Joined: Jan. 2006
Thanks to Reciprocating Bill for the useful comments on Fuller, which helpfully lay out his vacuity.
There is also a comment by dave Scot:
Whoever invited you to participate as an author forgot to inform you about the “read more” button which should be used as a courtesy to other authors so that no one article takes up the entire home page.
I can only also assume that SteveFuller is barking mad, based upon the following quote:
|Once we set aside matters of American legal repression, Darwinism currently surpasses ID not in the firmness of its evidence base but in its creative theoretical exploitation of that base. The project of the Neo-Darwinian synthesis forged over the past half-century has been about showing how evidence drawn from realms that historically have been irrelevant if not antagonistic to each other – e.g. fossils, ecological observations, laboratory experiments – somehow add up to an argument on behalf of the chosen theory. |
Firstly, he conflates Darwinism and the Neo-Darwinian synthesis. Has no one told him about labels, and how they can be problematic? Secondly, it doesn't matter at all if fossils and ecology and lab experiments had been antagonistic to each other 150 years ago, because the simple answer is that these thigns are antagonistic only without a unifying theory, and we all know what that is, don't we children?
Thirdly, there is no evidence for it being "the chosen theory". Fuller would know this if he had actually carried out an investigation of the science, but his continual lack of such investigation, well, you know, its pretty obvious he is intellectually bankrupt.