#darwinists

[mbsmelly]

Deryn and Alek make me sick I love them so much

Bonus:

I hope they live very fulfilling lives and have a wonderful relationship, is that too much to ask for?

[skiptomy]

Three Days until the Kickstarter for the Dystopia Rising Graphic Novel goes live. 

[faithfulnews]

Evolutionist Thinks He Is Clickbait

I adore Jerry Coyne, the atheist evolutionist and University of Chicago emeritus biology professor. At Why Evolution Is True, he goes after Granville Sewell for a post here, “Jerry Coyne Asks a Good Question.” In his theologian mode, Coyne demands to know why God doesn’t do “ONE BIG MIRACLE, of the type I describe in Faith Versus Fact (p. 119) — a miracle that was taped and documented worldwide.” To be honest I didn’t fully read Coyne’s latest, but I noticed his claim, which he’s made repeatedly in the past, that intelligent design proponents, especially at Evolution News, write about him because he is clickbait.

What’s that? Clickbait is defined as “a sensationalized headline or piece of text on the Internet designed to entice people to follow a link to an article on another web page.” Coyne: “I swear that they keep banging on about me because I’ll bring them clicks!” In fact, he won’t include a link to Professor Sewell’s post but instead archives it elsewhere “so the DI [Discovery Institute] doesn’t get clicks.” 

Sorry to disappoint, but if I wanted to get “clicks” I think I would go for “Meghan Markle Asks a Good Question” or “Brad Pitt Asks a Good Question,” not Jerry Coyne. I might try to put something about a wardrobe malfunction in there. Or better yet, “HORROR: Man high on zombie drug saws off own leg…,” a selection more or less at random from today’s Drudge Report. “Jerry Coyne Asks a Good Question” is almost the exact antithesis of clickbait.

Darwinists’ Collective “Id”

Why talk about him, then? Oh, as our colleague Dr. Michael Egnor has observed in the past, it’s simply because Coyne and a few other evolutionists — Richard Dawkins, P.Z. Myers, a couple others — are the collective “Id” of the Darwinist community. They don’t bother to dissemble about the implications of their theory. You don’t have tease out the deeper significance of anything they say. It’s displayed nakedly there before you. That’s why we love them.

Most evolutionists are far savvier in how they seek to persuade the public. When you go around praising the science of eugenics because it “works,” as Dawkins did with a tweet the other day (even as he “deplored” it as a policy), that worried others on his side, resulting in a great blowback directed at Dawkins. That’s an example of what I mean. If Coyne and Dawkins were cleverer about concealing what their way of thinking really would mean if it were widely embraced, we’d cover them a lot less.

On the Dawkins and eugenics theme, Coyne, meanwhile, headlines, “Discovery Institute makes hay of Dawkins tweet, and a geneticist mistakenly says that artificial selection won’t work in humans.” I swear he’s trying to get clicks with us!

Photo credit: Free-Photos via Pixabay.

The post Evolutionist Thinks He Is Clickbait appeared first on Evolution News.

Go to the article

[asofterleviathan]

Wait... maybe I am a xenophobe!

[apolesen]

Animal fuel-inefficiency in the Leviathan, and a suggested solution

For a few days now, something has bugged me. In the amazing world-building of the Leviathan trilogy by Scott Westerfeld, there is one big problem. Animals are incredibly fuel-inefficient. How are the Darwinists finding enough sustenance for all these fabricated beasties? In a fictional world which is very well planned, this is quite a big problem. 

Here is my suggestion, which also would explain why certain countries are Darwinists and some countries are Clankers. 

(Discussion of imperialism and colonialism follows). 

Short answer: the British empire. Apart from the British isles, Britain ruled over Canada, British Guiana, Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago, as well as the Falklands Islands in South America; large parts of Africa - Egypt, Sudan, Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika, Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), South Africa and what was then South-West Africa, as well as Nigeria, the Gold Coast and some (relatively) smaller part of territory in west Africa; parts of the Arabic peninsula; India (which includes modern-day India, Pakistan and Bangladesh), Ceylon (modern-day Sri Lanka), Burma, Malaya (now part of Malaysia), parts of Borneo, Hong Kong, Papua Ne Guinea, the Solom islands, Fiji and a number of other islands in the Pacific; Australia dn New Zealand. (I've had to overlook some colonies, because there are so, so many, often under names which are no longer used.) 

This amounts to about a fourth of the world's land-mass. Of course, there are lots and lots of people too - in 1922, a fifth of the world's population lived in the British Empire. Of course people have to eat, but in no way as much as those enormous beasts do, and people means labour. In addition to the fact that the British Empire has a huge population that they (often through force) can use for labour, they've also got lots and lots of land. Most of the colonies are also in quite hot areas, and even in colder climates, like in Canada, you could still have agriculture. Add to this that there are Darwinist agricultural methods (mentioned in Goliath in reference to the American South), they must be capable of growing what is basically GMOs, which would mean more food. 

So I would argue that Darwinism rests upon colonialism and imperialism, where the produce of the colonies are moved to the centre to feed the more 'industrial' forms of production and the military (i.e. fabricated animals). This tallies well with how colonialism works. The colonies provide necessities or luxury goods for the colonialist masters, and getting very little in return. (Needless to say, I think that the British Empire, and other empires as well, in this alternative history will have been just as awful as in reality. There is nothing which proves otherwise.)

Add to this that the other major Darwinist powers are Russia and France. France had plenty of colonies, particularly in North Africa, West Africa and Indochina. Imperial Russia was huge, and although plenty of Siberia is impossible to use for agriculture, many other parts would work very well for such purposes, both in European and Asiatic Russia. 

On the other hand, Clanker nations have rather fewer colonies. The Austro-Hungarian empire was large in itself, but had no overseas colonies. Germany had some colonies in Africa and the Pacific, but in comparison to the British, French and Russian empires, they look positively tiny. The Ottoman Empire did have land, but again nothing over-seas. Perhaps the reason why the Clankers developed machines, instead of going down the Darwinist route, was that there was no way for them to feed the beasties, but they needed some way to combat them, which led to the development of war-machines.

[mindfulgod]

Everybody is God

There is none else beside Him

A Kabbalistic insight into who God is, where God is, and what God has to do with you

Everybody talks about God these days. Intelligent Design, New Atheists, Darwinists, everyone seems to have an opinion about God. But when we talk about God, do we really know who, or what we are talking about? And if we do, does that mean that our opposers do not know what they are…

View On WordPress

[ledpolice]

Evolutionists, 2013 was a BAD year for Darwinism and creationists predicted it!

2013 was a terrible year for evolution. As you can clearly see, natural selection hasn’t killed off the stupid people yet. And by stupid people, I mean all the GODLESS DARWINISTS for denying all scientific evidence! These spineless “scientists” just go along with the scientific consensus based on the combined work of thousands of scientists over the past two centuries. Pfft.

[lucidusnoctuam]

From the leviathan trilogy. A living airship drawn by Keith Thompson