Thursday, March 13, 2014

The Commonality between Leftist Paradigms & Scientific Theories

america shining city on hill - gif
The Commonality between Leftist Paradigms & Scientific Theories
Truth & Theories are not NECESSARILY the Same

John R. Houk
© March 13, 2014

I received a comment from a person who identified himself as “dougindeap” which if you do the word/space separation is obviously “Doug in Deep”. Or anyway that was my first interpretive inclination. My guess is the person’s name is Doug but euphemistically symbolized “dug” as in digging a hole. So I presumed that “deap” was a euphemism for digging in deep as in being entrenched in a position to stand one’s ground when attacked. However I decided I had better look and see if there is a word “deap” and if so find out its meaning.

I soon found via Google there are applications of the word “DEAP” as an acronym. I quickly eliminated the first item on the search – “Urban Dictionary: DEAP”. This first Google item references “DEAP” as the name of a RAP artist from Philadelphia born as Ricardo Leon Jr.

The next item on Google I inadvisably skipped over allowing the third Google search item to catch my eye – “DEAP – Definition by AcronymFinder”. This took me to a page that asked the question: “What does DEAP stand for?” Followed by a short list of acronyms for DEAP:

All definitions (13)

1)     DEAP: Developmental Educational Assistance Program

2)     DEAP: Dwelling Energy Assessment Procedure (Ireland)

3)     DEAP: Disability Entitlement Advocacy Program

4)     DEAP: Drop Everything and Pray

5)     DEAP: Directional Electrostatic Accretion Process

6)     DEAP: Dark Matter Experiment using Argon Pulse-shape discrimination

7)     DEAP: Diffused Eutectic Aluminum Process

8)    DEAP: Descendants of Early American Peoples

9)     DEAP: Direct Entry and Advanced Placement

10)DEAP: Disaster Emergency Awareness & Preparedness

11)DEAP: Dundee Employment and Aftercare Project Ltd (Scotland)

12)DEAP: Disability Equipment Assessment Programme

13)DEAP: Diplôme d'Etat d'Auxiliaire de Puériculture (French: Qualification for Childcare Assistants)

The list numbers are added by me and not AcronymFinder.

Just as a reminder I embarked on this quest of looking at acronyms for “DEAP” to see if there is a different meaning than my first impression for commenter “dougindeap”. At this point I have decided the quest is a wild goose chase which I am way too often guilty of participating. Nevertheless, I continue to digress.

I did not point out that at the very top of the Google search page was a definition directly given for “DEAP”:

Web definitions

DEAP is a direct dark matter search experiment using liquid argon as target material. DEAP utilizes background discrimination based on the characteristic scintillation pulse shape in argon. ...

I did not click the Wikipedia link. Although Wikipedia is convenient their content is based on a collective of contributors that may or may not be credible and are typically slanted toward the Left in editorial content. I am not averse to using Wikipedia as a source like most of academia is; however I do like to look at correlative sources to gage the accuracy of a Wikipedia article. Interestingly the Wikipedia excerpt at the top of the page was number 6 on the AcronymFinder list: Dark Matter Experiment using Argon Pulse-shape discrimination.

You can look at the other acronyms for DEAP in your own wild goose chase but I am focusing on the dark matter experimenting using argon pulse-shape discrimination:

Liquid argon based Dark Matter detection

Dark matter makes up about 25% of our universe, yet it has never been detected. The goal of the DEAP experiment is to directly observe and identify this dark matter component of the universe. This will be achieved by observing the elastic scattering of dark matter particles, probably in the form of Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs), from argon nuclei. Argon in its liquid form is a favorable detection medium for Dark Matter searches because it has a high stopping power against ionizing radiation and good light yield, it allows for any desired detector shape and, due to its low cost, for a large detector mass. A very low background can be reached due to ease of purification and scintillation characteristics which are suitable for achieving very powerful pulse shape discrimination. A prototype detector, DEAP-1, has READ THE REST (DEAP: Liquid argon based Dark Matter detection; DEAP Project Director - Mark Boulay; Department of Physics, Stirling Hall, Queen's University at Kingston, Kingston, Ontario, Canada;

O yeah, you might as well be speaking Greek or Chinese to me in my comprehension ability here. Nonetheless, this is what I gleaned about DEAP. Physicists believe Dark Matter exists; HOWEVER the primary component that science thrives on - AND is the primary reason there are so many non-believing Western scientists as far as Christianity goes – IS MISSING. Science thrives on OBSERVING in order to MEASURE something that is studied. If something cannot be observed it cannot be measured. If something cannot be measured then its reality is not proven. So if an abundance of data is out there that suggest something should be there to measure the preponderance of science decides to make an educated guess and stipulate it is there. BUT it cannot be observed there; hence the educated guess is a THEORY. Science believes that something is there because data suggests something is there? I think the word that should be on the tip of your tongue is FAITH. Faith is that pesky little belief system that knows there is something there subjectively by deciding to completely KNOW something is there. For Christians we KNOW God exists not because of a measurable/observable feeling in the sense realm but because of an immeasurable inner subjective experience in the spiritual realm.

Okay so DEAP was my wild goose chase in making an attempt to understand any hidden meaning in the pseudonym of “dougindeap”. More than likely my first impression was correct in that a person choosing to go by Doug has dug in deep holding to a position believed to be the only answer.

Dougindeap made a comment to a blot post I made at the NeoConservative Christian Right (NCCR) entitled “Returning to a Christian Moral Stand will Perpetuate the USA”. You can tell from my title that I believe Christian Morality is what has made the USA good and as long as America is good then the USA is great. America has been that shining city on a hill that has been a beacon of light shining to the world that when a government is accountable to the people Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is an honorable and a Creator endowed quest for humanity to attain.

13 “You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men.

14 “You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house.16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven. (Matthew 5: 13-16 NKJV)

I found President Ronald Reagan’s January 1989 Oval Office Farewell Address on video. You should listen to the entire speech. This is a speech about what it is to be an American. At the very end watch the portion about the city on a hill (18 minute 30 second spot):

VIDEO: Farewell Speech - President Reagan's Farewell Speech from the Oval Office 1/11/89

For America to remain good it is my contention that a Christian America influencing government keeps government from embracing human-centered (humanistic) greed and corruption that sways away the created from the Creator. I believe the Founding Fathers believed this AND contrary to Church/State separationist propaganda even the maligned Deist Founding Fathers believed this. Here’s why.

American Deists were very different from European Deists. American Deists were completely dedicated to the Biblical Morality the Christian Creator bestowed upon humanity through Jesus Christ. They believed that without the morality in the Bible to be the crux of community humanity would bend toward evil corruption destroying the rule of law that makes society cohesive. A nation of evil voters means the election of evil morally corrupt leaders. Morally corrupt leaders leads to corrupt government. Corrupt government leads to government-centered power. Government-centered power leads to despotism. Despotism leads to an oppression that robs individuals of a choice on how to achieve Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

European Deists – as exampled particularly in the French Revolution – excludes a Divine influence of a moral standard. Rather European Deists believed that whatever humanity defines as the standard of morality is the only compass to follow for life’s decisions and existence. The butchery of the French Revolution that ultimately led to the bloody realization of an absolute ruler in Napoleon Bonaparte bent on European conquest from France in the West to Russia in the East to Britain in the North and even to North Africa in the South to force humanity under a one-man rule to be the paradigm of Secular Humanism.

And so Dougindeap follows the Left Wing propaganda (which is even presumed by a number of deluded Conservatives) that the Founding Fathers overtly established the principle of Separation of Church and State in the U.S. Constitution AND that the Judicial Branch correctly asserted this principle in judicial decisions including our present time. I am going to do a rebuttal to Dougindeap’s assertions in a future post. Below are his thoughts. Just one more thing though pertaining to the judiciary. New Hampshire became the ninth State to ratify the Constitution on June 21, 1788. The U.S. government began operation on March 4, 1789. The Supreme Court of the United States of America did not make today’s interpretation of the First Amendment pertaining Church/State separation the law until 1947 with the majority opinion delivered by Justice Hugo Black. Dougindeap’s assertion of Judicial consistency in upholding Separation of Church and State as in keeping the Christian faith out of anything to do with taxpayer money simply is not supported by the facts.

JRH 3/13/14
Comment to: Returning to a Christian Moral Stand will Perpetuate the USA

By dougindeap
Blog Posted at: NCCR

Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution, much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the first place, the Supreme Court has thoughtfully, authoritatively, and repeatedly decided as much; it is long since established law. In the second place, the Court is right. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of “We the people” (not a deity), (2) according that government limited, enumerated powers, (3) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (4) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (5), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. Given the norms of the day (by which governments generally were grounded in some appeal to god(s)), the founders’ avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which affirmatively constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions. The basic principle, thus, rests on much more than just the First Amendment.

That the words “separation of church and state” do not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, to some who mistakenly supposed they were there and, upon learning of their error, fancy they’ve solved a Constitutional mystery. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphorical phrase commonly used to name one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.

To the extent that some nonetheless would like confirmation–in those very words–of the founders’ intent to separate government and religion, Madison and Jefferson supplied it. Some try to pass off the Supreme Court’s decision in Everson v. Board of Education as simply a misreading of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists–as if that were the only basis of the Court’s decision. Instructive as that letter is, it played but a small part in the Court’s decision. Rather, the Court discussed the historical context in which the Constitution and First Amendment were drafted, noting the expressed understanding of Madison perhaps even more than Jefferson, and only after concluding its analysis and stating its conclusion did the Court refer–once–to Jefferson’s letter, largely to borrow his famous metaphor as a clever label or summary of its conclusion. The notion, often heard, that the Court rested its decision solely or largely on that letter is a red herring.

Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820).

Indeed, he understood the original Constitution–without the First Amendment–to separate religion and government. He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”

While some also draw meaning from the variously phrased references to god(s) in the Declaration of Independence (references that could mean any number of things, some at odds with the Christian idea of God) and try to connect that meaning to the Constitution, the effort is largely baseless. Important as the Declaration is in our history, it did not operate to bring about independence (that required winning a war), nor did it found a government, nor did it even create any law, and it certainly did not say or do anything that somehow dictated the meaning of a Constitution adopted twelve years later. The colonists issued the Declaration not to do any of that, but rather to politically explain and justify the move to independence that was already well underway. Nothing in the Constitution depends on anything said in the Declaration. Nor does anything said in the Declaration purport to limit or define the government later formed by the free people of the former colonies. Nor could it even if it purported to do so. Once independent, the people of the former colonies were free to choose whether to form a collective government at all and, if so, whatever form of government they deemed appropriate. They were not somehow limited by anything said in the Declaration. Sure, they could take its words as inspiration and guidance if, and to the extent, they chose–or they could not. They could have formed a theocracy if they wished–or, as they ultimately chose, a government founded on the power of the people (not a deity) and separated from religion.
The Commonality between Leftist Paradigms & Scientific Theories
John R. Houk
© March 13, 2014
Comment to: Returning to a Christian Moral Stand will Perpetuate the USA

Pseudonym: Dougindeap

Edited by John R. Houk

No comments:

Post a Comment