“Darwin’s theory can suggest specific natural causes for this. Species from the mainland move to the islands by floating or flying. They radiate out across the islands. Those heritable variations that enhance reproductive fitness on the various islands will tend to be favored by natural selection. Eventually, the species will vary in adaptive ways across the islands, but they will also show similarity to their ancestors on the mainland.”

I’ll begin by saying that I don’t think very few IDists would quibble about the evidence for “descent with modification” and likewise the evidence for “adaptation” of species. But we all know that, as has been pointed out elsewhere here, there is NO evidence for major taxonomic changes—neither artificial selection nor the fossil record bear this out.

And a certain debt is owed to Darwin for his ideas of common descent and adaptation, but the specific mechanisms offered by Darwin, and his ‘descendents’, for how “adaptation” comes about is not firmly established. There are Fisherian mathematics to support it; but they are shaky mathematics at best. And there is the notion of random mutation–the neo-Darwinian component to the modern synthesis—which appears to be at work in living organisms as they ‘adapt’ to environmental pressures. Yet, the more that is discovered, the more it appears that what is assumed to be “random”, may indeed, be an explicit, built-in organismal/cellular mechanism of simple adaptation and defense. In other words, it might appear to be “random” only because “allelic” permutations can occur—but, again, this might be fully “designed” into biological forms.

All of this is to say that the true, validated contributions of Darwinian theory are, in reality, few AND generally accepted by those who advocate ID.

Now, moving on to the larger issue of “positive contributions”, let me point out that (1) you are asking for what even supposed Darwinian theory cannot provide. There are “observable” facts—species do radiate and adapt—but “what is the precise molecular mechanism?” That’s the $64,000 question. No one has “proven” that. The jury is still out.

And (2) if we’re dealing with an intellect that far surpasses ours, then how can we “know” what mechanisms are used and how?

Can you (Dr. Arnhart) take apart a watch, piece by piece, and then tell me the purpose of each part? Or, better yet, if I gave you all the pieces of a working pocket-watch, could you put it together? Now that is something “constructed” by humans—organisms of equal intelligence—and yet it would be hard to deconstruct (unless, of course, that is your livelihood).

(And what would happen if instead of a coke bottle, a book with all the pertinent equations of Einstein’s General Theory derived for you were dropped over a primitive bush clan in Africa, would they have any idea what it meant? )

When our knowledge and technology advance to the point that we humans can begin to make objects that reasonably imitate advanced properties of biological life, like reproduction, chemical communication and effective interaction with the environment—all at the nanotech level—then I think that the kinds of answers you’re now demanding may be possible.

Nevertheless, in the meantime I think that ID might play a ‘positive’ role simply by changing the mindset of the experimenters: instead of asking themselves, How did this ‘randomly’ come about?, they can ask, How might this have been ‘designed’? How might a designer have designed this? My gut feeling is that there is a whole host of scientists out there who, even now, are asking themselves precisely these ‘design’ questions, yet without realizing they’re doing so. ID’s greatest ally is science itself.

Arnhart:

You reveal your agenda by insisting that ID must prove something beyond its scope. Your argument that ID must characterize the methods of design or be relegated to the dustbin of useless psuedo-science is a straw man. If you see a cave painting must you also know whether it was painted by a man or a woman, a child or an adult, with a finger or a brush, in order to know that it is designed vs. accident? Of course not. Put down the straw man. You insult my intelligence with it and I won’t feel bad about insulting yours in return if you insist on continuing with it.

How did you, Arnhart, design the complex and specified sequences of words you post here? If you cannot offer a causal explanation – mechanism – for that, how can you demand it for any creative endeavor?

In other words, the real work in intelligent design occurs in a mind, not in a design’s implementation. When I design things for manufacture, the final product begins and is formulated in my mind. My computer, molding presses, SMT machines, etc. are all mere means of implementation, but the decisions, choices, and application of knowledge and information that leads to the creation of a specified, complex system are non-material in my head.

I agree that investigation into the implementation of designs is an interesting question, but a secondary one to detecting design – which is what ID is in the context of examining the history of life on earth.

ID has been successful in the first stage–attacking Darwinian science by exposing its difficulties. (Darwin himself devoted over one-third of ORIGIN to the “difficulties” in his theory.)

The next stage for ID is to offer positive explanations for exactly how the intelligent designer creates living beings with specified complexity.

Shouldn’t ID theory move to this second stage?

For example, ID theorists are good at criticizing the attempts of people like Ken Miller to explain exactly how bacterial flagella evolved. But then why shouldn’t IDers take the next step and lay out a causal explanation of exactly how the intelligent designer created bacterial flagella?

Wouldn’t that complete the ID scientific revolution? Wouldn’t that mean that scientists would be going into their laboratories to test ID theory as applied to bacterial flagella (and other complexities in the living world)?

Why do ID theorists refuse to take the step towards positive, constructive explanations that would turn ID into a mature and revolutionary science?

“Bill, I agree with you that Darwin framed his theory as the alternative to intelligent design theory.”

Evolutionists tend to see this as an “either or” dilemma. ID is simply suggesting that you go wherever the evidence reasonably takes you — without philosophical prejudice. In the case of variations in the beaks of finches, natural selection is the most reasonable explanation. When it comes to the existence of first lifeforms, specifically complex biological systems, and irreducibly complex biomechanisms, you do what is readily done in other branches of scientific research (forensics, archaeology, cryptography, etc.): make a design inference. It’s not a “God of the gaps” argument because 1) ID is agnostic in regards to the identity of the designer(s) and 2) it’s an appeal to the best explanation based on what we DO know: things that appear designed and exhibit specific complexity and irreducible functionality ARE designed. The burden of proof that something that exhibits those features is NOT designed falls squarely on the evolutionists. It’s only because of philosophical prejudice, political agendas, and emotion that we even have to have this debate. The elephant in the room is plainly there for anyone willing and able to see it.