History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Dembski, fitness landscapes, and the sophistries of mathematical (darwinian) evolutionism

October 4th, 2014 · No Comments


I am not a fan of mathematical evolution theory, and fitness landscape theory has been a boon for those who are sharp in mathematics to also confuse themselves with sophistical rigor. Dembski with considerable math competence has given these people a run for their money, although I am still as wary of ‘design’ arguments as I am of darwinian confusions. However, in some sense, the Intelligent Design argument is cogent, but not the mathematically secure subject that people like Dembski propose.
Mathematical or not, design arguments are, however, suggestive, and tweak our belief, and it is simply the way our minds work (unless countertrained like Darwinists) to ‘hallucinate’ a designer when a non-random process is given to us. But the muliple ‘puns’ in the term ‘design’, and the inadequacy of a ‘noun’ to properly reference what could be a natural process, leave the discussion very ambiguous: the term can refer to Pan the god of nature or teleological process inside nature, etc…
The latter is a good candidate for evolutionary clarification, but science has no methodology to deal with the issue.

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

  • There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.

Leave a Comment