What if you’d never seen one before, but you came across a crab on the beach, and wondered what it was?
What would you think of, when trying to construct an argument of where it came from, and what it was like? Would you be more likely to compare it to a cell phone, or a lobster?
Apparently, Dr. Egnor chooses the cell phone. This is called the “Argument from analogy.” Scientists, however, use the “Argument from homology” instead.
Similar in function but not in structure and origin.
1. Corresponding or similar in position, value, structure, or function.
2. Similar in structure and origin, though not necessarily in function.
See the difference? Good. Understand how the former is a superficial similarity of one characteristic (complexity), and the latter is a detailed structural similarity of it’s most basic parts? Great. Now would someone please go explain to Michael Egnor, and for that matter, Casey Luskin and the rest of the Discovery Institute too, how absolutely inept their argument from analogy truly is? A crab, or anything else alive that you’re likely to come across on the beach, is not a cell phone. Similarly, a phone call has no relevance whatsoever to theory of mind.