Intelligent Design and Darwinian Evolution. Compatible?

August · Post by **August** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 5:45 pm

K, I hear what you are saying. I guess my reaction is down to the difference between the randomness of evolution vs the organization of design.

No biggy, we may just have to respectfully disagree.

Mastermind · Post by **Mastermind** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 5:49 pm

August, Evolution is only random if naturalism is assumed. It is not the opposite of ID. You can have both ID and Evolution.

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 6:09 pm

However in referring to evolution, generally one is talking about evolution with natural selection as that's how its accepted in the world right now.

August · Post by **August** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 6:12 pm

Hi M, please explain to me how you can have both?

You and K have me somewhat confused on this issue. I want to confirm, we are talking about biological macro- evolution, right?

The mechanisms for evolution are gene selection, gene drift, mutation and natural selection. These have all been accounted for and observed in micro-evolution. As for macro-evolution, there is no proof for it.

Explain to me where I am misinterpreting what you are saying. For evolution and ID to be compatible, the process would have to be something like> design>random>random>design>random design> etc...where design means points where design is injected into the evolution process to ensure macro-evolution. So you will have design in the beginning, and then the next generation(s) will come about by one of the evolutionary mechanisms specified above. In my mind, you can't have both. As soon as you use one of the mechnisms above, then there is no need for ID. Life is either designed or it is not, but it's not something in between, like half-design, half-evolution. The whole point of ID is specified complexity, not leaving anything to chance. Empirical detection shows intelligent causes, in every case, leaving no room for evolutionary processes.

Mastermind · Post by **Mastermind** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:24 pm

You have it all wrong. First, natural selection really has nothing to do with evolution, it is just a side-effect(in my opinion). What causes evolution is mutation. This can either be random(as atheists propose), or by divine intervention (as I propose). Natural selection simply makes sure the species that can survive do. It's not a "naturalistic" process, it is simple logic. If you live on a lava world but aren't immune to heat, you're going to die. I would also expect God to make animals that CAN survive, otherwise there wouldn't be much point to it.

August · Post by **August** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:08 pm

Excuse me, just where do I have it "all wrong"? That is a pretty bold statement, seeing as you just quote your opinion in the next sentence. My statements are based on scientific research, not just my opinion. And if you did not notice, mutation was included as one of the mechanisms.

First, natural selection really has nothing to do with evolution, it is just a side-effect(in my opinion).

I told you what the mechanisms are in the ToE, according to scientific texts. Here:"There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating." Stephen Jay Gould via Mark Isaak et al.

The problem with the above observation is the lack of empirical evidence to support it.

Here is another one, title of an article:
"Darwin, Charles. 1859. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection"

What causes evolution is mutation.

This is just one of the mechanisms, see above.

This can either be random(as atheists propose), or by divine intervention (as I propose).

But if ID and evolution were compatible, why did you say "or", and not "and"? That is exactly my point, it can't be both.

Natural selection simply makes sure the species that can survive do. It's not a "naturalistic" process, it is simple logic.

Don't patronize me by implying this can be explained by "simple logic". How did the previous generation of non-mutated species survive, or in other words, what did the survivors mutate from? If they did not have this characteristic in the first place, they would be dead, and there would be nothing for the mutation process to start. If this is so logical, we don't need ID, and macro-evolution is a fact.

I would also expect God to make animals that CAN survive, otherwise there wouldn't be much point to it.

Yes, so did He make only some of them, and evolutionist processes made the rest? So are you saying God created animals that can survive using natural selection, or what was the mechanism? If you say mutation, why do we need ID to explain the specified complexity of systems?

Please show how evolution and ID can be non-exclusive, based on scientific reasoning.

Kurieuo · Post by **Kurieuo** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:56 pm

Jac3510 wrote:In the strictest sense, you are absolutely right. ID, in its purest form, doesn't negate evolution, theistic or not. There are plenty of interpretations of the various observations that we can play with . . . neither system--if weonly consider the evidence--rules out the other.

What is the problem here is the philosophies that underlie each.... In my mind, the solution is to take it all out of the textbooks and offer a course on "The Philosophies of Science," but that's just me :p

I'm in general agreement, although I think it important to realise that in a sense both can be compatible. Yet, at the same time this is perhap inappropriate or unrealistic, considering as you say it is the philosophies behind each that repulse people. Maybe if the philosophies of science were taught, and philosophy even in the general, people would be able to appreciate the other side more by knowing where they are coming from, and realising their own biasses. It's just a shame philosophy is not taught in schools. Most just think it's all about the meaning of life or thereabouts, but it is so much more and there are so many practical aspects in philosophy. Ahh well...

Kurieuo.

Mastermind · Post by **Mastermind** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 9:39 pm

Excuse me, just where do I have it "all wrong"? That is a pretty bold statement, seeing as you just quote your opinion in the next sentence. My statements are based on scientific research, not just my opinion. And if you did not notice, mutation was included as one of the mechanisms.

First, it is not my opinion. People really can't tell the difference between Evolution and Naturalism. And I KNOW mutation was included. What does that have to do with anything?

I told you what the mechanisms are in the ToE, according to scientific texts. Here:"There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating." Stephen Jay Gould via Mark Isaak et al.

And I dare say he is wrong. His logic is flawed. Just because there is a (minor) degree of order does not make the mutations any less important(or from an atheist's point of view, random). You could still have diversity and life that survives with only mutations. You will never get more than an unicellular organism with only natural selection. The only thing natural selection does is ensure the strongest survive, so if anything, it hampers the process.

This is just one of the mechanisms, see above.

Mutations are THE most important mechanism. The rest are simply minor augmentations compared to it, and we could evolve just fine with or without natural selection(which frankly is impossible to avoid)

But if ID and evolution were compatible, why did you say "or", and not "and"? That is exactly my point, it can't be both.

I was referring to mutations, not evolution. You could have the atheist version of evolution, or you could have the theist version. In the atheist version, the occurance of beneficial mutations is random. In the theist version, their occurance is divine intervention. And of course it can't be both, but it can be either one of them. The fact is, we don't know, and likely never will(in this life anyway)

Don't patronize me by implying this can be explained by "simple logic". How did the previous generation of non-mutated species survive, or in other words, what did the survivors mutate from? If they did not have this characteristic in the first place, they would be dead, and there would be nothing for the mutation process to start. If this is so logical, we don't need ID, and macro-evolution is a fact.

Mind rephrasing that? I can't quite understand what you're asking.

Yes, so did He make only some of them, and evolutionist processes made the rest? So are you saying God created animals that can survive using natural selection, or what was the mechanism? If you say mutation, why do we need ID to explain the specified complexity of systems?

You still don't understand. I believe God to be in direct control of the Evolution process. God made most(if not all) of them through Evolution. Personally, I believe He simply took bacteria from its medium(earth, air and water), and evolved them into that element's native creatures. If God controls the mutations, then He controls the outcome.

Please show how evolution and ID can be non-exclusive, based on scientific reasoning.

I believe I have already done this.

Mastermind · Post by **Mastermind** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 9:50 pm

Allow me to give a paralel example of both ID and Naturalistic Evolution. We will start with one unicellular organism.

ID: Unicellular organisms gather together at either God's direct command or programming put within them by God to become a multicellular organism(this has been observed in lab conditions, i'll get you a reference when I find it). They learn how to work together and specialize under God's guidance. Eventually, as God decrees more mutations, the organism gains more and more features. As its species evolves, it finally becomes a lizard.

Naturalist: Unicellular organisms gather together for some reason atheists can't explain. Then the organisms start mutating. Once a beneficial mutation is in place, it will slowly spread to the rest of the population. This keeps happening until the above mentioned lizard is created.

Needless to say, the one that includes God is more efficient. We will also notice that mutations are far more unlikely to occur in the mammal population, and as we go back in time, they are more likely to occur within inferior creatures. The chances to screw around with a very complex organism and make it a fast process at random are ridiculous. Yet the Cambrian Explosion shows the exact opposite: Animals are being generated much faster than they should be under God's watchful eye.

Another thing to understand is that macroevolution really is no different than microevolution. Given enough time(according to atheists), it will eventually happen. And they're right. However, as the Cambrian Explosion proves, there was no randomness. Somebody, or something, caused the animal population to skyrocket in an extremely short ammount of time. That somebody is God.

Mastermind · Post by **Mastermind** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 9:56 pm

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

5.9.1 Coloniality in Chlorella vulgaris
Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation. He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella.

August · Post by **August** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:24 pm

First, it is not my opinion. People really can't tell the difference between Evolution and Naturalism.

First, natural selection really has nothing to do with evolution, it is just a side-effect(in my opinion).

Your opinion - natural selection has nothing to do with evolution, and then telling me I have it all wrong, and then proceeding to lecture me on how mutation is really all there is to evolution. It has everything to do with it, again, evolution defines mutation as chance or random events, and it is not the only mechanism needed to make the evolution process work. So your whole assumption is that God causes mutations?

Why don't you tell us stupid ones the difference between evolution, and naturalism? And please quote a scientific reference work here, I'm not interested in your opinion, unless you are a published and peer-reviewed scientist.

And I dare say he is wrong. His logic is flawed. Just because there is a (minor) degree of order does not make the mutations any less important(or from an atheist's point of view, random). You could still have diversity and life that survives with only mutations. You will never get more than an unicellular organism with only natural selection. The only thing natural selection does is ensure the strongest survive, so if anything, it hampers the process.

Of course he is wrong, he is an evolutionist. But you stated that mutation was the mechanism within evolution that is compatible with ID, and this clearly says that from the point of view of evolution mutation happens by chance. So how are they compatible?

I was referring to mutations, not evolution. You could have the atheist version of evolution, or you could have the theist version. In the atheist version, the occurance of beneficial mutations is random. In the theist version, their occurance is divine intervention. And of course it can't be both, but it can be either one of them. The fact is, we don't know, and likely never will(in this life anyway)

So let me get this straight, mutation is one of the mechanisms of evolution, but you were not referring to evolution? But earlier you said natural selection has nothing to do with evolution, and in your mind evolution=mutation, since everything else is just "minor augmentations". And if it can only be either one of the two (random or intelligent), how can they be compatible?

Mind rephrasing that? I can't quite understand what you're asking.

For mutation to take place, you need to have a life-form already there, ready to mutate. The catalyst for mutation, in your example, was the heat from lava. But how can the organism already there survive if it has not gone through the mutation that will enable it to survive? I fail to see your "simple logic".

You still don't understand. I believe God to be in direct control of the Evolution process. God made most(if not all) of them through Evolution. Personally, I believe He simply took bacteria from its medium(earth, air and water), and evolved them into that element's native creatures. If God controls the mutations, then He controls the outcome.

If God is in control of the evolution process, it is no longer evolution, since evolution, by definition, is a random process with no outside intelligence required. If you want to fudge the definiiton of the theory of evolution to fit your hypothesis, then just say so, but then don't claim that evolution as understood by the rest of us, and ID is compatible.
I will let William Dembski, one of the foremost experts on ID, further expand:
"Theistic evolution takes the Darwinian picture of the biological world and baptizes it, identifying this picture with the way God created life. When boiled down to its scientific content, however, theistic evolution is no different from atheistic evolution, treating only undirected natural processes in the origin and development of life. Theistic evolution places theism and evolution in an odd tension. If God purposely created life through Darwinian means, then God's purpose was ostensibly to conceal his purpose in creation. Within theistic evolution, God is a master of stealth who constantly eluded our best efforts to detect him empirically. Yes, the theistic evolutionist believes that the universe is designed. Yet insofar as there is design in the universe, it is design we recognize strictly through the eyes of faith. Accordingly the physical world in itself provides no evidence that life is designed."

I believe I have already done this.

Uh, where, did I miss it? All I saw was speculation, with no real examples or scientifically confirmed proof. Can you please quote some actual published scientists that back up your statements?

Mastermind · Post by **Mastermind** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:40 pm

Your opinion - natural selection has nothing to do with evolution, and then telling me I have it all wrong, and then proceeding to lecture me on how mutation is really all there is to evolution. It has everything to do with it, again, evolution defines mutation as chance or random events, and it is not the only mechanism needed to make the evolution process work. So your whole assumption is that God causes mutations?

Basically. And I guess I shouldn't have said natural selection plays no role. I simply believe it is irrelvant.

Why don't you tell us stupid ones the difference between evolution, and naturalism? And please quote a scientific reference work here, I'm not interested in your opinion, unless you are a published and peer-reviewed scientist.

From Dictionary.com

naturalism

n 1: (philosophy) the doctrine that the world can be understood in scientific terms without recourse to spiritual or supernatural explanations

ev·o·lu·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (v-lshn, v-)
n.
A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.

The process of developing.
Gradual development.
Biology.
Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.
Mathematics. The extraction of a root of a quantity.

Will this do?

Of course he is wrong, he is an evolutionist. But you stated that mutation was the mechanism within evolution that is compatible with ID, and this clearly says that from the point of view of evolution mutation happens by chance. So how are they compatible?

Like I have mentioned in several previous posts, atheists have entrenched naturalism into evolution. The point of view that states mutation happens by chance belongs to naturalism, not evolution.

So let me get this straight, mutation is one of the mechanisms of evolution, but you were not referring to evolution? But earlier you said natural selection has nothing to do with evolution, and in your mind evolution=mutation, since everything else is just "minor augmentations". And if it can only be either one of the two (random or intelligent), how can they be compatible?

Because both systems CAN work. Obviously the random or intelligent aren't compatible, and that's because in evolution, there is only one of them. I believe it is intelligence. An atheist believes it is random. What's so hard to understand?

For mutation to take place, you need to have a life-form already there, ready to mutate. The catalyst for mutation, in your example, was the heat from lava. But how can the organism already there survive if it has not gone through the mutation that will enable it to survive? I fail to see your "simple logic".

Are you referring to the origins of life? Because the theory of evolution starts once there is a first organism present. where that organism came from is not its concern.

If God is in control of the evolution process, it is no longer evolution, since evolution, by definition, is a random process with no outside intelligence required. If you want to fudge the definiiton of the theory of evolution to fit your hypothesis, then just say so, but then don't claim that evolution as understood by the rest of us, and ID is compatible.
I will let William Dembski, one of the foremost experts on ID, further expand:
"Theistic evolution takes the Darwinian picture of the biological world and baptizes it, identifying this picture with the way God created life. When boiled down to its scientific content, however, theistic evolution is no different from atheistic evolution, treating only undirected natural processes in the origin and development of life. Theistic evolution places theism and evolution in an odd tension. If God purposely created life through Darwinian means, then God's purpose was ostensibly to conceal his purpose in creation. Within theistic evolution, God is a master of stealth who constantly eluded our best efforts to detect him empirically. Yes, the theistic evolutionist believes that the universe is designed. Yet insofar as there is design in the universe, it is design we recognize strictly through the eyes of faith. Accordingly the physical world in itself provides no evidence that life is designed."

Great paragraph that explains my position. However, what it fails to mention is that atheists have no more evidence that it wasn't designed than I do that it was. So why is my position weak? It is no different in terms of proof than the atheist one. In fact, it is no worse than your own position. My position simply takes the best of both worlds(the undeniable Creator and the observed Process of Creation)

Uh, where, did I miss it? All I saw was speculation, with no real examples or scientifically confirmed proof. Can you please quote some actual published scientists that back up your statements?

No, because it's my theory(I'm probably not the first to come up with it, but I did not steal it from anybody. I came up with it on my own). I have explained my position, which is all I can do as a human being. If you disagree, give me proof that I'm wrong, otherwise prove your own point, less you should look like a hypocrite.

Mastermind · Post by **Mastermind** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:53 pm

by the way:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc ... diates_ex4

August · Post by **August** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 11:14 pm

Let me start with what we agree on, we both believe in an Intelligent Creator, that exercises His power on a continuous basis to give His creation life.

Your position is that God uses an evolutionary type process to regulate and promote life on earth. My position is, as clearly stated throughout this thread, I don't believe that evolution, defined as such:

Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

is compatible with ID and an Intelligent Creator. This is the only part of the definition that is valid in this context, since we are discussing the progression of life. It also includes "as a result of natural selection" that your definition shows to be:

the doctrine that the world can be understood in scientific terms without recourse to spiritual or supernatural explanations

So the two, as stated in the beginning of this thread, are mutually exclusive.

It seems that you choose to assign the "weak" definition to evolution, which is not how evolution is defined in the biological sciences, but it is merely a gradual process. In that case, we may be close to agreement.

Because both systems CAN work. Obviously the random or intelligent aren't compatible, and that's because in evolution, there is only one of them. I believe it is intelligence. An atheist believes it is random. What's so hard to understand?

Both systems cannot work, there is no proof for macro-evolution through natural causes. I also believe it is intelligence cause, and that it is not compatible with the atheist view, which was what I was saying from the start.

Are you referring to the origins of life? Because the theory of evolution starts once there is a first organism present. where that organism came from is not its concern.

No, I am not referring to the origin of life, I am referring to the fact that mutation can only happen if there is an organism already there, but that organism, according to your logic, needs to evolve in order to survive there in the first place. So unless the organism was already suited to life there, it would die, and there can be no mutation.

Great paragraph that explains my position. However, what it fails to mention is that atheists have no more evidence that it wasn't designed than I do that it was. So why is my position weak? It is no different in terms of proof than the atheist one. In fact, it is no worse than your own position. My position simply takes the best of both worlds(the undeniable Creator and the observed Process of Creation)

So what is my position? Evolution cannot mutually exist with ID. Nothing here says that it can, either, I don't see how you read this as saying that. ID is empirical proof of a designer, a fact not acknowledged nor accepted by the evolutionist community, so theistic evolution simply does not hold true. If we accept proof of ID, then the ToE cannot be true.

No, because it's my theory(I'm probably not the first to come up with it, but I did not steal it from anybody. I came up with it on my own). I have explained my position, which is all I can do as a human being. If you disagree, give me proof that I'm wrong, otherwise prove your own point, less you should look like a hypocrite.

I think I understand your position, I just don't agree with all of it. Nothing wrong with that either. I have given pages of proof why I think it is wrong. To summarize:

1. ID infers intelligence, and is proven by empirical evidence.
2. The ToE assumes all life to have come from a single ancestor, and through various mechanisms, and by chance, evolved into the variety of life we see today, without any supernatural interference.
3. Your position is that God uses the mechanisms that evolutionists ascribe to chance, to further life on the planet.
4. As soon as God "interferes" in the process, then it can by definition not be evolution any more, as understood and described by the scientific community, but becomes theistic evolution, or another type of evolution.
5. Therefore, ID and the ToE are not compatible.

You agree with the summary?

BTW, what's with the hypocrite statement?

August · Post by **August** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 11:18 pm

The 29 Evidences for Macro-evolution off talkorigins has been debunked.

http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp

In any case, if you buy that nonsense off talkorigins, there is no need for a God.