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
doaddress 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!