127 Replies to “Leading Scientist Walks Back Doomsday Claim

  1. 1
    orthomyxo says:

    No. He says the number of deaths is expected to be much lower in the UK if strict physical distancing measures remain in place.

  2. 2
    rhampton7 says:

    Even when you have social distancing, this can happen:

    There are now more than 37,000 confirmed cases in the state (NY). The figure does not represent all COVID-19 cases, since an unknown number of infected people have not been tested.

    More than 5,300 COVID-19 patients were hospitalized statewide as of Thursday, a 40% increase from the day before. Nearly 1,300 patients were in intensive care, a 45% increase.

  3. 3
    rhampton7 says:

    And in Alabama…

    There are at least 62 patients hospitalized at UAB Medical Center in Birmingham because of complications from COVID-19 as the number of cases has skyrocketed in the past 24 hours. The hospital has said at least half of its COVID-19 patients have required intubation and a ventilator.

    As of 2:50 p.m. on Thursday, there are 501 confirmed cases of the virus in the state.

    The Alabama Department of Public Health has said that about 9 percent of the state’s confirmed cases have required hospitalization. If that were the case, there would be 45 patients hospitalized in Alabama. But there are far more hospitalized at UAB alone.

  4. 4
    Barry Arrington says:

    Orthomyxo,
    Now you just making it up as you go to maintain your narrative. If what he said were as mundane as that, it would not have made headlines all over the world. His estimates went from 500,000 to fewer than 20,000. But, according to Orth, “nothing to see here. Move along.”

  5. 5
    orthomyxo says:

    Well, I guess you should be a bit more sceptical of the news sources you read.

    The estimates of 500,000 and 20,000 are from the same report. You can hear for yourself from 10:37 in the video: https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/2b1c71d4-bdf4-44f1-98fe-1563e67060ee

    “We assessed it that report on the 16th of March that fatalities would be unlikely to exceed about 20,000 with a lockdown and intense social distancing strategy.”

    The 16th of march report is the one with “unmitigated” estimate of as many as 500,000 deaths (https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf)

  6. 6
    vividbleau says:

    Ortho the U.K. shut down 6 days ago and the death rate went from 500,000 to 20,000. 6 days really! Six days of mitigation is responsible for this decline in the projection.

    Vivid

  7. 7
    vividbleau says:

    Should say death rate number

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    Tucker Carlson had a very interesting commentary last night:

    Tucker: Why are media pundits trying to discredit hydroxychloroquine?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bq7UDA-Kgk8

  9. 9
    Jim Thibodeau says:

    Wasn’t the original estimate for what would happen if no measures were put in place? And haven’t measures been put in place?

  10. 10
    vividbleau says:

    “Wasn’t the original estimate for what would happen if no measures were put in place? And haven’t measures been put in place?”

    Maybe I’m missing something, would not be the first time LOL, but Boris Johnson put a lockdown 6 days ago.

    Vivid

  11. 11
    Truthfreedom says:

    @9 Jim Thibodeau

    And haven’t measures been put in place?

    Are those measures ‘natural’ selection? Or genetic drift?

  12. 12
    orthomyxo says:

    Vivid,

    Your mistake is thinking there is a “new” projection that might reflect recent changes. That’s not what’t going on. Fergusons says in his testimony to the select committee the 20,000 number is from the original report, and is what can be expected if strong social distancing is put in place. It doesn’t represent a new analyses or an extrapolation from the most recent data.

  13. 13
    rhampton7 says:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported last week that nearly 40% of hospitalized coronavirus patients are ages 20 to 54.

    “Among 508 patients known to have been hospitalized, 9% were aged ?85 years, 36% were aged 65–84 years, 17% were aged 55–64 years, 18% were 45–54 years, and 20% were aged 20–44 years,” the CDC said. “Less than 1% of hospitalizations were among persons aged ?19 years.”

  14. 14
    rhampton7 says:

    People aged 65 and older have been identified as one of the groups most susceptible to serious complications from COVID-19, but they make up 18% of the state’s reported cases as of Thursday. The data marked the first time Pennsylvania Department of Health released an age breakdown of cases in the pandemic.

    The largest age group is adults aged 25 to 49, making up 39% of the statewide total cases since the first Pennsylvania patient was identified March 6.

    The 50-to-64 age group comprises 28% of cases, while 12% are 19 to 24, and 3% are minors.

  15. 15
    vividbleau says:

    Ortho
    Got it

    Vivid

  16. 16
    Belfast says:

    He also proposed a lockdown of 18 months. His whole report now is a row of Glenties.
    Glenties : Series of small steps by which someone who has made a serious
    error in a conversion or argument moves from a ridiculous over-estimate, to, finally the actual figure.
    He will issue another report in a week ‘based on new data’’ which will go lower still.
    Fact is that it was a bloody stab in the dark, the data from the Diamond Princess would have told him that.
    In the Diamond princess, although locked up, although susceptible ages, 80% didn’t get it, and of those that did a smidgeon under 99% recovered.

  17. 17
    orthomyxo says:

    Ferguson has now had to tweet to reiterate what he said in the first place: https://twitter.com/neil_ferguson/status/1243294815200124928

    (There are a lot of angry and confused people yelling at him underneath… makes this place seem tame)

  18. 18
    Bob O'H says:

    Now you just making it up as you go to maintain your narrative.

    No, Barry, orthomyxo isn’t. You can read the report with the 2.2m estimate here. The estimate is on Fig. 1 on p7. The legend reads

    Unmitigated epidemic scenarios for GB and the US. (A) Projected deaths per day per 100,000 population in GB and US. (B) Case epidemic trajectories across the US by state.

    And this is the whole of the first paragraph of the results (starting at the bottom of p6):

    In the (unlikely) absence of any control measures or spontaneous changes in individual behaviour, we would expect a peak in mortality (daily deaths) to occur after approximately 3 months (Figure 1A). In such scenarios, given an estimated R0 of 2.4, we predict 81% of the GB and US populations would be infected over the course of the epidemic. Epidemic timings are approximate given the limitations of surveillance data in both countries: The epidemic is predicted to be broader in the US than in GB and to peak slightly later. This is due to the larger geographic scale of the US, resulting in more distinct localised epidemics across states (Figure 1B)than seen across GB. The higher peak in mortality in GB is due to the smaller size of the country and its older population compared with the US. In total, in an unmitigated epidemic, we would predict approximately 510,000 deaths in GB and 2.2 million in the US, not accounting for the potential negative effects of health systems being overwhelmed on mortality.

    So it’s absolutely clear that the figure comes form a scenario “[i]n the (unlikely) absence of any control measures or spontaneous changes in individual behaviour,”

  19. 19
    News says:

    It very much sounds as though no one really knows very much at all. When all this is over, I predict that many people will be asking hard questions about punditry and expertise.

    There are experts who matter, of course:

    Coronavirus in a world without trust:

    https://mindmatters.ai/2020/02/coronavirus-in-a-world-without-trust/

    In China, medical heroism thrives despite both paranoia and justified mistrust of authorities.

  20. 20
    kairosfocus says:

    Seems to me they are seriously rebalancing what is emphasised to policy makers and the public. That points to lack of balance in the original promotion.

  21. 21
    bornagain77 says:

    Of related interest to how infectious diseases relate to the Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design debate in general, John Sanford and Robert Carter did a study on H1N1, (the Spanish flu), in which they found that H1N1 suffered “multiple extinction events” which were due to “a continuous accumulation of (deleterious) mutations.”

    A new look at an old virus: patterns of mutation accumulation in the human H1N1 influenza virus since 1918
    Robert W Carter and John C Sanford – 2012
    Background
    The H1N1 influenza A virus has been circulating in the human population for over 95 years, first manifesting itself in the pandemic of 1917–1918. Initial mortality was extremely high, but dropped exponentially over time. Influenza viruses have high mutation rates, and H1N1 has undergone significant genetic changes since 1918. The exact nature of H1N1 mutation accumulation over time has not been fully explored.
    Methods
    We have made a comprehensive historical analysis of mutational changes within H1N1 by examining over 4100 fully-sequenced H1N1 genomes. This has allowed us to examine the genetic changes arising within H1N1 from 1918 to the present.
    Results
    We document multiple extinction events, including the previously known extinction of the human H1N1 lineage in the 1950s, and an apparent second extinction of the human H1N1 lineage in 2009. These extinctions appear to be due to a continuous accumulation of mutations. At the time of its disappearance in 2009, the human H1N1 lineage had accumulated over 1400 point mutations (more than 10% of the genome), including approximately 330 non-synonymous changes (7.4% of all codons). The accumulation of both point mutations and non-synonymous amino acid changes occurred at constant rates (? = 14.4 and 2.4 new mutations/year, respectively), and mutations accumulated uniformly across the entire influenza genome. We observed a continuous erosion over time of codon-specificity in H1N1, including a shift away from host (human, swine, and bird [duck]) codon preference patterns.
    Conclusions
    While there have been numerous adaptations within the H1N1 genome, most of the genetic changes we document here appear to be non-adaptive, and much of the change appears to be degenerative. We suggest H1N1 has been undergoing natural genetic attenuation, and that significant attenuation may even occur during a single pandemic. This process may play a role in natural pandemic cessation and has apparently contributed to the exponential decline in mortality rates over time, as seen in all major human influenza strains. These findings may be relevant to the development of strategies for managing influenza pandemics and strain evolution.
    Background
    At the close of World War I, the H1N1 influenza A virus swept the world [1]. During the 1917–1918 pandemic, approximately 40% of the human population was infected, with a death rate above 2%. It is estimated that this virus killed more people than died in the world war that was just then ending. Mortality rates have dramatically declined since then [2], but the H1N1 flu has persisted. As a zoonotic pathogen, the influenza virus is able to infect multiple species. It is generally thought that aquatic waterfowl are a primary natural influenza reservoir [3], where there are usually no clinical symptoms [4], and where low level transmission probably perpetuates the viral pool [5]. All 14 influenza subtypes are maintained in waterfowl [5].
    H1N1 has had an interesting history. Derivatives of the original virus circulated in humans and swine until 1957, when the human strain went extinct. In 1977, a version identical to those circulating in NE Europe in the early 1950s reappeared in Anshan, China and subsequently spread across the world [5-7]. In 2009, a swine H1N1 jumped to the human population, causing a widespread pandemic. This has increased concern that H1N1 might mutate into a more virulent form. However, since the pandemic of 1917, this has not happened. In fact, H1N1-related human mortality has declined very dramatically and very systematically [2]. Apart from the 1917 pandemic, H1N1 has failed to cause any severe global pandemic, and human H1N1 essentially went extinct from 1957–1977. Since its re-introduction, it has remained a relatively minor cause of influenza mortality [2]. This applies also to the 2009 outbreak, which caused relatively few deaths in those areas with good reporting systems in place [8].
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3507676/

    Likewise it is now found that SARS-CoV-2. (COVID 19),,,,,

    SARS-CoV-2 Insists on Making a Name for Itself – March 4, 2020
    Excerpt: Up until February 11, the same day that the disease caused by the coronavirus was named COVID-19 by the World Health Organization (WHO), the virus itself was referred to as 2019-nCoV. The announcement of the new name—SARS-CoV-2—came in the form of a bioRxiv preprint from the Coronaviridae Study Group (CSG) of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses.
    Now, the group’s work is explained more fully in a Nature Microbiology paper titled, “The species Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus: classifying 2019-nCoV and naming it SARS-CoV-2” In this paper, the CSG noted that “based on phylogeny, taxonomy, and established practice, the CSG recognizes this virus as forming a sister clade to the prototype human and bat severe acute respiratory syndrome coronaviruses (SARS-CoVs) of the species Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus, and designates it as SARS-CoV-2.” They also noted that, in order to facilitate communication, individual isolates should be named using the convention, SARS-CoV-2/host/location/isolate/date.,,,
    Together with colleagues, Ziebuhr and Gorbalenya assessed how closely the novel coronavirus is genetically related to these known coronaviruses. By comparing genomic data and specifically looking at variation in conserved proteins involved in virus replication, they find that the novel virus clusters with viruses of the species Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus. This relationship has also been reported by other groups and is so close that the virus could be classified as belonging to this previously established species rather than representing a new species.
    The novel virus has therefore been assigned the name SARS-CoV-2 based on these identified genetic links with viruses of the species Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus.
    https://www.genengnews.com/news/sars-cov-2-insists-on-making-a-name-for-itself/

    Likewise, it is now estimated that SARS-CoV-2. (COVID 19), is less infectious than the original SARS-CoV pathogen

    How does COVID-19 compare to other diseases?
    Current estimates of COVID-19’s case fatality rate — a measure of the proportion of infected people who eventually die — suggest that the coronavirus is less deadly than the pathogens behind other large-scale outbreaks, such as of SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome), MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome) and Ebola.
    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00758-2
    – graph
    https://media.nature.com/lw800/magazine-assets/d41586-020-00758-2/d41586-020-00758-2_17810952.png

    None of this makes any sense on a Darwinian view of things. Although viruses do not self replicate, none-the-less, if Darwinian evolution were actually true, then we would not expect, as John Sanford fand Robert Carter found with H1N!, that viruses would go extinct, but we would instead expect the viruses to become more widespread, if not more virulent, over time.,,,

    Evolution and the Ebola Virus: Pacing a Small Cage – Michael Behe – October 24, 2014
    Excerpt: The high rate of mutation of Ebola is similar to what John Sanford has demonstrated for the H1N1 virus that caused the influenza pandemic after World War I. He makes a compelling case that the accumulating mutations there were degradatory could not be eliminated easily by selection, and eventually caused the virus’s extinction in 2009.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....90621.html

    also see Micahel Behe’s paper, “The first rule of adaptive evolution”, and Behe’s subsequent book, “Darwin Devolves”

    ,,, But that is not what Sanford and Carter found. They found, to repeat, “multiple extinction events (of H1N1)” which were due to “a continuous accumulation of (deleterious) mutations.”

    Again, this makes no sense on a Darwinian view of things.

    This discordance is easier to see with Bacterial pathogens (which, of course, self replicate).

    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 (self-replicating) 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 fittest are allowed to survive. The logic of this is nicely summed up here in this 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/2.....62031.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?

    The Logic of Natural Selection – graph
    http://recticulatedgiraffe.wee.....35.jpg?308

    As Charles Darwin himself stated.

    “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

    Any other function besides successful reproduction, such as much slower sexual reproduction, sight, hearing, thinking, morally noble and/or altruistic behavior, etc… etc.. would be highly superfluous to the primary criteria of successful reproduction, and should, on a Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ view, be discarded, and/or ‘eaten’, by bacteria, as so much excess baggage since it would obviously slow down successful reproduction.

    In fact, Darwin himself offered this as a falsification criteria of his theory, “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species”… and even 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.”

