Scientific Atheism

I just discovered a web page called “Scientific Atheism”.
Needless to say, I was a little stunned and appalled at the idiotic implied claim of atheism being scientific or atheism having any relation to science.
 
Let us be perfectly clear. There is absolutely no such thing as “scientific atheism”. Science, real science, is contrary to atheism is every way.
 
All the founders of modern science were theists, mostly Christians. Contrary to popular but ignorance-based objections by atheists to this fact, they all based their science on their belief in a personal God with an intelligible universe. Yes, their theism had everything to do with their science.
As C.S. Lewis rightly stated, 
“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 [I would say has been subtly slaughtered by the idiocy of materialism and secular humanism]…” M. D. Aeschliman C. S. Lewis on Mere Science 1998 First Things 86 (October, 1998)
Atheism is in fact, the real anti-science. As we see more and more today.
 
Scientist W.R. Thompson wrote,
“The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity. This is already evident in the reckless statements of Haeckel and in the shifty, devious and histrionic argumentation of T. H. Huxley… This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories Nature presents to us, is the inheritance of biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion.”— W.R. Thompson, “Introduction,” to Everyman’s Library issue of Charles Darwin’s, Origin of Species (1956 edition).
The situation has only worsened since that was written.
 
Indeed. We now have an unobservable, unverifiable multiverse, for example, spoken of as though it really exists. We have major name scientists making ludicrous statements like Lawrence Krauss’ and pals, “A Universe from Nothing”.  We have the whole Darwinian theory that is a major disaster in the history of science. We have dozens of purely speculative hypotheses being passed off as though valid theories or even facts.  We have naive theories on star formation and planet formation that are full of insurmountable problems, yet passed off as facts in many science documentaries, magazines, and journals. 
 
The agnostic physicist David Berlinski has written a poignant critique of this kind of foolishness in his book “The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions“.
On the inside cover of the book, intro­ducing his subject, he wrote, 

“Has anyone provided a proof of God’s inexistence?
Not even close.

Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe and why it is here?
Not even close.

Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
Not even close.

Are physicists and biologists willing to believe anything so long as it is not religious thought?
Close enough.

Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?
Not close enough.

Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
Not even close to being close.

Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?
Close enough.

Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?
Not even ballpark.

Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual con­tempt?
Dead on.”

Atheism accords absolutely no reason why we should expect law and order and a comprehensible universe and thus no reason for any science at all. If this trend keeps up, the end of pure, rational, observation and logic-based science is in sight. And it will not end well.
Indeed, atheism provides no reason to even believe the universe is rational. A universe without a rational maker should not itself be rational. It has no rationality behind it. Bags of meat, rocks and stars are not rational. Nature is not rational. Rationality itself, just like morality (Wilson, Ruse), in atheism is nothing but an illusion of the brain which according to atheism, evolved of non-rational processes.

As Francis Crick put it,

“The Astonishing Hypothesis is that “You,” your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased: “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.” This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing”. (p. 3) -Francis Crick (1994) The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons

Really? If atheism is true then yes. But then he should have added that your science and your logic are also nothing but a pack of neurons, the results of a vast assembly of nerve cells and thus have no relation to reality.
That page, and all others like it, should be assailed by knowledgeable theists, debunking the foolishness of the “scientific atheism” nonsense. There is no such thing. It is the latest atheist delusion.
atheism bleak
Advertisements

Epidemic Insanity

It doesn’t require much observation to see that there is an appalling and seriously frightening contagion of virtual insanity spreading throughout the West today. It’s worse than any black plague because it destroys lives in much more subtle ways and because it impoverishes and destroys societies.  Over the past decade or so, this phenomenon has spread like wildfire, infecting every level of society.  More and more psychologists are speaking up against the insane ideas being pushed on society – invariably by the liberal-minded media and it’s disciples of posthumanism. Many are saying that liberalism is a mental illness in itself while other say that liberalism creates mental illness. And of course, they are right. Insanity starts with the denial of reality. Denial of reality is everywhere today.

What is the evidence for this?

  • The wide spreading of ideas that are entirely contrary to reality

    • Take the whole transgender fad.  Biology, Mother Nature, dictates gender and always has. Gender cannot be simply decided by the human being. DNA, chromosomes, determine gender in an irreversible and undeniable manner. A man pretending to be a woman trapped in a man’s body or vice-versa is not only bucking reality – demonstrated en masse by modern scientific research – but they are engaging themselves in a serious psychological delusion and confusion that will cause them endless suffering. Their DNA tells their gender in no uncertain terms.The only way to change gender would be to re-write ones’ genetic code, one’s DNA. And even then, it is a fraud that Nature itself will resist because of all the genetic mechanisms in place in the genome that detect and correct replication and other errors. Genetic anomalies are quite another issue and they too are known to be ANOMALIES. Not natural or good.
      Human chromosomes, male vs female karyotype, illustration

      And even if that were possible, that in itself would be an act of a delusional person who fails to accept their real genetic nature, their natural identity. In this rising and spreading disease of the mind and soul, it is almost surprising that all those people who vehemently accused creationists and IDists and anyone even just skeptical of neo Darwinian evolution of being “anti-science” are now the ones resisting and denying the very science they claim to support beyond all else. The irony is stunning. As always the materialists contradict themselves everywhere.

      Moreover, any doctors and other medical professionals encouraging any person to go for a so-called “sex-change” operation is an accomplice in increasing that person’s suffering and promoting their confused and delusional state. They know very well that switching out sex organs and such will never rewrite that persons biological sex as recorded in their DNA. Thus, for filthy lucre, these immoral physicians are actually contributing to and multiplying the insanity of such operations and their underlying false beliefs, so contradicted by Nature itself. Shame on them! They are frauds of the worst kind, deceiving already confused and mentally ill people and condemning them to live in a body with sexual organs that do NOT comply with that person’s DNA! It is criminal!

    • Everything that was written above can also be applied to the deluded souls who think they are other species trapped in human bodies.  Like the young woman who claims to be a cat in a human body or all these insane men who act like dogs, being led around on all fours, on leashes and allowing themselves to be abused like animals. The same genetic reasons apply here only on a much larger scale. We have young people getting plastic surgery to alter their appearances to look like “aliens” – though none of them have ever seen an alien and none of them have any clue what an alien may or may not look like- supposing they even exist! It is pure INSANITY. And yet all the mindless liberals push this mental illness as though it were actually healthy.
    • We are seeing more and more denial of known historical facts spreading with a stunning degree of vehemence.  Tearing down and destroying old statues, banning flags that in fact had and have nothing to do with any immoral behavior and on and on the insanity goes.For this, I could name the irrational new racism with all its ugly consequences and ridiculous claims. Nonsense like “white supremacy”, “white privilege” and such.  This is revisionist history, not real history. This is harping away at things that occurred centuries ago and that were well on their way to completely disappearing from Western and European society.

      The truth? Between 620,000 and 750,000 white people died to stop slavery in the American South. Slavery was ended in England in 1833 by white people. Yet this fact is ignored completely and a reversed racism is now in full swing – blacks becoming extreme racists against whites. For this we may blame the Obama’s for their rank and often not so subtle racist comments against whites. We may blame the lying, manipulating lamestream media for fanning every possible flame of racism, perpetually playing the racist card against every little criticism of Obama’s NWO pushing regime. We can blame bigoted hate-mongers like Oprah Winfrey who has openly said that “old white people must die”. That is a murderous spirit. A demon by any other name.  And anyone who is paying attention knows who is really behind all this. The Globalists, the self-proclaimed “elites”, who are, in fact, only “elite” in their treacherous evil scheming for their own power and wealth.

      In an era where racism was coming to be almost non-existent, these people fanned the flames of a new kind of racism – that of blacks against whites. As though any living person today was involved in any of the old conflicts or slave trade. The new racists also completely ignore the fact that Canada was a haven, a refuge for fleeing slaves during all that time. Canadians, majority white, received and helped fleeing slaves reestablish themselves in new lives.

      Racism – as though the measure of melanins in body chemistry has anything at all to do with one’s character or value. More melanin means darker color – be it eyes, hair or skin. Less means lighter color. So all this hate and violence promoted and spread by these diabolical people is all about how much of this chemical is in your body?! Not really. They are using this simply as yet another tool to force the world towards their selfish, egomaniacal NWO.

      One curious and contradictory element in this the fact the slavery, throughout history, and still today, has most especially and abundantly been practiced under Islam! All while the people screaming against racism and complaining of events resolved more a century ago, today are also screaming for more Islamic “refugees” (generally Jihadis pretending to be real refugees).  Islam is radically anti-feminism, yet the Western feminist rally in support of it! This is quite literally insane. It’s like the person who lobbies against rape, rallying in support of more rapists coming into their neighborhood.  The same applies to the whole “gay” agenda. They rally for Islam, all while Islam murders gays by burning them alive or throwing them off buildings. This is literal insanity.

      17309786_1835003630086202_4438704327613876319_n

      Just as bad is the fact that Darwinian evolution is inherently racist in nature. Even though, in the wake of the revelations of Nazi plans for world conquest post-WWI, that their “scientific” justification for the “supreme race” and the “artificial selection” to exterminate the “inferior” races, we still see very few souls courageous enough and knowledgeable enough to speak the truth on this issue. And all the while evolutionism is heralded by both black and white! Hitler called blacks “monstrosities” and he worked closely with Islamic leaders to eliminate the “subhuman” – less evolved – Jews. The contradictions are indeed insane. The evolutionists devised a subtle means of escaping the implications against themselves by making one fundamental adjustment – moving the goal posts – in their theory. They changed it from polyphyletic (all races descended from variously evolved lineages) to monophyletic (all races evolved from a single hominid lineage which split into various races but all equally evolved).  And that is a trick, contested by many more honest evolutionists to this day.

    • And what shall we say of morality? This is truly amazing. We have seen a complete reversal of moral values in less than 40 years. That which was known to morally wrong for centuries is now morally good and that which was known to be morally sound for centuries is now called evil. It is stunning to behold. All well-informed people know the cause – materialism with its religion of Secular Humanism – the new creation myth called evolutionism and the many branches that have been spawned and spread based upon these godless and in fact, irrational beliefs based entirely on rebellion against Nature itself and against God.
  • The troubling phenomenon of people who cannot think for themselves and seem to have poor logical coherence in their ideas as well as the blatant spread of what I call “educated illiteracy”.It is all too obvious, just by scanning through social media sites like Facebook, Twitter et al, that far too many people (including the educated) do not know how to spell well, do not grasp plain English well, cannot seem to reason beyond 1st-degree inferences and embark in ludicrous beliefs like the Flat Earth.  A nonsense belief that is itself spreading across the West as though it had any credibility. That in itself is another proof of epidemic insanity – the underlying causes of which are materialism, a deliberately twisted education system specifically designed for  “dumbing us down” and persistent public education as indoctrination into secular humanist religion with evolutionism as its prime, centerpiece axiom. The schools are now the temples of secular humanism, not functioning to produce independent thinkers but brainwashed, sheep, slaves of the governing, oligarch elite, easy to manipulate by mass media propaganda.

    John 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.” (tip of the iceberg)

    “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 inversion of normal judicial practice. 
    • How many more cases of judiciary insanity do we need to see before recognizing this contagion, this epidemic?  We see violent rapists and killers being set free by idiot, criminally negligent judges because “In his culture sex with children is approved and rape is normal” or “he was not aware that our laws forbid such behavior and his culture approves it”, or “beating women is not morally wrong in his religion”. Of course all this applies only to Islam! We see the same insane behavior when an investigative reporter is the one been hauled over the proverbial coals of injustice for having exposed the insanely wicked and inhumane practice of Planned Parenthood’s murdering of babies to sell their body parts on the black market. The hero is now the villain and the sick psycho villains are now protected. Again a reversal of sanity. ALL based on the relativism and stupidity of materialism, the evil agenda of the billion dollar abortion industry – follow the money.
    • Then, lastly, for now, I should mention the fact that so many wonderful new technologies are literally being stifled and deliberately kept out of the market all for the sake of big industries that make billions of bucks per year and keeping the old technologies going. The oil industry that too often halts new technologies that would have liberated the world from oil dependence decades ago. The pharmaceutical industry that deliberately stifles and suppresses cures and preventions of wide-spread disease – like cancer – all so it can continue to make billions per year and harmful “cures” that kill more patients than they cure – the radio-chemical treatments that actually destroy the human immune system causing more deaths than the disease itself.  All conveniently kept out of the mainstream spotlight. This too is insanity.

One could go on and on about the epidemic insanity taking hold of the world. It is not difficult to see. One does not need to search high and low to observe it or realize it just with a bit of effort of mind.

God help us.

humanism-apple

The lovely looking but poisoned apple of humanism

 

What Kind of World would Convince us that Atheism is True?

“What kind of world would convince you that there is no God?”

This is a question posed a while back by atheist Jerry Coyne and one that pops up once in a while in debates on theism vs atheism.

And the answer is very simple.

No world at all.
Indeed, no worlds at all, no universe at all – nothing.

That’s the only rational answer. If literally nothing existed then there would be no one to posit either theism or atheism or anything at all and atheism would be true by default since absolute nothing would also mean no God. However, as soon as you have something, atheism becomes untenable. It can never explain the existence of anything and thus it is too weak a proposition to have any use or credibility.

“Nothingness” is atheism in a nutshell. Atheism is the intellectual black hole of the universe.

Nothing made everything in atheism. Some of them try to pretend that atheism does not really make such a preposterous claim. And yet, they will point to Lawrence Krauss who wrote the book, A Universe from Nothing!  And then they will claim that nothing doesn’t really mean nothing. Um, what?! Say again?

To escape the stupidity of his claims Krauss tries to redefine nothing to mean something. In fact, militant atheists like that are always seeking escape tactics like this to hide the insanity of what they’re saying.  But even in their curious definitions of “nothing” their foolish arguments fail miserably. Since they have defined nothing as something, they still must explain how that something that they call nothing (I’m not making this up) came to exist.  Of course. They cannot do any such thing.

Thankfully the hard sciences and math tell us that the energetic potential of nothing is always nothing. This is the most obvious thing in the ‘world’. Indeed, and using atheist “logic”, we could think that 10^1000 x 0 does not equal 0 but some humongous positive number.

Why is there something rather than nothing is something that blind atheism can never explain. Atheism has its own god. The great god Nothing. It is their posited creator and to their creator they think they are going when they die.

You’ve probably heard the ancient proverb that “The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom”.  Well, in the inverse, atheism is the beginning of insanity.  Why? Because it is nothing but denial of reality and wishful thinking. And all the laughable and ill-reasoned, junk philosophy of a Coyne or a Dawkins will never change that.

As Voltaire stated, “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…..” – Philosophical Dictionary

 

brain-on-atheism

Consensus Science?

I often have Darwinians tell me something like that “98% of all scientists believe in evolution” (the neo Darwinian or the modern synthesis). They think that this is somehow convincing and ought to settle the issue. It doesn’t. Not even remotely close. Indeed, these same people tell me whenever I quote from some scientist, including those in their own camp, that I’m using a fallacy known as “argument from authority” and then they dismiss the quoted statement as though it is meaningless.

What to do? Well, I am forever obliged to remind them that their own claim that “98% of all scientists accept the theory of evolution” is itself an appeal to authority. The blindness (or hypocrisy) is almost comical.  I ask them what authority they themselves are specifically appealing to in claiming that evolution, i.e. neo-Darwinism, has been “as proved as gravity”, as they love to parrot robotically. Invariably they have no good answer.

Occasionally I get a link to say, the Berkley U. page on evolution for laymen or the equivalent. That’s it. Nothing more substantial, specific or genuinely useful. Just the usual empty assertions, just-so stories, terrible logic and baseless leaps of faith Darwinists are so famous for. The reason for this is because almost none of them even know what to point to! Oh, but they are still adamantly sure that proof exists somewhere in science land!

I have noticed over the years that most Darwinian scientists believe that somewhere, some other scientist has proof of the theory. They never have any of their own so they imagine that it must exist in some other scientists’ lab somewhere. Here’s another clue for you all, it doesn’t.

Even the PhDs send me to some peer-reviewed article inevitably demonstrating some trivial, microevolutionary experiment. I have to constantly remind these folks that pointing me to a molehill does not lead me to deduce Mount EverestAnts building ant hills does not justify extrapolation to ants being the constructors of Everest and certainly not the architects of Mount Rushmore, no matter how many gazillions of years you like to add.

micro to macro evolution

There is no leap of sane logic that can take one from say, antibiotic resistance, to “all ~8 million life forms on earth arose from some hypothetical, unobservable LUCA over billions of unobservable years”. If you didn’t recognize that, it is the Darwinian Evolution of the Gaps. Still the most common argument (fallacy) given us by Darwinists everywhere. We must take the leap of blind faith into the deep dark abyss of their fervid imaginations, jumping from the anthill to Everest, to accept the theory.

In decades of discussion and debate they have never given me anything better than trivial examples of microevolution – which all too often isn’t evolution at all but built-in, pre-programmed adaptation mechanisms coded in the species’ DNA – in their futile attempts to prove macroevolution. Macroevolution means major change crossing taxonomic Family boundaries. And don’t be fooled by their recent “moving the goal posts” redefinition of macro as meaning everything above the species level.  If that were true then more than 90% of all evolution is macroevolution and the distinction between macro and micro is virtually useless. Creationists do not even dispute microevolution!

And of course, they did this redefinition because there is not a grain of evidence for any such macroevolution ever occurring. Hence – redefine macro so that it squeezes in – make the data fit the theory rather than accept that the theory does not fit the data.

Note: I received an objection from a Darwinist on this post. Of course, he did not read it correctly since his objection was basically, “lol macroevolution is the same thing as micro over time”. My reaction was, as usual, being disgusted at how these people don’t even read fully and then push the same old baloney with the ubiquitous LOL included, to pretend to themselves that they “gotcha”.

Well, this is just so wrong. The ignorance these people display is stunning. Worse, he added a lame article by poor thinking, disgruntled atheist fanatic Jerry Coyne which is supposed to prove that micro and macro are the same thing, macro being extended micro. These guys have no clue. Coyne’s article is full of really bad logic. It’s like they cannot keep up with the science and perpetually revert to defunct, early Darwinian beliefs that have long since been disproved. One such belief is the myth that macroevolution is just an extrapolation of micro. I addressed this issue here.  So I’ll repeat some of it.

In short, even in 1940 Goldschmidt wrote, “Subspecies are actually, therefore, neither incipient species nor models for the origin of species. They are more or less diversified blind alleys within the species. The decisive step in evolution, the first step toward macroevolution, the step from one species to another, requires another evolutionary method than that of sheer accumulation of micromutations”.

Much more recently, the late evolutionary biology prof, William Provine, an avowed atheist and evolutionist stated,  that “[e]very assertion of the evolutionary synthesis below is false”:

1. Natural selection was the primary mechanism at every level of the evolutionary process. Natural selection caused genetic adaptation . . .
7. Macroevolution was a simple extension of microevolution.
8. Definition of “species” was clear[–]the biological species concept of Dobzhansky and Mayr.
9. Speciation was understood in principle.
10. Evolution is a process of sharing common ancestors back to the origin of life, or in other words, evolution produces a tree of life..”

– William Provine, Random Drift and the Evolutionary Synthesis, History of Science Society HSS Abstracts.

Notice point # 7 . Provine was correct. We cannot pretend that macro is simply an extension of micro without a scientific warrant – and there is none. Indeed, the evidence tells us it cannot work that way. The genome contains so many restraining factors, error detection & correction mechanisms and poly-constrained data that it always was and still is utter folly to pretend you can just make such gratuitous extrapolations. You can’t.

“The suggestion that the development in bacteria of resistance to antibiotics as a result of genetic mutations or DNA transposition somehow “proves” organic evolution is flawed. Macroevolution requires change across phylogenetic boundaries. In the case of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, that has not occurred.” – Bert Thompson, Ph.D., microbiology.

“Large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be understood solely on the basis of extrapolation from processes observed at the level of modern populations and species.
Andrew M. Simons, “The continuity of microevolution and macroevolution,”Journal of Evolutionary Biology 15 (2002): 688-701.

“A persistent debate in evolutionary biology is one over the continuity of microevolution and macroevolution — whether macroevolutionary trends are governed by the principles of microevolution.”

“The neo-Darwinian theory of evolution claims to be able to explain this type of evolution in terms of random mutations, Mendelian genetics, and natural selection. But even within the mechanistic framework of thought, it is by no means agreed that this type of small-scale or micro-evolution within a species can account for the origin of species themselves, or genera, families and higher taxonomic divisions. One school of thought holds that all large-scale or macro-evolution can be explained in terms of long-continued processes of micro-evolution; the other school denies this and postulates that major jumps occur suddenly in the course of evolution. But while opinions within mechanistic biology differ as to the relative importance of many small mutations or a few large ones in macroevolution, there is general agreement that these mutations are random, and that evolution can be explained by a combination of random mutation and natural selection. However, this theory can never be more than speculative.
The evidence for evolution, primarily provided by the Fossil Record, will always be open to a variety of interpretations. For example, opponents of the mechanistic theory can argue that evolutionary innovations are not entirely explicable in terms of chance events, but are due to the activity of a creative principle unrecognized by mechanistic science. Moreover, the selection pressures which arise from the behaviour and properties of living organisms themselves can be considered to depend on an inner organizing factor which is essentially non-mechanistic. Thus the problem of evolution
cannot be solved conclusively.” (Sheldrake R., “A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Morphic Resonance,” [1981], Park Street Press: Rochester VT, 1995, reprint, p.24)

Do you know why evolutionists persist in claiming that micro extends into macro? Because they take it as an article of faith, since no evidence exists for it.

Pointing us to any given article, allegedly proving evolution, is itself an argument from authority. They appeal to their own chosen authority, they appeal to consensus – when it fits their prejudice – all while never even noticing that they are being wonderfully fallacious in their logic and doing what they accuse others of doing.

Worse, arguing from authority is NOT always a fallacy at all! Else the judicial courts would have abandoned doing it centuries ago. Lawyers are constantly making appeals to authority in virtually ever criminal case! The authority of the medical examiner, the forensics labs, the specialized scientist or professional. Appeal to authority is only fallacious when all you have is the word of some “expert” no matter the lack of empirical evidence.

It’s too bad PhDs in biology are not obligatorily required to follow some basic logical analysis and critical thinking courses. It could save us all a lot of wasted time, forever having to explain it to them.

“Historically, *the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled*. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.”
“Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”
– Michael Crichton, PhD Harvard, postdoctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies

I wish evolutionists would finally wake up to their own spurious and irrational arguments. Science has NOTHING to do with consensus. “Consensus science” is an oxymoron.

berlinski-evolution

 

Are Science and Religion Opposed?

We hear this claim all the time from the new atheist crowd.  So, is it true?  The idea that science and religion are opposed is absolutely ludicrous. However, the religion of atheism is definitely opposed to science. And for obvious reasons.

Something far too many people, including an embarrassing number of PhD scientists, are woefully ignorant of the fact that all science is founded upon philosophical and religious assumptions. Atheism provides no metaphysical assumptions upon which any science at all can be rightfully rooted.

FACT: Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, James Clerk Maxwell, Walter Reed, Dmitri Mendeleev, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Kelvin, Faraday, Pasteur, Townes, Mendel, Marconi, world leader in sickle cell anemia research, Dr Felix Konotey-Ahulu, Werner von Braun, Pupin, Walter Lammerts, AE Wilder Smith – with 3 earned doctorates in science! Raymond Damadian Inventer of the MRI,  … and on and on the list goes … were all men of very strong religious beliefs. Indeed, they were all theists and creationists and IDists.

FACT: Modern science and the modern scientific method were founded and established by creationists, not merely religious people but creationists.

Thus the exceedingly foolish claim of the new atheists, that science and religion are somehow opposed, and that one must choose one or the other to establish ones’ facts, is simply stunningly wrong. That claim means that the people who started modern science were the same people whose beliefs opposed science. So what do the atheist do in response to the historical facts? They pretend that somehow, these creationists, these deeply religious people who founded modern science, did so without any reference to their beliefs, that their science had nothing to do with what they believed. And of course, that is more utter nonsense.

FACT: The founders of modern science rooted that science in their theism.  As C.S. Lewis so rightly stated,

“Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator.” – M. D. Aeschliman C. S. Lewis on Mere Science 1998 First Things 86 (October, 1998): 16-18.

And as even atheist philosopher of science, Michael Ruse wrote,

“Most people think that science and religion are, and necessarily must be, in conflict. In fact, this ‘warfare’ metaphor, so beloved of nineteenth-century rationalists, has only a tenuous application to reality. For most of the history of Christianity; it was the Church that was the home of science.” – p. 671 in Ruse, Michael Introduction to Part X (Creationism) in The philosophy of biology edited by David L. Hull and Michael Ruse. 1998

In fact, virtually all the historical experts agree on the fact that it was withing the Christianity that modern science was founded and grew. Indeed, a fact that ought to be disturbing for atheists, but obviously isn’t because their ignorance of the history of science is so profound, is that virtually NO atheists were involved in the establishing of modern science. And for good reason.  Atheism does not allow for any view of the world that includes a reason to believe that law, order and comprehensibility ought to characterize the universe.  This fact has been discussed in great detail in the philosophy of science by people like Rodney Stark in his book, “For The Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-hunts and the End of Slavery”.

Or even Loren Eiseley who wrote,

‘The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation… It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption.’ – Eiseley, L., Darwin’s Century: Evolution and the Men who Discovered It, Doubleday, Anchor, New York, 1961

And distinguished University Professor at Seton Hall University, in South Orange, New Jersey, Stanley Jaki, a leading contributor to the philosophy and the history of science wrote,

“The scientific quest found fertile soil only when this faith in a personal, rational Creator had truly permeated a whole culture, beginning with the centuries of the High Middle Ages. It was that faith which provided, in sufficient measure, confidence in the rationality of the universe, trust in progress, and appreciation of the quantitative method, all indispensable ingredients of the scientific quest.” — Jaki, Stanley L., Creation and Science (1974)

“The birth of science came only when the seeds of science were planted in a soil which Christian faith in God made receptive to natural theology and to the epistemology implied in it. The transition from that first viable birth to maturity was made neither in the name of Baconian empiricism nor in the name of Cartesian rationalism. The transition was made in a perspective adopted by Newton, chiefly responsible for completing that transition. The next two centuries saw the rise of philosophical movements, all hostile to natural theology. Whatever lip service to science, they all posed a threat to it. The blows they aimed at man’s knowledge of God were as many blows a knowledge, at science, and at the rationality of the universe. All those philosophical movements from Hume to Mach also meant an explicit endorsement of the idea of eternal returns, an idea which from the viewpoint of science acted as the chief road into its great historical blind alleys.” – S. Jaki, The Road of Science and the Ways to God, p. 160

Dr. Ronald Numbers, Professor of the History of Science and Medicine at the University of Wisconsin–Madison stated,

“The greatest myth in the history of science and religion holds that they have been in a state of constant conflict. No one bears more responsibility for promoting this notion than two nineteenth-century American polemicists: Andrew Dickson White (1832-1918) and John William Draper (1811-1882)… Historians of science have known for years that White’s and Draper’s accounts are more propaganda than history.” (Galileo Goes to Jail. pg.1,2,6 https://goo.gl/F65JJD)

Indeed, White is one of the principle characters responsible for the lies and false ideas that have spread opposing science and religion. Again, there were virtually no atheists involved in the founding of modern science. Atheism offers no grounds for any belief in any kind of science whatsoever. Atheism has no reason to believe the universe is ordered and understandable.

FACT: 65% of all Nobels were won by Christians.

Worse still, the Christian founders of modern science managed to open the world and change world history by developing a method of inquiry into the natural world based on that which is allegedly “diametrically opposed” to everything they believed! Thus making the founding of modern science a MIRACLE.

The ignorance and stupidity of claiming science and religion are opposed, is thus revealed to be simply astonishing.

Mind-Gears-sm

Abiogenesis is impossible

Abiogenesis is basically the belief that life arose from non-life through some unknown, theoritcal, hypothetical, unobservable, untestable and unfalsifiable chemical process.  I call it a belief  because it certainly isn’t science or scientific in any way at all.

World renown scientist, synthetic organic chemist, James Tour refutes every idea that the materialists and evolutionists have come up with that attempts to turn rocks into life by magic. In this lecture video,

Dr. Tour makes it abundantly clear why abiogenesis does not and cannot ever explain the origin of life.

I have always thought that abiogenesis was nothing more than yet another lame attempt by neo Darwinain fundamentalists, and other materialist evolutionists, to throw quack science smoke and mirrors at the world to try to fool us into believing that you can life from “the backs of crystals”, as Daniel Dennett so naively and ignorantly believes (without a shadow of evidence).  Abiogenesis is simply the old defunct “spontaneous generation” minus the spontaneous part. What a crock! And yet so many people have swallowed that pseudo-scientific codswallop!

It’s truly amazing to witness the mental twists, somersaults and pseudo-intellectual acrobatics that Darwinists and atheists will contort themselves into just to preach anything at all, no matter how ridiculous and risible, as long as it isn’t God.

Thank God it doesn’t work. It never has and never will. If you can prove that 1 + 1 can equal something other than 2, then maybe someday you’ll be able to show that an unguided, chance, material origin of life is possible, … in some other imaginary universe where 1 + 1 might = 3.5 for unknown and inexplicable (and dubious) reasons. Atheists are always inventing imaginary universes where their bland and naive dreams come true and nothing creates everything.

 

 

Who Invented the Macro vs Micro Evolution Terms?

Many times when discussing evolution with avid neo Darwinists online, I encounter the claim that “there’s no such thing as micro vs macro, they’re both the same, and it was dishonest creationists who invented the false distinction”. This is so common that I feel obliged to comment on it.

The reality is this:

“Yuri Filipchenko (Russian: Юрий Филипченко; sometimes spelled Philipchenko) (1882 — 1930) was a Russian entomologist who coined the terms microevolution and macroevolution, as well as the mentor of geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky”
– wikipedia

So there you have it. Macroevolution and microevolution are two terms coined by a Darwinian evolutionist.

Filipchenko was a Darwinist. Not a creationist. So this bogus claim by fervent Darwinians is just tragically ironic, hypocritical and based on their own willful ignorance. The worst is that the last time this false claim was handed to me I was the one treated as dishonest and worse for drawing the opponents’ attention to the fact that micro does not equal macro and macro is not extended micro. The real problem is all these deeply ignorant Darwinists running around parroting each other without ever bothering to verify their claims. I see this kind of mindless recitation of the Darwinian fundaementalist balony catechism constantly. They often act like mindless robots. Every time they stumble upon some statement from some equally clueless Darwinist site, they run with ball, going to the wrong end of the field and they inevitably score against themselves when better informed people catch them in their incompetence.

It is a sign of indoctrination, of brainwashing, when people do this automatic, verbatim, and thoughtless repetition of ubiquitous catch phrases and buzzwords. Indeed, as one physics professor confessed,

“And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal—without demonstration—to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.”
– Singham, Mark, “Teaching and Propaganda,” Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54.

So he has no problem brainwashing his students?  Seriously? What is wrong with that person? I bet it’s hard to pronounce.

The following depicts how this really works.

Darwinists typically use a bait and switch tactic when attempting to convince people of their pet theory.  While using the word evolution as meaning changes in allele frequencies in a population over time, they will then switch to the major changes above the taxonomic Family level.  The unwary audience thus sees macro in their minds while the actual laboratory evidence that is seen is ever and always only small, trivial variation.  The two different terms exist because there is indeed a distinction, else why bother? What use would such distinctions be if there really were no distinction in reality?

Here I quote the late WllliamProvine,  Cornell University historian of science and evolutionary biologist, stated that

“[e]very assertion of the evolutionary synthesis below is false”:“1. natural selection was the primary mechanism at every level of the evolutionary process. Natural selection caused genetic adaptation . . . .
4. Evolution of phenotypic characters such as eyes and ears, etc, was a good guide to protein evolution: or, protein evolution was expected to mimic phenotypic evolution.
5. Protein evolution was a good guide to DNA sequence evolution. Even Lewontin and Hubby thought, at first, that understanding protein evolution was the key to understanding DNA evolution.
6. Recombination was far more important than mutation in evolution.
7. MACROEVOLUTION WAS A SIMPLE EXTENSION OF MICROEVOLUTION.
8. definition of “species” was clear[–]the biological species concept of dobzhansky and mayr.
9. speciation was understood in principle.
10. evolution is a process of sharing common ancestors back to the origin of life, or in other words, evolution produces a tree of life.

11. Inheritance of acquired characters was impossible in biological organisms.
12. Random genetic drift was a clear concept and invoked constantly whenever population sizes were small, including fossil organisms.
13. The evolutionary synthesis was actually a synthesis.”
– William Provine, Random Drift and the Evolutionary Synthesis, History of Science Society HSS Abstracts.

Notice point 7, which I emphasized with bold, capitalized text. Darwinists would do well to note every point there. No, my Darwinian friends, macro evolution is not a mere extension of microevolution.  Provine is not alone. Today dishonest Darwinists, attempting to perform one of their standard moves – moving the goalposts – have changed the definition of macroevolution so that it is in fact merely microevolution, occurring at the species level. By very definition, macroevolution cannot be mere species level evolution. Macro requires major changes, the creation of new taxonomic familes, not mere variation and adaptation. As Provine noted, the definition species isn’t even clear and speciation is not even fully understood!

“The suggestion that the development in bacteria of resistance to antibiotics as a result of genetic mutations or DNA transposition somehow “proves” organic evolution is flawed. Macroevolution requires change across phylogenetic boundaries. In the case of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, that has not occurred.” – Bert Thompson, Ph.D., microbiology.

“Subspecies are actually, therefore, neither incipient species nor models for the origin of species. They are more or less diversified blind alleys within the species. The decisive step in evolution, the first step toward macroevolution, the step from one species to another, requires another evolutionary method than that of sheer accumulation of micromutations” (GOLDSCHMIDT 1940).

Large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be understood solely on the basis of extrapolation from processes observed at the level of modern populations and species.
Andrew M. Simons, “The continuity of microevolution and macroevolution,”Journal of Evolutionary Biology 15 (2002): 688-701.

A persistent debate in evolutionary biology is one over the continuity of microevolution and macroevolution — whether macroevolutionary trends are governed by the principles of microevolution.”

“The neo-Darwinian theory of evolution claims to be able to explain this type of evolution in terms of random mutations, Mendelian genetics, and natural selection. But even within the mechanistic framework of thought, it is by no means agreed that this type of small-scale or micro-evolution within a species can account for the origin of species themselves, or genera, families and higher taxonomic divisions. One school of thought holds that all large scale or macro-evolution can be explained in terms of long-continued processes of micro-evolution; the other school denies this, and postulates that major jumps occur suddenly in the course of evolution. But while opinions within mechanistic biology differ as to the relative importance of many small mutations or a few large ones in macroevolution, there is general agreement that these mutations are random, and that evolution can be explained by a combination of random mutation and natural selection. However, this theory can never be more than speculative.
The evidence for evolution, primarily provided by the Fossil Record, will always be open to a variety of interpretations. For example, opponents of the mechanistic theory can argue that evolutionary innovations are not entirely explicable in terms of chance events, but are due to the activity of a creative principle unrecognized by mechanistic science. Moreover, the selection pressures which arise from the behaviour and properties of living organisms themselves can be considered to depend on an inner organizing factor which is essentially non-mechanistic. Thus the problem of evolution cannot be solved conclusively.”
– Sheldrake R., “A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Morphic Resonance,” [1981], Park Street Press: Rochester VT, 1995, reprint, p.24

Notice the dates on some of these statements. This is not new. So the question arises, “Why do so many Darwinists still persist in insisting that macro = extended micro?” And the answers to that are of a religious nature and due to gratuitous propaganda – read outright lying – spread by many in the Darwinian camp. Here is the standard taxonomy classification chart example.

Species is at the bottom! So how can these dishonest Darwinists claim that macroevolution occurs AT or above the species level? It’s ludicrous, because under that definition, micro and macro are occurring as exactly the same thing! No distinction. Even the logic is horrible.

As science philosopher, Michael Ruse wrote,

“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality… Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” ~ Michael Ruse, How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000

Anyone who has had the displeasure of attempting to reason with staunch evolutionists knows all too well the religious zeal that characterizes the Darwinian fundamentalist today. Thus, giving credence to Ruse’s statement. A very honest and open comment indeed from an atheist evolutionist! The worst is that even in the face of testimony from highly regarded scientists in the evolutionism camp, they still cling tightly to their sacred creeds like the poor befuddled soul that clings to his seat on a falling aircraft, in desperation thinking it will save him.

Back when I was a flight instructor, I was flying an ultralight aicraft, with a student learning to fly.  On that day the lesson was stalls. Basic stalling of a fixed-wing aircraft is usually taught by means of cutting power and then pulling the back on the joy stick, thus raising the plane’s nose.  When the aircraft reaches about a 16 degree angle of attack, the wing is no longer able to create enough lift to keep the plane flying. Then the nose of the plane dips suddenly and radically downward.  It’s kind of like the sensation of falling in one of amusement park rides.  If the stall is done with lots of power on, the results are far more dramatic with a violent nose dive.

Ultralight aircraft – Eipper, MX2

Well, I was leading the student through his first stall, explaninig what I was doing and such until the nose was nicely up and the speed lowered to where the stall occurred and the nose of the plane dropped suddenly earthward.  The student was so frightened by the sudden drop and plunge towards dear mother earth (remember that this is an early ultralight aircraft where you’re basically sitting on a lawn chair, 2000 feet up, with no doors, no floor, right out in midair, strapped to a simple airframe, two wings and a small motor) that he panicked and grabbed onto one of the structural beams of the plane, holding on for dear life, with a face as white as snow.  I couldn’t help but chuckle a bit.  It seems that sometimes flight instructors have a  slight saddistic joy in seeing students turn white as ghosts – just like we did ourselves in the beginning. It kind of “smells like victory” and feels like conquest.

Back on the ground, I explained to the student that it was not a dangerous move and that clinging to structual compenent would never save him in a real fall, since he was hanging on to a part of the falling plane. It was a useless act. One of panic and not of intelligence.

Now this example is very similar to Darwinists who, even in the face of testimony from highly regarded scientists in the evolutionism camp (not creationists), still cling tightly to their doctrine like the poor befuddled student clinging to a falling aircraft, in desperation thinking it will save him.

It won’t. Macro is not an extrapolation of micro. Get over it Darwinists.