A just-so story about the origin of religious beliefs

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 1, 2020

Culture, Human evolution, Intelligent Design, Naturalism, Religion}

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

This one is about stones:

By 500,000 years ago, Homo had mastered the skill of shaping stone, bone, hides, horns, and wood into dozens of tool types. Some of these tools were so symmetrical and aesthetically pleasing that some scientists speculate toolmaking took on a ritual aspect that connected Homo artisans with their traditions and community. These ritualistic behaviors may have evolved, hundreds of thousands of years later, into the rituals we see in religions.
Agustín Fuentes, “How Did Belief Evolve?” at Sapiens

Some of us would be more impressed if the authors of this type of work attributed their own beliefs to these types of sources.

How about this: Belief that there is no design in nature comes from spending a lot of time reading boring useless papers and sitting in boring useless meetings, Eventually, homo academicus evolved to believe that all nature is like that.

There’s that’s a good enough thesis. Let’s publish it. But first we need to find a journal that is not run by homo academicus himself. Nah. Let’s do a Sokal hoax on this stuff instead. Any ideas?

See also: If naturalism can explain religion, why does it get so many basic facts wrong?

Evolutionary conundrum: is religion a useful, useless, or harmful adaptation?

and

Imagine a world of religions that naturalism might indeed be able to explain

Comments

PS: Googlr translate: >>Günter Bechly (born October 16, 1963 in Sindelfingen) is a German paleontologist and entomologist who works with fossil insects (especially dragonflies). From 1999 to 2016 he was scientific curator for amber and fossil insects at the State Museum of Natural History in Stuttgart. [1]>>kairosfocus_{March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

Seversky, he was head of a significant science museum. T=Given what else has been going on, that speaks for itself. And of course, the debates are in the anglophone world, so I am not particularly surprised to see that he is still around in German. KFkairosfocus_{March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

F/N: Let's look at Wiki: >>Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method.[1][Note 1]>> 1: There is no one "scientific method." There is thus no demarcation line between science and non-science or pseudo-science. 2: What can be warranted is that inductive reasoning [modern sense] can and does warrant empirically grounded investigations, in some cases to moral certainty. 3: The issue is, warrant for fact claims and best explanations. But this applies to Sciences as conventionally called, history, forensics, management, economics and other social sciences, education, statistics and a lot of other disciplines, as well as to ordinary common sense and prudence. 4: However, ironically, given the pessimistic induction, while many facts of observation and reliability of signs can often be warranted to moral certainty, no big enough body of theory can be warranted to more that being a best explanation so far subject to correction or replacement. 5: This holds doubly for observational sciences and triply for things we infer about what we cannot observe but address on here and now traces. That includes speculations about astronomically remote entities and for reconstructions of the deep past of origins. 6: So, inherently, grand theories of earth history, solar system and cosmos origins as well as origins of life and of body plans are triply provisional. 7: Ironically, when we observe DNA and its FSCO/I with language, code, algorithms etc, we are far better warranted in inferring reliably on signs that such reflect reliable signs of design that those who impose a priori evolutionary materialism and then claim that their ideologically loaded reconstructions of the past have passed the level of theory to that of fact. 8: So, already, we see that if anything may legitimately be deemed a poor induction, which ought not to be presented or taught as if it were practically certain, it is the sorts of things that are routinely sold to us as the "facts" of our past. >> Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; >> 9: More correctly, poor reasoning "is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims." >>reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation;>> 10: The imposition of a priori evolutionary materialism dressed up in a lab coat is a capital case in point. 11: That said, Popperian falsificationism is not actually a very useful criterion. What would be better, is that as inductive arguments are inherently defeatable, responsible, feasible tests should be done to establish reliability so far, and due notes on limitations should be made. 12: For instance, a single well established case of observed creation of FSCO/I beyond 500 - 1,000 bits through blind chance and/or mechanical necessity alone, would suffice to overturn the design inference. In fact, trillions of cases are observed, including in this thread, and consistently FSCO/I comes about by design reliably as search challenge demonstrates. >> lack of openness to evaluation by other experts;>> 13: Again, a mark of poor reasoning rather than poor science. 14: Where, the repeated tendency to disqualify, discredit, lock out, expel and slander critics of evolutionary materialistic scientism speaks for itself regarding the fallacy of the closed, hostile mind. >> absence of systematic practices when developing hypotheses;>> 15: In scientific inductive reasoning, there are many, many systematic practices, however, absolutely key inductive insights have often come about in intuitive, creative ways. 16: Kekule's dream about a snake forming a circle providing the solution to the Benzine ring, or Einstein's daydream of riding on a beam of light or Newton's insight of a falling apple vs the orbiting Moon or Archimedes running through the streets shouting Eureka, as he saw the relevance of density to identifying the substance in his king's crown all spring to mind. 17: The issue is inference to best, empirically anchored explanation, not whether the idea came in a dream or the like. Often, that is how the unconscious speaks. >>and continued adherence long after the pseudoscientific hypotheses have been experimentally discredited.>> 18: Closed mindedness in the face of empirical evidence that falsifies -- not merely "discredits" is a fallacy of reasoning, not merely of "pseudoscience." Notice, how the demarcation lines used to try to create a citadel of prestige have fallen. 19: Where, also, manifestly, evolutionary materialistic scientism is multiply self referentially incoherent and self refuting [by way of undermining rational responsible intellectual freedom], it is necessarily false. >> The term pseudoscience is considered pejorative,[4] because it suggests something is being presented as science inaccurately or even deceptively.>> 19: For cause, and here we see that if one is making a strong adverse claim against another, one has a duty of care to provide adequate warrant. >>Those described as practicing or advocating pseudoscience often dispute the characterization.[2]>> 20: In too many cases as we see relevant to design theory, for cause. And, given the right of innocent reputation and the reasonable principle that one is innocent unless adequately shown in the wrong, guilt by accusation and compounding this by oh you deny it and every guilty party denies it, is slander. >>The demarcation between science and pseudoscience has philosophical and scientific implications.[5]>> 21: As pointed out, such demarcation lines cannot be warranted as between science and non science or pseudo science. The demarcation lines are those between strong and weak of failed inductive reasoning. >>Differentiating science from pseudoscience has practical implications in the case of health care, expert testimony, environmental policies, and science education.[6]>> 22: Errors carried forward. The issue is instead to be responsible in inductive reasoning. Unfortunately, this whole presentation fails that test already. >>Distinguishing scientific facts and theories from pseudoscientific beliefs, such as those found in astrology, alchemy, alternative medicine, occult beliefs, religious beliefs, and creation science, is part of science education and scientific literacy.[6][7]>> 23: Little more than creating an ideological lock-in and scarlet branding what one does not like, given the above. What is needed instead, is to show good vs poor inductive reasoning in the modern sense. >>Pseudoscience can be harmful. For example, pseudoscientific anti-vaccine activism and promotion of homeopathic remedies as alternative disease treatments can result in people forgoing important medical treatment with demonstrable health benefits.[8] >> 24: Nothing is gained by using "pseudoscience," rather than poor inductive reasoning in particular, and poor reasoning in general. KFkairosfocus_{March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT}

JVL @ 181
I hadn’t realised that Dr Bechly had, effectively, been forced out of his job (according to him, even his own website didn’t discuss that situation oddly). The Wikipedia lack I do find strange but, clearly, being an ID advocate DOES NOT get you booted off the site.
I also found it odd that Dr Bechly's entry on Wikipedia had been deleted when those of more prominent advocates of ID had been left up. Why pick on a little-known (in the US at least) German scientist? Could there have been other reasons behind it? If the only reason for removing him was his conversion to belief in ID then, in my view, it was a highly questionable decision and should have been challenged. However, it should also be noted that David Klinghoffer omitted to mention that Dr Bechly has not been entirely expunged from Wikipedia. A Google search easily found this entry for him from the German-language version.Seversky_{March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT}

KF, 200: the point of concern stands. Okay.JVL_{March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

JVL, the point of concern stands. KFkairosfocus_{March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT}

KF, 197: you neatly omitted that you did not establish a critical distance between yourself and the slanders at Wikipedia I personally did not use the term pseudoscience in reference to ID. If you want to make assumptions it's up to you. JVL then tries to claim that wikipedia ‘is a good place to start’ and that wikipedia is not inherently biased against ID since “why are the entries for Dr Dembski, Dr Behe, Dr Meyers, Dr Wells, etc still there?” I mentioned the articles about Drs Dembski, Behe, etc to establish that support for ID is not a ticket off Wikipedia. Whether or not it's biased would take more investigation. [–> note the context of active suppression of correction of slander and the wider context that by 2017, several dozens of peer-reviewed ID supportive articles were in the literature and so were corrections of the imposition of evolutionary materialistic scientism by question begging a priori] Again, I personally did not use the term pseudoscience referring to ID. And I don't think you can say the use of the term is slanderous. The comments from Mr Sanger are interesting but, as he himself notes, he is no longer with the organisation. As Crichton would say, JVL is a scoundrel [–> language I would not use]: Thank you for that. [–> yes, you simply spread the slander without correcting it as slander, implying endorsement, which is further reinforced by remarks as to how Wikipedia is a good place to begin from] I doubt it's slanderous, I didn't use it, I didn't even enter it into the conversation. And, obviously, all resources should be looked at with a critical eye, I certainly do so with Wikipedia. Given that I still think it's a good place to start as one can get references to other online sources and topics. [–> In a context of widespread slander, there is a duty of care to defend innocent reputation. More broadly, a responsible party will not circularte strongly adverse views on people without confirming their veracity on good warrant. Otherwise one is doing little more than propagating slander irresponsibly.] I personally did not use the term pseudoscientific in reference to ID because I am not familiar with the common definition of pseudoscience so I cannot confirm or deny the appropriateness of it's use. And, again, I doubt it's actually slanderous. [–> a clear evasion of responsibility to respect innocent reputation and to warrant accusations before making or spreading them.] I personally did not refer to ID as pseudoscience. I offered and opinion which may or may not be true (I strongly believe it is having listened to lots of scientists discuss ID and having read the article on ID) but I categorically did not state my own opinion. I assume if Wikipedia was being legally slanderous then the Discovery Institute would have tried to take them to court. Perhaps they have, I'd be interested in what happened if they did.JVL_{March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT}

F/N: here is Wiki's definition of pseudoscience, I will markup DV on my return:
Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method.[1][Note 1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; absence of systematic practices when developing hypotheses; and continued adherence long after the pseudoscientific hypotheses have been experimentally discredited. The term pseudoscience is considered pejorative,[4] because it suggests something is being presented as science inaccurately or even deceptively. Those described as practicing or advocating pseudoscience often dispute the characterization.[2] [--> so guilty if you protest your innocence . . . ] The demarcation between science and pseudoscience has philosophical and scientific implications.[5] Differentiating science from pseudoscience has practical implications in the case of health care, expert testimony, environmental policies, and science education.[6] Distinguishing scientific facts and theories from pseudoscientific beliefs, such as those found in astrology, alchemy, alternative medicine, occult beliefs, religious beliefs, and creation science, is part of science education and scientific literacy.[6][7] Pseudoscience can be harmful. For example, pseudoscientific anti-vaccine activism and promotion of homeopathic remedies as alternative disease treatments can result in people forgoing important medical treatment with demonstrable health benefits.[8]
KFkairosfocus_{March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT}

JVL, you neatly omitted that you did not establish a critical distance between yourself and the slanders at Wikipedia. Let's clip across this morning:
179 JVL March 8, 2020 at 2:32 am BA77, 177: Günter Bechly is far from the only person who has been fired from his job for daring to question Darwinian orthodoxy. I don’t think being written out of Wikipedia is equivalent to being fired from a job. I have no idea why he was expunged from Wikipedia, which, I agree, is not the font of all wisdom. I do find it a good place to start and one that is available to everyone so that links to there are visible to everyone. Who initially created Dr Bechly’s entry? Did they follow the Wikipedia guidelines? Have you tried to create an entry for him? If Dr Bechly was ‘expelled’ from Wikipedia for supporting intelligent design then why are the entries for Dr Dembski, Dr Behe, Dr Meyers, Dr Wells, etc still there? Supporting ID does not get you kicked off Wikipedia; there’s some part of the story we are missing. _______________ 180 bornagain77 March 8, 2020 at 3:44 am JVL states, I don’t think being written out of Wikipedia is equivalent to being fired from a job. I did not claim that it was. “Shoot, wikipedia ‘erased’ Günter Bechly, who has stellar credentials as a paleontologist, and who was curator at the State Museum of Natural History in Stuttgart, Germany, before being ‘pushed out’ after revealing his support for the theory of intelligent design.” Wikipedia Erases Paleontologist Günter Bechly – David Klinghoffer – October 10, 2017 Excerpt: Günter Bechly is a distinguished paleontologist, specializing in fossil dragonflies, exquisitely preserved in amber for tens of millions of years. After revealing his support for the theory of intelligent design, he was pushed out as a curator at the State Museum of Natural History in Stuttgart, Germany. He subsequently joined Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture as a Senior Fellow. Now we learn that our colleague has suffered another act of censorship: he has been erased from Wikipedia, ostensibly for not being “notable” enough.,,, ,,, It’s a mad world, a funhouse world, where the notability of a paleontologist of Günter Bechly’s stature is uncontested one day but, following his admission of finding ID persuasive, suddenly and furiously contested, to be ruled upon by a 23-year-old “boy” and 500-year-old wizard called “Jo-Jo.” Such is the alternative reality of Wikipedia. https://evolutionnews.org/2017/10/wikipedia-erases-paleontologist-gunter-bechly/ JVL then tries to claim that wikipedia ‘is a good place to start’ and that wikipedia is not inherently biased against ID since “why are the entries for Dr Dembski, Dr Behe, Dr Meyers, Dr Wells, etc still there?” Here are some of the supposedly unbiased entries on ID via wikipedia from the very first sentence of each entry on wikipedia William Albert “Bill” Dembski (born July 18, 1960),,, a prominent proponent of intelligent design (ID) pseudoscience, Michael J. Behe (born January 18, 1952),,, advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design (ID). Stephen C. Meyer (born 1958),,, advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design. John Corrigan “Jonathan” Wells (born 1942),,, advocate of the pseudoscientific argument of intelligent design. Wikipedia is a “good place to start” my foot! JVL then acts like it is easy for an ID advocate to correct the incorrect information on wikipedia, or for an ID advocate to ‘create an entry’ in the first place. Hogwash! The cofounder of wikipedia agrees that wikipedia is openly hostile towards ID Larry Sanger, Co-founder of Wikipedia, Agrees That it Does not Follow its Own Neutrality Policy. – December 1, 2016 Excerpt: Mr. Sanger posted an article today about media bias in which he alluded to the neutrality policy he drafted. I replied (see the combox of the article):“Wikipedia’s neutrality policy.” I’ve been reading Wikipedia [--> lesse, is it about no 5 or 6 on the Internet in terms of hits?] articles for years, and from the evidence I would not have thought such a thing exists, or, if it does, the name is somewhat misleading, because the policy would read something like: “On all matters cultural and political, Wikipedia will endeavor to crush conservative viewpoints. Neutrality will not be tolerated.” Just read the post on, for example, intelligent design theory. It is written by the theory’s antagonists, and all efforts to correct the post to reflect the real theory, as opposed to the straw man caricature presented by its opponents, are ruthlessly suppressed.” In a response Mr. Sanger stated: “For the record, I agree with this. Wikipedia doesn’t live up to its policy and in fact deliberately misinterprets it on some issues. Although I founded Wikipedia, I’m also long gone from the organization and am now probably its biggest critic, so…” There you go folks. We ain’t making it up. The co-founder of Wiki agrees with us. https://uncommondescent.com.....ty-policy/ In trying to correct misinformation and lies about ID on wikipedia,,, Atheistic internet trolls vigilantly police wikipedia to prevent the misinformtion and lies from being corrected Wikipedia’s Tyranny of the Unemployed – David Klinghoffer – June 24, 2012 Excerpt: PLoS One has a highly technical study out of editing patterns on Wikipedia. This is of special interest to us because Wikipedia’s articles on anything to do with intelligent design are replete with errors and lies, which the online encyclopedia’s volunteer editors are vigilant about maintaining against all efforts to set the record straight. You simply can never outlast these folks. They have nothing better to do with their time and will always erase your attempted correction and reinstate the bogus claim, with lightning speed over and over again. ,,, on Wikipedia, “fact” is established by the party with the free time that’s required to wear down everyone else and exhaust them into submission. The search for truth (on Wikipedia) yields to a tyranny of the unemployed. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....61281.html As to the lie/misinformation in the very first sentence of each of the entries on wikipedia for Dr Dembski, Dr Behe, Dr Meyers, and Dr Wells, i.e. the lie “that Intelligent Design is a “pseudoscientific principle”, nothing could be further from the truth. Contrary to what many people have been falsely led to believe by Darwinian atheists on wikipedia and elsewhere, about Intelligent Design supposedly being a pseudoscience, the fact of the matter is that all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism and/or on the presupposition of Darwinian materialism. From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (namely that the universe is rational and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can dare understand that rationality), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results themselves, from top to bottom, science itself is certainly not to be considered a ‘natural’ endeavor of man. Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analyzed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial logic and immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place. Again, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism. Furthermore, although the Darwinian atheist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science, (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that Darwinists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to: Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must hold beauty itself to be illusory. Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, Darwinian Materialism and/or Methodological Naturalism vs. Reality – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaksmYceRXM Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to. It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be . . . _____________ 181 JVL March 8, 2020 at 4:07 am BA77, 180: As to the lie/misinformation in the very first sentence of each of the entries on wikipedia for Dr Dembski, Dr Behe, Dr Meyers, and Dr Wells, i.e. the lie “that Intelligent Design is a “pseudoscientific principle”, nothing could be further from the truth. That does accurately reflect the view of a vast, vast majority of working scientists and even some theologians. You disagree, clearly, but I’m afraid the tail doesn’t get to wag the dog. [--> note the context of active suppression of correction of slander and the wider context that by 2017, several dozens of peer-reviewed ID supportive articles were in the literature and so were corrections of the imposition of evolutionary materialistic scientism by question begging a priori] Keep working on getting your views understood and accepted and things will change. I hadn’t realised that Dr Bechly had, effectively, been forced out of his job (according to him, even his own website didn’t discuss that situation oddly). The Wikipedia lack I do find strange but, clearly, being an ID advocate DOES NOT get you booted off the site. [--> at minimum, it gets you smeared with persistent slander that takes advantage of the looseness of defamation law in the USA, for Bechley, it got him both disappeared from Wikipedia -- as he headed a relevant museum so could not be derided as a fringe personality, and it got him pushed out of the job; as in Expelled] _______________ 184 bornagain77 March 8, 2020 at 4:28 am JVL claims that ID is a pseudoscience since “That does (not) accurately reflect the view of a vast, vast majority of working scientists and even some theologians.” So JVL appeals to a ‘consensus’ of “working scientists” to try to refute the fairly detailed arguments that I provided for why Darwinian evolution actually is the pseudoscience instead of ID being a pseudoscience as atheists claim on wikipedia? As Crichton would say, JVL is a scoundrel [--> language I would not use]: Michael Crichton explains it best when he said: I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. And he continues: Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What are relevant are reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. [--> a fair enough summary of scientific revolutions, though of course several such faced dubious opposition that did appeal to the prevailing consensus, try Semmelweiss] There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2719747/ ____________________ 185 kairosfocus March 8, 2020 at 4:46 am JVL, notice, how you substituted opinion and the institutional power of the evolutionary materialistic magisterium for the balance on merits of fact, in trying to dismiss BA77’s note on Wikipedia’s entrenched slander of the design inference and its leading thinkers. Including in the case of Dr Bechly. All you are doing is documenting the depth of polarisation and the presence of the domineering factionalism Plato warned against. Kindly, define, what is pseudoscientific ___ , on objective grounds ____, showing the non-question-begging validity and coherence of demarcation criteria you use ____ . Prediction, on failure of such demarcation attempts in recent decades: you cannot fill in those blanks in a sound, cogent fashion. Next, identify for us cases where complex [in the beyond 500 – 1,000 bits sense] functional language, alphanumeric codes and/or algorithms have been OBSERVED to come about by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity, i.e. without material involvement of intelligently directed configuration ________ . Again, predictably, you cannot fill that blank in successfully [--> notice, how there has been no cogent answer on these two challenges]. By contrast, this very thread stands as yet further examples of how language and related phenomena routinely arise by intelligent design. There are trillions of cases in point and no sound counter-examples, backed up by analysis of search challenge in large configuration spaces. So, on reasonable inductive inference on reliable sign, we are well within epistemological and scientific rights to infer design on seeing FSCO/I. The rulings otherwise, invariably, come from ideological imposition of evolutionary materialistic scientism and/or its fellow travellers. Wikipedia is here serving as further imposition of agit prop, backed up by the loose defamation law in the USA which robs targetted people of the right of innocent reputation. KF _____________ 189 JVL March 8, 2020 at 4:59 am I made no claims that ID is a pseudo-science; I merely pointed out that that is the majority opinion. Which is true. __________________ 190 kairosfocus March 8, 2020 at 5:20 am JVL, your very citation of the tendency implies an endorsement as it rhetorically served to pose the challenge that such a consensus is presumably true. As predicted, you cannot back it up. As for oh there has been progress, yes there has been. There has also been holocaust including the ongoing worst holocaust in history. Furthermore, none of the progress that has happened, traces to imposition of evolutionary materialistic scientism and its fellow travellers. I trust, we do not need to go into a discussion of the roots of modern science in the only place and time where such an endeavour has emerged as a sustained movement. KF _____________ 191 JVL March 8, 2020 at 5:54 am KF, 190: your very citation of the tendency implies an endorsement as it rhetorically served to pose the challenge that such a consensus is presumably true. So, anytime I mentioned something that is true (how the majority feels) implies I endorse it? And even if I do agree with the majority view am I not allowed to discuss it? Remember, BA77 initially brought up the Wikipedia references to ID as pseudoscience, not me. I understand your feelings but I don’t think it’s fair to shut down a thread of a conversation because you disagree with something. [--> having set up a strawman with an implicit ad hominem of censorship, JVL knocks it over] But I’m happy to drop the issue. ______________ 192 kairosfocus March 8, 2020 at 6:43 am JVL, the term pseudoscience implies gross disqualifying error or even outright willful fraud. in that context, the principle of a right to innocent reputation implies that one would not cite a consensus or authority without critically distancing oneself [--> notice the key step] unless one implies associating himself with what is claimed by that individual or collective authority. That is the relevant rhetorical context. I put up a response, with challenges to define pseudoscience on objective grounds, giving a valid demarcation criterion. It is obvious that you have not been able to answer that challenge, as I predicted. next, I took time to highlight the relevant issues, outlining the principle that we are dealing with applied inductive reasoning, with defeatable warrant on reliable sign being on the table. That warrant has to do with a very observable phenomenon, FSCO/I, which on trillions of cases in point and on linked search challenge for blind search of large configuration spaces, is reliably a sign of intelligently directed configuration. I also pointed to the presence of language, alphanumeric code and algorithms in DNA, which lies at the heart of cell based life. Can you show that such FSCO/I, language, alphanumeric symbolic code and algorithms have been reliably observed to come about by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity? Evidently, not. Further, I documented the ideological imposition that has begged the question. Those are what you need to cogently answer. KF _____________ 193 JVL March 8, 2020 at 6:55 am KF, 192: the term pseudoscience implies gross disqualifying error or even outright willful fraud. Good thing I didn’t personally use it to refer to ID [--> yes, you simply spread the slander without correcting it as slander, implying endorsement, which is further reinforced by remarks as to how Wikipedia is a good place to begin from] in that context, the principle of a right to innocent reputation implies that one would not cite a consensus or authority without critically distancing oneself unless one implies associating himself with what is claimed by that individual or collective authority. I disagree, I think you can mention something [--> what kind of "something" . . . an echo of someone's indirect reference to the 9/11 attacks] without agreeing with it. [--> In a context of widespread slander, there is a duty of care to defend innocent reputation. More broadly, a responsible party will not circularte strongly adverse views on people without confirming their veracity on good warrant. Otherwise one is doing little more than propagating slander irresponsibly.] That is the relevant rhetorical context. I put up a response, with challenges to define pseudoscience on objective grounds, giving a valid demarcation criterion. It is obvious that you have not been able to answer that challenge, as I predicted. I wasn’t trying to answer the challenge since I did not personally apply the term. [--> a clear evasion of responsibility to respect innocent reputation and to warrant accusations before making or spreading them.] ____________ 194 ET March 8, 2020 at 7:30 am JVL: I made no claims that ID is a pseudo-science; I merely pointed out that that is the majority opinion. Which is true. Except for the fact that you don’t know that. The majority of people accept some form of ID. And those who don’t accept ID don’t have a viable scientific alternative. And I don’t care if you or anyone else disagrees with that. You definitely cannot provide anything to refute it.
the pattern of irresponsible rhetoric is clear. KFkairosfocus_{March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT}

JVL does NOT speak for any scientists. JVL cannot say what any majority of scientists think. Yet he thinks that he does. Strange but true.ET_{March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

JVL:
I do believe in unguided evolutionary theory …
There isn't any such theory. There aren't even testable hypotheses. So you have to believe in it- pure faith.ET_{March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

JVL:
I made no claims that ID is a pseudo-science; I merely pointed out that that is the majority opinion. Which is true.
Except for the fact that you don't know that. The majority of people accept some form of ID. And those who don't accept ID don't have a viable scientific alternative. And I don't care if you or anyone else disagrees with that. You definitely cannot provide anything to refute it.ET_{March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT}

KF, 192: the term pseudoscience implies gross disqualifying error or even outright willful fraud. Good thing I didn't personally use it to refer to ID. in that context, the principle of a right to innocent reputation implies that one would not cite a consensus or authority without critically distancing oneself unless one implies associating himself with what is claimed by that individual or collective authority. I disagree, I think you can mention something without agreeing with it. That is the relevant rhetorical context. I put up a response, with challenges to define pseudoscience on objective grounds, giving a valid demarcation criterion. It is obvious that you have not been able to answer that challenge, as I predicted. I wasn't trying to answer the challenge since I did not personally apply the term. I know the relevant issues and I'm quite sure that I could not make a contribution that you would find compelling based on what I've read at UD over the years. So I won't waste your time if that's okay. Which is not a concession or a put down or a challenge. I do believe in unguided evolutionary theory but I can't see that I could bring up anything you haven't already heard and dealt with.JVL_{March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT}

JVL, the term pseudoscience implies gross disqualifying error or even outright willful fraud. in that context, the principle of a right to innocent reputation implies that one would not cite a consensus or authority without critically distancing oneself unless one implies associating himself with what is claimed by that individual or collective authority. That is the relevant rhetorical context. I put up a response, with challenges to define pseudoscience on objective grounds, giving a valid demarcation criterion. It is obvious that you have not been able to answer that challenge, as I predicted. next, I took time to highlight the relevant issues, outlining the principle that we are dealing with applied inductive reasoning, with defeatable warrant on reliable sign being on the table. That warrant has to do with a very observable phenomenon, FSCO/I, which on trillions of cases in point and on linked search challenge for blind search of large configuration spaces, is reliably a sign of intelligently directed configuration. I also pointed to the presence of language, alphanumeric code and algorithms in DNA, which lies at the heart of cell based life. Can you show that such FSCO/I, language, alphanumeric symbolic code and algorithms have been reliably observed to come about by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity? Evidently, not. Further, I documented the ideological imposition that has begged the question. Those are what you need to cogently answer. KFkairosfocus_{March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT}

KF, 190: your very citation of the tendency implies an endorsement as it rhetorically served to pose the challenge that such a consensus is presumably true. So, anytime I mentioned something that is true (how the majority feels) implies I endorse it? And even if I do agree with the majority view am I not allowed to discuss it? Remember, BA77 initially brought up the Wikipedia references to ID as pseudoscience, not me. I understand your feelings but I don't think it's fair to shut down a thread of a conversation because you disagree with something. But I'm happy to drop the issue.JVL_{March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT}

JVL, your very citation of the tendency implies an endorsement as it rhetorically served to pose the challenge that such a consensus is presumably true. As predicted, you cannot back it up. As for oh there has been progress, yes there has been. There has also been holocaust including the ongoing worst holocaust in history. Furthermore, none of the progress that has happened, traces to imposition of evolutionary materialistic scientism and its fellow travellers. I trust, we do not need to go into a discussion of the roots of modern science in the only place and time where such an endeavour has emerged as a sustained movement. KFkairosfocus_{March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT}

I made no claims that ID is a pseudo-science; I merely pointed out that that is the majority opinion. Which is true.JVL_{March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
03:59 AM
3
03
59
AM
PDT}

KF, 182: However, that is a negative case, one that — predictably — you and ilk will ignore in haste to promote what you see as the champion of progress and prosperity for our civilisation. It isn’t. In the last 150 years . . . woman have been given the right to vote all over the planet, that is a good thing. State sanctioned slavery has ended, that is a good thing. Vaccines have come into wide-spread use saving probably millions of lives, another good thing. Many, many improvements in hygiene and medicine have meant the average life expectancy all over the planet has risen. Police forces are now commonplace and are helping to protect the lives of citizens everywhere. Widespread public transport means that more people can travel outside a small radius near their home. Public museums, art galleries and libraries allow everyone to see, hear and read great works of art from all of history. The development of air travel means many, many people can afford to travel to other cultures and get a better world perspective. (I remember when I first travelled to Europe and visited as many gothic cathedrals as I could find, glorious!!) Higher education has become much more available in my father's lifetime which millions and millions of people (and society) have benefited from. Literacy levels are much, much higher all over the planet. State supported medical assistance and pension programmes are benefitting many individuals. Banks are more secure and individual's deposits are generally protected by laws and governments. Of course there have been wars, some pretty hideous. But that's not a new thing, more of a holdover. In general the lot of the average person on this planet has improved dramatically since Darwin published On the Origin of Species. I'm not saying the improvements came from those espousing his views but pretty clearly the ever greater acceptance of evolutionary theory didn't stop all the progress that has been made. Would you rather live now or in 1850? I know what I'd pick. And, again, just because some folks think that if you support unguided evolutionary theory you have to consider human life to be meaningless does not mean everyone shares that sentiment. You don't like being assumed to share the views of all Christians so please do not make that mistake in reverse.JVL_{March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
03:56 AM
3
03
56
AM
PDT}

PPS: Lewontin's inadvertent, cat out of bag explanation of the consensus you appeal to:
. . . to put a correct [--> Just who here presume to cornering the market on truth and so demand authority to impose?] view of the universe into people's heads
[==> as in, "we" the radically secularist elites have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge, making "our" "consensus" the yardstick of truth . . . where of course "view" is patently short for WORLDVIEW . . . and linked cultural agenda . . . ]
we must first get an incorrect view out [--> as in, if you disagree with "us" of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world [--> "explanations of the world" is yet another synonym for WORLDVIEWS; the despised "demon[ic]" "supernatural" being of course an index of animus towards ethical theism and particularly the Judaeo-Christian faith tradition], the demons that exist only in their imaginations,
[ --> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying "our" elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to "fix" the widespread mental disease]
and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth
[--> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]
. . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [--> "we" are the dominant elites], it is self-evident
[--> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]
that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [--> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [--> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [--> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [--> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is "quote-mined" I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]
This is backed by the US National Science Teachers Association, in 2000:
All those involved with science teaching and learning should have a common, accurate view of the nature of science. [--> yes but a question-begging ideological imposition is not an accurate view] Science is characterized by the systematic gathering of information through various forms of direct and indirect observations and the testing of this information by methods including, but not limited to, experimentation [--> correct so far]. The principal product of science is knowledge in the form of naturalistic concepts [--> evolutionary materialistic scientism is imposed] and the laws and theories related to those [--> i.e. ideologically loaded, evolutionary materialistic] concepts . . . . science, along with its methods, explanations and generalizations, must be the sole focus of instruction in science classes to the exclusion of all non-scientific or pseudoscientific methods, explanations, generalizations and products [--> censorship of anything that challenges the imposition; fails to appreciate that scientific methods are studied through logic, epistemology and philosophy of science, which are philosophy not science] . . . . Although no single universal step-by-step scientific method captures the complexity of doing science [--> a good point, but fails to see that this brings to bear many philosophical issues], a number of shared values and perspectives characterize a scientific approach to understanding nature. Among these are a demand for naturalistic explanations [--> outright ideological imposition and censorship that fetters freedom of responsible thought] supported by empirical evidence [--> the imposition controls how evidence is interpreted and that's why blind watchmaker mechanisms never seen to actually cause FSCO/I have default claim to explain it in the world of life] that are, at least in principle, testable against the natural world. Other shared elements include observations, rational argument [--> ideological imposition may hide under a cloak of rationality but is in fact anti-rational], inference, skepticism [--> critical awareness is responsible, selective hyperskepticism backed by ideological censorship is not], peer review [--> a circle of ideologues in agreement has no probative value] and replicability of work . . . . Science, by definition, is limited to naturalistic [= evolutionary materialistic scientism is imposed by definition, locking out an unfettered search for the credibly warranted truth about our world i/l/o observational evidence and linked inductive reasoning] methods and explanations and, as such [--> notice, ideological imposition by question-begging definition], is precluded from using supernatural elements [--> sets up a supernatural vs natural strawman alternative when the proper contrast since Plato in The Laws, Bk X, is natural vs artificial] in the production of scientific knowledge. [US NSTA Board, July 2000, definition of the nature of science for education purposes]
See why "consensus" fails to justify slander?kairosfocus_{March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
03:56 AM
3
03
56
AM
PDT}

PS: DNA, of course, is at the heart of cell based life and manifests language in the form of alphanumeric codes used to store algorithms for creation of proteins, the workhorse molecules of cell based life. This case alone is more than enough to warrant a design inference as best scientific, inductive explanation for biological life, on reliable sign.kairosfocus_{March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
03:52 AM
3
03
52
AM
PDT}

JVL, notice, how you substituted opinion and the institutional power of the evolutionary materialistic magisterium for the balance on merits of fact, in trying to dismiss BA77's note on Wikipedia's entrenched slander of the design inference and its leading thinkers. Including in the case of Dr Bechly. All you are doing is documenting the depth of polarisation and the presence of the domineering factionalism Plato warned against. Kindly, define, what is pseudoscientific ___ , on objective grounds ____, showing the non-question-begging validity and coherence of demarcation criteria you use ____ . Prediction, on failure of such demarcation attempts in recent decades: you cannot fill in those blanks in a sound, cogent fashion. Next, identify for us cases where complex [in the beyond 500 - 1,000 bits sense] functional language, alphanumeric codes and/or algorithms have been OBSERVED to come about by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity, i.e. without material involvement of intelligently directed configuration ________ . Again, predictably, you cannot fill that blank in successfully. By contrast, this very thread stands as yet further examples of how language and related phenomena routinely arise by intelligent design. There are trillions of cases in point and no sound counter-examples, backed up by analysis of search challenge in large configuration spaces. So, on reasonable inductive inference on reliable sign, we are well within epistemological and scientific rights to infer design on seeing FSCO/I. The rulings otherwise, invariably, come from ideological imposition of evolutionary materialistic scientism and/or its fellow travellers. Wikipedia is here serving as further imposition of agit prop, backed up by the loose defamation law in the USA which robs targetted people of the right of innocent reputation. KFkairosfocus_{March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
03:46 AM
3
03
46
AM
PDT}

JVL claims that ID is a pseudoscience since "That does (not) accurately reflect the view of a vast, vast majority of working scientists and even some theologians." So JVL appeals to a 'consensus' of "working scientists" to try to refute the fairly detailed arguments that I provided for why Darwinian evolution actually is the pseudoscience instead of ID being a pseudoscience as atheists claim on wikipedia? As Crichton would say, JVL is a scoundrel:
Michael Crichton explains it best when he said: I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. And he continues: Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What are relevant are reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2719747/
bornagain77_{March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
03:28 AM
3
03
28
AM
PDT}

PS: You speak of suffragetes as though it were in isolation. 100 years ago, most men did not have the vote either, in most jurisdictions; due to property or class disqualifications, or systems of government in which a general election was not part of the way things were, etc. There had just been a world war, in which the major monarchies of Europe fought to ruin, leading to revolutions. One of the monarchies that collapsed was the one that inherited the mantle of the Holy Roman Empire. Another, was the Caliphate. The Russian and German Empires collapsed in revolutions that directly led to seventy years of global struggle. The British Empire came to bankruptcy and in the aftermath of the phase 2 of the thirty-years war of C20, it collapsed. And chaotic consequences would follow down to the turn of the 90's, then onward to today. In that context, the issue that democracies are unstable and prone to mob rule or usurpation leading to open or veiled rule by oligarchies or autocratic tyrannies was an open issue. That is what faces the USA today, with a Supreme Court that 47 years ago usurped Constitutional authority to make holocaust of living posterity in the womb the central issue of government; on dubious grounds. That is in fact the root of the deep polarisation and early phase 4th generation style unacknowledged civil war that obtains in the USA today.kairosfocus_{March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
03:28 AM
3
03
28
AM
PDT}

JVL, I note:
I disagree with Rosenberg; I rather doubt he lives his life as if it has no meaning or ethics or morals. And just because one or more materialists express a viewpoint does not make it true or universally accepted.
However, when one -- or a society as a whole -- cannot live in general accord with the tenets and implications of a worldview, that is a sign that it is a root of chaotic error. That is in turn a strong sign that it is false and ruinous. And BTW, Rosenberg is hardly the only current voice to see or acknowledge the inherent problems of evolutionary materialistic scientism. William Provine, in his 1998 U Tenn. Darwin Day keynote address made the following observations:
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent . . . . The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them. Human free will, however, is another matter. Even evolutionists have trouble swallowing that implication. I will argue that humans are locally determined systems that make choices. They have, however, no free will [--> without responsible freedom, mind, reason and morality alike disintegrate into grand delusion, hence self-referential incoherence and self-refutation. But that does not make such fallacies any less effective in the hands of clever manipulators] . . . [1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address, U of Tenn -- and yes, that is significant i/l/o the Scopes Trial, 1925]
Notice, clear CONSEQUENCES. An outworking of the inner logic and dynamics, not disputable or merely idiosyncratic opinion. Grey in the UK and others have spoken in like vein. For cause. However, the problem is not new. It is longstanding. That's why, 2360 years ago, Plato warned in no uncertain terms:
Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,360 ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . . [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-
[ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by "winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . " cf a video on Plato's parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]
These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,
[ --> Evolutionary materialism -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin") . . . ]
and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush -- as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [--> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].
In short, the epistemological self-defeat and chaotic, nihilism-inviting amorality of evolutionary materialism have been on record since the dawn of serious intellectual reflection in our civilisation. That over the past 160 years it has been dressed up in a lab coat and has usurped institutional power and prestige has not fundamentally changed that tendency. However, that is a negative case, one that -- predictably -- you and ilk will ignore in haste to promote what you see as the champion of progress and prosperity for our civilisation. It isn't. A more positive approach, is to highlight that in your own arguing above, you implicitly, inevitably, inescapably, repeatedly appealed to our known first duties of reason. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to fairness and justice, etc. That is, you cannot escape the premise that we habitually demonstrate that starting with our responsible rationality, we are governed by built-in law, the known, in key parts self-evident law of our morally governed nature. Where, that law specifically governs our reasoning and arguing, so we are forced to imply its truth ever were we to try to doubt or argue against it . . . such doubts and attempted counter arguments fall under Epictetus' dictum: they are forced to appeal to what they would challenge, so it is inescapably true. That is, first duties of responsible reason, under built-in, known, conscience-atested law of our morally governed nature are a start-point for both reason and morality. BTW, that's why -- unless he were insane -- a Rosenberg will not live in accord with nihilism and linked utter chaotic meaninglessness, hyperskepticism, etc. Such utter perversities are so at odds with our nature that we cannot preserve a semblance of sanity or decency and live by them. That's part of why perverted imitation is the homage vice pays to virtue, starting with the dark ways of the rhetoric of deceitful manipulation and its reliance on fallacies and psychological principles. Going on, it is undeniable that we are morally governed. The very act of denial appeals for any credit it could get, to what it would overturn. We are governed by built in, morally tinged law, the law of our morally governed nature. The IS-OUGHT gap must be bridged, for responsible rationality to be coherent. Such can only be done in the root of reality, on pain of ungrounded ought. And thus, equally ungrounded reason. Such requires that that root at once be adequate to found worlds, rationality (including Mathematics) and morality. We, need awesome power, utter rationality and inherent goodness coupled to utter wisdom. A familiar bill of requisites. After centuries of debates, it remains that there is just one serious candidate to fill that bill. If you doubt me, simply provide an alternative ______ and explain how this is superior on comparative difficulties across factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory power (neither simplistic nor an ad hoc patchwork) _______ . Prediction, a lot harder to do than may be imagined. Namely, the inherently good and utterly wise creator God, a necessary and maximally great being; one fully worthy of our loyalty and trust; as well as of our reasonable, responsible service of doing the good that accords with our evident, manifest, morally governed nature. The God of ethical theism, a general major worldview option. In that context, our civilisation's Judaeo-Christian tradition is a religious heritage that speaks to such a good God who is there, is not silent and enters into not only conversation but covenant with individuals, families, communities and nations; reaching out in redemptive love. And so, we see that the religious impulse reflects the built-in law of our morally governed nature, it is not merely institutionalised ritual. KFkairosfocus_{March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
03:10 AM
3
03
10
AM
PDT}

BA77, 180: As to the lie/misinformation in the very first sentence of each of the entries on wikipedia for Dr Dembski, Dr Behe, Dr Meyers, and Dr Wells, i.e. the lie “that Intelligent Design is a “pseudoscientific principle”, nothing could be further from the truth. That does accurately reflect the view of a vast, vast majority of working scientists and even some theologians. You disagree, clearly, but I'm afraid the tail doesn't get to wag the dog. Keep working on getting your views understood and accepted and things will change. I hadn't realised that Dr Bechly had, effectively, been forced out of his job (according to him, even his own website didn't discuss that situation oddly). The Wikipedia lack I do find strange but, clearly, being an ID advocate DOES NOT get you booted off the site.JVL_{March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
03:07 AM
3
03
07
AM
PDT}

JVL states,
I don’t think being written out of Wikipedia is equivalent to being fired from a job.
I did not claim that it was.
"Shoot, wikipedia ‘erased’ Günter Bechly, who has stellar credentials as a paleontologist, and who was curator at the State Museum of Natural History in Stuttgart, Germany, before being ‘pushed out’ after revealing his support for the theory of intelligent design." Wikipedia Erases Paleontologist Günter Bechly – David Klinghoffer – October 10, 2017 Excerpt: Günter Bechly is a distinguished paleontologist, specializing in fossil dragonflies, exquisitely preserved in amber for tens of millions of years. After revealing his support for the theory of intelligent design, he was pushed out as a curator at the State Museum of Natural History in Stuttgart, Germany. He subsequently joined Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture as a Senior Fellow. Now we learn that our colleague has suffered another act of censorship: he has been erased from Wikipedia, ostensibly for not being “notable” enough.,,, ,,, It’s a mad world, a funhouse world, where the notability of a paleontologist of Günter Bechly’s stature is uncontested one day but, following his admission of finding ID persuasive, suddenly and furiously contested, to be ruled upon by a 23-year-old “boy” and 500-year-old wizard called “Jo-Jo.” Such is the alternative reality of Wikipedia. https://evolutionnews.org/2017/10/wikipedia-erases-paleontologist-gunter-bechly/
JVL then tries to claim that wikipedia 'is a good place to start' and that wikipedia is not inherently biased against ID since "why are the entries for Dr Dembski, Dr Behe, Dr Meyers, Dr Wells, etc still there?" Here are some of the supposedly unbiased entries on ID via wikipedia from the very first sentence of each entry on wikipedia
William Albert "Bill" Dembski (born July 18, 1960),,, a prominent proponent of intelligent design (ID) pseudoscience, Michael J. Behe (born January 18, 1952),,, advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design (ID). Stephen C. Meyer (born 1958),,, advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design. John Corrigan "Jonathan" Wells (born 1942),,, advocate of the pseudoscientific argument of intelligent design.
Wikipedia is a "good place to start" my foot! JVL then acts like it is easy for an ID advocate to correct the incorrect information on wikipedia, or for an ID advocate to 'create an entry' in the first place. Hogwash! The cofounder of wikipedia agrees that wikipedia is openly hostile towards ID
Larry Sanger, Co-founder of Wikipedia, Agrees That it Does not Follow its Own Neutrality Policy. - December 1, 2016 Excerpt: Mr. Sanger posted an article today about media bias in which he alluded to the neutrality policy he drafted. I replied (see the combox of the article):“Wikipedia’s neutrality policy.” I’ve been reading Wikipedia articles for years, and from the evidence I would not have thought such a thing exists, or, if it does, the name is somewhat misleading, because the policy would read something like: “On all matters cultural and political, Wikipedia will endeavor to crush conservative viewpoints. Neutrality will not be tolerated.” Just read the post on, for example, intelligent design theory. It is written by the theory’s antagonists, and all efforts to correct the post to reflect the real theory, as opposed to the straw man caricature presented by its opponents, are ruthlessly suppressed." In a response Mr. Sanger stated: "For the record, I agree with this. Wikipedia doesn’t live up to its policy and in fact deliberately misinterprets it on some issues. Although I founded Wikipedia, I’m also long gone from the organization and am now probably its biggest critic, so…" There you go folks. We ain’t making it up. The co-founder of Wiki agrees with us. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-sanger-co-founder-of-wikipedia-agrees-that-it-does-not-follow-its-own-neutrality-policy/
In trying to correct misinformation and lies about ID on wikipedia,,, Atheistic internet trolls vigilantly police wikipedia to prevent the misinformtion and lies from being corrected
Wikipedia's Tyranny of the Unemployed - David Klinghoffer - June 24, 2012 Excerpt: PLoS One has a highly technical study out of editing patterns on Wikipedia. This is of special interest to us because Wikipedia's articles on anything to do with intelligent design are replete with errors and lies, which the online encyclopedia's volunteer editors are vigilant about maintaining against all efforts to set the record straight. You simply can never outlast these folks. They have nothing better to do with their time and will always erase your attempted correction and reinstate the bogus claim, with lightning speed over and over again. ,,, on Wikipedia, "fact" is established by the party with the free time that's required to wear down everyone else and exhaust them into submission. The search for truth (on Wikipedia) yields to a tyranny of the unemployed. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/06/wikipedias_tyra061281.html
As to the lie/misinformation in the very first sentence of each of the entries on wikipedia for Dr Dembski, Dr Behe, Dr Meyers, and Dr Wells, i.e. the lie "that Intelligent Design is a "pseudoscientific principle", nothing could be further from the truth. Contrary to what many people have been falsely led to believe by Darwinian atheists on wikipedia and elsewhere, about Intelligent Design supposedly being a pseudoscience, the fact of the matter is that all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism and/or on the presupposition of Darwinian materialism. From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (namely that the universe is rational and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can dare understand that rationality), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results themselves, from top to bottom, science itself is certainly not to be considered a ‘natural’ endeavor of man. Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analyzed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial logic and immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place. Again, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism. Furthermore, although the Darwinian atheist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science, (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that Darwinists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to:
Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must hold beauty itself to be illusory. Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, Darwinian Materialism and/or Methodological Naturalism vs. Reality – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaksmYceRXM
Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to. It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
bornagain77_{March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
01:44 AM
1
01
44
AM
PDT}

BA77, 177: Günter Bechly is far from the only person who has been fired from his job for daring to question Darwinian orthodoxy. I don't think being written out of Wikipedia is equivalent to being fired from a job. I have no idea why he was expunged from Wikipedia, which, I agree, is not the font of all wisdom. I do find it a good place to start and one that is available to everyone so that links to there are visible to everyone. Who initially created Dr Bechly's entry? Did they follow the Wikipedia guidelines? Have you tried to create an entry for him? If Dr Bechly was 'expelled' from Wikipedia for supporting intelligent design then why are the entries for Dr Dembski, Dr Behe, Dr Meyers, Dr Wells, etc still there? Supporting ID does not get you kicked off Wikipedia; there's some part of the story we are missing.JVL_{March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
12:32 AM
12
12
32
AM
PDT}

Truthfreedom, 175: I disagree with Rosenberg; I rather doubt he lives his life as if it has no meaning or ethics or morals. And just because one or more materialists express a viewpoint does not make it true or universally accepted. It would be wrong of me to look at the opinions of members of the Westboro Baptist Church and assume they are representative of all Christians. You agree with people like Rosenberg because . . . well, I don't know why you agree with him. I won't speculate. I won't assume you have beliefs that would uphold my pre-existing prejudices. This idea that life has no meaning or purpose if there isn't a deity confuses me. About 100 years ago women (and men) in England and the US were fighting for the right for women to vote. All those suffragettes are dead now but their lives had meaning and value because of what the bequeathed to the following generations. All the scientists and doctors who helped develop vaccines gave the gift of life to millions of people who came after them. The deist thinkers who formulated the US Constitution gave the world one of the best governmental systems ever devised by humans (in my opinion). All the writers and artists and poets and architects and sculptures have enriched generation after generation with their aesthetic visions. How can one say with no god their lives were meaningless? Can we say that what Martin Luther King achieved only counts because he was a Christian? Surely all the peacemakers are blessed no matter what their theological outlook. I don't know if there is a deity out there somewhere watching us struggle along. I try hard to live my life along the same basic lines that I assume you do: I look out for other people, I'm not mean or cruel or intolerant, I try and respect the planet. But because I doubt the existence of a god you tell me I HAVE to accept that my life is a waste of time. Thanks. Naturalism does not make humanity worthless. You (and some others) think it does. But that doesn't make it so. Why don't you judge people based on their actions not your interpretations of their beliefs? I will do the same. Unless you'd rather I just picked some Christian group and assume you have the same worldview?JVL_{March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
12:23 AM
12
12
23
AM
PDT}

JVL apparently did not bother to read my post and just regurgitated some tripe from wikipedia. A site which is notoriously hostile towards Intelligent deign. Shoot, wikipedia 'erased' Günter Bechly, who has stellar credentials as a paleontologist, and who was curator at the State Museum of Natural History in Stuttgart, Germany, before being 'pushed out' after revealing his support for the theory of intelligent design. What is even more insulting is that it was basically just atheistic internet trolls who had Günter Bechly 'erased' from wikipedia.
Wikipedia Erases Paleontologist Günter Bechly - October 10, 2017 https://evolutionnews.org/2017/10/wikipedia-erases-paleontologist-gunter-bechly/
Günter Bechly is far from the only person who has been fired from his job for daring to question Darwinian orthodoxy.
Slaughter of the Dissidents: The Shocking Truth about Killing the Careers of Darwin Doubters by Dr. Jerry Bergman (Leafcutter Press, 2008, 477 pages) If Ben Stein's 2008 documentary film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed was the tip, then Dr. Jerry Bergman's Slaughter of the Dissidents is the rest of the iceberg. With clarity and thoroughness, Bergman provides detailed accounts of 17 of the over 300 scientists and educators he has interviewed, all of whom have advanced degrees. Though their views range from creation science to intelligent design to evolution, all of them expressed some doubt regarding neo-Darwinism, observing that selection of mutations is not creating life's diversity. And all of them have received some form of discrimination. https://www.icr.org/article/book-review-slaughter-dissidents/
Since they have no real time evidence to support their grandiose claims, that is how atheists maintain consensus to Darwinian theory. Disagree with Darwinian orthodoxy and atheists will do their damnedest to smear your name and/or get you fired from your job. Here is an excellent lecture video from Günter Bechly
Günter Bechly video: Fossil Discontinuities: A Refutation of Darwinism and Confirmation of Intelligent Design - 2018 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7w5QGqcnNs The fossil record is dominated by abrupt appearances of new body plans and new groups of organisms. This conflicts with the gradualistic prediction of Darwinian Evolution. Here 18 explosive origins in the history of life are described, demonstrating that the famous Cambrian Explosion is far from being the exception to the rule. Also the fossil record establishes only very brief windows of time for the origin of complex new features, which creates an ubiquitous waiting time problem for the origin and fixation of the required coordinated mutations. This refutes the viability of the Neo-Darwinian evolutionary process as the single conceivable naturalistic or mechanistic explanation for biological origins, and thus confirms Intelligent Design as the only reasonable alternative.
JVL then lists this link from Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
As anyone can see, most of the fossils listed in that link are not even 'transitional' at all. For instance, "The oldest known species of bee.", "The earliest known species of ant", "Oldest known bony fish" etc... etc... Moreover, I know for a fact that some of the claimed transitional fossils in the series leading to man are either fraudulent and/or highly misleading. Here is an excellent resource that reveals that the general public has been deceived regarding the credibility and significance of the reputed hominin fossils.
Contested Bones: Is There Any Solid Fossil Evidence for Ape-to-Man Evolution? - Dr. John Sanford and Chris Rupe Excerpt: We have spent four years carefully examining the scientific literature on this subject. We have discovered that within this field (paleoanthropology), virtually all the famous hominin types have either been discredited or are still being hotly contested. Within this field, not one of the hominin types have been definitively established as being in the lineage from ape to man. This includes the famous fossils that have been nicknamed Lucy, Ardi, Sediba, Habilis, Naledi, Hobbit, Erectus, and Neaderthal. Well-respected people in the field openly admit that their field is in a state of disarray. It is very clear that the general public has been deceived regarding the credibility and significance of the reputed hominin fossils. We will show that the actual fossil evidence is actually most consistent with the following three points. 1) The hominin bones reveal only two basic types; ape bones (Ardi and Lucy), and human bones (Naledi, Hobbit, Erectus, and Neaderthal). 2) The ape bones and the human bones have been repeatedly found together in the same strata – therefore both lived at the same basic timeframe (the humans were apparently hunting and eating the apes). 3) Because the hominin bones were often found in mixed bone beds (with bones of many animal species in the same site), numerous hominin types represent chimeras (mixtures) of ape and human bones (i.e., Sediba, Habilis). We will also present evidence that the anomalous hominin bones that are of the human (Homo) type most likely represent isolated human populations that experienced severe inbreeding and subsequent genetic degeneration. This best explains why these Homo bones display aberrant morphologies, reduced body size, and reduced brain volume. We conclude that the hominin bones do not reveal a continuous upward progression from ape to man, but rather reveal a clear separation between the human type and the ape type. The best evidence for any type of intermediate “ape-men” derived from bones collected from mixed bone beds (containing bones of both apes and men), which led to the assembly of chimeric skeletons. Therefore, the hominin fossils do not prove human evolution at all.,,, We suggest that the field of paleoanthropology has been seriously distorted by a very strong ideological agenda and by very ambitious personalities. https://ses.edu/contested-bones-is-there-any-solid-fossil-evidence-for-ape-to-man-evolution/
Here is a video playlist of Dr. Giem's series reviewing John Sanford’s book “Contested Bones”.
“Contested Bones” review by Paul Giem – video playlist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6ZOKj-YaHA&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNU_twNBjopIqyFOwo_bTkXm
Supplemental notes:
Making human brain evolution look gradual by ignoring enough data… - February 23, 2018 Excerpt: From U Wisconsin paleoanthropologist John Hawks: Bernard Wood’s research group has a new paper on brain size evolution in hominins, led by Andrew Du in Proceedings of the Royal Society, Series B: “Pattern and process in hominin brain size evolution are scale-dependent”. In this paper, I notice that the researchers have done a really weird thing: Their analyses include only hominin fossils before 500,000 years ago.… The specimens reflect every hominin species from Australopithecus afarensis up to “Homo heidelbergensis”. Modern humans and Neanderthals have been left out of the dataset—they don’t fall within the pre-500,000-year time range. On the basis of this dataset, the authors conclude that the entire hominin lineage is compatible with a single pattern of gradual evolutionary increase over time. Charts are offered by way of illustration. There are two species entirely missing from the data examined by Du and colleagues. The fossil records of endocranial volume in Homo naledi and Homo floresiensis both date to the last 300,000 years. When you include them, they both reject the notion of gradual monotonic increase in brain size. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/making-human-brain-evolution-look-gradual-by-ignoring-enough-data/ Neo-Darwinism and the Big Bang of Man’s Origin - Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig - February 25, 2020 Excerpt: “There is a popular image of human evolution that you’ll find all over the place, from the backs of cereal packets to the advertisement for expensive scientific equipment. On the left of the picture there’s an ape — …. On the right, a man … Between the two is a succession of figures that become ever more like humans … Our progress from ape to human looks so smooth, so tidy. It’s such a beguiling image that even the experts are loath to let it go. But it is an illusion.” - Bernard Wood, Bernard Wood, Professor of Human Origins at George Washington University, “Who are we?” New Scientist 176 2366: 44-47. 26 October 2002:,,, A Big Bang at Man’s Origin? To repeat the key points quoted above (from Darwinists themselves), we may emphasize that 1. “differences exist on an unusual scale” 2. “Homo sapiens appears […] distinctive and unprecedented” 3. “There is certainly no evidence to support the notion that we gradually became what we inherently are over an extended period, in either the physical or the intellectual sense.” 4. “…we evidently came by our unusual anatomical structure and capacities very recently.” 5. “…a convincing hypothesis for the origin of Homo remains elusive” 6. “[W]e should not expect to find a series of intermediate fossil forms with decreasingly divergent big toes and, at the same time, a decreasing number of apelike features and an increasing number of modern human features.” 7. “No gradual series of changes in earlier australopithecine populations clearly leads to the new species [Homo sapiens], and no australopithecine species is obviously transitional.” 8. “…early H. sapiens was significantly and dramatically different from earlier and penecontemporary [as well as coexisting] australopithecines in virtually every element of its skeleton and every remnant of its behavior.” 9. “Our interpretation is that the changes are sudden and interrelated,” “a genetic revolution.”,,, “…a rather minor structural innovation at the DNA level” appears to be, for all that can be known at present, a rather unsatisfactory proposal for a comparable origin of some 696 new features (out of 1065) which distinguish man from chimpanzees, 711 from orang, 680 from gorilla, 948 from Gibbon (Hylobathes), presupposing a similar magnitude of different anatomical and other features (“distinctive and unprecedented”) from his supposed animal ancestor, “our closest extinct kin,” not to speak of 15.6% differences on the DNA level between man and his alleged closest cousin, the chimpanzee, which means, in actual numbers, more than 450 million bp differences of the some 3 billion bp constituting the genomes overall.28,,, Almost any larger science museum around the globe presents a series of connecting links between extinct apes and humans such as Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Australopithecus afarensis (“Lucy”), Ardipithecus ramidus, Orrorin tugensis and others. For a brief overview on such assumed links see Lönnig (2019).38 I include there a series of references to papers and books that do not simply presuppose evolution and neo-Darwinism as the final truth on the origin of species without any scientific alternative (as is common practice nowadays). Instead, these works critically discuss the relevant details, showing in depth the untenability of the evolutionary scenarios usually given to these would-be links generally put forward as indisputable scientific facts.... 98.5 Percent Human/Chimp DNA Identity? Although long disproved, the assertion that human and chimp DNA display approximately 98.5 percent identity is still forwarded in many papers and books. The present state of the art has been clearly articulated by Richard Buggs, Professor of Evolutionary Genomics at Queen Mary University of London. He asks, “What does the data say today in 2018, and how can it be described to the public in an adequate manner?” Key answer: “The total percentage of the human genome that I can know for sure has one-to-one orthology with the chimp genome is 84.4 percent” (“our minimum lower bound”)39, i.e., more than 450 million differences (15 percent of 3 billion bp = 450 million). https://evolutionnews.org/2020/02/neo-darwinism-and-the-big-bang-of-mans-origin/ Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, (retired) Senior Scientist (Biology), Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Emeritus, Cologne, Germany.
Here’s Dr. Lönnig’s pdf on the subject
The Evolution of Man: What do We Really Know? Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig - 21 August 2019 http://www.weloennig.de/HumanEvolution.pdf
bornagain77_{March 7, 2020
March
03
Mar
7
07
2020
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

What Naturalism Entails
Rosenberg’s thesis? That naturalism entails nihilism; in particular, that it entails denying the existence of objective moral value, of beliefs and desires, of the self, of linguistic meaning, and indeed of meaning or purpose of any sort. All attempts to evade this conclusion, to reconcile naturalism with our common sense understanding of human life, inevitably fail. Naturalism, when consistently worked out, leads to a radical eliminativism".
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/12/rosenberg-on-naturalism.html?m=1 Maybe now you understand why certain people (me for example) HATE naturalism? Because it makes humanity worthless. Truthfreedom_{March 7, 2020
March
03
Mar
7
07
2020
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply