct or direct compute utility.
…
Artificial life investigators and most applied biologists accepted this reality early on. Steering is required to achieve sophisticated function of any kind. Much of the life-origin research community, however, continues to “live in denial” of this fact.

The atheist/agnostic (don’t think he knows what he is) then states,

“Now, your last post contradicts your About section”

Right.  Nuff’ said.

Then he adds, with equally unimpressive lucidity,

“See, to think about it you really need to be open to contrary views and to debate the evidence, you’re not willing to do that. What you are doing is closing the comments section and spreading dishonesty.”

Sadly, his own mind is shut like a trap and has probably been on hold for many years.  The fact is that I’ve debated thousands of times with atheists, on and off line.  So this poor dupe again insults me by claiming that I, like himself,  have a closed mind and am not willing to debate! Laughable and truly pathetic. Oh and once again, there is no evidence for atheism.

The only dishonesty witnessed around wen forums where fanatical atheists attempt to debate their “default” non-position is amongst atheist themselves, the most dishonest pseudo thinkers on earth.

He invites me to debate on his blog.

Sorry dear boy but no.  That’s my only sane response, given he has understood virtually nothing I’ve said thus far and I have no hopes he ever will.   I’ve seen overwhelming evidence of the following statements too many times for one person in one life and as I stated before, no longer interested in wasting time arguing endlessly with willful fools,

“The atheists are for the most part imprudent and misguided scholars who reason badly who, not being able to understand the Creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis the eternity of things and of inevitability…..” – Voltaire: Philosophical Dictionary

“You can lead an atheist to evidence but you can’t make him think.” – Ray Comfort

There is no God and I am his prophet

Yet Another Atheist Doesn’t Get His Own Position

I recently received some comments from an atheist wannabe intellectual complaining about my posts.  Oh joy.

As is ubiquitous with atheist die-hards,  he demonstrated that, all while claiming I don’t understand atheism, burden of proof,the laws of evidence and the meaning of the word metaphysical etc., that in fact he didn’t understand these things!

I have to laugh you see, because invariably such atheists themselves just don’t get it.  They vehemently insist that they do and that theists don’t get it.  It gets ridiculous to the point of hilarious when one starts delving into to their own feeble arguments against God but they never see the light on any of this because their minds are usually on hold, stuck in acute cognitive dissonance that damages their logic.

The sad thing is that they wish to disprove theism or theist arguments by their alleged use of logic and reason. Unfortunately atheists never understand even this.

No Evidence for God?

I often encounter atheists who claim that there is no evidence for God.

Question: Is this true?

A: The most obvious answer is a quite resounding no.

No one can claim there is no evidence in the universe for the existence of a supreme being.  Yet, arm chair atheist pseudo-experts and wannabe philosophers say dumb things like that all the time because they never think anything through deeply enough to see how foolish such statement is.

Proof? Ask them to prove there is no evidence for God.  Gee – End of discussion right there – if they were honest, but they are not.

What has been said of lawyers easily applies to atheists – its only 99% of atheists that give a bad reputation to the rest.

It is simply not – by any means – a logical or justifiable claim.   Why?  Well obviously no atheist can possibly offer any evidence for his own claim!  He can’t offer any justification for such a stupendous claim, therefore he must bare alone the burden of proof that there is no evidence for God.  Can he? No, of course not.

The atheist positing such thus puts himself in the exact same position that he claims theists are in! Claiming that which cannot be proved.  This is hardly surprising since atheists also vehemently and religiously claim there is no God all while admitting they can’t prove a negative!

His position implies that he has indeed searched out and deeply examined all proposed evidences of God and found them all lacking.   Of course there are no atheists who can even be aware of all the evidences that may exist for God, nor even of all proposed evidences since this would require a knowledge of every argument for God that has ever existed as well as all possible other evidences. Yet another knowledge claim that atheists cannot uphold.

To truly know there is zero evidence for God’s existence implies that the atheist claiming this knows all possible evidences for God’s existence.   No single human being ever has, nor ever will, be able to do this, thus all such flippant dismissals of all evidence for God are mere arrogant pretensions to unavailable knowledge.

That in itself destroys all claims by any atheists that there is no evidence for God.  It also demonstrates what every theist knows – that atheists are almost invariably arrogant blowhards making foolish claims they cannot back up.

Dismissal of all evidence is not an argument against God.  It is mere denial of reality that there are indeed infinite evidences for the existence of a first cause.  Claiming there’s no evidence for God is tantamount to claiming to have proved that all proposed evidences, ever,  are wrong.  This has never been done by anyone, ever.

Moreover, claiming that any proposed evidence is wrong or insufficient does not prove that it is in fact wrong or insufficient.   Worse, even if one were able to truly refute all proposed evidence, that still does not imply that there is no God.  There may be other evidences that one is unaware of, the wrong analysis tools and methods may have been used for devising evidence, etc.

Atheist Kai Nielsen stated,

“To show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false….All the proofs of God’s existence may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists.” - Reason and Practice (New York: Harper & Row, 1971), 143-44.

The atheist, though he will always deny it, because of personal wishes that there be no God, is always left with nothing to found his own beliefs on.  What do we see instead?  Nothing but denial and lame attempts at shirking his share of the burden of proof.  Atheists always shirk this by mere caviling and, as always,  denial that they even have any such burden. But they do have such a burden anyway – shirked or not, admitted or not.

Atheists tend to assume that if one has no evidence for God’s existence, then one ought to believe that God does not exist.  False.  What the atheist fails to see is that atheism is just as much a knowledge claim “There is no God” as theism’s “There is a God”.  Thus, as Ravi Zacharias states,

“the atheist’s denial of God’s existence needs just as much substantiation as does the theist’s claim; the atheist must give plausible reasons for rejecting God’s existence”.

The atheist cannot say, “Well I don’t claim there is no God, only that I don’t believe there is”.  But such would lead to agnosticism, not real atheism.  If one does not know there is no God, one has no grounds to believe there is no God, no ultimate first cause. Back to burden of proof!  Is there evidence that no God exists? No.  None whatsoever.

Is there evidence of a first ultimate cause? Yes, everything that exists is evidence of a first and ultimate cause, by implication of the laws of cause and effect! (Quantum theories notwithstanding).  To say a singularity started it all, or a quantum fluctuation started it all is to say “we have no idea what started it all”!  Fluctuation of what? etc.

Consider the following evidence, for example:

Information is evidence of God.  Information itself is metaphysical.  Logic is metaphysical.  Now, if metaphysical things exist then that itself is yet another evidence for the possibility and probability of the existence of God, who, by very definition, is metaphysical!  But atheists claim there is no such thing as a “metaphysical” something.  All is matter and energy.

Thus atheism is little different than insanity, for claiming that nothing metaphysical exists is as bad as claiming that information doesn’t exist! So where does the atheist get this tasty bit of information?!

We know information is metaphysical because it is always other or different from the medium in which it is stored. The ink on the paper in a book, by itself is not information.  It’s just a dye.  Ink on paper, by the way it’s used and structured to form symbols that, in turn, represent specific concepts and meanings, is merely the container, the medium through which information is conveyed. All symbol systems imply metaphysics and intelligence.  The collective symbols, by the way they are organized on the paper can contain meaningful information, to a mind that knows the symbolic convention, or code, used.

Again, the pixels on your screen are not the information they contain.  They are mere colored light spots. However, the pixels encode information that requires a mind – a mind that has been taught the symbol convention used (say the alphabet or icons) – to interpret it. That information is not random – it isn’t a meaningless blotch – but is structured and semantic.  It has syntax, semantics (meaning) and purpose.  No symbolic convention (code) is without purpose. But the very concept of purpose implies intention which implies mind and volition.

Encoded algorithmic information is a symbol system, whether that symbol system be such as the English or Hebrew alphabets or the ATCG chemicals of DNA.  Such symbol systems cannot exist without intelligence (they intrinsically imply intelligent origin) thereby demonstrating that metaphysical intelligence must exist in order to explain the humongous levels of algorithmic information contained in the DNA molecule.

That intelligence – given its complexity, depth and intricacy – is best and most simply (Occam’s Razor) explained by what men have always called “God”.  The Intelligent originator.

Encoded information

Encoded information

Of Invisible Pink Unicorns

How many times have I encountered the atheist standard argument about not believing in invisible pink unicorns and thus not believing in God either?  Variations on the theme are leprechauns, Santa Claus, ice cream factories on some other planet and the truly inane flying spaghetti monster (FSM) and  such.  Have you met up with one of these arguments against theism or deism?  I see it all the time.

These are nothing more than popular variations of B. Russell’s famous “Tea Pot” argument. This argument is only famous because Russell was famous.  For, it has no real validity.  Russell argued that he could assert that there was a tea pot floating in space somewhere,  so small that no telescope could detect it.  And given this assertion, no one would be required to believe in the tea pot, because there is no real evidence, just assertion.  The tea pot cannot be proved not to exist.

Typical of the logical positivists.  Logical positivism – a misnomer because there was never anything either logical or positive about it – a philosophical system now bankrupt, now defunct and lying in ruins because it was void of reason but full of bare assertions and hot air.  Sounds like the whole of atheism doesn’t it.

The argument is devised to show that if a thing can’t be proved or disproved to exist, then the burden of proof belongs to asserting its existence.  Therefore since – according to atheists – God can neither be proved nor disproved to exist, the theists, who assert his existence, must prove it.  Since the atheist assumes the existence of God cannot be proved he believes himself to be thinking logically and the theist to be unreasonable or even irrational.  We see this type of position posited everywhere across cyberspace as though it were some fatal blow to theism.  It isn’t.  Not even close.

