[quote=“BradKramer, post:15, topic:34877”]
Does the writer make a grandiose claim?
Does the writer have the credentials to support making such a claim?
Is the work self-published? If so, is it vetted by experts who are currently working in the field?
Does the writer make dismissive or overblown comments about the work of the mainstream scientific community?
Does the writer defend her/his perspective by basically saying, “I have more common sense than the experts”?
Brad,
Thank you for allowing me to see why you seem to have a negative attitude toward my ideas.
Let me respond to them.
- Does the writer make grandiose claims?
I would say that grandiose is in the eyes of the beholder. I would also that we are discussing very important scientific, theological, and philosophical questions. That means that they have very serious implications which we ignore at our own peril. This might be considered grand, but not grandiose which is pejorative.
- Does the writer have the credentials to support making that claim?
I have made it clear that I do not have a doctorate in the sciences. On the other hand BioLogos is not strictly about science. It contains two elements, Bio as in the science biology and Logos as in John 1:1 Who is Jesus Christ and the logos which is a basic concept of philosophy.
I believe that I have good credentials in theology, and a solid education in philosophy and science. It is strange to me that many scientists, like Dawkins and Hawking, think they can speak authoritatively about theology and philosophy, but are offended when laypersons question science.
If laypersons are to be knowledgeable about science, then scientists must be willing to respond to the questions knowledgeable laypersons.
- Is my work Darwin’s Myth self-published? Yes.
If so, is it vetted by experts who are currently working in the field? Are you interested in giving your criticisms?
In the absence of a clearly defined field, I am using BioLogos as a sounding board for my ideas.
- Does the writer make dismissive or overblown comments about the work of the mainstream scientific community?
No doubt people are upset when I say that Darwinian Natural Selection has not been scientifically proven, following Karl Popper. As far as I can tell this is not overblown or dismissive. This is factual.
- Does the writer defend his/her perspective by basically saying, "I have more common sense than the experts.’? NO
My book lists a number reasons, scientific, theological, and philosophical, why Darwinian Survival of the Fittest Natural Selection is not correct. The biggest reason is because the science of ecology provides better answers to how Natural Selection works than Thomas Malthus.
It is good to hear @glipsnort say “Symbiogenesis as a critical step in the history of life on this planet is in the former category; symbiogenesis as an important ongoing evolutionary driver of novelty is at the latter end of the spectrum, I believe.”
Symbiogenesis is part of the ESS understanding of evolution and is based on ecology, rather than Darwinism. Michael Ruse documented the conflict between Dawkins and Lovelock in his book the Gaia Hypothesis.
The field is changing for the better, and BioLogos needs to recognize this. I am pleased to report that I was the first one to discuss ecological Natural Selection on the BioLogos website and hope that more will get on board.