Monday, January 15, 2018

Warren Allmon on the Argument from Homology

An Enormous Concession

I once debated two evolutionists on the campus of Cornell University. In that debate I raised several fundamental problems with evolutionary theory. The problems that I pointed out fell into two broad categories: process and pattern. In the latter category, I pointed out that the keystone argument for evolution from homology had badly failed. Unfortunately, that failure was waved off and went unaddressed by the evolution professors. That may not have been the case had Warren Allmon been able to participate. Allmon, Director of the Cornell University-affiliated Paleontological Research Institution (PRI), has thought more deeply about the homology argument than most evolutionists. Now in 2018, he has published, along with adjunct professor Robert Ross, a new paper containing a very important concession.

As is typical, the new Allmon/Ross paper makes several serious scientific errors, either through ignorance, denial, confirmation bias, or whatever. The paper also relies heavily religious claims and arguments, which again is typical.

I have covered this religiously-driven phony science here many times. And in future posts I will address the specifics in the Allmon/Ross paper.

But most importantly, the paper does accomplish something new. The paper takes several turns, but in the end Allmon and Ross do recognize, at least somewhat, the presence of religion in evolutionary thought. To remedy this, they downsize the argument from homology.

In its canonical form, this keystone argument proves evolution by the process of elimination. That is, it refutes design and independent creation, leaving naturalistic evolution, in one form or another, as the only solution. God wouldn’t have created these lousy designs, according to evolutionists, so the designs must have arisen naturalistically. As usual, it is the religion that provides the certainty.

This isn’t science.

Rather than deny this obvious fact (see here for examples of such denial), Allmon and Ross ultimately admit to it (after appealing to it repeatedly), and seek to reformulate the argument from homology without the religion. They do this as follows.

Rather than claiming God would not have created non optimal homologies (such as vestigial structures), Allmon and Ross walk back the claim to say merely that God did not have to create such homologies. Under independent, divine, creation, God could have done it differently. Allmon and Ross then contrast this with descent with modification which, they say, necessarily would have resulted in such homologies.

So you have Theory A (design) which can accommodate Observation X or ~X (not X). And you have Theory B (evolution) which requires Observation X, and cannot accommodate ~X. Our observation of X, therefore, makes Theory B more probable.

Readers here will know there are enormous problems with this argument. It fails badly, right out of the gate. And I will discuss these failures in the future. But before we get to that, it is important to understand the implications of the argument, even without its problems.

In their attempt to save the theory, what Allmon and Ross have done is to provide an enormous concession. What traditionally has been an iron-clad, unquestionable, textbook proof of evolution, now becomes a minor Bayesian term, slightly improving the probability of evolution.

This is a monumental concession, neutering the keystone argument for evolution. Why should anyone believe in the heroic claim that the biological world arose by itself if the strongest argument merely increases its probability by some unspecified amount?

12 comments:

  1. ”This is a monumental concession, neutering the keystone argument for evolution.”
    Once again, a monumental concession neutering a keystone argument for evolution. Yet, BioComplexity, ID’s premier “peer reviewed” journal, has 15 times more people on their editorial board than the total number of papers published in 2017. And one of those articles was authored by their Editor in Chief.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @William Spearshake, how is your comment about BioComplexity relevant? Does it refute the quote? or anything else in this post?

      Delete
    2. Once again, a monumental concession neutering a keystone argument for evolution.

      Evolutionism. Has anyone ever published any papers ion support of evolutionism? Not that anyone has ever read.

      Delete
    3. "how... is your comment about BioComplexity relevant?"
      Until a theory is presented that has better explanatory power than evolution, evolutionary theory still remains the best explanation out there. BioComplexity is the premier peer reviewed ID journal available, yet it is moribund and incestuous. This ID theory is not gaining much steam, or credebility.

      Delete
    4. Until a theory is presented that has better explanatory power than evolution, evolutionary theory still remains the best explanation out there.

      There isn't a scientific theory of evolution. Not only that ID is NOT anti-evolution so once again you got caught with your usual equivocation.

      Unlike evolutionism at least ID has a methodology to test its claims. Yours doesn't even have that.

      Delete
    5. joke: "There isn't a scientific theory of evolution. Not only that ID is NOT anti-evolution so once again you got caught with your usual equivocation."

      If there is no evolutionary theory, ID should be able to fill that void quite easily. You might start by publishing some of your research in BioComplexity.

      Delete
    6. If there is no evolutionary theory, ID should be able to fill that void quite easily.

      Why is that? Please try to make your case as opposed to just spewing nonsense and thinking you have made some point.

      You might start by publishing some of your research in BioComplexity.

      All of the research that supports ID is already published. And yet there isn't any research for evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. Perhaps if there were then someone would be able to make a scientific theory out of it.

      Delete
    7. Joke: "Why is that? Please try to make your case as opposed to just spewing nonsense and thinking you have made some point."
      If there is no theory to explain something, vanytheory that comes along becomes the best explanation. At least for a little while.
      "All of the research that supports ID is already published. "
      Then why to Marks, Axe and the boys feel it necessary to create a journal for the specific purpose of ID? Ego?

      Delete
    8. If there is no theory to explain something, vanytheory that comes along becomes the best explanation.

      ID is clearly the best explanation for what we observe. The alternatives are untestable

      Then why to Marks, Axe and the boys feel it necessary to create a journal for the specific purpose of ID?

      Ask them.

      Delete
    9. But I thought that there was no alternative?

      Delete
    10. There aren't any scientific alternatives. But then again you don't know what science entails.

      Delete
  2. "Until a theory is presented that has better explanatory power than evolution, evolutionary theory still remains the best explanation out there."

    are you saying that the best explanation for the existence of a spinning self replicating motor (flagellum) is a natural process rather then design?

    ReplyDelete