Darwin's Black Box - Michael J. Behe and Intelligent Design

[Laura]

I still think that writing SOME articles for the "on the fence" people is useful. After all, everybody is here pretty much because of The Wave, I think.

 

[Cosmos]

As I'm currently working my way through Lauras book "Apocalypse" I noticed that she referred to William R. Fix book "The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution" back then quite extensively. After what was uncovered recently via Behe and others like David Stove's in his book "Darwinian Fairytales", Fix work very much sounds like a must read too, especially on how exactly Paleontologist for example rigged and outright hoaxed their findings to be in line with Darwin's theories.

The book seems to be rather rare.
The full title of the book was hard to find out, but it should read as;

The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution
How leading paleontologists hype their findings to promote evolution

- The impossible cosmos of Carl Sagan
- Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and the Piltdown hoax
- Why Johanson's Lucy cannot be our ancestor
- And much more...


I'll order it.

 

[Cosmos]

On the front flap which I found in an online version (which can only be read fully by logging in and borrowing it), it reads:

When Charles Darwin published his brilliant theory of evolution in the Origin of Species, he launched the greatest quest of modern science - for man's proof of his own evolving self. The search of missing links - and the attendant fame of finding one - took on all the glamour and intrigue of solving a great detective story. The race for clues. The glory of discovery. Prestige. Money for more discoveries.

In our zeal to witness the triumph of science over superstition, we have accepted, far too hungrily, unjustifiable claims and outright hoaxes; the great fraud of Piltdown man,; the discovery of a "missing link" in 1922 based solely on a found molar, only to be proved later to be an extinct pig's tooth. In fact, eight different major breakthroughs in the twentieth century alone have since been proven discredited. Even the most recent and spectacular discovery of Lucy by Johanson in Ethiopia has now generated compelling doubts.

Wm R. Fix examines and presents the great anthropological discoveries and probes their evidence for inaccuracy and fraud. After showing how a touch of disbelief may save us from scientific embarrassment later, he proposes provocative possi....

 

[Cosmos]

On the back cover of the book we find an interesting table derived from the book:

 

[Laura]

Yes, William Fix's work is great and rare, probably rare because it is so good. I read his book years ago.

 

[Laura]

I've been thinking about a lot of things over the past couple of months after the ID "revelation". I revisit in my mind so many books I've read by ardent Darwinists that are, in their own way, quite brilliant, but have that blind spot.

Then, I think about all the things the Cs have been saying about human beings being designed, created if you will, engineered, whatever, and how I kept trying to reconcile that with standard evolutionary theory when it just wasn't going to blend.

Now I think about how the Cs said that all different human types, or races, were designed for the environment where they were placed, and probably for the cosmic ray environment of their time, and that is quite satisfying. What it means is that no group evolved from another group, nobody was first or last or better,

I very much like the feeling that I get when I can think about all groups as just designed variations on a basic plan, and pretty much "everyone is beautiful in their own way" like different flowers in a garden.

 

[Joe]

Something that we haven't really touched on in this discussion (although we're well aware of it) is how the idea of an 'information field' (more or less the totality of all that is) impacts on intelligent design.

We have the idea that designed systems are 'receivers'. So saying that something is intelligently designed is perhaps only 50% of the equation. For example (not the best one probably), a radio is designed, but its proper functioning is wholly determined by the existence of radio waves for it to receive and interpret (and it being in the right place to do so).

So in trying to understand ID, we might have to always consider the possible 'receiver' function of the designed system. Without that awareness, it would be like looking at a radio without the awareness of radio waves and assigning an incorrect function to the various parts of the radio that receive waves and then translate them into audible sounds.

 

[luc]

Something that we haven't really touched on in this discussion (although we're well aware of it) is how the idea of an 'information field' (more or less the totality of all that is) impacts on intelligent design.

We have the idea that designed systems are 'receivers'. So saying that something is intelligently designed is perhaps only 50% of the equation. For example (not the best one probably), a radio is designed, but its proper functioning is wholly determined by the existence of radio waves for it to receive and interpret (and it being in the right place to do so).

So in trying to understand ID, we might have to always consider the possible 'receiver' function of the designed system. Without that awareness, it would be like looking at a radio without the awareness of radio waves and assigning an incorrect function to the various parts of the radio that receive waves and then translate them into audible sounds.