The tea pot in space argument is flawed.  Curiously, atheists never figure this out and still flaunt it over and over again, ad nauseum.  I was once challenged to produce a refutation, and the challenge was stated in terms indicating that the challenger believed the argument irrefutable – even though its been refuted many times.

What they’re really doing is trying – as always – to squirm their way out of having any burden of proof of their own in asserting the non existence of God.  Whenever atheists do this, it’s mere escapism and denial.  For, to pretend they have no burden of proof is tantamount to saying they have no position, that – once again – atheism were a mere involuntary state of “lack of belief”.   This has been refuted here, here and here as well as many other places across the web.

Now for the IPU argument itself.

As Dinesh D’Souza has aptly pointed out, there are no books called “Unicorns Are Not Great”, or “The Unicorn Delusion”. Nor are there any books around called “The Flying Spaghetti Monster Delusion”, the FSM being yet another example of just how dumb atheists have become in their never ceasing efforts to show themselves inapt in reason and logic. They never see it though.

So how does one dismiss the invisible pink unicorn argument, specifically?  I respond with Rich Deem’s simple refutation:

Unicorns would be pink if they reflected pink electromagnetic radiation (i.e., light). However, in order to be invisible, the unicorns would reflect no electromagnetic radiation. Therefore, the term “invisible pink unicorn” is self contradictory. Therefore, we know absolutely that they could not exist. I don’t know who invented the term “invisible pink unicorns,” but they were obviously deficient in their physics education.

You can read the whole argument here.

So as you see, the IPU “argument” is so deeply stupid it doesn’t even qualify as an real argument.  Now, given just how easily the IPU argument is shown to be just plain dumb, unscientific and unthinking, you would think atheists would get smart and try to find something that could at least qualify as reasonable.  Do they? Well no, not really.

Russell’s tea pot argument is just as easily refuted.  Several refutations can be proposed and William L. Craig has given a few.

But just for fun consider:  tea pots are uniquely human artifacts.  Therefore, the only possible way there could be a tea pot floating around the moon, sun etc. would be that some humanly fabricated tea pot escaped from some also humanly fabricated space ship, or, that some crazy person on earth sent one into space on a launch platform capable of sending its payload right out of earth’s magnetic field.

Is that possible? Of course something like that could be done.  So, there may very well be a tea pot orbiting Earth for all we know.  But do we have any historical records from NASA, the Russians or whoever, of a tea pot having escaped from some space mission? Well gee, I don’t think so.  But this isn’t really the point.

The point being that such arguments generally commit two logical fallacies, i.e. a fallacy of equivocation and a category error.

Again, the same reasoning applies to FSM’s or anything else the ill-thinking atheist may dream up to escape the wholly logical God inference.

Now,  back to the more important reasons to dismiss all such “tea pot” arguments.  They are category errors. They are fallacies of equivocation when used as comparisons to the inference of the existence of a supreme being logic.  Comparing the belief  in a tea pot orbiting a planet, to the logical inference based belief in the existence of a first and sufficient cause for the existence of the universe, is utterly hilarious.  If only it weren’t so seriously posited by unthinking atheists – obviously trying to escape their own burden of proof.

Moreover, if they have no burden of proof it could only be if atheism were not a metaphysical position at all, but a mere involuntary state of mind.  But the fact that they are everywhere stating their position and fervently arguing for it shows that they do indeed hold the “no god” stance as a metaphysical position, a chosen belief – not a bare lack thereof!

Atheists prove their religious devotion to their world view, their metaphysics, by writing so many books, debating everywhere and by infesting web forums ever trying to refute the existence of God – and never ever succeeding! Religious fervor is the only appropriate label to put on such behavior. Yet,  all while they’ll still vehemently deny it.  Denial of reality is atheism’s most glaring trait.

Atheists admit they cannot prove that there is no God.  So what does that imply? Just this, that atheism is a position that can only be held by blind faith.  Since no proof of their position exists, blind faith in that position is the only thing left.

Curiously the atheist always accuses the theist of this very thing! The theist however knows that all things can used as a starting point towards the First Cause inference and yet nothing at all can be used to the contrary!

A supreme being’s existence is logically inferred by the very existence of the universe itself.  How so?  Well, we know the universe is not eternal – it has an age.  This is not hard.  We also know it doesn’t oscillate eternally – Fred Hoyle’s hopeful hypothesis – that he was forced to abandon due to the evidence against it.

This of course implies that something made it, and that whatever made it necessarily exists apart from it.

We know too that it cannot have created itself.  Something creating itself from from nothing?  The very idea is preposterous – except to blind atheism’s terrible reasoning.  You see – “nothing” doesn’t exist.  Nothing, as non-existence, cannot be said to have properties, energy, matter, law.  So the more recent nonsense arguments of “quantum fluctuations” in some speculative void, are still “fluctuations of nothing” – i.e.  more logical absurdity.

So where do all these glaring anomaly’s leave the poor atheist? In a logic void.  Atheism, as C.S Lewis so aptly states, “turns out to be too simple.  If the universe has no meaning we should never have discovered it has no meaning”.  Thus the arguments (tea pots, IPUs, FSMs etc.) that the new atheist is so proud of verbalizing turn out to be lame-brained nonsense as soon as the light of reason and logic is applied to them properly.

The atheist is thus left in a philosophical no mans land because taking his arguments to their logical conclusions always leads to absurdity, or else a kind of metaphysical free-for-all, in which nothing can be proved.  But if nothing can be proved, then we have no reason to believe in ourselves.

No invisible pink unicorns

The Secular Humanist Conspiracy

Don’t you just love a good conspiracy theory?  I do.  They can be so much fun, even instructive and eye opening.  Some of course are so far off the wall that they give a bad name to the rest.   Some are so-so credible but lack any convincing evidence. Others ring so truly that they are downright scary.

Well, one that fits the last category has got to be the one I call here simply the “secular humanist conspiracy”.  For, if ever there was a true conspiracy of the kind that grabs the attention of the public, this should have been it.  But it wasn’t and it still isn’t.  It’s a conspiracy that was put into action many decades ago and is still in “all out cultural war” phase.

One must not confuse secular humanism with humanitarianism.  The two could not be farther apart.

The most amazing thing about this conspiracy is how well it has been dissimulated, brushed under the carpet,  yet not so secretly implemented.  Yet the evidence of it is everywhere.  The evidence of it isn’t even hard to find.  The secular humanist high priests worked simply and rather brilliantly in conceiving it and putting it into action.  Most of them were not even surreptitious when speaking publicly about their plans.

They met with such little opposition probably because either no one paid much attention or, those who should have and could opposed them didn’t because of their own ignorance and/or apathy.

So, where is the evidence of such a conspiracy that has led to the downfall of American society in general?

Secular Humanist Charles F. Potter wrote,

“Education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism, and every American school is a school of humanism. What can a theistic Sunday school’s meeting for an hour once a week and teaching only a fraction of the children do to stem the tide of the five-day program of humanistic teaching?” (Charles F. Potter, “Humanism: A New Religion,” 1930)

The term secular humanism was first known to have been used in the 1930′s.  In 1943, the Archbishop of Canterbury of the day, William Temple, warned that the “Christian tradition… was in danger of being undermined by a Secular Humanism which hoped to retain Christian values without Christian faith.” – “Free Church ministers in Anglican pulpits. Dr Temple’s call: the South India Scheme.” The Guardian, 26 May 1943, p.6

John Dewey, remembered for his efforts in establishing America’s current educational systems, was one of the chief signers of the 1933 Humanist Manifesto.  Called “The Father of Modern Education” John Dewey was a Communist, atheist and a signer of the Humanist Manifesto and of course one of the great secular humanist conspirators.  Dewey stated clearly enough,

“You can’t make Socialists out of individualists — children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming, where everyone is interdependent.”

Isn’t it amazing how liberty and freedom of thought and speech disappear under the reign of secular humanism?! No matter how much they insist they’re all for freedom – theirs that is, not yours.

Sir Arthur Keith, a British evolutionary anthropologist and anatomist, stated, “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.”   Darwinian evolution is the certainly secular humanists origins myth.  Believed largely for metaphysical reasons and not scientific ones.  These religious fanatics like to pretend these days, contrary to their forefathers, that secular humanism isn’t a religion, but clearly it is as the quotes here easily demonstrate.

One of the most famous humanists, Paul Kurtz often called “the father of secular humanism”,  founded of the “Council for Secular Humanism” and of the “International Academy of Humanism, USA”, wrote in the preface to the Humanist Manifesto 2000:

“Humanism is a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view.” 

Kurtz’ books call for the establishment of humanist churches.  Not a religion?

Yet, in his farewell address to the new nation of the United States of America (September 19, 1796), George Washington declared,

“It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

Make no mistake, secular humanism is founded upon atheism, otherwise known as metaphysical naturalism – a religion, a very old religion.

The term secularism was coined in 1851 by George Jacob Holyoake in order to describe “a form of opinion which concerns itself only with questions, the issues of which can be tested by the experience of this life.”  Once a staunch Owenite, Holyoake was strongly influenced by Auguste Comte, the founder of positivism and of modern sociology. Comte believed human history would progress in a ‘law of three stages’ from a ‘theological’ phase, to the ‘metaphysical’, toward a fully rational ‘positivist’ society. In later life, Comte had attempted to introduce a ‘religion of humanity’ in light of growing anti-religious sentiment and social malaise in revolutionary France. This ‘religion’ would necessarily fulfill the functional, cohesive role that supernatural religion once served. Whilst Comte’s religious movement was unsuccessful, the positivist philosophy of science itself played a major role in the proliferation of secular organizations in the 19th century. – (from wikipedia … verifiable)

Robert Muller (former assistant to the secretary general of the UN):

 ”Within 15 years we will have a proper government and administration of planet earth and of humanity. Why? Because the current troubles, injustices, wastes and colossal duplications of national expenditures – especially on armaments and the military – will force us to. It is inevitable. The salvation of this planet and survival of the human species depend on it. No one can for long go against evolution. Nation-states must adapt or they will disintegrate, even the biggest ones.” (http://goodmorningworld.org/blog/2006/01/gmw-852-robet-muller-happiest-person.html).

Humanist John J. Dunphy wrote:

I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects what theologians call divinity in every human being.
These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level — preschool day care center or large state university.
The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new — the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism.
It will undoubtedly be a long, arduous, painful struggle replete with much sorrow and many tears, but humanism will emerge triumphant. It must if the family of humankind is to survive. – A Religion For A New Age, The Humanist magazine, January-February 1983

Tell me again how this isn’t a religion in the public education system! Darwinism is its origins myth.

These are the highly influential persons whom, with billion dollar aid from other famous humanists, pushed this “hidden agenda” into the public schools. Yet they are also the ones who are always claiming the infamous Establishment Clause when faced with any threat to the Darwinist agenda in public schools! All of this is rather amazing in itself, but the mass media – virtually all controlled by secular humanists -  have just sort of neglected to tell the public of these things! They are conspirators themselves for the most part and have not so curiously failed to report on any of this, either as it was being planned or while it was being implemented and to this day the liberal media bias and insistence on sweeping all such inferences under the rug is as clear as a warning bell.

Secular humanists love to speak of personal freedom, self-fulfillment, the good of humanity etc.  But as soon as you start digging deeper, all is defined according to their own terms, no one else’s definitions are allowed in the door!Indeed, it turns out that the religion of secular humanism is all about selfishness and population control of the mass by the self-styled “elite” of society.  They want to form a society guided only according to their own religious dogma of atheism, scientism and elitism.  The roots of secular humanism are selfishness and atheism, even though they deny the former.  Of course they deny it!

Humanism is nothing more than a modern push to create a new tower of Babel, trying to reach heaven, a new religion in defiance of God where self is the only god.   It is an attempt to return to Eden, to paradise on earth, but by all the wrong means.  Means that can never work as all the world witnessed with the former Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Cambodia etc.  The end of purely secular governments, based on atheism is nothing but human suffering, misery, mass murders, torture and “killing fields”!

Look at this revealing, and rather disgusting, quote by secular humanist geneticist Richard Lewontin,

“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.”

And this one beats ‘em all:
“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.

How’s that for inane drone “thinking” and overt dishonesty!?

The lovely but poisoned apple of humanism

Evolution News and Views editor, Anika Smith, wrote a column in the SPU Falcon newspaper titled “Beware of ‘Darwin Day’”.  In describing some of the more humorous elements of Darwin Day celebrations (carols, Darwin look-alike contests and even an incredible, edible tree of life) Smith notes the holiday’s familiar trappings.

“If you’re wondering what a secular humanist does to commemorate such an occasion, it turns out that these particular humanists stand on street corners and hand out leaflets about evolution in an attempt to reach passers-by.

 In Victoria, B.C., a philosophy of religion professor organized a Darwin Day celebration for his students where they decked the halls with humanist style. Participants decorated an evolution tree, exchanged Darwin cards and even sang evolution carols.

 If this sounds familiar to you, that’s because it was designed that way. This celebration, like so many others, was styled as a “light-hearted satire” of Christmas. Had the celebration taken place in a culture with a different religious history, such as Turkey, it might look something more like the Feast of Sacrifice.”

Not a religion huh?  Got any more clueless claims, humanists?

Now, let’s look at some of those who signed the Humanist Manifesto III I highlighted a few :

Khoren Arisian
Senior Leader, NY Society for Ethical Culture

Bill Baird
Reproductive rights pioneer

Frank Berger
Pharmacologist, developer of anti-anxiety drugs

Lester R. Brown
Founder and president, Earth Policy Institute

August E. Brunsman IV
Executive director, Secular Student Alliance

Rob Buitenweg
Vice president, International Humanist and Ethical Union

Vern Bullough
Sexologist and former copresident of the International Humanist and Ethical Union

David Bumbaugh
Professor, Meadville Lombard Theological School

Matt Cherry
Executive director, Institute for Humanist Studies

Joseph Chuman
Visiting professor of religion, Columbia University, and leader, Ethical Culture Society of Bergen County, New Jersey

Curt Collier
leader, Riverdale-Yonkers Society for Ethical Culture, New York

Fred Cook
Retired executive committee member, International Humanist and Ethical Union

