The Conflict Within - The Left's Version of Creationism
Posted by Zenphamy 8 years, 9 months ago to Philosophy
I've mentioned in other comments, a recent book I've been reading and studying by a favorite Astro-physicist, Hilton Ratcliffe, titled "Stephen Hawking Smoked My Socks." The primary emphasis of this book, that follows much of Ratcliffe's previous work has to do with the effect of belief systems on scientific inquiry and mathematical formulation of and nonsensical corrections/additions to theories to incorporate such beliefs into current scientific research and even experimental findings. In these writings, Ratcliffe is really talking about socially derived belief's-faith's impact on science today, as well as the fact that all humans grow up with sets of belief systems that those in science, in particular though not exclusively, must first recognize such belief systems' impacts and their influences on their and their predecessors' work, but then take the extremely difficult path of ensuring that such does not interfere with their actual and factual experimental and measured findings and work.
Now, I've recently encountered another source in the referenced blog (Gene Expression), that goes even further than Ratcliffe in describing this phenomena of human existence in scientific work by delving into the scientific squabble that's been going on since the 70's with those, sometimes termed neo-darwinists', that searched for and believe they've found support in their studies and work to support what they've termed sociobiology. A term developed to explain many studied characteristics of today's individual humans actions and responses whose predilections in society are derived from evolutionary genetic traits at neural and molecular levels combined with environmentally influenced expressions. The referenced article, though not easily read, describes those opposing sociobiology as driven by their own early Marxist and Stalinist indoctrination that wish to believe that humans are so malleable as to be controlled through progressive/socialist government and institutional policies and imposed moralities.
The article goes on to compare the opposing leftist, progressive influence to the rightist, conservative arguments on creationism:
"Rose, like his fellow travellers Gould and Lewontin, doesn't want his worldview, which has been extensively shaped by Marxist philosophy, to come crumbling down. The solutions proffered are state centered, gene-phobic, and premised on the extreme malleability of human nature. Further, like Diamond, he knows what sells and what his fans want to read and hear. He panders to the ideology, whether he truly believes in the Ghost in the Machine or not, and despite the warnings offered by Ehrenreich, McIntosh and Konner, the faithful of the Left lap up the ideologically reassuring pablum and turn a blind eye to the reality unfolding before them. The core of this faith is that human nature is malleable beyond limits that now exist, and like I've written before, along with my co-bloggers, it is that faith in the face of reason that binds one faction of the Left to their faith-based counterparts on the Right and like on the Right, the Left has its charlatans and hypocrites delivering these sermons." (emphasis added)
For Objectivist, these ideas and concepts will make a lot of sense. For those dedicated to the validity of their beliefs-faith, as the author says, in the face of reason, they will find much to argue with (if they even bother to read and follow some of the referenced material before commenting).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've been disappointed lately in the level of much posting and commentary on the site of recent days, and much of my posting lately is an attempt to restore to the site, a quality of Objective thought, posting, and commentary; as well as further the value of reason over faith/belief.
Now, I've recently encountered another source in the referenced blog (Gene Expression), that goes even further than Ratcliffe in describing this phenomena of human existence in scientific work by delving into the scientific squabble that's been going on since the 70's with those, sometimes termed neo-darwinists', that searched for and believe they've found support in their studies and work to support what they've termed sociobiology. A term developed to explain many studied characteristics of today's individual humans actions and responses whose predilections in society are derived from evolutionary genetic traits at neural and molecular levels combined with environmentally influenced expressions. The referenced article, though not easily read, describes those opposing sociobiology as driven by their own early Marxist and Stalinist indoctrination that wish to believe that humans are so malleable as to be controlled through progressive/socialist government and institutional policies and imposed moralities.
The article goes on to compare the opposing leftist, progressive influence to the rightist, conservative arguments on creationism:
"Rose, like his fellow travellers Gould and Lewontin, doesn't want his worldview, which has been extensively shaped by Marxist philosophy, to come crumbling down. The solutions proffered are state centered, gene-phobic, and premised on the extreme malleability of human nature. Further, like Diamond, he knows what sells and what his fans want to read and hear. He panders to the ideology, whether he truly believes in the Ghost in the Machine or not, and despite the warnings offered by Ehrenreich, McIntosh and Konner, the faithful of the Left lap up the ideologically reassuring pablum and turn a blind eye to the reality unfolding before them. The core of this faith is that human nature is malleable beyond limits that now exist, and like I've written before, along with my co-bloggers, it is that faith in the face of reason that binds one faction of the Left to their faith-based counterparts on the Right and like on the Right, the Left has its charlatans and hypocrites delivering these sermons." (emphasis added)
For Objectivist, these ideas and concepts will make a lot of sense. For those dedicated to the validity of their beliefs-faith, as the author says, in the face of reason, they will find much to argue with (if they even bother to read and follow some of the referenced material before commenting).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've been disappointed lately in the level of much posting and commentary on the site of recent days, and much of my posting lately is an attempt to restore to the site, a quality of Objective thought, posting, and commentary; as well as further the value of reason over faith/belief.
SOURCE URL: http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003696.html
Insidious, isn't it, how faith creeps in like an ameba swallowing up all reason in its path? It seems as if certain people just have to attribute the, as yet, unexplained, to some ancient thought process formulated by scientific primitives.
Faith based thinking can be comforting like snuggling up in a down filled comforter. But the only way to accomplish anything is to get out from under the covers and start using your brain and body.
Hats off for poetic phrasing.
Jan
It takes your beautifully-put metaphor a step farther - down [or faith-based thinking] will at best make you wildly uncomfortable, and at worst, will kill you.
edited to ensure it was clear to just what comment I was replying.
.
She was comfortable; I 'sleep warm' and often still do, so after a while, one foot stuck out, then a leg, then an arm, and eventually almost none of the comforter was atop me... in the unheated room.
Some "standard solutions" aren't.
.
beside my desk at Blythefille AFB in '71 -- WFO. . at the top end of
the volume scale!!! -- j
.
:)
Overcontrolling is what causes resonance. This is a lesson statists would do well to learn, too. ;)
You've mentioned this "John Galt in training" several times before. Is the moniker a function of his philosophy? Brilliance, alone, wouldn't be the defining quality of that character.
With regard to the philosophical training, I am not leading him through AR's philosophy step-by-step, if that is what you are asking. When I first posted Galt's oath on the outside door of my lab, the next day he saw it, said the oath, and then said he agreed with it to me. At that time, I recommended that he read Atlas Shrugged. I have discussed his entrepeneurial goals and given him my advice regarding intellectual property.
No, I have not gone into metaphysics and epistemology with him. That is not my area of expertise. If and when he asks, I will do so. I have discussed enough with him to know that philosophically he would fit in around here, but I have not gone into the kind of philosophical detail that perhaps I should have. He certainly knows where I stand, and he generally agrees.
and put the central air conditioning machinery on the roof. . turned on,
the air conditioning compressors set up a vibration which shook
the entire building, threatening to tear it apart. . the compressors
had to be changed out, for scroll compressors if memory serves,
to remedy the problem. . HP modal analysis can preclude this. -- j
.
Resonance is a mechanical function or electronic function. Controlling it means adjusting components to prevent positive feedback or uncontrolled growth of the oscillations.
Undercontrolling, much as 'overcontrolling' can have the same results.
Ah, forget it... you're right... of course.
:)
One reason was that the bridge was designed by an RPI grad.
And from its design, a LOT of 'new knowledge' about resonance and torsional stiffness sprang up from that immense failure.
Please keep in mind that most of civilization is an uncontrolled experiment, and one of the only reasons there are still humans walking the face of the earth is that humans are damned good at "figuring out what went wrong" AND learning from it and Making Corrections damned quickly.
And in my book, that's applicable to EVERY Catastrophic Prediction people are worried about today! Everything is a Definite End-Of-World Scenario and will extrapolate to infinity.
Except when it doesn't.
:)
Excellent process!
:)
1. A result counter to the funding agency's or funding company's biases would lower the scientist's chances of getting future funding.
2. Scientists have preconceived notions going in, called hypotheses. One sign of a scientist's worth is the willingness to admit that the results were inconsistent with his/her hypotheses.
3. Some of these preconceived notions come from faith-based biases.
4. As stated in what you cited, some scientists don't want their worldviews crushed by reality.
5. The pressure on those funded to publish is high. This likely causes some ethical compromises.
6. Research students want to finish, particularly if they get job offers. Details that the students knew, but their supervisors did not, then sometimes get left out of the resulting publication. Moreover, many researchers omit certain details so that their competition can't immediately catch up.
I am sure there are more reasons.
So much seems to suffer like the example in the referenced article. The ethics seems to have slipped their moorings.
BTW David Hume and Adam Smith were great friends. The philosophical underpinnings of Freud and psychology are from Franz Brentano who I believe should be characterized intellectually as part of the Scottish enlightenment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_B...
I'd like to see your argument when you get far enough along with it. I agree with your thinking, particularly the differences in 'soft' vs 'hard' sciences. My thinking on the subject is that somewhere, Marx or his influences are going to fit somewhere in the mix. I just haven't had that much time to look for the influences on Marx yet.
I have investigated Hayek in depth. see
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkwIL...
I will probably write a book on the Scottish Enlightenment and its influences on Austrian Economics.
One of my buddies pointed me to a recent book where this concept of drawing a conclusion and then collecting supporting facts is tested and demonstrated. I forget the book name, but intend to go read it.
Scientific American Mind has done a number of articles on Belief in God and various philanthropic tenancies. They would support your position here, although I do not think anyone there specifically related the two thought processes.
I like Scientific American Mind as well.
However on the particular topic of sociobiology it is something of a stretch to label that as "science" with its opponents as philosophically motivated. Some opponents might go too far in the "infinitely malleable by social forces" direction, but the field itself is filled with "just so" stories and likes to go too far in the "your behaviours and even your political preferences are genetic".
The missing component in both is, of course, the role of reason in what we do. I would say the truth is that we are influenced by our genes, but what we do about it is mainly up to us. Thus the fact I am attracted to women is part of my nature, but which particular women I find most attractive and what I do about it is where my chosen values come into play.
I'm of the strong conviction that those chosen values should be self determined rather than 'politically correct' values, which many of both sexes are overly influenced by today.
The science of sociobiology is softer than the hard science of chemistry (as an example) and relies on the combination of several previously separate areas of study including anthropology,comparative DNA, molecular biology and chemistry, and quite a few others. It's also been hindered by the PC fascists and the so called social sciences since the 70's. I think you've expressed the current understandings that genetic proclivities are modified by environment, but are a part of us.
His conclusion is that genes are more probabilities or tendencies that determinative.
The USSR was another lie, with data controlled to point to the answer.
It is very interesting walking this fine line between being completely objective with all the data, and when it is time to draw a conclusion without waiting interminably. It is certainly more prudent to get more data, but one can wait so long the relevant opportunity passes. The ability to conclude close to this line is one measure of intelligence. Of course luck is just as likely to bless or curse someone playing near the line without the requisite knowledge or sharpness.
2. Although science est. Surely can make its way into the political realm; it seems disingenuous to start from the political to develop it. I agree with j that state funding plays a huge role.
3. It is common for NIH and the NSF to request
white papers in areas that have been specifically targeted by the administration as important
Such in outline is the official theory. I shall often speak of it, with deliberate abusiveness, as "the dogma of the Ghost in the Machine." I hope to prove that it is entirely false, and false not in detail but in principle. It is not merely an assemblage of particular mistakes. It is one big mistake and a mistake of a special kind. It is, namely, a category mistake.
Ryle then attempts to show that the "official doctrine" of mind/body dualism is false by asserting that it confuses two logical-types, or categories, as being compatible. He states "it represents the facts of mental life as if they belonged to one logical type/category, when they actually belong to another. The dogma is therefore a philosopher's myth."
Arthur Koestler brought Ryle's concept to wider attention in his 1967 book The Ghost in the Machine, which takes Ryle's phrase as its title.[7] The book's main focus is mankind's movement towards self-destruction, particularly in the nuclear arms arena. It is particularly critical of B. F. Skinner's behaviourist theory. One of the book's central concepts is that as the human brain has grown, it has built upon earlier, more primitive brain structures, and that this is the "ghost in the machine" of the title. Koestler's theory is that at times these structures can overpower higher logical functions, and are responsible for hate, anger and other such destructive impulses." Wikipedia
I think at the time I bought the idea that sociobiology was naïve to think we could study these questions without cultural bias, but now this position seems like giving up. Clearly it's hard to find the truth in a world full of “those on the right/left” and all the other biases we have, but truth still exists.
The article talks about how “those on the left” like Jered Diamond's focus on the effects of geography on human civilization in Guns, Germs, and Steel and presumably would not like his support for studying genetic variation in ethnic groups. Who cares what they'd like?
“You want answers!?”
“I want the truth!”
And I repeat: evolution is a fraud. No person who professes a respect for objective reality can hold with it for very long.
You do not see--none of you see--the dissent from the orthodox view of that theory.
You never heard--I wonder how many in the Gulch have heard--that Charles Darwin himself expressed this salient doubt: why, if his theory was at all correct, did every single fossil found, represent a fully formed species, and not a transitional form as he predicted? Where were--and for that matter, where are--the multitude of transitional forms? Where are the links in what ought to be analogous to a chain-mail shirt? Have you ever heard of the expression "Missing Link"?
This could have been what Ayn Rand herself meant by "After all, the theory of evolution is only an hypothesis."
You shudder at the thought of the alternative hypothesis--that this world did have a Chief Architect after all, though Rand denied Him all her life. But what you follow instead is a null hypothesis (that has a special meaning in statistics), the odds against which are so long that any intellectually honest statistician would have rejected it long before this.
I challenge you, one and all, to debate the alternative hypothesis, and approach it with the same discipline Rand demanded for the examination of any other part of reality.
And don't begin with what you call "the primary literature." I submit to you that is a piece of dogma equally as offensive to objective reality as is the Qu'ran.
I came to the conclusion people are religious for psychological rather than philosophical reasons. The reason deals in great part with Festinger’s findings. He found most beliefs are not amenable to change. The most difficult beliefs for people to examine are those beliefs which have been (1) held for a long time, (2) adopted before age of reason, and (3) most often repeated.
The overwhelming majority of the people who are religious, were raised to be religious. Their first indoctrinations into the teachings of religion came from their parents, family, relatives, later on from churches and school. Their exposure to religion far preceded any appreciation of the philosophical arguments that have been adduced to support religious belief. The emotional commitment is years earlier in the person’s development than the arguments he may subsequently memorize to support his belief.
The question is: Where you brought up in a religous household?
I do not feel anger. I do feel disappointment. Disappointment that people who pride themselves in looking at objective reality, simply cannot imagine that something has happened in a past that is far less distant than they supposed, that they cannot explain. And when someone presents them with evidence of that fact, they accuse that person of, for lack of a better way to describe it, lying.
The first tale I ever heard about the event the Greeks called "cataclysm" ("Mother of All Storms") and various translations of a certain Writing call "The Flood," centered only on the story of the one man who, 120 years in advance of the event, received advance warning and built a ship to prepare for it. And in those early accounts, that ship wasn't much to look at: basically an oversized claw-footed bathtub with the claw feet removed and a pilothouse incongruously perched on top. If that's your memory of the Flood story, I don't blame you for staying skeptical about it now.
But I do blame you for refusing to examine the evidence, and dismissing it out-of-hand just because it does not conform to something else you have memorized.
In fact I do not claim that the Flood was a miraculous event. It was an accident waiting to happen. The miracles were (a) the 120 years' advance warning a certain shipwright had of the event, (b) said shipwright receiving some form of inspiration for a ship that could withstand the event, and (c) certain winds, kicked up no doubt when the first mountains rose up from the compression of the continental plates and displaced the air above them, happening to catch the ship just right to push it into an eddy cut off from the main flow (for that is how the phrase rendered "highlands of Ararat" really should translate), so that it would stay out of the most violent seas that would otherwise have crushed it.
Beyond that: I recommend a man named Lee Strobel. Who, unlike myself, did not grow up in a religious household. He set out to disprove the existence of any Chief Architect of the world, only to find the evidence the world had such an Architect nothing short of overwhelming. He even wrote a book about it: "The Case for Faith." Look it up.
And last, and possibly most important: I refuse to answer to any person other than an administrator as to the appropriateness of my words or my choice of venue. If you think you can take the by-laws of this forum into your own hands, and expect me to respect that taking-of-the-by-laws-into-your-own-hands, please disabuse yourself of that notion.
And that goes for anyone here other than an accredited and properly empowered, and identified, administrator.
Although you do not directly answer my question, it appears to me the answer is yes, you did grow up in a religious household.
I think you have sunk into an intellectual squalor I have previously not seen at the Gulch. You attack me on several grounds. You state I am trying to be an administrator of the blog. You say such things as you believe in the universal flood. All I can say is, live your life as you would live it.
By the way, I have several of the books of Lee Strobel in my library and have read them. Unfortunately, I find him to a typical Christian apologist—not a critical thinker. Frankly, I classify him (at best) as in error and (at worst) a nut case.
I am sure you claim religion is a matter of faith, which of course it is. I don’t have any faith. I don’t respect faith. I don’t believe in faith. I would be very foolish if, after a person has announced he holds his belief by faith, if were to then try to argue with such a person because the only means I have are reason, empirical demonstration, rules of evidence, and so forth.
None of these are relevant to the grounds of faith-based belief. So I don’t argue. But, people of faith are very defensive because they want intellectual respect for positions that were not arrived at intellectually. They want the respect to which they know they are not entitled. They want me to treat their faith or their mystical belief with the same respect I treat another person’s rational or scientific conviction. When they do not get respect, they get antagonistic or offended.
I think it is clear that in a case such as this discussion, your defensiveness is an issue of an intellectual bad conscience more than anything else. More technically, you deal with cognitive dissonance as Festinger would expect you to.
With that, I end this discussion. I have some utterly inconsequential matters which require my inattention.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5pQf...
I for one, am not going to give your nonsense that which you desire the most, the respect you believe will give some added credence to your belief. You only get respect by earning it, and you certainly haven't earned mine.
You use the same techniques that your vaunted mentor uses--challenge anyone to a debate, on his terms only using his material only, and then never accept or show up, refusing to publish any of his 'work' for peer review, etc, etc.
But more, in response to the last part of your comment, your juvenile, abusive attempts to hi-jack another member's posting to proselytize this type of nonsense only goes to prove exactly what the authors of the referenced material are trying to point out through your demonstration. But to the point of this reply, the site gives the poster the right to 'Hide' you from his posting for inappropriate commenting and hi-jacking. I only regret that in hiding you, I also hide some excellent replies to your nonsense comments.
It's a hypothesis that's been tested and become a theory, a theory that is part of the underpinning of modern biological science.
Let me be clear, everyone holds one side or the other of the issue of metaphysical primacy. There are no other options. One must choose either the primacy of existence, which means existence ranks first (is primary) before anything else; or the primacy of consciousness, which means consciousness is primary and outranks existence. There is no middle ground.
To claim the earth is only a few thousand years old means you believe that, not only with a lack of evidence, but in the face of all credible evidence I have ever seen.
I Think you are giving credibility to writers who thought the earth was flat and were baffled by where it went at night. People who had no idea about astronomy or geology or any of the myriad of sciences which independently converge to support evolution.
First, only you can decide what you want to believe, and what you refuse to believe.
Second, I invite you to look at some evidence you haven't seen.
I also think this (rather primary) discussion does not contribute to restoring the site to quality Objective thought.
Take just one page in that book:
http://creationscience.com/onlinebook...
The page shows a synoptic table showing Brown's theory--specifically as regards the origins of comets--and every other theory out there. The left-most column lists all the evidence that demands an explanation.
Do you deny any of the items listed in that row-header column?
Can you suggests a formation mechanism for comets that comports with any theory out there, other than the Hydroplate Theory? Or any other theory to explain ice on the Moon and especially the planet Mercury?
For that matter, can you explain why, though the earth has a number of companion asteroids, Venus has none, nor Mercury? Why do neither of those planets have satellites, but every planet beyond the Earth has satellites? I'm talking specifically about the irregular satellites, that are in fact captured asteroids.
Can you explain that frozen carbon-monoxide lake in the western lobe of the Tombaugh Region (the Heart Shape) on Pluto? I can. It came from the burning, in a confined space, of uprooted trees, shrubs, and other vegetable matter carried into space with the rest of the material that formed the body we call Pluto today.
Did you know that a narrow window, 200 years wide, exists in the past, during which all of the comets would most likely have been at perihelion, if you backtracked them? That window centers on 3290 BC. That suggests the comets, or the material that formed them, launched then.
Why do the twelve largest TNO's, including Pluto, have identical arguments of perihelion? Why do all the TNO's fall into two clusters of argument-of-perihelion, 180 degrees apart?
Then there is the formation mechanism for the solar system itself. Can you describe one? Can you describe how any object, let alone such a vast collection of them, can form from colliding dust clouds? Dust clouds don't collide! They would pass through one another. All the dust has to travel together before it can accrete.
That should do for a starter.
You're wrong about the answers that "science" has. You know nothing of the ruthless suppression of all debate, nor of the secret doubts so many scientists hold, and dare not express in fear of their jobs.
Hans Christian Andersen once spun a morality tale of swindlers who accepted a royal commission and produced nothing in return. They said the wares they sold were invisible to any who were stupid or unfit for their posts. The promulgators of the theory of evolution, are analogous to Andersen's swindlers. And the technique is the same.
I challenge you to disprove the account of a violent event. As Brown himself does. Let the vaunted scientific community meet him in honest debate. At least one person even suggested such a debate, then reneged on his own offer.
-1
However, "nonsense" doesn't begin to describe the mental vomit (the pieces of unprocessed thought) that constitutes the primitive drivel asserted by 'Temlakos' as 'valid'. How anyone that advocates 'young earth creationism' finds any commonality with Objectivism is beyond reason.
http://www.conservativenewsandviews.c...
That statement in itself confirms what Radcliff said that both left and right both creationist and atheist, are two sides of the same coin.
it is that faith in the face of reason that binds one faction of the Left to their faith-based counterparts on the Right and like on the Right, the Left has its charlatans and hypocrites delivering these sermons."
This is not true and shows a complete lack of understanding of the epistemological basis of science.
I happen to accept creation. And I have two classes of reason to support it.
1. As jbrenner has already pointed out, much of the "science" behind biological evolution, "chemical evolution" (abiogenesis), and even nuclear physics, turns out to be non-reproducible. In fact it's just a repetition of the same old line. Nobody bothers to look at the evidence in any other way--and in fact the evidence they claim is often wildly inconsistent.
2. I have hard evidence that this planet suffered an event violent enough to produce all the physical evidence the biological evolutionists routinely invoke--in a span of time little longer than a year. An event violent enough to kill every human being then alive--except for eight adults who had the presence of mind to sense (or heed a warning of) what was to come, and to build a vessel capable of withstanding the event and bringing them and several sets of live land-animal and avian specimens through it alive. An event that left its scars not only on the earth but throughout the entire solar system.
You can see the full catalog of that evidence here:
http://creationscience.com/onlinebook/
I ask you all, in the spirit of objective inquiry, to follow that evidence and tell me where it leads.
It has convinced you; it totally failed to even interest me.
Jan
When I began my education in geology, the theory of plate tectonics was in full swing and was rapidly integrating the various sub-disciplines into a coherent picture of the history of the earth. It was bringing geophysics, geochemistry, stratigraphy, paleontology, geochronology and a host of study areas together. Since then I have stayed professionally active in the science and have watched for 40 years now how more...and more....and more....data keep coming together to support this understanding.
It is amazing how detailed, complexly intertwined now, and how thoroughly these disciplines support the understanding that the earth is very old. Is it complete? Hardly. The level of knowledge will always increase and refine these understandings. But the fundamentals are there and it has been wonderful to have lived in this time.
So, I find it interesting that some will still take all this amassed and integrated data and still try to massage it and square peg it into the circular hole of a cherished myth that the earth is not as old as all this data supports and therefore evolution of life forms over millions of years could not have occurred.
Having said that, the age of the earth is a topic and evolution versus creation is a topic. This is where the politics of divisiveness comes in and plays a role. The argument is artificial and contrived to divide people. In my mind and conclusion, the understanding of the age of the earth and the long history of life on the planet - including humans - supports the understanding of evolution. However, this is the method of creation and is no less miraculous in its grandeur.
Yes! I am not an expert in these areas, but I appreciate learning about the scientific models/theories. Thank you.
The latter is a real eye-opener. In the paleolithic era when I was young, I found creationist arguments quite compelling. Then (doing a biology degree and all) I started chasing down the references they quoted. It is not an exaggeration to say that every single one was either a gross misrepresentation, a childish misunderstanding, a logical fallacy, or some obscure one-off report that nobody really understood and had nothing to do with creationism except at a stretch one could interpret it that way.
The fact that evolution has occurred and is responsible for all the variety of life on earth is attested by irrefutable evidence from paleontology, biochemistry and genetics. Sure, if you read creationist literature you'll think that isn't the case. But to paraphrase Disraeli, there are lies, damned lies, and creationist literature.
-1
Evolution and individual rights are incompatible. Evolution says we are no better than animals, or "collections of chemicals." Rand knew that, but didn't follow the logic as she should have.
Whether the evolution or creationism is correct, is a epistemological question. One should always ask: What do I know? (metaphysics) and How do I know it? (epistemology). Brown wants to believe what he says is true and nothing will change his mind. This is because of the common culprit cognitive dissonance, something all of us must constantly guard against.
A seeker of truth must always allow the possibility he may be wrong. I do. I will change my belief if presented with solid evidence to the contrary. But, it is not easy.
Piltdown and Peking "Men." Both frauds. Piltdown Man turned out to be an orangutan. He fooled an awful lot of people before the perpetrators of the fraud admitted it.
Nebraska "Man," who turns out to be a pig.
Mount St. Helens. Rock "dating out" at anywhere from half a million to two million years, that formed ten years before sampling.
The Crinum Coal Mine in Australia. Wood, "dating out" at 37,000 years old, buried in rock "dating out" at a million years old.
Polystrate fossils.
-1
The problem is cognitive dissonance. For most people there are some beliefs are not amendable to change. In fact, most beliefs are not changeable.
The most difficult beliefs for people to examine are those beliefs which have been
(1) held for a long time,
(2) adopted before age of reason, and
(3) most often repeated.
Which explains why it is impossible to have a conversation on the two subjects one should never discuss socially: Religious and political beliefs. Both of these belief sets are indoctrinated by parents, teachers, religious leaders, and other adults, almost from birth, many years before the age of reason, and they are the most often repeatedly “drummed” into them. People will kill based upon their beliefs, but they will not examine whether the belief is true or false.
Didn't Rand herself say, "After all, the theory of evolution is only an hypothesis"?
Dr. Walt Brown was just beginning his work when she died, more's the pity. Today his work stands as a stark challenge to anyone who says with a straight face that he follows the evidence where it leads, and it comes out "old earth," "no Flood," "uniformitarianism," "abiogenesis," and "common descent."
I do not understand the rest of your comment.
One of the recent photographs of Pluto shows that it has a lake of carbon monoxide ice on it. Now how do you think that got there. You have to have wood and oxygen to get carbon monoxide. Wood burning in a confined space. Burning, maybe, from the heat of accretion, using oxygen from photo-dissociated water.
Any other questions?
-1
-1
Are you an administrator?
Do you not realize you are behaving exactly as do the Messrs. Thompson and Drs. Ferris of our modern age?
I'm a Gulch administrator.
While I can appreciate your passion, I'm afraid Zenphamy is right in that you are indeed proselytizing - which is clearly defined in the CoC as something we'd rather not have in the Gulch ( http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/faq#f... ).
It's time to step back, take a breath, dial it down a bit, and head towards common ground. Creationists are welcome in the Gulch. The advocating of creationism, not so much.
Thanks,
Scott
Bonafide Gulch Administrator ;)
-1
You can't have "preconceived perceptions" since perception comes from your senses. None of your senses have any demonstrated or proven precognition ability. Beliefs are the only thing that can enable one to form "preconceived perceptions", and that's anathema to Objectivism and denies the value of life as it is in reality.