A section of a rather long interview by William Dembski, a Founding and Senior Fellow with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture and a Distinguished Fellow with the Institute’s Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence.
Bill: When did you first become skeptical of neo-Darwinism? Was there a particular book, calculation, empirical result, or conversation that made you think the standard account might be mathematically inadequate? Was there a point in life when you were perfectly content to accept whatever the reigning theory of evolution happened to be?
Vox: After reading all of Richard Dawkins’s books as part of my preparation for writing The Irrational Atheist in 2008. I could not believe how stupid and incompetent the man is. He’s a wonderful writer, which is the reason no one ever notices what a vapid cretin he is or that most of his arguments aren’t even coherent. Then, after reading all of Daniel Dennett’s work, I realized that the evolutionists have no idea what they’re even trying to prove or how to prove it. I summed up the entirety of the evolutionist case thanks to Dennett’s core argument: “you can believe biologists because physicists get very accurate results.” All that evolutionary biology has ever amounted to is butterfly collectors telling fairy stories under the guise of stolen scientific valor.
Bill: What were the strongest arguments in favor of evolution that you encountered before offering your own critique of it? I’ve been able to trace blog posts by you critical of neo-Darwinism on Vox Popoli to 2012. Was this when you first officially weighed in on evolutionary theory?
Bill: Which of those claims does MITTENS directly address, and which require additional arguments?
Vox: All of them. Probability Zero covers about nine stages of the evolutionist retreat from Moscow to Paris. So far, they’re just starting to touch upon stage three. The only thing that requires more work is refining the actual numbers more precisely, because the original reporting by Barrick in 2009 was sloppy and inconsistent and the later work by Goode in 2017 wasn’t quite there yet. I’ve broken their collective data down in detail in the MITTENS 3.0 paper and the detailed results are much more clear than in their papers.
Read the whole thing there. As a bonus, he also posted Chapter Six of Probability Zero, the chapter devoted to the 1966 Wistar Symposium that was so catastrophic for the biologists, at the end of the interview. If you haven’t read it yet, you really should.