Thursday, December 08, 2005

The urge to merge...

A Darwinist goes back to the womb, as they sometimes do.

As I knelt there, fish beside me, dolphin overhead, an appreciation of my place in evolution hit me. This was the first time I had dived in the open ocean, and I couldn’t stop thinking about how I didn’t belong underwater. I needed a steel tank to carry my air, a mask to see, a wetsuit to trap my heat, weights to sink, an inflatable vest to rise, fins to swim.
(At the Water's Edge, Fish With Fingers Whales with Legs and How Life Came Ashore but Then Went Back to Sea
By Carl Zimmer :2)

It would seem that technology acts as the intermediary for him to interact with his creator, Mommy Nature. A view based on scientism tends to evolve, as typically those with the urge to merge begin to say that technology is science and somehow science is evolution, which is all mixed in with the myths and mythology that progressives tend to believe.

He goes on in the next sentence:
The yellowtail next to me was beautifully designed for living in the ocean: it gulped down water, a squirt of the ocean flowing through its mouth and into its basket of gills, where thin-walled blood vessels traded carbon dioxide and ammonia for oxygen. Flaps over the gills opened, its mouth closed, and the stale water flushed out.
(ib. :2) (Emphasis added)

What a Darwinist means by "designed" is that their Mommy Nature selected it to be that way by natural selections in some way, which is supposedly how all design comes about. He goes on and provides some of the typical arguments of those with the urge to merge. I.e. "This looks a little like that." combined with "An engineer wouldn't have designed things this natural selections must, naturally enough." And so on. What he does not do is provide a lineage and show how a group of organisms changed over time, an actual biological phylogeny. He just implies them and instead it's all: "This looks just a little like that or somethin'." and thus the "Fish with fingers" and so on. So what if fish do have fingers, and rectums too? Does that indicate that fish descended from us, perhaps? Or perhaps humans need the remnants of fins instead to indicate their fishy Darwinian ancestry. That clear evidence could be combined with the fact that both fish and humans have eyes, which is always a telling characteristic with which quite a story can be told about groups of organisms flopping around, living and dying, then growing some legs and walking away. It's a good thing that these sorts of things are all scientific facts and have nothing to do with the urge to merge. Or does it? After all, he goes on to invoke the old gill-slit canard that almost give away the urge to merge as bad as Haeckel's embryos did.

It's rather amazing, these are the same Policemen of Knowledge that do not understand the natural processes or laws that are forming an embryo currently. These are things that they can see empirically and sit there and watch forming right before their eyes. Yet through the study of embryos and the like they think that they know, as a scientific fact, (Oh, how scientific it is!) how every single embryo, organism and life form came to be formed. This supposed formation can only happen in millions of years, even as the formation of millions of forms of Life take place daily as embryos unfold. Why must it take millions of years? It seems that the only reason is because they are relying on the mists of mysticism there and avoiding empirical evidence.

[Related, I added a blog under the ID links although it is by a curmudgeon and not an IDist. Note the proto-Nazi nature of Darwinism and the typical results: "Also incidental but revealing, there is no record that I ever was a the University of Vermont. Just as I and my many sources do not exist in the professional evolutionary literature so I do not exist and never existed in the annals of the University of Vermont. Don't take my word for it. Just try to find me there. You see the rank of Professor Emeritus is honorary and I never earned it. I love it so! What more could a critic of mythology want?

It is hard to believe isn't it?
" cf. Prescribed Evolution ]

No comments: