discoveryinstitute--2020-05-27--Scientist Admits Biologists Are Obsessed with Intelligent Design

What do scientists spend more time thinking about — sex , or the theory of intelligent design ?
Scientific research famously gives a range of answers to the question of how many times per day men think about sex ( from 19 times to 7,200 times ) .
If one European researcher is correct , scientists in the United States ( who are mostly male ) spend one-fifth of their waking time thinking about how to “ combat intelligent design.
” Despite incessant declarations that “ there is no controversy ” about evolution , ID is evidently on the mind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of obsession !
Evolution News recently commented on an article in an Italian philosophy journal that took intelligent design ( ID ) arguments with refreshing seriousness .
Now another European journal has published its own noteworthy commentary .
The author is Giuseppe Longo , who studies mathematical computer science and epistemology as research director ( emeritus ) at Le Centre national de la recherche scientifique ( National Center for Scientific Research ) in Paris .
His article , “ Scientific thought and absolutes for an image of the sciences , between computing and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ journal Angelaki .
First , if the critics are right to say ID is “ dead , ” why devote so much time to it ?
Evolution News reported in 2014 that an article in the journal Nature admitted that scientists self-censor criticisms of neo-Darwinism to avoid lending credence to ID .
As Laland et al .
( 2014 ) conceded : “ Perhaps haunted by the spectre of intelligent design , evolutionary biologists wish to show a united front to those hostile to science.
” In 2017 we observed how Laland followed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a report published in Trends in Ecology and Evolution that the 2016 Royal Society meeting included strong critiques of the neo-Darwinian paradigm .
Clearly , ID arguments are potent , and evolutionary biologists are aware of this — which is why they admit they don ’ t like to acknowledge problems in the evolutionary consensus .
Second , intelligent design ’ s supposed negative impact is hyped beyond reason .
The notion that “ financing of research ” in the U.S. is being hurt by ID is laughable .
Pure ID research @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Government .
From other sources , the amount of money available to fund ID research , though not trivial , is minuscule compared to the amount of money available for evolutionary science .
No evolutionary scientist has any right to complain .
Third , it ’ s a shame that “ 20 percent of their time and brain power ” is going to ID because the trend in thought is now running toward government-backed censorship .
Fourth , it does happen from time to time that ID critics reply to ID arguments .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ attacking straw man mischaracterizations , as in the recent BioEssays that demanded censorship of Evolution News and other ID publications .
In his article , Giuseppe Longo himself goes after ID straw men : Creationist theories require divine intervention case by case : there is no universality of either method or criteria , but only faith in an omnipotent God , who created species and biological functions one by one , each with their own characteristics .
Generality is in God , not in the method of knowledge .
We can say the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ absolutism : “ intelligent design ” theory , which is having great success with the American public .
Tapping the molecular alphabet on the genetic keyboard , God would program DNA mutations for his own supreme ends .
But then , paleontological evidence tells us that approximately 99 percent of species that were formed on earth have disappeared , and that , especially in the five greatest known extinctions , massacres and death have ravaged our planet .
That all of this has taken place to conserve us , as well as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , does not seem to be very productive , or particularly intelligent .
Hence , we invoke the impenetrability of divine design , of the Absolute Programmer , as the face of the tens of millions of deaths caused by the mutation of the flu virus ( the “ Spanish flu ” of 1918 for example ) .
Whenever we see fit , this “ intelligent design ” becomes impenetrable ( unintelligible ) , the criteria change , and we invoke faith .
What a mess .
It ’ s hard to know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proponent actually argues like that ?
Who says that ID “ requires … faith in an omnipotent God ” ?
Not Stephen Meyer : The theory of intelligent design does not claim to detect a supernatural intelligence possessing unlimited powers .
Though the designing agent responsible for life may well have been an omnipotent deity , the theory of intelligent design does not claim to be able to determine that .
Because the inference to design depends upon our uniform experience of cause and effect in this world , the theory can not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ putatively responsible for life has powers beyond those on display in our experience .
Nor can the theory of intelligent design determine whether the intelligent agent responsible for information life acted from the natural or the “ supernatural ” realm .
Instead , the theory of intelligent design merely claims to detect the action of some intelligent cause ( with power , at least , equivalent to those we know from experience ) and affirms this because we know from experience that only conscious , intelligent agents produce large amounts of specified information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not claim to be able to determine the identity or any other attributes of that intelligence , even if philosophical deliberation or additional evidence from other disciplines may provide reasons to consider , for example , a specifically theistic design hypothesis.
” Meyer , Signature in the Cell : DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design , pp .
428-429 ( HarperOne , 2009 ) Or who says that the theory of intelligent design requires “ divine design ” where God “ created species and biological functions one by one , each with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Michael Behe : [ ID ] is not an argument for the existence of a benevolent God , as Paley ’ s was .
I hasten to add that I myself do believe in a benevolent God , and I recognize that philosophy and theology may be able to extend the argument .
But a scientific argument for design in biology does not reach that far .
Thus while I argue for design , the question of the identity of the designer is left open .
Possible candidates for the role of designer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an angel–fallen or not ; Plato ’ s demi-urge ; some mystical new age force ; space aliens from Alpha Centauri ; time travelers ; or some utterly unknown intelligent being .
Of course , some of these possibilities may seem more plausible than others based on information from fields other than science .
Nonetheless , as regards the identity of the designer , modern ID theory happily echoes Isaac Newton ’ s phrase hypothesis non fingo .
ID grants that organisms might undergo various degrees of Darwinian evolution .
Within vertebrates Behe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the level of the class — hardly requiring that God specially creates each type of organism in its current form .
This is what Behe calls the “ edge of evolution.
” William Dembski agrees that ID does not require special creation : And who says that “ there is no universality of either method or criteria ” by which we detect design , “ but only faith in an omnipotent God ” ?
Not Dembski .
He laid out an objective criteria by which we can detect design , requiring no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on recognizing information in nature , indicating the past action of intelligence : The type of information that indicates the prior action of intelligence is “ complex and specified information ” ( CSI ) .
We can rigorously measure CSI : To see why CSI is a reliable indicator of design , we need to examine the nature of intelligent causation .
The principal characteristic of intelligent causation is directed contingency , or what we call choice .
Whenever an intelligent cause acts , it chooses from a range of competing possibilities .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ choosing certain things , ruling out others .
… Given this characterization of intelligent causes , the crucial question is how to recognize their operation .
Intelligent causes act by making a choice .
How then do we recognize that an intelligent cause has made a choice ?
… The actualization of one among several competing possibilities , the exclusion of the rest , and the specification of the possibility actualized encapsulate how we recognize intelligent causes , or equivalently , how we detect design .
… We can summarize this argument for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of design as follows : CSI is a reliable indicator of design because its recognition coincides with how we recognize intelligent causation generally .
To recognize intelligent causation , we must establish that one possibility from a range of competing possibilities was actualized , determine which possibilities were excluded , and then specify the actualized possibility .
When Longo says that ID is based on “ faith ” and “ absolutism , ” this bears no resemblance to the actual theory of ID .
What about Longo ’ s claim that if organisms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ does not seem to be very productive , or particularly intelligent ” ?
He argues that unless we admit that extinction refutes design , this shows “ the impenetrability of divine design.
” By that he means ID proponents change the goalposts arbitrarily , and “ Whenever we see fit … the criteria change , and we invoke faith.
” If ID proponents had ever argued that design requires that all species must live eternally , he might have a point .
But no mainstream ID proponent has ever said that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ occurs .
Evolution News dealt with the “ perfect design ” objection in response to BioEssays as well .
Imperfect design is still design .
Anyone who ever got stuck trying to upgrade a computer ’ s operating system is well aware of this fact .
From the textbook Discovering Intelligent Design : [ W ] hen ID proponents use the term “ intelligent , ” they simply seek to indicate that a structure has features requiring a mind capable of forethought to design the blueprint .
But does intelligent design require perfect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constitutes biological perfection ?
Take humans for example .
Should our bodies all last 100 years ?
200 years ?
Forever ?
Should we be impervious to injury and never get sick ?
These are philosophical or theological questions , having little or nothing to do with science .
Holding biological systems to a vaguely defined standard of “ perfect ” design is the wrong way to test ID .
The examples at the beginning of this chapter — broken machinery , computer failures , and decaying buildings — all show that a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if it breaks or has flaws .
Intelligent design does not mean perfect design .
It doesn ’ t even require optimal design .
It means exactly what it says : design by an intelligent agent .
In attacking such outlandish straw men , ID critics parade their own ignorance .
Four Options for the Critics So as we ’ ve seen , evolutionary biologists think about intelligent design quite a bit ( whether it ’ s 20 percent of the time , who knows ? )
, and sometimes they get very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t like that there are potent challenges to their materialistic origins paradigm .
Sometimes it seems they wish ID would just go away .
As recent responses indicate , they typically deal with ID in three different ways : ( 1 ) They may pretend that ID challenges don ’ t exist , as Laland et al .
( 2014 ) suggested , and Laland ( 2017 ) later practiced .
( 2 ) They may put out a fake response , attacking straw men versions of ID , as Giuseppe Longo does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Dave Speijer followed approach ( 2 ) , but added an extra touch of malice by calling for Internet censorship .
That ’ s always an option for dealing with ideas you dislike .
Of course , there ’ s a fourth option .
It ’ s a tougher assignment : respond substantively to ID ’ s arguments .
If the critics could do that , they probably would .

What do scientists spend more time thinking about — sex, or the theory of intelligent design? Scientific research famously gives a range of answers to the question of how many times per day men think about sex (from 19 times to 7,200 times). If one European researcher is correct, scientists in the United States (who are mostly male) spend one-fifth of their waking time thinking about how to “combat intelligent design.” Despite incessant declarations that “there is no controversy” about evolution, ID is evidently on the mind of many biologists, to the point of obsession!
Evolution News recently commented on an article in an Italian philosophy journal that took intelligent design (ID) arguments with refreshing seriousness. Now another European journal has published its own noteworthy commentary. The author is Giuseppe Longo, who studies mathematical computer science and epistemology as research director (emeritus) at Le Centre national de la recherche scientifique (National Center for Scientific Research) in Paris. His article, “Scientific thought and absolutes for an image of the sciences, between computing and biology,” appears in the humanities journal Angelaki.
He writes:
During a recent colloquium on biology in Paris, I have heard with dread all American colleagues, but fortunately only them (for the moment), lost 20 percent of their time and brain power combat [sic] intelligent design theory, so much the stakes have become drastically central, even for the financing of research, in this country.
Multiple thoughts come to mind.
ID Is Dead, Long Live ID!
First, if the critics are right to say ID is “dead,” why devote so much time to it? Evolution News reported in 2014 that an article in the journal Nature admitted that scientists self-censor criticisms of neo-Darwinism to avoid lending credence to ID. As Laland et al. (2014) conceded: “Perhaps haunted by the spectre of intelligent design, evolutionary biologists wish to show a united front to those hostile to science.” In 2017 we observed how Laland followed his own advice, refusing to admit in a report published in Trends in Ecology and Evolution that the 2016 Royal Society meeting included strong critiques of the neo-Darwinian paradigm. Clearly, ID arguments are potent, and evolutionary biologists are aware of this — which is why they admit they don’t like to acknowledge problems in the evolutionary consensus.
Second, intelligent design’s supposed negative impact is hyped beyond reason. The notion that “financing of research” in the U.S. is being hurt by ID is laughable. Pure ID research gets exactly zero dollars from the Federal Government. From other sources, the amount of money available to fund ID research, though not trivial, is minuscule compared to the amount of money available for evolutionary science. No evolutionary scientist has any right to complain.
Third, it’s a shame that “20 percent of their time and brain power” is going to ID because the trend in thought is now running toward government-backed censorship.
Where to Begin?
Fourth, it does happen from time to time that ID critics reply to ID arguments. More often what they are doing is attacking straw man mischaracterizations, as in the recent BioEssays that demanded censorship of Evolution News and other ID publications. In his article, Giuseppe Longo himself goes after ID straw men:
Creationist theories require divine intervention case by case: there is no universality of either method or criteria, but only faith in an omnipotent God, who created species and biological functions one by one, each with their own characteristics. Generality is in God, not in the method of knowledge. We can say the same of the modern version of creationist absolutism: “intelligent design” theory, which is having great success with the American public. Tapping the molecular alphabet on the genetic keyboard, God would program DNA mutations for his own supreme ends. But then, paleontological evidence tells us that approximately 99 percent of species that were formed on earth have disappeared, and that, especially in the five greatest known extinctions, massacres and death have ravaged our planet. That all of this has taken place to conserve us, as well as the 1 percent of species that have survived, does not seem to be very productive, or particularly intelligent. Hence, we invoke the impenetrability of divine design, of the Absolute Programmer, as the face of the tens of millions of deaths caused by the mutation of the flu virus (the “Spanish flu” of 1918 for example). Whenever we see fit, this “intelligent design” becomes impenetrable (unintelligible), the criteria change, and we invoke faith.
What a mess. It’s hard to know where to begin. What mainstream ID proponent actually argues like that? Who says that ID “requires … faith in an omnipotent God”? Not Stephen Meyer:
The theory of intelligent design does not claim to detect a supernatural intelligence possessing unlimited powers. Though the designing agent responsible for life may well have been an omnipotent deity, the theory of intelligent design does not claim to be able to determine that. Because the inference to design depends upon our uniform experience of cause and effect in this world, the theory cannot determine whether or not the designing intelligence putatively responsible for life has powers beyond those on display in our experience. Nor can the theory of intelligent design determine whether the intelligent agent responsible for information life acted from the natural or the “supernatural” realm. Instead, the theory of intelligent design merely claims to detect the action of some intelligent cause (with power, at least, equivalent to those we know from experience) and affirms this because we know from experience that only conscious, intelligent agents produce large amounts of specified information. The theory of intelligent design does not claim to be able to determine the identity or any other attributes of that intelligence, even if philosophical deliberation or additional evidence from other disciplines may provide reasons to consider, for example, a specifically theistic design hypothesis.” Meyer, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, pp. 428-429 (HarperOne, 2009)
Or who says that the theory of intelligent design requires “divine design” where God “created species and biological functions one by one, each with their own characteristics”? Here is Michael Behe:
So, based on developmental biology and our new knowledge of life’s molecules, can we draw a reasonable, tentative line between Darwin and design in animal evolution? …. Combining the reasoning from the past several sections, then, we can conclude that animal design probably extends into life at least as far as vertebrate classes, maybe deeper, and that random mutation likely explains differences at least up to the species level, perhaps somewhat beyond. Somewhere between the level of vertebrate species and class lies the organismal edge of Darwinian evolution. Behe, The Edge of Evolution, pp. 193, 201 (Free Press, 2007)
Behe again:
[ID] is not an argument for the existence of a benevolent God, as Paley’s was. I hasten to add that I myself do believe in a benevolent God, and I recognize that philosophy and theology may be able to extend the argument. But a scientific argument for design in biology does not reach that far. Thus while I argue for design, the question of the identity of the designer is left open. Possible candidates for the role of designer include: the God of Christianity; an angel–fallen or not; Plato’s demi-urge; some mystical new age force; space aliens from Alpha Centauri; time travelers; or some utterly unknown intelligent being. Of course, some of these possibilities may seem more plausible than others based on information from fields other than science. Nonetheless, as regards the identity of the designer, modern ID theory happily echoes Isaac Newton’s phrase hypothesis non fingo. Behe, “The Modern Intelligent Design Hypothesis,” Philosophia Christi, Series 2, Vol. 3, No. 1 (2001), p. 165
ID grants that organisms might undergo various degrees of Darwinian evolution. Within vertebrates Behe allows that this may extend even up to the level of the class — hardly requiring that God specially creates each type of organism in its current form. This is what Behe calls the “edge of evolution.”
William Dembski agrees that ID does not require special creation:
Intelligent design does not require organisms to emerge suddenly or to be specially created from scratch by the intervention of a designing intelligence. To be sure, intelligent design is compatible with the creationist idea of organisms being suddenly created from scratch. But it is also perfectly compatible with the evolutionist idea of new organisms arising from old by gradual accrual of change. What separates intelligent design from naturalistic evolution is not whether organisms evolved or the extent to which they evolved, but what was responsible for their evolution. Dembski, The Design Revolution, p. 178 (InterVarsity Press, 2004)
And who says that “there is no universality of either method or criteria” by which we detect design, “but only faith in an omnipotent God”? Not Dembski. He laid out an objective criteria by which we can detect design, requiring no religious premises. The method is based on recognizing information in nature, indicating the past action of intelligence:
[I]ntelligent design can be formulated as a scientific theory having empirical consequences and devoid of religious commitments. Intelligent design can be unpacked as a theory of information. Within such a theory, information becomes a reliable indicator of design as well as a proper object for scientific investigation. Dembski, “Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information,” in Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics, edited by Robert Pennock (MIT Press 2002), p. 553
The type of information that indicates the prior action of intelligence is “complex and specified information” (CSI). We can rigorously measure CSI:
To see why CSI is a reliable indicator of design, we need to examine the nature of intelligent causation. The principal characteristic of intelligent causation is directed contingency, or what we call choice. Whenever an intelligent cause acts, it chooses from a range of competing possibilities. … Intelligent causation always entails discrimination, choosing certain things, ruling out others. … Given this characterization of intelligent causes, the crucial question is how to recognize their operation. Intelligent causes act by making a choice. How then do we recognize that an intelligent cause has made a choice? … The actualization of one among several competing possibilities, the exclusion of the rest, and the specification of the possibility actualized encapsulate how we recognize intelligent causes, or equivalently, how we detect design. … We can summarize this argument for showing that CSI is a reliable indicator of design as follows: CSI is a reliable indicator of design because its recognition coincides with how we recognize intelligent causation generally. To recognize intelligent causation, we must establish that one possibility from a range of competing possibilities was actualized, determine which possibilities were excluded, and then specify the actualized possibility. Dembski, “Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information,” pp. 565-568
When Longo says that ID is based on “faith” and “absolutism,” this bears no resemblance to the actual theory of ID.
Return of the “Perfect Design” Straw Man
What about Longo’s claim that if organisms go extinct then this shows the design “does not seem to be very productive, or particularly intelligent”? He argues that unless we admit that extinction refutes design, this shows “the impenetrability of divine design.” By that he means ID proponents change the goalposts arbitrarily, and “Whenever we see fit … the criteria change, and we invoke faith.”
If ID proponents had ever argued that design requires that all species must live eternally, he might have a point. But no mainstream ID proponent has ever said that, and ID readily allows that mass extinction occurs. Evolution News dealt with the “perfect design” objection in response to BioEssays as well. Imperfect design is still design. Anyone who ever got stuck trying to upgrade a computer’s operating system is well aware of this fact. From the textbook Discovering Intelligent Design:
[W]hen ID proponents use the term “intelligent,” they simply seek to indicate that a structure has features requiring a mind capable of forethought to design the blueprint. But does intelligent design require perfect design? For that matter, what constitutes biological perfection? Take humans for example. Should our bodies all last 100 years? 200 years? Forever? Should we be impervious to injury and never get sick? These are philosophical or theological questions, having little or nothing to do with science. Holding biological systems to a vaguely defined standard of “perfect” design is the wrong way to test ID. The examples at the beginning of this chapter — broken machinery, computer failures, and decaying buildings — all show that a structure might be designed by intelligence even if it breaks or has flaws. Intelligent design does not mean perfect design. It doesn’t even require optimal design. It means exactly what it says: design by an intelligent agent.
In attacking such outlandish straw men, ID critics parade their own ignorance.
Four Options for the Critics
So as we’ve seen, evolutionary biologists think about intelligent design quite a bit (whether it’s 20 percent of the time, who knows?), and sometimes they get very frustrated about it. They don’t like that there are potent challenges to their materialistic origins paradigm. Sometimes it seems they wish ID would just go away. As recent responses indicate, they typically deal with ID in three different ways:
(1) They may pretend that ID challenges don’t exist, as Laland et al. (2014) suggested, and Laland (2017) later practiced.
(2) They may put out a fake response, attacking straw men versions of ID, as Giuseppe Longo does.
(3) Writing in BioEssays, Dave Speijer followed approach (2), but added an extra touch of malice by calling for Internet censorship. That’s always an option for dealing with ideas you dislike.
Of course, there’s a fourth option. It’s a tougher assignment: respond substantively to ID’s arguments. If the critics could do that, they probably would.
Photo credit: ThisisEngineering RAEng via Unsplash.


discoveryinstitute--2020-05-27--Dershowitz Wrong: Government Can’t Compel You to Take COVID-19 Vaccine

A friend asked for my thoughts about a new performance of Monteverdi ’ s “ Beatus vir ” ( 1640 ) by the Prague “ early music ” group Collegium 1704 .
It ’ s disturbing to see the combination of beautiful music , beautiful setting , beautifully produced video , even the instruments are beautiful ( the interestingly shaped bows , for example , true to the historical period ) — and then the COVID masks the performers all wear .
The Latin text is Psalm 112 , “ Praise ye the Lord .
Blessed is the man that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Collegium 1704 , I suppose I would do just as they did .
If you ’ re an artist , you want people to say , “ Did you see… ?
What do you think of… ?
” In that , they succeeded .
Yet the images are troubling .
It ’ s hard to picture myself ever looking at masks and not feeling uneasy .
I would put one on to make someone else feel comfortable .
No doubt , I will go along and wear a mask before long , when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is no misunderstanding , I am NOT saying masks aren ’ t advisable .
They likely are in many contexts — ever-shifting “ expert ” opinions notwithstanding .
But I ’ ve wondered about my response .
If you read the comments under the video , that ’ s not how many people feel .
One viewer asks where he can go to get such cool masks .
Whether in the Bible or in horror literature , masks are associated with shame and terror .
“ Unclean !
Unclean !
” as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to call out as he passes .
See the Robert W. Chambers short story “ The Mask , ” invoking the fictional play The King in Yellow , said to induce madness and ruin in those who read it .
Running in the park near where we live , I see people putting on their masks as I go by .
They look fearful of me , as if they believe I must be sick , although outdoor transmission is very unlikely in any case .
A mask erases individuality .
Stampeding humans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all the same attitudes , is a mark of our time .
Much of the coronavirus response has involved an intensifying drive to dehumanize us ( “ for our own good ” ! )
, lock us down like a dog in a crate .
Dogs are said to find limited crating bearable , even comforting .
People are different — which could be a three-word summary of the Humanize blog and its mission .
The terms we now use in routine conversation ( “ herd immunity ” ) are telling .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , though .
When my kids are too casual and go barefoot and sit on the floor or walk around wearing a blanket , I ask them not to do that because it ’ s the stereotypical behavior of a beggar .
It seems to show a lack of gratitude to God that we are not destitute .
( Not yet .
The never-ending lockdown may fix that . )
In the same way , I wonder if part of my own primal response to masks comes from the sense that the human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ To hide your face is as if to deny the divine image , which would be the ultimate horror .
Of course , many of our most enlightened fellow citizens are eager to do just that .

Center on Human Exceptionalism
The mission of Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism is to affirm and uphold the intrinsic nature of human dignity, liberty, and equality. In resistance to a growing movement against unique human personhood, we aim to revitalize a commitment to the traditional Western view of human rights and human responsibilities — summed up by the term “human exceptionalism.” Read more


discoveryinstitute--2020-05-26--Making Sense of the Numbers Behind COVID-19

Language matters and it is sometimes used in a confusing way .
For example , we hear talk of “ killing ” viruses , even at sites sponsored by medics .
But , unlike bacteria , viruses are not alive .
COVID-19 is an RNA encased in a lipid membrane .
So the sentence “ Wash your hands to kill the virus ” is technically wrong .
Washing your hands can destroy the virus and prevent its spread but we can ’ t kill what was never alive .
A bigger problem is the misleading way media and politicians quote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deaths : The risk is that politicians , business owners and ordinary Americans who are making decisions about lockdowns , reopenings and other day-to-day matters could be left with the impression that the virus is under more control than it actually is .
In Virginia , Texas and Vermont , for example , officials said they have been combining the results of viral tests , which show an active infection , with antibody tests , which show a past infection .
Public health experts say that can make for impressive-looking testing totals but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how the virus is spreading .
Michelle R. Smith , Colleen Long and Jeff Amy , “ blockquote > States accused of fudging or bungling COVID-19 testing data ” at Associated Press ( May 19 , 2020 ) So how can we find out what we need to know ?
First , we should look at how the numbers of deaths from COVID-19 are reported .
In doing so , we might seem insensitive to the fact that these numbers represent actual people who have died , oftentimes alone and intubated .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ numbers so we can understand how the disease works ( epidemiology ) .
That , in turn , can help us minimize the number of vulnerable people exposed to it : Deaths per capita is a more significant figure than deaths overall When comparing the number of COVID-19 cases and deaths between two different locations , it ’ s important to consider the number per capita ( that is , per 1,000 or 1,000,000 people ) .
Think back to algebra ; it ’ s like finding a common denominator .
Would you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 10 people recommend it ?
What if 9 out of 100 people recommend it ?
It makes a difference , when assessing an impact , how many people we ’ re talking about overall .
For example , here are two commonly cited claims : “ The U.S. has the most deaths from COVID-19.
” It is true that ( as of this writing ) the U.S. has 96,610 deaths due to COVID-19 , which is higher in absolute terms than any other country .
However , if you look at the number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. ranks 12th in the world .
Similarly , the U.S. has more than 1.6 million cases of COVID-19 , a higher number than any other country .
Case numbers are likely underreported in the U.S. because of testing .
But when you look at cases per 100,000 people , the U.S. ranks 11th or 12th .
Italy has about one-third the number of deaths as the U.S. ( 32,735 ) but Italy ’ s death rate per 100,000 people is 54 compared to that of the U.S. at 30 ( 1.8× that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. has conducted the largest number of COVID-19 tests.
” It ’ s true the U.S. has conducted the largest number of COVID-19 tests — over 9 million of them .
But if we look at the number of tests per 1,000 people , the U.S. is somewhere around 10th in the world at 42.7 tests per 1,000 people .
Thus , the bare statements above are not disingenuous because they are both technically true .
The U.S. does have more deaths than any other country and it has conducted more PCR tests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. also has a larger population than most countries .
When we compare two countries , we must make sure that the data takes into account differences in population numbers .
Per Diem : Not every day is the same Another misunderstanding in reporting COVID-19 numbers is the significance of the number of new cases per day and deaths per day .
Perhaps you , like me , check the number of new cases and deaths in your state and county every day .
And perhaps you ’ ve noticed that the numbers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the weekdays .
Viruses do not take a break on the weekends , but people do .
In reality the daily death counts are not necessarily the deaths that happened that day .
A weekly total is probably a better way to look at the data than a daily total .
Here ’ s why : Let ’ s suppose someone dies of COVID-19 on Sunday but fewer people work on the weekend than during the week , even in healthcare .
The Sunday death may not be verified until Monday , then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In Texas , for example , if a death from COVID-19 is reported by 1:00 pm , it goes on that calendar day ’ s count .
If it is reported after 1:00 pm , it goes on the next day ’ s count .
So the final figures for a day may depend on when counties checked in with their counts .
So when you see higher numbers on Tuesday and Wednesday , it ’ s probably due to the lag between reported cases and reported deaths than the day of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t necessarily a bad thing .
We certainly want people to verify case counts and cause of death before reporting them .
But things get confusing when reporters use language such as , “ Tuesday had the largest number of deaths since March.
” Furthermore , sometimes numbers from the previous day are corrected the next day .
The CDC outlines why there might be differences in local and national data as well as why there is a lag in counts .
The main thing to see is that these daily spikes or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the virus ’ s activity patterns .
One statistic that might be helpful , especially in the long term , is “ excess deaths.
” The figure is a comparison between the number of deaths a country or state typically sees at this time of year compared to the deaths in 2020 .
This number can be reported in a couple of different ways .
The CDC uses the average number of deaths dating back to 2013 .
The New Atlantis offers a graph of excess deaths for the U.S. in 2020 compared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as a figure , shows the effect of COVID-19 on society , whether from a strained medical system or due to co-morbidities ( the patient was already weakened by other conditions ) .
It can also account for uncounted COVID-19 deaths .
Where do the numbers we hear about come from ?
Google “ COVID-19 number of deaths per capita ” or “ COVID-19 statistics ” and Worldometer will probably be among the top results .
This site is a data aggregator quoted by various politicians and institutions .
But CNN looked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not the most reliable source of information .
The site aggregates live stats , but their source is unclear : Edouard Mathieu , data manager of Oxford University ’ s Our World Data , shared his misgivings with CNN : A better source of data is the COVID Tracking Project , which clearly outlines who is involved in acquiring data , analysis , and reporting , as well as where they get their numbers .
Still , the New Atlantis points out that even the COVID Tracking Project ’ s data are debatable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people who died from COVID-19 as well as those who died with COVID-19 .
Additionally , how data is displayed influences how the viewer interprets it .
For example , many people understand a linear graph of new cases of COVID-19 per day better than a logarithmic graph , even though logarithmic graphs can better show differences in the data .
These differences may be small but important when it comes to ways viruses spread in a population .
91-DIVOC is a website designed by computer scientist Wade Fagen-Ulmschneider of the University of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ University , allows the user to toggle between a logarithmic and linear graphs comparing new cases in various countries and states .
He says the logarithmic scale is good for looking at the magnitude of growth while the linear scale is good for looking at real human impact .
The COVID-19 pandemic leaves many of us hungry for any morsel of information that we can glean from the media , politicians , and social media .
But , good media discernment means stepping back and asking questions , such as “ What does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do these numbers come from ?
” As we have seen , the Chinese government is working hard to take advantage of people ’ s tendency to consume information without asking questions .
Let ’ s make that hard for them or anyone else to do .
Further reading on Covid-19 from Heather Zeiger : The new cyber Cold War with China .
Cybersecurity strategist Peter Singer told Wired that there has never been a better time than the COVID-19 pandemic to be a government hacker .
The United States has formally accused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of hackers who infiltrate research labs working on responses to COVID-19 .
Getting to the bottom of what happened in China ?
China knowingly violated the terms of a World Health Organization ( WHO ) disclosure agreement .
China : Rewriting the history of COVID-19 : Making the government the improbable hero of the tale Coronavirus in world without trust In China , medical heroism thrives despite both paranoia and justified mistrust of authorities .

Language matters and it is sometimes used in a confusing way. For example, we hear talk of “killing” viruses, even at sites sponsored by medics. But, unlike bacteria, viruses are not alive. COVID-19 is an RNA encased in a lipid membrane. So the sentence “Wash your hands to kill the virus” is technically wrong. Washing your hands can destroy the virus and prevent its spread but we can’t kill what was never alive.
A bigger problem is the misleading way media and politicians quote and compare information about COVID-19 cases and deaths:
The risk is that politicians, business owners and ordinary Americans who are making decisions about lockdowns, reopenings and other day-to-day matters could be left with the impression that the virus is under more control than it actually is. In Virginia, Texas and Vermont, for example, officials said they have been combining the results of viral tests, which show an active infection, with antibody tests, which show a past infection. Public health experts say that can make for impressive-looking testing totals but does not give a true picture of how the virus is spreading. Michelle R. Smith, Colleen Long and Jeff Amy, “blockquote>States accused of fudging or bungling COVID-19 testing data” at Associated Press (May 19, 2020)
So how can we find out what we need to know? First, we should look at how the numbers of deaths from COVID-19 are reported. In doing so, we might seem insensitive to the fact that these numbers represent actual people who have died, oftentimes alone and intubated. But we do need to look at those numbers so we can understand how the disease works (epidemiology). That, in turn, can help us minimize the number of vulnerable people exposed to it:
Deaths per capita is a more significant figure than deaths overall
When comparing the number of COVID-19 cases and deaths between two different locations, it’s important to consider the number per capita (that is, per 1,000 or 1,000,000 people).
Think back to algebra; it’s like finding a common denominator. Would you buy a product if 9 out of 10 people recommend it? What if 9 out of 100 people recommend it? It makes a difference, when assessing an impact, how many people we’re talking about overall.
For example, here are two commonly cited claims:
“The U.S. has the most deaths from COVID-19.”
It is true that (as of this writing) the U.S. has 96,610 deaths due to COVID-19, which is higher in absolute terms than any other country. However, if you look at the number of deaths per 100,000 people, the U.S. ranks 12th in the world.
Similarly, the U.S. has more than 1.6 million cases of COVID-19, a higher number than any other country. Case numbers are likely underreported in the U.S. because of testing. But when you look at cases per 100,000 people, the U.S. ranks 11th or 12th. Italy has about one-third the number of deaths as the U.S. (32,735) but Italy’s death rate per 100,000 people is 54 compared to that of the U.S. at 30 (1.8× that of the U.S.).
“The U.S. has conducted the largest number of COVID-19 tests.”
It’s true the U.S. has conducted the largest number of COVID-19 tests — over 9 million of them. But if we look at the number of tests per 1,000 people, the U.S. is somewhere around 10th in the world at 42.7 tests per 1,000 people.
Thus, the bare statements above are not disingenuous because they are both technically true. The U.S. does have more deaths than any other country and it has conducted more PCR tests than any other country. But the U.S. also has a larger population than most countries. When we compare two countries, we must make sure that the data takes into account differences in population numbers.
Per Diem: Not every day is the same
Another misunderstanding in reporting COVID-19 numbers is the significance of the number of new cases per day and deaths per day.
Perhaps you, like me, check the number of new cases and deaths in your state and county every day. And perhaps you’ve noticed that the numbers are lower on the weekends than on the weekdays. Viruses do not take a break on the weekends, but people do. In reality the daily death counts are not necessarily the deaths that happened that day. A weekly total is probably a better way to look at the data than a daily total. Here’s why:
Let’s suppose someone dies of COVID-19 on Sunday but fewer people work on the weekend than during the week, even in healthcare. The Sunday death may not be verified until Monday, then perhaps reported to the county on Tuesday. In Texas, for example, if a death from COVID-19 is reported by 1:00 pm, it goes on that calendar day’s count. If it is reported after 1:00 pm, it goes on the next day’s count. So the final figures for a day may depend on when counties checked in with their counts.
So when you see higher numbers on Tuesday and Wednesday, it’s probably due to the lag between reported cases and reported deaths than the day of the week. This lag isn’t necessarily a bad thing. We certainly want people to verify case counts and cause of death before reporting them. But things get confusing when reporters use language such as, “Tuesday had the largest number of deaths since March.”
Furthermore, sometimes numbers from the previous day are corrected the next day. The CDC outlines why there might be differences in local and national data as well as why there is a lag in counts.
The main thing to see is that these daily spikes or declines reflect human activity patterns, not the virus’s activity patterns.
One statistic that might be helpful, especially in the long term, is “excess deaths.” The figure is a comparison between the number of deaths a country or state typically sees at this time of year compared to the deaths in 2020. This number can be reported in a couple of different ways. The CDC uses the average number of deaths dating back to 2013. The New Atlantis offers a graph of excess deaths for the U.S. in 2020 compared to deaths in 2018. Excess deaths, as a figure, shows the effect of COVID-19 on society, whether from a strained medical system or due to co-morbidities (the patient was already weakened by other conditions). It can also account for uncounted COVID-19 deaths.
Where do the numbers we hear about come from?
Google “COVID-19 number of deaths per capita” or “COVID-19 statistics” and Worldometer will probably be among the top results. This site is a data aggregator quoted by various politicians and institutions. But CNN looked into Worldometer and found that it is not the most reliable source of information. The site aggregates live stats, but their source is unclear: Edouard Mathieu, data manager of Oxford University’s Our World Data, shared his misgivings with CNN:
Their main focus seems to be having the latest number wherever it comes from, whether it’s reliable or not, whether it’s well-sourced or not,” he said. “We think people should be wary, especially media, policy-makers and decision-makers. This data is not as accurate as they think it is. Scott McLean, Laura Perez Maestro, Sergio Hernandez, Gianluca Mezzofiore and Katie Polglase, “The Covid-19 pandemic has catapulted one mysterious data website to prominence, sowing confusion in international rankings” at CNN
A better source of data is the COVID Tracking Project , which clearly outlines who is involved in acquiring data, analysis, and reporting, as well as where they get their numbers. Still, the New Atlantis points out that even the COVID Tracking Project’s data are debatable because the site counts the number of people who died from COVID-19 as well as those who died with COVID-19.
Additionally, how data is displayed influences how the viewer interprets it. For example, many people understand a linear graph of new cases of COVID-19 per day better than a logarithmic graph, even though logarithmic graphs can better show differences in the data. These differences may be small but important when it comes to ways viruses spread in a population. 91-DIVOC is a website designed by computer scientist Wade Fagen-Ulmschneider of the University of Illinois, using data from Johns Hopkins University, allows the user to toggle between a logarithmic and linear graphs comparing new cases in various countries and states. He says the logarithmic scale is good for looking at the magnitude of growth while the linear scale is good for looking at real human impact.
The COVID-19 pandemic leaves many of us hungry for any morsel of information that we can glean from the media, politicians, and social media. But, good media discernment means stepping back and asking questions, such as “What does this mean?” or “Where do these numbers come from?” As we have seen, the Chinese government is working hard to take advantage of people’s tendency to consume information without asking questions. Let’s make that hard for them or anyone else to do.
Further reading on Covid-19 from Heather Zeiger:
The new cyber Cold War with China. Cybersecurity strategist Peter Singer told Wired that there has never been a better time than the COVID-19 pandemic to be a government hacker. The United States has formally accused China of both funding and operating cells of hackers who infiltrate research labs working on responses to COVID-19.
Getting to the bottom of what happened in China? China knowingly violated the terms of a World Health Organization (WHO) disclosure agreement.
China: Rewriting the history of COVID-19: Making the government the improbable hero of the tale
and
Coronavirus in world without trust In China, medical heroism thrives despite both paranoia and justified mistrust of authorities.


discoveryinstitute--2020-05-28--Michael Behe on Viruses, COVID-19, and Evolution

In this online Zoom webinar , Dr. Behe will review the biochemistry of viruses in general and COVID-19 in particular @ @ @ @ @ topical examples to illustrate a fundamental principle : Darwinian and other unintelligent evolutionary mechanisms can @ @ @ @ @ ways that are medically important , yet they can not explain life ’ s complex @ @ @ @ @ elegant molecular structures of life required purposeful intelligent design .
The Colorado , Houston , @ @ @ @ @ Discovery Institute ’ s Science & Culture Network are pleased to host this upcoming event @ @ @ @ @ with the Chapters , or to donate towards this and other events , please visit @ @ @ @ @ //scienceandculture.network

In this online Zoom webinar, Dr. Behe will review the biochemistry of viruses in general and COVID-19 in particular. He will use these topical examples to illustrate a fundamental principle: Darwinian and other unintelligent evolutionary mechanisms can change life marginally, in ways that are medically important, yet they cannot explain life’s complex structure. Rather, the elegant molecular structures of life required purposeful intelligent design.
The Colorado, Houston, and Southern California Chapters of Discovery Institute’s Science & Culture Network are pleased to host this upcoming event. To stay in touch with the Chapters, or to donate towards this and other events, please visit their website at https://scienceandculture.network
Event Video


What Scientists Know

Our scientific elites insist that the “ scientific consensus ” be accepted without question , and that to raise doubts ( about climate change , about the mind-body relationship , you name it ) is “ science-denial ” or “ anti-intellectualism.
” On Darwinian evolution , questioning the consensus now merits suppression by the government .
As readers of Evolution News are likely aware , the science journal BioEssays recently demanded censorship of intelligent design , mandated by the government if Internet search engines resist .
The author of the article , biologist Dave Speijer , singled out Evolution News @ @ @ @ @ @ @ article was published , biologist Jonathan Wells recounted a relevant story : Some years ago I submitted an article on cell biology to a prominent British journal .
After making some recommended corrections my article passed peer review , and the editor emailed to tell me he wanted to publish it .
He had just one final question : Was I “ the Jonathan Wells of intelligent design fame ?
” ( His words exactly . )
Afterwards he sent the article to yet another reader , whose “ review ” didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ article at all but sounded like a rant from [ the Darwinist website ] Panda ’ s Thumb .
The editor then rejected my article .
Well , scientists really know what they ’ re doing and shouldn ’ t be questioned .
Isn ’ t that right ?
Sometimes a couple of points in public discussion intersect in a way that takes your breath away , and point to a much deeper problem .
Here ’ s an example , one from Yale neuroscientist Steven Novella and another from Fox News .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ should examine in determining mask effectiveness , but this question is hardly “ incredibly complicated.
” We probe the Big Bang , we land spacecraft on asteroids , we decode genomes , and we explore the inner workings of subatomic particles .
Surely we can compare different kinds of face masks .
Sounds like a nice 7th-grade science project .
Novella , after reviewing the scientific literature on this ( literally ) life-and-death issue , concludes : Here ’ s a second news report , that , in light of Novella ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Wrap your mind around that : after spending $ 100 billion on pandemic readiness over the past decade , scientists still don ’ t know if face masks work .
That ’ s not the only thing they don ’ t know .
The COVID crisis has been remarkable for the number of hairpin turns taken by scientific opinion .
Early on , public health experts warned of infection through contact with surfaces .
Now that advice is abruptly reversed : “ Virus ‘ does not spread easily ’ from contaminated surfaces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ( Washington Post ) .
Goodness gracious .
What scientists don ’ t know is astonishing .
Even I ’ m amazed .
There ’ s a real chance that this virus arose due to the incompetence of scientists who handled it in the Wuhan lab .
It is clear that scientists in China and at the World Health Organization misrepresented the facts about the pandemic and covered up the seriousness of the outbreak for months .
Pandemic models have proved worse than worthless , and scientists in the Centers for Disease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at wit ’ s end in dealing with the virus once it reached our shores .
Even the most basic questions — for instance , how much social distancing and economic ruin are called for to save how many lives , etc .
— remain unanswered , even after spending $ 100 billion in the past decade on pandemic research .
Rather than handing over the censors ’ s power to consensus enforcers , there needs to be an accounting for the manifest incompetence of the scientific profession .
That is across a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fiasco is one illustration , the one at the forefront of most people ’ s minds .
But it mustn ’ t end there .
The same scientific profession that doesn ’ t know if face masks work , or whether the virus is communicated by surfaces , doesn ’ t know if materialism explains the mind or if undirected natural selection explains life , either .
Scientists don ’ t really know any more about the origin of life or about the evolution of biological complexity or about how the brain gives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the effectiveness of face masks .
The only difference is that scientists can ’ t fake knowledge about face masks any longer .

Our scientific elites insist that the “scientific consensus” be accepted without question, and that to raise doubts (about climate change, about the mind-body relationship, you name it) is “science-denial” or “anti-intellectualism.”
On Darwinian evolution, questioning the consensus now merits suppression by the government. As readers of Evolution News are likely aware, the science journal BioEssays recently demanded censorship of intelligent design, mandated by the government if Internet search engines resist. The author of the article, biologist Dave Speijer, singled out Evolution News for this treatment.
After the BioEssays article was published, biologist Jonathan Wells recounted a relevant story:
Some years ago I submitted an article on cell biology to a prominent British journal. After making some recommended corrections my article passed peer review, and the editor emailed to tell me he wanted to publish it. He had just one final question: Was I “the Jonathan Wells of intelligent design fame?” (His words exactly.) Afterwards he sent the article to yet another reader, whose “review” didn’t deal with the contents of my article at all but sounded like a rant from [the Darwinist website] Panda’s Thumb. The editor then rejected my article. The journal was BioEssays.
Well, scientists really know what they’re doing and shouldn’t be questioned. Isn’t that right?
“Do Face Masks Work?”
Sometimes a couple of points in public discussion intersect in a way that takes your breath away, and point to a much deeper problem. Here’s an example, one from Yale neuroscientist Steven Novella and another from Fox News.
Do Facemasks Work? The question of whether or not wearing a facemask “works” is incredibly complicated. It may not seem so at first, but let me list some of the specific questions contained in that broad question. We need to consider different kinds of masks — cloth, surgical, N95. We need to consider who is wearing the mask …
Dr. Novella discusses several variables that we should examine in determining mask effectiveness, but this question is hardly “incredibly complicated.” We probe the Big Bang, we land spacecraft on asteroids, we decode genomes, and we explore the inner workings of subatomic particles.
Surely we can compare different kinds of face masks. Sounds like a nice 7th-grade science project.
Novella, after reviewing the scientific literature on this (literally) life-and-death issue, concludes:
… [s]o wear the mask properly, but act as if the mask does not work.
*Sigh*
COVID-19’s $100 Billion Question
Here’s a second news report, that, in light of Novella’s post, ought to give us pause:
Feds spent nearly $100B on pandemic readiness, health security in decade leading up to coronavirus crisis Numbers from a paper in the academic journal “Health Security” released in late 2018 indicate that the government spent between $10 billion and $12 billion each year from 2010 to 2018 across several agencies on programs that contribute to “biosecurity,” the management of “pandemic influenza and emerging infectious diseases,” and “multiple-hazard and general preparedness” programs that assist in readiness for and response to different types of health threats, including diseases like the coronavirus.
Wrap your mind around that: after spending $100 billion on pandemic readiness over the past decade, scientists still don’t know if face masks work.
That’s not the only thing they don’t know. The COVID crisis has been remarkable for the number of hairpin turns taken by scientific opinion. Early on, public health experts warned of infection through contact with surfaces. Now that advice is abruptly reversed: “Virus ‘does not spread easily’ from contaminated surfaces or animals, revised CDC website states” (Washington Post).
Goodness gracious. What scientists don’t know is astonishing. Even I’m amazed.
There’s a real chance that this virus arose due to the incompetence of scientists who handled it in the Wuhan lab. It is clear that scientists in China and at the World Health Organization misrepresented the facts about the pandemic and covered up the seriousness of the outbreak for months. Pandemic models have proved worse than worthless, and scientists in the Centers for Disease Control were and are manifestly unprepared and at wit’s end in dealing with the virus once it reached our shores. Even the most basic questions — for instance, how much social distancing and economic ruin are called for to save how many lives, etc. — remain unanswered, even after spending $100 billion in the past decade on pandemic research.
A Needed Accounting
Rather than handing over the censors’s power to consensus enforcers, there needs to be an accounting for the manifest incompetence of the scientific profession. That is across a broad spectrum of issues. The COVID-19 fiasco is one illustration, the one at the forefront of most people’s minds. But it mustn’t end there.
The same scientific profession that doesn’t know if face masks work, or whether the virus is communicated by surfaces, doesn’t know if materialism explains the mind or if undirected natural selection explains life, either.
Scientists don’t really know any more about the origin of life or about the evolution of biological complexity or about how the brain gives rise to the mind than they know about the effectiveness of face masks. The only difference is that scientists can’t fake knowledge about face masks any longer.
Photo source: National Institutes of Health, via Wikimedia Commons.


discoveryinstitute--2020-05-25--Memorial Day: Connecting the Past with the Present

The Civil War was America ’ s most costly war with some 360,222 Union and 258,000 Confederate lives lost .
Many historians put the death toll higher , but regardless , the number of Civil War casualties exceeds the nation ’ s loss in all its other wars combined — the two World Wars , the Korean and Vietnamese Wars and subsequent wars right up through conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq .
Memorial Day had its origin as Decoration Day following that most horrible and costly war , dating back to April 25th , 1866 when a former chaplain in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women from Columbus , Mississippi to Friendship Cemetery — the burial ground for about 1600 men who died in the Battle of Shiloh — for the purpose of honoring the dead with decorations of flowers .
At that time , Columbus , like the rest of the South , was occupied by Union Army forces , and some townspeople were fearful of creating new animosity , assuming that the decorations would favor Confederate over Union graves .
The women had no such intention , and in decorating the graves of both sides equally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national reconciliation movement .
At the time the New York Herald published a tribute , noting : “ The women of Columbus , Mississippi , have shown themselves impartial in their offerings to the memory of the dead .
They strewed flowers alike on the graves of the Confederate and of the Union soldiers.
” Memorial Day , as Decoration Day gradually came to be known , originally honored those lost while fighting in the Civil War .
When the United States became embroiled in World War I and World War II , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ personnel who died in subsequent wars .
With the observance of Memorial Day being inconsistent from state to state , finally in 1968 Congress declared Memorial Day as a federal holiday .
Hardly a year goes by without a commemoration of some war memorial event anniversary .
October 4 , 2018 commemorated 25 years since U.S. forces suffered the Black Hawk Down defeat in Somalia .
September 1 , 2019 commemorated the 80th anniversary of the commencement of World War II , which officially began when Germany invaded Poland .
May 4 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Day , when the guns fell silent at the end of that war in Europe .
August 15 , 2020 will mark the 75th anniversary of the end of fighting in the Pacific theater , when Japan surrendered unconditionally to the Allies , effectively ending World War II .
November 11 , 2021 will mark the 100th anniversary of the burial of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Cemetery .
A discussion of Memorial Day would just not be complete without appreciating the significance of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier , formally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Armistice Day , three years after the end of World War I .
Congress had approved the burial of an unidentified American soldier who had fallen on a battlefield in France at Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia .
The Tomb of the Unknown Solider would come to be considered the most hallowed grave at Arlington Cemetery — the most sacred military cemetery in the United States .
And so it was on November 11 , 1921 , that the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier was consecrated in the presence of President Warren G. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and international dignitaries .
That Unknown Soldier from World War I was buried with highest honors , lowered to his final resting place on top of a two-inch layer of soil brought from France — that he might rest forever atop the earth on which he died .
The selection process for the World War II Unknown proved more difficult than that of World War I , since American soldiers had fought on three continents .
Then the process was interrupted by the Korean War , which resulted in numerous deaths who could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 28 , 1958 , caskets bearing the Unknowns of World War II and the Korean War arrived in Washington .
The caskets were rotated such that each unknown serviceman rested on the “ Lincoln catafalque , ” a raised platform in the Capitol Rotunda that held President Lincoln ’ s casket in April 1865 .
Two days later on May 30 , then the official date of Memorial Day , those Unknowns were transported to Arlington , where they were interred in the plaza beside their WW I comrade .
Due to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every Vietnam War casualty recovered could be identified .
Yet with so many “ missing in action ” it was decided that the crypt designated for the Vietnam Unknown could remain empty .
It was rededicated on September 17 , 1999 to honor all missing U.S. service members from the Vietnam War , with the inscription on the crypt reading , “ Honoring and Keeping the Faith with America ’ s Missing Servicemen , 1958-1975.
” The inscribed words on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier of “ Here Rests in Honored Glory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” are an uplifting reminder that all those who died for the American cause should have a special place in our hearts as they do in God ’ s .
Anyone who visits the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier , which is guarded 24 hours a day , 365 days a year regardless of weather by special armed Tomb Guard sentinels can not but be humbled and reminded of what Lincoln said at Gettysburg , “ …that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation , under God , shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people , by the people , for the people , shall not perish from the earth.
” Some U.S. military engagements were ill-advised and history shows that the instances of injustice were probably greater from actions taken by Washington politicians and bureaucrats than by the military in the field .
For instance , the government ’ s willingness to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without clear objectives and a strategy for victory — which put American lives in harm ’ s way and cost 58,220 lives — was the great injustice of the Vietnam War .
In Iraq , President Obama ’ s political decision to withdraw almost all U.S. military forces by the end of 2011 directly led to the injustice of reversal of hard-fought gains made by the military in the prior eight years , and the rise of ISIS and growing Iranian influence in Iraq .
Over a million Americans have given their lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. interests in conflicts large and small .
And while remembering those people is a central purpose of this holiday , Memorial Day takes on its deepest meaning when we connect it with our roots .
Americans were unique in sacrificing their treasure and giving their lives to found the first country in history establishing that all people have natural rights that come from God rather than from rulers or government .
The Declaration of Independence affirmed the equality of all people and that they were endowed with unalienable rights to life , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thus , when Americans sacrificed their lives in military service , we should remember that it was not just to defend the United States , but it was also to uphold the natural rights and spiritual values associated with the nation ’ s founding that provide inspiration for others worldwide .
There were times and places in human history when there were nation states of cultural achievement , virtue , and efflorescence , such as in Periclean Athens , in the Florence of the Medicis , and in England of Elizabeth and Shakespeare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America was — that is , by a collection of the nation ’ s most learned statesmen , well-versed in classics of law and political philosophy , who prayerfully approached drafting the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and then the U.S. Constitution in 1787 .
The Constitution provided a charter for an unprecedented arrangement of governmental institutions that would provide effective government while mitigating corruption and abuse of power and also protecting the citizens ’ unalienable God-given rights .
The Bill of Rights , an integral part of the Constitution , enabled people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ closer to the divine image in which all were created than they would have under any government previously conceived .
Writing about the benefits of the Constitution , Thomas Jefferson stated , “ We feel that we are acting under obligations not confined to the limits of our own society .
It is impossible not to be sensible that we are acting for all mankind.
” In only two centuries since that time , almost every nation has come to accept the need and value of having a constitution , regardless of differences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heritage .
Most of the world ’ s constitutions have been written in the last 75 years .
As constitutions get drafted and revised , the Constitution of the United States continues to be the guiding template and a source of inspiration and principles .
Yet another aspect of celebrating Memorial Day is recognizing the example set by Americans in how they treated their vanquished foes .
The respect that General Douglas MacArthur , Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers ( SCAP ) , and the occupying American forces displayed after Japan ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Japanese people .
They had assumed the victorious Americans would execute their beloved emperor and plunder and treat them in ways similar to what Japanese soldiers did to those they had conquered in China , Korea and Southeast Asia .
One of the big changes that General MacArthur oversaw required the postwar Japanese government to initiate the drafting of a new constitution .
Wisely and in the interest of cultural respect and continuity , MacArthur suggested that the Japanese exercise the provision in the country ’ s existing Meiji constitution to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around democratic rule , judicial review , and disarmament .
After a number of revisions , the new constitution that was accepted created a government closer the British-style of parliamentary government than the American system .
In addition to overseeing the rewriting of the Japanese constitution , MacArthur also required that new laws and mandates be enacted to bring about land reform — so as to broaden private property ownership ; and to break up and restructure business conglomerates — known as the Zaibatsu — to provide more competition , fairness , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. defeat and reorganization of Japan was that American actions were conducted in such a way that helped the Japanese to become a more formidable economic competitor at America ’ s own expense , but that also brought about respect and friendship between the two countries that has remained ever since .
In Europe after armistice , the war-indebted United States launched the Marshall Plan that gave some $ 135 billion of grant aid in current dollar value that helped reconstruct war-devastated regions in Western Europe .
Eighteen countries received aid and initiatives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ base .
And similar to our help to the Japanese , U.S. generosity gave Europeans a leg up on the U.S. with the building of state-of-the-art factories and facilities that were in many cases more efficient than what then existed in the U.S .
In sum , Memorial Day means more than remembering and honoring those who died in military service to the country .
It means connecting with a heritage that began with a courageous and faithful group of founders , who risked their lives for the birth of freedom and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a hill.
” It also means remembering all who subsequently died for their nation and its constitutionally protected freedoms .
And finally it commemorates those who paid the most , such as those who died in the Civil War , and “ the greatest generation ” involved in World War II , who — after experiencing the loss of so many lives to assure victory for the Allied nations — then sacrificed more to rebuild and preserve the independence of its former enemies .
Memorial Day reminds us that in all of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and remarkable .

The Civil War was America’s most costly war with some 360,222 Union and 258,000 Confederate lives lost. Many historians put the death toll higher, but regardless, the number of Civil War casualties exceeds the nation’s loss in all its other wars combined — the two World Wars, the Korean and Vietnamese Wars and subsequent wars right up through conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Memorial Day had its origin as Decoration Day following that most horrible and costly war, dating back to April 25th, 1866 when a former chaplain in the Confederate Army accompanied a group of women from Columbus, Mississippi to Friendship Cemetery — the burial ground for about 1600 men who died in the Battle of Shiloh — for the purpose of honoring the dead with decorations of flowers. At that time, Columbus, like the rest of the South, was occupied by Union Army forces, and some townspeople were fearful of creating new animosity, assuming that the decorations would favor Confederate over Union graves.
The women had no such intention, and in decorating the graves of both sides equally their action was the catalyst for a national reconciliation movement. At the time the New York Herald published a tribute, noting: “The women of Columbus, Mississippi, have shown themselves impartial in their offerings to the memory of the dead. They strewed flowers alike on the graves of the Confederate and of the Union soldiers.”
Memorial Day, as Decoration Day gradually came to be known, originally honored those lost while fighting in the Civil War. When the United States became embroiled in World War I and World War II, the holiday evolved to commemorate American military personnel who died in subsequent wars. With the observance of Memorial Day being inconsistent from state to state, finally in 1968 Congress declared Memorial Day as a federal holiday.
Hardly a year goes by without a commemoration of some war memorial event anniversary. October 4, 2018 commemorated 25 years since U.S. forces suffered the Black Hawk Down defeat in Somalia. September 1, 2019 commemorated the 80th anniversary of the commencement of World War II, which officially began when Germany invaded Poland. May 4, 2020 was the 75th anniversary of VE Day, when the guns fell silent at the end of that war in Europe. August 15, 2020 will mark the 75th anniversary of the end of fighting in the Pacific theater, when Japan surrendered unconditionally to the Allies, effectively ending World War II. November 11, 2021 will mark the 100th anniversary of the burial of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Cemetery.
A discussion of Memorial Day would just not be complete without appreciating the significance of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, formally established on what was then known as Armistice Day, three years after the end of World War I. Congress had approved the burial of an unidentified American soldier who had fallen on a battlefield in France at Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia. The Tomb of the Unknown Solider would come to be considered the most hallowed grave at Arlington Cemetery — the most sacred military cemetery in the United States.
And so it was on November 11, 1921, that the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier was consecrated in the presence of President Warren G. Harding and other government, military, and international dignitaries. That Unknown Soldier from World War I was buried with highest honors, lowered to his final resting place on top of a two-inch layer of soil brought from France — that he might rest forever atop the earth on which he died.
The selection process for the World War II Unknown proved more difficult than that of World War I, since American soldiers had fought on three continents. Then the process was interrupted by the Korean War, which resulted in numerous deaths who could not be identified. Finally on May 28, 1958, caskets bearing the Unknowns of World War II and the Korean War arrived in Washington. The caskets were rotated such that each unknown serviceman rested on the “Lincoln catafalque,” a raised platform in the Capitol Rotunda that held President Lincoln’s casket in April 1865. Two days later on May 30, then the official date of Memorial Day, those Unknowns were transported to Arlington, where they were interred in the plaza beside their WW I comrade.
Due to the advances in DNA identification technology, most every Vietnam War casualty recovered could be identified. Yet with so many “missing in action” it was decided that the crypt designated for the Vietnam Unknown could remain empty. It was rededicated on September 17, 1999 to honor all missing U.S. service members from the Vietnam War, with the inscription on the crypt reading, “Honoring and Keeping the Faith with America’s Missing Servicemen, 1958-1975.”
The inscribed words on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier of “Here Rests in Honored Glory an American Soldier Known but to God” are an uplifting reminder that all those who died for the American cause should have a special place in our hearts as they do in God’s. Anyone who visits the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, which is guarded 24 hours a day, 365 days a year regardless of weather by special armed Tomb Guard sentinels cannot but be humbled and reminded of what Lincoln said at Gettysburg, “…that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
Some U.S. military engagements were ill-advised and history shows that the instances of injustice were probably greater from actions taken by Washington politicians and bureaucrats than by the military in the field. For instance, the government’s willingness to authorize and deploy American soldiers in Vietnam without clear objectives and a strategy for victory — which put American lives in harm’s way and cost 58,220 lives — was the great injustice of the Vietnam War. In Iraq, President Obama’s political decision to withdraw almost all U.S. military forces by the end of 2011 directly led to the injustice of reversal of hard-fought gains made by the military in the prior eight years, and the rise of ISIS and growing Iranian influence in Iraq.
Over a million Americans have given their lives in the Civil War and in defending U.S. interests in conflicts large and small. And while remembering those people is a central purpose of this holiday, Memorial Day takes on its deepest meaning when we connect it with our roots.
Americans were unique in sacrificing their treasure and giving their lives to found the first country in history establishing that all people have natural rights that come from God rather than from rulers or government. The Declaration of Independence affirmed the equality of all people and that they were endowed with unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Thus, when Americans sacrificed their lives in military service, we should remember that it was not just to defend the United States, but it was also to uphold the natural rights and spiritual values associated with the nation’s founding that provide inspiration for others worldwide.
There were times and places in human history when there were nation states of cultural achievement, virtue, and efflorescence, such as in Periclean Athens, in the Florence of the Medicis, and in England of Elizabeth and Shakespeare. But none were founded the way America was — that is, by a collection of the nation’s most learned statesmen, well-versed in classics of law and political philosophy, who prayerfully approached drafting the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and then the U.S. Constitution in 1787. The Constitution provided a charter for an unprecedented arrangement of governmental institutions that would provide effective government while mitigating corruption and abuse of power and also protecting the citizens’ unalienable God-given rights. The Bill of Rights, an integral part of the Constitution, enabled people living in America to rise to levels closer to the divine image in which all were created than they would have under any government previously conceived.
Writing about the benefits of the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson stated, “We feel that we are acting under obligations not confined to the limits of our own society. It is impossible not to be sensible that we are acting for all mankind.” In only two centuries since that time, almost every nation has come to accept the need and value of having a constitution, regardless of differences of culture, history, and legal heritage. Most of the world’s constitutions have been written in the last 75 years. As constitutions get drafted and revised, the Constitution of the United States continues to be the guiding template and a source of inspiration and principles.
Yet another aspect of celebrating Memorial Day is recognizing the example set by Americans in how they treated their vanquished foes.
The respect that General Douglas MacArthur, Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers (SCAP), and the occupying American forces displayed after Japan’s surrender astonished and won over many of the Japanese people. They had assumed the victorious Americans would execute their beloved emperor and plunder and treat them in ways similar to what Japanese soldiers did to those they had conquered in China, Korea and Southeast Asia.
One of the big changes that General MacArthur oversaw required the postwar Japanese government to initiate the drafting of a new constitution. Wisely and in the interest of cultural respect and continuity, MacArthur suggested that the Japanese exercise the provision in the country’s existing Meiji constitution to amend that document with four requirements revolving around democratic rule, judicial review, and disarmament. After a number of revisions, the new constitution that was accepted created a government closer the British-style of parliamentary government than the American system.
In addition to overseeing the rewriting of the Japanese constitution, MacArthur also required that new laws and mandates be enacted to bring about land reform — so as to broaden private property ownership; and to break up and restructure business conglomerates — known as the Zaibatsu — to provide more competition, fairness, and opportunity.
What was remarkable about the U.S. defeat and reorganization of Japan was that American actions were conducted in such a way that helped the Japanese to become a more formidable economic competitor at America’s own expense, but that also brought about respect and friendship between the two countries that has remained ever since.
In Europe after armistice, the war-indebted United States launched the Marshall Plan that gave some $135 billion of grant aid in current dollar value that helped reconstruct war-devastated regions in Western Europe. Eighteen countries received aid and initiatives largely targeted the rebuilding of the industrial base. And similar to our help to the Japanese, U.S. generosity gave Europeans a leg up on the U.S. with the building of state-of-the-art factories and facilities that were in many cases more efficient than what then existed in the U.S.
In sum, Memorial Day means more than remembering and honoring those who died in military service to the country. It means connecting with a heritage that began with a courageous and faithful group of founders, who risked their lives for the birth of freedom and the establishment of America as a “city on a hill.” It also means remembering all who subsequently died for their nation and its constitutionally protected freedoms. And finally it commemorates those who paid the most, such as those who died in the Civil War, and “the greatest generation” involved in World War II, who — after experiencing the loss of so many lives to assure victory for the Allied nations — then sacrificed more to rebuild and preserve the independence of its former enemies. Memorial Day reminds us that in all of human history, America is indeed unique and remarkable.


discoveryinstitute--2020-06-01--COVID-19: Atheism Went Viral As Well

COVID-19: Atheism Went Viral As Well

The coronavirus pandemic has occasioned a pandemic of another sort : anti-religious hate .
Atheist Harvard psychology professor Steven Pinker ( right , courtesy Rose Lincoln ) exemplified this irrational hate with a recent ( and quickly deleted ) tweet : What tripe .
As science writer Alex Berezow notes at American Council on Science and Health , Berezow points out that scientific studies have shown that non-religious doctors are more likely to ( presumably inadvertently ) end patients ’ lives with large doses of sedatives , which suggests that atheist physicians are inclined to shorten , not lengthen , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and rather obvious point : Berezow reminds us of historian Rodney Stark ’ s observation that during ancient plagues , Christian communities often had higher survival rates than non-Christian communities because Christians were more likely to remain in the plague-stricken community and care for the sick , even at the risk of their own lives .
We see echoes of this courage in the millions of health care workers today who risk their own lives daily to care for COVID patients .
Most of these workers are religious believers and no doubt their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ man motivates their courageous acts .
In the Christian understanding of the world , creation is good and life is a blessing bestowed by our Creator , thus human beings are to be loved and protected .
Furthermore , Christians are asked to provide special care for the sick , who are the least of our brothers and sisters .
Contra Pinker ’ s bizarre claim that religious belief is a malignant delusion that devalues life , it ’ s fair to say that the Christian devotion to the sick is the paradigm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ love of the less fortunate .
The irony in Pinker ’ s outburst is twofold .
First , Pinker ’ s own ideology — atheism — has been an unrelenting blood-stained assault on human life since its conception on the world stage in the French Revolution ’ s Reign of Terror : During the Terror , the Committee of Public Safety ( of which Maximilien de Robespierre was the most prominent member ) exercised virtual dictatorial control over the French government .
In the spring of 1794 , it eliminated its enemies to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the right ( the Indulgents , or followers of Georges Danton ) .
Still uncertain of its position , the committee obtained the Law of 22 Prairial , year II ( June 10 , 1794 ) , which suspended a suspect ’ s right to public trial and to legal assistance and left the jury a choice only of acquittal or death .
The “ Great Terror ” that followed , in which about 1,400 persons were executed , contributed to the fall of Robespierre on July 27 ( 9 Thermidor ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 2020 If the symbol for Christianity in human affairs is the Red Cross and the hospital , the symbol for atheism in human affairs is the guillotine and the gulag .
Atheism , when it achieves government power , is the most effective instrument of mass homicide in human history .
Atheists are uniquely unsuited to accuse others of devaluing human life .
The second irony of Pinker ’ s assault on religious belief is especially relevant to this coronavirus pandemic .
COVID-19 arose in China , which is the most atheist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ came from the Wuhan lab or arose naturally and passed to humans in wet markets near the lab , it is undeniable that the Chinese scientists and government officials — atheists all — lied and covered up the pandemic , and in doing so spread it to the world .
If we are , as Pinker insists , to discuss the religious aspects of this pandemic , we must note first of all that it is a society steeped in atheism , not in religious belief , that has , by lies and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ killed hundreds of thousands of them and has destroyed national economies and individual livelihoods around the globe .
The COVID pandemic is just another iteration of a recurring theme in modern Western civilization : the hallmarks of atheism in power are lies , carnage , and economic devastation .
If there is a “ malignant delusion ” in this pandemic , it is the delusion that the spread of the coronavirus is attributable to religious believers .
A more accurate inference about the role of religion in the spread of COVID-19 , given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incompetence and malfeasance of the world ’ s most atheist nation , is that COVID-19 is atheism gone viral .
Why prayer is wise during a pandemic .
Evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne thinks that only fools would pray about Coronavirus .
He is wrong and here is why : If God is real , then prayer is probably the first thing you want to do in a crisis .
A plea to the Boss is a fine preamble to the grunt work of managing a crisis .
I ’ m a neurosurgeon , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It really helps .
Neuroscience can ’ t dismiss near death experiences .
It ’ s sobering to note that neuroscience has utterly failed to explain how the brain and mind relate .
Despite claims , NDEs are radically different from any mental experience caused by brain impairment .

Steven Pinker
The coronavirus pandemic has occasioned a pandemic of another sort: anti-religious hate. Atheist Harvard psychology professor Steven Pinker (right, courtesy Rose Lincoln) exemplified this irrational hate with a recent (and quickly deleted) tweet:
Belief in the afterlife is a malignant delusion, since it devalues actual lives and discourages action that would make them longer, safer and happier. Exhibit A: What’s really behind Republicans wanting a swift reopening? Evangelicals.
What tripe. As science writer Alex Berezow notes at American Council on Science and Health,
Research shows that religious belief is good for the individual and for society… Religious people (who, in general, tend to believe in an afterlife) are happier and more civic-minded than non-religious people. They are also likelier to have better mental health… Alex Berezow, “Steven Pinker Calls Belief In Afterlife A ‘Malignant Delusion’. He Is Wrong” at American Council on Science and Health
Berezow points out that scientific studies have shown that non-religious doctors are more likely to (presumably inadvertently) end patients’ lives with large doses of sedatives, which suggests that atheist physicians are inclined to shorten, not lengthen, life. He also makes a salient and rather obvious point:
Have you ever noticed how many hospitals are named for Catholic saints? That’s because religious people in general, and Catholics in particular, have an obligation to tend to the sick and dying… Simply put, Dr. Pinker’s claims are demonstrably wrong. Let’s hope he comes around to accepting this evidence-based worldview. Alex Berezow, “Steven Pinker Calls Belief In Afterlife A ‘Malignant Delusion’. He Is Wrong” at American Council on Science and Health
Berezow reminds us of historian Rodney Stark ’s observation that during ancient plagues, Christian communities often had higher survival rates than non-Christian communities because Christians were more likely to remain in the plague-stricken community and care for the sick, even at the risk of their own lives. We see echoes of this courage in the millions of health care workers today who risk their own lives daily to care for COVID patients. Most of these workers are religious believers and no doubt their love for God and for their fellow man motivates their courageous acts.
In the Christian understanding of the world, creation is good and life is a blessing bestowed by our Creator, thus human beings are to be loved and protected. Furthermore, Christians are asked to provide special care for the sick, who are the least of our brothers and sisters. Contra Pinker’s bizarre claim that religious belief is a malignant delusion that devalues life, it’s fair to say that the Christian devotion to the sick is the paradigm for respect for life and for selfless love of the less fortunate.
The irony in Pinker’s outburst is twofold. First, Pinker’s own ideology — atheism — has been an unrelenting blood-stained assault on human life since its conception on the world stage in the French Revolution’s Reign of Terror:
During the Terror, the Committee of Public Safety (of which Maximilien de Robespierre was the most prominent member) exercised virtual dictatorial control over the French government. In the spring of 1794, it eliminated its enemies to the left (the Hébertists) and to the right (the Indulgents, or followers of Georges Danton). Still uncertain of its position, the committee obtained the Law of 22 Prairial, year II (June 10, 1794), which suspended a suspect’s right to public trial and to legal assistance and left the jury a choice only of acquittal or death. The “Great Terror” that followed, in which about 1,400 persons were executed, contributed to the fall of Robespierre on July 27 (9 Thermidor). – Britannica, accessed June 1, 2020
If the symbol for Christianity in human affairs is the Red Cross and the hospital, the symbol for atheism in human affairs is the guillotine and the gulag. Atheism, when it achieves government power, is the most effective instrument of mass homicide in human history. Atheists are uniquely unsuited to accuse others of devaluing human life.
The second irony of Pinker’s assault on religious belief is especially relevant to this coronavirus pandemic. COVID-19 arose in China, which is the most atheist nation on earth. Whether the virus came from the Wuhan lab or arose naturally and passed to humans in wet markets near the lab, it is undeniable that the Chinese scientists and government officials — atheists all — lied and covered up the pandemic, and in doing so spread it to the world. If we are, as Pinker insists, to discuss the religious aspects of this pandemic, we must note first of all that it is a society steeped in atheism, not in religious belief, that has, by lies and incompetence, infected millions of people, killed hundreds of thousands of them and has destroyed national economies and individual livelihoods around the globe.
The COVID pandemic is just another iteration of a recurring theme in modern Western civilization: the hallmarks of atheism in power are lies, carnage, and economic devastation. If there is a “malignant delusion” in this pandemic, it is the delusion that the spread of the coronavirus is attributable to religious believers. A more accurate inference about the role of religion in the spread of COVID-19, given the origin of this pandemic from the incompetence and malfeasance of the world’s most atheist nation, is that COVID-19 is atheism gone viral.
Why prayer is wise during a pandemic. Evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne thinks that only fools would pray about Coronavirus. He is wrong and here is why: If God is real, then prayer is probably the first thing you want to do in a crisis. A plea to the Boss is a fine preamble to the grunt work of managing a crisis. I’m a neurosurgeon, and I pray before each operation. It really helps.
and
Neuroscience can’t dismiss near death experiences. It’s sobering to note that neuroscience has utterly failed to explain how the brain and mind relate. Despite claims, NDEs are radically different from any mental experience caused by brain impairment.