- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,024
- 7,364
- 60
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
IN crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for any thing I knew to the contrary, it had lain there for ever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given, that, for any thing I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone? why is it not as admissible in the second case, as in the first? NATURAL THEOLOGY; OR, EVIDENCES OF THE EXISTENCE AND ATTRIBUTES OF THE DEITY. COLLECTED FROM THE APPEARANCES OF NATURE. BY WILLIAM PALEY, D.D.
I have been a little standoffish about this movement since my main focus has been human lineage, I have Biblical reasons for this. Still, I like the way the subject of Naturalism and the old school view of nature known as Intelligent Design works. Their work has been well publicized but just to be clear, these are the primary people I have in mind:
Intelligent design can be unpacked as a theory of information. Within such a theory, information becomes a reliable indicator of design as well as a proper object for scientific investigation. Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information by William Dembski
How can we decide if Darwin's theory can account for the complexity of molecular life? It turns out that Darwin himself set the standard. He acknowledged that: If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But what type of biological system could not be formed by "numerous, successive, slight modifications"?
Well, for starters, a system that is irreducibly complex. Irreducible complexity is just a fancy phrase I use to mean a single system which is composed of several interacting parts, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning. Michael Behe Evidence for Intelligent Design from Biochemistry From a speech delivered at Discovery Institute's God & Culture Conference
"No biologist today," observes Douglas Futuyma, "would think of submitting a paper entitled 'New evidence for evolution;' it simply has not been an issue for a century." [1] Whether they see it as an issue or not, however, biologists today still explain (in textbooks, for instance) why they think evolution is true. In other words, they regularly make a case for the theory. Paul Nelson Jettison the Arguments, or the Rule?The Place of Darwinian Theological Themata in Evolutionary Reasoning
Before Darwin, homology was defined morphologically and explained by reference to ideal archetypes -- that is, to intelligent design. Darwin reformulated biology in naturalistic* rather than teleological terms, and explained homology as the result of descent with modification from a common ancestor. Descent with modification, however, renders design unnecessary only if it is due entirely to naturalistic mechanisms. Two such mechanisms have been proposed, genetic programs and developmental pathways, but neither one fits the evidence. Without an empirically demonstrated naturalistic mechanism to account for homology, design remains a possibility which can only be excluded on the basis of questionable philosophical assumptions. Jonathan Wells Paul Nelson Homology: A Concept in Crisis
How can we decide if Darwin's theory can account for the complexity of molecular life? It turns out that Darwin himself set the standard. He acknowledged that: If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But what type of biological system could not be formed by "numerous, successive, slight modifications"?
Well, for starters, a system that is irreducibly complex. Irreducible complexity is just a fancy phrase I use to mean a single system which is composed of several interacting parts, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning. Michael Behe Evidence for Intelligent Design from Biochemistry From a speech delivered at Discovery Institute's God & Culture Conference
"No biologist today," observes Douglas Futuyma, "would think of submitting a paper entitled 'New evidence for evolution;' it simply has not been an issue for a century." [1] Whether they see it as an issue or not, however, biologists today still explain (in textbooks, for instance) why they think evolution is true. In other words, they regularly make a case for the theory. Paul Nelson Jettison the Arguments, or the Rule?The Place of Darwinian Theological Themata in Evolutionary Reasoning
Before Darwin, homology was defined morphologically and explained by reference to ideal archetypes -- that is, to intelligent design. Darwin reformulated biology in naturalistic* rather than teleological terms, and explained homology as the result of descent with modification from a common ancestor. Descent with modification, however, renders design unnecessary only if it is due entirely to naturalistic mechanisms. Two such mechanisms have been proposed, genetic programs and developmental pathways, but neither one fits the evidence. Without an empirically demonstrated naturalistic mechanism to account for homology, design remains a possibility which can only be excluded on the basis of questionable philosophical assumptions. Jonathan Wells Paul Nelson Homology: A Concept in Crisis
For a brief but interesting watershed moment, this documentary hosts the leading Intelligent Design thinkers in a conference in Pajaro Hills California.
Intelligent Design - Unlocking The Mysteries Of Life
I see no reason at this point to form an argument, this will no doubt be answered with a flurry of ad hominem remarks. My intention here is to reexamine the Intelligent Design movement, what they believe and why it's important.
P.S. If you think this is all a bunch of Bible wielding fundamentalists think again, this guy is an agnostic and makes sweeping indictments against Darwinism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ec8lpcA5hls
Here is an interesting debate on the topic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gT3NZTGCtrI&feature=related
Your thoughts...
Last edited: