Re: Comparing Evolution to Design Theory #1

Susan B (susan-brassfield@ou.edu)
Wed, 17 Nov 1999 19:55:29 -0600 (CST)

Stephen Jones:
>Thanks to Chris for posting this comparison. In order to answer it, I have
>recast it in the form of a post from Chris. Also, I prefixed the Evolution
>answer with "[E]" and the Design answer with "[D]".
>
>With my answers the post will be *very* long, so I will break it up into
>manageable chunks. From past experience, such large, multi-part posts
>multiply exponentially, so if Chris replies, I may not respond.

Susan:
I would like to respond to your remarks very briefly:

>CC>I tried to send the table at the following URL, but it was apparently
>>too large for a post to this list, or html posts are filtered out, so I
FTP'd it
>>to my ISP's machine instead. It's a table comparing the theory of
>>evolution
>
>This assumes there is such a thing as "the theory of evolution". But there
>are really only *theories* of evolution.

Evolution is a change in gene frequency in a population over time. During
the last century this has been documented to occur hundreds, if not
thousands of times.

Please provide a definition as concise as the one above for "Theory of
Creation" or "Theory of Intelligent Design." And provide documented
observations which verify the theories. And please do so without quoting
anyone out of context.

>>1. How did life come to be?
>>[E] It evolved from non-living things.
>
>The world "evolved" is too vague and it does not even answer the question
>- merely restates it. What does "evolved" actually mean?

please look the word up in the dictionary and quote us the answer.

>Also, if the Evolution question is to be symmetrical with the Design
>question, then *both* should have how and why answers, or neither
>should.

"why" is a religious question. "Intelligent design" is a religious
propaganda tool.

>CC>[D] The designer did it.
>
>Strictly speaking this should be "*An* Intelligent Designer" did it.

considering how badly designed most organisms are (why are *we* the Crown of
Creation, the only mammal that can't swallow and breathe at the same time?)
the Designer was probably Stupid.

>The
>basic ID theory makes no claim that any particular Designer did it. Just that
>living things really are intelligently designed.

an obviously mistaken assumption. Why do humans have so many back problems?

>CC>How, we don't know.
>
>See above. "How" is not strictly essential to establishing the fact of
>Intelligent Design. Evolutionists themselves are always saying that
>evolution is a fact, even if they don't know how it happened:

evolution has been observed to occur. No one so far has observed a Stupid
Designer give eagles and squids excellent eyesight and leaving his
Masterpiece (us) needing glasses.

<snip out of context quotes>

>Nevertheless, there is no reason why ID theory, when the fact of Intelligent
>Design is better established, could not as a research program build on that
>fact to answer "how" questions.

How are ID theorists planning to observe some species "poofing" into
existence? Are there documented cases of it in the peer-reviewed literature?
Can you provide references or a few out-of-context quotes?

>question "Why is the kettle boiling?" has a scientific answer based on the
>energy of the molecules of the water in it. But the external answer is
>because a human intelligent agent wanted to make a cup of tea.

this is religion, not science. Science wishes to understand boiling water
and how it works. Only religion can pose the question "why."

>Indeed, in this ID theory is superior in potential explanatory power to
>Evolution. Because materialistic-naturalistic Evolution denies there is
>anything external to the cosmos, it cannot, even in principle, answer the
>"Why" question.

I completely agree.

>CC>How does complexity come about?
>>Complexity increases by variations, some of which themselves
>produce even more-complex variations.
>
>This is too vague. Complexity could apply only to oscillating variations of
>the beaks of finches on the Galapagos Islands. Is Chris claiming that *all*
>the complexity of life, over the last 3.8 billion years, came *only* by
>"variations, some of which themselves produce even more complex
>variations"? That's OK, but he should then acknowledge that it is
>controversial even among evolutionists:

<snip out of context quote where Gould discusses punctuated equilibrium
rather than variation as Steven wants us to believe>

>And it does not uniquely distinguish Evolution from ID. An Intelligent
>Designer could create new organisms by modifying existing ones, either by
>natural means, or supernaturally, or both:

but then that would be indistinguishable from evolution.

>And it does not uniquely distinguish Evolution from ID. An Intelligent
>Designer could have designed "the dynamics and constraints" of living
>organisms, and used these in bringing into being new designs.

but then that would be indistinguishable from evolution

>See above. New designs being "introduced according to whatever
>unknown schedule the designer has in his mind" does not preclude their
>being in accord with "the dynamics and constraints inherent" in living
>organisms.

again indistinguishable from evolution

>See above. Mayr is one of the world's leading evolutionists, and he admits
>that Darwinian evolutionary theory "cannot make reliable predictions".

you quoted Mayr out of context. He was talking about evolution having a
direction, not scientific predictions.

>In any event, since all the major changes in evolution have long since
>ceased with the last Phyla over 439 mya, the last Class over 145 mya, and
>the last Order over 35 mya, and since then it is only been speciation, it is
>not surprising that "scientists... successfully use evolutionary theory to
>predict observations":

it's always only been speciation. The change we see across millions of years
is accumulated speciation. There were no mammals in the Cambrian. Mammals
did not appear until about 400 million years later.

>See above. We don't know what `the blind watchmaker' is thinking either.
>Popper points out that Darwinism cannot even predict if we find life on a
>planet what form it would take, whether there were "three species... only
>one species (or none)":

you should educate yourself on what "scientific prediction" means. It
doesn't mean predicting next week's stock market..

>CC>Does it provide a means of integrating, explaining, and organizing
>>the facts?
>>[E] Yes, it does this for a vast variety of facts, and it fits these facts
into
>>our general scheme of scientific knowledge, including our knowledge of
>>chemistry, biology, medicine, genetics, geology, geography, computer
>>science, mathematics, physics, psychology, and history.
>
>Chris has no way of knowing whether ID theory fits the facts
>better than Evolution, because materialistic-naturalistic science
>rejects ID out of hand, without giving it a fair hearing.

there are conservative foundations with bags of money panting to finance
research which would prove "Intelligent (or even stupid) Design." There's
nothing for them to finance because "Intelligent Design" isn't science. It's
propaganda.

>ID theorists only ask for a fair comparison and we are confident that ID
>theory would fit more of the facts better:

One of the nice things about the natural sciences, is that they are very
inexpensive to investigate. That's why there are so many amateur
naturalists. ID doesn't need piles of money to do its research. Where are
their results? What research is being done? ID isn't science it's propaganda
and lousy propaganda at that. It only fools the already convinced.

Susan
--------
Peace is not the absence of conflict--it is the presence of justice.
--Martin Luther King, Jr.
Please visit my website:
http://www.telepath.com/susanb