Over at the Biologic Institute, Gauger has given the first response from an author to my review of Science and Human Origins. Unfortunately, despite being cross-posted there and on ENV, comments on both forums are disabled so I shall make my response to her here.
In her response Gauger tells us:
Mr. McBride doesn’t like using cars as an example of design versus common descent, even though another evolutionary biologist once used it as an analogy for evolution. The car analogy was a throw-away comment in my piece, not intended as a serious model for anything.
So, an apparently flippant analogy is it the first issue she decides to defend. The chapter lacked a serious attempt to make the same point, so while the car analogy was brief it was clearly intended to make a point. Here’s what she wrote in Chapter 1:
For most biologists, similarity is assumed to confirm that humans and chimps are linked together by common ancestry. This assumption underlies all evolutionary reasoning. But note that similarity of structure or sequence cannot confirm common descent by itself. “Mustang” and “Taurus” cars have strong similarities, too, and you could argue that they evolved from a common ancestor, “Ford.” But the similarities between these cars are the result of common design, not common ancestry
My point in response – Gauger doesn’t actually quote anything I say, so I will have to – was quite straightforward:
Is the Ford example a fair assessment of similarity in biology? In fact, designed objects do not usually form a nested hierarchy in the way that species do under common descent. This is because there are fewer constraints on designed objects that there are on biological ones.
Hmmm. Are there really fewer constraints on designed objects? Some of us suspect McBride is wrong about that.
There are many constraints on (humanly) designed objects that would never apply in nature, whether the object is considered to be designed or not.
Your country may, for example, have a law against using Product A in the manufacture of a vehicle, because it is at war with the country that is the primary producer, so you must use Product B and pretend it is just as good, even though it isn’t. You may even be expected to help pay for advertising campaigns disseminating the false information that Product B is better. You may be forbidden to have women working at your plant because the national religion says that women should remain in the home, covered up, even though, historically, many positions in the industry have usually been staffed by women.
Wherever humans are the designers, there is a risk of irrelevant or irrational considerations becoming common and normal, considered as necessities. In fact, human design, when it works, is the best evidence for divine providence, rising above all the stupid noise. This is yer religion jaw fer the week, unless something better turns up.
See also: Ann, Darwinists dispute whatever they need to , like used car salesmen defending a lemon you bought.
More from Ann Gauger on wy humans didn’t happen the way Darwin said.
Science and Human Origins conclusion: It IS possible we came from just two parents
Adam and Eve could be real?: Genes’ introns and exons tell different stories here. Who to believe?
Adam and Eve possible?: Ayala’s contrary claim built in favourable assumptions
Breaking: Adam and Eve are scientifically possible