evolutionnewsandviews--2020-03-20--Science Expert Slaps the “Anti-Intellectuals,” Again

Yale neurologist and self-proclaimed science expert Steven Novella has replied to my post about Joe Blow , my truck driver friend whom Novella called “ anti-intellectual ” because he doesn ’ t bend the knee to experts as often as experts think he should .
For those who reject science this is a core issue — they must attack expertise , reject consensus , and defend populism as their justification for promoting the idea that the consensus of scientific opinion is wrong .
They do so with the same tired and rejected arguments they have for decades , which I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Recently Michael Egnor… marshaled all the old tropes , which I have already dealt with , but I felt it was especially poignant in the middle of a pandemic .
We are actually seeing in real time the consequences of science-denial , of rejecting the advice of experts and basing opinions on your “ hunches ” , and of approaching reality with a general attitude of anti-expertise populism .
I stopped by Joe ’ s house to talk .
Joe read Novella ’ s essay , and he didn ’ t think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a pandemic , Joe said , a smug science expert is calling him and people like him stupid .
Joe thinks that Novella ’ s got stupid all wrong .
Who was it , Joe asked , who told us that globalism is the miracle that will safeguard our future ?
Experts , of course .
The pandemic is deadliest in Iran and Italy — both countries that bought heavily into globalism , just like the experts recommended .
Experts gave us open borders — they insisted that The World Is Flat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bus station than a home .
There was nary a peep about the pandemic dangers of open borders and globalism among experts — experts love consensus .
It ’ s ironic , Joe says , that the experts who rightly tell us to quarantine now in our homes are the same experts who called us xenophobes when we had the foresight to want a wall on our border .
Joe appreciates the work the CDC is doing , but he wonders why the CDC didn ’ t speak out about the need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , typhus , and tuberculosis hit Los Angeles a few months ago ?
The CDC has always known that pandemics come from outside the U.S. — often from China — so why were they quiet about our open borders policies and our astonishing dependence on China for trade and manufacturing ?
The CDC ( Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ) has spoken out about gun control and all sorts of things that have no relation to disease control and prevention .
Why were they silent about the dangers of open borders , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vital issue — in disease control and prevention ?
And , Joe quips , what about the experts who run Seattle and San Francisco and other cities where tens of thousands of homeless people are allowed to live , shoot up , and defecate on our sidewalks ?
Joe watches the science experts on TV : “ Never ask questions about evolution !
” “ Overpopulation will make us starve !
” “ The Earth has a fever !
” “ Ban plastic straws !
” But Joe thinks it ’ s funny @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experts — never protested the open borders policies that sent medieval diseases flowing across our unguarded borders and never protested the virtue-signaling-as-governance policies that let human excrement cover our city sidewalks .
Joe laughs — they even circulated maps of poop in public places in San Francisco .
But the experts didn ’ t do squat .
Maybe the experts had their reasons for endorsing this insane public policy of open borders and permitting the homeless to commandeer sidewalks and shoot up and defecate in public — these policies were the expert “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t make a lot of sense to Joe .
Joe may be an “ anti-intellectual , ” but when he sees a mess , he doesn ’ t make a map of it .
He cleans it up .
And there ’ s another public policy debacle — an expert debacle — that really hits home for Joe .
Joe used to work in manufacturing , until his job got shipped out to China .
It ’ s more efficient economically , experts said .
So Joe took a job driving a truck @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Shop Rite , cleaning shelves and floors at night .
His daughter took a job as an aide in the local hospital , cleaning up and helping patients in the ICU .
They had to make ends meet .
What really gets Joe is that a lot of the manufacturing jobs went to China , which is ground zero for wet markets and pandemics .
Experts knew this , but did nothing to protect us from it .
In fact , they made us more vulnerable .
Why would our experts work feverishly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that is the source of modern pandemics ?
And Joe is amazed that we shipped our pharmaceutical industry to China — the industry that makes our medicines .
The experts were fine it .
It doesn ’ t seem so smart to Joe .
Joe thinks that what makes you a real expert is being right about things .
Joe asks : Were science experts right about open borders , shipping our industries to China , and letting homeless people defecate in our streets ?
It seems to him that , a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Really wrong .
Pandemic and let-China-make-your medicines and feces-on-your-doorstep wrong .
And when you politely point it out , they call you stupid .
Perhaps being experts is part of what makes them wrong so much — you have to be capable of considerable mental gymnastics to believe some of the dumb stuff experts believe .
There are hundreds of millions of people dead in the past century because experts got it lethally wrong — wrong about DDT and malaria , wrong about “ overpopulation ” ( which inspired forced abortions and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ India ) , and wrong about eugenics which sterilized 60,000 innocent Americans and served as a trial run for the Holocaust .
Joe says that Dr. Novella ’ s insult to him and his family — that they are “ anti-intellectual ” because they don ’ t take a knee to the experts who opened our borders to plagues and sold our jobs to China and who let people defecate in our streets — is starting to sound pretty familiar .
Joe remembers the last election , when they called him “ deplorable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everything the experts said .
It ’ s the same old game , Joe says .
The experts aren ’ t nearly as smart as they say .
And the worst thing is that experts never ask themselves : “ How much of this is my fault ?
” A common theme runs through the eugenic fiasco and the Malthusian-overpopulation fiascos and the DDT-malaria fiasco and now the coronavirus pandemic .
Experts don ’ t apologize .
As I drove home from Joe ’ s house , I got to thinking about what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic .
Tomorrow morning , before dawn , Joe will go to work in his truck delivering food and his wife will go to work cleaning virus-slathered supermarket aisles and his daughter will go to work bathing ICU patients in the eye of this plague .
The curve will flatten , in a few months the pandemic will burn out .
The experts will pat each other ’ s backs and exchange accolades .
Science experts will pen essays extolling science experts .
During these months , a hundred million quiet ordinary Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delivering the food , cleaning the supermarket isles , bathing the sick and dying , and will get us through this pandemic .
Deplorables will clean up the plague our experts caused .

Yale neurologist and self-proclaimed science expert Steven Novella has replied to my post about Joe Blow, my truck driver friend whom Novella called “anti-intellectual” because he doesn’t bend the knee to experts as often as experts think he should.
Novella:
For those who reject science this is a core issue — they must attack expertise, reject consensus, and defend populism as their justification for promoting the idea that the consensus of scientific opinion is wrong. They do so with the same tired and rejected arguments they have for decades, which I guess is in line with their anti-intellectualism. Recently Michael Egnor… marshaled all the old tropes, which I have already dealt with, but I felt it was especially poignant in the middle of a pandemic. We are actually seeing in real time the consequences of science-denial, of rejecting the advice of experts and basing opinions on your “hunches”, and of approaching reality with a general attitude of anti-expertise populism.
I stopped by Joe’s house to talk. Joe read Novella’s essay, and he didn’t think much of it. In the middle of a pandemic, Joe said, a smug science expert is calling him and people like him stupid.
The Miracle of Globalism
Joe thinks that Novella’s got stupid all wrong.
Who was it, Joe asked, who told us that globalism is the miracle that will safeguard our future? Experts, of course. The pandemic is deadliest in Iran and Italy — both countries that bought heavily into globalism, just like the experts recommended. Experts gave us open borders — they insisted that The World Is Flat and our country is better off as a bus station than a home. There was nary a peep about the pandemic dangers of open borders and globalism among experts — experts love consensus. It’s ironic, Joe says, that the experts who rightly tell us to quarantine now in our homes are the same experts who called us xenophobes when we had the foresight to want a wall on our border.
Joe appreciates the work the CDC is doing, but he wonders why the CDC didn’t speak out about the need to secure our borders when typhoid fever, typhus, and tuberculosis hit Los Angeles a few months ago? The CDC has always known that pandemics come from outside the U.S. — often from China — so why were they quiet about our open borders policies and our astonishing dependence on China for trade and manufacturing? The CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) has spoken out about gun control and all sorts of things that have no relation to disease control and prevention. Why were they silent about the dangers of open borders, which is a vital issue — the vital issue — in disease control and prevention?
And, Joe quips, what about the experts who run Seattle and San Francisco and other cities where tens of thousands of homeless people are allowed to live, shoot up, and defecate on our sidewalks? Joe watches the science experts on TV: “Never ask questions about evolution!” “Overpopulation will make us starve!” “The Earth has a fever!” “Ban plastic straws!” But Joe thinks it’s funny that the science experts — infectious disease experts — never protested the open borders policies that sent medieval diseases flowing across our unguarded borders and never protested the virtue-signaling-as-governance policies that let human excrement cover our city sidewalks. Joe laughs — they even circulated maps of poop in public places in San Francisco. But the experts didn’t do squat.
Maybe the experts had their reasons for endorsing this insane public policy of open borders and permitting the homeless to commandeer sidewalks and shoot up and defecate in public — these policies were the expert “consensus” — but it doesn’t make a lot of sense to Joe. Joe may be an “anti-intellectual,” but when he sees a mess, he doesn’t make a map of it. He cleans it up.
Another Public Policy Debacle
And there’s another public policy debacle — an expert debacle — that really hits home for Joe. Joe used to work in manufacturing, until his job got shipped out to China. It’s more efficient economically, experts said. So Joe took a job driving a truck. His wife took a job at Shop Rite, cleaning shelves and floors at night. His daughter took a job as an aide in the local hospital, cleaning up and helping patients in the ICU. They had to make ends meet. What really gets Joe is that a lot of the manufacturing jobs went to China, which is ground zero for wet markets and pandemics. Experts knew this, but did nothing to protect us from it. In fact, they made us more vulnerable. Why would our experts work feverishly to help China, the very country that is the source of modern pandemics? And Joe is amazed that we shipped our pharmaceutical industry to China — the industry that makes our medicines. The experts were fine it. It doesn’t seem so smart to Joe.
What Makes You a Real Expert
Joe thinks that what makes you a real expert is being right about things. Joe asks: Were science experts right about open borders, shipping our industries to China, and letting homeless people defecate in our streets? It seems to him that, a lot of the time, experts are wrong. Really wrong. Pandemic and let-China-make-your medicines and feces-on-your-doorstep wrong. And when you politely point it out, they call you stupid. Perhaps being experts is part of what makes them wrong so much — you have to be capable of considerable mental gymnastics to believe some of the dumb stuff experts believe.
There are hundreds of millions of people dead in the past century because experts got it lethally wrong — wrong about DDT and malaria, wrong about “overpopulation” (which inspired forced abortions and femicide of baby girls in China and India), and wrong about eugenics which sterilized 60,000 innocent Americans and served as a trial run for the Holocaust. Joe says that Dr. Novella’s insult to him and his family — that they are “anti-intellectual” because they don’t take a knee to the experts who opened our borders to plagues and sold our jobs to China and who let people defecate in our streets — is starting to sound pretty familiar. Joe remembers the last election, when they called him “deplorable” because he didn’t believe everything the experts said. It’s the same old game, Joe says. The experts aren’t nearly as smart as they say. And the worst thing is that experts never ask themselves: “How much of this is my fault?” A common theme runs through the eugenic fiasco and the Malthusian-overpopulation fiascos and the DDT-malaria fiasco and now the coronavirus pandemic. Experts don’t apologize.
Tomorrow Morning
As I drove home from Joe’s house, I got to thinking about what’s really happening in this coronavirus pandemic. Tomorrow morning, before dawn, Joe will go to work in his truck delivering food and his wife will go to work cleaning virus-slathered supermarket aisles and his daughter will go to work bathing ICU patients in the eye of this plague. The curve will flatten, in a few months the pandemic will burn out.
The experts will pat each other’s backs and exchange accolades. Science experts will pen essays extolling science experts. During these months, a hundred million quiet ordinary Americans will go to work each day, delivering the food, cleaning the supermarket isles, bathing the sick and dying, and will get us through this pandemic.
Deplorables will clean up the plague our experts caused.
Photo: Joe the truck driver, by Veronica538 / CC BY-SA.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-03-20--The Biggest Myth So Far in Cosmos 3.0 — Baruch Spinoza as Science Hero

