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

[Laura]

And, going back to previous remarks, have a look at this and tell me some 4 to 6 D engineer wasn't just messing around:

 

[Windmill knight]

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!

The thing is, and it has been said before, that the scientific types are often those who delude themselves the hardest, because they are smarter, and their brains are aimed at justifying their dogma, so they do it much better. Plus they can always excuse themselves behind institutions, reputation, authority, etc, and they lack any humility at all. Humility is necessary to accept that you *might* be wrong. I just had a long Twitter debate with 4 or 5 guys who didn't like an ID article I posted. They were boasting about their lab research and stuff - probably PhD students or something - and didn't miss a chance to throw around scientific terms and nitpick about everything. Example, I dared call the first microorganism a 'bacteria', and I was chastised for not calling it 'LUCA' (Last Universal Common Ancestor). Quite a pedantic bunch really, and they excelled at missing the crux of the matter. It was fun for a while - I never expected to change anybody's mind obviously - but eventually I got tired. They beat me at stubbornness, I guess.

 

[mkrnhr]

The thing is, and it has been said before, that the scientific types are often those who delude themselves the hardest, because they are smarter, and their brains are aimed at justifying their dogma, so they do it much better.

I don't know why people imagine that the scientific types are smart, they are not, they just do their job within the framework of what that job requires. They hide behind degrees, fancy sounding words and whatnot, but the majority of them are dumb when you come to know them personally. Some of them are obsessed, maybe single minded, but the smart ones are few. This reminds me of a dinner I had with a university professor after a lecture where he "debunked" UFOs and the paranormal in general. It's his speciality and he wrote books about that (strategic enclosure, I observe and shut my mouth). After a few glasses of wine, he admitted that he witnessed phenomena that materialist "science" couldn't explain, but that it was his "job" to tell people that such phenomena do not exist. So there is intellectual dishonesty as well...

 

[Jones]

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.

Now THAT is a sorely needed article I think and one I'll look forward to.

 

[Ennio]

That's my theory so far anyway. The scientific method doesn't stand a chance against ponerization.

At the very beginning of the documentary below, it's explained that Prof. Phillip E. Johnson of Berkeley invited a number of scientists and philosophers to an informal gathering at a beach house in Pajaro Dunes, California in 1993 - to question evolution together. In attendance were Michael Behe and Stephen Meyer, among several others.

A few things struck me about this happening which dovetail perfectly with the idea that neo-darwinism is a great ponerizing force, I think. The first is that this gathering was not held in a University setting. Nor was it an academic conference in the traditional sense - where researchers from the same field get together and give a set of formal talks and presentations to each other. Rather, this was a group of thinkers who were privately invited to just let their hair down and, as far as I can tell, quite simply riff on the problems with evolution, and jump-start some thinking outside the box.

It seems to me that, because of the dogma, orthodoxy and cultish devotion to neo-darwinism, this gathering could just not have been allowed to happen (or happen with nearly as much success) if these individuals hadn't extricated themselves (or been extricated) from the more or less toxic environments from which they came. They had to be free and unencumbered by the naysayers - who no doubt would have squelched their discussions because EvolutionIsTrue™.

There is a chapter in Ponerology where Lobaczewski describes how he and his friends encounter a university-assigned professor who vehemently spouts ideologically-driven and nonsensical sentiments and platitudes every week - for months - during his lectures. Which Lobaczewski and his fellow students are required to listen to. After some time of this, and realizing that they were indeed being psychologically injured and, in fact, 'losing their minds' somewhat, L describes how he and his friends finally decided to take a weekend to go to the countryside where they could rest, decompress and detoxify from the Professor's influence. It is there that L and his friends come to terms with what the Professor has actually been doing to them through his pathologizing influence, and it is there, also, that L seems to take his first step back to take stock of the situation and make his first serious foray into his life's work it seems.

I can only imagine that part of the Pajaro Dunes gathering must have worked in the same way; that there had to have been some discussion of what these thinkers were up against - as a part of the process of becoming more free to really think and eventually go on to research and accomplish the things that they have, ie. Darwin's Black Box, Signature of the Cell, etc. etc. On the other hand, I may just be inferring too much about that meeting in which case we can just say that networking works!

Edited for clarity

 

[luc]

That's really cool @Ennio and I will watch that documentary. I think you are onto something and it makes sense. I mean, imagine working in that toxic academic environment and being constantly scolded, belittled and struck down with a string of silly "debunking" of your doubts and questions, quoting authorities, implying you are insane, pushing fallacies and circular reasoning and all the crap Darwinians shoot at you. Like Windmill Knight's experience on Twitter, only in real life and every day. This is some serious gaslighting and you begin to doubt your common sense. I can imagine how refreshing such a gathering of like-minded people must have been, sharing experiences, networking about why it is how it is, realizing that you are not alone and that you are NOT the one who's insane here.

I already have some ideas for the article and will come up with something, though it may take some more time, I'm pretty busy at the moment and have to put lots of energy into work-related things. In the meantime, those who are interested could check out Stove's "On Enlightenment", which you can read online here, particularly the chapter "The Diabolical Place: A Secret of the Enlightenment" (p. 93), which I thought gives some interesting details about Darwin's time and the various lines of force at work there.

 

[Ina]

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.

Or... remember the saying, apparently Arabian, “The dogs bark but the caravan moves on.’ I read and get saddened, I read and get horrified, I get angry, I I get confused, I read some more. Then Life happens and I seem to forget all the details what I read, but in fact I don’t because on my own I tend to live more cautiously, or rather fearfully. I wished I had a voice to protest and remove the apparent impediments. I get discouraged, I get depressed, up until, I remember my favorite mantra... “So what?” Then, I raise my head and my caravan starts moving again. I am white. so what?

 

[Debra]

This is a presentation by my first mentor in DNA studies, Bruce Lipton. This is very similar to the first lecture I attended, back in 1999. I brought a VHS copy of this lecture to the very first get together in Florida, I think it was in 2002. We never watched it together. Here is a copy of his lecture in printer format:

http://nlppati.com/articles/biology.shtml

Video:

One big piece I think is very relevant to meditate on, DNA and all the coding, is NOT a Blueprint, it is a Library of RECIPE books, of epic proportions!!

 

[Voyageur]

Have not gotten past June 22nd posts yet, however caught your latest article MI, so keep on with what you are doing - it's a super counterbalance and you look to be having fun with it!

Caught the one video Ennio

As for this next one - Michael Egnor: The Evidence against Materialism:

Thanks @Ennio, that was good. Found another one on their channel by a neuroscientists who lists the evidence against materialism - excellent!!

I have to say that Egnor comes across as a very thoughtful man and I really enjoyed what he had to say - with examples from Dr. Penfield, Owens etc. and then mentioning authors Bennett and Hacker (Oxford) Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience (Apr 18 03).

So, thanks for that, too, luc.

 

[hiker]

Have not gotten past June 22nd posts yet, however caught your latest article MI, so keep on with what you are doing - it's a super counterbalance and you look to be having fun with it!

Indeed, what a fantastic article, "EvolutionIsTrue™"!

It is such a clever phrase, that if there will be a book in the end, perhaps the phrase could even have potential for a possible title. For example, something like: "EvolutionIsTrue™. Or is it?"

Anyways, just a thought.

 

[Konstantin]

I just finished this book. I started with it a few months ago but it was going very slowly because at this part of the year I have a lot of work at my workplace.
It is a great book. Behe's definition of irreducibly complex systems is making a very big step up in understanding this book. After you learn Behe's definition of irreducibly complex systems, then it is becoming very clear that such a system can develop gradually.

Then in the next few chapters, he explains few irreducibly complex systems in living organisms and although he describes it in every small detail and it probably requires some biochemical knowledge to understand everything, but it becomes crystal clear that such a systems cant be a product of classical Darwinian evolution. To design such systems there must be involved in some kind of intelligence.

Then there are some explanations by Behe how other Darwinist were trying to twist his definition of Irreducibly complex systems and to prove how he is wrong and how all that is still possible through Darwinian evolution

It is a great book and it is a wise choice to read

 

[Laura]

I just finished this book. I started with it a few months ago but it was going very slowly because at this part of the year I have a lot of work at my workplace.
It is a great book. Behe's definition of irreducibly complex systems is making a very big step up in understanding this book. After you learn Behe's definition of irreducibly complex systems, then it is becoming very clear that such a system can develop gradually.

Is the above in bold what you meant to say, or the opposite?

 

[Konstantin]

Is the above in bold what you meant to say, or the opposite?

I meant the oposite. Instead of can't i wrote can. One letter changed the meaning of the whole sentence. Typing error that i didnt notice. Thank you for noticing.

 

[Mandatory Intellectomy]

I meant the oposite. Instead of can't i wrote can. One letter changed the meaning of the whole sentence.

See, that's exactly what random mutations do. They make things wrong and broken just like that. Evolution, my ass.

 

[Laura]

See, that's exactly what random mutations do. They make things wrong and broken just like that. Evolution, my ass.

Priceless!!!