Rocks of Ages Evolve for Me

The theory of evolution is a strange beast and I've battled with it for a long time. According to the evolutionary biologist if you don't believe in evolution then you're an idiot and perhaps evil, or maybe you just haven't evolved far enough and reached enlightenment via natural selection. Personally, I don't buy the story of man's history that evolution paints.

There are many ways to define evolution and on the most basic level it's impossible to deny. Things change everyday. Lives come and go, sediment settles and erodes, organisms adapt and become extinct, and fads foster and fade. Some days I'm totally awesome, others I'm only kind of awesome, and at times I'm not really awesome at all (but still more awesome than you). Change over time cannot be denied as the denial of change over time is a change that has taken place in time. Evolution in its simplest form is undeniable.

But that's not what we are talking about here. We're talking about the belief that all of biology and its vast diversity can be explained through naturalistic mechanisms. No supernatural input has taken place nor is it needed. The Designer is out of a job and His replacement is chance.

"No you stupid, evil, neanderthal," cries the pitchfork carrying evolutionist, "it's not chance it's the fine-tuning scale of natural selection that makes the magic happen!"

"Erm.. well..," I stumble in reply, "you see.. um.. that natural selection stuff just doesn't do it for me--and please quit poking me in the arm with your pitchfork."

"Never! Here, let me show you! I made this voodoo doll of a creationist several weeks ago and I torture it every night before I go to bed. Here, I'm going to tear off his arms and legs and toss him into this bucket of water. I shall call him Bob, you know, because he can't swim he can only bob in the water! Get it...? Oh, never mind! Look, now I'm going to take my Richard Dawkins creationist fighting action figure and place him into the water next to Bob. Who do you think is going to have a better chance of surviving? Bob the creationist, or Dawkins the evolutionist?"

"Well, I guess the creationist because Jesus could walk out on the water and save him and Dawkins would be left to fight a evolutionary advanced killer shark with lasers of death or something."

"See! This is why you creationists are so stupid. It's obviously Dawkins--he has the means to survive and can pass on his genetic code to the next generation. The creationist with no arms, no legs, and really, no brain, won't be as prosperous and will eventually die off! This idea can be extrapolated back in time, and all random changes in a creature go through this scale of fine-tuning. Creatures with beneficial mutations live on, and the others die off. Now if you'll pardon me I have to go home and do my daily devotional to Charles Darwin."

That's usually how my conversations go. Seriously. No hyperbole at all. I promise.

The opposite of design is chance, if a change in time wasn't instituted with a purpose (by design) then it came about by chance (with no design). Seeing as that evolution denies that design is necessary, then the only other option is chance. But the evolutionist realizes that chance will never bring about the complexity we see in nature and so they need a non-intelligent natural mechanism to run the show. This is natural selection and it weeds the bad "design" from the good.

Here's my problem. Natural selection is nothing in and of itself. Natural selection is in essence nothing. There is no physical law of natural selection, nor is there something working behind the scenes pulling the strings.

Suppose you had to babysit a creationist and you had to keep him entertained for millions of years. This, of course, is easy because creationists are stupid. You give him a giant bag of rocks and tell him to have fun. Stepping back you watch as the creationist reaches into the bag, looks at the rock, tries to eat it, hurts his mouth, and throws the rock away in pain. Shaking off the pain, the creationist reaches back into the bag, and does it all over again. After overseeing this cycle for a couple of hours you walk off and go about your normal life.

Several millions of years later you look at your watch and realize that the creationists parents will be back at any moment and quickly return to make sure he's still okay. Back on the scene you find a giant column of rocks towering hundreds of feet into the sky and the dumb creationist in the middle of trying to eat his current rock just before tossing aside in hunger. Mystified you call in your friendly neighborhood scientist to explain the pillar of rocks and how it got there.

It's quite simple he tells you. It's natural selection. The first rock just happened to land in such and such a fashion and then, who knows how much later, another rock just happened to land on top of the prior rock in a way that it started building the tower and so on and so forth. Natural selection dictates that the rocks which land are more apt to "survive" on the previous rock, and those that are not quickly "die" or fall off.

This is when the parents return and the creationist runs to them and brags about how he has been building them a rock tower while they've been gone. Happy for their gift and seeing the added company they ask the scientist to stay for some of their infamous cooking by chance, but the scientist quickly, though politely, excuses himself.

As far as see it, natural selection doesn't help avoid the impossibility of chance bringing about the complexity of my body. There still needs to be a designer. This is because natural selection is a tautology. It merely tells us that the rocks which land in a way to build the tower will be the ones that build the tower--the rest will find their resting place elsewhere. But of course this is true. If something is, then it isn't how it would be if it was not. Can anyone tell me how natural selection is adding anything to the equation? Chance is still the deciding factor as chance plus nothing is still chance and I don't consider myself a betting man.

Is it possible that the towering pile of rocks you came to discover came about by chance and not design? Sure, I guess it is possible. But just because something is possible doesn't mean that it's actual or even probable. It is possible for a bomb to go off in an a printing press and for the ink and paper to arrange itself into a novel, but that doesn't mean that any sane person should believe that it actual occurred. I'm sure that we could even come up with computer programs and charts showing how all the paper fell this way and that way, and how the ink splattered on this and then fell on that which bounced on to that, and so on and so forth. Yet, the fact remains it's so improbable that I doubt anyone would actually believe in it unless they had prior convictions placed in the idea.

But don't mind me. I'm just a evil and under-developed creationist moron with too many rocks in his head.

Beware Intellectuals

I was flipping through Paul Johnson's book Intellectuals again before I let a friend borrow it and the last paragraph resonated within me when placed in the context of what America is currently fighting against. Our country has been taken out of the hands of the people, and placed into the hands of others who claim to know what is best for us. Call me crazy, but I still believe that I know what is best for me, not another man called an intellectual.

Trust the intellectuals and you will soon find that the pretty promises backed up by college degrees and scientific studies will only lead you to the chopping block to make way for another man's utopia. Keep a close eye on this administration, for they are the dreamers, and we are the chaff which must be cleared away to build their heavenly home.

At the closing of his book, a book dedicated to showing how the elites who shaped culture were the most dangerous of men, Johnson concludes:

I think I detect today a certain public scepticism when intellectuals stand up to preach to us, a growing tendency among ordinary people to dispute the right of academics, writers and philosophers, eminent though they may be, to tell us how to behave and conduct our affairs. The belief seems to be spreading that intellectuals are no wiser as mentors, or worthier as exemplars, than the witch doctors or priests of old. I share that scepticism. A dozen people picked at random on the street are at least as likely to offer sensible views on moral and political matters as a cross-section of the intelligentsia. But I would go further. One of the principal lessons of our tragic century, which has seen so many millions of innocent lives sacrificed in schemes to improve the lot of humanity, is--beware intellectuals. Not merely should they be kept well away from the levers of power, they should also be objects of particular suspicion when they seek to offer collective advice. Beware committees, conferences and leagues of intellectuals. Distrust public statements issued from their serried ranks. Discount their verdicts on political leaders and important events. For intellectuals, far from being highly individualistic and non-conformist people, follow certain regular patters of behavior. Taken as a group, they are often ultra-conformists within the circles formed by those whose approval they seek and value. That is what makes them, en masse, so dangerous, for it enables them to create climates of opinion and prevailing orthodoxies, which themselves often generate irrational and destructive courses of action. Above all, we must at all times remember what intellectuals habitually forget: that people matter more than concepts and must come first. The worst of all despotisms is the heartless tyranny of ideas.

Spiritual Chaos Theory

What's up with the stance of being spiritual, but not being into any organized religion? What's the other option? Unorganized religion? I'm not so sure about that, but I do enjoy unorganized cooking. Like, I'm a hungry person, but I don't believe in any of that organized cooking stuff. Culinary creeds are for fools; I prefer to just throw a bunch of random foods into a pot, cook it to well done, and attempt to drink the results through a straw. I usually serve the leftovers at my unorganized game night where we just dump five different board games on the table and each play our own game with its own rules at the same time. Sometimes I don't even tell people where the game night will be and we all just show up at random locations and play a game without any rules. It's a lot of fun.

But seriously (erm semi-seriously?), what is organized religion? Well, I guess it's religion with rules. You know what else has rules?

Reality.

If you run a red light you will get a ticket. If you heat copper it will expand. If you drink ten gallons of milk in one sitting you will die (but you will die a legend!). I can't see anyone saying, "I believe in reality, but I don't believe in any of that organized and agreed upon reality crap; I live according to my own reality!" Well, I guess there are people like that, but then they ask where the bathroom is and contradict everything they believe in. Nature (i.e. reality) calls!

Suppose I came across this book, and I was all like, "woah, this book sure claims to say a lot about this fellow named God!" And then I started taking all its propositional truth claims and tried my best to place them into a coherent system of thought and other people did too, and then we came across each other and said, "hey, we so totally believe the same thing!" So we began to get together and talk about the book and invite others to learn about it. Sometimes we would disagree and have to hash out our differences, but other times we would agree and be all like, "fo' sho', yo!" Now, would anything be wrong with this? Is there something wrong with it just because it's organized, that is, placed into an objective systematic whole?

I guess some groups might get a little weird. One group leader might claim to have infallible knowledge of the universe and some might buy into it. A couple weeks later and they are drinking poisoned vodka in the name of the potato god (no offense to any potato gods who might be reading this), but I don't see how that is a mark against organization, rather it's a mark against people being, well, crazy.

Another group might get together and the leader starts to teach of this great holy book that only he can understand and he begins to delegate responsibilities to his followers. They unquestionably believe him, start doing his will, and then a couple years later all of the believers are sharing a room at the Motel 6 while he retires with his own tropical island. Was it organized, yea, I guess, but it seems to me that it's more of an argument against, well, jerks.

We could go on all day and the property of being organized wouldn't be touched.

Personally, I consider myself a spiritual person, but I believe in religion that is true. If someone has a religious claim and it corresponds to reality then sign me up for it. If it just so happens that they have a location where they meet on a regular basis to talk about this religious truth, then that's even better. I might even bring some of my unorganized cooking to feed the masses. I'll be like that Jesus guy with fish and bread, just with less God and more sin.

How to Properly Brainwash Your Children

I can't wait to have children one day so I can brainwash them into believing everything that I do. After all, it's the only reason people believe in Christianity to begin with. It all has to do with where one was born and what they were taught to believe. It's like pants. The only reason I wear pants today is because I was raised to believe that one should wear pants.

Or not...

Why do I wear pants? Because I don't want to be punched in the face for walking around without any pants on. Why do I believe in Christianity? Because I don't want to be punched in the face by reality for trying to live according to some other nonsense. Christianity is true, and therefore I believe in it. If it's not true, then there is no reason to believe in it. Its worth is nothing, and let's move on to the next big thing. I guess we could make a religion out of American Idol or something. We'll worship whomever wins for a year, and then move on once another singer is deemed worthy of our worship.

I remember when I was growing up and I tried to pick up some scissors and my parents were all like "oh, hell no" and told me to put them down. Yea, they did that because scissors are dangerous and they wanted to teach me to be careful with sharp objects until I was mature enough for them (which might be soon). They were teaching me to live according to how reality really is. They didn't let me play with the scissors and allow me to decide for myself if they were dangerous or not.

All of this applies to Christianity. If we want to properly brainwash our children we need to teach them not only that Jesus loves them because the Bible tells us so, but the reasons and foundation for why Jesus is God, why God exists, and why they can trust the Bible to begin with. It's not merely our personal belief that Christianity is true, just like my parents didn't only personally believe the scissors were dangerous. The scissors are sharp, and Christianity is true, and therefore we should act and raise our children accordingly.

Passing on a faith without reason is teaching a faith in faith--a meaningless faith. It would be like having hope in hope or being in love with love. What is true faith? Faith in Christ--the Incarnation of the living God. The Christ who was born, crucified, and raised from the grave in space, time, and history. Faith is only worth the objective reality of the object it's placed in.

Fail to brainwash our children properly and they will end up in college and be told a lot of nonsense by atheists who will demolish their faith in faith and our children will buy into a lie and become a bunch of silly atheists as well. Our brainwashing must be stronger than the atheists, and the only way we are going to do this is if we instill in our children a faith based in reason, evidence, and reality. Not a faith in faith, not a faith based in emotion, not a faith coming from a pragmatic wager, nor a faith springing from an existential crises--only a faith based in the objective reality of the God who is there will suffice for our children.

If we don't brainwash our children first, then the culture, colleges, and celebrities will.

It's our choice.

Let's put on some pants and thump some Bibles and brains.

Rabid Monkeys For Congress!

I think I have a solution to fixing our problems with a runaway Congress. Replace them with rabid monkeys. All of them. Not only would this make watching C-Span absolutely awesome, but we wouldn't have to worry about losing our voice to a small group of people tossing away our freedom and money for the sake of personal gain.

I know, I know. How is this going to work you might ask. It's simple, really.

The next time an election rolls around everyone will vote for rabid monkeys to fill the seats. The Constitution doesn't say anything about monkeys not being allowed to be part of the House or Senate. It only says persons, and monkeys are people too, dammit. You've seen them dance while wearing those cool fez hats. It's totally rad. Therefore, they're people. Period.

Of course to fill the House you have to be at least 25 years of age and for Senate you need to be 30, but that is according to the human lifespan. Monkeys would be long dead before that, and you can't discriminate according to lifespan--or rabies. (That's just wrong. There should be a hate crime law or something against that.) So if the average human lives to be 80 and if the average monkey lives to be 25 then a monkey must be at least eight years old for the House or ten for the Senate (I rounded up just for good measure).

When it comes to bringing up new bills we shall give each monkey a typewriter. According to the infinite monkey theorem a monkey pounding away at a typewriter will eventually produce any randomly selected text so it's probabilistically certain that actual legible bills will be produced. Even if the theorem turns out to be false then the nonsense produced will be infinitely better than the current bills being debated. Every night the rabid monkeys shall bang away at the keys screaming like mad monkeys ('cause they're rabid and stuff) and the results will be posted online.

If enough people like the bill then it can be voted on by sending in bananas labeled with "aye" and "nay." The bananas will then be sorted by computer according to vote and district and placed into piles respectively. The rabid monkey representative will then choose the pile of bananas that is larger and the bill would be given to the president to sign if it passes.

Of course there is also the issue of how rabid monkeys are to deal with other nations, treason, and whatnot, but in that case we just send the party in question the rabid monkeys themselves, and after several hours alone no one will dare to mess with us again. Rabid monkeys are the ultimate negotiating tool, as you always get your way. Other nations will be sending us gifts in fear of having personal visits from Congress show up at their door to talk things out.

I think that about sums everything up and should solve all of our problems. And even if it doesn't could it make things any worse? Could it? No, I didn't think so.

Unless Congress escaped into the streets or something--but that's what our guns are for.

Fort Hood & the Battle of Beliefs

Nobody wants to admit it and the media is trying their best to sacrifice history at the altar of political correctness. The tale woven from the moment the Fort Hood killings took place was that the party responsible was a victim of a broken system. The truth, however, is that the killer was acting rationally and logically from his religious beliefs.

The killer was a Muslim who believed America was threatening Islam and he had to act out in self-defense. He was committed to giving his life for Allah to further the goal of bringing the world under the rule of Sharia Law. It's not my interest to argue if the man's actions were consistent with Islamic teaching (although I believe that they were). Regardless of how his actions reflected Islamic orthodoxy the point is that the man was acting consistently with his system of beliefs.

Beliefs are the strings of the web that make up our worldview. Beliefs are what we hold to be true, and necessarily lead to how we live our lives. Modern science was born from the belief that the world was created by God and therefore rational and capable of being understood. America was founded on the creed that all men were equal because they were created by God. The shooter at Fort Hood acted out on the belief that Muhammad had called him to wage war against the unbeliever.

I am (obviously) very opinionated. I love to share, listen, and debate beliefs with others. It's what I live for and I think it's what we were all created for. I believe that we were all created to come to find truth--the Truth that embodies itself in the Person of Jesus Christ-- and therefore (watch how this works now), I voice my opinion and attempt to share what I believe with others. My belief about the world naturally leads to how I live.

How do people react to my opinion? They quickly tell me that they are a "live and let live" kind of person. They have their beliefs, others have their own, and that's the end of it. Time to move on and get back to living life and quit worrying about what someone else happens to believe.

If you're sharp enough you can pick up on the slight of hand taking place here.

Do you see it?

The person who argues that we should live and let live when it comes to beliefs is acting out of that belief and forcing it upon everyone else. They are not living and letting live, they are saying live and let live according to how I view the world--a world where we somehow all live in a vacuum from our beliefs. But, that just isn't possible. Even the nihilist has a creed--a credo of holding to no creeds.

Perhaps if we were all islands such a philosophy could work, but the truth is that no man is an island. How we live affects everyone else around us, and how we live follows from what we believe about the world. Hold the wrong belief and you could end up slaughtering millions of people. Whether it's the infidel in the name of Allah, the Jews in the name of social improvement, or the unborn in the name of choice, the path is the same. Beliefs about the nature of reality birth action.

I challenge you to examine your beliefs and constantly attempt to conform them to the nature of reality. Reality is harsh and unforgiving. It doesn't matter how strong your beliefs are about the non-existence of gravity, walk off a cliff and you will fall to your death. Reality has shown us once again at Fort Hood that if you ignore the battle of beliefs, then you are damning the world to live and let die.

This is the Story of Love and of Living

I've always liked this because it's about me. Perhaps you as well.

The Metaphysical Naturalist Meets His Maker

Metaphysical naturalism is the belief that nature is all that exists. For the naturalist the ontology of man can be summed up on a socio-biological level. In the words of evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, "DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music." Man, according to Dawkins, is a slave to his DNA and has no actual choice in his actions. There is no room for moral or rational deliberation, only an endless string of materialistic cause and effect. Man is a robot acting to a coding written by an irrational and immoral universe.

In this short film Brian Godawa reveals the experiential problem with such a view of reality. A college professor is forced to look his theory in the face and try to find a reason why he should not be murdered after being captured by a serial killer. After all, arguing that another man (a machine) should not act a certain way is like trying to tell the wind it should not blow. The wind does not blow through choice, it merely reacts to other physical forces. The wind, like us, neither knows nor cares.

We, however, do know and care. Quite a bit, actually. Perhaps because we were created by God.

Too bad for this guy.