We hope this sort of discussion won’t lead to efforts to “deplatform” Darwin because there are lots of discussions we need to have. The good news is that, after all these years, it looks like we are beginning to have some of them.
When you think about it, it’s a better long-term strategy to predict that something has function than that it doesn’t.
Available for preorder
Darwin’s theory, Ruse writes meant that ” the way was opened for sound non-belief, although almost always non-believers – agnostics and atheists – take their stance less on science and more on grounds of theology and philosophy.”
The thing is, when Wilson was alive, Darwinians denied the racism or insisted it was irrelevant and that Darwin’s sacred cause was to oppose slavery, yada yada …
At Evolution and News, there’s a link to a 2017 article tackling the problems of inflationary theory in the field of cosmology. What I find so interesting is the second to last paragraph in this six page article. Here’s how it reads: A common misconception is that experiments can be used to falsify a theory. Read More…
In recent years, the ever-compliant US evangelicals have been making nice with the Darwinians* (nature read in tooth and claw, and all that). Casey Luskin did not get the memo.
Unfocused claims of “racism” are a familiar Woke tactic for destroying careers and reputations and they are only beginning to hit Darwinians.
Darwinian evolutionary biologist Coyne doesn’t dispute teaching Indigenous beliefs in a cultural class. But he may be at a major disadvantage because – if many years of his blogging are any guide – he wants science taught as a branch of naturalist atheism. Thus, the question arises, why shouldn’t we teach naturalist atheism too as an outcropping of Western culture?
Had Wilson’s career begun fifty years later, it would have been quickly and fatally Woked.
Here’s a question: Given what we (hope we) know today about the origin and development of life forms, would anyone today propose neo-Darwinism (natural selection) in any of its forms as an explanation – if they hadn’t already had to accept it anyway in order to get to where they are today?
Of course not. The whole point was to pretend that nothing does.
James Tour is a chemist. Denis Lamoureux is an associate professor of science and religion at St. Joseph’s College in the University of Alberta
Those other evolutionary biologists had better get with the program and denounce Colin Wright, right? Or just shut up and stay shut up. From an old source: Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind. We’d be happy to help but we can only help people who think that intellectual freedom is not negotiable. It must be okay to criticize Darwin too.
Luskin: One of the largest difficulties with evolution is the word itself. Supporters of Darwinian theory love to switch the word around so the average person can never be sure what they are talking about.