Is the Evidence for Intelligent Design “Undeniable”? One Scientist Makes the Case.

There have been a number of recent books by leading scientists challenging the Darwinian synthesis, such as Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis (Michael Denton), In The Shadow of Oz (Wayne Rossiter), and most recently Undeniable: How Biology Confirms our Intuition that Life Is Designed, by Douglas Axe. While there have always been evolution skeptics since the time of Darwin, the resistance seems to be gaining some steam.

In Undeniable, Dr. Axe aims not so much to advance the scientific argument for intelligent design, but to motivate non-specialists to trust their design intuition, and to consider weighing in on the debate. By “design intuition,” he simply means the universal human faculty of recognizing design both in human products and in nature. He says, “I intend to show that the universal design intuition is reliable when properly used and, moreover, that it provides a solid refutation of Darwin’s explanation for life.”[i] According to Axe, we know that intelligence is necessary for making omelets and bricks, and yet we’re told that more complex things, like dragonflies and horses, came about without anyone making them. He finds this utterly implausible and in defiance of common sense.

Axe also aims to rid people of the naïve belief that science involves a purely objective and unbiased search for truth. He finds no reason to question the scientific community on issues like how many moons orbit Neptune or how many protons are found in the nucleus of a cobalt atom. He notes, “Why would anyone distort facts of that kind? Matters where everyone wants to see things a certain way, however, are a completely different story. With those we should always apply a healthy dose of skepticism” (p. 38). He recognizes that worldview, peer pressure, desire for prestige, and other human tendencies often taint how science is done.

Why Does the Question of Origins Matter?

The question of human origins is so important, says Axe, because it raises deeper questions about human value and purpose. He cites UW professor David Barash, who says that Darwin’s theory implies that humans “are produced by a natural, totally amoral process, with no indication of a benevolent, controlling creator.”[ii] Axe considers this “impoverished” view of life entirely dehumanizing. He responds, “Contemplate for just a moment the dystopian vision of a generation of human beings believing in their hearts that they are nothing more than bestial accidents fending for themselves in a world where morality is a fiction, and you begin to grasp the true stakes” (55).

A Big Problem for Darwinism

Axe happily concedes that the most compelling aspect of Darwin’s theory is its simplicity. The idea that better-fit organisms survive and pass on their genes to the next generation seems plausible on its surface. As a result, says Axe, we ought to view many kinds of life the way we view geological features: as things in constant flux. One big problem, says Axe, is that living things are “busy wholes,” which he defines “as an active thing that causes us to perceive intent because it accomplishes a big result by bringing many small things or circumstances together in just the right way.”[iii] Like a perfect composition, perfect poem, or perfect mathematical proof, individual living things such as the spider, the salmon, or the orca “is strikingly compelling and complete, utterly committed to being what it is.”[iv]And just as we know compositions, poems, and proofs come from a mind, we should trust our intuitions that spiders, salmons, and orcas do as well.

Denying Darwinism

Specifically, Axe takes aim to Darwin’s grand theory through the lens of the feasibility of protein evolution. He says, “If natural selection really coaxed sponges into becoming orcas in less time, inventing many new proteins along the way, we figured it should have ample power for this small transformation.” On the flip side, if selection cannot creatively build new protein features, then it certainly can’t build more complex organisms.

Building a new complex protein, according to Axe, is beyond the purview of selection. In fact, he argues, “Of the possible genes encoding protein chains 153 amino acids in length, only about one in a hundred trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion is expected to encode a chain that folds well enough to perform a biological function.” This is like finding one hydrogen atom out of the entire visible universe!

At the heart of Undeniable is a penetrating question: If accidental causes cannot build “simple” proteins, then how can it build complex organisms, such as killer whales and foxes? To make this point, Axe uses the example of someone who claims he can jump to the moon. But if this same person cannot perform a simpler task, such as slam-dunking a basketball, then why believe his greater claim?

Conclusion

Axe deals with many other issues such as the multiverse and the origin of mind. Yet he concludes, “My aim has been to show you that there’s a much more compelling view of life than the materialist view and that this compelling view also happens to be innate—known by us from early childhood and stubbornly persistent thereafter, such that to deny it requires sustained effort.”

Undeniable is a wonderful book. Axe skillfully uses stories, examples, and helpful illustrations to make his points understandable and memorable. He is careful not to overwhelm the reader with unnecessary scientific jargon, but it is also clear that he’s an expert on the issue and has done the “heavy lifting” to back up his claims. Whether you are an expert or novice, a believer in intelligent design or Darwinism, you will undeniably find value in this book.

Sean McDowell, Ph.D. is a professor of Christian Apologetics at Biola University, a best-selling author of over 18 books, an internationally recognized speaker, and a part-time high school teacher. Follow him on Twitter: @sean_mcdowell and his blog: seanmcdowell.org.


[i] Douglas Axe, Undeniable: How Biology Confirms our Intuition that Life Is Designed(New York, NY: HarperOne, 2016), 21.

[ii] David P. Barash, “God, Darwin and My College Biology Class,” New York Times, September 27, 2014.

[iii] Axe, Undeniable, 68.

[iv] Ibid., 75. Axe does respond to the charge that there are faulty designs in nature (p. 77-78).


Resources for Greater Impact:

Free CrossExamined.org Resource

Get the first chapter of "Stealing From God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case" in PDF.

Powered by ConvertKit
19 replies
    • TGM says:

      It looks like the site reverted to an older version. Lots of comments were deleted. Maybe restoration from an older backup following a hack or other malfeasance.

      Reply
  1. KR says:

    Thanks, TGM. In that case I’ll just upload my post again:

    “In Undeniable, Dr. Axe aims not so much to advance the scientific argument for intelligent design, but to motivate non-specialists to trust their design intuition, and to consider weighing in on the debate.”

    If Axe wants Intelligent Design to be taken seriously as a scientific proposition, this seems like a bad way to go about it. Our intuitions are often wrong and different people tend to have different intuitions on any given subject. So how do we verify our intuitions? By testing them empirically. The scientific method has been successful precisely because it doesn’t settle for what seems intuitive but instead follows the evidence.

    “Axe also aims to rid people of the naïve belief that science involves a purely objective and unbiased search for truth.[…] He recognizes that worldview, peer pressure, desire for prestige, and other human tendencies often taint how science is done.”

    What the ID movement needs to do in order to get recognition from mainstream science is to produce results, i.e. provide positive evidence for design. If ID actually has verifiable evidence of design in nature, any bias (real or perceived) in mainstream science shouldn’t be an obstacle to publishing this evidence in non-mainstream science media. The Biologic Institute (where Doug Axe is the director) has its own publication, Biocomplexity, which is funded by the Discovery Institute and has the goal of being “the leading forum for testing the scientific merit of the claim that intelligent design (ID) is a credible explanation for life”. There literally couldn’t be a more friendly environment in which to publish evidence of Intelligent Design. So is Biocomplexity teeming with research where ID principles are being used in the detection of design in nature? Not really.

    Biocomplexity was started in 2010. In the 6+ years that have passed since then, the journal has published 22 articles in total, 11 of which were research articles (the rest were called “Critical review” or “Critical focus”). For a scientific journal, that’s pretty paltry. What’s worse is that none of the research articles are about detecting design. In its over 6 years of existence, the flagship journal of the ID movement hasn’t produced a single research paper on Intelligent Design. The trend isn’t exactly positive, either. This year, Biocomplexity has managed to publish one article – and it wasn’t a research article. The picture one gets isn’t exactly of a vibrant, productive field of research.

    If the ID proponents can’t do any science with their ideas, why should anyone care about them?

    Reply
    • Josef Kauzlarich says:

      Seems to me proving ID empirically is an impossible notion. What type of test would you run? Ask God to come down and make something out of dirt?

      If the arguments for irreducibly complex organisms or the complexity of the world or its fine tuning don’t convince folks, I’m not sure what is left. There are three options for these things…necessity, chance, or design. Well it isn’t out of necessity that things are so complex. We can easily imagine possible worlds in which they are simpler. The odds seem astoundingly against the notion of chance (at least to me) for a life permitting universe or for evolution by natural selection. The only option left is design. Now someone can choose chance but if they do, I argue they have more faith than the person accepting design. Design seems much more probable on the evidence (at least in my opinion).

      Reply
      • Andy Ryan says:

        Given a life permitting universe then evolution seems inevitable – once it appears it will evolve – and given evolution, more complex life is also inevitable. So it comes down to calculating how likely it is that life will arise somewhere in an unfathomably big space at some point in an unfathomably long period of time.

        Worse for your argument is that plumping for design just pushes back the problem and gives you an even more complicated life form to explain. Was it necessary, accidental or itself designed?

        Reply
        • Josef Kauzlarich says:

          Andy, I dont understand your first point and can’t respond. Would you be willing to clarify? It sounds like you are making a case the evolution is necessary in a life permitting universe. If that is your point, then I disagree but we can discuss when you confirm.

          Your second point is asking for an explanation of the explanation. Its like asking, what caused the first cause? It’s a silly notion. If we took this attitude in science nothing would be explainable.

          Reply
      • KR says:

        Josef Kauzlarich wrote: “Seems to me proving ID empirically is an impossible notion. What type of test would you run? Ask God to come down and make something out of dirt?”

        If ID is indeed untestable then shouldn’t ID proponents own up to this fact and concede that it’s not part of scientific inquiry?

        “If the arguments for irreducibly complex organisms or the complexity of the world or its fine tuning don’t convince folks, I’m not sure what is left.”

        The argument from irreducible complexity is just another unprovable (and untestable) claim. How would you demonstrate that a particular biological system could not be the result of an unguided evolutionary process? Every feature of biology that has been offered by ID proponents as irreducibly complex (the bacterial flagellum, the eye, the blood clotting cascade, the immune system, the ATPase complex etc.) has been shown to have simpler, functioning homologues – making them decidedly reducible.

        “There are three options for these things…necessity, chance, or design. Well it isn’t out of necessity that things are so complex. We can easily imagine possible worlds in which they are simpler. The odds seem astoundingly against the notion of chance (at least to me) for a life permitting universe or for evolution by natural selection. The only option left is design. Now someone can choose chance but if they do, I argue they have more faith than the person accepting design. Design seems much more probable on the evidence (at least in my opinion).”

        If you want to offer a critique of the theory of evolution, shouldn’t you at least address what the theory actually proposes? The theory has both random elements (mutation and genetic drift) and non-random elements (natural selection), so it’s clearly not an either/or proposition.

        As for the odds of a life-permitting universe, I don’t se how they can be calculated without knowing:
        A) The full range of possible universes and
        B) The full range of possible universes that permit life.

        I haven’t seen anyone provide this data, have you? Additionally, for a probability argument to work, you would also need to provide the probability of the design scenario. How would this be calculated?

        As long as we apply the scientific method and follow the evidence, no faith is required.

        Reply
        • Josef Kauzlarich says:

          Thanks for your thoughts.

          KR said: If ID is indeed untestable then shouldn’t ID proponents own up to this fact and concede that it’s not part of scientific inquiry?”

          I don’t claim to be an expert on any of this, but I think ID can play a role in historical scientific inquiry on the same level as evolution. For example, I observe that intelligent beings create complex information. I hypothesize that if a natural object is designed it contains high amounts of complex information. I experiment by performing tests on natural objects to see if they have complex information. I develop conclusions based on what I find in support of my hypothesis.

          If I found a bike in the dessert, based on my previous observation that intelligent beings create complex objects, I hypothesize that this bike was created by an intelligent being. I then run tests on the bike and discover that it only works properly when all components are together at once. I also can’t explain how these objects could have come together piece by piece without the intervention of an intelligent agent. Therefore, I am justified in concluding the bike was created by an intelligent being.

          Now if you mean observation in a lab, running tests trying to duplicate ID, that would take the designer himself coming and doing it in person. As a Christian, I think there are great reasons why God has decided not to do that, but this isn’t relevant. Suffice to say I don’t think that type of observation is possible for ID. This doesn’t mean that you can’t have evidence that supports the hypothesis of ID or that its proponents would somehow hinder science. No. I think both hypothesis should be explored.

          KR said: “The argument from irreducible complexity is just another unprovable (and untestable) claim. How would you demonstrate that a particular biological system could not be the result of an unguided evolutionary process?”

          Unprovable? Untestable? Is there really zero possible evidence that could support the hypothesis of irreducible complexity? No way to prove it false? Later in your post you say that every subject offered by irreducible complex proponents has been shown false (at least you imply this). Which is it? Is it testable or not?

          In answer to your question, isn’t that the whole idea of irreducible complexity? Proponents are saying, “this biological system can’t be simpler and function. They’ve tried to understand how an unguided evolutionary process would result in the biological system and are arguing it can’t. This can of course be proven false, but adequate explanations are lacking for the present (at least that I have seen…please point me to the studies I’m missing).

          KR said: “Every feature of biology that has been offered by ID proponents as irreducibly complex (the bacterial flagellum, the eye, the blood clotting cascade, the immune system, the ATPase complex etc.) has been shown to have simpler, functioning homologues – making them decidedly reducible.”

          Simply making them reducible doesn’t solve the problem. To me that’s like saying that all parts of a car can be a paperweight so obviously the car didn’t take intelligence to assemble. No one has offered adequate explanation as to how some of these biological systems came together, one mutation at a time. At least I haven’t seen it. I’m open to seeing such evidence.

          “If you want to offer a critique of the theory of evolution, shouldn’t you at least address what the theory actually proposes? The theory has both random elements (mutation and genetic drift) and non-random elements (natural selection), so it’s clearly not an either/or proposition.”

          I understand evolution. What you list above is the same as saying things evolve by chance, which was an option I gave. Evolution is the chance explanation of the origin of life is it not? To me, the astoundingly low odds of macro-evolution are enough to make design more plausible.

          KR said: “As for the odds of a life-permitting universe, I don’t se how they can be calculated without knowing:
A) The full range of possible universes and
B) The full range of possible universes that permit life.
          I haven’t seen anyone provide this data, have you? Additionally, for a probability argument to work, you would also need to provide the probability of the design scenario. How would this be calculated?”

          I may be wrong but think you are approaching it incorrectly. What you really need to do is:

          1. hold the laws of nature constant while adjusting the range of one constant (say the force of gravity).
          2. Observe the range of the constant that allows for a life permitting universe.
          3. Determine the range that the constant could possibly assume (which should be as wide as we can see that such values are possible)
          4. Compare the two ranges.

          This method yields life-permitting ranges so small as to be immensely improbable when compared to the possible range. In response to you comment on the probability of design, since we are only comparing “chance” and “design,” the improbability of chance increases the probability of design.

          Please have the last word. I enjoy learning from the perspective of others.

          Reply
          • KR says:

            Josef Kauzlarich wrote: “I don’t claim to be an expert on any of this, but I think ID can play a role in historical scientific inquiry on the same level as evolution. For example, I observe that intelligent beings create complex information. I hypothesize that if a natural object is designed it contains high amounts of complex information. I experiment by performing tests on natural objects to see if they have complex information. I develop conclusions based on what I find in support of my hypothesis.”

            This assumes that there’s a stringent definition of “complex information” and some means of quantifying it. ID proponents have so far failed to provide any of this, making their claims meaningless – and untestable.

            “If I found a bike in the dessert, based on my previous observation that intelligent beings create complex objects, I hypothesize that this bike was created by an intelligent being. I then run tests on the bike and discover that it only works properly when all components are together at once. I also can’t explain how these objects could have come together piece by piece without the intervention of an intelligent agent. Therefore, I am justified in concluding the bike was created by an intelligent being.”

            If I came across a bike I would immediately sense that it’s not a natural object since it’s made of metal, consists of parts that can be disassembled and reassembled and shows every sign of being machined by tools. If I had the time and resources to make a more thorough investigation, I would also be able to conclude that the bike does not consist of cells, has no metabolism and does not reproduce. None of this applies to living organisms. To apply this design argument to such organisms would clearly be a conflation of two completely separate categories of objects.

            Of course, in the specific case of the bike, we have irrefutable evidence that it was designed – we can even visit factories where they’re made. When it comes to living organisms we have no such evidence of design – all we see is life procreating and evolving without any detectable interference from a designer.

            “Now if you mean observation in a lab, running tests trying to duplicate ID, that would take the designer himself coming and doing it in person. As a Christian, I think there are great reasons why God has decided not to do that, but this isn’t relevant. Suffice to say I don’t think that type of observation is possible for ID. This doesn’t mean that you can’t have evidence that supports the hypothesis of ID or that its proponents would somehow hinder science. No. I think both hypothesis should be explored.”

            If it can’t be tested, it can’t be explored – it really is that simple. The most prominent journal of the ID movement hasn’t been able to present a single example of a test of the design proposition. Without an ID theory or even a working hypothesis of how this design is supposed to happen, there’s simply nothing for the ID researchers to do – it’s a dead end.

            “Unprovable? Untestable? Is there really zero possible evidence that could support the hypothesis of irreducible complexity? No way to prove it false? Later in your post you say that every subject offered by irreducible complex proponents has been shown false (at least you imply this). Which is it? Is it testable or not?”

            It’s clearly not testable. Even if there may be biological structures where we can’t see any plausible evolutionary path, this doesn’t prove that there can’t be one.

            “In answer to your question, isn’t that the whole idea of irreducible complexity? Proponents are saying, “this biological system can’t be simpler and function. They’ve tried to understand how an unguided evolutionary process would result in the biological system and are arguing it can’t. This can of course be proven false, but adequate explanations are lacking for the present (at least that I have seen…please point me to the studies I’m missing).”

            This is not how science – or logic – works. It’s not anyone else’s job to disprove the claim of irreducible complexity – it’s the ID proponents’ job to support their claim. To ask us to accept the claim unless we can disprove it is the very definition of an “argument from ignorance” fallacy.

            “Simply making them reducible doesn’t solve the problem. To me that’s like saying that all parts of a car can be a paperweight so obviously the car didn’t take intelligence to assemble. No one has offered adequate explanation as to how some of these biological systems came together, one mutation at a time. At least I haven’t seen it. I’m open to seeing such evidence.”

            See above – you’re still committing the same fallacy. If you can’t demonstrate that there could be no evolutionary path to the structure at hand (and I don’t see how you could), I have no reason to accept the claim.

            “I understand evolution. What you list above is the same as saying things evolve by chance, which was an option I gave. Evolution is the chance explanation of the origin of life is it not? To me, the astoundingly low odds of macro-evolution are enough to make design more plausible.”

            You clearly don’t understand evolution. I just explained that it’s not just chance as it has an obviously non-random component (natural selection). Also, evolution doesn’t explain the origin of life – that’s a separate field of study called abiogenesis. Evolution only deals with how life develops once it exists.

            “I may be wrong but think you are approaching it incorrectly. What you really need to do is:

            1. hold the laws of nature constant while adjusting the range of one constant (say the force of gravity).
            2. Observe the range of the constant that allows for a life permitting universe.
            3. Determine the range that the constant could possibly assume (which should be as wide as we can see that such values are possible)
            4. Compare the two ranges.”

            Your point 1 assumes that the constants are completely independent of each other. Has that been demonstrated? If so, how? Point 2 assumes that we know the requirements of all possible life. How would we determine that? The problem with point 3 is that we only have one universe to study so I don’t see how we can make any claims about the possible range of the values for any physical constant.

            “This method yields life-permitting ranges so small as to be immensely improbable when compared to the possible range.”

            Since we know neither the life-permitting range nor the total range, we have no way of knowing the probability.

            “In response to you comment on the probability of design, since we are only comparing “chance” and “design,” the improbability of chance increases the probability of design.”

            This is obviously a false dichotomy, since you’re excluding “necessity” as an explanation. It’s entirely possible that there are some fundamental properties of matter and energy that severely constrain the range of possible universes. We simply don’t know how universes are formed (if they are even formed – many cosmologists believe that our universe has always existed) and inserting God as an explanation for what we currently don’t understand is clearly fallacious (“God of the gaps”).

          • toby says:

            Bike in the desert doesn’t work. Because you’re assuming that there is a god that designed everything from quarks to pine trees. So you’re in a designed desert, standing on designed sand, breathing designed air into your designed lungs, seeing designed photons with your designed retinas and picking one thing out of all of this design to say, “Hey! This is designed!” The assumption in that is that you’re also saying “You can clearly tell it’s designed because other stuff around it isn’t.” But it is according to your view. Can you give us an example of something not designed? What does an undesigned universe look like?

  2. toby says:

    Dr. Axe aims not so much to advance the scientific argument for intelligent design, but to motivate non-specialists to trust their design intuition, and to consider weighing in on the debate.
    Intuition is a horrible reason for accepting anything without evidence.

    According to Axe, we know that intelligence is necessary for making omelets and bricks, and yet we’re told that more complex things, like dragonflies and horses, came about without anyone making them. He finds this utterly implausible and in defiance of common sense.
    This book sounds like one long argument from ignorance/incredulity missive.

    Reply
    • Josef Kauzlarich says:

      Toby, don’t you accept the fundamentals of science on intuition? How do you know empirical observation is a reliable way to know something? How do you know this trust in science isn’t just an illusion? Why? Likely because common sense tells you so. Intuition is a valid way of knowing things. If this is rejected, science itself must be rejected because its foundation is based on intuitive principles!

      Reply
      • KR says:

        Josef Kauzlarich wrote: “Toby, don’t you accept the fundamentals of science on intuition? How do you know empirical observation is a reliable way to know something? How do you know this trust in science isn’t just an illusion? Why? Likely because common sense tells you so. Intuition is a valid way of knowing things. If this is rejected, science itself must be rejected because its foundation is based on intuitive principles!”

        I’m obviously not Toby but I’d still like to address this. Your premise that science is based on intuitive principles is false. Science is about challenging our intuitions by putting them to the test. Our intuitions can serve as a generator of hypotheses but they will evenually have to be verified empirically. I’d also like to add that our intuitions are not isolated from our empirical observations – on the contrary, they’re very much informed by them.

        The way we can know that empirical observation is a reliable way to gain knowledge is through a long running empirical observation: science produces things that work – like the computer I’m using right now. If empirical investigation was not a reliable method of acquiring knowledge we would have no reason to expect this.

        This doesn’t necessarily mean that empirical observation is the only way to knowledge but at this point I’m not aware of any other reliable method. I don’t see how we can claim to know anything until we’re able to verify that it’s true and verification seems to imply some sort of empirical observation. What else is there?

        Reply
        • Josef Kauzlarich says:

          Your argument appears to be, “emperical observation is reliable because emperical observation shows us it is reliable.” This is circular logic and fallacious. No I’m sorry I can’t accept this reasoning. Your intuition told you that you can trust empirical observation as the best way of knowing something. To disregard intuition, is to disregard the foundation of science!

          Reply
          • KR says:

            “Your argument appears to be, “emperical observation is reliable because emperical observation shows us it is reliable.” This is circular logic and fallacious.”

            Nope. I’m starting with the assumption that we’re able to make objective observations of reality. If you accept this assumption, you also accept that we can verify our intuitions by testing them empirically (which is the basis of the scientific method). If you don’t accept this assumption, you’ve pretty much nuked every hope we might have of understanding anything about reality. If we can’t trust our senses, we’re simply lost and blind.

            “No I’m sorry I can’t accept this reasoning. Your intuition told you that you can trust empirical observation as the best way of knowing something. To disregard intuition, is to disregard the foundation of science!”

            I’ve already explained why this argument doesn’t work – it doesn’t get better by repetition. It’s not my intuition that tells me that empirical observation is the best way to gain knowledge – it’s my ability to make objective observations. I see science producing things that work – how does this rely on my intuition?

            Can you give me an example of something you know to be true which is independent of empirical observations – and also explain how exactly you’ve verified that it’s true?

          • Josef Kauzlarich says:

            KR said: “Nope. I’m starting with the assumption that we’re able to make objective observations of reality. If you accept this assumption, you also accept that we can verify our intuitions by testing them empirically (which is the basis of the scientific method). If you don’t accept this assumption, you’ve pretty much nuked every hope we might have of understanding anything about reality. If we can’t trust our senses, we’re simply lost and blind.”

            I think you are proving my point! What is your belief that you can make objective observations of reality if not an intuition? It is based on your intuitive trust in your senses. Because there are religious systems in this world (like Buddhism) that spend a lot of time trying to eliminate trust in the senses. Life to them is an illusion. Are they right? I don’t think so. It goes against our intuition that we can’t make observations of reality through sensory data.

            KR said: “I’ve already explained why this argument doesn’t work – it doesn’t get better by repetition. It’s not my intuition that tells me that empirical observation is the best way to gain knowledge – it’s my ability to make objective observations. I see science producing things that work – how does this rely on my intuition?”

            You said that you “see science producing things that work.” Why do you trust your site, hearing, and cognitive faculties? You take them on intuition as reliable ways of knowing.

            KR said: “Can you give me an example of something you know to be true which is independent of empirical observations – and also explain how exactly you’ve verified that it’s true?”

            Sure…I exist. I can’t verify its true. It is simply self-evident to me that I am not an illusion.

            My last post on this topic. Thanks for discussion.

  3. KR says:

    Josef Kauzlarich wrote: “I think you are proving my point! What is your belief that you can make objective observations of reality if not an intuition?”

    It’s exactly what i said it is – an assumption. It’s also very well supported by my empirical experience. I simply wouldn’t be able to get through my daily life without constantly relying on my senses.

    “You said that you “see science producing things that work.” Why do you trust your site, hearing, and cognitive faculties? You take them on intuition as reliable ways of knowing.”

    Again, it’s an assumption – not an intuition. Everything about my ongoing life experience tells me my senses are mostly reliable so it seems like a very reasonable assumption. I note that you’re not challenging it.

    “Sure…I exist. I can’t verify its true. It is simply self-evident to me that I am not an illusion.”

    If you can’t verify it, you can’t claim to know it. You’re assuming you exist – it’s a very fair (I would even say necessary) assumption but an assumption nonetheless.

    Reply
  4. AC says:

    Axe fundamentally misunderstand how evolution works. Either it is intentional and misleading, and therefore nefarious, or naive, in which case educate yourself before you make claims. Orcas did not evolve from sponges.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *