Culture Intelligent Design theistic evolution

Trying to have a discussion when others want a diversion

Spread the love

Douglas Axe talks about a long-running dialogue he has had as a result of his 2016 book, Undeniable , where he can’t seem to get his dialogue partner to focus on what he is saying in his book and not what someone else is saying and what a fourth party is saying about them:

But why address what Douglas Axe is saying when so many talking points against design in nature are tailored to what someone/anyone else is saying? We wish Axe all the luck.

I think we’re addressing the same question, Hans. You’re absolutely right to focus on my treatment of the probability of organisms evolving by chance.

Veering Off Course

On the other hand, if you’re focusing on someone else’s treatment of that probability, then we’re going to get off track. When you say: “what I [Hans] have claimed are assumptions of the method aren’t necessarily assumptions I attribute to you [Doug], personally,” we do indeed seem to have veered off course.

Since the point in question is whether the argument I put forward in Undeniable is valid, and you and I are the people trying to resolve our disagreement on that, Van Till’s critique of Dembski needs to be set aside. If background reading helps you address what I’m saying, that’s great! But do address what I’m saying. Douglas Axe, “Keeping the Debate Over Undeniable on Track” at Evolution News and Science Today:

See also: “Undeniable” Author Doug Axe On The Recent “Directed Evolution” Nobel For Chemistry

Follow UD News at Twitter!

2 Replies to “Trying to have a discussion when others want a diversion

  1. 1
    hazel says:

    I can relate to the problem Axe is talking about, and I like the way he said it.

  2. 2
    vmahuna says:

    There are many ideas in many fields that CANNOT be true, because IF they were true, the other side’s entire position would collapse.

    So I wish Douglas Axe the best of luck, but I can’t offer him any hope

Leave a Reply