You mean the sterling post citing Batboy. Get a life.
That makes no sense whatsoever. Are you talking about falsifiability?
Well, howdy. You said it made no sense. You just fell into the hole?
Yes, a child psychologist can undermine a 200 year old bedrock of physical science.
Do you know the difference between physical science and biological science?
How silly is that comment.
Well, now you seem to be getting the drift of the thread. That silly comment was made by Gopnik who later made this statement. "The evolutionary answer seems to be that there is a tradeoff between the ability to learn and imagine — which is our great evolutionary advantage as a species — and our ability to apply what we’ve learned and put it to use."
So you evidently agree with the Logan Gage, "Rather than see the amazing design of the world, the Darwinian is forced to the absurd position of personifying "Evolution." Evolution intended this and that. And yet this rings hollow when you read of the genius of child development Gopnik ably describes.".
>>Rather than see the amazing design of the world, the Darwinian is forced to the absurd position of personifying “Evolution.” Evolution intended this and that. And yet this rings hollow when you read of the genius of child development Gopnik ably describes.<<
That is, as I said, specious. It is incorrect on so many levels that it is almost impossible to address them all.
Suffice it to say that seeing the wonder of a child is indeed, possible for those who understand science. The statement just shows the inability of the person to see beyond simple talking points.