[CS-FSLUG] Intelligent design...

[Chris Brault]

Depends on the form of the word,

>  Not to be nit-picky, but natural selection *is* a form of  evolution. 
> But there are different kinds of natural selection  evolution: macro 
> vs. micro. Microevolution is the kind we can observe  taking place, 
> macro leads to new species and has not been observed  (so far as I know).

I don't like these confusing terms. It's Biological Evolution being 
acted on by Natural Selection  vs. Creation of Kinds and Natural 
Selection. Evolution is genetic change over time. Natural selection is 
really only a reduction of genetic diversity or a specification of 
genetic traits.

Microevolution, small genetic changes over time, can't work. There is no 
history of it happening. It's untenable and just plain crazy. There are 
small genetic changes (mutations) but life is designed to reject such 
changes. Never has there been an example of an increase in genetic 
information observed anywhere at any time. No animal has ever created a 
novel feature from mutations acted on by natural selection. Mutations 
kill things not make them better (95% of the time) ... the other 5% are 
bad, neutral or even helpful. However, even the helpful ones (like 
ciklecell anemia) have their price in blood. Genetic information is 
being affected by the curse. All genetic material is breaking down 
(viruses, cancers) and falling into chaos.

 Macroevolution, on the other hand, large changes due to sudden climate 
shifts, is nothing but natural selection in disguise.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>     The thing with pure Intelligent Design is that it approves of  
> both micro and macro. What it rejects is abiogenesis (to break down  
> the Greek: beginning from non-life) and certain bits of macro  
> evolution. ID argues a divine spark to begin things, but does not  
> necessarily reject the rest of the Darwinian idea: from the  
> primordial soup all the way to humans. The big idea is (1) life from  
> non-life is scientifically impossible and (2) it would seem necessary  
> that certain DNA be pre-existent so that when an animal evolved to a  
> certain point, multiple dependent characteristics could be "enabled"  
> at once.
>
>     As far as I know, pure ID will still reject the idea of a young  
> earth, etc.
>
>     Essentially, ID in this form draws its two objections from the  
> teleological argument for the existence of God (or, given what reason  
> can produce in such cases, "a god," but not necessarily God).
>
>     Teleological argument: Both abiogenesis and irreducible complexity 
> depend on variations of this argument, specifically the  Paley's 
> Watchmaker argument, that the world seems designed and  actually 
> requires design to achieve the way it works. As Thomas  Aquinas writes 
> in Summa Theologica, "Therefore some intelligent being  exists by whom 
> all natural things are directed to their end; and this  being we call 
> God."
>
>     In the end, to reference another one of my favorite  philosophers, 
> David Hume, neither argument is able to actually  provide a rational 
> conclusion of God (as in YHWH). The cosmological  argument is probably 
> the most solid of the two (IMO). The  teleological argument primary to 
> ID can just as easily lead to a belief, as Hume's Philo explains, in a 
> committee of gods or even demons.
>
>     All this I note, in an expanded form of what I mentioned on my  
> blog about this a few weeks ago, to note (1) Spaghetti Monsterism is  
> compatible with ID in its pure form, (2) I think pure ID is something  
> very different than what most Christians are comfortable with (since  
> pure ID does not take a preference for a particular religion).

You are correct. ID isn't much better than the alternative. But it may 
be the only place to start. I don't subscribe to the ridiculas ideas of 
billions of years nor of microevolution. No sir, I don't like it.