More Bunk From the NYT on Religion
Garbage. I'll make three points: Once again, the Times "selects" from a group of people who already agree with this theory, and fails to ask actual evolutionary scientists who are critical of it what they think. Gotta love the "balance." Also, this piece mostly fails to apply the "logic" of the theory to non-monotheistic religions, implying that monotheistic belief is what is being "proven" here. Finally, group selection is bunk. Quoth Dawkins in this piece (and I suppose I should be grateful it got included) “sheer, wanton, head-in-bag perversity.” That's rather established in evolutionary biology, and it's irresponsible for the Times to treat it as accepted, peer-endorsed, current theory.



Front page


Recent comments
52 min 6 sec ago
1 hour 31 min ago
1 hour 34 min ago
7 hours 21 min ago
7 hours 35 min ago
8 hours 27 min ago
9 hours 48 min ago
10 hours 43 min ago
10 hours 48 min ago
11 hours 3 min ago