Reflections on key recent events: Eminent science journal advises meat puppets to get over “image of God” rubbish
|November 30, 2007||Posted by O'Leary under The Design of Life|
Nothing in the intelligent design controversy is more instructive than a convinced Darwinist making his true position very, very clear.
This happened again recently, I see, when Britain’s elite science journal Nature responded to US Senator Brownback, who had written in the New York Times (May 31, 2007). Pointing out that – when he famously raised his hand during a Republican debate – he did not dispute evolution as a process but did dispute the materialist deductions drawn from it, he said,
While no stone should be left unturned in seeking to discover the nature of man’s origins, we can say with conviction that we know with certainty at least part of the outcome. Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order. Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.
To which Nature’s editors responded in “Evolution and the Brain”, sniffing with obvious distaste (June 14, 2007), “With all deference to the sensibilities of religious people, the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside.”
We are informed, according to British physicist David Tyler,
The particular point at issue concerns the human mind, and the Editorial insists that the conceptual framework for understanding humanity is evolutionary theory. Thinking based upon human minds being “the product of evolution is not atheistic theology. It is unassailable fact.” Furthermore, the Editorial goes on, “our feelings, intuitions, the ways in which we love and loathe, are the product of experience, evolution and culture alone.” The Editorial concludes: “Scientific theories of human nature may be discomforting or unsatisfying, but they are not illegitimate. And serious attempts to frame them will reflect the origins of the human mind in biological and cultural evolution, without reference to a divine creation.”
(I am quoting Tyler because the Nature item requires US$30.)
Remember this little contretemps when someone informs you that there is “no conflict” between your religion (no matter what it is) and current materialist evolution theory (whatever outlandish assertion it is currently making).
Now, most of the people who have told me that there is no conflict are simply not well informed enough to have any idea what they are talking about. They don’t know, for example, about the Nature editorial. They have never heard of Rick Sternberg, Guillermo Gonzalez, Robert Marks, or anyone else who was caught adding to the growing pile of evidence against materialism. Or if they have heard of them, they have comforted themselves with the belief that these scientists somehow “brought it on themselves.”
(Yes, they did bring it on themselves. They provided evidence against materialism.)
However, now and then I run into someone who does know what he is talking about when he tells me that there is no conflict. What he means is something like this: There is no conflict because the materialist elite are the only source of real facts about humans. If you want to be a happy clappie for Jesus somewhere, that is your private vice. Which is essentially what Nature’s editorialists believe.
As Tyler puts it,
Apparently, “science” requires Christians to put aside the idea that man was created in the image of God, and evolutionary psychology requires Christians to abandon the idea that feelings, intuitions and emotions are related to the relationship people have with God. The assertion that “science” has these theological implications should surely make us realise that the fact/value demarcation is inappropriate and that it is time to revisit these issues. The “science” of the Editorial is naturalistic and it is inherently impoverished. We need ID inputs to this debate to reclaim science from the tyranny of naturalism.
Hear, hear. But let’s not limit this to Christians. If you are a thinking person who belongs to any spiritual tradition and you sense “no conflict”, you live without pride or shame.
Harsh? You think I’M harsh? Wait till you see what your materialist masters think about you, meat puppet. Bunch of chemicals running around in a bag.
You may not be able to do anything about it just now, especially if you are surrounded by warm, fuzzy people who blindly pay taxes to support the institutions where materialist thugs make the rules and launch persecutions against anyone who is in a position to challenge them. Cheer up, though. The price the warm fuzzies pay is actually worse in the long run. From long disuse, they lose the ability to even think clearly – and they can’t afford to, anyway, because they would be forced to witness their own capitulation instead of just happily ignoring it.
Note 1: I personally believe that Brownback made a mistake in his contrast between faith and science. Where anything to do with Darwinism is concerned, the proper contrast is between the evidence from the history of life and Darwinism.
Note 2: Only a convinced materialist of the most dogmatic sort could seriously argue that it is “unassailable” that the human mind is a product of evolution. There are a dozen theories about what the mind even IS, so who’s to say what it is a product of – except a materialist dogmatist who already knows the answer so it doesn’t matter what the question is. But – if you teach at a university in any relevant field – are you free to disagree? If not, maybe you need to join the Expelled for your own protection.