I present the following proposition for consideration: “Every human being has infinite value and therefore one can never justify killing a human being on the ground that killing that human results in a net overall increase in pleasure even for the human in question.” What reasoning could possibly warrant believing this proposition to be true? Let’s Read More…
How does Gleiser know that aliens “weird as they might be, still follow the laws of nature”
Why does anyone think that, in general, violence in the world is decreasing? What about the twentieth century would lead an alert observer to think so?
Most religious organizations incorporate the fact of suffering into their explanation of life, and plan for it.
“And if you don’t, don’t blame Me if you end up weighing two hundred lbs.”
There is probably about as much difference between the behaviour of urban and rural squirrels, that offspring learn from their dams, but you wouldn’t get away with calling it culture.
Even the useless dweeb legacy media coverage can’t quite get around the radical evil that says everything we need to know.
“He found a way to jam it in, to be Darwinian, not convergent. If anyone believes it.”
“the sensory organs responded to forces as small as 0.01 milliNewtons—less than half a percent of the body weight of a typical cockroach.”
Wonder when/if that’ll apply to official public Darwin squawks.
“Adults who grew up in poverty show changes in the “programming” of their DNA that may be linked to health problems such as obesity and autoimmune diseases, …”
“Around the time they went extinct Neanderthals had a taste for the finer things in life.
“The genomic subjects would come from 100 donor centenarians. Now the contest will last a month, and each sequence must cost $1,000 or less.”
We didn’t wonder either, but it’s a good question, now someone mentions it. Turns out …
The big misrepresentation, which we hope the film will correct, was that Darwinism in those days had anything to do with science; it was actually about eugenics.