: “Of or having it’s origins in or by man”
: “Of, relating to, or resulting from the influence of human beings on nature”
In common usage these days it is almost exclusively related to man’s impact on the planet and the biosphere, the altar of the Gaia worshipers. (as in anthropogenic pollutants) Of course we all “know” that in Greek mythology, Gaia, from Ancient Greek (Γαῖα, a poetical form of Γῆ Gē, Ge, “land” or “earth”); also spelled Gaea, was the personification of the Earth and one of the Greek primordial deities (would that be God?).
Gaia was the great mother of all: the primal Greek Mother Goddess (all very feminist and PC don’tcha know?); creator and giver of birth to the Earth and all the Universe; the heavenly gods, the Titans, and the Giants were born to her. The gods reigning over their classical pantheon were born from her union with Uranus (the sky), while the sea-gods were born from her union with Pontus (the sea). Her equivalent in the Roman pantheon was Terra, (the “earth” half of the “Tellus-Luna” twin planet).
I am, not surprisingly, quite skeptical of “worshipers” of ancient mythological figures, having “Wiccans” in the extended family and a fair bit of up close and personal experience with other “deeply spiritua nature worshipers”. I have discovered through experience that all those I have met are “into” “spirituality” because it’s “cool” and even more important, “Not Christian!” As I once read or heard somewhere, “Christianity has never been tried and found wanting, it has been tried and found hard”. Being a “deeply spiritual” “nature worshiper” is way easier in the short run, just another variation on self worship which is always easy until we hit the wall and discover “we are not God”.
So is it easier to blow God off by claiming a different god or by denying that there is a god because there is no “scientific” proof, no material evidence to be manipulated in support of the “god” hypothesis”? Obviously at the fundamental level, we all simply manipulate pre-existing material whether it is the materiel of creation or something we imagined in our created mind. No “creature” can “create” anything. Even after about 100,000 years we still have not “created” anything. We humans are simply a very primitive version of a manipulator. A good example of a sophisticated modern “manipulator” is pictured below.
The good folks who designed and built this “manipulator” simply (or nor so simply) manipulated pre-existing materials and ideas to produce a new object. I guarantee you they have a solid appreciation of the difference between “settled science” and real science.
Any claim to or invocation of “settled science” is simply ignorant bravado, like Al Gore blathering on about “creating” the internet, and the “settled science” about climate change, as the high priests of the temple of man now prefer to call it. Just how much are those Carbon credits worth to your favorite carbon industry Al?
Inconvenient or not, settled Science is – simply – not – science. By definition, if it is “settled” it is not science, and if it is “science” it is not settled. There are no other sides to the coin no matter what the religious adherents to “settled science” theory hold to be “truth.
As mentioned in a previous post, “it’s what you don’t know you don’t know” that bites you in the ass every time. All the folks who appeal to “settled science” as the foundation platform for their particular point of view are in a binary reality.
They are either ignorant and while being sincere in their “beliefs” are just plain sincerely wrong. Or, they know what is wrong with their position, but reality doesn’t fit their desires so they just plain lie about reality because they believe they are much smarter than their audience and their listeners will never know the difference – another faith based position just waiting for the other shoe to drop.
For example, the “theory” of evolution gives a plausible explanation for the development of certain traits in certain creatures but nowhere, anywhere or any-when has it ever lead to any “proof” that “there is no God”. It is just a somewhat useful “theory” that explains some of the things we perceive in “creation”. The theorist Darwin never made the claim that his theory in any way disproved the existence of God. He was a believer in God. There is nothing in the “Theory” of evolution that precludes God actually using evolution as one of His tools.
The “theory” of evolution is not “settled science” that is, its not fact, it is still “science”. However, that “unproven” part of the “Theory of Evolution hasn’t stopped legions of sincere believers who are wrong, and other legions liars who think their audience is “dumb as sack of hammers” from beating the “there is no God” drum, “because of evolution”, to anyone who will listen, all the while acting in real life before all the votes are in, as if there is no God, as if they can somehow remake the universe in THEIR own likeness through the sheer power of their deviant desires.
One of the best recent examples of the power of people to “rush to judgement” because they so desperately want a particular dream to be true, was the “DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN” headline in 1948. The 1948 presidential election campaign was a hard fight for Truman. By traveling thousands of miles, Harry Truman talked and spoke to many people. He spoke out his feelings on the issues rather than double talk his way out of giving a direct answer. The people that listened to him started the now famous phrase “Give ’em Hell, Harry”.
Harry Truman said he was just telling the truth. More and more people began to come out to listen to his speeches. The famous “whistle stop” campaign drew the farmers and small town people (the grey tribe) out by the thousands. When Truman went to bed November 2, he was losing the election (according to the pink tribe). Upon arising the next morning he, of course, learned he had won. He traveled to Washington, D.C. that day by train. On a short stop in St. Louis, Truman was presented with one of the “DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN” papers while on the back platform of the train. It was at this moment that the now famous photo of Truman holding up the paper was taken. When asked to comment, Truman said “This is for the books.”
This little vignette perfectly illustrates the “It’s what you don’t know that you don’t know that bites your ass” truism. None of these “settled Science folks actually know what they don’t know, they are just hoping for a miracle, but of course without God, there are no miracles. It’s just a matter of time before reality catches up with them. Of course when it does, their audience is dumber than a sack of hammers and they can just change their story. Right Mr. Premier? Health Districts are not the same as Health Regions, right? But the only thing you can say for certain is that they are spelled different.
Disclaimer for nitpickers: We take pride in being incomplete, incorrect, inconsistent, and unfair. We do all of them deliberately