We don’t want to get into the politics of that as such. Keep reading till you get to the punch line.
Anyway, holding forth, Dawkins has said:
Celebrated god-slayer Richard Dawkins has come out in favor of Twitter’s ban of President Donald Trump, insisting free speech is not in danger from Big Tech …
The British evolutionary biologist, who denies the existence of human free will and moral accountability, went on to attack the entire Republican Party.
Thomas D. Williams, “Professional Atheist Richard Dawkins Defends Twitter Ban of Donald Trump” at Breitbart
Ken Francis, who tipped us to this story, also writes to say,
The man who says free will does not exist defends Twitter’s CHOICE to ban Trump. But he was very angry about himself being banned from Trinity College Dublin a few months ago. He also doesn’t believe in morality but criticises the Republican party for being immoral.
Well. That prompted a trip through our vast collection of files, probably bigger than the Tombs of the Pharaohs at this point. And what did we see?
A Petition Is Going The Rounds Urging That Richard Dawkins Be Allowed To Speak At Trinity College. ID types are urging people to sign the petition. (October 10, 2020)
and
Richard Dawkins Is Getting Canceled Again Apparently, when Richard Dawkins said he was an atheist, some people didn’t realize that he rejected Islam along with Christianity (September 28, 2020)
So he was mad about censorship when it applied to him.
Funny how that works.
Hat tip: Ken Francis, co-author with Theodore Dalrymple of The Terror of Existence: From Ecclesiastes to Theatre of the Absurd
“A man entrusted with nuke launch codes is yet too dangerous to have a Twitter account?”. Yeah, right.
The thought of a man as impulsive and delusional as Trump having access to the launch codes is certainly alarming.
Had President Trump been self-banned from twitter for the last 4 years, he would have won re-election.
The thought of a man as incompetent, incoherent and delusional as Biden having access to the launch codes is certainly alarming.
Twitter has decided to lose the revenue from just two weeks of Trump’s output, in order to gain vastly more revenue from “both” “sides” arguing about the decision. Note that “both” “sides” are still on Twitter, which tells you that the argument itself is what Deepstate wants. Trump and Biden are just different-looking labels on the same bottle of universe-destroying poison.
There is a difference between the freedom to express unpopular or offensive opinions and incitement to violence.
Sev: “There is a difference between the freedom to express unpopular or offensive opinions and incitement to violence.”
Number 1, that’s rich coming from the left, especially after last summer,,
Number 2, Sev since you believe that, short of inciting violence, one ought to be free “to express unpopular or offensive opinions”, then I take it that you have a severe problem with the gestapo tactics that Darwinists themselves have used to censor any opposing viewpoints?
And Sev please spare me your usual reply about Intelligent Design not being a ‘real’ science, and therefore it ought not be taught in science classrooms.
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.
Moreover, 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, in their assumption of naturalism, are found to be 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 (who believes Darwinian evolution to be true) is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), 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. the illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who also must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the hopelessness of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is simply 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 also 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 may firmly believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for naturalistic explanations over and above God as a viable explanation), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists themselves 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, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
ba77 –
Can you give any examples of mainstream science that isn’t based on methodological naturalism?
I thought of people overreacting to the president having access to the launch codes is laughable
It actually is like an abuser it sits there and throws a knife at the foot of somebody and then says “what are you gonna do with that knife pick it up and kill me with it”
It’s called building a false narrative by accusing somebody of a crime though they done nothing yet
Abusive delusional people do that
Bob O’H since I stated that every nook and cranny of science is based upon the assumption of Intelligent Design, the better response from you would have been to give a single example of a field of experimental science that is based on the assumption of methodological naturalism.
That there are even laws of nature for science to study in the first place, is a Theistic presupposition, not a naturalistic presupposition. So since every field of science is based on some law, or set of laws, then every field of science necessarily presupposes Intelligent Design.
Thus, any field of science that is based on a law, or laws, of nature is making an explicit assumption of intelligent design.
Interestingly, the one field of ‘science’ that atheists resolutely hold to be based explicitly on the assumption of ‘methodological naturalism’ alone, i.e. Darwinism, has no known law of nature to appeal to so as designate itself as a true and proper science,
As Ernst Mayr himself conceded, “In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences.”
In the following article, Roger Highfield makes much the same observation as Ernst Mayr and states, ,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology.
Professor Murray Eden of MIT, in a paper entitled “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory” stated that “the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”
Moreover, the ‘law of nature’ that Darwin himself put forth so as to ‘supposedly’ establish his theory as a true and proper science is far more of a (a)moral statement about the world than it is a statement about any physical law of the universe that one could possibly measure in the laboratory:
Darwinism, unlike all the other sciences, simply has no known physical law to appeal to, i.e. there simply is no ‘law of evolution’ for Darwinists to appeal to so as to establish their theory as a true and proper science,
Of supplemental note, every piece of laboratory equipment every invented by man was intelligently designed as was not found laying on a beach somewhere, where it was ‘naturally’ constructed’ by nature,,
So Bob, can you give just one example of a scientific instrument that was not intelligently designed?
Ken Francis has asked me to post this vid link. I suggest, watch it before the author gets banned :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPqozTdo-so&feature=youtu.be
ba77 –
No, since you stated “that every nook and cranny of science is based upon the assumption of Intelligent Design” it is up to you to substantiate it.
Irrelevant to my question, because methodological naturalism doesn’t necessarily pre-suppose philosophical naturalism. Christians still do science (R.A. Fisher springs to mind). Do you want to try again, and this time address whether there is any science that doesn’t use methodological naturalism?
Better, download it. I have been using “Wondershare All My Tube” but there may better programs.
Thank you Denise. I had not heard of Ken Francis. Now I have his audio book of the Terror of Existence.