Yes, and I think Ruppert Sheldrake's work fills an important gap here. For example, he shows how so many things in biology can't be explained with the "information in the genetic code" model, like during the development of the embryo, how the cells "know" that they become this or that organ. Or how nobody has ever found the slightest clue about where memory is stored in the brain, which it should be according to materialist science. So when we are talking about information in the genetic code and how it can't have come about through Darwinian evolution, that's true - but we should keep in mind that there is so, so much more going on, and that it's not a matter of an "intelligent designer" putting together DNA (although that might be case) but of interactions between DNA, consciousness, the information field and who knows what else that we know nothing about. Another reason why there are limits to combating materialist scientists with materialist science.

 

[Aeneas]

Something that we haven't really touched on in this discussion (although we're well aware of it) is how the idea of an 'information field' (more or less the totality of all that is) impacts on intelligent design.

We have the idea that designed systems are 'receivers'. So saying that something is intelligently designed is perhaps only 50% of the equation. For example (not the best one probably), a radio is designed, but its proper functioning is wholly determined by the existence of radio waves for it to receive and interpret (and it being in the right place to do so).

So in trying to understand ID, we might have to always consider the possible 'receiver' function of the designed system. Without that awareness, it would be like looking at a radio without the awareness of radio waves and assigning an incorrect function to the various parts of the radio that receive waves and then translate them into audible sounds.

Very true and it should not be a surprising thing. In robotics and modern mechanical devices (like Tesla cars), there are sensors and GPS etc so that they can be adjusted from a distance. One example of this would be Mars Rover or Satellites where faults were corrected by sending signals from the control station on earth.
Here is an example:

With a Better Brain, Curiosity Mars Rover Picks Its Own Targets

The Curiosity Mars Rover is now smart enough to pick its own targets of exploration, thanks to a new piece of software.

www.space.com

With a Better Brain, Curiosity Mars Rover Picks Its Own Targets
By Jesse Emspak June 28, 2017 Tech

The remote sensing mast on NASA Mars rover Curiosity holds two science instruments for studying the rover surroundings and two stereo navigation cameras for use in driving the rover and planning rover activities.
(Image: © NASA/JPL-Caltech )

The Curiosity Mars Rover is now smart enough to pick its own targets for exploration, according to a new study.
The secret to Curiosity's better brain was a software update sent from the ground in October 2015, called the Autonomous Exploration for Gathering Increased Science (AEGIS). This was the first time artificial intelligence had been tried on a remote probe, and the results have shown that similar AI techniques could be applied to future missions, according to the NASA scientists working on the project.

---
Our level of doing software update and our antenna/sensor systems are very corse, when you think about the cell. Why is the idea that those who designed the cell, also put in small receivers and sensors to make sure that information and updates could be installed? If one thinks in a creationist mode of a God with big G, then that seems ridiculous as how would he/she/it have time for that, but with a more differentiated view of higher densities, that makes a lot more sense. If one also had a more differentiated idea of good and evil and not least that there are evil forces who don't have our best interests at heart, then it also seems obvious that such negative forces will do what they can to interrupt those updates or corrupt them or add malware and spyware so as to harness those creative energies (and milk the negative emotions caused by the disrupting signals).

In a video talking about benefits of water from about year 2000, F. Batmanghelid presented an image that caught my interest in light of recent transcripts as it showed the cell with lots of little satellite dishes on it receiving information. He might have thought of it just as receiving information from the body, but it could additionally be from the DCM. Below is a screenshot of the image:

 

[Mandatory Intellectomy]

I think this is relevant to the article luc is writing. It shows how Darwinism has affected the thinking in the society at large. It's from The Bone Peddlers, mentioned above.



I'm in the middle of the book. The first half is about how pretty much all human-like skeletons found ever are controversial at best. Which highlights another effect of Darwinism, namely how we must fit everything into the preconceived idea of evolution at any cost, no matter how impossible it seems.

I was watching one of those BBC nature documentaries recently, and in that half-hour episode they mentioned evolution in some way about 50 times. Probably about 10% of what they mentioned was simple adaptation and 90% was made up. "Turtles here evolved this kind of shell because it helps them do this..." No evidence of such evolution ever found anywhere, of course. Instead of just saying "The turtles here have this kind of shell, which seems pretty handy", they have to go with "stuff evolved" because the indoctrination doesn't allow anything else. Most of the people who say these things aren't even aware that they're saying something for which there's zero evidence.

I keep imagining the future where people will say "Oh, the 20th century... That was when people believed in this ridiculous thing called evolution and rewrote everything to fit that idea. Dark medieval times indeed."

 

[Mandatory Intellectomy]

Here's another fun excerpt from the book:



This is funny because we're watching exactly that live on Sott right now. And the book is from 1984 and the Michell quote presumably even older.

I looked around to check what I can find about Michell. Seems like an interesting guy (dead now). Found a book called Rules and Revelations, which consists of a few dozen essays on various topics, one of them on evolution. It's pretty short and contains some interesting points, so I'll post the whole thing here:

Evolution, the Established Faith

All the institutions of our western world are based upon an established Faith, the cultus of Darwin. The doctrine of Evolution that he preached has long been our official belief. It is drilled relentlessly into the heads of children and students at every level of education, and Darwin’s likeness is displayed on stamps, banknotes and national memorials. I have no complaint about this, personally. Every civilization is based on a commonly-accepted faith with its own prophet and creation myth, and citizens of other faiths or philosophies have to live with it. It is easy enough for us non-believers in the evolution faith - supported as we are by the numerous tribe of British Muslims - to avoid persecution. But in mixed society it is best to keep your non-belief to yourself rather than be the odd man out. And if you are a teacher you are forbidden to mention the flaws in Darwinism or the existence of rival faiths and different viewpoints.

Fair enough, you might say; every state teaches the state myths in its own schools. But in these times of great changes monopolies everywhere are crumbling, most rapidly in the airy world of thoughts and beliefs. The evolutionists, once triumphant, are suddenly on the defensive. Instead of withering away, as they had supposed, their non-believing opponents are on the upsurge and coming at them from all directions. Their reaction to this is significant. Instead of displaying evidence to prove their theory - evidence, say, of one biological type having gradually transmuted into another - they descend to vulgar abuse, calling us hicks, cranks and fanatics and attributing to us all sorts of unreasonable views and motives. What do you make of that? My experience from a lifetime of investigating and writing about controversial subjects is that, when the authorities in any field are challenged by outsiders, and they resort like the evolutionists to mockery and name-calling, it is always a sign that they are on weak ground. The crumbling of the evolutionists’ self-confidence was openly displayed a few weeks ago when a senior biologist of the Royal Society mildly suggested that schoolchildren should be made aware of other faiths and reasonings to balance their wholly evolutionist intake. The biologist, the Rev. Prof. Michael Reiss, is also a clergyman of the C of E, so no doubt he meant to build bridges and foster ‘inclusiveness’. But the effect of his proposal on the evolutionist establishment was remarkable. The Times leading article thundered mightily against any move to dilute the evolutionist monopoly, and the debate spread throughout the press, most writers following the party line, that evolution theory is ‘scientific’ so all other perspectives are irrelevant. Prof Reiss was smeared as a crypto-creationist and kicked out of the Royal Society.

Yet surely this good man is right, that children should have access to many different windows onto the world, not just the narrow perspective of modern science. Above all they should be told the truth, that no one knows how or why the world began, how life arose or the origin of human awareness. Every aspect of existence is a mystery. We have vast, detailed knowledge of nature and the geometry of matter, but on the big, simple questions about the universe and our part in it we are totally in the dark. Children are not supposed to know that. But why not? If we admitted to them our ignorance, little faces would light up and fresh minds would come immediately to the question that racks the modern world - is there a creative will, mind and purpose behind existence, or did the whole thing appear of its own accord and develop by blind chance? If this question were to be debated at school, there would be lively discussion, and children would be eager for further knowledge, leading perhaps to the state of nous or understanding. There you have the problem of education solved at a stroke.

I think part of why the evolutionists get so upset when challenged is that they don't really have much evidence going for them, which is why they have to categorically claim that "evolution is a fact", "evolution is proven", and talk about "scientific consensus" to create the illusion of truth. As I'm reading different books addressing different aspects of Darwinism (DNA, proteins, mutations, fossils, humans...), it's hilarious to see how literally everything is controversial at best, complete nonsense at worst. Evolution is a house of cards, held together by the above-mentioned phrases.

 

[Joe]

View attachment 30409

Shaw's observation in the above really highlights the extent of the problem: the depth to which 'evolution' and the meme of 'survival of the fittest' has shaped humans' understanding of themselves and the world and reality they live in.

I think I read an article by the Lyndon La Rouche people who said that Darwinism was used as the 'scientific evidence' to justify and support British imperialism and the butchering and mistreatment of 'less fit' natives around the world.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Shaw's observation in the above really highlights the extent of the problem: the depth to which 'evolution' and the meme of 'survival of the fittest' has shaped humans' understanding of themselves and the world and reality they live in.

