Intelligent design is antievolution … or maybe not …

_{Denyse O'Leary

April 30, 2011

Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Here is a current debate on the subject from Cassandra’s Tears and here at Intelligent Reasoning is a comment, if you’d like to weigh in.

Many sources think that intelligent design is concerned principally with the plausibility of proposed mechanisms for evolution, not with denying that it occurs. Most ID theorists are skeptical – based on evidence, or in this case lack of it – that certain claimed mechanisms, such as Darwin’s natural selection acting on random mutation, can do all that is claimed for it, or even a tiny fraction.

When pigs fly first class, maybe.

Comments

The rbuttals are in- Opponent's fact free rebuttal My rebuttalJoseph_{May 4, 2011
May
05
May
4
04
2011
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT}

Rebuttals/ responses to the opening posts will be up tomorrow...Joseph_{May 3, 2011
May
05
May
3
03
2011
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT}

IIRC, they obtained some pre-publication drafts and were using those. I'm sure Discovery Institute has something on this.Mung_{May 1, 2011
May
05
May
1
01
2011
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT}

Thanks again Denyse.Joseph_{May 1, 2011
May
05
May
1
01
2011
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT}

Joseph at 1, this just in, re Pandas and People: "The quote is from the second edition, "Excursion Chapter 4" titled "The Fossil Record." It occurs in the discussion of the meaning of gaps in the fossil record. Four interpretation of this datum are given: imperfect record, incomplete search, jerky process, and sudden appearance or face value interpretation. It is stated: "The intelligent design hypothesis is in agreement with the face value interpretation and accepts the gaps as a generally true reflection of biology and natural history. A growing number of scientists who study the fossil record are concluding that the structural differences between the major types of organism reflect life as it was for that era. This view proposes that only the long-held expectations of Darwinian theory cause us to refer to the in-between areas as gaps. If this is so, the major different types of living organisms do not have a common ancestry. Such a conclusion is more consistent with currently known fossil data than any of the evolutionary models. (p. 98) * * * Darwinists object to the view of intelligent design because it does not give a natural cause explanation of how the various forms of life started in the first place. Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency , with their distinctive features already intact -- fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. . . . Should we close our minds to the possibility that the various types of plants and animals were intelligently designed? This alternative suggests that a reasonable natural cause explanation for origins may never be found, and that intelligent design best fits the data." (p. 99-100) "O'Leary_{April 30, 2011
April
04
Apr
30
30
2011
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT}

Yeah baby- It just keeps getting better The person who is obviously clueless on how to conduct a debate sez he has discredited Dr Behe and that I don't know what I am doing. Strange that it looks like I have presented and supported my claim with overwhelming evidence. I guess that is why a neutral panel of moderators are used to judge debates. OgreMKV gets pummeled by the facts and he just won't admit it. Yup that is a weak opening for ya- one that pummels your opponent into delusions. Thumbs high buddy...Joseph_{April 30, 2011
April
04
Apr
30
30
2011
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT}

Day 11 Dr Behe testifies
Dr Behe = A Q= pro-ID lawyer Q I would like to direct your attention to page 99, please. I would like to read to you and oft-quoted passage in this case thus far. If you'll look at the bottom on page 99, it's going to continue onto 100 as well. It says, quote, Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, et cetera. Some scientists have arrived at this view since fossil forms first appeared in the record with their distinctive features intact and apparently fully functional rather than gradual development. And I would like to get your reaction to that section? A- Well, it says -- it says that some scientists have arrived at this view. I think that's a way of saying that this is a matter of disagreement and dispute. I certainly do not think that intelligent design means that a feature has to appear abruptly. And I -- I certainly would have written this differently if I had done so. Q Now, you say you would have written it differently. Is there another reference or another section in Pandas that you could direct us to to emphasize that point? A Yes. I wrote the section at the end of Pandas which is discussing blood clotting. And on page 144 of the text there's a section entitled "A Characteristic of Intelligent Design." And it begins, "Why is the blood clotting system an example of intelligent design? The ordering of independent pieces into a coherent whole to accomplish a purpose which is beyond any single component of the system is characteristic of intelligence." Q And why did you direct us to that particular section? A Because I think it more clearly conveys the central idea of intelligent design, which is the purposeful arrangement of parts. Q Do you see that then as a, perhaps a better characterization, or more accurate characterization of intelligent design? A Yes, I like this a lot better.
Joseph_{April 30, 2011
April
04
Apr
30
30
2011
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT}

I found a reference that provides the sentence after the one provided above:
Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact - fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. Some scientists have arrived at this view since fossil forms first appear in the rock record with their distinctive features intact, rather than gradually developing. "
That gives a little more context.Joseph_{April 30, 2011
April
04
Apr
30
30
2011
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus- That is another issue also- I don't know the context of the quote. Thank you.Joseph_{April 30, 2011
April
04
Apr
30
30
2011
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT}

Joseph: What is being said in P & P is little more than has long since been acknowledged by leading paleontologists and the like. The fossil record, understood on the usual timeline, is one of sudden appearances, stasis and disappearance or continuity into the modern world. As the dominant pattern. (Cf Gould as cited here.) Which was known to Darwin, too. Especially the Cambrian fossil life revolution. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 30, 2011
April
04
Apr
30
30
2011
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT}

Dr REC, My understanding of theistic evolution is we aren't supposed to be able to detect the acts of God/ God's "finger-prints". (emphasis on the "my understanding") ID claims we can detect design (as such), study it and come to understand it.Joseph_{April 30, 2011
April
04
Apr
30
30
2011
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT}

Denyse, Page 99-100. Thanks.Joseph_{April 30, 2011
April
04
Apr
30
30
2011
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT}

Joseph, did your debating partner give a page number for that within the book? Doesn't sound like textbook language, but a page source might help find out.O'Leary_{April 30, 2011
April
04
Apr
30
30
2011
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT}

Joe, "IOW ID is OK with biological evolution. As Dr Behe et al., make very clear, it just argues about the mechanisms- basically design/ telic vs spontaneous/ stochastic" How does ID remain distinct from theistic evolution then? I think for example, the Catholic position is that if evolution occurred, it did so "under the impetus and guidance of God." Does ID jut get rolled in? What keeps it distinct and interesting?DrREC_{April 30, 2011
April
04
Apr
30
30
2011
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT}

Part of the problem, as my opponent pointed out, is what "Of Pandas and People" said about ID (I do not own a copy of the book and cannot verify that it is in there):
“Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc.”
But not even that denies "evolution", as in the change of allele frequency over time. But it denies common ancestry. Yet the definition in the glossary, which can be viewed at Amazon (might have to scroll down), doesn't say anything like the one alleged to be on pages 99-10 (above).Joseph_{April 30, 2011
April
04
Apr
30
30
2011
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply