<?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"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Darwin plus</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/darwin-plus.htm/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/darwin-plus.htm</link>
	<description>Heresy! Reviewing revooutionary ideas in science, medicine, technology, and society in the light of the literature</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2013 19:41:59 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick Naylor</title>
		<link>http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/darwin-plus.htm/comment-page-1#comment-4846</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick Naylor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:37:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/darwin-plus.htm#comment-4846</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Nice, very good TS, raising the evolution controversy; indeed related - but I would say in unexpected ways - to matters debated in the other threads.

Did you know that in Europe there is a non-Darwinian, non-Creationist school of evolution - so called process models? 

Can &quot;purpose&quot; and &quot;design&quot; be superficial organizing principles &quot;emergent&quot; from random phenomena? 

Rather than Hitchens, I would recommend Richard Lewontin&#039;s essays, obtainable at the New York Review of Books website, for sharp insights into problems with the neo-Darwinian consensus.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice, very good TS, raising the evolution controversy; indeed related &#8211; but I would say in unexpected ways &#8211; to matters debated in the other threads.</p>
<p>Did you know that in Europe there is a non-Darwinian, non-Creationist school of evolution &#8211; so called process models? </p>
<p>Can &#8220;purpose&#8221; and &#8220;design&#8221; be superficial organizing principles &#8220;emergent&#8221; from random phenomena? </p>
<p>Rather than Hitchens, I would recommend Richard Lewontin&#8217;s essays, obtainable at the New York Review of Books website, for sharp insights into problems with the neo-Darwinian consensus.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: martinkessler</title>
		<link>http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/darwin-plus.htm/comment-page-1#comment-4752</link>
		<dc:creator>martinkessler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2007 00:20:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/darwin-plus.htm#comment-4752</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The interesting thing about evolution science is that it may appear to be &quot;less rigorous&quot; than &quot;AIDS&quot; science, because Christopher Hitchens had a chapter ( Chapter 6 Arguments from Design)  on Creationism vs Darwinian Evolution in his book: &quot;God Is Not Great&quot;.  Either Mr. Hitchens was being disingenuous or diplomatic in claiming ignorance of &quot;AIDS&quot; science.  I think he wanted to avoid controversy on that subject - strange for a person who may already have a fatwah on him.
In Hitchens&#039; chapter 4 &quot;A Note on Health, to Which Religion Can Be Hazardous&quot;),  he devoted several pages to condoms and their prevention of the infection of HIV.  I guess he didn&#039;t want to contradict himself - a criticism of his aimed a most of the Holy Texts.  Had Hitchens changed HIV to STD&#039;s I wouldn&#039;t have had a problem with his rants.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The interesting thing about evolution science is that it may appear to be &#8220;less rigorous&#8221; than &#8220;AIDS&#8221; science, because Christopher Hitchens had a chapter ( Chapter 6 Arguments from Design)  on Creationism vs Darwinian Evolution in his book: &#8220;God Is Not Great&#8221;.  Either Mr. Hitchens was being disingenuous or diplomatic in claiming ignorance of &#8220;AIDS&#8221; science.  I think he wanted to avoid controversy on that subject &#8211; strange for a person who may already have a fatwah on him.<br />
In Hitchens&#8217; chapter 4 &#8220;A Note on Health, to Which Religion Can Be Hazardous&#8221;),  he devoted several pages to condoms and their prevention of the infection of HIV.  I guess he didn&#8217;t want to contradict himself &#8211; a criticism of his aimed a most of the Holy Texts.  Had Hitchens changed HIV to STD&#8217;s I wouldn&#8217;t have had a problem with his rants.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
