Bill Dembski offers some thoughts on the current state of Christian apologetics

_{Denyse O'Leary

November 28, 2021

Intelligent Design, Philosophy, Religion, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

William A. Dembski Biography, William A. Dembski's Famous Quotes - Sualci Quotes 2019 — William Dembski

He asks, Is truth enough?: A look at the unfulfilled promise of Christian apologetics

A significant aspect of my work on intelligent design can be understood as falling under Christian apologetics, arguing that the science underlying design refutes atheism and agnosticism, and thus creates room for Christian theism. Moreover, as a professor at three seminaries, I often taught courses in apologetics, some even having that word “apologetics” in the course title. The non-apologetics courses that I taught were on the philosophy of religion, the relation between science and faith, rhetoric, logic, and critical thinking, all of which were also conducive to apologetics.
With this background, you might expect me to be an avid supporter of Christian apologetics, and so I am. But I give this talk as one who is also disappointed with the impact that apologetics has had to date and think that the discipline of apologetics needs to be expanded and upgraded if it is to fulfill its promise, which is to reclaim for Christ the life of the mind (compare 2 Corinthians 10:5).
I say Christian apologetics needs to be expanded and upgraded rather than reconceptualized or reimagined. What Christian apologists have accomplished in this and the last generation has been admirable and even crucially important. Except for a John Warwick Montgomery challenging the god-is-dead theology of the 1960s, except of a Norman Geisler articulating and defending biblical inerrancy, and except for subsequent vigorous challenges by Christian apologists against the nihilism, relativism, scientism, skepticism, materialism, and the other isms ravaging the intellectual world, where would we be? Fideism, with its intellectual bankruptcy, would rule the day.
William Dembski, “What makes arguments for God convincing — or not?” at Mind Matters News (November 28, 2021)

Dembski: Christian apologetics has, in my view, mainly been in the business of playing defense when it needs to be playing offense.

Note: This is a serialized reprint from Dembski’s site. You can read the whole essay at once there.

You may also wish to read: How informational realism subverts materialism Within informational realism, what defines things is their capacity for communicating or exchanging information with other things. In substituting information for perception, informational realism is able to preserve a common-sense realism that idealism has always struggled to preserve.

Comments

JVL He clearly stated what his investment in ID means to him. That is a good thing. Surely.
This is a pretty profound failure to read nuance. One can objectively identify information, and investigate functional utility and pursue its investigation scientifically, then later to one's own faith group discuss the meaning of those findings in a religious context without violating any scientific principles. It's easy to ignore this fairly obvious nuance when it serves an ideological motivation, and you can employ it as a weapon, but in closing your eyes to it you're only bending the truth about the motivations of the individuals in question... and all for what? A relatively banal and overblown ad hominem that less and less people are caring about. I recognize that it's difficult to translate between ideological languages, so I can understand your confusion to some degree, but if you want to have any productive discussion, or at least not sound so confused (or dishonest depending upon how charitably or uncharitably people are viewing your comments) all the time, it would be worth learning to do.Yarrgonaut_{December 11, 2021
December
12
Dec
11
11
2021
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PST}

SH, thanks, though that would likely be pretty opaque to most users of the web. KFkairosfocus_{December 10, 2021
December
12
Dec
10
10
2021
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PST}

Not completely opaque - most browsers allow you to open up some debugging tools which give a LOT of maybe-useful information. On windows, F12 or ctrl-shift-I usually does this. The network tab then lets you see all of the requests made (150 or so when I reloaded this page with ctrl-F5, resulting in 1.7MB of downloaded stuff), and lets you see all of the scripts etc (mostly minimised and therefore not very readable).steve_h_{December 10, 2021
December
12
Dec
10
10
2021
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PST}

JVL, thanks, God bless. KF PS: I have seen this sort of problem, sometimes, flush your computer through a thorough clean-scan that empties caches, history and the like. These days, when we open a web page there is an awful lot of memory taken up -- I see things up into the 100's of MB -- that tells me a lot of scripts etc are at work behind the scenes [and opaque to us], something that leaves me distinctly uncomfortable. (I have MS Process explorer on habitually. And of course adblock, antivirus and antimalware. Also ghostery.)kairosfocus_{December 10, 2021
December
12
Dec
10
10
2021
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PST}

Kairosfocus: The most reasonable explanation remains, that some incompatibility was at work. Which can be specific to a given machine, browser, extensions etc. And no, there was nothing above from you to fear. Okay, one thing I am sure of: you are being honest and straight. I am very sorry to hear about your family loses. It's been a tough couple of years for everyone but you have suffered far more than most. Take care of yourself.JVL_{December 10, 2021
December
12
Dec
10
10
2021
02:33 AM
2
02
33
AM
PST}

JVL, the general pattern has been clear for some years. The most reasonable explanation remains, that some incompatibility was at work. Which can be specific to a given machine, browser, extensions etc. And no, there was nothing above from you to fear. KFkairosfocus_{December 9, 2021
December
12
Dec
9
09
2021
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PST}

Kairosfocus: ou are obviously able to comment here I can now, but for days and days I couldn't. And no one, including you can explain, for sure, why. It's all just vague hand-waving and supposition. could you answer on the merits? The merits of your explanation? A vague guess and hope? Do you even know what WordFence does or is for? Have you looked at their website? You have no idea what the core site admins did or can do. Maybe my problem was just down to 'updates' (although no one else complained about such problems). But that doesn't explain why it only manifested on one thread and not another. And, bottom line, if your site updates are blocking some, but not all, commenters then maybe you need to have a chat with your site admins. Something is wrong. You need to figure out what. And do something about it.JVL_{December 9, 2021
December
12
Dec
9
09
2021
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PST}

In substituting information for perception, informational realism is able to preserve a common-sense realism that idealism has always struggled to preserve.
Common-sense realism (local realism in physics) has been scientifically disproved. What many idealists attempt to preserve, for whatever reason, is conceptual materialism - IOW, idealists such as Bernardo Kastrup try to organize their idealist models in a way that preserves local realism, in some way, even if that realism is instantiated in abstract information and experienced as mental representations in a mental reality. Dembski:
So yes, within informational realism, the tree’s fall makes a sound even if no sentient being is in immediate informational contact with it
Unfortunately for Dembski, science has long since disproved this notion. IMO, "realism" needs to be reworked by idealists into a subconscious "interface" commodity that is selecting and similarly translating specific sets of information into what might be called a transpersonal reality framework.William J Murray_{December 9, 2021
December
12
Dec
9
09
2021
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PST}

JVL, you are obviously able to comment here, could you answer on the merits? KFkairosfocus_{December 8, 2021
December
12
Dec
8
08
2021
11:24 PM
11
11
24
PM
PST}

Upright BiPed: If JVL is implying that I’ve done something to keep him from being able to respond, he needs to walk that back. I am a guest here, just as he/she is. No, never. I never, ever thought or would think you would restrict anyone's access. Moreover, at this late juncture, even the dust on the floor is aware that JVL cannot salvage his/her position. We can disagree on that but be assured I have never, ever thought you would limit anyone's ability to comment on this site.JVL_{December 8, 2021
December
12
Dec
8
08
2021
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PST}

F/N: I note on the OP:
In substituting information for perception, informational realism is able to preserve a common-sense realism that idealism has always struggled to preserve. If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to perceive it, does it make a sound? For idealism to preserve our commonsense intuitions in such situations, it needs an omnisentient God (or some comparable device) that is everywhere as perceiver and so is there to record the sound when the tree falls (God hears it). Informational realism, on the other hand, does not need an omnisentient God to preserve our common-sense realism. Specifically, the tree, in its fall, communicates information to its immediate surroundings, which then ramifies through the whole of reality, reality being an informationally connected whole. So yes, within informational realism, the tree’s fall makes a sound even if no sentient being is in immediate informational contact with it William A. Dembski, “Informational Realism Dissolves the Mind–Body Problem,” a chapter of the forthcoming Mind and Matter: Modern Dualism, Idealism and the Empirical Sciences (forthcoming)
Food for serious thought, KFkairosfocus_{December 7, 2021
December
12
Dec
7
07
2021
11:40 PM
11
11
40
PM
PST}

. good grief If JVL is implying that I’ve done something to keep him from being able to respond, he needs to walk that back. I am a guest here, just as he/she is. Moreover, at this late juncture, even the dust on the floor is aware that JVL cannot salvage his/her position.Upright BiPed_{December 7, 2021
December
12
Dec
7
07
2021
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PST}

Origenes I do not believe there has been any automated censorship that would block a post in this particular thread but not others, such would be site wide. I could be wrong but far more likely is a bug connected to updates and extensions, as has repeatedly happened. As for refuting the design inference all that would be needed is reliable actual observations of FSCO/I coming about by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity. There are trillions of cases by design but nil from such a source and search challenge readily explains why, it is no mystery. KFkairosfocus_{December 6, 2021
December
12
Dec
6
06
2021
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PST}

ET, That is his comment, not anything of substance? So far as I know from having posting privileges there is no automated in thread commenter ban. Banning, for cause, has been at site level. Thread owners can and do occasionally make manual interventions with the truly disruptive but that is laborious. This all begins to sound like a red herring led away to an ad hominem strawman set alight to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise. Any fair assessment on the merits will show that objectors to the design inference above have not had a very good case. As for the underlying apologetics issue, truth of the gospel and reason for its credibility are important. KFkairosfocus_{December 6, 2021
December
12
Dec
6
06
2021
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PST}

He could always post comment on another threadBob_{December 6, 2021
December
12
Dec
6
06
2021
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PST}

KF- the comment is he is banned from this thread.ET_{December 6, 2021
December
12
Dec
6
06
2021
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PST}

I want to read JVL's refutation of ID. This will be a rude awakening for all of us, but censoring is no longer an option. :)Origenes_{December 6, 2021
December
12
Dec
6
06
2021
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PST}

Jerry, the comment is? KFkairosfocus_{December 6, 2021
December
12
Dec
6
06
2021
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PST}

I will post JVL’s reply here. He claims he has been banned from this thread.jerry_{December 6, 2021
December
12
Dec
6
06
2021
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PST}

. JVL, wasn’t it you who recently brought up a paper by the prominent Italian biosemiotician Marcello Barbieri, poo pooing on ID? (Perhaps it was Seversky?) This is a paper that Barbieri wrote (over a decade ago) during the big push to organize the biosemiotics community so they could make a name for themselves; on equal footing with any other biologist. As part of the program, they’d organize themselves under two key postulates, which Barbieri himself provides in Part One of the paper. The first postulate was that “life and semiosis are coextensive” and the second postulate was that symbols are purely natural things, and they’d have nothing to do with ID. Then of course, the remainder of the paper is where Barbieri would go through and support those key postulates. I believe my reaction at the time was to have (Seversky?) go cut and paste the reasoning that Barbieri used to justify the second postulate. Of course, I knew there was nothing to cut and paste, because there was not another single word about it in the entire rest of the paper. That’s how you do it JVL, just cut that foolishness right off at the top. You can see Barbieri’s predicament here: 1) he’s a materialist trying to get some respect for a new paradigm that recognizes the reality of symbolic control in biology 2) he doesn’t need the blowback that ID would guarantee, which he doesn’t personally believe in anyway, but he has no logical way of dismissing it. Answer: Cut. Done. I’ll tell you an interesting story about Barbieri and Howard Pattee from a few years ago. Barbieri is a seasoned veteran biologist who is passionate about biosemiosis. He would later go on to relaunch his rocket under his own paradigm, “Code Biology”. On the other hand, Pattee was writing about symbol systems long before any two biosemioticians had their heads above water. He says that when he began publishing, he eschewed the terms and language of the linguists and semioticians as being too vague, too ambiguous, and generally useless in trying to describe the physical nature of these systems. He was certainly right about that. Later, Pattee is basically being drafted into the semiotics community (because his work and his descriptions hold up to scrutiny) and he finds himself on the advisory email list with all the luminaries of the biosemiosis community, headed by Marcello Barbieri. There is a point in that email list where Barbieri is questioning Pattee’s terminology. For Pattee, protein folding is part of the process of “interpretation”, where the rate-independent (energy degenerate) symbol re-enters the rate-dependent process that it controls. But for Barbieri, worried about offending biologists with Peircian terminology, he’s having none of it. He’s telling Pattee it would get nothing but “a laugh” from biologists. So what an interesting juxtaposition. The physicist who eschews the imprecise language of the paradigm in describing the energy and time-dependent processes involved in symbolic control, is being called out for using words he defines in terms of those physical events. And this is all occurring, in part, because of the entrenched sensibilities of biologists, who dogmatically ignore the entire issue to begin with, while simultaneously forgetting that their model of gene expression requires two independent descriptions (one for the physical aspects and another for the symbolic aspects of the system) which cannot be integrated with one another. And this is who you think gets to decide if the acknowledgement of recorded history, experimental confirmations and universal correlates, are to be allowed to take priority in science – allowed to take priority over ideologically-driven speculation of unknown objects and unseen processes? That is directly against the ideals of science and makes no logical sense whatsoever. - - - - - - - - - - - - - When you acknowledge the fact that there is no evidence against the universal correlate between intelligence and the use of language in a symbol system, you are acknowledging that the design inference at the origin of life is valid. You do not have to believe the inference -- you can always hold out hope that researchers will discover a way around the monumental problems – but you cannot say the inference is invalid. And for those researchers to solve the monumental problems, they should probably stop ignoring them. It would also be nice if they informed the public (but there is no chance of that). - - - - - - - - - - - - Here are some of those issues that OoL research has to overcome (from previous posts): Autonomous open-ended self-replication requires rate-independent (symbolic) control. A symbol entails a three-way relationship between a material token (i.e. an arrangement of matter of some kind), a referent, and an interpretive constraint (a Peircean “interpretant”) to physically establish the relationship between the token and its referent. In a multi-referent system (capable of machine language) spatial/temporal variations within the tokens are used to distinguish one referent from another. Such an arrangement has the capacity to specify itself or any variation of itself, enabling open-ended potential. This is what is physically required of the system, regardless of its origin. Any claim regarding the Origin of Life must first be an adequate claim. To be an adequate claim, it must demonstrate this particular physical system being perpetuated over time. The system can be perpetuated over time by perpetuating the interpretive constraints in the system. This is implied because the descriptions are dependent on the constraints; until the constraints are established, the sequences of their descriptions cannot specify them. When the constraints are established and the sequences describe them, the system assumes a functional condition known as “semiotic closure”. In other words, the system must be self-referent in order to function. The way in which the constraints are perpetuated by the system is by specifying them in inheritable memory. That memory must then be placed in the daughter. These interdependent requirements are the identifying physical characteristics of the type of system capable of open-ended replication. Perhaps these are the things actually important to the discussion of origins. cheersUpright BiPed_{December 4, 2021
December
12
Dec
4
04
2021
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PST}

.
UB: You have a non-intelligent source for the rise of a symbol system from dynamics? JVL: No one does UB: An acknowledgement that there is no evidence against the design inference is not something we ever see here ... we all owe you a bit of thanks for that. Truly. JVL: That I did not acknowledge.
Well, it appears that my expression of gratitude was misplaced. For well three years you and I have had an ongoing exchange about nothing but the design inference at the origin of life. I don't talk with you about evolutionary theory, or socio-politics, or religion, or any of it - only the design inference at the origin of life. So when you finally acknowledged that there is no contradictory evidence against the universal correlate between intelligence and the use of language in a symbol system, I rightly thanked you for that acknowledgment. I did not think that you would immediately turn around to recant the acknowledgement by equivocating to issues outside the only topic we ever discuss … the origin of life. I supposed I should have known better. In any case, the facts remain the same. The use of language in a system of symbols was predicted to be the fundamental requirement of autonomous open-ended self-replication. That system of symbols was then discovered inside the living cell, which is widely documented in the history of science. Additionally, as you are abundantly aware, there is zero evidence of the rise of rate-independent symbol system from rate-dependent dynamics, and thus, the universal correlate remains universal. In fact, so difficult is the problem that mainstream OoL researchers don't even discuss it in their research papers. The design inference at the origin of life is valid. (and you know it)Upright BiPed_{December 4, 2021
December
12
Dec
4
04
2021
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PST}

LCD
It’s a wonder.
It is truly a wonder. Consider the following mind-blowing story ....
If you arranged the DNA in a human cell linearly, it would extend for about two meters. How do you pack all that DNA into a cell nucleus about ten millionths of a meter in diameter? According to the usual comparison it's as if you had to pack 24 miles (40 km) of extremely thin thread into a tennis ball. Moreover, this thread is divided into 46 pieces (individual chromosomes) averaging, in our tennis-ball analogy, over half a mile long. Can it be at all possible not only to pack these into the ball, but also to keep them from becoming hopelessly entangled? (...) Perhaps none of this helps us greatly to understand how the extraordinarily long chromosome, tremendously compacted to varying degrees along its length, can maintain itself coherently within the functioning cell. But here's one relevant consideration: there are enzymes called topoisomerases, whose task is to help manage the forces and stresses within chromosomes. Demonstrating a spatial insight and dexterity that might amaze those of us who have struggled to sort out tangled masses of thread, these enzymes manage to make just the right local cuts to the strands in order to relieve strain, allow necessary movement of individual genes or regions of the chromosome, and prevent a hopeless mass of knots. Some topoisomerases cut just one of the strands of the double helix, allow it to wind or unwind around the other strand, and then reconnect the severed ends. Other topoisomerases cut both strands, pass a loop of the chromosome through the gap thus created, and then seal the gap again. (Imagine trying this with miles of string crammed into a tennis ball — without tying the string into knots!) I don't think anyone would claim to have the faintest idea how this is actually managed in a meaningful, overall, contextual sense, although great and fruitful efforts are being made to analyze isolated local forces and "mechanisms". - - - Stephen L Talbott
Origenes_{December 3, 2021
December
12
Dec
3
03
2021
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PST}

JVL:
ET and others insist there is some kind of ‘extra programming’ in cells which has not been identified or located.
It PERMEATES the cells. How many times do I have to tell you that? Evidence? Error detection and correction. Splicing and editing. Those all require KNOWLEDGE. No one knows how blind and mindless could produce such systems. No one knows how to test the claim that they can. So we can dismiss the claim. Everything know about error detection and correction says it requires intelligence. Everything we know about splicing and editing says it requires intelligence. There isn't anything, anywhere that supports the claim that blind and mindless processes didit.ET_{December 3, 2021
December
12
Dec
3
03
2021
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PST}

JVL:
Other opinions are available.
What I said is a fact, not an opinion.
Well, what do you think is ‘the varying factor’ then?
There isn't any naturalistic mechanism capable of producing the transformations required to produce universal common descent.
Clearly some really deleterious mutations are eliminated very quickly; before birth or soon after. Why wouldn’t a lion who could run just a bit faster be able to more easily catch a gazelle and therefore provide more food for their offspring?
Wow. Read much? And a faster lion is still a lion.
But, if blind and mindless processes DID produce life then their influence would be paramount.
It is impossible for blind and mindless process to produce life because life is not reducible to physics and chemistry.
I know you dispute unguided evolutionary processes. But you could be wrong. All scientists have to admit their knowledge is provisional and subject to change.
No one has been able to show that I am wrong. And evos will never admit the obvious.
What are the chances of one of those mutations arising in one individual, the other to arise in another individual and then for those two individuals to meet and create a child with both mutations?
Very small. But the chances the offspring will be a human is a given. All offspring of humans are human. All offspring of lions remain lions.
That’s how things can work in the real world.
The real world refutes the notion of universal common descent via blind and mindless processes.ET_{December 3, 2021
December
12
Dec
3
03
2021
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PST}

Similarly, electronic circuits are composed of many components, such as resistors, capacitors, and transistors. But such lower-level components do not determine their own arrangement in an integrated circuit (see Fig. 14.2).
:) There is a blueprint and a command centre that read and apply that blueprint organising every cell and that is possible only with 2 ways feedback connection that inform centre of command what stage is cell and inform cell when where and what instruction to perform. It's a wonder.Lieutenant Commander Data_{December 3, 2021
December
12
Dec
3
03
2021
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PST}

Many biologists no longer believe that DNA directs virtually everything happening within the cell. Developmental biologists, in particular, are now discovering more and more ways that crucial information for building body plans is imparted by the form and structure of embryonic cells, including information from both the unfertilized and fertilized egg. Biologists now refer to these sources of information as “epigenetic.”10 Spemann and Mangold’s experiment is only one of many to suggest that something beyond DNA may be influencing the development of animal body plans. Since the 1980s, developmental and cell biologists such as Brian Goodwin, Wallace Arthur, Stuart Newman, Fred Nijhout, and Harold Franklin have discovered or analyzed many sources of epigenetic information. Even molecular biologists such as Sidney Brenner, who pioneered the idea that genetic programs direct animal development, now insist that the information needed to code for complex biological systems vastly outstrips the information in DNA.11 DNA helps direct protein synthesis. Parts of the DNA molecule also help to regulate the timing and expression of genetic information and the synthesis of various proteins within cells. Yet once proteins are synthesized, they must be arranged into higher-level systems of proteins and structures. Genes and proteins are made from simple building blocks—nucleotide bases and amino acids, respectively—arranged in specific ways. Similarly, distinctive cell types are made of, among other things, systems of specialized proteins. Organs are made of specialized arrangements of cell types and tissues. And body plans comprise specific arrangements of specialized organs. Yet the properties of individual proteins do not fully determine the organization of these higher-level structures and patterns.12 Other sources of information must help arrange individual proteins into systems of proteins, systems of proteins into distinctive cell types, cell types into tissues, and different tissues into organs. And different organs and tissues must be arranged to form body plans. The hierarchical layering or arrangement of different sources of information. Note that the information necessary to build the lower-level electronic components does not determine the arrangement of those components on the circuit board or the arrangement of the circuit board and the other parts necessary to make a computer. That requires additional informational inputs. Two analogies may help clarify the point. At a construction site, builders will make use of many materials: lumber, wires, nails, drywall, piping, and windows. Yet building materials do not determine the floor plan of the house or the arrangement of houses in a neighborhood. Similarly, electronic circuits are composed of many components, such as resistors, capacitors, and transistors. But such lower-level components do not determine their own arrangement in an integrated circuit (see Fig. 14.2). In a similar way, DNA does not by itself direct how individual proteins are assembled into these larger systems or structures—cell types, tissues, organs, and body plans—during animal development.13 Instead, the three-dimensional structure or spatial architecture of embryonic cells plays important roles in determining body-plan formation during embryogenesis. Developmental biologists have identified several sources of epigenetic information in these cells. [S. Meyer]
Origenes_{December 3, 2021
December
12
Dec
3
03
2021
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PST}

Jerry: No evidence is provided. Only assumptions and assertions. ET and others insist there is some kind of 'extra programming' in cells which has not been identified or located. I assume you will be levelling the same criticism at them.JVL_{December 3, 2021
December
12
Dec
3
03
2021
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PST}

The Fallacy of Omission is on display here or should it be the Fallacy of Assertion or the Fallacy of Assumption which is really begging the question. No evidence is provided. Only assumptions and assertions. But the most obvious thing is those guilty of these fallacies don’t care a whit. The really interesting thing is why they don’t care.jerry_{December 3, 2021
December
12
Dec
3
03
2021
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PST}

ET:Wrong again. That has already been refuted, Clearly, you are just ignorant of genetics and biology. Other opinions are available. DNA does not and cannot be the varying factor for universal common descent. It doesn’t have that kind of influence. Well, what do you think is 'the varying factor' then? Natural selection is really nothing more than contingent serendipity. Clearly some really deleterious mutations are eliminated very quickly; before birth or soon after. Why wouldn't a lion who could run just a bit faster be able to more easily catch a gazelle and therefore provide more food for their offspring? How life originated dictates how it subsequently evolved. If blind and mindless processes did not produce life, then they do NOT have complete dominion over evolutionary processes. But, if blind and mindless processes DID produce life then their influence would be paramount. Evolution by means of intelligent design is exemplified by genetic algorithms. There aren’t any examples of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes outside of genetic diseases and deformities. I know you dispute unguided evolutionary processes. But you could be wrong. All scientists have to admit their knowledge is provisional and subject to change. Cumulative selection is for the willfully ignorant and extremely gullible. “Waiting for TWO Mutations” demonstrates why it is total nonsense. But we understand why you would promote it. Let's say you need two mutations for a beneficial trait to become manifest. (This is a severe simplification of course.) What are the chances of one of those mutations arising in one individual, the other to arise in another individual and then for those two individuals to meet and create a child with both mutations? AND, it's possible that the two mutations had partially fixed in the local population so that there were many individuals with one of the mutations so that the probability of offspring with both was increased? That's how things can work in the real world.JVL_{December 3, 2021
December
12
Dec
3
03
2021
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PST}

JVL:
The ‘arrival’ of the fittest comes from cumulative selection acting on inheritable variation.
Cumulative selection is for the willfully ignorant and extremely gullible. "Waiting for TWO Mutations" demonstrates why it is total nonsense. But we understand why you would promote it.ET_{December 3, 2021
December
12
Dec
3
03
2021
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PST}

1 2 3 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply