Category Archives: Uncategorized

Personifying Evolution

From Human Hands Are Designed, Not Evolved by Jerry Bergman

In my library are two dozen books that attempt to dispute the validity of Intelligent Design (ID) and argue that ID has been refuted by scientific facts. They contend that claims of the natural world everywhere giving evidence of ID are motivated by religion and are not supported by science.[1] Nature just looks like it was intelligently designed, they say, and we must keep in mind that it was not designed, in spite of its appearance of design. Richard Dawkins’ exact words were: “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”[2] What we see is only “apparent design,”[3] they say. Nobel Laureate Francis Crick wrote: “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”[4]

“Don’t trust the evidence that is staring at you in the face!”

A rather odd attitude for someone working in the field of observational, verifiable scientific research, don’t you think?

Personifying Evolution

This attitude contrasts with that of the admission by University of Tübingen (Germany) professor Madelaine Böhme, founding director of the Senckenberg Centre for Human Evolution and Palaeoenvironment (SHEP). She did not use the phrase ‘Intelligent Design,’ but conveyed the idea in more superlative terms, namely “your hands… are… marvels ….Nature’s Masterpiece.”[5] Writing in Discover, the leading science magazine for the general public, she wrote that

our hands gave us tools, new skills and better communication. Take a moment to pay attention to your hands. It will be time well spent, because they are evolutionary marvels. Hold one up and examine it. Open and close it. Play with your fingers. Touch the tips of your four fingers with your thumb. Rotate your wrist. You should be able to turn it 180 degrees with ease. Ball your hand up into a fist until your thumb lies on top of and lends support to your index, middle and ring fingers. That is something no ape can do.[6]

Notice how the three authors of this article manage to attribute these marvels to ‘Nature’ as if evolution is a designing mind. They claim that evolution created “Nature’s Masterpiece: How Evolution Gave Us Our Human Hands… they are evolutionary marvels.” Human hands are just one of many examples of “Nature’s Masterpieces.” Why are they described as “evolutionary marvels” instead of just marvels? In addition, the authors admit that human hands are clearly superior to those of the apes (our putative closest living evolutionary ancestors). This personifying of evolution is all too common in the evolutionary literature. Evolution produces masterpieces, is smart, is a stern master, works hard to produce perfection, and produces marvels. These are all words and phrases commonly used to describe evolution’s wonders.

Just don’t blaspheme!

Don’t say the repulsive G-word!


Hand Design

The human hand is described by a Harvard-trained medical doctor who supports ID. He writes, “The design of the human hands displays an astonishing level of skill, flexibility, and durability, allowing us to accomplish tasks that otherwise would be impossible—tasks that clearly separate us from the animal kingdom” including apes.[7] Evolutionists ascribe this complex design to impersonal forces called Nature. The Harvard-trained medical doctor ascribes it to intelligent design. Which view makes more sense? No disagreement exists about the facts, but only about the cause. Are human hands the result of intelligent design, or thousands of mutations selected blindly? Making evolution into the creator has a serious problem: the vast majority of mutations are harmful or near-neutral. They would never add up to produce something with so many interlocking systems that can do so much.


Problems with human hand evolution

These hand-evolution just-so stories attempt to explain the hand’s many advantages, but ignore the fact of its uniqueness. In the animal world with its estimated 1.7 million species, why do only humans have this hand design? No other primate possesses this design which is in many ways obviously superior to all other hands. The researchers admit that chimpanzees “bonobos, gorillas and orangutans are also capable of communicating with gestures” but admit “their repertoire is extremely limited.”[16] A large gap exists between human hands and those of all other primates.

Neanderthal hands show no evidence of evolution

Our claimed evolutionary predecessors, the Neanderthals, also had fully human hands – not ape-like transitional hands that one would expect of less-evolved humans. Neanderthals (spelled Neandertals by some) lived between about 130,000 to 40,000 Darwin years ago. Assuming these dates for the sake of argument, an evaluation of their hands is one way to determine if any hand evolution has occurred during this time, as far back as 130,000 years ago.

Evolutionary anthropologists once commonly assumed that Neanderthal hands were designed for power, not precision (as are modern human hands). This assumption has now been thoroughly refuted. An article in Smithsonian Magazine says that our “early human ancestor, better known colloquially as the Neanderthal, has long been associated with brutish behavior, but a new study published in Science Advances adds to the growing body of literature that challenges this stereotype.”[17]

The Racial Purity Progressives that founded and fueled Darwinism are having to change with the times.

Quick! When Darwinism goes down, what’s going to be the root cause?

  • It was completely refuted, shown to be scientifically disconnected from observed reality, and so rightfully tossed into the garbage heap;
  • Too many Inferiors got into the universities, while the Superior Race failed to enslave and kill enough of the Inferiors reproduce;
  • The government money ran out.

My money is on “three”, with a good bit of “two” tossed in.

Of course, it isn’t going to be “one”.

If merely being logically and empirically refuted by reality was enough to dismiss a politically useful theory, then Mises’s Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth (download here, discussed here) would have been enough to end socialism/communism way back in 1920… and allowed the world to sidestep another 70 years of suffering, poverty, oppression, mass murder, and lies.

The Great Barrington Declaration

A direct copy/paste from

—<Quote begins>—

The Great Barrington Declaration

The Great Barrington Declaration – As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection. 

Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice. 

Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.

Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza. 

As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e.  the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity. 

The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection. 

Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent PCR testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals. 

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.

On October 4, 2020, this declaration was authored and signed in Great Barrington, United States, by:

Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety evaluations.

Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases.

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert focusing on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations.

Sign the Declaration


—<Quote ends>—

Busting the paradigm without busting your career?

From Uncommon Descent: Busting the paradigm without busting your career?

—<Quote on>—

A Cornell U psych prof warns against letting the career lardbellies know in so many words that you plan to shake things up a bit:

Do not present your ideas as paradigm defying. Let your audience figure it out for themselves. As soon as you trumpet your ideas as being paradigm busting, you are opening yourself up, regardless of what you say, to attack from people who will disagree with anything too new. So, downplay the paradigm-defying nature of your ideas. Let your audience figure it out. Some won’t figure it out and thus will feel less threatened.

Robert J. Sternberg, “Was Your Idea Too Creative?” at Inside Higher Ed

Applying the prof’s ideas to ID, perhaps it’s self-defeating for a researcher to say that a chosen approach opposes Darwinism. Darwinism is self-destructing anyhow. Better just to say that one can ansewer some questions more correctly and more easily if we are not expected to hew closely to a strict Darwinian account of evolution. That amounts to the same thing but non-fanatics may not pick up on the significance.

—<Quote off>—

In general, I would prefer to build something new and just – however small and ill-funded – than attach myself to a dying bureaucracy built on lies, however well-funded. As a rule of thumb, bureaucracies cannot be redeemed.

But I am not you, and I don’t claim to see all things. And even Joseph and Daniel were specifically placed in vast pagan bureaucracies to uphold the will of God.

Just something to consider.

Regarding COVID-19 Vaccines

Regarding vaccine effectiveness:

There is no evidence, yet, that the vaccine prevented any hospitalizations or any deaths. The Moderna announcement claimed that eleven cases in the control group were “severe” disease, but “severe” was not defined. If there were any hospitalizations or deaths in either group, the public has not been told. When the risks of an event are small, odds ratios can be misleading about absolute risk. A more meaningful measure of efficacy would be the number to vaccinate to prevent one hospitalization or one death. Those numbers are not available. An estimate of the number to treat from the Moderna trial to prevent a single “case” would be fifteen thousand vaccinations to prevent ninety “cases” or 167 vaccinations per “case” prevented which does not sound nearly as good as 94.5 percent effective. The publicists working for pharmaceutical companies are very smart people. If there were a reduction in mortality from these vaccines, that information would be in the first paragraph of the announcement.

There is no information about how long any protective benefit from the vaccine would persist. Antibody response following covid-19 appears to be short lived. Based on what we know, the covid vaccine may require two shots every three to six months to be protective. The more shots required, the greater the risk of side effects from sensitization to the vaccine.

