Why was the racists’ idea about brain size considered at all? Materialism does that to people and King was right to see it and call it out.
Join science historian Michael Flannery tomorrow for a birthday party and a look at Wallace’s legacy.
Having run out of even interesting ideas, let alone good ones, Darwinists want to stop other people from publishing any. We’ll be hearing plenty from their ilk in years ahead.
D’Souza: Here I refute Stephen Jay Gould’s argument that the pattern of evolution reveals no purpose or direction.
Including: A new, more student-friendly proof for the derivative of sin(x)
Even if you don’t believe in God, can you at least believe that 2+2=4? That puts you on one side of a growing cultural divide.
Darwinism is pretty much as silly as astrology but it basks in the golden glow of “science.” It must be true if it is endorsed by science institutions and all that. Okay, whatever.
The problem that would be obvious to anyone but the researchers (apparently) is that everyone involved in the study knew what was going on in the big picture and that what they were doing didn’t really matter. The opposite would be true of our ancestors.
Flannery: When Gertrude suggested to Julian [Huxley, Darwin’s faithful puppy] that her book might shed new light on Darwinian evolution, he immediately protested, “New! There is nothing new to say about evolution. Everything that needs saying has already been said. The theory is incontrovertible.” She says that abruptly ended the conversation.
W. Ford Doolittle’s essay is worth a read. On reflection, if Darwinism weren’t failing, wouldn’t Darwinians just continue to scorn Gaia? Imagine them having to look for places to be now…
Just stop people from talking
We wondered what Darwinian evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne was doing recently besides being nice to cats (a very fine habit and the sign of a true gentleman). So this now…
Losing an ability is not the question. It is gaining an ability that matters. But if people need a publication and a bunch of citations, maybe that’s the story they’ll pretend props up Darwinism.
Because stories don’t need to be real, only comprehensible and entertaining, they would naturally work to inculcate Darwinism. Or magic. Better than facts would. But so?
Fascinating info about snakes’ warning signals but the author ends up defending dumb Darwinism which, increasingly, complicates explanations. One must come up with a Darwinian explanation for things instead of just reporting and learning from them. Or asking what the information probability is, for this type of change.