Everyone who believes the barbarians among us have declared total war on Western Civilization raise your hand. The differences between this and Auschwitz: 1. The victims are more defenseless. 2. The victims are more innocent. 3. The victims are smaller. 4. The execution chambers are more sanitary. Ideas have consequences.
Further to National Geographic: Bonobo peeps point to human language origin ( No one even thinks of asking why, if baby bonobo peeping tells us about the roots of human language, it never did anything for the bonobos). and Apes close to speaking? No. (In the middle ages, it was implausible miracle stories that attracted attention, but today, it is implausible ape achievement stories. ) The agenda is so obvious, it stinks like the garbage on a hot summer night before the pickup. For example, this just rolled out of the files: Neanderthals could talk? Warning: Concept now used to claim that language was no big leap after all. Note that if bonobos “peep,” that shows they are on the verge Read More ›
No sooner did we hear that apes are close to speaking (no, they aren’t, and the claim is just another example of how, in our time, impossible ape achievement stories have replace impossible miracle claims)—than we are informed by National Geographic: Bonobo “Baby Talk” Reveals Roots of Human Language As we watch the bonobos, I think I hear a vocalization called peeping—a short, high-pitched sound bonobos make with their mouths closed. Peeping, which is very similar to the burbling of human infants before they form words, may tell us more about the evolution of human speech. That’s because while most animal sounds have a more narrow meaning, bonobos use peeping in several contexts, including eating, communicating danger, and resting, according Read More ›
Dr. Karl Giberson, a scholar of science and religion, a former co-president of the Biologos Foundation, and the best-selling author of ten books, including Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution, has written a blurb for atheist John Loftus’ new book, How to Defend the Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist (Pitchstone Publishing, November 2015), in which he openly admits that it undercuts his own evolutionary theodicy. Dr. Giberson’s blurb reads as follows: For years I have despaired about the sorry state of Christian apologetics, and even sorrier state of Christian apologists. If there be Christian truth, it lies beyond the reach of rational inquiry, and perhaps that is OK. In How to Defend the Christian Read More ›
Ironically enough, materialists are a mystical lot. They say they reject irrational and superstitious beliefs, but when one pushes them past their ability to explain life, the universe and everything in materialist terms, they are very quick to resort to obscurantist pseudo-explanations. And “it emerged” is their favorite dodge. As we have explained many times before, “it emerged” is the explanatory equivalent of “it’s magic.” But like bugs scattering when the lights are turned on, we have to stomp on this one again and again. Like today for instance. In my Why there is no Meaning if Materialism is True post I argued that on materialist premises – that nothing exists but space, time, particles and energy – there can Read More ›
Professor Paul Davies is no friend of Intelligent Design. Nevertheless, he puts forward a formidable argument against its best scientific alternative, the multiverse, in an interview with Robert Lawrence Kuhn, creator and host of “Closer To Truth,” and author of a recent article titled, Is our universe a fake? (Space.com, July 31, 2015). Kuhn summarizes Davies’ argument as follows: “If you take seriously the theory of all possible universes, including all possible variations,” Davies said, “at least some of them must have intelligent civilizations with enough computing power to simulate entire fake worlds. Simulated universes are much cheaper to make than the real thing, and so the number of fake universes would proliferate and vastly outnumber the real ones. And Read More ›
Not at the Economist, anyway. It’s mid-August and the pop science is in full bloom: Multiversal truths The idea of inflation was proposed in 1979 by Alan Guth. In the years after Dr Guth published his idea Andrei Linde extended it to suggest that the universe emerged from what he called an inflationary field. But if this field can spawn the universe humans see, there is no reason why it cannot spawn others. There is also no reason why the universes so spawned should have the same laws of physics as one another. Indeed, there is quite a good reason why they should not. This reason was worked out a decade or so ago by several physicists, including Leonard Susskind, of Read More ›
From the Atlantic: The Coddling of the American Mind In the name of emotional well-being, college students are increasingly demanding protection from words and ideas they don’t like. Here’s why that’s disastrous for education—and mental health. … Some recent campus actions border on the surreal. In April, at Brandeis University, the Asian American student association sought to raise awareness of microaggressions against Asians through an installation on the steps of an academic hall. The installation gave examples of microaggressions such as “Aren’t you supposed to be good at math?” and “I’m colorblind! I don’t see race.” But a backlash arose among other Asian American students, who felt that the display itself was a microaggression. The association removed the installation, and Read More ›
Posted without further comment: Barry eigenstate @ 45 keeps going on about how morality is like value. What we value is good simply because we value it. And what we don’t value is evil simply because we don’t value it. eigenstate And even more fundamentally, “good” and “meaningful” and “valuable” are products of our mental processes, inherently subjective. If the referent you are thinking about is objective, it can’t be a “good” or a “value” these are intrinsically subjective concepts. Barry A Zimbabwean dollar once had value; now it has no value. eigenstate Right. Value, like meaning is a subjective function of the mind. There’s nothing inherently valuable as currency about the piece of paper we may call a “Zimbabwean Read More ›
Over at Pharyngula, Professor P.Z. Myers has been ridiculing Senator Marco Rubio for declaring, “The science is settled, it’s not even a consensus, it is a unanimity, that human life beings at conception” – a claim he repeated at the GOP debate on August 6. Unfortunately for Myers, Senator Rubio is dead right: embryologists agree that an individual human life begins at conception. Here’s how Professor Myers attempted to dispose of Senator Rubio’s claim in a 2014 post: Let’s take that phrase “human life begins at conception” apart. What do you mean by “life begins”? Was there some step between your parents and you where there was a dead cell? Life is continuous — there hasn’t been a transition from Read More ›
The word “ethics” implies an ethical standard. Under materialism there can be no standard that is objectively binding as between two people who disagree, because under materialism the only thing “good” can mean is “that which is subjectively preferred.” I will explore this concept in response to some objections raised by commenter Pro Hac Vice. In a comment to my prior post I wrote: The first question that must be answered is whether the concept of “good” means anything other than “what I [or some group of people] happen to prefer at this particular time.” If it does not, then Hitler actually was doing good if he was doing what he preferred. Post Hac Vice tried to summarize my argument Read More ›
Over at NPR, psychology professor Tania Lombrozo of the University of California, Berkeley, is highly incensed at the fact that even in this modern day and age, 40 percent of Americans say that they would not vote for a presidential candidate who was an atheist. Professor Lombrozo puts this down to the widespread popular belief that immoral behavior is only averted by religious belief – an assumption she stoutly rejects, citing an article titled, Good Minus God (New York Times, December 18, 2011) by philosophy professor Louise Antony, of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, who argues that moral norms are true regardless of whether or not God exists, and who concludes: “If ‘good’ is to have normative force, it must Read More ›
In my last post I linked to an article in which several atheists discuss how they deal with the lack of meaning in the universe. In response Seversky asks: What is meant by “meaning” in this context? To me, it sounds like a purpose conceived in the mind of an intelligent being, in this case God. So what you are saying is that unless another intelligent being has a purpose in mind for you, your existence is worthless and meaningless? So, a question, why should you only have value or worth or meaning if it exists in the mind of another intelligence. What is wrong with finding a meaning or purpose for yourself? After all, if God has a purpose, Read More ›
Further to: New call for an Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (The main problem the extended evolutionary synthesis creates for Darwinism is that evolution happens in many different ways, not just their way): From the paper: By contrast, the EES regards the genome as a sub-system of the cell designed by evolution to sense and respond to the signals that impinge on it. Organisms are not built from genetic ‘instructions’ alone, but rather self-assemble using a broad variety of inter-dependent resources. A reader writes to ask, 1. “designed by evolution”? That means that design is so obvious that you can not get rid of it. But you can not represent “evolution” as an agent because “evolution” is not an agent, a force, Read More ›
Next in my “things that make you stupid” series (see here, here and here), is the gobsmacking stupidity of the atheists quoted in this article. The lack of intellectual honesty on display is astounding. Atheists of the world accept where the logic of your premises takes you. Stop spouting self-contradicting pseudo-profundities. It’s embarrassing. HT: Heartlander