As I keep on pointing out this is a new non-teleological mechanism for evolution and (using the ID definition) for accumulating “information”. As such it potentially expands modern evolutionary biology and drives yet another nail into the argument for ID.
markf misses the point. The Darwin lobby has made strikingly clear that they are interested in Darwin, and Darwin only. No explanation of evolution sounds genuine to them unless it can be explained by natural selection acting on random mutation.
This was made clear when lobbyist Eugenie Scott told investigative reporter Suzan Mazur that her pressure group opposes teaching self-organization theories because they sound too much like ID.
It’s hard to imagine a self-organization theorist agreeing with that.
Indeed, the Texas pressure group explained that self-organization must be opposed because it sounds too much like … Bill Dembski, who founded this ID community blog and is not a fan of self-organization theory.
Mere details. The mantra is, keep it simple, stupid, and Darwin. And go to court if that isn’t happening.
Which is why the Darwin lobby doesn’t get much face time in most of North America. (We can’t be responsible for what people overseas feel they must just shut up ‘n believe/pretend to believe/shout slogans for at rallies.)
All that said, there are many non-Darwin theories of evolution out there that explain, each, a small part of the picture, and we have covered here as many as we encountered. None of them do away with the necessity of design; indeed, only Darwin’s theory was developed with that in mind, which explains both its attraction and the reason that Darwinists cannot share the stage even with other non-design theories of evolution.
The author of the Heredity paper suggests some form of self-organization. That probably means that his paper will fall down the memory hole promptly, along with all the others, but we will do what we can to keep the spark alive.
Follow UD News at Twitter!