Lee Spetner, in his extremely informative book The Evolution Revolution, drives home the point that if you don’t have a mechanism to explain circumstantial evidence, your evidence simply doesn’t count.
“Teleology, the purpose-driven innate property of life itself, precedes natural selection as the primary source of agency that explains evolution. Darwinism utterly misses this elementary fact.”
Bill Dembski: So much in Rosenhouse’s book is careless, sloppy, giving no indication that he has carefully studied and adequately comprehended my work or that of my colleagues.
Weikart has written a number of books in his long academic career on the links between Darwinism and malign social trends like elitism and racism.
But, to the extent that Darwinism is all-sufficient, the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis, pioneered by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge attempts to solve a problem that doesn’t — in theory — exist … But, if it DOES exist…
If you think you have a topic for them, the organizers stress diversity but here’s what that means: ….. No, we didn’t notice anything about diverse viewpoints either. Must be a typo.
Get this: “Nobody cares about the facts; an accusation is sufficient.” Oh, for heaven’s sakes, look on the bright side!: At least we know it’s the authentic Twitter mob and not some second-rate substitute like a starving wolf pack…
Michael Behe: “The more science progresses, the more hapless Darwin seems.”
I was thinking recently, about how many audiobooks are consumed by people these days. I would guess that the main reason behind this consumption is convenience. Many people just don’t have the time, or don’t create the time, to really sit down and get their head in a book. But I understand that for many, Read More…
Well, of course, anything that horizontal gene transfer did, Darwinian evolution did not do. And if HGT is quite common, it’s going to be much harder to tell what Darwinism actually did.
Heather Remoff is the author of What’s Sex Got To Do With It? (2022). She seems like another witness to the fact that one can question Darwin today without getting cancelled.
The term “function” in life forms is linked historically with the idea that life forms show evidence of design. Therefore, philosopher Emmanuel Ratti and molecular biologist Pierre-Luc Germain argue, biologists shouldn’t use it … The problem with their position is not that it is opposed to intelligent design theory but that it is in conflict with the self-evident nature of life forms.
I suspect that almost every week there’s at least one article published somewhere that undermines Darwinian theory. Now using the term, ‘Darwinian theory’, might ruffle some people’s feathers. Yet, without Darwinian theory, neo-Darwinism makes no sense; it lacks any intellectual foundation. And, so, here we are inching towards the 200th anniversary of Origin of Species Read More…
Casey Luskin: We’ve seen a decline in the amount of high quality science writing from blogs like Panda’s Thumb. Some old voices in the Darwin blogosphere have diminished and some new ones have popped up. Jerry Coyne certainly is one of the ones that has really popped up on his very popular blog.
Terry Scambray: Ah, the mantra that Americans are addicted to sugary noble lies about their biological and cultural uniqueness is itself a noble lie that the intelligentsia continually uses against their fellow Americans. It is repeated, for example, when dreadful events occur like the Kennedy assassination or 9/11, the epithet suggesting that Americans can’t stand the truth so they conjure up fantasies which declutter a complicated, messy world full of loose ends.