I have recently posted a new video on my Intelligent Design YouTube channel. In this video I discuss several areas in the philosophy of science and modern evolutionary biology, and their relationship to ID. These thoughts were prompted initially by an interesting paper by philosopher of science Jeffrey Koperski ‘Two Bad Ways to Attack Intelligent Read More…
Natural selection
At New Scientist: Ancient comb jelly more complex than its modern relatives?
Well, it’s a good thing for “evolutionary theory” that it doesn’t “preclude” life forms becoming “simpler over geological time.” That’s called devolution and it is in fact very common.
At Oscillations: Michael Ruse’s attempted takedown of evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin (but read the story!)
Ruse appears to have been a relentless enforcer of Darwinian orthodoxy behind the scenes, including a blistering attack on philosopher Jerry Fodor, who questioned it.
Science journalist Suzan Mazur remembers Richard Lewontin
She remembers him as “opposing the establishment on Darwinian dogma.”
Misleading claims about a long running evolution experiment
Hey. The Darwinians are marketing magic and it is really difficult to refute magic.
Has a plant evolved a camouflage color to avoid humans?
If humans stopped picking them, would the green ones just start becoming more numerous again?
How much computing power would we need to evolve computer via Darwinian evolution that can program itself ?
But read the fine print: We would need to run many trials of planets in parallel in order to simulate the real conditions in the universe. Yampolskiy concludes, ‘In fact, depending on some assumptions we make regarding multiverse, quantum aspects of biology, and probabilistic nature of Darwinian algorithm such compute may never be available.’”
Asked at Oscillations: Why is the Khan Academy so stuck on “natural selection” in evolution?
Suzan Mazur notes that the Khan Academy has tended to promote natural selection as “evolution” generally.
Do Darwinians believe in magic?
It begins to sound like that after a while.
ASU’s Michael Lynch’s new book takes aim at “natural selection” as a sum total explanation
From the opening of Chapter 1: “…a pervasive problem in biology is the religious adherence to the idea that natural selection is solely responsible for every feature of biological diversity.” He’s putting chapters online free, looking for feedback.
Suzan Mazur at Oscillations: “Natural selection” unit removed from AP biology exam
Most likely it was a combination of Mazur getting on the story and a general recognition that full-on Darwinism just isn’t cutting it any more. Stuff that worked in the 1980s isn’t going to fly now that genomes are routinely mapped.
A Polish MP says Darwinian natural selection means anti-Semitic pogroms benefited Jewish people
One would be glad to hear that this is fake news but the history of popular cultural Darwinism means that it could well be genuine. Remember eugenics. Meantime, Korwin-Mikke’s said other things, consistent with this view.
At Oscillations: “Natural selection” issue stirs again at College Boards
It goes on and gets way better. You’ll be amazed at the idiocracy that the testing establishment takes for granted and promotes. Read at her site about how one testcrat even administered the same test twice, a fact advertised on the internet… and more. By the way, why don’t we hear much about this from other science writers?
Mike Behe looks at the actual gears in bugs
In relation to claims about Darwinian natural selection just happening to find that solution
Does survival of the fittest not apply to frogs?
Well, it probably does over time but the story turns out to be more complex than that.