Intelligent Design is NOT Anti-Evolution

Posted on by

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. Frankie: To date all genetic evidence supports baraminology.

    Right. As long as there was only one created “kind” produced 3.8 billion years ago that was the common ancestor of all extant life.

  2. Adapa: Right.As long as there was only one created “kind” produced 3.8 billion years ago that was the common ancestor of all extant life.

    There isn’t any evidence to support that claim and no way to test it. You don’t have a mechanism capable. You lose

  3. Frankie: Yes and the billions of years is a fallacy

    Sorry FrankenJoe but the evidence is conclusive life has been on the planet for at least 3.5 billion years and probably much earlier.

  5. Frankie: There isn’t any evidence to support that claim and no way to test it. You don’t have a mechanism capable. You lose

    What was your Designer’s mechanism for constructing biological life forms again? You forgot to tell us.

  6. Frankie: It means that mutations occur because organisms were designed to be able to adapt.

    OK so you now claim organisms were designed to adapt to their environment. Then how did the Designer manipulate the environment to get the specific results It wanted? How did the “design” account for sudden unexpected catastrophes like the Chicxulub asteroid strike?

  7. Frankie: It means that mutations occur because organisms were designed to be able to adapt.

    Okay, that’s a bit of progress. When do you think these mutational mechanisms were designed? Are all mutational mechanisms products of design, or just some of them?

  8. Adapa: Sorry FrankenJoe but the evidence is conclusive life has been on the planet for at least 3.5 billion years and probably much earlier.

    That is an opinion.

  9. Frankie: Non-random does not mean predictable and replicable.

    Well as the distribution fits known randomness, what should we infer? If not random and invoked by some non random process we should be able to see this happening and replicate it. Get to work IDists, come back with results.

  10. Dave Carlson: Okay, that’s a bit of progress.When do you think these mutational mechanisms were designed?Are all mutational mechanisms products of design, or just some of them?

    What do you think science is for? Your position can’t answer anything

  11. Adapa: OK so you now claim organisms were designed to adapt to their environment.Then how did the Designer manipulate the environment to get the specific results It wanted?How did the “design” account for sudden unexpected catastrophes like the Chicxulub asteroid strike?

    Wrong- I have ALWAYS claimed that organisms were designed to adapt.

  12. So, Frankie. First you said

    Frankie: Your bald assertions are meaningless. But we understand that is all you have

    and then

    Evidence.

    and finally

    To date all genetic evidence supports baraminology.

    Don’t you think that’s just a little bit hypocritical? You should probably be more specific in citing your evidence that just saying “evidence”. For example, do you think there’s more than one holobaramin of birds? How many are there, and what are they? And what precisely is your evidence for this division?

  13. Frankie: It means that mutations occur because organisms were designed to be able to adapt.

    Terrible logic. That’s like saying things are designed to break or rain is designed to fall. Because X has a property Y there is no logical leap that it was deigned to Y.

  14. John Harshman:
    So, Frankie. First you said

    and then

    and finally

    Don’t you think that’s just a little bit hypocritical? You should probably be more specific in citing your evidence that just saying “evidence”. For example, do you think there’s more than one holobaramin of birds? How many are there, and what are they? And what precisely is your evidence for this division?

    LoL! You can’t support your claim so now you have to attack me.

  15. Frankie: Controlling development is not the same as determining what develops. So you think the differences between species is genetic but offer no evidence to support that claim. Why should anyone believe you?

    Controlling development is exactly the same as determining what develops. Again I ask what you think the differences between species are if they aren’t genetic.

  16. Richardthughes,

    That’s like saying things are designed to break or rain is designed to fall.

    Not at all. It is like saying cars move the way the do because that is how they were designed to operate.

  18. Frankie: LoL! You can’t support your claim so now you have to attack me.

    I’m just asking you to support your claim, or even to explain just what your claim is. If you want to discuss baraminology, you have to present at least a little baraminology.

  21. Frankie: The distribution of ones and zeros in a digital signal appear random.

    You seem out of your depth. There is a very large body of work on randomness in number theory along with statistical tests. Your comment shows you are ignorant of these.

  23. Frank, take a hint and stop attributing motives to other commenters. Participation here is entirely voluntary.

  24. It’s the FrankenJoe Defense. Deflect all questions about ID claims by attacking Evolution. FJ”s been using it for a decade.

  25. Frankie: What do you think science is for? Your position can’t answer anything

    Well that’s good to know. I guess I’ll just inform all the thousands of evolutionary biologists around the world that they can go ahead and close up shop.
    I take it this means you won’t be answering my questions?

  27. Frankie:
    John Harshman,

    I don’t want to discuss baraminology. I would love to discuss the evidence that genetics determines form

    But you’re the person who brought up baraminology in the first place. Why are you running from it now.

    As for genetics determining form, in order to discuss evidence we have to compare hypotheses. What do you think determines form? The simplest evidence for genetics is that we know form is inherited and genetics is the main vehicle of inheritance. Also, we know quite a bit about how form comes about (i.e. developmental biology), and it’s all done through interactions between the genome and signaling molecules (coded for by the genome); or at least that’s everything we know of so far.

  28. Adapa: OK so you now claim organisms were designed to adapt to their environment.Then how did the Designer manipulate the environment to get the specific results It wanted?How did the “design” account for sudden unexpected catastrophes like the Chicxulub asteroid strike?

    Bumped for Frankie who forgot to answer.

  31. Richardthughes: You seem out of your depth. There is a very large body of work on randomness in number theory along with statistical tests. Your comment shows you are ignorant of these.

    You aren’t in any position to talk about another person’s alleged ignorance. Only ignorance says that frame shifts are genetic accidents

  33. John Harshman: But you’re the person who brought up baraminology in the first place. Why are you running from it now.

    As for genetics determining form, in order to discuss evidence we have to compare hypotheses. What do you think determines form? The simplest evidence for genetics is that we know form is inherited and genetics is the main vehicle of inheritance. Also, we know quite a bit about how form comes about (i.e. developmental biology), and it’s all done through interactions between the genome and signaling molecules (coded for by the genome); or at least that’s everything we know of so far.

    There are geneticists and developmental biologists who disagree with you. And there isn’t any way to test your claim. That is the main point.

  34. Dave Carlson: Well that’s good to know.I guess I’ll just inform all the thousands of evolutionary biologists around the world that they can go ahead and close up shop.
    I take it this means you won’t be answering my questions?

    They aren’t doing any good with respect to unguided evolution. And what questions do you want answered? Do they have anything to do with the OP? I will answer questions pertaining to the OP

  35. Frankie,

    ” …cars move the way the do because that is how they were designed to operate”

    Their movement included large falls, catastrophic impact and cartwheeling down hills. is that ” how they were designed to operate”?

    If it isn’t then “that mutations occur because organisms were designed to be able to adapt” is SOL.

  36. John Harshman,

    Here’s a good article for you, John: Rodent’s bizarre traits deepen mystery of genetics, evolution:

    Purdue University research has shown that the vole, a mouselike rodent, is not only the fastest evolving mammal, but also harbors a number of puzzling genetic traits that challenge current scientific understanding.

    “Nobody has posters of voles on their wall,” said J. Andrew DeWoody, associate professor of genetics in the Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, whose study appears this month in the journal Genetica. “But when it comes down to it, voles deserve more attention.”

    The study focuses on 60 species within the vole genus Microtus, which has evolved in the last 500,000 to 2 million years. This means voles are evolving 60-100 times faster than the average vertebrate in terms of creating different species. Within the genus (the level of taxonomic classification above species), the number of chromosomes in voles ranges from 17-64. DeWoody said that this is an unusual finding, since species within a single genus often have the same chromosome number.

    Among the vole’s other bizarre genetic traits:

    •In one species, the X chromosome, one of the two sex-determining chromosomes (the other being the Y), contains about 20 percent of the entire genome. Sex chromosomes normally contain much less genetic information.

    •In another species, females possess large portions of the Y (male) chromosome.

    •In yet another species, males and females have different chromosome numbers, which is uncommon in animals.

    A final “counterintuitive oddity” is that despite genetic variation, all voles look alike, said DeWoody’s former graduate student and study co-author Deb Triant.

    “All voles look very similar, and many species are completely indistinguishable,” DeWoody said.

    In one particular instance, DeWoody was unable to differentiate between two species even after close examination and analysis of their cranial structure; only genetic tests could reveal the difference.

    Nevertheless, voles are perfectly adept at recognizing those of their own species.

    “I have seen absolutely no evidence of mating between different species,” Triant said. “We don’t know how they do this, but scent and behavior probably play a role.”

