24 Observations on the Intelligent Design versus Macro Evolution debate

patsullivan.com/blog ^ | June 28, 2007 | Pat Sullivan

[MatthewTan]

10,000 scientific papers on evolution?

Good! Edge of Evolution by Michael Behe is happy to embrace all the micro-evolution from natural selection acting on random mutations. No big deal.

Show us a good example of macro-evolution that came about through random mutations, and explain how you rule out intelligent design for the macro-evolution scientifically - and we will be more impressed.

[MatthewTan]

Another paper by Pat Sullivan on his blog of July 4, 2007.
Visit www.pro-science.com to keep yourself abreast about science and materialism, and the non-materialistic alternative.

- from Pat Sullivan’s blog -

Review of Dawkin’s Review of Behe’s “Edge of Evolution”

Here is Dr. Dawkin’s review of Dr. Behe’s new book “The Edge of Evolution”. A quote from his review.

Poster boy of creationists everywhere, he has cut himself adrift from the world of real science.

Exactly my point in my post here in number 2 and 3... Always say ID scientists are creationists and always say they are not real scientists. In other words, demean them which is my point number 1.

Here is a review of Dawkin’s review written by Logan Gage. A quote from this review.

Dawkins is a master of rhetoric. Only he could take a clear example of intelligently designed evolution (dog breeding) and offer it as a convincing “proof” of Darwinian evolution.

Here is another review of his review appearing on the blog “Uncommon Descent” A snippet from this review,

But where Dawkins lacks in substance, he more than makes up for it in form. Dawkins cunningly avoided dealing squarely with the facts, and rather chose to resort to veiled ad hominems and arguments from authority. For Dawkins, this only makes sense because, as one of Dawkins loyal cohorts in Canada, Larry Moran, aptly said, “it’s going to be a challenge to refute Behe’s main claims”.

Finally here are Behe’s own comments regarding a few other reviews of his new book. A quote from it.

Yet he is unwilling or unable to engage my arguments. He spends the first third of his review, and parts thereafter, writing of young earth creationism, while stating somewhere in the middle that, oh yes, Behe is not a young earth creationist. He says that all those arguments of Darwin’s Black Box have certainly been refuted, without bothering with wearying details. And he regrets that there is more of the same pesky trivia in The Edge of Evolution: “we are still where we were with Darwin’s Black Box. The microworld is too complex to be a product of nature.” In fact, he never tells readers of the review what the book’s argument is. No sickle cell, no malaria, no nothing. Unfortunately, the review boils down to mere Darwinian posturing.

Have a safe 4th of July!

[Jeff Gordon]

My reading and study doesn't prove out any hard core ID religiosity.

I have never heard of any atheist who "believes in" ID. We can safely say that 100% of the ID "believers" or religious in one way or another.

Evolution, by contrast, is accepted by both religious people and atheists.

[rickdylan]

>Evolution, by contrast, is accepted by both religious people and atheists.

I'd qualify that. Evolution is accepted by atheists and by "religious people" who who've never thought terribly hard about it.

Evolution and Christianity in particular are totally incompatible. Somebody who believes in logic can only believe in one of them.

[TXnMA]

Ping to yet another ID/MacroEvo thread...

[Axlrose]

Darwinism is a atheist construct and is NOT accepted by the faithful.

[Jeff Gordon]

Darwinism is a atheist construct and is NOT accepted by the faithful.

If you define "the faithful" as Christians who do not accept Evolution, then you are 100% correct.

[ClearCase_guy]

We can safely say that 100% of the ID "believers" or religious in one way or another.

It almost sounds like you are arguing that ID cannot be true -- because everyone who believes in ID also follows some religion.

That might qualify as a gentle ad hominem attack on proponents of ID. The concept of ID should be addressed, not the other beliefs of it's proponents.

[AntiKev]

By the same token, show us a good example of intelligent design and explain how you rule out macro-evolution. This debate goes both ways. But again, just more meaningless finger pointing “my imaginary friend is better than yours!”

The problem is that although Darwin provided the basis for current science, a significant portion of his research and observations have been discarded in favour of more modern research. There is no conclusive evidence either way right now...but I will point out a quote that I posted in another ID/Evolution thread earlier:

“I’ve never understood how God could expect His creatures to pick the one true religion by faith - it strikes me as a sloppy way to run a universe.”
- Robert Heinlein through Jubal Harshaw in Stranger in a Strange Land

[ROTB]

>Evolution, by contrast, is accepted by both religious
>people and atheists.

Indeed, only people of faith who haven’t thought about the implications of evolution, and the contradictions with Genesis would espouse and promote such a worldview.

Here’s a list I copied from a book.

*********************************

Bible: God is the creator of all things. (Genesis 1)

Evolution: Natural chance processes can account for the existence of all things.

Bible: World created as is in six literal days. (Genesis 1)

Evolution: World evolved over billions of years.

Bible: Creation is completed. (Genesis 2:3)

Evolution: Creative processes continuing.

Bible: Oceans before land. (Genesis 1:2)

Evolution: Land before oceans.

Bible: First life on land. (Genesis 1:11)

Evolution: Life began in the oceans.

Bible: First life was land plants. (Genesis 1:11)

Evolution: Marine organisms evolved first.

Bible: Earth before sun and stars. (Genesis 1:14-19)

Evolution: Sun and stars before earth.

Bible: Fruit trees before fish. (Genesis 1:11,20,21)

Evolution: Fish before fruit trees.

Bible: All stars made on fourth day. (Genesis 1:16)

Evolution: Stars evolved at various times.

Bible: Birds and fish created on the fifth day. (Genesis 1:20-21)

Evolution: Fish evolved hundreds of millions of years before birds.

Bible: Birds before insects. (Genesis 1:20-31, Leviticus 11)

Evolution: Insects before birds.

Bible: Whales before reptiles. (Genesis 1:20-31)

Evolution: Reptiles before whales.

Bible: Birds before reptiles. (Genesis 1:20-31)

Evolution: Reptiles before birds.

Bible: Light before the sun. (Genesis 1:3-9)

Evolution: Sun before any light.

Bible: Plants before the sun. (Genesis 1:11-19)

Evolution: Sun before any plants.

Bible: Abundance and variety of marine life all at once. (Genesis 1:20)

Evolution: Marine life gradually developed from a primitive organic soup.

Bible: Man’s body from the dust of the earth. (Genesis 2:7)

Evolution: Man and monkey have a common ancestor.

Bible: Man exercised dominion over all organisms. (Genesis 1:28)

Evolution: Many organisms extinct before man evolved.

Bible: Man originally a vegetarian. (Genesis 1:29)

Evolution: Man originally a meat-eater.

Bible: Fixed and distinct kinds of life (Genesis 1:11,12,21,24,25)

Evolution: All life is in a continual state of change.

Bible: Death caused by Eve and Adam eating the forbidden fruit. (Genesis 2:17)

Evolution: Death existed long before the evolution of man.

[ROTB]

>I will point out a quote that I posted in another
>ID/Evolution thread earlier:

>“I’ve never understood how God could expect His creatures to
>pick the one true religion by faith - it strikes me as a
>sloppy way to run a universe.”
>
>- Robert Heinlein through Jubal Harshaw in Stranger in a
>Strange Land

Only the Bible says what happens thousands of years before it happens. Please see http://www.direct.ca/trinity/y3nf.html for the details.

The Koran, the Bag-va-geet-a, Zoroastrianism, Ba-hai-ism, the Hindu Vedas, etc. are not like this. The non-divine authors of these books wisely stay away from predictive prophecy, in which they routinely fail.

[robertpaulsen]

"Nor do they explain the amazing fine tuning of our universe to support the possibility of life."

Yes, given our lifeform, it's amazing how the whole universe was built around it, fine tuned to support it. Why, a mere 1% change in the force of gravity would make life impossible!

There must be intelligent design!

(/sacrcasm for those who didn't pick it up.)

[muawiyah]

Somewhere deep inside each and every one of our body's cells there's what amounts to a really heavy duty super computer (operating much like we now imagine our forthcoming quantum computers operate).

No doubt they are all in direct contact with the ongoing structure of the universe, and of God.

Now, just what do you suppose God is telling the super computer to do? How can we tap into the signal directly and maybe get ahead of the game? How can we interpret the signal in the "macro world"?

So many questions, so many answers, so much yet to know about how superposition and entanglement.

[muawiyah]

Somewhere deep inside each and every one of our body's cells there's what amounts to a really heavy duty super computer (operating much like we now imagine our forthcoming quantum computers operate).

No doubt they are all in direct contact with the ongoing structure of the universe, and of God.

Now, just what do you suppose God is telling the super computer to do? How can we tap into the signal directly and maybe get ahead of the game? How can we interpret the signal in the "macro world"?

So many questions, so many answers, so much yet to know about how superposition and entanglement.

[ROTB]

>There is no conclusive evidence either way right now ...

I am currently listening to “The Case for a Creator” by Lee Strobel http://www.amazon.com/Case-Creator-Journalist-Investigates-Scientific/dp/0310254396/ref=sr_1_1/102-8767029-5694527?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183809622&sr=8-1.

Very, very, interesting! (You have to say this with a German accent)

Listening to this will help the inclined to better choose how good the evidence is FOR a creator.

[ROTB]

>Now, just what do you suppose God is telling the super
>computer to do? How can we tap into the signal directly and
>maybe get ahead of the game? How can we interpret the signal
>in the “macro world”?

Only the Bible says what happens thousands of years before it happens. Please see http://www.direct.ca/trinity/y3nf.html for the details. The Koran, Bag-va-geet-a, Zoroastrianism, Ba-hai-ism, don’t do this. Only the Bible.

This is the signature of God, that you may know that the Bible alone is His message to mankind, and thus the supercomputers that make up your body.

[Raycpa]

The original Star Trek hinted at an intelligent designer all the time.

When the universe is assumed to be billions of years old and our existence is a tiny fraction of that, why isn’t it possible that we are the product of some vast experiement by an intelligence greater than we can know?

[rickdylan]

An evolutionist has no logical basis for morality. It’s about morality more than theology.

[AntiKev]

There’s only one flaw in that interpretation...they start with the answer and work backwards to find the appropriate question to ask. They’ve defined the math to fit the idea that they were trying to describe much like the global warming alarmists do (ref: hockey stick). You can make the data fit the observations if you try hard enough and manipulate enough. You can’t conclude anything like this from a book as vague as the bible. Sorry but it just doesn’t work that way.

[hosepipe]

[.. When the universe is assumed to be billions of years old and our existence is a tiny fraction of that, why isn’t it possible that we are the product of some vast experiment by an intelligence greater than we can know? ..]

TIME..... may NOT [wholly] be a linear thing.. The possibility of an Eternity/Infinity could preclude a linear reality.. as a circumference precludes the volume of a sphere..