Thursday, May 29, 2008

Fodor questions Darwinian Orthodoxy?

From Post-Darwinist.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

O'Leary?

You've got to be kidding me.

me phi me said...

Anonymous, could you please explain what you mean?
I hope your not implying that O'Leary is so clearly delusional that her commenting on anything should be considered suspect before actually viewing the content.

Ilíon said...

I do not doubt that this Anonymouse means exactly that.

mattghg said...

There's no controversy here because, although all these scientists disagree about the answers to tonnes of questions in evolution, they all agree that whatever the answer is it can't be ID, except those that don't agree, who therefore aren't real scientists anyway.

Just thought I'd clear things up ;)

Victor Reppert said...

I think Fodor is one of those "skeptical Darwinists" who doesn't want to give any traction to some alternative to Darwinian theory, but who nevertheless is skeptical of some of overblown claims about what evolutionary theory has explained. It's kind of like, in the problem of evil debate, a theist claiming that certain kinds of explanations for evil don't work, but of course we can't use that failure to explain as any basis for a case for atheism.

Ilíon said...

Matt: "There's no controversy here because, although all these scientists disagree about the answers to tonnes of questions in evolution, they all agree that whatever the answer is it can't be ID, except those that don't agree, who therefore aren't real scientists anyway."

I'm thinking that they can't even agree on the questions, much less the answers ... but they do know beyond any doubt that it, whatever it is, cannot involve any answer (or question) from ID.

Matt: "Just thought I'd clear things up ;)"

One must rely upon the kindnes of strangers!