Science fiction writer Vox Day on the “darkstream descent” of Darwin’s theory of evolution

_{Denyse O'Leary

January 29, 2019

Darwinism, Intelligent Design}

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

He offers seven reasons for rational dissent and doubt:

1. The evidence doesn’t exist.
2. The historical timelines that purportedly support it are constantly mutating.
3. The theory is a complete failure as a predictive model.
4. The theory is scientifically and technologically irrelevant. There are no evolutionary engineers.
5. Theoretical epicycles are increasingly required to maintain its viability.
6. The theory is a repeated failure as an explanatory model.
7. There is a very long track record of scientific fraud surrounding it.

Vox Day, “Dark stream: The descent of TENS” at Vox Popoli

He offers a vid to back up these statements:

Hat tip: Ken Francis

See also: Science fiction writer is not a Darwin fan Vox Day: Notice that the evolutionary skeptic’s position has consistently proven to be more reliably scientifically post-predictive than the mainstream evolutionist position.

Hat tip: Ken Francis Francis is author, along with Theodore Dalrymple, of The Terror of Existence: From Ecclesiastes to Theatre of the Absurd.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Ed George:
A doctor in a Chinese fertility clinic claims to have genetically edited embryos to give them a trait that would prevent them from being infected by HIV.
The trait? An ability to think and reason. :cool:ET_{January 31, 2019
January
01
Jan
31
31
2019
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT}

Ed, I understand that there is some question as to the accuracy of this doctor's claim. But, regardless, I have no problem with using genetic editing for this type of modification. My concern with this specific situation, if true, is that it is premature. We have not conducted enough research on these techniques, and possible consequences, in animals to justify extending it to humans. There is also the issue of whether or not the parents given the choice.Brother Brian_{January 31, 2019
January
01
Jan
31
31
2019
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT}

BB@47 and previous. If the reported claims are true, a researcher has already conducted genetic modification on embryos. A doctor in a Chinese fertility clinic claims to have genetically edited embryos to give them a trait that would prevent them from being infected by HIV. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/nov/26/worlds-first-gene-edited-babies-created-in-china-claims-scientistEd George_{January 31, 2019
January
01
Jan
31
31
2019
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT}

LoL! @ Brother Brian- Have you ever had anything of substance to say? You aren't worth talking to, Brian. All we do is continually correct your nonsense. I understand that it bothers you because you thought "The Island of Dr. Moreau" was a science documentary but the truth hurts. Not my fault.ET_{January 31, 2019
January
01
Jan
31
31
2019
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT}

ET
OK, look- “The Island of Dr. Moreau” is neither a documentary nor a “how to” guide.
If you have anything of substance to contribute to the discussion, do so. If not, you are not worth talking to.Brother Brian_{January 30, 2019
January
01
Jan
30
30
2019
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT}

OK, look- "The Island of Dr. Moreau" is neither a documentary nor a "how to" guide.ET_{January 30, 2019
January
01
Jan
30
30
2019
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT}

AaronS1978, the technology itself doesn't scare me. The potential benefits are huge. However, how we use this and any technology always comes with a risk.Brother Brian_{January 30, 2019
January
01
Jan
30
30
2019
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT}

No I absolutely agree, ethical issues with that are profound, for me it almost starts with an instinctual disgust with it (how that’s possible not sure evolution wouldn’t have given me a gene to hate gene editing it’s blind and this is new) Secondly this risks are insane and can have a permanent negative impact on us as a species, it devalues us as humans and obsoletes our individuality, it inserts bias into something that was more of a lottery, the lottery was equal in a way to all, this new bias can be good, but it can be far more evil, and given our own understanding of our human nature I have no faith we would use that type of power responsibly.AaronS1978_{January 30, 2019
January
01
Jan
30
30
2019
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT}

AaronS1978 Yes, we are still a long way away from significant use of gene editing for effective gene therapy. But probably not as far away as some may think. I mentioned changing gender as an example above because this would require exchanging the Y chromosome with the X chromosome. Doing this on human embryos would raise some pretty significant ethical issues. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26485770Brother Brian_{January 30, 2019
January
01
Jan
30
30
2019
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT}

Really not sure if that type of gene editing is even possible, certainly not at this point, maybe for certain one to one genes, but for things like intellegence, even personality traits are dependent on a myriad of things, this includes shape of the gene, interplay with other genes, the cell containing the genes, both uterine and external environments, mutations, mutations caused and effected by the previously mentioned, and finally removal of a gene can have long term and unforeseen consequences. Plus it seems we can only remove genes at this point, in a previous post “creating more moral humans” I do believe there is no such thing as a super moral gene we can add, or turn the volume up on. I think the only way we could honestly do anything like that would be to remove genes that might lead to bad behavior, (again you will have a defective human very probably) and POSSIBLY make good behavior feel better to do, (but again this might lead to other things feeling terrible to do that wouldn’t be a bad behavior and other unforeseen consequences.)AaronS1978_{January 30, 2019
January
01
Jan
30
30
2019
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT}

There is a Zager and Evans fan in our midst.Brother Brian_{January 30, 2019
January
01
Jan
30
30
2019
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT}

The year 6565 is the year "you'll be able to pick your son, your daughter, too, from the bottom of a long glass tube. (yeah)" :cool:ET_{January 30, 2019
January
01
Jan
30
30
2019
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT}

EricMH, the ethics would be with respect to what type of editing you are doing. I agree that I don't see any ethical issues with editing to eliminate genetic diseases. But what about editing to change things like intelligence, skin colour, hight, muscular development, gender, etc..? At some point I suspect that you would get into some pretty serious philosophical and theological issues.Brother Brian_{January 30, 2019
January
01
Jan
30
30
2019
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

@BB it was in response to 35. I'm unaware of the ethical problem with gene editing.EricMH_{January 30, 2019
January
01
Jan
30
30
2019
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

EricMH, did your comment at 36 cross with the one I made at 35? Or did that one not address the issue?Brother Brian_{January 30, 2019
January
01
Jan
30
30
2019
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT}

OK, I re-read comment 27 and there isn't anyone saying to marry her just for her looks. However, I do see where thread hijackers could try to slip that in- you know, to poison the well.ET_{January 30, 2019
January
01
Jan
30
30
2019
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT}

BA77
Read post 30 for clarity. Read very slowly if it helps.
Read post 27, the one that I was responding to, for clarity. Read very slowly if it helps.Brother Brian_{January 30, 2019
January
01
Jan
30
30
2019
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT}

@BB is there some ethical problem with genetic editing? Seems alright to me. I understand the problem with eliminating human life through embryo selection, or violating natural law by sterilizing people. But gene editing seems pretty innocuous in of itself. In fact, it seems the unethical option is to prohibit gene editing if it can be done without loss of life and in a responsible manner.EricMH_{January 30, 2019
January
01
Jan
30
30
2019
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

EricMH@34, but just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. Those are questions that society as a whole must decide on. It is easy to say that genetic editing to eliminate lethal genetic diseases would be a good thing. But where do you draw the line? Haemophilia is terrible, but people survive with it. What about diabetes? Myopia? If anything is a slippery slope, this is it.Brother Brian_{January 30, 2019
January
01
Jan
30
30
2019
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

@BB, yes, that's a good point. We could eliminate specific genetic diseases through eugenics. Perhaps we can also use gene editing, which seems much more ethically sound, as long as it doesn't require embryo selection.EricMH_{January 30, 2019
January
01
Jan
30
30
2019
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT}

"Anyone who would marry just because of a woman’s looks" Read post 30 for clarity. Read very slowly if it helps.bornagain77_{January 30, 2019
January
01
Jan
30
30
2019
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT}

BA77
Any red-blooded man who would turn down marrying her is not a man!
Anyone who would marry just because of a woman's looks is dog paddling in the shallow end of the gene pool.Brother Brian_{January 30, 2019
January
01
Jan
30
30
2019
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT}

