Sunday, April 03, 2005

Charles Darwin Begins a Killing Spree!

A Mossback Culture article led me to this piece of work that explains that Charles Darwin killed Terri Schiavo. I suspect that he is also responsible for the sudden appearance of homosexuality on the planet and it can be no coincidence that, not long after the late Pope proclaimed that evolution was more than a mere hypothesis (possibly the faintest praise ever to be afforded it), the child sex abuse coverups came to light. And now the Pope has died. Is this related to his lack of condemnation of evil neo-Darwinism? Could he have been saved if he had turned his back on that bearded Beelzebub? Who is to say? But then it is undeniable that the Pope is dead. Think about it!

Lets face facts:
  • Darwin had (has) a big beard. Unless you are Santa Claus or a prophet from God, the only reason to have a big beard is to hide something.
  • Darwin is claimed to be dead but given his resemblance to the infamous and unkillable Rasputin, how can we be sure? He may be some kind of mutant with a long life and super regenerative powers.
  • If Darwin is alive, can he account for his whereabouts when Kennedy was shot? I have never heard of anyone coming forward as his alibi.
  • While Nazis, both old and neo, and communists like Karl Marx don't know jack about biology, evolution, science, history, economics, or anything else for that matter, they often reference Charles Darwin and the theory of evolution, just as Creationists often quote Stephen J. Gould and Carl Sagan as if they supported Intelligent Design. This means that Darwin is a communist Nazi! And Gould must have been a creationist. [Strange, I am told that Gould was left-wing and, as such, he was not that clever on economics but to do as much respected work in science as he did while not believing any of it seems... odd; even for a leftist. But hey, I can't fault the logic. Darwin is referred to by Nazis and communists so he is both. Gould is quoted by creationists therefore he is a creationist.]
So, Darwin is a beady-eyed, bearded, unstoppable mutant and a killer of the persistently vegetative. He is behind some of the most evil political movements of modern time. He can not account for his whereabouts during many heinous crimes. Even if evolution is true it is plain to see that it is too dangerous to be acknowledged as true given the evil nature of its originator.

I must thank the Alpha and Omega Ministries for this help in my intellectual development. Perhaps I can return the favor by pointing out something.

"when culture as a whole embraces the idea that man is merely an animal,"
Evolution makes no claims about what human are, only where we came from. Creationists are the ones who keep adding the "merely" part because a lack of divine origins is not acceptable to them any more than it was for the kings and emperors of the pagan world who claimed to be decended from Venus or Zeus.

"...the random result of the chance toss of the cosmic die, a purposeless biological accident without any meaningful superiority to an ape, a dog, or a microbe,"
Boy, creationists really have a hateon for other living things! Not to mention a poor understanding of evolution. Randomness is responsible for a mere mechanism of new traits emerging. Evolution is about as far from a random process as you can get. It is called "natural selection" not "natural lottery".

" firm basis can be provided for a culture of compassion and life."
Is logic not a firm enough basis for creating a culture of compassion and life even in the event of evolution's truth? If your "Culture of Life"(TM) is one that keeps the dead alive, gives more protection to stem cells than to choir boys and your "Culture of compassion"(patent pending) is one which sees homosexuality as an agenda of evil, then perhaps logic and the evolved tendency towards social animals to exhibit compassion and cooperation toward one another are not a firm enough basis. Too bad for you preacher man.

"The natural realm is a savage place, and there is no reason, within an evolutionary framework, to seek such things as compassion, tenderness, or mercy."
Then why did "God" create animals like chimps, baboons, dolphins, wolves and humans who routinely demonstrate compassion, tenderness, and mercy not to mention forgiveness and a sense of fair play? If there is no reason for this and it is a detriment to life in the natural world, has God not just set these creatures up for failure? Maybe creationists see these traits as being irrational but that is reflective of the creationists' character not the fault of these traits

But (pause while I look up this guy's name) James R. White should not feel too bad. He may be a psychopath who gets an F in biology but he gets the distinction of the second ever Apesnake Atrocious Argument Award for his short but breathtakingly bad article.

Now I think I will go and make sure the door is locked. There's a Darwin on the loose!


At Tue. Apr. 05, 12:42:00 a.m. 2005, Blogger Robert said...

You insensitive primate, you! How dare you denigrate a “holy” man…even if he is a bit self-righteous. Mr. White is doing his level best to indoctrinate his mindless adherents.

Seriously, the following in no way characterizes my (the correct) thinking on the subject:

The impact of religious naturalistic materialism is tremendously clear as we see the judiciary abandoning the rule of law (especially as law reflects God's creatorship and sovereignty) and issuing edicts that treat man as a mere animal, or worse (in the case of Terri Schiavo). Given that the evolutionary worldview cannot provide any basis for morality, the moral fiber of the culture is collapsing into a mass of internal self-contradiction due to the fact that forces of evil cannot immediately wipe out all monuments of our past recognition of God's law.

At Tue. Apr. 05, 04:42:00 a.m. 2005, Blogger Apesnake said...

Whoever's thinking that paragraph characterizes (Mr. White perchance? In the conservatory with the lead pipe?), I is a-gin it!

I am assuming that the adjective "religious" is just meant to criticize the potential motive behind "naturalistic materialism" and not to suggest that there is a secular version and I am also assuming that by "naturalistic materialism" one means:

"Philosophical position that only natural phenomenon observable by human senses our(sic) real.

Religious faith in the unreality of anything supernatural.

I had to look this up as it is a theological/philosophical term and I am not very familiar with the jargon of those fields. This definition, if not the only possible one, seems to be the most common for people who dislike "naturalistic materialism"

I am in the position of both criticizing and defending the term.

While some scientists may believe that only natural phenomenon observable by human senses (augmented or otherwise) are real, it is a personal belief and not one that is necessary to do or teach science. A more accurate description of the "philosophy" of science is that only phenomenon (natural or otherwise) which are observable are suitable subjects of scientific inquiry.

Another central philosophy of science that might be added to the description of "natural materialism" is skepticism. In keeping with the principle of skepticism, if a phenomenon is observed in the natural world it can not be attributed to a non-natural cause until all natural causes have been ruled out as impossible or so improbable as to be unbelievable. If such an observed phenomenon meets this criteria it is held to be non-natural (supernatural, paranormal whatever) only so long as no new credible natural cause is made available for testing. The opposite would be superstition - taking things to be of supernatural cause until persuaded otherwise. The superior usefulness of skepticism over superstition is born out by the fact that so many fakes, frauds and false alarms are caught by this methodology. Thus far, no observed phenomenon has satisfied the criteria of skepticism to the degree that more than a tiny number of scientists (usually working outside their field of expertise) have been convinced of a phenomenon having a non-natural cause. This is not the same as scientists having a...

"Religious faith in the unreality of anything supernatural."

It is funny how theologians use the terms "religious" and "faith" to insult other peoples positions and motives.

But let us assume that whatever Colonel Mustard means by naturalistic materialism is an accurate representation of what scientists and society at large "religiously" believes. Is that the cause of the world going to hell in a hand cart? Is the world going to hell in a hand cart?

First of all, judges are not abandoning the rule of law. The inconvenient truth is that people who disagree with the decisions of the courts are always blaming the judges but the decisions are always available for lawyers who disagree to go over them an find legal errors . The fact is that these judges upholding the laws. These supreme court judges are some of the best legal minds in the country. In a disagreement about what the law actually says am I really supposed to trust a preacher who is angry that he did not get the decision he hoped for or experts in constitutional law? The only laws they have abandoned are the half-assed ones that "reflects God's creatorship and sovereignty" in other words, the theocratic ones that are unconstitutional and are passed by populist politicians near election time. Again I need to ask those who are angry about how the Schiavo case turned out:

Since the case was only about the fact that the parents were claiming some right in the decision making process, if the parents had been the ones who wanted her to "die a natural death" and the husband had said "No! She is my wife and I want to keep he heart beating at all costs.", would it still have been an incorrect finding of law to find for the husband?

If the theory that believing in evolution causes people to be part of a "culture of death" and Biblical literalism feeds the "culture of life" then there should be no Christians and creationists who feel that the courts were right and the death-phobics were wrong. I know for a fact that is not the case.

I have yet to hear of a judge

"issuing edicts that treat man as a mere animal,"

and there is that "mere" word again. Should judges instead issue edicts that treat man as a descendant of God? And if so, How would that go?

"If it pleases the court, Your honor, I wish it entered into the record that my client was made from the dust of the earth and has had life breathed into him by Gods own breath."

"So noted. Let us now proceed to sentencing."

"Given that the evolutionary worldview cannot provide any basis for morality,"

Where was that given? I never gave that as a given. But let us temporarily give that as a given. Neither can the laws of electromagnetism provide such a basis. That does not mean that such basis is non-existent or that the laws of electromagnetism are false or that electromagnetism is responsible for the rampant immorality that is practiced outside my window each night. Why does our justification for morality have to come from an origin myth? Why are reason, ethics and our natural (evolved) tendencies as cooperative, compassionate, social organisms not the proper basis for morality?

The last bit about collapsing fibrous masses and stuff just shows the typical dark world, sky-is-falling attitude that people have been spouting since before the dawn of civilization. This is probably the central objection to evolution; the concept that the world, and we along with it can change without falling apart.

And the thing about "monuments of our past recognition of God's law" sounds like sour grapes by the fundies who are peeved at not getting the right to rub the face of the non-believers in the fact that the U.S.A. is a nation by Christians, for Christians (regardless of those founding fathers who were agnostic, atheist and deistic), and the right to tell every non-believing visitor to a public building that "you may get to live here but you are not welcome in our country." Another one of those pesky "rule of law" things. Stupid activist constitution!

At Tue. Apr. 05, 04:57:00 p.m. 2005, Blogger Robert said...

So…are you saying that you take issue with neo-Christian dogma? Are you suggesting that the “moral majority” has erred in its characterization of heathen Darwinists?

I would only caution that you not use the likes of Col. Mustard and his ilk as an accurate representation of the Bible. I know it’s a stretch to assume that those types are fallible, but if you use your imagination, anything is possible. I might even go so far as to say that PJ II’s perception of reality was skewed at best. I’m just saying that I doubt that you would want one who is ignorant of evolution to be its public spokesman.

And now, something completely different. Do you read the enlightened caveman blog. He’s my “neighbor” here in Atlanta, GA. His content is quite similar to yours…you would likely enjoy it, if you don’t already.

At Tue. Apr. 05, 05:39:00 p.m. 2005, Blogger Apesnake said...

I would only caution that you not use the likes of Col. Mustard and his ilk as an accurate representation of the Bible.

Now that I will give as a given. The problem is that when the Bible is used for political purposes or to back an argument it is generally not the educated, thoughtful theologians but Col. Mustard that get the air time. When more reflective and studious types get on the air too much the brimstonners start saying that they are being cut out of the debate. So, it is much nicer and more fun to profile those who need some criticism for trying to link something they hate like evolution to something many others hate like death or racism without drawing any actual connection.

Thanks for the link. In the past I was wary of evolutionary psychology as it is often misused to justify unpleasant traits or propose gender views that are not accurate rather than provide objective understanding. This blogger does not seem to deserve that criticism and it seems like and interesting site.

I think I will add him to my link list.


Post a Comment

<< Home


Day By Day© by Chris Muir.