Writing at his blog: With few exceptions, most scientists and philosophers think that morality is at bottom based on human preferences. And though we may agree on many of those preferences (e.g., we should do what maximizes “well being”), you can’t show using data that one set of preferences is objectively better than another. (You can show, though, that the empirical consequences of one set of preferences differ from those of another set.) The examples I use involve abortion and animal rights. If you’re religious and see babies as having souls, how can you convince those folks that elective abortion is better than banning abortion? Likewise, how do you weigh human well being versus animal well being? I am a Read More ›

He offers seven reasons for rational dissent and doubt: 1. The evidence doesn’t exist. 2. The historical timelines that purportedly support it are constantly mutating. 3. The theory is a complete failure as a predictive model. 4. The theory is scientifically and technologically irrelevant. There are no evolutionary engineers. 5. Theoretical epicycles are increasingly required to maintain its viability. 6. The theory is a repeated failure as an explanatory model. 7. There is a very long track record of scientific fraud surrounding it. Vox Day, “Dark stream: The descent of TENS” at Vox Popoli He offers a vid to back up these statements: Hat tip: Ken Francis See also: Science fiction writer is not a Darwin fan Vox Day: Notice Read More ›

One of the issues we must face is whether there is enduring moral truth that can be warranted to such a degree that it rightly governs our thoughts, words (especially in argument) and deeds. Where, given that we have an inner voice (conscience) that testifies to duty under moral law, as well as an inescapable sense of duty to truth, right reason, prudence, justice, uprightness etc., if that intuition is false, then our whole inner life becomes tainted by grand delusion. A lot is at stake, in short. A quick first answer is, that we may recognise that grand delusion is self-referential, incoherent, self-falsifying — a case of reduction to absurdity. That is, we see the inescapability of being governed Read More ›

Around 565 million years ago, just when life was getting seriously underway: The finding, reported online January 28 in Nature Geoscience, supports an idea previously proposed by simulations that Earth’s inner core is relatively young. It also provides insight into how, and how quickly, Earth has been losing heat since its formation 4.54 billion years ago —key to understanding not only the generation of the planet’s magnetic shield but also convection within the mantle and plate tectonics.Carolyn Gramling, “Earth’s core may have hardened just in time to save its magnetic field” at ScienceNews The powerful recent phase protects lifefrom damaging radiation. Paper. (open access) See also: Researchers: The Moon made life on Earth possible and What becomes of science when the Read More ›

Over at EN he writes: If determinism is also true, that does not mean that free will is false. It could be simply that there is a problem with the philosophical abstraction called “libertarian free will” (which seems to assert indeterminism as a fundamentalist tenet). “If determinism is also true, that does not mean that free will is false.” Yes, it absolutely does. “Free” is the opposite of “determined.” “It could be simply that there is a problem with the philosophical abstraction called “libertarian free will” (which seems to assert indeterminism as a fundamentalist tenet).” Libertarian free will posits “liberty” (i.e., freedom to do otherwise) as a fundamental (not fundamentalist) tenet. Like so many, Jones believes compatibilism is the answer. Read More ›

Vox Day (actually Theodore Beale, a science fiction writer and video game designer) has been critiquing Darwinian evolution (which he calls TENS – Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection) of late: Here, he talks about recent findings that bird beaks don’t necessarily change to adapt to environmental conditions (as was thought to be the case with Darwin’s iconic finches in the Galapagos): Notice that the evolutionary skeptic’s position has consistently proven to be more reliably scientifically post-predictive than the mainstream evolutionist position: … I’m not even remotely surprised by this, although I am certainly amused given the central importance of bird beaks to the history of TENS. The more that biological science advances, particularly on the genetic front, the weaker, Read More ›

From ScienceDaily: Neanderthals have been imagined as the inferior cousins of modern humans, but a new study by archaeologists at UCL reveals for the first time that they produced weaponry advanced enough to kill at a distance. The study, published in Scientific Reports, examined the performance of replicas of the 300,000 year old Schöningen spears — the oldest weapons reported in archaeological records — to identify whether javelin throwers could use them to hit a target at distance… The research shows that the wooden spears would have enabled Neanderthals to use them as weapons and kill at distance. It is a significant finding given that previous studies considered Neanderthals could only hunt and kill their prey at close range. Paper. Read More ›