January 18, 2009

From Michael Elson:

Re: Enforcer of conformity: our own brains (Jan. 14): I am a non-conformist, and therefore I have my own opinions, which is no big deal at all. Conformists don’t have their own opinions, particularly in fields somewhat foreign to them. This is very easily illustrated in many ‘scientific’ papers that are studded with ‘theories’, and which are taught in universities as fact - or believed to be fact. Conformists worship science all round, which intends to mean that whatever a scientist says must be real smart, and therefore must be true. End of story. They simply don’t get their minds around what’s being said. This is quite probably because I figure that most people don’t properly think about what they’re listening to, or feel ‘unqualified’ to argue the point.

Take Darwin’s theories for instance, aside from the idiotic idea that the human race evolved from apes. The general basic concept of ‘evolution’ in the direction of Darwin’s theories, is that animal life evolves by accumulating ‘knowledge’ through experiences, which are passed on through genes to the next generation. I can live with that bit, but when he says that eventually a totally new species will evolve leaving the ‘original’ to die out such as with his daft ‘dog’ to horse bullshit in six easy steps, that’s going much too far. Where he fails miserably in his world famous dog to horse rubbish, is simply “Where are the intermediate fossils - and there should be millions of them - between each so-called evolved new species, all of which similarly evolve into the next exhibit, finally leaving us with a half-ton horse. All from a 15 kilogram ‘dog-like’ ancestor.” Answer that if you please.

What the general public fail to understand, is that a theory is merely an idea. Nothing more, nothing less. In the absence of contrary ‘evidence’ it is believed to the extent that it is still taught in universities as fact. In line with the above ridicule, is that when a species evolves to the level that we now find it, the theory continues to hypothesize that the ancestors have ‘died out’ during the evolutionary time span, always quoted as being ‘millions of years’. In that case, how is it that here we are, supposedly having been evolved from apes(!!) - and this from a scientist - yet the world still abounds with apes?? And again, where are all the intermediate fossils? There should be zillions of them, but they are still looking for the ‘missing link’, and should they find a single tooth (as in Java man) then around that alone is developed a link between that and modern man. A tooth, I ask you... .

With a theory like that, Darwin is surely a monkey’s uncle. Birds evolved from reptiles? Really? Because feathers are made of keratin and so are scales? Didn’t he know that horns, claws and hair, just to mention three, are also made of the same stuff? That then will include mammals - hundreds of different species. Again, if birds evolved from reptiles, how come we’ve still got millions of reptiles? However, all the above are questioned in the face of science, science that the layman swallows without thinking. And that is what conformity is all about. I have coined a phrase on that point: “Blind acceptance is clear evidence of a lack of thinking.” Klu­char­ev said: “Conformity is re­in­forced by the neu­ral error-mon­i­tor­ing ac­ti­vity which sig­nals what is prob­ab­ly the most fun­da­men­tal so­cial mis­take—that of be­ing too dif­fer­ent from oth­ers.” I find that to be utterly ridiculous. That of being too different from others, being a mistake. What are we then? A bunch of sheep? Speak for yourself - if you have an opinion that’s yours. If not, Baa-a-a-a.


Post a Comment

<< Home