[CS-FSLUG] Intelligent design...
Chris Brault
gginorio at sbcglobal.net
Fri Sep 16 01:09:02 CDT 2005
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.
More information about the Christiansource
mailing list