Intelligent

You know I have a fascination with the argument over the validity of Darwinian evolution.  Recently I have been reading a (2004) volume by William Dembski, Uncommon Dissent.  The book is a compilation of essays by fifteen intellectuals who challenge Darwinism.

One essay discusses the battle in the U.S. over whether ideas that contrast with Darwinism ought to be included in public school curricula.  This post will be brief.  I just want to echo one point made by one of the contributors to Uncommon Dissent.

Proponents of the Darwinian theory of evolution do not want Intelligent Design (ID) taught in schools.  They view ID proponents as religious fanatics.  They see religion as mere myth and fantasy.  Surely educators should not be propounding unscientific fantasies in the classroom.

Darwinists see the evolution theory as a purely scientific theory - scientific in that it is naturalistic.  The naturalistic view of the cosmos is that stuff happened naturally and randomly - without direction and purpose.  It insists on a universe devoid of God or a creator - devoid of intelligent organization or design.

Darwinists argue that evolutionary theory MUST be taught to our children because it IS SCIENCE, whereas the view that there may have been a purposeful designer is religious fanaticism.  Problem is - there are many smart scientists who don't believe Darwinism has been proved as unquestioned scientific fact either.

Einstein taught us (Second Law of Thermodynamics) that, if left to its own devices, everything in the universe will tend towards chaos, disorder, entropy.  Why then, are evolutionists so comfortable with the idea that, without intervention, biology naturally and gradually tends towards the beautiful, ordered complexity we see now in ourselves and in the world around us?

The way in which proponents of Darwinism successfully drown out the millions of adherents to the Intelligent Design theory is wickedly simple.  They re-frame the argument.  Darwinism itself is a system of beliefs.  No scientist has EVER successfully demonstrated (or even explained) how one species can morph into a different one, or even how the eye organ went from not existing to now allowing us all to see.  They say, "Well, it might have happened like this," or, "Scientists believe it probably evolved gradually over a long span of time."  Still, there is NO science in these assertions, they are just beliefs, faith in a idea.

By re-framing the argument and saying that evolution is science, and that the ubiquitous evidence of purposeful, intelligent design is fantasy, the evolutionists persuade Americans and their governments that only "science", not "religion" deserves a place in the classroom.  No other cosmic or contrasting view can be discussed - even those of scientists who are not proponents of "creationism".

The ardent evolutionist is likely always an avowed atheist who desperately wants God not to be there.  Why?  Why do they want also to control your children's minds?

Maybe you SHOULD home-school your kids.

Short Memory

Dallin H. Oaks gives 3 fingers

In this photo, LDS Apostle Dallin H. Oaks is giving three fingers.  I have heard hypocrisies from this guy on other occasions, but he distinguished himself again in last weekend's (October 2013) LDS General Conference. 

I believe that churches should formulate whatever teachings and policies they want to.  The argument over gay legal marriage in America is silly.

Meanwhile, read the following from the AP:
 -------------------------------------
The Mormon church cannot condone same-sex marriage, even if that stance might be misunderstood or prompt accusations of bigotry, a top church leader has said.

No matter what legislation US states or nations passed, human laws could not "make moral what God has declared immoral", Apostle Dallin Oaks told the church's biannual general conference in Salt Lake City on Sunday.

He urged members to remember that their first priority was to serve God, and the policies of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were based on God's decrees, the Salt Lake Tribune reported.

The church's eternal perspective did not allow members "to condone such behaviors or to find justification in the laws that permit them", Oaks said. "And unlike other organizations that can change their policies and even their doctrines, our policies are determined by the truths God has declared to be unchangeable."

Associated Press in Salt Lake City 
Sunday 6 October 2013 22.16 EDT
 ---------------------------------------------
I just think Oaks's temerity and gall are breathtaking.  He suggests that the Mormon Church would not dream of changing its "doctrines".  Is his memory so short, that he does not remember the Church changing its doctrines regarding priesthood for African Americans, the taking of plural wives, and the identity of God (Michael/Adam)?  The Church changed its prohibitions against abortion, did away with the Seventies, canceled the gathering, changed the sacred temple garment, gutted the temple ceremony with its penalties and more, etcetera, etcetera. 

I am reminded of an earlier hypocrisy from Oaks when he argued vigorously for freedom of religion in America (despite the Church's vengeful persecution of Fundamentalist Mormons for a hundred years).  What is this guy smoking?

I don't argue for the Mormon Church to solemnize nuptials for gay people, but Oaks does what a lot of stupid people do - he confuses religious matrimony with government marriage contracts - two completely different things.  The Church already drastically changed its own definition of marriage, stripping the New and Everlasting Covenant of its critical plural component.  It has no business telling the states how to dispense secular marriage licenses.

Oaks is an intelligent guy - he was BYU president, a state Supreme Court justice, and a University of Chicago (Illinois) professor.  I wish he would use that intelligence to get the story straight and quit deceiving the millions of faithful with the myth that the Church diligently preserves divine, unchangeable doctrines.

Drum Beat

I watched a little CNN this morning.  I have this image in my mind of the job interview process for CNN anchors -

INTERVIEWER: - - "Thanks for coming in to meet with us today.  Let's get started. 

First, do you worship Barack Obama and his socialist ideals?"

APPLICANT: - -  "Yes."

INTERVIEWER: - - "Great, you're hired. Start tomorrow."

The discussion on the network's shows today has been the horrific stories caused by the now three-day-long partial shutdown of federal government operations - children are dying of cancer, impoverished government employees cannot afford their medication, federal workers will have their homes foreclosed on, the sky will soon fall in.  Sacrosanct is Obaminacare, so that more wealth can be redistributed by the government (while paying the IRS $200 million to collect it from us).

Obama calls this "the Republican Shutdown".  He will not talk to Republican leaders to work out a compromise, so the shutdown may drag on for a while.  Today, Obama mentioned how terrible it will be if we have not only a government shutdown, but also the "economic shutdown" which will ensue if we don't "pay our bills" and meet our "financial obligations" - translate - "continue to pay our ($1 billion dollar-per-day) interest payments to the usury-mongers.  God forbid!!  Then the sky really would fall in, right?  Or would it?

Obama said that were we not to pay our debt payments, it would hurt all the other countries around the world.  If the other countries joined us, however, in an interest payment moratorium, what would happen?  I guess a few Mediterranean banking families would not collect our hard-earned paper cash that they counterfeited, and they would have to start dipping into all those gold reserves they confiscated from the world's nations.

Whom is Obama protecting?

Nobody would say that CNN's talking heads are evil, but why do they maintain this persistent pro-Obama-socialist drumbeat to convince viewers that free stuff is the right way to run a country, when the free stuff has to be stolen from other folks?  I guess conservatism runs in my blood, because I cannot understand the mindset of people who want entitlements, unless a spirit of plunder runs through their veins.  Obama's model is downright devilish and unconstitutional.

I'm going to watch this squabble over the next few days, because I think that the nation may soon realize that Obama is the one standing in the way of a solution.  He wants you to think that it is the Republicans who are being obstinate. The law of unintended consequences may kick in.