The Myth of religious neutrality

Two good articles from Cornelius Hunter on why evolutionist’s pretense to Darwinisms’ being metaphysically neutral is a myth.http://www.idthefuture.com/2006/06/why_evolutionists_cant_be_neut.html
http://www.idthefuture.com/2006/07/fear_and_loathing_in_dover.htmlThis seems to be a very difficult subject for people to understand and accept.

Of course, they’ve been brainwashed into believing that Darwinism is religiously neutral and can co-exist with any religion. This is because it is claimed to be purely natural science with no meta-physics involved. Hunter aptly points out that this is untrue.

Just because their religious beliefs are the opposite of others doesn’t make them any less religious beliefs nontheless.

This pretense to neutrality is also socially harmful and hard-line evolutionist propagandists, like Eugenie Scott and the NCSE propaganda web site and organization, know this. That’s why she can send little advisory notes to others telling them to keep their metaphysics in line when propagating their religion of Darwinism. If there are no metaphysical implications or basis in Darwinism why would she feel compelled to do so?

The answer is obvious. Darwinism is deeply rooted in the ancient religion of naturalism with methodological naturalism as it’s “science”.

As Hunter says, “This is why evolutionists are not good at making theory-neutral evaluations of the empirical evidence. For evolutionists, evolution is not something that might be wrong. It must be true.”

The Darwinist high priests have long pulled the wool over the eyes of the judicial and academic communities in this. Isn’t it time they were exposed for the deceivers that they are?

Darwin himself recognized and stated that his theory was not real science. Strange that it is so promoted as such these days by those who claim that Design is not science!!

I’m very glad someone is publishing comments like this. Thank you Mr. Hunter.

Advertisements

ATP Synthase

Image : http://www.arn.org/docs/mm/atpmushroom.gif
Movie : http://www.bioc.aecom.yu.edu/labs/girvlab/Bioenergetics/ATPsynthase.mov

A critically important macromolecule—arguably “second in importance only to DNA”—is ATP. ATP is an abbreviation for adenosine triphosphate, a complex molecule that contains the nucleoside adenosine and a tail consisting of three phosphates. As far as known, all organisms from the simplest bacteria to humans use ATP as their primary energy currency. In each of the approximately one hundred trillion human cells is about one billion ATP molecules.
Without ATP, life as we understand it could not exist. All the books in the largest library in the world may not be able to contain the information needed to understand and construct the estimated 100,000 complex macromolecule machines used in humans. All the books in the largest library in the world may not be able to contain the information needed to understand and construct the estimated 100,000 complex macromolecule machines used in humans. Anything less than an entire ATP molecule will not function and a manufacturing plant which is less then complete cannot produce a functioning ATP. Dr. Jerry Bergman

New X-ray crystallographic studies have revealed the working of adenosine triphosphate synthase, the basis of energy transport in all living organisms.

ATP captures the chemical energy released by the combustion of nutrients and transfers it to reactions that require energy, e.g. the building up of cell components, muscle contraction, transmission of nerve messages and many other functions. ATP synthase molecules located within mitochondria stick out on the mitochondria, attached to their inner surfaces in mushroom-like clusters. When food is broken down or metabolized for energy, the last stages of the process occur within the mitochondria.

The ATP synthase molecule, has two parts. Recently, scientists in Japan discovered that one part, the “mushroom stem,” apparently rotates within the “mushroom cap.” Last year, a Nobel prize was awarded to the researcher (Paul Boyer, Ph.D., UCLA) who suggested that forming ATP was somehow tied to this rotation, and the prize was shared with another researcher (John Walker, Ph.D., Medical Research Council Laboratory, Cambridge, England) whose team laid out one of two possible structures for the “cap,” which is believed to be short-lived.

In new research, researchers at Johns Hopkins University determined the other structure, believed to be the most common form, in living organisms. The ATP synthase “mushroom cap,” they found, contains three identical areas, arranged like a coil, where ATP is made. Each area is occupied with a different stage in ATP production.

As the “stem” rotates, it creates a powerful internal shifting in each of the three coiled sections within the cap. This shifting provides the energy to cause chemical changes. At one site, the “ingredients” for ATP come together. At another site, they assemble as ATP, and at the third site, the rotation readies the fully formed ATP to pop off the synthase molecule, for use throughout the cell.

A team led by L. Mario Amzel, Ph.D., and Peter Pedersen, Ph.D. used X-ray crystallography to reveal the molecular structure of adenosine triphosphate synthase. Inside, the molecule whirls around several times a second while it triggers production of ATP.

“It’s one of the most complex molecules ever revealed, almost six times larger than the blood molecule hemoglobin,” says Pedersen. It’s also, the researchers agree, one of the tiniest and most powerful motors ever identified.

The researchers captured the image of the ATP synthase cap while all of its sites were in some stage of making ATP, which is essential for the constant recycling of its precursors. Without this recycling, Pedersen says, “people would have to produce more than half their body weight in ATP every day to meet their energy needs.” http://www.arn.org/docs/mm/atpmechanism.htm

So, according to neo-Darwinism, this thing just happened by an unknown series of random mutations + selection?

Watch the movie – it could easily fit into a mechanical engineering class. Genius beyond genius is what is witnessed for any unprejudiced mind!

Could this machine have been evolved from random mutations over time? Suppose this one single example actually did come from such a random process by a billionth of a billionth of a chance. This does not help at all. Recent experiments in yeast have yielded the discovery 247 such nano machines in yeast alone.

Believing in one such event occurring by chance is one thing; believing that millions of such events occurred randomly all over the planet is a whole other story. It is in fact a stastical nightmare, with impossibly huge odds against it.

There are more than likely millions of such machines, working together for a clear purpose in concurrent processes. DNA is a recent discovery in historical time and we know very little about it and the world as of yet. We are just starting to discover just how incredibly complex biological nature actually is compared to Darwin’s time when the single cell was thought to be just a simple glob of protoplasm. One thing is sure – the more we learn the more complex and organized it proves to be.

Anything that requires concurrency in processing to function cannot be the results of randomness. True randomness does not produce functional concurrency.

To suppose that concurrent processing as seen in bio-nano machines developped from random mutations is folly. It ain’t gonna happen. Why not? Because all the 100’s if not 1000’s, if not millions of mutations necessary to arrive at concurrency in functional biological processes require the same, parallel concurrency in the mutations. Mutations do not occur concurrently with any degree of mutual, functional correspondance or dependance.

It’s like imagining an organic computer coming into existence by itself with all the necessary functional parts growing in cooperation – yet without any guiding blueprint as to what the goal is, what the form or function should be, how the end product will look and work or anything of the kind.

Darwinism always assumes titanic concurrent leaps and bounds while ignoring the technical difficulties involved in parallel processing. Organic machines that cooperate with each other in a common goal simply cannot happen without intelligence.

Creative Mutations

In the evo vs creation debate, one is often told that random mutations + selection are responsible for the creation of all life forms on earth. Genetic mutations are supposed to bring about novel features and entirely new morphologies. Simple life forms are claimed to be the root of all complex life forms. We are confidently told as fact, that macro-evolution is literally the “molecule to man” formula that Darwin imagined.

Of course this is all pure nonsense. As Dr. Francis Crick, Nobel laureate for the discovery of DNA realized, there is not enough time in earth’s history for macro-evolution to have brought about the existence of so many millions of life forms, complex and highly specified, as we see them today.

This is at least partly why, being an atheist, he wrote the book Life Itself. In this 1981 book, Crick spends the first half of the book explaining why life could not originate on our planet —and then he proceeds to suggest that it came from outer space on rockets! Commonly called panspermia, this theory takes the sublime and brings it to the ridiculous.

The point is that Crick himself could not believe in Darwinism as commonly presented! He needed to find some other source of life. Some other source that could explain the abundance of complex life forms on earth — without God. Of course. Anything but admitting to a Supreme being Creator!!

