In this provocative history of contemporary debates over evolution, veteran journalist Tom Bethell depicts Darwin’s theory as a nineteenth-century idea past its prime, propped up by logical fallacies, bogus claims, and empirical evidence that is all but disintegrating under an onslaught of new scientific discoveries. Bethell presents a concise yet wide-ranging tour of the flash points of modern evolutionary theory, investigating controversies over common descent, natural selection, the fossil record, biogeography, information theory, evolutionary psychology, artificial intelligence, and the growing intelligent design movement. Bethell’s account is enriched by his own personal encounters with of some our era’s leading scientists and thinkers, including Harvard biologists Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin; British paleontologist Colin Patterson; and renowned philosopher of science Karl Popper.
Darwin’s House of Cards: A Journalist’s Odyssey Through the Darwin Debates
Of course, no real skeptic will want to read this book.
Published by The Discovery Institute Press Evolution News and Views is all over it.
Not a religious apologist or a cheerleader for any competing view, but rather an old-fashioned skeptic, Bethell has been doubting Darwin since he was an undergraduate at Oxford University.
Who do they think they are fooling, right?
He concludes that while confidence in the pillars of Darwinism — common descent and innovation through natural selection — hit their high-water mark at the celebration of the Origin of Species in 1959, the evidence has steadily and increasingly gone against the theory. The whole edifice rested on a 19th century faith in Progress, propped up by a dogmatic commitment to materialism. As the former falters, the whole structure is in danger of collapse.
And an anti-anti-ID PRATT Bombshell?
A unique feature of the book is its interviews. Philosopher of science Karl Popper, for example, spent time at the Hoover Institution at Stanford when Bethell was there and explained that despite reports, he never really recanted his rap on Darwinism (“…not a testable scientific theory,” “There is hardly any possibility of testing a theory as feeble as this”).
And of course over at Uncommon Descent, News weighs in.
Get your copy before it gets burned in some stupid anti-Trump frenzy!
Mung,
If your goal is to make yourself look stupid and dishonest — yet again — then congratulations. You’ve succeeded.
Mung:
keiths:
Mung:
From Google:
quo·ta·tion
ˌkwōˈtāSH(ə)n/
noun
1.
a group of words taken from a text or speech and repeated by someone other than the original author or speaker.
“a quotation from Mark Twain”
Mung,
Get away with this behavior at work do you?
You literally had to click (quote in reply) to QUOTE keiths and respond to that QUOTE, which did not generate any quote marks, and you’re actually making this argument?
#alternativefacts
Possibly the funniest and stupidest comment ever typed in the crevo debate.
Is that the logic?
Even a broken clock is right twice per day. But I find it best to ignore it when making decisions based on punctuality.
OMagain, to Mung:
Heartfelt condolences to Mung’s coworkers. I hope they’re well paid.
Congrats to keiths’ ex-coworkers. I am sure your work-place is much better off today
Yes, keiths seems to be unable to understand a simple definition.
If you told someone that you quoted a speech by Donald Trump would they think you had reproduced the entire speech word for word? No, they would not.
I ought not be blamed for the lame misunderstandings of others but hey, since no one wants to discuss the topic raised in the OP what better thing to do then change the subject.
And you expected otherwise? Really? I know you have hopes but just look where you are (it’s hopeless)
…a group of words taken from a text or speech
I bet if keiths were asked to quote War and Peace he’d recite the whole thing. Because that’s what it means to quote something, don’t you know.
I initially thought you’d written that first paragraph yourself. That it was unusually long for you made me wonder if it was your own work and that prompted me to search for the text. It is not clear that the text is a quote nor clear where it was you were copying from.
Is it my fault you didn’t make clear the text was being quoted rather than having been written by you?
Regarding your not having read the book; I would have thought it made more sense for you to read it before posting about it so that you could have even told us something of the contents, whether it was well written and so on.
LoL. Vying for petrushka’s “possilby the funniest and stupidest comment ever typed in the crevo debate”? If you click on the hyperlink at it takes you to the Amazon page and right there is the exact same text. A simple click of the mouse and the mystery is solved.
Better to make a big deal out of nothing rather than discuss the actual book. No worries. I get it.
Alan Fox,
I have responded to your mistaken notion of natural selection, Alan:
So if you copied it from Amazon, why not put it in quotes?
You confess to not having read Bethell’s book. I confess to not having read Bethell’s book. What can we discuss?
Once it’s posted it cannot be edited- as far as I know.
But why harp on a simple mistake?
Ah-ha! An ID supporter has solved a mystery? It seems that ID is on a sure footing for 2017 then! One mystery solved tops the entire output of ID for 2016!
Mung,
Well, you did imply that by writing the OP.
But sure, in a weasley word-lawyering way, no you did not write “I have read this book”, I can agree with that. Get away with this sort of thing with the wife, do you?
Well, I guess that rules you out too then Mung.
Taking your quote at face value, I disagree with the statement.
That seems OK.
Fair enough
Remember the niche. The niche environment is the designing element that means some adaptations proliferate and some disappear.
Mayr seems to be using “selection” and “elimination” to refer two separate things (otherwise, how could they differ?). His usage, I suspect, is idiosyncratic.
Alan Fox,
They are unavoidably complementary. Decrease in frequency for one allele is inevitably increase for the other(s). And vice versa. Regardless whether it’s survivors or the deceased that are ‘chosen’, they amount to the same thing.
So what? When you write about evolution people may pay attention to what you have to say.
That is your unqualified statement. It doesn’t mean anything to science
They are different.
Who cares? You sure as hell cannot demonstrate he is wrong and you are right
An admin will do that on request.
If Mung had simply acknowledged that it was an error when I queried it, I’m sure that would have ben the end of it. I’m more
phasedfazed* by his recommending a book he hasn’t yet read.*ETA correction pointed out by Neil
I only glanced at a review of Mayr’s book but the reviewer thought Mayr’s use of “selection” both to refer to RM and NS and to the selection element somewhat confusing.
And yet Mayr explained that they are not the same thing nor do they amount to the same thing.
There’s no obligation to take any notice of what I write. Feel free to spend your time more usefully.
See previous response.
There you go. If they are different, they cannot be the same.
All I said was I didn’t agree with one statement of Mayr’s that you quoted.
“Fazed” — please. If the Brits are going to steal American slang, can they at least steal the American spelling at the same time.
Consider me suitably chastened!
ETA It’s based on an Old English word apparently. “Fesian” – to drive away, via obsolete “feeze” dates back to 14thC.
I take notice when people misrepresent evolutionary concepts. I also take notice when people misrepresent ID concepts.
In this case your version of natural selection doesn’t match what an expert says. AND you tried to tell me that I was wrong about natural selection being an eliminative process when that is exactly what the expert said it was. So forgive me for actually supporting what I claim with an expert reference.
Well, you don’t need to worry about ID any more with DeVos and Falwell in charge of school policy. No need for ID now. They’ll have straight creationism in the syllabus.
I said selection is not just eliminative. As Allan Miller pointed out, one allele’s elimination is another allele’s proliferation.
Over my dead body
Natural selection is the survival of the good enough. And even then it is all relative. That is why it isn’t anything more than contingent serendipity.
There might be plenty of those before the nightmare ends.
Well, the differential breeding success of the better-than-my-rival. No good surviving if you don’t get to pass your genes on.
If you like. Language is a wonderful thing (it evolved, you know.)
Yes, it evolved by means of intelligent design.
And your fear-mongering is duly noted
Do you really not understand that plagiarism is dishonest? The only correct response from you would be an apology for the mistake and request for an admin to modify the post to provide proper attribution.
Mung:
Mung,
What part of this simple definition did you fail to grasp?
It was already obvious, but that definition removes all doubt: your first paragraph was clearly a quote.
You were wrong, as usual, when you wrote:
As I said:
LoL. My “error” was not to put a quote mark at the beginning and another one at the end?
Well neither did Amazon and neither did the DI site. So why don’t you trot over to each of them and complain.
“a quotation from Mark Twain”
Yes, I know keiths, if you were asked for a quotation from Mark Twain you’d post the full content of all his works, because that’s what a quote is, after all.
The longer you deny your screwup, the worse you look, Mung.
LoL. Suck it Patrick!
Mung provided a link to it, keiths. Obviously Mung wasn’t trying to claim it as his own
That’s laughably stupid. Language is still evolving – so show us the designers and process.
Frankie:
Mung:
He says it isn’t a quote, Frankie. Even you can see that it is.
Citing vs quoting, perhaps? The reference link was provided. Even I could connect the two. 😛
Frankie,
http://bfy.tw/9rR6
Frankie:
Um, no.
I know you’re desperate for friends, Frankie, but Mung’s claim isn’t defensible.
Umm, that’s not an argument.
I don’t understand why you are focusing on that. It’s as if you guys dwell on minutia. I say had Mung added the word “from” after the unquoted piece and before the link it would have been more better. However I understand this is just an informal blog where asinine formalities are stretched and not all contributors have the retentive need to be formal.
It is what it is and it isn’t a classroom. BTW just from the first sentence I knew we weren’t dealing with the Mung we all know and love. I was wondering who the fuck was saying this and was disappointed when the link didn’t give a name. But I wasn’t going to throw a fit over it because this is a fucking blog. You do the best you can, forgive those who don’t meet your standards and with your superior intellect do all the required correcting in your head.
Then you can attack the author even though you have never read what he has written on any subject that you think you disagree with.
keiths think I ought to have added quote marks. He has no explanation for why neither Amazon nor the DI used quote marks. I think he’s grasping at straws “
I’m still waiting for keiths to quote War and Peace. But he won’t, because he knows what it means to quote something. keiths can suck it too!
Figure Mung to drag out the butt hurt whining for at least 3 days on this one.
Mung,
No, I don’t. You’re making shit up again, Mung.
You’ve already made yourself look stupid and dishonest. Now we can add ‘desperate’ to the list.
Poor keiths. Flailing for a target. Never seems to get the message even though it is sent repeatedly. Suck it, keiths.
Quote War and Peace for us. Go ahead.