There, fixed it.
Ahh... Evolution: The endlessly flexible theory.
Considering this article's target audience is Creationist, it's probably the most truthful title you ever posted
Well if they didnt come up with different theories from time to time it would be dogma. Somehow I suspect you dont like this any better than Darwin’s 1800s ideas(which were brilliant at the time) . It’s the throwing out and coming up with new that makes it ‘science’, or to be more careful ‘historic science’ because it cant be proved.
Do not scorn the sunken ship but instead celebrate the date palm’s sustaining succor...
bookmark
“”Dawkins is a prominent critic of religion, creationism and a wide variety of pseudoscience. In his 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker, he argued against the watchmaker analogy, an argument for the existence of a supernatural creator based upon the complexity of living organisms. Instead, he described evolutionary processes as analogous to a blind watchmaker.
In his 2006 book The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist, writing that such beliefs, based on faith rather than on evidence, qualify as a delusion. He was a co-founder of the Out Campaign, as a means of advancing atheism and freethought.””
So apparently all these various flat earth threads are a disguised argument for atheism. And the general dishonest tenor of the arguments over time then begins to make sense. Hail Satan, or Santa. Whatever.
ps : Dawkins coined the word MEME (the cultural equivalent of a gene) to describe how Darwinian principles might be extended to explain the spread of ideas and cultural phenomena.
bookmark
...specifically, when there is variation with respect to a trait, those variants differ in the numbers of offspring produced, and this variation is heritable to some degree...
No no no Mr. PHILOSOPHY.....it's "specifically" when those variants differ in the numbers of offspring produced THAT REACH REPRODUCTIVE AGE AND PASS THE VARIANT OFF TO THEIR OFFSPRING.
Simply varying the numbers of offspring produced means NOTHING concerning "selection." Simply having offspring inherit a trait means NOTHING concerning "selection".....you must pass the trait off to offspring WHO PASS IT OFF TO OFFSPRING.
...but I bet they didn't tell you that in phylosophy classes.
Oooooo.....it was published in Science......that must mean it's a piece of peer-reviewed research, right? It's not just a book review, publishied without peer review....of a philosopher's book, reviewed by another philosopher?
This isn’t an article about a book, it’s an article about a REVIEW of a book!
Creationists seem to be the best liars.
The theory of evolution is still the best model folks, relax.
“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.
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.