No, no, Pivar and Myers didn’t do anything except fall out—with litigation threatened. But there’s an Epstein connection in the story—as there seems to be to a lot of things Darwin these says. And, say what you want, that guy Epstein sure picked his targets.
There is, of course, more to the story of what goes wrong but honestly doubting the existence of one’s mind is a good start.
Mainly fun. But seriously, the main question is, when the weather calms down, won’t the spiders tend to just stop being so aggressive? It’s interesting if this is what is meant by “robust evolutionary responses.”
They propose “nonrandom variation”. Later: “Darwin’s idea that variation is generated randomly has largely been taken for granted rather than tested, representing a fundamental gap in our understanding of evolution.”
Darwinians have gone to such lengths to defend Darwin when, it is becoming clear, everybody who lived before Political Correctness was a racist. One interesting thing about the linked story about Jung (1875-1961) is the pushback it is getting from the combox.
At some point, the question should become: Apart from their unquestioned capacity to wreck the careers of doubters, what exactly DID the Darwinists get right *that no one else did*?
Researcher: “The combination of these different technologies in one place suggests to us that, about 325,000 years ago, people at the site were innovative.”
The main thing to see here is that the book is published by National Geographic, once a source you would not have expected to be backing this stuff. The real war on science is not doubts about Darwin. To the extent that so many people have allowed Darwinists to snooker them into believing that, they likely don’t know what to do now that seriously fact-challenged points of view can parade as virtue.
History shows that Newton’s own development of the idea of infinite series was exactly as I described. In Newton’s day, polynomials were known to be imperfect stand-ins for transcendental functions.
Shallit: “Gelernter is not a biologist and (to the best of my knowledge) has no advanced formal training in biology.” We weren;t aware, at UD, that math prof Shallit had serious biology credentials either but perhaps one can dispense with them if one supports Darwinism.
Sheldon: … in our own solar system, Saturn is far outside the “Goldilocks Zone” yet it has a moon, Enceladus, that is emitting steam jets filled with hydrocarbons. … The danger of being overly-quantitative is not just the overreliance on models, or the higher risk of failure, but rather the real probability that “certainty” blinds one from observing the actual phenomenon.
Referring to calculus textbook author Jonathan Bartlett, he writes, “What surprises me is that even creationists with math or related degrees often have problems with basic mathematics.” Bartlett will answer shortly.
Unfortunately, most mathematics texts teach only the mathematics, never the insights. I felt so frustrated by this gap that I wrote my own textbook, in which I try to teach both.
“The Green Bank Conference (1961), to which Lilly introduced “Dolphinese,” was a serious science meeting. The conferees were “totally enthralled” by the idea that communicating with dolphins would open to door to communicating with innumerable types of extraterrestrial intelligence… “
It’s not just that the ornaments did not have a practical use. They probably expressed something. Eagle talons, for example, might imply something about the person who wore them, in the same way that a peace sign implies something about the wearer today. But it may have implied the opposite thing.