Michael Shermer is complaining about the Cancel Culture Darwinians like himself helped create

Off topic: Dr. Cornelius Hunter's first part, of a six part video series, explaining exactly why Darwinian evolution is a religious theory, not a scientific theory, has just been uploaded,

Evolution is a Religious Theory Part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHKAgioMekg

bornagain77

Martin_r at 5, Dawkins is a journalist? When did that happen? A degree is required. Writing a guest article does not count. relatd

CD, you are so ridiculous :))) No, THE GUARDIAN is the perfect place where to learn what biologists are and how they fight each other, because the theory is a big mess :)))) We are looking at 3 biologists, and each has a different view on the problem :))))))))))))) But let me add this, from the same THE GUARDIAN article: EO Wilson:

There is no dispute between me and Richard Dawkins and there never has been, because he’s a journalist, and journalists are people that report what the scientists have found and the arguments I’ve had have actually been with scientists doing research.

Dawkins -- a journalist --- is commenting on bad design :)))))))) martin_r

Martin _r You should probably stop getting your science news from The Guardian. chuckdarwin

Off topic: Dr. Tour's next video is uploaded:

Dr. Tour SHINES LIGHT on Scientific Paradoxes on Origin of Life - Steve Benner, Part 03 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atxmIZw3DdA

Previous episodes

Ep 1: https://youtu.be/4rwPi1miWu4 Ep 2: https://youtu.be/aUOZh4zmrXo Ep 3: https://youtu.be/v3A8_ezYlZY Ep 4: https://youtu.be/N_on6LK6Etc Ep 5: https://youtu.be/t5PfBzQUjW8 Ep 6: https://youtu.be/ZtitTE2BavU Ep 7: https://youtu.be/cL0NIFk1grE

bornagain77

and THE GUARDIAN article continues: (a 3rd Darwinist comes in, professor Koentges, claiming that none of these two famous Darwinists understands the theory of evolution )

According to one expert in evolution and development, Professor Georgy Koentges of Warwick University, the central problem is the impossibility of defining "fitness", whether in organisms, organs, cells, genes or even gene regulatory DNA regions. As a result, he sees both Dawkins and Wilson as "straw men" in this debate. "Dawkins has a lot of unnecessary rhetoric in his review," he said this weekend. "He is usually on the spot, but it has to be said that some of his arguments are based on older models of calculating fitness. The difficulty is in assigning what Darwin called 'fitness' to a particular genetic feature. They are trying to set basic fitness conditions which they believe work over very long periods of time. "This is a fantasy. There is no such thing as a good or bad gene. It doesn't work that simply. Genes are used and re-used in different contexts, each of which might have a different overall fitness value for a given organism or a group." https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jun/24/battle-of-the-professors

THIS IS A FANTASY :))))))))))) I like this Darwinian professor. martin_r

speaking about E.O. Wilson, let me add this (despite a bit off topic): Dawkins was reviewing E.O. Wilson's book:

I am not being funny when I say of Edward Wilson's latest book that there are interesting and informative chapters on human evolution, and on the ways of social insects (which he knows better than any man alive), and it was a good idea to write a book comparing these two pinnacles of social evolution, but unfortunately one is obliged to wade through many pages of erroneous and downright perverse misunderstandings of evolutionary theory https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jun/24/battle-of-the-professors

When you consider, that deceased E.O. Wilson was called "Darwin of the 21st century", and then you see Dawkins saying that Wilson does not understand the theory of evolution, so how on Earth should people like Seversky, Chuckdarwin and Co. understand it and school creationists :))))) Through the years, I was accused so many times that I don't understand the theory of evolution :))))) How could I ? When "Darwin of the 21st century" did not understand it as well (according to Dawkins) :)))))) Seversky, Chuckdarwin, could you clarify ? martin_r