Dillahunty contended that the biological information coded in DNA isn’t really information at all but only analogous to it. Try to follow this word salad.
True, our ID argument does depend in part upon critical assessments of the causal adequacy of materialistic explanations for the origin of DNA information.
Much of the response by Dawkins is defensive in tone, and shifts the discussion to one of ethics and philosophy with only a vague gesture towards science.
Suppose scientists did formulate a viable materialistic explanation for the origin of life. Couldn’t someone ask for an account of the origin of matter itself?
Some of us are old enough to remember when the origin of life was a question that science would answer — soon. But that was hundreds of promising theories ago.
Fine-tuning strongly favors theism because it predicts a life-permitting order in advance, while naturalism only retrofits explanations after the fact.
There are a lot of commenters refuting arguments that Stephen Meyer never made. What he is offering is what philosophers of science call an abductive inference.
I want to be fair to Howell, but I also want to be fair to my colleagues who have worked hard developing and publishing new ID arguments over the past 20 years.
From 2016 until his tragic death in 2025, Bechly made many important contributions to ID literature on the topic of fossil explosions in the history of life.
It makes sense to think that the T3SS didn’t evolve into the bacterial flagellum, but that the bacterial flagellum shed some protein parts to become a T3SS.
The nature of the surveys to which Phil Halper appeals is that they measure what physicists believe. They cannot measure what the evidence actually supports.
