Humanists and Germans don't like it up 'em

Humanists have the same attitude. I cannot leave comments on the blogs of the first two people whose names are at the foot of that anti-pope letter in the Guardian. I have been banned from Richard Dawkins’ blog and the moderator of the blog of delicate flower, Stephen Fry, doesn’t approve my comments.

Mr Fry is proud to be “hated” by the Daily Mail, but the moderator doesn’t accept my negative comments, which are, of course, not hateful. The first comment is this,

What happened to freedom of speech? I think it is absolutely ridiculous that a newspaper can go about accusing Stephen of “fuelling a campaign of hate” simply because he objects to the Pope visiting as a head of state. Stephen is just as entitled to his opinion as the next person…

Unless the next person disagrees with the fragrant Stephen on his fluffy bloggie-poo.

A major American humanist is PZ Myers. I followed him on Twitter last year and he replied to one of my tweets in quite a shocking way, saying Jesus buggerin’ Christ. His tweet brought so much traffic to this blog that I reposted a previous blog entry about his attempts to get his supporters to skew a poll on CNN’s website, which they did. Myers blocked me from following him on Twitter.

They don’t like it up ‘em, these humanists!

From this philosophy, developed by Scottish amateur geologist, James Hutton, assumptions about the earth’s past are made – that is, assumptions based on a philosophy and not on scientific evidence.

For example, when a modern geologist sees a massive canyon with a tiny river running through it, he assumes that this tiny river carved out the canyon, and of course, that would have taken millions of years. This assumption is based on a particular philosophy which has become the predominant one and so the assumptions are taken as facts. They aren’t facts, they are assumptions, based on the philosophy that “the present is the key to the past”.

By believing in uniformitarianism, the scientist is presented with a big problem. He has to make the evidence fit the philosophy. So, a tiny river must have carved out the Grand Canyon; mountain ranges must have developed over millions of years by tiny, gradual movements of the earth’s crust.

Evolution Theory came along shortly afterwards. When scientists (natural philosophers) knew that evolution was a fact, they had to fit it into their philosophy of long ages and belief that “the present is the key to the past”

We all know that creatures evolve. A mutation in a bug can produce a resistance to insecticide. With billions of insects, one such mutation is possible; indeed can be expected. Natural selection means that most of the planet has life present, but this is due to fairly simple differences, for example, animals with longer fur survive in colder climates and wingless beetles survive on windy islands, where their now extinct winged predecessors were being blown out to sea. When a really big change occurs, such as a beetle loses its wings, it is still due to a very minor genetic change. The information that says “make wings” stopped working. All the information for wings is still in the beetle’s DNA, so that, if some time in the future these wingless beetles were seen to have sprouted wings, it is only because a mutation caused the gene to be switched on again. No amazing, very gradual, process has happened over millions of years to produce these complex wings. The information was there all along. Just like with the blind cavefish that can see again “after millions of years” when the gene pool is improved with blind cavefish from a separate population.

This is the vital information I wish to relay: that these scientists gave evolution abilities which it does not have. They had to in order to fit evolution into their philosophy. The mistakes were compounded. People were further separated from the truth. The layman became blinded by millions and billions of years and therefore believed that anything is possible given a vast amount of time.

It is, of course, theoretically possible, but so are lots of things, like drawing out all four aces from a thousand decks of cards consecutively. It’s never going to happen, though. The life we see around us is far too complex to have developed by random mutations and natural selection. The genetic information which builds complex structures has been there since the Creation. Mutations only enable creatures to evolve from their created state.

This is why we don’t see real evidence of transitional life forms. I discussed Archaeopteryx on Tom Harris’s blog earlier this month. Archaeopteryx is perhaps the best known alleged transitional fossil, even though it is a fully formed bird with wings, feathers and avian lungs.

The fossil record does not support the Theory of Evolution. It supports an ordered creation – one where relatively minor genetic changes enable animals and plants to adapt to various climates, terrains and diets.

To sum up:

Modern science is largely based on an assumption made by an amateur Scottish geologist. As natural philosophers started becoming known as “scientists” in the increasingly materialistic 19th Century, they had to incorporate evolution into their philosophy of long ages while simultaneously rejecting the Creator, or at the very least devaluing Him. This necessitated massively overestimating the capability of organisms to evolve. Tragically, this catalogue of errors is now considered to be the truth by most people: people who know little or nothing of where their beliefs come from, but will defend them anyway. 

The Christian Union at the University of Edinburgh have put forward a motion for the student association’s AGM to allow themselves or another organisation to put Bibles in each of the bedrooms in Pollock Halls.

Myers, who I rate higher as a comedian than a scientist, wrote:

So why is the University of Edinburgh Christian Union pushing to have Bibles put in the students’ rooms? It seems like a slippery slope to me—before you know it, they’ll have verses emblazoned on the caber, you won’t be able to dive into your haggis without reciting a prayer, and they’ll be replacing the whiskey with wine.

It’s an interesting case of the tyranny of the majority. The Christians are writing this proposal, consciously making it inclusive and saying that any group can take advantage of it and stuff student rooms with their literature…while knowing full well that only the Christian Union is large enough, and backed by large international organizations dedicated to pushing religious propaganda, to be able to take advantage of the rule. Sneaky little gits.

It is a good sign, though, that other students are speaking out ferociously against the idea. That probably wouldn’t have happened in my generation.

My initial comment was:

“It’s an interesting case of the tyranny of the majority.”

So it is, PZ. You’re just so discriminated against, what with having to share the planet with other people!

You’ll no doubt be glad to know that Scotland (I am Scottish) has never been so spiritually dead. That’s why we have so many social problems, like suicide, drug-addiction, mental illness, divorce and violence. If you’re so clever, why won’t you realise that people’s spiritual needs are as important as (if not more so than) their physical requirements?

One commentator writes:

Stewart is here. Its on!

Cue the robust retorts from Myers’ rottweilers.

Recently, he stated that “Finally, a good use of the Bible” is using its pages to make a joint out of.

Now, you would think that a professor with such strong opinions would take facts and figures very seriously. The other day there was a poll on CNN’s website:

Do you believe in God?

Yes 69%
No 31%

Myers encouraged his people to vote and the figures rapidly went the other way to a whopping 67% ‘No’.

What this clever clogs did was to totally skew the poll and produce almost the complete opposite of the truth.

I can’t say I’m surprised because the Theory of Evolution depends upon fabrications, distortions and downright lies.

If he was half as clever as he thinks he is, Myers would stick to educating people, if that’s what he believes he’s doing. Maybe he’s not so sure. That would explain his continual ad hominem attacks.