Friday, June 26, 2015

What Does Jeb Bush Have in Common With Stephen Jay Gould?

Antinomianism

Evolution, a headline from earlier this month explained, “is unpredictable and irreversible, biologists show.” This was hardly a new thought for evolutionists. Stephen Jay Gould popularized the notion that if one could “replay the tape” of history the world would, as Eckels unfortunately discovered, turn out differently. It is contingency rather than law that governs history. Evolutionary events are “unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible” in the words of the famous evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky. Or as Harvard’s Ernst Mayr wrote, “Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques” for explaining evolutionary events and processes. The world turns not according to Newton’s firm and unchanging laws but by particular, unique events which are for us to explore and explain. And as Phillip Johnson described, exploring and explaining, rather than following nature’s laws, gives us control. Given a lever and the law Archimedes could move the world, but given extension and motion Descartes’ could construct the world.

Antinomianism isn’t limited to theological debates. Whether in religion, science or politics, the law stands in our way. It blocks our control and so we reject it. By contrast the psalmist delights in the law. The book begins with the man who is blessed, for “his delight is in the law of the Lord.” Likewise Jesus explained that “till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.”

This ancient law is now the basis of our current legal system and it is every bit as important to us. Yet it is routinely rejected. Descartes and the evolutionists reject natural law in favor of absurd notions of the world spontaneously arising by creating itself. And in politics, equally silly notions are not hard to find. Leading presidential candidate Jeb Bush, for example, advocates warrantless surveillance. That’s fine if he can make it legal, but Bush rejects any such requirement. He states that there is not a shred of evidence that such surveillance has violated the rights of any American. Does he also believe there is not a shred of evidence that bank robberies have resulted in theft? Of course bank robberies have resulted in theft, otherwise they wouldn’t be bank robberies. Warrantless surveillance, by definition, is a violation of rights—it is illegal.

For Christians the law is precious and antinomianism, in any form, is to be avoided.

114 comments:

  1. Those 2 last posts from you, Mr Hunter, shows that this blog is really not about science, but about your political and religious ultra conservative point of view.

    I mean, we already knew. At least from time to time you show your true face for new visitors to see.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought this blog was about "how religion drives science", and these last two posts are very in line with this.

      Delete
    2. Calamity:

      It’s telling that posts about basic science and common sense are categorized as “ultra conservative.” But they are, and your comment has nothing substantive, just meaningless name calling.

      Delete
    3. " is unpredictable and irreversible, biologists show.”

      When they deny the law of non-contradiction, I know I'm dealing with irrational religious zealots.

      Delete
    4. When people deny the law of odds, I know we're dealing with irrational religious evolutionists.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. Moved my comment from this reply to general thread, although these "reactions" were the trigger, or Genesis.(wink)

      Delete
    7. @PhillyMike "When people deny the law of odds, I know we're dealing with irrational religious evolutionists."

      LOL, but I may be lost in the contingencies of Marcus. i.e. ironically appropriate retort

      Delete
  2. On something completely off topic, congratulation to the US Supreme Court on their recent decision on same sex marriage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My only request is that this time they don't reuse that dumb confederate flag.

      Delete
    2. Cornelius, once, I agree with you. But what will we do with the Dukes of Hazard reruns?

      Delete
    3. But seriously, are you opposed to SSM? And if so, I would love to hear a rational argument against it.

      Delete
    4. Well my feeling is that SSM is inherently bigoted, as it is not inclusive of other groups, and so as is often the case with evolutionary thought, it is hypocritical (i.e., criticizes traditional marriage for being bigoted).

      Delete
    5. Wow, SSM is "bigoted" ? This does not make any sense. You know that " other groups" can still marry ?

      Delete
    6. This is where my recent comments collide.
      CH: Well my feeling is that SSM is inherently bigoted, as it is not inclusive of other groups, and so as is often the case with evolutionary thought, it is hypocritical (i.e., criticizes traditional marriage for being bigoted).
      AND my:

      Love the nexus of science, religion, politics. Keeping grammar in mind, note the parallels, tangents, and leverage.

      Notwithstanding (or is it,not to mention) the reactions.
      ...
      AND the "sovereignty" of antinomianism.

      Delete
    7. Acartia Tonsa: I should also note that your topic is not completely off topic. And I believe the use of the term "bigot" is somewhere appropriate in what is so hard to make clear in the areas of sorting "the law" under the three disciplines of science, religion and politics.

      Delete
    8. I shouldn't have said "inherently", wrong word.

      Delete
  3. But what "traditional" marriage are you talking about? The one in which, up until recently, the wife had to promise to "obey" her husband? Or the one in which the husband was legally allowed to physically "correct" his wife?

    The truth is, "traditional" marriage died a few decades ago, and we are all better for that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The truth is, "traditional" marriage died a few decades ago, and we are all better for that."

      So all gay marriages are free from the behavior that you find objectionable in your definition of "traditional marriage"?

      It occurs to me that to some may think you are promoting your own brand of bigotry.

      Delete
    2. Really? What change to traditional marriage do you disagree with? The wife no longer having to "obey" her husband? Or the change that no longer allows the husband to physically discipline his wife?

      Delete
    3. To many, I believe, the "suitability" of any marriage arrangement would be a case by case evaluation and consideration of the understanding and motivations of the husband and wife who enter into the marriage. The concept of two consenting adults (individuals) and their freedom to choose and agree upon certain guidelines of the relationship. As well as their right to modify those guidelines.

      Delete
    4. Cornelius: I think you are just being Socratic from a 4th dimension of the law.
      WAIT: Or are you passing for Artificial Intlelligence? This is not a put down, just a guess and a variation of the rest of my attempts to weave through this subject.

      Delete
    5. Rather than comment further on this blogpot as I am processing it, I will hereby note that Justice Roberts seems to have left the door open to further change with his remarks as to "the law" vis a vis "God". It may leave room for further separation of church and state and "bigots".

      Delete
  4. I still don't know what bigotry you are talking about. All I know is that there was one group seeking the right to marry, and another group using bigotry to try to prevent it.

    But you still have not answered my question. Are you opposed to SSM? And if so, why? Very simple questions. See if you can answer them without throwing accusations of bigotry at others.

    Are you one of these dim bulbs who think that allowing SSM somehow destroys the institution of marriage?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Acartia:


      All I know is that there was one group seeking the right to marry, and another group using bigotry to try to prevent it.

      I didn’t know that. Can you give an example or two of leading, mainstream traditional marriage advocates who used bigotry in this way.

      Delete
    2. Bigotry: In British English it refers to a state of mind where a person is obstinately, irrationally, or unfairly intolerant of ideas, opinions, or beliefs that differ from their own, and intolerant of the people who hold them. Wiki

      I hope that we agree that this is a reasonable definition of bigotry. Most of the arguments have been based on one or more of the following:

      1) It will weaken the institution of marriage. How? Is the strength of your marriage based on who else is allowed to marry? I certainly hope not. I have been married for 30+ years and it is no weaker today than it was ten years ago. A marriage is only as strong as the commitment of the two people involved and, to a lesser extent, the support of those around us.

      2) The government doesn't have the right to change the definition of marriage. Of course they do. For many, a marriage is a religious commitment but it is also a legal contract. Besides, the definition and practice of marriage has changed over time, and is different between cultures. Unless you are saying that wives must "obey" their husbands or that husbands are allowed to physically discipline their wives. Those changes sound to me like pretty significant re-definitions.

      3) Marriage is restricted to couples who have the potential to reproduce. This is a non-starter unless we are going to prevent the elderly and the infertile from getting married.

      4) It will open the gates to polygamy and inter species marriage. Ignoring the fact that polygamy is probably one of the more traditional forms of marriage, and still practiced in some cultures today, you deal with these if and when they arise as serious issues. The slippery slope argument is nothing more than scare tactics.

      5) God is opposed to it. At least this argument has the benefit of being honestly given. But I don't think that we want to discuss what the bible says should be done with homosexuals (kill), or all of the things that Jesus said against homosexuality (nothing). Besides, atheists are allowed to get married so this argument fails.

      So, I think that it is clear that these arguments are unreasonable ones and, by definition, those who obstinately stick by them would be exhibiting classic bigotry.

      OK, your turn. How is the support for SSM bigotry?

      Delete
    3. Good points. My point was simply that SSM is not an advocacy for open marriage, but rather for SSM. One could understand perhaps a focus on one type of marriage over others, but we're nowhere close to that, unless I'm missing something. I haven't heard a thing about advocating other forms of marriage. It seems to be all about SSM, period. This has nothing to do with open marriage.

      Delete
    4. Maybe we have been reading different news articles and watching different news programs. The last time I looked, opposite sex marriages didn't need anyone to advocate for it. All the SSM advocates are asking for is to be allowed to marry and have their marriages acknowledged and respected the same way that opposite sex marriages are. Unless someone can logically argue and show evidence that allowing this would cause cause harm to others or to society in general, I am inclined to go along with it.

      I was just confused about your bigotry statement.

      Delete
    5. The last time I looked, opposite sex marriages didn't need anyone to advocate for it.

      Well I don't think you looked very far.

      I understand your point. I just don't think is, or ever will be, about rights equality. I think this is about redefining marriage to include SSM, period. Now, after all this legal fighting and historic decisions, can polygamists marry? Wonder how that slipped through the cracks.

      Delete
    6. " Now, after all this legal fighting and historic decisions, can polygamists marry? "

      Oh, the slippery slope argument. We have to deny it from one group because another group might demand it. Sorry, but that door was opened when we allowed inter-racial marriage.

      If polygamists want to plead their case, fine. Let them. If their arguments are as sound as those for SSM, let them marry.

      By the way, polygamy is an extremely old tradition. And, as far as I know, not forbidden in the bible. But I am not a bible expert so I may be corrected.

      You seem to be arguing that homosexuals are bigoted because they aren't advocating for polygamy, or inter family marriage, or whatever other possibility may arise.

      Given the heterosexual and religious history of suppressing homosexual rights, are you really sure you want to go down this road? But if you feel strongly about it, go ahead and make your case.

      Delete
    7. W:

      Oh, the slippery slope argument. We have to deny it from one group because another group might demand it.

      So, you have a lot of good points, but you are also repeatedly putting words in my mouth. In this case, I said no such thing. So why did they not include polygamy in their big tent?

      Delete
    8. For a century the Christian church in the U.S. has done all it could to oppress and denigrate the LGBT community. It’s lobbied to have gays fired from jobs, denied equal housing, denier adoption privileges, even jailed. It’s accused all gays of being pedophiles out to molest and recruit children. It’s painted all gays as living some lewd promiscuous “gay lifestyle” and claimed AIDS is a gay disease sent to punish their sins. It’s claimed homosexuality is a mental illness that must be treated with painful and dangerous “reparative” therapy.

      That’s quite the shameful list of institutionalized homophobic bigotry and intolerance. Now we're supposed to believe gays themselves are somehow at fault because in their fight for marriage equality they didn’t promote polygamy??? That’s some Olympic caliber “blame the victim” projection.

      Delete
    9. Oh my, that is quite a blast. Except that is not what I said--right after I pointed that out! If there is anything shameful here it is your blatant twisting of words.

      So let me help. I'll ask you since W won't answer the question. After all the work for equality, inclusiveness, the years of building a rainbow of open marriage for all, the years of legal work, thought and maneuvering, all the castigation of traditional marriage for being bigoted for leaving people out, the egalitarianism, speeches and writings, even the Supreme Court with all its training, wisdom and resources--how in the world was polygamy left out by the movement? I thought this was all about including everybody. Guess not huh?

      If your answer is that they're just fighting for a particular marriage right which is not inclusive, then they are doing what they are criticizing, and you have made my point.

      Delete
    10. All the hard work done by the LGBT community in the last several decades wasn't done to promote "open marriage" of all types. It was done specifically to get gay couples the identical legal right to marriage as hetero couples are granted. No more, no less.

      You are misrepresenting the effort in order to push your bigoted strawman version just like you misrepresent the evolutionary sciences. Fortunately most Christians are more honest than that and can see through the ruse.

      Delete
    11. But according to SSM, traditional marriage (OSM) is homophobic and bigoted, for it is exclusive. But if I have misrepresented SSM as you charge, then that simply confirms that SSM is also exclusive, and therefore bigoted by their own judgment.

      Delete
    12. Cornelius, I really don't understand your logic. Was the fight for the right of women to vote bigotry because they weren't advocation for the right of children, non citizens and blacks to vote? Of course not. They were simply fighting for themselves.

      SSM advocates were not trying to oppose OSM. With regard to polygamy or intraday illy marriage, if these people feel strongly for their cause they are free to advocate for it. They might even get some support from SSM advocates. After all, most of the support for SSM comes from heterosexuals realizing that there is no rational reason to prevent it.

      Delete
    13. But according to SSM, traditional marriage (OSM) is homophobic and bigoted, for it is exclusive.

      Another false statement. OSM itself is not homophobic or bigoted. It's the religious conservatives who would deny equal marriage rights to LGBT people who are homophobic and bigoted.

      Since we're playing attack the strawman today let me join in. Religious conservatives are now arguing for the right, under the guise of "religious freedom", to ignore anti-discrimination laws as they choose. Logically that means they should also be arguing to ignore any laws they so choose, including laws against pedophilia and robbing banks.

      Why aren't religious conservatives also arguing for the right to practice pedophilia or rob banks? According to the slippery slope theory that's what they'll demand next, right?

      Delete
    14. Acartia:

      My point was that SSM was not for equal rights, or opposing the "bigotry" of a marriage definition that excluded some people, but rather SSM was for yet another exclusive definition of marriage. There have been many years, and million of dollars of legal analysis, put into this thinking. It is no mistake that polygamy was left out. Don't expect that to change. By their own definition they are bigots.

      Delete
    15. Ghost:

      OSM itself is not homophobic or bigoted. It's the religious conservatives who would deny equal marriage rights to LGBT people who are homophobic and bigoted.

      Well you are having it both ways. You need an enemy so the view that they are exclusive and “homophobic and bigoted” can’t be forfeited. That gives SSM its justification and moral imperative. But you must deny it, because SSM is exclusive.

      This isn’t about equal rights. They could have, for example, advocated government getting out of the marriage business, so it is simply a private affair, and these issues largely go away. That’s in interesting solution. Or they could have included everybody, so it would have been equal rights for all. It was no mistake that they didn’t do these approaches. The rainbow doesn’t include polygamy.


      Religious conservatives are now arguing for the right, under the guise of "religious freedom", to ignore anti-discrimination laws as they choose.

      Yup, that’s the next step. It’s not going to stop here.

      Delete
    16. This isn’t about equal rights.

      Of course it is. The homophobic bigots who fought against marriage equality for the LGBT community lost. They've been consoling themselves all over the web by trying to smear the SCOTUS decision through false statements about how SSM has to support polygamy, bestiality, incest, etc. Let the bigots whine all the sour grapes they want, I hope it stings.

      Yup, that’s the next step. It’s not going to stop here.

      I'll look forward to your arguments for why religious conservatives have the right to be pedophiles and bank robbers.

      Delete
    17. Of course it is. The homophobic bigots who ...

      I'm afraid bare assertions followed by switching to another subject are not very persuasive (not to mention fallacious). I explained whyy it is not about equal rights, and you ignored my explanation and resorted to another bare assertion. It you were correct, and this was about equal rights, then they would have been desperate to include polygamy.

      Delete
    18. Dr. Hunter, your point to Tonsa never occurred to me. Thank you for explaining it so clearly.
      I have always considered SSM a bad idea because, biblically it's forbidden. The other reason I think it's a bad idea is the proponents are so sure of their wisdom, that society will not be harmed. I don't share their optimism.

      Delete
    19. Thanks Marcus, and thanks for all your good points.

      Delete
    20. Homosexuals a have always had the same right as heterosexual to marry a member of the opposite sex. They have always had identical rights. They are demanding a new, that is, special right.

      Delete
    21. Marcus:

      I have always considered SSM a bad idea because, biblically it's forbidden. The other reason I think it's a bad idea is the proponents are so sure of their wisdom, that society will not be harmed. I don't share their optimism.

      Yes,I'm talking about inconsistencies with the SSM movement, but agreed, homosexuality is a sin. Let me just take this opportunity to say that I preach forgiveness on this in a big way. Also, I hope it is clear that when I say SSM is bigoted, I do not mean that in an absolute sense, but rather according to their own standards.

      Delete
    22. Homosexuals a have always had the same right as heterosexual to marry a member of the opposite sex. They have always had identical rights. They are demanding a new, that is, special right.

      Interracial couples have always had the same right as same-race couples to marry a member of their own race. They have always had identical rights. Interracial couples were demanding a new, that is, special right.

      The idiotic arguments that homophobic bigots come up with to justify their bigotry is both amazing and disgusting.

      Delete
    23. Nat:

      Homosexuals a have always had the same right as heterosexual to marry a member of the opposite sex. They have always had identical rights. They are demanding a new, that is, special right.


      New but not special, you certainly now have the same right to marry same sex.

      Delete
    24. Cornelius: " It you were correct, and this was about equal rights, then they would have been desperate to include polygamy."

      Using this argument, all equal rights movements are an expression of bigotry. By their nature, they start out centred on one issue and gain momentum. Women fought for the right to vote, and they were supported by many men. Are you arguing that they were being bigoted because they didn't extend the push to also demanding the vote for all other groups that were denied the vote at the time?

      All I am saying is that you are confusing pragmatism and bigotry. The human rights movement has always been about making small gains to the ultimate goal. The fact that this "goal" will likely be a moving target does not detract from it.

      Delete
    25. Acartia:

      Using this argument, all equal rights movements are an expression of bigotry.

      I understand your point, but I think you are over generalizing.

      Delete
    26. Cornelius, I don't mean to belabour the point but I am really trying to understand why you think that the SSM movement involves bigotry and other rights movements (eg, women's vote, freedom of religion, etc.) did not. Maybe if you explained why the other movements were not bigoted I might better understand.

      Delete
    27. Acartia:

      Using this argument, all equal rights movements are an expression of bigotry.

      I understand your point, but I think you are over generalizing. Take woman’s suffrage or the black civil rights movements. Do they fit your model very well? I don’t think so. What I’m pointing out about the SSM is in reference to their own messaging. The whole point of the rainbow logo is diversity and inclusiveness. And their strong moral argument is that they are fighting a standard that is not inclusive, does not embrace equal rights for all and is bigoted. These are their messages, which they immediately turn around and disregard. Because those are just messages. Believe me, they are not going to support polygamy. They had the perfect chance to achieve their “equal rights” but did not do so. It wasn’t even a consideration.

      Delete
    28. I don't mean to belabour the point but I am really trying to understand why you think that the SSM movement involves bigotry and other rights movements (eg, women's vote, freedom of religion, etc.) did not. Maybe if you explained why the other movements were not bigoted I might better understand.

      So, for example, America was founded on the premise of religious freedom. It wasn't religious freedom for Protestants, but no one else. It wasn't religious freedom for Catholics, but no one else. I'm not saying it was perfect. My point is simply that I don't think it fits your model very well. Were there obvious religious groups that were exluded?

      Delete
    29. "Were there obvious religious groups that were exluded?"

      Satanism. But seriously, Canada was also founded on freedom of religion. But that certainly did not apply to native religion. Up until the sixties (1960s) we forcibly removed aboriginal children fro their parents and raised them as Christians in residential schools. So, onbviously, freedom of religion was definitely a bigoted concept in Canada. I don't know enough about the US history but I suspect that freedom of religion was not always as inclusive a concept in practice as you claim.

      With regard to the suffrage movement, it was about equal rights for women. But it certainly was not about equal rights for all women, until relatively recently. I can't speak for the US, but in Canada, the Chinese and aboriginal women were not included. In that respect, it is very much the same as the SSM movement.

      Delete
    30. Acartia:

      I can't speak for the US, but in Canada, the Chinese and aboriginal women were not included.

      But isn't that a much bigger issue, going far beyond women's rights?

      In any case, there are probably examples on all sides. So getting back to your original point, I guess my answer would be that if you can find movements that obviously exclude other groups, in contradiction to their stated grievances and goals, then yes, they too are doing it wrong.

      Delete
    31. I don't agree that they are doing it wrong. They are being pragmatic. Yes, in an ideal world we would adress all human rights issues at the same time. But we don't live in an ideal world. Why would you expect gay rights movements to be more righteous than the the other "rights" issues? To me that would be the ultimate bigotry.

      Delete
    32. I don't think pragmatic is the right word. I don't think they were interested in including polygamists.

      Delete
    33. "I don't think pragmatic is the right word. I don't think they were interested in including polygamists."

      And I don't think the WASP women were interested in including Chinese and aboriginal women. Does that make their goal less important? Or less bigoted?

      That is the definition of pragmatism.

      You keep bringing up the polygamy issue. Why?

      Delete
    34. And I don't think the WASP women were interested in including Chinese and aboriginal women. Does that make their goal less important? Or less bigoted?

      So you are making my point. So a question for you: Why did SSM leave out polygamy? Forgot?

      Delete
    35. ghostrider:

      Before civil rights legislation, a black man did not have the same rights as a white person to marry a white woman. A homosexual man has always had the same right to marry a woman as a heterosexual man has. Homosexuals have always had identical rights. They are demanding a new right, not equal rights.

      Delete
    36. Why did SSM leave out polygamy? Forgot?

      Why do Christian demands to be exempt from anti-discrimination laws leave out exemption from pedophilia laws? Forgot?

      Delete
    37. Because they think pedophilia is wrong?

      Delete
    38. "So you are making my point. So a question for you: Why did SSM leave out polygamy? Forgot?"

      You keep insisting that the push for SSM was an act of bigotry because it did not also advocate for polygamy. Yet you conveniently ignore the fact that every attempt throughout history to extend rights to a specific group has never actively advocated for other groups; many of them with equally valid claims. But if you want to believe that all attempts to extend rights are inherently bigoted because they don't actively advocate for every other possible claim, that is your right. But it seems like a hard sell to me.

      Delete
    39. No, I'm saying it is bigoted *according to their own criteria*. There is no analogy with other movements.

      Delete
    40. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    41. Marriage is not a right.

      Delete
    42. "No, I'm saying it is bigoted *according to their own criteria*. There is no analogy with other movements."

      I can see that we will never agree on this. Fair enough. But I am comfortable in the belief that the right decision was made.

      Delete
    43. "But I am comfortable in the belief that the right decision was made. "

      Ok Acartia, so I'm listening to Dennis Prager this morning and he asks a good question. If two couples show up to adopt a child, one couple is man and woman the other couple is two men. They both want the same child. Who gets the child and why? Both are loving couples...

      Delete
    44. "If two couples show up to adopt a child, one couple is man and woman the other couple is two men. They both want the same child. Who gets the child and why? Both are loving couples.."

      Why are you presenting this as a hypothetical. It happens frequently in Canada. Sometimes the opposite sex couple gets the child and sometimes the same sex couple does.

      What is the point of your question? Are you suggesting that a same sex couple, because of their orientation, make poor parents? Or that children who are raised by a same sex couple are more likely to be homosexual? Or that children raised by same sex couples are more likely to be did functional?

      Delete
    45. My answer is the hetero couple gets the child because that is what's best for the child. I noticed you didn't answer though. Not surprised. I suppose you would flip a coin...

      Delete
    46. Marcus, I answered your question directly. Sometimes the SS couple gets the child and sometimes the OS couple does. This is not a hypothetical, it is reality.

      But you state that an OS couple is best for the child. Where is your data?

      Will children in a SS family face challenges that s child in an OS family won't? Absolutely. Primary amongst them is the reaction by ignorant homophobes and the taunting by kids of ignorant homophobes. But a black child with a white couple will face challenges that a white child with a white couple (or a black child with a black couple) will. Should we not allow inter-racial adoptions?

      Delete
    47. But I am comfortable in the belief that the right decision was made.

      Well that is another question entirely.It may well be, even given the internal contradictions of the SSM movement.

      Delete
    48. Acartia, I was hoping you would give your personal opinion about who gets the child not what is happening in Canada. I wonder how you determine what is best for the child.
      Meg Meeker has written several books about raising children. She covers the importance of healthy father and mother and the impact on their child.
      Frankly, I don't need a study to show me something that is self evident. I think if you need a study to show you the nuclear family is best then the brainwashing is complete. Your teachers can move on to the next specimen.

      Regarding the racial issue, I have no problem with inter-racial marriage or adoption. If you know me and my family, that would be obvious. Incidentally, I don't identify myself by what I do in the bedroom.

      Delete
    49. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    50. "Acartia, I was hoping you would give your personal opinion about who gets the child not what is happening in Canada.

      You didn't ask for an opinion, you asked me to Pre-judge simply based on the gender of the parents. But, obviously, you are more than happy to pre-judge without knowing any of the facts.

      Delete
    51. Acartia, I provided several facts in my senario. I addressed you, not what others are doing in Canada. 1. Child ready for adoption. 2. Two couples who are loving. 3. One couple is man and woman. 4. One couple is man and man.

      Who gets the child and why? Do you flip a coin?

      I want to know if you think there is no difference between the two options.
      I do have a followup question after you answer.

      If you choose to allow the child to go with the man woman family, how do you prove you are not a bigot when the man-man family files a lawsuit?
      What are the other options?

      Delete
    52. Acartia, I provided several facts in my senario. I addressed you, not what others are doing in Canada. 1. Child ready for adoption. 2. Two couples who are loving. 3. One couple is man and woman. 4. One couple is man and man.

      Who gets the child and why? Do you flip a coin?

      I want to know if you think there is no difference between the two options.
      I do have a followup question after you answer.

      If you choose to allow the child to go with the man woman family, how do you prove you are not a bigot when the man-man family files a lawsuit?
      What are the other options?

      Delete
    53. Acartia, I provided several facts in my senario. I addressed you, not what others are doing in Canada. 1. Child ready for adoption. 2. Two couples who are loving. 3. One couple is man and woman. 4. One couple is man and man.

      Who gets the child and why? Do you flip a coin?

      I want to know if you think there is no difference between the two options.
      I do have a followup question after you answer.

      If you choose to allow the child to go with the man woman family, how do you prove you are not a bigot when the man-man family files a lawsuit?
      What are the other options?

      Delete
    54. "Who gets the child and why? Do you flip a coin?

      I want to know if you think there is no difference between the two options.
      I do have a followup question after you answer.
      "

      OK, I will play your game. Assuming that both couples were equally qualified according to the Canadian adoption rules, flipping a coin would be as good an option as any.

      Are there differences between the two options? Of course. As there is between any two couples, regardless of their gender.

      Your comment about being sued is pointless. This is Canada. We don't allow frivolous law suits.

      Delete
    55. Who gets the child and why? Do you flip a coin?

      How about which ever couple applied for the adoption first? Unless there is some compelling reason to disqualify one of the two couples that's how it works when two hetero couples apply.

      Delete
    56. "How about which ever couple applied for the adoption first? Unless there is some compelling reason to disqualify one of the two couples that's how it works when two hetero couples apply."

      That seems more fair than the coin flip. But somehow, I think that Marcus has a different opinion.

      Delete
    57. First come first served and flipping a coin are options but only if there is no difference between the two couples. I think there is a difference. One is better for the child than the other. Thank you for helping me understand you.

      Delete
    58. "I think there is a difference. One is better for the child than the other. Thank you for helping me understand you."

      Opinion, unsupported by fact. Unless you can provide with evidence that SS couples are inherently incapable of being good parents, all you have is opinion based on prejudice. The same reasons that were previously used to prevent white babies being placed with black couples.

      Delete
    59. You shouldn't need a study to show you that a man cannot be a mother or a woman cannot be a father. They can play the role but the best is the REAL THING. Even my 6 year old knows that.

      Delete
    60. You shouldn't need a study to show you that a man cannot be a mother or a woman cannot be a father. They can play the role but the best is the REAL THING. Even my 6 year old knows that.

      You may want to read the scientific literature instead of consulting a 6 year old for your opinion. By far the most important thing in a child's healthy development is having a stable and loving family. The gender of the parents is not a significant factor.

      Delete
    61. Funny ghostrider, she thinks more clearly than you. I'm proud of her. She hasn't been brainwashed by the women's studies department at the local university.

      Delete
    62. Dr. Hunter, I found a CDC study done in 2007 apparently reporting the nuclear family is the best in almost all categories. Have you written about it? I searched your blog but nothing popped up.

      http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_246.pdf

      Delete
    63. Dr. Hunter, I found a CDC study done in 2007 apparently reporting the nuclear family is the best in almost all categories.

      Try reading something more recent

      How Does the Gender of Parents Matter?
      Biblarz, Stacey
      Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol 72- 1, 3–22, Feb. 2010

      Abstract: Claims that children need both a mother and father presume that women and men parent differently in ways crucial to development but generally rely on studies that conflate gender with other family structure variables. We analyze findings from studies with designs that mitigate these problems by comparing 2-parent families with same or different sex coparents and single-mother with single-father families. Strengths typically associated with married mother-father families appear to the same extent in families with 2 mothers and potentially in those with 2 fathers. Average differences favor women over men, but parenting skills are not dichotomous or exclusive. The gender of parents correlates in novel ways with parent-child relationships but has minor significance for children's psychological adjustment and social success.

      Delete
    64. Try reading this from actual kids who lived it. They tell a different story than your Alice in Wonderland vision.
      http://cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/adults-raised-gay-couples-speak-out-against-gay-marriage-federal-court

      Delete
    65. "Try reading this from actual kids who lived it. They tell a different story than your Alice in Wonderland vision."

      Nothing says certainty like anecdotal testimony. I am not a statistical expert, but I am sure that conclusions drawn fro three degrees of freedom are not statistically robust. I wonder how many people raised by opposite sex couples would claim that their experiences were terrible?

      You still have not answered the question; are same sex couples inherently incapable of being good parents? Unless you can say yes, and back it up with proof, you are simply providing opinion based on prejudice.

      Delete
    66. " I wonder how many people raised by opposite sex couples would claim that their experiences were terrible?"

      Those people show some of the pitfalls.

      Regarding whether they can be good parents, I don't know. That is a vague question. Nuclear family is best for the child period. I think government should support the best if possible.

      We will not agree on most issues, but I thank you for the dialog.

      I found a link to an APA article listing studies on both sides of the issue. Google---David Popenoe, Life Without Father (Boston: Harvard University Press, 1999)
      I certainly learned more about the issue than when we started our dialog.

      Delete
  5. Thank you Dr Hunter for once again being the voice of reason!

    ReplyDelete
  6. CH:
    Or as Harvard’s Ernst Mayr wrote, “Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques” for explaining evolutionary events and processes.


    July 2000, Scientific American, Mayr

    "Another aspect of the new philosophy of biology concerns the role of laws. Laws give way to concepts in Darwinism. In the physical sciences, as a rule, theories are based on laws; for example, the laws of motion led to the theory of gravitation. In evolutionary biology, however, theories are largely based on concepts such as competition, female choice, selection, succession and dominance. These biological concepts, and the theories based on them, cannot be reduced to the laws and theories of the physical sciences. Darwin himself never stated this idea plainly. My assertion of Darwin’s importance to modern thought is the result of an analysis of Darwinian theory over the past century. During this period, a pronounced change in the methodology of biology took place. This transformation was not caused exclusively by Darwin, but it was greatly strengthened by developments in evolutionary biology. Observation, comparison and classification, as well as the testing of competing historical narratives, became the methods of evolutionary biology, outweighing experimentation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where there is no predictive heuristic or predictive hypothetico-deductive axioms that have an ontological interpretation, there is no inductive evidence. Thanks for reminding us, V, that there is precisely ZERO inductive evidence for UCA.

      And the so-called "testing of competing narratives" never tested design narratives, because atheists define science as atheistic even though induction requires no such constraint for "testing" (i.e., evaluating explanatory/predictive hypotheses in terms of explanatory breadth, parsimony, probability, etc).

      Any moron can define their way to being "right" by definition. But reasoning is the application of deduction to propositions and inductive criteria to predictive heuristics. It's pretty much nothing more nor less than that, despite what morons think.

      Delete
  7. Jeff:

    Any moron can define their way to being "right" by definition.


    Sure, those pesky definitions of words at odds with idiosyncratic meanings, those morons.



    I believe that is what Mayr agrees with, CH seems to otherwise.

    It's pretty much nothing more nor less than that, despite what morons think.

    It must be a burden to be a giant among midgets, truth wise. Too bad clarity is not an inductive " truth.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Love the nexus of science, religion, politics. Keeping grammar in mind, note the parallels, tangents, and leverage.

    Notwithstanding (or is it,not to mention) the reactions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Part of the unweave:
      ttp://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2015/06/what-does-jeb-bush-have-in-common-with.html?showComment=1435424769923#c7107120192719507898

      Delete
  9. Not so sure I should be thanked. It depends on whether I have given myself too much credit for thinking I follow what your intent was, woven between the laws of nature, antinomianism, religion and politics. I think you have set up evolutionists as a strawman, while it is more needful of a hypothesis that can be tested to call this science.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nexus references of sorts: Elements of the Straw Leviathan

      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2015/05/evolutionary-thought-in-action-there-is.html
      and here: http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2015/05/evolutionary-thought-in-action-there-is.html

      Delete
    2. CORRECTED 2nd Link: Nexus references of sorts: Elements of the Straw Leviathan

      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2015/05/evolutionary-thought-in-action-there-is.html
      and here:

      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2015/06/miracles-are-glaring-problem-for.html

      Delete
  10. Evolutionism is nothing more than contingent serendipity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Grammatically correct. Ruby Red Slippers notwithstanding. The straps are the contingents.

      Delete
  11. "Evolutionism is nothing more than contingent serendipity."

    And if you tap your ruby red slippers together three times and say "There's no place like home" three times, it may come true. But please take a video of yourself doing this so that we can all get a good laugh.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Evolutionism is nothing more than contingent serendipity."

      I don't know, it seems a fair summary and understanding of evolution as an established science.

      FYI I ran across this sight about 6 months ago and this is only the second time serendipty has met contingencies. ;-) [In the happinstance of actually reading it through.]

      Here was my first encounter:
      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/03/suppose-they-gave-theory-and-nobody.html

      In fact, I believe it was a google of a facebook poster that tracked me to the first comment there in the reference to Hayek.

      I note this now because I believe CH's use of "falsification" (there)and Austrian* thinking are where we have a semantical thesis:
      "Evolution is an established science."
      * still to be sorted, akin to "Evolutionist thought".

      Delete
  12. Cornelius: I am afraid I will need to read your book: Darwin's God. At this point though, I would like to know who amongst the commenters here may have already read it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Before I wear out my welcome or my reading bone, I wish to make clear that all of my comments have been a sincere attempt at sussing out the grammar and genre here.

      My Hume or Hegel may take some getting used to, but I find the subject of great importance.

      Lastly there was a reference to another blog, UD. I can assume what it stands for, attempting to find it.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. Roger, sorry, UD is Uncommon Descent. They often start very interesting discussions but it is far from being open and fair discussions, as Cornelius, in my recent experience, has permitted.

      At UD, any commenter who disagrees with ID, or the moderator's viewpoints, often find there comments modified, deleted, or their commenting permissions removed.

      I am obviously coming from one side of this debate, so please do not take my word for it. Please follow the discussions that take place there and make up your own mind.

      Delete
    5. Thanks for the info and warning, I had guessed it was "Unintelligent Design".
      Not sure what you are sorry about, but if it anything like my happenstance LOL.
      BTW: This exchange has been challenging enough, but really they can modify comments. Doesn't that tell us something?

      Delete