I couldn't help but notice this biological/demographer's bow to the Church (without admitting it). He acknowledges that in the pre-modern period that "we have pretty good data from Europe, unlike the rest of the world." How could that be? Since THE CHURCH dominated Europe? Oops, of course that is right. The data he is referencing, better than anywhere else on earth, is FROM the Church records. Birth, Marriage and Death records were recorded in the Cathedral Church records. The Cathedral Church is where the Bishop kept his "office." When we use the word "Cathedral" instead of church building or merely church, it means the "seat of the Bishop's Authority." In theory and in fact, the Bishop's "Cathedral" could be a lowly setting and not a monument of grand architecture at all. My Bishop's "Cathedral" is a humble church in a poor neighborhood of Detroit. In the south a humble small "Church of God" would be as impressive.
In Europe, the Cathedral functioned like the "county courthouse records" in the U.S. Everything was "recorded" in the Cathedral offices. The shadow of this remains in the U.S. where some officers of county government are called, "recorders." In Sweden still all records are kept by the State Church which is Lutheran. It may be that way still in other Northern European countries. So this massive data to which the professor make mention, in Europe, is CHURCH records. Sad that he cannot clearly state it. We know any positive mention of the Church is taboo. We clearly stated it in Volume 3.
The more I read and hear the Evolutionist of various disciplines the more the "mythological, anti-metaphysical" comes clearly through as their underlying theme. Not satisfied with reporting data, they constantly appeal to "causality" without recourse to a "causer." They can describe phenomena of biology, chemistry, anthropology, astrophysics and the rest and their observations are devoid of "cause," yet they mix causality with the data creating a new paganism where the naturalist god is willing this and willing that. There is little wonder that they resort to speaking of the church, religion . . . the Judeo-Christian Tradition in general only in a mocking way and leave out its the massive contribution to history, to science and the betterment of mankind. They don't want to admit anything positive in the "pre-science" era as they put it, where the historic sacred writings, even in terms of "natural science" seem to have it more times right than wrong.
Reducing perceptions to "cause and effect", which in reality is only the measure of "processes" by the five senses, and denying the possibility of perceptions outside of the five senses, they make of man a hopeless automaton, a slave to biology, whose cognition is merely electro/chemical and whose spiritual perceptions are mere illusion, whose religious beliefs are mere superstition. All religions are then placed under the simple heading superstition, with no qualitative differentiation made between them, ignoring the Truth, and various truths those religions contained. For them, all religions are just a means of explaining biological imperatives, by minds incapable of "science."
So claiming that they are explaining biological imperative via science they have merely succeeded in creating a new religion called "scientism." As a cult, scientism has grown so pervasive as to make her true critical observers appear solipsistic. Yet, we Christian observers, if we truly grasp the Biblical and Traditional Christian ontology, understand that we speak in the tradition of knowledge of the nature of BEING, but more importantly the nature and true makeup of the human being, who is more than biology. While those of scientism merely build a new pantheism, immanentism and/or naturalism. These "secular humanist", actually post-humanist, having destroyed the meaning of human and humanity by relegating it to the category of biological beast only. They think they are creating a new thing and doing so by new means. They are not, they are merely plastering a scientistic religion over advances in mere physical observations, and newly apparent (to us) physical processes.
"The making of the world and the creation of all things have been taken differently by many, and each has propounded as each has wished. Some say that all things have come into being spontaneously and as by chance, such as the Epicurians who, according to themselves, fantasize that there is no providence over the universe, speaking in the face of the clear and apparent facts. For if all things came into being spontaneously without providence, as they claim, all things would necessarily have simply come into being and be identical, and without difference." - Saint Athanasius the Great. All creation, from the individual motion of any independent energy sphere, even inside an atom, randomly stepping in and out of this dimension, to the species, to the diversity of galaxies, testify to immense, maybe even infinite diversity. No purely material model or spontaneous appearance, explains them. And "spontaneous generation" is all the Church of Scientism has to offer in the final analysis.
Reducing perceptions to "cause and effect", which in reality is only the measure of "processes" by the five senses, and denying the possibility of perceptions outside of the five senses, they make of man a hopeless automaton, a slave to biology, whose cognition is merely electro/chemical and whose spiritual perceptions are mere illusion, whose religious beliefs are mere superstition. All religions are then placed under the simple heading superstition, with no qualitative differentiation made between them, ignoring the Truth, and various truths those religions contained. For them, all religions are just a means of explaining biological imperatives, by minds incapable of "science."
So claiming that they are explaining biological imperative via science they have merely succeeded in creating a new religion called "scientism." As a cult, scientism has grown so pervasive as to make her true critical observers appear solipsistic. Yet, we Christian observers, if we truly grasp the Biblical and Traditional Christian ontology, understand that we speak in the tradition of knowledge of the nature of BEING, but more importantly the nature and true makeup of the human being, who is more than biology. While those of scientism merely build a new pantheism, immanentism and/or naturalism. These "secular humanist", actually post-humanist, having destroyed the meaning of human and humanity by relegating it to the category of biological beast only. They think they are creating a new thing and doing so by new means. They are not, they are merely plastering a scientistic religion over advances in mere physical observations, and newly apparent (to us) physical processes.
"The making of the world and the creation of all things have been taken differently by many, and each has propounded as each has wished. Some say that all things have come into being spontaneously and as by chance, such as the Epicurians who, according to themselves, fantasize that there is no providence over the universe, speaking in the face of the clear and apparent facts. For if all things came into being spontaneously without providence, as they claim, all things would necessarily have simply come into being and be identical, and without difference." - Saint Athanasius the Great. All creation, from the individual motion of any independent energy sphere, even inside an atom, randomly stepping in and out of this dimension, to the species, to the diversity of galaxies, testify to immense, maybe even infinite diversity. No purely material model or spontaneous appearance, explains them. And "spontaneous generation" is all the Church of Scientism has to offer in the final analysis.
Having heard the demographers all my life grouse about the quality of the census in this U.S., and slinging out "statistics" about the numbers of homeless who are missed, the children who are missed, the poor who are missed, the immigrants who are missed in the census, I've never heard one give a credible source for such knowledge. To my knowledge the only hard evidence we have on population is the census, everything else is an extrapolation upon limited data and is only as accurate as a political poll. Where is the other hard data these fellows always claim to have, what is its source? Listen to the insane reasoning - he claims his source as "it is well known" the fact that minorities and the poor are undercounted (which has never been proved) is a fact "because it is well known." And the well known reason that the census is so bad in this regard is because "these people don't vote Republican and when this story that I'm telling you takes place, the Republicans controlled the House of Representatives, which controls the budget. So the census has been missing this eight, ten million for the 1990 Census, eight million for before, roughly eight to ten million people, and again, it's these minority groups, minorities, renters, urban dwellers, and so Democrats - - and they generally vote Democrat - - and the Democrats have been pushing to get them counted, to make an accurate account. But a Republican redistricting expert wrote a memorandum in 1997 predicting that adjustment could cost the Republican Party 24 house seats, which is a huge amount. (Source please) So since then the Republicans have blocked any modernization of the census."
He tells a false story about Clinton's "head of the census" Martha Riche trying to create a new way of taking the census, which would have allowed for manipulation via statistical sampling - an extremely easy way to skew results. "What she had proposed was a statistical way of dealing with this. You know the groups that you've missed, you know where they live, so after you've counted everyone as well as you can in the whole country, you go back to the inner city neighborhoods, the various places where you know that you're going to miss and you really blanket that and do - - those areas very carefully a sample across the country. Then you find out what your errors are in that large sample, and then you can adjust the whole population, assuming you made the same mistakes everywhere." - One hell of an assumption! He tells it as if Newt Gingrich's insistence on actually "counting heads" was regressive and aimed at an inaccurate count, and that Riche's motives for heavy focus on minority and inner city neighborhoods were white as the driven snow with no political motives whatsoever. I'm always amazed at this accusation of under-reported minorities and the tie to politics. It is always spoken as if the census in tied to voter registration and the ability to cast a vote. What advantage is there to include minorities who are uncounted into a district that without the counted minorities looks like a Republican district. The reasoning seems counterintuitive to me.
Nigeria - 88.5, 120 million - try to make that the 50% uncertainty he claims. At the outer edges, claiming the official census is the base, which is the lowest and the U.N. figure is real, which is the highest, that an error of 31.5 million or a 35.5 percent error. This and the other exaggeration he tells is to make the following point, "The point of this initial part, point one, is that even the simplest numbers like head counts, we're not doing anything fancy, we're just trying to count how many people there are, 1,2,3,4,5, there are systematic errors and very often those errors are intentional." If it is a point in "fact" why the exaggerations to make the point?
No comments:
Post a Comment