Darwinism and popular culture: So we really ARE allowed to critique the little god Darwin now?
| November 2, 2009 | Posted by O'Leary under Darwinism |
Apparently, the sort of comments made in my article in Touchstone – about the little god Darwin – have been noticed by at least one person.
THE DARWIN MOVIE’S NOT SELLING, but John Scalzi doubts those evil Creationmongers are a part of the reason:
How about this: The movie is not selling because it is not believed … Huh? Maybe the story is not believable?
People now generally guess that Darwin was a materialist atheist long before his daughter died. And his whole coterie was committed to promoting the view that he lost his faith over her death , and it is still fronted today.
Fact: In North America, you cannot legally line up people at gun point and force them to watch some propaganda film worshipping Darwin – or worshipping anything – and threaten to shoot or otherwise punish them if they say they do not believe it. If that is not the law where you live, please hold a revolution now.
As a traditional Canadian, I am not a fan of revolution in general. Nature is our vast antagonist, not man. Check a map. But in some places maybe people need a revolution, to get the point across that there are some areas government must not infringe, including freedom of religion and freedom of media. (We have big problems with that just now, but we are getting the message across.)
While I am here, one of the most significant books published this year, because it – potentially – rids us of much Darwin nonsense, endlessly iterated in textbooks, teacher’s manuals and popular films, is Michael Flannery’s republishing, with a useful introduction, of Alfred Russel Wallace’s Theory Of Intelligent Evolution . We would be vastly better off if Wallace, rather than Darwin, had been the main theorist. For example, we would never have dealt with the awful eugenics movement and the completely ridiculous evolutionary psychology movement. Wallace was far wiser than his co-theorist, Darwin, about the stuff that really matters.
156 Responses to Darwinism and popular culture: So we really ARE allowed to critique the little god Darwin now?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Mr BA^77,
Thank you for highlighting the relevant portions. You would do well to compare across all three documents we have been discussing. You will see that the beam splitter occupies the spot labelled ‘scan’ on the IBM Research web page, a page you brought forward as authoritative.
It is a complete about face for you to now, after many previous claims to the contrary, try to save face by claiming teleportation takes place at the detector. But according to you, if the photon is teleported, it is not there to be detected, but if it is detected, it has not been teleported.
Bottom line: after shouting “Rabbit Season” interminably, you are now shouting “Duck Season”. Well, if you say so…
You Know Nak, I have patiently pointed out your flaws of reasoning and yet you still try to find any place to hide so as to not face the reality of the theistic implications of the experiment. I stand behind my claim.
As for you if you think dodging this one technical point of interpretation of quantum teleportation let’s you off the hook, you are once again severely misguided, for “hidden variables” which are absolutely essential for a materialist to maintain any coherent scientific claim to explaining reality has been completely overthrown.
Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show – July 2009
Excerpt: scientists have now proven comprehensively in an experiment for the first time that the experimentally observed phenomena cannot be described by non-contextual models with hidden variables. http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....142824.htm
As well you have no excuse for ignoring a transcendent origin of the universe:
Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete – Borde-Guth-Vilenkin – 2003
Excerpt: inflationary models require physics other than inflation to describe the past boundary of the inflating region of spacetime.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012
“It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can long longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.” Alexander Vilenkin – Many Worlds In One – Pg. 176
As well methodological naturalism is itself shaken to its core since information “runs the show” for reality.
Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe?
Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: “In the beginning was the Word.” Anton Zeilinger – a leading expert in quantum teleportation:
http://www.metanexus.net/magaz.....fault.aspx
Mr BA^77,
“I stand behind my claim.” Which claim is that? That the first law is violated? That detectors are unnecessary? That beam splitters are unnecessary?
I think you are safe with the claim that quantum teleportation has theistic implications. Claim away. Proclaim. Declaim.