A friend writes, “There was one paradigm that Kuhn assumed was not a paradigm, but a fact of nature: Darwinism. His whole approach to scientific revolutions was Darwinian. New paradigms emerge as accidental mutations, not because of new evidence. “
The world of Darwinian evolution features so many exceptionally clever animals that are nothing like the humdrum creatures we must tie down or tranquilize in order to help. And the profs just attribute it all to natural selection, as if that would explain anything in a situation where some prevision seems required.
On Michael Behe’s new book, Darwin Devolves. Join here. Just a friendly reminder about the webinar I am hosting later today with Joshua Swamidass to discuss Behe’s new book [which Swamidass attacked in Science]. You are welcome to participate anonymously if you want — questions can even be submitted anonymously. We kick off at 3pm […]
Popscience: No natural mechanism is remotely suggested, so we must assume that it is sheer mental power, of the sort that we species-ists once thought existed only in humans, that enables the hen bird to plan for her chicks’ future. Shame on us!
So much complex, specified information and we are to believe it all just sort of happened via natural selection acting on random mutation (Darwinism)? Interestingly, this particular item doesn’t even make that claim. Maybe just too ridiculous.
As Michael Egnor tells us, scientism is not a cure for stupidity. But never mind, quite a few science savants have rushed in fearlessly: Evolutionary biologist David Krakauer, President of the Santa Fe Institute, told Nautilus, “Stupidity is using a rule where adding more data doesn’t improve your chances of getting [a problem] right. In […]
In an essay on Paul Gosselin ’s Flight from the Absolute: Cynical Observations on the Postmodern West, Volume II, we are told, Over two and a half decades have passed since Phillip E. Johnson kick-started the intelligent design (ID) movement in America with the publication of his path-breaking book, Darwin on Trial (1991). In this […]
But, of course, Michael Behe’s point in Darwin Devolves is that natural selection primarily breaks or blunts complex things, resulting in survival at a cost. Sounds like Dr. Nesse is saying the same thing, not that he would admit it.
Behe: :Darwin’s mechanism of random mutation and natural selection strains to explain even the very simplest molecular example of cooperation (called a “disulfide bond”: Yet we are told that Darwinism explains all the complex machinery.
The strategy is not outstandingly successful and the researchers are now looking for an explanation other than a selective advantage. That’s wise on their part. This sounds like another strategy where the bird merely adapts; sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t. No big Darwin theory is needed.
The problem here isn’t that Behe is necessarily right in each case. He’s more like a whistleblower. He might be wrong in some cases – but not by enough that it matters! That’s what makes a person expungible.
What, him again? And no new, ground-breaking book? Richard Dawkins is one of the best known scientists in the world. He is author of ‘The Selfish Gene’, which upturned our understanding of natural selection, and in 2017 was named the most influential science book of all time. He is also author of ‘The God Delusion’, […]
We recommend you listen to the podcast, watch the video, and ignore Jerry. In fairness, he has got at least as far as realizing that anti-Semitism is a problem among the raging Woke. We can’t ask for more than that just now. It’s hard for a Darwinian to understand a mathematician anyway. We’ve seen it a few times before. Something about things adding up.
Knowledge of the sheer massive intricacy of design in nature grows by the day and the only possible response can now be attacking anyone who wants to discuss it seriously. True, the space aliens won’t run afoul of the No Divine Foot rule but if that’s the only problem they solve, they’re not going to shed much light on the nature of nature.
Funny our language should be poorly adapted after all this time. When people are at great pains to try to alter their language so as to pretend that something isn’t true that really is, what should we call that? Should we cater to it?