Announcement Next week I am on vacation as I prepare for the Cultural Event of the Year. There will be no new posts: there may be classic reposts.
Regular readers know my name for the managerial state is Expertocracy, a word I think is more evocative of our predicament, given we are run by self-credentialed, high-titled Experts who now rarely call themselves managers. Whichever term you prefer, the end result is the same.
Yesterday we saw that, as everybody knew, belief in the Devil, among other persons, has dwindled these last two decades, and now only about half of Americans express any belief, and given differences in definitions and practical meanings, the real number is probably less than half. The reasons don’t need to be rehearsed.
Except one. Which is the loss of confidence in authority of the Church. There is also, of course, the obvious negative feedback. Less belief leads to less confidence; less confidence leads to less belief.
The point is this: the Church provided most with a trusted institution to define for them Official Truths. Not just in religion, but in morality, politics, even science, which we can define as understanding how the world works. This was adequate, because the great majority of people never need move beyond simple ideas.
Everybody knows Chesterton’s quotation: “When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.” This may be true, but it remains to be seen where that anything comes from.
Well, history and common experience tells us. Official Truths have been replaced in ex-little-o orthodox Christians by our very own Expertocracy.
What’s more, people like it that way.
Pew confirms this in their new survey “Most Americans favor restrictions on false information, violent content online”.
Most Americans say the U.S. government and technology companies should each take steps to restrict false information and extremely violent content online. However, there is more support for tech companies moderating these types of content than for the federal government doing so, according to a new Pew Research Center survey.
Support for both technology companies and the government taking steps to restrict false information online has grown in recent years. For example, the share of U.S. adults who say the federal government should restrict false information has risen from 39% in 2018 to 55% in 2023.
There are niceties to this. Such as “Democrats are more supportive than Republicans”, which can be no surprise, but maybe the stark difference can: 70% vs. 39%.
Majority support comes “even if it limits people from freely publishing or accessing information.” Nobody is ever really against censorship. It just depends on what is being censored.
Support for the Expertocracy’s controlling Official Truths jumped from 39% to 58% in just five years (with all the usual caveats about uncertainty in these numbers). Three of those years being the Expert-created and Expert-exacerbated covid panic.
We recall our litany. If there is Official Disinformation—which rulers, Experts, and a majority of people desire—there must be necessarily be definitions of Official Truths, which are the logical contraries of Official Disinformation.
We’ve also said that if there are Official Truths, there must be an agency or agencies in charge of producing, promulgating, and policing these Truths. The policing is exactly what most desire. And which is exactly what the Expertocracy produces, either directly in the government or in major corporations, the difference between these two entities narrowing.
Experts provide Official Truths in all subjects, fields, and endeavors, mimicking the Church. Or, rather, providing what most used to seek in the Church.
Now if, as I’ve also said before, the Official Truths were themselves universal necessary truths, as the Church provided, then there would be no difficulties. Yet readers here well know the Expertocracy’s Official Truths are anything but necessarily true.
It’s not only uncertainties passed off as certain, and the rank scientism replacing morals, but the outright lies passed off as Official Truths, lies used expressly to control the population. Lies which were carefully chosen as propaganda, and, as regular readers have seen, damned effective.
The vacuum in guidance created by the Church’s fading in importance has been filled by Expertocracy. People are now so used to this form of rule that they’re willing to have Experts police Official Disinformation. Which is to say, to have Experts suppress actual Truth.
Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card click here. Or use the paid subscription at Substack. Cash App: $WilliamMBriggs. For Zelle, use my email: matt@wmbriggs.com, and please include yours so I know who to thank.
In response to the expertocracy, a few observations.
I don’t think people CHOOSE to not believe in something, but rather the position is when there is no evidence for something, is to not consider that something. In other words, I don’t choose to not believe in leprechauns, I’ve just not seen any evidence to support that they exist.
Second, on controlling false news, I think that most people want the government and the industry to do their best to limit the posting of blatantly false information (that we would all agree is false, and is being used to sway opinions and so on) – but they still know that we all should do our own fact-checking. For example, there is an ongoing debate between creationism and evolution (or, nature). While evolution is supported by abundant facts, studies, evidence and logic, people will STILL be allowed to say that evolution is false, even though that claim is incorrect.
Of course, the thing about “free thought”, “free sex”, “free whatever” of the enlightenment is a very dumb myth. Humans need authority (another modern-rationalist myth gone). But the Church doesn’t define science, the Church isn’t even arbiter amongst theological systems, provided they don’t imply heresy directly. I thought that you were going to provide an expert-devised substitute for hell and the devil (Hitler is a concrete paradigm, of course: why would that be?).
As for the numbers, I think that, even though I don’t trust Pew or these surveys, I have to believe that, in this case, they’re real, based only in direct perception (the amount of people brainwashed is staggering), even if it’s often deceptive. But it’s further proof of the fact that people need shepherds: how, after the Russia thing, the Huntrr laptop, the weapons of mass destruction of Saddam, the anthrax fiasco, the Plutonium files, the vaxx effectiveness fallout, the H1N1 retractions, the Lusitania, the Gulf of Tonkin, the second hand smoking crap……… I mean, how after all of that, can they keep believing in this grinding machine? It’s totally beyond me. And it would be very disheartening, if one didn’t have many consolations “outside the political realm”….
And thus why the Church, really the public-facing institutional Church, had to be neutralized, which Vatican II did so very successfully. Our enemies have known for a long time that opposition had to not only be put out of the way, but prevented from holding any kind of power against them.
Which is why the Christian Churches were the first target. The seminaries were infiltrated back in the mid 19th century, just as the universities were infiltrated in the early 20th.
Our enemies have developed playbooks, and they stick to them, because they have proven to be successful.
@James J. Roper –
The current theories (there are competing versions) of evolution by natural selection are not, in fact, supported by facts. They are, instead, a crumbling house of cards. The more knowledge we gain, the more impossible the theories become. For instance, there have not been enough generations, by several orders of magnitude, to alter and fix the known genetic differences between chimps and humans by random DNA mutation.
Belief is natural to humans. If you lack belief in the Almighty, then you will fall for belief in the ridiculous or the evil. Too many have faith in ¡Science!, and have placed academicians upon the pedestals formerly reserved for saints and pious priests. Science cannot speak to morality, it is entirely outside its purview.
As well they should. The sticky bit is discerning falsity. And then constituting an incorruptible authority for enforcement. Is there any human institution immune to corruption? I can’t think of one. A man may be incorruptible. An institution, rarely. Especially when it wields worldly power. Paraphrasing Conquest, to understand an institution, imagine it is run by a cabal of its enemies.
Discernment is on a man’s own shoulders. Even if he delegates the responsibility to another he must first discern a trustworthy delegate. When we left the Garden we all became Protestants. So, is the earth round or flat? Interesting question. Water seeks its own level but on earth is curved. Is a bowl of water curved? If it is, shouldn’t it be possible to devise an experiment to detect it? If a bowl of water is flat, then at what point does water go from flat to curved? One mile? If the Truth Czar declares it to be either flat or curved does that make it either flat or curved? If the Truth Czar declares all must believe that six million died or go to prison, does that mean it’s true? In the Garden did Adam & Eve have to use discernment? Evidently so. Bloody amateurs.
Sticky weather here. Perfectly July. Briggs is probably off in his vintage Chris-Craft trolling for lake trout on Gitchee Goomie. Must be nice. I move we install Briggs, the Apostle of Uncertainty, as Truth Czar. That’ll show ‘em. Let the New World Order be run by a cabal of its enemies.
Ann
(the interweb spiders ate my comment again!)
Can Evolution Produce an Eye? Not a Chance!
https://answersingenesis.org/human-body/eyes/can-evolution-produce-an-eye-not-a-chance/
@ James J. Roper
What is the obsession of today’s atheists with leprechauns? It is the best argument you can do? Because it is totally bankrupt and many people have explained why. Of course, there are more sophisticated arguments for atheism but they seem to be too much for the limited mind of the McAtheiat. So it is always about leprechauns.
Biological evolution is the result of two tautologies: mutable things mutate and survival of that which survives. That we exist is proof, by logical necessity, of He That Is, and He does not have to be physically embodied.
Most genetic and thus protein mutations are neutral. Some are temporarily less advantageous and some are temporarily more advantageous; but which fall into which category changes under different conditions, too; and thus cannot be permanent states.
Tautologies are necessarily true, but don’t have much, if any, explanatory power. You can reject sound premises, but you can’t reject the consequences of the rejection. Choose wisely.
@cdquarles
In fact, evolution is not a tautology. When people that don’t understand it try to put it in terms like “survival of the fittest” then their formulation of it appears tautological. Neither of your comments (mutable things, survive) are definitions or explanations of evolution. You’ve been out of school for a while now, eh? I’d recommend the book “Natural Selection in the Wild” by John Endler to clear those mistaken impressions up.
James J. Roper: I’ve got a friend, determined to save me from Hell, who periodically sends me some book or other from some Creationist Museum bookstore that claims to refute evolution. I sometimes try to read this stuff, but I can’t get through more than a few pages without growing weak from eye-rolling and laughing. You can’t reason with those people–they have spin and flights of pseudoscientific fancy and answers for everything, all well rehearsed. I just smile benevolently and let them enjoy “their truth”.
Aren’t breast implants a sort of disinformation?
Aren’t breast implants a sort of disinformation?
Is this good or bad? What are the gaps caused by Christian exit? Surely, no experts can fill the gap between Hell and Heaven.
Some church leaders claimed that God sends natural disasters to punish certain groups of people. This is how the world works in the eyes of those church leaders. A simple idea, not a fact. Those leaders probably also believe that such a claim is adequate for their followers.
Religion is broken?!
re: Religion is broken?!
In their effort to commercialize faith (buy one crown, get others virtually free), churchmen have also commercialized dissent; in D, people who don’t pay church tax are denigrated as atheist (notification sent to other authorities, e.g. criminal records).
P.S. there is no gap from Christianity, only other things that are placed on the same shelf (literally, book shelfs) in the supermarket of special offers and discounts.
Pingback: FRIDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit
“ who periodically sends me some book or other from some Creationist Museum bookstore that claims to refute evolution”
This is an example of the straw man attack on those who don’t believe in Evolution. Pick some absurd position (the straw man,) make believe it’s the only viable alternative proposed and then mock its absurdity.
Unfortunately that’s not the real world of science.
There is currently no theory on how Evolution happened. That is what is not admitted. It also by any logical approach, impossible by natural means. That is what will not be addressed. Instead we get vague assertions that it is proven when it is not and as justification the debunking of an absurdity.
The first person who shows how Evolution happened has an automatic Nobel and zillions of dollars just in appearances.
“ I don’t choose to not believe in leprechauns, I’ve just not seen any evidence to support that they exist.”
Should be rephrased
“ I don’t choose to not believe in Evolution, I’ve just not seen any evidence to support how it happened.”
The Achilles heel of any theory of Evolution is the origin of new proteins. A new species will require more than one but normally several, sometimes hundreds of new proteins. Proteins are extremely complicated and to date no one’s has shown how they could arise. It would be like showing how a new paragraph in a coherent story came into existence by an accumulation of mistakes.
The most ironic statement in this discussion is
“ You’ve been out of school for a while now, eh? I’d recommend the book “Natural Selection in the Wild” by John Endler to clear those mistaken impressions up”
This is a book that is almost 40 years old. There has been a lot of discovery since then. I believe he offers up just plain genetics as Evolution such as the peppered moth example.
Chaeremon, thank you for your response.
@JerryR said: “There is currently no theory on how Evolution happened.”
That is a surprising comment, because there are a variety of evolutionary theories. One, the most prominent, is that it happened by natural selection. Now there are modifications of that which include epigenetics and a few other ideas. There are years of studies of evolution as it happened. So, clearly JerryR isn’t up on the literature.
He also said: “The Achilles heel of any theory of Evolution is the origin of new proteins.” which is also untrue. When was the last time a new protein evolved? After all, all the proteins in mammals are found, with little to some variation, in almost all species of mammals, and many are very similar to those in other vertebrates. Finally, it is not a requirement that ALL things have explanations today. There is simply overwhelming evidence for evolution, even if all the details aren’t worked out yet.
Finally, I recommended an older book because it explains natural selection so well, and the explanation is one of those timeless ones – it still applies today. Endler didn’t talk about epigenetics or jumping genes, but that wasn’t the point of the book.
@imnobody00 asked “What is the obsession of today’s atheists with leprechauns?”
Clearly the point was misunderstood. The “leprechaun” can easily be substituted with anything that has been claimed without evidence. So, there’s no obsession with leprechauns (btw, there is no evidence they exist) and can freely be replaced in the sentence by “the great pumpkin,” “Santa Claus,” “the Easter bunny” or “an honest Donald Trump”! All claims made without evidence fit.
“So, clearly JerryR isn’t up on the literature.”
I doubt that. There is always the possibility that there is something new, yet no one here or anywhere has presented anything new. So that is only a proper claim if someone details something new but they haven’t. It’s also a personal attack which has no basis in anything provided.
