Chemistry? I don't believe God has to guide every chemical reaction in the universe. Do you?
I’m not talking about ordinary chemistry, I’m talking about the leap from non-living chemicals to a self-replicating, information-bearing system like DNA. That’s not just mixing the right ingredients; it’s about the origin of functionally specified information, something we’ve only ever seen come from intelligence.
So you don't stay up on the current science and you have a bizarre view that only things that are directly observable are scientifically valid. I'll have to tell marine biologists that a lot of their work is invalid, eh? After all, they don't directly observe a lot of the things they study (such as bluefin tuna migrations).
No, I’m not saying only directly observable things count as science, that’s a weak caricature of what I actually said. Inference is part of science, of course, but not all inferences are equally strong. Inferring tuna migrations based on tagged data is one thing, it’s based on repeatable, testable input. Inferring unguided large-scale transformations over millions of years with fragmentary, unrepeatable data is another thing entirely. If you can’t see the difference, maybe it’s not me who’s confused about how science works.
It doesn't look like it to me. You've made some very basic errors, and have some odd views about how science is conducted and how scientists reach conclusions.
Also you must have missed this: What do you mean by "from scratch"?
Also, I have a difficult time believing God guides evolution because that would mean God has guided bacteria to evolve resistance to antibiotics, pests to evolve resistance to treatments, and things like that. Is that what you believe?
Ah yes, the classic fallback, “You just don’t understand science.” That’s usually code for “I don’t want to address the actual point.” As for your question: “from scratch” means from non-living matter, no DNA, no proteins, no cellular machinery, just basic chemicals. You know, the very thing abiogenesis is trying (and failing) to explain.
And regarding God guiding evolution, if you think resistance to antibiotics somehow disproves design, you might want to consider that adaptation within limits is not the same as explaining the origin of entirely new systems. Your logic assumes that because we see minor tweaks, that explains the whole show. That’s not science, that’s storytelling.
I will come clean; I did come at this from a deception, in a loose sense of the word. I am already familiar with the arguments made by groups who have claimed them, and even though there are scientists or people who claim to be scientists or even scientists who talk about disciplines they aren't learned in nor even knowledgeable about, I have not seen any good reasons to accept what they say. And, being on this site which allows me access, readily and easily to commentary from actual scientists on both sides of the pond and both sides of CvE debate, I have been able to see that such claims are never really anything new, nor are they anything really groundbreaking, that really what I wanted to see was if you were able to bring anything new to the table that I had not seen before, that would be really something actual worth holding out for.
I will say that I was not impressed.
The parameters for the fine-tuning argument are so mutli-faceted and unknowable that to put a spin onto any of them that "If X were 50% less/more, then life would be impossible" is just... impossible to know. The idea of a fine-tuned universe is such a strong example of confirmation bias, 'the puddle fits the hole' to use Douglas Adams' words, that it's really impossible to fully know how to properly calculate such a thing without actually creating our own universe from scratch and study that.
Information in DNA is... I'm not interested in the words of a physicist about DNA since DNA is something biological, which is as I said 'even scientists who talk about disciplines they aren't learned in nor even knowledgeable about'. But the attempt at describing the DNA as code, something with in many ways is objective and binary, ignores that DNA is a complex, complicated and reactive thing. To call it information, which in thoroughly laymen's terms, is oversimplifying what DNA is and ignores that DNA is, like the biological beings it helps live, thrive and survive, is a thoroughly reactive thing that cannot be confined solely to a static. To call the information from DNA's proteins and molecules and amino acids a 'code' is a useful analogy (as demonstrated very well by Mr. DNA from the 1993 blockbuster Jurassic Park), but that's all it is: a useful analogy, which like so many others ignores and glosses over the minutia and minute details of what DNA is.
I'm questioning what the third point, the 'abrupt appearance' of Cambrian fossils, which is not really a poorly understood thing since many things do not fossilize, especially soft-tissue organisms which were the precursors to the Cambrian lifeforms, or the very poor claim that 3-4 million years is 'abrupt' when we don't know much about the pre-Cambrian lifeforms, has to do with the fine-tuning argument, DNA is information or evidence of a designer in the universe. All it shows is the fact that the Cambrian explosion, which actually lasted between 13 to 25 million years, which is more than enough of a time frame for new creatures to evolve and reproduce and then have descendants evolve from them is... it's a nothing, especially when it ignores that such an event had happened before, the Avalon Explosion, which occurred 33 million years before the Cambrian explosion.
But if nothing else, at least you know how to provide evidence when asked.
I appreciate you taking the time to engage seriously rather than just dismiss.
On fine-tuning: yes, the full picture is complex and ongoing research continues. But that doesn’t erase the fact that many key constants fall within narrow ranges essential for life as we know it. It’s not a closed case, but it’s a significant scientific observation that raises important questions.
On DNA as information: calling it a “code” is indeed an analogy, but a very precise and useful one. The digital, specified nature of genetic sequences is well established and critical to how biology functions. It’s not meant to reduce biology to simple code, but to highlight that the sequences carry complex, functional instructions, something fundamentally different from random chemicals.
On the Cambrian explosion: yes, fossilisation bias exists, and the timing debates continue. But the relatively rapid emergence of diverse animal body plans without clear gradual precursors is still a key puzzle in evolutionary biology. Whether 3-4 million or 13-25 million years, it’s short geologically and raises questions about the mechanisms involved.
None of these points alone “prove” design, but they represent meaningful scientific observations that challenge purely undirected explanations.
No scientific theory is complete nor expected to be complete because there is always the potential for new evidence to emerge that may justify an update or revision. This is not a bug but a feature of the scientific method that makes it more reliable than any non-negotiable dogma.
It is insufficient for an explanation to merely fit the evidence better than some other hypothesis. If the explanation is unfalsifiable, it may appear to fit the evidence better but retain an equal probability of being false regardless and with no possible way to ever discover if it is false. So, what would be the justification for granting equal or greater weight to an unfalsifiable explanation that can never be proved or disproved by any quantity or quality of evidence? Furthermore, where multiple unfalsifiable claims may exist as the possible explanation, how would anyone begin to compare them when no quantity or quality of evidence will ever function to prove or disprove any of them?
You’re right that science welcomes revision and updates. Its strength is in testing and refining ideas. But when a theory has significant unexplained gaps, like the origin of complex information, it’s fair to consider alternative explanations, even if they aren’t fully testable by current methods.
Science deals best with the natural world, but that doesn’t mean non-natural causes can be dismissed outright if they explain what naturalism struggles with. Sometimes, recognising the limits of a method points to the need for broader perspectives, not just strict falsifiability.
Acknowledging a creator isn’t about abandoning reason but about exploring all reasonable explanations, especially where evidence is incomplete.
Perhaps athiests do, but when you accuse Christians of doing it you are way out of line.
It's called correcting and loving my brother.
The point is that we will not discover God's mind and his purpose by examining the material causes of evolution. Divine Providence does not leave its greasy fingerprints on the works.
God has left His fingerprint everywhere. So, on the day of judgement, no one will have an excuse. Romans 1:20 says "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse"
I’m sure there are those who find your comments to be strawman attacks while scientists in general and of any persuasion would find them to be incomprehensible.
Evidently you are not aware science uses model based realities which not only excludes God but the very intuitive definition of reality to address real world situations. In my own line of work I have had to develop models or artificial environments to understand automotive failures in the real world.
The point about model based realities is they make predictions of what occurs in the real world which can tested through experiment and observation which is the falsifiability aspect of science.
The theory of evolution is no exception, it uses model based realities although not as extensive as in physics for simple reasons like scientists don’t have time machines or the process of macroevolution is too slow to be observed during a human lifetime.
Model based realities in evolution have led to successful predictions which goes beyond the notion that science is simply a matter of interpretations.
Thanks for the overview. Still, I think these models don’t fully address the origin of complex, specified information or the deeper philosophical questions about purpose and design.
From looking at Springer's page for this book and it's chapters (but not reading the chapters, it is pretty clear that this book is about *mind* (consciousness, mental causation, etc.), not "DNA information". I saw no reference in what I reviewed referring to information in DNA. (And I should also add, Ellis is a cosmologists. Why should we accept the word of a cosmologist on neuroscience?)
The book’s primary focus is mind and consciousness, not DNA. I cited Ellis to show how respected scientists argue that information, even in biology, involves top-down causation, not just bottom-up physics. While he may not focus on DNA directly, the broader point still stands: some phenomena in biology resist reduction to physics alone.
Creationists tell us that the speed of light is variable, as "proof" that the Big Bang is wrong. Creationists also tell us that the Weak Nuclear Force is variable, as "proof" that radiometric dating is wrong.
When your own side can't decide what's fine-tuned and what's not, you don't have much of an argument.
Oh, so disagreement within a group discredits the entire argument? Strange standard. Evolutionary biology is full of competing models, debates, and revisions, neutral theory vs. selection, gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium, gene-centric views vs. evo-devo, and so on. Going off of your standard, you have just shown how evolutionists do not have much of an argument. LOL. Good one.
Let’s not pretend your side is a monolith of truth while mine is disqualified by debate. Scientific progress thrives on discussion, unless, apparently, it threatens your worldview.
Nobody claims a fish evolved into a monkey. You're taking nonsense here.
If you believe in common descent, then yes, by your own framework, mammals (including monkeys) ultimately trace their ancestry back to fish-like creatures. That’s not "nonsense," that’s standard evolutionary teaching. Try looking up lobe-finned fish, tiktaalik, or the vertebrate phylogenetic tree. If you're embarrassed by what your own theory implies, maybe it's time to re-examine it.
The only things being argued about are the details. There are enough transitional fossils to make the case.
If the case were truly airtight, there wouldn’t still be so many disagreements about the case itself. The fact that even evolutionists argue over which fossils count as transitional, how to interpret them, and what the tree of life even looks like just proves my point, it’s far from settled. "The details" are actually the foundation.
