Dear Readers: Please feel free to review the Contents of my book and biography in Gods, Genes, Conscience (iUniverse.com worldwide release 2006); and/or here (Google Books Search 2007) or here (Amazon.com Look Inside 2008). A list of global booksellers near you can be found here. Thank you all for scrutinizing!
Immediate Posting: The following Commentaries (developing thinkings) were made in response to the concerned articles, sources, and dates listed in April 2017, so as to promote the Good Dialogues worldwide. Thank you all for reading and scrutinizing!
- [NB: I'm in preparation of writing 2 books Decoding Scientism and Consciousness & the Subconscious (works in progress since July 2007), so my future Dialogues worldwide would not be engaged, and posted herein, as often as I had been over the past 11 years or so.]
- 1) Who’s really the party of Darwin? -- RE: What’s the Fuss: Darwinism vs Neo-Darwinism!? (Facebook/TAS; April 21) -- Where I just noticed that my comment may not be formatted on the Facebook post; therefore I shall repost it herein under with proper formats:
- Somehow my comments to this Spectator article “Who’s really the party of Darwin?” would not stick there-in-under (using DISQUS); I shall now post it herein using Facebook as follows:
- RE: What’s the Fuss: Darwinism vs Neo-Darwinism!?I thought your acute definition of Darwinism above -- “Darwin’s theory holds that life is a competition, and that those organisms with the genetic aptitude to prosper, that is the fitness to thrive, are the ones who will “win” this competition and pass on their genes. Over time, the genetic code of a species naturally adapts in accordance with the inherited fitness of their forefathers.” -- is actually that of the “modern synthesis of evolutionary theory” as proposed by the physicalists, reductionists, neo-darwinists evolutionary theory of “biomorphism” (not actually biology, nor developmental genetics, at all by modern definitions) since the 1930s-40s past (please see analyses @ RE: Neo-Darwinism vs Darwinism: Is Modern Synthesis (MS) effectively dead!?).Therefore (food for thought) your entire discussion and argument of a neo-darwinist, anthropomorphic “social Darwinism” against the “naturalist Darwinism” or “party of Darwin” above is both irrelevant and misleading at best, scientifically and erudically!?Best, Mong 4/21/17usct17:35; practical public science-philosophy critic (since 2006).