We already have grappled with it. As I understand, @Winston_Ewert writes:
We are waiting to hear back from @Winston_Ewert. As I understand it, he hasn’t yet put anything out. We also hope he comes back here. He was a model interlocure, who impressed everyone with his contributions. We eagerly await his return.
As for the ENV piece, perhaps someone should bring them to speed. We have engaged his work, and are waiting for his response.
I agree with this from the article though:
Winston Ewert is admirably modest in presenting the conclusion of his study, and he answers some common challenges to it.
That’s right. He is acting like a professional. We should respect that.
What’s at stake here is significant: Darwinists until now have insisted that we accept the tree model because despite problems, only it can come close to describing what we see in life. True? If the evidence is more suggestive of a creative enterprise like software engineering, that would have major implications in favor of reading biology as reflecting common design .
This part is just revisionist history.
-
Where are the Darwinists? They no longer exist.
-
Who is insisting on a perfect tree? Evolution certainly doesn’t predict a perfect tree.