Intelligent Design Paleontology Tree of life Video

Darwin’s tree of life is just… ground cover?

Spread the love

Some of us started to doubt the Tree of Life when so many life forms started acting like they don’t know their proper place in it. Just for example, octopuses and spiders don’t realize that invertebrates — especially those with tiny brains — aren’t supposed to be that smart.

But that, it turns out, is really only a minor issue. Here’s a discussion of some of the other issues:

Paleontology poses an insurmountable challenge to the theory of evolution. Charles Darwin himself predicted that countless intermediate animal forms must exist within the fossil record, given that organisms gradually evolved from one species into the next. However, what the fossil record actually shows is the exact opposite, namely, that whenever new species appear, they do so suddenly and without evidence of precursory forms in the geological record. The most prominent example is the so-called Cambrian explosion which happened around 530 million years ago, when about 20 animal phyla suddenly showed up on the stage of life out of the clear blue, as it were, but with no intermediate forms from the Precambrian strata. Given that no attempt to reconcile paleontology with evolutionary theory has succeeded, Darwinian evolutionists have come to admit that the fossil record doesn’t fit with their theory, as we will see at the end of this video. For the same reason, they’ve started to turn their focus towards another field of study in their search for support of evolution: Homology and phylogenetic trees. This episode assesses these efforts and shows why neither homologous structures nor tree of life studies support evolutionary theory.

Philip Cunningham writes: This series is a partnership between my channel and Discovery Institute, the main think tank on the topic of Intelligent Design and the interface between science and religion.

0:00 Intro

0:27 Recap

1:23 Homology and Phylogenetic Trees to the Rescue

1:59 The Basics of Homology

4:15 From Homology to the Tree of Life

7:06 General Assessment

8:00 Gene-Gene Comparisons

9:53 Gene-Morphology Comparisons

11:01 Morphology-Morphology Comparisons

12:14 Discarding Paleontology?

14:21 The Verdict

22 Replies to “Darwin’s tree of life is just… ground cover?

  1. 1
    zweston says:

    I’d encourage you all to get on the comment section there and clear up all the misconceptions and how the darwinists try to dodge it.

  2. 2
    martin_r says:

    basically, Darwin was a populist … As well as the modern day Darwinists …
    Their followers would believe anything what Darwinists say. Don’t matter how stupid and absurd their ideas /explanations/hypothesis/theories are – especially in 21st century …

    And, transitional forms ? this is a fiasco …

  3. 3
    Seversky says:

    If evolution is such an obvious scientific and philosophical disaster then why do ID/creationists spend so much time trying to trash it? I don’t see the likes of Moonie Jonathan Wells announcing they are entering science at the behest of their spiritual master to destroy flat Earth theory, for example.

  4. 4
    asauber says:

    “If evolution is such an obvious scientific and philosophical disaster then why do ID/creationists spend so much time trying to trash it?”

    Sev,

    Because its so easy to do. And its fun to watch Evolutionists jump around like clowns continuing to try and defend a steaming pile of dung.

    Andrew

  5. 5
    jerry says:

    If evolution is such an obvious scientific and philosophical disaster then why do ID/creationists spend so much time trying to trash it?

    I agree!!!!

    They should just admit that the science is extremely valid but has nothing to do with Evolution. It is great science but only genetics.

    The ID people are partially responsible for promoting junk science.

  6. 6
    martin_r says:

    Seversky

    If evolution is such an obvious scientific and philosophical disaster then why do ID/creationists spend so much time trying to trash it?

    this is a relevant question, and it is not easy to explain why such a scientific and philosophical disaster is still accepted especially in 21st century. Most probably, it is because this theory seems convincing to lay public, even for most scientists, especially from other fields of science, who don’t pay much attention, and are unaware of the issues). Moreover, it has been 150 years, now it is a cult, a new religion … it is not easy to dump something like that … scientists are proud people, they think they are all above us, however, they also cheat, many of them are fraudsters… we see it every day … just look at retractionwatch.com

    Another reason is, they don’t have any better theory … so these ‘scientists’ have to stick to the most absurd scientific theory … perhaps it wasn’t so absurd in 19th, but today ?

    Seversky, seriously, can you imagine, that someone like R Dawkins would admit that he was wrong? (his whole life)
    You can’t expected that. I am curious myself how this will end … and it will end one day, that is for sure … perhaps when old school Darwinists die out …

    PS: and why ID/creationists spend so much time ? Why shouldn’t they ? Should we just sit and look ?

  7. 7
    TAMMIE LEE HAYNES says:

    As a Creationist with a modest high scoool education, lLet me thank you for such a great question.

    Here it is:
    “If Evolution is such an obvious scientific and philosophical disaster then why do ID/creationists spend so much time trying to trash it”

    And here’s two great answers:
    1) When youre in a fight, hit the other guy where he’s got no defense..
    2) Its fun to pile it on when youre winning.

    Thats why us Creationists, we keep harping about these target rich environments
    1) The origin of life
    2) The universe with a beginning
    3) The fine tuning of the universe.
    4) Evolution

    Take it from us Creationists, pointing out the nonsense spouted by our Atheist wannbee Scientist friends, its a total howl. Try it sometime. Like shooting fish in a barrel.

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky asks “If evolution is such an obvious scientific and philosophical disaster then why do ID/creationists spend so much time trying to trash it? I don’t see the likes of Moonie Jonathan Wells announcing they are entering science at the behest of their spiritual master to destroy flat Earth theory, for example.”

    Seversky, as is typical for his style of “Darwinian apologetics’, did not even bother trying to defend the Darwinian ‘tree of life’ from the devastating scientific criticism leveled against it in the video, but instead deflected to taking a pot shot at Jonathan Wells’ religious beliefs and also questioning the motives of people who steadfastly dare to question the scientific validity of Darwin’s theory.

    Yet if it is really just a question of motives then the better question is, “If evolution is such an obvious scientific truth, then why does Seversky spend so much of his own personal time on UD, year in and year out, trashing Christianity rather than ever rigorously defending the supposed science behind evolution?”

    As a Darwinist, Seversky simply has no real purpose, and/or motive, for his relentless ‘crusade against Christianity’. But instead, in his atheistic worldview, purposes, and/or motives, become merely illusoins.

    As Dawkins himself pointed out, if Darwinian evolution were actually true then there is “no purpose, no evil, no good, 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, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life

    Again, if Darwinian evolution were actually true, (as Seversky holds), then there simply would be no real purpose, and/or motive, for anything Seversky would ever do in his life. To repeat, purpose is merely an illusion for Darwinists.

    As Alex Rosenberg, Professor of Philosophy at Duke University, succinctly stated, “The self is just another illusion, like the illusion that thought is about stuff or that we carry around plans and purposes that give meaning to what our body does.”

    “There is no self in, around, or as part of anyone’s body. There can’t be. So there really isn’t any enduring self that ever could wake up morning after morning worrying about why it should bother getting out of bed. The self is just another illusion, like the illusion that thought is about stuff or that we carry around plans and purposes that give meaning to what our body does. Every morning’s introspectively fantasized self is a new one, remarkably similar to the one that consciousness ceased fantasizing when we fell sleep sometime the night before. Whatever purpose yesterday’s self thought it contrived to set the alarm last night, today’s newly fictionalized self is not identical to yesterday’s. It’s on its own, having to deal with the whole problem of why to bother getting out of bed all over again.”
    – Alex Rosenberg, The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, ch.10

    So, since there can be no real purpose, and/or motive, for Seversky, then why does Seversky himself waste what precious little time he has before he dies, and he heads off into oblivion, trying to convince others that their belief in an afterlife is an illusion?

    Why does Seversky not simply enjoy himself as much as he possibly can before he heads off into the impending oblivion of his non-existence?

    “Life is never made unbearable by circumstances, but only by lack of meaning and purpose.”
    – Viktor Frankl – Man’s Search for Meaning – 1946 – Austrian psychiatrist, Auschwitz survivor

    Why not, as Paul put it, “eat and drink, for tomorrow we die”?

    1 Corinthians 15
    If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus with no more than human hopes, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised,
    “Let us eat and drink,
    for tomorrow we die.”

    Seversky’s, year in and year out, continual ‘crusade against Christianity’ simply makes no sense in Seversky’s ‘meaningless’ universe.

    In Seversky’s universe of “no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference” it simply does not matter what other people believe since, in his view of things, it all ends in oblivion anyway.

    And whereas Seversky, within his Darwinian worldview, simply can have no real purpose, and/or motive, for why he continually, day in and day out, year in and year out, bashes Christianity, on the other hand, the Christian, precisely because of his belief in God and an afterlife, can rest assured that his life is not completely meaningless but that his life is indeed filled with real meaning, purpose, and hope.

    The Absurdity of Life without God – William Lane Craig
    Excerpt: According to the Christian world view, God does exist, and man’s life does not end at the grave. In the resurrection body man may enjoy eternal life and fellowship with God. Biblical Christianity therefore provides the two conditions necessary for a meaningful, valuable, and purposeful life for man: God and immortality. Because of this, we can live consistently and happily. Thus, biblical Christianity succeeds precisely where atheism breaks down.
    https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-nature-of-god/the-absurdity-of-life-without-god

    In short and in conclusion, whereas Seversky, (since his worldview denies the existence of purpose and meaning in the first place), can have no real purpose, and/or motive, for why he continually bashes Christianity, the Christian, on the other hand, has more than sufficient reason to ‘destroy the lies of evolution’ since, besides being utterly false, it is also an utterly depressing, and nihilistic, worldview for anyone to have to hold,, i.e. therefore it is actually a morally noble ‘act of mercy’ for a Christian to destroy another person’s false nihilistic belief and to give him real hope, meaning, and purpose, for his life.

    And seeing the utter nihilistic despair that is inherent in Seversky’s worldview, it is also easy to see why the Gospel is often referred to as the ‘good news’

    Definition of ‘Gospel’
    The word gospel is derived from the Anglo-Saxon word which meant “the story concerning God.” In the New Testament the Greek word euaggelion, means “good news.” It proclaims tidings of deliverance.,,,
    https://www.christianity.com/wiki/christian-terms/what-is-the-gospel-the-good-news-of-the-new-testament.html

    Verse:

    2 Corinthians 1:9-10
    yea, we ourselves have had the sentence of death within ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God who raiseth the dead: who delivered us out of so great a death, and will deliver: on whom we have set our hope that he will also still deliver us;

  9. 9
    bill cole says:

    This paper by Winston Ewert pretty much puts all UCD claims to rest.
    http://dx.doi.org/10.5048/BIO-C.2018.3

  10. 10
    martin_r says:

    as to Tree of Life, let’s don’t forget the following 2020 (Darwinian) article:

    DO SCIENTISTS BUILD ‘TREES OF LIFE’ WITH FAULTY METHODS?

    Our finding casts serious doubts over literally thousands of studies that use phylogenetic trees of extant data to reconstruct the diversification history of taxa, especially for those taxa where fossils are rare, or that found correlations between environmental factors such as changing global temperatures and species extinction rates
    … the results do not invalidate the theory of evolution itself. They do, however, put constraints on what type of information can be extracted from genetic data to reconstruct evolution’s path.

    — Stilianos Louca, Department of Biology (University of Oregon)

    I have been working with these traditional types of models for a decade now… I am one of the lead developers of a popular software package for estimating diversification rates from phylogenetic trees. And, as such, I thought I had a really good sense of how these models worked. I was wrong …

    — Matthew W. Pennell (Biodiversity Research Centre, University of British Columbia)

    full article:

    https://www.futurity.org/extinctions-evolution-2340092-2/

  11. 11
    PaV says:

    Bill Cole:

    The paper by Ewert that you linked to does not, in any way, put “UCD claims to rest.” Ewert has a particular understanding of “common descent” that some UD advocates embrace. But, there are others.

    Quite simply: it is clear that descent is involved in adaptive radiations. I don’t think anyone has ever questioned that, even in the 18th-19th century. The real question of “common descent” has noting to do with “common,” but with “descent.” That is, where did mammals come from, or birds, or whatever. IOW, we see the beginning of a lineage with subsequent branching; however, we DON’T see how the “crown” species, the original species, arose. Darwinism hasn’t a clue.

  12. 12
    bornagain77 says:

    As to: “the paper by Ewert that you linked to does not, in any way, put “UCD claims to rest.”

    Others disagree.

