Laszlo Bencze, writes to say, “I am very saddened to hear of Tom Bethell’s death. Not only was he pivotal in my turning away from Darwinism due to his 1976 Harper’s article which I clipped from the magazine and still have but we also became friends during one of his visits to California.”
The English-language portion starts at about 1:30. It sounds as though the interviewer finds that Berlinski’s approach takes a bit of getting used to — but all the better.
It’s apparently not an adaption to reducing infection risk.
Science historian Michael Flannery points out that Douglass’s comments preceded Darwin’s On the Origin of Species because the basic idea of the “modified monkey” (Thomas Huxley’s phrase) was in Lamarck (and probably in the air).
Scientists from a number of disciplines and cultures speak up.
Thomas Kuhn? Where are you? Could you comment on this “paradigm” stuff? It’s really your show.
Curious comment there: “Finally, the paper suggests another counter-factual hypothesis: deleting not Darwin and his Origin but the Darwin Industry itself. This may allow us to read the Origin of Species with fresh eyes and to discover Darwin’s life-long interest in variation and its laws, as many of his early readers did.” But we could do that today, psychologically, and it wouldn’t be alternative history. It would just be what we did.
This stuff seems like an alternative to discussing the way Darwinism is slowly fading out as a way of seeing the history of life anyhow. But we knew they weren’t going to do that.
Curiously, Snopes admits, regarding the piece from The Conversation, “This content is shared here because the topic may interest Snopes readers; it does not, however, represent the work of Snopes fact-checkers or editors.” So… they can get away with publishing this kind of thing because they did not check it out? That is further evidence that Snopes is going downhill fast as a rumor squelching site.
The presenters provide revealing information about how our understanding of genetics has changed in the last seven decades. Very easy to follow.
Marvin Olasky offers the comparison but there is also a lively history of other Darwin-Lincoln riffs.
Sometimes Darwinians are a parody of themselves.
It’s hard to imagine anyone not knowing how much trouble Darwinism is in at this point. But this guy shows it’s possible to be that unaware.
Why was the racists’ idea about brain size considered at all? Materialism does that to people and King was right to see it and call it out.
The article goes on to talk about refutations but so far it seems like a civilized discussion. That’s evidence that Darwinism is losing its chokehold on thought.