Wow....it merited a brow raise? OK....ONE brow is raised at the headline and the fantastical claim made.
Posted on 10/20/2009 8:22:18 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Oct 16, 2009 — It’s called “a fresh theoretical framework” but it undermines the popular conception of natural selection. It’s called a “dense and deep work on the foundations of evolutionary biology” but it criticizes as simplistic and false the ideas of Richard Dawkins, one of the most outspoken proponents of natural selection as “the greatest show on earth.” It produces a new scheme for how natural selection works, but raises more questions than it answers. What is it? It’s a new book by Harvard philosopher Peter Godfrey-Smith, Darwinian Populations and Natural Selection (Oxford, 2009), reviewed mostly positively by Jay Odenbaugh in Science.1
Odenbaugh is in the philosophy department of Lewis and Clark College, Oregon. Get ready to jettison your “classical” concepts of fitness, selection and reproductive success. Unload your simplistic ideas of gene selection, individual selection and group selection. Prepare to see Richard Dawkins demoted from his status as a leading spokesman for modern Darwinism. In his first paragraph, Odenbaugh clears the deck to get ready for the “fresh” ideas of Godfrey-Smith: ...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
” For example, contrary to Richard Dawkins, many instances of genic selection are instances of scaffolded reproduction of genes by cells, and evolutionary models are ultimately representing selection of organisms via their genetic properties. Often (though not always), when we treat genes as evolutionary units we imbue evolutionary biology with an “agential” framework involving agents, goals, strategies, and purposes that can corrupt the foundations of evolutionary biology.”
“many”,,, not all
“Often (though not always)”
“that can corrupt” “can” does not mean that they do.
“is this new work compatible with the old?” Not answered.
” Godfrey-Smith and others have argued that there is a role in evolutionary biology for “functional” notions.”
How big a role? Not answered. The author seems to be jumping to a lot of conclusions.
They reviewed it, and tossed it in the c-file, where it belongs.
It was published in “Nature” not “Science.”
“Nature” does publish a lot of philosophy without the rigid requirements of other periodicals. It does not promote itself as a scientific journal - it’s a magazine for entertainment and a lot of gee-whizzing.
That said, the CEH clip (they don’t actually have articles just sound bite sized snippets) doesn’t say anything of value for criticism. It’s just a brow raise and a move along.
More like surrounding the truth with a shell of ignorance.
It's endlessly evolving. And in the evolutionist's world of faith in "the unseen", that in itself probably proves the theory.
I just don't have that kind of faith.
I'm driving at your misrepresentation of the truth, once again.
“Often (though not always), when we treat genes as evolutionary units we imbue evolutionary biology with an ‘agential’ framework involving agents, goals, strategies, and purposes that can corrupt the foundations of evolutionary biology.”
We can, because that’s the easiest way to explain it. However, I don’t see that as particularly dangerous. Are people really all that likely to imbue genes with agency? Genes, for pete’s sake? I’d have thought one of the reasons evolutionists focused in on genes like a laserbeam in their technical and popular writings was to erase any sense of agency in the process. People are far more likely to think of genes as neutral parties to the process than organisms as such.
Thanks for the ping!
What truth, in your opinion, is being misrepresented, Mr. Moonman?
But the most of us take the position that it's the best "theory", not fact, and that the overwhelming preponderance of evidence suggests that it's a good theory.
On the second part, I maintain that evolution does not prove that God doesn't exist - as nothing can prove that negative. It's entirely possible God created evolution as His means of "creation". And logical as well.
Most of GGG's rants against evolution seem to be against exactly the argument you postulated.
If there's actually science in them, they should be published. If it's belief, another venue might be more appropriate.
Wow....it merited a brow raise? OK....ONE brow is raised at the headline and the fantastical claim made.
GGGs and I are complete opponents on creationism/ID ,I agree with your last reply.
But I agree that atheists are trying to spread their ‘God doesnt exist’ religion. If evolution was ‘fact’ as atheists claim, it would be dogma. That is because it is many of their dogma.
see new tagline
A book review by a philosophy professor with a philosophy degree from a Christian University (Belmont)? I’ll give GGG’s heroes credit - they are thorough. How they weed through the thousands of articles to find the few to twist for their gain is impressive.
And silly.
...and oh so true!
One brow makes it a dubious claim - two brows raised and you’ve probably been startled by a rat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.