    All of that evolution and it is still a vole…

  37. Frankie: You aren’t in any position to talk about another person’s alleged ignorance

    Of course I am. I just pointed out you said another thing at odds well established and documented science.Silly Frankie!

  39. Richardthughes: Of course I am. I just pointed out you said another thing at odds well established and documented science.Silly Frankie!

    Except it isn’t well established, cupcake. Only ignorance says that frame shifts are genetic accidents

  42. Frankie,

    Just so readers can look at Frankie’s reply (which I suspect will end up in guano). The perils of making things up on the spot, Frankie.

  43. Not at all. You made a claim which is easy to show as ridiculous. So I did.

    Now you’ve devolved into name calling and substance-free blurting. Perhaps you should consider better arguments instead?

  44. Frankie: When do you think these mutational mechanisms were designed?Are all mutational mechanisms products of design, or just some of them?

    You quoted the questions when you replied to me earlier (and failed to address them). Here they are again:
    When do you think these mutational mechanisms were designed?Are all mutational mechanisms products of design, or just some of them?

  45. John Harshman,

    Enjoy the following too:

    To understand the challenge to the “superwatch” model by the erosion of the gene-centric view of nature, it is necessary to recall August Weismann’s seminal insight more than a century ago regarding the need for genetic determinants to specify organic form. As Weismann saw so clearly, in order to account for the unerring transmission through time with precise reduplication, for each generation of “complex contingent assemblages of matter” (superwatches), it is necessary to propose the existence of stable abstract genetic blueprints or programs in the genes- he called them “determinants”- sequestered safely in the germ plasm, away from the ever varying and destabilizing influences of the extra-genetic environment.

    Such carefully isolated determinants would theoretically be capable of reliably transmitting contingent order through time and specifying it reliably each generation. Thus, the modern “gene-centric” view of life was born, and with it the heroic twentieth century effort to identify Weismann’s determinants, supposed to be capable of reliably specifying in precise detail all the contingent order of the phenotype. Weismann was correct in this: the contingent view of form and indeed the entire mechanistic conception of life- the superwatch model- is critically dependent on showing that all or at least the vast majority of organic form is specified in precise detail in the genes.

    Yet by the late 1980s it was becoming obvious to most genetic researchers, including myself, since my own main research interest in the ‘80s and ‘90s was human genetics, that the heroic effort to find information specifying life’s order in the genes had failed. There was no longer the slightest justification for believing there exists anything in the genome remotely resembling a program capable of specifying in detail all the complex order of the phenotype. The emerging picture made it increasingly difficult to see genes as Weismann’s “unambiguous bearers of information” or view them as the sole source of the durability and stability of organic form. It is true that genes influence every aspect of development, but influencing something is not the same as determining it. Only a small fraction of all known genes, such as the developmental fate switching genes, can be imputed to have any sort of directing or controlling influence on form generation. From being “isolated directors” of a one-way game of life, genes are now considered to be interactive players in a dynamic two-way dance of almost unfathomable complexity, as described by Keller in The Century of The Gene- Michael Denton “An Anti-Darwinian Intellectual Journey”, Uncommon Dissent (2004), pages 171-2

    Not looking good for your claim, John

  46. Dave Carlson: You quoted the questions when you replied to me earlier (and failed to address them).Here they are again:
    When do you think these mutational mechanisms were designed?Are all mutational mechanisms products of design, or just some of them?

    OK, so nothing to do with the OP. Got it

    The mechanisms were designed at the beginning, and no, I don’t know when that was. And perhaps point mutations could be considered accidental changes, but most changes would be by design.

  47. Richardthughes,

    You made a claim which is easy to show as ridiculous. So I did.

    That is only your opinion and it doesn’t count. Those cars were NOT designed to operate like that. My claim stands

  48. Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution- The case was made in the OP and it is very telling that the TSZ regulars have failed to address it.

  49. Dave Carlson: I guess I’ll just inform all the thousands of evolutionary biologists around the world that they can go ahead and close up shop.

    If you send me their names and email addresses I’ll help.

  50. Frankie: OK, so nothing to do with the OP. Got it

    The mechanisms were designed at the beginning, and no, I don’t know when that was. And perhaps point mutations could be considered accidental changes, but most changes would be by design.

    Almost all discussions everywhere get heavily derailed. You were making claims about the nature of mutations, and I wanted to understand your stance better, so I asked some questions. Now I understand what you believe a little bit better. Nothing wrong with that.

Leave a Reply