Barr v. Arrington
| February 27, 2012 | Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design |
Over at the First Things blog Stephen Barr said that there is no way to compute the probabilities of evolution.
I disagreed and pointed him to Dembski’s and Marks’ work at the Evolutionary Informatics Lab. Barr responded by citing a 2003 article by Wesley Elsberry and said the critique of Dembski’s work was, if valid, “very damaging.”
I responded by pointing out that the Dembski/Marks article to which I had linked was from 2009 and therefore it was not possible for Elsberry to have critiqued it in 2003. Here’s where things got interesting. Instead of allowing my response through, the FT moderator deleted it.
When I learned this I posted the following protest: “My responses to SMB and David Nickol were deleted. Why? What policy of moderation did I violate? Are you just trying to cover for the fact that one of your board memebers (SMB) is one of the most useful of all of the useful idiots so valuable to the materialist enemies of Christianity?”
A different moderator must have been at the helm, because he let it through. Update: FT has now deleted this response too.
Jerry Beckett responded: “You can’t be serious. If any of “materialist enemies” invoke Dr. Barr in support of their worldview, kindly refer them to his Modern Physics & Ancient Faith. Christianity has absolutely nothing to fear from evolution by natural selection . . .”
Here is my reply to Beckett: Update: The FT moderator refused to let this response see the light of day.
Jerry, yes, I am serious, and I will let the materialists speak for themselves:
Will Provine:
Evolution is the “greatest engine of atheism.”
“. . . belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.”
“Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.”
“The frequently made assertion that modern biology and the assumptions of the Judeo-Christian tradition are fully compatible is false.”
Richard Dawkins:
“Catholic morality demands the presence of a great gulf between Homo sapiens and the rest of the animal kingdom. Such a gulf is fundamentally anti-evolutionary. The sudden injection of an immortal soul in the time-line is an anti-evolutionary intrusion into the domain of science.”
“. . . although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”
Daniel Dennett:
“Evolutionists who see no conflict between evolution and their religious beliefs have been careful not to look as closely as we have been looking, or else hold a religious view that gives God what we might call a merely ceremonial role to play.”
Ernst Mayr:
“The natural causes postulated by the evolutionists completely separated God from his creation, for all practical purposes. The new explanatory model replaced planned teleology by the haphazard process of natural selection. This required a new concept of God and a new basis for religion.”
T.H. Huxley
“In addition to the truth of the doctrine of evolution, indeed, one of its greatest merits in my eyes, is the fact that it occupies a position of complete and irreconcilable antagonism to that vigorous and consistent enemy of the highest intellectual, moral, and social life of mankind – the Catholic Church.”
Ernst Haeckel
“Our concern is rather with the unparalleled influence that Darwinism, and its application to man, have had during the last forty years on the whole province of science; and at the same time, with its irreconcilable opposition to the dogmas of the Churches.”
Julian Huxley:
“In the evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural. The earth was not created: it evolved. So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body. So did religion.”
E.O. Wilson:
“If humankind evolved by Darwinian natural selection, genetic chance and environmental necessity, not God, made the species.”
Stephen Jay Gould:
“No intervening spirit watches lovingly over the affairs of nature . . . whatever we think of God, his existence is not manifest in the products of nature.”
Douglas Futuyma:
“By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
Stephen M. Barr:
I paraphrase: “Darwinian evolution is true.”
Jerry, you do the math. I don’t care what else Barr has written. Indeed, the greater his prominence among Christian thinkers the more harm he has done in lending his imprimatur to the Darwinian project.
Yes, yes, I know, Barr wrote an article in which he said God was behind it all. I’ve read and re-read the article, and all it goes to show is that Provine was right. “One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.”
(Visited 348 times, 348 visits today)
As to probability argument of materialist; Casey Luskin just posted a article about Wolfgang Pauli over at ENV:
At first glance I thought this article was entitled “Barry Versus Arrington.”
I always thought that people who accept that evolution is 100% true but insist that Christianity is also true either see something I can’t see or are blind themselves. Maybe I’m a dunce, but no one has been able to adequately explain to me how Christianity can be true and evolution be 100% true. The creation is a vital doctrine to Christianity and there has to be some hand of God in nature, imho or there can be no Fall and no Resurrection (at least not like Christ’s Resurrection).
That is a great response. It is a shame they didn’t see fit to let it stand. I just went to look and it seems they have delete your reply already.
Barry,
Your response to Barr would have been enhanced had you resisted calling him an idiot. That’s the sort of thing one comes to expect at Panda’s Thumb.
Barry,
I’m not sure what’s going on at FT and moderation – I think if they were going to allow you to be replied to in the discussion, they should at least have allowed you to stick around to offer that correction about Dembski’s paper.
But whatever FT’s faults are, and whatever Barr’s faults are, I disagree that Barr’s view of evolution is “indistinguishable from atheism”. That may be true in the case of some TEs, but I don’t think it rightly applies to Barr. He’s said outright that God foreknew and preordained the results of evolution, and – if I recall right – he rejects the claims that evolution takes place without guidance or foresight, even if in the realm of science he upholds that supposed ‘methodological naturalism’ view.
Even the Provine quote illustrates the problem here: Provine specifies naturalistic evolution. But unless Barr has changed his opinion, that’s exactly the sort of evolution he does not believe in, even if he believes questions of evolution’s guidance and purpose (or lack thereof) are non-scientific questions.
If that is the case, then why is Adam and Eve mentioned by Jesus only in the context of marriage, and in Acts not at all?
@nullasalus: Over and over again Barr has insisted that he believes in an evolutionary account of origins in which the creator’s design is empirically undetectable. Yes, as you say, Barr says God moved the process along, but he did so in a way that is completely invisible. Therefore, contrary to Romans chapter 1, when we stand before God we will, on Barr’s account, be able to say, “I am excused. Stephen Barr insisted your creation was indistinguishable from the world described by Richard Dawkins. How was I to know who was right?”
That is the kind of religious view that is indistinguishable from atheism that I am talking about. Christian Barr and atheist Dawkins agree on Darwinism, and they agree that if Darwinism teaches us anything, it teaches us that the acts of God cannot be detected by examining the things he created.
Starbuck,
Are you asking me about the Fall, the creation or both? I’m not sure why Adam and Eve need to be mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles for the Fall to be true doctrine. I am curious, do you believe in the atonement and resurrection but not the creation and fall?
Dick,
“Useful idiot” does not mean what you apparantly think it means.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot
Barry,
Over and over again Barr has insisted that he believes in an evolutionary account of origins in which the creator’s design is empirically undetectable.
This I am not sure of. My understanding is that Barr believes that questions of ‘detecting design’ – or its lack – are outside of science. But ‘not scientifically detectable’ doesn’t add up to ‘not detectable’ – Romans 1 certainly didn’t mean scientifically detectable either.
But let’s put that aside and run with the idea that Barr believes that God’s design is empirically undetectable. There’s one problem with the reply in this context: this is also the response of the ID proponent.
ID at its most aggressive detects ‘design’ and ‘designer’, period. Not “God’s design”, certainly not “God’s existence”. I’m sure you know this, so it’s not like I’m saying anything new here – but I draw it out because it deserves highlighting. Francis Crick (at least at one time) had a view that could be considered an ID view. If Crick stands before God saying, “Oh, sure, I knew you existed. Romans 1. I mean, I inferred an intelligence cause with respect to the origin of life on earth. So… that’s good enough, right?”
Pardon, that cut off early. If Crick says that, I doubt it’s going to pass muster.
Barr is so caught up with the idea that Darwinism is compatible with Christianity that he forgot to look at the evidence to see whether Darwinism could possible be true.
Christianity may also be compatible with unicorns. But that doesn’t help us establish whether unicorns exist.
Nullasalus,
Some of our terms get hard to define. Is it scientifically detectable only if you can sense it (see, hear, taste etc) AND demonstrate it to others? I feel like the Holy Spirit almost fits that definition because if you take the steps necessary to approach God, you should get the Holy Spirit fairly regularly. And so God is demonstrated, right? Do my Christian friends disagree?
What I mean to say is that if you sense the Holy Spirit when you read the bible, and then you share the bible with someone else and they have the same experience, is this “objective.” Has it been verified by someone else performing the experiement of reading the bible?
Collin,
Is it scientifically detectable only if you can sense it (see, hear, taste etc) AND demonstrate it to others?
I’d say even that isn’t sufficient to be “scientifically” detectable. But science doesn’t have a monopoly on detection anyway. Would not being able to call such a detection ‘scientific’ somehow cheapen it?
nullasalus, my understanding of Barr’s view is based on this FT article:
http://www.firstthings.com/art.....on—4
Ironically, given FT’s intolerance of my views over the last two days, he writes: “The second battle [the one over ID] could have been avoided had there been more good will and intellectual humility on the part of scientists. We would all be better off if more scientists simply admitted that there are things we don’t understand about the hows and whys of evolution. What we have seen instead is an intolerance of any questioning on this subject that is totally inconsistent with a true scientific spirit.”
Then he writes: “Let us suppose that the scientific claims of neo-Darwinism are correct. What baleful philosophical implications would this have? Absolutely none, as far as I can see.”
And this: “And what happens to morality and natural-law ethics if neo-Darwinism is right? Nothing, if we recognize that man is not merely a product of evolution. Man is not reducible to matter, not only as Scripture and tradition attest, but also as human reason can discern by reflecting upon its own powers.”
This passage is truly confused. It says, essentially, even if neo-Darwinism is correct [i.e., man is reducible to matter], neo-Darwinism is wrong [because man is not reducible to matter]. This passage displays a profound lack of understanding about exactly what neo-Darwinism posits.
And finally: “We need not pit evolution against design, if we recognize that evolution is part of God’s design.” And further, on Barr’s view, since God’s working through evolution is utterly invisible, the only way we could know that God has worked is through sheer stupid blind faith – just what the materialists accuse us of.
Nullasalus again: “run with the idea that Barr believes that God’s design is empirically undetectable. There’s one problem with the reply in this context: this is also the response of the ID proponent. ID at its most aggressive detects ‘design’ and ‘designer’, period. Not “God’s design”, certainly not “God’s existence”.
Certainly it is true that the ID proponent never identifies the designer with God while he is doing ID science. I have affirmed this many times and affirm it again now.
However, when I take my ID hat off, I am perfectly free to conclude that God is a reasonable candidate for the designer. Darwkins infers “no God” from Darwinism. He will be the first to admit that this is a possible IMPLICATION of the theory, not the theory itself. Similarly, I can say, “God exists” based on ID, even though I admit this is only a possible implication of the theory, not the theory itself.
EndoplasmicMessenger captures the central point very nicely at 12
Barry,
This passage is truly confused. It says, essentially, even if neo-Darwinism is correct [i.e., man is reducible to matter], neo-Darwinism is wrong [because man is not reducible to matter]. This passage displays a profound lack of understanding about exactly what neo-Darwinism posits.
I think the sticking point is that Barr specifies the “scientific claims” of neo-Darwinism, and quite a lot of claims we often see tied up with neo-Darwinism (Provine’s, Dawkins’, etc) are things Barr would call non-scientific claims.
A good example would be the guided v unguided conversation. In his debate with Michael Behe, I recall (but can’t quote offhand) Barr expressly stating his belief that God knew the results of evolution in advance, and that man (and all else) was intentionally created. His line is that neo-Darwinism does not and cannot deny this insofar as it is a scientific theory – at most, it can (and does) remain silent about God’s activity or lack thereof.
However, when I take my ID hat off, I am perfectly free to conclude that God is a reasonable candidate for the designer.
Absolutely. But I think it’s reasonable to say that if you take your ID hat off, you take your science hat off with it, at least on these questions.
Similarly, I can say, “God exists” based on ID, even though I admit this is only a possible implication of the theory, not the theory itself.
Is this right? It seems like, if ID is what all major proponents define it as, you really can’t say “God exists” based on ID. You can say “a designer or designers exist or existed, and in principle God may be the designer in question”, perhaps. But I think the two statements are very far apart.
What’s more, I think Barr can make similar moves: “When I have my scientist hat on, I say that neo-Darwinism offers a true explanation of the origin of plants and animals. When my scientist hat is off, I see God as a live factor involved in both the variation and the selection.”
nullasalus: “You can say ‘a designer or designers exist or existed, and in principle God may be the designer in question’” Yes, that is what I am saying. We do not disagree.
Nullasalus says Barr can say: “When my scientist hat is off, I see God as a live factor involved in both the variation and the selection.”
Yes, he can say that. The problem is that based on his acceptance of Neo-Darwinism, he must admit that he has absolutely no warrant for saying that. Moreover, the statement is incompatable with what he just said a minute ago when he said Neo-Darwinism is true. We must never forget that the whole purpose of Neo-Darwinism is to show that design can be had without a designer. Therefore, nullasalus has Barr saying “I am firmly convinced that the empirical evidence demonstrates there was no designer, but I am firmly convinced there was a designer.” Not very satisfactory in my view.
This is nonsense. The same people who claim that evolutionary probabilities cannot be computed I am sure would defend those silly computer programs that claim to prove that ranadom mutation and natural selection can evolve complex novelty.
Bottom line though is this:
If you cannot compute evolutionary probababiltiies then you cannot test the claim that “random” mutation is a driving factor in the complex novelty we see in nature. And hence if you cant test that mechanism then you cant call it a sound scientific theory. As David Berlinski has said for years “it must pass the test of mathematics to be considered a serious scientific theory.”
Barry,
The problem is that based on his acceptance of Neo-Darwinism, he must admit that he has absolutely no warrant for saying that.
Only if you define neo-Darwinism as making claims about God’s existence or action, which is exactly the thing Barr would apparently regard as non-scientific. Now, if Barr accepted the definition of neo-Darwinism as an evolutionary theory that shows life unfolded without any design or intention by God, he’d be in trouble. And I have no doubt that some TEs do make that move. But Barr clearly does not.
We must never forget that the whole purpose of Neo-Darwinism is to show that design can be had without a designer.
And what if Barr disagrees that this is the *scientific* purpose of Neo-Darwinism? What if he disagrees that Neo-Darwinism can, as far as science is concerned, ever hope to demonstrate this? Will Provine may say that evolution demonstrates such and such about God, and I’ll absolutely grant that Will Provine may believe such and such. But that doesn’t make Provine correct.
I wouldn’t have to go far to find some TE dramatically insisting that ID, were it correct, would reveal some petty, tinkerer-God who couldn’t rightly be identified with the God of Christianity, or even a God worthy of worship. But Christian ID proponents presumably could, and I say should, reply: who cares what this TE thinks? He’s wrong, and here’s why.
One big problem with Stephen Barr’s conception of evolution is that it militates against the Catholic world view that he claims to embrace. More specifically, he holds to the Darwinian notion that both human minds and human bodies can emerge from a bottom-up evolutionary process.
To be sure, a Catholic can legitimately argue that evolution produced man’s body, but he may not entertain the proposition that man’s mind, soul, or will arrived by way of that same process. Quite the contrary, the Catholic (non-denominational Christian as well I would say) must hold that, regardless of how man’s body was created, God directly “breathed in” his immortal soul from the top down.
In large part, this is what differentiates the reasonable Theistic Evolutionist (such as nullasalus) from the unreasonable Christian Darwinist (such Stephen Barr). Once we grant the materialist his assumption that mind arose from matter, we have given away the store.
From Pius XII (Humani Generis)
“For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter – FOR THE CATHOLIC FAITH OBLIGES US TO HOLD THAT SOULS ARE IMMEDIATELY CREATED BY GOD. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, THOSE FAVORABLE AND UNFAVORABLE TO EVOLUTION, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith. Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.”
It’s stamp collecting. Not even British Empire.
p.p. E. Rutherford Esq of this parish.
–BarryA: “We must never forget that the whole purpose of Neo-Darwinism is to show that design can be had without a designer.”
Precisely.
StephenB,
To be sure, a Catholic can legitimately argue that evolution produced man’s body, but he may not entertain the proposition that man’s mind, soul, or will arrived by way of that same process. Quite the contrary, the Catholic (non-denominational Christian as well I would say) must hold that, regardless of how man’s body was created, God directly “breathed in” his immortal soul from the top down.
But Barr expressly says that man is not reducible to matter.
I’ve said it before and it bears repeating on this particular thread:
Part, nay, much, of the problem in these types of discussions is pinning down what “evolution” means. This is a most slippery word and regularly changes meaning in the course of a conversation, sometimes even in the course of a single sentence.
Evolution is not a defined term, but rather a loose collection of propositions, often — like quantum particles — popping into and out of existence to serve the rhetorical stance of the particular statement being advanced.
There are many definitions of evolution that are absolutely and completely compatible with theism, even with active theism, even with special creation. Indeed, the oft-repeated “change over time” definition is perfectly compatible. “Changes in gene frequency” also works. Limited common descent is also fine. Then things start to get grayer . . .
What Barry is referring to, and what the quoted individuals subscribe to, is what we might call ‘strong evolution’ or ‘philosophical evolution,’ namely the position that not only is there a certain biological history, but that the history came about solely by natural and material processes, with no plan or purpose.
Now in this sense I would think a theist would have to reject evolution, or the evolutionist would have to reject an active theism (which Barry’s quotes demonstrate quite clearly).
In the present discussion, it is exceedingly likely that the two sides are talking past each other, not so much because one is a logician and the other a lunatic (although that is possible), but because they are using the same word to describe two very different propositions.
—–
Related point:
What the theistic evolutionists have to be very careful about is that in almost all public debates, media stories, scientific articles, and textbooks, when the word “evolution” is used, it is assumed to be strong evolution — operating wholly without any plan or purpose. Thus, even if the evolutionist talks of minor microevolutionary things like “change over time” or “change in gene frequency”, which no-one would find questionable on its face, the evolutionist does so with the underlying and unstated assumption of a wholly naturalistic and materialistic backstory. As a result, if the theistic evolutionist jumps on board and accepts such definitions of “evolution” without appreciating that they come with the baggage of a naturalistic backstory he can be tricked into supporting a position, a statement, a cause, or a group of people whose ideology and worldview is diametrically opposed to his own. It is in this sense that, unless one exercises extreme caution, one runs the risk of becoming a ‘useful idiot’ to the philosophical evolutionary cause.
Evolution does not deal in terms of the soul and therefore a Catholic can hold the belief that God breathed man’s soul into his body at the beginning of man’s creation at the same time as certain design centered views of evolution. – ut I might add that for a Catholic the idea that man’s temporal soul exists at the moment of conception is also the view of a true Catholic even though I am not aware of any Ex Cathedra pronouncements on the matter. We could have one one day.
But evolution has to do with the origin of bodies – not souls. However, as Romans 1 clearly states God’s existence is manifest in all that he created so that even the non-Catholic cannot deny his existence.
Thomas Jefferson who was barely a Christian in the traditional sense said in a personal letter to John Adams in 1823:
“I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe, in its parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of its composition.”
And so the real question is whether one can be a Catholic and not accept Intelligent Design as a valid scientific theory.
Eric,
I agree with much of what you say here. What I’d add is that some TEs have a unique responsibility for this situation, because – while some TEs spell out at least the general idea of the relation they see God as having with evolution (and I maintain, Barr does the same), plenty absolutely thrive on being evasive and never spelling out this role, while defending what really seems to be ‘strong evolution’ as you put it.
I can point at numerous TEs at Biologos (for example) who are ridiculously evasive, and who really do seem to be guilty of what Barry is accusing them of. But Barr? I think Barr has been uniquely straightforward among TEs. The view of evolution he has (not to mention his view of man, metaphysics, and science’s relation to it) is one that Provine would reject.
null: “Now, if Barr accepted the definition of neo-Darwinism as an evolutionary theory that shows life unfolded without any design or intention by God, he’d be in trouble.”
But that is precisely what Neo-Darwinism purports to do. So why isn’t he in big trouble? Are you suggesting that he gets to have his own private version of Neo-Darwinism that allows that “divine foot in the door.” I guess at this point it really does become a matter of semantics. To the extent Barr subscribes to Neo-Darwinism as it is universally understood in the scientific community, you admit he is in big trouble. But if he accepts a different version of Neo-Darwinism, he may not be in trouble, but then he is not saying what he seems clearly to be saying.
Barry,
To the extent Barr subscribes to Neo-Darwinism as it is universally understood in the scientific community, you admit he is in big trouble.
Right in the piece you linked, Barr talks about how he regards Neo-Darwinism and stresses that when he talks about it, he’s stripping it of unwarranted, unscientific philosophical claims and concepts. In fact he expressly criticizes the scientific community for sitting by and staying silent as people, scientists included, abuse science by presenting the theory and packing it with philosophical and metaphysical claims that themselves go beyond science.
From the piece: “Moreover, the scientific community has sat by while certain scientists and philosophers, claiming the authority of science, have waged war against religion using the neo-Darwinian account of evolution as a metaphysical weapon. There have been three main prongs of this offensive. The first is the promotion of an extreme form of naturalism and reductionism, sometimes called “scientism.” According to this philosophy (a hang-over from positivism, and widespread among scientists), all objectively meaningful questions can be reduced to scientific ones, and only natural explanations are rational.”
And later…
“Of course, none of these attacks on religion has any scientific status. None is a proposition within any actual scientific theory. The proper—and ultimately most effective—response is (as I have written before) to distinguish sharply the actual hypotheses of legitimate science from the philosophical errors often mistakenly thought to follow from them. We must draw as clear a line as possible between science and philosophy—not to elevate science above philosophy, but to restore science to its proper “metaphysically modest” role, to use the fine phrase Cardinal Schönborn employed in First Things last month, replying to criticisms I had made of his earlier writing on evolution.”
So yeah, I think Barr is absolutely taking a very different view of evolution and neo-Darwinism than most or all of the men you quoted. Now maybe you disagree with him that this should be done, or on other grounds. But he’s absolutely not endorsing the same “neo-Darwinism” that Dawkins or Provine apparently speak of.
–nullasalus: “But Barr expressly says that man is not reducible to matter.”
Yes, I know, but he thinks that man’s immaterial, eternal, and spiritual qualities emerged from matter. That would not be, in my judgment, consistent with the Christian world view as expressed by Pius XII.
It’s that direct act of God implanting the soul [at whatever time the evolving body becomes prepared for it] that makes the difference. Again, Pius XII makes it clear that this is a non-negotiable article of faith for a Catholic. Barr obviously feels no hesitancy is thumbing his nose at that standard.
For me, that makes Barr a Darwinist first and a Catholic second. This is what I find with all Christian Darwinists. They seem to subordinate their faith to their pseudo science.
Stephen Barr said that there is no way to compute the probabilities of evolution.
As an engineer in multiple engineering disciplines (software, aeronautical, mechanical) I just try to use simple logic to figure out if stuff can work. The notion that “there is no way to compute the probabilities of evolution” may be true, but one can easily recognize when a proposed engineering solution makes absolutely no sense. I’ve tried to make this point, as in my post here, but when I make this point I’m always asked by Darwinists to provide a detailed probabilistic analysis as to why Darwinian mechanisms could not possibly produce the results in question (like converting a microbe into Mozart in 10^17 seconds).
Interestingly, Darwinists never hold themselves to the same standard, which would be to provide a detailed probabilistic analysis as to why Darwinian mechanisms could convert a microbe into Mozart in 10^17 seconds.
I don’t need to provide a detailed probabilistic analysis in defense of my proposition. I can just use simple logic in two steps:
1) Converting a Hello World computer program into a word processor is a far less daunting project than converting a bacterium into a person who can write Hello World computer program and convert it into a word processor.
2) I’ve demonstrated with simple mathematical calculations that even with the entire probabilistic resources of the universe available, and even with intelligent, purpose-driven selection with a goal in mind, the goal of converting a Hello World computer program into a word processor could not possibly be achieved through random errors filtered by purposeful selection.
In my view, Darwinists are living in a fantasy world, completely disconnected from reality, evidence, and logic concerning the creative powers of their proposed mechanism.
In addition, it is supremely clear to me that people like Barr have much to fear. If he were to admit that what I have proposed above has any validity, he would be immediately excommunicated from respectable company.
As a final note: I was influenced to a great extent by Phillip Johnson, an attorney. One might ask, What does an attorney have to contribute to the design debate? What a good attorney has to offer is cutting through the fluff, getting to the logic of the argumentation, and pointing out rational inconsistencies.
The most obvious rational inconsistency to me is the proposition that a by-definition purposeless process was purposed.
But then, I’m just an engineer, who tries to use simple logic.
StephenB,
Yes, I know, but he thinks that man’s immaterial, eternal, and spiritual qualities emerged from matter.
Where does he say this?