Welcome to the Brave New World of “Science”

_{Emily Morales

January 1, 2020

Intelligent Design}

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

by Emily Morales

January 1, 2020

It’s a pretty scary thing when the world of respected science is turned on its head due to adherence and homage to the Idols of the Marketplace, as elucidated by 17th century statesman, Francis Bacon.

Francis Bacon, credited as the “father” of the scientific method, spoke in detail in The Great Instauration concerning four types of idols occupying the minds of humans, which serve to get in the way of ascertaining and advancing knowledge of the natural world: 1) Idols of the Tribe, 2) Idols of the Cave, 3) Idols of the Marketplace, and, 4) Idols of the Theater.

The Idols of the Marketplace were characterized as being the most menacing, as these creep into the minds of humans by way of terms and definitions for things that are not necessarily tangible or concrete, within the human “marketplace.” We might today find that these grab hold by way of the marketplace of the media. Consider that when the notion of transgenderism first appeared, how many people truly believed that a person could change their gender by the pronouncement of a new pronoun? Probably not many, initially, but today, since this Idol has made its way in the nooks and crannies of every shop and coffee house of the human cyber-marketplace, folks may feel the pressure to sacrifice real science in homage to this newfound idol (after all, it comes with it’s own lovely rainbow flag).

For more on Bacon’s discussion, consider the below article:
https://salvomag.com/post/bacons-enchanted-glass

We might even see where Darwinism has enjoyed similar adherence from the materialistic faithful, as a cursed idol of Bacon’s marketplace. Darwin, in his day was excoriated by Adam Sedgewick (his mentor of the past) for abandoning the tram-road of inductive thinking (Baconian methodology) in favor of embracing the methodologies associated with deductive reasoning carried out by the likes of Aristotle.

https://salvomag.com/post/darwin-may-have-gotten-it-wrong

Sedgewick was not alone in his criticism of Darwin. Louis Agassiz, at Harvard similarly rebuked Darwin for a thesis having no support in the known fossil record (refer to Stephen Meyer’s book Darwin’s Doubt). Note that neither of these men pushed back against Darwin because they were creationists – it was rather that Darwin drew some conclusions on the diversity of life and origin of species that were presumptuous to say the least. As it turns out, Bacon addressed the dangers of this manner of “logic” and “reasoning,” at length, warning us of its ability to stifle scientific inquiry two hundred and thirty years before Darwin’s published work.

Bacon today, would not be impressed with where the brave new world of science is heading. Rather than holding on to those facts that are the fruit of repeated experimentation or steadied observation, society is clinging to fallacies that are oftentimes the fruit of a past college professor’s wild imagination. We best take head of these wild imaginations, no matter how absurd they are – because they eventually show up in your child’s Kindergarten curriculum, and taught as fact!

Reference/ Notes:

Bacon, F. (2016). New Atlantis and the Great Instauration. John Wiley & Sons.

Meyer, S. C. (2014). Darwin’s doubt: Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design. New York.

Comments

Welcome, Emily Morales. Great to have you here and I've enjoyed your commentary.
As a woman using a public bathroom or shower, I would not be keen with a man present, having access to the same space. I would neither appreciate this for any daughter of mine.
It's difficult to add much to this, except to repeat the most obvious truths. A real man, a gentleman and a man of wisdom (however slight), knows this, and more. Men who push for indiscriminate "equality" for women are barbaric and destructive. It's Marxist revolution at the social, cultural and personal level. Male and female are abolished as oppressive categories. They can justify and argue for anything. There can be no real limits - evolution knows no limits. That's Darwinist atheistic materialism. It destroys and cannot build.Silver Asiatic_{January 2, 2020
January
01
Jan
2
02
2020
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

ET
Ask the women who have fought against having equal rights.
Many have done this because equality with men will strip away protections and privileges that are rightly given to women in a sane and civilized society.Silver Asiatic_{January 2, 2020
January
01
Jan
2
02
2020
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT}

Ed George, don't you find it the least bit strange that you never present any actual scientific evidence that your Darwinian worldview can plausibly be true, but that you almost always resort to distorted moral arguments. i.e. "The world would be so much better is we all adopted my morality instead of God's morality". Seems to me that you have put the cart way before the horse. Frankly I don't see how you can stand such a disconnect in logic. But anyways, it is also interesting to note that the 'first sin' of man in the Garden of Eden is held to be "knowing good and evil", i.e. and/or man thinking that he knows morality better than God knows morality. And here you sit E.G., all these years later, proving the very point made in the first part of Genesis all those years ago. Which just goes to show, the more things change the more they stay the same!bornagain77_{January 2, 2020
January
01
Jan
2
02
2020
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT}

Acartia Eddie:
Yes, there are biological differences between men and women. How does this apply to granting women equal rights?
Ask the women who have fought against having equal rights. Or remain a willfully ignorant troll. I know which you will choose.ET_{January 2, 2020
January
01
Jan
2
02
2020
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT}

KF
EG, core rights are not created by government, they are only acknowledged or suppressed.
I understand that this is your opinion. However, it does not correspond with the entire path of human history. Human rights have changed dramatically over time and between societies. What evidence is there that the rights that we currently have are the "true" ones? What is wrong with societies changing and expanding on these rights?
In the case of the US, the acknowledgement of the rights of all of us start with the charter of that nation, its Declaration of Independence.
A document that holds no weight in law. The constitution and its amendments are the documents that have power. And they do not provide equal rights for women. If the Equal Rights Amendment were ever to be passed, these rights would be given to women.
However, there are reasonable differences between men and women that are to be respected and protected. The undermining of recognition of that balance is a part of the descent into barbarity that is now threatening to engulf our civilisation. KF
Yes, there are biological differences between men and women. How does this apply to granting women equal rights?Ed George_{January 2, 2020
January
01
Jan
2
02
2020
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT}

Acartia Eddie clearly doesn't understand that WOMEN are opposed to the equal rights amendment. WOMEN have put up the biggest fights against it. See Phyllis SchlaflyET_{January 2, 2020
January
01
Jan
2
02
2020
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT}

Emily, welcome to UD.Barry Arrington_{January 2, 2020
January
01
Jan
2
02
2020
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT}

In Emily Morales's research on Francis Bacon she notes that,,,, "It was the rather low regard for the fallen human mind, besieged as it were by sin, that drove Francis Bacon, the "Father" of the Scientific Method, to formulate a new epistemology",,,
Why Francis Bacon instituted the scientific method: (and how the lgbtq movement has steered ideal baconian science off the rails.) Bacon's "Enchanted Glass" - December 2019 Excerpt: It was the rather low regard for the fallen human mind, besieged as it were by sin, that drove Francis Bacon, the "Father" of the Scientific Method, to formulate a new epistemology in his Great Instauration. In this brilliant man of faith's view, the Adamic fall left an indelible mark on the human intellect, such that in its total depravity and persistent infirmity it could not be trusted to generate knowledge that was in any way free from bias, wrong presuppositions, or contradictions.,,, Recognizing then, the limitations of the human mind for revealing truth by mere logic and deductive reasoning, Bacon posited an altogether different means for knowledge acquisition: experimentation3—repeated experimentation—,,, https://salvomag.com/post/bacons-enchanted-glass
And in her very first article on UD, Emily Morales goes on to note that Darwinists, today and even since its inception, have blatantly ignored Bacon's method of "repeated experimentation"
Darwin, in his day was excoriated by Adam Sedgewick (his mentor of the past) for abandoning the tram-road of inductive thinking (Baconian methodology) in favor of embracing the methodologies associated with deductive reasoning carried out by the likes of Aristotle. Sedgewick was not alone in his criticism of Darwin. Louis Agassiz, at Harvard similarly rebuked Darwin for a thesis having no support in the known fossil record (refer to Stephen Meyer’s book Darwin’s Doubt). Note that neither of these men pushed back against Darwin because they were creationists – it was rather that Darwin drew some conclusions on the diversity of life and origin of species that were presumptuous to say the least. As it turns out, Bacon addressed the dangers of this manner of “logic” and “reasoning,” at length, warning us of its ability to stifle scientific inquiry two hundred and thirty years before Darwin’s published work. Bacon today, would not be impressed with where the brave new world of science is heading. Rather than holding on to those facts that are the fruit of repeated experimentation or steadied observation, society is clinging to fallacies that are oftentimes the fruit of a past college professor’s wild imagination.
In short, Emily Morales is pointing out the fact, (a fact that has become all too obvious for UD regulars), that Darwinian evolution fails to qualify as a science since it has ignored the criteria of repeated experimentation as was championed by Bacon. There simply is no substantiating evidence that Darwinists can point to so as to establish the validity of their theory
Scant search for the Maker - 2001 Excerpt: But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms. - Alan H. Linton - emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=159282 Darwin vs. Microbes (Where’s the substantiating evidence for Darwinian evolution?) - video https://youtu.be/ntxc4X9Zt-I
In short, Darwinian evolution does not even qualify as a empirical science in the first place since Darwinists have basically completely ignored the criteria of repeated experimentation. Francis Bacon, besides his emphasis on the scientific method, also stated that the 'fruits produced',,, "are the sureties and vouchers, as it were, for the truth of philosophy"
"Of all signs there is none more certain or worthy than that of the fruits produced: for the fruits and effects are the sureties and vouchers, as it were, for the truth of philosophy" Francis Bacon - widely regarded as the founder of the scientific method,, a devout Anglican Christian https://books.google.com/books?id=xlPFDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17#v=onepage&q&f=false
And yet there are no 'fruits produced' by Darwinian evolution, as Jerry Coyne himself admitted,
“Truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of ‘like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.” Jerry Coyne, “Selling Darwin: Does it matter whether evolution has any commercial applications?,” reviewing The Evolving World: Evolution in Everyday Life by David P. Mindell, in Nature, 442:983-984 (August 31, 2006).
Here are some quotes to further drive the point home that Darwinian evolution is useless as a fruitful heuristic in science,
“Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming’s discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss. Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology.” Philip S. Skell – (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. – Why Do We Invoke Darwin? – 2005 “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.” Marc Kirschner, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005 “While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.” A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to “Evolutionary Processes” – (2000).
In fact, instead of fostering discovery, it can be forcefully argued that Darwinian evolution has greatly hindered scientific discovery, and has also led to much medical malpractice, by falsely predicting both junk DNA and vestigial organs. And as if that was not bad enough, Darwinian evolution, far from being 'fruitful' for man, has had unimaginably horrid consequences for man. Hundreds of millions of people lost their lives last century due to socialistic ideology that was more or less directly based on Darwinian ideology: Richard Weikart has thoroughly documented how Darwinian ideology was foundational to the Nazis’ racism:
From Darwin to Hitler – lecture video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_5EwYpLD6A In his book, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany (2004), Richard Weikart explains the revolutionary impact Darwinism had on ethics and morality. Darwinism played a key role in the rise not only of eugenics (a movement wanting to control human reproduction to improve the human species), but also on euthanasia, infanticide, abortion, and racial extermination. This was especially important in Germany, since Hitler built his view of ethics on Darwinian principles.
As Adolph Hitler himself stated,
“The law of selection exists in the world, and the stronger and healthier has received from nature the right to live. Woe to anyone who is weak, who does not stand his ground! He may not expect help from anyone.” – Adolf Hitler
Besides directly undermining Hitler’s, (and the overall German society’s), innate sense of objective morality, Darwinism also directly undermined Stalin and Mao’s innate sense of objective morality,
The Darwinian Foundation of Communism by Dr. Jerry Bergman Summary In the minds of Hitler, Stalin and Mao, treating people as animals was not wrong because they believed that Darwin had ‘proved’ humans were not God’s creation, but instead descended from some simple, one-cell organism. All three men believed it was morally proper to eliminate the less fit or ‘herd them like cattle into boxcars bound for concentration camps and gulags’ if it achieved the goal of their Darwinist philosophy. https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/racism/the-darwinian-foundation-of-communism/
Karl Marx was also deeply influenced by Darwin:
Darwin on Marx – by Richard William Nelson | Apr 18, 2010 Excerpt: Marx and Engels immediately recognized the significance of Darwin’s theory. Within weeks of the publication of The Origin of Species in November 1859, Engels wrote to Marx – “Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done…. One does, of course, have to put up with the crude English method.” Marx wrote back to Engels on December 19, 1860 – “This is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view.” The Origin of Species became the natural cause basis for Marx’s emerging class struggle movement. In a letter to comrade Ferdinand Lassalle, on January 16, 1861, Marx wrote – “Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history.” Marx inscribed “sincere admirer” in Darwin’s copy of Marx’s first volume of Das Kapital in 1867. The importance of the theory of evolution for Communism was critical. In Das Kapital, Marx wrote – “Darwin has interested us in the history of Nature’s Technology, i.e., in the formation of the organs of plants and animals, which organs serve as instruments of production for sustaining life. Does not the history of the productive organs of man, of organs that are the material basis of all social organisation, deserve equal attention?” To acknowledge Darwin’s influence, Marx asked to dedicate Das Kapital to Darwin. https://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2010/04/darwin-on-marx/
In fact, Lenin even kept a little statue of an ape staring at a human skull on his desk. The ape was sitting on a pile of books which included Darwin’s book, “Origin”.
“V.I. Lenin, creator of the Soviet totalitarian state, kept a little statue on his desk—an ape sitting on a pile of books including mine [The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle of Life], gazing at a human skull. And Mao Zedong, butcher of the tens of millions of his own countrymen, who regarded the German ‘Darwinismus’ writings as the foundation of Chinese ‘scientific socialism.’ This disciple mandated my works as reading material for the indoctrination phase of his lethal Great Leap Forward.” Nickell John Romjue, I, Charles Darwin, p. 45 https://thunderontheright.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/hitler-lenin-stalin-mao-and-darwin/
Stalin likewise, while at ecclesiastical school of all places, was also heavily influenced by Darwinism,
Stalin’s Brutal Faith Excerpt: At a very early age, while still a pupil in the ecclesiastical school, Comrade Stalin developed a critical mind and revolutionary sentiments. He began to read Darwin and became an atheist. G. Glurdjidze, a boyhood friend of Stalin’s, relates: “I began to speak of God, Joseph heard me out, and after a moment’s silence, said: “‘You know, they are fooling us, there is no God. . . .’ “I was astonished at these words, I had never heard anything like it before. “‘How can you say such things, Soso?’ I exclaimed. “‘I’ll lend you a book to read; it will show you that the world and all living things are quite different from what you imagine, and all this talk about God is sheer nonsense,’ Joseph said. “‘What book is that?’ I enquired. “‘Darwin. You must read it,’ Joseph impressed on me” 1 1 E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing house, 1940), pp. 8-12. ,,, per - stalins-brutal-faith/
Even Chairman Mao was deeply influenced by Darwinian ‘morality’:
Darwin’s impact—the bloodstained legacy of evolution Excerpt: Chairman Mao is known to have regarded Darwin and his disciple Huxley as his two favourite authors. - per creation dot com Darwin and Mao: The Influence of Evolutionary Thought on Modern China – 2/13/2013 https://nonnobis.weebly.com/blog/darwin-and-mao-the-influence-of-evolutionary-thought-on-modern-china
Thus by Bacon's criteria of 'fruits produced', as far as science is concerned, Darwinian evolution has produced ZERO fruit that has been useful for man. Moreover, when Darwinian evolution has had a guiding influence on society at large, the effects have been far from fruitful, but have instead been catastrophically bad for man. In a sane world, Darwinian evolution should rightly be vilified as a false belief system, even as a false religion, instead of constantly being falsely promulgated as a established science by Darwinists:
Matthew 7:15-20 15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.
bornagain77_{January 2, 2020
January
01
Jan
2
02
2020
03:39 AM
3
03
39
AM
PDT}

Sev, moral judgements are inevitable and inescapable, starting with the first duties and principles of reason. For, we are duty-bound to truth, right reason, prudence [so, warrant], sound conscience [our moral candle within], fairness and justice [including neighbour-love], etc. The issue is not that moral judgements are taught in scripture and by the -- somehow, "suspect" -- Christian and Jewish/Hebraic religious tradition that shaped our civilisation, it is that you reject the particular ones you don't like. Tell, us, pray thee, what frame of the world you have for responsible rational freedom that rises above might and/or manipulation make 'right'/ 'rights' /'justice'/ 'truth'/ 'warrant'/ 'knowledge'/ 'logic' etc. Indeed, tell us what you have that founds a rational, responsible, minded, significantly free, morally governed creature such as we manifestly are: __________ . And if you deny that we are such, how do you ground your own reasoning and our duty to attend seriously, beyond GIGO-limited, dubious computational substrates? Where, indeed, you cannot even empirically, observationally ground how blind chance and/or mechanical necessity creates functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information [FSCO/I] beyond 500 - 1,000 bits. So, you cannot empirically account for the algorithmic, digitally coded complex string data structures physically instantiated through D/RNA in the living cell on such blind chance and necessity, a manifestation of LANGUAGE in action in the heart of life. Where, language is as strong a sign of intelligent action as there is. Where, further, we find these cells in a cosmos fine tuned in many ways that set a base for C-Chemistry, Aqueous medium cell based life, on terrestrial planets in galactic habitable zones. Again, signs pointing to intelligent design, here of the cosmos that is fitted for and hosts cell based life. Yet further, we find ourselves as minded, morally governed creatures in such a world, crying out for a reality root adequate to ground that moral government. We are looking for the awesomely powerful, inherently good and utterly wise. A figure familiar from the civilisation-shaping tradition you would dismiss. KFkairosfocus_{January 2, 2020
January
01
Jan
2
02
2020
02:52 AM
2
02
52
AM
PDT}

EG, core rights are not created by government, they are only acknowledged or suppressed. In the case of the US, the acknowledgement of the rights of all of us start with the charter of that nation, its Declaration of Independence. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Where, governments are instituted to uphold justice, by due balance of rights, freedoms and duties. "Men" of course linguistically includes both sexes [even as goose embraces gander], the challenge has been to reform government to duly sustain justice. However, there are reasonable differences between men and women that are to be respected and protected. The undermining of recognition of that balance is a part of the descent into barbarity that is now threatening to engulf our civilisation. KFkairosfocus_{January 2, 2020
January
01
Jan
2
02
2020
02:29 AM
2
02
29
AM
PDT}

Emily Morales, welcome; food for thought. I suggest, that gender has become ambiguous, with one sense being sex and another being one's sex-linked perception, thence latterly a psycho-social construct with up to 50+ or 112 or 212 and growing varieties. Then, they are coming for sex to corrupt that language, too. In short, 1984 newspeak games. KFkairosfocus_{January 2, 2020
January
01
Jan
2
02
2020
02:21 AM
2
02
21
AM
PDT}

Welcome to UD Emily Morales. Thank you for joining in.Upright BiPed_{January 1, 2020
January
01
Jan
1
01
2020
09:00 PM
9
09
00
PM
PDT}

Mr. George: Thank you for sharing the incident at your daughter's wedding regarding the father-daughter dance. I get how that would be a sweet moment to share, given your history with the movie. I do not think it a wise thing allowing biological men to shower and undress with biological women. I get your comment regarding Asian culture, wherein women clean men's bathrooms with men present -but the women performing the cleaning service more than likely received training which enabled them to not be bothered at the site of partially naked men. I guess the context in which they are seeing the partially naked men is rather innocuous. As a woman using a public bathroom or shower, I would not be keen with a man present, having access to the same space. I would neither appreciate this for any daughter of mine. I think there is some wisdom keeping the gender's bathroom and shower spaces separate - this is not a line that is wisely crossed. I grow quite concerned with the transgender movement because we are passing laws criminalizing people who on account of religious conscious cannot serve this community (such as the Christian baker who was happy to sell cupcakes to the homosexual couple, but NOT bake their wedding cake). If I were to walk into a muslim establishment and have the owner refuse to serve me because I am a woman (as an example) I would NOT contact an attorney and sue this business owner; the man has the right to do this. I would more than likely comment about this on social media, but not use government power or authority to demand services from him. Yet, how many homosexuals and transgenders are targeting and suing Christian-owned businesses? I wonder if the homosexuals and transgenders are similarly targeting muslim-owned businesses? Along yet another front, the rush to administer puberty-blocking medications to young kids to hold off puberty until they figure out their gender is simply not a good idea - nor are surgical interventions. It is my understanding in some states that parents have little to no say once their 16 1/2 year old child decides they want to have corrective treatment for their gender dysphoria. Really? Parents have no say in this? This movement has a lot of power, yet the power is not due excellent rhetorical arguments, sound logic, or good science. In this regard it is a superb example of an Idol of the Marketplace as Francis Bacon characterized them. It has a lot of power because people are too intimidated to dissent. Perhaps you read the article from the BBC and UK Telegraph concerning the scores of psychologists resigning from a transgender clinic because they felt pressured to refer children for treatment of gender dysphoria out of fear of being brandished as transphobic. I have provided the url below: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/12/12/childrens-transgender-clinic-hit-35-resignations-three-years/ These factors simply do not add up as good science supporting this movement - such as was the thesis of the article. Please do tell me your thoughts on Darwinism, and thank you for your interest in the post.Emily Morales_{January 1, 2020
January
01
Jan
1
01
2020
08:26 PM
8
08
26
PM
PDT}

VB@22, one question. Why doesn’t the US guarantee equal rights for women? Until you can answer that one, any argument against something by raising women’s rights simply carries no weight.Ed George_{January 1, 2020
January
01
Jan
1
01
2020
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT}

“I don’t think I will“ What a surprise LOL. So we can add this to other reasons why you refuse to answer questions you listed a few weeks back heh, heh. “You can’t play high and mighty on women’s rights when your government has not yet acknowledged them.” Self righteous moralizes like yourself never do like their hypocrisy to be exposed I get it, Nor am I playing high and mighty you are the one that spews your constant moralizing over woman’s rights not me. I have made an observation your reaction speaks volumes. Vividvividbleau_{January 1, 2020
January
01
Jan
1
01
2020
07:18 PM
7
07
18
PM
PDT}

VB
So you being the moralizing, pontificating champion of woman’s rights would you like to address my points in 8 or my post in 9?
Given that the US has yet to ratify the equal rights amendment, granting women equal rights under the law to men, I don’t think I will. You can’t play high and mighty on women’s rights when your government has not yet acknowledged them.Ed George_{January 1, 2020
January
01
Jan
1
01
2020
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT}

