West: “according to Lewis, Darwin’s theory explains how a species can change over time by losing functional features it already has. Suffice to say, this is not the key thing the modern biological theory of evolution purports to explain.”
I have recently posted a new video on my Intelligent Design YouTube channel. In this video I discuss several areas in the philosophy of science and modern evolutionary biology, and their relationship to ID. These thoughts were prompted initially by an interesting paper by philosopher of science Jeffrey Koperski ‘Two Bad Ways to Attack Intelligent Read More…
Well, it’s a good thing for “evolutionary theory” that it doesn’t “preclude” life forms becoming “simpler over geological time.” That’s called devolution and it is in fact very common.
Ruse appears to have been a relentless enforcer of Darwinian orthodoxy behind the scenes, including a blistering attack on philosopher Jerry Fodor, who questioned it.
She remembers him as “opposing the establishment on Darwinian dogma.”
Hey. The Darwinians are marketing magic and it is really difficult to refute magic.
If humans stopped picking them, would the green ones just start becoming more numerous again?
But read the fine print: We would need to run many trials of planets in parallel in order to simulate the real conditions in the universe. Yampolskiy concludes, ‘In fact, depending on some assumptions we make regarding multiverse, quantum aspects of biology, and probabilistic nature of Darwinian algorithm such compute may never be available.’”
Suzan Mazur notes that the Khan Academy has tended to promote natural selection as “evolution” generally.
It begins to sound like that after a while.
From the opening of Chapter 1: “…a pervasive problem in biology is the religious adherence to the idea that natural selection is solely responsible for every feature of biological diversity.” He’s putting chapters online free, looking for feedback.
Most likely it was a combination of Mazur getting on the story and a general recognition that full-on Darwinism just isn’t cutting it any more. Stuff that worked in the 1980s isn’t going to fly now that genomes are routinely mapped.
One would be glad to hear that this is fake news but the history of popular cultural Darwinism means that it could well be genuine. Remember eugenics. Meantime, Korwin-Mikke’s said other things, consistent with this view.
It goes on and gets way better. You’ll be amazed at the idiocracy that the testing establishment takes for granted and promotes. Read at her site about how one testcrat even administered the same test twice, a fact advertised on the internet… and more. By the way, why don’t we hear much about this from other science writers?
In relation to claims about Darwinian natural selection just happening to find that solution