ID and Common Descent
| January 12, 2010 | Posted by johnnyb under Intelligent Design |
Many, many people seem to misunderstand the relationship between Intelligent Design and Common Descent. Some view ID as being equivalent to Progressive Creationism (sometimes called Old-Earth Creationism), others seeing it as being equivalent to Young-Earth Creationism. I have argued before that the core of ID is not about a specific theory of origins. In fact, many ID’ers hold a variety of views including Progressive Creationism and Young-Earth Creationism.
But another category that is often overlooked are those who hold to both ID and Common Descent, where the descent was purely naturalistic. This view is often considered inconsistent. My goal is to show how this is a consistent proposition.
I should start by noting that I do not myself hold to the Common Descent proposition. Nonetheless, I think that the relationship of ID to Common Descent has been misunderstood enough as to warrant some defense.
The issue is that most people understand common descent entirely from a Darwinian perspective. That is, they assume that the notion of natural selection and gradualism follow along closely to the notion of common descent. However, there is nothing that logically ties these together, especially if you allow for design.
In Darwinism, each feature is a selected accident. Therefore, Darwinian phylogenetic trees often use parsimony as a guide, meaning that it tries to construct a tree so that complex features don’t have to evolve more than once.
The ID version of common descent, however, doesn’t have to play by these rules. The ID version of common descent includes a concept known as frontloading – where the designer designed the original organism so that it would have sufficient information for its later evolution. If one allows for design, there is no reason to assume that the original organism must have been simple. It may in fact have been more complex than any existing organism. There are maximalist versions of this hypothesis, where the original organism had a superhuge genome, and minimalist versions of this hypothesis (such as from Mike Gene) where only the basic outlines of common patterns of pathways were present. Some have objected to the idea of a superhuge genome, on the basis that it isn’t biologically tenable. However, the amoeba has 100x the number of base pairs that a human has, so the carrying capacity of genetic information for a single-cell organism is quite large. I’m going to focus on views that tend towards the maximalist.
Therefore, because of this initial deposit, it makes sense that phylogenetic change would be sudden instead of gradual. If the genetic information already existed, or at least largely existed in the original organism, then time wouldn’t be the barrier for it to come about. It also means that multiple lineages could lead to the same result. There is no reason to think that there was one lineage that lead to tetrapods, for instance. If there were multiple lineages which all were carrying basically the same information, there is no reason why there weren’t multiple tetrapod lineages. It also explains why we find chimeras much more often than we find organs in transition. If the information was already in the genome, then the organ could come into existence all-at-once. It didn’t need to evolve, except to switch on.
Take the flagellum, for instance. Many people criticize Behe for thinking that the flagellum just popped into existence sometime in history, based on irreducible complexity. That is not the argument Behe is making. Behe’s point is that the flagellum, whenever it arose, didn’t arise through a Darwinian mechanism. Instead, it arose through a non-Darwinian mechanism. Perhaps all the components were there, waiting to be turned on. Perhaps there is a meta-language guided the piecing together of complex parts in the cell. There are numerous non-Darwinian evolutionary mechanisms which are possible, several of which have been experimentally demonstrated. [[NOTE - (I would define a mechanism as being non-Darwinian when the mechanism of mutation biases the mutational probability towards mutations which are potentially useful to the organism)]]
Behe’s actual view, as I understand it, actually pushes the origin of information back further. Behe believes that the information came from the original arrangement of matter in the Big Bang. Interestingly, that seems to comport well with the original conception of the Big Bang by LeMaitre, who described the universe’s original configuration as a “cosmic egg”. We think of eggs in terms of ontogeny – a child grows in a systematic fashion (guided by information) to become an adult. The IDists who hold to Common Descent often view the universe that way – it grew, through the original input of information, into an adult form. John A. Davison wrote a few papers on this possibility.
Thus the common ID claim of “sudden appearance” and “fully-formed features” are entirely consistent both with common descent (even fully materialistic) and non-common-descent versions of the theory, because the evolution is guided by information.
There are also interesting mixes of these theories, such as Scherer’s Basic Type Biology. Here, a limited form of common descent is taken, along with the idea that information is available to guide the further diversification of the basic type along specific lines (somewhat akin to Vavilov’s Law). Interestingly, there can also be a common descent interpretation of Basic Type Biology as well, but I’ll leave that alone for now.
Now, you might be saying that the ID form of common descent only involves the origin of life, and therefore has nothing to do with evolution. As I have argued before, abiogenesis actually has a lot to do with the implicit assumptions guiding evolutionary thought. And, as hopefully has been evident from this post, the mode of evolution from an information-rich starting point (ID) is quite different from that of an information-poor starting point (neo-Darwinism). And, if you take common descent to be true, I would argue that ID makes much better sense of what we see (the transitions seem to happen with some information about where they should go next).
Now, you might wonder why I disagree with the notion of common descent. There are several, but I’ll leave you with one I have been contemplating recently. I think that agency is a distinct form of causation from chance and law. That is, things can be done with intention and creativity which could not be done in complete absence of those two. In addition, I think that there are different forms of agency in operation throughout the spectrum of life (I am undecided about whether the lower forms of life such as plants and bacteria have anything which could be considered agency, but I think that, say, most land animals do). In any case, humans seem to engage in a kind of agency that is distinct from other creatures. Therefore, we are left with the question of the origin of such agency. While common descent in combination with ID can sufficiently answer the origin of information, I don’t think it can sufficiently answer the origin of the different kinds of agency.
251 Responses to ID and Common Descent
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Mustela:
“This isn’t my understanding from No Free Lunch, other papers, and other ID proponents on this site.”
You expect everyone to have the exact same understanding? You do realize not everyone understands or has the same hypothesis for evolution, right? So, why demand anything different as it pertains to ID Theory? At the end of the day, whichever hypothesis works the best will be used.
Mustela:
“When you say “chance hypothesis” do you mean “de novo creation”?”
What else can you offer that utilizes only chance? Evolutionary algorithms sure don’t work only by chance.
Mustela:
“If so, that’s not particularly interesting because no biologist claims that real biological artifacts arise de novo.”
Now, it looks like we are on the same page. The really interesting thing is not that biologists already intuitively know what the measurement for CSI tells us — although the fact that the specificity and complexity can be quantified is indeed interesting — but that no one to date has falsified or provided any theoretical underpinning to show that organized CSI can be generated absent previous intelligence through computational simulations.
Mustela:
“If by “chance hypothesis” you mean “non-intelligent causes” then your assumption of a uniform probability distribution ignores known physics, chemistry, and evolutionary mechanisms and so is also not applicable to the real world.”
First, it should be obvious by now that I don’t see law as a subset of chance, yet law is a non-intelligent cause.
I thought I already defined chance earlier a few times … you know … uniform probability distribution, statistical randomness, lacking correlation, and unguided by rules or lawful constraints.
Mustela:
“If the Explanatory Filter is where known physics, chemistry, and evolutionary mechanisms are taken into consideration, it cannot use a uniform probability distribution either.”
I’m sorry, but now this is turning into ID 101 and you should really do some research on the basic concepts of ID Theory. I’d love to explain ID Theory and my own hypothesis, but I just don’t have the time.
Very briefly, the EF doesn’t “use a uniform probability distribution.” The EF merely states that one must effectively rule out chance and then law in order to label a given event as intelligently designed. CSI rules out chance very effectively, and my previous explanation of organization rules out law — same type of idea as “the physics and chemistry (laws) of the ink and paper do not define the pattern and meaning within an essay.”
Mustela:
“I didn’t see anything in your calculations that make them applicable in the real world.”
You didn’t notice how the calculation rules out a uniform probability distribution if a value > 1 results?
Mustela:
“Are we using the word differently? I am using “assumption” in the mathematical sense. When you choose to measure against it, you are most definitely assuming a uniform probability distribution.”
Ah, yes, I see now. In a mathematical sense, we are “assuming” a uniform probability distribution in order to see if our assumption is correct. Given a uniform probability distribution, we will not get a value > 1, so if that > 1 value results, we know that we are not dealing with a uniform probability distribution. Simple as that.
Mustela:
“It’s deeper than that, though. By measuring against a uniform probability distribution, you are implicitly assuming that such a distribution reflects some aspect of the real world.”
Yes, there are such thing as uniform probability distributions.
Mustela:
“As I’ve repeatedly pointed out, it does not because it fails to take into account known physics, chemistry, and evolutionary mechanisms. Those factors make the actual probability distribution of particular biological artifacts far from uniform.”
I’ve already dealt with this repeated “fact” of yours and you seem to be ignoring my response, or at least not understanding it. If I am being unclear, please ask for clarification on the issue.
Your understanding of the problem is lacking. Physics and chemistry on their own do no such thing, since the patterns we are discussing are not defined by the laws of physics and chemistry. If law did effect the sequencing of nucleotides, then they would not be able to carry information. We would merely be stuck with a repeating structure such as ACTGACTGACTG, which would then be defined and explained by chance + law, much like a crystal or a snowflake.
And yes, CSI does not take evolutionary mechanisms into account. As I already stated before, CSI itself is evidence of evolution for the main fact that CSI tells us that (barring direct intervention) we are dealing with a non-uniform probability distribution being matched with a correct search algorithm for efficient search.
Mustela:
“We already know the search space isn’t a uniform probability distribution because we know about physics, chemistry, and a number of evolutionary mechanisms.”
So, your main point is that CSI is redundant? I can see why you might say that, however, CSI actually gives us the quantification of an event that requires either direct intervention or an evolutionary algorithm. So, as far as providing a measurement, and providing evidence for evolution, CSI is not redundant.
Mustela:
“I’m afraid I must disagree. What I wrote is exactly correct. You can read the papers (sorry, link didn’t work) to confirm that.”
I’ve already read through the paper a few times and the authors explicitly state what I said. I can provide a few quotes upon request.
Mustela:
“Our search space is a given: the real world. Observation shows that evolutionary mechanisms work well in that environment.”
Yes, because, according to the NFL Theorems, there has been a “fortuitous” matching between a non-uniform probability distribution and search algorithm (relying upon the structure and information processing ability of life itself). If you want to provide evidence against the ID position, merely show that the above can be accomplished through only law + chance, absent intelligence. IOW, merely show me that CSI can be generated absent previous intelligent (foresighted for a future target) input.
Mustela:
“We’re talking about evolution, not physics. I think I mentioned during one of our last discussions that you might be able to make a case for cosmological ID using the NFL theorems, but they are completely inapplicable when discussing the evolution that is observed in the one biosphere we know about.”
I have been making a case for cosmological ID this whole time, and it is wholly dependent on the CSI calculated of systems within our universe — ie: the biosphere that we know about. If CSI was not calculated in living systems, then an evolutionary algorithm wouldn’t be necessary and there would be no argument for ID Theory in life based on specificity and complexity (improbability) at the biosphere level or the cosmological level. NFL Theorems are absolutely applicable to life, and evolution on our planet, since they imply accounting principles when it comes to the generation of efficiently produced [and specified or pre-specified] events — CSI.
IMO, there is no good case for direct intervention in abiogenesis, life, or evolution.
Mustela:
“CSI is supposed to show that intelligent intervention is required for a particular biological artifact to exist.”
I emphatically disagree!!!!!!! CSI requires no intervention as long as an evolutionary algorithm of any type can account for said pattern. Although, I am beginning to realize that a CSI calculation > 1 between two functional patterns, with a sea of “nonfunction” in between them, would definitely provide evidence against a purely darwinian account of evolution. But, this is really old hat, now that modern evolutionary research seems to be providing evidence that self-guided genetic engineering within life is most likely also responsible, along with darwinian random mutations, for evolution. Furthermore, there seem to be a fair amount of scientists who argue that natural selection hinders rather than helps evolution in certain contexts. But that is definitely for another discussion. Back to CSI …
Mustela:
“In order to do that, it must rule out known natural causes such as known evolutionary mechanisms. When a uniform probability distribution is assumed, those known natural causes are ignored, making any calculation inapplicable to the real world.”
I’ve adequately responded to that line of incorrect understanding above in previous comments (I’m quite sure) and definitely above within this comment.
We seem to be going around in a circle now, and I’m beginning to notice that I’m repeating myself and you seem to be ignoring some of my explanations and clarifications. For the record, I hate having to repeat myself if my responses are being ignored. It wastes too much of my time and tells me that we aren’t going to get any further in our discussion.
Simply, CSI provides evidence for evolution; it does not “rule out” evolution.
Mustela:
“My understanding is that the presence of CSI is supposed to be a clear and unambiguous indication that non-intelligent mechanisms are insufficient to explain the artifact under consideration.”
Almost bang on, except that could be misinterpreted. A robot in a car factory could be seen as non-intelligent. That robot is sufficient to a certain extent in explaining the existence of cars.
However, cars would not exist without intelligence, since that robot would also not exist without intelligence. IOW, that robot is neither defined by nor best explained by chance + law, absent intelligence. An evolutionary algorithm is really just an efficient search robot.
A simple way to understand the implication of CSI is that it provides a clear and unambiguous indication that the artifact under consideration can not be generated by chance + law, absent previous intelligence in that artifact’s causal chain.
Mustela:
“While some non-intelligent mechanisms may be involved, CSI is supposed to show that something else is also required.”
Correct … Intelligence is required somewhere down the causal chain.
Mustela:
“With all due respect, I don’t think you have. Your calculations don’t correspond to CSI as described in No Free Lunch…”
My calculations are based on Demsbki’s definition of a specified event being an event which can be formulated as an independent pattern, and all calculations coincide with his most up to date explanation of CSI as posted on his website under the paper “Specifications: the Patterns which Signify Intelligence.”
A more in depth look at why CSI effectively eliminates chance can be found at http://www.angelfire.com/pro/k.....htm#fsciis, especially in table of contents points A] and B].
Mustela:
“…and changes in the length of a genome, for example, can be explained by known types of mutations.”
And because they are “known types of mutations” means what exactly in light of calculating for CSI?
Again, if you don’t think that CSI points to intelligence, I suggest you use less words and merely provide evidence that chance + law absent previous intelligence will generate CSI. Until then, that ID hypothesis is standing strong.
This is way off topic but since the phrase No Free Lunch was just mentioned, here are a couple things someone just sent me.
—————–
Who said there was no such thing as a Free Lunch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQ50PYMXDCQ
———
It’s all in the numbers
The Beauty of Mathematics and the Love of God!
I bet you will NOT be able to read it without sending it on or telling at least one other person!
Beauty of Mathematics!!!!!!!
It was always fun to wow students via principles of 8 & 9:
1 x 8 + 1 = 9
12 x 8 + 2 = 98
123 x 8 + 3 = 987
1234 x 8 + 4 = 9876
12345 x 8 + 5 = 98765
123456 x 8 + 6 = 987654
1234567 x 8 + 7 = 9876543
12345678 x 8 + 8 = 98765432
123456789 x 8 + 9 = 987654321
0 x 9 + 1 = 1
1 x 9 + 2 = 11
12 x 9 + 3 = 111
123 x 9 + 4 = 1111
1234 x 9 + 5 = 11111
12345 x 9 + 6 = 111111
123456 x 9 + 7 = 1111111
1234567 x 9 + 8 = 11111111
12345678 x 9 + 9 = 111111111
123456789 x 9 +10= 1111111111
9 x 9 + 7 = 88
98 x 9 + 6 = 888
987 x 9 + 5 = 8888
9876 x 9 + 4 = 88888
98765 x 9 + 3 = 888888
987654 x 9 + 2 = 8888888
9876543 x 9 + 1 = 88888888
98765432 x 9 + 0 = 888888888
Brilliant, isn’t it?
And look at this symmetry:
1 x 1 = 1
11 x 11 = 121
111 x 111 = 12321
1111 x 1111 = 1234321
11111 x 11111 = 123454321
111111 x 111111 = 12345654321
1111111 x 1111111 = 1234567654321
11111111 x 11111111 = 123456787654321
111111111 x 111111111 = 12345678987654321
Mind Boggling…
Now, take a look at this…
101%
>From a strictly mathematical viewpoint:
What Equals 100%?
What does it mean to give MORE than 100%?
Ever wonder about those people who say they
are giving more than 100%?
We have all been in situations where someone wants you to
GIVE OVER 100%…
How about ACHIEVING 101%?
What equals 100% in life?
Here’s a little mathematical formula that might help
answer these questions:
If:
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
Is represented as:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26.
Then:
H-A-R-D-W-O- R- K
8+1+18+4+23+15+18+11 = 98%
And:
K-N-O-W-L-E- D-G-E
11+14+15+23+12+5+4+7+ 5 = 96%
But:
A-T-T-I-T-U- D-E
1+20+20+9+20+ 21+4+5 = 100%
THEN, look how far the love of God will take you:
L-O-V-E-O-F- G-O-D
12+15+22+5+15+ 6+7+15+4 = 101%
Therefore, one can conclude with mathematical certainty that:
While Hard Work and Knowledge will get you close, and Attitude will
get you there, It’s the Love of God that will put you over the top!
Have a nice day & God bless you
CJYman:
“Furthermore, I can also show that events known to have required foresight in their construction are definable in terms of organized CSI.”
Mustela:
“I would like to see that calculation.”
Excellent. Let’s look at an oil refinery, courtesy of wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_refinery
Let’s begin with defining the connections between each “unit” in the diagram in terms of CSI.
We have 20 “units” or stations which can be connected in any way, since there is no regularity in the connections which can be defined by mathematical formula, and the connections themselves are not attracted to any specific station at the exclusion of the others through the physical properties of either the connectors or the stations. So, we can eliminate law and as long as the pattern is indeed not random, then we can say it is organized.
We are definitely looking at a specified event, since f(pattern of connections and specific stations)= functional event of a usable product. So, yes the pattern is functionally organized. If we can calculate a > 1 value for CSI, the oil refinery would be an example of FSCI.
Please excuse any small math errors as I am going through this relatively quickly.
So, there are 20 units, and thus approx 1.57 * 10^57 possible ways of connecting them.
Thus P(T|H) = 1/(1.57*10^57)
In order to calculate the specificity, we need to know, utilizing the same stations, how many possible combinations of connections will also produce a usable product. This is where feedback from a professional would be useful. However, if this is a very specific configuration, and any improper connection will shut down the process …
then S(t) = 1
Now, we could use 10^120 as our probabilistic resources, but to get a more accurate calculation we should take into consideration what would be necessary for this plant to operate in space. Would more components be required? If so, then our calculation of probabilistic resources should take into consideration that this configuration could only operate on certain planets. After calculating this, which I will provide as an estimate when I have some time to research the variables, we will arrive at an accurate value for the probabilistic resources.
Then, put it together:
CSI = -log2[M*N*s(T)*P(T|H), and we have the connection specified complexity.
But, there would of course be more to do. We need to figure out the CSI of every station/unit utilizing the above approach and then combine that value with the connection specified complexity to finally arrive at the CSI of the oil refinery depicted at the wikipedia link.
For whomever is interested, go ahead and do some research and make the calculations. I will do the same when and if I have time and we can compare results.
For now, though, I have shown that it is definitely theoretically possible to get a lower limit at least on the amount of CSI present in the above configuration. And I have already previously calculated a lower limit of CSI for the protein Titin in a likewise manner to show that it is indeed possible to do so.
So there you have it — an explanation, with some preliminary calculation showing that an oil refinery (which definitely requires foresight on the part of engineers) is definable in terms of organized CSI.
As a comparison, check out the schematic for this:
http://www.sciencemusings.com/.....733633.jpg
In fairness to the original post, most of the calculations here seem to take modern protein catalysts of many amino acids spontaneously developing. We might assume something with a minimal genome, or mimi-virus like as the original design. But what if it is even simpler? It might not even ‘look’ designed.
For example, It has been shown short peptides and RNA are catalytic.
I don’t think the CSI for a single proline or Val-Val dipeptide would be very high, yet they achieve remarkable catalysis and sterospecificity. It is possible that CSI started very low, and information was added with selection, energy, etc. over time.
http://www.scripps.edu/newsand.....large.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/34/12713.long
CJYman at 244,
“This isn’t my understanding from No Free Lunch, other papers, and other ID proponents on this site.”
You expect everyone to have the exact same understanding?
For such a core concept, one of the primary pieces of what is claimed to be positive evidence for ID, I definitely expect there to be agreement on the definition.
You do realize not everyone understands or has the same hypothesis for evolution, right?
There is ongoing research in numerous areas, but the core concepts of the theory are agreed upon and everyone uses the same definitions.
CJYman at 244,
I’m afraid that we’re discussing two different concepts. I’ll pick a few lines from your post to explain why I’ve come to this conclusion. Please let me know if you think my excerpts leave out relevant context.
“When you say “chance hypothesis” do you mean “de novo creation”?”
What else can you offer that utilizes only chance? Evolutionary algorithms sure don’t work only by chance.
. . .
CSI rules out chance very effectively
. . .
And yes, CSI does not take evolutionary mechanisms into account.
. . .
“We’re talking about evolution, not physics. I think I mentioned during one of our last discussions that you might be able to make a case for cosmological ID using the NFL theorems, but they are completely inapplicable when discussing the evolution that is observed in the one biosphere we know about.”
I have been making a case for cosmological ID this whole time
. . .
“CSI is supposed to show that intelligent intervention is required for a particular biological artifact to exist.”
I emphatically disagree!!!!!!! CSI requires no intervention as long as an evolutionary algorithm of any type can account for said pattern.
. . .
Simply, CSI provides evidence for evolution; it does not “rule out” evolution.
. . .
“…and changes in the length of a genome, for example, can be explained by known types of mutations.”
And because they are “known types of mutations” means what exactly in light of calculating for CSI?
It seems to me that your version of CSI is sufficiently different from that described by Dembski in No Free Lunch and in other papers as to be a completely different concept. Dembski’s CSI is supposed to demonstrate that intelligent intervention is required to explain how evolution occurred. It also is supposed to take into account known natural mechanisms; it is not merely a measurement of the probability of de novo creation.
I’m looking to gain a better understanding of CSI as described by Dembski, since it seems to be one of the primary positive claims in support of ID. Your cosmological CSI approach is interesting, and frankly I suspect easier to defend both scientifically and theologically, but it doesn’t shed light on CSI as described in No Free Lunch.
If you disagree or, even better, if you’d like to take a stab at a mathematically rigorous calculation of CSI, as described in No Free Lunch, for a real biological artifact, taking into consideration known physics, chemistry, and evolutionary mechanisms, I’d love to continue the discussion.
Hello Mustela,
Well, it seems we have come to the end of this road, and it has been a pleasure having this discussion with you.
The measurement for CSI that I use is based on the most recent work on the subject by Dr. Dembski “Specifications: the Patterns which Signify Intelligence.” CSI can be measured at different points and with different givens … ie: from earth, given a full genome; or from our solar system, given nucleic acids; or our universe, given only matter and energy.
No matter what the crowd states, and Dr. Dembski has explained this (I’m very sure I’ve read him explain somewhere) and I believe I have adequately explained above, there is no *requirement/necessity*, in the measurement for CSI itself as based on the equation given by DR. Dembski, for direct intervention — that is, unless evolution can be ruled out, but I see no way that one can rule out evolution for two reasons …
1. the alternative, direct intervention, as it relates to the origin of CSI within our universe is about as useful as “last Thursdayism.” It may be true, but going as far back in time as we can until we get to the first CSI event, the only possible solution would be for a hand to “rip through space and time” and fashion the first instance of CSI. Is this scientifically useful? I vote, not at all!
2. no matter the improbability, there is always a way to set up a program to generate an event. Look at a car factory and the robots assembling the car in stages. That’s all an EA really is … a program (robot) used to generate a highly improbable and specified event efficiently.
… Oh, least I forget, there is another possibility … life has always existed in an infinite universe. But that is definitely for another discussion.
Since I am by no means an “interventionist,” I will not be able to defend the “interventionist” position which is what you seem to be asking of me. In fact, I will help you argue against such a position as it pertains to life.
All I have done (I believe effectively) is defend the position that CSI is indicative of previous intelligent causation — which is all that the equation for CSI, along with an understanding of organization, can tell us. Furthermore, that hypothesis has not yet been refuted through experimentation with computer simulation.
The equation for CSI can’t tell us exactly “how” the artifact was generated — through evolution or through a robotic warehouse, or through direct intervention, etc. It merely, literally tells us in a mathematical form, that we are not dealing with a uniform probability distribution … that is it. Then, the NFL Theorems take over and the argument for CSI as a reliable indicator of previous intelligence continues, which I have briefly touched on above.
So, I’m off to get me some more edumacation today, so I’ll be busy for the next couple days. I hope to hear from you again either in this thread or a future one.
…later…
PS. my position is somewhere in between/ a combination of Dr. Behe’s and Denton’s viewpoint.
CJYman at 250,
Well, it seems we have come to the end of this road, and it has been a pleasure having this discussion with you.
And you as well. I appreciate you taking the time to present your remarkably nuanced view. I look forward to discussions on other topics here with you — perhaps we’ll even end up on the same side!
Regards.