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

Quotes by C.S. Lewis

Here are some enlightening comments by famed Christian philosopher C.S. Lewis on modern science – the view currently lauded by the postmodern pseudo-science pundits of today. There are also quotes on morality and other subjects.

On evolution:

While it may be true that Lewis believed in Darwin’s theory when younger he did not when older.

‘I wish I were younger.  What inclines me now to think you may be right in regarding it [evolution] as the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that now governs our lives is not so much your arguments against it as the fanatical and twisted attitudes of its defenders.’  Lewis, C.S., Private letter (1951) to Captain Bernard Acworth

On Science:

“Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared – the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.”
M. D. Aeschliman C. S. Lewis on Mere Science  1998 First Things 86 (October, 1998): 16-18.

“If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too.  If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms.  And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s.  but if their thoughts -i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy — are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true?  I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents.  It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.”
-God in the Dock (p52-53  Answers to Questions on Christianity)

“Long before I believed Theology to be true I had already decided that the popular scientific picture at any rate was false. One absolutely central inconsistency ruins it; it is the one we touched on a fortnight ago. The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless inference is valid, the whole picture disappears. Unless we can be sure that reality in the remotest nebula or the remotest part obeys the thought-laws of the human scientist here and now in his laboratory, in other words, unless Reason is an absolute, all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based. The difficulty is to me a fatal one; and the fact that when you put it to many scientists, far from having an answer, they seem not even to understand what the difficulty is, assures me that I have not found a mare’s nest but detected a radical disease in their whole mode of thought from the very beginning. The man who has once understood the situation is compelled henceforth to regard the scientific cosmology as being, in principle, a myth; though no doubt a great many true particulars have been worked into it.” (p.162)
- They Asked for a Paper. Geoffrey Bles  London  1962  211 p.

“No doubt those who really founded modern science were usually those whose love of truth exceeded their love of power.”
–The Abolition of Man

“You will read in some books that the men of the Middle Ages thought the Earth flat and the stars near, but that is a lie. Ptolemy had told them that the Earth was a mathematical point without size in relation to the distance of the fixed stars — a distance which one  medieval popular text estimates as a hundred and seventeen million miles.”

“Let’s pray that the human race never escapes from Earth to spread its iniquity elsewhere.”

“The laws of physics, I understand, decree that when one billiards ball (A) sets another billiards ball (B) in motion, the momentum lost by A exactly equals the momentum gained by B. This is a Law. That is, this is the pattern to which the movement of the two billiards balls must conform. Provided, of course that something sets ball A in motion. And here comes the snag. The law won’t set it in motion. It is usually a man with a cue who does that. But a man with a cue would send us back to free-will, so let us assume that it was lying on a table in a liner and that what set it in motion was a lurch of the ship. In that case it was not the law which produced the movement; it was a wave. And that wave, though it certainly moved according to the laws of physics, was not moved by them. It was shoved by other waves, and by winds, and so forth. And however far you traced the story back you would never find the laws of Nature causing anything.

The dazzlingly obvious conclusion now arose, in my mind: in the whole history of the universe the laws of Nature have never produced a single event. They are the pattern to which every event must conform, provided only that it can be induced to happen. But how do you get it to do that? How do you get a move on? The laws of Nature can give you no help there. All events obey them, just as all operations with money obey the laws of arithmetic. Up till now I had had a vague idea that the laws of Nature could make things happen. I now saw that this was exactly like thinking that you could increase your income by doing sums about it. The laws are the pattern to which events conform: the source of events must be sought elsewhere.

This may be put in the form that the laws of Nature explain everything except the source of events. But this is rather a formidable exception. The laws, in one sense, cover the whole of reality except–well, except that continuous cataract of real events which makes up the actual universe. They explain everything except what we should ordinarily call ‘everything’. The only thing they omit is — the whole universe.”
- God in the Dock

On morality:

“The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is something different from either. You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as a real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people’s ideas get nearer to that real Right than others. Or put it this way. If your moral ideas can be truer, and those of the Nazis less true, there must be something—some Real Morality—for them to be true about.”
- Mere Christianity

“Human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and can’t really get rid of it.”
–The Case for Christianity

“Try to exclude the possibility of suffering  which the order of nature and the existence of free-wills involve, and you find that  you have excluded life itself.” -The Problem of Pain

If nothing is self-evident, nothing can be proved.  Similarly if nothing is obligatory for its own sake, nothing is obligatory at all.” -The Abolition of Man

“If naturalism were true then all thoughts  whatever would be wholly the result of irrational causes… it cuts its own throat.” -A Christian Reply to Professor Price

“All men alike stand condemned, not by alien  codes of ethics, but by their own, and all  men therefore are conscious of guilt.” -The Problem of Pain

“[One] can regard the moral law as an illusion,  and so cut himself off from the common ground of humanity.” -The Problem of Pain

“The human mind has no more power of inventing  a new value than of planting a new sun in the sky or a  new primary colour in the spectrum…” -Christian Reflections

“The very idea of freedom presupposes  some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike… Unless we return to the crude and nursery-like belief in  objective values, we perish.” -Christian Reflections

“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…” -Mere Christianity

“Whenever you find a man who says he doesn’t believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later.”
–The Case for Christianity

“A great many of those who ‘debunk’ traditional values have in the background values of their own which they believe to be immune from the debunking process”
–The Abolition of Man

“It is mere nonsense to put pain among the discoveries of science. Lay down this book and reflect for five minutes on the fact that all the great religions were first preached, and long practised, in a world without chloroform.”

“Those who would like the God of scripture to be more purely ethical, do not know what they ask.”
–The Problem of Pain

And, once again, attempts to resolve the moral experience into something else always presuppose the very thing they are trying to explain —as when a famous psychoanalyst deduces it from prehistoric parricide. If the parricide produced a sense of guilt, that was because men felt that they ought not to have committed it: if they did not so feel, it could produce no sense of guilt. Morality, like numinous awe, is a jump; in it, man goes beyond anything that can be ‘given’ in the facts of experience. And it has one characteristic too remarkable to be ignored. The moralities accepted among men may differ —though not, at bottom, so widely as is often claimed —but they all agree in prescribing a behaviour which their adherents fail to practise. All men alike stand condemned, not by alien codes of  ethics, but by their own, and all men therefore are conscious of guilt.”

“The second element in religion is the consciousness not merely of a moral law, but of a moral law at once approved and disobeyed. This consciousness is neither a logical, nor an illogical, inference from the facts of experience; if we did not bring it to our experience we could not find it there. It is either inexplicable illusion, or else revelation.”

“If you think of this world as a place simply intended for our happiness, you will find it quite intolerable: think of it as a place for training and correction, it’s not so bad.”

“A great many of those who ‘debunk’ traditional…values  have in the background values of their own which they believe to be immune from the  debunking process.” -The Abolition of Man

“God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience,  but shouts in our pains: it is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world.” -The Problem of Pain

On Christianity:

“Christianity is not the conclusion of a philosophical debate on the origins of the universe: it is a catastrophic historical event following on the long spiritual preparation of humanity which I have described. It is not a system into which we have to fit the awkward fact of pain: it is itself one of the awkward facts which have to be fitted into any system we make. In a sense, it creates, rather than solves, the problem of pain, for pain would be no problem unless, side by side with our daily experience of this painful world, we had received what we think a good assurance that ultimate reality is righteous and loving.”

“And when we come to the last step of all, the historical Incarnation, the assurance is strongest of all. The story is strangely like many myths which have haunted religion from the first, and yet it is not like them. It is not transparent to the reason: we could not have invented it ourselves. It has not the suspicious a priori lucidity of Pantheism or of Newtonian physics. It has the seemingly arbitrary and idiosyncratic character which modern science is slowly teaching us to put up with in this wilful universe, where energy is made up in little parcels of a quantity no one could predict, where speed is not unlimited, where irreversible entropy gives time a real direction and the cosmos, no longer static or cyclic, moves like a drama from a real beginning to a real end. If any message from the core of reality ever were to reach us, we should expect to find in it just that unexpectedness, that wilful, dramatic anfractuosity which we find in the Christian faith. It has the master touch —the rough, male taste of reality, not made by us, or, indeed, for us, but hitting us in the face.”

“His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to His power. If you choose to say ‘God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it’, you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words ‘God can’. It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.”

“We can, perhaps, conceive of a world in which God corrected the results of this abuse of free will by His creatures at every moment: so that a wooden beam became soft as grass when it was used as a weapon, and the air refused to obey me if I attempted to set up in it the soundwaves that carry lies or insults. But such a world would be one in which wrong actions were impossible, and in which, therefore, freedom of the will would be void; nay, if the principle were carried out to its logical conclusion, evil thoughts would be impossible, for the cerebral matter which we use in thinking would refuse its task when we attempted to frame them.”

“Perhaps this is not the ‘best of all possible’ universes, but the only possible one. Possible worlds can mean only ‘worlds that God could have made, but didn’t’. The idea of that which God ‘could have’ done involves a too anthropomorphic conception of God’s freedom. Whatever human freedom means, Divine freedom cannot mean indeterminacy between alternatives and choice of one of them. Perfect goodness can never debate about the end to be attained, and perfect wisdom cannot debate about the means most suited to achieve it.”
–The Problem of Pain

“Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.”

“Christianity is a world that is a great sculptor’s shop. We are the statues and there a rumor going around the shop that some of us are some day going to come to life.”

“If Christianity was something we were making up,” he says, “of course, we could make it easier. But it is not. We cannot compete, in simplicity, with people who are inventing religions. How could we? We are dealing with Fact. Of course anyone can be simple if he has no facts to bother about.” (Mere Christianity)

I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.

“The notion that everyone would like  Christianity to be true, and therefore all atheists  are brave men who have accepted the defeat  of all their deepest desires, is simply impudent nonsense.”  -Encounter With Light

Various:

“The theory that thought is merely a movement in the brain is, in my opinion, nonsense; for if so, that theory itself would be merely a movement, an event among atoms, which may have speed and direction but of which it would be meaningless to use the words ‘true’ or ‘false’”.
-C.S. Lewis

“Looking for God–or Heaven–by exploring space is like reading or seeing all Shakespeare’s plays in the hope that you will find Shakespeare as one of the characters”
–’The Seeing Eye’, Christian Reflections (150)

“We all want progress, but if you’re on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.”

“All that we call human history-money, poverty,  ambition, war, prostitution, classes, empires,  slavery-[is] the long terrible story  of man trying to find something other than God  which will make him happy.” -Mere Christianity

“In coming to understand anything we are  rejecting the facts as they are for us in favour of  the facts as they are.” 

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

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

Intelligent Design and Predictions

Intelligent Design (ID) theorists often receive accusations and complaints from Darwinists that ID doesn’t make any predictions. Here is one that I received in a debate:

“ID makes no predictions at all, in fact, and for this reason (and others), simply fails to be a scientific theory.”

Of course the only reasonable reaction to such a glaringly false statement is some hearty laughter! … Or perhaps tears of sadness  over such an impoverished and ignorant statement. Yet this single statement is repeated over and over by Darwinists and not one of them can back it up! Willful ignorance and copy/pasting from talk origins and the usual web dens of Darwinian fanatical folly.

“When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, ‘All that was new was false, and what was true was old.’ This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism.” -Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159.

As for ID predictions, here is a short summary view:
1. Ways Designers Act When Designing (Observations):

• Take many parts and arrange them in highly specified and complex patterns which perform a specific function.
• Rapidly infuse any amounts of genetic information into the biosphere, including large amounts, such that at times rapid morphological or genetic changes could occur in populations.
• ‘Re-use parts’ over-and-over in different types of organisms (design upon a common blueprint).
• Be said to typically NOT create completely functionless objects or parts (although we may sometimes think something is functionless, but not realize its true function).

Therefore:

2. Some Predictions of Design (Hypothesis):

• High prescriptive information content will be found throughout the genome – (already proven)
• Machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found – (already proven, and no K. Millers poor rebuttal is no refutation at all)
• Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors – (already known)
• Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms – (already proven)
• The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless “junk DNA” – (being proven over & over today)
• Few intermediate forms will found giving a clear and gradual pathway from one family to another – there are none so far  Most of the claimed ancestors will be shown to have serious problems – already historically proven
• Mechanisms for error detection and correction will be abundant within the genome of all organisms – (already proven)
• Mechanisms for *non-random* adaptations, coherent with environmental pressures, will be found
• So called vestigial organs will be found to have specific purpose and usefulness – (already proven)
• Few mutations will end up being beneficial in the long run – (already proven)
• Genetic entropy will be found to cancel our most if any beneficial mutations

Many other predictions could be listed.

Worse than that though is that any genuine biblical creationist model would also have to predict genetic entropy and thus loss of information in most mutations and therefore eventual mutational meltdown (extinction events) in all species! Which is exactly what we’re finding out today!

Dr. John Sanford, author of the Darwinism killing book “Genetic Entropy”, was asked what the Darwinist response to his book was.  His answer was, “complete silence.“  Curiously, while there are now at least 100,000 know mutations that are directly related to diseases, how many data bases do you know of documenting the beneficial ones? My guess is either none or precious few, and if any at all exist they must be pathetically trivial.

Now before the Darwinists start the usual screaming of, “20/20 hindsight!”, most of these predictions were made decades ago and many before the current ID movement! Besides a theory’s predictions are inherent within it and not invented afterwards. Predictions are logical consequence of a theory, if it is correct. Not all of the logical consequences will necessarily be stated officially even though inherent.  That means that any “20/20 hindsight!” complaints have no validity anyway.

Now let’s look at a dictionary definition of the scientific “theory”:

“A scientific theory is an established and experimentally verified fact or collection of facts about the world. Unlike the everyday use of the word theory, it is not an unproved idea, or just some theoretical speculation. The latter meaning of a ‘theory’ in science is called a hypothesis. -http://www.whatislife.com/glossary/t.htm

Now compare the above definition of ‘theory’ to the following quote:

“The history of organic life is indemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with molecules or anything else.” -Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Professor of Biological Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, February 9, 2007

Thus, according to the definition and the remarks of a well known evolutionist, Darwinism is so inundated with speculative hypotheses that it doesn’t really even qualify as genuine scientific theory!

Not only so, but Darwinisms predictions have been falsified over and over again. Failure after failure is easily seen on the predictions level of this inane hypothesis, yet the theory still MUST be true. Why? Well because “there is no God” and “no sensible God would have done it that way.”! Religion, that’s why.

Thus, the Darwinists are always crawling back under their rock of materialist metaphysics to seek security from the glaring light of the discoveries of molecular biology, genetics and information sciences, that more and more reveal levels of algorithmic sophistication that simply are not possible without intelligence.

Highly functional networking within any system doesn’t just happen as we know from information systems theory.

The image below shows a map of functional networking in the genome and gives a small idea of the highly specified complexity of the genome:

Functional Network Map

Why Error detection/correction Mechanisms Require Intelligence

The one thing I find myself repeatedly having to explain to Darwinists is that the very existence error detection/correction mechanisms within the genome not only pre-supposes intelligence but absolutely, totally requires pre-knowledge of correct system state.

For some reason, probably related to their other mental illnesses, the Darwinians never get this. They seem incapable of logical response to existing facts. Most of the people I know, including some of the very well known scientists that often attempt debate with Darwinists know this to be a salient fact. As soon as one puts forth simple, clear and logical evidence that their theory doesn’t add up it’s like their minds go into infinite loops and no further reasoning is possible. Their minds are put on HOLD.

Therefore, in the case of error detection/correction mechanisms in the genome here’s a little analogous test I thought up to help Darwinists figure out why the very existence of such mechanisms pre-suppose intelligence.

Test:

1. Write a coherent sentence in English on a piece of paper.  Make it say around 20-30 words long. In the sentence you create make sure to include a good number of glaring grammatical and spelling errors.
2. Now, find a monolingual Chinese or (other such language not using the English alphabet) person and ask them to find and correct the mistakes.

Obviously they are not going to either find or correct anything at all, for the whole is gibberish to them.

Do you see? No pre-knowledge of English grammar, symbolism, spelling etc. necessarily equals no ability to either detect or correct error.

Do you see how the same principle applies to any such error trapping/correcting in any syntactic system – including biological ones like DNA/RNA?
Good.

Design is the inevitable and ONLY scientifically correct explanation. Period.
This is not hard.

 

Understanding Ontogenetic Depth

This is simply the links to a powerful bit of research by Paul Nelson on “Ontogenetic Depth” – parts one and two.

Yet another Darwinism killing fact of life amongst the ever increasing number of Darwinism killers that Darwinians love to ignore and pretend do not exist.

“Paul Nelson has a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago in Philosophy (1998). He is a philosopher of biology, specializing in evo-devo and developmental biology.”