7 comments on “Review: Darwin’s Doubt

  1. Thanks for the review. I always appreciate internet copy out there if and when people refer me to them. I often don’t have time to read garbage.

  2. This review announces to the reader that the reviewer can be really cute with the gimmick of the word ‘creationism’ crossed out, instead of just focusing the intellectual energy on points of debate. Here is a point for the reviewer: faulting Meyer for not precisely and concisely defining neo-Darwinism is like faulting Darwin for not concisely defining Darwinism because it took him two large books to do this. Meyer had no intention of defining neo-Darwinism as there is no one book out there that is up to the task of doing that and nothing more than that much less doing so in a concise space. Instead, he has a two column index in very fine print, and neo-Darwinism index entries take up 2/3 of one column. Now if the reviewer can give an example of just one real-world application of neo-Darwinian macroevolution, please share it with us. This application must be shown to depend on the statistical non-correlation between all of the expressed mutations giving rise to new form or function, with careful statistical proof of such as part of the pedigree of the advent of such.

    And since the ID project as far as I know never references creation, only design, please, based on this, explain the cute crossed out words as anything other than an intentional distraction and distortion.

  3. And since the ID project as far as I know never references creation, only design, please, based on this, explain the cute crossed out words as anything other than an intentional distraction and distortion.

    It’s well-known and well-established that “the ID project” is thinly-disguised creationism. I’m somewhat surprised that you aren’t aware of this.

    Now if the reviewer can give an example of just one real-world application of neo-Darwinian macroevolution, please share it with us.

    Is this because you don’t know how google works? Or you’re just lazy? Or what? I’d need a good reason to do research on your behalf before I spend an afternoon doing so.

  4. Show us the thin disguise please. Thomas Nagel in “Mind and Cosmos” certainly does not reference creationism in any way. This atheist philosopher, the most famous U.S. academic scholar in the field, in the book has quite favorable things to say about the ID project, quotes not necessary around those 3 words BTW.

    Now what has happened here is what always happens with you guys. Posing the question “Or you’re just lazy” is another example of throwing up a personal reference, perhaps a thinly disguised cover for contempt instead of interest in reasoned debate.

    So then we are left with the remark “Meyer also ignores the success of Evolutionary Biology in all other spheres….”. Now I’m asking you to not ignore “the success of Evolutionary Biology in all other spheres”, reasonably I think. Since you imply that you know that there is real world success here, please share with us an everyday application of this science in the sphere of macroevolution as evidence of success. Not asking for an afternoon of work, just tell us what you know. And if you would, maybe avoid getting personal.

  5. This atheist philosopher, the most famous U.S. academic scholar in the field, in the book has quite favorable things to say about the ID project

    This is entirely irrelevant: selecting a single source doesn’t demonstrate anything. Nagel doesn’t represent any sort of consensus on this.

    quotes not necessary around those 3 words BTW.

    Quotes are necessary when quoting people. Writing 101.

    Posing the question “Or you’re just lazy” is another example of throwing up a personal reference, perhaps a thinly disguised cover for contempt instead of interest in reasoned debate.

    So show me the attempt you made to find this information. Show me the google searches that failed to turn up things. Show me that you bothered.

    “Reasoned debate” is only possible between two informed individuals: show me that you are informed. Show me that you are prepared to actually do some research.

    In short: show me that you are acting in good faith, rather than just requiring me to spend time digging up things that you are going to ignore. Or be blocked. Your call.

Leave a Reply