Michael J. Behe's Blog, page 104

At Nature: Non-random mutation is acknowledged. What does that mean?

Casey Luskin offers some thoughts:

That mutation is “directionless” or “random” is a traditional axiom of evolutionary biology. My correspondent wanted to know what it means to consider that some mutations may be “non-random” after all. She supposed that she was asking a “dumb question.”

Exactly the Question to Ask

Actually, it’s not in the least a dumb question — it’s exactly the right question to ask! In the context of this paper, what “non-random” means is that mutations are less likely to occur in gene-coding DNA — especially in what they call “essential genes.” This overturns two standard assumptions of the modern theory of evolution.

In evolutionary biology, it’s generally thought that mutations are “random” in two respects:

Mutations occur with equal likelihood across the entire genome. So there’s no part of the genome that is MORE or LESS likely to experience mutations than any other part of the genome. This is supposed to mean mutations are not directed or concentrated, but in a sense are randomly distributed across the genome. Mutations occur without regard to the needs of the organisms, meaning they are random and not directed for or against what the organisms needs to survive. The Nature study found evidence against both (1) and (2). In Arabidopsis, some parts of the genome are LESS likely to experience mutations, and those parts of the genome that experience fewer mutations tend to be the REALLY important parts of the genome that you wouldn’t want to be mutated because in those sections, mutations would most likely break genes that are very important to the organism.

Casey Luskin, “New Study in Nature Showing “Non-Random” Mutation Spells Trouble for Neo-Darwinism” at Evolution News and Science Today (February 19, 2022)

Darwinism is essentially over as far as the evidence is concerned, as Casey Luskin explains. But it is not over as far as the popular story sold to the public by people whose careers depend on it is concerned. This article in Nature is a foray into honest discussion.

You may also wish to read: Casey Luskin on how the fossil record challenges Darwin. Luskin: One of the largest difficulties with evolution is the word itself. Supporters of Darwinian theory love to switch the word around so the average person can never be sure what they are talking about.

Copyright © 2022 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

At Mind Matters News, some fun: Recent science papers support science fiction premises

There isn’t a crystal clear boundary; both science and science fiction achievements require imagination:

There is an Earth-like planet orbiting our Sun’s closest star.

Found by ESPRESSO, part of the Very Large Telescope Array in Chile, it is currently only a planet candidate — that is, it awaits confirmation from other astronomers — but the researchers are confident that it will check out:

Astronomers have discovered a third planet orbiting Proxima Centauri, the star closest to the Sun. Called Proxima Centauri d, the newly spotted world is probably smaller than Earth, and could have oceans of liquid water.

“It’s showing that the nearest star probably has a very rich planetary system,” says Guillem Anglada-Escudé, an astronomer at the Institute of Space Sciences in Barcelona, Spain, who led the team that, in 2016, discovered the first planet to be seen orbiting Proxima Centauri.

Davide Castelvecchi, “Earth-like planet spotted orbiting Sun’s closest star” at Nature (February 11, 2022)

Proxima Centauri d is much smaller than Earth, at 26% of Earth’s mass. Its star is 4.25 light years away, so we would need to reach near light speeds to physically explore the planet within reasonable time constraints. But it’s something to aim for and science fiction around it could be grounded in reality.

News, “Recent science papers support science fiction premises” at Mind Matters News (February 12, 2022)

Takehome: Of course, science can deal only in fact but many of the facts scientists are unearthing can support science fiction premises. Five examples are offered here.

You may also wish to read:

Is life from outer space a viable science hypothesis? Currently, panspermia has been rated as “plausible but not convincing.” Marks, Hössjer, and Diaz discuss the issues. Famous atheist scientists have favored panspermia because there is no plausible purely natural explanation for life on Earth that would make it unnecessary.

and

Science paper: Could octopuses be aliens from outer space? It’s the octopus’s intelligence that causes such usual theses to float in the science literature. There is no simple way of accounting for how smart the eight-armed invertebrate is. So, even if we dismiss an extraterrestrial origin, we still face a mystery.

Copyright © 2022 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

Michael Behe talks engineering and information theory on Finding the Truth

(Time zones.)

Set your reminder bell for Sunday 20th, 6pm GMT / 10am PST where Dr. Michael Behe will speak with me (Ahmed Eshrah on Finding Truth podcast) on how the latest discoveries reconfirm that Irreducible Complexity marks the death of the explanatory power of the Darwinian mechanism and other non-guided naturalistic mechanisms of the extended evolutionary modern synthesis.

I will be exploring with Dr. Behe how Engineering and Information Theory join forces with his views from Biochemistry showing that complex integrated systems can only be the product of a mind, and explore ways to confirm it.

You will also be able to ask questions as there will be a live Q&A at the end.

Michael Behe is the author of Darwin Devolves, Edge of Evolution, and Darwin’s Black Box and (1996)

Copyright © 2022 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

A scare from New Scientist: Melting permafrost could release ancient viruses that cause the next pandemic

It would, of course, be a great plotline for a sci-fi film:

IN NOVEMBER 2019, the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine held a workshop to discuss an emerging disease threat. Not covid-19: they were a couple of months too early for that. Instead, they were trying to figure out what to do about microorganisms trapped in glaciers, ice sheets and permafrost, which will be released as the world warms and the ice thaws.

Michael Marshall, “Could ancient viruses from melting permafrost cause the next pandemic?” at New Scientist (February 16, 2022)

They needn’t have worried. The government-induced panic and disastrous decision-making around COVID-19 was just as bad as if that virus had been “Death from the Frozen Hell” from the Permian era.

During the meeting, Alexander Volkovitskiy from the Russian Academy of Sciences recounted an alarming incident. It took place in 2016 on the Yamal peninsula on Russia’s northern coast where local people herd hundreds of thousands of reindeer. That summer, temperatures were unseasonably warm and some of the permafrost thawed. The bacterium that causes anthrax – which had been present on the peninsula for over a century – emerged from the soil and spread like wildfire. Before the outbreak was brought under control, more than 2000 reindeer had perished. Dozens of people also caught the disease, including an unnamed boy who died.

This story could be a harbinger of what is to come.

Michael Marshall, “Could ancient viruses from melting permafrost cause the next pandemic?” at New Scientist (February 16, 2022)

Wait. Anthrax is a well-known predator of hoofed animals and those who herd them can get it. If the boy who died is unnamed, were there any medical records?

See how panics get started?

Virus variants get started all the time in the real world. Any permafrost crowd would probably need to take a number and wait with the rest of them (unless it is an established predator like the anthrax bacterium).

How about “We might even be exposed to ancient diseases that once infected Neanderthals” (from the story)

So let’s cast a Neanderthal in the film version, for sure.

The basis for such panic marketing is usually a correct science observation — in this case, that microscopic life forms (and viruses) may hibernate for long periods in ice. However, as the New Scientist article notes, “bacteria that infect humans are adapted to live at our body temperatures, so it is highly unlikely that they would survive for long periods below zero.”

A bacterium can’t see future needs on its own so to have been adapted to survival for long periods in ice, it would be a fluke like anthrax or a product of engineering.

It’s an interesting article, full of useful information, but the situation is not, as the author, Michael Marshall, admits, a reason for panic.

In any event, the virus that causes COVID-19 was likely an escapee from a lab in Wuhan that was partly funded by the U.S. government. The motivated nonsense that we read in the science media that attempts to scuff out knowledge of that fact would be astounding if we didn’t already know what progressivism does to science.

At Mind Matters News: We trust nonsense from lab coats more than from gurus. It’s hard to understand why the researchers take comfort from finding that, worldwide, people will believe absolute nonsense if it comes from scientists.

Copyright © 2022 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

At ScienceDaily: “astonishingly similar biomechanical solutions” for ingesting liquid food have evolved in widely distant animal groups.

It’s not astonishing; it’s convergent evolution and it points to design in nature:

Whether nectar-sucking butterflies or blood-sucking mosquitoes — the ingestion of liquid food has long been known for many insects and other arthropods. A research team from Germany and Switzerland, led by the Leibniz Institute for the Analysis of Biodiversity Change (LIB) and the University of Bonn, now shows that millipedes also use a sucking pump to ingest liquid food. A sucking pump has thus evolved independently in different groups of organisms over several 100 million years. In the process, astonishingly similar biomechanical solutions for ingesting liquid food have evolved in widely distant animal groups. The study results have now been published in the journal Science Advances.

University of Bonn, “February 17, 2022” at ScienceDaily (February 17, 2022)

Millipedes, like insects, are arthropods but that doesn’t, in itself, point to much detailed similarity.

Millipedes in general:

Using high-resolution tomography as well as histological methods and electron microscopy, the researchers discovered a sucking pump in millipedes that is strikingly similar to those of insects. It consists of a chamber that is widened by strong muscles to suck in liquid food. “Together with the protractible mouthparts the sucking pump enables these millipedes to ingest more or less liquid food,” explains Leif Moritz, a doctoral student at the University of Bonn and the LIB.

The research team was thus able to show that the functional tools for a diet with liquid nutrients have evolved several times independently in all major subgroups of arthropods. “The biomechanical-morphological similarities between the groups of organisms indicate the strength of selection as soon as a food source provides even a slight evolutionary advantage,” elaborates Alexander Blanke head of the working group for evolutionary morphology at the University of Bonn.

University of Bonn, “February 17, 2022” at ScienceDaily (February 17, 2022)

Wait. There is a fundamental conceptual error in that last remark by Alexander Blanke (though it may have been something he felt forced to say): The question is not whether a sucking pump would be an advantage but how it could have arisen independently twice by natural selection acting on random mutations within the time available. And no, “natural selection” is not supposed to be a synonym for “hocus pocus.” The situation should be researchable, if not now, at least at some point. The probability of a non-design origin can become calculable once we assign specifics.

The paper is open access.

You may also wish to read: Evolution appears to converge on goals—but in Darwinian terms, is that possible?

Copyright © 2022 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

At Mind Matters News: When a tiny brain is actually an advantage

Small size — which includes having a small brain — hones the ogre gnat’s remarkable neurological abilities:

The researchers attribute the fly’s ability to adjust its trajectory so rapidly to its small size, which allows signals to travel rapidly from eye to brain to flight muscles. Future research will include testing what information small animals can gain about their target before they take off and how they know what to attack. ScienceDaily (February 16, 2022) The paper is open access.

So small size — which includes having a small brain — is actually an asset to the ogre gnat’s remarkable neurological abilities, not a liability.

News, “When a tiny brain is actually an advantage” at Mind Matters News

The gnat ogre is seen here at work:

Takehome: Natural algorithms may account for insect skills, enabling research that transforms a frustrating mystery into a fruitful one by finding the genetic basis for a specific algorithm as opposed to vague talk of “instinct.”

You may also wish to read: How do insects use their very small brains to think clearly? How do they engage in complex behaviour with only 100,000 to a million neurons? Researchers are finding that insects have a number of strategies for making the most of comparatively few neurons to enable complex behavior. (Denyse O’Leary)

Copyright © 2022 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

How the embrace of Darwinism led to strange northern “origins stories”

Many northern Europeans regressed from believing in Adam and Eve to believing in stuff much closer to tribal (as opposed to human) ancestral stories.

In an excerpt from Extreme North: A Cultural History, Bernd Brunner, a writer on culture, explains:

Based on the wealth of new knowledge, the idea of a long Germanic prehistory seemed worthy of closer examination. And regardless of whether the origins of the northern cultures were attributed to the North itself or to India or Persia, many researchers now considered belief in the biblical story of creation—scorned by some as “Jewish fables”—to be out of date. No one could imagine what the consequences this shift in thinking would have.

The idea that White people originated in the Caucasus, which in the nineteenth century was closely entwined with the question of the genesis of the Germanic peoples, was first formulated by Johann Friedrich Blumenbach. In 1776, he used the term Caucasian to refer to those peoples who were “predominantly white in color” and, in his eyes, most beautiful. Later the writer Joseph Görres also traced the historical roots of the European peoples to the Caucasus. In his 1807 essay “Religion in History,” he wrote: “All that is powerfully, ruggedly and jauntily heroic invariably had its epicenter in [the Caucasus]; all great conquerors and all world-commanding characters have poured down from its heights like wild mountain streams, and the earth’s other mountains willingly acknowledged this range as their king. Just as in later ages the Celtic and Germanic myths and those of the northern Scandinavians that all spring from the genuine heroic spirit began there.”

Bernd Brunner, “How the theory of evolution sparked bizarre ideas about human origins in the North” at Big Think (February 17, 2022)

Many cultures have traditions according to which (quelle surprise!) in-group members are superior to out-group members. A common ancestral pair implicitly undermines such view, with predictable consequences. Getting rid of Adam and Eve was bound to bring older, more questionable traditions to the fore.

You may also wish to read: Politics has invaded the world of human fossil analysis At Areo: “Perhaps the most well-known example of the politicization of ancient DNA studies is the long legal battle for control of the remains of Kennewick Man, which were found in Washington State in 1996. Based on skull shape—the best evidence available at the time—scientists initially inferred that his most probable ancestry was European. Local Native American groups sued to have his remains reburied without further analysis under a 1990 US federal law…”

Copyright © 2022 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

Claim: Intelligent design theory is a science stopper

Cornelius Hunter takes that on:

In a debate with Michael Ruse at Oregon State University, a student in the audience asked me how one does science according to intelligent design. It is a common question. If the designer can autonomously create designs, how can one make predictions? If the natural world operates not according to a set of natural laws, but instead according to an autonomous entity, then how can science proceed? Indeed, more commonly evolutionists do not ask such questions, but rather boldly assert that under any such formulation, science becomes utterly impossible. Many such examples could be given but an op-ed article in the New York Times from evolutionist and then president of the National Academy of Sciences, Bruce Alberts, will suffice:

In evolution, as in all areas of science, our knowledge is incomplete. But the entire success of the scientific enterprise has depended on an insistence that these gaps be filled by natural explanations, logically derived from confirmable evidence. Because “intelligent design” theories are based on supernatural explanations, they can have nothing to do with science.

Science Depends on It

In other words, there is an intellectual necessity of strictly naturalistic explanation — our science depends on it. And so, it would seem that intelligent design commits the intellectual sin of being a science stopper. But as we shall see, this intellectual necessity argument reveals something very different…

Cornelius Hunter, “Is Intelligent Design a Science Stopper?” at Evolution News and Science Today (February 11, 2022)

Before we even get to Dr. Hunter’s observations and arguments, notice how much nonsense the demand for naturalism contributes to popular science media: Any day now, we are going to

hit on the origin of lifefind the consciousness spot in the brain/prove there’s no consciousnessprove there’s no free willestablish that apes do SO think just like people

The fact that this promissory materialism, for which Darwinism is the origin story, is all hype and no hope never means anything. A fresh batch of media will bring up the same worn themes. And it’s as close to science as large numbers of educated mediocrities ever want to get.

You may also wish to read: Darwinian evolution and apparently suboptimal design: Cornelius Hunter points out that the most powerful arguments for schoolbook Darwinism are theological in character: What God wouldn’t do, etc. And they also apply only to alternative viewpoints, not to core Darwinism itself.

Copyright © 2022 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

Vivid’s comment on Critical [Race] Theory i/l/o the clash with truckers — what culture form marxists do with power

Yet another headlined comment, here from Vivid answering Sc in the lab rats thread:

Vivid, 281: >>[Sc:] “I am aware of critical race theory but I honestly haven’t given it much thought. My gut tells me that there are some morsels of truth in it but that it is greatly overhyped as an explanation for things seen in society.”

[Vivid:] It is not overhyped it is the meta narrative of our age.

Here are some excerpts from a letter to a few friends several years ago.

“Once I came to understand Critical Theory everything became clear. I understand why Van Jones says white people have a virus that others don’t , I mean just wow!! I understand why even though I may not exhibit racist behavior I am a racist just the same, this right out of Kafka. That the more I claim I am not a racist is evidence that I am. I understand why institutions like the fire department or police department can be tagged in its totality as racist. I get it. The reason for this is I have come to understand Critical Theory, an ideology that dominates academia, the media and has been embraced by the culture at large. In many cases by those who are not aware of its ideological underpinnings and agenda.

Critical theory is the theory of hegemonic culture which is defined as anyone who is white, male, heterosexual, cis gender, native born American, Christian, and other various qualifiers ( the top of the intersectionality ladder) OR identifies with that group regardless of their color. From this theory flows the idea of intersectionality (those at the top of the ladder oppress those below) and group racist guilt. Critical Theory is more concerned with NARRATIVE rather than TRUTH, the facts don’t matter.

[–> Which condemns it as willful speaking with disregard to truth, in intent of profiting from what is said or suggested being taken as true. That is, bluntly, big lie agitprop dressed up in academic, judicial, pundit, pol etc robes]

The Critical Theory I am addressing is of The Frankfurt School of Marxist critics which includes György Lukács, Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno and Herbert Marcuse. Marcuse for instance held to among other things that tolerance of views are repressive and he can be called the father of intolerance and the cancel culture. I am being specific here and giving names for a reason, so that you can do your own fact checking. These scholars left Germany in the 30s [–> fleeing Hitler] and after a stop in Switzerland landed in America and taught at Columbia.

The big picture agenda of the Frankfurt School was to marry Marxian economic theory to Freudian psychoanalytic theory to explain the rise of fascism and put forth the reasons that the communist revolution was not taking place in Western democracies as Marx had predicted. Marx was a historical determinist. The Frankfurt School looked at systems of power in terms of how they exploited and oppressed the working class and more broadly the everyday citizen. One of the goals of the Frankfurt School was to address CULTURAL power. They decided that the reason the communist revolution had not yet been successful in the West is that something in Western culture must be preventing it. The goal of the Frankfurt School was to identify what those issues were and DISMANTLE them. You might stop for a moment and ask yourselves what is the basis of Western culture?

Western culture is based on The Enlightenment and Judaeo Christian values and principles, the ultimate TARGET of Critical theory is the JUDAEO CHRISTIAN culture and the BIBLE! Its target also is aimed at classic liberalism. This was one of the reasons I was so dismayed to hear talking points that flow directly from The Frankfurt School and resulting ideology which I will get to in a moment

Sources:

Wikipedia The Frankfurt School
New Discourse Critical Theory
The Gospel Coalition The Incompatibility of Critical Theory and Christianity
Https//plato.stanford.edu./entries/critical-theory/
Felluga, Dino Franco. Critical Theory:The Key Concepts (Routledge Key Guides). Taylor and Francis Kindle Edition
Neil Shenvi Intro to Critical Theory
The Gospel Coalition “Important Articles on Critical Theory”
Voddie Bauchan You Tube “Cultural Marxism”

I would like to now pivot to addressing Critical Race Theory, Critical Social Justice Theory, and White Complicity Theory.

“Beware lest anyone take you captive through philosophy and empty deceit according to human tradition according to the elemental spirits of the world not to Christ” Col 2:8

Critical Race Theory:

Critical Race Theory( CRT) is a sub theory of Critical Theory that questions the very foundation of the liberal order, including equality theory. For instance if you pay attention to words you will notice that proponents of CRT substitute the word “equity” for “equality” two entirely different meanings. [–> doubletalk, doublethink, 1984 style] CRT also questions legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law. CRT argues that the axis of America social life revolves around race and systemic power, racism permeates everything and must be uncovered using critical methods. Critical race theory explicitly endorses historical revisionism such as the 1619 project[–> which is systematicallt tendentious about sound history] or eliminating historical monuments.

CRT is openly and aggressively anti liberal. Liberal [–> historically, often called classical liberalism] does not mean left wing. A liberal society aims to make sure that everybody is treated equally and works toward a society where barriers are removed that prevents that from happening. CRT views this as nothing more than the existing power structure maintaining its dominance (hegemony). CRT theorists reject color blindness as myths and illusions that allow white people to perpetrate their inherited privilege. CRT rejects Martin Luther King’s position that we should judge people on the content of their character not the color of their skin. CRT does not advocate color blindness but rather diversity narratives ,but not diversity of opinion , equity but not equality, and inclusion. In practice CRT holds that racism is subconscious in many cases.

Sources:
Https//plato.stanford.edu.entries/critical-t...
New Discourses Critical Race theory
Cummings, Andre Douglas Pond “ A furious kinship: Critical Race Theory and the Hip Hop Nation
Delgado, Richard and S,Jean “Critical Race Theory: The Cutting Edge Third Edition
Payne, Hilrado. “The Role of of Critical Race Theory in Higher Education”
Applebaum
Thompson, Sherwood. “Encyclopedia of Diversity and Social Justice
DiAngelo and Sensoy “White Fragility”
Voddie Bauchan You Tube “Cultural Marxism”

Critical Social Justice Theory:

“You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means” Inigo Montoya “Princess Bride”

From new discourse

“Social Justice is the ultimate “Trojan Horse”term, where it seems to mean one thing , a good thing, as most people would understand it, which is a more fair and equal society but it actually means something else in Critical Social Justice Theory. [–> doublespeak, doublethink] That something else is very specific, and most people, if they knew what they were encountering, would be unlikely to accept. The idea advertised by the phrase “social justice” doesn’t match the ideology and worldview bearing the seemingly identical name.

This is because the phrase “social justice”, here intentionally left in the lowercase, means something that most people in society can get behind, more fairness, equality, egalitarianism, less bigotry, [less] discrimination, disenfranchisement and the like. There are very few people today who would say they don’t seek social justice. Any disagreements are about how to achieve it and what it would look like. This is because most people in the West are broadly liberal, in the philosophical and true [classic] meaning of the word, not how it is used in American politics.

On the other hand , “Social Justice”, here intentionally capitalized, means something more specific, it means “Critical Social Justice”. That is, in fact, an ideology that very aggressively pursues the social, cultural, institutional, and political installation and enforcement of a very specific and radical understanding of social justice as derived from various critical theories. As such they do not necessarily seek to achieve “social justice” in the broad sense, or in the sense that many would assume of the term. Instead they seek to empower and enforce their own particular worldview that revolves around one narrow and authoritative interpretation which is hegemony, result of the processes by which one dominant culture, which is currently the Judaeo Christian, maintains its dominant position. Let me put it this way. If you’re a classic liberal and embrace Enlightenment principles or if you embrace Judaeo Christian values the mob is coming after you.

Critical Social Justice theory also does not advocate for equality which they see as an oppressive ideology. Instead it advocates for equity which I have mentioned means something different ie equal outcomes. Equal outcomes are what they mean by diversity as opposed to meritocracy.

Nor does it tolerate diversity of opinion. The enforcement of the meta narrative uses what is termed “canceling “or “cancel culture” to enforce conformity of thought. Last week alone we have seen the canceling of movies, TV shows and approximately seven editors of major media organizations canceled. The editor of the New York Times had to step down for allowing an op ed piece that went against the predominant meta narrative. A college football coach had to apologize for wearing the wrong shirt. American history is being cancelled, monuments are being torn down. One apology is never enough. And this is just the tip of the iceberg and is escalating. You cannot replace a culture without erasing its history.

Critical Social Justice Theory demands acknowledgement of white complicity as a first step, a necessary albeit not a sufficient step , as a requirement of challenging systemic racial oppression. This complicity arises from the nature of “white privilege”, which white people benefit from whether they want to or not.

In other words based on one’s color, without any evidence, one is accused of something based on the color of their skin, the opposite of MLKs position. I can think of nothing more racist than targeting an entire ethnic group with a collective crime regardless of the innocence or guilt of its individuals. Just last week Webster changed the classic historical definition to one more suitable to Critical Social Justice Theory which in a nut shell is that if you are white or “think white” you are a priori a racist because you are white or think white. For instance “thinking white”, whatever that is, creates an open season on any African American and opens them up to the most vile epithets, slurs and slanders because they are identifying with the current hegemonic culture. They are often portrayed as not being black or not being black enough. Thus you have racism without a racist.

In short for the Critical Social Justice advocates the whole system is rotten to the core, it is “systemic” and we must dismantle the “systemic” dominant culture, which is the Judaeo Christian culture with a new secular one. This is why a certain dominate player and strong advocate of Critical Race and Social Justice theory (BLM) states on their web page statement of beliefs “we are dedicated to transgender rights and the disruption of the classic Western nuclear family”. From what book is the Western nuclear family derived ? Critical Social Justice Theory as distinguished from true social justice, wants cultural revolution not reform. [–> hence, red guard mobs roaming streets, fuelled by rage and backed by power]

Sources:

Sensory, Ozlem, and Robert DiAngelo “Is everyone really equal?” An Introduction to Key Concepts in Social Justice Education, first edition. Teachers College Press:New York, p.xviii
Adams, M.,et al (2016). Teaching For Diversity and Social Justice. New York: Routledge. P.1
Bell, L., (2013) Theoretical foundations. In M. Adams, W.J.Blumenfeld, C. Castaneda,,H.W Hackman, M.L,,Peters, and X. Zuniga. (EDS), Readings for diversity and social justice. New York: Routledge
Lemisko, Lynn “Unpacking Presuppositions for Social Justice” “Un packing and Repacking Generative Concepts in Social Justice Studies” Todd A Horton and Lynn Lemisko Ed’s Sense Publishers , 2015
Black Lives Matters Official Website “What we believe”
New Discourses Critical Social Justice Theory
The Gospel Coalition “ Social Justice, Critical Theory ,and Christianity : Are They Compatible
Voddie Bauchan You Tube “Cultural Marxism”

Whiteness Complicity Theory:

The white complicity claim echos the claims made by Critical Social Justice theorists which maintains that white peoples, through the practices of whiteness and by benefiting from white privilege, contribute to the maintenance of systemic racial injustice, the failure to acknowledge such complicity will thwart whites to dismantle unjust racial systems.

Recognizing that one is complicit is a necessary, albeit not sufficient, condition of challenging systemic racial oppression. Most significantly, since the white complicity claimant presumes that racism is often perpetrated through well intended white peoples, being morally good may not facilitate and may even frustrate the recognition of such responsibility. White complicity is the claim that white people can reproduce and maintain racist practices even when, especially when, they believe themselves to be morally good. People who think they are morally good and think they are not racist are the most deceived and are the major problem.

The white complicity claimants maintains that all whites are complicit in systemic racial injustice. This takes the form of “all whites are racists”. When white complicity takes the latter configuration “all whites are racist” what is implied is not that all whites are consciously racially prejudiced, rather that all whites participate in and, often unwittingly , maintain the racist system of which therefore they are part of and from which they benefit.Thus white complicity is the idea that all white people, regardless of their intentions, are complicit in racism and white supremacy and thus bear some responsibility for it.”

Silence is not an option in White Complicity Theory, everyone must bow the knee. If not done, one’s silence is proof of one’s racism (Kafka again). This is stuff right out of Solzhenitsyn’s experiences and what he wrote about in “The Gulag Archipelago”. White complicity carries a responsibility to identify, analyze, and challenge a system of racism and one’s participation in it continually, and you are never done. Let me repeat, you are never done because if you are white there is nothing you can do about your whiteness. This is frightfully reminiscent of the so called “struggle sessions” in communist China which resulted in the death of untold millions. “>>

Marxism is the evergreen heresy of our civilisation and we must be ever willing to expose it and its ruinous tendencies. END

Copyright © 2022 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

Evolution problems: “Species” is such a mess of a concept

And evolutionary biologists keep looking for examples in nature, with meagre results:

Part of the problem is that the term species is notoriously difficult to define. A definition applicable to plants and animals won’t necessarily work for bacteria, and definitions applicable to living things won’t necessarily work for fossils. As of 2004, several dozen definitions were in use among biologists and paleontologists.3 The definition most often used by evolutionary biologists is the “biological species concept,” according to which species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.4

If species are defined this way, then in one sense speciation has been observed in the laboratory. Normally when two different species hybridize, either naturally or artificially, the hybrids are sterile because the maternal and paternal chromosomes are too dissimilar and cannot pair up in cell division. Occasionally, however, the hybrid undergoes chromosome doubling, or polyploidy. With matching sets of chromosomes that can undergo cell division, the hybrid may then be fertile and constitute a new species under the biological species concept. In the first decades of the 20th century, Swedish scientist Arne Müntzing used two plant species to make a hybrid that underwent chromosome doubling to produce hempnettle, a member of the mint family that had already been found in nature.5

Speciation by polyploidy is called secondary speciation to distinguish it from primary speciation — the splitting of one species into two. According to Douglas Futuyma, polyploidy “does not confer major new morphological characteristics…[and] does not cause the evolution of new genera” or higher levels in the biological hierarchy.6 So although secondary speciation by polyploidy has been observed in flowering plants, it is not the solution to Darwin’s problem. The solution would be primary speciation by variation and selection, which has not been observed.

Jonathan Wells, “Top Scientific Problems with Evolution: Speciation” at Evolution News and Science Today (February 17, 2022)

One way of attempting to demonstrate speciation is to seize on inconsequential genetic changes and inflate their importance:

A common refrain among biologists holds that the majority of Earth’s plant and animal species remain undiscovered. While many of those species inhabit narrow or hard-to-reach ranges, others may in fact be hiding right under our noses.

Take Ormyrus labotus, a tiny parasitoid wasp known to science since 1843. It has long been considered a generalist, laying its eggs in more than 65 different species of other insects. But a new study published today in Insect Systematics and Diversity suggests that the wasps currently called Ormyrus labotus are actually at least 16 different species, identical in appearance but genetically distinct.

It’s not unusual, especially with advancing genetic techniques, to discover “cryptic” species within one known insect species, but the number of those found within Ormyrus labotus underlines the importance of seeking out the world’s “hidden diversity,” says Andrew Forbes, Ph.D., associate professor of biology at the University of Iowa and senior author of the study.

Entomological Society of America, “Hidden diversity: When one wasp species is actually 16 wasp species” at ScienceDaily (February 16, 2022)

If that’s speciation, then the whole thing is waste of time. Even identical twins diverge genetically as trhey age.Should they be classed as separate species?

It’s a good thing Darwinism is part of an elite religion; it would not otherwise survive serious scrutiny long.

Wells reminds us,

In 2002, evolutionary biologists Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan wrote, “Speciation, whether in the remote Galápagos, in the laboratory cages of the drosophilosophers [those who study fruit flies], or in the crowded sediments of the paleontologists, still has never been directly traced.”13 So evolution’s smoking gun is still missing.

Jonathan Wells, “Top Scientific Problems with Evolution: Speciation” at Evolution News and Science Today (February 17, 2022)

Wait. Wasn’t otherwise refreshingly open-minded Lynn Margulis shouting on a Galapagos island during a Darwinfest, “I am definitely a Darwinist though.” Why was she? That wasn’t science; it was a cult.

The paper is open access.

You may also wish to read: A physicist looks at biology’s problem of “speciation” in humans

Copyright © 2022 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana