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

[thorbiorn]

Here's a documentary from the ID camp about the persecution of "heretics" which gives a glimpse into what's going on in science. It also explores a bit the devastating influence Darwinism had on people's minds, including Hitler:


And here is David Berlinski summarizing some of the arguments against Darwinism:

I watched both of the videos, they are very informative. The documentary is made by Ben Stein, who is a very accomplished person in many fields of life.

Ben Stein looked at Nazism, but one could also look closer at socialism and communism. When I searched for Marxism and Darwinism an article turned up, Marxism And Darwinism. Anton Pannekoek 1912 which begins like this:

I.
Darwinism

Two scientists can hardly be named who have, in the second half of the 19th century, dominated the human mind to a greater degree than Darwin and Marx. Their teachings revolutionized the conception that the great masses had about the world. For decades their names have been on the tongues of everybody, and their teachings have become the central point of the mental struggles which accompany the social struggles of today. The cause of this lies primarily in the highly scientific contents of their teachings.

The scientific importance of Marxism as well as of Darwinism consists in their following out the theory of evolution, the one upon the domain of the organic world, of things animate; the other, upon the domain of society. This theory of evolution, however, was in no way new, it had its advocates before Darwin and Marx; the philosopher, Hegel, even made it the central point of his philosophy. It is, therefore, necessary to observe closely what were the achievements of Darwin and Marx in this domain.

And there is more from https://evolutionnews.org/2009/01/darwinism_communism_part_i/

In his oration at Marx’s funeral in London’s Highgate Cemetery, Engels gave the ultimate compliment: “As Darwin discovered the law of evolution in organic nature, Marx discovered the law of evolution in human history.” That was March 17, 1883.

From https://evolutionnews.org/2009/01/darwinism_communism_part_ii/ are three excerpts with the first being from Stalin:

In 1891 in Gori, Georgia, a 13-year-old choirboy with dreams of becoming a priest, Iosef Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili, was discovered by his mother at dawn, having stayed awake through the night reading Darwin’s Origin of Species.
“I loved the book so much, Mummy, I couldn’t stop reading,” he explained. He later told a friend that God “doesn’t actually exist. We’ve been deceived.”
“How can you say such a thing?” the friend exclaimed, to which the boy, the future Joseph Stalin, replied by handing him a copy of Darwin.
In this little series, we are asking, among other things, what came from Stalin’s precocious appreciation of evolutionary theory? Hitler and Stalin alike sought to create a new race of supermen. Where did they both happen to get this idea? From Darwinian theory, in the broad sense, of course.

Communists from the very beginning were attracted to Darwinism because, as Engels remarked in a letter to Marx, it eliminated “teleology” from the story of life’s history. That is, it obviated the need for understanding life’s development as having been directed by a transcendent personal being outside nature, and it opened the way to understanding history as being directed by impersonal forces of the kind envisioned by Marx. In 1861, upon reading the Origin of Species, Marx exulted: “Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a natural scientific basis for the class struggle in history. One has to put up with the crude English method of development, of course.”

As for Lenin’s successor, Stalin wrote an ideological tract, Anarchism or Socialism?, speculating on Darwinian science and declaring, “Evolution prepares for revolution and creates the ground for it; revolution consummates the process of evolution and facilitates its further activity.”
But still, Marx, not Darwin, published first.
The relationship between Communism and Darwinism has been debated by scholars for years, leaving a muddy and frustrating mass of claims and counterclaims. Yet there is a clear and satisfying way to resolve the debate. Both Marxists and Darwinists are heirs to the materialist revolt against metaphysics that began in the 17th century with Hobbes and Locke and of the 18th century “naturalist” revolt against Church and Throne inaugurated by Rousseau. Marx simply emerged from that tradition a little earlier than Darwin. However, because in Darwin the worldview reached its apogee of influence, it is called Darwinism and therefore Marx is aptly called a Darwinist.

What is almost more amazing than Darwin't theories appearing 150 years ago is how entrenched they have become.

 

[thorbiorn]

A short update to the previous post about the impact of Darwinism in relation to Communism. The following is from
The Darwinian foundation of communism - creation.com and mentions the influence of Darwinian theory on Mao Tse-tung:

The importance of Darwinism, Hsü reports, was indicated by Theo Sumner’s experience on a trip with German Chancellor Helmit Schmit to China. Theo was astonished to personally hear from Mao Tse-tung about the debt Mao felt to Darwinism, and especially to the man who also inspired Hitler, Darwinist Ernst Haeckel.61 Hsü concluded Mao was convinced that ‘without the continual pressure of natural selection’ humans would degenerate. This idea inspired Mao to advocate ‘the ceaseless revolution that brought my homeland to the brink of ruin’.

Summary

In the minds of Hitler, Stalin and Mao, treating people as animals was not wrong because they believed that Darwin had ‘proved’ humans were not God’s creation, but instead descended from some simple, one-cell organism. All three men believed it was morally proper to eliminate the less fit or ‘herd them like cattle into boxcars bound for concentration camps and gulags’ if it achieved the goal of their Darwinist philosophy.62

Darwin’s ideas played a critically important role in the development and growth of communism. While it is difficult to conclude that communism would not have flourished as it did if Darwin had not developed his evolution theory, it is clear that if Marx, Lenin, Engels, Stalin and Mao had continued to embrace the Judeo-Christian worldview and had not become Darwinists, communist theory and the revolutions it inspired never would have spread to the many countries that they did. It follows, then, that the holocaust produced by communism (which has resulted in the death over 100 million people) likely never would have occurred. In Nobel Prize winner Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s words,

“ … if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our [Russian] people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: ‘men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened’.”63​

​

 

[luc]

Who would have ever thought that Darwinism was part of the "Invasion". ?!

If you put it that way - yes! Definitely an invasion! But I also had OPs in mind when I wrote the post. For them, the doctrine that matter is all there is makes sense. Just speculating of course, but these various crazy ideas that always end with "...is all there is!" - social institutions (sociology), power plays between groups (postmodernism), lower biological drives (selfish genes) etc. - all have in common that they deny anything higher, any higher dimension of understanding, knowledge and experience. This seems to speak to how OPs see the world.

And it would also explain why these sorts of ideologues, whether they defend Darwinism or SJWism or materialism, no matter how smart they are (and some are exceptionally smart) simply weasel and squirm and argue you to death when confronted with anything that points to something higher. It's as if they really can't see it and never will!

This inability to see probably explains the circular reasoning so apparent in some "thinkers": they shovel parts around on a strictly 2D plane, not able to fathom that there is a 3rd dimension. An example would be the problem of human potential. From my notes:

The Problem of Human Potential

In the circular reasoning so common among Darwinists, they will argue that the human capacity to map out our future and strive towards something better is in itself proof of Darwinism because it was advantageous to do so in the past. But either you can actually change the present by making decisions, gaining a “survival advantage”, and therefore are a conscious being with free will, and thus able to transcend material reality and biological programming, or you can’t. If you can’t, then your reasoning cannot ever produce an advantage. In fact, it would be a shameful waste of resources and should have been stamped out by natural selection long ago.

David Berlinski frames the problem from another angle: You can, in principle, take a child from a primitive tribe and transplant it to Oxford university. The child could very well turn into a fine mathematician, even though higher math was never part of anything in the child’s heritage even remotely producing a “survival advantage”. This means that the potential for higher math was somehow built-in. But how? How could a brain capable of higher math have evolved in an environment that never ever selected for such a thing, and indeed should have killed it off the minute it got in the way of killing and gutting that tiger? Is there some kind of information that transcends time? Is there some kind of preexisting information or potential? Materialists and their handmaidens, the Darwinists, will never consider such possibilities. They cannot, for whatever reason. They prefer circular reasoning that never ever leaves their limited and stubbornly defended horizon.

Another great example of this sort of 2D reasoning is Richard Dawkins' "Boeing" argument that David Berlinski recounts:

It is this destructive dilemma that Dawkins calls the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit. The appeal to a Boeing 747 is meant to evoke a lighthearted quip attributed to the astrophysicist Fred Hoyle. The spontaneous emergence of life on earth, Hoyle observed, is about as likely as a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and assembling a Boeing 747 out of the debris. Although an atheist, Hoyle was skeptical about Darwin's theory of evolution, and Dawkins passionate in its defense.
[...]
But, Dawkins affirms, if a tornado cannot do the job of creating life, then God cannot do the job of creating the universe. The tornado is inadequate for the same reason. This counterstroke has persuaded Dawkins that he has initiated an intellectual maneuver judo-like in its purity of effect and devastating in its consequences. The Ultimate 747 gambit, Dawkins writes, "comes close to proving that God does not exist" ...

In other words, Dawkins argues that if chance is unlikely to create life, it's even more unlikely to create a God that created life! Well, newsflash: the universe in the materialist conception can never create anything, and most certainly not life. So of course it also cannot create a God! But this is just circular reasoning on the 2D plane, i.e. the materialistic universe. When the solution to the dilemma is so obvious: bring in the 3rd dimension! Leave the 2D plane! Because if it's clear that you need some kind of structuring/guiding force that increases the "odds" of creating life, then you should assume that there is such a force!

But no, these guys prefer circular "2D" reasoning. One trick is to constantly expand their "2D" plane: assume an infinity of universes so that somehow the impossible odds for life emerging seem plausible! It's ridiculous and fascinating to watch: their minds cannot go into the 3rd dimension. They cannot!

Coming back to the invasion, this only would make sense because the Cs said OPs were the means by which the higher forces do their thing.

Scientific discoveries and its finidings are supposed to enrich our lives by cleaning negative stuff in religion( blind superstitions and authoritative following etc.). But it looks, these scientists made their own religion which is much more worse.

I've read Berlinski's book too, and it's a great polemic against this arrogant scientific establishment. He makes it clear that there is nothing really special about science. It claims to be just about the noble pursuit of truth - okay, but so did the religions. Just because you make that claim doesn't mean your institution cannot be corrupted. And right now Science, and especially its massive public relations arm and body of organizations, seems to be a totally corrupt "church" possessed by Darwinism-fueled materialism. They simply killed any higher dimension to life with the stroke of a pen and persuaded everyone that it's proven fact. It's really bad.

 

[Windmill knight]

Now, all of this is such obvious nonsense that even some in mainstream science begin to see it. And mainstream science openly admits they have no clue about the origin of life. Hence there are some nuanced discussions going on inside science about the issue. But the ultimate goal is to somehow, anyhow, preserve materialism - that's why they hide the actual state of science on these issues behind a public front that just repeats "random mutation + natural selection", often omitting "random mutation".

And for good reason: "random" is their Achilles heel. Nothing random can ever create order, by definition. They know it, or at least they feel it. But oh, do they squirm! The crux is: once you throw "random" out, you throw materialism out! Poof!

Exactly. They are always bringing up the 'genius idea' of natural selection - they never say the genius idea of random mutations! And notice that when they try to refute arguments such as the irreducible complexity of the flagellum, what they really do is try to make neo-darwinism plausible, rather than impossible, as the IC argument shows. That is, they will say things like, "oh, the parts of the flagellum surely existed before, like in the needle complex structure thingy, which had a totally different function, therefore it is possible that this was a step before the flagellum!" But that explains nothing, we still need to stretch belief hugely to accept that the needle somehow got randomly reconfigured into a fully functional flagellum. But they present it in the media as the 'killer argument of irreducible complexity'! And even if it could explain the flagellum - which it doesn't, cause the needle was proven to appear after the flagellum - that doesn't mean that all complex systems in living creatures can be similarly explained - and there a LOT of them. (This debate appeared in the Behe documentary someone posted.)

Furthermore, the book Genetic Enthropy offers a stronger (in my view) version of the irreducible complexity argument, by applying it directly to the genetic code. That is, a gene - a functional piece of DNA - has something like between 50,000 and a million base pairs, i.e. the 'letters' of the DNA, and it only completes its function when the code is complete. How could it possibly be conceived that each base pair was randomly added every few generations until the actual functional code appeared? In that incredibly long amount of time, that whole gene would have resulted either in no function at all or detrimental function to the organism, thereby making it less likely to be selected by nature, not more!! The author estimates that to complete a functional gene randomly - assuming we actually ever get there - it would take more time than the age of the Earth or the Universe! Then people like Dawkins come up with this silly computer program that creates the phrase "Me thinks it's a weasel", which is a totally stupid gimmick for several reasons (it's just a few characters long, and the program stops the randomization when it hits the right letter in the right place, i.e. it has a target), and they call that "proof" that random mutation could explain genes. It doesn't, but even if it did, that would only show that it would be possible, not likely at all!

Btw, I finished Darwin's Black Box a few days ago - I loved it!

 

[Windmill knight]

But, Dawkins affirms, if a tornado cannot do the job of creating life, then God cannot do the job of creating the universe. The tornado is inadequate for the same reason. This counterstroke has persuaded Dawkins that he has initiated an intellectual maneuver judo-like in its purity of effect and devastating in its consequences. The Ultimate 747 gambit, Dawkins writes, "comes close to proving that God does not exist" ...

That doesn't make sense, but yeah, that sounds like a typical Dawkins circular argument, which words more or less, goes like this: Intelligent design is impossible, therefore neodarwinism is correct and intelligent design is incorrect.

 

[Laura]

That doesn't make sense, but yeah, that sounds like a typical Dawkins circular argument, which words more or less, goes like this: Intelligent design is impossible, therefore neodarwinism is correct and intelligent design is incorrect.

Well, Dawkins apparently thought it was his masterstroke! He broke both arms patting himself on the back!

 

[seek10]

One of the difficulties of working with this topic of a Death Guide is that a significant amount of people won't go there. As I was watching Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (full movie), I had to pause as one of the sections, (it is about a minute until 59:30) clearly shows the result of the promotion of evolutionary biology along the lines of radical Darwinism is materialism and the denial, even against other evidence, of anything more than physical existence.

Yesterday, I watched this documentary that was posted in another thread. WoW!. This documentary talks to many scientists/academia's (like Berlinski etc) who were "expelled" from their jobs for mentioning Intelligent design in their work and they also talk to proponents like Richard Dawkins etc. too.

when we watch, establishment "Thought Police" (like Smithsonian institute) and entire academic establishments utter resentment of "Intelligent design" and intolerance, we have to wonder what way these are different from Islamists. The argument is always ID is promotion of bad Old testament god. Why is this "All or nothing" thinking from a supposed to be scientific authorities?. This is like a untouchable subjects like Israeli special status, global warming etc. What are they protecting by clinging on to Darwinism? It looks Nazi scientists are Darwinists and by transfer to the US after WW II, the same guys setting the trend here. It looks, by promoting materialism, one can judge who is useful to the society and not, thus promoting the eugenics agenda.

At the end of the video( 1:27:20) host corners Dawkins about "Who created primitive molecules"(1:30:00). Dawkins says some body from outside highly technologically advanced civilization that evolved in Darwinian means. He can't even consider yesterday's scientific findings of "complexity of biochemical machine" but he is sure of outside high-tech guys are evolved from Darwinist means. In the end, host remarks it is about "Creator type" is the issue not the "creator exist or not". He also remarks why can't we use science to find the creator, instead of arguing god exist or not.

 

[seek10]

There is another argument, Darwinists says Most of scientists don't believe in god. I wondered why I haven't heard of it, it looks it depends on the country.

 

[Gaby]

What are they protecting by clinging on to Darwinism?

Good point, and question too! I think they're seeking to stamp out consciousness from this reality, imposing on at least half the population an impossibility: a materialistic world view which is impoverished and denies any "divine spark". I've studied medical sciences since 1996 and no matter the massive programming, I couldn't accept that "Darwinian reality" was all there was to it.

If more scientists will learn about intelligent design, it opens the possibility to research and discoveries that might reveal "the man behind the curtain", i.e. how we have been tampered or more research pointing to how living systems have multiple potentials when there is conscious input.

I love reading this material because it vindicates an entire part of our existence that has been assaulted on this reality since day one.

 

[thorbiorn]

Good point, and question too! I think they're seeking to stamp out consciousness from this reality, imposing on at least half the population an impossibility: a materialistic world view which is impoverished and denies any "divine spark". I've studied medical sciences since 1996 and no matter the massive programming, I couldn't accept that "Darwinian reality" was all there was to it.
[...]

The effects of the campaign for materialism incude that many people among the 50 % are not aware on a conscious level that there is something more, therefore they are not encouraged to use connections on the other side, to ask, to pray and through these processes receive assistance with their learning process.

Family members who pass over are remembered, maybe, but more often as a body that is no more. With links to the ancestors not acknowledge, kinship is not appreciated and perhaps the people that are born into families are more of a mixed bag furthering still more disintegration. Similarly, when people die with a very materialistic outlook, the adjustment might also be more difficult, as it may be a rude awakening to find out that life was so much more than they appreciated while alive.

Among those who die some take their own. There is some discussion about whether suicides occur more often among believers than among atheists, some say yes some no. Here is an atheist who claims the answer is yes, and he at least in part blaims the people who are religious: Atheism Has a Suicide Problem | HuffPost Here is what the author has to say:

There are of course many valid reasons why atheists are sometimes more prone to suicide than religious believers. Interestingly enough, one of those reasons is religious believers themselves. We live in a world dominated by people who often fervently believe ancient superstitions and who many times demonize, harass, ostracize, and disown those who lack belief in those ancient superstitions. Atheists on the receiving end of this treatment are understandably stressed and isolated. They often experience anxiety and depression as a result.

Imagine you are a young person who has just come to the realization that God is imaginary. You have just realized that everything your religious tradition and your parents have taught you is make-believe. Your whole world has just come undone and for the first time in your life, you now have to wrestle with the great existential questions of life on your own and without any support networks. What does it mean to live a meaningful life without a supernatural deity? Without an afterlife to live for, what is the purpose of life?

Not only does this young person have to struggle with these existential questions on their own, but they also have to do so under the backdrop of fear and anxiety about revealing their doubts and atheism to family and friends. Maybe they already have and as a result, they have been ostracized and/or disowned. Left with no friends, no family, no church community… they are alone, in the philosophical dark, and probably facing the bullying and harassment of their former religious community.

All in all, if a result of the Darwinist and materialist ideology promote the cutting of the communication links to higher densities leading to more suffering and chaos in our realm, then little wonder, the STS forces go ballistic when members of the scientific community break ranks.

 

[luc]

Good point, and question too! I think they're seeking to stamp out consciousness from this reality, imposing on at least half the population an impossibility: a materialistic world view which is impoverished and denies any "divine spark". I've studied medical sciences since 1996 and no matter the massive programming, I couldn't accept that "Darwinian reality" was all there was to it.

Well, I tried hard accepting the Darwinian reality, and it left very bad marks on me. This was actually a huge stumbling block for me when I encountered the C's - I couldn't bring myself to accept that anything like that could be possible, to accept that anything non-materialistic could even be conceived of, in my life as in my philosophy. This programming runs very, very deep.

I've been thinking about the devastating influence Darwinism has on the psyche. I mean, if you were brought up as an atheist or at least in that milieu, it's a done deal - you are possessed by materialism. And while you can use cognitive dissonance to incorporate some higher values if you're lucky, the inevitable conclusion of materialism will creep in and get to you eventually: nothing matters. Your actions don't matter. You are just a bag of dirt imagining you have free will. All the beauty, mystery and nobility in life - just an illusion to help you survive. You might as well give yourself up spiritually.

Now if you're a religious person/believer, there are two options:

a) You don't really believe it. Religion is some kind of decorum, some cultural sentimental fluff, but you like it - it has a nice ethic, some nice words, a nice community... This is what happens a lot in Europe and in the progressive churches. Even the priests often don't really believe in God or anything higher. They bought the Darwinian story, so how could they? It's just a show on the sidelines, often spitting progressive nonsense.

b) You are a true believer. But a part of you, the rational part, "knows" that science is right. Darwin was right - it's proven fact, after all. So you suspend your rationality so that you can still believe in God and Jesus. It's some kind of mental splitting, which isn't good for the soul - giving up rationality in favor of faith is believing lies and living in illusion.

Darwinism is a nasty, nasty mind bug.

The only way out is to wade through the Darwinist errors and contradictions and realize it's a con job by Evil. Then you can marry rationality and faith again, as it should be. Of course, this might tempt you to blindly adopt some religious denomination that might be more or less corrupted - but I think if you managed to wade through Darwinism, you have shown some critical thinking skills, so it's a good position to be in, especially compared to the other options.

What a shame though that the churches have largely given up the fight and promote the idea that faith is "compatible" with Darwinism. It is not. Hell, if society is about to throw God into the trash bin and proclaim the false God of matter, the churches should have the courage and duty to be in the trenches and counter those forces of evil!

 

[Gaby]

Hell, if society is about to throw God into the trash bin and proclaim the false God of matter, the churches should have the courage and duty to be in the trenches and counter those forces of evil!

A soul smashing experience is truly set up for the large masses of people: materialistic science, postmodernism, vegetarianism, feminism, manosphere-ism, victimhood mentality, etc... It's like a factory farm in its final stage before the kill. Ephesians 6:12 comes to mind again:

“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”

It's about time people fight for their souls.

 

[Deleted member 4320]

The problem with materialism and materialistic way of the thinking is that reality which is around us is the one that exists. Well, the reality is that way because it is was created like this TO BE material, the one or the other way.

But we have a consciousness, we have a possibility of choice to choose to think and live by the idea that the reality is one that exists and our life is the one and the last or be open to the many possibilities of the complexity of the existence.

If for some the reality they perceiving is so suggestive to them, that they arrange this information to create their world view thanks to these little bits, then there is their choice.

But if there are some who think of themselves as the part of the great creation which they part of it and they consider it while they daily live even if such a world doesn't exist, they push their material life in the new direction which allows them to evolve in the new interesting way giving material life to expand over the new paths.

If the spiritual world exists they just have to be sure that they live correctly and when they meet the spiritual world, it wouldn't be so stranger and they will have a base to start, with this new world.

 

[Laura]

Darwinism is a nasty, nasty mind bug.

The only way out is to wade through the Darwinist errors and contradictions and realize it's a con job by Evil. Then you can marry rationality and faith again, as it should be. Of course, this might tempt you to blindly adopt some religious denomination that might be more or less corrupted - but I think if you managed to wade through Darwinism, you have shown some critical thinking skills, so it's a good position to be in, especially compared to the other options.

What a shame though that the churches have largely given up the fight and promote the idea that faith is "compatible" with Darwinism. It is not. Hell, if society is about to throw God into the trash bin and proclaim the false God of matter, the churches should have the courage and duty to be in the trenches and counter those forces of evil!

I've been in a similar state with the exception that I have had remarkable experiences that could not be explained by Darwin or his groupies. But that made it even more problematical. Writing The Wave was very therapeutic, but there was still that nasty Darwinian mind-bug always at the back of my thinking. "What if I'm deluded?"

So yes, for me, too, going through all this reading has been important and necessary. And it is kind of funny that the present raft of reading that has ended up here began because I was reading a book of papers about the apostle Paul and several of them kept referring to sociological studies about shamanism and "religious experiences" in terms of evolutionary psychology. That sent me off on the whole evolution reading, the genetics, origins of life, and so forth. And nary a reasonable answer did I find at the bottom. Then things like Darwin 2.0 and so forth, finally to Behe, Wells, Berlinski, and the gang.

I'll mention again Matti Leisola's book "Heretic". Yeah, he's in the religion camp, but he doesn't let it get in the way of his science and actually doesn't even talk about it in the book, he just talks about the facts and the reactions of the Darwinists. It was appalling. His account of what the Darwinian crowd tid to evolutionary biologist Richard von Sternberg really caught my attention because it was so much like what Vinnie Bridges and his gang did to me and my work. And that is much like what the whole gang of Lefty-Liberals of the USA are doing in respect of not just Trump, but the whole social fabric. He also discussed how the churches had been mainly co-opted to this Darwinian liberalism. I kept thinking about what the Cs had said about the worship of the material universe and that the "invasion" would not take place until "programming was complete". At that point, the whole "programming of humanity" began to be apparent, and the really big part that Darwin played in it. Well, I should saw "Darwinism" rather than Darwin all by himself.

So yeah, this past couple of years of reading has been very, very important and I guess I have to thank my physical injuries and debilitated state for having forced me into a condition where reading was all I could do. And yes, there seems to be something teleological in that!

 

[luc]

So yeah, this past couple of years of reading has been very, very important and I guess I have to thank my physical injuries and debilitated state for having forced me into a condition where reading was all I could do. And yes, there seems to be something teleological in that!

But isn't it tragic that this information was out there all along? Behe wrote in the 90ies, and ever since the time of Darwin there have been critics. Perhaps they are shielded so thoroughly that you just don't stumble upon them unless you deliberately search for them. Or the journey is just what it is and necessary in a way.

The one thing I'd like to find out is what about evolutionary psychology has merit and what is crap. I suspect it's mostly the latter, and people like Jonathan Haidt and to an extent Jordan Peterson manage to gain some deep insights not because of evolutionary psychology, but despite it. Berlinski recommends the book "Darwinian Fairytales: Selfish Genes, Errors of Heredity and Other Fables of Evolution" that apparently destroys those Neo-Darwinian excesses on a philosophical level, although the author believes in Darwinian evolution. I'll check that one out.

The other track is Shapiro's book that, trying to "save" Darwinism from intelligent design I guess, dives deep into the biochemical stuff and the various intelligent things going on in the cell. I think this line of research/thinking might tell us more on how exactly consciousness and matter interact. The Cs also mentioned some kind of not-yet-discovered enzyme in the DNA, and interactions with light waves and so on. Plus the viruses altering DNA... Also, modern biology has shown that there are a lot more things that go into hereditary mechanisms than genes. It's all so very complicated and a far cry from idiotic Darwinian ideology!