The guy is a confidence trickster. And you go on defending him? Why? What would he have to do for you to open your eyes?
You seem very defensive and you’re trying hard to sweep away the content of the argument by calling someone a liar. I’m defending the evidence that Abel presents, not who he is as a person.
If I took your attitude, I would not be able to accept anything an atheist says, since atheism starts with a philosophical error at the highest level – and thus can affect every conclusion thereafter. But, on the contrary, I look at what the atheist says. The same is with Mr. Abel. I don’t see that he is a “trickster”. He’s doing research – and he has written over 50 papers in a variety of journals.
My career is in information technology and I’m an expert on programming. I read one of his “papers”. Garbage. Nothing he writes is even close to correct. He is a dilettante.
If I apply your standard what do I find?
- You make claims about being an “expert” – where is the support for that?
- You judge Abel’s papers – but you’re not an expert in biochemistry!
- Again, using your standard, you are a trickster, liar and fraud
But I don’t treat people and arguments that way. I’ve seen frauds working at the most prestigious universities. I’ve seen brilliant and innovative thinkers who are mere amateurs.
I’ve seen atheists who are barbaric and grossly immoral in their approach to knowledge. I’ve seen atheists defend the conclusions of intelligent design.
So, it’s not a good argument to attack the person.
You’re claiming that “nothing” Abel has written is “close to correct”.
You’re exaggerating in order to distance yourself from the arguments. Abel works with other scientists. He collaborated on an important paper which attempts to define the parameters of “functional information”.
Durston, K.K.; Chiu, D.K.; Abel, D.L.; Trevors, J.T. Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins. Theor Biol Med Model 2007, 4, Free on-line access at
tbiomed.com/content/4/1/47
I’d be interested in your critique of that.
Here are some possible answers:
- Nothing in that paper is close to correct (that is what you already said).
- Functional information cannot be defined because …
— there is no such thing as functional information
— nobody has ever observed functional information
— only approved scientists (that I approve of) are permitted to define things
— functional information has already been defined (post the link)
— it is impossible to define functional information and therefore science should not try to do it
— Intelligent design advocates are interested in functional information because it supports the idea that intelligence is observed in nature – therefore this is a fraudulent project of lies and falsehoods
— Functional information can be produced by evolution so we do not need to define it
— Everybody knows what functional information is so this is a waste of time.
There are some good options for you to choose from, after you read the paper, of course.
What his willfully ignorant barbarism is doing to the Church I can’t say, but I think it is killing it softly by filling it with lies. Why would you possibly want to help him?
Again, the design argument can be supported by any number or people. If a person is lying, then we should be able to see it in the data. Abel’s work is peer reviewed – now, you may not like his scientific peers who reviewed the work. But, by extension, you would have to consider all of them liars also.
Instead of attacking the man, why not address the argument?
Here’s an excerpt from one of Abel’s works:
Contingency means that events could unfold in multiple ways in the midst of, and despite, cause-and-effect determinism. But there are two kinds of contingency: Chance and Choice/Selection. Chance and Necessity cannot explain a myriad of repeatedly observable phenomena. Sophisticated formal function invariably arises from choice contingency, not from chance contingency or law. Decision nodes, logic gates and configurable switch settings can theoretically be set randomly or by invariant law, but no nontrivial formal utility has ever been observed to arise as a result of either. Language, logic theory, mathematics, programming, computation, algorithmic optimization, and the scientific method itself all require purposeful choices at bona fide decision nodes. Unconstrained purposeful choices must be made in pursuit of any nontrivial potential function at the time each logic gate selection is made. Natural selection is always post-programming. Choice Contingency (Selection for potential (not yet existing) function, not just selection of the best already-existing function) must be included among the fundamental categories of reality along with Chance and Necessity.
According to you, “nothing” that Abel writes is even “close to correct”.
What is your argument against the above statements?
Do you think there is a fourth option along with Chance, Necessity and Choice? If so, what is it?
Do you think chance or necessity can explain a nontrivial function that contains a logic gate selection?
with corporate headquarters 
