Evolutionary theory claims that intelligent life has arisen due solely to random unguided and unintelligent events in nature. Id theory claims the opposite mechanism- that intelligent life has not arisen from mere unguided random events in nature. Falsifying ID is as simple as proving that rises in biologic intelligence do in fact come about by random unguided mutations and genetic drift, etc. Thus- it is easy to falsify evolution- prove that rises in intelligence in information leading to new species cannot possibly happen in a random unguided environment.

It is thus completely logical to state that evolutionary theory is as much “scientific” as is ID theory because otherwise, evolution would not be falsifiable without ID theory.

In the lab, the scientists has to ask- is this a random or nonrandom process? If it is random, what causes it and what observations can be made? If it is not random, what intelligent cause is seen or observed?

The phenomenon in nature, as any scientist will agree, is that biologic systems are “intelligent” and that the perpetuation of this intelligence only comes about because the intelligence that perpetuates it. Many, many tests have conclusively shown that intelligent biologic material does not self assemble in a random unguided environment. It is a basic law of nature- some call it the law of biogenesis. In reality, ID theory is just an exyension of further investigating how the law of abiogenesis works in nature.

Sorry, but don’t engineers use the “purposeless, materialist processes” of Newtonian mechanics all the time? All natural selection requires in diversity and selection and science has shown how a Creator is not necessary in these processes. But why does this mean that a creator couldn’t have influenced the diversity by way of directing mutations or selection by way of smiting/protecting individuals or populations? Just because these thing were not necessary, just as science suggests, doesn’t mean they didn’t happen all the same, as religion suggests.

Again, you are conflating meanings of “Evolution” in just the way I described. Mutation is hardly controversial. DNA evidence of mutation and DNA relationships between species are only evidence for micro-evolution and a succession of species. They offer no support to Darwin’s proposed materialist mechanism as the sole method of speciation.

ID may not be “science” but then neither is Darwinism. If the last 150 years of trying have demonstrated anything it is that Darwin’s mechanism is not falsifiable. It is true even when the evidence does not support it. That is why Gould and Eldridge came up with “punctuated equilibrium” when the fossil record didn’t support the gradualism of Darwin. They started from the mechanism as axiomatic and then tried to find a new way for the evidence to fit the theory. That is how it always works with Darwinism. If the evidence will always reinterpreted to fit into the conclusion, then that isn’t “science” either. It’s a form of begging the question.

Perhaps you would like to propose a test that would falsify Darwin’s materialist mechanism that does not conflate micro-evolution and the succession of species?

I am wary of the compartmentalization of knowledge that you advocate here wherein theology and philosophy are divorced from other related fields. I think that kind of reductionism is problematic because it can’t be truly accomplished. Whether its Theism or Materialism that underlie the methodology, that philosophical underpinning should be transparent to students and practitioners to evaluate for themselves. How is a “Materialist Mechanism of the Gaps” superior to a “God of the Gaps”?

“In other words, Darwin’s purposeless, materialist mechanism is a dogma accepted on faith. For Atheists it makes sense to accept the mechanism based on faith in materialism, but for those of us who believe in a Creator, it doesn’t make sense.”

This is where the heart of the problem lies with Intelligent Design’s claim to being “science.”

Evolution based on natural selection and random mutation is the leading scientific theory because it is a hypothesis that can be tested and falsified. Random genetic mutation has been proven via DNA (a significant win for Darwin’s theory). So far no other falsifiable hypothesis other than natural selection has been brought forward. The hypothesis that there is an “intelligent Designer” is not falsifiable—it is a tenant of faith.

This is where mainstream scientists balk at ID in the classroom. It’s a perfectly fine theory for the theology or philosophy departments, where it should be included as part of the larger discussion about science and religion. But it is not science.

As a believing Latter-day Saint, I accept the fact that there is a Creator and that human beings are here on this earth with a purpose. But these are not beliefs that can be empirically tested and confirmed; they are part of the human encounter with the divine, which goes beyond what can be examined and measured.

On the other hand, it is my experience that those non-physicists who spam graduate students about their latest “discovery” invariably have some very serious gaps in their understanding (and often their logic as well). Thus I am extremely wary of outsiders telling practitioners of a discipline where they went wrong.

As suggested above, this is not to say that I disagree with the notion that specialists can be blinded by unexamined assumptions and the dominating personalities of rockstars in that particular field. However I am quite content to leave scientific revolutions to members of that particular discipline who have paid the price (e.g. studied a subject for years despite some unanswered questions or suspicions that something isn’t quite right) to be able to think and speak knowledgeably and with authority. In fact I hope to do such revolutionary work. I think many who get into science hope to as well.

Incidentally, Lee Smolin argues that the physics community is geared more to train artisans and technicians than seers and visionaries, and this may be true in other fields as well, but again I think any needed reforms have to be done from within each community to be taken seriously and to have any lasting effect.

One idea I’ve recently had about putting God and evolution in the same mixing bowl would have God waiting for (or seeding?) mutations and then modifying external pressures (this is no different from turning on the Tender Mercy generator) to select the one He likes. It’s not exactly natural selection, but it’s indistinguishable from it as far as science is concerned (just as one can always view a Tender Mercy as a coincidence).

Thanks for your considerate and thoughtful comment. It makes me happy that you have been able to understand to a great degree what I am struggling to say.

While “Intelligent Design” may attract Fundamentalist Christians, and some of its more identifiable characters may be Fundamentalist Christians, it is a big tent that welcomes and includes groups of all kinds that doubt Darwin’s mechanism, including Agnostics. While there are some strains of ID with whisps of creation ex-nihilo, et all, they are really not central or essential.

The semantics you see are the result of an ambiguity perpetuated by Darwin supporters themselves, who conflate various different meanings of the word ‘Evoltuion” to their advantage.

Darwin was not the first to observe that species adapt to their surroundings through micro-evolution. Nor was he the first to identify the succession of species in the fossil record. These were rather uncontroversial and widely accepted scientific facts before Darwin published his book. “Evolution” often means “micro-evolution” and “succession of species.” Almost all the scientific evidence we have for “Evolution” supports these two concepts.

Darwin’s breakthough, his “Theory of Evolution,” was that unguided micro-evolution, combined with purely materialist random mutation and natural selection, was the sole mechanism of speciation. It is that claim that is controversial. And it is also, after 150 years, that claim that has almost no scientific evidence.

Over the years I have had hundreds, maybe even thousands, of conversations with people who try to show me evidence for the Darwinian mechanism. Upon careful consideration, nearly every so-called evidence put forward as proof of “evolution” ends up being only evidence for either micro-evolution (e.g. Finch beaks) or a succession of species (e.g. transitional fossils) or evidence for intelligently guided evolution (e.g. fruit flies and dog breeding), but not for Darwin’s mechanism itself.

In other words, Darwin’s purposeless, materialist mechanism is a dogma accepted on faith. For Atheists it makes sense to accept the mechanism based on faith in materialism, but for those of us who believe in a Creator, it doesn’t make sense.

After careful consideration I have come to believe that Darwin’s mechanism is wholly materialist and purposeless and does not leave any room for a Creator with a purpose. You seem to think that his mechanism does leave room for Him.

Can you or anyone else who proports to believe in a Creator and in Darwinian Evolution explain to me how exactly a Creator could use a purposeless, materialist process without it ceasing to be both materialist and purposeless and while maintaining the ability of the Creator to accomplish His purposes through it?

You are a dear friend and I really appreciate and value your perspective and criticism on many things. You would probably enjoy Johnson’s book, even if in the end you did not find it convincing.

* I probably wont have much more time for response today, though I wil continue to read and approve comments by others.

Theistic evolution is plain and simply- Intelligent design.

they belive in the reality of an intelligent designer but deny that he had any part in designing and operating the actual process.

Thanks for your thoughts Rob. I tend to agree with you on these points.

Dawkins exhibits great variability in starting from the _conclusion_ that elephant trunks must have conferred a survivability/selection advantage at each step and then introduces a series of conjectures to prove it was possible. Insect flight or the complexities of a spider’s web come from backing down the back slope of the cliff that _must_ be there rather than explaining how the slope works.

Thanks for your thoughts. This is exactly what I have seen too. A series of conjectured just-so-stories.

Max — Check out Stephen J Gould’s books. He very effectively addressed every question you raised.

Several of you seem to think that my objection to Darwinism consists entirely of spotted moth photos and Haeckel’s drawings. It is much more than that. I am familiar with Gould’s books and arguments and they are not nearly as effective at refuting the issues as you seem to think. In the 2nd edition of “Darwin On Trial” Johnson covers the responses of Gould and others to his book in an appendix and it is pretty telling.