[mrjesse]

None of the major proponents of intelligent design deny common descent,

I read a little more over the link you gave me in your earlier post and found it interesting that according to that website (and admittedly, reading about short out of context quotes about IDer's on their opponents webpage probably isn't the most accurate source of information... but) it quotes Phillip Johnson as saying:

"Because their [creationists'] doctrine has always been that God created basic kinds, or types, which subsequently diversified. The most famous example of creationist microevolution involves the descendants of Adam and Eve, who have diversified from a common ancestral pair to create all the diverse races of the human species" (Johnson 1993, 68 10).

and

"We observe directly that apples fall when dropped, but we do not observe a common ancestor for modern apes and humans. What we do observe is that apes and humans are physically and biochemically more like each other than they are like rabbits, snakes, or trees. The ape-like common ancestor is a hypothesis in a theory, which purports to explain how these greater and lesser similarities came about. The theory is plausible, especially to a philosophical materialist, but it may nonetheless be false. The true explanation for natural relationships may be something much more mysterious (Johnson 1993, 67 10).

and says he is one of the leaders of the intelligent-design movement.

Anyway, I don't think your statement (first line of this message) is exactly accurate, depending of course on just who you consider major proponents of ID. And lots of leading creationists deny total common descent.

-Jesse

[js1138]

Phillip Johnson is indeed a leader of the ID movement, but his training is in law, not biology.

There are two major websites devoted to discussion of ID. One is Dembski’s Uncommon descent and the other is telicthoughts. Dembski favors the Big Tent approach. Anyone is welcome as long as they oppose materialism. Nevertheless, most posters accept an old earth and common descent. Most people at telicthoughts are old earth common descenters.

When I refer to leader, I am thinking of people who might possibly be called upon to be expert witnesses at a Dover-like trial. There certainly will be such a trial if some state attempts to teach ID in biology classes.

This topic is a hobby of mine, in case anyone has failed to notice. I spend more than half my reading time at sites that oppose my personal opinions. When I ask for a scientific alternative to evolution I am not asking a rhetorical question or being snide. It probably looks that way, but only because folks like Phillip Johnson have admitted there is no such thing. Things could change. There is always a chance that some new line of evidence would disprove common descent, or provide a major obstacle.

Something like this needs to happen before high school textbooks change. But I have to say, the evidence piles up in favor of common descent.