|
|
Pseudoscience of Intelligent Design is similar to the assumption of racial equality.One of the most perplexing dilemmas for me is trying to come up with mechanisms, articles, programs, etc. that could open up a true debate on the heritability of intelligence. Since The Bell Curve, all of the empirical data has supported Jensenism/hereditarianism while the equalitarian/naïve environmentalists have taken up the defensive position of attacking Jensenists (primarily their motives), while providing no alternative explanations for the persistence of the IQ-gap in average intelligence between different races. In reading Michael Shermer’s book Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design (2006), many of the arguments put forth by Intelligent Design advocates (Creationists) are reflective of the arguments used by equalitarians against Jensenists. What is interesting is that it is accepted that Creationism is pseudoscience and universally rejected in the biological sciences, while equalitarianism is still considered to be an alternative theory for explaining the differences in average intelligence between the races. Shermer notes that the Creationist debate is entirely cultural, without any scientific merit or interest by mainstream scientists. And it is primarily an American phenomenon, with some pockets of interest in Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. (I remember about a year ago when the neoconservatives increasingly promoted organized religion and even took the evangelical’s side in the Creationist debate—no doubt to promote Zionist solidarity.) Shermer states, “Data without generalizations are useless; facts without explanatory principles are meaningless. A ‘theory’ is not just someone’s opinion or a wild guess made by some scientist. A theory is a well-supported and well-tested generalization that explains a set of observations. Science without theory is useless.” And yet, like Creationists, that is what we have been getting from the equalitarians. They put forth an endless series of conjectures without any empirical data that leads to a comprehensive environmental theory of intelligence. The most common accusation of course is that racism causes minorities to do poorly, but of course that does not explain then why East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews do better than Caucasians on intelligence tests. Nor is a testable hypotheses put forth explaining just how racism can reduce a person’s intelligence. (I agree that nutrition, vaccinations, reduction in toxic exposure, etc. can lower a person’s intelligence. However these have never been shown to be more that a small percent of the variance.) Intelligence research is also linked to evolutionary research in terms of a historical science. There are good explanations as to how and when different human groups evolved larger brains than others and were more intelligent, as well as noting the differences in the acquisition of tools, a written language, and cultural complexity. And like evolution, “Theoretical prediction was followed by observational verification.” Shermer points out that scientific theory is strengthened the more it is supported by various inductions or facts from independent studies and programs. Jensenism is well supported because it too encompasses an enormous set of observations that lead to the same generalization. Just a few of these are behavior genetics (various twin and sibling studies), brain physiology and chemical activity that correlates with intelligence, reaction time studies, intelligence testing with observations that life outcomes vary based on these tests, technological advancements are primarily made only by those people from the intelligent races, correlation of intelligence with specific genes, etc. All of these areas of independent study support Jensenism and undermine equalitarianism. Shermer states, “For creationists to disprove evolution, they need to unravel all these independent lines of evidence, as well as construct a rival theory that can explain them better than the theory of evolution. They have yet to do so.” Likewise, the equalitarians are only capable of attacking the numerous studies that support Jensenism, while like Creationists, they are lacking an environmental theory for racial differences in intelligence. Like the debate on immigration, it usually ends with accusations of “racism,” rather than an honest debate about the benefits or costs of immigration. He continues, “The either-or fallacy is the false assumption that there are only two positions, A and B, so if A is wrong then B must be right. The fallacy is that discrediting A does not demonstrate B. Both A and B could be wrong and a third alternative could be correct. Creationists employ the either-or fallacy when they claim that life was either divinely created or naturally evolved. By attempting to discredit evolution they hope to draw the conclusion that creationism is true. In science, however, it is not enough to just debunk the accepted theory. You must also replace it with a theory that explains both the ‘normal’ data accounted for by the old theory as well as some of the ‘anomalous’ data not accounted for by the old theory.” The equalitarians then must put together a theory that demonstrates how environmental factors alone can account for all of the observed difference in average intelligence between all races. They have not even begun to pursue this impossible project—they merely use the same tactics as the creationists and they get away with it through censorship, smearing, and intimidation. Shermer quotes Richard Feynman on finding new scientific laws: “‘How do we look for a new law? First, we guess it. Don’t laugh. That’s really true. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what it implies. Then we compare those computation results to nature—or to experiment, or to experience, or to observation—to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.’” In the search for what intelligence is and how and by how much it differs from one person to another, the early guesses starting with Francis Galton have now been vindicated in numerous ways. He saw that high intelligence ran in families, and guessed correctly that intelligence was somehow passed on from parents to children biologically. Today, that guess has been shown to be correct using numerous empirical tests as well as the history of evolution and which population groups advanced ahead of others. I think it is fair to say that with today’s understanding of genetics, and by merely observing both the intelligence of siblings as well as their differences, common sense would indicate that intelligence is highly heritable—both within and between races. And yet political correctness must deny this obvious fact in order to maintain an egalitarian political agenda—all people are equally talented and productive. The battle to suppress evolution is quite different than suppressing Jensenism. As Shermer describes, evolution is embraced by the Left whereas behavior genetics and all of its implications are ignored or declared to be racist. Since creationists can win the scientific battle through the courts, “Since Intelligent Design theory has failed to win the debate on scientific merit, or to convince scientists to accept its ideas as providing some useful insight into evolution and the structure of life, many of its proponents are taking their case to the government. If they cannot get the scientists to believe in their ideas, they will legislate their ideas into the classroom. The reasoning is rather straightforward: Scientists do not accept Intelligent Design as science; Therefore Intelligent Design is not taught in public school science classes; I think Intelligent Design is science; Therefore I will lobby the government to force teachers to teach Intelligent Design as science.” Unlike evolution, psychometrics is taught at the university level, and it can manage to avoid the delicate issue of racial differences by focusing on the mechanics of administering IQ tests, rather than studying racial differences. It is time that we questioned those liberal evolutionists why their theory of evolution should be treated so differently as the theory of the heritability of intelligence. Why should they win the battle based on scientific principles when they so often ignore those same principles in the IQ debate between nature and nurture? Posted by Matt Nuenke on Monday, December 10, 2007 at 07:18 PM in IQ and Heredity Comments:2
Posted by Fr. John on December 11, 2007, 10:55 AM | # Some good points. But the position is actually even more close than that. The history of racial differences is enshrined in both Scripture and culture. “Can the Ethiope change his skin, or the leopard his spots. So, too you being evil, etc.” Two thousand years of Christian Christendom, cannot be erased in one hundred years of Jewish Evolutionary atheism, but they are ‘religiously,’ ‘zealously’ trying to do so. Asimov, Gould, et al. certainly are, or were, in the forefront as ‘apostles of Darwinism.’ No doubt about it. For, ‘we will not have this man [Christ] to reign over us,’ is Satan’s old refrain. And, as Christ said, Like father, like son. [John 8:44] But the fact of the matter is, racial egalitarians, and the ICR (Institute for Creation Research) are merely two sides of the same zionist coin; they are in actuality, bedfellows in their desire to annihilate the White race. Ken Ham’s “Of One Blood” is a proof text of the multicultural heresy run amok, among (both Jewish liberals and) Fundamentalist egalitarians. Is it any coincidence they both hold to a racist supremacist view of Jewry and Israel, as well? I think not. 3
Posted by Tommy G on December 11, 2007, 11:12 AM | # Perhaps a fitting addendum to Fr. John’s post? http://cambriawillnotyield.blogspot.com/2007/12/galahad.html 4
Posted by Bill Daniels on December 11, 2007, 04:20 PM | # Fr. John says, “Two thousand years of Christian Christendom, cannot be erased in one hundred years of Jewish Evolutionary atheism, but they are ‘religiously,’ ‘zealously’ trying to do so.” Which brings us to the point of understanding a Jewish religious principle, tikkun olam, a phrase that praises or defines Jewish efforts to reform or heal the world to accommodate Jewish lifestyles, disregarding our various lifestyles, cultures, identities, and natures. It’s done, of course, through nudging, smearing, violence, public policy initiatives, and close political participation. The changes aren’t so much to control the world as they are to change the world to be a better place for them whether the changes are the destruction of the public celebration of Christmas (a 102 year-old campaign in the USA) or the destruction of the right of fredom of association. Or the insistence that our youngsters die in Iraq to allow their youngsters to live in Israel. Much of the “healing” is not even in secret. Consider eruvs, kosher-added costs to food items we all buy, and the demand to have the USA recognized as a Judeo-Christian nation (than which nothing could be sillier). And of course for over 2,000 years they have told us (and we have bought into it completely and foolishly) that there are only two demographic groups in the world, namely Jews and gentiles. The very idea that Hotentots, Swiss, Koreans, and Canadians are a single demographic gentile cluster is so absurd on its face that our acceptance of gentile as our own name demonstrates that we really lack an understanding of tikkun olam, and that we lack the sense to pound sand down a rat hole. 5
Posted by Desmond Jones on December 11, 2007, 07:10 PM | # Two thousand years of Christian Christendom, cannot be erased in one hundred years of Jewish Evolutionary atheism… Evolution is the child of Jewish genius? It’s an insult to the creativity of the great Saxon mind; Lyell, Darwin, Wallace, Greg and Galton to name but a few of it’s luminaries. And what of Christianity? It replaced thousands of years of the Roman Pantheon, the Greek Eleusinian mysteries and Sumerian anthropomorphism. All, in their own way, adaptive, aiding the reproductive fitness, the moral fortitude, and in-group altruism of those tribal groups that employed them. Should we lament their passing as well? Christianity is one of the most powerful, by all accounts, evolutionary forces in the history of Western man, however, it does not mean it is immune from evolutionary pressures.
6
Posted by danielj on December 11, 2007, 07:26 PM | # Aside from the fact that there is a substantial amount of people with advanced degrees who are extremely intelligent and do not believe in materialistic “goo to you” evolution, you have really missed the mark with all of this. The intelligent design and creationist crowds are marginalized, have their positions turned into straw men and are threatened with damage to career and reputation which puts them in pretty much the same boat as race realists like Taylor, K-Mac et al. It is race realists and I.D. proponents/creationists who are similar! many of the arguments put forth by Intelligent Design advocates (Creationists) are reflective of the arguments used by equalitarians against Jensenists. Which ones? ... as well as construct a rival theory that can explain them better than the theory of evolution. Not true. One does not always need to “prove” some other thing else to disprove something. 7
Posted by Tommy G on December 11, 2007, 08:01 PM | # Jesus Christ shot a proverbial silver bullet through Judaism; period, end of story! Jewish supremacy only thrives because stupid European white goyim let it!!! Understand? 8
Posted by skeptical on December 11, 2007, 08:22 PM | #
This is true. Classical Darwinian theories of evolution have not really been reconciled with the recent extraordinary advances in microbiology. Biological systems have turned out to be far more complicated (by many orders of magnitude) than anyone ever expected. The academics carry on (of course) but this really is a major sticking point for someone who tries to swallow the complete Darwinian narrative of life’s origins (the so called “goo to you” stories). It’s just not clear how the vast array of details in animal microbiology are selected and controlled for via the mechanism of “survival of the fittest”. Maybe we’ll never figure it all out. Don’t get me wrong here, natural selection and evolution are real forces that shape the plant & animal kingdoms. But there are many details that haven’t been filled in. Reasonable minds should be able to express varying levels of skepticism without all the opprobium. 9
Posted by Tommy G on December 11, 2007, 08:43 PM | # Skeptical, How can somthing- like the universe - (without a creator) be ceated out of nothing? 10
Posted by Guessedworker on December 11, 2007, 08:49 PM | # Through mechanics and accident. Why do you think personality has to be involved at that stage? 11
Posted by Tommy G on December 11, 2007, 09:21 PM | # Who or what created the mechanics and the accident? Guessworker, you remind me of a boss I had that was a Doubting-Thomas. He was a proponent of the big bang theory. But when I asked him what put the condensed ball of matter that exploded and formed the universe, he said it was always there!! I asked him if it was always there, what put it there? He got hostile and dropped the subject. What is your explanation of how it got there? 12
Posted by skeptical on December 11, 2007, 09:55 PM | # Tommy G,
Without putting too a fine a point on it lets just say that I am sympathetic with your viewpoint. Anytime the scientist tries to tackle the question of origins he continually bumps into a philosophical conundrum. How could the origin of the natural universe be explained by empirical methods conducted inside the natural universe? However, I’d like to say that arguing philosophy is a tedious business and it distracts from the over-arching goal of advancing the rights and prosperity of Euro man (which is what I mainly care about). My interests are purely practical in this matter. If it requires resurrecting Christendom to restore Euro man to his glory then lets resurrect Christendom. If it requires educating the masses about the biological sciences in order to drive home the realities of race then lets do that. I don’t really care at this point. Whatever it takes to wake people up out their race blind stupor damnit! 13
Posted by Tommy G on December 11, 2007, 10:11 PM | # “Whatever it takes to wake people up out their race blind stupor damnit!” I agree! 15
Posted by captainchaos on December 12, 2007, 04:01 AM | # Nick Griffin is a shrewd and cunning political operator. Could anyone imagine five years ago an openly racialist political party in Britain making the amount of headway the BNP has made so far? Most of this is I believe thanks to Griffin’s leadership. I suggest we have a little faith in the man. 17
Posted by James Bowery on December 12, 2007, 05:01 AM | # Is there an experiment that can be run to test the “blind watchmaker” vs the “intelligent designer”? It’s not as though we are bereft of life forms that can go through 50 generations within an affordable experiment. As for environmental determinism, it is pretty clear that intelligence is 100% environmental—a fact that can be proven experimentally by any environmental determinist who is willing to use me as a control subject, both of us taking an IQ test before the experimental treatment, which is putting a bullet through his skull, thereafter the two of us taking another IQ test. Yes, yes… I know I could cheat by not trying but I promise to try my best in both IQ tests if he will. 18
Posted by Guessedworker on December 12, 2007, 07:07 AM | # Tommy: Who or what created the mechanics and the accident? All who do not understand that faith offers a fitness gain and, consequently, is a selected phenomenon, go barrelling ahead in other directions, in the process conflating creation myth with spiritual liberation under the one heading of “god” or “religion”. Creation myths serve to sanctify the ethny and buttress its genetic interests by making the father (or mother) of heaven the core “truth” of the tribe. Creation myths are supremacising, and operate through the medium of high-value communal trust. They have nothing whatsoever - nothing - to do with the idea of the Fall of Man (or Exile or Maya), which refers exclusively to the living state of consciousness we ordinarily experience, and the possibility - perhaps - of another, directed and probably only fleeting experience. The problem here, then, is not really our imperfect knowledge of the universe, but the needs and tendencies of faithists to project their genetic predisposition onto the physical world, while completely missing the psychological dimension. To try to answer your question in this light, “Jehovah” means “I am”. It does not mean “I am the Creator of the universe”. In the beginning is consciousness of self, and moving over the face of the waters of the Earth is the act of the creation of being, of presence, out of this consciousness. Almost immediately, Genesis mythicises this into the descent and sanctification of Jewry, but that’s evolution for you. 19
Posted by Tommy G on December 12, 2007, 10:49 AM | # “As for environmental determinism, it is pretty clear that intelligence is 100% environmental—a fact that can be proven experimentally by any environmental determinist who is willing to use me as a control subject, both of us taking an IQ test before the experimental treatment, which is putting a bullet through his skull, thereafter the two of us taking another IQ test. Yes, yes… I know I could cheat by not trying but I promise to try my best in both IQ tests if he will.:—James Bowery LOL. Actually James, I wouldn’t want you to put a bullet through your own skull. If you assumed room temperature, I would really miss enjoying watching you simmer in your self inflicted misery. Besides you do inadvertently provide us humor while you are being miserable, such as: http://coolkidsrebel.com/_storage/mr_holiday_rap_2.mp3 ``````````````````````````````````````` To Guessedworker: Thanks for taking the time to address my concerns. I’m going to have to spend some time and study the issue futher and mull over what you said. ``````````````````````````````````````` Me too. 20
Posted by Desmond Jones on December 12, 2007, 03:05 PM | # How can something- like the universe - (without a creator) be created out of nothing? It’s a moot point vis-a-vis Christianity, because Genesis does not advocate the big bang theory and a creator. And it is Genesis with which Darwin initially could not reconcile his theory of evolution. 21
Posted by James Bowery on December 12, 2007, 03:06 PM | # TommyG, an “experimental control” is generally not subjected to the experimental “treatment” so, no, I wasn’t volunteering for the suggested “environmental influence” on IQ. 22
Posted by zusammen on December 12, 2007, 04:50 PM | # Hasn’t quantum physics observed subatomic particles that appear to pop in and out of existence? These seemingly magical “intelligent design” events, are today reproduced in the laboratory. Like all mythologies, ID seems like an obsolete explanation for what were formerly considered supernatural mysteries. Lighting meant the gods are angry and need appeased at one time. Now we know the clouds can have a negative potential and if the ground directly below has an abundance of positive ions, a lightning bolt will form. Certainly understanding the origin of the universe is a vastly more complex undertaking than explaining a lightning strike, but that does not justify resorting to modern superstitious materialism. 23
Posted by Tommy G on December 12, 2007, 05:57 PM | # Interesting discussion about the fallacy of Darwinism going on at VFR: “The transparent intellectual fraud that is Darwinism” 24
Posted by Guessedworker on December 12, 2007, 07:17 PM | # Someone named John Standing sent the following message to Larry:-
On teleology in Darwinian exposition Sad to say, language is not used with absolute, pinpoint accuracy all of the time, and if you are going to hold evolutionists to absolute accuracy in regard to their expositions, well, you will never be disappointed ... there will always be opportunities for some sport. All the same, the action of organic life (sometimes, indeed usually, described as “purpose” or “meaning”) is the transmission of information through time. Life, or Nature, is a striving mechanism ... but it IS a mechanism. It’s just one engaged opportunistically upon “being there” tomorrow, and the day after. In the same way, the ultimate value in the life of Man is reproductive or genetic interest. Out of this perfectly ontological fact flows our powerful tendency to rely upon teleology in the expression of our thoughts and in our communications - even about evolution. Does that cast Evolutionary Theory into doubt? Does that somehow imply that Nature’s interest in continuity is divinely purposive. No, why should it? Proponents of the divine have no coherent, predictive theory of their own, but many a snipe at the one predictive theory we do have. I suggest you closely examine your purpose in that before you venture to attach divine purposivity to Nature. Yours, John Standing 25
Posted by Desmond Jones on December 12, 2007, 07:47 PM | # As Master Standing suggests, Auster’s is just another in a long line of teleological games. He is simply making statements without a framework whereby they might be tested and falsified. By doing so, he is blurring the boundaries between metaphysics and science. The question is to what end? How does his teleology validate Christian doctrine? It is just as logical to assume the presence of multiple deities or abstract supernatural forces lacking the attributes of the theistic God. 26
Posted by DavidL on December 12, 2007, 09:16 PM | # Here’s a couple of quotes from Michael Hoffman’s “Secret Societies” book: “The cryptocracy has successfully harnessed to its own ends the huge potential for “The reason that science is a bad master and a dangerous servant and ought not to be “The doctrine of man playing god reaches its nadir in the philosophy of scientism which Since we are between the proverbial “rock and a hard place”, whether one side is right 27
Posted by Desmond Jones on December 13, 2007, 02:35 AM | # Does Mr. Hoffman, or Larry Auster, suggest that our “advancing toward extinction” is by design? 28
Posted by rustymason on December 13, 2007, 09:49 AM | # Darwinists and macro-evolutionists are marginalized? That’s crazy talk. Every nature program on television and every museum of natural science exhibit seems to take macro-evolution as a basic fact, and goes on from there. It’s practically impossible to get away from Darwinian religion today—it’s literally everywhere, in every subject matter remotely related to science, and in every other sentence about body parts, heredity, nature, or environment. The holes in macro-evolution are so big one could drive a truck through them. No missing links; the periodic explosions of thousands of new life forms; and instantaneous development of multiple hyper-complex, self-reproducing and self-repairing systems. Anyone who proposes it as a settled fact is merely professing his religion. As for cosmology, is it really so unrealistic that there is a mysterious, super-powerful force that creates/regulates the innumerable natural forces of the universe, a power that we have not yet discovered (and may never completely understand)? After all, we’ve been here a very long time and only recently (as far as we know) discovered new forces and laws about time and space at the macro and micro level. Isn’t it premature and over-confident to announce that no such force—animated or not—exists, considering the incredibly limited knowledge we currently have? What’s wrong with assuming that such a force seems to exist, and giving it/him a name? At least religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Asatru, etc. have many leaders who will admit that their cosmology and explanation for the forces of the universe IS a religion. If macro-Darwinists were honest, they would do the same. 29
Posted by Guessedworker on December 13, 2007, 11:08 AM | # But it’s science, Rusty, not religion. Science is not belief-based. Religion is not demonstrable fact. I assume you accept empirical truths in all manner of fields, and would be lost for words if some mad buggers seized power one day, and banned all products of the scientific method in favour of the beliefs and opinions of their distant ancestors. But in this one field of science, which happens to threaten a 3,000-year old story about an angry Jewish god in the sky, you become hopelessly, irrationally Stone Age. But then, faith is an evolved quality of the human mind. 30
Posted by rustymason on December 13, 2007, 02:46 PM | # GW, I think you misread me (which is understandable; I wrote the above before having the morning caffeine shot). I’m not saying we should stop scientific inquiry into evolution or ID, not at all. And I am not arguing on behalf of any particular story of The Creation or The Evolution. I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy of most macro-Darwinists. Their proof for macro-evolution (ME) is no stronger than any proof of creation or ID, yet they insist that it is, and in the most enthusiastic manner. Despite all evidence against it, they strongly believe it. They can point to small verifiable changes in some plants and animals, yet they cannot (and most will not even try to) explain why there are no “missing links.” Statistically, according the the general theory, we should find an infinite number of them. But we do not. We find many numbers of the bigger stage animals—the intermediate “steps”—but nothing in between. Whenever a new “the missing link” is found and hits the headlines, it is sooner or later found out to be a hoax, new species, or a misidentification. Of course, those embarassements are not announced with nearly as much fanfare. Macro-evolutionists cannot explain, without a huge warping of all known laws of the universe, how millions of hugely-complex and interdependent systems could have possibly arisen through random mutations. Their problem is made worse by the fact that we do not see—not today or ever—any beneficial/positive mutations that would make one type of animal into another. What we do see is a lot of random changes that might be on their way to becoming a wing or a foot, but that are only crippling deformities, and that that new trait is quickly wiped out by natural selection. Even positive mutations of bacteria and viruses are actually degenerative in nature—they are not building themselves into something more complex or higher, but the opposite. Faith is indeed part of our nature and can co-exist with science just fine (I strongly believe that they should). And it is good to fill in our knowledge gaps with beliefs and theories, so long as we recognize them as such. However, the Darwinists of which I speak do not. The explanations for the big “missing pieces” needed to make ME theory work are demonstrably *not* scientific, they are faith-based. They are just as improbable as anything in the Koran or Bible. They would be merely theories if the macro-evolutionists stopped there and admitted as much. But they don’t do they? They dogmatically, indefatigably insist that we believe them, without proof. ME is their religion. Real science and good religion suffer as a result. 31
Posted by Desmond Jones on December 13, 2007, 04:06 PM | # They can point to small verifiable changes in some plants and animals, yet they cannot (and most will not even try to) explain why there are no “missing links.” Statistically, according the the general theory, we should find an infinite number of them. Why do you expect, considering the paucity or imperfection, as Lyell and Darwin described it, of the geological record, that we should find a fossiliferous record categorised by some natural Dewey decimal classification system? If you believe that the evolutionary record has gaps, why don’t you believe the geological record will also have vast gaps? Clearly, you have not read Origin. If you are inquisitive about the story, Darwin discusses the imperfection of the geological record in Chapter nine, if memory serves. The transitional species record is poor, no doubt. However, there have been some very illuminating finds, like Tiktaalik, the fish out of water;
32
Posted by rustymason on December 13, 2007, 08:42 PM | # I have read much of the literature, not in its entirety, but enough to understand the bigger issues in dispute. This much is not in dispute: we have found many specimens of the same things that are supposed to be linked, but no intermediate forms. Statistically, this is astoundingly unlikely. Also, no macro-evolution theory even comes close to explaining the explosions of different types of life at different times. One day in the fossil record, there appears literally thousands of new forms of life, unlike that in the layer before, with no intermediate forms at all. Nor does ME even begin to explain—much less demonstrate—how millions of hyper-complex, highly-interdependent, self-replicating and self-healing systems could simply evolve by pure chance. We are just supposed to believe it, and that’s that. ME is, as it appears to anyone who has seriously studied the arguments of both sides for any time at all, a religion, a belief system, preached by those who refuse to entertain the idea that there might be forces greater and more mysterious than those they have already found. 33
Posted by Desmond Jones on December 14, 2007, 01:36 AM | # Also, no macro-evolution theory even comes close to explaining the explosions of different types of life at different times. One day in the fossil record, there appears literally thousands of new forms of life, unlike that in the layer before, with no intermediate forms at all. Again, Darwin explains why in Origins. He addresses this very issue. If you don’t want to believe it, that’s up to you. ME is, as it appears to anyone who has seriously studied the arguments of both sides for any time at all, a religion, a belief system, preached by those who refuse to entertain the idea that there might be forces greater and more mysterious than those they have already found. An appeal to authority, (Santa likes chicken, it’s a well known fact) is not an argument that supports the assertion that evolution is a religion or some metaphysical opinion. Evolution qualifies as a scientific theory because it is falsifiable. As Dawkins said, “If there were a single hippo or rabbit in the Precambrian, that would completely blow evolution out of the water. None have ever been found.” Religious beliefs are not falsifiable. What test can be devised that will provide empirical evidence, if discovered, that will “blow God out of the water”? There isn’t one. That’s why creationism is not science and evolutionary theory is not a religion. However, it’s apparent that you won’t accept that position because to do so means a denial of your faith. Therefore there is no point in discussing evolution with the deeply religious, because even if evolutionists were able to provide a gazillion examples of transitional species, they still will not accept the evidence. If the religious want to finally settle the evolutionary question, they should start digging for rabbit fossils. 34
Posted by Boleskine on December 14, 2007, 05:09 AM | # As those devout Southern Baptists claim, it’s all the work of God : 35
Posted by rustymason on December 14, 2007, 10:16 AM | # “Darwin explains why in Origins. He addresses this very issue.” Not exactly. Darwin said that he was puzzled by the total lack of intermediate or changing forms, but that he thought it was because we had discovered so few fossils. He was sure that we would eventually find the missing links. Well, a century and a half and millions of fossils later, we still haven’t any. According to ME, there should be an infinite number of them, yet we find none. Have you studied statistics at all? “As Dawkins said, ‘If there were a single hippo or rabbit in the Precambrian, that would completely blow evolution out of the water. None have ever been found.’” And in the lower layers, there are also no dinosaurs. So what? You’re making the incredibly over-simplistic argument that evolution must be true because different life forms appear at different times. That doesn’t prove ME at all. “Religious beliefs are not falsifiable. What test can be devised that will provide empirical evidence, if discovered, that will “blow God out of the water”? There isn’t one. That’s why creationism is not science and evolutionary theory is not a religion. However, it’s apparent that you won’t accept that position because to do so means a denial of your faith. Therefore there is no point in discussing evolution with the deeply religious, ...” What the heck are you babbling about? I wrote, “I’m not saying we should stop scientific inquiry into evolution or ID, not at all. And I am not arguing on behalf of any particular story of The Creation or The Evolution. I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy of most macro-Darwinists.” Clearly, I have not been promoting any faith here, simply pointing out that the ME’s have a faith that they obviously cannot support scientifically, and therefore engage in some of the same type of behavior that they find so detestable in other “religious extremists.” ”...because even if evolutionists were able to provide a gazillion examples of transitional species, they still will not accept the evidence.” But they haven’t found any, have they? That’s the whole point. And have you explained how millions of interdependent, hyper-complex, self-replicating and self-repairing systems simply happened by random chance? No, you haven’t. Don’t feel dumb, Darwin didn’t have a clue either. However, at least he—unlike the rabid ME’s whom I am criticizing—was a big enough man to admit it. It’s the definition of irony. I am saying that ME is not scientifically sound, yet its adherents promote its “science” with religious zeal, accusing anyone who questions ME as hopelessly backward. ME’s respond, not with scientific proof, but with vigorous ad hominen and statements of faith (essentially, “we will be able to explain it all one day, just wait, you’ll see”). “If you don’t want to believe it, that’s up to you.” Thank you, but I’m investigating other religions just now. 36
Posted by Tommy G on December 14, 2007, 10:59 AM | # Johnson Challenges Advocates of Evolution - law professor Phillip Johnson supports ‘microevolution’ but not ‘macroevolution’ Excerpt:
PJ: Their strongest argument isn’t really an argument in the strictest sense. It’s authority. These are all the people our culture regards as wise. They’re the scientists and engineers we rely upon to make sure our airplanes don’t crash and to see that our diseases are cured. So how could they be wrong about something so fundamental? Naturalism is identified with the scientific culture and forms its basis. It’s assumed that it’s because of their naturalistic assumptions that these wizards are able to work their wizardry. So to undermine their naturalistic assumptions is to try to undermine all science, and all science can’t be wrong because it has achieved such wonders.”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_39_15/ai_57155892/pg_1 http://cambriawillnotyield.blogspot.com/2007/12/galahad.html 37
Posted by rustymason on December 14, 2007, 01:38 PM | # From the article linked by Tommy G: PJ: ... the wonders of scientific technology do not come out of naturalism at all. They come out of the metaphysical assumption that nature is rational, that it is something that can be understood by the human mind. So far so good if we accept his apparent meaning of naturalism as part of a purely materialist (nothing supernatural, no gods) universe. It comes out of the assumption that God created nature and created our minds in his own image, the assumption that we can understand the nature that God created because God created it and created how it works. ... “ Does the word “God” here have the same flexibility as the ancient understanding of ho theos? I suspect not. I also suspect he’s about to damage his case and say something like ... Of course science historically grew out of a Christian theistic environment. Science was not invented by pagans or pantheists or anything like that. There, he did say it. Is he correct? I don’t know what a Christian theistic environment is exactly, but I suspect that he means that, before Christianity, the social and political environment was such that it would be impossible for scientific inquiry to exist or thrive. I’m not sure, but didn’t the ancient Greeks invent some of the first significant methods of scientific inquiry? Flawed as they were, they were still much an improvement over the “thinking” of the time and area. Didn’t they also invent and build some pretty impressive machinery? Wouldn’t they have had to apply science to the task? I do remember that Cicero, in “De Natura Deorum,” made fun of the Pythagoreans’ mystical cultists (numerologists), but thought that the other, normal Pythagoreans had come up with some some amazing mathematical discoveries and theories. 38
Posted by Tommy G on December 14, 2007, 02:59 PM | # [RM: “I also suspect he’s about to damage his case and say something like ... “ Johnson:“Of course science historically grew out of a Christian theistic environment. Science was not invented by pagans or pantheists or anything like that.”] Ahah! Of course you pointed out an obvious flaw in his historical facts. He should have preceded science with ‘Western’ as it’s qualifier. But then Johnson went on to say something intriguing: “God made the world and made our minds so that we can understand the world He made. Our understanding often is dim or distorted. We see through a glass darkly because we’re not as God meant us to be.” ________________ TG: Rusty, could you at least hold out the possibility our dim and distorted understanding of the world is due to what happened in the Garden of Eden? 39
Posted by Desmond Jones on December 14, 2007, 03:16 PM | # The last paragraph of Chapter Nine, Origin of the Species; “The several difficulties here discussed, namely our not finding in the successive formations infinitely numerous transitional links between the many species which now exist or have existed; the sudden manner in which whole groups of species appear in our European formations; the almost entire absence, as at present known, of fossiliferous formations beneath the Silurian strata, are all undoubtedly of the gravest nature. We see this in the plainest manner by the fact that all the most eminent palaeontologists, namely Cuvier, Owen, Agassiz, Barrande, Falconer, E. Forbes, &c., and all our greatest geologists, as Lyell, Murchison, Sedgwick, &c., have unanimously, often vehemently, maintained the immutability of species. But I have reason to believe that one great authority, Sir Charles Lyell, from further reflexion entertains grave doubts on this subject. I feel how rash it is to differ from these great authorities, to whom, with others, we owe all our knowledge. Those who think the natural geological record in any degree perfect, and who do not attach much weight to the facts and arguments of other kinds even in this volume, will undoubtedly at once reject my theory. For my part, following out Lyell’s metaphor, I look at the natural geological record, as a history of the world imperfectly kept, and written in a changing dialect; of this history we possess the last volume alone, relating only to two or three countries. Of this volume, only here and there a short chapter has been preserved; and of each page, only here and there a few lines. Each word of the slowly-changing language, in which the history is supposed to be written, being more or less different in the interrupted succession of chapters, may represent the apparently abruptly changed forms of life, entombed in our consecutive, but widely separated formations. On this view, the difficulties above discussed are greatly diminished, or even disappear.” 40
Posted by rustymason on December 14, 2007, 09:30 PM | # TG: Rusty, could you at least hold out the possibility our dim and distorted understanding of the world is due to what happened in the Garden of Eden? Of course. I don’t view it as scientific, but then again, I don’t think it was ever meant to be. Some things can be true and not true at the same time, or true even if not factual. 41
Posted by rustymason on December 14, 2007, 09:56 PM | # Desmond, I’m not sure, but it looks to me like you are agreeing with me. The excerpt above is an example of faith—faith that we will, given enough time and fossils, eventually find a missing link. That was, what, 150 years and a million fossils ago? We can find many thousands of examples of the same animal, yet no intermediate forms before or after in the upper or lower layers. That’s statistically highly improbable, given that MacEv postulates an almost infinite number of intermediate forms. The missing link is not the only major problem with MacEv. There are also the problems of the irreducibly complex systems (literally millions of them in every aminal), the problem of how deformities can be overcome long enough for them to turn into advantages, and the problem of giant population explosions in the geologic record. There are more, but these are biggies. Perhaps we will find some missing links. I’m open to that, no problem. What is not forgivable is MacEv’s preaching it as an absolute, proven fact as is so commonly done today. What is not excusable is the contumely heaped on those who dare to question it or demand some specific disclaimers. The MacEv’s who do this are no different from the “religious nuts” they claim to be different from. They are hypocrites extraordinaire. 42
Posted by Yuezhus on December 15, 2007, 01:27 AM | # Rusty, you’ve been given at least one concrete example of a transitory species, in the form of the Fishapod. Hordes of transitory specimens have been discovered, but it really doesn’t look like you’ve understood Origin well enough anyway. Fossils are still extremely rare, and the frequency of successful fossil-formations over time can be too low to aptly demonstrate transitory organisms, but this is irrelevant, because loads have already been discovered. Some organisms don’t need to evolve. Sharks haven’t for tens of millions of years, if not over a hundred million. Bacterium, algae and jellyfish are doing fine as well, undaunted by their immense venerability. Sometimes, however, small splinter groups get separated from an originally bigger group, or as a grimmer alternative, massive population reduction, as apposed to fragmentation, happens. Mutations carry more easily in smaller breeding groups, and if the members of such start to inhabit an environment different to the one they evolved for, but not too hazardous as to deplete them, well…I don’t need to explain this. If I do, then you shouldn’t be arguing against things you have no grasp of. Why don’t we need to entertain intelligent design theories? I’ll explain it to you in economical riddle format: consciousness and awareness is inevitable, and infinity exists. The classic Daoist ‘Tree Falling in a Forest’ koan is helpful at this juncture, but to avoid confusion over organisms, try imagining it as ‘Boulder Falling in a Canyon’ or something. I’m loving it at MacEv’s. Pop around for some thought-food some time. People who believe in evolution are correct extraordinaire. 43
Posted by Desmond Jones on December 15, 2007, 03:37 AM | # It’s not faith (a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny;) Rusty because it’s falsifiable. With the correct evidence Darwin can be proved wrong. Faith can’t be tested. 44
Posted by danielj on December 15, 2007, 05:51 AM | # Rusty, you are doing a fine job but I thought I would add to this:
- The Roche Limit of the Moon 45
Posted by danielj on December 15, 2007, 05:52 AM | # Genes are information, therefore there is a God. 46
Posted by Tommy G on December 15, 2007, 11:26 AM | # rustymason said: “What is not forgivable is MacEv’s preaching it as an absolute, proven fact as is so commonly done today.What is not excusable is the contumely heaped on those who dare to question it or demand some specific disclaimers. The MacEv’s who do this are no different from the “religious nuts” they claim to be different from. They are hypocrites extraordinaire.” ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Why should we beleive in God? Afterall, Darwin had demonstrated that it was not necessary to posit God to explain the origin of life. If natural causes working on their own are capable of producing everything that exists, then the obvious implication is there is nothing left for the creator to do. If the existence of God no longer serves any explanatory or cognitive function, then the only function left is an emotional one—Beleif in God is reduced for people afraid to face modernity…religion is reduced down to a human construct invented by primitive cultures as a defence mechanism to help them cope with the rigors of everyday life. Bottom line: I believe God, through evolution, created the natural and moral order of the universe…not in the irrational naturalistic secular view of atheist Darwinists. 47
Posted by Svigor on December 15, 2007, 01:37 PM | #
At the least, this seems like an anthropomorphization of the universe; humans talk of creating things, ergo the assumption that the universe must’ve been “created.” I’m willing to accept that my brain’s never going to properly wrap around the concept of the universe, much less its “creation.” Why is it any harder to accept that something had no beginning or ending, than it is to accept that a magical God (who created him?) must’ve existed? It seems to me easier to accept that existence (space-time, at least) has always been, than it is to accept that existence wasn’t, then spontaneously was, and the nothing from whence the something sprang wasn’t actually something, etc. 48
Posted by Svigor on December 15, 2007, 01:40 PM | # As for religion in general, it seems another obvious anthropomorphization. My observations tell me the universe is mechanical, not spiritual; fall into the gears and you’re ground up. If there is an all-powerful God conforming to Jewish scribblings, I hope I never encounter him, because at best he’s a capricious child, and at worst a leering monster. 49
Posted by Tommy G on December 15, 2007, 09:57 PM | # “If there is an all-powerful God conforming to Jewish scribblings, I hope I never encounter him, because at best he’s a capricious child, and at worst a leering monster.”—Svigor Svigor, does Jesus scare or repulse you that much? 50
Posted by Svigor on December 16, 2007, 01:43 AM | # Yes and no. Culturally, it’s a mixed bag as I see pros and cons to Christianity - though most of the pros are pragmatic. Spiritually I’m an atheist. Scientifically I’m an agnostic. In this context it seems axiomatic that any Gods offering reward and punishment in the afterlife based on faith, without a shred of proof, is by definition at least capricious.
51
Posted by Svigor on December 16, 2007, 02:01 AM | # (numbers tentative and from memory) The universe is 13 or 14 billion years old; it took 8 billion years to evolve modern humans. The galaxy is 100,000 light years across. What’s the top speed for humans? .5 lightspeed? .25? .1? How long would it take us to survey our galaxy? 200,000 years? 400,000? 1,000,000? How long is 200k years in evolutionary time? From what I’ve read, the Milky Way is one of the older galaxies in the universe, and Earth is in one of the older parts of the Milky Way. Does this mean humans are more likely to be among the elder statesmen of the universe, than among the youngsters? Given the relationship between evolutionary time and the time required to survey the Milky Way, isn’t it likely we’d have seen any spacefaring species indigenous to our galaxy by now? Isn’t it likely that we’ll be the first spacefaring species? There, that’s about as close as I get to religion, scientifically anyway. 52
Posted by fdsdsf on December 18, 2007, 08:00 PM | # Do you use egalitarian in reference to the idea of people who say all racial differences purely to largely environmental in origin, or anyone who doesn’t think they’re largely genetic? 53
Posted by Petracca on December 22, 2007, 02:41 AM | # Intelligent Design.. or not..? As I see it it’s quite simple… There exist two rational choices…. 1 Eternal mind 2 eternal ideas. As something cannot generate from nothing….It follows that something must have Permanence. The next question is the nature of this Permanence..? Since we know that no thing exists without pattern.. specificity, design, we can deduce that pattern is essential. The next important qualification is the accounting for the congniscence with which we question this very primal essence ! Cogniscence exists ! This we know…Cogito Ergo Sum…The final question.. What is more probable ? Mind, Cogniscence.. proceeds from pattern’s + time ? or Mind proceed’s from mind ? Experience demonstrates ..idea’s..pattern’s proceeding from mind, but not the reverse..Reality is born of mind,Logos, In the beggining, At the center is mind, GOD, and who can believe that love is born of blind causal mechanics has far more (blind) faith than would be required to believe in a GOD of Love and Reason. Lupus Rex 54
Posted by Dean on December 29, 2007, 10:55 AM | # I am a creationist, and though I certainly don’t approve of the pro-multicultural sentiment lurking behind some of the comments by men like Ken Ham, I think they are just guilty of a spineless appeal to political orthodoxy rather than anything more sinister. But I wanted to make a quick point about intelligence diffrence: I read the article on this website about natural/artificial selection leading to Nordic evolution, including greater intelligence. Since creationists believe in micro-evolution, there was nothing in the article which I had any disagreement about (except the over-generalized use of the word evolution); indeed, I found the article very illuminating and helpful. Anyone with more than one child knows that those children have very different abilities and talents. It’s no different with the children of Noah, and as the article on Nordic evolution points out, selection has also favoured the European people. Let me also plug Arthur Constance’s Noah’s Three Sons, in which he makes these points. 55
Posted by danielj on December 29, 2007, 01:30 PM | # I found the article very illuminating and helpful. Anyone with more than one child knows that those children have very different abilities and talents. It’s no different with the children of Noah, and as the article on Nordic evolution points out, selection has also favoured the European people. Let me also plug Arthur Constance’s Noah’s Three Sons, in which he makes these points. The text of Constance’s book was not available on the internet, however, relevant excerpts fail to explain your recommendation of the book. Excerpts from the frontpage of the book:
It seems like the entire thesis of the book is the essential and symphonic harmony of the races through the beauty of their diversity. Not only that, but that God’s purpose in the division of the races was that their variance in evolution would produce more benefit to human kind as a whole, rather than a singular track of human development which would be hindered in flowering to its full potential. Negroids are the percussion; Mongoloids the wind; Caucasoids the strings? It seems to be a celebration of a fictional and imagined equality in the feeble mind of the author and one manifestation of the “different and equal” fallacy. The only place I can find the work sited is here: The Black Man’s Dominion which is some crazy Afrocentric ramblings about the Negro origins of all that is holy and civilized. Additionally, for someone who is a Biblical creationist, you should be well aware for the lack of negro achievement in all three areas of interest cited by Mr. Custance; spiritual, physical (meaning physics) and intellectual. The reason is cogently encapsulated in Genesis 9:20-27:
56
Posted by danielj on December 29, 2007, 01:32 PM | # Additionally, for someone who is a Biblical creationist, you should be well aware for the lack of negro achievement in all three areas of interest cited by Mr. Custance; spiritual, physical (meaning physics) and intellectual. Should be: Additionally, for someone who is a Biblical creationist, you should be well aware of the reasons for the lack of negro achievement in all three areas of interest cited by Mr. Custance; spiritual, physical (meaning physics) and intellectual. Next entry: The Human Rights Fraud Previous entry: Feet of clay |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. payday loans commented in entry 'ANTI-JEWISM: The Deadly Plague of White Nationalist Slave Morality' on 05/24/12, 10:27 AM. (go) (view) Verlene Zumwalt commented in entry 'Ireland Worshipping at the Holocaust Shrine' on 05/24/12, 10:16 AM. (go) (view) Cobus commented in entry 'A genocide in South Africa' on 05/24/12, 10:14 AM. (go) (view) pay day loans commented in entry 'Heidegger: The West Texas Translation' on 05/24/12, 09:59 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 09:49 AM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 08:54 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 07:41 AM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 07:18 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 06:53 AM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/24/12, 06:48 AM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/24/12, 06:47 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 06:32 AM. (go) (view) Guest commented in entry 'The Torment of the Mulattoes' on 05/24/12, 06:17 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/24/12, 03:05 AM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:31 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:03 AM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:08 PM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 09:13 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 07:47 PM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'Indian beauty' on 05/23/12, 12:52 PM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 12:45 PM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'More on the Indian beauty question' on 05/23/12, 12:31 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:43 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 11:32 AM. (go) (view) Mellaba Pechios commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 07:55 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 03:51 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:40 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:40 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:26 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:23 PM. (go) (view) 7 Year BA commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 09:19 PM. (go) (view) DARYL commented in entry 'A repeatable comment for mass-pasting on American public message boards' on 05/22/12, 08:57 PM. (go) (view) Thorn commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 08:31 PM. (go) (view) Church of Jed commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 07:40 PM. (go) (view) Selous Scout commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 05:56 PM. (go) (view) Recent Posts
General NewsScience NewsScience CategoriesAll CategoriesThe WritersEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages. LinksEndorsement not implied. Controlled Opposition Crime
General
Immigration
Islam Jews
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Whites in Africa |
Posted by Muffin on December 10, 2007, 10:05 PM | #
Hilarious. I was just debating someone last night over the heritability of intellectual aptitude and pointed out how his position was structurally identical to that of proponents of Intelligent Design. I kept asking him if he was a proponent of ID and he kept getting quite irritated as he’s an professional labor economist over in Europe.
It was like trying to watch a fish wiggle off the hook.