Darwinism Evolution Media News Science

Try thinking harder about supporting National Public Radio

Spread the love

From NPR:

Don’t Believe In Evolution? Try Thinking Harder

The theory of evolution by natural selection is among the best established in science, yet also among the most controversial for subsets of the American public.

It’s appalling that this pysch prof can get away with misinforming the public about the fact that evolution by natural selection (= Darwinism) is increasingly regarded as a millstone around the necks of evolutionary biologists, so few are its demonstrated effects. By contrast with the many common, little-publicized modes of evolution, such as horizontal gene transfer and genome doubling, to say nothing of genetic drift.

For decades we’ve known that beliefs about evolution are well-predicted by demographic factors, such as religious upbringing and political affiliation. There’s also enormous variation in the acceptance of evolution across different countries, all of which suggests an important role for cultural input in driving beliefs about evolution. A child raised by Buddhists in California is much more likely to accept evolution than one raised by evangelical Protestants in Kansas.

But in the last 20 years or so, research in psychology and the cognitive science of religion has increasingly focused on another factor that contributes to evolutionary disbelief: the very cognitive mechanisms underlying human cognition.

In short, it is irrational to doubt Darwinism despite the lack of evidence, and constant revisions of evidence. Darwin’s iconic finches anyone?

The reality is that, for whatever reason, people often choose to stand against the tide of self-serving elite opinion, such as hers. And those who doubt Darwinism, like those who doubt many things these days, know good arguments against the sludge served up in media like NPR—heck, such arguments and evidence are not even hard to find. Listen to the The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry, to start.

Such information is usually not sought by media that caters to self-serving elite opinion.  She goes on:

Researchers have argued that a variety of basic human tendencies conspire to make natural selection especially aversive and difficult to understand, and to make creationism a compelling alternative. For instance, people tend to prefer explanations that offer certainty and a sense of purpose when it comes to their lives and the design of the natural world and they have an easier time wrapping their heads around theories that involve biological categories with clear boundaries — all of which are challenged by natural selection.

Biological categories with clear boundaries … like the human race? As opposed to the racism (black people will speciate away from other races) that is critical to Darwinian thinking?

Can anyone imagine legacy media like NPR addressing all that stuff honestly?

These factors are typically taken to hold for all humans, not only those who reject evolution. But this naturally raises a question about what differentiates those individuals who do accept evolution from those who do not. In other words, if the California Buddhist and the Kansas Protestant share the same cognitive mechanisms, what accounts for their differing views on evolution? More.

The real mystery is why NPR, just another cacophony of shallow non-entities emitting psychosocial noise in order to drown out serious discussion, receives public support and approval.

At this point, it isn’t even a class act on its own low terms.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

21 Replies to “Try thinking harder about supporting National Public Radio

  1. 1
    daveS says:

    News,

    Biological categories with clear boundaries … like the human race?

    Would you be able to describe these “clear boundaries” and tell us which side of the boundaries the Neanderthals, Denisovans, and the Dmanisi Homo erectus lie on?

    Presumably these individuals can also be easily separated into humans and non-humans.

  2. 2
    Roy says:

    As opposed to the racism (black people will speciate away from other races) that is critical to Darwinian thinking?

    I don’t think I have ever seen that claim before, and I definitely do not believe it myself. It is not critical to Darwinian or any other evolutionary viewpoint. Instead, it appears to be propaganda invented to denigrate Darwin and evolution by association.

    News should (but won’t) be ashamed.

  3. 3
    Mung says:

    I don’t understand why people find evolutionism to be a source of uncertainly. It certainly wasn’t God seems pretty certain to me.

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    “I don’t think I have ever seen that claim before, and I definitely do not believe it myself. It is not critical to Darwinian or any other evolutionary viewpoint.”

    Well since Darwinism is in reality a non-falsifiable pseudo-science, then no precept of evolutionary thought ever really is sacred for evolutionary thought save, of course, for the atheistic fundamentalism that undergirds evolutionary thought:

    A Neurosurgeon, Not A Darwinist – Michael Egnor
    Excerpt: The fight against the design inference in biology is motivated by fundamentalist atheism. Darwinists detest intelligent design theory because it is compatible with belief in God.
    But the evidence is unassailable. The most reasonable scientific explanation for functional biological complexity–the genetic code and the intricate nanotechnology inside living cells–is that they were designed by intelligent agency. There is no scientific evidence that unintelligent processes can create substantial new biological structures and function. There is no unintelligent process known to science that can generate codes and machines.
    I still consider religious explanations for biology to be unscientific at best, dogma at worst. But I understand now that Darwinism itself is a religious creed that masquerades as science. Darwin’s theory of biological origins is atheism’s creation myth, and atheists defend their dogma with religious fervor.
    – Michael Egnor is a professor and vice chairman of the department of neurosurgery at the State University of New York at Stony Brook.
    http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/.....egnor.html

    As to the racism inherent in evolutionary thinking, well that has been with Darwinism since the beginning:

    “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla”
    ? Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1874, p. 178

    The racist implications of several common atheist beliefs – December 17, 2014
    http://www.examiner.com/articl.....st-beliefs

    In fact the ‘pseudo-scientific racism’ Darwinism engendered was so insidious, and obvious, that Darwinism can be traced back as a primary root cause for the NAZI holocaust:

    From Darwin to Hitler – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_5EwYpLD6A

    The Role Of Darwinism In Nazi Racial Thought – Richard Weikart – October 2013
    Excerpt: The historical evidence is overwhelming that human evolution was an integral part of Nazi racial ideology.
    http://www.csustan.edu/history.....hought.pdf

    as to ‘clear boundaries’ of species: Dr. Arthur Jones, who did his Ph.D. thesis in biology on cichlids, (fish), comments

    “For all the diversity of species, I found the cichlids to be an unmistakably natural group, a created kind. The more I worked with these fish the clearer my recognition of “cichlidness” became and the more distinct they seemed from all the “similar” fishes I studied. Conversations at conferences and literature searches confirmed that this was the common experience of experts in every area of systematic biology. Distinct kinds really are there and the experts know it to be so. – On a wider canvas, fossils provided no comfort to evolutionists. All fish, living and fossil, belong to distinct kinds; “links” are decidedly missing.”
    Dr. Arthur Jones – did his Ph.D. thesis in biology on cichlids – Fish, Fossils and Evolution – Cichlids at 29:00 minute mark (many examples of repeated morphology in cichlids) – video
    http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/video/14

    Here are a few more quotes along that line:

    Problem 5: Abrupt Appearance of Species in the Fossil Record Does Not Support Darwinian Evolution – Casey Luskin January 29, 2015
    Excerpt: Rather than showing gradual Darwinian evolution, the history of life shows a pattern of explosions where new fossil forms come into existence without clear evolutionary precursors. Evolutionary anthropologist Jeffrey Schwartz summarizes the problem:
    “We are still in the dark about the origin of most major groups of organisms. They appear in the fossil record as Athena did from the head of Zeus — full-blown and raring to go, in contradiction to Darwin’s depiction of evolution as resulting from the gradual accumulation of countless infinitesimally minute variations. . .”98
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....91141.html

    “With the benefit of hindsight, it is amazing that paleontologists could have accepted gradual evolution as a universal pattern on the basis of a handful of supposedly well-documented lineages (e.g. Gryphaea, Micraster, Zaphrentis) none of which actually withstands close scrutiny.”
    Christopher R.C. Paul, “Patterns of Evolution and Extinction in Invertebrates,” K.C. Allen and D.E.G. Briggs, eds., Evolution and the Fossil Record (Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989), 105.

    “It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student from Trueman’s Ostrea/Gryphaea to Carruthers’ Zaphrentis delanouei, have now been ‘debunked’. Similarly, my own experience of more than twenty years looking for evolutionary lineages among the Mesozoic Brachiopoda has proved them equally elusive.’
    Dr. Derek V. Ager (Department of Geology & Oceonography, University College, Swansea, UK), ‘The nature of the fossil record’. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association, vol.87(2), 1976,p.132.

    “The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find’ over and over again’ not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.”
    Paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, “The Nature of the Fossil Record,” 87 Proceedings of the British Geological Association 87 (1976): 133. (Department of Geology & Oceanography, University College, Swansea, UK)

    “It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptibly changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution…This phenomenon becomes more universal and more intense as the hierarchy of categories is ascended. Gaps among known species are sporadic and often small. Gaps among known orders, classes and phyla are systematic and almost always large.”
    G.G.Simpson – one of the most influential American Paleontologist of the 20th century

    “A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth’s geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin’s hypothetical intermediate variants – instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.”
    Paleontologist, Mark Czarnecki

    “There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration. The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps.”
    T. Neville George – Professor of paleontology – Glasgow University,

    “Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them.”
    David Kitts – Paleontologist – D.B. Kitts, Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory (1974), p. 467.

  5. 5
    bb says:

    Researchers have argued that a variety of basic human tendencies conspire to make natural selection especially aversive and difficult to understand, and to make creationism a compelling alternative.

    Beating the square peg of observation into the round hole of presupposition. You don’t swallow evolutionary “theory” because you just don’t understand.

    Materialist Dodge 12: You are motivated to believe by your sub-rational desires; but not I

    I don’t have to defend the logical coherence of materialism. All I have to do is point out that anyone who rejects materialism is motivated by sub-rational desires, like the desire for meaning in the universe. Why, yes, we materialists are exempt from this criticism; we have superpowers, one of which is to step outside of ourselves as we think about metaphysics.

    -Barry Arrington, Uncommon Descent

  6. 6
    daveS says:

    BA77,

    as to ‘clear boundaries’ of species: Dr. Arthur Jones, who did his Ph.D. thesis in biology on cichlids, (fish), comments

    Is the collection of all humans that have ever existed a “biological category with clear boundaries” as the OP suggests? If so, what are these boundaries?

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    daveS, can you tell the difference between a human and a ape?

    In “Science,” 1975, M-C King and A.C. Wilson were the first to publish a paper estimating the degree of similarity between the human and the chimpanzee genome. This documented the degree of genetic similarity between the two! The study, using a limited data set, found that we were far more similar than was thought possible at the time. Hence, we must be one with apes mustn’t we? But…in the second section of their paper King and Wilson honestly describe the deficiencies of such reasoning:
    “The molecular similarity between chimpanzees and humans is extraordinary because they differ far more than sibling species in anatomy and way of life. Although humans and chimpanzees are rather similar in the structure of the thorax and arms, they differ substantially not only in brain size but also in the anatomy of the pelvis, foot, and jaws, as well as in relative lengths of limbs and digits (38).
    Humans and chimpanzees also differ significantly in many other anatomical respects, to the extent that nearly every bone in the body of a chimpanzee is readily distinguishable in shape or size from its human counterpart (38).
    Associated with these anatomical differences there are, of course, major differences in posture (see cover picture), mode of locomotion, methods of procuring food, and means of communication. Because of these major differences in anatomy and way of life, biologists place the two species not just in separate genera but in separate families (39). So it appears that molecular and organismal methods of evaluating the chimpanzee human difference yield quite different conclusions (40).”

    King and Wilson went on to suggest that the morphological and behavioral between humans and apes,, must be due to variations in their genomic regulatory systems.
    David Berlinski – The Devil’s Delusion – Page 162&163
    Evolution at Two Levels in Humans and Chimpanzees Mary-Claire King; A. C. Wilson – 1975

    The Red Ape – Cornelius Hunter – August 2009
    Excerpt: “There remains, however, a paradoxical problem lurking within the wealth of DNA data: our morphology and physiology have very little, if anything, uniquely in common with chimpanzees to corroborate a unique common ancestor. Most of the characters we do share with chimpanzees also occur in other primates, and in sexual biology and reproduction we could hardly be more different. It would be an understatement to think of this as an evolutionary puzzle.”
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....d-ape.html

    Of note: The supposed 99% genetic similarity data is now known to be have been severely overblown by Darwinists:

    The Chimp-Human 1% Difference: A Useful Lie – 06/29/2007
    Excerpt: But truth be told, Wilson and King also noted that the 1% difference wasn’t the whole story. They predicted that there must be profound differences outside genes—they focused on gene regulation—to account for the anatomical and behavioral disparities between our knuckle-dragging cousins and us. Several recent studies have proven them perspicacious again, raising the question of whether the 1% truism should be retired.
    “For many, many years, the 1% difference served us well because it was underappreciated how similar we were,” says Pascal Gagneux, a zoologist at UC San Diego. “Now it’s totally clear that it’s more a hindrance for understanding than a help.”,,,
    This is a very disturbing article. We have basically caught the Darwinists in a bald lie that has hoodwinked the world for over 30 years. Gagneux says, “For many, many years, the 1% difference served us well” – stop right there! Who is “us”? Was it the millions of school children and laymen who were lied to? Was it the majority of people who believe God created mankind, suffering under an onslaught of lies told in the name of science? No! “Us” refers to the members of the Darwin Party,,,
    http://creationsafaris.com/cre.....#20070629a

    In fact so great are the anatomical differences between humans and chimps that a Darwinist, since pigs are anatomically closer to humans than chimps are, actually proposed that a chimp and pig mated with each other and that is what ultimately gave rise to humans:

    A chimp-pig hybrid origin for humans? – July 3, 2013
    Excerpt: Dr. Eugene McCarthy,, has amassed an impressive body of evidence suggesting that human origins can be best explained by hybridization between pigs and chimpanzees. Extraordinary theories require extraordinary evidence and McCarthy does not disappoint. Rather than relying on genetic sequence comparisons, he instead offers extensive anatomical comparisons, each of which may be individually assailable, but startling when taken together.,,,
    The list of anatomical specializations we may have gained from porcine philandering is too long to detail here. Suffice it to say, similarities in the face, skin and organ microstructure alone is hard to explain away. A short list of differential features, for example, would include, multipyramidal kidney structure, presence of dermal melanocytes, melanoma, absence of a primate baculum (penis bone), surface lipid and carbohydrate composition of cell membranes, vocal cord structure, laryngeal sacs, diverticuli of the fetal stomach, intestinal “valves of Kerkring,” heart chamber symmetry, skin and cranial vasculature and method of cooling, and tooth structure. Other features occasionally seen in humans, like bicornuate uteruses and supernumerary nipples, would also be difficult to incorporate into a purely primate tree.
    http://phys.org/news/2013-07-c.....umans.html

    Moreover, Physorg published a subsequent article showing that the pig-chimp hybrid theory for human origins is much harder to shoot down than Darwinists had first supposed it would be:

    Human hybrids: a closer look at the theory and evidence – July 25, 2013
    Excerpt: There was considerable fallout, both positive and negative, from our first story covering the radical pig-chimp hybrid theory put forth by Dr. Eugene McCarthy,,,By and large, those coming out against the theory had surprisingly little science to offer in their sometimes personal attacks against McCarthy.
    ,,,Under the alternative hypothesis (humans are not pig-chimp hybrids), the assumption is that humans and chimpanzees are equally distant from pigs. You would therefore expect chimp traits not seen in humans to be present in pigs at about the same rate as are human traits not found in chimps. However, when he searched the literature for traits that distinguish humans and chimps, and compiled a lengthy list of such traits, he found that it was always humans who were similar to pigs with respect to these traits. This finding is inconsistent with the possibility that humans are not pig-chimp hybrids, that is, it rejects that hypothesis.,,,
    http://phys.org/news/2013-07-h.....dence.html

    The obvious question for me is, of course, since Darwinists are having such a hard time proving that we did not come from pig-chimp hybrids, what makes Darwinists so sure that we evolved from apes or anything else in the first place? Any reasonable person would realize that if such a dubious theory as the pig-chimp hybrid theory can cause such havoc for Darwinists, for what was suppose to be such well established science, then perhaps the Darwinian theory for human origins is not nearly as strong as Darwinists have dogmatically held it to be in the first place. Some might even hold that such ‘flimsiness’ would clearly indicate the original theory was rubbish as to being hard science.

    As well, reconstructions and drawings by Darwinists are based mostly on imagination not data:

    “National Geographic magazine commissioned four artists to reconstruct a female figure from casts of seven fossil bones thought to be from the same species as skull 1470. One artist drew a creature whose forehead is missing and whose jaws look vaguely like those of a beaked dinosaur. Another artist drew a rather good-looking modern African-American woman with unusually long arms. A third drew a somewhat scrawny female with arms like a gorilla and a face like a Hollywood werewolf. And a fourth drew a figure covered with body hair and climbing a tree, with beady eyes that glare out from under a heavy, gorilla-like brow.”
    “Behind the Scenes,” National Geographic 197 (March, 2000): 140
    picture – these artists “independently” produced the 4 very “different” ancestors you see here
    http://www.omniology.com/JackalopianArtists.html

    “alleged restoration of ancient types of man have very little, if any, scientific value and are likely only to mislead the public”
    Earnest A. Hooton – physical anthropologist – Harvard University

    As to the ‘fuzzy’ fossil record, Tattersall comments as to the clear boundary here:

    “A number of hominid crania are known from sites in eastern and southern Africa in the 400- to 200-thousand-year range, but none of them looks like a close antecedent of the anatomically distinctive Homo sapiens…Even allowing for the poor record we have of our close extinct kin, Homo sapiens appears as distinctive and unprecedented…there is certainly no evidence to support the notion that we gradually became who we inherently are over an extended period, in either the physical or the intellectual sense.”
    Dr. Ian Tattersall: – paleoanthropologist – emeritus curator of the American Museum of Natural History – (Masters of the Planet, 2012)

    Even Mayr himself had no trouble finding a ‘clear boundary’

    Man is indeed as unique, as different from all other animals, as had been traditionally claimed by theologians and philosophers.
    Evolutionist Ernst Mayr – ‘inventor’ of homo erectus designation (What Evolution Is. 2001)

    Detailed analysis of fossil teeth also reveals a ‘clear boundary’

    No Known Hominin Is Common Ancestor of Neanderthals and Modern Humans, Study Suggests – Oct. 21, 2013
    Excerpt: The article, “No known hominin species matches the expected dental morphology of the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans,” relies on fossils of approximately 1,200 molars and premolars from 13 species or types of hominins — humans and human relatives and ancestors. Fossils from the well-known Atapuerca sites have a crucial role in this research, accounting for more than 15 percent of the complete studied fossil collection.,,,
    They conclude with high statistical confidence that none of the hominins usually proposed as a common ancestor, such as Homo heidelbergensis, H. erectus and H. antecessor, is a satisfactory match.
    “None of the species that have been previously suggested as the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans has a dental morphology that is fully compatible with the expected morphology of this ancestor,” Gómez-Robles said.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....153202.htm

    Phillip Johnson comments on the overt bias of Darwinists in how they analyze the fossil record here:

    “What I saw about the fossil record again,, was that Gould and Eldridge were experts in the area where the animal fossil record is most complete. That is marine invertebrates.,, And the reason for this is that when,, a bird, or a human, or an ape, or a wolf, or whatever, dies,, normally it does not get fossilized. It decays in the open, or is eaten by scavengers. Things get fossilized when they get covered over quickly with sediments so that they are protected from this natural destructive process. So if you want to be a fossil, the way to go about it is to live in the shallow seas, where you get covered over by sediments when you die,,. Most of the animal fossils are of that kind and it is in that area where the fossil record is most complete. That there is a consistent pattern.,, I mean there is evolution in the sense of variation, just like the peppered moth example. Things do vary, but they vary within the type. The new types appear suddenly, fully formed, without an evolutionary history and then they stay fundamentally stable with (cyclical) variation after their sudden appearance, and stasis (according) to the empirical observations made by Gould and Eldridge. Well now you see, I was aware of a number of examples of where evolutionary intermediates were cited. This was brought up as soon as people began to make the connection and question the (Darwinian) profession about their theory in light of the controversy. But the examples of claimed evolutionary transitionals, oddly enough, come from the area of the fossil record where fossilization is rarest. Where it is least likely to happen.,,,
    One of things that amused me is that there are so many fossil candidates for human ancestorship, and so very few fossils that are candidates for the great apes.,, There should be just as many. But why not? Any economist can give you the answer to that. Human ancestors have a great American value and so they are produced at a much greater rate.,,
    These also were grounds to be suspicious of what was going on,,,
    ,,,if the problem is the greatest where the fossil record is most complete and if the confirming examples are found where fossils are rarest, that doesn’t sound like it could be the explanation.”
    – Phillip Johnson – April 2012 – audio/video 15:05 minute mark to 19:15 minute mark
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....age#t=903s

  8. 8
    daveS says:

    BA77,

    daveS, can you tell the difference between a human and a non-human ape?

    As a layperson, I think I could tell the difference between a chimp and a modern human. I would have a much harder time distinguishing between a Neanderthal or a Homo erectus skeleton and a modern human.

    Even Mayr himself had no trouble finding a ‘clear boundary’

    Which is?

    Detailed analysis of fossil teeth also reveals a ‘clear boundary’

    Your quote says that “No known hominin species matches the expected dental morphology of the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans”. Does this mean that Neanderthals are/were non-human?

  9. 9
    daveS says:

    Sorry, messed up the blockquotes. Hopefully it will be clear what I meant to post.

    OT: Is the editing feature gone for now?

  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    daveS, seeing as we have been through this before, I’ll leave the thread now and let you chase your own tail in a circle.

    I really have much better things to do today.

    The last word is all yours

  11. 11
    Roy says:

    More than 1000 words from ba77 in response to this:

    “I don’t think I have ever seen that claim before [black people will speciate away from other races], and I definitely do not believe it myself. It is not critical to Darwinian or any other evolutionary viewpoint.”

    but nary a mention of speciation of black people.

    ba77 has effectively demonstrated that the claim in question is pure invention. His attempt to camouflage this exposure of culpability with an unending stream of irrelevancies does nothing but demonstrate his own bias.

  12. 12
    Seversky says:

    Biological categories with clear boundaries … like the human race? As opposed to the racism (black people will speciate away from other races) that is critical to Darwinian thinking?

    As opposed to the racism practiced towards the native peoples of North and South America, Africa, Australia and New Zealand by European colonists, almost all of whom would have held themselves to be good Christians? Much of this happening long before Darwin published his theory

    Or as opposed to the Southern religious leaders in the US, good Christians all, who defended the institution of slavery on the basis of Scripture?

    Or – and, in a way, this is worse because by then they should have known better – the boarding schools to which Native American children were sent to forcibly assimilate them into white society, run by no doubt well-meaning Christians in both the US and your homeland Canada, well into the 1960s.

    People in class houses should not be throwing around accusations of racism willy-nilly.

  13. 13
    goodusername says:

    Nothing makes it more “clear” that there is no “clear boundary” between apes and humans in the fossil record than to see quotes from the few biologists that actually believe that there is such a boundary – and seeing how none of them agree as to where the supposed “clear boundary” is. I’m always bemused how this obvious point always seems to escape BA77.

  14. 14
    bb says:

    Seversky @12

    Of course there were no Atheists that kept slaves.

    “Or as opposed to the Southern religious leaders in the US, good Christians all, who defended the institution of slavery on the basis of Scripture?”

    “The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose” – William Shakespeare

    No credit to the Christians that ended slavery? It’s like blaming the people that ended the practice for an institution that has always been the historical norm.

    Darwin added a pseudo-scientific justification to an ancient problem. We definitely can’t blame him for slavery. But we can credit him for adding a new genre of rationalization ==edit: for atrocity.

  15. 15
    goodusername says:

    Biological categories with clear boundaries … like the human race? As opposed to the racism (black people will speciate away from other races) that is critical to Darwinian thinking?

    Darwin spends a great deal of time in Descent of Man arguing against the idea that there were any kind of clear boundaries between the human races; even mocking those of the past who have tried to number the races. He even questioned whether the term “races” should be applied to human populations (and this was in a time when the dominant theory was that humans comprised several species.)
    And, no, he didn’t believe that black people were on their way to speciating away, as he believed that there was too much interbreeding taking place, meaning that all humans were essentially a single population (although one with variations within).

    Can anyone imagine legacy media like NPR addressing all that stuff honestly?

    Oh the irony.

  16. 16
    Andre says:

    I am absolutely gutted that people would try and defend Darwin…..

    He was a crackpot that has duped humanity.

  17. 17
    bloodymurderlive says:

    Ok, but… neither the OP nor the comments say anything in response to the article’s main point, which is that more analytic (and ostensibly, more rigorous) thinkers believe in evolution, and that more intuitive (and ostensibly less rigorous) thinkers reject evolution. Anyone?

  18. 18
    bornagain77 says:

    bloodymurderlive you ask:

    “,,,more analytic (and ostensibly, more rigorous) thinkers believe in evolution, and that more intuitive (and ostensibly less rigorous) thinkers reject evolution. Anyone?”

    Should not there first be a person who can think in the first place before you can ask ‘who’ is more rational?

    At the 23:33 minute mark of the following video, Richard Dawkins agrees with materialistic philosophers who say that:
    “consciousness is an illusion”
    A few minutes later Rowan Williams asks Dawkins ”If consciousness is an illusion…what isn’t?”.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWN4cfh1Fac&t=22m57s

    at 37:51 minute mark of following video, according to the law of identity, Richard Dawkins does not truly exist as a real person: (the unity of Aristotelian Form is also discussed)

    Atheistic Materialism – Does Richard Dawkins Exist? – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCnzq2yTCg&t=37m51s

    The Confidence of Jerry Coyne – January 6, 2014
    Excerpt: But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant: But more on that below.) Prometheus cannot be at once unbound and unreal; the human will cannot be simultaneously triumphant and imaginary.
    http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.c.....oyne/?_r=0

    Darwin’s Robots: When Evolutionary Materialists Admit that Their Own Worldview Fails – Nancy Pearcey – April 23, 2015
    Excerpt: When I teach these concepts in the classroom, an example my students find especially poignant is Flesh and Machines by Rodney Brooks, professor emeritus at MIT. Brooks writes that a human being is nothing but a machine — a “big bag of skin full of biomolecules” interacting by the laws of physics and chemistry. In ordinary life, of course, it is difficult to actually see people that way. But, he says, “When I look at my children, I can, when I force myself, … see that they are machines.”
    Is that how he treats them, though? Of course not: “That is not how I treat them…. I interact with them on an entirely different level. They have my unconditional love, the furthest one might be able to get from rational analysis.” Certainly if what counts as “rational” is a materialist worldview in which humans are machines, then loving your children is irrational. It has no basis
    within Brooks’s worldview. It sticks out of his box.
    How does he reconcile such a heart-wrenching cognitive dissonance? He doesn’t. Brooks ends by saying, “I maintain two sets of inconsistent beliefs.” He has given up on any attempt to reconcile his theory with his experience. He has abandoned all hope for a unified, logically consistent worldview.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....95451.html

    [Nancy Pearcey] When Reality Clashes with Your Atheistic Worldview – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0Kpn3HBMiQ

    podcast – Are Humans Simply Robots? Nancy Pearcey on the “Free Will Illusion”
    http://www.discovery.org/multi.....more-30001

    The Heretic – Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? – March 25, 2013
    Excerpt:,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath.
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/.....tml?page=3

    Existential Argument against Atheism – November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen
    1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview.
    2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview.
    3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality.
    4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion.
    5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true.
    Conclusion: Atheism is false.
    http://answersforhope.com/exis.....t-atheism/

    Sam Harris’s Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It – Martin Cothran – November 9, 2012
    Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state — including their position on this issue — is the effect of a physical, not logical cause.
    By their own logic, it isn’t logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....66221.html

    (1) rationality implies a thinker in control of thoughts.
    (2) under materialism a thinker is an effect caused by processes in the brain.
    (3) in order for materialism to ground rationality a thinker (an effect) must control processes in the brain (a cause). (1)&(2)
    (4) no effect can control its cause.
    Therefore materialism cannot ground rationality.
    per Box UD

  19. 19
    bloodymurderlive says:

    BA777,

    You think atheism is irrational, I get it. But that still doesn’t answer the claim. You would have to either a) explain why analytic thinking is not more rational than intuitive thinking, or b) explain why the correlation does not actually exist. I’m inclined to seek answers from a), but I was hoping somebody would be able to answer the question more directly than shifting to tertiary arguments.

  20. 20
    bornagain77 says:

    bloodymurderlive, apparently you don’t ‘get it’.

    Since atheistic materialism, which is the philosophy that undergirds neo-Darwinism, makes it impossible to reason coherently in the first place then it is clear that neo-Darwinists are not very analytical in their thinking or else they certainly would not be neo-Darwinists.

    “One absolutely central inconsistency ruins [the popular scientific philosophy]. The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless inference is valid, the whole picture disappears… unless Reason is an absolute, all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based.”
    —C.S. Lewis, Is Theology Poetry (aka the Argument from Reason)

    “If you do not assume the law of non-contradiction, you have nothing to argue about. If you do not assume the principles of sound reason, you have nothing to argue with. If you do not assume libertarian free will, you have no one to argue against. If you do not assume morality to be an objective commodity, you have no reason to argue in the first place.”
    – William J Murray

    Isaiah 1:18
    Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

  21. 21
    Silver Asiatic says:

    If analytical thinking = belief in evolution, then analytical thinking is irrational.

    There are some people who lack (or suppress) any sort of intuitive thinking. And as Chesterton would say, those are the people who end up in mental institutions.

    Life is something more than can be compressed into algorithm. Healthy people understand this. It’s known as common sense.

Leave a Reply