“because there are a variety of evolutionary theories. One, the most prominent, is that it happened by natural selection”
But yet, there are no examples given. Why is something so prominent lacking examples? The only illustrations are those in genetics, which is not Evolution. Also, what are these varieties of evolutionary theories? None have any basis in science, that is, evidence and logic. It would be so easy to provide them. (I am well aware of something called the Third Way of evolution, This is an attempt to provide non Darwinian explanations for Evolution.)
“which is also untrue. ”
Not untrue so thus accurate. Every species has unique proteins associated with it. Just because most species share many proteins does not mean no unique proteins exist within a species. Why distort what is being said? Any distortion always weakens one’s argument.
“Finally, it is not a requirement that ALL things have explanations today.”
Yes, very true but this is just an admission that there isn’t a current explanation. So thank you, for agreeing with me.
There is simply overwhelming evidence for evolution, even if all the details aren’t worked out yet.”
Again, an admission that there is no evidence for a mechanism for Evolution.
There is overwhelming evidence that there were changes in life forms over time. But there is no evidence for how it happened. Why the bait and switch? There is no disagreement that there were new life forms. However, the debate is on the mechanism. Natural selection does not do it since it cannot explain the origin of new proteins.
“I recommended an older book because it explains natural selection so well”
Two things, first there was an accusation of not being up to date by being out of school for a while and then a book that’s 40 years old was recommended. Isn’t that ironic?
Second, natural selection has nothing to do with Evolution. At least I have never seen a book on Evolution, and I have read many, that provide examples. Natural selection does have relevance to genetics but that is not Evolution. If one disagrees, then provide some examples that are non genetic.
Also epigenetics is just a subset of genetics. It is a very appropriate topic for changes within a species. The best example, are Darwin’s finches which were shown to be epigenetic changes but genetically remain the same.
Heh.
Yes, it has been several decades since I was last in school, but so what. What I remember from studying biology, other than biochemistry, was 1. that Evolution was presented as a “just so” story and I could substitute “God” for “Evolution” without the main point being changed and 2. Biology was ignorant of chemistry (other than said biochemistry, which was relatively limited and I was a chemist.
Evolution had an origin problem then and still has one now, as far as I can tell.
Oh, one other thing impressed me. How much the chemistry that underlies chemically embodied life forms works to limit the sloppiness of wet chemistry in complex systems. It isn’t perfect, and nothing in this mutable part of the universe is perfect. It’s good enough, and that’s all it has to be to be fruitful and multiply.
Random genetic mutation results in “evolution by means of natural selection.”
@ cdquarles said “Evolution had an origin problem then and still has one now, as far as I can tell.”
Evolution is not a just-so story and there are many good studies that demonstrate that. The origin issue (abiogenesis, I think is what you mean) is not a problem for demonstrating evolution – evolution is a process, not an event. Evolution has been demonstrated. Abiogenesis is simply an unresolved issue.
@John W. Garrett said “Random genetic mutation results in “evolution by means of natural selection.”
That is simply an incorrect definition. And, genetic variation has been around since the first organisms. All evolution requires is genetic variation – doesn’t matter where it comes from or how it got there. And, all organisms vary genetically. Whether mutations are random or not is unimportant.
@JerryR continues to illustrate that he’s not up on the evolutionary literature. I’m reasonably sure that I don’t need to gather together a list of the many studies that demonstrate evolution and how it happens. None of his comments indicate that he’s up on the subject – for instance, saying epigenetics is just a subset of genetics is meaningless. And, Darwin’s finches and other studies that demonstrate the features required for evolution can all be considered proof of concept studies. Speciation takes a long time, but if living organisms have the patterns expected by the theory of evolution by natural selection (and natural selection can be clearly demonstrated), then we realize that we don’t expect to see speciation – we don’t live long enough – even though we can see evolution.
“ continues to illustrate that he’s not up on the evolutionary literature. I’m reasonably sure that I don’t need to gather together a list of the many studies that demonstrate evolution and how it happens”
This is the overwhelming evidence reply in addition to the personal attack strategy. Yet, not one of the many studies alluded to is cited to support this. Please point to one relevant study. That would be a start. Otherwise, it may be you who are not up on the evolutionary literature.
No one is debating that Evolution didn’t happen. It’s how it happened that is being questioned. Natural selection is out. It just selects among a subset of what is already there. So, no major change happens as a result. Where do new capabilities come from? (By the way I know all the ways proffered to answer this question. They all fail under scrutiny)
All the replies made here affirm everything that I have said. No one can point to an instance of Evolution happening by a natural process in the past. It is all just assertions.
“ Darwin’s finches and other studies that demonstrate the features required for evolution can all be considered proof of concept studies”
No! If you want to say that evolution is just providing a new variety, then that is well established. For example, Darwin’s finches never Evolved to become a new species. They can all interbreed. So they are the same species. Most of the changes are epigenetic which means they can revert to earlier characteristics. (People use the term species in many different ways)
What is not established is the origin of a new species with very different characteristics. This is what Darwin meant by a new species. Somehow this keeps being avoided.
@JerryR. No ad hominem intended, so let’s just get that out of the way. Now you say that evolution happened and the only thing to solve now is how it happened. So, we’re in agreement. Natural selection certainly played its role, even though you don’t think so (might go back and read that very good description in the book, albeit 40 years old, even though the explanation remains pertinent). For a more up-to-date understand, check out the journal evolution. The current issue has an explanation about when natural selection happens. Link below. Read all the articles (if they’re free, of course), and then we can continue the debate.
https://academic.oup.com/evolut/issue/77/8
“ The current issue has an explanation about when natural selection happens‘
There is nothing in this article that supports natural selection as a force for Evolution. One must distinguish between small changes within a species over time (universally agreed) and the formation of new and quite different characteristics that lead to a new species.
The former represent changes to current genes while the latter represent the origin of new genes. The former is well accepted and is covered under the science of genetics. The latter is almost completely missing from the literature and would be essential if Evolution were to take place.
What the referenced article demonstrates is that the adaptation of a species does indeed exist but there is zero in the literature on evolution of a new species by any adaptation or series of adaptations.
If I am wrong, there would be a plethora of articles pointing to these new species with specific evidence on how they adapted.
“ Read all the articles (if they’re free, of course), and then we can continue the debate‘
No, the onus is on the one proposing that there is something not the one claiming there isn’t anything.
I claim there isn’t anything; prove me wrong. The article referenced doesn’t do it. At best it is relevant for genetics.
Actually, what is required is a long literature of examples. I have been aware of this issue for 25 years and read dozens of books and none mention even one.
Aside: I assumed Darwinian processes accounted for Evolution from my education. Then in the late 90s there was an article on a professor of evolutionary biology being censored because he started to question it. Everything I read since supports this professor and not the conventional wisdom of those censoring.
So you can comment all you want about not being up to speed but a I have three shelves of books from both sides of the argument all read that deal with the topic.
@JerryR said “the formation of new and quite different characteristics that lead to a new species”
I see your confusion. A new species is quite similar to the one from which it evolved. That is exactly what we expect with natural selection favoring small changes over time, and each generation looks much like the preceding one, but less like grandparents, less like great-grandparents and so on. A new species is NOT due to the “formation of new and quite different characteristics.” A new species is formed when it’s reproductively isolated from other species. Two species of geese are different species, but not because they have new and quite different characteristics, but because they can no longer reproduce together.
You seem to expect new species to just pop up right and left if evolution by natural selection happens. But that is simply not how species come about (or the rate by which they come about). Stephen J. Gould explained quite a bit, and we’ve learned a lot since he’s gone. Here’s a report that shows evolution, but not enough time for speciation. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/shorter-winged-swallows-evolve-around-highways
And, here’s another example. Stuart, Y.E., T.S. Campbell, P.A. Hohenlohe, R.G. Reynolds, L.J. Revell, and J.B. Losos. 2014. Rapid evolution of a native species following invasion by a congener. Science 346:463-466.
You’re apparently hung up on the speciation part – it’s clearly happened, and this web site would be impossible otherwise – https://www.onezoom.org/life/@Branta_leucopsis=799124?img=best_any&anim=flight#x1123,y308,w0.8398
So, what is it you want that is missing? You say it’s clear that evolution happens. It’s also clear that speciation happened. So, what’s missing?
Can a process happen with nothing to process? /rhetorical
JJR: “Finally, it is not a requirement that ALL things have explanations today. There is simply overwhelming evidence for evolution, even if all the details aren’t worked out yet.”
Let me try yet another analogy on you – the Riemann hypothesis. It appears that more than 10^14 zeroes have been checked, and all lie on the critical line. Would you call that “overwhelming evidence” in support of the Riemann hypothesis? It sure seems overwhelming to the non-mathematician. But there are many world-class mathematicians who doubt the Riemann hypothesis, reasoning along the lines “if it were true, it would have been proven by now”.
Mathematicians aren’t interested so much in whether the Riemann hypothesis is true, but they are intensely interested in why it is true (if it is). There is a belief that proof of the Riemann hypothesis will reveal something very fundamental (and profoundly beautiful, some hope) about the distribution of prime numbers. If a counter-example found by computer proves the Riemann hypothesis false, the $1M prize would presumably still be awarded, but there would be much disappointment with the “why” question being left unanswered.
On the topic of evolution, I was once where you seem to be now. Some very smart people gently tried to point out that the gaps in my thinking, that my certitude strongly resembled a religious belief requiring miracles. I look back and realize that I lacked skeptical curiosity and imagination. (Hint, hint.)
@Milton Hathaway – Unfortunately, a mathematical conjecture is not analogous to a biological process, and so the analogy is uninformative and not applicable. And, you don’t know me well enough to know where I am. I need no miracles, the evidence speaks for itself (and the lack of evidence for miracles also speaks for itself).
cdquarles asked a rhetorical question, but rhetorical questions should have some meaning to them for them to truly be rhetorical.
“All blasphemies against God, including denying His being or providence, all contumelious reproaches of Jesus Christ, all profane scoffing at the Holy Scriptures, and exposing any part thereof to contempt or ridicule, were punishable by the temporal courts with death, imprisonment, corporal punishment and fine.”
That’s from the Wiki page on blasphemy in the UK, and… well to be honest I’m not sure I see a problem. The issue is not so much whether there will be censorship (there always will be), but of what. I think it perfectly reasonable to censor eg military secrets or diplomatic cables, and to have something like the above quote as a blasphemy law. But beyond that I’m not so sure we need all that much.
JJR: “… a mathematical conjecture is not analogous to a biological process …”
Of course it is, by definition: an analogy is “a similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar”.
Our discussion on evolution got stuck on “but the evidence, he patiently explained yet again”. This is the point in a discussion where an analogy can help. The purpose of an analogy is to reveal an underlying thought process by disconnecting it from some of the baggage of the original discussion.
The proper response to a poor analogy is not to merely dismiss it as a poor analogy, but to counter with your own, better analogy. At least if your goal is to educate others on your thinking on a topic.
I am genuinely curious how you are able to make that mental leap over the “and then a miracle occurs” missing links in the chain-of-causality needed to claim speciation through evolution as fact. If it’s a pure belief, that’s fine, but I have found it helpful to always ask myself if I am missing something.
Milton Hathaway said “Of course it is….” but in fact, there is such a thing as a false analogy, and that was an example of one. (https://www.thoughtco.com/false-analogy-fallacy-1690850)
And, because the analogy I referred to did not explain anything, I didn’t feel the need to explain the thing that was not being clearly “explained.”
He also asked “chain-of-causality needed to claim speciation through evolution” which is not a clear question. That is, exactly what WOULD be evidence to explain that “chain-of-causality”? I can see the evidence myself, in this particularly fun website – https://www.onezoom.org/life/@Branta_leucopsis=799124?img=best_any&anim=flight#x1123,y308,w0.8398
And because the evidence used to create the “family tree” is mostly genetic, the evidence is in the genes. And, I can see from this tree that species have common ancestors, who also have common ancestors with other “species families” (so to speak), and so we know that speciation occurred. And, it occurred over and over again, all the way back to the primordial ooze. At least, that’s what the evidence tells us. Exactly HOW everything happened in detail is not a problem, it’s how science works. Piece by piece, understanding how things work/happen. So far, speciation supports evolution because it does explain much, it has been shown to happen in a variety of conditions (evolution that is) and it agrees with the genetic evidence. Finally, no other alternative has been suggested that fills the bill. So, what’s the issue?
JJR: The article on analogies you referenced reiterated what I said about the purpose of analogies. “False” doesn’t apply to analogies, in a logical sense; an analogy isn’t an argument, its a communication device. One that failed to further our discussion, unfortunately.
My advice to you: ALWAYS …. wait … no … NEVER … umm, no, that’s not it either … SOMETIMES … hmm, well … never mind.
How do you collect information about the desires of “most Americans” when there seems to be a system operating to discourage free speech in the background, especially Youtube. How do you collect real data unless you have the original raw data versus the customized data resulting from cancellation? How many would access violent content, like the war in Ukraine, if they could find it easier? Youtube also suppresses teaching videos on mousetraps, cleaning and processing wild game and gun related content. When is the last time they exposed the methodology of selecting their samples? It seems easier to try and speak reality into existence than fairly discovering it with random selection. No one seems afraid of spending down their credibility. Of course, the ACLU has lost all credibility and their reputation for defending free speech.