Mr. James Barham: Classics major, studied ancient astronomy.
Had a conversion, came to “doubt Darwin,” uses “nonlinear dynamics” and “condensed state physics” to explain teleology.
Human life has meaning, but evolution doesn’t deliver it.
Can’t “presuppose purpose and then talk about purpose.” But evolution doesn’t do that.
Selection can’t produce, it can only winnow.
“I haven’t studied chemical evolution. But I think it’s a big problem.”
Purpose vs. purposeless.
Minority report says “According to many scientists a core claim of evolutionary theory is that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion. Other scientists disagree.” Dissect those sentences. Is “apparent design” an illusion? Is “apparent design” not an illusion? What does it mean for something “apparent” to be “an illusion”? But this student of philosophy can’t see the problem.
Objects to methodological naturalism without design.
Irigonegaray is a funny man. V. aggressive.
Wants to debate metaphysics in science class. Dumb.