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?”.
Inside a human ship. The human inscriptions on the artifact was another hint.
You keep claiming this but you have yet to provide an example of a confirmed designed artifact that was not first looked at with the proposed designer in mind. Nobody looks at an artifact for the first time and does not start the research without having a proposed designer in mind. In your examples, humans.
We are very good at discerning artifacts that are made by humans. That is because we understand humans. Their capabilities and their limitations.
When we see something that might be an ancient tool, do the researchers make their final conclusion without any knowledge of humans? Of course not. Some knowledge of the possible designer precedes the determination as to whether it is designed.
I am still waiting for an example.
LOL! The FrankenJoe Defense. When stumped on a question about ID, run from the question and deflect by attacking evolutionary theory!
The FrankenJoe Defense again. When stumped on a question about ID, run from the question and deflect by attacking evolutionary theory!
No you didn’t. You mumbled the hopelessly vague “synthesizing the components until I found the software” but you can give zero details. You can’t say what components you’d synthesize or why you can’t use our existing genome knowledge. You can’t say what you would look for to determine “software” was present or what would disprove your hypothesis.
Poor FrankenJoe. All hat, no cattle.
Wrong again FrankenJoe. It’s all about “kinds” created during the first 6 days of Genesis in the literal young Earth (6000 year old) interpretation.
Wiki: Baraminology is a creationist system that classifies animals into groups called “created kinds” or “baramin” according to the account of creation in the book of Genesis and other parts of the Bible. It claims that kinds cannot interbreed, and have no evolutionary relationship to one another.
You’ve said many places that the evidence supports baraminology. How does the evidence for ID support both baraminology and evolution?
Simple enough. He’s willing to accept limited evolution, within kinds. But I expect he will a) be unwilling to identify what a “kind” is and b) still attack evidence for evolution at any scale.
And while it’s true that all baraminologists I know of are YECs, that isn’t necessary. Different kinds could have been created at various times through a long earth history. One could ask him just what evidence supports baraminology, but that would force him to identify some kinds, which would leave him vulnerable to discussion of actual evidence. And that can’t be allowed to happen.
And this is why debating with “Frankie” is useless. He says that, in “HIS” (cough cough) post, he quoted Dembski. Well, four years ago, when we had this debate, I also quoted Dembski AND Meyer AND Behe and they all said the same thing, that ID was anti-evolution. Even JoeG (who STILL hasn’t been cited and “Frankie” is STILL claiming the OP as his original work) says that ID and evolution are not compatible.
Because JoeG frequently (5 or 6 times a month) says that all we have to do to prove ID wrong is prove evolution correct. The only way that can happen is that they are opposites.
This happened years ago and “Frankie” is still repeating this same mistake.
Further, it only shows that ID is not internally consistent. The authors say whatever their audience wants to hear to get some support. They don’t have a particular stance that they stick with.
But it’s not like we don’t have this same conversation once every 4 months or so. Nothing changes. No new evidence ever appears to support ID. And we’ll do this again in 4-6 months.
I guess if someone is determined to keep digging a hole, who are we to take their shovel away?
I would be willing to donate some power tools if it makes him dig deeper. I would even provide wood for bracing because, after all, safety first.
Well, I attempted to debate your claims about ID and complexity. That went nowhere. But it was you who decided to not even attempt to support your claims.
Should we conclude that debating with you is useless?
I don’t know of any YEC who isn’t so willing. Which puts the whole anti-Evolution schtick firmly into the red herring category.
I think you’re being guilty of the same bait’n’switch that creationists often accuse evolutionists of, i.e. changing the meaning of the word “evolution” as convenient. Further, creationists tend to be inconsistent in their opposition to evolution. Even creationists who accept limited evolution often attack evidence for evolution even within species; consider the peppered moth, for example. And no two creationists seem to agree on how to divide life into kinds, even on those rare occasions when they’re willing to commit. Even then they tend to avoid any discussion of evidence. But you can show me wrong. Go ahead and delimit a few kinds for me and tell me how you arrived at that conclusion. (By the way, I do know of at least one creationist who doesn’t allow evolution within kinds and considers every species a separate kind. But never mind that now.)
You agree evolutionists frequently do this, right?
No.
John Harshman,
So there is only one definition of evolution, that pretty much all evolutionists agree on? Can you tell us what it is?
I don’t think there’s one definition of quantum theory or quantum dynamics that everyone agrees on, and yet you post on a computer that would not exist without quantum theory.
You are barking up the wrong tree.
No. There is not one definition. If you keep playing silly word games I’ll stop talking to you.
Why? What will you do with that valuable information? Sell it to the Russians?
Haha, very funny John. Who is playing silly word games?
Evolutionists are not the ones who use different definitions of evolution when it is convenient.
Mung is doing that though.
There is not one definition of evolution.
I am the one playing silly word games.
Very funny. Welcome to the world of Alice in Wonderland’s evolution.
Phoodoo and Frankie, any chance of you guys creating a blog together? Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. I think you’d make a wonderful team and the internet needs more structured discussion and insights form ID leaders such as yourselves.
phoodoo,
OK, done with you.
Richardthughes,
Should we call it “Agnostics are Theists?”
If you want. Why?
Listen John, I am a pretty nice guy actually, but when you accuse someone else of playing word games, and then you say evolutionist don’t play word games with the definition of evolution, followed quickly by the statement that there are many definitions of evolution, followed by accusing me of playing word games by pointing that out- any whining you want to do about having to defend those statements is pretty much on you.
When you say things that are illogical and silly, don’t get upset when you are called on it. Or do get upset. And look petty doing so.
Don’t know if that’s a good idea. They’d probably get into a contest to see who could out-obscenity the other. The resultant feedback would soon go open loop and blow out servers all over the web.
Richardthughes,
Oh, you mean you prefer “Agnostics are Atheists?”
Ok, As you like. So many here disagree with you on that Richard. But go on, be a maverick anyway.
Richardthughes,
I’m with Bertrand Russell:
“I never know whether I should say “Agnostic” or whether I should say “Atheist”. It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.
On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.
None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.
Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line.”
Richardthughes,
Richard I think you should start a blog together with Adapa, being the great Evolutionist representatives you are.
You can call it Zolpidem for Zombies. Or Zolfresh for the Zouless. As soon as anyone starts to read it, you will want to either sleep or die from boredom.
phoodoo,
I agree. That’s why your blog is a better idea. It’s criminal you’re not sharing your collective expertise!
This is all miscommunication. “Evolution” cannot be easily defined, just as “mathematics” cannot be easily defined, “art” cannot be easily defined, and “theism” cannot be easily defined (to mention just a few examples).
However, evolutionists are not equivocating on the meaning of “evolution”. If creationists and ID proponents see them as equivocating, that’s mainly because the creationists and ID proponents have failed to adequately understand what they are saying.
Neil Rickert,
AND YET, the first salvo was thrown by John accusing creationists of playing bait and switch with the definition of evolution, hahaha.
Now you are saying, no one is equivocating on the definition of evolution, we are just saying there is no clear definition of evolution, its just vague and hard to define, so don’t pin us down on a defintion. That’s not equivocating, that’s…wait a second! I say what is going on here.
Are you equivocating on the meaning of equivocating??
Indeed they do exactly that.
The definition that applies depends on the context in which it is being used.
Creationists love to use the wrong definition in the wrong context as a way of equivocating.
Evolutionary biologists are very clear on what they mean by “evolution”. No it is not vague, though it is hard to define. That it is hard to define is the nature of language.
phoodoo,
As I’ve pointed out to you a couple of times now, those are orthogonal categories. It is possible to be a gnostic theist, an agnostic theist, a gnostic atheist, or an agnostic atheist.
Frankie seems to have lost all interest in defending his ID claims.
When the going gets tough, the Creationists get going…the other way. 🙂
Patrick,
Are you and Richard the same person?
phoodoo,
No, but thanks for the compliment!
Phhh. One day I aspire to , erm, Patrick. Or something.
This is so wrong and pathetic I can’t imagine a human wrote it.
The quotes Ogre offered from Dembski and Behe said ID is against DARWINIAN evolution, not mere evolution. This was pointed out to Ogre many years ago and he still can’t grasp the concept.
Also to refute ID you need to show that UNGUIDED evolution can produce what ID says is designed. That was also explained to Ogre and clearly he couldn’t grasp that simple concept.
It’s as if Ogre is unable to learn and think.
LoL! There isn’t anything in your quote-mine that says baraminology needs a 6,000 year old earth.
Today’s organisms EVOLVED from the originally created kinds. EVOLVED.
Bacteria evolving into bacteria supports baraminology and Lenski has shown that over 50,000 generations a bacteria is still a bacteria. Humans giving rise to humans supports baraminology.
There isn’t any evolutionary theory. And what I do I do to show that you are a hypocrite. And it works
What hole? You guys are doing the digging. Not one of you can address the OP. Why is that?
Science, John. Your position can’t tell us what the starting populations were either, John. Your position cannot say how a fish eventually evolved into a tetrapod. Your position doesn’t have any evidence so discussing evidence would show that you have nothing.
My OP stands unaddressed and unrefuted. OTOH all you have is bluff and bluster
You know this, how?
That is baraminology-> today’s organisms evolved from the originally created kinds.
Don’t you even know what your opponents say? That is sad
petrushka,
Duh! Genesis 6.