The Human Question

I am surprised and impressed at how well-argued much of this book is.  But the following things said by him in The Design Revolution seem quite propagandistic, nutty, creationist or a combination thereof 1. That "Darwinism" (the very use of this name is, in my opinion, problematic, because Darwin made use not only of his own explanatory mechanism but that of Lamark) makes no predictions other than vague ones about the pathways of evolution. I would reply by saying that there are many pre/retro -dictions that neo-Darwinians have made and had confirmed.  But the only currency Dembski is accepting is precise knowledge of the mutations that brought about macro evolution. He is not giving credit at all where an enormous amount is due. To make this objection I must distinguish between predictions that could have been made simply on the basis of the acceptance of descent with modifications (i.e., a prediction that could as easily have been made by a  Lamarkian or possibly ...

Call it strong variationism or strong randomness or strongly random variationism (none of these sound quite right... this is a work in progress). It makes a strong claim about the role of random variation in generating new species. It takes for granted Darwin's understanding of the role of natural selection, as that is not really where the controversy lies. And it allows one to separate the role of variation from controversies about Darwin's opinion regarding divine providence, Lamarkianism (that is, it would seem, on the basis of The Descent of Man , that Darwin himself was willing to attribute a role to use/disuse, now discredited source of variation), racism, eugenics, etc. And it allows us to contrast that with weaker roles that might be given to random variation, again without any unneeded historical baggage.