Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Spelling/Grammar Check, typos fixed: prestigous → prestigious
Line 9: Line 9:     
In 2005, the philosopher of science and [[Atheism|atheist]] Massimo Pigliucci, who is a staunch opponent of [[creationism]], in a book review for the prestigious science journal ''Nature'', wrote: "The clamour to revise [[Neo-Darwinism|neo-darwinism]] is becoming so loud that hopefully most practising evolutionary biologists will begin to pay attention. It has been said that science often makes progress not because people change their minds, but because the old ones die off and the new generation is more open to novel ideas."<ref>http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2008/07/25/how_much_of_evolutionary_theory_needs_fi</ref> In July 2008, Elizabeth Pennisi
 
In 2005, the philosopher of science and [[Atheism|atheist]] Massimo Pigliucci, who is a staunch opponent of [[creationism]], in a book review for the prestigious science journal ''Nature'', wrote: "The clamour to revise [[Neo-Darwinism|neo-darwinism]] is becoming so loud that hopefully most practising evolutionary biologists will begin to pay attention. It has been said that science often makes progress not because people change their minds, but because the old ones die off and the new generation is more open to novel ideas."<ref>http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2008/07/25/how_much_of_evolutionary_theory_needs_fi</ref> In July 2008, Elizabeth Pennisi
−
wrote in the prestigous science journal ''Science'': "Seventy years ago, evolutionary biologists hammered out the modern synthesis to bring Darwin's ideas in line with current insights into how organisms change through time. Some say it's time for Modern Synthesis 2.0."<ref>http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2008/07/25/how_much_of_evolutionary_theory_needs_fi</ref>
+
wrote in the prestigious science journal ''Science'': "Seventy years ago, evolutionary biologists hammered out the modern synthesis to bring Darwin's ideas in line with current insights into how organisms change through time. Some say it's time for Modern Synthesis 2.0."<ref>http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2008/07/25/how_much_of_evolutionary_theory_needs_fi</ref>
    
==Theories of evolution employing methodological naturalism ==
 
==Theories of evolution employing methodological naturalism ==
Line 59: Line 59:  
==Creation science commentary on the various naturalistic theories of evolution==
 
==Creation science commentary on the various naturalistic theories of evolution==
 
The prominent [[creation science|creation scientist]] Creation scientist Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote concerning the various theories of evolution:
 
The prominent [[creation science|creation scientist]] Creation scientist Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote concerning the various theories of evolution:
−
{{cquote|...supporters of ‘jerky’ evolution [[saltationism]] and its relative, [[Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium|punctuated equilibria]]) point out that the fossil record does not show gradualism, and that the hypothetical transitional forms would be disadvantageous. But supporters of [[phyletic gradualism|gradual evolution]] point out that large, information-increasing changes are so improbable that one would need to invoke a secular miracle. Creationists agree with ''both'': punctuational evolution can’t happen, and gradual evolution can’t happen—in fact, particles-to-people evolution can’t happen at all!<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp</ref>}}
+
{{cquote|...supporters of ‘jerky’ evolution [[saltationism]] (and its relative, [[Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium|punctuated equilibria]]) point out that the fossil record does not show gradualism, and that the hypothetical transitional forms would be disadvantageous. But supporters of [[phyletic gradualism|gradual evolution]] point out that large, information-increasing changes are so improbable that one would need to invoke a secular miracle. Creationists agree with ''both'': punctuational evolution can’t happen, and gradual evolution can’t happen—in fact, particles-to-people evolution can’t happen at all!<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp</ref>}}
    
[[Image:Image014.jpg|thumb|150px|right|[[Karl Popper]]]]
 
[[Image:Image014.jpg|thumb|150px|right|[[Karl Popper]]]]
Block, SkipCaptcha, apieditor, Automoderated users, Bots, edit, ratelimit-exempt
58,466

edits

Navigation menu