Vox Day on canceling Darwin

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 14, 2020

Culture, Darwinism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Vox Day has noticed the same story about the possible cancellation of Darwin that we did:

It will be ironic if Charles Darwin is not ejected from his lofty status as a secular scientific saint by scientific and mathematical criticsm, but by the ignorant baying of the savage mob:
Vox Day, “Canceling Darwin” at Vox Popoli

One got the impression years ago that the Darwinians never really thought there was any chance it could happen to them. However, Darwin may not have been doing for others as much as he was doing for them and they never stopped to think about it.

Hat tip: Ken Francis, co-author with Theodore Dalrymple of The Terror of Existence: From Ecclesiastes to Theatre of the Absurd

See also: Darwinian wonders: Will Darwin survive the purge? Carl admits that “Up until now, Darwin has been considered something of a hero on the political left… In short, all that dynamite (Darwin’s racism) was lying around, just waiting for someone to find it and make an issue of it—but the Darwinians didn’t want to deal with it themselves in case doing so complicated their culture war? Oh my.

Comments

Jerry, 68: ID says nothing about origins except some look Like the product of an intelligent design as opposed to the product of a natural process You mean they were created? :-) Anyone who believes in a God that created the universe is a creationist. Would you include those who think the designer fine-tuned the universe? Also I maintain ID is not a science but more rather like a subset of logic that leads people to better conclusions. Materialism is a straight jacket predetermining a certain set of conclusions. ID expands this but doesn’t eliminate any conclusion a materialist would validly make. Just that they are unlikely and sometimes extremely unlikely. That's an interesting view. Because of their begging the question constantly, the materialist often makes inferior conclusions. They continually speculate and often their speculation then becomes conclusions because of their self constrained set of possible conclusions. They by definition practice inferior science. Those that except ID are actually practicing better science. It’s just that 99:9% of the topics in science don’t relate to controversial origins. Again, an interesting view. I wonder how many of the other ID supporters would agree with you?JVL_{June 18, 2020
June
06
Jun
18
18
2020
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

Except that materialism cannot be true...ET_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT}

The materialists who show up here at UD are more dogmatic than the most dogmatic religious fundamentalist. As evidenced by their comments above all they are really doing is dogmatically doubling down on a logically fallacious argument: Materialism could be true. No one has ever proved that materialism is false. Therefore, materialism is true. However, the above is nothing more than a fallacious appeal to ignorance. It’s a textbook example of an Ad ignorantium argument (an appeal to ignorance).john_a_designer_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT}

Thus regardless of how Steven Weinberg and other atheists may prefer the universe to behave, with the closing of the last remaining free will loophole in quantum mechanics, “humans are (indeed) brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level”, and thus these recent findings from quantum mechanics directly undermine, as Weinberg himself stated, the “vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.” Moreover allowing free will and/or Agent causality into the laws of physics at their most fundamental level, as is now required by quantum mechanics, has some fairly profound implications for us personally. First and foremost, allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned,,,, (Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Max Planck, to name a few of the Christian founders),,, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands (with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), rightly allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”. Here are a few posts where I lay out and defend some of the evidence for that claim:
November 2019 – despite the fact that virtually everyone, including the vast majority of Christians, hold that the Copernican Principle (and/or the principle of mediocrity) is unquestionably true, the fact of the matter is that the Copernican Principle is now empirically shown, (via quantum mechanics and general relativity, etc..), to be a false assumption. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/so-then-maybe-we-are-privileged-observers/#comment-688855 (February 19, 2019) To support Isabel Piczek’s claim that the Shroud of Turin does indeed reveal a true ‘event horizon’, the following study states that ‘The bottom part of the cloth (containing the dorsal image) would have born all the weight of the man’s supine body, yet the dorsal image is not encoded with a greater amount of intensity than the frontal image.’,,, Moreover, besides gravity being dealt with, the shroud also gives us evidence that Quantum Mechanics was dealt with. In the following paper, it was found that it was not possible to describe the image formation on the Shroud in classical terms but they found it necessary to describe the formation of the image on the Shroud in discrete quantum terms. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/experiment-quantum-particles-can-violate-the-mathematical-pigeonhole-principle/#comment-673178 The evidence for the Shroud’s authenticity keeps growing. (Timeline of facts) – November 08, 2019 What Is the Shroud of Turin? Facts & History Everyone Should Know – Myra Adams and Russ Breault https://www.christianity.com/wiki/jesus-christ/what-is-the-shroud-of-turin.html
To give us a small glimpse of the power that was involved in Christ’s resurrection from the dead, the following recent article found that, ”it would take 34 Thousand Billion Watts (34 trillion Watts) of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology.”
Astonishing discovery at Christ’s tomb supports Turin Shroud – NOV 26TH 2016 Excerpt: The first attempts made to reproduce the face on the Shroud by radiation, used a CO2 laser which produced an image on a linen fabric that is similar at a macroscopic level. However, microscopic analysis showed a coloring that is too deep and many charred linen threads, features that are incompatible with the Shroud image. Instead, the results of ENEA “show that a short and intense burst of VUV directional radiation can color a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin, including shades of color, the surface color of the fibrils of the outer linen fabric, and the absence of fluorescence”. ‘However, Enea scientists warn, “it should be noted that the total power of VUV radiations required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height, body surface area equal to = 2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion (34 trillion) watts makes it impractical today to reproduce the entire Shroud image using a single laser excimer, since this power cannot be produced by any VUV light source built to date (the most powerful available on the market come to several billion watts )”. Comment The ENEA study of the Holy Shroud of Turin concluded that it would take 34 Thousand Billion Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology. http://westvirginianews.blogspot.com/2011/12/new-study-claims-shroud-of-turin-is.html
Thus in conclusion, although atheists constantly claim the God has no place in science, the fact of the matter is that modern science is crucially dependent of presuppositions that can only be reasonably grounded within Theism and that, when we rightly allow the Agent Causality of God 'back' into physics, as was originally envisioned at the founding of modern science, then science itself finds an empirically backed resolution for the much sought after 'theory of everything'. Verse:
Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
bornagain77_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT}

As to, “a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them”, it is also interesting to note that ‘free will’, i.e. “a mind that can choose”, is now proven to play a fundamental role in Quantum Mechanics itself, As Steven Weinberg explains,
The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg – January 19, 2017 Excerpt: The instrumentalist approach,, (the) wave function,, is merely an instrument that provides predictions of the probabilities of various outcomes when measurements are made.,, In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level. According to Eugene Wigner, a pioneer of quantum mechanics, “it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”11 Thus the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans. We may in the end have to give up this goal,,, Some physicists who adopt an instrumentalist approach argue that the probabilities we infer from the wave function are objective probabilities, independent of whether humans are making a measurement. I don’t find this tenable. In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,, http://quantum.phys.unm.edu/466-17/QuantumMechanicsWeinberg.pdf
In fact Weinberg, again an atheist, rejected the instrumentalist approach precisely because “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level” and because it undermined the Darwinian worldview from within. Yet, regardless of how he and other atheists may prefer the world to behave, quantum mechanics itself could care less how atheists prefer the world to behave. For instance, and as leading experimentalist Anton Zeilinger states in the following video, “what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”
“The Kochen-Speckter Theorem talks about properties of one system only. So we know that we cannot assume – to put it precisely, we know that it is wrong to assume that the features of a system, which we observe in a measurement exist prior to measurement. Not always. I mean in certain cases. So in a sense, what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.” Anton Zeilinger – Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism – video (7:17 minute mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4C5pq7W5yRM#t=437
The Kochen-Specker theorem undermines the deterministic worldview of atheistic materialists in the most fundamental way possible in that “it would not even be possible to place the information into the universe’s past in an ad hoc way.”
The free will theorem of John H. Conway and Simon B. Kochen,,, Since the free will theorem applies to any arbitrary physical theory consistent with the axioms, it would not even be possible to place the information into the universe’s past in an ad hoc way. The argument proceeds from the Kochen-Specker theorem, which shows that the result of any individual measurement of spin was not fixed (pre-determined) independently of the choice of measurements. http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/free_will_theorem.html
As well, with contextuality we find that, “In the quantum world, the property that you discover through measurement is not the property that the system actually had prior to the measurement process. What you observe necessarily depends on how you carried out the observation”
Contextuality is ‘magic ingredient’ for quantum computing – June 11, 2012 Excerpt: Contextuality was first recognized as a feature of quantum theory almost 50 years ago. The theory showed that it was impossible to explain measurements on quantum systems in the same way as classical systems. In the classical world, measurements simply reveal properties that the system had, such as colour, prior to the measurement. In the quantum world, the property that you discover through measurement is not the property that the system actually had prior to the measurement process. What you observe necessarily depends on how you carried out the observation. http://phys.org/news/2014-06-weird-magic-ingredient-quantum.html
Moreover, this recent 2019 experimental confirmation of the “Wigner’s Friend” thought experiment established that “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”.
More Than One Reality Exists (in Quantum Physics) By Mindy Weisberger – March 20, 2019 Excerpt: “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”. https://www.livescience.com/65029-dueling-reality-photons.html Experimental test of local observer-independence – 2019 Excerpt: The scientific method relies on facts, established through repeated measurements and agreed upon universally, independently of who observed them. In quantum mechanics, the objectivity of observations is not so clear, most dramatically exposed in Eugene Wigner’s eponymous thought experiment where two observers can experience seemingly different realities. The question whether these realities can be reconciled in an observer-independent way has long remained inaccessible to empirical investigation, until recent no-go-theorems constructed an extended Wigner’s friend scenario with four observers that allows us to put it to the test. In a state-of-the-art 6-photon experiment, we realise this extended Wigner’s friend scenario, experimentally violating the associated Bell-type inequality by 5 standard deviations. If one holds fast to the assumptions of locality and free-choice, this result implies that quantum theory should be interpreted in an observer-dependent way. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1902.05080.pdf
On top of all that, although there have been several major loopholes in quantum mechanics over the past several decades that atheists have tried to appeal to in order to try to avoid the ‘spooky’ Theistic implications of quantum mechanics, over the past several years each of those major loopholes have each been closed one by one. The last major loophole that was left to be closed was the “setting independence” and/or the ‘free-will’ loophole:
Closing the ‘free will’ loophole: Using distant quasars to test Bell’s theorem – February 20, 2014 Excerpt: Though two major loopholes have since been closed, a third remains; physicists refer to it as “setting independence,” or more provocatively, “free will.” This loophole proposes that a particle detector’s settings may “conspire” with events in the shared causal past of the detectors themselves to determine which properties of the particle to measure — a scenario that, however far-fetched, implies that a physicist running the experiment does not have complete free will in choosing each detector’s setting. Such a scenario would result in biased measurements, suggesting that two particles are correlated more than they actually are, and giving more weight to quantum mechanics than classical physics. “It sounds creepy, but people realized that’s a logical possibility that hasn’t been closed yet,” says MIT’s David Kaiser, the Germeshausen Professor of the History of Science and senior lecturer in the Department of Physics. “Before we make the leap to say the equations of quantum theory tell us the world is inescapably crazy and bizarre, have we closed every conceivable logical loophole, even if they may not seem plausible in the world we know today?” https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140220112515.htm
And now Anton Zeilinger and company have recently, as of 2018, pushed the ‘free will loophole’ back to 7.8 billion years ago, thereby firmly establishing the ‘common sense’ fact that the free will choices of the experimenter in the quantum experiments are truly free and are not determined by any possible causal influences from the past for at least the last 7.8 billion years, and that the experimenters themselves are therefore shown to be truly free to choose whatever measurement settings in the experiments that he or she may so desire to choose so as to ‘logically’ probe whatever aspect of reality that he or she may be interested in probing.
Cosmic Bell Test Using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars – Anton Zeilinger – 14 June 2018 Abstract: In this Letter, we present a cosmic Bell experiment with polarization-entangled photons, in which measurement settings were determined based on real-time measurements of the wavelength of photons from high-redshift quasars, whose light was emitted billions of years ago; the experiment simultaneously ensures locality. Assuming fair sampling for all detected photons and that the wavelength of the quasar photons had not been selectively altered or previewed between emission and detection, we observe statistically significant violation of Bell’s inequality by 9.3 standard deviations, corresponding to an estimated p value of approx. 7.4 × 10^21. This experiment pushes back to at least approx. 7.8 Gyr ago the most recent time by which any local-realist influences could have exploited the “freedom-of-choice” loophole to engineer the observed Bell violation, excluding any such mechanism from 96% of the space-time volume of the past light cone of our experiment, extending from the big bang to today. https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.080403
bornagain77_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT}

Similarly Max Planck himself stated that,
“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." Max Planck - The main originator of Quantum Theory - Das Wesen der Materie [The Nature of Matter], speech at Florence, Italy (1944) (from Archiv zur Geschichte der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Abt. Va, Rep. 11 Planck, Nr. 1797)
Moreover, both Einstein and Wigner are both on record as to regarding it as a 'miracle' that mathematics should be applicable to the universe in the first place. In fact, Einstein went so far as to chide 'professional atheists' in the midst of calling it a 'miracle'
On the Rational Order of the World: a Letter to Maurice Solovine - Albert Einstein - March 30, 1952 Excerpt: "You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way .. the kind of order created by Newton's theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the 'miracle' which is constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands. There lies the weakness of positivists and professional atheists who are elated because they feel that they have not only successfully rid the world of gods but “bared the miracles." -Albert Einstein http://inters.org/Einstein-Letter-Solovine The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences - Eugene Wigner - 1960 Excerpt: ,,certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin's process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,, It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here, quite comparable in its striking nature to the miracle that the human mind can string a thousand arguments together without getting itself into contradictions, or to the two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind's capacity to divine them.,,, The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning. http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html
Thus for physicists today to view mathematics as "inhabiting an abstract transcendent realm of perfect mathematical relationships" and for them to hold that mathematics, especially any mathematics that might describe this universe, is not contingent upon the mind of God for its existence is, to repeat, a major step backwards for today's physicists.
KEEP IT SIMPLE by Edward Feser – April 2020 Excerpt: Mathematics appears to describe a realm of entities with quasi-divine attributes. The series of natural numbers is infinite. That one and one equal two and two and two equal four could not have been otherwise. Such mathematical truths never begin being true or cease being true; they hold eternally and immutably. The lines, planes, and figures studied by the geometer have a kind of perfection that the objects of our experience lack. Mathematical objects seem immaterial and known by pure reason rather than through the senses. Given the centrality of mathematics to scientific explanation, it seems in some way to be a cause of the natural world and its order. How can the mathematical realm be so apparently godlike? The traditional answer, originating in Neoplatonic philosophy and Augustinian theology, is that our knowledge of the mathematical realm is precisely knowledge, albeit inchoate, of the divine mind. Mathematical truths exhibit infinity, necessity, eternity, immutability, perfection, and immateriality because they are God’s thoughts, and they have such explanatory power in scientific theorizing because they are part of the blueprint implemented by God in creating the world. For some thinkers in this tradition, mathematics thus provides the starting point for an argument for the existence of God qua supreme intellect. There is also a very different answer, in which the mathematical realm is a rival to God rather than a path to him. According to this view, mathematical objects such as numbers and geometrical figures exist not only independently of the material world, but also independently of any mind, including the divine mind. They occupy a “third realm” of their own, the realm famously described in Plato’s Theory of Forms. God used this third realm as a blueprint when creating the physical world, but he did not create the realm itself and it exists outside of him. This position is usually called Platonism since it is commonly thought to have been Plato’s own view, as distinct from that of his Neoplatonic followers who relocated mathematical objects and other Forms into the divine mind. (I put to one side for present purposes the question of how historically accurate this standard narrative is.) https://www.firstthings.com/article/2020/04/keep-it-simple
Physicists today, especially with the proof of Godel’s incompleteness theorems sitting right before them, simply have no basis for their belief that mathematics, all by its lonesome, can somehow function as a God substitute,
THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS – DAVID P. GOLDMAN – August 2010 Excerpt: we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel’s critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/08/the-god-of-the-mathematicians
As the following article states, “Kurt Gödel had dropped a bomb on the foundations of mathematics. Math could not play the role of God as infinite and autonomous.”
Taking God Out of the Equation – Biblical Worldview – by Ron Tagliapietra – January 1, 2012 Excerpt: Kurt Gödel (1906–1978) proved that no logical systems (if they include the counting numbers) can have all three of the following properties. 1. Validity … all conclusions are reached by valid reasoning. 2. Consistency … no conclusions contradict any other conclusions. 3. Completeness … all statements made in the system are either true or false. The details filled a book, but the basic concept was simple and elegant. He (Godel) summed it up this way: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove.” For this reason, his proof is also called the Incompleteness Theorem. Kurt Gödel had dropped a bomb on the foundations of mathematics. Math could not play the role of God as infinite and autonomous. It was shocking, though, that logic could prove that mathematics could not be its own ultimate foundation. Christians should not have been surprised. The first two conditions are true about math: it is valid and consistent. But only God fulfills the third condition. Only He is complete and therefore self-dependent (autonomous). God alone is “all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28), “the beginning and the end” (Revelation 22:13). God is the ultimate authority (Hebrews 6:13), and in Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3). http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v7/n1/equation#
Stephen Hawking himself, an atheist, honestly admitted that,
“Gödel’s incompleteness theorem (1931), proves that there are limits to what can be ascertained by mathematics. Kurt Gödel halted the achievement of a unifying all-encompassing theory of everything in his theorem that: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove” – Stephen Hawking & Leonard Miodinow, The Grand Design (2010)
As well, Steven Weinberg, also an atheist, also honestly admitted that, “I don’t think one should underestimate the fix we are in. That in the end we will not be able to explain the world. That we will have some set of laws of nature (that) we will not be able to derive them on the grounds simply of mathematical consistency. Because we can already think of mathematically consistent laws that don’t describe the world as we know it. And we will always be left with a question ‘why are the laws of nature what they are rather than some other laws?’. And I don’t see any way out of that.”
“I don’t think one should underestimate the fix we are in. That in the end we will not be able to explain the world. That we will have some set of laws of nature (that) we will not be able to derive them on the grounds simply of mathematical consistency. Because we can already think of mathematically consistent laws that don’t describe the world as we know it. And we will always be left with a question ‘why are the laws of nature what they are rather than some other laws?’. And I don’t see any way out of that. The fact that the constants of nature are suitable for life, which is clearly true, we observe,,,” (Weinberg then comments on the multiverse conjecture of atheists) “No one has constructed a theory in which that is true. I mean,, the (multiverse) theory would be speculative, but we don’t even have a theory in which that speculation is mathematically realized. But it is a possibility.” – Steven Weinberg – as stated to Richard Dawkins at the 8:15 minute mark of the following video – Leonard Susskind – Richard Dawkins and Steven Weinberg – 1 in 10^120 – Cosmological Constant points to intelligent design – video https://youtu.be/z4E_bT4ecgk?t=495
In fact, there are an infinite number of mathematical theorems that could have described the universe but don’t, As Gregory Chaitin pointed out, “what Gödel discovered was just the tip of the iceberg: an infinite number of true mathematical theorems exist that cannot be proved from any finite system of axioms. ”
The Limits Of Reason – Gregory Chaitin – 2006 Excerpt: Unlike Gödel’s approach, mine is based on measuring information and showing that some mathematical facts cannot be compressed into a theory because they are too complicated. This new approach suggests that what Gödel discovered was just the tip of the iceberg: an infinite number of true mathematical theorems exist that cannot be proved from any finite system of axioms. http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~chaitin/sciamer3.pdf
Mathematics, contrary to what the vast majority of theoretical physicists apparently believe today, simply never will have the capacity within itself to function as a God substitute. As Dr. Bruce Gordon explains,
BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010 Excerpt: ,,,The physical universe is causally incomplete and therefore neither self-originating nor self-sustaining. The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy. This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world,,, Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.” Anything else invokes random miracles as an explanatory principle and spells the end of scientific rationality.,,, Universes do not “spontaneously create” on the basis of abstract mathematical descriptions, nor does the fantasy of a limitless multiverse trump the explanatory power of transcendent intelligent design. What Mr. Hawking’s contrary assertions show is that mathematical savants can sometimes be metaphysical simpletons. Caveat emptor. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/
bornagain77_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT}

Retired Physicist at 42, as well as other Darwinists in this thread and numerous places elsewhere, have repeatedly claimed that God has no place in the science classroom. This is an interesting claim coming from Darwinists since, number one, Darwinian evolution itself, since it is devoid of any real-time substantiating evidence,,,,
Darwin vs. Microbes (Where’s the substantiating evidence for Darwinian evolution?) - video https://youtu.be/ntxc4X9Zt-I
,,, since it is devoid of any real-time substantiating evidence, is heavily dependent on faulty theological argumentation in their supposedly scientific textbooks,
Damned if You Do and Damned if You Don't - Steve Dilley- 2019-06-02 The Problem of God-talk in Biology Textbooks Abstract: We argue that a number of biology (and evolution) textbooks face a crippling dilemma. On the one hand, significant difficulties arise if textbooks include theological claims in their case for evolution. (Such claims include, for example, ‘God would never design a suboptimal panda’s thumb, but an imperfect structure is just what we’d expect on natural selection.’) On the other hand, significant difficulties arise if textbooks exclude theological claims in their case for evolution. So, whether textbooks include or exclude theological claims, they face debilitating problems. We attempt to establish this thesis by examining 32 biology (and evolution) textbooks, including the Big 12—that is, the top four in each of the key undergraduate categories (biology majors, non-majors, and evolution courses). In Section 2 of our article, we analyze three specific types of theology these texts use to justify evolutionary theory. We argue that all face significant difficulties. In Section 3, we step back from concrete cases and, instead, explore broader problems created by having theology in general in biology textbooks. We argue that the presence of theology—of whatever kind—comes at a significant cost, one that some textbook authors are likely unwilling to pay. In Section 4, we consider the alternative: Why not simply get rid of theology? Why not just ignore it? In reply, we marshal a range of arguments why avoiding God-talk raises troubles of its own. Finally, in Section 5, we bring together the collective arguments in Sections 2-4 to argue that biology textbooks face an intractable dilemma. We underscore this difficulty by examining a common approach that some textbooks use to solve this predicament. We argue that this approach turns out to be incoherent and self-serving. The poor performance of textbooks on this point highlights just how deep the difficulty is. In the end, the overall dilemma remains. https://journals.blythinstitute.org/ojs/index.php/cbi/article/view/44
Darwinists, with their vital dependence on faulty theological presuppositions, instead of on scientific evidence, in order to try to make their case for Darwinian evolution are, as Cornelius Van Til put it, like the child who must climb up onto his father’s lap into order to slap his face.
“In other words, the non-Christian needs the truth of the Christian religion in order to attack it. As a child needs to sit on the lap of its father in order to slap the father’s face, so the unbeliever, as a creature, needs God the Creator and providential controller of the universe in order to oppose this God. Without this God, the place on which he stands does not exist. He cannot stand in a vacuum.” Cornelius Van Til, Essays on Christian Education (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company: Phillipsburg, NJ, 1979).
It should not be surprising that Darwinists are heavily dependent on faulty theological argumentation in order to try to make their case for evolution, modern science itself was born out of, and is still crucially dependent on, presuppositions that can only be grounded within the Theistic worldview
Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21) Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics. http://www.robkoons.net/media/69b0dd04a9d2fc6dffff80b3ffffd524.pdf The Threat to the Scientific Method that Explains the Spate of Fraudulent Science Publications - Calvin Beisner | Jul 23, 2014 Excerpt: It is precisely because modern science has abandoned its foundations in the Biblical worldview (which holds, among other things, that a personal, rational God designed a rational universe to be understood and controlled by rational persons made in His image) and the Biblical ethic (which holds, among other things, that we are obligated to tell the truth even when it inconveniences us) that science is collapsing. As such diverse historians and philosophers of science as Alfred North Whitehead, Pierre Duhem, Loren Eiseley, Rodney Stark, and many others have observed,, science—not an occasional flash of insight here and there, but a systematic, programmatic, ongoing way of studying and controlling the world—arose only once in history, and only in one place: medieval Europe, once known as “Christendom,” where that Biblical worldview reigned supreme. That is no accident. Science could not have arisen without that worldview. http://townhall.com/columnists/calvinbeisner/2014/07/23/the-threat-to-the-scientific-method-that-explains-the-spate-of-fraudulent-science-publications-n1865201/page/full Several other resources backing up this claim are available, such as Thomas Woods, Stanley Jaki, David Linberg, Edward Grant, J.L. Heilbron, and Christopher Dawson.
Science it simply impossible without theistic presuppositions. As Paul Davies explains, "even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.”
Physics and the Mind of God: The Templeton Prize Address – by Paul Davies – August 1995 Excerpt: “People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature-the laws of physics-are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.” https://www.firstthings.com/article/1995/08/003-physics-and-the-mind-of-god-the-templeton-prize-address-24 Taking Science on Faith – By PAUL DAVIES – NOV. 24, 2007 Excerpt: All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. You couldn’t be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed. ,,, the very notion of physical law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many scientists squirm. Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine that God created the world and ordered it in a rational way. Christians envisage God as upholding the natural order from beyond the universe, while physicists (today) think of their laws as inhabiting an abstract transcendent realm of perfect mathematical relationships. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html
As to Paul Davies's observation that "physicists (today) think of their laws as inhabiting an abstract transcendent realm of perfect mathematical relationships". and that mathematics is not ‘contingent’ upon the Mind of God for its existence, is, philosophically speaking, a major step backwards for today’s physicist compared to the Christian founders of modern science. For example, in 1619, Johannes Kepler, shortly after discovering the laws of planetary motion, stated,
“O, Almighty God, I am thinking Thy thoughts after Thee!” – Johannes Kepler, 1619, The Harmonies of the World.
Likewise in 1687, Sir Isaac Newton, after discovering the law of universal gravitation, (which has been referred to as the first major unification in physics),
Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation Excerpt: The first major unification in physics was Sir Isaac Newton’s realization that the same force that caused an apple to fall at the Earth’s surface—gravity—was also responsible for holding the Moon in orbit about the Earth. This universal force would also act between the planets and the Sun, providing a common explanation for both terrestrial and astronomical phenomena. https://www.learner.org/courses/physics/unit/text.html?unit=3&secNum=3
Likewise in 1687, Sir Isaac Newton, after discovering the law of universal gravitation, stated that, “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.,,,This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all;”
“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems: and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those systems at immense distances one from another. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God pantokrator, or Universal Ruler;,,, The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect;,,, from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity or infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures for ever, and is every where present”: Sir Isaac Newton – Principia; 1687, GENERAL SCHOLIUM. http://gravitee.tripod.com/genschol.htm
Likewise, Faraday and Maxwell did not view mathematics and/or lawfulness as "inert, abstract, logical necessity, or complete reducibility to Cartesian mechanism; rather, it was an expectation they attributed to the existence of a divine lawgiver."
The Genius and Faith of Faraday and Maxwell – Ian H. Hutchinson – 2014 Conclusion: Lawfulness was not, in their thinking, inert, abstract, logical necessity, or complete reducibility to Cartesian mechanism; rather, it was an expectation they attributed to the existence of a divine lawgiver. These men’s insights into physics were made possible by their religious commitments. For them, the coherence of nature resulted from its origin in the mind of its Creator. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-genius-and-faith-of-faraday-and-maxwell
bornagain77_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT}

Mike Gene had this to say about ID, ID's "critics" and religion:
"What is Intelligent Design? If you ask a critic, he will probably tell you that ID is a disguised version of Creationism and nothing more than a Trojan Horse to get God taught in the public schools. If you ask a typical proponent of ID, he will probably tell you that ID is the best explanation for various biotic phenomena. For me, ID begins exactly as William Dembski said it begins – with a question":
Intelligent design begins with a seemingly innocuous question: Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?
"The first thing to note about the question is that you don’t have to be a religious fundamentalist to ask it. You don’t have to be a religious fundamentalist to consider it. In fact, you don’t even have to be a religious fundamentalist to answer it."
The answer to that question is of course they can, and do.ET_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT}

UB @ 56,
The value, of course, of this whole rhetorical bit (on display yet again and again) is to allow the materialist to avoid the recorded material evidence. Oldies but goodies.
Indeed, we keep covering the same ground with the same people over and over again. For example, Back in June 2018 I had this exchange with Seversky who I believe has been commenting on this site for at least 7 or 8 years. (Why? Who knows?) In a response to an OP entitled, “As Astrology Goes Mainstream, Will Big Science Start To Accommodate It?” I wrote @ #1:
Atheistic naturalism/materialism provides no answers to mankind’s deepest spiritual and moral needs. It is a morally, spiritually and intellectually bankrupt world view, yet many people irrationally and absurdly cling to it. Why? They cannot give a rational explanation. They do not know but don’t even know they don’t know…
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/as-astrology-goes-mainstream-will-big-science-start-to-accommodate-it/#comment-660948 To which Seversky @ #2 replied, point by point: Me: Atheistic naturalism/materialism provides no answers to mankind’s deepest spiritual and moral needs. Seversky: “I agree. It can’t. But if you assume there is no God then we are forced to confront the reality that we are on our own, we are all we have so where do we go from here?” Me: It is a morally, spiritually and intellectually bankrupt world view, yet many people irrationally and absurdly cling to it. Seversky “If atheism, by definition, cannot provide moral and spiritual guidance then calling it bankrupt for not doing what it cannot do is unfair. That does not prevent us from constructing “worldviews” and moral codes that are atheist.” Me: Why? They cannot give a rational explanation. They do not know but don’t even know they don’t know… Seversky: “As I said, atheists can construct rational worldviews and moral codes. It’s just that they cannot appeal to the unquestionable authority of some deity to support them.” Notice, that Seversky basically concedes each of my points. Of course that brings up a number of other questions like: who is obligated to follow a moral code constructed by atheists? Does it apply to just them or everyone else (society)? Do any human constructed moral codes carry any kind of real morally binding obligations? It’s because of irrational nonsense like this that I have said here many time before, “If I were an atheistic materialist, I would leave other people alone.” Why? Because atheistic materialism has nothing to offer as a world view and therefore nothing to offer to the world.john_a_designer_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT}

That is the "big tent" we used to hear about. If Creation is true then ID is true. But ID can be true and Creation be false. There are also different forms of Biblical Creation(ism). YEC is only one of those. And seeing that ID makes testable claims, that would put it within the realm of science. I also submit that materialists don't reach valid conclusions. They don't even know how to test the claims of materialism. What is also false is limiting ID to origins. If the OoL was intelligently designed we would infer it was so designed with the ability to adapt and evolve. Evolution by means of intelligent design. "Built-in responses to environmental cues" ala Dr Spetner "Not By Chance" 1997.ET_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT}

Creation is a SUBSET of ID.
This is not appropriate. Maybe a better description would be a Venn diagram where the two overlap on somethings. ID says nothing about origins except some look Like the product of an intelligent design as opposed to the product of a natural process Young Earth Creationists have certainly glommed onto ID. But that does not make the two anywhere close to the same. To conflate the two is a rhetorical trick played all the time as we see on this thread. You notice that those who push the creationist equivalencies don’t use the term YEC but that is what they mean.. But there are numerous forms of creationism. Anyone who believes in a God that created the universe is a creationist. Also I maintain ID is not a science but more rather like a subset of logic that leads people to better conclusions. Materialism is a straight jacket predetermining a certain set of conclusions. ID expands this but doesn’t eliminate any conclusion a materialist would validly make. Just that they are unlikely and sometimes extremely unlikely. Because of their begging the question constantly, the materialist often makes inferior conclusions. They continually speculate and often their speculation then becomes conclusions because of their self constrained set of possible conclusions. They by definition practice inferior science. Those that except ID are actually practicing better science. It’s just that 99:9% of the topics in science don’t relate to controversial origins.jerry_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

Creation is based on the Bible. ID is not. Creation is a SUBSET of ID. A specific subset. That is what has ID's detractors so confused. The really don't grasp set theory. :razz:ET_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

Acartia Eddie (meaning Ed George does a great impersonation of the pathological liar and sociopath Acartia Bogart/ William Spearshake):
Just because the modern ID “movement” has a theistic origin doesn’t mean that it is wrong.
The best ID can do is make it so that you can be an intellectually fulfilled theist. ID doesn't say anything about worship. Nothing about the who, how, where and when to worship. It doesn't have any of the hallmarks of religion. It doesn't fit any of the definitions. Just because the modern ID movement was founded, somewhat, by a Christian, that doesn't make it a Christian or theistic enterpriseET_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT}

Acartia Eddie (meaning Ed George does a great impersonation of the pathological liar and sociopath Acartia Bogart/ William Spearshake):
The modern ID “movement” was an intentional rebranding of scientific creationism In an attempt to give the perception that it doesn’t have religion as its foundation.
That's your ignorant opinion, anyway. The modern ID movement is NOT and never has been, dependent on the Bible.
And scientific creationism was an attempt to lend credibility to creationism.
It's more credible than atheistic/ materialistic evolutionism. Look, it is obvious that all you clowns can do is flail away at ID with your belligerent ignorance. Which is very telling as the way to refute ID's claims is for you to actually step up and demonstrate blind and mindless processes can account for it. That you choose your cowardly tactic just further exposes you as willfully ignorant and insipid trolls.ET_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

seversky:
Okay, so let’s say we concede that the genetic code could be evidence of intelligent design.
What else could it be evidence for? We don't have any observations, experiences or knowledge of nature producing coded systems.ET_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT}

Sev, you build a computer using smart polymer molecular nanotech then come back and tell me to ignore 70 years of multiple Nobel Prize winning evidence. KFkairosfocus_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT}

.
Anyone think this looks like the inside of a machine or a computer?
Sev suggests we ignore measurement and be guided instead by his reaction to an image.. More rhetoric.Upright BiPed_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT}

Seversky @58: Had engineers built something like that they would have felt like the masters of the universe. That didn’t happen. Sorry. :)jawa_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus @ 57
UB, sadly, yes. Red herring distractor b–> strawman caricature soaked in ad hominems –> set alight to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere. This all too common “trifecta fallacy” political and rhetoriocal strategy is inherently dishonest.
Yup, oldies but goodies.Seversky_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT}

Okay, so let's say we concede that the genetic code could be evidence of intelligent design. Then what?Seversky_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

Anyone think this looks like the inside of a machine or a computer?Seversky_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT}

UB, sadly, yes. Red herring distractor b--> strawman caricature soaked in ad hominems --> set alight to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere. This all too common "trifecta fallacy" political and rhetoriocal strategy is inherently dishonest. KFkairosfocus_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT}

. The value, of course, of this whole rhetorical bit (on display yet again and again) is to allow the materialist to avoid the recorded material evidence. Oldies but goodies.Upright BiPed_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT}

RP, if you are searching for more apt language and find it then use it, that speaks to intent. It is those looking to accuse and applying a wholly improper hermeneutic of unwarranted accusatory suspicion who would then try to force into that sort of conclusion. Just above, for example you tried to suggest that I imagine that little ACGT script is in the cell. Where on earth could such a notion have come from? Is there not a very obvious point that as UNICODE exemplifies, alphanumeric code . . . now including emoticons, playing card symbols and more . . . might mean broader things than our Latin alphabet and a few other associated symbols? If Mahjong tiles can have a code range there is no reason why codons don't, save we commonly use GCAT for them, and context gives enough. Where, digital does not mean binary digital. Alphanumeric code speaks of a recognisable list of standard symbols chained in string data structures to convey meaning. Personalise-polarise-stigmatise rhetoric games notwithstanding, it remains that in the heart of the cell we have machine code deployed in string data structures with start, elongate and stop, sometimes with interwoven code. Algorithms are inherently goal-directed and codes like that (among other coding possibilities) are of clearly linguistic character. Symbolic, verbal language, of course, is a decisive sign of intelligence in action. That is central and sideslips, dodges and toxic evasions are duly noted for what they imply. KFkairosfocus_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT}

EG, I seldom have to draw this conclusion, but you have now made yourself a poster child for slanderous liar. Please, reverse that course. It may serve rhetorical advantages to stigmatise, brand and marginalise but it reveals want of accountability to either truth or fairness or both and points to trollishness. You should be a lot better than that. KFkairosfocus_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT}

If you can global search and replace two words they’re either pretty synonymous or irrelevant. If there’s a book about Patton, and you global search and replace Patton with General Patton, that might work. If you global search and replace the word Patton with the word Grant, That might work for a sentence or two, but it’s not going to work for the whole book. So I just read the history of this pandas book and some DI people were working on it and while they were writing drafts the supreme court ruled that creationism wasn’t science, and they literally changed the creationisms to intelligent designs etc for the whole book. Come on. How did anyone think that scam was going to work????Retired Physicist_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

. Ed, The material evidence of design in biology was recorded in the literature by physicists and biologists regardless of their metaphysical leanings, That whole line of thinking is part of the sociopolitical hustle. Physical evidence doesn't care what you call it.Upright BiPed_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

The evidence is clear for all to see. The modern ID “movement” was an intentional rebranding of scientific creationism In an attempt to give the perception that it doesn’t have religion as its foundation. And scientific creationism was an attempt to lend credibility to creationism. Before ET does his best impersonation of that moronic and abusive Joe Gallien, Just because the modern ID “movement” has a theistic origin doesn’t mean that it is wrong.Ed George_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

RP, strawman. . We have a machine code based on 64-state trisymbol elements expressing a prong-height system, quite similar to Yale type Locks. BTW, von Neumann in conceptualising self-replicators, had suggested a prong height system in 1948. The ACGT representation is a transliteration into somewhat human readable code, but in informational terms the system in the cell is just as alphanumerical, using 4-state elements in two complementary pairs [corresponding prong heights] in triplet "syllables" that give the 64 state system. Alphanumerical codes use symbolic elements that function in string data structures with meaning coming from the sequence of the chain; here start, elongate, stop. It is particularly to be noted that the tRNS AA-holding tip is a universal joint, CCA. Physically, any AA can be loaded to any tRNA, it is the loading enzymes that use the overall configuration (not just the anticodon) to determine which AA goes where. And BTW, in recent years, stop codes (there are three) have been used to bring in extra AA's. KFkairosfocus_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT}

. Being a materialist ideologue is truly the easiest of all things, is it not? Materialists can happily claim this and that without material evidence, and the very first thing you get to ignore is documented physical evidence and recorded history to the contrary. Too easy.Upright BiPed_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply