Monthly Archives: May 2016

Evolution as Designer

An oxymoron – but a fantasy that’s continuously repeated by Our Betters.

The quote below is from Creation Evolution Headlines:


Evolution is not a Designer

From Richard Dawkins to new prizewinning engineers, scientists get natural selection all wrong.

Artificial selection is not natural selection. They are, in fact, opposites. True, Charles Darwin leaped from artificial to natural selection, but the former has purposeful goals, while the latter has none. It is the very mindlessness of natural selection that is its key characteristic. Adaptations, whatever form they take, are accidental; they are unintended. For this reason, the following are oxymorons:

  • Evolutionary design
  • Evolutionary engineering
  • Directed evolution

These terms, if they mean anything, are synonyms for artificial selection, not natural selection. In fact, Darwin wrestled with his term natural selection because it seemed to personify what he considered an aimless, blind process. Yet scientists and reporters continue to confuse the two. Here are recent examples.

Evolutionary Designer

The BBC News proudly announced that  “US engineer Frances Arnold has won the Millennium Technology Prize for pioneering ‘directed evolution’.” What she did was randomize stretches of DNA, seeking to identify new functional enzymes. She knows she was doing artificial selection (a form of intelligent design), because she compared it to breeding: it’s “pretty much like we’ve done for cats, dogs, cows, chickens, you name it.” Her “directed evolution” could not be further from natural selection conceptually […]

Selfish Genes

Richard Dawkins personified evolution famously with his “selfish gene” concept 40 years ago. Has he grown wiser since then? Apparently not; the BBC News interviewed him, and he’s still clinging to that and his other famous personification, “the blind watchmaker.” Jonathan Webb titles his article, “The gene’s still selfish: Dawkins’ famous idea turns 40.” Does Dawkins clarify these personifications and render them in purely materialistic terms?

If you ask what is this adaptation good for, why does the animal do this — have a red crest, or whatever it is — the answer is always, for the good of the genes that made it. That is the central message of the Selfish Gene and that remains true, and reinforced.”

Jonathan Webb never contradicts these misleading statements. He joins in the fun of watching intelligently-designed software tools guiding random changes toward higher goals according to rules chosen by the programmer. Like Darwin long ago, Webb and Dawkins leap from artificial to natural selection, as if the two are one and the same running at different rates (natural selection being slower). But so-called “evolutionary computing” or “evolutionary algorithms” are not evolutionary in the Darwinian sense. The designer pulls good things out of randomness, recognizing what is desirable and what is not. […]


There’s a lot of sleight-of-hand going on in Darwin World.

 

Advertisements

The Hatred of Objective Morality

The Hatred of Objective Morality stems from the Hatred of Law

From the Uncommon Descent article Why Deny Objective Morality?

First, I’d like to thank Zeroseven for having the courage to admit what few moral subjetivists will; all sane people act as if morality refers to an objective commodity. This implies that he agrees that sane people also act as if their conscience is a sensory capacity telling them what they must do, and not as if it is the impulse of personal preference they can  easily choose to indulge or dismiss. Violated conscience can also leave wounds that last a lifetime, unlike the transient pang of not getting your favorite meal for dinner.

[…]

Note how, even though Zeroseven admits we all act like morality is objective in nature, he flatly denies the possibility of pre-existing, objective law with prejudice:

That’s all very well as a theory, and its nice to think of the law in this way, but of course its crap.

And the same for morality:

But of course its a pure fiction.

This is an a priori worldview denial of even the possibility that morality (and justice under the law) might refer to an objective, pre-existing commodity.  Zeroseven simply, flatly denies it, even though he agrees he and all sane people must act as if morality is objective in nature, and that he should treat law in his profession as if it objectively existed.  His dismissive attitude is demonstrated by calling such sentiment “a nice way of looking at it” and simultaneously betrays, IMO, an utter lack of thought about the crucial role such ideas play in fostering the kind of culture we live in.  He doesn’t for a second ponder if it’s perhaps a necessary way of looking at it, a necessity arrived at by the weight of scholars and legal, ethical and moral philosophers through history far more worthy of respect and consideration, I would think, than Zeroseven offers with his casual dismissal.

I would suspect that Zeroseven would champion the idea that we’re all equals and that we all have certain inviolable rights as individuals that apply regardless of what anyone in power says, and regardless of if the majority says otherwise.  These spiritual ideas are the basis of our constitutional rights and came from deep belief in natural law objective morality. But these ideas are bound to theistic, objective morality and cannot be extracted from the premise of subjective morality and subjective justice.  How can a moral subjectivist (especially an atheistic one) have the idea that all people are equal, when clearly, in the physical world, they simply, factually are not? People are not physically or intellectually equal.  How would a moral subjectivist come up with the idea of liberty and rights that transcend government authority and the will of the majority?  Such ideas would be a deceit for moral subjectivists to employ.

At best, moral subjectivists might come up not with “inviolable human rights”, but rather “license for certain behaviors temporarily and arbitrarily granted by those in local power”.  Not exactly a concept one expects to found a long-lasting, just and moral society upon.  Also, why should everyone have the same rights temporarily and arbitrarily granted behavioral license, since people are not physical, social or intellectual equals, and since – under moral subjectivism – those in power cannot (and should not) be expected to dole out such privilege equally, fairly, or in a just manner? Can you imagine someone attempting to make an argument, under logically consistent moral subjectivism, that 0.3% of the population has a right to go to any public restrooms they want, male or female, despite what the majority of the population prefers?  There is no such argument to be made. There are no such “rights” under moral subjectivism., there are just privileges and licenses handed out by those in power as they wish.

Exactly. The current push for the government-mandated acceptance of homosexuality and transexual behaviour has nothing to do about “rights”. There are no such absolute rights, so far as a moral subjectivist is concerned.

But there is a need to privilege a select few above the many: not in the name of a transcendent morality, as a demonstration of power and control. “The Friends of the Masters will be blessed, and the Enemies of the Masters will be cursed.”

It makes one wonder about the Eternal Power of the Masters… especially the more stupid, childish, and short-sighted Masters, such as we have today.

The Hatred of Law, Backed by Cowardly (and/or Rebellious) Christians

The idiotic Elites we have today can be directly traced to the cowardice of the churches, and their love of retreat from authority (and the shunning of accountability and responsibility – all in a desperate manoeuvre to evade Divine Judgement for their failures).

As Gary North wrote in his excellent article Progressive Responsibility:

Nevertheless, within the agreed-upon framework of Christian institutional rule, the best men are to be elevated to positions of authority. God’s law, then competent judges: here is Paul’s message to the church. Men’s competence is to be attained by means of Gods law. Technical competence in law is not to be preferred to biblical law, for there is no such thing as technical competence as such, or neutral law as such. The standard is biblical law, administered with or without great technical competence.

Where are men to gain the preferred competence? Obviously, by becoming familiar with the terms of biblical law. First, they learn as children (Deut. 6:6-7). Second, they learn as church members in churches governed by elders who respect biblical law (I Cor. 6). Third, they learn as deacons, who assist the elders in the less crucial responsibilities, like the administration of charity (Acts 6:1-4). This office is a son of apprenticeship position. Fourth, men may be appointed to the office of church elder (I Tim. 3). But this presumes that they have already approved themselves in the fifth office, that of family head (I Tim. 3:4-5), which is also a requirement for deacons (I Tim. 3:12).

This, however, is only the beginning. Men are also to serve in positions of authority in business, the military, medicine and other professions, the civil government, and wherever God’s law applies. (It applies wherever men make decisions for which they are responsible before God; only in those zones of life for which men will never have to give an account of their actions–in the neutral zones of life- does biblical law not apply. Anyone who denies the rule of God’s law must explain, using the Bible as his source, just where such zones are.) Men are to become competent rulers–judges, if you prefer–in their labor. Their callings before God are training grounds for the exercise of godly judgment.

The doctrine that the church and its members will experience an endless set of failures until the day of judgment, whereupon the saints shall judge the world with Christ, has this curious implication: experience in exercising godly judgment is best attained through constant failure and the inability of saints to gain positions of authority, in time and on earth. In other words, Christians will never rule on earth, and therefore they will rule after the final judgment. Those Christians who argue that individual saints will be far removed forever from the seats of power or even the corridors of power, until the day of judgment itself, are building a theoretical case for the success of off-the-job training. They are arguing for perpetual childhood and subservience: domination by rebellious rulers–ever-more consistent, ruthless, and lawless rulers–is the way to become competent rulers. But the Bible tells us that a sign of God’s judgment is to be ruled by children (Isa. 3:4). We need an eschatology which offers us a doctrine of progressive responsibility, a doctrine of maturing judgment. We need a concept of on-the-job training and promotion through competence.

To end church cowardice, disband the seminaries. Instead of seminaries – which has never been authorized by the Bible, but only by power-seeking churchmen (and later, power-seeking liberals) – turn to the Biblical model: apprenticeships. The learner learns about preaching, counselling, and Biblical study from a pastor, and eventually succeed him after maturing under his authority.

Our Masters: A Law Unto Themselves

Now that we have seen the cure, let’s turn back to discussing the disease.

What logical purpose can it serve to insist that morality is subjective in nature when we must all act and argue as if it is objective in nature?  Why cling to a premise that renders the Nazi extermination of Jews the moral equivalent of feeding the hungry or housing the homeless when we all know that simply is not true?  In an argument about morality and about what is good, why insist on a premise that renders the argument itself entirely moot and forces the very concept of morality into a defenseless position? Why dismiss the only concept that gives any moral position you have any value at all beyond what flavor of a thing you prefer?  Why dismiss the only concept that can rationally justify moral interventions, moral judgements and imposition of just laws?  Why abandon the only concept that can provide inviolable rights, metaphysical equality and liberty?  What is so important that one will cling to a concept that renders law and morality and ethics absurd, selfish notions instead of embracing one that grants them a solid foundation for how they must act anyway – as if they are very important, universally binding considerations worth fighting and dying for?

Why? Because it is critical to today’s rulers that there be no law above themselves. “Nothing Above the State, Nothing Outside the State, All Under the State.”

Summary and Action Point

This willfulness will remain critical to the rulers – and the masses, who support them either actively or by passive refusal to resist – until the money’s gone.

A morality-free society, after it loses the money needed to buy compliance, is going to be a really nasty place to live, though.

Even for the Protected Minorities.

To restore the Law, we need strong preaching and strong churches. To get both, dump the seminaries – which only exist to

  • gut preaching and emasculate preachers,
  • waste time (and so slow the growth of the Gospel and the Kingdom of God),
  • enforce secularist control and philosophy,
  • and load up new pastors with debt (so they have to toe the line when they find work).

Dump the utterly unbiblical seminaries, and institute apprenticeships, to restore sound doctrine, powerful preaching, the restoration of Biblical Law, and the security of a moral foundation that does not depend on the whims of Masters who have nothing but utter contempt and malice for us, our culture, and our God.

Science, Bias, and Reproducibility

As noted in CEH’s article Science is Biased, there is quite a lot of selective skepticism going on in the scientific community:

Another glimpse at scientific bias is seen in Chris Woolston’s piece in Nature where he shows that scientists, many of whom pride themselves on their critical thinking, get emotional when caught failing to be skeptical of their own skepticism. This was occasioned by an editorial in which science writer John Horgan accused skeptics of only picking soft targets. That stung, leading to counter-tweets by scientists. But even PZ Myers, the arch-enemy of creationism and ID, saw some light. “What Horgan did was point out that there are a lot of things to be skeptical about, and skeptics have a peculiar fondness for picking the easiest targets.” That’s bias. But which scientists would be willing to doubt their own skepticism itself?

When is this going to end?

It won’t.

Instead, the credibility of science per se is going to get steadily worn down, accelerated with the reproducibility crisis:

The reproducibility crisis has been recognized for years (see keyword search).  Science Magazine lifted the lid on the crisis a little higher, showing how bad it is:

More than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist’s experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments. Those are some of the telling figures that emerged from Nature’s survey of 1,576 researchers who took a brief online questionnaire on reproducibility in research.

This is a disaster in the making… an expensive disaster.

When this kind of thing costs lives, it will end.

Of course, when I say “cost lives”, I don’t mean third world lives. They have already suffered multi-millions of unnecessary deaths… and frankly, no one cares. See Being Green Means Never Saying You’re Sorry for Killing Millions, which focuses on the murderous fiasco that followed the banning of DDT.

No: I mean the lost of, say, 10,000 lives in the white West. (Japan and Korea don’t count, either.) A serious death toll in the West, tied directly to the failure of reproducibility and bias, will mean a sharp decline in the political support of science.

Throw in a major recession, and a need to cut back on everything outside of the most important welfare transfers (mainly medical care and pensions, to keep those votes bought), and that’s it for government-funded science.

Good Law, Inexperienced Judges

A few comments on Gary North’s “Progressive Responsibility”:

The apostle Paul recognized the necessity of Christians exercising leadership, first within the Christian community, and later in the very processes of the cosmos. When the sin-plagued Corinthian church faced a major disciplinary problem, Paul wrote to them that they should handle it themselves. They should not appeal to a secular law court, implying that since the court would not be governed by the standards of biblical law, it would be a poor testimony to seek judgment there. It was wrong in principle because it would appear to sanction the validity of Satan’s rule over the church. “Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters” (I Cor. 6:2)? Not only will the saints judge the world, they will also judge the angels, Paul said. If we shall judge the angels, “how much more the things that pertain to this life” (l Cor. 6:3b)?

To humble them, and to demonstrate how important it was for them to stay out of the civil courts, Paul advised them: “If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church” (I Cor. 6:4). In other words, the least esteemed member of the local church was far better fit to make a valid judgment of the dispute than the high officials in the civil courts.

If Christians actually believed this, and insisted on ruling themselves under Biblical Law instead of being ruled by secularists that view everything they are with utmost contempt, we would be a good 80% of the way to regaining our liberty.

What we should understand from the beginning is that we are the recipients of a law structure which is the proper foundation for all our personal decisions. This law structure has been designed to fit the external realm of human action. It has been designed by God to provide a productive order. When men are exposed to the preaching of the whole counsel of God, they are able to begin to make valid distinctions between right and wrong. They can begin to deal with the sins in their own lives, and from there they can begin to handle the sin-created disputes in the local church.

The lawful, noble, righteous life comes from the Word of God to rest in the heart of the repentant sinner, expands to church and family, and finally shapes, limits, and governs the State.

Bondservice to Christ means liberty before men, and the fear of hell and judgement means the lack of fear before the wrath of evil men of power.

(Which, of course, is why Our Masters despise the Word of God, the Liberty of Free Men, and the doctrine of hell and the lake of fire.)

So reliable is the law of God, that Paul could tell the Corinthians that the least esteemed man in the church, with only a vague conception of the proper application of biblical law, was a preferable judge than the master of humanistic law in the local Corinthian court. Better to subject oneself to an inexperienced judge who has a vague understanding of God’s revelation than a skilled lawyer who is not guided by the precepts of biblical law. That is how much more reliable the law of God is than the humanistic laws of the pagan civil governments.

Looking around, this should be blindingly obvious to every Christian.

Obviously, the problems were there already. It was a question of how to solve these problems with the least display of subservience to the pagan world. It was the responsibility of the members to become skilled in settling disputes in the local church. Until this was done, there was no way that they could come before the pagans of their day to announce a new king, with a new law-order. They could not begin to exercise dominion over the face of the earth if their own internal conflicts were being settled by representatives of an enemy law-order.

Exactly. An alien and demonic law-order is not to govern relations among Christians!

Was Paul arguing for some sort of ecclesiocracy? Was he trying to get the whole world under the authority of church courts? Did he envision a day in the future when everyone will be a church member, and the church courts will take the place of the despised civil courts? Paul never said so.

What Paul was arguing for was theocracy–the rule of God’s law. He was not arguing for ecclesiocracy, meaning civil rule by priests or ministers. He did see that it was better to settle disputes among church members without appealing to a rival religious order to restore peace. Yet in Romans 13:1-7, he acknowledged the legitimacy of civil rulers. He even called them ministers. Paul’s theology held that there are two basic ministerial offices, civil rulers and elders in the church. Neither is to replace the other. Neither can perform all the functions of the other. Neither is to be vested with comprehensive, monopolistic sovereignty. But both are to be governed by God’s law.

And now, we see why secularists view Christians with nothing but malice and contempt: as far as they are concerned, the State has the right to extend and expand its power to every realm of human existence and every human action, without limit. From the punishment of disobedient children, to your washrooms, to what kind of money you use: “everything under the state, nothing outside the state, nothing above the state!”

The claim that any other power – especially a Power that claims to be both above the State, and claims the authority to determine what the State can and cannot do -has mastery over all is blasphemy against the State and the Will of the People.

Like the Secularist, I also believe in One Lord and God… I just have a different God to worship, adore, and obey.

[…]

It was not that the civil law should be transformed into ecclesiastical law; it was that both ecclesiastical law and civil law should be conformed to God’s law, with neither the church nor the state possessing an absolute monopoly of lawful authority.

Paul was not arguing for the rule of church courts over every area of life, but he was arguing against the concept of neutral law. If the saints shall judge the world, then neutral law is a myth. A man must judge in terms of standards. An act is right or wrong, acceptable or prohibited. If Christians are to judge the angels, then they must do so within a framework of morality designed by God and revealed to man. The Corinthian Christians were to stay out of pagan law courts precisely because there is no neutral civil law.

Amen, and amen.

The Secular State hates you, Christian. It doesn’t matter if you don’t want a fight: the State will go completely out of its way to pick a fight with you, as they know the threat you represent to it.

Why on earth would you give them an inch you don’t need to? Christians may have to live under Secular rule, just as we had to live order pagan rule, and Muslim rule, and Communist rule.

But there is no need to lie to yourself about how your life and religion and culture is seen in the eyes of the enemy.

(See James B Jordan’s excellent article Daniel’s Job to know how to live under an evil human government. Hint: rebellion and hostility is not the focus, as our lives under the enemy’s heel is indicative of a righteous judgement on our own folly. Instead, excellence on the job, paying due respect to the authorities – who are put there by God’s will, after all – and a refusal to compromise on personal holiness are the key points here.)

Technical competence in law is not to be preferred to biblical law, for there is no such thing as technical competence as such, or neutral law as such. The standard is biblical law, administered with or without great technical competence.

Where are men to gain the preferred competence? Obviously, by becoming familiar with the terms of biblical law. First, they learn as children (Deut. 6:6-7). Second, they learn as church members in churches governed by elders who respect biblical law (I Cor. 6). Third, they learn as deacons, who assist the elders in the less crucial responsibilities, like the administration of charity (Acts 6:1-4). This office is a son of apprenticeship position. Fourth, men may be appointed to the office of church elder (I Tim. 3). But this presumes that they have already approved themselves in the fifth office, that of family head (I Tim. 3:4-5), which is also a requirement for deacons (I Tim. 3:12).

This, however, is only the beginning. Men are also to serve in positions of authority in business, the military, medicine and other professions, the civil government, and wherever God’s law applies. (It applies wherever men make decisions for which they are responsible before God; only in those zones of life for which men will never have to give an account of their actions–in the neutral zones of life- does biblical law not apply. Anyone who denies the rule of God’s law must explain, using the Bible as his source, just where such zones are.) Men are to become competent rulers–judges, if you prefer–in their labor. Their callings before God are training grounds for the exercise of godly judgment.

To be the high judges God calls us to be, we must master the minor duties we have been given. To rule, you must serve.

The doctrine that the church and its members will experience an endless set of failures until the day of judgment, whereupon the saints shall judge the world with Christ, has this curious implication: experience in exercising godly judgment is best attained through constant failure and the inability of saints to gain positions of authority, in time and on earth. In other words, Christians will never rule on earth, and therefore they will rule after the final judgment. Those Christians who argue that individual saints will be far removed forever from the seats of power or even the corridors of power, until the day of judgment itself, are building a theoretical case for the success of [off-the-job] training. They are arguing for perpetual childhood and subservience: domination by rebellious rulers–ever-more consistent, ruthless, and lawless rulers– is the way to become competent rulers. But the Bible tells us that a sign of God’s judgment is to be ruled by children (Isa. 3:4). We need an eschatology which offers us a doctrine of progressive responsibility, a doctrine of maturing judgment. We need a concept of on-the-job training and promotion through competence.

Fearful cowards are not what God has in mind, when it comes to raising a people for Himself.

Weak Tribes, Strong Tribes

The Forward story on the Shomrim Patrol is quite astounding.

Normally, when a Protected Minority – in this case, a homosexual black man – is assaulted, there is a major propaganda push by the media for additional privileges for the Protected Token, as yet another assault on the despised Biblical concept of equality under the law. But because this involves the Jews in New York as the aggressor, there is near-universal media silence.

I stand amazed.

Now, it’s true that in Europe, it can be expected that Muslims in their part of town will punish whosoever they deem a threat. But those same Muslims would not also get quite a lot of funding and police powers, and near-immunity from the law!

What do I think?

As the welfare bribes fall apart, and as the threat of losing your job wanes in a disintegrating economy and culture, there are going to be more and more such incidents. I suspect that the public does not really care to punish the Jews for violating PC norms: instead, they want to be able to ignore the rules themselves.

The mainstream media megaphone can hold back the tides for a while, until at least a few years into the next Great Recession/Depression. But this power to control public opinion is waning with the declining employment rate, and the Establishment-backed rise of white bastardy will mean less interest in self-control, less concern regarding social norms, and a stronger willingness to turn to violence.

Just as it has meant for Black Americans, so it will mean for White Americans.

There is a way to restore lawful behaviour in public, without tons of police: strong families with tough fathers who enforce internal self-governance, as demanded by the Bible. But only a few are interested in this, so things are going to get quite ugly, for those not in the Right Neighbourhoods.

Reviewing A Brief Overview of Our Christian Heritage

Remember what your enemies would prefer you forget.

gospelbbq

michael paul millerOur Christian Heritage

By Dr. Peter Hammond

The Accusation…EmilyCarr-Indian-Church-1929

When it comes to Christian faithfulness in witnessing and work, it is often a case of — if you’re not being criticized then you’re not doing your job! Those who steadfastly seek to promote Biblical principles will inevitably find themselves accused of being “intolerant,” “bigoted,” “narrow-minded,” “hypocritical,” and of “seeking to force your own views upon others”! Zambia in particular has come under severe criticism for committing itself to being a Christian nation.

Are we being “intolerant”? No, it is the secular humanists who are intolerant of Christians. The real bigots are those atheists who are seeking to infringe on the religious liberties of Christians. We are not picasso anti fascism“narrow-minded”; we stand for freedom of religion. It is the proponents of the secular state who are restricting all public views — including the schools — to the narrow humanistic view. We…

View original post 2,126 more words

How to Create an Echo Chamber

From the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON (AP) — A group the White House recently identified as a key surrogate in selling the Iran nuclear deal gave National Public Radio $100,000 last year to help it report on the pact and related issues, according to the group’s annual report. It also funded reporters and partnerships with other news outlets.

[…]

In The New York Times Magazine article, Rhodes explained how the administration worked with nongovernmental organizations, proliferation experts and even friendly reporters to build support for the seven-nation accord that curtailed Iran’s nuclear activity and softened international financial penalties on Tehran.

“We created an echo chamber,” said Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser, adding that “outside groups like Ploughshares” helped carry out the administration’s message effectively.

[…]

Outside groups of all stripes are increasingly giving money to news organizations for special projects or general news coverage. Most news organizations, including The Associated Press, have strict rules governing whom they can accept money from and how to protect journalistic independence.

The presstitutes, bought and sold.

But never fear! The media has strict rules about accepting money, and they are certain to strictly apply them, without exception…

…to believing Christians and other anti-establishment interests.