Evolution

Mae-Wan Ho (1941–2016), non-Darwinian biologist

Spread the love

2016-04-15-1460682868-3899990-MaeWanHo.jpg From Suzan Mazur at Huffington Post:

Mae-Wan Ho, the Hong Kong-born evolution scientist and one of neo-Darwinism’s most effective critics, has died at age 74, I learned today. Ho was co-founder with her husband, physicist Peter Saunders, of the Institute of Science in Society, the UK organization focused on reclaiming science for the public good. She was also the author or co-author of a dozen books, one of her favorites, The Rainbow and the Worm.

Ho thought the Modern Synthesis did need to be completely replaced, however, “so that the universe of learning, of finding out about nature” could “open up properly.” She applauded the current work of Oxford University physiologist Denis Noble, principal organizer of the upcoming Royal Society meeting on evolution paradigm shift, for carrying the torch. “He’s [Noble’s] right and has got the zeal,” she said.

Like Lynn Margulis, Ho was one of the few women to be regarded as a “giant” in the field of evolutionary science and was awarded the Prigogine Medal in 2014. She thought sexism in science was still “quite a serious problem,” but again she looked on the bright side, commenting to me:

“When I was first moving into physics, for example, the world was divided in two. There were physicists who would talk to me and there were physicists who would not talk to me, who didn’t want to take me seriously. Fortunately for me, the ones worth talking to were the ones who talked to me.”

More.

That’s the stuff. Requiescat in lucem pacis aeternitatis.

Successors currently in demand.

Suzan Mazur is the author of The Paradigm Shifters: Overthrowing “the Hegemony of the Culture of Darwin” (where she interviews Ho) and The Origin of Life Circus

See also: Another non-Darwinian biologist we need to know about: Mae-Wan Ho

Follow UD News at Twitter!

12 Replies to “Mae-Wan Ho (1941–2016), non-Darwinian biologist

  1. 1
    Mung says:

    RIP

  2. 2

    I’ve seen savage accounts of this woman … all for the sake of winning a point in a debate on the Internet. I suppose that goes with the territory, unfortunately. Thank goodness she had the spine for it.

    Rest In Peace

  3. 3
    tommy hall says:

    huge loss……she was truly a genius. Way ahead of her time. If you don’t have “Genetic Engineering — Dream or Nightmare?” (1998) you really need it….much of it is about GMO, but woven throughout the book is an utter trashing of reductionism and neo-darwinism and a celebration of the “fluid genome,” which closely resembles James Shapiro’s “natural genetic engineering.” Thoughts and prayers to her family.

  4. 4
    Robert Byers says:

    R.I.P.
    I doubt she was a creationist in true standing. I never heard of her.
    I don’t know what she accomplished however every bit of help in opposing evolution does help.
    I don’t like her attack on men. First she is a foreigner from Hong Kong and China has nothing on male/female relationships on us.
    There is no such thing as sexism. If people think women are not as good in her subject thats because the men see it that way. Very few women were involved and suspect of quots would kick about.
    Everyone should be respectful despite identity and i doubt men shunned her because she was a women.
    The top people shun the lower regardless of sex.
    Its a false cheap shot at men.
    Anyways I hope her ideas are copied by other critics of evolution and that will be a good reward for her work.

  5. 5
    ellazimm says:

    Robert #4

    There is no such thing as sexism.

    What do you mean by that? That it doesn’t exist . . . ever? Because how else would explain why women had to fight for the right to vote after men already had it?

  6. 6
    Robert Byers says:

    ellaziomm
    Thats a opinion of men and women that they should not or didn’t need to get the vote.
    I don’t think is was morally demanding and I think they should not of got the vote. However this is coupled with a general idea they should only support their husbands and not be in society like men are. Thats a biblical view.
    However its not that way today and so I’m at peace with them having the vote.
    It would be hard to take it from them today.

    Sexism was a word invented exclusively in accusation about mens motives and character regarding what women should have.
    It was a imposed concept from the establishment upon the common people.
    in reality there is just opinions about men/women relationship in society.
    Its immoral and unintellectual to define one side as morally/intellectually wrong right before discussion.
    Sexism ALWAYS means a immoral/wrong opinion on some point.
    There is no such thing as sexism. There just is wrong conclusions on subjects about male/females. Who decides that is who!

  7. 7
    ellazimm says:

    Robert #6

    However its not that way today and so I’m at peace with them having the vote.
    It would be hard to take it from them today.</blockquote.

    You're at peace with that. How nice.

    in reality there is just opinions about men/women relationship in society.
    Its immoral and unintellectual to define one side as morally/intellectually wrong right before discussion.

    It is if your view is against the evidence or clearly held in an effort to restrict other people’s access to the same rights you have without due process of law.

  8. 8
    Robert Byers says:

    Ellezimm
    In this case its historically and today just different opinions.
    Its not interfering with rights. There was no right for women to vote.
    Just as 18 years olds only voted in the 60’s. Before that it was 21 i believe.
    Yet the 18’s were not being denied their rights.
    A right only exists if its a right. Someone must give that right except God/natural rights.
    Therefore sexism always is a attempt to profile the opponents opinoions as immoral and wrong. Sexism is always wrong and so all one must do is profile someone as sexist .
    Making contrary opinions impossible.
    Sexism as a concept was thrown on the common people by elites and so it must go. its a rraud and we don’t owe obediance to its concept or even its existence.
    There never was sexism. only opinions very commonly held.
    In fact the majority of women would of been opposed to women getting the vote up until the mid 1800’s.
    An absurdity to say they are sexist.
    there is no sexism, anti-semetism, racism, homophobiaism etc etc.
    They are terms invented by activists to profile/define/control contentions on important common issues.

  9. 9
    ellazimm says:

    Robert #8

    there is no sexism, anti-semetism, racism, homophobiaism etc etc.
    They are terms invented by activists to profile/define/control contentions on important common issues.

    I have personally known people who were . . .

    Oh, what’s the point. Your views are bizarre to say the least and you seem impervious to evidence to the contrary.

    Just let me ask you this: by what moral justifications would you have claimed it made sense (at one point) for only white males to have the vote?

  10. 10
    Robert Byers says:

    Ellazimm
    In Canada white males didn’t ALL have the vote while others did even after black men got the vote after the civil war.
    The moral justification for our forms of government is from the people.
    Democracy or anything.
    Its the right of the males who were always the creators and doers and owners of their nations TO decide who runs the country. it was a mans world first and morally right as it always from the beginning.
    So it is up to us to decide on who gets the vote.
    By sex or age or any identity.
    There is no a greater moral claim of anyone to get the vote anymore then to have votes for government.
    Otherwise all government would be by nature a democracy in morality.
    Its up to the people who own the home. The man was the thinker/creator and the women only helped him.
    The man was the one to decide.
    If in our liberality we agree with with women getting the vote then they get it because of our consent. Not a natural right.
    babies can’t vote either and also have no natural right.
    The foreignor also must obey the rules.
    Thats why immigrants to America can not become president.
    Its not a right. Its only a gift to be in the nation or be allowed to vote.
    It comes down to homeownership. The homeowner is the boss.

  11. 11
    ellazimm says:

    Robert #10

    Its the right of the males who were always the creators and doers and owners of their nations TO decide who runs the country. it was a mans world first and morally right as it always from the beginning. So it is up to us to decide on who gets the vote.

    Why is it ‘morally right’? Where does it say that?

    Its up to the people who own the home. The man was the thinker/creator and the women only helped him.
    The man was the one to decide.

    Who decided men should own the homes and not the women? By the way, women have owned home and run governments many times in the past.

    If in our liberality we agree with with women getting the vote then they get it because of our consent. Not a natural right.

    Again, why is this so? Who decided that’s the way it would be?

    It comes down to homeownership. The homeowner is the boss.

    So, if you lived in England, where the Queen is the head of state and owns more property than just about everyone else, then you would think that women have the right to decide if men can vote?

  12. 12
    ellazimm says:

    Robert

    Have you given up on this discussion? I wouldn’t have thought you would.

Leave a Reply