Is Intelligent Design in Evolution Possible without Speciation?


(George Brooks) #1

My recent post here:

    • triggered a rather nagging thought in my mind.

If the Intelligent Design camp is all about finding God’s Design in the dramatic jumps from one life form to another … the one argument that “Intelligent Design-ers” can’t really pursue is that speciation is impossible!

Of course, this caveat only applies to those who support the process of common descent over thousands and millions of years. If they really believe God is behind these majestic evolutionary transformations - - then God must be using Speciation to accomplish his ends!

Denton has been heralded as a more reasonable ID supporter… someone who accepts some of the foundations of Evolution. And yet much of his writings dismiss the idea that changes from one species to another is possible at all.

Philosophically speaking, I’m not sure Denton has really come to grips with the logical intersections of his own beliefs.


(George Brooks) #2

This page ambitiously tracks all Creationist objections to evolution … and apparently has a special fondness for the argument that Micro-Evolution is obvious… but Macro-Evolution (aka: Speciation) is impossible.

Here are some interesting analogies:

[I have . . . ] previously written about the fictitious micro-macro distinction, most recently here: Ben Franklin, Compound Interest, and Evolution. We thought that an analogy between simple interest and compound interest would illustrate the imaginary micro-macro problem. And it works for some people.

But there are others for whom that isn’t adequate. So (this being a slow day for news) we herewith offer you some additional analogies to help illustrate the foolishness of the micro-macro issue: In each example, imagine a creationist uttering the statement:

I believe in individual steps, but not a whole flight of stairs.

I believe in paving stones, but not milestones; and certainly not entire roads.

I believe in points, but not lines; and certainly not long lines.

I believe in minutes, but not hours. Or hours, but not days. Or days, but not years.

I believe in twigs, but not branches. Most definitely, twigs are not connected to trees.


(Chris Falter) #3

That’s a fine set of analogies, George.


(Benjamin Kirk) #4

Another great one, linked to from there, is:

Punchline:
“Do you believe only in simple interest, but not compound interest?”


(system) #5

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