Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Evolution News: For Darwinism, Pregnancy Is the “Mother of all Chicken-and-Egg Problems”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

David Klinghoffer writes:

Here’s a really devilish problem to pose to your favorite friend, teacher, or relative who’s a Darwinist true believer. As Your Designed Body co-author Steve Laufmann observes, the relationship between an embryo and its mother is a relationship between unequals. The embryo’s systems are not yet complete so it depends on its mother for its life. This entails communication between the entities. 

But as Laufmann asks, how could such a thing as pregnancy evolve gradually, without guidance or foresight, “when you have to have it in order to have a next generation. Nobody has ever addressed a problem like that.” No, they haven’t, at least not persuasively, which is why Laufmann calls it the “mother of all chicken-and-egg problems.” Darwinian evolution has many of those, as it takes an engineer like Steve Laufmann, or a physician like his co-author Howard Glicksman, to fully recognize. Evolutionary biologists tend to silently glide over such issues, which clearly point to intelligent design. Either that, or they are satisfied by vague speculations. Watch:

Evolution News

I’ve just ordered a copy of Your Designed Body and I look forward to reading it. Perceiving that the human body (or an animal’s body) is a designed system helps keep the wonder of life front and center. The reductionism approach, while useful for gaining knowledge of the biological details, carries the risk of losing sight of the big picture. Gandalf alludes to this in an argument against Saruman, “And he that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.” [J. R. R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring, (Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston: 1994), p. 252).

Comments
water is an ordered structure rooted in deep fine tuned patterns of particles, atoms
This is well understood and has nothing to do with what I am saying. You should read Denton to understand all the characteristics of water. But no one can predict the characteristics of water from the atomic structure of hydrogen and oxygen. Similarly no one can predict the characteristics of salt (NaCL) from sodium and chlorine atoms. Their characteristics emerged. Some characteristics of water are predictable such as it’s solvent powers because of the bi-polar nature of the molecule. But only because it is a liquid with a certain viscosity. So the characteristic of solvent is not said to have emerged.jerry
December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
04:21 AM
4
04
21
AM
PDT
you have yet to adequately explain how extrapolating from small observed tectonic plate movements to the unobserved formation of mountain ranges is any different from extrapolating the observation of small selection driven phenotypic changes (micro evolution in ID misrepresentation) to explain large unobserved phenotypic changes
It’s night and day. Mountains and tectonic changes are due to the four forces of nature, mainly gravity. It is 100% ID compatible. The fact of Evolution has no such corollary. It’s due to a complex code arising in the cells similar to writing. No explanation for such a phenomenon outside of intelligence. I’m surprised you brought this up. There is zero similarity.jerry
December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
04:13 AM
4
04
13
AM
PDT
SG, work out the effort to create a pyramid including the logistics and you will see it is a far more difficult challenge than you try to imagine. Next, micro/macro issues are commonplace and I am as used to seeing denials in econ as anywhere else: once system wide complexities and interactions come in, things tend to become ticklish as dynamics can be very surprising and counterintuitive . . . a fine tuning issue. In biology, micro vs macro, body plan level origin issues are a highly significant issue, your sneering notwithstanding. You are also resorting to repeating already answered objections elsewhere, a sure sign that confirms trollish mentality. You know that I am ten miles away from a mountain that formed, broke, reformed, pointing to energy levels, energy storage and breaking points triggering high power events. You know a typical density of rocks 2.7 g/cc, leading to energy levels available in moving tectonic systems of continental scale, pointing to potential for high force events. But all of this is distractive, you are trying to pretend that there is no observed cause of FSCO/I, no search challenge confronting blind chance and/or mechanical necessity as a claimed cause, and so you are fundamentally running away from the force of Newton's rule behind a cloud of rhetorical squid ink. Your actually observed case of blind chance and mechanical necessity forming FSCO/I is _______. You cannot fill that blank. You therefore tried to manufacture distractions from the known, observed cause on trillions of cases, intelligently directed configuration. To object, you had to provide another case in point of FSCO/I by design. You are in unacknowledged self referential absurdity. KFkairosfocus
December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
01:26 AM
1
01
26
AM
PDT
Jerry, water is an ordered structure rooted in deep fine tuned patterns of particles, atoms and our cosmos. That speaks to how we get a cosmos with terrestrial planets in circumstellar habitable zones, being in galactic habitable zones, with water bodies. The properties of H, O and the physics that allows for such locations are all involved. Front loading of a cosmos habitable for C Chem, aqueous medium, cell based life. Within that context we see H and O, with sufficient O to be material, and that they will react to form a significantly asymmetric molecule that then has polar covalent bonding giving a peculiar pattern of London forces. This enables water to form as in effect a semi polymer [that light of a molecule, 18 amu "should" be a gas under typical conditions], with gaps allowing flow, also to be a universal solvent and to form ice crystals less dense than the liquid so ice floats rather than building up at the bottom of bodies of water. And more. So, we see predictable ordering but there is a lot behind a cosmos with water as universal solvent. Information is the invisible, secret sauce ingredient. KFkairosfocus
December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
01:06 AM
1
01
06
AM
PDT
KF: Humans move rocks, even huge ones, but an artificial mountain’s worth, at assembly rates that would be astonishing on a king’s lifetime? With a wider pattern sustained for what must have been generations? KF
Except that it is estimated that they were built over a period of 20 years or so by as few as 20,000 labourers. So much for your hyperbolic rhetoric. And we are aware of construction techniques used during that time. Just because we don’t know the specifics doesn’t mean that their human construction was ever in question. Especially considering that people have lived there from the beginning of construction until now. So, the idea that we had to use ID’s powerful inference tools to conclude that they were the result of “design” fails in its infancy., and its inanity. But, since you have brought up the issue of mountains, you have yet to adequately explain how extrapolating from small observed tectonic plate movements to the unobserved formation of mountain ranges is any different from extrapolating the observation of small selection driven phenotypic changes (micro evolution in ID misrepresentation) to explain large unobserved phenotypic changes (macro evolution in ID misrepresentation).Sir Giles
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
10:03 PM
10
10
03
PM
PDT
PM1, I see Prince Caspian's remark in 55 that he put up a whole OP in answer to your suggestions. That is, https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/from-evolution-news-prigogines-self-organization-vs-specified-biological-complexity/ So, immediately, your comment was NOT ignored; what you claimed above. You commented at 10 there, so you are aware of the answer. KFkairosfocus
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT
SG, we see repetition yet again of an adequately answered claim: for record, FYI, humans do not exhaust known or potential sources of complex, functionally specific organisation and/or information. And, for both Stonehenge and the Pyramid, we do not have any good explanation at relevant times and places for construction of that magnitude. In the case of the Great Pyramid, we are talking about creation of an artificial mountain with polished limestone facing that may have been visible from Israel. Worse, the cluster at Giza with the Nile, apparently exhibits a close resemblance to Orion's belt and the Milky Way, complete with effective apparent magnitude. Humans move rocks, even huge ones, but an artificial mountain's worth, at assembly rates that would be astonishing on a king's lifetime? With a wider pattern sustained for what must have been generations? KFkairosfocus
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT
PM1, as you are likely aware, Shannon warned about the special usage of information. He meant something like information carrying capacity. Semantic, of course, is meaningful, or functional. Complex, functionally specific organisation and/or information requires an adequate source, and the only well warranted source is intelligent action. KFkairosfocus
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT
"Emergence" is a fake idea. Water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen. It is what it is. And it has established properties - no mystery involved. Order does not emerge from disorder - spontaneously. Order emerges from order.relatd
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT
Hnorman42: Very weird indeed. They insist on the idea that these emergent properties are fundamentally unexplainable, and yet they claim that everything is as understandable and explanatory as naturalism has always been. Come to think of it, they [naturalists] exhibit some very suspicious behavior when it comes to emergence. What's with the sudden departure from the usual promissory note? Why don’t they say, "currently science is not able to understand how liquidity comes about, but we have little doubt that one day …" What’s with the sudden atypical modesty in “we have forever no clue whatsoever – it is magic and we call it ‘emergence’”?Origenes
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT
Origenes @192
The whole emergence stuff is an attempt by some naturalists to make us believe that things (life, consciousness) can magically emerge *poof* from matter.
Agreed. What I find even more amazing though, is that they seem to think that if this were true that it would be an explanation.hnorman42
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT
Jerry @
Ori: There are no examples of strong emergence in chemistry or physics
So why are we talking about something that does not exist?
The whole emergence stuff is an attempt by some naturalists to make us believe that things (life, consciousness) can magically emerge *poof* from matter. Usually, they start off with the water example. Please don't let them fool you. It's all fake news. Matter does not give rise to unexplainable properties emerging out of nowhere.
The above quote says nothing about this only that the subsequent molecule (at certain temperatures) will slide past each other. This phenomenon is what we call liquid.
Exactly, liquidity is not some magical "emergent" property that cannot be explained by the constituents of water, H2O molecules. Instead, no magic is involved and liquidity can be explained by the molecules' properties.
Then there is the solid and gaseous forms that have their own properties. Are these deduced by the nature of Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms?
I am no physicist, but my guess is that they are. I could be wrong, but I have never heard that these things are mysterious to physics.Origenes
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT
There are no examples of strong emergence in chemistry or physics
So why are we talking about something that does not exist?
This is not in accord with my understanding, which is that actual physicists do not hold that liquidity is a strong emergent property, but instead fully reducible
Is this an irrelevant comment? I'm not trying to be negative here. But isn't the question of concern about being able to predict that two atoms of Hydrogen and one atom of Oxygen will have certain properties. Namely, molecules that will slide past each other. The above quote says nothing about this only that the subsequent molecule (at certain temperatures) will slide past each other. This phenomenon is what we call liquid. Then there is the solid and gaseous forms that have their own properties. Are these deduced by the nature of Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms? From my understanding there is no such explanation put forward. That is why I brought up the molecules, HO and H2O2. Maybe they are inappropriate examples? Also there are good chemical discussions on the properties of water to dissolve certain compounds such as salt or sugar but not fats because the resultant molecule is bi polar. That may be predictable from the original atoms. But only if the trait of liquidity is also predicted. There was a long discussion here on "emergence" almost two years ago. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/emergence-and-the-dormitive-principle/ The only conclusions from that it that emergence is a BS term to mean something happened but we don't know how but it had to be natural and cannot be by design. Both these conclusions are begging the question fallacies.
Please don’t let them fool you
Nobody is fooling me. It has all been done before. What they reveal is their lack of understanding about what they are talking about. They are nearly always 100% incoherent. They are walking proof of ID.jerry
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT
Jerry @178
Jerry: From what I understand there is no way to predict the properties of water from the atomic structure of hydrogen and oxygen.
This is not in accord with my understanding, which is that actual physicists do not hold that liquidity is a strong emergent property, but is instead fully reducible. See e.g.:
The most quoted example of emergence is the liquidity property of water. Liquidity is not a characteristic of individual water molecules, and yet when many of those are put together they exhibit liquidity, an “emergent” property. But is this analogy helpful in illuminating the mind/body problem? This “emergent” quality of water can be derived from the properties possessed by certain molecules that are so constituted that they do not bind together in a tight formation but slide past each other. So the phenomenon of liquidity is wholly dependent on phenomena that do not in themselves involve liquidity.
- - -
Jerry: This whole discussion is nonsense in the sense there are no examples of emergence outside of chemistry, ...
There are no examples of strong emergence in chemistry or physics, at least not according to Paul Davies and Chalmers, who I quoted earlier. see e.g. #132, #143Origenes
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT
you just eliminated your self as someone who understands science...
How so? (I don't expect you can answer this).
..and the activities of intelligent beings.
I actually think there is a limit to understanding other intelligent beings. I suggest the limit is that no sentient being can understand anything as complex as itself. I see much evidence in these UD threads that this limit exists universally.Alan Fox
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
You should just ask questions till you get up to speed.
Do you think there is a chance some ID proponent will come up with answers?Alan Fox
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
KF: SG, we can and often do reliably infer to design on sign when we have noconvincing idea of how they did the job, e.g. building stonehenge or the pyramids of Egypt.
Both of which show very clear signs of human construction upon a minimal of examination. Tool marks, archaeological evidence of concurrent human habitation, known capabilities of residents of the day, fire pits, quarries, etc. etc. etc. What does ID have with regard to living organisms? Squat.
As it is you know that after this talk point was raised endlessly, I put up again an elaboration of molecular nanotech lab several generations beyond Venter.
OK. That’s a start. What evidence do you have of this? What tests have been conducted. What papers have been published in peer-reviewed journals?
That such is on the table, backed by what Venter et al have already done…
Yes, humans have demonstrated that we are very adept at taking existing materials and modifying them to serve a different function. We have been doing this for centuries. How is this proving that what we call evolution required intelligent intervention? This is also a classic example of ID’s “cake and eat it” rhetoric. Alpha) A naturalist cause of phenotypic change can be ignored because this has not been demonstrated in the lab. Beta) Scientists have demonstrated that they can cause phenotypic change, therefore intelligent design.
…but such made no difference to the talking point simply highlights that we see objection for the sake of road blocking rhetoric, not serious engagement.
Ahh, another example of asserting nefarious motives to demonize the despised other.Sir Giles
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT
I can make no sense of this. Are you saying ID proponents are prevented from formulating an ID hypothesis by the laws of physics?
you just eliminated your self as someone who understands science and the activities of intelligent beings. You should just ask questions till you get up to speed which doesn't seem likely given one stupid question after the other.jerry
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT
There is a misunderstanding of free will here that needs to be cleared up. First, God knows everything you will do until the day you die. He does not force you to make choices. But some here believe that God somehow controls their choices. That they should be free to make choices outside of the influence of any higher authority. The truth is we all make our own decisions and God does not force us. Just because He knows what we will do does not mean He will tell you what that is. The real problem here is those that reject God claim that they will be influenced by Him - somehow. Christians are also free to choose and to make bad choices. They can pray for God's help but sometimes they will make wrong choices. Man has two choices: To choose himself as the sole authority over his life. Or to choose God and to ask for His help and guidance to help eliminate bad choices from our Christian lives. Free will is real for those who do not believe. But it is wrong to blame God's knowledge of your future as something bad. He won't tell you what He knows about your choices. You will still make them on your own.relatd
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT
And a good and safe way to keep nuisance algae at bay in your saltwater reef tank.
JoeG/ET used to recommend drinking it to keep Covid at bay (or was that sodium hypochlorite, household bleach?). So it must be safe. Though, come to think of it, ET hasn't been seen for a while...Alan Fox
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT
AF: I think you are referring to. H2O2 is hydrogen peroxide, not water.
And a good and safe way to keep nuisance algae at bay in your saltwater reef tank.Sir Giles
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT
HO and H2O2 are completely different molecules from H2O. Why?
It's hydroxide ions, OH- (can't do superscript) and hydronium ions, H3O+ that I think you are referring to. H2O2 is hydrogen peroxide, not water.Alan Fox
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT
PM1 @174
PM1: Laws of physics are relations between variables that tell us what cannot happen and what must happen, not what will happen.
Laws tell us what must happen, not what will happen? What’s the diff? You mean to say that it must be verified by experiment? If so, that is completely beside the point. It is of course the case that laws tell us what will happen. If not, what is their usefulness? How else did we get to the moon?
PM1: There’s a big difference between “explainable in light of” and “predictable from”.
No, there is precisely zero difference.
PM1: It’s one thing to say that we can explain X in terms of Y, quite another to say that if you knew nothing about X but knew everything about Y, one could predict X from Y.
No, the latter is implied by the former. If X can be fully explained by Y, and you know everything about Y, then X must necessarily be predictable by Y. - - - - edit: To know everything about Y, but not knowing that it can cause X (and how) is contradictory. Origenes
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT
So the tools of science will not explain how it happened. It was essentially a one time construction process.
Yet you can tell me nothing of how, when and where this one-time event happened other than in your imagination.
The anti-ID people from 13 years ago were smarter than you...
No doubt! And they have all moved on because ID has never lived up to its own claims.
...and understood it could happen in a laboratory setting.
It being ID? Are you claiming an ID process can be modelled? Tell me more.
They wouldn’t make the silly comments that you do
Certainly ID is being ignored by mainstream scientists.
They were knowledgeable of synthetic biology and its efforts. So pick one process and assume it worked. Even Richard Dawkins understood that.
Can't make much sense of this. Anyone ?
The rest of your comment is nonsense including the boast that you could explain Evolution in a couple of sentences.
Not a boast, Jerry. The essential idea is quite simple. Given self-sustaining replicators, competition for resources results in differential reproduction and imperfect copying of genes results in variation that is selected that leads to phenotypic change over time.
Remember niches don’t get it done so to invoke them are just more non sequitur’s.
Baseless assertion.
Humans are a perfect example of niches not producing any meaningful change where it was needed.
Humans are supremely successful at niche construction which insulates against biological evolutionary change. Not sure what you are getting at with the word "needed". Que sera, sera.Alan Fox
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT
There is no mechanism due to the laws of physics. That is what ID is about and you know it.
I can make no sense of this. Are you saying ID proponents are prevented from formulating an ID hypothesis by the laws of physics?Alan Fox
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
the liquidity of water, I take it that you do not hold that this is a mysterious irreducible and fundamentally unexplainable “emergent” property?
Mysterious but not relevant to this discussion. From what I understand there is no way to predict the properties of water from the atomic structure of hydrogen and oxygen. Thus, it is fundamentally unexplainable. Maybe some day they will understand how different electron levels lead to certain physical properties. Until that day it will be an emergent property of these three molecules (two hydrogen and one oxygen.). Even in chemistry, the properties that seem to emerge may one day be explainable. HO and H2O2 are completely different molecules from H2O. Why? This whole discussion is nonsense in the sense there are no examples of emergence outside of chemistry, just imaginative events or some physical events such as tornados which is just particles that somehow gets organized. ----------- I expect this discussion is a lot to about nothing as is a lot of discussions here. If there was anything there, it would have been discussed here long ago with its relevance.jerry
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT
@172
It seems to me that PM1 forgets about the component information when he lists the parts of a system. Note that he does not once mention information.
Yes, that's by design. :) Firstly, it doesn't make any sense to list information as a component of a system. Information is the organization of the system, how it is put together. It isn't some separable part of the system. Secondly, I won't worry too much about information because there are (so far as I know) basically two kinds. There's Shannon information, which can be treated interchangeably with thermodynamic concepts. That's different from "semantic information", which is how organisms detect signals in their environment as 'meaning' the presence or absence of opportunities or threats of relevance to the organism. In other words, there's the physicist's concept of information, and then there's the biologist's concept of information. The ID concept of information seems to posit semantic information as pre-existing organisms and as explaining them. I think that's confused.PyrrhoManiac1
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT
Jerry @173, I meant to say "strong emergence" and "with relevant cases" I attempted to refer in particular to biological systems. WRT the liquidity of water, I take it that you do not hold that this is a mysterious irreducible and fundamentally unexplainable "emergent" property? - - - - As a sort of aside: "The revelation of the quantum nature of physical reality is consistent with the understanding that information may be more fundamental than matter and energy."Origenes
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
Water properties are just prerequisites for functionality.Sandy
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT
@166
Suddenly something emerges which is totally unexpected. **POOF** Suddenly all sorts of things occur which are principally unpredictable, principally unexplainable from known laws. And the system starts to behave in a completely unexplainable unexpected way. And now you tell me that such somehow does not violate the laws?
Laws of physics are relations between variables that tell us what cannot happen and what must happen, not what will happen. The second law of thermodynamics tells us that entropy cannot decrease in a closed system, general relativity tells us that an object with mass cannot accelerate up to the speed of light (or beyond), etc. We can get determinate solutions to very simple physical problems, but once the problems get beyond very simple, predictions fail us. (We can't even solve gravitational attraction between more than two moving bodies!) There's a big difference between "explainable in light of" and "predictable from". It's one thing to say that we can explain X in terms of Y, quite another to say that if you knew nothing about X but knew everything about Y, one could predict X from Y. This is not to say that predictions are useless -- they are crucial, of course! -- but they aren't everything. Maybe I'm just dim, but I don't see why it's a problem to say that life exhibits novel causal powers that aren't predictable from physics alone; see No entailing laws, but enablement in the evolution of the biosphere:
Biological evolution is a complex blend of ever changing structural stability, variability and emergence of new phenotypes, niches, ecosystems. We wish to argue that the evolution of life marks the end of a physics world view of law entailed dynamics. Our considerations depend upon discussing the variability of the very "contexts of life": the interactions between organisms, biological niches and ecosystems. These are ever changing, intrinsically indeterminate and even unprestatable: we do not know ahead of time the "niches" which constitute the boundary conditions on selection. More generally, by the mathematical unprestatability of the "phase space" (space of possibilities), no laws of motion can be formulated for evolution. We call this radical emergence, from life to life. The purpose of this paper is the integration of variation and diversity in a sound conceptual frame and situate unpredictability at a novel theoretical level, that of the very phase space. Our argument will be carried on in close comparisons with physics and the mathematical constructions of phase spaces in that discipline. The role of (theoretical) symmetries as invariant preserving transformations will allow us to understand the nature of physical phase spaces and to stress the differences required for a sound biological theoretizing. In this frame, we discuss the novel notion of "enablement". This will restrict causal analyses to differential cases (a difference that causes a difference). Mutations or other causal differences will allow us to stress that "non conservation principles" are at the core of evolution, in contrast to physical dynamics, largely based on conservation principles as symmetries. Critical transitions, the main locus of symmetry changes in physics, will be discussed, and lead to "extended criticality" as a conceptual frame for a better understanding of the living state of matter.
See also A World Beyond Physics. I don't deny that I'm on very speculative territory in suggesting that teleology is strongly emergent with regard to inanimate nature, and that this is key to understanding how intentionality coheres with a scientific worldview. Such speculation has often been the indulgence of philosophers, even amateurs like myself. Maybe this could be put on the gold standard of experiment, and maybe it can't be. I do think that ID has raised the right issue, about the importance of taking teleology seriously in order to do biology, and has highlighted why evolutionary theory must presuppose teleology and cannot explain it. (There are lots of philosophers of biology who have done this independent of ID, but I'll give credit where it's due.)PyrrhoManiac1
December 5, 2022
December
12
Dec
5
05
2022
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 8

Leave a Reply