Demons and Dawkins

Darwinian Fairytales (Avebury Series in Philosophy) | 1996 | D. C. Stove

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

ping.

[AndrewC]

Like all leftists, evolutionists delight in semantics and in turning the meaning of words upside down. Tells you something when people have to pervert the language in order to promote their theory.

Boy, you have that right. They could publish an Darwininian only dictionary for all the spaghetti language they use.

[scripter]

Index ping.

[Dataman]

I cannot speak for others, but for my own part, it is impossible to read these words without feeling anxiety for Dr. Dawkins's sanity. I try to think of what I, or anyone, could say to him, to help restrain him from going over the edge into absolute madness.

Naturalists simply cannot account for human nature with their materialistic presuppositions.

[RobRoy]

I guess it all depends on the definition of the word "is."

8^>

[CyberCowboy777]

Bump

[balrog666]

Ping.

[Junior]

Ring ping-a-ling.

[donh]

it is a problem or worse for neo-Darwinism (as for Darwinism) how altruistic behavior could survive and spread in any population of animals.

No, it's not. There is a whole camp of explanations sometimes called "red queen" theories, and both the evidence and arguments are quite straightforward.

[PatrickHenry]

To avoid duplicating Junior, this goes to the 2nd half of my ping list.

[This ping list for the evolution -- not creationism -- side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. To be added (or dropped), let me know via freepmail.]

[f.Christian]

How about killer bee science // evolution . . .

the royal jelly // formula (( lies )) to create the devil hyper science // killer bees - - -

hostile takeover // murder // tyranny // lynchings !

kkk science !

[whattajoke]

The Red Queen theories, or the thought that there really is no such thing as altruism in nature, that it's only an anthropomorphic machination. Ironically, these perceived altruistic behaviors are thought to be more proof of evolution through preservation of the gene pool.

If only creationists tried a little science once in a while, rather than simply being hack literary critics, maybe they'd learn a thing or two.

[donh]

Please share your lovely blank verse with someone
more appreciative than I.

[Condorman]

7 pages to debunk a semantic misunderstanding? Hardly worth getting excited over.

A gene whose expression increases its chance of getting passed to subsequent generations quite naturally should experience an increase in expression over time.

How is this controversial again?

[gore3000]

There is a whole camp of explanations sometimes called "red queen" theories, and both the evidence and arguments are quite straightforward.

So let's see you explain how altruism becomes selfishness according to this 'red queen' theory.

[gore3000]

[This ping list for the evolution -- not creationism

Yup, the evo losers cannot win if they have any opponents in the field so they have to be excluded! Some scientific theory!

[gore3000]

The Red Queen theories, or the thought that there really is no such thing as altruism in nature,

Listening to the evolutionists speak it reminds me of 1984:
War is peace/ slavery is freedom/ and of course, truth is whatever you want it to be.

[gore3000]

7 pages to debunk a semantic misunderstanding?

Since it took Dawkins a whole book to re-define altruism to mean selfishness (1984 style) the author cannot be faulted on this. Perhaps you should direct your ire at Dawkins for his dishonesty.