Does anybody here believe that richard Dawkins' writing of "tiny
chance steps" in response to creationist stawman arguments is weak and
misleading in setting people straight?
To paraphrase, "it's not a theory of major chance, but of lots of
little chance steps", although valid, makes him look as if he is
trying to comouflage the strawman instead of disregarding it.
This is because he emphasises not natural selection.
~Iain
.
|
