Socrates against democracy?

 WHY SOCRATES HATED DEMOCRACY 

We are used to thinking very highly of democracy – and by extension, of Ancient Athens, the civilisation that gave rise to it. The Parthenon has become almost a byword for democratic values, which is why so many leaders of democracies like to be photographed among its ruins. 

It’s therefore very striking to discover that one of Ancient Greece’s great achievements, Philosophy, was highly suspicious of its other achievement, Democracy.

In the dialogues of Plato, the founding father of Greek Philosophy – Socrates – is portrayed as hugely pessimistic about the whole business of democracy. In Book Six of The Republic, Plato describes Socrates falling into conversation with a character called Adeimantus and trying to get him to see the flaws of democracy by comparing a society to a ship. If you were heading out on a journey by sea, asks Socrates, who would you ideally want deciding who was in charge of the vessel? Just anyone or people educated in the rules and demands of seafaring? The latter of course, says Adeimantus, so why then, responds Socrates, do we keep thinking that any old person should be fit to judge who should be a ruler of a country?

Socrates’s point is that voting in an election is a skill, not a random intuition. And like any skill, it needs to be taught systematically to people. Letting the citizenry vote without an education is as irresponsible as putting them in charge of a trireme sailing to Samos in a storm.

Socrates was to have first hand, catastrophic experience of the foolishness of voters. In 399 BC, the philosopher was put on trial on trumped up charges of corrupting the youth of Athens. A jury of 500 Athenians was invited to weigh up the case and decided by a narrow margin that the philosopher was guilty. He was put to death by hemlock in a process which is, for thinking people, every bit as tragic as Jesus’s condemnation has been for Christians. 

Crucially, Socrates was not elitist in the normal sense. He didn’t believe that a narrow few should only ever vote. He did, however, insist that only those who had thought about issues rationally and deeply should be let near a vote.

We have forgotten this distinction between an intellectual democracy and a democracy by birthright. We have given the vote to all without connecting it to that of wisdom. And Socrates knew exactly where that would lead: to a system the Greeks feared above all, demagoguery.

dēmos ‘the people’ + agōgos ‘leading

Ancient Athens had painful experience of demagogues, for example, the louche figure of Alcibiades, a rich, charismatic, smooth-talking wealthy man who eroded basic freedoms and helped to push Athens to its disastrous military adventures in Sicily. Socrates knew how easily people seeking election could exploit our desire for easy answers. He asked us to imagine an election debate between two candidates, one who was like a doctor and the other who was like a sweet shop owner. The sweet shop owner would say of his rival:

Look, this person here has worked many evils on you. He hurts you, gives you bitter potions and tells you not to eat and drink whatever you like. He’ll never serve you feasts of many and varied pleasant things like I will.

Socrates asks us to consider the audience response:

Do you think the doctor would be able to reply effectively? The true answer – ‘I cause you trouble, and go against you desires in order to help you’ would cause an uproar among the voters, don’t you think?

We have forgotten all about Socrates’s salient warnings against democracy. We have preferred to think of democracy as an unambiguous good – rather than a process that is only ever as effective as the education system that surrounds it. As a result, we have elected many sweet shop owners, and very few doctors. 

School of life

To the drumbeat of JAH II

 Intelligent Design and Planetary Timing 

David Coppedge 

Yesterday I considered the matter of timing as evidence of design. Michael Denton’s book The Miracle of Man pulls together an astounding collection of requirements for complex life that are fulfilled ideally on Earth. Some of these, like plate tectonics, have a timing component; one paper calculates the onset of plate tectonics at 700 million years ago out of the planet’s consensus lifetime of 4.5 billion years. Another temporal factor is a magnetic field, which according to measurements over 160 years, is decreasing in strength. Even if its polarity reverses from time to time and is generated by an internal dynamo as most geophysicists believe, the second law of thermodynamics guarantees that it must lose energy to heat and eventually weaken. Indeed, some of the other moons and planets (like Mars) appear to have lost their magnetic fields. Without the protection of a magnetic field, our atmosphere and life itself would be severely threatened.  

All in the Timing 

Some of the “coincidences” discussed by Denton, like the nature of water, rely on laws of nature and do not have temporal dimensions, but others might. Earth’s atmospheric density and composition, ozone layer, hydrologic cycle, and availability of key minerals at the surface are satisfactory now, but when did they first become optimal? How long can they persist? When was the Earth ready to open shop, and how long can life on Earth take these perfections for granted?

Dynamical perturbations to Earth’s orbit could also affect habitability. Some scientists calculate cyclical changes in eccentricity, obliquity, and precession that could have affected past climate (NASA). A sufficiently extreme perturbation could render Earth inhospitable, as apparently has affected some exoplanets observed to have wildly eccentric orbits, likely due to a gravitational disturbance from a nearby gas giant. Astrophysicists also tell us that many stars go through periods of extreme flare activity, which could destroy Earth’s atmosphere and life. And eventually, they say, our star will balloon outward as a red giant and burn up the Earth. They assure us that we have several billions of years before that happens, but it does point out that our “continuously habitable zone” is a temporary blessing. 

Our Solar System 

A bizarre twist on the moon’s origin appeared this month from NASA. According to computer simulations at the Ames Research Center, researchers posit that the moon could have formed by a collision in a matter of hours! The collision theory has been the leading contender for the moon’s origin for years, but to consider the moon forming that fast should raise eyebrows. They say the lucky collision occurred billions of years ago. It already seemed like special pleading to expect a lucky strike from just the right sized impactor, with just the right composition, coming in at just the right angle and velocity to create our unique moon. But to have it occur on one lucky day exactly long enough before human beings appeared on the Earth observing perfect solar eclipses — now there’s a screenplay that’s hard to swallow.

I remember in 2008 asking a well-known planetary scientist about his attempt to extend the lifetime of Saturn’s rings. He admitted to me that his motivation was philosophical. If the rings were as young as some other scientists were deducing from Cassini data, it would imply that humans live at a special time when the beautiful rings are visible. That conclusion made him feel uncomfortable and motivated his attempt to extend the lifetime of the rings by proposing that they were denser than believed at the time. Unfortunately, later measurements in 2016 disconfirmed his proposal (JPL). But even if his proposal had been confirmed, Cassini witnessed ephemeral rings such as the E-ring (formed by Enceladus) and the F and G rings, as well as other short-lived phenomena like ring rain, propellers, and shepherd moon perturbations that could not persist for billions of years. These temporary phenomena have given planetary scientists a wealth of opportunities to learn about the dynamics and composition of ring particles. 

The Case of Enceladus 

Enceladus is an especially fascinating case. Nearly 100 geysers of water ice are currently jetting out of its south pole at supersonic speed, creating the vast E-ring between Mimas and Titan. The particles are subjected to enormous forces from Saturn and its magnetic field. If the geysers stopped, the E-ring would dissipate within a few tens of years. So why do they exist now when scientists can watch the dynamic changes in the geysers and the E-ring? Enceladus is not alone in this regard. Jupiter has thin “gossamer” rings composed of smoke-size particles. Both Uranus and Neptune also have sparse rings. Planetary rings are temporary phenomena that humans are privileged to observe and learn from at a time they can use telescopes and launch spacecraft to observe them. While the temporal brevity of these phenomena does not in itself prove design, it adds to the number of solar system coincidences that seem to be fortuitously timed for scientific discovery. 

Iraeneus on the supremacy of the Father.

 Irenaeus (AD 115-200) is the earliest surviving witness to recognize all four gospels as essential. He is perhaps the most clear in his language defining the relationships between the Father and the Son. "...the Father himself is alone called God...the Scriptures acknowledge him alone as God; and yet again...the Lord confesses him alone as his own Father, and knows no other." | " . . this is sure and steadfast, that no other God or Lord was announced by the Spirit, except him who, as God, rules over all, together with his Word, and those who receive the spirit of adoption, that is, those who believe in the one and true God, and in Jesus Christ the Son of God; and likewise that the apostles did of themselves term no one else God, or name no other as Lord; and, what is much more important, since it is true that our Lord acted likewise, who did also command us to confess no one as Father, except he who is in the heavens, who is the one God and the one Father." | "This, therefore, having been clearly demonstrated here (and it shall yet be so still more clearly), that neither the prophets, nor the apostles, nor the Lord Christ in His own person, did acknowledge any other Lord or God, but the God and Lord supreme: the prophets and the apostles confessing the Father and the Son; but naming no other as God, and confessing no other as Lord: and the Lord Himself handing down to His disciples, that He, the Father, is the only God and Lord, who alone is God and ruler of all;" | Irenaeus also refers to John "...proclaiming one God, the Almighty, and one Jesus Christ, the only-begotten, by whom all things were made." 

To the drumbeat of JAH.

Fine-Timing as Evidence of Intelligence Design. 

David Coppedge 

Often in movies a scene depicts some highly improbable event on which the plot pivots. Viewers suspend disbelief for the sake of entertainment while knowing that the coincidences are matters of contrivance by screenwriters. In real life, though, how many coincidences would it take to convince a reasonable person that something non-random is going on?  

I’ve witnessed two total solar eclipses so far, in 1991 and in 2017 (another is coming to America in 2024). I concur with Guillermo Gonzalez that a total eclipse “summons all the senses” and becomes one of the most emotional celestial events one can experience. Many have noted the remarkable coincidence between apparent sizes of the moon and sun from Earth that make perfect total eclipses possible. Moreover, the size of the sun and the moon are intimately tied to the habitability of the Earth. As a G2 main sequence star, our sun’s size and temperature determines the radius of the habitable zone where liquid water can exist. And the moon plays vital roles in governing the ocean tides and stabilizing Earth’s tilt. In The Privileged Planet, co-authored by Jay Richards, Gonzalez noted that “the requirements for complex life on a terrestrial planet strongly overlap the requirements for observing total solar eclipses” (p. 7). As they further argue, these requirements also overlap with the ability to do scientific discovery. 

A Gondola on Saturn 

Gonzalez calculated all possible instances of eclipses between bodies in the solar system, 64 in all. On page 11 of The Privileged Planet he included a graph of the results: the only other possible eclipsing body the right size to produce perfect eclipses is Saturn’s tiny moon Prometheus. If one were to be riding a gondola in Saturn’s cloud tops at the right position, one might get a half second total eclipse as Prometheus crossed the sun. On Earth, by contrast, the duration of totality can last up to 7.5 minutes. 

But don’t forget “the rest of the story” about Prometheus. Gonzalez notes that its “highly elongated shape compromises the view of the chromosphere” (p. 10). Sure enough, when the Cassini mission, on which I worked at JPL, took photos of Prometheus, its irregular potato-like shape was revealed in detail. Prometheus would never, therefore, be able to cover the sun exactly. That leaves Earth alone as the only place in the solar system where a perfect total eclipse can occur. In the Privileged Planet documentary, Gonzalez remarked, “the one place that has observers is the one place that has the best eclipses.” 

Getting the Right Moon at the Right Time 

But there’s another aspect of this “coincidence” not often discussed: the moon is slowly moving away from the Earth at 3.8 cm per year (The Conversation). Over time, the moon would be too far away to exactly cover the sun’s disk. After that, all eclipses would be annular. Simultaneously, Gonzalez points out, the sun’s diameter is increasing. “These two processes, working together, should end total solar eclipses in about 250 million years, a mere 5 percent of the age of the Earth” (p. 18). But consider too that eclipses will become progressively shorter long before that deadline, and therefore less useful for scientific discovery. On the other hand, if we can extrapolate the recession speed far into the past, the moon would have appeared too big to produce some of the special effects that eclipse watchers and scientists love, like Bailey’s beads, the flash spectrum, and the “diamond ring” effect. We can witness perfect solar eclipses, Gonzalez concludes, during a “fairly narrow window of Earth’s history, including the present” (p. 9).

The narrow window for perfect solar eclipses leads us to consider the matter of timing as evidence of design. Where else are coincidences of timing discernable? 

 

A universe ex nihilo destroys the first cause argument.

 Romans1:20NIV"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." 

  The creation is not a mere conjuring. It is the partial actualization of JEHOVAH'S limitless potential. It makes manifest the wisdom(technology) of his transcendent mind. JEHOVAH is sage not mage. Those who insists on propagating the narrative of a creation ex nihilo I.e from nothing do injury to the first cause argument by rendering an all wise omnipotent deity unnecessary. Indeed a universe that can emerge ex nihilo requires neither cause nor explanation for it's existence.

Clement of Rome on the supremacy of the Father.

  

Clement of Rome (AD 45-101) : "The apostles received the gospel for us from Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ was sent from God. So Christ is from God, and the apostles are from Christ: thus both came in proper order by the will of God."[4] Also, "Let all the heathen know that thou [the Father] art God alone, and that Jesus Christ is thy Servant..."[5] 

A few scriptures that really ought to put the trinity dogma to rest.

 Psalm83:18KJV" That men may know that thou,whose name alone is JEHOVAH,art the most high over all the earth." 

There is one named JEHOVAH. This one is the MOST HIGH. If your God is associated with two equals he is not the JEHOVAH of the bible ,mental gymnastics notwithstanding. Thus any explanation of scripture, that does not preserve the superlative rank/nature of JEHOVAH is invalid.

John8:50KJV"And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth." 

What other reason could there possibly be for attempting to persuade ones fellowman that one is God almighty on earth, but to obtain glory for oneself. Thus it was either true that Jesus was trying to persuade his contemporaries that he was God on earth or he did not seek glory for himself, but both things could not simultaneously be true.

Numbers23:19KJV"God is not a man,that he should lie;neither the son of man,that he should repent..." 

JEHOVAH is immutable see Malachi 3:6. Thus if ones God is now or was ever a man he is not The JEHOVAH of scripture. 

Leaving the cave?

 Bioengineer Matti Leisola: From Darwin to Design 

Evolution News @DiscoveryCSC 

On a classic episode ID the Future, Matti Leisola, the European bioengineer whose story is told in Heretic: One Scientist’s Journey from Darwin to Design, speaks from Finland to a meeting in Dallas, Texas. He describes his intellectual journey, his successful research career, and some of the reasons he made the turn to belief in intelligent design. He also relates some of the irrational reactions he sometimes met with from colleagues, and how he navigated those tense situations. Download the podcast or listen to it here. 

Luke 1:35 and the pre-existence of Christ.

   Luke1:35NASB"The angel answered and said to her,"The Holy Spirit will come upon you,and the power of the most high will overshadow you; for that reason also the holy child the Son of God."   

As is the case with our trinitarian friends, we often find ourselves looking for consistency from our Socinian neighbors only to come away empty. We are told that the above quoted passage of scripture precludes Jesus' having a pre-human existence. Jesus could not be a superhuman Son of God before being made a human Son of God(mind you,just why this would be the case is never specified 'just take our word it' seems to be the rationale). But as tends to be the case when we probe as to just how far our opponents are willing to take their logic,the trip turns out to be a rather short one.

Acts13:33NASB "That God has fulfilled his promise to those of us who are the descendants by raising Jesus,as it is written in the second psalm:'You are my Son;today I have Fathered you.'

So are our Socinian friends willing to stick to their interpretive logic here as well?

Journalists or heralds?

 Why Are Science Reporters So Credulous? 

David Klinghoffer

The credulousness of science journalists is remarkable. Their reporting, almost as a rule, seems more like they are crafting a press release than objectively probing the claims of their subjects, namely scientists. Although mainstream journalism as a whole has come increasingly to resemble state propaganda, there is at least, sometimes, a semblance of skepticism. What is it, then, with science reporters?

Nicholas Wade is a former science editor for the New York Times, so he might well have some insights on that. Writing for City Journal, he asks, “Journalists, or PR Agents?” The context for his comments is reporting about the origins of the COVID-19 virus. (On that, see Cornelius Hunter, “COVID-19 Meets Intelligent Design,” who also cites Wade.) But what he says applies even more so to reporting on evolution. 

“The Temple of Science” 

Wade writes, “Unlike most journalists, science writers seldom consider the motives of their sources.” That’s true. But why? 

Innocent of most journalists’ skepticism about human motives, science writers regard scientists, their authoritative sources, as too Olympian ever to be moved by trivial matters of self-interest. Their daily job is to relay claims of impressive new discoveries, such as advances toward curing cancer or making paralyzed rats walk. Most of these claims come to nothing — research is not an efficient process — but science writers and scientists alike benefit from creating a stream of pleasant illusions. The journalists get their stories, while media coverage helps researchers attract government grants.

Dulled by the advantages of this collusion, science writers pay little attention to in-house problems that seriously detract from the credibility of the scientific research enterprise, such as the astounding fact that less than half the high-profile findings in some fields can be replicated in other laboratories. Fraud and error in scientific papers are hard to detect, yet nonetheless some 32,000 papers have been retracted for various reasons. The reliability of scientific claims is a formidable problem but one of strangely little interest to many science writers.

If the Covid virus should be found to have indeed escaped from a lab in Wuhan, a tidal wave of public rage may shake the temple of science to its foundations. It’s in reflection of their sources’ interests — though political polarization is also involved — that science writers jump on any evidence favoring natural emergence and ignore everything that points toward a lab leak.

Science writers need to decide whether their duty lies to their readers or to their sources. One choice makes them real journalists, the other just unaccredited PR agents for the scientific community. 

They’ve Made Their Choice 

Most science reporters who write about evolution appear to have made their choice to be flacks and toadies for the godlike biologists, who are “too Olympian ever to be moved by trivial matters of self-interest.” That an entire field in journalism should be underlain by a such a wild misjudgment about human nature is worthy of note. 

If, or when, design should overtake blind Darwinian processes as the favored explanation for biological complexity, what Nicholas Wade calls the “temple of science” would really and truly be rocked. Regarding the origins of that complexity, protecting “their sources’ interests” explains why reporting about evolutionary biology needs such intense scrutiny. 

All that time in school paying off for fish?

 How Frogs and Fish “Count” 

Evolution News @DiscoveryCSC 

University College cognitive psychology prof Brian Butterworth, author of Can Fish Count? (Basic Books, 2022), talks about animal number sense in a recent article in Psyche.

He offers many examples of animals counting single digit numbers but then helpfully addresses the question of how they do it. We are talking here about a variety of very different types of neurological equipment — insects vs. amphibians, for example. Neuroscientists are beginning to pinpoint specific brain functions associated with counting for specific tasks: 

Female túngara frogs benefit by mating with the male that can produce six croaks in one breath, over the male that can manage only five, because this is an indicator of respiratory fitness. Naturally, the male will try to outcroak his competitor by counting the number of croaks and adding one, to the limit of his breath.

BRIAN BUTTERWORTH, “A BASIC SENSE OF NUMBERS IS SHARED BY COUNTLESS CREATURES” AT PSYCHE (OCTOBER 12, 2022) 

He then concedes that “even if we have inherited a basic number sense from distant ancestors, there are some big differences between humans and other creatures.” Most certainly. Algebra, geometry, and calculus are among them.

Read the rest at Mind Matters News, published by Discovery Institute’s Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence.

Occam's razor and the supremacy of God the Father.

 Occam's razor:a scientific and philosophical rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities." 

Thus (all otherwise being equal) in the course of any investigation the simpler/simplest of competing  explanations is to be preferred. 

This would be as true of biblical exegesis as any other type of investigation. So how do the typical contrivances put forward by trinitarian apologists as scriptural evidence for their doctrine stack up in this regard? Let's examine a few: 

John ch.1:3 KJV"All things were made by(Greek dia) him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." 

What could be plainer right? only almighty God could be the maker of all things. But is there a simpler explanation? One that even Trinitarians acknowledge when their cherished doctrine is not on the line?

John ch.1:17KJV"For the law was given by(Dia) Moses..." 

Jesus is even more direct,

John ch.7:19KJV"Did not Moses give you the law..." 

 Yet we are also told that JEHOVAH is the sole lawgiver.

James ch.4:12ESV"There is only one lawgiver and judge, ..."

Thus as I've repeatedly shown on this blog there is much more trinitarian style "proof" of Moses' Godhood than of Jesus' Godhood ,if Trinitarians were consistent with their interpretative logic that is, but here as in every other place that JEHOVAH is shown to be acting "dia"  a loyalist t(the lone exception being Jesus) Trinitarians choose to apply Occam's razor ,the Lord JEHOVAH is the ultimate legislator and his servant Moses is his instrument, his(i e Moses') status as legislator is derived from JEHOVAH the supreme legislator. 

1Corinthians 8:6 NIC"yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live." 

The simplest explanation therefore is that the Lord JEHOVAH is the ultimate source of the creation and the law that keeps it in order and the logos is the instrument he chose to employ in this regard. This explanation satisfies all the available evidence and spares us the needless complication of multiple coequal divine persons each of whom is both superlative and necessary. But the account says that he created ALL things? Some object, how could he himself be a creature did he create himself? The scriptures use the word 'all' with logical exceptions all( see what I did there) the time, indeed in our day to day conversation we routinely use the words 'all' and 'every' in this way. 

Genesis ch.3:20KJV"And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of ALL living." 

1Corinthians15:27KJV"For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, ALL things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him." 

Here again Trinitarians acknowledge the simpler explanation, it is only when trawling the scriptures for "prooftexts"  for their illogical and unscriptural dogmas that this selective blindness kicks in, no one wonders aloud if eve was her own mother or if God the Father became subordinate to his Son. But simply put what does the bible really teach about the rank and nature of God the Father.  

John ch.10:29KJV" My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. "

Ephesians ch.4:6KJV"One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."

God the Father is peerless, superlative i.e per the dictionary definition of those terms. 

Hebrews ch.6:13KJV"For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself," 

JEHOVAH is immutable as per the dictionary definition, not that of Christendom's theologians' . Everything that is true of him is perpetually true and everything scripture declares to be false of him is perpetually false . As is the case throughout the N.T the expression ho Theos i.e the God, as long as it is not qualified in some way e.g part of a possessive noun, always refers to God the Father.  We can satisfy ourselves that this is the case in Hebrews by simply returning to ch.1 Hebrews ch.1:1,2"1God,who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, " Thus THE God who inspired the scriptures is the God and Father of Jesus Christ. 

this God is ,according to scripture, is without peer or even approximate. Thus the supremacy of God the Father remains the best exegesis of scripture on the topic of the identity of the most high God.

Knowing technology when we see it II

 “Poor Design”? Human Skeletal Joints Demonstrate Engineering Genius 

Evolution News @DiscoveryCSC 

A new episode of ID the Future completes a talk by award-winning British engineer Stuart Burgess, who explains how the human ankle and wrist joints offer powerful evidence of engineering genius. Burgess is answering evolutionist Nathan Lents, who has argued that human joints are poorly designed and, therefore, evidence against intelligent design and for Darwinian evolution’s blind trial-and-error process. According to Burgess, Lents ignores — and seems to be ignorant of — the many ingeniously engineered features of our joints, leading Lents to make easily refuted claims. For example, Lents says an ankle with fused bones would be a superior design to a healthy human ankle. Not if the person hopes to play squash or tackle any number of other activities that require the suppleness and responsiveness of the human ankle, Burgess notes. Download the podcast or listen to it here. 

Game over? Really? V

Theory in Crisis? Some Cautionary Words

Jonathan Wells 

Editor’s note: We have been delighted to present a series by biologist Jonathan Wells asking, “Is Darwinism a Theory in Crisis?” This is the fifth and final post in the series, which is adapted from the recent book, The Comprehensive Guide to Science and Faith. Find the full series here.

Philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn was criticized for various inconsistencies in his argument, including his tendency to switch back and forth among several meanings of paradigm and theory. More seriously, he was criticized for his relativism because he sometimes wrote as though no paradigm is any closer to objective reality than any other. But it seems to me that Kuhn’s biggest problem was that he himself operated within a paradigm — Darwinism — without recognizing it as such. For example, in opposition to Karl Popper’s view that theories cannot be verified but only falsified, Kuhn wrote that “verification is like natural selection: It picks out the most viable among the actual alternatives in a particular historical situation.”1 

How Science Evolves?

Kuhn even concluded The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by calling his approach “the evolutionary view of science.” At the end of his last chapter he wrote: 

The analogy that relates the evolution of organisms to the evolution of scientific ideas can easily be pushed too far. But with respect to the issues of this closing section [i.e., progress through revolutions] it is very nearly perfect…[T]he resolution of revolutions is the selection by conflict within the scientific community of the fittest way to practice future science. The net result of a sequence of such revolutionary selections, separated by periods of normal research, is the wonderfully adapted set of instruments we call modern scientific knowledge. Successive stages in that developmental process are marked by an increase in articulation and specialization. And the entire process may have occurred, as we now suppose biological evolution did, without benefit of a set goal, a permanent fixed scientific truth, of which each stage in the development of scientific knowledge is a better exemplar.2 

Kuhn’s defense against critics who thereafter called him a relativist was based on the analogy between biological evolution and the history of science. In a 1970 postscript to his 1962 book, he wrote: 

Imagine an evolutionary tree representing the development of the modern scientific specialties from their common origins in, say, primitive natural philosophy and the crafts. A line drawn up that tree, never doubling back, from the trunk to the tip of some branch would trace a succession of theories related by descent. Considering any two such theories, chosen from points not too near their origin, it should be easy to design a list of criteria that would enable an uncommitted observer to distinguish the earlier from the more recent theory time after time…[If such a list can be compiled] then scientific development is, like biological, a unidirectional and irreversible process. Later scientific theories are better than earlier ones for solving puzzles in the often quite different environments to which they are applied. That is not a relativist’s position, and it displays the sense in which I am a convinced believer in scientific progress.3 

In the end, therefore, it seems that even Kuhn admitted that unguided processes do not solve problems or lead to truth; intelligent direction is necessary. 

A Shift Toward Design 

Despite these problems with Kuhn’s argument, we can still benefit from his descriptions of what happens during scientific revolutions. These include (1) the focus on debates over the definition of science; (2) the proliferation of variant articulations of the existing paradigm, which represent growing dissatisfaction among its adherents; and (3) the way defenders of an existing paradigm use all the institutional means at their disposal — including professional journals, membership in professional societies, and funding for jobs and research — to resist the challenger. 

All of these are evident in the current controversy between Darwinism and intelligent design. Whether intelligent design will be the paradigm that successfully replaces Darwinism remains to be seen. But without a doubt, the modern neo-Darwinian model of evolution is a theory in crisis. 

Notes 

1)Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2d ed., 146.

2)Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2d ed., 172-173.

3)Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2d ed., 205-206. 

Ancient Coptic text and John Ch.1

 Coptic John 1:1-18 

The Sahidic Coptic Indefinite Article at John 1:1 

“The use of the Coptic articles, both definite and indefinite, corresponds closely to the use of the articles in English.” – Thomas O. Lambdin, Introduction to Sahidic Coptic, page 5 

What is the primary difference? Lambdin continues: “Indefinite nouns designating unspecified quantities of a substance require an indefinite article in Coptic where there is none in English.” Further, “abstract nouns such as *me*, truth, often appear with either article, where English employs no article.” (page 5)

These are the distinctions that some apologists would make of great consequence when faced with the indefinite article at Coptic John 1:1c. But making an issue of this is a smokescreen that hides either ignorance or outright deception. Why? Because these exceptions have absolutely nothing to do with Coptic John 1:1c. Why not? Because the noun used here, *noute*, god, does not fall into either of the categories mentioned above. *Noute* is not a noun designating quantities of a substance. It is not an abstract noun. Rather, it is a regular Coptic noun which, joined with the Sahidic Coptic indefinite article, *ou*, is usually translated by means of the English indefinite article “a”. Therefore, there are sound grammatical reasons for rendering Sahidic Coptic John 1:1c by what it actually and literally says, “a god was the Word.” (Note: In Coptic, the "e" in *ne* is elided with the "o" in *ou* giving neunoute instead of neounoute when the words are spelled together.)

Nothing is gained by verbose, philosophical attempts at explaining that "a god was the Word" is not what the Coptic text “means.” That’s clearly what it says, so why should that not be what it means? To impute a different meaning to what the Coptic text actually says is eisegesis, not exegesis. It is special pleading of the worst kind. It is bringing theological suppositions into the Coptic text that the text itself does not support.

True, the Coptic text is a translation of the Koine Greek text of John 1:1c , but that text also can be translated literally to say “a god was the Word.” The Sahidic Coptic translators were translating the Greek text as they understood it, from the background of 500 years of Koine Greek influence in Egypt. The challenge to those scholars and apologists who argue for a qualitative or definite reading for Coptic John 1:1c is that they have the burden of proof to show clearly, by Scripture references, where else the Sahidic Coptic indefinite article before the noun *noute*, god, has a qualitative or definite meaning.

Until they find such verses, their arguments are hollow, shallow, irrelevant, and immaterial.

It is not sufficient to merely suppose and guess that the Sahidic Coptic indefinite article before a regular noun has qualitative or definite significance. Show the proof from the Coptic Scriptures.

On the other hand, there are many verses in just the Gospel of John alone where the Sahidic Coptic indefinite article, joined to a regular noun like *noute*, god, is translated with the English indefinite article “a” in Reverend George Horner’s classic English translation of the Sahidic Coptic text, as well as in other Sahidic Coptic literature that has been translated into English.

In simple terms: Apologists and scholars, don’t continue to give us your theological biases, disguised as grammatical treatments. Don’t continue to throw up verbose smokescreens in attempts to hide the truth of what the Sahidic Coptic text says. Your arguments are built on sand.

Show us the proof of your assertions from actual Sahidic Coptic New Testament verses, if you have any. 

Lambdin gives two examples of this usage quite early in his grammar book. For example, on page 17 he gives the sentence *n ounoute an pe*, translatled in the key as “He is not a god.” On page 18 we have the sentence *ntof ounoute pe*, which Lambdin translates as “He is a god.” Not “he is God.” Not “he is Divine.” But, “he is a god.” This same indefinite article – regular noun construction is found at Coptic John 1:1c: *auw neunoute pe pSaje*

Common morphology = Common descent except when it doesn't?

 Fossil Friday: Eurotamandua — Anteater or Not Even Close? 

Günter Bechly 

A very well-preserved fossil mammal from the Middle Eocene Messel pit in Germany was discovered in 1974 and described by Storch (1981) as Eurotamandua joresi. Famous German vertebrate paleontologist Gerhard Storch considered the fossil not only as the oldest fossil anteater (about 47 million years old) but also as the first European representative of this mammal order. This was a true sensation for paleontologists and zoologists alike. The simple reason is that anteaters belong to the group Xenarthra, which includes sloths, armadillos, and anteaters, and is generally believed to have always been an endemic to the neotropical region.  

Extensive Phylogenetic Studies 

A pitched controversy about the biogeographic and evolutionary implications resulted, and speculations ran wild. Extensive phylogenetic studies either affirmed the attribution of Eurotamandua to neotropical Xenarthra (Storch & Habersetzer 1991, Szalay & Schrenk 1994, Höss et al. 1996, Branham & Gaudin 1997, Gaudin & Branham 1998) or challenged it as uncertain (Gaudin 1999), or placed it closer to Pholidota (pangolins) and its fossil relatives Palaeanodonta (Rose & Emry 1993, Shoshani et al. 1997, Rose 1999, Delsuc et al. 2001), or attributed it to a totally independent lineage called Afredentata (Szalay & Schrenk 1998). All these scientists came to very different conclusions, even though they all worked with the same single fossil and its published description. 

Finally, a study by Gaudin et al. (2009) established Eurotamandua as a fossil pangolin, contrary to their own earlier study. This was also supported by the more recent phylogenetic analysis of Kondrashov & Agadjanian (2012). An interesting detail is that Xenarthra and Pholidota were classically considered as related toothless mammals (Edentata) based on morphological similarities, but were shown to be totally unrelated and far removed in the mammalian tree of life based on molecular data (Xenarthra at the very base of mammals or as sister group to Afrotheria, but Pholidota as closest relative to carnivorans deeply nested within Laurasiatheria).  

Yet More Controversy 

However, an attribution of Eurotamandua to pangolins did not prevent further controversy. Szalay & Schrenk (1998) considered the Messel pholidote Eomanis krebsi (attributed to Euromanis by Gaudin et al. 2009) as a juvenile Eurotamandua and thus as synonym of this taxon. This was strongly rejected by Horovitz et al. (2005) based on the leg morphology. By the way: the apparent typical xenarthran joints described by Storch (1981) as a crucial character could not be corroborated by other studies (Rose & Emry 1993, Szalay & Schrenk 1994, Gaudin 1999) and ultimately turned out to be mere artifacts of preparation and restoration of the fossil (Storch 2003). All the other unique anatomical similarities between Eurotamandua and anteaters, that were previously considered as unequivocal synapomorphies (Branham & Gaudin 1997), are now considered evolutionary convergences. These include quite complex features such as horizontal palatal plates and a supplementary bulla tympanica (Storch & Habersetzer 1991). 

Darwinists thus have to appeal to the ad hoc hypothesis of convergent adaptation to similar lifestyles, which of course increases the problem of how a blind evolutionary search process could stumble upon the same complex solutions multiple times. A design perspective can explain such incongruent data much better than a Darwinian perspective, because intelligent designers typically reuse the same innovations and principles in different instantiations. 

References 

of Ernanodon(Mammalia, Palaeanodonta) from Mongolia: morphofunctional analysis. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 32(5), 983–1001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02724634.2012.694319.

Rose KD 1999. Eurotamandua and Palaeanodonta: convergent or related? Paläontologische Zeitschrift 73(3/4), 395–401. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02988050.

Rose KD & Emry RJ 1993. Relationships of Xenarthra, Pholidota, and fossil ‘Edentates’: the morphological evidence. pp. 81–102 in: Szalay FS, Novacek MJ & McKenna MC (eds). Mammal Phylogeny (Placentals). Springer, New York (NY).

Shoshani J, McKenna MC, Rose KD & Emry RJ 1997. Eurotamandua is a pholidotan not a xenarthran. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 17(Suppl. 3), 76A. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02724634.1997.10011028.

Storch G 1981. Eurotamandua joresi, ein Myrmecophagide aus dem Eozän der “Grube Messel” bei Darmstadt (Mammalia, Xenarthra). Senckenbergiana lethaea 61(3/6), 247–289. https://www.schweizerbart.de/publications/detail/artno/190506103/Senckenbergiana_Lethaea_61_3_6

Storch G 2003. Fossil Old World „edentates“ (Mammalia). Senckenbergiana biologica83(1), 51–60.

Storch G & Habersetzer J 1991. Rückverlagerte Choanen und akzessorische Bulla typanica bei rezenten Vermilingua und Eurotamandua aus dem Eozän von Messel (Mammalia: Xenarthra). Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde 56, 257–271. https://biostor.org/reference/183398

Szalay FS & Schrenk F 1994. Middle Eocene Eurotamandua and the early differentiation of the Edentata. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 14(Suppl. 3), 48A. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02724634.1994.10011592.

Szalay FS & Schrenk F 1998. The Middle Eocene Eurotamandua and a Darwinian phylogenetic analysis. Kaupia – Darmstädter Beiträge zur Naturgeschichte 7, 97–186. 

The deprivileging of man continues apace?

The Law Society in UK Endorses “Nature Rights” 

Wesley J. Smith 

The nature-rights movement continues to move from the fringe into decidedly establishment circles, with virtually no push back and a foolish, “It will never happen here,” shrugging of the collective shoulders. Now, the UK’s Law Society — the organization that represents solicitors, roughly equivalent to the ABA — has issued a report calling for the establishment of nature and non-human rights.

First, the report clearly attacks human exceptionalism — the backbone of Western liberty — and criticizes what it calls (can you believe it?) the “binary of the species hierarchy.” Yes, transgender ideology and other critical theories have entered the environmentalist sphere. (Notice the woke gibberishy writing style.) From, “Law in the Emerging Bio-Age“:

Some argue that in the current system human rights are not properly protected or balanced. If taxonomies like the species hierarchy are important in allocating rights, then we need to think about how bio body hackers who make extreme physical changes, biorobots, human-animal chimerae, and autonomous robots will be treated.

We already see that transgender people and people with different characteristics are ‘othered’ and the effect of negative societal responses to body changes clearly links to the ‘cute or repulsive’ binary of the species hierarchy. 

Just Another Species 

In other words, we should redefine our self-understanding as being just another species in the forest.

Never mind that only humans have moral obligations and can be called to account for failing to meet our responsibilities. Nature rights will cure the injustice of human exceptionalism (my emphasis): 

Rights for nonhumans communicates our dependence on and a greater role for nature in decision-making. 

Stop the quote! “Nature” and/or animals wouldn’t have a “greater role in decision-making.” Radical environmentalist or animal-rights ideologues would. Back to the quote: 

The process and execution of a nonhuman rights-based framework in international and local law may differ radically from a human rights-based approach. For example, if rights were granted to nonhumans or living systems, then questions of liability for damage to the environment, such as climate change or biodiversity loss, arise 

A Cornucopia for Lawyers 

In other words, granting rights to non-humans would be a cornucopia for lawyers since these laws allow anyone to bring lawsuits to enforce nature’s purported rights, which the Law Society well understands:

If rights were granted to nonhumans or living systems, then questions of liability for damage to the environment, such as climate change or biodiversity loss, arise in relation to the causal link between the damage and the person/entity causing it; attribution of liability; calculation of damages and so on. 

Lawsuits without end! (Oh joy, rapture!) Not to mention transactional legal and lobbying opportunities for the horde of lawyers pursing the rights of nature and non-humans: 

Beyond litigation against responsible parties, other concerns to consider are investor pressure, public procurement rules, financial, institution decisions, and reputation-focused campaigns by civil society 

The report also targets biotechnology and other areas of innovation for assault by nature-rights extremists. Its scope and breadth would severely limit cutting-edge science and industrial development.

When a venerable law society embraces non-human rights, it is time to pay attention. If people and lawmakers don’t take this threat to our collective economic well-being and personal freedom seriously, within a few years, we will be seeing serious public-policy impacts from this radical agenda throughout the West. 

What Would China Do? 

In this regard, let me ask a serious question: Is there any chance China would grant “rights” to nature when they have no regard for those of humans? The very notion is ludicrous. If this trend continues, we will be unilaterally snuffing our economies as China’s grows. To say the least, that would not bode well for the great civilizational contest developing between Western democracies and the evil tyrants of Beijing. 

 

Game over? Really? IV

 Theory in Crisis? Circling the Wagons 

Jonathan Wells 

Editor’s note: We are a delighted to present a series by biologist Jonathan Wells asking, “Is Darwinism a Theory in Crisis?” This is the fourth post in the series, which is adapted from the recent book, The Comprehensive Guide to Science and Faith. Find the full series here. 

Philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn compared scientific revolutions to political revolutions. Like a political revolution, a scientific revolution typically divides people “into competing camps or parties, one seeking to defend the old institutional constellation, the others seeking to institute some new ones.”1 The camp defending the old paradigm uses every means at its disposal, including all of its professional societies and publications, to resist the challenger. Since the mid 20th century, established paradigms have also controlled enormous funding from foundations and taxpayers, and thus jobs in educational and research institutions. With careers at stake, things can get ugly. 

And Things Have Gotten Ugly 

In the late 1990s, in Burlington, Washington, high school biology teacher Roger DeHart taught evolution as required. But he also shared with his students a few articles from mainstream science publications that questioned some aspects of neo-Darwinian theory. Militant Darwinists intimidated the local school board with threats of a lawsuit, so DeHart was reassigned to another subject and his biology class was turned over to a physical education instructor. In 2002, DeHart left his career as a public high school teacher and eventually moved with his wife and children to another country.2

In 2003, Dr. Nancy Bryson was head of the Division of Science and Mathematics at the Mississippi University for Women. After she presented an honors forum titled “Critical Thinking on Evolution,” a senior biology professor read to the audience a previously prepared statement calling her presentation “religion masquerading as science” and accusing her of being unqualified to talk about evolution. The next day, Dr. Bryson was informed that her contract as division head would not be renewed. She subsequently had to find work elsewhere.3

In 2004, biologist Caroline Crocker was a visiting professor at George Mason University. While covering a required section on evolution, she gave one lecture on evidentiary problems with Darwin’s theory and briefly mentioned the controversy over intelligent design. At the end of the lecture, she told students to “think about it for yourself.” For this reason, Crocker’s contract was not renewed.4 

OK, Then Don’t Think About It for Yourself 

In 2005, biology teacher Bryan Leonard was about to get his PhD in science education from Ohio State University. His dissertation, which was a quantitative study about how a group of students reacted to the critical analysis of evolution, had already been approved by his committee. At the last minute, however, three pro-Darwin professors (who admitted they had not read Leonard’s dissertation) lodged a complaint against him. The complaint alleged that he had engaged in unethical behavior by implying to students that there were weaknesses in neo-Darwinism. As a result, the university blocked Leonard’s PhD.5

David Coppedge began working at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California in 1996. For nine years he served as the team lead system administrator for the ambitious Cassini mission to Saturn. Then he was reprimanded and demoted for privately giving DVDs about intelligent design to co-workers who requested them. In 2011, he was let go.6

Internationally renowned paleontologist Günter Bechly directed the 2009 Darwin Day exhibit at State Museum of Natural History in Stuttgart, Germany. The exhibit was strongly pro-Darwin, but it included a critique of intelligent design that featured some books by intelligent design advocates. After reading some of the pro-ID books, Bechly concluded that Darwinists had been misrepresenting intelligent design. He gradually changed his views and publicly declared his support for ID in 2015. After that, Bechly reported, the museum told him he was “no longer welcome, and that it would be appreciated if I would decide to quit.” He was eventually forced to resign.7 

Controlled by the Paradigm 

As Kuhn pointed out, mainstream scientific journals (like scientific societies) are also largely controlled by the dominant paradigm. For this reason, articles about intelligent design, or even articles on other subjects that have been written by known advocates of intelligent design, have rarely been published in mainstream journals.

Some years ago, I submitted an article on cell biology to a prominent scientific journal. The article did not mention intelligent design. After I made some recommended changes, my article passed peer review, and the editor emailed to tell me he wanted to publish it. He had just one final question: Was I “the Jonathan Wells of intelligent design fame?” (His words exactly.) I answered that I was. Afterward he sent the article to yet another reader, whose “review” didn’t really deal with its contents but sounded like an angry rant from a pro-Darwin blog. The editor then informed me he had decided not to publish my article.8

In this same scientific journal in 2020, biochemist Dave Speijer justified the prejudice against intelligent design. He recommended that Internet searches hosted by tech giants explicitly discriminate against intelligent design; if the tech giants resist, the government should “make them,” he wrote. In particular, Speijer recommended “mandatory color-coded banners warning of consistent factual errors or unscientific content, masquerading as science.”9 

Notes 

1)Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2d ed., 93.

2)Jonathan Wells, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design (Washington, DC: Regnery, 2006), 143-144.

3)Jim Brown and Ed Vitagliano, “Professor Dumped over Evolution Beliefs,” Agape Press (March 11, 2003). http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/professordumped031203.htm (accessed August 22, 2020).

4)Wells, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism, 190-191.

5)"Outside Professors Derail Dissertation,” Free Science, https://freescience.today/story/bryan-leonard/ (accessed August 22, 2020).

6)"Demoted, Terminated,” Free Science, https://freescience.today/story/david-coppedge/ (accessed August 22, 2020).

7)"Marginalized, Shown the Door,” Free Science, https://freescience.today/story/gunter-bechly/ (accessed August 22, 2020).

8)Michael Egnor, “What Scientists Know,” Evolution News and Science Today (May 28, 2020). https://evolutionnews.org/2020/05/what-scientists-know/ (accessed August 22, 2020).

9)David Speijer, “Bad Faith Reasoning, Predictable Chaos, and the Truth,” BioEssays 42 (June 2020), 2000040

Darwinism and behavior another pressure point in the design debate.

 Birds Have a Remarkable Gift for Deceit 

Denyse O'Leary 

When Clinton Francis, a specialist in bird behavior, challenged student Wren Thompson to find out how many types of birds use deceit in their defences against predators of their nests, he hardly expected to find that the number she was able to discover was 285:

Mapping those behaviors onto the avian phylogenetic tree revealed that the trait spans from some of the most basal bird families, including pheasants and ducks, to more recently evolved taxa such as songbirds. “It’s pretty amazing,” Francis says, adding that he was surprised how “particular clades on the avian tree of life really just light up,” including blackbirds, warblers, and sparrows. The frequent and disjointed appearance of the behavior across the tree suggests it evolved independently several times, he adds.

ANDY CARSTENS, “AVIAN DECEPTION MORE WIDESPREAD THAN PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT” AT THE SCIENTIST (OCTOBER 3, 2022); THE PAPER IS OPEN ACCESS. 

Thinking About the Killdeer 

The bird that set them thinking was the killdeer, which pretends to be injured in order to distract a predator’s attention from the young in its ground nest: 

With humans, it has the opposite of its intended effect. Wise to the trick, we begin looking around, just out of interest, to see if we can spot the nest. But it apparently works well enough with the killdeer’s usual targets. 

To Deceive a Fellow Bird 

Birds have subtle ways of deceiving other birds as well: 

Filipe Cunha, a behavioral ecologist at Wageningen University & Research in the Netherlands, happened upon a particularly unusual case of avian deception while studying Siberian jays (Perisoreus infaustus). “They’re definitely liars,” he says, explaining how the territorial birds fake an alarm call that’s typically reserved for alerting group members to the presence of predators such as sparrowhawks. Cunha determined that the jays deceive neighboring groups of Siberian jays to scare them into fleeing, after which the liars steal caches of scavenged meat that the tricked birds had hidden to survive the Arctic winter. He says that he hopes studying within-species dishonesty will shed light on how trust evolved in our own species.

ANDY CARSTENS, “AVIAN DECEPTION MORE WIDESPREAD THAN PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT” AT THE SCIENTIST (OCTOBER 3, 2022) THE PAPER IS OPEN ACCESS. 

It seems a bit ambitious to hope that the study of bird deception will show us how trust evolved in humans, considering that it’s not even clear how the birds learn to deceive. They must develop these tricks without applying abstract reasoning to the problems. That is, the killdeer wants to protect her nest but she is hardly a strategist planning a campaign. How then is the trait learned?

For that matter, how exactly did the jays learn to fake an alarm call — and then, like the killdeer, pass the trait on to their offspring as a neurological inheritance? There is much here we are in no position to understand at present.

Read the rest at Mind Matters News, published by Discovery Institute’s Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence. 

Knowing technology when we see it.

 Is the Human Ankle Badly Designed? 

Evolution News @DiscoveryCSC 

On a new episode of ID the Future, Stuart Burgess, one of Britain’s top engineers, explains how the skeletal joints in the human body are masterpieces of intelligent design. He also responds to claims by some evolutionists that human joints are badly designed and supposedly evidence of Darwinian evolution’s blind trial-and-error process. This presentation was taped at the 2022 Westminster Conference on Science and Faith in the greater Philadelphia area, which was jointly sponsored by Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture, and Westminster Theological Seminary. Here in Part 1, Burgess focuses on the ankle joint, showing that it packs an extraordinary amount of functionality into a small space, beyond anything human engineers have managed to achieve either in prosthetics or robotics. Download the podcast or listen to it here. 

Game over? Really? III

 Theory in Crisis? Dissatisfaction and the Proliferation of New Articulations 

Jonathan Wells 

Editor’s note: We are a delighted to present a new series by biologist Jonathan Wells asking, “Is Darwinism a Theory in Crisis?” This is the third post in the series, which is adapted from the recent book, The Comprehensive Guide to Science and Faith. Find the full series here. 

A scientific revolution is fueled in part by growing dissatisfaction among adherents of the old paradigm. This leads to new versions of the theoretical underpinnings of the paradigm. In his 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn wrote: 

The proliferation of competing articulations, the willingness to try anything, the expression of explicit discontent, the recourse to philosophy and to debate over fundamentals, all these are symptoms of a transition from normal to extraordinary research.1 

Serious Problems with Darwin’s Theory 

A growing number of biologists now acknowledge that there are serious problems with modern evolutionary theory. In 2007, biologist and philosopher Massimo Pigliucci published a paper asking whether we need “an extended evolutionary synthesis” that goes beyond neo-Darwinism.2 The following year, Pigliucci and 15 other biologists (none of them intelligent design advocates) gathered at the Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research just north of Vienna to discuss the question. Science journalist Suzan Mazur called this group “the Altenberg 16.”3 In 2010, the group published a collection of their essays. The authors challenged the Darwinian idea that organisms could evolve solely by the gradual accumulation of small variations preserved by natural selection, and the neo-Darwinian idea that DNA is “the sole agent of variation and unit of inheritance.”4 

“A View from the 21st Century” 

In 2011, biologist James Shapiro (who was not one of Altenberg 16 and is not an intelligent design advocate) published a book titled Evolution: A View from the 21st Century. Shapiro expounded on a concept he called natural genetic engineering and provided evidence that cells can reorganize their genomes in purposeful ways. According to Shapiro, many scientists reacted to the phrase “natural genetic engineering” in the same way they react to intelligent design because it seems “to violate the principles of naturalism that exclude any role for a guiding intelligence outside of nature.” But Shapiro argued that 

the concept of cell-guided natural genetic engineering is well within the boundaries of twenty-first century biological science. Despite widespread philosophical prejudices, cells are now reasonably seen to operate teleologically: Their goals are survival, growth, and reproduction.5 

In 2015, Nature published an exchange of views between scientists who believed that evolutionary theory needs “a rethink” and scientists who believed it is fine as it is. Those who believed that the theory needs rethinking suggested that those defending it might be “haunted by the specter of intelligent design” and thus want “to show a united front to those hostile to science.” Nevertheless, the former concluded that recent findings in several fields require a “conceptual change in evolutionary biology.”6 These same scientists also published an article in Proceedings of the Royal Society of London,in which they proposed “an alternative conceptual framework,” an “extended evolutionary synthesis” that retains the fundamentals of evolutionary theory “but differs in its emphasis on the role of constructive processes in development and evolution.”7 

An Unusual Meeting in London

In 2016, an international group of biologists organized a public meeting to discuss an extended evolutionary synthesis at the Royal Society in London. Biologist Gerd Müller opened the meeting by pointing out that current evolutionary theory fails to explain (among other things) the origin of new anatomical structures (that is, macroevolution). Most of the other speakers agreed that the current theory is inadequate, though two speakers defended it. None of the speakers considered intelligent design an option. One speaker even caricatured intelligent design as “God did it,” and at one point another participant blurted out, “Not God — we’re excluding God.”8The advocates of an extended evolutionary synthesis proposed various mechanisms that they argued were ignored or downplayed in current theory, but none of the proposed mechanisms moved beyond microevolution (minor changes within existing species). By the end of the meeting, it was clear that none of the speakers had met the challenge posed by Müller on the first day.9

A 2018 article in Evolutionary Biology reviewed some of the still-competing articulations of evolutionary theory. The article concluded by wondering whether the continuing “conceptual rifts and explanatory tensions” will be overcome.10 As long as they continue, however, they suggest that a scientific revolution is in progress.

Notes 

1)Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2d ed., 91.

2)Massimo Pigliucci, “Do we need an extended evolutionary synthesis?,” Evolution 61 (2007), 2743-2749.

3)Suzan Mazur, The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry (Wellington, New Zealand: Scoop Media, 2009).

4)Massimo Pigliucci and Gerd B. Müller, Evolution: The Extended Synthesis (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2010).

5)James A. Shapiro, Evolution: A View from the 21st Century (Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press Science, 2011), 134-137.

6)Kevin Laland, Tobias Uller, Marc Feldman, Kim Sterelny, Gerd B. Müller, Armin Moczek, Eva Jablonka, John Odling-Smee, Gregory A. Wray, Hopi E. Hoekstra, Douglas J. Futuyma, Richard E. Lenski, Trudy F.C. Mackay, Dolph Schluter, and Joan E. Strassmann, “Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?” Nature 514 (2014), 161-164.

7)Kevin N. Laland, Tobias Uller, Marcus W. Feldman, Kim Sterelny, Gerd B. Müller, Armin Moczek, Eva Jablonka, and John Odling-Smee, “The extended evolutionary synthesis: its structure, assumptions and predictions,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 282 (2015), 20151019.

8)Paul A. Nelson, “Specter of intelligent design emerges at the Royal Society meeting,” Evolution News & Views (November 8, 2016), https://evolutionnews.org/2016/11/specter_of_inte/ (accessed August 22, 2020).

9)Paul A. Nelson and David Klinghoffer, “Scientists confirm: Darwinism is broken,” CNS News (December 13, 2016). https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/david-klinghoffer/scientists-confirm-darwinism-broken (accessed August 22, 2020).

10)Alejandro Fábregas-Tejeda and Francisco Vergara-Silva, “Hierarchy Theory of Evolution and the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis: Some Epistemic Bridges, Some Conceptual Rifts,” Evolutionary Biology 45 (2018), 127-139.

The Thiaroye massacre: a brief history.

 Thiaroye massacre 

The Thiaroye massacre (French: Massacre de Thiaroye; pronounced [tjaʁ.wa]) was a massacre of French West African military veterans by French forces on the morning of 1 December 1944. West African volunteers and conscripts of the Tirailleurs Sénégalais units of the French army mutinied against poor conditions and defaulted pay at the Thiaroye camp, on the outskirts of Dakar, Senegal. Between 35 and over 300 people were killed. 

Location

Thiaroye, Dakar, French West Africa

Coordinates

14.756°N 17.377°W

Date

1 December 1944

9 a.m. (GMT)

Attack type

Massacre of Tirailleurs Sénégalais mutinying against poor conditions and defaulted pay

Deaths

up to 300 (claimed by veterans)

35 (French government claim)

Injured

hundreds

Perpetrator

French Army (National Gendarmerie, 6th Regiment of Colonial Artillery) 

As colonial subjects, tirailleurs (colonial infantry) were not awarded the same pensions as their French (European) fellow soldiers during and after World War II, pensions that had been promised to them at the beginning of the war. The pensions for veterans of both races were calculated on the basis of living costs in their countries of birth, supposedly lower in colonies than in metropolitan France. These soldiers additionally claimed they were owed back pay due to an order issued by the Minister of Colonies authorizing benefits for ex-prisoners of war from West Africa, which both fell short of the benefits given to French prisoners of war and was in any case not implemented.[1] This discrimination led to a mutiny by about 1,300 Senegalese tirailleurs at Camp Thiaroye on 30 November 1944. The tirailleurs involved were actually from Guinea, Mali, Senegal, Burkina Faso, Chad, Benin, Gabon, Ivory Coast, Central African Republic, and Togo.[2] The former prisoners of war had been repatriated to West Africa and placed in a holding camp awaiting discharge. They demonstrated in protest against the failure of the French authorities to pay salary arrears and discharge allowances. The immediate grievance was the unfavorable exchange rate applied to currency brought back by the repatriated soldiers from France.[3] A French general, briefly held by the tirailleurs, promised to have the rate changed to a par with that applicable to white veterans. 

Early the following morning French soldiers guarding the camp opened fire killing between thirty-five and seventy African soldiers. A detailed French-language account of the massacre states that 24 of the former prisoners were killed outright and eleven subsequently died of their wounds.[4] However, war veterans claim that over 300 of the black African soldiers were killed while the French only claim 35 deaths.[5] The French provisional government of Charles de Gaulle, concerned at the impact of the Thiaroye incident on still-serving tirailleurs, acted quickly to ensure that claims for back pay and other monies owing were settled.[6] 

In March 1945 a military tribunal sentenced some of the survivors to ten years in prison.[7] Five of the prisoners died in detention. As President Vincent Auriol visited Senegal in March 1947, the prisoners were released, but didn't receive veteran pensions.[3]

After the war ended, the French argued that the tirailleurs were particularly prone to revolt. The French have based this claim on the notion that German soldiers, in an attempt to undermine the loyalty of France’s colonial subjects in Africa, had given the tirailleurs favored treatment as prisoners of war. This ostensibly good treatment of tirailleurs in prisoner of war camps was not, however, based in fact.[8]

Furthermore, there is no mention of the Thiaroye Massacre in any of France's history books taught in school. Despite the complications of the massacre, France still currently has strong political and military connections with Senegal, which could explain why the film[citation needed] was so poorly received and censored in France. A new generation of French leadership wants to confront the past and even planned to build an exhibition about the incident, which would travel to former French colonies in Western Africa in 2013. While the incident is merely mentioned, there is a military cemetery in Senegal that is unkept and receives no visitors. The cemetery holds the unmarked mass graves of the fallen Senegalese soldiers. The Senegalese army prevents any film or photography of the cemetery, and many locals consider the cemetery to be haunted due to the fallen Senegalese soldiers still awaiting the vengeance of their honor.[5] 

References 

 Echenberg, Myron (October 1985). "'Morts Pour la France': The African Soldier in France during the Second World War". Journal of African History. 26 (4): 363–380. doi:10.1017/S0021853700028796.

 Johns, Steven. "The Thiaroye massacre, 1944". libcom.org. Retrieved 2019-12-03.

 David Signer, Dakar. "Frankreich verriet die Senegalschützen nach dem 2. Weltkrieg". Neue Zürcher Zeitung (in German). Retrieved 2020-05-07.

 Mabon, Armelle (2002). "La tragédie de Thiaroye, symbole du déni d'égalité". Hommes et Migrations (in French). 1235 (1): 86–95. doi:10.3406/homig.2002.3780. ISSN 1142-852X.

 Moshiri, Nazanine (22 November 2013). "A little-known massacre in Senegal". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 13 October 2017.

 Chafter, Tony (November 2008). "Forgotten Soldiers". History Today. 58 (11): 35.

 Mortimer, Edward (1969). France and the Africans 1944–1960: A political history. London: Faber & Faber. p. 60. OCLC 875880806.

 Scheck, Raffael (January 2012). "Les prémices de Thiaroye: L'influence de la captivité allemande sur les soldats noirs français à la fin de la Seconde Guerre mondiale". French Colonial History. 13 (1): 73–90. doi:10.1353/fch.2012.0007. S2CID 145216683.

 Ngugi, Njeri (June 2003). "Presenting and (Mis)representing History in Fiction Film: Sembène's Camp de Thiaroye and Attenborough's Cry Freedom". Journal of African Cultural Studies. 16 (1): 57–68. doi:10.1080/1369681032000169267. JSTOR 3181385. S2CID 191490169.

 Kempley, Rita (1 March 1991). "From Africa, A 'Camp' of Tragic Heroes". The Washington Post.

 Otero, Solimar; Ter Haar, Hetty (2010). Narrating War and Peace in Africa. University Rochester Press. p. 232. ISBN 978-1-58046-330-0.

 Banham, Martin; Hill, Errol; Woodyard, George William (1994). The Cambridge guide to African and Caribbean theatre. Cambridge University Press. p. 43. ISBN 0-521-41139-4.

 Esonwanne, Uzo (1993). "The Nation as Contested Referent". Research in African Literatures. 24 (4): 49–62.

 Miller, Christopher L. (1990). Theories of Africans: Francophone Literature and Anthropology in Africa. University of Chicago Press. pp. 57, 166–67. ISBN 9780226528021.

 O'Toole, Thomas; Baker, Janice E. (2005). Historical dictionary of Guinea. Scarecrow Press. pp. 123–124. ISBN 0-8108-4634-9

Bibliography 

(in English) Myron Echenberg, "Tragedy at Thiaroye: The Senegalese Soldiers' Uprising of 1944 ", in Peter Gutkind, Robin Cohen and Jean Copans (eds), African Labor History, Beverly Hills, 1978, p. 109-128

(in French) Boubacar Boris Diop, Thiaroye terre rouge, in Le Temps de Tamango, L'Harmattan, 1981

(in French) Ousmane Sembène, Camp de Thiaroye, Feature Film, Color, 1988, 147min. 

Proverbs ch.8 Jerusalem bible

      8:1 Does Wisdom not call meanwhile? Does Discernment not lift up her voice?

8:2 On the hilltop, on the road, at the crossways, she takes her stand;

8:3 beside the gates of the city, at the approaches to the gates she cries aloud,

8:4 ‘O men! I am calling to you; my cry goes out to the sons of men.

8:5 You ignorant ones! Study discretion; and you fools, come to your senses!

8:6 Listen, I have serious things to tell you, from my lips come honest words.

8:7 My mouth proclaims the truth, wickedness is hateful to my lips.

8:8 All the words I say are right, nothing twisted in them, nothing false,

8:9 all straightforward to him who understands, honest to those who know what knowledge means.

8:10 Accept my discipline rather than silver, knowledge in preference to pure gold.

8:11 For wisdom is more precious than pearls, and nothing else is so worthy of desire.

Wisdom sings her own praises. Wisdom, the guide of kings

8:12 ‘I, Wisdom, am mistress of discretion, the inventor of lucidity of thought.

8:14 Good advice and sound judgement belong to me, perception to me, strength to me.

8:13 (To fear YAHWEH is to hate evil.) I hate pride and arrogance, wicked behaviour and a lying mouth.

8:17 I love those who love me; those who seek me eagerly shall find me.

8:15 By me monarchs rule and princes issue just laws;

8:16 by me rulers govern, and the great impose justice on the world.

8:18 With me are riches and honour, lasting wealth and justice.

8:19 The fruit I give is better than gold, even the finest, the return I make is better than pure silver.

8:20 I walk in the way of virtue, in the paths of justice,

8:21 enriching those who love me, filling their treasuries.

8:22 ‘YAHWEH created me when his purpose first unfolded, before the oldest of his works.

8:23 From everlasting I was firmly set, from the beginning, before earth came into being.

8:24 The deep[*a] was not, when I was born, there were no springs to gush with water.

8:25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills, I came to birth;

8:26 before he made the earth, the countryside, or the first grains of the world’s dust.

8:27 When he fixed the heavens firm, I was there, when he drew a ring on the surface of the deep,

8:28 when he thickened the clouds above, when he fixed fast the springs of the deep,

8:29 when he assigned the sea its boundaries-and the waters will not invade the shore-when he laid down the foundations of the earth,

8:30 I was by his side, a master craftsman, delighting him day after day, ever at play in his presence,

8:31 at play everywhere in his world, delighting to be with the sons of men.

8: 32a And now, my sons, listen to me;

8:33 listen to instruction and learn to be wise, do not ignore it.

8:32b Happy those who keep my ways!

8:34 Happy the man who listens to me, who day after day watches at my gates to guard the portals.

8:35 For the man who finds me finds life, he will win favour from Yahweh;

8:36 but he who does injury to me does hurt to his own soul, all who hate me are in love with death