911 Rang Again - A review of the PBS Video Series Evolution

Institute for Creation Research ^ | Wednesday, Oct 17, 2001 | Ken Cumming PhD, Biology

[ThinkPlease]

911 RANG AGAIN - A REVIEW OF THE PBS VIDEO SERIES "EVOLUTION"
Ken Cumming, Ph.D. Biology

Another Attack

It was about 10 a.m. in the morning of September 11, 2001 when Barbara Olson called her husband Tom from a cell phone on board American Airlines flight 77 to tell him, "We've been hijacked!"¹ Tom told her in turn that he saw on TV along with millions of others that two airliners already had crashed into the World Trade Center an hour earlier. In one grand wakeup call, America heard the cry for "help" from thousands of civilians victimized by Osama bin Laden's god-squad.

Only 13 days later on Public Broadcasting Stations, a seven-part, eight-hour event of grave importance was also witnessed by millions of Americans, but the pall of New York City, the Pentagon, and the Pennsylvania airline crashes overshadowed all other news. PBS with the aid of WGBH in Boston and Clear Blue Sky Productions televised one of the boldest assaults yet against our public schools and the millions of innocent victims - our school children.²

Both events have much in common. The public was unaware of the deliberate preparation that was schemed over the past few years to lead to these events. And while the public now understands from President Bush that "We're at War"³ with religious fanatics around the world, they don't have a clue that America is being attacked from within through its public schools by a militant religious movement called Darwinists.

"Come on!" you might exclaim. "You're blowing a whistle on American scientists, the very cream of human genius. What evidence do you have for such an outrageous accusation?" To which I say, let this blatant video series speak for it. And let its support documents tell you of mind control beyond anything yet seen in public education. "Evolution" is PBS's assault that's coming to your children's classroom - not soon but now.

The teaching of evolution in public schools isn't new. It was the focus of the "Monkey Trial" in 1925 when John Scopes was found guilty of violating the law by supposedly teaching evolution in a state school.⁴ Evolution as a philosophy went underground until the advent of Russia's launch of Sputnik in 1945 as the 7th episode points out. This space event opened the schoolyard to the first wave of ideological attack in the form of the Biological Science BSCS science texts for public schools. In 1958 the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study was dedicated to the improvement of biological education and is "generally credited with introducing extensive presentation of evolution while excluding scientific evidence for creation."⁵

A Dangerous Idea

A major theme and some threads for "Evolution" came from the philosophical fantasy of Daniel C. Dennett, Professor at Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts entitled "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" published in 1995. (6) Dennett imagines a dollop of "universal acid" that is so powerful that it can't be contained by any known vessel. It is a childhood concoction of his much like a chemical Godzilla that best explains what he thinks has happened since 1859. "Darwin's dangerous idea is that Design can emerge from mere Order via an algorithmic process that makes no use of pre-existing Mind." Put in more simple terms, Darwin imagined that instead of God creating all things because His Mind was sufficient to make it all happen from the top down, chaos created all things from the bottom up to man in a miraculous cosmic pyramid.
How could this be? It can be, writes Dennett because nature selects the best from the past and those survivors have an accumulated advantage to keep on creating new inventions from the lottery of innovations in each generation that can modify life, improve life, and even produce an evolving mind like unto the Mind of the mystical God, only this great and ever advancing mind is in man. Such an idea is at the heart of humanism.⁷ This "universal acid" then is Darwinism, an idea that can't be contained and is destroying all of the pre-Darwinian concepts (cause and effect, religion, morality, ethics, etc.) much the same way that the Copernican revolution totally changed the way man viewed the heavens. But is Darwinism really a religious idea?

The Religion of Darwin

Darwin died on April 21, 1882 and as the video narrator explains in Episode 7. His friends prevailed upon the Royal Society, House of Commons, and Dean of Westminster Abbey to bury him in the floor of that cathedral. These supporters wanted a state occasion with special anthem celebrating the vast social transformation that England was undergoing.

"Darwin's body was enshrined to the greater glory of these new professionals. For, he had naturalized creation and delivered human nature and human destiny into their hands. Society would never be the same. Darwin's vision of nature was, I believe, fundamentally a religious vision with which he ended his most famous work, On the Origin of Species."

Do you see any small parallel to the death of Darwin and that of Jesus? Darwin set the captives free from Biblical interpretation and turned them over to human hands (humanism) to perfect his legacy. And just what was that legacy? God didn't create man, but nature did so by means of amoeba to man evolution by way of the "Tree of Life."

"There is grandeur in this view of life with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."⁸

Don't be deceived by that "breathed by the creator" phrase. At this point in his life (1859 and later), Darwin's atheism was under severe attack by the church of his day so he threw in a sop to his readers as if he somehow thought that God was still involved. He really didn't think so.⁹

In one eulogistic monolog, narrator Moore now elevates Darwin even higher than Jesus for He has no role in man's salvation but the creation in the form of "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" does it for Him. Too bad Jesus, you died for nothing. Can there be any doubt that this is an evolutionary moment when the Great High Prophet of the Humanistic Religion assumes his office, receives homage, and passes his vision on to the evangelists who proselytize those millions of victims that can't protect themselves and whose parents don't understand that another, quiet religious war has been declared on America from within.

Undermining Faith

Lest you think that this isn't a religious war of humanism against theism, let's now look at Episode 7. "What About God?" The narrator puts the sacrifice on the altar: "The majesty of our birth, the beauty of life. Are they the result of a natural process called evolution or the work of a divine creator? This question is at the heart of a struggle that threatened to tear our nation apart," says the narrator. Ken Ham appears on the scene to say, "I think it is a war. It is a real battle between world views." After panning his church seminar in Canton, Ohio and making him look like a huckster through editorial license, the producer unfolds two staged case studies that purport to be objective inquiry into the whole topic of Darwinism but in reality are examples of proselytizing and blocking in action.

Right before your eyes, you can see the destructive "universal acid" at work in undermining both a Christian University and three of its students because the students don't believe that the Bible is literally true and haven't been taught the true nature of humanism.

Wheaton College invited the attack by encouraging a double-minded professor to speak to their students. His message was that there is no problem in being both an orthodox Christian and Darwinist. Dr. Keith Miller, a Geology Professor from Kansas State University was asked to give the keynote address at a symposium on the fossil record and geological history. To no one's surprise he advocates the teaching of evolution and the centrality of evolution as a unifying theory of origins. He didn't find any conflict; he doesn't understand the facts underlying these two opposing religions. There are lots of transitional forms he declares. Some of the silent audience ask, name one and prove that it is. The narrator acknowledges that some students are still troubled after this one-sided presentation. Three students are followed in their developmental thought over time on this challenge to their faith. All three are swayed to an insecure position and acceptance of the propaganda. At least that is the edited version of the video that millions of Americans watched; such editing is seldom trustworthy.

In a second case, students at Jefferson High School in Lafayette, Indiana petitioned their school board to have special creation added to their science curriculum. Over half the student body and 35 members of the faculty supported their petition. "Teach us the facts and let us choose," they asked. They claimed that complex biological structures could not have arisen through natural selection at all, but had to be created by some higher intelligence. After three hours of deliberations, the board decided that creation science couldn't be taught under biology but possibly under the humanities. The religion of Darwinism doesn't violate separation of church and state but creation science does.

Behind the scenes, Dr. Eugenie Scott, Director of the National Center for Science Education (formerly the Committees of Correspondence on Evolution)¹⁰ was Available to help the Lafayette students' teacher, Steve Randek, fight off the petition. This is what Scott likes to do - defend evolution. Scott said that Justice Brennan wrote "that alternatives for evolution could be taught, if they have a scientific basis. So that they [creationists] could duck under the first amendment." Darwinists practice their religion in the schools under the first amendment. Since when does a scientific theory of any merit need a body guard to protect it from open inquiry? If the theory has substance, then it should be open to falsifiability and not duck under any amendment.

911 rang again. Did you pick up on it?

References

1. Cantlupe, Joe, "Author calls spouse from doomed plane", San Diego Tribune, September 12, 2001, A13.

2. Hutton, Richard, Executive Producer, The Evolution project, WGBH Boston, September 24-27, 2001

3. Thomas, Evan and Mark Hosenball, Bush: 'We're At War' Newsweek, September 24, 2001, 26.

4. Taylor, Ian T., In the Minds of Men, (Toronto: TFE Publishing, 1991), 232.

5. Bird, Wendell R., The Origin of Species Revisited, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1991), vol. II, 356.

6. Dennett, Daniel C., Darwin's Dangerous Idea, (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995), 83.

7. American Humanist Association, "Humanist Manifesto II," The Humanist, vol.33 (September/October 1973), 4-9.

8. Darwin, Charles, The Origin of Species, (Philadelphia: David McKay, Publisher), Sixth edition, 474'.

9. Taylor, Ian T., In the Minds of Men, (Toronto: TFE Publishing, 1991), 126.

10. Bird, Wendell R., The Origin of Species Revisited, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1991), vol. II, 352.

[Vercingetorix]

"Maybe I'm being too skeptical here, but with an evolutionary premise, there is nothing either proper or improper about the workings of a cell infected with a virus, or for that matter, the virus itself. They just 'are'." -- Diamond

It matters greatly depending on whether you are the cell or the virus. Good for virus equals bad for cell.

Now as a human I am interested in what is good for me and my kind. I am not interested in becoming the pawn of any larger force especially one that preempts my capacity for choice by conditioning me to follow orders not of my own making.

"That is why the notion of dsysfunction is hard to make sense of in an evolutionary paradigm, because evolution is not the product of design or purpose. It is just the impersonal, non-purposed result of a myriad of concatenations of hydrogen atoms over a long period of time. There is no meaning or purpose in any of it." -- Diamond

Evolution theory defines apparent design as what comes about through the mechanistic algorithm of natural selection operating on mutable self reproducing organisms over long periods of time. Dysfunction is defined by the relative reproductive success of one variant compared to another. Neandertal Man would probably still be with us today if he had a 2% higher fecundity or a 2% lower mortality rate than he actually did during his encounter with Cro-Magnon. During the Wurm I Ice Age Neandertal adapted to a most inhospitable environment and was apparently quite functional. Warm things up a bit and add a strong competitor and Neandertal was quite suddenly dysfunctional (in the evolutionary sense anyway). Did this matter to the Neandertal? Too bad we can't ask him, but my guess is that he would be mightily displeased at the way things turned out.

The point is that humans make their own meaning and never seem to have been unable to do so. It matters not how we got here or how we became what we are. It only matters that we are. Camus' expresses it thusly in The Stranger -- "I embrace the benign indifference of the Universe."

"Who is to say that that particular evolutionary outcome is 'good' or 'bad' in any objective sense?" -- Diamond

Why not us?

[Diamond]

It matters not how we got here or how we became what we are. It only matters that we are. Camus' expresses it thusly in The Stranger -- "I embrace the benign indifference of the Universe."

Again, perhaps I am being overly skeptical here, but that existential leap of faith is too irrational for my taste - the suspension of disbelief required is too much for me to be able to make it across that great chasm.

Cordially,

[gore3000]

The creationists write plenty. They do not write in invisible ink. If the evos want to criticize their statements, they are out there for all to see. Indeed, it is the drivel in the "scientific journals" that never gets read by anyone.

[dbbeebs]

"the drivel in the "scientific journals" that never gets read by anyone" is the only thing that counts.
"ID" and "creation science" are ideas meant to sell books to creationists.

[Vercingetorix]

"- the suspension of disbelief required is too much for me to be able to make it across that great chasm." -- Diamond

Pretend you were born before any other man had invented religion. What would you do in that circumstance?

[Diamond]

Pretend you were born before any other man had invented religion. What would you do in that circumstance?

That's a tall suppositional order. There are a lot of assumptions that will shape any answer to the question. For instance, what do you mean by "man" in that context?

But, to engage in the thought experiment, I might just adopt the world-view of my parents, although it's difficult to imagine what that world-view would be. Assuming that there were no propositional revelation from any creator in space/time history, or if there was, I was unaware of it, I can only suppose that it still might be natural for me to wonder how we got here or how we became what we are. Being a human being, and left to my own devices, and if RECORDED history is any indicator, I would probably have speculated about our origins and turned my myths into a 'religion' because (and this is entirely speculation) if I were intuitively aware that nothing comes from nothing, and that if something, anything, exists, then Something must always have existed, then I would probably tend to revere whatever I thought was responsible for my existence; my ancestors, the universe, the sun, rocks, spirits, whatever. But I think it would have been counter-intuitive for me to have come to the conclusion that the universe was the result of a gigantic cosmic accident that could just as easily have not come to be. That view seems to have popped up much later in history:-)

[Vercingetorix]

"But I think it would have been counter-intuitive for me to have come to the conclusion that the universe was the result of a gigantic cosmic accident that could just as easily have not come to be. That view seems to have popped up much later in history:-)" -- Diamond

Perhaps but the later opinions are much more well informed.

[Diamond]

We do have a lot more information than people in earlier ages, but if the evolutionary materialist premise is correct, and the human organism's only goal or purpose is to survive and reproduce, at the species (not individual) level, then there is no such thing as personal worth and dignity. After I'm dead, as someone has said, "what difference does it make to me now whether I have reproduced or not?" Who cares whether or not I have reproduced? How does one live when one realizes that there is no point to any of it, that in the end it really doesn't matter what one does, or that one was better informed than people in earlier times? The premise offers nothing but despair when taken to its logical conclusion, and short of that, denial or irrational hope. Acting as if there is ultimate meaning and significance and purpose to life if there there really isn't, is to live with a lie - an illusion.

Cordially,

[Vercingetorix]

"How does one live when one realizes that there is no point to any of it, that in the end it really doesn't matter what one does, or that one was better informed than people in earlier times? The premise offers nothing but despair when taken to its logical conclusion, and short of that, denial or irrational hope. " -- Diamond

Let me get this straight. Are you suggesting that knowing we are born only to live a short time, breed and die leads to despair?

"Acting as if there is ultimate meaning and significance and purpose to life if there there really isn't, is to live with a lie - an illusion." -- Diamond

Are you saying that religious belief in an afterlife is a lie and an illusion? Faced with the certainty that we live but once and then are gone, why should a man despair? An honest man would simply recognize that life is a great treasure and he has it for a time. Instead the greedy man, like a spoiled child displeased with a gift, disparages the life he has and wants it to go on forever but not as life is really lived; he wants perfect bliss as well.

Once upon a time men created such myths but usually placed some constraints on the manner in which a man had to live this life in order to qualify for the eternal reward. Man's natural sense of fair play forced him to recognize that there were plenty of his fellows who not only did not merit a reward but clearly deserved a hefty punishment which they did not receive in this life. That's how hell got invented. Then man invented the illusion that all a poor miserable wretch has to do to get his eternal reward is have faith -- no penance or good works required. Who would say no to such a wonderful illusion? An honest man would have to reject all such offers rather than compromise his integrity.

The meaning of life is life itself. The duration is unimportant. Or to put it another way -- why should living for eternity make any difference? If a man despairs of this life why should he expect an infinity of such lives to afford an improvement?

[Vercingetorix]

"We really should do a thread on memes. A very worthwhile topic."

Thanks for the links. I was not aware there had been such a proliferation of published material on this subject. Some of the later claims seem to have greatly expanded on Dawkin's concept. Susan Blackmore's "The Meme Machine" speculates that memes, or memeplexes as she calls them, may drive gene frequencies.

[Elsie]

Religions do not usually become violent until their doctrines are called into question.

---

Ah! This does MUCH to explain why the last bunch of Jehovah's Witnesses to come to my door were armed with AK-47's..........

(they must have gotten them from those infamous arms dealers - Mormons.)

[Diamond]

Let me get this straight. Are you suggesting that knowing we are born only to live a short time, breed and die leads to despair?

What I am asking to see is any logical connection between the premise that the universe and our lives are the result of a gigantic, impersonal accident, and an individual human life having any real worth and dignity, any purpose, any ultimate meaning and significance. There is a huge logical and philosophical contradiction between the two! How does an impersonal accident lead to personhood, with the attributes of worth, dignity, significance, etc.? That is the question.

Allow me to respectfully present a mini photo essay response:

Faced with the certainty that we live but once and then are gone, why should a man despair? An honest man would simply recognize that life is a great treasure and he has it for a time. Instead the greedy man, like a spoiled child displeased with a gift, disparages the life he has and wants it to go on forever but not as life is really lived; he wants perfect bliss as well.

"Why should a man despair"? Tell me, why should a man have hope? Hope in what? What is the basis for your hope? What is your ultimate purpose? If the universe is a cosmic accident, what basis does one have for even distinguishing between cruelty and kindness?

Once upon a time men created such myths but usually placed some constraints on the manner in which a man had to live this life in order to qualify for the eternal reward. Man's natural sense of fair play forced him to recognize that there were plenty of his fellows who not only did not merit a reward but clearly deserved a hefty punishment which they did not receive in this life. That's how hell got invented. Then man invented the illusion that all a poor miserable wretch has to do to get his eternal reward is have faith -- no penance or good works required. Who would say no to such a wonderful illusion? An honest man would have to reject all such offers rather than compromise his integrity.

Vercingetorix, look again at the man in the front center of the car in the picture above. Now, tell me, with a purely natural, non-purposeful origin, what is "fair play"? What is "reward" and "punishment"? What is "integrity"? What possible meaning can any of these notions have in the midst of a gigantic cosmic accident, and how can an accidental universe even account for such things?

The meaning of life is life itself. The duration is unimportant. Or to put it another way -- why should living for eternity make any difference? If a man despairs of this life why should he expect an infinity of such lives to afford an improvement?

A man may have a hundred children and live many years; yet no matter how long he lives, if he cannot enjoy his prosperity and does not receive proper burial, I say that a stillborn

child is better off than he.

It comes without meaning, it departs in darkness, and in darkness its name is shrouded.

Though it never saw the sun or knew anything, it has more rest than does that man--

even if he lives a thousand years twice over but fails to enjoy his prosperity. Do not all go to the same place?

All man's efforts are for his mouth, yet his appetite is never satisfied.

What advantage has a wise man over a fool? What does a poor man gain by knowing how to conduct himself before others?

Better what the eye sees than the roving of the appetite. This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind.

Whatever exists has already been named, and what man is has been known; no man can contend with one who is stronger than he.

The more the words, the less the meaning, and how does that profit anyone?

For who knows what is good for a man in life, during the few and meaningless days he passes through like a shadow? Who can tell him what will happen under the sun after he is gone?

Solomon, Eccesiastes

Cordially,

[Vercingetorix]

"What I am asking to see is any logical connection between the premise that the universe and our lives are the result of a gigantic, impersonal accident, and an individual human life having any real worth and dignity, any purpose, any ultimate meaning and significance." -- Diamond

Why should there be any logical connection between these things? Do you mean to imply by your photo essay that man's endless capacity for unspeakable atrocity is somehow proof of the existence of a beneficent god who will provide us with an explanation in the afterlife? Is this the meaning and purpose you seek? Better a cosmic accident (and thus gods of a sort ourselves) than the mere playthings of some other god whom we have imagined into existence as a premature explanation for things we do not yet understand.

"How does an impersonal accident lead to personhood, with the attributes of worth, dignity, significance, etc.? That is the question." -- Diamond

It just does. You may as well ask how does rain fall or why is the sky blue or why hydrogen and oxygen react to form water. We are here for the very same reasons that these other things occur. Nature deems it so.

"Tell me, why should a man have hope? Hope in what? What is the basis for your hope? What is your ultimate purpose? If the universe is a cosmic accident, what basis does one have for even distinguishing between cruelty and kindness?" -- Diamond

A man hopes that he will live as a man and bequeath a better world to his children. It is to this end that he struggles. The best properties of our anthropomorphic imaginary god are derived from our ability to form a monogamous pair bond with our mate and to develop a paternal bond with our children. These bonds are the product of evolutionary processes acting on our unique life cycle requirements. These bonds, strong and life long, make us capable of purpose. In the end our only purpose is to live and reproduce. We think we are unlike other animals because we have some ability to choose how we shall live and even if we should live. This is how things are. Everything else is mere speculation.

If by chance there should be something beyond the grave, the honest man makes no effort to ingratiate himself to an imaginary god in anticipation of a reward. This would be dishonest and display an appalling lack of trust.

"A man may have a hundred children and live many years; yet no matter how long he lives, if he cannot enjoy his prosperity and does not receive proper burial, I say that a stillborn child is better off than he." -- Solomon

Pessimism is how religion is sold to the slaves. Obedient, long suffering slaves hope to be rewarded when their miserable lives have ended. The masters impose the religion with thoughts like those while yet enjoying this life to its fullest. The masters further disparage riches and prosperity so that the slaves will disdain to compete for these things and can assuage their desire for revenge against the masters by believing that "it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven." Solomon's arguments are ignored by the masters who live as happily as they are able.

[rwfromkansas]

While I agree that the PBS indoctrination video was wrong and extremely arrogant, I agree that ICR needs to get their facts straight before doing an article. It makes one doubt the other stuff they have then.

[rwfromkansas]

whatever...I have seen your beliefs here on FR and the fact that you are an evolutionist does not surprise me in the slightest. Your anti-Christian views are quite apparent.

[rwfromkansas]

I am offended by this. What a sick comment and attack on those believing in intelligent design. I acknowledge that the article by ICR was well, ignorant for one, as they got names wrong in the article and as my journalism adviser says, "if your mother says she loves you check it out." The date for the Sputnik was wrong as well. I do think comparing the terrorists to PBS is a bit of a stretch as well.

[rwfromkansas]

IT still amazes me how these "atheists" and "evolutionists" proclaim how open-minded they are, but they can't stand for anyone to have an opinion that is against there own, especially in the learning centers of our nation.

[PatrickHenry]

I am offended by this. What a sick comment and attack on those believing in intelligent design.

You're offended? Does that help to make the case for ID any stronger? Rather than wasting your efforts in meaningless emotionalism, you should seek out some evidence for your conjecture that we are the product of extra-terrestrial creators. Until you have some evidence -- verifiable evidence -- you should brace yourself for a continuous hailstorm of skepticism and scorn from the rational segment of the population.

[medved]

Chuck Darwin: Stupidest White Man of all Time

and other evolutionism topics.

[Diamond]

"What I am asking to see is any logical connection between the premise that the universe and our lives are the result of a gigantic, impersonal accident, and an individual human life having any real worth and dignity, any purpose, any ultimate meaning and significance." -- Diamond

Why should there be any logical connection between these things?...

That is a very, very significant question. Simply put, it is reasonable to believe in the law of cause and effect. If human beings have any real personhood, dignity, worth, purpose, and significance, there must be efficient cause. In my opinion, an impersonal cosmic accident is not a sufficient cause.

Do you mean to imply by your photo essay that man's endless capacity for unspeakable atrocity is somehow proof of the existence of a beneficent god who will provide us with an explanation in the afterlife?

No. I was attempting to say, using pictures instead of a thousand words, that there is no philosophical basis for even defining or understanding such events as 'atrocities' based on a presupposition of pure naturalism. A gigantic, impersonal source provides no rational foundation for distinguishing between cruelty and kindness. So I feel the same way about irrational hope that you do about imaginary gods (an opinion I share, by the way.)

"How does an impersonal accident lead to personhood, with the attributes of worth, dignity, significance, etc.? That is the question." -- Diamond

It just does. You may as well ask how does rain fall or why is the sky blue or why hydrogen and oxygen react to form water. We are here for the very same reasons that these other things occur. Nature deems it so.

But if I were to ask you why there is rainfall or why the sky is blue you would be able to provide rational, scientific explanations that would cohere and make sense, utilizing the law of cause and effect. In the same way, it seems no less natural to seek a rational explanation of the cause of some of the characteristics of human nature that we know intuitively such as personhood, with its attendant attributes of worth, dignity, meaning, significance, good, evil, hope, etc.

In the end our only purpose is to live and reproduce. We think we are unlike other animals because we have some ability to choose how we shall live and even if we should live. This is how things are. Everything else is mere speculation.

That's pretty much what I said in #108 - If the human organism's only goal or purpose is to survive and reproduce, at the species (not individual) level, then there is no such thing as personal worth and dignity, and it is irrational to live as if there were. If after a person is dead he just rots into nothingness, what difference does it make to HIM then whether he has reproduced or not? None whatsover. There is ultimately no point to any of it. (As a sidebar, I wonder what the ethical effect would be if "in the end our only purpose is to live and reproduce." What would happen if a person actually lived that ethic consistently?)

So, not to beat a dead horse anymore to death here, but my major point has been that the premise offers no coherent explanation for certain features of our common human experience, and nothing but despair when taken to its logical conclusion. But I leave you the last word, if you want it. I have enjoyed our conversation, and I hope you have, too.

Cordially,