New Bloggers...

A Sci-Phi blog is beginning. I think it will do well. It seems timely in the wired world. Apparently they've come across some of the cold toads that I have had some back and forth with from before blogs.

Of this they write:
"When first learning of the existence of the Panda's Thumb and hearing that it was leveling a number of attacks upon Crux, I must admit that I was happy that our fledgling publication was being taken seriously enough by the scientific community to warrant some fifty-odd separate posts on our ID [Intelligent Design] coverage. Now that I've seen the substance of those posts, however, I feel somewhat ashamed of my initial enthusiasm. In fact, this is the last reference to the site that I will make in this blog. Such manipulative and decidedly unscientific ire is simply not worth my time.

Indeed, after wasting the better part of my morning reading through the many smug and mean-spirited comments attached to Brayton's analysis, it's all I can do to keep from telling these people where they can put their Panda's thumb."
cf. Crux Mag

A while back I began to heap scorn on the heads of the cold toads and their mythological narratives of naturalism. In contrast, the patience of the ID fellows with the Darwinist nit wits seems to be holding on and on. I'm not sure it should be.

On the same blog they note a separate article citing a Time magazine article on ID:
"A look . . . at the religious beliefs of many scientists who support I.D.," he writes, "makes it reasonable to suspect that [Eugenie] Scott's assertion is correct: intelligent design is just a smoke screen for those who think evolution is somehow ungodly."

Note,
"Evolution is the framework that makes sense of the whole natural world from the formation of atoms, galaxies, stars and planets, to the AIDS virus, giant redwood trees and our own health and well-being….
Dorothy was lucky because the Wizard of Oz was wise. The wizards of the Kansas State Board of Education look foolish in comparison."
--Dr. Maxine Singer
President of the Carnegie Institution of Washington
(Washington Post, August 18, 1999)

God didn't make sense, evolution makes all sense. Yes, that is "ungodly." It's the same sort of thing that pagans have always said. One half expects them to raise up some idols that merge the categories of human and animal, like some Egyptian Bird-man, etc.

Yet, they already did raise up Ape-man. So take down that cross and raise up an idol of Ape-man, with funding from an atheistic State. Socialists will believe that it is fine to actively fund one sort of mythological narrative, while also using the State to attack some historical symbols. For Ape-man does not threaten the totalitarian power of the Leftists and their collectivist State, no more than Dog-man threatened the tribalistic State of the pagans of old.

Perhaps those who believe in Naturalism must invariably be textual degenerates and therefore, moral degenerates. So then it does not matter what they write by natural selection, naturally enough. For their text is just matter and they will write whatever Nature selects for them to write. It is a universal sense that there is something wrong, or degenerate, in Nature. So that degeneracy will be included or amplified in their text. The symbols of "their," i.e. Nature's selections in their text will be amplified instead of being filtered out as it would be if they were actively intelligent, instead of passively degenerate.

DNA is also like a text, code is code. Without information you will have deformation, reformation goes against deformation, yet reformation is not creation. (As in the Reformation, sola scriptura, an infusion of information that was not new.) As any writer and programmer knows, information does not just up and write itself. Even if you write a program that contains adaptive and replicative capacities, it's still not writing itself. Perhaps you would keep writing it and creating it as you went. If so, it's still not writing itself. An interesting question is whether you would know before hand how all that you had programmed would adapt or change. And so on.

But instead of going on here, here are two old parables:
The Author

The Programmer