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!
Adapa:
Which makes him look even worse, if that’s possible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation
Keiths has already made himself look stupid and dishonest. Now we can add ‘desperate’ to the list.
More idiotic atheist logic at work too. I work for the DI but my post plagiarizes the DI.
Too funny.
You mean they could add another copy of the link I already provided?
Hilarious.
My copy arrives today. Let me know when your copy arrives.
Given my rather sparse comments about the book, which comment of mine led you to believe I was recommending the book?
recommend: put forward (someone or something) with approval as being suitable for a particular purpose or role.
If you mean I recommend it for the purpose of showing that the people here aren’t actually interested in discussion of ideas they find personally distasteful, yes, I recommended it for that purpose.
Yet what you actually demonstrated was people aren’t interested in reading the 40 year old rehashed ideas of a known scientifically illiterate crackpot, pushed by an organization of known anti-science liars.
Actually the logic is , it would not be plagiarism if you wrote it for the DI in the first place.
Patrick’s comment went right over Mung’s head.
Not like that’s a particularly hard thing to do.
Let me suggest what people are even less interested in reading: Mung’s posts and anyone’s responses to them.
Catch 22
Since 2005, the IDers have slowly drifted away. Not many people left to talk to.
I’ll take that as a yes. Quote mining, plagiarism, what’s your next trick?
I’ll take that as a yes.Quote mining, plagiarism, what’s your next trick?
He provided a link to it so it wasn’t plagiarism, duh.
Frankie, it must have been the link to the write-up at Amazon that led Patrick to believe I was trying to pass it off as my own. i suppose I should have left off the link, for that would have given the mods something to do [add it for me] other than making themselves look like fools.
Alan Fox thought I wrote it, therefore it’s plagiarism. lmao.
Take that and run with it Patrick. Report me to the DI. Who knows, perhaps I’ll be the one answering the phone when you call.
Assume all other posters are posting in good faith.
For example, do not accuse other posters of being deliberately misleading.
See the Trailer Now
At Age 180, Darwin’s Theory of Evolution a Materialist House of Cards
“The materialists might concede that their outrage is irrational, a byproduct of evolution — the fight-or-flight mechanism run amok. “
LoL!
Mung,
Alan is most likely referring to the following as a recommendation:
Get your copy before it gets burned in some stupid anti-Trump frenzy!
LMAO. Alan is so concerned about affairs over here while France has it’s own problems to deal with.
I think I’m going to like this book. I may even recommend it.
So true.
Mung,
Think of how much better you’d feel about yourself if you could actually defend your views instead of endlessly wallowing in fantasies of martyrdom.
keiths,
Mung would be happy in a blog exclusively about moderation. Miserably happy.
Wait! Doesn’t this comment belong in moderation issues?
My stated position is that no moderation at all here at TSZ is preferable to the current situation. It’s something that keiths and I actually manage to agree on.
Get rid of the bias in the existing moderation by getting rid of moderation reduces to a simple binary choice. Is moderation better than no moderation. Your task, grasshopper, is to make the case that I’d be bitching about the lack of moderation if there was no moderation.
Being the fantastic statistician that you are (when you’re not moonlighting as a retail store clerk) you can surely give us some meaningful analysis of the data.
Hell no Tom, you forget about the theistic evolutionists. Evolution is evidence for theism.
And Darwinists know exactly what happened a million years ago, and even a billion years ago. Evolution!
And if you question their stories, they will retreat into the position that you’re demanding an unreasonable level of detail. Because the theory hates details.
Has Mung actually stated a view then? I suppose that’s progress. Do we know whose view it was?
Well, the World is connected. And the current “leader of the free World” is an inarticulate ageing Lothario with a bizarre haircut and orange tint. Which situation would be cause for much pointing and laughing except for the fact that this man has real power and is exercising it with gay abandon.
And, you’re right, French politics is a morass of corruption. Best to learn from and avoid rather than copy.
OMagain:
Not much beyond “Christianity true, evolutionary theory false”.
If he could actually defend his views, he wouldn’t be so timid about stating them.
It is evidence for one flavor of theism.
Basing an assumption on physical evidence is absurd
Sounds familiar.
Mung,
I Bought a Kindle version, and am about half way through it. He has gone over many relevant arguments that we debate here. He appears to understand the issues.
If that’s not a cry for help, it should be.
Glen Davidson
Like you defending unguided evolution by citing evidence that has nothing to do with unguided evolution?
No one here has ever supported evolution by means of blind and mindless processes unless they were making and defending the claim said processes produce genetic entropy, disease and deformities. We have been waiting since the site started, so how about it?
Heh. Wish fulfillment.
Right now you’re winning this one. I’m about to start Chapter 7 and so far I haven’t really seen anything new other than some quotes I had not seen before and some personal reminiscence.
Amen.
You don’t give a citation for that quote.
There are many proponents of evolution, who would not agree. That is to say, many are not pan-selectionists.
Given the presence of incomplete information, make a best guess at where the quote comes from. Let me know if you need a hint.
If where it comes from, matters — then you can tell us.
I commented on what it says. And where it comes from doesn’t matter for that.
The title of the OP is “Darwin’s House of Cards”
http://bfy.tw/9tpe
There must be a good reason the authorities haven’t shut down this site, but right now I can’t think of one.
Say it isn’t so Tom.
Vincent Torley gets a nod:
Bethell cites an article from Uncommon Descent.
That alone must disqualify him due to complete lack of objectivity.
I don’t feel obligated to only discuss anti-darwinism books. I’d love to discuss a book on evolutionism, if there’s one worth discussing.
You mentioned Arrival of the Fittest. It may have been brought up before.
Yes, I’ve been waiting for petrushka to start an OP on it, since it’s a favorite of his. I’ll be happy to discuss it when he does.
Is it your precondition that petrushka authors an OP?
Arrival is often discussed, but as far as I can tell, seldom read. I haven’t seen evidence that anyone in the ID movement has read beyond the cover blurb.
No, if someone else thinks it’s worth discussing they could start an OP on it. I’ve seen little evidence that petrushka’s actually read the book so that might even be better.
I have read it and I am reading it again as people are making claims about it that just are not there.
Which is one reason I keep trying to goading them into an OP on it, lol.