Reed A. Cartwright posted Entry 3050 on April 10, 2007 12:22 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/3040
Two weeks ago, I demonstrated to Dr. Michael Egnor that his knowledge of early molecular genetics was severely flawed. He responded yesterday, calling me a “pseudo-Darwinist” because those experiments involved, according to him, “designed” variation and “artificial” selection, not random “undesigned” variation and “natural” selection.
He is of course wrong about the experiments, but his rantings about pseudo-Darwinism bring up an interesting point: Egnor himself is a “pseudo-Darwinist”, drawing an absolute dichotomy between natural and artificial selection when it suits him and blurring the two when it doesn’t. Eugenics, according to Egnor, is both the “single incontrovertible Darwinian contribution to the field of medical genetics” (3/28) and the “antithesis of Darwin’s theory” (4/9). But such rhetorical contradictions are what we have come to expect from creationists and ID activists.
For a more detailed trip to the woodshed you can read the following two posts.
Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.