Comments on: Book Review: Darwin's Dangerous Idea http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/03/darwins-dangerous-idea.html NIGHTTIME IS FOR DREAMING. DAYLIGHT IS FOR ACTION. Mon, 23 Jan 2012 12:09:52 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: beepbeepitsme http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/03/darwins-dangerous-idea.html#comment-227 beepbeepitsme Sat, 04 Mar 2006 01:09:15 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/03/darwins-dangerous-idea.html#comment-227 I was stumbling around and found your blog. The posts are insightful and delightfully irreverent. I have added your link to my blog, please feel free to do the same if you so wish. Kind Regards, Beep I was stumbling around and found your blog. The posts are insightful and delightfully irreverent. I have added your link to my blog, please feel free to do the same if you so wish.
Kind Regards, Beep

]]> By: Heathen Dan http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/03/darwins-dangerous-idea.html#comment-226 Heathen Dan Fri, 03 Mar 2006 22:55:15 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/03/darwins-dangerous-idea.html#comment-226 I find Dennett's DDI to be rather poorly thought out. As H. Allen Orr <a href="http://www.bostonreview.net/br21.3/Orr.html" rel="nofollow">pointed out</a>, "Dennett does not so much champion adaptationism as excoriate those biologists who dare question it." Indeed, his book gives the impression that adaptation = evolution, and that other mechanisms are "sky-hooks," which is absurd. His attacks against Gould and Lewontin shows Dennett's elementary grasp of the subject. As for his idea that Natural Selection would be a universal acid, it looks seductive but misleading. Natural Selection isn't even universal in biology, much less in the other sciences. I find Dennett's DDI to be rather poorly thought out. As H. Allen Orr pointed out, "Dennett does not so much champion adaptationism as excoriate those biologists who dare question it." Indeed, his book gives the impression that adaptation = evolution, and that other mechanisms are "sky-hooks," which is absurd. His attacks against Gould and Lewontin shows Dennett's elementary grasp of the subject.

As for his idea that Natural Selection would be a universal acid, it looks seductive but misleading. Natural Selection isn't even universal in biology, much less in the other sciences.

]]>