Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

What the ID Leadership says About ID and Evolution

-
Intelligent Design is NOT Creationism
(MAY 2000)


Scott refers to me as an intelligent design "creationist," even though I clearly write in my book Darwin's Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think "evolution occurred, but was guided by God."- Dr Michael Behe

Dr Behe has repeatedly confirmed he is OK with common ancestry. And he has repeatedly made it clear that ID is an argument against materialistic evolution (see below), ie necessity and chance.

Then we have:

What is Intelligent Design and What is it Challenging?- a short video featuring Stephen C. Meyer on Intelligent Design. He also makes it clear that ID is not anti-evolution.

Next Dembski and Wells weigh in:


The theory of intelligent design (ID) neither requires nor excludes speciation- even speciation by Darwinian mechanisms. ID is sometimes confused with a static view of species, as though species were designed to be immutable. This is a conceptual possibility within ID, but it is not the only possibility. ID precludes neither significant variation within species nor the evolution of new species from earlier forms. Rather, it maintains that there are strict limits to the amount and quality of variations that material mechanisms such as natural selection and random genetic change can alone produce. At the same time, it holds that intelligence is fully capable of supplementing such mechanisms, interacting and influencing the material world, and thereby guiding it into certain physical states to the exclusion of others. To effect such guidance, intelligence must bring novel information to expression inside living forms. Exactly how this happens remains for now an open question, to be answered on the basis of scientific evidence. The point to note, however, is that intelligence can itself be a source of biological novelties that lead to macroevolutionary changes. In this way intelligent design is compatible with speciation. page 109 of "The Design of Life"

and

And that brings us to a true either-or. If the choice between common design and common ancestry is a false either-or, the choice between intelligent design and materialistic evolution is a true either-or. Materialistic evolution does not only embrace common ancestry; it also rejects any real design in the evolutionary process. Intelligent design, by contrast, contends that biological design is real and empirically detectable regardless of whether it occurs within an evolutionary process or in discrete independent stages. The verdict is not yet in, and proponents of intelligent design themselves hold differing views on the extent of the evolutionary interconnectedness of organisms, with some even accepting universal common ancestry (ie Darwin’s great tree of life).
Common ancestry in combination with common design can explain the similar features that arise in biology. The real question is whether common ancestry apart from common design- in other words, materialistic evolution- can do so. The evidence of biology increasingly demonstrates that it cannot.- Ibid page 142

And from one more pro-ID book:

Many assume that if common ancestry is true, then the only viable scientific position is Darwinian evolution- in which all organisms are descended from a common ancestor via random mutation and blind selection. Such an assumption is incorrect- Intelligent Design is not necessarily incompatible with common ancestry.- page 217 of “Intelligent Design 101”

Only a dishonest evotard- wait that is a repetitive as all evotards are dishonest- would say ID is anti-evolution.

31 Comments:

  • At 2:52 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    ID precludes neither significant variation within species nor the evolution of new species from earlier forms.

    If that's the case then are transitional fossils not a given?

    Why do you deny they even exist then? It seems to me that ID predicts that the exist, according to your sources!

     
  • At 2:54 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    ID precludes neither significant variation within species nor the evolution of new species from earlier forms.

    OM:
    If that's the case then are transitional fossils not a given?

    Nope. You have reading issues.

    OM:
    Why do you deny they even exist then?

    I don't. You are obviously a dishonest piece of shit.

     
  • At 2:55 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    So transitional fossils do exist?

    Like what?

    You have reading issues.

    What's your reading of that paragraph then?

     
  • At 2:58 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    So transitional fossils do exist?

    Why are you asking me?

    OM:
    What's your reading of that paragraph then?

    You have to read the whole paragraph and you will see ID does not require nor exclude transitional forms.

     
  • At 3:59 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Why are you asking me?

    As you deny that Tiktaalik is a transitional fossil I'm interested to know if you think they exist at all.

    You have to read the whole paragraph and you will see ID does not require nor exclude transitional forms.

    So do we find such forms or not is the question. If so, name one! I already have - Tiktaalik, a fish with wrists!

     
  • At 4:44 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Om:
    As you deny that Tiktaalik is a transitional fossil

    Liar.

    Howevr as YOU said the transition has to occur BETWEEN and Tiktaalik was not found BETWEEN. It was found amongst.

    OM:
    So do we find such forms or not is the question. If so, name one! I already have - Tiktaalik, a fish with wrists!

    Right- it looks like a transitional to you even though it doesn't even fit YOUR criteria.

    You are a wanker...

     
  • At 5:17 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Liar.

    You said it yourself! Must I quote you?

     
  • At 5:24 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    According to your criteria it isn't a transitional.

    I have said it could be but FIRST it must be found BEFORE tetrapods came into existence.

    IOW you are still clueless.

     
  • At 5:25 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I have PLENTY of Tiktaalik threads.

    This thread is for presenting evidence that ID is not anti-evolution.

     
  • At 5:37 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I have PLENTY of Tiktaalik threads.

    This thread is for presenting evidence that ID is not anti-evolution.

    I have presented plenty of evidence to support that.

    OTOH you are off-topic.

     
  • At 5:44 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    off-topic comment deleted

     
  • At 9:38 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Oh no! Censorship! Expelled!

    Fucking hypocrite.

     
  • At 9:43 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Oh no! RichTard with another off-topic, content-free comment!

    It ain't censorship if you don't have anything to say, asshole. And you have yet to say anything meaningful, ever.

     
  • At 9:44 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Fucking coward...

     
  • At 9:39 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    I'm loving this meltdown. One of your best!

     
  • At 9:42 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    More false accusations and raw spewage from the mental midget.

    I'm loving that...

    BTW thank you for continuing to prove my point- that you have absolutely nothing to offer.

    I won't feel bad for spamming all of your future comments...

     
  • At 1:07 PM, Blogger OgreMkV said…

    Intelligent Design: An hypothesis that some natural phenomena are best explained by reference to Intelligent Causes rather than to only Material Causes. As such, Intelligent Design is the scientific disagreement with, and the falsifying hypothesis for, the claims of Chemical and Darwinian Evolution that the apparent design of certain natural phenomena is just an illusion. http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Statement_of_Objectives_Feb_12_07.pdf

    The theory of intelligent design, as I understand, you’re not inquiring, but we endorse that decision as a policy decision. Also, is an historical scientific theory that raises larger philosophical implications, so the two are equivalent in that respect, and they are, in fact, with respect to their attempts to explain the appearance of design in biological systems, they are competitor hypotheses.

    Stephen Meyer – Kansas Evolution Hearings (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/kansas/kangaroo8.html#p3494) (my underline)


    On the other hand, for example, intelligent design, it’s not the only opponent, by the way, of Darwinian evolution.

    Stephen Meyer – Kansas Evolution Hearings (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/kansas/kangaroo8.html#p3494)


    Why is it you have to attack ID with your ignorance when all it takes to refute ID is to actually step up and support your position [evolution] with POSITIVE evidence?

    http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=6647;st=1800#entry183930


    All these leaders of the ID movement... and JoeG... all say that ID and evolution are competitors. Joe even says that to defeat ID all we have to do is show evolution is right.

    I bet myself a chocolate milkshake he won't post this.

     
  • At 3:43 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Kevin:
    All these leaders of the ID movement... and JoeG... all say that ID and evolution are competitors.

    The THEORY of evolution you moron.

    ID is in competition with the THEORY of evolution which posits a mecahism of accumulated genetic accidents.

    Dr Behe explained that in his testimony, which apparently you are too fucking stupid to understand.

    Kevin:
    Joe even says that to defeat ID all we have to do is show evolution is right.

    Wrong again you ignorant fuck.

    In order to refute ID all you have to doi is show the blind watchmaker thesis is right.

    Again I have explained that to you on several occasions which proves that you are a willfully ignorant fuck.

     
  • At 4:19 PM, Blogger OgreMkV said…

    And it has been explained to you countless times...

    Only you Joe believe that the blindwatch maker is evolution. Well, you and other people who don't understand anything about science.

    Ah well.

    You see Joe, I have personally seen you use evolution two different ways without clarifying.

    This, somewhat annoying tactic, allows you to present one thing (ID is not anti-evolution) while you really feel something else (ID is anti-evolution).

    If someone calls you on it, then you can claim to be using the other definition and you think you win points.

    Whatever.

    Since you are attacking your own strawman of evolution, then you can play all you want.

    Since you won't use the actual theory of evolution, then you can't really complain about it.

    I'll make this very simple Joe. The theory of evolution does not require what you think it does and it does not say what you think it says and it does not cover processes that you think it does.

     
  • At 4:22 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Kevin:
    Only you Joe believe that the blindwatch maker is evolution.

    Fuck you. Dawkins is the one who presented it you moron.

    Also I have provided plenty of references to support my claim.

    OTOH you have provided absolutely nothing but your ignorant spewage.

    go figure...

     
  • At 4:23 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Supporting my claim about the ToE:'

    blind, undirected chemical processes

     
  • At 4:40 PM, Blogger OgreMkV said…

    "mindless" (i.e. designer) does NOT equal "undirected"

    But nice try at using poor language skills to mask understanding of science.

    Here's more of the UC Berkley page that you missed in your quote: "Natural selection just selects among whatever variations exist in the population. The result is evolution. "

    Why don't you print the rest of Dawkins' statement from his book hmmmm...

     
  • At 6:13 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Kevin:
    "mindless" (i.e. designer) does NOT equal "undirected"

    I didn't say it did.

    There is plenty more that goes to the undirected part- "mindless" is just one- they add up to = undirected. You also have "blind", "purposeless".

    So tell me ole ignorant one- what type of directing can a mindless, blind, purposeless process provide?

     
  • At 8:48 PM, Blogger OgreMkV said…

    Joe, ever heard of this concept called natural selection?

    You know, the one you support?

    The concept that all organisms are slightly different and some are better able to survive and have offspring than others (even in their own litter).

    Selection is the directed part of the process. It may be mindless, but it sure is directed.

    This is great Joe, I think we're finally making some progress in your education.

     
  • At 8:56 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Kevin:
    Joe, ever heard of this concept called natural selection?

    Yes, it is an oxymoron and doesn't do what it has been advertised to do.

    Kevin:
    The concept that all organisms are slightly different and some are better able to survive and have offspring than others (even in their own litter).

    I know the concept. It doesn't seem to have much of an impact in the real world.

    It is a result of three processes- I have blogged about it- do a search.

    Kevin:
    Selection is the directed part of the process.

    There isn't any "selection". Whatever survives, survives. Organisms survive for MANY reasons and also there are COMPETING beneficial traits.

    Then there is cooperation.

    You seem to know only the talking points and nothing about the actual evidence.

     
  • At 9:11 PM, Blogger OgreMkV said…

    That's OK, because you change the definitions of words to suit you.

    If you think that's where the evidence points, then I fail to see why you have published this evidence and earned a Nobel Prize.

    Oh wait, it's not worth your effort, that was your excuse last time as I recall.

    You know there's a money prize for the Nobel too right?

    Whatever.

    I can make this more clear, but there's not much point. I mean, even a four-year old can see that if you have two brown furred mice and two white furred mice and the two white furred mice are eaten, then it's not very likely that you have many more white furred mice.

    No this is NOT about macro-evolution. That's not what we are talking about here. This is purely about natural selection. Whether you see if it has any impact or not doesn't matter. It is trivial to show that selection can make massive changes in anatomy in a very short time.

    (Hint: Russian foxes)

     
  • At 8:56 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Kevin:'
    That's OK, because you change the definitions of words to suit you.

    Liar. Why is it that you cannot produce any evidence to support that claim? Coward.

    Kevin:
    If you think that's where the evidence points, then I fail to see why you have published this evidence and earned a Nobel Prize.

    What is the peer-reviewed papers that demonstrate otherwise?

    Why can't you post any evidence taht says otherwise? Coward.

    Kevin:
    I mean, even a four-year old can see that if you have two brown furred mice and two white furred mice and the two white furred mice are eaten, then it's not very likely that you have many more white furred mice.

    You don'tunderstand naturl selection. For natural selection the differential reproduction has to be due to heritable variation.

    So it would depend on the environment. For example two white mice in a jungle would stick out more than the two brown mice.

    BTW the Russian foxes are an example of artificial selection.

    Dumbass.

     
  • At 9:39 AM, Blogger OgreMkV said…

    Joe, if I give you two populations of organisms, can you tell me which one evolved via natural selection and which one evolved via artificial selection.

    No, you can't. It's that simple. Selection is selection.

    Joe, once again, you have made a claim, yet you cannot back it up.

    You do realize that EVERY TIME you say, "Why don't you back up your statements?" it's because you've made a claim that has zero support.

    This thread, this entire blog isn't about evolution, or even ID. It's about Joe trying to be smart.

    I'm not doing your homework for you Joe. You could type a couple of words into google scholar and see thousands of supporting papers.

    You might even do that, but you will never find the evidence you want Joe.

    Because you will not accept and evidence, Joe. You're too busy trying to explain it away to actually look at it.

    You hold science to meet your expectations, but your expectations are based on strawmen. You refuse to hold ID to the same requirements.

    You have pointed out that Dawkins said something in his book. If you had read the book, you would have realized that the entire book was explaining what evolution really is. But you only quote that one sentence of his.

    You do the same thing with ID. Quoting what you want to hear and ignoring what else they say. The quotes I provided from the ID leaders say that ID is anti-evolution Joe. Look at what they have said "opposition", "competitor hypotheses".

    Your English skills really are poor. I'm sorry you had such a terrible education. Where you home schooled?

     
  • At 10:28 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Kevin:
    Joe, if I give you two populations of organisms, can you tell me which one evolved via natural selection and which one evolved via artificial selection.

    Most likely.

    Natural selection is a RESULT you ignorant shit.

    Ya see Kevin you couldn't support your position if your life depended on it.

    ALL you can do is misrepresent what others say.

     
  • At 10:28 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Natural selection is nothing more than differential reproduction due to heritable variation. Differential reproduction just means that some will (may) out-reproduce others. And if that differential reproduction is due to some heritable variation then you have natural selection. The heritable variation doesn't even have to be genetic as behavioral characteristics can be passed down also.

    And all of that depends on the environment as what is beneficial or working good enough in one environment may not be beneficial nor working good enough in another environment.

    And that brings us to another point- whatever works "good enough" gets kept as natural selection basically eliminates that which doesn't work good enough.

    Does natural selection have a direction? Only if survivability is a direction.

     
  • At 10:44 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity- Nobel Laureates Iinitiative

    September 9, 2005

    Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home