Intelligent Design is NOT Anti-Evolution

Intelligent Design is NOT Anti-Evolution

In order to have a discussion about whether or not Intelligent Design is anti-evolution or not we must first define “evolution”. Fortunately there are resources available that do just that.

Defining “evolution”:

Finally, during the evolutionary synthesis, a consensus emerged: “Evolution is the change in properties of populations of organisms over time”- Ernst Mayr page 8 of “What Evolution Is”

 

Biological (or organic) evolution is change in the properties of populations of organisms or groups of such populations, over the course of generations. The development, or ontogeny, of an individual organism is not considered evolution: individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are ‘heritable’ via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportions of different forms of a gene within a population, such as the alleles that determine the different human blood types, to the alterations that led from the earliest organisms to dinosaurs, bees, snapdragons, and humans.
Douglas J. Futuyma (1998) Evolutionary Biology 3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc. Sunderland MA p.4

 

Biological evolution refers to the cumulative changes that occur in a population over time. PBS series “Evolution” endorsed by the NCSE

 

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations) UC Berkley

 

In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.
Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

 

Evolution- in biology, the word means genetically based change in a line of descent over time.- Biology: Concepts and Applications Starr 5th edition 2003 page 10

Those are all accepted definitions of biological “evolution”. (Perhaps OgreMKV will present some definitions that differ from those. Most likely I will only comment on any differences if the differences are relevant.)

With biology, where-ever there is heritable genetic change there is evolution and where-ever you have offspring that are (genetically) different from the parent(s) you have descent with modification.

Next I will show what Intelligent Design says about biological evolution and people can see for themselves that Intelligent Design is not anti-evolution:

Intelligent Design is NOT Creationism
(MAY 2000)

Scott refers to me as an intelligent design “creationist,” even though I clearly write in my book Darwin’s Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think “evolution occurred, but was guided by God.”- Dr Michael Behe

Dr Behe has repeatedly confirmed he is OK with common ancestry. And he has repeatedly made it clear that ID is an argument against materialistic evolution (see below), ie necessity and chance.

Then we have:

What is Intelligent Design and What is it Challenging?– a short video featuring Stephen C. Meyer on Intelligent Design. He also makes it clear that ID is not anti-evolution.

Next Dembski and Wells weigh in:

 

The theory of intelligent design (ID) neither requires nor excludes speciation- even speciation by Darwinian mechanisms. ID is sometimes confused with a static view of species, as though species were designed to be immutable. This is a conceptual possibility within ID, but it is not the only possibility. ID precludes neither significant variation within species nor the evolution of new species from earlier forms. Rather, it maintains that there are strict limits to the amount and quality of variations that material mechanisms such as natural selection and random genetic change can alone produce. At the same time, it holds that intelligence is fully capable of supplementing such mechanisms, interacting and influencing the material world, and thereby guiding it into certain physical states to the exclusion of others. To effect such guidance, intelligence must bring novel information to expression inside living forms. Exactly how this happens remains for now an open question, to be answered on the basis of scientific evidence. The point to note, however, is that intelligence can itself be a source of biological novelties that lead to macroevolutionary changes. In this way intelligent design is compatible with speciation. page 109 of “The Design of Life”

and

And that brings us to a true either-or. If the choice between common design and common ancestry is a false either-or, the choice between intelligent design and materialistic evolution is a true either-or. Materialistic evolution does not only embrace common ancestry; it also rejects any real design in the evolutionary process. Intelligent design, by contrast, contends that biological design is real and empirically detectable regardless of whether it occurs within an evolutionary process or in discrete independent stages. The verdict is not yet in, and proponents of intelligent design themselves hold differing views on the extent of the evolutionary interconnectedness of organisms, with some even accepting universal common ancestry (ie Darwin’s great tree of life).
Common ancestry in combination with common design can explain the similar features that arise in biology. The real question is whether common ancestry apart from common design- in other words, materialistic evolution- can do so. The evidence of biology increasingly demonstrates that it cannot.- Ibid page 142

And from one more pro-ID book:

Many assume that if common ancestry is true, then the only viable scientific position is Darwinian evolution- in which all organisms are descended from a common ancestor via random mutation and blind selection. Such an assumption is incorrect- Intelligent Design is not necessarily incompatible with common ancestry.– page 217 of “Intelligent Design 101”

That is just a sample of what the Intelligent Design leadership say about biological evolution- they are OK with it. And the following is from “Uncommon Descent”:

9] “Evolution” Proves that Intelligent Design is Wrong
The word “evolution” can mean different things. The simplest meaning is one of natural history of the appearance of different living forms. A stronger meaning implies common descent, in its universal form (all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor) or in partial form (particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor). “Evolution” is often defined as descent with modifications, or simply as changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population.

None of those definitions can prove ID wrong, because none are in any way incompatible with it.

ID is a theory about the cause of genetic information, not about the modalities or the natural history of its appearance, and is in no way incompatible with many well known patterns of limited modification of that information usually defined as “microevolution.” ID affirms that design is the cause, or at least a main cause, of complex biological information. A theory which would indeed be alternative to ID, and therefore could prove it wrong, is any empirically well-supported “causal theory” which excludes design; in other words any theory that fits well with the evidence and could explain the presence or emergence of complex biological information through chance, necessity, any mix of the two, or any other scenario which does not include design. However, once we rule out “just-so stories” and the like, we will see that there is not today, nor has there ever been, such a theory. Furthermore, the only empirically well-supported source of functionally specific, complex information is: intelligence.
To sum it up: no definition of evolution is really incompatible with an ID scenario. Any causal theory of evolution which does not include design is obviously alternative to, and incompatible with, ID.

However, while many such theories have indeed been proposed, they are consistently wanting in the necessary degree of empirical support. By contrast, design is an empirically known source of the class of information – complex, specified information (CSI) — exhibited by complex biological systems.

They go on to say:

10] The Evidence for Common Descent is Incompatible with Intelligent Design
ID is a theory about the cause of complex biological information. Common descent (CD) is a theory about the modalities of implementation of that information. They are two separate theories about two different aspects of the problem, totally independent and totally compatible. In other words, one can affirm CD and ID, CD and Darwinian Evolution, or ID and not CD. However, if one believes in Darwinian Evolution, CD is a necessary implication.

CD theory exists in two forms, universal CD and partial CD. No one can deny that there are evidences for the theory of CD (such as ERVs, homologies and so on). That’s probably the reason why many IDists do accept CD. Others do not agree that those evidences are really convincing, or suggest that they may reflect in part common design. But ID theory, proper, has nothing to do with all that.
ID affirms that design is the key cause of complex biological information. The implementation of design can well be realized through common descent, that is through implementation of new information in existing biological beings. That can be done gradually or less gradually. All these are modalities of the implementation of information, and not causes of the information itself. ID theory is about causes.

And finally there is front loaded evolution (Mike Gene) and a prescribed evolutionary hypothesis (John Davison)- both are ID hypotheses pertaining to evolution.

Mutations are OK, differential reproduction is OK, horizontal gene transfer is OK. With Intelligent Design organisms are designed to evolve, ie they evolve by design. That is by “built-in responses to environmental cues” ala Dr Spetner’s “non-random evolution hypothesis” being the main process of adaptations.

As Dembski/ Wells said Intelligent design only has an issue with materialistic evolution- the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms. (Also known as the blind watchmaker thesis)

Intelligent Design is OK with all individuals in a population generally having the same number and types of genes and that those genes give rise to an array of traits and characteristics that characterize that population. It is OK with mutations that may result in two or more slightly different molecular forms of a gene- alleles- that influence a trait in different ways and that individuals of a population vary in the details of a trait when they inherit different combinations of alleles. ID is OK with any allele that may become more or less common in the population relative to other kinds at a gene locus, or it may disappear. And ID is OK with allele frequencies changing as a result of mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, natural and artificial selection, that mutation alone produces new alleles and gene flow, genetic drift, natural and artificial selection shuffle existing alleles into, through, or out of populations. 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.

Now we are left with the only way Intelligent Design can be considered anti-evolution is if and only if the only definition of evolution matches the definition provided for materialistic evolution. However I cannot find any source that states that is the case.

So the bottom line is Intelligent Design says “evolved, sure”. The questions are “evolved from what?” and “how did it evolve?”.

603 thoughts on “Intelligent Design is NOT Anti-Evolution

  1. I don’t understand why ID necessarily needs to be anti-materialistic evolution. After all, would it not be at least logically possible that some organisms on some planets evolved through materialistic means, and that on other planets a designer was intervening?

    Or maybe both happened in parallel on some words? The two options don’t seem to be mutually exclusive in the sense that, just because SOME life might have been designed, doesn’t mean ALL life was designed. And just because SOME life might have evolved “materialistically”, doesn’t mean ALL life evolved “materialistically”?

  2. I would like to see a good explanation of how front loading survives genetic drift.

  3. The questions are “evolved from what?” and “how did it evolve?”.

    Can you point to any actual work being done on either of those issues by any ID supporters what-so-ever?

  4. OMagain: Can you point to any actual work being done on either of those issues by any ID supporters what-so-ever?

    Putting aside problems of funding, can you describe any proposals for research developed by or being developed by ID advocates. Rejection slips accepted as evidence that the proposals have been made.

  5. Form the OP:

    And finally there is front loaded evolution (Mike Gene)…

    “Mike Gene” never delivered on his theory, beyond some bizarre stuff with numbers based on “analogy, discontinuity, rationality and foresight”. He did once suggest he would put all the evidence for his “theory” in a sequel. No sign of that.

    …and a prescribed evolutionary hypothesis (John Davison)-

    You have to be kidding. John was a self-described Creationist but no supporter of ID. His “semi-meiosis theory” such as it is has nothing to do with ID.

    …both are ID hypotheses pertaining to evolution.

    Nonsense. Gene hasn’t come up with anything that could be remotely described as a theory. And unfortunately, John Davison never managed to develop his idea enough to be taken seriously.

  6. Why does the OP include the following text: “Perhaps OgreMKV will present some definitions that differ from those.”?

    Is this a cut-and-paste from some previous discussion?

  7. Rumraket:
    I don’t understand why ID necessarily needs to be anti-materialistic evolution. After all, would it not be at least logically possible that some organisms on some planets evolved through materialistic means, and that on other planets a designer was intervening?

    Or maybe both happened in parallel on some words? The two options don’t seem to be mutually exclusive in the sense that, just because SOME life might have been designed, doesn’t mean ALL life was designed. And just because SOME life might have evolved “materialistically”, doesn’t mean ALL life evolved “materialistically”?

    ID isn’t anti-materialistic evolution. Materialistic evolution is very good at breaking things. However no one knows how to test the claim that materialistic processes such as natural selection, drift and neutral changes can produce a bacterial flagellum.

  8. Alan Fox:
    Why does the OP include the following text: “Perhaps OgreMKV will present some definitions that differ from those.”?

    Is this a cut-and-paste from some previous discussion?

    Yes, my bad- I was going to edit it as you told me. I have a sickling at home and was off doing my duty.

  9. Alan Fox,

    Creation is a subset of ID. And the prescribed evolutionary hypothesis is more coherent than anything that you have.

    And Mike Gene’s is a hypothesis, not a theory. I never said it was a theory.

  10. OMagain: Can you point to any actual work being done on either of those issues by any ID supporters what-so-ever?

    ID is about the detection and study of the design. Yours is supposed to be about the how and yet still has nothing in that regard.

    Why do you insist on discussing the minutia and ignore the point?

  11. petrushka:
    I would like to see a good explanation of how front loading survives genetic drift.

    I would bet by the programming it was front-loaded with

  12. petrushka: Putting aside problems of funding, can you describe any proposals for research developed by or being developed by ID advocates. Rejection slips accepted as evidence that the proposals have been made.

    I will discuss the OP and its main point. If you would like to discuss something else please do so in another thread.

    Thanks

  13. And finally there is front loaded evolution (Mike Gene) and a prescribed evolutionary hypothesis (John Davison)- both are ID hypotheses pertaining to evolution.”

    I admit that I have not researched this idea, but would this not also mean that life comes with a best before date? And I am not talking about the life of an individual, but LIFE.

    ID is about the detection and study of the design. “

    Frankie, both here, and at UD, your response to anyone who asks about the nature of the designer and the mechanisms that he/it/she/they used to realize the design. is that you don’t start looking into these until you have identified design in biological systems. Since nobody has started to look at this, can I assume that design (of the non-human manufactured type) has not been identified in biological systems?

  14. Frankie: Why do you insist on discussing the minutia and ignore the point?

    I’m asking if anyone who is proposing ID is actually doing any work to that end.

    I.E. if the people who already believe in ID are not actually bothering to do any work that speaks volumes with regard to what they really think about ID. Don’t you think?

  15. Frankie: Like when evolutionist took Linnaean taxonomy, changed some of the wording, and used it as their own?

    It’s called progress.

    Once evolution as the mechanism of biological diversity and species formation was known, would you not expect taxonomy to adjust in some way?

  16. OMagain: I’m asking if anyone who is proposing ID is actually doing any work to that end.

    I.E. if the people who already believe in ID are not actually bothering to do any work that speaks volumes with regard to what they really think about ID. Don’t you think?

    Again, no one is trying to determine how natural selection, drift and neutral changes produced the biological structures we observe. That speaks volumes about your position. Don’t you think?

  17. OMagain: It’s called progress.

    Once evolution as the mechanism of biological diversity and species formation was known, would you not expect taxonomy to adjust in some way?

    Evolution is a mechanism? Evolution by means of evolution! And evolution doesn’t expect the pattern of Linnaean taxonomy.

  18. Frankie: I will discuss the OP and its main point.

    If the mechanisms of natural selection (et al) are insufficient, what is it specifically that needs to be added to make them sufficient?

    I.E. What does the designer do?

  19. OMagain: If the mechanisms of natural selection (et al) are insufficient, what is it specifically that needs to be added to make them sufficient?

    I.E. What does the designer do?

    The designer designed the organisms with the ability to adapt.

  20. Frankie: Again, no one is trying to determine how natural selection, drift and neutral changes produced the biological structures we observe

    They are. What do you imagine the people in universities studying evolution are doing?

    Frankie: And evolution doesn’t expect the pattern of Linnaean taxonomy.

    There are problems! And science moves on. Have you heard of PhyloCode?

  21. Frankie: The designer designed the organisms with the ability to adapt.

    Then the ID project is finished, no? What more is there to add? What more can possibly be added?

  22. OMagain,

    They are. What do you imagine the people in universities studying evolution are doing?

    Busy baldly declaring that evolution is a fact. no one is looking into how NS, drift and neutral changes could have done it. No one can formulate testable hypotheses for the concept.

  23. Frankie: Again, no one is trying to determine how natural selection, drift and neutral changes produced the biological structures we observe.

    Don’t you have anything to say to the observation that even the people who say they support ID are not actually doing any work investigating ID?

    It’s totally irrelevant to you and ID if nobody was looking at how NS etc make things. It’s not like you are fooling anybody! Oh no, Frankie is right, nobody is looking into Darwinism at all and that’s made me forget entirely the question I just asked him about ID!

  24. OMagain: Then the ID project is finished, no? What more is there to add? What more can possibly be added?

    None of that follows from anything I posted. There is plenty to study so we can understand it.

  25. OMagain: Don’t you have anything to say to the observation that even the people who say they support ID are not actually doing any work investigating ID?

    It’s totally irrelevant to you and ID if nobody was looking at how NS etc make things. It’s not like you are fooling anybody! Oh no, Frankie is right, nobody is looking into Darwinism at all and that’s made me forget entirely the question I just asked him about ID!

    We are not on your agenda, OM. The people of ID are busy with their own work. And ID just has to meet the standards of the current paradigm, no matter how low they are.

  26. Frankie: Busy baldly declaring that evolution is a fact. no one is looking into how NS, drift and neutral changes could have done it.

    http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/365/1547/1825

    If distinct biological species are to coexist in sympatry, they must be reproductively isolated and must exploit different limiting resources. A two-niche Levene model is analysed, in which habitat preference and survival depend on underlying additive traits. The population genetics of preference and viability are equivalent. However, there is a linear trade-off between the chances of settling in either niche, whereas viabilities may be constrained arbitrarily. With a convex trade-off, a sexual population evolves a single generalist genotype, whereas with a concave trade-off, disruptive selection favours maximal variance. .

    Frankie: No one can formulate testable hypotheses for the concept.

    http://ncse.com/rncse/17/4/predictive-power-evolutionary-biology-discovery-eusociality

    Anti-evolutionists have asserted that evolutionary biology lacks predictive power (Gish 1979; Johnson 1991; Morris 1974, 1989). They still cite Karl Popper’s early suggestion that evolutionary theory is untestable because it cannot be used to make predictions, despite the fact that this view has been rejected by philosophers of science and that Popper himself unequivocally reversed this opinion (1978:344-5). Such assertions that evolutionary theory is unpredictive ignore the power of the comparative method in testing both alternative hypotheses and models of evolutionary processes as well as the pervasive implicit tests of evolutionary theory in every aspect of modern biological science. In this paper I will discuss briefly how biologists across disciplines use evolutionary theory as a foundation for understanding biological systems.

  27. Frankie: There is plenty to study so we can understand it.

    And what I’m asking is what ID supporters are doing that studying?

    Frankie: The people of ID are busy with their own work.

    Are they? Dembski has abandoned ID. Who is actually doing work on ID for you to say that?

    Frankie: And ID just has to meet the standards of the current paradigm, no matter how low they are.

    Well, as you seem to reluctant to actually say who is working on ID it’s going to be hard to determine if it even meets those standards.

  28. Frankie: Busy baldly declaring that evolution is a fact. no one is looking into how NS, drift and neutral changes could have done it.

    Yet

    Mutations are OK, differential reproduction is OK, horizontal gene transfer is OK. With Intelligent Design organisms are designed to evolve, ie they evolve by design.

    SEems to me knowing how NS, drift and neutral changes could have done it is irrelevant to ID, as ID is not concerned with any of those things. Remember, the designer designed the organisms with the ability to adapt! So as far as ID is concerned NS, drift and neutral changes could have done it as the organism was designed to use those tools.

    I’m glad that’s cleared up!

    But just one thing, remind me again what is it that ID actually is investigating?

  29. Frankie: ID isn’t anti-materialistic evolution. Materialistic evolution is very good at breaking things. However no one knows how to test the claim that materialistic processes such as natural selection, drift and neutral changes can produce a bacterial flagellum.

    “Evolution” is good at “breaking things” in the sense that random mutations will often break things. However, it’s not as good at breaking things as you might think, and many variants are neutral – i.e. a change doesn’t break it.

    It is also good at making sure that “broken things” are less often replicated than the things that are unbroken. And when, as sometimes happens, one of the neutral variants actually comes in useful, then it’s good at distributing that variant rapidly through the population.

    So I don’t think your metaphor works. Evolution, seen in toto, is “good at” optimising populations for their environment and, when that environment changes, shifting the population to a new optimum. Not terribly good of course – extinctions are common. But plenty of lineages nonetheless adapt and survive.

  30. Given that the vast bulk of pro-ID argumentation can be summarized as Evolution can’t explain [specific feature of living systems], it’s easy to see why impartial observers might reach the conclusion that ID is, in fact, anti-evolution, in spite of the occasional pro forma gollygeegosh-how-could-you-possibly-say-that-ID-is-anti-evolution verbiage from ID proponents.

    If Frankie wishes to persuade people that ID is, indeed, truly not anti-evolution, one tactic he might wish to employ is to cite instances of ID work which do not fit the Evolution can’t explain [specific feature of living systems] profile which covers so remarkably large a percentage of the existing corpus of ID literature.

    And if there are any instances of ID work which fit the alternative profile here’s how ID explains [specific feature of living systems], citing those works would do a lot to dispel the ID-is-anti-evolution impression which has been founded upon the observable fact that the ID literature consists nigh-entirely of Evolution can’t explain [specific feature of living systems].

  31. Alan Fox:
    Why does the OP include the following text: “Perhaps OgreMKV will present some definitions that differ from those.”?

    Is this a cut-and-paste from some previous discussion?

    Joe, er, Frankie just C&Ped this directly from his blog. He’s posted the same nonsense a dozen times across the web. Joe only has a few IDiot talking points and he coughs up the same ones incessantly.

  32. Frankie: Evolution is a mechanism? Evolution by means of evolution!

    Like your usual “Design by means of design!” is an explanation?

  33. Frankie: None of that follows from anything I posted. There is plenty to study so we can understand it.

    Like what Joe? What is ID actually studying now and who / where is this research being done?

  34. Frankie: Like when evolutionist took Linnaean taxonomy, changed some of the wording, and used it as their own?

    I’m confused – did the get caught with ‘CDesignproponentist’?

  35. petrushka: I would like to see a good explanation of how front loading survives genetic drift.

    Add to that ID’s explanation for HGT – horizontal gene transfer.

    Something tells me we’ll be waiting a long long time before FrankenJoe provides any answers.

  36. ID affirms that design is the key cause of complex biological information.

    Joe, in your own words please define “biological information” and describe the metric for measuring the quantity in a biological object.

    Then in your own words please define “complex biological information”. Please be specific and tell us how you tell it from non-complex biological information.

  37. Frankie, if you are not the person also known as JoeG, then you should cite this source and not copy other people’s work without permission.

    This was posted as the opening to a formal debate between myself and JoeG in 2011. Here’s my original posting (posted with permission of both parties at the time). https://ogremk5.wordpress.com/2011/04/29/intelligent-design-is-anti-evolution-against-opening/

    I would also refer you to the opposing position, which uses only the words of ID advocates to show that ID is anti-evolution (including the words of JoeG who supported this same position). Copied to the new blog here: http://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2014/01/28/intelligent-design-is-anti-evolution/

    As far as I’m concerned, it doesn’t matter whether ID is anti-evolution or OK with evolution. It’s roughly the same as wondering whether the USS Enterprise is anti-rubarb custard or not. It’s a meaningless discussion. That is strictly because ID is meaningless.

    Regardless of the ideas of ID proponents (a few of which have had some potentially testable notions, which, when tested have failed), ID makes no predictions. The notion does not add anything to the science. Even if there is a designer, evolution STILL works and it works using well understood mechanisms that do not and never have required a designer.

    In fact, if ID is OK with evolution, then the only distinguishing feature between the two is the existence of the designer. A subject which the ID side absolutely refuses to discuss, unless they are in a church or forced to admit under oath that they believe the designer is God.

    So, if ID is nothing more than the designer, to make any headway, the ID proponents MUST produce the designer. They can’t and the won’t and everyone here knows it (even if they can’t admit it).

    If any pro-ID advocate states that evolution can’t perform certain tasks (like the body plans of the Pre-Cambrian, but they do accept evolution between species, then they have a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works and need to read some actual science.

  38. Ogrethe5th: In fact, if ID is OK with evolution, then the only distinguishing feature between the two is the existence of the designer.

    There is no compelling reason for evolutionists to deny the existence of a designer. What is studied and taught in biology is what has happened (historical biology) and how it happens (mutation, selection, drift).

    If it’s front-loaded, the front loading cannot be detected, and the claim of front loading is void of meaning, except to theists.

    I find it a bit amusing that Jerry Coyne frequently talks about determinism. He seems to think the past, present and future are all rigidly determined by physics. To my limited intellect, that’s a version of deism and a version of front loading.

    The mechanisms of evolution (mutation, selection, drift) are useful to understand in the context of ecology and medicine. They are also fascinating puzzles in their own right.

    I have often said that ID cannot be disproved, but it adds no value to the study of biology. It suggests no research, not lines of research. It offers no proposals for research.

    It is a bit ironic, in light of Joe G’s copied and pasted essay, that the only people I know of doing competent laboratory work “supporting” ID are Axe and Gauger, who are trying to disprove Joe G’s thesis that ID is not opposed to evolution.

  39. The only compelling reason is an utter and complete lack of evidence.

    Complexity can only be used as evidence if ONLY intelligence can generate complexity, that is clearly not true.

  40. Ogrethe5th: The only compelling reason is an utter and complete lack of evidence.

    I’m not convinced lack of evidence for a designer is a problem for design.

    The problem is a lack of problems for the designer to solve.

    I find it interesting that Sal and other IDists think that OOL is an insoluble problem without a designer, but Joe G seems to think that ID is not opposed to evolution.

    As best I can tell, Joe G’s position is similar to that of Michael Denton., which is similar to deism. The game is all set up from the beginning. A Wolfram automaton. Evolution is what the name originally meant, the unfolding.

  41. Interesting that Joe here swears “Intelligent Design is NOT Anti-Evolution.

    But he also told us “there is no theory of evolution” and “the evidence supports baraminology”.

    So Joe, how does the fossil and genetic data support both the theory of evolution which doesn’t exist and baraminology?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.