Culture Intelligent Design Medicine Science

The smog is beginning to clear around hydroxychloroquine

Spread the love

Revealing the way politics has invaded science all the way down:

We live in a culture that has uncritically accepted that every domain of life is political, and that even things we think are not political are so, that all human enterprises are merely power struggles, that even the idea of “truth” is a fantasy, and really a matter of imposing one’s view on others. For a while, some held out hope that science remained an exception to this. That scientists would not bring their personal political biases into their science, and they would not be mobbed if what they said was unwelcome to one faction or another. But the sordid 2020 drama of hydroxychloroquine—which saw scientists routinely attacked for critically evaluating evidence and coming to politically inconvenient conclusions—has, for many, killed those hopes…

What is unique about the hydroxychloroquine discussion is that it is a story of “unwishful thinking”—to coin a term for the perverse hope that some good outcome that most sane people would earnestly desire, will never come to pass. It’s about how, in the midst of a pandemic, thousands started earnestly hoping—before the science was really in—that a drug, one that might save lives at a comparatively low cost, would not actually do so. Reasonably good studies were depicted as sloppy work, fatally flawed. Many have excelled in making counterfeit bills that look real, but few have excelled at making real bills look counterfeit. As such, as we sort this out, we shall observe not only some “tricks” about how to make bad studies look like good ones, but also how to make good studies look like bad ones. And why should anyone facing a pandemic wish to discredit potentially lifesaving medications? Well, in fact, this ability can come in very handy in this midst of a plague, when many medications and vaccines are competing to Save the World—and for the billions of dollars that will go along with that…

Philosophically, and psychologically, it is a fantastic spectacle to behold, a reversal, the magnitude and the chutzpah of which must inspire awe: a public health establishment, showing extraordinary risk aversion to medications and treatments that are extremely well known, and had been used by billions, suddenly throwing caution to the wind and endorsing the rollout of treatments that are entirely novel—and about which we literally can’t possibly know anything, as regards to their long-term effects. Their manufacturers know this well themselves, which is why they have aimed for, insisted on, and have already been granted indemnification—guaranteed, by those same public health officials and government that they will not be held legally accountable should their product cause injury.

Norman Doidge, a contributing writer for Tablet, is a psychiatrist, psychoanalyst, and author of The Brain That Changes Itself and The Brain’s Way of Healing.

Norman Doidge, “Hydroxychloroquine: A Morality Tale” at Tablet

There’s a good chance that, even though most people don’t directly say it, the reputation of “science” will never recover from this episode. People will disbelieve politely but thoroughly.

124 Replies to “The smog is beginning to clear around hydroxychloroquine

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    What is unique about the hydroxychloroquine discussion is that it is a story of “unwishful thinking”—to coin a term for the perverse hope that some good outcome that most sane people would earnestly desire, will never come to pass.

    The deceitfulness of opponents to hydroxychloroquine, a deceitfulness that led to the needless deaths of perhaps thousands of Americans, was something that shocked me, even after years of debating Darwinists with all their lies.

  2. 2
    kairosfocus says:

    News, there is a definition of debate that roughly runs: that wicked art of making the better look like the worse case and the worse the better with equal facility, being aided in so doing by rhetoric, the art of persuasion (not proof). KF

  3. 3
    kairosfocus says:

    News, refreshing reading and food for thought on many of the hot controversies here at UD over several months. It confirms Dr Raoult’s deserved eminence, brings to bear his inclination to matters epistemological, the ethical dilemmas of placebo controls, incrementalism on results due to cumulative evidence, the prudence challenge posed by epidemic and more. KF

  4. 4
    polistra says:

    I always follow old Billy Ockham. When people get deeply involved in arguments about finer and finer details of an ENTITY, you should stand back and ask a bigger question. Does this ENTITY exist, or was it created as a device to cause arguments and dissension and distraction and mental chaos?

    At first I went along with the assumption that the Branded Virus exists. Now I’m no longer convinced, to put it mildly.

    When you pare down the actions attributed to this ENTITY, you find that it supposedly kills people who were already dying. That’s not an action or a result. It’s a constant. When people are already dying, it doesn’t matter what “cause” you assign to the last piece of the process. Especially when we never cared about the exact cause before.

    The virus “causes” these deaths in the same way that witches or CO2 cause bad weather. That’s a highly suspicious ENTITY.

  5. 5
    Truthfreedom says:

    3 Kairosfocus

    It confirms Dr Raoult’s deserved eminence,

    Didier Raoult Trashing Darwin

    “Charles Darwin’s vision of the world deeply influenced biology in the twentieth century. Today, however, his theory of evolution is more a hindrance than a help, because it has become a quasi-theological creed that is preventing the benefits of improved research from being fully realized.” Didier Raoult, Life After Darwin

  6. 6
    jerry says:

    I surprised the purveyors of smog haven’t descended on this OP. Will they come?

  7. 7
    kairosfocus says:

    Jerry, the old one on Frontline Docs is still going strong and they have some serious stuff to chew on from Tablet. When I get time I intend to do some clipping. KF

  8. 8
    jerry says:

    For those interested, here is a database of all studies involving HCQ. Both positive and negative or inconclusive.

    https://c19study.com/

  9. 9
    john_a_designer says:

    The argument for why HCQ should be used as a Covid-19 treatment is really pretty basic.

    *1. Studies show that it is at least somewhat effective.

    *2. It is widely available.

    *3. It is safe.

    Therefore, in the absence of other therapeutics it should be available to doctors and patients for off label use.

  10. 10
    Bob O'H says:

    Just to help the fog clear, here’s the latest meta-analysis I could find on MedRXiv, looking at 23 studies (RCTs and observational studies). This is their conclusion from the abstract:

    Our meta analysis does not suggest improvement in mortality, clinical progression, or negative conversion by RT PCR among patients with COVID-19 infection who are treated with hydroxychloroquine. There was a significantly higher incidence of adverse events with hydroxychloroquine use.

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    I still say we ought to use Bob as guinea pig and see if he remains the moral monster that he is after his own life is on the line.

  12. 12
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: I still say we ought to use Bob as guinea pig and see if he remains the moral monster that he is after his own life is on the line.

    Why is it so difficult to at least consider the possibility that you may have been mistaken?

  13. 13
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL, practice hypocrisy much?

    That is exactly the point of the proposed test on Bob as a guinea pig.

    Will he or won’t he at least consider the possibility that he may have been mistaken?

    My bet is that he will become much more open to the fact that he may be mistaken in his beliefs when it is his own life on the line.

    But we won’t know until we run the empirical test on Bob.

    You gotta love real empirical science as opposed to imaginary Darwinian science, i.e. as opposed to the imaginary ‘just so story’ telling of Darwinists. Real empirical science has a way of bringing clarity to an issue that would otherwise be absent.

    I say Bob, for the sake of real empirical science, ought to step up to the plate and take one for his team.

    Sociobiology: The Art of Story Telling – Stephen Jay Gould – 1978 – New Scientist
    Excerpt: Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers “Just So stories”. When evolutionists study individual adaptations, when they try to explain form and behaviour by reconstructing history and assessing current utility, they also tell just so stories – and the agent is natural selection.
    Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance.
    https://books.google.com/books?id=tRj7EyRFVqYC&pg=PA530

  14. 14
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77/11

    I still say we ought to use Bob as guinea pig and see if he remains the moral monster that he is after his own life is on the line.

    A moral monster is a God who orders a man to sacrifice his child as a demonstration of his faith when the God, being omniscient, is already fully aware of the strength of that man’s faith. Would you be prepared to sacrifice a child if your God asked it of you?

  15. 15
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 @ 11 –
    Really? I’m a monster just because I have reached a different conclusion about the evidence?

  16. 16
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: Will he or won’t he at least consider the possibility that he may have been mistaken?

    It seems to me that he has stated that he would gladly change his opinion when the preponderance of the evidence indicates he should.

    My question was directed at you however: why is it so difficult for you to consider that you might be wrong?

  17. 17
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 @ 13 –

    I say Bob, for the sake of real empirical science, ought to step up to the plate and take one for his team.

    wait, hang on, what exactly are you suggesting? That I deliberately get myself infected with Covid-19, which may kill me (although the probability of that is low), and then try a drug for which the most recent summary of the evidence says it has no beneficial effect, but does have side effects? Why would I want to do that, especially as people who have survived Covid-19 are saying that there are long-term effects?

  18. 18
    jerry says:

    Here’s the latest meta analysis I could find based on 46 studies. Most of the studies included in the meta analysis by Chacko cited above are in this study. However, Chacko’s study only included 23 studies while the most recent one includes 46 studies. https://bit.ly/2FB2qU5z

    Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has shown efficacy against COVID-19 in some but not all studies. We hypothesized that systematic review would show HCQ to be: effective against COVID-19, more effective used earlier, not associated with worsening, and safe.

    CONCLUSIONS HCQ is consistently effective against COVID-19 when used early in the outpatient setting, it is overall effective against COVID-19, it has not produced worsening, it is safe.

    Interesting thing about this study was that I saw in on Tuesday night but was traveling and I copied the link to it. When I got back, the link to it on Researchgate was then invalid so it was taken down in the last few days. But in the mean time it is still in other places on the internet. One of which is above. There are others. This study includes all but four studies included in the Chacko meta analysis.

  19. 19
    bornagain77 says:

    Yeah Bob, that is exactly what I am saying.

    I say that there is more than enough evidence supporting the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine to AT LEAST give some hope where there is none otherwise.

    It is all fine and well for you to be falsely confident in your highly questionable conclusion when it is another person’s life on the line. (Which is exactly where the moral monster part comes in), But how will you act when it is your own life on the line?

    And it is not just with atheists fighting against the use of hydroxychloroquine in people who are sick, atheists not living according to the consequences of their own beliefs is an overarching problem with Darwinists/Atheists in general. That is to say, atheists, such as Bob, never live out their lives as if the consequences of their atheistic/amoral worldview are actually true.

    The Heretic – Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? – March 25, 2013
    Excerpt:,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath.
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/.....tml?page=3

    Richard Dawkins himself admitted that it would be ‘intolerable’ for him to live his life as if the amorality inherent in his atheism were actually true

    Who wrote Richard Dawkins’s new book? – October 28, 2006
    Excerpt:
    Dawkins: What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don’t feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do.,,,
    Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views?
    Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....02783.html

    Thus, the very lives that atheists themselves lead, (i.e. proclaiming that the amorality of atheism is true and yet living out their lives as if the morality of Theism were true), is powerful testimony against their atheistic worldviews actually being true.

    Again, the overarching point being, that atheists, such as Bob, never put their money where their mouth is. As long as it is another person’s life on the line, Bob is perfectly happy to tout highly questionable evidence and ignore compelling evidence to the contrary.

    So again, how would Bob act if it was his own life on the line instead of another person’s life?

    My bet is that he will sing a very different tune then.

    But I can’t be sure until we run the test. So I say we run the ‘real world’ test on Bob and see how Bob reacts when he puts his money where his mouth is!

    Dr. Harvey Risch on the (political) war against hydroxychloroquine
    https://video.foxnews.com/v/6173447838001#sp=show-clips
    Dr. Harvey Risch, epidemiology professor at the Yale School of Public Health, joins Laura Ingraham with insight

  20. 20
    Bob O'H says:

    Jerry @ 18 – The link gives a 404 error. Can you find a stable one? The best one to use is the DOI, as that has a greater guarantee of stability.

    ba77 @ 19 – OK, you’re saying you want me infected with a potentially fatal disease, and given a treatment that may not work, and may also have fatal side effects. Who exactly is the monster here?

    You also seem to be unable to grasp the idea that I don*t think HCQ is effective as a treatment. So if I caught Covid-19, why would I want to be treated with HCQ? I don’t think it works.

    But I can’t be sure until we run the test. So I say we run the ‘real world’ test on Bob and see how Bob reacts when he puts his money where his mouth is!

    You might want to think about what you’re advocating here. At worst it would be murder.

  21. 21
    bornagain77 says:

    LOL Bob, the amoral atheist, tries to lecture me on morality,

    Bob: “You might want to think about what you’re advocating here. At worst it would be murder.”

    Hmm, Bob, the amoral atheist, who supports abortion by the way, is lecturing me on being concerned for another human’s well being???

    Not just concerned for any human mind you, but being concerned for Bob’s well being in particular,,

    LOL!!! 🙂

    How quaint.

    Funny how Bob’s concern for human life only works one way and only when it is his own life on the line and not when another life, say a unborn baby’s life, is on the line.

    Bob, I suggest you apply the Christian’s golden rule, i.e. love others as you love yourself, more consistently so that you do not come off as a blatant hypocrite.

    Your very selective, and selfish, use of morality, only when your own life is on the line, is, as far as I can tell, no different than the self-interested and egotistical morality of the nihilistic philosophers of academia who preceded and ended up ultimately enabling the rise of Hitler in German culture.

    If we present man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present him as an automation of reflexes, as a mind-machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drives and reactions, as a mere product of instincts, heredity, and environment, we feed the despair to which man is, in any case, already prone.
    I became acquainted with the last stages of corruption in my second concentration camp in Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment—or, as the Nazis liked to say, of ‘Blood and Soil.’ I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers.
    —Viktor E. Frankl, Holocaust survivor and Professor of Neurology and Psychiatry, University of Vienna Medical School; from his book, The Doctor and the Soul: Introduction to Logotherapy, 1982, p. xxi).

  22. 22
    Bob O'H says:

    LOL Bob, the amoral atheist, tries to lecture me on morality,

    And your answer is to ignore the point I’m making, make false statements about my morality, and then try to change the subject to abortion? How about trying to argue that advocating infecting me with a potentially fatal disease isn’t immoral?

  23. 23
    JVL says:

    Bob O’H: How about trying to argue that advocating infecting me with a potentially fatal disease isn’t immoral?

    He’d have to admit he was mistaken or wrong and that is something Bornagain77 never does.

  24. 24
    jerry says:

    The link gives a 404 error

    The link is https://bit.ly/2FB2qU5

    Somehow a “z” got put on the end of it. This one works. I just checked it.

    You also seem to be unable to grasp the idea that I don*t think HCQ is effective as a treatment. So if I caught Covid-19, why would I want to be treated with HCQ? I don’t think it works.

    You are entitled to your beliefs but this is a position that is almost impossible to argue to. From study above

    11 of the studies found in our review examined HCQ efficacy on patients in the outpatient or “day hospital” and all reported positive results

    Nobody is claiming is a miracle cure in every instance but seems to have a higher efficacy rate than most other treatments that directly works on the virus especially when used with zinc and used early.

  25. 25
    ET says:

    Thankfully Bob O’H is not a medical doctor. He can’t even understand the science.

  26. 26
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob, the test is not a test for hydrocloriquine. The proposed test is a test of YOUR morality. Will you, or won’t you, be willing to try the drug when it is your own life on the line and not someone else’s life?

    YOUR morality in the situation demands that you forsake the drug as you presently insist on trying to forsake it for thousands of others that it could potentially keep from dying.

    Dr Harvey Risch says that if the ‘political’ war against hydoxychloroquine were removed right now, and all restrictions lifted, the drug could still potentially save upwards to 100 thousand lives in the USA.

    Dr. Harvey Risch on the (political) war against hydroxychloroquine
    https://video.foxnews.com/v/6173447838001#sp=show-clips
    Dr. Harvey Risch, epidemiology professor at the Yale School of Public Health, joins Laura Ingraham with insight

    My bet Bob is that you will take the drug when it is your own life on the line and not someone else’s life on the line.

    But again, we can’t know for sure until we run the test.

    Using your morality of only being concerned for myself, I say you take one for the team of science Bob and infect yourself with the most virulent form of Covid that you can possibly find so as to see how YOUR morality will hold up.

    🙂

    Shoot, to make the test of YOUR morality all the more interesting Bob, we could enroll you in a double blind study of the drug, the type of study that you are so keen on, where you only have 50% chance of receiving the drug that could potentially save your life, and see how you react then.

    🙂

    Again, my bet is that you will sing a very different tune when the situation is not nearly as, let’s say, academic as it is for you now where you are basically indifferent to the life and death plight of thousands of other people.

  27. 27
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 –

    My bet Bob is that you will take the drug when it is your own life on the line and not someone else’s life on the line.

    Sorry, you’ll lose that bet. Why would I take a drug when, as far as I can see, it won’t benefit me but will have side effects?

    This still doesn’t change the problem with your morality that you have no problems with suggesting doing experiments on people that might kill them. Seriously, take a step back and think about it.

  28. 28
    bornagain77 says:

    Me: My bet Bob is that you will take the drug when it is your own life on the line and not someone else’s life on the line.

    Bob: Sorry, you’ll lose that bet.,,,

    Again, you cannot possibly know for sure that until you take the ‘scientific’ test and are faced with the grim reality of your own mortality. That is the beauty of empirical science. Talk is cheap. Results are all that matter in empirical science. If you appreciated that little beautiful fact, then you would not be a Darwinist since there is no real time empirical evidence that supports Darwinism and much real time evidence that contradicts it.

    Again, my bet is that you will fail the real world test of your morality when faced with grim reality of your own impending demise. Call it a death bed conversion experience if you will. But my bet is that you will sing a very different tune then.

    You, (an atheist who, by definition of being an atheist, can not believe objective morality to be real), complain that my morality is lacking for suggesting that you put yourself in the same situation that you yourself are demanding of others. But I disagree completely. I say your morality is laking, indeed it is completely absent, in that you refuse put yourself in the same situation that you are demanding of others. All based purely on your own, (very fallible and biased), interpretation of the data.

    Over the last several months, I’ve witnessed as Jerry (and Kf, etc,,), have, time and time again, faithfully and patiently, shown to you, and other Darwinists here on UD, that there is more than enough reason to believe that “HCQ is effective as a treatment”

    To quote from post 24

    Bob: You also seem to be unable to grasp the idea that I don*t think HCQ is effective as a treatment. So if I caught Covid-19, why would I want to be treated with HCQ? I don’t think it works.

    Jerry: You (Darwinists) are entitled to your beliefs but this is a position that is almost impossible to argue to. From study above

    “11 of the studies found in our review examined HCQ efficacy on patients in the outpatient or “day hospital” and all reported positive results”

    Nobody is claiming is a miracle cure in every instance but seems to have a higher efficacy rate than most other treatments that directly works on the virus especially when used with zinc and used early.

    With such consistent evidence as that Bob, again, you and your Darwinian ilk here on UD are, in fact, moral monsters for demanding of others what you refuse to put yourself through.

    Your position is morally reprehensible.

  29. 29
    kairosfocus says:

    Cross-thread note https://uncommondescent.com/medicine/the-frontline-doctors-put-some-plausible-mechanisms-for-hydroxychloroquine-on-the-table/#comment-712072

    –> BTW, the mechanisms are still on the table from the OP . . . this is not simply argument from correlation. Given that much pivots on pH effects and known takeup of quinine family chemicals by cells, kindly explain why these mechanisms would fail, and/or why something manageable enough to be OTC in many countries for years should suddenly be so suspect

  30. 30
    kairosfocus says:

    Then, there is Ivermectin, too.

  31. 31
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 @ 28 –

    Again, you cannot possibly know for sure that until you take the ‘scientific’ test and are faced with the grim reality of your own mortality. That is the beauty of empirical science. Talk is cheap. Results are all that matter in empirical science.

    No, empiricists value ethics too. You know, not proposing experiments that make you look like a monster. A charge you’ve still failed to defend yourself against: I’m afraid repeated deflections don’t count (after all, we both could be monsters. Grrrrr).

  32. 32
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob, an atheist, insist that he is reasonable and ‘ethical’ in his opposition to treatment by HCQ. And that I, of all things, is the one who is being immoral for insisting that he hold himself to the same standards that he demands of others, (namely trying to deny people who are sick access to HCQ treatment)

    I strongly disagree with Bob.

    Bob is being very unreasonable in that he is willfully blind to any and all countervailing evidence to his position (of which there is much evidence), and he is being highly unethical in that he insist on tossing his hat in the ring with those who have tried, with a fair amount of success, to prohibited the use of HCQ in America, thus leading to the needless death of perhaps up to 100,000 people in America.

    Again, Dr Harvey Risch says that if the unscientific ‘political’ war against hydoxychloroquine were removed right now, and all restrictions lifted from the drug, the drug could still potentially save upwards to 100 thousand lives in the USA.

    Dr. Harvey Risch on the (political) war against hydroxychloroquine
    https://video.foxnews.com/v/6173447838001#sp=show-clips
    Dr. Harvey Risch, epidemiology professor at the Yale School of Public Health, joins Laura Ingraham with insight

    More problematic for Bob, an atheist, in his insistence that he is being reasonable and ethical in his opposition to HCQ, (other than the fact that he is obviously being highly unreasonable and highly unethical), is that neither reason nor ethics can possibly be grounded within his atheistic worldview.

    In fact, via his forced denial of his own free will, Bob, an atheist, has forsaken any claim that he is being, or can possibly be, rational

    Sam Harris’s Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It – Martin Cothran – November 9, 2012
    Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state — including their position on this issue — is the effect of a physical, not logical cause.
    By their own logic, it isn’t logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....66221.html

    (1) rationality implies a thinker in control of thoughts.
    (2) under materialism a thinker is an effect caused by processes in the brain.
    (3) in order for materialism to ground rationality a thinker (an effect) must control processes in the brain (a cause). (1)&(2)
    (4) no effect can control its cause.
    Therefore materialism cannot ground rationality.

    per Box UD

    “Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God”
    — C.S. Lewis (from, The Case for Christianity)

    Likewise, via his denial of objective morality, Bob, an atheist, has also forsaken any claim that he is being, or can possibly be, truly ethical.

    “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

    If Good and Evil Exist, God Exists: – Peter Kreeft – Prager University – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xliyujhwhNM

    The Moral Argument (for God) – Dr. Craig – animated video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU

    Thus Bob, as an atheist, simply fas no foundation for reason or morality within his atheism, and thus his atheism directly undermines any further claim that Bob may make in regards to being reasonable or ethical in regards to HCQ, or in regards to anything else for that matter.

    Without a hint of self awareness that he is making a patently false claim, Bob falsely claimed that,

    No, empiricists value ethics too.

    Really? So you think that the ’empiricists’ who insisted on the unfettered ability to do stem cell research on human embryos were being ethical in their research? You really believe that?

    Funny, Nobelist Shinya Yamanaka didn’t see it that way. He, and most normal people, saw such a abhorent practice by ’empiricists’ as being highly unethical.

    Embryonic stem cells: Where are the cures? – June 5, 2013
    Excerpt: There is one bright spot. Japanese researcher, Shinya Yamanaka, who had rejected embryonic stem cell research as unethical, and who won last year’s Nobel Prize for Medicine, has pioneered the creation of stem cell lines from skin cells without destroying embryos. Consequently, with hardly a whisper and certainly no apologies, most stem cell scientists have now turned their backs on embryonic stem cell research to follow Shinya’s lead.
    Ten years on.
    Thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, of lives killed under microscopes.
    Not one cure.
    Not one apology.
    http://headhearthand.org/blog/.....the-cures/

    150 human animal hybrids grown in UK labs: Embryos have been produced secretively for the past three years – July 2011
    Excerpt: ‘At every stage the justification from scientists has been: if only you allow us to do this, we will find cures for every illness known to mankind. This is emotional blackmail.
    ‘Of the 80 treatments and cures which have come about from stem cells, all have come from adult stem cells – not embryonic ones.
    ‘On moral and ethical grounds this fails; and on scientific and medical ones too.’
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci.....years.html

    Of course Bob’s claim that ’empiricists value ethics too’ brings to mind the ultimate ’empiricist’ who was devoid of any ethics,,, i.e. Joseph Mengel, i.e. ‘the angel of death’,

    Auschwitz gets a new doctor: “the Angel of Death”
    Excerpt: Upon arriving at Auschwitz, and eager to advance his medical career by publishing “groundbreaking” work, he (Josef Mengele) began experimenting on live Jewish prisoners. In the guise of medical “treatment,” he injected, or ordered others to inject, thousands of inmates with everything from petrol to chloroform. He also had a penchant for studying twins, whom he used to dissect.
    https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/auschwitz-gets-a-new-doctor-the-angel-of-death

    Thus Bob, an atheist, may claim that “empiricists value ethics too’, and indeed I’m sure that many scientists who believe in God are highly ethical, (shoot, I’m sure that many atheistic scientists are highly ethical too although they have no basis in their worldview for being so), but the fact of the matter is that only people who believe in God can objectively ground their morality, and that science, by its lonesome self, simply has no way to ground morality and therefore science, by its lonesome self, is completely amoral. i.e. It is incumbent of the ’empiricist’ himself to infuse his own ‘religious’ standards of morality onto whatever science he may practice.

    Again, science, by its lonesome, is completely amoral.

    As the following article states, “One reason for such hostility, (of many scientists to Christianity), is that religion often purifies science by insisting on the primacy of ethics. ”

    Are Science and Religion Really Enemies?
    FATHER TADEUSZ PACHOLCZYK, PH.D.
    Excerpt: One reason for such hostility, (of many scientists to Christianity), is that religion often purifies science by insisting on the primacy of ethics. Yet many scientists are clearly unwilling to acknowledge that the interests of humanity are authentically served only when scientific knowledge is joined to a truthful conscience, and the pursuit of science is attenuated through the filter of ethics.
    https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/are-science-and-religion-really-enemies.html

    So again, Bob, an atheist, believes he is being reasonable and ethical in his opposition to treatment by HCQ, a treatment that could potentially save up to 100 thousand lives in America, but the fact of the matter is that Bob, an atheist, and in his rejection of God, has forsaken reason and morality altogether. And thus Bob, by default, is morally bankrupt in regards to any claims he may make about ethics..

  33. 33
    Bob O'H says:

    And that I, of all things, is the one who is being immoral for insisting that he hold himself to the same standards that he demands of others, (namely trying to deny people who are sick access to HCQ treatment)

    No, I’m suggesting it’s immoral to want to experiment on humans without their permission.

    Of course Bob’s claim that ’empiricists value ethics too’ brings to mind the ultimate ’empiricist’ who was devoid of any ethics,,, i.e. Joseph Mengel, i.e. ‘the angel of death’,

    I’m not sure it’s a wise idea to mention Mengele when you’re been advocating giving someone a disease that could be fatal without their permission.

  34. 34
    Truthfreedom says:

    33 Bob O’H

    No, I’m suggesting it’s immoral to want to experiment on humans without their permission.

    Too funny, because according to atheism/ materialism, “permission” does not exist (we are all meat-puppets).

  35. 35
    ET says:

    I am starting to question Bob O’H’s reading comprehension ability

  36. 36
    bornagain77 says:

    Tf at 34, Nothing quite as humorously self refuting as a meat puppet, (advocating a position to could potentially cost 100 thousand lives), trying to lecture others on the importance of ethics in one’s science.

    But then again, only a mindless ‘undead’ Zombie could possibly find such a blatantly self-refuting position to be, in any way, coherent.

    “(Daniel) Dennett concludes, ‘nobody is conscious … we are all zombies’.”
    J.W. SCHOOLER & C.A. SCHREIBER – Experience, Meta-consciousness, and the Paradox of Introspection – 2004

    Atheist Philosopher Thinks “We Never Have Direct Access To Our Thoughts”
    Michael Egnor – July 20, 2016
    Excerpt: Materialist theories of the mind border on the insane. If a man walks into a doctor’s office and says “I never have direct access to my thoughts and I have no first person point of view,” the man will be referred to a psychiatrist and may be involuntarily hospitalized until it is established that he is not a danger to himself or others.
    If the same guy walks into the philosophy department at Duke University, he gets tenure.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2016/07/atheist_philoso/

    Ethical question for you Bob, ‘Is it ethical to conduct experiments on someone, such as yourself, who believes in a worldview that holds he is nothing but a mindless zombie with no free will of his own?”

    Philosophical Zombies – cartoon
    http://existentialcomics.com/comic/11

    David Chalmers on Consciousness (Descartes, Philosophical Zombies and the Hard Problem) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1Yo6VbRoo

  37. 37
    Bob O'H says:

    Ethical question for you Bob, ‘Is it ethical to conduct experiments on someone, such as yourself, who believes in a worldview that holds he is nothing but a mindless zombie with no free will of his own?”

    Seeing as I don’t believe that, I don’t see any point in replying.

    You’re still avoiding defending your advocating infecting people with potentially lethal diseases, I see. Do you actually have a defence?

  38. 38
    bornagain77 says:

    I didn’t say that you personally believed it. It is an insane position, of course you are going to deny believing it. I said that you believe in a worldview, i.e. Darwinian Atheism, that holds that you are nothing but a mindless zombie with no free will of your own.

    Whether you truthfully acknowledge the direct implications of your Darwinian worldview, I do not care. I only care what your worldview actually entails.

    “But I may say that the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God;”
    – Charles Darwin

    So again, ‘Is it ethical to conduct experiments on someone, such as yourself, who believes in a worldview that holds he is nothing but a mindless zombie with no free will of his own?”

    Philosophical Zombies – cartoon
    http://existentialcomics.com/comic/11

    David Chalmers on Consciousness (Descartes, Philosophical Zombies and the Hard Problem) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1Yo6VbRoo

  39. 39
    Bob O'H says:

    I didn’t say that you personally believed it.

    Yes you did, when you wrote “… someone, such as yourself, who believes…”.

    And once more, you’re deflecting and not defending your own position. It’s quite amusing how you repeatedly decline to show that you’re not immoral in suggesting that I be infected with a potentially fatal disease.

  40. 40
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob (and weave) O’Hara, quoted me out of context, right after he was corrected on the context. Pathetic!

    ‘Is it ethical to conduct experiments on someone, such as yourself, who believes in a worldview that holds he is nothing but a mindless zombie with no free will of his own?”

    I am more than satisfied that unbiased readers can clearly see that you are completely disingenuous.

  41. 41
    Truthfreedom says:

    36 Bornagain77

    Atheist Philosopher Thinks “We Never Have Direct Access To Our Thoughts”
    Michael Egnor – July 20, 2016

    It is patently obvious that materialism is a failed worldview. That’s why every time a materialist tries to explain the mind, it becomes an embarrassing spectacle.
    From the same Egnor’s article:

    Like so many bizarre materialist claims about the mind, Rosenberg’s assertion is self-refuting. If we have no direct access to our thoughts, why would we assume that what Rosenberg has written has any relationship to what he actually thinks? If Rosenberg has no direct access to his own thoughts, there is no way to ascertain what he actually thinks. Even he doesn’t know what he actually thinks.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2016/07/atheist_philoso/

    Materialism does not even exist as a worldview. When coupled with the findings of natural sciences, it leads to subjective idealism. It’s a massive failure.

    Naturalism’s Epistemological Nightmare
    “Empirical verification presupposes epistemological realism—meaning that through sensation we know directly the exterior physical world around us. Natural science proclaims that it discovers the nature of the real physical cosmos, external to our brains or subjective selves. Yet, when we trace the optics and physiology of the sense of sight, we find ourselves entrapped in epistemological idealism — meaning that we do not know external reality, but rather merely some change within our brains that we hope to be an accurate representation of the external world.
    Dr. Dennis Bonnette
    https://strangenotions.com/naturalisms-epistemological-nightmare/

  42. 42
    jerry says:

    Is Bob O’H an atheist?

    When asked a question a few months ago, he answered “only God knows.”

  43. 43
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 @40 –
    Yes “Is it ethical to conduct experiments on someone, such as yourself, who believes in a worldview that holds he is nothing but a mindless zombie with no free will of his own?” means that you said that I believe “in a worldview that holds [I am] nothing but a mindless zombie with no free will of [my] own”. Which I do not.

    Now we’ve cleared that up, will you defend advocating that I should be given a potentially fatal disease?

  44. 44
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob, in response to this question,

    ‘Is it ethical to conduct experiments on someone, such as yourself, who believes in a worldview that holds he is nothing but a mindless zombie with no free will of his own?”

    answers,

    I (Bob) do not (believe in a worldview that holds that I am a mindless zombie with no free will of my own).

    Then, (before specifying exactly what worldview he does believe in), Bob quickly adds,

    Now we’ve cleared that up, will you defend advocating that I should be given a potentially fatal disease?

    Not so quick there Bob. Before we get into the details of the ‘Darwinian’ morality of whether or not it is proper to conduct Josef Mengele type experiments on you, just exactly what worldview are you claiming does not deny the reality of your free will and of your conscious experience. It sure as hell ain’t the Darwinian worldview!

    THE ILLUSION OF FREE WILL – Sam Harris – 2012
    Excerpt: “Free will is an illusion so convincing that people simply refuse to believe that we don’t have it.”
    – Jerry Coyne
    https://samharris.org/the-illusion-of-free-will/

    Free Will: Weighing Truth and Experience – Do our beliefs matter? – Mar 22, 2012
    Excerpt: If we acknowledge just how much we don’t know about the conscious mind, perhaps we would be a bit more humble. We have so much confidence in our materialist assumptions (which are assumptions, not facts) that something like free will is denied in principle. Maybe it doesn’t exist, but I don’t really know that. Either way, it doesn’t matter because if free will and consciousness are just an illusion, they are the most seamless illusions ever created. Film maker James Cameron wishes he had special effects that good.
    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/social-brain-social-mind/201203/free-will-weighing-truth-and-experience
    Matthew D. Lieberman – neuroscientist – materialist – UCLA professor

    The Confidence of Jerry Coyne – Ross Douthat – January 6, 2014
    Excerpt: But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession (by Coyne) that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant: But more on that below.) Prometheus cannot be at once unbound and unreal; the human will cannot be simultaneously triumphant and imaginary.
    https://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/?mcubz=3

    The Brain: The Mystery of Consciousness – STEVEN PINKER – Monday, Jan. 29, 2007
    Part II THE ILLUSION OF CONTROL
    Another startling conclusion from the science of consciousness is that the intuitive feeling we have that there’s an executive “I” that sits in a control room of our brain, scanning the screens of the senses and pushing the buttons of the muscles, is an illusion.
    http://www.academia.edu/279485.....sciousness

    At the 23:33 minute mark of the following video, Richard Dawkins agrees with materialistic philosophers who say that:
    “consciousness is an illusion”
    A few minutes later Rowan Williams asks Dawkins ”If consciousness is an illusion…what isn’t?”.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWN4cfh1Fac&t=22m57s

    So Bob, since you said that you believe in the reality of your free will and of your conscious experience, (i.e. that you are NOT a mindless zombie), are you claiming that you do not believe the Darwinian worldview to be true?

    And if not Darwinism, exactly what worldview do you believe to be true?

  45. 45
    ET says:

    seversky:

    A moral monster is a God who orders a man to sacrifice his child as a demonstration of his faith when the God, being omniscient, is already fully aware of the strength of that man’s faith.

    But was the man fully aware?

  46. 46
    ET says:

    Bob O’H:

    wait, hang on, what exactly are you suggesting? That I deliberately get myself infected with Covid-19, which may kill me (although the probability of that is low), and then try a drug for which the most recent summary of the evidence says it has no beneficial effect, but does have side effects?

    You choose your own treatment. The test is to see what you will do. If you were on top of things you would have been preparing yourself by taking the recommended vitamins and minerals in the recommended dosages.

    Do you know your blood type? It could be that type O is more resistant to infection.

    Then ask for funding. How much is bornagain77, et al., willing to ante up to see this through? It’s the new “swallow the goldfish” challenge. Get them to start a gofundme page and set your limit. 😎

  47. 47
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 -you really are desperate not to defend yourself from the suggestion that you’re immoral (or at least your suggestions can be). It looks like JVL was right @ 23.

    ET – I’m going to go for a prophylactic treatment, i.e. not tasking part in some thing that could be very dangerous to me.

  48. 48
    Truthfreedom says:

    47 Bob O’H

    ba77 -you really are desperate not to defend yourself from the suggestion that you’re immoral.

    Bob O’H, are we darwinian meat-puppets or not?
    If not (according to your worldview): what are we?

  49. 49
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob (and weave) O’Hara, instead of answering my simple question of exactly what worldview he holds that does not deny the reality of his free will or conscious experience,

    Before we get into the details of the ‘Darwinian’ morality of whether or not it is proper to conduct Josef Mengele type experiments on you, just exactly what worldview are you (Bob) claiming does not deny the reality of your free will and of your conscious experience (?) It sure as hell ain’t the Darwinian worldview!

    Instead of answering that ‘simple’ question of exactly what his worldview is, Bob instead deflects from that simple question and claims that,,,

    -you really are desperate not to defend yourself from the suggestion that you’re immoral,,

    No, I am not desperate at all. In fact, I am more than happy to talk about my own morality and/or lack thereof and to talk about my ‘desperate’ need for Christ’s atonement to be a propitiation for my sins before an infinitely just and Holy God.

    G.O.S.P.E.L. (God Our Sins Paying Everyone Life) – (the grace of propitiation) poetry slam – video
    https://vimeo.com/20960385?

    2 Corinthians 5:21
    God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

    Falling Plates (the grace of propitiation) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGlx11BxF24?

    So, contrary to what you claim Bob, it is certainly not that I am ‘desperate’ to not talk about my own morality and/or lack thereof, I just want to know exactly which worldview you, an atheist, are trying to use to try to judge me as being immoral for me suggesting that we conduct a ‘scientific test’ of your morality to see if you will take HCQ or not when faced with the dire straits.of your own mortality. (As you and your ilk insist on not letting others, (who are in the dire straits of facing Covid), take the drug if they so choose to take it. Which, again, as Dr. Harvey Risch pointed out, is a morally reprehensible position for you to be in in that your position could potentially lead to an additional 100 thousand deaths in America from Covid)

    Dr. Harvey Risch on the (political) war against hydroxychloroquine
    https://video.foxnews.com/v/6173447838001#sp=show-clips
    Dr. Harvey Risch, epidemiology professor at the Yale School of Public Health, joins Laura Ingraham with insight

    You see Bob, the insurmountable problem for you, an atheist, trying to get all moral on me in my proposed scientific test of your morality, is that you, as an atheist, simply have no foundation for ethics to begin with. Much like your inability to ground free will and conscious experience within the reductive materialism of Darwinian evolution, you simply have no way to ground ethics within the Darwinian worldview either, (which is the worldview I am assuming that you believe in until you answer my simple question and clarify exactly what worldview you believe in that allows you to believe that you have free will and that you are not a mindless zombie).

    You see Bob, you simply have no way to ground morality within Darwinian atheism.

    As Jordan Peterson pointed out, when it comes to ethics, Darwinian atheists, such as Dawkins and Harris, implicitly assume that the supposed ‘mythology’ of Theism is true.

    Insisting on the truth in times of chaos — Jordan Peterson
    – David Fuller – May 19, 2017
    Excerpt: “Why the hell not every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost? It’s a perfectly coherent philosophy and it’s actually one that you can institute in the world with a fair bit of material success if you want to do it.
    To me I think that the universe that people like Dawkins and Harris inhabit is so intensely conditioned by mythological (Theistic) presuppositions that they take for granted the ethic that emerges out of that as if it’s just a rational given. And this of course was precisely Nietzsche’s observation as well as Dostoyevsky’s observation.
    I’m not arguing for the existence of God. I’m arguing that the ethic that drives our culture is predicated on the idea of God and that you can’t just take that idea away and expect the thing to remain intact midair without any foundational support.”
    – Jordan Peterson – clinical psychologist and professor at the University of Toronto.
    https://medium.com/perspectiva-institute/the-man-for-the-times-of-chaos-jordan-peterson-2df43c24672f
    Of note: If Theism is truly a ‘mythological presupposition’, as Jordan Peterson holds in the preceding quote, then morality must necessarily also be subjective and illusory, not objective and real. That is to say, in order for Peterson to not contradict himself in the preceding quote, he himself must necessarily hold Theism to be true and not merely mythological.)

    So Bob, under atheism, “”Why the hell not every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost?”

    In other words, exactly where are you getting your morality from?

    You complain that I am being immoral for wanting to conduct Josef Mengele type experiments on you to test your morality, but I simply don’t see how it can possibly be immoral under Darwinian presuppositions,

    Cruel Logic – (Darwinian ‘morality’ put to the test) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83BdmoimH0M

    So again Bob, “Why the hell not every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost?”

    Materialism and/or naturalism, when taken by themselves, without Darwinian evolution thrown into the mix, are simply amoral. As Richard Dawkins put it, straight up materialism is simply a world of “pitiless indifference.”

    “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

    And while the apathetic amorality of materialism and/or naturalism is certainly bad enough for atheists who, like Bob, want to be able to make moral judgements on others, when you throw Darwinian evolution into the mix, the apathetic amorality inherent within materialism and/or naturalism becomes downright anti-morality.

    As 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. Specifically. it is a direct violation of the golden rule of Christianity, i.e. love your neighbor as you love yourself.

    Namely, “let the strongest live and the weakest die” is in direct contradiction to the Christian ethos of looking out for those who are less fortunate and/or ‘weaker’ than you are.

    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.’

    In fact, 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

    Thus, clearly there is an inherent “ANTI-morality” that is inherent within Darwinian theory that is completely at odds with the Christian ethos of looking after those who are less fortunate and/or ‘weaker’ than yourself.

    As Sir Arthur Keith, wrote in his book Evolution and Ethics, “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
    (Note the year that this was written was shortly after the German ‘master race’ was defeated in World War II)

    Thus again Bob, exactly where are you getting your morality from to try to claim that I am being immoral for suggesting that you put yourself in the same situation as you demand of millions of others? Namely, being faced with death from Covid with no option for taking the drug HCQ?

    Under atheism, you have only amorality to appeal to, and under Darwinism you have only psychopathic ‘let the weak die’ ANTI-morality to appeal to.

    So again Bob, exactly which worldview are you getting your morality from in order to try to condemn me as somehow being immoral for suggesting that you put yourself in the same exact position as you are demanding of others?

    The way I see it, in order for you to try make your argument that I am being immoral work, you, an atheist, are forced to reach over into Christianity and ‘borrow’ the ethos of the golden rule.

    But even then, since your suffering in my proposed scientific test of your morality could bring about relief for thousands of others, (thousands who are currently suffering from Covid with no option for taking the drug HCQ), I fail to see how you can make a watertight case that I am being immoral in my insisting that you put yourself in the same exact place as you demand of thousands of others.

    After all, in Christian morality, Jesus died so that countless others could live.

    John 11:49-51
    But one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all! You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish. Caiaphas did not say this on his own. Instead, as high priest that year, he was prophesying that Jesus would die for the nation,…

    As well, the Medal of Honor is routinely ‘posthumously’ given to those whom have sacrificed their own life so that the lives of others might be saved.

    So again Bob, I fail to see how you can make a watertight case that I am being immoral for insisting that you put yourself in the same exact place as you demand of others since your suffering could potentially save many others..

    Indeed, your suffering, if it ended up helping many others who are currently suffering, or who will suffer, from Covid would rightly be seen as being downright moral, even downright heroic.

  50. 50
    Truthfreedom says:

    Christians can live according to their worldview.
    Darwinists can not.

    Guess which one is false.

  51. 51
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 @ 49 –

    No, I am not desperate at all. In fact, I am more than happy to talk about my own morality and/or lack thereof and to talk about my ‘desperate’ need for Christ’s atonement to be a propitiation for my sins before an infinitely just and Holy God.

    So go on then, defend the morality of advocating giving someone a potentially fatal disease as an experiment. Explain how you think this would be ethical, and why you are not a monster for suggesting this.

    So, contrary to what you claim Bob, it is certainly not that I am ‘desperate’ to not talk about my own morality and/or lack thereof, I just want to know exactly which worldview you, an atheist, are trying to use to try to judge me as being immoral for me suggesting that we conduct a ‘scientific test’ of your morality to see if you will take HCQ or not when faced with the dire straits.of your own mortality.

    I’m happy for you to use your own moral compass to judge you “wanting to conduct Josef Mengele type experiments” on me. I would hope you can justify your actions, and I don’t see the need for you to use any other moral code than your own to do that: they are your actions, after all.

  52. 52
    bornagain77 says:

    I did defend the morality of my position, i.e. “your suffering, if it ended up helping many others who are currently suffering, or who will suffer, from Covid, would rightly be seen as being downright moral, even downright heroic.”

    Whereas you, as you yourself basically admitted, are stuck being a intellectual moral thief, in that you are forced to presuppose Christianity to be true in order to try to make your moral argument, that I am somehow being immoral, work, since you have no foundation for ethics that you yourself can appeal to.

    I seriously don’t see how anyone would hire such a person as yourself as a teacher. You don’t even have the intellectual capacity of a teenager, much less the capacity of a professor, (at least the intellectual capacity of the professors that I had to study under when I went to college to get my degree.)

  53. 53
    john_a_designer says:

    A Chinese whistleblower, who is a PhD. virologist, claims to have evidence that the Covid-19 is bio-engineered (not natural) and was intentionally released by the Chinese government. However, other experts claim there is no evidence of bio-engineering. Who’s telling the truth?

    https://www.foxnews.com/media/chinese-virologist-government-intentionally-coronavirus

  54. 54
    Truthfreedom says:

    Bob O’H
    Thank you for showing UD members and onlookers that you can’t defend your worldview (“darwinism”/ materialism), because it leads to a dead-end and to non-sensical contradictions. And that no sane person takes it seriously.

    We already knew that materialism is a false, mediocre worldview. 🙂

  55. 55
    Truthfreedom says:

    53 John_a_designer

    Who’s telling the truth?

    According to atheistic evolutionism, we will never know, because we can not “understand truth”.

    “The world presented to us by our perceptions is nothing like reality. What’s more, he says, we have evolution itself to thank for this magnificent illusion, as it maximizes evolutionary fitness by
    driving truth to extinction.”
    Donald Hoffmann

    Which is paradoxical (I tend to translate it to retarded ), because it invalidates the whole darwinian foundation, leading “naturalists” to total skepticism.

    Why would an intelligent person want to be a “materialist”?

  56. 56
    ET says:

    Living is dangerous, Bob. Yet I don’t see you opting out of that

  57. 57
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 – Huh? But whether I am a moral monster or not (and finding this out what the reason your gave @ 11 for this experiment) isn’t going to affect whether other people are suffering. It looks like you’ve forgotten why you suggested this experiment 3 days ago.

  58. 58
    Truthfreedom says:

    55 Bob O’H

    Huh? But whether I am a moral monster or not.

    To judge that, you need a standard (for reference).
    Darwinism provides 0 moral basis.
    And 0 is a pretty bad reference (because it does not exist).

  59. 59
    Bob O'H says:

    Tf @ 58 – yes, and I’m happy for ba77 to use his own standard to defend advocating “Josef Mengele type experiments” (his words, not mine!). He has spent 3 days trying to avoid doing so.

  60. 60
    JVL says:

    Bob O’H: He has spent 3 days trying to avoid doing so.

    Don’t hold your breath, you’ll just turn blue.

  61. 61
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob (and weave) O’Hara says he is OK with using the Christian’s moral standard. Golly gee whiz, how magnanimous of him to be willing to do that.

    Translation, “I (Bob) have no standard of morality that I can use to say that you are being immoral in demanding that I (Bob) hold myself to same standards as I demand for others. (Namely, forsaking HCQ use if sick with Covid).”

    I pointed out that IF Bob’s suffering with Covid in the proposed test eventually brought about the relief for thousands of others (which is not out of the realm of possibility), then it would obviously be considered a very moral thing to do under Christianity. (More so if he consented, less so if he was forced into the experiment against his will).

    After all Jesus Christ himself suffered a excruciating death so that others could have eternal life. That is the main ‘moral’ point of Christianity for crying out loud!

    And as I also pointed out, the Medal of Honor, the highest medal one can possibly receive, is also based on the same exact moral principle of one suffering for the greater good of others.

    But the main point is that, as I have been pointing out all along (for the last three days), is that Bob has no moral basis within his atheistic worldview (whatever flavor of atheism he endorses). to make a moral argument against me.

    In his charitable ‘willingness’ to use the morality of Christianity to argue against my position, he is, in reality, conceding my main point that I have been making all along that he has no moral basis within his atheistic worldview in order to provide a foundation for morality and to therefore be able to make a logically coherent moral argument against me.

    But Bob’s failure to find a foundation for ethics within his atheistic worldview is much more than just an esoteric point in a debate on the web. It is, in fact, powerful evidence that Bob’s worldview must be a false worldview.

    Namely, (as Bob himself has demonstrated in his argument on this thread) it is impossible for Bob to consistently live his life as if morality did not actually exist. Yet, Bob’s atheism cannot possibly ground morality. Therefore it necessarily follows that Bob’s atheism is a delusional view of reality that is, by definition, a false view of reality.

    Existential Argument against Atheism – November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen
    1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview.
    2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview.
    3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality.
    4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion.
    5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true.
    Conclusion: Atheism is false.
    http://answersforhope.com/exis.....t-atheism/

    Supplemental note:

    The Heretic – Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? – March 25, 2013
    Excerpt: Neo-Darwinism insists that every phenomenon, every species, every trait of every species, is the consequence of random chance, as natural selection requires. And yet, Nagel says, “certain things are so remarkable that they have to be explained as non-accidental if we are to pretend to (have) a real understanding of the world.”
    ,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath.
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/.....tml?page=3

  62. 62
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 –

    I pointed out that IF Bob’s suffering with Covid in the proposed test eventually brought about the relief for thousands of others (which is not out of the realm of possibility), then it would obviously be considered a very moral thing to do under Christianity.

    That might be true if (a) I had consented, and (b) if the proposed test had any chance of providing more information (hint: we already know that, even if HCQ is effective, some people treated with it will still die, so a single trial will tell us nothing). But (a) is false – you were advocated giving me Covid-19 without any reference to whether I wanted to be infected or not. I don’t think what you were advocating that you would do would be regarded as heroic: your description of it as a “Josef Mengele type experiment” seems rather closer to the mark than I’d hope you would be comfortable with. But apparently I’m wrong.

  63. 63
    bornagain77 says:

    ,,, HMMM Bob, I know how we can settle this debate once and for all,,,, do you want to come over to my basement for some one on one debating so as to settle the matter once and for all?

    Cruel Logic – (Darwinian ‘morality’ put to the test) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83BdmoimH0M

  64. 64
    Bob O'H says:

    Yes, thank you, ba77. I think that settles the debate over how monstrous you are.

  65. 65
    JVL says:

    Bob O’H: Yes, thank you, ba77. I think that settles the debate over how monstrous you are.

    If we posted such a video Kairosfocus would threaten us with all kinds of sanctions but I predict he will just brush this aside because he agrees with Bornagain77

    They don’t actually want a dialogue on the issues; they just want to make people they disagree with look bad. You won’t get an apology or a concession that you might be right in this matter. A while ago you would definitely have gotten banned.

  66. 66

    .

    They don’t actually want a dialogue on the issues; they just want to make people they disagree with look bad. You won’t get an apology or a concession that you might be right in this matter.

    The absolute height of hypocrisy coming from you JVL.

  67. 67
    JVL says:

    Upright BiPed: The absolute height of hypocrisy coming from you JVL.

    Why don’t you actually address Bob O’H‘s query instead of sliding off every time?

  68. 68
    Truthfreedom says:

    66 Upright BiPed
    Thanks for the link. I am copying Kairosfocus’ #67 (excellent comment):

    JVL, you obviously believe in something — complex, digitally coded, alphanumeric, string data structure algorithmic information and associated molecular nanotech (so, language and goal-directed process) — from nothing; molecular noise. You do so, not because empirical evidence warrants this, but because a domineering lab coat clad ideology demands it as part of its origins narrative. The patent absurdity in the teeth of abundant evidence tells us just where the true balance lies on the merits. Not just regarding an anonymous Internet objector, but about the desperation of the guardians of that ideology as the full weight of the evidence begins to sink home. KF

    JVL, your non-sensical “materialist” worldview is dead. The tide is turning. It may take some time to go full mainstream, but intelligent people have moved on from what is now an outdated, ridiculous paradigm.

    But we know that most materialists are ardent fideists, emotionally attached to their kindergarten philosophy.

    Dr. Dennis Bonnette has something for you. “Materialism” is no longer a thing, it’s just bad metaphysics trying to hide themselves behind a scientific facade.

    How much do you like idealism?

    Naturalism’s Epistemological Nightmare
    “Empirical verification presupposes epistemological realism—meaning that through sensation we know directly the exterior physical world around us. Natural science proclaims that it discovers the nature of the real physical cosmos, external to our brains or subjective selves. Yet, when we trace the optics and physiology of the sense of sight, we find ourselves entrapped in epistemological idealism — meaning that we do not know external reality, but rather merely some change within our brains that we hope to be an accurate representation of the external world.”
    Dr. Dennis Bonnette

  69. 69
    bornagain77 says:

    ‘Height of Hypocrisy’ nails it Upright Biped, they (Bob and JVL) jump up and down at what they (falsely) imagine to be a moral inconsistency on my part, but they care not one iota that their own atheistic worldview denies the very existence of the very thing they are demanding consistency in. i.e. morality itself.

    If they were, in any way, being logically consistent in their arguments for moral consistency, they would first, as Jesus illustrated, take the plank out of their own eye before they tried to remove the speck from mine.

    Matthew 7:5
    You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

    But alas, they are not really concerned with the truth, nor the morality, of the situation. They, apparently, just want to try to score cheap points for their atheism and/or Darwinism by any fashion they can, even if it takes outright deception and, yes, even blatant hypocrisy on their part, for them to do it.

    The catastrophic logical failure of their argument for morality is, apparently, just something else for them to ignore, (elephant in the living room style), whilst they waste away their lives in their pointless, and false, atheistic worldview, all the while awaiting their ultimate and impending nihilistic doom.

    How they could possibly find such insanity desirable, I have no earthly idea.

  70. 70
    Truthfreedom says:

    69 Bornagain77

    If they were, in any way, being logically consistent in their arguments

    Then they would not be “darwinists”. 🙂
    Logical consistency and “darwinism” are sworn enemies.

  71. 71

    .
    #67

    JVL you have been on this ID blog for months on end, flying under the flag that there is no physical evidence of design in biology. In that time you have come face to face with that evidence, which you are completely unable to address and refute. You have attempted every underhanded means known to mankind in an effort to dismiss, avoid, and ignore that physical evidence. After being forced to acknowledge that the gene system is indeed a system of symbols, you’ve tried to brush it aside. discount it, jump threads, change subjects, paint me as a wild-eyed believer who can’t be reasoned with, all ending in a blatant double-standard that not even you (as clearly motivated as you are) can even begin to explain the basis of, so you jump threads yet again and carry on with the same “no evidence” pattern you started with. You talk about evidence, honesty, integrity, falsification, science, reason, on so on – but you display absolutely none of it.

    You may be (or may not be) a fine neighbor, co-worker, acquaintance, taxpayer, or otherwise, but on the subject matter of this blog — a blog that you freely come to each day to engage — you are a complete and total hypocrite JVL. By your own string of deceptions you have forfeited your right to lecture anyone about having an honest conversation.

  72. 72
    john_a_designer says:

    Getting back to the topic of the OP…

    How much do want to bet that those who are so vehemently opposed to the physician guided compassionate use of HCQ have absolutely no problem with the so-called medical use of marijuana? It has been approved in many U.S. states. By state medical boards? Has marijuana gone through all the rigorous studies and testing that the critics are demanding for HCQ? The answer to both questions is no. In most of the states where medical marijuana has been approved it has been done by referendum placed on state election ballots by non-government groups who coincidentally also favor the legalized recreational use of marijuana. Are the HCQ critics concerned about this? Again I doubt it.

    Here is some more info about the medical use of marijuana from Web MD.

    Is medical marijuana FDA approved?

    ANSWER

    The cannabidiol drug Epidiolex was approved in 2018 for treating seizures associated with two rare and severe forms of epilepsy, Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and Dravet syndrome.The FDA has approved two man-made cannabinoid medicines — dronabinol (Marinol. Syndros) and nabilone (Cesamet) — to treat nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy.
    https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/qa/is-medical-marijuana-fda-approved

    [That doesn’t sound like people are smoking joints to me.]

    Is medical marijuana a legal form of treatment?

    ANSWER

    While every state has laws dictating the use of medical marijuana, more than two thirds of the states in the U.S. and the District of Columbia have legalized medical marijuana in some form; more are considering bills to do the same. Yet while many people are using marijuana, the FDA has only approved it for treatment of two rare and severe forms of epilepsy, Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and Dravet syndrome.
    https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/qa/is-medical-marijuana-a-legal-form-of-treatment

    Why hasn’t more research been done? One reason is that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) considers marijuana a Schedule I drug, the same as heroin, LSD, and ecstasy, and likely to be abused and lacking in medical value. Because of that, researchers need a special license to study it.

    That may not change anytime soon; the DEA considered reclassifying marijuana as a Schedule II drug like Ritalin or oxycodone, but ultimately kept it as a Schedule I drug.

    The agency did, however, agree to support additional research on marijuana and make the process easier for researchers.
    https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/qa/why-isnt-there-more-research-on-medical-marijuana

  73. 73
    JVL says:

    Upright BiPed: JVL you have been on this ID blog for months on end, flying under the flag that there is no physical evidence of design in biology

    Correct.

    In that time you have come face to face with that evidence, which you are completely unable to address and refute. You have attempted every underhanded means known to mankind in an effort to dismiss, avoid, and ignore that physical evidence.

    I am not alone in thinking that your evidence is not conclusive. I haven’t denied your evidence; I have found it to be insufficient to establish your position. You disagree. I haven’t been underhanded; I have just disagreed with you. It’s a common reaction.

    After being forced to acknowledge that the gene system is indeed a system of symbols, you’ve tried to brush it aside. discount it, jump threads, change subjects, paint me as a wild-eyed believer who can’t be reasoned with, all ending in a blatant double-standard that not even you (as clearly motivated as you are) can even begin to explain the basis of, so you jump threads yet again and carry on with the same “no evidence” pattern you started with.

    I brushed nothing aside; I merely pointed out that one of the people whose work you found foundational to your views and stance seems to disagree with you about the conclusions you draw. Again, I brushed nothing aside, I merely pointed out that someone else disagreed with you.

    You talk about evidence, honesty, integrity, falsification, science, reason, on so on – but you display absolutely none of it.

    I have been very straight and honest with you about my opinions. But because I disagree with you you choose to paint me as some kind of manipulative agent when, in fact, all I have done is disagree with you.

    You may be (or may not be) a fine neighbor, co-worker, acquaintance, taxpayer, or otherwise, but on the subject matter of this blog — a blog that you freely come to each day to engage — you are a complete and total hypocrite JVL

    Umm, that’s not what being a hypocrite means. I have not pretended to believe one thing and then supported something completely contrary.

    By your own string of deceptions you have forfeited your right to lecture anyone about having an honest conversation.

    I wasn’t lecturing anyone, I was just asking why certain queries were not being responded to.

    I find this whole stance of being in opposition means I am deceptive and deceitful rather weird. It’s almost as if you cannot condone anyone coming to a different conclusion than you when they look at the same data. Which is why I asked, on another thread, if people felt their positions were falsifiable. You know, I got only one considered response. Why do you think that is?

  74. 74
  75. 75
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: JVL, denial does not clean up your mess,

    Disagreeing with you does not make me deceitful or manipulative. It just means I have come to a different conclusion. Which, truth be told, is true for quite a few other people.

    So, again, is your position falsifiable and can someone disagree with you and not be considered intellectually and morally suspect?

  76. 76

    .

    I am not alone in thinking that your evidence is not conclusive.

    1) Your appeal to ideological consensus is meaningless in science.

    2) It is a recorded historical fact that a high-capacity symbol system (semiosis) was predicted as the critical physical requirement of an autonomous open-ended self-replicator. It is a recorded historical fact that this prediction was confirmed by experiment.

    3) You immediately apply a double standard to that confirmation – accepting the finding of semiosis as an unambiguous inference to intelligent activity in one domain while denying it in another.

    4) Applying a double standard is hypocritical.

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    EDIT:
    I can easily provide your own words to back up your application of a double-standard — if that is what is necessary. I suppose I can assume it will indeed be necessary in your case.

  77. 77
    JVL says:

    Upright BiPed: 1) Your appeal to ideological consensus is meaningless in science.

    Sometime not all the scientists or results agree. When that happens it’s a good idea to consider all the opinions and research and results. All of them.

    2) It is a recorded historical fact that a high-capacity symbol system (semiosis) was predicted as the critical physical requirement of an autonomous open-ended self-replicator. It is a recorded historical fact that this prediction was confirmed by experiment.

    And where is it established that that kind of biological system could only come about via intelligent design? Which experiments?

    3) You immediately apply a double standard to that confirmation – accepting the finding of semiosis as an unambiguous inference to intelligent activity in one domain while denying it in another.

    If you’re referring to the SETI criteria you’ll have to take that up with them. I have only thought about that issue in a very light-hearted fashion. I have never read any research or work arguing for their choice of criteria for an intelligently designed signal. So, in conclusion, I cannot say if the situations are comparable.

    4) Applying a double standard is hypocritical.

    Gosh, does that mean that most ID proponents are hypocritical when they insist that evolutionary biologists have to supply every dot and dash to show their ideas are correct whereas ID does not have to address when and how design was implemented?

    Again: is your position falsifiable? Is it possible you are wrong?

  78. 78

    .
    As expected

    Here are your own words in applying your double standard:

    JVL: I would not be surprised at all if we find electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings in other solar systems

    UB: How would we know if we found “electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings”? What would that be?

    JVL: Something like in the movie Contact. A signal that’s very clearly NOT produced by unguided processes. A signal which, after inspection, was shown to have compressed data.

    As shown, you clearly accept the finding of semiosis as a valid inference to the presence of a previously unknown intelligence in one instance, but immediately deny that exact same finding in another instance.

    That is a double standard.

    You have been asked: ”Why the double standard?”

    Your answer: ”Because there is no plausible designer available”

    You thereby confirm that you apply the double standard in order to deny the existence of the very thing that you otherwise accept without the double standard in place.

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    JVL your application of a double standard could not be more clear or more egregious. All you can do now is pound words on top of it in the hope that you might hide what is going on (your #77 and several previous responses are perfect examples of this).

  79. 79
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL asks me and Upright Biped,

    “is your position falsifiable?”

    LOL, 🙂 now a Darwinist (JVL) asking an ID proponent if his position is falsifiable is a brand new height of hypocrisy for JVL.

    As has been explained to JVL before, ID is easily falsifiable. All a Darwinist has to do to falsify ID is to show the origin of a non-trivial amount of brand new functional information, say the origin of a brand new functional protein, by unguided material processes.

    The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness – David L. Abel
    Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”
    If only one exception to this null hypothesis were published, the hypothesis would be falsified. Falsification would require an experiment devoid of behind-the-scenes steering. Any artificial selection hidden in the experimental design would disqualify the experimental falsification. After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided.
    The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction:
    “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.”
    https://www.academia.edu/Documents/in/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Incompleteness

    In fact there is currently up to a 10 million dollar prize being offered for the first person that can “Show an example of Information that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.”

    The Origin of Information: How to Solve It – Perry Marshall
    Where did the information in DNA come from? This is one of the most important and valuable questions in the history of science. Cosmic Fingerprints has issued a challenge to the scientific community:
    “Show an example of Information that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.”
    “Information” is defined as digital communication between an encoder and a decoder, using agreed upon symbols. To date, no one has shown an example of a naturally occurring encoding / decoding system, i.e. one that has demonstrably come into existence without a designer.
    A private equity investment group is offering a technology prize for this discovery (up to 10 million dollars). We will financially reward and publicize the first person who can solve this;,,, To solve this problem is far more than an object of abstract religious or philosophical discussion. It would demonstrate a mechanism for producing coding systems, thus opening up new channels of scientific discovery. Such a find would have sweeping implications for Artificial Intelligence research.
    http://cosmicfingerprints.com/solve/

    So ID is easily falsifiable,,,, Whereas, on the other hand, Darwinian evolution is notorious for not having a rigid falsification criteria.

    In 1967 Stanford Professor Paul Ehrlich stated that the Theory of Evolution ‘cannot be refuted by any possible observations’ and is thus “outside empirical science.”

    “Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus “outside empirical science” but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets.”
    Ehrlich, Paul and L.C. Birch (1967), “Evolutionary History and Population Biology,” Nature, 214:349-352, April 22, p. 352
    https://afdave.wordpress.com/more-useful-quotes-for-creationists/

    And as Denis Noble, President of International Union of Physiological Sciences, stated in 2015, “it is then incumbent on modern neo-Darwinists to specify what would now falsify the theory. If nothing can do this then it is not a scientific theory.”

    Central tenets of neo-Darwinism broken. Response to ‘Neo-Darwinism is just fine’ – 2015
    Excerpt: “If, as the commentator seems to imply, we make neo-Darwinism so flexible as an idea that it can accept even those findings that the originators intended to be excluded by the theory it is then incumbent on modern neo-Darwinists to specify what would now falsify the theory. If nothing can do this then it is not a scientific theory.”
    – Denis Noble
    https://jeb.biologists.org/content/218/16/2659

    There simply is no observation that Darwinists will ever accept as a falsification of their theory. As Dr Cornelius Hunter noted, Darwin’s pseudo-theory is forever plastic and is able to explain completely contradictory results with equal ease.

    “Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself. If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought.”
    ~ Cornelius Hunter – Arsenic-Based Biochemistry: Turning Poison Into Wine – December 2, 2010
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....rning.html

    Here are a few observations that falsify Darwinian evolution. Falsifications that Darwinists themselves simply refuse to ever accept as falsifications of their theory:

    Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are found to be ‘directed’.

    Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute.

    Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke.

    Darwin’s theory holds there to be an extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever.

    Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within that group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late).

    Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Yet thousands of instances of what is ironically called ‘convergent evolution’, on both the morphological and genetic level, falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species.

    Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.”

    Charles Darwin himself 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.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “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.”

    Charles Darwin himself stated that, ““The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God.”. Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’.

    Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics exists in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order to be considered scientific in the first place!

    Donald Hoffman has, via population genetics, shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ proves that our conscious observations are reliable!.

    The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information, via experimental realization of the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought experiment, is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy.

    Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. i.e. Assuming reductive materialism and/or Naturalism as the starting philosophical position of science actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science!

    Darwinist’s, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution.

    Verse:

    1 Thessalonians 5:21
    Test all things; hold fast what is good.

    Besides Darwinists refusing to adhere to the criteria of falsification for their supposedly scientific theory, by any other reasonable measure that one may wish to judge whether Darwinian evolution even qualifies as a science or not, and as is shown in the following video, Darwinian evolution fails to meet those criteria as well:

    “There are five standard tests for a scientific hypothesis. Has anyone observed the phenomenon — in this case, Evolution — as it occurred and recorded it? Could other scientists replicate it? Could any of them come up with a set of facts that, if true, would contradict the theory (Karl Popper’s “falsifiability” tests)? Could scientists make predictions based on it? Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science? In the case of Evolution… well… no… no… no… no… and no.”
    – Tom Wolfe – The Kingdom of Speech – page 17
    Darwinian Evolution Fails the Five Standard Tests of a Scientific Hypothesis – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7f_fyoPybw

    There is simply nothing that Darwinists can point to within their theory and say, ‘and this is what makes Darwinian evolution a hard science and not a pseudoscience’.

    As Dr. Robert Marks explains “Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. ,,, there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,”

    “There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,,”,,, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,”
    – Dr. Robert J. Marks II – Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – June 12, 2017
    https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/top-ten-questions-and-objections-to-introduction-to-evolutionary-informatics/

    Simply put, Darwinian evolution is more properly classified as a pseudoscience, even as a religion for atheists, rather than ever being classified as a real, and testable, hard science.

    Moreover, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on presumption of methodological naturalism as is falsely presupposed by Darwinian atheists.

    From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (i.e. namely, that the universe is rational and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can dare understand that rationality), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results, from top to bottom science itself is certainly not ‘natural’.
    Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analysed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place.

    In fact, (as I have pointed out several times now), assuming Naturalism instead of Theism as the worldview on which all of science is based leads to the catastrophic epistemological failure of science itself.

    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, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. 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). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin).
    Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,
    Darwinian Materialism and/or Methodological Naturalism vs. Reality – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaksmYceRXM

    Thus, although the Darwinist may 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, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, 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;

  80. 80
    Truthfreedom says:

    77 JVL

    Sometime not all the scientists or results agree.

    Hmmm. Look, that makes sense under the “evolutionary paradigm”.

    “Evolution has shaped us with perceptions that allow us to survive. But part of that involves hiding from us the stuff we don’t need to know. And that’s pretty much all of reality, whatever reality might be”.
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality-20160421/

    According to this, we can not know reality, so how can we decide which side is right?
    1) If atheistic evolution is true, we can not be sure about anything. Nor can you be sure that your conclusions about “lack of design” have any merit.
    2) But if there is a supreme intelligence and we are made in His image, we stand a chance. But then you can not say that nature is “random and with no purpose/ mindless”.
    Either way, you lose.

  81. 81
    JVL says:

    Upright BiPed: As shown, you clearly accept the finding of semiosis as a valid inference to the presence of a previously unknown intelligence in one instance, but immediately deny that exact same finding in another instance.

    In both cases I would expect experts in the field to smoke test the signal or phenomena to make sure that what was being scrutinised could not have been created or produced by natural, unguided processes. So far no detected interstellar signal has met that criteria and neither has the genetic code. I can envision or imagine cases which would pass the test but first I would let the experts take a crack at it.

    No one knows how the genetic code was formed or implemented. You’ve looked at the evidence and made a call. Most scientists and researchers, and I would add Dr Pattee to that last, think it’s still an open question.

    I don’t have a double standard. You’ve already made up your mind about the genetic code but most scientists with experience in the field have not. I have not. That doesn’t mean I am duplicitous or manipulative or delusional. I just disagree with you. I definitely lean towards the genetic code being produced via unguided and natural processes because there is no other evidence of a designer around with the necessary capacities and technology. That part doesn’t bother you (because you already have a designer in mind?) but it weighs heavily in my mind: where are the mystery designers? How did they implement their design? When did they implement their design? How has the design been propagated throughout billions of years of biological development? OR how is design being undetectably implemented throughout billions of years of biological development? Where does the energy required to implement the design come from? How is it stored and focused?

    IF some of those issues were resolved that would add a lot of weight to your design inference for me at least.

  82. 82
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: As has been explained to JVL before, ID is easily falsifiable. All a Darwinist has to do to falsify ID is to show the origin of a non-trivial amount of brand new functional information, say the origin of a brand new functional protein, by unguided material processes.

    Okay. How would you accept that being established?

    I think someone like ET, for example, might say: ah, but how do you know the various mutations and modifications along the path weren’t guided? So . . .

    What do you accept as evidence of unguided material processes? Do you think mutations are guided? Are some guided and some not? How do you know? If you think they are guided then is it still possible to falsify your position?

  83. 83
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom: 1) If atheistic evolution is true, we can not be sure about anything.

    I think we’re pretty sure about the second law of thermodynamics. And mathematics. The theory of gravity (as in what its effect is) seems to be pretty solid. Chemistry works pretty well it seems. And physics. Or are you saying those too are illusions in the materialist mindset?

    Nor can you be sure that your conclusions about “lack of design” have any merit.

    I think there is no conclusive evidence of a mysterious, undefined and undetected designer. There are other opinions available.

    2) But if there is a supreme intelligence and we are made in His image, we stand a chance.

    A chance of what exactly?

    But then you can not say that nature is “random and with no purpose/ mindless”.

    Show me the designer and I’ll have a think about it.

    No designer = no design.

  84. 84
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL in response to,

    All a Darwinist has to do to falsify ID is to show the origin of a non-trivial amount of brand new functional information, say the origin of a brand new functional protein, by unguided material processes.

    in response to that JVL asks,

    How would you accept that being established?

    (As I stated and as you apparently ignored), personally, I would accept any evidence that a mixture of amino acids spontaneously formed just one single functional protein. Or I would even accept any evidence that a existing protein, via mutation and selection, had been transformed into a brand new functional protein.

    No evidence exists for that, and there is much evidence against such scenarios even being remotely feasible,

    Origin: Probability of a Single Protein Forming by Chance – animated video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1_KEVaCyaA

    Dan S. Tawfik Group – The New View of Proteins – Tyler Hampton – 2016
    Excerpt: To the extent that Tawfik’s selection experiments were successful, it is because mutations were localized and contextualized. Mutation had a key but confined role. If evolution proceeded, the prevailing architecture of the active sites and protein shapes nonetheless remains intact. Changes were not to central structures, but to peripheral loops. ,,,
    “In fact, to our knowledge,” Tawfik and Tóth-Petróczy write, “no macromutations … that gave birth to novel proteins have yet been identified.”69
    http://inference-review.com/ar.....f-proteins

    Right of Reply: Our Response to Jerry Coyne – September 29, 2019
    by Günter Bechly, Brian Miller and David Berlinski
    Excerpt: David Gelernter observed that amino acid sequences that correspond to functional proteins are remarkably rare among the “space” of all possible combinations of amino acid sequences of a given length. Protein scientists call this set of all possible amino acid sequences or combinations “amino acid sequence space” or “combinatorial sequence space.” Gelernter made reference to this concept in his review of Meyer and Berlinski’s books. He also referenced the careful experimental work by Douglas Axe who used a technique known as site-directed mutagenesis to assess the rarity of protein folds in sequence space while he was working at Cambridge University from 1990-2003. Axe showed that the ratio of sequences in sequence space that will produce protein folds to sequences that won’t is prohibitively and vanishingly small. Indeed, in an authoritative paper published in the Journal of Molecular Biology Axe estimated that ratio at 1 in 10^74. From that information about the rarity of protein folds in sequence space, Gelernter—like Axe, Meyer and Berlinski—has drawn the rational conclusion: finding a novel protein fold by a random search is implausible in the extreme.
    Not so, Coyne argued. Proteins do not evolve from random sequences. They evolve by means of gene duplication. By starting from an established protein structure, protein evolution had a head start.
    This is not an irrational position, but it is anachronistic.
    Indeed, Harvard mathematical biologist Martin Nowak has shown that random searches in sequence space that start from known functional sequences are no more likely to enter regions in sequence space with new protein folds than searches that start from random sequences. The reason for this is clear: random searches are overwhelmingly more likely to go off into a non-folding, non-functional abyss than they are to find a novel protein fold. Why? Because such novel folds are so extraordinarily rare in sequence space. Moreover, as Meyer explained in Darwin’s Doubt, as mutations accumulate in functional sequences, they will inevitably destroy function long before they stumble across a new protein fold. Again, this follows from the extreme rarity (as well as the isolation) of protein folds in sequence space.
    Recent work by Weizmann Institute protein scientist Dan Tawfik has reinforced this conclusion. Tawfik’s work shows that as mutations to functional protein sequences accumulate, the folds of those proteins become progressively more thermodynamically and structurally unstable. Typically, 15 or fewer mutations will completely destroy the stability of known protein folds of average size. Yet, generating (or finding) a new protein fold requires far more amino acid sequence changes than that. Finally, calculations based on Tawfik’s work confirm and extend the applicability of Axe’s original measure of the rarity of protein folds. These calculations confirm that the measure of rarity that Axe determined for the protein he studied is actually representative of the rarity for large classes of other globular proteins. Not surprisingly, Dan Tawfik has described the origination of a truly novel protein or fold as “something like close to a miracle.” Tawfik is on Coyne’s side: He is mainstream.
    https://quillette.com/2019/09/29/right-of-reply-our-response-to-jerry-coyne/

    Perry Marshall, who is behind the group offering a 10 million dollar prize, is a little more stringent than I am in my falsification criteria. In order to collect the prize, a Darwinist would have to demonstrate the origin of a ‘digital communication system’ without cheating,,,

    What You Must Do to Win The (10 million dollar) Prize
    You must arrange for a digital communication system to emerge or self-evolve without “cheating.”
    https://www.herox.com/evolution2.0

    And the 10 million dollar prize is certainly no deceptive gimmick by ID proponents. As you can see on the preceding site, the judges for the prize include none other than George Church, Denis Noble, and Michael Ruse.

    So that is the falsification criteria that Darwinists must meet in order to falsify ID. And again there is no evidence that it has been met, and there is much evidence supporting the claim that it is not even remotely feasible to ever meet that falsification criteria.

    Whereas again, on the other hand, as I pointed out in post 79, although central tenets of Darwinian theory have been falsified time and again by observational evidence, there simply is no falsification that Darwinists will ever accept of their theory.

    And that refusal by Darwinists to adhere to the criteria of falsification is one of the main reasons that Darwinian evolution is to be classified as a pseudo-science, even as a religion for atheists, rather than ever being classified as a real, and testable, hard science.

    “In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.”
    – Karl Popper

    As to JVL comments on ‘directed mutations’. The fact that mutations are now found to not be random, but to be ‘directed’, is yet another falsification of a central tenet of Darwin’s theory that Darwinists simply refuse to ever accept as a direct falsification of their theory.

    New Research Elucidates Directed Mutation Mechanisms – Cornelius Hunter – January 7, 2013
    Excerpt: mutations don’t occur randomly in the genome, but rather in the genes where they can help to address the challenge. But there is more. The gene’s single stranded DNA has certain coils and loops which expose only some of the gene’s nucleotides to mutation. So not only are certain genes targeted for mutation, but certain nucleotides within those genes are targeted in what is referred to as directed mutations.,,,?These findings contradict evolution’s prediction that mutations are random with respect to need and sometimes just happen to occur in the right place at the right time.,,,
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....ected.html

    WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Fully Random Mutations – Kevin Kelly – 2014
    Excerpt: What is commonly called “random mutation” does not in fact occur in a mathematically random pattern. The process of genetic mutation is extremely complex, with multiple pathways, involving more than one system. Current research suggests most spontaneous mutations occur as errors in the repair process for damaged DNA. Neither the damage nor the errors in repair have been shown to be random in where they occur, how they occur, or when they occur. Rather, the idea that mutations are random is simply a widely held assumption by non-specialists and even many teachers of biology. There is no direct evidence for it.
    On the contrary, there’s much evidence that genetic mutation vary in patterns. For instance it is pretty much accepted that mutation rates increase or decrease as stress on the cells increases or decreases. These variable rates of mutation include mutations induced by stress from an organism’s predators and competition, and as well as increased mutations brought on by environmental and epigenetic factors. Mutations have also been shown to have a higher chance of occurring near a place in DNA where mutations have already occurred, creating mutation hotspot clusters—a non-random pattern.
    http://edge.org/response-detail/25264

    PLOS Paper Admits To Nonrandom Mutation In Evolution – May 31, 2019
    Abstract: “Mutations drive evolution and were assumed to occur by chance: constantly, gradually, roughly uniformly in genomes, and without regard to environmental inputs, but this view is being revised by discoveries of molecular mechanisms of mutation in bacteria, now translated across the tree of life. These mechanisms reveal a picture of highly regulated mutagenesis, up-regulated temporally by stress responses and activated when cells/organisms are maladapted to their environments—when stressed—potentially accelerating adaptation. Mutation is also nonrandom in genomic space, with multiple simultaneous mutations falling in local clusters,,,,
    – Fitzgerald DM, Rosenberg SM (2019) What is mutation? A chapter in the series: How microbes “jeopardize”the modern synthesis. PloS Genet 15(4): e1007995.
    – per uncommon descent

    Probability of change in life: Amino acid changes in single nucleotide substitutions – June 2020
    Excerpt of Abstract: mutations are assumed to be random in the bereft of selection pressures,,,,
    (Yet) Our calculations reveal an enigmatic in-built self-preserving organization of the genetic code that averts disruptive changes at the physicochemical properties level.,,,
    Discussion
    We found in-built intrinsic biases and barriers to drastic changes within the genetic code. Within single mutational events, there are fixed probabilities for the type of change in selection pressure-free conditions that are far from random.
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0303264720300393

    How life changes itself: the Read-Write (RW) genome. – 2013
    Excerpt: Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply accidents or damage to the DNA. This cell-active view of genome change applies to all scales of DNA sequence variation, from point mutations to large-scale genome rearrangements and whole genome duplications (WGDs). This conceptual change to active cell inscriptions controlling RW genome functions has profound implications for all areas of the life sciences.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23876611

    As Jonathan Wells states, “It’s the organism controlling the DNA, not the DNA controlling the organism.”

    Ask an Embryologist: Genomic Mosaicism – Jonathan Wells – February 23, 2015
    Excerpt: I now know as an embryologist,,,Tissues and cells, as they differentiate, modify their DNA to suit their needs. It’s the organism controlling the DNA, not the DNA controlling the organism.
    – per evolution news

    etc.. etc..

    Since these findings which falsified a central tenet of Darwinian theory, i.e. ‘random mutations’, apparently did not actually falsify Darwinian theory, well so much for the claim from Darwinists that Darwinian evolution is a testable science that is open to falsification.

    As Berlinski stated,

    “I disagree [with Paul R. Gross’ assertion] that Darwin’s theory is as “solid as any explanation in science.” Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?”
    – David Berlinski – A Scientific Scandal

    Verse:

    1 Thessalonians 5:21
    Test all things; hold fast what is good.

  85. 85
    Truthfreedom says:

    83 JVL

    I think we’re pretty sure about the second law of thermodynamics. And mathematics. The theory of gravity (as in what its effect is) seems to be pretty solid. Chemistry works pretty well it seems. And physics.

    I am not disagreeing. And, in fact, this only reinforces my position. That it’s impossible for brains that were never designed to understand/ apprehend “truth” to have been able to gain such an amount of very abstract knowledge about their environment and to have the conviction that that knowledge is certain (a good approximation I’d say, not absolute certainty of course).

    Or are you saying those too are illusions in the materialist mindset?

    See above. I am saying that under strict materialism, gaining that knowledge is not possible. Therefore, “all that exists is material” is a false premise (materialism is self-refuting). We do gain knowledge although according to “atheistic evolution” that was never meant to happen.

  86. 86
    Truthfreedom says:

    83 JVL

    I think there is no conclusive evidence of a mysterious, undefined and undetected designer. There are other opinions available.

    I am asking: how can you be sure that your “reasoning” regarding “design” can be trusted? That your cognitive processes are valid ALTHOUGH according to the “atheistic evolutionary” paradigm you follow you can not trust your brain?

    A chance of what exactly?

    Of behaving like rational creatures that can ground their rational faculties in an immutable and trustable source instead of in a willy nilly stupid process that undermines credibility.

  87. 87
    Truthfreedom says:

    83 JVL

    Show me the designer and I’ll have a think about it.

    No designer = no design.

    Show me that the Universe came about by itself without any external source and I will convert to the “naturalist” religion.

    No proof of self-generating Universe = no allowed to say life “has no purpose/ is not the result of a creative mind”.

    Let me remind you that the combination materialism + the physiology of vision leads to subjective idealism, meaning that if you accept the findings of natural sciences, you are implicitly acknowledging that minds exist and are primary (before “matter”). And God = “mind”. (Explained in link below).

    Materialism’s Failures: Hylemorphism’s Vindication. (Aristotle is back).

  88. 88
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, Popperian falsifiability is a flawed, inadequate criterion. More reasonable, is that its warrant is accessible and if the degree of certainty or reliability is as that attaching to scientific theories or much common sense thought, that is acknowledged. For example, as scientific theorising effectively affirms the consequent, explanatory constructs are provisional and offered on a best explanation so far, responsibly reliable basis. This does not amount to even moral certainty and usually cannot be given a probability of actual truth. Prudence rules the roost, therefore, and a better question would have been whether warrant was transparent and open to further test. There are other things that are self-evident, such as that error exists or the like. For sure, the gold standard fallacy fails yet again. KF

  89. 89
    bornagain77 says:

    Kairosfocus,,,

    “JVL, Popperian falsifiability is a flawed, inadequate criterion.,,,”

    Hmm. really?? Though you may have a point on periphery issues, as to the main overall point, Feynman, of QED fame, disagrees with your overall sentiment.

    “If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
    – Richard Feynman – On the Scientific Method
    https://www.presentationzen.com/presentationzen/2014/04/richard-feynman-on-the-scientific-method-in-1-minute.html

    I agree completely with that statement by Feynman. And I see no way for you to contradict that statement by Feynman save by you jumping through hoops trying to contradict it.

  90. 90
    ET says:

    JVL still is ignorant of how science works.

    No one knows how the genetic code was formed or implemented.

    We can exclude blind and mindless processes. That is because 1) there isn’t any evidence to support it and @) there isn’t even a way to test the claim. So the Hitchen’s Gambit is invoked- that which can be asseted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

    Everything we know, observed and experience with coded information processing systems demonstrates they only arise via intelligent agencies. 100% of our knowledge of cause-and-effect relationships confirms that fact.

    JVL proves he is ignorant:

    Gosh, does that mean that most ID proponents are hypocritical when they insist that evolutionary biologists have to supply every dot and dash to show their ideas are correct whereas ID does not have to address when and how design was implemented?

    Again, yours is the mechanistic position, NOT ID. ID’s science is in the determination and study of design in nature. We have to support that methodology whereas yours doesn’t even have a methodology to test its claims. You have nothing. No one uses blind watchmaker evolution to guide their research. At least ID’s concepts are used and proven useful in science.

    JVL thinks that ID has to have all of the answers when his position has nothing. At least ID has a methodology that allows us to test its claims. JVL can’t even muster that. His alleged majority of scientists can’t do it, either. So why should anyone listen to them?

    Evolutionary biologists still don’t even know what determines biological form! The most basic question in biology remains unanswered.

  91. 91
    ET says:

    bornagain77- what experiment would refute universal common descent over 4.5x billion years?

    Do tell or jump through hoops… 😉

  92. 92
    Truthfreedom says:

    88 Kairosfocus

    For sure, the gold standard fallacy fails yet again. KF

    This paper explains why RCTs (the “gold standard”) ought to be carefully addressed (and not fanatically cling on to them). Although the paper is aimed primarily at ortodoncists, the logic underlying it may be applied to any scientific epistemological inquiry:

    “While some claim that only evidence for RCTs should be considered, others maintain that the study design should be determined by the research method question to be addressed. RCTs may be expensive and time-consuming and can sometimes be inappropriate for ethical reasons, especially when the control subjects remain untreated.”

  93. 93
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: (As I stated and as you apparently ignored), personally, I would accept any evidence that a mixture of amino acids spontaneously formed just one single functional protein. Or I would even accept any evidence that a existing protein, via mutation and selection, had been transformed into a brand new functional protein.

    I do apologise. Now that you mention it I do remember. Gosh, I get I am not perfect!

    So, just to be clear: an unguided assemblage of amino acids forming a protein . . . without any influence of DNA or RNA.

    OR

    (I’m going to paraphrase here in hopes I get it a bit closer to what you’re thinking) a sequence of DNA that codes for one protein is modified via mutation and unguided selection to code for a different protein?

    Is that about right? I don’t want to misinterpret what you’re saying.

  94. 94
    bornagain77 says:

    ET, that is my point about Darwinists refusing to accept falsifying evidence. The fossil record and genetic evidence both strongly contradict universal common descent (G. Bechly, W. Ewert, etc..), yet universal common descent is treated, by Darwinists and also by a few ID proponents, as though it has been established as being scientifically true.

    That simply is not the case.

    So agoin, Darwinian evolution, unlike other sciences, is simply impervious to observational evidence that contradicts it, (i.e. it is impervious to falsification), and therefore It is NOT a empirical science in any meaningful sense of the term of being a ’empirical science’!

    Bechly: In the Fossil Record, “Abrupt Appearances Are the Rule” – February 20, 2018,
    Excerpt: , you might think that the Cambrian explosion some 530 million years is a singularity, a freak of nature: the sudden appearance of phyla, major categories of life,,,, Yet Dr. Bechly points out that the problem posed by the Cambrian event is not singular but in fact has been repeated numerous times in the long history of life — sudden explosions, abrupt appearances, followed by diversification. Each should multiply the distress of Darwin’s defenders, if they are honest with themselves about it.
    In a chapter co-authored with philosopher of science Stephen Meyer in the recent book Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique (pg. 340-352), Bechly details 19 such “explosions.” As he observes, in the fossil record, “Abrupt appearances are the rule.” Each such event poses the same challenge to Darwinian thinking that the Cambrian explosion does.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2018/02/bechly-in-the-fossil-record-abrupt-appearances-are-the-rule/

    Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head – July 30, 2013?Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form.?Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories.?,,,Dr Matthew Wills said: “This pattern, known as ‘early high disparity’, turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn’t a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.”,,,?Author Martin Hughes, continued: “Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on.?Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: “A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,,?
    http://phys.org/news/2013-07-s.....ution.html?

    Reviewing The Evolution Revolution, the NCSE Offers Uninformed Criticism that Misses the Point – Lee M. Spetner – January 13, 2016
    Excerpt: Some researchers in the life sciences, who are not necessarily knowledgeable about evolution (including Levin), think that the various trees based on different biological systems or on protein- and DNA-sequence data yield the same tree. Life scientists once thought that trees based on anatomy and on the molecular sequences of proteins and DNA would be the same, but they were wrong (Nichols 2001; Degnan and Rosenberg 2006; Degnan and Rosenberg 2009; Heled and Drummond 2010; Rosenberg and Degnan 2010). They thought at least there would be consistency among the trees based on the DNA sequences of different genes, but again they were wrong. They then hoped that if they used the whole genome instead of individual genes, the data might average out and things would be better. In fact, it only made matters worse (Jeffroy et al. 2006; Dávalos et al. 2012). All this is discussed in my book. Levin is mistaken about what he calls the “cornerstone” of the evidence for common descent.
    He criticizes my rejection of common descent. I reject common descent because it is based on only circumstantial evidence. The drawback to circumstantial evidence is that it needs a valid theory to connect the evidence with the conclusion, and evolutionary theory is invalid, as I explain at length in my first chapter. There is thus no valid evidence for common descent — and certainly not what Levin calls its “cornerstone.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....02281.html

    New Paper by Winston Ewert Demonstrates Superiority of Design Model – Cornelius Hunter – July 20, 2018
    Excerpt: Ewert’s three types of data are: (i) sample computer software, (ii) simulated species data generated from evolutionary/common descent computer algorithms, and (iii) actual, real species data.,,,
    Where It Counts
    Let me repeat that in case the point did not sink in. Where it counted, common descent failed compared to the dependency graph model. The other data types served as useful checks, but for the data that mattered — the actual, real, biological species data — the results were unambiguous.
    Ewert amassed a total of nine massive genetic databases. In every single one, without exception, the dependency graph model surpassed common descent.
    Darwin could never have even dreamt of a test on such a massive scale. Darwin also could never have dreamt of the sheer magnitude of the failure of his theory. Because you see, Ewert’s results do not reveal two competitive models with one model edging out the other.
    We are not talking about a few decimal points difference. For one of the data sets (HomoloGene), the dependency graph model was superior to common descent by a factor of 10,064. The comparison of the two models yielded a preference for the dependency graph model of greater than ten thousand.
    Ten thousand is a big number. But it gets worse, much worse.
    Ewert used Bayesian model selection which compares the probability of the data set given the hypothetical models. In other words, given the model (dependency graph or common descent), what is the probability of this particular data set? Bayesian model selection compares the two models by dividing these two conditional probabilities. The so-called Bayes factor is the quotient yielded by this division.
    The problem is that the common descent model is so incredibly inferior to the dependency graph model that the Bayes factor cannot be typed out. In other words, the probability of the data set, given the dependency graph model, is so much greater than the probability of the data set given the common descent model, that we cannot type the quotient of their division.
    Instead, Ewert reports the logarithm of the number. Remember logarithms? Remember how 2 really means 100, 3 means 1,000, and so forth?
    Unbelievably, the 10,064 value is the logarithm (base value of 2) of the quotient! In other words, the probability of the data on the dependency graph model is so much greater than that given the common descent model, we need logarithms even to type it out. If you tried to type out the plain number, you would have to type a 1 followed by more than 3,000 zeros. That’s the ratio of how probable the data are on these two models!
    By using a base value of 2 in the logarithm we express the Bayes factor in bits. So the conditional probability for the dependency graph model has a 10,064 advantage over that of common descent.
    10,064 bits is far, far from the range in which one might actually consider the lesser model. See, for example, the Bayes factor Wikipedia page, which explains that a Bayes factor of 3.3 bits provides “substantial” evidence for a model, 5.0 bits provides “strong” evidence, and 6.6 bits provides “decisive” evidence.
    This is ridiculous. 6.6 bits is considered to provide “decisive” evidence, and when the dependency graph model case is compared to comment descent case, we get 10,064 bits.
    But It Gets Worse
    The problem with all of this is that the Bayes factor of 10,064 bits for the HomoloGene data set is the very best case for common descent. For the other eight data sets, the Bayes factors range from 40,967 to 515,450.
    In other words, while 6.6 bits would be considered to provide “decisive” evidence for the dependency graph model, the actual, real, biological data provide Bayes factors of 10,064 on up to 515,450.
    We have known for a long time that common descent has failed hard. In Ewert’s new paper, we now have detailed, quantitative results demonstrating this. And Ewert provides a new model, with a far superior fit to the data.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2018/07/new-paper-by-winston-ewert-demonstrates-superiority-of-design-model/

  95. 95
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom: That it’s impossible for brains that were never designed to understand/ apprehend “truth” to have been able to gain such an amount of very abstract knowledge about their environment and to have the conviction that that knowledge is certain (a good approximation I’d say, not absolute certainty of course).

    I don’t understand why that would HAVE to be the case. IF you had a living object with a elementary neuronal system that was passed on to its offspring with variation then why wouldn’t it be the case that a variation which facilitated better analysis and understanding of the world around it be an advantage and therefore more likely to be passed on to the next generation? In other words: why wouldn’t it be the case that the natural environment honed and “rewarded” life forms with better skills of understanding and prediction?

    Also, I’d like to note, that it’s not that I completely trust any single individual’s perception or analysis; it seems to me that mankind has made many, many scientific advancements because we have pooled our experiences, compared and contrasted them, and then arrived at some conclusions. We have had a few individuals like Newton or Einstein but even their work was based on that which had been done before.

    In other words, as individuals we would never have achieved the understand we have now.

    See above. I am saying that under strict materialism, gaining that knowledge is not possible.

    I don’t see why.

    I am asking: how can you be sure that your “reasoning” regarding “design” can be trusted? That your cognitive processes are valid ALTHOUGH according to the “atheistic evolutionary” paradigm you follow you can not trust your brain?

    I tend not to, not when it’s scientific question. I believe it’s because all scientific knowledge is provisional (i.e. it can be overturned) and subject to confirmation by others that makes it strong and a valid reflection of the ‘real’ world.

    Of behaving like rational creatures that can ground their rational faculties in an immutable and trustable source instead of in a willy nilly stupid process that undermines credibility.

    Again, I think we gain knowledge and form moral codes as groups not individuals.

    Show me that the Universe came about by itself without any external source and I will convert to the “naturalist” religion.

    Well, I personally haven’t seen any compelling evidence to the contrary. I will do my best to stay open to the possibility however.

    Anyway, I’m not trying to convert anyone to my way of thinking.

  96. 96
    JVL says:

    ET: We can exclude blind and mindless processes. That is because 1) there isn’t any evidence to support it and @) there isn’t even a way to test the claim.

    So, your position is unfalsifiable? If there’s no possible way to show unguided processes in action?

    Everything we know, observed and experience with coded information processing systems demonstrates they only arise via intelligent agencies. 100% of our knowledge of cause-and-effect relationships confirms that fact.

    Our “experience” is limited to non-living systems devised by human beings. I’d say we still have a lot to learn.

    ID’s science is in the determination and study of design in nature. We have to support that methodology whereas yours doesn’t even have a methodology to test its claims.

    But design is not the same as design implementation which would have to be a mechanistic process. Some being has to be exerting some kind of energy to affect physical structures so that their design gets made. And I don’t see any evidence of that. Or other evidence of a designer or designers.

    JVL thinks that ID has to have all of the answers when his position has nothing. At least ID has a methodology that allows us to test its claims.

    Well except that your explanatory filter is not really mathematically robust, it’s not been shown to have a known success rate, i.e. what are the chances of getting a false positive or false negative? In fact, the whole idea of ruling out natural causes only extends to what we know now; a thousand years ago most people thought every natural phenomena was ‘designed’ because they didn’t understand the laws of nature. That means that your filter would have to shift slightly every time some new discovery was made. It does sound a lot like a ‘God of the gaps’ argument to be honest.

    Evolutionary biologists still don’t even know what determines biological form! The most basic question in biology remains unanswered.

    I’m not sure that is true but a lot of research is going on! People are asking questions and looking for answers. I”m never quite sure what ID research is happening . ..

  97. 97
    ET says:

    Unbelievable. JVL hasn’t seen any evidence that nature did it. JVL doesn’t know of any evidence that nature can produce something like ATP synthase.

    All JVL has is the denial of reality.

  98. 98
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL, whatever. My post is unambiguous.

    Dan S. Tawfik Group – The New View of Proteins – Tyler Hampton – 2016
    Excerpt: one of the most favorable and liberal estimates is by Jack Szostak: 1 in 10^11. 42 He ascertained this figure by looking to see how random sequences—about eighty amino acids in length, long enough to fold—could cling to the biologically crucial molecule adenosine triphosphate, or ATP.
    At first glance, this is an improvement over Salisbury’s calculations by 489 powers of ten. But while an issue has been addressed, the problem has only been deferred. ,,,
    ,,, nucleotide synthesis, requires several steps. If five enzyme functions were needed (ten are needed in modern adenine synthesis), 43 then the probability would be 1 in (10^11)5, or 1 in 10^55. If all the operations needed for a small autonomous biology were ten functions—this is before evolution can even start to help—the probability is 1 in (10^11)10, or 1 in 10^110. This is more than the number of seconds since the Big Bang, more protons than there are in the universe. In considering a similar figure derived in a different context, Tawfik concedes that if true, this would make “the emergence of sequences with function a highly improbable event, despite considerable redundancy (many sequences giving the same structure and function).”44 In other words, these odds are impossible.,,,
    Tawfik soberly recognizes the problem. The appearance of early protein families, he has remarked, is “something like close to a miracle.”45,,,
    “In fact, to our knowledge,” Tawfik and Tóth-Petróczy write, “no macromutations … that gave birth to novel proteins have yet been identified.”69
    The emerging picture, once luminous, has settled to gray. It is not clear how natural selection can operate in the origin of folds or active site architecture (of proteins). It is equally unclear how either micromutations or macromutations could repeatedly and reliably lead to large evolutionary transitions. What remains is a deep, tantalizing, perhaps immovable mystery.
    http://inference-review.com/ar.....f-proteins

    Here Are Those Two Protein Evolution Falsifications That Have Evolutionists Rewriting Their Script – Cornelius Hunter – March 2012
    Excerpt: Several different studies indicate that, at a minimum, about 10^70 (a one followed by 70 zeros) evolutionary experiments would be needed to get close enough to a workable protein design before evolutionary mechanisms could take over and establish the protein in a population. For instance, one study concluded that 10^63 attempts would be required for a relatively short protein. And a similar result (10^65 attempts required) was obtained by comparing protein sequences. Another study found that 10^64 to 10^77 attempts are required, and another study concluded that 10^70 attempts would be required. This requirement for 10^70 evolutionary experiments is far greater than what evolution could accomplish. Even evolutionists have had to admit that evolution could only have a maximum of 10^43 such experiments. It is important to understand how tiny this number is compared to 10^70. 10^43 is not more than half of 10^70. It is not even close to half. 10^43 is an astronomically tiny sliver of 10^70. Furthermore, the estimate of 10^43 is, itself, entirely unrealistic. For instance, it assumes the entire history of the Earth is available, rather than the limited time window that evolution actually would have had. Even more importantly, it assumes the pre existence of bacteria and, yes, proteins.
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....ution.html

    Claim: New Proteins Evolve Very Easily – Cornelius Hunter – April 25, 2017
    Excerpt:  It is now clear that for a given protein, only a few changes to its amino acid sequence can be sustained before the protein function is all but eliminated. Here is how one paper explained it:
    “The accepted paradigm that proteins can tolerate nearly any amino acid substitution has been replaced by the view that the deleterious effects of mutations, and especially their tendency to undermine the thermodynamic and kinetic stability of protein, is a major constraint on protein evolvability—the ability of proteins to acquire changes in sequence and function.”
    In other words, protein function precipitously drops off with only a tiny fraction of its amino acids altered. It is not a gradual fitness landscape. Another paper described the protein fitness landscape as rugged.
    Therefore it is not surprising that various studies on evolving proteins have failed to show a viable mechanism. One study concluded that 10^63 attempts would be required to evolve a relatively short protein. And a similar result (10^65 attempts required) was obtained by comparing protein sequences. Another study found that 10^64 to 10^77 attempts are required, and another study concluded that 10^70 attempts would be required.
    So something like 10^70 attempts are required yet evolutionists estimate that only 10^43 attempts are possible. In other words, there is a shortfall of 27 orders of magnitude.
    But it gets worse. The estimate that 10^43 attempts are possible is utterly unrealistic. For it assumes billions of years are available, and that for that entire time the Earth is covered with bacteria, constantly churning out mutations and new protein experiments. Aside from the fact that these assumptions are entirely unrealistic, the estimate also suffers from the rather inconvenient fact that those bacteria are, err, full of proteins. In other word, for evolution to evolve proteins, they must already exist in the first place.
    This is absurd. And yet, even with these overly optimistic assumptions, evolution falls short by 27 orders of magnitude.
    https://www.evolutionnews.org/2017/04/claim-new-proteins-evolve-very-easily/

  99. 99
    ET says:

    JVL:

    So, your position is unfalsifiable?

    We have said how to falsify it. It isn’t our fault that no one can.

    Our “experience” is limited to non-living systems devised by human beings. I’d say we still have a lot to learn.

    Wrong. We have plenty of experience with blind and mindless processes. That is why we can exclude them when it comes to coded information processing systems. They don’t have the tools nor the capability.

    But design is not the same as design implementation which would have to be a mechanistic process.

    And we don’t have to know the how in order to determine design exists

    And I don’t see any evidence of that. Or other evidence of a designer or designers.

    Your ignorance still isn’t an argument. ID is evidenced by several different scientific venues. Your side still has nothing.

    Well except that your explanatory filter is not really mathematically robust, it’s not been shown to have a known success rate, i.e. what are the chances of getting a false positive or false negative?

    The EF is more robust than anything your side has.

    Again, the science of today relies on the knowledge of today. Only a fool would think that we have to wait for something the future may or may not uncover.

    I’m not sure that is true but a lot of research is going on!

    It is true.

    No one is researching blind watchmaker evolution. No one uses it for anything. It is worse than useless

  100. 100
    ET says:

    On the Problem of Biological Form

    Thanks to evolutionary biology that most basic of biological questions remains unanswered.

  101. 101
  102. 102
    JVL says:

    ET: Unbelievable. JVL hasn’t seen any evidence that nature did it.

    I’ve seen loads! But it’s not evidence you accept. Which is why I’m asking: what would it take to falsify your view?

    Now, in your particular case . . . you think that most if not all beneficial mutations are guided. So . . . if I was able to point to a situation where a series of mutations led to a new binding point you just might say: but how do you know the mutations were random? So, again, what is your criteria? How would someone show that unguided mutations and processes ‘did it’?

    All JVL has is the denial of reality.

    Where exactly?

    Wrong. We have plenty of experience with blind and mindless processes

    Are any of them biologic?

    And we don’t have to know the how in order to determine design exists

    But that doesn’t apply to design implementation which obvious would have had to happen.

    Again, the science of today relies on the knowledge of today. Only a fool would think that we have to wait for something the future may or may not uncover.

    My point is that your explanatory is not the same as it was 150 years ago. So, how do you know it won’t change again?

    No one is researching blind watchmaker evolution. No one uses it for anything. It is worse than uselessNo one is researching blind watchmaker evolution. No one uses it for anything. It is worse than useless

    No designer means it’s all down to unguided processes! So, where is your designer?

  103. 103
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom: Donald Hoffman’s Evolutionary Argument Against Reality contradicts your “realist” position:

    So, who knows if he’s right? Why do you think he’s right?

    By the way, no where in that interview does Dr Hoffman argue for design or a designer. Just sayin’.

    AND, actually, he doesn’t contradict my view. He is saying that we have to be aware that our perception of reality is skewed. BUT that doesn’t imply that those with a better perception of reality won’t have an advantage.

  104. 104

    .
    #81

    Here [again] are your own words in applying your double standard:

    JVL: I would not be surprised at all if we find electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings in other solar systems

    UB: How would we know if we found “electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings”? What would that be?

    JVL: Something like in the movie Contact. A signal that’s very clearly NOT produced by unguided processes. A signal which, after inspection, was shown to have compressed data.

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    As shown here, you clearly accept the finding of semiosis as a valid inference to the presence of a previously unknown intelligence in one instance, but immediately deny that exact same finding in another instance.

    That is a double standard.

    You have been asked: ”Why the double standard?”

    Your answer: ”Because there is no plausible designer available”

    You thereby confirm that you apply the double standard in order to deny the existence of the very thing that you otherwise accept without the double standard in place.

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    And now, more obfuscation:

    In both cases I would expect experts in the field to smoke test the signal or phenomena to make sure that what was being scrutinised could not have been created or produced by natural, unguided processes.

    No narrow-band radio signal has ever been detected from space, and therefore no semiotic content has ever been detected from space. On the other hand, a genuine semiotic system was predicted as the primary physical requirement for the gene system, and that prediction was famously confirmed via experimental result in the 1950s and 1960s. These facts are not in dispute.

    So far no detected interstellar signal has met that criteria and neither has the genetic code.

    The criteria “It must be proven that X did not come about by an unknown/unspecified process” is a non-falsifiable criteria, and as you are well aware, it is therefore non-scientific and illogical.

    Allow me to repeat this point so that you have to fully step over it the next time you bring this up: You are using a non-falsifiable (non-scientific) criteria as your back-up rationalization for applying a double standard to documented physical evidence. I realize that you don’t have the ideological sovereignty to actually acknowledge this glaring failure in your reasoning, but it remains just the same.

    I don’t have a double standard.

    I refer you back to your own statements, cut and pasted at the beginning of this comment. Your double-standard cannot be made more obvious than in your own words.

  105. 105
    ET says:

    JVL:

    I’ve seen loads!

    Nonsense.

    Now, in your particular case . . . you think that most if not all beneficial mutations are guided.

    More nonsense.

    So . . . if I was able to point to a situation where a series of mutations led to a new binding point you just might say: but how do you know the mutations were random?

    “Waiting for TWO Mutations” goes over that.

    How would someone show that unguided mutations and processes ‘did it’?

    That is up to the people making the claim.

    Where exactly?

    Everywhere that you deny the science and the design inference.

    Are any of them biologic?

    Yes.

    But that doesn’t apply to design implementation which obvious would have had to happen.

    ID is not about design implementation. Grow up, already.

    My point is that your explanatory is not the same as it was 150 years ago. So, how do you know it won’t change again?

    The design inference is stronger today, thanks to science. It is only going to get stronger.

    No designer means it’s all down to unguided processes!

    No evidence for that claim means it can be dismissed. No methodology to test that claim means it is outside of science.

    The evidence for an Intelligent Designer comes from several different scientific venues. It is a consilience of evidence that leads to ID. OTOH there isn’t any evidence that blind and mindless processes could do it and there still isn’t any way to test it.

    That is why no one uses it for anything beyond promoting their biased worldview.

  106. 106
    JVL says:

    Upright BiPed: As shown here, you clearly accept the finding of semiosis as a valid inference to the presence of a previously unknown intelligence in one instance, but immediately deny that exact same finding in another instance.

    A signal that is clearly not produced by unguided processes. I didn’t say ‘semiosis’. I am willing to let the experts in the field determine the case.

    Why are you so fixated on trying to catch me out in a contradiction? What does it get you?

    The criteria “It must be proven that X did not come about by an unknown/unspecified process” is a non-falsifiable criteria, and as you are well aware, it is therefore non-scientific and illogical.

    Did I say proven? If I did then, yes, that was incorrect. I would rephrase that. But did I actually say that?

    Look, you are making a mountain out of a very small pile of dirt. We all agree that any kind of interstellar signal that seems to be intelligently designed should be subject to intense scrutiny. No one should jump the gun and claim that aliens have been found without very, very careful examination.

    The same as with the genetic code. No one wants to come to a ‘designed’ conclusion without clear and unambiguous evidence. At the same time I think there is lots and lots of evidence building up for the genetic code being non-designed.

    You, personally, have chosen the criteria of semiotic to be your line in the sand. But clearly others disagree, including, I think, Dr Pattee.

    Why don’t you just let it go? We’re not getting anywhere. We’re not going to change each other’s minds so why continue to have the argument?

    I understand: you have a deep and personal experience of a greater, loving being in your life. I’m not trying to dissuade you from that heart-felt and defining situation. But that doesn’t make it science nor does it mean that when you think you’ve found some academic justification for your beliefs that the rest of us have to accept it.

    I’m not going to try and impose my beliefs on you; that would be insulting and, at its base, controlling. I’m happy to compare and contrast our views because I find that interesting and it means I’m better able to understand you which I think is good. I’m interested in finding the best middle ground when dealing with contentious societal issues.

    I think we should just let it go don’t you?

  107. 107
    JVL says:

    ET:

    As usual, you put the onus onto those you disagree with without providing clear criteria that you would be willing to accept.

    You dismiss design implementation out of hand but surely that is the crux of the matter. What good is design without implementation? How do you even know design has occurred if it wasn’t implemented? But implementation is a mechanistic process. That requires energy at the very least and quite possibly tools and personnel, etc.

    You think some biological systems were designed. That means a design was implemented. When? How? Without answering those questions you are just pontificating. Where’s the beef? What are saying actually happened? Answering that is what’s going to win over your critics. Avoiding that makes you look like a science stopper, someone who can’t get to the heart of the matter.

    You can on and on and on trying to poke holes in evolutionary theory but until you shore up your own case you aren’t going to be taken seriously.

  108. 108
    kairosfocus says:

    BA77, just for one Lakatos pointed out that we hardly ever test just an explanatory hypothesis or theory, there are always auxiliary hypotheses and so ability to empirically falsify is blunted. Next, there are many things we can transparently warrant but which would be at least very hard to falsify. And more. KF

  109. 109

    .

    A signal that is clearly not produced by unguided processes. I didn’t say ‘semiosis’.

    Good grief. We’ve been here before. The obfuscation is deliberate and never ceases:

    UB: If you do indeed drop the rhetoric, then you’ll be left with the fact that Howard Pattee’s physical analysis of the gene system demonstrates that a symbol system, a language structure, and semantic closure are all required for the origin of life,

    JVL: I don’t think he said that.

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    Symbol systems first controlled material construction at the origin of life. At this molecular level it is only in the context of open-ended evolvability that symbol-matter systems and their functions can be objectively defined. Symbols are energy-degenerate structures not determined by laws that act locally as special boundary conditions or constraints on law-based energy-dependent matter in living systems. Physical and functional conditions for symbols, codes, and languages – Howard Pattee

    Evolution requires the genotype-phenotype distinction, a primeval epistemic cut that separates energy-degenerate, rate-independent genetic symbols from the rate-dependent dynamics of construction that they control. This symbol-matter or subject-object distinction occurs at all higher levels where symbols are related to a referent by an arbitrary code. The Physics of Symbol Systems , Howard Pattee

    Life originated with symbolic memory, and symbols originated with life. I find it gratuitous to use the concept of symbol, even metaphorically, in physical systems where no function exists. Symbols do not exist in isolation but are part of a semiotic or linguistic system (Pattee, 1969a).

    The necessary but not sufficient conditions for biological informational concepts like signs, symbols, memories, instructions, and messages are (1) an object or referent that the information is about, (2) a physical embodiment or vehicle that stands for what the information is about (the object), and (3) an interpreter or agent that separates the referent information from the vehicle’s material structure, and that establishes the stands-for relation. – Epistemic, Evolutionary, and Physical Conditions for Biological Information – Howard Pattee

    This additional self-referent condition for being the subject-part of an epistemic cut I have called semantic (or semiotic) closure (Pattee, 1982, 1995). This is the molecular chicken-egg closure that makes the origin of life problem so difficult. The Physics of Symbol Systems, – Howard Pattee

    Biosemiotics distinguishes life from inanimate matter by its dependence on material construction controlled by coded symbolic information. This irreducible primitive distinction between matter and symbol is necessary for open-ended evolvability and the origin of life. The Necessity of Biosemiotics: Matter-Symbol Complementarity, – Howard Pattee

    This second freedom is the freedom of interpretation of the symbols. This requires an arbitrary code, a condition necessary for a general-purpose language, a concept that I will discuss in Sec.5. The implementation of a code requires a subtle but essential physical condition. The code’s arbitrariness means that the constraint of the coding process must have freedom that is not completely under the control of the dynamics, but at the same time it must depend on the dynamics for execution of the coding rules. This requires that the constraint must have more degrees of freedom in its structural configurations than the laws allow in its energy-based dynamic behavior. (Pattee, 1968, 1972). – Physical and functional conditions for symbols, codes, and languages – Howard Pattee

    These are the physical conditions required to implement von Neumann’s logical closure. I have called this semantic closure, but Luis Rocha (2001) has more accurately called it semiotic closure because its realization also includes the syntax and pragmatic physical control processes. The Necessity of Biosemiotics: Matter-Symbol Complementarity, – Howard Pattee

    etc. etc. etc. etc.

    You accept semiosis as an unambiguous inference to the presence of a previously unknown intelligence in one domain, but immediately deny it in another.

    Question: Why the double standard?

    Answer: ”Because there is no plausible designer available” – JVL

    You apply the double standard in order to deny the existence of the very thing that you otherwise accept without the double standard in place.

    Your double standard is plain for all to see.

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    EDIT

    We’re not going to change each other’s minds

    This is not about changing your mind, JVL. You stand by your statement that there is no evidence of design in biology, even though you now clearly know that this is false.

    This confrontation is about exposing the way in which you arrive at and maintain that false statement.

    You ignore the science and history, then apply a double standard to what is left.

  110. 110
    bornagain77 says:

    Kf, I am very well aware of Lakatos’s (and Kuhn’s) subsequent work. That still does not negate any specific theory’s primary requirement to submit to empirical testing in order for it to even be in the realm of science in the first place.

    That is to say, passing empirical tests (and/or the ability of any specific theory to not be falsified by empirical testing), is the first and foremost criteria for ANY specific theory to even be considered truly scientific in the first place.

    You can debate predictive power, auxiliary hypothesis, epicycle theories, etc… afterwards, But first and foremost, for a theory to even be in the realm of empirical science in the first place, is for that theory to pass empirical testing. PERIOD!

    The ability to be empirically tested, (and potentially falsified) is what makes falsification the ‘go to gold standard’ for ascertaining whether a theory even to be considered truly scientific in the first place!

    Please note Ellis’s critique of multiverse scenarios is that they try to exempt themselves from empirical testing and quote unquote, “a theory must be falsifiable to be scientific.”

    Defend the integrity of physics – George Ellis – 2014
    Attempts to exempt speculative theories of the Universe from experimental verification undermine science
    Excerpt: This year, debates in physics circles took a worrying turn. Faced with difficulties in applying fundamental
    theories to the observed Universe, some researchers called for a change in how theor­ etical physics is done. They began to argue — explicitly — that if a theory is sufficiently elegant and explanatory, it need not be tested experimentally, breaking with centuries of philosophical tradition of defining scientific knowledge as empirical. We disagree. As the philosopher of science Karl Popper argued: a theory must be falsifiable to be scientific.
    https://personal.lse.ac.uk/ROBERT49/ebooks/PhilSciAdventures/img/ellis-silk.pdf

    I say Hear, Hear!

    Also of note: since you brought up Lakatos, Darwin’s theory also fails Lakatos’s subsequent criteria for being considered a science.

    Imre Lakatos, who was a student of Karl Popper, and who is also regarded as another prominent philosopher of science in the 20th century, stated that “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific”

    Imre Lakatos – Pseudoscience – Darwin’s Theory
    According to the demarcation criterion of pseudoscience originally proposed by Lakatos, a theory is pseudoscientific if it fails to make any novel predictions of previously unknown phenomena, in contrast with scientific theories, which predict novel fact(s).[21] Progressive scientific theories are those which have their novel facts confirmed and degenerate scientific theories are those whose predictions of novel facts are refuted. As he put it:
    “A given fact is explained scientifically only if a new fact is predicted with it….The idea of growth and the concept of empirical character are soldered into one.”
    See pages 34–5 of The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes, 1978.
    Lakatos’s own key examples of pseudoscience were Ptolemaic astronomy, Immanuel Velikovsky’s planetary cosmogony, Freudian psychoanalysis, 20th century Soviet Marxism,[22] Lysenko’s biology, Niels Bohr’s Quantum Mechanics post-1924, astrology, psychiatry, sociology, neoclassical economics, and Darwin’s theory.
    Darwin’s theory
    In his 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture 1[23] he also claimed that “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific”.
    Almost 20 years after Lakatos’s 1973 challenge to the scientificity of Darwin, in her 1991 The Ant and the Peacock, LSE lecturer and ex-colleague of Lakatos, Helena Cronin, attempted to establish that Darwinian theory was empirically scientific in respect of at least being supported by evidence of likeness in the diversity of life forms in the world, explained by descent with modification. She wrote that
    “our usual idea of corroboration as requiring the successful prediction of novel facts…Darwinian theory was not strong on temporally novel predictions..”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Lakatos#Pseudoscience

    Lakatos also went on to state that “In degenerating programmes, however, theories are fabricated only in order to accommodate known facts”

    Science and Pseudoscience (transcript) –
    “In degenerating programmes, however, theories are fabricated only in order to accommodate known facts”
    – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, , quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture
    http://www.lse.ac.uk/philosoph.....ranscript/

    And another prominent philosopher of science of the 20th century, Thomas Kuhn, who introduced the term ‘paradigm shift’, also noted that when faced with an anomaly, a theory’s defenders “will devise numerous articulations and ad hoc modifications of their theory in order to eliminate any apparent conflict.”

    Inquiry-Based Science Education — on Everything but Evolution – Sarah Chaffee – January 22, 2016
    Excerpt: As Thomas Kuhn wrote in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, when faced with an anomaly, a theory’s defenders “will devise numerous articulations and ad hoc modifications of their theory in order to eliminate any apparent conflict.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....02534.html

    And in regards to a theory making predictions that are shown to be false and then making up ad hoc theories to try to cover up those embarrassing falsified predictions, then by that ‘predictability’ falsification criteria set out by Lakatos and Kuhn, Darwinian evolution more than qualifies as a pseudoscience rather than a real science. Here is a site, that was put together by Dr. Cornelius Hunter, that goes over many of the failed predictions of Darwinian evolution.

    Darwin’s (Failed) Predictions – Cornelius Hunter
    https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/

    As Dr. Hunter goes on to state in the following article,,, “With each new absurdity another new complicated just-so story is woven into evolutionary theory. As Lakatos explained, some theories simply are not falsifiable. But as a result they sacrifice realism and parsimony.”

    Here’s That Algae Study That Decouples Phylogeny and Competition – June 17, 2014
    Excerpt: “With each new absurdity another new complicated just-so story is woven into evolutionary theory. As Lakatos explained, some theories simply are not falsifiable. But as a result they sacrifice realism and parsimony.”
    – Cornelius Hunter
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....couples.ht

  111. 111
    Truthfreedom says:

    103 JVL

    So, who knows if he’s right?

    He has published his paper on the Journal of Theoretical Biology . You can read it.
    What’s the empirical support for your theory of: “we should trust our brain because trusting our brain is what got us here”? (Which is circular reasoning).

    By the way, no where in that interview does Dr Hoffman argue for design or a designer. Just sayin’.

    Well, in fact, he argues for something far more interesting: subjective idealism (which remember is where the combination “materialism” + the physiology of vision leads; I am venturing you did not read the link I posted):
    Materialism’s Failures: Hylemorphism’s Vindication. (Aristotle is back).

    Both Hoffman and Dr. Bonnette explain the same: that “materialism” does not exist at all. Idealism is the new paradigm (preeminence of “mind” over “matter”). And “mind” = God (who is the Master Designer).

    Just commentin’.

  112. 112
    Truthfreedom says:

    106 JVL

    I understand: you have a deep and personal experience of a greater, loving being in your life. I’m not trying to dissuade you from that heart-felt and defining situation. But that doesn’t make it science nor does it mean that when you think you’ve found some academic justification for your beliefs that the rest of us have to accept it.

    We understand: you “materialists” have a deep and personal experience of being “purposeless primates in a world without design where truth is an illusion and free will doesn’t exist.” We are not trying to dissuade you, because in fact you have free will and may choose to believe any strange, non-sensical thing. But that doesn’t make it science, just philosophy hiding behind the facade of science. An obsolete and obviously absurd philosophy by the way. And of course no sane person accepts it and it’s just a “matter” of time (pun intended) for the “ivory tower elites” to catch up with what’s coming and accept the massive failure of their worldview.
    Naturalism’s Epistemological Blunder

  113. 113
    JVL says:

    Upright BiPed: “Life originated with symbolic memory, and symbols originated with life.”

    So, they arrive on the scene at the same time?

    ” The implementation of a code requires a subtle but essential physical condition. The code’s arbitrariness means that the constraint of the coding process must have freedom that is not completely under the control of the dynamics, but at the same time it must depend on the dynamics for execution of the coding rules.”

    So, there are some physical/chemical dependancies?

    You accept semiosis as an unambiguous inference to the presence of a previously unknown intelligence in one domain, but immediately deny it in another.

    Again, I would leave the call to experts in the pertinent field. I can speculate and guess what would be convincing but I will always defers to those who know better.

    Also, interstellar signals are inanimate whereas the genetic code is part of a web of living systems.

    This is not about changing your mind, JVL. You stand by your statement that there is no evidence of design in biology, even though you now clearly know that this is false.

    I don’t find the evidence convincing. And I am not alone in that conclusion. So it’s not just me being stubborn.

    This confrontation is about exposing the way in which you arrive at and maintain that false statement.

    Well, pardon me if I don’t take it as seriously as you do.

    You ignore the science and history, then apply a double standard to what is left.

    I disagree with you.

  114. 114
    Truthfreedom says:

    113 JVL

    I don’t find the evidence convincing. And I am not alone in that conclusion.

    Fallacious appeal to numbers. Millions of people do not find the alleged evidence for “darwinian evolution” convincing.

  115. 115
    Truthfreedom says:

    113 JVL

    I disagree with you.

    Irrelevant. You have to show why you disagree and substantiate it. Then others can judge the evidence.

  116. 116
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom: What’s the empirical support for your theory of: “we should trust our brain because trusting our brain is what got us here”? (Which is circular reasoning).

    I don’t completely trust my brain or anyone else’s brain. But I do believe that if we’re open and honest and consider a plethora of views and results we have a better chance of figuring out what is true.

    Both Hoffman and Dr. Bonnette explain the same: that “materialism” does not exist at all.

    I don’t think Dr Hoffman supported that view actually.

    But that doesn’t make it science, just philosophy hiding behind the facade of science.

    But repeated and independent results pointing to the same conclusion indicate that we’re getting at the truth.

    I don’t think my life is purposeless or meaningless. In fact, most atheists I know care deeply about looking after other human beings and strive to make the world a better place for all. You may choose to poo-poo that sentiment but it does exist and it informs decisions and behaviour. Which means you’re going to attack me because I’m supporting the notion of free will whereas you think I shouldn’t support such a notion. Personally, I don’t think being an atheist is equivalent to being a determinist nor do I think that makes me inconsistent despite your view on the matter.

  117. 117
    Truthfreedom says:

    116 JVL

    I don’t completely trust my brain or anyone else’s brain. But I do believe that if we’re open and honest and consider a plethora of views and results we have a better chance of figuring out what is true.

    That’s not empirical support. That’s a guess. Dr. Hoffman has published his scientific paper and his model, showing that under evolution, we can not know reality as it is, just a “downgraded version” (“desktop icon”). Meaning, as I said above, that atheistic evolution is a dead end. We can only know a very small part of our environment, therefore all grandiose claims about the Universe, its origins and its design were never meant for us.
    Only a person who appeals to a transcendent, immutable source of knowledge (the God that originated this Universe and created us in His image) can hold a rational position when he/ she claims that we are able to understand what’s going on here. Evolution never intended for us anything except to be another unremarkable primate that one day will disappear without never apprehending “truth”.

  118. 118
    Truthfreedom says:

    116 JVL

    Truthfreedom: Both Hoffman and Dr. Bonnette explain the same: that “materialism” does not exist at all.

    JVL: I don’t think Dr Hoffman supported that view actually.

    Then you have not understood what you read. Donald Hoffmann, (who is a cognitive scientist) is a Berkeleyian or subjective idealist.

    ” I’m emphasizing the larger lesson of quantum mechanics: Neurons, brains, space … these are just symbols we use, they’re not real. It’s not that there’s a classical brain that does some quantum magic. It’s that there’s no brain! Quantum mechanics says that classical objects — including brains — don’t exist. So this is a far more radical claim about the nature of reality and does not involve the brain pulling off some tricky quantum computation. So even Penrose hasn’t taken it far enough. But most of us, you know, we’re born realists. We’re born physicalists. This is a really, really hard one to let go of.”
    The Evolutionary Argument against Reality

    He is saying that the materialist paradigm is over but “a hard one to let go of” and that “matter” is just a “projection” in our consciousness (which is primary). Moreover, he explains that the materialist claim of an “external, mind-independent objective reality” is false. Which is what your “materialist” paradigm is so fond of claiming we are exhausting (“we are uncovering the truth”).
    Nope.

  119. 119
    bornagain77 says:

    Per Hoffman’s results, his results play into my larger point about the primary importance of empirical evidence in science.

    Donald Hoffman, via the mathematics of population genetics, proved that if Darwinian evolution were true then ALL of our perceptions of reality would be illusory, (not just some of our perceptions being illusory as was generally held before Hoffman’s work):

    Donald Hoffman: Do we see reality as it is? – Video – 9:59 minute mark
    Quote: “fitness does depend on reality as it is, yes.,,, Fitness is not the same thing as reality as it is, and it is fitness, and not reality as it is, that figures centrally in the equations of evolution. So, in my lab, we have run hundreds of thousands of evolutionary game simulations with lots of different randomly chosen worlds and organisms that compete for resources in those worlds. Some of the organisms see all of the reality. Others see just part of the reality. And some see none of the reality. Only fitness. Who wins? Well I hate to break it to you but perception of reality goes extinct. In almost every simulation, organisms that see none of reality, but are just tuned to fitness, drive to extinction (those organisms) that perceive reality as it is. So the bottom line is, evolution does not favor veridical, or accurate perceptions. Those (accurate) perceptions of reality go extinct. Now this is a bit stunning. How can it be that not seeing the world accurately gives us a survival advantage?”
    https://youtu.be/oYp5XuGYqqY?t=601

    The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality – April 2016
    The cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman uses evolutionary game theory to show that our perceptions of an independent reality must be illusions.
    Excerpt: “The classic argument is that those of our ancestors who saw more accurately had a competitive advantage over those who saw less accurately and thus were more likely to pass on their genes that coded for those more accurate perceptions, so after thousands of generations we can be quite confident that we’re the offspring of those who saw accurately, and so we see accurately. That sounds very plausible. But I think it is utterly false. It misunderstands the fundamental fact about evolution, which is that it’s about fitness functions — mathematical functions that describe how well a given strategy achieves the goals of survival and reproduction. The mathematical physicist Chetan Prakash proved a theorem that I devised that says: According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never.”
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/

    Although Hoffman tried to limit his results to just our visual perceptions, as Plantinga had pointed out years before Hoffman came along, there is no reason why the results do not also extend to undermining our cognitive faculties as well:

    The Case Against Reality – May 13, 2016
    Excerpt: Hoffman seems to come to a conclusion similar to the one Alvin Plantinga argues in ch. 10 of Where the Conflict Really Lies: we should not expect — in the absence of further argument — that creatures formed by a naturalistic evolutionary process would have veridical perceptions.,,,
    First, even if Hoffman’s argument were restricted to visual perception, and not to our cognitive faculties more generally (e.g., memory, introspection, a priori rational insight, testimonial belief, inferential reasoning, etc.), the conclusion that our visual perceptions would be wholly unreliable given natural selection would be sufficient for Plantinga’s conclusion of self-defeat. After all, reliance upon the veridicality of our visual perceptions was and always will be crucial for any scientific argument for the truth of evolution. So if these perceptions cannot be trusted, we have little reason to think evolutionary theory is true.
    Second, it’s not clear that Hoffman’s application of evolutionary game theory is only specially applicable to visual perception, rather than being relevant for our cognitive faculties generally. If “we find that veridical perceptions can be driven to extinction by non-veridical strategies that are tuned to utility rather than objective reality” (2010, p. 504, my emphasis), then why wouldn’t veridical cognitive faculties (more generally) be driven to extinction by non-veridical strategies that are tuned to utility rather than objective reality? After all, evolutionary theory purports to be the true account of the formation of all of our cognitive faculties, not just our faculty of visual perception. If evolutionary game theory proves that “true perception generally goes extinct” when “animals that perceive the truth compete with others that sacrifice truth for speed and energy-efficiency” (2008), why wouldn’t there be a similar sacrifice with respect to other cognitive faculties? In fact, Hoffman regards the following theorem as now proven: “According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness” (Atlantic interview). But then wouldn’t it also be the case that an organism that cognizes reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that cognizes none of reality but is just tuned to fitness? On the evolutionary story, every cognitive faculty we have was produced by a process that was tuned to fitness (rather than tuned to some other value, such as truth).
    http://www.gregwelty.com/2016/.....t-reality/

    Moreover, in direct contradiction to the mathematical prediction from Darwinian theory that ALL of of perceptions will be illusory, experimental results from quantum theory prove that ALL our perceptions, and/or conscious observations, of reality, far from being unreliable and illusory, are experimentally found to be far more integral to reality, and therefore far more reliable of reality, than the mathematics of population genetics predicted for Darwinian theory.

    In the following experiment, it was found that ““It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”

    New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It – June 3, 2015
    Excerpt: The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts.
    “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,,
    “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said.
    Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer.
    http://themindunleashed.org/20.....at-it.html

    Likewise, the following experiment also found that “reality does not exist when we’re not observing it.”

    Quantum physics says goodbye to reality – Apr 20, 2007 ?
    Excerpt: Many realizations of the thought experiment have indeed verified the violation of Bell’s inequality. These have ruled out all hidden-variables theories based on joint assumptions of realism, meaning that reality exists when we are not observing it; and locality, meaning that separated events cannot influence one another instantaneously. But a violation of Bell’s inequality does not tell specifically which assumption – realism, locality or both – is discordant with quantum mechanics.?Markus Aspelmeyer, Anton Zeilinger and colleagues from the University of Vienna, however, have now shown that realism is more of a problem than locality in the quantum world. They devised an experiment that violates a different inequality proposed by physicist Anthony Leggett in 2003 that relies only on realism, and relaxes the reliance on locality. To do this, rather than taking measurements along just one plane of polarization, the Austrian team took measurements in additional, perpendicular planes to check for elliptical polarization.?They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell’s thought experiment, Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it. “Our study shows that ‘just’ giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics,” Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. “You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism.”?
    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640

    And as the following recent experiment also stated, “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”.

    More Than One Reality Exists (in Quantum Physics) By Mindy Weisberger – March 20, 2019
    Excerpt: “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”.
    https://www.livescience.com/65029-dueling-reality-photons.html

    Thus, according to the mathematical predictions of Darwinian theory, ALL of our perceptions are illusory. Yet according to the experimental results quantum theory, ALL our perceptions of reality, far from being illusory. are found to integral to, and therefore reliable of, reality. (whatever that definition of ‘reality’ may turn out to be).

    In science, experimental results trump theory every time. As Feynman stated, “If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”

    “If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
    – Richard Feynman – On the Scientific Method

    Moreover, reliable observation also happens to be a necessary cornerstone of the scientific method itself

    Steps of the Scientific Method
    Observation/Research
    Hypothesis
    Prediction
    Experimentation
    Conclusion
    http://www.sciencemadesimple.c.....ethod.html

    Thus, In what should be needless to say, a worldview that undermines the scientific method itself by holding that all our observations of reality, and cognitive faculties, are illusory is NOT a worldview that can possibly be grounded within the scientific method!

    In short, Darwin’s theory turns out to be, not only a unfalsifiable pseudo-science, but to undermine the science method itself.

    If that does not disqualify Darwin’s theory from being considered science nothing ever will!

    Thessalonians 5:21
    Test all things; hold fast what is good.

  120. 120
    kairosfocus says:

    UB, you are seeing selective hyperskepticism backed by an ideological commitment that sets up a crooked yardstick. Yes, there is alphanumeric, digital, algorithmic code in the cell. Backed by molecular nanotech execution machinery, manifesting verbal language and antecedent to biological cell based life. There is but one plausible source for language, and algorithms are inherently goal directed linguistic phenomena. It’s not just messages, it is goal-directed applications of identifiable machine code. We have good reason to declare independence of the ideological straightjacket and infer design. The double standard on SETI simply shows the selective hyperskepticism. KF

    PS, BTW, any advanced civilisation likely would use deeply encoded broadband radio indistinguishable from noise. Unless, they were sending messages in the clear to others, which does not make a lot of sense on cosmic scale.

  121. 121
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom: Dr. Hoffman has published his scientific paper and his model, showing that under evolution, we can not know reality as it is, just a “downgraded version”

    IF we only depend on our our personal impressions and observations. But the fact that human beings figured out Quantum Mechanics and Relativity shows that we can punch above our own personal weight.

    Meaning, as I said above, that atheistic evolution is a dead end. We can only know a very small part of our environment, therefore all grandiose claims about the Universe, its origins and its design were never meant for us.

    So, you’d just stop trying to figure it all out? “We can’t get there so why try?” I don’t think that’s what you mean but it sounds like it.

    Only a person who appeals to a transcendent, immutable source of knowledge (the God that originated this Universe and created us in His image) can hold a rational position when he/ she claims that we are able to understand what’s going on here.

    Maybe but I don’t think theology had anything to do with the discovery of Calculus, the laws of thermodynamics, Relativity or Quantum Mechanics. Or even plate tectonics.

    Evolution never intended for us anything except to be another unremarkable primate that one day will disappear without never apprehending “truth”.

    But we’ve managed to transcend our physical and historical limitations! That’s pretty cool don’t you think? And, in the last few hundred years, we’ve started to create our own fitness landscape wherein having greater insight will improve ones ‘fitness’.

    He is saying that the materialist paradigm is over but “a hard one to let go of” and that “matter” is just a “projection” in our consciousness (which is primary). Moreover, he explains that the materialist claim of an “external, mind-independent objective reality” is false. Which is what your “materialist” paradigm is so fond of claiming we are exhausting (“we are uncovering the truth”).

    But he doesn’t (as you do) thence support the notion of some greater being ruling over all of us. He reminds me of David Hume in a way. I just don’t find that attitude particularly helpful when you’re trying to figure things out.

  122. 122
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: Yes, there is alphanumeric, digital, algorithmic code in the cell. Backed by molecular nanotech execution machinery, manifesting verbal language and antecedent to biological cell based life.

    Ah but Dr Hoffman says that’s all an illusion, just our limited perspective.

    You can’t have it both ways guys. I believe there is an actual physical reality that we can slowly, step-by-step learn to understand.

  123. 123
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, it is the evolutionary mindset (that is reduced to using the minds it implies we don’t have), through freedom governed by moral principles (ditto) that is trying to deny the import of what is there before our eyes. We have found our SETI signal, right there in every cell of our bodies. KF

  124. 124
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL at 122 states,

    “Dr Hoffman says that’s all an illusion, just our limited perspective.
    You can’t have it both ways guys. I believe there is an actual physical reality that we can slowly, step-by-step learn to understand.”

    You just can’t make this stuff up. As I explained in post 119, (a post that JVL apparently ignored), Dr. Hoffman found that, IF darwinian evolution were true, then the mathematics of population genetics predict that ALL of our perceptions are illusory.

    As I further explained in post 119, it is a claim that, number 1, directly contradicts the experimental results from quantum mechanics which show that ALL our conscious observation of reality are far more integral to reality, and therefore far more reliable of reality, than was predicted for Darwinian evolution by Hoffman.

    In other words, these experimental results from quantum mechanics (that I referenced in post 119) directly falsify the mathematical prediction for Darwinian evolution that ALL of our perceptions will be illusory.

    All of this is good, clean, hard science, and should, (if Darwinian evolution were a normal science instead of being basically a unfalsifiable religion for atheists), count as yet another powerful experimental falsification of Darwinian evolution.

    To repeat Feynman, “If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”

    “Now I’m going to discuss how we would look for a new law. In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works.
    If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is … If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
    – Richard Feynman – On the Scientific Method
    https://fs.blog/2009/12/mental-model-scientific-method/

    And number 2, as I further pointed out in post 119, (since reliable observation is a necessary cornerstone of the scientific method itself), Hoffman’s results also directly undermine Darwinian claims that it can possibly be based on the scientific method..

    Even JVL himself stated that he does not believe Hoffman’s results, but he instead believes that “there is an actual physical reality that we can slowly, step-by-step learn to understand.”

    In short, in spite of Hoffman’s results for Darwinian evolution, JVL instead believes that his observations of reality are, for the most part, reliable and trustworthy. Which is all fine and well since the progress of science itself testifies to the fact that our observations of reality must be, for the most part, reliable and trustworthy.

    JVL even had the audacity to say “You can’t have it both ways guys.”

    Like I said, you just can’t make this stuff up.

    FYI JVL, it is YOU yourself who believes Darwinian evolution to be true! Not us!!!

    Thus it is YOU yourself who can’t have it both ways.

    That is to say, YOU cannot hold that both Darwinian evolution is true and that your observations of reality are, for the most part, reliable and trustworthy as you are currently trying to do.

    If you had any integrity JVL you would honestly admit that your Darwinian worldview can’t possibly be true.

    Moreover, as I have pointed out many times before, (and as JVL has apparently ignored many times before), perception is hardly the only place where Darwinian evolution ‘predicts’ that things will be illusory for us.

    Although the Darwinist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science, (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that Darwinists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to:

    Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist (who believes Darwinian evolution to be true) is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. the illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who also must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the hopelessness of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is simply too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must also hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin).
    Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,
    Darwinian Materialism and/or Methodological Naturalism vs. Reality – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaksmYceRXM

    It would be hard to fathom a worldview that is more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, 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;

    So JVL, as you said, ‘you can’t have it both ways’. You can either live in reality or you can live in a world of illusion and fantasy.

    Might I invite you into reality? i.e. Into Christianity? The water is just fine over here!

    Of supplemental note to differentiating reality from illusion.

    In the following study, materialistic researchers who had a bias against Near Death Experiences being real, set out to prove that they were merely ‘false memories’ by setting up a clever questionnaire that could differentiate which memories a person had were real and which memories a person had were merely imaginary.

    Simply put, they did not expect the results they got: To quote the headline ‘Afterlife’ feels ‘even more real than real”

    ‘Afterlife’ feels ‘even more real than real,’ researcher says – Wed April 10, 2013
    Excerpt: “If you use this questionnaire … if the memory is real, it’s richer, and if the memory is recent, it’s richer,” he said.
    The coma scientists weren’t expecting what the tests revealed.
    “To our surprise, NDEs were much richer than any imagined event or any real event of these coma survivors,” Laureys reported.
    The memories of these experiences beat all other memories, hands down, for their vivid sense of reality. “The difference was so vast,” he said with a sense of astonishment.
    Even if the patient had the experience a long time ago, its memory was as rich “as though it was yesterday,” Laureys said.
    – per cnn

    Memories of Near Death Experiences (NDEs): More Real Than Reality? – Mar. 27, 2013
    Excerpt: University of Liège
    ,,,researchers,, have looked into the memories of NDE with the hypothesis that if the memories of NDE were pure products of the imagination, their phenomenological characteristics (e.g., sensorial, self referential, emotional, etc. details) should be closer to those of imagined memories. Conversely, if the NDE are experienced in a way similar to that of reality, their characteristics would be closer to the memories of real events.
    The researchers compared the responses provided by three groups of patients, each of which had survived (in a different manner) a coma, and a group of healthy volunteers. They studied the memories of NDE and the memories of real events and imagined events with the help of a questionnaire which evaluated the phenomenological characteristics of the memories. The results were surprising. From the perspective being studied, not only were the NDEs not similar to the memories of imagined events, but the phenomenological characteristics inherent to the memories of real events (e.g. memories of sensorial details) are even more numerous in the memories of NDE than in the memories of real events.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....190359.htm

    My question for atheists is this, exactly how is it remotely possible for something to become even ‘more real than real’ for a person having an NDE unless the infinite Mind of God truly is the basis for all reality, and this material reality we presently live in, and as is claimed in Christianity, is really just a shadow of the heavenly paradise that awaits us after death?

    Here are a few quotes that get this ‘more real than real’ finding from NDEs across,

    A Doctor’s Near Death Experience Inspires a New Life – video
    Quote: “It’s not like a dream. It’s like the world we are living in is a dream and it’s kind of like waking up from that.”
    Dr. Magrisso
    – per nbc chicago

    Medical Miracles – Dr. Mary Neal’s Near Death Experience – video (More real than real quote at 37:49 minute mark)
    https://youtu.be/WCNjmWP2JjU?t=2269

    “More real than anything I’ve experienced since. When I came back of course I had 34 operations, and was in the hospital for 13 months. That was real but heaven is more real than that. The emotions and the feelings. The reality of being with people who had preceded me in death.”
    – Don Piper – “90 Minutes in Heaven,” 10 Years Later – video (2:54 minute mark)
    https://youtu.be/3LyZoNlKnMM?t=173

    “I was in the spiritual dimension. And this spiritual dimension, this spiritual world, that’s the real world. And this spiritual man that I was seeing and perceiving, that was the real me. And I instantly knew it. The colors are brighter. The thoughts are more intense. The feelings have greater depth. They’re more real. In the spirit world instantly I knew that this is the real world.,,,”
    – The Near Death Experience of Mickey Robinson – video (testimony starts at 27:45 minute mark)
    https://youtu.be/voak1RM-pXo?t=1655

    Dr. Eben Alexander Says It’s Time for Brain Science to Graduate From Kindergarten – 10/24/2013
    Excerpt: To take the approach of, “Oh it had to be a hallucination of the brain” is just crazy. The simplistic idea that NDEs (Near Death Experiences) are a trick of a dying brain is similar to taking a piece of cardboard out of a pizza delivery box, rolling it down a hill and then claiming that it’s an identical event as rolling a beautiful Ferrari down a hill. They are not the same at all. The problem is the pure materialist scientists can be so closed-minded about it.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....51093.html

    Verses:

    Matthew 6:19-21
    “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

    2 Corinthians 4:18
    So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.

    Also of supplemental note:

    September 2020 – “Where this gets interesting is that, whereas atheists have no experimental evidence supporting their unfounded conjectures for multiverses, Christians, on the other hand, can appeal directly to Special Relativity, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics, (i.e. our most precisely tested theories ever in the history of science), to support their belief that God upholds this universe in its continual existence, as well as to support their belief in a heavenly dimension as well as support their belief in a hellish dimension.”
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/physicists-life-forms-could-flourish-in-the-interior-of-stars/#comment-711489

Leave a Reply