Providing commentary and reasoned analysis of
evolutionary claims
Welcome to Evolution Debate!
This site is designed to assist professionals and newcomers alike in
understanding the fundamental claims underlying evolutionary theory, as well as
the logical and rhetorical stance taken by evolutionary proponents. This site also considers the challenges to
traditional evolutionary theory raised by intelligent design. By carefully and objectively considering the
materials on this site and the related links, individuals will become better
equipped to engage thoughtfully and actively in the evolution debate.
Eric Anderson
Calvin weighs in. (Interesting to note the date, which I presume is accurate.) July 14, 2006.
Recently, a debate on intelligent design was held between Dr. Peter Ward and Dr. Stephen Meyer.
Why, in attempting to challenge Meyer, would Ward put forth a proposition that
is supportive of intelligent design theory? June 3, 2006.
Unlocking the Mystery of Life Revisited
Further to my previous review,
NCSE and friends have still failed to provide any substantive
critique of the video documentary Unlocking
the Mystery of Life. I would like to
see, however, an updated documentary that fleshes out the details of the cellular
mechanisms only alluded to in UML. April 21, 2005.
Dawkins and the
Pregnant Pause
The AiG video interview with Richard Dawkins
has come up again for discussion on the ARN
Board. Questions remain about the authenticity
of the video and the circumstances surrounding the interview, but more
interesting is the substantive question posed to Dawkins regarding information
content in life. Although a beneficial
mutation may be occasionally found in nature, such mutations do not explain the
origin of the biological information found both within the genome and
without. April 20, 2005.
Bits, Bytes and Biology: What Evolutionary
Algorithms (Don’t) Teach Us About Biology
Far from constituting a devastating critique
of irreducible complexity, the much-hyped evolutionary algorithm, Avida, like most evolutionary algorithms, is a flawed
effort that bears little relevance to the biological world. In their haste to affirm the Darwinian
creation story, the Avida authors seem oblivious to,
or conveniently ignore, the fact that they have incorporated as premises the
very conclusions they are trying to reach.
Such efforts are at best misleading, at worst deceptive. Ironically, the main piece of data obtained
by the Avida researchers that is not based on
circular evolutionary assumptions, upon closer inspection supports, rather than
refutes, Behe’s notion of irreducible
complexity. November 2, 2004.
Irreducible Complexity Reduced: An Integrated
Approach to the Complexity Space
William Dembski’s recent essay, Irreducible
Complexity Revisited, provides a valuable update on the irreducible
complexity debate some 8 years after Michael Behe’s
publication of Darwin’s Black Box.
However, there appears to be a lack of clarity regarding the interplay
among specified complexity, cumulative complexity and irreducible
complexity. I analyze the relationship
of these concepts and show why the argument from irreducible complexity fails to
convince faithful evolutionists.
Nevertheless, the argument from irreducible complexity meets an
important evidentiary burden and constitutes a valuable contribution to the
broader debate regarding the origin and diversity of life on the Earth. The burden is now on the evolutionists to
provide a cogent response. Updated
September 14, 2004.
Further Thoughts on Natural Selection
In this essay I respond to certain criticisms of my article A Good Tautology is
Hard to Avoid and also challenge a number of additional evolutionary
arguments that attempt to prevent the concept of natural selection from failing
as a tautology. I argue that although
natural selection need not fail as a tautology from a purely logical
standpoint, from a practical standpoint it is exceedingly difficult to divorce
fitness from survivability. In practice,
therefore, invoking the concept of natural selection generally results in
uninformative circular reasoning, including in its Neo-Darwinian formulation of
“greater reproductive success.” May 26,
2004.
Glenn Branch and Eugenie Scott of the NCSE
use the opportunity of Georgia’s recent faux pas to take a swipe at intelligent
design. Unfortunately, they still do not
seem to understand the design inference.
February 25, 2004
Joel Cracraft’s
Threat to Science Literacy and Education
Joel Cracraft, President of the American
Institute of Biological Sciences, penned an editorial in the January 2004 issue
of BioScience Magazine. Unhindered by facts, Mr. Cracraft’s
editorial represents a distortion of the intelligent design movement, as well
as the issues surrounding the debate over teaching evolution in the public
schools. January 9, 2004.
Continuing his long-standing tradition of senseless drivel, Richard
Dawkins recently denounced religion as a “virus” in a lecture before several
hundred at Harvard’s Lowell Lecture Hall.
December 16, 2003.
John Catalano has dedicated a portion of his site to a critique of
Michael Behe’s book, “Darwin’s Black Box.” Mr. Catalano’s critique, however, is
compromised by irrelevant religious comments, as well as a general
misunderstanding of the design argument.
December 5, 2003.
The Designed Universe and Intelligent
Design
The existence of regularity and order within the natural world is, by
itself, insufficient to lead to a conclusion of design in the broader
universe. However, even if the universe
and the laws that govern the universe are designed, these laws are incapable of
explaining the origin and diversity of life as we know it. Intelligent design is thus concerned with
identifying the effects of intervening creative acts, and does not depend on
whether the universe itself is the product of design. November 26, 2003.
Dembski
and Berlinski – Tossing Coins
In a recent exchange, William Dembski and
David Berlinski fail to see eye-to-eye on the
question of improbability. Dembski’s analogy may be flawed, but Berlinski
seems to misunderstand Dembski’s larger point. November 14, 2003.
The National Center for Science Education and colleagues provide
unfavorable reviews of the video documentary “Unlocking the Mystery of
Life.” Unfortunately the reviews are
less than objective and conveniently ignore the key scientific issues. November 11, 2003.
Michael Denton: Living
in a Material World (with apologies to Madonna)
Michael Denton has been an outspoken critic of traditional evolutionary
theory and has made a valuable contribution to the current debate over
evolution. However, he needs to further
scrutinize his own assumptions in his approach to evolutionary theory. October 6, 2003.
Brief Primer
on Intelligent Design
Intelligent design has stirred a great deal of ongoing debate, often
generating more heat than light. In this
article I avoid the side roads and the irrelevancies, and outline the
fundamental central tenet of intelligent design. Criticisms of intelligent design must focus
on this central tenet, or risk missing the mark. It is also with this central tenet that
intelligent design stands or falls as a scientific enterprise. September 9, 2003.
One of the most entertaining things about evolutionary theory is the
wealth of imaginative stories about how such-and-such an organism evolved into
another. I provide my own version of a
few of the tales that have made their way into mainstream evolutionary
lore. I also provide a bit of commentary
on some of the other results of evolutionary philosophy. Ongoing.
Time to
Mothball the Peppered Moths
The peppered moth story is one of the most frequently cited examples of
evolution in action, and is included in the California Department of Education
2003 Science Framework. Unfortunately,
as an evolutionary story it is deeply flawed, and if a more balanced treatment
cannot be provided to students, it should be dropped from state science
standards. September 4, 2003.
A Letter of
Recommendations to Dr. Dini
Michael Dini’s critera
for student recommendation letters are based on a thinly-disguised personal
philosophy, rather than scientific evidence.
August 12, 2003.
A Good
Tautology is Hard to Avoid
John Wilkins’ article on The Talk.Origins
Archive attempts to show that natural selection is not a tautology. However, Wilkins’ efforts are marred by a
misunderstanding of the concept of tautology, as well as unwarranted
assumptions about natural selection’s explanatory power. July 18, 2003.
Welcome Personal
Position Selected Links
For corrections or comments regarding
substantive issues on this site please contact
(replace “nospam”
with “info”)
For technical comments or suggestions
regarding the layout of this site please contact
(replace “nospam”
with “webmaster”)