Intelligent Design and Theistic Evolution

[Vance]

Intelligent Design has become the new poster child for Creationism and I, for one, actually think it is an improvement over previous incarnations of Creationism (as presented by most ID proponents).

One interesting aspect of Theistic Evolution is that, as Christians, we believe there was an intelligent designer for the universe, the earth, and for Mankind in particular. And yet, most of us disagree with the Intelligent Design movement (for reasons I will get to below). But, really, the ID folks are much more in agreement with Theistic Evolutionists than any Young Earth Creationist. They accept the scientific evidence for an old earth, most of them accept that life developed over billions of years, and some of the leading ID proponents even accept a common ancestor.

The real distinction between TE and ID is that the latter insists that the evidence can prove the existence of an intelligent designer, whereas TE's accept that an intelligent designer exists, but that this is not provable by the evidence alone. Faith is required. Other than that, TE's and ID agree on:

1. the age of the earth
2. the fact that God created everything and is the intelligent designer of everything
3. that life developed in an evolutionary process over billions of years (most ID guys, but maybe not Johnson)
4. YEC's are just plain wrong

Not too bad, if you ask me.

Now, here is my general take on the ID insistence that God can be proven:

I have read some of the intelligent design materials and it seems to be saying that what we have now is uniquely and amazingly well-suited to fit, well, the way things are now. "If X was even very slightly different, we would not be able to live on this planet", etc, etc. This makes a very large logical fallacy: that this end product was a necessity, which is something only someone religiously minded would accept. It is not an objectively true presumption at all, and one of ID's claims is that the design is objectively observable.

They start with the current state of things as if this state of things was the ultimate goal, and then work backwards to show that everything fits what we now have perfectly, and the ODDS of things turning out this way is so tremendously low, that it MUST have come about by design. The whole watchmaker argument.

Even though I am a Christian and believe that God DID create everything, I have to admit that the entire ID argument just doesn't hold up logically without a pre-existing belief. The presupposition is that the "current" was the "goal" (a position that is not self-evident, but a matter of belief, and a belief which I happen to hold, btw). The response is obviously that everything fits because if it did not fit, we would not be here and, here is the kicker, SOMETHING ELSE WOULD BE HERE! At each stage of possibilities, something else could have happened and the universe would then fit THAT instead of what we have now.

What I mean is that whatever path the development of the universe took, everything would fit that path or it wouldn't be there.

Now, I do believe God created the universe and everything in it. And I DO think that God designed every process that is now in place in this universe and He knew exactly how it would all turn out. And I also believe that He has purposefully intervened in His creation when and where it fit His plan to do so (a particular event 2000 years ago, for example), and that He will do so again. And yes, I can FEEL God in the many wonders of the universe and this planet.

But I also have to recognize that God very well may have created the world to work exactly as it would work without his Divine involvement. He created it so perfectly that He needs no "fine tuning" as the ID'ers like to call it.

In short, the whole ID argument can only be convincing to those, like myself, who already believe that this current state of the universe, with Man sitting here as we are, is how it had to end up. Thus, it is an argument that can only preach to the choir, but has no logical or persuasive effect to those who do not share this pressuposition. Atheists, I must reluctantly admit, are right to reject it.

"But then how do we know God exists?!", the Christians exclaim (and atheists too, for that matter).

Faith. The evidence of things NOT seen.

Experience. The personal relationship with the all-powerful.

The Scripture. God's timeless message to all of us.

If we are to reach the non-believer, Chrsitians must do so on a theological, philosophical and relational level, not by an attempt to "prove" God must have designed everything.

 

[Smidlee]

ID is science and we use ID every day of our normal lives. The only reason it rejected is because of prejudices.Also even evolution must be accepted by faith.(of course all faithful followers will deny this) Example , because scientist believes evolution is true they go look for the missing link between ape and man. Remember though looks are very decieving which this fact has been used againest ID but not againest Evolution again because of people prejudices. So many evolutionist claim things that look design but we can't go by looks so they really not design by intelligent. But when they find a tooth or/and one bone they claim it's one of our ape/human ancestor. So they can't see intelligent design in cells but they know a leg bone belong to a caveman. I can see heavy bias here.
Even if we find a complete fossil of a creature between ape and man , it still only prove that there was a creature closer to man than a modern day ape. The chances that there was a creature closer to human than a modern day ape is a lot higher (IMO it a lot more sound logic) than a man evolved from an ape.

If a walmart is found on Mars who would the better logic?
Group 1 ) who claims the building proves life was on Mars once since it had to be built by intelligents.
Group 2) who claim we haven't found any life forms on mars so this building was the results of nature.

I would say even scientist would be in group 1. The burden of proof would be on group 2 not group 1. Group 2 wouldn't just have to show how it could be possible but also show the evironment / nature actually producing a building.

evolutionist only defense, which is a bad one, living thing are not the same as a structure. But what makes living things (like a living cell) different from non-living things (like buildings and dead cells.) Exactly what is this magical, supernatural stuff that a living cell has that a dead cell don't. Life is many way is like God, we can't see it nor does it has mass but we can easily see the evidence of both.
So IMO evolution itself isn't very scientific sound since we know so much more about cells ,DNA than Darwin did and more and more evidence is againest evolution.

 

[Vance]

Evolution has nothing to do with the existence of life, it just explains the development of species.

 

[notto]

But what makes living things (like a living cell) different from non-living things (like buildings and dead cells.) Exactly what is this magical, supernatural stuff that a living cell has that a dead cell don't. Life is many way is like God, we can't see it nor does it has mass but we can easily see the evidence of both.

1) Buildings don't reproduce
2) Buildings don't reproduce imperfectly
3) Natural selection doesn't act on groups of buildings to perfect design
4) We determine that something is designed or manufatured when we can see evidence of the method of design or manufacture. Building are manufactured an we can tell this by looking at the way they are put together. We know of no other way that they can be created. This is not true related to living organisms. We know that natural selection can change populations of organisms over time.

Your analogy of ID is somewhat simplistic and doesn't address the issues related to ID and why it isn't science. We can observe natural selection designing so the burden of proof would be on ID to show us a way to determine if something wasn't designed by evolution. Just like your walmart example, the burden of proof lies with them showing that there is an alternate method of design from the one we observe to happen. They have yet to do this with positive evidence that is objective, testable, and falsifiable.

ID can't reliably determine if something is intelligently designed.
Evolution can design but does not need to be guided by intelligence.
ID provides no objective methodology to test the design in living things. It relies on a lack of knowledge of evolutionary pathways, not positive evidence of design itself. That is not science.

 

[Smidlee]

1) Buildings don't reproduce
2) Buildings don't reproduce imperfectly

Buildings can reproduce by intelligent design. Dead cells also can't reproduce or made alive without the magic supernatural stuff. As far as perfect, this is a matter of opinion. We have ways to cover up our imperfections.

3) Natural selection doesn't act on groups of buildings to perfect design

It has been proven natural selection is extremely limited and it alone can't close this huge gaps.

4) We determine that something is designed or manufatured when we can see evidence of the method of design or manufacture. Building are manufactured an we can tell this by looking at the way they are put together. We know of no other way that they can be created. This is not true related to living organisms.

we also can see how the cells builds a life form by it's build-in intelligents and magic stuff. We know something is design by knowing the limits of what the laws of nature can produce. You don't have to know how it was built to see intelligent design , all is required is the one who is doing the investigating must have intelligents himself. intelligents can see other intelligents even if design of the object is unknown.

Your analogy of ID is somewhat simplistic and doesn't address the issues related to ID and why it isn't science. We can observe natural selection designing so the burden of proof would be on ID to show us a way to determine if something wasn't designed by evolution.

even scientist admited that natural selection can't design thing that are found in cells. Of course the more simple someone tries to explain evolution the more stupid and insane it's sounds. So most evolutionist tries to talk over people heads so they don't notice how bad their logic really is.

ID can't reliably determine if something is intelligently designed.
Evolution can design but does not need to be guided by intelligence.
ID provides no objective methodology to test the design in living things. It relies on a lack of knowledge of evolutionary pathways, not positive evidence of design itself. That is not science.

If ID isn't science then evolution isn't science either. Both uses "appearances" as evidence. If someone was to remove the "appearances" out of evolution there wouldn't be nothing left. the way thing appeares requires human judgement. This is why almost everything Darwin wrote in Origins today have been proven false. Almost all Darwin evidence was based on human judgment on "appearances". Today science has proven Darwin was wrong in many things and natural selection doesn't have the power Darwin thought it did.

 

[Vance]

Remember that the theory of evolution is simply a description of the various combinations of mechanisms that cause the changes we can see over time. With the theory of evolution, we have both the evidence of the change (which is considered a fact, not theory), and we have been able to observe the actual mechanisms themselves at work. It is perfectly good science to extrapolate observable phenomenon (natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, etc, causing speciation, which has been observed), to events in the past, especlally when the evidence from the past fits so well. It is based on the presumption that things happened in the past as they happen now, and that presumption is borne out by the actual evidence we have. Things LOOK exactly as they would look if things happened in the past as they do now. It all hangs together.

ID does not have this same basis. They start off with a presumption that can not supported by any evidence: that what we have now is what was meant to be here now. Only those of us with a religous faith must accept this. Since the entire ID concept is based on this presumption, and that presumption is not based on any evidence whatsoever, the whole thing is no longer science. It may very well be true, but it is not science. It is based on a philosophical presumption.

The ID proponents agree that life developed over billions of years, since that is what the evidence shows. Some even accept a common ancestor. So far, so good, they are just following the evidence. The problem comes in when they, like scientists, seek to discover the cause of this change and the mechanics.

Remember, evolution does not address at all the origin of life, or abiogenesis. Even those who believe in evolution are all over the place on that one. I think that if there is any room for ID arguments, it would be there, and not with evolution. Even there, they may fun into "God of the gaps" arguments, but it would focus attention on a more fruitful area for discussion.

 

[Smidlee]

The only reason for the Gaps is because of trying to fit the evidence to evolution but the facts don't fit. (And if we found an alien device on Mars don't you believe we can recoginize it was built by intelligent design even if it's techology was beyond our understanding or have no idea who made it?) Only if someone tried to explain it by nature laws only would there be huge gaps of logic.
The idea ID has no evidence is because of bias opinions. I read where many evolutionists tries to cover up the huge gaps. "Punctuated Equilibrium" . Boy, I love these big words that means so little. "Punctuated Equilibrium" is nothing more than the God of gaps without God. So now evidence againest evolution (fossil records) is also evidence for evolution so it happen super fast.
Here is some of the claims of evidence :
For Evolution * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *For ID

1) coccyx - the bone closest to ........1) Human brain - on the opposide
....the exit hole..................................... end of the coccyx
2) panda's thumb............................ 2) the whole panda
3) a few bones look ape/human......... 3) the whole fossil record as animals
....like............................................... suddenly appears fully developed.
4) natural selection , random............ 4) cells has a built-in spell check
.. mulation ......................................... system to stop mulations
5) good artist with big imagations...... 5) "irreducible complex" things like
.........................................................eyes, bat's sonar system,etc.
6) college professor support.............. 6) engineers support

Obviously you really believe evolution is true and feels the science support it. I obviously see the evidence pointing just the exact opposide. I even saw evolutionist hint of ID before I knew there was a ID movement. I was so happy to learn a few year ago by internet there was those like me who saw ID in nature and science.
I realize you are still my brother in the Lord and I'm in no position or have no reason to doubt your faith. This is one of these issue where believers can agree to disagree on since noone knows all truths. So for now, I will rest my case.

 

[gluadys]

The idea ID has no evidence is because of bias opinions. I read where many evolutionists tries to cover up the huge gaps. "Punctuated Equilibrium" . Boy, I love these big words that means so little. "Punctuated Equilibrium" is nothing more than the God of gaps without God.

No, that is not what punk eek is. Punk eek has been seriously misrepresented in creationist literature.

So now evidence againest evolution (fossil records) is also evidence for evolution.

What evidence in the fossil record is against evolution?

Here is some of the claims of evidence :
For Evolution * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *For ID

1) coccyx - the bone closest to ........1) Human brain - on the opposide
....the exit hole..................................... end of the coccyx
2) panda's thumb............................ 2) the whole panda
3) a few bones look ape/human......... 3) the whole fossil record as animals
....like............................................... suddenly appears fully developed.
4) natural selection , random............ 4) cells has a built-in spell check
.. mulation ......................................... system to stop mulations
5) good artist with big imagations...... 5) "irreducible complex" things like
.........................................................eyes, bat's sonar system,etc.
6) college professor support.............. 6) engineers support

I don't understand this table at all. Do you?

I do notice a few errors, such that mutations are "stopped". Mutations are not stopped. Mutations are errors in replication that elude the correction system. Just like a spell-check program never catches all the spelling errors.

I expect the "college professors" would be professors of biology? Why not call them "biologists"? Since the theory of evolution is a theory of biology, who do you expect would have more accurate information about it, biologists or engineers?

I even saw evolutionist hint of ID before I knew there was a ID movement. I was so happy to learn a few year ago by internet there was those like me who saw ID in nature and science.

Well, evolution has never been atheism. TEs and IDs can certainly agree that there is a designer. And if we are both Christian we will even agree on who the designer is.

But I am still puzzled as to why the ID movement feels it has to attack evolution. One thing the ID movement lacks is an explanation for how designs move from the mind of the designer into the bodies of living organisms. Evolution is an ideal way to make that movement from the thought to the product. Without evolution I don't see how that eye or that sonar system gets built. ID is not offering any other way to move from design to production.

I realize you are still my brother in the Lord and I'm in no position or have no reason to doubt your faith. This is one of these issue where believers can agree to disagree on since noone knows all truths. So for now, I will rest my case.

And I remain your sister in Christ. Amen.

 

[Vance]

Exactly, Smidlee, this is an area where believers can disagree, without it affecting Faith.