Wouldn’t structuralism (pre-existing patterns) make better sense than Darwinism (it somehow evolved by trial and error)?
Russ White: It is not enough, as Turing proposed, to trick a person into thinking a computer is a person. Somewhere there must be a person who intends this result. If the artificial intelligence cannot provide that intent, then the person who designs the system must.
It sounds as though these researchers want to quietly abandon Darwinian randomness in favour of a structuralist approach to the unfolding of life but — understandably — do not want to hear from an army of Darwinian orcs.
Would these newer approaches to science publishing make it easier to discuss difficult topics? For example, if Gunter Bechly could have been evaluated only on his work and not on the fact that he switched sides in the Darwin wars, wouldn’t that be better for everyone but Darwin trolls?
Carroll wants a multiverse out of any new findings, one suspects. One question many might have is, apart from the lack of a multiverse, how bad is the current situation in physics? What, besides that, is going wrong?
Not from Darwinism? A technique to reveal cells’ epigenetic features is detailed
A new study seems to substantiate Max Planck’s quip that new paradigms arise when the supporters of the old ones die.
Remember as you read about Gaia and “life’s ability to shape the universe,” that this op-ed appeared in Scientific American, not Mystic Waters News. Listen carefully and, somewhere in the background, you will hear Darwinian evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne crooning, “I fought Woo-WOO and woo-WOO won.” Some North American readers will recognize a musical snatch here. In fairness, we warned them. ID isn’t the big enemy. ID proposes to reform evolution studies along real-world lines, not to dump the canon of science.
The idea that natural selection acting on random mutation could fill the world with exquisitely complex life forms makes sense to fashionable intellectuals today and it doesn’t happen to be true.
Why wave goodbye? Because if this skull is a guide, the transition from not-really-Lucy to a-bit-like-Lucy to almost-Lucy to Hi, Lucy!! never really happened.
Given that political correctness is organized lying (usually for control and profit), a boom in political incorrectness is a boom in honesty.
In the wake of Epstein’s apparent suicide in prison, his predilection for funding science organizations as a virtuous cover make for reading worthy of an airport potboiler. But from some of this, there may be something to be learned.
Yes,but what hope is there that textbooks could start teaching reality when even the right to question the Darwinian [sheet] is still a big controversy in many places? Could science writers like Jabr and others agree that it is time to make textbooks about evolution sound like the reality and not like the 1925 Monkey Trial revisited?
Tradejah! Let’s have a ban on teaching Darwinism too. Oh wait — is that what’s supposed to be introduced early and often, because the “Wales Humanists coordinator” and “Humanists UK” want it? Darwinism is an obvious intrusion of religion into the school system. A different religion from what many people follow, but still a religion. Otherwise, why would humanists care so much?
For many intellectuals, it must seem like an agonizing, nasty divorce but Phillips would be well placed to take it in stride.