One might call the 20th century a “philosopher of the gaps” period, with scientists basking in the headlines and philosophy finding less and less to do.
In order for evolution to have occurred as the orthodox theory describes, the intricate embryonic development stages of species must have evolved.
Yesterday we saw how, in a new paper, Warren Allmon and Robert Ross reformulate the argument for evolution from homologous structures.
Previously, I questioned a theistic evolutionist’s claim that we can’t rule out chance as an explanation for something unless the probability of chance working can be calculated accurately.
This fourth and final installment of a critique of Elliott Sober’s recent article entitled “What is Wrong With Intelligent Design?” will show some final problems Sober’s claim that ID is not testable because, he alleges, ID can always regress to a higher level of design. In Part I, I explained some problems with Sober’s history of ID, and in Part II, I explained how Sober eschews ad hoc explanations while ignoring how modern neo-Darwinism commonly invokes them. In Part III, I explained that Sober ignores the testable predictions of ID. In this final installment I will show that Sober is wrong to claim that ID is not testable because he bases his argument on the false claim that ID permits Read More ›