I transcribed it for who is too lazy to see the video, but its worth to watch, a great speech:
Let me tell you where we are going. I am giving you in the next half hour or so, some detailed evidence pointing unmistakenly to intelligent design in biology. Unmistakenly in the sense that the evidence is so strong that it's really the only reasonable interpretation of what we see that it is designed. Now you can have a skeptical moment, and say: But Paul, i know the majority of the scientific community, of the biological community, rejects intelligent design, so if the evidence is so strong, why do they not accept it ? Well, that is the second part of my subtitle, and see, there is a play on words there. We go on, what does the evidence of nature, but also of the nature of evidence. The evidence is a transaction, between the world, and you, and in fact of the people. In Illinois, where I live, we have an unhappy practice to put our governors in jail. Our current, or our last governor, Robin Goiwitch, which is, as you know, doing some very hard federal time right now, there were two trials for Robin Goiwitch, the first one ended in a mistrial, they had to do it again. But how is a mistrial even possible? Well, its possible, because of a member of this jury, said: I am unpersuasive by the evidence, and there was nothing that anyone at that room could do to get her to change her mind.And they had to tell the judge, we had a mistrial, and we have to do it again. So think about what evidence is while you go through this talk, and we are gone at the end ask this question and see why it is that this evidence is unpersuasive to the majority of the scientific community, and I tell you, I give you some sort of forecast, it has nothing to do with the evidence itself, but what we gonna let this evidence tell us.
Alright, its funny what you remember from college, i used to go at the office hours to one of my mentors, he was a brilliant atheist philosopher of science, I won't mention his name because he is still alive, and very active, and these were private conversations. He was a brilliant man, and i was being scared to go to see him because i knew he would try to take my arguments apart. But not only did i have to face this guy, who actually ended up and recommended me to gradual school, and face his intellect, I had to look at this photograph. Now many of you know who this is, its one of the most influential intellects of the twentieth century, Bertrand Russell, intellectualist, logician, philosopher, social critic, educator, atheist, whose ideas strongly influenced 20st-century philosophy and science. Nearly at the end of his life, he was asked by very brave reporter ( I would not have the guts to do this ) but they asked him : What would you say if after death he realised that his consciousness was continuing, and there was God looking at him, in other words, they said to him, Dr. Russell, what would you say, if you met God, after your death ? And he said: I should reproach him for not give us enough evidence. In other words, i remained an atheist throughout my life, he played around in his late teens with theism and rejected it, and was a lifelong atheist, because the evidence in some sense was insufficient to show God's existence.
So think about it this way, here is Atheismville, very nice town, kind like Sweden, here is Belief and, and you have an atheist friend, or maybe he is agnostic, he lives in Atheismville, in the suburb, and you are gonna try to persuade him that God is real. Christianity, that's a bigger challenge, just want to acknowledge him that there is a God, that made the universe. So you sit down, there is a road by the way that connect the two towns, you sit down in your car, turn up the ignition, and he looks at your evidence gage, and says, we just never get there. You barely got a quarter tank. That's a long road. You have to get that red all the way up to that gage if you expect me to get over to Beliefland. This view treats evidence quantitatively, something that you can pile up, and at a certain point, its compulsion, the atheist says, ok you piled up enough, now i get to believe. Now i told you, i am skeptical towards that view of evidence, because that does not evaluate the role of that individual to evaluate the evidence. In that failed Robin Goiwitch trial, eleven jurors were convinced he was guilty, one was not, and it would not matter how high they piled it, she just would not change her mind, because of that transaction. Now we need to notice, that Russells view that there was not enough evidence, was rather recent in human thinking. This is Isaac Newton, one of the founders of western science, and in his book, the optics, in fact, right through all of his writings, Newton was absolutely sure that the evidence pointed to a creator. A being, incorporeal, living, intelligent, omnipresent, a being, that made the world and everything that we see, and science itself, he didnt give it that name, but he called it natural philosophy, science itself had value, in part because it pointed us to a creator. See, you might say, alright, but what happened to the evidence ?
What happened between Newton, and Russell? Here is a little timeline: You can put Russell in there, in the nineteen sixties, and put there " i would approach God for not giving enough evidence", and you can put Newton in there in the time of the scientific revolution. Something happened in that intervening period, how science viewed the evidence. Well, what really happened was the Darwinian revolution. In particular, the mechanism of natural selection to explain what appeared to be intelligently designed in living things. For Newton, there was clear evidence for intelligent design in biology, and it wasn't there for Russell, and that is because Darwins proposal for natural selection changed how people viewed living things. In particular, it seemed to offer a strictly natural process for the origin of the biological designs. So, Richard Dawkins puts it this way: The theory of natural selection provides a mechanistic, causal account of how living things came to look as if they had been designed for a purpose. Came to look as if. In other words you look at the eye, the eye of an eagle, or you look at the brain of an octopus, which is rather sophisticated, there are some vertebrates that are smart, look at any biological design, it seems there were an intellect that put it together, and Dawkins says: it only appears that way, because natural selection explains, and we now know better. And this view is very widely held by biologists. Ernst Mayr, for instance, that had a long career at Harvard, he died at 100 years of age, said : Natural selection is so important for evolutionary biologists because it seems to explain or it does explain the design of living things, that is a natural process, instead of by divine action. So to understand what happened to the evidence, we need to look at natural selection, and ask does it actually explain what evolutionary biologists say that it does? That will be our case study, this morning. Before we get there thow, i gonna give you a very interesting historical detail. Bertrand Russell had a very high regard for the power of the intelligent design argument. You know there are several classical arguments for God's existence. The ontological argument, the moral and so forth, he thought all of them had some kind of logical flaw, but when it came to designing, he said: this argument actually works. It depends what the evidence shows, so in this passage, he says : This argument contends that , on a survey of the known world, we find things that cannot plausibly be explained as the product of blind natural forces, but are much more reasonably to be regarded as evidence of a beneficent purpose.
That is something with an intellect, with a mind like ours: This argument has no formal logical defect, its premises are empirical, and its conclusions professes to be reached in accordance with the usual canons of empirical inference. The way that we do in science. So he says: The question wheter it is to be accepted or not turns, therefore not on general metaphysical questions, but on comparatively detailed considerations. Now what does he mean by that? What he means is that you've got to have to look at the evidence in detail. So that's what we are going to do, dig deep, and what cause can explain the biological evidence, and what i wanna do is a little case study here, in a puzzle, that Dawkins and Mayr say, natural selection explains. And that's the origin of animal body plans. Now, think about what you want a theory of evolution to do. If you are a biologist, or just a curious human being. You wouldn't be content with that theory if it just would explain why one moth has slightly more pigments in its wing than another. You wanna know where did the moth itself come from. Where did oak trees, and blue whales, and bacteria, and human beings themselves, where did we come from, the organisms, so that's the question we are looking at. So here is a little worm, it's very small, its about thousand cells, and you can find these worms in the soil, if you have a pretty powerful hand microscope you can see them, they consume bacteria. Here is a fruit fly, they are actually quite small, but beautiful, they have brilliant red eyes, or there is the purple sea urchin, which is you go here, at Lagoona beach, you see lots of these things, flourishing along the Pacific coast, now you know this, they do not have the same overall architecture. A worm is a worm, a fly is a fly, and a urchin is a urchin. Their architectures are different. They are not the same kind of living thing, and it's not easy to interconvert them. So this is gonna be a real challenge for evolution. Where did these different architectures come from? So first if we gonna evaluate natural selection, we need to understand how natural selection operates. Now let me stretch this thing, natural selection is a real process, we have a lot of examples of it in fact, my wife is a pediatrician, in Chicago, and during her training, she was told to tell patients, don't expect if you have a minor infection, to go home with an antibiotic today, because we have a tendency to abuse antibiotics, take them until the symptoms go away, but put the rest of the medicine in the cabinet, in the bathroom, if enough of us do that, over and over, that antibiotic is then less effective, the next time, we need to kill some bacteria, because of the power of natural selection. So natural selection is real, the question is, does it do, what evolutionary biologists claim that it can. So here is a little formulation of how natural selection works.
3 conditions have to be satisfied. The first one is variation. So we need differences. Here are some tigers, and that poor guy at left side got to say, man i have no stripes, i am barely a tiger, i don't know what i am, but i got no stripes, that's variation within that species. you can see the differences there. Here are some stickleback fishes, all within the same species, and you can see there are lots of differences within those various fishes, and those differences between tigers, and fish, and in this case, ladybugs, may make a difference between the offspring that they make. And of course, if we look in our species, homo sapiens, we have a tremendous variety of differences, just within this auditorium, you look around, and you see a lot of variation. So that's the first condition, you need to have a lots of differences, and they need to make a difference in the number of offspring they leave, more or less, so here is the little cartoon showing a tree, and a single-celled organism, the yellow tree is favoured, under the selective condition that we have set up, so that that condition is maintained, the orange tree disappears, and over time, there is a shift of the population, so the yellow tree dominates, and you need to be able to past it on. You got to be able to transmit that variation to your offspring. If you can't there is gonna be a problem, but if those 3 conditions are satisfied, natural selection will occur, as night follows day. So we go back here and see, we started out with orange, and yellow, that black bar represents the selective condition, we end up just with yellow, because the orange creatures couldn't survive. Think about this like 3 legs of a stool. You got to have them all to have natural selection to operate. But the bottom line is which we will be looking at is if you can't leave offspring, you are at a dead end, as far as evolution is concerned. So think about it at this way: imagine someone with the intellect of Albert Einstein and the physique of Michael Phelps. Put those two together. Absolute brilliance and intelligence, and olimpical specimen in regard of physical characteristics, one problem: that guy is sterile. His testicles are not producing any sperm. It doesn't matter what else is right with him. He is a dead end, and invisible to evolution, because he can't leave any offspring, And here is Paul Nelson, which obviously does not have the physique of Michael Phelbs, but in march 16 , 1992, me and my wife, we successfully passed DNA to the next generation. so in that sense, i am more fit, than that hypothetical, superintellectual swimmer. If you have kids, but you are not happy about your physical condition, just remember, you got kids, you are fit, as far what evolution is concerned. But here is a problem for natural selection. Claims that are made on its behalf are rarely backed up with evidential support.
Rarely. Richard Dawkins will make a claim like this. But if you go actually to the scientific literature, as i do professionally, and look for the evidence, where natural selection is actually shown to be causally effective on building eyes, or ears, or brains, or wings, or nervous systems, its just not there, and in fact, this has been know for a long time, even at the zenith, even at its most popular period, in the 1960's, natural selection left many evolutionary biologists very unhappy. So Mr. Waddington, who was a embryologist, who worked closely with the core of the evolutionary community, to try out sort out evolution, at the famous meeting in Philadelphia, in 1966, he said, evolution, the textbook theory that explains what we wanted to, what he called the whole real guts of evolution, left at the outside the mathematical theory, and by that he means, the mathematical expression of natural selection. In particular, this problem ( of body plan variations) is unsolved. Its wide open. And there is, of course, a greater part of body plans, you come to recognize these even as a small child, you can distinguish a spider from a sea star. They are just not the same organisms, they have fundamentally different architectures, of course, we belong to that group at the lower right, the chordates, if evolution cannot explain these differences, the theory is in deep trouble. Now, text book theory, the theory that you would get at a public high school, or university, at UCLA, holds, that all the animals stem from a common ancestor. That funny shaped thing at the bottom , they are called urbilaterian, thats just a fancy name for an organism with bilateral symmetry. We are bilaterally symmetrical, an arm on the side, an arm on the side, an eye and eye, you can put a dividing line on the middle of us, and have roughly mirror images on either side, even if our internal organs aren't quite symmetrical. That theory has never been demonstrated. Urbilateria is hypothetical, there are two different ways to drawing it there, one has a few more details than the other, thats a hypothetical construct to tie together what are in fact two very different kind of organisms. This problem is an unsolved problem in the origin of animals is well known within the discipline of evolutionary biology. Wallace Arthur is the english development geneticist. I met him when i was a graduate student in Chicago, and in the late 80ies he was becoming very unhappy with textbook theory, and in a publication at that time, he said : We don't really know how body plans originate.
And the examples we have in our text books, aren't adequate. So what he calls the Biston Betularia, thats the name for the famous peppered moth from England, which may be many of you remember from textbooks of biology. Thats a classical example of natural selection in action, where pollution changes the color of the environment such that the light colored moths are preferentially preyed by birds because they can better see them while the dark moths have better camouflage and what happens in that process is that the whole population shifts . Example of natural selection but Wallace says that really does not explain where the moth came from. Eric Davidson, from Caltech in Pasadena, in a paper a few years ago, said, what we see with things like moth, for this is the question where these came from, these are fundamentally different problems, as differences between apples and oranges. And we cannot understand the origin of the moth itself, just from the small-scale evolution that we see, we can go back in the history of evolutionary theory, in the last century, and find the point where the mistake was made. Now it was not really a mistake. Every time you do science, you have to make assumptions about the world. And the founders of textbook evolutionary theory said, lest assume, that micro, or small scale evolution, and macro, or large scale evolution, are the same. Just add time to micro, and you get macro. Dobzhansky, who is one of the founders of textbook theory, in the mid-thirties, said : We can't observe macro evolution , it took place over a long time, so what we have to do, is take micro evolution and extrapolate that over a long time, and he said, we do this reluctantly, we put a reluctant sign of quality between micro and macroevolution, and we push our investigations as far as we can, on basis of that assumption, what he called a working hypothesis. Now the thing is that a working hypothesis can work out to be false. And i think thats whats happened. So here is Dobzhansys view. We start with population A, we will let time run, and what will happen, is if the variation is operating with natural selection continues to arise, we make a change that occurs , indicated there by the letter C, we didn't anticipate by the basis of the starting population, but, given enough time, and enough variation, natural selection will relentlessly move that population to new points. So, micro equals macro, just given enough time, well, that's not true, and its well known within evolutionary biology, infact John McDonald, the geneticist at Georgia tec, called it a great Darwinian paradox. He said, we've known this for twenty years, that micro does not scale to macro, well, this was published when i was a undergraduate, and many in the room were not even born. This problem has persisted for a long time indeed. Now this should alert your philosophical radar, how can an unsolved problem in evolution thats central for self-persist for so long ? I tell you, we will come back to this at the very end, it has to do with what we will permit the evidence to tell us, alright, we will come back to that. But the problem arises in the intersection of 3 ideas, or 3 parts of biological knowledge, one is how animal development works, one is the theory, that may be false, that all animals are related by common ancestry, and then the third is natural selection. And the paradox arises from a junction from what we know of each of those areas. Think about it this way: what do we know from development: We know how all animals are built. They start from one fertilized single egg. Thats how you began your existence, me, and so forth, most, but not all animals start that way.
The earliest stage of that process determines what follows. Certainly, no human parent sitting in an obstetrics waiting room wants to hear the doctors mouth: Mr. Nelson your daughter has a macromutation. Your newborn baby has a macro-mutation. Because we know that those kinds of changes is destructive. Because they happen usually early in development in cascade throughout the whole process. So, for going to change the form of an animal, you have to start early because that's the place where the form is being put in place, but now the paradox arises: Those kind of mutations are the least tolerated by the embryo, the earlier you go in development, the more destructive the mutations are, because they affect more cells downstream, bad effects cascade downstream, and typically destroy the organism. And this was discovered in flies, as a Nobel prize-winning piece of research, by this team, Christiane Nuesslein, and Eric Wieschaus, in the late 1970ies, and early 80ies, in Europe. As I said, what they did, they looked at the problem right where these 3 circles come together, and what they did was a kind of reverse engeneering. Using fruit flies, they interrupted their genes. Marching down the chromosomes the fruit flies, disrupting genes, one after another, they asked the organism, what happens if we hit that gene. Will you develop ? So we start on the left, with the egg, we have this long development process which leads to the fly, and by disrupting genes, and their protein products by their different development, they ask the fruitfly, did you need that protein, for normal development. Or if we disrupt that protein, that gene, and its protein product, what will be the downstream consequences. What they found is quite remarkable. Now i told you there will be details, this is one of the details: This is their figure from their paper in nature, that ended up them winning the Nobel prize. On the left side, it shows the normal larval form of the flies. So in the four columns there, and the left-hand side of each of them, it shows if you want the maget form, its quite small, it's very hard to see with your naked eye, but you can see it quite easily with a low powered microscope, that's what a fruit fly magget normally looks like, and the sections that are colored in pink are the sections that will be affected by the mutations they induced. Now the columns on the right are the embryos that have been mutated. And you can see that their form is very different than their normal form. Its truncated, and its sometimes much smaller, all the embryos at the right-hand columns are dead. They are not going anywhere. Because the consequences for normal fruit fly development are so severe that it destroys the organism. And this is in fact how they figured out how the development worked. Perturb it, and reverse engineer it, disrupt the process and then look what is affecting what. And they quickly realized that if you want a fruit fly at all, you cannot perturb its early development. The problem is for macro-evolution to occur is that is exactly the place where the mutations have to take place. So you have this paradox. Hence you have this Darwinian paradox: In order to macro-evolve a species, if you will, you need to have early acting viable mutations. Thow those are the ones that are by far the most destructive. Which means that natural selection cannot operate. Natural selection thow it is a natural process, it is powerless to effect macro-evolution because the kind of variation that it needs is too destructive to animals. Ann Gauger who is the developmental biologist and cell biologist that i work with at Discovery Institute: Ann and i have compared this to what we call a magic bridge.
Ok, this would be right at home of an Indiana Jones movie. The bridge is magin in the following sense: Start on the left, and you start now walking on the bridge. As long as you keep moving, towards the right, towards the other side of the bridge, you will be there beneath your feet. The minute you stop and look over your side, the bridge disappears, and you fall towards the chasm. See how it would fit in a movie, because of a real bridge aren't like that, but development is very much like that. Because only on the right, does reproductive capability arise. Yes, reproductive capability, being able to make copies of your genes, passing them on, is necessary for natural selection, so how did natural selection build that bridge of natural development, if one of its conditions is way on the other side. This problem has never been solved by evolutionary theory. And it's not because natural selection is not real. It's real. It's just not the right kind of process to build things that didn't even exist before. In particular to build animals that didnt exist before. And the consequences for the Darwinian hypothesis, are profound. I showed you this slide before, This is what you get in a textbook, it says that all different animal groups came from this unknown ancestor that we call urbilaterian. Ur, by the way, is a prefix meaning original. You see in biblical studies, referring to the ur-texts, that gave rise to the books of the bible that we see. So that original bilateral form, if it was an animal, it had probably a few thousand cells, the same problem would arise. If it was an animal, it would have gone through a development process, to change it into a anthropod, or a chordate, in other words, one of these different architectures would require the disrupting of its early development, and we have exactly the same problem again. There is no reason to think that thing were different at the pre-Cambrian, than they are today. Well, i told you, this is a problem that i encountered first as a student, much skinnier and with a lot more hair, a long time ago, i am telling you, its well known, its a well-known problem, so John McDonald in the early 80ies, and this is another detail, in technical language, let me translate it for you. He is saying that " Those loci that are obviously variable within natural populations do not seem to lie at the basis of many major adaptive changes, while those loci that seemingly do constitute the foundation of many, if not most, major adaptive changes, apparently are not variable within natural populations". And if you look around this room, there is a lot of variation.
Hair color, height, eye color, you name it, homo sapiens has a lot of variations, Those genes do not affect the overall body plans. What does not vary ? The genes that build your brain stem. The genes that give your heart, that are connected to the lungs, genes that give you a spinal colon, and so forth, variations on those most fundamental systems don't happen. because they have to happen early , and when they happen early, the bad effects cascade downstream, and the organism is destroyed. You certainly know this from your own experience, and you can see it , for instance not only in homo sapiens, but also if you breed dogs, there are certain kinds of variations that certain species simply will not tolerate. Eric Davidson is quite outspoken about this : In a paper last year , he said, textbook theory gives rise to lethal errors. You don't need to read of all that, i am telling you what he is saying. He is saying: what we see as viable variation in populations today, does not affect macro-evolution. To build body-plans where they did not exist before, it needs a totally different kind of theory. He said: What you learn in a textbook, the last sentence of that statement was : all the basic statements on these textbooks are basically counterfactual. Andreas Wagner, who is a evolutionary biologist in Zurich, said: We don't know, how natural selection operates. This article, again, from last year, he said: Natural selection alone is not sufficient. It may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of it. Alright. Bottom line. Research on evolution done within the darwinian framework in the past 30 years has actually discovered that that framework is actually false. And right now, if you go to a evolutionary meeting as i do, with regularity, you will find people talk about this, it doesn't make it sway into CBS specials, or into textbooks, or into the public face of science, but believe me, its quite real. So where do we go ? Its time to go back to the philosophy of science, and the second part of my subtitle, the nature of evidence. If you see something like this , and you take it seriously, it tells you something about nature herself. It tells you to look for a kind of cause. If you will build that magic bridge of development, where once the egg begins to divide, its gonna be all the way over , in our case to the trillions of cells, you see in a newborn baby, that kind of process is telling you look forward to a particular kind of cause. One, they can do the following. they can aim to a distant functional target. Natural selection is very powerful, but it has no foresight. Its powerful, but very very dumb. It cannot look into the future to build something, that will be needed in the distance. What kind of cause can re-use modules ? You know the proteins in your body are reused over and over and over, in different settings. Its remarkable that the number of proteins that you have is not that much larger than the number of proteins that i showed you, earlier, its remarkably close. they have around 19000, we have around 22000 proteins. You were here last Sunday, and they were there in the soil. There is a huge difference because we have a huge amount of junk DNA. that's not junk at all. That is a very very sophisticated code, for reusing those proteins to build what you have. That makes you homo sapiens. What kind of cause can build different systems, different right from the start ? Establish primary discontinuities, where the system tells its parts what to do, you know there are proteins in your body that are identical to those in a fruit fly, by a few amino acids different, but in your body, those proteins will build a camera eye, and in a fruit fly a compound eye, what you've got there is the system is the whole, pointing to the parts what to do, top down, well , this is what can do then. Universally, uniquely, this is the only kind of cause that we can se.
Now its the evidence. What are we gonna tell us? Now we are running into a philosophical barrier. It's not a scientific barrier. Because the scientific evidence is unequivocal. It's a philosophical barrier, and its the worst kind of barrier to have. Because if you can't change it, if you can't find a way to change that barrier, it doesn't really matter what the evidence is, the philosophy will stand in your way. And the philosophical barrier comes to us from the 19th century. It was introduced by the Darwinian revolution itself, as a really more profound consequence of Darwin's ideas than the theory of evolution. Because that fell in a much deeper level. changing the nature of science itself. This essay in the early eighties, David Hull, was a brilliant historical philosopher of science at Northwestern said : what Darwin did was not just to change how we thought about living things, but actually the change of science itself, and what happened was, a wall was thrown upon the evidence of biology, constraints of any possible solution that you can offer to a puzzle, you can think of this like a citywall, get inside the wall, inside you are aloud to work, outside you are like a barbarian. And what the wall says is that following: The statement of science must invoke only natural things and processes. Where natural is contrasted with intelligent. You are an intelligent cause. Every time that you answer a text message, or an email, or someone bumps your car, and leaves a phone number or apologizing, you know, you make an inference where the box on the bottom, intelligence, is absolutely essential for what you do as a rational human being. And it would be that way, if you were a atheist, or a agnostic, or a skeptic, or a Buddhist, or a Christian, it just wouldn't matter, all human beings use intelligence all the time, in their daily life, to explain what they see in the daily world. We know, its real, and the question is, are we allowed to use that concept of intelligence in biology, that made sense to Newton, to Kepler, and Boyle, and Galileo, and the founders of western science, was taken out of the toolkit of science in the 19th century, really, i think to the detriment of science, if we go back, there is our toolkit, restricted, but i think insufficient, if we go back to our initial diagram here, lets say you ve got the thing filled right up to the top, with all the evidence that someone ever wanted, you take that role seriously, of methodological naturalism, do you not allowed to infer intelligent cause, even if the evidence indicates that? this is pointless, there is no reason even to bother with it, the evidence will be powerless, and you have to say, you cant get from there to here, no matter what you show me. So when you think about this question, of the evidence of science, and belief in God, and what it might indicate, realize, its really not an evidential question, yes, evidence is important, but far more important in my experience, i think you will find this as well, is the influence of rules like this. The very worst philosophy of science they have because it puts a screen between you and nature itself. you know God could have put a barcode, in every living thing, if you take this rule, it prevents you to see the evidence, its there. This kind of evidence, that i think that biological development evidence reveals. Bottom line: Natural selection says almost nothing about macroevolution, for reasons having to do with natural selection itself.
The marriage of science to naturalism during the mid-to-late 18th century ministered most famously by the Scottish enlightenment philosopher; David Hume, symbolized the brokering of a union which was nothing short of a shotgun wedding of academia to ideology.
The union endures until today. Science, thus became the bride of a completely self-sufficient naturalistic worldview, a crooked union sealed by a single vow, as pervasive as it is perverse: “What science cannot tell us, mankind cannot know.”
- Bo Jinn | Illogical Atheism: A Comprehensive Response to the Contemporary Freethinker from a Lapsed Agnostic
 Hume is frequently directly and indirectly referenced by both Hitchens and Dawkins.
 Bertrand Russell
Last edited by Admin on Wed Apr 18, 2018 6:37 pm; edited 4 times in total