"A self-styled form of Darwinian fundamentalism has risen to some prominence in a variety of fields, from the English biological heartland of John Maynard Smith to the uncompromising ideology (albeit in graceful prose) of his compatriot Richard Dawkins, to the equally narrow and more ponderous writing of the American philosopher Daniel Dennett . . . . - Stephen Jay Gould, "Darwinian Fundamentalism," The New York Review of Books.
This is a link to my previous post entitled Barbara Forrest, the ACLU and Calvin and Hobbes, which has a link to a great cartoon. This post belongs in the Weekend Humor category. I happen to think Barbara Forrest's ideas are pretty frequently comical. But perhaps "conspiracy theory humor" is an acquired taste.
posted by Lawrence Selden @ 6:12 AM
1 comments
Hat tip to Salvador Cordova for this link to college and university classes dealing with intelligent design, Darwinian skepticism or the current debates on the science and/or public policy involved. These issues are not going away any time soon.
posted by Lawrence Selden @ 1:39 PM
2 comments
This is in reference to my last post. Merriam-Webster defines "pejorative" has "having negative connotations; especially : tending to disparage or belittle." My short answer to the question in the title of this post is that it depends on the context and the speaker. I certainly do not consider it an inherently pejorative term. In the way PZ Myers is using it of Ken Miller, it is pejorative. The way many scientists use it to describe intelligent design proponents, it is pejorative. These uses are misleading, disparaging and do not foster civil and rational debate. Oh, that our scientists would be rational. Is that too much to ask?
posted by Lawrence Selden @ 9:57 AM
0 comments
PZ Myers is at it again, calling Ken Miller a "creationist," despite the fact that Miller is an outspoken advocate of evolutionary theory and was a witness for the prosecution in the Dover trial. I think enough electronic ink has been spilled on this already, and the title of this post sums it up.
posted by Lawrence Selden @ 6:00 AM
0 comments
Here are links to other blogs that deal with the issues of evolution and intelligent design either from a position of skepticism toward macroevolutionary theory or open-mindedness toward intelligent design, or both. More comments are at the bottom of this post. Feel free to link to this or bookmark this. I created it for use as a starting page for browsing on this topic. The link to just this post is here.
posted by Lawrence Selden @ 12:39 PM
3 comments
I am a macroevolution agnostic. I used to accept evolutionary theory. Then I looked at the evidence. It became clear to me that macroevolutionary theory is built more on a priori philosophical assumptions than on evidence. Microevolution, on the other hand, is supported by the evidence. The distinction between the two is critical and is largely ignored, or not understood, by the mainstream media and general public.
