The junk science of the abortion lobby

_{Denyse O'Leary

January 31, 2019

Ethics, Intelligent Design, Neuroscience}

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

Pediatric neurosurgeon Michael Egnor : Fetuses not only experience pain but experience it more intensely than do adults:

“Much of pro-abortion advocacy is science denial—the deliberate misrepresentation of science to advance an ideological agenda. Mary Ziegler, a law professor at Florida State University, wrote a misleading essay on that theme in the New York Times, “Science won’t end this debate” (January 22, 2019).” Michael Egnor, “More.” at Mind Matters

See also: The Governor Of Virginia: Killing Babies Is OK By Me (Barry Arrington)

and

Does brain stimulation research challenge free will? (Michael Egnor)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

BA77
Hazel, are you for skyrocketing breast cancer risks and triple the suicide risks for young women?
Of course, no sane person would approve the use of hormone based contraceptives that resulted in “skyrocketing breast cancer risks and triple the suicide risks for young women.” That would be criminally negligent and grossly irresponsible. But let us look at the actual conclusion published in the cited paper.
The risk of breast cancer was higher among women who currently or recently used contemporary hormonal contraceptives than among women who had never used hormonal contraceptives, and this risk increased with longer durations of use; however, absolute increases in risk were small.
Hmmm. Not quite the dire consequences that you claimed. This study also included women who used hormone therapy to slow the progression of osteoporosis. And, yes, that treatment comes with an increased risk of breast cancer, higher than those who only use it for a decade or so for birth control. But it reduces the risk of hip fractures. Throughout life we constantly balance risks. Should we ban all activities that pose a risk? Or should we provide accurate information, not hyperbolic scare tactics, to allow people to make informed decisions?Brother Brian_{February 3, 2019
February
02
Feb
3
03
2019
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT}

BA
I take it, then, that you oppose laws that require public school children to be taught that homosexual and lesbian sex is normal and healthy?
Yes I do. But I support laws that force public schools to teach that homosexual and lesbian sex exist, teach of the risks and precautions, and teach that sexual orientation is no grounds for bullying, discrimination or judgment.Brother Brian_{February 3, 2019
February
02
Feb
3
03
2019
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT}

Hazel, are you for skyrocketing breast cancer risks and triple the suicide risks for young women?
Breast cancer risk skyrockets with longtime hormonal contraception use: new study - 2017 Ingesting hormonal contraception for 10 years increases the risk of breast cancer by 38 percent, according to a new study in The New England Journal of Medicine. “This is the first study that had shown intrauterine devices with hormones having association with breast cancer in large numbers,” Dr. David Agus, a University of Southern California physician, explained on CBS News. “With the lower dose of oral contraceptives, we thought there wouldn’t be as much of a risk as the higher dose but it turns out to be the same – about a 20 percent increase in breast cancer overall,” said Agus. This study shows the risk increases by “nine percent if you’re on it for a year, and up to 38 percent if you’re on it for ten years or more,” he said. The oncologist who founded breastcancer.org, Dr. Marisa Weiss, told the New York Times the study’s results show “a significant public health concern.” The study, titled Contemporary Hormonal Contraception and the Risk of Breast Cancer, reveals that newer, lower-hormone dose forms of contraception still increase the risk of breast cancer. The New York Times called this risk created by birth control “a small but significant increase.” “While a link had been established between birth control pills and breast cancer years ago, this study is the first to examine the risks associated with current formulations of birth control pills and devices in a large population,” the New York Times wrote. Pro-lifers have long maintained that hormonal contraception increases the risk of breast cancer. Other side effects of contraception include weight gain, blood clots, and depression. This study examined Danish women who use contraception and compared them to those who don't. The country’s socialized healthcare system makes it easy for researchers to examine data like this. The study showed that intrauterine devices that release hormones into a woman’s body also increase her risk for breast cancer. Pro-life activist Africa Obianuju Ekeocha? tweeted that she hopes the Canadian government, which is conducting a “contraceptive dump” on Africa, is “ready to pay for cancer treatments for African women too.” Another recent study out of Denmark showed taking hormonal contraception can triple the risk of suicide. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/new-study-hormonal-contraception-increases-breast-cancer-risk-by-20
bornagain77_{February 3, 2019
February
02
Feb
3
03
2019
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT}

Brother Brian
What I don’t respect is when they try to impose these restrictive mores on others.
I take it, then, that you oppose laws that require public school children to be taught that homosexual and lesbian sex is normal and healthy?Barry Arrington_{February 3, 2019
February
02
Feb
3
03
2019
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

BA77
Brother Brian, you have defended Darwinian evolution against Intelligent Design right here on UD numerous times.
I follow the evidence where it leads. What can I say?
By default, that makes you Darwinian in your amorality.
We all have insupportable opinions, you are well within your rights to hold this one.
Yet now, when it is self evident that you cannot possibly ground morality of any sort within your Darwinian worldview, you hint that you might not be an atheist.
No, I am not hinting at anything. My religious beliefs are mine and mine alone. The fact that you choose to announce your religion to the world doesn’t mean that everybody must do the same.
That is pathetic. If you can’t be honest with me, at least be honest with yourself and admit that your atheistic worldview is completely bankrupt as to ever providing you a moral basis for your ‘sexual liberation’ arguments.
I am very honest with you and with myself. My worldview provides me with an ample moral basis for my “sexual liberation”. The fact that you disagree is because you have made no effort to understand the rationality of my world view. That is not something I can help you with As I mentioned above, I respect anyone who chooses to live their lives with very restrictive sexual mores. What I don’t respect is when they try to impose these restrictive mores on others.Brother Brian_{February 3, 2019
February
02
Feb
3
03
2019
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT}

ba, do you support easily available and inexpensive contraceptives?hazel_{February 3, 2019
February
02
Feb
3
03
2019
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT}

Brother Brian, you have defended Darwinian evolution against Intelligent Design right here on UD numerous times. By default, that makes you Darwinian in your amorality. Yet now, when it is self evident that you cannot possibly ground morality of any sort within your Darwinian worldview, you hint that you might not be an atheist. That is pathetic. If you can't be honest with me, at least be honest with yourself and admit that your atheistic worldview is completely bankrupt as to ever providing you a moral basis for your 'sexual liberation' arguments. The same goes for Hazel, she plays very sly about what her exact beliefs are, but she continually pushes for an atheistic position. It is a very disingenuous method of argumentation and I don't buy it from either of you in the least. For what its worth, your disingenuous method of argumentation is not new. Darwin himself, though he was arguing for an atheistic worldview, none-the-less, used inconsistent liberal theology throughout his book "Origin" in order to try to give force to his arguments for atheism. As stated before, this method of argumentation, which is constantly employed by atheists, is self refuting simply because the argument for atheism, in the end, is itself found to be resting on Theistic presuppositions. As Van Til put it, the atheist who tries to argue against God is like the brat who must sit in her father's lap to slap his face.
The Brat Who Slapped Her Father's Face Once while Van Til was a youth traveling on a train in Holland, he noticed a father with his young daughter sitting in his lap. Apparently, the father urged his daughter to do something when she suddenly slapped her father in the face. Van Til's application? The girl's behavior illustrates rebels who live in God's world and who are supported by God's common grace (Ps. 24:1). They sit, as it were, on the lap of God, and it is precisely because they sit on God's lap that they are able to deliver the slap of ingratitude. Thus unbelievers who toot their own independence and autonomy are only able to do so as they are supported by God Himself (Jn. 19:10 -11). https://chalcedon.edu/magazine/van-tils-illustrations
Speaking of which, here is you guys not too hidden atheistic worldview on full display:
“Comedian” Sarah Silverman Says Pro-Life Laws “Make Me Want to Eat an Aborted Fetus” - CORINNE WEAVER FEB 2, 2018 https://www.lifenews.com/2018/02/02/comedian-sarah-silverman-says-pro-life-laws-make-me-want-to-eat-an-aborted-fetus/
bornagain77_{February 3, 2019
February
02
Feb
3
03
2019
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT}

“For this reason I was born and have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to My voice.” “What is truth?” Pilate asked. -- John 18:37-38OldArmy94_{February 3, 2019
February
02
Feb
3
03
2019
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

What "evident facts" are BB (or me) rejecting?hazel_{February 3, 2019
February
02
Feb
3
03
2019
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

BB, see how soon you resort to rejection of evident facts to try to skewer the man on that epithetical lance, belief? That in itself tells us that you have but little to say on the merits in the face of the worst holocaust in history and the things that enable same. I ask you to pause, take stock and reconsider. KFkairosfocus_{February 3, 2019
February
02
Feb
3
03
2019
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT}

re 44??? ba, you libel me! I have had no interest in sleeping with anyone other than my spouse for decades, and I don't support people just "sleeping with anyone they want to": that is part of what responsible sex education is about. And, as BB said, Christians don't have the corner on the morality market.hazel_{February 3, 2019
February
02
Feb
3
03
2019
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT}

BA77
see post 43 for an example of an atheist selectively stealing morality from Christianity
I don’t believe that Hazel has said anything about her theistic beliefs. And neither have I. Or do you simply conclude that anyone who disagrees with your flavor of Christianity is an atheist? Hazel@43, I agree with everything you have said. Given that stopping abortions from happening, even if they were legally banned, I would think that any rational person would support actions that would reduce them. If there is one self-evident fact it is that teens and unmarried people are going to have sex. It would be irresponsible of a just society not to avail itself of approaches known to minimize the risks and possible consequences of this activity.Brother Brian_{February 3, 2019
February
02
Feb
3
03
2019
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

"steals parts from Christian morality that he wants so as to provide faux moral support for his larger objective of sleeping with anyone (or perhaps anything) that he so desires to sleep with." see post 43 for an example of an atheist selectively stealing morality from Christianitybornagain77_{February 3, 2019
February
02
Feb
3
03
2019
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

BB at 41: agreed. But it seems like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face (to use another violent metaphor today) to be against such things as easily available contraception for unmarried people, which would help reduce the rate of abortions, when surely the need to reduce abortions should be of considerably higher priority to those who are are firmly against it than their feelings of prohibition about other sexual behaviors, especially since people are going to have sex whether they have contraceptives or not. Moral outrage, in and of itself, is not effective: it's an indulgence that in my opinion comes across as considering the expression of the outrage as more important than doing something about the problem. A friend of mine explained that to me about politics long ago, and it was a valuable lesson.hazel_{February 3, 2019
February
02
Feb
3
03
2019
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT}

Brother Brian states that,
There are many people like myself who believe that there is nothing immoral or wrong with two consenting teens (or two consenting adults) being sexually intimate,,,
And yet, as an atheist, and as has been pointed out several times on this thread, BB atheistic Darwinian worldview is completely amoral and he has no objective moral basis whatsoever for determining whether anything is moral or not. As I have stated before, if eating aborted babies provided a survival advantage, then on the atheist's Darwinian view of morality, that abhorrent action would be considered a good thing for crying out loud.
“It may be well first to premise that I do not wish to maintain that any strictly social animal, if its intellectual faculties were to become as active and as highly developed as in man, would acquire exactly the same moral sense as ours. In the same manner as various animals have some sense of beauty, though they admire widely-different objects, so they might have a sense of right and wrong, though led by it to follow widely different lines of conduct. If, for instance, to take an extreme case, men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering.” -Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, p 67
In short, BB steals parts from Christian morality that he wants so as to provide faux moral support for his larger objective of sleeping with anyone (or perhaps anything) that he so desires to sleep with. For example, what possible moral standard could BB, as an atheist, appeal to to morally object to the fairly recently banned fad of bestiality tourism in the Netherlands.
Dutch finally ban bestiality - 2 Feb 2010 "Sex with animals had been legal in the Netherlands, as long as it could be proven the animals were not injured" https://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-02-03/dutch-finally-ban-bestiality/319622
If BB still has an ounce of moral conscience left in his soul, and he publicly objected to such a abhorrent thing as legalized bestiality tourism, what could he possibly appeal to other than his own subjective illusory morals? BB has absolutely nothing within his atheistic Darwinian worldview to appeal to to stop such an abhorrent practice. In short, atheists have no moral guardrails whatsoever, and whenever they do argue for greater freedom to sleep with whomever, or whatever, they want, they selectively steal from Christian morality the parts they find appealing, i.e. fairness, tolerance, even love, in order to try to make their bigger case against the specific parts of Christian morality that they do not like, i.e. adultery, fornication, bestiality.
ATHEISTS STEAL (MORAL) RIGHTS FROM GOD - FEBRUARY 15, 2015 https://crossexamined.org/atheists-steal-rights-god/
BB also argued for greater education. I am 100% for that. Sex education in public schools and colleges is a joke. The risks, (as my first link in post 38 on depression in young women makes clear), to students are minimized if they are mentioned at all. Sexual freedom is stressed. Chasity is basically ridiculed. College is basically a 'hook up' culture with the supposed adult teachers minimizing the negative mental and physical impacts on the young students. The supposed education on abortion is even worse. In fact, it is deception not education that is being taught. Stonewalled on Abortion – 2018 Excerpt: Abortion & Breast Cancer Gill interviewed several medical doctors. Is there evidence of a link between abortion and breast cancer? she asked. Yes, said Dr. Ian Gentles, coauthor of Complications: Abortion’s Impact on Women (2013); there have been “many dozens of studies [that] show a real, statistically significant link.” Yes, said Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, a breast cancer surgeon who has seen it in a textbook and in her practice. No, said Dr. David Grimes, an ob-gyn and abortionist for more than four decades, “there are no long-term consequences from abortion.” This issue is settled, he said. Doing continued studies would not only be inappropriate, but unethical. Thus, right off the bat, Gill and Martin encountered the deep divide between medical professionals. But Grimes had underscored his point by adding that his opinion was the same as that of all the major medical organizations. This did seem to add credibility to the “no consequences” side, so that’s where they went next. One after another, Gill contacted them: The American Cancer Society. The Canadian Cancer Society. The National Cancer Institute. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in London. The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation. And finally, the World Health Organization. But to her surprise, not only would none of them consent to an interview, they would not even speak to her. Not one. The case was closed, they all said. Anything she needed to know could be found on their website. It was as if they were all working off the same script. With no other option, and now starting to feel suspicious of those denying any link, Gill went to their websites. Each one referred to a 2003 conference held by the NIH cancer division, the National Cancer Institute (NCI), where it had been concluded once and for all that there was no link between abortion and breast cancer. Upon this discovery, she tried again to speak with someone at the NCI, going so far as to visit in person. But when she arrived, she was swiftly escorted off the grounds by security. What was going on here? A thoroughgoing journalist, Gill was not one to be intimidated into silence. She continued to dig and question until, eventually, she located a recording of the 2003 conference online and got to the bottom of the “no abortion-breast cancer link” conclusion. She explains her findings in some detail in the film, but suffice it here to say that a careful look raises serious questions about who or what dictated the outcome of this seminal conference. Was it honest medical science? Or was it abortion politics? Abortion & Pre-term Birth Pre-term birth rates have doubled in the U.S. since Roe. Every year, more than 11,000 newborns die on the day of their birth in America due to prematurity, and those that survive exact untold emotional and financial costs on health care resources and families before ever leaving the hospital. After discharge, they face heightened risks of such lifelong disabilities as cerebral palsy, autism, chronic lung disease, and other vital organ maladies. “It seems there’s a real clear unwillingness to deal with the science on this,” said Dr. Martin McCaffrey, a neonatologist who has frontline experience in caring for preemies and their families. He was invited in 2008 to serve as an expert panel member at the Surgeon General’s Conference on Preventing Preterm Birth, held by the NIH. He brought up the abortion-prematurity link and presented 122 articles as supportive evidence, but the co-chairs would not allow discussion, even though the link has been demonstrated in more than 80 studies. McCaffrey estimates that abortion accounts for 18 percent of very preterm births (earlier than 32 weeks’ gestation), yet in all the material published to raise awareness of prematurity, there is no mention of prior abortion as a possible risk factor. None. The question is, why not? Abortion & Adverse Psychological Effects This has been covered in Salvo before. Gill cites the alarmingly high rates of such maladies as PTSD, eating disorders, depression, substance abuse, and suicide in post-abortive women, but the most moving evidence of post-abortion trauma come from the post-abortive women she interviews, many of whom suffer heart-wrenching grief and regret decades later. Shouldn’t women considering abortion be provided with this information? Gill asks. No, insists Dr. Grimes, the abortionist. That would be “a very overt attempt to dissuade or discourage women from exercising their right to have an abortion.” Apparently this is what passes in his world for medical ethics. The Moral Imperative of Informed Consent For people of conscience, though, informed consent matters, and women considering abortion deserve factual information. Since neither the abortion industry nor the bureaus of medical apparatchiks will so much as countenance the data, Gill and Martin have brought it to the public themselves. Meanwhile, they continue to press the NIH and NCI to address the questions Hush raises, but so far they have received no response beyond the same scripted suggestions to visit the NCI website, which in turn still cites the 2003 conference. Hush is top-notch work. In many ways, you, the viewer, feel like you’re along on their quest. And where appropriate, well-crafted graphics depict the medical explanations, making the breast cancer and pre-term birth connections understandable. “Over time,” said Dr. Patrick Fagan, who coauthored a 2014 paper on the abortion-breast cancer link, “the 2003 NCI conference is going to become an embarrassment in the history of the NCI itself.” Indeed, it may. It took Dr. Omalu four years to awaken the conscience of the NFL. The consciences of the NIH and NCI have already been slumbering for over thirteen years. One can hope that Hush will, paradoxically, finally wake them up. • https://salvomag.com/article/salvo39/stonewalled-on-abortion Bottom line, the Abortion industry of death is basically reliant on deception in their supposed 'education' of young people.,,, John 8:44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Personally, I passionately hate being lied to by anyone. That is part of the reason I hate Darwinian ideology so much.bornagain77_{February 3, 2019
February
02
Feb
3
03
2019
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT}

Hazel@40, there is no real mystery behind it. For the vast majority, those most strongly opposed to abortion for any reason are also very devoutly religious. This comes packaged with strict moral prohibitions if sex for anything other than procreation for married couples. Now, I have no problem with people living their lives with these moral restrictions. In fact, I respect them for doing this. Where I have a problem is when they try to alter laws and education policies to try to force others to abide by their moral restrictions.Brother Brian_{February 3, 2019
February
02
Feb
3
03
2019
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

Boggles my mind that those that are strongly against abortion aren't for realistic measures to reduce it. It is totally unrealistic to think that somehow the problem can be solved by getting people to restrict sex to mature married couples who know how to keep from having unwanted babies. (Is contraception OK for them, I wonder?) Another article: NBC News articlehazel_{February 3, 2019
February
02
Feb
3
03
2019
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

KF@36, yes, you have made it very clear that you expect everyone on earth to share your moral beliefs with regard to sex and other behaviours, and claim that civilization is heading to ruin if they don’t. Thankfully, most people do not share your Scarlet Letter form of justified morality. There are many people like myself who believe that there is nothing immoral or wrong with two consenting teens (or two consenting adults) being sexually intimate as long as they are aware of the risks and take appropriate precautions. Our jobs as parents is not to make our kids avoid all risk, it is to teach them how to manage risk. In my sixty plus years I have seen significant changes in the maturity of teens as sex education has become more progressive and the puritanical attitudes have declined. The thing that has become most obvious to me is that teens today are far more emotionally mature than when I was a teen, with a far greater respect for others, especially the opposite sexBrother Brian_{February 3, 2019
February
02
Feb
3
03
2019
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

The hidden depression of young women behind the current 'hook-up' culture on college campuses:
What the Hook-up Culture Has Done to Women - ANNE MALONEY - JUNE 14, 2016 In thirty years of teaching, I have come to know thousands of women between the ages of eighteen and twenty-six. ,,, Women have never been more “sexually liberated” than these women are, or so they are told. No more are they shackled by ridiculous bonds like commandments, moral rules, words like “chastity.” They shout: “We’re free!” Yet they whisper: “Why are we so miserable?” It is no coincidence that the top two prescribed drugs at our state university’s health center are anti-depressants and the birth-control pill.,,, https://www.crisismagazine.com/2016/hook-culture-done-women
Hmmm, perhaps God, with his moral guidelines for us, wants to protect us, instead of preventing us from having a supposedly 'good time' with 'liberated sex'? Of semi-related note:
“Today's feminism has very little to do with dignity, respect, or even promoting what's best for women” -- Julie Roys Women's March Reveals Godless Nature of Feminism – February 3, 2017 Excerpt: Madonna dropping F-bombs and talking about blowing up the White House. Actress Ashley Judd proudly proclaiming, "Yeah, I'm a nasty woman — a loud vulgar, proud woman." And mothers marching with their daughters while wearing female genitalia on their heads. The recent Women's March was enough to make most anyone think twice about supporting women's causes, especially those who are Christians. In addition to the march's vulgarity and verbal violence, it also championed abortion and banned pro-life groups from officially participating. Those, like Students for Life, who dared to march anyway were spat upon, jeered, and had signs ripped from their hands. It's no wonder a young woman from the pro-life group remarked, "If this is what feminism is, I don't want any part of it." http://www.christianpost.com/news/womens-march-reveals-godless-nature-of-feminism-174083/ March for Life Art Contrasts with Vulgar Signs at Women’s March in 30 Photos The National Review Katie Yoder and Mairead McArdle - January 19, 2019 https://news.yahoo.com/march-life-art-contrasts-vulgar-210127317.html An open letter to the United States of America -- Where is the outrage? America, your silence is deafening! Yet we have a mental breakdown when a border wall is being considered. We protect LGBT rights but murder innocent babies in the womb. We encourage children to switch genders, but not to turn to God—the only true source of hope for our nation. Our schools resemble battlegrounds, and our families remain shattered while churches stay silent. It appears that pastors would rather cave in than fight, tickle the ear rather than challenge the heart.,,, https://www.christianpost.com/voice/an-open-letter-to-the-united-states-of-america.html
bornagain77_{February 3, 2019
February
02
Feb
3
03
2019
03:42 AM
3
03
42
AM
PDT}

PS: Ask yourself, relative to 1941 - 45, whether reduction in the rate of holocaust was an acceptable answer to the problem of mass murder of the targetted. Similarly, ask yourself whether amelioration of conditions in the slave trade and/or on the plantations from the 1780's - 1830s was an adequate answer to the Atlantic slave trade.kairosfocus_{February 3, 2019
February
02
Feb
3
03
2019
12:58 AM
12
12
58
AM
PDT}

BB Your reasoning that more information (often, in a context that specifically distances moral government of behaviour) answers the problem fails to recognise the issues of both moral government and the effect of significantly increased exposure to a risk factor relating to a cluster of hazards. We are morally governed creatures, as even your argument appeals to. You expect us to find claims persuasive because we sense duties to truth, right reason, prudence, justice etc. Nor can such be delusional, as were that so, our whole rational life would evaporate in a fog of cynical manipulation and grand delusion. This in turn means that IS and OUGHT are inextricably intertwined in our reasoning and must be bridged at the only level where they are not subject to the challenge of ungrounded ought: the root of reality. We see, then that there credibly is a root of reality that is also adequate to bear the weight of oughtness, i.e. is inherently good. We are, in that context, morally governed creatures. Absent recognising that root reality, we will be ever so prone to set up crooked, inaccurate yardsticks that mislead us and tend to lock out what is really straight ("true"), accurate and upright. For, what is really such cannot pass the test of demanded conformity with the crooked. In this case, a decisive plumb line cross check is that our oh so sophisticated civilisation is busily carrying forward the worst holocaust in history, 800+ millions of our living posterity in the womb in 40+ years, and mounting up at about a million more per week. To enable and sustain that holocaust, just about every institution of influence has been warped, so we must expect crooked yardsticks leading to crooked thinking, deciding and doing. This includes on education about governing our sexual behaviour. First, teens simply are not mature enough to be managing active sex lives in a context of unstable, low commitment interactions and given economic and educational circumstances their proper disciplined focus needs to be on education, discipline, virtue, productivity. We simply do not need to be taken captive by the abortion lobby and the porn-perversion agendas. We do not need to be in utter confusion about maleness and femaleness under false colour of law and rights warped through agit prop media manipulation and lawfare as democratic institutions are increasingly taken captive by ill-advised mutineers leading our ships of state on voyages of folly. When it comes to abortion, the issue is simple: the unborn child is a member of the human family -- see the for reference vid here at UD: https://uncommondescent.com/laws/reference-pregnancy-week-by-week/ . Where, life is the first right. So, injecting dehumanisation of the unborn is destructive, as is implicating millions in blood guilt. Utterly corrosive and a gateway to everything else. Next, if one is not in a committed relationship of marriage with an adequate basis to sustain a family and the maturity to manage one's sexual conduct in a disciplined exact fashion, one -- s/he (the 112 genders follies refute themselves by absurdity) -- has no business fooling around with sex as though it were a contact sport. The emotional and spiritual damage being done, already, speaks volumes. The societal implications, speak to far more. And let us not get started on what is happening with messing around with body biochemistry and physiology, not to mention exposure to dozens of sexually transmissible diseases, which include varieties of cancer. Going further, sexual behaviours are potentially habituating, addictive and progressive, so bad habits and associated fantasies, emotions, guilt challenges, relationship breakdowns and more set up all sorts of serious personal and moral problems that are too often unacknowledged roots of serious damage to oneself and others. The psycho-social consequences are devastating, especially when unstable relationships are involved as well as destabilisation of marriages and families. So, already, we see grounds for serious reform of the sort of miseducation and manipulation that have spread far and wide. Up to and including the enabling of holocaust. Guilty, guilty, guilty are we. Coming back, the issue of exposure and how rapidly it degrades aggregate protection. When we deal with dangerous hazards, low probabilities of occurrence in any single exposure can rapidly accumulate into a dangerously high aggregate risk. Where, in the HIV context, it has been noted that if you sleep with person X, you are also sleeping with the network of people in the sexual chain going back a decade. Let us do a simple calculation. Activity A with safety protections has a 99% likelihood of being actually protected. What happens if we do A ten times, in terms of aggregate protection? The odds of being protected adequately all ten times are .99^10 = 0.90. At 20 times, this falls to 0.82, at 40 times, it is 0.67 and so forth. Where the inherent hazard is 10%, after ten exposures, the odds of aggregate successful protection fall to 0.35. With the sort of consequences on the line that we are dealing with, getting habitually involved in risky behaviours is ill-advised. Further, other behaviours that serve as gateways, are also ill advised as they undermine self-control and tend to desensitise conscience. In this case, that clearly includes being desensitised to supporting holocaust. Which is where the junk science highlighted in the OP becomes highly relevant. Wider consequences of ceding civilisational power to those who fail the character test are patent from the ongoing holocaust and how all sorts of institutions have become warped and corrupted to become enablers. Including science and education. The sort of out of control policies on the bridge of the various ships of state that are obviously heading for the rocks are direct consequences of the warping of institutions and associated putting in place of crooked yardsticks. Economic, demographic and strategic consequences follow and may well be geostrategically decisive. Decisive against our civilisation. A voyage of folly on the ship of state is a case of collective suicide. Just ask the ghosts of the Athenians who lived through the hubris, corruption, folly and suicide of their Democracy. Then, consult the ghosts of over 100 million victims of the various utopian regimes of the past century, socialistic and their kissing cousin fascistic ones alike. Then ponder where cultural marxism is taking us. Guilty, guilty, guilty. KFkairosfocus_{February 3, 2019
February
02
Feb
3
03
2019
12:44 AM
12
12
44
AM
PDT}

Hazel@34, it just makes sense that sex education and contraceptives would lead to lower abortion rates. Knowledge is power. Sadly, however, those most vehemently opposed to abortion are also opposed to detailed sex education and contraceptives. What would drive these people right around the bend is that some countries even teach that masturbation is an acceptable way to release sexual tension.Brother Brian_{February 2, 2019
February
02
Feb
2
02
2019
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT}

I don't have a source for this data, but I'm guessing it's fairly accurate:
In the Netherlands, abortion is freely available on demand. Yet the Netherlands boasts the lowest abortion rate in the world, about 6 abortions per 1000 women per year, and the complication and death rates for abortion are miniscule. How do they do it? First of all, contraception is widely available and free — it's covered by the national health insurance plan. Holland also carries out extensive public education on contraception, family planning, and sexuality. An ethic of personal responsibility for one's sexual activity is strongly promoted. Of course, some people say that teaching kids about sex and contraception will only encourage them to have lots of sex. But Dutch teenagers tend to have less frequent sex, starting at an older age, than American teenagers, and the Dutch teenage pregnancy rate is 9 times lower than in the U.S.
hazel_{February 2, 2019
February
02
Feb
2
02
2019
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT}

Seversky, I actually agree with much of what you said, a lot more than usual,, (though we could argue nuances of Christian Theology. and the science behind the claims etc,, for hours or even days). My main grievance with your post is that you are still pretending that it is somehow rational for you to debate morality while your worldview is, in reality, completely amoral. i.e. 'pitiless indifference'. And since 'pitiless indifference' is your starting position, then to be consistent in your argumentation, pitiless indifference should be the position that you defend consistently throughout your argumentation. But this is not what you are doing. You are conceding that your starting position is 'pitilessly indifferent', then somehow magically, ending up in position arguing for morality of some sort. Whether you can see it or not, your argumentation is self-refuting. Moreover, to pretend that you can build a system of morality out of a atheistic worldview that is, in reality, (and by your own admission), pitilessly indifferent is an exercise in self-deceived futility. Such has been tried numerous times over the past century, and the result is always the same for the country and/or population. Misery, despair and death. The unmitigated horror visited upon man, by state sponsored atheism, would be hard to exaggerate,,, Here's what happens when Atheists/evolutionists/non-Christians take control of Government:
“169,202,000 Murdered: Summary and Conclusions [20th Century Democide] I BACKGROUND 2. The New Concept of Democide [Definition of Democide] 3. Over 133,147,000 Murdered: Pre-Twentieth Century Democide II 128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS 4. 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State 5. 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill 6. 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State 7. 10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime III 19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS 8. 5,964,000 Murdered: Japan’s Savage Military 9. 2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State 10. 1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey’s Genocidal Purges 11. 1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State 12. 1,585,000 Murdered: Poland’s Ethnic Cleansing 13. 1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State 14. 1,072,000 Murdered: Tito’s Slaughterhouse IV 4,145,000 VICTIMS: SUSPECTED MEGAMURDERERS 15. 1,663,000 Murdered? Orwellian North Korea 16. 1,417,000 Murdered? Barbarous Mexico 17. 1,066,000 Murdered? Feudal Russia” This is, in reality, probably just a drop in the bucket. Who knows how many undocumented murders there were. It also doesn’t count all the millions of abortions from around the world. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM Hitler, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao – quotes - Foundational Darwinian influence in their ideology (Nov. 2018) https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/historian-human-evolution-theorists-were-attempting-to-be-moral-teachers/#comment-668170
Moreover, the Atheist's attempt to create illusory morality, meaning and purposes for his life, minus belief in God and a afterlife, falls short in a rather dramatic fashion on both the mental and physical level. As Professor Andrew Sims, former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, states, “The advantageous effect of religious belief and spirituality on mental and physical health is one of the best-kept secrets in psychiatry and medicine generally.”,,, “In the majority of studies, religious involvement is correlated with well-being, happiness and life satisfaction; hope and optimism; purpose and meaning in life;,,”
“I maintain that whatever else faith may be, it cannot be a delusion. The advantageous effect of religious belief and spirituality on mental and physical health is one of the best-kept secrets in psychiatry and medicine generally. If the findings of the huge volume of research on this topic had gone in the opposite direction and it had been found that religion damages your mental health, it would have been front-page news in every newspaper in the land.” - Professor Andrew Sims former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists - Is Faith Delusion?: Why religion is good for your health - preface “In the majority of studies, religious involvement is correlated with well-being, happiness and life satisfaction; hope and optimism; purpose and meaning in life; higher self-esteem; better adaptation to bereavement; greater social support and less loneliness; lower rates of depression and faster recovery from depression; lower rates of suicide and fewer positive attitudes towards suicide; less anxiety; less psychosis and fewer psychotic tendencies; lower rates of alcohol and drug use and abuse; less delinquency and criminal activity; greater marital stability and satisfaction… We concluded that for the vast majority of people the apparent benefits of devout belief and practice probably outweigh the risks.” - Professor Andrew Sims former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists - Is Faith Delusion?: Why religion is good for your health – page 100 https://books.google.com/books?id=PREdCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA100#v=onepage&q&f=false
In fact, in the following study it was found that, “those middle-aged adults who go to church, synagogues, mosques or other houses of worship reduce their mortality risk by 55%.”
Can attending church really help you live longer? This study says yes – June 1, 2017 Excerpt: Specifically, the study says those middle-aged adults who go to church, synagogues, mosques or other houses of worship reduce their mortality risk by 55%. The Plos One journal published the “Church Attendance, Allostatic Load and Mortality in Middle Aged Adults” study May 16. “For those who did not attend church at all, they were twice as likely to die prematurely than those who did who attended church at some point over the last year,” Bruce said. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/06/02/can-attending-church-really-help-you-live-longer-study-says-yes/364375001/
Thus, it is readily apparent that the Atheist's attempt to create illusory morality, meaning and purposes for his life, minus belief in God and a afterlife, falls short in a rather dramatic fashion on both the mental and physical level. In short, the dramatic negative mental and physical consequences on the atheist's own life testify to the reality of objective morality. The following video goes over many more lines of evidence that strongly support the Christian's position as well as strongly refuting the atheist's position:
Atheistic Materialism vs Meaning, Value, and Purpose in Our Lives - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqUxBSbFhog
Verse:
Deuteronomy 30:15,, 19 and 20 See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. For I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in obedience to him, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase,,,, This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the Lord your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the Lord is your life, and he will give you many years in the land he swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
bornagain77_{February 2, 2019
February
02
Feb
2
02
2019
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77 @ 22
Seversky @ 20, you pretend that you, as a atheistic materialist, have a right to argue for the ‘objective’ morality of killing unborn babies (as long as you put them to sleep first)
I am as entitled to present my arguments, as are you, under right of freedom of thought and expression. I am not arguing for the objective morality of abortion. I deny the existence of objective morality but I also believe that if we grant a fundamental right to life to all individual human beings then it should be extended to each individual in the prenatal phase of its existence.
This is the same ‘objective’ morality that we afford to serial killers in putting them to sleep first before we administer a lethal injection.
Consideration of humane methods of execution does not require the existence of objective morality. I would have no problem with putting a bullet through the brain of the likes of a Ted Bundy. It would be quicker and more humane than they deserve. But that is my view, I do not claim it to be some objective truth.
May I also point out that the baby is guilty of no crime save for, in the vast majority of cases, being falsely perceived as being inconvenient for the mother.
I would agree that, short of a direct threat to the mother's life, the fetus's right to life should trump the mother's other, lesser rights. In the case of a child conceived during rape, it is not any fault of the child that this happened so there is no good reason to penalize it. However, the mother is entitled to consideration for the fact that carrying this child that was forced on her against her will is a continuous reminder of the traumatic event she suffered. Moreover, the victim will also often suffer the after-effects of the crime, which will have a significant impact on her ability to live and enjoy her life, more intensely and for much longer than the rapist will suffer any adverse consequences from what he did.
Yet you yourself admit that your worldview cannot ground morality,,, In fact, it is worse than that for you. Not only can your worldview NOT ground morality but your worldview is completely amoral. That is to say, your worldview denies the reality of objective morality altogether.
Yes, atheistic materialism is amoral because you cannot derive "ought" from "is". That does not mean that a/mats cannot form their own moral code, only that such a code cannot be grounded in the a/mat perspective or make any claim to universality.
Again, you, as a Darwinists, have absolutely NOTHING to say about the objective ‘morality’ of killing unborn babies period! For you to even try to rationalize otherwise, (i.e. put the babies to sleep first), is actually proof that you are under a objective moral law.
Again, yes, with the caveat that I was not arguing in favor of anesthetizing fetuses as allowing abortion but only offering the possibility as a counter to Egnor's claim that fetuses experience pain was an argument against abortion.
Moreover, your claim that “Christianity has no adequate explanation of consciousness or morality” is simply an insane lie. Atheistic materialists hold that material is the primary substratum from which everything else comes. Christians hold that the Mind of God is the primary substratum from which everything else comes. Quantum Mechanics has consistently supported the Christian view of reality and falsified the materialist’s view of reality.
A/mats agree that we have no adequate account of how consciousness arises from the activity of the physical brain. All we can say is that there is a close and persuasive correlation in the absence of any better explanation. But if a/mats cannot explain the conscious mind of a human being then how much less can Christians explain the nature of the conscious mind of their God or how it arose. There isn't even a physical entity like a brain with which it is associated. All we have are unsubstantiated claims of the existence immaterial phenomena such as a God and His mind. And I remind you that claiming something exists is not the same as explaining how something came into existence and how it works.
Moreover, objective morality is literally ‘built into’ Christianity’s foundation presupposition of the Mind of God being the source for all of reality. Not to mention Christ dying for the sins of the world.
Christian's claim the existence of objective morality but that can be viewed simply as their attempt to annex the moral high ground for their own particular brand of morality. As for Christ dying for the sins of humanity, it should be understood that people are behaving the way they were designed to behave by their Creator so how can they be to blame? Your God is, by definition, all-knowing, all-powerful and perfect. He does not make mistakes. If human beings behave in certain ways, that is how they were designed to behave, there's no way round it. As for the Crucifixion, Jesus is held to be the Son of God or God manifested in physical form on Earth, Now, while the body of Jesus may be killed, Jesus himself is immortal like God. There is absolutely nothing we could do today, with all our weapons, to harm Him in the slightest so how much less would the Romans have been able to do two thousand years ago? Jesus himself did not die on the cross. He could not. And if that's the case then the Crucifixion was little more than street theater.
In other words, in a technical legal sense, it is perfectly legal to kill atheistic materialists since they, by their own admission, are non-persons.
In my view, the right to life should not depend on so nebulous a concept as "personhood" but should attach only to the physical individual no matter what their stage of development.

Seversky_{February 2, 2019
February
02
Feb
2
02
2019
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT}

Of supplemental note: Atheists can give no reason why they should value reason, and Christians can show how anyone who believes in reason must also believe in God.
Cogito; Ergo Deus Est by Charles Edward White Philosophy Still Lives Because God Isn't Dead https://salvomag.com/article/salvo39/cogito-ergo-deus-est?
bornagain77_{February 2, 2019
February
02
Feb
2
02
2019
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT}

Brother Brian states
BA77" Yet Brother Brian is apparently unaware, or purposely ignorant of the fact, that all of science, especially including Darwinian evolution itself, is totally reliant on presuppositions that can only be grounded within Theistic, even Christian, metaphysics. BB: "Yes, there are some that hold that minority opinion. The majority of practicing scientists, however, disagree.,,, A follow up to 28. More correctly, you have (given) me (no) evidence that a significant number of practicing scientists support your opinion."
Yet, my claim was not that a majority of scientists are Christians, or even that a majority are Theists. My claim is that "all of science, especially including Darwinian evolution itself, is totally reliant on presuppositions that can only be grounded within Theistic, even Christian, metaphysics.". I partially laid the case out for my claim in post 16, yet BB refused to address the meat of my claim, but instead, like a scoundrel, appealed to 'consensus science'.
Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. - Michael Crichton
But even looking at this from what the 'consensus of beliefs' are of scientists we find that, despite the fact that scientists are more secular than the general population of a country, none-the-less, "over half of scientists see themselves as religious. And surprisingly, scientists do not think science is in conflict with religion. Instead, most see religion and science as operating in separate spheres."
Religion among Scientists in International Context: A New Study of Scientists in Eight Regions Elaine Howard Ecklund, David R. Johnson, Christopher P. Scheitle, ... - September 1, 2016 Abstract Scientists have long been associated with religion’s decline around the world. But little data permit analysis of the religiosity of scientists or their perceptions of the science-faith interface. Here we present the first ever survey data from biologists and physicists in eight regions around the world—France, Hong Kong, India, Italy, Taiwan, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States, countries and regions selected because they exhibit differing degrees of religiosity, varying levels of scientific infrastructure, and unique relationships between religious and state institutions (N = 9,422). The data collection includes biologists and physicists at all career stages from elite and non-elite universities and research institutes. We uncovered that in most of the national contexts studied, scientists are indeed more secular—in terms of beliefs and practices—than those in their respective general populations, although in four of the regional contexts, over half of scientists see themselves as religious. And surprisingly, scientists do not think science is in conflict with religion. Instead, most see religion and science as operating in separate spheres. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2378023116664353
Thus even BB's claim that "a majority of practicing scientists, however, disagree" is found to be, basically, a rhetorical device that BB put to service for his a-priori preference for atheism. If BB was being purposely deceptive I have no way of knowing. Perhaps he was just robotically repeating something he heard from another troll on the internet. But anyways, again, my claim was not that a majority of scientists are Christians, or even that a majority are Theists. My claim is that "all of science, especially including Darwinian evolution itself, is totally reliant on presuppositions that can only be grounded within Theistic, even Christian, metaphysics.". And again, I partially laid the case out for my claim in post 16. But to further make my case that all of science is dependent on basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational nature of the universe and our 'made in the image of God' minds to be able to dare to grasp that rational nature, in the following study we find that "Even Professional Scientists Are Compelled to See Purpose in Nature, Psychologists Find." Moreover, "despite years of scientific training, even professional chemists, geologists, and physicists from major universities such as Harvard, MIT, and Yale cannot escape a deep-seated belief that natural phenomena exist for a purpose" ,,,
Design Thinking Is Hardwired in the Human Brain. How Come? - October 17, 2012 Excerpt: "Even Professional Scientists Are Compelled to See Purpose in Nature, Psychologists Find." The article describes a test by Boston University's psychology department, in which researchers found that "despite years of scientific training, even professional chemists, geologists, and physicists from major universities such as Harvard, MIT, and Yale cannot escape a deep-seated belief that natural phenomena exist for a purpose" ,,, Most interesting, though, are the questions begged by this research. One is whether it is even possible to purge teleology from explanation. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/design_thinking065381.html
The following study found that , "the "knee jerk" reaction to natural phenomenon is the belief that they're purposefully designed by some intelligence, according to a report on the research in Cognition entitled the "Divided Mind of a disbeliever.",, and The findings "suggest that there is a deeply rooted natural tendency to view nature as designed," ,,, and "religious non-belief is cognitively effortful.",, and ""Design-based intuitions run deep," the researchers conclude, "persisting even in those with no explicit religious commitment and, indeed, even among those with an active aversion to them."
Richard Dawkins take heed: Even atheists instinctively believe in a creator says study - Mary Papenfuss - June 12, 2015 Excerpt: Three studies at Boston University found that even among atheists, the "knee jerk" reaction to natural phenomenon is the belief that they're purposefully designed by some intelligence, according to a report on the research in Cognition entitled the "Divided Mind of a disbeliever." The findings "suggest that there is a deeply rooted natural tendency to view nature as designed," writes a research team led by Elisa Järnefelt of Newman University. They also provide evidence that, in the researchers' words, "religious non-belief is cognitively effortful." Researchers attempted to plug into the automatic or "default" human brain by showing subjects images of natural landscapes and things made by human beings, then requiring lightning-fast responses to the question on whether "any being purposefully made the thing in the picture," notes Pacific-Standard. "Religious participants' baseline tendency to endorse nature as purposefully created was higher" than that of atheists, the study found. But non-religious participants "increasingly defaulted to understanding natural phenomena as purposefully made" when "they did not have time to censor their thinking," wrote the researchers. The results suggest that "the tendency to construe both living and non-living nature as intentionally made derives from automatic cognitive processes, not just practised explicit beliefs," the report concluded. The results were similar even among subjects from Finland, where atheism is not a controversial issue as it can be in the US. "Design-based intuitions run deep," the researchers conclude, "persisting even in those with no explicit religious commitment and, indeed, even among those with an active aversion to them." http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/richard-dawkins-take-heed-even-atheists-instinctively-believe-creator-says-study-1505712
The following video touches upon to preceding line of study,,,
Is Atheism a Delusion? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ii-bsrHB0o
Thus is it not that atheists do not see design in nature, it is that Atheists, for whatever severely misguided reason, live in denial of the purpose and/or Design that they themselves see in nature. I hold the preceding studies to be confirming evidence for Romans1:19-20
Romans 1:19-20 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
But anyways, my claim was not even that Atheists live in denial of the design that they themselves see in nature. My claim was more specific than that. My claim was that "all of science, especially including Darwinian evolution itself, is totally reliant on presuppositions that can only be grounded within Theistic, even Christian, metaphysics." To prove my claim it is first necessary to define teleology
teleology the doctrine of design and purpose in the material world.
To even 'do science', especially biology, it is first necessary to presuppose teleology. As Stephen L. Talbott put it, "the biologist who is not investigating how the organism achieves something in a well-directed way is not yet doing biology," In fact, as Talbott further challenged biologists, "pose a single topic for biological research, doing so in language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness". As he further commented, "It can't be done"
The 'Mental Cell': Let’s Loosen Up Biological Thinking! - Stephen L. Talbott - September 9, 2014 Excerpt: Many biologists are content to dismiss the problem with hand-waving: “When we wield the language of agency, we are speaking metaphorically, and we could just as well, if less conveniently, abandon the metaphors”. Yet no scientist or philosopher has shown how this shift of language could be effected. And the fact of the matter is just obvious: the biologist who is not investigating how the organism achieves something in a well-directed way is not yet doing biology, as opposed to physics or chemistry. Is this in turn just hand-waving? Let the reader inclined to think so take up a challenge: pose a single topic for biological research, doing so in language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness 1. One reason this cannot be done is clear enough: molecular biology — the discipline that was finally going to reduce life unreservedly to mindless mechanism — is now posing its own severe challenges. In this era of Big Data, the message from every side concerns previously unimagined complexity, incessant cross-talk and intertwining pathways, wildly unexpected genomic performances, dynamic conformational changes involving proteins and their cooperative or antagonistic binding partners, pervasive multifunctionality, intricately directed behavior somehow arising from the interaction of countless players in interpenetrating networks, and opposite effects by the same molecules in slightly different contexts. The picture at the molecular level begins to look as lively and organic — and thoughtful — as life itself. http://natureinstitute.org/txt/st/org/comm/ar/2014/mental_cell_23.htm
This working biologist agrees with Talbott’s assessment and states that "we biologists use words that imply intentionality, functionality, strategy, and design in biology--we simply cannot avoid them."
Life, Purpose, Mind: Where the Machine Metaphor Fails - Ann Gauger - June 2011 Excerpt: I'm a working biologist, on bacterial regulation (transcription and translation and protein stability) through signalling molecules, ,,, I can confirm the following points as realities: we lack adequate conceptual categories for what we are seeing in the biological world; with many additional genomes sequenced annually, we have much more data than we know what to do with (and making sense of it has become the current challenge); cells are staggeringly chock full of sophisticated technologies, which are exquisitely integrated; life is not dominated by a single technology, but rather a composite of many; and yet life is more than the sum of its parts; in our work, we biologists use words that imply intentionality, functionality, strategy, and design in biology--we simply cannot avoid them. Furthermore, I suggest that to maintain that all of biology is solely a product of selection and genetic decay and time requires a metaphysical conviction that isn't troubled by the evidence. Alternatively, it could be the view of someone who is unfamiliar with the evidence, for one reason or another. But for those who will consider the evidence that is so obvious throughout biology, I suggest it's high time we moved on. - Matthew http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/life_purpose_mind_where_the_ma046991.html#comment-8858161
Denis Noble himself also agrees with this and states, "it is virtually impossible to speak of living beings for any length of time without using teleological and normative language—words like “goal,” “purpose,” “meaning,” “correct/incorrect,” “success/failure,” etc.”
“the most striking thing about living things, in comparison with non-living systems, is their teleological organization—meaning the way in which all of the local physical and chemical interactions cohere in such a way as to maintain the overall system in existence. Moreover, it is virtually impossible to speak of living beings for any length of time without using teleological and normative language—words like “goal,” “purpose,” “meaning,” “correct/incorrect,” “success/failure,” etc.” - Denis Noble - Emeritus Professor of Cardiovascular Physiology in the Department of Physiology, Anatomy, and Genetics of the Medical Sciences Division of the University of Oxford. http://www.thebestschools.org/dialogues/evolution-denis-noble-interview/
Thus, even though atheistic biologists (and BB) may adamantly claim that they are not Theists, their very own words they use when they 'do science' give them away. It is simply impossible to do science, especially biology, without presupposing teleology. Dr. Michael Egnor has an interesting article on this subject,,
Teleology and the Mind - Michael Egnor - August 16, 2016 Excerpt: From the hylemorphic perspective, there is an intimate link between the mind and teleology. The 19th-century philosopher Franz Brentano pointed out that the hallmark of the mind is that it is directed to something other than itself. That is, the mind has intentionality, which is the ability of a mental process to be about something, rather than to just be itself. Physical processes alone (understood without teleology) are not inherently about things. The mind is always about things. Stated another way, physical processes (understood without teleology) have no purpose. Mental processes always have purpose. In fact, purpose (aboutness-intentionality-teleology) is what defines the mind. And we see the same purpose (aboutness-intentionality-teleology) in nature. Intentionality is a form of teleology. Both intentionality and teleology are goal-directedness — intentionality is directedness in thought, and teleology is directedness in nature. Mind and teleology are both manifestations of purpose in nature. The mind is, within nature, the same kind of process that directs nature. In this sense, eliminative materialism is necessary if a materialist is to maintain a non-teleological Darwinian metaphysical perspective. It is purpose that must be denied in order to deny design in nature. So the mind, as well as teleology, must be denied. Eliminative materialism is just Darwinian metaphysics carried to its logical end and applied to man. If there is no teleology, there is no intentionality, and there is no purpose in nature nor in man’s thoughts. The link between intentionality and teleology, and the undeniability of teleology, is even more clear if we consider our inescapable belief that other people have minds. The inference that other people have minds based on their purposeful (intentional-teleological) behavior, which is obviously correct and is essential to living a sane life, can be applied to our understanding of nature as well. Just as we know that other people have purposes (intentionality), we know just as certainly that nature has purposes (teleology). In a sense, intelligent design is the recognition of the same purpose-teleology-intentionality in nature that we recognize in ourselves and others. Teleology and intentionality are certainly the inferences to be drawn from the obvious purposeful arrangement of parts in nature, but I (as a loyal Thomist!) believe that teleology and intentionality are manifest in an even more fundamental way in nature. Any goal-directed natural change is teleological, even if purpose and arrangement of parts is not clearly manifest. The behavior of a single electron orbiting a proton is teleological, because the motion of the electron hews to specific ends (according to quantum mechanics). A pencil falling to the floor behaves teleologically (it does not fall up, or burst into flame, etc.). Purposeful arrangement of parts is teleology on an even more sophisticated scale, but teleology exists in even the most basic processes in nature. Physics is no less teleological than biology. https://evolutionnews.org/2016/08/teleology_and_t/
One final note, although many Darwinian scientists may robotically mouth the words 'methodological naturalism is the ground rule for all of science', the fact of the matter is that Darwinists, when they adopt naturalism as their foundational worldview, are found to be adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to:
Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification – 39:45 minute mark Excerpt: 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), who has unreliable 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). Bottom line, nothing is real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, Paper with references for each claim page; Page 37: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pAYmZpUWFEi3hu45FbQZEvGKsZ9GULzh8KM0CpqdePk/edit
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;
bornagain77_{February 2, 2019
February
02
Feb
2
02
2019
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

A follow up to 28. More correctly, you have me evidence that a significant number of practicing scientists support your opinion.Brother Brian_{February 2, 2019
February
02
Feb
2
02
2019
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT}

BA77
Yet Brother Brian is apparently unaware, or purposely ignorant of the fact, that all of science, especially including Darwinian evolution itself, is totally reliant on presuppositions that can only be grounded within Theistic, even Christian, metaphysics.
Yes, there are some that hold that minority opinion. The majority of practicing scientists, however, disagree.Brother Brian_{February 2, 2019
February
02
Feb
2
02
2019
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT}

Seversky:
The theory of evolution can be …
And yet there isn't any scientific theory of evolution.ET_{February 2, 2019
February
02
Feb
2
02
2019
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply