ID now accepts common descent?


#1

Interesting. I guess the Dover verdict was more damaging to the cause than supporters wanted to admit.

At least now we know who the designer may be. According to Stephen Meyer, we need to look to Japan. Specifically, Mazda! Interesting!:smiley:

pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/01/id_floats_a_lea.html#more

Peace

Tim


#2

Does natural selection explain desire or instict in organisms?


#3

I don’t follow these things too closely, but I don’t know why ID would ever have had to dispute common descent. Is it an actual fact that the ID movement as a whole did dispute common descent?


#4

No I dont think they did as a whole. Some of the bigwigs like Behe always accepted some of the premises of Darwinian evolution. They only posited that it was guided by an unnamed force.

As an aside, I followed the ID movement for a while when I was low on my supply of faith and looking for anything really. I read about 5 books, and watched a DVD. At first glance, the arguements are compelling for someone grasping for something to hold onto in the onslaught of doubts on the existance of God, it was a tough couple of years. Its only now sinking in that its seems like these few scientists, while at first may have been sincere in their convictions for ID slipped into the grip of greed.

Their science was not even close to ready for mainstream but it seems like once they saw the $$ from the pending consults on schoolbooks, speaking engagements, etc etc, they pushed it through. Most people dont know but the book they wanted to use (Of Pandas and People) in the Dover schools was from 1989!! Whether or not you believed the ID movement had any clout at all, teaching our kids out of a nearly 20 year old science book would be suicide in today science-based fields, and obviously it was.

The one thing that did come out of the ID movement that i still keep an eye on is the Prescibed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH), but I wont bore you guys with the details of it.


#5

I have frequently questioned ID advocates about this, and have generally been told that one can either accept or reject common descent and believe in ID. I tend to classify myself as a common-descent IDer, but I am not enough of a scientist to understand the issues surrounding ID, so I’m cautious in this identification.

Edwin


#6

Considering Michael Behe’s role in ID in general, and the fact that (to my knowledge) he’s never questioned common descent, I’d say it’s quite a reach to cast this as a ‘new party line’.

I’m skeptical of ID’s ability to scientifically prove design, but I find myself very sympathetic to their movement and general philosophy - part of that coming from the opposition’s desire to cast them as thinly-veiled YECers. The side that has to reshape their opposition like that is the side I lose trust in.


#7

That’s because they ARE thinly-veiled creationists trying to sneak in thru the back door.
There’s no such thing as ID science any more than there’s such a thing as "creation ‘science’ ". If anything, ID belongs in philosophy.


#8

ID has always been, at least in part, political. For political reasons ID has offered a “big tent” to try to unite all the anti-darwinist forces. To this end they have to avoid alienating the many YECs who provide the votes for school board elections. The scientists within ID, such as Behe, have generally accepted Common Descent but have not emphasised thier acceptance so as not to alarm the YECs.

After the Dover verdict the political ambitions of ID are less easily attainable so it may be that the leaders feel more able to say what they really think.

rossum


#9

Which, of course, says a lot for their “theory”. I wonder if the Dover board would have as quickly accepted the ID group if they had clearly, up front told them that ID accepts common descent?

Peace

Tim


#10

Does natural selection explain the desire live? If not, the ID is the only explaination.


#11

ID is not just a creationist position; it is also the position of those
who believe in evolution but do not believe that natural selection by its self can not account for the inherent behavior and the multitude of variety we see in living organisms. Anybody care to prove them wrong? Or do you all just have text book answers?


#12

This has been extensively discussed, and the textbooks are generally right.

  All living organisms use the same 20 amino acids to make proteins, for example, As far as we know there is nothing very special about these 20. In fact one thing we doing in my lab is making proteins with unnatural amino acids incorporated into them. They still fold up and carry out chemical activity.

   This is consistent with descent with modification from a single common ancestor of all living things. Using the same alphabet of twenty you can make a protein that is part of a muscle, or you can make a channel that opens and closed to let ions in, or you can make an enzyme that intermediates a chemical reaction, you can even make one that rotates like a little motor.

#13

It’s true that many IDers also hold to an evolutionary theory that is not exclusively based on natural selection. But there have always been people (going back to pre-Darwin days) who believed that evolution was not exclusively based on natural selection.

For instance, one can reject ID (the idea that the divine somehow directly manipulated the evolution of organisms, at distinct, different points in the evolutionary process), and still accept that evolution happens, but that natural selection is just one mechanism among many.


#14

Yes. Organisms which act so as to prolong their lives will generally have more offspring than organisms which do not act in such a way.

If not, the ID is the only explaination.

No. “We don’t know yet” is always an alternative explanation. ID cannot win by default, it will have to produce some positive evidence to show that it is correct. The only allowable default in science is “we don’t know yet”.

rossum


#15

This does not explain the desire to live. It explains a mechanism that says that those who do not desire life, die; it does not explain why an organism should desire life.


#16

Have you ever asked your self why?


#17

If you dont believe in ID, you have to accept natural selection because thats the only posible answer. Whether that answer is logical and can account for the complexity and variety of nature, i have yet to hear an anwser that involves a explantion to how.

All im hearing is " yes it does" “No it doesn’t”. None of these hold in them a proper explaination. Theres no reason why i should take you word for it.


#18

It is the most prefferable explanation; not the most logical.
There are only two explantions; either life scuttles on through an emense number of blind chances and natural selection, or, Life is programed by an inteligent designer to act in a specific way under certain conditions; reacting in reflection to it enviroment.

If natural selection fails to reasonably account for what we see around us, then there is only one other option.


#19

I think it’s worth pointing out that if God chose to use natural selection via random mutation to create the exact world that has existed and does exist, he could have done so. There is nothing whatsoever that would prevent God from arranging every single atom, every molecule, every photon, every random decay (to the omniscient and omnipotent, nothing is random), to achieve the results we see around us.


#20

I never said that God could not do so, but in reality, such a system would not be random; it would just appear so to a scientist.

I have no problem accepting natural selection; my denial of it is not a matter of belief in God or none belief; my faith is far deeper then that. I simply cannot see how natural selection ( in a trully random situation with no interference of God at all) can account for the world around us. It does not account for fear, the desire to live, the developing of natural biological weaponary to protect ones self from enemies. Life coming into being by accident is one thing; but if it then begins multiplying and acting in away that is inteligible and rational, reacting to an enviroment, developing limbs and teeth for tearing through flesh, then that is something else entirely. A one celled organism does not have an experience of being a one celled organism; therefore its blind attemped to survive as a living organism is illogical to me.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.