February 25, 2009

Streng Verboten Part 2

Edited for wording 9-21-2012

Guten tag, again. If you missed our last episode, you can read Part 1 here, or scoll down if it's on the same Web page at the moment.

Within hours, I received some venom-enriched hate mail that proves what I'm saying about the intolerance and emotionalism of Darwinists. It was a personal attack, including my religious beliefs (which is pretty low of them), but there was no "religion" in my previous article!

Evolutionism as a world view has led to a host of problems. It has led to a loss of faith because people chose to believe in the philosophy of evolution. “Survival of the fittest” is a frequent excuse for economic and social injustices. It leads to a liberal view of euthanasia and abortion. Eugenics, the sterilization and extermination of the “unfit” people of the world fits Darwinism. Marxism is hard-core Darwinism applied politically.

So is Nazism. Hitler was a devout Darwinist, and thought that he was doing the world a favor by eliminating the unfit and building a perfect race. He wanted to apply Darwinism to society, and “create the new man”.

I’m not saying that evolutionists are Marxists or Nazis, don’t misunderstand me. I’m saying that those philosophies go hand-in-hand with Darwinsim.

With this prevailing viewpoint comes the suppression of scientific freedom (“You cannot believe in or promote Intelligent Design”), and is not only growing, but dominating rational thought in society today. We get evolution crammed down our throats at every turn. Watch a science channel and it is spouted as absolute fact, with none of the flaws presented. And yet, there is no “equal time” for those of us who want to present Intelligent Design as a valid scientific alternative.

Evolutionists actually want to eradicate Intelligent Design. I have had discussions in person and online with people who belive it's their duty to eliminate "religion" from public life. Amazing. If they cannot have religion completely removed, they want to “put it in its proper place” so it won’t bother anyone. Richard “Daffy” Dawkins hates any concept of God, and wants to see him eliminated. (Dawkins is a lousy philosopher.) It's not that the evidence is nonexistent for Intelligent Design. Instead, evolutionists are unwilling to believe the evidence (or even allow a presentation of it) because it threatens their world view.

Too bad that common sense is not scientific, because I feel that I have to put my own observations, questions and sensibilities on the shelf in order to believe in the blind, gibbering, mad god of random chance and natural selection; evolution is intellectual castration.

America, with it’s Judeo-Christian ethic, has a long history of helping the helpless and the oppressed. We have charities for medical purposes, for housing, for feeding the hungry. We help victims of natural and political disasters all around the world. What if we say, “Tough rocks, Roland? Survival of the fittest, so you can just die so the strong can continue”?

The logical conclusions of Darwinism are alarming. The discussions of scientific alternatives are strongly forbidden.

Addendum April 28, 2009: Thomas Brewton has a chilling reminder of how this comes together in modern society and politics. Click here.

There may be a Part 3 to this, I'm not sure yet. If there is, it will be about the logical fallacies that I encounter when dealing with evolutionists.

Streng Verboten Part 1

Edited for wording 9-21-2012

Guten tag. I've just gone through Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed for the second time, and I'm glad I bought the DVD. The first time through, I had to walk away because the logical conclusion of what the movie presented was very upsetting. I'm not much of a fan of documentaries, but this one sings a song that I've been doing for many years. It shows the flaws of the philosophies of evolution, and the discrimination of the scientific establishment against anyone that dares run against their orthodoxy and say that maybe, just perhaps, Intelligent Design (I.D.) should be considered an alternative explanation of the facts.

Some of what I'm writing now is a repeat of previous postings. Get over it, because it's important, capice?

Important point: Defining the term “evolution” is the gradual development of life over vast periods of time, with transitional forms leading to completely new species of life. I am not talking about microevolution, which leads to small changes and adaptations. Also, there is some disagreement about creation science. Many creationists will use science to explain things in the Bible, but are fully able to present a strictly scientific framework for their views without invoking anything religious. In this way, both the creationist and the proponent of ID can work in a similar manner, exhibiting just the science (no room to for someone to use that ridiculous "GodDidIt" accusation).

Nobody is quibbling about facts.
A fact is a fact. It's the interpretations of facts that have the disagreements. You show me a fossil. Great. It's a fossil. You tell me that it was formed over millions of years and is evidence for evolution, and I'll laugh in your face and say that there are other possible explanations. You show me a drawing of archeopteryx. Then you say that archeopteryx is a transitional form, and I'll give you a scientific slapdown because you're being ideological and out of touch, because "Archie" has been reclassified as a true bird. Your starting point, your world view, influences your interpretations of evidence. Let’s be honest here. Scientists are human, even though many want you to believe that they’re somehow superior to us mere mortals, they interpret facts according to their biases and presuppositions.

Evolution is not science.
It is a philosophy of the interpretation of facts. In the same way, Intelligent Design is not science, either. Now, hear me out! Both approaches have to take existing facts and interpret them. It annoys the sap out of me when evolutionists get all uppity and say that “creationists and ID proponents are not scientists”. Yes, they are. Just because they do not agree with your worldview does not disqualifiy their credentials, capice? They have their credentials from accredited schools, just like their Darwin-loving counterparts. F’rinstance, creationist astronomer Don DeYoung did not get his Ph.D. from “Billy Bob’s Backwater Bible Barn”, he went to “real” schools. Hey, Don, I still have the autographed book!

Intelligent Design and creationism are ridiculed, misunderstood and flat-out maligned. I do not come across many believers in evolutionism that have examined the evidence for I.D. and the abundant evidence against evolution. Evolutionists are arrogantly biased in their assertions that they are right, and anybody has a grain of sense cannot argue with them. But true science will pursue any line of questioning and follow the evidence to wherever it leads.

Evolutionists jealously guard their philosophies and make excuses. They do not examine the flaws in their own theories except to make excuses. Listen to some of their nonsense, and you’ll hear a great deal of “maybe”, “could have”, “perhaps”, “nobody really knows”, and yet they insist that evolution is true and is to believed without question. Guesswork, speculation — but Intelligent Design is still wrong in their minds. (Edit: March 3, 2009. Look at the guesswork and speculation in this article.) Daring to suggest that evolution has flaws is strictly forbidden. If any scientists dare to question the religious orthodoxy of Darwinism, they risk losing their jobs and are blacklisted.

Ironically, many of the greatest scientists were believers, and many were Creationists.


February 23, 2009

Trust in the Business World

Trust in the business world. In a word, fuggedaboudit. Or, to borrow from Tony Montana, "What, are you nuts?"

I've learned from my own experiences, from the experiences of co-workers and from simply reading articles that trust is not something you give away freely. You have to be slow and sparing when you give trust in the worlds of government, espionage, counterespionage, organized crime and big business. All of these have elements in common in their organizational structures and interactions.

Trust has to be earned, and it has to be earned slowly. I trust some members of my crew more than others. Some of them, I trust with my life. But guess what? I do not trust anyone one hundred percent! That is "thinking" with emotions, frankly. And in my businesses, you can't let emotions interfere.

"Can I trust anyone at all, Uncle Bob?"

It depends on how much you want to survive (literally or professionally). If you're not interested in friendship at the work place, you have to play rough. If you want to stay at the bottom and just get a paycheck, you can be more willing to trust people and take greater chances. If you get burned, I hope you learn from your mistakes. You have to learn who to trust in the first place. Then, you have to determine how much trust you can safely give.

When you're at the bottom of the feeding chain, you cannot believe someone higher up that says, "Speak freely, you can trust me". Yeah, sure, Cupcake. I made that mistake once. Once. Never again. The more "important" someone is, the more dangerous they are because they've probably sold their souls to the company; you can be thrown under the bus, as they say, along with your entire family, then your organs sold on the black market — if it'll make Joe Superior look good to his own superiors. You have to keep your guard up and your trap shut. Watch, listen and learn.

The immediate supervisor can probably be trusted more than the person one level up. If you get a good feeling and have good experiences, you can open up a little to them. Carefully. I know some people that I'm giving more trust to than I would normally give because I trust my inner voice and my experiences. Still playing it safe, though, but not quite as much as I normally would.

Also, you have to be on guard against co-workers. They'll steal your ideas or take credit for your successes, so make sure that you get the credit that's due before you open your mouth. That pal in the next cubicle may have sent you a sympathy card when your goldfish died, but can stab you in the back to get that promotion that you deserve. Watch, listen and learn.

Of course, if someone is in a different department or does not affect you directly, that gives you more leeway than otherwise. I mouth off to the guy in shipping and I know he won't rat me out to my superiors. What, you thought I ran the entire company myself? Nope. Just my own crew.

You can gauge your trust by giving a little and seeing what happens. If your trust is betrayed in a small thing, you know you can never trust that individual in something of importance. At least, not right away. If you feel that you can try again, feel free and let a little bit of trust go and see if it's justified. Then, back off and see if you can give a little more trust, a little more information.

The guys at the top? Don't even think about trusting them. Their souls have been sold, remember? If you're heard by them at all (perhaps like a gnat buzzing in their ears), you'll be either used and discarded, or forgotten.

So, play it safe in your business trust levels. Give and take. Act slowly. Know who to trust, and how much.

You can trust me, I can't hurt you.

Subscribe in a reader