Category Archives: Critters

A big thanks to John Banks

1283_602115356489941_1520542584_n

Here’s today’s press release from John Banks, and a transcript of his speech to Parliament.

banner-banks-parliamentry

Banks Challenges Greens To Take Stand On Animal Welfare
Press Release By ACT Leader John Banks
Thursday, June 27 2013

ACT Party Leader John Banks today challenged the Green Party to stand by its principles on animal welfare.

Mr Banks says if the Greens truly care about animals, they should make a commitment to vote against the Psychoactive Substances Bill if Mojo Mathers’ amendment to rule out animal testing fails.

“There is simply no justifiable reason for unnecessary drugs to be tested on animals. They are not a lifesaving medicine, or something that will relieve suffering. People take these substances just for fun.

“Evidence shows animal testing is not necessary to prove the safety of mind altering chemicals, yet poor beagle puppies are being bred so these drugs can be tested.

“These puppies will be put in extreme pain, they will suffer and many will die – just so people can take recreational drugs on the weekend. I find that completely unacceptable.

“The Greens have been vocal in their opposition to animal cruelty. The Greens’ animal welfare policy states:

‘Experiments on animals should only be used where they are overwhelmingly beneficial and do not cause animal suffering’ and;

‘Animals must not experience suffering for economic or entertainment reasons’

“Green MP Mojo Mathers’ amendment to rule out animal testing for psychoactive substances is sensible and has my full support. But what if her amendment fails to get the numbers?

“The Greens have not made any commitment to vote against the Bill and may end up supporting it regardless. That’s not good enough.

“I have campaigned for animal rights all my life and that’s why I am taking a stance against this Bill. If the Greens truly believe their own animal welfare policies, they should follow suit,” Mr Banks said.

ENDS

banner-banks-parliamentry

Psychoactive Substances Bill – Second Reading
Speech by ACT Leader John Banks
Thursday, June 27 2013

I rise to oppose the Psychoactive Substances Bill.

This bill is well intentioned and aimed at ensuring psychoactive substances sold in New Zealand are as safe as possible. I want to pay respect to the Minister Todd McClay for his noble intentions with this bill.

However, I simply cannot support it.

I find it totally unacceptable that this bill fails to rule out testing these recreational drugs on innocent animals.

Protecting animals is ingrained in my soul.

I think most New Zealanders will be outraged at the idea that chemicals people use ‘just for fun’ can be and will be tested on harmless animals.

Animals will be put in extreme pain. Animals will suffer. Animals will die.

We must remember psychoactive substances are not a necessity.

Recreational drugs are not something one needs to consume. They aren’t lifesaving medicines or something that will relieve suffering. People don’t NEED to take them.

Their prolific use will cause widespread animal suffering.

There is simply no justifiable reason for unnecessary drugs to be tested on animals, and I for one find it deeply offensive that any Government would sanction it.

Animals will be in pain and will die all in the name of people wanting to take drugs on the weekend. That is simply unacceptable.
Animals must not experience suffering for economic or entertainment reasons.

I know the Select Committee inserted a new clause in the bill to state that animal testing should only be used when necessary, but that is not good enough.

Especially considering the Select Committee refused to hear from organisations such as SAFE and the RSPCA about the impact of animal testing.

Evidence shows animal testing is not necessary to prove the safety of these mind alerting chemicals.

Dr Ian Shaw of the University of Canterbury says non-animal testing can adequately establish whether a substance has unacceptable risks of acute toxicity.

Cell culture, ex vivo and SAR studies can all be used to establish the risks.

Even if animal testing was necessary, and I know the vast majority of New Zealanders will agree with me on this, I say tough luck to the drug manufacturers and their drug dealing distributors.

If you can’t prove your new found drug of choice is safe without putting animals in abject misery, you can’t sell your drug.

If you need to pay more for more expensive non-animal testing, again I say tough luck. That is the price you, who stand to profit from selling these drugs, must pay.

The reality is the bill could well result in drugs being test on animals in place such as China and India where animal welfare is shamefully non-existent.

The statement in the bill that overseas testing must be carried out in accordance with the New Zealand Animal Welfare Act is nonsense because there is no way for us to assess what goes on in the torture chambers of animal testing laboratories in Asia.

Despite assurances from former Minister Peter Dunne, this bill fails to rule to the use of the extremely cruel LD50 test.

These animal testing places test their drugs on man’s best friend – dogs. Or, more specifically, farmed Beagle puppies. These animals trust us, and expect to get care and love. It is obscene.

I also want to comment on the Interim Psychoactive Substances Expert Advisory Committee, and one of its members Bob Kerridge from the RSPCA.

The committee was tasked with advising about the use of animal testing.

Some have said that Mr Kerridge’s place on the committee and the committee’s view that animal testing should be condoned reveals that animal welfare groups support this bill. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I want to place on record what Mr Kerridge said to me:

‘It is a matter of record that I am opposed to any animal testing for the approval of psychoactive products, and my presence on this Committee does not alter or condone it.”

Those who have fought for many years for the rights of animals, such as SAFE and the RSPCA are outraged by this bill and it is disingenuous to say anything different.

Finally, I want to thank Mojo Mathers for her work on this bill. I will be supporting her amendment to prohibit the use of data, collected from testing on animals here or overseas, being used to support an application to get a psychoactive substance approved. It is a sensible amendment which will protect defenceless animals.

But I say to her and her Green Party colleagues, if your amendment at Committee stage fails to get the numbers, you should vote against this bill anyway.

The Green Party has been very vocal in its animal rights stance. If you truly believe your own policies you should be standing against this bill.

We are sacrificing Beagle puppies at the altar of recreational drug use. It is a disgrace to this country.

As the most powerful creatures on this Earth, humans have a responsibility to protect all animals from senseless, worthless and shameless cruelty at all times and in all places.

ENDS

Thanks, John, for speaking out for those who can’t speak out for themselves.

Readers, please support Mojo Mathers amendment. (The most effective way you can do this is by emailing the Maori Party MPs. I’m reliably informed that whether or not her amendment gets included is likely to come down to the votes of the Maori Party.)

Science goes Ga Ga! The Spirit Temple-Material Interface. The Human Brain.

^^^^This is quite funny, yet still the subject matter is mind blowing!

Many people probably mistake all this talk of Neurons, etc as evidence of real understanding.
It’s supposed to make Science ‘Poetic’ and profound yet is really a song of ignorance, myth and superstition.
“Our Reptile Brain”.
“It evolved from the inside out”
Quite pathetic.
This is a Materialist Hymn.
Why would anyone believe this nonsense?

The reality is Science cannot fathom how our Conscious Minds, our Self awareness, and freewill are related to our Grey matter.
They must wax lyrical about ‘Collage explosions’… I assume on the ‘Entertainment systems’ in our heads!

The closest these guys get to the Truth is when they call our Brains.. ‘an enchanted room’.
’20 million volumes of information… A very Big place in a very small space’

The confession… “It is the most mysterious part of our Body”.

selff

The biggest questions of Consciousness are well beyond reach, and as long as modern science remains dominated by Monist Materialism they will never be able to understand the Mind/ Brain paradox because they have willfully shut their minds to non-physical spiritual realities.
I laugh at the ‘all to common’ claims these days that mankind has mastered how the brain works, and Technology … that scientists will within the next 20 years have invented ‘Conscious computers’ which will be capable of thinking ‘human’ thoughts, and ‘feeling’ human emotions.
It is mind boggling that materialists can be so Absurd as to be contemplating ‘ethical issues’ of granting Robots ‘rights’!!!
They have traveled so far into materialist fantasy that they have forgotten the reality that *’Robot’ and ‘Morality’* are Oxymorons!
Morality only being possible for Free willed beings which have a choice, and whom exist in a universe governed by Objective Moral laws.
All these necessities are absolutely alien to Materialist cosmology.

640x480_2966_The_Sparrow_King_2d_sci_fi_robot_steampunk_bird_picture_image_digital_art

I have said many times before that mankind may one day make an imitation mechanical bird which may be able to fly and sing, and that a person may have trouble identifying it as being a fake… none the less that Machine will never be a real bird.
Likewise with a Humanoid Robot.
They may be clever enough to program a machine with human mannerisms, so that when we interact with it we can believe we are dealing with a living, thinking…even emotional and caring *Person*, but in reality that is all just a gigantic Deception… The Robot will not be alive… will not be conscious, will not be moral, will not care… etc etc…

It is staggering to know that these fundamental truths are completely ignored by materialist thinkers.
What is worse to contemplate is just what materialists believe our life and human consciousness is!
Death, the Materialist must believe is nothing more that ‘pulling the plug on your computer’!
And *you* literally ‘vanish’.
Materialism is one of the most powerful Opiates of them all!
It’s stupefying!
Why do they choose to think this way?
Simply because they desire to subject the whole universe …neatly into their own puny… small minded Naturalistic Rationale.
They allow themselves to be dominated by their own primitive theories.
It makes them feel good.
They refuse to be Objective and admit that there are plenty of things in reality which don’t fit at all well with their materialism.
The moment they admit this to themselves, their entire ‘religion’ falls apart… and that is what materialism is… a falce religion.
The moment a person awakens to the idea that there are greater realities than mere Matter and energy is the day that their subjective scales fall from their eyes and they appreciate spiritual truths, Free will, Consciousness, Love, …Good and evil, etc are not properties of matter… nor ever could be… and they are then in a much better position to appreciate the Amazing truth of the Bible.

Read more…

The Rusty Cage: Scientism

Superstition

Pasteur’s Law, Creation Science vs Nose Bone Atheism.

We are not Robots Ayn Rand…

Monism: Evolutionary Psychology and the Death of Morality, Reason and Freewill.

Poster child for Atheism…Hannibal Lecter.

Biomimicry… Plagiarizing God’s designs.

The False Deity Called Evolution.

Planet of the Apes…whateva. 1Tim6vs20

Faith, Science, and Reason. The Pomposity of Atheism.

The Ludicrous Claims of Evolution! Why not ESP?

Russell’s Teapot really refutes Atheism not Theism!

Atheism has no basis for Rights… or Morals.

Atheism. The Philosophy of Small Minds.

Christopher Hitchens Dies.

Struth! Auzzy Stout!… Coopers Best Extra Stout.

auzzy stout 003

Coopers Best extra Stout… having been recommended this Auzzy Stout by an Eternal Vigilante… my team of Highly experienced Analysts and affectionados are putting this Brew through strenuous scientific tests…. using the most Flash Gear.
The result will indisputably… conclusively…. Unquestionably be the most Clinical, Objective, Authorotive, and up to date evaluation of any Beer ever!
Here it comes…. ditditditditditditdit….ditdit… My assistant Borek has just handed me the printout…

borek

All Righty Then!
Now This Beer comes in a Manly sized 750ml bottle! It gets a big tick for that.
It was on special at the best Beer outlet on either side of the Mighty Waikato…West Hamilton’s New World Te Rapa… for less than $6, normally about $6.50 which is still ‘Crickey Dick’ Cheep…. esp for a 6.3% Brew! …another two big ticks there!
And as for the taste???? ???? ????
Not Bad! Surprisingly Drinkable!
It’s not as nice as the Renaissance Elemental Porter I had the other night, or as nice as the Pitch Black Stout on Tap at the House Bar on Hood st Hamilton, or as nice as Geeks Cocoanut Porter ale, or as nice as a Boundary Rd’s Chocolate Porter… but still Its very Good.

935592_449388548489526_1905298263_n
What is very nice is the kick! 😀

Tie Me Kangaroo down Sport! Coopers Best Extra Stout Redeems Auzzy piss somewhat!
At that Price… It’s Bloody Good, and I am Stoked that I gave it a try!
It’s a winner.
Chur Bro! (Mark) 😀

Plague leads to death!

I had my flu shot today, have you had yours?

Plague leads to death!

Don’t say you weren’t warned.

For more information:
0800 466 863
TXT FLU TO 515
www.fightflu.co.nz

You can spread the flu to people, including your family/whanau and friends, who are at most risk of complications

While general health affects the severity of an infection, the influenza virus is contagious and anyone can become infected.

Influenza is more than just a ‘bad cold’. Although some of the symptoms are the same, influenza is usually much more severe. Symptoms of influenza include a cough, headache, fever or chills, body aches and pains, fatigue and generally feeling miserable

Influenza, commonly called the flu, can be a serious illness that is sometimes fatal.

Even if you do not end up in hospital, influenza can keep you in bed for a week or more, preventing you from doing work, sport or just about anything that requires leaving the house.

The flu spreads from person to person. The influenza virus is transferred in droplets of moisture expelled through breathing, coughing and sneezing. The virus is spread when a person touches any droplets which contain the influenza virus and then touch their mouth, nose or eyes before washing their hands.

Influenza can infect up to 1 in 5 of us every year.

Influenza can affect anyone, no matter how fit, active and healthy they may be. Although people with underlying health conditions are most at risk from influenza associated complications, previously healthy people can still become seriously ill an even die.

Approximately 400 deaths each year in New Zealand are related to influenza infection.

We cannot predict from year to year how severe the influenza season may be. The flu virus can change yearly and new strains can emerge to which people are not immune.

To maintain the most effective protection against influenza, annual immunisation is required.

  • protection lessens over time
  • each year influenza can be caused by different strains of influenza viruses that are not represented in the previous year’s vaccine

It takes around two weeks to develop immunity once vaccinated. Ideally, immunisation should be carried out before the main influenza activity in May to September. People can be immunised at any time during the influenza season, but the vaccine is only free for those in the high-risk groups until the end of July.

Seasonal influenza vaccinations are recognised as being the single most effective way of reducing the impact of seasonal influenza – especially for those most at risk of complications.

Stop the spread of the flu

If you are unwell, stay at home until you are better.

Follow basic hygiene practices:

  • Wash your hands regularly for at least 20 seconds and dry them for 20 seconds – or use an alcohol-based hand rub
  • Cover your mouth and nose with a tissue when you cough or sneeze – then put the tissue in a lined bin
  • Cough or sneeze in to your elbow if a tissue is not readily available
  • Avoid touching your eyes, nose and mouth
  • Don’t share drinks
  • Avoid crowded places

Don’t let the flu knock you. Get immunised. Protect yourself. Protect your family. Protect your community.

Immunisation may be FREE for you. Ask your doctor or nurse today.

This season’s ‘flu’ could be worse because of the new influenza virus commonly known as Swine Flu.

Fuckin’ pigs! 😎

Plague leads to death!

Flu-illustration-WHITE-261x300

Square Circles. When Continuity is claimed as Evolution

531849_510620342308541_52481794_n

Read the claims of ‘Hamilton Science Tutor’…

“The flu vaccine would not exist if scientists did not have a firm grasp on the facts of evolution. It is updated yearly to keep up with the evolution of the virus, which changes so much and so quickly that the previous year’s vaccine is no longer effective. How do these changes occur? You might think that the answer is mutation, but that’s only a small part of the process. Mutations are random, but the virus keeps growing more drug-resistant. Clearly there’s something else going on here.

When you get a flu shot, your body gains the ability to produce antibodies to the flu virus; if you are exposed to it afterwards, your body fights it off. The antibodies kill most, but not all of the virus particles. Some virions have genetic variations that allow them to survive the onslaught of your antibodies. They aren’t any better or stronger than the others; it’s just genetic randomness.

Eventually these survivor virions will be passed onto someone else whose body will perform the same process, helping to weed the virus population down to only those virions that are completely resistant to the vaccine. The following year when their descendants return, they will be immune to it. They will be genetically different from the ancestor virus. They will have evolved from a previous state.”

From Facebook Here:

********************************************************************************

^^^^^ There you have the bold claim that *Evolution is an observable Reality*.
Yet I want people to think about this with a bit more depth.
Does the fact that life forms become resistant to chemicals or bugs… or that their genetics can be seen to be in some way different from their parents really mean they are ‘evolving’ ?

I dispute this!
I say when life forms adapt in such ways they are work within the designed parameters of their Species.
They are in no way ‘evolving’.

Thus I say it may be so that a flu virus may ‘change’ so as to become immune to our bodies own artificially enhanced defenses (re via a vaccine) … but it certainly does not *Evolve*….any more than we ‘evolve’ when we get a vaccine and start to manufacture new antibodies.

Let me suggest to you that the shyster Evolutionists have set up a scam.
The scam is they have two definitions for the word evolution… they have legitimized a form of philosophical equivocation and via cunning trickery have managed to deceive people into believing that Evolution is both the Continuity of species… and it’s transmutation.
I am referring to the scam claims of Micro-Evolution.

Real Darwinian Evolution is the claim that species transmutate from one species into a completely *new* and fundamentally *different* species like from Germ to fish. Fish to Mammal, etc.
And while I admit that this is said to be a process which takes place via thousands/ millions of tiny steps, I wish to point out that the so-called evolutionary steps are not like gaining immunity, but are like a flipper slowly turning into a foot via a linear series of fortuitous genetic accidents.

I say this ‘Flu virus argument is completely bogus because it does not involve anything like this linear transition from one specific species into another.
It is completely dishonest to say that when anything becomes immune to something that the thing has evolved.
That is pseudo science and it evidences just how vacuous the theory of evolution is in that they must grasp at straws in attempts to justify their absurd superstition.

So-called Micro-evolution is nothing more than a ruse.
I could say that your nose is turning into beak, or that a birds beak is turning into a nose!
There is *no science* at all in the so-called notion of Micro evolution.
Merely wild conjecture based upon a very doctored and systematically arranged/ cherry picked samples of comparative anatomy… and a heavily ideologically imposed interpretation of everything biological.
*This claim of Flu Virus ‘Evolution’ is a perfect example*
The Virus is not evolving but doing what it has always done… ie it is being a virus!

The reality is that many species have the capacity for a great variation while remaining true to their kinds.
Dogs are a good example.

And this can easily be proven by comparing the so-called ‘latest’ virus with the ‘older one’ and realizing that there is no discernable linear progression from some unknown pre-virus… into some unknown Post-virus life from.
Ask the Evolutionist from what is the virus evolving away from and into what is it transmutating?
The facts are the Virus is going nowhere.
It remains a virus.
It is maintaining it’s ‘Virus-ness’… and this is the exact opposite of evolution… ie it demonstrates a continuity and fundamental integrity of the species.
Tim Wikiriwhi.

Update: 17 June 13. Here is a link to an article which validates my asertions above Re: When bugs become resistant to antibiotics and vaccines they are not evolving. This one is about Bacteria…
Antibiotic Resistance of Bacteria: An Example of Evolution in Action?
Read about The Ludicrous claims of Evolution Here:

Read about how Russells Teapot really refutes Atheism not Theism here:

^^^^ WoW that was Great to hear Live!
Auckland 22 April. Vector Arena.

63154_10151428605368667_711001074_n

Update:
My blogpost generated immediate debate.
In the process of looking for supportive sources for my position I came across several interesting sites…
………………………………………………..
Has the HIV Virus Demonstrated Evolution In Any Way?

No! Many false claims have been made. Here are the facts.

#1 If we had an example of new information being added by a random mutation, by random chance (though we do not have any example of new information being added by random chance, neither in HIV nor anywhere else), we would not have any evidence that evolution ever took place causing one kind of plant or animal to become another kind of plant or animal. If there were such an example, which there is not, in HIV or anywhere, then we would have shown that such addition of new information could possibly happen, (though present observation implies that it is absolutely impossible, but, if an example were to be be found, which it has not, then such an observation (which is only imagined at present) would only show that such a thing would be possible.

“Viruses can have no evolutionary relationship to any other form, and so whatever may have happened to say, the AIDS virus, has no relevance to the supposed history of truly living organisms in any case. An apparently major effect is probably caused by only a horizontal or even a negative change in informational content, and therefore does not relate to the sort of evolution postulated generally. It certainly does not involve any increase in functional complexity…. Long after this article was published, the PBS/SBS Evolution series used HIV/AIDS as ‘proof’ of evolution. Yet the new data has done nothing to make the principles in this article obsolete. Rather, in one case, HIV resistance to drugs was clearly caused by a deleterious mutation, as shown by their inability to cope with the ‘wild’ type when the drugs were removed; and immunity to AIDS can be conferred by a mutation that causes loss of certain receptors on the immune cells preventing the HIV from docking on them.” ~ Creation.com

Read more here:

And here is an interesting you tube vid which confirms my point about Evolution’s ‘Equivocation’ and non-falsifiable pseudo scientific nature.

Update 2. 26-4-13

007_flies

Thinking about this more… the most important aspect of this is Mutation and *the question of new Genetic information* Ie In what way do random mutations bring ‘Change over time’?
And anyone knowledgeable on this subject understands that *Mutation does not add improved codes but destroys portions of code…adds errors etc and I… though no geneticist can easily see how such a random degenerative step caused by an error in replication of a virus could fortuitously render it capable of escaping detection by our immune system… yet in itself clearly not represent any thing that can be described as an evolutionary change.
An example I have used in my arguments is the creation in the Lab of the Wingless fly.
Scientists bombarded flies with radiation and caused various mutations in their young.
One was the Wingless Fly.
Now clearly it’s genetics have been altered and a ‘new’ type of fly created… yet it is still a fly… a grotesquely deformed fly.
Other ‘mutations’ to the genes occurred too that were not as detrimental to the fly as this heinous deformity, yet none can be said to have been the addition/ writing in of ‘advanced’ DNA which can vindicate the claims of the evolutionists that mutation is the mechanism by which Germs became people… the transmutation of species… and lets not forget that that is what the theory of evolution is!
do not be smoked into thinking that ‘any’ change is evidence of evolution… or proof that the theory has merit.
Mutation is in reality a degenerative force, and the Math is so far against the wild conjecture that Mutations can be used to advance Evolution that it ranks up there with the ‘Spontaneous generation of life’ in statistical absurdities.
This is the extreme unscientific basis Atheist Naturalist evolutionist must go to deny Intelligent design and the existence of God!
Life indeed has all the hallmarks of having been designed for a purpose!

Random accidents cant draw up blueprints… cannot write turn a Model A into a Bugatti Veyron!

Raed more about that here:

Evidence for Evolutionism #1. The recurrent laryngeal nerve.

Long-Necked-Giraffes

In a comment on Tim’s post The Ludicrous Claims of Evolution! Why not ESP? Kiwi Dave says

Our recurrent laryngeal nerve inefficiently loops round our hearts instead of directly connecting to the brain stem; this, like cleft palates are a consequence of our fish ancestry.

I plan to post evidence for Evolutionism as I find it, to balance my pro-Creationist rants.

This is the first piece of evidence I’ve found worth posting.

recurrent-laryngeal-nerve-3201

The recurrent laryngeal nerve is a branch of the vagus nerve (tenth cranial nerve) that supplies motor function and sensation to the larynx (voice box). It branches from the vagus nerve in the chest cavity before it loops around the aorta and then back up to the larynx. Why doesn’t it take a more direct route? That it takes this circuitous detour is cited as evidence of evolution.

The extreme detour of this nerve (about 15 feet in the case of giraffes) is cited as evidence of evolution as opposed to intelligent design. The nerve’s route would have been direct in the fish-like ancestors of modern tetrapods, traveling from the brain, past the heart, to the gills (as it does in modern fish). Over the course of evolution, as the neck extended and the heart became lower in the body, the laryngeal nerve was caught on the wrong side of the heart. Natural selection gradually lengthened the nerve by tiny increments to accommodate, resulting in the circuitous route now observed.

giraffe recurrent laryngeal nerve

If we (and the giraffes) did indeed evolve from fish, then the course of the recurrent laryngeal nerve has a simple explanation. Its course is less simple to explain if we (and the giraffes) are products of special creation. Thus, the course of the recurrent laryngeal nerve is not merely evidence of evolutionism, but evidence for evolutionism.

I have a question. How difficult would it be to genetically re-engineer a giraffe (or a human) so that the recurrent laryngeal nerve passes directly from the brain to the larynx?

You’re no fun(ction) any more

dawkins_blind_spot

This post continues the discussion on Tim’s post The Ludicrous Claims of Evolution! Why not ESP?

In comments on Tim’s post, Terry (who is both an Evolutionist and an Objectivist) says

a camera is NOT an eye (nor is an audio recorder an ear, etc). A camera is a piece of equipment used to record images, whereas an eye is an organ of sight. The former mimics the functions of the latter, but apart from that they are worlds apart.

simply because human technology [has] been built so as to mimic certain biological functions does not justify grounds for claiming that the reverse applies and that biology can therefore ‘possibly’ mimic human inventions via the process of evolution. … Evolution is not a creative process – it is an entirely responsive process, which means that new functionality only develops and is maintained in response to the need to survive.

Terry has just committed Objectivism’s “stolen concept” fallacy and violated a fundamental tenet of Evolutionism! Doubleplusungood!

According to Evolutionism, there are no biological functions. The eye, for example, is an organ of sight, but the eye has no purpose. Its function is not to see. It has no function.

According to Evolutionism, there are no biological malfunctions, either. A blind eye, by definition, is not an organ of sight. A blind eye has not malfunctioned, because there is nothing it is supposed to do. An eye has no purpose to be fit for.

If it’s the case that the eye was designed for a purpose, as Creationists claim, then we can say that the function of the eye is to see, and that there is something wrong with an eye that does not see. It ain’t doing what it’s supposed to do, and if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. But Evolutionism is quite explicit that no biological organ is designed for any purpose. As Dawkins says

Biology is the study of complicated things which give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose

and, as Terry himself puts it, “Evolution is not a creative process – it is an entirely responsive process.”

Evolution according to Evolutionists is a blind, stochastic process. Any appearance of design, purpose or function is just an appearance. The reason that we have eyes that see is simply because having eyes that see helped our ancestors to survive. But eyes do not, in virtue of their evolutionary history, ever acquire a purpose or a proper function.

All talk of biological functions is pre-Darwinian. Consistent Evolutionists should not talk of biological functions. If they do, they must explain that their use of the word ‘function’ is just shorthand for facts about an organism’s evolutionary history. If they don’t, they are guilty of Ayn Rand’s stolen concept fallacy.

The “stolen concept” fallacy, first identified by Ayn Rand, is the fallacy of using a concept while denying the validity of its genetic roots, i.e., of an earlier concept(s) on which it logically depends.

The concepts of ‘function’ and ‘purpose’ logically depend on the concept of a Creator. They are pre-Darwinian. Evolutionists have no right to use them.

Casting the Net

matthew.13.47

I find this passage curious.

[47] “Once again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish. [48] When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore. Then they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, but threw the bad away. [49] This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous [50] and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (NIV)

Verse 47 is about selection. It is about a net. A net selects fish on the basis of size. Fish smaller in size than the apertures in the net pass through it. Fish larger in size than the apertures in the net do not.

Verse 48 is also about selection. The fishermen collect the good fish in baskets, but throw the bad away.

Verse 49 too is about selection. The angels separate the wicked from the righteous and (in verse 50) destroy the wicked by throwing them into the blazing furnace.

I can’t help but think that Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has precedents in Scripture.

“Have you understood all these things?” Jesus asked.

“Yes,” they replied.

He said to them, “Therefore every teacher of the law who has become a disciple in the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old.” (NIV)