by Paul Wolff
The radio program Issues Etc. had an interview on June 8, 2012 about Creation and Faith and Reason. Guest Ken Samples was asked to respond to the charge some Darwinists make against Christians that “The idea of god is the result of intellectual laziness.” His response was that “Science can only work within a specific universe, and it was the Christian world-view that fueled the desire to discover nature, because God had created it.” This answer shows the historical truth that Christians invented science which discovers how the world works through experimentation because they believe in a God who is rational and created an orderly world. That is a fine answer, but I would answer the question a different way.
It is very telling that the Darwinists are concerned about “intellectual laziness.” Darwinists are storytellers and myth purveyors. Charles Darwin did not come to his conclusions from his observations. Darwin started with the assumption that there is no God and he went from there to try to find evidence that might possibly fit his hypothesis. The Origin of Species is a book of fiction which attempts to describe a naturalistic world without God. This is a world which doesn’t exist. It is not even the world that science observes!
No one has ever observed any living thing evolving into something else. There is no natural mechanism for evolutionary change. All the claimed examples of supposed evolution are better explained by natural variation already contained in the genes of the observed organism. The mechanism of the genes works for long term stability, not change. So when Darwinists complain about the “intellectual laziness” of creationism (or even Intelligent Design) what they mean is that they think themselves better storytellers than those scientists who are more interested in the truth than in inventing a fictional godless universe.
Many of the specific explanations that Charles Darwin proposed have been disproved by science. Nevertheless, the idea of a godless universe has so captivated sinners that they won’t let it die. The myth of a naturalistic universe that has evolved without God has been rewritten many times since Darwin’s day in an attempt to account for scientific discoveries. Darwinists will admit to this, and will admit that the current theories of evolution have very little in common with The Origin of Species except for the idea of a universe without God. In this way the “science” of evolution has become more about creative fiction writing than about making scientific discoveries.
The practice of science has become about innovation, but this is a change from what it should be. The scientific method is all about discovery, not innovation. The innovation comes when the scientific discoveries are applied, but that’s engineering and medicine, not science. The scientific method is all about observing and testing ideas about how the world works. These days much of what passes for science is really wild speculations based on unproven assertions. There is a lot (mostly dealing with Darwinism & evolution) which doesn’t stand up to scientific scrutiny, and when scientific investigation shows the weakness of these ideas then the real scientists are accused of being anti-intellectual by the Darwinist zealots, but the Darwinists cannot prove evolution with the same scientific investigation.
I believe that Darwinism was completely disproved over 50 years ago with the discovery by Watson and Crick of how the DNA molecule is structured (even though Francis Crick, at least, remained a Darwinist, and James Watson may have done so, too). If the DNA molecule works the way that Watson and Crick discovered, then there can be no macro-evolution. The structure of the DNA molecule works like a computer program which is so incredibly complex that it could not have come together accidentally. The DNA molecule is also remarkably stable in its transmission of accurate information. This means that mutations are extremely rare, and when there is a mutation it nearly always diminishes the functionality of the organism (i.e. kills it) rather than improves it. That is why we have living fossils like the coelacanth fish which hasn’t changed appreciably in 400,000,000 years (according to Darwinists).
Some Darwinists say that “science disproves the existence of God.” but they are the ones being “intellectually lazy.” First of all, science cannot prove nor disprove God, and for anyone to say otherwise is “intellectually lazy.” If God truly is God (and how could He be otherwise), He is above His creation, and cannot be limited by it or especially by naturalistic explanations of what creatures think God must be. Secondly, Darwinism assumes from the start that there is no God and only tries to describe a world without God. It doesn’t prove God’s supposed nonexistence. Darwinists say, “If there is no god, then evolution must be true, so therefore there can be no god.” This is circular reasoning at its worst so that it ends up being a non sequitur.
The science of “intelligent design” (I.D.) came about because there is good evidence in science which contradicts Darwinism and the I.D. scientists are honest enough to try to account for these facts. The science of I.D. cannot prove the existence of God, nor the opposite, but it can disprove naturalistic evolution. Darwinists have no answer to the scientists who have shown that I.D. has experimental merit. That is why Darwinists frequently respond by attacking the motives of the I.D. scientists rather than disproving their findings. In this way Darwinists act more like religious zealots suppressing the truth rather than as true scientists eager to find the truth about how the world works, no matter what that truth may be.
Darwinism’s claimed fundamental mechanism of change is accidental mutation. You don’t get a science that relies on repeatable experimental observations from Darwinism. This is what Ken Samples was saying in his Issues Etc. interview. Darwinism relies on accidents and random mutations, and that is something that is not repeatable. In fact, the complexity of the needed mutations is so vast that it is statistically impossible. Note that it is not improbable, it is impossible. Because of this, Darwinism is anti-science. If all that exists came about by random chance and accidents, then nothing is sure or predictable or reliable, and there can be no science as we know it because nothing can be predictable.
There may be some creationists who are intellectually lazy, but to label all who believe in God as such is dishonest. There are enough flaws in the theory of evolution that it must be questioned. Those who ignore the gaps in order to maintain that evolution describes how the world came to be are not scientists, they are atheistic religious zealots who aren’t really honest about the proper use of science. Darwinism isn’t just bad science, it is bad religion.
Showing posts with label creation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label creation. Show all posts
Monday, February 4, 2013
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Racism: A Universal Definition
With Corollaries
(First in a series)
by Paul Wolff
Note-1: Why a universal definition? A universal definition of racism is required to avoid the relativism which condemns all racism except that which benefits me. A universal definition of racism is needed because racism is always evil, no matter who is supposed to benefit from it and no matter who is supposed to be harmed by it. One cannot adequately fight racism unless one is able to identify it in all its forms from the very beginning. If you use a definition which leaves out some forms of racism that is like trying to close the door to the hen house after the fox has had a chicken dinner and carried off a few more to feed her pups. I once read a book in which the author explicitly defined racism in such a way which only condemned that which sought to benefit “white” and diminish “black” but not the other way around. Such a definition was very convenient for the author who sought to condemn “white racism” while turning a blind eye to her own racist views. By defining racism in this way, she was able to portray herself as righteous and others as “racists”(see Corollary 1b & Corollary 4).
Note-2: This definition assumes that there is one human race. I believe that all people are descended from Adam and Eve who were created by the Almighty, Triune God in the beginning. Such belief, however, is not necessary to come to the same conclusions presented here concerning race. Since all creation shows the glory and the wisdom of God, who created everything (see Psalm 19:1), there is plenty of physical and scientific evidence to confirm what I say here, especially in the realm of genetics. All the characteristics which have been used to define multiple “races” are superficial or subjective and do not stand up to scientific scrutiny (that is to say these unique characteristics either don’t exist or they are not peculiar to any one group of people to the exclusion of any others).
Note-3: The only valid universal distinctions between people are the original distinctions created by God in the beginning, that is, the gender distinction of men and women. Curiously, the “intellectual” culture would diminish the valid distinction of gender and embellish the invalid distinction of races. Scientific research affirms that there are only two genders (male and female) and that the differences between the “races” are only superficial or subjective. Because people are sinful they want to justify their sinful behavior so they invent additional “genders” to justify their wicked behavior and they invent additional “races” to cover up their insecurities and make them feel superior to other people.
Note-4: The primary evil of racism is in dividing people by making false distinctions. All the other evils of racism necessarily follow from this primary evil. Making these false racial distinctions is where racism begins. It is the primary evil because all of the other evils of racism follow from this false idea and without this there is no racism. The desired outcome of racism which is the benefit of one “race” over “another” is only a secondary evil which cannot be undone by “reverse racism.” The evil of racism is only multiplied by this false solution.
Corollary-1a: Racism is not hatred, though they are related. Racism always leads to hatred, but it doesn’t begin there. Racism begins by saying that there are racial distinctions. Then racism says that among these imagined distinctions one (or more) is better than another (or others). Then racism says that one or more is best and others are worse. Then racism says that one is good and others are evil. It will go further if not checked – the last step is that the “good” must to seek to destroy the “evil”. Therefore racism exists along a continuum, and though some points along the continuum seem to be more evil than others, it is all racism and none of it is good.
Corollary-1b: No one would ever become a racist if racism always equated with hatred. It always starts innocently by wanting only good things for the group to which one belongs or otherwise identifies with. In this way racism is easy. That is why it is so prevalent in our culture. Even though racism isn’t hatred it is still evil, even in its most “innocent” form. Simply acknowledging divisions among people which don’t exist in reality creates an “us vs. them” mentality which leads racists to believe that one is better than another, or one is deserving of special or favored treatment over another based on the criterion of the division.
Corollary-2: Racism does not always mean that you believe that your own race is superior or even worthy of special consideration. The most obvious view of racism is that people believe that their race is superior and worthy of special consideration to further the good which their own race brings to the world. I have seen racism where people believe there own race is inferior, but worthy of special consideration. I have also seen racism where people believe their own race is superior, but believe another race is worthy of special consideration. All of these ideas are evil.
Corollary-3a: There is no such thing as black people. All people are varying shades of brown. The pigment which makes up the brown color in people’s skin (melanin) is the same in all people, and has infinite degrees of variability, even in the same family. It isn’t a “yes or no” kind of thing. The term “black” or “negro” or any such variation, is an exaggeration which most often has pejorative connotations as to the state of one’s soul which may or may not be accurate, but either way has nothing to do with the amount of melanin present in the skin. Neither do any such superficial physical characteristics have anything to do with a person’s worth, or lack thereof.
Corollary-3b: There is no such thing as white people. The reasons are the same as in Corollary-3a above. All people are various shades of brown. The foolishness of making these false distinctions is seen by the fact that there are some people who are considered “white” who are darker brown than others who are considered “black”. The term “white” is an exaggeration which may have positive or negative connotations as to the state of one’s soul which may or may not be accurate, but either way has nothing to do with the amount of melanin present (or absent) in the skin. Neither do any such superficial physical characteristics have anything to do with a person’s worth, or lack thereof.
Corollary-4: In a racist society, some things which are called racism are not. Much that is not called racism is. This is a tricky one. Racists don’t usually want to be identified as such because if they admitted the truth then they could no longer claim that what they are doing is righteous. They usually call their racist favoritism “justice” or “balancing the scales” or some such noble deed like “favoring those who are most deserving”. However, in a racist society those who treat all people equally and expect the same kind of civilized behavior from all people without regard to race are called “racist” because they do not give preferential treatment to those of the favored “race” and those who rely on that favoritism to make their lives easier complain that this is “racist” when it is truly the exact opposite.
Corollary-5: Racism is not only found in the church, the Christian church is primarily responsible for the propagation of racism in society. This one is not obvious. Whether racism starts in the church or not, I cannot say. It may or it may not begin in the church, but whenever the church takes a stand against racism it cannot continue in Christian society. Also, whenever the church is silent or complicit in acknowledging racist attitudes then it only gets worse in the secular society.
Corollary-6: America in the early 21st Century is a racist society. It has been racist at least since the 17th century (and maybe was so even before Columbus discovered the New World). Neither the Civil War of the 19th century nor the Civil Rights laws of the 20th century eliminated racism. The specifics have shifted, however. The favored “race” is currently those people who are considered “black” in some form or another. The only accepted racism is that which favors those who are considered “black” or sometimes “Hispanic” (but rarely “Asian”) over those considered “white.”
Corollary-7: The descendants of aboriginal North Americans are likewise not helped by racist preferential treatment. “Reservations,” “Indian Casinos,” and other preferential treatment of so-called “Native Americans” are cruel racist jokes and do not truly serve the needs of the people who “benefit” from them. Both society as a whole and members of these groups are best served by assimilating into the greater culture as have the vast majority of subsequent immigrants such as Germans, Scottish, Irish, Italians, etc.
Corollary-8: Darwinists are inherently racist based on their false ideas about God and the origin and “evolution” of Man. They may claim otherwise, but whoever believes in some form of Darwinian evolution already believes that there is this process of “evolution” where creatures somehow magically (i.e. against all that is scientifically known) transform into something different and more “advanced”. Because of this Darwinists will always think that some people are better or more “evolved” than others.
(First in a series)
by Paul Wolff
Racism is any thought, word, or action which divides the one human race into multiple “races” based on superficial or imagined characteristics.
Note-1: Why a universal definition? A universal definition of racism is required to avoid the relativism which condemns all racism except that which benefits me. A universal definition of racism is needed because racism is always evil, no matter who is supposed to benefit from it and no matter who is supposed to be harmed by it. One cannot adequately fight racism unless one is able to identify it in all its forms from the very beginning. If you use a definition which leaves out some forms of racism that is like trying to close the door to the hen house after the fox has had a chicken dinner and carried off a few more to feed her pups. I once read a book in which the author explicitly defined racism in such a way which only condemned that which sought to benefit “white” and diminish “black” but not the other way around. Such a definition was very convenient for the author who sought to condemn “white racism” while turning a blind eye to her own racist views. By defining racism in this way, she was able to portray herself as righteous and others as “racists”(see Corollary 1b & Corollary 4).
Note-2: This definition assumes that there is one human race. I believe that all people are descended from Adam and Eve who were created by the Almighty, Triune God in the beginning. Such belief, however, is not necessary to come to the same conclusions presented here concerning race. Since all creation shows the glory and the wisdom of God, who created everything (see Psalm 19:1), there is plenty of physical and scientific evidence to confirm what I say here, especially in the realm of genetics. All the characteristics which have been used to define multiple “races” are superficial or subjective and do not stand up to scientific scrutiny (that is to say these unique characteristics either don’t exist or they are not peculiar to any one group of people to the exclusion of any others).
Note-3: The only valid universal distinctions between people are the original distinctions created by God in the beginning, that is, the gender distinction of men and women. Curiously, the “intellectual” culture would diminish the valid distinction of gender and embellish the invalid distinction of races. Scientific research affirms that there are only two genders (male and female) and that the differences between the “races” are only superficial or subjective. Because people are sinful they want to justify their sinful behavior so they invent additional “genders” to justify their wicked behavior and they invent additional “races” to cover up their insecurities and make them feel superior to other people.
Note-4: The primary evil of racism is in dividing people by making false distinctions. All the other evils of racism necessarily follow from this primary evil. Making these false racial distinctions is where racism begins. It is the primary evil because all of the other evils of racism follow from this false idea and without this there is no racism. The desired outcome of racism which is the benefit of one “race” over “another” is only a secondary evil which cannot be undone by “reverse racism.” The evil of racism is only multiplied by this false solution.
Corollary-1a: Racism is not hatred, though they are related. Racism always leads to hatred, but it doesn’t begin there. Racism begins by saying that there are racial distinctions. Then racism says that among these imagined distinctions one (or more) is better than another (or others). Then racism says that one or more is best and others are worse. Then racism says that one is good and others are evil. It will go further if not checked – the last step is that the “good” must to seek to destroy the “evil”. Therefore racism exists along a continuum, and though some points along the continuum seem to be more evil than others, it is all racism and none of it is good.
Corollary-1b: No one would ever become a racist if racism always equated with hatred. It always starts innocently by wanting only good things for the group to which one belongs or otherwise identifies with. In this way racism is easy. That is why it is so prevalent in our culture. Even though racism isn’t hatred it is still evil, even in its most “innocent” form. Simply acknowledging divisions among people which don’t exist in reality creates an “us vs. them” mentality which leads racists to believe that one is better than another, or one is deserving of special or favored treatment over another based on the criterion of the division.
Corollary-2: Racism does not always mean that you believe that your own race is superior or even worthy of special consideration. The most obvious view of racism is that people believe that their race is superior and worthy of special consideration to further the good which their own race brings to the world. I have seen racism where people believe there own race is inferior, but worthy of special consideration. I have also seen racism where people believe their own race is superior, but believe another race is worthy of special consideration. All of these ideas are evil.
Corollary-3a: There is no such thing as black people. All people are varying shades of brown. The pigment which makes up the brown color in people’s skin (melanin) is the same in all people, and has infinite degrees of variability, even in the same family. It isn’t a “yes or no” kind of thing. The term “black” or “negro” or any such variation, is an exaggeration which most often has pejorative connotations as to the state of one’s soul which may or may not be accurate, but either way has nothing to do with the amount of melanin present in the skin. Neither do any such superficial physical characteristics have anything to do with a person’s worth, or lack thereof.
Corollary-3b: There is no such thing as white people. The reasons are the same as in Corollary-3a above. All people are various shades of brown. The foolishness of making these false distinctions is seen by the fact that there are some people who are considered “white” who are darker brown than others who are considered “black”. The term “white” is an exaggeration which may have positive or negative connotations as to the state of one’s soul which may or may not be accurate, but either way has nothing to do with the amount of melanin present (or absent) in the skin. Neither do any such superficial physical characteristics have anything to do with a person’s worth, or lack thereof.
Corollary-4: In a racist society, some things which are called racism are not. Much that is not called racism is. This is a tricky one. Racists don’t usually want to be identified as such because if they admitted the truth then they could no longer claim that what they are doing is righteous. They usually call their racist favoritism “justice” or “balancing the scales” or some such noble deed like “favoring those who are most deserving”. However, in a racist society those who treat all people equally and expect the same kind of civilized behavior from all people without regard to race are called “racist” because they do not give preferential treatment to those of the favored “race” and those who rely on that favoritism to make their lives easier complain that this is “racist” when it is truly the exact opposite.
Corollary-5: Racism is not only found in the church, the Christian church is primarily responsible for the propagation of racism in society. This one is not obvious. Whether racism starts in the church or not, I cannot say. It may or it may not begin in the church, but whenever the church takes a stand against racism it cannot continue in Christian society. Also, whenever the church is silent or complicit in acknowledging racist attitudes then it only gets worse in the secular society.
Corollary-6: America in the early 21st Century is a racist society. It has been racist at least since the 17th century (and maybe was so even before Columbus discovered the New World). Neither the Civil War of the 19th century nor the Civil Rights laws of the 20th century eliminated racism. The specifics have shifted, however. The favored “race” is currently those people who are considered “black” in some form or another. The only accepted racism is that which favors those who are considered “black” or sometimes “Hispanic” (but rarely “Asian”) over those considered “white.”
Corollary-7: The descendants of aboriginal North Americans are likewise not helped by racist preferential treatment. “Reservations,” “Indian Casinos,” and other preferential treatment of so-called “Native Americans” are cruel racist jokes and do not truly serve the needs of the people who “benefit” from them. Both society as a whole and members of these groups are best served by assimilating into the greater culture as have the vast majority of subsequent immigrants such as Germans, Scottish, Irish, Italians, etc.
Corollary-8: Darwinists are inherently racist based on their false ideas about God and the origin and “evolution” of Man. They may claim otherwise, but whoever believes in some form of Darwinian evolution already believes that there is this process of “evolution” where creatures somehow magically (i.e. against all that is scientifically known) transform into something different and more “advanced”. Because of this Darwinists will always think that some people are better or more “evolved” than others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)