September 29, 2007 by Dr. Mc.

This came to me by e-mail, and I want to pass it on without my comment:
I once wrote an entertaining account of my autistic son and our experience with a bunch of psychologists during a time when autism was believed to be caused by maternal rejection. Parents rebelled against the theory, and parents of autistic children are no longer subjected to psychiatric treatment. However I finally had my story published for the enjoyment of my grandchildren and descendants. iUniverse will supposedly publish anything for a modest fee.

I recently became interested in the debate over materialism. I’m not committed to any specific non materialist scientific theory, but I am passionate about academic freedom. I hate the tactics materialists use to stifle criticism of their materialistic formulas — such as the notion that “natural selection” (the grim reaper) is capable of organizing genetic accidents (random mutations) into complex biological systems. Materialists denounce all critics of RM&N as “ignorant creationists”. So I rewrote my story, adding a few questions about materialism to each chapter. “What is intelligence?” “Does free will exist?” “Does belief in an immaterial soul require belief in a personal God?” etc., and asked iUniverse to republish it.

They refused, claiming they feared they might be sued. I offered to remove anything that might cause potential law suits, but they still refused.

Who is going to sue them? Freud? I gave all the doctors in my book an opportunity to read what a I wrote about them, and they had no comment. Besides, I never used real names. The only difference between the book iUniverse published and the book they refused to publish were those questions about materialism. Attempts at suppression of ideas seems to be an automatic response for materialists.

You can read the story, with the questions, at:

http://30145.myauthorsite.com

and judge the potential for libel for yourselves.

Berthajane Vandegrift

Posted in Culture & society, Personal story | No Comments »

September 21, 2007 by Dr. Mc.

In my last post I made the comment that "Hitler was using
Darwinism as an ideological weapon to control the minds of
people into believing that his was the superior race." Some might take exception
to my choice of words, that I should have said "Social Darwinism," which has been
thoroughly discredited in the public’s eyes by such noted evolutionists as
Steven Jay Gould.
The discrediting usually takes the form of demonstrating that the data used in
such works as The
Bell Curve were incorrectly used, or disassociating it with Darwin,
e.g., "These ideas are
older than Darwin’s." What they do not and cannot do is demonstrate that
social Darwinism is not Darwinism in theory. Social Darwinism does not suggest
merely that one group of people is superior to another based on culture or
society. Racism has no basis in culture. That could be changed. Instead, social
Darwinism at its roots promotes that one group of people is superior to another
for survival, based on heredity. Is not that one of the fundamental principles
Darwin was attempting to string together in his blockbuster book–you know; the
one that no evolutionist or public school biology textbook would fail to
mention, and yet none ever sites the

full title of the book? This is not a bait-and-switch. Darwin’s intention of
the word "race" was just as it is today–a
subspecies. A subspecies is
a group within a species that carries certain characteristics sometimes present
in all others of the species, but in concentration that make it distinct in some
way. It must be believed that such concentrations give survival and reproductive
favor to one subspecies (race) over another, or there is no "survival of the
fittest," and thus no advancement of a species into a new species. Charles
Darwin never advocated the persecution of other races. In fact he abhorred it,
mentioning in numerous writings his disfavor of slavery. But he did believe that
some races (not his own, of course) were "primitive" and on their way to
extinction naturally. Regardless, the point is unavoidable to the honest and
logical mind that takes Darwin’s theory to its natural conclusion: One cannot
support the idea that evolution occurs by the survival of the fittest subspecies
(race), while denying that one subspecies (race) must be recognized as superior
to another. I am certainly not here advocating segregated races. I am advocating
integrated thought.

———-

Posted in Culture & society | No Comments »

September 14, 2007 by Dr. Mc.

On June 18, 1940 Winston Churchill made his
most famous
speech in an effort to mobilize England against a powerful enemy. There is
one sentence often quoted. I will quote the previous two with it for context:

"Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island
or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life
of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then
the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known
and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister,
and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us
therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the
British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still
say, ‘This was their finest hour.’"

If they failed, Churchill predicted "a new Dark Age..
perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science." No, I’m not taking
it out of context. He was not speaking of the atom bomb, because he was speaking
of after the war. He was speaking of a Dark Age of knowledge, just as the first
so-called "Dark Age" was supposedly a time of ignorance and controlled thought.
Hitler was using Darwinism as an ideological weapon to control the minds of
people into believing that his was the superior race, and no other had a right
to live and thrive. Science is a "light," and by it people find their way. If
the light is perverted, the people unwittingly and inevitably go the wrong way.

Posted in Culture & society, Notable Quotes, History | No Comments »

September 9, 2007 by Dr. Mc.

"The great obstacle to progress
is not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge."

Daniel Boorstin–historian, former head of the Library of Congress.

Posted in Culture & society, Notable Quotes | 1 Comment »

September 3, 2007 by Dr. Mc.

I made the statement last time that one
cannot rule out the existence of absolutes. Some say that reality is whatever
you believe, but I can illustrate otherwise. There are immutable laws for
reality, regardless of whether we acknowledge or seek to know them or intend to
obey them. I have trained a
pyracantha bush up the brick wall of our garage. I once had two of them.
One day when my wife and I were returning from our morning walk, I noticed how
poorly the leaves of one looked. Closer inspection revealed a white fungus on
the leaves, so I went immediately to the garage and mixed chemicals to kill the
fungus. I thoroughly soaked the bush, but next morning I noticed the plant looked
even worse. I repeated the procedure with the same negative results the next
day. Not wanting the disease to spread from the dying plant to the healthy one.
I put on gloves (pyracantha means
"fire thorn" for good
reason.) and spent the day untwining the two bushes and removing the looser. A
few days later I was putting around in the garage and found the container from
which I mixed the spray. It was Roundup.
What I believed had no impact on reality. Perception determined my behavior, but
reality determined the outcome. Likewise I would suggest that what you or I
choose to believe about our soul and afterlife may affect our behavior, but it
has no affect on whether either exist. Knowing that there are absolutes, it behooves me to explore the issue of
my possible eternal existence with whatever information is available to me.

Posted in Science and faith | No Comments »