Hmmm?

I found this story from evolution news about some cold toads trying to make their dissections and render their verdicts on how scientific they are being and how unscientific everyone else is.

A few notes,

"I've gotten a lot of public support, people who are cheering for me," Gonzalez tells the caller. "But just reading the newspapers and such, it just feels like the world is against me." ...his face rests a wearied expression. It's the face of a 41-year-old man fighting for his reputation as a legitimate scientist.

If it feels like the world is against you in your feely feelings then consider that it may be from the structure of a certain type of propaganda which is based on the projections of a psychological minority. So it tends to works to shape the views of the majority through emotional conditioning with respect to how you are in the minority and so on.

When a cold toad recognizes a form of thinking that they fear and hate they will not engage in conceptual argument and instead will shift to associative propaganda based on buzzwords like the vaunted term "science" or "just like" arguments. Perhaps they tend to shift to the perceptual and vague imagery in such ways because they are trying to deny the conceptual in their Selves, lest obvious conclusions evolve from their conception...naturally enough.

Shirer, on the impact of the methods and modes of propaganda and what it can accomplish in the mind:

I myself was to experience how easily one is taken in by a lying and censored press and radio in a totalitarian state. [...] It was surprising and sometimes consternating to find that notwithstanding the opportunities I had to learn the facts and despite one’s inherent distrust of what one learned from Nazi sources, a steady diet over the years of falsifications and distortions made a certain impression on one's mind and often misled it. No one who has not lived for years in a totalitarian land can possibly conceive how difficult it is to escape the dread consequences of a regime’s calculated and incessant propaganda. Often in a German home or office or sometimes in a casual conversation with a stranger in a restaurant, a beer hail, a cafe, I would meet with the most outlandish assertions from seemingly educated and intelligent persons. It was obvious that they were parroting some piece of nonsense they had heard on the radio or read in the newspapers. Sometimes one was tempted to say as much, but on such occasions one was met with such a stare of incredulity, such a shock of silence, as if one had blasphemed the Almighty, that one realized how useless it was even to try to make contact with a mind which had become warped and for whom the facts of life had become what Hitler and Goebbels, with their cynical disregard for truth, said they were.

(The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich:
A History of Nazi Germany
William L. Shirer (Simon and Schuster) 1990 :247-48)

Back to the article, an atheistic sort of fellow says:

"Even cockroaches can make that assumption (that Earth was intended to support cockroach life)," Avalos says. "Just because life is important to you as a human being doesn't mean that's what is important to a designer. . . . You have to differentiate what you can prove and what's a claim of faith.

Actually, cockroaches cannot make that assumption. They may lack the neural nets for it. Apparently he does not understand that to have an assumption, you have to make an assumption. And the assumptions that you make may be some rather anthropic assumptions at that, which may be almost spiritual in their design. Even the most militant and misanthropic Darwinist (Those who seem to be trying to compensate for being stuck in the womb of Mommy Nature by being a manly man in educating everyone on the hard, cold, indifferent facts.) make a warm and fuzzy little anthropic assumption that their misanthropic words are valid. For who says that the little symbols and signs used by humans to represent the natural world can do so? Maybe we should ask some cockroaches what assumptions they make about it?

Note that one has to assume that Life or human life is important enough that we should derive meaning from this fellow's sentences as if they are an artifact of a special sort of sentience that can lead us all to knowledge. Does he believe that we are Homo Sapiens or would he have us be homos? The answer to a riddle calls for a rather sapient form of Wisdom which must be sought and found.

The fellow there is alive and sentient, supposedly. Although he does seem a bit dead in the head. Perhaps he is one of those who wants to try to let his Mommy Nature make his selections for him, naturally enough. The answer to Mother Nature calls for Wisdom, who calls out her name in the square as the Spirit of the age.

"You can believe in God, but you can't present that as science. That's what's wrong with intelligent design."

You can be a textual degenerate but that only means that any symbols and signs you try to use to express your design are relatively meaningless as they have no spirit/meaning.

At any rate, the fellow is apparently concerned about Iowa University becoming a research hub for ID. Note the irony, on the one hand the argument is that ID isn't science because there isn't enough research published in peer reviewed journals and on the other that such research cannot be allowed. I will make another post on just how cold some cold toads have been as far as research refuting Darwinism. Given the psychology typical to Darwinists, it seems it should be expected.

At any rate, science is the systematic pursuit of knowledge. So it is something that is practiced and not artificially defined by half-wits arguing about how their mythological narratives of Naturalism are "just like" the theory of gravity and pretty much "just like" all scientific knowledge accumulated to date and so on. Knowledge is not all on the same epistemic level, even if it is classified under the term "science."