Intelligent Atheist and Secular Humanists…?

Oh my goodness! Are there ANY intelligent Atheist or Secular Humanists out there? Ones who REALLY understand Science well enough to argue from something more than talking points and ceaseless claims that Science may one day in the next Millennium be “falsifiable”… even though the hypotheses are currently untestable… and should simply be accepted until some nebulous time in the future when they possibly MAY be able to be tested…? That ain’t Science. That’s RELIGION. Belief in things that are not proved and cannot even be tested in the long-term future constitutes FAITH… not fact….

What part of that is so hard to comprehend…?

NONE of it!!! No Scientist would accept God as fact without proof!!! So… why are Secular Humanists so willing to accept any and every other hypothesis as FACT…?

Confirmation bias…. Dogmatic religious belief….

A lot of people seem to be willing to go through a whole lot of mental and logical… or illogical… and irrational… contortions to escape the authority of God….

Fear must be a powerful motivator….

Advertisements

Dogmatic Belief in Evolution and Anti-intellectualism….

Below are some comments I made in reply to someone’s comments on this article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131219093558.htm

The initial comment was that this evidence of Evolution occurring before our very eyes….

Well… not really…. So I asked about the specific genes involved and suggested that this is more than likely evidence of adaptation…. Genes that were already present being revealed… like the darker gypsy moths becoming more prominent in England as coal soot settled on the trees, giving a selective advantage to the darker moths who previously were at a selective disadvantage, but nonetheless already present…. The selective pressure simply flipped…. This is what I said: “Which genes are involved? Are the mutations dominant? And are they lethal this year, with the drop in temperature? Or is this just adaptation… like the darker gypsy moths becoming more prominent as the bark of the trees became darker…? No mutation at all….”

The poster child’s somewhat petulant reply was that adaptation through Natural Selection constitutes Evolution. He appended the original paper. Here it is: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2435.12218/full

Unfortunately, poster boy doesn’t seem to really understand how Science works… or else… HE would have recognized the weaknesses in the paper… and his lame arguments….

So… I replied:

“Ok. I’ll interpret this for you, since you don’t seem to understand how Science works. This is not a randomized, controlled study. The study uses historical controls. That is a significant issue. Many parameters within the study are uncontrolled. In the first sentence of the second paragraph of the introduction, they authors VERY CLEARLY state a bias as their rational for the importance of performing the study. NO ONE can start out with such a glaring bias and end up with an unbiased result! Anyone with ANY reasonable understanding of the Scientific Method understands that. So… the data is that the weights were different…. The EXPLANATION is a very biased myth propagated most likely to obtain funding for further research…. If you ANYTHING about ACADEMIA… you will recognize what I am implying…. Could the explanation be correct? Sure. But the conclusions reached do not present other options…. Leading any rational observer to conclude that only one option was considered…. And THAT injection of bias overwhelms the result of what was already a very weak methodological study to begin with…. Read the Dialogues of Plato so the you can understand how Science is supposed to work. I believe it’s Ion. To reach a valid result, one must consider ALL potential solutions. Starting with one solution… then reaching the conclusion that that one solution is the correct one… lacks true Scientific credibility….

Here is a definition of Evolution from Google… which is a Liberal source: ev·o·lu·tion evəˈlo͞oSHən/ noun
noun: evolution; plural noun: evolutions
1. the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
synonyms: Darwinism, natural selection More
“his interest in evolution.
2. the gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form.
“the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution”
synonyms: development, advancement, growth, rise, progress, expansion, unfolding; More

Compare and contrast that with the definition of Adaptation, also from Google: ad·ap·ta·tion
ˌadapˈtāSHən,ˌadəp-/noun
noun: adaptation; plural noun: adaptations
1. the action or process of adapting or being adapted.
“the adaptation of teaching strategy to meet students’ needs”
synonyms: alteration, modification, redesign, remodeling, revamping, reworking, reconstruction, conversion More”the adaptation of teaching strategy to meet students’ needs”

Clearly from the above definition Evolution and Adaptation are different. Evolution implies change over time through because of genetics. Adaptation can be evidenced on the spot… which seems to be what is being implied…. Yes, selective pressure is involved, as is Natural Selection, but not necessarily Evolution, because the subset of the species that are being selected may be less well adapted to future changes… like the current global cooling or other changes in the environment that occur simply due to nature.

Adaptation is not synonymous with Evolution and Evolution is not necessarily beneficial… so Evolution is not always adaptation.”

I wish some of these Secular Humanists and Defenders of the Theory of Evolution actually would take time to learn about the Scientific Method and formation of rational arguments…. They act as though they are the hierophants of some new Mystery Cult….

Secular Humanism and Other Religions with Regards to Evolution, Creation, and Science

For over 2500 years, one set of “theories” reigned supreme… and were, in fact, considered by many to be the epitome of human accomplishment on which everything else must be based. At the turn of the XXth Century, Scientist sincerely believed that ALL meaningful discoveries had been made… and nothing more remained except cleaning up Newton’s Laws and Maxwell’s Field Equations….

And then… Max Planck suggested the concept of “Quanta”…. And Albert Einstein fell asleep leaning back in his chair at the Swiss patent office and conceived of gravity NOT being a force… but merely a curvature of Space-Time…. No true Scientists believed either of them… because doing so REQUIRED that Euclidean Geometry be thrown out….

Well… Euclidean Geometry was accepted for over 2500 years as absolute truth…. But that was spurious assumption…. Based solely on other spurious assumptions…. Professors North-Whitehead and Russell sought to construct proofs of ALL mathematics from first principles… without assumptions…. They believed they accomplished their goals…. They were WRONG….

Evolution is similarly based on MANY spurious assumptions… the most glaring is that no other legitimate solutions exist… when in fact… and INFINITE number of alternative solutions exist… and must be developed and tested… disproved… in order for Evolution to be proved…. And that ain’t happened and ain’t… even… close….

Evolution is not a “fact”. Evolution is a concept. A myth. A belief. One possible solution to EXPLAIN observations. Does Evolution occur…? Probably. Adaptation certainly does. Lot’s of evidence exists to support Evolution as a workable solution. But that is different from proof. Different from fact. Acceptance is ALSO different from proof and fact. Like I stated at the top… at the turn of the XXth Century… the vast majority of Scientists… held archaic beliefs… as truth…. They held Euclidean Geometry as the basis for ALL proof…. Their persecution of dissenting opinion was SO STRONG that the greatest mathematical genius in the history of mankind… was afraid to stand in front of them and present the truth…. So… Gauss gave the problem to a student… Riemann…. A century later… Einstein used Riemann’s concepts to disprove Newton’s Law of Gravity…. Which means… it never really was a law…. Not even a real Theory…. Nothing more than a hypothesis that disproved… and honed… over time….

That’s how Science actually works. NOTHING is ever proved. Everything must be constantly challenged.

Both Secular Humanism and Conservative Christianity are branches of religions. The difference is simply that Conservative Christianity understands and accepts faith as the basis for belief, while Secular Humanism prefers to deceive itself willfully… and try to deceive others by claiming intellectual superiority… and by denying their faith… and forcing their faith on others who believe differently…. By grabbing the bully pulpit of education for their own religious persecution of those who dare to believe differently…. By being hypocrites… and doing exactly what they decry others doing…. Forcing one’s personal religious beliefs on ALL….

Intellectual Entitlement… and Liberal Bigotry….

Here are some comments I made to a recent article in response to other people’s posted comments.

Everyone has the right to their opinion. Even if they demonstrate bigotry and intolerance towards others. Even if they refuse to look introspectively at themselves and their beliefs.

I am not claiming that I or those with similar positions and beliefs as my own are without inherent bias or even bigotry.

Here is a link to the article: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/sarah-palin-msnbc-mitt-romney-attack-article-1.1562152

Here is comment #1:

The comment was that Fox should fire their commentators first… because of their racist comments… without any substantiation of such personal attacks….

This isn’t Melissa Harris-Perry’s first set of incendiary Liberal Bigot remarks. Remember her mocking rant of Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal… where she made fun of the ethnicity of his name…? Now… she mocks Romney’s family Christmas photo…. Is she trying to be a comedian…? She lacks satiric wit. She has nothing but Race Cards… that’s why she’s on MSNBC…. She’s culturally and intellectually irrelevant…. She… and her network… are trying to be the sleazy tabloids of TV in order to attract an audience of the intolerant and ignorant. Obviously their message appeals to some….

Here is comment #2:

This is in response to an attack on Romney’s adoption of a black child…. Suggesting that Romney adopted the child for political purposes…. Suggesting that Romney was insincere…. So… I demonstrated some hypocritical Liberal Bigotry….

I believe Angelina Jolie adopted a black child… and was praised for her diversity…. And… adopting black children to demonstrate one’s Liberal Progressive chops became a status symbol in Hollywood… and spread across the country…. Angelina Jolie and Charlize Theron and Michelle Pfeiffer and Sandra Bullock and Mariska Hargitay and Jane Fonda and Tom Cruise and….

Well… apparently Ms. Theron bought her child about the same time that she made some racially and culturally insensitive remarks about Viola Davis….

Madonna was famously accused of stealing a baby from an orphanage in Malawi and illegally adopting the child….

Cambodia and the entire international community have started to question the rainbow family approach that these Liberal Stars have started… to demonstrate their “diversity”.

And YOU attack Romney… who NEVER brought any attention to himself….

YOU are demonstrating a blind intolerance directed at those with whom you disagree and do not feel have the same rights as you and those whose opinions you respect. That’s Liberal Bigotry. Here’s the definition of bigotry from Google (a Liberal source): big·ot·ry bigətrē/ noun
noun: bigotry; plural noun: bigotries
1. bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
“the report reveals racism and right-wing bigotry”

Notice the sentence they chose to illustrate “bigotry”…. A clear attack on those who believe differently than themselves….

Yes…. Conservatives can be bigots…. I don’t think anyone in the world would argue that point. I certainly am not.

But Liberal Bigots are too blind and ignorant to look at themselves. Conservatives often laugh at ourselves when they are made fun of by Liberals. If the joke is funny. Liberals often seem to lack any sense of humor… or any sense that what they believe might be wrong…. Liberals seems to have somehow adopted a sense of Moral Entitlement… anything they believe and say absolutely MUST be morally superior because they believe they are more intelligent….

That’s just plain Liberal Bigotry…. And bigotry is NEVER morally superior….

Ignorance is NEVER Illuminating nor intelligent….

Anyone capable of intelligent independent thought recognizes that….

But… I sincerely doubt you understand any of this….

 

Recent Reads

I finally finished Jack Kerouac’s On the Road….

Really difficult for me. A true slog. I really didn’t identify with the characters. Seemed completely irresponsible to me. Got to admit that he did a great job of not judging others…. But I suspect that’s because he didn’t want anyone to judge him… for his own lifestyle choices…. Very disrespectful attitude towards women…. Total depravity… or relentless pursuit of the Pleasure Principle… if you prefer…. Regardless… almost total avoidance of all responsibility….

I’m not sure that is an accurate pursuit of the concept of Dharma… righteous living… as demonstrated in the Ancient Asian literature…. Seems to just be a way of justifying relentless pursuit of the Pleasure Principle…. A reluctant acceptance of the Reality Principle…. A practiced study of honing avoidance behavior…. Con-artisty….

But… Kerouac does write some interesting sentences…. Out of the blue…. And his descriptions are… avant guarde…. Used a lot of onomatopeia…. Rhythmic… or even musical expressions, especially when describing jazz…. Very broad vocabulary…. And words that are rarely, if ever encountered, would suddenly be thrown into a sentence that seemed simple… up until that time…. So… they caught me off guard….

Very much a work of stream of consciousness….

Also went back to reading Syd Field’s Screenplay: The Foundations of Screenwriting: A Step-by-step Guide from Concept to Finished Script. Excellent book! The part I read was mostly about writing Scenes. But… Field discussed what makes a great lead character…. Apparently… a hero is someone who is willing to sacrifice himself and his happiness for others… and society… at the necessary time….

The opposite of Relentless Pursuit of the Pleasure Principle…. True Dharma… which means Righteous Action…. Doing the Right thing… for the Right reason….

Certainly not all films involve heroes…. Many times… at least lately… seems like the opposite is glorified in America….

Anyway…. Started reading Philip K. Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?… which was the basis for the movie Blade Runner…. Blade Runner is considered by most authorities to be the greatest Science Fiction movie of all time…. Dick was VERY Liberal…. To the point of being a disestablishmentarian…. So… Androids is significantly different from the movie… which I have been watching repeatedly…. Studying….