Archivo de noviembre 26th, 2012

Críticos de Darwin: W

W

 

°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤

 

Waddington, Conrad (1905-1975)

 

Natural Selection is that some things leave more offspring than others; and you ask, which leave more offspring than others; and it is those that leave more offspring; and there is nothing more to it than that.

………………………

 

The whole real guts of evolution — which is, how do you come to have horses and tigers, and things — is outside the mathematical theory. So when people say that a thing is vacuous, I think they may be thinking of this part of it, this type of statement. The sheer mathematical statement is largely vacuous. The actual way this is applied, not by the mathematical theorists but by the biologists working with the subject, is not vacuous at all.

 

(P.S.Moorehead, and M.M.Kaplan, Eds., Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, The Wistar Institute Symposim Monograph N. 5 (Philadelphia: Wistar Institute Press, 1967), pp.13,14)

 

 

°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤

 

 Wainwright, Milton (1950-   )

“It would be refreshing if Darwinists told the truth about Darwin.”

“I find the whole idea of Darwin Day extremely disturbing.”

 

 

 

This essay is devoted to history of the development of the theory of evolution, via the process of natural selection. It is provided in response to what I believe is censorship by a small, but highly influential, part of the current academic community. This belief has been strengthened by my recent, unsuccessful attempts to get published my work on Darwin. Over the last six months or so a paper on the admission by Darwin and Wallace that they were beaten to natural selection role has been forwarded, in the normal way, to four academic journals and a shorter version has also been sent to a UK magazine devoted to the popularisation of biology. In all cases, the paper was summarily rejected without reviewer’s comments; no reasons were given for it having been denied any serious consideration. This experience has led me to conclude that any academic article proving that Darwin did not originate the theory of evolution, via natural selection, will be censored by the scientific community. This situation reminds me of the story (perhaps apocryphal) about the Russian scientist who stated that in the Soviet Union, he could criticise Darwin, but not the Government, while in the West, he was able to criticise the Government, but not Darwin.
In the light of this experience, I have decided not to waste further time submitting the first article, given here, to the normal peer review process; instead I have produced this pamphlet (given here on the Web) for general circulation. Ironically, censorship has forced me into the ways of scientists of the past, who often published their ideas in booklets like this one.
Dr Milton Wainwright, Sheffield, July 1st, 2008

 

 

°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤

 

 

 

 

Wiker, Benjamin (1960-    )

 

But before we do too much celebrating of birthdays and morally upright causes, we’d better take a closer look at Darwin’s views and his legacy. Darwin hated slavery, and Darwin confirmed slavery as natural. He hated racism, but his theory of human evolution was fundamentally racist. His heart and head were in complete contradiction.

On this vision, people like “the negro or Australian” were something like intermediate species, less evolved from the ape, and hence more likely to lose in the relentless struggle of the fit against the unfit. The struggle cannot itself be blamed, for it is this very struggle between tribe and tribe, race and race that had driven human beings above the level of anthropomorphous apes. That same struggle pushed hard enough to produce the Caucasian, eventually creating a man capable of formulating a theory of evolution.

He was born 200 years ago today. Happy birthday, Charles Darwin.

 

It is a myth that evolutionary theory must coincide with Darwinian theory. It is a myth based on Darwin’s fame, but it has distorted our understanding of the scientific evidence and the debates about it. Darwin’s triumph has been to set ideological atheism as the default position of science; as the prism through which scientists are supposed to see the world and conduct their work. It is just as distorting to science as ideological Marxism is to the study of economics. It offers an answer for everything; it is an answer to which facts are twisted to conform; but it might be the wrong answer. But the problem with Darwinism is not just science. As we will soon see, Darwin’s intense desire to set forth a God-free view of evolution brought him to offer an account of human development in which everything about human beings, even their moral capacities, is explained entirely as the result of natural selection, that is, of the struggle for survival where the more fit eliminate the less fit. So-called “social Darwinism” is not, as is typically assumed today, a misapplication of Darwinism, it is Darwinism, and it provides an open rationale for eugenics and racism. This had abhorrent consequences in the twentieth century; and unless we understand Darwinism’s flaws, there is no reason to believe it will not have equally abhorrent consequences in our own.°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ 

 

Williamson,  Donald I. (1922-    )

 

I reject the Darwinian assumption that larvae and their adults evolved

from a single common ancestor.

 

°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤

Etiquetas: