Science as Liberal Ideology and a Puzzle Contest
Today a bit of a break from the Straight Red Line series: the line that runs from the Counter-Enlightenment movement of the eighteenth century on to Marx and (National) Socialism, to contemporary Postmodern thought patterns: all branches of Relativism as Multiculturalism, and presently in full development: post-democracy Transnational Progressivism, best described as a neo feudal form of Empire.
First another matter that requires our attention, and then I'll wrap it up with a puzzle contest pertaining to the above. On a first received basis the winner gets a copy of Stephen Hicks' ground breaking book, "Explaining Postmodernism".
America has been dealing with this problem for a some time, now it's Europe's turn: Liberal morality being thrust upon the nations, whether its people share the world view, or not. A clarification is required at this stage, the usual caveats with an added dimension: we are not talking Classical Liberalism or Libertarianism here, the Enlightenment version of laissez-faire, of the scientific variety that operates by empiric investigation and submission to falsification.
Instead the subject matter pertains to the atheist variety of the Counter-Enlightenment lot that has usurped the Liberal title and inserted into it a set of its own characteristics to further the ideological ends: collectivism, anti-reason and socialism, that runs counter to the rational, individual liberty of the original thing.
The usurpation doesn't end there: enlightened science is being used as a means to provide the subjectivist, liberal ideology with a rational coat of paint: it is actually a bit of a dirty trick ... like Kim Jong-il saying he's proclaiming North Korea hence a capitalist nation, while secretly maintaining a plan economy and defending the construct as the only respectable and lawful way to conduct a free market.
Subject matter is the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly's draft resolution on the dangers of creationism in education. This institution is one of Europe's impermeable political entities, not to be confused with any of the European Union's agencies, but it bears all the hallmarks of the same pseudo democracy, claiming "pluralistic composition of democratically elected members of parliament" while there are very few citizens that have heard of it beyond the evening news, let alone having voted for any of its members.
Its proud President is Mr Van der Linden, in an earlier incarnation a nondescript backbencher of the Christian Democrat persuasion in the Dutch parliament, got respectability by moonlighting in Brussels corridors of power.
This body of crypto dictators have seen fit to draw up a rag of a Subjectivist Manifesto that is typical of the breed. It lives and breaths liberal morality activism: "The theory of evolution is being attacked ...!" it rants. Yes, this is what you do in science with theories: you attack them in order to see if they can stand up to scrutiny.
But it stands to reason: after 150 years the theory is still unproven and the chances of basic enzymes of life arising by random processes are 1 to 1 followed by forty thousand zeroes! So instead of attacking it, it had better be kept in a velvet coated vault for fear of it desintegrating into sub-atomic particles.
The Discovery Institute just the last few days published an article by David Berlinski that sums up the story of "The Origins of Life" rather nicely: some 17 pages of modern science history and not an end in sight. The author concluding that "We must wait end see".
This is the actual state of the scientific investigation, but the Council of Europe have elevated it to gospel truth and wants to root out all forms of alternative investigation and research: "The Parliamentary Assembly is worried about the possible ill-effects of the spread of creationist theories within our education systems and about the consequences for our democracies. If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights, which are a key concern of the Council of Europe."
There you have it in a nut-shell: consider the consequences for human rights and democracy if God cannot be averted. I don't propose to repeat the entire rag, but this is not the language of lawyers and it certainly isn't scientists talking: this is sheer activism in defense of the politically correct ideology! We are way, way out of line, at present!
I promised a riddle, a little contest ... okay ... but brace yourselves for this one: the full kit of protective totalitarian raid paraphernalia is required. I'll give you the answer who's quoted here tomorrow. Good luck, here goes:
"while the state can compel no one to believe it can banish not for impiety, but as an antisocial being, incapable of truly loving the laws and justice, and sacrificing, if needed, his life to his duty. If, after having publicly recognized these dogmas, a person acts as if he does not believe them, he should be put to death ... the individual particularly ... is surrendered to a new moral and collective body which has its own self, life, body and will. [In moral society, one] coalesces with all, [and] in this each of us puts in common his person and his whole power under the supreme direction of society's leaders."
Instead the subject matter pertains to the atheist variety of the Counter-Enlightenment lot that has usurped the Liberal title and inserted into it a set of its own characteristics to further the ideological ends: collectivism, anti-reason and socialism, that runs counter to the rational, individual liberty of the original thing.The usurpation doesn't end there: enlightened science is being used as a means to provide the subjectivist, liberal ideology with a rational coat of paint: it is actually a bit of a dirty trick ... like Kim Jong-il saying he's proclaiming North Korea hence a capitalist nation, while secretly maintaining a plan economy and defending the construct as the only respectable and lawful way to conduct a free market.
At stake: the all important existence of God ... God Must Be Averted and Stamped Out, at All Cost ...!
Subject matter is the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly's draft resolution on the dangers of creationism in education. This institution is one of Europe's impermeable political entities, not to be confused with any of the European Union's agencies, but it bears all the hallmarks of the same pseudo democracy, claiming "pluralistic composition of democratically elected members of parliament" while there are very few citizens that have heard of it beyond the evening news, let alone having voted for any of its members.
Its proud President is Mr Van der Linden, in an earlier incarnation a nondescript backbencher of the Christian Democrat persuasion in the Dutch parliament, got respectability by moonlighting in Brussels corridors of power.
This body of crypto dictators have seen fit to draw up a rag of a Subjectivist Manifesto that is typical of the breed. It lives and breaths liberal morality activism: "The theory of evolution is being attacked ...!" it rants. Yes, this is what you do in science with theories: you attack them in order to see if they can stand up to scrutiny.But it stands to reason: after 150 years the theory is still unproven and the chances of basic enzymes of life arising by random processes are 1 to 1 followed by forty thousand zeroes! So instead of attacking it, it had better be kept in a velvet coated vault for fear of it desintegrating into sub-atomic particles.
The Discovery Institute just the last few days published an article by David Berlinski that sums up the story of "The Origins of Life" rather nicely: some 17 pages of modern science history and not an end in sight. The author concluding that "We must wait end see".
This is the actual state of the scientific investigation, but the Council of Europe have elevated it to gospel truth and wants to root out all forms of alternative investigation and research: "The Parliamentary Assembly is worried about the possible ill-effects of the spread of creationist theories within our education systems and about the consequences for our democracies. If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights, which are a key concern of the Council of Europe."There you have it in a nut-shell: consider the consequences for human rights and democracy if God cannot be averted. I don't propose to repeat the entire rag, but this is not the language of lawyers and it certainly isn't scientists talking: this is sheer activism in defense of the politically correct ideology! We are way, way out of line, at present!
I promised a riddle, a little contest ... okay ... but brace yourselves for this one: the full kit of protective totalitarian raid paraphernalia is required. I'll give you the answer who's quoted here tomorrow. Good luck, here goes:
"while the state can compel no one to believe it can banish not for impiety, but as an antisocial being, incapable of truly loving the laws and justice, and sacrificing, if needed, his life to his duty. If, after having publicly recognized these dogmas, a person acts as if he does not believe them, he should be put to death ... the individual particularly ... is surrendered to a new moral and collective body which has its own self, life, body and will. [In moral society, one] coalesces with all, [and] in this each of us puts in common his person and his whole power under the supreme direction of society's leaders."
Posts
2 comments:
You're not a creationist yourself are you? How disappointing.
Thanks for the comment, Jackart! Unless towards obviously serious hazards - I cultivate an open mind: I consider creation by God within the span of seven days not any more outrageous than a spontaneous outburst of life from primordial cosmic soup. I try to keep away from activism. But I do object to dishonosty, cowardice and ideological trickery. And tyrants.
Post a Comment