“Darwinian Evolution”

[Daniel_Fisher]

@Christy

Microevolution is no less Darwinian than macroevolution. Maybe the term you are looking for is common descent.

As has been repeatedly explained by many of us ID sympathizers, and which is all over the ID literature, common descent is not the point of contention. As @EricMH just Pointed out just a few posts above (With which I specifically highlighted my agreement)…

@EricMH

ID isn’t arguing against evolution. As I mentioned before, numerous ID proponents are fine with old earth, common descent, etc. The only real, fundamental point of contention amongst all the ID proponents is that unguided variation seems incapable of generating what we see in the biological record, and thus we can empiricaly detect intelligent intervention.

And as I explained at length to @Shekar on the post outlining my skepticism…

@Daniel_Fisher

in short, again, no, I don’t have a very significant scientific or logical objection to common descent in any kind, including the hypothesis that a single cell was started and through whatever processes was adapted, and changed, and eventually became us people. My core scientific objection is almost strictly in the attribution of that process to the unaided random mutation/natural selection process as having the ability to achieve such changes.

And as Michael Behe spelled out in his first book…

I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Although Darwin’s mechanism—natural selection working on variation—might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life.