The Twitter mob must be at lunch or something. An entire industry of bestselling Darwin drivel is disrespected and this prof still has her JOB?
David Gelernter was NOT flung out on his ear for doubting Darwin. And, how many people much care now what P.Z. Myers thinks? Is ultra-Darwinism past its sell-by date?
For some years, it has not been the practice of many Catholics to question Darwinism. Most got sucked years ago into some muddle according to which the great theologian Thomas Aquinas didn’t supposedly think there could be such a thing as observable design in nature because that would make God a “ti
A renowned writer and Yale University computer science professor has denounced Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, arguing it has too many holes and is now too old to be a probable scientific theory.
At some point, the question should become: Apart from their unquestioned capacity to wreck the careers of doubters, what exactly DID the Darwinists get right *that no one else did*?
Here’s a summary of Turner’s views: “I can remember the day it happened: I could no longer be a Darwinist.” Hoover and Power Line are conservative outlets, yes. But there was a time when they would hesitate to get involved with criticizing Darwin, for fear of boarding Noah’s Ark. But Darwinism is j
In 1996. David Berlinski published an article in Commentary, skewering the vast public nonsense that Darwinism had become – and remained for roughly two decades, only now beginning to totter under a variety of assaults. Time to reminisce a bit.
Attacking a figure like Feynman on this issue is a bit of an attack of the Lilliputians. The aesthetic reaction to much of physics is more an exclamation than hard philosophy of science, and the sentiment is frequent when confronting the elegance of much of modern physics. The idea is certainly open to challenge if made into a definite heuristic principle but as an emotional reaction it remains significant. That elegance remains even after the theories become falsified…
In any case Pugliucci is a notorious muddlehead about darwinism and natural selection and makes a mockery of his essay with nonsense about the evolution of an aesthetic sense via natural selection, a proposition that makes Feynman’s errors seem trivial. Anyone confused about darwinism is going to have a hard time with the aesthetics of science theories.
And of course, beauty is, notoriously, in the eye of the beholder. What struck Feynman as beautiful might not be beautiful to other physicists or mathematicians. Beauty is a human value, not something out there in the cosmos. Biologists here know better. The capacity for aesthetic appreciation in our species is the result of a process of biological evolution, possibly involving natural selection. And there is absolutely no reason to think that we evolved an aesthetic sense that somehow happens to be tailored for the discovery of the ultimate theory of everything.
It seems that most post-Chernobyl animals “Don’t Look Any Different from Their Non-Chernobyl Counterparts. ”