THE PROBLEM WITH HALF AN EYE

Was Darwin Right About the Eye?

Looking down at Greenland from 32,000 feet on my trip from Rome to Seattle, I heard a strange noise in the aircraft that sent my blood pressure soaring into hyperspace. Suddenly I began to wonder what would happen if one tiny part on the enormous Boeing 747 failed. Engines, hydraulics, air pressurization—all were complex systems that worked only when several interdependent parts functioned properly.

In vain I sought comfort in my airline pretzels, but comfort can never be found in low-fat foods. I kept thinking of all those dedicated employees (excuse me: “members of the Boeing family”) shown on the commercials who apparently love nothing more in life than a well-oiled 747 and who perpetually ponder my safety. But the nagging thought still popped into my head: “Just one faulty or missing part and I’d become part of the first bomb ever to be dropped on Greenland.”

In one sense, biological systems are like my Boeing 747: one missing or defective part and they won’t work. Here lies one of the major unanswered problems of biology. How did highly complex, interdependent biological systems like the eye develop slowly over eons of time? They would never have worked until fully developed.

Let’s step back for a minute and think about all this.

Airplanes, automobiles, cell phones, computers, and other complex machines, can always be traced back to a designer. However, with biological systems, materialists (those who believe nothing exists outside of the material world) assume there is some natural process that created such systems.

The real issue here is whether or not a designer is behind such complexity. There are four possibilities:

1. A designer created biological complexity supernaturally

2. A designer created biological complexity through natural processes

3. A designer combined natural processes and supernatural means to create biological complexity

4. A designer doesn’t exist. Complexity came about naturally.

Materialists believe the latter. Scientists who advocate intelligent design generally agree that some super-intelligence is behind it all, even though they leave the nature of a designer to theologians.

Here we must look at the evidence to see which of the possibilities makes the most sense. To determine the best option, we need to look closer at complex biological systems to determine whether they can be explained by natural causes alone

LOOKING AT THE EYE

The human eye is perhaps the best-known example of a complex system that couldn’t just pop up overnight. (“Say, Bill, what’s that thing growing on your face?” “I thought it was acne, but now that you mention it, I think I can see out of it.”)

With the eye we are not merely dealing with complexity, but with hundreds of separate parts that must work together in unison with incredible precision.

Those who study the inner workings of the eye say it operates much like a television camera, but is far more sophisticated. In fact it is more sophisticated than any machine imaginable.

DARWIN'S BIG IDEA

Since the dawn of history, the eye and other complex biological systems had baffled materialists. How could they exist without a designer? However, that changed in 1859 when biologist Charles Darwin published his revolutionary, The Origin of Species. The big idea in Darwin’s book was that life in all its complexity came about by a process he called natural selection. In other words, according to Darwin, no designer is needed. Materialists were elated.

Darwin postulated that natural selection was totally responsible for the complexity of organs like the eye, addressing the issue in a special section entitled, “Organs of Extreme Perfection and Complication.”

In his special section Darwin brilliantly argued that the eye might have developed in any number of ways. His reasoning was that even a partially developed eye would offer a creature some evolutionary advantage.

His explanation for the gradual development of such complex systems certainly had its critics, but by and large his ideas were embraced because they helped to explain a great deal of the observable phenomena of our world.

As the evolutionary movement grew, a great deal of evidence seemed to confirm Darwin’s theory, evidence similar to what you were taught in your high school textbooks. Adaptability, survival of the fittest, and other Darwinian tenets are clearly demonstrable within a given species. Materialist Richard Dawkins remarks of Darwin’s acceptance among most biologists, “Today the theory of evolution is about as much open to doubt as the theory that the earth goes round the sun….”1

As an atheist, Dawkins seems to applaud Darwin as the hero behind a purposeless world of chance. He writes, “Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection is satisfying because it shows us a way in which simplicity could change into complexity, how unordered atoms could group themselves into ever more complex patterns until they ended up manufacturing people. Darwin provides a solution, the only feasible one so far suggested, to the deep problem of our existence.”2

Since Darwin’s theory was birthed in the mid-nineteenth century before the discovery of DNA and the intricacies of how life works at the molecular level, there was no scientific evidence to refute his claims. By the mid-twentieth century, Darwinism had gained widespread acceptance, but mounting evidence persuaded some scientists that his theory was incapable of accounting for life’s intricate complexity.

This led to a series of meetings where scientists from various disciplines attempted to hammer out a coherent and unified theory of evolution. The result was called the “evolutionary synthesis,” also known as Neo-Darwinism.

But as Dr. Michael Behe, associate professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, notes in his book Darwin’s Black Box, “One branch of science was not invited to the meetings [that produced the evolutionary synthesis], and for good reason. It did not yet exist.”3 Behe is referring to his own field of study, biochemistry.

Behe’s field did not begin until later in the century, after the advent of the electron microscope. Yet biochemistry is perhaps the most critical of all the disciplines for this study, because it analyzes life at the cellular level and observes the molecular foundations of living organisms.

If Darwin’s general theory of evolution is a valid explanation of how life can develop wholly apart from outside intelligence, then it must be demonstrated to be operating at the molecular level. But does Darwin’s theory hold up under such scrutiny?

A BETTER MOUSETRAP

Darwin once stated, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”4 Behe’s book, in essence, says, “OK, Charles, take a look at these!” And goes on to cite a handful of examples of what he calls irreducible complexity.

By irreducible complexity, Behe means a single system of interrelated parts, where the absence or failure of any part causes the entire system to non-perform or abort. In the airplane example, it could be a missing wing, rudder, or a defective integral part of the hydraulic system. In the eye, it could be a defective or missing cornea, retina, pupil, optic nerve, etc. All must work in concert for the eye to see.

So how did each of these separate parts evolve together over eons of time? Could the eye have served any purpose without being complete? We are not merely talking about a half-developed eye, but the eye at all its various stages of development throughout hundreds of millions of years (according to Darwin). Darwin himself stated that his theory (that all life is a product of natural processes alone) stands or falls on its ability to explain how an incomplete organ like the eye can benefit a species.

Behe uses a mousetrap as a nonliving example of irreducible complexity. Five basic parts of the trap must work together in order for it to catch mice:

(1) a flat wooden platform
(2) a spring
(3) a sensitive catch that releases when pressure is applied

(4) a metal bar that connects to the catch and holds the hammer back
(5) the hammer that serves as the instrument of death and cruelty for our harmless mouse.

A mousetrap needs each of these parts to kill mice. Each part works interdependently, and so a partially constructed mousetrap serves no function and is worthless.

Behe’s book focuses on a handful of examples, though he states that any biology book contains dozens of them. One of the examples he cites is the microscopic bacterial flagellum, which the bacterium uses as a miniature whip-like rotary motor to propel itself. The flagellum is a swimming device that works similar to a rotary propeller. It is described by Behe like this:

Just picture an outboard motor on a boat and you get a pretty good picture of how the flagellum functions, only the flagellum is far more incredible. The flagellum’s propeller is long and whip-like, made out of a protein called flagellum. This is attached to a drive shaft by hook protein, which acts as a universal joint, allowing the propeller and drive shaft to rotate freely. Several types of protein act as bushing material (like washer/donut) to allow the drive shaft to penetrate the bacterial wall (like the side of a boat) and attach to a rotary motor. … Not only that but the propeller can stop spinning within a quarter turn and instantly start spinning the other direction at 10,000 rpms.5

The flagellum’s molecular motor requires 20 proteins, all working in synchrony, to function. Like the partially constructed mousetrap, the flagellum would be worthless and perish unless all 20 proteins were fully developed.

Dr. Robert Macnab of Yale University detailed the tiny molecular motor of the E. coli flagellum in a 50 page review, concluding that its development cannot be explained by Darwinian evolution. Labeling Darwin’s explanation an “oversimplification,” Macnab questions how a non-functional “preflagellum” could have evolved part by part with each being indispensable to its completed function.7

Another example Behe cites is what he calls “the intracellular transport system” found within cells. The magnified cell in Darwin’s day looked something like an opaque pancake jellyfish with a fuzzy-looking dark spot in the center called the nucleus. It all looked so simple. Only recently, under powerful magnification, have the mysteries of the cell begun to be unveiled.

Molecular biologist Michael Denton uses a similar metaphor to describe the cell’s complexity:

To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design.

On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity.8

But, again, it is not simply complexity; it is irreducible complexity. Going back to Behe’s illustration of the mousetrap, everything must be in place for the system to work. Missing just one component, the whole system is worthless. Behe remarks,

The point of irreducible complexity is…that the trap we’re considering right now needs all of its parts to function. The challenge to Darwinian evolution is to get to my trap by means of numerous, successive slight modifications. You can’t do it. Besides, you’re using your intelligence as you try. Remember, the audacious claim of Darwinian evolution is that it can put together complex systems with no intelligence at all.9

FINGERPRINTS OF A DESIGNER?
Several materialists have taken issue with Behe’s case for irreducible complexity, but none have adequately explained a process by which such complex organs and systems have evolved by mere chance.

Surprised at the sudden maelstrom caused by his book, Behe defends his position in The Boston Review. “The rotary nature of the flagellum has been recognized for about 25 years. During that time not a single paper has been published in the biochemical literature even attempting to show how such a machine might have developed by natural selection.”10

In The Flagellum Unspun, Ken Miller argues against irreducible complexity, labeling Behe and other intelligent design advocates, “unimaginative.”

Dr. William Dembski rebuts Miller’s objection by stating, “The problem is not that we in the intelligent design community…just can’t imagine how those systems arose.…Darwin’s theory, without which nothing in biology is supposed to make sense, in fact offers no insight into how the flagellum arose.”11

James Shapiro, a biochemist at the University of Chicago, concurs, “There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”12

Darwin’s Black Box is a scientific book, not a theological one, but Behe has been joined by a growing number of scientists who claim they see the fingerprints of intelligent design within irreducibly complex biological systems. One of them, cosmologist Alan Sandage has remarked: “The world is too complicated in all its parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone. … The more one learns of biochemistry the more unbelievable it becomes unless there is some type of organizing principle—an architect for believers.”13

EXTREME PERFECTION AND COMPLICATION, INDEED

We began this article by mentioning the objection of the human eye as it was raised and addressed by Darwin. For most people coming to grips with the implications of materialistic evolution, complex structures like the human eye are not simply a hard pill to swallow but rather a chicken bone stuck in the throat. Intuitively, we struggle to imagine how such a structure could slowly develop over time and what use a half-developed eye would serve.

A careful reading of Darwin’s explanation in “Organs of Extreme Perfection and Complication” reveals that he never answers the problem. In fact, regarding how the eye got started, Darwin stated, “How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated.”14

Did Darwin really believe the eye evolved bit by bit over time? Although his theory attempts to explain how it could have happened, many believe Darwin himself was unconvinced. Years after he had written his world-changing theory Darwin admitted to a friend, “The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder.”15 Hmm…

ENDNOTES

1. Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989),1.

2. Ibid.,12.

3. Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box (New York: Free Press, 2003), 24.

4. Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (New York: Bantam Books, 1999), 158.

5. Behe, 22.

6. Quoted in Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), 199.

7. Macnab, R. (1978), “Bacterial Mobility and Chemotaxis: The Molecular Biology of a Behavioral System,” CRC Critical Reviews in Biochemistry, vol. 5, issue 4, Dec., 291-341.

8. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Chevy Chase, MD, Adler & Adler, 1986), 328.

9. Quoted in Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator, 199.

10. Michael Behe, “The Sterility of Darwinism,” Boston Review, February/March 1997.

11. William Dembski, “Still Spinning Just Fine: A Response to Ken Miller”, William [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] 2.17.03, v.1.01.

12. James Shapiro, “In the details …what?” National Review, (September 16, 1996), 62-65.

13. Alan Sandage, “A Scientist Reflects on Religious Belief,” Truth: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Christian Thought, Vol. 1, (1985).

14. Darwin, 156.

15. Charles Darwin (1860) in letter to Asa Gray, F. Darwin, ed., The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, vol, 2, (London: John Murray, 1888), 273.

Mengingat Darwin juga "dituduh" kaki tangan Lucifer dalam Teori Konspirasi, dan Teori Konspirasi ada hubungannya dengan "One Eye", baik itu Freemanson dan Illuminati, bagaimana kalau masalah Teori Konspirasi kita bahas disini saja?

*menunggu ijin dari pemilik thread*

St Yopi wrote:

Mengingat Darwin juga "dituduh" kaki tangan Lucifer dalam Teori Konspirasi, dan Teori Konspirasi ada hubungannya dengan "One Eye", baik itu Freemanson dan Illuminati, bagaimana kalau masalah Teori Konspirasi kita bahas disini saja?

*menunggu ijin dari pemilik thread*

Teori konspirasi? He he he he, jadi ingat seseorang di forum sebelah.

Untuk ijin, sepertinya tidak diperlukan, berhubung yang mengusulkan adalah romo penguasa forum, he he he, silahkan mo.

St Yopi wrote:

Mengingat Darwin juga "dituduh" kaki tangan Lucifer dalam Teori Konspirasi, dan Teori Konspirasi ada hubungannya dengan "One Eye", baik itu Freemanson dan Illuminati, bagaimana kalau masalah Teori Konspirasi kita bahas disini saja?

*menunggu ijin dari pemilik thread*

Benar-benar rendah hati. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

bruce wrote:

St Yopi wrote:

Mengingat Darwin juga "dituduh" kaki tangan Lucifer dalam Teori Konspirasi, dan Teori Konspirasi ada hubungannya dengan "One Eye", baik itu Freemanson dan Illuminati, bagaimana kalau masalah Teori Konspirasi kita bahas disini saja?

*menunggu ijin dari pemilik thread*

Teori konspirasi? He he he he, jadi ingat seseorang di forum sebelah.

Untuk ijin, sepertinya tidak diperlukan, berhubung yang mengusulkan adalah romo penguasa forum, he he he, silahkan mo.

Husada wrote:

St Yopi wrote:

Mengingat Darwin juga "dituduh" kaki tangan Lucifer dalam Teori Konspirasi, dan Teori Konspirasi ada hubungannya dengan "One Eye", baik itu Freemanson dan Illuminati, bagaimana kalau masalah Teori Konspirasi kita bahas disini saja?

*menunggu ijin dari pemilik thread*

Benar-benar rendah hati. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Terima kasih mo, kita mulai dari Ray of light atau Freemanson?

wah sepertinya teori konspirasi seru jg nih.. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
ayooo teman2, dilanjutkan penjelasannya.. sy ikut menyimak aj deh..
eeh yg mau dibahas itu teori konspirasi yg bener ada sejarahnya ato yg berdasarkan cerita2 fiksi macem karangannya Dan Brown itu ya..?
tp gpp deh, mau yg beneran ada sejarahnya ato cm yg berdasarkan cerita fiksi biar dibahas sekalian, namanya jg 'konspirasi' pasti bakal sulit dicarikan bukti/fakta2nya.. sebab klo ada buktinya maka itu bukan konspirasi lg namanya..
hehehehehehe [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Iluminati, Freemansory, itu real ada koq bro. Cuma tidak seperti kisah di buku karangan Dan Brown itu.

Saya tunggu romo Yopi posting dulu deh.

bruce wrote:

Iluminati, Freemansory, itu real ada koq bro. Cuma tidak seperti kisah di buku karangan Dan Brown itu.

Saya tunggu romo Yopi posting dulu deh.

Betul sekali bro, Iluminati, Freemanson dan Ordo Knight of Templar memang real ada organisasinya..
namun yg jd masalahkan apa benar ada "Teori Konspirasi" dlm organisasi2 tsb, seperti yg jd 'gunjingkan' selama ini atau layaknya kisah yg ada dlm Novel2 karangan Dan Brown itu bro..?

Ok, silahkan dilanjut deh bro, dan klo bisa sih sekalian dipaparkan lebih dulu ttg sejarah2 terbentuknya organisasi2 itu dan siapa2 aj orang dibalik pendiriannya, berikut tujuan mereka mendirikan organisasi2 tsb..
monggo dilanjuuut.... [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Menyimak saja. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Lho .... mana teori konspirasi nya.



[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

loh kok ini pd saling menunggu postingan sih..?? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
ayoo bro Bruce silahkan dimulai aj, romo Yopi mungkin masih sibuk dlm pelayanannya..
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Quote :

Illuminati adalah sebuah organisasi persaudaraan rahasia kuno yang pernah ada dan diyakini masih tetap ada sampai sekarang, walaupun tidak ditemukan bukti - bukti nyata tentang keberadaan organisasi persaudaraan ini sampai saat ini. Kata Illuminati dapat diterjemahkan sebagai "Pencerahan Baru". Para pengikut Illuminati disebut "Illuminatus", yang berarti "Yang Tercerahkan". Illuminati sebelumnya bernama Ordo Perfectibilists, yang didirikan oleh Adam Weishaupt (1748-1811), seorang keturunan Yahudi yang lahir dan besar di Ingolstadt, dan memiliki latar belakang pendidikan sebagai seorang Jesuit. Adam Weishaupt lalu menjadi seorang pendeta Katolik dan selanjutnya mengorganisasi House of Rothschild. Pada perkembangan selanjutnya, ia beserta organisasi yang dipimpinnya, Illuminati, memiliki pandangan-pandangan yang menyimpang (bid'ah) dari ajaran resmi gereja Katolik, sehingga ia diekskomunikasi (dilarang mengajarkan pahamnya) oleh gereja dan dikeluarkan dari kelompok gereja kristiani-Katolik. Illuminatus adalah individu - individu yang mencari jawaban dan penjelasan rasional dengan apa yang disebut "Agama sebagai misteri Tuhan". Menurut mereka, dengan penjelasan logis ilmu pengetahuan tidak ada lagi misteri Tuhan karena semua ada jawabannya.
Dalam novel "Angels and Demon" karya Dan Brown; Salah seorang Illuminatus yang terkenal adalah Galileo Galilei, seorang ahli antropologi yang dihukum pancung oleh gereja akibat membuat pernyataan bahwa pusat alam semesta bukan bumi, melainkan matahari. Pernyataan tersebut dianggap menyinggung gereja, karena secara tidak langsung menyatakan bahwa Tuhan dengan sengaja menempatkan pusat kehidupan di planet lain. Dalil Galilei tersebut juga sekaligus membantah doktrin gereja pada saat itu bahwa Bumi berbentuk datar. Sejak saat itu Illuminatus terus diburu oleh para kaum gereja. Saat pihak geraja menenmkan anggota Illuminati, mereka ditangkap lalu diberi cap salib di dada mereka, baru kemudian dibunuh. Anggota Illuminati kemudian bergerak dari bawah tanah sebagai sebuah kelompok rahasia yang paling dicari oleh gereja. Para Illuminatus yang melarikan diri kemudian bertemu dengan kelompok rahasia lainnya yaitu kelompok ahli batu yang bernama Freemasonry atau lebih sering disebut sebagai kelompok Mason.

dikutip dari katholiksesat.blogspot.com/2010/10/lambang-iblis-illuminati-dalam-katholik.html

Mengenai Illuminati
Saya mulai deh, diambil dari website anti Katolik ....

Silahkan

Quote :

diambil dari website anti Katolik ....

bruce wrote:

Quote :

diambil dari website anti Katolik ....

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Heheheee....
Kalo informasinya salah ..... silahkan Mod Bruce jelaskan Illuminati yang sebenarnya.



[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Quote :

1. Tentang Illuminati

Jika kita melihat apa yang dicatat oleh sejarah dan keadaan sekarang, maka saya setuju bahwa nama Illuminati ini memang mengacu kepada lebih dari satu kelompok, baik kelompok yang benar- benar ada dalam sejarah maupun yang konon ada (fiktif), yang memang harus dibuktikan lebih lanjut:

1. Kelompok Illuminati, dikenal dengan nama Bavarian Illuminati, didirikan pada abad ke- 18 (1 May 1776) dan kelompok ini sudah tidak eksis lagi.

2. Kelompok Illuminati di jaman modern yang sering dihubungkan dengan gerakan New World Order, yang mengambil banyak paham dari New Age Movement.

1. Bavarian Illuminati.
Kelompok ini didirikan oleh Adam Weishaupt (1748- 1830) yang adalah orang awam pertama yang mengajar Kitab Hukum Kanonik di Universitas Ingolstadt. Walaupun ia mengecap pendidikan di sekolah Jesuit, namun ia banyak terpengauh oleh ayah angkatnya tang adalah seorang freethinker. Pemikirannya yang mengangungkan rasio mempengaruhi murid- muridnya, dan bahkan membawanya kepada pertentangan dengan jemaat yang setia kepada pengajaran Gereja, dan kepada pejabat pemerintahan.

Pertentangan yang dihadapinya demi mempertahankan ideologi rasio ini kemudian menghantar Weishaupt untuk bergabung dengan Freemasons (1774). Namun beberapa tahun kemudian, ia memisahkan diri dari Freemasonry, dan mendirikan “Illuminates Freemasons” bersama seorang Freemason yang lain yang bernama Frieherr von Knigge. Prinsip yang dianutnya adalah menomorsatukan science, sehingga melihat keselamatan manusia dicapai melalui “kebebasan dan persamaan”, melalui “illumination”/ penerangan, kasih, persaudaraan dan toleransi, yang bertujuan menghapuskan perbedaan bangsa dan agama.

Illuminati mengambil banyak anggotanya dari Freemasonary. Keanggotaan Illuminati meluas di tahun 1783, namun tahun 1784, Knigge meninggalkan Weishaupt karena tidak dapat menerima gaya Weishaupt yang dominan. Perlu diketahui bahwa karena adanya kecenderungan anarkis dari kelompok ini maka pemerintah Bavaria turun tangan, sampai ke tahap pelarangan untuk menjadi anggotanya dengan hukuman mati. Ajaran kelompok ini, yang menekankan kepada “enlightememnt” dikecam oleh Paus Pius VI, dalam suratnya kepada Uskup Freising (1785). Setelah tahun 1787, Weishaupt tidak lagi aktif dalam kegiatannya rahasianya di Illuminati, dan kembali mendekatkan diri pada Gereja. Ia wafat tgl 18 November 1830, setelah kembali ke Gereja Katolik.


2. Kelompok Illuminati di jaman modern.

Keberadaan kelompok ini sepertinya masih menjadi perdebatan, demikian juga dengan anggapan bahwa kelompok ini berkaitan dengan New World Order. Namun jika kita membaca ringkasan informasi tentang banyak teori mengenai hal ini, maka terlihat bahwa kelompok yang memakai nama Illuminati ini, memegang prinsip- prinsip ajaran New Age Movement, sehingga dapat dikatakan bahwa kelompok ini tidak ada kaitannya dengan Gereja Katolik, sebab Gereja Katolik menentang ajaran New Age Movement

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Quote :

Setelah tahun 1787, Weishaupt tidak lagi aktif dalam kegiatannya
rahasianya di Illuminati, dan kembali mendekatkan diri pada Gereja. Ia
wafat tgl 18 November 1830, setelah kembali ke Gereja Katolik.

Syukurlah ia kembali ke pangkuan Bunda Gereja......

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]


Jadi sebenarnya Adam ini seorang universalis ya.

sepertinya sumber dr bro Bruce diatas lebih dapat dipercaya keabsahannya..
klo yg dr bro Cinzan berikan mungkin krn bersumber dr website anti Katolik, jd terbawa kpd info yg ada dlm Novelnya Dan Brown itu bro.. masa disitu dikatakan bhw Organisasi Iluminati didirikan pd thn 1740an, ttp dibilang Galileo Galilei adlh salah satu anggotanya yg terkenal, sedangkan Galileo sendiri meninggal pd thn 1640an di Siena, Italy.. mana mungkin ada anggota ikut serta sebelum organisasi itu terbentuk..?
lg pula setahu sy Galileo itu meninggal krn sakit, bukan krn dipancung bro.. memang dia sempat dihukum utk dikucilkan (dlm artian dia dilarang menyebarkan ajarannya) ol pihak Gereja Katolik, sebelum dia dpt menciptakan alat yg dpt membuktikan teori2nya itu, tp sampai dia wafat Galileo belum bisa membuktikan kebenaran teorinya..
tp walau begitu akhirnya pd Desember 2008, Paus Benedictus XVI membersihkan namanya yg sempat tercoreng dan menganggapnya sbg seorang ilmuan..
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

to bro Bruce,

Quote :

Namun jika kita membaca ringkasan informasi tentang banyak teori mengenai hal ini, maka terlihat bahwa kelompok yang memakai nama Illuminati ini, memegang prinsip- prinsip ajaran New Age Movement, sehingga dapat dikatakan bahwa kelompok ini tidak ada kaitannya dengan Gereja Katolik, sebab Gereja Katolik menentang ajaran New Age Movement

bisakah tolong dijelaskan, ajaran2 apa aj dlm gerakan New Age Movement yg ditentang ol GRK..??
apakah benar, gerakan NAM ini jg sering dihubungkan dgn gerakan New World Order yg akhirnya jg sbg cikal-bakal munculnya gereja2 beraliran protestant..?

Thanx atas penjelasan yg bro Bruce berikan..

Syalom, [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

New Age Movement

The New Age movement is a Western spiritual movement that developed in the second half of the 20th century. Its central precepts have been described as "drawing on both Eastern and Western spiritual and metaphysical traditions and infusing them with influences from self-help and motivational psychology, holistic health, parapsychology, consciousness research and quantum physics".[2] The term New Age refers to the coming astrological Age of Aquarius.[1]

The New Age aims to create "a spirituality without borders or confining dogmas" that is inclusive and pluralistic.[3] It holds to "a holistic worldview",[4] emphasising that the Mind, Body and Spirit are interrelated[1] and that there is a form of monism and unity throughout the universe.[5] It attempts to create "a worldview that includes both science and spirituality"[6] and embraces a number of forms of mainstream science as well as other forms of science that are considered fringe.

The origins of the movement can be found in Medieval astrology and alchemy, such as the writings of Paracelsus, in Renaissance interests in Hermeticism, in 18th century mysticism, such as that of Emanuel Swedenborg, and in beliefs in animal magnetism espoused by Franz Mesmer. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, authors such as Godfrey Higgins and the esotericists Eliphas Levi, Helena Blavatsky, and George Gurdjieff articulated specific histories, cosmologies, and some of the basic philosophical principles that would influence the movement. It experienced a revival as a result of the work of individuals such as Alice Bailey and organizations such as the Theosophical Society. It gained further momentum in the 1960s, taking influence from metaphysics, perennial philosophy, self-help psychology, and the various Indian gurus who visited the West during that decade.[7] In the 1970s, it developed a social and political component.[8]

The New Age movement includes elements of older spiritual and religious traditions ranging from Monotheism through Pantheism, Pandeism, Panentheism, and Polytheism combined with Science and Gaia philosophy; particularly Archaeoastronomy, Astronomy, Ecology, Environmentalism, the Gaia hypothesis, UFO religions, Psychology, and Physics.

New Age practices and philosophies sometimes draw inspiration from major world religions: Buddhism, Taoism, Chinese folk religion, Christianity, Hinduism, Sufism, Judaism (especially Kabbalah), Sikhism; with strong influences from East Asian religions, Gnosticism, Hermeticism, Neopaganism, New Thought, Spiritualism, Theosophy, Universalism, Esotericism, and Wisdom tradition.[9]

dst..... [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

New World Order

Sepertinya harus dipisahkan antara New World Order dalam artian politik, dan New World Order dalam pengertian konspirasi.


New world order (politics)

The term "new world order" has been used to refer to any new period of history evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power. Despite various interpretations of this term, it is primarily associated with the ideological notion of global governance only in the sense of new collective efforts to identify, understand, or address worldwide problems that go beyond the capacity of individual nation-states to solve.

One of the first and most well known Western usages of the term surrounded Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points and call for a League of Nations following the devastation of World War I. The phrase was used sparingly at the end of World War II when describing the plans for the United Nations and Bretton Woods system, in part because of the negative association to the failed League of Nations the phrase would have brought. However, many commentators have applied the term retroactively to the order put in place by the World War II victors as a "new world order."

The most widely discussed application of the phrase of recent times came at the end of the Cold War. Presidents Mikhail Gorbachev and George H. W. Bush used the term to try to define the nature of the post Cold War era, and the spirit of great power cooperation that they hoped might materialize. Gorbachev's initial formulation was wide ranging and idealistic, but his ability to press for it was severely limited by the internal crisis of the Soviet system. Bush's vision was, in comparison, much more circumscribed and realistic, perhaps even instrumental at times, and closely linked to the Gulf War.

The phrase "new world order" was explicitly used in connection with Woodrow Wilson's designs in the period just after World War I, during the formation of the League of Nations. "The war to end war" had been a powerful catalyst in international politics, and many felt the world could simply no longer operate as it once had. The first world war had been justified not only in terms of U.S. national interest but in moral terms—to "make the world safe for democracy." After the war, Wilson argued for a new world order which transcended traditional great power politics, instead emphasizing collective security, democracy, and self-determination. However, the United States Senate rejected membership of the League of Nations, which Wilson believed to be the key to a new world order. Senator Henry Cabot Lodge argued that American policy should be based on human nature "as it is, not as it ought to be."[1]

The term fell from use when it became clear the League was not living up to the over-optimistic expectation, and as a consequence was used very little during the formation of the United Nations. Former UN Secretary General Kurt Waldheim felt that this new world order was a projection of the American dream into Europe, and that, in its naïveté, the idea of a new order had been used to further the parochial interests of Lloyd George and Clemenceau, thus ensuring the League's eventual failure.[2] Although some have claimed the phrase was not used at all, Virginia Gildersleeve, the sole female delegate to the San Francisco Conference in April 1945, did use it in an interview with the New York Times.[citation needed]

The phrase was used by some in retrospect when assessing the creation of the post–World War II set of international institutions: the United Nations; the U.S. security alliances such as NATO; the Bretton Woods system of the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development; and even the Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan were seen as characterizing or comprising this new order.[citation needed]

H.G. Wells wrote a book published in 1940 entitled The New World Order. The book addressed the ideal of a world without war in which law and order emanated from a world governing body and examined various proposals and ideas.


dst....... [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

New World Order (conspiracy theory)

As a conspiracy theory, the term New World Order or NWO refers to the emergence of a totalitarian one-world government.[2][3][4][5][6]

The common theme in conspiracy theories about a New World Order is that a secretive power elite with a globalist agenda is conspiring to eventually rule the world through an authoritarian world government—which replaces sovereign nation-states—and an all-encompassing propaganda that ideologizes its establishment as the culmination of history's progress. Significant occurrences in politics and finance are speculated to be orchestrated by an unduly influential cabal operating through many front organizations. Numerous historical and current events are seen as steps in an on-going plot to achieve world domination through secret political gatherings and decision-making processes.[2][3][4][5][6]

Prior to the early 1990s, New World Order conspiracism was limited to two American countercultures, primarily the militantly anti-government right, and secondarily fundamentalist Christians concerned with end-time emergence of the Antichrist.[7] Skeptics, such as Michael Barkun and Chip Berlet, have observed that right-wing populist conspiracy theories about a New World Order have now not only been embraced by many seekers of stigmatized knowledge but have seeped into popular culture, thereby inaugurating an unrivaled period of people actively preparing for apocalyptic millenarian scenarios in the United States of the late 20th and early 21st centuries.[3][5] These political scientists are concerned that this mass hysteria could have what they judge to be devastating effects on American political life, ranging from widespread political alienation to escalating lone-wolf terrorism.[3][5]

During the 20th century, many statesmen, such as Woodrow Wilson and Winston Churchill, used the term "new world order" to refer to a new period of history evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power after World War I and World War II. They all saw these periods as opportunities to implement idealistic proposals for global governance in the sense of new collective efforts to address worldwide problems that go beyond the capacity of individual nation-states to solve, while always respecting the right of nations to self-determination. These proposals led to the creation of international organizations, such as the United Nations and NATO, and international regimes, such as the Bretton Woods system and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which were calculated both to maintain a balance of power in favor of the United States as well as regularize cooperation between nations, in order to achieve a peaceful phase of capitalism. These creations in particular and liberal internationalism in general, however, would always be criticized and opposed by American ultraconservative business nationalists from the 1930s on.[8]

Progressives welcomed these new international organizations and regimes in the aftermath of the two World Wars, but argued they suffered from a democratic deficit and therefore were inadequate to not only prevent another global war but also foster global justice. The United Nations was designed in 1945 by U.S. bankers and State Department planners, and was always intended to remain a free association of sovereign nation-states, not a transition to democratic world government. Thus, activists around the globe formed a world federalist movement hoping in vain to create a "real" new world order.[9]

British writer and futurist H. G. Wells would go further than progressives in the 1940s by appropriating and redefining the term "new world order" as a synonym for the establishment of a technocratic world state and planned economy.[10] Despite the popularity of his ideas in some state socialist circles, Wells failed to exert a deeper and more lasting influence because he was unable to concentrate his energies on a direct appeal to intelligentsias who would, ultimately, have to coordinate a Wellsian new world order.[11]

During the Red Scare of 1947–1957, agitators of the American secular and Christian right, influenced by the work of Canadian conspiracy theorist William Guy Carr, increasingly embraced and spread unfounded fears of Freemasons, Illuminati, and Jews being the driving force behind an "international communist conspiracy". The threat of "Godless communism" in the form of a state atheistic and bureaucratic collectivist world government, demonized as a "Red Menace", therefore became the main focus of apocalyptic millenarian conspiracism. The Red Scare would shape one of the core ideas of the political right in the United States which is that liberals and progressives with their welfare-state policies and international cooperation programs such as foreign aid supposedly contribute to a gradual process of collectivism that will inevitably lead to nations being replaced with a communist one-world government.[12]

Right-wing populist advocacy groups with a producerist worldview, such as the John Birch Society, disseminated a multitude of conspiracy theories in the 1960s claiming that the governments of both the United States and the Soviet Union were controlled by a cabal of corporate internationalists, greedy bankers and corrupt politicians intent on using the United Nations as the vehicle to create the "One World Government". This right-wing anti-globalist conspiracism would fuel the Bircher campaign for U.S. withdrawal from the U.N.. American writer Mary M. Davison, in her 1966 booklet The Profound Revolution, traced the alleged New World Order conspiracy to the creation of the U.S. Federal Reserve System in 1913 by international bankers, who she claimed later formed the Council on Foreign Relations in 1921 as the shadow government. At the time the booklet was published, "international bankers" would have been interpreted by many readers as a reference to a postulated "international Jewish banking conspiracy" masterminded by the Rothschilds.[12]

Claiming that the term "New World Order" is used by a secretive elite dedicated to the destruction of all national sovereignties, American writer Gary Allen, in his 1971 book None Dare Call It Conspiracy, 1974 book Rockefeller: Campaigning for the New World Order and 1987 book Say "No!" to the New World Order, articulated the anti-globalist theme of much current right-wing populist conspiracism in the U.S.. Thus, after the fall of communism in the early 1990s, the main demonized scapegoat of the American far right shifted seamlessly from crypto-communists who plotted on behalf of the Red Menace to globalists who plot on behalf of the New World Order. The relatively painless nature of the shift was due to growing right-wing populist opposition to corporate internationalism but also in part to the basic underlying apocalyptic millenarian paradigm, which fed the Cold War and the witch-hunts of the McCarthy period.[12]

In his 11 September 1990 Toward a New World Order speech to a joint session of the U.S. Congress, President George H. W. Bush described his objectives for post-Cold-War global governance in cooperation with post-Soviet states:

Until now, the world we’ve known has been a world divided—a world of barbed wire and concrete block, conflict and cold war. Now, we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is the very real prospect of a new world order. In the words of Winston Churchill, a "world order" in which "the principles of justice and fair play ... protect the weak against the strong ..." A world where the United Nations, freed from cold war stalemate, is poised to fulfill the historic vision of its founders. A world in which freedom and respect for human rights find a home among all nations.

The New York Times observed that progressives were denouncing this new world order as a rationalization for American imperial ambitions in the Middle East, while conservatives rejected new security arrangements altogether and fulminated about any possibility of U.N. revival.[13] However, Chip Berlet, an American investigative reporter specializing in the study of right-wing movements in the U.S., writes:

When President Bush announced his new foreign policy would help build a New World Order, his phrasing surged through the Christian and secular hard right like an electric shock, since the phrase had been used to represent the dreaded collectivist One World Government for decades. Some Christians saw Bush as signaling the End Times betrayal by a world leader. Secular anticommunists saw a bold attempt to smash US sovereignty and impose a tyrannical collectivist system run by the United Nations.[12]

American televangelist Pat Robertson with his 1991 best-selling book The New World Order became the most prominent Christian popularizer of conspiracy theories about recent American history as a theater in which Wall Street, the Federal Reserve System, Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg Group, and Trilateral Commission control the flow of events from behind the scenes, nudging us constantly and covertly in the direction of world government for the Antichrist.[5]

Observers note that the galvanization of right-wing populist conspiracy theorists, such as Linda Thompson, Mark Koernke and Robert K. Spear, into militancy led to the rise of the militia movement, which spread its anti-government ideology through speeches at rallies and meetings, through books and videotapes sold at gun shows, through shortwave and satellite radio, and through fax networks and computer bulletin boards.[12] However, overnight AM radio shows and viral propaganda on the Internet is what most effectively contributed to their extremist political ideas about the New World Order finding their way into the previously apolitical literature of many Kennedy assassinologists, ufologists, lost land theorists, and, most recently, occultists. The worldwide appeal of these subcultures then transmitted New World Order conspiracism like a "mind virus" to a large new audience of seekers of stigmatized knowledge from the mid-1990s on.[5] Hollywood conspiracy-thriller televisions shows and films also played a role in introducing a vast popular audience to various fringe theories related to New World Order conspiracism (black helicopter, FEMA “concentration camps”, etc.), which were previously confined to radical right-wing subcultures for decades. The 1993-2002 television series X-Files, the 1997 film Conspiracy Theory and the 1998 film The X-Files: Fight the Future are often cited as notable examples.[5]

Following the start of the 21st century, specifically during the late-2000s financial crisis, many politicians and pundits, such as Gordon Brown,[14] and Henry Kissinger,[15] used the term "new world order" in their advocacy for a comprehensive reform of the global financial system and their calls for a "New Bretton Woods", which takes into account emerging markets such as China and India. These declarations had the unintended consequence of providing fresh fodder for New World Order conspiracism, and culminated in talk show host Sean Hannity stating on his Fox News Channel program Hannity that "conspiracy theorists were right".[16] Fox News in general, and its opinion show Glenn Beck in particular, have been repeatedly criticized by progressive media watchdog groups for not only mainstreaming the New World Order conspiracy theories of the radical right but possibly agitating its lone wolves into action.[17][18][19][20]

American film directors Luke Meyer and Andrew Neel released New World Order in 2009, a critically acclaimed documentary film which explores the world of conspiracy theorists, such as American radio host Alex Jones, who are committed to exposing and vigorously opposing what they perceive to be an emerging New World Order.[21] The growing dissemination and popularity of conspiracy theories has created an alliance between right-wing populist agitators, such as Alex Jones, and hip hop music’s left-wing populist rappers, such as KRS-One, Professor Griff of Public Enemy, and Immortal Technique, which illustrates how anti-elitist conspiracism creates unlikely political allies in efforts to oppose the political system.[22]

Conspiracy theories

There are numerous systemic conspiracy theories through which the concept of a New World Order is viewed. The following is a list of the major ones in relatively chronological order:[23]

End Time
Since the 19th century, many apocalyptic millennial Christian eschatologists, starting with John Nelson Darby, have feared a globalist conspiracy to impose a tyrannical New World Order as the fulfillment of prophecies about the "end time" in the Bible, specifically in the Book of Ezekiel, the Book of Daniel, the Olivet discourse found in the Synoptic Gospels, and the Book of Revelation.[24] They claim that people who have made a deal with the Devil to gain wealth and power have become pawns in a supernatural chess game to move humanity into accepting a utopian world government, which rests on the spiritual foundations of a syncretic-messianic world religion, that will later reveal itself to be a dystopian world empire, which imposes the imperial cult of an “Unholy Trinity” — Satan, the Antichrist and the False Prophet. In many contemporary Christian conspiracy theories, the False Prophet will either be the last pope of the Catholic Church (groomed and installed by an Alta Vendita or Jesuit conspiracy) or a guru from the New Age movement or even the leader of an elite fundamentalist Christian organization like the Fellowship, while the Antichrist will either be the president of the European Union or the secretary-general of the United Nations or even the caliph of a pan-Islamic state.[5][24]

Some of the most vocal critics of end-time conspiracy theories come from within Christianity.[12] In 1993, historian Bruce Barron wrote a stern rebuke of apocalyptic Christian conspiracism in the Christian Research Journal, when reviewing Robertson's 1991 book The New World Order.[25] Another critique can be found in historian Gregory S. Camp's 1997 book Selling Fear: Conspiracy Theories and End-Times Paranoia.[2] Religious studies scholar Richard T. Hughes argues that "New World Order" rhetoric libels the Christian faith since the "New World Order", as defined by Christian conspiracy theorists, has no basis in the Bible whatsoever and that, in fact, this idea is not only unbiblical; it is anti-biblical and fundamentally anti-Christian because, by misinterpreting key passages in the Book of Revelation, it turns a comforting message about the coming kingdom of God into one of fear, panic and despair in the face of an allegedly approaching one-world government.[24] Progressive Christians, such as preacher-theologian Peter J. Gomes, caution Christian fundamentalists that a "spirit of fear" can distort scripture and history by dangerously combining biblical literalism, apocalyptic timetables, demonization, and oppressive prejudices;[26][27] while Camp warns of the "very real danger that Christians could pick up some extra spiritual baggage" by credulously embracing conspiracy theories.[2] They therefore call on Christians who indulge in conspiracism to repent.[28][29]

dst semakin aneh ....... [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


He he he he

Pada awalnya, konspirasi antikris dimulai sejak dunia dijadikan, yaitu ketika Adam jatuh dalam dosa, setelah istrinya Hawa digoda oleh Lucifer.

Inilah gerekan perlawanan secara nyata antikris kepada Tuhan Allah!

Setelah, mulailah gerakan antikris berlanjut, yaitu dengan mendirikan Menara Babel, kemudian pada jaman Nuh dan berlanjut pada saat Sodom dan Gomora dan tentu saja sampai abad modern saat ini.

Ini belum terhitung legenda, mitos maupun cerita budaya atau agama non Kristen yang tidak mempunyai jejak rekam dalam Alkitab seperti Mahabharata, Bharatayuda, Suku Maya dll

Semuanya mempunyai ciri khas yang sama, yaitu mencapai tingkat kebudayaan atau kemampuan sains yang mengangumkan!

Bersambung....

Ditunggu sambungannya min

Kita lanjutkan konspirasi antikris dari kejatuhan Adam, kita sampai pada sejak anak-anak Allah mendekati anak-anak Manusia:

4 Pada waktu itu orang-orang raksasa ada di bumi, dan juga pada waktu sesudahnya, ketika anak-anak Allah menghampiri anak-anak perempuan manusia, dan perempuan-perempuan itu melahirkan anak bagi mereka; inilah orang-orang yang gagah perkasa di zaman purbakala, orang-orang yang kenamaan.

Mereka, sering ditafsirkan sebagai "The Fallen Angels", yang kemudian meneruskan konspirasi antikris selanjutnya:

5 Ketika dilihat TUHAN, bahwa kejahatan manusia besar di bumi dan bahwa segala kecenderungan hatinya selalu membuahkan kejahatan semata-mata,

Mereka, anak-anak Allah atau "The Fallen Angels", kemudian mendirikan agama Kabbalah, agama leluhur Yahudi yang lebih dominan pada penyembahan terhadap kekuatan sihir (selalu ingin menjadi sama dengan Tuhan Allah)!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Inilah cikal bakal gerakan antikris, inilah konspirasi antikris yang dimulai justru dari bangsa Yahudi sendiri melalui Kabbalah, yang kemudian nantinya diikuti oleh sekte Kristen sesat dan agama lainnya termasuk Islam, yang menjadi musuh Gereja Katolik!

18 Anak-anakku, waktu ini adalah waktu yang terakhir, dan seperti yang telah kamu dengar, seorang antikristus akan datang, sekarang telah bangkit banyak antikristus. Itulah tandanya, bahwa waktu ini benar-benar adalah waktu yang terakhir.
19 Memang mereka berasal dari antara kita, tetapi mereka tidak sungguh-sungguh termasuk pada kita; sebab jika mereka sungguh-sungguh termasuk pada kita, niscaya mereka tetap bersama-sama dengan kita. Tetapi hal itu terjadi, supaya menjadi nyata, bahwa tidak semua mereka sungguh-sungguh termasuk pada kita.
22 Siapakah pendusta itu? Bukankah dia yang menyangkal bahwa Yesus adalah Kristus? Dia itu adalah antikristus, yaitu dia yang menyangkal baik Bapa maupun Anak.
23 Sebab barangsiapa menyangkal Anak, ia juga tidak memiliki Bapa. Barangsiapa mengaku Anak, ia juga memiliki Bapa.
26 Semua itu kutulis kepadamu, yaitu mengenai orang-orang yang berusaha menyesatkan kamu.
27 Sebab di dalam diri kamu tetap ada pengurapan yang telah kamu terima dari pada-Nya. Karena itu tidak perlu kamu diajar oleh orang lain. Tetapi sebagaimana pengurapan-Nya mengajar kamu tentang segala sesuatu--dan pengajaran-Nya itu benar, tidak dusta--dan sebagaimana Ia dahulu telah mengajar kamu, demikianlah hendaknya kamu tetap tinggal di dalam Dia.

Bersambung...

Siiiiip mod, min, lanjuuuut

Sippp

Prof. Yopi ......... lanjuttt ..........



[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]