Guilty of Blasphemy, Guilty of Bulverism

We know that, when you cite design in nature and yet fail to note that it is “not really design,” you sin against evolution and its fiercely-secular defenders-of-the-unfaith. So, today we shall host Prof. Daniel Dennett, as he goes after Prof. Jerry Fodor for once pointing out the absurdity of using things like “evolution designed ?”—which are impossible to avoid if evolution is to be said to have “achieved” anything at all—without at the same time fallaciously charging evolution with having a mind. The problem is that a main concern for neo-Darwinian theory (and this is how you know that it is religion and metaphysics, not science) is to insist that evolution has no goals, no direction, no hopes, no failures, no attempts, because it has no mind. Of course. This immediately makes the “random” in “random mutation” a subjective thing we project, not something that it certainly, objectively is “in evolution’s eyes.” Evolution has no eyes, and doesn’t perceive any patterns (they confess). More » Comments: 0