To find peace, he had to think carefully about the difference between the evolutionary materialist account of the human being and what he was actually experiencing.
Robert J. Marks, author with design theorist William Dembski and Winston Ewert of Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics talks with Gary Smith, author The AI Delusion, about how, in general, based data is produced Smith: Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy # 1 is that I’m going to prove what a great shot I am and so I stand […]
Just think what people will believe if we call it “evolution.” Will such a belief help or hurt recovery?
Funny how so many people, whether they agreed with Darwin or not, got it so wrong all these years … How did it get to be called “social Darwinism” anyway, as opposed to, say, “social Florence Nightingale-ism”?
In 2008, Reiss ended up resigning from a Royal Society post because of an earlier effort to make Darwinism sound reasonable.
es, in one phrase, Mazur, author of Darwin Overthrown: Hello Mechanobiology, captures the problem: “he doesn’t define it.” Much Darwinism today survives on the fumes of “evolution” in general.
It remains to be seen whether the quest to find the new Darwin will attract the brightest lights in the world today. Honestly… why should it?
They are trying to interpret a world they don’t understand. They cling to Evolution (Darwinism) as TRUTH! because someone told them so. They are often not smart enough to see that any true story would be much more complex. Any interesting story is more complex too.
Researchers may find it a relief to just discuss the situation honestly, minus Darwinian claptrap. Maybe people would get more done.
Jerry will never be short of an explanation, no matter what the circumstance.
Erasmus Darwin remains largely unread in an age when he could be read online for free. There must be something amiss with Ed Simon’s assumption that persons of his type can “cure the world.”
It sounds as though the necessary evolution occurred a long time ago and that a Darwinian process just isn’t happening. But they are not likely allowed to discuss it that way.
No mention is made of the fact that the general acceptance of Darwinism, in particular, enabled science-backed racism. Darwinian evolution theory made racism seem modern and cool instead backward and stupid.
Under the circumstances, it is a testament to human decency that more Darwinians AREN’T racists.
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.