George, you don’t get to say what science can and cannot do. Archaeology, a science, tells us the purpose of artifacts. So finding a purpose for something under investigation is not beyond science.
Yes, ID is OK with a change in allele frequency over time- ie evolution.
Yes, ID is OK with speciation, ie evolution
Yes, ID is OK with descent with modification, ie evolution.
Yes, ID is OK with mutations accumulating, ie evolution
ID does not argue against universal common descent, ie evolution.
Read my essay and if you disagree please make an argument against it. One-liners prove that you just don’t understand what I wrote.
I read what you wrote. And I responded to what you wrote …
I’ll make a copy of it and put it here. I see that you have ignored most of what I wrote… so I’ll include your response as well.
The problem with ID is almost always the problem of the practitioners … not ID in and of itself.
Do you understand that many BioLogos supporters ALSO accept ID - - but not the ID-ers related ideas?
[Joe, this is a reposting of my reaction to your blog article which was originally put into a different thread.]
Okay! I just got done with the blog article you wrote:
http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2011/04/intelligent-design-is-not-anti_29.html
Intelligent Design is NOT Anti-Evolution- The Debate Begins (April 2011)
I do congratulate you on designing an essay outline that steers clear of the maximum number of problems! But, frankly, it seems that in the process of writing the article, you came to learn almost nothing about BioLogos, while you teach your opposition very little about Intelligent Design.
I am not surprised that you chose the topic of whether or not ID is anti-Evolution.
-
Why isn’t BioLogos mentioned even once in your writing?
-
You do know that many BioLogos supporters, like me for example, believe God guided the course of Evolution, right?
-
So what is the difference between the ID camp and many BioLogos supporters? BioLogos supporters are virtually unanimous on the position favoring “Common Descent”. Where are the bulk of ID supporters on this issue?
-
In my experience, ID supporters can acknowledge that Evolution is possible, if there is enough time for it - - and that’s where they stop. Most ID supporters I’ve talked to, unlike Behe, continue to oppose an Old Earth scenario!
And this is where I.D. loses me! How can you champion the value of science, and insist that science can prove the existence of an Intelligent Designer - - all at the same time rejecting all the proofs by Science (using multiple methodologies congruently reaching the same conclusion!) that the Earth is five billion years old?!
It’s very difficult to consider ID science to rest on solid foundations when the theorists behind I.D. don’t even think geology, physics and cosmology is convincing on the age of the Earth !!!
You conclude your article with:
"So the bottom line is Intelligent Design says “evolved, sure”.
**The questions are “evolved from what?” . . . .
Okay, Joe, I’ll bite… from WHAT did the first hominids evolve? What is your personal answer about that?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[END OF ORIGINAL POST]
@JoeG, in the other thread you responded to my post [as above] with the following:
[I wrote;]
- Why isn’t BioLogos mentioned even once in your writing?
You answered: “I probably didn’t know about it when I wrote the essay.”
[I wrote:]
3) So what is the difference between the ID camp and many BioLogos supporters? BioLogos supporters are virtually unanimous on the position favoring “Common Descent”. Where are the bulk of ID supporters on this issue?
You answered: “It is an untestable claim and out of science.”
[I wrote:]
Okay, Joe, I’ll bite… from WHAT did the first hominids evolve?
You answered: “Perhaps they didn’t evolve from something else. We cannot test the claim they did.”
Common Descent is not an untestable claim. It is certainly not “out of” Science.
And saving the best for last - - your comment that humans didn’t evolve from something else is the PERFECT way to show that you, an individual ID supporter, DO OPPOSE EVOLUTION.
It doesn’t get any neater than that. You use ID to defend your anti-science and anti-evolution position. Plain and simple.
Agreed. ID is not intrinsically anti-evolution. There are many theistic evolutionists
But many IDists (including you) seem to be very motivated by anti-evolutionism. You have a habit, for example of referring to “EvoTARDS” on your blog. And argue for challenging evolution in the courts. Here are some of the more entertaining quotes…
Evolutionists are such a bunch of lowlife losers who love to entertain the rest of us.
Intelligent Reasoning: More EvoTARD Ignorance
On this one you point to “evolutionism” which is a synonym with scientific atheism and not taught in school…but then refer just to the scientific theory of evolution as if this is evolutionism…
First step in challenging evolutionism in US Courts would be to challenge any and all teachers of evolutionism to show you how to test the claims it makes.
Intelligent Reasoning: How to Challenge Evolutionism in US Courts
I count about 10 comments like this on just the first page of your blog.
So yes, your essay is correct. ID is not intrinsically opposed to common descent (which is the scientific definition of evolution) but the rhetoric of many IDist really does seem anti-evolution.
I have no quarrel with your essay. But I think you are missing my point.
2 Likes
They repeatedly deny evolution.
“Evolution cannot build irreducibly complex organs”
“Cells are simply too complex to have evolved randomly; intelligence was required to produce them”
“Irreducibly complex biological features thus cannot be built in a “step-by-step” evolutionary manner”
“Evolution simply cannot produce complex structures in a single generation as would be required for the formation of irreducibly complex systems”
If ID really wasn’t opposed to evolution they wouldn’t spend so much time actually opposing it.
2 Likes
George, Evolution entails more than universal common descent and my personal opinion on universal common descent is not a reflection on ID.
Please post evidence that I have an anti-science position. Please post the definition of evolution that excludes all forms of evolution except universal common descent. And then please tell us how to scientifically test the claim that humans evolved from non-humans. Be sure to include what genes were involved so that your test can be validated.
Umm Jon, When IDists say that “evolution can’t do X” it is always AFTER “evolution” had been defined as Dawkins’ blind watchmaker evolution. And again you didn’t respond to anything in my essay. That is proof you didn’t read it or didn’t understand it.
LoL! EvoTards are the people who accept blind watchmaker evolution. You obviously read only what you wanted to read.
There isn’t a scientific theory of evolution
That is incorrect. A change in allele frequency over time is the scientific definition of evolution
What point?
Then, Darwin certainly knew nothing about evolution at all. He knew nothing about alleles or genes. The Origin of the Species has absolutely nothing to do with evolution! Amazing. So tell me, when did we discover evolution?
(irony alert to the confused)
And good news, there also is a scientific theory of evolution. It is powerful and predictive. Unfortunately a forum on the internet isn’t a place to give a proper education on this. If you are interested, maybe your local university could help?
That’s precisely the issue here, IDers oppose the kind of evolution which scientists have established is fact. Evolutionary Creationists accept that evolution is a fact, but believe God set it up. Some ECs believe God has or continues to intervene at various points. But IDers don’t believe any of these things. That’s why you don’t call yourselves Evolutionary Creationists, and that’s why you keep trying to convince people evolution isn’t a fact. That’s why you say things like “Evolutionists are such a bunch of lowlife losers who love to entertain the rest of us”, and claim that evolution isn’t science.
You say this.
Yet there are many ID articles arguing against universal common descent. Casey Luskin says “Perhaps the inability to construct robust phylogenetic trees using molecular data stems from the fact that common descent is simply wrong”. Stephen Meyer says “Transitional life forms are theoretical postulations that make possible evolutionary accounts of present biological data”. Jonathon Wells says “speculations about common ancestry and the transmutation of species that look increasingly implausible with each new piece of evidence”.
I didn’t respond to it because I haven’t read it. What value is there in reading an essay by someone who writes things like “Evolutionists are such a bunch of lowlife losers who love to entertain the rest of us”, and who doesn’t understand the basic scientific facts involved?
Nonsense. You have a strange definition of “fact”.
It is an untestable claim. Why doesn’t everyone argue against it?
I bet I understand those facts better than you do. I bet I understand science better than you do. And the “evolutionists” I am referring to are the ones who accept Dawkins’ blind watchmaker thesis. So obviously you have reading comprehension issues and can only hurl false accusations. I see there are some other non-christians here.
When the modern synthesis came around. Darwin was ignorant of many aspects of biology. That is one reason his was not a scientific theory.
Then it is strange that no one can link to it. And I took several courses in biology. There aren’t any predictions borne from natural selection and drift, ie the proposed mechanisms of evolution.
Well I appreciate that you explain that. But you know that at BioLogos some of us call ourselves “theistic evolutionists,” so that is hard to appreciate right away. It sounds like you meant something else.
Going to my prior point, the rhetoric “sounds” anti-evolution. Even if you don’t mean us when you say “EvoTARD” it is not obvious you are not referring to us. It is not obvious you are not referring to my scientific colleagues that accept evolution but question the “blind watchmaker.”
Dawkins is not a good place to learn about evolution… His version of evolution is not scientific, but also includes strong metaphysical claims that are not scientific.
If that is your starting point, it will be very difficult to untangle your point of view. Good luck with that. The actual scientific theory is that we all descent from common ancestors.
I suppose, after decades of reading about this topic, and working as a scientist too, I have yet to come across all these experiments that support ID. Where are these secret experiments being conducted? Where are they published? Why is that all the biologists I work with are unaware of them?
Of course we can. Read this ID critique of Axe. In particular the links to Sandwalk explain exactly how this is a strawman.
http://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/axe.html
Well, what do you expect when you are working from an undergrad education on a complicated field? That doesn’t give you even the basics.
It turns out there are predictions born out of things like natural selection and neutral drift. And it this is exactly what convinced people that these mechanisms of change (in particular drift) are so important. One high level primer (by an ID orbiting author) is here:
One of the most impressive predictions is that intron substitution rates should approximately equal synonymous mutation rates, if (1) most mutations are neutral and (2) we descend from common ancestors. There is no ID theory that makes this prediction, and it is extremely robust across the genome, and between a wide range of species. If not common descent, then what causes this pattern?
This just one example of course. There is much more here.
So apparently, Darwin had nothing to do with evolution. It wasn’t till Huxley in 1942 that evolution was introduced. Someone should have told Williams Jennings Bryan. What in the world were they arguing about at the Scope Trial? Evolution didn’t even exist yet! (irony alert again).
I could go on here. You use the term “theory” different than we do in science. But rather that pursue that, I have a better question…
Can you tell us a bit about yourself? Why are you so passionate about this issue? Why does it matter to you?
I’ve already agreed with you that ID is not intrinsically anti-evolution, and explain that to people here all the time. Setting that aside, what are you hoping to accomplish here?
1 Like
That is the evolution that is being taught.
You do realize Axe has responded to your criticisms and those of Moran, right?
How christian of you.
A common design does. And Linne had his binomial nomenclature and nested hierarchy based on a common design.
I didn’t say nor imply that. I was talking about the definition of evolution. Look just because you tried to redefine evolution, which leaves out Lenski’s long term evolutionary experiment, antibiotic resistance, etc, and were caught, doesn’t give you the right to start hurling nonsense.
I am looking to see what you guys say about ID and evolution.
Please explain how common design explains how Ks and Ki are equal? No one has ever done that before. Makes me wonder if you even know what I am talking about.
I was referring to the classes in biology you took (at an undergrad or high school level I suppose). That’s all.
1 Like
Please explain how common descent can be tested scientifically. What makes a human a human and how did you determine that? IOW support your claim and then I will support mine. I need to see what type of evidence/ explanation you will accept.
Did you realize that the neutral theory has never been validated? It is a pot hoc “explanation” of what we observe ASSUMING universal common descent. No one has ever observed neutral mutations becoming fixed in a real population.
(Content removed by moderator)
@JoeG… it’s hard to keep all your gyrations listed and cataloged. So let me ask you this one question:
Do you support the science that shows the Earth to be 5 billion years old? If so, then I will retrace my steps and find my error in understanding you.
If you reject a 5 billion year Earth, then this is my proof that you hold an anti-science position… and that you apparently use ID as an eventual support for your position.
I have asked you to reference the science that the earth is 5 billion years old. I have already explained my position- twice. It isn’t my fault that you didn’t understand what I posted.