History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Why can’t Slate review Descent of Man Revisited?

October 15th, 2012 · 1 Comment

I am gettting REALLY tired of liberal/left stupidoes brainwashed by Darwinism. As the review of the last post makes clear these people can’t even get Paul Johnson right on Darwin. These conservatives constantly fumble the ball, but they have gotten the fallacies of Darwinism cold, based on good science unpublicized by the Darwin establishment.

A book like Descent of Man Revisited (better than the equally useful books now appearing from academis, finally: Fodor and Nagel…) can help the left sort out the failure of Darwinsim: it makes clear that we can’t yet produce real theories of (human) evolution: we can only incremetally improve the data set of deep time. Human evolution especially is simply off the rails when it comes to standard Darwinism and evolutionary psychology. The Darwin estabishment has gotten it completely wrong. DMR offers a partial substitute: look at the clear evidence of ‘evolution’ in world history. The evidence is so cogent we begin to suspect the way the earlier man evolved. Whatever the case, the book can help to wean you off of Darwinism.
I am sending Slate a review copy this afternoon. Obviously they won’t review it, but I will give them a few weeks and report their failure.
I have tried the same here with a marxist series on Darwin: to expose the confusion of Darwinism on the left. They won’t listen, won’t exchange/reply to emails, refuse any discussion, and go into Staliist clam-shut.
There is no Darwinian left, OK? Peter Singer notwithstanding.

Tags: General