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 142And 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?”.
The OoL life not evolution’s concern, apparently. And that is even though the OoL directly impacts any subsequent evolution.
If the leading paradigm can be separated from other questions why do you have an issue with ID being separated from other questions?
Umm your position is for unguided evolution. Did you even read the OP?
That’s right. And the converse it also true. As much as you attack evolution you gain no support for ID.
While that’s true, we don’t see continents shift as we watch then. Yet somehow we know continental drift occurs and reshapes the entire planet.
I quoted several papers addressing what you think is not being researched. You simply ignored those.
If ID is not anti-evolution then it needs to add something to the mix to be useful. What does ID add?
Evolution is guided by the environment.
OMagain,
Yes, evolution exists regardless of any theory. What are you 3 years old?
Did evolution exist before Darwin?
LoL! Evidence please.
Well, what does ID say about OoL? Anything at all?
Questions are fine, but you’ve had decades to come up with some answers. All I can see so far is “life was designed to evolve”. Which, lets face it, is a bit disappointing.
Why do you suppose polar bears have white fur? Coincidence?
How do you know? What evidence leads you to think that?
OMagain,
Wrong again. Science mandates that ID attacks and eliminates necessity and chance explanations.
No one uses unguided evolution for anything. There aren’t any testable hypotheses. Produce one of you think that I am wrong
Guidance and yours doesn’t have anything to add- well disease and deformities
Offspring do not look exactly like their parents
They don’t have white fur. Their fur is translucent. And that is by design
OMagain,
LoL! Your position doesn’t have anything- nothing at all
Try to stay focused on the OP. I know that is difficult for the TSZ regulars but you should at least try or admit the rules of this site are bogus.
Frankie, we’re not trying to support evolution. That’s done. The fact that evolution is used to make accurate predictions is enough. That you can’t see that is very telling.
As far as the rest, if you have permission (snork), then you should post a citation and not pretend that it is yours.That’s called plagiarism and it is, strictly speaking, illegal.
We’ve gone over this for over 4 years with you. You are not interested in evidence and you are not interested in providing anything to support ID. You are just interested in arguing.
I’ll point out that you do not accept the evidence that shows you are wrong. You’ve been repeating the same thing for, at least, 4 years and been shown wrong every time. The rest is not our problem. It’s yours.
Have a good Friday meltdown “Frankie”
OMagain,
I believe it was the founder of this site who said that theories need not always be specific, they can be vague, and needn’t even be falsifiable. So the theory of ID is that life is designed by a supernatural power.
The fact that we can provide lots of evidence that Darwinian evolution can’t do what it is claimed, and that the predictions of Darwinian evolution are constantly overturned, is just stronger evidence for our theory.
Design or evolution? If the OP is correct, then the only distinguishing character between an ID hypothesis and an evolution hypothesis is the existence of the designer.
Of course, if the OP is wrong… then there are other distinguishing characters and ID has miserably failed all of them.
In fact, thinking about it, the only way that ID has a chance to become anything more than a fringe hypothesis promoted by money grubbing theocrats is to provide the designer.
Even if we have a designer, we know, for a fact, that evolution works. That’s not in dispute. If the OP isn’t being self-contradictory (as he is in the comments), then then evolution is correct whether design is true or not.
That leads to the inescapable conclusion that the only way ID proponents can help their cause is to provide the designer.
Citation please.
Citation please.
Is it? But I thought that organisms were designed to evolve. Therefore the color of their fur is what it is because of evolution!
Did the designer make those differences happen?
Frankie says that ID is not anti-evolution.
Then he says,
I’m glad I turned off my irony meter.
What Frankie means, I suspect, is that things don’t have to happen all-at-once in ID. It’s not against the principle of incremental designer-led retooling for example, which could be termed ‘evolutionary’. But many (including he) seem to think evolutionary theory (“there is no evolutionary theory!”) can account for nothing. “Your position can’t explain … X”. X can be absolutely anything.
The entire foundation of ID is that we can infer design because we are capable, although not always conclusively, when physical, non-biological artifacts found on earth are the product of design. But we can only make these inferences when we have an understanding of the designer and the mechanisms available to it. Without that knowledge, we cannot infer anything about design.
The insistence by people like Frankie, Joe, Virgil Caine and others that we do not need to have any understanding of the purported designer and the mechanisms available to it to be able to infer non-human design is either the result of a complete lack of understanding of how inferences work (ignorance), or an intentional attempt to misdirect and confuse (lie). In either case, very telling.
Theobald, D. L. 2010. A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry. Nature 465:219-222.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7295/full/nature09014.html
John Harshman,
Wait, its an abstract! Richard is going to cry if someone challenges the assumption of the abstract.
What a clever strategy, you can post the abstract, and then everyone just has to assume its meaningful. But then, Richard is an IDiot now, isn’t he.
I’m sure we can club together to get you a copy, but then you’d have to actually read it. And that’s not going to happen, is it.
Google Scholar is your friend. The full length pdf is right there just waiting for you to read it:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=A+formal+test+of+the+theory+of+universal+common+ancestry&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C33&as_sdtp=
OMagain,
Maybe it would be useful if the person who POSTED it read it first, and then tried to articulate WHY the article is meaningful, don’t you think?
Otherwise I can just go cut and paste anything that has a title I like, without reading it and then go ask people to do my work for me and tell me why its bogus (which is exactly what Keiths did, and what made Richard cry for half a year!)
phoodoo,
Look, all you have to do is read the paper. If you then need an explanation, I will try to answer your questions. But it’s pretty simple. Just try it. You are coming uncomfortably close to accusing me of lying; best check the evidence before you do.
John Harshman,
Of lying about what?? You haven’t said anything! You cut and pasted a title you like! Geez, you have nerve.
Go tell it to Mung.
Where have you done this?
The paper contains a test of universal common descent. What would you like to know?
And yet when I ask you for support for your claims:
You ignore that request. But now you demand a precis for each link as it’s relevance! Well, I’m calling you out. What is the evidence that Darwinian evolution can’t do what it is claimed and that the predictions of Darwinian evolution are constantly overturned?
If you “can” provide it but then “don’t” provide it, how is that different to your complaint that
phoodoo,
Phoodoo has had trouble reading and understanding articles before.
phoodoo,
What makes you say that, Phoodoo?
Larry Moran,
Welcome, Larry!
We’re happy to host OPs written by the person claiming to write them. Simply copy & pasting other people’s work without acknowledgement is plagiarism and could involve this site in copyright issues. Alternatively, if you, Frankie, are Joe Gallien and you are claiming this is your own work that you are copying and pasting, there is the issue that you are banned from this site.
This all seems strangely hostile. I thought this was supposed to be a place where we could calmly discuss the issues. Is the purpose instead to score points in some word game? If so, I must re-adjust.
To recap: Frankie said universal common descent was untestable. In response I posted a test of universal common descent. I think I was thereafter accused of quote-mining, which is odd considering the unambiguous title of the paper. You may argue that the test was invalid, but you have to actually read the paper to do that.
OMagain,
Go read and get back to me Omagain. Start with the Koran, then I will give you your next text after that.
John Harshman,
You never even said what the test was! At the bare minimum you could start there, huh?
Maybe you are the one who sounds hostile?
So your evidence that Darwinian evolution can’t do what it is claimed, and that the predictions of Darwinian evolution are constantly overturned is that I need to read the Koran?
Yeah, ok.
That is the aim, John. Sometimes the reality falls short. I, and I’m sure everyone here, appreciate your contributions.
Shall we all take a couple of hours out and go read the paper now? Or?
phoodoo, if you don’t understand the contents of the paper just ask. There are many non-experts here, we can’t all know everything.
LoL! We are not debating evolution. You don’t have any evidence that supports unguided evolution. You re4fuse to understand what is being debated
Alan, I had permission. That is the end of it.
Umm that assumes common ancestry. How can we test to see if common ancestry will produce the patterns he says?
Read the OP, Larry. Or just remain willfully ignorant.
The paper ALLEGES a test for common descent. No one can validate the test.