Intelligent Design goes mainstream

[mark kennedy]

I have just finished reading a peer reviewed scientific paper on Intelligent Design. It underscores the major problems with the single common ancestor model and the lack of a demonstrated mechanism for major transitions (aka macroevolution). I'm going to post a few excerpts and intend to argue the major tenants in a formal debate with a theistic evolutionists in the formal debate forum starting March 21. I try to post to this forum some of what I think are the more important facts I find in my debates with evolutionists. This is the most remarkable paper I have read on the subject.

The first point raised in the paper is the lack of a demonstrated mechanism for Darwinian evolution. Bear in mind that this is the conclusion of evolutionary biologists:

"Thomson (1992:107) expressed doubt that large-scale morphological changes could accumulate via minor phenotypic changes at the population genetic level. Miklos (1993:29) argued that neo-Darwinism fails to provide a mechanism that can produce large-scale innovations in form and complexity."

If you have ever read the stuff Talk Origins is putting out you would be challenged to prove that microevolutionary changes cannot turn into macroevolutionary changes. The fact is that since no evidence exists to support this concept it is unreliable. I strongly suggest that any creationist actually interested in creationism as science should consider reading this paper. Submitted for your edification and general understanding of evolutionary biology.

"What lies behind this skepticism? Is it warranted? Is a new and specifically causal theory needed to explain the origination of biological form?

This review will address these questions. It will do so by analyzing the problem of the origination of organismal form (and the corresponding emergence of higher taxa) from a particular theoretical standpoint. Specifically, it will treat the problem of the origination of the higher taxonomic groups as a manifestation of a deeper problem, namely, the problem of the origin of the information (whether genetic or epigenetic) that, as it will be argued, is necessary to generate morphological novelty."

Stephen C. Meyer

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Smidlee]

The first point raised in the paper is the lack of a demonstrated mechanism for Darwinian evolution. Bear in mind that this is the conclusion of evolutionary biologists:

"Thomson (1992:107) expressed doubt that large-scale morphological changes could accumulate via minor phenotypic changes at the population genetic level. Miklos (1993:29) argued that neo-Darwinism fails to provide a mechanism that can produce large-scale innovations in form and complexity."

If you have ever read the stuff Talk Origins is putting out you would be challenged to prove that microevolutionary changes cannot turn into macroevolutionary changes. The fact is that since no evidence exists to support this concept it is unreliable. I strongly suggest that any creationist actually interested in creationism as science should consider reading this paper. Submitted for your edification and general understanding of evolutionary biology.

Yet we shouldn't mistake ID as creationist themselves. For the most part they are still evolution believer (or atleast they say they are) who goal to get rid of the dishonesty about denying when something looks intelligent design in biology. (Darwinism tries to claim design is an illusion but it a lot harder to make this claim today than it was 50 years ago) So they are trying to get rid of the Darwin dogma (Talk Origins is the best at being extremely dogmatic)since they believe this is turning youth people away from science. While the creationist admit their goal is to witness to others and hopely win people to God , ID has no such goal. They are just trying to win the youth to science and see Darwinism a hindrance.

 

[mark kennedy]

Yet we shouldn't mistake ID as creationist themselves. For the most part they are still evolution believer (or atleast they say they are) who goal to get rid of the dishonesty about denying when something looks intelligent design in biology. (Darwinism tries to claim design is an illusion but it a lot harder to make this claim today than it was 50 years ago) So they are trying to get rid of the Darwin dogma (Talk Origins is the best at being extremely dogmatic)since they believe this is turning youth people away from science. While the creationist admit their goal is to witness to others and hopely win people to God , ID has no such goal. They are just trying to win the youth to science and see Darwinism a hindrance.

I realize that ID is not the same thing as creationism and it will only get you so far. I am just excited to see it getting the attention it deserves and the implication of an intelligent creator given due consideration. There is one thing that both the ID and YEC crowd seem to be in agreement on, the Cambrian explosion produced all the major phyla with no precursors. I think Darwinian theory should be given the boot since it is nothing but pure supposition and speculation.

I really liked the fact that the paper I linked to was published in a peer reviewed journal. Evolutionists often claim that ID is just creationism in more general terms. I would just love it if that were true, but realize it's not. ID could help creationism open a couple of doors and at least give people an alternative to the materialistic atheism that Darwinism is based on.

 

[The Lady Kate]

I realize that ID is not the same thing as creationism and it will only get you so far.

So far towards what end?

Evolutionists often claim that ID is just creationism in more general terms. I would just love it if that were true, but realize it's not. ID could help creationism open a couple of doors and at least give people an alternative to the materialistic atheism that Darwinism is based on.

I realize I'm not allowed to debate in here so I just want to ask a question... If ID isn't "creationism in more general terms," and yet can "help creationism open a couple of doors," then what exactly is ID?

Not a debate....just seeking a clarification.

 

[Smidlee]

I realize I'm not allowed to debate in here so I just want to ask a question... If ID isn't "creationism in more general terms," and yet can "help creationism open a couple of doors," then what exactly is ID?

Not a debate....just seeking a clarification.

This has already been answered here and probably better answered by ID (like Behe) themselves. Since Evolutionist judges things by "appearance" also ID judge things by "appearance" that point to intelligent design. ID is about removing the double standard and dogma in biology.

 

[mark kennedy]

So far towards what end?



I realize I'm not allowed to debate in here so I just want to ask a question... If ID isn't "creationism in more general terms," and yet can "help creationism open a couple of doors," then what exactly is ID?

Not a debate....just seeking a clarification.

My interest in ID and being compatable with Biblical creationism is that it opens Darwinian processes to honest skepticism. Darwinian natural selection was from the begining opposed to special creation and it is contrary to Christian theism. I don't know if this is what you are really looking for but you might like the check out Behe's answers to some of the questions surronding Darwinian materialism.

An Interview with M. Behe

 

[The Lady Kate]

My interest in ID and being compatable with Biblical creationism is that it opens Darwinian processes to honest skepticism.

Ah. I see... obviously you believe that Darwinian processes are currently not open to honest skepticism, and ID is going to change that.
You knowI would disagre, but this is not the place to debate that.

Darwinian natural selection was from the begining opposed to special creation and it is contrary to Christian theism.

Well, it certainly was opposed to Special Creation, which, at the time, was linked to Christian theism, a large part due to lack of alternative.

Along comes Darwin, and special creation was opened to honest skepticism... and we must admit that, by and large, the skeptics won.

Is Darwinian natural selection held in the same dogma that Special Creation once was?(note that something can be dogmatic and still true... this applies to Special Creation as well as natural selection) Is the process described by natural selection accepted mainly due to lack of alternatives? Some say yes, some say no.

But regardless of the answer, ID is not going to change this because ID doesn't question the process, but rather the philosophy. Behe is substituting theistic presuppositions in exchange for naturalistic onces, but the nuts-and-bolts of it still sounds pretty much the same.

A person can still be an evolutionist and an IDer... in fact, all Christians are already, by definition, ID believers (TE or YEC, we do believe that a supernatural intelligence is responsible for creation...regardless of how)

So the concern should be, instead of ID being dismissed as "Creationism in more general terms," of it being dismissed as "Evolution + God."
If that happens, then I really don't see how it's going to open any doors for Creationism as an "alternative."

Then you say that Natural Selection is contrary to Christian theism. I would love the oppertunity to discuss this in detail over in the other forum...with the TEs.

I don't know if this is what you are really looking for but you might like the check out Behe's answers to some of the questions surronding Darwinian materialism.

An Interview with M. Behe

I didn't have the time to listen to all of Behe's answers, so I skimmed through a couple of them. In all honestly, I wasn't impressed...but this is neither the time nor place to discuss it.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

I love when evolutionists come on here and say I'm not here to debate since that's not allowed but then debate anyways.

 

[The Lady Kate]

I love when evolutionists come on here and say I'm not here to debate since that's not allowed but then debate anyways.

So who's debating?

I asked for a clarification on something, to confirm a suspicion...nothing more.

You see, many Atheists and evolutionists reject ID on the basis that they see it as Creationism with a new name. Now, personally, I don't think that's true.

However, what's equally disturnbing (and every bit as mistaken, IMHO) is the Creationist camp accepting ID for the exact same reason...because I don't think a mainstream acceptance of ID is going to open any doors for YEC...and I think Creationists are going to feel betrayed when it doesn't.

I wouldn't want to see anyone on either side of the issue try to turn an idea into something it isn't, just to prove an unrelated point.

There. I've said my peace...and probably worn out my welcome. I'll go now.

 

[mark kennedy]

Ah. I see... obviously you believe that Darwinian processes are currently not open to honest skepticism, and ID is going to change that.
You knowI would disagre, but this is not the place to debate that.



Well, it certainly was opposed to Special Creation, which, at the time, was linked to Christian theism, a large part due to lack of alternative.

Along comes Darwin, and special creation was opened to honest skepticism... and we must admit that, by and large, the skeptics won.

Is Darwinian natural selection held in the same dogma that Special Creation once was?(note that something can be dogmatic and still true... this applies to Special Creation as well as natural selection) Is the process described by natural selection accepted mainly due to lack of alternatives? Some say yes, some say no.

But regardless of the answer, ID is not going to change this because ID doesn't question the process, but rather the philosophy. Behe is substituting theistic presuppositions in exchange for naturalistic onces, but the nuts-and-bolts of it still sounds pretty much the same.

A person can still be an evolutionist and an IDer... in fact, all Christians are already, by definition, ID believers (TE or YEC, we do believe that a supernatural intelligence is responsible for creation...regardless of how)

So the concern should be, instead of ID being dismissed as "Creationism in more general terms," of it being dismissed as "Evolution + God."
If that happens, then I really don't see how it's going to open any doors for Creationism as an "alternative."

Then you say that Natural Selection is contrary to Christian theism. I would love the oppertunity to discuss this in detail over in the other forum...with the TEs.




I didn't have the time to listen to all of Behe's answers, so I skimmed through a couple of them. In all honestly, I wasn't impressed...but this is neither the time nor place to discuss it.

It is hard to really get into this on this forum, why don't you check out the Natural Selection and Genetics thread in the Creation/evolution discussion and debate forum?