Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Lay off Graham Lawton (more on the New Scientist “Darwin was wrong” article)


A few relevant facts for those who shoot from the hip, without thinking:

1. Reporters and writers don’t contribute or control article headlines, a privilege their editors reserve to themselves.

2. Nor do reporters and writers have much (or any) say about what goes on the magazine cover. See the editors for that.

3. Graham Lawton was reporting on scientific developments and arguments that have been underway for more than a decade (although accelerating recently). Go here, for instance, for a summary of a recent meeting reviewing those developments. Lawton interviewed some of the participants at this meeting — as a science journalist, not a partisan.

The point is, if Lawton didn’t report the story, the story would still be there.

So the “shoot the messenger” rhetoric of Jason Rosenhouse and others is triply misdirected. Wild and erratic gunfire reflects the lack of judgment of the shooter, not his target.

Note to Joe Felsenstein: I didn’t “pounce” on the Telegraph or New Scientist articles, if “pouncing” means claiming they support ID. See my comment in the original blog thread:

…ID doesn’t emerge as the leading competitor directly from these puzzles, which is why Bapteste, Doolittle, et al., vigorously reject ID.

Naturalistic evolution with multiple starting points, a mangrove-like geometry, etc., is still naturalistic evolution.

Jason Rosenhouse does a nice job of downregulating the importance of the TOL in MET. But I just noticed that the NCSE uses Darwin's "sole diagram in the Origin of Species" as a logo. Take a look at http://ncseweb.org/ . It's there in the upper left-hand corner of the masthead. (Tee, hee.) I wonder how long they'll leave it there...as it slowly becomes a symbol of what's wrong with Darwinism. Lutepisc
The tree metaphor, which famously appears as the sole diagram in The Origin of Species, is based on the assumption that genes are only transferred vertically. -Jason Rosenhouse
But even that would not guarantee a tree of any kind. Ya see Jason even if genes are transferred only from parent to offspring there still wouldn't be any direction besides that. And he thinks he has the right to criticize others? Jason then misses the point which is without that tree Darwin's theory would have been a much tougher sell. That is a fact. The tree gave a simple visual that allowed others to follow the paths, which then seemed easier to travail. Take those same people but give them a diagram of an intermeshed, tangled web with off-shoots and the theory doesn't get off the ground. Joseph
Barb, please don't make the mistake that the evolutionary simpletons make of convoluding irreduceable complexity with complexity. Complexity is the height of mount improbable. "Biology is vastly more complex" implies that the mount improbable is much taller than thought. Irreduceable complexity discusses how smooth the best path up mount improbable is. IC says that some of the individual steps up the path are so high that they are more like sheer walls. That said, neo-Darwinian evolution must acknowledge a maximum reasonable pace. If mount improbable is vastly higher than thought, it may seriously challenge the pace that RM+NS can conceivably operate. bFast
It's interesting to see one of their cherished icons fall. I found this in the article: "Biology is vastly more complex than we thought, he says, and facing up to this complexity will be as scary as the conceptual upheavals physicists had to take on board in the early 20th century." Would that be irreducible complexity? ;) Barb
This may be of interest: Evolution Is Not Even A Proper Scientific Theory - The Crushing Critique Against Genetic Reductionism - Dr. Arthur Jones http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=26e0ee51239e23041484 bornagain77

Leave a Reply