The sociological problem in the science world is that there is no funding for the role of a defense-only advocate whose only job is to poke holes in the plaintiff’s theory.
A friend of Uncommon Descent was asked recently, is there any proposition in Darwinism so obviously stupid and false that a Darwinist would not defend it? The far-sighted mares, for example? He responded, … Assuming a Darwinist tries to be self-consistent: why should we believe anything a Darwinist tells us?
In “‘Man is more than an overdeveloped monkey’: Raymond Tallis explains why he has declared a war of words on the trendy ideas that underpin ‘neuromania’ and ‘Darwinitis’” ( Spiked, Tim Black writes, There is a chill to Tallis’s lament. Whether in the form of neuromania or its close relative Darwinitis, we stand reduced, degraded. Read More…
The US Darwin lobby announces: There’s only a month left for you to submit your idea for a new NCSE bumper sticker, so sharpen your pencils, cudgel your brains, and consult your muse! This is your chance to speak loud, speak proud for evolution, by crafting a killer slogan that could end up on the Read More…
Skepticism? The Sagan crowd could do with a bucket of skepticism; the problem is, they don’t like the real thing. Sagan thought chimpanzees would write autobiographies and space aliens were just over the next asteroid. In what reasonable sense was he a skeptic?
Hyped saga of clever chimp magically transforms the chimp into rational being
Now, how did the rat learn to do this? Are the selfish genes God or is Darwin wrong?
Civilization is learned, but is learned by a process that includes reason, which Darwinism (materialist atheism) cannot accept. To accept it is death – death to Darwinism and Christian Darwinism alike.
The government needs to vote the people out of office and elect a new “pro-science” public that would never think they had any right to question such things.
Why does anyone pay attention to one-way skeptic Michael Shermer’s war on the mind’s reality?
Max “Multiverse” Tegmark: To me, the key point is that if theories are scientific, then it’s legitimate science to work out and discuss all their consequences even if they involve unobservable entities. For a theory to be falsifiable, we need not be able to observe and test all its predictions, merely at least one of Read More…
From ScienceDaily (August 3, 2011) we learn: “Six Million Years of Savanna: Grasslands, Wooded Grasslands Accompanied Human Evolution”: Scientists have spent a century debating the significance of savanna landscape in human evolution, including the development of upright walking, increased brain size and tool use. Why? Part of the problem has been a fuzzy definition of Read More…
In case you wondered what you are buying when you buy the Darwinist worldview
the failing “RNA world” claims for origin of life
Human evolution: It was actually the 3.7 million year old running shoes that tipped researchers off