    As Dr. Cornelius Hunter, (PhD – Biophysics), put it, “the dependency graph (intelligent design) model is astronomically superior compared to the (universal) common descent model.”,,, “Darwin also could never have dreamt of the sheer magnitude of the failure of his theory.”,,,

    New Paper by Winston Ewert Demonstrates Superiority of Design Model – Cornelius Hunter – July 20, 2018
    Excerpt: Ewert’s three types of data are: (i) sample computer software, (ii) simulated species data generated from evolutionary/common descent computer algorithms, and (iii) actual, real species data.
    Ewert’s three models are: (i) a null model which entails no relationships between any species, (ii) an evolutionary/common descent model, and (iii) a dependency graph model.
    Ewert’s results are a Copernican Revolution moment. First, for the sample computer software data, not surprisingly the null model performed poorly. Computer software is highly organized, and there are relationships between different computer programs, and how they draw from foundational software libraries. But comparing the common descent and dependency graph models, the latter performs far better at modeling the software “species.” In other words, the design and development of computer software is far better described and modeled by a dependency graph than by a common descent tree.
    Second, for the simulated species data generated with a common descent algorithm, it is not surprising that the common descent model was far superior to the dependency graph. That would be true by definition, and serves to validate Ewert’s approach. Common descent is the best model for the data generated by a common descent process.
    Third, for the actual, real species data, the dependency graph model is astronomically superior compared to the common descent model.
    Where It Counts
    Let me repeat that in case the point did not sink in. Where it counted, common descent failed compared to the dependency graph model. The other data types served as useful checks, but for the data that mattered — the actual, real, biological species data — the results were unambiguous.
    Ewert amassed a total of nine massive genetic databases. In every single one, without exception, the dependency graph model surpassed common descent.
    Darwin could never have even dreamt of a test on such a massive scale. Darwin also could never have dreamt of the sheer magnitude of the failure of his theory. Because you see, Ewert’s results do not reveal two competitive models with one model edging out the other.
    We are not talking about a few decimal points difference. For one of the data sets (HomoloGene), the dependency graph model was superior to common descent by a factor of 10,064. The comparison of the two models yielded a preference for the dependency graph model of greater than ten thousand.
    Ten thousand is a big number. But it gets worse, much worse.
    Ewert used Bayesian model selection which compares the probability of the data set given the hypothetical models. In other words, given the model (dependency graph or common descent), what is the probability of this particular data set? Bayesian model selection compares the two models by dividing these two conditional probabilities. The so-called Bayes factor is the quotient yielded by this division.
    The problem is that the common descent model is so incredibly inferior to the dependency graph model that the Bayes factor cannot be typed out. In other words, the probability of the data set, given the dependency graph model, is so much greater than the probability of the data set given the common descent model, that we cannot type the quotient of their division.
    Instead, Ewert reports the logarithm of the number. Remember logarithms? Remember how 2 really means 100, 3 means 1,000, and so forth?
    Unbelievably, the 10,064 value is the logarithm (base value of 2) of the quotient! In other words, the probability of the data on the dependency graph model is so much greater than that given the common descent model, we need logarithms even to type it out. If you tried to type out the plain number, you would have to type a 1 followed by more than 3,000 zeros. That’s the ratio of how probable the data are on these two models!
    By using a base value of 2 in the logarithm we express the Bayes factor in bits. So the conditional probability for the dependency graph model has a 10,064 advantage over that of common descent.
    10,064 bits is far, far from the range in which one might actually consider the lesser model. See, for example, the Bayes factor Wikipedia page, which explains that a Bayes factor of 3.3 bits provides “substantial” evidence for a model, 5.0 bits provides “strong” evidence, and 6.6 bits provides “decisive” evidence.
    This is ridiculous. 6.6 bits is considered to provide “decisive” evidence, and when the dependency graph model case is compared to comment descent case, we get 10,064 bits.
    But It Gets Worse
    The problem with all of this is that the Bayes factor of 10,064 bits for the HomoloGene data set is the very best case for common descent. For the other eight data sets, the Bayes factors range from 40,967 to 515,450.
    In other words, while 6.6 bits would be considered to provide “decisive” evidence for the dependency graph model, the actual, real, biological data provide Bayes factors of 10,064 on up to 515,450.
    We have known for a long time that common descent has failed hard. In Ewert’s new paper, we now have detailed, quantitative results demonstrating this. And Ewert provides a new model, with a far superior fit to the data.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2018/07/new-paper-by-winston-ewert-demonstrates-superiority-of-design-model/

  13. 13
    martin_r says:

    PaV

    however, we DON’T see how the “crown” species, the original species, arose. Darwinism hasn’t a clue.

    that is exactly the point …

    i would also like to post here an older debate at (Darwinian) Researchgate.net

    “Where are all the “common ancestor species” in the fossil record?”

    In evolutionary theory, rarely is it stated that one species is directly descended from another but rather that they share a common ancestor species from whom both are descended (one obvious example being Neanderthals and modern humans). However, I have not seen convincing evidence in the fossil record for these common ancestors. For example, the common ancestor of chimps and humans has not been identified, nor has the common ancestor of humans, chimps and gorillas, nor the common ancestor of all of the great apes. We can take this as far back as needs be, like the common ancestor of all mammals, but no fossil evidence has every emerged of the existence of such a creature even though some scientists have speculated what it might have looked like: http://www.mnn.com/earth-matte.....s-revealed So, despite a wealth of fossil evidence out there, why do common ancestors remain so elusive? Is DNA inference sufficient evidence?

    https://www.researchgate.net/post/Where_are_all_the_common_ancestor_species_in_the_fossil_record

  14. 14
    tjguy says:

    Seversky asks with a smirk: “If evolution is such an obvious scientific and philosophical disaster then why do ID/creationists spend so much time trying to trash it?”

    I think you know why!

    Because it is taught in school as fact. Most people still believe it and are ignorant of the real problems with the theory/hypothesis. Until our kids stop being brainwashed with this stuff, we need to respond to the wild claims of establishment science concerning evolution, OoL, SETI, paleontology, etc.

    Not to respond makes it seem like their ideas/beliefs are credible and true.

  15. 15
    bill cole says:

    PAV

    The paper by Ewert that you linked to does not, in any way, put “UCD claims to rest.” Ewert has a particular understanding of “common descent” that some UD advocates embrace. But, there are others.

    What Ewert showed is that software design can make a depedency graph and a tree (nested hierarchy) which puts UCD to rest as the nested hierarchy or tree was the test used to show UCD.

  16. 16
    chuckdarwin says:

    Seversky @ 3

    If evolution is such an obvious scientific and philosophical disaster then why do ID/creationists spend so much time trying to trash it? I don’t see the likes of Moonie Jonathan Wells announcing they are entering science at the behest of their spiritual master to destroy flat Earth theory, for example.

    Priceless….

  17. 17
    bornagain77 says:

    ChuckyD: “Priceless….”

    Please do tell ChuckyD. How is it possible for people, (i.e. Darwinists), who hold that humans themselves have no more value than, ‘insects, slime mould, and chemical scum’, to properly ascertain whether anything may be priceless?

    You Chemical Scum, You – Raymond Tallis
    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.”
    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

    Indeed, since Darwinists deny the existence of the immaterial, eternal, soul, and instead, (falsely), hold that our lives reduce to merely ‘complicated chemistry’, and yet all the chemicals in a human body are only valued around a dollar,,,,

    How much is my body worth?
    Excerpt: The U.S. Bureau of Chemistry and Soils invested many a hard-earned tax dollar in calculating the chemical and mineral composition of the human body,,,,Together, all of the above (chemicals and minerals) amounts to less than one dollar!
    http://www.madsci.org/posts/ar......Bc.r.html

    ,,, then please do tell ChuckyD, when Darwinists can’t even value a human life properly, how in blue blazes is it possible for Darwinists, such as yourself, to value anything else properly, much less value something as being quote-unquote ‘priceless’?

    Mark 8:37
    Is anything worth more than your soul?

    Matthew 16:26
    For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?

    Supplemental note:

    Naturalism/Materialism predicted that we are merely our material bodies with no transcendent component to our being, and that we die when our material bodies die. Theism predicted that we have minds/souls that are transcendent of our bodies that live past the death of our material bodies. Transcendent, and ‘conserved’, (cannot be created or destroyed), ‘non-local’, (beyond space-time matter-energy), quantum entanglement/information, which is not reducible to matter-energy space-time, is now found in our material bodies on a massive scale (in every DNA and protein molecule).
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/thursday-march-18-john-lennox-webinar-has-science-buried-god/#comment-726616

    Quotes:

    The Iron Triangle by Vince Ellison – John C Wright – January 14, 2020
    Excerpt: Men have souls.
    Once one accepts that premise, one must accept the conclusions that follow from it: creatures with souls are not evolved from slime, since spirit, being simple and eternal, cannot be brought into being by matter, which is compound, subject to change and decay, nor brought into being by any blind natural process; therefore, instead, spirit must be created in a divine image, with the faculties of reason and conscience and creativity.,,,
    http://www.scifiwright.com/202.....e-ellison/

    “You don’t have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.”
    George MacDonald – Annals of a Quiet Neighborhood – 1892

  18. 18
    bornagain77 says:

    Further note as to what is truly “priceless”:

    Psalm 49:7
    No one can by any means redeem another
    Or give God a ransom for him—
    For the redemption of his soul is priceless,

    1 Corinthians 6:20?
    For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.

  19. 19
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77/17

    Please do tell ChuckyD. How is it possible for people, (i.e. Darwinists), who hold that humans themselves have no more value than, ‘insects, slime mould, and chemical scum’, to properly ascertain whether anything may be priceless?

    Whenever you talk of the “value” of something you invite the question of “value to whom?”

    On Earth wood is far more plentiful than gold so gold is more valuable because of its rarity. On a planet where the reverse was true wood would be as valuable as gold is on Earth. Yet gold is still same dense, yellow metal on both planets. The price of commodities such as oil can fluctuate up and down wildly in relatively short periods of time. Yet it is still the same thing regardless.

    The worth of anything is no more and no less than how intelligent beings such as ourselves decide it is. There is no more objective value than there is objective morality.

    Indeed, since Darwinists deny the existence of the immaterial, eternal, soul, and instead, (falsely), hold that our lives reduce to merely ‘complicated chemistry’, and yet all the chemicals in a human body are only valued around a dollar

    The value of the chemicals is not the same as the value of the thing of which they are made. A piece of cloth and some paint not worth a great deal. A great work of art like the Mona Lisa, made of that cloth and paint, is priceless yet it is still just the cloth and paint. The point is that the value, like the beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, nowhere else.

    ,,, then please do tell ChuckyD, when Darwinists can’t even value a human life properly, how in blue blazes is it possible for Darwinists, such as yourself, to value anything else properly, much less value something as being quote-unquote ‘priceless’?

    It is valuable because – and only because – we are hear to value it.

    A human body may be reduced to chemicals worth less than a dollar but, when combined with water and formed into a child, they become so valuable to the parents that they will willingly sacrifice their own lives to protect it – and without waiting for a god to tell them that is what they should do. Again, value, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

  20. 20
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky states,

    “Whenever you talk of the “value” of something you invite the question of “value to whom?”,,,
    “The worth of anything is no more and no less than how intelligent beings such as ourselves decide it is.”

    I agree Seversky. But alas, without an immaterial soul to ground “I”, and in the reductive materialism of your Darwinian worldview, personhood, and therefore ‘whoms’ themselves, become merely a ‘neuronal illusion’,,,

    Part II THE ILLUSION OF CONTROL
    Another startling conclusion from the science of consciousness is that the intuitive feeling we have that there’s an executive “I” that sits in a control room of our brain, scanning the screens of the senses and pushing the buttons of the muscles, is an illusion.
    Steven Pinker – Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University
    http://www.academia.edu/279485.....sciousness

    The Confidence of Jerry Coyne – Ross Douthat – January 6, 2014
    Excerpt: But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession (by Coyne) that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant: But more on that below.) Prometheus cannot be at once unbound and unreal; the human will cannot be simultaneously triumphant and imaginary.
    https://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/?mcubz=3

    Thus Seversky you are faced with an irresolvable dilemma. You observe that judgements of value are always based in a ‘whom’, but alas for ‘you’, (in your denial of the reality of immaterial souls), there are no ‘whoms’ within your materialistic worldview in which these judgement of value can be based.

    Seversky you go on,

    There is no more objective value than there is objective morality.

    Yet Seversky, (and granting for the sake of argument that ‘you’ really exist as a real person and not as a ‘neuronal illusion’), although ‘you’, because of your materialistic worldview, are often forced to say incoherent things like this, ‘you’, nor any other Darwinists, ever put your money where your mouth is. i.e. “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.”

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

    And Seversky, in what should be needless to say, if it is impossible for ‘you’ to consistently live as if your worldview were actually true then your worldview cannot possibly reflect reality as it really is but your worldview must instead be based on a delusion.

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

    Seversky, you go on,

    The value of the chemicals is not the same as the value of the thing of which they are made. A piece of cloth and some paint not worth a great deal. A great work of art like the Mona Lisa, made of that cloth and paint, is priceless yet it is still just the cloth and paint.

    So, via your logic, chemicals and clothe are able to achieve the value of being quote-unquote ‘priceless’ when an Intelligent Designer arranges them in a certain way?

    🙂

    Do I really need to point out to you that this position is self-refuting for you?

    To remind ‘you’ Seversky, ‘you’, via your denial of free will, deny the reality of agent, and/or intelligent, causation.

    Do You Like SETI? Fine, Then Let’s Dump Methodological Naturalism – Paul Nelson – September 24, 2014
    Excerpt: Assessing the Damage MN Does to Freedom of Inquiry
    Epistemology — how we know — and ontology — what exists — are both affected by methodological naturalism. If we say, “We cannot know that a mind caused x,” laying down an epistemological boundary defined by MN, then our ontology comprising real causes for x won’t include minds.
    MN entails an ontology in which minds are the consequence of physics, and thus, can only be placeholders for a more detailed causal account in which physics is the only (ultimate) actor. You didn’t write your email to me. Physics did, and informed you of that event after the fact.
    “That’s crazy,” you reply, “I certainly did write my email.” Okay, then — to what does the pronoun “I” in that sentence refer?
    Your personal agency; your mind. Are you supernatural? Who knows? Don’t get hung up on the “natural versus supernatural” distinction, which brings a world of mischief.
    You are certainly an intelligent cause, however, and your intelligence does not collapse into physics. (If it does collapse — i.e., can be reduced without explanatory loss — we haven’t the faintest idea how, which amounts to the same thing.) To explain the effects you bring about in the world — such as your email, a real pattern — we must refer to you as a unique agent.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2014/09/do_you_like_set/

    Seversky then states,

    It is valuable because – and only because – we are (here) to value it.,,,
    Again, value, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

    Yet once again Seversky, your very own materialistic worldview itself, self-refutingly, holds that we are NOT here to value anything.

    Jay Richards: “Oddly, the scientific materialist has to deny the existence of scientists.”
    Sam Harris (a scientific materialist): “The self is an illusion.”
    – Michael Egnor Demolishes the Myth of Materialism (Science Uprising EP1)
    https://youtu.be/Fv3c7DWuqpM?t=267

    So thus Seversky, in your post ‘you’ have now, basically, just completely agreed with my observation that it is the immaterial, eternal, human soul (which is created by God), that is truly ‘priceless’ and that it is from the ‘priceless’ perspective of “I”, i.e. from the ‘priceless’ perspective of the human soul, that we are able to ascertain the value of anything else.

    To repeat your own words to ‘you’, “value, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.”

    Supplemental note:

    Beauty and the Imagination (The Argument From Beauty) – Aaron Ames – July 16th, 2017
    Excerpt: Beauty… can be appreciated only by the mind. This would be impossible, if this ‘idea’ of beauty were not found in the Mind in a more perfect form…. This consideration has readily persuaded men of ability and learning… that the original “idea” is not to be found in this sphere
    (Augustine, City of God).
    https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2017/07/beauty-imagination-aaron-ames.html

    Verse:

    Psalm 27:4
    One thing I ask from the LORD, this only do I seek: that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to gaze on the beauty of the LORD and to seek him in his temple.

  21. 21
    chuckdarwin says:

    BA77 @ 20
    It’s comments like these that demonstrate why the Discovery Institute will never be taken seriously:

    Jay Richards: “Oddly, the scientific materialist has to deny the existence of scientists.”

    This is what passes for philosophy in the Christian-ID world? You guys are in serious trouble….

  22. 22
    bornagain77 says:

    ChuckyD,

    LOL. You do realize that Jay Richards is merely commenting on the FACT that atheistic materialists themselves are the ones claiming that their sense of self is a merely a ‘neuronal illusion’?

    Sam Harris (a scientific materialist): “The self is an illusion.”
    – Michael Egnor Demolishes the Myth of Materialism (Science Uprising EP1)
    https://youtu.be/Fv3c7DWuqpM?t=267

    Here are a few more quotes from prominent atheistic materialists claiming that their sense of self is merely an illusion.

    The Brain: The Mystery of Consciousness – Monday, Jan. 29, 2007
    Part II THE ILLUSION OF CONTROL
    Another startling conclusion from the science of consciousness is that the intuitive feeling we have that there’s an executive “I” that sits in a control room of our brain, scanning the screens of the senses and pushing the buttons of the muscles, is an illusion.
    Steven Pinker – Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University
    http://www.academia.edu/279485.....sciousness

    “There is no self in, around, or as part of anyone’s body. There can’t be. So there really isn’t any enduring self that ever could wake up morning after morning worrying about why it should bother getting out of bed. The self is just another illusion, like the illusion that thought is about stuff or that we carry around plans and purposes that give meaning to what our body does. Every morning’s introspectively fantasized self is a new one, remarkably similar to the one that consciousness ceased fantasizing when we fell sleep sometime the night before. Whatever purpose yesterday’s self thought it contrived to set the alarm last night, today’s newly fictionalized self is not identical to yesterday’s. It’s on its own, having to deal with the whole problem of why to bother getting out of bed all over again.,,,
    – Alex Rosenberg – Professor of Philosophy Duke University – The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, ch.10

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

    Ross Douthat Is On Another Erroneous Rampage Against Secularism – Jerry Coyne – December 26, 2013
    Excerpt: “many (but not all) of us accept the notion that our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.”
    Jerry Coyne – Professor of Evolutionary Biology – Atheist
    https://newrepublic.com/article/116047/ross-douthat-wrong-about-secularism-and-ethics

    “that “You”, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased: “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.” This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.”
    Francis Crick – “The Astonishing Hypothesis” 1994

    “(Daniel) Dennett concludes, ‘nobody is conscious … we are all zombies’.”
    J.W. SCHOOLER & C.A. SCHREIBER – Experience, Meta-consciousness, and the Paradox of Introspection – 2004

    The Consciousness Deniers – Galen Strawson – March 13, 2018
    Excerpt: What is the silliest claim ever made? The competition is fierce, but I think the answer is easy. Some people have denied the existence of consciousness: conscious experience, the subjective character of experience, the “what-it-is-like” of experience.,,,
    Who are the Deniers?,,, Few have been fully explicit in their denial, but among those who have been, we find Brian Farrell, Paul Feyerabend, Richard Rorty, and the generally admirable Daniel Dennett.,,,
    http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2.....s-deniers/

    In what should be needless to say ChuckyD, claiming that your sense of self is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ is, for all intents and purposes, to claim that you yourself do not really exist as a real person.

    i.e. It is a self refuting claim.

    As David Bentley Hart states in the following article, “Simply enough, you cannot suffer the illusion that you are conscious because illusions are possible only for conscious minds. This is so incandescently obvious that it is almost embarrassing to have to state it.”

    The Illusionist – Daniel Dennett’s latest book marks five decades of majestic failure to explain consciousness. – 2017
    Excerpt: “Simply enough, you cannot suffer the illusion that you are conscious because illusions are possible only for conscious minds. This is so incandescently obvious that it is almost embarrassing to have to state it.”
    – David Bentley Hart
    https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-illusionist

    It is simply impossible for atheistic materialism to ground ‘personhood. In short, if God does not exist as a real person, then neither can we exist as real persons either.

    What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? – M. Anthony Mills – April 16, 2018
    Excerpt: Barr rightly observes that scientific atheists often unwittingly assume not just metaphysical naturalism but an even more controversial philosophical position: reductive materialism, which says all that exists is or is reducible to the material constituents postulated by our most fundamental physical theories.
    As Barr points out, this implies not only that God does not exist — because God is not material — but that you do not exist. For you are not a material constituent postulated by any of our most fundamental physical theories;
    https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html

    Verse:

    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;

Leave a Reply