You might think the new pundits are wrong but they can’t be more wrong than the science pundits of the recent past. The day is coming when, if someone accuses you of being “anti-science” because you are skeptical of trendy claims, you’ll be thinking, “Thank goodness! I was afraid that the lumpen certainty of the representatives of Science was catching. It appears not to be.”
It’s worth considering that many less-educated people may have learned their Darwinism more from these freak shows than from Darwin-promoting textbooks at school. The shows were more eye-catching and memorable.
Over time, science in many areas is likely to wither as it comes more and more under the domination of trolls with agendas. And, curiously, being a Darwinist is no longer a form of protection.
Rob Stadler: (puncturing the balloon) The fact that it is recognized as a meaningful contribution is a testimony to the desperation to show progress—it stands out only because no meaningful progress can be made in any direction that is actually relevant to life.
Carolyn Moynihan: Post-Margaret Sanger, “PPFA also has leadership issues, and staff in some clinics are fed up with bullying bosses and low wages. Indeed, one abortion activist blames Planned Parenthood for the fact that “the pro-life movement has us on our heels.””
Inspiring Philosophy: There is no greater problem for materialists and physicalists that trying to explain how the brain could create consciousness. This video argues the hard problem implies the mind cannot reduce to matter.
If there were a prize for the Darwinian idea that has proven least helpful to Darwinism, would junk DNA be the winner?
It’s not enough that DNA is a language but now it has proofreaders? Keep moving along, folks, no design to see here…
The popular Portuguese-language ID blog sent us this YouTube vid, explaining the situation.
David Klinghoffer: The truth is that placing a man in the Monkey House was intended as an education for the public in Darwinian evolution. As John West has said, Ota Benga was “only one of thousands of indigenous peoples who were put on display in America in the name of Darwinian evolution.”
Readers may also remember ENCODE from a flap a few years ago when Darwinian Dan Graur announced that the ENCODE team had to be wrong in saying that there wasn’t nearly as much junk DNA as had been thought. After a while, Graur just wasn’t doing politeness any more.
Sheldon: I have long advocated a rewrite of the Big Bang model that converts the cosmic microwave numbers into a Hubble constant. But strangely, like Darwin’s model in biology, we see few cosmologists willing to kill the sacred cow. They would rather change the laws of physics (“new physics”) than change their model.
Scambray: “the polar bear, Behe writes, “adjusted to its harsh environment mainly by degrading its genes that its ancestors already possessed. Despite its impressive abilities, rather than evolving, it has adapted predominately by devolving.”
Shedinger: … when discussing major transitions in evolutionary history. In these discussions, Hall and Hallgrimsson set aside science and engage in the telling of fairy tales worthy of Hans Christian Andersen.
We are also informed that both fish are “living fossils,” which is supposed to settle the matter. The main strength of the explanations is that they uphold Darwinian thinking.