> As for the site, this claim is preposterous:
> 
> "For Darwinism suggests that any matter can potentially morph into any other arrangement of matter without the aid of an organizing principle. "-I have to fully agree with you on that sentence. I was skimming the paper last night before posting it, and missed that statement.-
> Further, evolution as described by Pigliucci and other molecular biologists, identify the genome as the organizing principle. This wasn't available to Darwin, but the author conveniently ignores this. If the Central Dogma is true, then all genes map to specific proteins which all should manifest some phenotypical change in an organism. -Some genes, HOX particularly are organizing genes, not protein specific. We still have the problem of punctuated equilibrium to solve. It does look as if some 'morphing' is going on in the large jumps in phenotype that seem to occur.Jeffrey Schwarz, "Sudden Origins" 1999, is a very thorough discussion of this,as his title indicates.


> As for the site, this claim is preposterous:
> 
> "For Darwinism suggests that any matter can potentially morph into any other arrangement of matter without the aid of an organizing principle. "
> 
> This is a gross mis-characterization. Evolutionary theory says that each generation of an organism is a micro-step towards some future state. Fossils, you, me--all of life living right now at this time are snapshots. We share characteristics, but just as language never stays the same over grand scales of time, neither do genomes, and thus phenotype. 
> 
> Further, evolution as described by Pigliucci and other molecular biologists, identify the genome as the organizing principle. This wasn't available to Darwin, but the author conveniently ignores this. If the Central Dogma is true, then all genes map to specific proteins which all should manifest some phenotypical change in an organism. 
> -Yes, to a certain extent I agree with your argument here, and agree that, to a certain extent, the statement from the article is wrong. However, your argument begs a regressing question that makes the argument in the article valid again. 
"If the Genome is the organizing principle, what was the organizing principle that organized the Genome?" I know that if you argue this back far enough you fall out of the realm of Darwinistic Evolution and into biogenesis and chemical behavior, but as an anti-theist/ID argument they do tend to fall into the same category. That would be the point where the argument posited in the article gains some credibility. IF all life sprang randomly from a chemical cocktail, then saying "..any matter can potentially morph into any other arrangement of matter without the aid of an organizing principle," is no different than saying life emerged here on Earth because of random chance, which is what I think they were driving at; the origins, not necessarily evolution as accepted as a 'after the fact' process, which most theist actually do accept and agree with to a certain extent.