Thank you Elizabeth for this opportunity-
Good day- Over the past many, many years, IDists have been telling people that intelligent design is not anti-evolution. Most people understand and accept that, while others just refuse to, no matter what.
With that said, in this post I will provide the evidence (again) that firmly demonstrates that ID is not anti-evolution. I will be presenting several authoritative definitions of “evolution” followed by what the ID leadership has to say about evolution. So without any further adieu, I give you-
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 someone 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?
Hi Joe. You seemed to have missed it, so I’ll repeat:
“Hence, as a strategy for unseating materialism and evolution, the term “Wedge” has come to denote an intellectual and cultural movement that many find congenial. ” – Dembski
That’s explicitly anti-evolution, seating to “unseat it”, and Dembksi is for most people’s an ID leader. So there you have it, in their own words. It seems to me it is, at least in some cases, so i believe your point is refuted.
I do however believe that failures in scientific (doing no science), cultural (Expelled!, Denyse O’Leary in general) and legal (Kitzmiller) arenas are forcing IDisit to give more and more ground to evolution. ID is evolving, as evidenced by that great fossil, “cdesign proponentsists”
From what I understand Meyer’s view of ID proposes that the fundamental mechanisms powering the genetic algorithm originated not via the relationships between chemistry and physics, but rather through an intelligent process organizing the specific arrangements of matter, representations and protocols, i.e. the information contained in the base 4 digital code of which the neo-darwinian theory considers to be off limits, or outside their tent of considerations. Therefore the compiling, building and execution of the GA, whether through currently unknown physical and chemical processes or by intelligence is completely irrelevant to finch beaks, i.e. compatible with the modern synthesis as Joe G claims. But there is much protest I can see.
So, according to that, Homo sapiens is still the result of random variation + natural selection, and not a directed goal?The Designer simply enabled it all, supplying the machinery and bootstrap software?
I’m sorry, but I don’t see many ID proponents copping for that one!
It would be of great assistance if an ID proponent could say
1. When in the history of life, did the designer act first?
2. For approximately how long did active designing continue?
3. If not still active, approximately when in the history of life did the designer sit back
and watch/allow the designs develop?
4. Is every functional molecule above a certain size the product of a purposeful design?
Nice try but that is incorrect.
ID is OK with some or even most mutations being random or probabilistic.
And what you said just means that ID is anti blind watchmaker evolution.
Again you fail as all tat does it say that ID is anti the blind watchmaker evolution.
And geez Rich I provided Dembski’s words in my OP and he says that ID is not anti-evolution.
IOW you seemed to have missed quite a bit…
You do understand that is what science is for- to help us answer those types of questions.
Just look at your position- unable to answer anything yet it is somehow the reigning paradigm…
Again for the learning impaired-
This thread is about Intelligent Design is NOT Anti-Evolution-
Either people agree or disagree. I you agree then please say so and if you disagree then by all means make your case.
All other comments are off-topic and will be placed in guano as soon as I am given those rights. And if those rights are not granted all off-topic comments will be ignored.
Wow your response doesn’t follow from the post you are responding to.
Nope.
Evolutionary theory holds that NO mutations are directed by any intelligence, there being no need to postulate any such thing, because undirected processes are adequate.
ID, if it holds that even a few mutations are directed by an intelligence, is therefore anti-evolution
Thorton,
Thank you for continuing to prove taht you know nothing about science.
Also I am not asking anyone to prove a negative and the falsification I stated is exactly what Newton stated in his First rule.
IOW all I am doing is asking evotards to actually ante up and support their position. But they are obvioulsy too cowardly to do so.
But he EXPLICITLY says “Hence, as a strategy for unseating materialism and evolution, the term “Wedge” has come to denote an intellectual and cultural movement that many find congenial. ” That is clearly Anti-evolution.
So, best case, he’s speaking out of both sides of his mouth. So he’s either dishonest or confused, both of which are grounds to question the claim. Barry Arrington believes that those who violate LNC shouldn’t even be entered into dialog with, so a prominent IDist thinks that this line of thought violates ‘right reason’ and should not be considered.
But of course we’re dealing with opinions and spin. We can’t empirically deal with data, because that’s the ream of science, not ID.
You are confused- I am NOT talking about evolutionary theory and I actually referenced the definitions of EVOLUTION that apply.
Ya see there is a difference between “evolution” the thing and the theory of evolution which tells us how that thing happens.
So YES ID is anti the current THEORY (if it is even a theory) of evolution but it is not anti-evolution.
IOW you didn’t even read the OP.
Joe:
“Again for the learning impaired-
This thread is about Intelligent Design is NOT Anti-Evolution-”
then:
“IOW all I am doing is asking evotards to actually ante up and support their position. But they are obvioulsy too cowardly to do so.”
So by “their position”, you mean “your position”, which they aren’t supporting, being ‘evotards”.
Again, Joe, tone. Second warning.
Dude you are also confusing the “theory” of evolution with evolution, the thing.
Again READ THE OP- what is wrong with you people?
And Rich, if your position had any data we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
So perhaps you would care to ante-up and tell us how to test the claim taht the bacterial flagellum, for example, evolved via accumulations of random mutations.
Er, Joe, Demski says “Evolution” not, “The theory of evolution, TOE, NDE, etc” so take it up with him. It seems you’re at odds with the ID leadership and as such I can’t find your writing credible with regard to ID beliefs.
Er Rich I posted Dembski’s words- I posted the ID leaderships words.
What’s wrong with you?
“And Rich, if your position had any data we wouldn’t be having this discussion.” – but I believe in evolution, Joe. I thought ID was alright with that. And we have predictions (Tiktaalik) and experiments (lenski’s e coli), so we’re doing fine. No designer was spotted in either of those, but you’re fine with that presumably.
“Er Rich I posted Dembski’s words- I posted the ID leaderships words.” and so did I. so it seams he’s at odds with himself. Hence my comment:
“So, best case, he’s speaking out of both sides of his mouth. So he’s either dishonest or confused, both of which are grounds to question the claim. Barry Arrington believes that those who violate LNC shouldn’t even be entered into dialog with, so a prominent IDist thinks that this line of thought violates ‘right reason’ and should not be considered.”
So – ID proponents are sure that a designer operated sometime, somehow. But they are not prepared to speculate when or how, which would explain why ID “science” is so sterile, since there is no guidance from the ID theorists on what to research.
No Rich, the safe bet is that you are misrepresenting Dembski by selectively quoting him.
As for Tiktaalik- you are mistaken, Lenski’s experiment supports baraminology and taht is about it.
Tiktaalik was a failed prediction Rich- according to Shubin himself he was looking in the wrong place.
Yup, your position is as sterile as can be – that is by your “logic”
“No Rich, the safe bet is that you are misrepresenting Dembski by selectively quoting him.”
Oh, I see. I’m selectively quoting him, but you’re not? How should one judge who’s selectively quoting?
So you don’t think genomic changes causing morphological changes that give increased reproductived advantage due to an environmental change supports evolution? “Lenski’s experiment supports baraminology and taht is about it.”. How odd. May I suggest that you need to further study evolution before posting on what it is and isn’t.
“Tiktaalik was a failed prediction Rich- according to Shubin himself he was looking in the wrong place.” – from a probability standpoint, which is more likely – Shubin finding an incredibly rare fossil by looking in the wrong place, or you not understanding what’s going on? How can it be the wrong place if it gets the right results?
What % of mutations must be telic for ID to have relevance?
1%?
99%?
If you don’t know if “some, most or all” mutations are telic then how do you know *any at all* are?
Sure, but you seem to have taken a position before knowing what science says those answers actually are.
Talk about assuming your conclusion?
Tell me Joe, if there is no science to support ID (as you cannot answer simple questions about the claims you are making there is not) then why do you believe it at all?
Come of it, Joe! AFAIK, the only ID “science” going on is poor old Douglas Axe trying to show that functional proteins are incredibly unlikely, (whilst all the time other folk are publishing work showing new functional molecules from random assemblages)
The blind watchmakers are winning, kiddo!
It seems, from what you’ve said in this thread that “ante up” appears to mean:
Demonstrate the origin of life.
Demonstrate that the origin of life had no telic involvement.
Demonstrate that random mutations are not in fact random at all.
Yet you’ve provided nothing approaching that yourself.
Then explain to me how I can prove that mutation X was random or not.
Which one?
Why?
You deny that Tiktaalik is a transitional fossil. You are the mistaken person as *everybody else* who is not a creationist says that it is.
Ask me a question Joe about evolution and I’ll do my best to go find you an answer.
Whereas if I ask *you* a question about ID you simply reply with abuse.
Who’s got the sterile position? Seems to me it’s you.
Seems to me (that’s from the OP) that you therefore accept evolution in it’s entirety but simply dispute that mutations are random WRT fitness. A distinction without a difference.
You are a TE but just won’t admit it. Why not? It’s logical.
Citation please. He found a transitional fossil of the type he went looking for where he went looking for it. Hardly a mistake!
How can they be winning when they can’t even produce a testable hypothesis along with supporting evidence?
BTW your link to the random proteins having functions doesn’t help you because it does not say how those proteins arose in the first place.
Well Rich I referenced my quote- you didn’t. Mine came from an approved ID text.
And yes I understand evolution- obvioulsy you don’t understand baraminology.
As for shubin, what he found now demonstrates fish-> tetrapods-> fishapods when what he was trying to find is fish-> fishapods-> tetrapods:
Just as I have been saying- go figure.
But anyway, the point is had the new data been available to Shubin- the data that puts the transition back to before 390 million years ago- that whole set up would be meaningless and wrong. Meaning he would not have been looking where he did.
Joe,
Not according to you, no. But I think you are forgetting that your opinion does not count for much!
And as you’ve been told many times, every new paper that comes out is by definition a testable hypothesis along with supporting evidence.
How does ID say those proteins arose in the first place then?
LoL! A “transitional fossil” = “it looks like a transitional to me”
1- You are right about my opinion but it is very noticeable taht you can’t refute what i said
2- Please present ONE testable hypothesis pertaining to blind and undirected processes- from any paper
Of course it “helps”! One of the tenets of ID (in as much as any such thing is identifiable, so mealy-mouthed are its proponents in the face of specific questions) is that new information cannot arise from the activities of the blind watchmaker.
That last link shows that indeed it can.
And if it can arise then, there is no reason to suppose that in cannot arise during the activities of the very first replicating molecules
Wrong again that is NOT one of the tenets of ID. IOW you don’t have a clue
As for that link- it is genetic engineering
Intelligent Design pertains to the ORIGIN of the information, and neither of your papers deals with that.
Then please define “transitional fossil”.
Joe G,
Why do IDist’s ignore the fact that evolution is a system?
There is mutation and survival, two completely different components that basically combine and result in what we see as evolution.
You cannot simply fixate on mutation only and claim that it is the sole component of evolution.
And so what does ID have to say about the origin of *any* information what-so-ever? You pick, go right ahead. I’m waiting.
Tell me one thing that we know because of ID. One single thing.
Right. So ID is OK with new information arising from “blind watchmaker” activities. Check.
And according to you, “engineering” covers the random insertion and deletion of substructures into an existing structure. Check.(Remind me not to fly in a plane made by that sort of engineering!)
ID pertains to the ORIGIN of the information. Check.
Do you then claim that all biological information was given to life by a designer? or just the complex specified sort? And you know this how?
And has the designer intervened since? Or is the evolution occurring since (with which ID is OK, you tell us) the result of that originally-conferred information?
Why are you ignoring the fact that ID is not anti-evolution? And why the false accusation about fixating on mutation only?
1: You’ve said nothing that *can* be refuted as you build your structure on nothing.
2: What is a “blind and undirected process” please? I understood from your own words on this page that the only thing that you dispute about evolution is the fact that some mutations are not random. So what are these blind and undirected processes” you are now talking about?
Define that, and perhaps I can get what you want. Be very specific however.
Question-begging as it assumes there were/ is/ will be such things.
First biology needs to answer the biological questions. then it can move onto the other questions.
According to your own words
The only aspect you dispute is if mutations are in fact random WRT fitness.
It says it all in the OP. So what other part of evolution is wrong then, if not just that?
1- I am saying YOUR position doesn’t have something so all you have to do is ante-up- but you can’t.
2- If you don’t even understand your own position then why are you here?