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?”.
My apologies Frankie! You are obviously far more sophisticated than that uncouth Joe G.
There isn’t any way to validate the test.
What do you disagree with? No one has shown that ID is anti-evolution.
Evidence, please- evidence that the environment guides the mutations and evidence that it has any guidance at all. Whatever is good enough to survive doesn’t sound like guidance. Blind and mindless processes do not sound like they can guide anything
Moved a comment of Frankie’s to Guano and removed his guess at my surname. Outing is not allowed here, Frankie.
Ogrethe5th,
There isn’t any evidence for that and there isn’t any way to test the claim. You lose, again.
Moved some comments to guano.
ID is about the detection AND study of design. We do not need to know the designer nor the mechanisms before we can determine design exists. Those questions come AFTER design has already been detected.
LoL! You read it and remain willfully ignorant of what it says.
It is very telling that you people would rather spend time saying that I should have referenced it better than you do trying to understand or refute the contents.
Alan Fox said I needed to edit the post before he would publish it. I had some things to do and when I went to edit the post it was already up. And when I first came here I talked with Elizabeth, linking to this post and asking her to post it as I had permission to do so. So she knew what was going on.
LoL! It is better than anything you can come up with. And no one here can refute it as they don’t even seem to be able to address it.
I had permission from the author of the post and I would have edited it but you posted it before I could even though I told you I was going to edit it!
Ogrethe5th,
There isn’t a real theory of evolution and according to evolutionary biologists all mutations/ genetic changes are accidents, errors and/ or mistakes. That you cannot understand that doesn’t make it wrong.
For Ogre:
The ID leaders are quoted in the OP and they say that ID is not anti-evolution. They say that ID is anti- blind watchmaker evolution, ie Darwinian evolution. You have been told this many times and you continue to misrepresent ID.
And the design is evidence for a designer.
So when someone turns the frequency knob on a signal generator and only the wavelength changes, what does that mean to you?
Frankie,
Lizzie cleaned up the tags and approved your OP.
Ogrethe5th,
Dembski, Meyer and Behe all agree with me. Their quotes are in the OP and are the basis for the post. What is wrong with you?
There you have it. She knew about the post and my permission to post it.
We’ve only had this conversation with you about a hundred times..
According to ID proponents design has already been detected, over a decade ago, with the flagellum and the blood clotting system.
What research has come after that? It’s been 10 years and there hasn’t been a single step by the ID crew to investigate the mechanics of how the design or manufacturing was done, or when, or where, or by which entity or entities. Not one peep on the capabilities and limitations of the “designer”.
Why is that FrakenJoe? It can’t be money because the Templeton Foundation had an offer of several million dollars for research projects on ID but no IDiots stepped to the plate. The DI is flush enough to fund Axe / Gauger / Bio-Complexity but no work on the designer is ever done there either.
For the sake of argument let’s say design of life has been detected and you have 100 million dollars to work with. Please describe the tests and research ID would do in its next steps.
Adapa,
We are not on your agenda and your position doesn’t know the how to support its claims. Yours has all the resources and it cannot produce anything.
Adapa,
I would use the money to figure out the software of life. I would begin by synthesizing the components until I found the software.
Frankie:
We are not on your agenda and your position doesn’t know the how to support its claims. Yours has all the resources and it cannot produce anything.
For the 100th time you’ve run from the question. Please try again.
For the sake of argument let’s say design of life has been detected and you have 100 million dollars to work with. Please describe the tests and research ID would do in its next steps.
Theobald’s test is questioned: Was the universal common ancestry proved?
We already have the human genome project which has sequenced the entire genome. Where would you look for the software? How would you tell if you found it?
What evidence do you have that there even is software?
For the sake of argument let’s say unguided evolution of life has been detected and you have 100 million dollars to work with. Please describe the tests and research unguided evolution would do in its next steps.
Sequencing the genome is not the same as synthesizing it and returning it to the organism.
It means how do you know the test actually test for Common Descent?
That was a literature bluff and it is very telling that you didn’t realize that.
Why would you need to do that? Life does it for you already, has been for almost 4 billion years. What benefit would synthesizing what already exists for study provide?
If this is so hot why aren’t any IDers attempting it?
No one says that mere complexity is evidence for ID. Ogre is making things up, again
\Adapa,
Stay on topic- This is a first step to getting you guys educated. And you don’t seem to be capable of learning.
I am on topic. You’re the one who brought up the claim ID research will happen after design is detected. I’m just asking what that research would be and you seem to have no idea.
Uh Oh, debunked that fast, whoa. A simple abstract trumps the abstract.
Someone better check on Richard, I am worried. Poor guy.
Adapa,
Wrong again. The topic is “Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution”. TRY to follow along
Ogrethe5th,
There isn’t any “real theory of evolution”.
Once again we see you running away from the topic you brought up, about what research ID should do after design is detected. You obviously have no clue which is why you flail and flounder and bail on the question every time.
You say the evidence supports ID and ID isn’t anti-evolution.
You also say the evidence supports Biblical baraminology which is about as anti-evolution a position as you’ll find.
Care to resole this huge contradiction? How can the evidence support baraminology and evolution too?
Adapa,
The topic is “Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution”. I just made what should have been an obvious statement. Obviously that too is over your head.
I told you one research project and that is one more than unguided evolution has.
Fair enough. Now, provide us with the method used to determine that the flagellum is designed. Remember, you can’t use IC as it has been shown that it is not. And you can’t use any equation that requires an estimate of the probability that it arose naturally unless, of course, you have an estimate for that.
I await your response.
You didn’t describe a research project. You made the very undefined “look for the software” with no idea how or where to look, what to look for, and what the criteria would be success or failure. You waved your hands and ran, just like you always do.
Adapa,
Yes I did describe a research project and you aren’t anyone to say otherwise.
Baraminology is based on the claim the Earth is only 6000 years old, that all species were created at that time and that no speciation beyond that is possible. Is that your ID position too? How is that not anti-evolution?
Are you now claiming ID in not anti-microevolution but ID is still against macroevolution? Please commit to a position.
It means that there is a relationship between frequency and wavelength, not that they are equal.
But I am confused as to why you would be defending a false statement made by an obviously sociopathic (possibly psychopathic) person who has been banned from commenting here, and elsewhere, even at UD.
Then why isn’t anyone from the ID community actually doing this research?
Does that relationship ever change? If you know the frequency do you automatically know the wavelength too? Or did you in your wonderful scientific no-ledge leave out an important factor?
Acartia,
There is a one-to-one correspondence
Adapa,
That is all wrong and irrelevant. How are you defining “evolution”?
If you have a wave on an oscilloscope then you have both the wavelength and the frequency in that one wave. Wavelength and frequency are just different numerical representations of the SAME wave.
Why isn’t anyone from your position doing any research that could confirm unguided evolution?
You’re running form the questions again FrakenJoe. Try again.
Baraminology is based on the claim the Earth is only 6000 years old, that all species were created at that time and that no speciation beyond that is possible. Is that your ID position too? How is that not anti-evolution?
For the sake of argument let’s say unguided evolution of life has been detected and you have 100 million dollars to work with. Please describe the tests and research unguided evolution would do in its next steps.
Hypocrites