Carlton Coon
Former US Ambassador to Nepal

Richard Dawkins (what a surprise huh)
Charles Simonyi professor, University of Oxford

Arthur Dobrin
Professor of humanities, Hofstra University and leader emeritus Ethical Humanist Society of Long Island, New York

Margaret Downey
President, Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia

Riane Eisler
President, Center for Partnership Studies

Albert Ellis
Creator of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy and founder of the Alber Ellis Institute

Edward L. Ericson
Leader emeritus, Ethical Culture

Antony Flew
Philosopher

Arun Gandhi
Cofounder, M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence

Kendyl Gibbons
President, Unitarian Universalist Ministers Association

Sol Gordon
Sexologist

Pervez Hoodbhoy
Professor of physics at Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan

Fran P. Hosken
Editor, Women’s International Network News

Joan Johnson Lewis
President, National Leaders Council of the American Ethical Union

Edwin Kagin
Founder and director, Camp Quest

Beth Lamont
AHA NGO representative to the United Nations

Gerald A. Larue
Professor emeritus of biblical history and archaeology, University of Southern California

Ellen McBride
Immediate past president, American Ethical Union

Henry Morgentaler
Abortion rights pioneer

Stephen Mumford
President, Center for Research on Population and Security

William Murry
President and dean, Meadville-Lombard Theological School

Indumati Parikh
President, Center for the Study of Social Change, India

Katha Pollitt
Columnist, the Nation

Eugenie Scott
Executive director, National Center for Science Education

Michael Shermer
Editor of Skeptic magazine

James R. Simpson
Professor of international agricultural economics, Ryukoku University, Japan

Matthew Ies. Spetter
Associate professor in social psychology at the Peace Studies Institute of Manhattan College, NY

Oliver Stone
Academy award-winning filmmaker

John Swomley
Professor emeritus of social ethics, St. Paul School of Theology

Carl Thitchener
Co-minister, Unitarian Universalist Church of Amherst and of Canadaigua, New York

Maureen Thitchener
Co-minister, Unitarian Universalist Church of Amherst and of Canadaigua, New York

Kurt Vonnegut
Novelist

Edward O. Wilson
Professor, Harvard University,
…

Of course I excluded a lot of other names.  Notice how many scientists, so-called “ministers” or “theologians” and wealthy and influential persons are on the list in organizations related to “ethics”, education and religion!

None dare call it conspiracy. Of course, there are no conspiracies in America! None… no no no… and anyone who says there is, is a paranoid nut case.   Ya right…

So how did they succeed in bringing the religion of humanism into the whole of public departments – education, justice et al.?  Quietly, stealthily, insidiously at first, now quite openly.  They believe they are invincible, just as did Nimrod and his slaves, right before the confusion of languages was put on the builders of Babel.

The humanists simply placed all the most dedicated of their dupes in key positions of power in the education departments of the nation and then started bad-mouthing Christianity and religion, calling for the infamous “separation of church and state” all while pretending religious neutrality! All while constantly reiterating (good pedagogy) the post modernist refrains that only science can tell us the truth, the religion is passé and that it must not be allowed in the classroom.   This all while implanting their own religion in the classrooms!

No conspiracy here?
If you believe this was not a long planned and keenly executed conspiracy, I have a few big beautiful bridges to sell you… cheap, as well as some huge land lots on Mars that you can leave to your posterity when humans will be living there.

Virtually every public school in America was taken over by these people and most of America (and Europe as well) has swallowed all these lies and accepted all this.

Winston Churchill commented,

“If you will not fight for the right when you can win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

This is what is going to happen, and much sooner than we think, if we don’t get off our lazy asses and stand up and protest with righteous indignation -and plenty of proof of what we state.  We must be able to present viable solutions to remedy the catastrophic consequences that secular humanism and its goons have wreaked on the morals of society already. Consequences that already display the taking of incalculable numbers of lives and wrought irreparable damage.

It’s time to oust this intruder, this liar, the secular dogmatist & manipulator from the whole social system of the West.

Even More Atheist Folly!

Nothing created everything.

Yes ladies & gents, this is the sum of all atheist origins myths.  Even normally brilliant people like Stephen Hawking, being desperate to find any other solution to origins but a God being, i.e. a sufficient agency and power to explain the universe, are now claiming that nothing created everything.

In his latest book he claims,

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing,” he writes. “Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.” – The Grand Design

First, it is very important to understand that this is not a scientific statement at all but a metaphysical belief statement. Hawking’s claim is very bad logic to say the least, but it’s far worse coming from his pen, it isn’t anywhere near the scientific ball park!

Real science says the total energy of nothing is always nothing. That’s what nothing “is”, no thing, including no energy, no “random quantum fluctuation”, no gravity.

This “quantum fluctuation” argument, I sadly saw used once again today.  Yet a more meaningless phrase, if ever there was one in a context of “before the universe existed”, is very difficult to imagine.  How can we have quantum anything before the universe exists? Where does the quantum something come from? What is it fluctuating exactly? What is it’s nature? No one answers this coherently because no one knows.  Hawking, L. Krauss et al. are foolish atheists who not being capable to comprehend or endure the idea of God, invent new  pseudo-scientific trash to explain away reality.  It’s pure scientific sounding sophism. As scientist Edgar H. Andrews put it,

“But laws of nature are nothing more than descriptions of the way nature operates.  No one has ever proposed a law of nature that does not involve existing natural entities, whether they be matter, energy, space-time or mathematical systems.”

Dr Andrews is Emeritus Professor of Materials at the University of London and an international expert on the science of large molecules. He’s simply saying that you can’t have pre-existent laws of gravity and such without existing nature. And he concludes,

“attempts to explain away the origin of the universe as a spontaneous event occurring in some pre-existing ‘void’ fail the tests both of science and logic.”

This means that using some pretended and undefined “quantum fluctuation” is no better than saying, “We don’t have a clue”.

Scientist John C. Lennox commented on Hawkings latest lapse of cognition thus,

“But contrary to what Hawking claims, physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions.
What Hawking appears to have done is to confuse law with agency. His call on us to choose between God and physics is a bit like someone demanding that we choose between aeronautical engineer Sir Frank Whittle and the laws of physics to explain the jet engine. That is a confusion of category. The laws of physics can explain how the jet engine works, but someone had to build the thing, put in the fuel and start it up. The jet could not have been created without the laws of physics on their own  -  but the task of development and creation needed the genius of Whittle as its agent. … Hawking’s argument appears to me even more illogical when he says the existence of gravity means the creation of the universe was inevitable. But how did gravity exist in the first place? Who put it there? And what was the creative force behind its birth?”

Indeed, how can you have gravity before any mass exists, before any matter & energy exist?

Even Hawking’s ex-wife had something to say on this,

“Stephen has the feeling that because everything is reduced to a rational, mathematical formula, that must be the truth. He is delving into realms that really do matter to thinking people and, in a way, that can have a very disturbing effect on people — and he’s not competent.”

Hawking has indeed engaged in reductionism to the point of the absurd. What is troubling is that he, like his many atheist fans and colleagues, seemingly cannot see the glaring error of such foolish and yes anti-scientific claims.

As Lennox points out you can’t have mere laws creating things and you cannot have the laws of physics doing something without a universe in which they may exist! This is not hard. This is grade one science.  Law is descriptive, in itself it does nothing. Moreover those laws themselves need explaining as to their own origins.

Atheism provides no answers for the origin of the universe and even less for the origin of life. But they’ll never admit it because atheism is for them a religion, a sacred calling to emptiness and a utterly vain universe. Strange that any intelligent person would ever choose such a feckless position.

Atheism is an idea that doesn’t matter.  If true, nothing really matters, the universe is meaningless, life is an accident and all is permitted for no overarching moral law exists either.

Atheism is pure denial of reality.  So why are the so-called New Atheists such adamant proselytizers of it? Easy. It’s their religion. No matter how much they deny it, it is nevertheless so.  Dawkins, Harris et al. are their high priests, perpetually spewing forth vitriol and codswallop using pretzel logic – high in fiber makes great dung, but that’s it.

John Lennox concludes,

“Indeed, the message of atheism has always been a curiously depressing one, portraying us as selfish creatures bent on nothing more than survival and self-gratification.

Hawking also thinks that the potential existence of other lifeforms in the universe undermines the traditional religious conviction that we are living on a unique, God-created planet. But there is no proof that other lifeforms are out there, and Hawking certainly does not present any.

It always amuses me that atheists often argue for the existence of extra-terrestrial intelligence beyond earth. Yet they are only too eager to denounce the possibility that we already have a vast, intelligent being out there: God.

Hawking’s new fusillade cannot shake the foundations of a faith that is based on evidence.”

My own conclusion? Atheism sucks.

There is no God and I am his prophet

More Atheist Folly

Fanatical atheists infest the halls of Internet forumdom, spewing forth anti-religion, antichrist and anti-rationality in their never ceasing goal to proselytize.

Call one of these ignorant, and usually uneducated preachers what they really are and you’ll get blasted by many vehement accusations of breaking some moral principle of “niceness”.

Of course, according to atheist uh hum “logic”, objective morality doesn’t exist, seeing there is no “ultimate foundations for ethics” and morality is “an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate,” and “the way our biology enforces its ends is by making us think that there is an objective higher code to which we are all subject.”

Hey, we can thank evolutionary biologist E. O. Wilson for that bit of ill tasting codswallop.

But here’s the thing: why should anyone care when atheists point fingers at theists for calling them vidiots¹ , hypocrites, or whatever, when it’s true?

