You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Intelligent Design is not creationism
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
The day I am ever edified by you on science is the day I shall shoot myself.Quote from jem:
now I know science is over your heads so I am going to give you a background. Don't believe the headlines, listen to the distinguished professor of string theory. One of the best minds in physics.
Listen to the last part of the video after he does a big sort of misdirection about evolution and randomness. Here how he qualifies his response and then says that is why
"that small fraction in which we live looks intelligently designed".
---
for your edification, when susskind speaks of other fractions, landscapes, environments and universes he admits they are speculation and currently untestable.
Therefore our universe looks intelligently designed to Susskind and many other physicists.
Let me make it very clear. To nobel prize winners and co inventors of string theory, our universe looks designed.
But, they speculate it is not really designed because there are trillions and trillions of other universe which were not fine tuned for our life.
Empiricists should conclude design. To those with faith in infinite other universe you can conclude random chance.
You like to pretend you are a lawyer, if I had to ever take a lessen on law from you I'd shoot myself even sooner. You're the prick who went around using the word site for cite over and over again as if any lawyer worthy of the name wouldn't know better.
It must be horrible to be you, having to make those tortuous mental contusions the way you do as the only argument you can manage is one of apologist for the nonsense creationism forces you to adopt.
"that small fraction in which we live looks intelligently designed".
but in the video Susskind says it isn't
"I don't believe that the universe was designed by an intelligence"
What you describe as the "best minds in physics" says the universe is not intelligently designed.
You've supplied evidence which proves the case against you.
Congratulations Perry Mason.
Your assumptions on what I assume - are wrong. But then, that is what creationists are all about. Making the wrong assumptions.Quote from Wallet:
Lol, but you ASSUME that science" just hasn't found the answer" and that "God dose not exist", when the proof of God is everywhere in front of you....... your just to blind to see it.
Science has not and will never find the answer. When a Scientist finally climbs the last rung in the ladder of knowledge, he will find a Theologian sitting there asking "what took you so long"?
Good luck on your quest.
Substantial proof for elementary to intricate, everywhere . Substantial proof for God, nowhere .
The theologist sitting on the last rung of the ladder going nowhere more credibly is shouting up to the scientist in the elevator which has rushed past ...." can you help me what do I do now?
Quote from killthesunshine:
if this is all grand design by an even grander designer, where does a 'jem' fit in?
or a stu?
what makes you so special?
Specialness is a prime factor in the design. The design makes *everyone*, and then makes everyone special. Specialness requires the breakup of oneness and equality. So, everything in this universe is separate and special [think: unequal]. In this process, it breaks up what is already perfect, devolving into "every creeping thing"...each one different and special from every other creep. What is perfect is total, and cannot be added to in any way that would make it more perfect. On the other hand, this universe portends to add to perfection by taking away from it.
So, this universe is special...a 'place' to be special. Only as the totality is robbed and gutted do differences emerge among separate beings, enabling the concept of specialness to seem real. But as i have explained, this is a downward spiral because it begins with the division of the totality of perfection, and devolves as it divides. This is why I describe s.a.t.a.n. as an acronym for *separation analogue*...which somehow enables anyone and everyone to value, and take pride in their special status, even if it is merely puffing up relative to another special creature [ie. a snake].
The special are ignorant of the fact that when GoD truly creates, he extends the totality of perfection to what is created...making it the same and equal as himSelf. In this way, no creation is special or different, being perfect in and of itself. By contrast, the design of this universe makes special by making lesser, and unequal. In this wicked way, we have a gOd of "genesis" making a lesser, imperfect being, to look after even lesser beings [animals, ect.]. Here, diversity is worshipped. And in this way, the desire to be special betrays the Son of God, and transforms him into man, beast, and every creeping thing.
When one identifies with the Son of God, he is really saying " I am not special". He is also saying, " I am equal to everything". And this is his salvation.
The gospel of Paul, however, makes this to mean, "I am special", and makes anyone who identifies with the Son of God as special. This is not to truly identify with the Son of God. And it betrays a secret wish to remain special, and so, to remain in the hell that specialness demands.
Christ!
Top Science Stories for 2008 Leave out Darwin but Point to Intelligent Design
by Casey Luskin on December 24, 2008
At the beginning of 2008, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences stated in its booklet Science, Evolution, and Creationism, that "Evolutionary biology has been and continues to be a cornerstone of modern science." It seems that their assertion did not pan out very well for the rest of 2008. Two groups recently released lists of top science news stories and breakthroughs for 2008: The Access Research Network and the leading journal, Science. None of their top breakthroughs came as a result of evolutionary biology.
Science's top breakthrough was a method where scientists discovered how to harvest stem cells from living patients, a find which has huge potential for treating diseases. This is an extremely important scientific breakthrough, to be sure, but it has nothing to do with evolutionary biology. In fact, their press release states that âif scientists can master cellular reprogramming so that it's more finely controlled, efficient and safe, patients may someday be treated with healthy versions of their own cells.â Keep in mind that in their view, researchers are simply âreprogrammingâ an entity that arose via blind and unguided processes. In fact, the main article in Science was titled âReprogramming cells,â but the mere fact that cells can be âprogrammedâ and âreprogrammedâ does not point to an unguided, unintelligent origin. The article even admits that researchers do not fully understand how the reprogramming takes place: âAlthough dozens of labs have used the technique, what is happening inside the reprogrammed cell remains a mystery.â Though Science would never admit it, their top story of 2008 shows that scientists are studying cells by treating them as if they run on software programs which can control the physical form, and input/ouput of the cellular hardware. Theyâre trying to âmasterâ a programming system they donât even fully understand, yet they believe that it all arose via unguided and blind natural processes. It seems that any progress that is being made in this field results from scientists treating cells as if they were designed.
Itâs also worth noting that none of Scienceâs 10 ârunner upâ scientific breakthroughs for 2008 were from evolutionary biology. Their other top scientific breakthroughs dealt with fascinating scientific topics, ranging from detecting extrasolar planets to understanding why some cells turn cancerous to finding methods to new ways to generate electricity using water, but none dealt with evolutionary biology.
Access Research Networkâs Top 10 Science News Stories for 2008 also show â though in a more explicit fashion â that it is becoming harder to do good science without intelligent design (ID) and that old notions of evolution are failing. ARNâs top news story was the summer meeting of the Altenberg 16, a conference of scientists âwho recognize that the theory of evolution which most practicing biologists accept and which is taught in classrooms today, is inadequate in explaining our existence.â ARNâs other runner-up top science news stories for 2008 included atheists and agnostics who are increasingly defending ID, the release of Stylus by the Biologic Institute as an improved method of using computers to simulate evolution, the molecular clutch discovered in flagella, and leading biologists marveling at the irreducible complexity of the ribosome. ARN also recognized the increasing reliance that engineers are making upon biomimetics â where engineers mimic nature to improve technology. According to ARN, "Design-based methodologies in biomimetics are yielding tangible results."
(ARN also released a list of Top 10 Darwin and Design Resources for 2008, which includes Expelled, the video game Spore, David Berlinskiâs The Devilâs Delusion, Salvo Magazineâs issue on ID, Intelligent Design 101 and its rebuttal to Francis Collins by me and Logan Gage, and William Dembski and Sean McDowellâs new book Understanding Intelligent Design.)
With 2009 being the bicentennial anniversary of Darwinâs birth, undoubtedly Darwinists will seek to make a big push next year to promote the glories of Darwinian evolution. But if 2008 was any indication, it seems quite possible to do good science without neo-Darwinian evolution. As National Academy of Sciences member Phil Skell wrote in The Scientist in 2005:
"Darwinian evolution â whatever its other virtues â does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology. This becomes especially clear when we compare it with a heuristic framework such as the atomic model, which opens up structural chemistry and leads to advances in the synthesis of a multitude of new molecules of practical benefit. None of this demonstrates that Darwinism is false. It does, however, mean that the claim that it is the cornerstone of modern experimental biology will be met with quiet skepticism from a growing number of scientists in fields where theories actually do serve as cornerstones for tangible breakthroughs."
It will be interesting to see whether next yearâs scientific breakthroughs actually come as a result of scientists employing the principles behind Darwinian evolution, or those behind intelligent design.
by Casey Luskin on December 24, 2008
At the beginning of 2008, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences stated in its booklet Science, Evolution, and Creationism, that "Evolutionary biology has been and continues to be a cornerstone of modern science." It seems that their assertion did not pan out very well for the rest of 2008. Two groups recently released lists of top science news stories and breakthroughs for 2008: The Access Research Network and the leading journal, Science. None of their top breakthroughs came as a result of evolutionary biology.
Science's top breakthrough was a method where scientists discovered how to harvest stem cells from living patients, a find which has huge potential for treating diseases. This is an extremely important scientific breakthrough, to be sure, but it has nothing to do with evolutionary biology. In fact, their press release states that âif scientists can master cellular reprogramming so that it's more finely controlled, efficient and safe, patients may someday be treated with healthy versions of their own cells.â Keep in mind that in their view, researchers are simply âreprogrammingâ an entity that arose via blind and unguided processes. In fact, the main article in Science was titled âReprogramming cells,â but the mere fact that cells can be âprogrammedâ and âreprogrammedâ does not point to an unguided, unintelligent origin. The article even admits that researchers do not fully understand how the reprogramming takes place: âAlthough dozens of labs have used the technique, what is happening inside the reprogrammed cell remains a mystery.â Though Science would never admit it, their top story of 2008 shows that scientists are studying cells by treating them as if they run on software programs which can control the physical form, and input/ouput of the cellular hardware. Theyâre trying to âmasterâ a programming system they donât even fully understand, yet they believe that it all arose via unguided and blind natural processes. It seems that any progress that is being made in this field results from scientists treating cells as if they were designed.
Itâs also worth noting that none of Scienceâs 10 ârunner upâ scientific breakthroughs for 2008 were from evolutionary biology. Their other top scientific breakthroughs dealt with fascinating scientific topics, ranging from detecting extrasolar planets to understanding why some cells turn cancerous to finding methods to new ways to generate electricity using water, but none dealt with evolutionary biology.
Access Research Networkâs Top 10 Science News Stories for 2008 also show â though in a more explicit fashion â that it is becoming harder to do good science without intelligent design (ID) and that old notions of evolution are failing. ARNâs top news story was the summer meeting of the Altenberg 16, a conference of scientists âwho recognize that the theory of evolution which most practicing biologists accept and which is taught in classrooms today, is inadequate in explaining our existence.â ARNâs other runner-up top science news stories for 2008 included atheists and agnostics who are increasingly defending ID, the release of Stylus by the Biologic Institute as an improved method of using computers to simulate evolution, the molecular clutch discovered in flagella, and leading biologists marveling at the irreducible complexity of the ribosome. ARN also recognized the increasing reliance that engineers are making upon biomimetics â where engineers mimic nature to improve technology. According to ARN, "Design-based methodologies in biomimetics are yielding tangible results."
(ARN also released a list of Top 10 Darwin and Design Resources for 2008, which includes Expelled, the video game Spore, David Berlinskiâs The Devilâs Delusion, Salvo Magazineâs issue on ID, Intelligent Design 101 and its rebuttal to Francis Collins by me and Logan Gage, and William Dembski and Sean McDowellâs new book Understanding Intelligent Design.)
With 2009 being the bicentennial anniversary of Darwinâs birth, undoubtedly Darwinists will seek to make a big push next year to promote the glories of Darwinian evolution. But if 2008 was any indication, it seems quite possible to do good science without neo-Darwinian evolution. As National Academy of Sciences member Phil Skell wrote in The Scientist in 2005:
"Darwinian evolution â whatever its other virtues â does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology. This becomes especially clear when we compare it with a heuristic framework such as the atomic model, which opens up structural chemistry and leads to advances in the synthesis of a multitude of new molecules of practical benefit. None of this demonstrates that Darwinism is false. It does, however, mean that the claim that it is the cornerstone of modern experimental biology will be met with quiet skepticism from a growing number of scientists in fields where theories actually do serve as cornerstones for tangible breakthroughs."
It will be interesting to see whether next yearâs scientific breakthroughs actually come as a result of scientists employing the principles behind Darwinian evolution, or those behind intelligent design.
Quote from stu:
The day I am ever edified by you on science is the day I shall shoot myself.
You like to pretend you are a lawyer, if I had to ever take a lessen on law from you I'd shoot myself even sooner. You're the prick who went around using the word site for cite over and over again as if any lawyer worthy of the name wouldn't know better.
It must be horrible to be you, having to make those tortuous mental contusions the way you do as the only argument you can manage is one of apologist for the nonsense creationism forces you to adopt.
"that small fraction in which we live looks intelligently designed".
but in the video Susskind says it isn't
"I don't believe that the universe was designed by an intelligence"
What you describe as the "best minds in physics" says the universe is not intelligently designed.
You've supplied evidence which proves the case against you.
Congratulations Perry Mason.
You make conclusions based on typos. You do not understand science when it is printed or on video.
Susskind's conclusion is based on the fact he speculates there are trillions of other universes. You obviously do not understand logic.
as the residence et dunce and zealout...
I doubt you would have met the requirements to take the college class I taught for the state of California, so I could care less if you wished to learn from me or the best minds in science. Your ignorance is your bliss.
Art as Lust
By Jonathan Wells
Medieval alchemists searched for a legendary âphilosopherâs stoneâ capable of turning lead into gold. Modern Darwinists have given us a different âphilosopherâs stoneâ â one that turns gold into lead.
Darwinism is the doctrine that all living things are biological descendants of common ancestors that have been modified by unguided variations and natural selection. Although Darwinists claim that their doctrine is supported by âoverwhelming evidence,â nothing could be further from the truth. The fossil record shows that living things originated in a particular pattern, but Darwinists themselves (when theyâre being candid) admit that the pattern tells us nothing about the process of origination. As for the process, variation and selection are well-documented in existing species, but Darwin didnât write a book titled How Existing Species Change Over Time. He wrote a book titled The Origin of Species â and no one has ever observed the origin of a single species by variation and selection.
Empirical science tests hypotheses by comparing them with the evidence, but Darwinists never allow evidence to jeopardize their basic claims. Darwin called The Origin of Species âone long argument,â but his followers are engaged in one long bluff. Books and articles promoting Darwinism invariably make inflated claims based on little evidence â or worse, evidence that is misrepresented or even faked.
Among the inflated claims, those prevalent in sociobiology and evolutionary psychology (âevo-psychoâ for short) tend to be the silliest. Sociobiology and evo-psycho are so fanciful that even some Darwinists criticize them for consisting of nothing more than âjust-soâ stories. A century ago, Rudyard Kipling wrote entertaining but scientifically meaningless âjust-so storiesâ about how the camel got its hump, how leopards got their spots, and so on. In 1978, Harvard evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould faulted sociobiology for relying on just-so stories in which âvirtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance.â 1
In 2000, University of Leicester geneticist Gabriel Dover wrote:
This problem with just-so story telling is not some minor irritation⦠The problem runs much deeper and wider, embracing many new disciplines of evolutionary psychology, Darwinian medicine, linguistics, biological ethics and sociobiology. Here quite vulgar explanations are offered, based on the crudest applications of selection theory, of why we humans are the way we are⦠Not only is there the embarrassing spectacle of psychologists, philosophers and linguists rushing down the road of selfish genetic determinism, but we are also shackled with their self-imposed justification in giving âscientificâ respectability to complex behavioral phenomena in humans which we simply do not so far have the scientific tools and methodologies to investigate.2
In 2001, the U.S. Public Broadcasting System (PBS) produced a lavish eight-hour propaganda series titled Evolution. Episode Five featured evo-psycho advocate Geoffrey Miller. According to the narrator, Miller âbelieves the human brain, like the peacockâs magnificent tail, is an extravagance that evolvedâat least in partâto help us attract a mate, and pass on genes.â But Miller âis just getting started when he argues that the size of our brains can be attributed to our ancestorsâ sexual choices. Heâs also convinced that artistic expression, no matter how sublime, has its roots in our desire to impress the opposite sex. And that includes music, art, the poetic and storytelling uses of language â even a good sense of humor. According to Miller, they all stem from our instincts for sexual display.â Miller himself then said, âI think when a lot of people produce cultural displays, what theyâre doing in a sense is exercising these, these sexual instincts for impressing the opposite sex.â
To illustrate Millerâs claim that artistic creativity is reducible to our ancestorsâ sexual choices, PBSâs Evolution chose â of all things! â the âHallelujah Chorusâ from Handelâs Messiah. According to evo-psycho, Handel did it for sex. In fact, however, Handel composed the Messiah as a benefit concert, and he personally conducted scores of performances that raised substantial funds for a London hospital and for people in debtors' prisons. Far from trying to satisfy his sexual desire, Handel used his creative abilities for deeply altruistic purposes, and the Messiah stands as a legacy to his Christian faith.
Nevertheless, for Miller â as for Freud â all of human culture is a by-product of selfish sexual urges. But âFreudâs views lost credibility,â wrote University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry A. Coyne in 2000
when people realized that they were not at all based on science, but were really an ideological edifice, a myth about human life, that was utterly resistant to scientific refutation. By judicious manipulation, every possible observation of human behavior could be (and was) fitted into the Freudian framework. The same trick is now being perpetrated by the evolutionary psychologists. They, too, deal in their own dogmas, and not in propositions of science.3
Coyne was criticizing evolutionary psychology in general. But many biologists have also criticized Millerâs specific ideas about the evolution of the human brain. âHow does one actually test these ideas?â wrote University of Sheffield behavioral ecologist Tim Birkhead in a 2000 review of Millerâs work. âWithout a concerted effort to do this, evolutionary psychology will remain in the realms of armchair entertainment rather than real science.â4 In another review of Millerâs work, American Museum of Natural History paleoanthropologist Ian Tattersall wrote: âIn the end we are looking here at a product of the storytellerâs art, not of science.â 5
Now Denis Dutton has come out with yet another retelling of the evo-psycho story. In The Art Instinct: Beauty, Pleasure, and Human Evolution (Bloomsbury Press, 2008), Dutton attributes human artistic tastes to our evolutionary history â especially sexual selection. According to an online review by Michael O'Donnell, Duttonâs âidea of an evolutionary basis to the artsâ is âcompelling,â because âunless you are inclined to believe that an omniscient creator bestowed on some people angelic voices to fill his cathedrals with heavenly airs, there must be some scientific explanation for artistic talent.â
But âscientificâ here does not mean âconsistent with the evidence.â It means âconsistent with Darwinism.â And although Darwinists such as Gould and Coyne and Tattersall criticized evo-psycho for storytelling, Darwinism from the start has consisted mainly of storytelling. What matters in Darwinism is not following the evidence wherever it leads, but seeking explanations that are (a) materialistic and (b) believable, meaning only they are not blatantly contradicted by the evidence. Darwinism masquerades as empirical science, but in reality it is just materialistic storytelling.
Unfortunately, materialism has no room for angels; thatâs why Miller and OâDonnell are deaf to the angelic voices that most other people hear in the âHallelujah Chorus.â Materialism reduces art to lust; thatâs why evo-psycho regards the Messiah as nothing more than high-end erotica. And thatâs why the philosopherâs stone of Darwinism turns gold into lead.
1 Stephen Jay Gould, âSociobiology: the art of storytelling,â New Scientist (16 November 1978), p. 530. See also Tom Bethell, âAgainst Sociobiology,â First Things (January, 2001).
2 Gabriel Dover, Dear Mr. Darwin (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000), pp. 44-45.
3 Jerry A. Coyne, âOf Vice and Men: The fairy tales of evolutionary psychology,â a review of Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmerâs A Natural History of Rape, in The New Republic (April 3, 2000).
4 Tim Birkhead, âStrictly for the birds,â a review of Geoffrey Millerâs book, The Mating Mind in New Scientist (May 13, 2000), 48-49.
5 Ian Tattersall, âWhatever turns you on,â a review of Geoffrey Millerâs book, The Mating Mind, in The New York Times Book Review (June 11, 2000).
By Jonathan Wells
Medieval alchemists searched for a legendary âphilosopherâs stoneâ capable of turning lead into gold. Modern Darwinists have given us a different âphilosopherâs stoneâ â one that turns gold into lead.
Darwinism is the doctrine that all living things are biological descendants of common ancestors that have been modified by unguided variations and natural selection. Although Darwinists claim that their doctrine is supported by âoverwhelming evidence,â nothing could be further from the truth. The fossil record shows that living things originated in a particular pattern, but Darwinists themselves (when theyâre being candid) admit that the pattern tells us nothing about the process of origination. As for the process, variation and selection are well-documented in existing species, but Darwin didnât write a book titled How Existing Species Change Over Time. He wrote a book titled The Origin of Species â and no one has ever observed the origin of a single species by variation and selection.
Empirical science tests hypotheses by comparing them with the evidence, but Darwinists never allow evidence to jeopardize their basic claims. Darwin called The Origin of Species âone long argument,â but his followers are engaged in one long bluff. Books and articles promoting Darwinism invariably make inflated claims based on little evidence â or worse, evidence that is misrepresented or even faked.
Among the inflated claims, those prevalent in sociobiology and evolutionary psychology (âevo-psychoâ for short) tend to be the silliest. Sociobiology and evo-psycho are so fanciful that even some Darwinists criticize them for consisting of nothing more than âjust-soâ stories. A century ago, Rudyard Kipling wrote entertaining but scientifically meaningless âjust-so storiesâ about how the camel got its hump, how leopards got their spots, and so on. In 1978, Harvard evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould faulted sociobiology for relying on just-so stories in which âvirtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance.â 1
In 2000, University of Leicester geneticist Gabriel Dover wrote:
This problem with just-so story telling is not some minor irritation⦠The problem runs much deeper and wider, embracing many new disciplines of evolutionary psychology, Darwinian medicine, linguistics, biological ethics and sociobiology. Here quite vulgar explanations are offered, based on the crudest applications of selection theory, of why we humans are the way we are⦠Not only is there the embarrassing spectacle of psychologists, philosophers and linguists rushing down the road of selfish genetic determinism, but we are also shackled with their self-imposed justification in giving âscientificâ respectability to complex behavioral phenomena in humans which we simply do not so far have the scientific tools and methodologies to investigate.2
In 2001, the U.S. Public Broadcasting System (PBS) produced a lavish eight-hour propaganda series titled Evolution. Episode Five featured evo-psycho advocate Geoffrey Miller. According to the narrator, Miller âbelieves the human brain, like the peacockâs magnificent tail, is an extravagance that evolvedâat least in partâto help us attract a mate, and pass on genes.â But Miller âis just getting started when he argues that the size of our brains can be attributed to our ancestorsâ sexual choices. Heâs also convinced that artistic expression, no matter how sublime, has its roots in our desire to impress the opposite sex. And that includes music, art, the poetic and storytelling uses of language â even a good sense of humor. According to Miller, they all stem from our instincts for sexual display.â Miller himself then said, âI think when a lot of people produce cultural displays, what theyâre doing in a sense is exercising these, these sexual instincts for impressing the opposite sex.â
To illustrate Millerâs claim that artistic creativity is reducible to our ancestorsâ sexual choices, PBSâs Evolution chose â of all things! â the âHallelujah Chorusâ from Handelâs Messiah. According to evo-psycho, Handel did it for sex. In fact, however, Handel composed the Messiah as a benefit concert, and he personally conducted scores of performances that raised substantial funds for a London hospital and for people in debtors' prisons. Far from trying to satisfy his sexual desire, Handel used his creative abilities for deeply altruistic purposes, and the Messiah stands as a legacy to his Christian faith.
Nevertheless, for Miller â as for Freud â all of human culture is a by-product of selfish sexual urges. But âFreudâs views lost credibility,â wrote University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry A. Coyne in 2000
when people realized that they were not at all based on science, but were really an ideological edifice, a myth about human life, that was utterly resistant to scientific refutation. By judicious manipulation, every possible observation of human behavior could be (and was) fitted into the Freudian framework. The same trick is now being perpetrated by the evolutionary psychologists. They, too, deal in their own dogmas, and not in propositions of science.3
Coyne was criticizing evolutionary psychology in general. But many biologists have also criticized Millerâs specific ideas about the evolution of the human brain. âHow does one actually test these ideas?â wrote University of Sheffield behavioral ecologist Tim Birkhead in a 2000 review of Millerâs work. âWithout a concerted effort to do this, evolutionary psychology will remain in the realms of armchair entertainment rather than real science.â4 In another review of Millerâs work, American Museum of Natural History paleoanthropologist Ian Tattersall wrote: âIn the end we are looking here at a product of the storytellerâs art, not of science.â 5
Now Denis Dutton has come out with yet another retelling of the evo-psycho story. In The Art Instinct: Beauty, Pleasure, and Human Evolution (Bloomsbury Press, 2008), Dutton attributes human artistic tastes to our evolutionary history â especially sexual selection. According to an online review by Michael O'Donnell, Duttonâs âidea of an evolutionary basis to the artsâ is âcompelling,â because âunless you are inclined to believe that an omniscient creator bestowed on some people angelic voices to fill his cathedrals with heavenly airs, there must be some scientific explanation for artistic talent.â
But âscientificâ here does not mean âconsistent with the evidence.â It means âconsistent with Darwinism.â And although Darwinists such as Gould and Coyne and Tattersall criticized evo-psycho for storytelling, Darwinism from the start has consisted mainly of storytelling. What matters in Darwinism is not following the evidence wherever it leads, but seeking explanations that are (a) materialistic and (b) believable, meaning only they are not blatantly contradicted by the evidence. Darwinism masquerades as empirical science, but in reality it is just materialistic storytelling.
Unfortunately, materialism has no room for angels; thatâs why Miller and OâDonnell are deaf to the angelic voices that most other people hear in the âHallelujah Chorus.â Materialism reduces art to lust; thatâs why evo-psycho regards the Messiah as nothing more than high-end erotica. And thatâs why the philosopherâs stone of Darwinism turns gold into lead.
1 Stephen Jay Gould, âSociobiology: the art of storytelling,â New Scientist (16 November 1978), p. 530. See also Tom Bethell, âAgainst Sociobiology,â First Things (January, 2001).
2 Gabriel Dover, Dear Mr. Darwin (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000), pp. 44-45.
3 Jerry A. Coyne, âOf Vice and Men: The fairy tales of evolutionary psychology,â a review of Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmerâs A Natural History of Rape, in The New Republic (April 3, 2000).
4 Tim Birkhead, âStrictly for the birds,â a review of Geoffrey Millerâs book, The Mating Mind in New Scientist (May 13, 2000), 48-49.
5 Ian Tattersall, âWhatever turns you on,â a review of Geoffrey Millerâs book, The Mating Mind, in The New York Times Book Review (June 11, 2000).
Anything written by a man about God/etc is FALSE.
Man comes to this earth, thinks he is smart so he bullshits, confuses a lot of people via what he writes/says, and then goes back to the grave. He cannot do a damn thing about the latter.
If man is smart and knows something why he does not create another human (not the body, but the body with a soul in it).
God is great! (Jesus is just a human and is not God by the way. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool).
Man comes to this earth, thinks he is smart so he bullshits, confuses a lot of people via what he writes/says, and then goes back to the grave. He cannot do a damn thing about the latter.
If man is smart and knows something why he does not create another human (not the body, but the body with a soul in it).
God is great! (Jesus is just a human and is not God by the way. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool).
why would you worship a deity that refuses to show himself or even leave and evidence that he exists? do you fear?Quote from riskfreetrading:
Anything written by a man about God/etc is FALSE.
Man comes to this earth, thinks he is smart so he bullshits, confuses a lot of people via what he writes/says, and then goes back to the grave. He cannot do a damn thing about the latter.
If man is smart and knows something why he does not create another human (not the body, but the body with a soul in it).
God is great! (Jesus is just a human and is not God by the way. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool).