In fact it merely reinforced for him that evolution was “destructive” rather than creative.
...shouldn’t the conclusion then be “Sure, it’s destructive, but it works!”? That he would focus on whether it’s “destructive” or “creative” rather than whether it works / it happened kind of scares me.
...shouldn’t the conclusion then be “Sure, it’s destructive, but it works!”? That he would focus on whether it’s “destructive” or “creative” rather than whether it works / it happened kind of scares me.
By “destructive” he meant “not able to generate additional complexity, ergo Macroevolution doesn’t exist.” (He was totally fine with microevolution).