Darwin's Black Box - Michael J. Behe and Intelligent Design

Aeneas

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
The C's did have something to say about DNA tinkering. Yesterday, I didn't remember in which session but I stumbled upon it today:
(PoB) I have one. It's about the GMO food. My question is: How deep the modification goes? When you have for example a GMO corn, and it will go through chemical processes, and we get alcohol or vitamin C from it. Is it affected by the modification?

A: Unless you consume the DNA bodies there should be no problem.

Q: (L) So does that mean that when products are made out of some kinds of genetically modified things that if the product is made in such a way that it excludes the DNA bodies and it just extracts a chemical or something from it, then it should be generally safe?

A: Yes

Q: (PoB) And when we eat meat of an animal that was fed with GMO corn or crops?

A: That is different!

Q: (Pierre) If we consume DNA bodies directly, it's harmful for us. The animal consumes the DNA bodies, and then we consume them. That's the same. There will be toxins, and maybe DNA migrations.

A: Yes
 

BlackCartouche

Jedi Master
Some of the early background of the takeover of materialist science.

Much of that video seems like yesterday to me. I wonder if most of those wanting to emigrate to the U.S. are not in search of that American Dream.
The American Dream is the death of America in a soul sense. It removes the populous from learning lessons, and encourages avoiding at all costs having to face challenges required for life's experience... And to instead seek having the nicest most comfortable life here in 3D. From there, was instilled a sense of entitlement for worldly possessions.

To appropriately quote Matthew 6:19 - 6:20 [KJV]

19: Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:

20: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
 

genero81

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
The American Dream is the death of America in a soul sense. It removes the populous from learning lessons, and encourages avoiding at all costs having to face challenges required for life's experience... And to instead seek having the nicest most comfortable life here in 3D. From there, was instilled a sense of entitlement for worldly possessions.

Funny, I was reflecting on this short video posted by Laura as well and having similar thoughts. The 'American Dream' was a life where science and the industrial revolution had automated enough of the physical requirements to make life relatively easy. And yes, it made it possible to fully explore what that easy life had to offer in the form of every indulgence as well as the consequences thereof. But as with pretty much everything, there are two sides to the coin. It also provides ample availability of both resources and 'time' for pursuing any sort of higher learning as well.
 

Aeneas

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
The American Dream is the death of America in a soul sense. It removes the populous from learning lessons, and encourages avoiding at all costs having to face challenges required for life's experience... And to instead seek having the nicest most comfortable life here in 3D. From there, was instilled a sense of entitlement for worldly possessions.
One could also say that the American Dream was going for the 'pot of gold', believing the lies and indulging in wishful thinking rather than paying strict attention to objective reality. The whole Hollywood industry has done stellar efforts in promoting this American Dream worldwide and only too late if ever have people seen the nightmare that it created.

The going for the pot of gold was not something that just happened in the distant past but is a repeating pattern and we must each dig our way out. The promotion of the Darwinian evolution theory and the implied materialism seems to have been the perfect vehicle for this enslavement to the STS mindset. It represents the repeat of the age old story of the fall. Perhaps in each lifetime the 'pot of gold' is presented slightly differently to ensure the 'fall' and a continued entrapment and it is up to us to find the way out of the puzzle, which this group effort makes possible.
 

zak

Dagobah Resident
I came across this video that probably have its place in this thread:
"C.S. Lewis and Intelligent Design" is the third of three short documentaries inspired by the book The Magician's Twin: C.S. Lewis on Science, Scientism, and Society. Lewis is best known for his magical stories about Narnia, but a new documentary explores his life-long struggle to find intelligent design in a world filled with pain.

I add some links mentioned in the video.
The Explanatory Filter.
Dembski's book provides a series of representations of how design inference works. The exposition starts simple and grows increasingly complex. However, the basic pattern of analysis can be summarized as follows. Dembski proposes an "explanatory filter" (37), which is a procedure for deciding how best to explain an observation E:
(1) There are three possible explanations of E Regularity, Chance, and Design. They are mutually exclusive and collec- tively exhaustive. The problem is to decide which of these explanations to accept.
(2) The Regularity hypothesis is more parsimonious than Chance, and Chance is more parsimonious than Design. To evaluate these alternatives, begin with the most parsimonious possibility and move down the list until you reach an explanation you can accept.
(3) If E has a high probability, you should accept Regularity; otherwise, reject Regularity and move down the list.
(4) If the Chance hypothesis assigns E a sufficiently low probability and E is "specified," then reject Chance and move down the list; otherwise, accept Chance.
(5) If you have rejected Regularity and Chance, then you should accept Design as the explanation of E.
The Design Inference

Also:
David Chalmers identified two problems in understanding the mind, which he named the "hard" and "easy" problems of consciousness. The easy problem is understanding how the brain processes signals, makes plans and controls behavior. The hard problem is explaining how this feels or why it should feel like anything at all. Human information processing is easy to explain, however human subjective experience is difficult to explain.
For example, consider what happens when a person is shown a color swatch and identifies it, saying "it's red". The easy problem only requires understanding the machinery in the brain that makes it possible for a person to know that the color swatch is red. The hard problem is that people also know something else—they also know what red looks like. (Consider that a person born blind can know that something is red without knowing what red looks like.) Everyone knows subjective experience exists, because they do it every day (e.g., all sighted people know what red looks like). The hard problem is explaining how the brain creates it, why it exists, and how it is different than knowledge and other aspects of the brain.
Artificial intelligence - Wikipedia
And
A non-reducible functionalism to explain consciousness. In this book, David Chalmers, after challenging the possibility of explaining consciousness through the functional role, discusses the relationship between consciousness and functional organization. Certainly, for Chalmers, consciousness "comes from" the physical, it is the natural occurrence, but none of the biological or quantum physical properties can have an impact on consciousness. Therefore, he establishes the hypothesis that consciousness could be the result of a certain functional organization (p. 347). This functionalism, with a "fine grain" is for Chalmers, which explains the conscious experience. Such a position, the result of the marriage between dualism and functionalism, brings back to light a non-reducible functionalism and has the consequence of opening the bold hypothesis of the thesis of strong artificial intelligence (p. 429). Indeed, according to the functionalist approach, the functional realization of consciousness does not depend on a particular material substrate. In other words, even if neurons are replaced by silicon chips, as long as the functional organization is preserved, the system will produce the same consciousness experiences. So when functionalism is associated with a non-reductionist conception, the obstacle of the possibility of a consciousness outside the biological substrate becomes possible. As Chalmers writes (p. 430): "It is hard to see why computers should be in a worse position than brains" to give rise to consciousness.
DeepL.
In french

About the thesis of strong artificial intelligence:
Definition
The concept of strong artificial intelligence refers to a machine capable not only of producing intelligent behaviour, but also of experiencing an impression of real self-awareness, "true feelings" (whatever you may put behind these words), and "an understanding of your own reasoning ".

Strong artificial intelligence has been the driving force behind the discipline, but has also sparked much debate. On the basis of the hypothesis, which neuroscience tends to confirm and which researchers do not hesitate to affirm, that consciousness has a biological and therefore material support, scientists generally do not see any obstacle of principle to one day creating a conscious intelligence on a material support other than biological. According to the proponents of strong AI, if there are no computers or robots as intelligent as humans at the moment, it is not a problem of tools but of design. There would be no functional limits (a computer is a universal Turing machine with only the limits of computability), there would only be limits related to the human ability to design the appropriate software (program, database...). In particular, it makes it possible to model abstract ideas
(...)
DeepL.
The rest in french HERE.
 

luc

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Funny, I was reflecting on this short video posted by Laura as well and having similar thoughts. The 'American Dream' was a life where science and the industrial revolution had automated enough of the physical requirements to make life relatively easy. And yes, it made it possible to fully explore what that easy life had to offer in the form of every indulgence as well as the consequences thereof. But as with pretty much everything, there are two sides to the coin. It also provides ample availability of both resources and 'time' for pursuing any sort of higher learning as well.

Yes, and what occurs to me is that it's rather pointless to judge such developments morally; they had their good sides and their bad sides, they offered potential for humans to grow as well as to deteriorate. However, I think it's important to see how all of such developments form part of a "mosaic", of a whole, that led to the crazy situation we're in now - where the programming is complete. But this is only visible in hindsight once you get the whole picture. Each of these developments alone cannot really be judged, or at least not judged easily.

Take the anti-vietnam war protests: were they justified? Were they "good"? Definitely, in some sense. But why were they so loud, so amplified in the media, and so universally acclaimed even in "official" history books? In hindsight, the answer seems obvious: without that movement, no crazy leftist takeover, no postmodern/neo-Marxist takeover of academia, no loony-lefty-neoliberal-nihilist elite running the show today...

Or take religion: was the anti-religious zeal that slowly developed since the Enlightenment justified? Of course in some sense, because much of religion is BS, and intelligent people are rightfully skeptical and even rightfully disgusted by much of the religions' teachings and practices. But see where that led us - the lunatic, materialist, Darwinist dog-eat-dog view of life, with no purpose whatsoever, as the only alternative. The psychopathic mindset firmly entrenched in our minds.

Or take the riches generated by progress and materialist science: Good? Certainly, because hunger disappeared in the West, people had more time, less worries and so on. But this also led to incredibly sloppy thinking, to say the least, temptations to "go for the pot of gold", and hysterization all-around that would NEVER have come about in harsher conditions that naturally provided a reality-check.

The list goes on... How on earth did we get where we are now? That's the question, and the answer seems to run very deep indeed, I think.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Luc, I would propose that you might write a long article about all this for sott for all of us to spread around, or even a series of short ones.

I'm halfway through "Darwinian Fairytales" right now, and you are right: it's a bloodbath, but necessary. So many things that I just never thought about "that way". And darned if he doesn't think of them and come right out and say it. He must have had a ball writing that book. So you should enjoy yourself blue writing too! Pull out all the stops. Let's get this show on the road!
 

goyacobol

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
This is a little off the beaten path but considering the positives and negatives of the American Dream I think we are learning to look for the STS and STO of our reality. The following touches on the nature of 4D STS which seems to inspire our 3D activities in the sense of "As above so below".

Session 25 February 1995:
Q: (L) So, in other words, they may abduct someone to monitor their knowledge, but if the individual has achieved a certain level of knowledge, the abduction only serves to add to their knowledge?

A: Yes.

Q: (BP) What is the Lizard's Achilles heel?

A: STS. As in "wishful thinking" which blocks knowledge.

Q: (J) Their singular preoccupation with service to self blocks them from being able to move from 4th level.

A: Yes.

Q: (TM) Do they want to... (J) No they are happy there... they want to stay there forever and control, and consume, and have a good time. (BP) It is like finding a place with really good food, a great place to live, great sex, everything you like, you would want to stay there. (TM) Don't a lot of us like the idea of staying in the 3rd level forever?

A: Yes.

Q: (BP) Under the control of the Lizards! (F) But, you only want to stay in 3rd level forever if you are focused on STS. (TM) Yeah, but there are a lot of people on this earth who want the physical world. (J) It's physicality. (L) They like to consume, because that is the essence of this 3rd density reality, consumption. By being here you must consume. (GB) Is this message given to us tonight, from 6th density beings?

A: Yes.

Q: (GB) Do you have power over 4th density Lizard beings?

A: That is not the issue. We choose STO.


Q: (L) STO beings do not exert power over anyone, they only serve all. When STS beings call for knowledge and have raised their frequency levels, which can be done while still remaining STS, the only place in the universe they will obtain knowledge is from STO beings, even though they may use this knowledge to serve themselves. STS beings won't GIVE knowledge, because that is STO. (GB) Do the Lizzies have souls?

A: Yes.

Q: (BP) Were the Mayans an STS civilization?

A: No.

Just threw in the part about the Mayans because I think they may have gotten bad press historically.
 

stellar

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Interesting idea, although I'm not sure about the idea of there being any direct intervention by "STO forces" in our biology, at least not in an ongoing way and not in the same way as it can be theorized by "STS forces". But then that leaves open the question of what 'fights back' 'through us', in terms of the C's comment about the battle being "through you"? Perhaps it's our own efforts to gain and use knowledge?
Could it just be that the nature of life is simply seeking balance of existence and it manifests differently depending on the degree of imbalance at a certain point? That point may be a person, an 'entity' (invisible to us), a geographical location or a location in the cosmos and subsequently in any universe, in any reality. We may see it as creation vs entropy and our various levels of understanding may lead us to see it as positive or negative, when in fact what we are seeing is the process of balancing playing out. Perspectives can vary tremendously.
We have no way of knowing to what degree, if any, STO intervention has affected our biology. Does it really matter? Maybe just suspecting that they can, gives us a certain awareness and openness to information that would otherwise not reach us if that possibility was outright denied. If nature seeking balance requires a certain amount of this interference to occur, it may be by intelligent design; in order for 'x' to be created, 'y' needs to happen because then the appropriate information will be made available for the formation/transformation takes place. Maybe its the suffering through distortion (STO intervention?) that actually facilitates the crystallisation of truth/knowledge by intelligent design. Brings to mind the story of the moth that struggles to break the cocoon in order to merge with strong functioning wings. FWIW.
 

stellar

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
One could also say that the American Dream was going for the 'pot of gold', believing the lies and indulging in wishful thinking rather than paying strict attention to objective reality. The whole Hollywood industry has done stellar efforts in promoting this American Dream worldwide and only too late if ever have people seen the nightmare that it created.
Funny term, yet clearly implies it only serves those asleep and, yeah, it's turning into a nightmare for many.:halo:
 

hlat

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I'm finishing up The Sociopath Next Door by Martha Stout, and towards the end of the book Stout tries to explain psychopathy in terms of Darwinism evolution and cites Dawkins' selfish gene. It was such a waste of Stout's energy to spend it on fake Darwinism and fake science. It also made me think of other books such as The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt, and what a waste of Haidt's energy too trying to explain cooperation in terms of fake Darwinism.

How much further could we have gotten in understanding and knowledge had we all not been led astray by fake science? What we know must all fit together; if not, it is a sign that something is wrong.
 

luc

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Luc, I would propose that you might write a long article about all this for sott for all of us to spread around, or even a series of short ones.

I'm halfway through "Darwinian Fairytales" right now, and you are right: it's a bloodbath, but necessary. So many things that I just never thought about "that way". And darned if he doesn't think of them and come right out and say it. He must have had a ball writing that book. So you should enjoy yourself blue writing too! Pull out all the stops. Let's get this show on the road!

Thanks for the encouragement, I actually started writing an article a while ago, but the stuff just keeps piling up; so I think best would be to write at least 2 articles and maybe more as we go along.

I was also thinking about these comments by the C's in connection with Stove's book:

Q: (L) One of the things we have been discussing is that a number of people seem to be experiencing the sensation that they have simply had enough of the negative energies and experiences of 3rd density. This amounts to a soul deep weariness where nothing, not even the beauties and wonders of the world are any longer desirable. Yes, we can appreciate them, but the attraction is gone. There is even a revulsion to food and the idea of having to eat other living things whether animal or vegetable. I have thought lately that this feeling of having had enough, in an absolute sense, is one of the primary motivators for wanting to find one's way out of this density we are in. Is this part of this "nature" or "natural progression" as you call it?

A: Yes. When you see the futility of the limitations of 3rd density life, it means you are ready to graduate. Notice those who wallow in it.

Q: (L) Some people obviously wallow in extreme materiality. And there seems to be another kind that is more subtle, which has to do with saying that you want to grow and become enlightened, and yet such a person is unable to pierce the veil of their own illusions about how to become enlightened, and this illusion is the wallowing...

A: Wallowing takes many forms.

Q: (L) Among the things I have noticed is the type of person who says: "This is my LAST life! Swami So-and-so told me!" And they are wallowing in the enjoyment of the adulation they receive from their followers who believe that sort of thing can be known.

A: Sometimes, but avoid stereotyping, because sometimes they are correct!!! A better indicator of subtle wallowing is someone who does NOT feel alienated by the obvious traps and limitations of 3rd density.

Oh, these traps and limitations! The futility! How utterly pointless, indeed!

What can we support, if this vast STS intelligence turns everything into darkness!? Think about my anti-vietnam protests example: at that time, this seemed like a great cause, and those in power seemed hell-bent on destroying it, with their cointelpro and all that! But look what a Satanic world this movement helped to create! So what's the point in supporting anything? Trump, the yellow vests, anti-imperialism? Ha, watch how these will turn out! What can we be for, indeed?? There is nothing. There is no hope, short of zinging out of 3D.

It seems that's precisely the conclusion Stove reached, and it is an utterly depressing one. So what are we left to do? Just what Stove did: bashing. Bashing everything. Darwinism, religions, atheism, wars, anti-war movements, the left, the right, the West, the East, capitalism, anti-capitalism, Nazis, SJWs, imperialists, anti-imperialists, the Enlightenment, Jesus, psychopaths, naive altruists, Islam, Christianity, science, anti-science... the whole glorious folly and madness of the human condition. The only thing we could do to support something is to reduce the bashing of that particular folly at the appropriate times! But resume it with a vengeance when things change.

Perhaps the only joy in all this is, just as it was for Stove, to do it with gusto and enjoy it, to do it with style and depth; that's a worthy goal in and of itself. It's not much of solace, but at least it's some.

There's one more thing that can keep us from going insane: the company of those we love, including the company of each other here. Again, that's what Stove did: he enjoyed music, his family, and being in nature. Conserving nature was in fact one of the only things he liked about leftist ideas (not that this hasn't long been turned into its complete opposite as well).

So let's :love::love::love: and let's:deadhorse:and let's :cool2:🆒:cool2: and let's :love:💕:love: some mo...
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Gurdjieff had a theory that he based on his idea of octaves somehow, that anything that starts going in one direction, eventually turns around and goes in the opposite direction if "shocks" are not applied at certain "intervals." It was all very esoteric.

However, once one reads Ponerology, things make more sense: the ponerization of people, organizations, etc, becomes something to watch out for; psychic and psychological hygiene are the solutions to the problem; and signs and symptoms are listed so that one is able to monitor things.

It is effectively the same thing, though the Lobaczewski explanation is more useful, practical, and even effective.

I suspect that what both were describing is the 4D STS (for lack of a better term) influence on human affairs in all the many ways we suspect they have of modifying behavior and events including via various human psychopathologies.

We've seen, in the time since we introduced and promoted the book and its ideas, that psychopaths can take anything and turn it around -even the understanding of psychopaths!

I guess that, if anything, this is more evidence of why evolution cannot be true since the forces of this world tend to destroy everything.
 

zak

Dagobah Resident
I'm finishing up The Sociopath Next Door by Martha Stout, and towards the end of the book Stout tries to explain psychopathy in terms of Darwinism evolution and cites Dawkins' selfish gene. It was such a waste of Stout's energy to spend it on fake Darwinism and fake science. It also made me think of other books such as The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt, and what a waste of Haidt's energy too trying to explain cooperation in terms of fake Darwinism.

How much further could we have gotten in understanding and knowledge had we all not been led astray by fake science? What we know must all fit together; if not, it is a sign that something is wrong.

And just before to read the previous post of Laura i fell on the following:
Imagine - if you can - not having a conscience, none at all, no feelings of guilt or remorse no matter what you do, no limiting sense of concern for the well-being of strangers, friends, or even family members. Imagine no struggles with shame, not a single one in your whole life, no matter what kind of selfish, lazy, harmful, or immoral action you had taken.

And pretend that the concept of responsibility is unknown to you, except as a burden others seem to accept without question, like gullible fools.

Now add to this strange fantasy the ability to conceal from other people that your psychological makeup is radically different from theirs. Since everyone simply assumes that conscience is universal among human beings, hiding the fact that you are conscience-free is nearly effortless.

You are not held back from any of your desires by guilt or shame, and you are never confronted by others for your cold-bloodedness. The ice water in your veins is so bizarre, so completely outside of their personal experience, that they seldom even guess at your condition.

In others words, you are completely free of internal restraints, and your unhampered liberty to do just as you please, with no pangs of conscience, is conveniently invisible to the world.

You can do anything at all, and still your strange advantage over the majority of people, who are kept in line by their consciences will most likely remain undiscovered.

How will you live your life?

What will you do with your huge and secret advantage, and with the corresponding handicap of other people (conscience)?


The answer will depend largely on just what your desires happen to be, because people are not all the same. Even the profoundly unscrupulous are not all the same. Some people - whether they have a conscience or not - favor the ease of inertia, while others are filled with dreams and wild ambitions. Some human beings are brilliant and talented, some are dull-witted, and most, conscience or not, are somewhere in between. There are violent people and nonviolent ones, individuals who are motivated by blood lust and those who have no such appetites. [...]

Provided you are not forcibly stopped, you can do anything at all.

If you are born at the right time, with some access to family fortune, and you have a special talent for whipping up other people's hatred and sense of deprivation, you can arrange to kill large numbers of unsuspecting people. With enough money, you can accomplish this from far away, and you can sit back safely and watch in satisfaction. [...]

Crazy and frightening - and real, in about 4 percent of the population....

The prevalence rate for anorexic eating disorders is estimated a 3.43 percent, deemed to be nearly epidemic, and yet this figure is a fraction lower than the rate for antisocial personality. The high-profile disorders classed as schizophrenia occur in only about 1 percent of [the population] - a mere quarter of the rate of antisocial personality - and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say that the rate of colon cancer in the United States, considered "alarmingly high," is about 40 per 100,000 - one hundred times lower than the rate of antisocial personality.

The high incidence of sociopathy in human society has a profound effect on the rest of us who must live on this planet, too, even those of us who have not been clinically traumatized. The individuals who constitute this 4 percent drain our relationships, our bank accounts, our accomplishments, our self-esteem, our very peace on earth.

Yet surprisingly, many people know nothing about this disorder, or if they do, they think only in terms of violent psychopathy - murderers, serial killers, mass murderers - people who have conspicuously broken the law many times over, and who, if caught, will be imprisoned, maybe even put to death by our legal system.

We are not commonly aware of, nor do we usually identify, the larger number of nonviolent sociopaths among us, people who often are not blatant lawbreakers, and against whom our formal legal system provides little defense.

Most of us would not imagine any correspondence between conceiving an ethnic genocide and, say, guiltlessly lying to one's boss about a coworker. But the psychological correspondence is not only there; it is chilling. Simple and profound, the link is the absence of the inner mechanism that beats up on us, emotionally speaking, when we make a choice we view as immoral, unethical, neglectful, or selfish.

Most of us feel mildly guilty if we eat the last piece of cake in the kitchen, let alone what we would feel if we intentionally and methodically set about to hurt another person.

Those who have no conscience at all are a group unto themselves, whetherthey be homicidal tyrants or merely ruthless social snipers.

The presence or absence of conscience is a deep human division, arguably more significant than intelligence, race, or even gender.

What differentiates a sociopath who lives off the labors of others from one who occasionally robs convenience stores, or from one who is a contemporary robber baron - or what makes the difference betwen an ordinary bully and a sociopathic murderer - is nothing more than social status, drive, intellect, blood lust, or simple opportunity.

What distinguishes all of these people from the rest of us is an utterly empty hole in the psyche, where there should be the most evolved of all humanizing functions.
The Psychopath: The Mask of Sanity

In "following the arguments wherever it leads", before my post on C.S Lewis, in a video of Behe, i found interesting to put here a quote of J.A Ratzinger before to become the Pope Benedict XVI:
It is the affair of natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continue to grow and how now branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith.
(...)
Let us go directly to the question of evolution and its mechanisms. Microbiology and biochemistry have brought revolutionary insights here...
They have brought us to the awareness that an organism and a machine have many points in common, their fonctioning presupposes a precisely thoughttrough and therefore reasonable design.
(1986, In the beginning...)
 

luc

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
I'm finishing up The Sociopath Next Door by Martha Stout, and towards the end of the book Stout tries to explain psychopathy in terms of Darwinism evolution and cites Dawkins' selfish gene. It was such a waste of Stout's energy to spend it on fake Darwinism and fake science. It also made me think of other books such as The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt, and what a waste of Haidt's energy too trying to explain cooperation in terms of fake Darwinism.

How much further could we have gotten in understanding and knowledge had we all not been led astray by fake science? What we know must all fit together; if not, it is a sign that something is wrong.

Yes, and the funny (or not) thing is that you actually don't need to worry about explaining psychopaths using Darwin's theory. Because according to this theory, we basically are ALL psychopaths! Now, try to use Darwinism to explain why anyone in the whole history of humanity has ever done even ONE altruistic thing - then you will get into trouble!

I consider this kind of Darwinian reasoning of "looking for evolutionary advantages" totally sloppy. "People have heads. Explanation: They needed to see and think, because this made it easier to kill tigers..." Just ridiculous.

Stove also makes a useful distinction between evolution and biology (adding that this scandalizes Darwinians LOL). In other words, you can analyze bodies and organisms functionally, like in the olden days of biology. No need for nonsensical speculations about "evolutionary advantages" in the distant past that nobody knows anything about anyway.
 
Top Bottom