Darwinism Intelligent Design

Michael Egnor: Evolution presupposes design – the COVID 19 edition

Spread the love
COVID-19
A coronavirus, by CDC/ Alissa Eckert, MS; Dan Higgins, MAM / Public domain.

Responding to Darwinist PZ Myers about natural selection and the coronavirus:

In terms of our present viral pandemic, what Myers and other Darwinists claim is that all life’s diversity arose by the same mechanism that this pandemic arose — chance mutation and undirected reproductive wildfire. In other words, to Myers, evolution is pandemics, all the way down. Randomness and survival of survivors explains all.

Yet a careful look at the coronavirus shows why viral evolution is not an example of evolution of new species nor an example of how life’s complexity evolves. It is doubtful that a virus is even a living thing. The coronavirus is essentially a non-living parasite. It depends wholly on the biological mechanisms of immeasurably more complex living organisms — us and bats — to persist and replicate. Without humans (or bats), coronavirus disintegrates in hours or days.

Whatever its exact (as yet unknown) lethality, the coronavirus doesn’t succeed when it kills. A virus that kills its individual host has failed, because the virus disappears if its host dies. Viruses need living hosts for their very existence. The coronavirus does kill some hosts, but since hosts usually survive it is on the whole “successful.” And if a virus isn’t alive, then viral mutation and differential reproduction is not an example of the evolution of life anyway. The coronavirus’s evolution — the pandemic — depends on the living specified complexity of humans and bats. Intelligent design in nature is the prerequisite for all natural selection — nature without teleology would be chaos, and no evolution at all.

Michael Egnor, “Evolution Presupposes Intelligent Design: Case of the Coronavirus” at Evolution News and Science Today

Now that he mentions it, Darwinism—without design in nature— probably couldn’t even produce viable viruses.

14 Replies to “Michael Egnor: Evolution presupposes design – the COVID 19 edition

  1. 1
    Seversky says:

    So, according to Egnor, a neurosurgeon who understands evolution better than an evolutionary biologist:

    The evolution of the COVID-19 virus is a clear and terrible example of the undeniable teleology in nature.

    So the designer/creator/whatever responsible for COVID-19 could also have been behind the Black Death, Spanish flu and many other pandemics that have afflicted the human race throughout its history? And we are supposed to believe that this being nonetheless has our best interests at heart? We are supposed to bow down to it, worship it and sing its praises?

    What would we say of a neurosurgeon who killed a number of his patients because he thought they deserved it and because, in his view, it was in the best interests of the patients he allowed to live?

    I know what I would say. In both cases.

  2. 2

    We need some new atheists. The ones we have are all worn out.

  3. 3
    AaronS1978 says:

    I Answered this in a previous post I see that it was ignored. 🙁

  4. 4
    Truthfreedom says:

    @1 Seversky

    What would we say of a neurosurgeon who killed a number of his patients because he thought they deserved it and because, in his view, it was in the best interests of the patients he allowed to live?

    You despise abortion then? Doctors that kill babies because he think they deserve it.

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    Upright BiPed

    We need some new atheists. The ones we have are all worn out.

    Actually,,, we need some ‘old atheists’, not any more of the ‘new’ ones,

    The old atheism is based on logic, argumentation, counter-examples, and is primarily aimed at scholars. The new atheism is the opposite of this. Rather than being based on logical argumentation, sound reasoning, and dealing with typical theistic arguments, the new atheism is an assault of rhetoric aimed at a popular audience. Some of the more well-known new atheists are Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens. These four are known as the Four Horsemen (a play on the biblical four horsemen of the Book of Revelation).
    Paul Copan says of the new atheists, “Rather than sticking to rational, carefully reasoned arguments, they have taken off the gloves to launch angry, sarcastic, and sloppily argued attacks.” [3],,, writing books… that tend to be more bluster and emotion than substance.” [4] Elsewhere, Copan gives several earmarks of the new atheism. “First,” he says, “for all their emphasis on cool-headed, scientific rationality, they express themselves not just passionately, but angrily.” [5],,,
    The second point that Copan makes regarding the new atheists is that “the Neo-atheists’ arguments against God’s existence are surprisingly flimsy, often resembling the simplistic village atheist far more than the credentialed academician.” [10]
    https://crossexamined.org/atheism-the-old-vs-the-new/

    But then again, perhaps all the old atheists, since they used logical argumentation and sound reasoning, have now become Theists? Like the late Anthony Flew, (formerly considered the top ‘intellectual’ atheist in the world), became a Theist because the weight of scientific evidence has now so decidedly shifted in favor of Theists?

    “The argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it,”
    – Anthony Flew
    https://evolutionnews.org/2018/02/bioengineer-asks-what-do-darwinists-hide/

    Book – THERE IS A GOD:
    How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind – Antony Flew
    https://archive.org/stream/There.Is.A.God/Antony%20Flew%20-%20There%20Is%20A%20God_djvu.txt

    Antony Flew Interview Videos by Lee Strobel (w/ MP3)
    Here is an interview by Lee Strobel of the late Antony Flew, not too long after his rejection of atheism. Video clips in five parts at LeeStrobel.com:
    • Why did your beliefs change? (2:06)
    • What is God like? (5:08)
    • A Creator was involved in the creation of life (2:59)
    • Afterlife and Christianity (5:42)
    • My time with C.S. Lewis (1:35)
    All interview audio in MP3 here. (17 minutes)
    Enjoy.
    Check out There is a God by Antony Flew. (review here)
    https://apologetics315.com/2010/04/antony-flew-interview-videos-by-lee-strobel-w-mp3/

  6. 6
    AaronS1978 says:

    @Truthfreedom
    They don’t think they deserve it, no. It’s called freedom! Freedom is more important then life
    Obviously. That’s why there are over 10million abortions to date this year, and this is also the reason it’s illegal to kill bald eagle eggs and just fine to kill human babies before they are born. It’s a symbol of freedom, they are endangered, and women are simple exercising their right to choose. So how dare you complain……….we haven’t hit 11 million yet and they can’t be count as deaths, they aren’t human, or a viable life yet, so they aren’t alive so no deaths, this is up to 6 months or in New York when ever………………

    Makes sense RIGHT

  7. 7
    BobRyan says:

    AaronS1978 @ 6

    Abortion is the modern equivalent of slavery. A fetus, which is defined as baby, is considered her property to do with as the mother pleases. This has nothing to do with freedom. Socialists despise freedom, since freedom comes with responsibilities.

  8. 8
    Truthfreedom says:

    @7 BobRyan

    Abortion is the modern equivalent of slavery. A fetus, which is defined as baby, is considered her property to do with as the mother pleases.

    And even those ‘Bronze Age goat herders’ that atheists love to disparage so much knew that killing their slaves was wrong.
    Meaning that those ‘Bronze Age goat herders’ had more moral fiber than they have, these are people who support the merciless slaughter of the weakest part of our society.

  9. 9
    Truthfreedom says:

    ___

    And if a virus isn’t alive, then viral mutation and differential reproduction is not an example of the evolution of life anyway

    Perfectly put, Mr. Egnor. 🙂
    And if viruses are alive, why do cry-babies (evo materialists) keep complaining about Earth being ‘hostile’ to life? There are trillions of viruses, therefore the Earth is teeming with life (there are also trillons of bacteria and of archaea).

    *** Logicically speaking, the evo-materialist ALWAYS loses. ***
    That’s why they have to resort to emotions, a typical sign of poor reasoning (children are the best example).

  10. 10
    ET says:

    LoL! @ seversky- evolutionary biologists understand evolution so well they can’t even figure out how to scientifically test its claims. They don’t even know what determines form. They are a sad lot.

  11. 11
    AaronS1978 says:

    BobRyan @7

    You have that in reverse, the way they argue it, is that the fetus enslaves the woman for 9 months, which is the reason they say it’s their decision and not the mans. It’s not taking 9 months of the mans life away

    You are right, they treat the baby like property.
    When I argue the property argument with them, I bring up the fact that the male and the female both provide equal genetics to the child and have equal say to the child

    One person had the audacity to say that would mean viruses would have say to anyone because they can change your genetics so my argument was illogical and stupid

    Yeah that was said to me

    I booted that guy off my post

  12. 12
    Truthfreedom says:

    @ AaronS1978

    A person had the audacity to say that would mean viruses would have say to anyone because they can change your genetics so my argument was illogical and stupid.

    Evo materialism is mental cancer.
    If viruses change our genetics and we are solely our genes, then one person before a viral disease and after that viral disease is not the same, because their genes have changed.
    Yes, if you get a virus, then after that you are a different person. Does that mean that you should i. e. change your name? Does that mean that your parents could disown you because you are no longer their ‘genetic’ child? Or does that mean that evo materialism is a corrupt ideology that leads to insanity?
    And by the way, viruses are not moral agents, men are though.
    What a mentally retard that person was. J. Coyne’s and Dawkin’s level. Bottom of the barrel intellectuals.

  13. 13
    EDTA says:

    No, please keep the new atheists! They are tiring, but they make such sloppy arguments that it’s easy to come across better than they do, both philosophically and socially.

  14. 14
    orthomyxo says:

    Whatever its exact (as yet unknown) lethality, the coronavirus doesn’t succeed when it kills. A virus that kills its individual host has failed, because the virus disappears if its host dies.

    This is not the truth at all. There is often a trade-off between pathogenicity and transmissibility, but the optimum is not necessarily saving every host. If reproducing like wildfire get’s a virus’ progeny into the more new hosts then killing the host as a consequence might be worth it with regards to physics.

    I’m not sure the rest of the post is saying anything meaningful.

Leave a Reply