Darwinism Intelligent Design

A Logical Misunderstanding About Design Arguments

Spread the love

Many materialists are confused about the obsession of ID’ers with Darwinian evolution. They believe that our targeting of Darwin is misguided for the simple reason that showing that Darwin is wrong doesn’t make us correct. On the simple face of it that is correct—showing that X is false doesn’t make Y true.

However, the story of Darwin and design is deeper than that, and to understand why ID’ers target Darwin you have to understand more of the story. For the next two paragraphs, if you are a Darwinist, set that to the side for a moment to at least understand where the ID’er is coming from.

To an ID’er, the biological world screams design. That is, nearly every thing in our bodies and in the world serves some purpose. If there is an organ, you can bet it is there to serve a purpose. Organisms themselves serve purposes in the larger environment. Everything in biology is endowed with purposive intent. In fact, even the problems make the purpose stand out more clearly. We can tell that cancer is bad because it does not line up with the purposes of our body. We can see and understand everything in terms of purpose.

Additionally, these purposes are carried out utilizing stunning machinery at every level. You can see it in the gross anatomy. Organisms are built with logically distinct systems serving the organisms purpose. You can see it all the way down to the molecular biology. Each cell comes equipped with tiny organelles which work together to keep the cell running, and each of these are very precise machines.

This is the starting point—the starting evidence. It is true that it is not quantitative. However, most observations that you can make about an organism screams for purpose and design. While there are many intricate, purposive systems built by intelligent agents, we have never seen it occur in the absence of agency. Therefore, being surrounded by intricate, purposive systems, we infer that there is some sort of agent behind it. So why don’t people believe in design in biology?

It used to be that design was the default assumption in biology, for these very reasons. The innovation that Darwin had was that there was another way to account for all of this purpose and design in biology. Darwin proposed natural selection as a way to get purpose and design entirely through purposeless, material causes.

So, abstractly, the old argument was like this:

Y can only be caused by X; we see Y, therefore X.

The Darwinian logic was:

Oh, wait a minute there, Y can also be caused by Q; therefore, when we see Y, it *might* by X, but it could also be Q.

Further along intellectual history, X was ruled out as a possible cause. This made the logic become:

Y can be caused by either Q or X. However, we are not allowed to consider X. Therefore, we see Y, and can only conclude Q.

So, hopefully you can now see why ID focuses on the defeat of Q. The entirety of the living world already gives evidence of X. We could add more (as Behe has often done), but it is largely unnecessary, simply because of the overwhelming evidence of X. If Q is shown to be wrong, then the methodological assertion against X is shown to be ridiculous, and people can return to concluding X from the massive amount of evidence that is simply everywhere we look.
This is why Dawkins said, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” He provided a defeater for the obvious conclusion. If the defeater is out of the way, then making the obvious conclusion is, well, obvious.

Additional note – some may wonder about the many purported “other mechanisms” of evolution. I have found that pretty much all suggested mechanisms fall into two categories. (1) a Darwinian mechanism, but which is more specific. That is, some may talk about all sorts of potential mutations, and categorize them. For example, Allen McNeil has such a list. As far as I’m aware, McNeil suggests no teleological or teleonomic directionality in any of these mechanisms, which is precisely what is meant by “random mutation” – mutations lacking in directionality. Therefore, this post (and any post on random mutation and natural selection) applies equivalently to these mechanisms. (2) Non-Darwinian mechanisms. These are mechanisms where either (a) the organism has sufficient knowledge/agency to construct its own destination (i.e., Natural Genetic Engineering or the Implicit Genome), or (b) evolution presupposes a huge amount of existing information in the genome ahead-of-time (evo-devo). These can be wrapped up in the broader term evolutionary teleonomy. These mechanisms, like all the other biological mechanisms, are expressions of purpose. While they may or may not undermine specific views of natural *history*, they do nothing at all to undermine the general view of purpose and design in nature. They merely move the design back, which, mathematically, makes the amount of design required bigger, not smaller.

42 Replies to “A Logical Misunderstanding About Design Arguments

  1. 1
    aarceng says:

    Where there are multiple competing hypotheses if one can be shown to be implausible then the other becomes the preferred explanation.

  2. 2
    kairosfocus says:

    JB, I would add that for some cases (due to explicit coding) we can quantify the relevant phenomenon. In other cases, we can estimate the required information in configuration-based functional organisation by reducing in effect to a reasonably compact chain of Y/N “switches” in a chain, structured on a description language, essentially similar to how AutoCAD etc work to produce a file specifying the design. With such metrics in hand we can then proceed to address search resources of sol system or observed cosmos, yielding a search challenge in a configuration space for that much information (measured in bits). Once we are beyond 500 – 1,000 bits it is maximally implausible that an atomic resources based search on relevant timescales would be able to discover relevant configurations. Not all lotteries are reasonably winnable (win-ability has to be designed in for familiar lotteries). And on the speculation that life is written into the cosmology of our observed universe, so is inevitable once suitable terrestrial planets form, that implies a huge increment of fine tuning of the cosmos. KF

  3. 3
    Bob O'H says:

    Y can be caused by either Q or X. However, we are not allowed to consider X. Therefore, we see Y, and can only conclude Q.

    But you are considering X! Except you’re not, you only ever consider Q. And the logical problem remains: if you want to promote X, you need to provide positive evidence for it. If you read your Kuhn or Lakatos, they point out that large theories are replaced, not simply dropped. You have to show that ID can better explain the real world. To do that, you need an actual theory of how ID happens.

  4. 4
    kairosfocus says:

    BO’H: Strictly, no. The point is, that we know beyond reasonable doubt that designs routinely include copious FSCO/I and that language including digital code is a particularly blatant case. It was proposed that blind chance and mechanical necessity were adequate alternatives and by imposition of evolutionary materialistic scientism, this was locked in as the only explanation deemed acceptable. However, now that the FSCO/I involved has been further drawn out and now that 90 years of failed experiments on OoL show the gap between blind proposed mechanisms and the observed reality, it is time for a re-think. First, is the ideological imposition warranted? No, indeed it is self-refuting and self-falsifying. So, the case should be re-opened. In that light we know what can work and what is manifestly implausible. Consequently, the evolutionary materialistic paradigm is in unacknowledged crisis. And, if a paradigm is a failure, it is irresponsible to insist on retaining it and lauding it as though it were flawless. Even in absence of an alternative. As an illustration, the UV catastrophe and black body/cavity radiation pointed to a crisis in physics. Planck’s calculation on the quantum principle showed that something new should be considered. No full-orbed quantum theory would exist for a generation, leading to a drawn out process of change. This is the context of the view that a new paradigm progresses one funeral at a time. KF

  5. 5
    Bob O'H says:

    kf – are you arguing that evolutionary biology has been refuted?

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    Simply incredible, Bob intelligently writes an entire post via his own intelligent agency and yet since Bob does not have “an actual theory of how ID happens” then Bob is forced to conclude that he did not actually write his post.Welcome to the insanity that is Atheistic Naturalism.

    Do You Like SETI? Fine, Then Let’s Dump Methodological Naturalism – Paul Nelson – September 24, 2014
    Excerpt: Even a modest formulation of MN (Methodological Naturalism) excludes too much, hindering us from learning what we really might want to find out.
    Assessing the Damage MN Does to Freedom of Inquiry
    Epistemology — how we know — and ontology — what exists — are both affected by methodological naturalism. If we say, “We cannot know that a mind caused x,” laying down an epistemological boundary defined by MN, then our ontology comprising real causes for x won’t include minds.
    MN entails an ontology in which minds are the consequence of physics, and thus, can only be placeholders for a more detailed causal account in which physics is the only (ultimate) actor. You didn’t write your email to me. Physics did, and informed you of that event after the fact.
    “That’s crazy,” you reply, “I certainly did write my email.” Okay, then — to what does the pronoun “I” in that sentence refer?
    Your personal agency; your mind. Are you supernatural?,,,
    You are certainly an intelligent cause, however, and your intelligence does not collapse into physics. (If it does collapse — i.e., can be reduced without explanatory loss — we haven’t the faintest idea how, which amounts to the same thing.) To explain the effects you bring about in the world — such as your email, a real pattern — we must refer to you as a unique agent.,,,
    https://evolutionnews.org/2014/09/do_you_like_set/

    Again, welcome to the insanity of Atheistic Naturalism. Agent causality is simply forbidden in the Atheist’s naturalistic worldview. Since ‘you’ are not, and can not be, the result of the laws of physics, i.e. since ‘you’ are not ‘natural’, i.e you are not reducible to materialistic explanation, then the Atheistic Naturalist is forced to conclude that neither ‘you’ nor he actually exists.

    The Brain: The Mystery of Consciousness
    By STEVEN PINKER – Monday, Jan. 29, 2007
    Part II THE ILLUSION OF CONTROL
    Another startling conclusion from the science of consciousness is that the intuitive feeling we have that there’s an executive “I” that sits in a control room of our brain, scanning the screens of the senses and pushing the buttons of the muscles, is an illusion.
    http://www.academia.edu/279485.....sciousness

    “There is no self in, around, or as part of anyone’s body. There can’t be. So there really isn’t any enduring self that ever could wake up morning after morning worrying about why it should bother getting out of bed. The self is just another illusion, like the illusion that thought is about stuff or that we carry around plans and purposes that give meaning to what our body does. Every morning’s introspectively fantasized self is a new one, remarkably similar to the one that consciousness ceased fantasizing when we fell sleep sometime the night before. Whatever purpose yesterday’s self thought it contrived to set the alarm last night, today’s newly fictionalized self is not identical to yesterday’s. It’s on its own, having to deal with the whole problem of why to bother getting out of bed all over again.”
    – A.Rosenberg, The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, ch.10

    “You are robots made out of meat. Which is what I am going to try to convince you of today”
    Jerry Coyne – No, You’re Not a Robot Made Out of Meat (Science Uprising 02) – video
    https://youtu.be/rQo6SWjwQIk?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS1OmYcqv_yQSpje4p7rAE7-&t=20

    Ross Douthat Is On Another Erroneous Rampage Against Secularism – Jerry Coyne – December 26, 2013
    Excerpt: “many (but not all) of us accept the notion that our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.”
    Jerry Coyne – Professor of Evolutionary Biology – Atheist
    https://newrepublic.com/article/116047/ross-douthat-wrong-about-secularism-and-ethics

    At the 23:33 minute mark of the following video, Richard Dawkins agrees with materialistic philosophers who say that:
    “consciousness is an illusion”
    A few minutes later Rowan Williams asks Dawkins ”If consciousness is an illusion…what isn’t?”.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWN4cfh1Fac&t=22m57s

    “We have so much confidence in our materialist assumptions (which are assumptions, not facts) that something like free will is denied in principle. Maybe it doesn’t exist, but I don’t really know that. Either way, it doesn’t matter because if free will and consciousness are just an illusion, they are the most seamless illusions ever created. Film maker James Cameron wishes he had special effects that good.”
    Matthew D. Lieberman – neuroscientist – materialist – UCLA professor

    “(Daniel) Dennett concludes, ‘nobody is conscious … we are all zombies’.”
    J.W. SCHOOLER & C.A. SCHREIBER – Experience, Meta-consciousness, and the Paradox of Introspection – 2004

    The Illusionist – Daniel Dennett’s latest book marks five decades of majestic failure to explain consciousness. – 2017
    Excerpt: “Simply enough, you cannot suffer the illusion that you are conscious because illusions are possible only for conscious minds. This is so incandescently obvious that it is almost embarrassing to have to state it.”
    – David Bentley Hart
    https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-illusionist

    Yet it is impossible for the atheistic naturalist to live as if his worldview is actually true. As the following article states, “materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but;”

    .The Heretic – Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? – March 25, 2013
    Excerpt: ,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath.
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/.....tml?page=3

    And as Richard Dawkins himself admitted, it would be ‘intolerable’ for him to live his life as if atheistic materialism were actually true

    Who wrote Richard Dawkins’s new book? – October 28, 2006
    Excerpt:
    Dawkins: What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don’t feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do.,,,
    Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views?
    Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....02783.html

    In what should be needless to say, if it is impossible for you to live as if your atheistic worldview were actually true then your atheistic worldview cannot possibly reflect reality as it really is but your worldview must instead be based on a delusion.

    Existential Argument against Atheism – November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen
    1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview.
    2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview.
    3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality.
    4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion.
    5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true.
    Conclusion: Atheism is false.
    http://answersforhope.com/exis.....t-atheism/

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    Although Atheists try to pretend they are being ‘oh so scientific’ by invoking methodological naturalism, the fact of the matter is that it would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science that Atheistic Naturalism.

    In fact, (as I have pointed out several times now), assuming Naturalism instead of Theism as the worldview on which all of science is based leads to the catastrophic epistemological failure of science itself.

    Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft).
    Bottom line, nothing is real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,
    – Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification – 39:45 minute mark
    https://youtu.be/8rzw0JkuKuQ?t=2387

    Thus, although the Darwinist may firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.

    It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.

    2 Corinthians 10:5
    Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

    On top of all that, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on intelligent design and is certainly not based on methodological naturalism as is presupposed by Darwinists.

    From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science, i.e. that the universe is rational and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can dare understand that rationality, to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results, from top to bottom science itself is certainly not ‘natural’.
    Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever just found laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analysed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place.

    Bottom line, by any reasonable measure by which someone may wish to judge whether a proposition is even scientific or not, Darwinian evolution fails to qualify as a science:

    “There are five standard tests for a scientific hypothesis. Has anyone observed the phenomenon — in this case, Evolution — as it occurred and recorded it? Could other scientists replicate it? Could any of them come up with a set of facts that, if true, would contradict the theory (Karl Popper’s “falsifiability” tests)? Could scientists make predictions based on it? Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science? In the case of Evolution… well… no… no… no… no… and no.”
    – Tom Wolfe – The Kingdom of Speech – page 17

    Darwinian Evolution Fails the Five Standard Tests of a Scientific Hypothesis – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7f_fyoPybw

    In short, Darwinian evolution, since it fails to even qualify as a science in any meaningful sense, is much more realistically classified as a pseudoscientific religion for atheists rather than as a real science.

    Darwinists, (and I have no doubt that many of them are sincere in their belief that Darwinism is truly ‘scientific’), are simply profoundly deceived in their belief that Darwinian evolution even qualifies as a science in the first place.

    Verse:

    1 Thessalonians 5:21
    but test everything; hold fast what is good.

    Supplemental note: it is not that Darwinian evolution is not falsifiable (Karl Popper), it is that Darwinists themselves refuse to accept falsification of their theory. Here are a few falsifications of Darwinian evolution that Darwinists simply refuse to accept as falsifications of their theory:

    Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are found to be ‘directed’.

    Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute.

    Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke.

    Darwin’s theory holds there to be an extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever.

    Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within that group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late).

    Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Yet thousands of instances of what is ironically called ‘convergent evolution’, on both the morphological and genetic level, falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species.

    Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.”

    Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as the modern versions of it.”

    Charles Darwin himself stated that, ““The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God.”. Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’.

    Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics exists in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order to be considered scientific in the first place!

    Donald Hoffman has, via population genetics, shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ proves that our conscious observations are reliable!.

    The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information, via experimental realization of the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought experiment, is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy.

    Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. i.e. Assuming reductive materialism and/or Naturalism as the starting philosophical position of science actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science!

    Darwinist’s, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution.

  8. 8
    PeterA says:

    Interesting OP. Thanks.

  9. 9
    kairosfocus says:

    BO’H: I explicitly argued that a [worldview + cultural agenda = ideology] imposed on the life sciences and the sciences plus linked education is manifestly and multiply self-referentially incoherent (cf. here). The evolutionary materialism (which pre-dates Plato) has been noted as incoherent on record since 360 BC, the scientism is new but is obviously self refuting; e.g. the well known claim by Lewontin that in effect science is to be seen as the only beggetter of knowledge is a claimed point of knowledge but is epistemological not scientific, so it refutes itself. The two joined together fail utterly. Insofar as the grand evolutionary myth of our day, from origin of sub cosmi to solar systems to OoL to Oo body plans up to our own is pinned to that crooked yardstick, it is doomed to fail. Focusing evolutionary biology (simply noting the outright failure of 90+ years of effort on OoL since Oparin) there is no empirically warranted blind watchmaker thesis account of origin of body plans; which traces to the FSCO/I origin challenge. The only empirically warranted causal factor capable of bridging the information-organisation gap beyond 500 – 1,000 bits of functionally specific information is intelligently directed configuration, aka design or contrivance. The ideological lockout has no warrant. For cell based life the presence of coded digital information — language! — and associated molecular nanotech execution machinery is at the heart of the challenge. Language, just by itself is as strong a sign of mind at work as you could want. KF

  10. 10
    ET says:

    Evolutionary biology refuted? It makes claims that can’t even be tested

    Bob O’H is confused. ID is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships. And Bob doesn’t understand science- what a surprise!

    You have to show that ID can better explain the real world.

    We have

    To do that, you need an actual theory of how ID happens.

    That’s stupid talk. We don’t even ask about the how until AFTER design has been determined to exist. And we can only get to the how by studying the design and all relevant evidence. There are many artifacts that we don’t know how they came to be. And yet they are all still artifacts.

    That said, design is a mechanism, by definition. Intelligent agency volition is a design mechanism. “Built-in responses to environmental cues” was proposed by Dr. Spetner in 1997.

    Also, evolution is supposed to mechanistic and yet evos don’t have a clue as to the how. That is the main reason it is not scientific- lack of testable claims.

  11. 11
    johnnyb says:

    Bob –

    And the logical problem remains: if you want to promote X, you need to provide positive evidence for it.

    Most of the post showed the positive evidence for X. Not sure how you missed it.

    If you read your Kuhn or Lakatos, they point out that large theories are replaced, not simply dropped. You have to show that ID can better explain the real world. To do that, you need an actual theory of how ID happens.

    Having a *how* theory would actually negate ID. However, what can happen (and what is happening) is a new set of questions you can ask. As an example, computer science proceeds just fine without any reference to the mechanism by which humans program computers. Instead, we focus on the semantics of the program, the interfaces, the logical structure, etc. Your suggestion is like saying we can’t do computer science if we don’t have a theory on how to determine the brand of keyboard the programmer used to type on.

    There is no requirement for the universe to answer your questions in the way that you demand them to be answered. Sometimes you have to humble yourself to the truth even when it looks different than you expect.

  12. 12
    johnnyb says:

    Kairos –

    I wasn’t arguing against quantification per se, just pointing out that not all evidence needs to be quantitative.

  13. 13
    PeterA says:

    Johnnyb,

    “computer science proceeds just fine without any reference to the mechanism by which humans program computers. Instead, we focus on the semantics of the program, the interfaces, the logical structure, etc.”
    Agree.

  14. 14
    buffalo says:

    IDvolution is the best explanation.

  15. 15
    Bob O'H says:

    kf q 9 – is that a yes or a no?

  16. 16
    ET says:

    Bob O’H @ 15- proves he is proud to be clueless. I doubt Bob even knows what science entails. And if he does it is a given that he cannot show how his side meets that criteria.

  17. 17
    Bob O'H says:

    johnnyb @ 11 –

    Having a *how* theory would actually negate ID.

    How so? If ID is correct, then the design has to have happened somehow, so a “how” theory has to exist.

  18. 18
    ET says:

    Earth to Bob O’H- How any given design was implemented is beyond the scope of ID. And it remains that your side is all about the how and has nothing. So please stop whining about ID and get to work on your own position. Or continue to prove that you are nothing but an ignorant crybaby. Your choice

  19. 19
    Brother Brian says:

    A

    Where there are multiple competing hypotheses if one can be shown to be implausible then the other becomes the preferred explanation.

    But when the one that you think is implausible is supported by mountains of evidence, is testable, has a mechanism that has also been tested, is supported by independent fields of study including fossils, geology, molecular biology, comparative anatomy, genomics, etc. , and the other is supported by a comparison to the only known and confirmed designer in the universe (humans), i’ll put my money on the former.

  20. 20
    ET says:

    Brother Brian is lying. There isn’t any science nor evidence that supports blind watchmaker evolution. There isn’t a way to test its claims. Blind watchmaker evolution can’t even account for the organisms that were fossilized.

    Brother Brian is so pathetic that it is forced to lie and the sad part is it believes its own nonsense.

  21. 21
    ET says:

    Is lying a mechanism that can produce the diversity of life? No.

    Is evo imagination a mechanism that can produce the diversity of life? No.

    Do evos really think their lies and imaginations are actual science? Yes. Sad, really.

  22. 22
    Neil Rickert says:

    It’s probably a mistake for me to comment. But I’ll add my two cents anyway.

    To an ID’er, the biological world screams design.

    I’m not seeing design, in the ordinary sense of that word.

    That is, nearly every thing in our bodies and in the world serves some purpose.

    Yes. But who’s purpose?

    We can see and understand everything in terms of purpose.

    I look at evolution, entirely in terms of purpose. If there were no purpose involved, then there would be no evolution (in my opinion).

    The purpose which drives evolution seems quite apparent — the purpose is to enhance fitness.

    I’m not sure how you could have missed that. It’s not as if evolutionists fail to mention fitness.

  23. 23
    ET says:

    Neil Rickert:

    I’m not seeing design, in the ordinary sense of that word.

    No one cares what you do and do not see, Neil. You have proven to be on an anti-science agenda.

    But who’s purpose?

    Our purpose, duh.

    I look at evolution, entirely in terms of purpose. If there were no purpose involved, then there would be no evolution (in my opinion).

    Again, no one cares as you aren’t a biologist and your knowledge of biology and evolution are very, very limited.

    The purpose which drives evolution seems quite apparent — the purpose is to enhance fitness.

    Clueless. Even a loss of function can do that, Neil. No eyes could enhance fitness. No legs can enhance fitness. It is all contingent serendipity.

    Evos mention fitness as if it is a magical quality. It isn’t, Neil

    BTW Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution so perhaps you can quit with your equivocations.

  24. 24
    ET says:

    Science requires that the claims being made be testable. Intelligent Design has a methodology to test its claims. That methodology is based on our knowledge of cause-and-effect relationships.

    So the question remains: What is the methodology used to test the claims of evolution by means of natural selection, drift or any other blind and mindless process? How can we test the claim that nature invented eyes/ vision systems (Nathan Lents in his ever popular “Human Errors”)?

    The people who love science would love to know…

  25. 25
    kairosfocus says:

    JB, I hear you. Both-and. KF

  26. 26
    doubter says:

    BB@19

    But when the one that you think is implausible is supported by mountains of evidence, is testable, has a mechanism that has also been tested, is supported by independent fields of study including fossils, geology, molecular biology, comparative anatomy, genomics, etc. , and the other is supported by a comparison to the only known and confirmed designer in the universe (humans), i’ll put my money on the former.

    Most charitably this is pitiable self-delusion to desperately maintain a bankrupt world-view, rather than deliberate lies.

    Neodarwinism is bankrupt and is admitted to be so by leading evolutionary biologists as not being capable of the actual origin of complex biological mechanisms – of biological form in all its intricate and ingenious organization.

    For instance, leading Darwinist theorist Gerd Muller, in an article following up on the 2016 Royal Society conference on the vast current problems of Darwinism, at https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsfs.2017.0015 :

    …a wealth of evolutionary phenomena remains excluded. For instance, the theory largely avoids the question of how the complex organizations of organismal structure, physiology, development or behavior — whose variation it describes — actually arise in evolution.

    But wait a minute – this is the most important part of evolution: how major innovations came about. Like almost all animal body plans in the Cambrian Explosion. This is devastating for anyone who wants to think that, on the great questions of biological origins, orthodox evolutionary theory has got it all figured out. Neodarwinism carefully avoids the big question of where the major innovations of evolution came from, in other words, macroevolution. Sure, it can explain microevolutionary variation in finch beak shapes and whatnot.

    The only response will probably be the usual empty future promissory note, notes that haven’t been fulfilled in 150 years of research.

  27. 27
    johnnyb says:

    Bob –

    So, to be clear, the “how” of ID *itself* is not logically consistent with the idea of ID (at least in terms of physics). However, it is logically consistent to talk about the how of the implementation. That’s true. However, that does not mean that the how actually survives. But, again, I already mentioned this. Think about computers and keyboards. Once a program is written, it is ridiculous to go back and try to reconstruct what kind of computer it was written on, what posture the programmer had when he wrote it, etc. Perhaps it was dictated. Perhaps he had someone else type it out for him. It isn’t that these aren’t possible questions to ask. It is simply that (a) they don’t really matter, and (b) once performed, they are essentially impossible to reconstruct. What you are suggesting is that ID’ers have a duty to go down a road that is impossible (or nearly so) to succeed at and will yield useless information if the herculean task is accomplished, in order for you to take them seriously. I would not take someone seriously who, when faced with the interesting and fruitful tasks of looking at semantics and interfaces, chose instead to spend all of their time with useless trivialities.

  28. 28
    johnnyb says:

    BB –

    But when the one that you think is implausible is supported by mountains of evidence, is testable, has a mechanism that has also been tested, is supported by independent fields of study including fossils, geology, molecular biology, comparative anatomy, genomics

    You are confusing many things here, and it is largely because the Darwin-party has spent time obfuscating rather than explaining. Fossils and geology cannot support Darwinism for a simple fact – the source of variation in dead things is unknown. Likewise, comparative anatomy. Genomics and molecular biology *could*, but they don’t. In fact, they show that Darwinism has failed.

    My guess is that you are conflating Darwinism and evolution. This is understandable because of the amount of obfuscation the Darwinists have done. However, if you think that, you didn’t actually read the whole post! There is no fundamental conflict between ID and evolution in the broad sense. This has been stated from the beginning, starting with Darwin on Trial. It has been stated by Johnson, Dembski, Behe, and a whole host of others. So, if you are pointing to fossils and geology, then you are confused as to what ID is actually claiming. My suggest is to not get your information about ID from the Darwinists.

  29. 29
    johnnyb says:

    Neil –

    The purpose which drives evolution seems quite apparent — the purpose is to enhance fitness.
    I’m not sure how you could have missed that. It’s not as if evolutionists fail to mention fitness.

    Actually, most people defending the Modern Synthesis are adamant that the evolutionary processes are not purposeful. Darwinists do think that evolution improves fitness, but that is not a goal of the process. A good review is here, or you can look at my review here.

  30. 30
    Seversky says:

    To an ID’er, the biological world screams design. That is, nearly every thing in our bodies and in the world serves some purpose.

    We see function, you assume purpose but the former does not necessarily imply the latter. You marvel at the wondrous complexity of form and function that we see in biological organs and organism.

    I see also the Ebola, influenza and poliomyelitis viruses, to name just three, and the huge death toll they have caused in humans. I see the many cancers to which our bodies are prone or the slow degenerative disorders of ageing. I see neurological diseases which can prevent the brain from storing new memories or which can slowly dismantle a personality piece by piece until there is almost nothing recognizable of the original left. I see a reproductive system with a miscarriage rate of 30-50%. I see throughout human history enormous suffering and loss of life from all causes and the fossil record provides evidence of whole species that have been extinguished. What does all that say about the mind, the purposes or the very existence of a Designer?

  31. 31
    doubter says:

    Bob O’H@3

    You have to show that ID can better explain the real world. To do that, you need an actual theory of how ID happens.

    Seversky@30

    I see throughout human history enormous suffering and loss of life from all causes and the fossil record provides evidence of whole species that have been extinguished. What does all that say about the mind, the purposes or the very existence of a Designer?

    Smoke and mirrors.

    After ruling out other alternatives, positing a particular origin is one thing, the primary issue. A favorite tactic of Darwinists (not wanting to deal with it) is to bring up entire other issues as obfuscations to cloud the primary issue and take the eyes off the ball.

    We can know that something exists, without knowing how it works inside or why it works that way. A perfect example is consciousness.

    Similarly, we can show that and know that something exists, without knowing what created it and why its outworkings or unfoldings work the way they do.

  32. 32
    ET says:

    seversky:

    We see function, you assume purpose but the former does not necessarily imply the latter. You marvel at the wondrous complexity of form and function that we see in biological organs and organism.

    And we see that your side doesn’t have anything to explain what we observe.

    What does all that say about the mind, the purposes or the very existence of a Designer?

    It says that the design wasn’t perfect. It says that perhaps our existence is to learn and gain knowledge. And that can only be done in an imperfect world.

  33. 33
    Neil Rickert says:

    Darwinists do think that evolution improves fitness, but that is not a goal of the process.

    How should we attribute goals.

    It seems to me that if evolution improves fitness, it is reasonable to attribute that as a goal of the process.

    A good review is here, …

    That review is only discussing mutations. I ascribe a goal to the overall process, but not to the mutations.

    Trial and error works toward a goal by trying things out, and selecting those which work. If there is no prior knowledge of which mutations will help toward the goal, then goal-directed behavior is best served by using random mutations in that trial and error process.

  34. 34
    ET says:

    Goal directed behavior is a telic process. Natural selection is non-telic. It is a process of elimination. And it is nothing more than contingent serendipity. Whatever is good enough. Good enough. Not just the best. Not just the fastest. Not just the most physically fit. Not just the best eyesight. Not just the best hearing. Whatever is good enough. But there’s more. Whatever is good enough can change. The best in one generation may not be so in the next and without a single genetic change! Just because of climate change 😉

    Intelligent Design is OK with organisms being intelligently designed with the ability to adapt and evolve. They were given the information and ability to use said information to fill environmental niches:

    He [the Designer] indeed seems to have “carefully crafted” information in His species giving them the ability to respond to environmental stimuli to alter their own genome to adapt to new environments. He then evidently let them wander where they will with the ability to adapt.- Dr. Lee Spetner “the Evolution Revolution” p 108

    Teamed with sexual selection, natural selection is very conservative. It keeps the norm. Phenotypic plasticity exists, and it is testimony to the aforementioned built-in information. The differing beaks of the finch is a real phenomena. But it isn’t as if they will ever evolve a bill like a toucan. It is all limited. And it all wobbles around a central theme- the basic finch type. It won’t ever produce anything more than a limited variety of finch.

    The point is even the goal of improving fitness is impotent with respect to universal common descent.

  35. 35
    Fasteddious says:

    It seems pretty straightforward to me: either an intelligent agent was involved in the evolution of life on Earth, or there was no intelligent agent. Thus, only two possibilities, so dismantling one of them improves the prospects for the other. Darwinism (or any other naturalistic, non-ID process/theory/mechanism) stands in for the non-ID possibility, so that any evidence against Darwinism is de-facto evidence in favour of ID.
    ID research is two pronged: finding evidence of design in nature, and showing that Darwinism cannot do what it is assumed to do. Both of these approaches result in ID becoming more probable than the non-ID theory (Darwinism). I know that BA77 and others have massive lists of positive evidence for ID, and they have other long lists of evidence against the general capability of Darwinism to generate new life forms. Thus, I will not attempt to tally the evidence here.
    I also note that it has been mainly(?) ID researchers who have scientifically explored what Darwinian mechanisms realistically can and cannot do (e.g. The Edge of Evolution).

  36. 36
    EDTA says:

    Neil @ 33,
    >It seems to me that if evolution improves fitness, it is reasonable to attribute that as a goal of the process.

    Minor philosophical nitpick: an observed feature of a process may have nothing to do with the actual goal of the process. Someone watching their first chess game from a distance might conclude that the goal was to eliminate the other player’s pieces.

  37. 37
    Bob O'H says:

    johnnyb @ 27 –

    So, to be clear, the “how” of ID *itself* is not logically consistent with the idea of ID (at least in terms of physics).

    I’m really struggling to see how this isn’t self-refuting. How something is designed is not consistent with the idea that it was designed? In other words, if it was designed, it’s impossible for it to have been designed in some way.

    As for your argument that we can’t reconstruct the past, this is also untrue: that’s what history, archeology, detective work, etc etc is about. I agree we can’t reconstruct everything (e.g. the posture of the programmer), but there are other things we can work out. If you knew anything about computing, you’d be aware that we can often work out what kind of computer it was written on, e.g. from the line endings or other quirks of the OS or programme used to write the programme.

  38. 38
    PeterA says:

    Microevolution?

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6466734/

    Where’s the literature on the macro?

  39. 39
    ET says:

    Bob O’H:

    How something is designed is not consistent with the idea that it was designed?

    Learn how to read. ID is about the DESIGN and not how it came to be. That is because we do NOT have to know the “how” BEFORE determining design exists.

    As for your argument that we can’t reconstruct the past, this is also untrue: that’s what history, archeology, detective work, etc etc is about.

    And yet there are many artifacts whose history eludes us. There are many unsolved crimes. And history relies on a direct observer documenting things.

  40. 40
    johnnyb says:

    Bob –

    I’m really struggling to see how this isn’t self-refuting. How something is designed is not consistent with the idea that it was designed? In other words, if it was designed, it’s impossible for it to have been designed in some way.

    First of all, let me be clear about something. When I speak of the “how” of “design” I am NOT speaking of a fabrication process. I just wanted to make that clear in case it wasn’t.

    You are confusing two separate issues – the material processes and the mental processes. I can see how it can be confusing, because these often interplay off of each other. However, there is a difference in design in itself as opposed to a design process. That is, there is a separation of the insights in design from the material process that commences before and after the insights occur. If the most fundamental design part had a how (at least in the sense of being describable by physics), then, while not a logical contradiction with ID, it would certainly preclude a lot of ID research. For a sense of the mathematics of what this looks like, see here.

    As for your argument that we can’t reconstruct the past, this is also untrue: that’s what history, archeology, detective work, etc etc is about. I agree we can’t reconstruct everything (e.g. the posture of the programmer), but there are other things we can work out. If you knew anything about computing, you’d be aware that we can often work out what kind of computer it was written on, e.g. from the line endings or other quirks of the OS or programme used to write the programme.

    Except that I didn’t say we couldn’t reconstruct any part of the past. I said two different things:

    (1) The *design process* is largely (but not entirely) unrecoverable from the artifact. Pick an object in your house. Using only that object, tell me what CAD software the user used to make that object.

    (2) For designed things, a different set of questions become dramatically more important.

    Note that (1) is *not* about natural history. I do think that, on the whole, natural history is recoverable. But that isn’t the same as design. You might be able to infer *when* X came into existence the first time. However, just like you can’t deduce the CAD software just by looking at the object, there isn’t much about the design process you will understand from looking at the fossil of the first X. Additionally, if you spend too much time worrying about it, that is time you aren’t spending thinking about (2), which, for designed things, is much more important.

  41. 41
    bornagain77 says:

    At post 30 Seversky, in response to the overwhelming impression of Design that biology presents us with, and instead of presenting ANY scientific evidence that unguided Darwinian processes can produce such Design, Seversky instead responds with the age old argument from evil,

    “I see also the Ebola, influenza and poliomyelitis viruses, to name just three, and the huge death toll they have caused in humans. I see the many cancers to which our bodies are prone or the slow degenerative disorders of ageing.,, etc. etc.”

    As has been pointed out to Seversky on numerous occasions, the fatal flaw in the atheist’s argument from evil is that it is a Theological argument. It is not a scientific argument. Specifically, the fatal flaw in the atheist’s argument from evil is that, even though atheists deny that objective morality exists, their argument from evil presupposes an objective standard of moral goodness. That is to say, for evil to even exist, there must be an objective standard of moral goodness that has been departed from.

    Yet, atheists deny the objective existence of moral good and moral evil. As Dawkins stated, “The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”

    “In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
    ? Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life

    Thus the ‘argument from evil’ is a self-refuting argument for the atheist to make since he is forced to presuppose the objective reality of a moral good that has been departed from.

    As David Wood puts it in the following article, By declaring that suffering is evil, atheists have admitted that there is an objective moral standard by which we distinguish good and evil.

    Responding to the Argument From Evil: Three Approaches for the Theist – By David Wood
    Excerpt: Interestingly enough, proponents of AE grant this premise in the course of their argument. By declaring that suffering is evil, atheists have admitted that there is an objective moral standard by which we distinguish good and evil. Amazingly, then, even as atheists make their case against the existence of God, they actually help us prove that God exists!,,,
    https://www.namb.net/apologetics/responding-to-the-argument-from-evil-three-approaches-for-the-theist

    Thus, in their “Argument from Evil” atheists have conceded the existence of a objective moral standard to judge by and have, once again, self-refuted their Atheistic Materialistic worldview in the process.

    Simply put, if good and evil really do exist, as the atheist holds in his argument from evil, then God necessarily exists!

    If Good and Evil Exist, God Exists: – Peter Kreeft – Prager University – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xliyujhwhNM

    And as Michael Egnor states in the following article, Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge transcendent standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence. From that starting point, theodicy begins. Theists have explored it profoundly. Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question.,,,

    The Universe Reflects a Mind – Michael Egnor – February 28, 2018
    Excerpt: Goff argues that a Mind is manifest in the natural world, but he discounts the existence of God because of the problem of evil. Goff seriously misunderstands the problem of evil. Evil is an insoluble problem for atheists, because if there is no God, there is no objective standard by which evil and good can exist or can even be defined. If God does not exist, “good” and “evil” are merely human opinions. Yet we all know, as Kant observed, that some things are evil in themselves, and not merely as a matter of opinion. Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge transcendent standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence. From that starting point, theodicy begins. Theists have explored it profoundly. Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question.,,,
    https://evolutionnews.org/2018/02/the-universe-reflects-a-mind/

    C.S Lewis, a former atheist who converted to Christianity, clearly puts the fatal flaw inherent in the argument from evil like this: “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?,,, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.”

    “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?,,,
    ,,, in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist–in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless–I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality–namely my idea of justice–was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.”
    – C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity. Harper San Francisco, Zondervan Publishing House, 2001, pp. 38-39.

    Moreover the specific philosophical claim from atheists that “There exist a large number of horrible forms of evil and suffering for which we can see no greater purpose or compensating good.”

    The Problem of Evil: Still A Strong Argument for Atheism – 2015
    Excerpt:,,, the problem of evil, one of the main arguments against the existence of an all-good and all-knowing God.,,,
    P1. There exist a large number of horrible forms of evil and suffering for which we can see no greater purpose or compensating good.
    P2. If an all-powerful, all-good God existed, then such horrific, apparently purposeless evils would not exist.
    C. Therefore, an all-powerful, all-good God does not exist.
    https://thegodlesstheist.com/2015/10/13/the-problem-of-evil-still-a-strong-argument-for-atheism/

    ,,, that specific philosophical claim from Atheists is directly refuted in Christian Theology by the fact that Christ used evil to bring about a much greater good. Specifically, Christ used evil against itself for the specific purpose of bringing about the much greater good of His victory over death.

    “He did not conquer in spite of the dark mystery of evil. He conquered through it.”
    ~James Stewart~
    “It is a glorious phrase of the New Testament, that ‘he led captivity captive.’
    The very triumphs of His foes, it means, he used for their defeat. He compelled their dark achievements to sub-serve his end, not theirs.
    They nailed him to the tree, not knowing that by that very act they were bringing the world to his feet.
    They gave him a cross, not guessing that he would make it a throne.
    They flung him outside the gates to die, not knowing that in that very moment they were lifting up all the gates of the universe, to let the King of Glory come in.
    They thought to root out his doctrines, not understanding that they were implanting imperishably in the hearts of men the very name they intended to destroy.
    They thought they had defeated God with His back (to) the wall, pinned and helpless and defeated: they did not know that it was God Himself who had tracked them down.
    He did not conquer in spite of the dark mystery of evil. He conquered through it.”
    James Stewart (1896–1990) was a minister of the Church of Scotland

    Genesis 50:20
    As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.

    Luke 24:25-26
    Then Jesus said to them, “O foolish ones, how slow are your hearts to believe all that the prophets have spoken. Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and then to enter His glory?”

    Thus, the atheist, in his argument from evil, besides being oblivious to the fact that his argument is self-refuting in that he presupposes the existence of the very thing that he denies the existence of, i.e. objective morality, the atheist also basically ignores all of Christian theology in order to try to claim that he can see no greater purpose for God allowing evil and suffering to exist in this world:

    The Problem of Evil by Benjamin D. Wiker – April 2009
    Excerpt: We still want to cry, Job-like, to those inscrutable depths, “Who are you to orchestrate everything around us puny and pitiable creatures, leaving us shuddering in the darkness, ignorant, blasted, and buffeted? It‘s all well and good to say, ‘Trust me! It‘ll all be made right in the end,‘ while you float unscathed above it all. Grinding poverty, hunger, thirst, frustration, rejection, toil, death of our loved ones, blood-sweating anxiety, excruciating pain, humiliation, torture, and finally a twisted and miserable annihilation — that‘s the meal we‘re served! You‘d sing a different tune if you were one of us and got a taste of your own medicine.”
    What could we say against these depths if the answer we received was not an argument but an incarnation, a full and free submission by God to the very evils about which we complain? This submission would be a kind of token, a sign that evil is very real indeed, bringing the incarnate God blood-sweating anxiety, excruciating pain, humiliation, torture, and finally a twisted and miserable annihilation on the cross. As real as such evil is, however, the resurrection reveals that it is somehow mysteriously comprehended within the divine plan.
    With the Incarnation, the reality of evil is absorbed into the deity, not dissolved into thin air, because God freely tastes the bitterness of the medicine as wounded healer, not distant doctor. Further, given the drastic nature of this solution, we begin to recognize that God takes the problem of evil more seriously than we could ever have taken it ourselves. ,,,
    http://www.crisismagazine.com/.....em-of-evil

    Of supplemental note, the problem of pain/evil, and how we react to tragedy in our lives, was almost central to Dr. Neal’s following talk on her near death experience (NDE).
    At around the 15:00 – 17:00 minute mark of the following video, Dr. Neal spoke about how she, when in the presence of God, and from being able to see things from that much higher “omniscient’ perspective, finally understood why God allows evil in the world (i.e. she finally ‘got it’) and understood how our limited perspective on ‘evil’ severely clouds our judgments and our reactions to those tragedies in our lives. (The take home message is to trust in God no matter what happens)

    Dr. Mary Neal’s Near-Death Experience – (Life review portion of her NDE starts at the 13:00 minute mark) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63wY2fylJD0

    Also of supplemental note, what is termed the “Beatific (BE A TIF IC) Vision” of heaven also refutes the atheist’s argument from evil,,,

    This Theologian Has An Answer To Atheists’ Claims That Evil Disproves God – Jan, 2018
    Excerpt: In “The Last Superstition: A Refutation Of The New Atheism,” Feser, echoing Thomas Aquinas, notes that the first premise of the problem of evil is “simply false, or at least unjustifiable.” According to Feser, there is no reason to believe that the Christian God, being all-good and all-powerful, would prevent suffering on this earth if out of suffering he could bring about a good that is far greater than any that would have existed otherwise. If God is infinite in power, knowledge, goodness, etc., then of course he could bring about such a good.
    Feser demonstrates his reasoning with an analogy. A parent may allow his child a small amount of suffering in frustration, sacrifice of time, and minor pain when learning to play the violin, in order to bring about the good of establishing proficiency. This is not to say that such minimal suffering is in any way comparable to the horrors that have gone on in this world. But the joy of establishing proficiency with a violin is not in any way comparable to the good that God promises to bring to the world.
    In Christian theology, this good is referred to as the Beatific Vision: the ultimate, direct self-communication of God to the individual. In other words, perfect salvation or Heaven. Feser describes the Beatific Vision as a joy so great that even the most terrible horror imaginable “pales in insignificance before the beatific vision.” As Saint Paul once said, “the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us.”
    Your Argument Assumes Its Conclusion
    I can already see the disciples of the Four Horsemen readying their keyboards, opening a copy of Dawkins’ “The God Delusion,” and preparing their response. An atheist may claim that he cannot possibly imagine anything in the next life that could possibly outweigh the Holocaust, children’s suffering, or any other instance of significant suffering in this world. According to Feser, this response is precisely the reason he states that the problem of evil is “worthless” as an objection to arguments in favor of the existence of the Christian God.
    The problem is that the only way the atheist can claim that nothing could outweigh the most significant suffering on earth is if he supposes that God does not exist and therefore there is no Beatific Vision. But he cannot presume that God does not exist in the premise of an argument that aims to prove the conclusion that God does not exist. By doing so, he is begging the question, or arguing in a circle, and therefore does not prove anything at all.
    As Feser goes on to demonstrate, the atheist is essentially stating: “There is no God, because look at all this suffering that no good could possibly outweigh. How do I know there’s no good that could outweigh it? Oh, because there is no God.”
    http://thefederalist.com/2018/.....oves-gods/

    Verse:

    Romans 8:18
    I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us.

    Bottom line, Seversky’s argument from evil, which is a Theological that he made since he has zero scientific that Darwinian processes can produce the Design we see in life, is a self-refuting argument. A self-refuting argument that, in fact, presupposes the existence of a objective standard of moral goodness, i.e. presupposes God, and is an argument that also ignores basically all of Christian Theology.

    The funny thing is that the self-refuting argument from evil is, since they have no scientific evidence against God, basically the best argument that atheists have to offer against God.

    ELITE SCIENTISTS DON’T HAVE ELITE REASONS FOR BEING ATHEISTS – Nov 9, 2016
    Excerpt: What I found was 50 elite scientists expressing their personal opinions, but none had some powerful argument or evidence to justify their opinions. In fact, most did not even cite a reason for thinking atheism was true.,,,
    Yes, most elite scientists and scholars are atheists. But their reasons for being atheists and agnostics are varied and often personal. And their typical arguments are rather common and shallow – god of the gaps and the existence of evil. It would seem clear that their expertise (in science) and elite status is simply not a causal factor behind their atheism.
    https://www.thepoachedegg.net/2016/11/elite-scientists-dont-have-elite-reasons-for-being-atheists.html

  42. 42
    EricMH says:

    If Darwinism is consistent with ID, how does disproving Darwinism improve the case for ID?

    For example, say we prove completely arbitrary mutations cannot work, but if the mutations were targeted then Darwinian evolution would work. In both cases, the amount of information that has to be accounted for is the same, but we have a better mechanical source of that information, and a modified form of Darwinism is workable.

    There is the claim that Darwinism has to be non-teleological, but natural selection itself is a source of teleology. So, the claim that Darwinism is non-teleological seems to mean there is no nonmechanical cause driving evolution, i.e. special creation or direct intervention of God or other beings in the evolutionary process, not that there is no direction whatsoever. This account of Darwinism is consistent with highly programmed and directed mechanical evolution. So, merely disproving random mutation is not adequate to disprove the mechanical evolution view. But, the mechanical evolution, with random or directed mutation, is also consistent with ID.

    So, the debate about Darwinism seems largely orthogonal to ID. If random mutation is disproven, that does not disprove mechanical evolution. If ID is proven, that does not disprove mechanical evolution. If mechanical evolution is completely disproven, then this, I think, could prove something closer to ID, insofar as something other than stochastic processes must exist, or that we are reliant on unseen probabilistic resources or information sources. But, it’s hard to see how to completely disprove mechanical evolution, and ID does not seem to contribute to the disproof. Plus, if eliminating mechanical evolution is the big deal, which seems to be the focus of the Discovery Institute, then why not focus completely on that concept, and why bring ID into the picture?

    Admittedly, ID provides the sense there is a positive science to replace mechanical evolution, and from a rhetorical perspective it is hard to eliminate something without a better replacement, but there does not seem to be such a positive science in reality.

Leave a Reply