Bryan R. Cross wrote:
>ID theory is the claim
>that intelligent design is empirically detectable and that evidence
for
>intelligent design can be found in various scientific disciplines
(e.g.
>cosmology, biology). ID theory per se is not committed to
post-creation
>'divine intervention' (though of course it is open to it) nor to any
>particular 'time' of the operation of intelligent agency. (There is a
wide
OK so my next question is: does ID necessarily conflict with Darwinian
evolution? I have been corresponding with someone recently (OEC and
ID) who says that the Human Genome Project "devastate" Darwinian
theory because Darwinianism asserts that it was undirected and that it
progressed randomly, AND it progresses from the simple to the complex.
Now I teach college biology I and generally consider that I have a
good understanding of evolutionary theory. And I don't see that
scientists' current understanding of Darwinian evolution (ie. the
synthetic theory or neo-Darwinian theory) "claims" that (1) it is
undirected (2) it progressed randomly (3) it progresses from simple to
complex.
My understanding is:
(1) Some individuals have used "Darwinism" to claim that evolution is
undirected, but that it is pretty much accepted that science can never
suggest or prove that there is no God, hence saying evolution is
undirected will always be speculation, and not a part of a theory.
Wasn't ASA involved in a successful effort to remove such wording
(undirected) from some science textbooks?
(2) Random *mutations* have resulted in changes in the genetic code,
which when expressed changed the phenotype of an organism -- which the
environment then can act upon via natural selection. Environmental
selection is *directed* not random, but mutation is ultimately random.
Random mutation does not imply *no God* -- but (to me), is something
indistinguishable from the hand of God. Miracles in the Bible always
require faith to believe - in every case, you can always explain away
miracles as "coincidence" or "just nature" (as in the wind separating
the sea for Moses). Those with faith know God is involved.
(3) Simple to complex: this is a recurring theme in the Bible. A
mustard seed grows to a huge "tree" or bush. One kernel dies so the
rest may live. Genesis - the universe begins from nothing and proceeds
to complex living organisms. etc etc. Not sure why this is even an
issue. Apparently ID says that "irreducible complexity" existed in the
beginning. Well, that is still entirely possible that the first "gene"
in the first living organism was indeed complex and organized. Why
does that conflict with Darwinian evolution?
I would greatly appreciate feedback on these three so that I may
discuss this issue further with the person I have been corresponding
with.
Wendee
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ Wendee Holtcamp -- wendee@greendzn.com ~~
~~ Environment/Travel/Science Writer ~~ www.greendzn.com ~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How many seas must a white dove sail before
she can sleep in the sand? -- Bob Dylan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 30 2000 - 12:11:01 EDT