EricMH
@BB, is there evidence that eugenics is scientifically sound? Historically, my understanding is it has merely served as a scientific sounding pretext for bigotry.
I think the motives behind eugenics was more nuanced that just bigotry. Yes, bigotry was definitely involved, but a healthy does of ignorance about genetics was also involved. We could completely eliminate genetic linked diseases like sickle cell, tay-sachs, Huntington's, haemophilia, etc. by either sterilizing individuals who carry the genes before they can reproduce, or aborting them in the womb. The science behind this is rock solid. But just because the science behind an action is scientifically sound does not mean that it is morally or ethically sound.Brother Brian_{January 30, 2019
January
01
Jan
30
30
2019
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT}

You added, "No matter how loving or smart or kind or personable or interesting she might or might not be," I did not put those factors in YOU did!. Of course if Melania had a unpleasant personality like you do Hazel, I certainly would NEVER marry her. :) But Melania is, from what I can tell, all those things that you listed on top of being very beautiful. But to deny that being drop dead gorgeous is a major factor for men is to live in a fantasy land. But then again, you do tend to argue for atheistic propositions, thus fantasy land is apparently your home! Thus explaining why you would argue, against what is blatantly obvious for all to see, that beauty is not a major factor for men.bornagain77_{January 30, 2019
January
01
Jan
30
30
2019
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

ba writes, "Any red-blooded man who would turn down marrying her [Melania Trump] is not a man! Wow, what a thing to say! No matter how loving or smart or kind or personable or interesting she might or might not be, she's hot, so any "red-blooded" man would marry her!hazel_{January 30, 2019
January
01
Jan
30
30
2019
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT}

Brother Brian:
Referencing eugenics to try to discredit evolution does not make any sense.
What? "The survival of the fittest" was the concept used to justify eugenics. It is just a statement of fact. And evolution by means of blind and mindless processes doesn't have any credit to begin with.
Eugenics is scientifically sound.
What does that mean?
It is nothing more than artificial selection conducted on humans.
Defective people selecting and culling is never a good thing.ET_{January 30, 2019
January
01
Jan
30
30
2019
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT}

Yeah right Eric, get real! I seriously doubt that you would have ever turned down marrying Melania Trump if you ever had the chance to marry her, no matter what her father was.
Melania Trump https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2019/01/25/melania2_trans_NvBQzQNjv4Bqsg9thOkvYqrruAbUVB4MBa8VRkFRlk2ArYs5C02HBp0.PNG?imwidth=1400
Any red-blooded man who would turn down marrying her is not a man! Anyways. I'm done with this conversation, have a good day!bornagain77_{January 30, 2019
January
01
Jan
30
30
2019
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT}

@BB, is there evidence that eugenics is scientifically sound? Historically, my understanding is it has merely served as a scientific sounding pretext for bigotry. If ID is correct, then eugenics cannot have a significant impact on human prosperity, since it is mind and not genes that is paramount for human flourishing. Sanford's work on genetic entropy has shown there is no eugenic model that can effectively halt the degradation of the genome. To have any practical benefit each woman has to have something like thousands and thousands of offspring with only a few survivors, and even then the benefit is miniscule.EricMH_{January 30, 2019
January
01
Jan
30
30
2019
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT}

KF
There was an attempted science of evolution — eugenics.
Referencing eugenics to try to discredit evolution does not make any sense. Eugenics is scientifically sound. It is nothing more than artificial selection conducted on humans. Scientific theories are amoral. Morality and ethics don't come into play until we develop methods to test the theory.Brother Brian_{January 30, 2019
January
01
Jan
30
30
2019
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

@BA77, the associations they pick are actions. He chose to marry his wife knowing her father is a communist. So, Trump did choose his family members, in this case. And I'd totally be in favor of kicking Brennan out of the CIA, and locking him up to boot. Communists are taking over our country from the inside. They literally run the Democrat party, having taken it over in the 90s after removing the prohibition against communists in the party. Just a generation ago we were locked in a Cold War with the USSR, and the communists killed hundreds of millions of people over the past century! In addition, they were the first to legalize abortion, and communist countries currently lead the world in abortion rates, only equaled by the USA. There is something much more sinister about communism than mere economic policy, so much so that the Catholic Church claims Mary specifically came to earth to warn us about the "Russian error" right before the Bolshevik revolution.EricMH_{January 30, 2019
January
01
Jan
30
30
2019
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply