Culture Darwinism Intelligent Design Racism

Few want to hear this but … Darwinism made racism science

Spread the love

A retired surgeon offers some thoughts about John West’s Darwin Day in America (2014, second edition):

At first glance, it might seem that whether we believe in evolution as a purely material, unguided process should make no difference to values or morality. Yet, in his 2007 book Darwin Day in America: How Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science, Discovery Institute’s John West looks at the question more deeply and shows otherwise. In a nearly encyclopedic manner, he documents the numerous impacts Darwinism has had in the public square. It has had a distinctively destructive effect on our society. Dr. West provides a plethora of examples in each chapter of how Darwinism has changed the courts, the schools, the medical establishment, the conduct of the scientific community, and, indeed, the man on the street.

A War of Worldviews

As the book shows, Darwinism is a Weltanschauung at war with the Judeo-Christian theistic system on which Western civilization and scientific inquiry are based. Many of Dr. West’s examples were unknown to me, and will be news to many other readers. In a skillful and scholarly fashion, he unearths the contest between faith and “science,” while providing references for any claims that he makes. The book is divided into sections, with each oriented around a specific theme. I’ll be as brief as possible in this two-part review.

Kenneth Feucht, “Darwinism and the “So What?” Question: John West’s Darwin Day in America” at Evolution News and Science Today (March 25, 2022)

See, some of us go well back into the 1950s. Darwinism was conveyed in the culture in a way that reinforced racism (like, there were three human “races,” did you know?). As it happened, most of us had little contact with the other two.

For reasons familiar to anyone who follows human psychology, our group was supposed to be the smartest. We were told to be nice to the others anyway. They couldn’t help their stupidity, nor could we.

That was the view smart people had. Stupid Fundamentalists, by contrast, still believed in Adam and Eve…

Most of the legal issues around “race” that we addressed in those days were complicated by Indigenous status or women’s rights (or lack thereof), which is not the same thing as “race.” It was a legal issue in Canada who was or wasn’t entitled to be considered a “registered” Indigenous person and what benefits that such a status did or did not confer. It really didn’t affect our overall assumptions about “race” in general. The implicit assumptions around such ideas were conveyed in the culture.

133 Replies to “Few want to hear this but … Darwinism made racism science

  1. 1
    Seversky says:

    Few Want To Hear This But … Darwinism Made Racism Science

    No, it didn’t.

    What is it with surgeons and “Darwinism”? Maybe we need an update of the Salem Hypothesis to include them.

  2. 2
    polistra says:

    The eugenics types were running rampant everywhere in the 1920s, and took over completely in Germany. Their version of Darwin was just one of their icons. They could have done equally well without citing Darwin. Focusing on Darwin helps to remove the blame from the wealthy and powerful monsters who were driving the movement.

  3. 3
    Silver Asiatic says:

    he documents the numerous impacts Darwinism has had in the public square. It has had a distinctively destructive effect on our society. Dr. West provides a plethora of examples in each chapter of how Darwinism has changed the courts, the schools, the medical establishment, the conduct of the scientific community, and, indeed, the man on the street.

    The destructive effects are very wide-ranging and it’s remarkable how little analysis and writing is done on this. I think the vast majority of Christians never identify Darwin at the root of the anti-Christian ideology that they are aware of. In academia, Darwin is sacred so nobody dares to go against him.

    Darwinism is a Weltanschauung at war with the Judeo-Christian theistic system on which Western civilization and scientific inquiry are based

    The war against theism was part of the plan from the beginning. It was more subtle in Darwin’s time, but it became more overt with Darwinian disciples like Herbert Spencer, J.S. Mill and Thomas Huxley. Richard Dawkins inherited that anti-Christian movement and tries to advance it.

    We were told to be nice to the others anyway. They couldn’t help their stupidity, nor could we.
    That was the view smart people had. Stupid Fundamentalists, by contrast, still believed in Adam and Eve…

    Exactly. The naive and stupid public could be tolerated and manipulated eventually. But the fundamentalists were evil and had to be attacked.
    Racism is just a variation of “we’re the smart ones”, which is what the scientific elite remains today.

  4. 4
    asauber says:

    “ABOUT DARWIN DAY
    International Darwin Day on February 12th will inspire people throughout the globe to reflect and act on the principles of intellectual bravery, perpetual curiosity, scientific thinking, and hunger for truth as embodied in Charles Darwin. It will be a day of celebration, activism, and international cooperation for the advancement of science, education, and human well-being.

    Local and state governments will close in commemoration of the Day, and organizations and businesses will celebrate by engaging in community outreach centered around science as a tool for the betterment of humanity.

    Darwin Day will be observed by the United Nations and its members as an opportunity for international partnerships through the common language of science for the common good of all.

    The mission of International Darwin Day is to inspire people throughout the globe to reflect and act on the principles of intellectual bravery, perpetual curiosity, scientific thinking, and hunger for truth as embodied in Charles Darwin.”

    https://darwinday.org/

    Sev,

    What is it with governments, organizations, businesses, activists, the UN, and “Darwinism”?

    What the h*ll has one to do with the other?

    Andrew

    SA described Darwin as a mythological figure. The above is a clear illustration of that he is. He’s a materialist demi-god, evidently. It’s really all quite bizarre.

  5. 5
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Andrew

    The above is a clear illustration of that he is. He’s a materialist demi-god, evidently. It’s really all quite bizarre.

    I just browsed that site – yes, it’s bizarre and truly amazing.

  6. 6
    KRock says:

    I’ll have to order West’s book off Amazon before the alt-left deem it to be a form of hate speech.

    Weikart’s new book is a must purchase as well.

  7. 7
    DATCG says:

    Yes it did…
    “Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of (Darwin’s)evolutionary theory” Ontogeny and Phylogeny, 1977
    Stephen Gould
    ( ) insert mine

    Darwin on races and savages…
    “Civilized races can certainly resist changes of all kinds far better than savages; …”

    Really? did Michael Jordan, Obama, Oprah, Chris Rock “evolve” quickly from “savages?”
    What would Darwin say today about resisting “changes of all kinds” by “savages” today?

    He literally made stuff up. Which defines Darwinism to this day.

  8. 8
    CalvinsBulldog says:

    Quote: “No, it didn’t. What is it with surgeons and “Darwinism”? Maybe we need an update of the Salem Hypothesis to include them.”

    This is a truly mind-boggling assertion to anyone who is familiar with the history of racism. It is certainly a history that is very familiar to our African friends who learn in their colleges about the role of Darwinism on the colonial project and justifications for racial segregation. Even the concept of “race” itself is one that has been long jettisoned by biologists since it is simply a groundless idea.

    Racism did exist before Darwin, but Darwinism was nonetheless an instrumental development in the emergence of “scientific racism” since it baptised it with an allegedly biological justification.

    To deny Darwinism’s application to various racial projects around the world is simply monumental ignorance. It can be very bold ignorance and make strong, edgy declarative statements, but it is ignorance nonetheless.

  9. 9
    Seversky says:

    As has been rightly pointed out, racism existed long before Darwin published his theory.

    The atrocities inflicted on indigenous peoples around the world were perpetrated by agents of colonial powers who considered themselves good Christians. The boarding schools, which the children of the indigenous peoples of North America were forced to attend, are but one example. On that basis, we could just as easily – and just as incorrectly – blame Christianity for what was done.

    If we actually want to end racism, the first step is to stop blaming other people or cultures or scientific theories and accept that it is a human problem. The seeds of it at least are in all of us and we will have to make a positive effort to curb those instincts.

    Darwin was inescapably a man of his time as we all are. He shared at least some of the prejudices of his generation concerning women and racism but he was very far from being the worst and certainly not the only one to think in those terms. If you read on from the passage from Ontogeny and Phylogeny quoted above you will see that Gould discusses many others from that period who held what we would now regard as racist views.

    We should also be aware that to attack the theory of evolution on the grounds that it was enlisted by racists to support their agendas is to commit the logical fallacy of argumentum ad consequentiam or appeal to consequences. It says nothing about the scientific merits of the theory.

  10. 10
    Querius says:

    Seversky @9,

    As has been rightly pointed out, racism existed long before Darwin published his theory.

    Yep, but Darwin gave racism scientific respectability.

    -Q

  11. 11
    JHolo says:

    Maybe we should ask the indigenous peoples throughout the globe what had the most racist influence in their lives, Darwin or the Church.

  12. 12
    BobRyan says:

    Darwin did not think highly of anyone who was not like him, both white and male. Some writers separate themselves from their work, but Darwin never did. It was his own personal beliefs that he wrote about. Anyone who embraces Darwin must embrace the foundation of who he was.

  13. 13
    CalvinsBulldog says:

    [Quote]
    “The atrocities inflicted on indigenous peoples around the world were perpetrated by agents of colonial powers who considered themselves good Christians. The boarding schools, which the children of the indigenous peoples of North America were forced to attend, are but one example. On that basis, we could just as easily – and just as incorrectly – blame Christianity for what was done.”

    [My response]:
    These are not analogous things at all. You cannot have it both ways. If it is proper to speak of Darwinism as a science, then it is neutral and therefore open to multiple applications. You cannot speak of Darwinism as a scientific theory and at the same time treat it as a philosophy that could be properly or improperly applied.

    A body of philosophy or religious teachings can – in many cases – be improperly applied, especially when there is a dogmatic component that describes how they should be observed. This is so with Christian beliefs which categorically rule out even the possibility of abuse or degradation of others. To be a good Christian means to adhere to Christian teachings, not to function in violation of them.

    On the other hand, Darwinian principles are not a philosophy with a dogmatic administration. Hence the use of Darwinism as a key component in scientific racism is simply unchallengeable fact. To use one example, the furtherance of Darwinian science was directly responsible, for example, in the European trophy hunting for skeletons of indigenous people around the world.

    I’ve included a link below to an article in the Guardian about this particularly abhorrent trade. The author points out: “Medical schools, still under the spell of Darwinism, wanted full corpses and skeletons to compare with the Anglo Saxon dead, so they might reinforce the fallacious orthodoxy that each race represented a distinct evolutionary phase.”

    Any effort to deny this is both an effort to turn Darwinism into a philosophy (or a tacit acknowledgement that Darwinism is a sort of religious concept), or a demonstration of pig-ignorance of the relevant historiography. I studied Darwinism at a secular university as an undergraduate in history. We spent considerable time on Darwinism’s relationship with racism. You can find a superfluity of scholarly papers on any reputable academic database that document the application and interpretation of Darwinism in relation to race.

    Incidentally, I currently study at a seminary in South Africa. Christianity is in a phase of rapidly expansion in Africa to such a degree the global south is likely to become the epicentre of Christianity in the future, far exceeding the weight of the global north. Clearly Africans themselves are able to distinguish between colonisers misusing Christianity, and Christianity itself.

    [Quote]: “If we actually want to end racism, the first step is to stop blaming other people or cultures or scientific theories and accept that it is a human problem. The seeds of it at least are in all of us and we will have to make a positive effort to curb those instincts.”

    [My response]:
    That’s a very convenient plea for a Darwinist who doesn’t want to confront\reflect upon the dark side of the theory that formulates his worldview.

    Nobody denies that racism is an inherent problem in humankind and has existed in various guises long before Darwinism, however Darwinism and its principle of higher and lower states of evolution and its concept of descent and racial divergence has been a significant idea in the history of racism.

    It’s wonderful to want to sing kumbaya around the campfire of humanity at the dawn of the 21st century, but there can be no progress against dehumanising ideas without the intellectually honest acknowledgement of what has powered them in the past, or how Darwin’s principles have been applied in fomenting racism even within the scientific establishment.

    [Quote]: “Darwin was inescapably a man of his time as we all are. He shared at least some of the prejudices of his generation concerning women and racism but he was very far from being the worst and certainly not the only one to think in those terms. If you read on from the passage from Ontogeny and Phylogeny quoted above you will see that Gould discusses many others from that period who held what we would now regard as racist views.”

    [My response]:
    This is merely a truism. Of course, people are products of their time but that does not mean significant ideas do not perpetuate bad effects long into the future. Living in denial of that reality is how racism continues in obscure forms and in hidden systemic biases.

    Darwinism is an idea that has revolutionised nearly every aspect of human thought. It has bled over into political and social philosophy to aid racist objectives for nearly a hundred years. It has formed a key foundation for some of the grossest racial projects in human history, including the Holocaust.

    I find it sad that Darwinists come out battling to defend this theory using exactly the arguments religious people often employ – there are “good Darwinists and bad Darwinists”; they’re just “people of their time” etc. – albeit Darwinists do so with far less credibility and consistency.

    Your earlier language indicates that you have no problem holding Christianity to account for the actions of colonisers. Yet Darwinism gets this elaborate sanitising defence even though it is supposed to be a neutral scientific theory and not a philosophy or a religion.

    Darwinists often like to pretend that Darwinism was “incorrectly applied” by murderous racial regimes. Nearly “every defence of Darwinism” I have ever read on this subject has been mere polemic void of any meaningful argument. This is because it is transparent that Darwinism is readily applied to racial projects. There is some evidence that Darwin himself thought in these terms about other races, and certainly Darwinin scientists of the past (lacking the enlightenment of contemporary hindsight) evidently thought various forms of scientific racism were valid applications of the theory.

    It’s quite easy to say, “Well, that’s the past. People of their time and all that”, but I’ll bet London to a brick you don’t apply that standard consistently to theories, religions, philosophies or ideologies with which you disagree. Moreover, the fact Darwinism is treated by its adherents like religion, in need of historical protectionism and even historical revisionism, with a dogmatic declaration of “proper and improper” applications, demonstrates that Darwinism *is* a religion.

    [Quote]: We should also be aware that to attack the theory of evolution on the grounds that it was enlisted by racists to support their agendas is to commit the logical fallacy of argumentum ad consequentiam or appeal to consequences. It says nothing about the scientific merits of the theory.

    [My response]:
    If you are going to appeal to rhetorical fallacies, at least make sure you understand the fallacy to which you appeal. Nobody is arguing that Darwinism is false because it led to racial consequences. Nobody here has made that claim. The charge that there are insurmountable problems with Darwinism are derived upon other grounds.

    Neither is it fallacious to point out that Darwinism has formed an important element in racist politics and activities in the past. To argue such a humdrum observation (and one widely accepted within 19th century historiography) commits an appeal to consequences would obviously make it impossible to draw *any* observation from history or formulate *any* logical theses that describe outcomes. This is a self-evident misapplication of an informal fallacy.

    Citation mentioned above:
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/14/aboriginal-bones-being-returned-australia

  14. 14
    jerry says:

    We should also be aware that to attack the theory of evolution on the grounds that it was enlisted by racists to support their agendas is to commit the logical fallacy of argumentum ad consequentiam or appeal to consequences. It says nothing about the scientific merits of the theory

    When have you ever provided the scientific merits?

    Does Seversky not find it ironic that he has never defended Darwinian processes in Evolution other to occasionally assert them. When pressed, he deflects to religion but not to science.

    Here he uses an appeal to logic. How about

    P=> Q

    But also

    Not Q => not P

    Where P= Darwinian processes and Q= examples/fossils.

  15. 15
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Seversky

    Darwin was inescapably a man of his time as we all are. He shared at least some of the prejudices of his generation concerning women and racism but he was very far from being the worst and certainly not the only one to think in those terms.

    Statues of people who were less racist than Darwin are being torn down and their good-names are abolished from education. They are considered evil.
    So what does that tell us about the people who are working to have “Darwin Day” as an international holiday, or the people who wear Darwin T-Shirts as a sign of their progressivism?

  16. 16
    chuckdarwin says:

    Intractable problems re racism aside, one thing holds, Fundamentalists, stupid or not, still believe in Adam and Eve….

  17. 17
    Seversky says:

    Would you Adam-and-Eve it?

  18. 18
    jerry says:

    Fundamentalists, stupid or not, still believe in Adam and Eve

    Still batting zero!

    There is no reason to not believe in Adam and Eve.

  19. 19
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Orthodox Jews still believe in Adam and Eve and we know how stupid and evil they are.
    Maybe someone could suggest a way of getting rid of them? Somebody who was influenced by Mr. Darwin and his belief in the supremacy of certain races?
    At the very least, it’s a good idea to ridicule Jews because of their stupid religion – isn’t that true progressive leftists? A little religious hatred won’t hurt anyone.

  20. 20
    JHolo says:

    ;SA: Statues of people who were less racist than Darwin are being torn down and their good-names are abolished from education. They are considered evil.

    I have no problem with removing statues of confederate generals. We don’t see any statues commemorating German WWII generals. That doesn’t mean that they are not taught in schools, they are just not commemorated. Confederate leaders were on the wrong side of history. And many of these statues were erected long after the civil war.

    There is no fear of the history of the civil war being erased. All that is happening is that we are no longer comfortable with commemorating those responsible for trying to maintain slavery.

  21. 21
    ram says:

    Jerry: There is no reason to not believe in Adam and Eve.

    Just like there’s no reason not to believe in talking snakes.

    –RAM

  22. 22
    Sandy says:

    Darwinism is a hoax . Imbelievable as it is , Darwin himself wrote about the fatal issues of darwinism IN HIS OWN BOOKS. 😆

  23. 23
    Querius says:

    JHolo @11,

    Maybe we should ask the indigenous peoples throughout the globe what had the most racist influence in their lives, Darwin or the Church.

    If you haven’t seen it already . . . the movie, The Mission, describes the difference between the state-sanctioned church in Portugal compared to the state-sanctioned church in Spain.
    https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091530/
    Also compare the state-sanctioned church with the radical teachings of the apostle Paul in his letter to believers in Galatia (Turkey) within the context of the rabidly ethnocentric, socioeconomically stratified, and pervasively misogynistic Greco-Roman and Jewish cultures of that time:

    Galatians 3:27-28 . . .
    . . . for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (NIV translation)

    Chuckdarwin @16,

    Intractable problems re racism aside, one thing holds, Fundamentalists, stupid or not, still believe in Adam and Eve….

    Racism is only intractable for people who don’t really believe that God created all humans as equals. Certainly eugenicists don’t believe this. So, now you no longer believe in a mitochondrial Eve or a Y-chromosomal Adam?

    -Q

  24. 24
    Querius says:

    Ram @21,

    Just like there’s no reason not to believe in talking snakes.

    So apparently you cannot bring yourself to believe in the possibility of non-human sentient beings?

    For example, corvids may actually be smarter than most primates. And yet you’ve found the possibility of reptilian sentience absurd while believing that the avian and reptilian classes are closely related?

    And what does Torah actually assert?

    That there once was a kind of now-extinct animals, male and female, then called “serpent” that apparently once had legs and was sentient. Perhaps serpent might have been jealous that some stupid and gullible primates should be responsible for the ecological care of the earth (I think that I appreciate why serpent might have thought so, especially now) . . .

    -Q

  25. 25
  26. 26
    asauber says:

    “Maybe we should ask the indigenous peoples throughout the globe what had the most racist influence in their lives, Darwin or the Church.”

    Maybe we should ask them who has influenced assistance with food, clothing, shelter, education, comfort, etc., and yes, spiritual direction… the Church or Darwin?

    Andrew

  27. 27
    chuckdarwin says:

    When I was in the Peace Corps in Eswatini in the mid 70s, I’d get this question over and over: How come it is that when the white man came we had the land and he had the Bible and now he has the land and we have the Bible?

  28. 28
    Sandy says:

    Atheists talking about morality it’s like watching a comedy. The funniest part is they don’t even realize the irony.

  29. 29
    asauber says:

    “When I was in the Peace Corps in Eswatini in the mid 70s”

    CD,

    Sure you were in the Peace Corps in Eswatini in the mid 70’s… and maybe you just daydreamed you were in the Peace Corps in Eswatini in the mid 70’s… maybe you just made it all up just now.

    Andrew

  30. 30
    Querius says:

    Chuckdarwin @25,
    Funny, but most geneticists recognize the value of clades in tracing ancestry, lineages, migrations, and extinctions.
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100817122405.htm

    The most robust statistical examination to date of our species’ genetic links to “mitochondrial Eve” — the maternal ancestor of all living humans — confirms that she lived about 200,000 years ago. The study was based on a side-by-side comparison of 10 human genetic models that each aim to determine when Eve lived using a very different set of assumptions about the way humans migrated, expanded and spread across Earth.

    How did you come to the conclusion that all this is false and what have you theorized that explains successive variation in DNA?

    -Q

  31. 31
    Querius says:

    Asauber @29,
    The history of Eswatini, starting with the Nguni tribal migration from Central and East Africa under “the fighting kings” who seized the Eswatini land from the non-Bantu Khoe-san hunter-gatherers, their country’s founding by constitution in 1968, and their religious composition and history is fascinating –as is the history of the empires in the rest of Africa!

    Too bad that not many people have enriched their knowledge with this history, settling for anti-Christian smears instead.

    -Q

  32. 32
    Silver Asiatic says:

    when the white man came we had the land and he had the Bible and now he has the land and we have the Bible?

    Then the atheists and socialists came along and took away our Bibles … and put us in jail for even having them.

  33. 33
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Sandy

    It is a comedy indeed – but also a tragedy. Especially for the old boomers. Laughing at God all the way to the grave. Does the questions ever arise: “What if what Jesus said is true? What if the believers are right?”
    I hope so.

  34. 34
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Silver Asiatic
    It is a comedy indeed – but also a tragedy. Especially for the old boomers. Laughing at God all the way to the grave.

    “Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things [stumbling blocks, temptations]must come, but woe to the person through whom they come!”(Mathew 18)

    Darwinism (for sure)is one of the stumbling blocks Jesus talked about that they must come. Some will use such a stumbling block as a stepping stone to sky , others will be crushed by the same stumbling block. Depends on one’s positioning.

  35. 35
    chuckdarwin says:

    Querius @ 31

    Thanks for the “fascinating” Wiki-tour of Swaziland–someday I’ll have to visit….

  36. 36
    Seversky says:

    Silver Asiatic/32

    when the white man came we had the land and he had the Bible and now he has the land and we have the Bible?

    Then the atheists and socialists came along and took away our Bibles … and put us in jail for even having them.

    I’m sorry, I had no idea your Bible had been confiscated and you were posting from prison. You should have said something.

  37. 37
    Seversky says:

    Silver Asiatic/33

    It is a comedy indeed – but also a tragedy. Especially for the old boomers. Laughing at God all the way to the grave. Does the questions ever arise: “What if what Jesus said is true? What if the believers are right?”

    What I find ironic is when Christians say atheists have no basis for morality when their doctrine means that they are unable to work out for themselves what is moral or immoral, they have to wait for their God to tell them.

  38. 38
    Querius says:

    Seversky #37,

    What I find ironic is when Christians say atheists have no basis for morality when their doctrine means that they are unable to work out for themselves what is moral or immoral, they have to wait for their God to tell them.

    Actually, I think all people do have a morality (along with rationalizations). Their basis’ might differ, sometimes radically. This is what the Bible indicates as well. The problem is that we all fall short of even our own morality. The Bible addresses this problem in several places, but that’s a subject for a different forum.

    -Q

  39. 39
    ram says:

    Querius @24

    Good one. Hehe. That’s the funniest and stupidest thing I’ve seen on UD in a while.

    Thanks for the laff!

    –RAM

  40. 40
    Querius says:

    Chuckdarwin @35,

    Actually, I’ve read several books on African history in college, studied (ba)ganda music, the major African empires, some minor ones in West Africa, and the Hausa city states, but I did have to look up several sources for information about Eswatini, which I didn’t previously know about.

    Yes, I noticed that the Europeans did tend to buy land there at prices that were a “steal” from Nguni tribes . . . who previously had seized the land from the earlier non-Bantu Khoe-san hunter-gatherers, slaughtering entire villages in the process.

    I also noticed that you chose to evade my question regarding clades.

    -Q

  41. 41
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Seversky

    I’m sorry, I had no idea your Bible had been confiscated and you were posting from prison. You should have said something.

    I’m sorry you misunderstood. I was referring to the 100 million Christians being persecuted by atheists in China, North Korea, Cuba and North Vietnam. I know it’s easy to ignore them, but there were actually that many and more that have been forced to surrender Bibles and their very lives over the past 70 years of atheistic tyranny in the world.
    If you didn’t know that, I’m not surprised – and I’m glad for the opportunity to tell you about it.

  42. 42
    Querius says:

    All,

    Good one. Hehe. That’s the funniest and stupidest thing I’ve seen on UD in a while. Thanks for the laff!

    Notice that resorting to vacuous ad hominem attacks such as the one quoted reveals that they’ve lost the argument and have no cogent rebuttal.

    -Q

  43. 43
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Querius

    Notice that resorting to vacuous ad hominem attacks such as the one quoted reveals that they’ve lost the argument and have no cogent rebuttal.

    I always look for that signal. Once the insults begin, we know they have nothing to say for themselves and we can just hope they can reflect on it some time later and let the point sink in.

  44. 44
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Seversky

    What I find ironic is when Christians say atheists have no basis for morality when their doctrine means that they are unable to work out for themselves what is moral or immoral, they have to wait for their God to tell them.

    That not only does not seem ironic (it would be ironic if Christians also had no basis for morality) but it’s incorrect. I’m sure you’ve seen the debates here on the objective moral law – which requires an effort to apply general morals to specifics and work out what is the best solution. But even if it was true that Christian doctrine said that you have to wait for God to tell you (which you’ve claimed incorrectly), then that would be a basis for morality, and it’s hard to imagine a better standard than having the creator of the moral law, the universe and human life telling you what is the best action to take and what should be avoided.
    If God directly spoke to you and told you what to do, I think you would appreciate that moment very greatly.

  45. 45
    ram says:

    Querius: ad hominem

    Evidently you don’t know what that term means.

    –RAM

  46. 46
    ram says:

    SA: Once the insults begin

    Some things are worthy of mockery. His post was worthy. [Shrug.] I’m not proposing anyone run him over with a car, or anything. Lighten up.

    –RAM

  47. 47
    Querius says:

    Silver Asiatic @43,

    It’s over by an admission of defeat through insults and ad hominem mockery, attacking the person rather than addressing the points of the position.

    And now, we’re simply witnessing the equivalent in a debate of the flailing legs of a dying insect on its back.

    . . . we can just hope they can reflect on it some time later and let the point sink in

    Yes, I agree. They’re my sympathies as well.

    -Q

  48. 48
    kairosfocus says:

    Sev, 37:

    What I find ironic is when Christians say atheists have no basis for morality when their doctrine means that they are unable to work out for themselves what is moral or immoral, they have to wait for their God to tell them

    Pardon, but what part of the following endorsement of intelligible core conscience guarded moral principles, from a foundational work for Christian thought and theology is particularly hard to understand?

    Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them . . . . 13: 8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong [–> or, harm] to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

    Yes, there is a struggle but core principles are branch on which we all sit, first principles. You may be disinclined to listen to Cicero et al, or to Paul [thought leader of the Christian synthesis that transformed Greco-Roman culture into Western civilisation by bringing to bear the Judaeo-Christian heritage of Jerusalem] et al, but the historical fact is, this decisively shaped advancement of civilisation. But then Project 1619 shows cynical intent to rewrite history on crooked yardstick, distorted facts and principles. The spirit of accusation is not a sound basis for responsible, rational freedom.

    Let us refresh, structuring Cicero, regarding, branch on which we all sit, first principle, so self evident first duties:

    1st – to truth,
    2nd – to right reason,
    3rd – to prudence [including warrant],
    4th – to sound conscience,
    5th – to neighbour; so also,
    6th – to fairness and
    7th – to justice
    [ . . .]
    xth – etc.

    That etc has to do with how civilisation was built, with particular focus on the jurisprudential and governmental thought behind major reformations and transformations. Things, that entrenched lawfulness, legitimacy, rights protection through the civil peace of justice – due balance of rights, freedoms and duties, etc.

    I find it sadly revealing that despite repeatedly showing that even objectors cannot but imply these duties, and despite the bristling reaction to showing that evolutionary materialistic scientism and fellow travellers lack world root level bridges from is to ought, such self evident principles are not embraced but are marginalised. Why, it’s as though such are forced to cling to absurdities. Which is exactly where insistent resistance to the self evident leads to.

    The continual attempt to marginalise Christians as ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked, fails.

    Do you want me to go on to a mirror principle, confession by projection analysis, or further exposure of willful ignorance [you have been present when these have been discussed many times]?

    Let me just pause to observe that one has to be careful in targetting Christians as that for obvious reasons connected to “Jerusalem,” in Jerusalem, Athens and Rome, is often implicitly antisemitic. Here is the principal Biblical sources on duty of neighbour love, from Moshe and Yeshua, which Paul based his thought on:

    MOSHE:

    Lev 19: 9 “When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up to its edge, neither shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest. 10 And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the LORD your God.

    11 “You shall not steal; you shall not deal falsely; you shall not lie to one another. 12 You shall not swear by my name falsely [–> abuse of oath through perjury], and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD.

    13 “You shall not oppress your neighbor or rob him. The wages of a hired worker shall not remain with you all night until the morning. [–> delaying right and justice] 14 You shall not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block before the blind [–> taking advantage of weakness or disability], but you shall fear your God: I am the LORD.

    15 “You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.

    16 You shall not go around as a slanderer among your people, and you shall not stand up against the life1 of your neighbor [–> false witness]: I am the LORD.

    17 “You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him.

    18 You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD. [–> see the context of this summary, giving yardstick examples?]

    YESHUA:

    Matt 7: 12 “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets . . . . 22: 34 But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

    Say this after me, three times, to rivet in mind: Christian, gospel ethics is inextricably Hebraic and contempt to Christians and the Christian scriptures is contempt to Jews also.

    I trust this will not have to be repeated.

    KF

  49. 49
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: A few exhibits:

    JUSTINIAN’s INSTITUTES (being, part of Corpus Juris Civilis, the built in textbook of law):

    https://www.gutenberg.org/files/5983/5983-h/5983-h.htm

    >> In the name of Our Lord, Jesus Christ.

    The Emperor Caesar Flavius Justinian, conqueror of the Alamanni, the Goths, the Franks, the Germans, the Antes, the Alani, the Vandals, the Africans, pious, prosperous, renowned, victorious, and triumphant, ever august,

    To the youth desirous of studying the law:

    The imperial majesty should be armed with laws as well as glorified with arms, that there may be good government in times both of war and of peace, and the ruler of Rome may not only be victorious over his enemies, but may show himself as scrupulously regardful of justice as triumphant over his conquered foes.

    With deepest application and forethought, and by the blessing of God, we have attained both of these objects. The barbarian nations which we have subjugated know our valour, Africa and other provinces without number being once more, after so long an interval, reduced beneath the sway of Rome by victories granted by Heaven, and themselves bearing witness to our dominion. All peoples too are ruled by laws which we have either enacted or arranged. Having removed every inconsistency from the sacred constitutions, hitherto inharmonious and confused, we extended our care to the immense volumes of the older jurisprudence; and, like sailors crossing the mid-ocean, by the favour of Heaven have now completed a work of which we once despaired. When this, with God’s blessing, had been done, we called together that distinguished man Tribonian, master and exquaestor of our sacred palace, and the illustrious Theophilus and Dorotheus, professors of law, [–> jurisconsults] of whose ability, legal knowledge, and trusty observance of our orders we have received many and genuine proofs, and especially commissioned them to compose by our authority and advice a book of Institutes, whereby you may be enabled to learn your first lessons in law no longer from ancient fables, but to grasp them by the brilliant light of imperial learning, and that your ears and minds may receive nothing useless or incorrect, but only what holds good in actual fact . . . .

    Justice is the set and constant purpose which gives to every man his due.

    1 Jurisprudence is the knowledge of things divine and human, the science of the just and the unjust.

    2 Having laid down these general definitions, and our object being the exposition of the law of the Roman people, we think that the most advantageous plan will be to commence with an easy and simple path, and then to proceed to details with a most careful and scrupulous exactness of interpretation. Otherwise, if we begin by burdening the student’s memory, as yet weak and untrained, with a multitude and variety of matters, one of two things will happen: either we shall cause him wholly to desert the study of law, or else we shall bring him at last, after great labour, and often, too, distrustful of his own powers (the commonest cause, among the young, of ill-success), to a point which he might have reached earlier, without such labour and confident in himself, had he been led along a smoother path.

    3 The precepts of the law are these: to live honestly, to injure no one, and to give every man his due . . . .

    1 The law of nature is that which she has taught all animals; a law not peculiar to the human race, but shared by all living creatures, whether denizens of the air, the dry land, or the sea. Hence comes the union of male and female, which we call marriage; hence the procreation and rearing of children, for this is a law by the knowledge of which we see even the lower animals are distinguished. The civil law of Rome, and the law of all nations, differ from each other thus. The laws of every people governed by statutes and customs are partly peculiar to itself, partly common to all mankind. Those rules which a state enacts for its own members are peculiar to itself, and are called civil law: those rules prescribed by natural reason for all men are observed by all peoples alike, and are called the law of nations. Thus the laws of the Roman people are partly peculiar to itself, partly common to all nations . . . .

    11 But the laws of nature, which are observed by all nations alike, are established, as it were, by divine providence, and remain ever fixed and immutable [–> rooted in our intelligible order of being as responsible, rational creatures]: but the municipal laws of each individual state are subject to frequent change, either by the tacit consent of the people, or by the subsequent enactment of another statute. >>

    ALFRED, BOOK OF DOOMS (foundational to British common law):

    https://uncommondescent.com/courts/going-to-the-roots-of-lawfulness-and-justice-by-way-of-king-alfreds-book-of-dooms/

    >>The Lord was speaking these words to Moyse [= Moses], [–> Yes, literally the opening words on record of the Common Law tradition as a continuous framework] and thus quoth;

    I am the Lord thine God. I led thee out of the Egyptians’ lands, and of their bondage [–> slavery].

    1. Love thou not other strange gods ever me.
    2. Call not thou mine name in idleness, for that thou art not guiltless with me, if thou in idleness callest mine name.
    3. Mind that thou hallow the rest-day. Work you six days, and on the seventh rest you. For that in six days Christ wrought heavens and earth, seas, and all shapen things that in them are, and rested him on the seventh day: and for that the Lord hallowed it.
    4. Honour thine father and thine mother that the Lord gave thee : that thou be the longer living on earth.
    5. Slay thou not.
    6?. Commit thou not adultery.
    7. Steal thou not .
    8. Say thou not leasing witness.
    9. Wish not thou thy neighbour’s goods with untight.
    10. Work thou not to thyself golden gods or silvern. [–> scan not guaranteed 100%, note, the Decalogue from Exodus 20]

    11. These are the dooms that thou shalt set them . . . .

    49. These are dooms that the Almighty God himself was speaking to Moses, and bade him to hold, and, since the Lord’s onebegotten son, our God, that is, healing Christ, on middle earth came [–> “In the year of our Lord . . .” and now you know where “middle earth” comes from], he quoth that he came not these biddings to break nor to forbid, but with all good to eke them, and mild-heartedness and lowly-mindedness to learn [ –> teach, Alfred here alludes to and enfolds in the foundations, the Sermon on the Mount of Matt 5 – 7]. Then after his throes [sufferings], ere that his apostles were gone through all the earth to learn [teach], and then yet that they were together, many heathen nations they turned to God. While they all together were, they send erranddoers to Antioch and to Syria, Christ’s law to learn [teach]. When they understood that it speeded them not, then sent they an errand-writing to them. This is then that errand-writing that the apostles sent to Antioch, and to Syria, and to Cilicia, that are now from heathen nations turned to Christ . . . [quotes Ac 15] >>

    MAGNA CARTA, 1215, being famous,

    >> + (39) No free man

    [–> recognition of freedom, the further question is, who shall be free]

    shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions

    [–> recognition of rights including property],

    or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him

    [–> policing power & the sword of state subordinated to justice],

    or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals

    [ –> peers, i.e. trial by jury of peers]

    or by the law of the land

    [–> rule of law, not decree of tyrant or oligarch].

    + (40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.

    [–> integrity, lawfulness and legitimacy of government rooted in the priority of right and justice]>>

    DUTCH DOI, 1581, against Philip II of Spain, first modern DoI and direct ancestor of the US DoI:

    https://declarationproject.org/?p=1171

    >>As it is apparent to all that a prince is constituted by God to be ruler of a people, to defend them from oppression and violence as the shepherd his sheep; and whereas God did not create the people slaves to their prince, to obey his commands, whether right or wrong, but rather the prince for the sake of the subjects (without which he could be no prince), to govern them according to equity, to love and support them as a father his children or a shepherd his flock, and even at the hazard of life to defend and preserve them [Cf Rom 13:1 – 10]. And when he does not behave thus, but, on the contrary, oppresses them, seeking opportunities to infringe their ancient customs and privileges, exacting from them slavish compliance, then he is no longer a prince, but a tyrant, and the subjects are to consider him in no other view. And particularly when this is done deliberately, unauthorized by the states, they may not only disallow his authority, but legally proceed to the choice of another prince for their defense. This is the only method left for subjects whose humble petitions and remonstrances could never soften their prince or dissuade him from his tyrannical proceedings; and this is what the law of nature dictates for the defense of liberty, which we ought to transmit to posterity, even at the hazard of our lives.>>

    LOCKE CITING ANGLICAN CANON HOOKER FROM ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY being directly antecedent to US DoI

    >>[2nd Treatise on Civil Gov’t, Ch 2 sec. 5, citing “the judicious [Anglican Canon, Richard] Hooker”:] . . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man’s hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [This directly echoes St. Paul in Rom 2: “14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them . . . “ and 13: “9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law . . . “ Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [Eccl. Polity ,preface, Bk I, “ch.” 8, p.80, cf. here. Emphasis added.] [Augmented citation, Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government, Ch 2 Sect. 5. ]>>

    US DOI 1776, charter of modern constitutional democracy:

    >>When . . . it becomes necessary for one people . . . to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God [–> natural law context is explicit] entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind [–> they were consciously universal in their appeal] requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, [cf Rom 1:18 – 21, 2:14 – 15; note, law as “the highest reason,” per Cicero on received consensus], that all men are created equal [–> note, equality of humanity], that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights [–> thus there are correlative duties and freedoms framed by the balance], that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security . . . .

    We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions [Cf. Judges 11:27], do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.>>

    The pattern of thought in extension of first duties is plain, as is the Judaeo Christian contribution.

    The attempt to tax Christians with slavish, blind sub rationality framed on unthinking and unintelligible alleged divine commands of arbitrary character fails.

  50. 50
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N2, back on the main theme, the topiary raised by News citing Ruth Institute is manifestly, instantly recognisably designed. But, that is not left to subjective, unscientific perception and views, there are intelligible, observable patterns and principles that allow us to identify and in key part quantify an analysis on signs that allows confident and indeed scientific design inference, as was again recently discussed here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/lfp-55-defining-clarifying-intelligent-design-as-inference-as-theory-as-a-movement/ Those who object should kindly explain to us where it has been actually observed that language expressed in complex alphanumeric strings, with coded algorithms beyond 500 – 1,000 bits, have come about by blind chance and mechanical necessity _______ I of course here point to the cell. KF

  51. 51
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N3, with all of that in mind, I draw to your attention the same text I drew attention of a Caribbean public to, in the late 80’s:

    Ac 17: 24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man,3 25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. 26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27 that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him.

    Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, 28 for

    “‘In him we live and move and have our being’;4
    as even some of your own poets have said,
    “‘For we are indeed his offspring.’5

    29 Being then God’s offspring . . .

    Any species of racism is instantly reduced to gross disrespect to our common Father.

    Racism alleging to be scripturally based is false and heretical teaching, blasphemy against God who made us all in his image. If he likes racial diversity, who are we to reject what he has done?

    Yes, cultures and communities can and do often err and do much worse than err. That is why we need to revert to first duties and learn our way towards reform. But even such error and wrongdoing cannot justify demonisation of the despised other. Justice allows for no exceptions.

    KF

  52. 52
    chuckdarwin says:

    Querius/30

    Funny, but most geneticists recognize the value of clades in tracing ancestry, lineages, migrations, and extinctions.

    As a general statement I would agree, but the Ayala paper I provided deals with species within the same clade, hominoids, so at that level cladistics isn’t necessary.

  53. 53
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Ram

    Some things are worthy of mockery.

    Maybe try some respectful conversation with the people you disagree with? Or at least give your point of view?

  54. 54
    Silver Asiatic says:

    KF @49

    I was just researching yesterday: the first institution to use the title “university” for itself, and in fact which coined the term was the school at Bologna which was founded to study Corpus Juris Civilis.

  55. 55
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Querius

    It’s over by an admission of defeat through insults and ad hominem mockery, attacking the person rather than addressing the points of the position.

    People get frustrated because there’s no way to respond, so they can get a “victory” with insults and mockery.
    One of the biggest problems for atheism is that it really has nothing to say for itself. It’s the religion of nihilism – nothing matters, there’s no reason for anything and everything is pointless.
    That reduces a discussion down to a childish level.

  56. 56
    Querius says:

    Kairosfocus @51,

    Any species of racism is instantly reduced to gross disrespect to our common Father.

    And

    Racism alleging to be scripturally based is false and heretical teaching, blasphemy against God who made us all in his image. If he likes racial diversity, who are we to reject what he has done?

    Well stated!

    I’m reminded of an event recorded in Torah where Miriam, the sister of Moses, used his marriage to a black woman as an excuse to question Moses’ right to authority. As a result, God turned Miriam’s skin “white as snow” with leprosy. Moses begged God to have mercy on his sister, so God relented but ordered that she be put out of the camp for a week as “if her father had spit in her face.”

    -Q

  57. 57
    Querius says:

    Silver Asiatic @55,

    People get frustrated because there’s no way to respond, so they can get a “victory” with insults and mockery.

    There is a cogent way to respond, but they choose mockery and abuse instead.

    That reduces a discussion down to a childish level.

    Yes. Or force . . . even murder. Consider the term “character assassination,” for example.

    -Q

  58. 58
    Querius says:

    Chuckdarwin @52,

    As a general statement I would agree, but the Ayala paper I provided deals with species within the same clade, hominoids, so at that level cladistics isn’t necessary.

    Considering the controversies over what constitutes a separate species, isn’t cladistics relevant at all levels?

    -Q

  59. 59
    chuckdarwin says:

    SA/58
    Cladistics is simply a classification scheme in which humans have already been placed. There’s no reason to re-invent the wheel. Also, like I said, cladistics isn’t necessary to research human lineage because, by definition, the hominoid clade would include all human ancestors.

    I would encourage you to go back and re-read the section in Ayala’s paper entitled “The Mitochondrial Eve.” It is one of the clearest discussions of the concept from a biologist I’ve seen.

  60. 60
    Querius says:

    Chuckdarwin @59,
    Cladistics could then also group all primates into a single clade. Why not?

    -Q

  61. 61
    chuckdarwin says:

    Why would you want to do that? Clade members exhibit shared derived traits. for example, monkeys have tails; hominoids (apes) do not. This supports different types of locomotion, bipedalism, etc., etc., etc. It would make no sense to put them in the same clade. Also, clades are nested, so to the extent species share traits, they share a clade at the appropriate level. Hominoids are nested in the larger clade, Anthropoids, which does contain monkeys. In very simple terms, the higher you go, the fewer common traits, the less reason for a shared clade.

    This is getting way off your original comment re Mitochondrial Eve, so I’m moving on……

  62. 62
    Querius says:

    Chuckdarwin @61,

    Why would you want to do that? Clade members exhibit shared derived traits.

    Are you suggesting that members of a species or subspecies do not?

    -Q

  63. 63
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    You can’t teach an old dog new tricks. They repeat old tricks (from Darwin books ) thinking they will became truth by repetition. 😆

  64. 64
    chuckdarwin says:

    Querius/62
    Nope

  65. 65
    Querius says:

    Lieutenant Commander Data @ 63,

    You can’t teach an old dog new tricks.

    Well, let’s see . . .

    -Q

  66. 66
    Querius says:

    Chuckdarwin @65,
    So, you’re saying that you don’t know why you’d compare primates to other orders by clades, but agree that members of a species or subspecies can be grouped into clades, right?

    -Q

  67. 67
    EDTA says:

    Sev writes,
    >What I find ironic is when Christians say atheists have no basis for morality when their doctrine means that they are unable to work out for themselves what is moral or immoral, they have to wait for their God to tell them.

    I’m watching my country/society disintegrate, because it is in the process of forsaking a common grounding for morality. We were never perfect or in complete agreement, but now there is less agreement than ever on bedrock moral issues. This is happening at the exact same time that more people are patting themselves on the back for being so smart and coming up with their own moralities–plural.

    So yes, having a central source for morality (that is good, just, etc.) would be an improvement over what we’re being handed now. Moral nihilism bears an ugly fruit: it’s great for the strongest/richest/most aggressive, but bad for everyone else.

  68. 68
    kairosfocus says:

    EDTA,

    Ironically, for over 2,000 years, there has been on record a core consensus across worldviews regarding first duties of responsible, conscience guided reasoning. As I have pointed out for a considerable time now, those principles are pervasive, branch on which we all sit, first principles. Those who try to deny such, invariably appeal to them. Those who try to prove or even demand proof are already using them.

    That is the mark of self evident first principle truths, antecedent to proof. The stuff proofs are spun out of. I can cite Cicero summing up the received wisdom of the Greco Roman pagans on first law built into our nature, here let’s use de Legibus:

    —Marcus [in de Legibus, introductory remarks,. C1 BC, being Cicero himself]: . . . we shall have to explain the true nature of moral justice, which is congenial and correspondent [36]with the true nature of man [–> we are seeing the root vision of natural law, coeval with our humanity] . . . . With respect to the true principle of justice, many learned men have maintained that it springs from Law. I hardly know if their opinion be not correct, at least, according to their own definition; for . “Law (say they) is the highest reason, implanted in nature, which prescribes those things which ought to be done, and forbids the contrary” . . . .

    They therefore conceive that the voice of conscience is a law, that moral prudence is a law [–> a key remark] , whose operation is to urge us to good actions, and restrain us from evil ones . . . . According to the Greeks, therefore, the name of law implies an equitable distribution of goods: according to the Romans [–> esp. Cicero, speaking as a leading statesman], an equitable discrimination between good and evil.

    The true definition of law should, however, include both these characteristics. And this being granted as an almost self–evident proposition, the origin of justice is to be sought in the divine law of eternal and immutable morality. This indeed is the true energy of nature, the very soul and essence of wisdom, the test of virtue and vice.

    [–> this points to the wellsprings of reality, the only place where is and ought can be bridged; bridged, through the inherently good utterly wise, maximally great necessary being, the creator God, which adequately answers the Euthyphro dilemma and Hume’s guillotine argument surprise on seeing reasoning is-is then suddenly a leap to ought-ought. IS and OUGHT are fused from the root]

    This indeed is the true energy of nature, the very soul and essence of wisdom, the test of virtue and vice.

    We can draw out and summarise, duties:

    1st – to truth,
    2nd – to right reason,
    3rd – to prudence [including warrant],
    4th – to sound conscience,
    5th – to neighbour; so also,
    6th – to fairness and
    7th – to justice
    [ . . .]
    xth – etc.

    That “etc” points to how these can be extended onward and were, framing the emergence of lawful, constitutional democracy and major social, legal, governmental and even spiritual reforms.

    Of course, that something is self evident does not by itself identify its roots in the core of being; strictly, it only identifies that we have here naturally straight and accurate plumb lines to judge whether our yardsticks are crooked or not. Which leads to the onward point, that there are two kinds of ignorance: simple never been exposed, and ideological ignorance by which crooked yardsticks have been used to marginalise and dismiss what is genuinely straight, upright, accurate.

    As Dallas Willard has summarised, the latter is what has happened to moral knowledge in our civilisation. The issue is, why. The answer is, men wished to be rid of the implied restraints of built in, intelligible first law and the associated voice of conscience. So we are in a day ruled by radical relativism, subjectivism, legal positivism, driven by evolutionary materialistic scientism and fellow travellers duly clad in lab coats. This opens the door for misanthropic, anticivilisational jacobins seeking to impose lawless oligarchy, to nihilism. Currently, the big bear here is cultural marxism.

    The resulting absurdities and chaos are visible all around.

    That’s part of why I say kindly show us a nine sided hexagon.

    We have forgotten that there is such a thing as a nature, here, a morally guided one rooted in the source of reality. It is only in the reality root that is and ought can be bridged. But the bill of requisites for such is utterly unwelcome amongst those who hold the high cultural ground that dominates the public square. For, they are implacably hostile to a necessary being world root capable of being source and sustainer of worlds, inherently good and utterly wise.

    Moral nihilism as a dominant cultural force comes from evolutionary materialistic scientism and its fellow travellers. Never mind that it is easy to show that such evolutionary materialism cannot credibly account for mind much less morality. The crooked yardstick has been imposed.

    The question is, are we going to take up the fight to take back the high ground before it is too late?

    KF

  69. 69
    kairosfocus says:

    PS, Will Hawthorne, in reply to such ideological imposition of evolutionary materialistic scientism, is deservedly withering, echoing the concerns Plato raised in The Laws, Bk X, concerns that reflect lessons hard-bought with blood and tears:

    Assume (per impossibile) that atheistic naturalism [= evolutionary materialism] is true. Assume, furthermore, that one can’t infer an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’ [the ‘is’ being in this context physicalist: matter-energy, space- time, chance and mechanical forces]. (Richard Dawkins and many other atheists should grant both of these assumptions.)

    Given our second assumption, there is no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer an ‘ought’. And given our first assumption, there is nothing that exists over and above the natural world; the natural world is all that there is. It follows logically that, for any action you care to pick, there’s no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer that one ought to refrain from performing that action.

    Add a further uncontroversial assumption: an action is permissible if and only if it’s not the case that one ought to refrain from performing that action . . . [We see] therefore, for any action you care to pick, it’s permissible to perform that action. If you’d like, you can take this as the meat behind the slogan ‘if atheism is true, all things are permitted’.

    For example if atheism is true, every action Hitler performed was permissible. Many atheists don’t like this [nihilistic, absurd] consequence of their worldview. But they cannot escape it and insist that they are being logical at the same time.

    Now, we all know that at least some actions are really not permissible (for example, racist actions). Since the conclusion of the argument denies this, there must be a problem somewhere in the argument. Could the argument be invalid? No. The argument has not violated a single rule of logic and all inferences were made explicit.

    Thus we are forced to deny the truth of one of the assumptions we started out with. That means we either deny atheistic naturalism or (the more intuitively appealing) principle that one can’t infer ‘ought’ from [a material] ‘is’.

  70. 70
    chuckdarwin says:

    Querius/66

    So, you’re saying that you don’t know why you’d compare primates to other orders by clades….”

    That’s not what I said, but, in any event, it’s not relevant, nor does it make any sense re your original question about Mitochondrial Eve. You need to re-read my comment at 61.
    Ciao……..

  71. 71
    Seversky says:

    EDTA/67

    I’m watching my country/society disintegrate, because it is in the process of forsaking a common grounding for morality. We were never perfect or in complete agreement, but now there is less agreement than ever on bedrock moral issues. This is happening at the exact same time that more people are patting themselves on the back for being so smart and coming up with their own moralities–plural.

    I am seeing something similar in which open, democratic societies are fragmenting into smaller “tribal” groups that are suspicious of – or openly hostile to – other “tribal” groups. The only places it doesn’t seem to be happening are those societies where any kind of dissent is forcibly suppressed by authoritarian regimes.

    So yes, having a central source for morality (that is good, just, etc.) would be an improvement over what we’re being handed now. Moral nihilism bears an ugly fruit: it’s great for the strongest/richest/most aggressive, but bad for everyone else.

    I can understand the appeal of a promised certainty in times of great uncertainty but I don’t think differences over morality are the root cause of this instability. The other problem is that there is a tendency to assume that the imposed morality is going to be one’s own preferred version, But I doubt Christians would accept an Islamic or Hindu or Buddhist morality being imposed on them and neither would the others accept the imposition of Christian mores.

    We need to find a way past this instinctive “tribalism” but I can’t see a way that we can that would be acceptable to all people.

  72. 72
    JHolo says:

    EDTA: I’m watching my country/society disintegrate, because it is in the process of forsaking a common grounding for morality.

    Do you have any concrete examples? I see a society with plenty of problems. But I also see a society that is more tolerant, accommodating and accepting of different cultures, religions, indigenous peoples, women, homosexuals, transgendered, those with mental and physical disabilities, etc. than it was fifty years ago. I certainly wouldn’t want to return to the glory days that never were.

  73. 73
    jerry says:

    Do you have any concrete examples?

    Are you conscious?

    Apparently not. No one viewing the current world could possibly make such a ludicrous statement.

  74. 74
    JHolo says:

    Jerry: Are you conscious?

    Apparently not. No one viewing the current world could possibly make such a ludicrous statement.

    So, all you have are insults. I was hoping for concrete examples of moral decay in western society but I guess I was being to optimistic.

  75. 75
    chuckdarwin says:

    JHolo/74
    Legalized reefer…..LOL

  76. 76
    Silver Asiatic says:

    If there are no objective moral norms there cannot be moral decay since there is nothing to decay. Morality at best would be subjective and nobody would be required to follow any moral standards except whatever they make up for themselves – and they even do not need to make up any morality at all.

  77. 77
    jerry says:

    I was hoping for concrete examples of moral decay in western society but I guess I was being to optimistic

    There are literally hundreds.

    Top of the list is Russia making nuclear threats. Then China.

    Then there is inflation. Crime surge. Abortions. Mental illness amongst women. Border crossings. Grooming of kindergarten children. Decay of education. Drug usage. No independent press. Corruption of medical establishment. Cancel culture. Overt arguments against free speech etc..

    But the most embarrassing thing for you is that ChuckDarwin gave you a positive response. He has yet to be right about anything.

    As I said you must be unconscious.

  78. 78
    Seversky says:

    Kairosfocus/69

    PS, Will Hawthorne, in reply to such ideological imposition of evolutionary materialistic scientism, is deservedly withering, echoing the concerns Plato raised in The Laws, Bk X, concerns that reflect lessons hard-bought with blood and tears:

    Assume (per impossibile) that atheistic naturalism [= evolutionary materialism] is true. Assume, furthermore, that one can’t infer an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’ [the ‘is’ being in this context physicalist: matter-energy, space- time, chance and mechanical forces]. (Richard Dawkins and many other atheists should grant both of these assumptions.)

    I would grant both assumptions.

    Given our second assumption, there is no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer an ‘ought’. And given our first assumption, there is nothing that exists over and above the natural world; the natural world is all that there is. It follows logically that, for any action you care to pick, there’s no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer that one ought to refrain from performing that action

    … or would require that we perform such an action. It works both ways.

    Add a further uncontroversial assumption: an action is permissible if and only if it’s not the case that one ought to refrain from performing that action . . . [We see] therefore, for any action you care to pick, it’s permissible to perform that action. If you’d like, you can take this as the meat behind the slogan ‘if atheism is true, all things are permitted’.

    Not so fast. By introducing the concept of “permissible”, you are implying the existence of an individual or group that is authorized to grant permission. There is no permission without a ‘permitter’. Whenever you see the assertion that “all things are permitted”, your next question should be, ‘Permitted by whom?’ The existence of atheism does not necessarily entail moral nihilism,

    For example if atheism is true, every action Hitler performed was permissible. Many atheists don’t like this [nihilistic, absurd] consequence of their worldview. But they cannot escape it and insist that they are being logical at the same time.

    Hitler’s actions would not have been permissible according to me (if I had been around at the time and if I’d been asked) I seriously doubt they were permissible according to the millions of Jews, gypsies, homosexuals or the mentally ill who died as a result of them or the millions of people who came together to fight the Nazi regime. So, no, it’s the logic of Hawthorne’s argument that is broken at this point.

    Thus we are forced to deny the truth of one of the assumptions we started out with. That means we either deny atheistic naturalism or (the more intuitively appealing) principle that one can’t infer ‘ought’ from [a material] ‘is’.

    No, the two principles are not mutually exclusive. It is perfectly possible to hold a belief in atheistic naturalism and accept the premiss that ‘ought’ cannot be inferred from ‘is’. The only problem arises if you try to argue that moral prescriptions must be grounded somehow in the ‘is’, which would be a violation of the second principle.

  79. 79
    asauber says:

    “Hitler’s actions would not have been permissible according to me”

    LOL Excuse me, Sev, but who the h*ll are you to sit in judgement?

    Andrew

  80. 80
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Seversky

    Hitler’s actions would not have been permissible according to me (if I had been around at the time and if I’d been asked)

    Yes, but they were permissible according to him. You would not have been able to tell him that his actions were “not permissible” in a universal sense, but only in your personal opinion and he wouldn’t have cared about that, or needed to care about it.
    So what it means is that anything is permissible to any individual who thinks it is.
    Thus, your unwillingness to permit is offset by his willingness to permit. That’s a stalemate and thus anything is permitted.

  81. 81
    asauber says:

    What Sev obviously is not comprehending is that he (and any virtue signaller) is appealing to a common sense of virtue. But why is he doing this?

    Andrew

  82. 82
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Andrew @79

    Exactly. Someone says “there are no universal binding moral norms but what you’re doing is not permissible to me because I don’t want you doing it”.
    So people can be persecuted and oppressed because someone doesn’t like what they do?
    That’s what Hitler said: “I don’t like what you’re doing so I will kill you.”

  83. 83
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Usually it never gets into a discussion – they just get outraged and emotional and act as if morality is totally obvious and universal.

  84. 84
    asauber says:

    “they just get outraged and emotional and act as if morality is totally obvious and universal.”

    SA,

    Right. They just posture like we should recognize their righteous moves. But again, why?

    Andrew

  85. 85
    JHolo says:

    Jerry: Top of the list is Russia making nuclear threats. Then China.

    I wasn’t aware that Russia and China were part of western society.

    Then there is inflation. Crime surge. Abortions. Mental illness amongst women. Border crossings. Grooming of kindergarten children. Decay of education. Drug usage. No independent press. Corruption of medical establishment. Cancel culture. Overt arguments against free speech etc..

    OK, let’s take these one at time:
    Inflation: How is inflation a sign of moral decay?
    Crime: Property and violent crime has been on a decline since the 90s.
    Abortion: Both teen pregnancies and abortion rates have been on a steady decline for several decades.
    Mental illness amongst women: Yes, there has been a small increase in reported mental illness amongst women. But, again, how is this related to moral decay? Is it not more likely that people are more likely to seek help for mental illness as mental illness becomes less stigmatized?
    Border crossing: Again, how is this a sign of moral decay? It seems more obvious that this is the result of people trying to do the best for their families. A good moral value.
    Grooming of kindergarten children: Just fear mongering. There is no grooming.
    Decay of education: How so? Education changes over time. It always has, and always will. Sometimes the changes are beneficial, sometimes they are not.
    Drug usage: I agree that this is a huge problem. And getting worse. How do you propose turning the trend around?
    No independent press: Has there ever been an independent press? They have always been influenced by public opinion and advertising dollars.
    Corruption of medical establishment: You have been reading too many conspiracy theories. The medical establishment is prone to the same weaknesses as all human endeavours, greed, corruption, fraud, etc. But it also has many checks-and-balances to keep these negative forces to a minimum. Could it be better? Of course. But is it getting worse? I don’t see it.
    Cancel culture: So, people aren’t getting away with behaviours that they used to. In several cases it has gone too far but I think that having consequences for bad behaviour is a good thing.
    Overt arguments against free speech: Free speech is as alive and as well as it has ever been. I think you are confusing free speech and consequence free speech. The constitution does not say anything about speech not having consequences, just that you won’t face any government charges as a result of your speech, except in certain circumstances such as inciting violence, etc.

    So, again, I would like to see some concrete examples of moral decay. I am sure that there are some, but they are far outweighed by improvements in society.

  86. 86
    Seversky says:

    Asauber/79

    LOL Excuse me, Sev, but who the h*ll are you to sit in judgement?

    I can form my own moral judgements just like anyone else. Can’t you?

  87. 87
    Querius says:

    To the point of the OP, while Darwinism made Victorian Era racism and European colonialism scientifically acceptable, modern research in Y-chromosome DNA has been showing that traditional definitions of race are not scientifically supported.

    Currently, I’m reading a fascinating book by Nathaniel Jeanson (PhD, Cell and Developmental Biology, Harvard) titled, Traced (2022). Its second printing is scheduled for summer.
    https://www.amazon.com/Traced-Human-DNAs-Big-Surprise/dp/1683442911

    Basically, his research into tracing Y haplogroups shows the following:

    – The rate of mutation in Y haplogroups occurs at a fairly constant rate (outside of haplogroups A and B, which seem to be mutating at triple the rate of all the others).
    – The rate was computed twice, the first time with sloppy methods, the second time using more rigorous, precise methods.
    – The first time the mutation rate was computed yielded a human history on the order of 100,000 years, the second time on the order of 10,000 years. Naturally, because this result didn’t fit the current science narrative, it was “adjusted” or ignored.

    – Using the more precise rate, he traces Y haplogroups back to three men that he labels “Shem, Ham, and Japeth,” based on the direction of their migrations.

    This provoked the question of whether mass migrations using the second, more precise method could be matched in time with historical migrations or major events. The answer was that in many cases, obviously yes (for example, the Mongol invasions). Some other cases were mysterious.

    Questions, Dr. Jeanson addressed include where the ancient Egyptians went, the other Africans, ancient Romans, the Americas, etc. along with some truly surprising results.

    – “Race” is not what we think it is and seems to be fluid

    – People are much more closely related than they think

    So far, it’s a fascinating read and his research is ongoing.

    -Q

  88. 88
    kairosfocus says:

    Sev, really. Permissible implies one is free to do such without justifiable moral critique [or at extreme end, legal sanction] — as opposed to whatever rhetorical mouth noises one may wish to utter. When your system does not have such a line then everything is indeed permissible as there are no justifiable lines. The lines of oughtness on evolutionary materialism and/or fellow traveller systems are? ______ We can know them as? ______ And their basis is? ______ As for we disagree with Hitler, that is just the point, without sound oughtness lines you reduce us to a fight as to who is more powerful and can impose his will, AKA nihilism. KF

  89. 89
    Seversky says:

    Silver Asiatic/80

    Hitler’s actions would not have been permissible according to me (if I had been around at the time and if I’d been asked)

    Yes, but they were permissible according to him. You would not have been able to tell him that his actions were “not permissible” in a universal sense, but only in your personal opinion and he wouldn’t have cared about that, or needed to care about it.

    Quite true but he and his Nazi gang did have to pay attention to the millions who took up arms against them and eventually destroyed them.

    So what it means is that anything is permissible to any individual who thinks it is.

    To that individual it may be permissible but to a million others who take a different view?

    Thus, your unwillingness to permit is offset by his willingness to permit. That’s a stalemate and thus anything is permitted.

    If there was just the two of us then it would be a stalemate. But that wouldn’t mean anything was permitted or anything was denied. It would be a stalemate and that’s how it would remain unless someone or something came along to break the deadlock.

  90. 90
    EDTA says:

    JHolo @ 72,

    My list is as follows (at the moment):
    – Loss of social capital
    – Loss of moral unity/agreement, and our increasing polarization (reminiscent of 1920’s Germany). We never had complete, perfect moral agreement; no society of humans ever has that. We just had more in the past than we do now.
    – Loss of interpersonal trust
    – Abortion – needs to be near zero
    – The Sexual Revolution (among many other things, it created a whole new demographic group [incels] who don’t think they will _ever_ get married–easy pickings for a Hitler-type person to give their lives meaning again).
    – Drug abuse

    No, I do not think that the “old days” were better in every regard. Certainly technology/medicine
    were not anywhere near as good as today. But to stay on a non-downward trajectory, certain societal things have to be in place, and they are the areas where we are losing ground. The above changes are tectonic-level things, not just superficial demographic trends.

  91. 91
    EDTA says:

    Sev @ 86,
    >I can form my own moral judgements just like anyone else. Can’t you?

    But will those moral judgements be the same as anyone else’s? How do you know what they will (collectively) be tomorrow, if everyone’s moral judgements are derived internally to them, and hence can change on a whim (or a tweet)? What if people diverge morally to the point where they cannot get along in society anymore? Will the statement “I can form my own moral judgements” be worth anything in bragging rights in that case?

    To put it differently, yes, I can form my own moral judgements, uninfluenced by as many influences as I can shut out of my mind. So? How would that make the world a better place? How does it make life on earth better for others, just because I came up with my own moral standards all by myself? I don’t follow the rationale behind your statement.

  92. 92
    chuckdarwin says:

    Queius/87

    Using the more precise rate, [Jeanson] traces Y haplogroups back to three men that he labels “Shem, Ham, and Japeth,” based on the direction of their migrations.

    I’m disappointed, he should have named them Larry, Curly, and Moe…

    How does Jeanson, who’s a YEC from Answers in Genesis, deal with the fact that Y chromosomal Adam dates to at least 200K to 300K years ago?

    (PS Don’t ask me any more questions about cladistics–we’ve exhausted that topic)

  93. 93
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Andrew

    But again, why?

    Good question. I really don’t know!

  94. 94
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Seversky

    Quite true but he and his Nazi gang did have to pay attention to the millions who took up arms against them and eventually destroyed them.

    The Nazis had to pay attention but with their loss in the war, it doesn’t say that the Nazis were morally wrong. It would be no different if they had won.

    Morality cannot merely be decided by whatever is the most popular opinion or whatever has the strongest power supporting them. If it was, then there would be no reason for minority movements to fight against government mandates, or resist popular decisions like Nazism(as it was at the time) or something like slavery was.

  95. 95
    ram says:

    SA: Maybe try some respectful conversation with the people you disagree with? Or at least give your point of view?

    Get over your self-righteousness. Everyone has their point of view. When it comes to intelligent design, I’m on your side. But you (and a lot of other religionists) seem to think your religion matters in the discussion. It doesn’t.

    Let me say this again, so you understand:

    You bronze-age, anthropomorphic religion is irrelevant in the discussion of ID.

    The sad truth, you guys chase more people away from ID than you realize because you insist on making it about religion. YOUR religion. Stop it.

    Now, do you want to make this into a Bible study? (The New Testament is bunk. And it’s easy to demonstrate in so many ways.) I’m game. I will be happy to engage. I will put my real name out there and host a YouTube channel where we can all do live discussions.

    Who is willing? Put up or shut up, cowards.

    Peace. Love. And togetherness.

    –Ram

    P.S. Support Denise.

  96. 96
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Ram

    When it comes to intelligent design, I’m on your side.

    That’s good to hear.

    Peace. Love. And togetherness.

    As above, sounds very good to me..

    Now, do you want to make this into a Bible study?

    I think staying on-topic with ID will be the best. We don’t have the structure and enough commonality for Bible analysis anyway.

  97. 97
    Querius says:

    Silver Asiatic @94,

    Morality cannot merely be decided by whatever is the most popular opinion or whatever has the strongest power supporting them.

    Yes, exactly. It’s a restatement of “might makes right” and “trial by combat,” whether the arena is the Russian steppes, a battle over headlines, or a Twitter storm.

    The modern result is that the lie with the most followers is crowned “the truth.”

    -Q

  98. 98
    ram says:

    SA,

    Fair enough.

    Love and kisses.

    So, do you want to have a live chat on Youtube about Christianity and the Bible in general?

    What about you Querius? Your chance to set a guy like me straight live and unedited. What say?

    –Ram

  99. 99
    zweston says:

    Ram, you are a fan of Tovia Singer, no? So an Orthodox Jew?

  100. 100
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Ram

    So, do you want to have a live chat on Youtube about Christianity and the Bible in general?

    You want to try to prove to me how ignorant and deluded the Jews are?

  101. 101
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Querius

    The modern result is that the lie with the most followers is crowned “the truth.”

    That’s it. And it will only stay “true” until a more popular lie comes along.

  102. 102
    Querius says:

    Silver Asiatic @101,

    And it will only stay “true” until a more popular lie comes along.

    And then the old lie vanishes, never to to be remembered again. According to the recollection of former radical, David Horowitz:

    “The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution.”
    – SDS radical during the 1960s

    David Horowitz explains:

    “In other words the cause – whether inner city blacks or women – is never the real cause, but only an occasion to advance the real cause which is the accumulation of power to make the revolution.”

    The same principle applies to all other areas of human endeavor where “the truth” of any matter is always subservient to the advancement of some goal, whether it involves politics, religion, the arts, science, or business. And there are always people whose aspirations or expediences “transcend” any pedestrian allegiance to truth and morality and are thus willing occasionally (and usually figuratively) to push an old lady down a staircase for the sake of progress.

    -Q

  103. 103
    ram says:

    zweston,

    I have great respect for Rabbi Tovia. He has his strengths and some weaknesses.

    He is very good at demolishing the claims of the “New Testament” writers.

    The “New Testament” is a train wreck in relation to the Hebrew Scriptures.

    I will be happy to discuss the “New Testament” with you

    –RAM

  104. 104
    ram says:

    SA: You want to try to prove to me how ignorant and deluded the Jews are?

    Wow. Thanks for your frank admission of your view of Jewish scholars.

    Are you accepting my invitation?

    That’s a yes or no question.

    –RAM

  105. 105
    ram says:

    Christians are usually very reluctant to discuss the “New Testament” with Hebrew scholars.

    It’s understandable.

    As a starter, we can just limit the discussion to Isaiah 7.

    Any takers? We can go live. Nothing will be edited.

    –RAM

  106. 106
    kairosfocus says:

    Ram, extended Bible debates are not advisable at UD or other places where there will not be a relevant panel of experts. You have been directed elsewhere. However, I suggest to you that there is adequate warrant for seeing in say Isa 52 – 53, a clear predictive prophecy of a specific individual person rejected suffering servant messiah who is wounded healer, deliverer and saviour, who makes his soul an offering [e.g. a nation is a soul-less collective and the multiple messiah candidates suggested, here find fusion much as evening and morning star], is cut off and yet prolongs his days, being honoured by kings up to and including George III’s famous reaction to Handel’s Messiah. Debates like this become haunted by pitfalls and polarisation for the amateur. I am sure we both know that Isa 52 – 3 is the pivotal text, start here for example and here onward regarding marginalisation. I simply note for record in hope that you will carry discussion on such matters to more appropriate fora. KF

  107. 107
    kairosfocus says:

    Q, pivotally, it was the Ukrainian steppes. KF

  108. 108
    ram says:

    KF: Ram, extended Bible debates are not advisable at UD…

    Which is why I’m inviting all takers a Youtube live discussion. Including you.

    All the best

    –Ram

  109. 109
    ram says:

    KF: I suggest to you that there is adequate warrant for seeing in say Isa 52 – 53, a clear predictive prophecy of a specific individual person rejected suffering servant messiah

    Debates like this become haunted by pitfalls and polarisation for the amateur.

    I’m not an amateur. Are you?

    You are free to make your case. Let’s get it on video.

    I noticed you deflecting from Isaiah 7. Let’s discuss 7 and 52, 53 (and beyond.)

    When do you want to do a live Youtube discussion?

    Awaiting your reply.

    -RAM

  110. 110
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Ram

    Thanks for your frank admission of your view of Jewish scholars.

    Orthodox Jews are theists. You’re not a theist and, in fact, are filled with ridicule and contempt against them. So I’m just noting that your hostility is directed against your own people and what you’ve called “your Scriptures”.
    Do you think anyone wants to take up a debate with a guy who can’t get his own categories straight and will not be transparent on his own deconstruction of the Scriptures?

    Your bronze-age, anthropomorphic religion …

    All of the Jewish prophets say that they spoke with God, or God spoke to them. There are dozens of miracles that you have to explain away. In the end, there’s nothing sacred about the deconstructed Bible and why should anybody be interested in what the post-modernist, atheist Jews have to say anyway?
    If you believe in what the Hebrew scriptures say, as Jews have done since they were written – in the miracles from the time of Moses to the prayers of deliverance in the Psalms, then that’s theism.
    If you reject all of that, then the Bible is just a cultural artifact filled with false, mythological tales and all the Jews, including the Jewish scholars of today, who believe otherwise must be ignorant or deluded in your view.

  111. 111
    kairosfocus says:

    Ram, I have pointed you to where you may reasonably engage the matter, and to what is central, including to the matter of credibility which you are so quick to try to trash, do I need to elaborate from the two links on a silenced text? And, as we both know, going to the central text, central since the 30’s AD is most definitely not a deflection; Do you want me to point to Ac 8:26 ff? That is enough for my purpose. KF

  112. 112
    Querius says:

    Back to considerations regarding Darwinism and racism, Jeanson’s book typically follows a pattern like this:

    a. I was always taught in school that (something regarding race and migration) . . . but it turns out from DNA evidence that this is absolutely not the case.

    b. Here’s what the DNA evidence shows . . .

    c. So let’s see whether we can trace where the historical (name of people group) ended up or was distributed. Refer to the following color plates . . .

    d. But there’s a confounding factor. Here’s what it seems to show, and here’s some additional evidence . . .

    Last night, I read about the dispersal of the Jewish people into some very surprising places. Hint: “black Jews.” Also note that Moses married a Ethiopian (i.e. black) woman. Evidence compiled by Professor Shaye J. D. Cohen indicates the switch from patrilineality to matrilineality in Judaism took place in the first century C.E.

    But remember that this is only half the story. The Y-chromosome traces only paternal migration. From what I’ve read elsewhere, maternal mitochondrial DNA migration can be and often is different. Of course, skin color and other characteristics can vary dramatically between generations of heterozygous individuals. Also, dark or light skin and other “racial” characteristics is not unique to a particular Y lineage despite popular misconceptions and racism.

    Y chromosome data can also be used as a genetic clock. However, mutation rates of Y DNA are highly controversial due to the collision between genetic data with the evolutionary narrative.

    Here’s a back-of-the-envelope computation based on a paper from 2000 that indicates a rate of 175 mutations per generation in the human diploid genome. I was taught in college that it was 100-150 mutations per generation. Since then, many other estimates have appeared and evolutionists speculate that mutation rates “musta” depended on climate and undiscovered factors.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1461236/

    Since the Y chromosome has about 1/5th the number of genes of the X chromosome . . .
    175/(46 x 5) = 0.76 mutations for each Y length per generation, but sex-linked traits seem to indicate a Y-chromosome mutation rate of 4x that of its X pair, we get 0.76 x 4 = 3.04 Y-chromosome mutations per generation. Dr. Jeanson arrives at the same number, 3, of Y mutations per generation using a different method involving human genetic diversity. The result is that the data indicates a Y-chromosomal “Adam” within less than 10,000 years (Jeanson suggests 6,000 years).

    -Q

  113. 113
    JHolo says:

    I haven’t really read extensively on the mitochondrial Eve and the Y chromosome Adam, so please correct me if I have something wrong.

    In both cases they look at the current variation in mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome DNA, and extrapolate backwards based on estimated mutation rates and the average time-span of a generation to arrive at a most recent common ancestor. Let’s, simply for the sake of argument, assume that this was 10,000 years ago for both.

    But this doesn’t mean that these were the only two humans around at the time. At the time of the mitochondrial Eve and Y chromosome Adam, there was still a large population of humans. If we used the variation in DNA of the mitochondria and Y chromosome from the population that existed 10,000 years ago, and followed the same analysis, we would come up with a second Mitochondrial Eve and Y chromosome Adam, several thousand years earlier than the dates estimated for the Adam and Eve calculated from the perspective of the modern era. And this could likely be repeated for hundreds of additional iterations.

  114. 114
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    We have a fact and an assumption combined. I stay only with fact . It’s safer.

    1. Scientific fact that stand by itself : All people today are the descendants of only one man and one woman. Nothing new: Bible said so for 3000 years .
    2. Assumption made by evolutionists : Man and woman lived in different times. Speculation based on other speculations that are based on biggest speculation that evolution is true . :))

    I stay with fact 1 that can be proved now and here by any lab while assumption 2 is …just a speculation.

  115. 115
    Querius says:

    JHolo @113,

    Yes, I’ve read that as well. That many other humans lived at the time of mitochondrial “Eve” and Y-chromosomal “Adam” and that all other lineages somehow became extinct except for one.

    Or maybe humans evolved any number of times and became extinct only to re-evolve again.

    Or maybe human-like beings evolved from remote taxons such as long-lived octopuses that evolved adaptations to terrestrial life such as Octopus paxarbolis. (smile)

    But, this is all speculation without any actual evidence.

    -Q

  116. 116
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Some grist for the mill

    https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/human-skin-color-variation/modern-human-diversity-genetics

    People today look remarkably diverse on the outside. But how much of this diversity is genetically encoded? How deep are these differences between human groups? First, compared with many other mammalian species, humans are genetically far less diverse – a counterintuitive finding, given our large population and worldwide distribution. For example, the subspecies of the chimpanzee that lives just in central Africa, Pan troglodytes troglodytes, has higher levels of diversity than do humans globally, and the genetic differentiation between the western (P. t. verus) and central (P. t. troglodytes) subspecies of chimpanzees is much greater than that between human populations.

    Early studies of human diversity showed that most genetic diversity was found between individuals rather than between populations or continents and that variation in human diversity is best described by geographic gradients, or clines. A wide-ranging study published in 2004 found that 87.6% percent of the total modern human genetic diversity is accounted for by the differences between individuals, and only 9.2% between continents. In general, 5%–15% of genetic variation occurs between large groups living on different continents, with the remaining majority of the variation occurring within such groups (Lewontin 1972; Jorde et al. 2000a; Hinds et al. 2005). These results show that when individuals are sampled from around the globe, the pattern seen is not a matter of discrete clusters – but rather gradients in genetic variation (gradual geographic variations in allele frequencies) that extend over the entire world. Therefore,there is no reason to assume that major genetic discontinuities exist between peoples on different continents or “races.” The authors of the 2004 study say that they ‘see no reason to assume that “races” represent any units of relevance for understanding human genetic history. An exception may be genes where different selection regimes have acted in different geographical regions. However, even in those cases, the genetic discontinuities seen are generally not “racial” or continental in nature but depend on historical and cultural factors that are more local in nature’ (Serre and Pääbo 2004: 1683-1684).

    KF

  117. 117
    Querius says:

    Kairosfocus @116,
    Thanks for the references.

    The authors of the 2004 study say that they ‘see no reason to assume that “races” represent any units of relevance for understanding human genetic history.

    Yes, exactly! But people don’t “follow the science” when it’s politically inconvenient and incompatible with their ideology. We’re far more related than anyone thinks and Darwinism certainly rationalized and promoted the worst forms of racism.

    I finished Jeanson’s book last night. Fascinating, especially when one can map these to historical events and linguistic changes!

    -Q

  118. 118
    ram says:

    KF: Ram, extended Bible debates are not advisable at UD or other places where there will not be a relevant panel of experts.

    You are entirely free to not participate.

    P.S. I’m an expert.

    –RAM

  119. 119
    ram says:

    SA: You’re not a theist

    Um, well, yes I am.

    Where did you get the delusional idea that I’m not a “theist.”

    Keep up, man. 😀 (Kind of a proof that you’re not really paying close attention.)

    Peace

    –RAM

  120. 120
    Fred Hickson says:

    I see there are references to Nathaniel Jeanson and his latest book. There has been very little interest shown outside the Creationist community but oddly not much within it either. I did notice some discussion elsewhere, but at a religious themed site. Even there, commenters were generally dismissive. Seems he makes some basic biological errors.

  121. 121
    Querius says:

    Fred Hickson @120,
    It would be helpful if you provided support for your assertions. For example,

    There has been very little interest shown outside the Creationist community but oddly not much within it either.

    But Jeanson’s book published in 2022 is already sold out and due for a second printing this summer. So, what information to the contrary did you base your statements on?

    Seems he makes some basic biological errors.

    Really? Such as what?

    -Q

  122. 122
    kairosfocus says:

    Ram, you full well know that UD is not where there would be a relevant panel of experts and it is also clear there are other venues with such. That in itself raises serious questions about your repeated attempts to push such here when just on a first point we can see that there is serious, take pause, thought behind what you obviously oppose. KF

    PS, For example, the 2nd linked at 106 above notes of Isa 53, part of the Tanakh:

    Isaiah 53 does not appear in synagogue calendar readings. But its obscurity, its presence in the shadows, and the silence surrounding it shouts its importance. Its omission from the synagogue readings points to its uniqueness. One Jewish scholar, Claude Montefiore, explained: “Because of the Christological interpretation given to the chapter by Christians it is omitted from the series of prophetical lessons for the Deuteronomy Sabbaths…the omission is deliberate and striking.”1

    Why is the omission so striking? Because when we finish the cycle of readings for the year, we haven’t really finished it. We’ve left out a portion of our own prophets ostensibly because of what Christians think about it. Why has the Christian interpretation of Jewish Scripture placed regulations on what is or is not read in synagogues around the world?

    But it isn’t only because of the Christian interpretation that the Isaiah passage is omitted. After all, the services from which it is omitted aren’t for Christian ears. So the problem is not what Christians think of the passage—it’s what Jewish people might think . . . .

    Some of the first written interpretations or targums (ancient paraphrases on biblical texts) see this passage as referring to an individual servant, the Messiah, who would suffer. Messianic Jewish Talmudist, Rachmiel Frydland, recounts:

    Our ancient commentators with one accord noted that the context clearly speaks of God’s Anointed One, the Messiah. The Aramaic translation of this chapter, ascribed to Rabbi Jonathan ben Uzziel, a disciple of Hillel who lived early in the second century c.e., begins with the simple and worthy words:

    Behold my servant Messiah shall prosper; he shall be high, and increase, and be exceeding strong: as the house of Israel looked to him through many days, because their countenance was darkened among the peoples, and their complexion beyond the sons of men (Targum Jonathan on Isaiah 53, ad locum).2

    We find the same interpretation in the Babylonian Talmud:

    What is his [the Messiah’s] name? The Rabbis said: His name is “the leper scholar,” as it is written, “Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted.” (Sanhedrin 98b)

    Similarly, in an explanation of Ruth 2:14 in the Midrash Rabbah it states:

    He is speaking of the King Messiah: “Come hither,” draw near to the throne; “and eat of the bread,” that is, the bread of the kingdom; “and dip thy morsel in the vinegar,” this refers to the chastisements, as it is said, “But he was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities.”

    The Zohar, in its interpretation of Isaiah 53, points to the Messiah as well:

    There is in the Garden of Eden a palace named the Palace of the Sons of Sickness. This palace the Messiah enters, and He summons every pain and every chastisement of Israel. All of these come and rest upon Him. And had He not thus lightened them upon Himself, there had been no man able to bear Israel’s chastisements for the transgression of the law; as it is written, “Surely our sicknesses he has carried.” (Zohar II, 212a)

    The early sages expected a personal Messiah to fulfill the Isaiah prophecy. No alternative interpretation was applied to this passage until the Middle Ages.

    Of course, Rashi introduced a different, collective understanding of the passage. That same linked goes on to comment:

    Rashi believed that the servant passages of Isaiah referred to the collective fate of the nation of Israel rather than a personal Messiah. Some rabbis, such as Ibn Ezra and Kimhi, agreed. However, many other rabbinic sages during this same period and later—including Maimonides—realized the inconsistencies of Rashi’s views and would not abandon the original messianic interpretations.

    The objections these rabbis put forth to Rashi’s view were threefold: First, they showed the consensus of ancient opinion. Second, they pointed out that the text is grammatically in the singular tense throughout. For example, “He was despised and rejected … he was pierced for our transgressions … he was led like a lamb to the slaughter.” Third, they noted verse eight of chapter 53. This verse presents some difficulty to those who interpret this passage as referring to Israel:

    By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people? (Isaiah 53:8)

    But, were the Jewish people ever “cut off from the land of the living?” Absolutely not! God promises that Israel will live forever:

    If this fixed order [the sun to shine by day, the moon and stars to shine by night, etc.] departs from before me, declares the Lord, then shall the offspring of Israel cease from being a nation before me forever. (Jeremiah 31:36)

    Likewise, this interpretation makes nonsense of the phrase, “for the transgression of my people he was stricken,” since “my people” clearly means the Jewish people. If verse eight refers to Israel, then are we to read that Israel is stricken for Israel because of Israel’s sin? How can the sin-bearer and the sinner be the same? Likewise, how can Israel be the servant, the one who “had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth” (Isaiah 53:9)? Israel is not now, nor ever has been, without sin—the Scriptures are replete with examples of Israel’s disobedience.

    All of these inconsistencies troubled many rabbis, and they expressed their opinions concerning Rashi’s view. Rabbi Moshe Kohen Iben Crispin of Cordova, who lived in the 14th century, said of the Israel-as-servant interpretation, it “distorts the passage from its natural meaning,” and that Isaiah 53 “was given of God as a description of the Messiah, whereby, when any should claim to be the Messiah, to judge by the resemblance or non-resemblance to it whether he were the Messiah or not.”3

    So, what is so controversial, that it is apparently deemed ill advised to have this text in regular readings? Oh, things like this. Y’nkow, text that reads like:

    Isa 53:1 Who has believed what he has heard from us?
    And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
    2For he grew up before him like a young plant,
    and like a root out of dry ground;
    he had no form or majesty that we should look at him,
    and no beauty that we should desire him.

    3 He was despised and rejected by men;
    a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief;
    and as one from whom men hide their faces
    he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

    4 Surely he has borne our griefs
    and carried our sorrows;
    yet we esteemed him stricken,
    smitten by God, and afflicted.
    5 But he was wounded for our transgressions;
    he was crushed for our iniquities;
    upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
    and with his stripes we are healed.
    6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
    we have turned—every one—to his own way;
    and the LORD has laid on him
    the iniquity of us all
    .

    7He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
    yet he opened not his mouth;
    like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
    and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
    so he opened not his mouth.
    8By oppression and judgment he was taken away;
    and as for his generation,
    who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living,
    stricken for the transgression of my people
    ?

    9And they made his grave with the wicked
    and with a rich man in his death,
    although he had done no violence,
    and there was no deceit in his mouth
    .
    10Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him;
    he has put him to grief;
    when his soul makes an offering for guilt,
    he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
    the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand
    .

    11Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied;
    by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
    make many to be accounted righteous,
    and he shall bear their iniquities.
    12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many,
    and he shall divide the spoil with the strong,
    because he poured out his soul to death
    and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many,
    and makes intercession for the transgressors.

    C 700 BC.

  123. 123
    ram says:

    KF,

    So you do want to have a Bible study here?

    P.S. read all of the surrounding context of Isaiah 53. “My servant” is Jacob/Israel.

    No wonder Christians are so misguided about the Hebrew scriptures.

    –Bill

  124. 124
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Bill

    Why don’t you say what you want to say? Tell us what you believe and why. Do that before attacking everybody else.

  125. 125
    Querius says:

    RAM/Bill (however you prefer),
    Kairosfocus apparently wanted to demonstrate that he’s familiar with the biblical arguments, but has repeatedly requested that “extended Bible debates are not advisable at UD.”

    P.S. read all of the surrounding context of Isaiah 53. “My servant” is Jacob/Israel.

    Yes, Kairosfocus actually did mention Rashi’s interpretation in his reply to your angry posts.

    So, why not instead contribute discussion pertinent to the OP about Darwinism and racism?

    -Q

  126. 126
    ram says:

    Querius: angry

    Haha.

    Rashi

    Rashi is akin to Archer Gleason. Hehe. Hehehe.

    Believe whatever stupid apologetics you want. But don’t expect serious scholars to agree.

    –RAM

  127. 127
    Querius says:

    RAM @126,

    Likewise. So, why not instead contribute discussion pertinent to the OP about Darwinism and racism?

    -Q

  128. 128
    kairosfocus says:

    Ram, we both know this is the pivotal text, one that has a long history within Judaism [down to today] that holds that it is about a specific individual rather than Israel as a whole, i.e. messiah as wounded healer, rejected David like hero and sin bearer who is unjustly judicially murdered or lynched among actual malefactors and buried with the rich but after making his soul a sin offering prolongs his days and the will of the Lord prospers in his hands to the point where kings of the nations do him homage. I cited the above after your persistent doubling down, to show that your pose is not a balanced one. Indeed, the omission from reading cycle itself speaks to a broader pattern of imbalance. I trust that going forward, you will take such debates to more appropriate fora and will actually refocus here on UD’s focal matters. The sad, dangerous state of our civilisation more than warrants such a refocussing. KF

  129. 129
    Sandy says:

    Believe whatever stupid apologetics you want. But don’t expect serious scholars to agree.

    –RAM

    buffoon noun
    buf·foon |
    Definition of buffoon
    1: a ludicrous figure : CLOWN
    2: a gross and usually ill-educated or stupid person acting like a ridiculous buffoon

  130. 130
    Querius says:

    Kairosfocus @128,

    I trust that going forward, you will take such debates to more appropriate fora and will actually refocus here on UD’s focal matters. The sad, dangerous state of our civilisation more than warrants such a refocussing.

    Indeed!

    And by not recognizing the principles, rationalizations, and sources behind such travesties as plantation slavery ensures its functional equivalents to continue unabated in the form of the de facto slavery due to the U.S. government under multiple Democrat and Republican administrations! They have ALL been obviously unwilling to even consider terminating

    (a) “Undocumented migration” in favor of streamlining legal immigration
    (b) H-1B visa abuses for technical workers held hostage to immediate deportation
    (c) Labor law exemptions for inhumane treatment of farm labor
    (d) Well-known abusive warehouse and delivery service practices
    (e) Unabated commercial monetization of brutal offshore sweatshops.

    They simply blame the other party and pretend to care in exchange for large campaign contributions.

    The key perspective is in the words de facto and the concept of Darwinism has been broadly applied to ethnicities, social policy, and economics with predictable and dehumanizing results.

    -Q

  131. 131
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: We must remember, Darwin’s other book on Evolution, Descent of Man, 1871, ch 6:

    Man is liable to numerous, slight, and diversified variations, which are induced by the same general causes, are governed and transmitted in accordance with the same general laws, as in the lower animals. Man has multiplied so rapidly, that he has necessarily been exposed to struggle for existence [–> onward, of course lies, My Struggle], and consequently to natural selection. He has given rise to many races, some of which differ so much from each other, that they have often been ranked by naturalists as distinct species . . . .

    At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

    This extension of the concept, “favoured races” as found in the subtitle of Origin of Species, brings out an inherent moral hazard in Darwin’s thought, which sadly opened the door to what would follow. Regrettably, this was posed in a context of explanation of missing links:

    EVEN if it be granted that the difference between man and his
    nearest allies is as great in corporeal structure as some
    naturalists maintain, and although we must grant that the difference
    between them is immense in mental power, yet the facts given in the
    earlier chapters appear to declare, in the plainest manner, that man
    is descended from some lower form, notwithstanding that
    connecting-links have not hitherto been discovered . . .

    Unfortunately, no resources were posed to address this, and instead the frame of thought gave an open invitation to racism dressed up in the lab coat as say the sad fate of Ota Benga will demonstrate.

    The intractable problems of evolutionary ethics fall into this context. That which can have in it no IS capable of bearing the weight of ought inevitably so relativises and subjectivises moral government that it invites the inference that ethics is grand delusion and is fair game for manipulation through nihilistic will to power. Ironically, such an oil of vitriol also eats ever on, including rationality, knowledge, logic. Such opens the door to nihilism as Plato long since warned about as a cultural consequence of domination of the intellectual culture by evolutionary materialism.

    Yes, this is nothing new, it was understood in the aftermath of the collapse of Athens through the general context of the Peloponnesian war.

    A sobering lesson of history:

    Ath[enian Stranger, in The Laws, Bk X 2,360 ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical “material” elements of the cosmos — the natural order], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ –> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity; observe, too, the trichotomy: “nature” (here, mechanical, blind necessity), “chance” (similar to a tossed fair die), ART (the action of a mind, i.e. intelligently directed configuration)] . . . .

    [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-

    [ –> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics, so too justice, law and government: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by “winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . ” cf a video on Plato’s parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]

    These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,

    [ –> Evolutionary materialism — having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT — leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for “OUGHT” is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in “spin”), opening the door to cynicism, hyperskepticism and nihilism . . . ]

    and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ –> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality “naturally” leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ –> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, “naturally” tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush — as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [–> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].

    So, yes, Darwin opened a fateful door.

    KF

  132. 132
    Querius says:

    Kairosfocus @131,

    At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. . . . The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

    In addition to opening the door to eugenics and “genetic hygiene,” Darwin’s quotes in Descent of Man reveal his egregious racism. The fact is that William Wilberforce in the UK and the abolitionists in the U.S. did not go along with the racist narrative. Even earlier, there was transition from opportunistic commercial slavery to “race-based” slavery (using an arbitrary definition of race), and with Darwin’s help, to “scientific racism.”

    For example,

    Yet, the system of racialized chattel slavery that had fully matured on plantations in the Americas by the 18th century was at an extreme end of a continuum in slave systems of coercion, dehumanization, and violence. Racism justified and buttressed this system more fully perhaps than it has with any slave system. Yet, racism is an idea that changed over time. As with any historical idea, it must be contextualized rather than treated as a transhistorical essence that does not change across centuries. Early 17th-century English racism looked very different than the elaborately imagined scientific racism of the late 19th century. Scientific racism did not emerge among Europeans until the late 18th century and racial thinking was rarely articulated in depth before that point.
    https://oxfordre.com/americanhistory/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.001.0001/acrefore-9780199329175-e-268

    Concealed in the discussion about slavery under term, “the Americas,” was the leading role played by Portugal in Brazil, where indigenous people were enslaved at first, later followed by Africans. Brazil led the Americas in the number of Africans enslaved. Also usually forgotten was the lucrative involvement by the northeastern shipowners in the U.S.

    It’s a pity that Darwin’s horrible ideas are still being protected by the scientific establishment.

    -Q

  133. 133
    Querius says:

    And just thinking about it, this pathology is the complement of this one:
    https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/what-blocks-new-ideas-in-science/

    -Q

Leave a Reply