The third season of Cosmos has released four episodes so far , with more to come this Monday , on Fox and the National Geographic channel .
Evolution News has commented already , here , here , here , and here .
After watching these episodes , I have concluded that the most consequential historical error to correct as yet concerns the treatment of Spinoza in episode one .
The series designates Baruch Spinoza ( 1632-1677 ) as the next greatest persecuted hero of science after Giordano Bruno ( as depicted in Cosmos 2.0 ; see my video discussion , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Martyr , Yes , but Not for Science ” ) .
Although Bruno was burned to death in 1600 for his religious ( not scientific ) views , the attempted murder of Spinoza , if it occurred , was likely due to a disputed business transaction ( not science or religion ) .
For Cosmos to suggest that Spinoza ’ s life was threatened because of science is just the beginning of an enormous misrepresentation .
Like the heretical Catholic philosopher Bruno , Spinoza traded belief in the biblical God for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ God ” had no choice in creation , and an infinite cosmos resulted .
Consequently both had philosophical reasons for believing in an infinite number of inhabited worlds .
There was , and still is , no scientific support for the idea of an infinite cosmos .
Science is not well equipped even to address this kind of question .
In Cosmos , Neil deGrasse Tyson equates traditional religion with ignorance , especially the biblical religions of Judaism and Christianity .
Spinoza was a wayward Jew whom Albert Einstein , a secular Jew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ depicts this connection with film footage of Einstein visiting the Spinoza museum .
Indeed , Einstein publicly confessed his faith in “ Spinoza ’ s God.
” Spinoza ’ s God was nature , or some aspect of it .
( Scholars debate how to interpret his ambiguous views . )
“ From the necessity of the divine nature there must follow infinitely many things in infinitely many modes , ” Spinoza wrote .
Nature could not have been other that what it is .
This necessitarian vision , which traces back to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ view that the Judeo-Christian tradition overcame .
This transformation was one of the key ingredients for a cultural context conducive to modern science ( as I explain in another video , “ Three Big Ways Christianity Supported the Rise of Modern Science ” ) .
Consequently Cosmos 3.0 celebrates as a science hero a philosopher who opposed the very Judeo-Christian cultural context that helped make modern science possible .
Oops !
The Christian belief in divine freedom undercut the view , established by Plato and Aristotle , that the structure of the cosmos @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that God could have created a universe quite different from ours , and so testing multiple hypotheses by experiment was an effective way to determine which set of natural laws God actually created to govern our cosmos .
So in his departure from theism , Spinoza undercut some of this science-fostering culture .
Let ’ s go deeper as to why Spinoza was no science hero .
Scholarship on Spinoza in the last decade has increasingly recognized that he opposed the observational ( empirical ) and mathematical analyses of nature advanced by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Skepticism about the very possibility of empirical knowledge of nature runs through Spinoza ’ s books , ” notes Eric Schliesser in The Oxford Handbook of Spinoza .
More specifically , “ Spinoza was very critical of applying mathematics and measurement in understanding nature.
” That ’ s even more damaging !
Similarly , Alison Peterman , in “ Spinoza on Physical Science , ” Philosophy Compass ( 2014 ) , writes : “ Spinoza took a dim view of the extent to which the application of mathematics to physics and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ give us knowledge of nature.
” Here is one memorable expression of Spinoza ’ s criticism of the application of mathematics to science : “ There are men lunatic enough to believe , that even God himself takes pleasure in harmony ; indeed there are philosophers who have persuaded themselves that the motions of the heavens produce a harmony.
” Spinoza attacked the view of Johannes Kepler and Christiaan Huygens ( the leading Dutch scientist and a Spinoza acquaintance , also highlighted in Cosmos 3.0 ) that God infused mathematical harmonies into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a projection of mathematical harmony and beauty in nature where none exists , Spinoza insisted .
Fortunately astronomy textbook authors over the past four centuries ignored Spinoza ’ s attack on Kepler and instead affirmed Kepler ’ s third mathematical law of planetary motion , also called the “ harmonic law.
” Christianity has a long and remarkable track record of contributing to the foundations of science .
Saint Augustine ( 354–430 ) expressed confidence in our ability to discover and read the “ book of nature ” because it is the “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that we should proceed “ by most certain reasoning or experience ” to discern the most likely way that God established “ the nature of things ” — a popular medieval book title for works that emulated Augustine ’ s investigative approach to the natural world .
Galileo and many other early modern scientists used this traditional Christian metaphor of the “ book of nature.
” They sought to convey the idea that God wrote two books that are consistent with one another : nature and the Bible .
Nature is largely written @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of these scientists argued , and so it can be read only by those who know this language .
Galileo argued as much in his book The Assayer ( 1623 ) .
He wrote : “ Philosophy [ natural science ] is written in this all-encompassing book that is constantly open before our eyes , that is the universe ; but it can not be understood unless one first learns to understand the language and knows the characters in which it is written .
It is written in mathematical language.
” ( The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Essential Galileo , p. 183 ) Consider also these three remarkable utterances of Kepler similarly affirming the theological foundations of science .
Kepler wrote in a letter to Michael Maestlin , on October 3 , 1595 : In a letter to Galileo , in 1610 : Here is how I explain the significance of these Keplerian sayings in my book Unbelievable : 7 Myths About the History and Future of Science and Religion , which tells the true story of science and God that Tyson tries to suppress with atheistic mythology : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extraterrestrial life to be consistent with the Bible , even though Scripture does not specifically address this issue .
This leads me to identify a related historical error about science and religion in Cosmos 3.0 .
Tyson suggests that there was a “ contradiction ” between biblical faith and science given that the Bible does not mention extraterrestrial life ( which Tyson thinks is established by science ) .
There are countless aspects of the universe that the Bible does not address , but that does not make scientific theories about such topics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It was simply not within the communicative intent of the Bible to address whether there are other inhabited worlds .
Leading scientists such as Galileo , Kepler , Huygens , Descartes , and Newton understood this about the Bible and science .
For example , after affirming that Christ ’ s sacrifice on the cross had redeemed many humans , René Descartes ( whom Spinoza carefully studied ) remarked : Tyson ’ s alleged “ contradiction ” between Christianity and extraterrestrial life ignores centuries of often-friendly dialogue among theologians and scientists about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ theme of my book too ) .
So it is not true , as Tyson asserts , that there was “ only one man , ” Spinoza , who “ dared to address ” such questions in the 17th century .
Such hero worship is laughable to professional historians of science .
Furthermore , Tyson attributes to Spinoza a view nature that he makes sound daringly novel : “ His sacred text , ” he says of Spinoza , was “ the book of nature.
” But for most early modern scientists there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and nature .
By turning his back on the former , Spinoza undermined some of the theological foundations for the scientific study of the latter .
That ’ s tragic , not heroic .
Image : Baruch Spinoza , about 1665 , by an unknown artist / Public domain via Wikimedia .

The third season of Cosmos has released four episodes so far, with more to come this Monday, on Fox and the National Geographic channel. Evolution News has commented already, here, here, here, and here. After watching these episodes, I have concluded that the most consequential historical error to correct as yet concerns the treatment of Spinoza in episode one. The series designates Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) as the next greatest persecuted hero of science after Giordano Bruno (as depicted in Cosmos 2.0; see my video discussion, “Unbelievable Mythbusting: Giordano Bruno Was a Martyr, Yes, but Not for Science”). Although Bruno was burned to death in 1600 for his religious (not scientific) views, the attempted murder of Spinoza, if it occurred, was likely due to a disputed business transaction (not science or religion). For Cosmos to suggest that Spinoza’s life was threatened because of science is just the beginning of an enormous misrepresentation.
Like the heretical Catholic philosopher Bruno, Spinoza traded belief in the biblical God for a necessitarian philosophical creed. Both believed “God” had no choice in creation, and an infinite cosmos resulted. Consequently both had philosophical reasons for believing in an infinite number of inhabited worlds. There was, and still is, no scientific support for the idea of an infinite cosmos. Science is not well equipped even to address this kind of question.
In Cosmos, Neil deGrasse Tyson equates traditional religion with ignorance, especially the biblical religions of Judaism and Christianity. Spinoza was a wayward Jew whom Albert Einstein, a secular Jew, later celebrated as likeminded. Cosmos depicts this connection with film footage of Einstein visiting the Spinoza museum. Indeed, Einstein publicly confessed his faith in “Spinoza’s God.”
Spinoza’s God
Spinoza’s God was nature, or some aspect of it. (Scholars debate how to interpret his ambiguous views.) “From the necessity of the divine nature there must follow infinitely many things in infinitely many modes,” Spinoza wrote. Nature could not have been other that what it is.
This necessitarian vision, which traces back to the ancient Greeks, is precisely the view that the Judeo-Christian tradition overcame. This transformation was one of the key ingredients for a cultural context conducive to modern science (as I explain in another video, “Three Big Ways Christianity Supported the Rise of Modern Science”). Consequently Cosmos 3.0 celebrates as a science hero a philosopher who opposed the very Judeo-Christian cultural context that helped make modern science possible. Oops!
Spinoza’s God vs. Science
The Christian belief in divine freedom undercut the view, established by Plato and Aristotle, that the structure of the cosmos is a necessary one. Christians insisted that God could have created a universe quite different from ours, and so testing multiple hypotheses by experiment was an effective way to determine which set of natural laws God actually created to govern our cosmos. So in his departure from theism, Spinoza undercut some of this science-fostering culture.
Let’s go deeper as to why Spinoza was no science hero. Scholarship on Spinoza in the last decade has increasingly recognized that he opposed the observational (empirical) and mathematical analyses of nature advanced by the likes of Johannes Kepler and Galileo Galilei. “Skepticism about the very possibility of empirical knowledge of nature runs through Spinoza’s books,” notes Eric Schliesser in The Oxford Handbook of Spinoza. More specifically, “Spinoza was very critical of applying mathematics and measurement in understanding nature.” That’s even more damaging! Similarly, Alison Peterman, in “Spinoza on Physical Science,” Philosophy Compass (2014), writes: “Spinoza took a dim view of the extent to which the application of mathematics to physics and the empirical investigation of the physical can give us knowledge of nature.”
Here is one memorable expression of Spinoza’s criticism of the application of mathematics to science: “There are men lunatic enough to believe, that even God himself takes pleasure in harmony; indeed there are philosophers who have persuaded themselves that the motions of the heavens produce a harmony.” Spinoza attacked the view of Johannes Kepler and Christiaan Huygens (the leading Dutch scientist and a Spinoza acquaintance, also highlighted in Cosmos 3.0) that God infused mathematical harmonies into the fabric of the cosmos. This is a projection of mathematical harmony and beauty in nature where none exists, Spinoza insisted. Fortunately astronomy textbook authors over the past four centuries ignored Spinoza’s attack on Kepler and instead affirmed Kepler’s third mathematical law of planetary motion, also called the “harmonic law.”
The Book of Nature
Christianity has a long and remarkable track record of contributing to the foundations of science. Saint Augustine (354–430) expressed confidence in our ability to discover and read the “book of nature” because it is the “production of the Creator.” He insisted that we should proceed “by most certain reasoning or experience” to discern the most likely way that God established “the nature of things” — a popular medieval book title for works that emulated Augustine’s investigative approach to the natural world.
Galileo and many other early modern scientists used this traditional Christian metaphor of the “book of nature.” They sought to convey the idea that God wrote two books that are consistent with one another: nature and the Bible. Nature is largely written in the language of mathematics, many of these scientists argued, and so it can be read only by those who know this language. Galileo argued as much in his book The Assayer (1623). He wrote: “Philosophy [natural science] is written in this all-encompassing book that is constantly open before our eyes, that is the universe; but it cannot be understood unless one first learns to understand the language and knows the characters in which it is written. It is written in mathematical language.” (The Assayer, as translated in Finocchiaro, The Essential Galileo, p. 183)
Consider also these three remarkable utterances of Kepler similarly affirming the theological foundations of science. Kepler wrote in a letter to Michael Maestlin, on October 3, 1595:
I am eager to publish (my observations) soon, not in my interest, dear teacher…. I strive to publish them in God’s honor who wishes to be recognized from the book of nature…. I had the intention of becoming a theologian. For a long time I was restless: but now see how God is, by my endeavors, also glorified in astronomy.
In a letter to Herwart von Hohenburg, April 9-10, 1599:
God wanted us to recognize them [i.e., mathematical natural laws] by creating us after his own image so that we could share in his own thoughts.
In a letter to Galileo, in 1610:
Geometry is unique and eternal, and it shines in the mind of God. The share of it which has been granted to man is one of the reasons why he is in the image of God.
Here is how I explain the significance of these Keplerian sayings in my book Unbelievable: 7 Myths About the History and Future of Science and Religion, which tells the true story of science and God that Tyson tries to suppress with atheistic mythology:
Kepler was a devout Christian who believed that the Bible and the “book of nature” were fully compatible and mutually supportive. He recognized them both as God’s revelation. He studied both intensely. In fact, he almost finished a doctoral degree in theology before he turned to a career in mathematics and astronomy. Kepler believed that mathematical ideas exist eternally in the divine mind and that God freely selected some of these principles to govern his creation. Because God created humans in his image, we have the intelligence needed to discover those natural laws, and in so doing, Kepler announced, we “share in his own thoughts.” The human mind emulates God’s thoughts in ways that reveal the deep structure of the cosmos. Thus God is “glorified in astronomy,” Kepler concluded.
The Bible and Aliens
Kepler also considered the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life to be consistent with the Bible, even though Scripture does not specifically address this issue. This leads me to identify a related historical error about science and religion in Cosmos 3.0. Tyson suggests that there was a “contradiction” between biblical faith and science given that the Bible does not mention extraterrestrial life (which Tyson thinks is established by science). There are countless aspects of the universe that the Bible does not address, but that does not make scientific theories about such topics in “contradiction” to the Bible. It was simply not within the communicative intent of the Bible to address whether there are other inhabited worlds. Leading scientists such as Galileo, Kepler, Huygens, Descartes, and Newton understood this about the Bible and science.
For example, after affirming that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross had redeemed many humans, René Descartes (whom Spinoza carefully studied) remarked:
I do not see at all that the mystery of the Incarnation, and all the other advantages that God has brought forth for man obstruct him from having brought forth an infinity of other great advantages for an infinity of other creatures. And although I do not at all infer from this that there would be intelligent creatures in the stars or elsewhere, I do not see that there would be any reason by which to prove that there were not; but I always leave undecided questions of this kind rather than denying or affirming anything. (Michael J. Crowe, The Extraterrestrial Life Debate, Antiquity to 1915: A Source Book (2008), p. 67)
Tyson’s alleged “contradiction” between Christianity and extraterrestrial life ignores centuries of often-friendly dialogue among theologians and scientists about this topic (which is a major theme of my book too). So it is not true, as Tyson asserts, that there was “only one man,” Spinoza, who “dared to address” such questions in the 17th century. Such hero worship is laughable to professional historians of science.
Furthermore, Tyson attributes to Spinoza a view of nature that he makes sound daringly novel: “His sacred text,” he says of Spinoza, was “the book of nature.” But for most early modern scientists there were two sacred texts: the Bible and nature. By turning his back on the former, Spinoza undermined some of the theological foundations for the scientific study of the latter. That’s tragic, not heroic.
Image: Baruch Spinoza, about 1665, by an unknown artist / Public domain via Wikimedia.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-03-20--No to “Quality of Life” Coronavirus Healthcare Rationing

In a world of bioethicists who primarily eschew the sanctity/equality of life ethic , Fordham University ’ s Charles Camosy is a refreshing ethicist worthy of the title .
Of late , he has been warning against the dangers of the quality-of-life ethic that so many of his peers promote .
Most visibly , he recently appeared on Tucker Carlson ’ s interview program arguing against assisted suicide .
Now , he has a fine opinion piece in the New York Post discussing the awful prospect of triaging coronavirus patients who need hospitalization .
But how to do it ethically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Camosy writes , is to allow the rationer to decide who receives care and who is turned away based on an invidious judgment of the patient ’ s “ quality of life.
” From , “ Coronavirus Crisis : The Wrong Way to Decide Which Patients get Hospital Care ” : Bioethicists like me disagree over which values should guide rationing , but we generally agree about focusing on those who can benefit from the treatment .
If the age of a patient makes it unlikely she would benefit , the hard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go to someone else .
But then there is the “ number of life years ” the patient could “ enjoy , ” as the Italians put it .
This consideration comes from providers ’ growing tendency to think either implicitly or explicitly about how many “ quality-adjusted life years ” their interventions might produce .
It is a poisonously utilitarian and inherently discriminatory mentality .
It is ageist — discriminatory against the elderly — and ableist — discriminatory against the disabled — to its core .
Camosy notes that people with Down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discrimination , particularly in Europe , and warns that even some U.S. hospitals are considering “ quality of life as part of their rationing process.
” That would be an insidious turn of events : It should not be up to physicians to decide whose subjective quality of life deserves to be prolonged .
Physicians almost always rate the quality of life of their patients significantly lower than patients do themselves — and miss the fact that their patients often prefer length of life to quality of life ( whatever that means ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deciders about who should live and who should die .
Camosy assures readers that New York State has already grappled with rationing in a time of pandemic , and bases these terribly hard decisions on suitably objective criteria : Wisely , our state insists that age and health problems or disabilities unrelated to what is causing the epidemic shouldn ’ t serve as the basis for rationing .
Prognosis for recovery is what matters .
A New York hospital could choose to give its last ventilator to the 72-year-old marathon runner rather than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , based only on prognosis for recovery .
The objectivity of the standard removes much of the physician ’ s subjective ideology from the picture .
Exactly right .
And please note that such a decision would not be to punish the smoker — as some centralized health-care proponents would do — but based solely on the likelihood of recovering .
I am very pleased Camosy is making a prominent splash .
Bioethics needs more thinkers who have their human-rights values screwed on straight advocating prominently in the public square .
I look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

In a world of bioethicists who primarily eschew the sanctity/equality of life ethic, Fordham University’s Charles Camosy is a refreshing ethicist worthy of the title. Of late, he has been warning against the dangers of the quality-of-life ethic that so many of his peers promote. Most visibly, he recently appeared on Tucker Carlson’s interview program arguing against assisted suicide.
Now, he has a fine opinion piece in the New York Post discussing the awful prospect of triaging coronavirus patients who need hospitalization. But how to do it ethically? What we shouldn’t do, Camosy writes, is to allow the rationer to decide who receives care and who is turned away based on an invidious judgment of the patient’s “quality of life.”
An Insidious Turn
From, “Coronavirus Crisis: The Wrong Way to Decide Which Patients get Hospital Care”:
Bioethicists like me disagree over which values should guide rationing, but we generally agree about focusing on those who can benefit from the treatment. If the age of a patient makes it unlikely she would benefit, the hard truth is that limited resources will likely go to someone else. But then there is the “number of life years” the patient could “enjoy,” as the Italians put it. This consideration comes from providers’ growing tendency to think either implicitly or explicitly about how many “quality-adjusted life years” their interventions might produce. It is a poisonously utilitarian and inherently discriminatory mentality. It is ageist — discriminatory against the elderly — and ableist — discriminatory against the disabled — to its core.
Camosy notes that people with Down syndrome are often the victims of such discrimination, particularly in Europe, and warns that even some U.S. hospitals are considering “quality of life as part of their rationing process.” That would be an insidious turn of events:
It should not be up to physicians to decide whose subjective quality of life deserves to be prolonged. Physicians almost always rate the quality of life of their patients significantly lower than patients do themselves — and miss the fact that their patients often prefer length of life to quality of life (whatever that means). In short, they are terrible deciders about who should live and who should die.
Suitably Objective Criteria
Camosy assures readers that New York State has already grappled with rationing in a time of pandemic, and bases these terribly hard decisions on suitably objective criteria:
Wisely, our state insists that age and health problems or disabilities unrelated to what is causing the epidemic shouldn’t serve as the basis for rationing. Prognosis for recovery is what matters. A New York hospital could choose to give its last ventilator to the 72-year-old marathon runner rather than to the 57-year-old pack-a-day smoker. Again, based only on prognosis for recovery. The objectivity of the standard removes much of the physician’s subjective ideology from the picture.
Exactly right. And please note that such a decision would not be to punish the smoker — as some centralized health-care proponents would do — but based solely on the likelihood of recovering.
I am very pleased Camosy is making a prominent splash. Bioethics needs more thinkers who have their human-rights values screwed on straight advocating prominently in the public square. I look forward to reading more of his work.
Photo credit: Silas Camargo Silão via Pixabay.
Cross-posted at The Corner.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-03-20--Living Amid a Pandemic: Wisdom from C.S. Lewis

It ’ s been a blissfully sunny week in Seattle — the kind of week Seattleites pine for after their gray and soggy winters .
The official start of spring isn ’ t until today , but the cherry blossoms have already been out for a long time .
Of course , it doesn ’ t really matter this year .
The crowds have been told to stay away from the cherry trees — and from everything else , for that matter .
The arrival of spring in 2020 isn ’ t bringing hope and a sense of new life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Churches are shuttered to the public .
So are restaurants ( except for takeout ) .
So are movie theaters , barbershops , and gyms .
Grocery stores are still open , but their shelves are increasingly bare — not just of hand sanitizer and toilet paper ( those vanished days ago ) — but now of bleach , paper towels , and even meat and poultry .
Businesses struggle to operate .
Each new day brings increasingly draconian ( not to mention conflicting and confusing ) orders issued by multiple layers of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acting in our best interests in the name of science .
The occasional tone-deafness of the bureaucrats might be amusing in a novel .
The CDC website patiently instructs people about how they can create their own disinfectant with bleach or rubbing alcohol .
It would be more helpful if the CDC explained how to actually acquire either liquid — since neither is readily available in stores .
Meanwhile , the current pandemic has further exposed the most obnoxious features of the American news media .
On the one hand , media outlets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doomsday coverage .
On the other hand , when ordinary people actually take the doomsday coverage seriously , those same media outlets chide them for acting as if the doomsday reporting is correct and rushing to stores to stock up on disinfectants and food .
The tendency during any crisis is to become all-consumed by it .
That was true after 9/11 , and it is true now .
Obviously , if you are dealing with the illness of a loved one with COVID-19 , there is good reason to be consumed .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ destruction or have lost your job because of government-imposed shutdowns — shutdowns that may well be called for , but are nevertheless ruinous to many and even corrosive of a free society in some cases .
As the outbreak continues to unfold , it may get harder and harder to focus on anything besides the pandemic .
Nevertheless , we should resist the temptation to let it dominate our lives .
Anglo-Irish writer C.S .
Lewis ( 1898-1963 ) was no stranger to fears wrought by pandemics .
During his childhood in Belfast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million people a year in Europe died from tuberculosis ( TB ) , making it “ one of the most feared diseases in the world.
” In Ireland itself , more than 11,000 people a year died from TB , many of them young people .
In fact , among youths aged 15 to 25 , a terrifying 55.4 percent of all deaths in Belfast were due to TB .
Years later , Lewis ’ s brother Warren still recalled the fear that permeated every upper middle class home in Belfast , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infection .
His parents were especially concerned about allowing their sons to be exposed to the rain and damp , worrying that TB might develop as a result .
Then , as now , isolation reigned as a chief strategy for protection .
The Lewis brothers were quarantined inside their home whenever it rained — which , given the weather in Ireland , meant their confinement often seemed endless .
They were ordered inside at the first drops of rain , and then penned inside their nursery , with a gate put across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get out .
“ We spent an extraordinary amount of our time shut up indoors , ” remembered Warren .
“ We would gaze out of our nursery window at the slanting rain and the grey skies , and there , beyond a mile or so of sodden meadow , we would see the dim high line of the Castlereagh Hills — our world ’ s limit , a distant land , strange and unattainable.
” ( W.H .
Lewis , “ Memoir of C.S .
Lewis , ” published in Letters of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two active children to tolerate , the confinement was not wasted .
Indeed , according to Warren Lewis , it bequeathed a long-term legacy : [ T ] his recurring imprisonment gave us occasion and stimulus to develop the habit of creative imagination .
We learnt to draw : my brother made his first attempts at writing : together we devised the imaginary country of “ Boxen , ” which proliferated hugely and became our solace and joy for many years to come .
And so , in circumstances that might have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s gifts began to develop ; and it may not be fanciful to see , in that childhood staring out to unattainable hills , some first beginnings of a vision and viewpoint that ran through the work of his maturity .
There are other terrors beside pandemics , of course , and C.S .
Lewis experienced some of them as well .
Like many young men of his era , he served — and was wounded — on the hellish front lines of World War I .
Two decades later , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world war — this time against Hitler ’ s Germany .
As the Nazis swept over Europe and the grim new reality began to set in , many likely wondered what the use of learning was at a time like that .
Shouldn ’ t everyone focus instead on the war effort 24/7 ?
A few weeks after the war started , Lewis sought to answer this question in a sermon that was later published as “ Learning in War-Time.
” His advice seems eerily applicable to our own situation , just substitute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : I think it important to try to see the present calamity in a true perspective .
The war creates no absolutely new situation ; it simply aggravates the permanent human situation so that we can no longer ignore it .
Human life has always been lived on the edge of a precipice .
Human culture has always had to exist under the shadow of something infinitely more important than itself .
If men had postponed the search for knowledge and beauty until they were secure , the search would never have begun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ war with “ normal life.
” Life has never been normal .
Even those periods which we think most tranquil , like the nineteenth century , turn out , on closer inspection , to be full of crises , alarms , difficulties , emergencies .
Plausible reasons have never been lacking for putting off all merely cultural activities until some imminent danger has been averted or some crying injustice put right .
But humanity long ago chose to neglect those plausible reasons .
They wanted knowledge and beauty now , and would not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comes .
In coming days , you and your loved ones may struggle with fear and anxiety and worry .
You may also find yourselves with more time on your hands than you know what to do with .
Make the most of the opportunity .
Learn a new skill .
Read good books .
Watch inspiring films .
Reconnect with your family by having discussions about things that matter .
Above all , remember the wise admonition of C.S .
Lewis : “ If men had postponed the search for knowledge and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ search would never have begun.
” Author ’ s note : The description of Warren Lewis ’ s recollections about the fear of TB in the Lewis household is based on unpublished passages in W.H .
Lewis , “ C.S Lewis : A Biography , ” a manuscript on deposit at the Marion Wade Center , Wheaton College .
Photo : Cherry blossoms on the campus of the University of Washington , Seattle .
Authorities are telling would-be visitors to stay away ; by D. Guillaime / CC BY-SA .

“Human life has always been lived on the edge of a precipice.” — C.S. Lewis.
It’s been a blissfully sunny week in Seattle — the kind of week Seattleites pine for after their gray and soggy winters. The official start of spring isn’t until today, but the cherry blossoms have already been out for a long time.
Of course, it doesn’t really matter this year.
The crowds have been told to stay away from the cherry trees — and from everything else, for that matter. The arrival of spring in 2020 isn’t bringing hope and a sense of new life. It’s bringing fear.
Draconian and Confusing
Churches are shuttered to the public. So are restaurants (except for takeout). So are movie theaters, barbershops, and gyms. Grocery stores are still open, but their shelves are increasingly bare — not just of hand sanitizer and toilet paper (those vanished days ago) — but now of bleach, paper towels, and even meat and poultry. Businesses struggle to operate. Each new day brings increasingly draconian (not to mention conflicting and confusing) orders issued by multiple layers of bureaucracy — all assuring us they are acting in our best interests in the name of science. The occasional tone-deafness of the bureaucrats might be amusing in a novel. The CDC website patiently instructs people about how they can create their own disinfectant with bleach or rubbing alcohol. It would be more helpful if the CDC explained how to actually acquire either liquid — since neither is readily available in stores.
Meanwhile, the current pandemic has further exposed the most obnoxious features of the American news media. On the one hand, media outlets fan the flames of fear with their doomsday coverage. On the other hand, when ordinary people actually take the doomsday coverage seriously, those same media outlets chide them for acting as if the doomsday reporting is correct and rushing to stores to stock up on disinfectants and food.
The tendency during any crisis is to become all-consumed by it. That was true after 9/11, and it is true now. Obviously, if you are dealing with the illness of a loved one with COVID-19, there is good reason to be consumed. So too if you are facing financial destruction or have lost your job because of government-imposed shutdowns — shutdowns that may well be called for, but are nevertheless ruinous to many and even corrosive of a free society in some cases.
Resisting a Temptation to Obsess
As the outbreak continues to unfold, it may get harder and harder to focus on anything besides the pandemic. Nevertheless, we should resist the temptation to let it dominate our lives.
Anglo-Irish writer C.S. Lewis (1898-1963) was no stranger to fears wrought by pandemics. During his childhood in Belfast, Northern Ireland, more than a million people a year in Europe died from tuberculosis (TB), making it “one of the most feared diseases in the world.” In Ireland itself, more than 11,000 people a year died from TB, many of them young people. In fact, among youths aged 15 to 25, a terrifying 55.4 percent of all deaths in Belfast were due to TB. Years later, Lewis’s brother Warren still recalled the fear that permeated every upper middle class home in Belfast, and the elaborate measures people took to prevent infection. His parents were especially concerned about allowing their sons to be exposed to the rain and damp, worrying that TB might develop as a result.
Then, as now, isolation reigned as a chief strategy for protection. The Lewis brothers were quarantined inside their home whenever it rained — which, given the weather in Ireland, meant their confinement often seemed endless. They were ordered inside at the first drops of rain, and then penned inside their nursery, with a gate put across the door so they couldn’t get out. “We spent an extraordinary amount of our time shut up indoors,” remembered Warren. “We would gaze out of our nursery window at the slanting rain and the grey skies, and there, beyond a mile or so of sodden meadow, we would see the dim high line of the Castlereagh Hills — our world’s limit, a distant land, strange and unattainable.” (W.H. Lewis, “Memoir of C.S. Lewis,” published in Letters of C.S. Lewis)
Legacy of a Confinement
Although difficult for two active children to tolerate, the confinement was not wasted. Indeed, according to Warren Lewis, it bequeathed a long-term legacy:
[T]his recurring imprisonment gave us occasion and stimulus to develop the habit of creative imagination. We learnt to draw: my brother made his first attempts at writing: together we devised the imaginary country of “Boxen,” which proliferated hugely and became our solace and joy for many years to come. And so, in circumstances that might have been merely dull and depressing, my brother’s gifts began to develop; and it may not be fanciful to see, in that childhood staring out to unattainable hills, some first beginnings of a vision and viewpoint that ran through the work of his maturity. (W.H. Lewis, “Memoir of C.S. Lewis”)
There are other terrors beside pandemics, of course, and C.S. Lewis experienced some of them as well. Like many young men of his era, he served — and was wounded — on the hellish front lines of World War I. Two decades later, as an Oxford academic, he faced another world war — this time against Hitler’s Germany.
As the Nazis swept over Europe and the grim new reality began to set in, many likely wondered what the use of learning was at a time like that. Shouldn’t everyone focus instead on the war effort 24/7? A few weeks after the war started, Lewis sought to answer this question in a sermon that was later published as “Learning in War-Time.”
Substitute “Pandemic” for “War”
His advice seems eerily applicable to our own situation, just substitute “pandemic” for “war”:
I think it important to try to see the present calamity in a true perspective. The war creates no absolutely new situation; it simply aggravates the permanent human situation so that we can no longer ignore it. Human life has always been lived on the edge of a precipice. Human culture has always had to exist under the shadow of something infinitely more important than itself. If men had postponed the search for knowledge and beauty until they were secure, the search would never have begun. We are mistaken when we compare war with “normal life.” Life has never been normal. Even those periods which we think most tranquil, like the nineteenth century, turn out, on closer inspection, to be full of crises, alarms, difficulties, emergencies. Plausible reasons have never been lacking for putting off all merely cultural activities until some imminent danger has been averted or some crying injustice put right. But humanity long ago chose to neglect those plausible reasons. They wanted knowledge and beauty now, and would not wait for the suitable moment that never comes. (C.S. Lewis, “Learning in War-Time,” in The Weight of Glory)
In coming days, you and your loved ones may struggle with fear and anxiety and worry. You may also find yourselves with more time on your hands than you know what to do with.
Make the most of the opportunity.
Learn a new skill. Read good books. Watch inspiring films. Reconnect with your family by having discussions about things that matter.
Above all, remember the wise admonition of C.S. Lewis: “If men had postponed the search for knowledge and beauty until they were secure, the search would never have begun.”
Author’s note: The description of Warren Lewis’s recollections about the fear of TB in the Lewis household is based on unpublished passages in W.H. Lewis, “C.S Lewis: A Biography,” a manuscript on deposit at the Marion Wade Center, Wheaton College.
Photo: Cherry blossoms on the campus of the University of Washington, Seattle. Authorities are telling would-be visitors to stay away; by D. Guillaime / CC BY-SA.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-03-21--Listen: Kirk Durston on Fantasy Science and Scientism

On a new episode of ID the Future , Kirk Durston , a biophysicist focused on identifying high-information-density parts of @ @ @ @ @ series on three categories of science : experimental , inferential , and fantasy science .
@ @ @ @ @ to it here .
Fantasy science makes inferential leaps so huge that virtually none of @ @ @ @ @ by the standards of experimental science or by those of the historical sciences , which @ @ @ @ @ by process of elimination .
One example of fantasy science , according to Durston , @ @ @ @ @ he argues , that is an imaginative story largely untethered from evidence and testing , @ @ @ @ @ of literary devices .
Scientism , “ atheism dressed up in a lab coat , @ @ @ @ @ science of this kind because it commits itself to materialistic conclusions for philosophical reasons , @ @ @ @ @ the rest of the series , see : • “ Biophysicist and Philosopher Kirk Durston @ @ @ @ @ and Fantasy Science ”

Image credit: Gerd Altmann via Pixabay.
On a new episode of ID the Future, Kirk Durston, a biophysicist focused on identifying high-information-density parts of proteins, completes a three-part series on three categories of science: experimental, inferential, and fantasy science. Download the podcast or listen to it here.
Fantasy science makes inferential leaps so huge that virtually none of it is testable, either by the standards of experimental science or by those of the historical sciences, which reason to the best explanation by process of elimination. One example of fantasy science, according to Durston, is the multiverse. As he argues, that is an imaginative story largely untethered from evidence and testing, but told using math instead of literary devices. Scientism, “atheism dressed up in a lab coat,” can lead to fantasy science of this kind because it commits itself to materialistic conclusions for philosophical reasons, not scientific ones.
For the rest of the series, see:
Image credit: Gerd Altmann via Pixabay.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-03-22--In Argentina, Doctor Sentenced to Prison for Refusing to Terminate Pregnancy

In Sweden , midwives can be fired and deemed unemployable for refusing abortion .
In Ontario , Canada , doctors can face professional discipline for refusing to administer ( or refer for ) euthanasia .
Ditto to refusing an abortion in Victoria , Australia .
In California , a Catholic hospital is being sued — with the explicit blessing of the courts — for refusing to allow a transgender hysterectomy .
But now in Argentina , the right to obtain an abortion has been declared so fundamental that an objecting M.D .
can be held criminally culpable for refusing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be a moral and legal impossibility .
But Argentina just elevated the “ medical conscience ” controversy to a whole new level of concern — from the potential of not “ only ” having one ’ s professional license revoked , but also , to the loss of personal freedom for refusing to act against personal conscience based on deeply held religious , moral , or professional beliefs .
From the BioEdge story : An Argentine court has upheld the criminal conviction of a gynaecologist who refused to abort the child of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Leandro Rodriguez Lastra was sentencedto a 14-month suspended jail term , plus 28 months of disqualification from holding public office .
Dr Rodriguez Lastro will appeal .
The victim was a 19-year-old in her fifth month of pregnancy , the result of sexual abuse by a relative .
At first she used an abortion drug provided by an NGO .
That failed and she was referred to the hospital where Rodríguez Lastra was head of gynecology .
The doctor said that abortion posed a risk to both the unborn child and the mother @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the only thing necessary for a legal termination of pregnancy was a formal request from the rape victim .
The child was later given up for adoption .
It ’ s almost as if the court considered the doctor to be a co-conspirator with the rapist .
Adding to the topsy-turvy nature of that decision , instead of being dead the baby is alive in the world .
Shouldn ’ t that outcome , at least , be a cause for celebration instead of condemnation in this difficult circumstance ?
How can a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Oath ?
Lastra is a licensed professional and the court decided that refusing to abort constituted a “ failure to comply with the duties of a public official , ” which was an affront to the mother ’ s “ autonomy.
” The BioEdge story quotes the court ’ s ruling : “ Faced with the intersection of so many vulnerabilities , the accused ignored the autonomy of the young woman , giving priority to the reproductive function that she symbolized as a woman , over her dignity , over her right to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , contained and respected in the process of interrupting the pregnancy , an interruption to which she had a right over any other right or interest ” .
“ … ignoring a woman ’ s voice , ignoring her vital needs , subjugating reproductive rights , devastating the psyche and enslaving the body in order to force pregnancy after a rape , means denying the victim ’ s status as a subject of rights and is the incarnation of gender violence in its most painful form ” .
And here ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few years ago , a different Argentinian court granted an orangutan a writ of habeas corpus to be released from a zoo .
So , an ape was declared a wrongfully imprisoned “ person , ” while a doctor was declared a criminal for refusing to take innocent human life .
I can write those words .
I understand their meaning .
But I can ’ t comprehend such an utter rejection of human exceptionalism .

In Sweden, midwives can be fired and deemed unemployable for refusing abortion. In Ontario, Canada, doctors can face professional discipline for refusing to administer (or refer for) euthanasia. Ditto to refusing an abortion in Victoria, Australia. In California, a Catholic hospital is being sued — with the explicit blessing of the courts — for refusing to allow a transgender hysterectomy.
But now in Argentina, the right to obtain an abortion has been declared so fundamental that an objecting M.D. can be held criminally culpable for refusing to terminate a pregnancy.
An Impossibility?
That would seem to be a moral and legal impossibility. But Argentina just elevated the “medical conscience” controversy to a whole new level of concern — from the potential of not “only” having one’s professional license revoked, but also, to the loss of personal freedom for refusing to act against personal conscience based on deeply held religious, moral, or professional beliefs. From the BioEdge story:
An Argentine court has upheld the criminal conviction of a gynaecologist who refused to abort the child of a rape victim in 2017. Dr Leandro Rodriguez Lastra was sentencedto a 14-month suspended jail term, plus 28 months of disqualification from holding public office. Dr Rodriguez Lastro will appeal. The victim was a 19-year-old in her fifth month of pregnancy, the result of sexual abuse by a relative. At first she used an abortion drug provided by an NGO. That failed and she was referred to the hospital where Rodríguez Lastra was head of gynecology. The doctor said that abortion posed a risk to both the unborn child and the mother. However, the judges said that the only thing necessary for a legal termination of pregnancy was a formal request from the rape victim. The child was later given up for adoption.
It’s almost as if the court considered the doctor to be a co-conspirator with the rapist.
Adding to the topsy-turvy nature of that decision, instead of being dead the baby is alive in the world. Shouldn’t that outcome, at least, be a cause for celebration instead of condemnation in this difficult circumstance?
An Affront to “Autonomy”
How can a doctor be imprisoned for obeying the Hippocratic Oath? Lastra is a licensed professional and the court decided that refusing to abort constituted a “failure to comply with the duties of a public official,” which was an affront to the mother’s “autonomy.” The BioEdge story quotes the court’s ruling:
“Faced with the intersection of so many vulnerabilities, the accused ignored the autonomy of the young woman, giving priority to the reproductive function that she symbolized as a woman, over her dignity, over her right to health and to be informed, accompanied, contained and respected in the process of interrupting the pregnancy, an interruption to which she had a right over any other right or interest”. “ … ignoring a woman’s voice, ignoring her vital needs, subjugating reproductive rights, devastating the psyche and enslaving the body in order to force pregnancy after a rape, means denying the victim’s status as a subject of rights and is the incarnation of gender violence in its most painful form”.
And here’s a telling twist to the story: A few years ago, a different Argentinian court granted an orangutan a writ of habeas corpus to be released from a zoo. So, an ape was declared a wrongfully imprisoned “person,” while a doctor was declared a criminal for refusing to take innocent human life.
I can write those words. I understand their meaning. But I can’t comprehend such an utter rejection of human exceptionalism.
Photo: Argentine flag, by davidlpicon via Pixabay.
Cross-posted at The Corner.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-03-23--Finally, an Origin-of-Life Scientist Debates Skeptic James Tour

Justin Brierley is a very thoughtful radio and video debate host in the U.K. His program , Unbelievable ?
, recently hosted a conversation on the origin of life that included University of Glasgow chemist Lee Cronin .
As Brierley reports , he was flooded with requests afterward for a rematch , this time with skeptical synthetic organic chemist James Tour at Rice University .
Readers of Evolution News will be familiar with Tour , who spoke last year at Discovery Institute ’ s Dallas Conference on Science & Faith and who contributed a chapter to the new updated and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Mystery of Life ’ s Origin : The Continuing Controversy .
Now Brierley has brought together Tour and Cronin for a debate that is substantive , combative , and enlightening : Professor Tour corrects some mischaracterizations of his thought in the last program , and one wild oversimplification of the origin of life , as it is taught in high school , to which Cronin seemed to give a stamp of approval .
Tour describes attempting to “ track ” Cronin ’ s discussion , watching the earlier debate four times over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Tour has a way with vivid images : I was trying to track with him and then when he said there ’ s a paper on this and he was kind enough to send me this paper , I with great enthusiasm went to that paper because I wanted to see .
And you know , I feel like I was told this is gon na be the greatest show on earth and I went in there and there was an old poodle standing on his hind legs .
I mean there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ autocatalytic reaction .
He does compliment Cronin for his courage , though .
Most others have run from this debate .
Professor Cronin is the first origin-of-life scientist willing to speak to me in a public forum .
Others have spoken to me in private…and I think that is telling in and of itself .
The community is avoiding me in the sense that they ’ ll avoid a discussion with me on the very topics in which they are publishing .
And it ’ s not that I haven ’ t tried @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the words “ narrative ” and “ ideology ” to characterize Tour ’ s approach .
But it seems to me that Cronin has that exactly backward .
Questioning simplistic “ narratives ” about the origin of life and puncturing “ ideology ” on the subject are what Jim Tour is doing .
When Tour gets done , the narrative we all learned in high school biology class is in shreds on the floor .
It would be an educational experience to read his chapter in The Mystery of Life ’ s Origin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a commentary about his scientific skepticism .
If you missed Jim Tour ’ s presentation at the Dallas Conference in 2019 , he was on fire .
Find it here :

Justin Brierley is a very thoughtful radio and video debate host in the U.K. His program, Unbelievable?, recently hosted a conversation on the origin of life that included University of Glasgow chemist Lee Cronin. As Brierley reports, he was flooded with requests afterward for a rematch, this time with skeptical synthetic organic chemist James Tour at Rice University.
Readers of Evolution News will be familiar with Tour, who spoke last year at Discovery Institute’s Dallas Conference on Science & Faith and who contributed a chapter to the new updated and expanded book from Discovery Institute Press, The Mystery of Life’s Origin: The Continuing Controversy. Now Brierley has brought together Tour and Cronin for a debate that is substantive, combative, and enlightening:
Professor Tour corrects some mischaracterizations of his thought in the last program, and one wild oversimplification of the origin of life, as it is taught in high school, to which Cronin seemed to give a stamp of approval. Tour describes attempting to “track” Cronin’s discussion, watching the earlier debate four times over, and asking Cronin for additional information. Tour has a way with vivid images:
I was trying to track with him and then when he said there’s a paper on this and he was kind enough to send me this paper, I with great enthusiasm went to that paper because I wanted to see. And you know, I feel like I was told this is gonna be the greatest show on earth and I went in there and there was an old poodle standing on his hind legs. I mean there was nothing. This is just an autocatalytic reaction.
“Narrative” and “Ideology”?
He does compliment Cronin for his courage, though. Most others have run from this debate. Professor Cronin is the
first origin-of-life scientist willing to speak to me in a public forum. Others have spoken to me in private…and I think that is telling in and of itself. The community is avoiding me in the sense that they’ll avoid a discussion with me on the very topics in which they are publishing. And it’s not that I haven’t tried to speak with them.
Cronin uses the words “narrative” and “ideology” to characterize Tour’s approach. But it seems to me that Cronin has that exactly backward. Questioning simplistic “narratives” about the origin of life and puncturing “ideology” on the subject are what Jim Tour is doing. When Tour gets done, the narrative we all learned in high school biology class is in shreds on the floor. It would be an educational experience to read his chapter in The Mystery of Life’s Origin and then consider this helpful conversation as a commentary about his scientific skepticism.
If you missed Jim Tour’s presentation at the Dallas Conference in 2019, he was on fire. Find it here:


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-03-23--What Scientists Fear: Foreword to The Mystery of Life’s Origin

Editor ’ s note : As an alternative to what you are getting pretty much everywhere else in the media at the moment , Evolution News is proud to offer inspiration , pointing to purpose and meaning in life .
The profoundest mystery and thus the deepest inspiration is life itself .
Discovery Institute Press has just published a greatly expanded edition of the 1984 classic of intelligent design science literature , The Mystery of Life ’ s Origin .
Below is the original Foreword to the book by San Francisco State University biologist Dean Kenyon .
The Mystery of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new analysis of an age-old question : How did life start on Earth ?
The authors deal forthrightly and brilliantly with the major problems confronting scientists today in their search for life ’ s origins .
They understand the impasse in current laboratory and theoretical research and suggest a way around it .
Their arguments are cogent , original , and compelling .
This book is sure to stimulate much animated discussion among scientists and laymen .
It is very likely that research on life ’ s origins will move in somewhat different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ important work .
The modern experimental study of the origin of the first life on Earth is now entering its fourth decade , if we date the inception of this field of research to Stanley Miller ’ s pioneering work in the early 1950s .
Since Miller ’ s identification of several ( racemic ) protein-forming amino acids in his electric discharge apparatus , numerous follow-up studies have been conducted .
Conforming in varying degrees to the requirements of the so-called “ simulation paradigm , ” these experiments have yielded detectable amounts of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ substance as well as a variety of organic microscopic structures suggested to be similar to the historical precursors of the first living cells .
This program of research can be regarded as a natural extension of Darwin ’ s evolutionary views of the last century .
The goal of the work is to find plausible uniformitarian mechanisms for the gradual spontaneous generation of living matter from relatively simple molecules thought to have been abundant on the surface of the primitive Earth .
The experimental results to date have apparently convinced many scientists that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life will be found , but there are significant reasons for doubt .
In the years since the publication of Biochemical Predestination I have been increasingly struck by a peculiar feature of many of the published experiments in the field .
I am not referring to those studies conducted more or less along the lines of Miller ’ s original work , although there are firm grounds for criticizing those studies as well .
I am referring to those experiments designed to elucidate possible pathways of prebiotic synthesis of certain organic substances of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pyrimidines , or polypeptides .
In most cases the experimental conditions in such studies have been so artificially simplified as to have virtually no bearing on any actual processes that might have taken place on the primitive Earth .
For example , if one wishes to find a possible prebiotic mechanism of condensation of free amino acids to polypeptides , it is not likely that sugars or aldehydes would be added to the reaction mixture .
And yet , how likely is it that amino acids ( or any other presumed precursor substance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free from contamination substances , either in solution or the solid state ?
The difficulty is that if sugars or aldehydes were also present polypeptides would not form .
Instead an interfering cross-reaction would occur between amino acids and sugars to give complex , insoluble polymeric material of very dubious relevance to chemical evolution .
This problem of potentially interfering cross-reactions has been largely neglected in much of the published work on the chemical origins of life .
The possible implications of such an omission merit careful study .
Other aspects of origin-of-life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the theory of chemical evolution .
One of these is the enormous gap between the most complex “ protocell ” model systems produced in the laboratory and the simplest living cells .
Anyone familiar with the ultrastructural and biochemical complexity of the genus Mycoplasma , for example , should have serious doubts about the relevance of any of the various laboratory “ protocols ” to the actual historical origin of cells .
In my view , the possibility of closing this gap by laboratory simulation of chemical events likely to have occurred @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Another intractable problem concerns the spontaneous origin of the optical isomer preferences found universally in living matter ( e.g.
, L- rather than D-amino acids in proteins , D- rather than L-sugars in nucleic acids ) .
After all the prodigious effort that has gone into attempts to solve this great question over the years , we are really no nearer to a solution today than we were thirty years ago .
Finally , in this brief summary of the reasons for my growing doubts that life on Earth could have begun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there is the problem of the origin of genetic , i.e.
, biologically relevant , information in biopolymers .
No experimental system yet devised has provided the slightest clue as to how biologically meaningful sequences of subunits might have originated in prebiotic polynucleotides or polypeptides .
Evidence for some degree of spontaneous sequence ordering has been published , but there is no indication whatsoever that the non-randomness is biologically significant .
Until such evidence is forthcoming one certainly can not claim that the possibility of a naturalistic origin of life has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other vexing problems in origin-of-life research , there has been a need for some years now for a detailed , systematic analysis of all major aspects of the field .
It is time to re-examine the foundations of this research in such a way that all the salient lines of criticism are simultaneously kept in view .
The Mystery of Life ’ s Origin admirably fills this need .
The authors have addressed nearly all the problems enumerated above and several other important ones as well .
They believe , and I now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flaw in all current theories of the chemical origins of life .
Although the tone of the book is critical , the authors have written it in the positive hope that their analysis will help us find a better theory of origins .
Such an approach is , of course , entirely consistent with the manner in which scientific advances have occurred in the past .
One of the uniquely valuable features of the book is its discussion ( Chap .
6 ) of the relative geochemical plausibilities of the various types of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ To my knowledge this is the first systematic attempt to devise formal criteria for acceptable degrees of interference by the investigator in such experiments .
Another especially helpful feature is the detailed discussion of the implications of thermodynamics ( Chaps .
7 , 8 , and 9 ) for the origin-of-life problem .
This important topic is either omitted entirely or is treated superficially in most other books on the chemical origins of life .
The authors might have included a more detailed discussion of the problem of optical isomer preferences , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way from the overall strength of their argument .
If the authors ’ criticisms are valid , one might ask , why have they not been recognized or stressed by workers in the field ?
I suspect that part of the answer is that many scientists would hesitate to accept the authors ’ conclusion that it is fundamentally implausible that unassisted matter and energy organized themselves into living systems .
Perhaps these scientists fear that acceptance of this conclusion would open the door to the possibility ( or the necessity ) of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this prospect many investigators would prefer to continue in their search for a naturalistic explanation of the origin of life along the lines marked out over the last few decades , in spite of the many serious difficulties of which we are now aware .
Perhaps the fallacy of scientism is more wide- spread than we like to think .
One ’ s presuppositions about the origin of life , and especially the assumption that this problem will ultimately yield to a persistent application of current methodology , can certainly influence which lines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stress , and which are played down or avoided altogether .
What the authors have done is to place before us essentially all the pertinent lines of criticism in one continuous statement and to invite us to face them squarely .
All scientists interested in the origin-of-life problem would do well to study this book carefully and to evaluate their own work in the light of its arguments .
Read the rest of The Mystery of Life ’ s Origin : The Continuing Controversy , from Discovery Institute Press .
Photo : Dean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Origin of Life : An Interview with Dr. Dean Kenyon , ” via Access Research Network ( screenshot ) .

Editor’s note: As an alternative to what you are getting pretty much everywhere else in the media at the moment, Evolution News is proud to offer inspiration, pointing to purpose and meaning in life. The profoundest mystery and thus the deepest inspiration is life itself. Discovery Institute Press has just published a greatly expanded edition of the 1984 classic of intelligent design science literature, The Mystery of Life’s Origin. Below is the original Foreword to the book by San Francisco State University biologist Dean Kenyon.
The Mystery of Life’s Origin presents an extraordinary new analysis of an age-old question: How did life start on Earth? The authors deal forthrightly and brilliantly with the major problems confronting scientists today in their search for life’s origins. They understand the impasse in current laboratory and theoretical research and suggest a way around it. Their arguments are cogent, original, and compelling. This book is sure to stimulate much animated discussion among scientists and laymen. It is very likely that research on life’s origins will move in somewhat different directions once the professionals have read this important work.
An Important Work
The modern experimental study of the origin of the first life on Earth is now entering its fourth decade, if we date the inception of this field of research to Stanley Miller’s pioneering work in the early 1950s. Since Miller’s identification of several (racemic) protein-forming amino acids in his electric discharge apparatus, numerous follow-up studies have been conducted. Conforming in varying degrees to the requirements of the so-called “simulation paradigm,” these experiments have yielded detectable amounts of most of the major kinds of biochemical substance as well as a variety of organic microscopic structures suggested to be similar to the historical precursors of the first living cells.
This program of research can be regarded as a natural extension of Darwin’s evolutionary views of the last century. The goal of the work is to find plausible uniformitarian mechanisms for the gradual spontaneous generation of living matter from relatively simple molecules thought to have been abundant on the surface of the primitive Earth.
In Search of a Naturalistic Explanation
The experimental results to date have apparently convinced many scientists that a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life will be found, but there are significant reasons for doubt. In the years since the publication of Biochemical Predestination I have been increasingly struck by a peculiar feature of many of the published experiments in the field. I am not referring to those studies conducted more or less along the lines of Miller’s original work, although there are firm grounds for criticizing those studies as well. I am referring to those experiments designed to elucidate possible pathways of prebiotic synthesis of certain organic substances of biologic interest, such as purines and pyrimidines, or polypeptides.
In most cases the experimental conditions in such studies have been so artificially simplified as to have virtually no bearing on any actual processes that might have taken place on the primitive Earth. For example, if one wishes to find a possible prebiotic mechanism of condensation of free amino acids to polypeptides, it is not likely that sugars or aldehydes would be added to the reaction mixture. And yet, how likely is it that amino acids (or any other presumed precursor substance) occurred anywhere on the primitive Earth free from contamination substances, either in solution or the solid state? The difficulty is that if sugars or aldehydes were also present polypeptides would not form. Instead an interfering cross-reaction would occur between amino acids and sugars to give complex, insoluble polymeric material of very dubious relevance to chemical evolution. This problem of potentially interfering cross-reactions has been largely neglected in much of the published work on the chemical origins of life. The possible implications of such an omission merit careful study.
My Growing Uneasiness
Other aspects of origin-of-life research have contributed to my growing uneasiness about the theory of chemical evolution. One of these is the enormous gap between the most complex “protocell” model systems produced in the laboratory and the simplest living cells. Anyone familiar with the ultrastructural and biochemical complexity of the genus Mycoplasma, for example, should have serious doubts about the relevance of any of the various laboratory “protocols” to the actual historical origin of cells. In my view, the possibility of closing this gap by laboratory simulation of chemical events likely to have occurred on the primitive Earth is extremely remote.
Another intractable problem concerns the spontaneous origin of the optical isomer preferences found universally in living matter (e.g., L- rather than D-amino acids in proteins, D- rather than L-sugars in nucleic acids). After all the prodigious effort that has gone into attempts to solve this great question over the years, we are really no nearer to a solution today than we were thirty years ago.
Finally, in this brief summary of the reasons for my growing doubts that life on Earth could have begun spontaneously by purely chemical and physical means, there is the problem of the origin of genetic, i.e., biologically relevant, information in biopolymers. No experimental system yet devised has provided the slightest clue as to how biologically meaningful sequences of subunits might have originated in prebiotic polynucleotides or polypeptides. Evidence for some degree of spontaneous sequence ordering has been published, but there is no indication whatsoever that the non-randomness is biologically significant. Until such evidence is forthcoming one certainly cannot claim that the possibility of a naturalistic origin of life has been demonstrated.
Vexing Problems
In view of these and other vexing problems in origin-of-life research, there has been a need for some years now for a detailed, systematic analysis of all major aspects of the field. It is time to re-examine the foundations of this research in such a way that all the salient lines of criticism are simultaneously kept in view. The Mystery of Life’s Origin admirably fills this need. The authors have addressed nearly all the problems enumerated above and several other important ones as well. They believe, and I now concur, that there is a fundamental flaw in all current theories of the chemical origins of life. Although the tone of the book is critical, the authors have written it in the positive hope that their analysis will help us find a better theory of origins. Such an approach is, of course, entirely consistent with the manner in which scientific advances have occurred in the past.
One of the uniquely valuable features of the book is its discussion (Chap. 6) of the relative geochemical plausibilities of the various types of simulation experiments reported in the literature. To my knowledge this is the first systematic attempt to devise formal criteria for acceptable degrees of interference by the investigator in such experiments. Another especially helpful feature is the detailed discussion of the implications of thermodynamics (Chaps. 7, 8, and 9) for the origin-of-life problem. This important topic is either omitted entirely or is treated superficially in most other books on the chemical origins of life. The authors might have included a more detailed discussion of the problem of optical isomer preferences, but this deficiency detracts in only a minor way from the overall strength of their argument.
What Scientists Fear
If the authors’ criticisms are valid, one might ask, why have they not been recognized or stressed by workers in the field? I suspect that part of the answer is that many scientists would hesitate to accept the authors’ conclusion that it is fundamentally implausible that unassisted matter and energy organized themselves into living systems. Perhaps these scientists fear that acceptance of this conclusion would open the door to the possibility (or the necessity) of a supernatural origin of life. Faced with this prospect many investigators would prefer to continue in their search for a naturalistic explanation of the origin of life along the lines marked out over the last few decades, in spite of the many serious difficulties of which we are now aware. Perhaps the fallacy of scientism is more wide- spread than we like to think.
One’s presuppositions about the origin of life, and especially the assumption that this problem will ultimately yield to a persistent application of current methodology, can certainly influence which lines of evidence and argument one chooses to stress, and which are played down or avoided altogether. What the authors have done is to place before us essentially all the pertinent lines of criticism in one continuous statement and to invite us to face them squarely.
All scientists interested in the origin-of-life problem would do well to study this book carefully and to evaluate their own work in the light of its arguments.
Read the rest of The Mystery of Life’s Origin: The Continuing Controversy, from Discovery Institute Press.
Photo: Dean H. Kenyon, in “On the Origin of Life: An Interview with Dr. Dean Kenyon,” via Access Research Network (screenshot).


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-03-24--To Ask “Where Is God in This Pandemic?” Is to Acknowledge that God Exists

Many ask : Where is God in this pandemic ?
This problem of theodicy is real , of course .
We don ’ t always know or understand God ’ s ways .
But we should understand that the question “ Where is God in this pandemic ?
” presupposes God ’ s existence .
To see how , consider a world in which He didn ’ t exist .
Without a Creator , there would be no objective moral standard — no standard of good or evil— that we could apply to this suffering .
It would not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sense for countless thousands of people to suffer and die .
In a Godless world it would be unpleasant for those who suffer , of course , but there would be nothing morally wrong or morally perplexing in such suffering .
If the universe is not under objective moral law , we have no warrant to ask “ why ” we or anyone suffers , any more than a machine has a warrant to ask why parts break .
Parts of a machine may corrode or snap , but gadgets don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at stake .
Suffering in a universe without God and thus without objective good or evil is meaningless , literally .
Richard Dawkins expressed the atheist perspective quite well : But we are part of the universe , and we are not at all piteously indifferent .
The intense sense we have of suffering — our suffering and the suffering of our families and neighbors and of humanity — implicitly points to an objective law of good and evil outside of ourselves .
If suffering is wrong and evil , then there necessarily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reality .
Good and evil presuppose a Source of moral law .
I don ’ t know why God allows pandemics .
But I know that my — and Richard Dawkins ’ s — moral objection to human suffering is an implicit acknowledgement of God ’ s existence .
I know that the suffering of innocents is evil , and is not merely unpleasant .
That would not be the case if there were no moral Lawgiver outside of my own opinions .
Heck , if I were a mere vehicle for selfish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I would love mass death , as long as my own genes weren ’ t deleted .
Coronavirus is efficient — natural selection on an industrial scale .
Those of us who are alive are the winners .
I would not know or care about good or evil unless there were a standard of good and evil independent of me .
But we care a lot , and millions risk their own lives to save strangers .
There is a Source of Good , of which evil is a privation .
I ask @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hasn ’ t told me , or told anyone , as far as I know .
My sense is that suffering on this scale is the working out of things far beyond human understanding .
Perhaps theologian David Bentley Hart was right when he said , concerning the Boxing Day tsunami in 2004 , that suffering on this scale is not morally intelligible , and that it would be far more terrible if were .

Many ask: Where is God in this pandemic? This problem of theodicy is real, of course. We don’t always know or understand God’s ways.
But we should understand that the question “Where is God in this pandemic?” presupposes God’s existence. To see how, consider a world in which He didn’t exist. Without a Creator, there would be no objective moral standard — no standard of good or evil— that we could apply to this suffering. It would not be “wrong” in any objective moral sense for countless thousands of people to suffer and die.
In a Godless world it would be unpleasant for those who suffer, of course, but there would be nothing morally wrong or morally perplexing in such suffering. If the universe is not under objective moral law, we have no warrant to ask “why” we or anyone suffers, any more than a machine has a warrant to ask why parts break. Parts of a machine may corrode or snap, but gadgets don’t suffer and there is no moral issue at stake.
Meaningless, Literally
Suffering in a universe without God and thus without objective good or evil is meaningless, literally. Richard Dawkins expressed the atheist perspective quite well:
The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.
But we are part of the universe, and we are not at all piteously indifferent. The intense sense we have of suffering — our suffering and the suffering of our families and neighbors and of humanity — implicitly points to an objective law of good and evil outside of ourselves. If suffering is wrong and evil, then there necessarily exists a moral framework that transcends material reality. Good and evil presuppose a Source of moral law.
Natural Selection on an Industrial Scale
I don’t know why God allows pandemics. But I know that my — and Richard Dawkins’s — moral objection to human suffering is an implicit acknowledgement of God’s existence. I know that the suffering of innocents is evil, and is not merely unpleasant. That would not be the case if there were no moral Lawgiver outside of my own opinions. Heck, if I were a mere vehicle for selfish genes evolved wholly by natural selection, I would love mass death, as long as my own genes weren’t deleted. Coronavirus is efficient — natural selection on an industrial scale. Those of us who are alive are the winners.
I would not know or care about good or evil unless there were a standard of good and evil independent of me. But we care a lot, and millions risk their own lives to save strangers. There is a Source of Good, of which evil is a privation. I ask Him why innocents suffer, and He hasn’t told me, or told anyone, as far as I know.
My sense is that suffering on this scale is the working out of things far beyond human understanding. Perhaps theologian David Bentley Hart was right when he said, concerning the Boxing Day tsunami in 2004, that suffering on this scale is not morally intelligible, and that it would be far more terrible if were.
Photo credit: rottonara via Pixabay.