Saturday, 19 May 2007

A weekend ramble through religion, history, illiteracy and Wikipedia... and more. Enjoy!

Another Saturday morning ramble through links, sites and titbits that caught my eye over the last week as I waded through the interweb.
  • The US Center for Public Policy Research is turning Greenpeace's insistence on climate skeptic organisations revealing their funding back on Greenpeace, "challenging Greenpeace and its affiliates to disclose the sources and amounts of its 2006 donations exceeding $50,000," and revealing some of those donors.
    Greenpeace - perhaps based on its own behavior - assumes that donations influence the stands groups such as ours take. They do not. So that the public can judge for themselves, we're challenging Greenpeace to complete transparency through disclosure of major gifts... If Greenpeace expects its call for public disclosure of grants of other groups to be taken seriously, they should lead by example. If not, they're the real "denial industry."
    If Greenpeace agrees, says The Center, then they will do the same. See Think Tank Challenges Greenpeace to Meet Transparency Standards.

  • John Stossel makes a point, which as usual is a point worth making:
    Whenever someone is hurt in an accident, people say, "There ought to be a law!" Politicians rush to oblige them and then take credit for all the lives they saved. But shouldn't they also accept blame for the lives lost because of those laws?
    Lives lost? Yes. A joint study by the Brookings Institution and American Enterprise Institute found that government regulations that are supposed to save lives actually end up killing more people. Why? Because safety laws almost always have unintended bad consequences.
    See John Stossel: Hazardous Safety Regulation.

  • Hate Crime. Ed Cline has the real oil on so called "hate crimes," and here's the nub:
    The first and most crucial thing to grasp about what can be deemed a “hate crime” is that it is, essentially, a political crime.
    He's right you know. Read Ed Cline: The Genesis of Thought Crime.

  • And read Ed too on Jamestown -- the first successful American colonial outpost -- and Why Jamestown Matters,.a letter correcting a politically correct account of the colony that appeared in a national newspaper. As you'll see, Ed's account has relevance both to New Zealand colonisation, and to recent arguments about politics and religion. Historian Eric Daniels fleshes out Ed's response in a more detailed exposition of the Jamestown colony. Jamestown, he says, was The Birthplace of America's Distinctive, Secular Ideal.

  • David Bain is the new David Beckham, or so you would think from all the media coverage he's received this week. When will he be on Dancing With the Stars? Notes the Kiwi Pundit,
    The 'miscarriage of justice' referred to in the [Privy Council] decision is not that the verdict was likely to be wrong. The point is that justice requires that the defendant be convicted by a jury that has seen all the evidence. The Bain jury didn't see all the evidence, therefore there is a miscarriage of justice. There is no inference that the jury would have, or should have, decided the case differently based on the new evidence.
    It's too easy to forget that David Bain is still a suspect -- one of only two suspects in a multiple murder -- and as such he needs a proper trial to either clear his name or determine his guilt. Guilt in this case should be easier to prove than in many other cases, since there are only two suspects, and for the other one to have "done it," then you have to be able to show that he subsequently suicided -- a difficult job by all accounts. Meanwhile, Falufulu Fisi reminds us of the leading evidence against David Bain in this comment.

  • Increasing illiteracy is not unique to the products of NZ's factory schools -- it's a worldwide failure due to the signal failure of a leading literacy theory, the stupid "whole language" method of not teaching reading -- a method that "teaches children to memorize and guess at words, using pictures and other clues, instead of using phonics skills to sound them out." It's worth reminding ourselves that "the experts" responsible for this abject failure still rule the roost at the world's teachers' colleges, pumping out new teachers to teach illiteracy to new generations of students every year.

    Martha Brown names names in this article, pointing out some of those responsible for both introducing and maintaining a method of teaching that has ensured that in New Zealand a staggering 66.4 percent of Mäori were below the minimum level of “ability to understand and use information from text,”and an equally tragic 41.6 percent of non-Mäori, and "that the United States, like Haiti, is among the seven out of 39 Western Hemisphere nations entering the third millennium with a literacy rate below 80 percent."

