Blind Kiwis: Is Losing Eyesight Evolution or Orwellian Newspeak?

Image courtesy of Maungatautari Ecological Island Trust, public domain.




Joel Kontinen

It seems that Darwinists are hoping to convince the unconvinced that evolution can go backwards. In doing so, they might resort to Orwellian newspeak, i.e., change a word’s meaning to the opposite of what it originally meant.

Recently, researchers found three completely blind kiwis. The birds were otherwise healthy.

New Scientist suggests that losing eyesight is 'regressive evolution'
. It attempts to give a reason for why this might be thought of as evolution:

“The flightless nocturnal birds may be evolving to lose their eyesight altogether, suggest the researchers. The blind kiwis seem able to survive just as well using other senses such as touch, smell and hearing, so maintaining good eyesight might be a waste of energy.”

Some cave salamanders, crabs and arachnids can get along well in their dark world although they can’t see.

Kiwis are nocturnal birds. Flightless, they don’t look like the average sparrow. They lack flight feathers and their bones are heavier than those of most birds.

Archaeopteryx, for instance, had feathers that are more “modern” and birdlike than the ones kiwis have.

So, losing a trait can hardly be called evolution, unless, of course, evolution refers to all kinds of change, but then it will no longer be of the Darwinian variety.

Source:

Coghlan, Andy. 2017. New Zealand’s iconic kiwi birds may be losing their sight. New Scientist (22 September).

Quote Mining and the Orwellian Use of Language

Joel Kontinen

Evolutionists are fond of using language in a typically Orwellian manner. Take the expression quote mining, for instance. I have been accused of doing that more than once.

Recently, David Klinghoffer of Discovery institute posted an excellent definition of what they really mean:

“ ‘Quote mining’ defined: When a scientist is accurately cited as saying something true but awkward for the Darwinian evolutionary cause.”

How true.

Source:

Twitter

Denialists, Deniers and Other Examples of Orwellian Newspeak in New Scientist

The "Anti-Fascist Protection Rampart." A recent article in New Scientist uses a strategy reminiscent of the one that East German authorities used. Image courtesy of Thierry Noir, via Wikipedia.




Joel Kontinen

In recent history, totalitarian states mastered the Orwellian art of making words mean the opposite of what we might assume at first glance. In Berlin, the wall separating the two parts of city was called the "Anti-Fascist Protection Rampart" (Antifaschistischer Schutzwall). As history would tell us, its main purpose was to keep East Berliners from escaping to the west.

In New Scientist, Chris Mooney laments what he sees as “the science deniers dismissing inconvenient truths,” by which he primarily means Darwinian evolution and human-induced climate change.

Lumping all kind of critical thinking together is hardly very scientific. Most people who accept biblical creation will think that vaccines are necessary.

Mr. Mooney thinks that the TV-series Cosmos will hardly convince the “deniers”. He is probably right as Neil deGrasse Tyson made a number of scientific and historic blunders in the series.

He presents more bizarre claims: “And as for the young-Earth creationists? We all cheered when Bill Nye the Science Guy demolished their arguments in a televised debate, but we know that none of them changed their minds.”

Bill Nye hardly demolished Ken Ham’s arguments. He mostly ignored them. In contrast, Answers in Genesis and other creationist organisations have demolished all of Nye’s arguments.

So, who are the real science denialists? Both Nye and Tyson denied scientific and historical facts. But, then, they obviously denied the “right” facts – as seen from a purely naturalistic perspective in which there is no room for the supernatural but naturalistic miracles run the show as they cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.

This, we might know, is a form of denialism.

Source:

Mooney, Chris. 2014. Making science cool won't win over the denialists. New Scientist 2972 (9 June).

Orwellian Newspeak in New Scientist

George Orwell, the father of newspeak. Image courtesy of Wikipedia.





Joel Kontinen

Criticizing Darwinian evolution is an attack against science, Paul Wolpe argues in the latest issue of New Scientist in a genuine Orwellian way:

“SCIENCE is under assault. In the US and throughout the world, rhetoric about evolution, stem cells, global warming and other controversial and cutting-edge technologies often transcends legitimate disagreement to challenge the work of scientists.”

However, scientific theories should not be above criticism as no one has ever succeeded in developing a theory that had no defects. And Darwinian evolution has probably more of them than any other view scientists have suggested.

In Orwellian newspeak words are given meanings that differ diametrically from their ordinary meaning.

Evolutionists often regard evolution as a synonym for science. What they tend to forget is that modern science owes its origin and existence to Christian thinking or the view that a rational Creator has created a rational world that can be studied and observed.

Since its early days, Darwinian evolution has been a very questionable idea. Many of the great pioneers of science, for instance Louis Pasteur, resisted it. However, they did not attack science but merely criticised Darwinian evolution.

Many former people's republics were fond of newspeak. They were actually totalitarian oligarchies in which the people did not have any power and they had no idea what democracy was about.

Darwinists have embraced this method wholeheartedly.

Source:

Wolpe, Paul Root. 2012. Science needs a universal symbol. New Scientist 2846: 24-25.

Newspeak: “Opponents of Science are Experts at Winning the Battle for Hearts and Minds”

This week's New Scientist takes a look at those who are not convinced by ideas like Darwinian evolution.




Joel Kontinen

Evolutionists have studied their Orwell well and adopted his newspeak. As exemplified by this week's New Scientist, they characterise dissidents as “opponents of science”, “the forces of anti-science” and those who hold “apparently perverse positions.”

New Scientist informs us, for instance, that Discovery Institute is “a conservative think-tank that seeks to undermine the teaching of evolution in US schools… After failing to get biblical creationism taught in science classes, the institute came back with the ‘scientific’ concept of intelligent design, and two carefully researched talking points: ‘evolution is just a theory’ and ‘teach the controversy’. "

One cannot obviously expect New Scientist to check its facts as very little (if anything) in the above quote is actually true.

The basic problem is that Darwinian evolution is taught as dogma in schools almost everywhere. The only thing that dissidents have an issue with is the dogmatism of evolutionists. They propagate their pet theory with almost religious zeal and do their utmost to silence all dissent.

Sources:

Aldhouse, Peter. 2011. Science in America: Selling the truth. New Scientist 2836: 42-45.

Why America should put its trust in reason. New Scientist 2836: 3.

Journal Wants to Banish the Word Design from Biology

The father of newspeak. Image courtesy of Wikipedia. An evolution journal wants scientists to use Orwellian language.



Joel Kontinen

Darwinians are obviously frustrated with their inability to make both scientists and laypeople understand evolution in the way they wish. The editorial of a recent issue of the journal BioEssays encourages scientists to embrace a method made popular by George Orwell: one should use words that mean something very different from what one might assume.

Andrew Moore, the journal’s editor-in-chief, wants scientists to present biological phenomena by using “Evolution new-speak”. (Whereas Orwell used the term newspeak, Moore prefers the form new-speak.)

The problem has to do with teleology. Science journals often use words that indicate a purpose or goal. Moore says that even our old friend Richard Dawkins erred in suggesting that the watchmaker is blind. According to Moore, even a blind watchmaker is a watchmaker, so Dawkins actually promoted the view that biological systems have been designed.

Moore suggests that scientists should avoid giving their readers this impression. Whereas ”Evolution old-speak” says: ” Structure X is designed to perform…”, "Evolution new-speak" uses the form: ”Structure X performs Y.”

Expressions such as ”how nature solved this problem (X)” are also banned in Darwinian orthodoxy. The proper way to say it is: ”How evolution resulted in.”

The basic problem evolutionists are facing is that practically all biological systems look as though they are designed. Denying this obvious fact has been a hard nut to crack for Darwinists.

Writing to the church in Rome, the apostle Paul said: ” For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”

Source:

Moore, Andrew. 2011. We need a new language
for evolution. . . everywhere. BioEssays 33 (4): 237.

A bizarre peace convoy

Joel Kontinen

When peace activists stock their ship with metal tubes, grenades, smoke bombs, knives and slingshots and then use them against Israeli soldiers, we might perhaps be justified in asking whether peace is very high on their agenda.

The Israeli commandos who landed on the ships from overflying helicopters were only armed with riot gear. The peace activists who had set out to break the Gaza blockade began to hit the soldiers with metal tubes and would probably have killed several of them if the Israelis had not fired at them in self-defence.

For Hamas and their allies the word ”peace” seems to be a catchword with a meaning akin to that what George Orwell used in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four.

It seems that the sole purpose of the convoy was to gain sympathy from the West.

The Palestinians have a long history of using the western media to further their aims.

And they have rarely been reluctant to be in the news. Since orchestrating a massacre of Israeli sportsmen during the 1972 Olympics in Munich they have been busy hijacking airplanes and ships and aiming their missiles at Israeli kindergartens.

The following video clips reveal more about the intentions of the ”peace activists”.

Free Thinkers as Thought Police

Free Thinkers have assumed the role of Orwellian thought police. In George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four Big Brother keeps watch so that no one will think unauthorised thoughts.




Joel Kontinen

The British Humanist Association (BHA) has approached tourist boards in the UK, urging them to cease promoting the Noah’s Ark Zoo Farm in Somerset.

Early this year, the BHA sponsored a conspicuous bus campaign in London with ads doubting the existence of God. Now, when a zoo farm wants to promote the existence of God, the humanists, who would describe themselves as free thinkers, are assuming the basic Orwellian model of not tolerating any dissenting views.

The Noah’s Ark Zoo Farm opened to the public in 1999. It houses a hundred animals and attracts approximately 120, 000 visitors each year. Noah’s Ark does not hide its belief in a creator God.

However, Noah’s Ark Zoo Farm promotes a much longer time frame of earth history than traditional creationism but it seems that the very idea of doubting Darwinism causes problems for dissenters. Recently, Ben Stein himself was expelled from New York Times.

Miranda Stevenson, director of the British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums, says, ''I find it extraordinary that an organisation that I thought promotes free thinking appears to want censorship.”

Perhaps free thinkers ought to change the name of their ideology.

Source:

Telegraph. 2009. Noah's Ark Zoo in creationist row. (27 August) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6100222/Noahs-Ark-Zoo-in-creationist-row.html

George Orwell and Darwin’s Thought Police

Beware what you think: Big Brother is watching (and listening)


Joel Kontinen

Concepts such as Thought Police and slogans like Ignorance is Strength that George Orwell wrote about on the pages of Nineteen Eighty-Four are alive and well in our midst.

The Darwinian Thought Police have been busy recently. In Britain, they forced the resignation of a leading scientist from the Royal Society. In the United States, they questioned the competency of a politician who had the temerity to suggest she would allow a critical examination of evolution in science education.

They would gladly keep as many people as possible ignorant of the flaws of Darwinian mechanisms, i.e. natural selection acting on random mutations, as these poor souls might otherwise end up not believing in evolution.

Evolutionists have adapted a very Orwellian use of words and tactics. Thus, by “science” they really mean “evolution” as in the National Center for Science Education. They only science they ever teach is (Neo) Darwinian evolution (the goo-to-you variety). Thus, anyone disagreeing with Darwin is by definition an anti-science bigot although most of the founding fathers of modern science were Christians who believed in a literal creation and a world wide flood. It was only later that Darwinists hijacked the word science.

Now, as Richard Dawkins and many other fellow-believers would agree, evolution is a great story that seeks to replace the Christian account of creation. There is a difference between being created in the image of God and being the result of natural selection acting on random mutations.

Some Christians have tried to make their peace with Charles Darwin by trying to combine atheistic evolution with the revelation of the God of the Bible. However, just like Christ and Belial (2 Corinthians 6:15) do not mix, it is impossible to marry two great stories that are alternative ways of looking at reality.



Source:

Orwell, George. 2001 (1949). Nineteen Eighty-Four. London: The Folio Society.