Michael J. Behe's Blog, page 107

February 12, 2022

Mystery: Modern humans lived in a cave in France 10,000 years earlier than thought — then vanished

A study published on 9 February in Science Advances argues that distinctive stone tools and a lone child’s tooth were left by Homo sapiens during a short stay, some 54,000 years ago — and not by Neanderthals, who lived in the rock shelter for thousands of years before and after that time.

The Homo sapiens occupation, which researchers estimate lasted for just a few decades, pre-dates the previous earliest known evidence of the species in Europe by around 10,000 years.

But some researchers are not so sure that the stone tools or tooth were left by Homo sapiens. “I find the evidence less than convincing,” says William Banks, a palaeolithic archaeologist at the French national research agency CNRS and the University of Bordeaux.

Ewen Callaway, “Evidence of Europe’s first Homo sapiens found in French cave” at Nature (February 9, 2022)

The paper is open access.

Here’s the story (in French):

Team co-leader Ludovic Slimak and colleagues offers some thoughts at The Conversation:

Human origins researchers have generally agreed that between 300,000 and 40,000 years ago, Neanderthals and their ancestors occupied Europe. From time to time during that period, they had contact with modern humans in the Levant and parts of Asia. Then around 48,000 to 45,000 years ago, modern humans – essentially us – expanded throughout the rest of the world, and Neanderthals and all other archaic humans disappeared…

The first curious finding to emerge during the initial decade of Grotte Mandrin excavations were 1,500 tiny triangular stone points identified in what we labeled Layer E. Some less than half an inch (1 cm) in length, these points resemble arrowheads. They have no technological precursors or successors in the 11 surrounding archaeological layers of Neanderthal artifacts in the cave.

Who made them? A handful of other sites in the middle Rhône Valley also contain these tiny points. But those sites were excavated long ago with pickaxes, making it hard to tell whether the points showed up abruptly or gradually over time, perhaps with Neanderthals having developed the methods to make them. In 2004, one of us, Ludovic Slimak, named this distinctive tradition “Neronian” after the nearby site where such tiny points were first excavated…

The final piece of the puzzle came in 2018, when one of us, Clément Zanolli, analyzed the nine hominin teeth we’d found throughout the different layers during excavation. Through painstaking analyses using CT scans and comparisons with hundreds of other fossils, we were able to determine that the Mandrin E tooth, a single baby tooth from a child between 2 and 6 years of age, came from an early modern human and cannot be from a Neanderthal.

Ludovic Slimak et al., “New research suggests modern humans lived in Europe 10,000 years earlier than previously thought, in Neanderthal territories” at The Conversation (February 9, 2022)

Here’s the time line the researchers offer:

Cultural and anthropological evidence in Grotte Mandrin show the arrival of Homo sapiens in the heart of Neanderthal territories. Ludovic Slimak, CC BY-ND

Someone should writer a Stone Age novel about a story like this. Apart from that, keep digging.

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

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on February 12, 2022 21:35

Astrophysicist: Quit calling our sun an “average star”

The average star, Adam Frank says, is not like our sun:

That whole “average star” meme works great if you want to make it seem like we are nothing special at all in the Universe. But from a stellar census point of view, it’s just not true.

The Sun, our happy fusion parent, is simply not average. Understanding why opens the door to some of the most interesting astrophysics in the Universe: the story of star formation…

The most common kind of star to emerge from the star formation process is much smaller than the Sun. These stars, called “M-dwarfs,” are not just less massive; they are also smaller, with radii about half that of the Sun. They are cooler, too, with surface temperatures about 3,600° Kelvin compared to the Sun’s nearly 5600° K. Finally, they are much less bright, shining only 0.05 times as much light into space as the Sun.

All these facts are more than mere astronomical trivia. Because these smaller stars are much more numerous, there will be more of them close to us than stars like our Sun. And since we are very interested in finding planets with life in the Universe, the commonality and nearness of these M stars means that they are the places that we will be doing most of our life-hunting. But can life form using the meager energy from such dim, cold stars?

Adam Frank, “What is the “average star” like? Hint: It’s not like our Sun” at Big Think (February 10, 2022)

But to admit that our Sun is not “average” would be to raise the dreaded spectre of fine-tuning. Facts that raise such a possibility can’t be treated as facts. Correct people simply continue to iterate that our Sun is an average star.

You may also wish to read: Templeton tries to wish away fine-tuning of the universe. So there you have it, folks. Fine-tuning is either a fluke or a multiverse. No other possibility is conceivable. Maybe science is about eliminating the concept of intelligence from the universe.

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on February 12, 2022 20:55

L&FP, 52: Fallaciously “settled” (=begged) questions and the marginalisation of legitimate alternatives

Nowadays, we are often told “The Science is SETTLED,” as though Science is ever finalised or certain. To go with it, those who have concerns or alternative views and arguments are marginalised and too often smeared, scapegoated or even outright slandered. Sometimes — as Dallas Willard warned regarding moral knowledge — in this rush to judgement, legitimate knowledge is derided, denigrated and dismissed, leading to manipulation and indoctrination. Then, of course, wide swathes of the media and many educators will often jump on the bandwagon. As a result, policy and government become increasingly divorced from due prudence, leading to ruinous marches of folly.

How can we rebalance the situation?

First, as the media are the main conduit of indoctrination and manipulation, we can learn to discern manipulation, marginalisation, scapegoating and polarisation, and rebalance our thinking. For example:

However, there is usually a deeper problem, scientism. Even Wikipedia half-concedes:

Scientism is the view that science and scientific method are the best or only objective means by which people should determine normative and epistemological values, or that the natural sciences constitute the most authoritative worldview.

While the term was originally defined to mean “methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist”, some religious scholars (and subsequently many others) also adopted it as a pejorative with the meaning “an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)”. The term scientism is often used critically, implying an unwarranted application of science in situations considered not amenable to application of the scientific method or similar scientific standards.

The problem they are dodging? The claim that the [core] Sciences monopolise knowledge or so dominate it that they have a veto over other alleged sources of knowledge (especially “religion” . . . actually, philosophy) is an epistemological claim not a scientific claim. That is, it is a philosophical assertion and one that is self referential and self defeating. Instead, we must acknowledge that there are many, diverse ways to achieve well warranted, credibly true (so, reliable) belief, aka, “knowledge.” Once that is done, scientism collapses.

Going further, even on matters of Science proper, there are many different degrees of warrant. Capably made, accurately reported and recorded observations and summaries of their reliable patterns are highly certain, e.g. pure water at sea level on Earth where the pressure is 760 mmHg, boils at 100 degrees Celsius. Similarly, many scientific or engineering models within regions of validity give reliable, accurate results good enough to trust with life and limb, e.g. bridge designs, airliners, well established, low risk medical treatments.

However, science is always open ended, never settled with finality. That is, Science faces the pessimistic induction. For, as we examine the real — not introductory textbook — history of Scientific Theories, there is a consistent . . . reliable! . . . pattern of discovering unexpected limitations, having to correct or even outright abandon. Even, when terms are carried over, their meaning shifts significantly. For instance, Aristotelian and Ptolemaic concepts held sway for many hundreds of years in Physics and Astronomy, but were overturned by the Newtonian Synthesis. Then, between 1880 and 1930, Newtonian Dynamics ran into Quantum and Relativity issues. These have been developed for a century but embrace fundamental mutual contradictions. And that is the hardest science of all, Physics. We need only mention Phlogiston and Plate Tectonics to indicate how widespread the pattern is. And BTW, no computer simulation is an observation.

Science is never finally settled and when anyone says that it is settled on a matter, grab your wallet before it gets picked. Indeed, that is a good test to detect question-begging and undue marginalisation. For, one who appeals to Scientific consensus as settling a matter clearly fails to understand strengths and limitations of scientific methods and techniques of inquiry. Red flag issue.

Similarly, there is no one size fits all and only science method. The well known schoolbook “method” is in fact generic and is little more than common sense. People who do not claim to be doing science (and aren’t) will often use similar approaches, e.g. in history or Management etc. They observe, look for patterns, make educated guesses, elaborate predictions, test and evaluate for reliability.

Then, there is the rather fuzzy border between “Science” and “Pseudo-Science.” Given the issues on methods and limitations of warrant, it should be no surprise to see that there is no reliable demarcation line between science and pseudo-science. There is sloppy science, yes. There is “cooking” of results in professional work just as in school science labs, yes. There are mistakes or even blunders, yes. There is outright fraud, yes. But, again, absent careful evaluation on merits, beware of branding sober minded movements and critics of “consensus” claims with the scarlet label, pseudo-science.

That points to the problem of improper marginalisation.

When serious people present serious evidence and analysis, do not be quick to dismiss because they don’t line up with what officialdom and its media promoters present as the settled consensus. Especially, if there is any name-calling involved. Speak to the merits not the personalities, acknowledging limitations up to and including the pessimistic induction. Be willing to acknowledge when there is some plausibility or warrant for what you may not agree with and balance conclusions on the merits.

Never lock policy into such a claimed consensus of settled science. Instead, bring the various parties to the table, document their views and see if a negotiated statement of balance can be composed. If not, try with two more panels with different people and base conclusions on the span of views.

Not perfect but likely to be better balanced. END

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on February 12, 2022 02:44

Paper: “anatomical novelty precedes ecological success”

A friend points out that the researchers would seems to be implying that natural selection does not play a major role in the origins of anatomical novelty:

Origins of higher taxonomic groups entail dramatic and nearly simultaneous changes in morphology and ecological function, limiting our ability to disentangle the drivers of evolutionary diversification. Here we phylogenetically compare the anatomy and life habits of Cambrian–Ordovician echinoderms to test which facet better facilitates future success. Rates of morphological evolution are faster and involve more volatile trait changes, allowing morphological disparity to accrue faster and earlier in the Cambrian. However, persistent life-habit evolution throughout the early Palaeozoic, combined with iterative functional convergence within adaptive strategies, results in major expansion of ecospace and functional diversity. The interactions between tempo, divergence and convergence demonstrate not only that anatomical novelty precedes ecological success, but also that ecological innovation is constrained, even during a phylum’s origin.
Novack-Gottshall, P.M., Sultan, A., Smith, N.S. et al. Morphological volatility precedes ecological innovation in early echinoderms. Nat Ecol Evol (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01...

The paper requires a fee or subscription.

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on February 12, 2022 01:32

Epigenetics: Pollution effects persist for many generations in water fleas

One question with respect to epigenetics (traits acquired during a life form’s existence that become part of the genes and can get passed on) is, how long do these epigenetics changes persist? In the case of water fleas and pollution,

Dr Stewart Plaistow, a Senior lecturer in Evolutionary Biology at the University of Liverpool, explains: “Epigenetic inheritance mechanisms are controversial in evolutionary biology at the moment because they provide a possible mechanism for the inheritance of environmental effects alongside traditional Darwinian inheritance.

“Although they are routinely demonstrated in plants they are much more controversial in animals because epigenetic marks are often thought to be wiped clean during embryo development.”

In this study, the researchers looked at one important epigenetic mark, the methylation of cytosine in DNA, in the water flea Daphnia pulex.

They demonstrated that exposure of water fleas to low doses of pollutants had effects on the epigenome that persisted for 15+ generations.

University of Liverpool, “Epigenetic effects of pollution persist for multiple generations in water fleas” at ScienceDaily (February 10, 2022)

Well, that’s revealing, isn’t it? The evolutionary biologist admits that epigenetics is controversial, not because it can’t be demonstrated (it can) but because it provides competition for “traditional Darwinian inheritance.”

In a way, it’s understandable. If evolutionary biologists must reckon with epigenetics as a cause of genetic changes, they can’t just confidently ascribe them to Darwinian evolution. But who said life was always easy?

Water fleas:

The paper is open access.

Epigenetics:

See also: Epigenetic change: Lamarck, wake up, you’re wanted in the conference room!

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

1 like · Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on February 12, 2022 01:14

At Mind Matters News: Has the human sense of smell declined in recent millennia?

Researchers found that people with “ancestral” genes perceived various odors as more intense:

From these experiments, they pinpointed two new scent receptors — one that detects a synthetic musk used in fragrances and another for a compound in body odor.

Study participants had different versions of the receptor genes for musk and underarm odor, and those variations affected how they perceived the scents.

HealthDay News, “People’s sense of smell may be declining, study suggests” at UPI (February 4, 2022)

If there is a gene receptor that detects “a synthetic musk used in fragrances,” it must have got started within the last few thousand years, not hundreds of thousands of years ago. That in itself is a remarkable find. The human genome may be changing faster than evolution theory is usually thought to allow.

Humans, we are told, have about 800 receptor genes for identifying smells but they vary with the individual and about one quarter of the study participants could not smell the musk. One neuroscientist offers a thought:

“It sheds light on a long debate in human and primate evolution—the extent to which sight has tended to replace smell over the last few million years,” says Matthew Cobb of the University of Manchester and author of Smell: A Very Short Introduction, to the Guardian. “There are another 400 or so receptors to study, and the vast majority of our responses to odors remain a mystery.”

Corryn Wetzel, “Humans’ Sense of Smell May Be Worse Than Our Primate Ancestors’” at Smithsonian Magazine (February 07, 2022)

Matthew Cobb may be onto something, at least where humans are concerned: We don’t pay much attention to smells unless they are especially attractive or repulsive. We take a very different view of eyesight, noticing slight deviances from what we expect in anything we see.

One commentator points out that it’s at least possible that we don’t need our sense of smell as much as we used to. Glenn Reynolds notes that colorful physicist Richard Feynman (1918–1988) liked to do a sort of experiment as a social icebreaker, to show that our human sense of smell is better than we think… More.

Takehome: To be sure that our sense of smell has declined, we would first need to see whether concerted efforts to improve it were successful. Richard Feynman tried it.

You may also wish to read: Physicist: Migrating birds’ mysterious quantum sense is “spooky.” Birds like the European robin pack a $10,000 lock-in amplifier into a 2 micron cell. This mysterious intelligence, magnetoreception, seems essential to migration, hence, to the survival of many birds. They may even “see” Earth’s magnetic field.

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on February 12, 2022 00:33

February 11, 2022

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:

The theological claim that divine intent is strictly utilitarian is uniquely evolutionary. It makes for powerful arguments for evolution, but the power derives from the theology. Mark this: the stronger the argument for evolution, the stronger its theological commitment. Absent theology, there is little reason to believe the entire biological world arose spontaneously, as evolutionists heroically claim.

The irony in all this is that evolution itself is a utilitarian formulation. That is, natural selection describes a process in which species with greater fitness (or utility) evolve. The evolutionary process must create greater utility. Therefore, the many examples of disutility, presented as proof of evolution, in fact are problematic for evolution. We must believe that such useless designs escaped natural selection’s watchful eye which, otherwise, seems to have no limit of precision engineering.

While evolutionists fail to apply this evidence of disutility to their own theory, they inappropriately apply it to intelligent design. In other words, evolutionists subject intelligent design to the evolutionary criteria of fitness and utility, while dropping that criterion from evolutionary theory. They have it backwards.

Cornelius Hunter, “Why the Main Argument Against Intelligent Design Is False” at Evolution News and Science Today (February 7, 2022)

Recently, we were looking at a salamander whose genome seems like a mess but it has gotten on fine for many millions of years nonetheless. The people who sound so sure of what is and isn’t good design are often simply imposing an opinion or a value judgment.

You may also wish to read:

At Scientific American: Salamander “junk DNA” challenges long-held view of evolution. Douglas Fox at SciAm: The salamanders would be on death’s door if they were human. “Everything about having a large genome is costly,” Wake told me in 2020. Yet salamanders have survived for 200 million years. “So there must be some benefit,” he said. The hunt for those benefits has led to some heretical surprises, potentially turning our understanding of evolution on its head.

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on February 11, 2022 01:44

An end to “big egos” in science?

We’re told that the fall of brilliant-but-bullying Eric Lander portends that:

The resignation of Eric Lander as President Biden’s lead scientific adviser is not just a blow to one president’s plans for advancing research, but a signpost on the death march of a certain way of doing science. It’s not quite “big science,” which isn’t going anywhere. Call it “big ego.”

In science, “big ego” isn’t exactly a new phenomenon. But in recent decades it grew with the emergence of researchers who could both handle the kind of gloves-off debate that can mark academic discourse and marshal vast resources to make certain types of scientific discoveries, like mapping genomes or understanding how molecular changes in a cell lead to cancer.

Matthew Herper, “The fall of Eric Lander and the end of science’s ‘big ego’ era” at StatNews (February 9, 2022)

We are informed that, whereas such jobs once required “an outsize personality,” today, “the consequences of behaving badly at work have become so large.”

Hmm. Let’s see what happens. If Lander is replaced by a string of polite mediocrities who are frightened by the idea of vision, well… the science may go nowhere but at least they will be polite about it. And we all have (and need) our priorities.

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on February 11, 2022 01:10

February 10, 2022

We’re not your lab rats any more: Convoy update III

So much news. I’ll just keep adding to it, putting new items at the top so you can keep checking back. I will try to group them loosely by topic where possible.

In Ottawa, people are often just politely ignoring the police — as long as they can

Despite being forbidden to do so, they are bringing cans of gas to the truckers:

Gas can subterfuge:

With no end in sight for the entrenched protest, Ottawa police announced on Sunday they would be cracking down by arresting anyone giving “material aid” — such as fuel — to the protesters.

But on Tuesday, police revealed that demonstrators were trying to subvert officers by filling jerry cans with water, or just leaving them empty.

“It does provide a layer of logistical complexity to us,” said Steve Bell, Ottawa deputy police chief.

The police continue to take the cans but they don’t seem to be fazing the crowd.

The demonstrators now have constitutional lawyers on the case, though they really just want the politicians to ratchet down the COVID crazy:

Here, an elderly man is arrested for honking his horn:

The Ottawa police can’t immediately help the fact that they serve an elite that would be comfortable with an authoritarian/totalitarian state. But they had better address what that elite is turning them into soon.

Canada news

The Ambassador Bridge between Windsor (Canada) and Detroit (US) continues to be blockaded — “the truckers are peaceful but determined.”

“From Toronto and Quebec City to Alberta, truckers have assembled, demanding an end to the myriad useless COVID-19 lockdown mandates that are making all our lives miserable”

The Emerson border crossing in Manitoba is also blocked.

And the border at Coutts, Alberta:

At Coutts, the government can’t find a towing company that is willing to tow the trucks away.

In Toronto (Canada’s biggest city):

Tensions grew between thousands of protesters and police at the intersection of Avenue Road and Bloor Street.

Big rig trucks approached police vehicles and subsequently blocked Bloor Street — a major artery in the city — for hours. Some expected to stay indefinitely. As more vehicles and big rigs joined, the streets and intersection became filled with supports chanting, “let them through,” and “we love you” to the few naysayers.

*(The threatened counter protest did not amount to much.)

Message: Stop. You don’t own us. We are not some of your many lab rats. By the way, while we are here, Canada belongs to the people of Canada, not to a privileged globalist elite who think they can make our lives hell for years on end and then shout insults and slanders, all the while evidence is mounting that their COVID strategies don’t really work any more.

—

US news

Governments are starting to backdown from mandates, lockdowns, and the useless mask crazy:

As recently as last month, when newly elected Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin ended mandatory mask rules in Virginia public schools, Democrats were calling him, essentially, a mass murderer.

But that was then. All of a sudden, we are told, “The science has changed.”

No, really, those were the words of CNN medical “expert” Dr. Leana Wen, leading Reason’s Robby Soave to ask, “Has anything fundamentally changed in the last six months, except for Democrats finally, belatedly realizing that militant masking is a political loser? The science didn’t change, the politics changed.”

Nevada ends the mask mandate, effective immediately

Masks on schoolkids are not a winning political cause:

Just recently, Democratic governors in New Jersey, Delaware, Oregon and Connecticut announced they would end their states’ school mask mandates. Even Randi Weingarten, head of American Federation of Teachers, signaled her willingness for masks to come off in schools. She admitted on MSNBC “no one wants masks in schools.” After years of threatening, suspending and holding back children from the classroom, Democrats and teachers’ unions are admitting that it is not science, but the politics that has changed.

Punditry in the U.S.

You Count Indiana:

This really has nothing to do with vaccines or vaccine safety, or vaccine mis/disinformation. It certainly has nothing to do with a commitment to truth. This is about money and power. Or money as an aspect of power. And it certainly has everything to do with totalitarianism and mass formation psychosis.

Karys Rhea at Newsweek:

Over the last two years, Canada has descended into the kind of mass-surveillance state you read about in dystopian novels. In December, the country’s public health agency admitted it has tracked data from 33 million devices monitoring people’s movement and activity during the lockdowns—and plans to continue doing so for the next five years. In a country of only 38 million people, that’s an extraordinary number. Other disturbing anecdotes of government overreach have emerged, from Canadian citizens being detained for weeks when entering the country with no ability to contact anyone, to Alberta police issuing tickets at unpermitted Christmas gatherings.

Now, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his state-sponsored media would have you believe that a fringe group of miscreants have hijacked the Canadian trucking industry. They’ve formed a violent convoy and stormed across the country to wreak havoc on the capital city of Ottawa. These odious, white supremacist truckers have been hurling abuse at small business workers, stealing food from the homeless and vandalizing sacred monuments. With the aim of spreading their anti-vaccine ideology and giving everyone COVID, these truckers simply have unacceptable views and share none of the higher ideals of the average Canadian citizen.

But none of this is true.

—
International news

French Convoyers are waving Canadian flags. “About 200 protesters assembled in a parking lot in Nice, on France’s Mediterranean coast, with many displaying Canadian flags in a nod to the truckers in Canada” (If interested in freedom from medical totalitarianism, be sure to secure a Canadian flag while you still can.)

Hockey Star Mike Fisher: Truckers Are Fighting for the Freedom of Every Single Person in Canada
Yes, and for everyone who waves a Canadian flag. Or would like to.

Sweden is lifting restrictions: Swedish health minister says coronavirus is no longer classified as a danger to society

France, Greece, and Portugal have become the latest European countries to relax their COVID-19-related regulations, with the three nations easing travel restrictions.

—

The $8 million raised for the Canadian truckers in the Freedom Convoy by GiveSendGo has been frozen by an Ontario court: “The Ontario Superior Court of Justice ordered that all donations made through the “Freedom Convoy 2022” and “Adopt a trucker” campaigns on the Christian fundraising platform be frozen until further notice, according to a statement from Premier Doug Ford’s office.” “‘In a statement on Twitter, GiveSendGo wrote in an apparent response to the court order, “Know this! Canada has absolutely ZERO jurisdiction over how we manage our funds here at GiveSendGo.’”

When the elite is rebelling against the people, laws don’t matter. It was bound to happen and some truckers are looking into crypto or just cash. But money isn’t the big need. Determined, free people are.

You may also wish to read:

Let us listen to Dr. Robert Malone, dissenting expert, on the COVID-19 crisis

and, for what’s happening in suddenly famous Canada:

Convoy II : The police swoop in Ottawa: The Constitution? Old news now “Trust the science!” is starting to show its totalitarian face in Canada — but, as they slowly learn the facts, citizens are standing their ground, From the comments: “Canadians: ‘Be polite when you are being arrested.’ u guys rock!” (Sure, commenter. Canada belongs to the people of Canada. And this is how free people fight back. Serfs, by contrast, destroy things and attack people because they have no stake in a free and prosperous society.)

and

What I saw at the Freedom Convoy in downtown Victoria It was all friendly; people were having a good time. There was no violence; I heard no racial epithets and saw no racial insignia. So if media tell you that it is really about white nationalism, etc., remember that the legacy Canadian media are in fact supported to stay in business by the federal government. Because few depend on them for news any more.

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on February 10, 2022 18:37

At Mind Matters News: Michael Egnor’s challenge to two atheists who deny free will

Neurosurgeon Michael Egnor is challenging evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne and philosopher Massimo Pigliucci.

He thinks there is too much of this no-free-will nonsense in the science blogosphere. “If Pigliucci or Coyne would like to debate free will, they can consider this a challenge from me”:

The question as to whether free will is real turns then on whether there is always compulsion in nature. And that question turns whether every physical event has a physical cause — a cause dictated by the laws of nature, as understood by physicists. The answer to this is clear: it is not true that every physical event has a physical cause. There are at least four categories of physical events that do not have physical causes:

Big Bang cosmology

1) The Big Bang had no physical cause. The Big Bang was the primordial physical event that could not have had a physical cause, because the Big Bang itself was the origin of the “physical.” In other words, the whole universe — i.e., everything that is physical — did not have a physical cause, which would seem to be the ultimate negation of the assertion that “every physical event has a physical cause.” The truth is that no physical event ultimately had a physical cause.

2) The effects of the singularities at the centers of black holes have no physical cause because a singularity is not physical thing. It is undefined in modern physics and thus, whatever it is, it is not a physical cause.

3) All gravitational effects in curved space time have no physical cause, for two reasons. First, space time is not physical. Second, energy is not conserved in curved space time according to general relativity. All materialist understandings of physical cause entail an exchange of energy, so if energy is not conserved then there is no justification for arguing that all physical effects have physical causes.

4) Quantum entanglement is not physical causation. Entangled particles can be billions of light-years apart and yet the waveform collapse of one particle can instantaneously determine the state of the distant particle. According to special relativity, causation of a physical nature cannot exceed the speed of light. Thus quantum entanglement is not an example of a physical cause.

Free will denialism is a bizarre cult. It’s not even wrong — it’s self-refuting nonsense. That a philosopher/biologist with the educational credentials of Massimo Pigliucci would endorse such gibberish is a scandal. It’s evidence for the stranglehold that materialism and atheism have on otherwise able minds.

The science blogosphere is polluted with materialist and atheist rubbish of this sort and free will denial is at the top of the pile. If Massimo Pigliucci or Jerry Coyne would like to debate free will, they can consider this a challenge from me. We can debate it anywhere — in blog posts, on YouTube, or in person. Pick the forum. It would be a delight to have a “conversation” with meat.

Michael Egnor, “My challenge to two atheists who deny free will” at Mind Matters News (February 10, 2022)

Takehome: Free will has no physical cause? At least four categories of events in nature have no physical cause. Free will denial isn’t science, just atheism in a lab coat

Mind Matters News offers a number of articles on free will by neurosurgeon Dr. Michael Egnor including
Can physics prove there is no free will? No, but it can make physicists incoherent when they write about free will. It’s hilarious. Sabine Hossenfelder misses the irony that she insists that people “change their minds” by accepting her assertion that they… can’t change their minds.

Does “alien hand syndrome” show that we don’t really have free will? One woman’s left hand seemed to have a mind of its own. Did it? Alien hand syndrome doesn’t mean that free will is not real. In fact, it clarifies exactly what free will is and what it isn’t.

But is determinism true? Does science show that we fated to want whatever we want? Modern science—both theoretical and experimental—strongly supports the reality of free will.

How can mere products of nature have free will? Materialists don’t like the outcome of their philosophy but twisting logic won’t change it

Does brain stimulation research challenge free will? If we can be forced to want something, is the will still free?

and

Is free will a dangerous myth? The denial of free will is a much more dangerous myth

Also: Do quasars provide evidence for free will? Possibly. They certainly rule out experimenter interference.

and

Can free will even be an illusion? Michael Egnor reiterates the freeing implications of quantum indeterminacy

Also, by Baylor University’s Robert J. Marks: Quantum randomness gives nature free will Whether or not quantum randomness explains how our brains work, it may help us create unbreakable encryption codes

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on February 10, 2022 18:11

← Previous 1 2 … 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 … 592 593 Next →

Michael J. Behe's Blog

Michael J. Behe's profile
219 followers

Michael J. Behe isn't a Goodreads Author (yet), but they do have a blog, so here are some recent posts imported from their feed.