Crease writes as if he would very much like to buy into Carroll’s ideas but still thinks that sanity has something to offer. Possibly, many establishment science figures teeter on that brink.
What would an urban sophisticate make of doubts about Darwinism? Once the enforcement trolls have been banished below stairs, hasn’t Darwinism become something people patter at cocktail parties, so that others know that they are bicoastal and just deplore! their privilege? Instead of being genuine deplorables who might doubt?
Well, it probably does over time but the story turns out to be more complex than that.
Researchers are not sure but the fact that we are even wondering shows how much has changed and helps us understand why doubts about textbook Darwinism are becoming respectable.
If the Weismann barrier is broken, that’s barbarians at the gates of textbook Darwinism, no? It turns out, all sorts of sources can contribute to inheritance.
Hmmm. Does someone have Miss Manners’ private e-mail or some other discreet means to get in touch with her, perhaps through a friend? Possibly Dr. Graur might wish to consider luncheon at some point. She is his guest, of course… 😉
Philosopher and novelist David Berlinski is an early and interesting Darwin skeptic. His iconic 1996 Commentary essay, The Deniable Darwin, set thousands of people thinking.
If computers got that smart. Kurzweil’s critics believe that the superintelligent computers he needs can’t exist. If the critics are correct, we have misread the AI revolution.
The panic in sociology, psychology, nutrition science, and pharmacology has been growing as >70% papers with “p-values” smaller than 0.05 are discovered to be unrepeatable.
Their unreflective belligerence advertises all the other problems. Barbara Kay talks about the fallout from David Gelernter’s coming to doubt Darwin.
If you believe that nature is all there is and you can’t otherwise explain the mind, the mind must be part of nature and therefore electrons are conscious. Unless you want to say that the mind is an illusion.
Statistician Gary Smith thinks the real danger today is not that computers are smarter than us, but that we think computers are smarter than us.
We often get some variation of “Until ID proposes a ‘mechanism’ for how the design is accomplished, it cannot be taken seriously as an explanation for origins.” Here is an example from frequent commenter Bob O’H (who, after years of participation on this site should know better): If ID is correct, then the design has Read More…