Culture Darwinism Intelligent Design Naturalism Philosophy

Michael Egnor: Darwinism as Hegel’s philosophy applied to biology

Spread the love

He sees that as a framework for much of the change around us:

Nineteenth-century Darwinism was much more than a revolutionary scientific theory. It was hardly a scientific theory in any meaningful sense. Natural selection, as atheist philosopher Jerry Fodor has pointed out, isn’t a meaningful level of scientific explanation. It’s barely more than a tautology. Natural selection is an “empty” theory — “survivors survive” has no genuine explanatory power. As ID pioneer Phillip Johnson observed, Darwinism was really a new philosophical theory. It was the view that there is no teleology — no purpose — inherent to nature. Purpose in biology, Darwin insisted, is an illusion. Differential survival alone can explain “purpose” in nature. Darwin proposed that all of the specified complexity in living things is the product of undirected differential survival.

Darwinism is the denial of purpose in nature. Purpose, according to Darwin, is an illusion. Biology appears to have purposes — hearts pump blood, kidneys excrete urine, etc. — but the purposes are merely the outcome of natural selection — survival of the fittest. Darwinism purports to explain how a story can be written without purpose and implicitly without an author.

Darwinian natural selection is metaphysics, more than biology.

Michael Egnor, “Darwinism as Hegelian Dialectics Applied to Biology” at Evolution News and Science Today:

Of course it is. Just listen to Darwinians tell us how important the theory is to them.

67 Replies to “Michael Egnor: Darwinism as Hegel’s philosophy applied to biology

  1. 1
    Seversky says:

    A Good Tautology is Hard to Find

    by John S. Wilkins

    The simple version of the so-called ‘tautology argument’ is this:

    Natural selection is the survival of the fittest. The fittest are those that survive. Therefore, evolution by natural selection is a tautology (a circular definition).

    The real significance of this argument is not the argument itself, but that it was taken seriously by any professional philosophers at all. ‘Fitness’ to Darwin meant not those that survive, but those that could be expected to survive because of their adaptations and functional efficiency, when compared to others in the population. This is not a tautology, or, if it is, then so is the Newtonian equation F=ma [Sober 1984, chapter 2], which is the basis for a lot of ordinary physical explanation.

    The phrase ‘survival of the fittest’ was not even Darwin’s. It was urged on him by Wallace, the codiscoverer of natural selection, who hated ‘natural selection’ because he thought it implied that something was doing the selecting. Darwin coined the term ‘natural selection’ because had made an analogy with ‘artificial selection’ as done by breeders, an analogy Wallace hadn’t made when he developed his version of the theory. The phrase ‘survival of the fittest’ was originally due to Herbert Spencer some years before the Origin .

    However, there is another, more sophisticated version, due mainly to Karl Popper [1976: sect. 37]. According to Popper, any situation where species exist is compatible with Darwinian explanation, because if those species were not adapted, they would not exist. That is, Popper says, we define adaptation as that which is sufficient for existence in a given environment. Therefore, since nothing is ruled out, the theory has no explanatory power, for everything is ruled in.

    This is not true, as a number of critics of Popper have observed since (eg, Stamos [1996] [note 1]). Darwinian theory rules out quite a lot. It rules out the existence of inefficient organisms when more efficient organisms are about. It rules out change that is theoretically impossible (according to the laws of genetics, ontogeny, and molecular biology) to achieve in gradual and adaptive steps (see Dawkins [1996]). It rules out new species being established without ancestral species.

    All of these hypotheses are more or less testable, and conform to the standards of science. The answer to this version of the argument is the same as to the simplistic version – adaptation is not just defined in terms of what survives. There needs to be a causal story available to make sense of adaptation (which is why mimicry in butterflies was such a focal debate in the teens and twenties). Adaptation is a functional notion, not a logical or semantic a priori definition, despite what Popper thought.

  2. 2

    .
    Don’t sweat it too much Seversky. The problem with the Darwinian mindset is not that philosophers say that “natural selection” is a tautology. A much larger problem is that it stifles all the incredible advancements in knowledge that follows it, and demonstrates its flaws. It forms the basis of a Victorian age hegemony, to be wielded and abused by Ideological materialists, like you for instance, whose interest is not in the pursuit of understanding reality, but in the propping up of a failed ideology. This is why every time you are confronted with the science and history that contradicts your beliefs, you run with all your might to the safety of 1860, to dismiss those things that Darwin never knew.

  3. 3
    BobRyan says:

    Darwin does not allow for philosophy to exist. How can deep thoughts exist without the mind?

  4. 4
    AaronS1978 says:

    Hahahahahahaha @ Sev thats you counter argument is convoluted word play that amounts to the EXACT same thing! Here if we go back and redefine “SuRvIlAl Of ThE fItEsT” the argument won’t apply as much! Bam! Holy smokes. Your argument ignores the point and intern can also be ignored

  5. 5
    john_a_designer says:

    The agenda of the contemporary secular progressive I think can be understood by three terms they like to use rhetorically: Progressive (Hegel,) Oppressive (Marx) and Repressive (Freud.) [I’ll comment on Freud in more detail in a later post.]

