There is a joy to this appearing in The Guardian

Some still attack Darwin and evolution. How can science fight back?
Jules Howard
AN Wilson’s ‘exposé’ is the latest in a long line of attempts to undermine evolutionary biology. Now scientists must decide how best to counter them

Given that near all of the comment pieces in that newspaper are valiant attempts to deny the implications of evolutionary biology.

31 comments on “There is a joy to this appearing in The Guardian

  1. And yet SJW’s are falling overthemselves to attack the guy just fired from Google for accurately representing the state (and overwhelming consensus view) of behavioural science research.

  2. When they realise that insisting on equality of outcome, gender fluidity and intersecting victimhoods are unDarwinian, poor Charles will be subject to the same opprobrium as other dead white males. I do wonder why it’s taken so long but SjWs are obviously underrepresented in biology.

  3. Indeed it was posted on the top line right next to Owen Jones’ piece on how sexist the Google diversity manifesto was. The irony was painful.

  4. “near all of the comment pieces in that newspaper are valiant attempts to deny the implications of evolutionary biology”: that’s because humans are different – clear evidence that the Gruaniad is run by the dimmer sort of Christian.

    Or the dimmer sort of summat.

  5. Ljh

    “…SjWs are obviously underrepresented in biology.”

    Yet from J B S Haldane and J Maynard Smith to Steve Jones and The Dawk, evolutionary biologists are overwhelmingly left-wing.

  6. They use Science when it suits them, and discard it when it doesn’t, all to satisfy the tactical requirements of the moment. They don’t understand it, they don’t even want to. Science is a weapon in their war, not an explanation for how the world works.

  7. “Valiant” is emphatically not the word I would use in this case.

    And as for Jones, is it not presumptuous for a gayer to pretend to have greater insight into the attributes of women?

    Clearly he prefers men to women, doesn’t this in some way make women inferior in his eyes?

  8. As usual, the Guardian writer does not actually engage with what Wilson wrote. The theory of evolution as understood today has very little to do with what Darwin wrote. I remember Attenborough explaining this years ago. So why this effort to defend Darwin? What is the point?

  9. @John Miller

    To blatantly rob from “Godfrey Elfwick”‘s new Twitter project, “Owen Jones’s Refusal to Find Women Sexually Attractive Is Kind of Misogynistic and We Need to Talk About it.”

    Well, it amuses me, anyway. YMMV.

  10. Darwinism is a pejorative of evolution science. It has no meaning in the science community; we have no clue what it is supposed to mean.

  11. Should The G print an article challenging Markovnikov’s rule, which they surely wouldn’t, chemists would get a good laugh and ignore it.

    What is it about evolutionary biology that the legacy press will print silly challenges to it, and suggest that scientists should actually respond to it?

  12. ‘Leftists believe in evolution’

    Bullshit. Leftists aren’t smart enough to understand evolution.

  13. “but SjWs are obviously underrepresented in biology.” Quite possibly because Mother Nature does not recognise SJW -ing as a long-term survival trait.

  14. “Leftists believe in evolution they just don’t believe in genetics.”

    Almost. They believe that evolution stops at the neck.

  15. @Jonathan,

    Not quite – they believe whatever they need to at any given moment to keep their pre-cooked ideological positions warm and comfortable.

  16. They use Science when it suits them, and discard it when it doesn’t, all to satisfy the tactical requirements of the moment. They don’t understand it, they don’t even want to. Science is a weapon in their war, not an explanation for how the world works.

    Reality, perfectly expressed.

  17. “Bullshit. Leftists aren’t smart enough to understand evolution.”

    Then why are so many of its leading evolutionary theorists leftists?

  18. Gamecock: indeed. Whenever I hear someone banging on about how iffy they find the neo-Darwinian synthesis (even if they’re not sufficiently clued-up to know that’s what they’re doing) I’m tempted to say, “that’s interesting! You must be very knowledgable. Could you gives us your thoughts on the AdS/CFT correspondence?”

  19. ‘Reasons’ why leftists like Darwinism:

    1. Evolution in biology echoes evolution in society – Darwin and Marx are, er, partners!

    2. These creationists are right-wing nutters! Their beliefs are not PC…. So Darwin must be right…

    3. Darwinism displaces religion – all those should-nots are so tiresome: I’m an individual!

    To repeat:
    http://s8int.com/darwinian-stove.html

  20. Theophrastus
    August 9, 2017 at 5:15 pm

    3. Darwinism displaces religion – all those should-nots are so tiresome: I’m an individual!

    What does Darwinism mean? It obviously means something to you. No one else has a clue what you mean.

  21. “What does Darwinism mean? It obviously means something to you. No one else has a clue what you mean.”

    That you, Gamecock, don’t understand a widely accepted term doesn’t surprise me. Not so long ago you were insisting that cars emitted laughing gas! Remember?

    Meanwhile, chew on this:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism

  22. BiCR
    But, conversely, being knowledgeable about quantum gravity vs string theory doesn’t mean you understand the pros and cons of the neo-darwinian synthesis – much of which is not even science, because unfalsifiable.

  23. “The atheist philosopher and general sceptic, the late David Stove, puts it all very well here:”

    It’s true that a lot of Darwinians don’t always express themselves perfectly and precisely in everything they write. Quote-mining is easy. But in a lot of those examples he quotes, his argument seems to be that he doesn’t like the implications of what they say, rather than it being actually false.

    That’s a fair enough reason for not liking Darwinian evolution, if you’re clear about that being your real reason.

    “I’m tempted to say, “that’s interesting! You must be very knowledgable. Could you gives us your thoughts on the AdS/CFT correspondence?””

    It’s a useful formal correspondence between two models, that allows techniques developed for solving problems in one to be applied to problems most easily expressed using the other. But there’s nothing special about that particular example – it’s a generic technique used in a lot of science and reasoning.

    For example, people are doing exactly the same thing when they anthropomorphise genes as being intelligent agents with intentions. We have one set of methods for understanding genes as mindless chemical reactions that spread out randomly but whose distribution is trimmed by selective death, leaving only those combinations less likely to die. We have another set of intuitive methods for figuring out how an intelligent problem-solving computational engine would solve those same survival problems. Within certain limits, they will tend to do the same sorts of things. So you can use your specialised methods for solving the problem in one domain (intelligent genes), and then translate it into the language of the other (chemicals reacting blindly), and see if it still works. It’s a useful shortcut. But it’s not infallible, and both theories have their limits of validity or practical computability.

  24. “That you, Gamecock, don’t understand a widely accepted term doesn’t surprise me.”

    Your straw man stands. I asked you what it means to you, and you danced, instead of answering the question.

    “Widely accepted” in circles outside of science. “Darwinism” means absolutely fucking nothing in the scientific community.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.