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