Dr. Royal Truman (Ph.D., specializing in organic chemistry) notes:

Suppose our body is lacking the CFTR gene (or it is not yet functional), which produces a trans-membrane protein which regulates chloride ion transport across the cell membrane. Or suppose that it is missing the RB gene on the 13th chromosome, whose job it is to identify abnormal tumor growth, especially in a child’s rapidly growing retina, and kill such tumors. If one tiny piece of the puzzle is missing all the other thousands of functional genes become worthless, since the organism cannot survive.How sensitive is our human copy machine to error? The CFTP gene has 250,000 base pairs. Over 200 mutations have been described which lead to cystic fibrosis (CF). The most common mutation, -F508 at position 508 on the peptide chain involves the deletion of three nucleotides. Three out of 250,000 nucleotides are not copied correctly and the gene cannot function! It is simply not correct to pretend that nature offers endless degrees of freedom to monkey around with the highly interdependent and very sensitive machinery of cell duplication. Furthermore, as discussed above, time is the greatest enemy for evolutionary theory, since most mutations are recessive and for the time being non-lethal. These accumulate from generation to generation and increase the genetic burden.Mutations + selection simply doesn’t cut it. Selection is always the “magic wand” of Darwinism. Whatever the facts of mutations are, it is conveniently posited that selection can creatively overcome them. As though selection were natures’ mind, working towards a known goal called “fitness”. Nature has no such mind. It is, in itself, blind and thoughtless, without purpose and without foresight.

Darwinism can’t work as a viable explanation of life on earth. It is well known that most mutations are either neutral (no benefit, no detriment) or harmful to the organism. In fact, most mutations are “bugs” or errors in the genetic code, not enhancements. Given this fact and considering that it is literally impossible to formulate a logical, feasible mutational pathway from molecule to man, it is indeed astounding that anyone could have ever believed Darwinismsm in the 1st place.

Of course, Darwin knew little of these details in his time so we mustn’t be too harsh on him. He himself knew that his “speculations” were not real science. “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.” – Charles Darwin, In a letter to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of biology.

Truman’s paper on the problem of Information for evolutionists is an excellent basis, all by itself, for refuting Darwinism. http://trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.asp

Evolution and Rape

A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion: by Randy Thornhill,Craig T. Palmer.

A book that explains rape from an purely darwinist biological point of view – and claims there is no other point of view.

The authors explain rape as an evolutionary, sexual reproductive, adaptation in human males. They also claim that it “is not a debatable issue”, since evolution theory says that this is what rape actually is – an adaptive behavioral pattern based on bio-chemical interactions in the male system and selection pressures.

Just survival of the fittest. The greatest possible spread of one’s sperm into the gene pool for guaranteed progenity and sexual satisfaction.

IMO, They are simply being honest and going to the logical conclusions of the theory, as far as the “survival of the fittest”, most “reproductive”, “adaptive behavior” aspects go. The old Alpha male thing applied to humans in a rather brainless way.

Greatly criticized of course, even by other (less honest) darwinist fundamentalists.

Darwinian evo has no foundations for any objective moral values.
If rape is a biological function developed by natural selection and an adaptation for the “fittest”, then no one is really responsible for rape are they? They have basically taken rape out of the domain of crime and put it into the domain of biological adaptation.

If selfishness and specifically sexual selfishness is a function of biological evolution in men then no one can possibly be responsible for it, nor control it completely. I don’t really see how any traditional Darwinist could think otherwise than they do. Certainly not atheist darwinists.

I would not waste the price of the purchase on such trash to promote the views and wallets of such inane authors.

It must have been defects in their genes that forced them to write this book!! An action accomplished under strong selective pressures to survival, alpha-male status, social advantage for the spread of their own seed to as many women as possible to guarantee successful progenity. Right? Must be so since that’s what their theory pretends.

If you look at the deluge of books hitting the market that explain everything from a naturalistic evo point of view this has to be a meme. 😉 — unfortunately a very dangerous one for the whole world.

Just check the titles :

  • Evolutionary Medicine
  • The Theory of Options: A New Theory of the Evolution of Human Behavior
  • Why We Lie: The Evolutionary Roots of Deception and the Unconscious Mind
  • Genes on the Couch: Explorations in Evolutionary Psychology – Abuse and neglect of children in the evolutionary perspective
  • A Natural History of Human Emotions – We learn that primitive fear served as the engine of religious belief
  • Darwin and International Relations: On the Evolutionary Origins of War and Ethnic Conflict
  • Why Sex Matters: A Darwinian Look at Human Behavior
  • The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture
  • Born That Way: Genes, Behavior, Personality
  • Evolution and Ethics: Human Morality in Biological and Religious Perspective
  • Mystery of Mysteries: Is Evolution a Social Construction?
  • Second Nature: Economic Origins of Human Evolution
  • The Abusive Personality: Violence and Control in Intimate Relationships – the behavior’s evolutionary function
  • Evolutionary Psychology, Public Policy, and Personal Decisions
  • Economics As an Evolutionary Science

This is just a tiny sample of the kind of “evolutionary” thought books out there. Everything is now being described as evolutionary behavior or function. It appears every Darwinist and his monkey are jumping on the bandwagon for the get rich quick schemes of writing pure garbage pandered off on the public as scientific realities. I’m just about ready to write a new book myself : “The Evolutionary Basis of Underwear”; should be a best seller. [:D]

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that when you get through it all, humanity ends up exactly where Darwinian fundamentalists have always said we are — mere animal organism with no free will, no purpose other than self, no guilt, no heroism (see NY Times evo explanation for 911 heorism) or merit — just hormones, genes and chemicals at work in a living organism that make it do whatever it does. ie. your personality, your choices, your feelings, desires and emotions are of no import except as survival adaptations and you have nothing to say about who you are.

If all “bad” behavior is purely biologically rooted at the very source, then no human action is ever immoral or wrong. In fact, neither is it ever inherently “good” — applies both ways right! As the NY Times evos did – they called the beautiful heroism of the FDNY and others at 911 – evolutionary adaptations to the environment and no heroism at all!! (Tell that to the guys that risked their lives eh!) It’s just what they inevitably HAD to do because their bio makeup dictates their actions and thoughts, and the illusion of will.

These people are implying that the whole gambit of human life, just like yourself, is mere organic substance acting the way bio makeup says it must — including writing asinine books. Your beliefs are not really your beliefs either. It’s just memes, social pressure, cultural stimulis, behavioral conditioning. Not a chosen belief at all.

Goodbye Law and order if Darwinists continue to rule the education and justice systems.
Guns in school? Social adaptation for survival.
Violence on the streets? Same thing – the asphalt jungle.
No one is responsible for anything they do — you’re “Born that Way” – it’s all in the genes.
You don’t react to this forum because of thought, reason and choice – your genes make you do it. Therefore, you really don’t HAVE an opinion; you just think you do. You have an “Adapted Mind”.

As evidence: “Perhaps most troubling of all, Darwin’s theory of evolution tells us that life existed for billions of years before us, that humans are not the products of special creation and that life has no inherent meaning or purpose.” – Ker Than, Live Science staff writer, 22 September 2005

Ideas have consequences.

Idiocy is what Darwinian fundamentalism leads to or as CS Lewis put it –
The Abolition of Man”.

A purely bio origin for rape means that any rapist may claim “inability to comply with law due to biological genetic coercion” as a defense. Undoing rape as a crime!!

I used to know some guys that had no problem at all with rape! “Hells angels”, “devils disciples” and other criminal group members — in fact rape and violence was an obligatory part of their initiation rite!

So let’s not ignore the fact that to people like that, finding a biological excuse for their behavior would only encourage it more.
No question about it – if they can see a legal hole in the system, created by this inane type of thinking, that provides them a biological catalyst as an excuse they WILL DO SO.

Can anyone see that this very thing in our society is at the very root of the fact that criminals are no longer guilty – they’re just “mentally ill”, sick, etc. and serial killers get away with making millions on their stories because they weren’t “evil” just genetically defective — ill ??? How many 1000’s of times have hardened criminals been let out of jail because some idiot psychologist said they were “cured”?

The whole point here is that if ANY action considered criminal, whether rape, incest, theft, lying etc., can be proven to have biological constraining factors to it – it can no longer be considered criminal because by definition crime implies free responible choice!

Even scientists are getting sick of hearing such claims presented as if was “science.” As Philip S. Skell, emeritus professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, notes in a recent edition of The Scientist:

quote:

…Darwinian explanations for [human behavior] are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self- centered and aggressive – except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed – except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.

Thems the facts. No other domain has done so much damage to the credibility of darwinism as evolutionary psychology! And these “rape” guys have really just thrown another steel rod into the darwinian machines’ wheel spokes.