Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Evolution News: Recognizing Providence in the History of Life Is a Hint About Our Own Lives

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

An arena of fine-tuning we can all appreciate, not quantitatively but qualitatively, is how in most events of our lives, things go right, when there are so many more ways that they could go wrong. Just consider how most of the time we arrive safely to where we’re going when we take a trip by car, even in rush-hour traffic. Or, how electricity keeps flowing to our homes, without which we’d be pushed quickly into survival mode. Or how our sense of balance facilitates efficient movement of our physical bodies throughout the day.

David Klinghoffer gives his perspective on this topic, reaching a different conclusion than Dartmouth College physicist Marcelo Gleiser.

Dartmouth College physicist Marcelo Gleiser, writing at Big Think, asks, “Does life on Earth have a purpose?” Obviously, this is more than just a scientific question. It’s a very personal one for each of us. Given the venue, Gleiser’s answer of course is going to be no.

Gleiser’s own case rests on the part played by chance in life’s history. For example, the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs:

If we changed one or more of the dramatic events in Earth’s history — say, the cataclysmic impact of the asteroid that helped eliminate the dinosaurs 66 million years ago — life’s history on Earth would also change. We probably would not be here asking about life’s purpose. The lesson from life is simple: In Nature, creation and destruction dance together. But there is no choreographer.

His argument: The Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction cleared the field for mammals, allowing ultimately for the rise of “intelligent, technology-savvy humans.” No asteroid –> no humans. The asteroid was a chance, unchoreographed event. Therefore, says Dr. Gleiser, no “choreographer” intended our existence.

The Role of Providence

This is a remarkably shallow conclusion. As luck would have it (if you want to put it that way), I’ve been thinking about the role of providence, as I see it, in my own path of life. Any of us can point to certain pivotal events in our past — a seemingly chance meeting, a piece of advice received, an idea that came to us unbidden — that need not have occurred, but did. And because they did, we found the path to our current place (marriage, relationships, friendships, work, the whole thing) laid out before us.

Gleiser’s argument about the history of life is just a separate application of the depressing view that denies anything in our life paths could have been intended for us. That the view is depressing doesn’t mean that it is mistaken. That it can be asserted doesn’t mean that it is correct.

Purposeful Information

To decide about providence in the rise of complex life, you would have to look at a much wider suite of evidences than the fact that an asteroid doomed the dinosaurs. Scientific proponents of intelligent design have done this, noting vast evidence of extraordinarily careful tuning in physics, chemistry, and biology, from the Big Bang itself, to the origin of life, to the series of biological “big bangs” through which bursts of purposeful information infused the biosphere. 

The most recent treatments of this theme include biologist Michael Denton’s The Miracle of Man and philosopher of science Stephen Meyer’s Return of the God Hypothesis. Meyer’s book points to three scientific discoveries that demand a conclusion of purpose behind the cosmos (that the universe has a beginning, that it was fine-tuned for life from the start, that life is a form of information-processing technology). On the radical discontinuities in evolution that bespeak purpose and creativity, see Meyer and paleontologist Günter Bechly’s chapter (“The Fossil Record and Universal Common Ancestry”) in the volume Theistic Evolution.

“The Wheel Has Turned”

From a different perspective, Denton explains this beautifully and profoundly. What Gleiser terms “intelligent, technology-savvy humans” are exactly what almost countless coincidences in nature have been set just so in order to permit. As Dr. Denton has written here about this “prior fitness” for human beings, creatures capable of manipulating fire, and therefore of engaging in technological invention:

Even though many mysteries remain, we can now, in these first decades of the 21st century, at last answer with confidence Thomas Huxley’s question of questions as to “the place which mankind occupies in nature and of his relations to the universe of things.” As matters stand, the evidence increasingly points to a natural order uniquely fit for life on Earth and for beings of a biology close to that of humans, a view which does not prove but is entirely consistent with the traditional Judeo-Christian framework….

“Mysteries remain,” as Denton acknowledges. Yet, “The wheel has turned.” Modern science calls us to recognize the role of providence in the history of the cosmos, of our planet, and of life. If that is true in cosmology and biology, it’s a hint that it might be true, too, on the far smaller scale of our individual biographies.

Full article at Evolution News.
Comments
Bornagain77: you are obviously doing a dance to avoid answering the simple questions. I'm not dancing; I'm just flat-out not answering them and admitting it. I don't see that my opinion is pertinent to the discussion. I know what you think and I'm not trying to attack your opinion. I'm just wondering why it's possible for lots of Christians to disagree on some very important issues. But, again, since I seem to be making people angry I'll just quit.JVL
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT
Relatd: Angry at God? Not at all. I don't spend time being angry at things I don't think exist. That’s how you come off. Do you live in Perfect Land like Seversky? Is that why you are also an Official Accuser (TM)? All men sin. Even Christians. You don’t get that. You think you’ve found a chink in the armor? You haven’t. And don’t come back with, So what’s the point of being a Christian? The point is to grow in holiness like Saint Augustine. To become more like Christ. To have eternal life. A worthy goal! That sounds great. There still seems to be a disagreement about what being 'more like Christ' means. But since I'm just making everyone angry I'll stop asking for clarification.JVL
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT
JVL, you are obviously doing a dance to avoid answering the simple questions. Are you for ‘dismemberment’ abortions? If not, why not? Are you for abortion up until birth? If not, why not? Are you for infanticide of the handicapped? If not, why not? Just honestly answer the questions.bornagain77
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
ET at 80, Just doing his job...relatd
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT
Querius at 87, Don't ever, ever, ever encourage the Trolls! Don't give them ideas! Ever! Otherwise, I'm sure both major political parties in the U.S. use your example or are copying it right now...relatd
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT
JVL at 74, Angry at God? That's how you come off. Do you live in Perfect Land like Seversky? Is that why you are also an Official Accuser (TM)? All men sin. Even Christians. You don't get that. You think you've found a chink in the armor? You haven't. And don't come back with, So what's the point of being a Christian? The point is to grow in holiness like Saint Augustine. To become more like Christ. To have eternal life. To know the Truth as opposed to the lies being spread among the people. 1 John 1:8 "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."relatd
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT
So many unsupported assertions generated by a trollbot app! For example It's an accepted fact among ____A____, that ____B_____ are responsible for ____C_____ . A. Scientists, scholars, researchers, historians, gas station attendants, chiropractors, business leaders, anyone with an IQ above 90, mainstream academics, the obscenely wealthy, trusted news sources, anyone with a high school education . . . B: Christians, white males, lawyers, Trump supporters, surgeons, immigrants, African-Americans, Marxists, atheists, scientists, libertarians, librarians, television producers, drug companies, fat people, businesses, anarchists, vegetarians, truckers . . . C. Abortion, inflation, all wars, disease, famine, pimples, murders, poverty, vacuous tweets, inner-city crime, illegal drugs, random outbursts, inequality, divorce, crippling angst, projectile vomiting . . . For manual operation, you randomly choose a word from A, B, and C. Then post it on Uncommon Descent and watch the fun begin! "It's an accepted fact among scientists, that Christians are responsible for abortion." "It's an accepted fact among trusted news sources, that librarians are responsible for inflation." "It's an accepted fact among researchers, that fat people are responsible for illegal drugs." When someone responds, counter whatever they post (without reading it) with another ABC. -QQuerius
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT
Asauber: But can you say your moral stance is anything more than a worthless opinion? Can you say yours is? You disagree with other people who claim to gain inspiration from the same source? Someone is picking and choosing from that source . . .JVL
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT
"I’m allowed to adopt whatever moral stance rings true to me" JVL, Again, absurdly obvious. But can you say your moral stance is anything more than a worthless opinion? Andrewasauber
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT
Bornagain77: JVL, you never did answer my questions, Are you for ‘dismemberment’ abortions? That's right, I didn't. If not, why not? Are you for abortion up until birth? If not, why not? Are you for infanticide of the handicapped? If not, why not? And if you are not a complete psychopath and are rightly against such barbaric practices, remember that since you are a Darwinist with no objective moral foundation, then you are not allowed to ‘borrow’ from Judeo-Christian ethics in order to try to make your case against such barbaric practices. Actually, I'm allowed to adopt whatever moral stance rings true to me, just like you do. Other Christians have and still do disagree with you on some issues, so you too pick and choose apparently since other Christians come to different conclusions. Also, As I have pointed out in the past, many of the 'Judea-Christian ethics' are present in other religious belief systems so, maybe, they really are hard-wired in us. The reason I didn't want to get into a discussion of my own personal preferences is because they're not pertinent to my query: how is it that Christians two centuries ago generally felt okay with abortions before 'the quickening' but now many do not? As a non-Christian I'm in a poor position to examine or compare and contrast different doctrinal stances that exist now and in the past. I thought you guys might be able to address possible reason for the disagreement.JVL
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT
"As an ‘outsider’ I find it surprising and confusing that Christians can disagree with each other so greatly." JVL, Have you ever met people? This is what people are like. They all have different interests. Can I help you with anything else absurdly obvious? Andrewasauber
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT
Asauber: How do you know it was “most”? Anyway, they were in error, just like you are. Not rocket science. Seems a fair assumption it was 'most' (i.e. over half) since there seems to have been very few calling for the abolition of abortion. Clearly you think they were in error but they didn't think they were in error. As an 'outsider' I find it surprising and confusing that Christians can disagree with each other so greatly. So I wonder how that could happen. Was it a doctrinal change? Was it greater medical and scientific knowledge? (Probably not since there are modern Christian denominations that support early term abortions.) It's a real puzzle that some issues, like abortion or same-sex marriage, can generate such strong disagreement when you're all reading from the same book. Unable to move a millimeter off the troll script. I guess I'm just more interested in the Christian disagreement than you are.JVL
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT
JVL: Unable to move a millimeter off the troll script. Andrewasauber
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT
JVL:
So, it was okay for Christians to support abortions and slavery 200 years ago because they were scientifically illiterate?
Are you on drugs?ET
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT
JVL, you never did answer my questions, Are you for 'dismemberment' abortions? If not, why not? Are you for abortion up until birth? If not, why not? Are you for infanticide of the handicapped? If not, why not? And if you are not a complete psychopath and are rightly against such barbaric practices, remember that since you are a Darwinist with no objective moral foundation, then you are not allowed to 'borrow' from Judeo-Christian ethics in order to try to make your case against such barbaric practices.
Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist. Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist. Conclusion: Therefore, God exists. The Moral Argument – drcraigvideos - video https://youtu.be/OxiAikEk2vU?t=276
bornagain77
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT
"Why do you think most of the Christians of two centuries ago supported something you now consider un-Christian?" JVL, How do you know it was "most"? Anyway, they were in error, just like you are. Not rocket science. Andrewasauber
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT
Asauber: Christians 200 years ago and today generally sin, yes, and sometimes support things that aren’t Christian. Completely irrelevant to whether or not killing babies in the womb should be practiced. Why do you think most of the Christians of two centuries ago supported something you now consider un-Christian? And, apparently, so did some of the Popes before that. A practice doesn't become part of British Common Law because a few 'influencers' push everyone else around based on their own agenda. It develops over decades, centuries even. In fact, when you look at it from an historical perspective, early term abortions (at least) have been considered legal far longer than they've been outlawed in very Christian nations. Why would centuries of Christians not rise up in arms over early term abortions if you think it's clear that they should have? Why was it accepted as part of British Common Law? Yes you are or you wouldn’t be trolling about it. I'm interested in why you think most Christians in the US and Britain did not have a problem with early term abortions 200 years ago. It wasn't illegal and, in fact, it stayed legal for quite a few decades into the 19th century. What changed between then and now?JVL
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT
"I’m not trying to defend it" JVL, Yes you are or you wouldn't be trolling about it. Andrewasauber
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT
"200 years ago generally Christians supported abortion" JVL, Christians 200 years ago and today generally sin, yes, and sometimes support things that aren't Christian. Completely irrelevant to whether or not killing babies in the womb should be practiced. Andrewasauber
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT
Oh, by the way:
Saint Augustine believed that an early abortion is not murder because, according to the Aristotelian concept of delayed ensoulment, the soul of a fetus at an early stage is not present, a belief that passed into canon law. Nonetheless, he harshly condemned the procedure: "Sometimes, indeed, this lustful cruelty, or if you please, cruel lust, resorts to such extravagant methods as to use poisonous drugs to secure barrenness; or else, if unsuccessful in this, to destroy the conceived seed by some means previous to birth, preferring that its offspring should rather perish than receive vitality; or if it was advancing to life within the womb, should be slain before it was born."(De Nube et Concupiscentia 1.17) St. Thomas Aquinas, Pope Innocent III, and Pope Gregory XIV also believed that a fetus does not have a soul until "quickening," or when the fetus begins to kick and move, and therefore early abortion was not murder, though later abortion was. Aquinas held that abortion was still wrong, even when not murder, regardless of when the soul entered the body. Pope Stephen V and Pope Sixtus V opposed abortion at any stage of pregnancy.
So, the Catholic Church hasn't even been consistent regarding abortion, at least as far as the Popes are concerned. And, certainly today, there is much disagreement amongst the Christian churches.JVL
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT
Asauber: I think the real question is why people like you, JVL, defend such a barbaric practice? 200 years ago generally Christians supported abortion until the 'quickening' and had done for hundreds of years or it wouldn't have become part of British Common Law. It certainly was not illegal at that time and the vast, vast majority of Americans and Brits were Christian at that time. Why do you think that was the case? I'm not trying to defend it; I'm merely pointing out that you are in disagreement with Christians from only two centuries ago. Why is that?JVL
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT
ET: 200 years ago, many people were scientifically illiterate. And slavery was a thing. So, it was okay for Christians to support abortions and slavery 200 years ago because they were scientifically illiterate?JVL
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT
"Why do you think that is?" JVL, I think the real question is why people like you, JVL, defend such a barbaric practice? Andrewasauber
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT
200 years ago, many people were scientifically illiterate. And slavery was a thing.ET
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT
Bornagain77: I was merely pointing out that abortion had only been outlawed in the United States for less than 200 years; in most states far less than 200 years. For a long time abortions were considered legal up to the time of 'quickening, say around four to six months. This was also true in British Common Law. In other words, it wasn't the advent of rampant atheism that was the original justification for allowing abortions up to about half-term. I find a bit of historical perspective enlightening. It seems that your Christian forebears did not have the same issues with abortion as you do. Why do you think that is?JVL
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT
Of further note, most Americans simply do not really have a real clue, (both morally and physically), as to what is really going on behind the scenes in the abortion industry,
These Irish Eyes Don't Blink Excerpt: the abortion "House of Horrors," as the Philadelphia Women's Medical Society at 3801 Lancaster Avenue came to be known, was also discovered quite by accident.,,, They walked into a veritable waking nightmare.,,, ,,, The most powerful testimonies in the trial, Ann said, were those of the abortion doctors themselves when describing what constituted "a good, legal abortion." Nearly everyone on the jury was pro-choice at the outset, but some let out audible gasps as an expert witness abortionist explained in detail what she did. Nor was it just Phelim, Ann, and jury members who would reexamine their views. "Prosecutors, several journalists, and even Gosnell's own lawyer ultimately experienced changes of heart and mind," Ann wrote. "Basically, once you find out the truth about abortion, you drop the pro-choice easy narrative very quickly," says Phelim. "Abortion is like an article of faith for some people, you know? They don't think about it, but they just are pro-abortion. I'll tell you, their faith was shattered. Everyone's faith was shattered." http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo42/these-irish-eyes-dont-blink.php
,,, yet, even though most Americans have no real clue what is really going on behind the scenes in the abortion industry, If a psychopath did to a child what the abortion industry routinely does to unborn children, via ‘dismemberment' abortions, the psychopath would be sentenced to death, and/or life in prison, and the vast majority of people in America would agree wholeheartedly with that punishment.
Dismemberment Abortion – Patrina Mosley, M.A. Dismemberment abortions are a common and brutal type of abortion that involve dismembering a living unborn child piece by piece. According to the National Abortion Federation’s abortion training textbook, dismemberment abortions are a preferred method of abortion, in part because they are cheaper than other available methods.1 (2018) https://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF18F25.pdf 100 million views: People respond to the viral ‘Abortion Procedures’ videos Excerpt: In these videos, Dr. Levatino, who committed over 1,200 abortions before becoming pro-life, explains in detail what occurs when the life of a preborn child is destroyed during an abortion during the 1st, 2nd and 3rd trimesters. Each of the Abortion Procedures videos describes in detail how each abortion procedure is carried out and how the preborn child dies. The realization of abortion’s barbarity, cruelty, and inhumanity has impacted many viewers who were not expecting to see what they saw.,,, https://www.liveaction.org/news/live-action-abortion-procedures-impact/ Abortion Procedures: 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Trimesters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFZDhM5Gwhk Watch (pro-choice) minds (immediately) change on abortion (after watching the abortion procedures video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xWQHhqOAcg Abby Johnson Discusses Why She Left Planned Parenthood At The 2020 RNC | NBC News, (she witnessed a dismemberment abortion first hand) https://youtu.be/NXQjCuWFdzI?t=100 Michael Egnor – The Junk Science of the Abortion Lobby (Fetuses not only experience pain but experience it more intensely than do adults) https://mindmatters.ai/2019/01/the-junk-science-of-the-abortion-lobby/
bornagain77
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT
JVL, so, as a Darwinist with no objective moral foundation, are you for killing unborn babies up until birth? If not, why not?
Dr. David McKnight, who is a board certified OB/GYN released this statement; (Jan 24, 2019) “It appears that the State of New York has legislated that an unborn baby can now be killed at term. They did this joyfully and celebrated by illuminating the Freedom Tower in pink light. As a board-certified OB/GYN physician for over 30 years, I need to say publicly and unequivocally, that there is NEVER a medical reason to kill a baby at term. When complications of pregnancy endanger a mother’s life, we sometimes must deliver the baby early, but it ALWAYS with the intent of doing whatever we can to do it safely for the baby too. The decision to kill an unborn baby at term is purely for convenience. It is murder. And now it won’t be long before a struggling mother with a 1-month old baby will argue for the right to kill her baby too, because taking care of him or her is just too difficult and inconvenient. When you are willing to rationalize murder, why be subject to a timeline? God help us.” https://www.empirestateconservativenetwork.com/blog/2019/1/24/why-the-reproductive-health-act-is-abhorrent-trash Hillary Clinton is Wrong: OBGYN Says Abortion is Never Necessary to Save the Life of the Mother – MICAIAH BILGER OCT 24, 2016 Dr. Lawrence Koning, an OB-GYN in Corona, California, said Clinton also is wrong about late-term abortions being necessary to save a woman’s life or health, according to Christian News Network. “As an OB/GYN physician for 31 years, there is no medical situation that requires aborting/killing the baby in the third trimester to ‘save the mother’s life,’” Koning wrote on social media after the debate. “Just deliver the baby by C-section and the baby has 95+% survival with readily available NICU care even at 28 weeks. C-section is quicker and safer than partial birth abortion for the mother.” https://catholiccitizens.org/views/68533/hillary-clinton-wrong-obgyn-says-abortion-never-necessary-save-life-mother/ Board Certified OB/GYN Drops Truth Bomb on New York Abortion Law – COURTNEY KIRCHOFF THURSDAY JANUARY 24 2019 I want to clear something up so that there is absolutely no doubt. I’m a Board Certified OB/GYN who has delivered over 2,500 babies. There’s not a single fetal or maternal condition that requires third trimester abortion. Not one. Delivery, yes. Abortion, no. – Omar L. Hamada, MD, MBA https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/board-certified-ob-gyn-drops-truth-bomb-on-new-york-abortion-law/ Will Laws Protecting the Unborn Endanger Mothers? Michael Egnor - August 2, 2022 Excerpt: Medically Necessary? The vast majority of abortions committed in the U.S. are elective and are done without even the pretense to protect the health of the mother. Situations in which a mother’s life is genuinely in danger and for which removal of the child is the necessary medical treatment are quite rare. Neonatologist Dr. Kendra Kolb has an excellent discussion of whether abortion can be medically necessary: "It is often said that abortion is sometimes medically necessary to protect the life or health of the mother. This is simply not true. As a neonatologist, I am regularly consulted to advise mothers with high-risk pregnancies, and I routinely care for their babies. I have also personally gone through two very difficult pregnancies each requiring hospitalization. So I have great empathy and respect for all women who are pregnant, especially those with difficult or high-risk pregnancies. What women deserve to know, however, is that even in the most high-risk pregnancies, there is no medical reason why the life of the child must be directly and intentionally ended with an abortion procedure. In situations where the mother’s life is truly in jeopardy, her pregnancy must end, and the baby must be delivered. These situations occur in cases of mothers who develop dangerously high blood pressure, have decompensating heart disease, life threatening diabetes, cancer, or a number of other very serious medical conditions. Some babies do need to be delivered before they are able to survive outside of the womb, which occurs around 22 to 24 weeks of life. Those situations are considered a preterm delivery, not an abortion. These babies deserve to be treated with respect and compassion, and parents should be given the opportunity to honor their child’s life… A mother’s life is always of paramount importance, but abortion is never medically necessary to protect her life or health." https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/will-laws-protecting-the-unborn-endanger-mothers/
What about 'post-birth' abortions JVL? i.e. infanticide?, like Princeton bio-ethicist Peter Singer advocates for? Are you for those too?
Australia Awards Infanticide Backer Peter Singer Its Highest Honor – 2012 Excerpt: Singer is best known for advocating the ethical propriety of infanticide. But that isn’t nearly the limit of his odious advocacy. Here is a partial list of some other notable Singer bon mots: - Singer supports using cognitively disabled people in medical experiments instead of animals that have a higher “quality of life.” - Singer does not believe humans reach “full moral status” until after the age of two. Singer supports non-voluntary euthanasia of human “non-persons.” - Singer has defended bestiality. - Singer started the “Great Ape Project” that would establish a “community of equals” among humans, gorillas, bonobos, chimpanzees, and orangutans. - Singer supports health-care rationing based on “quality of life.” – Singer has questioned whether “the continuance of our species is justifiable,” since it will result in suffering. – Singer believes “speciesism” — viewing humans as having greater value than animals — is akin to racism. http://www.lifenews.com/2012/06/12/australia-awards-infanticide-backer-peter-singer-its-hig Peter Singer Thinks Intellectually Disabled Less Valuable than Pigs Excerpt: "Most people think that the life of a dog or a pig is of less value than the life of a normal human being. On what basis, then, could they hold that the life of a profoundly intellectually disabled human being with intellectual capacities inferior to those of a dog or a pig is of equal value to the life of a normal human being? This sounds like speciesism to me, and as I said earlier, I have yet to see a plausible defence of speciesism." - Peter Singer https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/peter-singer-thinks-intellectually-disabled-less-pigs/
JVL, so do you really believe, like Singer, that healthy pigs are more valuable than handicapped humans? If not, why not?,,, and JVL, since you are a Darwinist with no objective moral foundation, then no borrowing from Judeo-Christian ethics in order to try to make your case that handicapped humans have more intrinsic dignity and worth than healthy pigs. Shoot, besides the handicapped having no more intrinsic value than a healthy pig, on the Darwinian, i.e. amoral, view of things, 'healthy' people themselves are to be considered merely, “insects devouring one another on a little atom of mud”, having “no more meaning than that of slime mould”, “just a chemical scum on a moderate size planet”, and a “mosquito”.
You Chemical Scum, You Raymond Tallis engages with the dregs of philosophy Excerpt: Voltaire got things off to a jolly secular start quite a while back, by instructing the eponymous hero of his novel Zadig (1747) to visualise “men as they really are, insects devouring one another on a little atom of mud.” The notion of the Earth as ‘an atom of mud’, or at least as a not-very-special address, was prompted by a growing appreciation of the implications of the first scientific revolution. This had begun with Copernicus demoting the Earth to just one among many bits of matter circling in empty space; and led, via Kepler, Galileo, Newton and a few other giants of early modern physics, to an image of the universe as a gigantic clockwork machine, in which our planet, and consequently its inhabitants, cut a pretty small figure. But the competition to find the most scathing description of humanity seems to have intensified, particularly over the last few decades. Biology has been the inspiration in some cases. The philosopher and professional misanthrope John Gray has argued that Darwin has cured us of the delusions we might have had about our place in the order of things – we are beasts, metaphysically on all fours with the other beasts. “Man” Gray asserts in Straw Dogs (2003), “is only one of many species, and not obviously worth preserving.” And in case you’re still feeling a bit cocky, he adds: “human life has no more meaning than that of slime mould.” Slime mould? Yikes! Can it get any worse? Yes it can. For physics has again been recruited to the great project of disproving our greatness. Stephen Hawking’s declaration in 1995 on a TV show, Reality on the Rocks: Beyond Our Ken, that “the human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate size planet, orbiting round a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a billion galaxies” is much quoted. If we beg to differ, perhaps is it only because we are like the mosquito who, according to Nietzsche, “floats through the air… feeling within himself the flying centre of the universe”? (‘On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense’, 1873.) https://philosophynow.org/issues/89/You_Chemical_Scum_You
So JVL, do you really believe what your Darwinian worldview actually entails, i.e. that you have no more intrinsic dignity and worth that 'chemical scum' and/or slime mold? Surely JVL you don't believe as such? Much less can you possibly live your life as if you and all your loved ones actually had no more moral worth than slime mold!
"Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath." (per "The Heretic: Who is Thomas Nagel?" - 2013) Existential Argument against Atheism - November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen 1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview. 2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview. 3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality. 4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion. 5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true. Conclusion: Atheism is false. http://answersforhope.com/existential-argument-atheism/
Verse:
Genesis 1:27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
bornagain77
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus: you know better. Just pointing out some historical facts. We should be interested in facts, things that happened. When things happened.JVL
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
04:03 AM
4
04
03
AM
PDT
JVL, you know better. KFkairosfocus
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
03:54 AM
3
03
54
AM
PDT
Related & Bornagain77: Seversky, 250 million dead at the hands of atheistic tyrants who were influenced by Darwinian ideology speaks for itself and there is really nothing left to be said. You are aware that woman and mid-wives were inducing abortions for centuries before Darwin was even born. And that such practices were commonly tolerated up to a point in English common law. Do you know when abortion was made illegal in the USA? I bet you don't.
Abortion has existed in North America since the European colonization of the Americas, was a fairly common practice, and was not always illegal or controversial. In the early 1800s, methods were published for accomplishing abortion early in pregnancy. By common law, abortion was legal, and only after quickening it was not allowed; quickening indicated the start of fetal movements, usually felt 14–26 weeks after conception, or between the fourth and sixth month. Its determination was generally at the discretion of the pregnant woman, but the rules were unstated or unclear in written statues. When the United States became independent, most U.S. states continued to apply English common law to abortion. According to legal scholar Sheldon Gelman, the right to bodily integrity including abortion can be traced back to the Magna Carta (1215), which was imported in the U.S. Constitution from English law. William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765) stated that life "begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother's womb." This view was shared by James Wilson. As for legal penalties, Blackstone wrote they applied only "if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb." Within the context of a sex scandal, Connecticut was the first state to regulate abortion in 1821; it outlawed abortion after quickening and forbade the use of poisons to induce one post-quickening. In 1829, New York made post-quickening abortions a felony and pre-quickening abortions a misdemeanor. This was followed by 10 of the 26 states creating similar restrictions within the next few decades, in particular by the 1860s and 1870s. The first laws related to abortion were made to protect women from real or perceived risks, and those more restrictive penalized only the provider. According to several legal scholars, some of the early anti-abortion laws punished not only the doctor or abortionist but also the woman who hired them, and while women could be criminally tried for a self-induced abortion, they were rarely prosecuted in general; dating back to Edward Coke in 1648, whether abortion was performed before or after quickening determined if it was a crime. By 1859, abortion was not a crime in 21 out of 33 states, and was prohibited only post-quickening, while penalties for pre-quickening abortions were lower. This changed starting in the 1860s under the influence of anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic sentiment.
JVL
August 10, 2022
August
08
Aug
10
10
2022
02:28 AM
2
02
28
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Leave a Reply