Publié dans reactions à janvier 30, 2006 | Laisser un commentaire »
Michael J. Farrand in his comment at “William Dembski’s “Case for Intelligent Design” speech“, points me to his poem “THE ONLY PROBLEM WITH EVOLUTION“.
God’s creatures burst perfectly onto the sceneThen stay that way ever, not changing a gene.
If Michael Farrand could bring evidence of a single organism that doesn’t mutate I would certainly need [...]
Publié dans comments à janvier 29, 2006 | 3 Commentaires »
Nevertheless, it is on this point that I would like to cite the famous text of John Paul II on Evolution where he says that
“ recent findings lead us to recognize that the theory of evolution is more than a hypothesis ”.
It is very significant that the Darwinians, Christian or not, frequently cite this [...]
Publié dans comments à janvier 29, 2006 | Laisser un commentaire »
With Tom Bethell’s characterization of darwinism as a tautology and the Milton Keynes bug I some how deviated from my original goal which is commenting the quotations used by Jean Staune in his paper. There are a few ones that are worth commenting, so I will finish with that part.
Roberto Fondi, paleontologist, Professor at the [...]
Publié dans reactions à janvier 27, 2006 | Laisser un commentaire »
Science, evolution, creation, design and nature are the key terms to be analyzed on critics of the evolutionary naturalism, according to William Dembski who is proposing the addition of the two last ones, design and nature, to the list initially proposed by Phillip Johnson. Is that all? No!
“There’s a sixth term that could have been [...]
Publié dans notquiteinfocus, open letter à janvier 26, 2006 | 1 commentaire »
Just received an em-mail by Jean Staune laughing with my error. I hope he enjoyed it as much as myself. After finishing laughing I searched for the source of the error. Well, while analyzing the text to transform it to a small database to prepare my comments in it, the soft transformed the closest name-like [...]
Publié dans comments, point of view à janvier 26, 2006 | Laisser un commentaire »
This is probably the one of the comments I prefer; staring by an apparently simple phrase and being quit complicated.
Jean Staune cites Remy Chauvin taking up the idea of Tom Bethell:
… for whom Darwinism is a tautology (it predicts the survival of the fittest. But which are the fittest? Those that survive!)
Let’s assume that Darwinism [...]
Publié dans comments à janvier 26, 2006 | Laisser un commentaire »
Michael Denton goes even further. On the basis of a reasoning identical to that of de Duve and Conway Morris, he considers that the laws of biochemistry weigh more heavily on evolution than de Duve and Conway Morris think. He develops many arguments according to which evolution must not only lead to consciousness when complexity [...]
Publié dans comments à janvier 26, 2006 | 1 commentaire »
Simon Conway Morris is quoted twice and heavily reported and interpreted. I wondered if Jean Staune discussed those issues with Conway Morris himself, or if this is his own interpretations; I suspect the latter is true.
This entry is a little bit more complexe then the other “citations commented”. We are here at a central point [...]
Publié dans comments à janvier 26, 2006 | Laisser un commentaire »
For Christian de Duve, biochemical laws produce constraints so strict that chance is channeled and that appearance of Life, and even of consciousness occurs necessarily several times in the Universe:
“According to the theory which I defend, it is in the very nature of Life to generate intelligence everywhere and (as soon as) the necessary [...]
Jean Staune : citations commented #18
Publié dans comments à janvier 29, 2006 | Laisser un commentaire »
This is the last extract of Jean Staune’s paper I’ll comment, and this isn’t about a quote by about his conclusions.
However, once we have demonstrated the existence of numerous non Darwinian alternatives, there is, nevertheless, one question which remains: the neo-Darwinians who have divided themselves into several schools of thought are still currently largely dominant [...]
Lire l'intégralité de l'article »