"A self-styled form of Darwinian fundamentalism has risen to some prominence in a variety of fields, from the English biological heartland of John Maynard Smith to the uncompromising ideology (albeit in graceful prose) of his compatriot Richard Dawkins, to the equally narrow and more ponderous writing of the American philosopher Daniel Dennett . . . . - Stephen Jay Gould, "Darwinian Fundamentalism," The New York Review of Books.
The Post has this article on the ID conference in Prague. The article has the usual boilerplate quotes about it not being science and calling the conference "useless." Wish I were there.
posted by Lawrence Selden @ 3:50 PM
2 comments
I am a macroevolution agnostic. I used to accept evolutionary theory. Then I looked at the evidence. It became clear to me that macroevolutionary theory is built more on a priori philosophical assumptions than on evidence. Microevolution, on the other hand, is supported by the evidence. The distinction between the two is critical and is largely ignored, or not understood, by the mainstream media and general public.
2 Comments:
Evolutionists must claim we are only preaching religion and not science. When ever they get into a debate concerning scientific evidence they loose and sound stupid. Censorship is really their only hope and it is drifting away on the proverbial primordial slime they have such faith in. LOL
You're wrong. Whenever IDs are asked to bring evidence to their dogma, they are like "mh, mh, ah, but there is evidence against evolution".
You don't understand science at all.
Post a Comment
<< Home