| Story Views | |
| Now: | |
| Last Hour: | |
| Last 24 Hours: | |
| Total: | |
A Follow-Up to Tuesday’s Post About God-Guided Mutations [EvolutionBlog]
I will now to follow-up on my post from Tuesday. In that post I made some criticisms of a recent talk given by philosopher Elliott Sober at the University of Chicago, the video of which is available here. In the ensuing comments, couchloc linked to this paper that Sober had written, the early sections of which discuss essentially the same material as what was presented in the talk.
Since it seems to me that the paper confirms everything I said in my original post, I felt it was worth diving in once again. Let me preface this, however, with something that really should go without saying. Nothing that I’m writing here should be interpreted as personally acrimonious towards Sober. I would direct you to this post from May 6 (Jerry did not post the video until May 7), where I linked to an interview I recently did with Think Atheist Radio. After looking at the list of previous guests I mentioned that I was excited to be in such distinguished company. I singled out four names in particular. Follow the link and note the first name on the list if you want to know my opinion of Sober. It is just that I am annoyed with him at the moment, since I think he is being very cavalier about issues I happen to care about.
Since this is going to be a bit long, I have divided things into four sections:
- Did I misrepresent Sober’s argument?
- Are there any scientists who hold the extreme view Sober argues against?
- Is it trivial to show that modern science does not rule out the possibility of God-guided mutations?
- Is evolution silent on the question of whether God is involved in evolution?
Let us begin.
Read the rest of this post… | Read the comments on this post…
Also check out the featured ScienceBlog of the week: Inside the Outbreaks on the ScienceBlogs Book Club
Source:
