Home » Culture, Intelligent Design » Renowned Technology Pioneer Trashes neo-Darwinism (part 1)

Renowned Technology Pioneer Trashes neo-Darwinism (part 1)

Rob Crowther interviews renowned pioneer of technology Walt Ruloff in Expelling Dogma: Executive Producer Walt Ruloff and Expelled(part 1).

Ruloff relates how “disruptive technologies” advanced the high-tech industry and how neo-Darwinism is a science stopper because it prevents the evolution of “disruptive technologies”.

He expresses the highly negative consequences of neo-Darwinism to the advancement of medical research, advancement of science, and the matriculation of large numbers of scientists through the educational system. Enjoy!

I foresaw this. Recall, I was the one who described: How IDers can win the war. Ruloff said it better than I ever could.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

5 Responses to Renowned Technology Pioneer Trashes neo-Darwinism (part 1)

  1. Here is a direct url to the Mp3:

    Walt Ruloff and Expelled (part 1)

  2. A while back, Dr. Michael Egnor at evolutionnews.org wrote a couple of blogs about the irrelevancy of NDE to medicine. But Walt Ruloff says that the science-stopping nature of neo-Darwinian orthodoxy was a threat to “healthcare” advances. Can anyone square these views? Am I misquoting either of them?

  3. Michael Egnor was referring immediately to his profession as practiced today, Walt Ruloff is referring to future medical advances which Egnor has not yet seen (and thus doesn’t realize can exist in principle).

    Egnor was being to generous to neo-Darwinism. Ruloff, on the other had appears to have gotten ahold of some rare, candid interviews which the rest of us are not privy to, thus Egnor would understandably be unaware of what Ruloff knows.

    That’s how I reconcile the statements anyway.

  4. NDE is an absurd network of contradictory statements and sub-theories. many of them are mutually exclusive. That is why Dr Egnor and Walt Ruloff can come to seemingly contradictory conclusions. they took different approaches and, thus, had to come to different conclusions because NDE is a totally inconsistent system.

  5. Sal, I think I see what you mean. Egnor says “NDE has nothing useful to offer the practice of medicine.”

    Ruloff is saying “NDE is not merely useless, but affirmatively harmful because it supresses future research and the publication of past research results.”

Leave a Reply