Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A just-so story about the origin of religious beliefs

Categories
Culture
Human evolution
Intelligent Design
Naturalism
Religion
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
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
AS, here is my challenge in the current Economist thread:
the ad hom dismissal of hoi polloi with implicit appeal to the collective authority of the evolutionary materialist, scientism magisterium. Evolutionary materialism, demonstrably, is self referentially incoherent and self-falsifying; start with, if intellectual processes are wholly driven and controlled by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity, turning us into jumped up pond goo with too many neurons for our own god, the credibility of our ‘thinking,” “reasoning” and “conclusions” is fatally undermined, as Darwin admitted and as Crick admitted. This of course, includes those intellectual processes that have led to evolutionary materialistic scientism. However, we can focus on a core that mere Economists and Auto mechanics can see for themselves regarding the design inference. Something that is now routinely taught in grade school and high school science: DNA. DNA has in it string data structures holding alphanumeric codes with algorithms for protein assembly. Codes, so language and goal-directed, purposeful process at the core of and antecedent to existence of C-chem, aqueous medium, cell based life. All of this in a cosmos with its physics at a fine tuned operating point for such life. Even Economists and Auto Mechanics can figure out, for good reason, why language, goal-directed processes and a fine tuned cosmos are strong signs of design. Now, your cogent, empirical observation — not, just so ideological story — based reason for rejecting such signs is ______ and the prizes won for the empirical observation anchored demonstration of blind watchmaker OoL are ____ and those for empirical observation anchored demonstration of blind watchmaker origin of body plans are _____ Prediction, given the still open UD challenge, these blanks cannot be soundly filled in. On such merits, the common sense conclusion is that the Magisterium is unable to adequately warrant its case while there are abundant, highly reliable and manifest signs of design on the ground, backed by analysis of blind search challenge in large configuration spaces.
Let's see KFkairosfocus
March 6, 2020
March
03
Mar
6
06
2020
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT
Earth to JVL- a finch evolving into a finch is NOT an example of producing a brand new species. It's just more of the same.ET
March 6, 2020
March
03
Mar
6
06
2020
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT
PS: Lesson 2 from Plato, through his Ship of State parable:
It is not too hard to figure out that our civilisation is in deep trouble and is most likely headed for shipwreck. (And of course, that sort of concern is dismissed as “apocalyptic,” or neurotic pessimism that refuses to pause and smell the roses.) Plato’s Socrates spoke to this sort of situation, long since, in the ship of state parable in The Republic, Bk VI:
>>[Soc.] I perceive, I said, that you are vastly amused at having plunged me into such a hopeless discussion; but now hear the parable, and then you will be still more amused at the meagreness of my imagination: for the manner in which the best men are treated in their own States is so grievous that no single thing on earth is comparable to it; and therefore, if I am to plead their cause, I must have recourse to fiction, and put together a figure made up of many things, like the fabulous unions of goats and stags which are found in pictures. Imagine then a fleet or a ship in which there is a captain [–> often interpreted, ship’s owner] who is taller and stronger than any of the crew, but he is a little deaf and has a similar infirmity in sight, and his knowledge of navigation is not much better. [= The people own the community and in the mass are overwhelmingly strong, but are ill equipped on the whole to guide, guard and lead it] The sailors are quarrelling with one another about the steering – every one is of opinion that he has a right to steer [= selfish ambition to rule and dominate], though he has never learned the art of navigation and cannot tell who taught him or when he learned, and will further assert that it cannot be taught, and they are ready to cut in pieces any one who says the contrary. They throng about the captain, begging and praying him to commit the helm to them [–> kubernetes, steersman, from which both cybernetics and government come in English]; and if at any time they do not prevail, but others are preferred to them, they kill the others or throw them overboard [ = ruthless contest for domination of the community], and having first chained up the noble captain’s senses with drink or some narcotic drug [ = manipulation and befuddlement, cf. the parable of the cave], they mutiny and take possession of the ship and make free with the stores; thus, eating and drinking, they proceed on their voyage in such a manner as might be expected of them [–> Cf here Luke’s subtle case study in Ac 27]. Him who is their partisan and cleverly aids them in their plot for getting the ship out of the captain’s hands into their own whether by force or persuasion [–> Nihilistic will to power on the premise of might and manipulation making ‘right’ ‘truth’ ‘justice’ ‘rights’ etc], they compliment with the name of sailor, pilot, able seaman, and abuse the other sort of man, whom they call a good-for-nothing; but that the true pilot must pay attention to the year and seasons and sky and stars and winds, and whatever else belongs to his art, if he intends to be really qualified for the command of a ship, and that he must and will be the steerer, whether other people like or not-the possibility of this union of authority with the steerer’s art has never seriously entered into their thoughts or been made part of their calling. Now in vessels which are in a state of mutiny and by sailors who are mutineers, how will the true pilot be regarded? Will he not be called by them a prater, a star-gazer, a good-for-nothing? [Ad.] Of course, said Adeimantus. [Soc.] Then you will hardly need, I said, to hear the interpretation of the figure, which describes the true philosopher in his relation to the State [ --> here we see Plato's philosoppher-king emerging]; for you understand already. [Ad.] Certainly. [Soc.] Then suppose you now take this parable to the gentleman who is surprised at finding that philosophers have no honour in their cities; explain it to him and try to convince him that their having honour would be far more extraordinary. [Ad.] I will. [Soc.] Say to him, that, in deeming the best votaries of philosophy to be useless to the rest of the world, he is right; but also tell him to attribute their uselessness to the fault of those who will not use them, and not to themselves. The pilot should not humbly beg the sailors to be commanded by him –that is not the order of nature; neither are ‘the wise to go to the doors of the rich’ –the ingenious author of this saying told a lie –but the truth is, that, when a man is ill, whether he be rich or poor, to the physician he must go, and he who wants to be governed, to him who is able to govern. [--> the issue of competence and character as qualifications to rule] The ruler who is good for anything ought not to beg his subjects to be ruled by him [ --> down this road lies the modern solution: a sound, well informed people will seek sound leaders, who will not need to manipulate or bribe or worse, and such a ruler will in turn be checked by the soundness of the people, cf. US DoI, 1776]; although the present governors of mankind are of a different stamp; they may be justly compared to the mutinous sailors, and the true helmsmen to those who are called by them good-for-nothings and star-gazers. [Ad.] Precisely so, he said. [Soc] For these reasons, and among men like these, philosophy, the noblest pursuit of all, is not likely to be much esteemed by those of the opposite faction [--> the sophists, the Demagogues, Alcibiades and co, etc]; not that the greatest and most lasting injury is done to her by her opponents, but by her own professing followers, the same of whom you suppose the accuser to say, that the greater number of them are arrant rogues, and the best are useless; in which opinion I agreed [--> even among the students of the sound state (here, political philosophy and likely history etc.), many are of unsound motivation and intent, so mere education is not enough, character transformation is critical]. [Ad.] Yes. [Soc.] And the reason why the good are useless has now been explained? [Ad.] True. [Soc.] Then shall we proceed to show that the corruption of the majority is also unavoidable [--> implies a need for a corruption-restraining minority providing proverbial salt and light, cf. Ac 27, as well as justifying a governing structure turning on separation of powers, checks and balances], and that this is not to be laid to the charge of philosophy any more than the other? [Ad.] By all means. [Soc.] And let us ask and answer in turn, first going back to the description of the gentle and noble nature.[ -- > note the character issue] Truth, as you will remember, was his leader, whom he followed always and in all things [ --> The spirit of truth as a marker]; failing in this, he was an impostor, and had no part or lot in true philosophy [--> the spirit of truth is a marker, for good or ill] . . . >>
(There is more than an echo of this in Acts 27, a real world case study. [Luke, a physician, was an educated Greek with a taste for subtle references.] This blog post, on soundness in policy, will also help)
Lessons of history . . .kairosfocus
March 6, 2020
March
03
Mar
6
06
2020
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT
JVL:
You claimed no one was working on the problem and clearly they are.
That isn't what I claimed and that paper didn't even address what I said. You lose.
You may choose to examine the issue in a different way but it is a topic of ongoing research.
What is a topic of ongoing research?ET
March 6, 2020
March
03
Mar
6
06
2020
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT
JVL, I am fully aware of the serious moral challenges the classical philosophers etc had; e.g. in discussing love in The Republic it was all about taste -- and it was all about favoured looks -- in BOYS . . . and Zeus the chief god was a pedophile, as the story of Ganymede will plainly show; do you wish to take such sad facts as implying that pedophilia is or should be acceptable? That error does not imply that the very hard historical lessons taught by the Athenian collapse through the Peloponnesian war are irrelevant. KFkairosfocus
March 6, 2020
March
03
Mar
6
06
2020
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT
So JVL is just another Evolutionist here to promote his worldview, not here to have a serious conversation about evolution. Just like every other Evolutionist we know. Sigh. Andrewasauber
March 6, 2020
March
03
Mar
6
06
2020
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT
JVL claims that,
You asked for an example of a new species arising from an old one. I easily found a paper referencing such a thing.
Perhaps, to save himself from embarrassing himself, JVL should have read past the attention grabbing headline of his 'easily found' example? In what should be needless to say, two 'species' of finches interbreeding is NOT proof for a brand new species arising from an old one. What the article is actually undeniable proof of is NOT the "origin of a brand new species but that JVL, nor the author of JVL's referenced article, nor the researcher of the paper on which the article was based, have a realistic clue of what the term 'species' actually means. That Darwinists have no realistic clue what the term species actually means is not surprising since the term 'species' itself is a immaterial categorization and/or definition that arises from the immaterial mind. That is to say, the definition of species itself cannot reduced to any possible reductive materialistic explanation of Darwinian evolution. i.e. How much does the concept of species weigh? Does the concept ‘species’ weigh more in English or in Chinese? How long in the concept of species in millimeters? How fast does the concept go? Is the concept of species faster or slower than the speed of light? Is the concept of species positively or negatively charged? Or etc.. etc.. ?.. That is to say, if something is not composed of particles, or does not have physical properties (e.g., length, mass, energy, momentum, orientation, position, etc), it is, of necessity, a immaterial categorization and/or definition of the immaterial mind. The concept of species simply has no physical properties that we can measure, and therefore the concept of species itself is forever beyond the scope of reductive materialistic explanations. You don’t have to take my word for it. Last year a Darwinist admitted that “The most important concept in all of biology, (i.e. species), is a complete mystery”
What is a species? The most important concept in all of biology is a complete mystery – July 16, 2019 Excerpt: Enough of species? This is only the tip of a deep and confusing iceberg. There is absolutely no agreement among biologists about how we should understand the species. One 2006 article on the subject listed 26 separate definitions of species, all with their advocates and detractors. Even this list is incomplete. The mystery surrounding species is well-known in biology, and commonly referred to as “the species problem”. Frustration with the idea of a species goes back at least as far as Darwin.,,, some contemporary biologists and philosophers of biology have,,, suggested that biology would be much better off if it didn’t think about life in terms of species at all.,,, https://theconversation.com/what-is-a-species-the-most-important-concept-in-all-of-biology-is-a-complete-mystery-119200
In fact, Charles Darwin himself admitted that he did not have a rigid definition for what the term 'species' actually meant when he stated that, “I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience.,,,"
“I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience, to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, for convenience’s sake.” – Charles Darwin
As should be needless to say, the inability for a supposedly scientific theory, a supposedly scientific theory that seeks to explain the "Origin of Species" in the first place, to clearly define what a species actually is is a clear indication that that supposedly scientific theory cannot possibly be the proper 'scientific' explanation for the "Origin of Species" in the first place!
The Species Problem, Why Again? – Igor Ya. Pavlinov – February 6th 2013 Excerpt: Discussants, even belonging to opposite research schools, can quite agree with each other in recognition of fundamental status of the above “Boethian question”, whatever its particular answer might be. For instance, both “methodist” Linnaeus and “naturalist” Buffon (in his later years) believed in objective (real) status of the species as a universal and fundamental “unit of the Nature”. On the other hand, evolutionist Darwin, rejecting alongside with logician J. Bentham distinctiveness of the species as a fundamental taxonomic and eventually natural category, called however his famous book just “The Origin of Species…”, and not of races or of something like that. https://www.intechopen.com/books/the-species-problem-ongoing-issues/the-species-problem-why-again-
Whereas Darwinists cannot even provide a rigid 'scientific' definition of what a species actually is, on the other hand, normal people in general, and Christians in particular, have no problem whatsoever recognizing what a species actually is:
Darwin, Design & Thomas Aquinas The Mythical Conflict Between Thomism & Intelligent Design by Logan Paul Gage Excerpt:,,, In Aristotelian and Thomistic thought, each particular organism belongs to a certain universal class of things. Each individual shares a particular nature—or essence—and acts according to its nature. Squirrels act squirrelly and cats catty. We know with certainty that a squirrel is a squirrel because a crucial feature of human reason is its ability to abstract the universal nature from our sense experience of particular organisms. Denial of True Species Enter Darwinism. Recall that Darwin sought to explain the origin of “species.” Yet as he pondered his theory, he realized that it destroyed species as a reality altogether. For Darwinism suggests that any matter can potentially morph into any other arrangement of matter without the aid of an organizing principle. He thought cells were like simple blobs of Jell-O, easily re-arrangeable. For Darwin, there is no immaterial, immutable form. In The Origin of Species he writes: “I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience, to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, for convenience’s sake.” Statements like this should make card-carrying Thomists shudder.,,, The first conflict between Darwinism and Thomism, then, is the denial of true species or essences. For the Thomist, this denial is a grave error, because the essence of the individual (the species in the Aristotelian sense) is the true object of our knowledge. As philosopher Benjamin Wiker observes in Moral Darwinism, Darwin reduced species to “mere epiphenomena of matter in motion.” What we call a “dog,” in other words, is really just an arbitrary snapshot of the way things look at present. If we take the Darwinian view, Wiker suggests, there is no species “dog” but only a collection of individuals, connected in a long chain of changing shapes, which happen to resemble each other today but will not tomorrow. What About Man? Now we see Chesterton’s point. Man, the universal, does not really exist. According to the late Stanley Jaki, Chesterton detested Darwinism because “it abolishes forms and all that goes with them, including that deepest kind of ontological form which is the immortal human soul.” And if one does not believe in universals, there can be, by extension, no human nature—only a collection of somewhat similar individuals.,,, https://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=23-06-037-f
Thus since Darwinists have no hope, within their reductive materialistic framework, of ever providing a proper definition of what a species actually is, then, to repeat, it necessarily follows that Darwinian evolution cannot possibly be the proper scientific explanation that purportedly explains the "Origin of Species" in the first place. Besides the term "species", there are many other immaterial categorizations and/or definitions that arise from the immaterial mind. Many immaterial categorizations that are necessary for us to even practice science in the first place. Mathematics, logic, truth, distance, time, beauty, ugliness, species, person, information, etc.. etc.. all fall into that category of being an immaterial categorization of the immaterial mind. It is amazing how many things fall into that immaterial’ category even though most everyone, including atheists, (“atheists” also happens to be an immaterial definition itself), swear that they exist physically. The primary 'immaterial' thing that completely invalidates the Darwinist's claim that Darwinian evolution qualifies as a hard science, (a hard science that is supposedly as 'well established as gravity'), is the fact that mathematics, and logic, themselves, (which are the very backbone of all science, technology and engineering), are immaterial in their foundational nature and therefore mathematics, and logic, themselves cannot possibly find grounding within the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. And as M. Anthony Mills explains, “In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. Why? Although a committed materialist might be perfectly willing to accept that you do not really exist, he will have a harder time accepting that numbers do not exist. The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities.”
What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? – M. Anthony Mills – April 16, 2018 Excerpt: In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. Why? Although a committed materialist might be perfectly willing to accept that you do not really exist, he will have a harder time accepting that numbers do not exist. The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities. https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html
Mathematics and logic themselves, (which are, again, the very backbone of all science, technology and engineering), simply cannot be reduced to materialistic explanations. As Dr. Egnor explains, “What is the physics behind the Pythagorean theorem?,,, What is the “physics” of the fact that the area of a circle is pi multiplied by the square of the radius? And of course what is natural and physical about imaginary numbers, infinite series, irrational numbers, and the mathematics of more than three spatial dimensions?,,, What is the location of modus ponens? How much does Gödel’s incompleteness theorem weigh? What is the physics of non-contradiction? How many millimeters long is Clark’s argument for naturalism? ”
Naturalism and Self-Refutation – Michael Egnor – January 31, 2018 Excerpt: Mathematics is certainly something we do. Is mathematics “included in the space-time continuum [with] basic elements … described by physics”?,,, What is the physics behind the Pythagorean theorem? After all, no actual triangle is perfect, and thus no actual triangle in nature has sides such that the Pythagorean theorem holds. There is no real triangle in which the sum of the squares of the sides exactly equals the square of the hypotenuse. That holds true for all of geometry. Geometry is about concepts, not about anything in the natural world or about anything that can be described by physics. What is the “physics” of the fact that the area of a circle is pi multiplied by the square of the radius? And of course what is natural and physical about imaginary numbers, infinite series, irrational numbers, and the mathematics of more than three spatial dimensions? Mathematics is entirely about concepts, which have no precise instantiation in nature,,, Furthermore, the very framework of Clark’s argument — logic — is neither material nor natural. Logic, after all, doesn’t exist “in the space-time continuum” and isn’t described by physics. What is the location of modus ponens? How much does Gödel’s incompleteness theorem weigh? What is the physics of non-contradiction? How many millimeters long is Clark’s argument for naturalism? Ironically the very logic that Clark employs to argue for naturalism is outside of any naturalistic frame. The strength of Clark’s defense of naturalism is that it is an attempt to present naturalism’s tenets clearly and logically. That is its weakness as well, because it exposes naturalism to scrutiny, and naturalism cannot withstand even minimal scrutiny. Even to define naturalism is to refute it. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/01/naturalism-and-self-refutation/
Simply put, Mathematics itself, contrary to the materialistic presuppositions of Darwinists, does not need the physical world in order to exist. And yet Darwinists, although they deny that anything beyond nature exists, need this transcendent, i.e. beyond space and time, world of mathematics in order for their theory to even be considered scientific in the first place. The predicament that Darwinists find themselves in regards to denying the objective reality of this transcendent, immaterial, world of mathematics, and yet needing validation from this transcendent, immaterial, world of mathematics in order for their theory to even qualify as a hard science in the first place, should be the very definition of a scientifically self-refuting worldview. Furthermore, the theistic implications of all this are fairly obvious. As Berlinski noted, "There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time…."
