On Solid Ground: Evolution versus Intelligent Design

President Bush sent reporters into a tizzy this week by saying that he thought schools ought to teach both evolution and intelligent design. Students ought to hear both theories, he said, so they “can understand what the debate is about.”

Well, the usual critics jumped all over the president, but he’s absolutely right. Considering all competing theories was once the very definition of academic freedom. But today, the illiberal forces of secularism want to stifle any challenges to Darwin—even though Darwin is proving to be eminently challengeable.

Take biochemist Michael Behe’s argument. He says that the cell is irreducibly complex. All the parts have to work at once, so it could not have evolved. No one has been able to successfully challenge Behe’s argument.

In fact, the scientific case for intelligent design is so strong that, as BreakPoint listeners have heard me say, even Antony Flew, once the world’s leading philosopher of atheism, has renounced his life-long beliefs and has become, as he puts it, a deist. He now believes an intelligent designer designed the universe, though he says he cannot know God yet.

I was in Oxford last week, speaking at the C. S. Lewis Summer Institute, and had a chance to visit with Flew. He told a crowd that, as a professional philosopher, he had used all the tools of his trade to arrive at what he believed were intellectually defensible suppositions supporting atheism. But the intelligent design movement shook those presuppositions. He said, however, on philosophical grounds that he could not prove the existence of the God of the Bible.

In the question period, I walked to the microphone and told him as nicely as I could that he had put himself in an impossible box. He could prove theism was the only philosophically sustainable position, but he could not prove who God was. I said, “If you could prove who God was, you could not love God—which is the principle object of life.”

I admitted that I had once gotten myself into the same position. I had studied biblical worldview for years and believed that I could prove beyond a doubt that the biblical worldview is the only one that is rational, the only one that conforms to the truth of the way the world is made. But that led to a spiritual crisis of sorts, when one morning in my quiet time I realized that while I could prove all of this, I could not prove who God was. I began to worry: When this life was over, would I really meet Him?

Some weeks later, as I describe in my new book The Good Life, it hit me that if I could prove God, I could not know Him. The reason is that, just as He tells us, He wants us to come like little children with faith. If you could resolve all intellectual doubts, there would be no need for faith. You would then know God the same way that you know the tree in the garden outside your home. You would look at it, know it is there, and that’s it, as Thomas Aquinas once said.

Faith is necessary because without it you cannot love God. So as I said to Dr. Flew, if you could prove God, you couldn’t love Him, which is His whole purpose in creating you. He later told me that I have raised a very provocative point that he would have to give some thought to.

So, I hope you will pray for Antony Flew—a gentle and courageous man who appears to be seeking God. And we should remember that if this brilliant man can be persuaded out of his atheism by intelligent design, anyone can see it. Those of us contending for the intelligent design point of view, which now includes among our ranks the president of the United States, I’m happy to say, are on increasingly solid ground.

One would think, if the Creator of all things visible and invible desired to communicate with the crown of His creation, He would do so in human language, and in a manner that spells out both convincingly and plainly where we came from, where we are going, and why.

One would also think that He wouldn't put any accounts events in the text that don't directly contradict each other, but He did. One would also like to think He included more about the Creation of the Universe than He did about the treatment of infectious skin diseases, but He didn't. One would like to think a lot of things that aren't supported by honest data.

Meanwhile, evolutionary science will continue to advance, and continue to be taught in good science classrooms, with or without you.

Intelligent Design - interesting philosophy; bad science.

Intelligent Design is founded on common sense.

The Theory of Evolution is like attributing the production of a sandcastle to the ocean because you observed the water creating the mote.

Two men become stranded on a remote island. As they explore the island they come upon a sandcastle with towers, buttresses and a drawbridge. The design of the castle is amazingly intricate.

One man comments, "It is amazing what time and the ocean can create. The small rocks and seashells on the shore must have got caught in eddies and swirled around and chiseled out that castle. There were a few palm leaves floating by that scribed out the little lines that look like bricks. We are alone here and there is no need to consider anything else."

The other man looked at him incredulously and said, "No, obviously that castle was created by another intelligent being with a clear intent of design, we are not alone. The engineering required to create the castle is far to sophisticated to have originated by natural means."

And life is many levels of complexity beyond a sandcastle. Self-correcting, self-healing, propagating -- multiple inter-working systems like respiration, circulatory, musculature, waste management, fuel storage and retrieval, a veritable chemistry lab for dealing with unlocking energy from food, management of enzymes for unlocking the cell walls to allow passage of energy for use by the factories we call cells -- growth and the limits which keep replacement of dieing tissue from destroying the life form...

An attempt at denying God is making fools of our scientists. Science is entertaining and occasionally helpful. Science should be enjoyed, but not taken overly serious by people of common sense and conservative values.

One would also think that He wouldn't put any accounts in the text that don't directly contradict each other, but He did.

There are no major self-contradictory accounts in the biblical texts. Only the necessary words and accounts are included.

One would also like to think He included more about the Creation of the Universe than He did about the treatment of infectious skin diseases, but He didn't.

If you want to make yourself a judge over the biblical texts as to the extent they reveal the Creator and what He deems as necessary for the learning of His creation, that is fine with me. Do your thing. As I said, you do not take either their authorship or their authority seriously. They are subject to your reason first, as as such they are outside of your grasp. Just be aware that the biblical texts also state that God has hidden certain things so that man might find them out.

I wish only to declare that my reason and senses are subject to the biblical texts and their Author. That is where I am coming from when debating this subject. You are not subject to the same Authority, so of course you will allow your own reason and experience to trump both the biblical texts and their Author. It is to be expected.

Evolutionism has no text, and no basis upon which to assume or conclude that all biological entities are derived from a common ancestor. Creationists have a written record from the Creator, which record also denotes the eyewitness testimony of the first humans, as well as many others who have existed throughout the history of the world.

Be that as it may, science does not need either evolutionism or creationism to insert itself into the practice or teaching of science. In fact it would be less than productive to allow it. Alas, however, evolutionism has transgressed the science classroom for over a century. It neither knows nor admits its biases and limitations. As such it places a burden upon the attainment of knowledge.

One would like to think a lot of things that aren't supported by honest data.

Case in point: The notion that all biological entities are derived from a common ancestor.

As I recall, that post denotes miscellaneous items related to bones, fossils, and the geologic record...

A strange distortion. It cites the geologic/paleontological record as containing exactly the predicted convergence of modern forms to common ancient ancestors.

... none of which address the absence of documentation (i.e. written in human language or observed in real time) related to any confusion between apes and humans. In short and in this case there is a compelling absence of evidence.

This has been addressed repeatedly now. It is not and was not in Darwin's day a prediction of evolution that a smooth continuum of forms exist at any instant in time.

Here's Darwin in 1859, Chapter 6 of Origin:

As natural selection acts solely by the preservation of profitable modifications, each new form will tend in a fully-stocked country to take the place of, and finally to exterminate, its own less improved parent or other less-favoured forms with which it comes into competition. Thus extinction and natural selection will, as we have seen, go hand in hand. Hence, if we look at each species as descended from some other unknown form, both the parent and all the transitional varieties will generally have been exterminated by the very process of formation and perfection of the new form.

Your argument is a strawman. Got it now? I have not dodged that. I've told you twice before at least and whacked you on the head for dumb-as-stump repetition for making me keep saying it. Remember now?

The convergence is in the historical forms. That's where evolution says it should be and that's where it is. The fossil record gives us exactly this picture. Post 120 is about that? Got it now?

Now, here's an example of dodging. At no point have you dealt with why the molecular trees derived from those living beings at the branch tips (including humans and apes) match the supposedly spurious fossil record tree, even though the "spurious" fossil record tree of life came first and the matching molecular tree is derived from methods that ignore what is known about the appearances of animals and their bones.

Let me preemptively state that "Mumble mumble mumble evolutionist assumptions mumble mumble" will not be seen as adequately dealing with the problem here.

A strange distortion. It cites the geologic/paleontological record . . .

Please explain to me how the "geologic/paleontological record" differs from "bones, fossils, and the geologic record." I distorted nothing. You brought these records to the table to argue against the absence of any documentation either in writing or by direct observation to show where apes and humans might be confused. The only way one can make the argument is from evidence that does not exist or has not yet come to the fore.

It is not and was not in Darwin's day a prediction of evolution that a smooth continuum of forms exist at any instant in time.

I never said as much. In fact it is fairly obvious that evolutionists would avoid any discussion regarding smooth transitions, even though they should sensibly be expected. I said, and I still say, evolutionism would have a leg to stand on if there were ever a case where the ape-human distinction was a difficult one for science to make. So far it has not been a problem. Punctuated equilibrium had to be invented just to explain this absence of evidence. Frankly, I don't think such a procedure ought to crack itself up as attaining to the level of "theory" let alone "science."

Your argument is a strawman. Got it now?

It's not a straw man at all. It is something every evolutionist would love to see in support of their beloved "theory," but no such documentation exists.

The convergence is in the historical forms. That's where evolution says it should be and that's where it is.

I don't know whether to call it sad or amusing the the so-called science of evolutionism relies only upon historical forms to makes its predictions. In either case, to the extent evolutionism attempts to construct world history from historical forms, its proper place in educational cirricula is in the philosophy and/or history departments, not science.

. . . evolutionist assumptions mumble mumble" will not be seen as adequately dealing with the problem here.

A body of teaching that fails to recognize and define its assumptions and limitations should hardly be held up as attaining to the level of science.

You know, there's absolutely no reason for this type of attitude.

I wouldn't say there's no reason for it.

I've been following this thread, and nowhere does Fester engage in this type of intimidation.

I wouldn't say attempts at intimidation are the reason for it.

Personally, I rather like reading his posts ...

Personally, it doesn't take much content to keep you happy.

... although it was quite evident that Quark was growing somewhat frustrated...

For no reason, of course.

... he kept the conversation civil, which earns my respect, even though I essentially disagree with his position.

Wow! Who'd have thought you would turn out to be on the same side as Chester Fugabrew!

Now, if you're done making the world safe for Dumbbleeps everywhere, back to the show.

Supposedly this post isn't from one of those Young Earth Idiots, someone who has often specifically denied this.

I am not inclined to resort to subterfuge in stating what I believe and why. Nor am I mistating the position of evolutionists when I say most of them believe the geologic record was laid down over a long period of time.

In subjection to the biblical texts and their Author I do not believe "billions of years" are an accurate scientific explanation of history regarding either this planet or the rest of the universe. Both the static and dynamic records fairly testify to both an orderly creation beyond the capacity of any other intelligent beings I know, and a gradual passing away of the creation as we know it.

Since the biblical texts present matter-of-factly the generations of men from the time of Adam to the time of Christ, there is no need to assume or conclude a history of such length playing itself out with neither intelligence, nor as-yet-undiscovered guidance, from something, or Someone certain pretenders in science declare ipso-facto to be outside of scientific purview.

Please explain to me how the "geologic/paleontological record" differs from "bones, fossils, and the geologic record." I distorted nothing.

Is the Bible correctly termed "a bunch of words" or is there something misleading in the characterization?

You brought these records to the table to argue against the absence of any documentation either in writing or by direct observation to show where apes and humans might be confused. The only way one can make the argument is from evidence that does not exist or has not yet come to the fore.

I believe we have yet another "back again dumb as a stump" simple restatement here. It would be a falsification of evolution for a prediction of evolution to fail.

The convergence predicted by evolution is visible where I said it is. It doesn't matter that it also isn't visible where you said it isn't. It is visible where I said it is and where the theory of evolution itself says it is. That's why the fossil record matters.

Please do not make another dumb-as-a-stump repetition of the same point without addressing what has been posted in response, OK?

I never said as much.

You are citing the lack of a smooth continuum in extant beings between humans and apes as a lack of evidence for evolution. You are capable of remembering back that far, right? I mean, you re-echo the same point "... the absence of any documentation either in writing or by direct observation to show where apes and humans might be confused" right above where you deny making it.

How dumb are you willing to play this? Not that csense will ever call you on it, but have you ever wondered how the typical Fester performance looks to someone who hasn't already drunk the same Kool-Aid as Fester?

In fact it is fairly obvious that evolutionists would avoid any discussion regarding smooth transitions, even though they should sensibly be expected.

They are where I said they should be expected, in the fossil record.

Punctuated equilibrium had to be invented just to explain this absence of evidence.

Fester has seen the following before. Never matters. For the newbies:

Speciation by Punctuated Equilibrium.

All you need to know about Punctuated Equilibrium (almost)

On the latter link, note an extensive discussion of how Gould and Eldredge mistakenly cast Darwin as a phyletic gradualist.

It's not a straw man at all.

Why defend it if you didn't make it?

It is something every evolutionist would love to see in support of their beloved "theory," but no such documentation exists.

Creationists would probably love to find the Ark sitting on Mt. Ararat, but the lack of it isn't evidence for anything. More creationists have published false stories of finding the Ark than scientists have faked living missing-link ape men.

I don't know whether to call it sad or amusing the the so-called science of evolutionism relies only upon historical forms to makes its predictions.

Are the current molecular makeup and embryology of life on Earth historical forms? If not, your statement is false. Even if they are "historical forms," a theory with explanatory power for the fossil record, the molecular makeup of extant life, and the embryology of extant life is too important to chuck for the psychological comfort of a few nutcases.

Is the Bible correctly termed "a bunch of words" or is there something misleading in the characterization?

One could say as much and not be completely outside the bounds of logic or reality. I prefer to speak of "biblical texts" as opposed to "The Bible." It is a more accurate way of denoting those things to which my reason and senses are subject.

It would be a falsification of evolution for a prediction of evolution to fail.

The problem is, all the "predictions" evolution can make WRT common ancestry are in a static record science cannot test and repeat. Furthermore, that record was not, and is not, subject to direct observation. Furthermore it lacks a great deal when it comes to a written record by humans who witnessed its creation.

If it is not attested by direct observation and written records related to the same, then it is the object of conjecture and little more. That is not to say conjecture is always wrong, or illogical, or not worth consideration. But it does not rise to the level of science as practiced for the betterment of knowledge.

The convergence predicted by evolution is visible where I said it is.

Of course. Given the assumptions of evolution, the evidence can plugged in at will and "Voila! We have convergence!"

You are citing the lack of a smooth continuum in extant beings between humans and apes as a lack of evidence for evolution.

Yep. But I never said Darwin claimed the same thing. In fact Darwin would avoid that, and so will his followers. But it is a good question to ask: "Why no continuum?" The only way the question is answered is through "extinction" (i.e. lack of evidence) or the suggestion that such evidence is not needed to support evolution.

I happen to differ. I think if evolution were indeed true there would be at least one or two cases where the distiction bewteen apes and humans was difficult. Curiously, the fuzziness only happens when bones and fossils are brought to the table.

. . . a theory with explanatory power for the fossil record, the molecular makeup of extant life, and the embryology of extant life is too important to chuck . . .

Most of evolutionism does not qualify as "theory" in the scientific sense. It needs to leave the science classroom quietly, walk down the hall, and take a seat in the history or philosophy class, right there where creationism has its place. No need to "chuck" it, but honesty demands it be labled and taught according to what it truly is, not what it's proponents wish it to be.

The problem is, all the "predictions" evolution can make WRT common ancestry are in a static record science cannot test and repeat.

In Darwin's day, that record was far less complete than now. Darwin predicted that future finds would further outline a tree of common descent. Naysayers scoffed. Darwin was right. That's successful prediction.

If it is not attested by direct observation and written records related to the same, then it is the object of conjecture and little more.

This has been demolished by other posters on this thread already and all you do is repeat. Another fingers-in-the-ear Fester performance, but csense is reading it avidly for the 20th time, his lips forming the words.

Of course. Given the assumptions of evolution, the evidence can plugged in at will and "Voila! We have convergence!"

Mumble mumble mumble evolutionist assumptions mumble mumble mumble. All the evidence? 29+ Independent Lines? What assumptions underlie the study of cytochrome C which would make it yield the same tree of life as the fossil record?

Unsupported assertion. Now, if you want a statement that lacks explanatory power, try "Goddidit."

OK, for the record. Fester is a Young-Earth Creationist and does not accept geology, or radiometric dating, or any part of modern science whatsoever that undeniably supports an old Earth or evolution.

Substitute the words "might support" for "undeniably supports" and you will have stated my position decently while maintaining a less dogmatic tone. You might add that Fester is not willing to accord the status of "science" to either evolutionism or creationism. Here, let me write it out for you:

I, Fester Chugabrew, am a Young Earth Creationist. I do not accept geology, or radiometric dating, or any part of modern science that might support an old Earth or evolution. Furthermore, I do not accept creation or evolution as proper objects of science in the strict sense. Lastly, VadeRetro notwithstanding, I attribute all tendencies toward verbal putzitude to be a product of those who ignore, disavow, or otherwise impugn the authority of biblical texts.

Darwin predicted that future finds would further outline a tree of common descent. Naysayers scoffed. Darwin was right.

Darwin was hardly a blazing light of new discovery. Gawd. How hard is it to predict that there is a range of complexity in the bioshpere. Duh! Naysayers scoffed? It isn't worth scoffing at. It's just a morpholocial arragement that may or may not have any basis in history. The scoffing is well deserved if you or Darwin think science can definitively prove all life is descended from a common biological form.

Now, if you want a statement that lacks explanatory power, try "Goddidit."

That fairly sums up all of history and science. When faced with behavior of matter that defies words or scientific explanation, science creates a new word to describe what God has done, and is doing.

What assumptions underlie the study of cytochrome C which would make it yield the same tree of life as the fossil record?

The first assumption is that it actually DID yield the same tree of life. Otherwise, why not declare your own assumptions, or is that above you as a "scientist?"

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.