If anyone is worrying, it is Coyne and his fellow Darwinists, alarmed at the defection of a stellar intellect like Gelernter.
They propose “nonrandom variation”. Later: “Darwin’s idea that variation is generated randomly has largely been taken for granted rather than tested, representing a fundamental gap in our understanding of evolution.”
Here’s a summary of Turner’s views: “I can remember the day it happened: I could no longer be a Darwinist.” Hoover and Power Line are conservative outlets, yes. But there was a time when they would hesitate to get involved with criticizing Darwin, for fear of boarding Noah’s Ark. But Darwinism is j
Usually, you would not expect Darwin critics like me to feel compelled to school evolutionists about the details of their own theory.
Funny how so many people, whether they agreed with Darwin or not, got it so wrong all these years … How did it get to be called “social Darwinism” anyway, as opposed to, say, “social Florence Nightingale-ism”?
For a student of the eonic effect it is strangely ironic that just at the divide ca. 1800 the theory of evolution is born, and in the right key as the issue of teleology, banished at the dawn of modern physics in the revolt against Aristotle, resurfaces at the dawn of modern biology. The whole subject seems to falter as the era of reductionist scientism takes over in the tapering off of the transitional interval.
This is the trickier part of the eonic model: it requires careful study. In general the modern transition shows a stupendous set innovations during its concluding period up to 1800 or a little after…
Charles Darwin, it turns out, was not the first to suggest that evolution existed. The theory actually has a very long and fascinating history.