I asked Chat,

Someone posted the following to a Facebook discussion group, and said that they had produced it with your assistance. Can you give me your critical reactions to it please? I don't want to try and influence you or lead you, just say what you think is of value or significance, and what if anything is problematic or incorrect or irrelevant. (Post input to ChatGPT).

Chat said,

Here is my candid, point-by-pont critical reaction, focusing on accuracy, logic, relevance, and where the argument is strong vs. problematic. I’ll treat it as an argumentative essay rather than a theological claim, and evaluate it on scientific and philosophical merit.

Overall Impression

The piece is rhetorically polished and internally coherent, but it is not a neutral scientific summary. It is an apologetic argument for design that selectively frames evidence, often by:

redefining key scientific concepts (e.g., “new information”),
shifting standards of evidence,
and drawing philosophical conclusions from empirical gaps.

It mixes legitimate open questions (origin of life, consciousness) with misleading or incorrect claims about evolution, which gives it persuasive force to non-specialists but makes it scientifically uneven.

In short:

Philosophically arguable in places
Scientifically selective and sometimes inaccurate
Logically contains several category errors and false dichotomies

Now I’ll go section by section.

1. “Complexity, Design, and Human Experience”

What has some value

It correctly identifies that humans infer design in artifacts (cars, buildings, etc.).
This is a legitimate philosophical starting point (design inference is a real concept in philosophy of science and archaeology).

What is problematic

False analogy.
Biological organisms are not analogous to human artifacts in the relevant scientific sense. Cars and organisms differ fundamentally:

Cars do not self-replicate
Cars do not undergo mutation
Cars are not shaped by selection pressures

Evolutionary theory explains complexity via cumulative selection, not random assembly. The essay repeatedly frames the alternative as “random assembly,” which is a strawman.

“We only ever see intelligence producing intelligence.”

This is empirically false in biology. Intelligence (e.g., nervous systems) evolved gradually from simpler neural networks across evolutionary history. We observe intermediate stages (e.g., simple nerve nets → centralized brains).

Also, emergence in complex systems is well documented (e.g., intelligence from neural networks, both biological and artificial).

2. Dog Breeding Argument

Where it is partly correct

Artificial selection mainly acts on existing variation.
Domestic dogs are still the same species complex (Canis lupus familiaris).

Where it is misleading

This section commits a classic creationist misunderstanding:

“Breeding reshuffles existing genes but does not generate new functional information.”

Scientifically inaccurate.
New genetic variation arises constantly through:

mutation
gene duplication
recombination
transposable elements

Dog breeding actually does involve new mutations (e.g., chondrodysplasia genes in short-legged breeds).

More importantly:
Artificial breeding is a terrible model for long-term macroevolution, because:

It operates over thousands of years
Evolution works over millions of years
Breeding is goal-directed and constrained by small populations

This comparison is rhetorically convenient but scientifically weak.

3. Lenski E. coli Experiment

This is the most technically misleading section.

What is accurate

The citrate-utilizing (Cit+) trait involved regulatory changes
It did not arise from a brand-new gene appearing from nothing

That part is factually correct.

What is omitted (and very important)

The experiment did demonstrate genuinely novel evolutionary functions:

A new ecological capability (aerobic citrate metabolism)
Multi-step mutation dependency (“historical contingency”)
Gene duplication + regulatory rewiring creating a new phenotype

In evolutionary biology, new function ≠ new gene from scratch.
Evolution often produces novelty by:

co-option
duplication
regulatory shifts

Those are not trivial “rearrangements”; they are standard mechanisms of innovation.

Claiming this shows “no new information” relies on a non-standard definition of information not used in genetics.

4. DNA as an “Information System”

Strong point (legitimate question)

The origin of life is genuinely unresolved in detail.
No complete lab recreation of abiogenesis exists yet.

That is a fair scientific statement.

Problematic framing

“The mapping is not a random chemical property but a structured relationship.”

This is misleading. The genetic code is:

constrained by chemistry
shaped by evolutionary optimization
partially explainable via stereochemical and evolutionary models

Also, calling DNA “symbolic” is a philosophical interpretation, not a biological necessity.

Most critically:
Lack of a fully solved abiogenesis pathway ≠ evidence for design.
That is an argument from ignorance.

5. Intelligence and Emergence

Logical issue: Unrealistic evidential standard

“We do not have direct empirical observation of intelligence emerging in real time.”

This standard would invalidate most historical sciences (geology, cosmology, evolution).

We do have:

fossil record of increasing brain complexity
comparative neurobiology
evolutionary developmental biology
artificial intelligence showing emergent cognition from non-conscious systems

Also, the statement:

“Amoebas reproduce amoebas; dogs reproduce dogs”

is irrelevant to evolutionary theory. Evolution predicts exactly that — change occurs across generations, not within one generation.

6. “Effects do not exceed their causes”

This is a philosophical claim, not a scientific law.

And it is misapplied.

In evolutionary systems:

Simple rules + selection → complex outcomes
This is mathematically and empirically demonstrated (e.g., evolutionary algorithms)

Complexity can arise without foresight if selection accumulates beneficial changes.

7. Repeated Claim: “No New Information”

This is the central conceptual flaw in the essay.

Problems:

“Information” is never clearly defined (Shannon? functional? semantic?)
In biology, new information is routinely observed via:
- gene duplication + divergence
- de novo gene birth
- horizontal gene transfer
- regulatory network evolution
Evolutionary biology does not require information to appear “fully formed”

The essay implicitly uses an all-or-nothing definition of novelty that scientists do not use.

8. Selective Use of Scientific Uncertainty

The article does something rhetorically sophisticated:

Acknowledges open scientific questions (abiogenesis, consciousness)
Then generalizes them into limits of all natural processes

This is logically invalid.

Example:

We don’t fully know abiogenesis
≠
Evolution cannot generate complexity

These are separate scientific domains.

9. Source Issues

One red flag:

“Lenski experiment description — Wikipedia”

For a document making strong scientific claims, relying on Wikipedia as a cited scientific source weakens credibility.

Also notable:

No citations on “information theory”
No references to mainstream evolutionary genetics
Selective citation of Lenski papers without engaging their actual conclusions

10. Philosophical Leap to Design (Main Conclusion)

This is the biggest logical jump in the essay.

The structure is:

Complexity exists
Some processes are not fully explained
Therefore design is the best explanation

This is not a scientific inference. It is a metaphysical argument.

Even if every scientific gap listed were valid, it would not logically establish:

a designer,
an intelligent cause,
or a specific form of design.

At most, it would establish “unknown mechanisms.”

What the Essay Gets Right

To be fair, it does raise some legitimate points:

Origin of life is not fully solved
Evolution often modifies existing structures rather than inventing ex nihilo
Scientific claims are sometimes overstated in popular discourse
Philosophical questions about intelligence and causation are valid topics

These are reasonable discussion areas.

What Is Scientifically Incorrect or Misleading

The most significant issues:

Mischaracterizes evolutionary novelty
Uses a non-standard concept of “information”
Downplays mutation and gene creation mechanisms
Treats lack of complete abiogenesis theory as evidence of design
Implies evolution must be observed in real time to be valid
Conflates philosophical arguments with empirical science

Final Assessment (Concise)

If I had to summarize in one sentence:

It is a well-written philosophical apologetic that selectively presents scientific evidence and relies heavily on argument-from-ignorance and definitional reframing of “information” and “novelty,” rather than a balanced or accurate account of evolutionary biology.

Or more bluntly:

Philosophically arguable: yes
Scientifically rigorous: no
Misleading to lay readers: quite possibly

Veritas

Search This Blog

Evolution and Observed Limits of Blind Processes: Why The Evidence Points Toward Design