August 13, 2011

The Racist Nature of Evolution

Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.
— Stephen Jay Gould, 1977
Evolution is racist. Why is this concept not being proclaimed more clearly?
Evolution, as is popularly defined, is a gradual continuance and weeding out of physical traits. Therefore all the physical traits that we know as defining race……skin color, shape of the eyes, hair, etc., are all supposed to be due to some evolutionary benefit for survival. So we are told, no trait survives the proces of natural selection unless it benefits survival in some way. Therefore all the races of human got that way due to some evolutionary reason. The shape of the eyes, skin and hair color, all presumably got that way for a reason benefitting survival.
This, by definition, is racial.
Notice what I’m NOT saying. This does not mean that every person who holds to evolution is a biased racist. I’m not saying that at all. But I am saying that the system of evolution is a racist system, for it holds that the evolutionary process made distinctions in people that form the races of people we know today.
I have several interesting links for you today. First, you can continue reading the above article, "Evolution is Racist", here. And then...

Racism has plagued humanity for thousands of years, and it has especially shown its ugly head during the last few centuries. Think of the myriads of Blacks carried from Africa and sold into slavery in the New World and, more recently, of the blatant racism of Nazi Germany. Even today, there are justifiable concerns along these lines. It is easy to condemn the sins of others, but how is it possible, we should ask, that a leader such as Hitler could sway thousands and even millions of intelligent Germans to his cause? It is one thing to say that Hitler was crazy; it is quite something else to affirm that all Germans were crazy along with him.
There is an hypothesis that has not yet adequately been considered. Staunch evolutionist, Sir Arthur Keith claims:
The German Fuhrer . . . consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.
Elsewhere, Keith wrote:
The leader of Germany is an evolutionist, not only in theory, but, as millions know to their cost, in the rigor of its practice. For him, the national "front" of Europe is also the evolutionary "front;" he regards himself, and is regarded, as the incarnation of the will of Germany, the purpose of that will being to guide the evolutionary destiny of its people.
Hitler used the German word for evolution (Entwicklung) over and over again in his book. In fact, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the very title itself of Hitler's book ("My Struggle"), was influenced by Darwin's subtitle, "Struggle for Existence," and by the German advocate of evolution, Ernst Haeckel, who published a book, in 1905, entitled, Der Kampf um den Entwicklungs-Gedanken ("The Struggle over Evolutionary Thinking").
 Continue to read "The Ascent of Racism" here. Next...

Darwin considered the Australian Aborigines as primitive and not much evolved from the ‘anthropoid apes’. He prophesied that the ‘wilder races’, as he called them, would become extinct because survival of the fittest meant they would be superseded by the evolutionarily-advanced ‘civilized’ races. By advanced he was referring to his own European Caucasoid ‘race’, of course.

Because of evolutionary teaching, the idea that people with dark skin are primitive soaks deep into everyone’s unconscious today.
The idea makes Europeans feel superior and indigenous people inferior. It affects attitudes, behaviour and government policy—adversely.

Evolutionary beliefs are constantly being reinforced by racist stereotypes published in news reports, on television and in our kids textbooks.

Look at the subliminal imagery that appeared once again with news reports about Homo floresiensis. Nicknamed the Hobbit, its bones were discovered in Indonesia in 2003, and it has been claimed to be a sub-human species.
This is your chance to continue reading "Evolution is Inherently Racist" here. After that...

The increasing spread of evolutionist doctrine has much to answer for in relation to the way people often treat each other.
Sadly, people rarely recognize that the prejudices which have slowly become ingrained in their psyche have often been a result—directly or indirectly—of evolutionary thinking.
One of the prevalent evidences of man’s inhumanity to man is racism. Put simply, racism is prejudice against people of other ‘races’ for that reason alone. Stereotypical rules are applied to demean individuals based on their cultural background, skin colour, appearance, or accent.
More often than not, these rules allow an unfounded assumption of superiority over that individual, which in turn justifies any feelings of disdain or indifference towards them. In truth, this attitude is usually based on nothing more than fear, ignorance, and misunderstanding. The manifestations of racism can be blatant, such as in hatred from the Ku Klux Klan or the oppressiveness of apartheid; it can also be as simple as telling degrading anecdotes or possessing a cold attitude of indifference.
As a result of evolutionary thinking, many in Western society are unable to experience heartfelt sympathy for starving children in poverty-stricken Third World countries. For reasons they could never justify, they believe ‘life’ somehow means less to these strangers with different skin colour and features. Incredibly, I have heard this type of comment from ‘educated’ people!
You can race over here to continue reading "The Fallacy of Racism".

August 11, 2011

Piltdown Superman - Pop Icon

Ladies and gentlemen...
The creation sensation, Piltdown Superman!
(and the crowd goes wild)

Click images for larger views.

This bad boy will take over your screen when you click it!

Here is the song, lyrics rewritten by the crew at Stormbringer Productions. Click for a much larger image. But if that won't work, the lyrics are typed below:
Piltdown Music Part One

Pop, pop, pop Piltdown
Pop, pop, pop Piltdown

Dig it!
Your hero's found

Southern Ape, Northern Ape
Big Bang pick axe
Got your wishful thinking
Grand foundation full of cracks

Fish flops on the sand
Wishes he had a hand
Fossil, docile,
Surrey hostel

Dance the PDSM
Dance the PDSM

(Why'd you write that?)
Chain of missing links
(How'd you write that?) 
Skeptics are having drinks
(Why'd you write that?)
Proof by hijinks
This whole theory stinks

New York, London, Paris Munich —
Everyone dance the Piltdown Music!

Boogie to Nebraska
Dig up a pig's tooth
Glue down Peppered Moths
Fabricated truth

Draw those embryos
Emperor still lacking clothes
Bones out of Peking
Evidence is leaking

(Why'd you write that?)
This "science" is slipshod
(How'd you write that?) 
But disbeliever is a clod
(Why'd you write that?)
Propaganda roughshod
(How'd you write that?)
Anything to remove God

Dance the PDSM
Dance the PDSM
Pop, pop, pop Piltdown
Pop, pop, pop Piltdown

Looks Like a Fulfilled Prophesy

But the new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it.
Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and then curses Mrs. Grundy because they keep it. As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time.
A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that bauble.
The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts.
In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men.
Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.
— G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1909

August 7, 2011

Illogic Lessons: A Rant

This article will be less cerebral and more "from the heart" as well as the mind. 
While writing and researching my "Logic Lessons" series, I have learned quite a few things. Especially when I am on the receiving end of people who claim to be "thinkers", "rational", "logical" and so forth. Very few have given me anything rational. Instead, they hit me with interesting combinations of logical fallacies that are based entirely on emotion.

Actually, their reactions are based in hate. They do not even know me, but they hate what I am saying and the Savior that I stand for (John 15.18-21). When I promote an article about creation science, I receive personal attacks from strangers on Twitter. Does that sound like a rational response to you? Me, neither. But so what? It's part of the job for which I enlisted. But I'll never understand what they hope to gain by demonizing the person instead of dealing with the concept; that is the stuff of shallow thinking and petty vendettas.

But I wanted to dwell on something else. Several of the reactions contain the same logical fallacies (the ad hominem personal attacks are the most popular). Unfortunately, I see some other fallacies frequently coming from these weak minds:

  • Poisoning the Well
  • Genetic Fallacy
  • Selective Citing
  • Straw Man
  • Red Herring ... mmmm... Red Herring ... with lemon...
These fallacies tend to merge or overlap sometimes, and it gets confusing. Suffice to say that they are all distractions as well as avoidance techniques. Instead of dealing with the material presented in a manner worthy of true scientific or intellectual inquiry, the items are dodged.

One way to avoid dealing with the sources is to say that they are false, or spurious. I believe it's because they don't like the sources (Genetic Fallacy). Let's think about this for a moment.

It's absurd enough to insult me for using them, but they only have emotionally-based insults instead of reasons for disparaging the sources. It seems to me that some people cannot be pleased because I often (but not exclusively) use Christian and Conservative sources. (By the way, I have a reasonable expectation that people can see op-ed pieces for what they are.)

So, this should be taken to its logical conclusion.

The implication is that Christian and Conservative sources are lying. Do you know what, Little Paulie Prejudiced? You are indicating that people who believe in a Holy God who disapproves of lying (Rev. 21.8) are going to deliberately use a tactic that the God they serve hates in their efforts to further his kingdom. Using defamation of character makes you even more contemptible.
In addition, the brush-off claim that the sources are lying is astonishingly stupid. That's right, I said it! Atheist associations would like nothing better than to shut down news organizations that promote a Christian worldview. If the sources were lying, then lawsuits would be flying left and right, and these agencies would be out of business.

Conservatives are used to attacks from Leftists. Even though we have higher standards than Leftists rags like the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and the mainstream networks, you keep going on about dishonest Conservatives. How dumb can you get? How low can you get, slandering the character of people just because you don't have the guts to even hear or read what they have to say?

Disparaging sources, especially without even looking at them, is cowardly. Saying that they cannot be trusted is libel. (If a source is consistenly biased and unreliable, such as (ir)RationalWiki, that's a bit different.) I had a link to a site showing strong evidence that, despite the efforts of modern atheists to "give" him to us, Adolph Hitler was not a Christian. One coward avoided reading the site because he said it looked "spurious". But far worse, Norman the Paranoid Troll raved, "Currently, he [Stormbringer] is claiming that Hitler was not a christian based on an apologetic site that is manufacturing quotes." (Learn to capitalize according to the rules of the language, Snowflake Boy!) Aside from his hateful, incomprehensible ranting, he did manage to commit outright libel against that site! Hiding your real name won't help if they want to sue you, Snowflake Boy.

Listen up: Nobody cares if you don't like the looks of a site, and your excuses for ignoring what it contains. If you can disprove what is written, by all means, try to do so. However, the site in question is full of references, so you'll have to expend a great deal of effort to discredit it. And then, you'll have to discredit all of the references available. Unless, of course, you go to atheist or Leftist ignorance pools and dip out nonsense that fits your preconceptions. It is folly to keep trying to rewrite history, thereby humiliating yourselves. The rest of us will continue to speak the truth, no matter how much you don't like it, capice?

But keep the slander and libel to yourselves.

August 6, 2011

That Old "Jesus Myth" Nonsense

Buon girono. Modern Bible critics are copy-n-paste masters. Unfortunately, they are unskilled at rational thought. (I was hit again with that ridiculous claim that Hitler was a Christian, which is easily disproved with a search. Here is just one of the links I found against that rubbish.) They will pool their ignorance at God-hating sites and forums, find someone that supports their biases and then spread the disinformation.

Frankly, I'm surprised that people still go after the "Jesus was a myth, copied from older myths" stuff. This was popularized in the Zeitgeist film, notorious for its outright falsehoods and lack of references. I don't see how anyone who claims to be "rational", "skeptical" and "a thinker" falls for that, except that they are blinded by their own hatred of God and Christians. That's right, I said it! If you have a better explanation, I'd be curious about it. But one thing is for sure, this recycled myth business is not based in historical fact. It is both sad and intellectually dishonest that people will add fabrications to the ancient stories.

Here is one article about how to think. The principles in this article should be helpful not only in dealing with this subject, but in examining other claims as well. Here is another article showing the flaws in the "ripping off the mystery religions" stuff. And an article about resurrection accounts in non-Christian religions. CARM has a good summary of the whole thing as well.

Something occurred to me. Christians should be skeptics as well. Quite a few of us are skeptical, wanting "chapter and verse" for not only spiritual claims, but for evidence. For instance, when someone passes along an e-mail that an atheist professor was humiliated when he said, "If there is a God, this chalk will not break", he lets go and it does not break — I check it out and see that it's spurious, so it doesn't leave my e-mail as a "fact". People passing along false information like the recycled myth idea make me think of those gullible people who pass along something sensationalistic because they want it to be true, and not because of any verification. Doing a copy-and-paste job from one uninformed hit piece and passing it along is not "research", capice?

Here is a video that will take you about six minutes. Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason discusses the logic required to believe the other accounts of "resurrection":

August 3, 2011

Logic Lessons: Genetic Fallacy and Poisoning the Well

I have a pair of fallacies for you, where the person is attacked rather than discussing the ideas presented on their own merits. This pair works well together, and sometimes the distinctions are blurry (even some of my sources disagree, since the ad hominem can merge with the "red herring" distraction). Since I have been subjected to this kind of "reasoning" lately, I can draw from my own experiences.

But I have to be careful, because I have been known to mix up the Genetic Fallacy and its close cousin, the Fallacy of Composition

First, the Poisoning the Well fallacy. To "poison the well", someone wants to discredit a person and ignore whatever he or she is about to present; a pre-emptive strike, if you will. You look bad before you even begin to speak. When discussing Creationism and showing the flaws in evolution, people have said that "Your Creationist sources are all disproved". Also, my news sources in other articles have been rejected out of hand because they are by Christian organizations, or Fox News. My references are not even examined by most of the critics, and they poison the well against anyone else who may have been considering checking them.
Meet its cousin, the Genetic Fallacy. This says that something is true or untrue because of its source, instead of its merit. It is a kind of red herring argument, because the user seeks to distract from the points being raised. Two points to make this more confusing: It is not always a fallacy to question the source of an argument or proposition, and sometimes the Genetic Fallacy is an ad hominem, but not always. To stay with the Creationism example, I have had my arguments rejected simply because I am a Creationist. Also, my statements have been rejected because I am a Christian.
Two fallacies. The genetic fallacy is the arbitrary rejection of something because of its source, poisoning the well happens when attempting to negate what the opposition has to say before it is said.

Both Poisoning the Well and the Genetic Fallacy are often used as manipulations in an argument. Watch for them, and call "Foul!" because good reasoning, presentations, ideas and logic are rejected. If something is untrue or invalid, it should be discussed instead of the idea, its origin or its presenter being ridiculed, capice? To me, this stinks of intellectual cowardice.

Even if you cannot exactly identify if the fallacy is Poisoning the Well or the Genetic Fallacy, you will still be able to point out the fact that the other party is not exactly playing fair.

Now I have a bonus for you. Remember Norman the Paranoid Troll? (His response to me giving him that name was to call me "Norman" right back.) Take a look at this:
Your assignment: Spot the ad hominem, Poisoning the Well and Genetic Fallacies. Be forewarned, though. They blend.

July 30, 2011

Atheists Can't Protest Everything

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?

Buon giorno. Generally speaking, in my experience, readings and so forth... Whenever I hear about atheists in the news, they're up to mischief.
And they wonder why they're the least trusted group?

Most of these things have a flimsy excuse, a misinterpretation of the spurious Constitutional "wall of separation of church and state". Oh, sure. It's in the Constitution, all right. Article 124 of the Soviet Union.

However, there are a few things that they can cry and fuss all they want, they cannot be changed.

First, the reading from Genesis on Apollo 8 has been immortalized:

There's more that they can't touch — literally.

There are followers of Jesus who have been on space missions. What I think will be the biggest irritant of all is the fact that Bibles were taken on NASA missions to the moon. Although they were on microfilm, Edgar Mitchell had the written Word of God with him on the moon. Also, the Lord's Supper was observed on the lunar surface. Dave Scott left a Bible on the Rover on the Apollo 15 mission, and the astronauts did a brief but touching ceremony for astronauts and cosmonauts who had died . Guess if atheists want to protest, they can do it all they want. But if they want that Bible removed, they'll have to go and get it. Not that they'll get popular support, capice?

NASA / Click for larger image
How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple? How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing and fools hate knowledge?
Click for larger image

Subscribe in a reader