Bad timing or just plain tone deaf? Reuters puffs “modern-day Darwin” E. O. Wilson

_{Denyse O'Leary

October 28, 2021

Climate change, Intelligent Design, Media}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

No really. Right in the middle of “T. H. Huxley, Darwin’s bulldog, about to be Cancelled,” — with the question hanging: Can Darwinism really survive Cancel Culture when all Darwin’s messengers are Unpersons? — Reuters sees fit to run with this:

Edward O. Wilson, a 92-year old naturalist hailed as the Darwin of the 21st century, said humankind is not too polarized to save the planet, even as some of the world’s biggest polluters drag their feet on cutting carbon emissions and arresting global warming.
He sees preventing catastrophic climate change — the aim of U.N. climate talks starting in Scotland on Sunday — and saving biodiversity, or the variety of plant and animal species in the world, as two initiatives that must happen together.
Tim McLaughlin and Kanupriya Kapoor, “Harvard’s modern-day Darwin warns against humanity’s downward slope” at Reuters

Look, Reuters, if you really think the guy has a message worth hearing, quit calling him “the Darwin of the 21st century.” Unless, of course… naw, that’d be a conspiracy theory…

You may also wish to read: It begins at last… T. H. Huxley, Darwin’s bulldog, about to be Cancelled – other early Darwinists to get the chop soon, we hear. W. D. Hamilton, Ronald Fisher, and J. B. S. Haldane are also threatened. We never thought it would happen but it is happening… so fast.

Comments

Edward O. Wilson, 92-year old naturalist (...) the Darwin of the 21st century (...) save the planet (...) global warming (...) preventing catastrophic climate change (...) blah blah blah
Earth to 'the Darwin of the 21st century': Last Six Months for Antarctica Coldest on RecordOrigenes_{October 30, 2021
October
10
Oct
30
30
2021
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT}

Only scientifically illiterate fools think that CO2 is a problem with respect to climate. At least 92% of the infrared transmitted by the Earth is unaffected by CO2. Saying CO2 is the issue is like saying that a cargo net makes for a good roof. See for yourselves: GHG emission spectraET_{October 29, 2021
October
10
Oct
29
29
2021
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT}

seversky:
Or are you all admitting you would not know what is right and wrong unless God tells you?
In a materialistic universe there isn't any right or wrong. That you are too stupid to understand that says it all.ET_{October 29, 2021
October
10
Oct
29
29
2021
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

ChuckDarwin states, "much of his (Wilson's) work was controversial and some of it wrong." Perhaps ChuckDarwin would like to inform us "ID pretenders", (whatever that is suppose to mean), exactly what parts of Darwin's theory did Wilson get wrong and exactly what parts did he get right? Seems to me, a ahem "ID pretender", that since Wilson himself "dramatically abandoned kin selection" in 2010 and opted for a 'Darwin only' model, a model that was subsequently opposed by 140 leading biologists in a signed letter to Nature, that it is highly likely that Wilson did not ever actually get anything right about Darwin's theory. But then again, is there anything that can ever really be gotten right with Darwin's theory save for understanding the fact that Darwin's theory is. to paraphrase Wolfgang Pauli, 'not even wrong'?
Pauli’s ideas on mind and matter in the context of contemporary science – Harald Atmanspacher Excerpt: “In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of ‘natural selection’ in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’” Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28) https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/234f/4989e039089fed5ac47c7d1a19b656c602e2.pdf
bornagain77_{October 29, 2021
October
10
Oct
29
29
2021
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT}

The fact that nature in the raw is about survival of the best fitted does not mean that is how we should behave towards each other. You cannot infer 'ought' from 'is'. Or are you all admitting you would not know what is right and wrong unless God tells you?Seversky_{October 29, 2021
October
10
Oct
29
29
2021
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

Wilson did ground breaking work in ethology, ecology, biodiversity and conservation. Like any gifted scientist, much of his work was controversial and some of it wrong . But as Wayne Gretzky famously said, "you miss 100% of the shots you don't take." History will write Wilson's legacy in biology, not a gaggle of ID pretenders....chuckdarwin_{October 29, 2021
October
10
Oct
29
29
2021
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

In a Darwinistic framework, mankind cannot rise above the fray.OldArmy94_{October 29, 2021
October
10
Oct
29
29
2021
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT}

1. Why do these Darwinbots always act like humans are above-and-beyond the mishmash of evolutionary chaos? In other words, what we do is what we do because are just part of that bigger picture. 2. Why do Darwinbots even CARE? There is no right or wrong, only survival for each of us, and if that means burning down the planet so I can have a comfier night of sleep, sobeit.OldArmy94_{October 29, 2021
October
10
Oct
29
29
2021
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

An interesting thing about E.O. Wilson, the supposed "Darwin of the 21st century", 140 leading biologists signed a letter to Nature attacking Wilson's 2010 strictly Darwin model. Alan Grafen, a theoretical biologist from the University of Oxford, even called Wilson's 'Darwin only' model, “unscholarly,” “transparently wrong,” and “misguided.”
Could We All Get Together and Evolve as a Group? - Denyse O'Leary - October 5, 2015 Excerpt: Wilson dramatically abandoned kin selection in 2010 in a Nature paper, “The evolution of eusociality,” co-authored with mathematicians. He argued that strict Darwinism (natural selection) “provides an exact framework for interpreting empirical observations,” dispensing with the other theories he had promoted for decades. Over 140 leading biologists signed a letter to Nature, attacking the 2010 paper. Some called his new, strictly Darwin model “unscholarly,” “transparently wrong,” and “misguided.” What? All this is said of a Darwin-only model?,,, https://evolutionnews.org/2015/10/could_we_all_ge/ Sparks fly over origin of altruism - 2010 Excerpt: Alan Grafen, a theoretical biologist from the University of Oxford, is taking his time to set up his presentation. When he’s ready, he denounces three of his colleagues as “unscholarly” and “transparently wrong”, and wonders what could have led such “talented, honest biologists” to be so “misguided”. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827804-100-sparks-fly-over-origin-of-altruism/
bornagain77_{October 29, 2021
October
10
Oct
29
29
2021
03:43 AM
3
03
43
AM
PDT}

He's worrying about "climate" while the whole world is imprisoned and bound and gagged by the SAME DEMONS who previously told us to worry about climate. FUCK HIM. He's just another Nazi holocauster.polistra_{October 28, 2021
October
10
Oct
28
28
2021
08:36 PM
8
08
36
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply