Joshua has just responded to this, and I fully agree with him. I am a strong proponent of teleology in evolution, (as I hope to be able to prove to you shortly. See Joshua’s previous comment about the slow turning of the peer review wheels). Some ECs are less sure about teleology, or are less interested in it. But all of us (I think it is fair to say) agree that biology, much like the entire cosmos is designed. I have heard Deb Haarsma, Dennis Venema and others state this. And here is the critical point.
The existence of Design does NOT contradict Darwinian evolution.
Yes, Darwin stated that his theory made teleology and the need for design moot, and Dawkins says that evolution proves that the apparent design in biology is simply that - apparent. But no evolutionist has ever claimed to have proven the absense of design, whether intelligent, divine, or accidental. The atheists hold the philosophical view that since there is no God, and no need for God or God’s intervention at any point in the history of life, then all appearances of design are simply artefacts of the power of natural selection in shaping biology. The EC argument says that one way or the other (and the details of what way precisely are not specified) God IS the designer as well as the Creator of everything, including life.
I believe that God might very well intervene during the evolutionary process, but as you might have seen in the latest Hump post, I believe such interventions are not scientifically detectable. But that isnt important, what is important is that the EC quarrel with ID is not about the existence of design, nor about the existence of teleology, but about what ID claims.
And here is the problem, Yes, Denton limits his claims. (I havent changed my positive view of Denton’s book, as described back in February here). But other IDers claim that design negates evolution. It is a negative argument. And in fact we now find ourselves returning to the original topic of this thread and the blog post by Dennis. Meyer and Nelson had published a paper that attacked the work of Yarus. While I agree with a good deal of their points, I also pointed out previously (as Dennis mentioned) that their attack included some statements that criticized Yarus for things he never said.
If we retain the metaphor of a struggle, I dont think its fair to say ID is the innocent victim of EC attacks. Almost all of ID theory is based on a negative assessment of evolutionary theory. I agree (with Jon, often) that ID has some valid points about the role of contingency and the insufficiency of strict neo Darwinist views, but many ECs (as Joshua has pointed out) feel the same way. So in fact do quite a few non theistic evolutionists.
I think Joshua’s point about not wanting to be a warrior is extremely important. As scientists (or as those who view science as valuable, which I assume you do) we must make peace over our shared vision of science as one of the gifts we have been given to understand our world. As Christians, we should should be striving to find peace in our shared vision of the glory of our Creator, and joy in Christ’s message of love. I think it is time, and you yourself have said as much very often in this forum, for ECs, IDs, and everyone else who share the human quest for knowledge to focus on what we agree on, how we can move forward in our understanding, and try to de-emphasize the importance of our disagreements.
I know this isnt easy to do. But as Joshua said, our enemies are not evil, they are just wrong )
So lets keep talking, until we all find the truth.