Perhaps in the interests of full disclosure it should be made as clear as possible that I believe devotion to the name of Jesus Christ is all and only of paramount import. Please also note that I make no claim for myself to fixing my practical position relative to that. To the extent I fail in any ultimate examination of my practice vs. my confession I cannot help but rightly wear the label of hypocrite.
As the man who says he loves honesty and truth but plays loosely while calculating his own taxes, or makes claim to love justice or equality, but is found sneaking his own pinkie onto his side of the balance in all matters and might not expect to be found out, but is; my only plea might be no less than his own…mercy.
But this is where I begin from, believing in its abundance with hope that no matter how I may be found, mercy will have gotten there first. You can say it is there I have hung my hope, on the mercy found only in the name of Jesus Christ. And that of an enduring quality, due to its eternal nature extending far past my own origins and any end I might consider, or find.
But, we all know what lip service is, don’t we? Any man might find a suitable soap box to ascend and there, in either ignorance or cunning, make a fair proclamation of some rectitude. (Virtue signaling has surpassed almost every other usage of alphabet sequencing)
But practice or application of such righteous proclamation as from the heart is soon shown, for the more seeming noble is made of the proclamation, that built in testing of it must follow. Simply proclaim you love truth and immediately you will encounter all the temptations to lie in cover of all those matters that you know show your devotion is not quite as lofty as you proclaim. Do you doubt? Will you or I truly be able to “stand upon our record” if all is known? When all is known?
The only question then becomes, will you (or I)…lie? Politicians make a living (and always have) in being just a bit more clever in their cover skills…and their supply seems inexhaustible. But do not be so naive as to imagine I speak only of those whose name appear on a ballot somewhere when in reference of politicians. Most appear rarely if ever on TV, but often around dinner tables. And I have eaten a lot of dinners. I must bear my own record there…but…with hope of mercy.
Do I think I have any right to it…(mercy) even were I to shout the name Jesus Christ from now till my decease? LOL…God forbid…for that would make mercy (or me trying to make it) into something it is not nor ever can be. An expected thing due to a deserving…and mercy can only be mercy precisely because it is knowingly undeserved…but shown. The only question then becomes…has a man seen it, and if he has…will he then lie about it? Or his need of it?
In this we are on most common ground. We may not have any agreement upon the why or where of source, or even any particulars of mechanism; only that we know we have lived past a place we knew that despite a most grave moral duplicity we have been allowed to continue in hope of truth. You may not even agree it is that very simply defined to experience.
“Everyone makes mistakes” may be your mantra…but even that will be shown in testing by how you suffer those mistakes you think you allow for by “everyone” when you begin to see, or believe, they come in some cost to yourself. Politicians abound with nice sayings. And may even maintain the semblance of a smile while their toes are being stepped upon…for a while. But such false humility and smile surely only invites more stepping (See! He likes it. He’s asking for more!) till the taxing become higher than any care to pay…with smiles. Then out come tooth and claw. I have eaten many dinners. So, no doubt, have you.
I heartily recommend the dinner taking place around this table in the following video. The service is to me impeccable. And each dish served is, I believe, accessible, or made so in courtesy to almost every palate. There are no overly clever nor acutely arcane arguments made, no feints at introducing anything other than what appears honest intellect has cooked up.
No denigration of topic’s source or its “postulator”. Indeed, despite acknowledging the unavoidable limits ignorance had imposed in available information, every effort is made to see Darwin as not only a fine and thorough observer and theorist, but an honest broker in the framework to which he was assigned and consigned.
What has to a great extent (for better or worse) withstood some test of time is no longer able to bear the crushing weight of science’s progress from the 19th Century till today, along with the attendant maths that then accompany it. What once appeared sturdy in both argument and refutations (as many theists would attest to its use) is now shown utterly frail in explaining what it purported to once, by explanation, accomplish. But again, without denigration. It’s hearty table fare if you care to watch:
If you watched it, you obviously need no recap, but even if you did please bear a short one for the sake of those who cared not to.
Essentially with what is now known of DNA, protein synthesis and/or creation of “useful” proteins that sustain life, the math does not work in the allowed for time. For the purposes of the vid’s discussion life is reduced to a successful coding, or what is deemed success by just getting to the point of life and replication. The man on the right is a professor of computer science at Yale, the others philosophers/scientists with Berlinski a math luminary. All agree the explosive appearance of new species over a 10-70 million year period, which seems long, is not nearly enough when all permutations must be taken into account if solely dependent upon randomness.
Their arguments are compelling and do not neglect the incredible intricacy of just one living cell. Darwin was not, and could not have been privy to all that has since been discovered taking place within one, as was addressed in Michael Behe’s book “Darwin’s Black Box”. That black box being the cell in which all manner of functions and incredibly precise workings on a molecular level take place, and whose workings Darwin could not know. For him the cell appeared little more than ill defined (and not at all understood) bit of protoplasm. He could not “look into it” with the tools and understandings now made available by over a century of scientific discoveries down to the molecular level.
Matters are addressed of need to a precise or functional completion. The building of proteins compatible with life (and leading to the emergence of new species) is likened to the scenario of an infinite number of monkeys on typewriters given an infinite amount of time to complete the full volume of Shakespeare.
But in this case we are not allowed an infinite amount of time, and likewise such precision necessary cannot suffer any sloppiness. This is pointed out in a brief reference to a Simpson’s episode wherein Mr. Burns, employing a million monkeys is in hope of the perfect novel. Ripping a page from one he reads “It was the best of times, it was the blurst of times…”
In short “close” is not good enough as anyone with a genetic disease can attest…lack or misplacement on even the smallest scale of already established human genetic sequence can have consequences in the most pernicious of result. And therefore since time is of limit…”back to the drawing board” opportunities are of no less of limit…and the conclusion is there was simply not enough in that 10-70 million year explosion of new species to account.
Now, even were one to conclude, as these three intellects have, that here the model is abject in its failure, only Stephen Meyer holds any embrace for an intelligent designer, i.e. God. Both Berlinski and Gelernter, though honestly admitting they are in some way “back to the drawing board” for explanation are not comfortable with making that leap. The utter frailty of the one failed theory in conclusion does not automatically lend itself to that other conclusion. They are honest in this, or at least seem so, in their resistance. And this despite the overwhelming complexity and necessary precision they cannot deny. And surely not able, nor make any attempt, to account for or explain.
And the mathematics of it, which all freely admit is accessible to most any high school student is not of such nature as to be advanced or intricate by any means…it simply cannot be compelled to endure sufficient torture to make it work in a random setting with such time limit. Darwin, who had easy access to the math…did not have access to the intricacies of molecular biology.
Darwin’s model has survived long in many minds, and there are many yet who, either unfamiliar or uncaring to the colder facts of more recent science (and the math’s intransigence) may instinctually reject its rejection based solely upon an affection. And specifically an affection for what was once presented in (what appeared) firmest opposition to the otherwise seeming necessity of yielding to the proposition of intelligent design. Yet, of the three respondents, two still maintain their distance from that conclusion.
Now, no matter where one may care to rank these three men, especially if in reaction to their propositions, they are not intellectual slouches. “They’re stupid” is just not going to cut it here. And like the two of the three who steadfastly resist coming to any conclusion in regard to intelligent design (thereby implying an Intelligent Designer), and would likewise resist any attempt to use their conclusions to “sneak” God into the gap created, I agree.
First, because I too believe it would be intellectually dishonest. And also because the faith I hold goes, not only to a difference of degree than just a sort branch or brand of monotheism, but of entirely different kind…or if you will, species. (That you may only see it so, as have many others, I will not now contend against. That is that monotheists are all the same in basic tenet and religious benighted-ness, though particular doctrines and practices may seem to vary.)
But, plainly…a simple rebuke of Darwinian theory does not for me get anyone (and surely has not delivered me) to the “faith of the Son of God”. It is far simpler than being encumbered with necessary refutation of any, or all, alternate possibilities presented. But that is a discussion for another time, perhaps. For now, if we concede the possibility that there might be such a thing as intellectual honesty, it is enough to pursue it. And this is particularly why I find the term “intelligent design” redundant.
I thought I’d begin with some sort of definition of terms…beginning with intelligent. But I sense the necessity is to actually begin with honesty. Intelligence and intellect may follow, but really, honesty is the better start. Because if intellect is not in service to it there’s not even any point in discussing.
For this I am less inclined to consider the property of honesty. That’s a big step, I understand, for it would seem we would first have to come to some agreement there is such a thing. But this is an essay, not a tome.
But look at how much we already take for granted. Do you “use” words? I obviously do…and am. We’d never get to anything if in our use of words…we then had to use words to define each word to each other…and then those words of definition must be defined…and on and on and on. So as we start from some agreement (if not, then let’s admit all attempted communication is futile) and either show ourselves liars by continuing to attempt it, or be silent.
So, less the property of honesty (as we may agree there is truth, or beauty, or love) and cut to practice. Can a man be honest? Can it be practiced? If so, what does that mean? Is it not bringing to outside what is taking place truly or is truly being beheld or thought…on the inside? Is that a simple and fair enough assessment? At least for our discussion? Expression of what is taking place. And we will (and perhaps must concede) to this seeming brief codicil that contains a universe of consideration (essay not tome!) “with as little coloring as possible”. (Find that universe of consideration in this: “Honey, do these jeans make my butt look bigger?” and/or to be fair “Honey, do you think me a good husband?”)
We might see a need to surrender right now. That brief codicil could be overwhelming. Maybe we must concede to it simply because it is so…overwhelming. Just proceed from the impossible because otherwise there is no process (of communication) and no proceeding? We do it though, don’t we? But what are those implications, then? Talk about staring into an abyss…
Yep, we do it on and with everything, this process (that may indeed be honestly impossible) like a compulsion. On Tee shirts, on paper, on screens, on coffee mugs, stones, clay tablets, papyrus, canvas, marble, skin, celluloid, with smoky sky writing, on and with everything that can be bent to service. This does not even begin to address what we have, in a remarkably short amount of time, pumped into electromagnetic frequencies for deciphering.
And, besides that, what is the fountain at the Bellagio saying?
And of course…mouths. Through any medium available…we are either bent on lying everywhere…or trying to be honest, which may be the most sincere and honest indictment that we are all…just liars. Honesty…would not have to try. I am not going to conclude or try to (ha ha! at least with as little color I believe I add) lead anyone to concluding honest communication is no more than a myth. Let each be convinced.
If one believes in love, truth, beauty, or consciousness, or any number of intangible transcendents (including intelligence)…honest communication might just as well be there, too. After all, do you doubt you are conscious? Have consciousness? (But I know you have certain doubts already about mine, or at least to you…its right function) Am I lying?
No, whatever of paradise that was lost in our losing of paradise, has pretty much left us suspicious. That child’s open faced reception to all gets pretty quickly reformatted in this world. Even if something underneath, like remnants or broken traces of code persist; not entirely wiped and almost taunting like the nagging phantom pains of an amputated limb belie its absence, we want to trust. But…the cost of leaning upon a thing seemingly “not there” except in ethereal concept (or vague memory) has led to too many tumbles and injuries. And so to preserve ourselves from further hurt we cast a suspicious eye to see what intelligence it gathers in its excursions. Is the intelligence gathered useful? Or spurious and most possibly harmful?
Rarely do we consider the adopting of that suspicious, skeptical, and to the extreme cynical eye (that seems so useful for protection) might itself be doing the greater harm. It is a short trip to jaundiced, keeping everything of relation and the possibly relatable at more than arm’s length. Is it safety? Or is it actually the opposite…a soul’s withering in starvation that is ensured?
The even rarer consideration that the suspicious eye so influences all, even to our ability to doubt our being honest with ourselves seems all but off the table. To ourselves we are sure we are seeing rightly, and being honest with ourselves. The deepest cynic may rarely confess to it, that is being cynical, but to himself he never doubts his reason is well established for being so. To himself he is just being a “realist”, not bent to cynicism…but that reality is truest cause for that truest response of cynicism.
He mocks what he considers the naive, not merely for a stance that appears to him mock-able…but precisely for being so “out of touch with reality”. He might never consider it is his own naivete that ensnares him…so silly to believe “I would never lie to myself”. Going so far as “my experience is both true and my experience is always rightly interpreted by me…to me.”
He of course then imagines he is the only one (or of the very very few he may accept) “not lying to himself”. The soul becomes hard and brittle there and such hardness then testifies to himself of that hardness. Shrill. And he is further distanced from those he is sure are only lying to themselves to spare themselves his true experience of such hardness as he endures. Find me a man who in some way is not convinced his own sufferings have been truer than others…his school of hard-knocks more real, and you will have found a rare man. Find a man who considers his own sufferings have been small or negligible and you may find a man remarkably free of judgment…for almost all judgments of one another come from that curious place of “I really know what suffering is”.
Why find any link between enduring suffering, honesty, and the proclivity we have for lying to ourselves? Of what matter, anyway? Because we don’t attach anything of a moral nature to enduring a pleasure. Who needs or shows any moral fiber in being happy? But we attach a nobility to suffering and its endurance…and all the more if we have a continuum on which we place our metrics of how well we consider it endured.
Two men might strike their thumbs with a hammer suffering the same injury, but we almost always have some judgment of the one who goes “on and on about it” whining long after the other man has returned back to his roofing. Did both endure the same moment of injury? Yes. But one (whom we usually adjudge the less noble) continues to capitalize upon it. Do you not find this so? And if so…the man you adjudge the “more true” (and especially as to why) will say, in truth more about you than you may think you disclose. Really…who likes a whiner or whiny-ness? Who endorses it?
So it is if in observation of the woman from Beverly Hills leaving a boutique on Rodeo Drive breaks a nail seeking to carry an overweight shopping bag cries to the heavens of her great misfortune, we hold one opinion. Of the woman who has walked a mile to the river to beat what few clothes she has on a rock breaking the same nail doing laundry, we hold another. I am not seeking to attribute anything but that we do, in almost every matter and circumstance observable…come to a judgment. And how we judge often says less about any given situation than it does about us. How do you feel about broken nails? “Well, it depends.”
And it might just as simply be that intellectual honesty is no less uselessly redundant. Honesty is honesty. It either is or isn’t. And if one concedes to its existence then it is either a governing principle or it is not. Then the question, if it can suffer being posed by one to another (who has the right to probe another?) is either answered in truth or duplicity. “What do you think or are you thinking? and/or, “What are you feeling?” will pretty much encompass the rational and emotional experiences in toto. Then it is all left to the discerning the influences they mutually exert. (And now the questioner is no less subject to probing) “How do you discern?”
There may well be a right to ask, but the matter of right to response is entirely different. What gives any a “right to an answer” is argued in every form by which societies seek to construct themselves. Who is allowed what and who is owed what? And these matters are usually decided by the parameters of power. The lesser has no right of demand against the greater (in power). And since we have made no such agreements between ourselves (if this even be published) all is to this point allowed, with no requirement or incumbent upon any party.
(Now, here’s a funny thing. I intend to submit this to a site called the “Chaos Section” for publication. Maybe together we will see how much can be borne of chaos.) I personally am convinced lying is not the best thing. We all know what “lip service” is, don’t we? “His contentions make no sense!” and “his writing…ugh!” But what better forum then? Chaos owes nothing to any. If a section of chaos opts more toward its own perception of meaning it obviously knows nothing of chaos except as a really cool word. Beware your branding. Or not. And simply admit you believe all is of happenstance and without consequence. Or not. You owe me no confession.
Consequence. That is where all our rubber meets the road. It’s where the term “intelligent design” reveals its redundancy, or from another view…doubles down. To have any perception, persuasion, conviction, that anything is connected in itself to outcome “I think therefore I am”. Or to any identification at all in the most fundamental sense “this thing is not that thing” in matter of expression and therefore perception, is to embrace design. You are what testifies of design. I have no right of response here, but I do have right to ask: “Do you distinguish?” What info is in your intelligence retrieved and delivered (as a spy might), to your consciousness? Any?
It is in that you admit to design. Even by your intelligence of recognition. In the most extreme sense which is the simplest also, you would not even consider the thought experiment of setting an infinite number of shoes before an infinite number of typewriters to produce “Now is the Winter of our discontent…” Your mind excludes that possibility. It must start with what it considers potential for consequence to a certain end. So, not only does it acknowledge design, it does by that acknowledgement admit it is supra design, even designed to recognize design.
Design itself testifies of intelligence. Design inherently implies intent…and intent…intelligence.
If there is any utility to forming and using words then what else is intelligence but perceiving design and the consequence(s) of it? The turtle is not blamed or held to any disregard in some form of wrongness for becoming a stain on a highway. The slug and worm even less so. Had it known the consequences of leaving the grass on the shoulder by recognizing what pavement is designed for…?
The smarter mathematician comes up with the “right” consequence to an equation presented. The smartest, or most intelligent of them (if one prefers) when presented with the mystery of the equation discerns its design, connection, its aiming where others may not; and certainly where most others (not math geniuses) do not yet even perceive the design of it.
One is free to say there is no design. No intelligence. And therefore can be no designer. Nor intelligence prior. But once one admits to it…hook, line, and sinker he is caught. The consequences of knowing are real. But, worse are the consequences of lying. For to say “there is no design” or “all is only chaos and complete randomness” is belied in the saying. For to “say it”, to form to expression believed comprehend-able by the speaker, is to manifestly admit and submit to design. And even worms are intelligent enough to not be liars. All a man need do to show himself liar in his declared denial of design…is incline his head to a sound heard. Fluff his pillow.
Be.
Yes, he believes in design…because he seeks, and even manipulates toward favorable consequence (whatever form that may take to himself) and is constantly caught in outcome.
But, even liars can find a place. I have.
israelx7wordpresscom 