What the Covid Vaccine Hype Fails to Mention by Gilbert Berdine, MD

Regarding the dangers of these vaccines:

There is no information about safety. None. Government agencies like the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) appear to have two completely different standards for attributing deaths to covid-19 and attributing side effects to covid vaccines. If these vaccines are approved, as they likely will be, the first group to be vaccinated will be the beta testers. I am employed by a university-based medical center that is a referral center for the West Texas region. My colleagues include resident physicians and faculty physicians who work with covid patients on a daily basis. I have asked a number of my colleagues whether they will be first in line for the new vaccine. I have yet to hear any of my colleagues respond affirmatively. The reasons for hesitancy are that the uncertainties about safety exceed what they perceive to be a small benefit. In other words, my colleagues would prefer to take their chances with covid rather than beta test the vaccine. Many of my colleagues want to see the safety data after a year of use before getting vaccinated; these colleagues are concerned about possible autoimmune side effects that may not appear for months after vaccination.

These announcements by Pfizer and Moderna are encouraging. I certainly hope that these vaccines protect people from the harm of covid-19. I certainly hope that these vaccines are safe. If both of these conditions are true, nobody will need to be coerced into taking the vaccine. However, you should pay even more attention about what is left out of an announcement than about what is stated. The pharmaceutical companies are more than happy for patients to misunderstand what is meant by efficacy. Caveat emptor (buyer beware)!

What the Covid Vaccine Hype Fails to Mention by Gilbert Berdine, MD

Caution is really advised here.

From Our Betters: A Quiet Contempt for Religious Liberty

From GetReligion: Justice Alito warns: To spot religious-liberty trends in USA, listen to voices on campuses

—<Quote begins>—

Almost a half century ago, comedian George Carlin recorded his controversial “Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television” monologue.

That was then.

“Today, it would be easy to create a new list entitled, ‘Things you can’t say if you are a student or a professor at a college of university or an employee of many big corporations.’ And there wouldn’t be just seven items on that list – 70 times seven would be closer to the mark,” said U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, via Zoom, addressing the recent Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention.

Discussing religious beliefs, he argued, has become especially dangerous.

“You can’t say that marriage is the union between one man and one woman,” he noted. “Until very recently, that’s what the vast majority of Americans thought. Now it’s considered bigotry.”

Consider, for example, the case of Jack Denton, a Florida State University political science major whose long-range plans include law school.

In June, he participated in a Catholic Student Union online chat in which, after the death of George Floyd, someone promoted a fundraising project supporting, the American Civil Liberties Union and similar groups. Denton criticized ACLU support for wider access to abortion and the BLM group’s “What We Believe” website page that, at that time, pledged support for LGBTQ rights and efforts to disrupt “nuclear family” traditions.

“As a Catholic speaking to other Catholics,” he said, “I felt compelled to point out the discrepancy between what these groups stand for and what the Catholic Church teaches. So, I did.”

Denton didn’t expect this private discussion to affect his work as president of the FSU Student Senate. However, an outraged student took screenshots of his texts and sent them to the Student Senate. That led to petitions claiming that he was unfit to serve, a painful six-hour special meeting and his forced exit.

Backed by the Alliance Defending Freedom, Denton sued the university for violating his First Amendment rights, as well as campus policies against discrimination against religious believers. A student court returned him, briefly, to office in late October, after a federal judge ruled that FSU should pay him lost wages. Denton graduates in December.

“This whole experience has certainly perked my interest in studying constitutional law and First Amendment rights, in particular,” said Denton, reached by telephone.

Denton isn’t alone. In his Federalist Society address, Alito stressed that it is now common to hear students and professors, including many in law schools, express fears about the consequences of being honest about their religious convictions.

“It pains me to say this, but in certain quarters, religious liberty is fast becoming a disfavored right. And that marks a surprising turn of events. Consider where things stood in the 1990s and, to me at least, that does not seem like the Jurassic Age,” he said, referring to bipartisan efforts to pass the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The bill passed on a 97-3 vote in the Senate, received unanimous support in the House and was signed by President Bill Clinton.

“Today that wide support has vanished,” said the Supreme Court justice. “When states have considered or gone ahead and adopted their own versions of RFRA, they have been threatened with punishing economic boycotts. …

“For many today, religious liberty is not a cherished freedom. It’s often just an excuse for bigotry and it can’t be tolerated, even when there is no evidence that anybody has been harmed. …The question we face is whether our society will be inclusive enough to tolerate people with unpopular religious beliefs.”

As an example of these sentiments, Alito quoted an online commentary by Harvard Law School Professor Mark Tushnet in which he stated: “The culture wars are over; they lost, we won.For liberals, the question now is how to deal with the losers in the culture wars.”

Tensions about controversial religious issues have, of course, spread to other battle lines in American life, he said. At this point, the entire First Amendment has become controversial.

“One of the great challenges for the Supreme Court going forward will be to protect freedom of speech,” said Alito. “Although that freedom is falling out of favor in some circles, we need to do whatever we can to prevent it from becoming a second-tier constitutional right.”

—<Quote ends>—

The Masters don’t like you anymore, Christian.

But of course, they never did.

“Forewarned is forearmed.”

Marxist Agendas, Christian Agendas

From How To Run a Federal Budget Surplus, by Gary North

(The bold in the quote is mine)

My comments in italics.

—<Quote begins>—

From time to time, someone asks me: “What would you do about the Federal deficit?” I have this amazing answer: “End it immediately. Then run a surplus until it is paid off 100% — exactly as I would do with my own budget.”

Of course, this assumes that I was ever put in charge of the Federal government’s checkbook. That would be unlikely. It would also be revolutionary. I don’t believe in political revolutions. Revolutions make things worse. They require centralized power and violence — a point that Karl Marx’s collaborator, Frederick Engels, made clear in his 1874 essay, “On Authority.” He wrote: “A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists.” That is not my agenda.

—<Quote ends>—

Christians may not go down the road of oppression, theft, lies, and murder.

If we do, God will give us a fitting reward for our contempt for His way.

And we won’t like it. Not even a tiny bit.

—<Quote begins>—

When free market economist Ludwig von Mises was asked what he would do if he were put in charge of the economy, he replied with one word: “Resign.” That was the correct answer.

We need to think carefully about what civil governments are and are not. Civil governments are not like individuals. They are irresponsible in ways that individuals never can be, because other individuals will intervene to stop irresponsible individuals before they inflict harm on everyone around them. So, we do what we can to call government irresponsibility to the attention of others. We fight battles that we can win, or at least might win, which are few and far between in the latter stages of national irresponsibility, which we are obviously in.

A successful political battle begins with ideas. So, in the name of responsibility, but not in the name of political revolution, I offer my program for balancing the budget.

—<Quote ends>—

Because of the slackness and the contempt for God’s Laws by our forefathers — stemming from at least the Second Great Awakening — we are currently in a nasty fix.

First, we must repent. In our lives, and then in our families and churches, then in our businesses and neighbourhoods, and finally in the legislatures and courthouses.

This is going to be a long walk. But there are no shortcuts.

Then, as we take God at His word, we can start thinking His thoughts, as a obedient servant should quickly grasp what his master desires.

By following His way, we gain the victory, little by little.

(For clarity, I removed North’s italics from the section title below.)

—<Quote begins>—


Cut spending until income equals outflow. Then cut it some more.

That’s it? That’s it.

“But what about . . . ?”

This is the universal response that guarantees future government bankruptcies, all over the world. Three words: “But what about,” plus a question mark

Nothing in American political history ever since the last year of the Jackson Administration in 1836 has overcome the effect of these three words: “But what about?” There was no national government debt in 1836. Also, that was the last year of the Second Bank of the United States as a government-licensed central bank. Then the recession of 1837 ended the year of debt-free living for Congress. It never happened again.

To head off “But what about?” my recommended reform mandates an across-the-board cut of spending by every Federal agency. No exceptions. Every budget is cut by the same percentage.

“But what about . . . ?” Yes, that one, too.

“But you can’t mean . . . ” Yes, I do.

“But that would lead to . . . ” Yes, it might.

“But people would be forced to . . . ” I am sure they would.

“But this idea is utopian.” No doubt it is.

I will tell you what else is utopian: long-term Federal solvency

—<Quote ends>—

We haven’t seen the bankruptcy of a leading political power since the fall of the Bourbon Dynasty in France.

Last time, it kicked off revolutions, coups, decades of war, spasms of mass murder, and a huge powergrab by the State and collectivists ideologues.

I don’t think that will happen this time: information technology and modern economic systems work against it.

Far more likely is some form of large-scale decentralization (including informal secession, but probably not formal exits from the Union).

The Old Order will die.

Let’s see if Christians can create a large number of viable, locally-focused alternatives.

Rob the Young and Weak, Reward the Old and Powerful

From North’s Social Security and Medicare Reform: 25 Years of Kicking the Can

—<Quote begins>—

On August 27, 1995, The New York Times Magazine ran as article. It asked a question. I think it was a rhetorical question: “Who Will Face The Music?

The author made an accurate observation.

America, it is often lamented, is an increasingly polarized nation in which one group is all too ready to assume that its interests are being trampled by another. Over the last few years, fierce battles have been waged over affirmative action, the right to pray in school and the treatment of illegal immigrants. And yet in this profoundly contentious period, there has hardly been even a skirmish over a huge and growing generational inequity. Not only through Social Security and Medicare, but also through veterans’ pensions and a score of other programs for the elderly, the Federal Government has, over the last several decades, effected an immense transfer of wealth from one group of citizens to another, from young working Americans to retirees.

This silence is still deafening, a quarter century later.

This is also true:

Politicians on both sides of the aisle, who are usually quick to exploit any potential “wedge” issue, have been extremely wary about even acknowledging this one. In fact, they have done their best to avoid it altogether. Even in the current debate over cutting Medicare, both sides have effectively conspired to obscure the truth about the issue, which is that the Republicans’ proposals, which Democrats call cruel impositions on the old, would make only a marginal difference in what the system already costs the young.

—<Quote ends>—

This generational theft will come to an end.

But, by the time it does come to an end, the future will be far more weaker, demoralized, and broken than it should be.

It will be a far smaller and weaker future, too.

Putting it in a rhetorical dialogue:

“What is the fundamental truth of American History?”

“Broken treaties.”

From cheating, robbing, and killing the Indians…
…to cheating, robbing, and killing their own children.

God is not mocked, indeed.

The COVID Cult… Relocated

From Tom Wood’s mailing list:

—<Quote begins>—

Well, I have an update for you: YouTube has taken down “The COVID Cult,” my remarks that between Facebook and YouTube had had nearly 1.5 million views.

This is the first time this has ever happened to me.

Oh, and why did they do it?

It violated YouTube’s “Terms of Service” — which apparently include the provision that you may not question lockdowns, which are a brilliant idea and have no side effects.

You can still watch it here:

Not one stitch of anything in that video was false, as you can see at the link if you haven’t watched it already.

There are now other platforms you can use to post videos where you can be confident they’ll stay up.

That’s a good thing, but it’s also symbolic of the current divide.

You don’t need me to tell you that the country had already been divided well before COVID came along, but once all this passes — and every pandemic does pass, of course — there will be a profound and lasting division that is probably beyond healing.

On the one side, you have people who think half the country selfishly ignored sound public health advice and put people at risk because they wanted to get haircuts. They’re not going to want to make nice anytime soon.

Then you have our side.

We’re the ones who tried to empathize with people who had lost everything they’d worked their whole lives for; people suffering from depression, for whom “social distancing” was a death sentence; people whose medical treatments were indefinitely postponed; people around the world at risk of starvation from supply-chain disruptions; elderly people dying of “failure to thrive” because the deprivation of human contact had made them lose the will to live — you know as well as I do that it’s a long and very grim list.

Now look: I disapprove of making all of life about politics. I can’t stand people who have litmus tests for friendships, etc. I shouldn’t have to investigate what my ketchup company donates its profits to.

(By the way: it’s perfectly all right to end a sentence with a preposition if the alternative would be clumsy. So resist the temptation to correct me. You know who you are….)

But I’ll be honest:

I don’t particularly want to associate with people responsible for this fiasco.

They’re surrounded by collateral damage and the destruction of societies and the things that make life worth living, and all they can do is tell us COVID is bad? They can’t think about more than one thing at a time?

Meanwhile, they didn’t bother to notice that the charts of places with radically different policies were often exactly the same. That realization would have disrupted their ordinary course of action: namely, blaming people for the spread of the virus.

If the virus spreads no matter what government policies are instituted, it becomes more difficult to portray oneself as morally superior and super concerned with saving human lives.

And frankly, imagine the kind of person to whom the expression “stay home, save lives” appeals.

You can finally matter, and all you need to do is…absolutely nothing.

Back to social media:

For obvious reasons I decided to move the Tom Woods Show Elite, my invitation-only, private group for supporters, off Facebook and onto MeWe.

I like MeWe because its interface is similar to Facebook’s, so it takes five to ten minutes to learn.

I thought it would be like pulling teeth to get people over to a new platform, but to the contrary, people have been flocking there.

We are experiencing the most bizarre moment of our lives, and so many of our acquaintances, friends, and even family think it’s all normal, even admirable.

And they think you’re crazy and wicked.

Join me inside the Elite for a haven of sanity, where you can keep informed about the real numbers and the real facts — and, as an added bonus, not be called a grandma killer.

Entry is this way:

Tom Woods

P.S. Black Friday is coming up this week. Longtime subscribers know that I send a lot of emails that weekend. They are entertaining, and you will enjoy them. If you’d rather not read them, just delete them, or if that’s too much to ask, just unsubscribe altogether and we can still be friends. I generate a veritable mountain of free content all year, and all I ask in return is that you deal with a heavy email weekend once a year. Thank you!

—<Quote ends>—

You might as well check out before you get shut down for Evil WrongThink.

Bad Design

From Engineer Stuart Burgess on “bad design” in nature

—<Quote begins>—

From an account of the recent Christian Scientific Society meeting:

Stuart Burgess had fascinating details about his role as a senior design engineer for satellites for the European Space Agency. He pointed out that many biologists who write popular books are quick to dismiss certain elements of biological systems as bad design, who apparently have never actually designed anything or talked to real engineers. Some of the biological elements called bad design are actually ones that systems engineers value quite a bit and use in their work frequently. In fact, the trend is mostly that engineers seek to learn good design from biology. Stuart also raised the issue of living creatures that seem “well designed to kill.”

David Snoke, “Brief review of the meeting” at Christian Scientific Society Newsletter (November 19, 2020)

Lots of other interesting talks summarized at the link.

—<Quote ends>—

An interesting detail from the link:

Scott Minnich, by all accounts, stole the show with his talk on the black plague, presenting new, as-yet-unpublished results from his labs that show that the high mortality of the black plague can be traced back to a single mutation about 5000 years ago that caused the bacteria to lose their flagella. The human immune system is well-tuned to detect and destroy bacteria with flagella, but this mutation allows the black plague bacteria to slip under the radar and not be detected by the immune system. This finding is consistent with a view that originally, humans and parasites lived together in an ecological balance, but after the fall of humanity, some things were broken that led to imbalance and catastrophe. Scott’s work provides a strong argument for much human suffering as the result of devolution, not evolution, and also may help cure the black plague (e.g., prevent its use as a bioweapon). Not bad, Scott!

Christian Scientific Society Newsletter November 19, 2020

I would rather trust a random ID researcher or even a young earth scientists, than a random priest or pastor.

One group largely believes in submitting to human authority, however evil, and regardless of the amount of lies spewed.

The other group does not…and is willing to pay a price to stick with the truth. Regardless of what the Voices of Authority says.

Arizona and Masks, Muzzles and Compliance

According to the numbers, wearing masks don’t help stop or even hinder the spread of the virus in the public world.

They exist to secure other goals.


Charts are from Tom Wood’s mass email:

—<Quote begins>—

Thanks to Ian Miller for the charts.

—<Quote ends>—

Wearing your mask isn’t about fighting the disease.

It’s about training and obedience, conformity and compliance.