Even if everything is all pristine and honest with climate science today, the settled habit of simply censoring opposing views inevitably corrupts. Over time it corrupts absolutely. Darwinism is paying the price even now for that kind of thing, if we go by the defensive Darwinblather around the current, sublime embarrassment of de novo genes.
Never mind that the de novo genes have no apparent ancestors. Universal common ancestry, the supposed bedrock of the system, is not as important as simple, unquestioning obedience to the current pronouncements of the ideologues.
In our current cultural climate, it is very difficult to have a useful discussion of the contribution Darwinism made to modern racism, as evidenced by racist yammer today featuring “natural selection.” To recap, Darwinism made racism “scientific.” That was much easier to sell to the educated classes in the nineteenth century than the idea that some people’s papa was a god and the rest of us were just bricks. And many committed and devoted Darwinists believed in and co-operated with the new, “scientific” racism. Until all that can be fully and freely acknowledged, the matter can never be laid to rest.
The new atheist project appears to be failing anyway. It might help Dawkins’s numbers if he did debate. But not our business, of course.
John Zmirak asks Woke students.
According to Weikart, unfortunately, it is not fake news. White nationalists use Darwinism and evolutionary psychology to promote their perspective.
Rob Sheldon (offering an assessment): “I don’t really know why every new thing in particle physics turns into “dark matter”–perhaps because the street lights are so dim over there?”
One would be glad to hear that this is fake news but the history of popular cultural Darwinism means that it could well be genuine. Remember eugenics. Meantime, Korwin-Mikke’s said other things, consistent with this view.
Well, the state of computing has certainly changed but, after so many years of no Contact, the magic has probably also gone out of the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) project. Also, to use the “Woke” approach that is becoming increasingly popular in popular science, why should SETI get to say what is and isn’t a valid search for ET? Why should SETI control the narrative? Can’t everyone have or be their own ET? Sow the wind…
“Joe has been told since the 1980s that the world is going to end due to global warming. It sounds like those crazy guys with the placards who say the world is gonna end tomorrow. The earth’s sell-by-date keeps getting pushed forward.” One reason for many recent political upheavals in a variety of jurisdictions is that Joe has begun to wonder if he’s really the one with the problem.
He was a “thoroughgoing evolutionist,” a reader writes to say but he made one exception…
Mark Steyn: “His own record prediction-wise was “a mixed bag”. But he always admitted he was wrong, and endeavored to explain why he was wrong.”
Some of us would be more impressed if the authors of this type of work attributed their OWN beliefs to these types of sources. How about this: Belief that there is no design in nature comes from spending a lot of time reading and writing boring, useless papers and sitting in boring, useless meetings, Eventually, homo academicus evolved to believe that all nature is like that.
Freeman Dyson comments on ID: “My opinion is that most people believe in intelligent design as a reasonable explanation of the universe, and this belief is entirely compatible with science. So it is unwise for scientists to make a big fight against the idea of intelligent design.” (2007)
But why on earth did she think that such a strategy would ever be an aid to effective communication? Wasn’t she, at bottom, just trying to put the supposedly stupid mid-Western rubes on display for the supposedly sophisticated Brits? That stuff is wearing thinner all the time though the targeted Brit demographic might be the last to know.