# 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:** 34

<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, 2:33am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-douglas-axe-disprove-evolution-spoiler-no/17458/682 "2026-01-13T02:33:20Z")

</div>

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> Because that’s a reductionist view of thought.

That doesn’t provide a reason why they’re wrong. Nor does it take out agency, unless you mean something mystical by that word.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> Materialists (is that better than naturalists?) say this is an illusion.

Well, at least it’s a word that means what you think it means. So progress, I suppose. But no, materialists don’t say it’s an illusion. But here we’re back to arguing about whether libertarian free will is incoherent. By “agency”, you mean something outside of causality and yet non-random. What could that mean?

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> Then there are NDEs, where people are aware of their surroundings, they have thoughts, even when they are brain-dead.

No. Apparently “brain-dead” is another term that doesn’t mean what you think it means. You don’t come back from being brain-dead to report on your experiences.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> 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.

Yet again you cite this dubious, third-hand claim. Don’t believe it for a second. And let’s recall that natural selection may be mindless, but it’s not unguided. So the relevance of this “gotcha” moment is slight, even if it actually happened even once.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> Other points could be made, I’ve made them, but I’ll stop here.

Yes. Stop digging.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> I’ll try and do better to keep the two distinguished.

That would help.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> But how is Egnor’s experience in brain stimulation irrelevant?

That’s you mixing those two separate topics again, right after saying you’d try not to. Please try harder. And the Egnor bit was irrelevant because it had nothing to do with the questions you were supposedly responding to.

---

<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 13, 2026, 7:24am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-douglas-axe-disprove-evolution-spoiler-no/17458/683 "2026-01-13T07:24:33Z")

</div>

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> > [@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.

That isn’t all I say on that topic, and I give reasons to think the relationship isn’t all that simple for protein function.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> > [@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.

That’s exactly what we can’t just assume (reducing the capacity to buffer against the destabilizing effects of mutations doesn’t necessarily mean the enzyme the enzyme suffers loss of catalytic activity, these two factors can’t be directly interconverted), and why Axe needs to do activity assays. And it’s another reason for why the constraints on protein function don’t function in the way typos affect readability of a sentence.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> > [@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:

That merely asserts what is being questioned here.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> 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.

Nobody disputes that Axe did in fact make local randomizations of fragments of his already constructed to be temperature-sensitive enzyme.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> > [@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.

And the basis of where he chose to put the thresholds is what is being questioned here.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> > [@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.”

That doesn’t answer my question. LOL.

I also note that you have no response to the fact that if Axe’s argument with the sentence readability held any water, it would undermine his own experiment.

---

<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 13, 2026, 7:46am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-douglas-axe-disprove-evolution-spoiler-no/17458/684 "2026-01-13T07:46:15Z")

</div>

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> > [@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.

Already responded to this. That correct inferences generally tend towards survival is, to borrow your new favorite phrase, “fairly self-evident.”

One could construct innumerable thought-experiments to show this. Consider a game of chess where poor moves trigger a gun to blow your head off. Would correct or incorrect inferences about what moves to make next be more likely to promote survival?

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> > [@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.

There can be no other basis for putting trust in anything at all. Can I eat this? Try it in practice. Can I trust my reasoning? → test it. This really is how we assess whether trust is justified in the real world: put it to a practical test. If it works well enough for me then it IS a good, fundamental basis for trusting the validity of reasoning.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> > [@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?

None of that follow from my statement. You appeal to the presumptive authority of Darwin and Haldane to support your conclusion, but since you actually don’t consider them authorities on other matters, your decision to declare them authorities on _this_ one is obviously self-serving and ad-hoc.

So, having dismissed the inappropriate appeal to authority, we must return to assessing the arguments on their own terms, rather than the putative historical significance of whichever characters might or might not have made such arguments before us.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> > [@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.

That principle is just mistaken, then. The reason we should reject their claims is that they conflict with observational reality, not that the cause of their errors might be “unreasoning.” Nobody distrusts a wall-clock to tell you time correctly on the basis that it’s internal workings are unreasoning and mechanical. In so far as you do, it’s because you have other reasons for thinking the clock does not show time correctly, such as the clock showing noon when it is clearly night outside.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> > [@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.

Sadly these are all just assertions we have no reason to think are true.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> > [@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?!

Because we don’t, in fact, do this. All your hypotheticals implicitly assume that a man is telling you stuff you already have experienced to be false. In other words, that you have entered a place, looked around, saw what the place was like, and then you encounter a man who says something evidently false. Evidently because you’ve already collected the evidence, with your own sensens, indicating that his claims are false.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> > [@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!

Then your capacity to think of reasons for giving this reply aren’t all that, I have to say.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> > [@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.

No, that isn’t the reason why we are obviously limited in exactly the way we should expect of a biology-based computer. The reason is that we _are_ biology-based computers. That’s the most obvious conclusion that best fits the available evidence.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> > [@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?

If I do not it’s because I already possess knowledge of the state of the room. It’s amazing how you just can’t see how all your hypotheticals about people saying outrageous things simply assume a situation where their claims have already been shown to be false.

---

<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 13, 2026, 7:56am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-douglas-axe-disprove-evolution-spoiler-no/17458/685 "2026-01-13T07:56:01Z")

</div>

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> Well, if my thoughts are the motions of atoms, that would be essentially the same as saying the motion of atoms cause my thoughts.

No, it would not be the same. One is a correct identification of the nature of a phenomenon, where the other is a semi-coherent utterance about something fundamentally unobservable.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> 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.

No, I think people are smarter than that. They can tell the difference between a process and an object carrying out the process. A computer chip is not identical to the program it runs. Thoughts are not atoms. They are the activity of brains. _You_ confuse such things, and you think others are this dumb, too. I do not.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> I think in your view you should have said “brain”, not “mind”!

And I think I did not ask your advice, thank you very much. You quote me explicitly stating that there is an argument to be had over whether or not we are our bodies. Are you suggesting I am confused about whether or not the brain is part of the body like you are? Why do you insult me so? I said mind, because I meant mind. Had I meant brain, I would have said brain. I’m not _that_ incompetent.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> … 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.

Which, again, has nothing to do with the justification of justifiability of reason. Something is not any more justified or justifiable for being “independent” from its physical underpinnings. If anything, I should intuitively expect quite the opposite. A process that is in no way tied to any physical foundations should have no compulsion whatsoever to reflect nature correctly. Whether a physical process would is an argument to be had, but surely it wouldn’t fare any worse than a process that is entirely divorced from nature, what ever that even means.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> And here we have an example of what I mentioned previously,…

No, you mentioned previously that people did not hold you responsible for the things you say. My criticizing what you say is not my failing to hold you responsible for it. Therefore, it is not an example of what you mentioned previously.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> 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.

They are “due to an irrational cause” insofar as you are being irrational when making them. Nobody says they aren’t yours though, at least to the extent to which you actively choose to present them. So again, not an example of the thing you say people do, where they deny your agency and attribute your deeds to something else.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> > [@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.

The question is why are they wrong, not why do you no likey.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Giltil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Giltil](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Giltil)\
**Post date:** [January 13, 2026, 8:15am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-douglas-axe-disprove-evolution-spoiler-no/17458/686 "2026-01-13T08:15:40Z")

</div>

> [@RonSewell](#):
>
> Apologetics _begins_ with a set of beliefs, and then formulates arguments to justify them.

Isn’t this true also for philosophical systems such as naturalism or even scientific theories?

---

<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 13, 2026, 8:16am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-douglas-axe-disprove-evolution-spoiler-no/17458/687 "2026-01-13T08:16:29Z")

</div>

No, it is not.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Giltil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Giltil](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Giltil)\
**Post date:** [January 13, 2026, 8:49am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-douglas-axe-disprove-evolution-spoiler-no/17458/688 "2026-01-13T08:49:59Z")

</div>

Why not?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![faded\_Glory](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faded_glory/32/7167_2.png) [@faded\_Glory](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/faded_Glory)\
**Post date:** [January 13, 2026, 9:34am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-douglas-axe-disprove-evolution-spoiler-no/17458/689 "2026-01-13T09:34:24Z")

</div>

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> 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?

Cicero!

Quintus Tullius, not the other one, his brother Marcus Tullius the famous orator.

Is God testing you?

---

<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 13, 2026, 9:35am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-douglas-axe-disprove-evolution-spoiler-no/17458/690 "2026-01-13T09:35:23Z")

</div>

While some minimal set of axioms must be assumed before any further inferences can be drawn, it is not the case that philosophical systems such as naturalism or even scientific theories include higher level rationale to justify those basic assumptions retroactively. The axioms upon which a (logically consistent) system is built cannot be justified from within the system, because one would have to depart from the system in order to consider what an axiom’s falsehood even means. A version of this statement is Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem.

It should also be noted that the base assumptions of philosophical schools of thought tend to be rather minimal, precisely to avoid the risk of self-contradiction. Things like the validity of _modus ponens_ or the law of identity, or that observing nature is for better or for worse the only way to learn anything about it, do not state anything anywhere comparable to there being a sentient entity that exists not in any place nor at any time, with thoughts and feelings quite like ours but without a body like ours to produce them, and with the power to violate physical law. The fact alone that there exists apologetics to try and justify the latter is a telltale sign that, though it is assumed and needs to be arrived at, it is not, in fact, beyond question quite like basic laws of logic or pragmatic principles of empiricism.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [January 13, 2026, 2:23pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-douglas-axe-disprove-evolution-spoiler-no/17458/691 "2026-01-13T14:23:20Z")

</div>

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> [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.

Yeah, I have a few things to say about that guy.

> **[A Neurosurgeon Argues That Mind Functions Are Immaterial. Badly.](https://faizalali.substack.com/p/a-neurosurgeon-argues-that-mind-functions-are-immaterial-badly?utm_source=publication-search)**
>
> Michael Egnor is a pediatric neurosurgeon who is also affiliated with the Discovery Institute, an organization which promotes the form of creationism that goes under the name of "Intelligent Design" (ID).

Suffice to say, he is not a person who is taken seriously, or even heard of, by anyone of note dealing with philosophy of mind.

At the risk of sounding paranoid, that whole thing may have been the result of Tour scheming with other members of the DI to try get me in trouble with my University. Long story…

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> 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.

Wrong again. Not only is that position not entailed by materialism (or, to use my preferred term, physicalism). It is not even one held by more than a minority of physicalists.

Which is not to say a reasonable argument could not be made for the position.

[https://philpapers.org/rec/FRAIAA-4](https://philpapers.org/rec/FRAIAA-4)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Giltil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Giltil](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Giltil)\
**Post date:** [January 13, 2026, 5:33pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-douglas-axe-disprove-evolution-spoiler-no/17458/692 "2026-01-13T17:33:25Z")

</div>

Sorry, but the new atheists engaged in the same type of activity than those engage in apologetics. In both cases, the game is to defend a particular doctrine.

In fact, it seems to me that every doctrine starts with facts/observations. Then there is interpretation of these facts/observations, which then lead to a particular doctrine, for examples naturalism or Christianity, or common descent, etc…

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![RonSewell](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ronsewell/32/6194_2.png) [@RonSewell](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/RonSewell)\
**Post date:** [January 13, 2026, 6:12pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-douglas-axe-disprove-evolution-spoiler-no/17458/693 "2026-01-13T18:12:47Z")

</div>

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> In fact, it seems to me that every doctrine starts with facts/observations

Including my doctrine that invisible space bunnies are the true source of rainbows?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [January 13, 2026, 6:24pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-douglas-axe-disprove-evolution-spoiler-no/17458/694 "2026-01-13T18:24:41Z")

</div>

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> Sorry, but the new atheists engaged in the same type of activity than those engage in apologetics. In both cases, the game is to defend a particular doctrine.

Sure, I agree. “New Atheism” was a form of apologetics. Do you think that is a bad thing? If so, why?

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> Then there is interpretation of these facts/observations, which then lead to a particular doctrine, for examples naturalism or Christianity, or **common descent** , etc…

One of those things is not like the others (I bolded it to make it easier to figure out which one). Why not say “the earth is not flat” or “the sky is blue” instead?

---

<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 13, 2026, 6:25pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-douglas-axe-disprove-evolution-spoiler-no/17458/695 "2026-01-13T18:25:18Z")

</div>

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> In fact, it seems to me that every doctrine starts with facts/observations.

It can’t be reasonably said that everyone starts from the same set of facts. Most facts are ignored on YEC for example. Others aren’t facts at all.

---

<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 13, 2026, 6:26pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-douglas-axe-disprove-evolution-spoiler-no/17458/696 "2026-01-13T18:26:07Z")

</div>

@lee_merrill is gonna love this one:

[![](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/peacefulscience/original/3X/5/7/57463c5572d3fb2abd619e5ee8a990715b469c88.jpeg "Exposing Discovery Institute Part 11: Michael Egnor") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxrlHYq39w8)

---

<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 13, 2026, 7:00pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-douglas-axe-disprove-evolution-spoiler-no/17458/697 "2026-01-13T19:00:42Z")

</div>

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> Sorry, but the new atheists…

… are not relevant to this discussion, since you were talking about philosophical schools of thought and scientific theories, and being a new atheist does not make one an authority on nor a representative of either.

---

<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 13, 2026, 10:25pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-douglas-axe-disprove-evolution-spoiler-no/17458/698 "2026-01-13T22:25:38Z")

</div>

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> Isn’t this true also for philosophical systems such as naturalism or even scientific theories?

No, science begins with observations. Hypotheses, to be useful, have to account for all extant observations. “ID theory” is a sham because it does not do so.

---

<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, 11:00pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-douglas-axe-disprove-evolution-spoiler-no/17458/699 "2026-01-13T23:00:31Z")

</div>

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> No, science begins with observations. Hypotheses, to be useful, have to account for all extant observations. “ID theory” is a sham because it does not do so.

Which from the perspective of ID as a science makes absolutely no sense. ID proponents aren’t even asking the same questions as evolutionary biology or OOL research.

On the other hand, it makes perfect sense when ID is viewed as what it truly is: a thinly veiled attempt to push conservative Christianity and associated public policy.

---

<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 14, 2026, 6:38pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-douglas-axe-disprove-evolution-spoiler-no/17458/701 "2026-01-14T18:38:05Z")

</div>

> [@RonSewell](#):
>
> > [@Giltil](#):
> >
> > In fact, it seems to me that every doctrine starts with facts/observations
> 
> Including my doctrine that invisible space bunnies are the true source of rainbows?

Of course! You started by observing a rainbow.

If your doctrine was that invisible space bunnies are the true source of microwaveable seven-legged ostriches, you might have had a point.

---

<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 14, 2026, 8:44pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-douglas-axe-disprove-evolution-spoiler-no/17458/702 "2026-01-14T20:44:18Z")

</div>

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > Because that’s a reductionist view of thought.
> 
> That doesn’t provide a reason why they’re wrong. Nor does it take out agency, unless you mean something mystical by that word.

It certainly does, surely you don’t think atoms have agency in the normal sense of the word, meaning having purposes and making plans, and carrying them out.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > Materialists (is that better than naturalists?) say this is an illusion.
> 
> Well, at least it’s a word that means what you think it means. So progress, I suppose. But no, materialists don’t say it’s an illusion.

“DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”  
― **Richard Dawkins, [River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life](https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/1121858)**

That’s not what people actually think they are doing, when they make plans and carry out purposes. So Dawkins would say they’re deluded, they’re under an illusion.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> But here we’re back to arguing about whether libertarian free will is incoherent.

I don’t think that topic has come up yet, actually.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> By “agency”, you mean something outside of causality and yet non-random. What could that mean?

What people think they are doing when they make a plan and carry it out. They don’t think their thoughts are completely caused by the motion of atoms in their brain, they think they are really choosing. Try “my brain atoms made me do it” in front of a judge, and see where that gets you!

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > Then there are NDEs, where people are aware of their surroundings, they have thoughts, even when they are brain-dead.
> 
> No. Apparently “brain-dead” is another term that doesn’t mean what you think it means. You don’t come back from being brain-dead to report on your experiences.

You have investigated all such reports? But [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience) at Wikipedia I found a study where people who were arguably brain-dead revived: “In 2001, [Sam Parnia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Parnia "Sam Parnia") and colleagues published the results of a year-long study of cardiac arrest survivors that was conducted at Southampton General Hospital. 63 survivors were interviewed. They had been resuscitated after being [clinically dead](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_death "Clinical death") with no pulse, no respiration, and fixed dilated pupils.” But no NDE experience.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > 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.
> 
> Yet again you cite this dubious, third-hand claim. Don’t believe it for a second.

I have a book about NDE experiences, but I have to leave for work now and look further later.

Well, would you trust your laptop if you knew this about it?

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> And let’s recall that natural selection may be mindless, but it’s not unguided.

It’s certainly aimless, I expect that’s what Lennox means.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> And the Egnor bit was irrelevant because it had nothing to do with the questions you were supposedly responding to.

You are alas, prone to just making claims, how so, please?

[Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-douglas-axe-disprove-evolution-spoiler-no/17458.md?page=33)

[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-douglas-axe-disprove-evolution-spoiler-no/17458.md?page=35)