Intelligent Design is NOT Anti-Evolution

Posted on by

Intelligent Design is NOT Anti-Evolution

In order to have a discussion about whether or not Intelligent Design is anti-evolution or not we must first define “evolution”. Fortunately there are resources available that do just that.

Defining “evolution”:

Finally, during the evolutionary synthesis, a consensus emerged: “Evolution is the change in properties of populations of organisms over time”- Ernst Mayr page 8 of “What Evolution Is”

 

Biological (or organic) evolution is change in the properties of populations of organisms or groups of such populations, over the course of generations. The development, or ontogeny, of an individual organism is not considered evolution: individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are ‘heritable’ via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportions of different forms of a gene within a population, such as the alleles that determine the different human blood types, to the alterations that led from the earliest organisms to dinosaurs, bees, snapdragons, and humans.
Douglas J. Futuyma (1998) Evolutionary Biology 3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc. Sunderland MA p.4

 

Biological evolution refers to the cumulative changes that occur in a population over time. PBS series “Evolution” endorsed by the NCSE

 

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations) UC Berkley

 

In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.
Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

 

Evolution- in biology, the word means genetically based change in a line of descent over time.- Biology: Concepts and Applications Starr 5th edition 2003 page 10

Those are all accepted definitions of biological “evolution”. (Perhaps OgreMKV will present some definitions that differ from those. Most likely I will only comment on any differences if the differences are relevant.)

With biology, where-ever there is heritable genetic change there is evolution and where-ever you have offspring that are (genetically) different from the parent(s) you have descent with modification.

Next I will show what Intelligent Design says about biological evolution and people can see for themselves that Intelligent Design is not anti-evolution:

Intelligent Design is NOT Creationism
(MAY 2000)

Scott refers to me as an intelligent design “creationist,” even though I clearly write in my book Darwin’s Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think “evolution occurred, but was guided by God.”- Dr Michael Behe

Dr Behe has repeatedly confirmed he is OK with common ancestry. And he has repeatedly made it clear that ID is an argument against materialistic evolution (see below), ie necessity and chance.

Then we have:

What is Intelligent Design and What is it Challenging?– a short video featuring Stephen C. Meyer on Intelligent Design. He also makes it clear that ID is not anti-evolution.

Next Dembski and Wells weigh in:

 

The theory of intelligent design (ID) neither requires nor excludes speciation- even speciation by Darwinian mechanisms. ID is sometimes confused with a static view of species, as though species were designed to be immutable. This is a conceptual possibility within ID, but it is not the only possibility. ID precludes neither significant variation within species nor the evolution of new species from earlier forms. Rather, it maintains that there are strict limits to the amount and quality of variations that material mechanisms such as natural selection and random genetic change can alone produce. At the same time, it holds that intelligence is fully capable of supplementing such mechanisms, interacting and influencing the material world, and thereby guiding it into certain physical states to the exclusion of others. To effect such guidance, intelligence must bring novel information to expression inside living forms. Exactly how this happens remains for now an open question, to be answered on the basis of scientific evidence. The point to note, however, is that intelligence can itself be a source of biological novelties that lead to macroevolutionary changes. In this way intelligent design is compatible with speciation. page 109 of “The Design of Life”

and

And that brings us to a true either-or. If the choice between common design and common ancestry is a false either-or, the choice between intelligent design and materialistic evolution is a true either-or. Materialistic evolution does not only embrace common ancestry; it also rejects any real design in the evolutionary process. Intelligent design, by contrast, contends that biological design is real and empirically detectable regardless of whether it occurs within an evolutionary process or in discrete independent stages. The verdict is not yet in, and proponents of intelligent design themselves hold differing views on the extent of the evolutionary interconnectedness of organisms, with some even accepting universal common ancestry (ie Darwin’s great tree of life).
Common ancestry in combination with common design can explain the similar features that arise in biology. The real question is whether common ancestry apart from common design- in other words, materialistic evolution- can do so. The evidence of biology increasingly demonstrates that it cannot.- Ibid page 142

And from one more pro-ID book:

Many assume that if common ancestry is true, then the only viable scientific position is Darwinian evolution- in which all organisms are descended from a common ancestor via random mutation and blind selection. Such an assumption is incorrect- Intelligent Design is not necessarily incompatible with common ancestry.– page 217 of “Intelligent Design 101”

That is just a sample of what the Intelligent Design leadership say about biological evolution- they are OK with it. And the following is from “Uncommon Descent”:

9] “Evolution” Proves that Intelligent Design is Wrong
The word “evolution” can mean different things. The simplest meaning is one of natural history of the appearance of different living forms. A stronger meaning implies common descent, in its universal form (all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor) or in partial form (particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor). “Evolution” is often defined as descent with modifications, or simply as changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population.

None of those definitions can prove ID wrong, because none are in any way incompatible with it.

ID is a theory about the cause of genetic information, not about the modalities or the natural history of its appearance, and is in no way incompatible with many well known patterns of limited modification of that information usually defined as “microevolution.” ID affirms that design is the cause, or at least a main cause, of complex biological information. A theory which would indeed be alternative to ID, and therefore could prove it wrong, is any empirically well-supported “causal theory” which excludes design; in other words any theory that fits well with the evidence and could explain the presence or emergence of complex biological information through chance, necessity, any mix of the two, or any other scenario which does not include design. However, once we rule out “just-so stories” and the like, we will see that there is not today, nor has there ever been, such a theory. Furthermore, the only empirically well-supported source of functionally specific, complex information is: intelligence.
To sum it up: no definition of evolution is really incompatible with an ID scenario. Any causal theory of evolution which does not include design is obviously alternative to, and incompatible with, ID.

However, while many such theories have indeed been proposed, they are consistently wanting in the necessary degree of empirical support. By contrast, design is an empirically known source of the class of information – complex, specified information (CSI) — exhibited by complex biological systems.

They go on to say:

10] The Evidence for Common Descent is Incompatible with Intelligent Design
ID is a theory about the cause of complex biological information. Common descent (CD) is a theory about the modalities of implementation of that information. They are two separate theories about two different aspects of the problem, totally independent and totally compatible. In other words, one can affirm CD and ID, CD and Darwinian Evolution, or ID and not CD. However, if one believes in Darwinian Evolution, CD is a necessary implication.

CD theory exists in two forms, universal CD and partial CD. No one can deny that there are evidences for the theory of CD (such as ERVs, homologies and so on). That’s probably the reason why many IDists do accept CD. Others do not agree that those evidences are really convincing, or suggest that they may reflect in part common design. But ID theory, proper, has nothing to do with all that.
ID affirms that design is the key cause of complex biological information. The implementation of design can well be realized through common descent, that is through implementation of new information in existing biological beings. That can be done gradually or less gradually. All these are modalities of the implementation of information, and not causes of the information itself. ID theory is about causes.

And finally there is front loaded evolution (Mike Gene) and a prescribed evolutionary hypothesis (John Davison)- both are ID hypotheses pertaining to evolution.

Mutations are OK, differential reproduction is OK, horizontal gene transfer is OK. With Intelligent Design organisms are designed to evolve, ie they evolve by design. That is by “built-in responses to environmental cues” ala Dr Spetner’s “non-random evolution hypothesis” being the main process of adaptations.

As Dembski/ Wells said Intelligent design only has an issue with materialistic evolution- the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms. (Also known as the blind watchmaker thesis)

Intelligent Design is OK with all individuals in a population generally having the same number and types of genes and that those genes give rise to an array of traits and characteristics that characterize that population. It is OK with mutations that may result in two or more slightly different molecular forms of a gene- alleles- that influence a trait in different ways and that individuals of a population vary in the details of a trait when they inherit different combinations of alleles. ID is OK with any allele that may become more or less common in the population relative to other kinds at a gene locus, or it may disappear. And ID is OK with allele frequencies changing as a result of mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, natural and artificial selection, that mutation alone produces new alleles and gene flow, genetic drift, natural and artificial selection shuffle existing alleles into, through, or out of populations. IOW ID is OK with biological evolution. As Dr Behe et al., make very clear, it just argues about the mechanisms- basically design/ telic vs spontaneous/ stochastic.

Now we are left with the only way Intelligent Design can be considered anti-evolution is if and only if the only definition of evolution matches the definition provided for materialistic evolution. However I cannot find any source that states that is the case.

So the bottom line is Intelligent Design says “evolved, sure”. The questions are “evolved from what?” and “how did it evolve?”.

603 thoughts on “Intelligent Design is NOT Anti-Evolution”

  1. Frankie: The bacterial flagellum is IC and you have nothing that demonstrates otherwise. You have nothing to test the claim that natural selection, drift and neutral changes can produce one. You have nothing but lies and misrepresentations

    I linked to a paper earlier in this thread. Of the 40 proteins that make up the E. coli flagellum, the one used by ID as an example of ID, only 23 have been found in all other flagella that have been examined. IC refuted. But if that is not enough for you, 21 of the 23 remaining proteins have slightly modified versions elsewhere in E. coli and in other non-flagellated cells. IC double busted.

    But feel free to ignore facts to support claim.

  2. Frankie: 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.

    OK then, what is the wavelength for a frequency of 10KHz?

  3. Acartia: I linked to a paper earlier in this thread. Of the 40 proteins that make up the E. coli flagellum, the one used by ID as an example of ID, only 23 have been found in all other flagella that have been examined. IC refuted. But if that is not enough for you, 21 of the 23 remaining proteins have slightly modified versions elsewhere in E. coli and in other non-flagellated cells. IC double busted.

    But feel free to ignore facts to support claim.

    That doesn’t refute IC. What is wrong with you?

  4. Adapa: OK then, what is the wavelength for a frequency of 10KHz?

    I see that you cannot read or cannot comprehend what you have read.

  5. Frankie: Why isn’t anyone from your position doing any research that could confirm unguided evolution?

    Like clockwork. FrankenJoe can’t answer a question about ID so he always attacks evolution.

    You’re not doing much for the claim ID is not anti-evolution here FJ.

  6. Frankie: It means how do you know the test actually test for Common Descent?

    How do you know anything does anything? The test is of several models. One model fits the data much better than any of the others, and that model is universal common descent. How would you interpret that result?

  7. Frankie: I see that you cannot read or cannot comprehend what you have read.

    So you can’t answer that simple question either. Looks like you didn’t know what you were talking about. Again.

  9. John Harshman: How do you know anything does anything? The test is of several models. One model fits the data much better than any of the others, and that model is universal common descent. How would you interpret that result?

    A Common Design. Common descent doesn’t have a mechanism capable of producing the changes required.

  10. Frankie: The answer was in the post you were responding to.

    I didn’t see the answer to this question

    “OK then, what is the wavelength for a frequency of 10KHz?”

    …anywhere. Please link to it or repost the answer.

  11. Frankie:
    Acartia,

    There is a one-to-one correspondence

    Maybe you should look up the definition of “equal”. But we have gone off topic discussing the stupidity of a commenter who can no longer post here. I don’t think it is appropriate to do so when he cannot defend himself.

    But, back on topic. You claim that you do not need to understand the nature of the designer or the mechanisms available to it in order to conclusively identify design. We obviously disagree on this point so let’s approach it from a different angle. Can you provide a single conclusive example of a designed artifact in which this determination was made without knowing anything about the designer or the mechanisms available to it.

  12. Acartia: Maybe you should look up the definition of “equal”. But we have gone off topic discussing the stupidity of a commenter who can no longer post here. I don’t think it is appropriate to do so when he cannot defend himself.

    But, back on topic. You claim that you do not need to understand the nature of the designer or the mechanisms available to it in order to conclusively identify design. We obviously disagree on this point so let’s approach it from a different angle. Can you provide a single conclusive example of a designed artifact in which this determination was made without knowing anything about the designer or the mechanisms available to it.

    Stonehenge; Nan Madol- most ancient artifacts. We first determined design was present and then sought the mechanisms and designers.

  13. Frankie: 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.

    I do NOT have your wave on my ‘scope. Try to follow along. That way you don’t come off as a belligerent ass.

    Who said anything about an oscilloscope? You told us if you know the frequency you know the wavelength. I asked you to calculate a simple example and you can’t.

  14. Frankie: Why isn’t anyone from your position doing any research that could confirm unguided evolution?

    Do you know what replica plating is?

  15. Frankie: Stonehenge; Nan Madol- most ancient artifacts. We first determined design was present and then sought the mechanisms and designers.

    But you have no method of determining the mechanisms and designers of biological life even when “design” is conceded. Or maybe it’s sooper dooper tippy-top secret like the work you used to do.

  18. Adapa: But you have no method of determining the mechanisms and designers of biological life even when “design” is conceded.

    Then that is something someone will work on once ID is fully accepted. Proving, once again, that ID is not a scientific dead-end.

  19. Frankie,

    Then that is something someone will work on once ID is fully accepted.

    Why can’t they work on it now?

    Proving, once again, that ID is not a scientific dead-end.

    Someone will do something, proving there is something to do. You crack me up.

  20. Frankie: Then that is something someone will work on once ID is fully accepted. Proving, once again, that ID is not a scientific dead-end.

    You have no method of investigating the mechanisms of manufacture or the capabilities / limitations / identity of the designer(s) even if ID was fully accepted.

    Science knows it, the ID pushers know it, you know it. That’s what makes watching you flail so funny. 🙂

  21. Acartia: But, back on topic. You claim that you do not need to understand the nature of the designer or the mechanisms available to it in order to conclusively identify design

    I actually think this is the case–so long as one understands the designer to be intelligent (I think leaving beavers and spiders out, at least of the general sense of “intelligent”), which seems to be typical in these matters. But that means that you do know something about the nature of the designer, which is that it has foresight and at least can think rationally. That is how we have evidence that life was not designed, it exhibits none of the rationality and foresight that one would expect of a designer.

    Of course the problem is that IDists actually do start denying any reasonable expectations from “intelligent design,” so that the fact that “designs” in life are not portable–which one would expect from an intelligent designer–is claimed to be of no import. However, they almost never wholly deny that they should be, they just throw brickbats at it, make excuses for specific instances, and ignore the issue as an actual general fact. They can’t really say that an intelligence should not match up need to function, rather than matching up inheritance to function, but they can say that you don’t know what the designer would do, and generally make enough excuses and diversions to smother up any doubts over the matter.

    Well, what are they going to do, face squarely the fact that life does not exhibit the effects of foresight and rationality of the highly intelligent being that supposedly designed the flagellum, among other things? Of course not. They often end up gibbering that there are no reasonable expectations from intelligent design, other than functional complexity (which is not how we actually identify designed objects, apart from evidence of their making–purpose and rational construction are far more typical), when they know better.

    Assuming that “intelligence” and “designer” actually have meanings, we don’t have to know anything more than to expect rationality and foresight from an “intelligent designer.” The fact that IDists ignore this fact and pretend otherwise when confronted with clear evidence of evolutionary constraint, rather than the intelligent use of observable possibilities, is the result of the failure to discover intelligence working in life, not the failure of “intelligent” to have a general meaning that extends beyond specific humanity.

    IOW, we would know aliens to be intelligent (by definition) if they made things like we make them, and not, for example, as biologic evolution would.

    Glen Davidson

  24. GlenDavidson,

    LoL! Both beavers and spiders are intelligent designers.

    Look, the DESIGN has testable entailments. And if your position had something to explain what ID says is designed then we wouldn’t be having this discussion. But you don’t have anything, not even a methodology

  25. But you have no method of determining the mechanisms that produced biological life and all of its diversity even when “evolutionism” is conceded.

  26. Frankie: That doesn’t refute IC. What is wrong with you?

    That is not an answer. That is an unsupported assertion. Now, see if you can explain to us why this doesn’t refute IC. Because most of us would say that it does. At least in the case of the flagellum.

  27. Frankie: Stonehenge; Nan Madol- most ancient artifacts. We first determined design was present and then sought the mechanisms and designers.

    Wrong. We first suspected “human” design. There was never any serious research that did not proceed from the human designed premise. And the researches had a reasonable understanding of the mechanisms available to the humans who built them. You obviously had difficulty understanding the simple question so I will let you try again.

    Can you provide a single conclusive example of a designed artifact in which this determination was made without knowing anything about the designer or the mechanisms available to it?

  28. Acartia: That is not an answer. That is an unsupported assertion. Now, see if you can explain to us why this doesn’t refute IC. Because most of us would say that it does. At least in the case of the flagellum.

    You have to make a case that it does refute IC. Until then there isn’t anything to refute

  29. Acartia,

    Wrong. We first suspected “human” design.

    Reference please and then tell us why you think that means something

  30. Frankie:
    Acartia,

    Reference please and then tell us why you think that means something

    Sorry Frankie. You were the one who asserted that they were identified as design with no knowledge of the designer or the mechanisms available to them. The onus is on you to support that assertion, not me. References please.

  31. Acartia: Can you provide a single conclusive example of a designed artifact in which this determination was made without knowing anything about the designer or the mechanisms available to it?

    The Antikythera Mechanism

  32. Acartia,

    They were. That is just a fact of science that you don’t determine who did it until you have determined something was done that needed intelligent agency intervention.

    Don’t blame me for your lack of knowledge

  33. Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution- the OP stands unchallenged but that won’t stop ID’s opponents from continuing to equivocate and misrepresent.

  34. phoodoo: The Antikythera Mechanism

    From Wiki: “… the device is a complex clockwork mechanism composed of at least 30 meshing bronze gears.”

    You must be correct. Humans have never been known to produce clockwork mechanisms composed of intermeshing gears. And have never been known to produce bronze. And it was only a coincidence that it was found in a man made wooden box on a sunken man made ship. I can see how you might conclude that the researches who studied this artifact did not have humans in mind when they concluded that it was designed.

    A kingdom, my kingdom, for a sarcasm font.

  37. Frankie:
    Acartia,

    They were. That is just a fact of science that you don’t determine who did it until you have determined something was done that needed intelligent agency intervention.

    Don’t blame me for your lack of knowledge

    Nice equivocation Frankie. But you are simply avoiding/evading the question. Can you name an artifact that we know with certainty was the result of design in which we did not, prior to this conclusion, have knowledge of the designer (in your examples, humans)?

  38. Frankie:
    Allan Miller,

    Why don’t evolutionary biologists work on supporting the claims of their position?

    LOL! Good old FrankenJoe. Whenever he’s asked questions about ID he can’t answer he has to deflect by bawling about evolution.

    ID isn’t anti-evolution, remember? Why do you keep attacking evolution instead of defending and explaining ID?

    Thanks for confirming ID is scientifically meaningless and worthless.

  39. phoodoo:
    Acartia,

    Can you tell me something about the designer?

    A human. The fact that it was made of bronze, and the fact that it was made during the Bronze Age, and the fact that it was found in a man made wooden box, in a man made ship, sort of gives it away.

    Why do you ask? Did you think that it was made by a supernatural being? Or a space alien? Or a spider?

  41. Frankie:
    That is just a fact of science that you don’t determine who did it until you have determined something was done that needed intelligent agency intervention.

    We already conceded for the sake of argument in the “intelligent design” of life. You don’t have any clue at all how to proceded after that. That’s why ID as it currently exists is scientifically worthless.

    Don’t blame me for your lack of knowledge

    We keep asking you to share your ID knowledge but you obviously have none.

  45. Adapa,

    I do NOT attack evolution. I attack evolutionism. And I do so to expose your blatant hypocrisy. Now you expose your willful ignorance too.

  47. Adapa,

    I know how to proceed and I have said how I would proceed. Others have said what else is next, too.

    The issue is you

  48. Acartia: Nice equivocation Frankie. But you are simply avoiding/evading the question. Can you name an artifact that we know with certainty was the result of design in which we did not, prior to this conclusion, have knowledge of the designer (in your examples, humans)?

    I named two and there are many more. We find out about the designers of artifacts by studying the artifacts and all relevant evidence. We do not have to know anything about the designers before determining design exists.

  49. Adapa: 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?

    Baraminology accepts speciation and is not based on a 6000 year old earth. The 6000 year old earth is based on an interpretation and there is much debate about the Creation “days” being actual 24 hour days or epochs of many years.

    You could do some research and find this out for yourself.

Leave a Reply