“What I see when reading UD for some time is that some people, like yourself, don’t say there was no evolution, but that plenty of others do say that there was no evolution.”

Excuse me for jumping in here, but I wanted to address this. I personally have not come across anyone here at UD who denies evolution in the broad sense of the term. I think the term is often used very loosely sometimes to mean ToE and sometimes to mean simply change over time. When you read others’ posts it is perhaps best to understand this perspective, and to understand them within the contexts with which they use the term.

Most of the pro-ID people here with which I have had the pleasure to interact have a particular disagreement with ToE, but not with evolution. Evolution is not a term that belongs to Darwin, and everyone must understand that. The concept of evolution goes as far back as the classical Greeks, and the term in reference to the biological sciences was first used prior to Darwin.

There is a diverse group of people who accept ID because ID does not make broad speculations about the nature of biology and human behavior – unlike the Darwinian ToE. Therefore, because it has a much narrower focus, it is perhaps more widely accepted among more diverse groups.

Think about it. All it is saying is that there are “certain biological features which suggest a designer originated them.” (that’s a brief summation of a larger more concise statement). Now if a YECist looks at such statements, there is not much (if anything) he/she would disagree with. The same is so with an OECist, an agnostic, someone who accepts the concept of frontloading, someone who does not; a particularly religious person, and a particularly irreligious person; a Catholic, a Protestant; a Democrat, a Republican, a person who accepts common descent and a person who does not, etc.. It is because the concept is so narrowly focused that more people can accept it. I was even amazed that there are a few atheists who accept the design argument.

Now since this is so, you are going to find many disagreements among these various groups as to what ID means to them, because they are understanding the implications from their various POVs. This does not mean that the theory itself is not specific. It is. It is simply an indication of the variety of implications one can glean from the theory. Now some may disagree with me here, but in my view Darwinian ToE does not really allow for any true implications apart from materialism. Materialism is the goal of Darwinian theory.

I do not know anyone here who denies that evolution took place. Even the YEC believe that after Adam and Eve, there was massive changes to the biosphere that occurred naturally. Just look at the differences in humans across the planet. But few here adhere to YEC beliefs and openly defend them. There are YEC’s here but they keep a low profile on their beliefs and occasional we get into discussions about plate tectonics, the Hawaiian Islands, Mt. Everest, animal speciation but in general there is little of that here. A lot of people also like to talk religion which I personally believe has no place in ID or evolution. But even I get involved some times when religious arguments are used against ID.

Darwin’s book was called the Origin of Species. How did species arrive. Were they here for all time, 6,000 years or 3.7 billion years or did most of them appear for the first time since 3.7 billions years ago. Nearly everyone takes the later in arguments here and I haven’t seen anyone deny micro evolution and the changes that can occur due to it. If they personally hold to species being immutable, then I haven’t seen that argued here much though some have brought it up. So a presumption is that life first appeared 3.5 billion years ago and along the way a boat load of new species arrived. The question is how did they arrive.

The Darwinist say all happened naturally. The YEC’s said God created them and then natural process caused some minor changes. ID, if it is true rejects both positions because neither pass the Explanatory Filter. ID also says that numerous species could have arrive through naturalistic causes, part of the Explanatory Filter, but certainly not all and I know of no major change that was accomplished through naturalistic processes. None has ever been presented here that isn’t speculation.

I know of no one in the ID hierarchy that is arguing that natural causes are not responsible for a lot of changes in life. If they did, they would be laughed out instantly. They argue that natural causes could not have done it all especially for the heavy lifting. Natural causes need help on a lot of changes.

Now as far as bats go, I haven’t had time to follow much, but from what has been presented so far supports the ID position. No one can say how the bats with the various capabilities arrived on the planet. They speculate but that is all they do, is speculate. Some will quote a study showing a less capable bat or other animal at some time in the past and the answer to that is “So What.” It shows nothing about how the more capable bat arrived. Any explanation is pure speculation. They think a sequence is proof. It is proof of nothing and could support ID just as easily.

What I see when reading UD for some time is that some people, like yourself, don’t say there was no evolution, but that plenty of others do say that there was no evolution. So your version of the debate is about the mechanisms of evolution, but at the same time there are other debates going on here that are about the reality of evolution. The only thing in common between you and the others is that you all conclude ID is a better explanation – but you actually disagree on what it is an explanation for.

What puzzles me is how ID can be both a better explanation for the scenario where there is no evolution, and for the scenario where there is. What in ID makes it so powerful that it can equally well explain two contradictory positions at the same time?

fG

You are missing the point again. ID does not say there was no evolution. It is just how it happened that is under debate. ID is a tool for evaluating phenomena such as evolution. Read my reply to Tribune7. Have to run.

- But this doesn’t fit well with the debate on the other thread (maybe these posts should be moved to that thread to make things easier to follow?). The discussion there is not just about missing evidence, it is claimed by ID proponents that there was no evolutionary transition at all. So, those ID proponents are clearly saying something else than you say here. Can you then blame me for not understanding the debate?

All this actually reinforces my point. You are again talking about evolution. If ID is indifferent to evolution, as tribune7 said, shouldn’t an ID blog talk about ID instead of evolution? Where can we find the demonstration of ID in the echolocation system using the tools and methodologies of ID?

fG

“But what we get is not evidence but dictums and speculations and each must be kowtowed to.”

“But this argument for relative interpretation of scripture is fallacious nonsense- because it is a fallacy to argue that just because ’some people’ have anther or different interpretation of scripture that therefore ‘your interpretation is wrong.’”

When people try to tell me that scripture is up to interpretation, I tell them that I agree, and that most Christian churches interpret the crucial points of scripture the same. Therefore, while it is up to correct interpretation, its truth is not a matter of relative interpretation – there is a correct and an incorrect interpretation of scripture, which is surmised by careful study.

If you look at the doctrinal positions regarding the identity of Christ, salvation by grace through faith, the sovereignty of God, etc., most churches (with few exceptions), interpret the scriptures related to them in the same way.

Unfortunately, people who oppose this view do so by legitimizing fringe groups who call themselves Christian, yet whose scriptural interpretation is clearly eisegetical (adding to scripture rather than taking out what is there [exegetical]) – groups whose membership represents a small fraction of all those who call themselves Christians.

There are several things here which indicate that you do not understand the debate. ID has no problem with the gradual accumulation of changes over time leading from one state to a different state where one of the differences is a new complex capability. Bat flight and bat echolocation are two instances of complex major differences.

If the differences between state A and state B could amplified by indicating that there are states A1 through An of gradual changes where An+1 was essentially state B, then ID would have no issue even if state B indicated a complex capability that did not exist before. Naturalistic processes would be acclaimed as the probable cause though that would not be final till all the intermediary states could be identified by reachable naturalistic genomic changes.

But such a transition has never been observed in any frequency or else we would have never heard the end of it here. And one problem with all the transitions which are very broad in actuality is that at each step of the way between A and B there is a viable species that could continue to exist and not change while a sub population has mutated say from Ak-1 to Ak. Ak-1 should be evident and even Ak-1 should be able to go off in a different direction than Ak to form some other lineage. But none of these branchings are ever observed, only postulated, and there should be a zillion of them. All we observe in general is A and then B.

It is not a simple proposition to declare something naturalistic even if that is the default position with the academy. They assume that micro evolution which has been shown to happen translates into macro evolution without any evidence that it ever did and as Will Provine said, it is based on faith.

This is why gradualism is ruled out as a process for change in life over time. There is no forensic evidence, only wide gaps between species. I am sure there are occasional exceptions but if gradualism is a viable process for major change then it would have left a multitude of intermediaries and branchings.

And ID could certainly accept that a guiding intelligence could be making all the little changes that are necessary for one form of gradualism to work. But then where again is the missing intermediaries both in the fossil record and in our suite of organisms on the planet today. So even if an intelligence was operating from another dimension through the use of quantum changes or in any way one could imagine, it would leave a trail. What would not leave a trail is the sudden change in an organism that is major. Because there would not be any long list of intermediaries or branchings. They were never there. And that is what we see.

ID is very reasonable with evidence when it is presented. But what we get is not evidence by dictums and speculations and each must be kowtowed to.

After thorough study of the data, the paleontologists present their conclusions that bats have evolved over time. The biologists then present their findings on how sonar works and how it may have been in the past, when bats were different from what they are now. The design scientists would take all these findings, and do their own analysis using whatever ID tools and methodologies they have at their disposal. They might then conclude that the sonar was designed. The next step could then be to dig back into the bat lineage and try to pinpoint where and when the design manifested itself. Once that becomes clear, perhaps some light could be shed on how the design was implemented in this particular case.

Doesn’t this sound a heck of a lot better than the current endless bickering about did/did not evolve?

Is anything like this happening anywhere?

fG