Stumble it!All too Commonly Dense
posted in Creationism by themaiden |Dembski demonstrates once again that he is an incompetent biologist.
He quotes an article, from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, which concerns the ideas of “Jeffrey Schwartz, a noted anthropologist at the University of Pittsburgh and one of a growing group of critics of standard Darwinian theory.” He subtitles the article– titled in the Post-Gazette, “Pitt anthropologist thinks Darwin’s theory needs to evolve on some points”– “Presenting a united front — Evolutionists are finding it more and more difficult”.
Dembski’s wordplay with the title ought to send up some red flags. Schwartz, as is obvious from the original title alone, wants to alter the theory of evolution. Dembski paints it as if the sky is falling.
What Schwartz wants is not radical. In fact, it isn’t much different from the evolution I was taught fifteen years ago in anthropology and forensic anthropology courses. His quip that “Basically.. if a feature doesn’t kill you, you’ll continue to have it” sounds like something a physical anthropologist, whose classes I took, liked to say.
What Schwartz wants is not radical. I’m tempted to say it isn’t even original. His objection to gradualism was addressed by Gould and Eldridge and his ‘alternative’ to adaptation sounds like not more than another mechanism of adaptation, and it is a mechanism that does not strike me as surprising in the least.
Big deal, Dembski.
But tell me, what does this mean:
Gradualism holds that new species evolve from their ancestors through tiny, incremental changes. Adaptation says those changes come in response to shifting conditions in the environment. [This is all the opening ID needs. –WmAD]
Presenting a united front — Evolutionists are finding it more and more difficult
ID needs what opening? One that looks just like standard evolutionary theory?
Popularity: 1%
