Anti-Darwinism is stupid. Says who?

PUBLISHER:

redshirt

Shaun Johnston:
In modern times we've made two revolutionary discoveries. One is, how changes in physical matter can be accounted for in terms of physical laws that can predict precisely what will happen next. Having given rise to science (how this can be studied) and industry (how it can be applied) this revolution is well under way.

The second revolution is, how emergence of species of living creatures can be accounted for in terms of them evolving from one another. This revolution, despite its promise of how much it could tell us about ourselves, remains stillborn through the mistaken application to it of principles coming out of the first revolution--reductive physicalism.

For this second revolution to advance it should be taken from under the wing of science and studied on its own terms. Tip: one recent product of evolution is creatures with minds. Minds are better studied through methods of the humanities than through those of science. Tell me, does this interest you?

Details: Written by Shaun Johnston Shaun Johnston; Published: March 2, 2018 March 2, 2018; Hits: 2575 2575

Searching for "censorship by Google of anti-darwinism" led me to reddit.com and from there to creation.com and a relevant quote from Google's internal guidelines. I signed off at reddit by quoting those guidelines: Google has made public the internal guidelines used by their evaluators to judge search results quality. Buried deep in this document on page 108 is this innocuous statement:

The following should also be rated "Fails to Meet" because they lead to very poor and upsetting user experiences: …

● Pages that directly contradict well-established scientific or medical consensus for queries seeking scientific or medical information, unless the query indicates the user is seeking an alternative viewpoint.

I had my answer: Google does feel entitled to suppress anti-Darwinist opinions. More...