Blinded by Science

Discovery Institute ^ | 6/2/03 | Wesley J. Smith

[betty boop]

Of course, Stalin did have the Russian Darwinists executed.

Which only goes to show what a total ingrate he really was. The word "matricide" comes to mind.

As far as liberal economics is concerned, I think the entire enterprise of rational economics was completely ruined by Lord Keynes. His great contribution to humanity seems to consist in his finding of the magic rationalization for putting the levers of economic power into the hands of politicians.

As far as "economic sanity" goes, I much prefer Joseph Schumpeter, Keynes' contemporary. Schumpeter wrote a most prescient book, dated to circa 1926: Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. In this work he predicted that capitalism would eventually die, victim of its own brilliant achievement, its very success. But it was mostly passed over, by specialist and general readers alike, in favor of Keynes' dreams of legitimating political utility and ambition, obtainable only by seizing the fruits of private production (by "legal" means; e.g., the income tax), and by making the American populace more "progressive" in its "thinking" so that such political dreams could be fulfilled.

Schumpeter's vision seems to have largely come true; most likely, due to the tender mercies and ministrations of "the Keynesian followers" over the decades.

And therein lies an irony....

[Dataman]

Man, PH, how can you be a sane man and still buy that propaganda?

I don't think he really buys it. He just enjoys calling Hitler a Christian or creationist.

Darwin likely understood the political implications since he was influcenced by Malthus:

Before reading Malthus, Darwin had thought that living things reproduced just enough individuals to keep populations stable. But now he came to realize that, as in human society, populations bred beyond their means, leaving survivors and losers in the effort to exist. link

A quick search on Malthus and Darwin should turn up many sources which, even from an evolutionary worldview, admit the connection.

[betty boop]

Hmmm. I'm not sure I'm familiar with the "populist take". Can you elaborate a bit?

It'll have to be tomorrow, General. It's late, I'm sleepy, I'm going to bed now. 'Til then, good night and pleasant dreams! Thank you for writing.

[Dataman]

I'm very well read in mythology as I was a literature major, I loved the stories of Greek mythology...however, the more I study of mythology, the longer I live and the more God has done for me in my life, the more I study theology and the world, the more I believe in the Bible.

Didn't CS Lewis say something to that effect as well? If anyone knew mythology, Lewis did.

[cherry_bomb88]

How old do you believe the Earth is?

Do I have to give you an EXACT number????

What I believe is my opinion based on my beliefs....just like what the evolutionists say is their opinion based on their beliefs....I'd certainly say tens of thousands, maybe hundreds, but not millions, IMHO

[cherry_bomb88]

Perhaps...I'm not familiar with his works outside of the Chronicles of Narnia, those I've read all seven, many a few times, and I have the BBC live action production of several of them, up through The Silver Chair.

They are very good, you should check them out! ;^)

[Dataman]

Balrog, if you're going to insult me, the least you could do is exercise a little wit.

For what says Quinapalus -- "Better a witty fool than a foolish wit."
~ William Shakespeare, Twelfth Night

[Dataman]

There is no reason to lie for a theory.

Nebraska Man
Piltdown Man
Haekel's embryos
The evolution of the horse
Peppered moths
Ota Benga
monera
Liaon Province Archaeoraptor
Sawed-pelvis Lucy
Peking Man
Java Man
Etc. Etc.

[Dataman]

In Genesis it is written that God created the Universe out of the void. The void is empty space, or vaccuum.

Eisegesis. From what authority to you draw your definition?

[Dataman]

They are very good, you should check them out! ;^)

I own them. Unfortunately, they are on video tape.

[unspun]

You might think of changing your FR name to illustrious synopsis bb -- is" for short. Thanks again for the virtuosity.

It justifies force, conflict, struggle as proper ways for man to ensure his survival, rather than negotiation and rational compromise. Man is never let free of his supposed status as a wild beast, who must "kill or be killed." In fact, neither "Darwinian" materialism or socialism has any room or rationale for human freedom at all.

We recall that this earth became a domain of the one referred to by means of the King of Tyre in Ezekiel 28, . Some tend to think that with a close observer's mastery of the systems and substances of creation, as the one intended to be the living signature and gaurdian of it, he was able to pervert it. Then, God created a guarded enviornment as a new world* in its formative stages, for His planned new Lords of Earth (apparently amidst such perversities as animals that had developed their livelihoods by eating other animals). Some opine that the mandate to be a servant to God's Intended, His appointed Lords of Earth (mankind, "the sons of God") may have been the last straw with Lucifer in his regards of God.

Interesting conjecturings. I'd be interested in your reflections about such matters, as the Lord and you may allow.

__________________________________________
* This would beg an interpretation of "world" in Scripture (possibly including the flood passage) as referring specifically to the geography of man's inhabitation.

[unspun]

It's Ezekiel 28:11-19 that I'm referring to.

[ALS]

"In Genesis it is written that God created the Universe out of the void. The void is empty space, or vaccuum."

This is incorrect because you failed to look at the original Hebrew in gen. 1:2

go to a search engine like bible.crosswalk.com, choose KJV w/Strongs, and enter Gen. 1:2

click on the words regarding "was" "form" "void"

the key word that properly renders form and void is "was" or more accurately, "became". Became totally changes the meaning of the entire sentence. Became shows form and void are more accurately rendered waste and ruin, chaos, etc. Showing further that it BECAME so. For we also know it was created in perfection. Sure one could say so genesis shows it was, but the verse comes before that event, which means it had to be perfect beforehand. The implications support science even to the point of satisfying any evos honest and intelligent enough to drop their bias and realize what's being said.


also, 1:2 is about the earth, although I wouldn't argue there was nothing before something.

If more people looked at that one verse, many of these squabbles would swiftly dry up.

peace out and flame on(me)

[gore3000]

Questions in biology though involve complex and extended interactions.

Being you know that much, you should realize that complex and extended interactions cannot be changed favorably in a stochastic manner.

[gore3000]

If evolution "turned out to be true," then it must have been because it was God's choice of method, not man's.

I think that while it may be true that God could have chosen to have species evolve, it still would not be evolution. If God had chosen to have species change and turn themselves into something else, a sort of 'unfolding', then it would have been by design, not by chance. It is the chanciness and randomness as well as the claim by evolution that it is the environment that changes species that is anti-Christian.

[betty boop]

Great points, gore3000! It really does seem unlikely that God would make something just so it could change into something else. Seems like kind of a strange way of getting things done.

[Phaedrus]

My mistake in responding to your jibe was giving you an excuse to post. It won't happen again.

[MeekOneGOP]

More bump images HERE !

[cherry_bomb88]

Yes, my thought too....I wish they'd reproduce them on DVD....'course by the time they do that, the price on the DVD recorders will come down and I can just transfer them there myself!

[betty boop]

"Populist take":

By this I mean the way evolutionary theory is being presented to the public -- as scientism, not science.

Here's a great example: The famous London Guardian "debate" -- "Is Science Killing the Soul?" -- between Richard Dawkins (evolutionary biologist) and Steven Pinker (cognitive biologist of strong Darwinist affiliation). I don't think you'll find much science here; but you will find a great deal of social and cultural commentary:

http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge53.html