Fascism Watch

_{Barry Arrington

December 4, 2016

Intelligent Design}

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

One would think that the French, having been overrun by a fascist country in 1940, would be especially careful to reign in the fascist impulses of their progressives. But one would be wrong:

In 2014, in conjunction with World Down Syndrome Day (March 21), the Global Down Syndrome Foundation prepared a two-minute video titled “Dear Future Mom” to assuage the anxieties of pregnant women who have learned that they are carrying a Down syndrome baby.

More than 7 million people have seen the video online in which one such woman says, “I’m scared: What kind of life will my child have?” Down syndrome children from many nations tell the woman that her child will hug, speak, go to school, tell you he loves you and “can be happy, just like I am – and you’ll be happy, too.”

The French state is not happy about this. The court has ruled that the video is – wait for it – “inappropriate” for French television. The court upheld a ruling in which the French Broadcasting Council had banned the video as a commercial. The court said the video’s depiction of happy Down syndrome children was “likely to disturb the conscience of women who had lawfully made different personal life choices.”

Comments

BA @ 95 To MatSpirit: "You are utterly shameless." No surprise there. I don't think shame exists in the atheistic worldview. As far as I can tell, all atheists are shameless.Truth Will Set You Free_{December 9, 2016
December
12
Dec
9
09
2016
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PST}

Thinkers like the ancient Greek sophist Callicles, and 19th century writers Nietzche and the Marquis de Sade argued that if nature teaches us anything about morality it teaches us that “might makes right.” For example, Callicles argued that “nature herself intimates that it is just for the better to have more than the worse, the more powerful than the weaker; and in many ways she shows, among men as well as among animals, and indeed among whole cities and races, that justice consists in the superior ruling over and having more than the inferior.” But what makes such a view right or wrong? That is a question about moral truth that still needs to be answered. The naturalist or materialist boast that their views are superior because they are scientific, yet their beliefs are metaphysical beliefs that cannot be proven scientifically.john_a_designer_{December 9, 2016
December
12
Dec
9
09
2016
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PST}

MatSpirit: When you say that atheists believe, “Morality is just an illusion foisted on us by our genes”, you are talking straight from the hothouse. Barry responded: Really? “morality is a collective illusion foisted upon us by our genes.” Influential atheist Michael Ruse. Again, you have shown yourself to ignorant of even basic facts. MatSpirit, you strike me as one of those people who is often wrong but never in doubt. MatSpirit: You’re projecting again. Ruse wrote those words in “Taking Darwin Seriously”. If you had read the book instead of copying an out of context line in a list of Christian quote mines. . .
You are utterly shameless. I said atheist say a particular thing. You said they do not. I quoted a prominent atheist saying that exact thing in the exact words I used. You say he did not mean what he was saying, that I quoted him out of context. You are a liar. I have read the quote in context. It means exactly what it seems to mean. Morality – in the sense of objective right and wrong – does not exist. It is an illusion. Of course, the problem with your (and Ruse’s) view is demonstrated by the very thing you just did there. Right and wrong don’t really exist. What we call morality is just a useful illusion. It follows that people like you who have seen through the illusion can feel free to do whatever they want. They can kill disabled babies. They can tell outrageous shameless lies. They can throw Jews in the ovens. Well, sir, morality does exist. And it is objectively wrong to lie as you have. It is objectively wrong to kill disabled babies. It is objectively wrong to throw Jews in ovens. Of course, fascists such as yourself will deny this, because it is in your interest to deny it. That does not make it any less true.
Barry: Is it wrong at all times for all people in all places to torture an infant for personal pleasure? The only possibly correct answer to that question is “yes.” Therefore, absolute morality exists. MatSpirit: it’s wrong and for two reasons. First, it violates our evolved social instincts
What? it is objectively wrong because it violates the illusion that our genes have foisted on us? I would say that is idiotic, but that would be an insult to idiots everywhere.
the protection and well being of those minds is the aim of all true morality:
You speak as though this “true morality” is objective and binding on all people and not merely an evolutionary adaptation. Of course you do. No sane person acts as if evolutionary ethics (a contradiction in terms) is true. Like so many materialists you try to have it both ways. You and Ruse insist that the feeling that we have that our moral instincts point to some objective truth is an illusion. And then when confronted with how stupid that view is, you retreat back to talk about “true morality.”
Barry: You have arrogated unto yourself the God-like power of deciding which are the “real” babies (which cannot be killed) and which are sub-babies (which can be killed by the millions). MatSpirit: We’ve accepted the moral responsibility to figure what it is about a human that gives her rights and it turns out to be her mind. The ability to have thoughts, sensations and emotions. We put minds over all else.
Thank you for confirming my point. You play God. You divide living beings with beating hearts into human and sub-human groups, and approve the killing of the latter. Let me ask you this Mat. Do you know that the distinction you make is a true distinction with ABSOLUTE certainty? If you do, I am at least glad you recognize the existence of absolute truth, even though your views of what it consists of are monstrous. If you don’t know it with absolute certainty, it follows that there is room for doubt. And it follows that you are willing to condemn millions to death on the basis of a doubtful proposition. Again, monstrous.Barry Arrington_{December 9, 2016
December
12
Dec
9
09
2016
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PST}

MatSpirit
Unlike a true moral code, our evolved code has a lot of gaps in it. One big one concerns how we treat people who aren’t in our families or villages.
You didn't explain why the things you describe are "gaps" or "concerns".
Prior to the rise of chiefdoms, which incorporate several villages, the standard thing to do when meeting a stranger was to either kill him or run for your life so he couldn’t kill you. Unless the stranger was a woman, in which case you raped her and then killed her, along with any children she had with her.
Yes, evolution does things. Survival and reproductive advantage means never having to say you're sorry.
You can see this non – moral system at work all over the Old Testament. The Israelites were always attacking some neighboring tribe, always with God’s encouragement and often on His direct orders.
So with your example here, we can see that God is the author of the moral laws of society and not, as you claimed earlier, evolution.
The results were always genocide or slavery for the conquered. An example would be 1 Samuel 15:3: “This is what the Lord Almighty says … ‘Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’
You're assuming that there is something wrong with this. Evolution is non-directional. It doesn't care about a future state. Whatever it takes for a species to survive is good enough for evolution.
This extension amounts to the beginning of a true moral code, extending and exceeding our evolved social instincts to encompass larger and larger groups of people.
Wait, you just said that God ordered certain actions, now you're saying that evolution did it.
You still see this going on today with the very recent granting of full human status to homosexuals in certain parts of the world. (And of course, you are very well acquainted with some of the people who oppose this.)
Can you specify the mutations that caused this societal change?
So, in summary, our evolved social instincts let us enjoy the benifis of living together in small groups by masquerading as a moral code, but they’re not really one, they’re just unintelligent evolution’s efforts to protect the carriers of the social genes.
We enjoyed the benefits of living together when one tribe wiped out or enslaved the other. So I guess evolution changed it's mind about that. Evolution doesn't have any other "benefits" than survival and reproduction. So, what we're looking for is some hard science to explain this - not sociology.
Real moral codes are the work of intelligent humans and they extend and improve on our evolved instincts.
This seems like a 19th century view of evolution where evolution aims at "improvement" and "progress". We've learned since then, that evolution doesn't have categories for good or bad. Genocide, rape, torture - those are not 'bad' things. Evolution created them so a species could survive. And evolution doesn't even care if the species survives, or if any species on earth survives. If they're all wiped out, it just happens. Evolution does things. So, your opinions are obviously a confused mixture of Christian-theism and Darwinian mythology, at least as how I see it.Silver Asiatic_{December 9, 2016
December
12
Dec
9
09
2016
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PST}

Matspirit man you sure like to waffle, once ageing I ask please define MORAL ,how can you speak of having them if you have not defined what they are, so what is moral .Please define YOU when you say you make decisions ,what is this you, you, or should I say the collection of chemicals in your head speak of. If you don`t reply I will assume you are just like all the other materialist`s ,whose simplistic views breakdown under the simplest scrutiny , but you cannot face that fact so you refuse to engage.Marfin_{December 8, 2016
December
12
Dec
8
08
2016
11:23 PM
11
11
23
PM
PST}

Thankyou Dionisio, I think I’ve watched that video before. It was worth watching again. I also have read Dr. Nicholi’s book, The Question of God: C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud Debate God, Love, Sex, and the Meaning of Life. It was a book that I thought I should purchase but for some reason that intention got set aside and forgotten. I found the following quotes from his book. I think they have a lot of relevance to what we are discussing on this thread.
Freud, however, asserts that ethics and morals come from human need and experience. The idea of a universal moral law as proposed by philosophers is “in conflict with reason.” He writes that “ethics are not based on a moral world order but on the inescapable exigencies of human cohabitation.” In other words, our moral code comes from what humans find to be useful and expedient. It is ironic that Lewis contrasted ethics with traffic laws; Freud wrote that “ethics are a kind of highway code for traffic among mankind.” That is, they change with time and culture… Lewis points out that although the moral law does not change over time or from culture to culture, the sensitivity to the law, and how a culture or an individual expresses the law, may vary. For example, the German nation under the Nazi regime obviously ignored the law and practiced a morality the rest of the world considered abominable. Lewis claims that when we assert that the moral ideas of one culture are better than those of another, we are using the moral law to make that judgment. “The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another,” Lewis writes “you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other . . . the standard that measures two things is something different from either. You are in fact comparing them both with some Real Morality, admitting there is such a thing as a real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people’s ideas get nearer to that real Right than others.” Lewis concludes that “if your moral ideas can be truer, and those of the Nazis less true, there must be something— some Real Morality— for them to be true about.”
-Armand Nicholi in The Question of God, p. 60-62 http://www.reasonsforgod.org/2012/10/quote-of-the-week-c-s-lewis-and-freud-on-morality-via-armand-nicholi/john_a_designer_{December 8, 2016
December
12
Dec
8
08
2016
09:51 PM
9
09
51
PM
PST}

Vjtorley @ 56 Again, nice to see you posting here again. "... a human genetic program which regulates and controls its development into a rational human adult" is no more a person than the blueprint to a house is a house. The DNA cannot think and you can't live in the blueprint. Do you remember what novel Dr. Nathanson read that turned him against abortion? I wish I knew what was going on in a bird's mind. You're right that the little birds gaping mouths are a little mechanical, and so are the parent's response. They'll stick a bit of food into one of the chick's mouths and if it isn't enthusiastically gobbled down, they'll pull it right out and stick into another chick's mouth. That sounds very efficient, but the parents seem to be motivated more by the shape and color of the mouths than anything else. Baby cuckoos exploit this by having bigger mouths with similar coloration and this induces the parents to give it most of the food, to the severe detriment of the bird's real chicks. The parent birds never seem to realize that they're giving most of the food to a chick that towers over all the other chick's and doesn't look a bit like any of them or the birds feeding it. Unfortunately, I think the birds real chicks usually die. Chickens have another "blindness". They have a very strong instinct to pull eggs that roll out of the nest back in. This instinct seems to be triggered by seeing anything that is the right color and vaguely egg shaped next to their nest. Golf balls and rocks work just fine. Put a golf ball next to a chicken's nest and it will scoop it right into the nest aND sit on it with her eggs Put another golf ball next to the nest and it will scoop it right in too. And it will do the same thing for another golf ball and another and another... One of the funniest pictures I've ever seen is of a chicken sitting on a great pile of golf balls that are raising it at least six inches above the nest. The hen has a mildly quizzical look on her face, as if she thinks there might be something wrong with the situation, but she can't quite figure out what. On the other hand, anybody who has much to do with crows and ravens knows they're highly intelligent birds, capable of figuring out locks and making simple tools. Other birds show signs of considerable intelligence too, so who knows what's going on in their brains? Vjtorley: If you’re a parent, you love your child from the get-go. You know that an unborn child has something inside it that’ll eventually make it just like us. That’s enough for it to matter. Well of course. If you want a child and you have one on the way, you fall in love with it long before birth. Every day brings you one day closer to having a child.MatSpirit_{December 8, 2016
December
12
Dec
8
08
2016
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PST}

Me: When you say that atheists believe, “Morality is just an illusion foisted on us by our genes”, you are talking straight from the hothouse. Barry: Really? “morality is a collective illusion foisted upon us by our genes.” Influential atheist Michael Ruse. Again, you have shown yourself to ignorant of even basic facts. MatSpirit, you strike me as one of those people who is often wrong but never in doubt. ----- Youre projecting again. Ruse wrote those words in "Taking Darwin Seriously". If you had read the book instead of copying an out of context line in a list of Christian quote mines, you'd know that he meant that our evolved social instincts present themselves to our consciousness as a feeling that something is right or wrong. We call these feelings our conscience. This gives the illusion that we have some sort of built in moral code when we really have a group of prejudices that evolved to let us live and work together and enjoy the tremendous advantages this brings. Unlike a true moral code, our evolved code has a lot of gaps in it. One big one concerns how we treat people who aren't in our families or villages. Prior to the rise of chiefdoms, which incorporate several villages, the standard thing to do when meeting a stranger was to either kill him or run for your life so he couldn't kill you. Unless the stranger was a woman, in which case you raped her and then killed her, along with any children she had with her. Read Jared Diamond's "The World Until Yesterday" for a good introduction to such societies. You can see this non - moral system at work all over the Old Testament. The Israelites were always attacking some neighboring tribe, always with God's encouragement and often on His direct orders. The results were always genocide or slavery for the conquered. An example would be 1 Samuel 15:3: "This is what the Lord Almighty says ... 'Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.' Or Numbers 31:17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. 18 But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. And the Old Testament takes place in the time of chieftans, where strong men like David would conquer nearby villages and meld them together into states that worked together. This brought all the conquered tribes together and extended the "don't massacre tribe members" protection to them. This extension amounts to the beginning of a true moral code, extending and exceeding our evolved social instincts to encompass larger and larger groups of people. You still see this going on today with the very recent granting of full human status to homosexuals in certain parts of the world. (And of course, you are very well acquainted with some of the people who oppose this.) So, in summary, our evolved social instincts let us enjoy the benifis of living together in small groups by masquerading as a moral code, but they're not really one, they're just unintelligent evolution's efforts to protect the carriers of the social genes. Real moral codes are the work of intelligent humans and they extend and improve on our evolved instincts. Barry: Is it wrong at all times for all people in all places to torture an infant for personal pleasure? The only possibly correct answer to that question is “yes.” Therefore, absolute morality exists. ---- You've been getting away with this one for far too long. Of course it's wrong and for two reasons. First, it violates our evolved social instincts - what you call "absolute morality". If people went around killing children, it would tear any society asunder. But those evolved instincts don't go far enough. They don't stop us from following 1 Samuel 15:3 or Numbers 31:17 and killing (or raping) other people's children, for instance. But a true moral code, intelligently designed, has as its foundation the proposition that minds are the only really important thing in the universe and the protection and well being of those minds is the aim of all true morality. This makes it grossly immoral to torture a child for your personal enjoyment and there are no Biblical loopholes to it. Barry: You have arrogated unto yourself the God-like power of deciding which are the “real” babies (which cannot be killed) and which are sub-babies (which can be killed by the millions). We've accepted the moral responsibility to figure what it is about a human that gives her rights and it turns out to be her mind. The ability to have thoughs, sensations and emotions. We put minds over all else. You and your conservative Christian friends have elevated non-thinking fetal flesh above that of a human being. Your beliefs will make you create needlessly deformed minds and bodies and even kill the women bearing the mindless uncaring fetuses and make you proud of your self for doing so. The Devil would be anti-abortion if he existed.MatSpirit_{December 8, 2016
December
12
Dec
8
08
2016
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PST}

BA77 @84: Rev. 22:21.Dionisio_{December 8, 2016
December
12
Dec
8
08
2016
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PST}

john_a_designer @85: Here's a video related to Freud: https://www.youtube.com/embed/ub4-3GYlHTwDionisio_{December 8, 2016
December
12
Dec
8
08
2016
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PST}

Thank you for your personal testimony BA. You are an invaluable resource and I appreciate you very much. Interesting to think of how that set of circumstances led to your doing what you're doing now. Arguably much more important work than jet engines. Your science based evidentiary Christianity is a tremendous help to many here. Rock on!AnimatedDust_{December 8, 2016
December
12
Dec
8
08
2016
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PST}

BA77 @ 84 -- what a great story from your life, thanks for posting that! Here on UD we read each other's comments so often and yet we don't get to know the person in this way. I really appreciate your openness. You had a difficult journey. I wonder how I would have faced that. But we all face hardships of different kinds. I would find it hard to believe you were in that kind of desperate situation at one time, you certainly show the intelligence and mastery of the topics here to suggest otherwise. I think it's very hard to argue with the fact that your life turned around radically. I would say, at the very least, people should think about what happened and at least be open to the possibility that there is a 'power greater than ourselves' - as the 12-step programs say.Silver Asiatic_{December 8, 2016
December
12
Dec
8
08
2016
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PST}

Here is another article about the new French bill, which effectively suppresses free speech, making it criminal to advocate or even express an opinion anywhere, even on the internet, in opposition of abortion. Why are the French doing this? It may have something to do with the psychology of guilt.
If you’re in favor of abortion rights, then, you may feel the need to cover up that unpleasant and ultimately horrifying reality. Civilized people do not, as a rule, advocate the killing of innocent human beings. And so we have the curious euphemisms of the pro-choice movement, which function much as perfume did in 18th-century France, by covering up the stink. Thus the label “pro-choice,” the slogan “a woman’s right to choose,” the expression “terminate a pregnancy,” the viciously ignorant and deceptive term “clump of cells”— all of these locutions are meant to conceal what abortion is.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442865/abortion-pro-life-movement-france-parliament-bill-criminalize-online-advocacy-free-speech Freud argued that guilt comes from society. That is why French secular-progressives, who are tacitly Freudian, believe they can suppress it (even outlaw it) by social engineering their society. However, this is not true and therefore not possible. Guilt comes from God. Repentance is the only solution. Social engineering only makes things worse.john_a_designer_{December 8, 2016
December
12
Dec
8
08
2016
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PST}

Eugene at 80 you further stated:
"I can clearly see how the ID explanation for the world around us is not just possible, but likely a lot more probable given what we know. Yet I do not see reasons to believe the designer is concerned with our everyday life."
To believe that the Creator would be concerned with our everyday life is indeed a profound belief. Yet, I hold that you have not arrived at your 'impersonal God' conclusion through logic and science. Indeed, as outlined in posts 45 and 51, I find that modern science is very comforting, even compelling, to the belief that God watches over all of us, listens to all of our prayers, and is, thus, VERY personal. Apparently you did not read, or you did not agree with, posts 45 and 51 since you said in post 80 that 'I do not see reasons to believe the designer is concerned with our everyday life.' So, to go one step further in why I believe in a personal God, I will give you a bit of my personal testimony. I served in the Air Force back in the 1980's. I worked on jet engines. When I got out of the service, I landed a job working for General Electric (GE) working on some of the most advanced jet aircraft in the world. I loved that job. Besides being well paying, I was very much honored to work on America's top stealth aircraft. And I was well qualified for that job having spent 4 years in the Air Force. Yet, I had a problem with alcohol and drugs that was getting worse and worse as time went along. To the point that that problem ended up negatively effecting my work life. Long story short, I ended up losing my dream job at GE. That evening, when I got home after losing my job, I was just numb. Devastated but just numb. To this day, I do not know why I picked my Bible up at that particular time in my life. It was not like I was in a particular habit of reading my Bible. In fact, throughout my entire service in the Air Force I remember picking my Bible up only once. And that was because my roommate had asked me to see what John 3:16 meant during a football game. (They use to hold John 3:16 up in the end zones during professional football games back then). At that moment, as I began to read the Bible, and as clear as day, a miracle happened. That inanimate book, i.e. the Holy Bible, became alive and the words I was reading out of the bible at that very moment were speaking directly to me as if a living person were speaking directly to me. I was shocked to put it mildly. I ran my finger over the passage that I had just read, the passage that had spoken directly to me, and it felt as if someone had just opened a window on the passage I had read. The rest of the page felt normal, like paper, but that passage felt mysteriously cool and breezy. I knew in no uncertain terms, at that very moment, that God was really real and that He was and is very much a personal God who cares very deeply for each of us. Fast forward a few years later. I had relapsed into drinking and using. It was in the summer of 1993, I was down and out in Ft. Myers, Florida. This was about the second year that I was homeless. I was staying at the Salvation Army in Ft. Myers working temporary day labor and paying 8 bucks a night to stay at the homeless shelter. Since AA had failed me, I had come up with another idea to help me defeat the destructive desires for drinking and using that had kept me broke and bound to the homeless street life. I was finally going to read the Bible cover to cover. Surely, this would cure me once and for all of my destructive desires. Every night before I would go to sleep I made sure that I would read though at least 30 minutes worth of the Bible. This was done in my bunk in the open dormitory of the salvation army. Well, after about a month or 6 weeks of reading in this fashion, I was getting pretty far along into the Bible and had pretty much established myself, among the guys staying in the dorm with me, as some sort of Jesus Freak. One evening a man, who like me wasn't fairing to well in this world, comes up to my bunk as I was reading the Bible. He angrily says something to this effect, "Where Is God? Just where is God? If I knew where God was my life would be alright." Calmly I told him the truth "Well I know that it may sound strange to you, but sometimes when I really need it, God seems to speak directly to me from the Bible, giving me guidance and comfort, and I believe that He may speak directly to you since you seem to be in a pretty bad spot." Then I closed my Bible and handed it to him. Then he asks me “Do you mean like this?” and he just randomly flips the Bible open, but instead of gently reading the first words that his eyes landed on, as I thought he would do, he went and stabbed his finger down onto the page that the Bible had fell open to. Then, he looks over to me and asks me "Like this?" I nervously, in spite of my reservations of the brazenness of his act, indicated that "I guess that will work.". Well his boldness paid off for his finger landed right on top of Job 23:3 which says "Oh, that I knew where I might find God, that I might come to His seat!", (In fact that entire passage in Job 23 was related to his particular situation). Needless to say, we both were in awe about God, the creator of the universe, personally revealing Himself to him in the 'Living Word' that clearly. We even went to the chaplain of the Salvation Army that evening, told the chaplain what just happened and got him his very own Bible from the chaplain. Let me end this testimony by saying that I believe God speaks to all people in many different ways. Don't be upset if God doesn't speak in this certain way to you through the Holy Bible. He very well could be speaking to you in special ways that He doesn't speak to other people in. He could speak through your dreams, or visions, or He could speak to you through other people. He could be in that still small, intuitive, voice that speaks warnings to you every so often and could express His feelings and guidance to you, or etc... etc.... Here are some examples of the different ways God speaks into different people's lives:
(GodWinks) SQuire Rushnell & daughter of Emmett Kelly on FOX & FRIENDS 6/16/13 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvdkCJgRzEk&list=UUhhpzDrOSynYa9xPfNtbrqw One of John Lennox´s Great Personal Stories Told to Harvard Students - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wh0M0EG2jKY Dr. Janis Amatuzio author of FOREVER OURS - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtnywJHLrLY Eric Metaxas – Miracles https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtsHFc2fHOI
The point I'm trying to make clear is this. I'm firmly convinced that God is a personal God and that He does indeed desire to speak to each and every one of us personally, to 'His children'! BUT, we have to be open enough to first allow the possibility that God, the Father of all creation, might actually care enough for each of us, His children, to actually want to speak intimately to each of us from time to time. And to then actually look to Him for guidance. Think about it. What parent doesn't talk personally to each and every one of their very own children every once in a while? It would be a very uncaring parent who did not 'get personal' every once in awhile with each and every one of their children. How much more is this to be expected from the living God who loved us so much that he suffered the ultimate penalty of death for us, and then rose again, so that He could always be reunited with us forever? Verse and quote:
Isaiah 45:18-19 For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens, who is God, who formed the earth and made it, who established it, who did not create it in vain, who formed it to be inhabited: “I am the Lord, and there is no other. I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth; I did not say to the seed of Jacob, ‘seek me in vain’; I, the Lord speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.” “I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily. All my discoveries have been made in answer to prayer” – Sir Isaac Newton
bornagain77_{December 8, 2016
December
12
Dec
8
08
2016
02:16 AM
2
02
16
AM
PST}

It appears that French society has become even more fascist.
The French Senate today [12/7/16] adopted a bill criminalizing the posting of pro-life information online, a measure that was passed by the French National Assembly just last week. Violators face a maximum of two years in prison and over $30,000 in fines. The measure makes it a crime for pro-life individuals or activists to obstruct a woman’s lawful decision to have an abortion, or to cause her guilt after the fact… The translation of these portions of the bill are somewhat rough, but many analysts agree that the bill will be interpreted to criminalize any person or website that posts information regarding alternatives to abortion, or even that espouses the Christian belief that the church considers abortion to be immoral.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/442867/abortion-french-senate-bans-posting-pro-life-information-online In other words, French society no longer has freedom of speech or press. This shows the hypocrisy of the disingenuous “pro-choice” euphemism. When it comes to abortion you are “free” to make only one choice. Now in France you can’t even think about an alternative. I’ve said before that democracy is only as good as its constituents. This what happens to a society after generations of moral decline. We in the U.S. should see it as a cautionary tale. It could happen here.john_a_designer_{December 7, 2016
December
12
Dec
7
07
2016
09:12 PM
9
09
12
PM
PST}

Eugene 80 Thanks again for such a great reply. I really enjoyed learning about your personal journey - and thanks for sharing that. You encountered those realities -- and you simply embraced the inference that followed. That's a gift. Some people simply can't see it. Or perhaps they really don't want to look. In any case, I'd only suggest that the next phase of your journey really isn't a matter of religion (it could be but not necessary), but rather a search through some of the more classical understandings of who, possibly, the designer is or could be. Regarding us all being in a zoo for the amusement of a benign dictator of sorts ... I'd consider that we can see the subtle, mind-boggling, integrated, harmonious and immense aspects of fine-tuning and symmetry and collaboration in the universe and in microbiology. When we talk about works of art or of human skill in the highest form, we'd have to say about these things in nature also, they're works of a profound genius. But is that same genius, after putting this kind of work on display, going to turn around and act just as stupid as any human dictator with his human creation? All this, just to amuse himself the way a 6-year old kid would play with a little bug? It could be, but I think we need to look at the bigger picture. We behold something profound and beautiful. That has to say something about the designer. Yes, there's chaos, noise, and bad stuff. Those things give us contrast so we can appreciate the good. In any case, if you keep searching, I think you're going to have even more interesting adventures ahead.Silver Asiatic_{December 7, 2016
December
12
Dec
7
07
2016
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PST}

Eugene, I would argue that, while Einstein may have personally leaned towards Spinoza’s impersonal God, General Relativity itself instead argues very powerfully for a personal God:
post 51 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/fascism-watch/#comment-621807
Of related interest to the 'unexpected' centrality in the universe discussed in post 51, the following site is very interesting;
The Scale of The Universe - Part 2 - interactive graph (recently updated in 2012 with cool features) http://htwins.net/scale2/scale2.swf?bordercolor=white
The preceding interactive graph, and the following video, point out that the smallest scale visible to the human eye (as well as a human egg) is at 10^-4 meters, which 'just so happens' to be directly in the exponential middle, or geometric mean, of all possible sizes of our physical reality. As far as the exponential graph itself is concerned’ 10^-4 is, exponentially, right in the middle of 10^-35 meters, which is the smallest possible unit of length, which is Planck length, and 10^26 - 10^27 meters, which is the largest possible unit of 'observable' length since space-time was created in the Big Bang, which is the diameter of the universe. This is very interesting for, as far as I can tell, the limits to human vision (as well as the size of the human egg) could have, theoretically, been at very different positions than directly in the middle;
Journey To The Center of The Universe - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEwrPXddtPk The Astonishing Simplicity of Everything - Neil Turok Public Lecture – video (12:00 minute mark, we live in the geometric mean, i.e. the middle, of the universe) https://youtu.be/f1x9lgX8GaE?t=715
footnote; Kurt Godel of incompleteness fame, who was an extremely close confidant of Einstein at Princeton, had this to say about Einstein's religion:
The God of the Mathematicians – Goldman Excerpt: As Gödel told Hao Wang, “Einstein’s religion [was] more abstract, like Spinoza and Indian philosophy. Spinoza’s god is less than a person; mine is more than a person; because God can play the role of a person.” Kurt Gödel – (Gödel is considered one of the greatest logicians who ever existed) http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/07/the-god-of-the-mathematicians
Verse:
Hebrews 2:14-15 “Since we, God’s children, are human beings – made of flesh and blood – He became flesh and blood too by being born in human form; for only as a human being could He die and in dying break the power of the devil who had the power of death. Only in that way could He deliver those who through fear of death have been living all their lives as slaves to constant dread.”
Of supplemental note, years before quantum mechanics was more fully developed and surpassed General Relativity as a superior theory, Godel, besides proving mathematics in general is incomplete, had proved that General Relativity itself was an incomplete description of reality:
THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS - DAVID P. GOLDMAN - August 2010 Excerpt: Gödel's personal God is under no obligation to behave in a predictable orderly fashion, and Gödel produced what may be the most damaging critique of general relativity. In a Festschrift, (a book honoring Einstein), for Einstein's seventieth birthday in 1949, Gödel demonstrated the possibility of a special case in which, as Palle Yourgrau described the result, "the large-scale geometry of the world is so warped that there exist space-time curves that bend back on themselves so far that they close; that is, they return to their starting point." This means that "a highly accelerated spaceship journey along such a closed path, or world line, could only be described as time travel." In fact, "Gödel worked out the length and time for the journey, as well as the exact speed and fuel requirements." Gödel, of course, did not actually believe in time travel, but he understood his paper to undermine the Einsteinian worldview from within. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/08/the-god-of-the-mathematicians Physicists continue work to abolish time as fourth dimension of space - April 2012 Excerpt: "Our research confirms Gödel's vision: time is not a physical dimension of space through which one could travel into the past or future." http://phys.org/news/2012-04-physicists-abolish-fourth-dimension-space.html
bornagain77_{December 7, 2016
December
12
Dec
7
07
2016
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PST}

SA @75 In my humble experience talking to both theists and atheists, the majority is driven not by any logical arguments but by a desire to “be a better person” or to belong to a group which is “better than they”. One can easily guess that theists generally consider themselves morally better, while atheists – intellectually superior. Very few on either side are interested in taking a deep critical look at how the world may actually work, let alone at any inconvenient arguments. I grew up a materialistic atheist, majored in Computer Science. Then, out of curiosity, as I started looking into molecular biology and cosmology I one day had my very own WTF moment… As of today my view can be eloquently described by this A. Einstein’s quote: “I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind... "(to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein (1929)) I can clearly see how the ID explanation for the world around us is not just possible, but likely a lot more probable given what we know. Yet I do not see reasons to believe the designer is concerned with our everyday life. This view appears to be the gloomiest one to have because it implies that we are basically living in somebody’s zoo, and that all our attempts in science are just child play (because this is all already known to the designer anyway). Oh, and any and all life forms are basically disposable chunks of matter, whose only purpose in life is to procreate and to participate in the grand show to amuse and entertain the designer, or, possibly, to facilitate some simulation / research on her behalf. At least in the atheist world humans actually matter as observers and researchers for the Universe :) But at the end of the day it is what it is.Eugene_{December 7, 2016
December
12
Dec
7
07
2016
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PST}

Matspirit In #34 you mention your hero Jerry Coyne who says that brain signals produce mind. Unborn human's brain produces signals, too. Therefore unborn humans have mind as well. If simple "thou shall not kill" doesn't work for you, at least be consistent with your own logic and don't kill unborn children whose brains and minds are in early stages of development.Eugen_{December 7, 2016
December
12
Dec
7
07
2016
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PST}

@ 67 I wrote:
Which interpretation or assumption provides the moral grounding for a human right to life, personhood or the capacity to feel pain? And the problem doesn’t end there. Other people think we should use viability, the capability of the fetus to survive outside the womb, as the determining factor.
Here is something else that some people are arguing is determinative.
Yesterday, the Ohio legislature passed a controversial “heartbeat bill” that would ban abortions after a fetal heartbeat could be detected, which usually occurs around six weeks into a pregnancy.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/442846/abortion-restrictions-ohio-passes-heartbeat-bill Again my argument is:
With no real self-evident starting point and no certain answers, how can anyone give a morally justifiable criteria? Human kind beginning with itself as the only reference point appears to be totally incapable of creating a truly adequate system of moral standards or basis for human rights. At best, from a non-theistic view, the answers are arbitrary. Any kind of moral obligation is impossible if it is based on arbitrary answers upon which there is no agreement. Not only is there no basis for a right to life for the unborn, there is no real basis for human rights of any kind.
P.S. I do believe there is a self-evident starting point-- conception. Empirically there is no doubt that a human life, as well as a unique human destiny, begins at conception.john_a_designer_{December 7, 2016
December
12
Dec
7
07
2016
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PST}

SA @ 75: "To accept macro-evolution as the default origin of all major diversity of biological life on earth is absurd." Amen.Truth Will Set You Free_{December 7, 2016
December
12
Dec
7
07
2016
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PST}

#56 vjt made a good point about whether a newly hatched baby bird is conscious or not, when more importantly for its survival, clearly the parent is conscious of its offspring. Several years ago, I had growing, very rapidly, a cancer on my nose. One night I dreamt of an obnoxious looking entity speaking in menacing tones to me. On awaking, I knew that the tumour was speaking. I considered that all our cells are conscious or share a consciousness. Or it was a prophetic warning of danger. Either way, some greater intelligence was at work over consciousness while I was unconscious. It would seem to me that God be conscious of even the number of hairs on our head, as God/Jesus said. Therefore, in that context He is supreme consciousness of design and detail, even to every designed part detail in each bodily cell. That is, an unimaginable conscious power exists, which is conscious of everything. The spirit gives life, is life, and all living forms share in that consciousness. Some more than others. A protected child in the womb need not be conscious as the parent is, besides, it would seem, the collective cells in the woman including the cells of the unborn, is unconsciously conscious in some way. Moreover, the Spirit is totally conscious of both. For one thing, the Spirit has generated a particle of its Life to give life to the cell in its own image. Only Life begets life. That law is irrefutable. However, theoretically a chance particle of a dust bag of chemicals, electrocuted by lightning, stirred in a warm pond, will produce the fittest life form. All of course from theoretical spaceless space were nothing exists. However, it seems, nothing cannot exist unless it’s in something to make nothing useful, in this case Supreme Consciousness of Spirit. It seems consciousness may equate to mind, which appears to me as the realm of the spirit, allowing in our case, both negative and positive influences. A soul (body of cells) with the spirit—the immortal aspect of the human, is given to a child in the womb around conception time or just slightly later, it would seem. However, while most here believe it unfit to stretch our own life forms into pieces and destroy it basic image and worth, some appear to feel it is fine to basically destroy the Genesis Sabbath Commandment, which, at one time the penalty for worshiping incorrectly and disobeying the order was death (Exod 31:12-18), and which God once personally ordered death by having a man stoned (Num 15:32–36). Words contain life, the basis of divine information on a quantum level and our conscious level. You cannot be stoned to death for an inaccurate law, let alone a divine law! As the world seems hell-bent on destroying its own life forms and crippling a divine law on how God wills to be worshipped, every seven days; by remembering He created in six, one can expect redress from Supreme Consciousness, Supreme Justice and by the Supreme Lawgiver. Jesus mentions the hypocrisy of trying to avoid the clear meaning of divine law, of which God said, such law is easy to understand. Today, we do not remember God as creating in six days, we rather make him a fool for ordering us to believe such! We know better! We have made it dishonourable to believe God created in six days! Yahweh said, “Surely, this commandment that I am commanding you today is not too hard for you, nor is it too far away” (Deuteronomy 30:10–11). Heavens above, we think we need a Ph.D. in cosmology, quantum mechanics and Darwinism to answer the meaning of life and everything, yet in general, we are still no wiser to believing we live in a matured cosmos, aged at birth. And who can prove otherwise? Not even the Word of God. 1 Thessalonians 5:21 “but test everything; hold fast what is good.” We have tested divine law and found it lacking! God did not create in six days! It should be literally aborted. Jesus said: ‘You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, “You shall not murder”; and “whoever murders shall be liable to judgement.” But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgement; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, “You fool”, you will be liable to the hell of fire.’ (Matt 5:21-22) God is a fool for saying he created in six days, and clearly those who believe God created in six days are made a fool by those who do not keep literally to divine law. The destruction or disfigurement of a complete divine law appears worse than destroying a single life, because it destroys the very life blood of the word of God, as it intellectually kills or maims by the multitude. A spiritual sin is more dangerous than a physical sin, and Jesus made that clear when he talked about those lusting (Matt 5:28) and hating others. Still, I was reading a book by a Catholic visionary on “Our Lady of Guadalupe and her Missionary Image” by D J Lynch, In God’s time abortion will end. Ref. the miraculous image of the Tilma. http://mtncatholic.com/2014/12/11/4-literally-awesome-facts-about-our-lady-of-guadalupe/ http://infallible-catholic.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/miraculous-image-of-our-lady-of.html It appears, the Catholic Church has in its possession three cloths with miraculous imprinted images, the Turin Shroud, the Handkerchief of Veronica https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_Veronica and the Tilma or clock of a peasant.mw_{December 7, 2016
December
12
Dec
7
07
2016
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PST}

Eugene @ 68 Interesting post - thanks. You've got a unique point of view (we don't see it often anyway) ... anti-religious and yet recognizing the failure of evolutionary explanations, at least for macro-evolution. We had another guy here for a long time, RDFish (AIGuy) who had a similar view. Rejected Darwinism, but was anti-theistic. I'm not sure where you stand on the ID inference but it seems you're open to it with this:
My understanding is that at the very least one is expected to be humble here and acknowledge that macro-evolution as described would be a very unlikely phenomenon…
Exactly. To accept macro-evolution as the default origin of all major diversity of biological life on earth is absurd. Evolutionists don't even try to talk about that part of their claims. Everything is focused at the micro-level, for obvious reasons. It's embarrassing to look to any higher levels of organization, form and function. Darwinian mechanisms simply don't get us there. As for your religious view, some thoughts which might be helpful, I'd hope?
My step-son grew out religious. Yet very smart. Yet religious. I don’t know why. I thought it would be a simple matter of talking to him and showing him all the logical fallacies of it. Took me a few hours to admit that I have failed. There is just something in his brain which is short-circuited if you will, and at certain points my logic simply breaks down for him. Ok, not to offend the apparent vocal majority here, I am sure that from his perspective it is something in my brain which is short-circuited.
Ok, but how about this ... you tried to dialogue and show some logical arguments. But it's important to consider the believer's viewpoint. Religious belief, in most cases, is not reducible to argument alone. You have to try to see the other person's point of view, and imagine that it is correct (put yourself in that position). If God really exists, as the believer accepts, then the result is not just having a "winning argument" or feeling like there's a worldview that works. But in very many cases, the believer believes that God not only exists, but God is really involved in life. God is communicating personally with him or her. Your stepson probably accepts, and may even have experienced that. Many believers have that -- they experience God, as a Person, communicating with them (via prayer, sacred texts, small moments in life, etc). God is really there, and God has immense power. This lifts the entire topic far above mere arguments. You're now arguing not just with one person, your stepson in this case, but actually with two people. Your stepson and God (as the believer would see it). For the believer, God is going to win. And winning for God, is Him wanting the best for everyone involved. Atheists call this the believer's "imaginary friend", but what if that "friend" is not imaginary? That's what you don't know, but more importantly, that's what is difficult to deal with by logical argument alone.
This is not the point. The point is that it is futile to convert, to prove or to even explain much across this mental boundary.
It usually seems that way, but I'll disagree. I have seen many conversions (atheist to theist, at least) that have come through dialogue and discussion. For the believer, there is help with prayer - God will move and change things in life. In any case - thanks for an interesting contribution!Silver Asiatic_{December 7, 2016
December
12
Dec
7
07
2016
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PST}

MatSpirit
Four plus hours of message writing is enough for one day. I don’t want to get into the KF or BA77 range of locquacity. I’ll write more tomorrow.
Thanks for taking that time to reply! I thought you did well in most cases -- you offered some detail and engaged in the topic, so that is appreciated. Of course I disagree with most (not all) of it. But it also seems that you're open to what we're saying - certainly, by reading and reviewing BA77's many links that is quite rare to find among our opponents. But next is going through the areas of disagreement ... in time.
Vjtorley, nice to see you back.
I'll second that!Silver Asiatic_{December 7, 2016
December
12
Dec
7
07
2016
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PST}

Of related note: In so far as Darwinian evolution is dependent on the premises of reductive materialism, and regardless of whether Darwinists ever personally accept the falsification or not, Darwinian evolution is now empirically falsified by advances in quantum biology. Specifically, reductive materialism cannot explain the ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, effect of quantum entanglement/information in molecular biology:
Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012 Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” http://www.quantumlah.org/highlight/121029_hidden_influences.php "What happens is this classical information (of DNA) is embedded, sandwiched, into the quantum information (of DNA). And most likely this classical information is never accessed because it is inside all the quantum information. You can only access the quantum information or the electron clouds and the protons. So mathematically you can describe that as a quantum/classical state." Elisabeth Rieper – Classical and Quantum Information in DNA – video (Longitudinal Quantum Information resides along the entire length of DNA discussed at the 19:30 minute mark; at 24:00 minute mark Dr Rieper remarks that practically the whole DNA molecule can be viewed as quantum information with classical information embedded within it) https://youtu.be/2nqHOnVTxJE?t=1176 Molecular Biology – 19th Century Materialism meets 21st Century Quantum Mechanics – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCs3WXHqOv8
i.e. Quantum information is experimentally shown to be irreducible to reductive materialistic explanations. And as such, since Darwinian evolution has its foundation based on reductive materialistic premises, then Darwinian evolution is experimentally falsified as an scientific explanation for the pervasive quantum information found in molecular biology:
The Scientific Method – Richard Feynman – video Quote: ‘If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY
Verse:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 but test everything; hold fast what is good.
bornagain77_{December 7, 2016
December
12
Dec
7
07
2016
04:48 AM
4
04
48
AM
PST}

Moreover, empirical evidence itself tells us that “Genetic Entropy”, the tendency of biological systems to drift towards decreasing complexity and decreasing information content, holds true as an overriding rule for biological adaptations over long periods of time:
“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ Biological Information – Loss-of-Function Mutations (Michael Behe) by Paul Giem 2015 – video (Behe – Loss of function mutations that give an adaptive advantage are far more likely to fix in a population than gain of function mutations) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzD3hhvepK8&index=20&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNUUhiC9VwPnhl-ymuObyTWJ Can Purifying Natural Selection Preserve Biological Information? – May 2013 – Paul Gibson, John R. Baumgardner, Wesley H. Brewer, John C. Sanford In conclusion, numerical simulation shows that realistic levels of biological noise result in a high selection threshold. This results in the ongoing accumulation of low-impact deleterious mutations, with deleterious mutation count per individual increasing linearly over time. Even in very long experiments (more than 100,000 generations), slightly deleterious alleles accumulate steadily, causing eventual extinction. These findings provide independent validation of previous analytical and simulation studies [2–13]. Previous concerns about the problem of accumulation of nearly neutral mutations are strongly supported by our analysis. Indeed, when numerical simulations incorporate realistic levels of biological noise, our analyses indicate that the problem is much more severe than has been acknowledged, and that the large majority of deleterious mutations become invisible to the selection process.,,, http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0010 Genetic Entropy – references to several peer reviewed numerical simulations analyzing and falsifying all flavors of Darwinian evolution,, (via John Sanford and company) http://www.geneticentropy.org/#!properties/ctzx
And whereas Darwinian evolution has no known law of nature to appeal to so as to establish itself as a proper, testable, science, (in fact it is almost directly contradicted by the second law of thermodynamics, i.e. entropy), Intelligent Design does not suffer from such a disconnect from physical reality. In other words, Intelligent Design can appeal directly to ‘the laws of conservation of information’ (Dembski, Marks, etc..) in order to establish itself as a proper, testable, and rigorous science.
Evolutionary Computing: The Invisible Hand of Intelligence – June 17, 2015 Excerpt: William Dembski and Robert Marks have shown that no evolutionary algorithm is superior to blind search — unless information is added from an intelligent cause, which means it is not, in the Darwinian sense, an evolutionary algorithm after all. This mathematically proven law, based on the accepted No Free Lunch Theorems, seems to be lost on the champions of evolutionary computing. Researchers keep confusing an evolutionary algorithm (a form of artificial selection) with “natural evolution.” ,,, Marks and Dembski account for the invisible hand required in evolutionary computing. The Lab’s website states, “The principal theme of the lab’s research is teasing apart the respective roles of internally generated and externally applied information in the performance of evolutionary systems.” So yes, systems can evolve, but when they appear to solve a problem (such as generating complex specified information or reaching a sufficiently narrow predefined target), intelligence can be shown to be active. Any internally generated information is conserved or degraded by the law of Conservation of Information.,,, What Marks and Dembski (mathematically) prove is as scientifically valid and relevant as Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem in mathematics. You can’t prove a system of mathematics from within the system, and you can’t derive an information-rich pattern from within the pattern.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/06/evolutionary_co_1096931.html
And since Intelligent Design is mathematically based on the ‘law of conservation of information’, then that makes Intelligent Design very much testable and potentially falsifiable, and thus makes Intelligent Design, unlike Darwinism, a rigorous science instead of an unfalsifiable pseudo-science.
The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness – David L. Abel Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.” If only one exception to this null hypothesis were published, the hypothesis would be falsified. Falsification would require an experiment devoid of behind-the-scenes steering. Any artificial selection hidden in the experimental design would disqualify the experimental falsification. After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.” https://www.academia.edu/Documents/in/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Incompleteness It’s (Much) Easier to Falsify Intelligent Design than Darwinian Evolution – Michael Behe, PhD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T1v_VLueGk
In fact, a person can earn up to 3 million dollars by falsifying ID and showing an example of information that does not come from a mind:
The Origin of Information: How to Solve It – Perry Marshall Where did the information in DNA come from? This is one of the most important and valuable questions in the history of science. Cosmic Fingerprints has issued a challenge to the scientific community: “Show an example of Information that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.” “Information” is defined as digital communication between an encoder and a decoder, using agreed upon symbols. To date, no one has shown an example of a naturally occurring encoding / decoding system, i.e. one that has demonstrably come into existence without a designer. A private equity investment group is offering a technology prize for this discovery (up to 3 million dollars). We will financially reward and publicize the first person who can solve this;,,, To solve this problem is far more than an object of abstract religious or philosophical discussion. It would demonstrate a mechanism for producing coding systems, thus opening up new channels of scientific discovery. Such a find would have sweeping implications for Artificial Intelligence research. http://cosmicfingerprints.com/solve/
bornagain77_{December 7, 2016
December
12
Dec
7
07
2016
04:48 AM
4
04
48
AM
PST}

But there is a more fundamental reason, besides the many false predictions generated by Darwin's theory, for believing Darwin's theory is more properly classified as a pseudo-science rather than as a real science. That reason is that Darwinian evolution is simply unfalsifiable.
"In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality." Karl Popper - The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program.” Karl Popper - Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography (1976) Dubitable Darwin? Why Some Smart, Nonreligious People Doubt the Theory of Evolution By John Horgan on July 6, 2010 Excerpt: Early in his career, the philosopher Karl Popper ,, called evolution via natural selection "almost a tautology" and "not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program." Attacked for these criticisms, Popper took them back (in approx 1978). But when I interviewed him in 1992, he blurted out that he still found Darwin's theory dissatisfying. "One ought to look for alternatives!" Popper exclaimed, banging his kitchen table. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/dubitable-darwin-why-some-smart-nonreligious-people-doubt-the-theory-of-evolution/
The primary reason why Darwinian evolution is more properly classified as a pseudo-science rather than as a real science is because Darwinian evolution has no rigid mathematical basis to test against, like other overarching physical theories of science have. A rigid mathematical basis to test against in order to potentially falsify it.
“On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?” - Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003 Deeper into the Royal Society Evolution Paradigm Shift Meeting – 02/08/2016 Suzan Mazur: Peter Saunders in his interview comments to me said that neo-Darwinism is not a theory, it’s a paradigm and the reason it’s not a theory is that it’s not falsifiable. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/suzan-mazur/john-dupre-interview-deep_b_9184812.html Peter Saunders is Co-Director, Institute of Science in Society, London; Emeritus professor of Applied Mathematics, King’s College London. Peter Saunders has been applying mathematics in biology for over 40 years, in microbiology and physiology as well as in development and evolution. He has been a critic of neo-Darwinism for almost as long. Evolution is Missing a Mathematical Formula Excerpt: Virtually all scientists acknowledge that mathematics is the real language of science. Every theory uses words to describe and postulate the theory, but the true test of a theory is numbers and mathematics. It is numbers and mathematical formulae that distinguish true science from hocus-pocus.,,, Every scientific theory that has been promoted to the status of being a scientific law has been quantified and/or embodied into one or more mathematical formulae that make accurate predictions. But no scientist has been able to derive any working formula from the Theory of Evolution and no one has been able to quantify its dictums. Millions of scientists have tried to quantify the Theory of Evolution and they have all failed to do so. http://darwinconspiracy.com/article_1_rev2.php
In fact, in so far as math can be applied to Darwinian claims, mathematics constantly shows us that Darwinian evolution is astronomically unlikely. That is to say, as far as math is concerned, evolution is ‘statistically impossible’. Here is one example out of many:
“In light of Doug Axe’s number, and other similar results,, (1 in 10^77), it is overwhelmingly more likely than not that the mutation, random selection, mechanism will fail to produce even one gene or protein given the whole multi-billion year history of life on earth. There is not enough opportunities in the whole history of life on earth to search but a tiny fraction of the space of 10^77 possible combinations that correspond to every functional combination. Why? Well just one little number will help you put this in perspective. There have been only 10^40 organisms living in the entire history of life on earth. So if every organism, when it replicated, produced a new sequence of DNA to search that (1 in 10^77) space of possibilities, you would have only searched 10^40th of them. 10^40 over 10^77 is 1 in 10^37. Which is 10 trillion, trillion, trillion. In other words, If every organism in the history of life would have been searching for one those (functional) gene sequences we need, you would have searched 1 in 10 trillion, trillion, trillionth of the haystack. Which makes it overwhelmingly more likely than not that the (Darwinian) mechanism will fail. And if it is overwhelmingly more likely than not that the (Darwinian) mechanism will fail should we believe that is the way that life arose?” Stephen Meyer – 46:19 minute mark – Darwin’s Doubt – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg8bqXGrRa0&feature=player_detailpage#t=2778
The primary reason why no scientist has been able ‘quantify its dictums’ is because there are no known laws of nature for Darwinists to appeal to to base their math on. In other words, there is no known ‘law of evolution’, such as there is a ‘law of gravity’, within the physical universe for Darwinists to build a rigid mathematical basis on:
“It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109. "While they (Darwinian Biologists) pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’” Wolfgang Pauli – The Evolution of Ernst: Interview with Ernst Mayr – 2004 Excerpt: biology (Darwinian Evolution) differs from the physical sciences in that in the physical sciences, all theories, I don’t know exceptions so I think it’s probably a safe statement, all theories are based somehow or other on natural laws. In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-evolution-of-ernst-in/ WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True – Roger Highfield – January 2014 Excerpt:,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology. Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation. http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25468
In fact, not only does Evolution not have any known universal law to appeal to, as other overarching theories of science have, the second law of thermodynamics, i.e. Entropy, a law with great mathematical explanatory power in science, almost directly contradicts Darwinian claims that increases in functional complexity/information can be easily had:
Why Tornados Running Backward do not Violate the Second Law – Granville Sewell – May 2012 – article with video Excerpt: So, how does the spontaneous rearrangement of matter on a rocky, barren, planet into human brains and spaceships and jet airplanes and nuclear power plants and libraries full of science texts and novels, and supercomputers running partial differential equation solving software , represent a less obvious or less spectacular violation of the second law—or at least of the fundamental natural principle behind this law—than tornados turning rubble into houses and cars? Can anyone even imagine a more spectacular violation? https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-tornados-running-backward-do-not-violate-the-second-law/
bornagain77_{December 7, 2016
December
12
Dec
7
07
2016
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PST}

At 65 Mat tries to claim that evolution is as well established as Newton's theory of gravity in terms of 'predictive power' because, by golly, bacteria came before fish did. Besides simple life appearing before more complex life not even being a unique prediction of materialism alone, since it is also a prediction in Theism in general, just call me very unimpressed as to how daring that prediction supposedly is for Darwinian evolution! Moreover, if we actually try to use 'predictive power' to judge the validity of evolution as a scientific theory, (Imre Lakatos), we soon find out that Evolution is, in reality, a pseudo-science instead of a real science. The 'predictive power' inherent in Newton's theory of gravity, whilst only an approximation of the more accurate predictive power inherent in General Relativity, was at least good enough to land men on the moon. A remarkable achievement in science that many people considered the pinnacle of man's achievements in science.
Newton's Laws of Motion - NASA Excerpt: The motion of a rocket from the surface of the Earth to a landing on the Moon can be explained and described by physical principals discovered over 300 years ago by Sir Isaac Newton. https://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/newton.html For getting to the moon and landing on it, Newton's theory is sufficient. The precision of e.g. thrust and rocket motor on/off timing is too low for the application of Einstein's corrections to matter. The Newtonian course is plotted, and aimed at and any errors are measured and remediated via correction thrusts.,,, https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/did-space-missions-use-newtons-theory-of-gravity.564933/
Whereas, on the other hand, Darwinian Evolution has no such impressive breakthrough for man to appeal to show its inherent truthfulness as a scientific theory. In fact, Darwinian evolution can't claim ANY technological achievement whatsoever for man!
“Truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of ‘like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.” (Jerry Coyne, “Selling Darwin: Does it matter whether evolution has any commercial applications?,” reviewing The Evolving World: Evolution in Everyday Life by David P. Mindell, in Nature, 442:983-984 (August 31, 2006).) "Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss. In the peer-reviewed literature, the word "evolution" often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for "evolution" some other word – "Buddhism," "Aztec cosmology," or even "creationism." I found that the substitution never touched the paper's core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.,,, Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology." Philip S. Skell - (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. - Why Do We Invoke Darwin? - 2005 "In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all." Marc Kirschner, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005 "While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.” A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to "Evolutionary Processes" - (2000).
In fact, in so far as scientists have followed the predictions of Darwin's theory, the predictions of Darwin's theory have led scientists seriously astray. Two prime examples of this misdirection, given to scientists by the false predictions of Darwin's theory, are Junk DNA and Vestigial Organs.
Matheson's Intron Fairy Tale - Richard Sternberg - June 2010 Excerpt: The failure to recognize the importance of introns "may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology." --John Mattick, Molecular biologist, University of Queensland, quoted in Scientific American,,, So let's do the math. At least ninety percent of gene transcripts undergo alternative splicing, and there are at least 190,000 introns in the human genome. That means we have at least 0.90 x 190,000 = 171,000 introns that participate in the alternative-splicing pathway(s) available to a cell. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/06/mathesons_intron_fairy_tale035301.html Human Genome “Infinitely More Complex” Than Expected - April 2010 Excerpt: Hayden acknowledged that the “junk DNA” paradigm has been blown to smithereens. “Just one decade of post-genome biology has exploded that view,” she said,,,, Network theory is now a new paradigm that has replaced the one-way linear diagram of gene to RNA to protein. That used to be called the “Central Dogma” of genetics. Now, everything is seen to be dynamic, with promoters and blockers and interactomes, feedback loops, feed-forward processes, and “bafflingly complex signal-transduction pathways.” http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201004.htm#20100405a “There are, according to Wiedersheim, no less than 180 vestigial structures in the human body, sufficient to make of a man a veritable walking museum of antiquities.” -evidence submitted to the Scopes trial Vestigial Organs: Comparing ID and Darwinian Approaches - July 20, 2012 Excerpt: A favorite criticisms of ID is that it is a science stopper. The opposite is true. The Live Science article shows that the "vestigial organs" argument has not changed for over a century, since Wiedersheim coined the term and listed over a hundred examples (in 1893). Evolutionary theory, in fact, has been worse than a science stopper: its predictions have been flat out wrong. Only a handful of alleged vestigial organs remains from Wiedersheim's original list, and each of those is questionable. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/vestigial_organ062281.html
In fact, as to the somewhat minor extent evolutionary predictions have influenced medical diagnostics, it has led to outright medical malpractice:
Evolution's "vestigial organ" argument debunked Excerpt: "The appendix, like the once 'vestigial' tonsils and adenoids, is a lymphoid organ (part of the body's immune system) which makes antibodies against infections in the digestive system. Believing it to be a useless evolutionary 'left over,' many surgeons once removed even the healthy appendix whenever they were in the abdominal cavity. Today, removal of a healthy appendix under most circumstances would be considered medical malpractice" (David Menton, Ph.D., "The Human Tail, and Other Tales of Evolution," St. Louis MetroVoice , January 1994, Vol. 4, No. 1). "Doctors once thought tonsils were simply useless evolutionary leftovers and took them out thinking that it could do no harm. Today there is considerable evidence that there are more troubles in the upper respiratory tract after tonsil removal than before, and doctors generally agree that simple enlargement of tonsils is hardly an indication for surgery" (J.D. Ratcliff, Your Body and How it Works, 1975, p. 137). The tailbone, properly known as the coccyx, is another supposed example of a vestigial structure that has been found to have a valuable function—especially regarding the ability to sit comfortably. Many people who have had this bone removed have great difficulty sitting. http://www.ucg.org/science/god-science-and-bible-evolutions-vestigial-organ-argument-debunked/
Cornelius Hunter has a much more comprehensive list of the false predictions generated by Darwin's theory. Dr. Hunter has compiled a list of most of the major false predictions generated by evolutionary theory. False predictions that are fundamental to evolutionary theory, i.e. go to the ‘core’ of the theory, and falsify it from the inside out as it were.
Darwin's (failed) Predictions - Cornelius G. Hunter - 2015 This paper evaluates 23 fundamental (false) predictions of evolutionary theory from a wide range of different categories. The paper begins with a brief introduction to the nature of scientific predictions, and typical concerns evolutionists raise against investigating predictions of evolution. The paper next presents the individual predictions in seven categories: early evolution, evolutionary causes, molecular evolution, common descent, evolutionary phylogenies, evolutionary pathways, and behavior. Finally the conclusion summarizes these various predictions, their implications for evolution’s capacity to explain phenomena, and how they bear on evolutionist’s claims about their theory. *Introduction Why investigate evolution’s false predictions? Responses to common objections *Early evolution predictions The DNA code is not unique The cell’s fundamental molecules are universal *Evolutionary causes predictions Mutations are not adaptive Embryology and common descent Competition is greatest between neighbors *Molecular evolution predictions Protein evolution Histone proteins cannot tolerate much change The molecular clock keeps evolutionary time *Common descent predictions The pentadactyl pattern and common descent Serological tests reveal evolutionary relationships Biology is not lineage specific Similar species share similar genes MicroRNA *Evolutionary phylogenies predictions Genomic features are not sporadically distributed Gene and host phylogenies are congruent Gene phylogenies are congruent The species should form an evolutionary tree *Evolutionary pathways predictions Complex structures evolved from simpler structures Structures do not evolve before there is a need for them Functionally unconstrained DNA is not conserved Nature does not make leaps *Behavior Altruism Cell death *Conclusions What false predictions tell us about evolution https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/home Why investigate evolution’s false predictions? Excerpt: The predictions examined in this paper were selected according to several criteria. They cover a wide spectrum of evolutionary theory and are fundamental to the theory, reflecting major tenets of evolutionary thought. They were widely held by the consensus rather than reflecting one viewpoint of several competing viewpoints. Each prediction was a natural and fundamental expectation of the theory of evolution, and constituted mainstream evolutionary science. Furthermore, the selected predictions are not vague but rather are specific and can be objectively evaluated. They have been tested and evaluated and the outcome is not controversial or in question. And finally the predictions have implications for evolution’s (in)capacity to explain phenomena, as discussed in the conclusions. https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/why-investigate-evolution-s-false-predictions
bornagain77_{December 7, 2016
December
12
Dec
7
07
2016
04:46 AM
4
04
46
AM
PST}

Matspirit- I asked a couple of simple questions at 44 but you did not answer them so here is another simple question.You say free will is you doing what you want, who is the you, you are talking about , are you saying there is more than just the chemicals and neurons in your brain , is there something outside these which controls them?.Marfin_{December 6, 2016
December
12
Dec
6
06
2016
11:23 PM
11
11
23
PM
PST}

MatSpirit @63: "I’m not particularly trying to convert anybody, but I do feel a moral obligation to tell you..." My step-son grew out religious. Yet very smart. Yet religious. I don’t know why. I thought it would be a simple matter of talking to him and showing him all the logical fallacies of it. Took me a few hours to admit that I have failed. There is just something in his brain which is short-circuited if you will, and at certain points my logic simply breaks down for him. Ok, not to offend the apparent vocal majority here, I am sure that from his perspective it is something in my brain which is short-circuited. This is not the point. The point is that it is futile to convert, to prove or to even explain much across this mental boundary. At the same time it is kind of a strange idea to come to this place and then use evolution as an argument for anything. My understanding is that at the very least one is expected to be humble here and acknowledge that macro-evolution as described would be a very unlikely phenomenon… I am purposefully not addressing any statements from the vocal majority (such as the one about torturing infants for personal pleasure as a proof of morality) exactly because of being well aware that the logic would likely fail to help here anyway.Eugene_{December 6, 2016
December
12
Dec
6
06
2016
10:48 PM
10
10
48
PM
PST}

1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply