Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 35
"Non selectionist." "Non-selectionist biological mechanisms."

Wow, you Creationist sure have had to back-pedal a lot. First you abandoned explicitly talking about Creationism in favor of the "intelligent design" smokescreen, and now you're backpedaling from ID to "non-selectionist" now that ID doesn't disguise what you're trying to sell well enough.

As far as what this person actually says about natural selection, it's pure balderdash. He argues briefly about spiral growth patterns in flowers and leaves being "nonrandom," as if that were somehow significant, rather than the direct results of steady growth. And then he has the gall to try and imply god by mentioning spiral galaxies and mineral formations - as if those required exact placement, rather than simple physics.

I though he alluded to scientists afraid of what other scientist might think of them, for bucking neo-Darwinian orthodoxy?

If he started insisting that the Earth wasn't round, but burrito-shaped, he'd be afraid of what scientists thought of him for that as well.

You may note I don't say "other scientists." Neither Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini or Jerry Fodor is a biologist. Piattelli-Palmarini is a psychologist, and Fodor is a "philosopher." Neither does anything remotely resembling science in respect to evolution.

I'm sure there is a suitable rationalization from the denialists who insist there is no pressure to conform in evolutionary biology.

It depends on what you mean by "pressure." There's "pressure" in the sense that if you buck a theory that has been tested an confirmed as often as natural selection, you'd better have a pretty convincing argument and a mountain of evidence. That's how science works.

I think that abandoning Darwinism (or explicitly relegating it where it belongs, in the refinement and tuning of existing forms) sounds anti-scientific.

Probably because it is. No biologist talks about "body forms" as if there's something special about gross changes. It's Creationist-speak.

Why has American science been slow to accept a reduced role for natural selection in evolution?

Talk about begging the question. He might as well ask why American science has been slow to accept that electrons are actually microscopic meatballs. Of course, the irony here is that only in Fundy-riddled America has this nonsense gotten much traction at all. America has been the fastest to accept this guff.

I'm sure there is a suitable rationalization from the denialists who insist there is no pressure to conform in evolutionary biology.

I haven't read your posts in a while - when did you start larding your posts with this sort of well poisoning? From here, the "denial" is all on the part of the Creationists, who desperately deny all available evidence in order to satisfy their religious views.

- Gus
Print the post  

Announcements

What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.