Pultz: They agree that God designed life, but if you are able to see evidence for design in nature, you are wrong.
My excitement made me overcome my telephone-phobia and I called Dyerberg to have him elaborate on this statement. He told me that the probabilistic issues alone obviously render Neo-Darwinian evolution unscientific and pointed specifically to the Neo-Darwinian origin of life scenario being totally improbable and therefore not scientifically viable.
Pultz: Denton reveals the extreme specificity of the elements, how the properties—the configuration of electrons—of every single element is clearly tuned to fit the properties of the other elements such that no substitutions seem possible. The chemical characteristics of each element play together in a symphony of awesome fine tuning.
Pultz: In my view, Swamidass excels as an expert in smokescreens; he can talk endlessly without nailing down tangible and memorable points. Although pressured more than once by Behe to deliver at least a single counter argument to IC, he did not come up with anything containing even a whiff of substance.
The editors need not, of course, sympathize with the ID perspective to think that evidence for it should be permitted to be discussed. At one time, that was a conventional intellectual position. But the Darwinians, as we’ve said here earlier, are an early flowering of Cancel Culture. No evidence may be discussed that may be thought to favor an Incorrect view.
It should also be considered that in his book Der Teil und das Ganze, Werner Heisenberg expresses his own and also Niels Bohrs’ doubt that random mutations could have produced any of the complex biological systems… Bohr adds that while natural selection obviously occurs it is the idea that new species come about by random changes, which is very hard to imagine, even if this is the only way science can explain it.
It’s getting harder to pretend that no reasonable person notices any design in nature. Danish ID proponent Karsten Pultz sends a report.
Whether proteins can evolve or not will not in the least influence the argument for irreducible complexity. Function cannot evolve gradually.
The logic behind the examples of bad design as evidence against ID, is that if a feature in nature has flaws, it cannot have been intelligently designed. The same logic, applied to the old Jaguar I once owned, would imply that it was not designed.
In Scandinavia, ID-related activity is also increasing. The Danish ID organization Origo is just about to release a translation of Dr. Lee Spetner’s The Evolution Revolution and currently a translation of Dr. Michael Behe’s Darwin Devolves is also in progress, with the release expected in 2021.
Karsten Pultz: I’m sure if Behe had asked any of the mechanics there at the garage, what they thought about the neoDarwinian hypothesis that complex machinery can be produced by random processes, they would have answered that such an idea is extremely silly, if not right out ludicrous.
My main postulate is that information is strictly tied to an idea, a product, or a message. I cannot see how it is possible to have information prior to the idea, product, or message because information is an abstract representation of those things. How can an abstract representation exist prior to the phenomenon which it represents?
We don’t get information without the act of choice, a feature that is related only to intelligent agency.
This wonderful news come on the heels of the just as wonderful news about the opening of the ID centre in Austria, Zentrum für Biokomplexität und NaturTeleologie.
I am seriously considering abandoning giving ID-talks in Christian settings, as it seems completely purposeless and because I find it exhausting, depressing and frustrating. While atheists and theistic evolutionists reject ID because they consider it creationism, the creationists reject ID because it is not creationism