Evolution In Two Weeks, “Mathematical Challenges” to Darwin Gets Half a Million ViewsDavid [email protected]_klinghofferAugust 9, 2019, 12:00 PM A Physician Describes How Behe Changed His MindLife’s Origin — A “Mystery” Made AccessibleCodes Are Not Products of PhysicsIxnay on the Ambriancay PlosionexhayDesign Triangulation: My Thanksgiving Gift to All Requesting a (Partial) Retraction from Darrel Falk and BioLogos The occasion for their conversation, a delightful hour in length, is Gelernter’s recent essay in The Claremont Review of Books explaining his apostasy from Darwinism. The renowned Yale computer scientist and polymath attributes his change of mind to reading books by Meyer (Darwin’s Doubt, Signature in the Cell) and Berlinski (The Deniable Darwin). This is a great and quite funny interaction among vivid personalities and profound scientific and humanistic thinkers. As I’ve pointed out already, the interest lies not only in Dr. Gelernter’s personal journey toward evolution skepticism but in his testimony about how Darwinism is enforced among scientists and scholars in American universities. “You take your life in your hands to challenge it intellectually,” says Professor Gelernter, who ought to know. “They will destroy you if you challenge it.” As our friend Denyse O’Leary notes, this comes from someone who has survived not just life in academia, but a terror attack directed at him personally, by the Unabomber, that cost him the use of a hand and an eye. When someone with that background tells you Darwinists will “destroy you” for criticizing their theory, or they’ll try to do so, I’d take that seriously.If you missed it, see also Robinson and Berlinski in an outstanding one-on-one discussion about The Deniable Darwin.Correction: Ha, in the time it took me to write this post, another 500+ people watched Robinson, Meyer, Gelernter, and Berlinski. The number of views now stands at 523,314. Email Print Google+ Linkedin Twitter Share Congratulations to Science Magazine for an Honest Portrayal of Darwin’s Descent of Man Jane Goodall Meets the God Hypothesis Origin of Life: Brian Miller Distills a Debate Between Dave Farina and James Tour “A Summary of the Evidence for Intelligent Design”: The Study Guide In Florence, Italy, back in June, Stephen Meyer, David Gelernter, and David Berlinski got together with Peter Robinson of the Hoover Institution to talk about “Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.” The episode of Hoover’s interview series, Uncommon Knowledge, has been up now for a little over two weeks and has already amassed more than half a million views on YouTube. Actually, the precise number is 522,800, since July 22. Not bad! Tagsacademiacomputer scienceDarwin’s DoubtDarwinistsDavid GelernterDenyse O’LearyevolutionFlorencefree speechHoover InstitutionItalymathematicsPeter RobinsonSignature in the CellStephen MeyerThe Deniable DarwinUnabomberUncommon KnowledgeYale University,Trending Share Recommended Email Print Google+ Linkedin Twitter Share
LinkedIn Pinterest Share on Twitter Boosting intimacy may be more important for maintaining long-lasting romantic relationships than reducing insecurities, according to new research published in Social Psychological and Personality Science.“When we think about the question ‘why do couples break up?’ what we easily and mostly think of are some ‘negative’ events and feelings such as cheating, lying, fights and insecurities,” explained study author Yoo Bin Park, a PhD student at the University of Toronto and member of the MacDonald Social Psychology Research Lab.“However, our team has been generally interested in the important role the ‘positives,’ and in particular feelings of intimacy, play in relationship maintenance. So we decided to address that question in a prospective study with participants currently involved in a relationship.” Share on Facebook Share Email The researchers recruited 4,105 adults and had them complete weekly surveys regarding their relationship until they broke up. Of the initial sample, 111 participants completed a 27-day daily diary study following their breakup and 76 of these participants also completed a follow-up survey one month after the conclusion of the daily diary study.After controlling for gender, age, and relationship length, Park and her colleagues found that perceived intimacy predicted whether or not participants continued to stay with their partner.Specifically, participants who disagreed with statements such as “It’s interesting to learn more about my partner”, “Being with my partner gives me opportunities for personal growth”, and “I enjoy sharing things about myself with my partner” tended to have shorter relationships. This was true even when the researchers accounted for other factors such as relationship satisfaction and attachment insecurities.Surprisingly, the researchers found that concerns about negative evaluations (“I worry about what my partner thinks about me”) did not appear to significantly predict breakups.“Especially for anyone who is thinking ‘something’s missing in my relationship,’ I think they should take away from this study that it might be the intimate connections that they are missing and they should do something about it rather than overlooking its importance just because it doesn’t come across as serious a red flag as frequent quarrels would, for example,” Park told PsyPost.“Oftentimes, couples drift apart not necessarily because they hate each other but because they get used to and take for granted the reward they get from connecting with their partner. Intimate connection is more than a relationship luxury and may in fact be crucial to relationship longevity, so investing some time and efforts to experiencing that will be worth it.”The researchers also found that perceived intimacy was unrelated to postbreakup attachment to an ex-partner, which could be because of how memories function.“Just as specific details of an event or information are lost over time and only a global meaning or summary is retained, memories from the previous relationship that are left to affect postbreakup outcomes may be a global sense of how satisfying or positive the relationship experience was rather than specific aspects of the relationship,” the researchers said.As with any study, the new research includes some caveats.“We didn’t look at the partner’s part of the story in this research. It’s possible that the relationship one partner considers as sufficiently intimate is not at all fulfilling the other partner’s needs for intimacy,” Park said.“So I think it’ll be important and interesting to look at how both partners’ level of intimacy contribute to the breakup decisions — is one partner’s lack of intimacy enough to fail a relationship or would the relationship survive if there’s at least one partner perceiving enough intimacy in their relationship?”The study, “Lack of Intimacy Prospectively Predicts Breakup“, was authored by Yoobin Park, Emily A. Impett, Stephanie S. Spielmann, Samantha Joel, and Geoff MacDonald.