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

Wednesday, September 07, 2011

Intelligent Design: An Alternative Theory of Evolution

That's right ID is an alternative theory of evolution. That means it is an alternative to Darwinism and neo-darwinism, ie the modern synthesis.

Ya see, as I have been saying and proving- Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolutuion*, rather ID is anti- the blind watchmaker having sole dominion over evolution. That means, according to ID, that not all genetic changes are accidents/ errors/ mistakes. Dr Spetner went over this in his book "Not By Chance".

* 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 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.


  • At 9:13 AM, Blogger Jim said…

    ID may well be an alternative for evolution, and as you say its not crationism.

    so what is the evidence of ID, so far as i know there isnt any. Irreducible complexity has been shot to flames with every example presented. Most notorious of those was the Bacteria flagellum, in the dover trial.

    I guess the question im asking is "how can ID be classed as science when there is no evidence supporting it?"

  • At 9:28 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Irreducible complexity is still going strong as there isn't any evidence that blind, undirected chemical processes can construct new and useful multi-part systems.

    But anyway positive evidence for ID:

    Evidence for ID in Biology Textbooks

    Proof reading and error-correction

    That said your position cannot even muster a testable hypothesis nor any positive evidence.

  • At 4:44 PM, Blogger aaam said…

    What do you think about David Able's The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness:
    “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.” -- more

    Seems to me that this kills any chance of blind, undirected natural evolution?

  • At 7:27 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No, blind, undirected evolution can still break things...

  • At 5:03 PM, Blogger aaam said…

    Yes, "evolution" can also mean "winding down to nothing" 8)

    However, from the context I think it was clear that I used evolution in the constructive, progressive sense of the word?

    That kind of evolution requires an intelligence because the very best that "chance and/or necessity alone" can manage is some kinds of simple regular (implicite) ordering; Any kind of organization is however far outside "natures" reach...

    Read for example Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin models?


Post a Comment

<< Home