Evolutionary Incoherence

In a current thread that is nominally on the latest allegedly earth-like exoplanet, predictably that is where distractors will come up on things like: >>[RVB8, 21:] “800 million (unusual figure) unborn aborted fetuses. Perhaps this is true, it’s certainly true abortions have occured, and probably happen at a faster rate now becuse of the ‘day after’ pill.”>> Of course, equally predictably, this sort of talking point did not crop up in the many threads where I have repeatedly outlined exactly how this estimate was put together. (Such are the now all too predictable patterns of objections and dismissals we see at UD and in the penumbra of attack sites. More on that in the PS.) I answered in a following Read More ›

In the past few weeks at UD, we have seen abundant indicators on how: a –> we are in a time of obvious, deeply polarised ideological confrontation in our civilisation [in material part, driven by cultural marxist agendas and stratagems], b –> we are forced to give unwelcome counsel in the face of an obvious march of folly, c –> in which march, lab coat clad evolutionary materialistic scientism rules the roost, d –> such that, logic/ rationality is at a steep discount (especially first principles of right reason), e –> through the dominance of evo mat scientism, inherent falsity and linked amorality have too often been built into yardsticks for truth and right, and f –> manifestly evident core Read More ›

In a recent exchange with BA in the WJM arguing thread, CF inadvertently revealed that he too knows or should know and acknowledge, that there is an oughtness towards truth. This is not unexpected, given the core moral self evident truths. For instance, we can see the first cycle: >>1] The first self evident moral truth is that we are inescapably under the government of ought. (This is manifest in even an objector’s implication in the questions, challenges and arguments that s/he would advance, that we are in the wrong and there is something to be avoided about that. That is, even the objector inadvertently implies that we OUGHT to do, think, aim for and say the right. Not even Read More ›

Overnight CF and Aleta threw down a gauntlet in WJM’s thread on subjectivism: CF, 148 : >>KairosFocus: “CF, again you are asserting when something you have consistently refused to address is on the table.” [CF:] the fact that you disagree with how I have repeatedly addressed the issue does not mean that I have “consistently refused to address” it.>> Aleta,149 : >>Re 148: what he means is that you consistently refuse to agree with him.>> Of course, the truth is, CF and others of like ilk have consistently side-stepped dealing with evidence that there are self-evident moral truths (07 is still missing in action . . . ), that we are under moral governance, and that this directly impinges on Read More ›

In a current WJM thread on transgenderism, CF has been arguing that different cultures and religions take different views and each holds themselves to be superior — of course this overlooks for just one instance a key remark C S Lewis made in his essay, “Men Without Chests” on what he called the Tao, on how uniform core moral principles are across time and place (when we deal with people we accept as equals and/or care about): >>in early Hinduism that conduct in men which can be called good consists in conformity to, or almost participation in, the Rta — that great ritual or pattern of nature and supernature which is revealed alike in the cosmic order, the moral virtues, Read More ›

Athens, the first great democracy — the city state and naval power that in company with the great Greek land power Sparta led Greece in its successful defense against Persian aggression — foolishly and arrogantly grasped for empire and wealth; so it fell due to its hubris. By march of folly [I add, cf vid lectures here]: For, when Persia made its second major move against Greece, it was naval power at Salamis that broke the Persians’ ambitions. And Athens then led in forming the Delian League, which: >> . . .  founded in 477 BC, was an association of Greek city-states . . . under the leadership of Athens, whose purpose was to continue fighting the Persian Empire after Read More ›

As discussion continues on the march of folly watershed and slippery slopes of wedging apart, polarisation and ruin, it is time to expose mass manipulation tactics. Aka, “brainwashing.” Here, I clip comment 771: ______________ >>>Can “mind control” techniques really rob us of ability to think, decide and act for ourselves? Are we really responsible, free, rational creatures? (Or, are we more like computers that just need to be purged of old programming and loaded with new software?) After the Korean War (1950 – 53), there were major studies on brainwashing of prisoners of war, but in the end it became clear that the techniques in use were similar to much more familiar processes of persuasion and change. Though, perhaps, at Read More ›

As debate has proceeded on the watershed, wedge-apart issue, real-time events have intruded to show who has read the dynamics accurately. Never mind the dismissive, denigratory accusations: bigot, hater, coward, apocalyptic, and worse  . . . So, it is time to promote yet another comment in the still-in progress thread — no. 656 — as a FTR: >>Events as we debate, sadly, are showing just how accurate and timely the analysis in the OP above is. Now, in the OP I spoke to bringing a society to a ridge-line watershed that forces a wedging apart of a community, country or civilisation along double, mutually polarised slippery slopes leading to ruin. When I did so, I had no awareness of a Read More ›

In further addressing the curriculum abuse that sought to induce twelve year olds to imagine that belief in God is little more than a culturally induced ill-supported notion, it is critical to address the favoured ideology, evolutionary materialist scientism and/or its fellow travellers. For, never mind the lab coat clad magisterium, evolutionism is self-referentially incoherent and self falsifying. Advocates or adherents and fellow travellers of such materialistic scientism will typically try to dismiss, distract from or refuse to face this, but it is absolutely pivotal and utterly decisive. So, let us inform ourselves and our children for record. Craig, as a first point of reference, presents a useful talk: [youtube byN38dyZb-k] An excellent recent summary of this comes from Nancy Read More ›

Sometimes UD’s comment exchanges are highly informative. In this case, in a Quote of the Day thread: DK, 15: >> [To WJM] [WJM to Seversky, 14:] If I can one minute decide for myself that a moral code is binding on me, and decide for myself the next minute that it is not, exactly how is any moral code, the “binding” nature of which we decide for ourselves, binding? Strawman erected by misrepresentation. Seversky said that his moral code is “binding,” which means that it is not changeable at a whim. You have chosen to have an authority “bind” you. You chose that for yourself, using free will. You have nothing to feel superior about.>> DK, 16: >>Barry: [to Seversky] Read More ›

Here. Now, let us collect a well-known live example, Lewontin, in NYRB 1997, reviewing Sagan’s The Demon-Haunted world; here, with my annotations: >>. . . to put a correct view of the universe into people’s heads [–> notice, the context of intended indoctrination, with a hint of being backed up by secularist institutional power to enforce such indoctrination] we [–> who? the Evolutionary Materialist elites, that’s who] must first get an incorrect view out . . .   the problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world [–> note the ready equation of ethical theism with ignorance and irrationality], the demons [–> notice, equating the inherently good Creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, Read More ›

Sometimes the name of a book is just waaaaay cool, and King Alfred’s Book of Dooms takes the prize. But that (while showing that I am not totally immune to the coolness factor  😉 ) is besides the main point. The main issue is that for several weeks now, we have been dealing with radical secularism and its agenda for law, the state and justice. Especially, in light of the triple challenge of state power, lawfulness and sound leadership: What is justice, what is its foundation, and — where Alfred the Great and his Book of Dooms come in — how was this emplaced at the historical root of the Common Law tradition that the law and state framework of Read More ›

That is, why inferring design on functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information, e.g.: and equally: . . . makes good sense. Now, overnight, UD’s Newsdesk posted on a Space dot com article, Is Our Universe a Fake? The article features “Philosopher Nick Bostrom, director of the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University.” I think Bostrom’s argument raises a point worth pondering, one oddly parallel to the Boltzmann brain popping up by fluctuation from an underlying sea of quantum chaos argument, as he discusses “richly detailed software simulation[s] of people, including their historical predecessors, by a very technologically advanced civilization”: >>Bostrom is not saying that humanity is living in such a simulation. Rather, his “Simulation Argument” seeks to show Read More ›

There are some key motifs that often come up in discussions of design theory and linked ideas. Popperian, as captioned, has posed one of these. Notice, his view, that we GENERATE emotions, suggesting a dynamo churning away and generating electricity. That is, the motif that would reduce explanations to mechanisms is here revealed.  I think it is well worth the pause to address it by headlining an in-thread response: ___________ >>Popperian, re: why doesn’t someone start out by explaining how human beings generate emotions, then point out how the universality of computation does not fit that explanation. Effectively stating “It’s magic and computers are not magic doesn’t cut it.” Pushing the problem into an inexplicable mind hat exists in an Read More ›

It is instructive to see this inadvertently revealing comment on a blog post by Jason Rosenhouse. But first, let’s remind ourselves of a very important visually made point: And now: >>eric April 15, 2015 Of course, you can challenge my definition. You can say that it’s just a product of my own subjective judgment that it’s bad to harm sentient beings. But so what? I have not read Arrington’s posts, but I would bet that he is exactly going after the subjective vs. objective distinction. There’s been a recent spate of philosophers and/or reasonably prominent atheists trying to propose an objective morality (without the need for a god). I would bet he is going after these ideas. It may be Read More ›