from The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia
- n. One who accepts or advocates neo-Darwinism; one who advocates some modification of Darwin's view of the origin of species through the survival of the fittest in the struggle for existence, or some substitute for this view; specifically, one who believes that organisms do not, or can not, transmit to their descendants anything which has not itself come to them through the germ-cells from which they were themselves generated.
Sorry, no etymologies found.
It's hardly surprising that the dogmatic neo-darwinist nay-sayers are often the same people who deny that Steorn's perpetual motion machine is possible WITHOUT EVEN SEEING IT!
I think it's a very powerful idea, but in my opinion, I think it suffers from the same problem that most neo-darwinist ideas do, namely that it is agnostic about how good function comes to be.
I'm a foam-at-the-mouth neo-darwinist, and hated "philosophically unsatisfactory" (unless that merely means that it makes some folks uncomfortable since it clashes with their mythology), but I am ready to havee some concern about age appropriateness.
How anyone can take a few seconds of video and then conclude it’s some sort of “neo-darwinist atheist” campaign?
But you, the one who said not to let emotions get into the way, can’t wait but to play the victim of “mean atheist neo-darwinist” over a few seconds of cartoon not directed at you.
I’m at a loss to understand how a Darwinist can suggest that the neo-darwinist position isn’t enough, since it contains Darwin’s theory as a subset in the synthesis.