150 years of Darwinism, eh?
Well, little or nothing specifically scientific in Darwin was original to him, and no living scientist agrees with any of it.
What was original, and what remains staggeringly popular despite having caused both Marxism and Nazism (among other things), is the philosophical theory of "the survival of the fittest", universally dismissed by philosophers (be they never so atheistic - I first read this in a book edited by A C Grayling) as a tautology, since the only way to spot the fittest is that they are the ones that survive.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
And then there's Kamm, neither a philosopher nor a scientist.
ReplyDeleteI feel sorry for Kamm, actually.
ReplyDeleteThe cleverest boy one of those places which will let in absolutely anybody so long as their parents can pay, and guarantee an Oxbridge place simply because there are no more grammar schools to fill them.
So he grew up thinking that he was clever.
He isn't.
His little mates on his blog and on Harry's Place are worse. They must have been the thick boys even by that school's standards. They hang on his every word and have never read anything not written by him. Tragic really.
ReplyDeleteDavid, this is transparent. Both of the anonymous comments here are by you. You must be smarting at the way you've been mocked.
ReplyDeleteI can assure you that they are not, and that I am not.
ReplyDeleteKamm doesn't know what he's talking about. He doesn't even understand the basic terms involved.
No change there, of course. He's an immensely stupid man who bought a couple of degrees because his family has been staggeringly rich and grandly connected for a thousand years.
But that is all he is. That is all that any of them is. But they are the Left, don't you know?
No, they are not.