Is there such a thing as morality or ethics?

_{Denyse O'Leary

October 17, 2021

Ethics, Intelligent Design, Naturalism, theism}

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

Atheist broadcaster Matt Dillahunty now challenges neurosurgeon Michael Egnor: There is no way to know whether a moral doctrine represents any reality apart from belief:

Michael Egnor: You’ve agreed with me that there are people who act out of respect for an objective moral law.
Matt Dillahunty: I agree with you there are people who act that way because of their belief and whether they believe it’s objective or not is irrelevant. They can believe it’s subjective and still do it. [01:29:30]
Michael Egnor: So, you don’t believe that it’s objectively wrong, for example, to kill innocent people, or rape babies, or exterminate the Jews?
Matt Dillahunty: Hang on. We just went through a whole bunch of stuff and when you got to a point where it was exposed that you were wrong about what you said, you went back to: I don’t think it’s objectively wrong to rape people and kill babies. That’s not what we were just discussing. We were discussing altruism and whether or not there’s a justification for it.
Michael Egnor: Yeah. But it’s what we’re discussing now, Matt. My question is, is it objectively wrong to do certain things, outside of opinions? [01:30:00]
Matt Dillahunty: I’ve already answered this and I’m sorry that you don’t understand it. I will try one more time.
When you declare what a foundation of morality is, once that’s done, you can compare the consequences of various actions with respect to that foundation, with respect to that goal. That comparison can be objective in the same way that the rules of chess are ultimately arbitrary. They didn’t have to be that way. We made up the game. It is objectively against the rules for you to move your pawn forward four spaces at the beginning of the game. Now, you can say, is it objectively wrong? Well, no, we could have house rules, but we’re talking about these rules.
News, “8. Does morality really exist? If so, does it come from God?” at Mind Matters News

C.S. Lewis (1898–1963) certainly disagreed with Dillahunty in The Abolition of Man (1943), where he talks about the Tao that forms the basis of all human morality.

Takehome: Michael Egnor insists that a moral law exists independently of varying opinions. As C.S. Lewis pointed out, that has always been the traditional view worldwide.

The debate to date:

Debate: Former atheist neurosurgeon vs. former Christian activist. At Theology Unleashed, each gets a chance to state his case and interrogate the other. In a lively debate at Theology Unleashed, neurosurgeon Michael Egnor and broadcaster Matt Dillahunty clash over the existence of God.
A neurosurgeon’s ten proofs for the existence of God. First, how did a medic, formerly an atheist, who cuts open people’s brains for a living, come to be sure there is irrefutable proof for God? In a lively debate at Theology Unleashed, Michael Egnor and Matt Dillahunty clash over “Does God exist?” Egnor starts off.
Atheist Dillahunty spots fallacies in Christian Egnor’s views. “My position is that it’s unacceptable to believe something if the available evidence does not support it.” Dillahunty: We can’t conclusively disprove an unfalsifiable proposition. And that is what most “God” definitions, at least as far as I can tell, are.
Egnor now tries to find out what Dillahunty actually knows… About philosophical arguments for the existence of God, as he begins a rebuttal. Atheist Dillahunty appears unable to recall the philosophical arguments for God’s existence, which poses a challenge for Egnor in rebutting him.
Egnor, Dillahunty dispute the basic causes behind the universe. In a peppery exchange, Egnor argues that proofs of God’s existence follow the same logical structure as proofs in science. If the universe begins in a singularity (where Einstein’s equations break down), what lies behind it? Egnor challenges Dillahunty on that.
Is Matt Dillahunty using science as a crutch for his atheism? That’s neurosurgeon Michael Egnor’s accusation in this third part of the debate, which features a continued discussion of singularities, where conventional “laws of nature” break down.
If the “supernatural” means “outside of conventional nature,” Michael Egnor argues, science routinely accepts it, based on evidence.
Dillahunty asks 2nd oldest question: If God exists, why evil? In the debate between Christian neurosurgeon Michael Egnor and atheist broadcaster Matt Dillahunty, the question of raping a baby was bound to arise.
Egnor argues that there is an objective moral law against such acts; Dillahunty argues, no, it is all just human judgment.
Does morality really exist? If so, does it come from God? Matt Dillahunty now challenges Michael Egnor: There is no way to know whether a moral doctrine represents any reality apart from belief. Michael Egnor insists that a moral law exists independently of varying opinions. As C.S. Lewis pointed out, that has always been the traditional view worldwide.

You may also wish to read:

Science can and does point to God’s existence. Michael Egnor: Natural science is not at all methodologically naturalist — it routinely points to causes outside of nature. If we are to understand natural effects, we must be open to all kinds of causes, including causes that transcend nature.

The Divine Hiddenness argument against God’s existence = nonsense. God in Himself is immeasurably greater than we are, and He transcends all human knowledge. A God with whom we do not struggle — who is not in some substantial and painful way hidden to us — is not God but is a mere figment of our imagination.

Atheist Claims about logical fallacies often just mean: Shut Up! In the recent debate, Matt Dillahunty accuses theists of “the fallacy of the argument from personal incredulity” because we examine his claims and find them incredible. What atheists fear most is having to explain themselves, and the invocation of fictitious “fallacies” is one of their favorite ways to evade scrutiny.

and

Theists vs. atheists: Which group has the burden of proof? Because Dillahunty refuses to debate me again, I’ll address his claim that atheists have no burden of proof in the debate over God’s existence in this post. Both atheists and theists make positive statements about the nature of the universe. If atheists shun the ensuing burden of proof, it should count against them.

Comments

Bornagain77, Thank you for the detailed comment and links to additional source’s much appreciated.Seekers_{October 18, 2021
October
10
Oct
18
18
2021
08:21 PM
8
08
21
PM
PDT}

Bob O'H:
I guess that must hold for pornography too.
Your guess is not an argument. But yes, pornography exemplifies a loss of morals and ethics.
I’m sure Justice Potter Stewart would have liked to have had you advising him in 1964.
Doubtful. I was only 6.ET_{October 18, 2021
October
10
Oct
18
18
2021
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT}

There are disagreements over written laws. Does that mean those written laws don't exist?ET_{October 18, 2021
October
10
Oct
18
18
2021
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT}

To clean up any confusion that JVL, (purposely :) ), tried to create about the impossibility of biologists doing their research without constantly, and illegitimately, using words that directly imply teleology, i.e. goal directed purpose, I will list a few notes: In the following article Stephen Talbott challenges biologists to "pose a single topic for biological research, doing so in language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness",
The ‘Mental Cell’: Let’s Loosen Up Biological Thinking! – Stephen L. Talbott – September 9, 2014 Excerpt: Many biologists are content to dismiss the problem with hand-waving: “When we wield the language of agency, we are speaking metaphorically, and we could just as well, if less conveniently, abandon the metaphors”. Yet no scientist or philosopher has shown how this shift of language could be effected. And the fact of the matter is just obvious: the biologist who is not investigating how the organism achieves something in a well-directed way is not yet doing biology, as opposed to physics or chemistry. Is this in turn just hand-waving? Let the reader inclined to think so take up a challenge: pose a single topic for biological research, doing so in language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness 1. One reason this cannot be done is clear enough: molecular biology — the discipline that was finally going to reduce life unreservedly to mindless mechanism — is now posing its own severe challenges. In this era of Big Data, the message from every side concerns previously unimagined complexity, incessant cross-talk and intertwining pathways, wildly unexpected genomic performances, dynamic conformational changes involving proteins and their cooperative or antagonistic binding partners, pervasive multifunctionality, intricately directed behavior somehow arising from the interaction of countless players in interpenetrating networks, and opposite effects by the same molecules in slightly different contexts. The picture at the molecular level begins to look as lively and organic — and thoughtful — as life itself. http://natureinstitute.org/txt/st/org/comm/ar/2014/mental_cell_23.htm
Denis Noble, Emeritus Professor of Physiology at the University of Oxford, also stated that "it is virtually impossible to speak of living beings for any length of time without using teleological and normative language—words like “goal,” “purpose,” “meaning,” “correct/incorrect,” “success/failure,” etc.”
“the most striking thing about living things, in comparison with non-living systems, is their teleological organization—meaning the way in which all of the local physical and chemical interactions cohere in such a way as to maintain the overall system in existence. Moreover, it is virtually impossible to speak of living beings for any length of time without using teleological and normative language—words like “goal,” “purpose,” “meaning,” “correct/incorrect,” “success/failure,” etc.” – Denis Noble – Emeritus Professor of Cardiovascular Physiology in the Department of Physiology, Anatomy, and Genetics of the Medical Sciences Division of the University of Oxford. http://www.thebestschools.org/dialogues/evolution-denis-noble-interview/
This working biologist agrees with Talbott and Noble’s assessment and states, “in our work, we biologists use words that imply intentionality, functionality, strategy, and design in biology–we simply cannot avoid them.”
Life, Purpose, Mind: Where the Machine Metaphor Fails – Ann Gauger – June 2011 Excerpt: I’m a working biologist, on bacterial regulation (transcription and translation and protein stability) through signalling molecules, ,,, I can confirm the following points as realities: we lack adequate conceptual categories for what we are seeing in the biological world; with many additional genomes sequenced annually, we have much more data than we know what to do with (and making sense of it has become the current challenge); cells are staggeringly chock full of sophisticated technologies, which are exquisitely integrated; life is not dominated by a single technology, but rather a composite of many; and yet life is more than the sum of its parts; in our work, we biologists use words that imply intentionality, functionality, strategy, and design in biology–we simply cannot avoid them. Furthermore, I suggest that to maintain that all of biology is solely a product of selection and genetic decay and time requires a metaphysical conviction that isn’t troubled by the evidence. Alternatively, it could be the view of someone who is unfamiliar with the evidence, for one reason or another. But for those who will consider the evidence that is so obvious throughout biology, I suggest it’s high time we moved on. – Matthew http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/life_purpose_mind_where_the_ma046991.html#comment-8858161
Moreover, the following 2020 research article found that, “teleological concepts cannot be abstracted away from biological explanations without loss of meaning and explanatory power, life is inherently teleological.”
Metaphor and Meaning in the Teleological Language of Biology Annie L. Crawford – August 2020 Abstract: Excerpt: However, most discussions regarding the legitimacy of teleological language in biology fail to consider the nature of language itself. Since conceptual language is intrinsically metaphorical, teleological language can be dismissed as decorative if and only if it can be replaced with alternative metaphors without loss of essential meaning. I conclude that, since teleological concepts cannot be abstracted away from biological explanations without loss of meaning and explanatory power, life is inherently teleological. https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/biologists-cant-stop-using-purpose-driven-language-because-life-really-is-designed/
Moreover, to make their illegitimate use of teleological language all the more devastating for Darwinists, it turns out that it is the ‘narrative gloss' of evolution itself that can be readily jettisoned from, and/or replaced in, research papers without negatively effecting the scientific research of the papers. As the late Philip Skell pointed out, “In the peer-reviewed literature, the word “evolution” often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for “evolution” some other word – “Buddhism,” “Aztec cosmology,” or even “creationism.” I found that the substitution never touched the paper’s core.”
“In the peer-reviewed literature, the word “evolution” often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for “evolution” some other word – “Buddhism,” “Aztec cosmology,” or even “creationism.” I found that the substitution never touched the paper’s core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.,,, Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology.” Philip S. Skell – (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. – Why Do We Invoke Darwin? – 2005
And as the following article found, after they jettisoned the 'narrative gloss' of Darwinian explanations, the science in papers "not only survived, but proved healthier and more useful."
No Harm, No Foul — What If Darwinism Were Excised from Biology? – December 4, 2019 If Darwinism is as essential to biology as Richard Dawkins or Jerry Coyne argues, then removing evolutionary words and concepts, (“Darwin-ectomy”), should make research incomprehensible. If, on the other hand, Darwinism is more of a “narrative gloss” applied to the conclusions after the scientific work is done, as the late Philip Skell observed, then biology would survive the operation just fine. It might even be healthier, slimmed down after disposing of unnecessary philosophical baggage.,,, So, here are three papers in America’s premier science journal that appear at first glance to need Darwinism, use Darwinism, support Darwinism, and thereby impart useful scientific knowledge. After subjecting them to Darwin-ectomies, though, the science not only survived, but proved healthier and more useful. https://evolutionnews.org/2019/12/no-harm-no-foul-what-if-darwinism-were-excised-from-biology/
In short, unlike their use of teleological language, the 'narrative gloss' of Darwinian explanations simply is not needed in order for researchers to do their research into biology. Indeed, Darwinian ideas simply have not advanced any fields of science. As Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, stated, "In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all."
"In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all." - Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005
And as Adam S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, stated, ""While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.”
"While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.” - Adam S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to "Evolutionary Processes" - (2000).
Shoot, even arch-Darwinist Jerry Coyne himself honestly admitted that Darwinian ideas have been, basically, useless in so far as advancing any science:
“Truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of ‘like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.” (Jerry Coyne, “Selling Darwin: Does it matter whether evolution has any commercial applications?,” reviewing The Evolving World: Evolution in Everyday Life by David P. Mindell, in Nature, 442:983-984 (August 31, 2006).)
Thus JVL can deny the crucial, and illegitimate, dependence that Darwinists have on teleological language all he wants, but the fact of the matter is that there is no escaping their illegitimate use of teleological language in biological research. Whereas, on the other hand, the 'narrative gloss' of Darwinian explanations can be easily stripped away without any loss of explanatory power, in fact, as was shown in one of the articles I cited, removing the 'narrative gloss' of Darwinian explanations actually makes the science "healthier and more useful." In summary, the teleological nature, i.e. goal directed purpose, of the very words that Biologists themselves are forced to use when they are describing their biological research falsifies Darwinian evolution and provides compelling evidence that life is indeed infused with meaning and purpose. Moreover, since biological life is itself, from top to bottom, infused with 'goal directed purpose', then that means that we ourselves can be extremely confident that our own lives must necessarily have a deeper purpose and meaning to them, and that our live are not completely meaningless and purposeless as Darwinists hold.
Matthew 12:37 for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
bornagain77_{October 18, 2021
October
10
Oct
18
18
2021
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT}

JVL, Thanks for clearing that up. I did see the typo and presumed it meant teleological, but thanks none the less for clarifying.Seekers_{October 18, 2021
October
10
Oct
18
18
2021
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT}

Vividbleau @24,
Since when does disagreement about something’s objective existence mean it does not objectively exist?
Obviously, this question requires a theleological answer (snicker) assuming that anything that's non-materialistic by definition does not actually "exist" in fact. Elements in this set include - Love - Faith - Justice - Logic - Mathematics . . . -QQuerius_{October 18, 2021
October
10
Oct
18
18
2021
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT}

JVL “If it exists then why can it not be produced” Hers is a novel idea , how about answering my question? Vividvividbleau_{October 18, 2021
October
10
Oct
18
18
2021
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT}

Vividbleau: Since when does disagreement about something’s objective existence mean it does not objectively exist? If it exists then why can it not be produced, demonstrated and why is there disagreement about what it says? Can you produce this objective, moral code? For all cases? Even when many of the faithful cannot agree on what it says? Seekers: What is your definition of teleology? From Wikipedia: Teleology (from ?????, telos, 'end', 'aim', or 'goal,' and ?????, logos, 'explanation' or 'reason') or finality is a reason or explanation for something as a function of its end, purpose, or goal, as opposed to as a function of its cause. A purpose that is imposed by a human use, such as the purpose of a fork to hold food, is called extrinsic. But, generally, on this forum I use it to mean something explained by the wishes or actions of a deity. In response #23 above I meant to say "theological" when I typed "theleogical" which clearly doesn't make sense.JVL_{October 18, 2021
October
10
Oct
18
18
2021
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77 @19,
“Teleology is like a mistress to the biologist; he dare not be seen with her in public but cannot live without her.” J. B. S. Haldane
I love that quote! So honest for a change. The fact is that objective morality was delivered to us in Torah, including the 10 Commandments. Certainly other societies came up with similar codes, demonstrating a very fundamental human desire for some basic universal truths. But there are indeed more subjective expressions of morality often expressed in societal norms such as monogamy and etiquette. In addition, there are personal convictions that are no less sincerely and deeply held, such as being a vegetarian, not drinking alcohol, or clothing practices. I know from a long-time Christian missionary to Papua New Guinea that members of a former headhunting tribe told my friend that even when they were celebrating a great victory over a neighboring tribe and were feasting on their most noble slain warriors, that they could not understand why they always felt bad afterwards. After many of them came to the Christian faith, he let the tribes themselves sort out the details. He only introduced two practices that had the effect of increasing the average lifespan in that tribe about 10 years. Anyone want to guess what they were? -QQuerius_{October 18, 2021
October
10
Oct
18
18
2021
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

JVL, What is your definition of teleology?Seekers_{October 18, 2021
October
10
Oct
18
18
2021
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT}

JVL “ how can there be an objective, moral code when no one can agree on what it says “ Since when does disagreement about something’s objective existence mean it does not objectively exist? Vividvividbleau_{October 18, 2021
October
10
Oct
18
18
2021
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77: As I said, I’ll let my post stand as written, I see nothing of any substance coming from you that comes anywhere near refuting the points I made. If you're happy to not address my queries: how can there be an objective, moral code when no one can agree on what it says AND how is testing perceived patterns for robustness theleological; then I'm happy to agree you chose not to even attempt to answer those things. Plus you can't even begin to explain if math is designed how it could have been designed differently. You just assert things and then avoid dealing with uncomfortable issues that cast doubt on your faith-based assertions. Again, here's a mathematical example. It has been proven that any map can be coloured so that no 'country' borders another country with the same colour with at most four colours. Now, do you seriously think that some designer sat down with their advisors and thought: gosh, how many colours should it be? Three? Four? Five seems better . . . hmm . . . how do we pick?JVL_{October 18, 2021
October
10
Oct
18
18
2021
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

Sev, strawman. Oddly, to make your objection (which is indirectly against first duties of reason) you implicitly appealed to said first duties, again inadvertently showing that they are inescapable, inescapably true -- so, certain, objective and known -- first principles of responsible reason. KFkairosfocus_{October 18, 2021
October
10
Oct
18
18
2021
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

As I said, I'll let my post stand as written, I see nothing of any substance coming from you that comes anywhere near refuting the points I made.bornagain77_{October 18, 2021
October
10
Oct
18
18
2021
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77: Whatever JVL, you apparently want to argue over disagreements some Christians have on morality rather than if objective morality exists or not,,,, which is what the post is about, which reveals that you yourself really have an anti-Christian agenda rather than any desire to seek the truth of if objective morality exists or not. I'm wondering how an objective morality could exist if those who believe it exists cannot agree on what it says. Can you address that point please. You also claim that Darwinists are not really illegitimately using words that directly imply teleology. That is a patently false claim. I said I don't see how pattern recognition and testing the proposed patterns has anything to do with teleology. You pick and choose quotes that support your view without actually addressing my particular points. I will let my posts stand as written, I see nothing of any substance coming from you that comes anywhere near refuting the claims I made, via biological science, for the existence of objective morality, and for real purpose and meaning for our lives.. Again, if there is an objective morality then why is there no universal agreement as to what it says? You can't just keep saying one exists if you can't definitively state what it says beyond any doubt for a given issue. Consider this: why are there so many different Christian denominations and branches if they are all referencing the same, universal, common, objective morality? Shouldn't there only be one church, one doctrine? Again, exploring possible patterns has nothing to do with design. Think about mathematics. I think mathematics is universal and true everywhere at all times. Do you think the fact there there are discoverable theorems and results (not appealing to any kind of deity) means the whole system had to be designed? If so that means there must be at least one other way mathematics could be set up. Can you suggest another way math could work? Cherry picking quotes doesn't address the questions. You've convinced yourself but that doesn't mean you're correct.JVL_{October 18, 2021
October
10
Oct
18
18
2021
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

Whatever JVL, you apparently want to argue over disagreements some Christians have on morality rather than if objective morality exists or not,,,, which is what the post is about, which reveals that you yourself really have an anti-Christian agenda rather than any desire to seek the truth of if objective morality exists or not. You also claim that Darwinists are not really illegitimately using words that directly imply teleology. That is a patently false claim.
“Teleology is like a mistress to the biologist; he dare not be seen with her in public but cannot live without her.” J. B. S. Haldane
So again, whatever JVL, I will let my posts stand as written, I see nothing of any substance coming from you that comes anywhere near refuting the claims I made, via biological science, for the existence of objective morality, and for real purpose and meaning for our lives..bornagain77_{October 18, 2021
October
10
Oct
18
18
2021
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77: JVL are you claiming that disagreements among Christians over moral issues is evidence that objective morality does not really exist? I'm suggesting it's compelling evidence that there is no clear, objective Christian moral standard. Your arguments that one exists dodge addressing this point. If you cannot address all of the criticisms then, perhaps, your hypothesis is not correct. i.e. if purpose and meaning really do not exist for our lives, as Darwinists claim, then why in blue blazes is it impossible for Darwinian biologists to do their research without constantly, and illegitimately, using words that directly imply teleology, i.e. goal directed purpose? I don't think that detecting possible patterns in data and testing those patterns to see under what conditions they hold up implies any kind of teleology; especially because sometimes the suspected patterns turn out to be false. What does that say about your assumption of underlying theology? Sometimes it's wrong? If it's wrong sometimes then can it said to be overall true? Anyway, back to my point: Christians can't seem to agree on what their objective moral standard is. I can't argue against something you cannot exhibit.JVL_{October 18, 2021
October
10
Oct
18
18
2021
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

JVL are you claiming that disagreements among Christians over moral issues is evidence that objective morality does not really exist? If so, you are once again (purposely?) missing the main point of my post, To repeat, as stated in post 6,,,
multicellular life would not even exist if the molecular level of life was not based upon the highest, altruistic, moral principles found within Christian Theism of self sacrifice. Namely, if cells did not die for the good of other cells during embryonic development, multicellular life, as we know it, simply would not exist. In short, the objective existence of altruistic, self-sacrificial, morality must precede the existence of multicellular life for multicellular life to even be possible in the first place.
Moreover, I could, (directly contrary to Darwinian claims that our lives have no real purpose and meaning), also argue, via biological science, that our lives really do have purpose and meaning by the very fact that it is impossible for Darwinian biologists themselves to do their research without constantly, and illegitimately, using words that directly imply teleology, i.e. goal directed purpose. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/asked-at-reason-magazine-how-much-science-research-is-fraudulent/#comment-734700 i.e. if purpose and meaning really do not exist for our lives, as Darwinists claim, then why in blue blazes is it impossible for Darwinian biologists to do their research without constantly, and illegitimately, using words that directly imply teleology, i.e. goal directed purpose? This stunning disconnect between the claims and actions on the part of Darwinists is, for all intents and purposes, a direct contradiction in logic on the part of Darwinists that renders their claim for a purposeless existence null and void.bornagain77_{October 18, 2021
October
10
Oct
18
18
2021
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT}

Seversky states,
I am not aware of any advance in science that has supported the existence of an objective morality.
Yet Seversky, being a Darwinist, would not know empirical evidence that either validates or falsifies a theory if it bit him on the rear end. i.e. All evidence that falsifies core Darwinian precepts is simply ignored by Darwinists, such as Seversky. For instance:
1. Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are now found to be ‘directed’. 2. Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute. 3. Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke. 4. Darwin’s theory holds there to be an extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. 5. Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is consistently characterized by the sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late). 6. Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Yet thousands of instances of what is ironically called ‘convergent evolution’, on both the morphological and genetic level, falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species. 7. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.” 8. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as modern versions of it.” 9. Charles Darwin himself stated that, ““The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God. Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’. 10. Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics exists in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order to be considered scientific in the first place! 11. Donald Hoffman has, via population genetics, shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ proves that our conscious observations are reliable!. 12. The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information, via experimental realization of the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought experiment, is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy. 13. Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. i.e. Assuming reductive materialism and/or Naturalism as the starting philosophical position of science actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science! 14. Darwinists, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution. Darwinism vs. Falsification - list and link to defence of each claim https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I6fT6ATY700Bsx2-JSFqL6l-rzXpMcZcZKZfYRS45h4/edit
bornagain77_{October 18, 2021
October
10
Oct
18
18
2021
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus/7
PS: Seversky, that also means these duties are knowable, certain, objective. To try to deny or dismiss them forces one to appeal to them, undercutting the objection instantly. Self-evident by inescapability. One trying to demonstrate from imagined prior principles will run into the same issue, these are prior to proofs and arguments, they are the branch on which we all must sit so it is wise not to try to saw it off. Core moral first truths are objective and frame responsible reason, community life, governance, law and government.
The text of The Lord of the Rings is knowable with certainty but that does not mean any of the people or places in the narrative have any objective existence. I think there is not too much difference between us in terms of what we would regard as immoral behavior. The real difference is the claim by Christians that their morality has some objective foundation because, let's be clear, when people here talk about objective morality they are not talking about Islam, Buddhism, Taoism or Sikhism, they mean Christianity. In other words, it is an improper attempt by Christianity to annex the moral high ground for themselves.Seversky_{October 18, 2021
October
10
Oct
18
18
2021
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77: Well, while minor moral issues are certainly debated within the Christian community . . . Some would say that some of the debated issues are far from minor. And, minor or major, the fact that some moral issues are not agreed upon by professed Christians, present and past, seems to imply that there is no clear, objective Christian morality.JVL_{October 18, 2021
October
10
Oct
18
18
2021
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77/5
In answering the question of whether morality is objective and real, as Christians hold, or whether it is subjective and illusory, as atheists hold, the Christian, due to advances in science, no longer has to rely solely on obviously real moral principles, i.e. that it is objectively wrong to “kill innocent people, or rape babies, or exterminate the Jews”, but can now also appeal to empirical evidence to establish the fact that morality is indeed an objectively real fact of life and that it is not merely subjective and illusory as the atheist holds.
I am not aware of any advance in science that has supported the existence of an objective morality. We can hold that rape and murder are breaches of our common moral code without any need for it to be objective. All that is required is that we agree that we would rather not be raped or murdered and would rather that it didn't happen to those we love or, indeed, any other human being. Otherwise, it sounds like you are saying you would not know rape or murder are bad things unless your God had told you. Is that what you are really saying?
Most people think that the atheist’s view of morality is just one of, as Dawkins himself put it, ‘pitiless indifference’,
Dawkins was talking about how the Universe appears to be, not morality.
As Charles Darwin himself put the one defining ‘general law’ of his theory, “let the strongest live and the weakest die.”
You seem to have difficulty in distinguishing between a description of how things are observed to be and recommendations on how we should behave towards one another. Both Darwin and Dawkins explicitly disavowed survival of the fittest as a moral basis for human society.
Moreover, not only is Darwinian morality at ‘war’ with Christian morality, but it also turns out that Darwinian morality is at ‘war’ with the science itself.
Except there is no Darwinian morality. Evolution is about how things are or came to be, not how people should behave. You cannot get 'ought' from 'is', which is what all this comes down to.Seversky_{October 18, 2021
October
10
Oct
18
18
2021
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT}

JVL: "Which makes me wonder why it is that different Christians disagree on some moral issues/topics?" Well, while minor moral issues are certainly debated within the Christian community, I will take it as a self-evidently true fact that anybody claiming to be a Christian who kills innocent people, rapes babies, or exterminates Jews, is obviously not a real Christian. i.e. "having a form of godliness but denying its power."
2 Timothy 3:2-5 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, without love of good, traitorous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. Turn away from such as these!
Moreover, I note that JVL did not address the meat of my argument but instead digressed. Once again, the meat of my argument for the objective reality of morality is the fact that, as stated in post 6,,,
multicellular life would not even exist if the molecular level of life was not based upon the highest, altruistic, moral principles found within Christian Theism of self sacrifice. Namely, if cells did not die for the good of other cells during embryonic development, multicellular life, as we know it, simply would not exist. In short, the objective existence of altruistic, self-sacrificial, morality must precede the existence of multicellular life for multicellular life to even be possible in the first place.
bornagain77_{October 18, 2021
October
10
Oct
18
18
2021
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

Do morality or ethics have any objective existence?
If they don’t then morality and ethics don’t exist. The concepts of a subjective morality and subjective ethics are total nonsense.
I guess that must hold for pornography too. I'm sure Justice Potter Stewart would have liked to have had you advising him in 1964.Bob O'H_{October 18, 2021
October
10
Oct
18
18
2021
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77: In answering the question of whether morality is objective and real, as Christians hold, or whether it is subjective and illusory, as atheists hold, the Christian, due to advances in science, no longer has to rely solely on obviously real moral principles, i.e. that it is objectively wrong to “kill innocent people, or rape babies, or exterminate the Jews”, but can now also appeal to empirical evidence to establish the fact that morality is indeed an objectively real fact of life and that it is not merely subjective and illusory as the atheist holds. Which makes me wonder why it is that different Christians disagree on some moral issues/topics? Both in the current day and compared to their historical antecedents.JVL_{October 18, 2021
October
10
Oct
18
18
2021
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT}

seversky:
Do morality or ethics have any objective existence?
If they don't then morality and ethics don't exist. The concepts of a subjective morality and subjective ethics are total nonsense.ET_{October 18, 2021
October
10
Oct
18
18
2021
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

BO'H, you too. KFkairosfocus_{October 18, 2021
October
10
Oct
18
18
2021
04:40 AM
4
04
40
AM
PDT}

Notice Dillahunty's implicit, inescapable underlying appeal to duties to truth and right reason, warrant etc? That's a clue that objectors to first duties find themselves unable to avoid appealing to what they would overthrow. That is, pervasive first principles that are inescapable and inescapably true. Self evidence, yet again. Our responsible, rational freedom is inescapably morally governed, minds are inherently moral and these first duties are moral first truths that accurately describe reality. KF PS: Seversky, that also means these duties are knowable, certain, objective. To try to deny or dismiss them forces one to appeal to them, undercutting the objection instantly. Self-evident by inescapability. One trying to demonstrate from imagined prior principles will run into the same issue, these are prior to proofs and arguments, they are the branch on which we all must sit so it is wise not to try to saw it off. Core moral first truths are objective and frame responsible reason, community life, governance, law and government.kairosfocus_{October 18, 2021
October
10
Oct
18
18
2021
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT}

But to go even further in establishing the fact that morality must be objectively real in order for life to even be possible in the first place., it is also interesting to note that the highest possible morality within Christian ethics is someone giving his life so that others may live. Indeed, that is the central message of Christianity, i.e. Jesus died for us so that we might inherit eternal life in the kingdom of heaven.
John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.
Such self sacrificial altruistic behavior, which is central, even defining, to the Christian’s entire view of objective morality, is simply completely antithetical to Darwin’s one ‘general law’ of “let the strongest live and the weakest die.” Yet, if it were not for such self sacrificial altruistic behavior on the molecular level of life, we simply would not even be here to argue whether morality was objectively real or not. Specifically, ‘apoptosis’, which means programmed cell death, is a necessary part of embryological development for multicellular organisms.
Apoptosis in Embryonic Development Excerpt: As cells rapidly proliferate during development, some of them undergo apoptosis, which is necessary for many stages in development, including neural development, reduction in egg cells (oocytes) at birth, as well as the shaping of fingers and,, organs in humans and other animals. Sydney Brenner, H. Robert Horvitz, and John E. Sulston received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2002 for their work on the genetic regulation of organ development and programmed cell death. https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/apoptosis-embryonic-development
Thus in conclusion, multicellular life would not even exist if the molecular level of life was not based upon the highest, altruistic, moral principles found within Christian Theism of self sacrifice. Namely, if cells did not die for the good of other cells during embryonic development, multicellular life, as we know it, simply would not exist. In short, the objective existence of altruistic, self-sacrificial, morality must precede the existence of multicellular life for multicellular life to even be possible in the first place.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Of supplemental note
Darwin's predictions - altruism - Cornelius Hunter Conclusions "Darwin’s theory of evolution led him to several expectations and predictions, regarding behavior in general, and altruism in particular. We now know those predictions to be false.,,," https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/altruism
bornagain77_{October 18, 2021
October
10
Oct
18
18
2021
03:08 AM
3
03
08
AM
PDT}

In answering the question of whether morality is objective and real, as Christians hold, or whether it is subjective and illusory, as atheists hold, the Christian, due to advances in science, no longer has to rely solely on obviously real moral principles, i.e. that it is objectively wrong to "kill innocent people, or rape babies, or exterminate the Jews", but can now also appeal to empirical evidence to establish the fact that morality is indeed an objectively real fact of life and that it is not merely subjective and illusory as the atheist holds. In laying this 'scientific' fact out, it is first necessary to lay out, precisely, exactly what the Darwinian view of morality actually is. Most people think that the atheist's view of morality is just one of, as Dawkins himself put it, 'pitiless indifference',
“In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” – Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life
Yet, contrary to what Dawkins himself apparently believed, morality for the Darwinian atheist is not just the absence of morality, (i.e. amorality, ‘pitiless indifference’), but turns out to be, (when you throw the precepts of Darwinian evolution on top of the atheist’s worldview of ‘pitiless indifference’), a worldview that turns out to be completely antithetical to any sense of objective morality that we may have as Christians, or even any sense of objective morality that we may have as simply being decent human beings. As Charles Darwin himself put the one defining ‘general law’ of his theory, “let the strongest live and the weakest die.”
“One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.” – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
As should be obvious to everyone who is not a complete psychopath, not only is “let the strongest live and the weakest die” amoral, i.e. pitilessly indifferent, but it is, in fact, completely ANTI-moral. Adolf Hilter himself, (whom I think even atheists will agree was a psychopath of the first order), directly echoed Charles Darwin’s words when he stated, “Nature,,, wipes out what is weak in order to give place to the strong.”
“A stronger race will oust that which has grown weak; for the vital urge, in its ultimate form, will burst asunder all the absurd chains of this so-called humane consideration for the individual and will replace it with the humanity of Nature, which wipes out what is weak in order to give place to the strong.” – Adolf Hitler – Mein Kampf – pg 248
As should be needless to say, wiping out the weak to give place to the strong is directly opposed to the primary Christian ethic of the strong looking after the weak.
Matthew 25:34-40 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
As Sir Arthur Keith noted shortly after WWII, “the (moral) law of Christ is incompatible with the (moral) law of evolution as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed.”
“for, as we have just seen, the ways of national evolution, both in the past and in the present, are cruel, brutal, ruthless, and without mercy.,,, Meantime let me say that the conclusion I have come to is this: the law of Christ is incompatible with the law of evolution as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed.” - Sir Arthur Keith, (1866 — 1955) Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons – Evolution and Ethics (1947) p.15
Hitler was hardly the only genocidal maniac who based his worldview on Darwinian evolution. In fact all the leading Atheistic Tyrants of the communist regimes of the 20th century, who murdered tens of millions of their own people, in fact, all those tyrants based their murderous political ideologies on Darwin’s theory and the 'ANTI-morality' inherent therein.
Hitler, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao – quotes – Foundational Darwinian influence in their Atheistic ideology – July 2020 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/michael-egnor-on-the-relationship-between-darwinism-and-totalitarianism/#comment-707831
Moreover, not only is Darwinian morality at ‘war’ with Christian morality, but it also turns out that Darwinian morality is at ‘war’ with the science itself. Namely, if evolution by natural selection were actually the truth about how all life came to be on Earth then the only life that should be around should be extremely small organisms with the highest replication rate, and with the most ‘mutational firepower’, since only they, (since they greatly outclass multi-cellular organism in terms of ‘reproductive success’ and ‘mutational firepower’), would be fittest to survive in the dog eat dog world where ‘blind pitiless’ evolution ruled and only the ‘strongest’ are allowed to survive. The logic of "Darwinian morality', (or shall we say the 'illogic' of Darwinian morality), is nicely summed up in this following Richard Dawkins’ video:
Richard Dawkins interview with a ‘Darwinian’ physician goes off track – video Excerpt: “I am amazed, Richard, that what we call metazoans, multi-celled organisms, have actually been able to evolve, and the reason [for amazement] is that bacteria and viruses replicate so quickly — a few hours sometimes, they can reproduce themselves — that they can evolve very, very quickly. And we’re stuck with twenty years at least between generations. How is it that we resist infection when they can evolve so quickly to find ways around our defenses?” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/video_to_dawkin062031.html
In other words, since successful reproduction is all that really matters on a neo-Darwinian view of things, how can anything but successful, and highly efficient, reproduction be realistically ‘selected’ for? As Darwin himself stated, “every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers;”
“every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers;” – Charles Darwin – Origin of Species – pg. 66
The logic of natural selection is nicely and simply illustrated on the following graph:
The Logic of Natural Selection – graph http://recticulatedgiraffe.weebly.com/uploads/4/0/6/2/40627097/1189735.jpg?308
As you can see in the preceding graph, any other function besides successful, and efficient, reproduction, such as much slower sexual reproduction, sight, hearing, abstract thinking, and especially altruistic behavior (i.e. the ‘strong’ taking care of the ‘weak’), would be highly superfluous to the primary criteria of successful reproduction, and should, on a Darwinian view of things, be discarded, and/or ‘eaten’, by bacteria, and/or viruses, as so much excess baggage since it obviously would slow down successful reproduction. Yet, contrary to this central anti-moral ‘survival of the fittest’ assumption that lies behind Darwinian theory, instead of eating us, time after time we find micro-organisms helping each other, and us, in ways that have nothing to with their own ‘survival of the fittest’’ concerns. The following researchers, since it directly contradicted Darwinian assumptions, said that they were ‘banging our heads against the wall’ by the mutual cooperation that they had found amongst bacteria. They even went so far as to state, ,,, “Maybe Darwin’s presumption that the world may be dominated by competition is wrong.”
Doubting Darwin: Algae Findings Surprise Scientists – April 28, 2014 Excerpt: One of Charles Darwin’s hypotheses posits that closely related species will compete for food and other resources more strongly with one another than with distant relatives, because they occupy similar ecological niches. Most biologists long have accepted this to be true. Thus, three researchers were more than a little shaken to find that their experiments on fresh water green algae failed to support Darwin’s theory — at least in one case. “It was completely unexpected,” says Bradley Cardinale, associate professor in the University of Michigan’s school of natural resources & environment. “When we saw the results, we said ‘this can’t be.”‘ We sat there banging our heads against the wall. Darwin’s hypothesis has been with us for so long, how can it not be right?” The researchers ,,,— were so uncomfortable with their results that they spent the next several months trying to disprove their own work. But the research held up.,,, The scientists did not set out to disprove Darwin, but, in fact, to learn more about the genetic and ecological uniqueness of fresh water green algae so they could provide conservationists with useful data for decision-making. “We went into it assuming Darwin to be right, and expecting to come up with some real numbers for conservationists,” Cardinale says. “When we started coming up with numbers that showed he wasn’t right, we were completely baffled.”,,, Darwin “was obsessed with competition,” Cardinale says. “He assumed the whole world was composed of species competing with each other, but we found that one-third of the species of algae we studied actually like each other. They don’t grow as well unless you put them with another species. It may be that nature has a heck of a lot more mutualisms than we ever expected. “,,, Maybe Darwin’s presumption that the world may be dominated by competition is wrong.” http://www.livescience.com/45205-data-dont-back-up-darwin-in-algae-study-nsf-bts.html
And as the following study found, “‘survival of the friendliest’ outweighs ‘survival of the fittest’ for groups of bacteria. Bacteria make space for one another and sacrifice properties if it benefits the bacterial community as a whole.”
Friendly bacteria collaborate to survive – 10 October 2019 Excerpt: New microbial research at the University of Copenhagen suggests that ‘survival of the friendliest’ outweighs ‘survival of the fittest’ for groups of bacteria. Bacteria make space for one another and sacrifice properties if it benefits the bacterial community as a whole. The discovery is a major step towards understanding complex bacteria interactions and the development of new treatment models for a wide range of human diseases and new green technologies. https://news.ku.dk/all_news/2019/10/friendly-bacteria-collaborate-to-survive/
Again, this ‘survival of the friendliest’ is, morally and scientifically speaking, directly contrary to Charles Darwin’s primary ‘general law’ of his theory of “let the strongest live and the weakest die.”
“One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.” – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
Moreover, to dive a little bit deeper into the molecular level of life, the 'scientific' falsification of the Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ morality occurs at the molecular level too. Richard Dawkins’s ‘selfish gene’ concept is more of less directly based on Darwin’s own ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking about competition. Yet genes are now found to be anything but 'selfish' as Dawkins himself held. Instead of being ‘selfish’, genes are now found to be exist in an extensive holistic web of mutual interdependence and cooperation (which is the very antithesis of Richard Dawkins’s entire ‘selfish gene’ concept).
What If (Almost) Every Gene Affects (Almost) Everything? – JUN 16, 2017 Excerpt: If you told a modern geneticist that a complex trait—whether a physical characteristic like height or weight, or the risk of a disease like cancer or schizophrenia—was the work of just 15 genes, they’d probably laugh. It’s now thought that such traits are the work of thousands of genetic variants, working in concert. The vast majority of them have only tiny effects, but together, they can dramatically shape our bodies and our health. They’re weak individually, but powerful en masse. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/its-like-all-connected-man/530532/ Theory Suggests That All Genes Affect Every Complex Trait – June 20, 2018 Excerpt: Mutations of a single gene are behind sickle cell anemia, for instance, and mutations in another are behind cystic fibrosis. But unfortunately for those who like things simple, these conditions are the exceptions. The roots of many traits, from how tall you are to your susceptibility to schizophrenia, are far more tangled. In fact, they may be so complex that almost the entire genome may be involved in some way,,, One very early genetic mapping study in 1999 suggested that “a large number of loci (perhaps > than 15)” might contribute to autism risk, recalled Jonathan Pritchard, now a geneticist at Stanford University. “That’s a lot!” he remembered thinking when the paper came out. Over the years, however, what scientists might consider “a lot” in this context has quietly inflated. Last June, Pritchard and his Stanford colleagues Evan Boyle and Yang Li (now at the University of Chicago) published a paper about this in Cell that immediately sparked controversy, although it also had many people nodding in cautious agreement. The authors described what they called the “omnigenic” model of complex traits. Drawing on GWAS analyses of three diseases, they concluded that in the cell types that are relevant to a disease, it appears that not 15, not 100, but essentially all genes contribute to the condition. The authors suggested that for some traits, “multiple” loci could mean more than 100,000. https://www.quantamagazine.org/omnigenic-model-suggests-that-all-genes-affect-every-complex-trait-20180620/ Gene Pleiotropy Roadblocks Evolution by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. – Dec. 8, 2016 Excerpt: Before the advent of modern molecular biology, scientists defined a gene as a single unit of inheritance. If a gene was found to influence multiple externally visible traits, it was said to be pleiotropic—a term first used in 1910.2 During this early period of genetic discovery, pleiotropy was considered to be quite rare because scientists assumed most genes only possessed a single function—a simplistic idea that remained popular throughout most of the 20th century. However, as our understanding of genetics grew through DNA science, it became clear that genes operate in complex interconnected networks. Furthermore, individual genes produce multiple variants of end products with different effects through a variety of intricate mechanisms.2,3 Taken together, these discoveries show that pleiotropy is a common feature of nearly every gene.,,, The pleiotropy evolution problem is widely known among secular geneticists, but rarely discussed in the popular media. In this new research report, the authors state, “Many studies have provided evidence for the ability of pleiotropy to constrain gene evolution.”,,, “Our study provided supportive evidence that pleiotropy constraints the evolution of transcription factors (Tfs).”,,, The authors state, “We showed that highly pleiotropic genes are more likely to be associated with a disease phenotype.”,,, http://www.icr.org/article/9747
Such extensive, even astonishing, ‘holistic cooperation’ between genes is, needless to say, the exact polar opposite of being ‘selfish’ as Richard Dawkins had erroneously envisioned genes to be. And I would even hold that, besides scientifically falsifying a central tenet of Darwin's theory, such holistic cooperation between genes also offers us compelling scientific evidence that morality must be objectively real in order for life to even be possible in the first place.bornagain77_{October 18, 2021
October
10
Oct
18
18
2021
03:07 AM
3
03
07
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 18 19 20 21 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply