Maybe Darwinian naturalism can’t count as a motive in principle because it is Approved. That said, this story reminds some of us of two things: The Columbine massacre and Finnish massacre, where the shooters’ belief in Darwinism was even more explicit. And also the curious case of Eric Pianka.
Budziszewski is onto something here. In a Darwinian universe, there is no reason not to lie to achieve a survival goal. In the traditional universe, classically assumed to exist by most human civilizations, morality is intrinsic to the nature of the conscious entities of the universe.
Mivart was one of those respectable non-Darwinian paleontologists who got buried in the tide of Darwinism. We are asked to note a fairly recent discussion of his contributions to paleontology.
Of general interest — and especially observe the rise of China, India and Nigeria: Food for thought. END PS: Jawa points to some interesting points of data with images worth highlighting. First, number of sites (where approx. 200 mn are regularly active): Likewise, it is noted by tekeye that “[d]espite there being over 1.5 billion […]
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.
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.
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.
The other day at the DeepMind blog, someone came up with an idea for improving Waymo’s self-driving cars: Evolution
If these biodiversity profs really need to muddy the history as much as this, maybe things are even worse than we knew. Stay tuned.
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?
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.
Their unreflective belligerence advertises all the other problems. Barbara Kay talks about the fallout from David Gelernter’s coming to doubt Darwin.