Common design = Evolution with a different name

[pitabread]

Apparently to create a "common design" model all you have to do is:

1) Start with the underlying model for biological evolution.
2) Call it "common design" instead.

Voila! The common design model. It's basically exactly the same as evolution! But just not called evolution!



(At least that what creationists/ID proponents on this forum have led me to conclude. In all the asks for creationists to demonstrate a real, testable model of "common design" that is somehow differentiated compared to biological evolution AND can provide equivalent explanatory power and application. Well... apparently nothing exists besides scientific models for biological evolution.)

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Apparently to create a "common design" model all you have to do are:

1) Start with the underlying model for biological evolution.
2) Call it "common design" instead.

Voila! The common design model. It's basically exactly the same as evolution! But just not called evolution!



(At least that what creationists/ID proponents on this forum have led me to conclude. In all the asks for creationists to demonstrate a real, testable model of "common design" that is somehow differentiated compared to biological evolution AND can provide equivalent explanatory power and application. Well... apparently nothing exists besides scientific models for biological evolution.)

....And the Crowd Roars!

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Apparently to create a "common design" model all you have to do is:

1) Start with the underlying model for biological evolution.
2) Call it "common design" instead.

Voila! The common design model. It's basically exactly the same as evolution! But just not called evolution!



(At least that what creationists/ID proponents on this forum have led me to conclude. In all the asks for creationists to demonstrate a real, testable model of "common design" that is somehow differentiated compared to biological evolution AND can provide equivalent explanatory power and application. Well... apparently nothing exists besides scientific models for biological evolution.)

But evolution fails some basic requirements:

• It can't explain self-replicating robot penguins
• It can't produce an example of every living thing that ever existed
• It can't explain why we never see a cat give birth to a non-cat
• It can't explain how life began
• It can't explain the Big Bang

None of this is a problem for common design - Goddidit is all you need to know. It's extremely parsimonious

EDIT: Most importantly it can't explain why the evidence does not support a literal reading of Genesis.

 

[AV1611VET]

Apparently to create a "common design" model all you have to do is:

1) Start with the underlying model for biological evolution.
2) Call it "common design" instead.

Voila! The common design model. It's basically exactly the same as evolution! But just not called evolution!

I don't think so.

In biological evolution, all living things can [allegedly] have a DNA trail that leads back to a common ancestor.

In common design, all living things came into existence apart from any physical link (such as DNA) among them.

That was the point of my snowape challenge thread, where I showed how a snowape and a snowman can be both made up of the same ingredients, but one didn't give rise to the other.

They both had a common designer: the person who made them.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

I don't think so.

In biological evolution, all living things can [allegedly] have a DNA trail that leads back to a common ancestor.

In common design, all living things came into existence apart from any physical link (such as DNA) among them.

That was the point of my snowape challenge thread, where I showed how a snowape and a snowman can be both made up of the same ingredients, but one didn't give rise to the other.

They both had a common designer: the person who made them.

Of course. Neither the snowman nor snowape reproduce, so they're non-starters, and that's exactly why it doesn't apply.

 

[Jimmy D]

In common design, all living things came into existence apart from any physical link (such as DNA) among them.

Ah yes, common design ignores any evidence that might demonstrate it's failures. Thanks for the reminder.

 

[DogmaHunter]

But evolution fails some basic requirements:

• It can't explain self-replicating robot penguins
• It can't produce an example of every living thing that ever existed
• It can't explain why we never see a cat give birth to a non-cat
• It can't explain how life began
• It can't explain the Big Bang

Your forgot another important one:

• it doesn't factor in an undetactable, unfalsiable, incomprehensible "designer" which "exists" outside of space and time, who has a "plan" and baths in mystery and demands blind faith of his subjects

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course. Neither the snowman nor snowape reproduce, so they're non-starters, and that's exactly why it doesn't apply.

Way to miss the point!

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah yes, common design ignores any evidence that might demonstrate it's failures.

Are you saying common design is scientific by way of falsifiability?

 

[Jimmy D]

Are you saying common design is scientific by way of falsifiability?

I don't believe I did say that, no.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Way to miss the point!

...that they were designed and not the product of evolution? I got the point just fine.

 

[pitabread]

In biological evolution, all living things can [allegedly] have a DNA trail that leads back to a common ancestor.

In common design, all living things came into existence apart from any physical link (such as DNA) among them.

Cool. Then what does common design offer with respect to the biological sciences that evolution doesn't already explain?

 

[AV1611VET]

Cool. Then what does common design offer with respect to the biological sciences that evolution doesn't already explain?

How would I know?

I'm not that familiar with the biological sciences that's taught nowadays; or in the past.

If I had to answer something, I would say common design offers a sentient intelligence behind our makeup.

But you said 'with respect to the biological sciences,' and believe me, I have no respect for the biological sciences as a whole.

I would imagine it's so riddled with tares, it's theologically useless.

 

[pitabread]

But you said 'with respect to the biological sciences,' and believe me, I have no respect for the biological sciences as a whole.

*shrug* Oh well...

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Your forgot another important one:

• it doesn't factor in an undetactable, unfalsiable, incomprehensible "designer" which "exists" outside of space and time, who has a "plan" and baths in mystery and demands blind faith of his subjects

Allah?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Creationism has too few answers, while evolution has waaaaaaaaaaaay too many.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Allah?

or any other god.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

or any other god.

The Christian God doesn't require blind faith. We are to grow in the knowledge of God so we know who we are worshipping, and why.

 

[tas8831]

But evolution fails some basic requirements:

• It can't explain self-replicating robot penguins
• It can't produce an example of every living thing that ever existed
• It can't explain why we never see a cat give birth to a non-cat
• It can't explain how life began
• It can't explain the Big Bang

None of this is a problem for common design - Goddidit is all you need to know. It's extremely parsimonious

EDIT: Most importantly it can't explain why the evidence does not support a literal reading of Genesis.

We laugh because this is true.

I have been involved with evolution listserves, discussion forums, blogs, etc. for 20+ years, and I have yet to be on one and NOT have at least 1 creationist make 2 or more of those claims/questions.

 

[tas8831]

The Christian God doesn't require blind faith. We are to grow in the knowledge of God so we know who we are worshipping, and why.

So what knowledge have you gleaned?