Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Remarkable exchange between Michael Ruse and Daniel Dennett

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

As Michael Ruse remarked when he gave me permission to quote the following exchange between him and Daniel Dennett: “feel free to quote — after all, I am in deep sh** already!!!”

HIGHLIGHT OF THE EXCHANGE: “I think that you and Richard [Dawkins] are absolute disasters in the fight against intelligent design – we are losing this battle, not the least of which is the two new supreme court justices who are certainly going to vote to let it into classrooms – what we need is not knee-jerk atheism but serious grappling with the issues – neither of you are willing to study Christianity seriously and to engage with the ideas – it is just plain silly and grotesquely immoral to claim that Christianity is simply a force for evil, as Richard claims – more than this, we are in a fight, and we need to make allies in the fight, not simply alienate everyone of good will.”

=-=-=-=-=-
From: Dennett, Daniel C.
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 9:57 PM
To: Michael Ruse
Subject: RE: your letter

Dear Michael,

I’ll wait before replying to you. I doubt that you mean all the things you say here. Think it over.

Dan

=-=-=-=-=-
From: Michael Ruse
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 5:29 PM
To: Dennett, Daniel C.
Subject: RE: your letter

Now don’t be grumpy – “You may want to try to extricate yourself, since you are certainly losing ground fast in the evolutionary community that I am in touch with.” — I am a full professor with tenure at a university known chiefly for its prowess on the football field, living out my retirement years in the sunshine – I have no reputation to preserve, and frankly can say and do whatever the f**k I want to without sinking further.

Now, for the record.

I am a hard-line Darwinian and always have been very publicly when it did cost me status and respect – in fact, I am more hard-line than you are, because I don’t buy into this meme bullsh** but put everything – especially including ethics – in the language of genes. I stick to this and my next book – which incidentally starts by quoting you approvingly on the world importance of selection – goes after the lot – Marxists, constructivists, feminists, creationists, philosophers, you name it.

Look it up — http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/052182947X/qid=1140387259/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-1428663-3883125?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

It is true that I condemn or at least want to point to evolutionism, which I do think functions as a secular religion – but never have I said that Darwinian evolutionary theory is anything but a genuine theory – I am the guy who stood up in Arkansas and said this when all of the fancy philosophers would not have any part in the fight, and who got slammed afterwards by Larry Laudan, Ernan McMullin, Philip Kitcher, and others, because of my stand.

Second, I have no more belief than either you or Dawkins – I call myself a sceptic because I think that atheism is unprovable, but I don’t believe in the trinity or whatever – and have never concealed this, especially not to the Templeton people, to whom one might think I would suck up.

Third, I would defend to the death the right of you and Richard Dawkins to say what you like – I would print those bloody cartoons, believe me – if Richard gets caught on that sh*t Tony Blair’s laws to placate Muslims, the first thousand dollars to his defence fund will come from me.

Fourth, I thought your new book is really bad and not worthy of you – I agree that the Times review was loaded (although funny) – I tried in my review in Nature to express my disapproval but in a way that left us both with respect.

Fifth, I think that you and Richard are absolute disasters in the fight against intelligent design – we are losing this battle, not the least of which is the two new supreme court justices who are certainly going to vote to let it into classrooms – what we need is not knee-jerk atheism but serious grappling with the issues – neither of you are willing to study Christianity seriously and to engage with the ideas – it is just plain silly and grotesquely immoral to claim that Christianity is simply a force for evil, as Richard claims – more than this, we are in a fight, and we need to make allies in the fight, not simply alienate everyone of good will.

Ok, enough preaching for a Sunday – I really like you and Richard, but my liking for you and respect for what you two have done matters not a bit with respect to what I think that I, Michael Ruse, should do – I would be ashamed of myself if I thought and acted otherwise.

Michael

=-=-=-=-=-
From: Dennett, Daniel C.
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 3:34 PM
To: Michael Ruse
Subject: RE: your letter

Dear Michael,

Funny you should ask. They didn’t publish my/our letter, and today you can see why. The ugly review from Wieseltier [[Mentioned on this blog here — WmAD]]. I attach my response, which they WILL publish (but not till March). I don’t think it’s a coincidence. I think the NYTBR is under the spell of the Darwin dreaders. I’m afraid you are being enlisted on the side of the forces of darkness. You may want to try to extricate yourself, since you are certainly losing ground fast in the evolutionary community that I am in touch with. As you will see, I do lump your coinage in with ‘reductionism” and “scientism” etc. and think you are doing a disservice to the cause of taking science seriously. Are you among the Wieseltiers? I’d like to think not, but you are certainly being pulled in by them.

Best wishes,

Dan

=-=-=-=-=-
From: Michael Ruse
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 3:03 PM
To: Dennett, Daniel C.
Cc: ‘Michael Fisher’
Subject: your letter

Dear Dan:

Each Sunday I turn with fear and trembling to the letters page of the New York Times Book Review, searching for the scathing letter that you and Pinker penned about my inadequacies. Each Sunday, with my name unmentioned, I then turn with relief to the Week in Review to read instead about the inadequacies of others. Are you flying under the radar of the editors of that particular organ?

Ever yours in Charles Darwin,

Michael

Comments
[...] Uncommon Descent | Remarkable exchange between Michael Ruse and Daniel Dennett Look it up — http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/052182947X/qid=1140387259/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-1428663-3883125? [...]ID vs Evolution | Pearltrees
March 10, 2012
March
03
Mar
10
10
2012
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT
[...] in this article of ScienceMag and gives his opinion on the issue when he says the following in this email exchange with Daniel Dennett. It is true that I condemn or at least want to point to evolutionism, which I [...]More Religion In Science « ThinPancakes
April 24, 2008
April
04
Apr
24
24
2008
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT
[...] Evolve This! I am pretty fired up right now.  I just read an article on The Evangelical Outpost website that was fantastic!  It was a three part post entitled 10 Ways Darwinists Help Intelligent Design.  I was particularly amused by a letter between two hard-core Darwinists that the author provided a link to.  This link was on William Dembski’s (well known Intelligent Design thinker and Darwinist critic) weblog, “Uncommon Descent” — yet another great site to visit. [...]Evolve This! « Johnson’s Junction
June 13, 2007
June
06
Jun
13
13
2007
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT
[...] Dr Ruse was kind enough to let William Dembski reproduce an exchange that Ruse had with Daniel Dennett about the same issues. It’s more than worth the time to read it. Ruse is spot on at every level. Here’s a few Gem: I think that you and Richard [Dawkins] are absolute disasters in the fight against intelligent design – we are losing this battle, not the least of which is the two new supreme court justices who are certainly going to vote to let it into classrooms – what we need is not knee-jerk atheism but serious grappling with the issues – neither of you are willing to study Christianity seriously and to engage with the ideas – it is just plain silly and grotesquely immoral to claim that Christianity is simply a force for evil, as Richard claims – more than this, we are in a fight, and we need to make allies in the fight, not simply alienate everyone of good will. [...]Say Hello to my little Friend » Blog Archive » Ruse vs Dawkins
January 18, 2007
January
01
Jan
18
18
2007
03:32 AM
3
03
32
AM
PDT
[...] Darwinian Meltdown Over Intelligent Design An e-mail exchange between some of the Darwinist elites is delightful reading. The way they are talking to themselves, it sounds like they are becoming ill at ease with their own dogmatic approach to Darwinism as a faith-based initiative. Said one Darwinist to the other: I think that you and Richard [Dawkins] are absolute disasters in the fight against intelligent design – we are losing this battle… what we need is not knee-jerk atheism but serious grappling with the issues – neither of you are willing to study Christianity seriously and to engage with the ideas – it is just plain silly and grotesquely immoral to claim that Christianity is simply a force for evil, as Richard claims – more than this, we are in a fight, and we need to make allies in the fight, not simply alienate everyone of good will. [...]Clearance Rack: Friday, February 24 :: hughbiquitous
December 20, 2006
December
12
Dec
20
20
2006
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT
Leftist Hostility to Religion Michael Ruse, like me, is (1) a philosopher, (2) a Darwinist, (3) an atheist, and (4) a respecter of religion. Militant atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel D...Brian Leiter, Academic Thug
March 29, 2006
March
03
Mar
29
29
2006
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT
Philosophy Versus Ideology Michael Ruse and Daniel Dennett are philosophers. Both are Darwinists and both are atheists. But thereâ€...The Conservative Philosopher
March 6, 2006
March
03
Mar
6
06
2006
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT
I'm trying to keep it clean here. Change your name to something unoffensive if you want to participate. -ds AnalPhilosopher
March 6, 2006
March
03
Mar
6
06
2006
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT
A Darwinian tiff This had me in stitches. Apparently Darwinian philosopher Daniel Dennett (who's out and about promoting his new book) has fallen out with fellow Darwinian, British-Born philosopher Michael Ruse. Ruse warns against taking evolutionary theory too far, s...Mind Hacks
March 6, 2006
March
03
Mar
6
06
2006
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT
An Exchange Between Daniel Dennett and Michael Ruse Here. Ruse to Dennett: "I thought your new book is really bad and not worthy of you . . . ." Via Keith Burgess-Jack...Maverick Philosopher
March 5, 2006
March
03
Mar
5
05
2006
07:20 PM
7
07
20
PM
PDT
I just finished reading Dennett's book. I think I understand this now. There seem to be 3 issues. 1) the reason why phd students prefer not to use common sense is because its been wrong... dangerously wrong... in the past. Slavery, the extermination of jews, burning witches, etc... were all seen as common sense in our history. People in academia are desperately concerned about supporting the slavery, extermination of jews, or burning of witches, of our time... evil things that we just don't realize yet. Even though common sense is so often right... the only way to avoid the infrequent, disasterous results of common sense, is to be skeptical, and not rely on common sense in our deeper thinking. Is this a good strategy? I don't know, but I really, really, don't want to support something like slavery, and logical/critical thinking is the most consistent strategy for avoiding those pitfalls. 2) Scientists see the equation: 1+1=2 and believe that the most important feature is the "+" because it describes the process... the pure logic that will be true in every case. Normal people see the equation: 1+1=2 and believe that the most important features are the "1"s and "2", because they are the objects... the pure logic that will be true in every case. To scientists... the process is the important thing: whenever you see a "+" it will function in a certain way. Normal people are more concerned about the objects... two "1"s is the same as a "2". This is the main controversy in the ID / evolution debate. Scientists see evolution as a "process"... whenever anything replicates, randomly mutates, and is weeded in some way or another... you will always have evolution/adaptation. That's what the scientist sees and believes. The normal person sees the living world as an "object"... lots of "2"s that have been created in some way. To them, only evidence of lots of "1"s will be compelling evidence... in this case... the "1"s are transitional species, the creation of complex cells from simple chemicals, etc. This explains why evolution is so OBVIOUS to scientists... it's as obvious as "1+1=2". This also explains why ID is so OBVIOUS to normal people... it's as obvious as "1+1=2". This doesn't tell us which is right... but maybe it will help us understand each other a little better. 3) Also... I think we each define religion and science differently. Scientists loosely define religion, as believing in god and the body of organized "common sense" beliefs that explain our world. Scientists loosely define science as the "process" for finding out confirmable information about our world. Religionists loosely define science as "blind materialism", science won't even consider any explanation that doesn't begin with materialist foundations.... so how can the conclusions possibly be unbiased if its biased to begin with? Religionists loosely define religion as the body of knowledge of our world. There's a story that in the garden or eden, there were two trees... the tree of life,and the tree of knowledge. Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge, but not the tree of life. In this sense, religion is the embodiment of the "tree of knowledge"... and is the nutrition for us... human beings / souls.. who are a part of the continuing tree of life. 4) For what its worth... I'm a scientist. I have a strong religious identity. I've become convinced that Dennett is correct. This ongoing conversation has enriched my access to our "Tree of knowledge"... and maybe brings us a little closer to understanding our roots in Eden.curious one
March 4, 2006
March
03
Mar
4
04
2006
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT
Michael Ruse is one of the few Darwinists whose opinion I respect. He's WRONG, of course, as all Darwinists must be (as Dr. Bill puts it in his text _ID: the Bridge Between Science and Theology_ "As Christians we know naturalism is false"), but he's also the only front-line Darwinist who can at least remain cordial in debating us supernaturalists. And he's dead on about Dawkins; when Dawkins publicly avers that anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is either stupid, ignorant, or wicked, he risks alienating 90% of his audience. But as I often argue, since naturalism has neither a philosophical leg to stand on nor the empirical support required to make it rationally compelling, the only real tool in the arsenal of the Darwinist is therefore mere bluster, which invariably leads him to a discourse rife with sneering and invective. He can't use logic or evidence to win the argument, so he has to resort to simple name-calling to try to intimidate his opposition into silence. Ruse's point, which Dennett of course fails to understand, is that such a strategy in inevitably a losing one.terrylmirll
February 28, 2006
February
02
Feb
28
28
2006
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT

I'm an ID-Critic who is only recently trying hard to understand the actual arguments. Thanks for posting this exchange between Ruse & Dennett. It has been enlightening for me to discover that there are many on "our side" who are making things much worse than they need to be.

sanmi
February 25, 2006
February
02
Feb
25
25
2006
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT
From scordova "ALL my friends with Ph.D. degrees who are college professors believe in evolution. NONE of my friends with Ph.D. degrees who work in the defense industry believe in evolution. " I've noticed this pattern too. I think you need to be religious to work in the defense industry so you can believe someone will help us if we actually do use all that technology. Thinking you need to figure it out for yourself may make you more likely to be an academic.jaibe
February 22, 2006
February
02
Feb
22
22
2006
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT
tinabrewer wrote: "Incidentally, I have always wondered why this blog avoids in principle the discussion of the philosophical aspect/implications of ID theory." Hello tinab, It's almost 24hrs since your post, so I don't know if you'll see this: And crandaddy responded about the proselytizing... My guess (as to the why the blog avoids....) is that the avoidance is not deliberate. It may be that discussions of the philosophical/implications are not necessary, or perhaps are redundant. Darwinism cannot escape the philosophical because the philosophical materialism of Darwinism is really the CORE of the theory! For some time, I've seen more and more and more attempts by Darwinians to REWRITE EVERYTHING: history, psychology, art, *religion*, paleontology, LAW, education....everything. The reason is DARWINISM, to be "valid" MUST explain not only biology, but *everything*. Six thousand years of theology, history, art, literature, philosophy, government, etc. etc. MUST be turned inside out because almost ALL of human history and science and art and so on was written by THESISTS of one persuasion or another. ID *does* *not* have to do this. ID is WAY MORE efficient. ID simply reports its findings: all of the the theology, philosopy, history, art, literature, etc. etc. HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE by loads of others, some of whom had almost no knowledge of the modern Darwinian "story" whatsoever. Another way to say this is virtually EVERY FIELD OF STUDY (see lists already referenced) IS ALREADY *CONSISTENT* with the findings of ID!!!! For example, in the field of theology, Christianity, yes, but also Judaism, Islam, Buddism, Hinduism, you-name-it is already consistent. Archology is already consistent with the findings of ID. History of Western Civilization..... Time for a blanket statement: The ONLY fields that are not already consistent with ID are almost all fields that have arisen from the seeds of Darwinism: Freudian psychology for example, Marxism for example, neism for example. So, in my opinion, the reason the philosophical and implications are not discussed is not so much that people want to and don't, but that there's no need to.Red Reader
February 22, 2006
February
02
Feb
22
22
2006
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT

Ruse and Dennett go at it

Uncommon Descent has a very interesting exchange between two philosophers I'm currently reading: Michael...

Noetica
February 21, 2006
February
02
Feb
21
21
2006
10:06 PM
10
10
06
PM
PDT
I find it odd that materialists use so much energy for any cause and use so much moral language. They aren't very consistent.geoffrobinson
February 21, 2006
February
02
Feb
21
21
2006
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT
Jack Krebs: there's an even simpler and much older saying:
Never do anything you wouldn't be caught dead doing
leonbrooks
February 21, 2006
February
02
Feb
21
21
2006
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT
I have a comment on blind faith which I'd like y'all to consider, especially since it touches upon an area of science which doesn't seem to directly relate to the design debate. Comets are dirty snowballs, a fact that we all know. Only they aren't. Every single comet we've ever visited has been pretty close to bone dry. When Shoemaker-Levy split up, astronomers pointed instruments and eagerly awaited the burst of water from the newly exposed icy surfaces. None came. When Linear blew up and disintegrated, scopes were again pointed, and again no water (well, no more than you'd expect from ionisation effects). Halley was observed, and instead of evapouration and sublimation in a gentle, fuzzy cloud the observers saw a few bright, intense jets. Deep Impact smacked into Tempel, and the water levels went DOWN as the plume of dry dust ABSORBED WATER. There are several other interesting features I'd like to digress into, but I'm working hard to stay carefully focussed here. Canonical science is pretty clearly wrong on this one. It should have been obvious that they were wrong a long time before Deep Impact went up, so it would be reasonable to argue that a lot of money and/or opportunity was wasted in not designing the mission around the very high probability that Tempel was going to be dry. Scientists continue to speak of comets as dirty snowballs despite the above observations: every comet that we've investigated has been dry. At this point we kind-of exit science and venture into sociology and back to the science-vs-scientism debate. One of the maxims of software development (more my forte) is the avoidance of "premature optimisation", which in this case is letting one's research be guided by conclusions rather than observations. Why were comets theories to be dirty snowballs, and why do so many scientists devoutly require it to be so despite the complete absence of any advantage to IDers or Creationists of it not being so? AFAICT, it is due to a form of scientism, the chain of logic being: in order to have life arise other than by supernatural intervention, we have to have water (even though a growing number of scientists are pointing out that water is actually an incredibly hostile environment for life to arise in up to the point where you have a fully functional cell wall). Since most of the moons, asteroids etc appear to be dust-dry, the role of Aquarius falls to the comets. Now we have clear evidence that they're dry and dusty as well, but I don't see anyone hurrying to do a volte-face. It seems that Joseph Ratzinger, who was the cardinal in charge of The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (AKA "The Inquisition"), is a much safer man to commit heresy before than Charles Darwin. Which brings us to Mr Dembski's point about Scientism vs Science. A more rational response from a True Believer would be to either seek another water source or seek another mechanism for abiogenesis, yet this hasn't happened -- at least, not to any noticeable extent. The obvious conclusion is that Scientism has a blinding effect on scientists, and my guess about a mechanism for this centres around fear. Fear is reknowned for causing exactly the same 'roo-in-the-headlights (North Americans and Europeans are urged to use deer in place of kangaroos, Africans have a much broader spectrum of substitutes) irrationality that we see here. Now I'm hoping that someone else can pick up the traces: presuming that my chain of logic is reasonable, what exactly are the devotees of Scientism afraid of?leonbrooks
February 21, 2006
February
02
Feb
21
21
2006
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT
scordova: so... which side is it winds up with all of the heavy weaponry? (-:leonbrooks
February 21, 2006
February
02
Feb
21
21
2006
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT
Tina Thanks for clarifying. I would agree that believers of scientism do have an inate inclination towards materialism.ftrp11
February 21, 2006
February
02
Feb
21
21
2006
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT

DS-

I agree that the framework for design detection outlined by Dembski is not intuitive in it's nature. But johnnyb was asking about the intuitive nature of the design inference made by most people out in the world, not the inference procedure provided by Dembski.

In fact, I think most people do in fact do exactly what you say, "pointing to a biological machine and saying machines don’t materialize out of thin air by random forces."

In the end, I was just trying to explain why scientists don't follow the "intuitive" justification for design.

Run of the mill scientists seem to be poverty stricken when it comes to intuition. They're strict proceduralists resistant to change or innovation. Plodding. If it weren't for the few great ones that ventured outside the box they'd get no respect at all. There's nothing wrong with intuition unless you don't have it. Aren't so many things in life like that though... -ds senatorchunk
February 21, 2006
February
02
Feb
21
21
2006
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT
crandaddy: thank you for the clarification of the policy on philosophical aspects of ID.tinabrewer
February 21, 2006
February
02
Feb
21
21
2006
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT

Hi Tina,

In comment #9, you wrote: "Incidentally, I have always wondered why this blog avoids in principle the discussion of the philosophical aspect/implications of ID theory. I understand perfectly the need to hone the scientific argument, but given the very nature of humans, who are driven by philosophy/worldview considerations, it feels a little artificial to avoid it so rigidly."

We don't avoid or discourage talking about the philosophical side of ID. In fact, as a college philosophy student, that's my expertise (if I can be said to have an expertise :) ). What we do discourage here is preaching--proselytizing for a particular faith or attacking one.

Nicely put. I'm adding that to the moderation policy. -ds crandaddy
February 21, 2006
February
02
Feb
21
21
2006
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT

DS-

All I was saying is that the only evolutionary force we have data for in the lab is RM+NS (excluding human interference). So that's the only evolutionary force scientists trust. I was trying to explain why scientists are so skeptical about what many feel is intuitive. I think that's a reasonable explanation for this observation by johnnyb.

chunk

What's intuitive about independently given patterns, complexity, and probabalistic resources? Intuitive is pointing to a biological machine and saying machines don't materialize out of thin air by random forces. Quantifying it through identifying independently given patterns, calculating complexity, and then analyzing the known probabilistic resources that could cause the pattern to exist by chance is hardly intuitive. -ds senatorchunk
February 21, 2006
February
02
Feb
21
21
2006
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT
ftrp11; I think I understand what you are saying. correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like you are saying that you underwent a genuine change of worldview as a result of your exposure to wider/differing ideas in college(?) If this is what you are saying then I would completely agree that such a thing is possible. I was just referring to the specific group of people johnnyb was asking about, namely extremely bright, well-educated people who don't share the intuition of the masses that life is too complex to be the result of chance. This group seems to be composed mainly of pre-committed materialists, as opposed to disinterested students of truth. But keep in mind that materialism is far more pervasive than might seem at first glance: many religious views are steeped in an almost unbelievable degree of narrow materialism, and as such are as likely to produce/cultivate materialistic individuals as is the scientism of people like Dennett.tinabrewer
February 21, 2006
February
02
Feb
21
21
2006
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT

Around the web - Week of February 20. 2006

Random things of interest from around the web:E-mail debate: Militant atheist Daniel Dennett and not-so-militant agnostic Michael Ruse square off on how vehemently one ought to oppose Intelligent Design.So it's not just me: Here's an article on the...

ChristianThinker.net
February 21, 2006
February
02
Feb
21
21
2006
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT
tina I think that you are correct in many cases. I do however feel that history and data are powerful tools in swaying those of a religious persuassion. I say this from my one personal experience and the experiences of many who recieved a religious upbringing with me and then went to college. The change in worldview was very painful for me and did not represent any prior inclination. I am not a strict materialist but definitely a skeptic. My intuition does not tell me that life is too complex to evolve in nature. I do not think that ET has the answers yet and probably will not for some time if ever. I cannot dismiss the possiblility of intelligent agency but I also do not view it as necessary or even likely. I do however think there should be a metaphysical alternative in science, and that is my primary reason for likeing ID.ftrp11
February 21, 2006
February
02
Feb
21
21
2006
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT
senatorchunk, Not quite. Here is an amusing account: Science against Evolution
ALL my friends with Ph.D. degrees who are college professors believe in evolution. NONE of my friends with Ph.D. degrees who work in the defense industry believe in evolution.
scordova
February 21, 2006
February
02
Feb
21
21
2006
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT

Johnnyb,

"What is it that academics are telling their PhD students that is so convincing? "

Here is the answer to your question.

It is: Don't trust intuition. Trust data.

What data supports the mechanism of random mutation plus natural selection being the creative force behind the emergence of novel cell types, tissue types, organs, and body plans? Feel free to expound with actual observations from nature or results of laboratory experiments. If all you've got is "well, if rm+ns isn't the mechanism then what else could it be" then put a sock in it as that's a logical fallacy called an argument from ignorance. -ds senatorchunk
February 21, 2006
February
02
Feb
21
21
2006
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply