Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Man Vs. Gods: Designs Big and Small, and Whose Will Likely Win Out In The End

The Real-Science site has a post entitled "Politicians on Opposite Sides of Reality", which deals with the same idea as the old story of the blind men and the elephant (remember, each man only felt a different portion of the elephant, so none of them could agree upon what it was they were encountering). I respond here, from a slightly higher perspective:

Self-love (which the author bemoans as the overweening vice of mankind) is not a vice per se, because it is just a very small step away from the greater realization that it took a God to make such a wonderful being as man--unless you actively ban the idea of God, as modern scientists are enjoined to do by the "consensus" (which has been failing ever since Darwin). Still, reality is not just a matter of man and God, because the "gods", known from all the world's oldest "myths", actually existed, and in fact re-made the world and the solar system, to a coherent design, with an undying (and encyclopedic) message for mankind on Earth--and barely 20,000 years ago, as my unprecedented research has proven.

The author writes, "I am starting to think this series of winters is not a coincidence." No, nothing about the trials currently occurring among men is a coincidence. The basically ignorant and petty designs of men like Obama and the Insane Left, or the perennially clueless designs of the Conservatives, are no more adequate to address the greater design, than is climate science, to address the reality of Earth's climate. (But beware of over-thinking, or striving for the ultimate answer: The meaning of the "series of winters" of unusually heavy snows is most likely just a reminder that the globe is not undergoing runaway warming, after all--a hint, that is all, to let go of the incompetent "consensus" that has suborned all of our institutions, in favor of understanding of a more benign reality--and, of course, to hint, for one's future understanding, that it was designed, after all, and that even the "experts" have become far too free with their lazy judgments of "coincidence"). What is going on is a general testing of man, and his many divisive, and false, dogmas. There are no experts now; there are only men and women who are honest professionals, or not...competent, or not.


  1. Atheists love to deny the fact that Darwin was religious. As a matter of fact in "The Origin of Species" he stated that his findings reconciled with God. He never refuted God; he just found a mechanism. That said, there are a lot of gaps in evolution and there are many theories about it that are peddled as fact.

    I love your blog - wise words as always.

  2. Good Morning,

    The primary fact everyone should take from Darwin is that he found, and minutely studied, intricate and obvious designs in nature (see particularly his "The Various Contrivances by which Orchids are Fertilised by Insects"), yet he failed to take the sheer fact of design seriously, so that he required that they must have come about "naturally" (essentially, without deliberate intent of a real designer). By your (and evolutionists') use of the word "mechanism" is meant an undirected process--"natural selection" is but a euphemism for "design", and "design" means deliberate, intended design (the "intelligent" in "Intelligent Design" theory is superfluous, as "design" already carries within it that meaning; "accidental design" is a logical oxymoron, which the essentially amateur scientist Darwin never understood, and so his multitude of scientific offspring don't either). My work really brings back knowledge that only the earliest of men on Earth knew as fact: The "gods" (so-called) really existed, and they really remade the Earth and solar system. From that new/old knowledge, one can immediately understand that they were the ones responsible for creation of many if not all of the obviously-designed lifeforms we see today--and which the earliest myths specifically said were created by the "gods".

    So there is no need to speculate about an omnipotent God, in studying my scientific discovery of what I call the Great Design of the Gods. Don't get me wrong: I consider those who disbelieve in God to be inferior, essentially adolescent thinkers, who do not see that meaning--or meaningfulness--is the central fact of all observed existence, and all that meaning (which is expressed in the physical designs we see and study, but resides in the intention behind the design, not in the body designed) requires an a priori meaning--coming before anything that is created--that I recognize as God.

    While the religious-minded may want to say the "gods" were themselves but the "mechanism" of an evolution inspired by God, the real meaning of my work is that undirected-evolution theory is simply false (and I understand "evolution" to really be but a powerful metaphysical principle of human learning, across all disciplines and endeavors, not a viable theory of physical development of this wondrous world and the life on it--simply, man "evolves", or comes to more fully know what he really is, by learning more about the prior design of things in the world, including his own apparent self). Darwin posited an either-or logical situation: either one-time creation of everything by God, or undirected evolution. My work shows that neither of those is the simple truth, but that the "gods" created much, perhaps all, of the incredible order (and the many things so caring of man, like "domesticated" animals, grains, etc.) we see in the natural world, and in its intricate, harmonious workings. In fact, the only reason mankind believes in God is because the "gods" believed in such a being, and inculcated religious belief in man. And that should be reassuring to humans on Earth, for the "gods" had "powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal man" (a phrase old Superman fans will instantly recognize).