Duck...

The cool cat knows that to have all your ducks in a row, you have to make your ducks get in a row!

Life choices...

Creator Comments: Choose your future.
Choose your sex.
Choose your hair.
Choose your eyes.
Choose your job, your car, your bank and millions in it.
Choose your future.
Choose Life. Right Now! Before you are even born.

With BrightFuture(TM) Easy Setup.

Choose Life! By udjinudjin
_______

The genetic code is much more complex than something that can be coded for current computing. In nine months, something with more complexity than anything in the known universe will emerge from the joining of one egg and one sperm, a little Yin, a little Yang, then bang.

I forgot the perfume of the eggs in one little parable. Not to mention the fact that I missed a play on words about the male men trying to deliver their message, in another. Forgot the perfume though, that's quite a slip. I'll fix it.

Creativity...

Picture,


Variations,















(Anonymous photoshop competitors...)

Progressives, Biologists, Scientism and the Panda's Thumb

This one's long.

Progressives and scientism,
These sorts of fellows are not kept up with the way they should be thanks to a strong Leftist bias in academia. Yet they do have quite a past that some keep up with, and links from the present to the past:
"In general, Lynn points to positive reviews of Pioneer-funded books, like Rushton's Race, Evolution and Behavior or works such as The Bell Curve, "which made extensive reference to Pioneer-funded research "as evidence " that the intellectual tide has started to turn" back in favor of eugenics. (Richard Lynn, The Science of Human Diversity: A History of the Pioneer Fund (2001) :540) Burnham's, Rushton's, and Lynn's books are turn-of-the-millennium examples of the message the Pioneer Fund continues to subsidize. As noted earlier, the Pioneer Fund also provided financing for the work of many researchers favorably noted in The Bell Curve. It is small surprise, then, that The Bell Curve characterizes Harry Laughlin's work as the innocent thoughts of "a biologist who was especially concerned about keeping up the American level of intelligence by suitable immigration policies." (Richard S. Herrnstein & Charles Murray, The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life 298, 300 (1994) :5) The Bell Curve's insistence on the futility of social welfare programs is consistent with passages from the Eugenical News decades ago. Then, Laughlin's journal dismissed the value of equal education, (Negro Efficiency, 1 Eugenical News, Nov. 1916, :79) as well as health service expenditures for non-whites, (Race Mortality, 1 Eugenical News, Nov. 1916, :79) and promulgated Wilhelm Frick's opinion that the impulse of public charity was at odds with hereditary fitness. (Dr. Wilhelm Frick, Reichminister for the Interior, Address Before the First Meeting of the Expert Council for Population and Race-Politics (June 28, 1933) in German Population and Race Politics, 19 Eugenical News, Mar.-Apr. 1934, :33, 36) Thus, the most malignant brand of eugenics survives, hidden behind a disingenuous veil of statistics, masked as innocent science in the pages of The Bell Curve. The Bell Curve argues that our biological legacy is deteriorating. It employs the language of genetic determinism that was popular during the heyday of eugenics. It attempts to overwhelm the reader with numbers, charts, and formulas, posing as a scientific analysis of our current social woes."
(Albany Law Review, 2002
65 Alb. L. Rev. 743
"The American Breed": Nazi
Eugenics and the Origins of the Pioneer Fund
By Paul A. Lombardo, J.D., Ph.D.)

The fact is, eugenic notions are at the root of what many scientists believe as true, even if the current generation of scientists cannot stomach their application to man for the most part. The same patterns of ideas are still there, lurking about. There is also a misanthropic tendency among biologists that may make the recurring application of such ideas more palatable. I'm referring to Leftist scientists, mainly evolutionary biologists. They are still around, although they do not seem to write about eugenics very much anymore. They are still believers in scientism and have quite a Leftist bent, with some interesting mythological narratives of Naturalism. (I've never seen people so energized to prevent stickers (yes, just some sticky stickers) on text books in order to maintain a textbook orthodoxy which promotes mythological narratives of Naturalism. It's really quite amazing, in a way. Why do they do it? I suspect it is their psychology.)

Here is a comment from the comments section of a post on the same blog, in which a writer does quite a hack job on the Scopes trial and William Jennings Bryan. That post can be corrected but I'd rather focus on what those who have faith in scientism tend to say these days.

So an example,
"They ["fanatics"] have, today, reached the point where they would prefer to suffer without, than to have the government intervene and set things more equal. This inevitably spills over into science and medicine. Today, they have PDAs, microwave ovens, MRI/CAT/PET scans, genetic-drugs, air travel, energy to spare… All those things are resultant from basic science and basic scientific method, and all are intimately related, yet this is not enough to overcome the idea that science is out to destroy their religion, and them."

The irony here is that Leftist biologists are out to destroy fundamentalism. Their ideas are also often about getting rid of the unfit, those who need the opiate of the masses.

Note their typical veneration of "science" based on the usefulness of technology. If history is any measure a sort of technocratic scientism is to replace "religion." (Oddly, that can be mixed with some sort of Nature based paganism. When was the last time the National Geographic attacked a Nature based spirituality? Instead, they are avid supporters of it.) The sort of religion that must be destroyed or replaced is only that which traces back to the "Jewish influence" and its Scriptures. The fundamental appeal to the common man by the technocratic barbarian, other than propagandistic emotional conditioning, is based on the usefullness of or promise of technologies which can be the basis of utopia. Yet note that technology is based on ingenuity, creativity and intelligent design, not the myopic adherence to Naturalism typical to those who put the creation before the Creator. Also, the State enforced egalitarianism typical to socialists (Get "...the government [to] intervene and set things more equal.") undermines the ingenuity, creativity and intelligent design typical to technology. Apparently the Left simply does not understand creation and creativity. (creationism?!) It seems that one cannot understand if one is constantly trying to put mere creations before the creators/creative. They seem to be trying to do the same to man as they do to the Creator by seeking many ways to put the creation before the Creator. Egalitarianism seems to fit in with the urge to merge, which fits into a whole passive psychology, which fits with the Cosmic Oedipus complex that seems typical to the Left. It is ultimately a very banal and uncreative sort of pattern.

(Note the arrogance though, did that little fellow have anything to do with the creation and invention and design of PDAs, microwaves, etc.? No....yet he seems to want to pretend that their invention somehow justifies his sort of faith in scientism as well as other notions typical to the Left.)

"So, in all, they would like to condemn all that makes their lives better, because they feel as if a better life is due to those powers that come from the antichrist..."

Sheesh, this one must be from an American university.

"Science, government, money, power, they are all things of the elite and not the “common man.” Thus they come from some place other than god, and that is the one thing (belief) that anyone can hold....
The irony is, of course, they tend to be led by the Robertson/Falwell/Dobson/Kennedy types, who are themselves quite rich and powerful, and knowledgeable in the ways of manipulating people." Jeff Perado, at the Panda's Thumb

I actually don't know much about Robertson/Falwell/Dobson/Kennedy types. I've never read one of their books, etc. So, I really can't say what they're doing. I did read Dobson's website though, and I didn't see any "manipulation." Also, I know that they are all most likely Scripturalists. That veneration of text itself, code, language, that which is at the foundation of civilization itself, acts as a limitation. It does so no matter how corrupt the man, with the words shaping and civilizing the man rather than the other way around. Why did Islamic civilization rise so high, yet now is so low? Civilization does not rely on any specific tonge, yet does rely on an attitude toward language itself.

In contrast, the Leftist biologist's attitude towards text and code is that only Nature "selects" it or that they, personally, can shape it to suit their political ends through some triump of the will. They will not deal with the metaphysical and use language based on its sermonic capacity. Instead, they deal in the physical while trying to shape the genetic code to utopian ends. Thus the Scripturalist will sermonize about charity, not seeking to bring about heaven on earth, while the Leftist will try to eliminate the poor physically through sterilization, killing, etc. It is the Left that claims to bring heaven on earth.

Note, Leftist believers in scientism typically define their opponents as fanatics or "fundamentalists" for one reason, to develop an association of American fundamentalists with Islamic fundamentalism. It should be noted, they really do believe that Bible believing American Christians are "just like the Taliban." This association is utterly absurd on many levels. For one thing, fundamentalism is the veneration of a religious text or scriptures. If one person is venerating the script "You must kill them." and the other is venerating, "You must love them." then they are different fundamentalists. For the fundamentalist, it is all in their religious texts.

I suppose this post really belongs at Right2Leftists.

The urge to merge...

The National Geographic, the material of satire:
"Embryology too involved patterns that couldn’t be explained by coincidence. Why does the embryo of a mammal pass through stages resembling stages of the embryo of a reptile?"

According to Naturalists that's supposedly not "coincidence" and one is supposed to read much meaning into the form of embryos, yet the whole Anthropic Principle is just a "coincidence"? If a sense of humor is truly humans' sense of their own humors then Evolutionism/Naturalism is quite a grand joke. It does give one a sense that in some sense we are human, all too human, almost just humus.

It would not be so bad if evolutionists' misanthropic tendencies did not often become manifest in the culture. But it's not always funny, not when people start really believing a joke is true. For example, the same fraudulent evolutionists can show up culturally and sadly, people have demonstrated quite a capacity for belief in mythological narratives of naturalism:

To be sure, other movements, Marxism and Soviet Communism, for instance, have also claimed scientific validity. But only the Nazis have seen themselves as products and practitioners of the science of life and life processes—as biologically ordained guides to their own and the world’s biological destiny. Whatever their hubris, and whatever the elements of pseudo science and scientism in what they actually did, they identified themselves with the science of their time.....

The contribution of the actual scientific tradition to this ethos was exemplified by the quintessentially German figure of Ernst Haeckel, that formidable biologist and convert to Darwinism who combined with ardent advocacy of the Volk and romantic nationalism, racial regeneration, and anti-Semitism. He was to become what Daniel Gasman has called 'Germany’s major prophet of political biology.'

(The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the
Psychology of Genocide
By Robert Jay Lifton :441)

The Quantum Brain

This is for a fellow who speaks of jello.

"....as modern biological science has penetrated down into the subcellular levels of living matter, and in particular those that constitute the brain, it has indeed begun to encounter the eerie quantum effects that have confounded physicists for a century. These effects are not analogies, they are real, and, as we will see, it is only by considering them that we can begin to understand the building blocks of life. That this is so is not yet widely known to most biologists, but it soon will be. And it will have a dramatic effect on both science and on scientists.
At the subcellular level, matter itself actually looks and behaves (in the words of one physicist) “more like a thought” than like the cogs of a machine. Nothing in the world that causes the particle to jump, discovered the first quantum mechanics. But the first premise of science is that everything happens solely as a result of causes in the world. “If we are going to stick to this dammed quantum-jumping,” complained one of its founders, “then I regret that I ever had anything to do with quantum theory.”
Furthermore, if subatomic particles can freely choose to come and go as they please, then perhaps old-fashioned claims as to our own nonmechanical nature aren’t so archaic after all: Suddenly, the machinery of brain might prove the illusion, mind and will a more foundational reality. A number of the founders of quantum mechanics wondered out loud whether the ancient mystics might not be right after all: Perhaps there is a Player. Standing apart from the mere “physical system,” he everywhere spins the shots, making everything happen this way rather than that. Wolfgang Pauli thought so: Tongue not wholly in cheek, he simply referred to the so-called exclusion principle, a cornerstone of modern physics and chemistry, as “God.”
It turns out, however, that the amount of absolute “freedom” individually available to the bits and pieces of the universe is unbelievably tiny. It amounts to much only on the scale of atomic and subatomic particles. At any scale large enough to be of concern to human beings (e.g., for stuff the size of viruses), the net effect of all that freedom is zero—it just cancels out. Electrons may jump from here to there for no reason whatsoever but planets don’t; nor boulders; nor grains of sand; nor we.
But now the revolution: It appears possible that instead of averaging freedom away as usual, the human brain, itself a machine, has nonetheless evolved a unique structure that harnesses subatomic “choice,” concentrates it, and amplifies it upward, scale by scale, taking advantage, as we will see, of the strange facts of “chaos.” Of all things, it’s the machine in our head that lets us transcend our own mechanicality.
Our brains are, if you will, “quantum computers.” But they are not of the sort now making headlines. Subtle quantum effects in the brain afford us a capacity we would not otherwise have, yet to make maximum use of such effects our natural brains are now designing even better synthetic ones. These employ quantum principles directly, not, as in the human brain, in subtle and nearly invisible fashion. ....if quantum processes are the source within the human brain of genuine thought—as also of genuine will, intention, and choice—then the quantum computers we are on the verge of designing (or whose evolution we are at least facilitating) may turn themselves into genuine sentient beings. They may have as much intelligence as we have, quite possibly more: There are severe limits to how much quantum weirdness the human brain may employ...limits on how much a synthetic brain might employ are far less severe. Vast, synthetic, self-evolving, superintelligent, and completely sentient computers must surely sound like pure science fiction, but they are not.”
(The Quantum Brain
By Jeffrey Satinover :6-8)


There is a misanthropic tendency among evolutionists. They cannot seem to accept that human beings and being human is somehow special and unique, more than humus. Yet if given only Chance and Nature, Life could evolve then there would most likely be extraterrestrials. If there were extraterrestrials then they would most likely have already walked the patterns of Life that given the limitations of the physical would have to have some semblence of similarity to our own. In the end, they would come to an exponential increase technology, the practical application of knowledge. Therefore, they would have already created superior sentient computers which would cause a further exponential increase in technology. This they, you know, THEM, would then be bending the Cosmos to their will in ways that would leave signs. There would be star farms, harnessing the energy of the Cosmos. Are these the type of signs of intelligence that are to be found? No. The sort of signs of intelligence that can be found do not have an explanation from within the universe, so they are rejected by evolutionists. And the position is come to in which the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence is applying filtering standards to distinguish between the work of Intelligent Design and Nature based on code and coding that if applied to the genetic code would immediately detect Design over and over again. No one would be trying to argue that adaptive capacity written into a code could somehow begin to write the code itself, by Nature's "selections."

For some reason, those who accept extraterrestrials cannot accept anything that is extracosmosial, no matter what they observe.

It seems to me a consistent pattern of Nature that Chaos is being used for types of Life to be born and then born again and again. (Although some life does not heed the advice of Christ to be born again into spiritual life nor the advice of Plato to come on out of the womb/cave to see the light in the life of the mind.)

Did you hear about them, though? It seems that the Naturalist and the religious can all agree that one day, one way or another, all human brains will be out of time.


I suppose that the utlimate question is, when you are out of space-time then where are you?