Michael J. Behe's Blog, page 493

April 21, 2019

At Quillette: Is secular humanism a religion?

A psychology and biology prof applies some tests, including:

Secular humanism lacks any reference to the supernatural and defers matters of fact to science. But it is as rich in moral rules, in dogma, as any religion. Its rules come not from God but from texts like Mill’s On Liberty, and the works of philosophers like Peter Singer, Dan Dennett and Bertrand Russell, psychologists B. F. Skinner and Sigmund Freud, public intellectuals like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, and “humanist chaplains” everywhere.

In terms of moral rules, secular humanism is indistinguishable from a religion.

It has escaped the kind of attacks directed at Christianity and other up-front religions for two reasons: its name implies that it is not religious, and its principles cannot be tracked down to a canonical text. They exist but are not formally defined by any “holy book.”John Staddon, “Is Secular Humanism a Religion?” at Quillette

A key principle seems to be that “Humans are not exceptional” (despite the evidence). The main prophets of the religion would appear to be legacy mainstream media.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

See also: Which side will atheists choose in the war on science? They need to re-evaluate their alliance with progressivism, which is doing science no favours.

and

Breaking: Common sense statements about human vs animal intelligence In a respectable venue! That’s so rare now. Noticing actual differences is radical in an age when politically correct nonsense is a form of virtue.

Copyright © 2019 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 April 21, 2019 05:18

April 20, 2019

New film: What if a Neanderthal were alive today?

Tim Disney has a new film about a guy who is really a Neanderthal (thanks to a DNA genetic experiment):

A critic finds that the show has unexpected depth:

Like “The Elephant Man’s” John Merrick and “Mask’s” Rocky Dennis, Brittain’s William yearns for an ordinary existence even as he’s tragically aware that he’ll never be regarded as anything more than a specimen. Michael Rechtshaffen, “Review: A contemporary Neanderthal comes of age in Tim Disney’s touching ‘William’” at LA Times

Wonder who he’d have to thank for that…

Do science hero stories stand in the way of progress?

Sabine Hossenfelder, author of Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray, raises the question:

If you believe that genius alone will do, then you are likely to believe it doesn’t matter how smart people arrange their interaction. If you, on the other hand, take into account that even big-brained scientists must somehow make decisions about what information to have a look at, you understand that it matters a lot how scientists organize their work-life.

I think that currently many scientists, especially in the foundations of physics, fail to pay attention to how they exchange and gather information, processes that can easily be skewed by social biases. What’s a scientist, after all? A scientist is someone who collects information, chews on it, and outputs new information. But, as they say, garbage in, garbage out. Sabine Hossenfelder, “How Heroes Hurt Science” at BackRe(Action)

She thinks that the problem is not a shortage of smart people but a shortage of smart people who grasp that they are simply “wheels in the machinery.”

Follow UD News at Twitter!

See also: Sabine Hossenfelder: Has The Large Hadron Collider “Broken Physics”?

and

Sabine Hossenfelder: Can Gravitational Wave Interferometers Tell Us If We Live In A Hologram Universe?

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on April 20, 2019 17:00

Smithsonian belatedly asks, What do we really know about Neanderthals?

Neanderthal/Photaro

What do we know? Well, we know what the science establishment has told us, that’s what. So when we read, “Revolutionary discoveries in archaeology show that the species long maligned as knuckle-dragging brutes deserve a new place in the human story,” they seem to be making it clear that they don’t want us remembering that they were the ones maligning the Neanderthals. But why?

And so now:

A new body of research has emerged that’s transformed our image of Neanderthals. Through advances in archaeology, dating, genetics, biological anthropology and many related disciplines we now know that Neanderthals not only had bigger brains than sapiens, but also walked upright and had a greater lung capacity. These ice age Eurasians were skilled toolmakers and big-game hunters who lived in large social groups, built shelters, traded jewelry, wore clothing, ate plants and cooked them, and made sticky pitch to secure their spear points by heating birch bark. Evidence is mounting that Neanderthals had a complex language and even, given the care with which they buried their dead, some form of spirituality. And as the cave art in Spain demonstrates, these early settlers had the chutzpah to enter an unwelcoming underground environment, using fire to light the way. Franz Lidz, “What Do We Really Know About Neanderthals?” at Smithsonian Magazine

Kudos to them for starting to set the record straight. Never too late.

Previously, the science establishment spent a lot of time looking for the Darwinians’ subhumans. At all times, thin on the ground, it would seem. So they drafted the Neanderthals because, well, they were there. Now it seems, they have discharged them.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

See also: In any Darwinian scheme, someone must be the subhuman. Otherwise, there is no beginning to human history.

Was Neanderthal man fully human? The role racism played in assessing the evidence

Neanderthal Man: The long-lost relative turns up again, this time with documents

and

A deep and abiding need for Neanderthals to be stupid. Why?

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on April 20, 2019 08:51

Breaking: Common sense statements about human vs animal intelligence

In a respectable venue. That’s so rare now. Noticing actual differences is radical in an age when politically correct nonsense is a form of virtue:

Consider language. Chimps need to be taught by dedicated human experts for years before they can learn ten hand signs. The claim that they know American Sign Language (ASL) is false—as people who know ASL have always known it to be. Like all natural human languages, ASL has a complex grammar, which allows phrases to be embedded within other phrases; permits various sentence structures (e.g. subject–object–verb); allows for the coining of new compound words; and permits puns, poetry and all the prodigious opportunities for communicating complex ideas that human language affords. By contrast, chimps are able to join only two words—or sometimes three—to form phrases like banana eat give—and this is a charitable interpretation of their grammar …

There is a parallel irony in those studies of animals that aim to disprove human exceptionalism. Take the wonderful videos of the Caledonian crow combining two twigs to make a compound tool, in order to extract some food from an enclosure. But note that the more effort researchers go to prove animal skill the more they undermine their case. The cameras, the detection devices, the experimental set-up to entrap the crow into using tools in a certain way, the peer-reviewed journals that report on its behavior, the scientific method, the internet via which you watch the video—all of this is necessary to Homo sapiens’ investigation of Corvus moneduloides. But the crow cannot develop any of those things and is unable to investigate Homo sapiens or any other species in the same way. The point is not that only we can use tools: clearly some other species can too. The point is what we do with those tools. This is not a metaphysical question, but simply an empirical fact: we use exceptional tools in exceptional ways. Jamie Milton Freestone, “Human Exceptionalism with a Human Face” at Areo

Of course, Freestone goes on to insulate himself from the Virtuous by claiming that

Humans are particularly exceptional. This is not a spiritual fact, merely a historical one. Indeed, I couldn’t have made this claim 50,000 years ago. Back then, there were not only chimps around to remind us of our evolutionary heritage, but Neanderthals, Homo floresiensis (the hobbit) and Homo erectus. All three of these hominid species were tool-using, fire-using, language-using (probably), clothes-wearing and perhaps even had their own cultural myths about their own species’ exceptional status. But because those branches on the tree of life have been pruned, we are somewhat more exceptional today, simply because our closest relatives are extinct. Jamie Milton Freestone, “Human Exceptionalism with a Human Face” at Areo

He has to know he is talking nonsense here, of course. Any creature that could think like current humans would be classed by us as like us – if octopuses could do so, they would have a special status. They would have special seating at Law of the Sea meetings. But they can’t and don’t. And that is a spiritual – and metaphysical – fact, whether the Virtuous or the raging Woke like it or not.

But if he needs to take cover by emitting rubbish in order to have a career, he also needs to think about what that means.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

See also: At Inference Review: Human language is much more than a system of signals U Maryland linguist: There is an incommensurability between theories of the brain and theories of the mind…

and

Is the octopus a “second genesis” of intelligence?

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on April 20, 2019 06:40

April 19, 2019

Gunter Bechly: New human find in the Philippines = New headache for Darwinism

Callao Cave, by Ervin Malicdem [CC BY-SA 4.0], via Wikimedia Commons

He also disagrees with someone we quoted here at UD but first things first: Remember that supposed new human species found in the Philippines? Still not the missing link and according to him:

The mosaic pattern of primitive and derived characters in Homo luzonensis also shakes up the phylogenetic tree (Hawks 2019b). Actually, there is no well-established tree of fossil humans, as is nicely documented by the fact that John Hawks put question marks at almost every node in his most recent tree (Hawks 2019a). This embarrassing fact is mostly based on the problem that fossil humans show all kinds of strange combinations of characters that do not align well with a nested hierarchy. Even worse, they do not allow us to order human fossils in a gradually progressive and smooth transitional lineage from ape-like forms to modern humans. They also do not fall into a temporal cline from older primitive to younger derived forms. Some early australopithecines not only exhibit the expected ape-like features but also some very modern human characters, while some late representatives of Homo (e.g., Homo naledi) still have very primitive characters. Thus fossil humans do not form a transitional series like the famous horse series. They are a frustrating mess for evolutionists, and the new species from Luzon makes the situation even worse. Gunter Bechly, “New Fossil Human Species Thwarts Core Darwinian Predictions” at ENST

Bechly also critiques something said here at Uncommon Descent by J. R. Miller of More Than Cake:

Last but not least, I would like to disagree with a critique of the new discovery that is, in my humble opinion, not warranted. Blogger and writer Dr. J.R. Miller is cited at Uncommon Descent (Anonymous 2019) with the claim that the Wall Street Journal article (Hotz 2019) strips its headline (“Fossil Evidence of New Human Species Found in Philippines”) of any meaning. He lists four quotes from the article to support his claim … Gunter Bechly, “New Fossil Human Species Thwarts Core Darwinian Predictions” at ENST

Bechly is referring to this article.

Note: Yes, that Gunter Bechly, the one who was erased from Wikipedia when he dumped Darwin.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

See also: Shakeup! New Human Find From Over 50,000 Years Ago Shows Our Ancestors Were Smarter Than Once Thought

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on April 19, 2019 14:36

Have quantum physics’ problems been disgracefully swept under the carpet?

Does anyone remember the microflap a while back when physicist Adam Becker decided to attack Inference Review as an ID-friendly rag over (so it seems) a less-than-flattering review of his book, What Is Real? The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics (Basic Books, 2018)?

Things haven’t fared that much better for Becker at The New Atlantis:

In What Is Real? the physicist and science writer Adam Becker offers a history of what his subtitle calls “the unfinished quest for the meaning of quantum physics.” Although it is certainly unfinished, it is, as quests go, a few knights short of a Round Table. After the generation of pioneers, foundational work in quantum mechanics became stigmatized as a fringe pursuit, a career killer. So Becker’s well-written book is part science, part sociology (a study of the extrascientific forces that helped solidify the orthodoxy), and part drama (a story of the ideas and often vivid personalities of some dissenters and the shabby treatment they have often received).

The publisher’s blurb breathlessly promises “the untold story of the heretical thinkers who dared to question the nature of our quantum universe” and a “gripping story of this battle of ideas and the courageous scientists who dared to stand up for truth.” But What Is Real? doesn’t live down to that lurid black-and-white logline. It does make a heartfelt and persuasive case that serious problems with the foundations of quantum mechanics have been persistently, even disgracefully, swept under the carpet.David Guaspari, “Make Physics Real Again” at The New Atlantis

Or two different carpets at once? Perhaps no one quite knows how to deal with the problems and everyone implicitly agrees not to raise the subject?

He summarizes the state of quantum mechanics as “a wildly successful theory, an embarrassment of interpretations, and a major challenge in moving past our theory to the next one.” The small but vigorous community doing work on foundations is less marginal than it used to be. The book’s final section sketches some of its current research and concludes modestly that the wisest course at present is accepting a pluralism of interpretations, or “at least humility.” “Quantum physics is at least approximately correct…. We just don’t know what that means yet. And it’s the job of physics to find out.” David Guaspari, “Make Physics Real Again” at The New Atlantis

Maybe quantum physics is only “approximately correct” and we can’t get more correct down at that level? If so, then what?

Okay, so Becker’s book didn’t satisfy a lot of people. Now back to Inference Review for a minute. Not everyone hates Inference Review:

As for the dark and powerful forces at Inference, the list of their editors is now public (and quite distinguished). Yes, it seems to be Thiel’s money, but, if it’s paying for good science writing (modulo some early dubious choices), so what? Peter Woit, “On Inference” at Not Even Wrong

But Sabine Hossenfelder, author of Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray, and frequent quote-ee around here tells Peter Woit in the combox that she

I was contacted by someone from Inference some years ago. They asked me to write an essay for them and made a pretty good financial offer. I put a lot of effort in this and submitted the piece as requested.

After some while I received a revision from an anonymous editor who had garbled up my argument so badly and misrepresented my opinion so much that I could see no common ground and just refused to agree it be published. Luckily I hadn’t signed the letter of agreement, so I had no trouble pulling out of this. (Otoh, I didn’t get the kill fee either.) I then shortened the piece and published it elsewhere. Sabine Hossenfelder, “comment at February 2, 2019 to On Inference” at Not Even Wrong

That’s too bad. We always try to read what Hossenfelder writes.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

See also: Inference Review did not set out to make a fool of Adam Becker (Needless effort, say the editors.)

and

The origin of language remains obscure Some thoughts on two items from Inference Review, one co-authored by Noam Chomsky.

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on April 19, 2019 13:46

Replicating Machine Contest

I plan to award a prize to anyone who can invent a non-trivial 3D machine which can replicate itself. The machine must be able to make copies of itself without human intervention, except possibly to supply the raw materials. Basically a 3D printer which can print a copy of itself which retains the ability to print a copy of itself, which… A page which can be photocopied does not count, because it is the photocopier which actually makes the copy, unless the photocopy machine also makes a copy of itself; a computer program which duplicates itself does not count unless the computer it runs on makes a copy of itself also.

The prize: the right to speculate about how life originated. Leave your artificial species alone and see how many generations it lasts before going extinct. If it makes accurate copies of itself for 100+ generations, then you also get to speculate about how genetic duplication errors might accumulate into major evolutionary advances.

In this German TV interview, W.E.Loennig complains about scientists who will admit they haven’t any idea how to synthesize a blade of grass, yet insist they have no doubt about how it came to exist. It is the astonishing fact that living species are able to replicate themselves without significant degradation, generation after generation, while awaiting rare beneficial accidents, which makes Darwinism seem even superficially plausible. It seems you should be required to have some understanding of how replication could happen in engineered machines, before speculating about how life acquired this ability by pure chance and used it to evolve.

And just seeing something happen is not the same as understanding how it happens, watch the video below to appreciate how astonishing reproduction really is, especially in higher animals like us.

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on April 19, 2019 06:09

Globally famous chemist James Tour on the origin of life

James Tour asks,

According to a nationwide survey, more than two-thirds of atheists and one-third of agnostics believe that “the findings of science make the existence of God less probable,” while nearly half of self-identified theists believe “the findings of science are neutral with regard to the existence of God.” But what if there is another option? What if the discoveries of science actually lend support to belief in God?

Taped at the 2019 Dallas Science and Faith Conference at Park Cities Baptist Church in Dallas sponsored by Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture.

That problem rattles cosmology too. The Big Bang and fine-tuning of the universe comport well with traditional theism and masses of nonsense are purported to replace them.

Note: Our best-read post (over 375k views) has been: A World-Famous Chemist Tells The Truth: There’s No Scientist Alive Today Who Understands Macro evolution

Follow UD News at Twitter!

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on April 19, 2019 05:58

Jay Richards: In an information economy, the human person will be at the very center

Many here must remember Jay Richards from Privileged Planet Here he is on the subject of whether machines can really replace people:

At the time of the American revolution, he reminded the audience, 95% of the population lived and worked on farms because they had to. Today, about 1 percent do. “So does that mean that 94% of the population is unemployed? Of course not!” He agrees that there will be displacement and disruption as mechanization gives us resources to create new and different jobs: “Anything that can get automated will get automated. That’s a really good rule of thumb.”

But what can’t be automated? “Creative freedom,” for one thing “Jay Richards: Creative freedom, not robots, is the future of work” at Mind Matters

Just the sheer hype from the AI rules! proponents alone should warn us to listen to a different perspective.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

See also: Jay Richards: A short argument against the materialist account of the mind: You can simply picture yourself eating a chocolate ice cream sundae

and

Jay Richards asks, Can training for an AI future be trusted to bureaucrats? We hear so much about how the AI revolution gobbles industrial era jobs that we don’t notice the digital era jobs unfilled.

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on April 19, 2019 04:01

← Previous 1 2 … 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 … 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.