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.
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.
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
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
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.
3 Kairosfocus
Didier Raoult Trashing Darwin
I surprised the purveyors of smog haven’t descended on this OP. Will they come?
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
For those interested, here is a database of all studies involving HCQ. Both positive and negative or inconclusive.
https://c19study.com/
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.
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:
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.
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?
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.
Bornagain77/11
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?
ba77 @ 11 –
Really? I’m a monster just because I have reached a different conclusion about the evidence?
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?
ba77 @ 13 –
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?
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
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
You might want to think about what you’re advocating here. At worst it would be murder.
LOL Bob, the amoral atheist, tries to lecture me on morality,
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.
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?
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.
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 are entitled to your beliefs but this is a position that is almost impossible to argue to. From study above
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.
Thankfully Bob O’H is not a medical doctor. He can’t even understand the science.
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.
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.
ba77 –
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.
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
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.
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
Then, there is Ivermectin, too.
ba77 @ 28 –
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).
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.
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
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.
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,
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.
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’,
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. ”
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..
No, I’m suggesting it’s immoral to want to experiment on humans without their permission.
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.
33 Bob O’H
Too funny, because according to atheism/ materialism, “permission” does not exist (we are all meat-puppets).
I am starting to question Bob O’H’s reading comprehension ability
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.
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?
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.
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?”
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.
Bob (and weave) O’Hara, quoted me out of context, right after he was corrected on the context. Pathetic!
I am more than satisfied that unbiased readers can clearly see that you are completely disingenuous.
36 Bornagain77
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:
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.
Is Bob O’H an atheist?
When asked a question a few months ago, he answered “only God knows.”
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?
Bob, in response to this question,
answers,
Then, (before specifying exactly what worldview he does believe in), Bob quickly adds,
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!
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?
seversky:
But was the man fully aware?
Bob O’H:
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. 😎
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.
47 Bob O’H
Bob O’H, are we darwinian meat-puppets or not?
If not (according to your worldview): what are we?
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,
Instead of answering that ‘simple’ question of exactly what his worldview is, Bob instead deflects from that simple question and claims that,,,
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, 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)
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.
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,
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.”
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.”
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.
In fact, Darwin himself bemoaned the fact that “the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind.”
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.”
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.
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.
Christians can live according to their worldview.
Darwinists can not.
Guess which one is false.
ba77 @ 49 –
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.
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.
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.)
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
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. 🙂
53 John_a_designer
According to atheistic evolutionism, we will never know, because we can not “understand truth”.
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”?
Living is dangerous, Bob. Yet I don’t see you opting out of that
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.
55 Bob O’H
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).
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.
Bob O’H: He has spent 3 days trying to avoid doing so.
Don’t hold your breath, you’ll just turn blue.
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.
Supplemental note:
ba77 –
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.
,,, 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?
Yes, thank you, ba77. I think that settles the debate over how monstrous you are.
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.
.
The absolute height of hypocrisy coming from you JVL.
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?
66 Upright BiPed
Thanks for the link. I am copying Kairosfocus’ #67 (excellent comment):
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?
‘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.
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.
69 Bornagain77
Then they would not be “darwinists”. 🙂
Logical consistency and “darwinism” are sworn enemies.
.
#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.
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.
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?
JVL, denial does not clean up your mess,
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?
.
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.
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?
.
As expected …
Here are your own words in applying your double standard:
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).
JVL asks me and Upright Biped,
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.
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.”
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.”
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.”
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.
Here are a few observations that falsify Darwinian evolution. Falsifications that Darwinists themselves simply refuse to ever accept as falsifications of their theory:
Verse:
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 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.,,,”
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.
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.
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.
77 JVL
Hmmm. Look, that makes sense under the “evolutionary paradigm”.
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.
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.
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?
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.
JVL in response to,
in response to that JVL asks,
(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,
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,,,
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.
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.
As Jonathan Wells states, “It’s the organism controlling the DNA, not the DNA controlling the organism.”
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,
Verse:
83 JVL
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).
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.
83 JVL
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?
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.
83 JVL
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).
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
Kairosfocus,,,
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.
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.
JVL still is ignorant of how science works.
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:
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.
bornagain77- what experiment would refute universal common descent over 4.5x billion years?
Do tell or jump through hoops… 😉
88 Kairosfocus
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:
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.
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’!
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.
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 . ..
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.
JVL, whatever. My post is unambiguous.
JVL:
We have said how to falsify it. It isn’t our fault that no one can.
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.
And we don’t have to know the how in order to determine design exists
Your ignorance still isn’t an argument. ID is evidenced by several different scientific venues. Your side still has nothing.
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.
It is true.
No one is researching blind watchmaker evolution. No one uses it for anything. It is worse than useless
On the Problem of Biological Form
Thanks to evolutionary biology that most basic of biological questions remains unanswered.
95 JVL
Donald Hoffman’s Evolutionary Argument Against Reality contradicts your “realist” position:
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?
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.
.
#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:
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.
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 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.
JVL:
Nonsense.
More nonsense.
“Waiting for TWO Mutations” goes over that.
That is up to the people making the claim.
Everywhere that you deny the science and the design inference.
Yes.
ID is not about design implementation. Grow up, already.
The design inference is stronger today, thanks to science. It is only going to get stronger.
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.
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?
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.
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
.
Good grief. We’ve been here before. The obfuscation is deliberate and never ceases:
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
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.
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.”
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”
Lakatos also went on to state that “In degenerating programmes, however, theories are fabricated only in order to accommodate known facts”
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.”
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.
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.”
103 JVL
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).
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’.
106 JVL
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
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.
113 JVL
Fallacious appeal to numbers. Millions of people do not find the alleged evidence for “darwinian evolution” convincing.
113 JVL
Irrelevant. You have to show why you disagree and substantiate it. Then others can judge the evidence.
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.
116 JVL
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”.
116 JVL
Then you have not understood what you read. Donald Hoffmann, (who is a cognitive scientist) is a Berkeleyian or subjective idealist.
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.
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):
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:
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,”
Likewise, the following experiment also found that “reality does not exist when we’re not observing it.”
And as the following recent experiment also stated, “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”.
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.”
Moreover, reliable observation also happens to be a necessary cornerstone of the scientific method itself
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
JVL at 122 states,
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.”
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:
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.
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”
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,
Verses:
Also of supplemental note: