Author: Michael Egnor
Darwin’s Theory, Darwinism, and Eugenics
My friend and colleague John West wrote an essay recently commenting on my post about the link between Darwinism and eugenics. He raised some very important points, with which I agree, and I’d like to clarify my view and clarify our fundamental agreement.
Darwinist Professor: “Michael F**king Behe” Is Shamefully Corrupting American Science Education
Darwinists lack two traits desirable for scientists: decorum and a developed sense of irony. University of Minnesota Associate Professor of Biology and star Darwinist science blogger P.Z. Myers provides evidence for this observation in a recent scatological tirade on Pharyngula, the popular Darwinist science blog that is read daily by thousands of young scientists and aspiring scientists.
MUST… COPY… SELF…
“At Last, the Truth About Love” is the subtiltle of Robert Wright’s recent essay “Why Darwinism isn’t Depressing” published on the New York Times Op-Ed page. Wright, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation and author of The Moral Animal, notes that neuroscience and evolution have left some people, well, downhearted. He notes: One commentator recently acknowledged the ascendance of the Darwinian paradigm with a sigh: “Evolution doesn’t really lead to anything outside itself.”
A Moment of Clarity: Darwinists Plan to Recruit “People Who Do Not Care About Science”.
Every once in a while, in an epochal public debate, there’s a moment of clarity. Darwinism’s most recent moment of clarity came a short time ago, when prominent Darwinist and scientist Mike Dunford released the strategy developed by his colleagues in a policy forum piece published in the latest issue of the journal Science. The strategy is remarkable.Dunford notes the emerging Darwinian strategy: I think Matt [Nisbet] and Chris [Mooney] are right. We do need to spend more time (and thought) on communicating our views effectively, particularly to people who do not care about science.
Pseudo-Darwinism: Dr. Cartwright’s Error and Eugenics
Darwinist Dr. Reed Cartwright was highly critical of my recent observation that Darwin’s theory has nothing to do with experimental breeding of bacteria or with the biotech industry. In his original article, Dr. Cartwright asserted that Darwin’s theory was responsible for the experiments that unraveled the genetic code and for the entire biotechnology industry (!). I pointed out that Darwin’s theory was a theory of random variation and natural selection, whereas experimental manipulation and breeding of bacteria were examples of purposeful variation and artificial selection. Darwin’s theory has nothing to do with either. I have also noted that Darwin’s seminal contribution to medicine was eugenics. Dr. Cartwright saw the flaw in my linkage between Darwin’s science and eugenics: