Home » Culture, Darwinism, Intelligent Design, News » Why intelligent design theory benefits from the progress of any non-Darwinian hypothesis for evolution

Why intelligent design theory benefits from the progress of any non-Darwinian hypothesis for evolution

Here, we listed a few instances of non-Darwinian evolution hypotheses that we’ve covered. Prof. FX Gumby replies,

Well, yes. There are lots of potential non-Darwinian mechanisms for evolution. You also forgot to mention genetic drift. But they still don’t provide any support to ID.

Which reminds us of markf’s earlier comment, arguing that a recent self-organization proposal was a threat to design theory. To which we replied,

there are many non-Darwin theories of evolution out there that explain, each, a small part of the picture, and we have covered here as many as we encountered. None of them do away with the necessity of design; indeed, only Darwin’s theory was developed with that in mind, which explains both its attraction and the reason that Darwinists cannot share the stage even with other non-design theories of evolution.

The author of the Heredity paper suggests some form of self-organization. That probably means that his paper will fall down the memory hole promptly, along with all the others, but we will do what we can to keep the spark alive.

A bit fuller (still brief) explanation may be warranted, and we want to make clear at the outset that this explanation is not directed at markf or Prof. FX Gumby, for that would be a form of inanition. For  the record, ID – seen from a UD News perspective – has several obvious interests:

1. Support for specifically ID research and publication. One thinks, for example, of recent books like The First Gene, offering an information theory look at the origin of life.

2. Support for intelligent, evidence-based dialogue among actual experts, as in, for example, The Nature of Nature

3. Support for the development of any responsible, evidence-based non-Darwinian approaches to evolution. Hughes’ recent paper comes to mind.

4. Exposure of the utter rottenness of contemporary Darwinism, as noted recently by Nobelist Laughlin. This is a true scandal in science, and covering up these scandals, all the way from Piltdown Man to Haeckel’s fake embryos and down to the present day, has spread and deepened the rot.* Consistent with that, we monitor shoddy research practices generally, along with efforts at censorship of opposing ideas, interference with academic employment decisions, assaults on people’s dignity, suborning of journals to publish academically unworthy hit pieces, and contempt for civil law  perpetrated by the Darwin lobby. And by many other lobbies, but their activities are naturally the ones that attract the most attention around here. And we don’t by any means require that the target be an ID supporter to earn our sympathy. Darwin’s lobby is a problem, no matter who they target, especially now that they have decided to broaden their scope.

Those who oppose Darwin’s demand for submission and conversion are not facing a contrary intellectual position, they are up against an entrenched lobby, a no-holds-barred pressure group, where stakeholders have plenty of money, status, and power to protect.

We appreciate the chance to outline the aims of our news desk coverage, and hope readers will find it enjoyable and informative.

* The whitewash you probably heard was that these scandals show that “science is self-correcting.” Rubbish. If science had prevailed, both frauds would have been exposed quickly. They lingered for decades because it has been well over a century since Darwinism has been a science. So the corrected version reads: Science is self-correcting. Darwinism is not science and is corrected only with difficulty, even in the face of fraud.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

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

21 Responses to Why intelligent design theory benefits from the progress of any non-Darwinian hypothesis for evolution

  1. According to Newton’s First Rule the way to a design inference is through stochastic, ie blind and undirected, processes.

    And that is why IDists constantly attack blind watchmaker evolution-> if blind watchmaker evolution could produce positive evidence then the design inference would be in question.

  2. If I read you correctly, you are agreeing with my statement at the start of the OP, but then go on to say that one of your interests, and presumably the motivation for the original post, is “Exposure of the utter rottenness of contemporary Darwinism”. So News in particular has no problem with evolution, except for evolution via natural selection?

    But if we assume that evolution has occurred due to mechanisms other than natural selection, where does ID fit in? Does ID then limit itself to origin of life? Or cosmological ID?

    Lastly, News asserts that “None of them do away with the necessity of design; indeed, only Darwin’s theory was developed with that in mind”. I’ve never heard this idea (that natural selection was devised specifically to do away with design) before. Is there any basis for it?

  3. Prof Gumby,

    Without the rise of information and a system decicated to processing it, there is no mechanism, and no evolution.

    ID is safely seated at the head of the table.

  4. Genetic drift, and therefore the plasticity-relaxation-mutation model of evolution proposed in the Heredity article mentioned by News, are “blind and undirected” processes. On the one hand, News is supporting these evolutionary mechanisms, while you I would guess do not. Maybe you all could have a chat about it and get back to me when it’s sorted?

  5. So you would see ID as having a role at the origin of life and perhaps shortly thereafter? And after that evolution takes its course? I’m trying to understand peoples’ positions on this.

  6. From the biological ID standpoint, design has a role to play in the existence of life on earth from the moment that semiotic information appeared in the causal chain of events.

    That is my position.

  7. Prof. FX Gumby,

    Calling “plasticity” a mechanism sets the bar pretty low. It circumvents mechanisms altogether and posits a magical ability of living things to change form as needed. Why are otters always otters? They lost their plasticity. It isn’t an explanation. It’s a hypothetical condition that, if validated, would require an explanation.

    Materialists are so darned skeptical until someone starts talking about imaginary hypothetical mutable plasticity. Then they read it and repeat it with a straight face.

  8. From what I understand, phenotypic plasticity is only one part of the proposed mechanism. As to whether the proposed mechanism makes sense, I don’t know as I haven’t looked into it in much detail.

    However, I will point out that it was News that brought it up, presumably approvingly as it is non-Darwinian.

    As for the last part of your comment, if you follow the link, you’ll find that Robert Byers says “I have bumped into claims of plasticity and this YEC welcomes it”. He’s no materialist. Neither am I.

    Anyway, do you have any thoughts on how ID fits in with non-Darwinian evolution?

  9. Thanks for your reply, but it’s a little less specific than I’d hoped. Would you care to elaborate?

  10. If you have a question related to the contents of my post, or the further link, please ask it.

  11. Well, rephrasing 2 and 3.1 above, assuming non-Darwinian evolution is a major mechanism responsible for the emergence of the wide diversity of organisms on earth, what role does design play, if any? Was there a design event that took place later the origin of the universe? Later than the origin of life? If so, what was it and how can it be distinguished from non-Darwinian evolution?

  12. To your first question, my answer remains as it was in 3.

    To your second question, my answer remains as it was in 3.2.

    To your third question, I don’t know.

    And your fourth question reverts back to the first; without information and a system decicated to processing it, there no evolution. That may be regarded as a rather distinguishing feature.

  13. Prof FX Gumby:

    Genetic drift, and therefore the plasticity-relaxation-mutation model of evolution proposed in the Heredity article mentioned by News, are “blind and undirected” processes.

    Perhaps, but genetic drift isn’t a known multi-part system constructor.

    Only design gets a new, useful multi-part system

  14. So News in particular has no problem with evolution, except for evolution via natural selection?

    Not quite- it is that blind, undirected chemical processes cannot construct new, useful multi-part systems. They are good for loss of function evolution, but that is about it.

    I’ve never heard this idea (that natural selection was devised specifically to do away with design) before. Is there any basis for it?

    Charles Darwin- the whole point of NS to him was that given enough time/ trials nature could do what humans do in less time/ trials.

    However Darwin also argued against the strawman of fixity of species…

  15. Designed to evolve/ evolved by design

    Dawkins “cumulative selection” to reach a target. Then there is “built-in responses to environmental cues” ala Dr Spetner in “Not By Chance”.

  16. To Prof FX Gumby:

    The Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis- I am sure he would love to discuss it with you

  17. Wrong. Natural ecological succession results in new, useful multi-part systems. That’s why they’re called ecosystems.

  18. Re your first point, I think you should let News speak for herself.

    Re your second point, what you said does not provide any support for the assertion that natural selection was specifically developed to do away design.

  19. I’ve heard of Davison’s PEH. I’m not aware of any solid evidence for it, such as dormant genes that switch on, resulting in speciation. When such evidence emerges, come talk to me about it.

  20. pfxg,

    You’re begging the question, repeating your assertion. I’ll do the same. Natural ecological succession does not result in new, useful systems.

    We call them ecosystems because various interacting components keep them running. They aren’t irreducibly complex, but our understanding of them is limited enough that we usually fail to predict the long-term effects of adding, removing, or altering components.

    You speak of them as if they were magic, innovating, inventing, creating, and decorating. For some reason you think that ID is magic, but that if you simply remove the intelligence and insist it happened by itself, that’s somehow less magical.

  21. I’m not repeating an assertion. It’s a brand new assertion I’d be happy to back-up, except I’m getting bored.

    As for the rest of your comment, your argument is self-contradictory. In one breath you assert that “succession does not result in new, useful systems” and in the very next line you say that ecosystems have “various interacting components keep them running”, directly contradicting your previous assertion. As for irreducible complexity, Joseph said nothing about that, nor did I.

    As for magic, I’ll leave that for Las Vegas casino shows and sword-and-sorcery novels. ID can keep the first, and I’ll have the second for bedtime light reading.

Leave a Reply