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.
Think seriously about this people..
By what right does the government demand to you declare every cent you earn?
Think about how arrogant and oppressive such a demand is!
Tell me please that under such demands that you/we are not *being treated like Cattle…like slaves* of the State!
Are you are so stupid….so conditioned as to think you are free, and that the Status quo is as good as a society as is possible?!!!
You are Slaves indeed!
What a joke it is that you consider State control of Education to be beneficial to society!
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.
That Christ’s atonement for sin on the Cross is a very unpleasant Business/ Idea I agree… yet this does not make it objectively false.
Indeed The Cross makes us realise just how costly our sins are and how serious God is about judgement.
‘The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord”
St Paul. Roman’s 6vs23
Dawkins obviously does not consider his own sins… are that bad.
Dawkins needs to understand that God is God, and appreciate the obvious just reality that God sets the terms of Salvation…not him
It matters little if we may find Christ’s substitutional atonement on the cross an offensive proposition.
God chose a means of salvation and the restoration of our communion with him which puts all human beings on the same level.
Receiving Salvation is not a vain self-righteous act, not a reward, or an intellectual achievement.
To receive Christ We must humble ourselves… and admit our personal moral guilt to be saved.
This is what proud and vainglorious Toffs like Dawkins hate!
The Idea that they must give account of themselves to God is bad enough… but that they must do so on the same level as the rest of us … as one of the great unwashed… is unbearable!
There is no elitism in the gospel… “for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God”
St Paul Roman’s 3vs 23.
Dawkins exposes his great ignorance of Religion… in particular the Theology… the principles which underpin Christ and the Cross.
He actually proves he has not even bothered to learn even the basics about the Religion he spends his life attacking.
God revealed our need for a Christ immediately following Adams fall, having broken his covenant with God, the punishment of which was Death.
If Dawkins bothered to read the Bible he might just come to apprehend that Christ was typified by God clothing Adam and Eve with the skins of animals. He may be seen in Noah’s Ark. And by Abraham offering up Isaac… God providing a sacrifice, and again by Moses holding up the serpent on a stick in the desert during the Exodus…. etc etc
Sin and Evil are why we have Wars, Murders, Rapes, Poverty, Lies, Perversions, Robberies, extortions, Tyrannies, etc etc. Every vile and despicable act comes from the evil heart of mankind.
This is why God will not let all this slide, but will judge with wrath… for Justice’s sake!
Yet he send Christ “For God comendeth his love for us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us”
St Paul Roman’s 5vs8.
“Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved”
st Paul. Roman’s 10vs 13.
SCIENTISTS ANGRY OVER COLLEGE’S ‘DISTURBING’ HIRE OF ASTRONOMY PROFESSOR WHO EMBRACES INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
Creationism and intelligent design are causing quite a stir at Ball State University, a public college in Muncie, Indiana. In addition to sparking an internal investigation into Professor Eric Hedin, a Christian who is accused by the atheistic Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), among others, of potentially indoctrinating students, there’s yet another new target. The FFRF is now joining evolutionary scientists in speaking out against the same university’s hire of Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez, an astronomy professor who embraces intelligent design.
What’s most fascinating about the debate is that academic environments really should be the host of vibrant discussion, debate and diverse viewpoints. While most scientists do believe in evolutionary theory, the notion that people who do not should be silenced seems counter-intuitive. But that is exactly what is unfolding as the contention over Ball State’s hiring of these professors progresses.
^^^ This story exposes the Bigotry which corrupts the academic world which not only stifles real science, but maintains the lies of evolution and Materialist in the position of ‘Orthodoxy’.
These Atheists are complete hypocrites because they are doing today what they accuse the Religious zealots of the past of doing!… Stifling dissenting opinion for the sake of maintaining a monopoly… not by reason… but by force!
Pay no mind what other voices say
They don’t care about you
Like I do
Like I do
Safe from pain and truth and choice and other poison devils
See they don’t give a **** about you
Like I do
Just stay with me
Safe and ignorant
Go back to sleep
Go back to sleep
‘ll be the one to protect you from
Your enemies and all your demons
I’ll be the one to protect you from
A will to survive and a voice of reason
I’ll be the one to protect you from
Your enemies and your choices son
One and the same I must isolate you
Isolate and save you from yourself
Swaying to the rhythm of the new world order and
Count the bodies like sheep
To the rhythm of the war drum ….
Lyrics from Perfect Circles ‘Pet’.
I am *Very Sorry* to hear that after 125 years the Truth is going out of Biz… It was one of the few truly Independent Media voices in New Zealand.
It was Tits out!…. It covered ‘Nude’ stories the mainstream Media intentionally ignores for the sake of maintaining and pandering to the delusions of the ‘Populus’… the Mob.
It was Raw… seedy…. Real!
With the Truth gone there will be no *Real Free Press* left in NZ. Only Retarded State arse kissing PC wowzer Status quo Nannyist socialist Rubbish which functions like it’s a branch of government.
🙁
We will be reduced to Freedom blogs, and ‘Scoop NZ’ … and yet these rely heavily on Non professional Independent activists to supply their take on things.
Stuff article>>>> The Truth newspaper to stop publishing
The Death of the Truth Really is an indictment on just how mediocre minded and sheepish New Zealanders really are.
They are not interested in Independent thinking.
They lap up Reality TV… the kardashians… the Breakfast shows… and they Religiously worship Nanny State.
They believe all lifes problems have political solutions.
They believe in Totalitarian regulation of everything.
They absolutely deny an individual has inalienable rights which ought to be protected from Mobocratic power…. etc etc…
This is a society which tollerates Racist Law and Government.
This is a society of slaves which allows Rapacious Government to fleese them of 80% of their earnings and to give it to lazy bums who cant be bothered getting out of bed in the morning.
This is a society which allows the government to treat us all like children… banning our toys… etc etc…
In a society of sheep… an Independent Paper cant make enough to dosh to pay the lease.
And it’s not just NZ but the whole of wester Civilisation!
They have allowed their Governments to become their OverLords… To spy on them… to probe them… to disarm them…
“Goodbye Truth! We have no need of thee BAAAAA BAAAAA”
The Theory of evolution is a bloody joke!
Yet it’s fanatical devotees infest our media and schools to the extent that those of us who don’t believe it are considered the Lunatic fringe.
And yet when ever you examine any of the so called evidences or rationale which under girds this Belief, all the thinking man finds is hocus pocus and minuscule facts stretched to their extreme.
The latest findings of the Mars Rover ‘Opportunity’ serve as yet another example of just how devoid of real substance the atheist naturalistic cosmology really is…
In an NZ herald article (pg A25) June 13 2013 a Cambridge Professor of Mineral Physics Simon Redfern talks about The Rover performing an xray on some Mars ‘Esperance’… rock which revealed mineral deposits within which gives plausibly to this rock having been formed via Water borne sedimentary action… muddy clays which absorbed water, rather than Sulphuric acid… as has been the interpretation given to the majority of other ‘hydrated’ rocks examined.
This discovery is in the words of the Professor…
“Powerful evidence that water interacted with this rock…”
Now that is interesting, and I have no reason to believe there is anything wrong with his conclusion… It is the fantastic conjecture which Atheists draw from this sort of thing!
Like squeezing blood from a stone… they then leap to the conclusion that
‘ROCK REVEALS LIKELIHOOD OF LIFE ON MARS’ (see Here)
^^^^ Is it possible to justify that statement … which was the actual title of the whole NZ Herald article… from the mere fact that this rock probably had contact with water of a potable quality?
Lets look at what the article says…
“It’s the strongest evidence yet for a past environment that would have been conducive to life.”
I can live with that Idea… I can conjecture that Mars may indeed have been a far more ‘hospitable place’ that had water… aeons ago.
Where did it all go?
Did Mars fall victem to a capitalist society causing catistrophic ‘Climate change’? 🙂
I digress.
It is at this point in the article we move from what I consider ‘fair’ scientific speculation straight into the extreme realms of Evolutionary Fairytale… The article continues…
“Speculation linking the origins of life on Earth to the presence of clays minerals has been something of a theme since it was suggested in the 1950s.
Swelling clays, like those seen in Esperance, demonstrate the presence of neutral water early in Mars history. But at the molecular scale the inter-layer structure of clay can also act as a template to any organic molecules present and potentially, promote replication of enzymes and proteins, which are necessary for life.
The findings back up earlier theories that the Martian surface once hosted an ocean , covering much of it’s Northern Hemisphere”.
Blar Blar Blar! There you have it!
The Wild and unfounded atheist conjecture as to the origin of life on Earth is used to vindicate further conjecture to Life on Mars!
There is no real science in any of this!
Atheism is a belief in Martian Sea-monkeys!
Just add water… and hey presto ‘Instant Life’…
These claims in fact prove how Baseless and devoid of Science the Naturalistic notion of the origin of life really is!
Their simpleton rationale goes something like this… “… Life needs water… Mars had water… Oh that means the probability of life having existed there ….’once upon a time’…is likely!
They are grasping at straws.
And they are guilty of the very assumption they accuse theism of… ie baseless conjecture.
There is *zero evidence for life on Mars*
End of story
This claim is pure whim! Pure pseudo science!
The latest discoveries of Genetic science explode the idea of a ‘simple cell’.
The Cell is super complex… a super organized structure, and knowing this ought to slay any remaining delusions that Life can spontaneously arise by fortuitous circumstances, and indeed explains why… even here on earth where conditions are perfect for life… abiogenesis/ spontaneous generation has never been observed, in fact Pasteurs Law is absolute… *Life always and only comes from life*… a sterile environment will remain sterile forever… unless ‘seeded’ from an external source.
Math destroys Atheism.
The impossiblility of spontanious generation is Scientific Reality. Abiogenesis is a mathematical absurdity…yet because these facts simply dont fit the irreligious opinions of the professor and his ilk, he chooses to ignore science and to substitute the facts with his own irreligious Bullshit… Blar blar “clays act as templates”, etc….and that folks demonstrates just how and why the theory of evolution keeps it legs and continues to be preached in schools and in the Media.
It is a Wolf in sheeps clothing.
St Paul warned us to beware ‘Science falsely so-called’.
What do the scientist say – John Eccles, winner of the Nobel Prize and one of the foremost brain scientists in this century speaks of one chance in 1010,000 as being “infinitely improbable…..Carl Sagan and other prominent scientists have estimated the chance of man evolving at roughly 1 chance in 102,000,000,000.34……Harold Morowitz, a Yale University physicist,calculated the odds of a single bacterium emerging from the basic building blocks necessary were 1 chance in 10100,000,000,000.24…….Dr. David J. Rodabough, Associate Professor of Mathematics at the University of Missouri, estimated the more realistic chance that life would spontaneously generate (even on 1023 planets) as only one chance in 102,999,940.21……scientists Walter L. Bradley and Charles Thaxton, point out that the probability of assembling amino acid building blocks into a functional protein is approximately one chance in 4.9 X 10191.16…..
Scientist Harold F. Blum, writing in Time’s Arrow and Evolution, wrote that, “The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all probability.”…..David J. Rodabaugh, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Mathematics at the University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, shows the probability that a simple living organism could be produced by mutations “is so small as to constitute a scientific impossibility” — “the chance that it could have happened anywhere in the universe,is less than 1 [chance] in 102,999,942.”7….Moshe Trop, Ph.D., with the Department of Life Sciences, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel, concludes,”All calculations made of the probability [that life could evolve by chance, lead to the conclusion that] there could have been no possibility of the random appearance of life….(NOTE – All evidence cited orginates from the science community)….(continue)
A discussion of the staggeringly complexity and elegance of the cell, which has been described as a nano-factory full of machinery millenia beyond what today’s brilliant engineers can produce.
Is this all the product of filtered, mindless, purposeless accidents or of brilliant design? You be the judge.
“Although the tiniest living things known to science, bacterial cells, are incredibly small (10^-12 grams), each is a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of elegantly designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world.”
–Michael Denton, Ph.D. geneticist
“To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must first magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is 20 kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would see then would be an object of unparalleled complexity,…we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity.”
–Michael Denton, Ph.D. geneticist, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, pg.328