    Both Hegel and Marx saw that at times violence (even war) would be needed to achieve societal change. From a Darwinian perspective this is nothing more that the “survival of the fittest” or in the case of war the survival of the strongest or smartest. You can readily see why the progressive (“woke”) PC left thinks nothing of employing bullying tactics to bring about their ideas of social justice– and be forewarned they are willing to go further. We are already seeing that in the U.S. with the “mostly peaceful protests.” You can perhaps also see how they can hold to positions that are, on one hand, culturally and morally relativistic yet implemented years or even months later as a new moral absolutes– new human rights. That’s not because they ARE absolutes, it is rather because they BECOME absolutes. The idea of becoming is purely Hegelian. But who decides the new absolutes are absolutes? The people who believe they are absolutes. And, don’t think this is the result some kind of equal and fair democratic debate that leads some kind of broad based consensus. If you believe what you believe is the truth, you don’t need a majority to impose your agenda on everyone else, all you need are some key people in some key positions of power– like judges on the U.S. Supreme Court.

  6. 6
    ET says:

    Darwinism, ie blind watchmaker evolution, is a useless heuristic. And it appears that no one knows how to test its grand claims

  7. 7
    Truthfreedom says:

    2 Upright Biped

    Like you (Seversky) for instance, whose interest is not in the pursuit of understanding reality, but in the propping up of a failed ideology. 

    “Materialism” could not be further apart from reality. It’s, as you mention, a failed doctrine that traps the materialist inside his skull forever, without being able to escape it and therefore blocking him from direct access to the “external” world he claims materialism is “exhausting”.

    Materialists try to salvage their unexpected and unwelcome epistemological idealism by going two routes:

    – ignoring the challenge and appealing to the “hey, fellas we get results! Look at all the advances!” (This will convince the masses, most of them pragmatists and ignorant of philosophy). Being very dishonest, the materialist knows that most people won’t challenge him.
    – trying the “map gimmick”: once they are caught, they try Korzybski’s map-territory strategy (Seversky being very fond of it). The problem for the materialist, is that, “being” a brain, he can’t never ever escape his skull, therefore the map-territory strategy is not a valid one, just yet another materialist trick that can not fool the trained mind.
    The materialist only has “map”, never access to the territory (external world).

    Here Aristotle’s hylemorphism rescues materialists from the irrational consequences of their doctrine.

    “Hylemorphism provides realistic solutions to the mistakes of materialism. Materialism traps the materialist inside his own brain from which hylemorphism frees him by pointing out that immaterial sense experience is not spatially located. The human immaterial soul explains the substantial unity of man in which his immaterial sense faculties can be present to the whole body and to extramental reality”.

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

    Materialism, you have failed. It’s time for you to leave.

  8. 8
    john_a_designer says:

    There is no doubt that the typical modern-secular progressive accepts some form of Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism without question. However, this creates a dilemma for them and their social justice agenda which like all such agenda’s must have the appearance of being purposeful or teleological. Darwinism, however, eschews any kind of teleological thinking, which means that what the secularist is left with just a mindless herd-like or tribal group think. On the other hand, the typical secularist grew up in a culture which inherited a world view that was shaped by Greek, Roman and Judeo-Christian (western) ideas of progress which are highly teleological. Intentionally or unintentionally they have to coopt or try to adapt a choice few of those ideas to justify their own progressive agenda.

    Probably no world view has a more linear view of history than Jewish-Christian (J-C) theism. Hegel accepted the J-C linear view of history (he was an observant Lutheran) but cast it in more pantheistic terms, where there were no timeless transcendent truths only evolving ever changing kind of “truths.” Hegel saw the flow of history as a constantly changing yet naturally improving one.

    Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes it this way:

    History, according to Hegel’s metaphysical account, is driven by ideological development. Ideological—and therefore historical—change occurs when a new idea is nurtured in the environment of the old one, and eventually overtakes it. Thus development necessarily involves periods of conflict when the old and new ideas clash.

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/progress/

    Most contemporary progressives probably don’t see themselves as Hegelian, however, via cultural Marxism and various other forms of progressive socialism, it appears to me that Hegel’s ideas have had a profound influence on modern thought. For example, the idea of being “on the right side of history” is distinctly Hegelian, as is the utopian conceit that modern ideas are superior traditional or ancient ones, so those get rejected automatically as racist, sexist, superstitious etc. However again, I doubt that contemporary secular progressives are purists in any kind of theoretical sense. There is no doubt a lot of ad hoc thinking that incorporates the ideas of other thinkers including “thinkers” like Nietzche and Freud. Of course, from what I have seen there is a lot of inconsistency and incoherence, if not downright irrationality, with present day secular- progressive thinking. We see that here with irrational pretension and posturing of trolls, drive-by’s and sock puppets who are incapable of putting together logically sound arguments.

  9. 9
    Truthfreedom says:

    4 AaronS1978

    Hahahahahahaha @ Sev thats you counter argument is convoluted word play that amounts to the EXACT same thing! Here if we go back and redefine “SuRvIlAl Of ThE fItEsT” the argument won’t apply as much! Bam! Holy smokes. Your argument ignores the point and intern can also be ignored.

    Seversky copies garbage philosophy from TO. 🙂 Kindergarten reasoning.

  10. 10
    Seversky says:

    Upright BiPed/2

    Don’t sweat it too much Seversky. The problem with the Darwinian mindset is not that philosophers say that “natural selection” is a tautology. A much larger problem is that it stifles all the incredible advancements in knowledge that follows it, and demonstrates its flaws.

    How would you characterize the “Darwinian mindset”?

    If “incredible advancements in knowledge” followed it, how were they “stifled” by this “Darwinian mindset”?

  11. 11
    Seversky says:

    BobRyan/3

    Darwin does not allow for philosophy to exist.

    Darwin did not deny the existence of philosophy neither does his theory.

    How can deep thoughts exist without the mind?

    Has anyone said they could, other than some believers, that is?

  12. 12
    Seversky says:

    John_a_designer/5

    The agenda of the contemporary secular progressive I think can be understood by three terms they like to use rhetorically: Progressive (Hegel,) Oppressive (Marx) and Repressive (Freud.) [I’ll comment on Freud in more detail in a later post.]

    […]

    All of which studiously ignores the economic and social inequities and the intractable racism that have created stresses within US society and have led to the BLM movement and provided a fertile ground of dissatisfaction for narcissists and extremists to exploit. If you want to address the root causes of these stresses, forget political ideologies and conspiracy theories and find ways to ensure that all citizens are treated decently and fairly, not just members of your own ‘tribe’.

  13. 13
    Truthfreedom says:

    12 Seversky

    All of which studiously ignores the economic and social inequities and the intractable racism that have created stresses within US society

    Before BLM started its violent (marxist agenda) activities, what where you doing to help alleviate such injustices, Seversky the hypocrite?
    Please, do share with us what were you doing to stop “racial injustice”, the one that according to your amoral atheist/ evo worldview is a fine example of “survival of the fittest”. You Seversky were doing:
    1. ___________
    (Lemme fill the gap for you: you were doing nothing). So spare us your fake “moral outrage”, please. Seversky the hypocrite.

    If you want to address the root causes of these stresses, forget political ideologies and conspiracy theories and find ways to ensure that all citizens are treated decently and fairly, not just members of your own ‘tribe’.

    Of course. It’s just that your amoral atheistic/ evo worldview has a prominent white supremacist as his founder (daddy Darwin I mean).

    Although best known for On the Origin of Species, Darwin does not address human evolution and race until his 1871 book, The Descent of Man, in which Darwin applies his theories of natural selection to humans and introduces the idea of sexual selection. Here his white supremacism is revealed. Over the course of the book, Darwin describes Australians, Mongolians, Africans, Indians, South Americans, Polynesians, and even Eskimos as “savages.” It becomes clear that he considers every population that is not white and European to be savage. The word savage is disdainful, and Darwin constantly elevates white Europeans above the savages.

    Darwin explains that the “highest races and the lowest savages” differ in “moral disposition … and in intellect” (36). The idea that white people are more intelligent and moral persists throughout. At one point, Darwin says that savages have “low morality,” “insufficient powers of reasoning,” and “weak power of self-command” (97). Darwin’s specific consideration of intellectual capacities is especially alarming. The Dark Side of Darwinism

    You have always criticized such racist words here at UD, with your mighty keyboard, showing how despicable your ideology is. Oh, wait….

  14. 14
    Truthfreedom says:

    12 Seversky

    not just members of your own ‘tribe’.

    That’s were your amoral atheist/ evo worldview leads: to “tribal justice” or “might is right”.

    So please, again, spare us your fake “moral outrage” and your garbage, fallacious, debunked ad nauseam, “is-ought gap”.

  15. 15
    john_a_designer says:

    Seversky took what I wrote completely out of context. Here is the part he ignored:

    Both Hegel and Marx saw that at times violence (even war) would be needed to achieve societal change. From a Darwinian perspective this is nothing more that the “survival of the fittest” or in the case of war the survival of the strongest or smartest. You can readily see why the progressive (“woke”) PC left thinks nothing of employing bullying tactics to bring about their ideas of social justice– and be forewarned they are willing to go further. We are already seeing that in the U.S. with the “mostly peaceful protests.” You can perhaps also see how they can hold to positions that are, on one hand, culturally and morally relativistic yet implemented years or even months later as a new moral absolutes– new human rights. That’s not because they ARE absolutes, it is rather because they BECOME absolutes. The idea of becoming is purely Hegelian. But who decides the new absolutes are absolutes? The people who believe they are absolutes. And, don’t think this is the result some kind of equal and fair democratic debate that leads some kind of broad based consensus. If you believe what you believe is the truth, you don’t need a majority to impose your agenda on everyone else, all you need are some key people in some key positions of power– like judges on the U.S. Supreme Court.

    The very idea of justice, which MUST be applied equally, fairly and universally to all members of society is a morally objective and teleological one. How can such an idea be derived from a morally relativistic and subjectivist view point? Frankly it’s irrational to believe that it can.

    If there is no real standard of justice how do we resolve the differences between people? How do you create any kind of broad consensus (which is necessary in any kind of democratic society) if there is no real standard to help us determine whose ideas are good (fair and just) and whose are bad (self-serving or subversive)? The only recourse is coercion or violence: you imposing your views on me or vice-versa. Wouldn’t persuasion– making an argument using logic and reason– be better than coercion and violence? But how can we say that would be better if better is nothing more than someone’s subjective belief or opinion. But if moral obligations are really just relative and subjective that is all that is logically possible.

  16. 16
    ET says:

    seversky:

    Darwin did not deny the existence of philosophy neither does his theory.

    What theory? His concepts in his book “On the Origins of Species…” were and still are totally untestable and as such outside of science.

    And the pathetic part is the evos of today still can’t test their ideas.

  17. 17
    chuckdarwin says:

    From Egnor’s article: “I have a friend who is an internationally respected biologist and Evangelical Christian …..”

    In other words, an oxymoron…..

    I guess I should add, an anonymous oxymoron, so we will never know…

  18. 18
    ET says:

    Earth to Chuck- the oxymoron is “evolutionary biologist”.

  19. 19
    Truthfreedom says:

    17 Chuckdarwin

    In other words, an oxymoron…..

    Not at all. There could not be a worldview more alien to knowledge and reason than “materialism”. It’s quite remarkable that such a 300+ years old scam, riddled with fallacies and poor thinking has lasted this long.

    Read it and weep (I have noticed how darwinians conveniently gloss over the challenge) and pretend not to notice the article. Maybe it’s due to that “retinal blind spot” they are so fond of. (Truthfreedom, don’t be evil minded, materialists are honest people). 🙂
    Naturalism’s Epistemological Blunder

  20. 20
    john_a_designer says:

    What is the point of this “peaceful” protest?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVaJSoZeMQg

    Protesters inflamed by the decision not to charge cops for Breonna Taylor’s death took their anger out on a couple dining in Florida — gatecrashing their table and threatening to knock the man the “f–k out.”

    https://www.foxnews.com/us/breonna-taylor-protester-florida-diner-confrontation-viral

    How is this couple minding their own business, out trying to enjoy a quiet dinner, responsible for Breonna Taylor’s death? Oh I know they’re guilty because they are white. When I was growing up some people used the term “reverse racism,” though I am not sure exactly what they meant by that. Is that what we have here? Well, no. They’re being harassed because of the color of their skin. That’s not reverse racism; it’s plain run-of-the-mill racism.

    You don’t stop racism by creating more racism. But that is what BLM is clearly trying to do.

    Is this what we as a society mean by justice?

  21. 21
    Seversky says:

    John_a_designer/20

    What is the point of this “peaceful” protest?

    There is no point other than, perhaps, to make those diners feel a little less secure while dining out, a sense of insecurity felt all too often by minority groups. At least those diners were not gunned down in a hail of police bullets in their own home like Breonna Taylor.

    It is not defensible, nonetheless. The offenders should be prosecuted.

    You don’t stop racism by creating more racism. But that is what BLM is clearly trying to do.

    Are you serious? BLM doesn’t have to do anything to create racism in this country. Minority groups have endured it at the hands of the white majority for centuries but that situation will not obtain forever.

    And just when we need a leader with the vision to bring the country together, the present occupant of the White House seems bent on widening and deepening these rifts in society for his own electoral advantage. If you want another four or eight years or even longer of this then vote for Trump but if he does get his wish I fear there could be a violent reckoning that would tear the country apart.

  22. 22
    ET says:

    seversky:

    At least those diners were not gunned down in a hail of police bullets in their own home like Breonna Taylor.

    The police returned fire. They did not just open up on the apartment for no reason.

    Next time those diners should go out to eat packing their own heat.

  23. 23
    kairosfocus says:

    Seversky, you are enabling and excusing riot and SA bully-boy stormtrooper behaviour. That tells us all we need to know. It’s over, kiddo. You shot whatever shreds of credibility you have left through the heart. KF

    PS: Some balancing remarks that need to be heard.

  24. 24
    Truthfreedom says:

    23 Kairosfocus

    Seversky, you are enabling and excusing riot and SA bully-boy stormtrooper behaviour.

    Seversky is a good little marxist.

  25. 25
    Truthfreedom says:

    Seversky
    When are you going to condemn Darwin’s disgusting white supremacism? Let me remind you
    hypocrite creature that your amoral (and patently false) atheist/ evo
    worldview is the one that enables and glorifies “might is right”/ “survival of the fittest”.

    Darwin’s racism:

    Over the course of the book (The Descent of Man) Darwin describes Australians, Mongolians, Africans, Indians, South Americans, Polynesians, and even Eskimos as “savages.” It becomes clear that he considers every population that is not white and European to be savage. The word savage is disdainful, and Darwin constantly elevates white Europeans above the savages.

    Darwin explains that the “highest races and the lowest savages” differ in “moral disposition … and in intellect” (36). The idea that white people are more intelligent and moral persists throughout. At one point, Darwin says that savages have “low morality,” “insufficient powers of reasoning,” and “weak power of self-command” (97).
    The Dark Side of Darwinism

  26. 26

    .
    Seversky at #10

    How would you characterize the “Darwinian mindset”?

    Did I not make that clear in my post? The Darwinian mindset is ideologically incapable of acknowledging valid contradictory evidence. It is feature #1 as far as I can see.

    Here is a recent example; prove me wrong if you like.

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

    Sep 5th, 2020

    Seversky: I haven’t dismissed anything in the history of science or the literature or the data.

    UB: So in order to start an open-ended description-based replicator (one that is physically capable of what we generally refer to as Darwinian or biological evolution) you have to be able to specify multiple objects (among alternatives) using a common transcribable medium. This requires an irreducible organization made up of rate-independent memory tokens (symbols) and a set of non-integrable constraints, operating together in a semantically-closed system. The products of this system must successfully specify and produce a very particular dissipative process. The objects in this dissipative process must use the laws of nature to cause the medium to be processed, the products to be produced, and the memory to be copied and be placed inside a separate replicant along with a complete set of constraints. And for that pathway to be successful (i.e. semantically closed) requires a simultaneous coordination between the individual segments of the medium that describe the constraints and the individual segments of the medium that describe the various constituents of the dissipative process (i.e. changing the arrangement of one segment, changes the product of all the other segments). These requirements aren’t merely a mouthful, they are an accurate (and heavily abbreviated) summary of what physics and biology have taught us through logic, prediction, and confirmation via experimental result.

    When you are confronted with these well-documented facts of history and observation, and are given the opportunity to research and discover them for yourself, you immediately jump to say (in your safe, detached, and dull retrospective voice) some variation of the defensive rhetoric: “Well, no one knows how life began”. In other words, you run for the tall grass. You pretend we don’t already know what is physically required of the gene system. You hide from the facts.

    Seversky: The fact is that no one does know how life began. That is not hiding from the facts, that is facing them.

    UB: The elements of this description [above] are carefully recorded in the physics and biology literature, and are based on prediction, logic, measurement, and experimental confirmation. None of the material observations involved here is even controversial. Additionally, the logic is both appropriately sparse and impeccable. You’ll also notice that this is about measurement and description, not about denying or supporting any proposed solution to the origin of the system.

    Are you suggesting here that you now agree with these physical requirements?

  27. 27
    john_a_designer says:

    For over six months “BLM activists claim that Louisville police broke into Taylor’s apartment without warning. They claimed cops used a so-called no knock warrant to surprise Taylor while she was sleeping and then they shot her.
    They described her killing as a murder. Yet, another horrifying example of systemic racist violence against African-Americans by the police.”

    https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/09/24/fncs-carlson-media-working-to-convince-americans-the-blm-dystopia-is-real-to-get-votes-for-biden/

    But what’s the truth? Let’s look at the facts that were presented to the grand jury.

    ”In March, three Louisville police officers served a search warrant at the apartment of a woman called Breonna Taylor. They knocked outside, they announced they were from the police department and then they entered the apartment.”

    FACT: It was NOT a “no knock search warrant.”

    “Once [inside], a man called Kenneth Walker opened fire on them. Walker was Breonna Taylor’s boyfriend. He was also supposedly a drug dealer…

    FACT: Walker was not complying with a legally obtained search warrant.

    “Walker admits that he fired first and that he shot a police officer. In response, the cops fired back.”

    FACT: The police have a legal right to use deadly force when their lives or the live of the public are threatened.

    “By the time Kenneth Walker surrendered, Breonna Taylor, who was in another room in the apartment had been fatally wounded.”

    FACT: In other words, Breonna Taylor was not targeted in the shooting. Her death was unintentional.

    Has the rest of the “main stream media” been reporting these facts? I haven’t seen any other reporting in that regard. Why is that? Is it because they would rather push a racially charged narrative? Is that what an objective and unbiased media should be doing? Ethically the answer should be no. Apparently the American MSM has been almost completely subverted by politics. But that’s not news it’s propaganda.

  28. 28
    mike1962 says:

    Seversky: “There is no point other than, perhaps, to make those diners feel a little less secure while dining out, a sense of insecurity felt all too often by minority groups. “

    So, you’re the kind of jackass that has no problem bullying innocent people for the crimes others (may) have done?

    Okay then, give me your address. I’d like to try that tactic out on you. I got plenty of grievances for which I’d like to bully you into supporting for my benefit.

  29. 29
    Seversky says:

    Kairosfocus/23

    Seversky, you are enabling and excusing riot and SA bully-boy stormtrooper behaviour. That tells us all we need to know. It’s over, kiddo. You shot whatever shreds of credibility you have left through the heart. KF

    If you read what I wrote in full you would have seen that I wrote,

    It is not defensible, nonetheless. The offenders should be prosecuted.

    I do not approve of their behavior and they should answer for it in court but, regardless of what I think, I fear this is only going to get worse because this is what the current occupant of the White House wants. He can exploit incidents like these to heighten white paranoia about some mythical Marxist revolution and position himself as the staunch defender of traditional American values and way of life. On past experience that could be an election-winning strategy. If he does win, I wish you well of your choice because this is a man who cares about nothing and nobody except insofar as they are likely to benefit him personally.

  30. 30
    mike1962 says:

    Seversky: this is what the current occupant of the White House wants.

    Specifics please.

    He can exploit incidents like these to heighten white paranoia about some mythical Marxist revolution.

    Given that fact that actual Marxists are behind BLM, the concern is rather justified. Although, I’ve never heard Trump use the term “Marxist.”

    Any at rate, you’ve already outed yourself as a political bully on the side of extremist Marxist political bullies. Don’t expect sympathy, bully.

    Curious: where do you live? What are your “news” sources? Thanks

  31. 31
    mike1962 says:

    Marxists are evil and must be opposed.

    The primary enemy of inner city blacks are the teachers’ unions who oppose school choice.

    #SchoolChoice #DefundTeachersUnions

  32. 32
    Seversky says:

    Upright BiPed/26

    Are you suggesting here that you now agree with these physical requirements?

    I have never disputed those requirements. I accept what von Neuman and others have determined are the basic requirements for any self-reproducing system.

    What I do not accept – and neither, apparently, do many of those working in this field – is that the only possible origin for such systems is an intelligent designer.

  33. 33
    Seversky says:

    Mike1962/28

    So, you’re the kind of jackass that has no problem bullying innocent people for the crimes others (may) have done?

    As I noted in my reply to kairosfocus, I also wrote.

    If you read what I wrote in full you would have seen that I wrote,

    It is not defensible, nonetheless. The offenders should be prosecuted

    I do not approve of their behavior and they should answer for it in court…

    Okay then, give me your address. I’d like to try that tactic out on you. I got plenty of grievances for which I’d like to bully you into supporting for my benefit.

    I take that as a personal threat and I call it to the attention of the moderators.

  34. 34
    vividbleau says:

    “Has the rest of the “main stream media” been reporting these facts? I haven’t seen any other reporting in that regard. Why is that? Is it because they would rather push a racially charged narrative? Is that what an objective and unbiased media should be doing? Ethically the answer should be no. Apparently the American MSM has been almost completely subverted by politics. But that’s not news it’s propaganda.”

    It started with Michael Brown the media pushed a narrative that was totally false. Before he got shot he commits strong arm robbery. He encounters the police punches the officer and tries to get his gun. He moves away from from the vehicle and the officer gets out of the car, Brown then proceeds to run toward the officer and he was shot. What was the narrative? That this choir boy who was just making mischief encountered a cop that likes to kill blacks and did so while Michael,Brown had his hands up saying don’t shoot.

    George Floyd at the time of his death had a lethal level of fentanyl in his body which itself caused his breathing problems. In fact he complained about long before that sick cop put his knee on his neck for almost 9 minutes.

    Breana Taylor was not shot in her bed she was in the hall way. The police did not do a no knock and in fact knocked on the door. Walker answered the door and shot a cop and the police returned fire. Walker may have thought that those at the door were drug dealers so I can envision he fired because he was in fear for his life. Taylor got caught up in the cross fire.
    The whole thing is tragic but Breana was allowing her car to be used as a mule, she was allowing her apartment to be used as a money and drug distribution center. She was running with a real bad crowd. The whole thing was a FUBAR but there is no evidence it was a shooting just because they were black.
    Bottom line we are constantly being lied to as to what really happens in these types,of situations that we cannot trust the narratives that emerge and must do our own digging. When the Michael Brown situation went down I actually got a hold of the depositions of the witnesses and read hundreds of pages of eye witness testimony. The media lied about hands up don’t shoot, never happened and what makes it worse they know it never happened.

    As to Breana Taylor the following sheds more light on her situation. 41 pages of wire taps of phone calls between Taylor and her boyfriends. From LPD

    https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/63943132/breonna-taylor-summary-redacted1
    Keep scrolling left to read additional pages.

    Vivid

  35. 35
    vividbleau says:

    “And just when we need a leader with the vision to bring the country together, the present occupant of the White House seems bent on widening and deepening these rifts in society for his own electoral advantage.”

    I thought Obama was going to part the seas, make them recede, bring us together. Obama was the most divisive President in my life time. As to Trump all he did was expose what was already there. He exposed the corrupt media.He exposed the gutless good old boy Republican do nothings for what they were all talk no cattle. He was subject to a treasonous silent coup attempt and unlike Republicans of old he went to battle. War is not pretty. The intelligence community are out to destroy him because they can’t control him. The media hates him because he exposes just how corrupt they are. Now it’s violence by the left. When is the last time Trump supporters accosted Republican leaders at their homes, while in restaurants walking to their hotel or mowing their lawn, or out practicing baseball? Who exactly is causing all the division? To paraphrase Maxine Waters “ attack on the street, attack them in restaurants, attack them when they are at the gas station “ And Sev says with a straight face that its Trumps fault. Come on man!

    Vivid

  36. 36
    Truthfreedom says:

    31 Mike1962

    Matxists are evil and must be opposed.

    They are the spawn of Satan.

  37. 37
    Truthfreedom says:

    34 Vividbleau

    It started with Michael Brown the media pushed a narrative that was totally false.

    Mass media are a joke. They prey on people’s ignorance. A switched off TV is the best idea ever. And you save electricity. 🙂

  38. 38
    Truthfreedom says:

    29 Seversky

    He can exploit incidents like these to heighten white paranoia about some mythical Marxist…

    You and your Trump paranoias are quite funny. You may impress some naive teenagers, but here you are speaking to grown-ups, kiddo. Real grown-ups, not “illusory” people like those of your ridicule and obsolete materialist philosophy.
    Not monkeys. Human beings. Not “bags of chemicals”. Human beings. Not pathetic “hallucinations”. Human beings.
    Time to put your toys away.

  39. 39
    kairosfocus says:

    Seversky,

    On reading it is clear a sarcastic response was given to try to wake you up.

    M62,

    You are dealing with people who will twist remarks as above. In future don’t feed them with ammo.

    KF (in absence of mythical moderators)

  40. 40
    kairosfocus says:

    Seversky,

    I accept that you did say that such rioters should face consequences. However, that is part of the problem. Seattle’s Chief of Police just complained that he has been, by political fiat, robbed of less lethal munitions so cannot police the situation.

    Going further, your general commentary has been enabling. For instance it is readily demonstrable that CRITICAL X-THEORY is Marxist (as are related “studies” and other softened forms), that it has come from the Frankfurt School, that it connects to Alinsky’s street tactics and the McFaul techniques for developing on Mao’s 1966 Red guards coup, that this has played out for decades through colour revolutions, Arab Spring etc. Further, there are obvious signatures of a culture revolution push, manifested in mob attacks on key cultural symbols and monuments.

    Given the consequences, it is not paranoia but prudence to take such seriously, especially when agit prop, street theatre, media trumpeting, censorship, lawfare and manipulation of elections in ways that make fraud far more easy are fitting an al too familiar pattern. Don’t forget the deep state actually issuing media statements. We are seeing 4GW insurgency, backed by powers seeking to impose ideological oligarchic domination.

    You can pretend that marxist subversion is a myth all you want. I lived through wrecking my homeland through a failed subversion that shattered economy and society for 40+ years now. I recognise the all too familiar patterns, with further refinements due to advancing technology and technique. The direct parallels to events in Egypt are telling.

    It’s over, kiddo.

    Those you enabled began the fight. They will not win it, in the end. But it is a lot of ordinary people who will have to live with ruinous consequences for decades to come.

    A lot of them, of my race.

    KF

  41. 41
    kairosfocus says:

    TF, for sure, no materialist theory can account for morally governed, conscience guided, rational, responsible, significantly free mind. The time for kiddy fun and foolish talk is over with 4GW red guard insurgents baying in the streets and attacking icons of civilisation not knowing they are cannon fodder and cat’s paws for things they don’t begin to understand. It’s a lot easier to burn than to build, but then you have to live with the ruin. KF

  42. 42
    ET says:

    Education is a personal threat to seversky. 😛

  43. 43
    ET says:

    seversky:

    What I do not accept – and neither, apparently, do many of those working in this field – is that the only possible origin for such systems is an intelligent designer.

    Too bad there isn’t any evidence that nature can do it. There isn’t even a way to test the claim. So we can dismiss it out of hand.

    That means the disagreement to ID is based on personal biases and not science. But we already knew that.

  44. 44
    ET says:

    RE George Floyd tragic death- Months before George Floyd, a white man died via a cop’s knee to the back of his neck. Had the media went into an uproar about that incident the George Floyd incident would have been prevented.

    Food for thought

  45. 45
    daveS says:

    KF,

    It’s over, kiddo

    Who says stuff like this? C’mon, that’s your lamest putdown ever. 🙂

  46. 46
    Truthfreedom says:

    41 Kairosfocus

    TF, for sure, no materialist theory can account…

    Materialism can not even account for itself. QM put that beast to rest.
    The routes now are:
    – Idealism (Kastrup)
    – Extreme Cartesian dualism (with the interaction problem)
    Hylemorphism: preserves scientific objectivity and accounts for “forms” (there could not be evolution if there were not forms for it to act upon). It also solves the mind-body conundrum.

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

    “Materialism”? That’s a fairy-tale for kiddos. 🙂

  47. 47
  48. 48
    Truthfreedom says:

    Oh. The 3 theories above (#46) have something in common: the M.i.n.d. (immaterial)
    I hope “materialists” do not mind having their superstition exposed. It’s just a matter of time for them to disappear.

  49. 49
    kairosfocus says:

    DS, a bit old fashioned now — malarkey is even older — but it makes the point. You might find the logistical trail and pre-positioned riot shield wall supplies as well as incendiary signs just highlighted tell quite a story. KF

  50. 50
    kairosfocus says:

    TF, as in de last superstition . . . KF

  51. 51
  52. 52
    mike1962 says:

    Seversky, You support the destruction that Marxists do, and don’t want to open yourself up to the opposition. Okay then. (Hypocrite/coward. Marxist.)

    P.S. GFY.

  53. 53
    mike1962 says:

    Why is it that the commucrats always whine like little babies when you fight back?

    Hehe. Hehehehehe.

  54. 54
    daveS says:

    This thread feels like Bizarro World, what with all the vitriol being thrown at Seversky.

  55. 55
    mike1962 says:

    Don’t worry, Seversky, you can sleep tight about me. I won’t hurt you. I’m not a communist/Marxist agitator who bullies people with physical violence like some of your political fellow-travelers.

  56. 56
    Mac McTavish says:

    Dave

    This thread feels like Bizarro World, what with all the vitriol being thrown at Seversky.

    I was thinking the same thing. The responses to him seem way over-the-too relative to what he has said.

  57. 57

    .
    Seversky at #32

    UB: Are you suggesting here that you now agree with these physical requirements?

    Seversky: I have never disputed those requirements. I accept what von Neuman and others have determined are the basic requirements for any self-reproducing system.

    What I do not accept – and neither, apparently, do many of those working in this field – is that the only possible origin for such systems is an intelligent designer.

    So the only thing that can motivate a decision away from your preferred position is if it can be proven that the origin of life is not possible by any unknown natural cause.

    We can talk about the posture of your answer in a moment, but first we need to point out the 600lb gorilla hiding behind the curtains. You are using a non-falsifiable condition as your standard of evidence in a scientific question. You’ve set up a situation where the hypothesis you are opposed to must prove a negative or the evidence in favor of that hypothesis is given no value because it does not meet the threshold. Only the proof of a negative is given the capacity to change your position. This is entirely illegitimate reasoning. Of course, no one can force you to use valid reasoning in your beliefs; that is generally something that only comes when it is actually valued by the person doing the reasoning. But you clearly cannot stand firm and suggest that your conclusions were arrived at with anything even resembling sound judgement. That is simply not true.

    Likewise, when you say that you “accept” opposing evidence (such as Von Neumann and others) it is also simply not true. Under your reasoning, the evidence for your opposition can continue to pile up to the rafters while the evidence in favor of your preferred position remains at zero. Until that opposing evidence proves a negative (something it cannot do) then it does not have the power to affect your conclusion. Physical evidence, indeed, becomes meaningless. This is the ultimate protectionist shield against science and reason; demand something that is not logically possible as your standard for evidence. The bonus is that you get to say you are a person of science and reason, while concealing the fact that you’ve completely eviscerated both of everything they have to offer.

  58. 58
    kairosfocus says:

    UB, guess why I was led to the concept, selective hyperskepticism as a common fallacy exerted by enthusiasts of evolutionary materialistic scientism? KF

  59. 59
    ET says:

    Perhaps seversky should stop posting easily refuted nonsense, daves

  60. 60
    jerry says:

    kf,

    UB, guess why I was led to the concept, selective hyperskepticism as a common fallacy exerted by enthusiasts of evolutionary materialistic scientism?

    Between you and upright biped, you have condensed the nonsense of the objectors to ID into pithy statements.

    The nature of the objections are actually support for ID, not detrimental. What a pity!!!

    The argument alway has been that the ID thesis is very reasonable. Even Richard Dawkins agrees.

  61. 61
    Truthfreedom says:

    57 Upright BiPed

    This is the ultimate protectionist shield against science and reason; demand something that is not logically possible as your standard for evidence. The bonus is that you get to say you are a person of science and reason, while concealing the fact that you’ve completely eviscerated both of everything they have to offer.

    Ouch.
    Materialists thought they had an unsinkable vessel.
    So sure, so proud they were.
    And now they are forced to watch how it’s flooding.
    No matter what, their Titanic will founder.
    And no Carpathia in sight. 🙂
    Naturalism’s Epistemological Nightmare

  62. 62
    daveS says:

    ET,

    Even if Sev were posting easily refuted nonsense, that doesn’t excuse these creepy threats (or perhaps somewhat ambiguous hints at threats).

  63. 63
    ET says:

    What? Methinks you are reading too much into comments.

  64. 64
    jerry says:

    kf,

    Off topic but very relevant to how news gets suppressed. A science writer was banned from twitter by exposing the hypocrisy of the medical establishment.

    https://freepressers.com/articles/twitter-suspends-author-of-worldtribune-article-on-hydroxy

    https://www.worldtribune.com/effectiveness-of-hydroxychloroquine-was-hiding-in-plain-sight/

    You may want to put this incident in your quiver. It is one of the most egregious.

  65. 65
    Truthfreedom says:

    59 ET

    Perhaps Seversky should stop posting easily refuted nonsense.

    If only these people could stop living in the 19th Century, with their ridiculous monkey-cult and its racist founder Darwin…
    You are welcome to visit the 21st Century.
    Materialism is gone.
    Naturalism’s Epistemological Nightmare

  66. 66
    kairosfocus says:

    Jerry, 64, I still monitor the frontline doctors article. On first glance the author seems to dig up a plausible case that HCQ cocktails helped even hospitalised patients but obviously nowhere as much as for the early window ones. It remains so that the Dr Been mechanisms of action are on the table and are hard to undermine [weak base in the cell, ionophore . . .]; we are not just debating correlations. Why not let’s discuss there? KF

  67. 67

    .
    This appears to be just another instance where Seversky will not respond to valid criticism of his position.

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    UB: Are you suggesting here that you now agree with these physical requirements?

    Seversky: I have never disputed those requirements. I accept what von Neuman and others have determined are the basic requirements for any self-reproducing system.

    What I do not accept – and neither, apparently, do many of those working in this field – is that the only possible origin for such systems is an intelligent designer.

    So the only thing that can motivate a decision away from your preferred position is if it can be proven that the origin of life is not possible by any unknown natural cause.

    We can talk about the posture of your answer in a moment, but first we need to point out the 600lb gorilla hiding behind the curtains. You are using a non-falsifiable condition as your standard of evidence in a scientific question. You’ve set up a situation where the hypothesis you are opposed to must prove a negative or the evidence in favor of that hypothesis is given no value because it does not meet the threshold. Only the proof of a negative is given the capacity to change your position. This is entirely illegitimate reasoning. Of course, no one can force you to use valid reasoning in your beliefs; that is generally something that only comes when it is actually valued by the person doing the reasoning. But you clearly cannot stand firm and suggest that your conclusions were arrived at with anything even resembling sound judgement. That is simply not true.

    Likewise, when you say that you “accept” opposing evidence (such as Von Neumann and others) it is also simply not true. Under your reasoning, the evidence for your opposition can continue to pile up to the rafters while the evidence in favor of your preferred position remains at zero. Until that opposing evidence proves a negative (something it cannot do) then it does not have the power to affect your conclusion. Physical evidence, indeed, becomes meaningless. This is the ultimate protectionist shield against science and reason; demand something that is not logically possible as your standard for evidence. The bonus is that you get to say you are a person of science and reason, while concealing the fact that you’ve completely eviscerated both of everything they have to offer.

Leave a Reply