Posts

Evolution, "Ought", and Ethics

Image
Although evolution is an ancient religion, it has become mostly associated with biology. Well, it had  been. Evolutionary thinking have since come to influence many areas, including various philosophies. Using a naturalistic base, people have presumed that evolution is true, and then based worldviews on that belief. Some try to derive ethical behavior from evolution, but cannot account for altruism and self-sacrifice, nor can they deal with innate values of what "ought" to be, which flies in the face of the deterministic view of what "is". The only rational basis for morality is biblical Christianity. David Hume, by Allan Ramsay Using "Hume's Guillotine", Brenton H. Cook shows how three evolutionary-based views of ethics are incomplete, and even self-refuting; the Naturalistic Fallacy is persistent. The problem of establishing an ontological basis for morality has troubled materialistic philosophers since Darwin. This paper demonstrates that

Evolution and Playtime

Image
Evolutionary scientists are presenting speculation as actual science again, basing their reasoning on assumptions about the unobservable past. Someone left the gate open on the corral, and the horses of speculation are wandering into the Not Evolution range. That is, why  something evolved, since natural selection is supposed to be purposeless. Young Basement Cat getting acrobatic on a flimsy wooden drying rack. This was before she became a heifer. Scientists like this seem dour. Play not only evolved, but evolved for a purpose, never mind that these are mere assertions. Often, play takes creativity, especially in humans who are clowning around for entertainment purposes. Instead of using the utilitarian route, how about considering that the only purpose is to have fun, and the Creator granted us this bit of joy? Yes, your dog enjoys play, say biologists, and so do birds, dolphins and many other kinds of animals. How did “having fun” evolve? Current Biology’s first issue o

Study Animals to Determine Human Fairness — Seriously?

Image
Researchers studying "fairness" in humans did the most logical thing: they studied animals. Sure, makes perfect sense. Not hardly, old son. How about studying humans? But no, they study animals. Not surprisingly, the researchers assume that evolution is true, and manage to not only indulge in typical circular reasoning, but raise more questions than they started with. Also, the results could more appropriately reveal that fairness was put in humans and some animals by design, not by blind chance evolution. How does it make you feel when you put forth just as much effort as the next guy, but he receives twice the reward? Unfair! But how did people acquire the sensibilities involved when assessing fairness? Certain animals recognize unequal rewards too, prompting researchers to try and unravel the origins of fairness. Publishing in Science, Sarah Brosnan from Georgia State University and Frans de Waal of Emery University reviewed studies on fairness in animals. Their re

The Faulty "Appearance of Age" Explanation for Genesis

Image
It's ironic that people who don't believe the Bible want to know about how things seem "old" in the Genesis account of creation, and then refuse to accept explanations that are offered. Fortunately, there are people who honestly want to know about that as well. Even though some well-meaning creationists have offered their ideas, they should've left their six-guns in their holsters instead of misfiring and making things worse. "Creation of the Animals" / Raphael / 1519 When reading Genesis, we can tell that Adam and Eve were walking and talking from the beginning, they were to tend to the garden, trees bore fruit, animals were brought to Adam, stars were shining — those mean that there was an appearance of age, right? Not hardly. "Appearance of age" is an incorrect and misleading term, and entirely subjective. But there's a better way to look at things, especially if I stop muddying the waters with this introduction. Extracted and

Rodent Fossil Gnaws at Evolutionary Tree

Image
A rodent fossil that kinda-sorta resembles a groundhog has been causing some difficulties in some Gondwana and evolutionary circles. A skull was discovered (except for the lower jaw) that was rather well preserved, causing some classification difficulties. One problem for paleontologists is that, according to their worldview, it was found in dinosaur strata, and shouldn't be there. Because of the discernible features, this critter does not fit into the three major mammal classifications, and is a candidate for its own classification. It has also been called "primitive". The fossil has a resemblance to a groundhog. This groundhog clip art has a resemblance to a groundhog as well. Scientists are using their worldviews to "explain" its transition, the hows and whys of its evolution, and its relationship to other mammals — using circular reasoning and selective data citing. Indeed, they may need to rewrite evolutionary history. Again. Biblical creation sci

"Philae", Comets, and Life From Space — Cosmologists Keep the Blind Faith

Image
Even before the Rosetta spacecraft and the Philae probe met up with their targeted comet, some Darwinoids were cheering in anticipation that the results of the mission would disprove the Genesis account of creation. According to their evolutionary worldview, the Bible is wrong and the universe was formed from the Big Bang, and the earth was a hot, molten blob with no water. So what stagecoach brought the water here, then? "Why, comets, of course, don'tcha unnerstan' science, ya idjit?" No, we don't understand speculations that have no logical or evidential support. 4-image mosaic of images taken from centre of Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko on 14 December 2014 ESA/Rosetta/NAVCAM – CC BY-SA IGO 3.0 But hope for reasons to reject the Creator spring eternal, old son. From one fact-free wish to another, since the comet-water idea was debunked , they jumped to the idea that asteroids brought water to Earth, not comets (ya idjit). Still, they throw abou

Amazing Machinery Works Inside Cells

Image
Sometimes, simpler is better. Extremely complicated machines that perform multiple functions can be susceptible to breakdowns, and simply wearing out. For example, the "all-in-one" machine that does copies, faxes, document scanning, printing and so on can have one problem that makes the whole thing stop, and you're without all of those functions while it's getting repaired or replaced. Likewise, having several simpler machines working in concert can have the same problem. Another example, your car has many things depending on each other, but a critical component can make it so you're not going anywhere (such as when my starter broke down last year). You can get by with a faulty car part, but not always. Inside each of us, there are astonishingly complex machines. Lots of them. Different kinds. Some are at work inside the cells, performing maintenance and copying of DNA and other things. They keep themselves going, and have many backup systems in place, an