In a post at Uncommon Descent, Denyse O’Leary selectively quotes John Maynard Keynes:
Whatever his merits or failings as an economist (the world is pretty divided on that), John Maynard Keynes got ID basically right in his Treatise on Probability (1921):
The discussion of final causes and of the argument from design has suffered confusion from its supposed connection with theology. But the logical problem is plain and can be determined upon formal and abstract considerations. The argument is in all cases simply this—an event has occurred and has been observed which would be very improbable à priori if we did not know that it had actually happened; on the other hand, the event is of such a character that it might have been not unreasonably predicted if we had assumed the existence of a conscious agent whose motives are of a certain kind and whose powers are sufficient.(p. 340)
So the obvious question he asks is, what does the evidence suggest?
That would make Keynes way smarter than many Catholic philosophers who can exquisitely explain who the universe shows no evidence of design, through dozens of casuistries, though then it is unclear what the Catechism of the Catholic Church is even about.
In the comments, kairosfocus is equally enthusiastic:
JMK is way smarter than most of his detractors, too. He really changed the world.
(I wonder whether the homophobic kairosfocus realizes that Keynes was described by his lover Lytton Strachey as “a liberal and a sodomite, an atheist and a statistician.”)
Had Denyse resisted the quotemining impulse, she would have included these words of Keynes instead of cutting the quotation short:
Thus we cannot measure the probability of the conscious agent’s existence after the event, unless we can measure its probability before the event. And it is our ignorance of this, as a rule, that we are endeavouring to remedy. The argument tells us that the existence of the hypothetical agent is more likely after the event than before it; but, as in the case of the general inductive problem dealt with in Part III., unless there is an appreciable probability first, there cannot be an appreciable probability afterwards. No conclusion, therefore, which is worth having, can be based on the argument from design alone; like induction, this type of argument can only strengthen the probability of conclusions, for which there is something to be said on other grounds. We cannot say, for example, that the human eye is due to design more probably than not, unless we have some reason, apart from the nature of its construction, for suspecting conscious workmanship.
And no, Denyse, putting a question mark at the end of your post title (“Economist John Maynard Keynes understood ID?”) does not excuse your dishonesty.
Astronomers have found a very small modulation on the background microwave radiation.
After demodulating the signal and passing it through an audio amplifier, they heard a small sound that sounds very much like “Oops!.”
>> That would make Keynes way smarter than many Catholic philosophers who can exquisitely explain who the universe shows no evidence of design, through dozens of casuistries, though then it is unclear what the Catechism of the Catholic Church is even about.
The UD folks don’t seem to understand how much damage they do to their cause by first: insisting ID is a scientific theory; second: claiming that only a Christian account of creation is logical, and third: rejecting Catholic theology outright.
What a convoluted mess of literalist Protestant apologetics poorly shrouded in a tattered lab coat. And yet they wonder why they can’t make common cause with Theistic evolution. They are their own worst enemy.
Denyse is Catholic, actually. She doesn’t have anything against Catholic theology — just against certain Catholic philosophers, and “Brit toffs”, and “tenured bores”.
If Denyse has a problem with the Catechism, then she does have a problem with Catholic theology at large.
keiths,
She doesn’t have a problem with the Catechism. She’s arguing for Catholic theology as expressed in the Catechism and against anti-IDist Catholic philosophers:
If I misunderstood her, then I apologize. But I’m still confused how her words translates into a defense of Catholic theology which accepts scientific explanations re: cosmology, biology, etc. (e.g. Evolution does not require divine intervention to explain or defend God’s providence and his active role in Creation)
keiths,
I’m no expert in Catholic theology, but I have the impression that it is more subtle (or perhaps I should say “more ambiguous”) than you suggest.
Apparently he did.
If you can bear to watch it, a video of Denyse expounding on “Catholics and Evolution”.
We actually discussed that video in an earlier thread: The theistic world view
And Lizzie transcribed the whole thing.
That must have hurt.
I tried creating myself a new ID on UD and drawing attention to this excellent OP. It is in moderation at the moment.
“‘Evolution’ always really means ‘Darwinism’ in American terms.” – Denyse O’Leary (from keiths’ linked video)
For the Americans who visit this site: is that really true? Denyse is not American, so perhaps she is not being fair to the American discourse. What does ‘evolution’ mean or which other paradigm is it called/labelled if not as ‘Darwinism’ in the USA?
She is also a recent convert to the Catholic Church, while demonstrating little patience for actually learning Catholic philosophy and great haste in her IDist journalistic advocacy to slam any and all Catholic philsophers that reject IDism.
And no, I couldn’t stomach watching/hearing it all either.
I have expressed myself already on the UD thread in question, thus there is no need to say more here.
keiths
I know of biologists who are not Darwinists, but they are evolutionists. I’m not a biologist, but otherwise include me in that group who think there are problems with the Darwinian account. In that sense, no, “evolution” does not always mean “Darwinism”.
This, however, misses the more important point. To religious dissenters from evolution, “evolution” does always mean “Darwinism”. They love it when James Shapiro criticizes Darwinism, but they are troubled when they look closely at his work and worry that he really is a Darwinist.
I’m not quite sure what they mean by Darwinism. I suspect they mean evolution by entirely natural means.
They mean two things. No kin to monkeys, and judging from recent threads here, they mean the human mind is not physical.
Everything else flows from the necessity of those non-negotiable truths.
It seems to me that this thread went off the rails. The OP dealt with the dishonesty of quoting someone in a way that reverses the original author’s intended meaning.
Lying is a pretty serious charge, and if no one at UD caught it, that’s pretty damning.
Can we relax the forum rules enough to mention that someone is not arguing in good faith here?
Neil Rickert,
Thanks for your interesting reply.
That’s what I’m trying to understand. How many people here at TSZ would consider themselves ‘Darwinists’? It seems to me that IDists are exaggerating and harping on an ‘opponent’ (they like to say ‘enemy’) that doesn’t actually exist. When BioLogos president Darrel Falk claimed neither he nor BioLogos are ‘Darwinists’ and explained why, IDists at UD simply said that they *are* (must be) Darwinists even if they claim they are not. Denyse O’Leary harps on the ‘Christian Darwinist/Theistic Darwinist’ line time and again.
Actually, I doubt this, but that is what I’m asking folks at TSZ about. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin poses an obstacle to this view. And Theodosius Dobzhansky was a religious dissenter to ‘evolutionism,’ though he also mainly agreed with Darwin’s general theory.
The only examples in my notes where Dobzhansky references ‘Darwinism’ are these:
Personally, I’m not a Darwinist. And I really don’t understand why a 21st century biologist or even ‘naturalist’ would want to call themself by that name. Then again, I’ve met neo-Marxist social scientists who simply desire to be identified with the tradition that Marx initiated in his critique of capitalism, among other things.
Do a few, many, or most people at TSZ strongly insist on being called ‘Darwinists,’ i.e. on taking that label for themselves? Does Elizabeth?
I think I’d call myself a “Darwinist”, but then I’m a Brit, and he’s on our £10 note 🙂
I think his idea was brilliant, and it works. It works far better than even he envisaged. I think it’s acquired a lot of baggage (especially the R word – “random”) but the essence of the idea – that when self-replicators replicate with heritable variance in reproductive success, the most successful variants will become most prevalent, is, simply, logically true.
And, that simple algorithm forms the basis, I would argue, for intelligent systems. I’d say our brains work on the same principles – what’s been called “neural Darwinism”.
So yes, I’m a Darwinist.
I guess 🙂 the rule is supposed to apply to postings here, and would apply if Denyse posted it here.
But I agree, it seems either bad faith, or, more likely IMO, lack of due diligence. I’ve lost count of the wrong-ends-of-sticks that Denyse has posted. Sometimes they are caught, sometimes not. I think she just doesn’t read the material she reports on.
Denyse O’Leary has some things to say about Dobzhansky too. See “Darwinist Theodosius Dobzhansky was not an orthodox Christian believer!”
This isn’t really about science or evolution. It is about the culture wars. It is tribalism, and “Darwinist” is the term du jour for members of the enemy tribe. The creationists see the world as in a state of decay. They look back fondly to the “good old days” and are doing what they think is needed to try to stem the decay. If they did this honestly, they would live like the Amish. However, they are happy to adopt all of the many improvements of modern life, while still seeing the world as being in a state of degradation.
Next year my work group will be using Genetic Programming / Evolutionary Algorithms to generate / breed / cull about 4.6 quadrillion forecasts based on proprietary and external data sets. Evolution works, believe me!
I think “they” use the term “Darwinist” as a handy portmanteau pejorative term for anyone who may not believe that man is the intended pinnacle of creation.
I can’t help thinking that in the main those that regard themselves as members of a divinely privileged species aren’t very keen on taking the responsibilities that go with privilege (although, oddly, infamous YEC Dave Hawkins is having a typically over-enthusiastic and unbalanced but in this case well-intentioned go)
Lizzie,
Surely even Denyse knows that she needs to read at least several sentences past the end of the material she’s quoting. That’s Journalism 101.
Giving her the benefit of the doubt doesn’t help much. If she’s not being dishonest, then she’s journalistically incompetent. If she’s not incompetent, then she’s being dishonest.
I’m really rather touched by Dave’s enthusiastic pursuit of grass-fed beef rearing. The lad has never lacked energy and enthusiasm, and it’s good to see it put to good use.
For Denyse (and anyone else interested) —
Here’s a concise application of Catholic theology to the matter at hand:
[This is the heart of the disagreement between ID proponents like those at UD and current Catholic thought.]
[And this is the heart of the disagreement between atheists like Dawkins and current Catholic thought.]
If you are confused how random mutations, physical process and stochastic systems can be guided by God, and thus congruent with evolutionary theory, here is further explanation:
[IOW, no other proof than existence itself is necessary. Additional evidence, should it exist (as ID contends) is superfluous]
After acknowledging that Keynes was not an ID supporter, Timaeus writes:
Yes, especially when Denyse is doing the “research”.
Ideally, yes. And folks like David Klinghoffer are embarrassingly eager to claim famous figures such as Dean Koontz and Stephen King whose opinions on ID should carry no particular weight.
That said, not everyone feels capable or motivated enough to evaluate the arguments and the evidence for themselves. The ones who aren’t may choose to rely on the opinions of others whom they respect.
The lack of prominent thinkers who support ID must be galling to the ID rank and file. It may explain their overeagerness to embrace those who seem to show even a flicker of sympathy — particularly the dead, like Keynes, who can’t object to being dragged into the ID camp.
Kairosfocus,
Tell us more about your admiration for Keynes, the “liberal, sodomite, atheist statistician” who was also a critic of intelligent design.
You’ve said that he “changed the world” and was “way smarter than most of his detractors”. I agree.
Please elaborate.
Lizzie,
Is that your definition of ‘Darwinism’ or just Darwin’s ‘evolutionary theory?’
Elizabeth, do you deem it worthwhile to distinguish between the ideology and the science wrt ‘Darwin-ISM’? Iow, is it possible that you and/or others could hold to/accept/promote/etc. Darwinian evolution, but not Darwinism, e.g. Social Darwinism? If so, where do you draw the line?
As for me, I’m certainly opposed to Dawkins’ ‘universal Darwinism.’ How about you, Elizabeth? I don’t think Darwin himself would have applied ‘evolution’ as ‘universally’ as Dawkins, Dennett and others suggest. My studies of ‘evolutionary economics’ have shown some limits to evolutionary thought and have recognised the intrusion of ideology into science.
What is confusing is when ‘Darwinism’ comes to denote simply ‘biological evolution,’ which both IDists (Dembski 2004) and anti-IDists contend. In this scenario, a more careful discussion of ideology is typically just pushed aside as ‘philosophical rubbish.’ That’s the opposite argument from Denyse assigning ‘IDT’ even to JMK, when in fact he wouldn’t have endorsed it; just as Darwin wouldn’t have endorsed ‘universal Darwinism.’
I don’t consider Darwinism an ideology at all.
Some people label certain ideological positions as “Darwinist”, always as a pejorative, in my experience.
I think as an organising principle it can be applied to systems other than biological populations, but that’s not using it as an “ideology” but as a postulated explanation for observed patterns.
Well, don’t take the term ‘ideology’ as only pejorative then.
What is waiting for you to face, Elizabeth, is when Darwin’s theory of evolution turns into an ideology. And it certainly does for some people. To deny this would be to avoid social reality.
Just as Thomism and Marxism, Malthusianism and Lamarckism, Taylorism and Fordism, Thatcherism and Cameronism are ideologies, so is Darwinism. I don’t see why this should be difficult to accept from a semantic standpoint. Do you see it as difficult? Will you not accept it? Darwinian evolution is the ‘natural scientific theory,’ while ‘Darwinism’ is the ideology. Or are you conflating these two things?
What is strange to me is that both you and the IDM consider ‘Darwinism’ as (merely) a ‘natural scientific theory.’ Whereas to me, a person who has not only widely studied ideology qua ideology, but also lived in and visited regions where political ideology is quite obvious (it exists in every nation, but is more or less explicit in different cases) and scientistic ideology was most evident, perhaps I more clearly distinguish the ‘science’ of Darwinian evolution from the ideology of Darwinism than you do in the U.K. or USA. Is that open as a live possibility, Elizabeth?
I’m sure you know more about cognitive studies and neuroscience than I do, but in this case, the encroachment of ideology into the discussion is something I am more qualified to recognise.
You speak of “a postulated explanation for observed patterns.” Does that mean you potentially accept Social Darwinism too, if ‘Darwinian evolution’ is applied as “a postulated explanation for observed patterns” in society? One problem is that Dawkins has backed away from Social Darwinism, even while maintaining ‘universal Darwinism’ in the natural-physical sciences. This ‘universal Darwinism’ appears to be quite a mess, ideologically speaking.
Gregory,
I think the term “ideology” IS most frequently used in casual conversation as a pejorative, meaning to imply foolishly uncritical acceptance
I’m not taking “ideology” as a pejorative, Gregory. I’m taking “Darwinist” as a pejorative when used to denote a perceived ideology.
I don’t think it exists. I think it’s a straw man punch bag dreamed up by people who fear atheism and want to lay the blame at Darwin’s door, regardless of the fact that atheism is not a conclusion that can be drawn from Darwin’s theory.
No.
Not as an ideology. How many times do I have to say this, Gregory?
I am a Darwinist inasmuch as I think it is an excellent explanatory framework for many complex phenomena. As a scientific theory in other words.
I am not a Darwinist inasmuch as that is taken to imply that I adopt a normative approach to behaviour and policy based on something called “Darwinist ideology”.
I think you yourself are conflating the application of Darwinist principles to understanding social phenomena (economics, for example) and advocating some principle as a normative recommendation for how we should behave.
To put it more succinctly:
“The fittest leave more offspring” is a statement about how the world is, and its correctness can be tested empirically.
“The fittest should leave more offspring” is a statement about how the world should be, and its correctness cannot be tested empirically.
The truth or otherwise of the first can therefore have no bearing on the truth or otherwise of the second.
Let’s get technical here, then, and not speak coloquially or ‘casually’ as you both seem to be doing. Let’s opt for a higher, more accurate level of discourse.
I am asking a very specific question and it seems you are telling me there is no answer to it, Elizabeth. Granted, there may be no clear answer to be found in certain fields, while in other fields, a clear answer is both possible and available. That clear answer should then be heeded and perhaps even conceded and adopted by those who are undecided or confused.
If you’ll excuse me, then it seems like I need to switch into pedantic mode because you seem not to have taken a course on the technical nuances of the terms ‘Darwinian’ and ‘Darwinism’.
What does the ‘IT’ refer to? “I am a Darwinist…it is…” is gramatically incorrect.
First, technically, a ‘Darwinist’ refers to a person, not an ideology. A Darwinist is an ideologue for Darwinism, the ideology. Person/ideology.
Second, I’ll say it again: ‘Darwinian evolution’ = a scientific theory. ‘Darwinism’ = an ideology. Why would this meaning be difficult to embrace, since it is the technically correct distinction to make? Sometimes semantics are important to promote clear communication. (And don’t worry TSZers, I’m not taking IDists’ sides; they constantly get it wrong too!)
If you insist that ‘Darwinism’ is a ‘scientific theory,’ then technically speaking, you are conflating 2 distinct definitions.
Third, I didn’t notice a rebuttal to this anywhere: “Just as Thomism and Marxism, Malthusianism and Lamarckism, Taylorism and Fordism, Thatcherism and Cameronism are ideologies, so is Darwinism.”
2 things: 1) How can you possibly say you believe ‘Darwinism’ doesn’t exist yet call yourself a ‘Darwinist’ above?, and 2) Yes, it is true that people wish to lay too much “blame at Darwin’s door.” I witnessed this first hand at the DI’s Summer Program. They even wanted to lay blame for Cartesianism at Darwin’s door!! Nevertheless, the term ‘Darwinism’ itself was coined not “by people who fear atheism,” but to distinguish the ‘school’ of evolutionary thought Darwin had initiated (i.e. Darwinian evolution) and logically speaking, to protect it from exaggeration into Darwinism.
The same is true when confronting Marxian labour theory from Marxism or Lamarckian evolution from Lamarckism. This is why a technical distinction of the -ian and -ism terms is important and meaningful.
The simplest way to ask the question is: what semantic difference is there between the terms ‘Darwinian’ and ‘Darwinism’? You seem to be conflating them. As someone schooled on the nuances, I am not conflating them, but rather distinguishing them between science and ideology.
As for “advocating some principle as a normative recommendation for how we [socially] should behave,” that is Social Darwinism, which I am not advocating. For more about Darwinism and Social Darwinism see here: http://human-nature.com/rmyoung/papers/paper60.html
When I asked if you advocate Social Darwinism, since you claimed to be a Darwinist, you said: “Not as an ideology. How many times do I have to say this, Gregory?” But here you are now accepting my definition that Darwinism *of any variety* is technically an ideology. Why should Darwinian evolution be immune from becoming an ideology in biology, but not in sociology or economics or politics as Social Darwinism?
Your final paragraph is incomplete. You think I am conflating what with what?
I am pointing out that ‘universal Darwinism’ is an exaggeration that cannot responsibly be maintained, as Dawkins (and others) suggests. Do you not agree?
Again, for the record, I am neither a creationist nor an IDist; these are not ideologies that I adhere to. Neither am I an evolutionist. And I believe it makes good and healthy sense not to be an evolutionist, i.e. to consider one-self as an ‘evolutionist,’ even if one accepts a limited and rightful domain for evolutionary theories (as I and most others do).
What about this is challenging to your position, Elizabeth? Do you not find it responsibly balanced to reject the exaggeration of terms outside of their intended fields of application? Iow, do you not personally participate in establishing and articulating the limits of natural scientific explanations?
Denyse was simply wrong to bring in JMK as understanding the strictly natural-science IDT. But two wrongs don’t make a right here and your self-correction here regaring ideology would be helpful.
Good catch. IT refers to Darwin’s theory – indeed insight – that if self-replicators replicate with heritable variance in reproductive success, the most successful variants will become the most prevalent.
If you think that the word “Darwinist” denotes someone who adheres to some form of ideology, then I am not a Darwinist.
This really isn’t hard!
I am a Darwinist in the sense that I am an Einsteinist, or a Hebbian. Darwin, Einstein and Hebb proposed powerful theories that have had huge predictive success.
I am not a Darwinist in any ideological sense of the word.
If you think my use of the word is confusing, I shall eschew it.
So what goals, ideals, expectations or standards would you attribute to someone who follows those assumed ideologies? They seem closer to ‘Darwinism-as-science’ than anything else in the list – but further, unlike Darwinism, there is no obvious source of confusion. Darwinism can be an ideology. One could see survival of the fittest as something to be aspired towards and encouraged (a misunderstanding, since they will do it all by themselves!), whereas I cannot see any equivalence in population growth, or the inheritance of acquired characteristics, for example.
But the main bone of contention is that people equivocate the two. If you’re a Darwinist, you must regard the ‘is’ of Natural Selection (or incremental change, or the wonderfulness of barnacles), as a social ‘ought’. Which is incorrect.
It is, I think, generally true that scientists and others in the long line of people who have built on Darwin’s observations and reasoning are not ideologues, but objective assessors of evidence.
Those who use the term “Darwinist” as a term of opprobrium usually are ideologues.
(I’m using the definition: “An adherent of an ideology, esp. one who is uncompromising and dogmatic: “a Nazi ideologue””).
It may not be hard or difficult, but it is nevertheless important.
Technically, that is what the terms ‘Darwinism’ (ideology) and ‘Darwinist’ (ideologue) mean, as distinguished from ‘Darwinian’ (scientific theory or school). So, if you accept that, then you are technically speaking not a ‘Darwinist,’ but a Darwinian thinker.
My interest is to discover in what ways you thoughtfully reject the ideology of Darwinism and why.
It is the same for me with Marxism. I certainly would not wish to be called a ‘Marxist’ (or neo-Marxist). But there are some ‘Marxian’ ideas that I accept as valid still today. Not all Marxian ideas, mind you, but definitely some (probably the same is true for biologists re: Darwinian ideas – R. Allchin’s “Darwin’s Errors” shows this quite well). And when Marxism exaggerates and is used by Marxists to distort Marxian ideas, there is a serious problem. The same is true with Darwinism and Darwinists.
This is the reason behind my isolating Denyse’s statement in the video: “‘Evolution’ always really means ‘Darwinism’ in American terms.”
If it’s not true, then what non-Darwinist meaning does ‘evolution’ carry in American terms? This is the most important question I’m interested in hearing answers to.
Denyse writes a blog ‘post-Darwinist,’ a term which she got from L. Margulis. But neither Denyse nor Margulis seem(ed) able to give a positive meaning other than non- or post- regarding Darwinism. Can someone here help out?
As with you, Elizabeth, I accept that Darwinian theory “is an excellent explanatory framework for many complex phenomena.” What concerns me is when it is exaggerated into Darwinism and how frequent and easy this is to do for many people. Otoh, you don’t seem to keep this concern on your radar as keenly as I do. It seems to me that evidence for the exaggeration of Darwinian evolution into Darwinism abounds in late-modern and post-modern ‘western’ thought and Dawkins’ ‘universal Darwinism’ is just one example.
But you haven’t addressed ‘universal Darwinism’ or ‘universal evolutionism’ yet, Elizabeth. I wonder: why not? Do you not see them as social problems?
Allan wrote: “Darwinism can be an ideology.”
O.k. we are agreed. But should I understand your implication is that ‘Darwinism’ *need not* be an ideology? Or are you accepting the (hopefully clearly stated) technical distinction between Darwinian and Darwinism that I made above?
Anti-poor laws (let the poor die) are an example of Malthusianism; taking the ‘struggle for scarce resources’ and turning it into an ethical principle for engineering society. A great book to read on this topic is “Darwin without Malthus” by Daniel Todes. Lamarckism exaggerates the power of ‘acquired characteristics’ in a non-scientific way.
Again, the technical distinction between Malthusian theory or Lamarckian theory and Malthusianism and Lamarckism, just as between Darwinian and Darwinism is the key point in the thread. Is this point not taught in most schools or universities where you are?
I am happy to accept the correction.
I neither reject it nor accept it. I am sufficiently unfamiliar with it that I don’t know what it entails. But it sounds nasty.
I don’t know what they are. If you explain what they are, I will attempt to tell you whether I think of them as “social problems”.
OK, let me state it instead of implying it: Darwinism need not be an ideology. For example, Alfred Russel Wallace wrote a book called “Darwinism”. It is specifically about evolution in nature. Of course, there is a subtle but important distinction between an ‘ism’, as an area of study, and an ‘ist’. I might concede your point about Malthusianists, if Malthus was advocating positive restraint, but I remain unconvinced that ‘Lamarckists’ have any political opinions informed by his views on inheritance.
Sticking ‘-ism’ after a word or name does not automatically make people who consider themselves, or are considered, ‘X’-ists adopters of this or that ideological strand of thought. I don’t think even Darwin was a Social Darwinist, for example, though he could hardly be anything other than a ‘Darwinist’!
An evolutionist is no more an ideologue than a geneticist or a biochemist. But when it becomes personally associated, the particular badge being adopted from somone’s long and varied life is less clear. It is important to dig deeper than the lazy label. I’d never describe myself as a Darwinist personally, but don’t mind the label unduly. It’s when people start to assume that I must be in favour of X, or against Y, that I start to get irritated. Especially when I tell them what my views actually are!
This is all very puzzling. It is not how I use “Darwinist”, and it is not how most biologists seem to use “Darwinist”.
I have just checked. You do have author privileges. Can you start a separate topic on Darwinism as ideology.
Back on topic – Keynes anti-ID argument is actually rather interesting!
It’s not true. Don’t hang your hat on DOL’s correctness.
I once read an interview with Margulis in which she clarified that she was a “Darwinist” not a “neo-Darwinist”.
But my google skills have failed me. Anyone help?
ETA: it was probably this one
in which case I misremembered – she called herself and “evolutionist”. But specified that it was neo-Darwinists she had the beef with.
But I’m still searching – I think there was another interview.
This is an example of what I find confusing.
To me, the technical distinction between “Darwinian” and “Darwinism” is that “Darwinian” is a adjective while “Darwinism” is a noun.
Please start a separate thread to help clear this up.
Is he not simply saying that the (subjective) assessment of life as having the appearance of “design” is insufficent reason to conclude an actual designer?
Which is what we’ve been saying all along.
(perhaps if kairosfocus had read the whole quote, not just the bit mined by O’Leary, he’d be less enthusiastic!)
http://www.kk.org/outofcontrol/ch19-a.html
just a start.
Well, as I understood it: