Anyone who would rely on a highly biased Wikipedia article without giving Sheldrake a fair hearing should be dismissed as a myopic crank. Clearly, you have neither read Sheldrake's books nor viewed a representative sampling of his videos.
I referred to the Wiki article because it's a handy summary - you are welcome to look at other sources, or I can supply some. For instance, Sheldrake's TEDeX talk contained so much pseudoscience that it had to be dealt with by TEDeX, and they realized that they needed to have a peer-review board to flag pseudoscience like his. There's plenty more out there. It's not a surprise that scientists recognize his buffoonery, and the only support he gets is from flaky nuts like Deepak Chopra.
I've watched many of his videos, and read material by him and by those who tested his ideas. After it became clear from those that he's a quack, I wasn't about to give him my hard-earned money for his snake-oil books. He's peddling New-Age Larmarckianism and seems to have missed the last 200 years of biological research - and that's widely recognized (see above).
In fact, he is constantly discussing the success of replication research on his discoveries.
No, he's constantly pretending that the many failures of actual tests of his ideas are instead successes. If you read something other than his own spin, you can see this yourself. It's a shell game (or rather, a sheldrake game).
Sheldrake's often replicated views on the mind/ body problem and its relevance to telepathy strike me as promising.
They are just new age word salad, like this:
http://sebpearce.com/[bless and do ...ss and do not curse][bless and do not curse]/
(be sure to click on "reionize electrons")
(Darn, the autocorrect is messing it up. To find it, just google "reionize electrons" "new age".
Conventional science cannot even begin to account for paranormal phenomena like premonitions.
Because there are no phenomenon like that. Every time some are proposed, and tested, they are found to be simple chance - and more often, parlor tricks. Science has been testing these kinds of things for literally 200 years. It's really easy to see this when one sees how quickly a new phenomenon is confirmed. Scientists are desperately trying to find any new, especially unexplained, phenomenon. It's a golden ticket to fame, fortune, and *tenure*. Look at how quickly new phenomenon, like, say, X-rays, or radioactive decay, skyrocketed from unknown to Nobel prize.
That's why is obvious to anyone who actually does science that if Sheldrake had any evidence at all, and if the phenomenon were real, he'd already have a Nobel prize and would be regarded in the scientific community in the same way that Newton is. Instead, he's a quack who not only can't produce publishable results, but instead makes money from gullible saps who buy his books.
As for the last video you posted, anyone who would create a video with ghastly music to distract from the all too fleeting pictures should be taken with a grain of salt.
Musical tastes are no reason to disregard what the biological scientific community agrees upon. You can get better pictures and more time spent on it by taking a class in bacterial biology at any University - taught by actual biologists who understand that Behe doesn't have a leg to stand on.
I'd like to be a conventional evolutionist with integrity, but so far I find it too doctrinaire and unconvincing in crucial details.
Really? What details do you find lacking? Perhaps those are "detail problems" claimed by pseudoscientists, and aren't actually real? If you want to learn actual biology, I suggest learning from actual, mainstream, biologists. Have you seen these courses available in audio form, at the
http://www.thegreatcourses.com/? Or go to a University. Nonetheless, - kudos for typing in the words "interlocking complexity".
- Discussions of the Bible vs. evolution usually focus on the Genesis creation story, bur neglect the biblical passage (Proverbs 8:22-23, 30-31) that, for me, expresses the principles of greatest relevance for this comparison: In my view, Proverbs 8 provides the closest biblical mandate for the evolutionary principles of random selection and genetic mutation. .......Thus, the Bible sows poetic seeds for the evolutionary principle of random selection. As might be expected, then, Jewish Wisdom literature assigns a role to Chance in the course of life: "All are victims of time and chance (Ecclesiastes 9:11). I wish I could share this post with Kenneth Miller as a means of supplementing his dual identities as evolutionist and Roman Catholic.
Yes, those are good! Another is John 5:17
Jesus answered them, “My Father is still working, and I also am working.”
God's creative process is always going on, as God continually uses evolution to create new forms of life. This refutes the deist view of creationism, which limits God's creative action to 6 days, with no creating afterwards.
As discussed above, Ken Miller's evolution support and Catholicism aren't "dual roles" - they are the same role, because the Catholic church is so strongly in support of evolution.
In Christ-
Papias
P. S. I still haven't heard you explain interlocking complexity, nor respond to the Methodist statement on evolution that I posted above.
