How can I.D. supporters ignore the other side of the coin?

(George Brooks) #1

From the philosophical viewpoint of where we get our “knowledge” from and how does one categorize Intelligent Design… I am in a quandry that perhaps can be addressed by someone sympathetic to Intelligent Design (whether they are pro-BioLogos or not) !

I.D. supporters say: nature, without God, cannot create life from non-living matter. And then usually follow up with something like this:

Natural Selection and mutation can lead to adaptations by species or by kinds… but it takes God to create species or kinds.

But does it make sense to chain these ideas together, without seeing the inherent contradictions?

Most of us are quick to conclude that Lions and Tigers may be two kinds of felines… but they are two Kinds or two Species.

But, technically speaking, they are not.

Lions and Tigers can mate to produce fertile offspring. Lions and Tigers are really one “KIND” that has adapted in different directions long enough that they are no longer perceived to be the same “kind” of feline. Lions are social. Lions hunt game in Africa. Tigers are not social. And for the most part they hunt game in Asia. These two gene pools have long been separate … according to the God-Guided scenario of Evolution.

And yet even with all these eons of separation … they are not Two species even now.

So does the I.D. proponent swallow his pride and simply confess, that Lions and Tigers ARE one Kind … and that God embraced natural selection to send two different populations into different directions so that one branch would populate Africa (after the Flood wiped out everything in Africa), while another branch populated Asia (after the Flood wiped out everything in Asia) ???


(Brad Kramer) #2

I think you’re confusing “I.D. proponent” with “young-earth creationist”. The circles are overlapping but separate.

(George Brooks) #3


Well, I certainly agree that the circles are overlapping.

But I am not surprised when YEC’s ignore something.

What surprises me is when someone who says they are “I.D. but NOT YEC” focuses their attention on the Design part of their discussion, but then (apparently) expect that there is nothing controversial about the rest of their construction of what is left of the Evolutionary process that does not require special Intelligence.

God gives bacteria a flagellum, right? Then what? Does regular Evolution unfold naturally for the newly equipped bacteria? Or is the Non-YEC I.D. proponent really just a YEC all along?

In the past 3 months, I think I’ve counted three vigorous I.D. posters … who have attempted to say, in one way or another “but I’m sure no YEC!”.

And yet they reject ANY application of Evolution to their discussions … even about non-complex evolution.

I challenge the whole approach.

(Brad Kramer) #4

George, I confess I don’t understand your reply.

All I’m saying is that people’s beliefs should be accurately represented. ID proponents come from a variety of backgrounds and beliefs. Christian ID proponents (which is most of them) can have many approaches to Scripture, none of which are essential to their ID beliefs.

I’m not sure you understand what a YEC is. Can you define YEC in your own words?

(George Brooks) #5


My definition for now: “A YEC doesn’t think there is enough time for Evolution to create species … assuming the laws of nature even allowed Evolution.”

Let me re-state my objection:
Thinking out loud, I have to wonder if some people who say they promote I.D. “but they aren’t YEC”… very frequently can be found in this rather inexplicable position:

  1. It is impossible for Natural Law to provide flagella to bacteria, unless…

  2. Unless God engages in creation to PROVIDE the flagellum.

  3. AND … I don’t believe that the bacteria with the new flagellum can ever evolve into a new species.

When we have an I.D. enthusiast who ends up building a 3-walled set of assertions around him … .the only thing that separates him from being a YEC (supposedly) is:
exactly how many years back God created all life with a divine !!.

So while the ID proponent is arguing that there’s just a few things that evolution could never create (like the first cell, or the flagellum), he eventually finishes painting himself in the corner by saying:
“Oh, and I don’t think Evolution can create new species either!”

Here’s my last ditch effort to explain my objection:
Can anyone name a single I.D. proponent, who has Also participated on these BioLogos boards (which means Behe is not to be included), who Does believe Evolution has been used by God to create species? I want to send that ‘I.D.-proponent-&-BioLogos-participant’ a Cash Gift!!!

(Brad Kramer) #6

There’s your problem. This might be something some young-earth creationists (YEC) believe, but a YEC is defined here as someone who thinks the earth and universe were created in the space of one literal week, about 6,000 years ago, following a “literal” interpretation of Genesis 1. [quote=“gbrooks9, post:5, topic:34615”]
Can anyone name a single I.D. proponent, who has ALSO participated on these BioLogos boards (which means Behe is not to be included), who DOES believe Evolution has been used by God to create species?

Remember Eddie? Or @Jon_Garvey? I don’t know if they would phrase it that way, but my understanding is that they are broadly open to an evolutionary creationist position, but not neo-Darwinian evolution.

(George Brooks) #7

@Jon_Garvey might be eligible for a nice cash prize! I’ll ask him.

I do not believe @Eddie has ever endorsed speciation by Evolution (with or without God).

(Peaceful Science) #8

@eddie was an ID-theistic evolutionist. He was very clear about endorsing speciation by evolution. So was @Rational_Theist_Matt. Don’t forget @vjtorley either.

This is not a standard position, but it is fairly common among those that care about the debate.

(George Brooks) #9


Well I think it is helpful that you recognize that this is “not a standard position”.

Thank you for your nominations for Matt and vjtorley (and for Eddie … if I can find the post that confirms your view! :smiley: )

And @BradKramer has already proposed @Jon_Garvey !

My follow-on position is:

The reason it is not a standard position is because most I.D. proponents are trying to hide behind a position they think is more acceptable to “the room” they are playing in. I feel that it is all too likely that I.D. proponents are just Creationists trying to wedge themselves into a more acceptable “shape”, but ultimately they still have no understanding for the idea that Natural Selection and mutations can, over time, make speciation quite likely.

(system) #10

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.