Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


So your humble blogger is back from a long and well deserved vacation.

To get the post-vacation season off to a proper start, I provide you, dear and humble reader with a video which I came across and strongly feel should be watched…

… and watched by all!

Will have more to say when I catch up with the office work.

Enjoy…

UPDATE 03:20 6 August 2019

Today more on a striking PHENOMENON that your humble blogger has been following for quite some time. Actually, since the inception of this blog.

What is important to this blogger’s understanding of what is the OBJECTIVE REALITY at present, and how this will affect the Holy Roman Catholic Church going forward, is a general understanding of where Western Civilization is on the below layed out  developmental continuum. The continuum itself was initially set out by Cardinal Newman and is presently contained in an article written by Dr. Peter Kwasniewski (on the relationship between antiquarianism and modernism) here:

Cardinal Newman perceived this connection (Ed. note: between antiquarianism and modernism) when he claimed that dogmatic Protestantism, which took as its justification the proclamation of the “original uncorrupted” Gospel, has a tendency, due to hermeneutical subjectivism, to degenerate into liberal Protestantism, which in turn tends to degenerate into ethical rationalism, agnostic naturalism, and atheistic secularism.

And with respect to secular atheism, we know how that manifests itself on an individual level: NIHILISM.

And as we can see from the tweet above, a Civilization (culture) grounded in NIHILISM is neither stable nor is it sustainable.

Therefore, the above Newman continuum needs to provide a way back to “sustainability”.

And it is this “way back to sustainability”, that this humble blog has been chronicling over the last 5 years.

So let’s define a way back then:

Atheistic secularism -> agnostic naturalism -> ethical rationalism -> liberal Protestantism -> Catholic Tradition.

On an aside, this is the point of Dr. Kwasniewski’s article linked to above. But I digress…

With respect to the state of Western Civilization, given the video at the top of this post and the EVIDENCE in the below republished article from the American Thinker blog, this humble blogger suspects that as a whole, Western Civilization is somewhere between “ethical rationalism” and moving to an informal sort of “liberal Protestantism”.

The anecdotal proof supporting this claim is the worldwide PHENOMENON that is Dr. Jordan Peterson and specifically the growing informal group that follows him known as the “Christian atheists”.

Further proof (mathematical in nature) is provided in the Meyer/Berlinski/Gelernter video above.

And you can’t argue with math…

*****

August 5, 2019

Gallup, Darwinism, and Scientism

Gallup recently announced that forty percent of all Americans believe in creationism.  A better storyline to its recent polling data might be that only one in five Americans believes in Darwinism, which was a wobbly theory when first proposed almost two centuries ago and which has become an increasingly improbable explanation for the origin of life and species during the last two hundred years.  That would be a better storyline, but it is not the storyline presented by Gallup.

Darwinists are invariably the product of an educational system that has as little to do with free thought as the educational systems of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.  Groupthink, instead, is what these institutions create and nurture.  There are no longer “schools of thought,” but simply “settled science” and its detractors (those with free and thinking minds). 

It is Darwinism, not its alternative theories, that is an intolerant system of blind faith that brooks no reconsideration, no conflicting scientific opinion, and no independent thought.  This shows up not only in the purging of academicians who hold politically incorrect views in life sciences, which Ben Stein exposed in his 2008 documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, but in deliberate mischaracterization of the debates about the origin of life.  

Consider creationism, one strain which comprises the theory that life developed literally according to the Bible.  Darwinists dishonestly pretend creationism is presented as the only non-Darwinian explanation for the beginning and development of life and any theory that conflicts with Darwinism is in fact creationism. 

In fact, creationism is one explanation for the origin and development of life.  Anyone who suggests that no true scientist could believe in creationism shows ignorance of the scientific opinion of practically all the great scientists who gave us the Scientific Revolution.  Lord Kelvin, whose Second Law of Thermodynamics was considered the most important law in all science by Einstein, and who lived well into the twentieth century, was a creationist.

Intelligent Design is a second explanation for the origin and development of life.  The premise of that theory — that a Creator made a universe in which life would develop and grow — is “unscientific” only to those who find the idea of God “unscientific” as well, again something that virtually none of the fathers of modern science believed.

Sir Isaac Newton, the greatest scientist in history, devoted the latter part of his life almost exclusively to biblical studies and was considered by contemporaries as one of the greatest biblical scholars alive.  This was pre-Darwin, and the attitude of prominent atheists of the time, like Voltaire, was that Newton had gotten silly in his old age.  Voltaire based this upon his own anti-theistic bigotry and nothing else.

There is a third body of scientific opinion that rejects Darwinism as an old, failed explanation theory that merited serious consideration until we began to understand the breathtaking complexity of life at its lowest levels without embracing any theological opinion on the origin of life.

Sir Fred Hoyle, without whose work in determining how heavy elements could be formed in the universe Darwinism would have collapsed decades ago, began to calculate how probable the development of life by accident would be an concluded that it is impossible: life could never develop randomly, as proposed by Darwin, whose theory Hoyle in the 1980s called “nonsense of a high order.”

Forty years ago, the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Physiology held a symposium of mathematicians and biologists.  The conclusion of the mathematicians, after calculating all of the many wildly improbable layers of assumptions necessary for Darwinism to work, was that the origin and development of life according to Darwin’s old, worn out theory was simply impossible.  What was the response of the Darwinist biologists?  Simply this: The calculations of the mathematicians must be wrong since evolution happened.  No evidence or analysis could disprove Darwinism.

What that means is that Darwinists are too lazy and too dumb and too corrupt to look for a more workable scientific theory for the origin and development of life.  They view as “science” what props up their creaky ideology, just as Marxists consider their prophets’ failed musings as “science” and Freudians ignore all the utterly unproven assumptions in Freud’s theories as “science” and global warming disciples rewrite old temperature data to conform to their phony theory and consciously suppress data that disproves it.

Scientism is the enemy of science.  The triumph of scientism is the death of science.  Scientism forecloses alternative theories and demands totalitarian groupthink.  No task ahead is more vital than exposing and debunking the invented pseudo-science of scientism.  Indeed, if we fail in this task, we are doomed.

Advertisements