Coming soon…

_{William Dembski

January 6, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Wallace on intelligent evolution

Comments

Jerry (msg. #17) rejects the concepts of "design" and "evolution" to be antonymic. He defends said rejection by admitting that he has accepted both concepts to be synonymous through-out his entire life. In other words he has no intention of recognizing anything to be error based on how much time he has accepted the error to not be error. Both concepts are antonymic. This is an objective fact. Darwinism, from its inception, says the concept of design does not exist in nature (Darwin, Autobio:87; Dawkins 1986: sub-title of book). Of course this makes perfect sense from the Darwinian perspective. IF design were admitted to exist then we could say the same corresponds to the work of invisible Designer. This is why Darwinism denies the existence of the concept to exist in nature. This is also why the concept of evolution (= unguided material agency causing species to originate from one another and not invisible Designer) exists. How do we explain the subjective view of Jerry? That is, his acceptance of design and evolution to be compatible, in defiance of the most basic differences between ID and evolution? Answer: we can "thank" persons like Ken Miller and Francisco Ayala and Frances Collins. These hardcore Atheist-evolutionists, while pretending to be Christians, have championed the fusion of contrary concepts (= confusion): design and evolution as a response to the success of Dembski IDism. These three "scholars" produce the Jerry's of this world. Design and Evolution are antonymic concepts. The only generic fact needed to establish this fact is the fact that all Atheists accept Evolution while vehemently opposing Design. Miller, Ayala, and Collins: their deliberate corruptive fusion of contrary concepts, in their most recent writings, correspond to the concept seen in "double agent" or "wolves in sheeps clothing." RayR. Martinez_{January 16, 2009
January
01
Jan
16
16
2009
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT}

Andrew Sibley: "Ray - do you have any quotes from Wallace," I possess a copy of everything Wallace wrote concerning witchcraft, which he and scholarship refer to in the form of a euphemism ("spiritualism"), that is, everything he wrote concerning its acceptance to account for the human intellect, and the rejection of natural selection to account for the same. It would be irresponsible for me to post quotes since such an act requires context to be established. Since this material is the focus of a paper that I am writing currently, due out later this year, I have no desire to disclose any of my material beforehand. Andrew Sibley: "....especially any that link to Plato, Erasmus Darwin or Hume? Edinburgh was known as the Athens of the north because of the pagan beliefs amongst such Scottish Enlightenment philosophers as Monboddo, Hume and E.Darwin." I cannot say that I have quote material **linking** Wallace to persons you mention. But we (= historical researchers) know that Hume, E. Darwin and Wallace, along with Charles Darwin, were all apostates and/or Atheist Materialists (despite any personal denials, which were common, since Atheism-Materialism was illegal to propagate in 19th century England). Charles Darwin rejected spiritualism. Why Wallace accepted is quite a story. But again I want to stress that the rise of Darwinism during a seance craze (= witchcraft) that took place in England is a fact. The ultimate explanation of both facts in a Biblical framework is the goal of my project. RayR. Martinez_{January 15, 2009
January
01
Jan
15
15
2009
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT}

I have been pushing the possibility that most of life on the planet is the result of naturalistic processes. So I strongly disagree with the following statement: "The concept seen in “designed” and the concept seen in “evolution” are antonymic to one another." You could make the case that the Darwinian processes or the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis represent excellent design that accounts for most of the species in the world. It makes excellent design because it allows for natural processes to be used for species to adapt to different environments thus lowering the likelihood that the species has to face extinction. Micro evolution if allowed to play out over long time periods can reshuffle the DNA so that the new variants are essentially new species. Especially if environmental conditions are affecting survival rates. This is Darwinian paradigm 101 so new species and variants are created by a purposeless process that has boundary conditions and initial conditions. All of which gives us the variety we see in the world today. So design and evolution are not necessarily antonymic but could represent tightly bound concepts. You could also argue that the genome itself is physically designed to allow for new variation to happen within certain ranges so that population gene pools could have some small additions that allow for it to adapt to changing environments. This does not mean that Darwinian processes account for all of life's forms. By no means that we know of can it account for the original population gene pools or can it account for the appearance of novel complex capabilities. But Darwinian process allows a gene pool to adapt and as such could be excellent design. So for some evolution, design and evolution could be very intertwined. Joseph uses the concept of "designed to evolve" and I believe that describes what has likely happened. I am not familiar with Spetner's “non-random evolutionary hypothesis” so I will have to read about it. We have a tendency to denigrate Darwinian processes but we should learn to accept them for their limited capabilities which are not trivial for medicine, ecologies or the variety of life in general. By accepting its limited capabilities we do not endorse the wholesale evolution hypothesized for it by the materialists or naturalists. Such a position makes ID look sharper and puts the materialists on the defensive. What can they accuse us of, that we deny what cannot be shown. That would be their only mantra. It is an argument ID will win every time.jerry_{January 10, 2009
January
01
Jan
10
10
2009
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT}

Ray - do you have any quotes from Wallace, especially any that link to Plato, Erasmus Darwin or Hume? Edinburgh was known as the Athens of the north because of the pagan beliefs amongst such Scottish Enlightenment philosophers as Monboddo, Hume and E.Darwin.Andrew Sibley_{January 10, 2009
January
01
Jan
10
10
2009
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

Andrew Sibley: "I share your concern about the possible spiritualist influence on Wallace’s belief...." Not "spiritualist" straight out witchcraft. Your description lets Wallace off the hook. I have read everything Wallace wrote on the subject. It is basic uncontested history that in the mid-19th century and beyond, in England, there was a seance craze that swept the nation----especially intelligencia. It is no accident that in this same exact time period Darwinism rose to power. Andrew Sibley: "....but Wallace’s scientific claims, which I haven’t looked at, should be assessed independently of spiritualism." You seem to miss the point: Wallace modified his view concerning natural selection, saying it could NOT have produced the human brain and intellect. Darwin wrote him a scathing letter in rebuke. Wallace came to accept, through careful investigation, that the supernatural does exist; and to account for this fact he excluded the human mind to have origin in material agency. Wallace concluded, what we know as Christians to be demon forces, somehow intruded into nature producing the mind, while rejecting the existence of God and the Divinity of Christ. Didn't know any of these things? That is because Darwinists intentionally ignore, bury and suppress these facts. We have Wallace's writings plainly admitting in frightening detail. RayR. Martinez_{January 10, 2009
January
01
Jan
10
10
2009
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

Ray said "We know A.R. Wallace never advocated “intelligent evolution.” He advocated witchcraft for the origin of the human intellect." I share your concern about the possible spiritualist influence on Wallace's belief, but Wallace's scientific claims, which I haven't looked at, should be assessed independently of spiritualism. However, it may be that Wallace was closer to Hume and Erasmus Darwin's Platonism involving impersonal plastic forces in nature than Charles Darwin's beliefs.Andrew Sibley_{January 10, 2009
January
01
Jan
10
10
2009
01:08 AM
1
01
08
AM
PDT}

Granville Sewell: "Sometimes we talk about the “evolution” of a computer program or the “evolution” of aircraft, despite the fact that there was intelligence behind this evolution. Question of semantics." Harvard Professor Ernst Mayr: "There is indeed one belief that all true original Darwinians held in common, and that was their rejection of creationism, their rejection of special creation. This was the flag around which they assembled and under which they marched. When Hull claimed that 'the Darwinians did not totally agree with each other, even over essentials', he overlooked one essential on which all these Darwinians agreed. Nothing was more essential for them than to decide whether evolution is a natural phenomenon or something controlled by God. The conviction that the diversity of the natural world was the result of natural processes and not the work of God was the idea that brought all the so-called Darwinians together in spite of their disagreements on other of Darwin’s theories" One Long Argument (1991:99). RayR. Martinez_{January 9, 2009
January
01
Jan
9
09
2009
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT}

Granville Sewell: "Sometimes we talk about the “evolution” of a computer program or the “evolution” of aircraft, despite the fact that there was intelligence behind this evolution. Question of semantics." This tells us that you do not understand the most fundamental and *objective* difference between Creationism-ID and Darwinism. "Evolution" in relation to the alleged participation of God, since Darwin 1859, says that God or Mind or supernatural agency is not, and has never operated, in nature. (Genesis 1 and 2 say the exact opposite.) This is why Darwin placed God external to reality in a deistic position to end his book (= corruption): Theos is not involved with reality. This is the evolution that science accepted; it said God is not involved with nature and life. That is why the evolutionary process is called "blind, unguided, undirected" etc.etc. Each adjective corresponds to a characteristic that says God and Intelligence is absent from biological production. Of course we know that "God is not an absentee landlord" (Dembski 1999). Therefore to retain the word "evolution," in a context of supporting ID, is subjective and sourceless: gross error. The objective understanding of the concept since Darwin means "the absence of God in the origin of species." Of course this claim is totally bogus. Species owe their existence in nature to direct acts of special creation ex materia, they are immutable. God supervises nature hands-on (= Theism). Species immutability is an easy to prove scientific fact. Before 1859, Science accepted immutability. This fact was established by nine great scientific authorities. Darwin admits (Darwin 1859:310). RayR. Martinez_{January 9, 2009
January
01
Jan
9
09
2009
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT}

R. Martinez, Sometimes we talk about the "evolution" of a computer program or the "evolution" of aircraft, despite the fact that there was intelligence behind this evolution. Question of semantics.Granville Sewell_{January 9, 2009
January
01
Jan
9
09
2009
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT}

Joseph: "designed to evolve". The concept seen in "designed" and the concept seen in "evolution" are antonymic to one another. Since Darwin the concept of evolution is understood to mean that God is NOT involved with nature. "Designed to evolve" indicates involvement of a Designer. If a Designer is INvolved THEN it is not and cannot be "evolution" for the objective reason already stated. If Designer or God is INvolved with biological production we already have a term to describe, it is called Creationism or Theism or ID (whether you like it or not, they are all synonymous concepts). RayR. Martinez_{January 9, 2009
January
01
Jan
9
09
2009
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT}

Van: "Smart move. Intelligent evolution is the future. Mind should have never been eclipsed by matter. Mind, not matter, is the information-generator of life. How biology got so out of whack is just beyond me." Fact: IF Mind is INvolved with biological production this is called Creationism or ID or Theism. Fact: IF Mind is not INvolved with biological production this is called Darwinism or evolution or Atheism. You do not seem to understand the most basic difference between Creationism-ID and Darwinism-Evolution: the latter MEANS *since Darwin* that Mind is not seen or INvolved with nature/biological production. This meaning cannot be objectively reversed. This is why all Atheists accepted Darwinian evolution instantly. Whatever mechanisms of change that exist in nature must be called designed to reflect the fact seen in the concept of Theism. Ray Martinez (species immutabilist).R. Martinez_{January 9, 2009
January
01
Jan
9
09
2009
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT}

"Intelligent-evolution" There is no such thing as "intelligent-evolution." "Evolution" since Darwin presupposes that Mind and His power to be absent from nature---that is why evolution is made necessary. If Mind or Intelligence or Theos is INvolved with biological production then this is called Creationism or ID (= Theism). If Mind or Intelligence or God is NOT involved with biological production then this is called Darwinism or ToE (= Atheism). To avoid the pro-Atheism fact of evolution Darwin ended his book accounting for God in a deistic position, external to reality. Of course there is no source for Deism, the Bible advocates Theism. We know A.R. Wallace never advocated "intelligent evolution." He advocated witchcraft for the origin of the human intellect. RayR. Martinez_{January 9, 2009
January
01
Jan
9
09
2009
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT}

Andrew, Dr Lee Spetner calls it the "non-random evolutionary hypothesis"- see his book "Not By Chance". BTW I call it "designed to evolve".Joseph_{January 9, 2009
January
01
Jan
9
09
2009
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

I have often thought that the ability of organisms to adapt to a changing environment is an excellent design feature enabling a species to continue to exist through difficult times. What should it be called? Designed contingency or intelligent evolution?Andrew Sibley_{January 9, 2009
January
01
Jan
9
09
2009
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT}

William Dembski: "P.S. I own intelligentevolution.org." Smart move. Intelligent evolution is the future. Mind should have never been eclipsed by matter. Mind, not matter, is the information-generator of life. How biology got so out of whack is just beyond me. Finding the word "mind" in an evolutionist book is like trying to find Richard Dawkins in a church.van_{January 8, 2009
January
01
Jan
8
08
2009
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT}

hmm...wonder if it will sound anything like EAM...anyone know where Mr. Turner is nowdays? That guy is amazing...shame he never wrote a book.van_{January 8, 2009
January
01
Jan
8
08
2009
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

Hi Granville: It should be out next month. Check out http://www.erasmuspress.net/Publications.html for information about the book (scroll down).William Dembski_{January 7, 2009
January
01
Jan
7
07
2009
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT}

Bill, This looks very interesting, but can you give us a bit more information? I see "edited by Michael Flannery", are there several authors, if so who? Who is the publisher and when will it be out?Granville Sewell_{January 7, 2009
January
01
Jan
7
07
2009
02:19 AM
2
02
19
AM
PDT}

P.S. I own intelligentevolution.org.William Dembski_{January 6, 2009
January
01
Jan
6
06
2009
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply