I was reading another book today “Why Evolution is True”, by Jerry Coyle to get the other side’s POV. (Have you read it?).
I haven’t read all of it yet, but the parts that I’ve read, he makes some quite strong points in favor of evolution and against ID.
So the more I read of both sides the more I’m tending to believe that both theories (ID and Darwin’s) each offers explanations of various aspects of life’s development on earth.
Perhaps, instead of fighting each other and insisting that only one or the other is the true model, they should join forces and come up with a unified theory. I really think that’s what the evidence supports.
Even Stephen Meyer accepts that darwinian type of evolution or variation does indeed take place at the level of species. I believe it would be quite fruitful to do some intensive research as to where design ends and natural selection begins.
Such a collaborative effort would usher a great new renaissance that would go a long way in reconciling science with faith and the idea that there is “something” bigger that us.
I believe IDers are more open to this than Darwinians. The reason may be because there’s nothing in ID that precludes darwinian evolution. Their problem with darwin is that it doesn’t effectively explain many things (such as the Cambrian explosion). The Darwinians, on the other hand, have a lot of problems accepting ID because 1. they’re atheists and thus have a hard time coming to terms with something bigger than they (the thought of a “god” and what that implies terrifies them) and 2. having a “designer” creating stuff introduces a level of arbitrariness in nature that is totally anathema to their world view.
““Why Evolution is True””
Haven’t read it. Don’t need to. The basic premise of the so-called theory of evolution that the most amazing machinery of life formed accidentally from a mud puddle and then proceeded to violate all laws of nature with which we are familiar and climbed the improbably steep hill of reverse-entropy as a consequence of the nascent life being bombarded by cosmic 20mm depleted uranium cannon shells is preposterous.
Certainly, a form of Darwinian evolution takes place, but that’s simply the biospheric equilibrium process I was referring to when a new generation of creatures are introduced. That form of Darwinian evolution merely brings to the forefront one of several pre-existing alternate minor variations already inherent in the creature and produces nothing new that wasn’t already there. Man can accelerate this process when he breeds multiple variations of animals from an existing one, such as the large variety of dogs that have been breed from the wolf. But nothing new genetically has been achieved, and this form of evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life nor is it even related to the process that produced dinosaurs from bacteria.
I seek the truth for myself, and I do not feel compelled to engage with those who believe differently than I do, and I certainly would never alter my own sense of the truth to please others via some bastardized “compromise”. The accident of life theory is absurd and I see no value in injecting absurdity in what I see as at least a rational theory, namely ID.
We’re very lucky that the many truth-seeking scientists of their day, such as Galileo, Louis Pasteur, Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, Alfred Wegener, Antoine Lavoisier, and Robin Warren and Barry J., refused to “compromise” with the 99% of their peers who were flagrantly wrong.
Truth seeking isn’t about compromising, it’s about sifting through the available knowledge and applying reasoning to discard the obvious BS and figuring out what is most likely from the rest.