Home
» Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design » Intelligent design is antievolution … or maybe not …
Intelligent design is antievolution … or maybe not …
| April 30, 2011 | Posted by News under Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design |
Here is a current debate on the subject from Cassandra’s Tears and here at Intelligent Reasoning is a comment, if you’d like to weigh in.
Many sources think that intelligent design is concerned principally with the plausibility of proposed mechanisms for evolution, not with denying that it occurs. Most ID theorists are skeptical – based on evidence, or in this case lack of it – that certain claimed mechanisms, such as Darwin’s natural selection acting on random mutation, can do all that is claimed for it, or even a tiny fraction.
When pigs fly first class, maybe.
15 Responses to Intelligent design is antievolution … or maybe not …
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Part of the problem, as my opponent pointed out, is what “Of Pandas and People” said about ID (I do not own a copy of the book and cannot verify that it is in there):
But not even that denies “evolution”, as in the change of allele frequency over time. But it denies common ancestry.
Yet the definition in the glossary, which can be viewed at Amazon (might have to scroll down), doesn’t say anything like the one alleged to be on pages 99-10 (above).
Joe,
“IOW ID is OK with biological evolution. As Dr Behe et al., make very clear, it just argues about the mechanisms- basically design/ telic vs spontaneous/ stochastic”
How does ID remain distinct from theistic evolution then? I think for example, the Catholic position is that if evolution occurred, it did so “under the impetus and guidance of God.” Does ID jut get rolled in? What keeps it distinct and interesting?
Joseph, did your debating partner give a page number for that within the book? Doesn’t sound like textbook language, but a page source might help find out.
Denyse,
Page 99-100.
Thanks.
Dr REC,
My understanding of theistic evolution is we aren’t supposed to be able to detect the acts of God/ God’s “finger-prints”. (emphasis on the “my understanding”)
ID claims we can detect design (as such), study it and come to understand it.
Joseph:
What is being said in P & P is little more than has long since been acknowledged by leading paleontologists and the like.
The fossil record, understood on the usual timeline, is one of sudden appearances, stasis and disappearance or continuity into the modern world.
As the dominant pattern. (Cf Gould as cited here.)
Which was known to Darwin, too. Especially the Cambrian fossil life revolution.
GEM of TKI
kairosfocus-
That is another issue also- I don’t know the context of the quote. Thank you.
I found a reference that provides the sentence after the one provided above:
That gives a little more context.
Day 11 Dr Behe testifies
Yeah baby- It just keeps getting better
The person who is obviously clueless on how to conduct a debate sez he has discredited Dr Behe and that I don’t know what I am doing.
Strange that it looks like I have presented and supported my claim with overwhelming evidence.
I guess that is why a neutral panel of moderators are used to judge debates.
OgreMKV gets pummeled by the facts and he just won’t admit it. Yup that is a weak opening for ya- one that pummels your opponent into delusions.
Thumbs high buddy…
Joseph at 1, this just in, re Pandas and People:
“The quote is from the second edition, “Excursion Chapter 4″ titled “The Fossil Record.” It occurs in the discussion of the meaning of gaps in the fossil record. Four interpretation of this datum are given: imperfect record, incomplete search, jerky process, and sudden appearance or face value interpretation. It is stated:
“The intelligent design hypothesis is in agreement with the face value interpretation and accepts the gaps as a generally true reflection of biology and natural history. A growing number of scientists who study the fossil record are concluding that the structural differences between the major types of organism reflect life as it was for that era. This view proposes that only the long-held expectations of Darwinian theory cause us to refer to the in-between areas as gaps. If this is so, the major different types of living organisms do not have a common ancestry. Such a conclusion is more consistent with currently known fossil data than any of the evolutionary models. (p. 98)
* * *
Darwinists object to the view of intelligent design because it does not give a natural cause explanation of how the various forms of life started in the first place. Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency , with their distinctive features already intact — fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. . . . Should we close our minds to the possibility that the various types of plants and animals were intelligently designed? This alternative suggests that a reasonable natural cause explanation for origins may never be found, and that intelligent design best fits the data.” (p. 99-100) “
Thanks again Denyse.
IIRC, they obtained some pre-publication drafts and were using those.
I’m sure Discovery Institute has something on this.
Rebuttals/ responses to the opening posts will be up tomorrow…
The rbuttals are in-
Opponent’s fact free rebuttal
My rebuttal