A Naturalistic Fairy Tale-Part XXX

And because we know that you may be less than appropriately scared about global warming we do now turn to what we have discovered from history. We ask that you not be distracted by Climategate, and listen carefully to what we have to tell you about the past.

We did discover a fossil in Antarctica of an animal that lived 252 million years ago.1 It was during the time when Pangea was whole, and the volcanoes did emit high amounts of greenhouse gasses. This gasification of the Earth did produce catastrophic global warming resulting in the death of 80-95 percent of life in the oceans and on land (Praise Science).

So, we do imagine that this fossil is of an animal that had no fur and “probably laid eggs.” We imagine it on the line between reptiles and mammals. We did find some related fossils in Africa, and therefore pieced together that these animals migrated south and lived with other animals that were probably the ancestors of mammals.

The team’s findings, published in the journal Naturwissenschaften, may offer insights into potential survival techniques for modern day animals threatened by climate change .

“Countless species are threatened by global warming today,” said Frobisch. “A prime example of a threatened species is the polar bear, whose habitat becomes increasingly smaller as a result of melting sea ice in the Arctic Circle.”

“However,” he added, “it is questionable whether the polar bear or other threatened animals can respond in the same way as Kombuisia did in the Permian, simply because human activities severely limit the animals’ possibilities.”

He concluded: “The primary lesson we should learn from the studies of extinction due to climate change in the past is that it is of utmost importance today to control and reverse human induced global warming by taking counteractive measures, such as greatly reducinggreenhouse gas emissions.”

Anyway, the animals and fossils are irrelevant, because the point is, if we don’t act soon, we’ll all be dead in a couple hundred years (Praise Science). Please don’t give up on being terrified of the environment, because Mother Earth is very angry at what you are doing to her. She will punish and probably kill you if you don’t straighten up and curtail your gaseous emissions.

1) Ancient animals escaped warming in Antarctica

The 10 Commandments of Materialistic Naturalism

Commenter Mike weighs in on mynym’s recent post. I thought it deserved a post of its own.


Another thing I find typical (and the thread you linked to is typical of this) is that it’s always the Darwinist who wants to bring up Creationism and Genesis in an ID debate. Usually this is accompanied by accusations of trying to enforce your “religion” on them. Sooner or later they will bring it up and accuse you. It’s practically inevitable. Then it’s always followed by some form of: “Oh Yeah? Well, my god is better than your god! Watch me crawl back into her womb now so I don’t have to listen to you”.

Darwinists have no problem allowing themselves to admit “design” and “purpose”, as long as it’s attributed to Mommy Nature, and not any other god. The fact is that evolution is a theological pursuit. It is a creation myth, not science. That’s why it’s defended with such religious fervor, and why blasphemers are to be condemned:

The 10 Commandments of Materialistic Naturalism:

I am Mommy Nature, Who Self-Ascended from the Great Nothing, who created all that is seen and unseen (though the unseen existeth not), who affirms your randomly-generated illusion of the miniscule portion of reality you think you perceive.

Behold:

1. Thou Shalt Love Me with all thy brain synapse firings and chemical reactions (for that is what Love is)

2. Thou Shalt recognize No gods before Me

3. Thou Shalt make an idol of DNA, and shall worship thy genome as an omnipotent agent of “progress”

4. Thou Shalt refer to me as “nurturing” and “clever”, and shall attribute “purpose” to me, though I do have No mind or being

5. Thou Shalt Not attribute to thyself any rationale for rationality, for thou were formed blindly, and by accident

6. Thou Shalt live a Lie, as if concepts of Mind do have inherent meaning, and are not the chemical processes they are, for thou art matter only

7. Thou Shalt believe in Non-Existence, and shall enthusiastically embrace it upon thy Death

8. Thou Shalt cite thy Imagination as Evidence of My Work, and shall do this by drawing fancy pictures of hypothetical ape-like creatures connected by arrows

9. Thou Shalt Believe in Chance, and not refer to it as Ignorance

10. Thou Shalt Not Believe in Moral Absolutes, yet thou shalt also refer to this belief as Good

Behold, I shall send you Messiah, the Holy Scientist who will reveal all, Redeeming all believers and Condemning all Blasphemers to lobotomies!

Materialism and Free Will

The Outsider (DB; one of my co-authors) has an interesting post on the continued materialist assault on the notion of free will.

Wow, so Flip Wilson was right, all those years ago, when he told the judge, “The Devil (or in this case, his “patterns of brain activity”) made me do it!” This gets all of us off of the hook, in a moral or ethical sense, since we are not responsible for our “brain pattern activity!” How can we be responsible when our “brain patterns” are making the choices for us?(1)

Read more:

(1). “But Judge, My Brain ‘Patterns’ Made Me Do It!”

A Naturalistic Fairy Tale-Part XX

And then did we, Most High Scientists, run a computer simulation of the universe back many billions of years in time.  We do know you are impressed by computer simulations (praise Science).  We hope you will forget we cannot predict the weather of this planet very well more than a few days ahead.  We shall, however, present our most recent simulation and we know you will be convinced, because facts are facts.

Thus, as we did run the simulation back in time, the universe did bounce.  We did not find the singularity that we previously said was true, in favor of the now, possibly, real truth.   Because of Loop Quantum Cosmology, did we discover that there was no singularity “before” the big bang (before time existed).  So, we do now assert an infinite recycling of the universe that colapses only to a certain point, expands and then collapses again.  We hope you’ll ignore that silly research that suggests that the current incarnation of the universe will never collapse, because we don’t have to worry about those silly issues that the ID proponents do bandy about.

Bojowald’s major realisation was that unlike general relativity, the physics of LQC did not break down at the big bang. Cosmologists dread the singularity because at this point gravity becomes infinite, along with the temperature and density of the universe. As its equations cannot cope with such infinities, general relativity fails to describe what happens at the big bang. Bojowald’s work showed how to avoid the hated singularity, albeit mathematically. “I was very impressed by it,” says Ashtekar, “and still am.” (1)

Do please ignore that we have not expressed our hatred for the singularity publicly.  We do not like to dissent from known facts in that way.  We do like to dissent from our own views only when we have a better naturalistic explanation (praise Science).

Through our cunning combination of Einstein’s (very very smart fellow) theory of gravity with quantum mechanics our computers were able to discern the nature of the “beginning.”  Please do not look up the dictionary definition of tangible (2).

We did hope that the singularity would disappear, and, praise Science it has.  But don’t look for it to disappear any time soon.  We like the sound of the words Big Bang, and will continue liking it (praise Science).

(1). http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026861.500-did-our-cosmos-exist-before-the-big-bang.html

(2). http://www.onelook.com/?w=tangible&ls=a

Does referencing the Creator inhibit science?

Many materialists (atheists and theistic evolutionists most often) argue that materialistic philosophy is key to scientific advancement. If any ideas of Creationists are allowed to even be referenced, then scientific progress will halt and people will die. There will be mass and widespread calamitous events, and we will return to the Dark Ages.

Mphuthumi Ntabeni at The Southern Cross writes:

Newton, Faraday, Maxwell and Copernicus referred to the Creator in their scientific writings. No one accused them of being unscientific because of that. There’s no rule that compels science to have a materialist outlook, it’s just an incident of history. (1)

I have yet to see any evidence that convinces me that scientific progress will be inhibited in any way by referencing notions of a designer or even God. Nor have I seen any evidence that is not just as easily explained from an ID or even a Creationist perspective as compared to a naturalistic evolution perspective. So far, I see Creationism as having the most explanatory power and ID as focusing on narrow range of observations and scientific phenomena. Both ID and Creation Science are scientific disciplines.

I must also say that I have yet to see how the theory of naturalistic evolution, on a macro scale, has ever contributed to applied science. The concept of abiogenesis has not contributed to applied science. The Big Bang Theory has not contributed to applied science. In short, the notion that Godless science leads to progress has no legs to stand on. Perhaps it will evolve those legs in the next several billions of years, but I won’t be holding my breath.

(1). My case for intelligent design, The Southern Cross, Mphuthumi Ntabeni, Nov. 9, 2008

Design Features

Applied science has to do with science that is bent on real-world applications of the research. For example, researchers can attempt to understand the “design features” of the human brain in order to advance computer technology.

So, consider for a moment, the techniques of reverse engineering. A scientist attempting to develop an artificial limb may consider how a human’s limb functions and its design characteristics. Darwinian evolution has nothing to contribute here, and basically almost nowhere in the realm of applied science (apart from simple natural selection algorithms).

I recently ran across an interesting article comparing computer technology to the human brain. (1) There are those who are doubtful that we will ever be able to match the engineering feat that is the human brain. I am one of those people. At every point along the way there have been different prevailing analogies for the functioning of the human brain. All have proved insufficient, just as the computer analogy also proves insufficient. However, this reductionistic framework is not without implications. It is a viewpoint that leads to further reductionistic and materialistic ways of viewing the world.

A comment attached to the bottom of the article was also amusing:

Get real. Think. If design principles were active in our creation, then there was a Designer who employed those principles. This includes the hardware and the software. You would not be able to consciously think about anything without an embedded BiOS (Bible Input-Output System) that the Designer built in, which gives you the preconditions for intelligibility of the world. Everyone has it. You couldn’t run the thinking application without it. But just as a good computer can be tricked into running malware (malicious software), a created being can be tricked into thinking its brain is a product of evolution. That is necessarily false. The brain could not even run that malware without the BiOS.
When you’re infected with this deep-seated, entrenched virus, or any of the other malware that information terrorists inserted into the global shipment, the only solution is to recognize that fact, then wipe, reinstall, and patch. Fortunately, outstanding technical support is just a call away (Isaiah 55:6-9) – and it’s free, straight from the Designer himself. Operations Manuals are also freely available by request (see BlueLetterBible and Bible Gateway, or that book in your hotel room drawer).

(1). http://creationsafaris.com/crev200809.htm#20080914a