They contradict themselves by such accusations and never see the contradiction.  If you point it out to them what do they do? Well they resort to pretending your comment is a strawman!  Apparently they don’t know what a strawman is.  They don’t know that following the laws of logic, it’s been shown many times by many philosophers that atheism necessarily leads to the conclusion that no objective values exist and relativism is all that remains.

Who Designed the Designer?

In debate circles and discussion forums on atheism vs. theism or deism; Darwinism vs Intelligent Design (ID) all across the world today we hear that ID is stuck with a serious problem.  According to the opponents of ID such as Christopher Hitchens (one the worst reasoners by the way on this subject) the ID, uh hum, stopper goes like this,

“…the postulate of a designer or creator only raises the unanswerable question of who designed the designer or created the creator.” – God is not Great, page 71.

Hitchens goes on to say that this question has never been answered by those in the design camp and he implies that it is a serious objection to ID.  This is a very strange statement, and an incredibly presumptuous one at that. It is of course equal to the old atheist argument, “Who made God?”.

The 1st error here is that the question is based on the assumption of infinite regression of Gods creating Gods, Designers designing Designers. But infinite regressions in logic are logical absurdities, since all infinite regression propositions are such.

The most curious thing however is the stupidity inherent in such bold assertions as Hitchens makes. Truly the so-called New Atheists can’t hold a candle to the old ones, who tended at least to be much smarter and somewhat less smart-ass.  On the one hand the assertion seems to be based on the logical absurdity of infinite regressions, and on the other it foolishly demands an answer to a logical absurdity! Then it claims that not being able to answer a logical absurdity is somehow important in the challenge of the “who designed the designer” rebuttal.

Besides being a nonsense question, if one assumes an infinite regression of designers,  it is indeed unanswerable, as are all logically absurd questions!  An simple example of a nonsense question is “Is the color green square or round?”; or “Can God create a rock so big he can’t lift it?” – which questions generally come from the minds of children not yet trained in reasoning, logic and critical thinking, not from highly educated fools like Hitchens et al.

But here is another answer to the question at hand, supposing we are not implying an infinite regression: Who cares!?

Why should anyone care if the designer himself were designed? Once you’ve gotten to the designer of the thing you’re examining, it doesn’t matter! That becomes a second and separate inquiry altogether!

Consider the following:

If I’m trying to figure out who designed the car across the street, I may be able to get to the correct answer by a simple search – checking the logo on the front or back of the car. Now, once I’ve determined who that designer is – say Honda – why should I look any further?  Suppose I discover it was made by Honda.  Why should I inquire as to who designed the designer, i.e. who created Honda?  The question may indeed interest me but once I’ve gotten to the cars maker, that is sufficient, all by itself, to be able to postulate that the car was indeed manufactured by a specific designer.

Now, here’s the real issue; in ID I’m not even looking to know who the designer is! The whole purpose of ID is not to determine the designer of life, but to determine that it was indeed designed rather than self-assembled by some other non rational process.

Do I really need to know who the designer is to determine that it was indeed designed or whether it came to be by a chance series of events by some other process?  The answer is no.  No more than claiming that when determining that some structure was designed or not, I can’t logically postulate design until I know exactly who designed it! This puts the cart before the horse. Obviously I cannot postulate a designer until I’ve adequately determined design.

Design must be determined first!  Otherwise postulating the identity of the designer is absurd and futile.  Moreover once design is determined, with reasonable certainty, the question, “Who did it?”, is an entirely separate research issue!

Darwinist always fail to see this distinction and thus fail to come up with more intelligent questions. Why? Because their minds are on hold in strict materialism. For them it has to be 100% natural, no intelligence allowed, no goals, no purpose, no guidance allowed. So as soon as a design inference is made, they are forced by their metaphysics – not evidence, not science – either to deny design or change their metaphysics, their religion of materialism.

After denial, they come up with the intellectually void and irrelevant rebuttal, “Who designed the designer”!

Conclusion

1. Intelligent Design proponents may or may not care one whit who the designer is. The most important thing to understand is that the question of identity is irrelevant until design has been adequately supported by the evidence.

This of course assumes that design detection is scientifically possible.  Is it? Of course it is!

Design detection is practiced every day in other fields such as forensic anthropology, arson investigations, genetic manipulation determining and many other fields.  No one questions the ability to determine intelligent design in those areas. Only in biology! Only there do we find such vehement, apoplectic fits being had by opponents.  This fact alone should get any honest enquirer thinking that something is gravely wrong in Darwinian fundamentalism.

2. But it gets worse for them.  Suppose I have indeed discovered the designer’s identity. The question, “Who designed the designer?”, is still irrelevant because, hey I’ve found the designer and I need not go further back.

Why should I? Only if I have evidence that the designer was also designed and so on … back infinitely again, and back to logical absurdities again, since it is impossible to determine an infinite regressions’ beginning!

The Temple of Darwinian Logic