Personal Memo: This post is a collection of my own personal observations as I have witnessed them in my almost close to 60 years of living. This is not a slam against anyone's religion or ideological take on life, but a reality check of some things I have observed and researched over some decades and taken personal flack over for most of my life.
“Ideas that require people to reorganize their picture of the world provoke hostility.” ― James Gleick
“We sense that ‘normal’ isn’t coming back, that we are being born into a new normal: a new kind of society, a new relationship to the earth, a new experience of being human.” ― Charles Eisenstein
The crises of our time, it becomes increasingly clear, are the necessary impetus for the revolution now under way. And once we understand Nature's transformative powers, we see that it is our powerful ally, not a force to be feared or subdued." ― Thomas Kuhn
(Please Note: any paradigm shift implies the former paradigm is obsolete.) The words/term, "Paradigm Shift" is the terminology used by Thomas Kuhn in his influential book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) to describe a change in the basic assumptions, or paradigms, within the ruling theory of science. What made me think of this is the public relations promo we are fed today about how different Science is today compared to the times of the Dark Ages. Although there is no doubt or argument that Science has come a long way in various forms of development and understanding, I personally find no difference in Science when it comes to a leadership sense. In fact, it was actually something very unscientific that I found and read from Live Science some time ago which stood the hair up on the back of my neck, but more on that later on down the page. Once again, yes of course there are amazing modern day innovations provided by today's scientific discovery that make modern life more comfortable for most people in Industrial countries, but incredibly there still exists much of the same identical religious meta-physical philosophies that drive and influence modern science which has NOT changed much from when Christendom's Ecclesiastical Hierarchical structure ran those Institutions of Higher Learning in Europe back in the old days. In many ways we have the same Clerical "Guild" of Academic Philosophers influencing & running things, but with a different set of wardrobe. And sadly, like the bad science of yester-year, the present bad science hasn't done much better when it comes to responsible custodianship of our planet Earth. This post has zero to do with some of the benefits normally promoted in defense of science. Even conscientious science defenders are disgusted with the lack of ecological direction being taken by mainstream Industrial Science. Now before the ideologues of both sides get hot with me here, this is NOT gonna be some stupid evolutionist verses creationism debate normally fought on some time wasting worthless Public Combat Forum. Funny thing is, when I use to question Clergy years ago on say, subjects like Trinity, I was called Anti-Religious. When I question some of the irresponsible technologies like GMOs, I get labeled Anti-Science. See what I mean ? I can never win. But follow along and see if you can't agree with any of the bad leadership flaws that still exist and rather than help Science, they have actually hurt and hindered science as opposed t0 supposedly liberating it. In some cases, there are some ideological arguments used against the conventional Religious Fundies that have backfired terribly. Well, in reality, it has backfired on Nature which has taken the brunt of the consequences associated with these newer worldview arguments. So pay close attention see if you don't walk away with a different perspective on where things are headed in this world.
|Wikipedia - Isaac Newton|
|Credit: Huffington Post |
Anyone really see a difference ?
"We go right to the central issue of whether there is a god or not. We're pretty certain that if there were an all-powerful being pulling the strings and shaping history for the benefit of human beings, the universe would look rather different than it does."
PZ Meyers, L.A. Times, 2009
First off let me just say this, I have to be honest here and state correctly that this actually is actually a very valid argument and great question or rather observation. It makes sense in the light of the way the world around us exists in it's present sad state of affairs and given the historical Church's horrible conduct which seems to prove otherwise. You know as a side point here, incredibly, just before I left in 2006 to come to Sweden, Billy Graham was asked this very similar question on this very same subject in his very last Crusade (anywhere) there in San Diego by a TV News Reporter. His response was lame (no offense believers, but it was) in the light of what his own Holy book says on the matter. His response when asked why God allows such badness in the world, was that he didn't know, but that was the first question he was going to ask God when he got to heaven. Again, very lame. However, it should be noted that PZ Meyers question was not a scientific argument, it's actually rather more of a religious one and not a scientific one. I mean seriously, there is absolutely no way, PZ Meyers nor anyone else with like beliefs can set up a Scientific Method experiment about an intelligent entity for which he says does not exist and tell us all what this entity would or would not do. You couldn't even peer-review such a thing. I myself cannot write a research paper utilizing scientific Rules of Naturalistic & Physical explanations only and explain the why or how a Supernatural Intelligence OR for that matter how blind and undirected natural forces of physics and chemicals accomplished a single complex organism without injecting some sort of faith statements into the paper. I can't possibly explain because I was NOT there way back when. Even if I was, I still would be ill-equipped to explain anything. I recognize my own limitations in this. Okay, but now let me get back to that article I alluded to at the top of this post from a few days ago. One of the biggest and I have to be honest, lousiest arguments they use against Christendom's Creationists or Intelligent Design Gang (whom I do not support) is the argument of "Bad Design" which is once again a mere religious argument and not a scientific one. [Now pay close attention here Ecology promoters] This is the claim is that Nature is imperfect and that all manner of flaws are to be found everywhere we observe it. Clearly in their view, as the flawed argument goes, an Designer wouldn't do such and such that way. Numerous examples of flaws of imperfect Nature are presented as proof against a designer. Once again, here is that article that triggered or inspired my rather disturbed post here. Now, for both sides of this issue, put aside the "If you're not for us, you're against us" attitude [otherwise known as the False Dichotomy Fallacy ] and just read on further.
|Credit: Live Science|
Designing Life: Should Babies Be Genetically Engineered?
I'm not going to elaborate on this. Like the irresponsible GMO Bio-technologies for profit, this has terrible science written all over it. As the article clearly admitted, in common genetic engineering studies and research, there are a horrendous amount of mistakes and experiments with helpless creatures that have gone terribly wrong which must in the end be thrown away and discarded. There are clearly ethical reasons for not doing this on human beings, but hey, as we all know, never say never. This world's leadership keeps surprising us in many terrible ways and quite often it's all done anyways in the name of Scientific Progress. But it's the articles that came out just days before this one above that actually motivate & later justify such research in areas they shouldn't going into. Notice how some of these same lame tactics being used in the Bad Designer Argument are being used which in reality are nothing scientific, but are truly mere religious assumptions.
Here are the earlier articles which employed the commonly used "Bad Design" argument. Please bare with me as the use of this argument has actually hurt Science more than it has helped it. There were two articles which came out on February 15th, 2013, 3 days prior to the one referenced above. One from Phys-Org: 'The Scars of Human Evolution' briefing explores physical fallout from 2-footed walking and the other from Live Science: Aches and Pains: You Can Thank Evolution for Them Both articles offer the same unscientific faith statement assertions by a couple of researchers who insist there is no intelligent designer because the human body is so poorly designed and that in itself is proof of this intelligent entity's nonexistence. Bruce Latimer who is an Anthropologist from Case Western Reserve University, along with Alan Mann of Princeton, attended a recent conference on Human Evolution. They claim that the human body is poorly designed, despite the fact that it is the dominant primate form in the world today. Here's a quote from Physorg:
"If an engineer were given the task to design the human body, he or she would never have done it the way humans have evolved," Latimer said. "Unfortunately, we can't go back to walking on four feet. We've undergone too much evolutionary change for that - and it is not the answer to our problems."
Seriously ? A modern day human engineer's intelligence knows something more than a God or Nature in designing a human body ? Wow then, that must explain all the cures we have today for what historically has ailed mankind. Isn't it wonderful that cancer [sorry, only sarcasm here] and all other diseases and medical problems that have plagued mankind for centuries have been solved by this collective genius today ? Right ? Maybe this is where Hollywood's entertainment myths of Cyborgs come from. In any event, these are actually mere faith statements from personal bias and worldview promotion, not a neutral scientific stance. Keep in mind the earlier article by Paleoanthropolgist Mike White in writing about his own field of Antropology's inability to self regulate itself and the "taxonomic exuberance" story propagates itself by mere assumptions and assertions. UC Berkeley: Tim White Then there is this gem of a quote in Live Science:
"If you want to look for examples of how we're not the result of intelligent design, you don't have to go far, just look at the complicated, uncomfortable way we have babies," anthropologist Karen Rosenberg at the University of Delaware told Live Science.
|photo: Simon Reeve|
Spitting Contests between Intellectuals
goes absolutely nowhere and furthermore
It's irrelevant for the sake of argument here how it all came to be perfectly so, the Natural world nevertheless has always been organized with checks and balances. It only becomes disorganized and out of balance when contaminated by the Human stain. I'm not going to list all the the bad Nature design arguments here, as they are too numerous to recount and would be a waste of time to label here anyway. The fatal flaw in the bad designer arguments in this obsession with worldview promotion is that they have unwittingly infected the thinking of Corporate Industrial Science and has resulted in the justification of certain technological innovations or horribly flawed Earth management policies for which we all now pay an ecologically ruined price tag And this has happened for no other reason than, Nature is considered imperfect, flawed and a mere bundle of compromises. The main arguments above are enough to illustrate my point. But seriously, dump your anger here and meditate on this for a moment. This grossly flawed argument itself has mutated now and turned into "Nature is the Bad Designer" and WE (human Scientists shackled by Corporate Interests) can do a much better job is the main justification message behind several of the presently bad scientific schemes, innovations, plans, programs and other flawed technologies which are now ruining this planet. While there is all manner of bad technology mankind has invented for which the natural world is paying the price for, for me one of the worst innovations are the GMO technologies brought to us by the Corporate run Biotechnology Industry. There is no way to turn back and correct genetic pollution. Seriously, how would anybody do this even if they wanted to try ? This technology might be more believable had Corporate Science attempted to actually first replicate the way Nature accomplishes things with Mycorrhizae, beneficial bacterial and other Natural checks and balances for controlling disease, pests and other general productivity strategies. But that never happened because of this view of Nature as having major flaws. When you consider many of the excuses given for these GMOs talking points for being necessary for mankind's benefit, the underlying feel you get is that most of those flawed technologies are patterned and influenced after many of those stupid Origins debates and the condemnation here is against both sides. Let me give you some great illustrative examples using my own absurdities, sarcasm and satire to get my point across.
"If Nature were truly a good designer, it would have equipped plants with better defense mechanisms to ward off pests and other disease"
"No problemo, We can fix that!"
"If Nature were truly a good designer, then it would have built a bigger fruit, given it brighter colour, more alluring fragrance and addicting flavours"
"Are you kidding, We've corrected that!"
"If Nature were truly a great Designer it would never have created lower end boring & mundane plants like "Chaparral as a“dull green” or “mundane” landscape lacking in variety that continually “impedes” the public’s ability to enjoy the natural landscape", but instead would have only created Pines, Oaks, Firs, Maples, Ficus, etc, etc, etc"
"No problem, we can fix that too with our Scientific Prescribed Burn Programs!"
"If Nature were truly a great Designer, it would never have created slow growing trees with so much lignin which hinder making good quality paper where harvest takes several generations of 100+ years as opposed to the harvest in 25 years we've intelligently engineered into it by utilizing GMO technologies & Chemical dumping by helicopter over millions of acres of forests"
"We (Abor-Gen & SweTree) have fixed that!"
"If Nature were a great designer, it would never have created a system of gradual progression in it's rebuilding mechanisms after a catastrophic event. It would have bypassed the use lower plant life progression and fast forwarded immediately to final end results quicker like with land stripping and plowing the ground to bare soil with tree seedling plantation establishment"
"Never fear, we know how to fast forward and manipulate that also"
"If Nature were truly a good Designer, it would never have created worthless desert wastelands for which there is no purpose or value, other than one we now assign to it (solar/wind farms to reference a few)"
"We've got a fix for that too!"
|Credit: Runaway Train Movie|
"It doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar from Oxford to look up words/terms in well respected Bible Dictionaries or Hebrew and Greek Lexicons"
He left upset and of course I was in hot water by the folks and punished by the family with the old silent treatment. Sadly, history shows us that the majority of mankind from all walks of life have never gotten that point either. I get the same response today if I perhaps disagree with this newer supposedly enlightened way of thinking which has become the New Secularistic Paradigm with the same, "if you're not for us, you're against us". Funny, for all the preaching of modern enlightenment and change, many of the old die hard religious tactics never go away. But the fact is I still find very little difference between the old Cleric Guard and the New Age Activism. Here's the main challenge to the newer Secularist Movement. You say you love and appreciate Nature and that's what all of this (among other issues) is about ? The problem is, when you get foul mouthed, insulting, belligerence, arrogance, etc, you don't gain converts anymore than the other side did when they employed the same business model and ruled with an iron fist. You must also realize that if the planet is to actually heal (and that is looking more and more impossible as time pants on to the end), then you have to question your motives and ask yourself honestly:
"Is my LOVE of Nature more powerful than my HATRED of anything conventionally Religious ?"
Now, if you think globally for a moment, then you must be honest and acknowledge that the modern Secular enlightenment movement is still outnumbered, well that is, as far as the numbers game. You must also acknowledge that healing the earth is NOT about advanced technological innovations, but about changing people's minds & hearts (figuratively speaking of course). It must also be acknowledged that it is imperative that every man, woman and child has to be on the same exact eco-page in showing respect for the Earth in order for your healing program of the planet to succeed. So here's another honest soul searching question that should come up and be meditated upon:
"Am I truly interested in Persuasion or do I still get this satisfaction and kick out of disrespectful Alienation ?"
I can't answer that question for you, Only You can! But remember, you don't have that much time to prove that this world's human leadership can make a difference in correcting the Nature of things on Earth. Some of you, but certainly not the majority of you already know this. The Political Leaders and Scientific Community have actually been holding back as to how dire things truly are. I understand why. Panic and chaos in the streets is not something any leader wishes to deal with. But even this will be revealed more and more in the future as even a U.S. government intelligence website forecasts by the year 2030 [it's actually now closer than that - See: "Soylent Green" link at bottom of post].
Modern Science is intrigued and in love with their computer projection simulations which are often based on data as they know it at the present time. So they forecast events based on data, then the very next year these must be changed because the data was flawed in the light of newer findings. This has often happened with climate change models that often forecast doom and gloom way way into the far future, only to tweak & adjust the model each year by bumping up the disaster scenario timeline closer than was originally thought because of newer data. Recently, NASA modeled future increasing wildfire events by simulating a time of higher temps and increased drought events. Here is their model Potential Evaporation in North America Through 2100 . They went from a timeline starting from 1990 to the year 2100. That's 11 decades with two already gone and nine left. I'm going to go out on a big limb here and in my own personal opinion mind you, and I'm going to dramatically narrow things down saying one year for one decade. The present Orthodoxy has approximately a little over 9+ years to correct things before total ecological collapse. That is if the present system of things were to continue. Interestingly, this would put things on the same exact timeline as the book "Make Room, Make Room" written by science-fiction author Harry Harrison which was later turned into the 1973 movie "Soylent Green" which I previously made a comparison to out present time in my post here: "A Sci-Fi Classic that Accurately Foretold Today's Reality" The Author Harry Harrison died last year in 2012. I've often wondered if he ever looked at today's events and dire climate circumstances and agricultural challenges along with the present obsession with power and wealth by a few corporations in bed with global politics and the almost prophetic nature of what he wrote into that script ? I would have loved to have talked to him about what inspired him, especially in the light of the then promoted Scientific consensus of the world in the 1970s which was said to be headed towards a new 'Ice Age' . Most readers here probably weren't even born yet and most who were living back then have already probably forgotten the Science views back in the 70s. The film was not as overly popular back then as it is now. I can only imagine the heat and flack taken by the author and producers as to how unscientific this film was by that era's intellectual elites back then. Although it's hilarious how past and present attitudes never change when it comes to skeptics, it's also sad that such a film could be closer to reality than ever even envisioned by it's creators. As time goes on and you observe the degradation of your region's environmental surroundings, you won't need a Scientist, Religious Leader or other Political Authority to warn you about anything or tell you what to think. Sadly, at that time it will be too late.
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
Unfortunately, most of mankind has been sitting around in the Darkness for such an awfully long time waiting for this world's leadership who promise that some day, somewhere, somebody will actually shed light on the things that have historically perplexed Humankind. Can you spare a dime for the new enlightened paradigm ? Remember what happened back in the Dark Ages ? Don't get sucked into purchasing any New Age Promissory Notes for which not even your own grand kids let alone great grand kids & the Natural World will be able to collect on.
The Reference links above are in bolded in blue, but I'll report them here for you in case you missed them: