It is a sign of significant loss of cultural confidence when people are willing to reconfigure their “deepest convictions” even when the evidence against them isn’t “compelling.” Almost always that’s because what they call their faith is not actually among their deepest convictions.
From Mike Keas’s new book: “The reason for promoting both the specific like about the sphericity of earth and the general lie that religion and science are in natural and eternal conflict in Western society is to defend Darwinism.”
Maybe it’s the other way around in many cases.
From two people, from very different perspectives. First, German biologist Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig and Nathan Lents, author of a “bad design” book.
Good for him but what will be really interesting to see now is how many of his fellow Darwinian evolutionary biologists join him in protest. People tend to think the mob is coming for someone else, someone who “deserves” it.
What, the “single best idea anyone ever had” (philosopher Daniel Dennett on Darwin ) is now comparable to gravity? Experimental physicist Rob Sheldon would take issue with that. Yes, a psychologist seems to think Darwinian natural selection is indeed a force of nature like gravity: Natural selection, one of the fundamental processes of evolution, has […]
Retired biologist Darwinian evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne, author of Why Evolution Is True, has begun to understand what it means to say that university campuses are no longer a home for ideas, but for grievances: Many universities, including public ones, have created “bias response teams,” in which speech considered hateful or offensive is reported to […]
When the battle for the idea was lost a generation ago.
Says Karsten Pultz, author of Exit Evolution: Recently, I wrote a piece for UD describing how a Danish Christian newspaper, Kristeligt Dagblad, is obviously biased in favour of evolution whenever it covers the creation vs. Evolution issue. In the article “Something Is Rotten In The State Of Denmark” I aired my frustration over the fact […]
Andrew Jones: In particular, software engineers know how complex it can be to implement a “simple” change. From this perspective, the Darwinian story is a lot less plausible.
For spiders, raccoons, and such? Big, high-tech cities are new and different. But you don’t get remarkable results from these independent theatres of evolution. That’s clear from a recent long article, well worth reading, mostly for the fascinating information but also for the need, so common these days, to assert that something is happening which obviously isn’t.
In recent months, the heirs of Darwin have come up against the social justice warriors and turned into enraged spaghetti. They are not set up to sustain a long siege. They have always expected to win just by declaring Darwin’s Truth, ridiculing all contrary data, and getting opponents fired. And they have always been allowed to do that. Will that change?
It’s no wonder that biologists have debated whether this “reinforcement”form of natural selection even exists. If it does, it is acting as a purposeful agent. Now, if these researchers have found an instance of that, what does it mean?
We keep discovering more information systems in plants and the amount of time for them to develop has been growing shorter. As the Darwinist becomes more urgent, his explanations grow less likely.
One doesn’t mean to be unkind. But we hardly need “evolution” to know that giving a bully a task that builds self-esteem will distract him from bullying.