Primatism, How’s that for You??

For how many years have monkeys been called monkeys in the English tongue? But, that caused problems for those who fell for Darwin and his monkey to man creation fable. OK, change the name of those creatures deemed the most closely “related” to man, “primates”. While they were at it, they tossed man himself into that new bunch of beasts. A diplomatic move I suppose.

So, now we are no longer linked directly to the monkeys according to this logical slight of hand. But rather, children of “great apes” and share this new moniker, “primate” with them. I suppose that makes humans the real “king kongs” of the world.

I could make up new words all day, but never match the pace at which “science” invents them. Seems like every molecule that’s found in living things has had a complicated “latin sounding” designation given it. And to hear them talk about them sometimes will make your head spin, unless you understand what they’re talkin about. Then it’s just so much like the pushing forward of tumbling dominos. One error drives the next and so on.

So, what would you call the practice of inventing new words to cover for an otherwise embarrasing situation you find yourself in, “primatism” works for me.

Wayne Hollyoak

Why is Science Rubbish?

Science came about as the result of the knee-jerk efforts of Thomas Huxley and his cohorts in the X-Club. As a result of the reformation of the “church” that was rather more or less dominated by the Roman christianized form of polytheism, the church had reached an all time low in credibility in the public eyes. Huxley saw “evolution” as just the wedge he needed to elimate Christianity and other religions from the face of the earth. He saw the church and it’s teachings as standing in the way of “scientific discovery and progress” or something like that and brought together some of his like-minded friends into the so called X-Club so that plans could be made for the “advancement of science” as the replacement for the church as the guiding light of the world, so to speak.

Since this new “savior” of the world would have to be hard at work converting the masses and leading the flock on to all the greener pastures, it would only be fitting that they get paid and paid well.  When Huxley took over the “Royal Society” he was really able to get his crusade against the church and Christianity into high gear and we see that momentum has been maintained to this day. Has this battle been fought with swords and bullets? No, the battle has been for credibility and trust.

Huxley had fallen to the same basic blunder that the so called, “higher critics” had fallen to. The notion that “ALL THINGS” that are in effect in the universe have always been so throughout the past and will continue to be into the future. The assumption that all “physical laws” are the sole governing forces that exist and are unchanging and universal. The “higher critics” thought that they were in a position to criticize the Holy Bible just as though it was any other piece of literature. They thought that since miracles did not conform to this notion of “uniformitarianism” as they call it and so must be explained away in some manner. Darwin bought into this and so the only way he could account for the life on this planet was to dream of means of putting life here without disturbing those allmighty physical laws.

He thought, hmm living things adapt…. that adaptation can cause changes….them thar changes can accumulate over eons of time to produce whole new forms of life. There you have it, piece of cake!! Sadly, people believed it and Huxley sort of beleived it though he refused to consider himself an atheist.

Anyway, so here you have this monstrosity of an organization that is determined to interpret all of nature and the universe thru darwinian, uniformitarian eyes and impose itself as the worlds ONLY reliable source of truth. But, as you can see, it all rides on the fallicy that there are real “laws of nature” that are eternal and unchangable. If there was even one single “blip” in any of those so-called “laws” an any moment in history. Yes, that’s right, any instance at any point ever then science  and all of its information, discoveries, etc. come into question.

If the “laws” come into question, so does the credibility of everything that we call, “science”. Darwin’s “origin” story becomes just another dubious creation story that makes entertaining fiction, but has no basis in reality. Finches might adapt and change in minor ways, but we know they will never be anything but finches unless they are reengineered by someone that knows what they are doing. No natural process has the ability to turn a finch into a chicken. The fact that such creatures exist are testimony to the fact that the “laws” of nature are at best trends that exist or appear to exist at the present, but nothing should be assumed beyond that.

Suddenly, all of nature returns to its rightful place, Mystery! What ever you say about it is once again to be viewed as merely a guess. So, if science is knowledge, and we can’t trust any of that knowledge. What good is it?

Wayne Hollyoak

Making Time

This is an interesting expression. You “make time” by getting somewhere faster then usual. If you go over the speed limit on the way to work and get there 5 minutes earlier than usual, you’ve “made” a little time for your self in a sense. Especially if you’re “running late”! Any way you can stay ahead of schedule “buys” you a little time. What that time is used for depends. You may want to take a nap in order to recover from the anxiety of speeding and “taking those chances”.

There are other ways that we like to “make time”. Making time can be very useful if you make up a theory about past events. What’s a few million years here and there? None of us were there to see if they ever happened. But, tall tales never caught momentum in western civilization the way they have with followers of Darwin. “Natural selection” can create all sorts of new creatures, you just need to create the time needed. (Never mind the fact that nature stubbornly insists on maintaining the status quo.) Still, they say “no problem, just sprinkle that magic time dust over it” as if that could make nature comply to fanciful human notions.

So, if all of this Darwinian stuff IS nonsense, what then? First of all, we don’t have the foggiest how long ago living things first appeared on this planet. Why does it really matter? Second, there is a record of how it got started. I suggest we suffice with the Scriptures and preserve that mystery.

“…redeeming the time, for the days are evil…”

Wayne Hollyoak

Maybe They Should Scrap It

Cosmology has to be the bologna king! Where do they come up with this stuff? A nova, the “birth of a star”, a “planet made of diamonds”, “gases condensing in space”? Science is lost in space and Dr. Smith is sure that the robot is just a big babbling buffoon. They tell us these objects out there are “light years” away and yet they know everything about them. Their age, how they got there, what planets are circling the stars, their size, composition, atmosphere contents and if they are anything like earth. The whole science of cosmology is well, far fetched.

If these guys really want to make a profound statement about the cosmos, it would go more like this, “we are astonished by all we see and the mystery of it all just keeps growing!” If they were wise, they’d just leave it at that. But, that’d be only partly true, cause we know that the Creator engineered it. Their purpose is to be lights for us and help us keep track of days and seasons. Anything beyond that is second guessing at best and vulgar for the most part.

First there was “atomic theory”, then there was “quantum” theory and they “string theory” and now it’s the “Higg’s Boson” or the “God Particle” and who knows what they’ll dream up next. Sometimes I wonder if E=mc2 wasn’t some tongue in cheek from the great theorist. It really seems that Einstien was just using the speed of light squared in the equation as a handy expression of enormity since the units that each represents aren’t even given. It just sounds like a clever was of stating that there’s a load of energy available in them thar masses! It’s relative, that’s all.

Well anyway, my point is that if scientists are really after the truth and any understanding of this reality, they ought to first confess that what those heavenly bodies are and how they were made is a MYSTERY! And if they were honest, they’d just leave it at that! Sorry folks the show is over, gasses don’t compress in space to make baby stars. All that stuff is way too far away to really be understood!

Wayne Hollyoak

Simplistic Science

I’ve been thinking about how pathetic science has become as a result of taking it’s prefered path down the atheistic road to nowhere. I try to keep track of the comments made of various sites about ID and give the antichristian scoffers something to chew on. Just throw out a little bone to see if they can grasp the fact that Darwin was out to lunch with his self-made creation fable.

Science has lifted up its voice against our real Creator and His people and the end of that sort of sin is never good! Think of it, is there another religion in all the world that has invented a more simplistic and pathetic creation myth as evolution? It’s like saying that the Mona Lisa is a finger painting made be a 2 year old only several orders of magnitude more vile.

I’m saying all this because I know that there are still a few out there that care about the truth. So, I want you to know that the Spirit of Jesus the Christ IS the Spirit of Truth! If anyone will come to Him, they will know the Truth and the Truth will set them free!

So, I’m embarassed to admit that I ever had respect of science and I feel badly for anyone who still does. They have less understanding of what life is really about then a newborn and yet they talk like they have just about all the universe figured out.

The scientist boasts of his published babblings about this and that,
that tickle the ears of his peers with a rat a tat tat.
He pursues his research and experimental studies,
To skillfully pursuade his doubtful buddies.

In Darwin’s pigeon cage he sits
though when the creationist rattles it
He won’t fly out but rather fits.
He prefers the voice of the dead man,
that has imprisoned his soul.

His pride soars above the heavens,
his mind flys far above his head,
The scientist goes up to his highest perch,
To fool himself that his Creator is not.

Darwin had many pigeons then and many more today.
They still sit in his cage and every so often a creationist,
Comes along to try to clean his mess out.
With great wise sounding words the pigeon talks down to him
They smear their mess on them if they can.

But, who really cares what the scientist has to say,
Other than the other pigeons in Darwin’s cage?

Wayne Hollyoak

Chapter One of Darwin’s “Favored Races” Book is Mostly Breeder Bull

Been reading Charlie Darwin’s famous book about his so-called, “Favored Races” or “Origin of Species” and it’s a good example of how you should never judge a book by it’s reputation. If you look at the reviews, you’d think that it was the greatest piece of literature ever produced! Well I have to say that if the first chapter is any indication of the rest of the book, it’s not looking very positive. Charlie just goes on and on about all this BS about how all these breeders have been capable of transforming this creature into that within just a few short generations. I feel badly that he really believes half of it. Then he pipes in with some of his own breeding prowess claiming that he had, “produced every sort of feather in his pigeons that you could imagine in just a few generations”.  Let’s see, how many bird of paradise tail feathers did he come up with, much less peacock,,, well.

But, we all know how guys are prone to BS, especially when there’s a little competition goin on! Then there’s the dude that brags about how he can breed any sort of sheep he wanted at will in only 3 generations!!! Charlie seems to hold that character in the highest regard… Of course that’s not to say that in very controlled conditions some very odd varieties of creatures can be sustained for multiple generations. That’s humans selectively breeding various creatures, which is a far cry from how nature works. Humans choose creatures both male and female that have the traits desired and form a “pedigree”. Creatures that are unnaturally isolated and artificially nurtured and carefully inbred.

Honestly, I was expecting more even though I know how bad his “science” really was. Maybe the second chapter will not be as bad? After all he didn’t know a thing about genetics and how inheritence really works. He mentions the “reversion to wilds” rule of breeding that reminds us of the power of nature to unravel all our best breeding efforts and return a creature to more or less its original natural type in only a few generations. If not, they probably won’t survive in the wild at all. He claims “but natural selection, as will hereafter be explained, will determine how far the new characters thus arising shall be preserved”. And indeed they shall, not to the help of significant change.

Nature breeds for genetic health and physical and behavioral conformity, whereas human-bred creatures are notoriously plagued by, and even selected for, genetic disease. If Darwin was looking to build a case for variability by showcasing that kind of stuff, it is a foolish and irresponsible way to go about it. As a naturalist himself he should know quite well that nature operates on an entirely different criteria from man.

Well, I’ll keep reading. Maybe things’ll get better…

Wayne Hollyoak

Huxley’s Hoax

How did science become an antichristian movement? The story is a complex one and I don’t fully understand it. But, there are a few important key players in it’s fall from integrity and usefulness. As far as the role evolutionism has played, there are 2 key figures. Thomas Huxley was a strong proponent of “secularizing” science and a contemporary of the other, namely Charles Darwin.

Huxley got a band of his supporters together and formed the “X-Group”. They would get together every fortnight for dinner at a resturant and discuss how they could eliminate any influence that Christianity might have on the pursuit of science. He hoped that through this activism that he could “free” science to become a more profitable profession and increase their status in the community as the new interpreters of the mysteries of the universe, or as they put it, permit more freedom in the flow of ideas.

One source of irritation for them was the so called, “fixity of species” interpretation of the Biblical reference to how living things are to “reproduce after their kind”. Of course, there really is no need to veiw “kind” as a synonym for “species”. (But, as it would turn out, species would come to be defined as a “interbreeding group” anyway.)

Tom and his buds were looking for some way to drive a wedge between the emerging scientific elitists to get them to push out all humble Bible-believing Christian (“religious”) influence from the “scientific community”. Along came this pigeon breeder and amateur naturalist by the name of Charles Darwin. Darwin was convinced that creatures could adapt and change after many generations to the extent that new species could form in ways similar to the way new breeds of pigeons and plants could be produced by selective breeding.

Huxley saw problems with Darwin’s ideas. He didn’t agree with “natural selection” for one. But, he thought that Darwin could be useful to him as a pawn in his pursuit of the secularization of science. Darwin had a complete atheistic creation story that if it was published could raise science to the elite position that Huxley lusted for. 

Since it is know that Huxley dissagreed with Darwin’s fundamental thesis, but sought to capitalize on Darwin’s credibility and the political power in Darwin’s ideology to achieve his personal goals and that of the X-Group, we must view Evolution as a hoax. About this same time a Monk by the name of Mendel was about to reveal some things about inheritence of traits that would have further devestated Darwins simplistic creation story by showing how variability is actually passed on from generation to generation.

However, there were some things about Darwin’s “evolution” that helped it gain popularity.

!. It supported the “white supremist” mentality of the time. Many of the new scientific elite were slaveholders and Darwins’ view that there were “favored races” was appealing to them.

2. Most Christian pastors and clergy didn’t have a strong background in the natural sciences and so they suck to their guns and used scripture to stave off the attacks against their understanding of creation. This only goaded the superiority complex emerging among the X-group and the science elitists.

3. The blasphemous nature of evolutionism pits those that declare and teach it against their own Maker alienating them from the Spirit of Truth, who is Christ Himself. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth and only He can prevent us from believing hoaxes like Huxley’s.

Today, Darwin’s ideas have pretty well been debunked and are now just propped up as “neo-darwinism”. Mendel’s revolution with the new discipline known as, “genetics” has completely overshadowed Darwin’s niave creation story. But, sadly, the break from Christianity has been made and continues to be enforced within the ranks of science. The science elite know that if they allow Christianity back in, that evolutionism will loose it’s appeal and their political power and prestige will be shaken.

Wayne Hollyoak