<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Book Review: Darwin's Dangerous Idea</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/03/darwins-dangerous-idea.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/03/darwins-dangerous-idea.html</link>
	<description>NIGHTTIME IS FOR DREAMING. DAYLIGHT IS FOR ACTION.</description>
	<pubDate>Wed,  7 Jan 2009 05:05:50 +0000</pubDate>
	
		<item>
		<title>By: beepbeepitsme</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/03/darwins-dangerous-idea.html#comment-227</link>
		<dc:creator>beepbeepitsme</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Mar 2006 01:09:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/03/darwins-dangerous-idea.html#comment-227</guid>
		<description>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</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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.<br />
Kind Regards, Beep</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Heathen Dan</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/03/darwins-dangerous-idea.html#comment-226</link>
		<dc:creator>Heathen Dan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Mar 2006 22:55:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/03/darwins-dangerous-idea.html#comment-226</guid>
		<description>I find Dennett's DDI to be rather poorly thought out. As H. Allen Orr &lt;a href="http://www.bostonreview.net/br21.3/Orr.html" rel="nofollow"&gt;pointed out&lt;/a&gt;, "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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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. </p>
<p>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.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
