A Critique of Biological Materialism

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Post Reply
Anthony Edgar
Posts: 150
Joined: July 9th, 2016, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Paula Haigh
Location: Forster NSW Australia

Re: A Critique of Biological Materialism

Post by Anthony Edgar »

Dolphin42 wrote:As noted before, the test of a valid scientific theory is that it spots a pattern in nature.

If creation is true, we would expect to see the sudden appearance of fully formed creatures in the fossil record.  What does the fossil record reveal?  The sudden appearance of fully formed creatures. 
If the Bible is correct when is says life on earth is less than 6000 years old, we would expect the fossil record to reveal little or no evidence of speciation (assuming speciation occurs).  What does the fossil record reveal?  Little or no evidence of speciation.  
The test of a valid scientific theory has nothing to do with whether it makes a profit for human beings, i.e. whether it results in the manufacture of products that human beings desire or need. That is a useful side effect.
I agree.  I don't equate the validity of a scientific theory with profit.  For example, Einstein verified his seemingly absurd theory that a man with a moustache could ride a bicycle (not only did he acheive this once-thought-impossible-feat himself, he had it photographed as evidence. Respect), but no one has managed to turn a profit from this incredible discovery.

My point was, (macro)evolution is touted as perhaps the greatest discovery in the history of science, but I find it telling that speciation has never been observed and no one has managed to find any use for it in applied science.  So the possibility remains that it may be a false theory (such thoughts are heresy to an atheist, I know, as macroevolution is an essential component of atheist theology).  

Talking about predictions in nature when evaluating a scientific theory ... one would expect that such an important "fact" as (macro)evolution would be eminently useful in applied science - not perfectly useless!  So, based on the evidence, I remain deeply skeptical.

-- Updated November 29th, 2016, 4:47 pm to add the following --
Fooloso4 wrote:In early November I posted the following. You never addressed it but started making the same spurious claims again.
I responded to this post (#241).

Regardless of whatever  "evidence" you want to believe or whatever semantic games you want to play, the fact is your beloved macroevolution is an irrelevance in the real world, i.e., in applied science.  It's only raison d'être is to serve the psychological needs of atheists - theology masquerading as scientific fact, that's all it is.  Whether one believes in macroevolution or not, it makes not a jot of difference to applied science.  And let's face it - applied science is the only science that matters.   
"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe in them." - George Orwell
Dolphin42
Posts: 886
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 8:05 am
Location: The Evening Star

Re: A Critique of Biological Materialism

Post by Dolphin42 »

If the Bible is correct when is says life on earth is less than 6000 years old, we would expect the fossil record to reveal little or no evidence of speciation (assuming speciation occurs). What does the fossil record reveal? Little or no evidence of speciation.
You've convinced me. I now believe that life on Earth started less than 6000 years ago. Thanks for the chat.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: A Critique of Biological Materialism

Post by Fooloso4 »

Anthony Edgar:
microevolution + time = macroevolution
... less than 6000 years, not much macro' would have occurred.
So, you respond to a fact by positing an implausible claim. In addition you are still ignoring the evidence of macroevolution that has occurred within our lifetime.
Anthony Edgar
Posts: 150
Joined: July 9th, 2016, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Paula Haigh
Location: Forster NSW Australia

Re: A Critique of Biological Materialism

Post by Anthony Edgar »

Fooloso4 wrote:Anthony Edgar:
microevolution + time = macroevolution
... less than 6000 years, not much macro' would have occurred.
So, you respond to a fact by positing an implausible claim. In addition you are still ignoring the evidence of macroevolution that has occurred within our lifetime.
In 1960, the world record for the 100m sprint was 10.0 secs.  The current world record is 9.58 secs.  In other words, humans are running 100m faster now than they were 56 years ago.  Based on this evidence, would it be scientific to assume that there is no limit to how fast humans can run 100m?  Can it be assumed that humans will be able to run 100m in 1 sec, for example, one day in the very distant future (think milllions of years)?

If it is not scientific to make such assumptions, why isn't it?
"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe in them." - George Orwell
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: A Critique of Biological Materialism

Post by Fooloso4 »

Anthony Edgar:
Can it be assumed that humans will be able to run 100m in 1 sec, for example, one day in the very distant future (think milllions of years)?

If it is not scientific to make such assumptions, why isn't it?
Because there are physiological limits to what the human body is capable of. The ability to improve performance does not mean that there are no limits to improvement. The ability of specially trained runners to run faster has nothing to do with evolution.

The problem is that as long as you hold on to the notion that life on Earth is has been around for only 6,000 years there can be no reasonable discussion of evolution.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: A Critique of Biological Materialism

Post by -1- »

Anthony Edgar wrote: If creation is true, we would expect to see the sudden appearance of fully formed creatures in the fossil record.  What does the fossil record reveal?  The sudden appearance of fully formed creatures.
Equivocation. You committed the fallacy of equivocation.

Sudden appearance = you equated what suddenly appeared to excavating scientists to what was not sudden, the evolution of now extinct animal species. 

Fossil evidence points at carefully followed lines of speciation. Human anthropology is a prime example of this. To deny that fossil records trace the evolution of man from ape to homo sapiens is denying visible and very valid clues.
Anthony Edgar wrote:If the Bible is correct when is says life on earth is less than 6000 years old, we would expect the fossil record to reveal little or no evidence of speciation (assuming speciation occurs).  What does the fossil record reveal?  Little or no evidence of speciation.
 
What do you mean, Anthony Edgar, "little or no evidence of speciation" in fossil records? There is TONS, literally, thousands of well-documented fossil relics of speciation occurring. Just because you are not familiar with this fact, you can't deny it for those who have seen the fossil evidence. "You can choose your own opinion but you can't choose your own facts", Anthony Edgar, is a saying tailor-made for you.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: A Critique of Biological Materialism

Post by Steve3007 »

Fooloso4:
The problem is that as long as you hold on to the notion that life on Earth is has been around for only 6,000 years there can be no reasonable discussion of evolution.
...or of most other subjects. Geography, Geology, Archaeology, and lots of other ...ologies go out of the window. It's quite a burden lifted. A bit problematic for oil companies though. Still, since the price of oil has been very low for some time and exploration for new oil has dropped to virtually zero that's not a problem for now.
Anthony Edgar
Posts: 150
Joined: July 9th, 2016, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Paula Haigh
Location: Forster NSW Australia

Re: A Critique of Biological Materialism

Post by Anthony Edgar »

1i3i6-- wrote:Only a fool asserts that there is a design and order and that design and order came from nothing. Only a fool asserts there are progenitors and progenitors of that progenitor but then stops short of an ultimate progenitor. There are no gaps unless you believe in magic which no sound scientist should. A casual universe doesn't chain causes and then suddenly end in non-cause. Such fantastical belief have more to do with psychological aversions to unfavorable conclusion than scientific and/or logical premises.
"Claiming to be wise, they instead become fools ... They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things, rather than the Creator" - Romans 1:22-25

-- Updated December 2nd, 2016, 4:50 pm to add the following --
-1- wrote:Fossil evidence points at carefully followed lines of speciation. Human anthropology is a prime example of this. To deny that fossil records trace the evolution of man from ape to homo sapiens is denying visible and very valid clues.
"All these trees of life with their branches of our ancestors, that's a load of nonsense."  Mary Leakey, archeologist and paleo-anthropologist.

Richard C. Lewontin, Prof. of Zoology, Harvard: "Look, I'm a person who says in this book [Human Diversity, 1982], that we don't know anything about the ancestors of the human species.  All the fossils that have been dug up and are claimed to be ancestors, we haven't the faintest idea whether they are ancestors ... All you've got is Homo sapiens there, you've got that fossil there, you've got another fossil there ... and it's up to you to draw the lines.  Because there are no lines."  


 
What do you mean, Anthony Edgar, "little or no evidence of speciation" in fossil records? There is TONS, literally, thousands of well-documented fossil relics of speciation occurring.
Stephen Jay Gould: "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms" ... "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.  The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils" ... "Every paleotologists knows that most species don't change.  That's bothersome .. brings great distress ... They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species, and that's not due to imperfections or gaps (in the fossil record), but stasis."

Niles Eldredge: "We paleontologist have said that the history of life supports [gradual change], all the while really knowing that it does not." 

D.B. Kitts: "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them."

Pierre-P. Grasse: "Assuming that the Darwinian hypothesis is correct, [paleontologists then] interpret fossil data according to it .... The error in method is obvious."
"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe in them." - George Orwell
User avatar
Renee
Posts: 327
Joined: May 3rd, 2015, 10:39 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Frigyes Karinthy

Re: A Critique of Biological Materialism

Post by Renee »

Anthony Edgar wrote: "Claiming to be wise, they instead become fools ... They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things, rather than the Creator" - Romans 1:22-25
I believe you just claimed to be wise.
Ignorance is power.
Anthony Edgar
Posts: 150
Joined: July 9th, 2016, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Paula Haigh
Location: Forster NSW Australia

Re: A Critique of Biological Materialism

Post by Anthony Edgar »

Renee wrote:
Anthony Edgar wrote: "Claiming to be wise, they instead become fools ... They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things, rather than the Creator" - Romans 1:22-25
I believe you just claimed to be wise.
I'm probably not intelligent enough to understand your comment. Please break it down for me - and write slowly!
"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe in them." - George Orwell
User avatar
Renee
Posts: 327
Joined: May 3rd, 2015, 10:39 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Frigyes Karinthy

Re: A Critique of Biological Materialism

Post by Renee »

Stephen Jay Gould's most significant contribution to evolutionary biology was the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which he developed with Niles Eldredge in 1972.[2] The theory proposes that most evolution is characterized by long periods of evolutionary stability, which is infrequently punctuated by swift periods of branching evolution. He campaigned against creationism and proposed that science and religion should be considered two distinct fields (or "magisteria") whose authorities do not overlap

Renee's comment: Stephen Jay Gould was most obviously a supporter of Darwinian evolutionary theory. Your quote by him reflects the times when paleontologists had to work with no aid from genetics. He would not make his statement today, with all the genetics science in place.

D.B. Kitts: "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." Renee's comment: Almost all paleontological findings are intermediate forms between species. D.B. Kitts was most likely looking for closer, more obvious relational fossils. In a way before gene examination, that was an insurmountable task, and an unsolvable problem. Now it is not.


Grassé was a supporter of the French tradition of Lamarckism. He occupied the Chair of Evolutionary Biology of the Faculty of Paris, of which the two previous occupiers, Alfred Giard (1846–1908) and Maurice Caullery (1868–1958), were both also supporters of Lamarckism. Only after Grassé's retirement did the chair become occupied by a partisan of Darwinism, Charles Bocquet (1918–1977).[4]

Some authors, like Marcel Blanc explain the strong support of Lamarck by French biologists by giving simple patriotic reasons and the historical and social context: Catholic culture favoring support of Lamarckism

Biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote in a review that Grassé's belief that evolution is directed by some unknown mechanism does not explain anything. He concluded that "to reject what is known, and to appeal to some wonderful future discovery which may explain it all, is contrary to sound scientific method. The sentence with which Grassé ends his book is disturbing: "It is possible that in this domain biology, impotent, yields the floor to metaphysics."[6]

Colin Patterson reviewed Evolution of Living Organisms for the New Scientist stating that the book was a criticism of neo-Darwinism, with the opinion that paleontology is "the only true science of evolution". Patterson a paleontologist disputed this statement. He also noted that Grassé's own theory of neo-Lamarckism was "hard to disentangle, and there were other places where Grasse's reasoning was difficult to follow." According to Patterson the book did not mention gene duplication, but this has been well-established in evolution.[7]

Geologist David B. Kitts negatively reviewed the book commenting that all of "Grassé's arguments have been marshaled against Darwinian theory before and, in the opinion of most Darwinians, have been adequately countered." Grassé stated that evolution was driven by an internal factor. Regarding the identification of this factor, Kitts quotes Grasse as saying "perhaps in this area of biology can go no further: the rest is metaphysics". Kitts found this statement unacceptable commenting that "the fundamental issues raised by Grassé's theory of evolution do not even belong to biology, but to some other discipline."[8]
Renee's comments:
Grasse was an occultist, according to these more modern critics of his. Enough said.

So much for your trouble, Anthony Edgar. You quoted known scholars whose knowledge has been antiquated; and you quoted a known pseudo-scholar, whose ambition was similar to yours: bending science to a cause which was clearly and inambiguously falsified by current and later scientific research.

I am not writing these to you, Anthony Edgar. You are in my opinion strongly devoted to your (according to me false) beliefs. You can't be changed, and I won't try to. I wrote the above (quoted and annotated) to exemplify to other readers in this forum that your quotes can be often misleading, and cherry-picked or isolated to suit your agenda; or else you quote people who have already been widely discredited for their theories. (Lamarck, and his followers.)

I don't want to try to influence you, because that would be a Don Quixote-esque battle. You are, in my opinion, emotionally and morally attached to your (what I consider wrong) views. You don't, you can't listen to reason, and I don't blame you for it - - you are, in my opinion, a typical case of "belief is stronger than knowledge".

I harbour no ill feelings for you. However, I will battle your views here on this forum with clear, logical arguments, because I strongly believe that the ideals which you spread by your devotion is poisoning the thinking of many in this continent.
Ignorance is power.
Anthony Edgar
Posts: 150
Joined: July 9th, 2016, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Paula Haigh
Location: Forster NSW Australia

Re: A Critique of Biological Materialism

Post by Anthony Edgar »

Fooloso4 wrote:Anthony Edgar:
Can it be assumed that humans will be able to run 100m in 1 sec, for example, one day in the very distant future (think milllions of years)?

If it is not scientific to make such assumptions, why isn't it?
Because there are physiological limits to what the human body is capable of. The ability to improve performance does not mean that there are no limits to improvement. The ability of specially trained runners to run faster has nothing to do with evolution.
My point is, although humans have been observed running 100m faster and faster, no prediction at all can be made about how fast humans can run in the future.   One cannot even make the prediction that the current world will be broken.  

In a similar way, no predictions can be made about the limits of microevolution.  It may lead to lots of speciation over time, little speciation or no speciation.  No one knows.  
But fortunately for atheists, once creation is rejected as a possibility, the belief that microevolution leads to macroevolution can very easily (albeit, very unscientifically) morph into a "fact" that hardly needs to be supported by evidence.  Even weak Or spurious evidence will suffice when one is already convinced that the general theory of evolution is a fact. 

Regardless, debates about the limits or lack of limits of evolution are just pie in the sky.  Arguments rage back and forth, but the reality of applied science couldn't care less.  The only place macroevolution matters is in people's minds and on blackboards.
"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe in them." - George Orwell
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: A Critique of Biological Materialism

Post by Fooloso4 »

Anthony Edgar:
Regardless, debates about the limits or lack of limits of evolution are just pie in the sky. Arguments rage back and forth, but the reality of applied science couldn't care less.
Within the scientific community there is little or no debate.
The only place macroevolution matters is in people's minds and on blackboards.
For some the truth matters. For some understanding biology and living things and our place in the animal kingdom matters. For some knowing that life on earth did not begin 6,000 years ago matters.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14995
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: A Critique of Biological Materialism

Post by Sy Borg »

"Macro evolution" is a term recently embraced by theists because their initial claims that evolution was not real at all were so obviously disproved by fossil evidence and antibiotic resistance. So they shifted the posts to species level, and it still makes no sense. There is no macro- or micro-evolution, there's just evolution, which does not care a fig about our taxonomy - it just keeps on happening and nature continues to re-form itself.

The only valid critique of biological materialism is not the absurd denial of the Earth's history and changes. There is so much that we still have to learn about nature and it's possible that we may not even physically/mentally/sensorially be capable of knowing some things about how reality works. So everything science tells you can be treated as a rough sketch of reality. However, the "sketch" will tend to be accurate to some extent.
Anthony Edgar
Posts: 150
Joined: July 9th, 2016, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Paula Haigh
Location: Forster NSW Australia

Re: A Critique of Biological Materialism

Post by Anthony Edgar »

Renee wrote:Stephen Jay Gould's most significant contribution to evolutionary biology was the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which he developed with Niles Eldredge in 1972... He campaigned against creationism and proposed that science and religion should be considered two distinct fields (or "magisteria") whose authorities do not overlap.
You neglected to mention that Gould and Eldrege invented Punctuated Equilibrium due to the lack of transitonals and to the stasis revealed in the fossil record. In the words of Gould, "The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:   
1. Stasis.  Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth.  They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappear ...
2. Sudden appearance.  In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors: it appears all at once and "fully formed.""
 (Incidentally, Gould's description sounds exactly like what you'd expect if creation is true.)
Biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote in a review that Grassé's belief that evolution is directed by some unknown mechanism does not explain anything. He concluded that "to reject what is known, and to appeal to some wonderful future discovery which may explain it all, is contrary to sound scientific method. The sentence with which Grassé ends his book is disturbing: "It is possible that in this domain biology, impotent, yields the floor to metaphysics."
It's worth mentioning what else Dobzhansky had to say about P-P. Grasse:  "He is the most distinguished of French zoologists, the editor of the 28 volumes of Traite de Zoologie, author of numerous original investigations, and ex-president of the Academie des Sciences.  His knowledge of the living world is encyclopedic."  Grasse's believed in evolution but made the mistake of attacking Darwinism.  But this offence paled into insignificance compared to suggesting that science couldn't fully explain evolution.   To the atheist dictatorship that is evolutionary biology, this is heresy.  Grasse has been demonised ever since. 
Renee's comments:
Grasse was an occultist, according to these more modern critics of his. Enough said.
I suspect that the accusation of his involvement in occultism is false, but it serves a useful purpose vis-a-vis the assassination of his character.  
Besides that, if participation in the occult concerns you, guess what? ... the theory of evolution is a form of occultism.

-----------------------------

Regarding the fossil record:
If evolution has been proceeding for millions of years, the fossils that have been discovered thus far could make up only a tiny fraction of the total number of fossils on earth.  So the fossil record, as we know it, may be too small to be statistically significant.  Never mind, this doesn't deter evolutionists, who insist that the fossil record represents "empirical evidence" of their theory.

I can't think of another field of science as cursed by uncertainties, grey areas, ambiguities, speculations, guess-work and assumptions as paleontology.   The corollary of all this is never-ending internal controversies and a milieu that is tailor-made for story telling and vivid imaginations.  For every claim made by a paleotologist, you'll find another paleontologist who disputes it.   For example, not even the celebrated Archaeopteryx is universally accepted as a true transitional.  Likewise,  there is no shortage of scientists who debunk the tale of the "evolution" of the horse, which the Darwinist rank-and-file love to cite. 

Gould: "... does [the lack of fossil evidence] permit us to invent a tale of continuity in most or all cases?  I submit, although it may only reflect my lack of imagination, that the answer is No".   

Colin Patterson:  "It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another ... But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test."
"I don't think we shall ever have any access to any form of a tree (of life) that we can call factual."

 The average citizen is unaware that some of the evolutionary creatures that paleontologists dream up and make their way into textbooks are based on mere fragments of bones that have been dug up.  What made Nebraska Man a masterpiece of farcical Darwinist comedy was that he was invented on the basis of one tooth - that turned out to be that of a pig!!!  

So can paleontology even be considered a "true science"?  One thing is certian: Its convoluted, opaque and nebulous nature is a perfect match for evolution, which is a charlatan's paradise. 

-- Updated December 5th, 2016, 8:13 pm to add the following --
Greta wrote:"Macro evolution" is a term recently embraced by theists because their initial claims that evolution was not real at all were so obviously disproved by fossil evidence and antibiotic resistance.
Antibiotic resistance is a good example of natural selection, but has no relevance at all to speciation. So to use it as evidence of (macro)evolution is nonsensical and unscientific, not to mention intellectually dishonest.

-- Updated December 5th, 2016, 8:23 pm to add the following --
Fooloso4 wrote:Anthony Edgar:
Regardless, debates about the limits or lack of limits of evolution are just pie in the sky. Arguments rage back and forth, but the reality of applied science couldn't care less.
Within the scientific community there is little or no debate.
I meant between creationists and evolutionists. That is to say, the theologies of both camps are irrelevant to applied science.
For some the truth matters. For some understanding biology and living things and our place in the animal kingdom matters. For some knowing that life on earth did not begin 6,000 years ago matters.
It does indeed matter to atheists to believe that "science" proves that the Bible is nonsense (and by extension, that God is nonsense). But what a pity such "science" is actually no more than a bunch of untestable theories and highly questionable evidence.  This hardly constitutes a water-tight argument, but to the those who are determined to "not let a divine foot in the door", it suffices.
"Pie-in-the-sky theories and dubious evidence made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist" - a self-deluded atheist.
"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe in them." - George Orwell
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Science”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021