Richard Weikart, UCal history prof, writes to note that he recently gave a talk at North Dakota State Univ. on “Darwinism and the Death of Humanity,” using material from his book, The Death of Humanity And the Case for Life:
It’s still legal to offend people by talking about this stuff.
See also: Weikart vs Darwin on the value of human life
8 Replies to “Video: Richard Weikart on his book, The Death of Humanity, and Darwinism”
This post, Weikart; ‘The Death of Humanity’.
Another post, Egnor; ‘Why Evil shows ther is a God’.
Earlier post, Gray gives ‘Harsh words on Pinker’s new book’.
Post; ‘Are atheists the true enemy of science?’
Post; ‘Mormons need not shy away from evolution’.
Looking down the list and going back several days can anyone point to an article describing any original ID research?
The themes of criticising evolution, theosophy, blatant atheist bashing, and simpe theology, all point to one glaring conclusion; the lack of any scientific research into ID.
rv, if the sequence UCU doesn’t physically specify serine, then how does it get bound to a polypeptide?
I did not ask for your psudo-science, and speculation in an online blog few people read. I asked for links to the latest research being covered directly linked to ID, from ID laboratories.
Is there any you could point out to me? Just one piece of original research, to place against say, one months research in areas driven solely by evolutionary theory.
You didn’t answer the question rv. You excused yourself from the implications of your question. Try again. If the sequence UCU doesn’t physically specify serine, then how does it get bound to a polypeptide?
Of semi related note: Dr. Paul Giem has his next video up on his series covering John Sanford’s book ‘Contested Bones’:
I know you (and the entire ID community really),have difficulty with direct questions and often write tedious non-sequiturs of the type; ‘You excused yourself from the implications of your question.’
Try again I suppose; Can you direct me or any human on the planet to original research based upon ID theory?
Oh, and what are the ‘implications’ of this question, other than, what is the answer?
rv, you imply that you care about science. You use this dubious pretense as a means to attack ID from the anti-intellectual safety of not having to engage anything at all that ID says. I am simply demonstrating through your response the deception in your question.
Giving you research from an ID advocate is not a problem.
Giving you research (from a non-ID advocate) that supports ID is also not a problem.
The issue here is exposing a smug cocksure ideologue like yourself (who couldn’t defend his position against ID if his life depended on it) pounding his sweaty fist on the table, demanding something that he would refuse to engage at all costs and in any circumstance whatsoever.
Join a science discussion on Ubiquitin Code posted by Gpuccio…