Supposed Shepherds, Real Wolves

From Review: Heretic Takes Aim at Science’s Third Rail

Over a long career, which included serving as dean (now emeritus) of Chemistry and Material Sciences at Helsinki University of Technology and as research director for Cultor, a global biotech company, Leisola faced off against nonsense from both science and religion. For an example of scientific nonsense, there was this claim from a Finnish university professor: “There is no qualitative difference between life and non-life.”

Tell that to your doorstop.

Leisola faced muddle-headedness on the religious front, too. As a Christian, he was troubled by the fact that the Finnish Lutheran Church sensed no problem with the materialism inherent in Darwinism (i.e., the belief that nature is all there is).

If all the people who despise Go actually left the church — or even the clergy! — we Christians would have much better leadership, and gain far more victories.

Which is why the God-haters in clerical robes are going nowhere.

Unless and until we decide to kick them out on their hineys.

Let them go beg for a university position in the nearest secularist hive.

“Oh, I’m so persecuted by unreasoning, bigoted Christians, and kicked out of church because I insist on placing the Word of Men above the Word of God!
The nerve!“

Advertisements

Unintelligent Design: Mouths and Speech

From Oral Cavity’s Supposedly “Lousy” Design Is a Key to Human Speech

In a conversation with Edge on “Unintelligent Design,” anthropologist Scott Atran complains, “Humans are more liable than other animals to choke, as they attempt to simultaneously coordinate eating, breathing and speaking.” RationalWiki adds, “Drinking and laughing at the same time — makes the drink come out of the person’s nose. Or potentially choke the victim of such a lousy design.” And so on.

The design does come with an increased chance of choking, but it’s also something that allows us to speak as we do. An interesting new article at The Scientist goes into some detail. From “Why Human Speech Is Special,” by Philip Lieberman:

In On the Origin of Species, Darwin noted “the strange fact that every particle of food and drink which we swallow has to pass over the orifice of the trachea, with some risk of falling into the lungs.” Because of this odd anatomy, which differs from that of all other mammals, choking on food remains the fourth leading cause of accidental death in the United States. This species-specific problem is a consequence of the mutations that crafted the human face, pharynx, and tongue so as to make it easier to speak and to correctly interpret the acoustic speech signals that we hear.

At birth, the human tongue is flat in the mouth, as is the case for other mammals. The larynx, which rests atop the trachea, is anchored to the root of the tongue. As infants suckle, they raise the larynx to form a sealed passage from the nose to the lungs, allowing them to breathe while liquid flows around the larynx. Most mammalian species retain this morphology throughout life, which explains why cats or dogs can lap up water while breathing. In humans, however, a developmental process that spans the first 8 to 10 years of life forms the adult version of the SVT [supra-laryngeal vocal tract]. First, the skull is reshaped, shortening the relative length of the oral cavity. The tongue begins to descend down into the pharynx, while the neck increases in length and becomes rounded in the back. Following these changes, half the tongue is positioned horizontally in the oral cavity (and thus called the SVTh), while the other half (SVTv) is positioned vertically in the pharynx. The two halves meet at an approximate right angle at the back of the throat. The tongue’s extrinsic muscles, anchored in various bones of the head, can move the tongue to create an abrupt 10-fold change in the SVT’s cross-sectional area….

As it turns out, the configuration of the adult human tongue’s oral and pharyngeal proportions and shape allow mature human vocal tracts to produce the vowels [i], [u], and [a] (as in the word ma). These quantal vowels produce frequency peaks analogous to saturated colors, are more distinct than other vowels, and are resistant to small errors in tongue placement. Thus, while not required for language, these vowel sounds buffer speech against misinterpretation. This may explain why all human languages use these vowels. [Emphasis added.]

So Darwin and his latter-day followers may complain about the design of the oral cavity but they’d have a harder time doing so (and being understood) if it weren’t for this instance of “poor design.” Note that “all human languages use these vowels,” an indication that this is no negligible feature for clear communication. And speech, of course, is arguably the keystone of humanity’s exceptional status in the world of life.

[…snip…]

…the design of the human oral cavity looks more like a trade-off than a botch. As Evolution News has put it, “Trade-offs are compromises made to optimize the highest design goal.” They are not errors but necessary features of design in a material world.

