Renowned Technology Pioneer Trashes neo-Darwinism (part 1)

Sal, I think I see what you mean. Egnor says "NDE has nothing useful to offer the practice of medicine." Ruloff is saying "NDE is not merely useless, but affirmatively harmful because it supresses future research and the publication of past research results." russ

NDE is an absurd network of contradictory statements and sub-theories. many of them are mutually exclusive. That is why Dr Egnor and Walt Ruloff can come to seemingly contradictory conclusions. they took different approaches and, thus, had to come to different conclusions because NDE is a totally inconsistent system. IrrDan

Michael Egnor was referring immediately to his profession as practiced today, Walt Ruloff is referring to future medical advances which Egnor has not yet seen (and thus doesn't realize can exist in principle). Egnor was being to generous to neo-Darwinism. Ruloff, on the other had appears to have gotten ahold of some rare, candid interviews which the rest of us are not privy to, thus Egnor would understandably be unaware of what Ruloff knows. That's how I reconcile the statements anyway. scordova

A while back, Dr. Michael Egnor at evolutionnews.org wrote a couple of blogs about the irrelevancy of NDE to medicine. But Walt Ruloff says that the science-stopping nature of neo-Darwinian orthodoxy was a threat to "healthcare" advances. Can anyone square these views? Am I misquoting either of them? russ

Here is a direct url to the Mp3: Walt Ruloff and Expelled (part 1) scordova