# Did Douglas Axe Disprove Evolution? Spoiler: No

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-douglas-axe-disprove-evolution-spoiler-no/17458>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Tags:** Science, Design\
**Created:** [October 5, 2025, 7:11pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-douglas-axe-disprove-evolution-spoiler-no/17458 "2025-10-05T19:11:38Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 33

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lee\_merrill](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/lee_merrill/32/14458_2.png) [@lee\_merrill](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/lee_merrill)\
**Post date:** [January 12, 2026, 8:52pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-douglas-axe-disprove-evolution-spoiler-no/17458/662 "2026-01-12T20:52:33Z")

</div>

> [@Gisteron](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > But I don’t think either innumerable counterexamples or “It seems intuitive” will give you what you are demanding here, a ratio.
> 
> When you choose to make claims you are unable to substantiate, the blame is not with those who expose that to you.

Eh? I’m saying neither of us can give the ratio that is being demanded.

> [@Gisteron](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > Certainly Darwin and Haldane were aware of us trusting our intuition and experience, and yet they saw that more is needed. And you seem not to see this, somehow.
> 
> You seem to not show this somehow. You _wanting_ there to be some fundamental basis you can reference, all because empiricism _feels_ insufficient _to you_ does not make others feel the same dissatisfaction. Nor does it make there actually _be_ anything more to fundamentally justify our reasoning.

What I want is to know if my thoughts are my own! If they are completely caused by motions of atoms, they aren’t. This is not wish-fulfilment, nor am I claiming my desires create a foundation for reason.

> [@Gisteron](#):
>
> . You have no more basis to trust God’s reasoning than you do your own, and the fallibility of at least the latter also bars you from completely trusting this argument, even if you did.

Actually, I do as a Christian have a basis for trusting God’s reasoning, if God is knowable, as Christians believe he is (in Scripture, in nature, in a relationship with him), that is how you develop trust and confidence in a person, in God, who I believe is personal. For starters, it seems he’s super smart! “A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” (Fred Hoyle)

And I repeatedly have agreed that our reason is fallible! But how that completely invalidates it if you argue for a source in God is beyond me.

> [@Gisteron](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > So why do people give reasons such as “I was tired”, when they do something unreasonable? They are claiming an unreasoning cause! And because of that, people should not consider what they did as really coming from them.
> 
> No. “The unreasoning spirit of tiredness made me do it” would be shoveling responsibility off to some “unreasoning cause”

Well, exactly, that’s what I’m saying people do.

> [@Gisteron](#):
>
> Being tired is an explanation of what happened, but it is not an excuse, and people who have wronged someone when their reasoning was so compromised should and often do still apologize. Because even when the deed or its consequences were unforeseen or unintended at the time, many still understand that it is not, in fact, someone or something else’s doing just because of the regret they feel afterward – something, incidentally, I’d think they would not feel, if indeed they felt that it wasn’t them.

But this doesn’t address what I said, sure, people apologize, and feel regret that someone was hurt, even if they claim they weren’t the actual source of the deed, and then they also take refuge in an explanation that points to an irrational cause of what they did. This is what you need to address. People do this to me here! And claim that the statements I make are because I am committed to theism, or intelligent design, and so on. They claim my statements are not really my own, they are caused or come from other sources, such as stuff I’ve been taught, or read without processing, etc. So my thoughts can be disregarded, for that reason.

> [@Gisteron](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > But no one ever thought or claimed (I certainly don’t) that an immaterial ability is necessarily unlimited!
> 
> No, but that so very physical influences should have such a noticeable impact is curious, if the mind is ultimately non-physical.

But everyone who believes in mind doesn’t believe our minds are disembodied. I hope this addresses your point, which is somewhat unclear to me.

> [@Gisteron](#):
>
> Good. But what have you to criticize about [Bishop Ussher’s] methods that applies not to your own?

I do still believe the Bible is authoritative, in matters of fact, for example, I hear that archaeologists go first to the Bible now, when they try and find a site. That wasn’t the case, not long ago. But as far as adding up genealogy dates, someone pointed out to me, and it’s evident in the genealogy of Matthew, for example, very plainly, that Jewish genealogies often contained gaps. So just toting up the years is not a way to arrive at a date of creation.

So I evaluate evidence for my beliefs, and I’m willing to adjust accordingly when further evidence is made known to me. I would hope Bishop Ussher would do the same…

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![AnEvolvedPrimate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a183cd/32.png) [@AnEvolvedPrimate](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/AnEvolvedPrimate)\
**Post date:** [January 12, 2026, 9:07pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-douglas-axe-disprove-evolution-spoiler-no/17458/663 "2026-01-12T21:07:29Z")

</div>

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> I hear that archaeologists go first to the Bible now, when they try and find a site.

[citation needed]

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [January 12, 2026, 9:22pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-douglas-axe-disprove-evolution-spoiler-no/17458/664 "2026-01-12T21:22:40Z")

</div>

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> What I want is to know if my thoughts are my own! If they are completely caused by motions of atoms, they aren’t.

Why not? What does “my own” actually mean? And aren’t the atoms in question part of you, in fact what makes up “you”?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Roy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/roy/32/3799_2.png) [@Roy](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Roy)\
**Post date:** [January 12, 2026, 9:33pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-douglas-axe-disprove-evolution-spoiler-no/17458/665 "2026-01-12T21:33:20Z")

</div>

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > “Alle Galli in tres partes divisi est” I still remember that, somehow!
> 
> Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, actually. Your evolved brain isn’t as good at memory as you imagine.

Ir’s still better than his logic though, since he’s suggesting that he might have read a book by a non-existent author.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Gisteron](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gisteron/32/15845_2.png) [@Gisteron](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Gisteron)\
**Post date:** [January 12, 2026, 9:35pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-douglas-axe-disprove-evolution-spoiler-no/17458/666 "2026-01-12T21:35:10Z")

</div>

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> I’m saying neither of us can give a ratio like you are demanding.

You chose to make or imply the statement that a reasoning apparatus whose primary function is to aid in survival ought be expected to provide its user with decidedly incorrect information about the world it finds itself in. That you cannot present any argument in support of this assertion is not a flaw with anyone’s demands, it’s a flaw with you being ill-equipped to even spew this clichéed rhetoric.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> What I want is to know if my thoughts are my own!

Well, the sort you paraphrase out of bad apologetic texts aren’t, if you allow me this much jest. But in response to what you actually mean, yes, they are.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> If they are completely caused by motions of atoms, they aren’t.

It’s not that they are “caused by” motions of atoms so much as they _are_ motions of atoms (in a broad enough sense, where motion can be not only a change in location but in state more broadly). Why should this mean that they are not your own? Are you something other than your mental activity? One could maybe argue over whether or not you are your body, but surely your mind _is you_, is it not?

This has nothing to do with the justification or justifiability of reason, by the way.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> People do this to me here! And claim that the statements I make are because I am committed to theism, or intelligent design, and so on. They claim my statements are not really my own, they are caused or come from other sources, such as stuff I’ve been taught, or read without processing, etc. So my thoughts can be disregarded, for that reason.

People would not waste their time with you at all, if they actually did not think you were in any way accountable for the things you say. Yes, you repeat rhetoric, often without having spent notable effort understanding or criticizing it. But it is still you doing that. Nobody is blaming the authors of the things you quote for you bringing them here.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> But everyone who believes in mind doesn’t believe our minds are disembodied. I hope this addresses your point, which is somewhat unclear to me.

It does not. Feel free to ask clarifying questions. I do not know how embodied-ness has anything at all to do with physical-ness. So as much as my point is a mystery to you, how you think this is even an attempt at addressing it, is a mystery to me.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> I do still believe the Bible is authoritative, in matters of fact,…  
> … someone pointed out to me, …  
> … So I evaluate evidence for my beliefs,…

Clearly, you don’t. You just weigh up levels of trust. The Bible (a.k.a. someone’s say-so) is authoritative, but also someone else may say something, and maybe that’ll sway you. It’s not about the facts itself, when it comes to facts about nature. It’s about trust, character, vibes, authority… not evidence, certainly not of the scientific sort.

It is also amusing to me that the reason you cite for not believing Ussher’s estimate of the age of the earth is that (someone pointed out) that genealogies may not be reported in the Bible quite the way we would note them down these days in our own calendars. _In principle_, is what I’m hearing, if only James Ussher had known what we do now about Jewish genealogies, he _would_ have arrived at a correct estimate of the age of the earth. His error was almost a clerical one, but sitting in an arm chair, sliding abacus pegs back and forth based on scriptural claims _is_ a way to find at least this fact about the earth. Spending any time whatsoever measuring the rates of various geologic processes, putting in _any actual work_ into studying nature, all that is a waste of effort. Especially when it implies numbers far outside the range the authoritative book would yield. Do you see yet why some users here feel like you have no care for evidence, and no respect for the scientific process?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Roy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/roy/32/3799_2.png) [@Roy](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Roy)\
**Post date:** [January 12, 2026, 9:35pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-douglas-axe-disprove-evolution-spoiler-no/17458/667 "2026-01-12T21:35:10Z")

</div>

> [@AnEvolvedPrimate](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > I hear that archaeologists go first to the Bible now, when they try and find a site.
> 
> [citation needed]

Especially for archaeologists specialising in American and Australian artefacts.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [January 12, 2026, 9:38pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-douglas-axe-disprove-evolution-spoiler-no/17458/668 "2026-01-12T21:38:52Z")

</div>

> [@Roy](#):
>
> he’s suggesting that he might have read a book by a non-existent author.

Well, Matthew didn’t write Matthew, Mark didn’t write Mark, Luke didn’t write Luke, and John didn’t write John. Why, Trump didn’t even write The Art of the Deal. So it’s not entirely weird to suppose that Caesar didn’t write De Bello Gallico.

Another point: just now I’m doing the Sunday crossword in the Washington Post, and one clue was “Gallic war commander”, 6 letters starting with C. Coincidence or divine action?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mercer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Mercer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mercer)\
**Post date:** [January 12, 2026, 10:05pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-douglas-axe-disprove-evolution-spoiler-no/17458/669 "2026-01-12T22:05:17Z")

</div>

> [@Gisteron](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > That applies to a lot of things! Like looking for my keys, there are so many wrong places to look, but I don’t sit down in a puddle of tears, and not look for them.
> 
> Apologetics, in this analogy, would be trying to convince oneself and others of a location one has _decided_ they are before looking, and without ever actually looking there.

And in the context of science, Lee isn’t looking for any keys at all (that would be examining evidence), while parroting the opinions of others about where his keys might be and ignoring his friendly neighbor who has already found at least some of them.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\
**Post date:** [January 12, 2026, 11:47pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-douglas-axe-disprove-evolution-spoiler-no/17458/670 "2026-01-12T23:47:17Z")

</div>

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> > [@Rumraket](#):
> >
> > For your argument to succeed the ratio has to significantly favor incorrect inferences → survive, over correct inference → survive.
> 
> But I don’t think either innumerable counterexamples or “It seems intuitive” will give you what you are demanding here, a ratio.

Since you can’t give me a ratio I have no reason to accept your argument.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> > [@Rumraket](#):
> >
> > This is experientially verified every waking moment of existence.
> 
> But only if our experience corresponds with reality! But this is the very point at issue

No, the argument you began with is about the reliability of reason. Reasoning. The capacity to think logically and rationally and make valid inferences. Not whether the senses (sight, hearing, smell, touch etc.) are reliable. Though my counter-argument applies equally to the reliability of the senses.

Simply put, if we evolved we would expect sensory input to reflect reality, otherwise there is no reason for senses to evolve in the first place. In so far as they function at all it must be to inform the organism about the reality that surrounds it. There is zero reason to think a systematic mismatch between sensory input and the reality of our surroundings should be thought more likely to promote survival than a more correct match.

It would be really weird if a bus was driving straight into you and your senses instead told you that a big juicy burger, or an aroused and willing mate, was in front of you instead, and this somehow still ended up promoting survival. Or that, to get you out of the way, your senses transformed the light reflected off the incoming bus into that of a nice little butterfly flapping about. Or perhaps even worse, just fed you incomprehensible visual noise and this still somehow magically was more likely to promote survival _than the actual impression of an oncoming bus_.

I’m sorry but none of these “evolution cares about survival not truth” arguments really work when it comes down to it since we have no reason to think falsehoods would better tend to correlate with survival than truth.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> > [@Rumraket](#):
> >
> > Curiously, somone like you would probably believe our intuitions were designed by God, so that just makes it all the more self-defeating for you to insist they can’t be relied upon.
> 
> I do rely on my intuitions, to some degree, but I want to know about the foundations of our reasoning, are they reliable?

See, we’re back to reasoning again. Why do you so consistently lose track of the discussion? Your thinking on all these topics seems muddled.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> I do rely on my intuitions, to some degree, but I want to know about the foundations of our reasoning, are they reliable? Saying “it works well enough” is not telling me whether the foundations are real, and firm

If this is turning into an argument about solipsism then I’m sorry to have to inform you that theism doesn’t solve it.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> Certainly Darwin and Haldane were aware of us trusting our intuition and experience, and yet they saw that more is needed. And you seem not to see this, somehow.

I’ve successfully argued why, and you have no counter-argument. By your own admission both Darwin and Haldane were not infallible since you presumably disagree with their conclusion about the fact of evolution. So all i need to argue here is that it seems both of us think Darwin and Haldane were wrong about some things, we just disagree on what exactly that was.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> > [@Rumraket](#):
> >
> > But seriously, no i don’t think most humans would disagree with me. The fact is that the way we decide that a person is an unreliable witness to the actual state of affairs **is by comparing their claims to our own experiences and those of others around us.** It is _after_ such evaluations we designate some people as “crazy”, “madmen”, “delirious”, etc.
> 
> So why do people give reasons such as “I was tired”, when they do something unreasonable? They are claiming an unreasoning cause!

You’re confused. I am explaining how we come to the conclusion that another person is an unreliable witness to the state of affairs. We do this by comparison of their claims to our own experiences. It doesn’t matter that the person was tired if they still reasoned correctly. The explanation for why a person makes errors in reasoning is irrelevant to how we first establish their unreliability. That they are unreliable because they are tired is irrelevant. My position isn’t that human reasoning abilities are flawless or can’t be altered in a way where it becomes prone to make mistakes. The fact that human beings _can_ make errors in reasoning is an argument _for_ my position, not against it. If our being designed is supposed to provide a reason for thinking we can reason reliably, it is all the more mysterious why we even can make errors.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> > [@Rumraket](#):
> >
> > We stop listening to or giving weight to the statements of such people not because we wonder about the substance of the entity that does their thinking (physical/material vs supernatural/immaterial), but because we have time and again found their statements to be in conflict with observational reality.
> 
> No, we don’t, we don’t reject the conclusions of a delirious man because we have gone looking for the claimed snakes again and again, and we haven’t found them.

Yes, we do. That is in fact how we establish that he is delirious. If we look around us and found the place full of snakes we wouldn’t call him delirious. Your counter-argument simply implicitly assumes that it is obvious we are not surrounded by snakes. The unstated premise is you have looked and found it obvious that snakes aren’t everywhere. LMAO.

Are you an apologist? Have you been _trained_ to give these abysmal responses?

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> I suppose if our reasoning was perfect and uncompromisable, we would tend to set ourselves up as some sort of gods!

I don’t.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> > [@Rumraket](#):
> >
> > It’s literally a physical limitation, which I can see no good reason to exist if the mind was immaterial.
> 
> But no one ever thought or claimed (I certainly don’t) that an immaterial ability is necessarily unlimited!

Maybe no-one ever explicitly claimed this, but why not? What is the reason for why thinking takes time, and multiplying tasks degrades cognitive performance just as if you have limited hardware to devote to processing information and the signals travel at finite speeds, if in fact the hardware isn’t material and the information doesn’t have to cross any physical distance? Why are we so obviously limited in exactly the way we should expect of a biology-based computer?

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> > [@Rumraket](#):
> >
> > > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> > >
> > > If a delirious man tells you there are snakes in the room, do you then go look for evidence of them? I expect not, because you know his irrational delirium is causing these thoughts.
> > 
> > I would have to have already established that the man is delirious by comparing his claims against the reality I inhabit. Then, having established that, I can proceed to dismiss his claims.
> 
> I’ll take that as a “yes”, So, when have you done this with delirium? Or are you agnostic on this?

Basically every time I meet a person I end up concluding is out of his mind, it conclude this because the person makes statements that conflict strongly with my own direct experiences. As explained above, this is just implicit in your snakes hypothetical. That you are _not_ having the experience of being surrounded by snakes. It is only because this is assumed as the state of affairs for your experience of the world that the man who claim snakes are everywhere appears delirious. Had you walked into the room and found it full of snakes, then went to the corner where a man sat claiming the room was full of snakes you’d simply agree with him.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lee\_merrill](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/lee_merrill/32/14458_2.png) [@lee\_merrill](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/lee_merrill)\
**Post date:** [January 13, 2026, 12:34am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-douglas-axe-disprove-evolution-spoiler-no/17458/671 "2026-01-13T00:34:14Z")

</div>

> [@Rumraket](#):
>
> This analogy therefore assumes that sentence readability and character typos must function analogously to how mutations affect protein enzymatic function. First of all Axe gives us zero reason to think that is the case anywhere.

But you acknowledge later on that more mutations result in more degradation of function, which I agree is fairly self-evident.

> [@Rumraket](#):
>
> To justify his conclusion, Axe would need to show that something like the following would be true.: That the wild-type enzyme is already so close to the edge of functional collapse that its apparent mutational tolerance is mostly an artifact of global buffering, and therefore fragment-level tolerance vastly overestimates true functional density.

But I think Axe’s argument is different, the wt enzyme is farther from functional collapse, not as close to it as the partially disabled enzyme he starts with. So then to remove the buffering effect, the wt enzyme is partially disabled.

> [@Rumraket](#):
>
> But he never demonstrates this either experimentally or theoretically. Rather, he merely **asserts** it using the sentence analogy.

But I think this again is fairly self-evident, and also Axe gives details about this decision in his paper: “If we intend to assess constraints by assessing the proportion of randomized variants that pass selection, we must ensure that any significant deterioration upon randomization will prevent passing. So, to assess the minimal constraints for proper enzyme function, the approach should be first to obtain an extensively degraded reference sequence that just passes a low selection threshold (Figure 2b, left) and then to subject locally randomized variants of that sequence to selection at the same threshold (Figure 2b, right). Because the reference sequence has virtually no capacity to buffer the effects of further disruption, the quality of side-chain interactions within the randomized region must be maintained in order for a variant to pass.”

So degradation until the variant just passes a threshold was done, with real enzymes in the lab, so this was done experimentally, it was part of his procedure.

> [@Rumraket](#):
>
> It is not at all clear from his analogy that a more stable enzyme being tested against a ~10ug/ml concentration of antibiotic would produce skewed results.

I think this is stated more clearly in his paper, that this was done to reduce the buffering effect, as mentioned previously.

> [@Rumraket](#):
>
> What reason do we have to think that an enzyme being tested at 25 degrees C against a concentration of 10 ug/ml, that yields a 38% pass rate, is closer to the correct value for functional and nonfunctional sequences, than if we had used the wt enzyme against the same or a higher concentration?

Axe explains further, in his paper, after removing the buffering effect: “By performing several such experiments at various locations in the structure, it should therefore be possible to estimate the fraction of side-chain specifications providing interactions that are just sufficiently favourable to support low-level enzyme function.”

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lee\_merrill](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/lee_merrill/32/14458_2.png) [@lee\_merrill](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/lee_merrill)\
**Post date:** [January 13, 2026, 12:39am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-douglas-axe-disprove-evolution-spoiler-no/17458/672 "2026-01-13T00:39:50Z")

</div>

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > I don’t claim every thought is irrationally caused! You should present your objection to the naturalists, they think that.
> 
> No, they don’t. And this is part of your problem. There is no reason to suppose that a purely physical system, the brain for example, can’t support a process of rational thought.

That was not my point, though, instead I was stating that naturalists believe our thoughts are due completely and solely to the movement of atoms, of unreasoning and irrational atoms in our brain. So the objection should be made to them.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> You think a soul is necessary, but that’s just a version of the homunculus theory of consciousness

No, I think we need a reasoning cause for our reason, I’m not postulating a soul at this point.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> You also use “supernatural” in a similar magical way. If your thoughts come from atoms, they can’t be rational, and yet if they come from whatever souls are made of, they can. But why? No way even to ask what souls are made of.

No, again, I’m not speculating about the metaphysical makeup of human beings.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lee\_merrill](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/lee_merrill/32/14458_2.png) [@lee\_merrill](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/lee_merrill)\
**Post date:** [January 13, 2026, 12:51am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-douglas-axe-disprove-evolution-spoiler-no/17458/673 "2026-01-13T00:51:26Z")

</div>

> [@AnEvolvedPrimate](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > I hear that archaeologists go first to the Bible now, when they try and find a site.
> 
> [citation needed]

Well, this was a comment made in passing in a video I watched recently, I should keep notes on videos I watch. But I did get this from AI in a search I did on “archaeologists go first to the Bible now”: “Archaeologists are increasingly focusing on biblical sites and texts to gain a deeper understanding of the ancient world and its religious practices. This trend is evident in the numerous archaeological discoveries that have been made in 2025, which have provided new insights into the biblical narrative and its historical context.”

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lee\_merrill](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/lee_merrill/32/14458_2.png) [@lee\_merrill](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/lee_merrill)\
**Post date:** [January 13, 2026, 1:01am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-douglas-axe-disprove-evolution-spoiler-no/17458/674 "2026-01-13T01:01:49Z")

</div>

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > What I want is to know if my thoughts are my own! If they are completely caused by motions of atoms, they aren’t.
> 
> Why not? What does “my own” actually mean? And aren’t the atoms in question part of you, in fact what makes up “you”?

Now apparently, I need to venture into the metaphysical makeup of humans! [Here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41bIJ7hYbLs) is a video where neurosurgeon Michal Egnor talks about evidence for the soul, how the brain doesn’t seem to be the sole source of all our thoughts. He could produce some thoughts by brain stimulation, but not others. And I have a body, I am a soul, near-death experiences being evidence for this.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [January 13, 2026, 1:08am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-douglas-axe-disprove-evolution-spoiler-no/17458/675 "2026-01-13T01:08:56Z")

</div>

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> That was not my point, though, instead I was stating that naturalists believe our thoughts are due completely and solely to the movement of atoms, of unreasoning and irrational atoms in our brain.

Atoms may be unreasoning, but they aren’t irrational. And you give no reason why unreasoning atoms can’t give rise to reasoned thoughts, unless you propose that anything made of atoms must have the same properties as the atoms. “Naturalists” (and you really shouldn’t use that word; look up the actual definition) don’t propose that every thought is irrationally caused. That’s your strawman. What most scientists would propose is that every thought is a result of brain activity, and of course the brain is composed of atoms. Why are they wrong?

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> No, I think we need a reasoning cause for our reason, I’m not postulating a soul at this point.

Here you confuse the cause of the existence of a mind (God or evolution being the prime candidates) with the composition of the mind that results in thought (atoms or, one gathers from your claims, something else). You claim here to be talking about the former, but the mention of atoms is a reference to the latter. Let’s just use “soul” as a placeholder for whatever it is you think is responsible for generating rational thought that isn’t atoms in the brain.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> No, again, I’m not speculating about the metaphysical makeup of human beings.

Then what was all that about atoms?

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> Now apparently, I need to venture into the metaphysical makeup of humans!

You brought it up, whether you understand that or not, by denying that our thoughts are caused by “motions of atoms”. And a bit of advice: if you want any respect here, don’t cite Michael Egnor in support of anything. I will also note that you didn’t actually reply to any of my questions, nor is anything Egnor did such a reply. You really have trouble telling what’s relevant and what isn’t. Perhaps if you slowed down a bit and thought about what the questions were and what they meant?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lee\_merrill](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/lee_merrill/32/14458_2.png) [@lee\_merrill](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/lee_merrill)\
**Post date:** [January 13, 2026, 1:27am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-douglas-axe-disprove-evolution-spoiler-no/17458/676 "2026-01-13T01:27:18Z")

</div>

> [@Gisteron](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > I’m saying neither of us can give a ratio like you are demanding.
> 
> You chose to make or imply the statement that a reasoning apparatus whose primary function is to aid in survival ought be expected to provide its user with decidedly incorrect information about the world it finds itself in.

How did I say or imply this, though? I’m saying neither of us on either side of the issue can provide numbers that prove our point. That’s it.

> [@Gisteron](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > If they are completely caused by motions of atoms, they aren’t.
> 
> It’s not that they are “caused by” motions of atoms so much as they _are_ motions of atoms (in a broad enough sense, where motion can be not only a change in location but in state more broadly). Why should this mean that they are not your own? Are you something other than your mental activity?

Well, if my thoughts are the motions of atoms, that would be essentially the same as saying the motion of atoms cause my thoughts. If you say the former, people will think you also mean the latter. When people start saying “my brain atoms” instead of “my thoughts”, then I think your point will be more convincing.

> [@Gisteron](#):
>
> One could maybe argue over whether or not you are your body, but surely your mind _is you_, is it not?

I think in your view you should have said “brain”, not “mind”! And see my [response](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-douglas-axe-disprove-evolution-spoiler-no/17458/674) to John Harshman, with a video from a neuroscientist about evidence for the soul.

> [@Gisteron](#):
>
> This has nothing to do with the justification or justifiability of reason, by the way.

Sure, it does, if my thoughts are just motions of atoms, just physics at work, ultimately, then I see no reason to believe they are also independent acts of reasoning, like people think they are doing when they reason and think.

> [@Gisteron](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > People do this to me here! And claim that the statements I make are because I am committed to theism, or intelligent design, and so on. They claim my statements are not really my own, they are caused or come from other sources, such as stuff I’ve been taught, or read without processing, etc. So my thoughts can be disregarded, for that reason.
> 
> People would not waste their time with you at all, if they actually did not think you were in any way accountable for the things you say.

I’m saying people dismiss what I say, for that reason, at times. I’m glad when people don’t do that, of course.

> [@Gisteron](#):
>
> It’s not about the facts itself, when it comes to facts about nature. It’s about trust, character, vibes, authority… not evidence, certainly not of the scientific sort.

Actually, I do look at scientific facts, what scientists have deduced about the age of the earth being one of them, in regard to this question.

> [@Gisteron](#):
>
> Spending any time whatsoever measuring the rates of various geologic processes, putting in _any actual work_ into studying nature, all that is a waste of effort.

But that is not my view.

> [@Gisteron](#):
>
> Especially when it implies numbers far outside the range the authoritative book would yield.

And here we have an example of what I mentioned previously, you are rejecting my statements, because you think you have detected their cause, an authoritative book, which you claim is not a rational approach, you detect a nonrational cause, so you dismiss what I say. See, people do this, you do this yourself.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lee\_merrill](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/lee_merrill/32/14458_2.png) [@lee\_merrill](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/lee_merrill)\
**Post date:** [January 13, 2026, 1:34am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-douglas-axe-disprove-evolution-spoiler-no/17458/677 "2026-01-13T01:34:16Z")

</div>

> [@Gisteron](#):
>
> Apologetics, in this analogy, would be trying to convince oneself and others of a location one has _decided_ they are before looking, and without ever actually looking there.

Oops, another instance of what Gisteron was saying people here don’t do. You are saying my arguments are based on a preconceived conclusion, they are due to a nonrational cause, and so you reject them. Just my point throughout, people do recognize and apply this principle to thoughts.

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> And in the context of science, Lee isn’t looking for any keys at all (that would be examining evidence), while parroting the opinions of others about where his keys might be and ignoring his friendly neighbor who has already found at least some of them.

Ditto. And my point has gone unaddressed, people don’t always abandon a search because there are many possibilities.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![AnEvolvedPrimate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a183cd/32.png) [@AnEvolvedPrimate](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/AnEvolvedPrimate)\
**Post date:** [January 13, 2026, 1:49am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-douglas-axe-disprove-evolution-spoiler-no/17458/678 "2026-01-13T01:49:40Z")

</div>

I have no confidence in AI slop responses. I’ll take this as an unsubstantiated claim that likely has no basis.

edited to add:

It’s also funny how if I put the same search into Google, its AI responds accordingly:

> No, professional archaeologists do not start their work with the Bible as a primary, unquestioned guide.
> 
> In modern archaeological practice, the **Bible is treated as one of many historical texts** that can provide context or clues, not an infallible blueprint for excavation. The methodology has evolved significantly since the early 20th century, when some religiously motivated archaeologists would literally use the Bible as a field guide.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [January 13, 2026, 2:00am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-douglas-axe-disprove-evolution-spoiler-no/17458/679 "2026-01-13T02:00:54Z")

</div>

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> You are saying my arguments are based on a preconceived conclusion, they are due to a nonrational cause, and so you reject them.

Again, backwards. He’s noticing that your arguments are bad, and seeking an explanation for that observation. The explanation explains your behavior quite well. It explains, for example, why you believe almost nothing Darwin said except for the little bits that you already believed, and it explains why you believe almost everything Bechly said except for the little bits that you already didn’t believe.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lee\_merrill](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/lee_merrill/32/14458_2.png) [@lee\_merrill](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/lee_merrill)\
**Post date:** [January 13, 2026, 2:03am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-douglas-axe-disprove-evolution-spoiler-no/17458/680 "2026-01-13T02:03:28Z")

</div>

> [@Rumraket](#):
>
> Since you can’t give me a ratio I have no reason to accept your argument.

Ditto, this shoe fits on your foot, too, was my point.

> [@Rumraket](#):
>
> There is zero reason to think a systematic mismatch between sensory input and the reality of our surroundings should be thought more likely to promote survival than a more correct match.

I agree with you about the probable validity of sensory perceptions.

> [@Rumraket](#):
>
> I’m sorry but none of these “evolution cares about survival not truth” arguments really work when it comes down to it since we have no reason to think falsehoods would better tend to correlate with survival than truth.

And I’m sorry, but “It works well enough for me” is not a good, fundamental basis for trusting the validity of our reasoning.

> [@Rumraket](#):
>
> If this is turning into an argument about solipsism then I’m sorry to have to inform you that theism doesn’t solve it.

No, I’m not arguing for something like solipsism.

> [@Rumraket](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > Certainly Darwin and Haldane were aware of us trusting our intuition and experience, and yet they saw that more is needed. And you seem not to see this, somehow.
> 
> I’ve successfully argued why, and you have no counter-argument. By your own admission both Darwin and Haldane were not infallible since you presumably disagree with their conclusion about the fact of evolution.

I have made counter-arguments, actually. And no human is infallible! So we may reject all human reasoning, as inconclusive, we shouldn’t look at what others think, to help us decide anything?

> [@Rumraket](#):
>
> The explanation for why a person makes errors in reasoning is irrelevant to how we first establish their unreliability.

But I’m not talking about evaluating what other people say, I’m pointing to the fact that people do point to irrational causes, for unjustifiable behavior. It’s another application of the principle that we should reject behavior, statements that arguable come from a cause that is outside a person’s considered initiative, a cause that is not reasoning.

> [@Rumraket](#):
>
> If our being designed is supposed to provide a reason for thinking we can reason reliably, it is all the more mysterious why we even can make errors.

I’ve responded to this, I can think of a number of reasons, for one, omniscience may well be required for infallible reasoning, for another, it’s salutary for us to be needy, and ask for help when we need it, to not be omnipotent.

> [@Rumraket](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > No, we don’t, we don’t reject the conclusions of a delirious man because we have gone looking for the claimed snakes again and again, and we haven’t found them.
> 
> Yes, we do. That is in fact how we establish that he is delirious. If we look around us and found the place full of snakes we wouldn’t call him delirious.

Certainly, unless we know he has been drinking, and is prone to delirium. Or if we looked, and there are no snakes, then we mark up his claims to delirium, to a nonreasoning cause, and stop looking. Why do you keep arguing that we don’t do this?!

> [@Rumraket](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > I suppose if our reasoning was perfect and uncompromisable, we would tend to set ourselves up as some sort of gods!
> 
> I don’t.

Well, the only reason I can think of for you giving this reply is if you consider your reasoning perfect and uncompromisable!

> [@Rumraket](#):
>
> Why are we so obviously limited in exactly the way we should expect of a biology-based computer?t.

Because of thoughts of brain-dead people who have near-death experiences? For one.

> [@Rumraket](#):
>
> Basically every time I meet a person I end up concluding is out of his mind, it conclude this because the person makes statements that conflict strongly with my own direct experiences.

But I was talking about someone who is definitely in delirium. You may have needed to examine the room to deduce this, but for whatever reason, we may conclude delirium, now do you still look for snakes whenever the claim is made that they are there?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lee\_merrill](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/lee_merrill/32/14458_2.png) [@lee\_merrill](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/lee_merrill)\
**Post date:** [January 13, 2026, 2:17am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-douglas-axe-disprove-evolution-spoiler-no/17458/681 "2026-01-13T02:17:59Z")

</div>

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> What most scientists would propose is that every thought is a result of brain activity, and of course the brain is composed of atoms. Why are they wrong?

Because that’s a reductionist view of thought. It takes out agency, which is what most people think they do when they think. Materialists (is that better than naturalists?) say this is an illusion.

Then there are NDEs, where people are aware of their surroundings, they have thoughts, even when they are brain-dead.

Then there is the point that John Lennox reports that no scientist he has interviewed about this, has said they would trust their laptop in the lab, if they knew it was the result of a mindless, unguided process. But they trust their brains! Which they claim is the result of just such a process. Other points could be made, I’ve made them, but I’ll stop here.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> Here you confuse the cause of the existence of a mind (God or evolution being the prime candidates) with the composition of the mind that results in thought (atoms or, one gathers from your claims, something else).

My claim actually is that the problem occurs in two places, in the development of the brain, and in its current operation. I’ll try and do better to keep the two distinguished.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> You brought it up, whether you understand that or not, by denying that our thoughts are caused by “motions of atoms”. And a bit of advice: if you want any respect here, don’t cite Michael Egnor in support of anything. I will also note that you didn’t actually reply to any of my questions, nor is anything Egnor did such a reply. You really have trouble telling what’s relevant and what isn’t.

But how is Egnor’s experience in brain stimulation irrelevant? He says he hasn’t been able to cause various sorts of thoughts, by stimulation.

[Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-douglas-axe-disprove-evolution-spoiler-no/17458.md?page=32)

[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-douglas-axe-disprove-evolution-spoiler-no/17458.md?page=34)