Wednesday, January 17, 2018

Allmon and Ross Demolish Evolution

It Gets Worse

Last time we saw, in a new paper, evolutionists Warren Allmon and Robert Ross reformulate the argument for evolution from homologous structures. The paper makes several mistakes, but is important because it is a rare case of evolutionists (i) recognizing the religion in evolutionary thinking, and (ii) trying to do something about it. In this case the religion is in the claim that God would not have created non optimal homologies (such as vestigial structures). Allmon and Ross attempt to remove the religion by restating the claim as: God did not have to create such homologies. It is good that evolutionists are finally recognizing the religion, after having been in denial for so many years. But Allmon and Ross’ solution fails on several counts.

The first failure of Allmon and Ross’ solution is that it strips the power of the argument. The traditional religious arguments (i.e., God would not create those structures) at least had the virtue of providing a strong argument for evolution. Granted it was a religious argument, and granted one had to agree with that particular religion. And granted it ignored the problems of process and pattern (more below on that). And granted it turned evolution into, as Elliott Sober hinted, a “Lewis Carroll world in which down is up,” because the argument required evidence that is unlikely on evolution. The more unlikely, the better. Such is the logic of evolution’s religion. But after all those caveats, at least it provided a strong argument for evolution.

With design refuted, evolution had to be true, no matter how many problems it had. But with Allmon and Ross’ reformulation, design is not refuted. Now the advantage for evolution is not that the alternative is false or even highly unlikely, but that the alternative does not specify what we observe whereas evolution does. Allmon and Ross triumphantly conclude their new formulation is a powerful argument for evolution. They apparently think their reformulation is merely a minor tweak, and that their new argument is just as strong as the traditional argument. It isn’t. There is no free lunch. What Allmon and Ross fail to understand is that this is a much weaker argument.

But it gets worse.

The second failure of Allmon and Ross’ solution is that it never did get rid of the religion as they had hoped. Allmon and Ross naively assume that the claim God may or may not create these homologies is merely an obvious point of fact. This is a deep subject into which Allmon and Ross have rushed in, but suffice it to say that it is not at all clear that God can go with either world. Leibniz undoubtedly would disagree. The Lutheran polymath would argue that because of His perfection and other attributes, God cannot just create any old world. The bottom line, and one which Allmon and Ross are blissfully na├»ve of, is that like it or not, claims about God are religious.

But it gets worse. Much worse.

Not only did Allmon and Ross utterly misapprehend and expose the homology argument, they have, in fact, altogether demolished evolutionary theory. Remember, with their reformulation it becomes utterly crucial that evolution predicts what we observe. In other words, evolution must predict the pattern of similarities and differences we observe across the species. This is because their new formulation was that while design can explain a common descent pattern or other patterns, evolution is narrowly restricted to the common descent pattern.

With that the two Harvard trained Epicureans just inadvertently blew up evolution. This is because what we actually observe is not the common descent pattern.

The actual comparisons between the species have contradicted the common descent pattern over and over. It is, as we have documented here so many times, not even close.

If evolution predicts the common descent pattern, then by modus tollens, evolution is false.

Religion drives science, and it matters.


  1. LOL! You're so funny!

    You're carping about a PHILOSOPHY paper, not a science one. Its authors are arguing for the philosophical reasons teaching science is better than teaching Biblical Creationism.

    The paper doesn't touch AT ALL on the 150+ years and millions of pieces of consilient positive evidence which support evolutionary theory and which conclusively disprove Young Earth Creationism.

    Only 2 weeks into the new year and you're already desperate for any mud to throw at science, even when you have to invent it yourself.

    1. Science? Science is a foreign word to you, timmy. Evidence? There isn't any evidence that supports evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. There isn't even a methodology to test its claims.

      If we are going to teach science only in science classrooms that means evolution by means of blind and mindless processes are out.

    2. Yes, teaching science is good. However your alleged evolutionary theory doesn't reach the level of science. Also you are sadly mistaken as there isn't any evidence in support of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes.

      Only two+ weeks into the new year and already evolutionists are bluffing and lying their way through discussions.

  2. "...millions of pieces of consilient positive evidence which support evolutionary theory..."

    Why do Darwinists constantly repeat this mantra?

    "If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself." (Joseph Goebbels)

    1. Pepe: "If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself." (Joseph Goebbels)"

      Ooh! Ooh! Can I play.

      Repeat after me. And repeat it often. "ID is not creationism in a cheap tuxedo".

    2. ID predates Creation. ID doesn't depend on the Bible. ID does not require God to be the Intelligent Designer.

      So yes, it is a lie to say that ID is creationism in a cheap tuxedo.

    3. "Repeat after me..."

      Unlike Darwinists or Nazis, I don't say and repeat lies!

      I suggest you read the following book, available on Amazon:

      "Evolution's Blunders, Frauds and Forgeries"

    4. Pepe I suggest you read the following book, available on Amazon:

      Hmmm. A book from an author who got his PHD by correspondence, from s school forced to shut down by court order. A young earth creationist.

      Nah, if I want a good laugh I watch Ghostbusters.

    5. William S., do you realize that your comment is a typical Materialist / Atheist / Darwinist, aka MAD, ad hominem logical fallacy response? IOW, if you don't like the message, shoot the messenger!

      But given your "penchant" for things like Ghostbusters, why am I not surprised?

      You should know that a "court order" condemned an innocent man to death for telling the truth some 2000 years ago...

    6. LoL! By that "logic" we can ignore everything evos say. I mean it's good for a laugh but that's about it.

    7. But that man never claimed to have a PhD degree from a discredited correspondence school that was forced to close. Or claimed to have published 800 research papers, none of them peer reviewed.

    8. Ad hominem 2.0!

    9. Again, your failure to assess the evidence says it all.

    10. Pepe: ”Ad hominem 2.0!”
      I wasn’t aware that facts were ad hominems. I learn something new every time I come here.

    11. LoL! The fact is you are either afraid of the evidence or too incompetent to assess it.

    12. Joke: “LoL! The fact is you are either afraid of the evidence or too incompetent to assess it.“
      At least I don’t go on for years claiming that wavelength equals frequency.

    13. At least I don’t go on for years claiming that wavelength equals frequency.

      LoL! At least I don't go around quote-mining people as you are doing. Does it make you feel big to quote-mine me and choke on all explanations? Is it my fault you are limited when it comes to the English language? Is it my fault that you are too dull to assess the evidence?

      Have you found that molecular code that converts water into ice? What about the wave stretching capabilities of water?

      Shameful, really...

    14. Here's a quote from Dr. Michael Egnor that explains WS silly comments:

      "It’s worth noting that modern atheists and materialists have a particular problem with non-contradiction. Consider a number of atheist and materialist claims in this light.

      Materialists and atheists claim that ID is scientifically wrong, and claim that ID is not scientifically testable. But of course, in order to be scientifically wrong, ID must be scientifically testable..."

  3. This paper shows a retreat that is consistent with other discussions on evolution. The mechanism natural selection and other evolution by committee mechanisms are not being seeing as powerful enough to explain new biological innovation.

    The fall back position is to try and collect evidence for common ancestry. The problem is that this will never get you to universal common ancestry which is Darwin's clam. We all agree in some level of common ancestry as a minimum exists within species. The question is where is the line of demarkation?

    What this paper tries to advocate is using lines of evidence to support common descent which on the surface seems fine. In this exploration they may come up with tentative lines of demarkation between common descent and design. They are giving up that evolution can explain the emergence of novel features.

    It appears by doing this they are conceding Behe's argument that certain features are best explained by design. It is beginning to appear that Behe is winning the game of public opinion.