Help Appreciated- Library of ID arguments

Hey Guys,

Hope all is well. I know I don’t spend too much time on here anymore. Things have gotten insanely busy and my own research career is getting started. But I have been wanting to start a little personal project and get organized. What I’m wanting to do is make a little personal library of responses to the most common ID arguments. I consider these to be:

  1. Origin of life and information arguments
  2. IC
  3. edge of evolution type arguments
  4. Devolution
  5. Rarity of function in sequence space (think Axe)
  6. Early mutations in development
  7. Cambrian
  8. Waiting time problem
  9. Axe gauger enzyme paper.

I’m hoping people here can maybe provide links to papers, blogposts, forum posts, etc or even their own comments that I can save for reference for each of these arguments. I already have a good bit but I don’t want to miss anything. So any help would be greatly appreciated!


Nice to see you TJ! :slight_smile:

Related to some of these - I keep a thread for certain probability based arguments that pop up frequently.

Long discussion of Information Theory here, probably too long to be useful.

IC fails as any kind of scientific test, because a designer who can do anything is not falsifiable, not even in theory. Pretty much anything else that can be said about IC and ID is begging the question of testability.


And though we don’t see him here often, you might want to get in touch with @Gary_Hurd, who has encyclopedic knowledge of ID arguments, with citations.


See the website. They have a fairly long list of responses and “frequently answered questions”.


Here’s my bit on the Cambrian.

1 Like

This is a very thorough recent dissection of Behe’s “Edge of Evolution” argument:


You are missing Dembski’s argument for CSI or complex specified information.
Also Ewerts argument for the observed gene sets between species following a software dependency chart.

Introduction to No Free Lunch: Dembski, William A…pdf (133.6 KB)

It is questionable whether Dembski’s CSI argument is a separate argument from the others: when something is implausibly improbably good as the outcome of natural processes, he can declare it to have CSI. But first the “implausibly improbably good” calculation has to be done by means that Dembski does not tell us.

Anyway here are some others:

  1. The No Free Lunch Theorem argument (Dembski)
  2. The Marks/Dembski/Ewert argument that on average, “evolutionary search” does no better than random search.
  3. The Marks/Dembski Active Information argument that natural selection can improve adaptation only if a the fitness landscape is amenable to that, and (they claim) that means that someone has provided Active Information to that fitness landscape.
  4. The Marks/Dembski/Ewert idea that Algorithmic Specified Complexity, namely the observation that a phenotype (or maybe it’s a genotype) is computed by a nonrandomly short program, and that is rare in the space of all programs, and that somehow is hard for evolutionary processes to achieve, even though why is never made clear.

How about rephrasing them as actual, testable, scientific hypotheses instead of framing them rhetorically?

1 Like

They’re working on it…

You may add GE (genetic entropy) to the list


This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.