Skip to content

YET MORE ‘origin of life’ hype and misinformation from Philae comet lander team

It bores and irritates me to have to keep posting about this ‘comet brought life to Earth’ misinformation, but as they go on and on, so must I.

scientificin

ANOTHER morning with the BBC telling us about ‘great new discoveries…rich and varied mix of chemicals…building blocks of life…how life may have (might have, must have, DID!) begin on earth…water brought to earth on comets… kick start life on early Earth…primal soup…might eventually turn into DNA…’ We have heard all this so many times before.

BBC latest propaganda on Philae lander and ‘primal soup’

See above link for details on the truly tiny amount of actual information they have gathered. From the hype you might think that they had a thick soup with a full complement of laevo amino acids and some proto-enzymes (which would only leave another half dozen or so insuperable laws of chemistry to overcome before getting a single protein molecule) but it’s way, way, way less than that. Evidence weak, shout louder.

It seems that (allowing for the accuracy of instruments and massive confirmation bias by the researchers) they have found water, oxygen (free oxygen or oxides?) and carbon dioxide, plus (drum roll and fanfare) hydroxyethanol (a form of alcohol) and polyoxymethylene (another fairly simple hydrocarbon) which it is astonishingly claimed could ‘lead to the backbone of DNA’. No nitrogen containing compounds, nucleic acids, sulphates, phosphates or anything else. I stand to be corrected but this was what the BBC report said. These guys are so hyped up, so determined to find something they can call evidence for their long held faith-based conclusion of undirected abiogenesis that I’m sure they would have said if there was any more.

The BBC science correspondent modestly said ‘We still don’t know for sure (my bold) that comets brought life to earth....’but then adds with a smile ‘but they may have helped to get it going.’ Oh yeah? In what way does the discovery of some very simple hydrocarbons on a comet support that assertion?

This is all wishful thinking, confirmation bias, evolutionist boosterism and propaganda. It reminds me of that chap who said ‘Make the lie big, repeat it often enough and with sufficient authority, and they will believe it.’ What was his name? I forget.

It has been known for many decides that the problems of getting from non living chemicals to even one strand of protein, never mind a living cell, are multiple and insuperable. The scientists know this but they won’t own up or else they will have to abandon their materialistic, naturalistic world view and admit to a Creator.

Asserting, as I do, that there is no possible way that life could have self assembled from non living chemicals is not ‘god of the gaps’, its basic biochemistry. Don’t take my word for it, look up protein synthesis and see how many complex steps there are which happen easily in living cells but are not outside them. Life only comes from life-its a universal observation which makes accurate predictions and has no exceptions, therefore its a LAW not a theory.

As to comets bringing water to earth, how much water is there on this comet compared to rock? I get the impression that its pounds to tons. So for every cubic metre of water allegedly brought to Earth by a comet, there would have been a multiple megaton impact from a huge mass of rock slamming into the planet. Think that through.

Accepting the Genesis creation account as the history of life’s origin requires far fewer unseen entities and untestable hypotheses, all the more so since God has sealed the Bible’s testimony by raising Jesus of Nazareth from the dead. Don’t be taken for a fool by this, use Ockham’s razor, as some questions, recognise the bias and realise you are being taken for a ride.

See him in the House of Lords, passing laws to put down crime…

...while the victims of his passions trudge along in blood and grime….

Lord-Sewel-the-sun-main

Lord Sewell broke the 11th commandment ‘Thou shalt not get caught.’

These are the people who rule us. This explains a lot..

Satan statue erected in Oklahoma in defiance of Ten Commandments

People claiming to be Satanists have erected a bronze statue representing Satan in Oklahoma. They initially wanted to put it up next to a Ten Commandments monument, to which they vigorously object. I mean, people hate being reminded that the Creator God has claims on them, it offends their pride and sense of autonomy. And a lot of them like committing adultery and worshiping the works of their hands too. Prominent Satanist Aleister Crowley said ‘Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.’

baphomet

These guys must be committed or have a rich backer: bronze statues don’t come cheap. Note the adoring children (perhaps representing the success the political left has had in removing Christianity and Darwin dissent from the classroom), the hand raised in a posture similar to the way Jesus is often pictured holding up his hand to bless, and the twin serpents.

The crude cover drawing for my novel ‘Darwin’s Adders: A Chronicle of Pagan England 2089′ also features twin serpents, emerging from Charles Darwin’s mouth, representing the poisonous lies he told. The kindle book is on one level a ‘fan lit’ follow on from C S Lewis’ great and prophetic novel ‘That Hideous Strength’. In that novel Lewis develops ideas considered in other of his writings (e.g. Mere Christianity, The Screwtape Letters, The Abolition of Man) that when men reject the true God for no gods they eventually end up worshiping Satan. Take a look at the sad, tired cliched slogans that Guardian readers have posted under this item. ‘Bronze Age goat herders...’ sigh. I wonder if any of them can make and work bronze, starting with sticks, stones and no instruction book.

They think its all a big joke, and that once the dechristianisation agenda is complete that a new society based on sweet reason and ‘Enlightenment’ will emerge. The Devil who deceives them knows better.

As C S Lewis wrote in Mere Christianity, if critics said to him ‘What? Do you really mean, at this time of day, to bring back our old friend the Devil, horns, hoofs and all?’

He responded  ‘What the time of day has to do with it, I don’t know, and I am not at all particular about his personal appearance. But if you are that keen to find out what the Devil looks like, I’m sure you will eventually find out. But whether you will like it or not is another matter.

As Keyser Soze (The Usual Suspects) said, ‘The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was getting people to believe he didn’t exist.’

C S Lewis on the Evolution Myth

I am working on a long essay, might become a Kindle book, on C S Lewis’s contribution to the creation/evolution debate. He has often been claimed by the theistic evolutionist side in the church, and there is some support for this, but with Lewis being as complicated as he was, and with the issue being firmly on the back burner during his day, its not as simple as that.

Did C S Lewis accept a form of theistic evolution? Yes and no.

Having read everything by Lewis that is readily available in the public realm, plus some harder to find material (i.e. the 3 volumes of his surviving letters and numerous essays) I am sure that he did not really accept evolution deep down. Where he seems to have done so, his heart was not in it and his theology and philosophy, if not his science and history, was creationist through and through. More than many other prominent Christian writers and thinkers, he saw the way that evolutionary thought fed into godless philosophies such as communism and the most rapacious forms of capitalism as well as debasing art and literature. He explored these and other themes, not always overtly, in ‘The Abolition of Man’ and ‘That Hideous Strength’. More on these and similar themes later.

He wrote a poem mocking evolution, ‘Evolutionary Hymn’ , and an essay ‘Funeral of a Great Myth’ exploring particularly the metaphysical implications but also the biology of evolution. And in a letter to Bernard Acworth of the Evolution Protest Movement dated 13th September 1951, after reading Acworth’s unpublished book against evolution, Lewis seemed persuaded, saying that he thought Acworth might be correct in saying that evolution was ‘..the central and radical lie that controls the web of falsehood that governs our lives today’. He declined Acworth’s invitation to get involved as he wasn’t scientifically qualified and had too much else to do.

Doing some research on the ‘Funeral of a Great Myth’ essay today, I found this rather good article on the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals site which I link to .

With their permission,  given on the site, I reproduce the whole article below. Rather well written I thought, even if I don’t fully agree with every sentence.

<><><><><><><><><><

The Funeral of a Great Myth

ARTICLE BY   DECEMBER 2009

– See more at: http://www.reformation21.org/articles/the-funeral-of-a-great-myth.php#sthash.WFfJ6Mne.dpuf

In contrast to the popular fiction and apologetic writings of C.S. Lewis, a less familiar body of social commentary exists within the writer’s corpus. These writings give some of the clearest insight into the political, social, and philosophical environment in which Lewis lived and which influenced much of his work. In order fully to understand Lewis’ apologetic, even the latent apologetic contained within his fictional writings, one must understand the mindset and dominant worldview which it addressed. The worldview Lewis has in mind, an awkward synthesis of Enlightenment optimism, Industrial Age pragmatism, and scientific triumphalism, is perhaps most clearly critiqued in Lewis’ “The Funeral of a Great Myth,” first published in Walter Hooper’s compilation Christian Reflections.

“The Funeral of a Great Myth” takes up a reflective view of the dominant popular worldview of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, termed “popular Evolutionism,” which consists of a patchwork quilt of scientific hypotheses and Nietzschean philosophy collectively asserting man’s will to power, the improvement and ultimate perfection of human society, and the progressive development of the cosmos from chaos to order. Lewis demonstrates that this view, which came into popularity many years prior to the 1859 publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species, is properly to be understood as mythology. After establishing its mythological nature, Lewis argues that it is dying in the popular consciousness and in the science of his day.

The half-century separating Lewis’ observations and the present writer’s critique reveals the partial correctness of Lewis’ forecast; the present writer will fill in Lewis’ vision of “popular Evolutionism” with recent developments that have answered some of Lewis’ objections, expand upon Lewis’ arguments, and sketch out the contemporary adaptation of the “Great Myth.”

The first of Lewis’ three points is an identification and definition of that which he regards as dying mythology. In Lewis’ own words, “the central idea of the Myth is what its believers would call ‘Evolution’ or ‘Development’ or ‘Emergence.'” This definition and the brief paragraph containing it do not clearly state what Lewis has in view; the casual tone of the paper suggests that Lewis is addressing readers who are familiar with his topic and who will not require technical language and precisely defined terms to understand his argument. However, Lewis’ references to H.G. Wells, Charles Darwin, George Bernard Shaw, John Keats, Richard Wagner, and Olaf Stapledon give the reader a wider picture for this view than what the three terms listed above suggest. Stapledon, Wells, and Shaw leave a legacy of nonreligious humanism with a progressive view of morality and strong faith in the progress of science and technology; the latter two were strong advocates of socialism and social engineering in general. Keats and Wagner, not remembered as advocates of a particular social or biological worldview, reflect a collective concern for what remains when everything seems to be changing, progressing, and moving forward.

Darwin is the only name on the list reflective of the worldview commonly associated with the term “evolution.” Thus Lewis’ use of the term “popular Evolutionism,” far from signifying merely that biological theory associated with Charles Darwin, suggests a larger, more complex worldview combining the biological evolution of Darwin, the humanism and social progress of Wells and Shaw, the philosophy of change reflected in the aesthetics of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and the implacable optimism in progress passed on from the Enlightenment to the age of industry and technology.

Having identified, or at least suggested, the worldview that he bears in mind, Lewis sets about establishing the mythological nature and content of the same. The first indicator is a reflection of the hallmarks of the worldview in the popular art of the era. Keats, Wagner, Wells, and Shaw, already discussed with regard to their respective ideologies, leave written and musical art rich with the content of “popular Evolutionism.” This aesthetic reflection is crucial to Lewis’ thesis. The use of the science, pseudo-science, and beliefs of Evolutionism imaginatively, emotionally, and with a view to human psychological needs is, to Lewis, clear indication that the worldview has passed from theory into mythology. The aesthetic progression from the wonder and reverence of Keats and Wagner to the disillusioned experimentation of Wells and Shaw reflects the passing of the myth through life, maturity, and final geriatric failure.

The second indication of popular Evolutionism’s mythical status is its difference from the biological theory of evolution. A biologist, Lewis argues, recognizes that evolution is merely an hypothesis that seems to explain more of the evidence than competing views, but which has not been directly observed and suffers from contrary evidence like any other theory. This produces a qualitative gap between the biological theory of evolution and popular Evolutionism, which presses the implications of biological evolution beyond what the theory can bear and seeks to apply it outside of the realm of its scientific legitimacy. The theory’s application to psychology, sociology, philosophy, and ultimately to art and metaphysics betrays its elevation from biological theory to mythological acceptance.

Man, in his inescapably reflective and inquisitive nature, has transformed a theory of biological change into a grandiose framework in which not merely biological life, but everything – the mind, the role of man in the universe, the fate of the cosmos – is improving, or, to borrow Lewis’ words, moving “onwards and upwards.” An unwarranted emphasis on the positive effects of evolution, to the full ignorance and exclusion of the negative effects, which no less an evolutionary banner than J.B.S Haldane says outweigh the positive ten to one, [1] has transformed the theory into a magnificent eschatology of perfection. This farcical embroidery Lewis calls “one of the most moving and satisfying world dramas which have ever been imagined,” better than an Elizabethan tragedy.

Beginning with the prelude of eternal, formless, aimless matter and darkness, the drama opens upon the “infant hero” of first biological life. Through impossible circumstances life manages to grow and thrive; patience, chance, and circumstance slowly turn amoebas into dragons, which oppress the earth before mysteriously disappearing. Out of the apocalyptic fires, slowly but surely, man, weak, small, and helpless, appears and begins to manipulate his surroundings. Gradually he dominates his foes and subdues nature. He learns how to prolong his life and make the natural order his slave. Man becomes divine, ruling himself and all that surrounds him. But in the final act, nature takes her revenge; the sun cools and dies, the universe falls apart, and the curtain closes upon the funeral of the deceased hero.

Lewis begins his critique of the myth. The impossibility of the whole scenario stems from what Lewis calls its “fatal contradiction.” The entire worldview rests upon the reliability of natural “laws” and rational thought. In order for the myth of Evolutionism to stand on its own legs, the universe must function according to observable, fixed laws, which man must be able to manipulate with his rational faculties to form reliable conclusions. The contradiction lies in Evolutionism’s flat denial that anything in the universe is governed by established “law,” and its insistence that rational thought is nothing more than a byproduct of the progressive mutation of man’s natural instincts. These propositions mutually exclude the foundation upon which the entire worldview rests.

Here Lewis calls for the burial of the myth, not because it is self-contradicting but because he believes that modern science is abandoning it. He does not deny that the myth is founded upon a legitimate biological theory; he distinguishes between the theory and the baggage that carried it to mythical proportions. Evidence for the demise of the “Great Myth” is the departure of the Romantic aesthetic values that largely made such a mythology possible. The emergence of physics as the dominant model in theoretical science heralds a change of direction in the stream of modern thought. Biology is no longer assumed to be the metaphysical endpoint of science. Lewis mentions a revival of theology in his day – undoubtedly conscious of his own influence as well as that of his prolific contemporaries G.K. Chesterton and J.R.R. Tolkien. Nevertheless, Lewis does not expect that popular Evolutionism will disappear overnight, neither that vestiges will not remain for many ages. As with all mythology, the elements that make it satisfying to the mind of man will commend it to him even after it has lost its claim to factuality.

Lewis’ two “fatal contradiction[s]” in Evolutionism may be strengthened with the identification of a third. In addition to depending upon an ordered and lawful universe which Evolutionism does not really believe to exist and relying upon rational thought which it believes to be a random byproduct of man’s evolution, Evolutionism violates the observable and established Second Law of Thermodynamics, or Law of Entropy, at a number of points. The Second Law, briefly stated, holds that closed systems tend to revert from a state of order and potential to a state of disorder and exhausted potential. This can be observed on a scale as small as a glass of ice water, in which ice cubes melt, water warms, and the system exhausts itself quickly, or on the scale of the universe, in which all kinetic and potential energy gradually reverts to unusable heat energy. Evolutionism, while strictly holding to the Second Law as a scientific principle, flatly denies it on the mythological level.

As Lewis has already noted, Evolutionism depends upon an ordered universe, otherwise observations would be meaningless and science would be impossible. Furthermore, the grandiose philosophy of progress, upward momentum, and increasing order imposed by man upon his environment is in direct contradiction with the Law of Entropy. Far from maintaining that the closed system of the universe is falling from order and potential into chaos and exhausted potential, Evolutionism proposes a conflicting absurdity – that the universe is progressing from disorder to order, and that man, the potentiality for this progression, is actually increasing in his abilities.

These critiques of Evolutionism are perfectly valid as long as the term is defined in the way that Lewis and the present writer have defined it up to this point. Evolutionism refers not only to the biological theory of evolution, but also to faith in the limitless advancement of science, technology, and social engineering, as well as optimism regarding man’s position in the cosmos. The position can be summarized as a cosmic Nietzschean “will to power” conveniently facilitated by biological principles of natural selection, environmental conditioning, and infinite progress from lower and lesser things to higher and greater things. If the essential substance of Evolutionism changes, particularly if the position abandons a belief in limitless advancement and positive progress in general, Lewis’ critiques must be adapted to remain relevant.

Lewis’ identification of a large-scale ideology of progress and upward movement with “Evolutionism” may have reflected the trend of scientific and popular thinking in his day, but such an association would not pass without objection in the present day. Darwinian evolution, which certainly is widely accepted, taught in schools, and espoused by public figures, is no longer accompanied by the rosy optimism and general faith in human progress characteristic of Enlightenment thinking. Although biological evolution maintains that mutation and natural selection produce positive results within a species, it does not propose the grandiose eschatological progress that Lewis reflected in the mindset of his day. Man advances in his environment, it is true, but the environment advances against him in equal proportion. Indeed, modern Evolutionism teaches that man is hopelessly bound to the natural order, which will one day eliminate him just as it has eliminated other species. No longer does popular science teach that man’s destiny is to transcend and utterly dominate the natural order, or to become a race of demigods as Lewis’ colleagues apparently believed.

In a complete reversal from the attitude of Lewis’ day, Evolutionism in the present day is shot through with fatalism. Biology has recognized and embraced on a popular level the less glamorous implications of the theory of evolution. Man, far from being construed as the triumphant hero in an improving cosmos, is regarded as an insignificant biological byproduct in an austere universe that will ultimately kill him off. Furthermore, the universe itself is cooling and becoming less habitable, and it will eventually gravitate in upon itself, destroying itself and all that it contains, after which it will rapidly expand again in a cycle that might perhaps be one of many millions, and which will probably not produce the biological life that is taken to be a phenomenon, or even an accident, of the present cycle. In short, modern Evolutionism believes that biological life is going nowhere in particular; it is merely adapting for survival.

Even the socialist ideology to which Lewis alludes has changed. Socialist ideology once represented man’s upward march in the cosmic order; socialism in the twenty-first century is more modest in its goals and more cautious in its methodology, particularly following the spectacular failure of its ideology in the former Soviet Union, and the corruption of its ideology to produce awful despots in twentieth-century Germany, China and North Korea. While humanism and a high view of man’s potential remain dominant in the popular mind, heady visions of man’s engineered progress seem to have been tempered by the failures of the largest social experiments in human history, all of which followed Lewis’ death. Socialism largely has replaced its high-flying visionary abstraction with the modest, practical objective to establish viable welfare systems and promote economic justice among the citizens of a state.

These developments in Evolutionism and popular thought represent adaptation to the objections voiced by Lewis and others. Undue emphasis on ‘progress’ in biology and society has been replaced by frank acknowledgement of the inescapable directionless randomness of evolution. Faith in science, technology, and social engineering to solve all of man’s problems and elevate him to a state of near-divinity has given way to recognition of the practical limits of man’s dominion over his environment. This realization has left man with an underlying skepticism regarding his potential for advancement in the cosmos. The antiquated, Nietzschean belief that man was destined to rise above his environment and conquer the universe has caved in to the conviction that man is nothing more than an insignificant speck, indeed an accident, on a planet in a remote corner of the universe, and that his fate is to scratch out a living in such conditions as he can manage until the universe deals him a final death-blow.

In this transformation of Evolutionism from an over-arching philosophy of progress to a fatalistic, nihilistic acquiescence, the myth has expired even though vestiges of the worldview remain. Gone is everything that made Evolutionism grand mythology. The epic struggle of biological life against insurmountable odds to the ultimate conquering of its foes and ascent to the pantheon of glory has been replaced by a disappointing one-act tragedy without protagonist, plot, climax, or conclusion. The painted scenery has taken the lead role; the great hero has been relegated to a cameo appearance. In this respect, Lewis rightly marked the demise of the myth he held in view. The “Great Myth,” in adapting for survival, has killed itself, though its title and leading characters remain.

In contrast to the profound saga of the “Great Myth,” the mythology that has replaced it is considerably less stage-worthy and by all means excludes the serving of hors d’oeuvres and champagne following the performance. Nevertheless, it bears every hallmark of mythological status. It is reflected in the popular art and literature of the age, from Philip Glass’ bleak, chaotic musical-visual productions to the total abandonment of musical structure altogether; from the directionless, narrow self-projection of Tennessee Williams to the dreary, unstructured realism of modern theater in general; from Darren Aronofsky’s stark, nihilistic cinematic vision to Hollywood’s abdication of every established principle of storytelling; from Michael Crichton’s experimentation with the limits of time and technology to a growing literary genre of narrow, close-up examination of the squalor of human existence.

The second indication that contemporary Evolutionism has transcended theory and become established as mythology is its application to the emotional and psychological needs of man. The Lesser Myth might not at first view appear to offer much to man’s psychology, but it finds surprising harmony with much of modern thought. The bleak fatalism of Stoicism attracted Greeks and Romans from the peasant farmer up to the Emperor Marcus Aurelius for no other reason than that it freed men from fear: fear of divinity, fear of retribution for one’s actions, fear of missing any higher meaning in life. Contemporary Evolutionism also frees man. The public faces of this mythology, particularly the popular-level writers, perhaps exemplified in Richard Dawkins, purvey a worldview of liberation from superstition, provincialism, and, above all, fear. “There’s probably no God,” says a slogan printed on London public transit buses, “Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” [2]  Popular use of the worldview for psychological liberation betrays its passage from a loose confederation of theories into full-blown mythology.

These developments address some of Lewis’ criticism of the “Great Myth,” including its presumed passing into oblivion. Nevertheless, Lewis’ latent apologetic is very effective. He establishes in graphic and accessible language man’s psychological need to create an explanation for his origin, significance, direction, and place in the cosmos. He sketches out the adaptation of “popular Evolutionism” to fit that role, and argues that such a mythology, though satisfying, is self-defeating and even passing away. A reader who is even slightly familiar with Lewis’ work will know of the creative-redemptive mythology that Lewis would substitute in its place. But this speculation is beyond the scope of Lewis’ work, and to be consistent with his apologetic, one may only present the evidence and trust that the argument will lead to its reasonable conclusion. The passing away of the Great Myth and its adaptation into the fatalistic Lesser Myth represent popular recognition of the problems presented by Lewis and others. Nevertheless, properly qualified and expanded, as the present writer has attempted to demonstrate, Lewis’ arguments remain as devastating to the Lesser Myth as they were to its predecessor.

S. Park Barringer III is an MA student at Reformed Theological Seminary (Jackson).

[1] C.S. Lewis, “Christian Reflections”, 85.
[2] “There’s probably no God…now stop worrying and enjoy your life”: Atheist group launches billboard campaign,”  Daily Mail (UK), Staff Report, 07 January 2009, Online.

  1. Park Barringer III, “The Funeral of a Great Myth”, Reformation21 (December 2009)

– See more at: http://www.reformation21.org/articles/the-funeral-of-a-great-myth.php#sthash.WFfJ6Mne.dpuf

Adultery hurts women, children and taxpayers

The Christian Institute has drawn attention to the existence of an ‘Adultery web site’ based in Canada. An incredible 1,200,000 British people have signed up. Check the item here. An item in the Daily Mail has chronicled some marriages that have been broken up as a result of affairs begun through this site.

ashley madison  the slogan should read ‘Judgment’s coming, repent!’

I mention this in the context of the recently enacted legislation concerning same sex ‘marriage’. I commented on someone else’s Facebook page where the issue had been raised that this was just the latest stage of a sexual revolution that had been being steadily, and harmfully, advanced for at least half a century, arguably since around the time of the Lady Chatterley trial in 1963. I got the usual ear bashing for my pains.

I have been re-reading some C S Lewis recently, particularly ‘The Pilgrim’s Regress’ and ‘The Problem of Pain’, 2 of his more difficult books, especially ‘Pilgrim’s Regress. There was quite an emphasis on the impact of Sigmund Freud’s ideas on psychoanalysis and their effect on society in both books, which came out respectively in 1933 and 1940. At that time, Freud was still respected and a lot of his ideas, or bastardised versions of them, were finding their way into popular thought and conversation. One of these ideas, all of them atheistical of course (Freud described all theism as an illusion) was that sexual liberation was good for us, that ‘Hypocritical, Victorian Morality’ (i.e. chastity before marriage, faithfulness in marriage for life) were imposed on otherwise happy people by the miserable agents of religion, and that we would all be much better off ‘letting it all hang out’, following our hearts, etc, etc. Get rid of those repressions and inhibitions, be ‘natural’ about sex, ‘if it feels good, do it’ and all the rest.

Well now, Freudian pychoanalysis as a method of treating mental health problems has been pretty thoroughly debunked, certainly its far less effective and far more expensive than Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, but a lot of his godless ideas, paganism and vain imaginings dressed up as science (rather like Darwin), have penetrated deeply into the secular mind and stayed there.

Freudian based sexual ideas have found their way into legislation, to the enormous cost of all of us, especially abandoned women and fatherless children. And taxpayers who have to pick up the bills. A succession of godless governments, Labour, Liberal and Conservative, have either allowed or hastened the progress of this sexual revolution, never counting the cost-not least as so many of them as individuals are sexually immoral.

The old fashioned ideas about marriage that sustained societies for millennia were not unique to Christianity, they were adopted very widely across the world and through history because they worked. What we’re doing now isn’t working, and like a bad doctor who when he sees the patient isn’t getting better, instead of reconsidering the diagnosis, we double the dose of the medicine which is actually killing the patient.

Setting aside the issue of sex outside faithful lifelong male-female marriage being offensive to God (and of course that is the first thing that the sexual revolutionaries from Karl Marx, Marie Stopes, DH Lawrence, John Lennon and a thousand other celebrities and most of our politicians and journalists DID set aside), setting aside also the massive harm caused to abandoned women and fatherless children, consider what the sexual revolution is costing us all in taxes.

Single parent households-paid for by taxpayer funded benefits.

More single parents and divorce-more strain on housing, so house prices rise disastrously-Oh but that’s fine if like most of our politicians you own 4 or 5 houses…

Children in fatherless households-especially boys (no good role model and other harms). Social workers, probation officers, child psychiatrists, cost of vandalism…They are more likely to fail at education, less likely to get good jobs, more likely to do drugs and crime. AND more likely to father children who will take after themselves.

Men who are unrestrained by the beneficial limitations imposed by being responsible husbands and fathers do not become the men they ought to become. Hard to measure this, but I saw a LOT of very mixed up people in this category in my years as a GP, often unemployable through drink, drugs, mental health etc. There is a God-ordained complementary give and take in normal marriage which benefits both parties, often through dealing with tough times leading to personal growth. Now people are told, if at first you don’t succeed, give up and try again with someone ‘more compatible’.

Sexually transmitted diseases, and their consequences (e.g. pelvic inflammatory disease leading to infertility, a big NHS cost). The cost of managing HIV/AIDS is being covered up-it is MASSIVE.

Don’t bother asking for a calculation of the exact sum of course the people responsible for encouraging and at least failing to discourage this descent into sexual anarchy are hardly going to measure their failures. It has never been about doing people good, always about ideology, a fundamentally anti-Christian ideology.

PS ethic free sexual educational and widespread free contraception for all was going to reduce the number of abortions. It didn’t, quite the reverse. And freely available abortion (7 million so far in UK since 1967) was going to stop unmarried mothers and child abuse. It didn’t. Both these evils have gone up.

Of course, if you as a philosophically driven politician who lust for power want strong government then you weaken non-governmental institutions, the foremost of which has always been the family. A messed up society which can’t cope will ask YOU to do more, so you take more powers, and taxes. Its all connected. This looks like a plan. The so called same sex marriage is only the latest stage in completely re-designing society, not based on a model that is proven to work, but based on the strong feelings of a power hungry elite, many of whom happen to be sexual revolutionaries, or just plain lustful. What will they go for next? Currently they are on a mopping up operation, seeking out and stifling all dissent.

And yes this is all connected with evolutionism. We are either God’s creatures, made lovingly by Him in His image to be happy on the only terms that are possible-living in obedience to the divine will- or we are self assembled space junk momentarily experiencing the delusion of consciousness between 2 eternities of nothingness. Because that is what Freud, Marx and Darwin teach. What we believe we are and how we see our future destiny will affect how we live.

But the madness is that, even given a belief in nothing, we are making ourselves, our children and grandchildren much more miserable by abandoning long held wisdom about marital faithfulness. It may not be 100% perfect- what is?- but it has been shown to work. Presumably even twice divorced Richard Dawkins must believe there is an evolutionary benefit in life long marriage, or else it would not have been preserved for millennia. But maybe the new socialist reality, with big government handouts to single parents (funded by heavy taxes and unrepayable borrowing) has enabled us to evolve past the dull old ideas of sexual faithfulness and one man one woman for life?

On these terms, the next stage in evolution may be Islam. Then we’ll see about ‘Hypocritical Victorian Morals’

Ever been had?

Is there anything to be done about the disastrous consequences of so-called liberation? Anything short of extreme repression, which is what will happen under Shariah law? I can only suggest th at recognising the problem would be a good start. I don’t see this even beginning to happen.

Are Christian apologetics possible in an age of flip comments?

Last night for some reason a truly hateful, ignorant in your face nasty anti-Christian post turned up in my Facebook feed. Many comments below repeated standard atheist slogans, tragic in their ignorance.

I responded with some corrections on matters of fact and some questions about the basis in reason and fact of a couple of the key bold assertions made by the poster. I chose my words carefully and did not insult the poster. I had hoped to engage him in a reasoned defence of the evidence for Christianity being true. Bear in mind he started this engagement by posting a strongly anti Christian message which came my way unsought by me.

While I was out today I reflected and prayed that I might manage the come back with wisdom and grace. This evening my inbox contained 2 messages from the poster, both full of hate, cuss words, ignorance, false representation, foul personal insults and a refusal to engage with my arguments. I went to respond but found I was blocked, so no right of reply.

This has happened twice before over the last year.

How do we try to unpack and explain the Gospel of reconciliation to people whose opening response ito your mild attempt to correct their blatant and dangerous errors is ‘I don’t give two fucks you ignorant twat!’ and then blocks you from the discussion?

this breaks my heart every time, to the extent I feel like giving up. How can you explain to someone who doesn’t want to know? Jesus spoke truth when He said that the world would hate His disciples because they hated Him first.

God have mercy.

David Cameron concerned to avoid offending Muslims

cameron

The Islamic war against civilisation goes on, and on but David Cameron still doesn’t get it. He wants the BBC to stop calling Islamic State by its chosen name. Does he even listen to the BBC? They invariably call it ‘so called'; Islamic State. What should they call it, the Mothers Union? These people read and quote the Quran, pray towards Mecca, rob and kill ‘unbelievers’, force conversions at gunpoint, practice forced marriage (i.e. rape), venerate Muhammad, kill people who insult him and use terror in their pursuit of territory and eventual world domination-just like their leader Muhammad. I think that’s quite supportive of the fact that they are Islamic. But few politicians today know any history. And their hatred of Christianity and fundamental belief that ‘all religions are the same’ blinds to them to the unfolding reality. Then there is the UK Muslim block vote, 3 million and counting.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3143297/Cameron-tells-BBC-stop-using-Islamic-State-barbarous-terror-group-threatening-British-way-life.html

Cameron doesn’t think the BBC is bending over backwards far enough to deny that the Islamic State actually knows what it is and whose values they follow and towards whose goals they are advancing. Meanwhile, we hear today that the kidnapped Chibok schoolgirls are not only being used as sex slaves by their Boko Haram captors but have been brutalised into cutting captured Christians’ throats. 

Boko Haram, Al Shabbab, Al Quada, ISIS, The Boston bombers, the Madrid train bombers, the Bali bombers, Lee Rigby’s killers-all of these murderers seem perfectly convinced that they are following the teachings and example of Muhammad, the founder of Islam, and they quote the Quran to support their claims. If you say no they are all similarly deluded, the onus is on you to prove that assertion. Ockam’s razor says if it looks Islamic, follows the Quran, says its Islamic then maybe its Islamic.

David Cameron, if you believe Islam is ‘a religion of peace’ and that therefore all these groups and individuals are deluded and deceived, can you not at least ask yourself why they are all similarly deceived? Whatever would make Quran reading people think Allah  and his supposed messenger wanted them to kill infidels? Appeals to abstract nouns like ‘extremism’ will not do.

Cameron reminds me of some deluded cancer patients I have known who see their disease advancing but won’t go for help as they believe that it can’t kill them unless it’s named as a cancer, so they call it an inflammation or scar or something else. I don’t know how the West can get itself out of the hole it’s leaders so foolishly dug, but recognising that we are in a hole and stopping digging might be a start.

By the way, the ‘British Way of Life’ you want to defend-what is it? Abortionism and sexual licence? Gambling, tattoos and junk TV? Printing money to bribe voters by robbing savers? Persecuting honest bakers who won’t produce homosexualist propaganda? Celebrating sexual perversion? Compulsory indoctrination in molecules to man evolutionism and other fundamentals of materialism? Bombing Libya into a failed state? It certainly isn’t Christianity you want to defend.

Cameron, you think calling a spade a spade offends spades. Your Dhimmi readiness to believe Takkiyah lies offends me.

Another space vehicle blows up

MAD-Magazine-Exploding-Rocket_54511601dff795.42387578

Direy, direy Oh! The third space vehicle in around a year to crash and burn. At least nobody was killed as with RIchard Branson’s vanity space flier. This one was taking supplies to the International Space Station. I’d be feeling very nervous if I was up there, but then I wouldn’t be. There are things I would risk, or knowingly lose, my life for but a scientific vanity project isn’t one of them.

I am OK with unmanned space exploration, up to a point. The point being related to the proportion of our wealth we spend on alleviating poverty and disease here on earth and the extent to which the probes are honestly collecting data about God’s marvellous universe or else arrogantly trying to prove the Creator God wrong with all their ‘the building block of life’ hopeful but evidence-free drivel.

In my opinion they should bring back the brave but deluded people on the International Space Station (which Professor Stuart Burgess described as a vain Babel like project) and then tip the thing out of orbit into the Pacific. And then spend the money saved on water engineering and forestry projects in Africa. And they can do the same to the Large Hadron Collider vanity project too. Not in my name, not while the Sahara desert is advancing and dire poverty in north Africa is feeding Islamic (sorry BBC, ‘so called Islamic’) extremism. Everything is connected.

Recent hype about the film Interstellar (reviewed here recently) and insane talk about a Mars mission has revived the age old myth that humankind may be able to leave this planet (after trashing it) and spread ‘Mother Nature’s silver seed to a new home in the sun.’ (*) Friends, it ain’t gonna happen. We are all leaving this planet in God’s time, and not by inertia dampened, anti-gravity warp drive machines that we built. Better make sure you get your ticket to the right destination.

For details of safe escape from the Earth to a better destination, see John 3:16 but do read the whole chapter

(*) Neil Young ‘After The Gold Rush’

Sic Gloria Transit Mundi

Dickey Betts was a legendary guitarist with the Allman Brothers Band, responsible for the guitar classics Jessica and Rambling Man. I saw him play with them at Knebworth in 1973. Sadly, substance misuse has wrecked him. I’m sorry about that. I mean, ‘I spend a lot of time watching TV.’ How sad is that for one of the world’s greatest guitar heroes?

Joni Mitchell is in pretty bad shape too with ‘Morgellons disease’, which is something I know a bit about as a dermatology doctor. Its fundamentally a mental health disorder in which the sufferer is deluded that creatures are living under their skin and scratches themself to bits. Not blaming Joni, just saying.

These musicians and songwriters whose lives are now so messed up shaped my emotional thinking and world view as a teenager. My brother Chris and I had half a dozen LPs between us which we listened to constantly in our bedroom. These included Joni Mitchell’s ‘Blue’, the Allman’s ‘Brothers and Sisters’ plus Hendrix, Pink Floyd and James Taylor. We knew all the words of all the songs inside out, they must have affected our philosophies of life. And now, a lot of these musicians we doted on in our rebellious and formative years have come to sorry ends. Were they such great role models? Just been watching some music from Glastonbury on BBC and Julia and I were united in our agreement that whatever else it was, it was really very banal-perfectly produced, yes, but heartless, self obsessed and dull. Not even FUN.

We ought to think about what we put into our minds and bodies. and we ought to meditate on the fact that our own lives are passing and will soon be over. Moses reflected on this significant reality in the 90th Psalm.

sic transit gloria mundi (*)

Psalm 90

A prayer of Moses the man of God.

Lord, you have been our dwelling place
    throughout all generations.
Before the mountains were born
    or you brought forth the whole world,
    from everlasting to everlasting you are God.

You turn people back to dust,
    saying, “Return to dust, you mortals.”
A thousand years in your sight
    are like a day that has just gone by,
    or like a watch in the night.
Yet you sweep people away in the sleep of death—
    they are like the new grass of the morning:
In the morning it springs up new,
    but by evening it is dry and withered.

We are consumed by your anger
    and terrified by your indignation.
You have set our iniquities before you,
    our secret sins in the light of your presence.
All our days pass away under your wrath;
    we finish our years with a moan.
10 Our days may come to seventy years,
    or eighty, if our strength endures;
yet the best of them are but trouble and sorrow,
    for they quickly pass, and we fly away.
11 If only we knew the power of your anger!
    Your wrath is as great as the fear that is your due.
12 Teach us to number our days,
    that we may gain a heart of wisdom.

13 Relent, Lord! How long will it be?
    Have compassion on your servants.
14 Satisfy us in the morning with your unfailing love,
    that we may sing for joy and be glad all our days.
15 Make us glad for as many days as you have afflicted us,
    for as many years as we have seen trouble.
16 May your deeds be shown to your servants,
    your splendor to their children.

17 May the favor[a] of the Lord our God rest on us;
    establish the work of our hands for us—
    yes, establish the work of our hands.

(*) sic gloria transit mundi-the glories of this world are passing away

Our mother which art in heaven…

Listening to the radio this morning, an item mentioned the falling congregations in C of E churches and wonders what is to become of the empty buildings.

Some of the women vicars and new bishops feel that the answer, you guessed it, is to pursue the feminisation/modernism/liberal agenda even more. for example see here

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Society/article1562867.ece

women bishop

Hilary Cotton was cited as the proponent of this new feminised theology, for a sample of her thought see here.

https://womenandthechurch.org/chairs-blog/from-the-chair-of-watch-hilary-cotton-women-able-to-be-bishops-tick-what-next/

77010830_Cotton_71002c

and here is a link to ‘Thinking Anglicans’ which reveals (of course) that the feminisation and the homosexualisation of the Anglican church are inextricably linked

http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/cat_inclusivechurch.html

Obviously, the title ‘Thinking Anglicans’ implies that traditionalist Anglicans do NOT think. Is that an insult or is it a judgmental and arrogant insult?

Of course, to view God as ‘a man’ reveals limited thinking about the Deity who is above all and who created us ‘male and female He created them’ in His image, which is above and beyond our genders but is represented as male in Scripture. God is immeasurably greater than us, does not change, and we cannot know Him unless he reveals Himself to us. Thankfully, He has revealed Himself to us, its just that many of today’s liberal clergy don’t like what has been revealed and want to re-create God in their own image. The Bible has a word for this kind of activity-idololatry.

The idea that more of the same medicine will halt the decline in Anglicanism is not based on evidence. Just look at what happened to the part of the American Episcopal church (equivalent to the C of E) under the leadership of the heretic John Shelby Spong. I am one of I don’t know how many Anglicans for whom the Pilling report into homosexuality was the last straw. I am now much happier in a Sola Scriptura church which although evidently imperfect is at least earnestly seeking to conform to Biblical norms.

As the Apostle Paul wrote ‘We are not ignorant of Satan’s devices.’ (2 Corinthians 2:11). One of the cleverest of these devices is to  stir up damnable heresies which look like love, compassion, modernity, sweet reasonableness and understanding, call them ‘inclusiveness’…’valuing women’…recognising the feminine side of God’…’affirming diversity’... etc and then accusing those penitent, God-fearing, Bible honouring Christians who oppose such heresies as being ignorant, misogynist ‘literalist’ bigots.

Well, we will have to endure this. Jesus and the Apostles repeatedly warned us to look out for false teachers, wolves in sheep’s clothing, and to expect foul abuse and cruel misrepresentation if we dared take them to task.

Some Anglican churches, like Highfield in Southampton, are doing well. This is not because they are falling over themselves to join the liberal modernisers, quite the reverse. Quite the reverse. Reality is what it is, it is not what we humans with our depraved hearts and culturally conditioned mindsets might wish it to be.

Mirth and Melancholy

Comment, comedy and capers for the faithful, faithless and fallible

Guido Fawkes

Parliamentary plots and conspiracy

S.C.Skillman Blog

Inside the mind of a writer www.scskillman.co.uk

WordPress.com News

The latest news on WordPress.com and the WordPress community.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.