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.
Thanks for defining your terms! That helps a lot. At least now I know what you're saying! I really appreciate that.
I'm not certain that your statement that none of the major proponents of intelligent design deny common descent is exactly accurate. I'll have to read more on their webpages. I do note that the very name of the one "Uncommon descent" sort of suggests he doesn't buy common descent - at least not with the same meaning most people take it to mean.
On uncommon descent's
home page we read:
Uncommon Descent holds that... Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins.
An incorrect and unsupported conclusion about biological origins..? Well what the current conclusion on biological origins? Isn't it total common descent? I don't know, I'll have to read more but it's not looking like to me that your statement was accurate.
When I ask for a scientific alternative to evolution I am not asking a rhetorical question or being snide.
But is it not true that by "Scientific alternative" you mean a hypothesis which does not infer a beyond-natural first cause -- regardless of the fact whether such a first cause is possible or plausible?
The fact is that there is no way for me to empirically know the evidence for ASBE (All species by evolution) without believing things by pure faith and trusting in people I don't know about things I've never seen. Maybe if I got my phd in evolution or something then I could see it - but the point is, for the common man, he has to take it by faith if he is to believe in ASBE. In all the other areas of science I've dabbled in this is no the case. If I doubt that certain computer code does a certain thing, I try it! If I doubt that a transistor works a certain way, I test it!
Am I wrong? Is there a great evidence that the common man can see himself and know? Please show me! While I may be no genius, I've found that if I work at it, I can more or less understand and test much of physics, electronics, math, chemistry, and so on. But heretofore I have not been able to see the mountains of evidence for ASBE. And to make things work, some of the people telling me that it's true either misrepresent information to me or tell me that lying is okay for little lies. So my reason is valid and understandable for wanting to be able to test science for myself without having to rely purely on my faith in other people about things I've never seen.
Furthermore, some of the things that have made it into textbooks are of such non-evidence in nature that it causes me to doubt the existence of real evidence. For example, the peppered moth: It is cited as evidence for evolution. But both species existed before! This just shows what we already know - that if you breed black dogs you tend to get black puppies, and if you breed white dogs you tend to get white puppies! But here's how WP
concludes the topic:
While it is true that this example shows natural selection causing microevolution within a species, it demonstrates rapid and obvious adaptiveness with such change,[10] and despite the claims of creationists, there are no barriers preventing such changes from accumulating to form new species.
First of all, since both varieties existed beforehand, I'm not even sure that "evolution" is the correct term. (Unless you want to define it as "the change in frequency of alleles in the gene pools of two different varieties/subspecies/whatever.") The fact is, it could have been white moths and black butterflies, completely non interbreedable, and one species went near extinction while the other flourished, then went back to previous population ratios when the trees lightened up. (But certainly being able to interbreed is the only thing that kept the white varieties from going totally extinct).
But then look - they go on to say that there's no barriers preventing such changes from accumulating to form new species - such what changes? Both the light and dark varieties existed before and they both existed afterwards!
The only thing that changed was the ratio of the two pre-existing varieties! You can't get a new species by changing the ratio between two existing varieties! -- and how they look at the peppered moth and conclude that nothing bars a new species from developing is beyond me.
so don't you think they are stretching things a little, there?
Thanks,
-Jesse
But is it not true that by "Scientific alternative" you mean a hypothesis which does not infer a beyond-natural first cause -- regardless of the fact whether such a first cause is possible or plausible? No, science can investigate claims of supernatural causes unless such causes are capricious. What science requires is a regular pattern of cause and effect.
If the ID proponents could ascribe some attributes to the designer, or provide some list of the times or places or modes of intervention, or cite some specific examples of intervention, that would be a first step.
What you have at the moment is Behe claiming, in generic terms, that evolution occasionally gets stuck, unable to surmount the problem of generating some complex structure.
This is not a proposition that suggests any line of research. What you have is a claim that some undefined entity having unspecified capabilities and limitations did some unspecified something at unspecified times and places using unspecified means for unspecified reasons.
I suppose that could be true, but it isn't a scientific proposition. It isn't even a very good theological proposition.