Nature article says that an urgent rethink is being sought on evolution theory but … it might make people think they support ID.
This article from NATURE journal illustrates the hysteria - the FEAR - that grips those even thinking of being unfaithful to the Evolutionary Sacred Cow.
Below I've highlighted certain sections of that article.
It's the kind of stuff that you have to see to believe.
I have the following all-encompassing comment:
If "scientists" won’t look for fear of what they might find ... if "scientists" won't follow the evidence to its logical conclusion ... if "scientists" won't speak out supporting what is patently obvious ... then what the devil are they doing in science? What kind of "science" are they practicing?
However, I know all-too-well that the Evo-Faithful here at TWeb will deny, Deny, DENY and fight this tooth and nail. As I have stated on numerous occasions, such are the 'ethics' of the Evo-Flock.
.
.
The latest issue of Nature has a point-counterpoint on the question “Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?” Answering “Yes, urgently” are Kevin Laland (professor of behavioral and evolutionary biology at the University of St. Andrews), Tobias Uller, Marc Feldman, Kim Sterelny, Gerd B. Müller, Armin Moczek, Eva Jablonka, and John Odling-Smee. These "scientists" are proposing/promoting what they call the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (“EES”).
Here we go AGAIN - yet another version of Darwinism in which the goalposts will undoubtedly be placed into the next county. The "EES" is essentially a new evolutionary synthesis that rejects some of the core tenets of neo-Darwinism (like the views that natural selection is the dominant force guiding evolution, or that there is a “tree of life”). The Nature article contains a stunningly forthright admission: some scientists avoid making criticisms of neo-Darwinian evolution lest they give the appearance of supporting ID
FROM THE NATURE ARTICLE:
"The number of biologists calling for change in how evolution is conceptualized is growing rapidly. Strong support comes from allied disciplines, particularly developmental biology, but also genomics, epigenetics, ecology and social science. We contend that evolutionary biology needs revision if it is to benefit fully from these other disciplines. The data supporting our position gets stronger every day.
Yet the mere mention of the EES often evokes an emotional, even hostile, reaction among evolutionary biologists. Too often, vital discussions descend into acrimony, with accusations of muddle or misrepresentation. Perhaps haunted by the spectre of intelligent design, evolutionary biologists wish to show a united front to those hostile to science. Some might fear that they will receive less funding and recognition if outsiders — such as physiologists or developmental biologists — flood into their field.
However, another factor is more important: many conventional evolutionary biologists study the processes that we claim are neglected, but they comprehend them very differently (see ‘No, all is well’). This is no storm in an academic tearoom, it is a struggle for the very soul of the discipline. – Kevin Laland, Tobias Uller, Marc Feldman, Kim Sterelny, Gerd B. Müller, Armin Moczek, Eva Jablonka, and John Odling-Smee, “Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Yes, urgently,” Nature, Vol. 514:161-164 (October 9, 2014)
"
With this I can pretty much close my case - thank you.
WOW !!!
Jorge
This article from NATURE journal illustrates the hysteria - the FEAR - that grips those even thinking of being unfaithful to the Evolutionary Sacred Cow.
Below I've highlighted certain sections of that article.
It's the kind of stuff that you have to see to believe.
I have the following all-encompassing comment:
If "scientists" won’t look for fear of what they might find ... if "scientists" won't follow the evidence to its logical conclusion ... if "scientists" won't speak out supporting what is patently obvious ... then what the devil are they doing in science? What kind of "science" are they practicing?
However, I know all-too-well that the Evo-Faithful here at TWeb will deny, Deny, DENY and fight this tooth and nail. As I have stated on numerous occasions, such are the 'ethics' of the Evo-Flock.
.
.
The latest issue of Nature has a point-counterpoint on the question “Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?” Answering “Yes, urgently” are Kevin Laland (professor of behavioral and evolutionary biology at the University of St. Andrews), Tobias Uller, Marc Feldman, Kim Sterelny, Gerd B. Müller, Armin Moczek, Eva Jablonka, and John Odling-Smee. These "scientists" are proposing/promoting what they call the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (“EES”).
Here we go AGAIN - yet another version of Darwinism in which the goalposts will undoubtedly be placed into the next county. The "EES" is essentially a new evolutionary synthesis that rejects some of the core tenets of neo-Darwinism (like the views that natural selection is the dominant force guiding evolution, or that there is a “tree of life”). The Nature article contains a stunningly forthright admission: some scientists avoid making criticisms of neo-Darwinian evolution lest they give the appearance of supporting ID
FROM THE NATURE ARTICLE:
"The number of biologists calling for change in how evolution is conceptualized is growing rapidly. Strong support comes from allied disciplines, particularly developmental biology, but also genomics, epigenetics, ecology and social science. We contend that evolutionary biology needs revision if it is to benefit fully from these other disciplines. The data supporting our position gets stronger every day.
Yet the mere mention of the EES often evokes an emotional, even hostile, reaction among evolutionary biologists. Too often, vital discussions descend into acrimony, with accusations of muddle or misrepresentation. Perhaps haunted by the spectre of intelligent design, evolutionary biologists wish to show a united front to those hostile to science. Some might fear that they will receive less funding and recognition if outsiders — such as physiologists or developmental biologists — flood into their field.
However, another factor is more important: many conventional evolutionary biologists study the processes that we claim are neglected, but they comprehend them very differently (see ‘No, all is well’). This is no storm in an academic tearoom, it is a struggle for the very soul of the discipline. – Kevin Laland, Tobias Uller, Marc Feldman, Kim Sterelny, Gerd B. Müller, Armin Moczek, Eva Jablonka, and John Odling-Smee, “Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Yes, urgently,” Nature, Vol. 514:161-164 (October 9, 2014)
"
With this I can pretty much close my case - thank you.
WOW !!!
Jorge
Comment