    “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species; though throughout nature one species incessantly takes advantage of, and profits by, the structure of another. But natural selection can and does often produce structures for the direct injury of other species, as we see in the fang of the adder, and in the ovipositor of the ichneumon, by which its eggs are deposited in the living bodies of other insects. 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.”
    – Charles Darwin – Origin of Species

    Yet, directly contrary to that central ‘survival of the fittest’ assumption behind the natural selection of Darwinian evolution, 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 said they were ‘banging our heads against the wall’ by the contradictory findings to Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking that they had found:

    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/452.....f-bts.html

    Moreover, instead of eating us, as would be expected in a Darwinian view, time after time we find different types of microbial life to be helping us in essential ways that have nothing to do with their own ‘survival of the fittest’ concerns,,,

    NIH Human Microbiome Project defines normal bacterial makeup of the body – June 13, 2012
    Excerpt: Microbes inhabit just about every part of the human body, living on the skin, in the gut, and up the nose. Sometimes they cause sickness, but most of the time, microorganisms live in harmony with their human hosts, providing vital functions essential for human survival.
    http://www.nih.gov/news/health.....gri-13.htm

    We are living in a bacterial world, and it’s impacting us more than previously thought – February 15, 2013
    Excerpt: We often associate bacteria with disease-causing “germs” or pathogens, and bacteria are responsible for many diseases, such as tuberculosis, bubonic plague, and MRSA infections. But bacteria do many good things, too, and the recent research underlines the fact that animal life would not be the same without them.,,,
    I am,, convinced that the number of beneficial microbes, even very necessary microbes, is much, much greater than the number of pathogens.”
    http://phys.org/news/2013-02-b.....tml#ajTabs

  22. 22
    GCS says:

    Good Morning.
    30+ years in EMS and my wife nearly 40 years as an RN.
    The really scary thing of this is the seriousness of cases that get sick. Way too much focus on death rates without considering that many of these are living only with very significant medical interventions. The impact on hospitals is real. Hospitals get overwhelmed and you will see the deaths increase a lot.
    I also suspect that viral loads of exposures make a huge difference. For example: it is possible that many young people having “mild” cases was due to a very casual, low viral load exposures at the beginning. More serious exposures may be leading to more serious cases.
    My message to you – If there are any known cases in your area, there are many more unrecognized cases. Wear a mask in public. The unseen case can kill you, you can be an asymptomatic carrier.

  23. 23
    bornagain77 says:

    Of related interest to how infectious diseases relate to the Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design debate in general, John Sanford and Robert Carter did a study on H1N1, (the Spanish flu), in which they found that H1N1 suffered “multiple extinction events” which were due to “a continuous accumulation of (deleterious) mutations.”

    A new look at an old virus: patterns of mutation accumulation in the human H1N1 influenza virus since 1918
    Robert W Carter and John C Sanford – 2012
    Background
    The H1N1 influenza A virus has been circulating in the human population for over 95 years, first manifesting itself in the pandemic of 1917–1918. Initial mortality was extremely high, but dropped exponentially over time. Influenza viruses have high mutation rates, and H1N1 has undergone significant genetic changes since 1918. The exact nature of H1N1 mutation accumulation over time has not been fully explored.
    Methods
    We have made a comprehensive historical analysis of mutational changes within H1N1 by examining over 4100 fully-sequenced H1N1 genomes. This has allowed us to examine the genetic changes arising within H1N1 from 1918 to the present.
    Results
    We document multiple extinction events, including the previously known extinction of the human H1N1 lineage in the 1950s, and an apparent second extinction of the human H1N1 lineage in 2009. These extinctions appear to be due to a continuous accumulation of mutations. At the time of its disappearance in 2009, the human H1N1 lineage had accumulated over 1400 point mutations (more than 10% of the genome), including approximately 330 non-synonymous changes (7.4% of all codons). The accumulation of both point mutations and non-synonymous amino acid changes occurred at constant rates (? = 14.4 and 2.4 new mutations/year, respectively), and mutations accumulated uniformly across the entire influenza genome. We observed a continuous erosion over time of codon-specificity in H1N1, including a shift away from host (human, swine, and bird [duck]) codon preference patterns.
    Conclusions
    While there have been numerous adaptations within the H1N1 genome, most of the genetic changes we document here appear to be non-adaptive, and much of the change appears to be degenerative. We suggest H1N1 has been undergoing natural genetic attenuation, and that significant attenuation may even occur during a single pandemic. This process may play a role in natural pandemic cessation and has apparently contributed to the exponential decline in mortality rates over time, as seen in all major human influenza strains. These findings may be relevant to the development of strategies for managing influenza pandemics and strain evolution.
    Background
    At the close of World War I, the H1N1 influenza A virus swept the world [1]. During the 1917–1918 pandemic, approximately 40% of the human population was infected, with a death rate above 2%. It is estimated that this virus killed more people than died in the world war that was just then ending. Mortality rates have dramatically declined since then [2], but the H1N1 flu has persisted. As a zoonotic pathogen, the influenza virus is able to infect multiple species. It is generally thought that aquatic waterfowl are a primary natural influenza reservoir [3], where there are usually no clinical symptoms [4], and where low level transmission probably perpetuates the viral pool [5]. All 14 influenza subtypes are maintained in waterfowl [5].
    H1N1 has had an interesting history. Derivatives of the original virus circulated in humans and swine until 1957, when the human strain went extinct. In 1977, a version identical to those circulating in NE Europe in the early 1950s reappeared in Anshan, China and subsequently spread across the world [5-7]. In 2009, a swine H1N1 jumped to the human population, causing a widespread pandemic. This has increased concern that H1N1 might mutate into a more virulent form. However, since the pandemic of 1917, this has not happened. In fact, H1N1-related human mortality has declined very dramatically and very systematically [2]. Apart from the 1917 pandemic, H1N1 has failed to cause any severe global pandemic, and human H1N1 essentially went extinct from 1957–1977. Since its re-introduction, it has remained a relatively minor cause of influenza mortality [2]. This applies also to the 2009 outbreak, which caused relatively few deaths in those areas with good reporting systems in place [8].
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3507676/

    Likewise it is now found that SARS-CoV-2. (COVID 19),,,,,

    SARS-CoV-2 Insists on Making a Name for Itself – March 4, 2020
    Excerpt: Up until February 11, the same day that the disease caused by the coronavirus was named COVID-19 by the World Health Organization (WHO), the virus itself was referred to as 2019-nCoV. The announcement of the new name—SARS-CoV-2—came in the form of a bioRxiv preprint from the Coronaviridae Study Group (CSG) of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses.
    Now, the group’s work is explained more fully in a Nature Microbiology paper titled, “The species Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus: classifying 2019-nCoV and naming it SARS-CoV-2” In this paper, the CSG noted that “based on phylogeny, taxonomy, and established practice, the CSG recognizes this virus as forming a sister clade to the prototype human and bat severe acute respiratory syndrome coronaviruses (SARS-CoVs) of the species Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus, and designates it as SARS-CoV-2.” They also noted that, in order to facilitate communication, individual isolates should be named using the convention, SARS-CoV-2/host/location/isolate/date.,,,
    Together with colleagues, Ziebuhr and Gorbalenya assessed how closely the novel coronavirus is genetically related to these known coronaviruses. By comparing genomic data and specifically looking at variation in conserved proteins involved in virus replication, they find that the novel virus clusters with viruses of the species Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus. This relationship has also been reported by other groups and is so close that the virus could be classified as belonging to this previously established species rather than representing a new species.
    The novel virus has therefore been assigned the name SARS-CoV-2 based on these identified genetic links with viruses of the species Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus.
    https://www.genengnews.com/news/sars-cov-2-insists-on-making-a-name-for-itself/

    Likewise, it is now estimated that SARS-CoV-2. (COVID 19), is less infectious than the original SARS-CoV pathogen

    How does COVID-19 compare to other diseases?
    Current estimates of COVID-19’s case fatality rate — a measure of the proportion of infected people who eventually die — suggest that the coronavirus is less deadly than the pathogens behind other large-scale outbreaks, such as of SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome), MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome) and Ebola.
    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00758-2
    – graph
    https://media.nature.com/lw800/magazine-assets/d41586-020-00758-2/d41586-020-00758-2_17810952.png

    None of this makes any sense on a Darwinian view of things. Although viruses do not self replicate, none-the-less, if Darwinian evolution were actually true, then we would not expect, as John Sanford fand Robert Carter found with H1N!, that viruses would go extinct, but we would instead expect the viruses to become more widespread, if not more virulent, over time.,,,

    Evolution and the Ebola Virus: Pacing a Small Cage – Michael Behe – October 24, 2014
    Excerpt: The high rate of mutation of Ebola is similar to what John Sanford has demonstrated for the H1N1 virus that caused the influenza pandemic after World War I. He makes a compelling case that the accumulating mutations there were degradatory could not be eliminated easily by selection, and eventually caused the virus’s extinction in 2009.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....90621.html

    also see Micahel Behe’s paper, “The first rule of adaptive evolution”, and Behe’s subsequent book, “Darwin Devolves”

    ,,, But that is not what Sanford and Carter found. They found, to repeat, “multiple extinction events (of H1N1)” which were due to “a continuous accumulation of (deleterious) mutations.”

    Again, this makes no sense on a Darwinian view of things.

    This discordance is easier to see with Bacterial pathogens (which, of course, self replicate).

    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 (self-replicating) 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 fittest are allowed to survive. The logic of this is nicely summed up here in this 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/2.....62031.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?

    The Logic of Natural Selection – graph
    http://recticulatedgiraffe.wee.....35.jpg?308

    As Charles Darwin himself stated.

    “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

    Any other function besides successful reproduction, such as much slower sexual reproduction, sight, hearing, thinking, morally noble and/or altruistic behavior, etc… etc.. would be highly superfluous to the primary criteria of successful reproduction, and should, on a Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ view, be discarded, and/or ‘eaten’, by bacteria, as so much excess baggage since it would obviously slow down successful reproduction.

    In fact, Darwin himself offered this as a falsification criteria of his theory, “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species”… and even 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.”

    “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species; though throughout nature one species incessantly takes advantage of, and profits by, the structure of another. But natural selection can and does often produce structures for the direct injury of other species, as we see in the fang of the adder, and in the ovipositor of the ichneumon, by which its eggs are deposited in the living bodies of other insects. 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.”
    – Charles Darwin – Origin of Species

    Yet, directly contrary to that central ‘survival of the fittest’ assumption behind the natural selection of Darwinian evolution, 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 said they were ‘banging our heads against the wall’ by the contradictory findings to Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking that they had found:

    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/452.....f-bts.html

  24. 24
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, instead of eating us, as would be expected in a Darwinian view, time after time we find different types of microbial life to be helping us in essential ways that have nothing to do with their own ‘survival of the fittest’ concerns,,,

    NIH Human Microbiome Project defines normal bacterial makeup of the body – June 13, 2012
    Excerpt: Microbes inhabit just about every part of the human body, living on the skin, in the gut, and up the nose. Sometimes they cause sickness, but most of the time, microorganisms live in harmony with their human hosts, providing vital functions essential for human survival.
    http://www.nih.gov/news/health.....gri-13.htm

    We are living in a bacterial world, and it’s impacting us more than previously thought – February 15, 2013
    Excerpt: We often associate bacteria with disease-causing “germs” or pathogens, and bacteria are responsible for many diseases, such as tuberculosis, bubonic plague, and MRSA infections. But bacteria do many good things, too, and the recent research underlines the fact that animal life would not be the same without them.,,,
    I am,, convinced that the number of beneficial microbes, even very necessary microbes, is much, much greater than the number of pathogens.”
    http://phys.org/news/2013-02-b.....tml#ajTabs

    Moreover, the beneficial effects that microbial life confers to multicellular organisms extends to the ecosystem of the entire planet, i.e. “Microbial life can easily live without us; we, however, cannot survive without the global catalysis and environmental transformations it provides.

    The Microbial Engines That Drive Earth’s Biogeochemical Cycles – Paul G. Falkowski – 2008
    Excerpt: Microbial life can easily live without us; we, however, cannot survive without the global catalysis and environmental transformations it provides.
    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v.....8;type=pdf
    – Paul G. Falkowski is Professor Geological Sciences at Rutgers

    Likewise, viruses, contrary to Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest thinking’, are also found to be “absolutely integral for the ecosystem.”

    Trillions Upon Trillions of Viruses Fall From the Sky Each Day – Jim Robbins – April 13, 2018
    Excerpt: Whatever the case, viruses are the most abundant entities on the planet by far. While Dr. Suttle’s team found hundreds of millions of viruses in a square meter, they counted tens of millions of bacteria in the same space.
    Mostly thought of as infectious agents, viruses are much more than that. It’s hard to overstate the central role that viruses play in the world: They’re essential to everything from our immune system to our gut microbiome, to the ecosystems on land and sea, to climate regulation,,,. Viruses contain a vast diverse array of unknown genes — and spread them to other species.,,,
    In laboratory experiments, he has filtered viruses out of seawater but left their prey, bacteria. When that happens, plankton in the water stop growing. That’s because when preying viruses infect and take out one species of microbe — they are very specific predators — they liberate nutrients in them, such as nitrogen, that feed other species of bacteria.,,,
    Viruses help keep ecosystems in balance by changing the composition of microbial communities. As toxic algae blooms spread in the ocean, for example, they are brought to heel by a virus that attacks the algae and causes it to explode and die, ending the outbreak in as little as a day.,,,
    The beneficial effects of viruses are much less known, especially among plants. “There are huge questions in wild systems about what viruses are doing there,” said Marilyn Roossinck, who studies viral ecology in plants at Pennsylvania State University. “We have never found deleterious effects from a virus in the wild.”
    A grass found in the high-temperature soils of Yellowstone’s geothermal areas, for example, needs a fungus to grow in the extreme environment. In turn, the fungus needs a virus.,,,
    Tiny spots of virus on the plant that yields quinoa is also important for the plant’s survival. “Little spots of virus confer drought tolerance but don’t cause disease,” she said. “It changes the whole plant physiology.”
    “Viruses aren’t our enemies,” Dr. Suttle said. “Certain nasty viruses can make you sick, but it’s important to recognize that viruses and other microbes out there are absolutely integral for the ecosystem.”
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/13/science/virosphere-evolution.html

    Viruses: You’ve heard the bad; here’s the good – April 30, 2015
    Excerpt: “The word, virus, connotes morbidity and mortality, but that bad reputation is not universally deserved,” said Marilyn Roossinck, PhD, Professor of Plant Pathology and Environmental Microbiology and Biology at the Pennsylvania State University, University Park. “Viruses, like bacteria, can be important beneficial microbes in human health and in agriculture,” she said.
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150430170750.htm

    Again, none of this, i.e. bacteria and viruses producing benefits “exclusively for the good of another species”, is to be expected under Darwinian evolution. In fact, as Darwin himself admitted, such findings “annihilate my theory”.

    If Darwinism were a normal science instead of basically being an unfalsifiable religion for atheists, these findings should count as yet another powerful falsification of Darwinian evolution:

    1 Thessalonians 5:21
    but test all things. Hold fast to the good.

  25. 25
    asauber says:

    “The really scary thing of this is the seriousness of cases that get sick.”

    GCS,

    Sorry, but I had to chuckle. So, seriously sick cases are really scary? As opposed to the not-seriously-sick cases which are not as scary? Great point. Maybe some doctors need to know about this. 😉

    Andrew

  26. 26
    asauber says:

    Really, people.

    The scaremongering is only going to go so far, just like it only goes so far with Climate Change.

    Andrew

  27. 27
    Seversky says:

    Asauber @ 26

    The scaremongering is only going to go so far, just like it only goes so far with Climate Change.

    “Iceberg? What iceberg?”

  28. 28
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77 @ 24

    If Darwinism were a normal science instead of basically being an unfalsifiable religion for atheists, these findings should count as yet another powerful falsification of Darwinian evolution:

    Since you brought up the subject of religion, have you been praying to your God to put an end to this pandemic? Maybe ask why He sent it in the first place? How’s that been working out for you?

  29. 29
    asauber says:

    “Iceberg? What iceberg?”

    Seversky,

    What are you talking about?

    Andrew

  30. 30
    Truthfreedom says:

    @26 Asauber

    The scaremongering is only going to go so far, just like it only goes so far with Climate Change.

    According to certain theory and its philosophical appendage, we humans do not have free will, so if climate is changing, there is nothing we can do to stop it.
    Remember, we humans are mere neuronal illusions. Our bodies robotically move and do whatever they want without asking.
    It is not possible to have your cake and eat it too. Darwinism, darwinism, what are you teaching? 🙂

  31. 31
    JVL says:

    Asauber:

    “Iceberg? What iceberg?”

    Seversky,

    What are you talking about?

    He’s making reference to the Titanic, sailing into an ice flow at close to full speed.

  32. 32
    asauber says:

    “He’s making reference to the Titanic, sailing into an ice flow at close to full speed.”

    JVL,

    What does that have to do with my point?

    Andrew

  33. 33
    Truthfreedom says:

    I am appealing to the free will I am telling you you don’t have. 🙂
    Nothing contradictory here darwinism. Move on. Most people won’t even notice the sheer absurdity of you doctrine.

  34. 34
    bornagain77 says:

    In response to the empirical evidence that I presented against Darwinian evolution in posts 23 and 24, Seversky at 28 responded thusly,

    Since you brought up the subject of religion, have you been praying to your God to put an end to this pandemic? Maybe ask why He sent it in the first place? How’s that been working out for you?

    Seversky, so your response to the devastating empirical evidence against your Darwinian worldview, that was presented in posts 23 and 24, is to appeal to the (self-defeating) theological argument of ‘the argument from evil”?

    Don’t you even have a clue that for you to appeal to Theological argumentation. instead of to actual empirical evidence, directly supports my claim that Dawinism is basically a “unfalsifiable religion for atheists”?

    You have severely confused your Theological argumentation with actual empirical science.

    Moreover, your Theological argument, (i.e. ‘the argument from evil’), against the empirical evidence that was presented in 23 and 24, is self defeating in and of itself,,

    “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?”

    – C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

  35. 35
    JVL says:

    Asauber: What does that have to do with my point?

    I obviously can’t speak for him but I’d guess he was referring to your comment about scare mongering and climate change, i.e. denying there is a problem is like being on the Titanic and ignoring warnings of ice in the ship’s path. But that’s just a guess. Don’t shout at me for having a guess, you asked.

  36. 36
    bornagain77 says:

    correction:

    In response to the empirical evidence that I presented against Darwinian evolution in posts 23 and 24, Seversky at 28 responded thusly,

    Since you brought up the subject of religion, have you been praying to your God to put an end to this pandemic? Maybe ask why He sent it in the first place? How’s that been working out for you?

    Seversky, so your response to the devastating empirical evidence against your Darwinian worldview, that was presented in posts 23 and 24, is to appeal to the (self-defeating) theological argument of ‘the argument from evil”?

    Don’t you even have a clue that for you to appeal to Theological argumentation. instead of to actual empirical evidence, directly supports my claim that Dawinism is basically a “unfalsifiable religion for atheists”?

    You have severely confused your Theological argumentation with actual empirical science.

    Moreover, your Theological argument, (i.e. ‘the argument from evil’), against the empirical evidence that was presented in 23 and 24, is self defeating in and of itself,,

    “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?”
    – C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

  37. 37
    Truthfreedom says:

    The Titanic auto-assembled, with no intelligence involved in the process and for no reason. 🙂

  38. 38
    asauber says:

    “Don’t shout at me for having a guess, you asked.”

    Didn’t shout. Just asked a question.

    Andrew

  39. 39
    Truthfreedom says:

    @36 Bornagain77:

    But how had I got this idea of just and unjust?

    Same goes for the idea of perfection. According to atheists, the universe is ‘imperfect’, nature is ‘imperfect’, our bodies are ‘imperfect’, etc etcm Imperfect compared to what? Where did you get the idea of perfection in a fully imperfect world?

  40. 40
    JVL says:

    Asauber: Didn’t shout. Just asked a question.

    Yeah, I meant after I had a guess. You can shout at Seversky though, he’s used to it! 🙂

  41. 41
    Seversky says:

    GCS@ 22

    Wear a mask in public.

    It seems to be that, apart from being in desperately short supply, the available masks do not give full-face protection. I was thinking about something like the full-face masks worn by snorkel divers which cover eyes, nose and mouth and with a filter in the snorkel extension. They would have to be re-usable which means either washable or zapped with UV radiation. The problem would be would such a tight-fitting mask be comfortable or even practical over really long shifts. Perhaps a better alternative would be the sort of hoods that form part of hazmat suits.

  42. 42
    JVL says:

    What a jerk:

    The US arts-and-crafts chain Hobby Lobby has said it will remain open during the coronavirus epidemic – but has also refused sick pay for workers who fall ill, including from Covid-19.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/hobby-lobby-stay-open-coronavirus-staff-sick-leave-a9423491.html

  43. 43
    Truthfreedom says:

    Immune systems are ‘imperfect’ >>> Evolution ‘created’ brains to understand those ‘imperfections’ and correct them (a.k.a. science). All thanks to RM+NS+drift.
    According to naturalism, the brain is part of the immune system. 🙂

  44. 44
    Seversky says:

    JVL @ 42

    What a jerk:

    The US arts-and-crafts chain Hobby Lobby has said it will remain open during the coronavirus epidemic – but has also refused sick pay for workers who fall ill, including from Covid-19.

    Ah, but he’s operating under divine guidance:

    “In her quiet prayer time this past week, the Lord put on Barbara’s heart three profound words to remind us that He’s in control. Guide, Guard, and Groom,” Green reportedly says in the letter. “We serve a God who will Guide us through this storm, who will Guard us as we travel to places never seen before, and who, as a result of this experience, will Groom us to be better than we could have ever thought possible before now.”

    I don’t mind him following his religious beliefs but not when it puts others at risk unnecessarily.

    Verse:

    You can’t fix stupid!

    — Ron White

  45. 45
    Truthfreedom says:

    So stupidity is objectively wrong.
    Good to know, when we are taught that we live in a world with no objective values/ references.

  46. 46
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom

    What do you think of the owner of Hobby Lobby’s decision regarding his employees?

  47. 47
    ET says:

    Why do people choose to work for that guy? No one forced them to. I know that I will never shop at his stores.

  48. 48
    JVL says:

    ET: Why do people choose to work for that guy? No one forced them to. I know that I will never shop at his stores.</b

    I wouldn't touch him with a 10-foot pole (loved your previous post on that).

  49. 49
    JVL says:

    Oops, screwed up the end bold tag. PLEASE RETURN THE EDIT FUNCTION!!

  50. 50
    Seversky says:

    Why does the Hobby Lobby owner think that his interpretation is the intended one? Couldn’t it also mean that he is to GUIDE his staff to go home or to a place of safety where they can be GUARDed against infection and GROOMed to practice the safety measures needed to protect against infection?

  51. 51
    JVL says:

    Seversky: Why does the Hobby Lobby owner think that his interpretation is the intended one?

    He’s absolutely sure he is right. It’s a dangerous place to be . . . for others in this case.

  52. 52
    bornagain77 says:

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    Amoral moralizers.

    Self refuting argumentation is the bread and butter of Darwinian atheists!

  53. 53
    GCS says:

    Severski @ 41

    I am proposing we look at masks from a different perspective. I agree that a covering of the mouth and nose alone will not protect you completely. It will greatly lower the risk to you if you wear one. Specifically it can greatly reduce the viral load of any exposure.

    We must look at masks from another perspective. The most important thing of masks is to protect others from us. Because of the real possibility of asymptomatic spread everyone is a possible transmitter. Coughing, talking, and even just breathing releases droplets and aerosols. Any covering over the mouth and nose will stop all droplet spread and much of any aerosol spread. In an area with active cases everyone wearing a mask in public would drop transmission close to zero, though it would take 2 – 3 weeks for any cases active then to run their course.

    asauber @ 25
    Two to three weeks on ventilators working at full force to allow a healthy person to pull through is a little scary. Especially since this level of severity has been evident since the earliest cases. Take away the ventilators and use of ECMO (extracorporeal membrane oxygenation) for patients with complete lung function failure and these potential survivors die. This level of treatment for extended periods can overwhelm our health systems.

    That is what is scary – overwhelmed health systems which will affect all people. My son’s clinic in Alaska is dealing with these issues now that the cases have reached there. So my fear is also personal.

    What I propose for mask use is ultimately the best social distancing move we can make. A move that gives our economy the best chance for short term return to some “normalcy”. An we need the economy to function or everything collapses. Many business and schools could operate safely with a mask requirement.

    On this cheery note I encourage everyone to take it seriously.

  54. 54
    Truthfreedom says:

    @56 JVL

    What do you think of the owner of Hobby Lobby’s decision regarding his employees?

    I think he should follow the law. And lawmkers should follow what science teaches us, but having in mind that we humans are fallible, and so is our science.
    No one should be put at risk for no reason.

    And my post was meant to explain that stupidity is a universal insult, because most humans understand that reason and prudence and logic are valuable and we should strive towards them.
    No one uses ‘intelliget’ as an insult. Meaning intelligence is an objective good.

    And now, what do you think of millions of people gathering together to defend ‘womans rights’ while knowing and being told that there was a deadly COVID-19 outbreak?

  55. 55
    Truthfreedom says:

    I did not want for the whole post to be in bolds. Tag mistake.

  56. 56
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom: I think he should follow the law.

    Perhaps he thinks that God’s law transcends human law? I have no idea what is actually going through his head but he seems very sure he is right.

    Meaning intelligence is an objective good.

    Depends on how it’s used maybe? The scientists who invented the atomic bomb were pretty intelligent BUT they didn’t decide to use the thing. Harry Truman did and he was no idiot. Do you think Harry Truman was right in his decision to drop two atomic weapons on Japan in 1945?

    And now, what do you think of millions of people gathering together to defend ‘womans rights’ while knowing and being told that there was a deadly COVID-19 outbreak?

    I’d like to know more about the situation but, I admit, on the face of it, based just on what you’ve said, it sounds misguided. But I reserve judgement until I know more.

    Britain’s PM Boris Johnson is infected, the death count in the UK rises again by a huge amount. Tough times.

  57. 57
    Truthfreedom says:

    @56 JVL
    1. I do not know what that guy is thinking. I have told you what I thought should be his (our behavior). At least I acknowledge that humans can reason and are not silly zombies. Not that we are perfect of course.

    2. And of course intelligence alone is useless. We humans are under moral governance. We have been discussing this since the dawn of our species.
    No one says: ‘look at that person, how intelligent he/ she is, OMG!’ while trying to be insulting.

    3. ‘There is an epidemic knocking at the door, it is not recommended to gather together’ was the advice. Ignored of course because ideologies are way too powerful. And atheistic materialism is an ideology.

  58. 58
    Seversky says:

    GCS @ 53

    What I propose for mask use is ultimately the best social distancing move we can make. A move that gives our economy the best chance for short term return to some “normalcy”. An we need the economy to function or everything collapses. Many business and schools could operate safely with a mask requirement.

    If the masks block the emission of potentially virus-laden droplets and aerosols to the extent you’re suggesting then this sounds like an eminently practical proposal. We just need to ramp up production of the masks to cope with the expected demand.

  59. 59
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom: I do not know what that guy is thinking. I have told you what I thought should be his (our behavior). At least I acknowledge that humans can reason and are not silly zombies. Not that we are perfect of course.

    So you think he’s wrong. Good. When does science trump someone’s perception of what God wants? In your opinion?

    And of course intelligence alone is useless.

    But you said it was an objective ‘good’. That’s what you said in post 54.

    ‘There is an epidemic knocking at the door, it is not recommended to gather together’ was the advice. Ignored of course because ideologies are way too powerful. And atheistic materialism is an ideology.

    I was hoping for more details of the scenario you put forward. Since you haven’t done that should I assume you just made it up? The question being: did some group actually stage a mass protest as you proposed or was it just a theoretical question?

  60. 60
    Truthfreedom says:

    @JVL 59
    Before answering your questions, I would like to know if you acknowledge yourself as a rational human being with free will.
    I think of myself as such, and since I value my time a lot, I will not waste it replying to a self-proclaimed robot .
    Rational human vs rational human or no deal.

  61. 61
    kairosfocus says:

    Sev, see the Wuhan Space suits. It all depends on degree of protection. KF

  62. 62
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom: Before answering your questions, I would like to know if you acknowledge yourself as a rational human being with free will.

    Of course you would like to shift the focus. Cast things back onto your agenda. Sorry, I’m not playing that game. First answer the questions posed to you. They’re not difficult I should think. Or maybe they are and that’s why you’re deflecting attention?

    Let me guess: because I won’t answer your question you will refuse to answer mine. I can’t stop you. But I will note that you didn’t answer.

    When does science trump what someone perceives as God’s law? It’s kind of important; it certainly deserves an answer doesn’t it?

    And you did say intelligence was an objective good and then seemed to qualify that.

    And what about that scenario you presented? Was it an actual situation or did you just make it up?

  63. 63
    Jim Thibodeau says:

    @JVL Yeah, people with winning arguments don’t need to change the subject.

  64. 64
    Truthfreedom says:

    @JVL
    So no reason capabilities then. You saved me a lot of time.
    Robots should not be allowed to post at UD. 🙂
    It is not fair for the real people.

  65. 65
    Truthfreedom says:

    @64 JimThibodeau
    Robot or reasoning human here? What do the words ‘winning’ and ‘argument’ mean to a robot? Who programmed them into you?

  66. 66
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom: So no reason capabilities then. You saved me a lot of time.
    Robots should not be allowed to post at UD. ????
    It is not fair for the real people.

    And

    Robot or reasoning human here? What do the words ‘winning’ and ‘argument’ mean to a robot? Who programmed them into you?

    You keep dodging questions posed to you. Shall I state them again?

    When does science trump what someone perceives as God’s law?

    You did say intelligence was an objective good and then seemed to qualify that. So which is it?

    And what about that scenario you presented? Was it an actual situation or did you just make it up?

    These are important questions no matter who or what is asking them. But you keep avoiding answering them. Why is that? Are you afraid to answer them? Why would that be?

  67. 67
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, TF has a serious point. If rational, responsible freedom is little more than a delusion riding on neural networks created and programmed somehow through blind chance and/or mechanical necessity, we face grand, self-referential delusion. I yet again point to Reppert:

    . . . let us suppose that brain state A [–> notice, state of a wetware, electrochemically operated computational substrate], which is token identical to the thought that all men are mortal, and brain state B, which is token identical to the thought that Socrates is a man, together cause the belief [–> concious, perceptual state or disposition] that Socrates is mortal. It isn’t enough for rational inference that these events be those beliefs, it is also necessary that the causal transaction be in virtue of the content of those thoughts . . . [But] if naturalism is true, then the propositional content is irrelevant to the causal transaction that produces the conclusion, and [so] we do not have a case of rational inference. In rational inference, as Lewis puts it, one thought causes another thought not by being, but by being seen to be, the ground for it. But causal transactions in the brain occur in virtue of the brain’s being in a particular type of state that is relevant to physical causal transactions.

    Evolutionary Materialistic Scientism and/or fellow traveller views are self-referentially incoherent and self-falsifying. A sounder base would be to start from inescapable first principles and duties of reason and ask ourselves what sort of reality root is required to adequately ground such a world. That requires bridging the IS-OUGHT gap in that reality root.

    That’s a big challenge and it points to a root of reality capable of being source of worlds, being also inherently good and utterly wise. If you doubt this, simply put up a serious alternative, ____, then warrant relative to comparative difficulties ______ .

    KF

  68. 68
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: The issue is not science superseding God’s law as that we are rational, responsible, significantly free creatures. If we are not, our rational life collapses in the utter discredit of self referential incoherence. Once we are, we are inherently bound by a built-in law of our morally governed nature, starting with first principles and duties of responsible reason.

    Oh, law of identity and close corollaries, excluded middle and non contradiction for starters. Linked, core mathematics as pivoting on logic of structure and quantity, expressing aspects of the logic of being. Further, inescapable duties to truth, to right reason [so, core logic], to prudence [so, warrant], to sound conscience, to neighbour of like nature, to fairness and justice, etc. These are the root law of nature and are antecedent to not only science but law, society and sound civilisation. Which last is a requisite for science to be sustainable.

    Science cannot somehow contravene or supersede these laws, science cannot be sound unless it rests on them.

    Indeed if you look on your own arguments, you will see that inescapably, they pivot on these things.

    Science is built on foundations of that nature, it cannot then supersede them, and the attempt to do so will only bring it down in ruins in the end, directly or indirectly.

    As is in fact threatening to happen.

  69. 69
    kairosfocus says:

    PPS: In case you thing such are novel ideas, let me cite Paul to the Romans:

    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 . . . .

    Rom 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 [NIV, “harm”] to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. [ESV]

    This favourably echoes and likely reflects on thinking such as this which we find in Cicero:

    —Marcus [in de Legibus, introductory remarks,. C1 BC, being Cicero himself]: . . . the subject of our present discussion . . . comprehends the universal principles of equity and law. In such a discussion therefore on the great moral law of nature, the practice of the civil law can occupy but an insignificant and subordinate station. For according to our idea, we shall have to explain the true nature of moral justice, which is congenial and correspondent [36]with the true nature of man.

    [–> Note, how justice and our built in nature as a morally governed class of creatures are highlighted; thus framing the natural law frame: recognising built-in law that we do not create nor can we repeal, which then frames a sound understanding of justice. Without such an anchor, law inevitably reduces to the sort of ruthless, nihilistic might- and- manipulation- make- “right,”- “truth,”- “knowledge,”- “law”- and- “justice”- etc power struggle and chaos Plato warned against in The Laws Bk X.]

    We shall have to examine those principles of legislation by which all political states should be governed. And last of all, shall we have to speak of those laws and customs which are framed for the use and convenience of particular peoples, which regulate the civic and municipal affairs of the citizens, and which are known by the title of civil laws.

    Quintus [his real-life brother]. —You take a noble view of the subject, my brother, and go to the fountain–head of moral truth, in order to throw light on the whole science of jurisprudence: while those who confine their legal studies to the civil law too often grow less familiar with the arts of justice than with those of litigation.

    Marcus. —Your observation, my Quintus, is not quite correct. It is not so much the science of law that produces litigation, as the ignorance of it, (potius ignoratio juris litigiosa est quam scientia) . . . . 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.” This, they think, is apparent from the converse of the proposition; because this same reason, when it [37]is confirmed and established in men’s minds, is the law of all their actions.

    They therefore conceive that the voice of conscience is a law, that moral prudence is a law, whose operation is to urge us to good actions, and restrain us from evil ones. They think, too, that the Greek name for law (NOMOS), which is derived from NEMO, to distribute, implies the very nature of the thing, that is, to give every man his due. [–> this implies a definition of justice as the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities] For my part, I imagine that the moral essence of law is better expressed by its Latin name, (lex), which conveys the idea of selection or discrimination. According to the Greeks, therefore, the name of law implies an equitable distribution of goods: according to the Romans, 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.

    Our civilisation, imagining it has made great progress, has forgotten its foundations.

  70. 70
    kairosfocus says:

    PPPS: Let me add, from Epictetus; who famously had an exchange with someone on the inescapable necessity, credibility and utility of logic:

    DISCOURSES
    CHAPTER XXV
    How is logic necessary?
    When someone in [Epictetus’] audience said, Convince me that logic is necessary, he answered: Do you wish me to demonstrate this to you?—Yes.—Well, then, must I use a demonstrative argument?—And when the questioner had agreed to that, Epictetus asked him. How, then, will you know if I impose upon you?—As the man had no answer to give, Epictetus said: Do you see how you yourself admit that all this instruction is necessary, if, without it, you cannot so much as know whether it is necessary or not?

    Kindly, see the discussion here at UD: https://uncommondescent.com/atheism/jcw-on-the-need-to-face-inescapable-necessary-first-truths/

  71. 71
    kairosfocus says:

    PPPPS: Let me further excerpt that OP:

    J C Wright picks up:

    The difficulty the postmodernists have with the discussions of the role of reason, is that they accept the categorical fallacy that no categories exists aside from science (which is objective) and faith or opinion (which is arbitrary).
    They reason in this fashion: Science, either empirical or rational, assumes a verification principle. Whatever is not open to verification is not science; and whatever is not science is arbitrary. Ergo whatever is not open to verification is arbitrary. Again, the laws of logic (such as modus ponens) are not open to verification; ergo, by modus ponens, they are arbitrary.

    Of course, science depends for its own credibility on the first principles and duties of reason but as we see many, today, are inoculated against seeing that. JCW continues:

    The problem is that another category of thought does exist: wisdom. A thing can be wise without being scientific. There is reasoning that exists larger than and including scientific reasoning: this is called natural reason or common sense. Scientific reasoning includes empiricism and axiomatic logic.

    Empiricism has won such high regard that modern intellectuals dismiss axiomatic logic as unscientific (in other words, they take the axiom that axiomatic logic is not empirical; they take whatever is nonempirical to be mere opinion; and they conclude by Barbara [a syllogistic structure] that ergo axiomatic logic is mere opinion. The irony that they themselves use axiomatic logic to reach this conclusion, is, of course, lost on them).

    With logic gone, natural reason is dismissed from academic discussion, and, with it, serious ethical reasoning. Common sense is banished from the discussion, and, with it, common sense. Wisdom is banished from the discussion, and, when it flies, all that is left is nonsense, either angry (Nietzsche) or despairing (Sartre).

    Hence, of course, much that has gone wrong today.

    And, it explains why when it is pointed out, correctly, that certain inescapable first principles and duties of reason are just that, inescapably, so self-evidently true and antecedent to proof, certain objectors wish to reject. Often, with the dismissive remark, one has not “proved” the matter.

    But that’s the problem.

    These are antecedent to proof and any attempt to prove pivots on them.

    These, are where rationality starts.

    To dismiss them, therefore, is to default to the irrational.

    As, we are unfortunately seeing.

  72. 72
    kairosfocus says:

    P^5S: JCW further continues:

    Moses and Confucius and Christ, and every other sage and thinker in antiquity have voiced the moral axiom of the Golden Rule: Do as you would be Done by. [–> the neighbourliness fairness and justice principles expressed on motivation]

    This is a wise conclusion. If you doubt it, try living your life with a moral and mental rule that the laws that apply to others apply to others only and not to you. Live in a land where everyone adopts the rule that they live with rules that apply only to others, never to themselves. Puzzle over the logic of how a dispute would be solved between two moral actors who both agree the rules only applies to the other: or how any dispute could be solved at all, in the absence of a universal rule equally applied. You will soon become confused and foolish.

    The inability to see wisdom as a valid category of thought—for it is neither arbitrary, nor unreasonable, but neither is it empiricism nor rationalism—has led modern philosophy into blatant folly and paradox.

    Do we see the trouble that has been let in the door?

  73. 73
    kairosfocus says:

    P^6S: Now, let us hear how Locke, in founding what would become modern liberty and democracy, cited Hooker:

    [2nd Treatise on Civil Gov’t, Ch 2 sec. 5:] . . . 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. ]

    This is of course directly foundational to the US DoI.

  74. 74
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: On masks, yes some are capable of reducing inhalation of fine particles, but that leaves the eyes and the hands as potent virus vectors. Masks, goggles, sanitiser, regular soap water hand washing. Similar cleaning of surfaces. Physical separation, thus general isolation for an incubation period. Treatment that breaks the deadly pattern. Vaccination and testing. Serious analysis. Gradual return to normal life as the epidemic breaks. BTW, N95 or better masks, I think are best. I have seen how a Taiwanese physician suggests cloth masks with a filter pocket, Looking at effective filters, they seem to be felted fibre based, about 2 mm thick, and breathing through them takes slightly more effort than the usual. There is also often a fine membrane in specifically N95 rated masks, made by a controlled felting process, forming a meltblown nonwoven fabric. The key issue is to achieve 95% filtration of 0.3 micron particles. However, stopping respiratory droplets is generally an easier task. KF

    PS: The social distance rule works on the idea the droplets are big enough to fall toward the floor in the relevant distance.

  75. 75
    bornagain77 says:

    follow up on posts 23 and 24, and per Robert Carter’s post on facebook:

    (per Robert Carter on facebook)
    https://www.facebook.com/robert.carter.904/posts/10219263836139514

    The first image is from https://nextstrain.org/ncov. At this rate, the coronavirus is picking up 24.2 mutations per year. This is good news. Mutations are bad for complex systems.
    The second image is from Carter and Sanford 2012 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23062055). According to the upper line, the human H1N1 picked up 14.4 mutations per year from 1917 through 2009. Then it died. It no longer exists. It went extinct after more than 13% of its genome randomly mutated.
    The third image is also from Carter and Sanford. It shows the mutation rate through the 2009-2010 swine flu epidemic (also H1N1, but a different strain). It was mutating at a rate of 42.0 mutations per year. It is still with us, but it is not the killer it once was (and it was nothing compared to it’s 1917 big brother).
    You as an individual do not want to pick up lots of mutations. That gives you cancer and stuff. It makes your body age. Mutations stink. However, we want this virus to mutate as much as possible. Mutations here are good. Very good. Let it die.,,,

  76. 76
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, in this thread, I take up the underlying issues in your first challenge/ question. It turns out, that science (an exercise in collective, institutionalised responsible, rational freedom that investigates ordering principles of the observable world) is just that, an exercise in responsible rational freedom. Accordingly, it is subject to the inescapability of first principles and duties of reason that provide moral government for our reason. KF

    PS: You seem to be concerned particularly about the owner of a firm. It seems to me that he is theologically naive at best. The scriptures of the Judaeo-Christian tradition are replete with the need for prudence as an aspect of wisdom and mark a distinction between sound faith and wishful thinking or presumption. On guidance, I have long seen the value of what we could call the Mumford alignment model. Just as, reportedly, the channel for Naples harbour is marked by three lights that must be coincident to be on a safe track, so too we must align scripture soundly interpreted, circumstances in a situation and any voices/views/arguments or impressions we have or may hear. We are specifically counselled not to be like the horse or mule that have no understanding and must be curbed with bridles etc. We must avoid doing harm to neighbour, we must be open to correction, we must respect civil authorities (though they in turn are subject to correction) and more.

  77. 77
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: You seem to be concerned particularly about the owner of a firm. It seems to me that he is theologically naive at best. The scriptures of the Judaeo-Christian tradition are replete with the need for prudence as an aspect of wisdom and mark a distinction between sound faith and wishful thinking or presumption.

    Yes, that all makes sense. And it still puzzles me that someone would act like the owner. Unless he really thought that he had had a personal communication from God. In which case there is still the question of when to respect civil authorities, do what is right, etc and when to think that God’s word (as personally experienced?) takes precedence. I assume in this particular case the US authorities will do what they can to protect his workers, I hope so anyway.

    Anyway, hope things are going well on your island. Keep us posted.

  78. 78
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, we just came out of our second overnight curfew. Within four minutes I heard one vehicle. Things seem quiet. I will follow up on further questions in a while. KF

  79. 79
    bornagain77 says:

    At 63 JT states,

    JVL, Yeah, people with winning arguments don’t need to change the subject.

    Too funny, at posts 23 and 24.,,
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/leading-scientist-walks-back-doomsday-claim/#comment-696441
    ,,, at posts 23 and 24. I laid out empirical evidence that falsifies the Darwinian worldview. And then at post 28 Seversky. completely dodges the science at hand and ‘changes the subject’ to a theological argument.

    Moreover, his changed the subject to a theological argument, i.e. ‘the argument from evil’, which is self refuting in and of itself. A point which I addressed at 36
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/leading-scientist-walks-back-doomsday-claim/#comment-696464
    As well JVL completely dodged the empirical evidence at hand that falsifies his Darwinian worldview, and then at post 42 ‘changes the subject’ to, of all things, a moral hit piece on Hobby Lobby from the ‘Independent’:
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/leading-scientist-walks-back-doomsday-claim/#comment-696471
    Seversky, seeing opportunity to further avoid dealing with the empirical evidence at hand, (i.e. posts 23 and 24, that falsifies his Darwinian worldview), jumps in on the diversionary tactic at post 44 and 50. JVL sensing he now has friend in the fight encourages Seversky at 51. To which I responded to both of then at post 52,

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    Amoral moralizers.

    Self refuting argumentation is the bread and butter of Darwinian atheists!

    And then, after all of that ‘changing the subject’ that Darwinists themselves were guilty of, at 63 JVL has the audacity to state,

    Of course you would like to shift the focus. Cast things back onto your agenda. Sorry, I’m not playing that game.

    For crying out loud, you just can’t this stuff up. The hypocrisy is literally dripping off of every word in JVL, (and Seversky’s) posts. They refuse to deal directly with the scientific evidence at hand and constantly tried to change the subject.

    Moreover, in irony of ironies, their attempt to change to subject to, of all things, ‘moral issues’ is self-defeating in and of itself since their Darwinian worldview is completely amoral, if not completely anti-moral.

    JVL, in his discussion with TF, tries to avoid the fact that on Darwinian premises he has no free will, and JVL is therefore effectively a meat robot with no capacity for rational discourse.

    In his attempt to avoid that devastating fact, he appeals to, you guessed it, moral argumentation at post 66,

    When does science trump what someone perceives as God’s law?

    You did say intelligence was an objective good and then seemed to qualify that. So which is it?

    And what about that scenario you presented? Was it an actual situation or did you just make it up?

    These are important questions no matter who or what is asking them. But you keep avoiding answering them. Why is that? Are you afraid to answer them? Why would that be?

    But alas, the moral questions that JVL presents to TF at post 66 about ‘moral propriety’, )so as to try to avoid dealing with the devastating fact that he has no free will in his Darwinian worldview}, are, to repeat myself, self-defeating. Morality of any sort simply cannot be based with the Darwinist’s reductive materialistic worldview.

    In other words, for JVL, (and Seversky), to try to ‘change the subject’ from science to morality in order to try to argue against Christianity and/or Intelligent Design, is for them to tactically admit the reality of God and is to, therefore, shoot themselves in the foot and refute their very own atheistic worldview,

    As Michael Egnor noted, “Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge transcendent standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence. From that starting point, theodicy begins. Theists have explored it profoundly. Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question.”

    “Goff,, discounts the existence of God because of the problem of evil. Goff seriously misunderstands the problem of evil. Evil is an insoluble problem for atheists, because if there is no God, there is no objective standard by which evil and good can exist or can even be defined. If God does not exist, “good” and “evil” are merely human opinions. Yet we all know, as Kant observed, that some things are evil in themselves, and not merely as a matter of opinion. Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge transcendent standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence. From that starting point, theodicy begins. Theists have explored it profoundly. Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question.”
    – Michael Egnor
    https://evolutionnews.org/2018/02/the-universe-reflects-a-mind/

    All of this self-refuting theological argumentation that atheists constantly present would be funny if the consequences involved for their eternal souls in their rejection of God were not so drastic.

  80. 80
    JVL says:

    BA77:

    I was having a conversation with Truthfreedom and he (?) made some statements that I wanted some clarification of so I asked some follow-up questions. I wanted to find out what Truthfreedom really thought. I did NOT change the subject. I was not making a comment about Christianity or ID. I am choosing not to participate in yet another conversation about free will. If that’s the conversation you want to have then you’ll have to find someone else to do that with.

  81. 81
    Truthfreedom says:

    @79 Bornagain77:
    Excellent post. 🙂

  82. 82
    bornagain77 says:

    Whatever JVL, you, as an atheistic materialist, simply have no argument whatsoever that you can make that does not end up negating itself. For instance, logic itself, which is necessary for any rational discourse that you may wish to make, is a Theistic presupposition.

    i.e. For you to presuppose the use of logic itself in your arguments is for you to presuppose God!

    Is God Real? Evidence from the Laws of Logic – J. Warner Wallace
    Excerpt: All rational discussions (even those about the existence or non-existence of God) require the prior foundation of logical absolutes. You’d have a hard time making sense of any conversation if the Laws of Logic weren’t available to guide the discussion and provide rational boundaries. Here are three of the most important Laws of Logic you and I use every day:
    The Law of Identity
    Things “are” what they “are”. “A” is “A”. Each thing is the same with itself and different from another. By this it is meant that each thing (be it a universal or a particular) is composed of its own unique set of characteristic qualities or features.
    The Law of Non-Contradiction
    “A” cannot be both “A” and “Non-A” at the same time, in the same way and in the same sense. Contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time.
    The Law of Excluded Middle
    A statement is either true or false. For any proposition, either that proposition is true, or its negation is true. There is no middle position. For example, the claim that “A statement is either true or false” is either true or false.
    These logical rules are necessary in order for us to examine truth statements. We also need them to point out when someone is reasoning illogically. We use the Laws of Logic all the time; you couldn’t even begin to read or reason through this blog post if you didn’t employ these laws. In fact, you’ve never had an intelligent, rational conversation without using these laws. They’re not a matter of subjective opinion; they are, instead, objectively true. So, here’s an important question: “From where do the transcendent, objective laws of logic come?”
    As an atheist, I would have been the first to describe myself as rational. In fact, I saw myself as far more reasonable than many of the Christians I knew. But, I was basing my rationality on my ability to understand and employ the Laws of Logic. How could I account for these transcendent laws without the existence of a transcendent Law Giver?
    (1) The Objective Laws of Logic Exist
    We cannot deny the Laws of Logic exist. In fact, any reasonable or logical argument against the existence of these laws requires their existence in the first place.
    The Objective Laws of Logic Are Conceptual Laws
    These laws are not physical; they are conceptual. They cannot be seen under a microscope or weighed on a scale. They are abstract laws guiding logical, immaterial thought processes.
    The Objective Laws of Logic Are Transcendent
    The laws transcend location, culture and time. If we go forward or backward a million years, the laws of logic would still exist and apply, regardless of culture or geographic location.
    The Objective Laws of Logic Pre-Existed Mankind
    The transcendent and timeless nature of logical laws indicates they precede our existence or ability to recognize them. Even before humans were able to understand the law of non-contradiction, “A” could not have been “Non-A”. The Laws of Logic were discovered by humans, not created by humans.
    (2) All Conceptual Laws Reflect the Mind of a Law Giver
    All laws require law givers, including conceptual laws. We know this from our common experience in the world in which we live. The laws governing our society and culture, for example, are the result and reflection of minds. But more importantly, the conceptual Laws of Logic govern rational thought processes, and for this reason, they require the existence of a mind.
    (3) The Best and Most Reasonable Explanation for the Kind of Mind Necessary for the Existence of the Transcendent, Objective, Conceptual Laws of Logic is God
    The lawgiver capable of producing the immaterial, transcendent laws preceding our existence must also be an immaterial, transcendent and pre-existent mind. This description fits what we commonly think of when we think of a Creator God.,,,
    https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/is-god-real-evidence-from-the-laws-of-logic/

    Verse and quote:

    John 1:1
    “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”

    What is the Logos?
    Logos is a Greek word literally translated as “word, speech, or utterance.” However, in Greek philosophy, Logos refers to divine reason or the power that puts sense into the world making order instead of chaos.,,,
    In the Gospel of John, John writes “In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). John appealed to his readers by saying in essence, “You’ve been thinking, talking, and writing about the Word (divine reason) for centuries and now I will tell you who He is.”
    https://www.compellingtruth.org/what-is-the-Logos.html

    Exactly how are logic and reasoning, and therefore science itself, to be grounded in the atheist’s materialistic worldview that insists everything arose through chaos without any rhyme or reason behind it? To presuppose that the universe can be understood through logic and reason is to presuppose that there is logic and reasoning behind the universe to be understood in the first place. The atheistic/materialistic worldview is completely incoherent as to providing a rational foundation for practicing science in the first place in that it presupposes that chaos instead of logic or reason is behind the universe.
    All of which explains, number one, why there were only Christians and no atheists at the founding of modern science. And which, number two, also explains why the atheistic explanations for how the universe came into being, and for how we ourselves came into being, both wind up in catastrophic epistemological failure.

  83. 83
    JVL says:

    BA77: For instance, logic itself, which is necessary for any rational discourse that you may wish to make, is a Theistic presupposition.

    IF there is no deity then we must have done it all ourselves!!

    Exactly how are logic and reasoning, and therefore science itself, to be grounded in the atheist’s materialistic worldview that insists everything arose through chaos without any rhyme or reason behind it?

    Not entirely chaotic. In evolutionary theory, for example, only mutations are random.

    All of which explains, number one, why there were only Christians and no atheists at the founding of modern science.

    How do you know ‘they’ were all actually Christians? Sometimes people pay lip service because they don’t want to be ostracised. Also are you saying Muslims and Buddhists and Janes and Hindus and Confucians and Zoroastrians could not have come up with science? Perhaps you meant “theists” instead of “Christians”?

    I think the process of guessing how things work and then systematically checking different possible infuences is pretty natural. It’s just being careful when eliminating stuff that isn’t true. I don’t think it means you assume there will be an answer that you can understand.

    Anyway, we’re not going to resolve this issue so if you choose not to respond I won’t mind.

  84. 84
    Jim Thibodeau says:

    JVL: don’t worry, here’s what William Lane Craig said:

    “As commonly understood, presuppositionalism is guilty of a logical howler: it commits the informal fallacy of petitio principii, or begging the question,”

  85. 85
    Truthfreedom says:

    I think the process of guessing how things work and then systematically checking different possible infuences is pretty natural. It’s just being careful when eliminating stuff that isn’t true.

    Assuming what needs to be proved = proving nothing.
    The question here is the how. How are we capable of reasoning? Where in ‘nature’ is that ‘reason’?
    Maybe in a tree? In the sea? Under the rocks? Has reason weight? Is reasoning subjected to mutations? To ‘natural’ selection? Are we solipsists?

    Saying ‘we evolved so it must have happened’ is no different than saying ‘God did it’.

  86. 86
    bornagain77 says:

    Craig’s objection does not hold water:

    Philosophical Houses of Glass
    As the saying goes, “People living in circular philosophies should not toss circular objections” — or something like that.

    A frequent charge against Presuppositional Apologetics is that it is a circular argument — it presupposes Christian theism in order to prove Christian theism.

    This objection comes from atheists — who live in an irrational and circular philosophy — but, amazingly, also comes from Christians.

    This objection has been put forward by “Classical” Christian apologist Professor William Lane Craig. Craig writes in Five Views on Apologetics (p. 232-3):
    “As commonly understood, Presuppositionalism is guilty of a logical howler: it commits the informal fallacy of petitio principii, or begging the question, for it advocates presupposing the truth of Christian theism in order to prove Christian theism…A Christian theist himself will deny that question-begging arguments prove anything…But at the heart of presuppositionalism lies an argument, often not clearly understood or articulated, which is very powerful. This is an epistemological transcendental argument…”
    C.L. Bolt, on Choosing Hats has posted an analysis of William Lane Craig’s objections to presuppositionalism (quoted above) in his post, William Lane Craig’s Inconsistent Objections to Presuppositional Argument. In summary, C.L. Bolt points out the glaring inconsistency of Craig’s objection: Craig claims on one hand that TAG has never been “spelled out” adequately but then asserts that TAG is circular (“guilty of a logical howler”).

    To add to the perplexity, in Craig’s criticism above, he pays a somewhat begrudging compliment to presuppositionalism, viz.
    “But at the heart of presuppositionalism lies an argument, often not clearly understood or articulated, which is very powerful. This is an epistemological transcendental argument…”
    So then, apparently TAG has been spelled out sufficiently for Craig to recognize the power of TAG. If TAG is powerful, then one wonders how it is committing a “logical howler!” Craig cannot have his cake and eat it too, as another famous saying goes.

    But there is a deeper hidden inconsistency in Craig’s objections. When Craig says presuppositionalism is guilty of a “logical howler” we should ask, “To what logic is he appealing?” If he is presupposing logic as constituted in man by God, then he is presupposing Christian theism and is guilty of the same “logical howler.” If he is not, then he is presupposing “neutral” logic — in that case Craig is presupposing atheist logic, contrary to his Christian profession — either way Craig’s assertion is incoherent. Of course, we know this because presuppositionalism, contra Craig’s “classical” apologetic, is consistently Christian. On the other hand, Craig’s “classical” apologetic is blatantly anti-theistic. As Van Til repeatedly illustrated in his writings, Craig’s apologetic adopts the unbeliever’s standards of objectivity and the unbeliever’s commitment to his autonomous reasoning as the ultimate authority. So then, Craig is not only arguing in a vicious circle, he is arguing from within the unbeliever’s viciously circular presuppositions.
    Bahnsen has addressed this false charge of circular argument repeatedly. Let me conclude with Greg Bahnsen’s, succinct analysis from Pushing the Antithesis (p.123-5). Here is a corrected quote (omitted text is enclosed in brackets):
    “Before moving to our next response against the anti-metaphysical bias, you should be aware of a possible response that the unbeliever will bring against you. He will complain that you are engaging in circular reasoning or the informal logical fallacy of begging the question. That is, since we assert that God is self-verifying, we are assuming God in order to prove God. However, we should note in response to this objection:
    (1) We are not engaged in special pleading for the Christian worldview. We are simply asking which system makes human experience intelligible. For sake of argument, we will grant the unbeliever his system with whatever foundations he adopts in order to see if it can justify its truth claims. But then he will have to grant us ours (for sake of argument) to see if we can justify our truth claims. By the very nature of our God as the self-existing, eternal Creator, our worldview self-justifies its starting point. (We will later explain this two-step procedure of worldview critique.)
    (2) All systems must ultimately involve some circularity in reasoning. For instance, when you argue for the legitimacy of the laws of logic, you must employ the laws of logic. How else can you justify laws of logic? This is a transcendental issue, an issue that lies outside of the temporal, changing realm of sense experience. Laws of logic do not change: they are universal, invariant, abstract principles.
    (3) “Circularity” in one’s philosophical system is just another name for ‘consistency’ in outlook throughout one’s system. That is, one’s starting point and final conclusion cohere with each other. Here it is more fully explained:
    The “circularity” of a transcendental argument is not at all the same as the fallacious ‘circularity’ of an argument in which the conclusion is a restatement (in one form or another) of one of its premises. Rather, it is the circularity involved in a coherent theory (where all the parts are consistent with or assume each other) and which is required when one reasons about a precondition for reasoning. [Because autonomous philosophy does not provide the preconditions for rationality or reasoning,] its “circles” are destructive of human thought–i.e. “vicious” and futile endeavors.
    (4) The unbeliever has no defensible standard whereby he can judge the Christian position. His argument either ends up in infinite regress (making it impossible to prove), has no justification (rendering it subjective), or engages in an unjustifiable same-plane circularity (causing it to be fallacious). Without a self-verifying standard, he has no epistemological way out. And only the Christian worldview has such a self-verifying standard.
    http://theophilus-defendingthe.....glass.html

  87. 87
    bornagain77 says:

    And to point out the obvious, Atheistic Naturalism/Materialism simply cannot ground logic.

    i.e. “Even to define naturalism is to refute it.”

    “Furthermore, the very framework of Clark’s argument — logic — is neither material nor natural. Logic, after all, doesn’t exist “in the space-time continuum” and isn’t described by physics. What is the location of modus ponens? How much does Gödel’s incompleteness theorem weigh? What is the physics of non-contradiction? How many millimeters long is Clark’s argument for naturalism? Ironically the very logic that Clark employs to argue for naturalism is outside of any naturalistic frame.
    The strength of Clark’s defense of naturalism is that it is an attempt to present naturalism’s tenets clearly and logically. That is its weakness as well, because it exposes naturalism to scrutiny, and naturalism cannot withstand even minimal scrutiny. Even to define naturalism is to refute it.”
    – Michael Egnor – Naturalism and Self Refutation
    https://evolutionnews.org/2018/01/naturalism-and-self-refutation/

  88. 88
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom: The question here is the how. How are we capable of reasoning?

    How did it come about? Trial and error I think. And being able to remember. And then having an advantage after having figured out how something works. Children are much influenced by their environment (especially their parents) so it gets passed on. I’m beginning to think some of it even might be genetic. My son thinks in very much the same way as my father; I’m more analytic but they think with their hands, they feel their way to a solution.

    Some birds, especially Corvids, are very good at figuring out puzzles so it seems to be a talent not limited to human beings. Some breeds of dogs are clearly better at reasoning than others. Chimps make tools. Whales seemingly can identify other individuals based on their ‘songs’. It seems to me there is a scale of reasoning and humans sit at the known top. Even then, some humans are far, far better at it than others. We’re not all Sherlock Holmes after all!!

  89. 89
    JVL says:

    To the site admins:

    Many of us would like to have the edit post feature reinstalled; it’s frustrating when discussing complicated issues to not be able to correct errors which can affect comprehension.

    Also, the ‘Recent Comments’ sections seems to only update sporatically. I can only speak for myself but it’s nice for me to be able to check that feature to see if there’s been a reply to a comment I’ve made. When it’s not working well I end up having to check each individual thread which takes time and is propably not so good for whatever hosting service you are using.

  90. 90
    Truthfreedom says:

    @88 JVL

    How did it come about? Trial and error I think.

    If there is error, then there is also a correct answer. That means we live in a reality were there are objective truths that can be achieved by reasoning.
    If reasoning is correct, you get the ‘prize’. That is why methodological science, when done properly, is a powerful tool to understand and manage ‘nature’. (But not THE ONLY TOOL).
    Poor reasoning skills (i. e.) a 2 year-old trying to find a vaccine to counteract SARS-CoV-2 can not work.
    If reasoning is not part of reality, we are living inside our heads (idealism/ solipsism).

  91. 91
    Jim Thibodeau says:

    “@joshrogin

    Wuhan reported only about 2,500 #coronavirus deaths, but 5,000 urns were delivered to one mortuary over just 2 days. “Wuhan has seven other mortuaries.” shanghaiist.com/“

  92. 92
    Jim Thibodeau says:

    Like all authoritarian states, China lies.

  93. 93
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom: If there is error, then there is also a correct answer. That means we live in a reality were there are objective truths that can be achieved by reasoning.

    Perhaps I should have said something along the lines of “seeing what works and what doesn’t work”. Since you seem determined to pick on particular words!!

    If reasoning is correct, you get the ‘prize’. That is why methodological science, when done properly, is a powerful tool to understand and manage ‘nature’. (But not THE ONLY TOOL).

    Perhaps not the only tool but one that, hopefully, can be cross-verified by other experimenters.

    Poor reasoning skills (i. e.) a 2 year-old trying to find a vaccine to counteract SARS-CoV-2 can not work. If reasoning is not part of reality, we are living inside our heads (idealism/ solipsism).

    Yes . . . what are we disagreeing on?

  94. 94
    bornagain77 says:

    As CS Lewis pointed out, and has been expanded on by Plantinga and others, atheism simply cannot ground reasoning. i.e. the argument from reason!

    “One absolutely central inconsistency ruins [the popular scientific philosophy]. The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless inference is valid, the whole picture disappears… unless Reason is an absolute, all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based.”
    —C.S. Lewis, Is Theology Poetry (aka the Argument from Reason)

    The Argument From Reason – resource page
    http://www.reasonsforgod.org/t.....om-reason/

    Darwin himself conceded that our ‘convictions’ would be unreliable if Darwinism were true,

    “But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”
    – Charles Darwin – Letter To William Graham – July 3, 1881

    Darwinian materialism simply commits epistemological suicide:

    Why Atheism is Nonsense Pt.5 – “Naturalism is a Self-defeating Idea”video
    Excerpt: “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not concerned with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
    Richard Dawkins – quoted from “The God Delusion”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff-5rsrDRGM

    Why Evolutionary Theory Cannot Survive Itself – Nancy Pearcey – March 2015
    Excerpt: “An example of self-referential absurdity is a theory called evolutionary epistemology, a naturalistic approach that applies evolution to the process of knowing. The theory proposes that the human mind is a product of natural selection. The implication is that the ideas in our minds were selected for their survival value, not for their truth-value.
    But what if we apply that theory to itself? Then it, too, was selected for survival, not truth — which discredits its own claim to truth. Evolutionary epistemology commits suicide.
    Astonishingly, many prominent thinkers have embraced the theory without detecting the logical contradiction. Philosopher John Gray writes, “If Darwin’s theory of natural selection is true,… the human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth.” What is the contradiction in that statement?
    Gray has essentially said, if Darwin’s theory is true, then it “serves evolutionary success, not truth.” In other words, if Darwin’s theory is true, then it is not true.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....94171.html

    Should You Trust the Monkey Mind? – Joe Carter
    Excerpt: Evolutionary naturalism assumes that our noetic equipment developed as it did because it had some survival value or reproductive advantage. Unguided evolution does not select for belief except insofar as the belief improves the chances of survival. The truth of a belief is irrelevant, as long as it produces an evolutionary advantage. This equipment could have developed at least four different kinds of belief that are compatible with evolutionary naturalism, none of which necessarily produce true and trustworthy cognitive faculties.
    http://www.firstthings.com/ont.....onkey-mind

    Plantinga expanded on this in his ‘Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism”

    ALVIN PLANTINGA’S EVOLUTIONARY ARGUMENT AGAINST NATURALISM
    July 9, 2016
    Plantinga notes that if human beings are a result of the evolutionary process then one needs to maintain that the main purpose of our cognitive faculties are for survival and reproductive fitness. In other words, as a process, evolution doesn’t care about truth or true beliefs. Rather, it only cares whether or not our actions are adaptive and whether or not they contribute to our fitness. As Plantinga argues, if this is the case then the naturalist would be unwarranted to expect his or her cognitive faculties to be aimed at truth.
    The implications for the naturalist are significant. If one’s mind is merely aimed at survival then it follows that the mind cannot be trusted when it thinks it knows the truth. This would undermine the trustworthiness of the human cognitive faculty as atheists themselves such as Friedrich Nietzsche and Thomas Nagel have noted. Even Charles Darwin, the mind who established that all species of life descended over time from common ancestors, likewise saw this dilemma,
    “But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”
    According to Plantinga,
    “This argument has to do with the reliability of your cognitive faculties like memory and perception, intuition, and mathematical or logical intuition… I think if you accept naturalism and evolution you can’t think of your cognitive faculties as being reliable, as giving you the actual truth about the world… The argument goes like this. If you’re a naturalist you will probably also be a materialist about human beings. You’ll think that human beings are material objects. They are not immaterial souls that have a body. Now suppose we think about some creatures on an alien planet that are a lot like us. Let’s suppose for them that naturalism holds, that evolution holds, and that these creatures are material objects. So what is it that causes their behaviour? What causes their behaviour will be neurology, the states of which their neurons are firing sending a signal down to a muscle causing it to contract. And their beliefs and the content of these beliefs are also caused by neurology. Now given that evolution is true these creatures have come into being by virtue of natural selection we can take it for granted that their behaviour is adaptive, it enhances their fitness which leads to survival and reproduction. If that is true the same thing will go for what causes their behaviour, namely their neurology which also promotes survival and reproduction. The neurology that causes their behaviour also causes their beliefs, but now the question is “suppose their behaviour is in fact adaptive what about the truths of these beliefs?” Well, I think that you can see that it doesn’t matter about the truths of these beliefs. If their neurology causes the right behaviour what they believe makes no difference. The belief, one might say, floats along like an extra that’s caused by the neurology. But the beliefs don’t have to be true for the neurology to be adaptive. If the neurology causes false beliefs but causes the right actions it makes no difference whatsoever. So, if you take a given belief on the part of one of these creatures and ask “What is the probability given that naturalism and evolution and materialism that the belief is true?” It’s got to be fairly close to 50/50, it is likely to be true as false, or it likely to be false as true. If that is the case then the probability that their cognitive faculties are reliable, which produces a substantial proportion of true beliefs that reliability requires, the probability that their faculties will be reliable will be very low” (1).
    The prominent atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel has also seen this challenge,
    “Evolutionary naturalism provides an account of our capacities that undermines their reliability, and in doing so undermines itself…
    In fact, Nagel appeals to Plantinga,
    “I agree with Alvin Plantinga that… the application of evolutionary theory to the understanding of our own cognitive capacities should undermine, though it need not completely destroy, our confidence in them. Mechanisms of belief formation that have selective advantage in the everyday struggle for existence do not warrant our confidence in the construction of theoretical accounts of the world as a whole. I think the evolutionary hypothesis would imply that though our cognitive capacities could be reliable, we do not have the kind of reason to rely on them that we ordinarily take ourselves to have using in them directly-as we do in science” (2).
    What is the conclusion Plantinga draws from the argument? If his argument follows then it,
    “provides a defeater for your natural instinctive belief that your cognitive faculties are reliable… you get a reason not to hold that belief, a reason to reject it.” Thus combining naturalism with evolution is self-defeating because the probability that humans would have reliable cognitive faculties as a result is so overwhelming low. The human cognitive faculty cannot be trusted to produce more true beliefs than false beliefs. Thus to assert that naturalistic evolution is true the naturalist also asserts that one has a low or unknown probability of being right. If evolution is true, which the vast majority of naturalists believe to be the case, then ascribing truth to naturalism and evolution is dubious or inconsistent.
    References.
    1. What is the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism, Alvin Plantinga. Available.
    2. Nagel, T. 2012. Mind and Cosmos. p. 27-28.
    https://jamesbishopblog.com/2016/07/09/the-evolutionary-argument-against-naturalism/

    Moreover, Plantinga’s arguments has been, more or less, confirmed by computer simulation:

    The Case Against Reality – May 13, 2016
    Excerpt: Hoffman seems to come to a conclusion similar to the one Alvin Plantinga argues in ch. 10 of Where the Conflict Really Lies: we should not expect — in the absence of further argument — that creatures formed by a naturalistic evolutionary process would have veridical perceptions.,,,
    First, even if Hoffman’s argument were restricted to visual perception, and not to our cognitive faculties more generally (e.g., memory, introspection, a priori rational insight, testimonial belief, inferential reasoning, etc.), the conclusion that our visual perceptions would be wholly unreliable given natural selection would be sufficient for Plantinga’s conclusion of self-defeat. After all, reliance upon the veridicality of our visual perceptions was and always will be crucial for any scientific argument for the truth of evolution. So if these perceptions cannot be trusted, we have little reason to think evolutionary theory is true.
    Second, it’s not clear that Hoffman’s application of evolutionary game theory is only specially applicable to visual perception, rather than being relevant for our cognitive faculties generally. If “we find that veridical perceptions can be driven to extinction by non-veridical strategies that are tuned to utility rather than objective reality” (2010, p. 504, my emphasis), then why wouldn’t veridical cognitive faculties (more generally) be driven to extinction by non-veridical strategies that are tuned to utility rather than objective reality? After all, evolutionary theory purports to be the true account of the formation of all of our cognitive faculties, not just our faculty of visual perception. If evolutionary game theory proves that “true perception generally goes extinct” when “animals that perceive the truth compete with others that sacrifice truth for speed and energy-efficiency” (2008), why wouldn’t there be a similar sacrifice with respect to other cognitive faculties? In fact, Hoffman regards the following theorem as now proven: “According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness” (Atlantic interview). But then wouldn’t it also be the case that an organism that cognizes reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that cognizes none of reality but is just tuned to fitness? On the evolutionary story, every cognitive faculty we have was produced by a process that was tuned to fitness (rather than tuned to some other value, such as truth).
    http://www.gregwelty.com/2016/.....t-reality/

  95. 95
    Truthfreedom says:

    …“seeing what works and what doesn’t work”. Since you seem determined to pick on particular words!!

    Words are the tools we humans use to communicate with each other. It is curious that all human cultures have words to convey the same reality: life, death, pain, joy, suffering, me, you, them, health, sickness, good, bad…etc
    It seems there is a shared, common, objective world out there.
    If words lost their meaning, communication would be impossible, leading to chaotic outcomes.

    Perhaps not the only tool but one that, hopefully, can be cross-verified by other experimenters.

    Meaning we converge in the same place, an objective truth.

    Yes . . . what are we disagreeing on?

    If logic resides only inside our heads, then we are living inside our heads. There is not a world ‘outside’. More like you are talking to yourself and imagining UD and me and this conversation.

  96. 96
    JVL says:

    BA77: As CS Lewis pointed out, and has been expanded on by Plantinga and others, atheism simply cannot ground reasoning. i.e. the argument from reason!

    If there is no God(s) then we must have done it ourselves!

    If the question of God’s existence is a scientific one then it must be the case that you must admit you might be wrong. I admit I might be wrong and someday I might have to face a very annoyed deity who gave me plenty of chances. In some sense I’m risking a lot. Do you admit that you might be wrong?

    Moreover, Plantinga’s arguments has been, more or less, confirmed by computer simulation:

    Oh well, it must be right then!! 🙂 Seriously, computer simulations are always just pale models of reality so are you seriously going to use that argument?

  97. 97
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom: Meaning we converge in the same place, an objective truth.

    Certainly for things like SOME questions of physics and chemistry. Ethical issues . . . a bit more nebulous. But I do think humanity, as a whole, is coming to a more general agreement on a lot of things. Connotations of words is getting into that nebulous zone, even just sticking to a particular language.

    If logic resides only inside our heads, then we are living inside our heads. There is not a world ‘outside’. More like you are talking to yourself and imagining UD and me and this conversation.

    I guess I’m missing something. I do think there is a ‘world outside’ that we interact with. I think you are a real person typing your responses via a browser from someplace . . . in America? We generally agree on the definitions of commonly used terms in general usage.

    I don’t see the case for some kind of deity if that’s what you’re heading towards. Sorry.

  98. 98
    Truthfreedom says:

    @JVL

    Oh well, it must be right then!! ???? Seriously, computer simulations are always just pale models of reality so are you seriously going to use that argument?

    Common ancestry and the discredited tree of life are managed via computer simulations.
    Thanks for showing they are *po*p.

  99. 99
    Truthfreedom says:

    @97 JVL

    I do think there is a ‘world outside’ that we interact with.

    Prove it.

  100. 100
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom: Common ancestry and the discredited tree of life are managed via computer simulations. Thanks for showing they are *po*p.

    Not in the first instance. The idea did not come from computer simulations. The simulations were created to handle the data in a specified way NOT dictated by the machines. Dictated by the humans who programmed the machines. That doesn’t falsify the idea behind the simulation.

    Prove it.

    Come stand next to me and let me drop a block of concrete on your foot.

  101. 101
    Jim Thibodeau says:

    @JVL Nobody thrown into a tiger cage believes that reality is all in their mind.

  102. 102
    Truthfreedom says:

    JvL

    Come stand next to me and let me drop a block of concrete on your foot.

    Concrete and me and my foot are part of your imagination. And this post.

  103. 103
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom: Concrete and me and my foot are part of your imagination.

    Great! Then I won’t having any problems breaking every bone in your foot! Thanks for taking part in our reality experiment. You can get your cast fitted just down at the end of the corridor. Sorry, we haven’t got any virtual nurses to help you along; you’re just going to have to figure things out on your own. See what works. And . . . good luck!!

  104. 104
    Truthfreedom says:

    @103 JVL

    Geat ! Then I won’t having any problems breaking every bone in your foot! Thanks for taking part in our reality experiment. You can get your cast fitted just down at the end of the corridor. Sorry, we haven’t got any virtual nurses to help you along; you’re just going to have to figure things out on your own. See what works. And . . . good luck!!

    You are talking to yourself. It is all in your head. Including that silly ‘theory of evolution’ and that inbreeder barnacle collector and UD and this post.
    You are imagining me.

  105. 105
    Truthfreedom says:

    The darwinian ‘tree of life’ is p*op. And those computer simulations.
    https://www.lepoint.fr/debats/et-si-darwin-s-etait-trompe-12-12-2011-1406407_2.php
    Google translator will do it. The one that is inside your head.

  106. 106
    Jim Thibodeau says:

    @JVL your Socratic method reveals when poor thinking is occurring.

  107. 107
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom: You are talking to yourself. It is all in your head. Including that silly ‘theory of evolution’ and that inbreeder barnacle collector and UD and this post.
    You are imagining me.

    Fabulous! I won’t loose any sleep then when you go limping off. Thanks!!

    When you’re willing we can meet up and test all this. I’ve got a nice chunk of concrete all ready.

    The one that is inside your head.

    Great! I’m always right then. Brilliant!!

  108. 108
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL wants to move on from trying to ground reasoning within his atheistic worldview (which is impossible to do) to go ahead and try to argue, via his reasoning, for the non-existence of God.

    How quaint. Shallow evasive argumentation on his part, but quaint none-the-less!

    Aside from Lewis’s ‘argument from reason’, and aside from Plantinga and Hoffman’s work, another simpler way to show that atheism and/or Darwinian materialism cannot possibly ground reasoning is via their denial of free will.

    Can anyone, aside from Coyne himself, NOT see the logical fallacy in Coyne’s following quote:

    THE ILLUSION OF FREE WILL – Sam Harris – 2012
    Excerpt: “Free will is an illusion so convincing that people simply refuse to believe that we don’t have it.”
    – Jerry Coyne
    https://samharris.org/the-illusion-of-free-will/

    LOL 🙂 As J. Budziszewski would say,

    “Though it always comes as a surprise to intellectuals, there are some forms of stupidity that one must be highly intelligent and educated to commit.”
    – J. Budziszewski

    As Coyne quote itself makes clear, the denial of free will by materialists is simply insane since their ability to make logical, instead of purely physiological, choices is denied.

    Sam Harris’s Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It – Martin Cothran – November 9, 2012
    Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state — including their position on this issue — is the effect of a physical, not logical cause.
    By their own logic, it isn’t logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....66221.html

    Of course atheists completely ignore the fact that they have no foundation in which to ground reasoning in their worldview the first place, (since to do so then they would no longer be atheists), but their refusal to be reasonable still does not detract one iota from the fact that atheistic materialism, and methodological naturalism in particular, winds up in catastrophic, and irredeemable, epistemological failure.

    Moreover, it is not just their denial of free will that drives atheists into catastrophic, and irredeemable, epistemological failure. At every turn, their atheistic worldview betrays them by denying reality itself.

    Although the Darwinist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science, (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that Darwinists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to:

    Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris, Coyne), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin).
    Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,
    Darwinian Materialism and/or Methodological Naturalism vs. Reality – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaksmYceRXM

    Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.

    It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.

    2 Corinthians 10:5
    Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

  109. 109
    Truthfreedom says:

    Fantastic! I won’t loose any sleep then when you go limping off. Thanks!!
    When you’re willing we can meet up and test all this. I’ve got a nice chunk of concrete all ready.

    It’s all in your imagination. I am a figment of your imagination. Your imagination created me and UD and this conversation.

  110. 110
    Truthfreedom says:

    Great ! I’m always right then. Brilliant!!

    And a lunatic talking to yourself.
    As if being right were something objectively good. To a person that is alone in the world, a world he has imagined in his head.

  111. 111
    rhampton7 says:

    Coronavirus cases in the U.S. are up 15,950 so far today to 120,076, up from just over 24,000 a week earlier and a mere 75 on March 1. Covid-19 deaths are at 1,993, up 297.

    Coronavirus cases have increased rapidly in the industrial Midwest, with Michigan adding 993 cases to 4,650. Ohio, though, has far fewer cases than similar-sized Illinois, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Ohio was early to shut down schools and a “stay-at-home” order, has just over 1,400.

    Meanwhile, Covid-19 infections are swelling in Louisiana and much of the South. Even worse, caseloads are increasing despite relatively low coroanvirus testing.

    Virus cases are growing rapidly in much of the world. Finally, Hong Kong and Singapore are tightening restrictions, showing that even countries that took strong preemptive action must remain vigilant indefinitely.

  112. 112
    kairosfocus says:

    JT, 84:

    This caught my eye:

    As commonly understood, presuppositionalism is guilty of a logical howler: it commits the informal fallacy of petitio principii, or begging the question,”

    Notice that?

    In fact, the matter is not so simply dismissed — and BTW, we cannot but note your appeal to first principles and duties of reason.

    For one, consider a claim A. Why accept it? B. But why B? C, . . . So we find three alternatives: infinite regress [which we cannot traverse, much less doing so correctly], or finitely remote circularity that begs the question or else finitely remote first plausibles at some faith-point F. There are alternatives F1, F2 etc, and reasonable, responsible worldviews are evaluated at this level through comparative difficulties. That is, comparison on factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory power [neither an ad hoc patchwork nor simplistic].

    The net result is that as philosophy is the discipline of hard, fundamental questions, unreflective world-pictures usually require considerable revision, and serious, live option worldviews all bristle with difficulties. Hence, comparative difficulties as a key approach.

    Naive presuppositionalism may indeed beg questions, though significant advocates are much more sophisticated than they are given credit for being.

    Comparative difficulties analysis does not beg questions. And, analysis that uses plumb line self evident truths opens up powerful approaches. The principle of identity and tied considerations on logic of being illuminated by first principles and duties of responsible reason are particularly powerful. Though, no fairly comprehensive worldview can be built up from only self evident truths.

    More could be said but this is a start.

    KF

  113. 113
    kairosfocus says:

    RH7, much of that rise is through testing, especially fast testing methods. I think we will only understand the true scope through sampling blood tests that give a population cross section. Notice, how someone suggests 1/2 the UK population has already had it, mostly invisibly due to preponderance of mild cases. In any case, depending on parameters, at some point saturation or curbing effects kick in and the surge of new cases will abate. But, once there was a breakout of lodgements, a quasi-exponential surge would follow. KF

  114. 114
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom:It’s all in your imagination. I am a figment of your imagination. Your imagination created me and UD and this conversation.

    Great. I can start ignoring you then.

    And a lunatic talking to yourself. As if being right were something objectively good. To a person that is alone in the world, a world he has imagined in his head.

    What? Did someone say something? I thought I heard something? It must have been the shadows of the memories that keep you always gentle on my mind. Or something.–

  115. 115
    Truthfreedom says:

    @114 JVL

    Great. I can start ignoring you then.

    It is all in your imagination. You are talking to yourself.

    What ? Did someone say something? I thought I heard something? It must have been the shadows of the memories that keep you always gentle on my mind. Or something.–

    It is all in your imagination. You are talking to yourself.

  116. 116
    bornagain77 says:

    kf, Craig’s argument against presuppositionalism was not Craig’s only major philosophical blunder in this area. Feser recently revealed that Craig’s argument for God from math, (which certainly qualifies as a presuppositional argument), was severely flawed as well.

    KEEP IT SIMPLE – Edward Feser – April 2020
    Excerpt: Mathematics appears to describe a realm of entities with quasi-­divine attributes. The series of natural numbers is infinite. That one and one equal two and two and two equal four could not have been otherwise. Such mathematical truths never begin being true or cease being true; they hold eternally and immutably. The lines, planes, and figures studied by the geometer have a kind of perfection that the objects of our ­experience lack. Mathematical objects seem ­immaterial and known by pure reason rather than through the senses. Given the centrality of mathematics to scientific explanation, it seems in some way to be a cause of the natural world and its order.
    How can the mathematical realm be so apparently godlike? The traditional answer, originating in Neoplatonic philosophy and Augustinian theology, is that our knowledge of the mathematical realm is precisely knowledge, albeit inchoate, of the divine mind. Mathematical truths exhibit infinity, necessity, eternity, immutability, perfection, and immateriality because they are God’s thoughts, and they have such explanatory power in scientific theorizing because they are part of the blueprint implemented by God in creating the world. For some thinkers in this tradition, mathematics thus provides the starting point for an argument for the existence of God qua supreme intellect.,,,

    (William Lane) Craig aims to refute this revived Platonism and thereby to rebut its implicit challenge to divine aseity. A prominent academic philosopher and Protestant theologian, he has made a specialty of defending the claims of traditional Christian theology against modern objections, and he is especially qualified to do so. A thinker of unusual breadth and depth, Craig has mastered and engaged with vast areas of modern thought, including the most technical reaches of contemporary analytic philosophy, the physics of relativity and Big Bang cosmology, and New Testament scholarship. In fact, Craig’s work played a key role in my own return to Christianity after a decade as an atheist.

    Nonetheless, I have to disagree with him. Successfully answering the challenge that Platonism poses to divine aseity requires getting right the nature of God, the nature of mathematics, and the nature of the relationship between them. In my opinion, Craig’s position fails on all three counts.,,,

    read more here
    https://www.firstthings.com/article/2020/04/keep-it-simple

  117. 117
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom: It is all in your imagination. You are talking to yourself.

    Yes, I must learn to have a more interesting imagination. I keep hearing some really boring voice which keeps telling me I’m stupid. What’s wrong with me? Why am I telling myself such things? Since I’m clearly the centre of the universe I can have everything I want! I don’t have to put up with any dissension. So why do I keep hearing points of view I disagree with? Weird. It’s almost as if there’s some reality outside of myself that keeps infringing on my personal world. Very strange. I wish it would just stop so I could be completely happy in my . . . self-ness. But I keep hearing things which make sense and when I check them out they seem lock solid. Things that are true outside of myself no matter how I test and check; they’re independent of me. Some kind of knowledge outside of myself. Things that are always true. Very weird. I keep building up this bunch of always true things, stuff that seems pretty pointless to doubt anymore. What to call that stuff? Hmmmm . . .

  118. 118
    Truthfreedom says:

    @JVL

    Yes, I must learn to have a more interesting imagination. I keep hearing some really boring voice which keeps telling me I’m stupid. What’s wrong with me? Why am I telling myself such things? Since I’m clearly the centre of the universe I can have everything I want! I don’t have to put up with any dissension. So why do I keep hearing points of view I disagree with? Weird. It’s almost as if there’s some reality outside of myself that keeps infringing on my personal world. Very strange. I wish it would just stop so I could be completely happy in my . . . self-ness. But I keep hearing things which make sense and when I check them out they seem lock solid. Things that are true outside of myself no matter how I test and check; they’re independent of me. Some kind of knowledge outside of myself. Things that are always true. Very weird. I keep building up this bunch of always true things, stuff that seems pretty pointless to doubt anymore. What to call that stuff? Hmmmm . . .

    UD, Truthfreedom and this conversation are part of your imagination. Everything is in your imagination, you are having a conversation with the content of your own mind.

  119. 119
    Jim Thibodeau says:

    @rhampton7

    In the hours since you posted that, the number of US confirmed cases has gone up by 4000. And we’re still just testing a tiny fraction of people.

  120. 120
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom: UD, Truthfreedom and this conversation are part of your imagination. Everything is in your imagination, you are having a conversation with the content of your own mind.

    Wow. I must get out more often. Oh . . . wait . . . I’m not allowed now. Oh well.

  121. 121
    JVL says:

    Interestingly enough, the edit function seems to have returned! With a clock time of 24 hours! Wow! That’s a bit excessive.

  122. 122
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, it is clearly a different one. Likely, a new widget or extension to WP. KF

  123. 123
    Truthfreedom says:

    @JVL

    Wow. I must get out more often. Oh . . . wait . . . I’m not allowed now. Oh well.

    It’s all in your imagination.

  124. 124
    Truthfreedom says:

    @121JVL

    Interestingly enough, the edit function seems to have returned! With a clock time of 24 hours! Wow! That’s a bit excessive.

    It’s all in your imagination.

  125. 125
    bornagain77 says:

    at post 83 JVL offers this supposed ‘defense’ of his Darwinian atheism.

    He starts off with this,,,

    BA77: For instance, logic itself, which is necessary for any rational discourse that you may wish to make, is a Theistic presupposition.

    JVL: IF there is no deity then we must have done it all ourselves!!

    JVL is basically saying that logic is just an invention of man, i.e. an illusion. And that logic does not objectively exist in reality. i.e. ‘we did it ourselves’. Yet JVL’s own sentence is blatantly self-defeating in that it presupposes objective existence of logic in order to try to argue that logic is just an invention of man, i.e. an illusion of man. Specifically, JVL presupposed the conditional logic of a “If-Then” statement, i.e. IF there is no deity THEN ; we must have done it (logic) all ourselves!! i.e. if p then q.

    I have my own if-then statement. IF you must use logic to argue against the objective existence of logic, THEN ; your argument collapses in on itself and proves the contrary.

    JVL’s arguments do not get any better. JVL goes on to claim:

    BA77: Exactly how are logic and reasoning, and therefore science itself, to be grounded in the atheist’s materialistic worldview that insists everything arose through chaos without any rhyme or reason behind it?

    JVL: Not entirely chaotic. In evolutionary theory, for example, only mutations are random.

    There are a couple of problems with JVL’s statement. First, JVL is trying to claim that Darwinian evolution is not entirely random chaos but that the random chaos within Darwinian evolution is constrained and/or directed by natural selection. Yet natural selection itself is vitally dependent of random chance and/or random chaos.

    More on Randomness in Natural Selection and Evolution – Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig – April 7, 2016
    Excerpt: Thus, chance events determine everything in evolution: form and function of all structures dominating natural selection in the struggle for life and hence the entire phylogeny of plants and animals.
    There is, of course, even according to neo-Darwinian theory, no selection without form and function of already existing and subsequently improved structures. Let me emphasize: all must be generated by random micro-mutations with “only slight or even invisible effects on the phenotype.”
    Hence, natural selection is in itself neither self-steering nor an ordering mechanism, etc. Instead it is the result of structures, features, forms, functions, and capabilities altogether produced by the chance events of accidental mutations alone, including the overproduction of descendants.
    It is the habitual method of many supporters of the modern synthesis to disconnect or decouple natural selection from chance events, but this is totally unjustified.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2016/04/more_on_randomn/

    Moreover, Natural Selection is now found to be grossly inadequate in its ability to constrain and/or to direct random mutations in a certain direction or towards a certain goal:

    The waiting time problem in a model hominin population – 2015 Sep 17
    John Sanford, Wesley Brewer, Franzine Smith, and John Baumgardner
    Excerpt: The program Mendel’s Accountant realistically simulates the mutation/selection process,,,
    Given optimal settings, what is the longest nucleotide string that can arise within a reasonable waiting time within a hominin population of 10,000? Arguably, the waiting time for the fixation of a “string-of-one” is by itself problematic (Table 2). Waiting a minimum of 1.5 million years (realistically, much longer), for a single point mutation is not timely adaptation in the face of any type of pressing evolutionary challenge. This is especially problematic when we consider that it is estimated that it only took six million years for the chimp and human genomes to diverge by over 5 % [1]. This represents at least 75 million nucleotide changes in the human lineage, many of which must encode new information.
    While fixing one point mutation is problematic, our simulations show that the fixation of two co-dependent mutations is extremely problematic – requiring at least 84 million years (Table 2). This is ten-fold longer than the estimated time required for ape-to-man evolution. In this light, we suggest that a string of two specific mutations is a reasonable upper limit, in terms of the longest string length that is likely to evolve within a hominin population (at least in a way that is either timely or meaningful). Certainly the creation and fixation of a string of three (requiring at least 380 million years) would be extremely untimely (and trivial in effect), in terms of the evolution of modern man.
    It is widely thought that a larger population size can eliminate the waiting time problem. If that were true, then the waiting time problem would only be meaningful within small populations. While our simulations show that larger populations do help reduce waiting time, we see that the benefit of larger population size produces rapidly diminishing returns (Table 4 and Fig. 4). When we increase the hominin population from 10,000 to 1 million (our current upper limit for these types of experiments), the waiting time for creating a string of five is only reduced from two billion to 482 million years.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....MC4573302/

    “Darwinism provided an explanation for the appearance of design, and argued that there is no Designer — or, if you will, the designer is natural selection. If that’s out of the way — if that (natural selection) just does not explain the evidence — then the flip side of that is, well, things appear designed because they are designed.”
    Richard Sternberg – Living Waters documentary
    Whale Evolution vs. Population Genetics – Richard Sternberg and Paul Nelson – (excerpt from Living Waters video)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0csd3M4bc0Q

    Many Darwinists who are familiar with the failings of natural selection within the mathematics of population genetics now champion what is termed ‘neutral theory’. Austin Hughes stated ‘Darwinism asserts that natural selection is the driving force of evolutionary change. It is the claim of the neutral theory, on the other hand, that the majority of evolutionary change is due to chance.’

    Austin Hughes and Neutral Theory – Laurence A. Moran – June 19, 2017
    Excerpt: Originally proposed by Motoo Kimura, Jack King, and Thomas Jukes, the neutral theory of molecular evolution is inherently non-Darwinian. Darwinism asserts that natural selection is the driving force of evolutionary change. It is the claim of the neutral theory, on the other hand, that the majority of evolutionary change is due to chance.
    http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2.....heory.html

    Thus, with Natural selection being tossed to the side, by population genetics, as the supposed explanation for the ‘wonderful design’ we see in life, Darwinists did not accept such a devastating finding as an outright falsification for their theory, as they should have done, but instead are now reduced to arguing that the ‘wonderful design’ we see in life is, basically, the result of pure chance with natural selection now playing a very negligible role if any role at all.

    Thus JVL’s claim that natural selection can somehow overcome the chaos that he presupposes to be the foundation of the universe and of life itself, so as to produce our faculties of logic and reasoning is found to be a false claim.

    JVL goes on to claim

    BA77: All of which explains, number one, why there were only Christians and no atheists at the founding of modern science.

    JVL: How do you know ‘they’ were all actually Christians? Sometimes people pay lip service because they don’t want to be ostracized.

    Like, for instance, how many in academia currently ‘pay lip service’ to Darwinism since they don’t want to be censored or expelled, i.e. ostracized, from academia?

    Slaughter of the Dissidents
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2v5nAYU2GD0
    The disturbing conclusion of this talk documents widespread discrimination by Darwin loyalists against Darwin skeptics in academia and within the scientific community. Multiple case studies expose the tactics used to destroy the careers of Darwin skeptics, denying them earned degrees and awards, tenure, and other career benefits offered to non-skeptics. The book exposes how freedom of speech and freedom of expression are widely promoted as not allowed to Darwin doubters, and reveals the depth and extent of hostility and bigotry exhibited towards those who would dare to question Darwinism. The presentation also shows how even the slightest hint of sympathy for Darwin Doubters can results in a vigorous and rabid response from those who believe such sympathies represent an attack on science itself.

    JVL is basically trying to claim that the Christians who founded modern science were basically lying since they did not want be persecuted for not being Christians and that they were really ‘closet atheists’.

    Yet, that ‘closet atheist’ argument, besides being pathetic, is false,

    Christianity and The Birth of Science – Michael Bumbulis, Ph.D
    Of course, the cynics would claim these men were not *really* Christians. That is, they really didn’t *believe* in Christianity, but they professed such beliefs because they did not want to be persecuted. This is the “closet-atheist” hypothesis. But it doesn’t square with the facts.
    Many of the founders of modern science were also very interested in theology. If you read Pascal, this is obvious. Mendel was a monk. Newton often said his interest in theology surpassed his interest in science. Newton did end his Principles with:
    “This most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being…This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God.”
    As Charles Hummel notes,
    “Newton’s religion was no mere appendage to his science; he would have been a theist no matter what his profession.”
    Boyle set up Christian apologetics lectures. Babbage and Prout contributed to an apologetics series called the Bridgewater Treatises. Aggasiz, Cuvier, Fleming, Kelvin, and Linnaeus were what we now call ‘creationists.’ When I speak about Biblical beliefs that paved the way for science, I will use both Kepler and Pasteur to highlight two specific examples.
    Furthermore, many of these founders of science lived at a time when others publicly expressed views quite contrary to Christianity – Hume, Hobbes, Darwin, etc. When Boyle argues against Hobbe’s materialism or Kelvin argues against Darwin’s assumptions, you don’t have a case of “closet atheists.”
    http://ldolphin.org/bumbulis/

  126. 126
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL goes on to claim

    JVL: Also are you saying Muslims and Buddhists and Janes and Hindus and Confucians and Zoroastrians could not have come up with science? Perhaps you meant “theists” instead of “Christians”?

    ‘Christians’ is exactly what I meant to say:

    Jerry Coyne on the Scientific Method and Religion – Michael Egnor – June 2011
    Excerpt: The scientific method — the empirical systematic theory-based study of nature — has nothing to so with some religious inspirations — Animism, Paganism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Islam, and, well, atheism. The scientific method has everything to do with Christian (and Jewish) inspiration. Judeo-Christian culture is the only culture that has given rise to organized theoretical science. Many cultures (e.g. China) have produced excellent technology and engineering, but only Christian culture has given rise to a conceptual understanding of nature (that enabled the rise of modern science).
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....47431.html

    The Christian Origins of Science – Jack Kerwick – Apr 15, 2017
    Excerpt: Though it will doubtless come as an enormous shock to such Christophobic atheists as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and their ilk, it is nonetheless true that one especially significant contribution that Christianity made to the world is that of science.,,,
    Stark is blunt: “Real science arose only once: in Europe”—in Christian Europe. “China, Islam, India, and ancient Greece and Rome each had a highly developed alchemy. But only in Europe did alchemy develop into chemistry. By the same token, many societies developed elaborate systems of astrology, but only in Europe did astrology develop into astronomy.”,,,
    In summation, Stark writes: “The rise of science was not an extension of classical learning. It was the natural outgrowth of Christian doctrine: nature exists because it was created by God. In order to love and honor God, it is necessary to fully appreciate the wonders of his handiwork. Because God is perfect, his handiwork functions in accord with immutable principles. By the full use of our God-given powers of reason and observation, it ought to be possible to discover these principles.”
    He concludes: “These were the crucial ideas that explain why science arose in Christian Europe and nowhere else.”
    https://townhall.com/columnists/jackkerwick/2017/04/15/the-christian-origins-of-science-n2313593

    IN HIS RECENT BOOK For the Glory of God, Rodney Stark argues “not only that there is no inherent conflict between religion and science, but that Christian theology was essential for the rise of science.”,,,
    Sometimes the most obvious facts are the easiest to overlook. Here is one that ought to be stunningly obvious: science as an organized, sustained enterprise arose only once in the history of Earth. Where was that? Although other civilizations have contributed technical achievements or isolated innovations, the invention of science as a cumulative, rigorous, systematic, and ongoing investigation into the laws of nature occurred only in Europe; that is, in the civilization then known as Christendom. Science arose and flourished in a civilization that, at the time, was profoundly and nearly exclusively Christian in its mental outlook.
    There are deep reasons for that, and they are inherent in the Judeo-Christian view of the world which, principally in its Christian manifestation, formed the European mind. As Stark observes, the Christian view depicted God as “a rational, responsive, dependable, and omnipotent being and the universe as his personal creation, thus having a rational, lawful, stable structure, awaiting human comprehension.” That was not true of belief systems elsewhere. A view that the universe is uncreated, has been around forever, and is just “what happens to be” does not suggest that it has fundamental principles that are rational and discoverable. Other belief systems have considered the natural world to be an insoluble mystery, conceived of it as a realm in which multiple, arbitrary gods are at work, or thought of it in animistic terms. None of these views will, or did, give rise to a deep faith that there is a lawful order imparted by a divine creator that can and should be discovered.
    https://spectator.org/47614_whats-big-deal-about-intelligent-design/

    If science suffered only stillbirths in ancient cultures, how did it come to its unique viable birth? The beginning of science as a fully fledged enterprise took place in relation to two important definitions of the Magisterium of the Church. The first was the definition at the Fourth Lateran Council in the year 1215, that the universe was created out of nothing at the beginning of time. The second magisterial statement was at the local level, enunciated by Bishop Stephen Tempier of Paris who, on March 7, 1277, condemned 219 Aristotelian propositions, so outlawing the deterministic and necessitarian views of creation.
    These statements of the teaching authority of the Church expressed an atmosphere in which faith in God had penetrated the medieval culture and given rise to philosophical consequences. The cosmos was seen as contingent in its existence and thus dependent on a divine choice which called it into being; the universe is also contingent in its nature and so God was free to create this particular form of world among an infinity of other possibilities. Thus the cosmos cannot be a necessary form of existence; and so it has to be approached by a posteriori investigation. The universe is also rational and so a coherent discourse can be made about it. Indeed the contingency and rationality of the cosmos are like two pillars supporting the Christian vision of the cosmos.
    http://www.scifiwright.com/201.....revisited/

    JVL then offers his opinion,

    JVL: I think the process of guessing how things work and then systematically checking different possible infuences is pretty natural.

    There is nothing that is ‘pretty natural’ about science:

    contrary to what many people have been falsely led to believe by Darwinian atheists, about Intelligent Design supposedly being a pseudo-science, the fact of the matter is that all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism.
    From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (namely that the universe is rational and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can dare understand that rationality), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results themselves, from top to bottom, science itself is certainly not to be considered a ‘natural’ endeavor of man.
    Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analyzed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial logic and immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place.
    Again, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism.

    JVL then offers another opinion

    It’s just being careful when eliminating stuff that isn’t true.

    Yet, ‘truth’ in general, and absolute truth in particular, are abstract immaterial entities that can never be grounded within the Darwinist’s materialistic worldview. In fact, as much as it may irk some atheists to know, “Truth” can only ever be properly grounded within the Mind of God:

    The Argument from Truth
    1. Our limited minds can discover eternal truths about being.
    2, Truth properly resides in a mind.
    3. But the human mind is not eternal.
    4. Therefore there must exist an eternal mind in which these truths reside.
    https://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#11

    Thus, since JVL believes that we must be “careful when eliminating stuff that isn’t true” and his atheistic materialism cannot possibly ground truth, and therefore cannot possibly be ‘true’, then JVL should rightly ‘eliminate’ his atheistic materialism as being true.

    JVL then offers this opinion

    I don’t think it means you assume there will be an answer that you can understand.

    Again, only Theism in general, and Christianity in particular, presupposes that, since we are made in the image of God, that we can dare have any comprehension of the universe whatsoever. Again, Atheists presuppose a chaotic universe that cannot be grasped by the mind in any way.

    Einstein himself considered it a ‘miracle’ that we could comprehend the universe and chastised atheists in the process of claiming that such comprehension was a miracle:

    On the Rational Order of the World: a Letter to Maurice Solovine – Albert Einstein – March 30, 1952
    Excerpt: “You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way .. the kind of order created by Newton’s theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the ‘miracle’ which is constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands.
    There lies the weakness of positivists and professional atheists who are elated because they feel that they have not only successfully rid the world of gods but “bared the miracles.”
    -Albert Einstein
    http://inters.org/Einstein-Letter-Solovine

    JVL then finishes with this statement

    JVL: Anyway, we’re not going to resolve this issue so if you choose not to respond I won’t mind.

    First, Do not presuppose to talk for me. Secondly, since I consider you to be pretty much a dogmatic atheist who will never be honest to the evidence at hand, then I could care less what you personally ‘mind’ or don’t ‘mind’ about me.

    In fact, since you deny the reality of your very own immaterial mind, (which is, by far, the most certain thing you can possibly know about reality, i.e. Descartes, ‘I think therefore I am’), then I seriously consider it pretty much a self-admitted established fact on your part that you have ‘lost your mind’

    Matthew 22: 36-38
    “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
    Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment.

  127. 127
    Truthfreedom says:

    ___

    “Despite the apparent obviousness of the existence of other minds, drawing up a theory that can prove the existence of other minds is quite difficult. That may seem like a pointless venture”.

    “Of course there are other minds! But consider the fact that you can observe your own thoughts, your own sensations from the sense of your body, your own emotions, and no one else can (presumably), and neither can your observe other peoples’. How do you know the other bodies around you actually have minds? How do you know it is not an illusion created by your own mind? How do you know they are not robots, or controlled by demons? How can you actually prove other minds exist, without direct access to their mental states? That remains a problem.”

    https://pairopatetics.blogspot.com/2013/09/plantinga-pwns-part-ii-god-and-other.html?m=1

Leave a Reply