Since “Darwinian evolution is an ateleological process,” operating without a goal, this means that “If a model is designed to assist the evolution of an irreducibly complex system, it is not a model of Darwinian evolution” and “Any decision in the construction of a model made with an eye towards enabling the evolution of irreducible complexity invalidates the model.” Ewert finds that this is precisely what many of these models do. In the one case that a truly irreducibly complex system was produced by a program, Ewert found it was “designed as part of the ancestor used to seed the … simulation,” and thus did not evolve in the Darwinian sense. He concludes that computational attempts to explain the evolution of irreducible complexity have “failed on a number of fronts”: … More.
“If a model is designed to assist the evolution of an irreducibly complex system, it is not a model of Darwinian evolution”
No, but it is a model of Darwinism. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the intelligent design controversy.
Follow UD News at Twitter!