An American conservative thinkmag published geneticist Razib Khan, glorifying Darwinism, and he turned out to have apparent racist links. Then someone with even more pronounced apparent racist links rose to defend him.
It’s somewhat like blaspheming against Darwin by airing doubts about his theories in the American school system. But in Pakistan, the death penalty is involved.
If we accumulate precise information as to the method of epigenetic transmission, we will have the material for a serious theory of epigenetics in evolution. That is how Darwinism fades. Not by knowing less about evolution but by knowing more.
She notes: “The problem with Wilson’s perspective is that Darwin’s theory of natural selection has been discredited. Biology is no longer the descriptive science it once was.”
Every so often, for whatever reason, a US conservative thinkmag steps on Darwin’s rake.
Gelernter is HOW likely to read Coyne’s diatribe and conclude he must be all wrong? But then Darwinians tend not to notice what others do. Presumably, it’s an adaptation.
So stuff that isn’t true provides an “excellent foundation” and “compelling proof of the theory of common descent?”Wow. What a way to make people who never doubted common descent before start to do so…After all, one can only assume that an accurate presentation would not have supported the theory.
For a $50 VISA gift card: How could natural selection inhibit major evolutionary change from occurring on a gradual step-by-step basis? (also another question)
Benjamin Dierker: This dissatisfaction is a matter of public record, even if it lacks public attention, and despite the narrative running contrary.
Our Danish friend Karsten Pultz, author of Exit Evolution, read the dramatic story of the flight from fundamentalism and responded by publishing his own account of how he escaped science denial. It is a somewhat different story
Whether ID offers correct explanations is separate from the fact that Darwinism does not. Anyway, just think. Gelernter actually read the books, instead of merely opposing them. He goes on to develop his thinking in detail.
Darwinian philosopher Michael Ruse says, “Today’s professional evolutionists are committed Darwinians…
The story addresses the way Rees has been in the background of creative thinkers in biology who are grappling with what we now know. Non-Darwinian things.
Maybe it should happen to everyone who is intellectually young in a world run by Darwin’s museum pieces. It’s becoming a rite of passage, maybe even an honor.
If we are going to talk about “considerable debate” and “much that is unknown,” let’s consider the way underlying Darwinian fundamentalism skews discussion. We’ve touched on a few such issues recently. To name just two …