Richard Dawkins says eugenics works because he assumes we are just like animals

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 17, 2020

Culture, Darwinism, Intelligent Design}

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

But we should oppose it on moral grounds, he hastens to add:

In a bizarre Twitter post on Sunday, Dawkins said that the practice of eugenics – an offshoot of social Darwinism – has a scientific logic that would actually work if implemented, arguing that people should oppose it strictly on moral grounds.
“It’s one thing to deplore eugenics on ideological, political, moral grounds. It’s quite another to conclude that it wouldn’t work in practice,” tweeted Dawkins. “Of course it would. It works for cows, horses, pigs, dogs & roses. Why on earth wouldn’t it work for humans? Facts ignore ideology.”
Paul Bols, “Famed Atheist Richard Dawkins Bizarrely Defends Eugenics: ‘Works For Cows, Horses, Pigs,’ But ‘Fight It On Moral Grounds’” at DailyWire

At one fell swoop, Dawkins exposes another frequent weakness of naturalist atheism: direct conflict with facts. Eugenics does not work for humans. Unlike animals, we make personal choices, which could be based on reason and free will or on the apparent lack thereof. And those choices confound the ambitions of others.

Put simply: Beagles beget beagles; that is all beagles can do. So if you want a beagle, you need only go to the source.

By contrast, not only do few geniuses pass on their gifts to any extent but wise and prudent parents often have foolish and imprudent children. Much great literature has featured such “fall of the house of” themes.

Do Dawkins’s remarks have anything to do with Darwin Day (February 12) or Evolution Weekend (grinding onward, with the sheer dullness one would associated with dying liberal churches)?

See also: Darwin Reader: Darwin’s racism

How Jonathan Wells is celebrating Darwin Day. Wells: A biologist wrote years ago that we should celebrate Darwin’s birthday instead, because Lincoln only freed some slaves while Darwin freed our minds. [eek!]

Everyone is bugging us to do something for Darwin Day (today). How about a brief reflection: Darwin is the village atheist’s answer to serious thinking about origins.

and

Evolution Weekend downplays Darwin, morphs into climate concern, muffles racism issue. Remember, anyone can be a racist if all he must say is: My ancestors were gods, yours were gobs of clay. Absent evidence, he might prevail by force of arms and entrench his view. Darwinism led to racial theories with the trappings of science. That matters and it has never been dealt with honestly because dealing with it honestly endangers the basic ideas of Darwinism.

Comments

___ Materialists Hate Mankind:
"Materialists insist that men have no spiritual souls, no free will, that we’re meat machines, that we are merely animals who are deluded into thinking we are special, that we have no actual knowledge of reality at all (i.e., our brains “construct” reality for us), that human life begins long after conception and its moral value depends on rationality, that there are too many humans on the earth and we need to depopulate humanity (through contraception, sterilization, and abortion) to save Gaia, that mankind can and should be bred like cattle (eugenics), that disabled children in the womb should be killed before birth because they’re imperfect, that pesticides that (might) kill birds but save millions of human lives should be banned, and that the human mind is entirely material or doesn’t even really exist at all (i.e., eliminative materialism). The list is endless. For materialists, mankind really sucks". https://evolutionnews.org/2019/07/milton-and-the-psychology-of-materialism/
Truthfreedom_{February 24, 2020
February
02
Feb
24
24
2020
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT}

Yes, Bob O'H does not seem to care at all about Ed George's posts. It is kinda weird seeing the man chatting with himself. I guess it is easier than thinking hard about serious and complex issues, cf: https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/michael-egnor-why-the-mind-cannot-just-emerge-from-the-brain/#commentsTruthfreedom_{February 22, 2020
February
02
Feb
22
22
2020
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT}

Wow. "Ed George" is so deluded it is having a conversation with itself. Another own goal, for "Ed". See how I can get "Ed" to post its stupidity. Sweet...ET_{February 22, 2020
February
02
Feb
22
22
2020
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT}

Bob, you just can’t make this up. If ET has been MIA for a couple days all I have to do is post a comment. And just like Pavlov’s dogs, he starts salivating. :) :) :)Ed George_{February 22, 2020
February
02
Feb
22
22
2020
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT}

LoL! "Ed George" continues to respond to me even after "Ed" sed he was going to ignore my posts, again. "Ed" just cannot help itself. Yes, "Ed", your hypocrisy is very entertaining. Thank you and nice own goal.ET_{February 22, 2020
February
02
Feb
22
22
2020
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT}

Bob, ring, ring. :) now do you understand the entertainment value of my approach?Ed George_{February 21, 2020
February
02
Feb
21
21
2020
07:18 PM
7
07
18
PM
PDT}

LoL! "Ed George" is the only drooling dog here. Like clockwork, indeed. I wonder if "Ed George" the drooling dog knows any new tricks? Or is it a one trick sick puppy?ET_{February 21, 2020
February
02
Feb
21
21
2020
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT}

See Bob, I ring the bell and Pavlov’s dog comes out drooling. Just like clockwork. :) I wonder if it is possible for this dog to stop reacting to the bell.Ed George_{February 21, 2020
February
02
Feb
21
21
2020
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT}

There wouldn't be any alleged uncivil commenters if UD would disallow liars and insipid trolls, like "Ed George", to post here. But it is entertaining watching "Ed George" prove that it doesn't know jack about science. That is "Ed" avoids science topics like the plague. Yes, "Ed", you are predictably pathetic. :razz:ET_{February 21, 2020
February
02
Feb
21
21
2020
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT}

See Bob, I told you that my approach to uncivil commenters was entertaining. It’s like ringing a bell in front of one of Pavlov’s dogs. The reaction is predictable. And, somewhat pathetic. :)Ed George_{February 21, 2020
February
02
Feb
21
21
2020
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT}

All I do is make astute observations. It isn't my fault that "Ed George" is a liar and insipid troll. "Ed's" posts speak for themselves. It isn't that I just disagree with people like "Ed". It's the sheer volume of total BS they post and think it's an argument. And I don't care that you don't respond, "Ed". Everyone reading knows that if you did you would just be buried deeper in your own excrement.ET_{February 21, 2020
February
02
Feb
21
21
2020
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

Bob
Barry – are you OK with people calling each other ‘scum’ on UD?
The biggest offender her is ET. Yet, for some reason, he gets away with it. I have found that the best way to deal with people who are incapable of treating those they disagree with in a civil fashion is simply not to interact with them. This approach has the added benefit of being fun to watch the offenders get mad because you are not responding to them. :)Ed George_{February 21, 2020
February
02
Feb
21
21
2020
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT}

Truthfreedom at 131, "The Species Problem", nice find!
The Species Problem, Why Again? By Igor Ya. Pavlinov - February 6th 2013 Exerpt: The idea of the species belongs to such basic conceptions in the biological sciences, this idea has being been acknowledged repeatedly over the centuries. Accordingly, in the light of the above paradox, the species notion was and remains to be among the most disputed and controversial in biology, with a compass of viewpoints ranging from acknowledging the unconditional and self-evident objective reality of the species to denying it as an objective (natural) phenomenon. Despite the efforts of generations of theoreticians, it appeared impossible to reach a universal and all-suiting understanding and definition of what is the species of living organisms, i.e. the “biological species” in its most general (not particular Mayrian) sense.,,, Discussants, even belonging to opposite research schools, can quite agree with each other in recognition of fundamental status of the above “Boethian question”, whatever its particular answer might be. For instance, both “methodist” Linnaeus and “naturalist” Buffon (in his later years) believed in objective (real) status of the species as a universal and fundamental “unit of the Nature”. On the other hand, evolutionist Darwin, rejecting alongside with logician J. Bentham distinctiveness of the species as a fundamental taxonomic and eventually natural category, called however his famous book just “The Origin of Species...”, and not of races or of something like that. https://www.intechopen.com/books/the-species-problem-ongoing-issues/the-species-problem-why-again-
bornagain77_{February 21, 2020
February
02
Feb
21
21
2020
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT}

@136 Bob O'H wants to ban Stephen Hawking, a man (or "bunch of fermions and bosons"?) who is no longer among us.
"The human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet, orbiting around a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a hundred billion galaxies. We are so insignificant..." Stephie Hawking
Truthfreedom_{February 21, 2020
February
02
Feb
21
21
2020
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT}

Barry - are you OK with people calling each other 'scum' on UD?Bob O'H_{February 21, 2020
February
02
Feb
21
21
2020
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT}

Timothya, do not use that term to refer to BA77. Only warningBarry Arrington_{February 21, 2020
February
02
Feb
21
21
2020
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT}

Darwin Married His First CousinTruthfreedom_{February 21, 2020
February
02
Feb
21
21
2020
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

On the Origin of A *very fuzzy concept * by Means of A *very fuzzy concept*.Truthfreedom_{February 21, 2020
February
02
Feb
21
21
2020
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT}

@127 Bob O'H
ba77 @ 124 – thank you, I appreciate the effort you put into providing the punchline.
Bob O'H, according to you: what does 'species' mean?Truthfreedom_{February 21, 2020
February
02
Feb
21
21
2020
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT}

@124 Bornagain77:
Says the man who just blatantly ignored the fact that Darwinists simply cannot ground ‘permanence of form’ of any sort, and thus cannot provide a rigid definition of species in the first place (post 120),
A tough one. :)
"The species problem, in such a general meaning, emerged simultaneously with the very notion of species (= eidos ) in the Ancient times, where it initially had quite different interpretations (see 2.2)". "In the scholastic period, this ambiguity has been reduced to a logical interpretation of the species. In modern times, however, dominated became biological understanding of the species as a group of organisms, which diverse interpretations are currently being tried to reduce to its evolutionary or genetic (reproductive) or operational meanings". "Another contemporary attempt, if not to reduce but at least to put diverse treatments in some order, is to build a kind of “conceptual pyramid” of different levels of generality of these treatments (see 4.1)" The Species Problem
Truthfreedom_{February 21, 2020
February
02
Feb
21
21
2020
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT}

Bob: "thank you, I appreciate the effort you put into providing the punchline." I guess it could be considered a sad punchline. A sad punchline to the sad joke that you never honestly address any of the issues that directly falsify your Darwinian worldview, but that you always try to dodge the issues at hand. A disingenuous and sad joke indeed! Kind of like finding something small to laugh about at a funeral I guess.bornagain77_{February 21, 2020
February
02
Feb
21
21
2020
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT}

Earth to Bob O'H- Anyone who thinks the diversity of life started from some unknown population or populations of prokaryotes, believes in unlimited plasticity. That you fail to understand that says quite a bit about your agenda of obfuscation. So clearly you are the problem here.ET_{February 21, 2020
February
02
Feb
21
21
2020
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PDT}

TimothyA- Please tell us how horizonal disease resistance arose via blind and mindless processes. But first you have to show how eukaryotes arose via blind and mindless processes. Good luck with that...ET_{February 21, 2020
February
02
Feb
21
21
2020
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT}

ba77 @ 124 - thank you, I appreciate the effort you put into providing the punchline.Bob O'H_{February 21, 2020
February
02
Feb
21
21
2020
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT}

How much does the concept of species weigh? How long in the concept of species in millimeters? How fast does the concept go? Is the concept of species positively or negatively charged? etc.. etc..
Does the concept 'species' weigh more in english or in chinese?Truthfreedom_{February 21, 2020
February
02
Feb
21
21
2020
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT}

As to Timothya;s comment on horizontal disease resistance.:
BA77: “Yet there is ZERO empirical evidence that mutations will ‘add up’ to produce a new complex functions and/or ‘traits’.” Timothya: Apparently BA77 has never heard of horizontal disease resistance.
This is just absurd. In response to the fact that Darwinian processes have never been observed to create a single gene and/or protein, (Axe, Gauger), or to build more than 2 protein-protein binding sites, (Behe), Timothya responds that I 'never heard of horizontal disease resistance.' For crying out loud, horizontal disease resistance is not proof that any gene and/or protein was created but is instead proof that plants have a sophisticated, in-built, preexisting, ability to resist pathogens:
In the first round of breeding for horizontal resistance, plants are exposed to pathogens and selected for partial resistance. Those with no resistance die, and plants unaffected by the pathogen have vertical resistance and are removed. The remaining plants have partial resistance and their seed is stored and bred back up to sufficient volume for further testing. The hope is that in these remaining plants are multiple types of partial-resistance genes, and by crossbreeding this pool back on itself, multiple partial resistance genes will come together and provide resistance to a larger variety of pathogens. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_resistance
Thus, Timothya did not point to a single gene/or protein being created, or to any functional complexity being 'built up', but instead pointed to a preexisting, inbuilt, sophisticated, ability, i.e horizontal disease resistance, for genes to develop resistance to pathogens. Moreover, the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent,
Is Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics an Appropriate Example of Evolutionary Change? – Kevin Anderson, Ph.D. Excerpt: Resistance to antibiotics and other antimicrobials is often claimed to be a clear demonstration of “evolution in a Petri dish.” ,,, all known examples of antibiotic resistance via mutation are inconsistent with the genetic requirements of evolution. These mutations result in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems/activities, such as porins and other transport systems, regulatory systems, enzyme activity, and protein binding. http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ Biological Information – Loss-of-Function Mutations by Paul Giem 2015 – video (Behe – Loss of function mutations are far more likely to fix in a population than gain of function mutations) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzD3hhvepK8&index=20&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNUUhiC9VwPnhl-ymuObyTWJ Michael Behe – Less is More: How Darwinian Evolution Helps Species Adapt by Breaking Genes – 2019 video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKmXMlsQ5sg&list=PLS591mpvSTo3vP8g1BNfIMh3wUyrrWzQA&index=9
Thus Timothya's claim that horizontal disease resistance is proof that Darwinian processes can create genes/proteins or build up functional complexity is completely bogus. Of supplemental note to plant genetics in general:
Peer-Reviewed Research Paper on Plant Biology Favorably Cites Intelligent Design and Challenges Darwinian Evolution - Casey Luskin December 29, 2010 Excerpt: Many of these researchers also raise the question (among others), why — even after inducing literally billions of induced mutations and (further) chromosome rearrangements — all the important mutation breeding programs have come to an end in the Western World instead of eliciting a revolution in plant breeding, either by successive rounds of selective “micromutations” (cumulative selection in the sense of the modern synthesis), or by “larger mutations” … and why the law of recurrent variation is endlessly corroborated by the almost infinite repetition of the spectra of mutant phenotypes in each and any new extensive mutagenesis experiment instead of regularly producing a range of new systematic species… (Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Mutagenesis in Physalis pubescens L. ssp. floridana: Some Further Research on Dollo’s Law and the Law of Recurrent Variation,” Floriculture and Ornamental Biotechnology Vol. 4 (Special Issue 1): 1-21 (December 2010).) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/peer-reviewed_research_paper_o042191.html Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, (retired) Senior Scientist (Biology), Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Emeritus, Cologne, Germany.
John Sanford, who specialized in plant breeding, and who made significant contributions to pathogen-derived resistance, certainly does not hold that plant breeding proves Darwinian evolution: In fact, he holds the opposite, i.e. plant breeding proves 'Genetic Entropy For instance
"What about polyploidy plants? It has been claimed that since some plants are polyploidy (having double the normal chromosome numbers), this proves that duplication must be beneficial and must increase information. Polyploidy was my special area of study during my Ph.D. thesis. Interestingly, it makes a great deal of difference how a polyploid arises. If somatic (body) cells are treated with the chemical called colchicine, cell division is disrupted , resulting in chromosome doubling - but no new information arises. The plants that result are almost always very stunted, morphologically distorted, and generally sterile. The reason for this should be obvious - the plants must waste twice as much energy to make twice as much DNA, but with no new genetic information! The nucleus is also roughly twice as large, disrupting proper cell shape and cell size. In fact, the plants actually have less information than before, because a great deal of the information which controls gene regulation depends on gene dosage (copy number). Loss of regulatory control is loss of information. This is really the same reason why an extra chromosome causes Down's Syndrome. Thousands of genes become improperly improperly regulated, because of extra genic copies. If somatic polyploidization is consistently deleterious, why are there any polyploidy plants at all - such as potatoes? The reason is that polyploidy can arise by a different process - which is called sexual polyploidization.This happens when a unreduced sperm unites with a unreduced egg. In this special case, all of the information within the two parents is combined into the offspring, and there can be a net gain of information within that single individual. But there is no more total information within the population. the information within the two parents was simply pooled. In such a case we are seeing pooling of information, but not any new information.",,, "in some special cases, the extra level of gene backup within a polyploidy can outweigh the problems of disrupted gene regulation and reduced fertility - and so can result in a type of "net gain". But such a "net gain" is more accurately described as a net reduction in the rate of degeneration." John Sanford - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome - pages 191-192 - Dr. John Sanford has been a Cornell University Professor for more than 25 years (being semi-retired since 1998). He received his Ph. D. from the University of Wisconsin in the area of plant breeding and plant genetics.,,, His most significant scientific contributions involved three inventions - the biolistic ("gene gun") process, pathogen-derived resistance, and genetic immunization.
bornagain77_{February 21, 2020
February
02
Feb
21
21
2020
03:19 AM
3
03
19
AM
PDT}

Bob states
He’ll probably accuse me of bobbing and weaving, and then change the subject.
Says the man who just blatantly ignored the fact that Darwinists simply cannot ground ‘permanence of form’ of any sort, and thus cannot provide a rigid definition of species in the first place (post 120), (certainly not a minor problem for Bob), and then directly signed on to the side issue of horizontal disease resistance so as to avoid having to deal with his 'species problem'. ,,, More on horizontal disease resistance later. But first, Darwinists, as is clearly illustrated in post 120, in their inability to define what a species truly is. simply have no overarching unifying principle in order to explain life, nor to explain why there should be an overarching 'top down' classification scheme apparent for life. (i.e. kingdom, phyla, classes. orders, families, genera, species). To repeat, Darwin, because of the reductive materialistic foundation that his theory rested upon, denied that there were any true ‘species’. He held the the term species “as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience” and that it “does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms.”
“I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience, to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, for convenience’s sake.” – Origin of Species: second British edition (1860), page 52
As unbiased readers can clearly see, Darwin was hardly being concrete in his definition of species. And the reason for his fuzziness in his definition of species is clear, the term species is an abstract property and/or definition of the immaterial mind that cannot possibly be reduced to any possible materialistic explanations. i.e. How much does the concept of species weigh? How long in the concept of species in millimeters? How fast does the concept go? Is the concept of species positively or negatively charged? etc.. etc.. The term species, just like all other abstract properties of the immaterial mind, simply can find no grounding within materialism. The fact that the term species is an abstract definition that is created by the immaterial mind creates an irredeemable problem for Darwinists. You don’t have to take my word for it. To repeat what was said in post 120, a Darwinist admitted that “The most important concept in all of biology, (i.e. species), is a complete mystery”
What is a species? The most important concept in all of biology is a complete mystery – July 16, 2019 https://theconversation.com/what-is-a-species-the-most-important-concept-in-all-of-biology-is-a-complete-mystery-119200
Besides destroying the ability of Darwinists to build any coherent classification scheme for life, this inability for Darwinists to define what the concept of species truly is within the materialistic framework of Darwinian evolution gives us a glimpse into a irredeemable, and catastrophic, defect within the Darwinist’s reductive materialistic framework. Darwinists ultimately seek to ‘scientifically’ explain everything in materialistic terms. i.e. Reductive materialism. And yet, if something is not composed of particles or does not have physical properties (e.g., length, mass, energy, momentum, orientation, position, etc), it is abstract, i.e., spiritual. Numbers, mathematics, logic, truth, distance, time, beauty, ugliness, species, person, information, etc.. etc.. all fall into that category of being an abstract property of the immaterial mind. It is amazing how many things fall into that ‘abstract’ category even though most of us, including scientists, (“scientists” also happens to be an abstract term itself), swear that they exist physically. This inability of Darwinists to ground abstract immaterial concepts within their reductive materialistic worldview leads to the catastrophic failure of Darwinian evolution as a scientific worldview. The main, and primary, reason that Darwinian evolution winds up in catastrophic epistemological failure as a scientific worldview is that mathematics itself, (which is the very backbone of all science, engineering and technology), is an abstract concept that simply can find no basis within the reductive materialism of Darwinian evolution.
What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? – M. Anthony Mills – April 16, 2018 Excerpt: Barr rightly observes that scientific atheists often unwittingly assume not just metaphysical naturalism but an even more controversial philosophical position: reductive materialism, which says all that exists is or is reducible to the material constituents postulated by our most fundamental physical theories. As Barr points out, this implies not only that God does not exist — because God is not material — but that you do not exist. For you are not a material constituent postulated by any of our most fundamental physical theories; at best, you are an aggregate of those constituents, arranged in a particular way. Not just you, but tables, chairs, countries, countrymen, symphonies, jokes, legal contracts, moral judgments, and acts of courage or cowardice — all of these must be fully explicable in terms of those more fundamental, material constituents. In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. Why? Although a committed materialist might be perfectly willing to accept that you do not really exist, he will have a harder time accepting that numbers do not exist. The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities. https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html
Simply put, Mathematics itself, (as well as logic itself), exists in a transcendent, beyond space and time realm. A platonic immaterial mathematical realm of abstract concepts which simply is not reducible to any possible materialistic explanation. (Of note, Plato was a Theist)
Platonic mathematical world compared to physical world – image http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/i.....ysical.gif Naturalism and Self-Refutation – Michael Egnor – January 31, 2018 Excerpt: Mathematics is certainly something we do. Is mathematics “included in the space-time continuum [with] basic elements … described by physics”?,,, What is the physics behind the Pythagorean theorem? After all, no actual triangle is perfect, and thus no actual triangle in nature has sides such that the Pythagorean theorem holds. There is no real triangle in which the sum of the squares of the sides exactly equals the square of the hypotenuse. That holds true for all of geometry. Geometry is about concepts, not about anything in the natural world or about anything that can be described by physics. What is the “physics” of the fact that the area of a circle is pi multiplied by the square of the radius? And of course what is natural and physical about imaginary numbers, infinite series, irrational numbers, and the mathematics of more than three spatial dimensions? Mathematics is entirely about concepts, which have no precise instantiation in nature,,, 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. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/01/naturalism-and-self-refutation/
Simply put, Mathematics itself, contrary to the materialistic presuppositions of Darwinists, does not need the physical world in order to exist. And yet Darwinists, although they deny that anything beyond the physical world exists, need this transcendent world of mathematics in order for their theory to be considered scientific in the first place. The predicament that Darwinists find themselves in regards to denying the reality of this transcendent, immaterial, world of mathematics, and yet needing validation from this transcendent, immaterial, world of mathematics in order to be their theory to even be considered scientific in the first place, should be the very definition of a scientifically self-refuting worldview. Moreover, the fact that mathematics in and of itself is immaterial, and yet we have the ability to utilize mathematics, is proof that we ourselves MUST have an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the materialistic explanations of Darwinists. As Alfred Russel Wallace, Darwin's contemporary, noted "Mathematics is alone sufficient to prove in man the possession of a faculty unexistent in other creatures. Then you have music and the artistic faculty. No, the soul was a separate creation."
Nothing in evolution can account for the soul of man. The difference between man and the other animals is unbridgeable. Mathematics is alone sufficient to prove in man the possession of a faculty unexistent in other creatures. Then you have music and the artistic faculty. No, the soul was a separate creation. - Alfred Russel Wallace
Thus mathematics itself, which is a primary prerequisite for any theory to be considered scientific in the first place, is scientific proof in and of itself that Darwinian materialism must be false and that we MUST have an immaterial mind and/or soul. As Berlinski noted, "There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time…."
An Interview with David Berlinski – Jonathan Witt Berlinski: There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time…. Interviewer:… Come again(?) … Berlinski: No need to come again: I got to where I was going the first time. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces. But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects. http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/found-upon-web-and-reprinted-here.html
Thus, I can see why Bob would want to sign on to the side issue of 'horizontal disease resistance' so quickly, and to ignore the 'species problem' for Darwinists. The 'species problem' when fleshed out in detail, points to an abstract immaterial realm of the mind, an abstract immaterial realm that also includes mathematics itself. A realm that, although it is necessary for us to even 'do science' in the first place, cannot possibly be grounded within the reductive materialistic framework of Darwinists. Needless to say, this IS NOT a minor problem for Darwinists!bornagain77_{February 21, 2020
February
02
Feb
21
21
2020
02:12 AM
2
02
12
AM
PDT}

MatSpirit - oh, thanks. I think trying to explain something to ba77 is a losing battle. He'll probably accuse me of bobbing and weaving, and then change the subject.
Apparently BA77 has never heard of horizontal disease resistance.
Oh gods, I hated that term - I could never remember which was horizontal and which vertical. Mind you, the only term I thought was useful was robust resistance", and I was in the same department as the guy who coined it, so I might have been biased..Bob O'H_{February 21, 2020
February
02
Feb
21
21
2020
12:21 AM
12
12
21
AM
PDT}

And then there is this, from BA77, earlier in this thread: "Yet there is ZERO empirical evidence that mutations will ‘add up’ to produce a new complex functions and/or ‘traits’." Apparently BA77 has never heard of horizontal disease resistance. I remember learning about this phenomenon in my university course about forty years ago. Indeed, I exploited the phenomenon in plant breeding experiments. If anyone is interested in why BA77 is completely wrong in his claim, just google the phrase "horizontal disease resistance" and read the scientific papers that turn up. Please trust me, there are a lot of plant beeders who rely on the horizontal resistance phenomenon to develop new, disease-resistant varieties, for reasons that are precisely opposed to BA77's claim. Horizontal disease resistance is demonstrably true. Horizontal disease resistance exists in nature, and it works by doing what BA77 claims has "ZERO evidence". That is, it works by "adding up to produce a new trait". So BS77, you are just wrong. (And by the way, the Shroud of Turin is not evidence for anything except your religious beliefs).timothya_{February 20, 2020
February
02
Feb
20
20
2020
11:40 PM
11
11
40
PM
PDT}

Bob, I think you missed a vital error that Mr. Knowitall made way back at the beginning of this thread. Go back to Reply 7 and read his words: "As well, inbreeding (continual selection for a particular trait in dogs,) is a very big problem in ‘Pure Breds’ that must be carefully guarded against in animal husbandry since it accelerates genetic degradation" He then compounds his felony by quoting from some breeding manuals which use the REAL definition of "inbreeding", which is MATING TWO CLOSELY RELATED INDIVIDUALS. The manuals go on to describe the hazards of real interbreeding, which can be grim, but only if you actually inbreed them. I'll let you explain it to him.MatSpirit_{February 20, 2020
February
02
Feb
20
20
2020
08:50 PM
8
08
50
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply