To all the materialists who think the incredible designs of nature - including on fish, birds, flowers and even caterpillars - emerge from nothing more than the most reductionist scientific evolutionary forces, I joyously disagree with you.
177
136
88
1,697
I shouldn’t have used the word “reductionist” that way. The people criticizing me on that one are right. My bad. Sorry.

Apr 5, 2021 · 4:35 AM UTC

26
7
1
385
Load newest
Replying to @marwilliamson
The way u used it is fine.
Replying to @marwilliamson
Nothing wrong with what you said. It is what it is.
Replying to @marwilliamson
Still doesn't explain the slimy creepy ugly critters that kill their prey in the most god-awful manner Marianne.. You give credit for one lot ...then you gotta give credit for the other
1
Replying to @marwilliamson
I don't think I've seen anyone more ready to admit a mistake than you. It takes a lot of integrity in this political climate.
9
Replying to @marwilliamson
youtube.com/M2VxU0VCqkM
Replying to @marwilliamson
Don't sweat it, we knew what you meant:)
2
Replying to @marwilliamson
I admire & appreciate your willingness to revisit an issue & correct yourself. I admire you and appreciate you for all the other wonderful things you do too, just less relevant to this tweet. We should all endeavor to follow in your footsteps on this. Thank you.
1
Replying to @marwilliamson
Fantastic example of a kick I am on: We Don't know, what we don't know, until we do know. When we know better, we do better. And that is what you did. You didn't know you made a mistake when you realized it, you fixed it and said, Sorry. Perfect. Thanks My Dear
Replying to @marwilliamson
with this take, you are centering the gaze of humans and seeing beauty only in its utility to us as observers. birds evolve glorious plumage because THEY like it. ime the fact that aesthetics have evolutionary utility is itself incredible!!
1
4
Replying to @marwilliamson
No need to apologize. You used it in a valuable way.
Load more