GaryGaulin
Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012
|
Get your free Royal Society teething biscuits here!
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content....0151019
| Quote | Reciprocal causation (organisms shape, and are shaped by, selective and developmental environments). Developmental processes, operating
through developmental bias and niche construction, share with natural
selection some responsibility for the direction and rate of evolution and
contribute to organism–environment complementarity |
And circles around circles, in a most peculiar way. Oh my!
Their having to make the “mutation” and “selection” thinking fit into the logical structure of their theory caused the expected mess everywhere else. But it's at least a good start towards the Theory of Intelligent Design that the ID movement already has working for it. With all said: to the ID movement it's the same thing as the Royal Society in our favor using the tactic of going slow enough none panic during the transition, to a computer model backed view sorting that out better another way and without “natural selection” variables mucking things up either.
This also goes with what I earlier said about “evolutionary theory” not being the private domain of Darwinian theory. ID theory can just as well in time dominate that teaching area, without “ID” ever being mentioned in the classroom. ID entering science from the top science journals on down should look like that. In this case what makes it in part Darwinian and what is not was well enough stated by saying “with the integration of Darwinian natural selection, population-level thinking and Mendelian inheritance,” so I have no complaints there.
No protest or arguing anything is even necessary. UD News was not impressed in a short but sweet “come back when you have something better” sort of way then left it at that. They're on the same wavelength. I must from here say “Thanks!” for bringing that one to my attention. That message served the ID community. It's certainly something I needed to know about.
All signals are that the ID is fine with whatever the Darwinian camp settles on. Only thing for sure it will not be long till there are calls for another rethink then it becomes something else anyway. Why even bother keeping track of them all. So with none overly caring what comes next I might as well recommend what the Royal Society saw fit to print. It honestly is better than anything else I have yet seen. And has this like slippery slope in a few areas where watching all who may later slide-by into the proverbial abyss has entertainment value in the ID camp. The perfect song to go along with that type of action is AC/DC - Who Made Who cranked up loud.
--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
|
