History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

I’ll say it flat out: you can’t get an evolution paradigm shift if you can’t understand the ‘macro’ model in WHEE

April 22nd, 2016 · No Comments

Previous posts on evolutionary paradigm shift


For many evolutionary biologists, nothing gets their dander up faster than suggesting evolution is anything other than the process of natural selection, acting on random mutations. So some are uneasy that the John Templeton Foundation has awarded $8.7 million to U.K., Swedish, and U.S. researchers for experimental and theoretical work intended to put a revisionist view of evolution, the so-called extended evolutionary synthesis, on a sounder footing. Using a variety of plants, animals, and microbes, the researchers will study the possibility that organisms can influence their own evolution and that inheritance can take place through routes other than the genetic material. Critics are against evolutionary biologists accepting this money and argue that evolutionary theory already embraces the best of these ideas. But others are pleased as the money should help clarify the importance of different aspects of the extended synthesis.

The resistance to funding from the Templeton group is understandable, and the question persists that their money will influence the result. But the darwinians are if anything worse. The illusion that natural selection generates a theory of evolution has gone on so long it is almost impossible to even communicate with biologists.

Templeton wishes to pay $11 million for research. This research will produce nothing. For nothing they can get my partial solution free, from WHEE: history and evolution.com.

I recommend my take on the Axial Age to get some sense on religion, religious evolution, and design argument confusions.

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

  • There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.

Leave a Comment