tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post8488762821566320132..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Coyne: Evolutionary Arguments Not TheologicalUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-75505404404477315042010-02-17T04:57:18.577-08:002010-02-17T04:57:18.577-08:00Cornelius Hunter -
"No, I didn't say th...Cornelius Hunter - <br /><br />"No, I didn't say that. I think the problem here is that I've studied the evolution literature, and you obviously have not."<br /><br />Huh? What?<br /><br />Seriously, what on Earth did you mean when Jehannum_2000 said "Evolutionary scientists may offer metaphysical arguments about why they think creationism is wrong but the theory of evolution does not require them," and you replied "Of course it does"?<br /><br />And yet when *I* say exactly the same thing, I am using a strawman argument?<br /><br />What is the difference besides the fact that *I* am the one saying it? Or do you just automatically cry 'strawman argument' as a knee-jerk reaction whenever I post something?<br /><br />And as an aside, I have read plenty of literature on the subject of evolution. And in the course of doing so I have never read anyone who has ideas remotely approaching yours...Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-74663060611352662382010-02-17T00:08:59.976-08:002010-02-17T00:08:59.976-08:00Ritchie:
========
When Jehannum_2000 said that th...Ritchie:<br /><br />========<br />When Jehannum_2000 said that the theory of evolution does not 'require these refutations of Creationism', you just said, 'Of course it does.'<br /><br />You wrote this yourself three posts ago.<br /><br />And now you're saying you're NOT saying that?!?!?!<br />========<br /><br />No, I didn't say that. I think the problem here is that I've studied the evolution literature, and you obviously have not.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-76341506537113818022010-02-16T12:36:06.116-08:002010-02-16T12:36:06.116-08:00Cornelius -
????? WTF???!!
When Jehannum_2000 s...Cornelius - <br /><br />????? WTF???!!<br /><br />When Jehannum_2000 said that the theory of evolution does not 'require these refutations of Creationism', you just said, 'Of course it does.'<br /><br />You wrote this yourself three posts ago.<br /><br />And now you're saying you're NOT saying that?!?!?!<br /><br />How can you be so utterly confused? How can you possibly be of the opinion that your last two posts do not blatantly contradict each other?Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-37370530082368672812010-02-16T06:32:42.531-08:002010-02-16T06:32:42.531-08:00Ritchie:
"No, it really doesn't. This is...Ritchie:<br /><br />"No, it really doesn't. This is a point I have been trying to make you see myself. You are just taking proponents of evolution, taking their rebuttals of Creationism, and then simply assuming/asserting that the theory of evolution is based on them."<br /><br />No, that is *not* what I'm doing. You are projecting again.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-67833779082181339852010-02-16T03:16:39.473-08:002010-02-16T03:16:39.473-08:00Cornelius -
"Of course it does. They run al...Cornelius - <br /><br />"Of course it does. They run all through *Origins*, Hume, Kant, Wolf, Leibniz, Burnet, Malebranche, etc. They are required to motivate and justify evolution."<br /><br />No, it really doesn't. This is a point I have been trying to make you see myself. You are just taking proponents of evolution, taking their rebuttals of Creationism, and then simply assuming/asserting that the theory of evolution is based on them.<br /><br />It is not. What you are citing is evolutionary scientists offering responses to Cretionism - which is merely a related topic, not the basis for the theory of evolution!!Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-12565064395828454522010-02-14T10:14:27.894-08:002010-02-14T10:14:27.894-08:00Jehannum_2000:
"Evolutionary scientists may ...Jehannum_2000:<br /><br />"Evolutionary scientists may offer metaphysical arguments about why they think creationism is wrong but the theory of evolution does not require them."<br /><br />Of course it does. They run all through *Origins*, Hume, Kant, Wolf, Leibniz, Burnet, Malebranche, etc. They are required to motivate and justify evolution. For instance, you can see:<br /><br />http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/06/sober-rebukes-evolutions-religion.html<br /><br />http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/02/how-to-read-darwin.html<br /><br />http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/12/joe-felsenstein-de-novo-genes-trumped.htmlCornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15710255376473098212010-02-14T08:08:58.570-08:002010-02-14T08:08:58.570-08:00The examples of metaphysics quoted by the author a...The examples of metaphysics quoted by the author are not directly to do with evolution. They are rebuttals of creationism / intelligent design, and that's why they're on metaphysical ground.<br /><br />First there is an argument that the patterns of related organism we see in nature (taxonomic groupings) would not result from creation / intelligent design because independent creation would mean discrete uniqueness for all. This is metaphysical, because it implies a knowledge of the creator's intentions, but it is not an argument for evolution. It's an argument that creationism fails to address an observation in nature.<br /><br />Likewise, the citing of inefficiencies in animal physiology (e.g. laryngeal nerve) is an attack on the perfect designer idea of creationism. It requires metaphysics (the assumption that the creator would be logical, consistent and efficient) but it is not about the theory of evolution.<br /><br />Evolutionary scientists may offer metaphysical arguments about why they think creationism is wrong but the theory of evolution does not require them.Jehannum_2000https://www.blogger.com/profile/14219895508777389793noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-24520268960296248252010-02-13T10:31:34.950-08:002010-02-13T10:31:34.950-08:00Timcol62:
==============================
Re...Timcol62:<br /><br /><br />==============================<br /><br /> Re: Affirming the Consequent<br /><br /> I found some interesting notes on this (admittedly from Wikipedia, but I believe still accurate and in line with other sources).<br /><br /> Firstly,<br /><br /> "Although affirming the consequent is an invalid inference, it is defended in some contexts as a type of abductive reasoning, sometimes under the name "inference to the best explanation". That is, in some cases, reasoners argue that the antecedent is the best explanation, given the truth of the consequent."<br /><br /> But here is the part that interested me in regard to evolution and ID:<br /><br /> "The strength of such reasoning as an inductive inference depends on the LIKELIHOOD OF ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESES, which shows that such reasoning is based on additional premises, not merely on affirming the consequent."<br /><br />==============================<br /><br />I'm glad you found that interesting. You're getting warmer. See this, for example, which elaborates on this type of reasoning, which is so crucial in evolutionary thought:<br /><br />http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/06/sober-rebukes-evolutions-religion.htmlCornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-1252942921064507152010-02-06T01:24:18.319-08:002010-02-06T01:24:18.319-08:00Jeff:
"Just picking a random post to thank y...Jeff:<br /><br />"Just picking a random post to thank you for your work here. I enjoy and benefit from these lucubrations."<br /><br />Thanks for the note. Always nice to hear from readers.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-9395853304676508162010-02-05T12:54:04.258-08:002010-02-05T12:54:04.258-08:00Re: Affirming the Consequent
I found some interes...Re: Affirming the Consequent<br /><br />I found some interesting notes on this (admittedly from Wikipedia, but I believe still accurate and in line with other sources).<br /><br />Firstly,<br /><br />"Although affirming the consequent is an invalid inference, it is defended in some contexts as a type of abductive reasoning, sometimes under the name "inference to the best explanation". That is, in some cases, reasoners argue that the antecedent is the best explanation, given the truth of the consequent."<br /><br />But here is the part that interested me in regard to evolution and ID:<br /><br />"The strength of such reasoning as an inductive inference depends on the LIKELIHOOD OF ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESES, which shows that such reasoning is based on additional premises, not merely on affirming the consequent."<br /><br />I think the question then - are there likely alternative hypotheses to evolution? And if so, what are they? If we truly want to say the evolution is falling into the affirming the consequent trap, then I think it is up to critics to offer those alternate (Q) hypotheses. Cornelius seems reluctant to do that and seems fixated in showing only why he thinks P does not follow from Q. <br /><br />Curiously enough though ID can also be labelled as following the same fallacy<br /><br />ID(P)predicts IC(Q)<br />IC(Q) observed <br />ID(P)is true<br /><br />In this case of course there are indeed other alternative hypotheses that have been put forward for explaining IC(Q). <br /><br />So as the Wikipedia article points out this particular fallacy may not be as applicable to scientific matters as first thoughtTrevorDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06650660580820963962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-4764464248452397862010-02-05T03:42:53.116-08:002010-02-05T03:42:53.116-08:00natschuster -
"If we could find a theologic...natschuster - <br /><br />"If we could find a theological explanation for the nested hiearchies, then that would eliminate nested hierarchies as a proof od evolution."<br /><br />Not quite. The theory of evolution accounts for nested heirarchies. Therefore they are supporting evidence for it. If we drew up a different theory which also accounted for nested hierarchies, then the theory of evolution wouldn't suddenly stop accounting for them.<br /><br />It would just cease to be the ONLY theory which accounts for them.<br /><br />"So nested hierarchies is a "science of the gaps" arguement."<br /><br />No, a God of the Gaps argument works by pointing to gaps in our knowledge and claiming they are evidence of whatever hypothesis you want to propose on the basis that 'nothing else has yet accounted for it'. That is not what is going on with nested hierarchies.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-69666023474013095792010-02-04T21:03:59.788-08:002010-02-04T21:03:59.788-08:00If we could find a theological explanation for the...If we could find a theological explanation for the nested hiearchies, then that would eliminate nested hierarchies as a proof od evolution. So nested hierarchies is a "science of the gaps" arguement. But people have told me that a "God of the gaps" arguement is a fallacy. So science of he gaps should be a fallacy as well.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-50382674002067823912010-02-04T18:21:04.024-08:002010-02-04T18:21:04.024-08:00Cornelius -
"Perhaps you don't, but evo...Cornelius - <br /><br />"Perhaps you don't, but evolutionists do. They're not suggesting there's a problem, their sure their is a problem. Just read the literature."<br /><br />This is an absolute strawman argument. You characterize everyone who accepts evolution as a person who finds the idea of a divine creator 'untenable' and thus accepts evolution only by default.<br /><br />Timcol62 is just saying these observations of 'bad design' are certainly problematic for the Creationist and ID theories, and so do I. There's two people who accept evolution ('evolutionists' as you call us) who break your ridiculous mold, and frankly if you genuinely look, I am sure you will find few people who actually fit the characature.<br /><br />Please stop insisting that the theory of evolution is built on nothing more than the insistance that a divine creator is impossible! It is so, so far from the truth. And yet you insist on looking at the world through this absurd conviction. Please, please lay it aside for just one moment and consider that it just might possibly be wrong.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-64034194460696678182010-02-04T13:39:25.873-08:002010-02-04T13:39:25.873-08:00Timcol62 wrote:
"...we can at least make som...Timcol62 wrote:<br /><br />"...we can at least make some objective statements about the quality of the design that we observe,..."<br /><br />The problem may be perceived as - now I am not supporting ID design arguments, which are btw. often sound - that both parties speak about design. But design to what? Design to function?<br />Maybe there is also design to - beauty?<br /><br /><br />It is a darwinian mantra that "form follows function" (form - read design). There are almost uncountable forms in Nature and darwinists need to invent respective functions to explain every one of them. No wonder they invent often funny stories in which they even do not believe themselves - at least I suspect them.<br /><br />You have indefinite combinations of colors on animal surfaces. This is obviously free invention and playfulness of life itself and only darwinists make ridiculous claims, that they are due "aposematism", "mimicry", "sexual selection", "natural selection"..<br /><br />I am afraid many structures of animals are of such meaning and origins. They - using words of Adolf Portmann - just serve to self-represenation of species (horns etc...). Darwinists desperately needs to ascribe them function. They even dare to judge such structures according their functions (often invented) from the design point of view claiming "supranatural cannot create them".<br />Old atheistic evergreen.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-23684164205270910782010-02-04T13:09:47.577-08:002010-02-04T13:09:47.577-08:00Cornelius -
[from your link]
Affirming the conse...Cornelius - <br /><br />[from your link]<br />Affirming the consequent - "This fallacy states that if P implies Q, then Q implies P. For instance, if a theory predicts that it will rain next Tuesday, that does not mean that if it rains on Tuesday the theory is true. But this is precisely the logic of evolution. If evolution is true then we expect fossil sequences and genetic similarities to fall into the expected evolutionary patterns. Evolutionists such as Carroll and Myers have found such patterns in the fossil and molecular data and claim, as above, that they prove evolution to be true."<br /><br /><br />No, not at all. such would be the case if these observations were considered PROOF. They are not. They are merely supporting evidence. <br /><br />What we are doing with the prediction about the mammal's leg is trying to falsify our theory of evolution. If the mammal does NOT have the specific arrangement of bones, then the theory is falsified. But if the mammal DOES have that arrangement of bones, that still does not PROVE the theory correct. It is merely a piece of evidence which supports the theory.<br /><br />In short, it is supportive evidence for evolution. Just one more piece to add to an already almighty cache.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-61322997762399209952010-02-04T12:49:25.691-08:002010-02-04T12:49:25.691-08:00Timcol:
"Well, I don't know about being ...Timcol:<br /><br />"Well, I don't know about being untenable ..."<br /><br />Perhaps you don't, but evolutionists do. They're not suggesting there's a problem, their sure their is a problem. Just read the literature.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-16470346148398639722010-02-04T12:47:40.273-08:002010-02-04T12:47:40.273-08:00Ritchie:
===
The theory of evolution predicts a v...Ritchie:<br /><br />===<br />The theory of evolution predicts a very specific (and mathematically unlikely) pattern of fossils and genetics which we would find if the theory was true. And whenever we do look we generally do actively find fossils and genetic data fitting the pattern the theory of evolution demands.<br /><br />THIS is the evidence the theory of evolution is built on, and it is the reason people call it a fact.<br />===<br /><br />I see, so they're affirming the consequent (as well as having a confirmation bias).<br /><br />http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/06/three-fallacies-of-evolution.htmlCornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-20844417392215460492010-02-04T11:52:46.298-08:002010-02-04T11:52:46.298-08:00Cornelius -
I cannot understand this notion you ...Cornelius - <br /><br />I cannot understand this notion you have that the theory of evolution is built on criticism of Creationism/ID.<br /><br />You seem to believe that scientists say 'Look at this interesting biological feature. I don't think God would have built anything to look like that. There must be some other explanation. It must be evolution then'.<br /><br />If this truly is what you think then you are so far from right you couldn't poke it with a bargepole.<br /><br />People do not claim evidence supports evolution BY DEFAULT simply because they don't think it looks divinely designed.<br /><br />The theory of evolution predicts a very specific (and mathematically unlikely) pattern of fossils and genetics which we would find if the theory was true. And whenever we do look we generally do actively find fossils and genetic data fitting the pattern the theory of evolution demands. <br /><br />THIS is the evidence the theory of evolution is built on, and it is the reason people call it a fact.<br /><br />The comments you have cited above are objections to ID/Creationism. But they are not in and of themselves the observations that evolution is based on. Where you got this wacky idea, I just don't know.<br /><br />"evolution’s axioms are metaphysical."<br /><br />Wrong. Methodological naturalism is not an active position of religion any more than 'bald' is a hair colour, or 'off' is a TV channel.<br /><br />And even if it was, it is unjust to level this accusation at the theory of evolution alone, and flatly inaccurate to say it "do[es] not come from science."<br /><br />I think you would take it as a triumph to hear 'evolutionists' say "features such as the laryngeal nerve are not definite proof against a divine designer". But such triumph would only confirm your misunderstanding of what the theory of evolution says and how it operates.<br /><br />Yes, there is not a single piece of evidence which PROVES that there is no Intelligent Designer. There has never been a feature discovered which would be IMPOSSIBLE for a God to magic into existence with one snap of his mighty fingers.<br /><br />But objections to ID have never been based on such non-existent evidence.<br /><br />They are based around the total lack of evidence which SUPPORTS ID. And to understand this, you really need to take on board the fact that ID makes no predictions.<br /><br />Say we discover a particular animal species for the first time. It has recently died though, and we decide to dissect it. Before we do, we see it has nipples on its underside. This marks it out as strictly mammalian.<br /><br />As evolutionists we can therefore make other predictions - namely all the features common to mammals which developed before mammary glands will be present in the creature - for example, the arrangement of bones in the forearm. All mammals share the same arrangement of these bones because the arrangement was set by an ancestor which lived longer ago than the common ancestor of mammals with gave them mammary gland (and, in most cases, nipples).<br /><br />Now bear in mind we (as evolutionists) are predicting a very specific thing here. We are predicting to find a very specific pattern which we would have no reason to expect and would be mathematically unlikely if evolution was NOT true.<br /><br />So we open up the animal. And if we find that arrangement of bones in this animal too, then this is POSITIVE EVIDENCE in support of evolution.<br /><br />ID on the other hand, predicts no state of affairs over another. What could we predict about the internal anatomy of our mystery mammal in light of ID? Nothing at all. We could only say that whatever features we find inside may (or may not) have been divinely designed. Not a lot actually work with there then.<br /><br />ID does not predict any particular arrangement of bones. It does not necessarily predict any bones at all. The animal's legs could be filled with sawdust for all ID predicts. <br /><br />So the theory of evolution is based on evidence. ID is not.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-54573953059014300252010-02-04T11:41:12.461-08:002010-02-04T11:41:12.461-08:00Dr. Hunter: "Evolutionists believe that such ...Dr. Hunter: "Evolutionists believe that such examples make design and creationism untenable, so evolution, in one form or another, must be true."<br /><br />Well, I don't know about being untenable, but I think it is fair to say these examples are at the very least problematic for ID and creationism. At least by human standards,these examples do appear to be convuluted and sub-optimal. I know that some get around this by explaining that human design standards are not an appropriate reference - or that there indeed by some less obvious reasons why such a design was chosen. Some have even offered ideas that "The Fall" is responsible for distorting the Designer's original (and perfect) plans. Of course these kinds of explanations have a danger of becoming "just so" stories themselves.<br /><br />I can certainly appreciate then why Coyne and others suggest that these examples do in fact make more sense if another model is chosen. I don't think then it's a question of evolution being "true" but which model (based on what we know now) overall provides the better explanation. <br /><br />I'm not saying these examples necessarily falsify a design model, but I do think they offer significant challenges, and I'm not sure there are many good answers out there yet. Perhaps that's where IDers and others should direct their research?TrevorDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06650660580820963962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-70706656161949715022010-02-04T10:47:06.883-08:002010-02-04T10:47:06.883-08:00Timcol:
"What exactly is the metaphysical cl...Timcol:<br /><br />"What exactly is the metaphysical claim being made here? Isn't Coyne just pointing out that the design hypothesis has issues and inconsistencies?"<br /><br />Yes, but the issues and inconsistencies are with Coyne's and the evolutionist's beliefs. This is what proves evolution to be a fact.<br /><br />Evolutionists have for centuries made metaphysical claims. They are at the core of evolutionary thought. As I pointed out, Linnaeus had no difficulty with the pattern. Darwin *rejected* the Linnaean view that the pattern was of divine design. Darwin was not pointing out that the science refuted the pattern. Darwin was in agreement that there exists such a pattern. The disagreement was over the metaphysics, not the science. The science was common ground. That should be clear.<br /><br />The same could be said for the range of other evolutionary claims. For instance, Coyne's claim that the recurrent laryngeal nerve refutes design and creationism. Everyone agrees on the anatomy, that's not in question.<br /><br />Similarly for the lanugo and flatfish designs:<br /><br />http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/02/reverend-jerry-coyne-lanugo-and.html<br />http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/01/oracle-of-reverend-jerry-coyne.html<br /><br />Evolutionists believe that such examples make design and creationism untenable, so evolution, in one form or another, must be true.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />================<br />And in what sense are you using the term "metaphysics" - I found at least two definitions:<br /><br />1 A division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being and that includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology<br />2 Abstract philosophical studies : a study of what is outside objective experience<br /><br />Which is the usage you are utilising?<br />================<br /><br />#2. Another way to think of it is: that which precedes (or is above) the science.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-67205353180936487322010-02-04T10:23:25.390-08:002010-02-04T10:23:25.390-08:00Dr. Hunter said: "Yes, but he is in denial ab...Dr. Hunter said: "Yes, but he is in denial about it. Evolutionists make metaphysical claims, and then deny it."<br /><br />What exactly is the metaphysical claim being made here? Isn't Coyne just pointing out that the design hypothesis has issues and inconsistencies? And in what sense are you using the term "metaphysics" - I found at least two definitions:<br /><br />1 A division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being and that includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology <br />2 Abstract philosophical studies : a study of what is outside objective experience<br /><br />Which is the usage you are utilising?TrevorDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06650660580820963962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-45050004846503729192010-02-04T09:49:36.247-08:002010-02-04T09:49:36.247-08:00Timcol:
"I could see it being a problem if C...Timcol:<br /><br />"I could see it being a problem if Coyne, and others like him, rely on these arguments as some kind of proof for evolution."<br /><br />The “fact” of evolution has never been demonstrated without appeal to ultimate truths which are far beyond the halls of science.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-880240460293427322010-02-04T09:47:00.591-08:002010-02-04T09:47:00.591-08:00"But isn't Coyne engaging in this very li..."But isn't Coyne engaging in this very line of enquiry?"<br /><br />Yes, but he is in denial about it. Evolutionists make metaphysical claims, and then deny it.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-69127481880530881262010-02-04T09:45:07.681-08:002010-02-04T09:45:07.681-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-22222583209943271372010-02-04T09:41:36.956-08:002010-02-04T09:41:36.956-08:00Cornelius said: "Of course. In fact I affirme...Cornelius said: "Of course. In fact I affirmed that in the very post you are commenting on."<br /><br />But isn't Coyne engaging in this very line of enquiry? What's the difference? <br /><br />I could see it being a problem if Coyne, and others like him, rely on these arguments as some kind of proof for evolution. Rather (and given that he has written a popular book), he is simply addressing ID and creationist objections to evolution.TrevorDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06650660580820963962noreply@blogger.com