I bet evolutionists wish that Christians had ‘practical, safe, rationally designed’ mouths: mouths that would not allow us to speak.

They wish the same of God, too.

I’ll take the mouth that God gave me, thank you very much. I’ll leave the evolutionists with the optimally-designed mouths  they so passionately long for.

New Bureaucratic Man

From Mises.com

Unlucky Ducks

I once worked as a software contractor for a state agency (forgive me). The building where I worked was not your typical government building. It had a modern feel, with a decorative moat detailing the front entrance. The front door — guarded, of course — was accessible via a walkway bridge of sorts.

It’s not what you may be thinking; it was all very subtle and nice. However, the drop from the bridge to the mulch-covered, bush-laden moat was a good three feet.

One year, at the beginning of spring, a duck built a nest in the moat, under one of the many bushes. As her ducklings hatched and grew, it came time for them to search for water. However, despite their repeated attempts, the ducklings could not jump from the moat to the walkway bridge.

One of the employees in the building asked the building manager if he (the employee) could place a wooden ramp to allow the ducklings to waddle out of the moat. Being a good state employee himself, the building manager called the state department of natural resources for guidance. The answer: since ducks are migratory birds, no one could do anything.

The next morning, someone plastered official signs around the entrance, stating that any attempt to help the ducks was a violation of law. No ramp, no water, no food. And violators — you know this already — would be prosecuted to the fullest extent.

Soon we had a real scene. The mother duck would leave the moat and encourage her ducklings to follow. They couldn’t, of course. She would march back and forth on the walkway bridge and quack in desperation. All the while, the guard at the entrance stood watch, stopping any attempt to help.

Repeated calls to the bureaucrats at the department of natural resources were answered by a repetition of laws and fines. And not one of the department employees was going to go against the rules, or even ask for an exemption, for any reason.

The ducklings died days later.

There you have it: upon joining the state, the department of resource folks — folks who likely dreamed of careers helping wildlife — became staunch bureaucrats enforcing rules over reason.

Don’t trust the bureaucracy, and the Government isn’t hear to help you.

China and Russia: A Preference to Live

I was waiting for this: http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1110565.shtml

China may reward families with a second child or more next year to arrest its dropping fertility rate, and the family planning policy will undergo fundamental changes, Chinese demographers said.

Their remarks came after reports that China’s National Health Commission (NHC) is studying the possibility of rewarding families with more children.

The NHC has put together a group of experts to calculate the effect of incentives to improving fertility, with the study likely to be completed by the end of the year, news site thepaper.cn reported Wednesday.

Additional details are at Emperor Xi Tries to Correct Demographic Course

They call it a ‘pro-natal’ policy, but I won’t take that seriously until abortion is banned, and divorces without cause are made significantly difficult.

Hmm…. about banning those abortions: Russian regions start undeclared moratorium on abortions – report

If the Russians and the Chinese decide to formally ban abortions — Russia within the next ten years, and China following soon thereafter — then God is going to shift His blessings, from those who hate the innocent to those who (at least) forbid the ripping apart/acid burning/flat-out wilful murder of the innocent before they are even born.

In the meantime, the West will continue along its road of State-enforced sexual confusion, complete with punishment for those who insist on speaking the truth, who refuse to kneel to Baal.

Those who hate God hate their own lives;
those who love God love to live;
those who increase their functional obedience to God strengthen their ties to life… and to victory over their enemies.

Just ask all those Muslims, moving in to Europe. They will all go to hell, so long as they despise Christ. But they love their children, and so are well on their way to disinheriting the Western Europeans from their own soil.

And five hundred years from now, their children – who by then have long dominated Europe – can decide to bend the knee to Christ.

As for the long-crumbled medical waste bins, where White Europe chose to dump their future?

Who cares?

After all, Christ is the Saviour of the living, not the dead!

(Something that Black Americans, with their declining birthrate — now unable to reproduce themselves — would do well to remember. Time to dump the death-worshiping Democrats, I say, and get your head screwed on straight!)

---

Yes, I know that if Russia and China decides to end abortion in their land, it will be due to Reasons of State — the need for loyal taxpayers, workers, and soldiers — and not due to the fear of the Lord, at least not indirectly.

No matter: obedience will be rewarded, even among unbelievers.

The Right-wing of the Enlightenment…

…once the gloves comes off.

“You were supposed to attack civilians, women, children, innocent people from outside the political arena. For one simple reason: to force the public to turn to the State, turn to the regime, and ask for greater security. This was precisely the role of the Right in Italy. It placed itself at the service of the State under an aptly termed ‘Strategy of Tension’. They had to get ordinary people to accept that at any moment over a period of 30 years, from 1960 to the mid-80s, a state of emergency could be declared. So, people would willingly trade part of their freedom for the security of being able to walk the streets, go on trains or enter a bank. This is the political logic behind all the bombings. They remain unpunished because the State cannot condemn itself.”

~ Vincenzo Vinciguerra, Italian neo-fascist whose prosecution led to the discovery of NATO’s ‘Gladio’ networks across Western Europe

Our dear Right-wing humanist ‘friends’ serve a different Master, a different Lord, than Christians do. They want people to turn to the State for salvation and protection, not God.

Never forget this.

And if you think that Left-wing humanists are any different when the pressure’s on — or even when they merely gain the unfettered power to do what they please — think again!

McDurmon: The Sad Corruption of AHA: Abolish Human Abortion

Patriarchy, with its reference for the strong, is simply contrary to the free power and liberty of the Holy Spirit. And patriarchy’s infection of AHA is a sad, sad thing to see.

Excerpts from his July 24th, 2018 letter to Abolitionism (Linked here):

I was saddened to see the heavy hand and forced removals from the Abolitionism page, but I was not shocked or surprised. I have seen this coming for some time.

[…]

You cannot have one side that upholds certain strict forms of patriarchalism, forbids divorce for any reason, and imposes strict forms of sexuality and gender roles (including more extreme dress codes) on the weaker vessel, sometimes explicitly on behalf of the stronger; while on the other side have a view that sees these as extremes which in some cases protect physical and sexual abuse, and in general oppress the weaker vessel. Both sides see themselves as biblical truth, and each, in both expression and application of that biblical truth, are in fundamental conflict over one of the fundamental ethics for which the movement exists. That cannot be held together.

Let’s be clear, too: it does not matter which side is right. Taking sides is not the point here, though I have one in general. My point is that when this circumstance arises, THAT MOVEMENT CANNOT BE HELD TOGETHER NO MATTER WHAT. Trying to appeal to “the main thing”—i.e., that abortion is murder, our nation’s and churches’ greatest sin, and must be abolished—while obviously true, is only to ignore the deep fault line running beneath, and to which that main thing is inevitably connected. The split will come, with both sides still opposing abortion, but now also opposing each other more forcefully and openly.

That’s how it always turns out.

When faced with those consequences, the question must be, does that worldview accord with position A or position B? Does the worldview in which abolition is true also entail that women must submit, even in some ways, even to abuse and adultery (according to some), procreation without limit, or that divorce is not permitted for any reason? Does that worldview entail that people who disagree with these positions, or who see a more expanded purview for women’s rights, are “heretics”? Or does the worldview in which abolitionism is true entail that an abused wife should be protected under the same principle of protecting the weakest as would an unborn child? While hardly attempting to be exhaustive in these representative examples, the point is that both sides cannot be right, and also, more importantly, that neither side can coexist in one movement with the other. They are conflicting purported applications of the same principle.

You can’t have the celebration of power, and the limitation of power, in the same group. It just isn’t going to work out.

***Abolitionism also stands or falls on the truth of two interrelated theological propositions derived from the Bible and nowhere else.

1. Human beings are created in the image of God and reflect His image.

2. The Creator Himself became a man in order to rescue mankind from sin, self-destruction, death, and eternal separation from God.

Historically, these two propositions have laid the foundations for all human rights movements and campaigns for human equality. They have been a bulwark standing between humanity and the monstrous inhumanities of history. Slavery abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison called the belief that God created man in his own image “A DEATH-BLOW TO ALL CLAIMS OF SUPERIORITY, TO ALL CHARGES OF INFERIORITY, TO ALL USURPATION, TO ALL OPPRESSIVE DOMINION.”***

Or else, it would be a drift from these principles toward older forms of patriarchalism and other forms of organizational hierarchy, against which these principles are (and Garrison himself would have been) adamantly opposed.

The old gods regain their power, and the promise of a new dawn fades away. Back to the same-old, same-old.

The Establishment is pleased.

Finally, these consequences will be permanent barring a major act of repentance. Such repentance at this point, however, would unfortunately call into question credibility for leadership to a severe, probably crippling, degree.

King David repented of his sin of power-worship: but it cost him.

People – especially men – especially men with a fondness of hierarchy and power – don’t believe in paying those kind of prices.

It must now not look back, but march ahead with its new stripes and regalia. Thus, again, the split is permanent, and so are the consequences regarding the nature and composition of AHA going forward. Siding with strong patriarchalism and more centralized organizationalism (even just the beginnings of such) means AHA has thrown its more visionary and consistent adherents under the bus to accommodate a persuasion, worldview, and tactics antithetical to its original vision.

God drives men to make a choice, to be consistent.
There is no neutrality: and keeping the high path is difficult.

Now I see something different, and in that new vision, what happens to the AHA/OSA/MTP complex does not appear to be any of my business, at least for the time being. Soli Deo Gloria.

There will be a better movement, when the Holy Spirit is ready to act. The Shekhinah Glory leaves one place, only to dwell elsewhere.

Where will it dwell now? Seek, and ye shall find.

Prayer and fasting helps, too.

Go Local, Christian!

From Gary North’s Why Conservatives Have Lost the Political Battle for America’s Soul

Conservative social thought de-emphasizes politics. This is why conservative social thought never gains much of the hearing in the modern world. The modern world is so obviously political, and the power of central governments is so great over every area of life, that all issues become politicized. The traditional conservative opposition to the very suggestion of political salvation is co-opted by their enemies. Conservatives over and over go out to vote as if their votes will fundamentally change the nature of American society. Ultimately, this cannot be true if conservative social theory is correct. Ultimately, the political institutions represent the people, and the great issues of daily life are not political; they are social, ethical, economic, ecclesiastical, and educational. The great issues of life are not political, yet at the same time the central government is pushing its way into every area of life. It is politicizing that which was not political prior to the Enlightenment.

[…snip…]

I always quote the letter written by political activist Paul Weyrich in 1999, in which he specifically said that we have lost the culture war, which ultimately is an ethical war. He did not see how politics could roll back the debauchery that America has become. He did not think that anything that could be done at the federal level through politics could fundamentally reverse what Robert Bork called slouching towards Gomorrah.

The liberal believes in something like political salvation. He believes in political healing of every area of life. He believes that federal power, coupled with federal money, can make society better. Therefore, he is active in politics, he puts faith in politics, and he puts a whole lot of money in politics. He sees political mobilization is the heart of social transformation. He becomes highly skilled at getting votes. He becomes a master at political fund-raising. He has all of the skills that a professional has in any field, and he is up against conservatives whose very philosophy of life militates against political salvation and hard-core political mobilization.

In the political arena, how could a Christian who gives everything to God, compete with a liberal who gives everything to politics?

Christians are innately “politics fourth” people: many things are more important than a particular vote or a particular party, so our political groups are always going to be underpowered compared to a liberal, who has a deep, unshakable faith in political power as his (and everyone elses!) Lord and Saviour.

I refuse to apologies for putting God and Family and Work ahead of Party. But I am under no illusion, that I am going to be a better politician, or gain more political power, than someone who lives and breathes politics, 24 by 7.

So, the conservative movement by its own nature is not an effective political competitor. Because local issues are far more tied to social issues, where conservatives say a country is established, they are better equipped to fight political battles of the local level than liberals are. Liberals look to Washington for salvation; conservatives ought to look to county government as a barrier against the expansion of the federal government into their lives. But they do not know the philosophy of local government which undergirded the foundation of this nation, beginning in the colonial era, and extending even through the period immediately preceding the ratification of the Constitution. That legacy has got to be restored, and conservatives have got to adopt it. If they do not adopt it, we are simply going to get more of the same, until the federal government finally goes belly-up.

Sadly, I think that is what is going to happen. I do not think most conservatives are going to spend the time, money, and effort to build up local resistance governments at the county level to step in when Washington’s checks bounce. They will have to do it after the Great Default.

When the politicians are defunded, and the centralized state is busted good and hard, local politics will be the battleground: a battleground that Christians are better equipped to fight in and win. (And where part-time politicians can have more of a say.)

Which immediately points to Restoring America, One County at a Time.

THIS is where Christians need to start!