Thought you all might find the following conversations interesting:
- The argument from incredulity vs. The argument from gullibility
- Dennett and Dawkins are “Darwinian Fundamentalists” — Dennett says so himself. This has a great definition of what Darwinian Fundamentalism is, and why there is a controversy:
A Darwinian fundamentalist is one who recognizes that either you shun Darwinian evolution altogether, or you turn the traditional universe upside down and you accept that mind, meaning, and purpose are not the cause but the fairly recent effects of the mechanistic mill of Darwinian algorithms. It is the unexceptioned view that mind, meaning, and purpose are not the original driving engines, but recent effects that marks, I think, the true Darwinian fundamentalist.
- Artificial EAM presented as RMNS
- Paul Nelson apologizes for misrepresentation after Darwinists throw a hissy. I completely agree that Nelson should make the correction, but isn't this a case of the pot calling the kettle black? If a single misrepresentation of a single email thread from several years ago is enough to be put on Brayton's "bad Creationist" list, what would happen if the same rubric were applied to evolutionists? I think the standard he is holding up is idiotically high, and the fact that there exist creationists who can stand up to it for years on end speaks _highly_ of the ethics of the creation movement, not lowly.
- The limits of adaptability -- there were many good conversations. I think that my conversation with Chris Hyland was especially interesting.