Category Archives: Darwinism

ThisOrphan Blackreview contains spoilers.

Now that's what I'm talking about. Clutch of Greed has all the elaborate cloak and dagger techniques, moments of levity, and the final dagger to the heart that we've come to expect and love from Orphan Black. Last week felt like a bit of a slog, but this week we had both the thriller and character-driven moments in perfect sync.

This is a show that originated with a similar vibe as the Bourne movies. Orphan Black's first few seasons always put the audience and the protagonists back on their heels, in a race to resolve questions like what is Sarah Manning, are there more, and who is after them. That makes this episode feel like not only a return to form, but a reunion, going home. Little touches like Clone Phones (5.0, natch) and seeing the alley by Felix's place only adds to that.

Cosima meets PT Westmoreland

Cosima wisely advises her charge not to eat the Soylent Green--er, vitamin seaweed, and gets to meet the mysterious PT Westmoreland, who was apparently friends with Darwin and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. I know Darwin himself wasn't into social Darwinism, but is anyone else getting vague eugenics vibes from old PT? I feel like this guy has a century's worth of skeletons in his creepy closet.

I'm glad Cosima isn't taken in, even when he uses her favorite, "I follow the science," line, which is so spot on, perhaps someone fed it to him? Someone should tell this man he's not the first guy to offer Cosima a lab and the chance to study herself, her sisters, and all the coolest genetics in the world.

Helena goes on the lam

Helena and Donnie will always be an excellent pairing, and Donnie doing Helena's voice is an absolute gem. In a bit of foreshadowing, one of Helena's self-healing babies (because of course they are) has a sternum puncture. It's been a while since we've seen Helena's more feral side, especially directed at innocent bystanders. Lately, it has been at known enemies, or her suspicions are later vindicated. Will that doctor turn out to be someone who actually wanted information about (Helena voice) her babies? Or is she just a very unfortunate woman doing her job?

I love any time we get to see the Leda sisters doing actual normal activities that stay normal, so the idea of the word "neonatal" freaking out Helena and Donnie trying to soothe her is a joy. Pregnancy is already fertile ground for discussion of women's bodily autonomy, from the way strangers touch pregnant women and state attempts at control to religious dogma and medical interventions (or lack thereof). I would love to see the show dive into these a bit more, and Helena's fish out of water naivet could be an excellent vehicle for it.

MK makes the ultimate sacrifice and Kira chooses Rachel

Finally, the best part of this episode from both a story and craft perspective. The first act has the audience in the same position as Sarah: not believing what we were seeing, and thinking everyone has gone mad for suddenly trusting the Neos. And yet, the gambit played out for just long enough, and the trade-off (Kira, some element of peace and freedom) is just convincing enough that it had me going for a minute. Could S really agree to this? Of course not. Siobhan has a hit list and PT Westmoreland is on it, but that opening is excellent, and sets up a fantastic, tightly paced episode of everything that makes Orphan Black great.

After so many years, I'm glad someone on this show is finally directly acknowledging that Kira is special, and not just because she colors inside the lines. Watching Kira choose Rachel (which is unfair, but ultimately how Sarah experiences it) is the second-most brutal part of the episode.

MK's death is brutal, like all of Ferdinand's kills, made all the worse by how little we knew her, and how removed she felt from the world after surviving Helsinki and living on the run. It is a little weird how in denial Sarah was, and how easily she accepts that MK would stay behind. She has to know that the swap would end that way. Maybe she just wants to escape with Kira at any price? If that's the case, I hope we see her grapple with that choice.

A big part of the success of this episode is keeping other storylines - like Cosima's, Alison's, and to a lesser extent, Helena's - lean so this episode could play out like a very tightly plotted heist movie, but with Kira as the goods. For next week, we can look forward to a bit more out of the hooks that are dropped in this episode. Ira is headed off to the island in service to Clone Club, to avenge his beloved Susan. Meanwhile, Delphine makes an unexpected (and secret from everyone - including the Leda Sisters) visit to Siobhan. Allison, of course, is still stuck in her craft closet, and Helena is headed to her secret hideaway.

I'm also looking forward to see how long Rachel manages to keep Ferdinand away, since that cockroach will probably outlive and outthink PT Westmoreland at this point. The only thing worse than Ferdinand is a disenfranchised Ferdinand, as we saw this week, so buckle up and hold to your babies, sestras.

Read the original post:

Orphan Black Season 5 Episode 2 Review: Clutch of Greed - Den of Geek US

Darwinism is the doctrine of survival of the fittest, where only the best and brightest can endure in a dog-eat-dog world where no-one is immune from peril or even death. The Darwin Project uses that infamous theory of evolutionary biology as the basis for its Battle Royale multiplayer deathmatches, where competition is the name of the game.

Developed by Scavengers Studio, The Darwin Project is a multiplayer survival game coming exclusively to Xbox One consoles and Windows PC later this year, and appears to be Xboxs answer to the continued demand for class-based online shooters, as most recently popularized by the likes of Overwatch and others.

Players can adopt the role of several heroes with unique abilities in the arena, but the unique spin on the genre arrives in the form of the Show Director mode as demonstrated by the slightly annoying shoutcaster who showed up in todays trailer at Microsofts E3 press conference.

The Show Director can observe and control the dynamics of the entire playground from a separate viewpoint, and is able to show favour or disapproval to competing players below by messing around with the environment. A neat idea to freshen up an already crowded genre, then, but its unclear how the presence of a God-like onlooker might negatively affect balance in The Darwin Project.

Either way, the lively animations and display of combat depth was enough to engage my curiosity, especially as someone who plays Overwatch on a regular basis. We may have a new Xbox exclusive eSport in the making.

Don't forget to check out our full E3 2017 schedule for all the details as they arrive, and check out our roundup of all the E3 2017 trailers so far.

Originally posted here:

The Darwin Project is the Overwatch-Hunger Games crossover you never knew you wanted - GamesRadar

At the most basic level, applying AI to certain processes can free up the time of an organisations executives, allowing them to concentrate on higher value tasks. Ultimately, without putting these measures in place, its hard to see much of a future for the professional services industry as the advancing AI revolution continues apace

Darwin may have addressed the natural world, but his insights still offer some valuable lessons in business.

The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) and how businesses are adapt to this new technological development provides a great example of Neo-Darwinism at work in todays corporate landscape.

AI is on the march within the next two years, AI services will have cannibalised revenues for a third of market leaders, according to Gartner. For those that trade in consultancy and relationship-building, its easy to dismiss the impact of AI, and easy to assume that headlines such as, Will a robot take my job? are for manual, blue-collar workers to worry about.

However, this is a dangerous point of view to adopt. Simply because the speed at which information is now consumed and synthesised by AI far surpasses any human capacity, and is becoming more sophisticated every week evidenced recently by the AI that defeated six of the best human poker players to win a 230,000 prize.

>See also:The value of artificial intelligence in business

For professional services firms which proudly guard (and sell) their knowledge and accumulated experience, the democratising effects of AI could theoretically undermine their entire business model; empowering the average consumer with quantifiable research and actionable data that far outweigh any advice a professional adviser could provide. This is particularly true on the lower end of the value curve, where robotic process automation (RPA) is already replacing the work that humans once did on certain processes.

The legal sector provides a great example of this, since much of the work performed revolves around sifting through documents, contracts and cases, which are a prime target for automation. Companies like LawGeex, with their ambition to automate the entire legal industry, offer a vision of the future for all professional services.

LawGeex AI-based service allows users to upload a contract and points out any clauses which dont meet common legal standards. The report also automatically details any vital clauses that could be missing, and where existing clauses might require revision.

>See also:5 ways AI will impact the global business market in 2017

These sorts of tools may not be the preferred option for most legal needs at this point its reasonable to assume that customers wouldnt rely on it for expensive contracts yet the technology that underpins it is rapidly maturing. It may not be long until AI can even outperform a human lawyer.

AI has arguably already had its tipping point in the public consciousness, illustrated by our familiarity with having conversations with our phones, computers or in-home assistants like Amazon Alexa.

As examples such as LawGeex demonstrate, AI is silently stealing a march on every industry its exposed to. AI-driven solutions are increasingly commonplace in wealth management, for example, where three of the worlds top five brokerages rely on anAI solution for data analysis. AI is also a natural fit for the data-centric insurance industry, where its capacity for simulation modelling and data analysis from a range of different sources makes it invaluable to underwriters.

Elsewhere, AI can power predictive maintenance and self-monitoring technologies for manufacturers which can save billions. Although real-world examples may still be thin on the ground, the tipping point from theory to practice is fast approaching evidenced by the large investments made by Microsoft, Google, Amazon and IBM, which acquired over 20 AI firms in the last year alone.

>See also:What are the business benefits of artificial intelligence?

Highly empowered and enlightened consumers are more in control of the buying journey than ever before and by 2020, its estimated that customers will manage 85% of their enterprise relationships without interacting with humans.

It might appear at face value that the professional services industry is heading for collapse after all, whats the point of employing humans to do a job that AI can do more accurately, efficiently and quickly? This however, isnt entirely correct, rather were heading towards a point where we as professionals will simply need to become more innovative if were to keep offering value.

A fundamental rethink is required; while were still some way off seeing the real impact of AI, business leaders need to be prepared to implement technology and processes that reengineer the way organisations have traditionally operated. And AI may well unlock new business processes that might not have been available before, inadvertently offering new value to a professional services firm.

>See also:Artificial intelligence: how its transforming financial services today

AI could replace much of the bread-and-butter tasks, providing an opportunity for organisations to offer new services on top of them, such as more informed face-to-face legal counsel.

At the most basic level, applying AI to certain processes can free up the time of an organisations executives, allowing them to concentrate on higher value tasks. Ultimately, without putting these measures in place, its hard to see much of a future for the professional services industry as the advancing AI revolution continues apace.

Sourced byFrank Palermo, global head, Digital Solutions, VirtusaPolaris

The UKs largest conference for tech leadership, TechLeaders Summit, returns on 14 September with 40+ top execs signed up to speak about the challenges and opportunities surrounding the most disruptive innovations facing the enterprise today. Secure your place at this prestigious summit by registeringhere

See the rest here:

Survival of the fittest: AI perfectly illustrates Darwinism at a business level - Information Age

They had better do it and decrease the surplus population.

Social Darwinism is a philosophy based on flawed readings of Charles Darwin's biology text On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (1859). The philosophy came into existence towards the end of the 19th century, though its origins can be traced all the way back to the ideas of Thomas Malthus (1766-1834).

Social Darwinists took the biological ideas of Charles Darwin (and often mixed them with Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and Malthus) and attempted to apply them to the social sciences. They were especially interested in applying the idea of "the survival of the fittest" (their words, not Darwin's) in a social context, as this would excuse their existing ideas of racism, colonialism, and unfettered capitalism (for them, at least). It was also used as a tool to argue that governments should not interfere in human competition (as it existed at the time) in any way; and that the government should take no interest in, for example, regulating the economy, reducing poverty or introducing socialized medicine. In other words, have a laissez-faire policy.

The term "Social Darwinism" originated in Great Britain with the works of Herbert Spencer who coined the phrase "survival of the fittest" in the mid-19th century. However his work found more fertile ground in the US where it was taken up by William Graham Sumner who was accused of advocating a "dog-eat-dog" philosophy. This set of ideas was also influenced by the writings of Thomas Malthus, who argued that war was a check on population growth and that welfare promoted population growth among the poor and thus drove down wages. Indeed, what is often called "Social Darwinism" might be more accurately called "Social Malthusianism" since Malthus explicitly promoted policies generally construed as Social Darwinism.[1] The results of Malthus could be seen in the institution of the workhouses; reforming (in actuality virtually eliminating) the Poor Laws; and a general attitude of the upper classes of contempt for the lower classes for their demands of charity. This campaign was aided by the ideas of Jeremy Bentham's utilitarianism, one of the strongest ideologies of the British middle class, which stated that workers chose the poor life and that workhouses would encourage those who wanted to succeed to do so.

At the same time, the "struggle school" of Social Darwinism was being developed. In this view, nations grew and expanded as a result of conflicts with their neighbors. For many, this justified the overseas expansion of powerful nations at the expense of the weak and necessitated the creation of strong military forces.

At more or less the same time, the movement of "Reform Darwinism" was born. This variant emphasized the need for change and adaption in human society to meet new conditions. For example, they argued that the Constitution of the United States should be reinterpreted to meet changing conditions in the US. However some reformers felt that they could use the principles of (Social) Darwinism to justify imperialist, classist, racist, and sexist opinions. And at the extreme of these views was eugenics, originally developed by Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, certain strains of which advocated for state policy such as forced sterilization of the "unfit" (by their standards, of course)[2]

Fortunately, most of Social Darwinisms appeal left it in the early-to-middle part of the 20th century. There were a number of reasons for this including:

Finally an improved understanding of genetics and ideas about the evolutionary basis of philanthropy and compassion removed the basis of this "dog-eat-dog" philosophy.

The term "Social Darwinism" itself has been largely used as an epithet, especially after World War II, and was popularized greatly by the historian Richard Hofstadter, namely by his Social Darwinism in American Thought.[3]Revisionists have argued that Hofstadter's work has caused the term "Social Darwinism" to become wrongly associated with only laissez-faire ideology and wrongly invoked as a synonym for eugenics.[4][5][6] Hofstadter himself delineated two forms of "Social Darwinism" "laissez-faire Darwinism" and "collectivist Darwinism." The former might be represented by the likes of Spencer and Galton while the latter by Nazi biologists influenced by figures such as Ernst Haeckel. However, even this delineation still lumps opposing strains of thought together in some ways. For example, Spencer was also heavily influenced by Lamarckian conceptions of evolution while Galton was staunchly opposed to Lamarck.

The left has also embraced views that may be called forms of "Social Darwinism". Eugenics, for example, found wide support among Progressive Era figures and presidents such as Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Pyotr Kropotkin, a founding thinker of anarcho-communism, was heavily influenced by Darwinian evolution but argued it supported altruism and cooperation rather than competition in his Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution.[7]Peter Singer has argued for what he calls a "Darwinian left."[8]

Indeed, evolutionary ideas have been used to support just about every ideology since (and even before) the publication of Darwin's work.[9][10] However, "Social Darwin-Lamarck-Malthus-Spencer-Galton-Haeckel-Kropotkin-ism" doesn't roll off the tongue as easily as "Social Darwinism."

Social Darwinism rests on two premises: there exists a constant struggle for survival in nature, and nature is a proper guide for the structuring of society. This is not a scientific idea at all, as it is not a statement about what is but rather a statement about what some people think "should" be.

Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection describes the propagation of hereditary traits due to the varying "success" of organisms in reproducing. Basing a moral philosophy on natural selection makes about as much sense as basing morality on the theory of gravitational success: rocks rolling down the furthest are the best rocks.

Social Darwinism is basically a circular argument. A group that gains power can claim to be the "best fit" because it is in power, but then the group claims to be in power because it is the "best fit". Any group in power can use Social Darwinist arguments to justify itself, not just right-wing groups such as fascists. Communists can claim that Communists are the best fit wherever Communists are in power. Ironically, many eugenicists and other racists will insist that DA JEWWS! are secretly in power, yet will never use this logic to insist that Jews are the "best fit".

Given some of the goals of Social Darwinism no universal health care, unfettered capitalism, laissez-faire government policies, strong military forces, and racial separation it is perhaps strange that the Religious Right use the philosophy as a snarl word. It would seem to fit their ideals nicely. Then again, it may be an example of psychological projection, or just because they see the name "Darwin" and get so angry that they ignore the rest. The big irony here is that the Religious Right rejects biological Darwinism while supporting Social Darwinism by another name.

De facto Social Darwinian arguments, such as those made by the authors of The Bell Curve, can also be used as a sort of pseudoscientific socio-economic justification for why rich people are rich ('cause they're, like, smarter) and poor people are poor (too dumb to earn more money). Such notions effectively become a sort of "biological karma" argument in favor of the status quo when used as a hand wave "explanation" for growing economic inequality, typically based on the claim that this rise in inequality reflects dumb poor people outbreeding smart rich people.

Neoreactionaries and "alt-right" types, particularly atheist ones, often openly identify as social Darwinists or as "evolutionary conservatives" (Steve Sailer being one example). These people argue that evolution implies "race realism", since different races evolved under different conditions, and therefore that racial egalitarianism is anti-scientific. On average, they tend to be much younger and more tech-savvy than Religious Right supporters, so it's possible the Republican Party and/or the conservative movement will eventually shift in their direction. These ideas are not new (Thomas Carlyle and Ragnar Redbeard had a lot of the same views), but seem to be undergoing a resurgence.

Continue reading here:

Social Darwinism - RationalWiki

ALTONA Rep. Paul Tonko (D-Amsterdam) does not think the country is headed in the right direction.

The pullback from the Paris Climate Agreement is "a scar." Income inequality remains an issue. Proposed cutbacks in scientific research have his scientistfriends outraged and pushing him to take action. And the looming rollback of the Affordable Care Act lacks compassion.

Were not going to take this anymore, Tonko said, throwing his arms up in frustration.

The crowd whooped and hollered.

Tonko, speaking Friday night at a labor dinner organized by the Clinton County Democratic Committee, repeatedly assailed Republican policy in Washington, D.C. in a half-hour stemwinder.

Darwinism doesnt quite cut it, Tonko said on White House policies, including the court-entangled travel ban from Muslim-majority counties, efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act and proposed deep budget cuts to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and social programs.

Weve been cutting these agencies since Republicans controlled the House, Tonko said. Were asking unimaginable things with this budget.

On the reduction in funding for scientific research: Its foolish, foolish thinking.

Tonko, who represents the Capital District, serves on the Science, Space and Technology and Emergency and Commerce Committees, as well as the Subcommittee on Research and Technology.

Doing so gives him a firsthand perch to witness what he said are science deniers sitting on top GOP-controlled House committees.

Thats what drove him to author the Scientific Integrity Act, a bill he said would put watchdogs at every federal agency to make sure when the federal government invests in research, federal officials cannot manipulate, misrepresent, mischaracterize, suppress or not share those findings.

Tonko did not mention President Donald Trump by name, nor the lawmaker who represents the 21st Congressional District, Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-Willsboro).

The lawmaker took particular relish in eviscerating the American Health Care Act, calling the bill a poison pill."

And on the Paris Agreement: What a scar across the face of America, Tonko said. A deep scar shared with the entire world.

Jobs in the renewable energy sector including the manufacture of turbines and solar panels will instead go elsewhere, he said.

Whos going to produce these jobs now? The nations who are at the table.

The countrys infrastructure is deteriorating to the point where the electric grid is currently unable to import renewables from Canada, Tonko said, citing field visits across the country as part of a congressional task force.

The White House is expected to roll out a $1 billion infrastructure plan this week.

But the plan, said Tonko, needs to be detailed and paired with how it will be paid for not vague commitments or promises of tax relief to contractors.

This is the kind of smart government that America needs and deserves, Tonko said.Were going to Make America Great Again, were going to put you to work do not give us broken promises. Do not tell us you stand for something and then you pull our job opportunities away.

CANDIDATES EMERGE

The speech was red meat to Democrats disaffected with current administration policy including prospective candidates Tonko acknowledged were in the audience, including Patrick Nelson, a Stillwater-based political organizer who has already declared his candidacy to run against Stefanik, and Emily Martz, a Saranac Lake resident who has been involved in community organizing since last falls election.

Im looking at running at the congressional level as well as the local level, Martz told the Sun after the event. Im committed to running for something.

Martz, a registered Democrat, said she appreciated the lack of partisan politics in the area.

That to me is important. The lack of party politics is strong at the local level, and I wish we could get that at the state and local level, Martz said. We need to move beyond that. Its not about party its about the people.

Mike Derrick, who challenged Stefanik last year as a Democrat, also expressed interest in a rematch.

I havent decided yet, said Derrick, who attended the event.

EYE ON 2017

This year is a local election year. On the tailwinds of last November's combative national election, Clinton County Democratic Chairman Sara Rowden said she has seen an uptick in local interest and enthusiasm over the previous local election cycle.

The activity isnt only coming from the left, she said, but also the center, with health care as a driving interest.

Grassroots groups were scant ahead of last years election, she said. But now she estimated there are 40+ independent groups actively involved in the region.

I think we need to take advantage of this momentum and everyone that is there, Rowden said. This is our time.

Clinton County was the only county in the 12-county congressional district that went for former Sec. of State Hillary Clinton, who notched a razor-thin 1 point margin over Trump, besting him by just 265 votes.

Stefanik defeated Derrick by 35 points the highest margin for a Republican in the state.

Rowden said the Democratic Party has become complacent due to recent big-ticket accomplishments, including social justice issues.

The party, she said, must now return to their roots if they want to start winning elections again.

Social justice may have overshadowed our commitment to the working class, Rowden said.

Clinton County Republican Chairman Don McBrayer said he respects true grassroots involvement, but questioned if some of the recent local protests he witnessed in the area could be categorized as locally-organized.

To me, it looked more like protests being organized by state and federal level organizers to promote populist politics, McBrayer told the Sun. It is not something I wish to be a part of.

McBrayer said the GOP prefers to work with people individually, educating them on issues, and finding dedicated candidates willing to put in the sweat-equity required to keep local government efficient, transparent and honest.

McBrayer said local Republicans are excited about the reelection prospects for a number of local and county races, and the committee looked forward to recruiting more candidates this spring and summer.

Continue reading here:

'Darwinism doesn't quite cut it,' says Tonko, rallying North Country Democrats - Sun Community News

Its shocking. Darwin died 135 years ago, with his home country largely converted to his beliefs. Why dont students embrace the teachings of their national hero? England has largelyabandoned its religiousheritage, so thats not it. Everybody knows about Darwin. Evolution should be an easy sell in the classroom.Whats the problem?

Evolution is one of the trickiest subjects to teach and not just because some people find it controversial. The ideas are subtle and the language and concepts can be confusing; how many of us have thought that survival of the fittest was an encouragement to go to the gym. Many studies have sought to discover the reasons why evolution is so difficult for students to understand and accept, but few have attempted to find ways to improve the understanding of evolution in the classroom. [Emphasis added.]

So writes Lawrence Hurst in The Conversation, along with an associate professor and an educator. At the University of Bath, a mere 100 miles from Down House, they conducted experiments on how to get children to understand evolution, using secondary school students as their lab rats.

They published their results in PLOS Biologyunder the title, Teaching genetics prior to teaching evolution improves evolution understanding but not acceptance. Sarah Chaffee responded earlier in light of Discovery Institutes education policy.

Notice, as she pointed out, the distinction between understanding and acceptance. They cant even get to the acceptance part! They just want to get students to understand it.

But is evolution so hard to understand? Its simple; people evolved from bacteria ancestors; no source of intelligent designwas involved; everything advances by a blind process of natural selection, not that different from dog breeding. Things change over time. Whats the problem? You can explain it in a few sentences. Finches change. Peppered moths change. Your children will change, even if you dont go to the gym, as long as you leave more offspring than the bodybuilder next door. Simple concepts. There must be an obstacle to understanding. Yes, its those deplorablecreationists again. The paper identifies them:

Students grasp of evolution is often poor and does not always agree with the scientific understanding. Commensurately, numerous studies report low levels of understanding among first year undergraduate students. These factors likely contribute to the poor public understanding of evolution reported by many researchers, including in the UK context. This tempts the question, what are the best methods to teach evolution?

This issue here is currently much debated, particularly at the secondary school level. This is because the theory of evolution can be a controversial issue. Strong opposition is well documented in the United States, but there is increasing concern about the impact that religious movements or strong cultural and social traditions may have on evolution education in other countries, including Northern Ireland, Poland, Turkey, and the UK. There are also concerns that creationism has been taught in UK schools and that religious-motivated groups have attempted to influence science lessons. More generally, numerous studies have focused on impediments to understanding and acceptance of evolution. While religious orientation, prior acceptance/rejection of the theory of evolution, and views of authority figures including teachers and religious leaders are commonly cited reasons, reasoning skills are also considered to be of importance.

And so they sought ways to improve teaching methods, presuming that if students only understood evolution, they would be more likely to accept it. Their hypothesis was to teach genetics as a prerequisite to teaching evolution. Our original idea was what psychologists called priming preloading with some facts to make it easier to take in other information. They continue:

It seemed intuitive to us that a good understanding of genetics should help understanding of evolution: DNA is the heritable material through which variation needed for evolution occurs. If you understand DNA, you can understand what mutations are. And if you understand what mutations are, you can understand that they can change frequency in populations and bingo, evolution can happen. In its simplest, evolution is no more than mutations changing frequency. The differences between species started out as new mutations that went from being rare within one species but then became very common.

Bingo, evolution can happen. The metaphor is very apt. You win at bingo by unguided natural processes. The winner (the fittest) may not be the smartest; just the luckiest. Its not like the chance component of Battleship, where you can infer from past successes where the Destroyer is likely to be. Bingo is a variant of the Lottery: you win by having the luckiest card by pure chance, and each card you get is a new start.

In short, the educators think that by understanding how Bingo works, students will accept the game. Are they missing something?

While this connection might seem self-evident, genetics and evolution are typically taught to 14 to 16-year-old secondary school students as separate topics with few links and in no particular order. Sometimes theres a large time span between the two. Our idea was simple: teach genetics first and look at how that affects the understanding and acceptance of evolution.

Like good lab experimenters, they divided their lab rats into an experimental group and a control group.

Using questionnaires, we conducted a study of almost 2,000 students over three years. Importantly, all that was changed in our study was the order of the teaching material exactly what was to be taught was left to the teachers. This meant our study was a realistic mimic of what would happen should any switch be made. We tested students before and after the two subjects were taught and so could examine the extent to which students improved in their understanding.

The experiment was only partially successful (according to their criteria). Yes, the more students understood microevolution by genetic mutations (the Bingo theory of evolution), the more they understood evolution. We found that students who were taught genetics before evolution performed 7percentbetter on knowledge-based questions about evolution than those who learned about evolution first, they say, proud of this strikingly large effect. But alas, it did not help the students accept evolution very much. Both before and after testing, the students with a better understanding were those with higher levels of acceptance, they said. However, these effects were not strong. So they investigated why students fail to accept evolution.

We also set up a series of focus groups to find out why the understanding and acceptance of evolution are not more strongly coupled. Evidence from these suggests that what is more important for evolution acceptance is not what is taught, but who provides the endorsement. For some students, being told that key authority figures such as parents or teachers approve of scientific evidence for evolution made a big difference to their ability to accept it.

Television documentaries were commonly given as a source of reassurance about evolution, and some students felt that these, and their presenters, were important in helping them accept evolution. Perhaps more predictable, religious leaders, and their views on evolution, were also of key importance. For students from a Catholic background, being told that the Pope approves of evolution was important in helping them to approach evolution as any other science.

The challenge, in their view, becomes one of reducing the impact of authority figures who put obstacles in the way of student acceptance of evolution. Religious leaders are making evolution a scary idea. Avoid the E-word, they say, to soften the blow:

Perhaps helping them understand that mutations can change frequency under the banner of genetics enabled students to learn with less of a clash of ideas? We suggest a simple test: dont teach students material labelled as evolution, teach it as population genetics instead and then tell them after the fact that they have just learned about evolution.

Its a bit like pinching and wiggling the arm before sticking the needle in, for a child afraid of needles. Before the child knows whats going on, the needle is in. When are you going to stick me? Johnny asks. Oh, I already did; now, that didnt hurt a bit, did it? And use less scary words: its not a needle; its a syringe. Its not Darwinism: its population genetics. The indoctrinators conclude:

Whatever the underlying cause, the data suggest a really simple, minimally disruptive and cost-free modification to teaching practice: teach genetics first. This will at least increase evolution understanding, if not acceptance. As with many emotive subjects, it takes more than teaching the facts to shift hearts as well as minds.

Heres a conundrum to end on: these educators, so concerned about student acceptance of evolution, do not accept evolution themselves! Think about it:

The astute reader recognizes that reasoning about evolution is self-refuting (listen to Nancy Pearcey on ID the Future). Lets teach that to the teachers. Bingo! Education happens.

Photo: Bingo cards, by Edwin Torres [CC BY 2.0], via Wikimedia Commons.

Read more:

Evolution as Bingo: Darwinists Seek Better Ways to Indoctrinate - Discovery Institute

Underlying much of American life and politics is an unshakeable faith in Darwinian evolution. Almost 60 percent of us mistake this theory for fact and, watching Congress, who can doubt that politicians at least are descended from apes? No wonder most Americans regard evolution as the basis of all modern biological science, supported by everything we know about geology, genetics, paleontology, and other fields and extol its importance as a unifying concept in science and its overall explanatory power. Even those who consider themselves Christians like their Bible diluted with Darwin: Half of Americans believe humans evolved, with the majority of these saying God guided the evolutionary process.

The assumption that our ancestor crawled out of primordial sludge pervades everything from health to entertainment. Our taxes pay to indoctrinate students with evolutionary theory while lobbyists insist its the only permissible explanation of our origins. Occasionally, schools also present creationism, but this doesnt necessarily refer to the account in Genesis: Mentioning a deity in any way while discussing mankinds birth apparently turns the topic creationist. No doubt even the most profane teacher avoids taking the Lords name in vain when inculcating Darwinism.

Yet evolution and the Biblical report of Gods creation are actually two sides of the same coin. Both require belief or what we commonly call religious faith since no human eyes saw the advent of man. Just as preachers tell their flocks that God created the heavens and earth, so evolutionists tell theirs that natural processes did. But sheep from neither fold can observe humanitys arrival to confirm the accuracy of these statements.

And observation is essential. The dictionary defines science as a systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. Ergo, water boiling at 212 degrees Fahrenheit is a scientific fact. We can verify it by observation; we can experiment to see whether it boils at lower temperatures and demonstrate that it does not. But [t]he central ideas of evolution that life has a history it has changed over time and that different species share common ancestors is an opinion. Nor can we verify it because no one has observed millions of years of changes.

That misfortune compels evolutionists to extrapolate backwards from evidence they see in the natural world. But their reckonings could be as false as those of the global-warming nuts (note that the idea of climate change relies on studying current phenomena as well as historical data and yet proponents still argue about whats accurate and true. How much more unobservable events that lie entirely in the past?) Yes, the scientists screaming about rising temperatures had political incentive to do so. But so do evolutionists. They are hardly the disinterested pursuers of Truth that they fancy themselves; like anyone else, they cling to their opinions and prejudices.

And they rabidly defend both especially when Christians find strong proof for direct creation by God in the very data that supposedly upholds Darwins theory. Astoundingly, critics who refuse to acknowledge evolutionists preconceptions dismiss Christian interpretation of evidence because of bias! Such blatant double standards should sicken anyone sincerely interested in the truth.

Evolution, then, is no more than a religion masquerading as science. And since our era worships science, too many folks swallow whatever evolutionists say. They buy the bizarre idea that an infinitely intricate world evolved with no Designer while laughing at the gullible peons who ascribed to Roman Catholic dogma during the Middle Ages. What ironic hypocrisy!

Christianity and Darwinism share another characteristic: They answer mans most fundamental questions. How did the world come to exist, and what is mans place in it? Is there a god? Whats the meaning of life? The two faiths differ only in their answers chillingly so.

If eons of time and fortuitous chance produced the universe and life itself, we need no Creator. And the Book that claims to be His inspired Word is obviously false from its very first words: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Only fools would believe anything that follows such a whopper. There is no heaven or hell, no final judgment of our sins or salvation from them, no Creator who fashioned man in His image. Life is mere happenstance, not a divine gift that no man may arbitrarily end and when the strong kill those who are weaker or inconvenient, they do so without fear of eternal damnation. Likewise with our liberty: We have no rights, inalienable or otherwise, because no Creator endowed us with them.

Its no accident that historys most brutal regimes have espoused Darwinian evolution. Indeed, communisms authors embraced the philosophy precisely because it rejected God: Marx and Engels accepted evolution almost immediately after Darwin published The Origin of Species. Evolution, of course, was just what the founders of communism needed to explain how mankind could have come into being without the intervention of any supernatural force, and consequently it could be used to bolster the foundations of their materialistic philosophy. Should it surprise anyone, then, that communist governments massacre and torture millions? (Some of that blood lust is due to the nature of the State; non-communist and even Christian governments persecute and murder as well. But arming politicians with communism is like handing a serial killer hundreds of fully loaded machine guns rather than a penknife.)

Hitler and the Nazis endorsed Darwins ideas, too, particularly survival of the fittest and the justice of a superior races dominating inferior ones. Under such reasoning, butchery went from unspeakably heinous to justifiable: The Nazis alleged that their racial hygiene benefited not only Germany but humanity.

As Americans increasingly join the First Church of Darwin, theyre unlikely to resist the evils evolutionary theory brings in its wake. We already murder unwanted babies and the elderly; American governments at all levels destroy rather than protect our rights.

But perhaps evolutionists themselves will save us. After all, they continue insisting that religion has no place in the public square. We simply have to hold them to that creed.

Becky Akers

. Bookmark the

.

Read the original:

The First Church of Darwin - Personal Liberty Digest

Two hundred years after his birth, Charles Darwin still remains the most influential naturalist and scientist in our history. The English biologist is of course renowned for the publishing of his manuscript On the Origin of Species, which lay the groundwork for the theory of evolution as well as being the first to observe and explain a multitude of species, interactions and biological aspects of life, which he described in his other book, The Voyage of the Beagle.

Darwin, who was the first to pioneer the idea of natural selection and evolution, is credited with having revolutionized the scientific field and more than one discipline. His journey on the HMS Beagle, which led him around the world discovering its rich biodiversity was the catalyst for his thoughts regarding divergent evolution and evolutionary tree, eventually culminating to the discovery of the various finches on the Galapagos Islands which led to his theorizing selective breeding, with his finches being able to illustrate his thoughts on evolution.

Determined to prove his theory, Darwin studied several species, and created the first ever evolutionary tree. He investigated the ability of plants and animals to disperse across the world, delving into archaeological records and enlisting the help of several likeminded scientists to prove his point. Eventually, Charles was able to draw together a coherent theory that encompassed all living creatures within the animal kingdom including us.

Of course, his theory was met with a mix of criticism and applause, both by the public and the scientific community alike. Indeed, his findings and that of a multitude of other biologists that had either helped Darwin or were continuing his research, were contrary to the school of thought that was being employed. Whilst many supported his views surrounding the origin of species it was his theories on our own evolutionary roots namely our relation with monkeys that caused the most furore.

Until then, science and faith had been essentially one and the same, and Darwins findings had pit one against the other. A new movement of science was created, Darwinism, which not only supported his ideas, but strived to prove them. Over the years, naturalists and biologists were able to add evidence to his theory, to the point that most scientists agreed that evolution did indeed happen, but debate remained as to whether or not natural selection was indeed the mechanism that drove it.

Of course, in modern times, Darwins theory of evolution has been proven through and through, with anthropologists and archaeologists continuing to fill in the evolutionary timelines of our species and many others. Whilst many great scientists came after Darwin such as Tesla, Curie and Einstein, it was his findings that revolutionized science and helped it become what is today.

See the original post here:

200 years later, Charles Darwin's contribution to science continues to show - CosmicNovo.com (Science and Technology)

BLOOMINGTON A director of a group working to prevent drowning in the Great Lakes area says stigmatizing drowning hampers such efforts.

People blame the victim, blame the parent or caretaker or blame Darwinism, said Dave Benjamin, executive director of public relations and project management for the Great Lakes Surf Rescue Project.

But doing that gives people a false sense of security that it wouldn't happen to them or their loved ones, said Benjamin.

In fact, it can happen to anyone and it can happen quickly.

Part of the problem, according to Benjamin, is that people don't know what they don't know.

Few people know that swimming ability alone might not be enough in a water emergency, he said.

Sixty-six percent of all drowning victims were good swimmers, he said.

But factors such as cold water, waves, underwater hazards, dangerous currents and disorientation following unexpected immersion can limit swimming effectiveness and affect how quickly fatigue can set in.

About half of drowning victims never intended to be in the water, he said. They may have fallen off a boat or pier or were washed off by waves.

A study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said males are three times more likely to die from drowning than females.

Males tend to be greater risk takers, more susceptible to peer pressure and more likely to overestimate their swimming ability, said Benjamin.

Do not dare your friends to jump off the pier. Do not dare your friends to swim to the buoy, he said.

Rather than saying, You can't fix stupid, Benjamin advocates fixing misconceptions through education.

Schools have fire drills, tornado drills, active shooter drills and earthquake drills, yet students are more likely to die of drowning than those causes combined, he said.

Follow Lenore Sobota on Twitter: @pg_sobota

Read more:

Don't blame Darwin, says anti-drowning project leader - Bloomington Pantagraph

The evolutionary idea contributed proposed by Charles Darwin called Darwinism or Natural selection theory, explaining the mechanism of evolution is clearly stated in his book Origin of species.

The important postulates of the theory are: Over production, Struggle for existence, Variations, Survival of the fittest, and Origin of species.

Darwinism vs Lamarckism

Darwinism

1. It does not believe in the internal vital force.

2. They do not form part of Darwins natural selection theory.

3. An organ can develop further or degenerate only due to continuous variations.

4. Struggle for existence is very important in this theory.

5. Only useful variations are transferred to the next generation.

6. Darwins natural selection theory is based on survival of the fittest.

Lamarckism:

1. This theory states that there is an internal vital force in all organisms.

2. It considers new needs or desire produce new structures and change habits of the organism.

3. According to this theory if an organ is constantly used it would be better developed whereas disuse of organ results in its degeneration.

4. It does not consider struggle for existence.

5. All the acquired characters are inherited to the next generation.

6. Lamarckism does not believe in survival of the fittest.

See the article here:

Difference between Darwinism and Lamarckism | Major Differences