I guess they're not. Course, without misrepresenting ID an evolutionist (theistic or otherwise) wouldn't have an argument.
The argument is not about whether or not 'change' occurs, that is given and it is a misrepresentation to pretend otherwise. The argument is about whether the 'change' that is observed can create a man out of an amoeba or whether it is limited e.g. to generating dogs, wolves, coyotes, jackals, etc out of an original canine kind.
Was life created with an ability to adapt within and proceeding from separate biological groups or was the first cell created and everything proceeded from there? Naturalists would argue the second position while creationists would argue the first, from the same observed 'change'.
Clearly, what we observe is consistent with life that was created with an ability to adapt within and proceeding from separate biological groups and therefore consistent with ID.
Equally as clear is the fact that what is observed is not consistent with all life proceeding from a single life form. That is a 'fantastic postulate' as Mr. Towne notes and it is interesting that he seems to accept the 'fantastic postulate' where evolution is concerned, yet reject it where the universe is concerned.
"My answer to that is, we should explore as much as we can. We should think about everything, try to explore everything, and question things."
Just don't push the ID boundary forward so that it is consistent with Biblical teaching. That is unacceptable. /sarc
interesting! read again later
I think it's very unfortunate that this kind of discussion has come up. People are misusing the term intelligent design to think that everything is frozen by that one act of creation and that there's no evolution, no changes. It's totally illogical in my view. Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it's remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren't just the way they are, we couldn't be here at all. The sun couldn't be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here.
Some scientists argue that "well, there's an enormous number of universes and each one is a little different. This one just happened to turn out right." Well, that's a postulate, and it's a pretty fantastic postulate it assumes there really are an enormous number of universes and that the laws could be different for each of them. The other possibility is that ours was planned, and that's why it has come out so specially. Now, that design could include evolution perfectly well. It's very clear that there is evolution, and it's important. Evolution is here, and intelligent design is here, and they're both consistent.
They don't have to negate each other, you're saying. God could have created the universe, set the parameters for the laws of physics and chemistry and biology, and set the evolutionary process in motion, But that's not what the Christian fundamentalists are arguing should be taught in Kansas.
People who want to exclude evolution on the basis of intelligent design, I guess they're saying, "Everything is made at once and then nothing can change." But there's no reason the universe can't allow for changes and plan for them, too.
People who are anti-evolution are working very hard for some excuse to be against it. I think that whole argument is a stupid one. Maybe that's a bad word to use in public, but it's just a shame that the argument is coming up that way, because it's very misleading. .."
Yes, it IS.
Here's an excerpt from the "debate" this month linked below:
George Gilder: "Darwinism may be true, but it's ultimately trivial. It is not a "fundamental explanation for creation or the universe."
That was a non-sequitur. He's equating a "philosophy" (Scientism/Darwinism) with "the theory of evolution" which has nothing to do with the philosophy of "origins".
The whole debate was stupid and meaningless for that very same reason. They were talking about apples and oranges.
But is it Good for the Conservatives - Darwinism and its Discontents
The Weekly Standard ^ | 05/14/2007 | Andrew Ferguson Volume 012, Issue 33
Larry Arnhart, a political scientist from Northern Illinois University; John Derbyshire, an author and a blogger for National Review Online; John West, a political scientist formerly of Seattle Pacific University and now of the Discovery Institute; and his colleague at Discovery, George Gilder, the legendary author of Wealth and Poverty, Microcosm, The Spirit of Enterprise, and Life After Television. Moderator: Steven Hayward, the biographer of Ronald Reagan
For those that are interested, you can watch the entire panel discussion here. "Darwinism and Conservatism: Friends or Foes?"
But, but, but, how can he accept intelligent design ....?
His degree isn't in evolution, he's speaking outside his area of expertise.
Ummm... he believes in creation, he isn't a *real* scientist....
PhD's are a dime a dozen, anyone can get them....
Uh, he doesn't have credentials .... ooops....
There's got to be some way to discredit him....
It seems to me that this guy essentially believes in ID, and what he is protesting is the evolutionist caricature of it. What is not clear from the interview is whether he understands that what he rejects about ID is in fact nothing more than a caricature or straw man.
Religion meets Science, ping!
In the original article, this guy is all over the map on the multiple meanings he’s using the rubric “intelligent design” to stand for. Is he talking about the creation of the universe? The origins of life? Behe’s laundry list of things Behe can’t explain and so concludes they must be explained by miraculous intervention by some “unspecified” supernatural entity? I doubt he even knows where he’s wandering. There is a long history of scientists getting funny in their old age and signing on to odd things that catch their fancy. I had one prof once who had a picture of Osborne Reynolds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_Reynolds ) in his old age tacked up, showing him holding a bowl of marbles, apparently toward the end of his life he latched onto some theory about the whole universe working like a bunch of packed together spheres. The prof was worried about going out like that, clutching on some nutter theory at the end of his life. It’s an occupational hazard I guess.
Oboy! Another opinion on Evolution. Six billion to go.
Good article. Good thread. Good. Life is good.