Premise1: Charles Darwin’s own doubts speak for themselves
Most people don’t realize that as much as Charles Darwin wanted his theory to be true, he had serious doubts and was intimidated by what future discovery might prove. Most people do not know that in “The Origin of Species” he dedicated a whole chapter to expressing grave concerns about potentially fatal inconsistencies in his theory. The chapter called “Difficulties on Theory” opens with this quote:
Long before having arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered
“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?
Darwin (1859) described the lack of missing links in the fossil record as “the gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” This was a massive concern of Darwin and he was honest enough as a scientist to admit it publicly.
The core prediction of Darwin’s theory of evolution is gradualism, which means that all the transitional changes in the history of life are not supposed to have happened as sudden big changes which could be seen as miraculous, but by a continuous accumulation of small changes over vast periods of time. Therefore, he mentioned not fewer than six times in On the Origin of Species the Latin phrase Natura non facit saltus, which means that nature does not make jumps.
However vast exploration of huge fossil beds on all of the earth’s continents do not contain transitional forms, on the contrary they contain species fully formed and in tact. Modern paleontology reveals that Darwin’s concern over the fossil record was warranted and that if he were still alive, he would likely agree that the evidence still does not add up which he was afraid of all along.
The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several paleontologists—for instance, by Aggassiz, Picted, and by none more forcibly than by Professor Sedgewick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection.
Modern paleontology has only served to confirm Darwin’s doubts
The missing link between man and the apes…is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated…Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school…
All animals are born with certain instincts that guide their behavior. An animal’s instincts is the ability to know without thinking, the capability to automatically know how to behave or respond in certain circumstances. This “knowing” ability occurs naturally or instinctively to an animal, and is inherited from birth. Instinct implies that a behavior is performed without thought and cannot be modified with learning. That’s why fish do not have to think about how to swim; instead, they simply know how to do so, just like beavers are born knowing how to build dams. Scientist now know that these types of instincts are inherited genetic traits contained in the species DNA.
Charles Darwin admitted that his theory struggled to account for how essential behavioral traits and instincts evolved through small changes over generations if these instincts were essential to day to day survival. He openly questioned how behavior traits such as swimming, flying, and hibernation, hive making etc. could have developed in the small incremental changes the theory required and could not provide an explanation as to how species survived in the short term until essential instincts could evolve.
It has been asked by the opponents of such views as I hold, how, for instance, a land carnivorous animal could have been converted into one with aquatic habits; for how could the animal in its transitional state have subsisted
Here, as on other occasions, I lie under a heavy disadvantage, for out of the many striking cases I have collected, I can give only one or two instances of transitional habits and structures in closely allied species of the same genus; and of diversified habits, either constant or or occasional, in the same species.
While Charles Darwin was considered an expert in microscopy in his era, his achromatic microscope only had the power to examine specimens such as barnacles, plants, and insects and their body parts. He had extremely limited knowledge of the cell and it’s components and no knowledge of DNA and it’s role as the mechanism that traits, instincts and behaviors are transmitted generationally.
Charles Darwin’s achromatic microscope made by James Smith 1846
Darwin did not know that genes existed, much less that genes are the mechanism by which an organism or a plants traits, appearance, instincts and behaviors are passed on within a species.
Charles Darwin also struggled with how organisms who were evolutionary ancestors could have completely different behavioral traits and instincts if those traits were passed down through modification.
Is it possible that an animal having, for instance, the structure and habits of a bat, could have been formed by the modification of some animal with wholly different habits? Can we believe that natural selection could produce, on the one hand, organs of trifling importance, such as the tail of a giraffe, which serves as a fly-flapper, and on the other hand, organs of such wonderful structure, as the eye, which we hardly as yet understand the inimitable perfection?
How can we account for species, when crossed, being sterile and producing offspring, whereas, when varieties are crossed, their fertility is unimpaired?
In 1859 only 15% of the world’s living species were known. Essentially the “Origin of Species” was written in 85% ignorance of the biological stratosphere it was trying to theorize.
When Charles Darwin penned this question he no extensive knowledge of chromosomes, genetics, or DNA. Yet he had seen through observation and research that cross breeding between closely related species such lions with leopards, or sparrows with cardinals are often inviable, or if they live, they are sterile. This is called hybrid incompatibility. While Darwin did not understand the problem from a genetic point of view, he knew that reproductive isolation between species was a “difficulty” or threat to the both of the main tenets of his theory.
If
Organisms evolved through slight inherited modifications over long periods of time.
Only the fittest organisms that are most successful in reproducing survive
How
How can modifications be inherited between evolutionary ancestors if they cannot breed, reproduce and DNA exchange occur?
Britannica defines “survival of the fittest” as the most successful in surviving and reproducing. How can species be deemed “fittest” ” if cross breeding leads to the death or infertility of the offspring?
Have You Ever Wondered Why?
A catfish does not breed with a bass. Or a Cod with a Flounder
A Cardinal with a Bluebird, or a Woodpecker
A Rattle Snake with a Coral Snake
Seals with Sea Lions
Scientist have found through countless attempts that the same genetic recombination that causes hybrid animals also causes infertility. In normal animals, because their father and mother are from the same species, the genetic information that are exchanged from their mother/father to their father/mother can still be processed. But because hybrid animals have parents from different species, the exchange of genetic information causes many malfunctions in the chromosomes. This results in the production of infertile sex cells and infertility.
Modern genetics and reproductive science have discovered that there in genetically inherited barriers in the gene called prezygotic and postzygotic barriers that keep species distinct from each other.
A prezygotic reproductive barrier is a genetic mechanism that prevents fertilization from occurring. A postzygotic reproductive barrier is a mechanism that reduces the viability or reproductive capacity of offspring.
These barriers keep organisms of different species from mating to produce fertile offspring, acting before and after the formation of a zygote, respectively. These barriers are there to maintain the isolation of a species.
Nature seems to have barriers that prevent evolution and the chaos it would create. Essentially nature has barriers specifically to prevent evolution and with just a small amount of examination one can see why…
If evolution were true and species like birds evolved from reptiles through small inherited changes over time then reproduction would have to be possible and productive while wholesale changes in organisms and their reproductive systems were taking place. This is one of multiple difficulties not even expressed in Charles Darwin’s chapter on Difficulties with the Theory
How would there not be constant species confusion where all animals had a combination of the physical traits they were evolving from and physical traits they were evolving into instead of the order and biological distinctiveness of species we find present in nature?
How would there not be a blurring, blending or disorder in species habitats, migration patterns, species vocalizations, and instincts if DNA was being altered and attributes added or deleted constantly? This is the opposite of the precise systemization we see in nature.
Modern reproductive science reveals genetically that species isolation and not evolution is the norm in nature not ancestry as Charles Darwin’s theory demands.
Discussion Questions : According to new estimates the natural world contains about 8.7 million know species, and millions that have yet to be documented. Evolutionist claim that these species are all related and descended from the same parent species. If that is true the why are they:
All genetically distinct from each other
All have different physical and morphological attributes from each other
All are reproductively isolated
All have differing communal behaviors and instincts from each other
Premise 2: The Theory vs The Rules of Scientific Method
The word “science” is derived from the Latin word “scientia,” which means knowledge based on demonstrable and reproducible data, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
True to this definition, science aims for measurable results through testing and analysis, a process known as the scientific method. Science should be based on fact, not opinion or preferences. The process of earnest scientific method is designed to challenge theories, hypothesis, and ideas through research, and repeated observation.
“The aim of science is not to open the door to infinite wisdom, but to set a limit to infinite error”
Bertolt Brecht
When the scientific method came into being, it gave us a new window on the truth; namely, a method by laboratory-controlled experiments to winnow true hypotheses from false ones.
Huston Smith
I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I’ll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.
Isaac Asimov
Modern Science and Philosophy have carefully veiled the fact that while Charles Darwin believed that his theory was true and would be proven one day, that at the time of it’s publication he knew there were “grave” questions about it that needed to addressed through further research, and analysis.
The fact that Charles Darwin included a whole chapter to the obvious difficulties with his theory indicate he was at least somewhat committed to following the rules of scientific method that presented serious challenges to his theory.What happens when you apply his theory to the Scientific Method today?
Question: How did the first primordial simple life forms evolve into modern day complex organisms the first simple organisms evolve by small incremental changes into complex and varied species through natural selection?
Hypothesis: the first simple organisms evolve by small incremental changes into complex and varied species through natural selection?
Experiment: Traveled to the Galapagos Islands and observed variations and adaptive changes in finches, iguanas and other organisms.
Data: Notes and observations from the Galapagos. Notes and observations of colleagues during and before 1859.
Analyze: Review and draw conclusions: Believed in hypothesis but admitted there were serious questions which could disqualify it
Report: Write On The Origin of Species Including Chapter on Grave Concerns
The legitimacy of a scientific theory is only as great as the sufficiency and testibility of the data it is based on
The data Darwin didn’t have is far greater than the data he had
He lacked Access to full biological profile of earth’s taxonomy. At the time of “Origin of the Species only 15% of the earth’s species had been discovered. That means he had no knowledge of 7.4 million species of the 8.7 million discovered to date.
He had zero access to the genetic or micro-biological profile of earth’s taxonomy where evolution would have had to be observed
He had no knowledge of the gene or DNA where evolution if possible would have to take place
He had only access or research available from 18% of the fossil record where past evolution would have to be proven or observed
There are no detailed Darwinian accounts (Data) for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation of such a vast subject.”
James Shapiro; Professor Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Chicago
If you Google “What are the main theories of science?” the results are:
Big Bang Theory
Hubble’s Law of Cosmic Expansion
Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motion
Universal Law of Gravitation
Newton’s Laws of Motion
Laws of Thermodynamics
Archimedes Buoyancy Principle
Evolution and Natural Selection
Every law or theory on this list has been observed, tested and repeated countless times in nature and in laboratories except for these two: which have never been observed, tested, or repeated using the scientific method:
The Big Bang Theory
Evolution and Natural Selection
Neither of these theories have ever been observed, tested or repeated in the history of scientific endeavor and are the only two major scientific doctrines to be widely accepted without meeting the normal and foundational tenets of scientific inquiry.
The actual definition of science which is based on the scientific method: testing, observation, hypothesis, then retesting will never prove that something creates something or that matter creates itself and intelligently organizes itself or that design comes about through random, undirect processes. The entire human industrial and technological enterprise falsifies that and makes it laughable and renders it the statement of the insane
Dr. Abu Iyaad Amjad Rafeeq
Discussion Question : Do you think that if Charles Darwin would have had access to today’s modern research of the complexity of the cell, DNA information theory, and the complete fossil record showing no transitional forms that using the scientific method he would have still stood by his theory?
Premise 3: The Theory vs The Laws of Science
True science has always been founded on established verifiable truths or axioms free from personal interpretation where truth has been established by empirical facts. Science has long established axioms that have been empirically tested, proven and applied call the “Laws of Science” These laws have been developed from data and mathematics and are based on empirical evidence. A simple definition would be:
A scientific law is a statement describing what always happens under certain conditions
Within this framework, scientists have established several basic laws and principles that represent the best current explanation of observed phenomena. In other words, they reflect our best understanding of physical reality. These laws have been repeatedly tested and verified. No contradictory observations have ever been found.
The Theory vs Law of Biogenesis
Modern Evolutionistbelieves life emerged after long series of chemical processes acted on non-living matter to create life. In essence abiogenesis: non living chemicals acting on non-living matter.
VS
The law of Biogenesis states unequivocally that life creates life and life can only com from pre-existing life or other living things and not from non-life. This is considered law simply because no scientist in the history of science has observed life emerging from non living matter in the laboratory or nature. observed.
An atom is defined as the basic building block of a substance and it is the smallest unit of matter. Scientist using all the advantages of modern biochemistry and particle physics have not been able to create a single atom much less a viable organism. Even after a century of failed attempts evolutionist still insist that all living matter came from non-living chemicals reacting to non-living energy.
The Theory vs Law of Conservation of Mass
The Theory of Evolution
Our Universe is made of matter (rather than antimatter), obeys the same laws of physics everywhere and at all times, and began — at least, as we know it — with a hot Big Bang some 13.8 billion years ago…Today, of course, it’s full of galaxies, stars, planets, heavy elements, and in at least one location, intelligent and technologically advanced life. These structures weren’t always there, but rather arose as a result of cosmic evolution. In a remarkable scientific leap, 20th century scientists were able to reconstruct the timeline for how our Universe went from a mostly uniform Universe, devoid of complex structure and consisting exclusively of hydrogen and helium, to the structure-rich Universe we observe today.
The law of conservation of mass states that in a chemical reaction mass is neither nor destroyed. For example, the carbon atom in coal becomes carbon dioxide when it is burned. The carbon atom changes from a solid structure to a gas but its mass does not change.
The Forbes explanation says the Universe consisted exclusively of hydrogen and helium and that somehow those two elements expanded into all of the other 106 elements on the earth’s periodic table. The law of conservation of mass declares this as impossible, if you start with hydrogen and helium you end with hydrogen and helium no mass (elements) can be added (created) or destroyed.
The American Museum of Natural History describes the Big Bang this way:
Our universe began with an explosion of space itself-the Big Bang. Starting from extremely high density and temperature, space expanded, the universe cooled, and the simplest elements formed. Gravity gradually drew matter together to form the first stars and the first galaxies.
Again a widely accepted view of evolution and the origin of the universe describes a reaction that creates new matter, elements and structures that didn’t exist before the reaction took place. Both explanations not only suggest that matter was created but that it multiplied into all of the structures of the universe which doesn’t merely side-step the fixed Law of Mass Conservation but defies it altogether.
As a general scientific principle, it is undesirable to depend crucially on what is unobservable to explain what is observable, as happens frequently in Big Bang cosmology.
Scientist have tried to reproduce the effects of the Big Bang in miniature using billion dollar particle colliders, accelerators, and researching how chemicals react at atomic temperatures. None of these processes led to the formation or expansion of matter, the same amount and type of matter remained constant. These processes prove incoherence in the Big Bang theory not coherence.
The theory vs The Laws of Thermodynamics
Evolutionary theory contends that current species developed from earlier life forms. These earlier life forms were simpler in having fewer capabilities and less complex systems. Therefore evolutionary theory claims that organisms get better ordered over time.
The second law of thermodynamics states that as energy is transferred or transformed, more and more of it is wasted. The Second Law also states that there is a natural tendency of any isolated system to degenerate into a more disordered state
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics describes basic principles everyone sees everyday in the material universe. It is sometimes called the universal law of decay and the reason everything eventually falls apart and disintegrates over time.
It is well known that, left to themselves, chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex. Outside forces can increase order for a time (through the expenditure of relatively large amounts of energy, and through the input of design). However, such reversal cannot last forever. Once the force is released, processes return to their natural direction – greater disorder. Their energy is transformed into lower levels of availability for further work. The natural tendency of complex, ordered arrangements and systems is to become simpler and more disorderly with time.
Emmett L. Williams; editor, Thermodynamics and the Development of Order
Evolution demands that atoms, and molecules organize themselves into increasingly complex and beneficial, and ordered arrangements. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics reveals that their is an irreversible downward trend at work in the universe and that over time ordered systems break down and become more disordered. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics makes evolution a scientific impossibility.
“Of all the statements that have been made with respect to theories on the origin of life, the statement that the Second Law of Thermodynamics poses no problem for an evolutionary origin of life is the most absurd… The operation of natural processes on which the Second Law of Thermodynamics is based is alone sufficient, therefore, to preclude the spontaneous evolutionary origin of the immense biological order required for the origin of life.”(Duane Gish, Ph.D. in biochemistry from University of California at Berkeley)
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has ever been circumvented or contradicted by nature or laboratory science
The science of thermodynamics has been noteworthy for its stability. In many decades of careful observations, not a single departure from any of these laws has ever been noted
Emmett L Williams; editor, Thermodynamics and the Development of Order
Has the second law of thermodynamics been circumvented? NOT YET.
Frank A Greco; On the Second Law of Thermodynamics, American Laboratory, Vol. 14
There is no recorded experiment int he history of science that contradicts the second law or its corollaries
E.B. Stuart; Deductive Quantum Thermodynamics in a Critical Review of Thermodynamics
Whenever fixed natural laws have to be ignored in order for a theory to be supported it leaves the realm of science and enters into the super or not natural realm.
Discussion Question: The Law of Contradiction means that a proposition cannot be both true and false at the same time. Does the Theory of Evolution violate the Law of Contradiction when it says in effect that the scientific laws of thermodynamics, abiogenesis, and conservation have always been true except when discussing the origin of life and the beginning of the Universe?
Premise 4: The Theory vs The Modern Scientist
An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists…argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all…Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials
Michael Ruse; preeminent evolutionist, New Scientists
Do we need a new theory of evolution? A new wave of scientists argue that mainstream evolutionary theory needs an urgent overhaul.
In the advent of modern science technology the past half decade has given rise to a number of scientist who are either beginning to question the theory of evolution as it stands, or reject it altogether.
In 1979, Science Digest reported that “scientists who utterly reject evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities,” and stated that “many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science” (Larry Hatfield, “Educators Against Darwin,” Science Digest Special, Winter 1979, pp. 94-96).
In 2014, eight scientists took up this challenge, publishing an article in the leading journal Nature that asked “Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?” Their answer was: “Yes, urgently.” Each of the authors came from cutting-edge scientific subfields, from the study of the way organisms alter their environment in order to reduce the normal pressure of natural selection – think of beavers building dams – to new research showing that chemical modifications added to DNA during our lifetimes can be passed on to our offspring. The authors called for a new understanding of evolution that could make room for such discoveries.
According to recent research, there are an estimated 113,000 Darwin skeptic scientists and academics in the United States alone (Neil Gross and Solon Simmons, How Religious Are America’s College and University Professors?, working paper Harvard University, Oct. 5, 2006).
Because of huge advancements in genetic research and information theory since 2001 over 1,000 scientists from all over the world from institutions such as MIT, Cambridge, Princeton, and Harvard have signed the Dissent From Darwinism List that states:
We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged
New scientific evidence from many scientific disciplines such as cosmology, physics, biology, “artificial intelligence” research, and others have caused scientists to begin questioning Darwinism’s central tenet of natural selection and studying the evidence supporting it in greater detail.
Yet public TV programs, educational policy statements, and science textbooks have asserted that Darwin’s theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The public has been assured that all known evidence supports Darwinism and that virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true. This simply is not true and as the fields of Bio-Genetics, Paleontology, and Bio-Chemistry advance the number of dissenters is growing exponentially.
Since Discovery Institute launched this list in 2001, hundreds of scientists have courageously stepped forward to sign their names.
Just some of the prominent signatories the list includes:
Scientist
Notable Associations
Degree or Education
Lyle Jensen
American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Academy of Arts and Sciences
Biochemist-Pioneer in the field of x-ray crystallography. Professor emeritus with the Department of Biological structure and Department of Biochemistry University of Washington
Stanley Salthe
Smithsonian Institution Evolutionary Biologist
Professor Emeritus Biology University of New York Author of Evolutionary Systems: Biological and epistemological Perspectives on Selection and self-Organization
Richard von Sternberg
National Institutes of Health’s National Center for Biotechnology Information
PhD Molecular Evolution Florida International University PhD Systems Science Binghampton University Post Doctoral-national Museum of Natural History Post Doctoral- Smitsonian Institute
Giuseppe Sermonti
Editor of Rivista di Biologia-oldest published biology journal in the world
Founder of Department of Microbiological Genetics Superior Institute of Health Former vice-president of the XIV International Congress of Genetics Discoverer of Genetic Parasexual Recombination
Douglas Axe
Director of Biologic Institute Biola University
Editor of Bio-Complexity Featured in Journal of Molecular Biology Featured in Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences
Vladimir L. Voeikov
Member of Russian Academy of Natural Sciences
Professor and Vice-Chairman of The Chair of Biorganic Chemistry Moscow State University First Prize Benveniste Association for “Cosmos and Biosphere” Prigogine Gold medal University of Sienna
Dr. Jerry Bergman Ph.D. who compiled the list has himself earned nine degrees and has over 1,000 publications in science journals, and has authored or co-authored 42 books. He has compiled a list of 3,000 “Darwin Skeptics” who are afraid to go public and that list contains about a dozen Nobel Prize winners.
“I estimate that, if I had the time and resources, I could easily complete a list of over 10,000 names”
The list is growing and includes scientists from the US National Academy of Sciences, Russian, Hungarian and Czech National Academies, as well as from universities such as Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and others.
The main reasons modern scholars are becoming more skeptics or theory agnostics are:
The origin of DNA (intelligence and systems arising randomly)
The irreducible complexity of the cell
The lack of transitional species in the fossil record
All of these reasons become more and more pronounced as the fields of Genetics, Bio-Chemistry, and Paleontology advance. Instead of the advancements leading to more verifiable explanations of how Darwin’s theory is true, they have only uncovered major or fatal inconsistencies.
The scientists who have signed the Darwin Dissent list did so to highlight what they feel are 3 challenges to scientific inquiry:
Modern science has uncovered inconsistencies in the theory that need to be challenged
Scientist who question the absoluteness of the theory should be able to question it without being persecuted
The theory should not be taught as scientific certainty, and data revealing it’s inconsistencies should be taught as well as the theory
I found it important to sign this statement because I believe intellectual freedom fuels scientific discovery. If we, as scientists are not allowed to question, ponder, explore, and critically evaluate all areas of science but forced to comply with current scientific orthodoxy then we are operating in a mode completely antithetical to the very nature of science.
What’s significant about this list is not so much the names and institutions listed there but what they tell you about the many Darwin skeptics in the science world who wouldn’t dare sign because they know the career cost that would come from publicly challenging evolution theory
Darwinian evolutionary theory was my field of specialization in biology. Among other things, I wrote a textbook on the subject thirty years ago. Meanwhile, however I have become an apostate from Darwinian theory and have described it as part of modernism’s origination myth. Consequently, I certainly agree that biology students at least should have the opportunity to learn about the flaws and limits of Darwin’s theory while they are learning about the theory’s strongest claims
Dr. Stanely Salthe, Evolutionary Biologists -Smithsonian Institute
It is no wonder that due to the same difficulties that Darwin expressed in The Origin of Species that modern scientists who have the advantage of modern computer technology, biogenetics, and cumulative paleontological research are beginning to challenge the scientific and intellectual integrity of evolution as a biological certainty and believe strongly that it should not be taught as fact.
Discussion Question: Is it a surprise to you that hundreds of acclaimed scientist from institutions like the US National Academy of Sciences, Russian, Hungarian, and Czech National Academies, as well as universities such as Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, and UC Berkley and others have publicly questioned or refuted belief in the Theory of Evolution as scientific fact?
ThinkCubed Truth Veracity Grid
Have I considered the issue carefully, honestly, and with an open mind?
Does what I think conform to the rules of logic and avoid contradiction?
Is what I believe influenced by my own bias, presuppositions, or desires?
