Remember how The Best Schools’ philosopher James Barham got himself criticized by self-organization theorist James Shapiro ( himself a target of Darwinists like Jerry Coyne for his doubts about Darwin?)
Barham has replied to Shapiro, saying that he thinks that Shapiro and he are in broad agreement: here.
What is important is that we get very clear about two things:
(a) If novel phenotypic traits are produced by means of natural genetic engineering, then the main creative force in evolution resides is this remarkable process, and not in natural selection.
(b) If natural selection cannot explain natural genetic engineering, then we must seek the explanation somewhere else.
Shapiro is admirably clear on the first point. Indeed, though many scientists are currently attempting to see past Darwin, he is one of the few who are willing to stand up to the bullying of the entrenched Darwinist establishment, and call a spade a spade.
However, Shapiro is strangely reluctant to affirm the second point. For example, he writes: …
More. The difficulty Shapiro faces is this: Standing up to the entrenched institutional power of Darwinism is not a solution to any problem other than obsessive demands for support for an untenable view of life (cf Ben Carson controversy).
Beyond that, leaving Darwinism is simply giving oneself permission to think. And that includes patiently rethinking a number of questions, like the one Barham revisits, around “vitalism” or emergent properties. It’s no use blaming him for raising such questions. They are part of the landscape, and truer understandings of nature may follow from carefully reconsidering them. Which is now legal.
Note: The Darwinists will be out to get Shapiro now no matter what he does, so he may as well do what he thinks wise.
Follow UD News at Twitter!