But just wait till a career academic gets a grant to cast doubt on the obvious interpretation, and win Lewis back for Darwin.
But Meyer is #6 in paleontology. So who cares whether Calvin College’s God would design anything or not? Sorry, issues have moved beyond Christians [heart] Darwin
Both come off looking like clunkers.
About time someone started outing the nonsense instead of peddling it.
Much of the quackery seems to consist of repackaging common sense marketing or motivation techniques as “neuroscience,” and upping the price.
A day before yesterday everyone knew that Darwin’s theory underwrote racism as a *science-based* belief. Then it became un-PC to say so.
In a comment on kairosfocus’ latest excellent post, Does ID ASSUME “contra-causal free will” and “intelligence” (and so injects questionable “assumptions”)?, Mark Frank proposes a thought experiment in support of his view that determinism is fully compatible with free will. It goes as follows: Start with a dog. Dogs make choices in the sense that […]
But if they are that plastic, wouldn’t they just go back to the water, given a chance?
At some point, wouldn’t you think at least some commentators would start putting two and two together about some of these people?
If the general thesis is accepted, would it provide support for the Law of Conservation of Information, which William Dembski uses in his new book Being as Communion?
As UD regulars will know, it’s silly season here in Montserrat. As a result, I am facing the long vs short copy debate and the issue of the demand for excessive simplicity. Which, opens us up to be naive and easily misled — including when we indulge the fallacy of selective hyperskepticism. (As in: if […]
May as well be snakes.
If this interpretation of the fossil holds up, the vertebrate class was present in the Cambrian too.
Carlo Rovelli: Science has never advanced in this manner in the past. Science does not advance by guessing.
Beats the face on Mars, but we’re still waiting for the silhouette of Sherlock Holmes.