Of course, a critic might worry that Kojonen’s model violates Ockham’s razor. Why posit two explanations when only one will do?
The understanding of what it takes to build complex systems sheds light on the causal hurdles that would be necessary for evolutionary processes to overcome.
I wonder whether Farina has in fact read Behe’s book for himself, or whether he is relying upon others, such as Nathan Lents.
How many people are willing to give up morality, rationality, free will, truth, beauty, and goodness as valuable concepts based on reality?
Can there be a better example of trying to argue that whatever the evidence, evolution is the answer?