Biomimetics is all about design – intelligent design, mimicking the superb designs found in nature. Why, then, are some scientists claiming evolutionary theory is where the biomimetic beef is?
Some evolutionary papers are filled with verbs like arose, emerged, and originated. Do these convey scientific understanding, or are they veils concealing ignorance? Is it like saying "abracadabra" to say something "arose" by evolution? A recent paper about sophisticated metabolic enzymes in plants is a case in point.
For an enterprise that has failed for 50 years, SETI gets good press. There are many worthy enterprises on the planet; what is it about SETI that gets honorable mention with nary a critical word?
"Heidelberg Man" has been a modern name imposed on certain fossil humans that have been unable to speak for themselves. Now, their bones appear to overlap with Neanderthals. But don't modern humans have Neanderthal DNA? Do the distinctions make any sense?
Stalin, who read Darwin in divinity school and turned atheist, became a ruthless dictator whose reign of terror killed multiple millions more than Hitler. One of his evil deeds is being remembered: a railroad project in Siberia that was never completed despite causing the deaths of at least 100,000 people.
The way to make a concept impregnable is to use rhetorical devices to render competition out of bounds, and then nationalize the favored view. An AP story demonstrates how this is done with evolution.