Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Claim: Natural selection does not refute design?


Oops. One last religion news item just landed: A friend writes to say that these guys didn’t get the memo from theistic evolutionists that an explanation by natural selection doesn’t refute intelligent design:

From Thiago Hutter, Carine Gimbert, Frédéric Bouchard and François-Joseph Lapointe, “Being human is a gut feeling,” Microbiome, (2015) 3:9:

Before Darwin, intelligent design arguments (such as the ones found in Paley) explaining the organization found in biological individuals via divine creation were the norm. Since Darwin, the origin of organization of biological individuals is to be explained thanks to designer-free adaptive processes. Individuals were functional wholes whose parts-integration was the result of evolution by natural selection. (public access) More.

Some people believe natural selection somehow naturally produces vast amounts of information technology in life forms because that belief appears to obviate design. Most human beings doubt that.

And in the real world, theistic evolution is all supply, no demand. Except at incipient post-Christian academic institutions.

By the way, whatever happened to the new atheists? The religion news beat has become dull. No one sending cease and desist letters, or getting into rows over elevators or shoutouts about flying horses … theistic evolution should be marketed as a soporific by comparison! Back soon.

See also: Casey Luskin on TE’s evidence-phobia. Biologically speaking, theistic evolution gives no reasons to believe in God.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

@Rober Byers If you don't rely on ns for id, then explain the wild coincedence that all designed objects in nature are designed in terms of survival / reproduction, and not in terms of telling the time like a watch, keeping things frozen like a freezer, or designed in any other terms whatsoever. mohammadnursyamsu
I don't think ID needs natural selection. It could only be that natural selection goes on. Yet its a special case, a minor one, in real biological change in nature. By YEC standards there is no time for nat sel to have done anything. Everyone must agree nat sel needs time. So they must have the time! Well prove that first. Anyways. Did nat sel ever affect people? I say people have their looks based on adaption triggers but not from nat sel. I think nat sel did very little. Maybe 1-2 % of bio change. Possibly less. ID sees different answers in nature and can include the option nat sel was very minor BUT there could be major adaption abilities say in the memory of the cell which is the impressive thing. Robert Byers
Intelligent design theory actually needs natural selection theory also. This is because counter to Paley's argument, the fact is that there aren't actually any watches, or some such laying around in nature. Intelligent design theory needs to explain how come there are basically only designed objects in nature with the design of survival, and not designed objects with the design of telling the time or anything else? Natural selection theory answers that question. But then natural selection theory is interpreted in an anticipative way in intelligent design theory, to look into the future of chances of survival. Intelligent design uses natural selection to design forms that survive. mohammadnursyamsu

Leave a Reply