One life form has even developed an immaterial mind. If a theory of evolution can provide no account of this, it is not going to be particularly useful at predicting the future. On the other hand, its premises might make good science fiction.
Sort of thing that had to happen eventually. Old and bust: “According to geneticist and author Richard Dawkins, Fisher [1890-1962] was the greatest biologist since Charles Darwin.” Old and bust, it seems.
Most likely, “emotions research” is nonsense. But tying it to Darwinism means that its practitioners can hammer down hard on that lectern even if they are not making sense to the people whose emotions they are supposed to be describing. It’s all those people’s fault for being “creationists.”
Shedinger: “ Darwinism… in more recent times has grown into a philosophical grand narrative designed to naturalize and normalize a fully materialist worldview.” Indeed. And that’s WHY there is so much controversy over teaching Darwinism in tax-supported schools with compulsory attendance.
Well, the New Atheists, however tattered and fragmented their movement is now, can boast at least that one success. They’ve made quite clear to alert persons that Darwinism (referred to here as “evolution”) is atheistic.
Why is it that naturalism ends up sounding so much like folklore? Cells “cheat,” which means they can think like people, right? Oh wait. The mind is an illusion … but anyway, cells “think”? Sure. That’ll work.
The logic behind the examples of bad design as evidence against ID, is that if a feature in nature has flaws, it cannot have been intelligently designed. The same logic, applied to the old Jaguar I once owned, would imply that it was not designed.
Ah yes. Mutterings about the need for censorship. When we don’t have a reasonable response to a troubling topic, first, we self-censor. Then we censor anyone who raises it. Sure, guys. That’ll work. The questions are still there but only for those capable of addressing them.
It sounds like he really believes it. Well that might be the world as Martin Rees needs to see it.
Suzan Mazur notes that the Khan Academy has tended to promote natural selection as “evolution” generally.
That’s the claim at RealClearScience and, wouldn’t you know, Darwin doubters are supposedly to blame.
He was always very much their sort of guy; one wonders what took them so long. It seems as though Templeton is returning to an earlier approach here. Collins is definitely a God Squad type, having held the right positions. There was a middle period when some of their awards gave pause for thought
We can tell what’s wrong with science today when we try to take Siegel’s dead-serious explanation of what he thinks a theory in science is and apply it to: Darwinian evolution theory
And starts to acknowledge some harsh realities that most Darwinists drown in a word salad of obfuscation.
Cepelewicz: The very existence of organelles in these bacteria, coupled with intriguing parallels to the more familiar ones that characterize eukaryotes, has prompted scientists to revise how they think about the evolution of cellular complexity — all while offering new ways to probe the basic principles that underlie it.