ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2019 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, November 06, 2019

Outgrowing logic

Scientists can't do logic. Especially not atheist ex-scientists:
Thankfully, though, the farther this book gets from God, the better it gets. A chapter on the increasing niceness of humanity is neatly presented, contrasting popular support for attacking enemy civilians in the Second World War with condemnation of even accidental civilian casualties in the two Gulf wars. By the time we get to part two, which focuses on his first passion of evolution, the bitterness has evaporated. Instead we have delight at the way a cheetah can accelerate faster than a Tesla and five pages on what goes on with a chameleon’s tongue. The skin of an octopus, we learn, changes colour according to the same principles as a TV screen, to the extent that if we could hook an octopus brain to a computer, “we could play Charlie Chaplin movies on its skin”.

We hear about goosebumps being a leftover from the days we were hairier, and about the recurrent laryngeal nerve, which loops down into the chest of a mammal, then loops back up to where it is needed, in the throat. In a giraffe it is metres longer than it would need to be if the damn creatures had been designed properly. In other words, it offers irrefutable proof that they, like us, evolved from something else.

It should be noted that almost none of this is new, and especially not for the readers of Dawkins. The laryngeal-nerve stuff, for example, is lifted almost wholesale from his 2009 book The Greatest Show on Earth. For the earlier, more cantankerous anti-religious stuff, you might as well just read The God Delusion, where you’ll find most of the same arguments, and usually with the same examples too.
It's rather amusing the way scientists attempt to convey a permanent status on themselves. For example, no one describes me as "a chart-topping techno band member" because my band no longer records music or hits the Billboard club charts. But Richard Dawkins's most recent science paper is nearly as old as Welcome to My Mind.

Anyhow, scientist or ex-scientist, logic has always been well beyond Richard Dawkins. Consider the logic of his 2009 argument about the giraffe in syllogistic form.

Major premise: That which is designed is perfectly efficient.
Minor premise: The giraffe's recurrent laryngeal nerve is not perfectly efficient.
Conclusion: The giraffe was not designed.

As I pointed out when he first wrote The Greatest Show on Earth, this logic is not merely based on a false major premise, but the false premise requires almost complete ignorance about engineering and design. No one who has ever seen a prototype computer board would fall for such nonsense, and indeed, the core concept that underlies this false logic is obviously ridiculous from a philosophical perspective, as it could be used to logically disprove the existence of the material world.

Major premise: That which is not its Platonic Form does not exist.
Minor premise: The world is not ideal (i.e. we can imagine a more perfect world)
Conclusion: The world does not exist.

It's the reverse ontological argument for the nonexistence of God, the universe, and everything. And then, of course, even if we ignore the incorrect initial logic and simply grant the assumption that the giraffe was not designed, that does not mean that the giraffe must have evolved, much less that the giraffe evolved by natural selection as per Darwin by way of Mendel.

Labels: ,

79 Comments:

Blogger James Fox Higgins November 06, 2019 5:30 AM  

Dawkins has another book? I could have sworn he died in a rollerblading accident a few years ago.

I'd rather keep listening to Kanye's album.

Loved "The Irrational Atheist" by the way, Vox. I'll be buying paperback copies for a couple of my atheist friends this Christmas.

Blogger FrankNorman November 06, 2019 5:37 AM  

Yeah, anyone with actual experience in designing things, at least anything complex, knows that a functional design usually requires trade-offs - a machine or an organism can generally be better in one way only by being less good in some other way.

Dawkins presumably has never himself designed anything.

Blogger Shimshon November 06, 2019 5:40 AM  

"It should be noted that almost none of this is new, and especially not for the readers of Dawkins."

If "almost none" is new, which part is? Is ANY of it, or did Dawkins just issue a best-of or remix album with a few riffs added?

Blogger Shimshon November 06, 2019 5:43 AM  

I have some vague memory of taking a chemistry course in college and learning about buffering, using blood and CO2 as an example, and being told CO2 was a horrible buffering agent and there were more efficient chemicals to choose from. Ergo, TENS (or however long the correct acronym is today).

Blogger Lovekraft November 06, 2019 5:46 AM  

Dawkins is Jeremy Corbyn's secret lover

Blogger FisherOfMen November 06, 2019 5:53 AM  

>Wife's stove needs an on-off timer
>Could be done with capacitor and a transistor
>Is done with an inefficient and "huge" integrated circuit instead
>Conclusion: Wife's stove was not designed

Blogger luisonmcbiel November 06, 2019 5:59 AM  

@James Fox higgins
I also have that in mind. Kayne wests last album is great, Use This Gospel my personal favourite. Btw I gave you my feedback on the ptism matter.

Blogger luisonmcbiel November 06, 2019 6:03 AM  

(If it gets aproved by the blog, because it was very long)
Regarding logic and education, I am fairly new on that, and I am astonished how much we are robbed from learning in the schoom system.

Blogger Don't Call Me Len November 06, 2019 6:07 AM  

Arguably, it helped to spawn a movement of militant rationalists, paving the way for Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris and the like.

Does this make him criminally liable?


A chapter on the increasing niceness of humanity is neatly presented, contrasting popular support for attacking enemy civilians in the Second World War with condemnation of even accidental civilian casualties in the two Gulf wars.

So non-whites aren't human in his reckoning, cuz they ain't gettin' nicer at all, what with their machete massacres and acid attacks and such like.

Blogger JAG November 06, 2019 6:11 AM  

>Software that is coded is perfectly efficient.

>My software has an algorithm that is less efficient than that found in different software.

>My software wasn't coded.

Absurd.

Blogger bodenlose Schweinerei November 06, 2019 6:16 AM  

I will give Dawkins the tiniest bit of credit: he's willing to unload his atheist blunderbuss of stupidity on Muslims. Most "atheists" are strictly anti-Christian, and will talk themselves into Gordian knots trying to explain why they don't hassle Muslims with their anti-deity idiocy.

Blogger Paulito November 06, 2019 6:26 AM  

Perhaps we just don't see the whole picture on the laryngeal nerve, like when we declared tonsils and appendixes "vestigial organs" and declared that their existence disproved Creation. It was almost standard procedure to remove tonsils. Then we figured out they were not useless. Oops.

Blogger Dave Dave November 06, 2019 6:42 AM  

I've always found any argument in the vein of the ontological argument entirely unconvincing. It's a misuse of syllogism because it makes incorrect assumptions. Atheists using the ontological argument and other retarded broken syllogisms perfectly shows their inability to think. Atheism itself is fundamentally retarded and autistic.

Blogger Dave Dave November 06, 2019 6:43 AM  

Paulito, s a child I was told all the time by science gammas that the appendix served no purpose. I never believed their lies. The appendix did indeed serve a purpose and it's a very obvious one that a baby could figure out. As basic as why we have kidneys or fingernails.

Blogger bodenlose Schweinerei November 06, 2019 6:44 AM  

That which is designed is perfectly efficient.

This assumes no knowledge of women's shoes, or indeed much of their wardrobes.

Blogger Rick November 06, 2019 6:45 AM  

Who says the nerve is poorly designed? Perhaps it was necessary to be a certain way at a certain time. Because we don’t know the reason doesn’t mean there wasn’t one, or a sufficient one.

Blogger JAG November 06, 2019 6:51 AM  

I find it just a tad ironic that an atheist argument against the existence of God requires faith in the perfect design abilities of said deity as their major premise.

Blogger Dave Dave November 06, 2019 6:55 AM  

If all animals were designed (((perfectly))) as accordingly the atheist definition, no animal would ever die since death is a failure of its biological purpose. In the real world, we can understand that perfection is God and that we can pursue perfection without ever attaining it. What God decides as the design of any particular thing is how it should be because it is as intended.

Blogger Dan in Georgia November 06, 2019 7:03 AM  

Heh. I spotted Vox in the video. Pretty cool.

Blogger Ska_Boss November 06, 2019 7:30 AM  

Logic is a surprisingly useful tool for poking holes in the theories of liars. Although I'm not sure it can be taught, it generally requires a higher than normal processing speed which is mostly relegated to computers now.

Blogger Harambe November 06, 2019 7:36 AM  

Dawkins releases "new" books the same way Def Leppard releases a new "greatest hits" album every couple of years: It's just Vault, but with a new cover.

Blogger Stilicho November 06, 2019 7:38 AM  

MPAI and are often fooled by rhetoric dressed up to sound like logic.

MSAI too and they are often more gullible than the masses because they so desperately want to believe,

Blogger VFM #7634 November 06, 2019 7:39 AM  

Who says the nerve is poorly designed? Perhaps it was necessary to be a certain way at a certain time. Because we don’t know the reason doesn’t mean there wasn’t one, or a sufficient one.

Yeah, I think the minor premise of his argument may also be wrong. I mean, we are talking about God as the designer here.

There have been various "vestigial" organs that were found later, upon further examination, to have a purpose. Likewise, I suspect if the nerve didn't loop down into the chest, it wouldn't work properly. We may not know exactly why, but I'm pretty sure that's the case.

Blogger VFM #7634 November 06, 2019 7:42 AM  

"Likewise, I suspect if the nerve didn't loop down into the chest, it wouldn't work properly. We may not know exactly why, but I'm pretty sure that's the case."

And it might not be that nerve itself that wouldn't work properly, but something else that's linked to it.

IOW, these scientists are being Gamma and second-guessing God's designs for animals.

Blogger Scuzzaman November 06, 2019 8:18 AM  

MSAI too and they are often more gullible than the masses because they so desperately want to believe,

They also desperately crave intellectual respectability - an emotional defect that is utterly paralysing where independent thought is concerned

Blogger Shimshon November 06, 2019 8:19 AM  

Regarding the nerve design, just looking at a diagram, I see the nerve first branches to the esophagus and then the trachea, before hitting the larynx. I would not be surprised if the signals traversing the nerve need to hit those branches in that order, and lengthening the pathway this was is the most expedient way to do it.

Blogger rognuald November 06, 2019 8:19 AM  

Ex-scientist? What science has he done? Reading his bio, I wasn't able to find any significant research out of this guy. Anyone have more info on this?

Blogger wreckage November 06, 2019 8:19 AM  

For evolution to work, it pretty much has to be teleological, and as such, is actually a logical proof for the existence of God. Note the standard of proof:

If something appears inefficient it is random, and disproves God.
All the contrasting systems that appear efficient are also random.

Blogger CF Neal November 06, 2019 8:24 AM  

Clem Kadiddlehopper?

Red Skelton comedy?

"A Huffington Post run-down of “15 of Richard Dawkins’ most controversial tweets” include his musings on “mild paedophilia”, his suggestion that drunk women bear some culpability for their date rapes, and a particularly fun one about why it’s immoral not to abort babies with Down’s syndrome. The rest are mainly about Muslims.

For such a clever man, is my point, he can be awfully clodhopping."

I find NOTHING funny about a fool with a big mouth

Blogger Salden November 06, 2019 8:30 AM  

Atheists are reliably liberals. They being liberals deny not so insignificant differences between populations that impact criminality.

Blogger nswhorse November 06, 2019 8:34 AM  

>MSAI
>11,000 scientists signed a statement that there is climate emergency

Draw your own conclusion.

Blogger Rick November 06, 2019 8:38 AM  

A fool is a wise man’s teacher.

Wait til Dawkins finds out that God has been hardening his heart. Maybe they’ll both have a good laugh one day.

Related, I could never be an atheist. Atheists believe in magic. I see no conflict between an evolving cosmos and the creation story. The book of genesis pretty much matches the evolution of things in the same order as the modern order. Evolution is necessary in the absence of magic and God thinks so highly of man that he’s willing to wait 14billion years to meet him.

Blogger Stilicho November 06, 2019 8:49 AM  

Rick, I get your point that, even if darwinian evolution were true, it does not disprove God. However, I also think you would find it useful to peruse some prior posts on the impossibility of the darwinian evolution model.

Blogger Joe Smith November 06, 2019 8:51 AM  

“Increasing niceness.” What a douchebag.

Blogger RandyB November 06, 2019 8:51 AM  

Second-guessing God is their primary M.O.

Blogger Miguel November 06, 2019 9:01 AM  

Dawkins confirms that evidence against evolution is evidence for God.

Blogger Joe Smith November 06, 2019 9:14 AM  

@36 Confirmation from Dawkins means nothing about anything. He's just a bitter old anti-Christian retard.

Blogger VD November 06, 2019 9:15 AM  

Evolution is necessary in the absence of magic and God thinks so highly of man that he’s willing to wait 14billion years to meet him.

Evolution by Natural Selection as it is currently envisioned is mathematically and scientifically impossible. You're going to need a better theory.

Blogger Salden November 06, 2019 9:25 AM  

https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1175743493676896257

https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1175421347649900545

https://twitter.com/holland_tom/status/1175054455999516672

All tweets taking on Dawkins from the likes of Taleb and Holland.

Blogger Silent Draco November 06, 2019 9:31 AM  

CF Neal, clodhopping is the image of a dull, boring peasant, moving from one clod of dirt, mud, or sh$t to another in the field, doing the same dull thing from sunup to sundown. Yep, sounds like Dawkins.

Red Skelton had a gift for comedy. Clem Kadiddlehopper was good physical and verbal comedy. Encouraged you to think and then laugh at the absurd or pretentious- like Dawkins.

Blogger Rick November 06, 2019 9:32 AM  

I said nothing of natural selection or Darwin’s version of evolution. I used 14billion years because that’s in common use. I think it may have been longer. I agree with the mathematical impossibilities — I heard them first from Berlinski (a great book I’ve read several times — just for the pleasure of it —The Devil’s Delusion).
As I understand it, in Darwin’s day, they thought the cell was a homogeneous blob of goo inside. We now know that the cell is mind blowingly complex inside. Because of course it would need to be. Thinking it was goo was believing in magic.

Blogger Станислав Бартошевич November 06, 2019 9:40 AM  

A chapter on the increasing niceness of humanity is neatly presented, contrasting popular support for attacking enemy civilians in the Second World War with condemnation of even accidental civilian casualties in the two Gulf wars.

I don't know how people manage to even get through the school without learning basic stuff about life such as "most adults default to being nice when it costs them very little, you can only learn anything about their character when maintaining niceness requires a substantial effort or sacrifice". But Dawkins apparently did so, and so he compares the costly, bloody war for the world hegemony and associated prizes (and woes to the losing side) on the line, with pre-decided cakewalk campaigns against a vastly inferior opponent, who could not and did not strike back at the coalition attacking him in any meaningful way.

Blogger Welleran November 06, 2019 9:45 AM  

On top of it all no Christian has any reason to question the imperfections of the world in any form. The corruption and fall of the world into sin demands that we would see imperfections. If there is a biological matter that demonstrates I efficiency or even malefficiency it no more proves an evolutionary origin than it proves the Genesis story.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine November 06, 2019 9:48 AM  

"11,000 scientists signed a statement that there is climate emergency"

11,000 scientists at the very least either aren't aware of the bandwagon fallacy, or are intentionally deceptive.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine November 06, 2019 9:52 AM  

"Second-guessing God is their primary M.O."

Concise, precise, accurate.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch November 06, 2019 10:01 AM  

no one describes me as "a chart-topping techno band member" because my band no longer records music or hits the Billboard club charts

I will describe you this way, at least once in the future.

I wonder what your compositions would sound like at this stage of your life. What does age and intellectual development do to a musician?

Blogger ChewbacaTW November 06, 2019 10:44 AM  

That may be a correct statement. I dare say that rampant consumerism has deprioritized actual design work and made "feature creep" the new main point of any consumer goods manufacturer.

Design implies intention of form. Nobody "designs" anything in which form follows features.

Blogger Gastguma November 06, 2019 10:48 AM  

How to Be an Evolutionist:
by Richard Dawkins & co.

1) Find example of design that makes no sense to you.
2) Claim "Design is imperfect because it makes no sense to me, therefore it was not designed."
3) Find reason for design that makes sense.
4) Conveniently forget (2) ever happened.
5) Repeat steps 1-4 ad perpetuum.

Blogger KPKinSunnyPhiladelphia November 06, 2019 10:57 AM  

VD wrote:

As I pointed out when he first wrote The Greatest Show on Earth, this logic is not merely based on a false major premise, but the false premise requires almost complete ignorance about engineering and design.

Yep.

Dawkins is obviously as smart guy, but to see these sorts of basic logical flaws is just astonishing.

Vox in a previous post noted a recent Uncommon Knowledge with David Berlinski, Stephen Meyer, and David Gelertner. Gelertner -- a very smart and very accomplished guy -- just couldn't help himself and in the discussion skirted the edges of this logical fallacy, even at the same time he understood, and was sympathetic too, the Meyer argument about a designing mind informing the universe.

To paraphrase, Gelertner said "if it's a design, it's a pretty poor one." In other words, designs SHOULD be efficient--and "good" (as defined by Gelertner or Dawkins).

Alas, false premise, and one that's obviously false.

Blogger Newscaper312 November 06, 2019 11:02 AM  

Dawkins correctly described the organism's DNA as more a recipe than a blueprint. Instead of describing exactly what everything is and where it goes, it rather defines basic things, kicked off in the right sequence, that then interact in complex ways to produce what you actually see.

We are barely just beginning to understand, because decoding the genome does not address the recipe aspect of the structures that emerge from that and interact, which are the resulting proteins. "Proteomics" is the buzzword.

Just because all this emerges from the genes, rather than in an instantaneous Voila! moment, doesn't mean the recipe didn't still have a Chef behind it (or behind the concept of recipes).

Blogger OGRE November 06, 2019 11:03 AM  

Word games, done poorly. By atheist science-man.

The term 'efficiency' refers to a valuation, a judgment as to how well a thing achieves its desired or intended effect. To deem something as efficient requires a standard by which to measure it, and further requires another thing to make the value judgment regarding efficiency. (And obviously this other thing must be capable of making value judgments.)

For instance, a vehicle engine might be designed that converts 99.99% of its fuel to energy used for propulsion. However, the vehicle is only capable of a top speed of 1 meter per year and can only transport itself plus 1 gram of mass. Is the engine efficient? It entirely depends upon the standard being used to measure, and the value placed upon these measurements by an independent consciousness capable of rendering value judgments.

The point of this is that the very argument re efficiency is meaningless within a materialist/physicalist worldview. There could be no such value judgment of efficiency, as there is no standard by which to measure it. His very argument presupposes an objective, independent standard of value, as it requires its premise being objectively True. From where would such a standard come? What Being is capable of making the objective, independent value judgment that the thing is efficient or not?

He gives proof of God even as he attempts otherwise.

Blogger Jab Burrwalky November 06, 2019 11:04 AM  

If Evolution requires adaptations to a species to be more efficient than its pre-adapted form, then we should expect more efficient forms of modern species, things that aren't wasting calories on vestigial tails, fingers, wings, and inexplicably long laryngeal nerves.

Of course, it could also be that the design IS perfect for what it was designed for and present-day knowledge just doesn't understand why... But that admission would require humility, which atheists almost always lack.

Blogger Angantyr November 06, 2019 11:18 AM  

"Dawkins releases "new" books the same way Def Leppard releases a new "greatest hits" album every couple of years: It's just Vault, but with a new cover."

LMAO! Love early Def Leppard, but have no interest in anything past Hysteria (indeed, the only albums of theirs in my music library are On Through the Night, High 'N Dry, and Pyromania)

Blogger BuoyBear November 06, 2019 11:27 AM  

"Arguably, it helped to spawn a movement of militant rationalists, paving the way for Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris and the like."

"Does this make him criminally liable?"

Does this make him a meth dealer?

Blogger Uindo November 06, 2019 11:36 AM  

From the article, Dawkins: ''Or, with absolute certainty when discussing the morality of war, “I would secretly have shot to miss.”''

What a traitorous worm! No loyalty but to himself, a mercenary type which regards the things that keep society together with contempt.

I do note that he is making the mistake of confusing 'robust' with 'perfect'. Taleb said that, to most minds, they think only in regards to robust ie ability to remain the same like iron vs fragile. The antifragile, that which gets stronger in chaos, is not well well taught.

But life is antifragile, it's why we're still here today, and we live in spite of our fallen mistakes we make every day. Micro evolution is just antifragility showing itself and is MORE evidence to how well designed we are. Dawkins would design an invincible robot which never changes, but life becomes stronger as we are made in the image of a living God not a dead stone one.

Blogger spinoza November 06, 2019 11:57 AM  


"It's rather amusing the way people attempt to convey a permanent status on themselves."

No human who ever lived can escape this criticism of atheism. While it is also a temporary condition, to be another atheist you subvert all thoughts and words and worship nothing.
Impartially, how do Christians escape this criticism? Does their aim to establish a permanent status of themselves to heaven or another to hell seem as amusing as you?

Blogger Noah B. November 06, 2019 12:11 PM  

To know how well a thing is designed you must first know the design goals. In Dawkins' case, he cannot credibly claim to see into the mind of God to discern his intent in designing the giraffe while simultaneously denying God's existence. Dawkins owes his popularity entirely to confirmation bias.

Blogger Paul M November 06, 2019 2:40 PM  

> Major premise: That which is designed is perfectly efficient.

I suspect the premise is: "That which is designed by God is reasonably sensibly efficient."

Blogger plishman November 06, 2019 2:49 PM  

Delay line?

Blogger Azure Amaranthine November 06, 2019 3:20 PM  

"Design implies intention of form. Nobody "designs" anything in which form follows features."

Yes they do. You're just complaining about design intended toward features you personally don't like or want. Shoddy design with poor prioritization of function is still design.

"Impartially, how do Christians escape this criticism? Does their aim to establish a permanent status of themselves to heaven or another to hell seem as amusing as you?"

Seeking permanent status in a necessarily transient system is necessarily stupid. Seeking permanent status in a permanent system is not.

Blogger MrNiceguy November 06, 2019 3:45 PM  

The rectum is horribly suited for receiving a penis, therefore evolution!

Blogger Newscaper312 November 06, 2019 5:48 PM  

To be fair, assuming we are in dialectic mode and not rhetorical, given the remarks about practical engineering and design, I think I would put restate his argument a bit more broadly along the lines of "With an omnipotent, omniscient*** God as Creator, why would any of his designs be subject to the constraints of prior design decisions or path dependence, since it is all under his control? Everything could be a greenfield project."

All the criticisms here still stand, but there's some more nuance there to be dealt with.

*** Yes I do remember the interesting discussion about omniderigence(sp?)

Blogger Newscaper312 November 06, 2019 5:50 PM  

@60 Azure

"Seeking permanent status in a necessarily transient system is necessarily stupid. Seeking permanent status in a permanent system is not."

That's actually pretty damned succinctly profound. Well played sir.

Blogger Newscaper312 November 06, 2019 5:57 PM  

One more, re being unable to evaluate God's handiwork without being able to fully know or understand Gods goals...
That is one of the differences between the Christian God wrt purposeful Logos and, for example, Allah, who is merely about will to the point of whim that leaves no room for Reason. It is the former and its effect on the Western view of Nature that are why the West developed science as a way of knowing the world, or at least improving our knowledge and understanding of it, however unreachable a perfect understanding may be. IOW not he same as some of the comments here which seem to be "We're talking about *God* you dumbass, we can't know nuttin."

Blogger John Rockwell November 06, 2019 6:25 PM  

Almost every time. When they say religion they mean Christianity.

Wont even pronounce the title "Christ"

Blogger The Sasquatch November 06, 2019 8:03 PM  

Those who lack faith in God almost always lack the capacity for basic logic. It's why they prefer emotion over all else. There is nothing else for them.

Blogger JovianStorm November 06, 2019 9:14 PM  

I heard that everytime a Dawkins book is opened, a mouse somewhere releases a solitary fart.

Because at least a fart has a logical beginning, end and an effect on the world. Dawkins is worthless as a scientist and as useful as a Ziploc full of pus.

Blogger Max November 06, 2019 9:17 PM  

Prior to WW2 (and even during it) it was seen as horrible to attack civilians. I don't think that events less than a century later can counter the trend of increasing brutality of war.

Blogger wreckage November 06, 2019 9:43 PM  

"With an omnipotent, omniscient*** God as Creator, why would any of his designs be subject to the constraints of prior design decisions or path dependence, since it is all under his control? Everything could be a greenfield project."

This displays a total ignorance of complex systems, and assumes God would prioritize ego over system integration, interoperability, and antifragility. It is quite literally how a dumb person designs things that then can't be used. Were every creature an entirely atomic design it would be proof that we were designed by retarded aliens, or possibly undergraduate aliens, and that therefore there was no God.

Blogger James Fox Higgins November 07, 2019 1:37 AM  

luisonmcbiel wrote:
I also have that in mind. Kayne wests last album is great, Use This Gospel my personal favourite. Btw I gave you my feedback on the ptism matter.


I just love it. There's only one track that I think is weak ('God Is'), and my only other two criticisms are:

1) It's too short an album.
2) Kanye is a bit heavy-handed on the auto-tune on his own voice.

Otherwise it's brilliant, full of Christian vigour, and far more indicative of the zeitgeist and coming renaissance than whatever bullshit Dawkins is 'remixing' to line his Hell-bound pockets.

I'll check your comment in the propertarianism thread. Thanks!

Blogger WarKicker November 07, 2019 2:36 AM  

What a curious argument Dawkins gives regarding the "poor design" of the recurrent laryngeal nerve. Is he not aware that the nerve does more than innervate the larynx? It gives branches to the cardiac plexus, esophagus and trachea in addition to the muscles of the larynx. Hence it's circuitous route is necessary and not inefficient. I do thyroidectomies all the time and have to be careful not to injure any part of the nerve during the dissection, not just the branches that serve the larynx. Also, the superior laryngeal nerve does give a direct connection to the larynx, and complements the recurrent laryngeal nerve and provides redundancy in function, so a more direct pathway already exists.

There are unusual conditions in which either the right or left recurrent laryngeal nerves do not loop around in the chest but rather directly innervate the larynx. In such individuals, there is the potential for significant problems in swallowing and breathing. Ironically, if you subscribe to the evolutionary paradigm, such conditions may represent example of mutations that regularly occur but yet evolution "chooses" not to select out for the more direct route!

Additionally, the long route the recurrent laryngeal nerve takes into the thoracic cavity before looping back up to the neck may have saved the lives of many of my patients. They will present with hoarseness prompting me to look at their vocal cords. If I see paralysis of one of the vocal cords, I evaluate their chest and often with find a tumor in their mediastinum, usually early enough to still be treatable. Dr. Michael Egnor, a well known neurosurgeon, has noticed and commented on this as well.

Blogger James Fox Higgins November 07, 2019 3:36 AM  

WarKicker wrote:It gives branches to the cardiac plexus, esophagus and trachea in addition to the muscles of the larynx. Hence it's circuitous route is necessary and not inefficient.

Imagine my shock that Richard Dawkins has no idea what he's talking about. Thanks for that fascinating info from someone who does!

Blogger Dark glasses Woody November 07, 2019 4:13 AM  

Atheist materialists should not be permitted the use of concepts.

Blogger Harambe November 07, 2019 6:14 AM  

James Fox Higgins wrote:WarKicker wrote:It gives branches to the cardiac plexus, esophagus and trachea in addition to the muscles of the larynx. Hence it's circuitous route is necessary and not inefficient.

Imagine my shock that Richard Dawkins has no idea what he's talking about. Thanks for that fascinating info from someone who does!


Well you can't expect him to know these things. It's not like he's a biologist or something.

Blogger Silent Draco November 07, 2019 7:13 AM  

The discussion about the laryngeal nerve is ruthlessly pertinent, and an example of why IFLS is usually the wrong start.

It's the difference between efficient and effective. Efficient does one task extremely well. It doesn't handle redundancy or feedback well.
Effective does many functions (composed of tasks) very well, and can include redundancy (failure recovery) and feedback.

Have some fun with efficiency argument. It'd be more efficient to wire his electrical service directly to the incoming mains. Fuses, circuit breakers, and switches are inefficient and interfere with the simple task for the wire. Please demonstrate, sir, while we make popcorn.

Blogger Harry Goldblatt MD November 07, 2019 7:43 AM  

Angantyr wrote:"Dawkins releases "new" books the same way Def Leppard releases a new "greatest hits" album every couple of years: It's just Vault, but with a new cover."

LMAO! Love early Def Leppard, but have no interest in anything past Hysteria (indeed, the only albums of theirs in my music library are On Through the Night, High 'N Dry, and Pyromania)


Like we need another 'The Wall' tour with Roger Waters' rangeless singing.

Blogger wreckage November 07, 2019 8:11 AM  

@73, I am stealing that sentence.

Blogger spinoza November 07, 2019 11:31 AM  

Azure Amaranthine wrote:"Design implies intention of form. Nobody "designs" anything in which form follows features."

Yes they do. You're just complaining about design intended toward features you personally don't like or want. Shoddy design with poor prioritization of function is still design.

"Impartially, how do Christians escape this criticism? Does their aim to establish a permanent status of themselves to heaven or another to hell seem as amusing as you?"

Seeking permanent status in a necessarily transient system is necessarily stupid. Seeking permanent status in a permanent system is not.


Thanks for responding, and your answer if true may be expounded upon indefinitely.

People design everything with the features before the form, you are sorely incorrect. It is yourself who attempts to (de)humanize God's design. Hey build me a house, ok first you must decide the features you want.

Atheists are ignored, You don't have to control their use of their concepts or be conquered because you are incapable of defeating them due to your co-residence in the same materialistic atheist floc.

Why do you watch their movies, read their drivel, listen to their stations, read their papers, and accept their money & concepts without criticism of the fictional reality they perpetuate when a two way dialogue is sometimes available?

No one can talk to Jesus Christ or Joseph Smith anymore but we can see their intentions ongoing in our lives in a way that we are able to distinguish is beneficial or detrimental to our senses of morality.

Blogger Daniel November 07, 2019 4:51 PM  

Most of academics never do

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts