Why don't I?

Because a word to the wise is sufficient.

I occasionally provide nuggets of wisdom for those who recognize it as such. For those who don't, I can't help, neither will I persuade.

Why won't I persuade?

Because this kind of person is not interested in evidence. They are interested in finding answers that support their prejudices.

You've heard me say "know yourself" many times.

I say this often because until we know ourselves, we don't know how easy it is for us to delude ourselves into accepting (believing) false ideas simply because they are appealing to our emotions, and if we don't know this, then we are quite guaranteed to gain a faith in false ideas without realizing they are false—self delusion.

Meanwhile others, who do know themselves, easily avoid this trap because they are aware of it, that is, they know themselves.

Another fascinating attribute of self delusion is that you don't really need solid evidence to support it. Depending on a person's "perception of power", you need only one of two things to enter into this kind of self delusion and hence accept false ideas:

(1) ideas are sufficiently complex so as to be "scientific-sounding" so that they "feel" like evidence, or

(2) the belief ("feeling") that a sufficient number of others believe it, so that it (the belief) feels "safe".

Evolution offers both of these, and hence, quickly draws into itself, a myriad of people who know themselves less well than did Aldous Huxley.

The second point is easy to disarm because there are many well-documented majority-held ideas in history that turned out to be false; So there really isn't safety in numbers, particularly when you are dealing with intellectual ideas.

The first point is difficult to disarm because the victim of the false idea is unable to grasp the complexity of the alleged "evidence" and therefore is unable to see the invalidity of it (in fact, they don't want to see the invalidity of it). This then provides the naive person (a person who does not know themself) the perfect excuse to believe the false idea without looking foolish. They avoid looking foolish because the majority of their peers are also unable to grasp the complexity of the alleged "evidence" and therefore are unable to see the invalidity of it, and therefore the idea becomes potentially mainstream, no matter how invalid it is. When the idea becomes mainstream, the naive person feels protected by the sheer numbers who share the false idea.

This is how it works, but there are other attributes of this continuing process that are clearly evident in you.

People who don't know themselves often don't quit at a faith in evolution, they continue on to propose the likewise blind acceptance of other eccentric religious ideas, ideas such as those you've proposed on this very system.

Coming from my point of experience, I look at your path and your faith-based reasoning and see not only where it originated, but where it is going, and this is easy to see because I know things about you that you don't know about yourself, as do the ones who incessantly promote the evolution-myth.

You see Linda, there is a good reason to get to know yourself, for only then will you understand the potential you have for self-delusion, that is, accepting ideas even though you don't understand them, yet accepting them for the same purpose as Aldous Huxley.

The difference with Aldous was that—unlike most evolutionists today—he knew himself well enough to be honest about his motives.


[color:"brown"]"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, [color:"blue"]purposely overlook reality[/color] and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."[/color]

—Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.