It’s just a conventional story in favor of hydrothermal vents for the origin of life. Some of us can remember back to when most such stories would begin by announcing that they had proven Darwin right. Funny how the rhetoric is changing.
“Biochemist Michael Behe explains how a biased critique of Darwin on Trial in the journal Science led Behe to join the ID movement.” – Casey Luskin And, as a tenured professor, Behe went on to be a thorn in the Darwinians’ side insofar as their strategy had, for so long, been to prevent critics from acquiring accepted credentials.
Something is changing in our society, that it is becoming respectable to make these kinds of points, and not from a pulpit (which isn’t really the right venue anyway).
Naturalists need to pretend that great apes and dolphins think abstractly.
With a cameo by ID guy Steve Meyer, author of Darwin’s Doubt.
Darwin’s sexual selection (seen as an alleged massive shaper of evolution) has given rise to any number of naturalist legends, including—local favourites—the Darwinbird of Pop Science and the Clever Abortion Mare.
No, but seriously, if “‘species’ are simply not what we thought they were,” as the researchers’ media release reads, all those carefully thought-out explanations of the neo-Darwinian origin of various butterfly traits must compete with “a complete morass of inter-connectedness.” Darwinism is dying and people are wisely refraining from spelling that out.
It’s helpful to be reminded that the science cognoscenti see the rest of us that way. They may see themselves that way, though vanity more likely gets in the way at the last, critical moment. No wonder so many people these days are “anti-science.”
Flannery: “Most interesting of all is the last essay by a noted historian and philosopher of biology, the late Jean Gayon, “What Future for Darwinism?” Against the centennial celebration, the question itself stands out as one that certainly wasn’t to be seriously asked in Chicago [in 1959].”
Researchers: “We’ve thought for a long time that flowering plants must have contributed to the extraordinary number of moth and butterfly species we see today, but we haven’t been able to test that. This study helps us see if prior hypotheses line up, and what we find is that the plant hypothesis does, but the bat hypothesis does not.”
From Philip Cunningham. Reference notes are provided.
He does not really address the fact that most naturalists don’t actually believe that the free will he assumes actually exists.
Darwin was always a jealous god. We should find out when her birthday is and declare that Arber Day.
A classic example of Darwinism at work, right?. It did a lot of good for the toad to happen to look one per cent like a venomous snake, so then it evolved to two percent and that did more good so it naturally selected to three percent and… Not really. Whatever happened isn’t a form of Darwinism.
Hadn’t the Darwin lobby better invade and frogmarch all these little East Coast snots back into line? They must never talk in such a way as to imply that Darwinism could be wrong about anything.