A facility you have yet to demonstrate.
None of which need an imaginary cartoon magic man from a goat herder mythology. We have detailed and robust scientific explanations for all of these.
Oh look, boys and girls, he’s resurrecting tired and repeatedly destroyed canards about “information”. Which I dealt with in detail in this document that I’ve made publicly available. In particular, we’re seeing Canard #23 in action here. Inded, I’ll repreise the requisite part of that document to make the issue explicit:
I also discuss in detail when demolishing that canard, the difference between information and ascribed meaning, two quantities that frequently duplicitous conflation in creationist apologetics. Which demonstrates that I’ve done plenty of thinking about the issues, and throughout said thought, never once needed to call upon a cartoon magic man to “explain” anything, though of course “Magic Man did it” isn’t an “explanation”, it’s merely an admission of ignorance.
Then of course, as I’ve repeatedly presented here, we have a robust scientific explanation for DNA, an explanation called chemistry. It was chemists who first discovered DNA, it was chemists who elucidated its structure, and it is chemists that have developed prebiotic reaction pathways for the synthesis thereof, that have been demonstrated experimentally in the laboratory to work. We have nothing of the sort accompanying the “Magic Man did it” assertion.
Meanwhile, let’s take a look in more depth at the sort of apologetic propaganda that is routinely pushed by the various shills for the Duplicity Institute, of which William Dembski stands out here as a particularly egegious example. Indeed, we know that this individual isn’t interested in science, but interested instead in achieving hegemony for his particularly foetid brand of mythology fanboyism. A look inside his book, bearing the title Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science And Theology alone betrays his ideological presuppositions on a grand scale:
Later on, after he penned that tedious screed, he attended a religious panel discussion arranged by creationists, with the typically telling title of Defeating Darwinism In Our Culture (how they love their “Darwinism” meme, and the duplicitous misrepresentation of valid, evidence-based science as some sort of “doctrine”), where he uttered the following drivel:
Then he uttered the following, when interviewed about his forthcoming appointment to an “academic” position at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (surely this appointment alone betrays his real agenda?):
Oh, and then we have this laughably failed prediction, dating from 2004, and originally published here:
Here we are, in 2023, and if anything, evolutionary biology and prebiotic chemistry are going from strength to strength. On the other hand, it’s “intelligent design” that’s now dead in the water, especially after its farcical exposure in the Dover Trial, as being nothing more than creationism in a stolen lab coat. Indeed, the number of peer reviewed scientific papers being published in evolutionary biology runs to something like 18,000 per year at present, hardly the sign of a discipline that has undergone a “Taliban style collapse”. Though I expect the usual tinfoil hat cospiracy theorising will be peddled at some point to “explain” this. Likewise, the prebiotic chemistry literature is xpanding at the rate of several hundred papers per year.
But I digress. Moving on, we have the following infamous utterance, which he presented as the “vise” strategy (here in the UK, we refer to the machine shop tool in question as a “vice”, just to clarify matters), dating from May 2005:
The fun part being of course, that when he was given the opportunity to act as a champion for ID in the Dover Trial in September 2005, he chickened out, along with several other Duplicity Institute “fellows”, who presumably took the advice of Philip Johnson (the serious lawyer in the organisation) that the vacuity of their case would be made so embarrassingly public at that trial once the scientific big guns turned up, that it was best to leave Michael Behe to carry the can and flush his reputation down the toilet on their behalf. Of course, what Dembski really wants, as that above quote reveals, is the erection of a creationist Inquisition against anyone who does not conform to creationist doctrine and orthodoxy.
Even more telling is this quote he posted over at Uncommon Descent (most observers more properly think of its as “Undecent Common”), where he delivered the following blatantly ideology-driven view of evidence:
Oh look, it’s the “you ignore my evidence because of presuppositions” piece of blatant projection, right after admitting that his brand of “evidence” is itself the product of manifest presuppositions.
How often have we seen creationists misrepresent the proper process of letting data shape ideas as purportedly constituting an “ideology”? It’s a tiresomely predictable creationist trope, trotted out whenever real world data doesn’t conform to their doctrine and ideology.
Of course, all this carping and sniping on his part (an activity for which he became infamous - see the “fart noises” response to Judge Jones for an example), is basically butthurt because his wank fantasies were destroyed by real world data. He wasted fully twelve years of his life trying to define “complex specified information” and failed, during which time he repreatedly had his arse cheeks handed to him on a plate by genuine tenured mathematicians. This was, of course, because he was trying to force-fit probability to religion, which was doomed to crash and burn right from the very start.
I don’t even have to dig up the Wedge Strategy document, in order to establish that the Duplicity Institute isn’t interested in genuine science, but in peddling apoligetic lies about science for Republican Jeebus.
Moving on …
Well since we have a vast mountain of scientific evidence for human evolution, from both palaeontology AND molecular phylogeny, while we hae ZERO evidence that a cartoon magic man from a goat herder mythology exists, this isn’t “dishonest”, it’s proper acceptance of the demonstrable facts.
Indeed, if creationist assertions were something other than the product of their rectal passages, the entire scientific discipline of moelcular phylogeny would not even exist.
Tell us all, was it your childhood ambition to become a public shill for the lies of the Duplicity Institute?
Ahem, we have the scientific data informing us of the processes in operation. Once again, it’s called chemistry. Not magic poofing by a cartoon magic man waving its magic todger about.
Oh look, it’s Paley’s Watchmaker bullshit being resurrected. I dealt with that not only as Canard #20 in my previously linked exposition, but devoted a complete, separate document to the dishonesty of “design” apologetics. Thje appropriate part here being this:
Of course, there’s much more in that document exposing the mendacity of the whole “design” schtick by mythology fanboys.
“Common sense” told many people in the past that the Sun moved round the Earth. We’ve learned otherwise. This should be telling you something important.
Also see my multiple refutations of the “design” bullshit.
No it doesn’t. All the “design” apologetics are dishonest.
Bullshit. Once again, see my multiple refutations of the “design” bullshit.
Oh look, it’s Canard #8 from my list of creationist canards!
Once again …
Got any more of my canards to resurrect in your vapid apologetic screed?
No one asserts there are. This is another of your lies.
The whole point of those experiments, is to determine that the chemical reactions work under the requisite conditions. Which you do by setting up those conditions and then testing to see if the reaction does indeed work therein.
Are you being deliberately stupid here, or just deceitful?
You rang?