Scientific Materialism Does Not Explain the Mind

by harry on December 24, 2013

Science stops when philosophy is interjected.  The challenge is knowing when this takes place because science and philosophy often overlap.    The overlap is not necessary and many people don’t know it is happening.

It is not so much the overlap that bothers me, it the shameless presentation of the philosophical worldview known as scientific materialism (SM).  According to SM, everything in the universe can and must be explained in clear and strict physical terms.  SM’s belief is that non-material things like God, dignity, honor, etc. are not items of true knowledge; thus, non-existent.  Matter alone constitutes ultimate reality.  Science alone tells truth.

For example, they deny that a higher power created and designed the universe.  They might say something like this: True, the universe looks designed by its really the product of strict physical laws and blind random chance.

SM may admit the appearance of design such as:

  • how non-material minds emerge from purely physical processes.
  • how consciousness experience arises from unconscious brain (neurobiological processes).
  • how the non-material mind came to interact and control the physical body.
  • why my conscious mind is trying to convince your conscious mind to believe something at all.
  • And finally, why is SM trying so hard to present an accurate materialistic picture of the world and its creation if we came from lower animals who are concerned with preserving our adaptive behavior?

And anther finally… if our cognitive faculties (my mind) only tell us what we need to survive, not what is true why trust them about anything at all?

Why do I not believe SM?  Because it does not explain or cannot explain human nature.   The dualism of human equality and personal identity is present and unexplainable by SM.

More personally, you are comprised of both a physical body and a nonphysical soul.  We see this as our body changes, our continued identity remains unchanged.  Why do you think there are so many people gathered at a sports stadium?  While their bodies are old, overweight, and unfit to do battle on the field, their spirits and soul desire to control their opponent.

Think about it.  You are not your body.  Nick Vujicic proves this.

So, why believe in evolution, a scientific theory that cannot scientifically explain its theories and sucks for evidence?


Global Warming Stopped 16-Years Ago

by harry on October 15, 2012

Global Warming Science is Flawed.

At the root of the Evolution / Creation debate is flawed science, at its best. No science at its worse.

At the root of the Global Warming debate is flawed science, at its best. Apparently from the below article, no science at all.

I love science and all that goes with the serious enquiry of the physical laws to understand our universe.

What I have a problem with is “Scientist” bringing their religion and philosophy into the science arena. Make no mistake, Humanism is a religion.

They (or whomever) bring their religion into science for many reasons: to gain power, prestige, money, fame, or whatever. This saddens me because innocent researchers and the general population suffer.

While the Global Warming issue is not a Evolution / Creation issue, it is another area where Flawed Science is exerting its religion just as in the Evolution / Creation science. The agendas seem clear, just follow the money.

Seeing Flawed Science is not always easy. This article is a great help!

Click here to learn how to earn money blogging about your passion! – Harry

Below is the original Article I am referring to:

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it

  • The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures
  • This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996

The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.

The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.

This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.

global temperature changesglobal temperature changes


Research: The new figures mean that the ¿pause¿ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. This picture shows an iceberg melting in Eastern Greenland
Research: The new figures mean that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. This picture shows an iceberg melting in Eastern Greenland

The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.

This stands in sharp contrast to the release of the previous figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 – a very warm year.

Ending the data then means it is possible to show a slight warming trend since 1997, but 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, and thus this trend is erased.

Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.

Others disagreed. Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America’s prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’.

Even Prof Jones admitted that he and his colleagues did not understand the impact of ‘natural variability’ – factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and changes in the output of the sun. However, he said he was still convinced that the current decade would end up significantly warmer than the previous two.

Flawed science costs us dearly

Here are three not-so trivial questions you probably won’t find in your next pub quiz. First, how much warmer has the world become since a) 1880 and b) the beginning of 1997? And what has this got to do with your ever-increasing energy bill?

You may find the answers to the first two surprising. Since 1880, when reliable temperature records began to be kept across most of the globe, the world has warmed by about 0.75 degrees Celsius.

From the start of 1997 until August 2012, however, figures released last week show the answer is zero: the trend, derived from the aggregate data collected from more than 3,000 worldwide measuring points, has been flat.

Click here to learn how to earn money blogging about your passion!

Read more:–chart-prove-it.html#ixzz29Mg7uj1y


Evolutionist Misuse the Law of Information

October 10, 2012

Creationists discount scientific evidence. Really? More like Evolutionist Ignores Law of Information! While I know enough to disagree with many of Mr Grow’s statements of facts and “scientific evidence”, the quote below is the “statement of fact” that I wish to specifically address: “The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does, in fact, allow the local increase […]

Read the full article →

What To Do With “Ugly Facts”?

July 22, 2012

The biggest problem in astrophysics, cosmology, and geology (and thus evolution) is that experiments on most of their theory are not possible.  Sure, data is collected by it can’t be tested against the theory like we do in other branches of science. Why?  Because they can’t use the scientific method to determine if a theory […]

Read the full article →

Have We Really Progressed Scientifically?

July 18, 2012

Our civilization has great confidence in science.  Advances in the last 20-years have made our lives much easier.  Think of recent achievements in computers, chemistry, communications, medicine, and genetics.  Human endeavor has accomplished marvelous feats.  Knowledge and information are at a level never imagined 50-year ago, let alone 100.  Who would have ever imagined the […]

Read the full article →

Science’s Empirical Method Rules

July 8, 2012

I love science and all it brings to my life. I love the technology (smart phones, microwave oven, etc.) and the empirical method of thinking. You may not be a scientist, but you may be more “scientifically prone” than you think. The difference between scientists and artists, poets, musicians, and others is a simple method of […]

Read the full article →

Has Science been wrong in the past?

September 15, 2011

You may ask “How could all these smart scientific evolutionists be wrong The answer is simple, look at history.  Examine the history of scientific and medical dogma.  Here are but a few examples: The earth is flat. The earth can’t possibly be suspended in space. The earth is the center of the universe. Germs don’t […]

Read the full article →

Are you a reflective person?

August 28, 2011

The reflective person is a “question ask-er”.   Do you ask many questions? I am reflective and ask questions. As one, and you too or you would not be at this website, I am sensitive and fascinated by complexity of things. I love the pursuit of knowledge, evidence, and truth. My passion for answers is secondary […]

Read the full article →

Evolution’s Conclusion

August 2, 2011

In the search for truth there is a tool called “taking the roof off”.  The idea is that you assume a position is true.  This builds the walls and roof of a position.  Next, you take the roof off the “house” so to speak and look inside.  You look at the internal assumptions and external […]

Read the full article →

Appologies for the word “sucks”

July 18, 2011

I apologize to the intellectuals who are seriously searching for truth about evolution and creation.  My intent is NOT to offend you in using the word “SUCKS”. However, to make my point, I think “sucks” performs accurately. According to The Free Dictionary, the #1 definition for “sucks” is:  “To draw (liquid) into the mouth by movements of […]

Read the full article →