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”

  2. Frankie: It’s as if the changes in genetics have very little to do with overall morphology.

    That’s testable prediction.

  3. Richardthughes: That’s testable prediction.

    And we are trying to determine how the changes in fish genetics can eventually, after X generations of accumulated change, produce a tetrapod. That is the context of the discussion. Not whether or not legs can grow where antenna should be or that deformities can arise.

    Context matters

  4. Richardthughes: That’s testable prediction.

    And in the context of vole evolution, that is what we see. Plenty of genetic variation and very little, if any, morphological differences.

  8. Frankie:
    John Harshman,
    Yes, and they [voles] all look very similar. It’s as if the changes in genetics have very little to do with overall morphology.

    You get your argument backwards. Just because voles can differ quite a bit genetically without differing much morphologically, that doesn’t say that differences between species aren’t genetic. It merely says that many genetic differences have no strong effect on morphology. Differences in junk DNA, for example.

    Separate design, similar to what Linne envisioned and set up his taxonomy to explain.

    Linnean taxonomy wasn’t set up to explain separate design. It would certainly be a poor arrangement if so, as nested hierarchy isn’t an expectation of separate design. It’s an expectation of…well, you probably know. Further, you seem unable to remember what we’re talking about, whether genetics or common descent. You were replying to the former with comments on the latter.

    Genetics explains the differences between/ amongst humans and those of a very similar type. I already covered that. It doesn’t explain the differences in body form.

    I don’t know what that means. And you still haven’t told me what does explain differences in body form. It can’t be “design”; that just avoids the question. What aspect of the designed organism causes differences in form?

    My evidence for a separate design comes mainly from the failure to demonstrate otherwise and all observations. Even given targeted mutagenesis and knowledge of development we have been unable to change the destiny of a developing cell other than fatally damage it or have a deformity develop.

    That isn’t evidence for separate design. It’s evidence (if it’s anything) against genetics being responsible for differences among species. Evidence for separate design would be the sort of thing a baraminologist would do. So once more: tell me a few holobaramins and tell me how you know that.

    Frankie: Yes, I would say that all voles are from the same Created Kind. That would be based on everything about them. Just remember there was most likely a population of voles with a large heterozygosity to start with

    I would expect an expert in baraminology like yourself to understand the difference between a holobaramin and a monobaramin. I asked about the former, and you responded with the latter. To fix that, you would need to specify that voles are unrelated to any other rodents. Is that your contention?

  11. John Harshman,

    Just because voles can differ quite a bit genetically without differing much morphologically, that doesn’t say that differences between species aren’t genetic.

    The differences between vole species is genetic

    Linnean taxonomy wasn’t set up to explain separate design

    Yes, it was. He was searching for the Created Kind when he came up with his scheme

    It would certainly be a poor arrangement if so, as nested hierarchy isn’t an expectation of separate design.

    A common design explains a nested hierarchy. Only design can explain a nested hierarchy

    And you still haven’t told me what does explain differences in body form.

    The differences are for different requirements in different environments- a common design with variations on the themes. Cars, SUVs, trucks all have a common design with their differences owing to different requirements

    It’s evidence (if it’s anything) against genetics being responsible for differences among species.

    Given two options evidence against one is support for the other.

    I would expect an expert in baraminology like yourself to understand the difference between a holobaramin and a monobaramin

    Except I am not an expert. You don’t seem to want to talk to one.

    To fix that, you would need to specify that voles are unrelated to any other rodents.

    My only comment refers to all voles being from the same Created Kind. THat is all I can say about that and that is what you were asking about

  16. Frankie: You forgot the example and you have failed to show how it applies

    Okay, A genetic deformity that shortens the Mole’s back legs, reducing mobility.

  19. Frankie:
    John Harshman,
    The differences between vole species is genetic

    How do you know that? And why can’t you use the same reasoning, whatever it is, to know that the difference between any two other species is genetic?

    Yes, it was. He was searching for the Created Kind when he came up with his scheme

    No, he was searching for a natural classification. If he wanted created kinds, he wouldn’t have groups within groups, just a bunch of separate groups.

    A common design explains a nested hierarchy. Only design can explain a nested hierarchy

    Why can’t common descent explain a nested hierarchy? It would appear to me to be an inevitable consequence of common descent. Further, how does common design explain a nested hierarchy any better than it would explain the absence of a nested hierarchy?

    The differences are for different requirements in different environments- a common design with variations on the themes. Cars, SUVs, trucks all have a common design with their differences owing to different requirements

    You persist in misunderstanding the question. The question is not the reason one would want there to be differences. The question is how those differences are caused. Aristotle would have called your answer a final cause, but I’m asking about the efficient cause. What, physically, makes a dog zygote turn into a dog and a muskrat embryo turn into a muskrat instead? I claim it’s the different genomes of the two. What do you claim?

    Given two options evidence against one is support for the other.

    This is false dichotomy carried way beyond anything I’ve seen before.

    Except I am not an expert. You don’t seem to want to talk to one.

    Who would I talk to? Is that person here? How can you make claims about a subject if you know little about it?

    My only comment refers to all voles being from the same Created Kind. THat is all I can say about that and that is what you were asking about

    No, I was asking about whether voles are a holobaramin. Look it up if you don’t know what it means. So, how do you know all voles are from the same created kind?

  20. John Harshman,

    So, how do you know all voles are from the same created kind?

    By the same diagnostics that puts them in the same Family and Genus

    Talk to someone at Answers in Genesis or the Institute for Creation Research.

    The evidence says the difference is vole species is genetic. I don’t understand your question.

    Nested hierarchy- common descent via gradualistic processes would yield innumerable transitional forms. These would blur all lines between distinct groups of animals making a nested hierarchy impossible. Also with evolution defining characteristics can be lost which would make it seem as if a descendant was actually an ancestor (in cladistics descendants have all of the defining characteristics of ancestor)

    Linnaean classification:

    One would expect a priori that such a complete change in philosophical basis of classification would result in a radical change of classification, but this was by no means the case. There was hardly any change even in method before and after Darwin, except that the “archetype” was replaced by the common ancestor. – Ernst Mayr, zoologist

    Why do you suppose he said that?

    From their classification alone, it is practically impossible to tell whether zoologists of the middle decades of the 19th century were evolutionists or not. The common ancestor was at first, and in most cases, just as hypothetical as the archetype, and the methods of inference were much the same for both, so that classification continued to develop with no immediate evidence of the revolution in principles. …the hierarchy looked the same as before even if it meant something totally different. -Gaylord Simpson

    The archetype they are referring to is the common design foundation of all the forms- some with more in common than others.

    So that also gets to how are the differences caused. The difference is body plans is caused by the difference in the design requirements of the organisms. How exactly did that happen? I don’t have any idea

  21. Richardthughes,

    A male vole with shorter than normal back legs would have to carry its sac on its back to keep it from dragging and rubbing off. Having a sac that drags would affect mobility.

  23. Frankie:
    John Harshman,
    By the same diagnostics that puts them in the same Family and Genus

    Talk to someone at Answers in Genesis or the Institute for Creation Research.

    This seems to be an admission that you don’t know what you’re talking about and are unqualified to discuss it. I’m wiling to believe that, but you should say it more clearly.

    The evidence says the difference is vole species is genetic. I don’t understand your question.

    It’s a simple question. What is this evidence? I don’t think you know. What you have shown so far is that there are genetic differences among vole species, but if that’s evidence that the difference among voles is genetic, it’s also evidence that the difference between, say, humans and chimps is genetic, which you reject. You seem incapable of a coherent argument.

    Nested hierarchy- common descent via gradualistic processes would yield innumerable transitional forms. These would blur all lines between distinct groups of animals making a nested hierarchy impossible. Also with evolution defining characteristics can be lost which would make it seem as if a descendant was actually an ancestor (in cladistics descendants have all of the defining characteristics of ancestor)

    It’s true that there would be innumerable transitional forms, but that’s only the case if we both consider fossils and if the fossil record is perfect. Neither being the case here, it’s irrelevant. Also, there is no such thing as a defining characteristic; there are diagnostic characters, but there’s no requirement that they actually be maintained in all members of the group. For example, possession of four limbs is a diagnostic characteristic of tetrapods, yet we can still know that snakes are tetrapods even though they lack legs. It’s a combination of characters that makes a nested hierarchy, not one single character. Both your objections are invalid.

    Linnaean classification:
    [quote from Ernst Mayr]
    [quote from George Gaylord Simpson]
    Why do you suppose he said that?
    The archetype they are referring to is the common design foundation of all the forms- some with more in common than others.

    Simple: Linnaeus recognized that a natural classification of species would be a nested hierarchy, though he had no explanation for why that would be. You can recognize the hierarchy without having an explanation for it. Common descent provided that explanation. “Common design” isn’t an explanation, as any pattern at all, or no pattern whatsoever, might be the result of common design.

    So that also gets to how are the differences caused. The difference is body plans is caused by the difference in the design requirements of the organisms. How exactly did that happen? I don’t have any idea

    You persist in being unable to recognize the difference between efficient cause and final cause. Or, in more modern language, between the evolutionary (or design) reason for a character and the means by which that character is inherited or arises during development. To repeat, I’m asking about the second, and you seem unable to talk about anything other than the first. They are not at all the same thing.

  24. Nested hierarchy- common descent via gradualistic processes would yield innumerable transitional forms. These would blur all lines between distinct groups of animals making a nested hierarchy impossible.

    I don’t see what the problem is supposed to be. Clades aren’t “distinct groups” in the sense that you are thinking of, then. As long as the “innumerable transitional forms” have some form of heredity and limited occurrences of horizontal gene transfer, phylogenetics should be able to cope with them. Why shouldn’t it? The only obvious limitation is that it breaks down at small scales in sexually reproducing organisms, but that has nothing to do with gradualistic processes or the number of transitional forms.

    Also with evolution defining characteristics can be lost which would make it seem as if a descendant was actually an ancestor

    Not really, it can make a taxon look more basal than it actually is (if you try to construct a tree on the basis of one or a few characters, which you shouldn’t).

    (in cladistics descendants have all of the defining characteristics of ancestor)

    That’s not true either, but I’ll let John Harshman explain it, he is much better placed do to this than I am. You have the chance to talk to an expert in the field, use it to educate yourself!

  25. John Harshman: As for genetics determining form, in order to discuss evidence we have to compare hypotheses.

    Interesting. Given the one hypothesis of evolution, what is it compared to (the competing hypothesis) when evaluating evidence?

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

    That’s nice. Now quit evading and answer the questions.

    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?

  29. Mung: Interesting. Given the one hypothesis of evolution, what is it compared to (the competing hypothesis) when evaluating evidence?

    That depends on what hypothesis of evolution you’re talking about. For one example, let’s consider my field, phylogenetics. When I test a hypothesis that, say, some particular relationships exist within Crocodylia, I’m testing it against all possible alternative relationships.

  30. John Harshman,

    The evidence says the difference is vole species is genetic. I don’t understand your question.

    It’s a simple question. What is this evidence?

    The evidence was in the article I linked to and quoted.

    A nested hierarchy requires distinct sets. Common descent does not predict that for the reason provided. Also a family tree is not a nested hierarchy. However the US Army is a nested hierarchy and it has nothing to do with evolution or common descent.

    Denton goes over this in “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis”. Also Darwin understood the existence of transitional forms would ruin classification attempts. He attributed the distinct groupings to just-so extinction events. Evolution is just too complex a process to produce the pristine order required by nested hierarchies.

    You persist in being unable to recognize the difference between efficient cause and final cause

    You persist in being unable to support your claims. You persist in not understanding nested hierarchies. You persist in misrepresenting Linne and what he was trying to accomplish. You persist in making accusations but never forming an actual case.

    Simple: Linnaeus recognized that a natural classification of species would be a nested hierarchy, though he had no explanation for why that would be.

    That is incorrect. His explanation was a common design- read “Systema Naturae”- his scheme was based on the premise of an orderly Creation.

    A common design explains many things we observe- computers, cars, houses- the way tires from a car can be used for something other than transport

  32. Vanellus vindex,
    A clade is an ancestor and all of its descendants. And those relationships are based on shared characteristics. I have never seen a cladogram in which a member of a clade had fewer defining/ diagnostic characteristics than its alleged ancestor.

    Can anyone present an example?

  33. Richardthughes,

    It depends on the female- sexual selection is a very powerful thing. And for the females with shorter legs, well they couldn’t get away from those they didn’t want to mate with so they would just be pumping out little voles

  34. Frankie:
    Adapa,

    The questions are irrelevant to ID and the OP

    They’ve very relevant to the ID claims you’ve made in this thread.

    Please stop evading and answer the questions.

    If creatures were “designed to evolve” 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?

  36. Frankie,

    OK, I’m giving up on Frankie too as a lost cause and not serious. That leaves Mung alone, as far as I can tell.

  37. John Harshman:
    Frankie,

    OK, I’m giving up on Frankie too as a lost cause and not serious. That leaves Mung alone, as far as I can tell.

    LoL! You can’t support your claims and you don’t understand nested hierarchies. You are a lost cause

  38. Frankie:
    Adapa,

    No, they are not even relevant to claims I have made in this thread. You lose, again

    OK, you have no answers and were just doing your usual ad hoc BSing again. Very very Gallienesque.

  39. Frankie: LoL! You can’t support your claims and you don’t understand nested hierarchies. You are a lost cause

    The FrankenJoe Defense, instance #13, 573

  40. Adapa: OK, you have no answers and were just doing your usual ad hoc BSing again. Very very Gallienesque.

    OK so you cannot show how your questions are relevant so you are forced to act like your normal infant self. Very, very typical

  42. Frankie: OK so you cannot show how your questions are relevant so you are forced to act like your normal infant self. Very, very typical

    You claimed creatures are “designed to adapt.” But to get them to “adapt” towards a specific pre-planned goal would require the Designer then manipulate the external environment and selection pressures. I’d like to know how that was done.

    Are you now saying ID has no design goals, that the morphological forms we see now and in the fossil record were unplanned?

  43. Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.- Charles Darwin chapter 14

    and

    There is another stringent condition which must be satisfied if a hierarchic pattern is to result as the end product of an evolutionary process: no ancestral forms can be permitted to survive. This can be seen by examining the tree diagram on page 135. If any of the ancestors X, Y, or Z, or if any of the hypothetical transitional connecting species stationed on the main branches of the tree, had survived and had therefore to be included in the classification scheme, the distinctness of the divisions would be blurred by intermediate or partially inclusive classes and what remained of the hierarchic pattern would be highly disordered.- Denton, “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis” page 136 (X, Y and Z are hypothetical parental node populations)

    and

    The goals of scientists like Linnaeus and Cuvier- to organize the chaos of life’s diversity- are much easier to achieve if each species has a Platonic essence that distinguishes it from all others, in the same way that the absence of legs and eyelids is essential to snakes and distinguishes it from other reptiles. In this Platonic worldview, the task of naturalists is to find the essence of each species. Actually, that understates the case: In an essentialist world, the essence really is the species. Contrast this with an ever-changing evolving world, where species incessantly spew forth new species that can blend with each other. The snake Eupodophis from the late Cretaceous period, which had rudimentary legs, and the glass lizard, which is alive today and lacks legs, are just two of many witnesses to the blurry boundaries of species. Evolution’s messy world is anathema to the clear, pristine order essentialism craves. It is thus no accident that Plato and his essentialism became the “great antihero of evolutionism,” as the twentieth century zoologist Ernst Mayr called it.- Andreas Wagner, “Arrival of the Fittest”, pages 9-10

  46. Frankie:
    Adapa,

    What I said is true and is evidenced by the posts in this thread. So what’s your point?

    You haven’t said anything in this thread except your usual meaningless ID BS talking points. Maybe you should let someone who actually knows ID answer the questions.

  47. Adapa,

    LoL! Your inability to read, coupled with your inability to comprehend, means you aren’t in a any position to say anything about BS talking points. That is all you have.

  49. Frankie:
    Adapa,

    What pre-planned goal? Strawman

    So the Designer didn’t have any pre-planned species in mind, including humans, when It did the “designed to adapt” thing. The species we see are the result of the stochastic forces and random events operating in the environment.

    That’s a pretty big admission by you FrankenJoe. I’m not sure the rest of the ID pushers agree.

Leave a Reply