There are no"isms" in legitimate scientific research. Darwinism is a term used by those with a 19th century perspective. Darwin's observations, updated with findings from biochemistry and other strands of study, have proven themselves valid. I find the use of the term is often used by people who believe in Intelligent Design or its cousin, creationism. (I was going to call it idiot cousin.). I prefer to use the term evolutionary biology; it combines genetics, chemistry, zoology, paleontology, stratiography and natural history. It's legit science. Darwinism is an insult.
"The eclipse of Darwinism" is a standard phrase in the history and philosophy of science. Peter Bowler (the author of "The Eclipse of Darwinism" is not a creationist. https://www.amazon.com/Eclipse-Darwinism-Anti-Darwinian-Evolution-Theories/dp/080184391X. May I ask what field your Phd research is in? You should really look into the footnotes before you comment.
The term Social Darwinism is a misnomer used to describe a mindset in which "survival of the fittest" rules. There is no safety net--just rugged individuals competing against one another. It's a misnomer because Darwin was a "liberal" for his time. He was DE-scribing a genetic strategy in biology, not PRE-scribing how we should run our sociopolitical affairs.
Good Lord! I noticed you denied the existence of any "Darwinism." So, I mentioned that term. I have read a bio of Darwin. What misunderstanding occurred. I know what Social Darwinism is and I know what Darwin did. You should speak plainly.
Thank you for an informative article, I knew of Dobzhansky but wasn't familiar with his work. What is your view on the current situation in abiogenesis? Evolution, whatever version one takes, is about change. For something to change (evolve), something needs to exist which is able to do so. That something has to be in some way "organic", or perhaps "pre-organic", in order to be subject to evolutionary change?
WE don't have to believe in the Abrahamic God or the intelligent creationist god to understand that consciousness imbues all of the universe with meaning. The latest idea I have seen capturing physics here on the West Coast is that everything has consciousness (People shy away from being labeled panpsychists, even if they are.) and consciousness by its very nature is creative. Thus a virus may be far down on the consciousness level, but its mutation is a creative solution to a problem that drives all conscious beings: survival of its species.
You kind of lost me in the weeds. I learned about Darwin's Theory of natural selection and about Mendelian genetics and I never saw any conflict between the two. In my view, evolution is how G-d expresses and so there is no conflict there either. Keep it simple, folks.
So, given I am living in the modern evolutionary synthesis, what were you on about? The not-so-recent past? People in the not-so-recent past had a lot of weird ideas--such as the earth being flat and that Copernicus was wrong that the Earth revolved around the sun. I have never had a conflict between there being G-d and natural selection. Natural selection is how G-d designed it all. It's like that whole business about Existentialism and there being no meaning for anything. That was a crock. I prefer entanglement theory--that we are all connected and we all affect one another. Not only is there physical evolution; there is also evolution of consciousness. I fear we humans have quite a journey to perfect that. Now let me see if the article you recommend is plainer.
I ordered the book from amazon. I hope it is in plain understandable English as it would indeed be nice to get some context. The bio I read about Darwin emphasized his inner conflict with the religious people of his time, especially his wife. The bio said that he held back until someone else was about to publish the same idea.
What feels like nonsense is your reply, hiding behind a pseudonym and irrelevant lingustic details - what a particular Old Norse word meant or didn't mean has no impact on the concept with which we are dealing. Do you care to introduce your credentials in logic? Any publications, degrees, papers?
There are no"isms" in legitimate scientific research. Darwinism is a term used by those with a 19th century perspective. Darwin's observations, updated with findings from biochemistry and other strands of study, have proven themselves valid. I find the use of the term is often used by people who believe in Intelligent Design or its cousin, creationism. (I was going to call it idiot cousin.). I prefer to use the term evolutionary biology; it combines genetics, chemistry, zoology, paleontology, stratiography and natural history. It's legit science. Darwinism is an insult.
"The eclipse of Darwinism" is a standard phrase in the history and philosophy of science. Peter Bowler (the author of "The Eclipse of Darwinism" is not a creationist. https://www.amazon.com/Eclipse-Darwinism-Anti-Darwinian-Evolution-Theories/dp/080184391X. May I ask what field your Phd research is in? You should really look into the footnotes before you comment.
The term Social Darwinism is a misnomer used to describe a mindset in which "survival of the fittest" rules. There is no safety net--just rugged individuals competing against one another. It's a misnomer because Darwin was a "liberal" for his time. He was DE-scribing a genetic strategy in biology, not PRE-scribing how we should run our sociopolitical affairs.
If you read the article, you will observe that I do not use the term "social Darwinism". I recommend that you read a few modern biographies of Darwin to correct your misunderstanding. For example, "Darwin's Sacred Cause" https://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Sacred-Cause-Slavery-Evolution-ebook/dp/B00PF1PX88
Good Lord! I noticed you denied the existence of any "Darwinism." So, I mentioned that term. I have read a bio of Darwin. What misunderstanding occurred. I know what Social Darwinism is and I know what Darwin did. You should speak plainly.
Thank you for an informative article, I knew of Dobzhansky but wasn't familiar with his work. What is your view on the current situation in abiogenesis? Evolution, whatever version one takes, is about change. For something to change (evolve), something needs to exist which is able to do so. That something has to be in some way "organic", or perhaps "pre-organic", in order to be subject to evolutionary change?
WE don't have to believe in the Abrahamic God or the intelligent creationist god to understand that consciousness imbues all of the universe with meaning. The latest idea I have seen capturing physics here on the West Coast is that everything has consciousness (People shy away from being labeled panpsychists, even if they are.) and consciousness by its very nature is creative. Thus a virus may be far down on the consciousness level, but its mutation is a creative solution to a problem that drives all conscious beings: survival of its species.
You might enjoy this article: https://www.templeton.org/news/can-the-rocks-cry-out
Thank you for this. Feels good to have some back and forth on what is undeniably the most important topic of our times.
You kind of lost me in the weeds. I learned about Darwin's Theory of natural selection and about Mendelian genetics and I never saw any conflict between the two. In my view, evolution is how G-d expresses and so there is no conflict there either. Keep it simple, folks.
The reason you don't see a conflict is because you are living after the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is discussed in the article. Please read "The Eclipse of Darwinism" if you want more context https://www.amazon.com/Eclipse-Darwinism-Anti-Darwinian-Evolution-Theories/dp/080184391X.
So, given I am living in the modern evolutionary synthesis, what were you on about? The not-so-recent past? People in the not-so-recent past had a lot of weird ideas--such as the earth being flat and that Copernicus was wrong that the Earth revolved around the sun. I have never had a conflict between there being G-d and natural selection. Natural selection is how G-d designed it all. It's like that whole business about Existentialism and there being no meaning for anything. That was a crock. I prefer entanglement theory--that we are all connected and we all affect one another. Not only is there physical evolution; there is also evolution of consciousness. I fear we humans have quite a journey to perfect that. Now let me see if the article you recommend is plainer.
I ordered the book from amazon. I hope it is in plain understandable English as it would indeed be nice to get some context. The bio I read about Darwin emphasized his inner conflict with the religious people of his time, especially his wife. The bio said that he held back until someone else was about to publish the same idea.
All reasoning is ultimately circular. You really need to familiarize yourself with the work of the mathematician Kurt Gödel.
What feels like nonsense is your reply, hiding behind a pseudonym and irrelevant lingustic details - what a particular Old Norse word meant or didn't mean has no impact on the concept with which we are dealing. Do you care to introduce your credentials in logic? Any publications, degrees, papers?
Oh dear. Thanks for confirming.