Exposing Discovery Institute Part 11: Michael Egnor

Hey everyone, we're back with more of

this series exposing all the frauds at

Discovery Institute, the Christian

propaganda mill whose sole purpose is to

lie about science to push a regressive

theocratic agenda. Who's today's target?

That would be Michael Edgar. Who is he

and what kinds of lies does he tell?

Let's find out. Okay, let's see. Michael

Egggner, MD, medical doctorate from

Colombia, professor of neurosurgery and

pediatrics at Stonybrook University. 30

papers. He sounds a bit more qualified

than most of the other DI boners, don't

you think? Well, none of this stuff

matters when you're lying for Jesus. And

since he can't do that in his legitimate

scientific output, what else can he do?

Oh, right. Shitty books. Just like Meer

and Behe and the rest of the DI clowns,

Edgar writes dog [ __ ] books like The

Immortal Mind: A Neurosurgeons Case for

the Existence of the Soul. Edgar joined

the DI in 2007. He started writing

articles and eventually appearing in

videos for them. And recently, he's been

spotted out in the wild, like on the

Piers Morgan program. Many of these

videos have hundreds of thousands of

views, so he has developed a reasonable

audience over the years. So, what's his

grift all about? Well, you've heard the

DI whine about materialism before,

right? We saw them do this all the way

back in part one of this series with

Casey Luskin and the idiotic science

uprising video, denying the entire field

of anthropology. Science does not need

humans to share a common ancestor with

monkeys.

materialism does.

We are not materialists.

We see the human soul. Human evolution

isn't science, you guys. It's

materialism. That dirty, filthy ideology

where stupid atheist jerks pretend that

we weren't created super special just

the way we are, complete with an

immaterial soul that lets us go to

heaven and party with Jesus. What is

materialism really? It represents the

idea that matter is the fundamental

substance in nature and all things

including mental states and

consciousness are the results of

material interactions. No fancy soul

needed, just brains and whatnot. Here's

the thing. These days the term

materialism apart from academic courses

teaching the history of philosophy is

more or less only used by pseudocience

peddlers and religious fundamentalists

because the scientific community

understands that the material world is

all we have access to by definition. We

can't have access to the supernatural

world were it to exist because if we did

then it would be defined as natural and

we could study it scientifically. The

scientific method and evidence-based

experimentation are the only way to get

to any kind of truth regarding the

physical world around us. And any

alleged supernatural phenomena are

necessarily beyond the scope of

scientific inquiry because they are

considered to be outside the realm of

observable, measurable, and repeatable

natural processes. So essentially,

whining about materialism as an ideology

is just the fundamentalist's way of

admitting that they have no [ __ ] clue

what science is. But Edgar doesn't buy

it. Just like how flatearthers say they

used to be globers and antivaxers say

they used to be provax. Edgar says he

used to be a materialist. But after his

long career as a neurosurgeon, he just

had to change his mind and become a

dualist. Science showed him the way. So

what's dualism? It's the idea that your

mind and your body are made of two

totally different substances. Your body

is physical, but your mind is some

supernatural magical non-physical

essence floating around in your skull.

This goes all the way back to Renee

Deart in the 1600s, who pictured the

mind as a ghost driving a biological

machine. And sure, that might have been

a reasonable conclusion in an age when

people thought that disease was caused

by bad smells. Yes, that's a real thing.

It's called my asthma theory. But we

should all know better here in the 21st

century, shouldn't we? I mean, after

all, how exactly would a non-physical

thing with no discernable composition

and structure interact with physical

matter made of atoms and molecules?

Unicorn farts, quantum fairy dust. This

wasn't of much concern centuries ago

when we didn't know that atoms and

molecules exist, but now we do. So, how

does this relationship between the

physical and non-physical work? We've

had plenty of time to figure it out and

nobody's produced a mechanism that makes

any sense. Meanwhile, the field of

neuroscience keeps showing us that every

aspect of your mind, your memories, your

emotions, even your sense of self,

depends on physical processes in the

brain. Change the brain and you change

the mind. That's not a hypothesis.

That's an observable fact. This

information wasn't available to Decart.

They knew very little about the brain in

his day, but we know a lot today. So,

there's really no excuse. Because of

this, when people cling to dualism in

this modern era, it's typically because

they like the comforting idea that the

real you survives death. It's wishful

thinking stemming from a fear of

mortality. To be clear, they also are

not up to date on the last hundred years

of neuroscience, but it wouldn't help

them anyway. The laws of nature don't

bend to make us feel warm and fuzzy

inside. And the evidence points to the

mind being what the brain does, not some

mysterious ghost in the machine. Damage

your hippocampus and suddenly you can't

form new memories. Smash up your frontal

lobe and your personality does a

complete 180. This isn't speculation.

Phenomena like this have been documented

thousands of times in clinical

neurology. If the mind were some

mysterious non-physical essence floating

around completely independent of the

brain, why would a bump on your head

turn you into a totally different

person? Did the ghost in there stub its

toe? Can ghosts have toes? Does it stub

its toes on the brain and that's how it

controls everything? How do ghost toes

affect the non- ghost brain? So many

questions. Back to brain stuff, we can

even see thoughts forming in real time

with fMRI and EEG. Different brain

regions light up for language, vision,

motor control, and so forth. And if

researchers stimulate those regions with

electricity, they can make you move your

arm, hear a sound, or even feel an

emotion. Did you hear what I said?

Stimulating a region of the brain with

electricity makes you feel feelings you

weren't having a moment prior. That's

not contacting some kind of soul. That's

just manipulating wet biological

hardware. So unless your ghost has a

phantom USB cable plugged into your

cortex, dualism doesn't just fail, it

collapses spectacularly under the weight

of actual empirical evidence. Dualism is

officially archaic and obsolete. Despite

all this, Agnar claims this change of

heart was due to large amounts of

neuroscientific evidence he has

accumulated. Kind of like Gunter Beckley

allegedly reading all those shitty

propaganda books opposite Origin of

Species at the museum. Huh. Real cute

story. Edgar also reports being an

atheist in his youth, but he then

changed his materialist views not long

after becoming a Christian. Coincidence,

maybe. And to put the cherry on top, he

has also expressed anti-evolution views.

He's whined about scientific consensus

asist corruption. And we will get into

all of that crap throughout the video as

well. So, as you can already see, Edgar

is similar in a certain regard to

someone like James Tour. Now, I've never

seen him shriek like a maniac while

holding chalk. That's not what I'm

referring to. What I mean is that unlike

almost everyone at the DI, James is a

real scientist who publishes papers.

Edgar is a neurosurgeon who has

published papers. But just like James,

he steps outside of his expertise, tells

nothing but lies, and makes baseless

theological claims. Being a neurosurgeon

doesn't mean he's an expert on

philosophy of mind, frontier

neuroscience research, or anything that

has to do with actual evidence regarding

consciousness. So when Edgar talks about

dualism or the mind is not the brain,

this isn't coming from some

dispassionate review of the data. It's

lies and propaganda. It's behe and

irreducible complexity. It's meer and

the waiting time problem. It may sound

like science to the untrained and

suggestible ear, but in reality, it's

complete [ __ ] Discovery Institute's

entire mission is to smuggle theological

claims into science education. Dualism

is essentially the neuroscience analog

of intelligent design. It's not about

finding the truth. It's about making

sure that the conclusion always supports

their religious worldview. That there's

an immaterial soul created by their god.

This is why Agnar ignores or

misrepresents decades of hard

neuroscience showing direct causal links

between brain states and mental states.

Legion studies ignored neuroiming

cherrypicked or misrepresented.

Electrical stimulation producing

thoughts and emotions handwaved away.

Why? Because admitting that the mind is

what the brain does would mean the

immortal soul is an obsolete religious

idea, not a scientific construct. And if

your paycheck comes from a propaganda

mill that exists solely to defend

biblical literalism for the purpose of

eroding the separation of church and

state, you're going to have to ignore a

lot of science that proves you wrong. So

here's the takeaway. Dualism in this

context isn't just wrong, it's

deliberately wrong. It's a devious

strategy. Just like how irreducible

complexity is a PR tool for creationism,

dualism is a PR tool for keeping

supernaturalism on life support in the

age of neuroscience. And every time

someone like Edgar promotes it, they're

not doing science. They're doing

apologetics in a lab coat and hoping you

can't see the difference. Okay, with

some important background information

covered, let's watch this jerk spew his

dumb script. The main source we will

pull from is another one of those

ridiculous science uprising videos. The

evidence against materialism. Oo, this

should be very scientific.

>> U materialism is is an ancient

philosophy. Uh it dates back to the

ancient Greeks. And um the viewpoint of

Democrus who was a Greek philosopher uh

is that the only thing that exists is

atoms in the void and that everything

including uh the human mind is reducible

to atoms in the void.

>> Pretty damn smart that Democrus, huh?

Mikey is trying to denigrate materialism

by calling it ancient. But all he's

really doing is admitting that there

were ancient Greeks with no access to

any science whatsoever that were still

able to arrive at more sensible

conclusions than him. But wait, he has

evidence. There are a variety of classic

studies in neuroscience that support the

viewpoint that some aspects of the mind

are not material and that um refute

materialism. Uh the first set of

experiments uh are experiments that show

cerebral localization with certain kinds

of neurological functions but not with

others. It's been known since the 19th

century that for motor and sensory

function, there are very specific

locations in the brain that seem to

mediate those functions. Uh what if I

move my hand that is controlled by a

specific part of my opposite cerebral

hemisphere and the area is is is quite

discreet. Uh vision is controlled by a

very discreet area in the occipital

loes. However, higher intellectual

functions, abstract thought such as

mathematics, such as contemplating um

ethics, uh things involved in

personality, uh are not localized like

that. That is that there is no calculus

center of my brain. Uh there's no

addition center of my brain. The brain

seems to be necessary ordinarily for

doing calculus and doing addition and

thinking about concepts like justice and

mercy and so on, but it's not

localizable in any way near the same way

that movement and sense and sensation is

localizable.

>> Right? There's no part of the brain

that's specific to doing calculus. So

souls must exist. This is not a good

argument. It's like saying that traffic

doesn't happen exclusively at one

intersection. Therefore, cars are magic.

Yes, higher level thinking things like

planning, reasoning, and abstract

thought aren't confined to a single

chunk of brain tissue like certain

rudimentary functions. But that's

because complex cognitive functions are

distributed across neural networks, not

because they're floating around in the

ether. You don't find reasoning in a

single neuron cluster for the same

reason you don't find internet in a

single server. It's an emergent property

of many physical parts working together.

We know this because fMRI and

intraraanial recordings show distinct

patterns of activation across multiple

regions during tasks that involve highle

thinking including the prefrontal

cortex, parietal loes, temporal loes,

and even subcortical structures like the

phalamus. When you damage any part of

that network, you degrade the ability to

perform these tasks. That's a physical

causal link. Second, and more

importantly, distributed doesn't mean

non-physical. Take long-term memories.

When you store a memory of your high

school graduation, it's not locked in a

single memory cell somewhere. The

hippocampus helps consolidate it, but

the actual memory is distributed

throughout the cortex. Visual aspects in

the occipital lobe, sounds in the

auditory cortex, emotional tone in the

amygdala, and contextual associations in

the temporal and parietal loes. This

distributed pathway comes together to

produce the complex experience of

remembering a detailed memory. What we

have to understand is that if you damage

one part of this pathway, you lose part

of the memory or your ability to

retrieve it even though the rest of the

memory remains intact. This is 100%

consistent with a distributed physical

system and totally unnecessary if

immaterialism were true. If the memory

wasn't exclusively physical, why would

damaging parts of the brain erase

aspects of the memory? And in general,

it's a very selective claim. The immune

system is distributed across your whole

body, but no one claims it's

supernatural. The same goes for weather

systems, ecosystems, or cognitive

processes. Not in one spot does not

equal not in the brain. Edgar's logic

boils down to if I can't point to a

single brain cell and say that's where

your creativity lives, then creativity

must be immaterial. It's just more God

of the Gaps [ __ ] Finally, we have

to point out that beyond his argument

being completely invalid, the premise

itself is false. There are examples of

localized prefrontal activity that

produces higher level thinking. There is

a lobe in the brain that is for complex

rational thinking. The prefrontal

cortex, especially the dorsolateral

prefrontal cortex, is the brain region

most strongly associated with higher

order reasoning, abstract thought,

decision-making, and impulse control. If

you damage it, you don't just get a mild

personality shift, you lose complex

rational thinking abilities. This is

taught in high school biology. The fact

that he isn't mentioning this at all

screams deception. But after learning

about similar science denial on the most

trivial level from Meyer and Beehey, are

we really surprised? He spews more of

the same crap in this blog post he wrote

for the DI called, "Logic shows abstract

thought is an immaterial power." Get

this [ __ ] Mikey says there is an

infinite number of possible abstract

thoughts we can have but a finite number

of neurons therefore immaterialism.

Let's read this adorable bit together.

But now consider my intellect. There is

no similar finite bound on the size of a

number I can contemplate. I can think of

the number 7 * 10 27 which is 7

octillion. That is roughly the number of

atoms in the universe. But I can also

easily think of twice that number 1.4 4

* 10 28 and then double that number. How

about an octillion * 7 octillion? There

is no limit on the numbers I can think

of. So the question for materialists is

this. How can the infinite capacity of

my intellect, which is my capacity for

abstract thought, be generated by a

finite number of neurons or atoms in my

brain? How can infinite states of my

intellect be generated by finite states

of my brain? It's ironic hearing Mikey

reference his intellect while saying

something this profoundly stupid.

Basically, he is saying, "I can think of

arbitrarily large numbers. Therefore,

the mind can't be finite and must be

immaterial." Well, genius, potential

unboundedness is not the same thing as

actual infinity. Saying, "I can always

imagine a bigger number just means that

you can conceive of the concept of

numbers and you can follow a rule

forever." It doesn't mean you have a

separate neuron for every number or

something insane like that. The brain

doesn't need a separate neuron for every

possible thought. It just needs

mechanisms that manipulate symbols and

rules, which is exactly what neural

networks and cognitive systems do. And

this guy is supposed to be a brain

scientist. Think about language. 26

letters give you an infinite number of

sentences. A tiny program, five lines of

code, can print bigger and bigger

numbers forever. That single finite

mechanism generates an unbounded

sequence. No infinities or supernatural

quintessences required. That's how

brains work. They store rules, symbols,

and compression and then manipulate

them. If you want to argue for an

immaterial soul, you have to show humans

reaching actual infinite non-computable

states that no finite physical system

could ever represent. And Mikey

obviously can't do that. He's conflating

I can always make a new thought with I

must possess an infinite warehouse of

thoughts. It's just stupid. Moving on to

his next dumb thing.

>> Back in the 1960s, Roger Sperry uh who

is a prominent neuroscientist did a

series of studies on patients who had

had uh split brain operations.

And these are patients who had severe

epilepsy in which uh an epileptic focus

would begin in one hemisphere of the

brain and travel through the corpus

colosum which is a bundle of fibers

connecting the two hemispheres and cause

a generalized seizure. It was recognized

by surgeons in the mid- 20th century

that if you cut the fiber bundle that

connected the two hemispheres of the

brain that you could prevent the

seizures from becoming generalized and

you could greatly improve the quality of

the patient's life. So a number of

patients had this operation called

called corpus calisottomy. It's an

operation that I've performed and that

many neurosurgeons have performed and um

surprisingly after the operation the

patients uh their seizures would get

better of course but they really weren't

much different that is that their brains

were essentially cut in half but they

still seem to be a unitary person. They

still seem to be fairly normal. Sperry

was a neuroscientist who studied these

people in detail and he did find that

there were some subtle abnormalities as

a result of cutting the brain in half.

But the abnormalities were very subtle.

They were so subtle that the experiments

he did won him the Nobel Prize. But they

weren't obvious.

They weren't obvious changes. And what

that implies is that

the

the human mind

is not purely

uh generated by the matter of the brain.

Otherwise, cutting the brain in half

would have profound effects on the human

mind. It might make two people.

Certainly, it would it would create a a

rather profound difference in in a

person's state of consciousness. And it

doesn't. you can cut the brain in half

and the person can't tell the difference

except that he has fewer seizures.

>> Okay, so this is just one big fat lie.

He's basically taking a thing that

demonstrates materialism magnificently,

the profound changes that occur for

these split brain patients and just

lying about it, saying that they don't

change much at all in the hopes of

getting people to ignore this phenomenon

entirely. To reiterate the factual part

of what he said, Roger Sperry would cut

the corpus colosum of patients with

epilepsy to prevent the spread of

seizure to the other side of the brain.

After doing this, seizures would improve

and he claims their personalities would

remain pretty much constant. First of

all, he describes this procedure as

cutting the brain in half. That's a bit

misleading. The hemispheres of the brain

are already separate, connected

primarily by the corpus colosum and just

a few smaller structures. He's

pretending that Sperry sliced right

through the middle of entire loes of the

brain. He understands basic brain

structure. So this is deliberately

deceptive rhetoric. But more

importantly, he's just flatout lying

about the effects on the personalities

of the individuals. Let's first point

out how dumb the argument itself really

is. If you cut a brain in half and don't

get two people, that proves a soul

exists. No, what it proves is that Mikey

doesn't understand how brain modularity

and plasticity work. When you sever the

corpus colossum, the primary method of

hemispheric communication, the two

hemispheres of the brain can't

communicate in the same way. Each

hemisphere process information from the

opposite visual field and controls the

opposite side of the body. But language

production and most logical reasoning

reside in the left hemisphere,

especially in right-handed individuals.

To initially investigate this, Sperry

had split brain patients stare at a

fixed point while different words or

images were quickly flashed to either

their left or right visual field,

ensuring that only one hemisphere

received the stimulus. The study's

findings showed that one, language and

speech are lateralized. When a word was

shown to the right visual field or the

left hemisphere of the brain, the

patient could easily state out loud what

they saw. But when a word was shown to

the left visual field or the right

hemisphere of the brain, they said that

they saw nothing even though their left

hand, which is controlled by the right

hemisphere of the brain, could point to

or draw the correct object. Two, each

hemisphere has its own awareness. When

asked to match images or words with

their hands, each hand could do it

independently based on its hemisphere's

input without the other hand knowing

what was going on. In some tests, the

two hands even tried to do different

things or interfere with each other. And

three, he saw limited interheiser

transfer. Complex tasks requiring

cooperation between hemispheres became

impaired. For example, a split brain

patient might struggle to name an object

they held in their left hand because the

right hemisphere received the tactile

information but couldn't then

communicate it to the left hemisphere's

language centers. I have a tutorial

regarding brain lateralization in my

biocsychology series that you can check

out if you want more details regarding

these famous experiments and the

absolutely fascinating results. But we

can already see that Edgar is totally

full of [ __ ] Beyond these being huge

changes to the way a person operates, it

very nearly satisfies his demand of the

splitrain patient acting like two

different people. Each hemisphere has

its own stream of consciousness and

answers questions totally differently.

There are patients for whom one

hemisphere of the brain believes in God

and the other doesn't whereby when asked

about the belief, one hemisphere answers

yes verbally and the other points to no

on a card. I bet Mikey would agree

that's a pretty big difference. Don't

you think? A believer and an atheist in

one body call the exorcist. Anyway, what

this study really demonstrated is that

each hemisphere can operate

independently for some functions. The

idea that a relatively unified

personality after split brain surgery

somehow proves the existence of an

immaterial soul is idiotic. It

misrepresents both the brain's

architecture and how mental unity

emerges from physical systems.

Mechanistically, the reason patients

don't develop two independent

personalities in many cases isn't

because of a soul stitching them

together. It's because the brain is far

more integrated than Edgar suggests. The

corpus colosum is just one of several

pathways the brain uses for

interheispheric communication. Even

after it's severed, subcortical

structures like the anterior

commissioner, calicular connections, and

brain stem circuits still allow for

integration of information at a more

basic level. Furthermore, much of what

we think of as personality and selfhood,

our preferences, habits, emotions, and

long-term memories, are not split

cleanly across hemispheres. They're

represented in distributed neural

networks that involve both sides of the

brain simultaneously. Meaning that

identity remains intact, even if some

communication is reduced. So, the fact

that consciousness remains relatively

unified after split brain surgery

doesn't point to something magical. It

simply demonstrates the brain's

redundancy, plasticity, and complex

architecture, which are wellestablished

properties of a physical system.

Splitbrain patients don't show us souls.

They show us how robust, resilient, and

ultimately physical the brain truly is.

And even if we didn't understand

alternate mechanisms, concluding that a

soul is necessary to explain this is

very obviously a god of the gaps style

argument. What else you got, Mikey?

There are the experiments of Wilder

Penfield who was uh the pioneer in

epilepsy neurosurgery was the first

neurosurgeon to systematically uh

operate on the human brain when people

were awake. Uh the brain doesn't feel

pain. Uh the scalp can feel pain, the

skull can, but he would give local

anesthesia so the patients didn't have

pain. and he would work on their brain

while they were awake in an effort to

identify the focus of their seizures and

to remove the focus from the brain so

their seizures would stop. And he was a

uh dualist for several reasons. First is

that he repeatedly observed that

there were aspects of the patient's mind

that no matter what he did to the brain,

he couldn't affect. You know, he could

he could elicit memories by stimulating

a part of the brain. He could make uh a

muscle move or make a patient have a

sensation, but he couldn't change uh

their consciousness. He couldn't change

their intellect. He couldn't change

their sense of self. There was a

fundamental core, the person's soul,

that no matter what he did to the brain

remained the same. So he said there was

something he couldn't reach using

material things. The other observation

that he had which I think is absolutely

fascinating is that he asked the

question why are there no intellectual

seizures and when people have epilepsy

the epilepsy can follow various

patterns. Commonly a person will have

jerking of a muscle. Sometimes so many

muscles jerk that they actually go

unconscious.

Sometimes they have a tingling on their

skin or sometimes they'll have a funny

smell or sometimes they can even have a

little behavioral tick,

but they never start doing calculus.

They never contemplate justice or mercy.

They never think about Shakespeare. So

Penfield says, "Why aren't there

intellectual seizures?" If the mind

comes from the brain entirely, the mind

is material in some sense. Well, then

you ought to have seizures that make you

do addition when you can't stop. You

ought to have seizures that make you uh

think about politics and you can't stop.

But you don't. He says there are no

intellectual seizures. And he says what

that implies is that the intellect is

not the brain because otherwise you

would have it. You would have

intellectual seizures.

>> Wow. Seizures don't make you do

calculus. So souls exist. Jesus Christ,

he just keeps getting dumber. Okay,

let's dig into this crap. So, what he's

saying is that Penfield found that no

matter what he did to the brain, certain

aspects of the mind wouldn't change. And

why don't seizures ever make people

perform intellectual tasks? First of

all, in doing brain surgery on awake

patients, he showed that you can evoke

memories, movements, or emotions without

altering a person's sense of self. This

doesn't make the sense of self

immaterial. It just means that the

neural coralates of identity or selfhood

are not stored in one isolated spot in

the brain. Nevertheless, there is

abundant neurological evidence showing

that altering or damaging specific

regions of the brain can radically

change a person's identity, behavior,

and personality. The famous example of

Phineas Gage is usually taught in middle

school. For those who haven't heard the

story, Phineas Gage was a railroad

worker who survived a traumatic injury

that destroyed much of his prefrontal

cortex. After the accident, he became

impulsive, irresponsible, and profane. A

dramatic shift from his former

responsible and mild-mannered

personality. This was not just a mood

change. It was a fundamental shift in

his sense of self directly tied to a

physical brain lesion. Similarly,

degenerative diseases like Alzheimer's

and fronttotemporal dementia gradually

erode memory, language, moral judgment,

and even personality traits, often to

the point where loved ones describe the

person as no longer themselves. The

impairment of autobiographical memory or

the recollection of life events that

shape one's identity is well documented.

This clearly shows that the core self is

not untouchable. It is deeply rooted in

brain structure and function. So no, the

inability of early 20th century

stimulation techniques to destroy the

sense of self isn't evidence of an

immaterial soul. It's just a

technological limitation of the time.

The self is very much a product of brain

activity. And as countless neurological

case studies show, it can indeed be

altered, degraded, or even lost by

purely physical means. Okay, moving on

to the dumb [ __ ] concept of intellectual

seizures. What are seizures exactly?

They're pathological bursts of

synchronized electrical activity in

neurons. They disrupt normal

communication between brain cells. They

don't enhance it. Expecting a seizure to

produce calculus or philosophical

reflection is like expecting a car

engine exploding to result in smoother

driving. Complex intellectual activity

like solving equations or contemplating

justice doesn't happen from random

neuronal firing on large scales. It

depends on finely tuned, highly

coordinated neural circuits, especially

across the prefrontal cortex, parietal

loes, and language centers. These

networks work in harmony, not in chaos.

Seizures typically impair consciousness.

They produce automatisms like repetitive

movements or speech. They cause

confusion hallucinations or

involuntary emotions, not organized

goal-directed cognition. There's nothing

mysterious about this. Just like a

software glitch won't randomly write

better code, chaotic brain activity

won't produce intellectual insight. So

the absence of intellectual seizures

doesn't imply an immaterial mind. It

reflects the fact that disorganized

neural activity disrupts thought rather

than enhancing it. This is entirely

consistent with the materialist

understanding of the mind. So Mikey is

basically just admitting that he doesn't

know what seizures are. And finally,

just to really drive home how clueless

this guy is, there are instances in

which after a serious brain injury,

sometimes even after a seizure, the

brain can rewire itself to develop new

extraordinary abilities. It's called

acquired soant syndrome. A classic

example is Derek Amato, who suffered a

concussion and then suddenly became a

virtuosic pianist. Doesn't that sound

like the exact [ __ ] thing Mikey was

whining about not seeing? Something

happens to the brain and it makes you do

a new awesome thing. These dumbass

apologists have an incredible knack for

presenting arguments that are not only

idiotic straw men, but they also ignore

the fact that what they're asking for

miraculously has been observed anyway.

Incredible. Can we get even dumber,

Mike? In 2006, uh a uh a neuroscientist

named Owen published uh a landmark uh uh

study in the journal of science

uh looking at brain function in people

who were in persistent vegetative state.

Many times their family and and

sometimes their their caretakers will

say, "But I get the sense that the

person is there, that they understand

things, but there's no clinical evidence

for it. You examine them, there's no

sign of any reaction at all. And on

scan, their brains are are shrunken and

obviously severely damaged. So what Owen

did is that he took a woman who had been

diagnosed for several years in

persistent vegetative state from a car

accident. Uh who showed no sign at all

of any awareness, deep coma, put her in

the MRI machine, and um asked her

questions through a little microphone

and head headset. He said, "Um, pretend

that you're playing tennis or imagine

that you're walking across a room." He

asked her to imagine all these things

and her brain kind of lit up in places,

but you could say that, well, the brain

lighting up doesn't mean she was

understanding anything. It just meant

maybe the sound coming into her ears was

causing a reflex or something. So, what

he did was he took 15 normal people

and he did the same thing with them.

stuck them in the machine, put and asked

the same questions.

And then he asked

neuroraiologists to look at the

functional MRI images of this woman and

the 15 normal people and see if you

could tell a difference between the two

and they couldn't. Maybe the lighting up

of areas in her brain and the lighting

up of the areas in normal people's

brains was not because of understanding

was but was just because of the

reception of the sound and that it

didn't really mean she understood. So

what he then did is he took the same

words that he had asked her before and

he asked them again but he mixed them

but he mixed the sequence of the words

so they didn't make any sense

walking understand pretend room across

so he took away the semantics and just

left some syntax and her brain stop

stopped reacting as did the normal

controls even when your brain is so

massively destroyed that there's no

clinical evidence for any mental

activity at

functional MRI can find that these

patients are capable of thinking in

quite quite clear ways. There are

aspects of the mind

that cannot be destroyed

by severe brain damage. That's what

Owen's work is showing us. It's showing

us there are aspects of the mind that

aren't connected tightly to the brain

that are immaterial.

>> There you have it, folks. Brain goes

bye-bye. Mind sticks around. So souls

exist. Case closed. As always, we can't

trust the apologist fraud to be honest

about anything. So, let's explain what

Owen actually did. He asked vegetative

state patients to imagine certain tasks

like playing tennis or walking through

their house and looked for patterns of

brain activation in an fMRI scanner.

Some patients did show patterns similar

to healthy controls, meaning they still

had enough functioning cortical networks

to follow instructions. But notice the

key point. When brain activity was

there, the mind's responsiveness was

there. When brain activity was absent,

the responsiveness was absent. No brain

signal, no conscious behavior. Then

there's the scramble words part. He

mentions when Owen scrambled the words,

so they made no sense. The activation

disappeared in both healthy and

vegetative patients. That doesn't mean

there's some magical soul processing

language outside the brain. It means the

brain wasn't receiving coherent input.

So there was nothing for the language

network to process. This is not

surprising whatsoever and it actually

supports materialism. Then comes the

biggest problem for Mikey. Persistent

vegetative state is caused by widespread

but incomplete brain damage. The

patients who showed responses in Owen's

experiments had preserved cortical

tissue especially in regions like the

supplementary motor area and

parahhippocample place area that could

still sustain those specific cognitive

tasks. In other words, the results

depend entirely on what parts of the

brain are still physically intact. If

you were to shoot someone between the

eyes three times and then ask them to do

math, they wouldn't be able to because

the physical brain structures would be

obliterated. There won't be some backup

soul generator to compensate for this.

Structure equals function. If the mind

were truly separate from the brain, why

do only some vegetative patients respond

but not others, and only in ways linked

to preserved brain structures? Why are

they looking at fMRI data at all? Why

wouldn't the magical soul just think

freely without relying on surviving

brain tissue to demonstrate activity?

The evidence fits materialism perfectly.

Consciousness requires functioning

neural networks. When they're gone, so

is conscious processing. Also, doesn't

all of this contradict his first

argument about cortical localization? He

now conceds that there is observed and

consistent diffuse brain activity for

higher level understanding. These guys

can't even keep their stories straight,

much less make any kind of coherent

point. Let's keep the stupid train

rolling.

>> Some of the most fascinating work in

neuroscience has been the work of

Benjamin Liebbit who uh was a

neuroscientist uh in California uh back

in the mid 20th century. Liebbit was

fascinated by the correlation in time

between thought and brain activity.

And he did a whole series of experiments

in which he would place electrodes on

the scalp of patients or people and he

would ask them to um make decisions or

think about things and he would attempt

to time the moment when they made a

decision when they thought about

something and correlate the moment they

thought about something with a the

moment that there was a change in the

brain wave activity.

And he did a number of different

experiments. One experiment has become

very famous and ironically has been used

by materialists to support materialism.

Although an understanding of what

Liebbit actually found is quite the

opposite. It refutes materialism. The

experiment that Lieut did was he would

uh ask a person to press a button when

they decided to do so. So he put a

button in front of them and he would

have a clock with a sweep uh hand and

the person would just sit there and

whenever they would decide I think I'll

press the button and push the button he

asked them when they made the decision

to press the button not when they pushed

it but when they decided to push it just

note the the the fraction of a second

that was on the clock

at the same time he was recording brain

waves and he wanted to find out the

moment you decide what happens in your

brain and what he found was quite

consistently

was that about perhaps

half a second before you decide to do

something there's a spike in your brain

spike in your brain wave that he called

the readiness potential and it was

before you were aware of the decision to

do anything there's almost like an

unconscious motive and then you would

decide a half second later and do it. So

he found this quite consistently that

there would be the spike in brain

activity then the conscious awareness of

a decision and then you go ahead and do

what you decided.

Materialists have used this to suggest

that we are misled by thinking that we

have free will that what what actually

happens is that our material brain just

sort of makes the decision and then we

kind of think that we decided but we

didn't. It was our neur

neurotransmitters and neurochemicals.

But Liebert didn't agree with that.

Lieut pointed out that he asked

the subjects to do something more.

He said, "When you decide to do

something, then decide not to."

So you decide I'm going to push the

button. Oh, no, I'm not going to push

the button. When they did that, he found

that there was a readiness potential for

deciding to push the button, but there

wasn't a readiness potential to decide

not to push it.

And he said he didn't prove the

existence of free will, but he proved

the existence of free won't.

And that's what he called it, free

won't. He said what he sees going on in

the brain with his experiments is that

we are bombarded with what are probably

preconcious or unconscious motives

and that we are freely capable of

deciding whether to comply with them or

not. and the decision to comply with

them is not material. There's no sign of

any brain activity when you decide not

to comply.

And he pointed out kind of interestingly

that free won't

is a parallel concept to traditional

religious ideas of original sin that in

a sense we have motives that are beyond

our control. We can't stop the motives

but we can stop ourselves from doing it.

and the free will or the free won't um

is scientifically demonstrable.

>> Yes, the thing that supports materialism

actually refutes materialism according

to the lying fraud with the religious

agenda rambling about original sin.

Okay, folks. No brain activity for

inhibition. Therefore, souls exist.

Let's tear this turd apart as well. So

to review, people are asked to think

about something and electrodes found

that half a second before you decide to

do something, there is a readiness

potential spike in the brain wave. When

faced with the button, there's a spike

associated with pushing it, but no spike

associated with deciding not to push it.

So free won't, and souls exist. We can

stop ourselves from sinning, you guys.

Let's start with the obvious. The

readiness potential is a brain signal

linked to voluntary movement. It's a

slow ramp up signal in the motor cortex

and supplementary motor area that

precedes movement initiation. It'll

happen when you're deciding to move and

do something. So, it's not surprising

that it won't be there when you're

deciding to not move or not do

something. It is a thing that has to do

with movement. If you don't move, it

won't happen. Am I making this clear

enough for any 5-year-olds who stumbled

upon this video by accident or

timetraveling cavemen? Thing happened

when move so it not happen when not

move. Is that pretty easy to understand?

Mikey's logic is like saying a car

doesn't accelerate when I hit the

brakes, so braking requires a soul. It's

stupid. He's a stupid person. But now to

get more technical, he's also just

wrong. There is brain activity that

correlates with inaction. Inhibition

uses different neural circuits,

especially the right inferior frontal

gyrus, presupplementary motor area and

basil ganglia. These regions show robust

measurable activity during stop trials

in go no-go and stop signal tasks. So to

update our explanation for Zog the

caveman, thing happened when move other

thing happened when not move. We've

mapped this inhibition network in great

detail. There's something called the

VMPFC or ventromedial prefrontal cortex.

It's an entire physical region of the

brain responsible for inhibition. This

has physical signals. This is not

immaterial. The VMPFC also plays a role

in the inhibition of emotional responses

and in the process of decision-making

and self-control. It is also involved in

the cognitive evaluation of morality.

For example, alcohol, more specifically

ethanol, is a chemical that diffuses

into neural tissue and affects

neurotransmitter systems, especially

that for GABA or gamma aminobuteric

acid. GABAurgic activity in the VMPFC

and other frontal inhibitory regions is

reduced under alcohol, weakening the

brain's stop signals. This explains why

people under the influence of alcohol

display disinhibition or reduced

inhibition. Finally, talk to your crush

at a party. Take a risky jump that sober

you would never try. No soul necessary,

just a chemical doing stuff to the

brain. Also, damage to the right

inferior frontal cortex impairs the

ability to stop actions. TMS or

transcranial magnetic stimulation to

that area can temporarily reduce

stopping ability and fMRI consistently

lights up these regions when people

inhibit actions. Again, all of this

perfectly demonstrates materialism. And

finally, all this free won't stuff is

still brain-based. EEG, MEG, and

intraraanial recordings show that veto

signals appear in the same frontal

control regions milliseconds before the

action is canled. No magic, just a

cascade of neural events. In this case,

via inhibitory circuits instead of motor

execution circuits. What do you think?

Shall we pack on a little more stupid?

>> This remarkable research suggests is

that the materialistic

bias that has been present in

neuroscience specifically and in science

in general

leads us to misunderstand the results of

our science. Uh, one could say in a

sense almost that we have an ocean of

data, an ocean of answers,

but we've forgotten what the questions

are.

We've forgotten the questions that we're

supposed to be answering.

And when you look at these studies in

cognitive neuroscience carefully,

they are giving us a very clear answer

to a fundamental question in

neuroscience. And that is, is the mind

entirely a product of the material

brain? And the answer they're giving us

is that it's not.

>> Finally, after all that foreplay, we get

to the full penetration. Materialistic

bias in science, you guys. Not just in

his field, which he does nothing but lie

about, but in every area of science. All

those areas he knows precisely dick

about. It's in there, too. This

materialism bias is just everywhere, you

guys. All the millions of stupid jerk

atheist scientists are doing stupid butt

science and hiding souls because they

hate God. That was barely a caricature.

It's exactly what Mikey is serving up to

the DI's target audience. Just gussied

up with fancier words and in a lab coat

for no reason. I feel sorry for anyone

who can't instantly see through this

agenda. Maybe you can fall for his

script about the brain stuff, but the

moment he extrapolates that to literally

all of science, the alarm should be

going off. And of course, the entire

premise is idiotic. Materialism or

methodological naturalism is not some

kind of dogma. It's literally the way

that science works. The DI drones

essentially do nothing but whine about

how science is science. Science is about

testing ideas empirically against the

physical world. If you want to propose a

hypothesis in any field from physics to

neuroscience, you have to make testable

predictions about measurable things.

That's it. If something is alleged to

exist, but it can't be measured or

interacted with in any way, then by

definition, it's outside of the scope of

science. And anyone whining about

science not addressing that thing does

not know what science is. What Mikey is

really saying is modern science won't

validate my archaic religious beliefs.

Therefore, science is broken. This is

what the DI is always trying to do.

Redefine the rules so that supernatural

explanations can get smuggled in as

scientific. Mikey, science doesn't lose

sight of questions by focusing on

physical phenomena. It avoids wasting

time on untestable ones. The moment Eggy

or anyone else can provide concrete,

reproducible, measurable evidence of an

immaterial mind, science will study it.

But until then, demanding that science

accept supernatural conclusions without

evidence isn't canceling out bias. It's

breaking the scientific method. Do we

need a little more of this [ __ ] The

natural world can be much better

understood if you assume that it has

purposes, if you assume that it has

design. It it helps you to understand

how things work. Um, and I believe that

the human mind

properly understood

will give us a much deeper understanding

of nature and not just of the mind.

Okay, we don't really need to dissect

this too thoroughly because it's just

the same crap we hear from every DI

drone. It was much more important to

explain how he's lying about all the

neuroscience in exposing the deception

these figures serve up about

neuroscience and molecular biology and

anthropology and every other field. The

intended effect just fizzles and fades.

But also, no, we don't need to pretend

that everything was designed by your

magic skydaddy and given the special

purpose of loving the Jesus. That's not

science. In science, we can still

discuss purpose in the sense that we can

talk about what things are for, like how

eyes are for seeing. But that just

describes an active function that is the

product of millions of years of

evolution, selecting for creatures that

see better. On the contrary, God made

this thing this way does not help you

understand science better. It makes you

a science illiterate toddler that

ignores the entire field of evolutionary

biology, which actually explains why

living organisms are the way they are.

Mikey is pretending that scientists

start with a baseless philosophical

assumption, materialism, when in

actuality, it's just how science works.

Meanwhile, he is the one who starts with

a baseless theological assumption that

God exists and made everything the way

it is for a reason and then tries to

force that ideology onto everything he

encounters. That's the most

anti-scientific thing you can do. His

worldview is specifically

anti-scientific.

It's not falsifiable. You can't test for

purpose in the natural world because

it's a metaphysical claim, not a

scientific hypothesis. It's a lens

imposed before gathering data, not a

conclusion drawn after examining

evidence. So when Mikey says purpose is

the key, what he really means is, I'm

going to interpret everything in my

field and every other one through a

creationist worldview, whether the data

supports it or not. Sounds a bit more

like a preacher than a scientist,

doesn't it? Anyway, there's a bit left

in the video, but it's totally vapid.

He's just droning on endlessly about how

much materialism sucks instead of making

concrete claims about neuroscience that

can be debunked. So, there's not really

any point in dissecting it further. And

while this video was absent of the DI's

typical cinematic pageantry, making it

ideal for debunking his scientific

claims, we can also see Mikey showing up

in their topshelf propaganda, like this

piece of [ __ ] that kicked off the

science uprising series.

>> How do they know the cosmos is all there

is? Isn't our reality more than just

matter?

Most people and cultures around the

world have a profound belief that life

extends beyond the physical.

That compassion,

ideas,

joy, and sorrow aren't made of matter,

but are as real to us as our arms and

legs. If we believe this, are we

anti-science,

or is it materialism that is

anti-science?

Those stupid materialist scientists

don't want you to feel joy and

compassion. They say it's stupid Bible

talk, but we know better than them.

Right, gang? Tell them, Mike?

>> But some scientists are willing to speak

up about where the evidence leads.

[Music]

>> I I was brought up with materialist

viewpoints all the way through high

school and college and medical school.

you you get inundated with um scientific

viewpoints that have a materialist bias.

>> The cosmos is all that is all that is

>> and it's all just mechanical and blind

and purposeless purposeless at the

bottom.

>> The deeper I looked into the science,

the more I realized what a catastrophe

for science materialism and atheism

really is.

>> Scientists doing science, what a

catastrophe. Carl Sean, Dan Dennett.

These are false prophets who should be

ignored. Listen to Michael Edgar, the

brave truthtelling whistleblower who's

going to help us end this materialistic

tyranny on science that actually proves

God and Jesus and souls and all the dumb

[ __ ] you believe. Who falls for this

crap?

>> We want to follow the evidence wherever

it leads and decide for ourselves.

We are not materialists.

We see the human soul.

We experience love. We live with

purpose. We fight for justice. We are

the quiet majority and we will be quiet

no longer.

It's just embarrassing. Dumb atheists

say there's no soul, so they don't

believe in love, and they hate people

who love each other. We've hacked the

mainframe. Wake up everyone in Time

Square. Nod along emphatically, actors

we paid to pretend to agree with us.

Take off your masks and storm the

capital. Or I mean, let's get religion

taught in public schools and turn

America into an authoritarian theocracy

so that the woke atheist commies can't

turn our kids trans. It's basically a

satire of itself. Can you imagine

actually putting money into making crap

like this? How about something a little

cheaper? Here's Mikey as a guest on the

DI's shitty podcast.

>> So, scientific consensus really doesn't

even have anything to do with science.

Scientific consensus is a political

thing where a group of scientists, they

get together and and agree either

explicitly or implicitly on a particular

viewpoint.

>> No, that's what you DI morons do. You

sit in your pathetic little Seattle

conference room, insist that creationism

is true, and then figure out how to lie

about science to convince other people

that science supports creationism. The

projection is off the charts. Mikey,

scientific consensus changes according

to new data and evidence. That proves it

isn't politically motivated. That proves

it isn't dogma. Dogma doesn't change.

Science does. So, it's not dogma. Germs

replaced my asthma theory.

Neuroplasticity replaced the static

brain. Science does not cling to

outdated ideas like creationism. It

evolves over time. This is simple stuff

here. Try and keep up. My impression is

that scientific consensus is driven more

by political and financial sorts of

considerations among scientists than

it's driven by actual scientific data.

>> More projection. You morons do this.

You're paid by wealthy Christian

nationalists to lie about science and

push a theocratic agenda. You are driven

by political and financial

considerations. Science goes by data.

You can't get the entire global

scientific community to demonstrate a

particular political bias. Nor can you

buy off millions of scientists. This is

pathetic.

>> So, uh, scientific consensus is not

science. Science intrinsically is a

search for truth irrespective of the

consensus. And virtually every major

scientific advancement has been done in

spite of the consensus, not because of

the consensus. Scientific consensus is

the end of science. It's not a part of

science.

>> Well, that's [ __ ] idiotic. Major

scientific advancements are almost

exclusively brought about and confirmed

by the consensus of the scientific

community. Every field advances slowly

and incrementally via the work of

thousands of people. And when this

eventually yields a breakthrough, the

global scientific community will

recognize it as such and continue to

build upon it. Paradigm shifts like

plate tectonics or germ theory

challenged prevailing views. But once

strong evidence supporting them had

accumulated, the scientific community

acknowledged it and incorporated the new

understanding into the consensus. It's

very easy to see what he's doing here.

This whole anti-consensus narrative fits

into a broader pattern of ideologically

driven skepticism towards science that

is often rooted in a framework of

Christian apologetics. By framing

consensus as inherently untrustworthy,

he primes his audience to dismiss

scientific positions that contradict

biblical literalism like evolutionary

biology or abiogenesis or neuroscience

that undermines dualism. This tactic

aligns with a long tradition for

propaganda mills like the DI. The goal

is to undermine public trust in science

to preserve religious authority as the

ultimate arbiter of truth. It's less

about improving science and more about

keeping it subordinate to a pre-existing

authoritarian worldview. The one Mikey

wants to be true because it makes him

feel good inside. Okay, let's hit one

more. Here he is debating Matt Dillah

Hunty a few years back on whether God

exists. Yeah, he's not even trying to

hide his agenda. Let's see how bad this

gets.

>> What is your moral What is your morality

based on?

>> My morality is based on God. How do you

know what God's moral opinion is on

anything?

>> He's put it in me.

>> He's put it in you. So, how is that not

subjective? Because first of all,

>> it's written in my heart as

>> I don't care if it's written in your

heart. So, so you're you're sitting here

saying God wrote it on your heart. Well,

that's really cool for you. Doesn't help

anybody else. And there's no way for you

to demonstrate to anyone, including

yourself, that God wrote it on your

heart.

>> Pretty well argued by Matt here. What's

your morality based on? God said stuff

where and how do you know? He wrote it

on my heart. What? Like with a [ __ ]

Sharpie? What the [ __ ] are you talking

about? So basically, Mikey, you just

think and feel whatever you want. And

God made you think and feel those things

because you say so. No justification or

evidence required. Is that about right?

Help us out here.

>> He wrote it on your heart, Matt. That's

why you don't babies.

>> Holy [ __ ] Mike just said that God gives

Matt his morality and that's why he

doesn't rape babies. So Mike is saying

that the only reason he doesn't rape

babies is because God says not to. So if

his imaginary god suddenly appeared in a

vision and said to him, "Hey, Mike, it's

totally cool to rape babies, and I'd

prefer it if you were to rape some

babies." Would he do it? Does Mike

genuinely want to rape babies? Isn't it

funny when super religious people put on

a show about their moral superiority

only to blurt out comments like this

that reveal their profound moral

bankruptcy? Speaking of profound moral

bankruptcy, what has the rest of the DI

been saying about me lately? They

conjured up some pathetic limp dick blog

posts, whining about every video I've

done on them since the beginning. So,

has there been any attempt at a rebuttal

lately? What about my recent video on

Casey Luskin about his misadventures

doctoring figures and lying about

genetic similarity with chimpanzees?

Shockingly, not a word from them in

response. Or I guess it's not that

shocking. Gunter Beckley was the one who

responded to my first piece on Luskin

and the one about Steven Meyer, leading

to my two scathing videos in response.

But he's dead from a murder suicide, so

he can't write anything. Oh, he was the

murderer suicider, in case you were

wondering. errant boy Jonathan Mclatche

tried to respond to my Michael Beehe

video and he botched it horribly leading

to his own humiliation in my video on

him. So who else is there? Jonathan

Wells is dead. Everyone else is an

incompetent buffoon. But wait, there's

paper pusher David Clinghofer. Was he

able to muster up some courage and

defend Casey Luskin's doctrine of a

figure and pathetic lies about

anthropology? He was not. Instead, he

decided to whine about my Avi Lobe

debunk. Remember, he's the disgusting

Zionist fraud astrophysicist who lies

about comets and shitty books to make

money. What was Davey's issue exactly?

On YouTube, Dave Fina gives Avi Lobe the

Hamas treatment. Wow. And I guess that's

supposed to be me, the devolved version

of Charles Darwin dragging my knuckles

on the ground. At least they made me

jacked as [ __ ] So, what's the problem

exactly? Oh, right. I'm a terrorist just

like Hamas. There is darkness in my

heart because I was voraciously

combating Zionist propaganda on Twitter

that was manufacturing consent for

genocide. I'm an anti-semite because

Zionist propaganda machines attempt to

destroy the lives of anyone who speaks

out against Israel's atrocities. I pay

my bills with Jewhating Bile, even

though I've never said anything

whatsoever against Judaism or Jews. Only

piece of [ __ ] Zionists who murder

children by the hundreds of thousands.

They've stopped trying to respond to my

videos exposing their lies about science

because it just makes them look even

more pathetic than they already do and

also only makes me debunk them even

harder while they whine about how many

subscribers I have. And of course, I

wasn't targeting Avi because he's a

piece of [ __ ] grifting fraud who lies

about science to make money. Heavens no.

It's because I'm a dirty anti-semite who

hates all Jews. I went on a horrible

rant about Israel's terrorism, genocide,

and murdering children. Oh my goodness,

how deplorable it is to speak out

against genocide and the murdering of

children. Where are my morals? I've

opened the hate gates by valuing human

life and denouncing genocide. You've

heard it loud and clear, folks.

Discovery Institute loves genocide. They

love that Israel has murdered hundreds

of thousands of children and is starving

a million more to death. And according

to them, anyone who doesn't love that is

a filthy terrorist. Obviously, nobody is

surprised by this hot take. The DI is a

propaganda mill funded by sociopathic

Christian nationalists and Zionism is at

its heart a Christian movement. It's

Western powers usurping the Jewish

identity to justify imperialism in the

Middle East for the purpose of

destabilization and resource extraction.

But I guess these dicks didn't get the

memo that public opinion is very much on

the side of genocide being bad. Nobody

with more than half a brain gives two

shits about Zionist Hasbbor [ __ ] So

by broadcasting their vile genocidal

ideology, they simply reveal themselves

as being just as morally bankrupt as

they are intellectually bankrupt. And

this is why I will never stop crapping

all over these disgusting, pathetic,

toxic, dangerous, scienceed denying,

genocide supporting piece of [ __ ]

frauds. When you call people

anti-semmites, that's a signal for

intelligent people to rally around in

support because it's a synonym for

anyone who is telling the truth about

Israel. What else can we look at to

expose their pathetic agenda? Hey, check

this out. For criticizing her field,

physicist Sabina Hosenfelder gets

cancelled by her institution. Look at

that. They're Sabina fans. That makes

sense since I've pointed out multiple

times by now how the agenda of the

Christian theocrats is essentially

identical to that of the fascist

oligarchs like Peter Teal whose agenda

is identical to the rhetoric Sabina

spews. Super smart Sabina blew the

whistle on stupid pointless buttthead

physics and now she's a victim of cancel

culture you guys. They cite an article

from the Wall Street Journal about

conspiracy physics that explains how

she's a fraud along with Eric Weinstein,

which mentions my work exposing them

both. Funny how the DI doesn't mention

me, huh? No, it's more important to talk

about garbage papers since the DI wants

the public to distrust all legitimate

scientific output just like Sabina and

Eric do or Peter Teal rather. Isn't it

funny how the more you dig into this

[ __ ] the more you see how it's all

connected, Discovery Institute, Eric and

Sabina, they're all just vacuous

mouthpieces meant to manipulate the

public. And they're all funded by the

same dirty money. Don't pay attention to

the erosion of the separation of church

and state. Don't worry about the global

rise of fascism. Don't think about the

evaporation of free speech, rapidly

growing wealth inequality, and the

disappearance of the middle class. Don't

be scared of the militarized police

force invading every city and cracking

skulls open. They're there to protect

you from Antifa. Don't worry about any

of this at all. Lay down for fascism.

Look the other way on genocide and

antagonize anyone who speaks out against

it. They're just stupid anti-semmites.

Acquies with your own subjugation and

everything will be okay. Sorry, boners.

Not today. Not any day. You keep pushing

out the propaganda and I'll keep showing

everyone what revolting, worthless

pieces of [ __ ] you really are. That much

you can count on. So that's it from

Michael Edgar, the neurosurgeon who

doesn't understand how brains work. Some

DI guys fumble fields they have no

experience with. This one fumbles his

own. I guess that's progress. Which DI

[ __ ] will I expose next? We'll just

have to wait and see. Until next time.