    Why do we face this elementary problem? Read Brown's Poor Reading-Instruction Methods Keep Many Students Illiterate to begin finding out, and to see what part "NZ's own" Marie Clay has to play in the whole scam. Have a look at this local page for a brief introduction to the difference between whole word, whole language and phonics, and read some of Patrick Goff's articles at this index to get some of idea of how phonics really does works for reading. Brown's conclusion is worth quoting in full. Explaining why Marie Clay's Reading Recovery programme still continues despite both research and practical experience of failure that discredits it, she concludes:
    Writing separately, [literacy researchers] Groff and Lyon both speak of poor teacher preparation and (in Lyon's words) of "the tendency for educational practices and policies to be guided by philosophical and ideological factors rather than scientific factors." Groff notes educators' ignorance and distrust of "what experimental research actually indicates about reading instruction."

    He adds, "There has been no easy or regular accommodation for grievances from the courts for the malpractice in reading instruction that has taken place. The monopoly over teacher education that is now held by university departments of education has allowed them to train reading teachers wrongly with impunity. Ideology about reading teaching thrives in this hothouse of irrationality."

    Burning down the teachers' colleges is long overdue.

  • While Syrian and Iranian sponsored terrorists are blowing up people in Iraq and Israel, Condoleeza Rice looked the other way and went to the Middle East to talk to those who train, arm and supply the terrorists. What did she think she was doing? According to Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute,
    Talking will not convince the Iranian theocrats to give up their support for terrorism and their feverish quest for nuclear weapons. Quite to the contrary, any such 'dialogue' will only demonstrate America's weakness and encourage the Iranians to sponsor even more terrorism, especially against Americans in Iraq.
    He's right, isn't he. When one side is saying "Death to America!" and America responds by "seeking dialogue," aren't you just inviting more of the same? See Yaron Brook: Iran Sponsors Terrorism, US Seeks Dialogue.

  • In fact, when it comes to the threat of Islamic Totalitarianism, as John Lewis says There is No Substitute For Victory. Hear Lewis make the argument in a controversial presentation at George Mason University: a link page is here. (And here, just to remind you, is his fantastic article on the same topic.)

  • But surely the threat of Islamic Totalitarianism isn't a real threat, I hear some of you say? This isn't a real war? Well, perhaps you need to understand a different way to declare war. In the modern world with only one major superpower, there is more than one way to declare war. James Joyner lays out in detail the reality of so-called Fourth Generation War, a new kind of war in which we are presently engaged, and which is as difficult to fight as it is for many people to identify.
    We now face a foe that cannot be defeated with a few guided missiles, smart bombs, or shock and awe. We’re not simply fighting “terror” or “terrorists,” but, as Barnett puts it, “those who want to isolate large chunks of humanity.” These people are, quite literally, enemies of freedom and of its underlying values. The global economy, its rules, and its attendant culture threaten their way of life, and they will stop at nothing to cut themselves off from the reach of Western values.

    The good news is that this enemy doesn’t have the ability that the Soviet Union had to wipe out the planet. The bad news is that this enemy may be harder to defeat. And remember: the Cold War lasted more than forty years.

  • But isn't it easier to just put your head in the sand about the threat and just blame others for imagined vices? Well, maybe. It's certainly something that's going around. In fact, there's even a leading psychiatrist who's identified it as a syndrome. University of Michigan psychiatrist Pat Santy suggests that the phenomenon of "displacement" is at work.
    Displacement is the separation of an emotion from its real object and its redirection toward someone or something that is less offensive or threatening in order to avoid having to deal directly with what is frightening or threatening...
    This pyschological manouever disguises obvious self-delusion or self-deception]: It is, for example, behind most of the more vicious attacks on President Bush for anything he does; and for anything he doesn't do. He is behind every evil like some modern-day Moriarity, a criminal and godlike genius who is simultaneously a moron and incompetent. We are not talking about a mere dislike of the President; nor is this simply "politics as usual". Rather, it is an unreasoning and implacable, visceral hatred of George W. Bush for the sin of existing.

    Visit "Dr Sanity" here: More Displacement, Less Reality. [Hat tip Orson at SOLO]

  • Meanwhile, Lubos Motl at The Reference Frame has news of what looks to be a fabulous book by Czech president Vaclav Klaus, Blue , Not Green Planet -- including a great interview and reaction from climatologists. Klaus views the environmental movement and specifically the global warming hysteria as a Green "revolt of mobs." From the interview (translated from the Czech):
    Could you please tell our readers who obviously haven't yet read your book why you wrote it?
    Because I am very worried about some people's far-reaching attempts to reconstruct the world and revolutionize the behavior of the society. These people use some highly questionable data and hypotheses to deduce what is happening today and what will be happening in the world. And I view it as a threat for freedom... this issue has the capacity to mobilize larger groups of people: that's why I say that environmentalists are able to initiate a "revolt of the mobs".

    This topic is likeable and understandable for most people. Catastrophes are always sold well and the extrapolated catastrophicity is now even higher than it used to be in the context of Marx. I don't think that the goal of these people is to reduce freedom deliberately. When I am going to talk to Al Gore, he will deny it. But I insist that what he proposes does suppress freedom. And it is sad he is not thinking about the consequences.
  • I've just discovered and enjoyed a 2005 speech from Alan Greenspan, a quick walk through American economic history of the last two-hundred years, concluding with hs view of the health and resilience of the contemporary economy, which is changed fundamentally he argues by the ability of crucially important price signals to be disseminated so rapidly by your new information systems, and by a new flexibility in the economic system. It's worth quoting a substantial part of it since it explains the value of economic freedom so succinctly:
    Whether by intention or by happenstance, many, if not most, governments in recent decades have been relying more and more on the forces of the marketplace and reducing their intervention in market outcomes. We appear to be revisiting Adam Smith's notion that the more flexible an economy, the greater its ability to self-correct after inevitable, often unanticipated disturbances. That greater tendency toward self-correction has made the cyclical stability of the economy less dependent on the actions of macroeconomic policymakers, whose responses often have come too late or have been misguided.

    It is important to remember that most adjustment of a market imbalance is well under way before the imbalance becomes widely identified as a problem. Individual prices, exchange rates, and interest rates, adjust incrementally in real time to restore balance. In contrast, administrative or policy actions that await clear evidence of imbalance are of necessity late.

    Being able to rely on markets to do the heavy lifting of adjustment is an exceptionally valuable policy asset. The impressive performance of the U.S. economy over the past couple of decades, despite shocks that in the past would have surely produced marked economic contraction, offers the clearest evidence of the benefits of increased market flexibility....
    Most recently, the flexibility of our market-driven economy has allowed us, thus far, to weather reasonably well the steep rise in spot and futures prices for oil and natural gas that we have experienced over the past two years. The consequence has been a far more stable economy.

    Flexibility is most readily achieved by fostering an environment of maximum competition. A key element in creating this environment is flexible labor markets. Many working people, regrettably, equate labor market flexibility with job insecurity.

    Despite that perception, flexible labor policies appear to promote job creation, not destroy it...Although the business cycle has not disappeared, flexibility has made the economy more resilient to shocks and more stable overall during the past couple of decades.
    Read the whole speech, starting here: Alan Greenspan speech, Oct 12, 2005.

  • As many readers will know, Alan Greenspan was an enthusiastic admirer of Ayn Rand. Which links nicely to this post at the Leitmotif blog, answering this question: Why is Ayn Rand Respected More in India?
    Ayn Rand is rather well-known in India, though of course not as widely known as she is in the US; however, it can be argued that Rand is certainly viewed more respectfully and with admiration here in India than in the US.

    The reasons for that are probably not quite straightforward: it’s not just because Rand’s reputation in India has escaped the lies, mischaracterizations, and attacks of the intellectual and academic elite in the US...

    And one might say the same of the lies, mischaracterisations, and attacks of the intellectual and academic elite here in New Zealand. One might, but one wouldn't.

    In my opinion, the main reason for this is that the Indian people who read her actually understand the truth of her arguments, for the most part. Because Indians live in the collectivist, pseudo-statist, tradition-bound, mystic society that India is, the readers grasp the validity of Rand’s ferocious criticisms of these states and agree with her description of life under these conditions.

  • Speaking of Rand, if you've never seen her sparkling appearances on the Phil Donahue Show in the last decade of her life, then you should. YouTube has them, starting here: Ayn Rand - Donahue Interview (Part 1).

  • "Powdergate." Like a zombie emerging from our dark pre-1984 past, the recent trial of business executives for selling milk powder -- a product over which the government had decreed that the Dairy Board should hold a monopoly -- serves as a reminder that the gains and economic freedoms so well addressed in Alan Greenspan's speech above should not be taken for granted. Our Muldoonist past is not so far away.
  • What about them Scientologists, huh? Yeah, they're fruit cakes for sure, but Alexander Cockburn argues they're no more nuts than are most religious fruitcakes.

    There’s probably more psychic oppression in every ten seconds of the life of the Roman Catholic Church (or — let’s be ecumenical — the Mormons, Lutherans, Baptists and Methodists) than in the career of the Scientologists since L. Ron Hubbard got them launched. Last time I heard, the Vatican (which has to OK every deal) was settling sex abuse cases against priests in the U.S. at about $1 million per.
    He points to the dangers of the political demonisation of religionists. (Think Exclusive Brethren.) See Alexander Cockburn: Scientologists Take Offense in Reich Land. As always, this blog will continue to personally demonise religionists insead.

  • "Why is it okay to make fun of Christians but not Muslims?" asks Jim Woods. Well, he says for a start, "every adult that talks to their imaginary friends are either a prime candidate to be the object of humor, or institutionalized if they are a direct physical danger to themselves or others. "
    This includes Muslims, Christians, and all other devoted followers of the Invisible Sky Daddy. Fortunately, it generally isn’t necessary to make the effort to make up jokes about them as they do that themselves when they open their mouths.
    Making fun of people who actually respond verbally to your ribbing is always far more fun than making fun of people who blow up your transport.
    In addition, especially outside of this country, Muslims live in cultures where Aristotle is now completely absent. To find something similar in this country you would have to go to a Protestant church or a university faculty lounge. No wonder they act illogically, they don’t even know that logic was invented. Humor would go right over their heads; non-contradiction, what is that?
  • The danger of mixing politics and religion is highlighted over at Thrutch, with a post on the worrying rise of religiopolitics in Europe, and news of a limited atheist fight back.
    Passive indifference to faith has left Europe's churches mostly empty. But debate over religion is more intense and strident than it has been in many decades. Religion is re-emerging as a big issue in part because of anxiety over Europe's growing and restive Muslim populations and a fear that faith is reasserting itself in politics and public policy...

    ..."The battle over religion is restarting. It is going to be a difficult one," says Terry Sanderson, president of Britain's National Secular Society... The most potent force driving activist atheism is concern that Islam, Europe's fastest-growing religion, is jeopardizing the principles of the Enlightenment -- and emboldening other religions to raise their voices, too, and re-fight old battles... Such faith-based agitation, says [University of London professor Anthony] Grayling, threatens a "dark ages for free enquiry and free speech."
    See Theocracy Watch: The Re-emergence of Religion in Europe.

  • Some of you might have seen the recent issue of Time magazine which baldly stated as fact many myths about global warming that your average tin foil hat wearer would reject as too outlandish, including for example the bald claim about so-called "climate refugees," people -- "about 25 million" -- displaced by global warming-induced disasters, "such as those in the Papua New Guinean Carteret Islands, who have been forced to relocate due to a rising ocean level." Trouble is, that's just not true. It's just as untrue as a similar claim in Al Bore's film about "climate refugees" flooding into NZ (have you seen them?). The problem in the Pacific, such as it is, is not rising sea levels but sinking islands.

  • And finally, if surgery was like Wikipedia, here's how little surgery would get done. Hilarious!.
Enjoy your weekend!


  1. Excellent linkage.

    I was reminded of the sinking vs. rising islands after the recent Solomons earthquake, when an island was "catastrophically" thrust several feet out of the sea, gaining a large amount of extra land area covered in dying coral and dead fish. The extra land could be beneficial, surely, but no-one seemed to consider that. Islands regularly sink and rise, that is why we see such a variety of coral island formations including raised atolls and sunken volcanoes. Slow sinking is counteracted by coral growth, anyway.

    And I also saw James Joyners' well-researched article. It is far better than most of the crap that other Objectivists tend to purvey about foreign policy.

    As for Scientology, I read the chilling story of Keith Henson, anti-Scientology protestor who was arrested on trumped-up terrorism charges, convicted of violating the constitutional rights of Scientologists and subject to repeated death threats by their supporters.

  2. Re : Historian Eric Daniels fleshes out Ed's response in a more detailed exposition of the Jamestown colony. Jamestown, he says, was The Birthplace of America's Distinctive, Secular Ideal.

    This article is like all other Randoid propaganda to actually deny the contributions of Christianity such as the Great Reformation and the Puritans, not to mention the great foundations of Western civilization which is synonymous with the bible and oft called ‘Christendom’.
    It shows the author is either ignorant of the facts or worse... deliberate in his subversion.
    Just like atheist propaganda regarding their denial of Christian contributions to science.
    Christians were the greatest scientists; Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Mendel, Linnaeus, etc etc etc. even Galileo was a devout Christian despite his run in with Popery, which is a fact atheist leave out of their accounts of this conflict of a scientist with the church as it suits their religious purpose to do so! Like wise this article would have you believe that Jamestown was an atheist colony!...BULLSHIT LIES!)
    This article is a typical example of poor scholarship/ self delusion which is the hallmark of Randism.
    Rand only finds adherents in those seeking to deny Christianity has any value.
    This is why they either don’t study history or they don’t respect history but simply rabbit the stupidities of god hating morons! And by repetition they seek to establish them!
    Then they call themselves the champions of reason!
    The history of science is not even a desert Island if you remove all the Christians.
    It is an abyss if you remove all theists whether classical Greek, Arab, ect!
    Like wise the philosophy of individualism, Freedom, and rights.
    Even Maria Montessori was a devout Catholic yet I have never herd PC mention this.
    Why not?

    There is a very Un-Objective religious agenda that drives the Objectivist movement and every thing they write is corrupted haft truth at best.
    What is good in Objectivism they stole from theology!
    It is the most dishonest RELIGION/SUPERSTITION of them all!
    What has Atheism bequeath to mankind except robbing men of their souls and moral foundation? They would have you believe Man did not have a brain before an atheist was born!...Pathetic!

  3. You're sounding increasingly shrill, Tim. Why is that?

    Try and keep your response to one paragraph.

  4. Tim said...
    Christians were the greatest scientists; Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Mendel, Linnaeus, etc etc etc.

    Even if they were, their background is irrelevant to the non-existence of God. Do you know why? Because humans don't dictate to physical reality. Whether it was a Muslim, Christian, Mass Murderer, Stalin, Einstein, Fidel Castro, who invented or first to develop the Theory of Relativity, it wouldn't have changed the fact, that those inventors had no control over the laws of physics. It means, that you should stop using religion (illogic) to argue logic.

    Ok, Tim , did you pray to God to tell you whether David Bain killed his family? Or perhaps you can toss a coin, David Bain or Robin Bain? Which one? I am sure that God would have appeared to you in person and informed you who was the real killer? Where is the love of your God, for once he can help you?

    One thing that I must warn you Tim, is that please don't get too serious in praying hard to God for answers relating to the David Bain's case, because you might be misled to have thought you heard God's voice revealing to you, the real killer. By the time, that you're to pass such information to the Police, I am afraid that they will arrest you and put you in a mental institute. Believe me Tim, I have seen a few people in the island who claimed to have a regular dialog with God everyday. Such individuals are usually locked up in mental institutions, since it is obvious that one can't have a dialog with an imaginary friend. If you see someone who makes such claim, then obviously there is something wrong with that person.

  5. PC said...
    "Try and keep your response to one paragraph."

    Fair comment PC I will do my best.
    Letters to ed are restricted to 200 words and while it can be annoying it also very much improves quality.
    I am in between contracts at present and so have far too much time on my hands.
    I soon will have not enough!

  6. Falafulu Fisi said...
    Tim said...
    Christians were the greatest scientists; Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Mendel, Linnaeus, etc etc etc.
    Falafulu fisi said...
    "Even if they were, their background is irrelevant to the non-existence of God."

    You are very wrong about this as Faith in God and his order and constant character is the underlying foundation of the true philosophy of science and is why Theism is pro- science not anti.
    That you don’t know this fact show how little you know about the history of science and explains why you have no grasp of the truth, nor can see why you are wrong about everything you say against god and the bible.
    you have no scientific, no historical, no philosophical ground to stand on. Every argument you posit is founded on ignorance even your accusations against god for not stopping evil are groundless.
    It is no coincidence that Christians display superior Genius in the history of science, nor that they have excelled over the heathen in their own good devices as Christianity is pro reason, pro science, pro good, and pro progress.
    I am not speaking to put you down.
    I am speaking out to help you by challenging you.

  7. Tim said...
    It is no coincidence that Christians display superior Genius in the history of science.

    Tim can you tell me how many christians who had won Physics Nobel Prizes over the years, will you?

  8. Falafulu fisi said
    "Tim can you tell me how many Christians who had won Physics Nobel Prizes over the years, will you?"..

    Tim Wikiriwhi say's...
    For what it is worth here is a list according to wikipedia.

    Henri Becquerel, 1903
    J.J. Thomson, 1906
    Guglielmo Marconi, 1909
    Sir William Henry Bragg, 1915
    Max Planck, 1918
    Niels Bohr, 1922
    Robert Andrews Millikan, 1923
    Arthur Holly Compton, 1927
    Werner Karl Heisenberg, 1932
    Erwin Schrödinger, 1933
    Charles Hard Townes, 1964
    Antony Hewish, 1974
    Nevill Francis Mott, 1977
    Arthur Leonard Schawlow, 1981
    Joseph Hooton Taylor, Jr., 1993
    William Daniel Phillips, 1997

    The list for the peace prize is considerably longer.

    Then you could add the lists of Hindu, Muslim, etc.
    Showing that even these religions are not necessarily anti-science.
    The Atheist notion that belief in god is anti science and anti reason are false dichotomies!
    Atheism certainly has no monopoly on reason or science!
    Only blind hate can maintain such stupidity, not reason.
    You atheist are divorced from reality.
    Let me state the important fact that 'Secular’ is not synonymous with 'Atheist' that is a great delusion!
    That 'Coffee is vacuum packed to seal in the freshness' is a secular phrase. It is absent of religious context but only a freak will then think it is an atheist concept!
    Thus much that is secular in politics and science is not atheistic nor of atheistic origin.
    I have already shown you how the philosophy of science and individual rights have theistic grounding even though like coffee today they are ‘vacuum packed’ in secular terminology!

    You atheists are myth mongers!
    Your Voodoo witch doctors wear their mystical white overcoats to fool the weak minded and superstitious!
    I will be limiting my future comments on Not PC.
    Do not take this as a sign of weakness, but of respect.
    Don’t worry, I’ll be back!

  9. Tim,

    I bet you that those christian scientists you mentioned , never used their religious belief to invent those Physics concept? They didn't use God to make their inventions at all. Being christian had nothing whatsoever to do with their inventions. Just purely using human logic to conclude their findings. Can you agree with me on that? If you do agree, then you already answer the question that being christian is irrelevant to the inventions achieved in science. If you don't, then could you show me a proof that Neil Bohr used his God concept to derive his formulas for the Hydrogen Atom Model.

    Finally, has God revealed to you yet, of who was the real killer, Robin Bain or David Bain? I am looking forward to your answer.

  10. Falafulu Fisi said...

    I bet you that those Christian scientists you mentioned , never used their religious belief to invent those Physics concept? They didn't use God to make their inventions at all..."

    Tim W says:
    They used their belief in God more so than an atheist physicist uses their unbelief as they have the real grasp of the implications of the laws of physics that annihilate the theory of evolution.
    Ie they are far more objective and principled than their atheist counterparts who must pervert physics to maintain their atheism via evolution.
    Thus the Christian physicist uses his superior ethics as a guide to scientific integrity where as you evolutionist atheists must do all sorts of hocus pocus and irrationalism to maintain your materialist monism.
    You guys are suckers of fanatics like Dawkins!
    And the ultimate thing to draw from that list you wanted is that greatness in physics did not destroy their Christianity, and I would suggest that it actually strengthened it!
    Your unbelief corrupts your science whereas belief maintains the integrity of it!

  11. Tim said...
    Thus the Christian physicist uses his superior ethics as a guide to scientific integrity where as you evolutionist atheists must do all sorts of hocus pocus and irrationalism to maintain your materialist monism.

    Tim, you haven't answered my questions.

    First show show me a proof that Neil Bohr or any of those Physicist you've listed used their God concept to derive their Physics formulation.

    Second, has God revealed to you yet, of who was the real killer, Robin Bain or David Bain?

    I am looking forward to your answer.

  12. Falafulu fisi,
    All physicists must use their God given brains and mind. The physicist whose physics leads him to apprehend this ultimate fact of God is more objective (a Better physicist) than the God hater whose blind rejection of God leads him to twist and defy the laws of physics into the contradictions of Monism by which he must assume mindless matter can self assemble into a super computer with conscious Mind.
    Evolution is the biggest joke there is!
    Here are two quotes from Niel Bohr

    "Einstein, stop telling God what to do with his dice."

    "It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature."

    Falafulu fisi...You ought to heed both these statements as you are guilty of both sins.
    I have answered you several times already it is just that you refuse to see my point.
    re Secularism and philosophy.
    You don’t even get the fact that you use theology in the attempt to deny theology!
    (Re the problem of evil)
    As for your crap about David Bain I will not even try and entertain you except to say that you think being religious means to function on the level of a child waiting for Santa Claus. This exposes your own childish grip on reality and religion not mine!
    We have gone as far as we can on this issue.
    No point going around in circles any more.


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.