Darwin's Black Box - Michael J. Behe and Intelligent Design
- Thread starter Laura
- Start date
Recently I have been watching the first series of 'Blue Planet'. The incredible diversity of life forms and the sometimes just completely bonkers designs of some species has really brought home to me how unlikely it is that they all were brought into being by a random genetic mutation. Some of the designs are just so out there I think whoever came up with them was just making them for a laugh.
We were joking about that very thing in one of our discussions, that some creatures are so strange that they could have been bar bets.
"Bet you can't make a ground hog-duck-poison fish!
"Hold my beer"
"Ta-da! I give you: the platypus!"
There was a whole thing on Facebook for a while called [god creates animals]. Here's a few for fun
[creating octopus]
GOD: Give it 8 super strong arms & hands
ANGEL: uh, we're out of bones..
GOD: 8 weird floppy arms w/ suction cup things
[god making an emu]
How about you just take that pile of hay and give it legs I'm gonna go on a smoke break
[god making pandas]
GOD: cow bears
ANGEL: what
GOD: did i stutter?
ANGEL:
GOD: take it a cow and make it a bear
[god creating snakes]
GOD: "ok this ones got a long throat
ANGEL:"ok"
GOD: "make it literally just a throat "...
GOD: " oh and give it a face, we'll call it a snake"
[creating spiders]
"What if I made a tiny land octopus that could walk on walls?"
and so on.
MUCH more plausible than Darwinism
I had similar thoughts when I recently visited a fish museum with my family. The craziness of these creatures is just mind-boggling. Look at this fellow:
God: "Hey angel, why do your creations always turn out so grim-looking!?" - "That's my style."
Yesterday on the ID website Evolution News, they published this piece:
www.sott.net
It was a nice surprise. The author is a theist, but he rightly questions the idea that intelligent design by God needs to be "supernatural" in nature. And his use of Flatland as an example opens up the possibility for atheists AND theists to both see a third option: hyperdimensional influence.
Stranger on a Plane: Lessons from 'Flatland' for intelligent design?
In an earlier post, I discussed the diversity of thought within the intelligent design movement with respect to "who" (or what) the designer is. Many, but certainly not all, intelligent design advocates take a theistic position. This view is of...
www.sott.net
It was a nice surprise. The author is a theist, but he rightly questions the idea that intelligent design by God needs to be "supernatural" in nature. And his use of Flatland as an example opens up the possibility for atheists AND theists to both see a third option: hyperdimensional influence.
Reading Martin Sweatman's "Prehistory Decoded" just now. It's worth reading in view of the fact that he relates a lot of the reluctance to consider "coherent catastrophism" to the strangle-hold that Darwinism/uniformitarianism have on academia.
mariowil7
Jedi Master
Yes...
That is what I realized after seeing the video interview that I posted in this thread: (He touches on that notion...)
Prehistoric Astronomy and the Younger Dryas Catastrophe?
Sweatman made a couple videos that summarize the findings:
cassiopaea.org
Some times things are so inter-wined with the (anti Darwinian/et al) notion, that once you realize you start to see it in every "information corner." Amazing!.
gnosisxsophia
Jedi Council Member
Ina
The Living Force
My caption for the photo: There’s nothing on Internet today!Yeah that's one rather unattractive fish luc...maybe if you had caught him smiling ?
Yes...
That is what I realized after seeing the video interview that I posted in this thread: (He touches on that notion...)
Prehistoric Astronomy and the Younger Dryas Catastrophe?
Sweatman made a couple videos that summarize the findings:
Some times things are so inter-wined with the (anti Darwinian/et al) notion, that once you realize you start to see it in every "information corner." Amazing!.
What is actually horrifying is that almost the entire intellectual "elite" of this civilization on our planet at this point in time, has been taken over by a mind job so wrong, so totally orthogonal to the truth, that it's doubtful that humanity at large will survive.
It's one thing to be wrong without the "scientific method", but something else to be wrong with it.
We can see it for example in the Global Warming paradigm: if climate changes, in whatever manner, it cannot be the work of nature in any way, it must be man's fault, because nature changes only over eons.
Indeed, and this begs the question of how the hell something like that is even possible! I asked myself that question a lot, and Stove gives some clues about the intellectual milieu Darwin was part of (just finished his "On Enlightenment", which gives a few more clues, though much is already covered in Darwinian Fairytales). The Darwin clan and friends, Bentham, James Mill etc. These guys were freaking NUTS!
Perhaps what happened back then was similar to what's going on with today's Gender Studies and SJWs. It was basically a small, elitist clique of academics, thinkers, and a few well-situated admirers and "promoters" that were in love with radical enlightenment doctrines. As I understand it, most peole then thought they were some fringe nutjobs. Almost all academics were Christians, after all, and the society was still based on religion to a large extent. The values of "normal people" were still in place in everyday life. So nobody took them seriously and they had time to build up their case, to slowly push the limit of what's acceptable one inch at a time.
For example, at the beginning some argued that the "working people" should marry late so that they don't have so many children. Later, some promoted contraception, even printing leaflets and the like, to reduce the working people based on Darwinian principles. And on and on it went.
I gues it went similar in science - just as with the gender theorists, at first, everybody laughed at these Darwinian lunatics. Then they became more entrenched in academia, although still a minority considered eccentric. Then, slowly, Darwinian ideas became more and more accepted and finally holy doctrine.
That's my theory so far anyway. The scientific method doesn't stand a chance against ponerization. Political Ponerology perfectly describes this process : some clique of pathological nutjobs comes up with some silly, black-and-white "theory" that seems completely novel, radical and cool. This attracts other wannabe-nutjobs who fall in love with this theory, which they see as a tool to radically change society - be it killing the "unfit" or turning people into genderless zombies. These people find that cool and revel in their power to do away with the entirety of human tradition, with common sense and the burden that is reality. Everyone underestimates their incredible drive and zeal and considers them crazy, but they steadily build their networks and gain more and more power - until they can use force and intimidation to crush dissent. Then it's too late.
This whole Darwinism thing is such an incredibly sophisticated mindjob, kind of a skilled 4D Judo move handling 5 different things simultanously, that it boggles the mind. It seems to take into account different personalities and different steps in different periods - including a strange secular backlash from the postmodernists that is going on at least since the sixties, which I think has to do with open personality types revolting against cold and spirit-less materialist science, while still being trapped in evolutionary/atheist doctrine themselves... Who would come up with that? Then you have SJWs, the materialist establishment, the Enlightenment glorifiers, the evo-psych shtick, the white suppremacists, the free-market radicals, the neo-Marxist "happiness utopians", and on and on, everything strangely entangled with Darwinism. It's amazing.
And yes, lately I thought humanity is doomed as well. How can anybody crawl out of this mess without first freaking out and killing his neighbor? Or following the next patholgical puppet master, ideology or belief system that replaces genuine love and conscience? Perhaps the only hope lies in people's hearts. It's amazing how resilient good-hearted people can be. And "knowledge protects" never rang more true than today!
I'm so glad you brought Ponerology into the matter, Luc, as it has been pressing on my mind all day and I was planning on writing a post about it myself. But, you did it, and better than I could, and it is spot on. I think your post above could be slightly expanded, with a few bits more about schizoid psychopaths and their love for quick solutions and "feeling good", and how quickly that begins a spiral into pure STS, and an article might result.
mrtn
Dagobah Resident
What @Altair posted in this other thread From Yahweh to Zion by Laurent Guyénot is also relevant to this one. It starts at..
The Great Game Of Zion
...
Darwinism, Racism, and Supremacism
...
Judaism as Darwinian Strategy
The Great Game Of Zion
...
Darwinism, Racism, and Supremacism
...
Judaism as Darwinian Strategy
We have to give them a legitimate alternative, that's how. We have to help the silent majority 'find their voice.' We have a lot of the pieces to the puzzle; ponerology, the evidence against neo Darwinism, the logical refutation of post modernism, the historical attempt to destroy or subvert real Christianity as given by Paul. What else?
The thing is, most of this stuff is built on a house of cards, built on lies. It doesn't take that much to show that it's illusory when the light of objective awareness is sufficiently shined on it. There are still plenty of people who can still recognize the truth when they see it, if given the chance. Gaslighting only works in the absence of more logical and rational options.
Remember, it's always darkest before the dawn.
Another piece to the puzzle, I think
