Intelligent Design

The Rawlsian Myth of the Morally Neutral Perspective

Spread the love

The other day I had an exchange with a progressive about Amy Coney Barrett.  The exchange was touched off by Ms. Progressive’s comment about Barrett’s faith:  “I don’t think her religion is a problem as much as her religious convictions driving her decision making is.”

I encounter this sort of muddled thinking from progressives all of the time.  And it is always based on the same progressive myth – the myth that some people (namely, progressives) arrive at their conclusions (whether the conclusion concerns a matter of policy, law, politics or whatever else) from some morally neutral and objectively rational “view from nowhere” while other people’s conclusions are based on their biases (or bigotries if the progressive is not feeling charitable).  This stupidity is a close cousin to the perennial canard “you can’t legislative morality,” which is also based on the myth that progressive legislation is morally neutral while conservative legislation is freighted with a moral perspective. 

I don’t know if progressives actually believe this myth.  Many of them (my interlocutor for instance) certainly act like they do.  But whether they actually believe it or not, the myth is certainly useful politically.  After all, who are you going to believe – the objectively rational progressive whose views are based on pure unadulterated reason or the biased (or bigoted) conservative?  Once the question is framed in these terms, the outcome becomes almost a foregone conclusion.  Why, we choose pure unadulterated reason of course.

This lunacy has thoroughly infected our body politic, and the infection has a name:  Rawlsian public reason theory.  Whether you have heard of John Rawls or not, he has had a profound affect on your life.  Rawls posited a theory of justice based on what he called an “original position.”  The original position is based on the imagined outcome of policy conclusions made by “human beings” with no knowledge of the actual facts of human existence – this is the objective view from nowhere. 

Of course, only a highly credentialed academic (Rawls was a professor at Harvard) could believe something so stupid.  Any child should understand that no such “human being” actually exists, and when Rawls came back from the mountain to announce what the “human beings” had decided was fair and just, what he was really announcing is what Rawls had decided was fair and just.

John Rawls, like everyone else, based his political positions on his moral presuppositions.  The difference is that Rawls pretended that his views were based on objective reason, and that no rational person could possibly disagree with him.  That staggering hubris has had a profound influence on progressives ever since.  Following Rawls, they all come back from their individual mountains and announce their objectively true policy conclusions to their poor benighted inferiors. 

Consider Ms. Progressive’s take on Amy Coney Barrett as just one example.  Of course, Ms. Progressive’s main objection to Barrett has everything to do with abortion.  Unsurprisingly, Ms. Progressive is in favor of the practically unlimited “constitutional right” to kill unborn children in their mother’s wombs that stems from Roe v. Wade.  And she sees Barrett’s nomination as a threat to that “right.”  And like progressives always do, she seeks to set the terms of the debate from the very beginning not as a choice between good policy* and bad policy, but as a choice between the dictates of pure reason advocated by Ms. Progressive and the religious bigotry being pushed by Judge Barrett.

But of course it should be plain that that fact that Barrett is a person of faith should have no more bearing on the matter than the fact that Ms. Progressive is a militant secularist.  Both have a moral point of view that is informed by their background and worldview.  There is no reason to favor one moral point of view over the other. 

Ms. Barrett believes that killing an unborn baby is evil.  Ms. Progressive believes that it is good to give a mother a choice to kill her unborn baby.  Yes, Ms. Barrett’s position on abortion is based on her moral beliefs that are in turn formed by her worldview, which is in turn influenced by her religious beliefs.  But the same can be said of Ms. Progressive.  Ms. Progressive’s position on abortion is based on her moral beliefs that are in turn formed by her worldview, which is in turn influenced by her beliefs about the fundamental nature of reality (i.e., her religious beliefs).

The only difference is that Ms. Barrett would undoubtedly concede that her moral views are based on her beliefs about fundamental things, while Ms. Progressive pretends she has no moral presuppositions.  And this is what makes people like Ms. Progressive far more dangerous than people like Ms. Barrett will ever be.  The most dangerous fanatic is the one who is serenely confident in the absolute purity of her own views, because that confidence allows Jacobins (both ancient and modern) to justify violence to further their political project.  After all, if by definition only bigoted and evil people can possibly disagree with you, you are not only permitted to visit violence on them, but you are also practically morally compelled to do so. 

__________________

*I am setting to one side the issue of whether Supreme Court justices should even be making policy choices about abortion.  They should not, but that is an argument for another day.

7 Replies to “The Rawlsian Myth of the Morally Neutral Perspective

  1. 1
    Sandy says:

    People who promote abortion are the very same people who are “appalled” by (Old Testament) God’s action against people of different tribes* 🙂

    *who worshipped Moloch by sacrificing children.

  2. 2
    News says:

    As between the mob of looters and the iconic local coffee shop, human civilization has never held that there is a morally neutral perspective. That is why we are civilization. Sign up or get out.

  3. 3
    polistra says:

    No reason to favor? Actually there is a Darwinian reason to favor traditional morality. Traditional morality is the recorded logbook of SUCCESSFUL experimentation and mutation. The civilizations that survived gave us their scriptures. Some of the details are unnecessary, but the broad outlines of all ancient wisdom agree.

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    Morality for the atheist is not just the absence of morality, i.e. amorality, i.e. “no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference”, as Dawkins put it, and as one would surmise from a quick glance at what atheism entails in regards to morality,,,,

    “In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
    – Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life

    1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
    2. Objective moral values do exist.
    3. Therefore, God exists.
    – The Moral Argument
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU

    No!,,,, Morality for the atheist is not just the absence of morality, i.e. amorality, ‘pitiless indifference’, but turns out to be, (when you throw the precepts of Darwinian evolution on top of the atheist’s naturalistic worldview of ‘pitiless indifference’), a worldview that turns out to be downright ‘ANTI-Morality’.

    Alturistic behavior of any sort is simply completely antithetical to the entire framework of Darwinian evolution.

    As Charles Darwin himself stated, “let the strongest live and the weakest die.”

    “One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.”
    – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

    As should be obvious to everyone who is not a psychopath, not only is “let the strongest live and the weakest die” amoral, but it is completely ANTI-moral.

    Adolf Hilter himself echoed Charles Darwin’s words when he stated, “Nature,,, wipes out what is weak in order to give place to the strong.”

    “A stronger race will oust that which has grown weak; for the vital urge, in its ultimate form, will burst asunder all the absurd chains of this so-called humane consideration for the individual and will replace it with the humanity of Nature, which wipes out what is weak in order to give place to the strong.”
    – Adolf Hitler – Mein Kampf – pg 248

    As should be needless to say, wiping out the weak to give place to the strong is directly opposed to the Christian ethos of looking after the weak.

    Matthew 25:34-40
    “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
    “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
    “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

    As Sir Arthur Keith noted shortly after WWII, “the law of Christ is incompatible with the law of evolution as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed.”

    “for, as we have just seen, the ways of national evolution, both in the past and in the present, are cruel, brutal, ruthless, and without mercy.,,, Meantime let me say that the conclusion I have come to is this: the law of Christ is incompatible with the law of evolution as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed.”
    Sir Arthur Keith, (1866 — 1955) Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons – Evolution and Ethics (1947) p.15

    Hitler was hardly the only genocidal maniac who based his worldview on Darwinian evolution. In fact all the Atheistic Tyrants of communist regimes of the 20th century based their murderous ideology on Darwin’s theory

    Hitler, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao – quotes – Foundational Darwinian influence in their ideology – July 2020
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/michael-egnor-on-the-relationship-between-darwinism-and-totalitarianism/#comment-707831

    Some Darwinists try to distance Charles Darwin from Hitler, (and other tyrants), and try to claim that Hitler misused Darwin’s theory, and thus try to deny the ANTI-mortality that is clearly and deeply embedded within the foundation of their theory, but Darwin himself bemoaned the fact that “the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind.”

    “With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.”
    – Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

    Charles Darwin also, (in regards to the genocide propagated against Aborigines in the name of his theory), stated that, ““I do not know of a more striking instance of the comparative rate of increase of a civilized over a savage race.”,,,

    What Your Biology Teacher Didn’t Tell You About Charles Darwin – Phil Moore / April 19, 2017
    Excerpt: ,,, the British thinker who justified genocide.,,,
    The full title of his seminal 1859 book was On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. He followed up more explicitly in The Descent of Man, where he spelled out his racial theory:
    “The Western nations of Europe . . . now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors [that they] stand at the summit of civilization. . . . The civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races through the world.”
    – C. Darwin,,,
    Christian reformers had spent decades in the early 19th century teaching Britain to view non-European races as their equals before God. In a matter of years, Darwin swept not only God off the table, but also the value of people of every race with him.
    Enabling Genocide
    Victorian Britain was too willing to accept Darwinian evolution as its gospel of overseas expansion. Darwin is still celebrated on the back of the British £10 note for his discovery of many new species on his visit to Australia; what’s been forgotten, though, is his contemptible attitude—due to his beliefs about natural selection—toward the Aborigines he found there. When The Melbourne Review used Darwin’s teachings to justify the genocide of indigenous Australians in 1876, he didn’t try and stop them. When the Australian newspaper argued that “the inexorable law of natural selection [justifies] exterminating the inferior Australian and Maori races”—that “the world is better for it” since failure to do so would be “promoting the non-survival of the fittest, protecting the propagation of the imprudent, the diseased, the defective, and the criminal”—it was Christian missionaries who raised an outcry on behalf of this forgotten genocide. Darwin simply commented, “I do not know of a more striking instance of the comparative rate of increase of a civilized over a savage race.”,,,
    https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/what-your-biology-teacher-didnt-tell-you-about-charles-darwin

    That is simply unconscionable. So don’t ever let a Darwinist try to tell you that Charles Darwin himself was a good, and moral, man. Charles Darwin was, in fact, a moral monster! PERIOD!

    Moreover, not only is Darwinian evolution at ‘war’ with Christian morality, but Darwinian evolution is also at ‘war’ with science itself.

    Namely, (in a point that is made crystal clear by the current Corona virus scourge), if evolution by natural selection were actually the truth about how all life came to be on Earth then the only life that should be around should be extremely small organisms with the highest replication rate, and with the most ‘mutational firepower’, since only they, (since they greatly outclass multi-cellular organism in terms of ‘reproductive success’ and ‘mutational firepower’), would be fittest to survive in the dog eat dog world where blind pitiless evolution ruled and only the fittest are allowed to survive. The logic of this is nicely summed up here in this following Richard Dawkins’ video:

    Richard Dawkins interview with a ‘Darwinian’ physician goes off track – video
    Excerpt: “I am amazed, Richard, that what we call metazoans, multi-celled organisms, have actually been able to evolve, and the reason [for amazement] is that bacteria and viruses replicate so quickly — a few hours sometimes, they can reproduce themselves — that they can evolve very, very quickly. And we’re stuck with twenty years at least between generations. How is it that we resist infection when they can evolve so quickly to find ways around our defenses?”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....62031.html

    In other words, since successful reproduction is all that really matters on a neo-Darwinian view of things, how can anything but successful, and highly efficient reproduction, be realistically ‘selected’ for? Darwin himself stated, “every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers;”

    “every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers;”
    – Charles Darwin – Origin of Species – pg. 66

    The logic of natural selection is nicely and simply illustrated on the following graph:

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

    As you can see in the preceding graph, any other function besides successful reproduction, such as much slower sexual reproduction, sight, hearing, abstract thinking, and especially altruistic behavior (i.e. the ‘strong’ taking care of the ‘weak’), would be highly superfluous to the primary criteria of successful reproduction, and should, on a Darwinian view, be discarded, and/or ‘eaten’, by bacteria, and/or viruses, as so much excess baggage since it obviously would slow down successful reproduction.

    Yet, contrary to this central ‘anti-moral ‘survival of the fittest’ assumption of Darwinian evolution, instead of eating us, time after time we find micro-organisms helping each other, and us, in ways that have nothing to with their own ‘survival of the fittest’’ concerns.

    The following researchers, since it directly contradicted Darwinian assumptions, said that they were ‘banging our heads against the wall’ by the mutual cooperation that they had found among bacteria.

    Doubting Darwin: Algae Findings Surprise Scientists – April 28, 2014
    Excerpt: One of Charles Darwin’s hypotheses posits that closely related species will compete for food and other resources more strongly with one another than with distant relatives, because they occupy similar ecological niches. Most biologists long have accepted this to be true.
    Thus, three researchers were more than a little shaken to find that their experiments on fresh water green algae failed to support Darwin’s theory — at least in one case.
    “It was completely unexpected,” says Bradley Cardinale, associate professor in the University of Michigan’s school of natural resources & environment. “When we saw the results, we said ‘this can’t be.”‘ We sat there banging our heads against the wall. Darwin’s hypothesis has been with us for so long, how can it not be right?”
    The researchers ,,,— were so uncomfortable with their results that they spent the next several months trying to disprove their own work. But the research held up.,,,
    The scientists did not set out to disprove Darwin, but, in fact, to learn more about the genetic and ecological uniqueness of fresh water green algae so they could provide conservationists with useful data for decision-making. “We went into it assuming Darwin to be right, and expecting to come up with some real numbers for conservationists,” Cardinale says. “When we started coming up with numbers that showed he wasn’t right, we were completely baffled.”,,,
    Darwin “was obsessed with competition,” Cardinale says. “He assumed the whole world was composed of species competing with each other, but we found that one-third of the species of algae we studied actually like each other. They don’t grow as well unless you put them with another species. It may be that nature has a heck of a lot more mutualisms than we ever expected.
    “,,, Maybe Darwin’s presumption that the world may be dominated by competition is wrong.”
    http://www.livescience.com/452.....f-bts.html

    And as the following study found, “‘survival of the friendliest’ outweighs ‘survival of the fittest’ for groups of bacteria. Bacteria make space for one another and sacrifice properties if it benefits the bacterial community as a whole.”

    Friendly bacteria collaborate to survive – 10 October 2019
    Excerpt: New microbial research at the University of Copenhagen suggests that ‘survival of the friendliest’ outweighs ‘survival of the fittest’ for groups of bacteria. Bacteria make space for one another and sacrifice properties if it benefits the bacterial community as a whole. The discovery is a major step towards understanding complex bacteria interactions and the development of new treatment models for a wide range of human diseases and new green technologies.
    https://news.ku.dk/all_news/2019/10/friendly-bacteria-collaborate-to-survive/

    Again, this is directly contrary to Charles Darwin’s central assumption of “let the strongest live and the weakest die.”

    “One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.”
    – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, and again directly contrary to Darwinian assumptions, we find that bacteria are also directly helping us in essential ways that have nothing to do with their own ‘survival of the fittest’ concerns.

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

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

    In fact, directly contrary to Darwinian presuppositions, bacteria are now also known to transform the entire ecosystem of the earth for the apparent benefit of multicellular organism.

    As Paul G. Falkowski states, “Microbial life can easily live without us; we, however, cannot survive without the global catalysis and environmental transformations it provides.”

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

    Likewise, viruses are also found to be essential to the ecosystem. As the following article states, “Viruses aren’t our enemies,” Dr. Suttle said. “Certain nasty viruses can make you sick, but it’s important to recognize that viruses and other microbes out there are absolutely integral for the ecosystem.”

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

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

    Moreover, Darwin himself offered this following ‘anti-altruism’ standard as a falsification criteria for his theory, “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species”… and even stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.

    “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species; though throughout nature one species incessantly takes advantage of, and profits by, the structure of another. But natural selection can and does often produce structures for the direct injury of other species, as we see in the fang of the adder, and in the ovipositor of the ichneumon, by which its eggs are deposited in the living bodies of other insects. If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.”
    – Charles Darwin – Origin of Species

    And yet, directly contrary to Darwin’s claim that “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species” or it would annihilate his theory, it is now known that ” “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as the modern versions of it.”

    Plant Galls and Evolution
    How More than Twelve Thousand1 Ugly Facts are Slaying a Beautiful Hypothesis: Darwinism2
    Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig – 7 September 2017
    Excerpt: in the case of the galls, in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as the modern versions of it. The galls are not ‘useful to the possessor’, the plants. There is no space for these phenomena in the world of “the selfish gene” (Dawkins). Moreover, the same conclusion appears to be true for thousands of angiosperm species producing deceptive flowers (in contrast to gall formations, now for the exclusive good of the plant species) – a topic which should be carefully treated in another paper.
    http://www.weloennig.de/PlantGalls.pdf

    Moreover, to dive a little bit deeper into the molecular level, the falsification of the ‘survival of the fittest’, i.e. ‘selfish’ thinking occurs at the molecular level too.

    Richard Dawkins’ ‘selfish gene’ concept is more of less directly based on Darwin’s own ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking about competition. Yet genes are now found to be anything but selfish. Instead of being ‘selfish’, genes are now found to be exist in a holistic web of mutual interdependence and cooperation (which is the very antithesis of selfishness).

    What If (Almost) Every Gene Affects (Almost) Everything? – JUN 16, 2017
    Excerpt: If you told a modern geneticist that a complex trait—whether a physical characteristic like height or weight, or the risk of a disease like cancer or schizophrenia—was the work of just 15 genes, they’d probably laugh. It’s now thought that such traits are the work of thousands of genetic variants, working in concert. The vast majority of them have only tiny effects, but together, they can dramatically shape our bodies and our health. They’re weak individually, but powerful en masse.
    https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/its-like-all-connected-man/530532/

    Theory Suggests That All Genes Affect Every Complex Trait – June 20, 2018
    Excerpt: Mutations of a single gene are behind sickle cell anemia, for instance, and mutations in another are behind cystic fibrosis.
    But unfortunately for those who like things simple, these conditions are the exceptions. The roots of many traits, from how tall you are to your susceptibility to schizophrenia, are far more tangled. In fact, they may be so complex that almost the entire genome may be involved in some way,,,
    One very early genetic mapping study in 1999 suggested that “a large number of loci (perhaps > than 15)” might contribute to autism risk, recalled Jonathan Pritchard, now a geneticist at Stanford University. “That’s a lot!” he remembered thinking when the paper came out.
    Over the years, however, what scientists might consider “a lot” in this context has quietly inflated. Last June, Pritchard and his Stanford colleagues Evan Boyle and Yang Li (now at the University of Chicago) published a paper about this in Cell that immediately sparked controversy, although it also had many people nodding in cautious agreement. The authors described what they called the “omnigenic” model of complex traits. Drawing on GWAS analyses of three diseases, they concluded that in the cell types that are relevant to a disease, it appears that not 15, not 100, but essentially all genes contribute to the condition. The authors suggested that for some traits, “multiple” loci could mean more than 100,000.
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/omnigenic-model-suggests-that-all-genes-affect-every-complex-trait-20180620/

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    Gene Pleiotropy Roadblocks Evolution by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. – Dec. 8, 2016
    Excerpt: Before the advent of modern molecular biology, scientists defined a gene as a single unit of inheritance. If a gene was found to influence multiple externally visible traits, it was said to be pleiotropic—a term first used in 1910.2 During this early period of genetic discovery, pleiotropy was considered to be quite rare because scientists assumed most genes only possessed a single function—a simplistic idea that remained popular throughout most of the 20th century. However, as our understanding of genetics grew through DNA science, it became clear that genes operate in complex interconnected networks. Furthermore, individual genes produce multiple variants of end products with different effects through a variety of intricate mechanisms.2,3 Taken together, these discoveries show that pleiotropy is a common feature of nearly every gene.,,,
    The pleiotropy evolution problem is widely known among secular geneticists, but rarely discussed in the popular media. In this new research report, the authors state, “Many studies have provided evidence for the ability of pleiotropy to constrain gene evolution.”,,,
    “Our study provided supportive evidence that pleiotropy constraints the evolution of transcription factors (Tfs).”,,,
    The authors state, “We showed that highly pleiotropic genes are more likely to be associated with a disease phenotype.”,,,
    http://www.icr.org/article/9747

    Such ‘holistic cooperation’ is, needless to say, the exact polar opposite of being ‘selfish’ as Dawkins had envisioned. (And should, if Darwinism were a normal science instead of being basically a religion for atheists, count as another direct falsification of the theory).

    In fact on top of genes existing in a holistic web of mutual cooperation, the genetic responses of humans are also designed in a very sophisticated way so as to differentiate between hedonistic (selfish) and ‘noble’ (altruistic) moral happiness:

    Human Cells Respond in Healthy, Unhealthy Ways to Different Kinds of Happiness – July 29, 2013
    Excerpt: Human bodies recognize at the molecular level that not all happiness is created equal, responding in ways that can help or hinder physical health,,,
    The sense of well-being derived from “a noble purpose” may provide cellular health benefits, whereas “simple self-gratification” may have negative effects, despite an overall perceived sense of happiness, researchers found.,,,
    But if all happiness is created equal, and equally opposite to ill-being, then patterns of gene expression should be the same regardless of hedonic or eudaimonic well-being. Not so, found the researchers.
    Eudaimonic well-being was, indeed, associated with a significant decrease in the stress-related CTRA gene expression profile. In contrast, hedonic well-being was associated with a significant increase in the CTRA profile. Their genomics-based analyses, the authors reported, reveal the hidden costs of purely hedonic well-being.,,
    “We can make ourselves happy through simple pleasures, but those ‘empty calories’ don’t help us broaden our awareness or build our capacity in ways that benefit us physically,” she said. “At the cellular level, our bodies appear to respond better to a different kind of well-being, one based on a sense of connectedness and purpose.”
    – per science daily

    That the genetic responses of humans are designed in a very sophisticated way so as to differentiate between hedonistic (selfish) and ‘noble’ (altruistic) moral happiness is very interesting since Darwinian evolution cannot even explain the origin of a single gene and/or protein, much less can it explain how it is possible for highly integrated gene networks to produce such morally nuanced responses between hedonism and altruism.

    Stephen Meyer (and Doug Axe) Critique Richard Dawkins’s “Mount Improbable” Illustration
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rgainpMXa8

    Moreover on top of all that, (as if that was not completely devastating to Darwian evolution already), if anything ever went against Charles Darwin’s claim that “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species”, it is the notion that a single cell can somehow became tens of trillions of cells that cooperate “exclusively for the good of other cells” in a single organism for the singular purpose of keeping that single organism alive.

    To claim that one cell transforming into the tens of trillions cells, (of extremely cooperative, even extremely altruistic, cells that make up our ONE human body), is anything less than a miracle is either sheer arrogance and/or profound and willful ignorance. (Or a mixture of both)

    One Body – animation – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDMLq6eqEM4

    As Jay Homnick put it, “Once you allow the intellect to consider that an elaborate organism with trillions of microscopic interactive components can be an accident… you have essentially “lost your mind.”

    “It is not enough to say that design is a more likely scenario to explain a world full of well-designed things. It strikes me as urgent to insist that you not allow your mind to surrender the absolute clarity that all complex and magnificent things were made that way. Once you allow the intellect to consider that an elaborate organism with trillions of microscopic interactive components can be an accident… you have essentially “lost your mind.”
    – Jay Homnick – American Spectator – 2005

    Thus in conclusion, the ‘ANTI-morality’ inherent in Darwin’s theory is falsified on many different levels of biology as far as the science itself is concerned. Indeed life itself would not be possible without extensive altruistic behavior at the molecular level.

    And thus the Christian can rest assured that we do indeed live in, as Dr. Martin Luther King put it, “a moral universe, and that there are moral laws of the universe just as abiding as the physical laws.”

    “The first principle of value that we need to rediscover is this: that all reality hinges on moral foundations. In other words, that this is a moral universe, and that there are moral laws of the universe just as abiding as the physical laws.”
    – Martin Luther King Jr., A Knock at Midnight: Inspiration from the Great Sermons of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.

    Verse:

    Matthew 22:36-40
    “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
    Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

  7. 7
    OldArmy94 says:

    Today’s progressive isn’t a cool, detached observer of so-called neutral morality; instead, they have a fervent devotion to a religion that is obsessed with secular morality. These progressives, who ironically claim to “believe” in science, whatever the hell that’s supposed to mean, practice a truly bizarre faith that has no connection with reality.

Leave a Reply