Home » Intelligent Design » The Awesome Power Behind Evolution: It Is Unfathomable That a Loving Higher Intelligence Created the Species

The Awesome Power Behind Evolution: It Is Unfathomable That a Loving Higher Intelligence Created the Species

In his book Inside the Human Genome Evolution professor and National Academy of Science member John Avise continues with the usual evolutionary religious claims that the evil and inefficiency of biological designs—at the molecular level in this case—necessitate evolution, for such designs would never have been designed or created by a loving higher intelligence:  Read more

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

6 Responses to The Awesome Power Behind Evolution: It Is Unfathomable That a Loving Higher Intelligence Created the Species

  1. Who said it HAD to be a loving God. That is a completely separate issue.

    If Avise does not even have a sufficiently competent, analytical intelligence to be able to separate the two issues, how can he hope to understand any kind of metaphysical question – never mind suggest an answer to any of them?

    The level of the analytical intelligence that these people evince takes one’s breath away; it’s frightening to think that some of these peple are professors. How did they ever get into a university at undergraduate level?

  2. 2

    I write software for a living, and I’m also a loving creator. Or at least I think I am. Since the products I create have bugs, inefficiencies, and non-ideal characteristics, I guess it’s unfathomable that I could have created them.

    Wow, this Avise guy is really onto something here.

  3. StuartHarris

    I agree with you but what a lot of people who support the modern evolutionary model say is that your contention, applied to ID, implies that the designer could not have been a supernatural entity. Perhaps an intelligent alien scientist but . . . .

    If you apply your experience to the ID paradigm are you ascribing characteristics to the designer?

  4. 4

    Hi Jerad,

    No, I think that’s a main point of ID: it does not ascribe characteristics, degrees of skill, or personalities to design or whether it’s supernatural or natural.

    As Axel said above, it’s a separate issue. Certainly an interesting issue, but separate from the recognition of design.

  5. Stuart,

    Okay! It just sounded like you were saying designers make mistakes so we shouldn’t be surprised if The Designer made mistakes.

  6. An alternative, of course, is to let the Avyses and Dawkins make their claims about poor design, but then insist that they have put theology on the scientific agenda.

    At that point, the right has been gained for theologians to dismantle the purely subjective and polemic atheodicy arguments.

    The answer to bad design arguments (partly) is similar to replying to those people who tut-tut and say a Ferrari has terrible design faults – just hand them the keys.

Leave a Reply