On a recent webinar, Eric Cassell talked with geologist Casey Luskin about Cassell’s new book Animal Algorithms. You can see that now. It’s a really interesting conversation and it reminded me what a bluff Darwinism is.
The aspects of life that are the most “macro” in nature (as distinguished from the cell with its molecular machinery, for instance) should, you might think, be the most likely to have submitted to being explained using Darwinian principles. Take animal behavior as an example of something that has been before our eyes far longer than the contents of the cell. Evolutionists seem very confident of themselves, but can they explain the algorithms that govern complex, in-born behaviors of animals including such superb navigators as desert ants, Arctic terns, or monarch butterflies? Human navigation technology is just catching up to what animals like these can do by instinct.
As Cassell explains, there are no step-by-step evolutionary explanations for such things — not even close. And how could there be? The algorithms at work in computer programs are, we know, precisely designed by human intelligence to function. Why would animal algorithms — equally or more sophisticated — be any different? In fact, as Cassell and Luskin note, scientists can’t even tell us where or how these algorithms could, in theory, be coded for in any genome. Programmed animal behavior is a “black box” (in Michael Behe’s phrase) that science has hardly even begun to open. Yet the confident talk from Darwinists goes on. It is, as a I said, a huge bluff.