Don't know much about the biologist Eugene Koonin except that it's clear he is looking of some scheme, any scheme will do, be it abiogenetic or cosmological which will make it seem plausible that life arose by the action of the atheist's emergency contingency god "Random-Chance" and not as it seems far more plausible on the known facts to believe that it most likely is a result of intelligent design. That is something which pervades the literature of speculative science in the 20th century, it is clearly behind the thinking of many ideolgical atheists who do science, some of whom achieve renown and fame. And it produces some really terrible science which is, nonetheless, published by scientists in their journals and taught in textbooks and funded by the funding agencies, such is the hold that ideological atheism has and such is the near universal cultural influence of that ideology.
And I think that this is made obvious in the abandonment of logical coherence within science by scientists of that ideological predisposition. That is something that is made blindingly obvious by the resort to the "panspermia" theory grasped onto by people like the ultra-atheist-ultra-materialst (and also scientific racist and eugenicist, and for the same reasons) Francis Crick, most famous as the Brit half of Watson and Crick, the co-discoverers of the structure of DNA. The problem with "panspermia" that life on Earth was introduced from extra-terrestrial sources is that it merely, as even Koonin admitted, puts off how life arose to some other place, bying at best a few billion years of the life of the Universe for Random-Chance to work his wonders (I'm sure these guys would at least feel their god to be a "he"). That atheist theory;s real nature shows that, blindingly obviously in the version Crick believed in where we are all part of an experiment set up by alien intelligence - brushing aside the improbabilities of such a thing - the same long distances and speed of travel which Crick's fellow ideological atheists used to debunk the UFO believers for a start - including who in the hell lives long enough to do an experiment that they'd have to live hundreds of millions of years to get any significant results from? How long did Crick believe his genius aliens live? I'd ask the obvious question - what funding agency would have given them the grant to do it?
Anyway, a listing of the idiocy of the sciency atheist-materialists would be prohibitively long. But my point yesterday morning was to show that not only do these men of science shred scientific method, they need to obliterate logical coherency and even the meaning of words for them to do what they do. Getting back to just why the "RNA World" model of how life arose is such a terrible scientific hypothesis he unwittingly produced a rather huge and ultimately self-destructive problem with it.
To wit, no one has achieved bona fide self-replication of RNA which is the cornerstone of the RNA World.
Notice in that sentence he says "no one has achieved bona fide self-replication of RNA". Which is a self-contradictory statement. If RNA is to be "sefl-replicating" RNA is the only "one" that could achieve that. It would have to happen without any human scientific intervention - YET THE ENTIRE PROJECT OF PROVING THAT RNA CAN BE "SELF-REPLICATING" IS DONE THROUGH THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN OF THE LARGELY ATHEIST-MATERIALIST IDEOLOGUES WHO WORKING AS SCIENTISTS ARE PROVIDING THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN THAT THEY WILL THEN DENY IS WHAT DID IT. And they are so stupid that they don't get why they're doing exactly the opposite of what they claim to be doing.
You would to be witless to not understand the problem of that sentence and the process it refers to as a definitive disqualification of science to "prove" or demonstrate or give you a good idea or support a hunch that intelligent design is disposed of. How witless is proved by what he said immediately after that
Nevertheless, there is a lot going for the RNA World.
These people are MORE willfully deluded and vastly less careful about self-criticism than any of the theologians I quote and cite on this blog, they could not hold a candle in their use of logic and reason and honest methods of scholastic discourse to Elizabeth Johnson or Walter Brueggeman, James Cone, Hans Kung, etc. And what they do is called, is funded as and is published as being science.
In the beginning of his book Does God Exist, Hans Kung starts with the quest for the founder of modern thought Rene Descartes whose quest was to find proof as tight as was found in pure mathematics to rest conclusions about natural phenomena on based in measurements and the direct observation of the movements and behavior of objects and, unfortunately for his wife's dog which he nailed to a board and dissected live, without anesthetics, pooh-poohing the poor dog's agonized cries as merely the noise a defective machine makes - living beings. Clearly his desired view of reality was strong enough for him to deny not only what he was observing but what he was doing - which is a cold-blooded habit of thinking that has pervaded science as the servant of wealth and power to this day.
But it is also a habit that allows them to pretend that they are not violating the very methods they claim as their basic rules when they blatantly are. And it's not only a matter of cutting corners of supposed scientific method they'll shred the entire thing even as they pretend that's not what they're obviously doing. And there are no more blatant shredders of it than those who use the appearance of science to conduct their ideological campaign against a belief in God in favor of their substitute henotheon of gods, disposed of and taken up as convenient, matter, matter-energy, and, as early 20th century physics made a belief in 19th century style materialism irrational (but never truly given up by its faithful)) Random-Chance.
I was thinking about this yesterday and it occurred to me that to my knowledge the tendency of those with a mathematical knack or inclination to attribute divine power to numbers and geometrical objects shows up at least as early as Pythagoras and probably pre-dated him - I think most of what the Ancient Greeks are attributed they stole from Semitic and African people. And such a tendency is always strongest in those who deny they believe in gods, most of all the God of monotheism.
The atheist-materialist-scientistic mind loves to believe that our consciousness is anything from an ephemeral product of our brain chemistry to non-existent. When you think about the way these guys think you have to wonder if it isn't the quality of their own thinking that leads them to believe that, that we are merely, at best, computers made of meat. They were thinking that when computers were, by today's standards, really weak and unaccomplished - they were headed in that direction before they'd made the first one.
I will admit that it gratifies me to be able to point that out to you guys. The outraged, hurt and angry response from some really assholish and arrogant atheists is gratifying. I figured I should get it out of my system now because Lent starts on Wednesday.
No comments:
Post a Comment