Give Dawkins credit for guts: He is taking on the “gender” claims

Dera Pyromaniac1 @17 and @19 1) Thank you very much for providing the link to the Unversity of Chicago study. “The Scientific Consensus on When a Human’s Life Begins” (2021). It was most interesting that a strong majority of even "pro choice" scientists agreed with the scientific consensus that the life of a human being begins at fertilization. It was reassuring to me, and a credit to the objectivity of those pro-choice Biologists, that they rendered an unbiased scientific answer even though it supported those who are not pro-choice. One does not often see such objectivity. I suspect the reason is that the anwer here is obvious to any Biologist, much like a question about the validity of the Conservation of Energy would be to a Physicist. Where the objectivve answer is not abvious, such as in discussions of global warming or evolution, that bias is more apt to affect a scientist's answers. It was both amusing and disturbing to that President Biden and Mrs Clinton disagree with this overwhelming Scientific Consensus, while Trump and Sarah Palin support it. As a Creationist Christian, I have a strong personal preferrence for leaders that understand and support Science, like Trump and Palin do. 2) You asked for the compelling empirical evidence used by Dr Margullis to claim that ALL living things, specifically including one-celled organisms, have consciousness and intelligence. She decribed the evidence in an interview, but I am unable to give you a reference to that interview. However, I well remember that part of the interview and what she said the evidence is. The interviewer had noted her claim, and he asked her what data or studies suppported such a remarkable claim. She replied (not a verbatim quote by me): "Oh come on! Get yourself a microscope. The kind you'd find in a high school. Then look at the one-celled organisms in water drops. "You will see them engaging in offensive and defensive manuevers and strategies. If that doesn't show consciousness and intelligence, what would?" Myself, I hold that the empirical evidence she cited is compelling, and that her claim "All living things have consiousness and intelligence" is scientifically established as true. TAMMIE LEE HAYNES

The West is living in a clown world sadly with dire consequences. https://twitter.com/claytravis/status/1639998073475661825?s=46&t=DwiOqqSqx7rsmQnvUHSY4g Vivid vividbleau

@18 It was a survey conducted by Steven Jacobs while he was a PhD student at the University of Chicago. Here's the paper: "The Scientific Consensus on When a Human’s Life Begins" (2021). PyrrhoManiac1

Chris Haynes/8 You cite a study from U of Chicago. Give us a link, please...... chuckdarwin

@16 I don't think it can be seriously disputed that an adult pig has more sophisticated cognitive and emotional capacities than a human fetus or even newborn human infant. As I see it, the best way to argue against Dawkins is to challenge his assumption that degrees of cognitive and emotional sophistication somehow magically confer degrees of moral status. (And perhaps this is the point that some people were trying to make.) It is a deeply mistaken view, but it is not as obviously incoherent as it was taken to be. In any event, I feel I've said as much about Dawkins as he deserves. Generally speaking, the "public intellectuals" of our time demonstrate an inversion proportion of popularity and intellectual merit, and Dawkins is no exception. His popularity is of some sociological interest, but his ideas are hardly worth taking seriously.

Dr Margulis has stated, based on compelling empirical evidence, that ALL living things, specifically including one-celled organisms, have consciousness and intelligence.

I'd be curious to know what compelling empirical evidence she has. I read her 2001 article "The Conscious Cell" and did not see much in there about empirical evidence that all cells are conscious. (She does state that this is her view, but I didn't see much evidence or argument for it.) I actually think that something like "biopsychism" is true -- the idea that all life has rudimentary mindedness in some sense. I was introduced to this in Mind in Life (2007) by Evan Thompson. In his more recent "Could All Life Be Sentient?" (2022) Thompson surveys the most recent arguments for biopsychism (all life is sentient) and zoopsychism (all animals are sentient). He concludes that there is currently no experimentally based explanation of sentience that would give us a criterion for preferring biopsychism or zoopsychism, though he admits that he has non-scientific reasons for thinking that biopsychism is true. PyrrhoManiac1

Dear PyrrhoManiac1 @11 . Thank you for clarifying Dr Dawkins remark. But most respectfully, why did you want to show he was spouting nonsense? Dr Dawkins wrote "............an adult pig is more human than ANY FETUS" You then stated "what matters is capacities for feeling pain, being aware of the environment, being self-aware, having thoughts and desires, wanting something blah blah ......" Myself, I was once a fetus. So were you. So were 330 million other Americans. When we were still fetuses, we DID have the "capacities for feeling pain, being aware of the environment, being self-aware, having thoughts and blah blah blah.........." Certainly at 8-1/2 months we did. But Dr Dawkins said ANY fetus. See what I mean about his spouting nonsense? You claimed that an unconscious guy in the E.R. has capacity that is not presently being used, while the fetus has capacity that does not exist (yet). Assuming that what you claim about fetuses is true, so what? Both are alive, neither has these capacities at present. and both will have them in the future. So how does that mean its okay to kill one of them, but not the other? And many Top Peer Reviwed Biologists, (far better ones than Dr Dawkins) dispute your claim about fetuses lacking thosee capacities. As an example, take the late Dr Lynn Mrgulis pHd BGOC, who first proposed the theory of Symbiosis, (which is far more significant than anything Dr Dawkins has ever done) Dr Margulis says that youre wrong . Dr Margulis has stated, based on compelling empirical evidence, that ALL living things, specifically including one-celled organisms, have consciousness and intelligence. Those creatures DO display those capacities of self-awareness, awareness of the environment, thoughts and desires, wanting something good to blah blah blah......." She completely contradicts your claim that they dont have those capacities. So please tell us, (based on Peer Reviewed data, of course), why it's Dr Margulis who's wrong, and not you. TAMMIE LEE HAYNES

"But adult pigs very much do." What about baby pigs? Gotta be a certain age before killing them is an issue? Andrew asauber

@11

You say its okay to deliberately kill a guy unconscious in the emergency room, because it’s like killing an unborn child.

This comparison neglects the difference between a capacity that is not presently being used (in this case, because of chemical inference of anesthesia) and a capacity that does not exist.

Anyhow, on the morality of abortion, you claim “what matters is capacities for feeling pain, being aware of the environment, being self-aware, having thoughts and desires, wanting something good to happen, wanting something bad to stop happening, etc.”

To be clear, I made that remark to clarify that Dawkins's remark is not as absurd as you made it out to be. I don't actually share that view. @12

Have you ever thought the abortion might be the bad thing that should stop happening.

Perhaps it is morally wrong, but not because it goes against the preferences of the developing embryo. Most abortions are performed in the first trimester. During that phase, there aren't enough neuronal connections for the embryo to have any subjective preferences or desires of any kind at all. I don't actually believe that going against something's subjective preferences is the only sort of moral wrongdoing. I think it's wrong to drive a species to extinction or to destroy an ecosystem, but species and ecosystems aren't the right sorts of things to have subjective preferences. But adult pigs very much do. PyrrhoManiac1

Regarding abortion. The whole point is to kill a human being as opposed to a "blob of tissue" as it was described years ago. Be honest about it. It's an illusion to believe that any human being reading this did not go through the same human development process. Everyone reading this was once an embryo. relatd

"wanting something bad to stop happening" PM1, Have you ever thought the abortion might be the bad thing that should stop happening. Andrew asauber

Dear Pyromaniac1 You say its okay to deliberately kill a guy unconscious in the emergency room, because it's like killing an unborn child. Speaking as a Creationist Christian, my opinion is that its not okay in either case. I pointed out that abortion is premeditated murder, the willful and planned killing of an innocent human being. Objectively, all abortions are willful and planned killings, and victim is a human.. And objectively, any adult pig is not a human. Those are facts regardless of moral considerations. To deny that is to support is to deny objectivity. That is what dr. Dawkins has done. Dawkins statement is akin to saying "regarding the morality of certain racist contracts, two plus two equals thirty seven. One who made that statement should disqualified from teaching arithmetic. Anyhow, on the morality of abortion, you claim "what matters is capacities for feeling pain, being aware of the environment, being self-aware, having thoughts and desires, wanting something good to happen, wanting something bad to stop happening, etc." Us Christians we say those criteria are not what matters. We say that all humans have great and equal value. So premeditated murder is never okay. Anyhow, your criteria also apply to some guy who is unconscious in the E.R. So by your criteria, its okay to kill him. chris haynes

:) Funny , we have to thank to Dumbkins&co. for the new religion of wokeness. Compare Christianity with wokeness religion and laugh (or better cry) . Every idea have consequence(s) and Darwin's mythology is the worse idea ever invented by a human. Sandy

@8

Dawkins has written “Regarding the morality of abortion, any adult pig is more human than any fetus” Which is nonsense, Biologywise.

His remark was "With respect to those meanings of "human" that are relevant to the morality of abortion, any fetus is less human than an adult pig." That is: when we talk about something being "human" or not, what matter is capacities for feeling pain, being aware of the environment, being self-aware, having thoughts and desires, wanting something good to happen, wanting something bad to stop happening, etc. His point is that adult pigs have developed those psychological capacities to a further degree than human fetuses. If you wish to fault Dawkins, it would be sufficient to point out that by this line of thought, he ought to be a vegetarian and that it would be a morally heinous crime to not be a vegetarian. I don't know if he is or isn't, but I rather doubt it. PyrrhoManiac1

Dear Nonlin@1 For a person to quote Dr Dawkins to help prove a point is to be a fool. The article states " Richard then explains that as a biologist who studies evolution, he can say with confidence that blah blah blah........." Dr Dawkins is a Biologist? Well, okay if all that means is he's got a pHd in Biology, and is a tenured Biology prof. But that he knows Biology? That he can speak with any authority on it? Give me a break. Dawkins has written "Regarding the morality of abortion, any adult pig is more human than any fetus" Which is nonsense, Biologywise. A recent University of Chicago survey asked some thousands of Phd Biologists in academia when the life of a human being begins. The overwhelming (over 95%) majority responded "at Fertilization". If you got any doubt, just do what the cops would do. Run some DNA tests. You'll find this: Any fetus, he's got human DNA. While any adult pig, he''s got pig DNA. So when you get an abortion you are, willfully and with planning, killing an innocent human being. That's the very definition of premeditated murder. But when you kill a pig to make hot dogs, it's not murder cause its a pig. Dr Dawkins don't know the difference between a human and a pig. but he claims to be a Biologist. Which is a howl. Anyhow, I figure God must love dumbbells with big titles. I mean, he sure made a lot of them. chris haynes

@6

Maybe ‘an issue’ is whether people who are mutilated to the point of freakdom deserve to be considered for employment and prohibiting consideration of their freakiness as a possible distraction in the workplace or marketplace.

If there's something about a person being trans or non-binary that freaks you out, that's a problem with you. It's not a problem that they have. Trans and nonbinary people are and should be protected by the same non-discrimination laws that protect people of different ages, races, genders, and so on. PyrrhoManiac1

The issue is whether it should be legal for adults to undergo medical treatment to change their sex if that’s what they want. Really? I didn't know that was an issue or rather "the issue" or at least a legal ssue since people in this country are mutilating themselves without concern of intervention. Maybe 'an issue' is whether people who are mutilated to the point of freakdom deserve to be considered for employment and prohibiting consideration of their freakiness as a possible distraction in the workplace or marketplace. groovamos

Sort of a funny story but instructive. I play Texas Holdem and the worst starting hand is seven deuce off suite. I am dealt that hand the other day and told the dealer that I identify my seven deuce as AA, after all if one can identify the insane notion that I can change my sex why can’t I change my cards? She said that’s insane and I said I know. The whole table burst out laughing. Folks to hold the position that one can change their sex by mutilating their body is as insane as a casino allowing one to identify one’s cards. What a sad state of intellectual affairs where something as objective as ones sex can be denied. Orwells 2+2 = 5 is here. Vivid vividbleau

“The issue is whether it should be legal for adults to undergo medical treatment to change their sex if that’s what they want” As far as I am concerned adults can choose to mutilate their bodies if they want but the one thing they can never change is their sex. Vivid. vividbleau

CD at 2, The actual problem is kids - not adults - telling mom and dad that they want to be the opposite of the sex they were born as. "But mom! I want to be a girl!" says 7 year old Billy. The other problem is books that should be banned. Books that spread this nonsense to kids. Of course the Official Outrage Machine is used to claim that kids - kids - need these books. Are kids smarter than their parents? No. That is the issue today. relatd

Politics, as usual, makes for strange bedfellows. However, the issue isn't really about how many sexes there are. Rational people would say there are two. The issue is whether it should be legal for adults to undergo medical treatment to change their sex if that's what they want. The medical technology is available and as long as there is informed consent, the matter should be no one's business other than the patient and doctor. chuckdarwin

UD promoting Coyne and Dawkins? Because once in their lifetime they were not utterly nuts? Clickbait or what? Nonlin.org