So, I'll take the great philosopher Gary Larson's advice.
I understand, though, that whole "eternal cosmic accountability" thing is a pretty heavy concept.
Posted on 10/03/2011 5:29:32 AM PDT by spirited irish
Karl Popper (1902-1994) was a British philosopher and a professor at the London School of Economics. Because he is regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century, what Popper had to say about Darwinism is of utmost importance to the desperate political struggle fought between creationists and methodological and ontological naturalists. This is because the America of the Founding generation is firmly grounded in the Genesis account of creation, Old and New Testament morality and Christian theism, yet the original meaning and intent of U.S. law — as now controlled and defined by anti-God naturalism — has been radically changed so that it now reflects the doctrinal decrees of imperialist atheist evolutionary naturalism.
Whereas the Founding generation esteemed the Bible and used it to teach their children to read, comprehend and think logically as well as to properly train them in morality and self-discipline, in contemporary America, God, Bible, and moral absolutes have been banned in favor of evolutionary science, atheism, moral relativism, and self-gratification. The still-unfolding consequences of all of this are destructive and terrible, adversely affecting every level of society from the individual to the family, community, and cultural institutions to local and national politics.
In post-Christian America atheist evolutionism is taken for granted throughout the college curriculum, just as it is in all aspects of modern thought and experience, especially within the progressive liberal community. Evolution not only undergirds biological and earth sciences, but also Freudian and Jungian psychology, anthropology, law, sociology, politics, economics, the media, arts, medicine, and all other academic disciplines as well.
Evolution-believers range from atheists and scientists to esoteric Free Masonry, Hollywood insiders, occult New Age spiritists, Satanists, powerful Transnational Progressives, and large numbers of people who call themselves Christian. Among this last group are Liberal Christians, Roman Catholics, Protestants, Emergent Church leaders Brian McLaren and Rob Bell, growing numbers of the Evangelical contemporary Church, and an increasingly vocal community of Christian scholars and scientists such as Dennis Venema. Venema is a senior fellow at BioLogos Foundation, a Christian group that tries to reconcile the Bible with evolutionary science, and as a consequence teach that humans emerged from apes.
Evolutionary naturalism is poisoning and destroying America's traditional foundations, and when the foundations have finally been destroyed, all that is built upon them will be destroyed as well.
Americans have been deceived, and are needful of learning the truth about Darwinism — and all other evolutionary theories, by whatever name they are called.
Evolutionism: Spiritual...not Empirical
Though Popper esteemed evolutionary theory and natural selection, he also forthrightly stated that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but rather a metaphysical research program. By this he means that not only is Darwinism metaphysical (spiritual), but so are its' two most important foundations, classical empiricism and the observationalist philosophy of science that grew out of it.
Empiricism is a theory of knowledge that contradicts itself by asserting that human knowledge comes only or primarily via sensory experience rather than the mind while observationalism asserts that human knowledge and theories must be based on empirical observations....instead of the mind. For this reason, Popper argued strongly against empiricism and observationalism, saying that scientific theories and human knowledge generally, is conjectural or hypothetical and is generated by the creative imagination.
In other words, all three theories originated in the mind, a power of which is imagination. As mind is a power of soul, then Darwinism, empiricism, and observationalism are spiritual. In short, all three theories are frauds. They claim to be what they are not in order to obtain an advantage over the Genesis account of creation by imposition of immoral means.
In Noah Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828, soul and imagination are respectively defined as:
1. Soul: "The spiritual, rational and immortal substance in man, which distinguishes him from brutes; that part of man which enables him to think and reason."
The Founding generation knew that mind is a power of soul, and imagination the power by which mind conceives:
2. Imagination: "...the power or faculty of the mind by which it conceives and forms ideas of things communicated to it by the senses....The business of conception (and the) power of modifying our conceptions, by combining the parts of different ones so as to form new wholes of our own creation...(imagination) selects the parts of different conceptions, or objects of memory, to form a whole more pleasing, more terrible, or more awful, than has ever been presented in the ordinary course of nature."
In conclusion, evolutionism is an invention of imagination, an invention more terrible and more destructive than has ever been presented in the ordinary course of nature. It imagines that God is dead, that life somehow emerged out of nonlife, that man is not created in the spiritual image of God the Father but is rather a soulless, mindless ex-ape of evolution. It imagines there is no sin, no "hell below us, and above us only sky."
Evolutionism is an invention of imagination, and it has taken the post-Christian West by storm.
copyright 2011 Linda Kimball
“Scientific naturalism is not really science at all”
Spirited: It was CS Lewis who pointed out that the parent of modern science is that very exacting science....magic.
In this light, scientific naturalism is merely a secularized form of Hermetic magic. Doctrinally, Heremeticism is monism. Monism teaches that there is only one substance and that all lifeforms and nonlife-bearing forms share this substance in common.
Very simply, in its’ occult pantheist form it teaches that gods, goddesses, spirit guides, men, and all creatures, trees, water, dirt, dung beetles, cancer, etc. share this substance in common, therefore everything is god.
In its’ materialist form it teaches that the one-substance is godless primordial matter. Since the one-substance is one-dimensional and godless, then the transcendent (other dimension) God the Father, heaven and hell do not exist, nor do spirits, and man is soulless....and mindless. On the basis of this Hermetic variant, materialists such as Daniel D. Dennett teach that there “is no you.”
True believers like AMD and Tacticalogic have only a shallow understanding of scientific naturalism. Its’ real meaning exists at much deeper levels, down where its’ spiritual and magic dimensions are.
Was quantum mechanics a "theory rescuing device" for the failure of Newton's F=mA to explain mechanics at the microscopic level?
Was E=mC^2 a "theory rescuing device" for the concept of conservation of mass?
Sheesh.
Nope, I believe those were experimentally proven.
“Punctuated equilibrium” has not been.
Again, the conflating of “science” with “evolution”, like conflating “heat transfer theory” with “arson”.
What “chemical process which kills the cell” are you talking about? The insult that causes the stress? It doesn’t necessarily kill the cell - that is the point.
And the expression of error prone DNA polymerase is not far removed from the stress - it is a few signal transduction and transcription factor activations away.
There are numerous stress sensors in the cell - all of which trigger a signal transduction and genetic transcription change in the cell.
This is basic biology.
If the adaptation in response to a stress is based on information “ALREADY IN” the organism and “NOT ADDED TO IT” - then why would a bacteria under stress express an error prone DNA polymerase during stress?
What do you imagine the effect of expressing DNA polymerase would be if not to CHANGE the DNA sequence of the organism in order to find a genetic ‘solution’ to the stress?
Why would bacteria HAVE an error prone DNA polymerase that is expressed during stress?
Does your total inability to answer trouble you?
It should.
Yet I somehow manage to understand the basic rules of decorum that say you should ping someone when you start talking about them. Go figure......
So, I'll take the great philosopher Gary Larson's advice.
I understand, though, that whole "eternal cosmic accountability" thing is a pretty heavy concept.
Way to show your total inability to deal with reality through your Creationist mindset.
You made a claim that is completely contradicted by actual reality and you cannot deal with it in that, or apparently any other, context.
My beliefs are not significantly different on this matter than the Pope. You think he has a problem with that “eternal cosmic accountability” thing?
Telling and typical that a creationist cannot argue a scientific theory and reality without arguing against atheism and condemning those who don’t agree with you to Hell. I will pray for you.
You sure are an angry little man aren’t you?
That must be you with the bazooka and the swim ring.
You must be in a panic over being completely out of your depths when called upon to back up your asinine and ignorant proclamations about the natural world with any evidence.
I am not the one trying to make this personal you sad sorry ignorant little man.
I am the one asking you a question you are completely unable to answer.
So why does a bacteria have a gene for an error prone DNA polymerase that is expressed during stress?
Your inability to answer DOES trouble you - that is why you are trying to make this personal.
Does your total inability to answer make you question your ignorant assumptions about the natural world?
It should.
At least one of the parents of chemistry was alchemy. At least one of the parents of astronomy was astrology. So what? Alchemists wasted a lot of time trying to turn lead into gold. Chemists now regularly create thousands of new products for myriad uses. Astrologers could predict when the next eclipse might occur. Astronomers are now able to predict when eclipses will occur on planets located in other solar systems. The methods developed by alchemists and astrologers have been improved upon and added to such that the modern scientific method is much more successful, applied in more useful pursuits, and has a much deeper intellectual backing.
"In this light, scientific naturalism is merely a secularized form of Hermetic magic."
This is a bold case of equivocation. In your first sentence you used the term 'modern science.' In this next sentence you use the term 'scientific naturalism'. You seem to be using them as synonyms when they clearly are not. I am not certain what 'scientific naturalism' is. I imagine it is some sort of philosophy. Maybe a materialistic philosophy that posits that the only thing that exists is matter. However 'modern science' is not a philosophy. It is a method. It does not posit that the only thing there is is matter. What it posits is that the scientific method can only be used to investigate the natural world. It says nothing about whether there is or isn't a supernatural world. Some scientists may be 'scientific naturalists', but I imagine their number is vanishingly small.
In any case, the scientific method may or may not have had its roots in 'Hermetic magic', but it certainly is not that way now. Natural gas is not fracked out of S. Dakota by "magic". iPhones did not appear by "magic". Flu vaccines do not appear in the Fall by "magic".
"Doctrinally, Heremeticism is monism. Monism teaches that there is only one substance and that all lifeforms and nonlife-bearing forms share this substance in common."
Thanks for the history of philosophy lesson. But how does this apply to the scientific method?
"Very simply, in its’ occult pantheist form it teaches that gods, goddesses, spirit guides, men, and all creatures, trees, water, dirt, dung beetles, cancer, etc. share this substance in common, therefore everything is god.
I'm sorry, but this is not really good philosophy. Your conclusion "everything is god" does not necessarily follow from "share this substance in common". You are talking about a philosophy which maybe only a few people believe now. Despite this fact you are not doing it justice. You need to connect the dots better.
"In its’ materialist form it teaches that the one-substance is godless primordial matter."
This is horrible philosophy. Whether or not a particular philosophy posits the existence of supernatural entities is always a primary component of that philosophy. A pantheistic monism and a materialistic monism are not only different in nature but diametrically opposed. Whatever conclusion you draw about a pantheistic monism cannot be carried over to a materialistic one.
"Since the one-substance is one-dimensional"
Where did this come from? Certainly nothing you have stated previously. My understanding is that even the most godless of atheists believes in at least four dimensions, if not ten or eleven (See 'string theory').
"and godless, then the transcendent (other dimension) God the Father, heaven and hell do not exist, nor do spirits,"
Where did this come from? Why must a supernatural realm exist in another dimension? Why can't supernatural entities exist outside of space and time entirely? Where is your argument for supernatural entities existing in another dimension?
"and man is soulless"
Believe it or not there are philosophies that posit that men have souls but that there are no gods or angels. You might want to point us to a link on 'materialistic monism' so we can get a better understanding of the nuances of this philosophy that you are so poorly explicating.
"....and mindless."
Believe it or not there are philosophies that posit that souls do not exist yet minds do. Imagine that! Did you know that one of the most active fields of scientific and philosophical research right now is that having to do with the mind? There are those that believe that the mind is a purely physical phenomenon. Others believe like you that it is a product of the soul. Others are somewhere in between: they believe that it is neither entirely physical or spiritual. Once again your conclusion does not necessarily follow from your premise.
"On the basis of this Hermetic variant, materialists such as Daniel D. Dennett teach that there “is no you.”
That there 'is no you' is a controversial position. Some people may very well agree with it, but not all scientists. Not even all the evolutionists or darwinists.
"True believers like AMD and Tacticalogic have only a shallow understanding of scientific naturalism. Its’ real meaning exists at much deeper levels, down where its’ spiritual and magic dimensions are."
Again with the dimensions? I understand when people are talking about how so-and-so has many 'dimensions' to her personality. This is a scientific discussion, however, and there is a specific understanding of what 'dimension' means. It is either time or one of the three spatial dimensions, or perhaps one of the curled-up dimensions of string theory. You are just undermining your argument by using 'dimension' in such a carefree way.
Also, there are very few 'true believers' in the sense you mean within the scientific community. Scientists may be 'true believers' in the utility of the scientific method, but very few scientists are avid philosophers who believe in a particular philosophy. My own experience suggests that scientists, if anything, are anti-philosophical. They believe that philosophy is as useless as theology. They wish we could be done with it. They don't realize that all of science is based on philosophical concepts, especially logic, empiricism, etc. They believe that logic can be derived from math and that empiricism is just a fancy word for careful observation. All the rest of philosophy they would like to throw into the dustbin along with religion.
I cannot speak for anyone else, but I am a scientist and I believe in God. My worldview is not being constantly undermined because I regularly use the scientific method in my work. If anything it affirms my belief in God.
So even if there is something called 'scientific naturalism', and even if some people are adherents to it, you have done nothing to convince me that it is a widely held belief that I need to fret about.
I had a Molecular Genetics teacher who would say...
“It seems to me that philosophy as a discipline has done little or nothing towards answering the great questions of existence. I guess when you don’t really have any data or a theory all you can really do is wax philosophic.”
Most scientists in the USA are people of faith in God.
The scientific community has decided that the theory of evolution qualifies as a scientific theory.
You disagree.
Could you please explain to me more clearly why the theory of evolution isn't a scientific theory? And please don't repeat that silliness about how it can't be tested so it can't be a scientific theory. There are theoretical physicists currently developing string theories that would require particle accelerators the size of our solar system to test. Somehow the scientific community has decided that those theories qualify as 'scientific theories'. There are theories about multiverses which posit that we would not be able to interact with those multiverses in any way even if they did exist. Somehow the scientific community has decided that those theories qualify as 'scientific theories'. There are currently scientists conducting experiments that they claim are tests of the theory of evolution. The scientific community is not telling these scientists to stop what they're doing or pulling their credentials for making false claims. There are scientists methodically poring over data in the form of ice cores, tree rings, geological strata, fossils, and billion year old photons. They are constructing hypotheses based on these observations. They are testing these hypotheses by collecting a wider swath of data and seeing if their initial hypotheses still hold true.
Do you believe in the plate tectonic theory? What scientific apparatus do you want to construct to 'test' it? Or is it sufficient that we have collected reams of data, mostly from the distant past, to verify its correctness?
What I should have said is that most of the scientists that parade themselves in front of the TV wish for religion to be thrown in the dustbin.
Your comment, however, confirms my suspicion that even if most scientists are believers, they would want to throw philosophy into the dustbin.
Scientists tend to like what works and produces results.
Philosophy works in getting people to think, but all it produces is more philosophy.
:)
Agreed 100%!
pfffttt....
New keyboard time......
Alchemy was the science of the day.
So very many words from one who said elsewhere that only fools would cite Webster’s original dictionary as an authoritative source of meaning. Coming from one who essentially ascribes to meaninglessness, don’t blame me or anyone else when we take you at your word.
Spirited Irish, was this specifically what you were referring to or some other __fill_in_the_blanks__? Just wondering...
wwfd said: “This is a bold case of equivocation. In your first sentence you used the term ‘modern science.’ In this next sentence you use the term ‘scientific naturalism’. You seem to be using them as synonyms when they clearly are not. I am not certain what ‘scientific naturalism’ is. I imagine it is some sort of philosophy. Maybe a materialistic philosophy that posits that the only thing that exists is matter. “
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.