Emily
I am curious Mr. George, where you have read in either the article or the comments section that we are stating transgenderism or homosexuality poses any risk to one’s mortal soul. It appear you are being presumptuous.
You are correct. But according to many of the people at UD, they are a threat to the immortal soul, and a threat to civilization. For example, it has frequently been raised here that there is a threat to women of allowing transgendered men to use the women’s washroom. In spite of the fact that this has been occurring for decades with close to zero incidents against women. However, the number of transvestites and transsexuals beaten up because they have to use the men’s washroom are numerous. I have frequently travelled to Asian countries and it is not unusual to be standing at a urinal and have a female cleaning staff mop the floor around my feet. The problem is with our own hang ups and prejudices, not with gender. At present I am sitting in my basement watching Rocky Horror Picture show. This reminded me that the father/daughter dance at her recent wedding (Jewish) was to Sweet Transvestite from this movie. It may have been a bit unorthodox but it had meaning to me and my daughter. But I am sure that there are many here who would think it completely inappropriate. It was appropriate to us because we watched this movie together when she was in her early teens.Ed George_{January 1, 2020
January
01
Jan
1
01
2020
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT}

Hi Ed George: Thank you for your comments, here. I'm not certain how they advance any argument in one way or another, but at least they are provocative enough to generate conversation. I am curious Mr. George, where you have read in either the article or the comments section that we are stating transgenderism or homosexuality poses any risk to one's mortal soul. It appears you are being presumptuous. The thesis of the article is that the debate driving transgenderism is not one rooted in "science," as Francis Bacon described it. It appears that whenever folks debate the transgender movement on this grounds, they are branded as being religious zealots, or transgenderphobics. When a movement generates changes in public policy or medical practice, it is perfectly fair to take that movement to task and question whether the movement's arguments or articles of faith are founded on solid principles. This view of debating the merits of transgenderism's claims is not Christian radicalism, but acting responsibility.Emily Morales_{January 1, 2020
January
01
Jan
1
01
2020
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT}

EG Honestly some of the nonsense you put forth is astonishing to behold. So you being the moralizing, pontificating champion of woman’s rights would you like to address my points in 8 or my post in 9? Vividvividbleau_{January 1, 2020
January
01
Jan
1
01
2020
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT}

Too funny, on a post that highlights the fact that Darwinists cling to "wild imagination", Ed George tries to drag the thread off topic with, you guessed it, a hypothetical scenario based in his wild imagination.bornagain77_{January 1, 2020
January
01
Jan
1
01
2020
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT}

But we put pressure on parents to vaccinate their kids against polio, smallpox, measles, etc.
They are CONTAGIOUS diseases.
If homosexuality and transgenderism are the threats to them that I have read that they are here (risk to their immortal soul), surely parents should be equally pressured to give their kids these vaccines.
How desperate for attention do you have to be to conflate contagious diseases with personal feelings in an effort to score internet troll points? Hopefully someday someone will come up with a vaccine to fix your stupidity, Acartia. I know that you will reject it but their may be hope for anything you may have spawned.ET_{January 1, 2020
January
01
Jan
1
01
2020
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT}

VB
I would advocate that people should be free to make their own choices on the matter.
But we put pressure on parents to vaccinate their kids against polio, smallpox, measles, etc. If homosexuality and transgenderism are the threats to them that I have read that they are here (risk to their immortal soul), surely parents should be equally pressured to give their kids these vaccines.Ed George_{January 1, 2020
January
01
Jan
1
01
2020
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT}

Ed George, instead of musing about imaginary scenarios, perhaps you can tell me, as an atheistic materialist, what your basis of reality is in the first place. As already mentioned in post 7, "Darwinists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to". In what should be needless to say, it is pointless to debate someone who is delusional. So again, what is your basis of reality?bornagain77_{January 1, 2020
January
01
Jan
1
01
2020
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT}

EG I would advocate that people should be free to make their own choices on the matter. Now would you like to discuss the points by Emily BA or myself or is there another irrelevant rabbit trail you would like to go down? Vividvividbleau_{January 1, 2020
January
01
Jan
1
01
2020
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT}

Emily, welcome to UD. I have a question for you, BA77 and VB. If science developed a vaccine that would prevent same sex attraction and “gender dysphoria”, would you advocate for its use?Ed George_{January 1, 2020
January
01
Jan
1
01
2020
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT}

Vivid, I never knew this history - thank you for the enlightenment and advancement of knowledge. Sir Francis would be very proud of you! :) And yes, we cannot bow the knee to absurdity, absolutely absurdity. I marvel at the traction the transgender movement has when it has no basis in logic, reason, or science. It is nearly cult-like. People are terrified to address it on the basis of its absurdity!Emily Morales_{January 1, 2020
January
01
Jan
1
01
2020
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77 you bring up some excellent arguments. As I read Bacon's discourse on the Idols of the Mind, I see many of your points. You state that Darwinism is adrift in a sea of fantasy, and I would have to agree. Bacon said of the idols of the cave: "The steady and acute mind can fix its contemplations and dwell and fasten on the subtlest distinctions; the lofty and discursive mind (Darwin adherents) recognizes and puts together the finest and most general resemblances," parenthetical note is mine. All of that to point out that the sweeping generalizations made by Darwinism - that is of common descent, and descent with modification stems from the lofty and discursive mind. Yes, it is of interest that chimpanzees engage in gang murders resembling human behavior (Franz deWaal), and that insects participate in sexual coercion - rape, (Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer) which provide generally speaking very good arguments for common descent (I bought this). But, when we consider HOW these behavioral neurological pathways had their origin in the first place, the arguments break down. I ached for someone to explain how evolution could have forged these pathways - as a molecular biology major, having studied molecular genetics, how did these behaviors evolve? The father of the scientific method would stand and indict Darwinism today because there is NO explanation, just a bowing down to the Idols of the Tribe, Cave, Marketplace, and Theater. I plan to address all of these and how they apply to my beloved Darwin :) in an upcoming post. Thank you for your thoughtful and well-argued post!Emily Morales_{January 1, 2020
January
01
Jan
1
01
2020
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT}

“The concept of gender, in the modern sense, is a recent invention in human history.[14] The ancient world had no basis of understanding gender as it has been understood in the humanities and social sciences for the past few decades.[14] The term gender had been associated with grammar for most of history and only started to move towards it being a malleable cultural construct in the 1950s and 1960s.[15]” Wiki This is why we cannot bow the knee to the lefts hijacking the language. Vividvividbleau_{January 1, 2020
January
01
Jan
1
01
2020
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT}

“Because this movement is given undue science creds, there are many implications for society: one is legal protection for biological men to be allowed access to women’s places – traumatizing women; medical procedures and treatments that pose unusual risk for minors; and the introduction of a politicized curricula to very young people.” The movement you speak of will do great harm to women, so much for title |X and other areas as well. For instance a few weeks ago I read about a list of the top 50 women for a certain category which escapes me at the moment but on that list was a trans female and what immediately came to my mind was that an actual women got put off that list. None of this is going to be good for women’s rights and equality. Vividvividbleau_{January 1, 2020
January
01
Jan
1
01
2020
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT}

Seversky states that,
"science, unlike her religion, is not in the business of passing moral judgments on how people choose to live their lives",
Really Seversky?? how people choose to live their lives",???? Do you now believe in free will Seversky??? Come on Seversky get with the program and at least try to be consistent within your Atheistic materialism. You are a 'meat robot' PERIOD! You have no free will to choose anything, much less choosing how you may want to live your life.
“You are robots made out of meat. Which is what I am going to try to convince you of today” - Jerry Coyne – No, You’re Not a Robot Made Out of Meat (Science Uprising 02) – video https://youtu.be/rQo6SWjwQIk?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS1OmYcqv_yQSpje4p7rAE7-&t=20 THE ILLUSION OF FREE WILL - Sam Harris - 2012 Excerpt: "Free will is an illusion so convincing that people simply refuse to believe that we don’t have it." - Jerry Coyne https://samharris.org/the-illusion-of-free-will/
Moreover, contrary to Seversky's claim that "science, unlike her religion, is not in the business of passing moral judgments on how people choose to live their lives", the fact of the matter is that the moral rot of the false science of Darwinian atheism does indeed directly morally impact how people may choose to live their lives. Specifically, the nihilism inherent in the false doctrine of Atheistic Materialism drives people into moral despair. In making this point clear, it is first important to point out that although the Darwinian Atheist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science, (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that Darwinists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to:
Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must hold beauty itself to be illusory. Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, Darwinian Materialism and/or Methodological Naturalism vs. Reality – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaksmYceRXM
Needless to say atheistic materialism, a worldview that is devoid of any real meaning, beauty or purpose, for life is a severely impoverished, even severely depressing, worldview for anyone to falsely believe to be true. Indeed, such an impoverished view of life goes a very long way towards explaining exactly why Christians report being much happier than atheists are,
'Believers are happier than atheists' - Jonathan Petre - 18 Mar 2008 People who believe in God are happier than agnostics or atheists, A report found that religious people were better able to cope with disappointments such as unemployment or divorce than non-believers. Moreover, they become even happier the more they pray and go to church, claims the study by Prof Andrew Clark and Dr Orsolya Lelkes. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1581994/Believers-are-happier-than-atheists.html
and also explains why Christians have significantly fewer suicide attempts than atheists do,
Of snakebites and suicide - February 18, 2014 RESULTS: Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first-degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/of-snakebites-and-suicide/
and also explains why Christians report having greater life satisfaction than atheists do,
Associations of Religious Upbringing With Subsequent Health and Well-Being From Adolescence to Young Adulthood: An Outcome-Wide Analysis Ying Chen, Tyler J VanderWeele - Sept. 10, 2018 Excerpt: Compared with no attendance, at least weekly attendance of religious services was associated with greater life satisfaction and positive affect, a number of character strengths, lower probabilities of marijuana use and early sexual initiation, and fewer lifetime sexual partners. Analyses of prayer or meditation yielded similar results. Although decisions about religion are not shaped principally by health, encouraging service attendance and private practices in adolescents who already hold religious beliefs may be meaningful avenues of development and support, possibly leading to better health and well-being. https://academic.oup.com/aje/advance-article/doi/10.1093/aje/kwy142/5094534
and also explains why Christians having less mental and physical health issues than atheists do,
“I maintain that whatever else faith may be, it cannot be a delusion. The advantageous effect of religious belief and spirituality on mental and physical health is one of the best-kept secrets in psychiatry and medicine generally. If the findings of the huge volume of research on this topic had gone in the opposite direction and it had been found that religion damages your mental health, it would have been front-page news in every newspaper in the land.” - Professor Andrew Sims former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists - Is Faith Delusion?: Why religion is good for your health - preface “In the majority of studies, religious involvement is correlated with well-being, happiness and life satisfaction; hope and optimism; purpose and meaning in life; higher self-esteem; better adaptation to bereavement; greater social support and less loneliness; lower rates of depression and faster recovery from depression; lower rates of suicide and fewer positive attitudes towards suicide; less anxiety; less psychosis and fewer psychotic tendencies; lower rates of alcohol and drug use and abuse; less delinquency and criminal activity; greater marital stability and satisfaction… We concluded that for the vast majority of people the apparent benefits of devout belief and practice probably outweigh the risks.” - Professor Andrew Sims former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists - Is Faith Delusion?: Why religion is good for your health – page 100
and also explains why Christians live significantly longer than atheists do.
Study: Religiously affiliated people live “9.45 and 5.64 years longer…” July 1, 2018 Excerpt: Self-reported religious service attendance has been linked with longevity. However, previous work has largely relied on self-report data and volunteer samples. Here, mention of a religious affiliation in obituaries was analyzed as an alternative measure of religiosity. In two samples (N = 505 from Des Moines, IA, and N = 1,096 from 42 U.S. cities), the religiously affiliated lived 9.45 and 5.64 years longer, respectively, than the nonreligiously affiliated. Additionally, social integration and volunteerism partially mediated the religion–longevity relation. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/study-religiously-affiliated-people-lived-religiously-affiliated-lived-9-45-and-5-64-years-longer/
Thus Seversky may claim that his atheistic materialism, (which he constantly falsely portrays as being 'science'), has no moral impact on how people choose to live their lives, but the fact of the matter is that the nihilism inherent in Atheistic Materialism does indeed directly negatively morally impact how people choose to live their lives. Of supplemental note, Seversky once again attacked Christianity for a father praying for his daughter and allowing her to die instead of seeking medical treatment for her. What Seversky will NEVER tell you are the millions of lives that have been saved by medicines that were developed by devout Christians:
smallpox: Edward Jenner was an English physician and scientist who was the pioneer of smallpox vaccine,,,, His father was the Reverend Stephen Jenner,,, "The most famous champion of vaccination was a Christian doctor, *Edward Jenner* who did his work against fierce opposition and in the teeth of threats against himself. In effect he wiped out smallpox from among the diseases that terrify mankind. He died from a cold caught carrying firewood to an impoverished woman." http://www.rae.org/pdf/influsci.pdf Ernst Chain, who was awarded the 1945 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine, and is considered to be one of the founders of the field of antibiotics, spoke strongly against Darwin’s theory. He said the theory of evolution was a “very feeble attempt to explain the origin of species based on assumptions so flimsy that it can hardly be called a theory.” He referred to evolution as a “hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts.” He also said, “These classic evolutionary theories are a gross oversimplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they were swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest.” Chain concluded that he “would rather believe in fairies than to ever believe in such wild speculation of Darwin.” https://biblicalsignsintheheadlines.com/2016/03/21/debunking-evolution-challenging-the-lie-that-challenges-god/ etc.. etc..
bornagain77_{January 1, 2020
January
01
Jan
1
01
2020
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply