At Mind Matters News: British government moves to protect octopuses from cruelty

In response to "In conclusion, ChuckyD it takes a huge amount of cognitive dissonance in order for anyone to maintain a Darwinian worldview." And right on cue, to display the cognitive dissonance necessary to maintain his Darwinian worldview, ChuckyD states "There are those of us that do not consider “Darwinism” an ideology or, to use the hackneyed apologist term, “worldview,” but as a misnomer for Darwin’s theory of natural selection.,,,"

world·view - Definition a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world. What is a worldview? — Definition & Introduction A worldview is a view of the world, used for living in the world. A world view is a mental model of reality — a comprehensive framework of ideas & attitudes about the world, ourselves, and life, a system of beliefs, a system of personally customized theories about the world and how it works — with answers for a wide range of questions: What are humans, why we are here, and what is our purpose in life? What are your goals for life? When you make decisions about using time — it's the stuff life is made of — what are your values and priorities? * What can we know, and how? and with how much certainty? Does reality include only matter/energy, or is there more?

To deny that Darwinian evolution forms the basis of an entire worldview is to just plain live in denial of reality. i.e. it is 'cognitive dissonance', even delusional thinking. Even Michael Ruse, a Darwinian atheist and a prominent philosopher, honestly admits that, "Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality."

"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint, and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it, the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today." Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? Darwinians wrongly mix science with morality, politics, National Post, pp. B1, B3, B7 (May 13, 2000)

After denying the fact that Darwinian evolution forms the basis of a worldview, ChuckyD goes on, "It (Darwin’s theory of natural selection) is a biological theory that has been supplemented, modified and refined just like any other scientific theory." First off, Darwinism is more properly classified as a pseudoscience, even as a religion for atheists, rather than ever being classified as a hard and testable scientific theory.

Imre Lakatos, who was considered one of the top three philosophers of science in the 20th century, stated that “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific,” https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/a-reader-reflects-on-science-uprising-9-spot-on-but-the-problem-is-an-old-one/#comment-741063 Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – Robert J. Marks II – June 12, 2017 Excerpt: There exists no (computer) model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Period. By “model,” we mean definitive simulations or foundational mathematics required of a hard science.,,, There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,, ,,, there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,, https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/top-ten-questions-and-objections-to-introduction-to-evolutionary-informatics/ Moreover, as far as empirical science is concerned, Darwinian evolution has been falsified six ways from Sunday., and thus we can, as Einstein himself explained, be absolutely 100% certain that Darwinian evolution is a false scientific theory. (i.e. principle of falsification) https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/a-reader-reflects-on-science-uprising-9-spot-on-but-the-problem-is-an-old-one/#comment-740940

Moreover, in so far as Darwin's theory has been 'supplemented, modified and refined just like any other scientific theory",,,, well if you call tossing natural selection itself under the bus, (i.e. neutral theory), to be just a minor modification of Darwin's theory, all I can say is that is yet another shining example of cognitive dissonance on the part of Darwinists.

November 2021 - In short, with the adoption of the ‘neutral theory’ of evolution by prominent Darwinists, (such as Dan Graur and Larry Moran), and the casting aside of Natural Selection as a major player in evolution, Darwinists, (at least the ones who know that natural selection has now been falsified as the supposed ‘designer substitute’ by the mathematics of population genetics), are now reduced to arguing that chance alone, all by its lonesome, is the cause for the ‘appearance of design’ that we see permeating life. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/big-bang-theory-is-too-big-to-fail-philosophers-of-science-complain/#comment-740458

ChuckyD goes on, "To the extent that anyone misappropriates Darwin’s ideas–or simply his name– to perpetuate political, social, religious or economic agendas, as you have, is not a fault or shortcoming of the theory, but an inappropriate and calculated misuse of the theory." And that statement is yet another shining example of cognitive dissonance. To deny that Darwinism played a key role in the ideology that led to the holocaust, (and that led to the other atheistic atrocities of the twentieth century), is to just plain live in denial of reality.

From Darwin to Hitler https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_5EwYpLD6A In his book, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany, Richard Weikart explains the revolutionary impact Darwinism had on ethics and morality. Darwinism played a key role in the rise not only of eugenics (a movement wanting to control human reproduction to improve the human species), but also on euthanasia, infanticide, abortion, and racial extermination. This was especially important in Germany, since Hitler built his view of ethics on Darwinian principles. "Writing shortly after World War II Sir Arthur Keith (an evolutionist), underscored an issue about Nazism that many Western elites would prefer left swept under the carpet (1947: 27-28): “The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution… To see evolutionary measures and tribal morality being applied vigorously to the affairs of a great modern nation, we must turn again to Germany of 1942. We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy… The means he adopted to secure the destiny of his race and people were organized slaughter, which has drenched Europe in blood… Such conduct is highly immoral as measured by every scale of ethics, yet Germany justifies it; it is consonant with tribal or evolutionary morality. Germany has reverted to the tribal past, and is demonstrating to the world, in their naked ferocity, the methods of evolution.” (ibid) etc.. etc.. etc..,,

ChuckyD goes on "I suggest that rabid, anti-evolutionists are just as guilty of misusing the theory as the opportunistic despots you catalogue." Perhaps ChuckyD can entertain us and provide some names of these "rabid anti-evolutionists" who murdered 10's of millions of their own people like the atheistic despots of the 20th century did?

The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression Excerpt: Communism did kill, Courtois and his fellow historians demonstrate, with ruthless efficiency: 25 million in Russia during the Bolshevik and Stalinist eras, perhaps 65 million in China under the eyes of Mao Zedong, 2 million in Cambodia, millions more Africa, Eastern Europe, and Latin America--an astonishingly high toll of victims. https://www.amazon.com/Black-Book-Communism-Crimes-Repression/dp/0674076087

ChuckyD finishes off his defense of Darwinism, (not with any scientific evidence mind you), but with an appeal to 'consensus', i.e. "As you are fully aware, the theory of evolution has been long accepted within, not just the scientific community, but by most Christian denominations, your protestations notwithstanding." Yet, as Stephen Meyer recently noted in an interview, “you rarely hear people refer to a ‘consensus’ in science when there actually is one.” And as Michael Crichton once noted, "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."

Aliens Cause Global Warming - By Michael Crichton Excerpt: I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. 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. 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 is relevant is 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. In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases.,,, https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Crichton2003.pdf

bornagain77

Bornagain

In conclusion, ChuckyD it takes a huge amount of cognitive dissonance in order for anyone to maintain a Darwinian worldview.

There are those of us that do not consider "Darwinism" an ideology or, to use the hackneyed apologist term, "worldview," but as a misnomer for Darwin's theory of natural selection. It is a biological theory that has been supplemented, modified and refined just like any other scientific theory. To the extent that anyone misappropriates Darwin's ideas--or simply his name-- to perpetuate political, social, religious or economic agendas, as you have, is not a fault or shortcoming of the theory, but an inappropriate and calculated misuse of the theory. Pointing this out, of course, will not stop anyone intent on such misuse. In this respect, I suggest that rabid, anti-evolutionists are just as guilty of misusing the theory as the opportunistic despots you catalogue. As you are fully aware, the theory of evolution has been long accepted within, not just the scientific community, but by most Christian denominations, your protestations notwithstanding. chuckdarwin

Chuckdarwin goes on,

More to the point, however, of your libelous and infantile charge that I share the same “morality” as Hitler,,,

Well, to repeat, Hitler pretty much based his morality directly on the morality inherent in Darwin's 'one general law' of “let the strongest live and the weakest die.”

“One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.” – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species “A stronger race will oust that which has grown weak; for the vital urge, in its ultimate form, will burst asunder all the absurd chains of this so-called humane consideration for the individual and will replace it with the humanity of Nature, which wipes out what is weak in order to give place to the strong.” – Adolf Hitler – Mein Kampf – pg 248

In fact it was not just Hitler, all the murderous atheistic tyrants of the twentieth century, i.e. socialists/communists, based their murderous morality, more or less, directly on Darwinian morality,

Hitler, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao – quotes - Foundational Darwinian influence in their political ideologies (Nov. 2018) https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/historian-human-evolution-theorists-were-attempting-to-be-moral-teachers/#comment-668170 The Theory of Evolution and 20th century Totalitarian Regimes - Paul Gosselin (May - 2021) Excerpt: But as Chirot analyses Nazi and Communist ideologies, he is not shy about pointing out the contribution of the Evolutionary origins myth to these ideologies (1994: 412): "The presence and widespread acceptance of utopian theories of society that demand perfection, and believe that it is possible to obtain it, are also a good predictor of tyranny. Most of the twentieth-century's tyrannical ideologies, beginning with Europe's, have been based on popularized science and a misplaced faith that it was possible to engineer the ideal society. But it was not just a matter of idealism carried to excess. The specific content of these theories, their neo-Darwinian belief that history consists of struggles to the death between competing classes or races, was necessary in order to transform them into such deadly instruments of tyranny." And as we continue reading Chirot gets a bit more specific about how Evolutionism contributes to totalitarian ideologies (1994: 413): "Yet, for all the bloodshed in the past, most of it due to the famine and disease that resulted from wars, there are no cases of deliberate mass slaughter for ideological reasons on the scale of what the twentieth century has witnessed. A neo-Darwinian sense of history as a struggle to the death has spread well beyond those intellectuals who think of themselves as being in the Western scientific tradition. The idea that various categories of people races, classes, ethnicities, religions are the equivalent of species of organisms fighting for survival, and therefore justified in taking the most extreme measures, has become widespread. Thus, even though it adopts the position that it is only reviving an old tradition, the fundamentalist version of Islam, when it achieves power, is a type of modern utopian totalitarianism." So the key evolutionary contribution to Nazi and Communist ideologies were the concepts of “Fight for Survival” and “Survival of the Fittest”. Writing shortly after World War II Sir Arthur Keith (an evolutionist), underscored an issue about Nazism that many Western elites would prefer left swept under the carpet (1947: 27-28): "The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution... To see evolutionary measures and tribal morality being applied vigorously to the affairs of a great modern nation, we must turn again to Germany of 1942. We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy... The means he adopted to secure the destiny of his race and people were organized slaughter, which has drenched Europe in blood... Such conduct is highly immoral as measured by every scale of ethics, yet Germany justifies it; it is consonant with tribal or evolutionary morality. Germany has reverted to the tribal past, and is demonstrating to the world, in their naked ferocity, the methods of evolution." http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/sc_soc/sc_po/EvolutionandTotalitarianRegimes_PG.htm

ChuckyD goes on,

I believe that one of humanity’s great achievements has been to overcome our biology in those instances where we have been able to, so we are able to accommodate a much wider range of life than perhaps natural selection would produce.

Again ChuckyD, you really need to get with your Darwinian program. If Darwinian evolution were actually true, there simply is no way for you to "overcome your biology". According to your Darwinian worldview, we are nothing but meat robots with no more control over our actions than a leaf has control over which way the wind may blow it around.

“You are robots made out of meat. Which is what I am going to try to convince you of today” - Jerry Coyne – - No, You’re Not a Robot Made Out of Meat (Science Uprising 02) – video https://youtu.be/rQo6SWjwQIk?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS1OmYcqv_yQSpje4p7rAE7-&t=20

ChuckyD, you act as if you have some perspective outside, and control over, the physical order, i.e. over 'your biology'. And In so far as you actually believe that, you are, in fact, believing something that is in direct contradiction to your Darwinian worldview,

Sam Harris's Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It - Martin Cothran - November 9, 2012 Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state -- including their position on this issue -- is the effect of a physical, not logical cause. By their own logic, it isn't logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/sam_harriss_fre066221.html

ChuckyD finishes with,

We accommodate for handicaps, we relentlessly search for cures to disease, we have developed agricultural practices to prevent starvation and so on., We have developed entire legal systems to protect the weak and vulnerable, to seek to encourage more humane behavior. I will even go so far as to acknowledge that religion has played a role in that development, although given the conduct of certain religionists, sometimes it is hard to tell. As to abortion, I don’t do responses, arguments or discussions on the topic, particularly with extremists and zealots. It is too emotionally charged, it is rife with so much disinformation from both sides of the issue, that it simply brings out the worst in anyone who wades into it.

Well golly gee whiz, I sure am glad that ChuckyD was at least willing to acknowledge that "religion has played a role" in the many morally noble things that he listed, since they are all the result of Christianity, and are certainly not the result of atheism, nor any ancient pagan culture, As Tom Holland, (an ancient historian who is an atheist), stated, "In my morals and ethics, I have learned to accept that I am not Greek or Roman at all, but thoroughly and proudly Christian."

Tom Holland: Why I was wrong about Christianity - 2016 It took me a long time to realise my morals are not Greek or Roman, but thoroughly, and proudly, Christian. Excerpt: The longer I spent immersed in the study of classical antiquity, the more alien and unsettling I came to find it. The values of Leonidas, whose people had practised a peculiarly murderous form of eugenics, and trained their young to kill uppity Untermenschen by night, were nothing that I recognised as my own; nor were those of Caesar, who was reported to have killed a million Gauls and enslaved a million more. It was not just the extremes of callousness that I came to find shocking, but the lack of a sense that the poor or the weak might have any intrinsic value. As such, the founding conviction of the Enlightenment – that it owed nothing to the faith into which most of its greatest figures had been born – increasingly came to seem to me unsustainable. “Every sensible man,” Voltaire wrote, “every honourable man, must hold the Christian sect in horror.” Rather than acknowledge that his ethical principles might owe anything to Christianity, he preferred to derive them from a range of other sources – not just classical literature, but Chinese philosophy and his own powers of reason. Yet Voltaire, in his concern for the weak and ­oppressed, was marked more enduringly by the stamp of biblical ethics than he cared to admit. His defiance of the Christian God, in a paradox that was certainly not unique to him, drew on motivations that were, in part at least, recognisably Christian. “We preach Christ crucified,” St Paul declared, “unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness.” He was right. Nothing could have run more counter to the most profoundly held assumptions of Paul’s contemporaries – Jews, or Greeks, or Romans. The notion that a god might have suffered torture and death on a cross was so shocking as to appear repulsive. Familiarity with the biblical narrative of the Crucifixion has dulled our sense of just how completely novel a deity Christ was. In the ancient world, it was the role of gods who laid claim to ruling the universe to uphold its order by inflicting punishment – not to suffer it themselves. Today, even as belief in God fades across the West, the countries that were once collectively known as Christendom continue to bear the stamp of the two-millennia-old revolution that Christianity represents. It is the principal reason why, by and large, most of us who live in post-Christian societies still take for granted that it is nobler to suffer than to inflict suffering. It is why we generally assume that every human life is of equal value. In my morals and ethics, I have learned to accept that I am not Greek or Roman at all, but thoroughly and proudly Christian. https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/religion/2016/09/tom-holland-why-i-was-wrong-about-christianity 21 Positive Contributions Christianity Has Made Through the Centuries By D. James Kennedy (excerpted from "What if Jesus Had Never Been Born?") (1) Hospitals, which essentially began during the Middle Ages. (2) Universities, which also began during the Middle Ages. In addition, most of the world’s greatest universities were started for Christian purposes. (3) Literacy and education for the masses. (4) Capitalism and free enterprise. (5) Representative government, particularly as it has been seen in the American experiment. (6) The separation of political powers. (7) Civil liberties. (8) The abolition of slavery, both in antiquity and in more modern times. (9) Modern science. (10) The discovery of the New World by Columbus. (11) The elevation of women. (12) Benevolence and charity; the good Samaritan ethic. (13) Higher standards of justice. (14) The elevation of common man. (15) The condemnation of adultery, homosexuality, and other sexual perversions. This has helped to preserve the human race, and it has spared many from heartache. (16) High regard for human life. (17) The civilizing of many barbarian and primitive cultures. (18) The codifying and setting to writing of many of the world’s languages. (19) Greater development of art and music. The inspiration for the greatest works of art. (20) The countless changed lives transformed from liabilities into assets to society because of the gospel. (21) The eternal salvation of countless souls. https://verticallivingministries.com/tag/benefits-of-christianity-to-society/

ChuckyD did not want to talk about abortion, and I don't blame him. His Darwinian worldview was instrumental in undermining the sanctity of human life which provided protection for the unborn.

How Darwin's Theory Changed the World Rejection of Judeo-Christian values Excerpt: Weikart explains how accepting Darwinist dogma shifted society’s thinking on human life: “Before Darwinism burst onto the scene in the mid-nineteenth century, the idea of the sanctity of human life was dominant in European thought and law (though, as with all ethical principles, not always followed in practice). Judeo-Christian ethics proscribed the killing of innocent human life, and the Christian churches explicitly forbade murder, infanticide, abortion, and even suicide. “The sanctity of human life became enshrined in classical liberal human rights ideology as ‘the right to life,’ which according to John Locke and the United States Declaration of Independence, was one of the supreme rights of every individual” (p. 75). Only in the late nineteenth and especially the early twentieth century did significant debate erupt over issues relating to the sanctity of human life, especially infanticide, euthanasia, abortion, and suicide. It was no mere coincidence that these contentious issues emerged at the same time that Darwinism was gaining in influence. Darwinism played an important role in this debate, for it altered many people’s conceptions of the importance and value of human life, as well as the significance of death” (ibid.). http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn85/darwin-theory-changed-world.htm

In conclusion, ChuckyD it takes a huge amount of cognitive dissonance in order for anyone to maintain a Darwinian worldview. bornagain77

Moreover, if ‘fitness’ really were the way in which all life on earth originated and diversified, then, as Donald Hoffman has now proven, astonishingly "an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never.”

The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality – April 2016 The cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman uses evolutionary game theory to show that our perceptions of an independent reality must be illusions. Excerpt: “The classic argument is that those of our ancestors who saw more accurately had a competitive advantage over those who saw less accurately and thus were more likely to pass on their genes that coded for those more accurate perceptions, so after thousands of generations we can be quite confident that we’re the offspring of those who saw accurately, and so we see accurately. That sounds very plausible. But I think it is utterly false. It misunderstands the fundamental fact about evolution, which is that it’s about fitness functions — mathematical functions that describe how well a given strategy achieves the goals of survival and reproduction. The mathematical physicist Chetan Prakash proved a theorem that I devised that says: According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never.” https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/

This finding that 'fitness' undermines our ability to have reliable observations, and as far as empirical science itself is concerned, is catastrophic for Darwin's theory. Specifically, since reliable observation is a necessary cornerstone on of the scientific method itself, then a worldview that undermines our ability to have reliable observations about reality cannot possibly be based upon the scientific method,

Steps of the Scientific Method Observation/Research Hypothesis Prediction Experimentation Conclusion http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/scientific_method.html

Moreover, completely contrary to what is, via the mathematics of population genetics, predicted for 'fitness', it turns out that accurate perception, i.e. conscious observation, far from being unreliable and illusory, is experimentally found to be far more integral to reality, i.e. far more reliable of reality, than the mathematics of population genetics predicted. For instance In the following 'Delayed Choice' experiment, it was found that "At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”

New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It – June 3, 2015 Excerpt: The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts. “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,, “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said. Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer. http://themindunleashed.org/2015/06/new-mind-blowing-experiment-confirms-that-reality-doesnt-exist-if-you-are-not-looking-at-it.html

Apparently empirical science itself could care less if atheists are forced to believe, because of the mathematics of population genetics, that ALL of their observations of reality are illusory! Of supplemental note: It is also very interesting to note that Hoffman’s work on 'fitness' meshes extremely well with what several Darwinists themselves have already honestly admitted about the inadequacy of 'fitness' to ever account for 'truth', i.e. “Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes the truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not.”

Why Evolutionary Theory Cannot Survive Itself – Nancy Pearcey – March 8, 2015 Excerpt: Steven Pinker writes, “Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes the truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not.” The upshot is that survival is no guarantee of truth. If survival is the only standard, we can never know which ideas are true and which are adaptive but false. To make the dilemma even more puzzling, evolutionists tell us that natural selection has produced all sorts of false concepts in the human mind. Many evolutionary materialists maintain that free will is an illusion, consciousness is an illusion, even our sense of self is an illusion — and that all these false ideas were selected for their survival value. So how can we know whether the theory of evolution itself is one of those false ideas? The theory undercuts itself.,,, Of course, the atheist pursuing his research has no choice but to rely on rationality, just as everyone else does. The point is that he has no philosophical basis for doing so. Only those who affirm a rational Creator have a basis for trusting human rationality. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/why_evolutionar094171.html

ChuckyD also made several other patently false claims, and perhaps, time permitting, I will address them later, but for now I am satisfied to establish, directly contrary to what ChuckyD tried to imply, that the term 'fitness' is just as equally vacuous and imaginary as the term 'natural selection' is, and that the more one tries to rigidly define exactly what the term 'fitness' actually means, then the more strongly that more rigid definition of 'fitness' ends up falsifying Darwinian evolution itself.

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

Chuckdarwin In response to my observation,

"Mighty strong words coming from someone who ascribes, like Hitler did, to the morality of, “let the strongest live and the weakest die.”

, states,

"Natural selection isn’t as simplistic as merely the stronger vs. the weaker. In fact, as you very well know, that is an ignorant caricature of natural selection. Rather it is defined by fitness, a significantly more subtle and nuanced phenomenon."

Well first off, natural selection and fitness are joined at the hip.

Survival of the fittest Survival of the fittest"[1] is a phrase that originated from Darwinian evolutionary theory as a way of describing the mechanism of natural selection. The biological concept of fitness is defined as reproductive success. In Darwinian terms the phrase is best understood as "Survival of the form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations." Herbert Spencer first used the phrase, after reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, in his Principles of Biology (1864), in which he drew parallels between his own economic theories and Darwin's biological ones: "This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called 'natural selection', or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life."[2] Darwin responded positively to Alfred Russel Wallace's suggestion of using Spencer's new phrase "survival of the fittest" as an alternative to "natural selection", and adopted the phrase in The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication published in 1868.[2][3] In On the Origin of Species, he introduced the phrase in the fifth edition published in 1869,[4][5] intending it to mean "better designed for an immediate, local environment".[6][7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

And secondly, instead of 'fitness' being described as "a significantly more subtle and nuanced phenomenon" than natural selection, as ChuckyD tried to imply, the correct words to compare 'fitness' with 'natural selection' would have been for ChuckyD to say that 'bath terms are equally vacuous and imaginary' as far as empirical science is concerned. Specifically, neither 'fitness' nor 'natural selection' can be physically measured and thus both concepts, i.e. natural selection and fitness, are to be considered equally vacuous and imaginary as far as empirical science itself is concerned.

Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection Has Left a Legacy of Confusion over Biological Adaptation Brian Miller - September 20, 2021 Excerpt: Evolutionary biologist Robert Reid stated: "Indeed the language of neo-Darwinism is so careless that the words ‘divine plan’ can be substituted for ‘selection pressure’ in any popular work in the biological literature without the slightest disruption in the logical flow of argument." Robert Reid, Biological Emergences: Evolution by Natural Experiment, PP. 37-38 To fully comprehend the critique, one simply needs to imagine attempting to craft an evolutionary barometer that measures the selection pressure driving one organism to transform into something different (e.g., fish into an amphibian). The fact that no such instrument could be constructed highlights the fictitious nature of such mystical forces. https://evolutionnews.org/2021/09/darwins-theory-of-natural-selection-has-left-a-legacy-of-confusion-over-biological-adaptation/ Evolutionary Fitness Is Not Measurable - November 20, 2021 The central concept of natural selection cannot be measured. This means it has no scientific value. Excerpt:,, to measure something, it needs units. How is fitness to be measured? What are the units? Physicists have degrees Kelvin, ergs and Joules of energy and Faradays of electricity, but do 100 Spencers on a Haeckl-o-meter equal 10 Darwins of fitness? ,,, The term “fitness” becomes nebulous when you try to pin it down. Five evolutionists attempted to nail this jello to the wall, and wrote up their results in a preprint on bioRxiv by Alif et al. that asked, “What is the best fitness measure in wild populations?” (One might wonder why this question is being asked 162 years after Darwin presented his theory to the world.) ,,, The authors admit that their results do not necessarily apply to all living things. (they state), "A universal definition of fitness in mathematical terms that applies to all population structures and dynamics is however not agreed on." Remember that this statement comes over 162 years after evolutionists began talking about fitness. If you cannot define something, how can you measure it? And if you can’t measure it, is it really scientific?,,, https://crev.info/2021/11/evolutionary-fitness-is-not-measurable/

As Professor of Zoology John O. Reiss himself honestly admitted, “The rigor of this approach, however, is lessened because there is as yet no universally agreed upon measure of fitness; fitness is either defined metaphorically, or defined only relative to the particular model or system used. It is fair to say that due to this lack, there is still no real agreement on what exactly the process of natural selection is. This is clearly a problem.”

Where is the purposelessness of evolution? – 23 March 2012, Excerpt: The only way variation is seen as random is that it is random in respect to the effect variation has on fitness. The major problem with this is that the precise meaning of fitness has not been settled. There is still a major debate about what exactly fitness is supposed to mean (see this post for more on this issue). John O. Reiss notes also make the following interesting remark: “The rigor of this approach, however, is lessened because there is as yet no universally agreed upon measure of fitness; fitness is either defined metaphorically, or defined only relative to the particular model or system used. It is fair to say that due to this lack, there is still no real agreement on what exactly the process of natural selection is. This is clearly a problem.” Without a proper definition of fitness, we can’t really say what natural selection is in the first place. Also, without a proper definition of fitness we can’t really make any sense of how variation can be random relative to fitness in the first place.,,, https://www.news24.com/MyNews24/Where-is-the-purposelessness-of-evolution-20120322

Moreover, the more precise one tries to be in defining 'fitness', then the more one finds that that more rigid definition of ‘fitness’ falsifies Darwinian evolution For instance, when realistic rates of detrimental to beneficial mutations are taken into account, then, as John Sanford and company have now shown, it mathematically falsifies “Fisher’s belief that he had developed a mathematical proof that fitness must always increase”

The fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations – June 2018 Excerpt: Because the premise underlying Fisher’s corollary is now recognized to be entirely wrong, Fisher’s corollary is falsified. Consequently, Fisher’s belief that he had developed a mathematical proof that fitness must always increase is also falsified. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00285-017-1190-x Defending the validity and significance of the new theorem “Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection With Mutations, Part I: Fisher’s Impact – Bill Basener and John Sanford – February 15, 2018 Excerpt: While Fisher’s Theorem is mathematically correct, his Corollary is false. The simple logical fallacy is that Fisher stated that mutations could effectively be treated as not impacting fitness, while it is now known that the vast majority of mutations are deleterious, providing a downward pressure on fitness. Our model and our correction of Fisher’s theorem (The Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection with Mutations), take into account the tension between the upward force of selection with the downward force of mutations.,,, Our paper shows that Fisher’s corollary is clearly false, and that he misunderstood the implications of his own theorem. He incorrectly believed that his theorem was a mathematical proof that showed that natural selection plus mutation will necessarily and always increase fitness. He also believed his theorem was on a par with a natural law (such as entropic dissipation and the second law of thermodynamics). Because Fisher did not understand the actual fitness distribution of new mutations, his belief in the application of his “fundamental theorem of natural selection” was fundamentally and profoundly wrong – having little correspondence to biological reality. Therefore, we have reformulated Fisher’s model and have corrected his errors, thereby have established a new theorem that better describes biological reality, and allows for the specification of those key variables that will determine whether fitness will increase or decrease. http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/defending-the-validity-and-significance-of-the-new-theorem-fundamental-theorem-of-natural-selection-with-mutations-part-i-fishers-impact/

bornagain77

> And so any kind of politics that is based upon Darwinism for me would be bad politics Except for this is the only kind of politics which is out there. Politics is done by sociopaths, who are human predators without any moral restraint. Eugene

Bornagain

Mighty strong words coming from someone who ascribes, like Hitler did, to the morality of, “let the strongest live and the weakest die.”

Natural selection isn't as simplistic as merely the stronger vs. the weaker. In fact, as you very well know, that is an ignorant caricature of natural selection. Rather it is defined by fitness, a significantly more subtle and nuanced phenomenon. More to the point, however, of your libelous and infantile charge that I share the same "morality" as Hitler, I believe that one of humanity's great achievements has been to overcome our biology in those instances where we have been able to, so we are able to accommodate a much wider range of life than perhaps natural selection would produce. We accommodate for handicaps, we relentlessly search for cures to disease, we have developed agricultural practices to prevent starvation and so on., We have developed entire legal systems to protect the weak and vulnerable, to seek to encourage more humane behavior. I will even go so far as to acknowledge that religion has played a role in that development, although given the conduct of certain religionists, sometimes it is hard to tell. As to abortion, I don't do responses, arguments or discussions on the topic, particularly with extremists and zealots. It is too emotionally charged, it is rife with so much disinformation from both sides of the issue, that it simply brings out the worst in anyone who wades into it. chuckdarwin

Polistra/1

Governments are binding and gagging and torturing and killing Deplorables, but octopuses must be protected from cruelty. It’s nice to know that Deplorables are officially LESS HUMAN than cephalopods.

It sounds like you'd get more sense from octopuses than from Deplorables. Wouldn't it be ironic if octopuses began campaigning for better treatment of Deplorables who wouldn't do the same for them? Seversky

CD I suppose then, by your logic, that abortion is wrong once the fetus can feel pain? (I don't know if you are on the record as being for or against abortion.) Fasteddious

CD: So which is funny in your book? Boiling lobsters? You wanting to boil people alive for boiling lobsters? Or the fact that you have no moral basis within your Darwinian worldview to condemn either action as being morally wrong?

"There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical. A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly.,,, You have ignored this link; &, if I do not mistake your meaning, you have done your best in one or two pregnant cases to break it. Were it possible (which thank God it is not) to break it, humanity in my mind, would suffer a damage that might brutalize it—& sink the human race into a lower grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen since its written records tell us of its history.,,," - Adam Sedgwick to Charles Darwin - 24 November 1859 https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2548.xml

bornagain77

I’d say you (collectively) over-analyze everything at UD. That, and a general lack of levity, are your most endearing qualities….. chuckdarwin

CD, 1. >"Cruelty to animals is indicia of a psychopathological mind." 2. >"Anyone that finds boiling lobsters alive as a necessary step in producing some type of culinary delicacy, ought to suffer the same fate." 3. Human beings are animals. 4. Boiling a human being alive is cruel. 5. Combining these implies that the person administering the "same fate" to a lobster-boiling person would also be of a psychopathological mind. We analyze everything here at UD. 8-) EDTA

ChuckyD gets on his moral high horse and states, "Anyone that finds boiling lobsters alive as a necessary step in producing some type of culinary delicacy, ought to suffer the same fate." Mighty strong words coming from someone who ascribes, like Hitler did, to the morality of, "let the strongest live and the weakest die.”

“One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.” – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species “A stronger race will oust that which has grown weak; for the vital urge, in its ultimate form, will burst asunder all the absurd chains of this so-called humane consideration for the individual and will replace it with the humanity of Nature, which wipes out what is weak in order to give place to the strong.” – Adolf Hitler – Mein Kampf – pg 248

ChuckyD I'm sure you feel more than justified at being morally outraged that people could be so insensitive as to boil creatures, with the capacity to feel pain, alive, but you really need to get with your Darwinian program. You, Chuckdarwin, live in a moral world of "no good, no evil, nothing but pitiless indifference."

"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” - Richard Dawkins

You see ChuckyD, in your Darwinian worldview, (and as atheist Professor Alex Rosenberg (Duke) pointed out in his book “The Atheist’s Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions”), no one is morally praiseworthy or blameworthy for any of their actions.

4.) The argument from moral blame and praise 1. If naturalism is true, I am not morally praiseworthy or blameworthy for any of my actions. 2. I am morally praiseworthy or blameworthy for some of my actions. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. - William Lane Craig - Is Metaphysical Naturalism Viable? - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzS_CQnmoLQ

So ChuckyD, as a Darwinist, you simply have no moral basis in which to condemn anyone for anything. Whether it be boiling lobsters alive, or whether it be dismembering babies in their mother's womb.

Abby Johnson Discusses Why She Left Planned Parenthood At The 2020 RNC | NBC News https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXQjCuWFdzI

I have a couple of questions for you ChuckD. One, if you really want to boil people alive for boiling lobsters alive, what do you think should happen to people who dismember babies in their mother's womb?

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

And two, using the same moral logic as you did for lobsters, do you think God could possibly be morally justified in creating a place called hell?

Matthew 25:41 “Then shall He say also unto them on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

bornagain77

Cruelty to animals is indicia of a psychopathological mind Animal cruelty punishments, even for the "cute" animals, tend to be just a slap on the wrist. It sounds like the British government is doing something good. Hopefully the restrictions are backed up with serious consequences. I'm not usually vengeful about things, but this is an exception. I think the restrictions should be based on the animals capacity to suffer, regardless of intelligence. davidl1

Cruelty to animals is indicia of a psychopathological mind. Anyone that finds boiling lobsters alive as a necessary step in producing some type of culinary delicacy, ought to suffer the same fate. chuckdarwin

If the British government really wanted to promote morality, (equality, tolerance, compassion, etc..) then they ought to ban Darwin's pseudoscientific theory from being taught to their children in public schools. Richard Dawkins himself honestly admitted that Darwin's theory cannot serve as a basis for morality, i.e. "I’m a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to morality and politics."

Darwinism as Religion - Paul Gosselin (2020) A Review of Michael Ruse - Darwinism as Religion (2017) Excerpt: "There have in the past been attempts to base a morality on evolution. I don't want to have anything to do with that. The kind of world that a Darwinian, going back to survival of the fittest now, and nature red in tooth and claw, I think nature really is red in tooth and claw. I think if you look out at the way wild nature is, out there in the bush, in the prairie, it is extremely ruthless, extremely unpleasant, it’s exactly the kind of world that I would not wish to live in. And so any kind of politics that is based upon Darwinism for me would be bad politics, it would be immoral. Putting it another way, I’m a passionate Darwinian when it comes to science, when it comes to explaining the world, but I’m a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to morality and politics." - Richard Dawkins - interview with the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (2000): http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/sc_soc/DarwinismasReligion_PG.htm

Although Darwkin's is wrong about Darwinism being a science, at least Dawkins got the fact that Darwin's theory is deeply 'anti-moral' right.

The Theory of Evolution and 20th century Totalitarian Regimes - Paul Gosselin (May - 2021) Excerpt: But as Chirot analyses Nazi and Communist ideologies, he is not shy about pointing out the contribution of the Evolutionary origins myth to these ideologies (1994: 412): "The presence and widespread acceptance of utopian theories of society that demand perfection, and believe that it is possible to obtain it, are also a good predictor of tyranny. Most of the twentieth-century's tyrannical ideologies, beginning with Europe's, have been based on popularized science and a misplaced faith that it was possible to engineer the ideal society. But it was not just a matter of idealism carried to excess. The specific content of these theories, their neo-Darwinian belief that history consists of struggles to the death between competing classes or races, was necessary in order to transform them into such deadly instruments of tyranny." And as we continue reading Chirot gets a bit more specific about how Evolutionism contributes to totalitarian ideologies (1994: 413): "Yet, for all the bloodshed in the past, most of it due to the famine and disease that resulted from wars, there are no cases of deliberate mass slaughter for ideological reasons on the scale of what the twentieth century has witnessed. A neo-Darwinian sense of history as a struggle to the death has spread well beyond those intellectuals who think of themselves as being in the Western scientific tradition. The idea that various categories of people races, classes, ethnicities, religions are the equivalent of species of organisms fighting for survival, and therefore justified in taking the most extreme measures, has become widespread. Thus, even though it adopts the position that it is only reviving an old tradition, the fundamentalist version of Islam, when it achieves power, is a type of modern utopian totalitarianism." So the key evolutionary contribution to Nazi and Communist ideologies were the concepts of “Fight for Survival” and “Survival of the Fittest”. Writing shortly after World War II Sir Arthur Keith (an evolutionist), underscored an issue about Nazism that many Western elites would prefer left swept under the carpet (1947: 27-28): "The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution... To see evolutionary measures and tribal morality being applied vigorously to the affairs of a great modern nation, we must turn again to Germany of 1942. We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy... The means he adopted to secure the destiny of his race and people were organized slaughter, which has drenched Europe in blood... Such conduct is highly immoral as measured by every scale of ethics, yet Germany justifies it; it is consonant with tribal or evolutionary morality. Germany has reverted to the tribal past, and is demonstrating to the world, in their naked ferocity, the methods of evolution." http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/sc_soc/sc_po/EvolutionandTotalitarianRegimes_PG.htm Atheism’s Body Count * It is obvious that Atheism cannot be true; for if it were, it would produce a more humane world, since it values only this life and is not swayed by the foolish beliefs of primitive superstitions and religions. However, the opposite proves to be true. Rather than providing the utopia of idealism, it has produced a body count second to none. With recent documents uncovered for the Maoist and Stalinist regimes, it now seems the high end of estimates of 250 million dead (between 1900-1987) are closer to the mark. The Stalinist Purges produced 61 million dead and Mao’s Cultural Revolution produced 70 million casualties. These murders are all upon their own people! This number does not include the countless dead in their wars of outward aggression waged in the name of the purity of atheism’s world view. China invades its peaceful, but religious neighbor, Tibet; supports N. Korea in its war against its southern neighbor and in its merciless oppression of its own people; and Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge kill up to 6 million with Chinese support. All of these actions done “in the name of the people” to create a better world. - Atheism’s Tendency Towards Totalitarianism Rather Than Freedom What is so strange and odd that in spite of their outward rejection of religion and all its superstitions, they feel compelled to set up cults of personality and worship of the State and its leaders that is so totalitarian that the leaders are not satisfied with mere outward obedience; rather they insist on total mind control and control of thoughts, ideas and beliefs. They institute Gulags and “re-education” centers to indoctrinate anyone who even would dare question any action or declaration of the “Dear Leader.” Even the Spanish Inquisition cannot compare to the ruthlessness and methodical efficiency of these programs conducted on so massive a scale. While proclaiming freedom to the masses, they institute the most methodical efforts to completely eliminate freedom from the people, and they do so all “on behalf” of the proletariat. A completely ordered and totally unfree totalitarian State is routinely set up in place of religion, because it is obviously so profoundly better society. It is also strange that Stalin was a seminarian who rejected Christianity and went on to set up himself as an object of worship. It seems that impulse to religious devotion is present in all, whether that be in traditional forms or secular inventions. https://www.scholarscorner.com/atheisms-body-count-ideology-and-human-suffering/

bornagain77

Governments are binding and gagging and torturing and killing Deplorables, but octopuses must be protected from cruelty. It's nice to know that Deplorables are officially LESS HUMAN than cephalopods. Old Adolf used the same taxonomy. polistra