News

That’s the new buzz here: The vast majority of people believe that there are only two alternative ways to explain the origins of biological diversity. One way is Creationism that depends upon supernatural intervention by a divine Creator. The other way is Neo-Darwinism, which has elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems. Both views are inconsistent with significant bodies of empirical evidence and have evolved into hard-line ideologies. There is a need for a more open “third way” of discussing evolutionary change based on empirical observations. Supporters include Shapiro, Noble, Koonin, Neuman, Jablonka—non-Darwin lobby researchers into  evolution. Interested in understanding nature, not getting a judge to agree to enshrine their beliefs in Read More ›

But for Darwinism, would modern race theory exist? (For Fred Reed, here.) Another reaction to Nicholas Wade’s parting shot at the New York Times, a book resurrecting Darwinian racism Pacific Standard: The concept of human races appears to be solidly grounded in present-day biology and our evolutionary history. But if you asked that conference of geneticists to give you a genetic definition of race, they wouldn’t be able to do it. Human races are not natural genetic groups; they are socially constructed categories. Political correctness warning: This has now become a politically incorrect belief. It wasn’t so yesterday or last month. The New York Times has announced it is so. Now, the truth of this claim is not obvious. The idea Read More ›