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?”.
That is more than your position has. Duh!
Frankie,
So you think it is true?
Exactly as I predicted: “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.”
Not sure exactly what you mean by “how a fish eventually evolved into a tetrapod”. Depends on what you mean by “how”. We know quite a bit about the path that was followed in morphology, but little about the genetic changes that happened or the reasons those changes were favored by selection. But the first is sufficient to show that it did happen. We have both fossils and comparisons, mostly genetic or genomic, among extant taxa for evidence.
It seems you think that any fish and any tetrapod belong to different kinds. But could you narrow down these kinds a bit more? Are there multiple kinds of fish and tetrapods? If so, what are some of them? I’m asking you to identify several holobaramins.
Genesis has a better chance of being true than your position, cupcake. And ID would exist even if the Bible didn’t.
John Harshman,
We don’t know if the transformations required are obtainable via genetic modification. The claim that tetrapods evolved from fish is untestable.
All you have to do is search on “baraminology”. John and you can read all about it.
Right now I am trying to get people to understand that A) evolution has several meanings, B) ID is OK with most of those, C) Creation is OK with some and that means people have to be more careful about throwing that word around. Bill Nye uses the fact of anti-biotic resistance to refute Creation/ baraminology. The total lack of this understanding by evolutionists and the public is appalling. The fixity of species is one of Darwin’s greatest blunders. Unfortunately that strawman still lives on and that needs to end.
I will try to tackle your issues with subsequent posts. One step at a time
Again: So you think it (Genesis 6) is true?
Of course we know the transformations required are obtainable via genetic modification. What else is there that produces differences in morphology among species? And of course the claim is testable. All you need is some data that we would observe if this had happened and not if it hadn’t. Tiktaalik is one such bit of evidence. The phylogenetic tree you get from genetic data is another.
I know baraminology quite well. I know that baraminologists almost never make concrete statements of what holobaramins exist and, when they do, fail to justify those claims or confront contrary data.
Creationists, in my experience, sometimes profess to be OK with some bits of evolution, but that doesn’t stop them from attacking even microevolution within species; I’ve pointed out the peppered moth stuff before.
Fixity of species wasn’t Darwin’s strawman. It was the orthodoxy of his time. I have also noted that some creationists still propose independent creation of each species. Until you tell me what you think “kinds” are, I have no way of knowing if you are one of them.
I’ll be glad to see you tackle my issues.
John Harshman,
No, we don’t. Evolutionists just assume that is so.
Design
Please tell us how to test the claim that changes in genomes can produce the transformations required to go from fish to tetrapod.
Tetrapods existed before Tiktaalik.
Yes, it was
Linne, of Linnaean taxonomy fame, published well before Darwin and had the Created Kinds at the level of Genus with al of his species evolving from those.
Richardthughes: AGAIN: Genesis has a better chance of being true than your position, cupcake. But I do not know if Genesis is true or not
Richardthughes,
AGAIN: Genesis has a better chance of being true than your position, cupcake. But I do not know if Genesis is true or not
Frankie,
You don’t know, but what is your belief?
I believe in the “G” spot. I have actually found it, once.
Frankie,
Are you dodging, Frankie? That’s a shame. You shouldn’t be ashamed of your beliefs.
Ogrethe5th,
Poor Ogre, still unable to learn or follow along:
Wrong again, Ogre. They say, as your quote-mines show, that ID is anti-DARWINIAN/ UNGUIDED evolution.
I don’t know how to edit to include the citation and JoeG says that ID is anti- blind watchmaker evolution. You insist that is a strawman however you have been corrected every single time you have tried that tactic.
Wrong again. Your inability to learn, while amusing, is pretty sad. You can falsify ID by showing DARWINIAN/ UNGUIDED/ BLIND WATCHMAKER EVOLUTION is true.
How many times does that have to be explained to you?
That’s certainly been true of stories like the flood. Ken Ham was right.
petrushka,
Whatever. The Flood has more evidence for it than your position does.
You mistake my point, or perhaps I mistake yours. Can we agree that the differences we observe between any two species are all ultimately due to differences in their genomes? Can we agree that a series of mutations (actually, an astronomical number of possible series) is capable of transforming any genome into any other genome? If so, then it isn’t clear what you were talking about, though I think you may have been referring to a series of fixations resulting from selection. I make no claims at the moment regarding the reasons for fixation. You, on the other hand, refer to design as an explanation for the differences among species, but I don’t quite know what you think that means.
I don’t understand what you mean. If fish and tetrapods differ genetically, changes in genomes would produce those transformations by definition. Clarify.
Irrelevant. A transitional form need not be ancestral.
Interesting. Can you support that? But that too is irrelevant. Linnaeus was not a contemporary of Darwin’s. We’re talking about the England of Darwin’s time. Darwin was at one point a believer in species fixity, as that’s what he had been taught.
I’m hoping you some day arrive at a defense of baraminology and will at least identify a few holobaramins for me.
John Harshman,
John Harshman,
We can agree that is the propaganda There isn’t any way to test the claim
A transitional form need not be ancestral.
Looking like a transitional form doesn’t make it a transitional.
Yes, but right now I need to get the outside lights up. Answers in Genesis has some resources that you could read.
John Harshman,
The defense is as simple as that is what we observe. Read the book “Why Is a Fly Not A Horse?” by geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti.
Frankie,
You’re going to have to respond with a bit more than one-liners if you want to engage seriously on this topic. Asking me to read a book is not an answer.
If the differences between species aren’t genetic, what could they possibly be?
I’m still hoping you some day arrive at a defense of baraminology and will at least identify a few holobaramins for me.
You’re lucky you didn’t get “I’ve already addressed that on my blog”!
Frankie has a blog?
I don’t want to out anyone, but imagine if someone had a blog and then just cut and paste a whole post from it…
Especially if it is someone else’s blog.
Also to refute UNGUIDED evolution you need to show that ID can produce what UNGUIDED evolution says evolved naturally. That was also explained to Frankie and clearly he couldn’t grasp that simple concept.
Debate, Frankie style.
Gpuccio used to argue that guided evolution (artificial selection) could produce new protein codes that could not be produced by natural selection. I invited him to try.
Really? How does design produce anything? A blueprint for a house will only keep me warm for as long as it burns. I can’t drive the design for a car. Design can’t do anything without a means of manufacture/construction. But since ID refuses to address this, you have nothing.
And imagine if that blog’s name was Intelligent Reasoning.
But I wouldn’t recommend it. The author of that blog is nothing but an abusive little turd.
Acartia,
Anyway, even if it’s design (perhaps accompanied by manufacture) that produces morphological differences among species, aren’t those differences still due to genetic differences? I’m not sure Frankie understood the question at all.
A not uncommon occurence.
Unguided evolution can’t be tested. It can’t be modelled. It doesn’t have any predictive power. There isn’t anything to refute.
I invite you to show that natural selection can produce new protein codes. You would be the first to do so
You can find evolution defined in the OP.
If you and the “critics” here are using some other definition then please say so, and give YOUR definition of evolution. It appears to me that you are calling universal common descent “evolution.”
\When you point to new ones, he rolls out the “were you there?” response.
http://ncse.com/cej/5/2/new-proteins-without-gods-help
John Harshman,
All I know is that you cannot show that the differences between fish and tetrapods are genetic. You can’t show the differences between humans and chimps are genetic.
There isn’t any way to test the claim that changes to genomes can produce the transformations required.
ID in a nutshell.
Acartia,
Design is both the thing being constructed and the way it is constructed.
Neil didn’t see that.
LoL! You are a cupcake who has been corrected on that so many times it’s amazing that you still spew the same nonsense.
SCIENCE mandates all design inferences eliminate necessity and chance explanations first, cupcake. That will always be part of ID.
No, IDists made that up. 😉
Richardthughes,
How was it determined that those new proteins arose via accidental/ happenstance genetic change? Please be specific or admit that you are equivocating, again
See the OP.
Wrong again! Ndewton’s four rules of scientific investigation, aka Occam’s razor and parsimony all prove that I am right.
What use is ID?
What was the most important ID related discovery or piece of new knowledge this year Frankie?
Last year?
Frankie,
The article is quite clear, It was a frame shift. Here’s the actual paper: http://www.pnas.org/content/81/8/2421.full.pdf
John Harshman,
You just don’t understand that the differences between different species of different body types is not genetic
Frankie,
Occam’s razor and Newton both remove unnecessary entities (a designer). I don’t know about “Ndewton”, though.
Richardthughes,
And how was it determined that a frameshift is an accidental/ happenstance genetic change? AND you are starting with the very information that you need to explain.
That is incorrect. They both say that you do not add unnecessary agents. And that supports what I posted.
OMagain,
LoL! What use is materialism? What use is unguided evolution? What has either of those ever given us?