This from one of my most ardent admirers –
Don said: Best regards and keeping it civil, Don.
Mac: I don’t consider it ‘civil’ to mention ‘grandkids’ 6 times while proselytising for the god virus, unethically advising & immorally encouraging indoctrination of innocent youth into the faithism drug addiction Don has been suckered into by his uneducated, simplistic submission into reality-blind, ignorant, belief in myths – without any good, supportable, testable scientific evidence.
I am trying to keep to the request by NCSE to be civil by holding back on my well-evidenced, accurate, rational & educated descriptors that I’ve used against your 191 intrusive, unwanted comments here.
Suffice it to say that I’ve made my feelings extremely clear in the past & anyone can look in my Comment History to see far more clearly how I treat your antics & tactics, which I still see as subversive, seditious, treasonous, unAmerican, illegal in Science Education & thoroughly disgusting, insidious behavior from a so-called adult.
Your mental conditioning & religiously directed social output is clear evidence of the damage that religion & faith do to otherwise sane humans, which is why this NCSE organisation is so badly needed in this massively troubled world – just look around at all the problems ‘created’ by folk who believe in various gods & are willing to kill or die according to their personal interpretations of ‘His Word’.
You & your type make me sick, ashamed that our species can stoop so low, ‘manufacturing’ lunatics who constantly undermine the magic of reality & who abuse the highly improbable fact of being alive in this awesome universe.
I wish there was a Hell for you to go to when your one, sick, sad life is done.
You can follow the train of discussion which generated this comment at Say What? The Dallas Morning News.
This is the blog site of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) where I have been intrusive now for many months.
And why you ask have I been so intrusive over these many months, at a place where my point of view is clearly not welcomed … ?
Because, as I see it NCSE, is a very influential and powerful organization whose primary mission is to insure that the only view of science, and in particular the origin and emergence of life, is the view of neo-Darwinism to the total exclusion of any other … and further, to actively censor even the discussion of anything else at all levels of education in American schools from Kindergarten to Post Graduate. I have several problems with this:
First of all I abhor the very idea of censorship, which I view as a necessary and historically consistent step on the road to tyranny. (What I find very ironic however, is that the NCSE blog itself is open for discussion and does get a fair amount of opposing opinion, including my own … and in a very ironic sense, I genuinely appreciate NCSE for allowing my comments and my opposing views.)
I participate in this discussion here at NCSE because I wish to see full and civil discussion of the various views of life … its origin and its emergence. I wish to see our young and old citizens alike availed of the opportunity to see, read and study the best thinking on these matters. I resist what I see as a concerted, powerful and directed effort to turn our young students into atheists.
I participate because I see that the very beginnings of modern science, in so many areas, came about through men holding a theistic view of reality – the God Hypothesis if you will.
Founders of Modern Science – men having a Biblical world view:
Leonardo de Vinci … Johann Kepler … Francis Bacon … Blaise Pascal … Robert Boyle … John Ray … Nicholas Steno … Galileo … Robert hook … William Harvey … Christian Huygens … John Harris … Isaac Newton … Thomas Burnet … William Whiston … John Woodward … Carolus Linnaeus … Jonathan Edwards … Will Herschel … Michael Faraday … Humphrey Davy … Georges Culver … Timothy Dwight … Benjamin Silliman … Samuel F.B. Morse … Charles Bell … Joseph Henry … William Buckland … Charles Babbage … David Brewster … Matthew Maury … James Simpson … James Joule … John Herschel … John Dalton …
And a few more notable scientists from more modern times:
Gregor Mendel … Lois Pasteur … Henri Fabre … Lord Kelvin … Joseph Lister … James Clark Maxwell …
… and others.
Look for the life stories and accomplishments of these men – you can use Wikipedia, but a compact rendering of these men can be found in Men of Science Men of God by Henry Morris.
Many of todays neo-Darwinists and atheists such as Gerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins would seem to rationalize, minimize – if not outright dismiss the Biblical world view of these great scientists and place the post Darwin Materialist/Naturalist world view at the head (the only head) of the class.
Having studied this evolution/creation controversy for a number of years now, I have come to see that there are many serious flaws and unanswered questions surrounding this very dominant view of evolution as the total and sufficient explanation of life on this planet – let alone the explanation of the origin of the universe itself. These flaws exist at the philosophical and ideological foundations, as well as in the evidentiary story line.
Starting at the philosophical/ideological level, is the underpinning definitions of Naturalism and Materialism upon which much of modern science rests – from Wikipedia:
Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are the result of material interactions.
Naturalism is “the idea or belief that only laws of nature (physical law) (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) and forces operate in the world; the idea or belief that nothing exists beyond the natural world.” Adherents of naturalism (i.e., naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the changing universe at every stage is a product of these laws.
From these underpinnings come assertions of fact from some very prominent men of modern science – the smartest men in the world – such as:
“ … tiny quantum fluctuations in the very early universe became the seeds from which galaxies, stars, and ultimately human life emerged” Stephen Hawking
“Creation … , really does amount to something complicated springing spontaneously into existence.” Richard Dawkins
“The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be … .” Carl Sagan
These assertions, among others in a similar vein, by these very influential men – as well as the very definitions they are derived from, seem to demonstrate an enormous arrogance and a sense – indeed a claim – of omniscience not even claimed by the Bible. You see, to make such claims and indeed to assert them as foundational fact, requires the one making such claims be sitting at a place outside of time and the universe itself – viewing all of time and the unfolding of all matter and energy in all of its forms from the very beginning.
Why do I say the Bible makes no such claims of omniscience? Doesn’t the Bible claim “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.?” And “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.?”
Yes it does, but the difference is that the Biblical writers attribute this omniscience to someone who is beyond time and space, to one who does sit at a place outside of the universe itself – including time. They do not place themselves in such a place of time.
The very human and very limited human Materialist/Naturalist thinker and writer, in contrast, puts himself in that exalted position.
Moving to the “scientific” or evidentiary basis of evolution, we immediately bump up against the Materialism/Naturalism definition defined above along with the proponents of such views. We bump up against this wall because with these definitions they have very neatly erected a very high wall with themselves inside the wall, and any dissenting view outside the wall. This is very clearly pointed out as follows: [emphasis mine]
‘Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
Professor Richard Lewontin,
And there are many serious objections to the world view of the neo-Darwinist that should be openly available to the public, and there are many trying to break through that wall of separation – both from within and without. A few of note are:
And my own blog which you are reading now … I don’t claim any advanced degrees or hands on experience, especially in the field of biology and the life science, nor cosmology or astro-physics, but I have accumulated many of my own thoughts on the topics as well as highlighting the works of others as noted above. These can be found by clicking on CATEGORIES on the right side of the main page, and also from CREATION-EVOLUTION on the top most menu bar on the blog.
There is much offered, and rather than repeating it here, let me point out a few articles by myself and others.
Some Basic Evolutionary Questions | A Yearning for Publius This highlights a significant list of unanswered questions and concerns about the theory of evolution. Thanks to Dr. Cornelius Hunter for this list, as well of a few of my own questions.
But any of these thoughts, and especially any of the proponents of these thoughts, are immediately cast as being in the arena of pseudo-science and superstition – simply because proponents of Intelligent Design or Creationism (not the same thing) refuse to abide by the Materialistic/Naturalist dogma. Along with this is the common debate tactic of personal destruction by way of insult and personal attack as illustrated by my lead in quote above.
So let’s return to that quote. I don’t intend to do any kind of detailed rebuttal here, but a few points of clarification might be helpful:
CdnMacAtheist is Canadian, not a US citizen.
“ … I still see as subversive, seditious, treasonous, unAmerican, illegal in Science Education & thoroughly disgusting, insidious behavior from a so-called adult. … “
Mac knows I am a Navy veteran (honorable discharge I might add), and views my being a Christian and an advocate of ID and creationism as somehow in violation of the 1’st Amendment to the US (not Canadian) Constitution. In another response to me he accused me of pedophilia because I recommended to a young NCSE intern that she look into the idea of Intelligent Design.
So I’ll leave it up to the reader here to judge my crimes and hang me – or not.
Don Johnson – August 2014