Friday, September 26, 2014

A keen observation

The "selfish theory of human nature," which is a natural conclusion of Darwinism's "survival of the fittest," is an idea that is held up and esteemed by sociobiological theorists like E.O. Wilson and Richard Dawkins. Plainly stated, the idea is: since we're evolved from natural processes with no "supernatural" elements influencing our motivations or behaviors, then it follows that our every impulse and motivation must be entirely selfish (in a natural state), because that is the behavior dictated by Darwinian survival of the fittest.

This contradicts what we all witness in human behavior in real life (examples of altruism), but that doesn't stop some from trying to fit a square philosophical peg into a round reality hole.

The book I'm reading right now lists some of the odd questions that the generation of the last 45 years or so feel compelled to ask, such as [paraphrased by me for brevity]:

"Why didn't all young men flee to Canada during the Vietnam war, instead of just a few thousand?"

"Why shouldn't a woman have as many abortions as she wants?"

"What right does the government have to steal my money and call it 'taxation?' "

"How can the Pope continue to oppose contraception? Doesn't he realize that over-population is ruining the environment?"


The following passage is the astute observation of the author on this matter, with one time-related adjustment due to the book being published twenty years ago. The book was published posthumously in 1995 by the author's daughter Judith:


"The folly which is common to the favorite questions of our time, and to the typical questions of the sociobiologists, lies in a certain presupposition which they have in common. That is, that human life, and indeed all animal life, is best understood by comparing with the model furnished by youngish American adults of the last [forty-five] years. By people, that is, who are, beyond all historic precedent, free, rich, mobile, innocent of the very idea (let alone the reality) of food shortage, under no necessity to work, unburdened by familial, religious, or other loyalties, undistracted by education, curiosity, or any disinterested passion, principally anxious (if male) to preserve a whole skin, and (if female) to preserve her immaternity. They (as the saying is) 'just want to have fun,' and are the first instance in history of an entire generation, as distinct from a tiny minority, being in a position to realize this challenging idea."

--- Darwinian Fairytales by David Stove, p.123


David Stove was an atheist who believed in evolution, so his anti-Darwinist arguments can't be attributed to "creationism" nor any other religious agendas.

Monday, September 15, 2014

Darwinist Cognitive Dissonance

Macro-evolution (genetic migration between separate gene pools) is an unproven theory that appeals to those who don't want to include the possibility of an intelligent designer. Darwinists insist that macro and micro evolution describe "fundamentally identical processes on different time scales," but that won't magically produce fossil evidence that doesn't currently exist.

Atheism versus Theism has been around much longer than 1859. It's a disagreement between people who hold different worldviews, not between the informed and the ignorant. The disagreement has been around since earliest recorded history; "modern" man has no special claim to the contention.

Evidence is available for everyone to see and read about. Through the decades since "On the Origin of Species" was published, different information pops up that refutes Darwinian macro-evolution... but, as the "religious" are often accused of doing, the Darwinists keep adjusting their interpretation of the evidence in order to hold the theory together as a scientific "fact," just like the Steady State scientists kept explaining away the mounting evidence of the Big Bang.

Some examples of this phenomenon:

1) The appearance of Haeckel's faked embryonic drawings in textbooks for 140 years, during which time the scientific community was well aware they were not accurate, and deliberately misleading, yet the publishing was allowed to continue.
2) Piltdown Man survived in the public imagination more than 40 years before it was fully exposed as a fraud.
3) The debacles of Java Man (1891), Nebraska Man (1922), and Orce Man (1982) don't prove Darwinian macro-evolution isn't true, but they do a good job demonstrating how much some people would like to believe it is.
4) The Cambrian Explosion caused too much of a problem for the "tree" of Darwinian species development, so Stephen Jay Gould came up with a clever dodge called Punctuated Equilibrium, which "explains" why the fossil record does not reflect what Darwinists expect. Never mind that if Punctuated Equilibrium is true, it goes against the idea of gradual changes over larger periods of time, a cornerstone of evolution by natural selection.
5) The total lack of transitional fossils between phyla have also been a troublesome fact, so another theory was proposed to cover for that problem: small populations that broke from the main population and underwent major physical changes until they became different species, ALL just happened to occur where the climate and geology prevented the creation of fossils.
6) All sorts of interesting cosmological data that don't seem to support current wisdom for the age of the universe.

There's a lot more controversy out there, but I don't have the time (or more honestly, the interest) to lay it all out for atheists who don't want to scrutinize the hard questions anyway. The information is out there; it's not my job to spoon feed anyone.

There will always be convenient answers for evidential conflicts from the Darwinist side, because they operate from the assumption that Darwinist evolution between species must be true. Even the prominent mathematicians at the 1966 Wistar Symposium ended up sharing their statistical calculations with deaf ears (of the evolutionary biologists); the biologists told the mathematicians that evolution was true, so the calculations had to be wrong. Somewhat like the initial resistance to Copernicus before Kepler brought home the bacon with the help of Galileo.

Even though this kind of foregone-conclusion theory-formulation is exactly what Darwinists accuse Intelligent Design theorists of doing, it doesn't seem to register that their own behavior is no different, as the original theory keeps being appended and adjusted for conflicting evidence.

And for the umpteenth time, Intelligent Design and Creationism are not the same thing. Each derives its conclusions from completely different sources. Unless you ask an atheist; to them, even Christians and suicide-bombing Muslims are the same.

Thursday, September 4, 2014

Calm down, atheists

This is the entire text of a post I just made to a YouTube page called "Holy Hallucinations 36".

Behold the Atheist Mantra: "If you want to change my mind, you need to give me physical evidence."

Indeed! And that's what atheists are never going to receive. Any believer who understands the value of faith will also realize that it's useless to argue with atheists about this, because the absence of empirical proof is deliberate.

Atheists: some of you spend way too much time arguing about something that you claim doesn't exist in the first place. Why don't you do yourselves a favor and back up your personal beliefs with action by simply ignoring the believers, having a good laugh, and doing your own thing? Adopting a live-and-let-live policy would certainly do no harm to either side. Unless of course, your desire is not to live and let live, but instead to convince others, and mostly yourselves, that what you believe is correct. Spare us all the hysterics regarding believers' intentions to destroy science and send us back to the dark ages; that singularity hasn't been realized in the past, and won't be in the future. As it has always done, technological progress will continue to forge ahead regardless of political agendas.

I find it interesting that many atheists think Christian believers are required by their faith to force God down everyone's throats; that is not the case at all, despite the actions of some. The gospel is the "Good News" for a reason. Anyone who decides to reject it has every right to do so, and should not be criticized, admonished, or threatened with hell.

Believers: those of you who wish to evangelize should remember that your duty is simply to tell others about God, not waste time arguing with people who demand proof of His existence. Remember the parable of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31). For persons who refuse to believe, even raising someone from the dead will not convince them. Just "shake off the dust of your feet" (Matthew 10:14) as you walk away.

Also, don't expect atheists to greet your appeals with interest or courteous reception. Remember what happens when you share biblical wisdom with those who are of a contentious and aggressive constitution; they will trample that wisdom, and then turn and tear you apart (Matthew 7:6), as "TheLivingDinosaur" so clearly demonstrates with his acrid articulation.

And remember the very next two verses (Matthew 7:7-8), which guarantee that any person who sincerely looks for God will find what he or she seeks. This is why you may remain confident that, when an atheist claims his or her mind will be changed by "proof," the atheist is being disingenuous. If the intention of the atheist was a true desire to seek God without qualification, he or she would already be on that path, and would not require persuasion to begin the journey. The promise extends both ways: the atheist expects a universe without God, so that is exactly what he or she finds.

So, atheists, calm down. Go your own way, continue on your path, enjoy your lives and simply ignore the believers. In the end, we'll all get what's coming to us anyway.