Shedinger: As the authors note, African Americans consistently score higher on surveys of religiosity than the general population. This will not be surprising to anyone familiar with the African American church tradition. But African American undergraduates seem to be aware of the absolute requirement that EEB research be done in accordance with methodological (and de facto metaphysical) naturalism. Their religious inclinations will therefore be in conflict with the culture within the EEB community and it will be difficult for them to feel a sense of belonging in that community.
A quibble with Brian Miller’s analysis above: It’s not “philosophy” as such that fronts Darwin’s stranglehold on the discussion of evolution. It’s the power to cause career ruin. That’s the stick end of politics, not of philosophy.
Peter and Rosemary Grant, the iconic Darwinian speciation couple, are backtracking in the face of new evidence that it doesn’t really work that way. On the other hand, this is a great time to be a recovering Darwinist. The world is much more interesting than that.
The paleontologist is credited with starting a “revolution.” But then the tenured fossils struck back. If you have ever wondered whether a lot of establishment thinking was blithering nonsense, spare a kind thought for Colin Patterson…
Part of an excerpt from his new book, Taking Leave of Darwin (2021). Science historian Michael Flannery, among others, have often noted this style of Darwinian argument. One might say that it relies on the public’s willingness to be persuaded of the proposition far more on the innate intellectual value of the proposition.
Researchers: “In unicellular organisms, however, programmed cell death (PCD) poses a difficult and unresolved evolutionary problem. ” It’s not clear just how the researchers think they have answered the question. Claiming that some types of PCD are “true” and others are “ersatz” doesn’t seem to answer the central question — why programmed death occurs at all.
We hope the journal isn’t intimidated by Darwin’s Outrage Machine, Inc. Just think, some people are now allowed to bring this up. And not just as an inhouse titter, followed promptly by dismissal of the question.
Witt: “Critics of intelligent design will have a hard time maligning Thomas as a “creationist in a cheap tuxedo.” He isn’t religious and is a longtime member of the British Rationalist Association, a group known for religious skepticism.”
Klinghoffer: I’m still reeling at the stupidity of whoever at Scientific American decided to give a green light to publishing an article, “Denial of Evolution Is a Form of White Supremacy,” by Allison Hopper. The absurdity of tarring critics of Darwinism with racism boggles the mind — given how Darwin’s own legacy, down to today’s Alt-Right, is so tied up with racial pseudo-science, viciously denigrating Africans, African-Americans, and others.
One rather hopes the students’ suit is settled by now and they can get on with their lives. Unfortunately, Benga never really got over his own experience and ended up committing suicide.” But we’ve been saying this practically forever: Quit teaching Darwinism in the public school system. There are ways of addressing evolution sensitively that don’t include teaching Darwinism. Maybe insurance companies should quit insuring schools where Darwinism is taught against these specific types of incidents.
West: My documentary only tells one part of the story of racism, and it also only tells a part of the story of the influence of Social Darwinism on Western imperialism, which certainly extended to other nations besides Germany. Yet I hope my revised film will add something to the current conversation.
Some researchers believe that near-death experiences are a biological mechanism like the fight-or-flight response, a means of pretending death to avoid a predator. They call it thanatopsis: … Two problems arise from this analysis.
Jerry Coyne: “It would be the ruination of American society, turning into an Orwellian nightmare.” Fact is, Darwin’s people imposed this on the rest of us for a long time. It’s good if they are beginning to see, however dimly, the problem.
So the growing uproar against ridiculous theories doesn’t mean anything? Is that a consequence of tenure among established Darwinists?
John West: “Reading the rest of her article I realized she simply didn’t know how to frame a proper comparison. She actually was attempting to malign those who support intelligent design, not those who tried to create panic over it. Apparently neither she nor her editor is particularly good with logic.” But that’s the point. The whole enterprise is a war on logic. It’s like the war on math and the war on science. And there is a sophisticated public for that now.