Evolution affirms the Consequent

  1. Affirming the Consequent is a logical fallacy that takes a known true statement [if P then Q] and invalidly concludes its converse [if Q then P]:
    1. If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then Bill Gates is rich. Bill Gates is rich. Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox. False!
    2. If an animal is a dog, then it has four legs. My cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog. False!
    3. If it’s raining, then the streets are wet. The streets are wet. Therefore it’s raining. False! It could be raining or it could be something else. The “therefore” claim is false.
  2. How does ‘Affirming the consequent’ apply to evolution? We have not observed “evolution”. No one has, and no one will, despite the effort (see LTEE). What was observed is Resemblance, the Birth Mechanism, Variability and Adaptability. Neither of these (even combined) can logically be extrapolated to “evolution”, namely the hypothesized transmutation of one type of organism into another. Proofs of “evolution” always take the form: If “evolution” is true, then XYZ is true. XYZ is true. Therefore “evolution” is true. This is a classical Affirming the Consequent logical fallacy.
  3. Let’s see some concrete examples of “proof of evolution” fallacies:
    • If “evolution” is true, some fossils are ancestors of and therefore resemble existing organisms. Fossils resemble one another and existing organisms. Therefore “evolution” is true. This argument fails because there will always be some resemblance between two or more entities (even chairs and cats have four legs in general). Also, a fossil can always be from an unrelated branch of the “tree of life” which circularly presupposes “evolution” anyway.
    • If “evolution” is true, organisms are genetically similar. Organisms are genetically similar. Therefore “evolution” is true. This argument is false because other hypotheses such as common design account for genetic similarities just as well.
    • If “evolution” is true, one might expect common embryology. Similar organisms have similar embryology. Therefore “evolution” is true. This fails because embryology is expected to match genetics and morphology, hence the previous counterargument applies.
    • If “evolution” is true, one might expect vestigial organs. What looks like vestigial organs can be observed. Therefore “evolution” is true. This fails because what if those organs are useful rather that “vestigial”? And why would “evolution” not do away with “vestigial” organs as soon as they become useless? In sum, why can’t these organs have another reason or origin than “evolution”?
    • If “evolution” is true, one expects adaptability such as antibiotic resistance. Antibiotic resistance is observed. Therefore “evolution” is true. This fails because adaptabilities such as antibiotic resistance are compatible with other hypotheses, not just “evolution”. In addition, antibiotic resistance is ubiquitous, limited, reversible, and never observed to result in organism transmutation aka “evolution”.
  4. How can “proofs of evolution” avoid the ‘Affirming the Consequent’ logical fallacy? Direct confirmation of “evolution” is unlikely as shown by the LTEE study. Alternatively, an observation that is true for “evolution” and only for “evolution” might also work. In other words, what’s missing from all the examples above is a true statement of the kind: “only if evolution is true, then XYZ”. Of course, excluding all alternatives to “evolution” is an impossible task therefore, given that Intelligent Design is the main rival, proponents of “evolution” need only add a true statement of the kind: “if Intelligent Design is true, then XYZ is not true” to turn their invalid arguments into valid ones. But even this lower bar cannot be met by “evolution” proponents, thus making all “proofs of evolution” invalid.
  5. Isn’t then all science ‘Affirming the Consequent’? For example, “if Newtonian physics is true, a ball thrown at angle Theta and speed V will land D meters away. The experiment is carried out, and we find that the ball landed distance D away. Therefor physics is true.” No! This is not a fallacy because it meets the “if and only if” requirement and is limited to “everything else equal” cases. Rockets do not disprove this claim because everything else is not equal between them and thrown inactive projectiles. In addition, no one claims a single experiment confirms all Newtonian Mechanics the way “proofs of evolution” are presented. In this case, multiple combinations of Angles and Speed result in the same Distance without violating Newtonian Mechanics because this experiment proves only portions of the theory.

Links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

https://www.amazon.com/Biblical-Wisdom-Literature-Joseph-Koterski/dp/1598035258

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

820 thoughts on “Evolution affirms the Consequent

  1. walto: As KN tried to explain to you several days ago, their model is abductive.

    And as explained several times, “the best possible explanation” requires AT A MINIMUM a side-by-side comparison of the hypotheses.
    Now, will you kindly point to that side-by-side comparison? If unable then you must admit that “proofs of evolution” are fallacies.

  2. DNA_Jock: You ran through a whole series of these affirming the consequent fallacies, claiming (incorrectly) that scientists commit such fallacies.

    Darwinists are not scientists.

  3. DNA_Jock: “Therefore it’s raining” – FALSE FALLACY

    That is a false conclusion. The whole set (3 sentences) make a fallacy.

    DNA_Jock: Well, at that point, this particular argument for [a portion of] Newtonian Mechanics becomes a fallacy.

    Oh dear.

    Were you going to make a point? Because you’re not. Is “Oh dear” supposed to do it?!?

  4. walto: It’s very basic stuff often taught to high school sophomores.

    everybody else has been well aware of since Aristotle.

    Your comedian skills are very iffy, but you’re surely a bullshit artist. Is that your career or are you just aspiring? Thanks for the entertainment.

  5. OMagain: What if the machine is broke and they have a hole in the roof and it starts raining?

    Wouldn’t you rather answer that question yourself and thus learn more about this fallacy?

    More importantly, can you see why ALL (100%) “proofs of evolution” are fallacies of this kind?

    Can you cite ONE “proof of evolution” that is not an ‘Affirming the Consequent’ logical fallacy?

  6. J-Mac: Testable hypotheses?

    Let’s see the experimental evidence for those testable hypotheses…

    The experimental evidence is on the site in that quote.

    For example, the match between phylogenies based on morphology and genetics is easily tested:

    “So, how well do phylogenetic trees from morphological studies match the trees made from independent molecular studies? There are over 10^38 different possible ways to arrange the 30 major taxa represented in Figure 1 into a phylogenetic tree (see Table 1.3.1; Felsenstein 1982; Li 1997, p. 102). In spite of these odds, the relationships given in Figure 1, as determined from morphological characters, are completely congruent with the relationships determined independently from cytochrome c molecular studies. Speaking quantitatively, independent morphological and molecular measurements such as these have determined the standard phylogenetic tree, as shown in Figure 1, to better than 38 decimal places.”
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#independent_convergence

  7. Nonlin.org: Can you cite ONE “proof of evolution” that is not an ‘Affirming the Consequent’ logical fallacy?

    No, science does not do proof.

    But what I can say is that if we look at the evidence that we have then we seem to have drawn a reasonable conclusion. Variation and differential survival didit.

  8. Nonlin.org: Is that your career or are you just aspiring?

    What’s your career? What do you do for a full time job? As it sure as shit ain’t nothing to do with this nonsense.

  9. Nonlin.org: Darwinists are not scientists.

    Correct. They are ideologues. But 1) they usually don’t admit this, 2) there aren’t actually very many ‘Darwinists’ out there anymore (despite what the DI says in their hysteria), & 3) those who still claim to be Darwinists, who are ‘practising scientists’ should be ashamed of claiming Darwinism for ‘good science.’

    Likewise, promoting ‘Intelligent Design’ the way the DI does isn’t ‘strictly scientific,’ but rather full of innuendo & propaganda, demonstrably so. The term ‘IDists’ is the appropriate alternative to ‘Darwinists’ to describe the DI’s leadership, who are also ideologues, of the activist variety.

    Do you openly acknowledge the existence of ideological IDists, Nonlin.org or do you avoid that reality? Are you an ideological IDist?

  10. Nonlin.org: then you must admit that “proofs of evolution” are fallacies.

    Proofs? As said, they aren’t doing deductions. The straw man is another fallacy you may have heard of but don’t quite understand.

  11. Nonlin.org: Your comedian skills are very iffy, but you’re surely a bullshit artist. Is that your career or are you just aspiring? Thanks for the entertainment.

    No idea what you’re at here except flinging insults. Well, I suppose that’s something to do if you don’t actually have anything of substance to say.

  12. OMagain: No, science does not do proof.

    Yet “evolution” does as shown. Which makes it “not science” according to you. And I agree.

    OMagain: But what I can say is that if we look at the evidence that we have then we seem to have drawn a reasonable conclusion. Variation and differential survival didit.

    Very dubious. Anyway, this OP is about “proof of evolution” – a very wide spread logical fallacy.

  13. Gregory: Correct. They are ideologues. But 1) they usually don’t admit this, 2) there aren’t actually very many ‘Darwinists’ out there anymore (despite what the DI says in their hysteria), & 3) those who still claim to be Darwinists, who are ‘practising scientists’ should be ashamed of claiming Darwinism for ‘good science.’

    Likewise, promoting ‘Intelligent Design’ the way the DI does isn’t ‘strictly scientific,’ but rather full of innuendo & propaganda, demonstrably so. The term ‘IDists’ is the appropriate alternative to ‘Darwinists’ to describe the DI’s leadership, who are also ideologues, of the activist variety.

    Do you openly acknowledge the existence of ideological IDists, Nonlin.org or do you avoid that reality? Are you an ideological IDist?

    Read my essays. I don’t speak for others and will gladly expose foolishness wherever present.

    This being said, we have two hypotheses. So follow the evidence to where it leads. And it clearly doesn’t lead to “mindless, unguided, purposeless, and random process” aka “evolution”.

  14. walto: Proofs? As said, they aren’t doing deductions. The straw man is another fallacy you may have heard of but don’t quite understand.

    Straw man? What exactly are you smoking? “Proofs of evolution” are the only arguments for “evolution”. And as you know, they’re all fallacies:
    http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/five-proofs-evolution
    https://justrichest.com/proof-evolution/
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwfxSz73hdI
    …many more – just do a search.

  15. walto: Nonlin.org: Your comedian skills are very iffy, but you’re surely a bullshit artist. Is that your career or are you just aspiring? Thanks for the entertainment.

    No idea what you’re at here except flinging insults. Well, I suppose that’s something to do if you don’t actually have anything of substance to say.

    Insult? It’s a compliment to many.
    “Nothing of substance”?!? Very funny 🙂 Maybe you are a bit of comedian after all.

  16. Nonlin.org: Read my essays. I don’t speak for others and will gladly expose foolishness wherever present.

    This being said, we have two hypotheses. So follow the evidence to where it leads. And it clearly doesn’t lead to “mindless, unguided, purposeless, and random process” aka “evolution”.

    Yes, of course you don’t speak for others & have little to no authority to do so. Your claim that ‘science is mostly atheism’ on your website reveals why few people would treat you as an authority to speak on their behalf.

    ‘Follow the evidence where it leads’ pre-dates the IDM. Sadly, most IDists won’t do this themselves. It’s more than a bit hypocritical. Which ID leaders have you spoken with about the supposed ‘evidence’ of instantiated ID that you’ve found?

    Theistic evolution & evolutionary creation destroy the caricature you have painted of “mindless, unguided, purposeless, and random process” aka “evolution”. God-guided evolution has a non-IDist option that you don’t seem to acknowledge & likely won’t out of IDist pride. Even the main funder of the DI, however, says that religious theists needn’t accept IDT as required for their worldview. So why do YOU insist all religious people SHOULD adopt the quasi-science/quasi-worldview approach of ‘Intelligent Design’? It would seem vanity publishing has played a much larger role in the IDM than most IDists are comfortable to discuss & surprisingly many vanity proponents have plagued the movement since the outset in the mid-90s.

    Your ‘essays’? Could you narrow to one of your essays that 1) has been peer-reviewed, or 2) you think is your strongest & best promoting IDT (which is usually ideological IDism, rather than a credible natural scientific ‘theory’)? I remember a few years ago looking at your site & finding an amateur hobbyist’s approach (inflated to appear ‘scientific’), rather than serious contributions to the community. There are literally thousands of USA amateur science-fakers in the IDM and ‘creation science’ movements that one has to be very careful with imposters, fakes & rubes. Of course, the same can be said with their mortal enemies, the ‘Darwinists’ (few) and ‘materialists’ (more than a few), some of whom simply repeat ‘evolution is true’ (J. Coyne) and ‘everything evolves’ (D.S. Wilson, M. Ridley, et al.) as if beating people over the head with an outdated metaphor in wrongly applied fields were a wise idea when it invites cultural disintegration, chaos, confusion & disenchantment.

    When you say ‘we’, what does that mean? Is this stating your IDist badge or something else?

    I’ve met quite a few IDists, including their leadership (Meyer, Dembski, Gordon, Nelson, Axe, Wells, Chapman, West, et al.). I don’t consider it a strong movement intellectually & a rather filled with double talking & insults, both to atheists and to fellow religious believers. Rather it is made up of self-styled ‘revolutionaries’ (like Dembski) and evangelical fame-seekers who are WAY over their heads intellectually.

    One example, I spoke with Meyer’s former supervisor at the University of Cambridge. Meyer’s work was sub-par to say the least, distorting & revisionist in an un-constructive way. Yet this isn’t the level you want to engage re: criticism of IDism (IDT), is it Nonlin.org?

    As for exposing foolishness, yes, being exposed (i.e. exposing yourself) as an IDist, even among religious theists, is largely foolishness.

  17. Gregory: Theistic evolution & evolutionary creation destroy the caricature you have painted of “mindless, unguided, purposeless, and random process” aka “evolution”. God-guided evolution has a non-IDist option that you don’t seem to acknowledge & likely won’t out of IDist pride. Even the main funder of the DI, however, says that religious theists needn’t accept IDT as required for their worldview.

    You are confused. “God-guided evolution” would be ID. The “caricature” is what atheists claim – btw, they are also religious as everyone else, except their religion is atheism.

    If you read these essays, you will see they don’t necessarily fall in line with ID mainstream which is quite weak (irreducible complexity, micro vs macro, Dembski’s filter, etc.). Instead, I mainly focus on disproving the Darwinist claims one by one (shooting fish in a barrel).

    You write a lot of words but disprove absolutely nothing of what I write. It’s not even clear we disagree in essence. Now, if you disagree, do you or don’t you have a half decent counterargument?

    Start with any of these:
    Darwinism and its neo is very much testable and it fails all tests:
    Gradualism fails – http://nonlin.org/gradualism/
    Natural selection fails – http://nonlin.org/natural-selection/
    Divergence of character fails – http://nonlin.org/evotest/
    Speciation fails – http://nonlin.org/speciation-problems/
    DNA “essence of life” fails – http://nonlin.org/dna-not-essence-of-life/
    Randomness fails – http://nonlin.org/random-abuse/
    Abiogenesis fails – http://nonlin.org/warmpond/
    Science against Religion fails – http://nonlin.org/philosophy-religion-and-science/
    etc., etc.
    And let’s test it again and make sure it fails again and again: http://nonlin.org/evotest/

  18. Gregory: Theistic evolution & evolutionary creation destroy the caricature you have painted of “mindless, unguided, purposeless, and random process” aka “evolution”. God-guided evolution has a non-IDist option that you don’t seem to acknowledge & likely won’t out of IDist pride

    Theistic evolution & evolutionary creation are oxymorons without a shred of evidence for them…Unless of course coywolves, or coydogs, are the evidence of theistic evolution, or evolutionary creations, but then God would have to be responsible for both beneficial and degrading mutations…
    This is one of the reasons why I disagree with Behe and ID on common descent when they seem to imply God’s guidance to support some kind of common ancestry…

  19. Nonlin.org: You are confused. “God-guided evolution” would be ID.

    It would be an oxymoron…

    BTW: Changes within kinds is not really evolution and most logically thinking creationists have to acknowledge them whether there is a possibility for the changes to revert back to their original kind or not…

  20. J-Mac: It would be an oxymoron…

    That too.

    Gregory: God-guided evolution has a non-IDist option that you don’t seem to acknowledge

    Nonlin: You are confused. “God-guided evolution” would be ID.

    I sense you will disagree, so here is a thought experiment:
    “I nailed the roof”. Who nailed the roof, Gregory?
    “I built a nail gun and used it to nail the roof”. Who nailed the roof, Gregory?
    “I built a nail robot that nailed the roof”. Who nailed the roof, Gregory?
    “I built a robot that makes other robots that nailed the roof”. Who nailed the roof, Gregory?

    If you answer anything other that “I” to any of these, you must explain where exactly does “I” become “it”. Also explain why humans at Tesla, Boeing, Microsoft, etc are held fully responsible for they AI screwups and why/when they should no longer be responsible.

  21. “You are confused. ‘God-guided evolution’ would be ID.” – Nonlin.org

    That’s not what most leading IDists say. And I hold their definition of ‘Intelligent Design’ (which they by policy write as ‘intelligent design’) above yours. Their definition is what I am and will continue to refer to in this conversation, not some armchair nobody on the internet.

    The leading organization promoting “God-guided evolution,” though they don’t say they can scientifically detect the ‘guidance,’ is the BioLogos Foundation, started by Francis Collins.
    https://biologos.org/common-questions/what-is-evolutionary-creation

    The #2 is somewhat rapidly-growing (seems to hit short plateaus) Peaceful Science. Though I’m not sure if Swamidass uses specifically those words “God-guided evolution,” for all intents and purposes that is what he means.

    Why haven’t you returned to PS since Oct. 2018?

    “I mainly focus on disproving the Darwinist claims one by one (shooting fish in a barrel).”

    I believe that’s pretty much a complete waste of time & talents that God gave you (if you believe in God, the Creator). Darwinism was ‘disproved’ (wrong term) over 50 years ago. That’s like fighting windmills. = P

  22. Nonlin.org: That too.

    I sense you will disagree, so here is a thought experiment:
    “I nailed the roof”. Who nailed the roof, Gregory?
    “I built a nail gun and used it to nail the roof”. Who nailed the roof, Gregory?
    “I built a nail robot that nailed the roof”. Who nailed the roof, Gregory?
    “I built a robot that makes other robots that nailed the roof”. Who nailed the roof, Gregory?

    If you answer anything other that “I” to any of these, you must explain where exactly does “I” become “it”. Also explain why humans at Tesla, Boeing, Microsoft, etc are held fully responsible for they AI screwups and why/when they should no longer be responsible.

    I created the universe with all the laws to create life, support it and lead to variants within kinds.. so they are never boring…
    Gregory mixed up a wolf with a dog and a chihuahua appeared… Gregory tried to mix the chihuahua with the wolves but only chihuahua are born…
    Am I the one ultimately responsible for the dead end of evolution of wolves at the chihuahua ?

  23. Gregory: That’s not what most leading IDists say. And I hold their definition of ‘Intelligent Design’ (which they by policy write as ‘intelligent design’) above yours.

    ID has no quarrel with common descent.. If they oppose evolution, how are they going to explain common descent?

  24. Gregory: The leading organization promoting “God-guided evolution,” though they don’t say they can scientifically detect the ‘guidance,’ is the BioLogos Foundation, started by Francis Collins.
    https://biologos.org/common-questions/what-is-evolutionary-creation

    They can’t scientifically detect God-guided evolution?
    How do they know it actually happened?
    What if UFO was shooting rockets to the earth with separate species?
    How would they know it wasn’t so, if they have no evidence for their beliefs?

  25. J-Mac: ID has no quarrel with common descent..

    That’s actually the problem. ID has no quarrel with anything! Unless you know better?

    J-Mac: If they oppose evolution, how are they going to explain common descent?

    Then if evolution and common descent are observable facts that need to be explained, what is the ID explanation?

    J-Mac: They can’t scientifically detect God-guided evolution?

    No, they are just assuming it did and getting on and doing some actual science. As I understand it.

    J-Mac: How do they know it actually happened?

    The same way you know whatever “quantum” thing is is that plants use to control their food supply. They gut feelz it.

    J-Mac: What if UFO was shooting rockets to the earth with separate species?

    Is that your Intelligent Design hypothesis? It’s the closest you’ve come to such I believe.

    J-Mac: How would they know it wasn’t so, if they have no evidence for their beliefs?

    You have no evidence for your beliefs yet you *know* they are true anyway. Same thing.

  26. Gregory: The #2 is somewhat rapidly-growing (seems to hit short plateaus) Peaceful Science. Though I’m not sure if Swamidass uses specifically those words “God-guided evolution,” for all intents and purposes that is what he means.

    He might as well call it an oxymoron…
    I guess Swamidass has scientific evidence for God guided evolution?
    Last time I checked his evidence was what if, which can be interpreted: what if God wanted to confuse everyone about who really is the creator? The best way to accomplish this is to create Adam and Eve, from Adam’s rib, in a sense, but then also guide the evolution of monkeys into humans and leave no living transitional evidence for it…

    A story like that has gotta be true…that’s the advantage of science fiction over science… fiction has to make sense…😂

  27. J-Mac: I guess Swamidass has scientific evidence for God guided evolution?

    About the same level of evidence you have.

  28. J-Mac,
    You made a claim that Egnor had removed most of a man’s brain who then went on to retain normal function.

    Can you back that claim up?

  29. Gregory: believe that’s pretty much a complete waste of time & talents that God gave you (if you believe in God, the Creator). Darwinism was ‘disproved’ (wrong term) over 50 years ago. That’s like fighting windmills. = P

    You forgot to mention God-guided talents..which is important…otherwise your statement is contradictory…which is nothing new…😆

  30. J-Mac: You forgot to mention God-guided talents..which is important…otherwise your statement is contradictory…which is nothing new…

    What are all the dots for?

  31. Gregory: not some armchair nobody on the internet.

    Is that your main argument? If so, it’s lame 🙂

    Gregory: Why haven’t you returned to PS since Oct. 2018?

    Because PS, like Biologos, bans dangerous ideas they cannot defeat.

    Gregory: Darwinism was ‘disproved’ (wrong term) over 50 years ago. That’s like fighting windmills. = P

    Or so is Swamidass claiming (whatever that means). Meanwhile the metastatic Darwinist cancer is alive and well while you’re blissfully ignorant about it. When did you last have a colonoscopy?

  32. J-Mac: ID has no quarrel with common descent.. If they oppose evolution, how are they going to explain common descent?

    Really? ID thinks “common descent” is true? One more reason mainstream ID is so weak. Sure, believe in “common descent”, but how about SOME evidence?!?

    Then if evolution and common descent are observable facts that need to be explained, what is the ID explanation?

    Only they’re NOT.

    OMagain: No, they are just assuming it did and getting on and doing some actual science.

    “They” – maybe. But there’s an unbeatable and proper scientific analysis you can run and come to that conclusion: http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/intelligent-design-detection/

  33. Nonlin.org: “They” – maybe. But there’s an unbeatable and proper scientific analysis you can run and come to that conclusion: http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/intelligent-design-detection/

    Er, if I can run it then you can run it. So go detect design already. Show how it’s done, step by step. Why do I have to do your work for you?

    It’ll be the first time anyone has ever used the EF for that or anything similar to it.

    So, you know, show me how design and not-design can be differentiated. I can think of a few examples, but I’m sure you can do.

  34. J-Mac: A story like that has gotta be true…that’s the advantage of science fiction over science… fiction has to make sense…

    Good one!

    J-Mac: You forgot to mention God-guided talents..which is important…otherwise your statement is contradictory…which is nothing new…

    Even better!

  35. Nonlin.org: Really? ID thinks “common descent” is true? One more reason mainstream ID is so weak.

    As far as I can tell the impact your version has made is this site and your site and er, that’s it. At least ID has a few people doing books and pretending to do journals. And someone publishes a paper with some big-Num in it quite often, for ID.

  36. OMagain: Er, if I can run it then you can run it. So go detect design already. Show how it’s done, step by step. Why do I have to do your work for you?

    It’ll be the first time anyone has ever used the EF for that or anything similar to it.

    So, you know, show me how design and not-design can be differentiated. I can think of a few examples, but I’m sure you can do.

    That’s exactly what I do. Are you commenting without reading and trying to understand? That won’t work.

    What’s EF?

  37. OMagain: As far as I can tell the impact your version has made is this site and your site and er, that’s it. At least ID has a few people doing books and pretending to do journals.

    Thanks for your concern, but it’s not over. Yes, many people wrote a lot of bad books and some are very popular like “the origin of species”. There’s no shortage of gullible readers.

  38. Nonlin.org: Really? ID thinks “common descent” is true? One more reason mainstream ID is so weak. Sure, believe in “common descent”, but how about SOME evidence?!?

    Behe does…S. Meyer, which means ID. Gauger possibly but not Nelson-good for him.
    I just confirmed it in his book Darwin Devolves p. 157:

    “Some religious groups are opposed in principle to the idea of common descent. I am not.”

    Evidence? Similarities…and since Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations is not sufficient to explain common descent, God must’ve guided it…

    ETA: no evidence for God’s guidance other than random processes could have done it…So God did it…

  39. Nonlin.org: Because PS, like Biologos, bans dangerous ideas they cannot defeat.

    Is this meant to indicate you were banned at both PS & BioLogos?

    The person who goes by the handle ‘Eddie’ was banned multiple times with multiple different names at BioLogos, but Joshua has somewhat tamed him, to his credit.

  40. J-Mac: ETA: no evidence for God’s guidance other than random processes could have done it…So God did it…

    Typo alert: random processes could NOT have done it.

  41. Nonlin.org: You are confused. “God-guided evolution” would be ID.

    True, you solved that issue .

    Next one needs to determine which God ,I would guess. Different versions of God may choose different forms of design and how to implement it.

    Then when that is sorted out , the next question I might be “ How did this God actually implement the physical manifestation of His design? “

    You seemed to have given a lot of thought about this, what is first step in the pursuit of this knowledge?

    Is He still designing, are His “design” criteria and mechanisms detectable scientifically?

  42. Nonlin.org: Thanks for your concern, but it’s not over.

    How long have you been trying?

    Nonlin.org: Yes, many people wrote a lot of bad books and some are very popular like “the origin of species”.

    What is your explanation for the origin of species?

    Nonlin.org: There’s no shortage of gullible readers.

    Then it’s odd how those gullible readers will accept anything except what you are saying! They can’t be that gullible can then if they refused to be fooled by you?

  43. J-Mac: and since Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations is not sufficient to explain common descent, God must’ve guided it…

    What is missing that god must be added?

  44. Nonlin.org,

    It doesn’t really require a ton. You use “gradualism” in a number of different ways there and equivocate your brains out. Post it as a separate OP if you really want to get into it.

Leave a Reply