Robert Shedinger: Religion, Science and Evolution: Confessions of a Darwin Skeptic

[Faizal_Ali]

@Puck_Mendelssohn

I’d agree with you where Denton is concerned. But there are certainly cases where it IS fine.

I’ve read far less than 1% of Denton’s writings, and since you seem to have read more than that, perhaps you could answer the questions I raised in this thread below. It’s now been closed, but no one who participated there seemed able to answer, even those who claimed to have read all of his books. So if you could answer here, that would be much appreciated:

Does Michael Denton understand current evolutionary theory?

This is based on a discussion started in another thread. Consider the observation documented in the figure below: [image] Let’s compare two attempts to explain this observation: The standard current evolutionary account, and that suggested by Intelligent Design proponent Michael Denton. According to evolutionary theory, the homologous structures depicted above are evidence of common descent, and are accounted for by it. All forelimbs are derived from a common ancestor whose forelimbs showed the basic structure in common between the four examples above, and the differences between the examples are accounted for by subsequent alterations, thru mutations, in the specific forms and proportions of the components of the limbs. That is to say the reason these forelimbs all show the same basic pentadactyl structure is that they were all descended from a pentadactyl ancestor, and developmental constraints (which themselves are merely historically contingent and not functional in origi…