An Interview with David Berlinski – Jonathan Witt Berlinski: There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time…. Interviewer:… Come again(?) … Berlinski: No need to come again: I got to where I was going the first time. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces. But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects. http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/found-upon-web-and-reprinted-here.html
Moreover, the fact humans can think about this timeless and immaterial realm of Platonic mathematical objects is proof in and of itself that humans cannot possibly be purely material beings, as is held within Darwinian thought, but that humans must possess a timeless and immaterial component to their being. In other, our ability to 'do mathematics', in of itself, is compelling proof Humans must possess a ‘soul’. As Alfred Russel Wallace, Darwin’s contemporary, himself noted “Mathematics is alone sufficient to prove in man the possession of a faculty unexistent in other creatures. Then you have music and the artistic faculty. No, the soul was a separate creation.”
“Nothing in evolution can account for the soul of man. The difference between man and the other animals is unbridgeable. Mathematics is alone sufficient to prove in man the possession of a faculty unexistent in other creatures. Then you have music and the artistic faculty. No, the soul was a separate creation.” Alfred Russel Wallace – Co-Discoverer of Natural Selection
Thus in conclusion, if JVL were ever honest enough to trace out the exact error of his ways in his false claim that he had proof for 'a new species arising from an old one'. (his exact error being that 'species' is an immaterial concept in and of itself), then JVL would be led inexorably to the necessity of his own immaterial mind in order to properly define what a species is in the first place. But alas, JVL, since he is a dogmatic Darwinist, is forever stuck, (for whatever severely misguided reason), in the insanity of his chosen worldview of Darwinian materialism. After years of dealing with dogmatic Darwinists, I have little hope left that he will recover from his insane Darwinian worldview.
Zechariah 7:11 But they refused to pay attention and turned a stubborn shoulder; they stopped up their ears from hearing.
bornagain77
March 6, 2020
March
03
Mar
6
06
2020
03:54 AM
3
03
54
AM
PDT
Inferring 'randomness':
"Randomness can operate only within nonrandom parameters. Dice, for example, do not have randomly determined numbers of sides. They are designed. If a die has six sides, it is designed and intended to have six sides; if it has four sides, then likewise, this is the product of intentional design".
https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!searchin/metaphysical-speculations/Evolution$20/metaphysical-speculations/HYxtwN7jKA8Truthfreedom
March 6, 2020
March
03
Mar
6
06
2020
03:44 AM
3
03
44
AM
PDT
Truthfreedom, 76: Then darwin was wrong when he illegitimately inferred ‘un-guided’, trying to pass it as ‘science’. Same goes for atheist/materialists parroting: ‘science has demonstrated un-guided evolution’. No, it has not. Okay. But it doesn't mean it was designed then either.JVL
March 6, 2020
March
03
Mar
6
06
2020
02:15 AM
2
02
15
AM
PDT
@75 JVL Then darwin was wrong when he illegitimately inferred 'un-guided', trying to pass it as 'science'. Same goes for atheist/materialists parroting: 'science has demonstrated un-guided evolution'. No, it has not.Truthfreedom
March 6, 2020
March
03
Mar
6
06
2020
01:56 AM
1
01
56
AM
PDT
Truthfreedom, 74: Can you please point to any ‘science experiments’ being carried out to ‘prove if there is a designer in nature’? Not that I am aware of. But I can't speak for all ID supporters.JVL
March 6, 2020
March
03
Mar
6
06
2020
01:30 AM
1
01
30
AM
PDT
@72 JVL
I just guessed; as I stated I don’t know his motivations or perceptions. I don’t need to consider his reasons or motivations if the science stands up independently.
Okay. 'Un-guided' is a philosophical add-on. It can not be scientifically proven. No scientific 'knows' if there is a designer or not. Can you please point to any 'science experiments' being carried out to 'prove if there is a designer in nature'? Bad theology/ personal biases do not count.Truthfreedom
March 6, 2020
March
03
Mar
6
06
2020
12:59 AM
12
12
59
AM
PDT
KF: From https://global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/9780199315468/student/ch5/wed/plato/
At one time Plato wrote that the best relationship would be an erotically charged relationship between men, though he believed the highest relationship would not involve actual sexual contact. It is from this ideal that we get the term platonic relationship. However today a platonic relationship refers to a completely non-sexual relationship. Despite Plato’s assertion that an erotically charged but sexually unconsummated relationship was best, he does have Socrates say in the Phaedrus, that pairs of lovers, eromenoi (lover) and erastoi (beloved) could reach heaven even if they did take part in “that desire of their hearts which to many is bliss” (Crompton, 2003, p. 60-61). Crompton (2011) stated that in general “Plato’s dialogues are suffused with a homoerotic ambience”
Men who are a section of that double nature which was once called androgynous [made up of a man and a woman] are lovers of women, adulterers are generally of this breed, and also adulterous women who lust after men. The women who are a section of the woman do not care for men, but have female attachments: the female companions [that is, lesbians] are of this sort. But they who are a section of the male follow the male, and while they are young, being slices of the original man, they have affection for men and embrace them [the Greek verb implies a sexual sense], and these are the best of boys and youths, because they have the most manly nature. [bracketed material in Crompton] (Crompton, 2003, p. 58). This passage is an unusual celebration of male same-sex desire by contemporary Western standards. Plato is explicitly linking manliness not with heterosexual desire but with homosexual desire.
JVL
March 5, 2020
March
03
Mar
5
05
2020
10:53 PM
10
10
53
PM
PDT
Truthfreedom, 65: This is philosophy. In other post you wrote that darwin was no philosopher. – And why if the perception of ‘suffering’ is just another evolutive ‘trick’? As ‘morals’ or ‘love’ or ‘reality’ or… everything under the darwinian/evolutive paradigm? Ironically, darwinism refutes itself. I just guessed; as I stated I don't know his motivations or perceptions. I don't need to consider his reasons or motivations if the science stands up independently.JVL
March 5, 2020
March
03
Mar
5
05
2020
10:44 PM
10
10
44
PM
PDT
ET, 63: You need to do more than a title search. No one is in a lab seeing if prokaryotes can evolve into eukaryotes. Finding intelligently designed intermediates don’t help. And what we are learning says that unguided evolution is nonsense. Biologists may disagree with me but they cannot refute what I said. You claimed no one was working on the problem and clearly they are. You may choose to examine the issue in a different way but it is a topic of ongoing research. To this day we don’t know of a mechanism capable of producing the diversity of life starting from some unknown populations of prokaryotes. No one is even working on the problem. Okay.JVL
March 5, 2020
March
03
Mar
5
05
2020
10:41 PM
10
10
41
PM
PDT
BA77, 61: I can’t decide if this deserves a double or triple face palm. Let’s go triple You asked for an example of a new species arising from an old one. I easily found a paper referencing such a thing.JVL
March 5, 2020
March
03
Mar
5
05
2020
10:39 PM
10
10
39
PM
PDT
JVL & EG, fashionable agendas don't re-write what is in our chromosomes. And BTW, yes, Frankfurt School-derived cultural marxism has for decades set out on an agenda of upending our civilisation through creating Marxist thesis antithesis narratives on any number of issues; the many forms of "critical theory" manifest this pattern. The enabling of holocaust of our living posterity in the womb is a capital -- and pivotal -- example as is the attempt to pretend that our chromosomes do not establish two complementary sexes with linked need for long term child nurture in stable families that pivot on the male-female bond; and no, playing if you dare disagree with our narrative you are only giving an opinion is not ever going to change the basic facts of maleness and femaleness; but then, once a crooked yardstick is set up as power-backed standard of straight, accurate and upright, what is genuinely or even naturally so will never correspond with the false standard of crookedness.. As a result, over the past generation, we have deeply corrupted our civilisation through unprecedented mass blood guilt, which is going to come back to haunt us; not least through the inherent radical relativism and might/ manipulation make 'right' nihilism of an ancient philosophy now dressed up in the lab coat, evolutionary materialism and its fellow travellers. Plato was right 2360 years ago in The Laws, Bk X. As a clue, notice that a proper understanding of truth is that it accurately describes reality, so warped notions will ultimately fail because they are out of alignment with reality. KF PS: Plato's warning, which we would do well to heed (but likely won't until things go over the cliff, as happened to Athens through the Peloponnesian war):
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].
kairosfocus
March 5, 2020
March
03
Mar
5
05
2020
09:57 PM
9
09
57
PM
PDT
How militant atheists stole your sense of meaning to enhance theirs.
"More Than Allegory is my attempt to restore balance to the cultural debate by denying atheo-materialism its illegitimate claim to rational high-ground. Religion doesn't contradict linear logic, it simply transcends it. Religion doesn't contradict empirical evidence, it just looks at dimensions of experience that atheo-materialism arbitrarily ignores. Religion isn't composed through linear steps of reasoning, but intuitively sensed in the obfuscated trans-personal depths of the human psyche, which are anchored in primordial truths. Religion isn't wish-fulfillment, but intuitive realization. And it is atheo-materialism that constitutes an engineered attempt to safeguard one's sense of meaning, not religion. Religion had already sprung spontaneously from the depths of the human psyche since much before the perceived threats to meaning that motivated our first wish-fulfillment maneuvers". "Let us restore the legitimacy of the human religious impulse. It deserves no less. And so do we".
https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2016/02/atheism-historys-greatest-theft.html?m=1Truthfreedom
March 5, 2020
March
03
Mar
5
05
2020
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT
Post 65. Argh! Monkey brain!Truthfreedom
March 5, 2020
March
03
Mar
5
05
2020
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT
*What if*, not *why if* @ my post 67.Truthfreedom
March 5, 2020
March
03
Mar
5
05
2020
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT
@42 JVL
I don’t know how he came to his views precisely. I suspect he saw the incredible amount of suffering and death and waste inherent in the unguided evolutionary process and thought: who would have dictated this? But that’s just a guess.
This is philosophy. In other post you wrote that darwin was no philosopher. - And why if the perception of 'suffering' is just another evolutive 'trick'? As 'morals' or 'love' or 'reality' or... everything under the darwinian/evolutive paradigm? Ironically, darwinism refutes itself.Truthfreedom
March 5, 2020
March
03
Mar
5
05
2020
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT
To this day we don’t know of a mechanism capable of producing the diversity of life starting from some unknown populations of prokaryotes. No one is even working on the problem.ET
March 5, 2020
March
03
Mar
5
05
2020
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT
JVL-You need to do more than a title search. No one is in a lab seeing if prokaryotes can evolve into eukaryotes. Finding intelligently designed intermediates don't help. And what we are learning says that unguided evolution is nonsense. Biologists may disagree with me but they cannot refute what I said. Natural selection, Darwin’s greatest idea, has been a total bust with respect to being a designer mimic. No one has ever demonstrated otherwiseET
March 5, 2020
March
03
Mar
5
05
2020
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT
Jim Thibodeau:
Evolution researchers generate over 1,000 peer-reviewed papers per day.
Your equivocation is duly noted. Must be nice to be ignorant of what ID is and what is being debated.ET
March 5, 2020
March
03
Mar
5
05
2020
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT
"Their choice of words falsifies the idea?" Your very own words in you very own sentence falsifies Darwinian evolution. If they made a free will choice of which words to use in their papers then that necessarily falsifies the reductive materialism of Darwinian evolution which explicitly denies the existence of free will choices. i.e. They had no "choice" whatsoever in what words they would write down. If your atheistic worldview is true, everyone is a deterministic 'meat robot'. Insanity, thy name is Darwinian materialism!
Michael Egnor Shows You're Not A Meat Robot (Science Uprising EP2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQo6SWjwQIk
As to Darwin's finches, how quaint! From your paper,,,
It's two of these (finch) species that came together in what is called species hybridisation to create an entirely new one.
I can't decide if this deserves a double or triple face palm. Let's go triple
Triple face palm https://massivelyop.com/triple-facepalm/
Anyways,
Darwin’s finches not a good example of Darwinian evolution? - February 12, 2015 Excerpt: The most extensive genetic study ever conducted of Darwin’s finches, from the Galapagos Islands, has revealed a messy family tree with a surprising level of interbreeding between species. It also suggests that changes in one particular gene triggered the wide variation seen in their beak shapes … The study also revealed a surprisingly large amount of “gene flow” between the branches of the family. This indicates that the species have continued to interbreed or hybridise, after diversifying when they first arrived on the islands.… “It’s been observed that the species of Darwin’s finches sometimes hybridise – Peter and Rosemary Grant have seen that during their fieldwork,” Prof Andersson told the BBC. “But it’s difficult to say what the long-term evolutionary significance of that is. What does it contribute?” What it contributes is that one would be hard pressed to show that there is any evolution going on, in the face of this much hybridization.,,, https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/darwins-finches-not-a-good-example-of-darwinian-evolution/ Darwin's Finches: Answers From Epigenetics by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. - August 29. 2014 Excerpt: Just one year prior to this 2014 study,1 the epigenetic basis of speciation was demonstrated in birds in which the progressive geographical spread and ecological patterns of adaptation for a newly introduced songbird species were characterized by differences in DNA methylation patterns, not variation in the actual DNA sequence.2 In contrast, traditional Darwinian evolution alleges that random changes in the DNA itself generate new and useful variants that are then selected by the environment. In reality, researchers are now discovering that organisms can robustly adapt to different ecological niches without major changes in their DNA sequence.,,, What underlies this variation in finch beaks? In studies attempting to determine the molecular basis for beak variability in finches, researchers have found that very similar developmental genetic pathways among species can produce markedly different beak shapes.5 So if the genes are essentially the same, then what seems to be the major source of variation? In this current effort, the researchers studied two different factors in the genome. The first were short sections of non-coding DNA sequence that varied in the number of copies—repeated units—called copy number variants or CNVs. In humans, differences in CNVs form the basis for studying forensics and paternity testing. The second factor studied was epigenetically-based, using an analysis of DNA methylation patterns around the genome. From these analyses, the researchers found that epigenetics correlated well with increased diversity among species while CNVs, based on actual DNA sequences, did not. In addition, they also undertook a more focused study of the epigenetic profiles of specific genes involved in the morphogenesis of beak shape, immune-system responses, and coloring of the birds. Once again, the epigenetic profiles of the different bird species for all of these gene groups were different while the DNA sequences were nearly identical. In addition, the amazing cellular machinery that reads, regulates, replicates, and modifies epigenetic states in the genome is so incredibly sophisticated and complex that it can only be attributed to the work of an Omnipotent Creator. http://www.icr.org/article/8338/
bornagain77
March 5, 2020
March
03
Mar
5
05
2020
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT
BA77, 55: Much less has anyone ever demonstrated the origin of a brand new species from an existing species. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen https://www.sciencealert.com/darwin-s-finches-evolve-into-new-species-in-real-time-two-generations-galapagos Bottom line, the very words that Biologists themselves are forced to use, i.e. teleological design language, i.e. “God talk”, when they are doing their biological research and/or writing their papers, falsifies Darwinian evolution and validates Intelligent Design: Their choice of words falsifies the idea?JVL
March 5, 2020
March
03
Mar
5
05
2020
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT
ET, 52: Then please reference one paper. Complex archaea that bridge the gap between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14447 Except no one knows how things happened with respect to unguided evolution. But we're learning! In what way? Natural selection, Darwin’s greatest idea, has been a total bust with respect to being a designer mimic. I'm not sure most biologists would agree with you.JVL
March 5, 2020
March
03
Mar
5
05
2020
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT
"Evolution researchers generate over 1,000 peer-reviewed papers per day" They should quit and get real jobs, then. Save some trees. Andrewasauber
March 5, 2020
March
03
Mar
5
05
2020
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT
KF refers to some sexual behaviours as radical perversions. But all he is doing is expressing his opinion, which he is entitled to do. I am honest enough to admit that the idea of homosexuality makes me feel uncomfortable. But I am intelligent enough to know that the problem is mine, not theirs, and that I have no right to to infringe on their ability to seek happiness as they see fit as long as it does no harm to others. I am reminded of the story about a researcher who surveyed thousands of men about whether or not they masturbated. 95% responded that they masturbated on at least a monthly basis. The conclusion of the research paper was that 5% of men lie.Ed George
March 5, 2020
March
03
Mar
5
05
2020
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT
Ouch Jim Thibodeau!Truthfreedom
March 5, 2020
March
03
Mar
5
05
2020
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT
1 5 6 7 8 9

Leave a Reply