Billy Dembski has a Question for George V. Coyne. Coyne objected (as did many) to the claim that neo-Darwinian evolution is “unguided and unplanned.” Billy rightly notes that mutation is (almost always) unguided and unplanned. Then he plays a little three card monte:
Likewise, natural selection has no plan — it does not anticipate future functions that are not currently available. It can only take advantage of present function. That being the case — and it is the case — how can Coyne say that Cardinal Shoenborn was mistaken?
Yes, how can one object to referring to an unplanned process as “unplanned and unguided”? I dunno, Billy.
What role does natural selection play in evolution? Could one fairly say that it “guides” evolution? Just wondering.