4 ms·
Agreed. The article is basically a defence of group selection against gene selection. Quite a few of his arguments seem to be about definitions, rather than any
by IsaacL 17y ago
Agreed. The article is basically a defence of group selection against gene selection. Quite a few of his arguments seem to be about definitions, rather than any scientific issues.
His bio: "Not too much to report, father of two scientists, have enjoyed a lifelong interest in science and history."
No mention of any degree or scientific work: this guy isn't a professional scientist. Just some guy who's read some books and has some opinions.
- noonespecial 17y agoIts interesting that he pokes at Dawkins' "world view" (cosmology) because of its supposed lack of science and then goes right ahead and helps you to his own. What he really seemed to want to say was "Dawkin's initial assumptions are wrong and mine are better" but that would have been a very short article. Part of what I admire about Dawkins is his tight, interconnected cosmology. Its very succinct and free of the usual internal inconsistencies and near-superstitions that most people seem to inadvertently carry. I think that's why Dawkins is so successful in using it to expose the superstitions and inconsistencies in the cosmologies of those he debates. I'm a theist myself but find that Dawkins' work has played as much a part in shaping my own cosmology as any other author I've found who's treated the subject.