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. Ogrethe5th:
    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.

    It is NOT design or evolution. If organisms were designed to evolve then they evolved by design and not by differing accumulations of genetic mistakes.

  2. So far it seems that only one person has read, understood and responded to the OP. That is pathetic, even for TSZ

  3. Acartia,

    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.

    Your say-so is not an argument.

  5. John Harshman:
    I seem to be a bit late on this, but I’ll go ahead anyway. Yes, ID is not intrinsically, as a hypothesis considered in isolation, anti-evolution. However, in practice almost all IDers are creationists, especially if you consider the rank and file, but the leaders are too. Behe is just about the only exception. Meyer spends most of a book claiming that the Cambrian animals had no precursors and all arose independently, and spent quite some time (though not in a book) attacking the evidence for human relationship to chimps. Wells attacks the concepts of natural selection, homology, and the tree of life. Dembski believes (or was forced to profess to believe) in a recent, worldwide flood. Nelson is an admitted YEC. IDers of all sorts frequently attack evidence for common descent and all known evolutionary processes. Why, if they aren’t opposed?

    There is a whole range of beliefs for people who think the world is intelligently created. I don’t think it is possible to classify their beliefs. Just as there are people who believe in Darwinian evolution and believe in Christianity. In my opinion that thinking is lunacy. An unguided process, with no aim, and yet their is a divine relationship between man and God? Huh? Nuts.

    I think the problem with the OP is that there indeed is no theory of evolution, so nothing else can be drawn from it. Every time new information arises the Neo_Darwinists just say, well, its something, some mechanisms, they are natural, we don’t know, maybe some is copying errors, maybe drift, epigenetics have some part, we don’t know what, its something. But its natural.

    That is not a theory, so of course it isn’t really compatible or not compatible with anything. What you side needs the theory to be is accidents that breed, without having to say accidents out loud because that sounds too implausible, so its blah blah blah (something natural) that breeds. Its compatible with anything, as long as you can say it is not divine.

    No theory.

  6. Frankie: Umm that assumes common ancestry.

    No it does not.

    It specifically tests common ancestry against independent origins and blind chance to see which one best accounts for the known data. Common ancestry does.

  7. Frankie:
    So far it seems that only one person has read, understood and responded to the OP. That is pathetic, even for TSZ

    In my view several of us has read, understood and responded to the OP. We just disagree. You seem to be implying that because you have failed to produce instant agreement then the whole website here is pathetic. That doesn’t make sense.

  8. Frankie:
    Acartia,

    Your say-so is not an argument.

    Fair enough. Please summarize, in your own words, how you can infer non-human design in biology without an understanding of the mechanisms used by, or at least available to, the designer. Keep in mind that any process that requires an estimate of the probability of it occurring through natural causes is useless unless you can estimate the probability of it occurring through natural causes. And please don’t try to make the same moronically stupid statement that Joe always uses that it is incumbent on the ID opponents to come up with this estimate.

    Note to moderators: please note that this insult was not aimed at anyone who posts on TSZ so I hope that it is not considered guano.

  9. “Frankie”, YOU are the one derailing us from the OP. The OP states that ID is not anti-evolution.

    I have provided a logical proof that shows two possible results.

    The first is that you don’t know what you’re talking about with regards to ID. In a previous comment, I provided a link that shows the leaders of the ID movement (not you, “Frankie”) do think that ID is anti-evolution and have publicly stated it so.

    The second is that ID actually is not anti-evolution, in which case the only distinguishing feature between ID and evolution is the designer. Therefore, to have any discussion about ID, we must have the designer.

    Which case is correct?

    BTW: You still have to cite material that is not yours “Frankie”. Just because you have “permission”, that doesn’t mean you get to claim it as your own. Plagiarism is illegal. Of course, if you admit to having written it, then you are also admitting to being a sockpuppet of a user who has been banned from this forum. Either way, you really need to learn how to do things in a proper fashion.

  10. Frankie,

    Again, then the only difference between evolution (the real theory of evolution, not “accumulation of genetic mistakes”) and ID is the designer.

    I would also encourage you to use the actual definition of evolution in this discussion. Saying that evolution is only “the accumulation of genetic mistakes” is not incorrect, but the common assumption is that mistakes are always bad. That’s not true. Chocolate chip cookies would not exist without the acceptance of a “mistake”.

    Again, IF there is design, then there must be a designer. It is up to ID to provide evidence that a designer (not the appearance of design) exists. Again, as has been shown, the appearance of design can be derived by non-intelligent sources. Unless one thinks that termites are intelligent, that stars are intelligent, and that bacteria are intelligent.

  11. I’ll let Frankie answer the above issues before we examine the entailments of “front loading”.

  12. Frankie: Alan, I had permission. That is the end of it.

    The commenter, Frankie, requested if he could post an OP. Frankie did not receive permission to publish someone else’s blog post as if it was his own.

  14. Alan Fox: The commenter, Frankie, requested if he could post an OP. Frankie did not receive permission to publish someone else’s blog post as if it was his own.

    I think in a universe where frequency = wavelength, anything could happen.

  17. Frankie: Umm that assumes common ancestry. How can we test to see if common ancestry will produce the patterns he says?

    No, it doesn’t assume common ancestry. It tests several models against each other, one of which is universal common ancestry, one of which is no common ancestry, and some of which are various types of limited common ancestry. Universal common ancestry wins. Big time. Have you actually read the paper? It seems odd that you can reject an example of what you claimed didn’t exist without even examining it.
    John Harshman,

  18. Frankie: The paper ALLEGES a test for common descent. No one can validate the test.

    The paper performs a test. What do you mean by “validate”? Is that a version of “were you there”?

  19. John Harshman:

    Frankie: The paper ALLEGES a test for common descent. No one can validate the test.

    The paper performs a test. What do you mean by “validate”? Is that a version of “were you there”?

    Ah, good catch!

  20. hotshoe_: The paper performs a test. What do you mean by “validate”? Is that a version of “were you there”?

    Ah, good catch!

    And if Frankie subscribes to “were you there”, presumably he was if his opinion is worth anything.

  21. John Harshman,

    Taking a page from Michael “No I haven’t read those 20 books and 50 papers, but even if I did, they don’t show what they claim to” Behe.

  22. Frankie: This a lie as I am not a YEC. I don’t accept the Bible as any authority and there isn’t any evidence for a 6,000-12,000 year old earth

    Yet you’ve said repeatedly that the evidence supports baraminology. Baraminology is the “science” YECs came up with to classify Biblical created “kinds”.

    How does the evidence support baraminology Joe?

  23. Frankie says,

    So far it seems that only one person has read, understood and responded to the OP. That is pathetic, even for TSZ

    I read your mangled version of JoeG’s post and I also re-read the original version re-posted by kairosfocus on Uncommon Descent back in January 2014.

    The original is much better than your plagiarized, mangled, version. If you were posting this on any other blog the moderator would have demanded that you put a disclaimer at the top of the post to let everyone know that you did not write it and demanded that you quote it correctly.

    “Intelligent Design is NOT Anti-Evolution” — a guest post

  26. I am shocked. Shocked I say. Are you people suggesting that Frankie may be plagiarizing someone else’s writing?

    I am not shocked that he would steal someone else’s ideas. We all do it, to some minimal extent. After all, most of our ideas are amalgamations of other’s ideas, hopefully presented by us in a unique way, hopefully with a new perspective.

    But to plagiarize Joe G., well, the question is, why? Why would anybody in their right mind plagiarize from someone who is such a, well, moron, Buffoon? Ignorant and rude pig?

    Please try harder next time Frankie. Or, at least, reference your sources.

  27. Ogrethe5th: Complexity can only be used as evidence if ONLY intelligence can generate complexity, that is clearly not true.

    Hi. No one here is required to post in good faith, that’s just not written into the rules. So people can pretty much write anything that they want to, even if it’s false, and even if it’s repeatedly been shown to be false.

    Like your claim that ID holds that only intelligence can generate complexity.

  28. John Harshman: However, in practice almost all IDers are creationists, especially if you consider the rank and file, but the leaders are too.

    What difference would it make if every IDer was a creationist? I assume you are talking about young earth creationism.

    Most young earth creationists believe that only a few thousand years ago a few animals got off an ark and from those few animals the entire animal world we see today evolved. Even YEC is not anti-evolution. In fact, YEC requires hyper-evolution.

    So if YEC is not anti-Evolution then any appeal you make to YEC says nothing about whether or not ID is anti-Evolution.

  29. Alan Fox: I think that point needs to be made clearly and often to Dembski, Ewert and Marks.

    Why do you think that Alan? Do you really think DEM argue that complexity can only come from intelligence? Really? After all this time?

    What are your sources?

  31. OK Mung. Since Frankie seems incapable of answering, maybe you can.

    In your opinion, is ID limited to the detection of design in biological systems? If so, how do you propose that this be done when nobody is prepared to theorize on the nature of the designer and the mechanisms she used to realize the design?

    If not, what is the proposed nature of the designer and the mechanisms used by her to realize her designs?

  32. Mung,

    If non-intelligence can generate complexity, then no complexity argument can be used to support ID.

    Thank you for destroying 80% of the ID “argument’. Well done.

  33. You see Mung. The one thing that ID requires isn’t the “D”. That, even Dawkins will admit, exists in the real world. The appearance of purposeful design is common in evolution, and (if you are particularly humanocentric person) everything in the universe. In fact, it’s the center of the privileged planet argument among others.

    But, and this is the critical point, if you do not talk about the “I”… that is the intelligence. Then evolution is perfectly capable of design. That is, non-supernatural forces using known and understood mechanisms can produce very complex designs, multi-factor systems, even systems that eventually appear to be incapable of being reduced to smaller parts without breaking.

    The DESIGN is not the issue.

    How did that design (or appearance thereof) appear?

    ID proponents and creationists believe that any design requires intelligence. Well, that’s not true, every time they get reminded that many, highly complex designs do not require intelligence, they stop using that example as an argument.

    Again, the only real difference between ID and evolution is, therefore, the designer. That is, the system which resulted in the designs. Evolution, physics, chemistry, even computational systems all support the idea that intelligence is not required for the design to happen. That basic rules (as in Conway’s Game of Life) can have dramatic effects.

    Darwin’s rules were pretty much
    1) Offspring are different than parents.
    2) More offspring are born than survive to adulthood
    3) Offspring which have differences that are more advantageous in their current environment are more likely to survive and have their own offspring.
    4) repeat

    That’s pretty much it. The mechanisms of 1 are very complex and there are multiple ones. The mechanisms of 3 are also very complex, and slightly subject to random variation (as are 1). But combined, you get evolution.

    The other idea, presented here, is that 1 and 3, are not SUFFICIENT for all of life. Therefore, a designer was required.

    That is the only difference, is the existence of said designer. And that is where ID truly fails. You can argue semantics all you want. You can discuss all the variations on ID for a dogs age (and yes, there are variants, whether you have heard of them or agree with them or not). You can attack evolution, heck, you could even (theoretically) disprove evolution.

    But, until you present the deisgner, ID will never, can never, be more than a waste of time for you and semi-fun diversion for us. It will never be science. It will never have a consistent system. It will never have any bearing on reality. It will never make predictions. It will never help develop a new product or process.

    I know it. Other science proponents here know it. You know it. All the leaders of the ID movement certainly know it.

    So, unless you can present the designer, with significant evidence, then none of this will ever amount to more than a few electrons arranged in a certain pattern on a platter on a server somewhere in the world.

    I will remind you (and all other ID proponents) that not understanding science (evolution, biology, chemistry, physics, etc) is not evidence for or against a designer. Ignorance of reality is not an argument for or against a designer. Human knowledge or lack thereof is not an argument for or against a designer.

    Only positive supporting evidence of the designer will ever help the ID side. And there simply isn’t any. Despite desperate searching for hundreds (thousands) of years, there is no evidence anywhere for any intelligent system that can do any of the things that ID proponents have claimed, much less all of them.

  34. Acartia: In your opinion, is ID limited to the detection of design in biological systems?

    In my opinion, no. For example, the Privileged Planet argues for intelligent design from the facts of our capacity to make scientific discoveries.

    As for your questions about mechanisms I don’t understand what you are asking for. Can you give me some examples?

    What do you mean by mechanism and how do you propose that we distinguish the mechanical from the non-mechanical? I don’t believe that living organisms are machines. Does that help?

    Do you have a theory of machines and the mechanical? Are you a machine? If not, do you consider your creations to be the products of some mechanism?

  35. Ogrethe5th: The DESIGN is not the issue.

    According to what you have written previously, it’s the COMPLEXITY that is the issue.

    Thank you for destroying 80% of the ID “argument’.

    Hyperbole here at TSZ is not all that uncommon. But I’ve said that your assertion that ID rests on the claim that complexity = designed is false. Do you intend to address that?

    You can argue semantics all you want.

    Semantics aside, you can defend your claim or you can’t. I said your claim was false. If you can produce 8 instances of ID arguments which depend on complexity alone to establish design for every two that I can produce that deny that complexity alone is sufficient or which argue on a basis other than complexity, I will retract my objection.

  36. I can’t because there are no valid design argument. You are doing everything you can to deflect to something you MIGHT be able to defend while ignoring the central premise.

    Heck, the OP by “Frankie” supports the simple fact that to have any design, you must have a designer. For evolution that “designer” is the mechanisms of biology and chemistry and the selection of organisms more fit for the environment. For ID, you must have an “Intelligence” if you don’t, then the entire ID argument becomes a “D” argument and if you allow evolution (as “Frankie” seems to) as a designer, then there’s no point to the entire ID movement*.

    Anyway, you can shift the focus all you like, But you do not have a designer. Everything else is just blah, blah, blah. We can argue all day about which is a better ship, the Millennium Falcon or the Serenity. But as neither one exists, it’s all just a playful game for fun, which this is… except for the fact that ID proponents purposefully (or through utter ignorance) lie about science into order to promote their beliefs. Beliefs that they hold without any evidence.

    Who or what is the designer? When did it last act? Using what tools? On what? And how do you know?

    * Well, there is, but it remains, as it always was, a none too subtle attempt to inject Christianity into classrooms.

  37. Ogrethe5th: I can’t because there are no valid design argument. You are doing everything you can to deflect to something you MIGHT be able to defend while ignoring the central premise.

    Is this addressed to me?

    You wrote:

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

    Now I could have been completely off base thinking that you actually believed that the intelligent design argument consisted of complexity means designed, but you confirmed it.

    You wrote:

    If non-intelligence can generate complexity, then no complexity argument can be used to support ID. Thank you for destroying 80% of the ID “argument’. Well done.

    The question is still on the table. How so? Oh, and how am I arguing semantics?

    You made a claim, you can support it or you can’t. If you can’t, all you need to do is retract it and then we can move on to whatever the next false claim you made was.

    Who has claimed or even argued that if something is complex it means it was designed? That wasn’t even Paley’s argument.

  38. Mung,

    I don’t care. None of that is relevant.

    I’m trying to keep this on topic. The topic is “Is ID anti-evolution”. “Frankie” says it’s not, but I’ve quoted many ID authors who say that it is.

    Do you agree with “Frankie”, going against Dembski, Meyer, and Behe or do you agree with them and disagree with “Frankie”?

    Regardless of either version, regardless of the definition of ID, regardless of what ID says about complexity, specified complexity, functional specified complexity, functional specified information, or any of that other stuff… the fundamental difference is that ID requires an “intelligent designer” for ONE event (at a minimum).

    Produce the designer. Say what it did, when, how, and how you know.

  39. Intelligent Design, as a movement, put the cart well before the horse.

    They have a snazzy name for their notion[1]. They have at least one textbook to teach kids about their notion. They have several books, which, occasionally, talk about their notion. They have published a few papers that may, in a very charitable light (and ignoring all actual experiments to the contrary) could be said to support their notion.

    But there’s a couple of things that they don’t have.
    1) A single coherent idea of what ID even is.
    2) An “intelligence” for their notion of ID.
    3) Evidence for anything that they have talked about in any of the books or publications.

    First, I have been in a single forum thread where three mutually exclusive versions of ID were promoted. The promoters of those ideas refused to even acknowledge each other’s existence, much less try to hammer out what ID really was.

    Second, they talk about an intelligent designer that must do… something. But they have yet to produce the designer. This is a critical mistake. How can one talk about design when one doesn’t know the capabilities of the designer? It’s not possible. Aboriginal humans cannot craft a modern .45 caliber 1911 pistol. This is the mistake that ID proponents make when talking about forensics and anthropology. We know the designers. Other humans. We know about when they existed, the rough level of technology at each time period, and the available materials and KSAs.

    Third. There is still no evidence that any idea about complexity, information, or FSC or FSCi or whatever their current buzzwords are correct or even reasonable. I liken this to string theory. String theory is mathematically consistent with itself (which, IIRC, ID isn’t), but it is circular. All of the math supports other ideas of string theory, which are used to support the math of string theory. In essence, they have A = B = C = D = A… except with really complex mathematical systems. While it is internally consistent, there’s no real evidence that it means anything to the real world. Again, IIRC, there is some evidence that it doesn’t. If so, then entire careers have been made for a meaningless mathematical juggling act. Just like ID.

    It gets even worse when we listen to the defenders of ID that are commonly found on UD and AtBC. That is, people who will say anything to get themselves out of a pickle that they are in, without considering the logical consequences of those statements.

    “Frankie” here is an excellent example. If his ideas are correct in the OP, then the only difference between ID and evolution is the designer, which no one can describe or even begin to talk about intelligently. If his ideas are wrong, then ID and evolution can be meaningfully distinguished based on observable evidence (which, in every case, ID has lost). Either way, ID loses (as a meaningless notion should).

    ________________________
    [1] It should be pointed out (again) that all evidence suggests that “intelligent design” was done purely in an attempt to evade the various court rulings saying that creationism could not be taught in science classes.

  40. Someone let me know if the ID crowd stays on target and can deal with their issues. You all know where to find me.

  41. Ogrethe5th: Mung, I don’t care. None of that is relevant.

    Of course not.

    They were not false because they were not relevant or they were not false because you can’t defend their truth? Or you don’t care to defend your statements, even if they are false, because they are not relevant?

    You seemed to think your statements were relevant when you made them. Others might be justified in thinking you thought your statements were relevant when you made them. But if you now want to bow out and just say they were not relevant, well, that’s not against the site rules either.

    Why not just admit you were wrong? Is it against your religion?

    I’m trying to keep this on topic.

    This flies in the face of your admittance that your earlier claims were irrelevant. Were you not trying to keep this on topic then?

    Where do we go to find where we ought to start taking your claims seriously?

  42. Ogrethe5th: Someone let me know if the ID crowd stays on target and can deal with their issues.

    Is COMPLEXITY one of the issues that the ID crowd needs to deal with? Or was that just a straw man when you brought it up in this thread?

  43. YEC creationism is fine with EVOLUTION. As long as its not by magic. That is mutationism. Thats just alchemy.
    Change in populations must includde innate mechanisms. Human colour changed aside from descent. it was on site.

  44. Mung: Hi. No one here is required to post in good faith, that’s just not written into the rules. So people can pretty much write anything that they want to, even if it’s false, and even if it’s repeatedly been shown to be false.

    That certainly explains the blatant hypocrisy of what you say at UD and what you post here.

  45. Mung: Is COMPLEXITY one of the issues that the ID crowd needs to deal with?

    I suppose what’s most interesting here is that you’ve separated yourself from “the ID crowd”. Why should anyone bother to discuss what ID does and does not say about intelligence and complexity with you, when it’s not even clear that you are an ID supporter yourself?

    Earlier you mentioned Jesus. If you believe in Jesus, why bother with ID at all?

  48. Mung,

    If you can produce 8 instances of ID arguments which depend on complexity alone to establish design for every two that I can produce that deny that complexity alone is sufficient or which argue on a basis other than complexity, I will retract my objection.

    That requires that there be at least 10 distinct ID arguments. Clever!

  49. Evolution is guided by the environment.

    Frankie: LoL! Evidence please.

    Will you listen to someone on the same side of the fence, ID supporter Winston Ewert?

    However, Felsenstein and English note that a more realistic model of evolution wouldn’t have a random fitness landscape. Felsenstein, in particular, argues that “the ordinary laws of physics, with their weakness of long-range interactions, lead to fitness surfaces much smoother than white-noise fitness surfaces.” I agree that weak long-range interactions should produce a fitness landscape somewhat smoother than random chance and this fitness landscape would thus be a source of some active information.

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/12/the_guc_bug101391.html
    http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2015/12/game-over-for-a.html#more

Leave a Reply