Podcasts about thomas huxley

Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss slime mould, a basic organism that grows on logs, cowpats and compost heaps. Scientists have found difficult to categorise slime mould: in 1868, the biologist Thomas Huxley asked: ‘Is this a plant, or is it an animal? Is it both or is it neither?' and there is a great deal scientists still don't know about it. But despite not having a brain, slime mould can solve complex problems: it can find the most efficient way round a maze and has been used to map Tokyo's rail network. Researchers are using it to help find treatments for cancer, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease, and computer scientists have designed an algorithm based on slime mould behaviour to learn about dark matter. It's even been sent to the international space station to help study the effects of weightlessness. WithJonathan Chubb Professor of Quantitative Cell Biology at University College, LondonElinor Thompson Reader in microbiology and plant science at the University of GreenwichAndMerlin Sheldrake Biologist and writerProducer: Eliane Glaser In Our Time is a BBC Studios Audio production

It's a plane, it's Superman... it's a... BIRD! Let's take Ye Olde Timed Machinerium back to the Jurassic Period shall we? It's time to for the Debut Buddies to find the FIRST BIRD. This "ancient wing" hung out mostly in Germany, probably listening to Kraftwerk, but now it's a fossil and--boy--are we feeling paleontological! After digging into our newest fine, feathered friend, we talk MouthGarf, and play another rousing game of I See What You Did There!Sources:https://www.fieldmuseum.org/exhibition/meet-the-chicago-archaeopteryxhttps://www.britannica.com/animal/Archaeopteryxhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArchaeopteryxPlease give us a 5 star rating on Apple Podcasts! Want to ask us a question? Talk to us! Email debutbuddies@gmail.comListen to Kelly and Chelsea's awesome horror movie podcast, Never Show the Monster.Get some sci-fi from Spaceboy Books.Get down with Michael J. O'Connor's music!Next time: First Beetlejuice Sequel 

Last time we spoke about Feng Yuxiang and Zhang Zongchang. Both men were born into poverty, rose through the ranks of the military, earning popularity. Feng became known for his integrity and generosity. He played a pivotal role during the Xinhai Revolution and the subsequent warlord era, often switching allegiances opportunistically. Feng embraced Christianity and enforced discipline among his troops, earning the nickname "the Christian General." On the other side of the shoulder, Zhang Zongchang became infamous for his brutality and excesses as the "Dogmeat General." His rule over Shandong was marked by tyranny, corruption, and lavish indulgence. While Feng focused on discipline, education, and infrastructure, Zhang oppressed his subjects, enriching himself and his inner circle. Feng was often portrayed favorably, while Zhang reveled in his notorious reputation. Ultimately, they were emblematic figures of the tumultuous warlord era, shaping the course of Chinese history.   #96 Meet the Southern Warlords   Welcome to the Fall and Rise of China Podcast, I am your dutiful host Craig Watson. But, before we start I want to also remind you this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Perhaps you want to learn more about the history of Asia? Kings and Generals have an assortment of episodes on history of asia and much more  so go give them a look over on Youtube. So please subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry for some more history related content, over on my channel, the Pacific War Channel where I cover the history of China and Japan from the 19th century until the end of the Pacific War. So two episodes back I introduced you all to the Northern Warlords. The father of warlords, Yuan Shikai basically created them all. When Yuan Shikai built his Beiyang Army, many of his best officers became the Northern Warlords after his death. Thus the Northern Faction as its sometimes referred to, really was an elite club of Beiyang Generals who simply were vying for power. They were all scrambling to fund their private armies and whoever at any given time had the strongest force was able to exert control over the Beiyang government located in Beijing. Within this dynamic there was a quasi balance of power going on. For the most part it was dominated by the three largest cliques in the north, the Anhui Clique, Zhili Clique and Fengtian Clique. Yet this really only applied to Northern China. Going back in time somewhat you will remember, when Yuan Shikai stole the presidency, this led to multiple rebellions, notably sprouting in the southern provinces. Dr Sun Yat-Sen stepped down from the provisional presidency, but he had not given up on his dream of a real republic for China. After the assassination of Song Jiaoren in March 1913, many believed Yuan Shikai had ordered the hit. Yuan Shikai proceeded to abuse his power and this led to southern provinces declaring independence. First was Jiangxi, followed by Jiangsu, Anhui, Shanghai, Guangdong, Fujian and so forth. This all culminated with the Second Revolution of 1913. Unfortunately for the rebels, Yuan Shikai's Beiyang Army yet again proved their might, achieving a complete victory over their revolutionary uprisings. KMT loyalist politicians still refused to submit to Yuan Shikai, so he simply dissolved parliament and began reorganizing China using loyal military governors in the provinces. The KMT may have been dissolved, but they were not down for the count.  After Yuan Shikai proclaimed himself emperor, Dr. Sun Yat Sun established the Chinese Revolutionary Party on July 8th of 1914, but this time his old friends and colleagues refused to join him such as Huang Xing, Hu Hanmin, Chen Jiongming and Wang Jingwei. They had seen it all before. Everytime they created a movement against Yuan Shikai, he simply crushed them, they wanted no part of it. As a result, Dr Sun Yat-Sen lost the limelight, he went back into exile, biding his time. After Yuan Shikai's death, Dr Sun Yat-Sen returned to China where he formed a military Junta at Guangzhou to oppose the Beiyang government. The military Junta held a vote, electing Dr Sun Yat-Sen as Generalissimo. Wu Tingfang was appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs, Tang Shaoyi as Chief Finance Officer, although he did not accept the position, Cheng Biguang became the Chief Navy Officer and Hu Hanmin became the Chief Transportation officer. One of the first actions the Junta took was to denounce Duan Qirui and his colleagues as rebels and vowed they would reunify China in a grand “Northern Expedition”. With this proclamation, the Constitutional Protection War had officially begun. The war or better called a movement for now was basically the KMT's third revolution. It was put simply to defeat the Beiyang Government. However, not everyone saw eye to eye. In late 1917, many officials such as Tang Jiyao, Mo Rongxin, Lu Rongting and Tang Shaoyi convened a meeting with southwestern warlords. The purpose of the meeting was to see if they could recognize the Beiyang government and form a coalition with them, basically they were seeking a compromise with the Northern Warlords. Dr Sun Yat-Sen was outraged when he found out and placed blame on the southwestern warlords who he believed had sabotaged the Junta. He resigned angrily in May of 1918, going yet again into exile in Shanghai.While in Shanghai he found supporters and on October 10th of 1919 resurrected the KMT. After this point Dr Sun Yat-Sen would be in conflict with Southern Warlords, basically vying to control southern provincial bases of power. Initially this would be around Guangzhou and Guangdong. Now as most of you probably already know, while Dr Sun Yat-Sen founded the KMT, it ultimately was inherited by a man named Chiang Kai-Shek. Chiang Kai-Shek was born October 31st in Xikou, Zhejiang. He descended from a family of salt merchants. Early in life he became interested in the military. Now he lived during a rough time, China suffered military defeats, natural disasters, famine, rebellion en masse, unequal treaties and such. In 1906 after  his first visit to Japan he began pursuing a military career. He enlisted in the Baoding Military academy that year and then went to the Tokyo Shinbu Gakko, a preparatory school for the IJA Academy for Chinese students. While there he became a revolutionary seeking to end the Qing Dynasty so a Han led Chinese republic could emerge. In 1908 he befriended Chen Qimei and it was Chen who introduced him into the Tongmenghui. After graduating from the Tokyo Shinbu Gakko, Chiang served in the IJA from 1909-1911.  When Chiang heard of the Wuchang uprising he rushed back to China, intending to serve as an artillery officer. He led a regiment in Shanghai under Chen Qimei. Then in 1912 there was a conflict between Chen Qimei and Tao Chengzhang, a revolutionary alliance leader who opposed Dr Sun Yat-Sen. Historians differ on what exactly happened, but its possible Chiang had a hand to play in the assassination of Tao. Regardless Chiang rose up through the ranks and continued to serve under Chen Qimei. Now Chen Qimei had friends in the underworld, such as the Green Gang led by Du Yuesheng. The Green Gang was a criminal syndicate in Shanghai and again historians differ on the extent, but it seems Chiang brushed shoulders with them often. Chiang Kai-Shek became a founding member of the KMT but found himself on the losing end of the Second Revolution in 1913. He fled to Japan in exile, but also secretly traveled to the Shanghai international settlement. Its said there he began working with underworld groups, like the Green Gang. On May 18th, 1916 Yuan Shikai had Chen Qimei assassinated, prompting Chiang to succeed him as leader of the KMT in Shanghai. In 1917 when Dr Sun Yat-Sen came back, Chiang quickly joined up with him, cultivating a spot as his number 2. Now I don't want to give away future episode content just yet, so I will stop it there for the KMT Clique.  The next clique as you may have guessed is of course the Chinese Communist Party. Now we talked quite a bit about its foundation, but for a refresher. After the May Fourth Movement of 1919, numerous foreign ideologies flooded into China, one was Marxism. The Russian Revolution had a profound impact on China. Hundreds of thousands of laborers during WW1 went over to Russia and found themselves stuck in the civil war. They came back and brought with them what they learnt. Two men in particular were greatly inspired by Marxism, Chen Duxiu and Li Dazaho, they were also the first two prominent Chinese figures to endorse Leninism and for a worldwide revolution to take place. They ushered in the New Culture Movement, then aided the May Fourth Movement, but by 1920 they both became very skeptical about reforming the current political situation of China. In 1921 the CCP was founded with help from the USSR. The founding national congress of the CCP was helped between July 23-30th 1921 with only 50 members, amongst whom were Li Dazho, Chen Duxiu and Mao Zedong. The CCP grew quickly, originally being held in a house in the Shanghai French Concession until they were caught by police. They moved to Jiaxing, Zhejiang, electing Chen Duxiu as their 1st General Secretary. Chen became “China's Lenin” and certainly the CCP continued to ally themselves to the USSR for both had a common enemy, Japan. Again just like with the KMT, while Chen Duxiu and Li Dazhao were the initial leaders, Mao Zedong would inherit the leadership.  Mao Zedong was born December 26th of 1893 near Shaoshan in Hunan. His father was an impoverished peasant who grew to be one of the wealthiest farmers in Shaoshan. Mao grew up in rural Hunan and stated in memoirs he was regularly beaten by his father who was a very strict man. His mother, Wen Qimei was a devout buddhist and Mao would follow in her footests trying to become a Buddhist, but ultimately abandoning the path as a teenager. He received a confucian based education and his family arranged a marriage when he was 17 to Luo Yixiu, ultimately to unit their land-owning families. Mao refused to acknowledge the marriage and quickly moved away. The poor Luo was shamed by this and would die in 1910. Mao was a voracious reader, he loved the Romance of the Three Kingdoms and Water Margins from a young age and continued to read whatever he could get his hands on. Eventually his reading led him to a political awakening. He began reading Adam Smith, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Charles Darwin, Thomas Huxley, Montequieu and other western works. He was also interested in history, he took a particularly interest to Napoleon Bonaparte and George Washington.  Mao moved to Changsha for middle school education in 1911 where he came into contact with the revolutionary fervor of the time. He was inspired by Dr Sun Yat-Sen, even wrote about how he thought he should become president in a school essay. Mao like many others cut off their queues during the Xinhai Revolution. Mao found himself joining a real army as a private soldier, but never saw any real combat. In 1912 he resigned from being a soldier and discovered socialism from a newspaper. Mao then enrolled in a police academy but dropped out. He then tried a soap-production school, law school, an economics school and a government run middle school, dropping out of all of them. He spent his time in Changsha's library, reading classical liberal works. Once his father figured out he was basically not doing anything but reading, he cut his allowance, forcing Mao to move into a hostel. Mao then tried to become a teacher and enrolled in the 1st normal school of Changsha. While there he befriend professor Yang Changjia who introduced him to the newspaper “the New Youth” by Chen Duxiu. Mao became inspired, and organized a Association for Student Self-Government that formed protests against school rules. He published articles in the New Youth beginning in 1917 and joined the Society of the Study of Wang Fuzhi, a revolutionary group in Changsha. He began reading about WW1, finding solidarity with the stories of soldiers, but also with workers. After graduating in 1919 he immediately moved to Beijing where his mentor Yang Changji had a job at Peking University. Yang got him a job as an assistant librarian to Li Dazhao. From here Mao became more and more influenced by Marxism, reading about the Russian revolution from the New Youth and books written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Mao joined Li Dazhao's study group becoming more and more enthralled with Marxism. He returned to Changsha working at a primary school while also organizing protests and promoting the New Culture movement there. Mao helped organize a general strike in Hunan, before he returned to Beijing to visit the terminally ill Yang Yangji. After this Mao moved to Shanghai where he met with Chen Duxiu and some prominent KMT members. Mao would brush shoulders with these KMT members often and became one of the founding members of the CCP. Again like with the KMT I don't wont to give away too much future events, so I will stop it there for the CCP. The next group was the Yunnan Clique who were born out of the Xinhai Revolution when Cai E declared Yunnan independent. Cai E had been the commander of the 37th Brigade of the New Army. After the Xinhai Revolution, Cai E tossed his lot in with Yuan Shikai, leaving behind Tang Jiyao to govern Yunnan. When Yuan Shikai initiated operation Walrus Emperor, Cai E covertly departed Beijing and returned to Yunnan to get the old gang back together. He was nearly assassinated on November 11th, but managed to flee to Japan and then Yunnan. Once back in Yunnan he established the local National Protection Army to fight Yuan Shikai. Cai E declared Yunnan independent again and quickly invaded southern Sichuan. Yuan Shikai sent his Beiyang Army south, but found this time his army was less than willing to fight. After Yuan Shikai's death, Cai E retained the position of governor-general over Yunnan and governor over Sichuan. The National Protection War bolstered Cai E as a national hero, however disaster struck in 1916 when he died suddenly of tuberculosis. His chief Lt Tang Jiyao inherited the mantle. Tang Jiyao brushed shoulders with Dr Sun Yat-Sen helping him set up his new KMT in Shanghai and would remain a KMT loyalist. Tang Jiyao also brushed shoulders with the Green Gang who helped him set up an opium trade in Yunnan. Opium grew exceptionally well in Yunnan, its climate was perfect for the plant. Like most of the cliques I will soon be talking about, events unfolded in Northern China that led southern provinces to feel another government was required. A few rival governments would come and go, but the first significant one would be established in Guangzhou and Tang Jiyao joined its committee. Within this government a political war was fought amongst numerous cliques, including Dr Sun Yat-Sen's KMT. As for those other Cliques that would do political battle, one would be the Guizhou Clique. The Guizhou Clique was founded by Liu Xianshi who was born in Xingyi Guizhou. Liu was born into a landlord family who were heavily involved in leading local militias during the late 19th century. He alongside his cousin Liu Xianqian were military men, like their father before them Liu Guanli, who was a regimental commander who helped suppress a Hui uprising. Liu Guanli bolstered his family name to the point the family became heavily dominant within the military forces of Guizhou. During the Wuchang Uprising, Guizhou was tossed into a panic. Li Xianshi went to the capital to help suppress the revolution. Meanwhile, Zhang Bailin, a Tongmenghui leader in Guizhou alongside others stormed the capital and forced the governor, Shen Yuqing to step down. On November 4th, they declared Guizhou independent. However the wannabe revolutionaries failed to take measures to protect their gains and soon Shen Yuqing was fighting back. Liu Xianshi found himself appointed as the Chief of Staff of the Privy Council of a provisional government. Thus emerged a battle between the revolutionaries and counter-revolutionaries. The counter revolutionaries sought assistance and turned to the recently emerged strongman, Cai E of Yunnan. They asked him to invade Guizhou to stop the crisis. Cai E dispatched Tang Jiyao with some troops who entered Guizhou rather peacefully and began to organize proper governance. Then Cai E received panic messages from Tongmenghui Guizhou members asking him to not meddle in Guizhou affairs, and with Sichuan looking more appetizing he backed off. Cai E ordered Tang Jiyao to divert his forces and march into Sichuan. However Tang Jiyao complained that in order to comply he had to take a route through Guizhou and this resulted in his army being chased by revolutionary forces. Well that's one way of stating the story, the other is Tang Jiyao simply sought to conquer Guizhou. Regardless, Liu Xianshi helped Tang Jiyao launch a successful coup against the current Guizhou Junta. Thus Tang Jiyao became the military governor of Guizhou on March 4th of 1912 and Yuan Shikai recognized this a few months later. For his role, Liu Xianshi was appointed Minister of War. Tang Jiyao did what all decent dictators do, he massacred all revolutionary forces he could catch in the province. While Tang Jiyao was at the head, Liu Xianshi used his new political power to begin placing family members in prominent positions. In the meantime Tang Jiyao treated Guizhou like a fiefdom, forbidding modernization efforts and prevented any development of the KMT. It goes without saying Tang Jiyao was not beloved in Guizhou. In November of 1913, Cai E was placed under house arrest and stripped of his rank, so Tang Jiyao ran back to Yunnan to grab his position as governor. This left the mantle of Guizhou to fall into the hands of Liu Xianshi. When Yuan Shikai declared himself Emperor, Liu Xianshi initially kept Guizhou neutral, but as the situation looked more and more dire for Yuan Shikai, he bandwagoned and declared independence on January 27th, 1916. Liu Xianshi sent forces to fight in the National Protection War, then after Yuan Shikai's death, the Beiyang government appointed Liu Xianshi as the military governor over Guizhou. From there Liu Xianshi had pretty much dictatorial power and he soon went to work forming his own Guizhou clique. To make matters even more complicated, within the Guizhou clique were the Xingyi clique, of the Liu family because they came from Xingyi and the Tongzi clique led by Zhou Xicheng. Basically two families and others fought for dominance, leading to a cycle of assassinations followed by seizure of power. Now we come to the Old and New Guangxi Cliques. The Old Guangxi Clique came about after Governor Chen Bingkun declared Guangxi independ during the Wuchang uprising. After the rebellion, Yuan Shikai installed Lu Rongting as the military governor of Guangxi and during the second revolution Lu remained loyal. Yet when Yuan Shikai went Walrus emperor mode, Lu bandwagoned with Cai E and Tang Jiyao. Meanwhile Long Jiguang proclaimed Guangdong independent and after Yuan Shikai's death, Guangxi and Guangdong found themselves at war. The war largely came about when Dr Sun Yat-Sen split from the Guangzhou government, he dispatched a subordinate, Chen Jiongming to seize Guangzhou and effectively get rid of the Guangxi warlords. Both Long Jiguang and Chen Jiongming were KMT loyalists, thus this led Lu Rongting into a bitter war with Guangdong and even Yunnan got involved, and the whole mess saw the Old Guangxi clique beaten severely. Again I don't want to tell to much as it will be covered in future podcasts, but a hell of a mess, lot of backstabbing.  After the Guangxi-Guangdong wars, yes plural, Li Zongren, Bai Chongxi and Huang Shaohong formed the New Guangxi clique alongside a brand new Guangxi Army. Li Zongren was its commander in chief, Huang Shaohong deputy commander and Bai Chongxi chief of staff. They all worked together to kick Guangdong forces out of Guangxi and Li Zongren emerged the military governor over Guangxi. The New Guangxi clique came about during the formation of a new coalition I can't get into here. While both the old and new Guangxi cliques were on the smaller side, they would take part in the reunification of China. Next, although we spoke already a bit about them was the Guangdong Clique. Long Jiguang would die in 1918 leaving the mantle to fall onto Chen Jiongming. Cheng Jiongming had joined the Tongmenghui in 1906 and participated in a coup attempt in 1910 in Guangzhou. During the Xinhai revolution Chen Jiongming was part of another uprising in Guangzhou. After this Chen Jiongming received the post as commander in chief of the Guangdong Army and fought for the KMT. He did however butt heads with Dr Sun Yat-Sen, particularly over the direction of reform the KMT should take. Dr Sun Yat-Sen sought to unify China by force and institute change through a centralized government based on a one party system. Chen Jiongming sought a multiparty federalist system with Guangdong being the model province and hoped for a peaceful reunification of China. There would be a split between the two men and it would be quite violent. The Guangdong clique like the old and new Guangxi clique was again a small part of something bigger cooking in the south. The next is the Sichuan Clique which consisted of a loose group of smaller warlords each with their own regions within Sichuan. Each had their own defensive zone, with their own police, political and economic bases. There were not many large conflicts, it mostly came down to coalitions dismantling a disgruntled warlord. As I already mentioned, Yunnan invaded Sichuan during the Yuan Shikai days, and the local Sichuan warlords initially welcomed the Yunnanese, siding with them to declare independence. But as you can imagine, the Yunnanese soon were seen as overbearing and a lot of soured feelings erupted. This was only further soured when troops from Guizhou came into Sichuan. In 1916, the Sichuan troops were led by General Liu Cunhou who quickly established a ceasefire with the Guizhou and Yunnanese forces. Because of her geography, Sichuan was always relatively isolated from the rest of China, thus she turned inwards instead of outwards. For the majority of the warlord period Sichuan was split into half a dozen districts under military rule. During the late 1920s even into the 1930's 5 Sichuan warlords dominated the scene, Yang Sen, Liu Wenhui, Deng Xihou, Tian Songyao and Liu Xiang. Neither had enough power to take all the others on, thus there was a real balance of power at play. In a true game of thrones like fashion, the Sichuan scene was that of warlords forming secret alliance, pitting one against another, but no one ever truly dominated the province. Of the 5 Sichuan warlords, Liu Xiang would be the most influential. Liu Xiang dominated Chongqing and its surrounding areas. His territory straddled the Yangtze River, thus rich in maritime trade, in essence he wielded significant control over Sichuan's economy. By the 1930's Sichuan was ruled by Liu Xiang in the east; Liu Cunhou in the northeast adjoining Shaanxi; Tian Songyao in the north adjoining Gansu; Deng Xihou in the northwest adjoining Qinghai and Liu Wenhui in the southwest adjoining Xikang and Yunnan. Within a small central enclave was also Yang Sen.  After Yuan Shikai's death the province fell into quite a lot of disorder. All the district governors fought each other and quite often at that, but they rarely ever crossed the Sichuan border. The common people of Sichuan lived in despair and fear nicknamed their warlords as Rotten Melons or Crystal Monkey's. Liu Xiang was born in 1889 to a modest family, received a decent education and joined the military. He rose quickly and saw a lot of warfare. By 1926 he had established a strong base in Chongqing and he held onto it until his death. Now the standard troops of Sichuan were lesser than other parts of China. The Sichuan armies were funded largely by taxes levied on grain, salt and opium. Holding Chongqing along the Yangtze, Liu Xiang had an enormous economic base and thus managed to enrich himself and funded a large army. He enforced strict military discipline, though he was known to turn a blind eye to his officers' rackets. Despite this Liu Xiang's army had a lot of problems facing bandits in the rural areas. One of the other Sichuan Warlords, Yang Sen was quite flamboyant. His nickname was rat face because he had a small mouth. Yang Sen had a small enclave, but it consisted of Chengdu which he tried to clean up. He paved streets with flagstone to help increase rickshaw traffic, a rather new concept for many there. Chengdu happened to have a commodity all warlords wanted, an arsenal, so Yang Sen was by no means a poor warlord. While Sichuan seemed to always be in a state of decline, Chengdu in comparison was quite opulent and luxurious. Now again, and I keep saying it, I don't want to give up too much of the later stories, but Sichuan like many other southern provinces would join the Northern Expedition and help reunify China. Now despite the warlord era being technically ended in 1928 when China was reunified, in reality the warlords were around well into WW2. The Sichuan Clique would brush shoulders a lot with Chiang Kai Shek. During the Second Sino-Japanese War Liu Xiang led the Sichuan 15th Army during the battle of Shanghai and the 23rd Army Group during the battle of Nanjing. Later in 1938 he took 100,000 soldiers out of Sichuan to fight the Japanese, showcasing how far he had come as a commander as well as a warlord. Last there was the Hunan Warlords, a similar situation to that of Sichuan, just a lot more autonomous warlords. The first prominent Hunan Clique member was Tan Yankai, a member of the KMT who became the military governor of Hunan. Tan Yankai had connections amongst Guanxi warlords allowing him loose control over his province. He tried to arouse the people of Hunan to take active opposition to the Northern Warlords, but this prompted Duan Qirui to toss a Hunan born commander, Fu Liangzuo to come take his job. Tan Yankai was forced to take the job as civil governor while Fu became the warlord. Tan Yankai appealed to his Guangxi buddies for help. Even Tang Jiyao of Yunnan asked if he could invade Hunan to help, air quotes on help, but it never came about. Unfortunately for Tan Yankai, Hunan was right beside the Zhili Clique and thus got engulfed in the Northern wars. Hunan basically as a result of geography was stuck in the middle of bigger players and would be tossed around like a ragdoll. Tan Yankai would be backstabbed by a subordinate who favored the Zhili, then later another KMT member would simply grab up Hunan during the Northern expedition. Honestly to call Hunan a Clique is a bit of a stretch as it was more of just an area that had overlaps with other cliques all fighting for territory. Now that basically covers the southern cliques, theres actually more, but if I talk about them we would get lost in the weeds as they say. What is important to know going forward, the North-South divide would see two distinct theaters at play. In the North the Anhu, Zhili and Fengtian Cliques would fight for dominance over Beijing. In the South, many KMT oriented, Communist Orient and independent warlords would fight for dominance over Guangzhou, and later in history other rival southern governments. Typically the Warlord Era is taught North to South and I think that will be the case with us because its simply more cohesive. As Samuel Jackson playing Ray Arnold in Jurassic Park once said, “hold onto your butts” because the warlord Era about to begin.  I would like to take this time to remind you all that this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Please go subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry after that, give my personal channel a look over at The Pacific War Channel at Youtube, it would mean a lot to me. So we talked about the Northern Warlords and now the Southern Warlords. Time to put the Game of Thrones intro music on, as we are soon going to jump into a world of cutthroat backstabbing, secret alliance, little fingers and megalomaniac figures who will all fight to reunify China under their own image. As for the Chinese common people, as usual they will suffer tremendously, continuing the Century of Humiliation. 

Happy April! It's been a while, huh? In this episode of The Will To Believe, we return to talking about Thomas Huxley and Christian existential anxiety about gorillas.

A new MP3 sermon from Providence Chapel is now available on SermonAudio with the following details: Title: From tiny house to church history (Thomas Huxley) Subtitle: Historical Lectures Speaker: Ian Walkington Broadcaster: Providence Chapel Event: Special Meeting Date: 3/29/2024 Bible: Matthew 28:18-20 Length: 54 min.

A new MP3 sermon from Providence Chapel is now available on SermonAudio with the following details: Title: From tiny house to church history (Thomas Huxley) Subtitle: Historical Lectures Speaker: Ian Walkington Broadcaster: Providence Chapel Event: Special Meeting Date: 3/29/2024 Bible: Matthew 28:18-20 Length: 54 min.

Mike Robinson speaks to Matt Ehret about the second part of his “Hidden Hand Behind UFOs” series, where H.G. Wells is introduced as a student Thomas Huxley and the father of modern predictive programming, whose ideas spawned the creation of the Manhattan Project, League of Nations and UN.

Dans le langage courant, les mots "athée" et "agnostique" sont souvent donnés comme des synonymes. Et pourtant, ils ont un sens bien différent.L'athée ne croit pas en l'existence d'un Dieu, de divinités ou même d'une force ou d'un être immanents. En effet, le terme est formé du grec "theos", qui signifie "dieu", et du privatif "a", voulant dire "sans".Le sens est donc sans ambiguïté. L'athéisme, qui postule que la seule réalité est la matière, est donc l'expression d'une conviction, et même, pour certains, d'une forme de croyance.Certains athées sont donc des militants qui, comme d'autres croyants, sont tentés d'imposer leurs convictions aux autres. Ce sont aussi des gens qui, la plupart du temps, croient dans le progrès et les réalisations de la science.Les mots "agnostique" et "agnosticisme" ont été forgés, à la fin du XIXe siècle, par le naturaliste anglais Thomas Huxley. Il a créé ce terme en partant du grec "gnosis", qui signifie "connaissance", et du privatif "a" , que nous avons rencontré dans le mot "athée".Un "agnostique" est donc, au sens littéral, un "ignorant". Et, en effet, ce terme le définit bien. De fait, l'agnostique ne nie pas qu'il puisse exister un Dieu, ou une divinité, il n'affirme pas non plus leur existence.Il dit simplement qu'on ne peut pas répondre à la question de savoir si Dieu, ou toute forme de transcendance, existent ou non. L'être humain, en effet, n'est pas en capacité de répondre à une pareille question. Il n'a pas accès à un surnaturel auquel sa raison ne peut donner aucun sens. Ce qui ne signifie pas qu'il en nie la possible existence.Il ne peut donc qu'avouer son ignorance en la matière. Pour un agnostique, c'est la seule attitude rationnelle, et même possible. C'est en tout cas un écho à la célèbre pensée de Socrate ; "tout ce que je sais, c'est que je ne sais rien". Ce qui induit le philosophe à faire preuve d'humilité et à rechercher constamment la vérité. Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

Dans le langage courant, les mots "athée" et "agnostique" sont souvent donnés comme des synonymes. Et pourtant, ils ont un sens bien différent. L'athée ne croit pas en l'existence d'un Dieu, de divinités ou même d'une force ou d'un être immanents. En effet, le terme est formé du grec "theos", qui signifie "dieu", et du privatif "a", voulant dire "sans". Le sens est donc sans ambiguïté. L'athéisme, qui postule que la seule réalité est la matière, est donc l'expression d'une conviction, et même, pour certains, d'une forme de croyance. Certains athées sont donc des militants qui, comme d'autres croyants, sont tentés d'imposer leurs convictions aux autres. Ce sont aussi des gens qui, la plupart du temps, croient dans le progrès et les réalisations de la science. Les mots "agnostique" et "agnosticisme" ont été forgés, à la fin du XIXe siècle, par le naturaliste anglais Thomas Huxley. Il a créé ce terme en partant du grec "gnosis", qui signifie "connaissance", et du privatif "a" , que nous avons rencontré dans le mot "athée". Un "agnostique" est donc, au sens littéral, un "ignorant". Et, en effet, ce terme le définit bien. De fait, l'agnostique ne nie pas qu'il puisse exister un Dieu, ou une divinité, il n'affirme pas non plus leur existence. Il dit simplement qu'on ne peut pas répondre à la question de savoir si Dieu, ou toute forme de transcendance, existent ou non. L'être humain, en effet, n'est pas en capacité de répondre à une pareille question. Il n'a pas accès à un surnaturel auquel sa raison ne peut donner aucun sens. Ce qui ne signifie pas qu'il en nie la possible existence. Il ne peut donc qu'avouer son ignorance en la matière. Pour un agnostique, c'est la seule attitude rationnelle, et même possible. C'est en tout cas un écho à la célèbre pensée de Socrate ; "tout ce que je sais, c'est que je ne sais rien". Ce qui induit le philosophe à faire preuve d'humilité et à rechercher constamment la vérité. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Historian Alison Bashford with the story of the Huxley family, who founded one of the great dynasties of the world

Dave Brisbin 2.11.24 What churches and religion inevitably forget—as does every human group—is that their laws, doctrine, and practice are not ends, truth in themselves, but pointers, guides to non-rational truth that must be personally experienced, never bestowed. Thomas Huxley said that new ideas begin as heresy, advance to orthodoxy, and end in superstition. Belief systems practiced for a length of time follow this curve, and Christian thought is no exception. The practices that Jesus taught and his followers called the Way, heretical to most, were understood as a way of life that prepared individuals to experience the paradoxical truth of God's love. But as the movement matured and institutionalized, life practice became ritualized, and the theological ideas that had grown around them were legalized into orthodoxy. Eventually, law and ritual were believed to have supernatural power, ends in themselves rather than pointers to spiritual experience. The original Hebrew meaning of law—torah—was instruction, guidance, like training wheels on a bike. But that in no way diminishes its importance. Jesus said he was not abolishing the law, but fulfilling it—that even the smallest letter and stroke would remain until heaven and earth pass away, which in Aramaic means to cross a boundary. We need the guidance, restriction, and discipline of law and ritual until the oneness of heaven merges with the individuality of life on earth in our own hearts. When heaven and earth merge in us, we no longer need law and ritual as training wheels, but will live them from the inside out as expressions of the love we have experienced along the Way. Jesus is teaching us that law is not fulfilled in obedience or righteousness in ritual practice. Legal compliance and ritual observance mean nothing in themselves, but everything when they have become the deepest purpose of a transformed heart. To believe otherwise is to miss the Way entirely, remain focused on conformance rather than transformance…as if training wheels are permanent, the highest expression of riding a bike, and not a limitation—the outward badge of an inward inability to fly.

Dave Brisbin 2.11.24 What churches and religion inevitably forget—as does every human group—is that their laws, doctrine, and practice are not ends, truth in themselves, but pointers, guides to non-rational truth that must be personally experienced, never bestowed. Thomas Huxley said that new ideas begin as heresy, advance to orthodoxy, and end in superstition. Belief systems practiced for a length of time follow this curve, and Christian thought is no exception. The practices that Jesus taught and his followers called the Way, heretical to most, were understood as a way of life that prepared individuals to experience the paradoxical truth of God's love. But as the movement matured and institutionalized, life practice became ritualized, and the theological ideas that had grown around them were legalized into orthodoxy. Eventually, law and ritual were believed to have supernatural power, ends in themselves rather than pointers to spiritual experience. The original Hebrew meaning of law—torah—was instruction, guidance, like training wheels on a bike. But that in no way diminishes its importance. Jesus said he was not abolishing the law, but fulfilling it—that even the smallest letter and stroke would remain until heaven and earth pass away, which in Aramaic means to cross a boundary. We need the guidance, restriction, and discipline of law and ritual until the oneness of heaven merges with the individuality of life on earth in our own hearts. When heaven and earth merge in us, we no longer need law and ritual as training wheels, but will live them from the inside out as expressions of the love we have experienced along the Way. Jesus is teaching us that law is not fulfilled in obedience or righteousness in ritual practice. Legal compliance and ritual observance mean nothing in themselves, but everything when they have become the deepest purpose of a transformed heart. To believe otherwise is to miss the Way entirely, remain focused on conformance rather than transformance…as if training wheels are permanent, the highest expression of riding a bike, and not a limitation—the outward badge of an inward inability to fly.

La journée mondiale de l'intelligence animale est célébrée chaque année, le 4 février. BSG rediffuse à cette occasion les 12 épisodes de la série "La bête en nous" avec Jessica Serra.Chaque année, le 4 février est dédié à Le 4 février Le 30 juin 1860 s'est tenu à Oxford, au Royaume-Uni, un des débats les plus légendaires de l'histoire de la biologie. Un an plus tôt, Darwin a publié De l'origine des espèce. Le mythe de la création divine vacille, et l'être humain découvre avec amusement ou effroi qu'il pourrait descendre des singes.Ce célèbre débat oppose Thomas Huxley, professeur, ami et défenseur des théories de Charles Darwin, et Samuel Wilberforce, évêque d'Oxford. Point d'orgue de la joute verbale : Wilberforce demande à Huxley s'il descend des singes du côté paternel ou maternel.Malicieux, Huxley répond qu'il n'aurait pas honte d'avoir un singe comme aïeul, mais qu'il en aurait bien davantage à descendre d'un homme d'Église qui se permettrait de parler de science sans rien y connaître.C'est par ce célèbre échange que notre invitée Jessica Serra débute son livre. Il fut longtemps insupportable pour l'Homme d'admettre l'idée qu'il est un Animal comme les autres. Or, il suffit d'observer les animaux pour se rendre compte que bien des "propres de l'Homme" existent chez les Animaux : l'intelligence, les émotions, l'invention d'outils...Jessica Serra est éthologue (spécialiste du comportement des animaux). Elle est aussi écrivaine, directrice de collection "Mondes Animaux" pour la maison d'éditions Humensciences. En 2017, Jessica Serra se fait connaître à travers l'émission La Vie secrète des chats, série documentaire de TF1 qu'elle coanime aux côtés de ses collègues Laetitia Barlerin et Thierry Bedossa.Jessica est l'auteure de La Vie Secrète des chats en 2019,  de Dans la tête d'un chat en 2020, et de La bête en nous en 2021. C'est ce dernier livre qui lui vaut d'être invitée dans BSG. Chez Larousse, Jessica a publié Le grand livre de l'intelligence animale en 2022. _______ 

Thomas Huxley and Samuel Wilberforce, Bishop of Oxford, were among the prominent figures discussing Charles Darwin's theory of evolution at the Oxford University Museum on 30th June 1860; an encounter sometimes referred to as ‘The Great Debate'.  The confrontation is best remembered for a heated exchange in which Wilberforce supposedly asked Huxley whether it was through his grandfather or his grandmother that he claimed his descent from a monkey. Huxley is said to have replied that he would not be ashamed to have a monkey for his ancestor, but he would be ashamed to be connected with a man who used his great gifts to obscure the truth. In this episode, Arion, Rebecca and Olly explain how both men came to believe they had ‘won' the ‘debate'; trace back the origins of the men's nicknames ‘Darwin's Bulldog' and ‘Soapy Sam'; and consider whether Darwin himself was keen on causing such controversy… Further Reading: • ‘The Great Debate' (Oxford University Museum of Natural History): https://oumnh.ox.ac.uk/great-debate • ‘Did Huxley really mop the floor with Wilberforce?' (National Geographic, 2008): https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/repost-did-huxley-really-mop-the-floor-with-wilberforce • ‘Darwin's Dangerous Idea' (PBS, 2012): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=povYofKYqJM   #Science #Victorian #UK We'll be back on Monday - unless you join 

The family tree of the Huxley clan has its roots in the dark world of Royal Society Eugenics disguised as scientific advancement and study. With deep mental illness as a thread running through multiple generations, the Huxleys used their expertise in the areas of science to justify their racism and bolster the push for eugenics from the Royal Society. Thomas Huxley, a self-taught biologist, and anthropologist was known as “Darwin's Bulldog” for his enthusiastic defense of Charles Darwin's book “On The Origin Of Species”. His desire for a scientific model to explain why the British were predisposed to be at the top of the social hierarchy was later adopted and furthered by his own grandson, Sir Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley's legendary book “Brave New World” has the feeling of predictive programming almost 100 years in the making when compared to the plans of the World Economic Forum, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that his brother invented the term “transhumanism”. Sponsors: Emergency Preparedness Food: www.preparewithmacroaggressions.com Chemical Free Body: https://www.chemicalfreebody.com and use promo code: MACRO C60 Purple Power: https://c60purplepower.com/ Promo Code: MACRO Wise Wolf Gold & Silver: www.Macroaggressions.gold True Hemp Science: https://truehempscience.com/ Haelan: https://haelan951.com/pages/macro Solar Power Lifestyle: https://solarpowerlifestyle.com/ Promo Code: MACRO Coin Bit App: https://coinbitsapp.com/?ref=0SPP0gjuI68PjGU89wUv Macroaggressions Merch Store: https://www.teepublic.com/stores/macroaggressions?ref_id=22530 LinkTree: linktr.ee/macroaggressions Books: HYPOCRAZY: https://amzn.to/3VsPDp8 Controlled Demolition on Amazon: https://amzn.to/3ufZdzx The Octopus Of Global Control: Amazon: https://amzn.to/3VDWQ5c Barnes & Noble: https://bit.ly/39vdKeQ Online Connection: Link Tree: https://linktr.ee/Macroaggressions Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/macroaggressions_podcast/ Discord Link:  https://discord.gg/4mGzmcFexg Website: www.theoctopusofglobalcontrol.com Facebook: www.facebook.com/theoctopusofglobalcontrol Twitter: www.twitter.com/macroaggressio3 Twitter Handle: @macroaggressio3 YouTube: www.youtube.com/channel/UCn3 The Grow Network: www.charliesbackyardfarm.com

A brief history of secular thought from the Enlightenment to the present, looking at how it has been shaped by culture and events. We start in the Enlightenment with Voltaire, Edward Gibbon, David Hume, and Thomas Paine. Moving into the nineteenth century we look at literary influences like Percy Bysshe Shelley and Thomas Carlyle, then social critics like Ludwig Feuerbach and Karl Marx. Charles Darwin takes a central position in the nineteenth century, followed by expositors like Thomas Huxley and Herbert Spencer. And we conclude the nineteenth century with Friedrich Nietzsche and the death of God. We start the twentieth century with Sigmund Freud and Bertrand Russell and look at satirical writers at the turn of the century like like Mark Twain and H.L. Mencken. We conclude the twentieth century with Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan and start off the twenty-first century with the New Atheists.

Beauty is truth, truth beauty - that is all/Ye know on Earth, and all ye need to know -John Keats, Ode On A Grecian Urn, 1819 “The great tragedy of Science is the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.” -Thomas Huxley, 1870 "My work has always tried to unite the true with the beautiful and when I had to choose one or the other I usually chose the beautiful.” -Hermann Weyl, 1885–1955 “Objectivity came to seem at once stranger - more specific, less obvious, more recently historical - and deeper, etched into the very act of scientific seeing, than we had ever suspected.” -Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison, 2007 Sources: https://old.reddit.com/r/DilettanteryPodcast/comments/wxt6us/21_was_the_concept_of_objectivity_invented_in_the/?

O čom má a nemá byť vzdelávanie? Ako vznikol a ako riešiť stret a rozkol medzi humanitnými a vedeckými (exaktnými) disciplínami? Sú vzdelaní ľudia súčasne aj múdri? V dnešnom letnom rozhovore sa o týchto otázkach bavia tvorcovia Pravidelnej dávky Jakub a Andrej.----more---- Súvisiace dávky PD#253: Rozhovor s Fedorom Blaščákom o demokracii, https://bit.ly/davka253 PD#8: Rozhovor s Mirkou Durankovou o charakterovom vzdelávaní, https://bit.ly/davka8  Použitá a odporúčaná literatúra  C.P.Snow, The Two Cultures, https://bit.ly/3RJ6hPJ Matthew Arnold vs Thomas Huxley, https://bit.ly/3yPoL8G  Greek Legacy: Classical Origins of the Modern World, https://bit.ly/3AYkWR6  diskusia na Pohode o narcizme, https://bit.ly/3oe9UQa diskusia na Pohode s Radičovou, https://bit.ly/3Px9ZtG  Miroslav Marcelli, Myslenie v sieti (2018), https://bit.ly/3Pq6eqE  *** Baví ťa s nami rozmýšľať? ❤️ Podpor našu tvorbu ľubovoľným darom, https://bit.ly/PDdar, alebo cez Patreon, https://bit.ly/PDtreon, a čo tak štýlový merch, https://bit.ly/mercPD? Ďakujeme za podporu!

El 30 de junio de 1860 se produjo en le Museo Universitario de Historia Natural de Oxford el 'Debate de la evolución'. Un debate entre la ciencia y la fe donde, indudablemente, ganó la ciencia, encabezada por Thomas Huxley. Por Nieves Concostrina.

El 30 de junio de 1860 se produjo en le Museo Universitario de Historia Natural de Oxford el 'Debate de la evolución'. Un debate entre la ciencia y la fe donde, indudablemente, ganó la ciencia, encabezada por Thomas Huxley. Por Nieves Concostrina.

El 30 de junio de 1860 se produjo en le Museo Universitario de Historia Natural de Oxford el 'Debate de la evolución'. Un debate entre la ciencia y la fe donde, indudablemente, ganó la ciencia, encabezada por Thomas Huxley. Por Nieves Concostrina.

"Etymology The term agnosticism comes from a conjunction of the Greek prefix "a," meaning "without," and gnosis, meaning "knowledge." Thus, the term refers quite explicitly to the agnostic's deficit in knowledge regarding the divine. The term "agnostic" is relatively new, having been introduced by Thomas Huxley in 1869 to describe his personal philosophy that rejected Gnosticism, by which he meant all claims to occult or mystical knowledge such as that spoken of by early Christian church leaders, who used the Greek word gnosis to describe "spiritual knowledge." Agnosticism is not to be confused, however, with religious views opposing the Gnostic movement, that is, the early proto-Christian religious sects extant during the early first millennium. In recent years, use of the word agnosticism to refer to that which is not knowable or certain is apparent in scientific literature in psychology and neuroscience. Furthermore, the term is sometimes used with a meaning resembling that of "independent," particularly in technical and marketing literature, which may make reference to a "hardware agnostic" or "platform agnostic." "Agnosticism is not necessarily without a belief in God or gods. Rather, its belief is that the existence of God or gods is unknowable. It is important to note that, contrary to the more popular understanding of agnosticism merely as an agnostic attitude towards the divine, agnosticism is in fact quite a constructive project in two ways. First, as understood originally by Thomas Huxley who coined the term, it involves a serious philosophical process for approaching the question of the existence of God. Second, agnosticism can religiously issue in awareness of one's ignorance, which in turn can lead to a profound experience of the divine. Agnosticism is the philosophical or religious view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly claims regarding the existence of God, gods, deities, ultimate reality or afterlife — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently unknowable due to the subjective nature of experience. Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of God or gods; or, alternatively, posit that while certainty may be possible for some, they personally have not come into possession of this knowledge. Agnosticism in both cases involves some form of skepticism. Agnosticism maintains as a fundamental principle that the nature and attributes of God are beyond the grasp of humanity's finite and limited mind, since those divine attributes transcend human comprehension. The concept of God is quite simply too immense a concept for a mere human being to wrap their minds around. Humans might apply terms such as "omnipotent," "omnipresent," "infinite" and "eternal," to attempt to characterize God, but the agnostic would assert, these highly obsfucatory terms only underscore the inadequacy of our mental equipment to understand a concept so vast, ephemeral and elusive." --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/antonio-myers4/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/antonio-myers4/support

In this episode of MultifamilyCollective, I share a quote from Thomas Huxley. #mikebrewer #multifamilycollective #multifamilymentoring #multifamilycoaching #multifamilypodcast #leadership --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/mike-brewer/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/mike-brewer/support

In a debate on June 30, 1860 Thomas Huxley stated that monkeys could, given enough time, produce a Psalm purely by chance. Similarly, molecular movement, given enough time could produce man without a Creator. See why probability arguments like this fail to support evolution.

Le 30 juin 1860 s'est tenu à Oxford, au Royaume-Uni, un des débats les plus légendaires de l'histoire de la biologie. Un an plus tôt, Darwin a publié De l'origine des espèce. Le mythe de la création divine vacille, et l'être humain découvre avec amusement ou effroi qu'il pourrait descendre des singes. Ce célèbre débat oppose Thomas Huxley, professeur, ami et défenseur des théories de Charles Darwin, et Samuel Wilberforce, évêque d'Oxford. Point d'orgue de la joute verbale: Wilberforce demande à Huxley s'il descend des singes du côté paternel ou maternel. Malicieux, Huxley répond qu'il n'aurait pas honte d'avoir un singe comme aïeul, mais qu'il en aurait bien davantage à descendre d'un homme d'Église qui se permettrait de parler de science sans rien y connaître. C'est par ce célèbre échange que notre invitée Jessica Serra débute son livre. Il fut longtemps insupportable pour l'Homme d'admettre l'idée qu'il est un Animal comme les autres. Or, il suffit d'observer les animaux pour se rendre compte que bien des "propres de l'Homme" existent chez les Animaux : l'intelligence, les émotions, l'invention d'outils... Jessica Serra est éthologue (spécialiste du comportement des animaux). Elle est aussi écrivaine, directrice de collection "Mondes Animaux" pour la maison d'éditions Humensciences. En 2017, Jessica Serra se fait connaître à travers l'émission La Vie secrète des chats, série documentaire de TF1 qu'elle coanime aux côtés de ses collègues Laetitia Barlerin et Thierry Bedossa. Jessica est l'auteure de La Vie Secrète des chats en 2019,  de Dans la tête d'un chat en 2020, et  de La bête en nous en 2021. C'est ce dernier livre qui lui vaut d'être invitée dans BSG. Chez Larousse, Jessica a publié Le grand livre de l'intelligence animale en 2022.  ______ NB: Tous ces podcasts sont bénévoles et gratuits. Notre but est de faire connaître et de mieux inciter à protéger le Vivant. Vous pouvez nous faire un don sur Helloasso (ou sur Tipeee) ou adhérer à l'asso BSG ? Vous pouvez aussi nous aider sans dépenser un sou en installant le moteur de recherche solidaire Lilo. Merci !   Si vous appréciez nos programmes, si vous les trouvez pédagos et utiles, partagez nos liens et abonnez-vous ! Profitez-en pour nous laisser des étoiles et un avis, ce qui nous rend plus visibles. Grand merci !   Nous cherchons des partenaires. Contactez-nous: contact@baleinesousgravillon.com   Last but not least, jetez un œil à notre compte Instagram qui présente les plus époustouflantes images d'un photographe animalier chaque semaine, sans oublier notre site,et notre chaîne Youtube.

Today's ID the Future concludes a three-part series featuring author Neil Thomas in a free-ranging conversation with radio show host Hank Hanegraaff. The focus is Thomas's recent book, Taking Leave of Darwin: A Longtime Agnostic Discovers the Case for Design. Here Thomas and Hanegraaff discuss the logical positivists and what Thomas sees as their failure to consistently apply their evidential standards to Darwinism. Thomas also contrasts the cosmic nihilism of Richard Dawkins with the mounting evidence of fine tuning for life, and calls out what Thomas describes as the magical thinking at the heart of Darwinism. Hanegraaff and Thomas also explore how Darwin's theory of evolution has roots in an ancient philosophical system that was long regarded as resting on Read More › Source

Today's ID the Future kicks off a three-part series featuring Taking Leave of Darwin author Neil Thomas interviewed by radio host Hank Hanegraaff. In this first part, Hanegraaff begins by lauding Thomas's book and underscoring how influential Darwin's theory of evolution has been on Western culture. Then Thomas sketches the cultural milieu and individual motivations that he's convinced drew Darwin toward his formulation of the theory of evolution by natural selection. Here the focus is not on the various evidential weaknesses of Darwin's theory (which Thomas does cover in his book) but on a question that puzzled Thomas once he became convinced of just how evidentially weak the case for Darwinism was: How was it that a theory so poorly Read More › Source

Transcending the Delusions Institutional Control Richard Gale and Gary Null PhD Progressive Radio Network, January 13, 2022 In his 1938 song Scottsboro Boys, blues artist Lead Belly warned us to remain alert, “stay woke”, as we pass through unfriendly and prejudiced lands and territories. “I advise everybody to be a little careful,” Lead Belly sang, “stay woke, keep your eyes open.” We need to become streetwise by critically evaluating everything. However the present woke generations appear to have entered a coma.  The most recent incarnation of wokeness is not an awakening of either consciousness or conscientiousness that respects the sacredness of life, other humans, and the animal and plant kingdoms. It has steered away from its early origins within the Black community when it was used to refer to a social and political awareness for racial and social injustices. The first modern use of the term “woke” first modern use goes back to a 1962 New York Times article by the Black author William Melvin Kelly in referring to being “well informed, up to date.”  To be woke requires critical thought and discernment.  It has more in common with an innate metacognitive knowing to distinguish between rightness and fraud. Now the term has been adopted by two entire generations, regardless of race, and politicized with almost an ontological unease to conquer and divide. Hence to be woke is to be anti-woke. Throughout human history hierarchical power has been abused to control those who are subject and dependent upon that power, such as the rule of kings, emperors and authoritarian tyrants. In addition, to meet our daily needs and to secure financial ease there are landowners, merchants and bankers. In all of these power relationships, equity is always on the side of those who hold power. At this moment our nation has reached an impasse where only a tiny group of individuals control and govern the lives of the many. The Canadian philosopher Marshall McLuhan wrote, “In a culture like ours, long accustomed to splitting and dividing all things as a means of control, it is sometimes a bit of a shock to be reminded that, in operational and practical fact, the medium is the message.” McLuhan is suggesting that the masses have the tendency to focus on what is most obvious and consequently miss or ignore the deeper and more subtle changes unfolding over a period of time.  In other words, what may seem to be correct and just on the surface may eventually bring forth deleterious or “unintended” consequences. McLuhan wrote long before the internet. Today, presidential campaigns and federal laws, public health policies, the mainstream media and corporate entertainment are the conduits for how we define ourselves. They also define and set the boundaries for the dogmatic beliefs we ultimately identify with. But all of these narratives are controlled by a handful of power players, including the social media platforms such as Google, Facebook, YouTube and Wikipedia. Succumbing to the siren's call of this illusion is being woke with closed eyes. There is a saying that if you do not know the product being advertised you are the product; and this is certainly true for how millions of Americans are persuaded to purchase junk they have no need for. Our personal realities thereby are reduced to millions of bits of algorithmic data that know more about us than we know about ourselves.  We are sold on the promises of 5G technology despite the media never mentioning its serious dangers to human health and the environment. The risks of genetically modified foods and vaccination are censored from public discourse. Federal agencies that begin small and are believed to be temporary, such as Homeland Security, become permanent and unstoppable leviathans that encroach into every corner of our lives. At this moment, we are being instructed that our sole attention should be to get a Covid-19 vaccine and boosters so life can return to normal. This may sound reasonable. However, hidden beneath this message's surface has been a sophisticated effort to bypass and trash essential regulatory protective measures to assure the safety of these genetic products. Now that all world governments' health policies have utterly failed to contain the spread of SARS-CoV-2 variants, such as Delta and Omicron, more and more doctors and medical experts around the world are coming forth to say we have been deceptively misled by the Ministry of Truth's Anthony Fauci-s and Bill Gates-s of the world.  Yet their voices are being canceled and censored by Silicon Valley and social media as are professors speaking against student demands for personal entitlement and the anti-woke White Fragility diatribe that condemns genetic whiteness as racist. Students would prefer college to be sanitized of critical thought, a pleasant, non-intrusive and safe environment filled with teddy bears and psychologists next door to drug their episodes of existential angst and purposelessness in life. As the pandemic hijacks our attention, global warming increases. Over twenty percent of Americans will go to sleep hungry tonight. Those with cancer, heart disease, diabetes and dementia are told to just hang on a bit longer; a blockbuster pharmaceutical cure is just around the corner.  But for decades, this carrot has been dangled before us and has yet to come to fruition. Everything today is its opposite. The blue and red pills have been pulverized together. Only a purple pill laced with the strychnine of lies and half-truths is offered by an unduly legislative system run by technocrats and their private financial handlers. Woke and anti-woke are indistinguishable since both are born from similarly delusional worldviews divorced from reality, neither being capable of observing the preciousness and fragility of human life. It is only the rare authentic progressive who has transcended this divide and can wisely observe the battlefields orchestrated by politically motivated ideologues, aristocrats and the media. As the US spins further into a controlled dystopia, it is difficult to imagine that this trajectory towards social decay can be easily reversed. Arthur Miller said, “an era can be said to end when its basic illusions are exhausted.”  Therefore, we still have a long way to go and it may require a full system-failure at all economic and social levels before a viable and realistic effort can restore what has been lost from the ethical wasteland left in its wake. It took Rome several centuries to collapse but we are on course to accomplish this feat within a decade. To remain optimistic, therefore, requires a rejection of the dominant Social Darwinism and the specter of what Thomas Huxley called the Church Scientific that now informs both parties and that have shackled us in a fatalist purgatory or worse Dante's hells of lust, gluttony and greed. The evangelical Christian Right -- science's counterrevolutionary reactive response -- is equally a contributor to the dumbing down of the nation's sanity with fairy tales and superstition. Our indoctrination into scientific materialism, our surrendering our autonomy and divine freedoms to political and corporate regimes, and the clashes over political correctness, that disempower us from believing we can change our conditions, has created a sense of hopelessness in life and growing existential despair.  The consequences, particularly for the younger generations, have been an outburst of psychological maladies, ADD and ADHD, depression and anxiety, and rising suicide rates. It is also contributing to the unbridled frenzy of hatred across the internet.  Ideological beliefs become dogmas based upon mental afflictions, which in turn drive our emotions, fears and hatreds and reactions. No wonder pessimism is on the rise and optimism is in decline. Only a personal encounter with a deeper purpose and meaning in life, which cuts through the tyranny of our false sense of the self or ego, can ultimately guide us to rise above the turmoil and crises facing us. This does not imply a detached disinterest, an ascetic renunciation, from the plights of our neighbors and humanity. But it does demand an introspective inquiry into ourselves to discover authentic kindness, compassion and a deeper connection with others so authentic well-being and genuine happiness can emerge.  It is a commitment to finding our interconnection, in fact our interdependence, with others in the spirit of selflessness and service. So if modern American society relies solely upon mental and emotional distraction to survive, clearly there is no hope for constructive solutions to emerge to confront the roots of climate change, racism, identity politics, inequality, etc. Nor will society evolve beyond that of primates if we can only function from our reptilian and limbic brains. Obviously not everyone will discover the same purpose in his or her quest for life's meaning. It is an individual quest that is largely entwined with each of our unique gifts, skills, passions and talents that we have brought into this incarnation. Those who disagree that one can discover meaning in life are the dogmatists of materialism and should be shunned. Logic and reason alone will not satisfy this discovery; although developing skills in critical thought and discernment is more often than not necessary. It is only the rare person who has immediate intuitive knowledge about herself and the world around her. For the remainder of us, we need to educate ourselves to have a roadmap, develop a discerning eye, and engage in deep introspection into ourselves to find the purpose of our lives. It is an individual journey that begins deep within ourselves and ends by embracing others in community despite the differences. However this is not an exercise in reason, but a direct experience within the depths of ourselves. When we touch on that place that can only be reached by subjective introspection new horizons of opportunities and possibilities open up. Then we can understand the words of the great jazz artist John Coltrane, “I know that there are bad forces, forces that bring suffering to others and misery to the world, but I want to be the opposite force. I want to be the force which is truly for good.” In that honoring of our inherent goodness, genuine well-being and happiness is found and only then can our illusions and dogmatic beliefs be surrendered.

On this ID the Future from the vault, historian Michael Flannery is on The Universe Next Door with Tom Woodward, continuing their discussion of Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-founder with Charles Darwin of the theory of evolution. Dr. Flannery is an expert on Wallace's life and scientific pursuits, and is the author of Alfred Russel Wallace: A Rediscovered Life and editor of Intelligent Evolution: How Alfred Russel Wallace's World of Life Challenged Darwinism. Here he gives Woodward a quick flyover of the rich body of work that Wallace produced in the course of his lengthy scientific career, and explains how the work of Thomas Huxley and the X Club contributed to Wallace eventually being overshadowed by Darwin. Source

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/secrets-of-the-great-families   I. Let's talk impressive families. Aldous Huxley was an author most famous for Brave New World, though his other stuff is also great and underappreciated. His brother Julian Huxley founded UNESCO and the World Wildlife Fund, was secretary of the Zoological Society of London and president of the British Eugenics Society, and coined the terms "ethnic group", "cline", and "transhumanism". Their half-brother Andrew Huxley won the Nobel Prize in Medicine for discovering how nerves work. Their grandfather was Thomas Huxley, one of the first and greatest advocates of evolution, and President of the Royal Society. Henri Poincare was a great mathematician, credited with pioneering chaos theory and topology. The Poincare Institute, Poincare Prize, and the Poincare Crater on the moon are all named after him. His cousin, Raymond Poincare, was president of France from 1913 to 1920. Raymond's brother, Lucien Poincare, was a distinguished physicist, and head of the University of Paris.

I can't remember who first taught me this axiom of Bible reading, but I have been forever grateful. When you come across a knotty passage in Scripture, don't glide past it—untie it.A confusing or confounding passage is an opportunity to learn. Sometimes knotty verses reveal our ignorance, or that we haven't understood the passage—such as when we're reading Hebrews 6 and the obscure figure of Melchizedek suddenly looms out of the mist and we wonder what's he got to do with the price of fish.But sometimes we come across Bible verses that are knotty and confounding not because they are obscure but because we find them objectionable. They tie us in knots. They cut across our assumptions or expectations about what God is like or we are like or the world is like. They expose our deepest, baseline attitudes and beliefs, and where they have gone astray.We had one like this in church last Sunday. In Romans 9, after talking about how God will have mercy on some people and harden other people, and that it's entirely up to him, Paul then asks the obvious rhetorical question:You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” (v 18)Fair enough question, you might think. If God calls all the shots, then why are we to blame for finding ourselves on his bad side? And then comes this:But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is moulded say to its moulder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honourable use and another for dishonourable use? (vv 19-20)Perhaps there are more objectionable verses in the Bible than these ones, but surely not by much.Something deep within my Western soul rages against these ideas. Me, a lump of clay?! An object in the hands of a Supreme Being to do with what he wants? How utterly dehumanising and oppressive! Whatever happened to human dignity? Surely this is the poisonous spirit of primitive religion at its worst. “As flies to wanton boys are we to th' gods, They kill us for their sport” (King Lear, 4.1.36-37).As the preacher on Sunday pointed out, these verses in Romans 9 are difficult for us because we are profoundly convinced that we are at the centre of the universe, not God. We can't cope with the idea that we might be bit players in someone else's drama, rather than the star of our own story.This is old as Adam and Eve. But it's a particularly virulent problem for modern, Western people like us. It's part of what we used to call our ‘worldview', and which some clever people these days call our ‘social imaginary', and which (in the words of that philosophical treatise, The Castle) you could think of simply as ‘the Vibe'.  It's the complex, often unstated web of beliefs and assumptions about ourselves and the world, which our culture constantly reinforces and transmits to us, which we absorb and come to accept, and upon which we operate day by day.For nearly three centuries, our Western culture has been steadily constructing a Vibe in which God is excluded, and man is the centre and measure of all things. We don't even notice or articulate this any more. We just live as if it's the case. The debates we have with each other on any issue (political, social, ethical) proceed on this basis. The stories we tell each other—in movies and TV shows and books—assume it and reinforce it constantly.  It's hard to imagine any Hollywood movie in which God is the potter and we are the clay, unless of course we are the plucky heroic figures of clay, who come to life, follow our hearts, destroy the evil oppressive potter, and go on to realise all our dreams.It occurred to me again on Sunday how important the rejection of God as creator has been to our Vibe. The sovereignty of God over us is the sovereignty of a potter over his clay. To assert ourselves as the centre of all things, and to exclude him as sovereign, we must reject his claim over us as our Potter.And of course, this is what we have done. It started in the 17th century with the semi-polite rejection called Deism, in which we decided that God had made us, once upon a time, but had since lost interest, and no longer really cared very much what we do. He was there (most likely) but he was not a factor, and certainly not knowable in any reliable sense. If we were going to figure out how to be and how to live, we would have to do so on our own terms, starting from scratch. This was essentially the program of the Enlightenment—to construct a worldview-vibe from the ground up, in which we could understand morality, the world and ourselves, without reference to an external divine authority or source of knowledge. It was a program that in most respects assumed that the Christian morality and worldview of the time was correct, but that we should be able to demonstrate and explore and explain it without reference to God.And the sidelining of God as Creator was a critical aspect of this. This sidelining of course moved into overdrive in the late 19th century with the rise of Darwinism, particularly in the way that it was ideologically spun and argued by Thomas Huxley and others. Huxley was a militant atheist and wanted to deny the claim of any supreme God over our lives. He saw, with a clarity perhaps that Darwin didn't, that if we could dispense with God as Creator we could dispense with any connection that God has with us and our world. His supremacy and authority would evaporate.The consequences of all this have been cataclysmic, and many have traced them. I'm currently reading Carl Trueman's book The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, which essentially tells the story of how in our current Western cultural Vibe (or social imaginary), we have come to think of ourselves as psychological self-creators. We are lumps of clay who are convinced that our inner feelings and thoughts determine who we really are, and the reality of the world outside us. If we think and feel that we really are a woman, even though we are biologically a man, then so much the worse for biology. I am a woman trapped in a man's body. In fact, the whole category of ‘woman' is now problematic and potentially offensive. Bring on the ‘birthing persons'.Ditto with morality. If there is no Creator, then there is no objective moral order to the world. Morality and ethics emanate outwards from us as human subjects. We value certain things; we come to feel that certain things are right or wrong (for whatever reason); and that's about it. Morality becomes a framework that we have come up with for our own purposes, or that evolution has thrown up for various advantageous reasons—which sounds great if you want to do exactly what you want, but which is in fact a recipe for moral absurdity and chaos.We can't even talk to each other properly any more about moral issues, because there is nothing objective beyond ourselves and our feelings to talk about (as ethicists like Alasdair Macintyre and Oliver O'Donovan have sharply pointed out). Coherent moral discussion becomes impossible, because all we have to fall back on is the blunt assertion of our own values—whether they are expressed as ‘rights' that we assert, or as unassailable moral sentiments that we personally hold.Once we exclude the idea that reality is created and formed and objectively ordered in all its aspects by the true and living God, we descend into confusion and perversity. Or in the words of an ancient cultural critic, “They became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools …”This is why the doctrine of creation is so foundational to the gospel itself, and presumably why it keeps cropping up in New Testament gospel presentations or expositions (e.g. in Acts 14 and 17, and in Romans 1-8). Without it, sin makes no sense, nor judgement, nor (therefore) the atoning work of Christ and his bodily resurrection as the God-man who rules all of creation.If we dig down into the foundations of the gospel and the whole Bible, we find God as the mighty sovereign creator of all things. And the constant rejection of this idea by the Vibe of our culture gives us all sorts of problems. It means that we struggle to explain why we have such a different moral viewpoint on some issues—because we believe, for example, that God made men and women and human sexuality in a certain way, and that this is an objective aspect of the order of our world for us to come to terms with.It also means that we struggle to explain why God has any claim over our lives, and why rejecting and rebelling against him is not only so wrong, but also so damaging to us and the world.Among Christians, in the various debates that we have had about creation, creationism, theistic evolution and the like, this key point has sometimes been lost. The exact mechanism and timeframe within which God created all things is something we can debate, and something that people of good biblical faith will have different views on. You can be a young-earth creationist or an old-earth creationist or a God-used-some-evolutionary-mechanisms-creationist or (like me) a not-entirely-sure-how-creationist. We may differ on the adjective at the front, but not on the noun. We must be creationists.God is the Potter and we are the clay. This is a crucial truth to affirm and fight for and proclaim to one another and to the world. We need to keep doing this until Romans 9 is not a difficult passage for us to read, and to preach to our world.PSI thought it was very disciplined of me not to mention Two ways to live during this post, given that the new edition is due out any day. But I guess I've ruined that now! To find out more, here's some info from Matthias Media on the new 2WTL.  This is a partner post, but as always feel free to share it around with friends, people at church, and and so on. (And if at the same time you want to encourage people to sign up, at least on the free list, then that wouldn't do any harm either.) This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.twoways.news/subscribe

Yan Fu was a late 19th century naval officer and writer who was fascinated with Western philosophy. His translations of works by Thomas Huxley, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill and others were celebrated successes in China. But his books feature notes and interpretative gestures that make them something more than just straight translations – they're works of philosophy in their own right.

The Woke Culture: A Pathology of Post-Modern Tribalism The Woke Culture: A Pathology of Post-Modern Tribalism Richard Gale and Gary Null PhD Progressive Radio Network, June 28, 2021   In a recent article, “Critical Race Theory [CRT] is Worse than Marxism, the social thinker and author, Prof. Paul Gottfried, breaks ranks from his Alt-Right compatriots to argue that CRT “has nothing to do with traditional Marxism.”  “The swear words “Marxist” and “revolutionary,” Gottfried writes, “are thrown around by conservatives, such as those at Heritage, the New York Post and Fox News, with the same abandon with which the left speaks about “human rights”…” Rather than being truly revolutionary, based upon the history of past revolutionary movements, CRT “is an instrument of repression brandished by those in power against those whom it is feared might resist them.”  Yet most important, to label CRT as Marxist desecrates good ol' Marx's tomb.  In fact, at the time Critical Theory emerged from the German Frankfurt School in the 1930s, its most adamant opponents were the traditional card-carrying Marxists and Communists. The School's intention was to actually re-write classical Marxism and to prolong the internal fallacies launched during the Enlightenment era. Perhaps its most redeeming value is its efforts to define and explain the phenomenology of social power and aggression. Its primary early proponents, such as Max Horkheimer, were also harsh critics of the rise of metaphysical realism and scientific dogmatism that today has turned modern science, especially the biological sciences and medicine, into a fundamentalist ideology or religion. But this is where Critical Theory's contributions end. Critical theory has more in common with Freudian sexual repression and psychoanalysis than Marx. One of the 20th century's great philosophers Karl Popper criticized the Frankfurt School for offering no viable and realistic pathway to improve society.  Unlike Marx, who reasonably condemned capitalist society's unfairness, he did offer a vision for a better future. On the other hand, Critical Theory for Popper, was “vacuous and irresponsible” for omitting a promised future altogether. Remarkably, modern Critical Theory's leading spokespersons, such as Robin DiAngelo, are exemplars of the very manifestation of dysfunctional biases that Critical Theory rebukes. This may be a reason why those who embrace tribal wokeness are simply angry, maladjusted adolescents in adult bodies.  The 21st century woke generations appear to have entered a coma.  Its characteristic qualia of ADHD would likely prevent them from getting through 20 pages of Das Capital let alone making any sense from it. The most recent incarnation of wokeness is not an awakening of either conscientiousness or a higher conscious awareness that directly experiences the sacredness of all life, other humans, and the animal and plant kingdoms. It veered from its origins within the Black community in the 20th century when it was used to refer to a social and political awareness for racial and social injustices. In fact its first modern expression might be traced back to a 1962 New York Times article by the Black author William Melvin Kelly in referring to being “well informed, up to date.”  To be authentically woke requires critical thought and discernment, and also an intuitive knowing to distinguish the cobra from the rope when groping in the dark. Now the term has been adopted by two entire generations, regardless of race, and politically weaponized with almost an ontological unease to conquer and divide. Hence to be woke is anti-woke.  Througout human history there have been those who have held hierarchical power to control those who are subject and dependent upon that power, such as the rule of kings, emperors and authoritarian tyrants. And for having our daily needs met and securing financial ease there are the landowners, merchants and bankers. In all of these power relationships, equity is always on the side of those who hold power. At this moment our nation has reached an impasse where only a tiny group of individuals control and govern the dictates of the lives of the many.  The Canadian philosopher Marshall McLuhan wrote, “In a culture like ours, long accustomed to splitting and dividing all things as a means of control, it is sometimes a bit of a shock to be reminded that, in operational and practical fact, the medium is the message.”  What McLuhan was suggesting is that the masses have the tendency to focus on what is most obvious and consequently miss or ignore the deeper and more subtle changes happening over a period of time.  In other words, what may seem to be correct and just on the surface eventually brings forth deleterious or “unintended” consequences. McLuhan was writing long before the internet. Now, presidential campaigns and federal laws, public health policies, the mainstream media and the films and music are the conduits for how we define ourselves and establish the options of dogmatic beliefs that we ultimately identify with. But all of these narratives are controlled by a handful of power players, including the social media platforms such as Google, Facebook, YouTube and Wikipedia. Succumbing to the siren's call of this illusion is being woke with closed eyes. There is a saying that if you do not know the product being advertised you are the product; and this is certainly true for how millions of Americans are persuaded to purchase junk they have no need for, including the honor of wearing a “woke” badge. Our personal realities thereby are reduced to millions of bits of algorithmic data that know more about us than we know about ourselves.  We are sold on the promises of 5G technology despite the media never mentioning its serious dangers to human health and the environment. The risks of genetically modified foods and the lack vaccine science to prove their safety and efficacy are censored from public discourse. Federal agencies that started small and were believed to be temporary, such as Homeland Security, became permanent and unstoppable leviathans that encroach into every corner of our lives.  At this moment, we are being lectured like children to get vaccinated against the SARS-2 virus so life can return to normal. In principle, this sounds reasonable. However, to accomplish this there lurks under this message's surface the hidden intention to bypass or trash essential regulatory protective measures to assure the safety of these products.  If you get vaccinated, you are now “woke.” If you remain cautious or hesitant because nobody has even a vague idea about the Covid-19 vaccine's long-term adverse effects, you should be hermetically sealed away from the society, branded, canceled and censored.  Conventional medical voices who refuse to be misled by Biden's, Anthony Fauci's and Bill Gate' Ministry of Truth are also being canceled and censored from society by Silicon Valley and social media. So too are professors who have spoken out against student demands for personal entitlement and the anti-woke White Fragility diatribe that condemns genetic whiteness as racist. Students would prefer college to be sanitized of critical thought, a pleasant, non-intrusive and safe environment filled with teddy bears and psychologists next door to drug their episodes of existential angst and purposelessness in life.  As the pandemic hijacks our attention, global warming increases. But federal experts tell us we have time. Biden tells us the economy is recovering and flourishing and a herd of lemmings believe this message despite 20 percent of Americans who will go to sleep hungry tonight. Those with cancer, heart disease, diabetes and dementia are told to just hang on a bit longer; a big pharmaceutical cure is just around the corner.  But for decades, this carrot has been dangled before us and has yet to come to fruition.  Everything today is its opposite. The blue and red pills have been pulverized together. Only a purple pill laced with the strychnine of lies and half-truths is offered by an unduly legislative system run by technocrats and their private financial handlers. Woke and anti-woke are indistinguishable since both are born from similarly delusional worldviews isolated from reality. Neither is capable of observing the preciousness and fragility of human life. What should be a condemnation of the class and economic struggle against the elites' persecution of everyone else has degenerated into hate-filled identity war, both on the Left and the Right. It is only the rare authentic progressive who has transcended this divide and can observe wisely the battlefields orchestrated by politically motivated ideologues, aristocrats and the media.  As the US spins further into a controlled dystopia, it is difficult to imagine that the trajectory towards social decay can be easily reversed. Arthur Miller said, “an era can be said to end when its basic illusions are exhausted.”  Therefore, we still have a long way to go and it may require a full system-failure at all economic and social levels before a viable and realistic effort can restore what has been lost from the ethical wasteland left in its wake. It took Rome several centuries to collapse but we are on course to accomplish this feat within a decade. To remain optimistic, therefore, requires a rejection of the dominant Social Darwinism and the specter of what Thomas Huxley called the Church Scientific that now informs both parties and that has shackled us into a fatalist purgatory or worse Dante's hedonic hells of lust, gluttony and greed. The evangelical Christian Right, as science's counterrevolutionary reactive response, is equally a major contributor to the dumbing down of the nation's sanity with fairy tales and superstition.  Our indoctrination into scientific materialism, our surrendering our autonomy and divine freedoms to political and corporate regimes, and the clashes over political correctness, that disempower us from believing we can change our conditions, has resulted in a sense of hopelessness in life and growing existential despair. It is contributing to the unbridled frenzy of anger in the streets, again from both the Left and Right.  Ideological beliefs become dogmas founded upon our mental afflictions, which in turn hold rule over our emotions, fears and hatreds and reactions. No wonder that pessimism is on the rise and optimism is in decline.  Only a personal encounter with a deeper purpose and meaning in life, which cuts through the tyranny of our false sense of the self or ego, can ultimately guide us to rise above the turmoil and crises facing us. This does not imply a detached disinterest, an ascetic renunciation, from the plights of our neighbors and humanity. In fact, only by discovering authentic kindness and compassion through a personal introspective inquiry into ourselves and our connection with the others can an authentic sense of well-being and genuine happiness emerge.  It is a commitment to finding our interconnection, in fact our interdependence, with others in the spirit of selflessness and service.  Yet to be left alone with only your own mind to keep you company terrifies the vast majority of people, including those who might be characterized as “normal.” This was observed in literally “shocking” experiments. In a University of Virginia study, hundreds of student participants would sit alone in an empty lab room for 15 minutes. No mobile phones, books, paper or anything was permitted. Just themselves and the cacophony of static in their own minds. However, there was a button they could push if they felt so inclined that would give a moderately painful electric shock. The results? Sixty-seven percent of men and 25 percent of women chose to find amusement to occupy their minds by shocking themselves rather than sit quietly and have peaceful time for self-reflection. This was despite all of the participants stating prior to the experiment that they would pay money to avoid being shocked with electricity.  So if modern American society relies solely upon mental and emotional distraction to survive, clearly there is no hope for constructive solutions to emerge to confront climate change, racism, identity politics, inequality, etc. Nor will society evolve beyond that of primates if we can only function from our reptilian and limbic brains. Obviously not everyone will discover the same purpose to his or her life's meaning. It is an individual quest that is largely entwined with each of our unique gifts, skills, passions and talents that we have brought into this incarnation. Those who disagree that one can discover meaning in life are the dogmatists of materialism and should be shunned as deranged scientific fanatics. Logic and reason alone will not satisfy this discovery, although developing skills in critical thought and discernment is more often than not necessary. It is only the rare person who has immediate intuitive knowledge about herself and the world around her.  For the remainder of us, we need to reeducate ourselves to create a roadmap, develop a discerning eye, and engage in deep introspection into ourselves to find a genuine well-being that transcends power player's board game to manufacture social strife, division and hatred. It is an individual journey that begins deep within ourselves and ends by embracing others in community despite all differences. However this is not an exercise in reason, but a direct experience within the depths of ourselves. When we touch on that space that can only be reached by subjective introspection new horizons of opportunities and possibilities open up. Then we can understand the words of the great jazz artist John Coltrane, “I know that there are bad forces, forces that bring suffering to others and misery to the world, but I want to be the opposite force. I want to be the force which is truly for good.” In that honoring of our inherent goodness, genuine well-being and happiness is found and only then can our illusions and dogmatic beliefs be broken down. 

Episode: 2063 Edward Youmans and 19th-century American education.  Today, education in the outback.

24 febbraio 1871: a Londra esce il saggio di Charles Darwin L’Origine dell’uomo e la selezione in relazione al sesso. Un’opera rivoluzionaria, sebbene il tema dell’origine dell’umanità fosse già entrato nel d...

¿Qué es el ciclo del carbono? ¿Cómo lo hemos alterado? ¿Cómo estamos pensando en arreglarlo? En el segundo episodio de ‘La Canica Azul' explicamos el papel del carbono en la vida del planeta con la ayuda del científico y divulgador Xurxo Mariño. Nos remontamos al siglo XIX, cuando Thomas Huxley descubrió que los caparazones calcáreos que se encuentran en el lecho de los océanos son acumulaciones que han transformado el paisaje del planeta durante millones de años y, gracias a los cuales, hay vida. Aprendemos acerca de los efectos de la extracción de los combustibles fósiles. Entrevistamos a Carlos Abanades, investigador del CSIC en el Instituto Nacional del Carbón, que nos hablará de algunas de las estrategias que estamos desarrollando para revertir el proceso y volver a enterrar ese CO2 que hemos desenterrado.  

Episode: 1970 Edward Drinker Cope, Othniel Charles Marsh, and their needless war.  Today, needless anger.

Thomas Huxley, biologist, anthropologist and ardent supporter of Charles Darwin never let his education and intellect inflate his ego above the working man.  In fact, he was a champion of education for all long before that was the status quo (this was the mid-19th century, after all).  So important was this to him that he devoted countless hours advocating for universally accessible and appropriate education at all levels.  It is from one such speech that today's quote originates.  

“It’s not about who is right, but what is right…” – Thomas Huxley   About This Episode:   In this episode of “#WalkWithMe” I have an open, honest, difficult, and hopefully enlightening conversation around my three big personal distinctions regarding racism, #BlackLivesMatter and privilege in today’s world.    ***   For show notes, visit alivebydesign.com   *** If you enjoy the podcast, please consider leaving a short review on Apple Podcasts/iTunes. It takes less than 1 minute, and it really makes a difference in helping spread this message.   ***   Drop by and say “Hi!”   Instagram: instagram.com/blakemallen Facebook: facebook.com/blakemallen.page  Twitter: twitter.com/blakemallen LinkedIn: linkedin.com/blakemallen YouTube: youtube.com/blakemallen   ***   Additional Resources:   Subscribe to my Newsletter at BlakeMallen.com   Watch my TED Talk: ShiftTheScript.com   Interested in sponsoring the podcast?  alivebydesign.com/sponsor

--{ "Post-Democratic World Order Coming Into View, Sustainable Austerity, Power Held by the Few." © Alan Watt }-- Living Through an Ongoing Revolution - Sustainability - The United Nations New World Order (UNNWO) - The New Information Czars - I've Studied this Agenda from Childhood - Collectivist Society, A Global Socialism; Marxists; The Weather Underground, Revolution; Progressives - Fauci, CDC, WHO, National Institutes of Health - Fascism, Private Agencies Working with Government, Forced Upon the Public - World Economic Forum, Davos, in the Mountains Where the Gods Live; Ultima Thule - The Lucky Gene Club, Oprah - WEF, "Too Many People" - Prove Seven Generations of Good Breeding; Eugenics Societies - The Nobility, the Warrior Class; Intermarrying Psychopaths - Pharaohs - Darwins Married into Wedgwood Family, Huxleys, Thomas Huxley called "Darwin's Bulldog" - Coat Things in the Terminology of Science to Make it More Credible - Arks Across the World for Storing Seed, Frozen Sperm and Ovum; End of Life Extinction - George Orwell; The Power of the TV - Hypnotized by Television; Nature Shows - Training Radicals, Antifa - Bezmenov, Destroying Culture, Leaders of Revolutionary Change Complain about the New System and are Eliminated - Frankfurt School - No Private Property - No Marriage - Stalin, "Communism is Socialism in a Hurry" - Fabian Society; George Bernard Shaw, H.G. Wells - Trotsky, Revolution - WWII, Britain Fighting Germany (National Socialist Party) and Emerged from War as a Socialist Country - 1990s, Project for the New American Century (PNAC), List of Countries to Invade; "A Pearl Harbor Event" to Galvanize the Public (9/11) - Coronavirus Monitoring Bracelets Flood the Market - Jacques Cousteau on Killing Off 140,000 of Us a Day, Every Day; David Suzuki Called Us Maggots, David Attenborough, Prince Philip, Culling - The Crusades - Scottish Rebellion, Bonny Prince Charlie - Kitchener - The Riot Act - Zulus - Rockefellers, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Trilateral Commission - Alan Dershowitz - Alan Greenspan - Federal Reserve - The Bank of Canada - Money Now Based on Nothing - We're Supposed to Go Through another Phony War with China - Antony C. Sutton, The Best Enemies Money Can Buy; Wall St. and the Bolshevik Revolution; Who Financed Hitler - GATT Treaty, China was Financed by the West - Cold Wars - Rothschilds - Conology - Thomas Jefferson, There is No Justification for Taking Away Individuals' Freedom in the Guise of Public Safety - Alexander Hamilton Admired Tyrants - Tattoo Vaccination - A Bracelet is a Manacle, Worn by Slaves; A Tattoo is a Brand, for Cattle - You have to Start Seeing Things for What They Actually Are - Fauci Initially said Covid-19 Might Just Be a Bad Flu, then He said Lockdown till Everyone was Vaccinated - Facial Recognition - Immunity Passports, Airlines Call for Digital ID Tracking Systems, Thermal Screening - California Doctors Report More Deaths from Suicide than Coronavirus Since Lockdown - United Nations NWO (UNNWO) Launches COVID 19 Coronavirus Focused International Day of Happiness 2020 Campaign Theme HAPPINESS FOR ALL TOGETHER; "Happytalism", a New Economic Paradigm - 1,500 Canadian Military Personnel Deployed to Long-Term-Care Homes in Ontario and Quebec - Bioethics - Padding Numbers to Get Covid Deaths Up - Cuomo Gave Immunity to Nursing Home Executives After Big Campaign Donations; Gangs Look After Gang Members - Focus On The COVID-19 Death Rate - Please Remember to Visit www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com to Donate and Take Note of My Official Websites and Email Address - Flu in Nursing Homes and Long-Term Care Facilities - Is Mandatory Vaccination Legal in Time of Epidemic? - George Orwell's Animal Farm - NY Governor Andrew Cuomo to Taps Former Google Executive Eric Schmidt to Lead a Panel Tasked with “Reimagining” New York's Post-Pandemic Tech Infrastructure, Smart Cities; Electronic Prison System - Last June, Cuomo Announced a $2 Million Partnership Agreement with the Israel Innovation Authority, to Strengthen Economic Development Ties between New York State and Israel, for Technologies Related to Smart Cities, Cybersecurity and Drones - Influenza Vaccination and Respiratory Virus Interference among Department of Defense Personnel During the 2017–2018 Influenza Season, Greg G. Wolff - Cytokine Storm - Largest Outbreaks in Nursing Homes Where Flu Shots are Mandatory - Virus-Associated Immunopathology: Animal Models and Implications for Human Disease - Flu Vaccine Grown in Dog Kidney Cells, Available for 2017-18 Flu Season another Failure - Pathogenic Priming Likely Contributes to Serious and Critical Illness and Mortality in COVID-19 via Autoimmunity, Journal of Translational Autoimmunity - Eosinophils - Damage from Booster Shots - Covid Deaths Amongst NHS Workers - Black People in England are 3.4 Times More Likely to Test Positive for Covid-19 than People from White British Backgrounds - Magic, Talismans, Hand Sanitizer - The Lockdown Idea and Forced Social Distancing from Laura M. Glass in 2006, whose Father was a Complex-Systems Analyst with Sandia National Laboratories; Targeted Social Distancing Designs for Pandemic Influenza - Computer Models - George Soros says Europe Should Tap Up an Obscure Bond Used During the Napoleonic Wars to Save Itself from a Coronavirus Depression, Pay Interest on the Loan Forever - Easing the Two Metre Rule to One Metre - CIA - Drunk Hindu Priest Beheads Man in Indian Temple as a Human Sacrifice to Goddess Who Came to Him in a Dream and Said it Would End Coronavirus - The Irish Sentinel - A Return to Paper, Newsletters, etc. to Communicate - Tight Control of Internet - Under Tyranny, the First Thing is to Crush All Dissent - You Can't Be Free Without Free Speech - Hopefully will Have the Books Printed Soon - Herd Immunity - You Can't Put Profits on Human Life - Look After Yourselves and Think for Yourselves. *Title and Dialogue Copyrighted Alan Watt - May 31, 2020 (Exempting Music and Literary Quotes)

It’s a matter of fact that between 1840 and 1882 there were eight assassination attempts on the life of Queen Victoria, but in his suspenseful novel “The Darwin Affair,” Tim Mason adds a ninth, in 1860, and makes the target Prince Albert. The date is important: it’s just months after the publication of Charles Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species” and concomitant with the Oxford University Museum debate on evolution featuring those famous antagonists – biologist and anthropologist Thomas Huxley and Anglican Bishop Samuel Wilberforce. Prince Albert wants to give Darwin a knighthood. No way say fierce evolution deniers in Parliament and powerful members of the clergy, and so they conscript a sinister anti-evolutionist to kill the prince and thus head off what would otherwise be seen as royal approval of a theory that threatens The Great Chain of Being: the way things are, have been, and must be forever. Little do they know that their hired man, the wraith-like creature with the disturbing

1800年代後半、Natureに投稿した日本人研究者(杉浦重剛、小藤文次郎、関谷清景、伊藤篤太郎、南方熊楠)について話しました。Show notes Nature: Aphorisms by Goethe. Huxley, Nature (1869) … 1869/11/04に出版された記念するべきNature第1号の最初の記事(論文)。Thomas Huxleyがゲーテの言葉をドイツ語から英語に訳した。”Nature! We are surrounded and embraced by her—unable to step out of her and unable to penetrate her more deeply.”から始まる。この言葉が本当にゲーテのものだったかについては議論がある(後述)。 Nature … ゲーテのエッセイをドイツ語から英語に訳しているとされているが、実はオリジナルはGeorg Tobler によるエッセイ。ただ、Toblerがゲーテを訪ねた(ヴァイマル) 1781-1782年に書かれており、ゲーテの言葉をToblerが記述したと考えられている。 The Goethean Fragment “Die Natur” in English Translation. Fullenwider, Comparative Literature Studies (1986) … Nature(独:Die Natur)の翻訳を巡っての解説。 アンナ・アマーリア図書館 … ゲーテを招聘したザクセン・ヴァイマル公カール・アウグストの母で、夫の急逝後、ワイマール公国の摂政を行なった。ゲーテが図書館長を務めていたこともある。ドイツ初の公共図書館。 Traces of Early man in Japan. Morse, Nature (1877) … モースが小シーボルトから発掘件奪うためにNatureに投稿した記事のこと忘れてました。申し訳ありません。1880年の論文と混同しておりました… またモース回があれば話します。この論文がディキンズより前の、日本に関する論文だと思われます。 杉浦重剛 … すぎうらじゅうごう・しげたけ。昭和天皇の教育主任を務める。本エピソードの結論としては、杉浦重剛が日本人としては初めてNatureに記事(論文)を載せたということになる。 Pre-historic man in Japan. Dickins, Nature (1880) … ディキンズがモースの貝塚論文の批判を行なった論文。 Prehistoric man in Japan. Sugiura, Nature (1880) … ディキンズの批判に対して、アイヌ民族が東アジアに住んでいた年代の訂正を投稿。この論文はディキンズの次の週の号に載っており、ロンドンに留学していた杉浦が迅速に対応したことがわかる。 フレデリック・ヴィクター・ディキンズ エドワード・S・モース 小シーボルト(ハインリヒ・フォン・シーボルト) ハインリヒ・エドモント・ナウマン Shell mounds of Omori. Morse, University of Tokyo (1879) … モースが東京大学から出版した日本初の学術論文。大森貝塚について。 The Omori Shell Mounds. Morse, Nature (1880) … モース自身が投稿したディキンズの批判に対する反論。ちなみにこの論文はダーウィンが推薦している(一つ前の記事はダーウィンによる推薦記事)。 Peabody-Essex Museum … モースがセイラムに帰った後、館長を務めていた。 小藤文次郎 Agriculture in Japan. Koto, Nature (1883) … 小藤文次郎の1883/07/05に公開された、主にリーブシャーの本を紹介した記事。ミュンヘンから投稿された。1883/07/05に発行。 Georg Liebscher … 1880年に8ヶ月だけ日本にお雇外国人として滞在。 Japan’s landwirthschaftliche und allgemeinwirthschaftliche Verhltnisse. Liebscher, Jena (1882) … リーブシャーが出版した「日本農業および一般経済事情」 関谷清景 … 世界初の地震学教授。 New System of Earthquake Observations in Japan. Sekiya, Nature (1886) … December 28, 1885 の地震を新しい計測システムにより計測した論文。関谷の所属はThe Imperial University of Tokioなので日本から投稿されたと思われる。1886/04/29に発行。 伊藤篤太郎 … 初めて植物に学名を与えた日本人。当時の東大教授、矢田部亮吉との間で破門草事件を起こし、表舞台からは遠ざかってしまう。本草学者の伊藤圭介の孫。 伊藤篤太郎―初めて植物に学名を与えた日本人 … 伊藤篤太郎の妹のお孫さんが書いた伊藤篤太郎、および伊藤家に関する本。 伊藤圭介 … 本草学者。孫には後継として非常に期待していたことがわかる。 トガクシソウ … 別名破門草。 牧野富太郎自叙伝 … 破門草事件についての記述あり。 Tabasheer. Ito, Nature (1887) … Dyerが投稿したインドのTabasheerに対して、中国と日本のTabasheerについて記述した論文。1887/02/24に発行。 竹みそ、田竹黄、竹シリカ … アリババで見つけることができる竹みそ(田竹黄)について。 Tabasheer … 竹を切ったところにできる物質。水、ケイ素、少量のポタシウム(カリウム)と石灰。 Tabasheer. Dyer, Nature (1887) … 篤太郎より前に投稿されているTabasheerの記事。 南方熊楠 … 知の巨人。 The Constellations of the Far East. Minakata, Nature (1893) … 極東の星座の記事。1893/10/05に発行。 The Grouping of Stars into Constellations. M.A. B, Nature (1893) … 極東の星座を投稿するきっかけになった論文。 極東の星座の解説記事 … 松居竜五先生による極東の星座解説記事。 三嶋暦師の館 天地明察 改暦弁 猫楠 最初に海外学術雑誌に発表した日本人は誰なのか … 慶應義塾大学上田修一先生による解説。この記事によって、杉浦、小藤、関谷の三名の論文を発見することができました。ありがとうございます。 Editorial notes (soh) モースが小シーボルトから貝塚の発掘権利を奪うためにNature(1877)に投稿した記事のこと忘れてました、てへぺろ。今度モース回やることがあったらちゃんとまとめます。(tadasu) “nature calls me”は「トイレに行きたい」という意味らしいのですが、「ねーちゃん氷水」って言えば空耳でネイティブに通じるって昔テレビでやってました。(coela)

Todd Caponi, author of The Transparency Sale: How Unexpected Honesty and Understanding the Buying Brain Can Transform Your Results, joins me on this episode. KEY TAKEAWAYS Todd Caponi has five hopes for sales in 2020. The first hope is the death of the “Death of sales” trope. Cold calling is still important. Sales employment has grown. Classroom training is ineffective. Todd offers solutions. There should be learning every day on the job. Andy talks about the curated book club he offers to companies. Todd advises learning to be a “buyer journey sherpa.” Todd’s second hope is that sales will rise on the list of “trusted professions.” Todd shares the secret of “4.2-star” reviews. If your facade is “perfect,” buyers will spend more time researching you because they doubt you. Andy tells how he used transparency as an underdog Burroughs salesperson against IBM’s fear, uncertainty, and doubt sales pitch. Todd talks about transparent negotiation, showing your motives. It generates trust. Adam Grant wrote about Givers, Takers, and Matchers. Unfettered Givers are the least successful. The most successful are Givers. Be clear about your self-interest. Allow your buyers to negotiate their deals. Andy tells an anecdote about a company using contract negotiators to sign so salespeople were removed from the negotiations. Salespeople should be the trusted contact, not the adversarial negotiator. Sales negotiations should be managed in the qualification phase. Tie their business case to the investment they need to make to get there. Don’t find yourself at the end of a deal facing a buyer’s demand for a 30% discount. Todd’s third hope is paying more attention to behavioral science and decision science in sales. Todd talks about emotional decision-making over logical rationalization. How does Todd flip the script to tell a story? Thomas Huxley advised learning something about everything and everything about something. Each sales conversation is unique. What you’ve studied helps in various situations. Todd’s fourth hope is for sales organizations to realize that enablement needs 2X to 3X the investment that companies are currently giving it. Today’s sellers and sales managers need more training to be more engaged. Todd’s fifth hope is that organizations realize the need to go back to pods and walls and replace annoying and distracting open office plans. There are reasons for walls. A recent Harvard study debunks every supposed benefit of open offices. They do not help anyone. Powered by ringDNA: the revenue acceleration platform that helps businesses scale growth through AI. Visit ringdna.com/andy for exclusive Sales Enablement content. _ Formerly the Accelerate! Your Sales podcast with Andy Paul

«How stupid not to have thought about that!» skal angivelig Darwins venn Thomas Huxley (1825-1895) ha sagt når han hadde lest On the Origin of the Species fra 1859. Hvordan kom Charles Darwin (1809-1882) egentlig frem til denne ideen, og hvorfor hadde ingen tenkt på det før? Det som i alle fall er sikkert er at han selv brukte lang tid på å endre syn, og at det ikke skjedde i et såkalt aha-øyeblikk hvor alt stod klart for han. «I feel not a shade of surprise at your entirely rejecting my views: my surprise is that I have been successful in converting some few eminent Botanists, Zoologists, & Geologists. In several cases the conversion has been very slow & that is the only sort of conversion which I respect.» - Darwin til en ukjent korrespondent, 14 mars 1861, sitert i Sulloway 1982: 321 Vi tar en tur gjennom Darwins historie, fra turen med Beagle, bearbeidelsen av materialet han samlet i løpet av turen, samarbeidet med mer etablerte vitenskapsmenn, kontakten med Alfred Russell Wallace, frem mot utviklingen av evolusjonsteorien og publikasjonen av On the Origin of Species, samt litt av den umiddelbare påvirkningen boka har. Darwin var definitivt en interessant person. Nysgjerrig og usikker, en brokete faglig bakgrunn, åpenbart mye både personlig og språklig sjarm, kombinert med en solid økonomisk arv som gir ham frihet til å drive med det han vil, et systematisk sinn og utholdenhet i arbeidet.   Til slutt, vi kan faktisk ikke anbefale nok å selv lese On the Origin of Species, som selv om det er litt tung lesing til tider, er et fascinerende innblikk inn i vitenskapelig tenking og hvordan teorier utvikles.   Kilder: Vitenskapshistoriker Frank J. Sulloway har skrevet en rekke gode og detaljerte artikler om Darwins tur til Galapagosøyene og hvordan det tok tid før han forstod og trakk de konklusjonene hans og andres observasjoner gjorde mulige, og til slutt utviklet evolusjonsteorien. Mange av hans artikler er tilgjengelig på: http://www.sulloway.org/Darwinpubs.html  Charles Darwin, de bøkene vi har brukt for episoden (en full bibliografi er lett tilgjengelig om man søker på nett, og de fleste verkene hans, samt alle brevene, er tilgjengelig i digitalt format, helt gratis). Den engelske wikipediaartikkelen er også veldig bra. On the Origin of the Species, Penguin 2009 Autobiography, Penguin 2002 Peter J. Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea, University of California Press 2009 Bill Bryson, A short history of nearly everything, Black Swan 2004 William Bynum, «Introduction», i Darwin 2009 Benedict Carey, How we learn, Macmillian 2014 Jerry Coyne, Why evolution is true, Oxford University Press 2009 Daniel Dennett, Darwin’s dangerous idea, Penguin Books 1996 Randall Fuller, The book that changed America. How Darwin’s theory of evolution ignited a nation, Penguin 2017 Howard Gardener, Creating Minds, Basic Books 1993 Tim Lewens, The meaning of science, Penguin 2015 Peter Medavar, The art of the soluble, Methuen & Co 1967 Frank Sulloway, «Darwin’s conversion: The Beagle Voyage and Its Aftermath», Journal of the history of Biology, vol.15,1982 «Darwin’s Early Intellectual Development: An Overview of the Beagle Voyage (1831-1836), The Darwinian Heritage, edited by David Kohn, 1985, s.121-154   Podkaster om tema: Darwin’s legacy: forelesningsrekke fra Stanford, med en rekke eksperter på relaterte felt, fra 2008-9 Fire episoder av BBC4s In our time med Melvyn Bragg fra 2009, til jubileumsåret. Discovering Darwin: Fire unge biologer diskuterer seg gjennom Darwins verk, et kapittel per episode. Første sesong er om Origin, og andre, og så langt siste, handler om The Voyage of the Beagle. ---------------------------- Logoen vår er laget av Sveinung Sudbø, se hans arbeider på originalkopi.com Musikken er av Arne Kjelsrud Mathisen, se facebooksiden Nygrenda Vev og Dur for mer info. ----------------------------   Takk for at du hører på. Ta kontakt med oss på vår facebookside eller på larsogpaal@gmail.com Det finnes ingen bedre måte å få spredt podkasten vår til flere enn via dere lyttere, så takk om du deler eller forteller andre om oss. Alt godt, hilsen Lars og Pål

Dr. E. Michael Jones is writing a book about the History of Logos and the Logos of History. In this interview he discusses a portion of that book that appears in the October 2017 issue of Culture Wars magazine. He addresses the role evolution played in the rise of the new atheism, especially with the publication of Charles Darwin's book: "The Origin of Species by Natural Selection." Dr. Jones argues that it is irrational to argue from evolution to atheism. You can not get something from nothing. How did the first something get here? is a question the new atheists avoid. Darwin's bulldog, Thomas Huxley had a grandson Aldous Huxley who spilled the beans when he said: "There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people (Christians) and at the same time justifying ourselves in our political and erotic revolt: we could deny that the world had any meaning whatsoever." Dr. Jones asserts: "Denial of God is the purpose of evolution in the first place."

Francis Spufford moves through an eerily silent London from Exhibition Road, where Wells had eagerly attended the lectures of biologist Thomas Huxley, onto the outskirts of Primrose Hill: the last staging post of the Martians who meet their microbial end overlooking the ruined city as Victorian's count their biological blessings. Joining Francis are the science fiction writers Ian McDonald and Stephen Baxter, author of the new sequel to War of the Worlds. Why does Wells's tale still resonate 120 years after its publication?

Named as one of the 100 most influential people in the world by Time Magazine, V.S. Ramachandran sits down with Tom Bilyeu on Impact Theory to discuss the correlations between the brain, poetry, and living a better quality of life. V.S. is one of the most respected minds in all of neuroscience. His name is often uttered in the same breath as some of the most enduring names in the history of science. His insightful experiments, coupled with his ability to boil the complex down to the super simple, has made him one of the most sought after lecturers living today. He has done multiple TED talks and, like Michael Faraday, Thomas Huxley, and countless Nobel Laureates before him, he has had the immensely grand honor of being invited to give a Friday evening discourse at the Royal Institution of Great Britain.  Additionally, he was the Gifford Lecturer of 2012, an honor reserved for history's brightest minds that dates back to the 1800s and has included such legendary figures as Niels Bohr, Roger Penrose, Werner Heisenberg, and Carl Sagan. He obtained his PhD from Trinity College at Cambridge, received two additional honorary doctorates, as well as the Henry Dale Medal. Richard Dawkins once called him "The Marco Polo of Neuroscience." He is the Director of the Center for Brain and Cognition, a distinguished professor with a Psychology Department and Neurosciences Program at UC San Diego and is an adjunct Professor of Biology at the Salk Institute. V.S. is also the best-selling author of The Tell-Tale Brain, Phantoms in the Brain, and A Brief Tour of Human Consciousness. Watch this episode of Impact Theory with Tom Bilyeu to learn about the secrets of the brain and how you can build winning mental habits. WHAT YOU'LL LEARN: Understanding Brain Interconnectivity How Metaphors and Poetry Relate to Neuroscience How to Unlearn Pain How Music Builds a Bridge In the Brain Why You Should Cultivate a Poetic Mindset Why The Solution Is Often Simple The Difference Between Seeing and Observation

On June 30, 1860 a great debate took place at the Oxford University Museum. This debate helped to launch Thomas Huxley's career as 'Darwin's Bulldog".

Jan Irvin from http://www.gnosticmedia.com joins John and myself to discuss a range of topics-MK Ultra, The CIA, Laurel Canyon, The Hippy Movement, Margaret Sanger, Aldous, Huxley,Gordon Wasson, Thomas Huxley, Scientism, Skepticism, Darwinism, Quantum Theory, Media Mind Control, Lifetime Actors, Psychoactive Drugs, Pharmaceuticals, New Age, Alan Watts, Theodore John "Ted" Kaczynski, The Culture Creation Industry, Birth Control, Eugenics, The Court System, Trivium Method, Logical Fallacies, Intellectual Defense, Vaccines, Measles Outbreaks, Ritual Abuse, The Multiverse, Neal DeGras Tyson, The Drug Culture,____________________hoaxbusterscall.com

El investigador Javier Serrano expone una serie de postulados que muestran los debates más importantes sobre las diferentes teorías, principalmente la Teoría de la Evolución de Charles Darwin, que servirán para comprender mejor la presentación del biólogo Frans de Waal "Primates y filósofos: cómo ha evolucionado la moral".

El investigador Javier Serrano expone una serie de postulados que muestran los debates más importantes sobre las diferentes teorías, principalmente la Teoría de la Evolución de Charles Darwin, que servirán para comprender mejor la presentación del biólogo Frans de Waal "Primates y filósofos: cómo ha evolucionado la moral".

Melvyn Bragg and his guests discuss the evolution of the Scientific Method, the systematic and analytical approach to scientific thought. In 1620 the great philosopher and scientist Francis Bacon published the Novum Organum, a work outlining a new system of thought which he believed should inform all enquiry into the laws of nature. Philosophers before him had given their attention to the reasoning that underlies scientific enquiry; but Bacon's emphasis on observation and experience is often seen today as giving rise to a new phenomenon: the scientific method.The scientific method, and the logical processes on which it is based, became a topic of intense debate in the seventeenth century, and thinkers including Isaac Newton, Thomas Huxley and Karl Popper all made important contributions. Some of the greatest discoveries of the modern age were informed by their work, although even today the term 'scientific method' remains difficult to define.With: Simon SchafferProfessor of the History of Science at the University of CambridgeJohn WorrallProfessor of the Philosophy of Science at the London School of Economics and Political ScienceMichela MassimiSenior Lecturer in the Philosophy of Science at University College London.Producer: Thomas Morris.

Melvyn Bragg and his guests discuss the evolution of the Scientific Method, the systematic and analytical approach to scientific thought. In 1620 the great philosopher and scientist Francis Bacon published the Novum Organum, a work outlining a new system of thought which he believed should inform all enquiry into the laws of nature. Philosophers before him had given their attention to the reasoning that underlies scientific enquiry; but Bacon's emphasis on observation and experience is often seen today as giving rise to a new phenomenon: the scientific method.The scientific method, and the logical processes on which it is based, became a topic of intense debate in the seventeenth century, and thinkers including Isaac Newton, Thomas Huxley and Karl Popper all made important contributions. Some of the greatest discoveries of the modern age were informed by their work, although even today the term 'scientific method' remains difficult to define.With: Simon SchafferProfessor of the History of Science at the University of CambridgeJohn WorrallProfessor of the Philosophy of Science at the London School of Economics and Political ScienceMichela MassimiSenior Lecturer in the Philosophy of Science at University College London.Producer: Thomas Morris.

Transcript: Chemical energy cannot power the Sun, so what is the energy source? Inspired by an idea by the German physicist Hermann von Helmholtz the English physicist Lord Kelvin explored the idea of gravitational contraction. In this mechanism the Sun is slowly shrinking and gravitational potential energy is being converted into heat energy which then radiates out into space. In his estimate the Sun might last a couple of hundred million years with this mechanism. It sounds like a long time, but by the mid-nineteenth century the debate about the age of the Sun began to collide with the debate about the age of the Earth. Most people assumed they formed at the same time. Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection seemed to require many millions of years for the diversity of species to be achieved from simple origins. In the nineteenth century in England it was common to have scientific debates carried out in public for a public audience and scientists as well. Darwin had debated Wilberforce on the subject of natural selection and by general acclaim had won the debate. In 1871 Lord Kelvin debated Thomas Huxley who was standing in for Darwin on the issue of the age of the Sun and the age of the Earth. Darwin had estimated that the age of the Earth needed to be many hundreds of millions of years, perhaps billions of years to explain the diversity of species, but Kelvin said the Sun could be no older than half a billion years based on gravitational contraction. Darwin died without knowing whether the Earth could be old enough for his mechanism to work.

Tra il 2002 e il 2005, Bob ha ripercorso la prima circumnavigazione del Pacifico compiuta dal Capitano James Cook a bordo della HMS Endeavour (1768-1771). Mentre visitava i luoghi di attracco, Bob ha ripercorso i diari di bordo del viaggio di Cook e di quelli compiuti nei decenni successivi, compresi i diari dei viaggi di Darwin sulla HMS Beagle e di Thomas Huxley sulla HMS Rattlesnake, avvenuti 50-70 anni pi? tardi, nella prima met? del XIX secolo. Questa esperienza ha permesso a Bob di osservare non solo i profondi cambiamenti nelle culture locali e negli ambienti naturali seguiti all?avvicendarsi di missionari, balenieri e pionieri, ma anche l?impatto che ne ? seguito e che continua ad avere rilevanza oggi che i colonizzatori europei e le popolazioni locali si confrontano con le questioni attuali del cambiamento ambientale. Durante questo periodo la comprensione del mondo naturale ha subito un drastico cambiamento quando lo statico mondo linneano, conosciuto da Cook e dai suoi compagni di viaggio, fu messo in discussione dall?idea di Darwin della mutabilit? della specie. Anche il viaggio di Bob ? avvenuto in un momento in cui la percezione della scienza sta cambiando mentre le scienze del sistema-terra, del clima e della biodiversit? sono soggette a una profonda rivisitazione. Questi viaggi sono stati influenzati da, e hanno contribuito a, questi cambiamenti di prospettiva: qual ? la lezione di oggi?

Terrorism, Compliance - Standing Armies - 9-11, Giving Up Freedom for "Security" - Communism - Planned Society. Generation Grown Up on Video Games, Desensitized to Killing, Ready for Military - Moral Relativism. Adam Weishaupt - Philanthropy and Charitable Institutions - Democracy, Masses, Minority Groups, Foundations. Thomas Huxley, "Red Tie School", Predictive Programming, Authors - Fabian Society - Descendance from "Gods". Commerce, Money, Merchant Bankers - Phoenicians, Coinage, Slavery, Tin Trade from Cornwall. World System - China, World Manufacturer - Unconscious Average Person - Iraq "War", Saddam Hussein, George W. Bush - Oil Cartel, New Refineries. Global Warming Scam, Club of Rome, Think Tanks - Plato's "Republic", Sciences of Controlling People, Creation of New Types of Humans to Serve Elite. Middle East, World Standardization - Religion - Waco Holocaust, BATF Bowing to Flames. Caring about Upcoming Generations - Devaluation of Life, Abortion, Euthanasia, Body Part Sales - Degeneracy. *Dialogue Copyrighted Alan Watt - July 11, 2008 (Exempting Music, Literary Quotes, and Callers' Comments)

The title of this episode of CS is Liberal.The term “modern” as it relates to the story of history, has been treated differently by dozens of authors, historians, and sociologists. Generally speaking, Modernization is the process by which agricultural and rural traditions morph into an industrial, technological, and urban milieu that tends to be democratic, pluralistic, socialist, and/or individualistic.In the minds of many, the process of modernization is evidence of the validity of evolution. The idea is that evolution not only applies to the increasing complexity and adaptation of biological life, it also applies sociologically to civilization and human systems. They too are evolving. So, progress is good; a sign of societal evolution.But critics of modernization decry the abuses it often creates. Not all modern innovations are beneficial. The increased emphasis on individual rights can weaken a person's sense of belonging to and identity in a family and community. It weakens loyalty to valuable traditions and customs. Modernization builds new weapons that may encourage their inventors to assume they're superior, then use them to subjugate and dominate those they deem inferior, appropriating their land and resources.Modernization is often linked to a creeping secularization, a turning away from theistic religion. Periodic revivals are viewed as just momentary blips in societal evolution; temporary distractions in progress toward the realization of the Enlightenment dream of a totally secular society.It was during the 19th C that the rationalist ideas of the Enlightenment finally moved out of the halls of academia to settle in as the status quo for European society. Christians found themselves caught up in a world of mind-numbing change. Their cherished beliefs were assailed by hostile critics. Authors like Marx and Nietzsche attacked the Christian Faith from a base in Darwin's popular new theory.In an attempt to accommodate Faith and Reason, Ludwig Feuerbach, author of The Essence of Christianity, published in 1841, reduced the idea of God to that of a man. He said God is really just the projection of specific human qualities raised to the level of perfection.In 1855, Ludwig Büchner suggested that science dispensed with the need for supernaturalism. A materialist, he was one of the first to say that the advent of modern science meant there was no longer a need to explain phenomena by appealing to the miraculous or some ethereal spiritual realm. No such realm existed, except in the minds of those who refused to accept what science proved. He said, “The power of spirits and gods dissolve in the hands of science.”During the last half of the 19th C, Frederic Nietzsche made the case for atheism. Son of a Lutheran pastor, Nietzsche received an education in theology and philology at the Universities of Bonn and Leipzig.An amateur musician, Nietzsche became friends with composer Richard Wagner, who like Nietzsche, admired the atheist Schopenhauer.In Nietzsche's philosophy, we see the fruit of something we looked at in an earlier episode. The rationalist emphasis on reason divorced from faith leads ultimately to irrationality because it claims omniscience. By saying there IS no realm but the material realm, it closes itself off to even the possibility of a non-material realm. Yet the process of reason leads inevitably and inexorably to the conclusion there MUST be a realm of being, a category of existence beyond, apart from the material realm of nature.So Nietzsche embraced what has to be called non-rational ideas as the source for creativity, what he called “true living,” and art. An early indication his mind was fracturing, he identified as a follower of Dionysus, god of sexual debauchery and drunkenness. It's no surprise he indicted Christianity as promoting all that which was weak. He hated its emphasis on humility and its acceptance of the role of guilt in aiming to better people by moving them to repentance and renouncing self. For Nietzsche, the self was the savior. He advocated for people to exalt themselves and unapologetically assert their quest for power. He coined the term Übermensch, the superman whose been utterly liberated from the outdated mores of Biblical Christianity and governed by nothing but truth and reason. This superman decides for himself what's right or wrong.Nietzsche claimed “God is dead,” so no absolutes exist. There were no facts, only interpretations. Many creatives; authors, painters, and researchers were inspired by Nietzsche and used his writings as inspiration.It was at this time that advocates for what was called comparative religions argued Christianity ought to be studied as just one of several religions rather than from a confessional perspective that views it as TRUE. The assumption was that religion, just like everything else, had evolved from a primitive to a more complex state. A comparative study might find the core idea that united all religions, just as paleontologists looked for the common ancestor to man and apes.By the second half of the 19th C, derivations of the word “secular,” along with new words like agnostic, and eugenics, were part of European vocabularies. Secularization was identified with an emerging modernist separation of morality from traditional religion.Thomas Huxley minted the word agnostic to distinguish mere skeptics from hard-boiled atheists. It seems his development of the term may have actually helped many students, academics, and members of the upper classes in Victorian England shed traditional religious faith and embrace Rationalist-styled unbelief. They did so because they could now express their growing discomfort with supernaturalism without having to go all the way and declaim any belief in a Supreme being. It provided some philosophical wiggle room.Francis Galton introduced the word eugenics in 1883 to designate efforts to make the human race better by “improved” breeding. Galton, an evolutionary scientist, believed eugenics would favor the fittest human beings and suppress the birth of the unfit.In light of all this, it's not hard to understand why Christian leaders were suspicious that “modernity” and “secularization” seemed to go hand in hand. Many materialists came right out and said they were the same; to be modern meant to be secular and hostile to religious faith.In 1874 John Draper published the hugely influential History of the Conflict between Science and Religion, in which he said religion is the inveterate enemy of reason and science. European society in particular saw a collapse of the political, religious, and social masters that had steered it for centuries. In their place intellectuals emerged who sought a secular substitute to traditional religion.What made this process seemingly unstoppable was the results of modernization and the fruit of technology rapidly enhancing the quality of life across the continent. Many Christians felt they faced a losing battle defending the faith, “once for all delivered to the saints” against the onslaught of a science delivering such wonderful tools every other week.They began to wonder if they could remain “orthodox” while becoming “modern” Christians.That challenge was complicated by the work of Charles Darwin. What made it an even greater challenge was when believers heard from scientists who said they were Christians, who told them Darwin was right. Humans were descended from the apes, not Adam and Eve.Others, like Bishop Samuel Wilberforce, boldly declared Darwin's ideas incompatible with Scripture. In 1860, Wilberforce published a well-crafted and lengthy response to the Origin of Species. He praised Darwin's research and engaging style and even gave a nod to  Darwin's admission to being a Christian. But Wilberforce was careful to mark out many of Darwin's claims as erroneously conceived.Wilberforce said God is the Author of both the Books of Nature and Scripture. So it's not possible for the two to contradict each other. It's been the object of one branch of Apologetics to justify that ever since.In October 1860, Bishop Wilberforce and Huxley engaged in a famous debate at the British Association in Oxford over Darwin's theories. Huxley shrewdly portrayed the cleric as meddling in scientific matters beyond his competency. Wilberforce used a classic debate rhetorical device that had little to do with the substance of the debate but would prejudice the audience against his opponent. Huxley took the barb, then turned it around and used it to paint Wilberforce as HAVING to use such tactics because of the supposed weakness of his argument. If the Bishop had stuck to the content of his original article in the British Digest, he'd have fared much better.The debate over Darwin's theory took many turns. Some wondered if he was right that evolutionary processes were progressive in the sense that they moved toward a species perfection. Darwin had said, “As natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection.” Supporters of Darwinism had a rationale for what came to be known as Social Darwinism with its advocacy for racism and eugenics.Ernst Haeckel introduced Darwinism to Germany. A brilliant zoologist, in 1899, Haeckel published The Riddle of the Universe, in which he argued for a basic unity between organic and inorganic matter. He denied the immortality of the soul, the existence of a personal God, promoted infanticide, suicide, and the elimination of the unfit. Using a hundred lithographs drawn from nature (1904), Haeckel campaigned for the teaching of evolutionary biology in Germany as fact. This was in contrast with the many scientists who viewed Darwinism as an evolving theory.At the dawn of the 20th C, the debate over Darwinism continued. As early as 1910, some claimed the theory of evolution was already dead. As subsequent history has shown, yeah –uh, not quite.Under mounting pressure, Europeans who wanted to be considered “modern, scholarly” yet remain “Christian” often made accommodations in the way they expressed their faith. Early in the century, liberal theologians found new ways to describe and explain the Christian faith. Friedrich Schleiermacher proposed that Truth in Christianity was located in a personal religious experience, not in its historical events or correspondence to reality. He criticized Scholastic Protestant orthodoxy emphasizing assent to propositions about God. He said what was far more important was one's subjective experience of the divine.Later in the century, Catholic modernists said the Roman Catholic Church must accommodate the advances in knowledge made by higher criticism and Darwinism. They also declaimed the lack of democracy in the running of the Church. Pushing back against all this in 1910 Pope Pius X condemned modernism as the “synthesis of all heresies.”Faced with such dramatic changes and challenges, many 19th C Christians felt the need to define and defend their faith in new ways. That wasn't an easy task in light of some of the charges being made against it. Those who wanted to align the Faith with the modern scholarship discovered its rules tended to ensconce naturalist presuppositions that allowed no room for the supernaturalism required in theism.Anglicans and those in the Oxford Movement saw no such need to adjust their beliefs. They simply reaffirmed the authority of their faith communities and emphasized the importance of confessions, creeds, and Scripture. In mid-July, 1833, the Anglican theologian John Keble preached a famous sermon titled, “National Apostasy,” which triggered the beginning of the Oxford Movement. Keble warned about the repercussions of forsaking the Anglican Church.We'll take a closer look at the emergence of Theological Liberalism in our next episode.