Evolution Intelligent Design

Douglas Axe vs Joshua Swamidass…

Spread the love

Seen from Douglas Axe’s perspective:

In a recent dialogue with paleontologist and ID proponent Gunter Bechly, Washington University computational biologist Joshua Swamidass zeroed in on his main complaints about intelligent design. The venue was Justin Brierley’s podcast Unbelievable? I get top billing in this department. First and foremost, Swamidass dislikes the “confrontational approach” that he thinks I promote and exemplify, along with other ID proponents. In his words: “Doug Axe in Undeniable and also in the recent Crossway book on theistic evolution talks about how there’s a need to have a confrontational approach to evolutionary science.”

“Even if ID is correct,” he continues, “I think a conversational approach is better than a confrontational approach.”

The proper role and form of confrontation in dialogue is worth discussing, so I thank Joshua for bringing the subject up. In short, if by confrontation we mean calling someone to account on a false claim by presenting evidence of its falsehood, then surely everyone who values the truth ought to be in favor of it. Understood that way, confrontation has nothing to do with bullying or vilifying. It’s about setting the record straight, which certainly shouldn’t be at odds with productive conversation.

In fact, Joshua’s comments call for an example of constructive confrontation. Contrary to what he said, I don’t actually talk about the need to have a confrontational approach. Rather, he seems to be misconstruing a section from my contribution to

Theistic Evolution. Douglas Axe, “Confronting Joshua Swamidass on Confrontation” at Evolution News and Science Today (July 22, 2021)

Well, he would be, wouldn’t he? Make coffee. Never do this without coffee.

4 Replies to “Douglas Axe vs Joshua Swamidass…

  1. 1
    kllrDogThermo says:

    I believe that we need to be a little stronger and not just confront it, but mock it. The idea of evolution actually is ridiculous at best when you look the shear magnitude of the design and complexity of life. It is incredulity in reverse. “Nano bots? Evolution can handle that! Armies of bots working together exhibiting purpose? Sure, no problem!” But what complexity level would they admit evolution is incapable of achieving? There is none, so the truth is the basis of their belief is not from science but is based on their philosophical beliefs predominantly in naturalism and atheism. They twist science to such a degree that much of what they present is pure garbage. We need to mock them for this and show how utterly unscientific are their beliefs!

  2. 2
    ET says:

    The “confrontational approach” is just making scientists support their claims. Meaning it is only confrontational if you can’t. Bluffers hate being called on their unsupportable claims.

  3. 3

    Darwinian evolution is already dead as a scientific theory, but it continues to live, even thrive, as an atheist religion. It is a philosophical worldview masquerading as science.

  4. 4
    zweston says:

    Neo-Darwinism fails as a scientific theory

    It is not Observable (we haven’t witnessed the change of kinds in any form)
    It is not repeatable in scientific experiments (only adaptation of an existing kind)
    It is not falsifiable..hence all the articles leaving scientists “shocked” and leaves them to come up with another just so story
    It is not predictable…only that it usually predicts it wrong.
    It is not fruitful… other than the multitude of deaths from eugenics..and those in other scientific fields don’t rely on evolutionary theory to do what they do. Certainly not doctors.

    Oh that the blind would see, and those who struggle with this theory would be liberated from the nonsense of it. Neo-Darwinism kills!

Leave a Reply