All posts by Wintery Knight

https://winteryknight.com/
Commentary

Biologist expresses doubts about the sufficiency of Darwinian mechanisms

2 Comments

From pro-naturalism Discover Magazine. (H/T Uncommon Descent)

Excerpt:

All scientists agree that evolution has occurred… The question is, is natural selection enough to explain evolution? … This is the problem I have with neo-Darwinists: They teach that what is generating novelty is the accumulation of random mutations in DNA, in a direction set by natural selection… Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create. …

I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change — led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence. …
There is no gradualism in the fossil record… ‘Punctuated equilibrium’ was invented to describe the discontinuity. …
The critics, including the creationist critics, are right about their criticism. It’s just that they’ve got nothing to offer but intelligent design or ‘God did it.’ They have no alternatives that are scientific. …

The evolutionary biologists believe the evolutionary pattern is a tree. It’s not. The evolutionary pattern is a web… [emphasis added].

(I took this extract verbatim from Jonathan’s post in Uncommon Descent, with his emphasis)

Margulis is a naturalist who believes in a naturalistic chain of causation from particles to people. But she is honest about the sufficiency of Darwinian mechanisms to explain ALL of the history of life. Maybe Darwinism isn’t the whole story. It’s part of the story for sure (micro-evolution), and there may even be common descent to some degree. But is it the whole story? Why aren’t we allowed to ask that question?

If all naturalists did was teach the evidence for and against evolution, instead of presenting as fact and brooking no scientific dissent, then I would not be so hostile to the public schools. So long as the public schools promote indoctrination instead of investigation, I will urge everyone I know to avoid them and to defund them as much as possible. The classroom is not the place for secular leftists to indoctrinate children in the religion of naturalism. They should teach what science and show, and allow discussion of alternative explanations, including the explanation of intelligent causation.

Commentary

I recommend the movie Battle: Los Angeles to my readers

2 Comments

ECM recommended this movie to me and I saw it and it was AWESOME.

Here’s a review.

Excerpt:

“Battle: Los Angeles” takes a big “what would happen if” premise – in this case, a massive alien invasion – and then fulfills that premise by taking it seriously. Not self-seriously. The movie is lots of fun, but it stays true to the terms it establishes, telling the story through the eyes of one Marine platoon assigned to rescue civilians in Santa Monica.

[…]Essential to the movie’s success is Aaron Eckhart, who plays a Marine staff sergeant as though he were in a World War II movie: no camping it up, no comedy, no winking at the audience, no smiling. He’s just a tough guy, with lots of emotional scars, who is very good at his job. Eckhart’s commitment to the movie’s reality, which is as fierce as the sergeant’s commitment to his men, takes what otherwise might merely have been outlandish and makes it believable, and frightening.

[…]Advisory: The aliens are ugly, and there are a lot of dead bodies. But these have to be the politest, cleanest-talking Marines ever. They don’t even curse at the aliens. They want to take back Los Angeles while avoiding an R rating.

The movie features a very positive portrayal of military professionals, especially of the U.S. Marines – the Wintery Knight’s favorite military branch.

I am not saying that Battle: Los Angeles is a courting movie, I am saying that this is a FUN movie, and recommended for children ages 16 and up. The PG-13 rating is a little low, because there is some swearing and one F-word. But there is also a V-22 Osprey! Several of them, in fact!

When it comes to movies, I am a stickler for realism, especially with spy movies and war movies. The new James Bond movies are not spy movies, they are stupid movies. Danger Man and Secret Agent shows with Patrick McGoohan are real spy shows. Real war movies are movies like Gettysburg and We Were Soldiers. Battle: Los Angeles is science fiction, but the movie has a realistic scope, and there is no ridiculous video-game style running and gunning. The weapons and vehicles were realistic, although the tactics could use some work. (I saw little suppressive fire and flanking, for example).

The story is very plain and believable. Simple objective for the mission, easier to follow, and showcasing U.S. Marine initiative and ingenuity. If there is one thing that the Corps drums into their recruits, it’s to accomplish the mission by any means necessary, and to take the initiative to act without orders if necessary. That’s why the Corps makes new Marines read books like “A Message to Garcia” and “Riflemann Dodd” – to drum into their heads that what superiors want from them is RESULTS, not questions. Find a way to achieve the objective. Think for yourself.

Just FYI, here’s my list of movies that I do use during courting:

  • Rules of Engagement (Samuel L. Jackson)
  • Bella
  • Henry V (Kenneth Brannagh)
  • The Lives of Others
  • United 93
  • Taken (Liam Neeson)
  • Cinderella Man
  • The Blind Side
  • Cyrano de Bergerac (Gerard Depardieu)
  • Amazing Grace (Ioan Gruffudd)
  • Gettysburg
  • We Were Soldiers
  • Stand and Deliver
  • Blackhawk Down
  • The Pursuit of Happyness
  • High Noon

If you don’t want to see a good heroic conservative action movie, watch one of these.

News

What is Planned Parenthood and why do Democrats support them?

2 Comments

Here’s a helpful post from Neil Simpson at Eternity Matters.

Excerpt:

Facts about Planned Parenthood, the organization at the center of the potential government shutdown:

1. They crush and dismember innocent human beings for a living.  That is their primary revenue source.  Abortion is not health care.

2. They have been caught countless times, both on audio and on video, hiding statutory rape,.  That alone should result in them being not only being de-funded but put out of business.  Businesses who commit serial felonies don’t get to point to other (alleged) good things they do to avoid responsibility.

3. They have been caught many times hiding sex trafficking, which includes victims of human trafficking.

4. Their CEO falsely claimed that Planned Parenthood provides mammograms and that a loss of Federal funding would end these.  How many CEOs don’t know what services their organization provides?  Was this incompetence or a deliberate lie about a highly emotional, most-favored-disease issue to sustain public funding for her organization?  Why hasn’t she or the mainstream media highlighted and corrected this error?

And there’s more in his list that you should know.

So that’s what they do. Now why do Democrats want to give them taxpayer money?

From the Center for Responsive Politics.

Excerpt:

In 2010, Planned Parenthood and a California affiliate together spent more than $700,000 on federal lobbying efforts, a Center for Responsive Politics analysis of federal lobbying records finds. By comparison, all other organizations that primarily advocate for abortion rights collectively spent $247,280 on federal lobbying efforts during the same period, according to the Center’s research.

Planned Parenthood’s political influence efforts hardly stop at lobbying.

The organization’s political action committee, for example, donated more than $148,000 to federal candidates — almost all Democrats — during the 2010 election cycle. The PAC spent more than $443,000 overall.

Planned Parenthood also recorded $905,796 in independent expenditures during the 2010 cycle — money spent in support of, or in opposition to, federal political candidates, largely through advertisements. The top beneficiaries of this money were Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.).

It’s about the money. Democrats give Planned Parenthood your money, and then Planned Parenthood kills babies with the money, and they make a profit by killing, and then they take some of the profits from their killing, and they give it back to Democrats who approved their subsidies. And taxpayers, including pro-life taxpayers, pay for this.

Related posts