Category Archives: Bogus Science
Et tu Brute? What is Scientism: William Lane Craig
Take care in whom/what you trust…
Read more… The Rusty cage of Scientism
Faith, Science, and Reason. The Pomposity of Atheism.
Science goes Ga Ga! The Spirit Temple-Material Interface. The Human Brain.
David Berlinski—Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions
The wise man build’s his house upon the Rock of God’s infallible word!….
Read more>>>The Divine Rock of Revelation<<<
Richard Dawkins Produces Another Theist: Proslogion
Dr. Laura Keynes grew up in Cambridge, arguably the intellectual center of the United Kingdom. She studied at the University College of Oxford on a full-ride scholarship and ended up earning a Doctor of Philosophy degree. Her doctoral thesis was on epistemology, the study of knowledge and justified belief. As her last name indicates, she is the great-grandniece of the famous economist John Maynard Keynes. She is also the great-great-great-granddaughter of Charles Darwin.
Why am I telling you about this young lady? Because she recently wrote an article entitled, “I’m a Direct Descendant of Darwin…and a Catholic.” Now the title didn’t surprise me at all. I know a lot of Catholics (and even more Protestants) who believe in evolution. Indeed, one of the leaders of the Intelligent Design movement, Dr. Michael Behe, says:1
You can be a good Catholic and believe in Darwinism. Biochemistry has made it increasingly difficult, however, to be a thoughtful scientist and believe in it.
However, as I read the article, I couldn’t help but smile. You see, Laura was raised Catholic but drifted away from the faith after her mother became a Buddhist and her brother rejected all organized religion. By the time she was studying for her Doctor of Philosophy degree, she was an agnostic. During that time, however, Richard Dawkins had opened up an international dialogue on the existence of God with his thoroughly awful book, The God Delusion. Well, Laura decided to read Dawkins and his fellow New Atheists, and she says:
I expected to be moved from agnosticism to atheism by their arguments, but after reading on both sides of the debate, I couldn’t dismiss a compelling intellectual case for faith. As for being good without God, I’d tried and didn’t get very far. At some point, life will bring you to your knees, and no act of will is enough in that situation. Surrendering and asking for grace is the logical human response.
I don’t think that’s the response Dawkins and his colleagues were hoping for. The entire article is worth a read, because it really shows how an intellectual person should respond to what the New Atheists have produced:
I read central texts on both sides of the debate and found more to convince me in the thoughtful and measured responses of Alister McGrath and John Cornwell, among others, than in the impassioned prose of Hitchens et al. New Atheism seemed to harbor a germ of intolerance and contempt for people of faith that could only undermine secular Humanist claims to liberalism.
Notice what she did. She read the central texts on both sides of the debate. Most people don’t do that, but it is the most important thing a real intellectual can do. I suspect that working on her dissertation made her realize that there is no such thing as an unbiased argument. All authors start with their preconceived notions, which color the way they view and present the evidence. As a result, the only way to come close to getting an unbiased view of the debate is to read from both sides. By doing that, you will hopefully be able to start seeing how the various authors are “coloring” the evidence, and that will allow you to remove some of the “coloring” and look at the evidence a bit more clearly.
When Laura did that, she saw something that should be immediately obvious to those who read both sides of this debate: the New Atheists are full of bluster and bravado, but their arguments are incredibly weak. Those who have responded to the New Atheists (at least the ones she read) provide a start contrast. They are calm, measured, and rational in their response. According to her, this contrast helped to demonstrate that the majority of the evidence clearly goes against the atheist position, and the bluster of the New Atheists is an attempt to cover up this inconvenient fact. As a result, she returned to the faith of her childhood.
Read more >>here<<
Creationism or evolutionism: the theory of evolution refuted.
Update…
Though I cant profess to being a privileged member of any high society of Academia the responses I have received on two Facebook pages which claim to be forums for discussion on the rationality of the Christian faith and Creationism…. are very telling…
Facebook page 1….
JL wrote… Big Fail by you Tim Wikiriwhi
CRA wrote… I was looking for two facts. Instead I found a video link. Video blogs are almost always both poorly done, and set up by people who are neither able to write nor reason well, so I see no reason to waste time watching.
If you have any actual facts to present, please present a cogent argument with references from credible sources. When speaking on scientific topics such as the theory of evolution, an example of a credible reference would be a link to research published in a peer-reviewed journal. Links to personal or advocacy sites, accounts of personal revelation, unpublished research (or research published anywhere other than in a peer-reviewed journal), scriptures, and personal opinions are not evidence.
Tim Wikiriwhi (me) wrote… 1,2…. non-answers.
The video was very short and presented two facts Cynthia….not personal opinions
yet all you do is make a general smear against ‘video blogs’… and prove you are too lazy to watch the video… yet still feel vindicated making a comment…. sharing with us *your un-referenced personal opinion*.
Sort of hypocritical dont you think?
May I suggest you only comment on things you actually bother to examine?
You waffle on about ‘credible references’… as if an argument requires the signature of one of your ‘priests’ …
ZH wrote…. He makes a series of misrepresentation of evolution. Around 0:24 seconds into the short video, he made his first misrepresentation. He claims that evolution claims life came from non life. This is false, as evolution never claimed to have authority on our origins in a cosmological sense. It’s intent is to explain the complexity of life and what lead up to what it is today.
A second later, he makes the claim that it is a random process. Most of evolution is in fact the complete opposite. Though there is no grand exterior force manipulating what happens, we know that mutation often occurs as the result of natural selection. A process in where traits best suited for one species typically carries on to later generation, as those carrying those traits have a higher likely hood of procreation.
JP wrote… What facts did your video present?
BB wrote… Yes what facts were those Tim Wikiriwhi?
“IF living organism cannot produce new genetic information.’
IF. Which is an assumption.
Life has never been observed to come from non-life?
Is that the other one?
CRA wrote…. Unlike you, Tim, I’m haven’t made any claims about presenting “facts” that supposedly refute an established scientific theory. When a person makes such claims, he must be prepared to be held to a high standard. You would seem to be lacking in that preparation.
I promise you that if I ever claim to have scientific information to offer, it will be backed with credible references. At the moment, I am quite comfortable with the knowledge that the lack of communication skills and coherence displayed on your comment are wholly consistent with my overall opinion of most video bloggers. You fail to provide the promised “facts,” instead attacking someone who has expressed a willingness to read them if you will but write them out and show your proof.
ZH wrote… XXXXX: I noticed he made no attempts at explaining why what he perceived about evolution to be true. He uses instead vague generalization and intentional misrepresentations of evolution, to undermine the complexity of evolution . Thus shallowly “winning” without having to actually say anything.
SH wrote… What exactly do they mean by “new genetic information”? The term is always defined very vaguely in these arguments.
Also, even if all current models of Abiogenesis were proven unworkable, populations will still change over successive generations. Evolution will still happen.
To be clear, Evolution-theory does not need Abiogenesis(life coming from non-life), it just needs living organisms.
Face book page 2….
TBI said… OMG! That two minute vid just disproved evolution with its deep insight into scientific theory!!! Oh, wait… No, it didn ‘t.
AM said … LOL!
AM said… I watched it. As a Christian, it disturbed me. Dishonesty (especially lying about science and terminology) is not good for the Kingdom of Jesus Christ. The video was a sad rehash of the usual pseudo-science factoids/myths. Truly pathetic.
ACC says… Shaw Wow. That video just made me devolve. Nonsense.
SW says…. that’s an impressive amount of lies and stupidity crammed into a single 2 minute video.
JA say’s…. Seen that video some time ago – it is as crassly ignorant now as it was the first time.
TB says… Even the title of the video demonstrates a logical fallacy; false dichotomy.
****My answer***** which follows I submitted to FB2 yet exposes all these replies from both FB pages…
Tim Wikiriwhi….
“Hahaha… 1,2,3,4,5,6,7… replies All devoid of rebuttal!
This is when you Atheists are supposed to say…. “Oh here is an example of life from Dead matter…. and here is proof of how A fish got the genes to grow lungs and legs…”
You all are Emperors with no clothes….”
….And that folks is how the Atheists deal with two absolute scientific facts they cant refute….
By Slander and denial.
Evolution cannot even get to first base… let alone second base…
The Zombie God Of Atheist Evolution. Re: Math Magic and Ultimate Mythical Power…..Infinite Probability.
Still believe your own existence is the result of a series of fortuitous accidents????
I have one word to describe your position….. *Foolishness*.
Read more…
Multiplying Absurdities Equals Certainty… The Math Magic of Modern Atheist Astrologers!
The False Deity Called Evolution.
Update:
No sooner did I post this Blog to an anti-Christian Forum I was met with comments…. “Stop Spamming! you’re just using this page for self promotion”…. ‘This post demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of Evolution….
My Reply to Atheists:
“Ha! That’s not an argument. just more hot air.
Definitively Ad Hominem …. Instead of addressing the argument you say I am engaged in ‘Self promotion’… Nor is there any need to expand on what I have presented.
It is a simple demonstration of reality.
What makes you cringe is that you know that you are now supposed to argue that what that you believe that what the photo shows…. is possible.
That no matter how this goes against common sense that Math says it is possible….. though improbable….. And yet we all know that this will never happen…. Blind forces of Nature don’t fold washing…. don’t Generate life…. dont turn Germs into people…. You are utterly undone.
Heretic! Defying the Establishment…Secular Excommunication for Free Thinking and Un-orthodox Scientific Research: PHD Welfareism
Try denying Big Bang Dogma…and see what happens to your career in science..
Try suggesting that Naturalistic Materialism is a blind faith….
Try suggesting Science has not dis-proven the Soul…or Freewill.
The Folly of Scientism. Austin L. Hughes
The Folly of Scientism
Austin L. Hughes
When I decided on a scientific career, one of the things that appealed to me about science was the modesty of its practitioners. The typical scientist seemed to be a person who knew one small corner of the natural world and knew it very well, better than most other human beings living and better even than most who had ever lived. But outside of their circumscribed areas of expertise, scientists would hesitate to express an authoritative opinion. This attitude was attractive precisely because it stood in sharp contrast to the arrogance of the philosophers of the positivist tradition, who claimed for science and its practitioners a broad authority with which many practicing scientists themselves were uncomfortable.
The temptation to overreach, however, seems increasingly indulged today in discussions about science. Both in the work of professional philosophers and in popular writings by natural scientists, it is frequently claimed that natural science does or soon will constitute the entire domain of truth. And this attitude is becoming more widespread among scientists themselves. All too many of my contemporaries in science have accepted without question the hype that suggests that an advanced degree in some area of natural science confers the ability to pontificate wisely on any and all subjects.
Of course, from the very beginning of the modern scientific enterprise, there have been scientists and philosophers who have been so impressed with the ability of the natural sciences to advance knowledge that they have asserted that these sciences are the only valid way of seeking knowledge in any field. A forthright expression of this viewpoint has been made by the chemist Peter Atkins, who in his 1995 essay “Science as Truth” asserts the “universal competence” of science. This position has been called scientism — a term that was originally intended to be pejorative but has been claimed as a badge of honor by some of its most vocal proponents. In their 2007 book Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized, for example, philosophers James Ladyman, Don Ross, and David Spurrett go so far as to entitle a chapter “In Defense of Scientism.”
Modern science is often described as having emerged from philosophy; many of the early modern scientists were engaged in what they called “natural philosophy.” Later, philosophy came to be seen as an activity distinct from but integral to natural science, with each addressing separate but complementary questions — supporting, correcting, and supplying knowledge to one another. But the status of philosophy has fallen quite a bit in recent times. Central to scientism is the grabbing of nearly the entire territory of what were once considered questions that properly belong to philosophy. Scientism takes science to be not only better than philosophy at answering such questions, but the only means of answering them. For most of those who dabble in scientism, this shift is unacknowledged, and may not even be recognized. But for others, it is explicit. Atkins, for example, is scathing in his dismissal of the entire field: “I consider it to be a defensible proposition that no philosopher has helped to elucidate nature; philosophy is but the refinement of hindrance.”
Is scientism defensible? Is it really true that natural science provides a satisfying and reasonably complete account of everything we see, experience, and seek to understand — of every phenomenon in the universe? And is it true that science is more capable, even singularly capable, of answering the questions that once were addressed by philosophy? This subject is too large to tackle all at once. But by looking briefly at the modern understandings of science and philosophy on which scientism rests, and examining a few case studies of the attempt to supplant philosophy entirely with science, we might get a sense of how the reach of scientism exceeds its grasp.
Read more>>>> Here:
Read my take on Scientism>>>>> The Rusty Cage: Scientism.
Defunct / Archaic Western Dogma blindly insists : ‘Whatever does not fit the Naturalistic Materialist Paradigm is Illusory’. Entity Attacks
^^^ A FB Friend posted this You tube video.
I was an Atheist Materialist when I experienced this Phenomenon first hand.
And it was like a demonic attack…. very frightening…. very real.
I have placed a link below to a previous blogpost in which I describe my experience, thus there is no need for to repeat myself other than to reinforce the very important fact that Because like the appearance of design in Biology…like freewill… because ‘Ghosts’… ‘Demons’….etc don’t fit into the Materialist world view… ‘western thinkers’ will do everything the can to deny they exist…even when millions of people report first hand experiences with them.
Thus Materialists will deny reality to defend their Bogus ideology…. and they do this all the Dooo Daaa Day!
What Materialists assert goes something like this…. Free will? … You are deceived.
Saw a Ghost? … You imagined it.
Biology looks designed? … It’s an illusion.
…Then they Pompously declare with full pious conviction of absolute authority… “There is no Evidence of any Reality which is not explainable via Naturalistic Materialism! All that exists is Matter and energy …. therefore Atheism is true!”
…and Millions of Sheeple are suckered by this trickery… they want this to be true.
The fact is they have shut their eyes to reality… *as it really is*… for the sake of maintaining their Atheist Naturalistic Materialism…
Thus when confronted with this virtually universal experienced historical phenomenon of an Evil entity attack which crosses millennia and cultural boarders rather than admit the possibility of Demons… they have invented a bogus theory that makes these millions of people out to be suffering some sort of ‘sleep dysfunction’… Thus no amount of personal testimony will ever convince them to abandon their fanatical superstition.
These are Factual Spiritual attacks is the best explanation.
The only reason that Western Psychiatry wont accept this as the truth is because it does not fit into their personal belief system.
Everything about this phenomenon points to demonic attack… the victims see and feel the demon!
Yet victims are told to doubt their own first hand experience because *some quacks* don’t like to admit that the facts support the reality of the super Natural.
They put their own prejudices ahead of Empirical facts.
Read My personal experience with Entity Attack….>>>> The Green Manalishi.
I have been discussing the superstition of Materialism, morality and Free will with an Atheist Facebook friend I am trying to help ‘see the light’.
Their answers are textbook naturalism…. textbook Materialist *assumption*… “We are just our brains”…”We don’t have free will…. We are not Morally responsible… etc.
I am not mocking these answers.
They are understandable given that Naturalistic Scientism which Western Civilisation has embraced.
They are ‘orthodox dogma….
I pointed out that Materialist Naturalism…” is a faith, nothing more… and based upon some archaic Rationale which was formulated several centuries before Science proved the whole Universe, Matter, and energy had a beginning… were created… just as the Theists claimed it was.
Materialism was born out of ignorance… the belief that the Universe was eternal. I would ask you to re-read your last two comments (Re: No Free will… no Moral responsibility) and *really contemplate* whether or not they are believable *in the face of Reality*?
I appreciate they are consistent with a belief that *we ….and everything else is only Matter*, and yet In the face of experience… of empirical reality..Is it plausible to deny that we have free will, and are not morally responsible for our actions?
I fully understand why Materialism forbids freewill.
You need to grasp the fact that Free will is not denied because of empirical evidence, but because of the *Ideological difficulty* it presents to Materialism.
Free will destroys Materialism.
If we have free will then Materialism is proven false… and that is why Evolutionist scientists are hell bent on convincing people that Free will is just an illusion….
They must con you this way or else admit their theory is wrong.
Let me do a small experiment. I ask you to touch your nose with your left hand.
Now I argue that there is no physical Causal Determinism between me asking you to do this random thing, and whether or not you actually do it.
*You have feel will to choose*
You see that if you do do it, to believe you had no choice you must assume that Me asking you this random question, and your performing the task are all pre-determined by the Big bang and that we had no say in this experiment… that we are utterly slaves… and not even responsible for this conversation…. That’s how crazy Materialism is!
I have written a lot these subjects. Below is a blog on a short You tube video about our minds.
Science goes Ga Ga! The Spirit Temple-Material Interface. The Human Brain.
The reason it is important to appreciate the historic timeline of when Materialism was borne is because prior to the scientific acceptance for a beginning of the Universe the materialists could claim that all reality was (in theory) within the scope/ reach of naturalistic science…. but once it was admitted that the universe was not eternal, that necessitates the existence of a greater….beyond the universe….beyond physics…out of which the Universe and Law of Matter…were borne.
This means there is a greater reality than mere materialist Laws of physics… A greater Non-physical reality that could be described as a ‘spiritual reality’…. it is because of this that materialists have had to invent… a second level of ‘Deadness’…. The ‘God’ of Materialism is now an absolutely unproven entity deemed to be… ‘a quantum field’…. This is wholly an invention of the atheist mind designed to hide the fact that their materialism was in fact proven wrong and that the greater reality lies behind the laws of matter and is not governed by them.
Materialism is Defunct!
It has been overthrown with the progress of science.
The Atheist of the Gaps is being utterly crushed!
The myth making processes of Pseudo Science. The Epic Tale of the Simple cell. (Part 1)
^^^^This Video is very interesting as it gives us an insight into how The pseudo scientific theory of Abiogenesis has been constructed so as to appear ‘Believable’…. It even has a Power point display featuring the timeline when Dr Szostak authoritatively asserts that a certain experiment made faith in the Fabled Primitive ‘RNA Cell’ ‘believable! …The RNA World hypothesis…. Gilbert 1986.
It must be remembered that this so-called primitive RNA cell is a complete fabrication of their imagination and that no such cells exist. It’s a lot like the tooth fairy. 😀
It is also worth noting that looking at cells as the really are…ie DNA Cells… Dr Szotak admits that they are staggering complex…. rendering absurd faith in the plausibility of Abiogenesis.
To avoid this scientific fact… they have invented a fictitious entity and deemed it to be the primitive ‘simple cell’.
What is valuable to witness in that video is the *Rationalizations at work*…. The way reality is avoided, and a fake reality conjured up…. Its like a Magic show.
And those who have been Steeped in Naturalism their whole lives don’t even notice they are being led down the garden path because of the method employed to propagate the faith.
Simply by attaching the word ‘Modern’ to cells as they are found to be in reality… they sucker the gullible Devotees into fantasizing about a time billions of years ago when cells were ‘primitive’…. and ‘simple’.
These types of arbitrarily imposed declarations go on all day every day in Evolutionary theory …. eg like we are taught to think of Reptiles as having not merely different brains to us… but ‘Primitive brains’… are Pre-loaded with evolutionary Bents which are completely unfounded… complete fabrications… complete conjecture…. completely subjectively determined by the Darwinian predisposition of the scientists, and are not objectively valid as scientific fact.
We see The Evolutionists arguing from ignorance and Parading in the Gaps. eg when Dr Szostak presents what he calls circumstantial evidence for belief in ‘Primitive RNAA Cells’ he first points to what he calls ‘the working part of the Molecule’ and then next points a connected ‘Nucleotide’… which he says is there ‘for no apparent reason’ and asks ‘What’s it doing there?’… and then proceeds from ignorance to say ‘the best’ way to make sense of that is that it is ‘a handle’… what he now deems it to be a Relic from its primitive past…
Why does he say this Conjecture ‘the best explanation’???
Simply because it an opportunity for him to impose his pre-disposition into this gap… this ignorance of what purpose/ reason why that Nucleotide is there.
This is how Pseudo-scientific Superstitions are germinated, tended, and Believed.
My Remarks above only cover the first quarter of this video.
I will make more tomorrow.
It’s bed time.
Tim Wikiriwhi
Read More….
That moment when they begin to explain that Abiogenesis is not Spontaneous Generation.
The Walls are closing in on Atheism… not Theism.
Pasteur’s Law, Creation Science vs Nose Bone Atheism.
Dingbat Atheist Pseudo-science. Instant Life… just add water!
Multiplying Absurdities Equals Certainty… The Math Magic of Modern Atheist Astrologers!
That moment when they begin to explain that Abiogenesis is not Spontanious Generation.
My Meme.
To Deny that Abiogenesis is the same thing as Spontaneous generation is the equivalent of saying “Eagles and Chickens” are not both ‘Birds’.
Ie The Evolutionist Atheist deludes themselves that the superficial differences between modern definitions of Abiogenesis and classical ‘Spontaneous generation’ are more important than the fundamental traits that denote their common classification.
By the very same logic that in spite of some ‘cosmetic’ differences Both Eagles and Chickens are Birds… because they qualify to be denoted as such… ie *both* are feathered, winged, bipedal, endothermic (warm-blooded), egg-laying, vertebrate animals… so too is Abiogenesis… as a form of spontaneous generation deserve to be denoted as unquestionably belonging to the same class of hypothesis for the origin of life… in spite of the Machaevellian Sophist delineations it inherited…. which were expressly formulated to try and divorce it from its scientifically discredited mythical ancestor, … because Abiogenesis still bears the fundamental attributes of that classification !
Ie .. the idea that life can arise naturalistically… spontaneously …automatically… given the correct fortuitous conditions…from innate matter… without Intelligent interventions.
It is literally impossible…. despite the zeal of Atheists to cover over their deceit, to divorce Abiogenesis from it’s Fundamental classification as a sexed up rehash of the theory of Spontaneous generation.
The coining of the term ‘Abiogenesis’ is in reality one of the most blatantly dishonest of semantic ploys ever conceived!
Fanatical Atheists found it necessary to perpetrate this Intellectual crime…. this blatant lie out of shear desperation to save their Naturalistic Materialistic faith.
Today The Atheist Sheeple across the world wide web Deny!, Deny!, Deny!, that Abiogenesis is Spontaneous Generation in Drag.
This denial is a pathetic and futile attempt to escape the implications of Pasteur’s devastating scientific refutation of Spontaneous generation.
But then again what should we expect from such blind and Self-deluded Cult who also deny that Atheism is a religion????
Read more here…. Pasteur’s Law, Creation Science vs Nose Bone Atheism.
Tim Wikiriwhi.
Read still more…
Dingbat Atheist Pseudo-science. Instant Life… just add water!