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

herondancer

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
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 :rolleyes:. 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!"

The platypus together with the four species of echidna, it is one of the five extant species of monotremes, the only mammals that lay eggs instead of giving birth to live young. Like other monotremes it senses prey through electrolocation. It is one of the few species of venomous mammals, as the male platypus has a spur on the hind foot that delivers a venom capable of causing severe pain to humans. The platypus is semiaquatic, inhabiting small streams and rivers.

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.
 

luc

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
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 :lol:

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:

dsci6066.jpg



God: "Hey angel, why do your creations always turn out so grim-looking!?" - "That's my style."
 

Approaching Infinity

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Yesterday on the ID website Evolution News, they published this piece:


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.

Upon seeing the internal workings of his home environment, the narrator asks the stranger if he is a God since only Gods could possibly show him what he has now seen. The stranger replies that he is not. It is the experience of all who live in Spaceland. Indeed, in Spaceland he is no more a God than a common criminal.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
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.
 
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.

Yes...

That is what I realized after seeing the video interview that I posted in this thread: (He touches on that notion...)


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!.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Yes...

That is what I realized after seeing the video interview that I posted in this thread: (He touches on that notion...)


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.
 

mkrnhr

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
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.
 

luc

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
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.

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!
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
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.
 

genero81

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
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!

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.
 
Top Bottom