Darwinism and academic culture: So now we admit there are problems?

A friend draws my attention to this paper by a materialist, in which we read,

"Incremental changes in an existing biological structure the alterations in beak shape of the finches that so impressed Charles Darwin during his voyage to the Galapagos Islands, for instance - can indeed be attributed to natural selection. Even most creationists do not deny this. But when it comes to the innovation of entirely new structures (‘‘morphological novelties’’) such as segmentally organized bodies (seen in earthworms, insects, and vertebrates such as humans, but not jellyfish or molluscs), or the hands and feet of tetrapods (vertebrates with four limbs), Darwin’s mechanism comes up short. This is a reality that is increasingly acknowledged by biologists, particularly those working in the field of evolutionary developmental biology, or ‘‘EvoDevo.’’ "

“Derision of a traditionalist segment of the public for not immediately jumping into line with standard selectionist narratives (however far-fetched they may be), is not the answer here. The scientific mainstream should rightly be prevailing in the evolution debate, since the living world is manifestly a product of evolution. But it and its liberal advocates are so wedded to a neo-Darwinism that has effectively become the house philosophy of the market economy that they are barely holding on in their attempts to prevent naturalistic accounts of the history of life from being expunged from school curricula. Unless the discourse around evolution is opened up to scientific perspectives beyond Darwinism, the education of generations to come is at risk of being sacrificed for the benefit of a dying theory.”

Much of SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS: Evolution: The Public’s Problem, and the Scientists’ by Stuart A. Newman is nonsense, but the author has certainly got one thing right: People don't believe it because it is not believable.

Newman, if you do not have a better story (and you obviously don't), it is okay to say you don't know. I don't either. But please discourage people from insulting the public any more with the Big Spenders or Big Bazooms theories of human evolution.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:


Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Cambrian explosion film to be shown, after all

Anika Smith, at the Discovery Institute, informs me that:

Those who live in the Los Angeles area are invited to attend a gala premiere screening of Illustra Media's new documentary, Darwin's Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record next Sunday, October 25th at 7:00 pm at the University of Southern California. The event is sponsored by the American Freedom Alliance.

This premiere was originally scheduled for the California Science Center, but the Center canceled the event just a few days ago, leaving the organizers virtually no time to find a new location. If you live in the Los Angeles area, you can show your support for free speech ...

That might be a very good idea. Especially if you note what is going on in Canada (which recently dropped a number of points in press freedom rankings, due to struggles that have sucked up much of the lives of many of my friends).

Basically, Darwin always knew that the Cambrian explosion was a problem for his theory, and he attributed it to the poverty of the fossil record. Now that the record is better, it is a bigger problem for his theory. The film might be good or bad, right or wrong, but if it cannot be shown ... welcome to the world where government tells you what to think.

Which reminds me: The 19th century Smithsonian secretary avoided dealing with this evidence for many years. Ever since, it has been downplayed. We are expected to forever wait for a Darwinian explanation. That's like waiting for the guy dead drunk at the bottom of the stairs to pay his rent.

So if, as some have said, the Smithsonian had anything to do with the sudden cancellation, it would be no surprise.

Personally, I am sick and tired of all the garbage. Darwinism is an unbelievable belief currently funded by government. It makes about as much sense as this stuff.

Canada slips in media freedom rankings

As if we didn't guess this would happen, due to the endless disgrace created by "human rights" commissions. As Ezra Levant writes,

The Canadian Human Rights Commission and its megalomanaic chief commissioner, Jennifer Lynch, have disgraced Canada on the international stage.

According to the annual report by Reporters sans Frontieres (that's French for Reporters without Borders) Canada has plunged from 13th place to 19th place in the world, in terms of press freedom. Here's a CP wire story on the subject.

Chris Waddell, a journalism professor quoted in that story, attributes part of that plunge to the increasing bullying of reporters by Canada's human rights commissions -- and Lynch's CHRC is mentioned in particular.

What bothers me most is efforts to pretend that these people do some good somewhere, so therefore it is all okay. What I say is, get RID of the current practitioners of "human rights," and then we will see whether the agency as such is worth salvaging.