I think I read an article by the Lyndon La Rouche people who said that Darwinism was used as the 'scientific evidence' to justify and support British imperialism and the butchering and mistreatment of 'less fit' natives around the world.

Pretty sure that's right. And whenever Darwin is quoted, people only use the short form of the title of the book, "Origin of Species". But its full title was On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. (That said, by races he meant species or variations in general, but it was also used in reference to human races, and was applied to races by believers in evolution from the beginning.)

 

[goyacobol]

Pretty sure that's right. And whenever Darwin is quoted, people only use the short form of the title of the book, "Origin of Species". But its full title was On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. (That said, by races he meant species or variations in general, but it was also used in reference to human races, and was applied to races by believers in evolution from the beginning.)

Luc, what you and others are saying just kind of triggered a memory of something the Cs have been telling us for a very long time now. I just never quite connected it to Darwinism.

[disclaimer: intro is my attempt at mirth]
In a book called The Wave based on these weird strange channeling sessions, it was revealed by these strange "thought forms" claiming to be us from the future that there is a dying race that is bound and determined to enslave us and use us for "parts". I know this sounds incredible but I don't think it is any more incredible than Darwin's theory of evolution.

Session 22 October 1994:

Q: (L) As four dimensional probes, what are their capabilities?

A: They have all the same capabilities of the Lizard beings except for the fact that their physical appearance is entirely different and they do not have souls of their own and also their biological structure is internally different. But, their functioning is the same and in order to remain as projection beings they also must absorb nutrients in the same fashion both spiritually and physically as the Lizard beings do. The reason the negative energy is necessary fuel is that the Lizard beings and the Grays are both living in the fourth level of density, which is the highest level of density one can exist in serving only self as these entities do. So, therefore, they must absorb negative energy because the fourth level of density is the highest example of self service which is a negative thought pattern. The fourth level of density is a progression from the third level of density. With each progression upward in density level, the existence for the individual conscious entity becomes less difficult. So, therefore, the fourth level of density is less difficult to exist in that the third, the third is less difficult than the second and so on. It puts less strain on the soul energy. Therefore, beings existing on the fourth level of density can draw from beings existing on the third level of density in terms of absorption of negative soul energy. Likewise, beings on the third level of density can draw from beings on the second level of density, though this type of drawing is not as necessary but is done. This is why human beings existing on the third level frequently cause pain and suffering to those of the animal kingdom who exist on the second level of density because you are drawing negative soul energy as beings who primarily serve self, as you do, from those on the second level, and on the first, and so on. Now, as you advance to the fourth level of density which is coming up for you, you must now make a choice as to whether to progress to service to others or to remain at the level of service to self. This will be the decision which will take quite some time for you to adjust to. This is what is referred to as the "thousand year period." This is the period as measured in your calendar terms that will determine whether or not you will advance to service to others or remain at the level of service to self. And those who are described as the Lizards have chosen to firmly lock themselves into service to self. And, since they are at the highest level of density where this is possible, they must continually draw large amounts of negative energy from those at the third level, second level, and so on, which is why they do what they do. This also explains why their race is dying, because they have not been able to learn for themselves how to remove themselves from this particular form of expression to that of service to others. And, since they have such, as you would measure it, a long period of time, remained at this level and, in fact, become firmly entrenched in it, and, in fact, have increased themselves in it, this is why they are dying and desperately trying to take as much energy from you as possible and also to recreate their race metabolically.

 

[luc]

Shaw's observation in the above really highlights the extent of the problem: the depth to which 'evolution' and the meme of 'survival of the fittest' has shaped humans' understanding of themselves and the world and reality they live in.

I think I read an article by the Lyndon La Rouche people who said that Darwinism was used as the 'scientific evidence' to justify and support British imperialism and the butchering and mistreatment of 'less fit' natives around the world.

There you go:

“One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.”
― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

“I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.”
― Charles Darwin

“Of all the problems which will have to be faced in the future, in my opinion, the most difficult will be those concerning the treatment of the inferior races of mankind.”
― Leonard Darwin

“Truly, this earth is a trophy cup for the industrious man. And this rightly so, in the service of natural selection. He who does not possess the force to secure his Lebensraum in this world, and, if necessary, to enlarge it, does not deserve to possess the necessities of life. He must step aside and allow stronger peoples to pass him by.”
― Adolf Hitler

"A drunkard in the gutter is just where he ought to be...The law of survival of the fittest was not made by man, and it cannot be abrogated by man. We can only, by interfering with it, produce the survival of the unfittest."
--- William Graham Sumner, What Social Classes Owe to Each Other (1883)

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.”
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man