Paul wrote to Laughing Water about an article in his store (Real Food Market & Deli) newsletter:
Hi Laughing Water,
Another Real Food newsletter stimulates some feedback. Isn’t that what you hope for when writing it, that someone is paying attention?!
In your article, “Evolution and You,” you write:
“We could call ourselves an unnatural cause, since having a plan or intention seems to what distinguishes the natural from the unnatural. But the evolution of intelligence is itself a natural phenomenon. What is its (un)natural course?”
If having a plan or intention makes mankind “unnatural,” and “unnatural,” you conclude, is what is takes us off course, then how can you express confidence in mankind cooperating with nature, especially if he must plan and intend to do so? That is “unnatural.” Furthermore, you write:
“The dawn of intelligence represents the emergence of the ability to plan and make choices—and with it, the ability to cooperate for the good of the larger whole.”
“The dawn of intelligence”? Linked to man, isn’t that not only an absurd notion, but also a very arrogant one? We live in a highly ordered world, permeated by complex interrelated systems of life and matter in a larger universe that provides the perfect matrix for our existence. Anything different could not work. All of this demonstrates the highest possible order of intelligence, pre-existing anything having to do with man’s consciousness. In fact, when mankind comes along and unravels it, this is not a demonstration of the evolution of intelligence; it is proof of the devolution of intelligence. To put together something marvelous takes planning and intention. To destroy it requires neither.
On this point alone – mankind’s devolution and subsequent degradation of himself and the environment – the theory of evolution falls, though it is unsupportable on many fronts.
The monkey wrench in the works is what the Bible calls “sin,” man’s estrangement from the Intelligence of the universe, God, his Creator. Being out of touch and out of harmony with God is what causes men to commit the “unnatural” abominations of the destruction and murder of men and the planet. Before there were the polluting and unwise inventions and practices of modern man, Cain killed his brother Abel. This is not a problem that can be fixed by man’s intellectual powers. To get along with nature, man must first get along with nature’s Inventor, God. Everything else is “unnatural” and tends to entropy.
No one walks into your store and thinks it is the accident of various elements coming together without plan or intention. How much more does that apply to our world and its perfectly interacting and self-renewing systems?
Really, your remarks are remarkably disrespectful to the Owner of everything.
Speaking of good intent and planning, I do appreciate what you have said about, and done with, the store’s meat department. It is a great service to the Helena community, which I hope more people will come to appreciate.
Paul
Laughing Water’s reply, with Paul’s note in red:
Hi Paul,
See below.
Hi Laughing Water,
Another Real Food newsletter stimulates some feedback. Isn’t that what you hope for when writing it, that someone is paying attention?!
In your article, “Evolution and You,” you write:
“We could call ourselves an unnatural cause, since having a plan or intention seems to what distinguishes the natural from the unnatural. But the evolution of intelligence is itself a “natural” phenomenon. What is its (un)natural course?”
If having a plan or intention makes mankind “unnatural,” and “unnatural”, you conclude, is what takes us off course,
Please read again carefully. Nowhere do I say (or even mean to imply) that “unnatural” means “off course.” It’s simply the feature people seem to have in mind when they categorize things as natural or unnatural (as in man-made or supernatural). But, as I say, it’s natural that intelligence exists.
There’s a perfectly lovable paradox in this. That’s also why I used the term “(un)natural,” because intentionality seems to be both.
then how can you express confidence in mankind cooperating with nature, especially if he must plan and intend to do so? That is “unnatural.”
Furthermore, you write:
“The dawn of intelligence represents the emergence of the ability to plan and make choices—and with it, the ability to cooperate for the good of the larger whole.”
“The dawn of intelligence”? Linked to man, isn’t that not only an absurd notion, but also a very arrogant one? We live in a highly ordered world, permeated by complex interrelated systems of life and matter in a larger universe that provides the perfect matrix for our existence. Anything different could not work. All of this demonstrates the highest possible order of intelligence, pre-existing anything having to do with man’s consciousness.
In fact, when mankind comes along and unravels it, this is not a demonstration of the evolution of intelligence; it is proof of the devolution of intelligence. To put together something marvelous takes planning and intention. To destroy it requires neither.
On this point alone – mankind’s devolution and subsequent degradation of himself and the environment – the theory of evolution falls, though it is unsupportable on many fronts.
You don’t seem to be able to accept the idea that order can emerge from chaos. You think that order must pre-exist. I don’t agree, and I’m as comfortable (or more) with the ultimate, perhaps unanswerable, question of where it all comes from as I would be with the unanswerable questions about God.
The monkey wrench in the works is what the Bible calls “sin,” man’s estrangement from the Intelligence of the universe, God, his Creator. Being out of touch and out of harmony with God is what causes men to commit the “unnatural” abominations of the destruction and murder of men and the planet.
Before there were the polluting and unwise inventions and practices of modern man, Cain killed his brother Abel. This is not a problem that can be fixed by man’s intellectual powers. To get along with nature, man must first get along with nature’s Inventor, God. Everything else is “unnatural” and tends to entropy.
No one walks into your store and thinks it is the accident of various elements coming together without plan or intention.
That’s a very poor parody of evolutionary theory.
How much more does that apply to our world and its perfectly interacting and self-renewing systems?
Really, your remarks are remarkably disrespectful to the Owner of Everything.
Paul
Gee, Owner, sorry! 😉 Paul, you really get carried away. Come back, come back.
Happy Valentine’s Day!
LW
Paul’s reply:
LW,
It is truly impossible to reason with those who have blind faith in their religion. Evolutionists invariably appeal to “facts” that cannot be demonstrated, having no basis in reality, whatever level of reality one might examine or experience.
Victor has a question for you, nevertheless, which I hope will help you crack open the door to conversation based on rational thought, away from the fantasy of magical appearances of matter in highly organized, animated forms from nothingness.
We welcome your answer as part of the journey to Reality, and if that is not possible at this time, we also accept that as the will of God.
I do not understand the explanation of your reasoning for natural and unnatural, which you now say you are equating to man-made and supernatural. That makes less sense than what I initially thought you were saying.
However, I do understand the thought you express that intentionality seems to be both man-made and supernatural. The Scriptures, which are spiritual Truth, say the very same thing:
“You may make your plans, but God directs your actions” (Proverbs 16:9 GNB).
The online dictionary gives this definition for “parody”:
a. A literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule.
b. The genre of literature comprising such works.
c. Something so bad as to be equivalent to intentional mockery; a travesty: The trial was a parody of justice.
My analogy involving Real Food Market in no way fulfills any of these definitions. I was not imitating, ridiculing, or mocking. I think any reasonable person would agree. I was simply drawing a parallel with immediacy and applicability for the benefit of the one that brought up the subject, you.
When I see someone react to a cogent and pertinent analogy or argument with ill-fitting and dismissive adjectives, I suspect that person is grasping at straws, because he or she has no substantive basis for argument, yet is unwilling to relent on his or her viewpoint. The result is a wild swing and a miss. As I said earlier, I hope you will reconsider the futility of such a stance and answer Victor’s question.
As for Valentine’s Day, I find nothing “happy” or edifying about it. I want nothing to do with it. Here is a description from a Catholic website of the origins of this “holiday.” I do not at all subscribe to the abominable claims or doctrines of the Catholic Church, but seeing they have reason to be ashamed of the things related here, rather than proud, I accept this history as credible.
It is also documented elsewhere.
“The roots of St. Valentine’s Day lie in the ancient Roman festival of Lupercalia, which was celebrated on Feb. 15. For 800 years the Romans had dedicated this day to the god Lupercus. On Lupercalia, a young man would draw the name of a young woman in a lottery and would then keep the woman as a sexual companion for the year.
Pope Gelasius I was, understandably, less than thrilled with this custom. So he changed the lottery to have both young men and women draw the names of saints whom they would then emulate for the year (a change that no doubt disappointed a few young men). Instead of Lupercus, the patron of the feast became Valentine. For Roman men, the day continued to be an occasion to seek the affections of women, and it became a tradition to give out handwritten messages of admiration that included Valentine’s name.”
“Valentine’s Day” is an unclean and unholy thing. I can attest to the wholly wasteful and detrimental effects of the kind of romantic thinking that comes with this “un-holy-day,” which robs one of, rather than brings one, life. There is a better way, which is my reason for this communication.
Certainly I know and understand that this way is alien to you, as if from outer space, but why should your non-experience of the spiritual plane from whence God comes, Whom you admit you do not know, determine the world and all conversation for you?
Don’t you think that is even a wee bit arrogant?
Paul
Victor’s reply:
Hi Laughing Water,
Paul shared your correspondence on evolution. I have a question for you:
Can you give us one, just one, sure, scientific (seeing as evolutionists think their theory is scientific), provable example of order coming out of chaos, demonstrating undeniable, continuing progress, without any outside or intelligent intervention?
As to your humorous “sorry” to the Owner, He of course knows you are not sorry, and indeed you cannot be. That is why He laid down His life for you, so that one day you will be sorry and quite ashamed, even as Job who said:
“I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear; but now my eye has seen You. Therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes” (Job 42:5-6 MKJV).
Victor
Aftermath
Soon after this correspondence the Real Food store freezers broke down three times. Though repairs were enacted, they did not address the underlying problem. This was very strange, but not to us. There was a reason and a poignant message from God. Laughing Water said there is no God Who orders and sustains everything in His creation, so now God removed Himself (and His order) from a portion of Laughing Water’s world of man’s creation (the freezers).
Without order, there can be no reasonable expectation that something is fixable – all is random chaos. God gave Laughing Water a small (though frustrating and costly) example of living with the real ramifications of his theory.