Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: nickcarraway; Alamo-Girl; betty boop

ID "IS" a criticism of evolutionary theory and problems with it. It has not been presented as an alternative theory, but as a criticism.

That said, an "intelligence" does not have to be personal or divine. It can be an "organizing principle." For example, I know when I enter a cave that I'll see things growing out of the ceiling and of the ground. I could say, "See a miner has been in here and has carved these neat pillars in the ground and on the ceiling." However, we know that the deposit of minerals from dripping groundwater has, via gravity, caused the formations. Gravity, it turns out, was an "organizing principle."

In that light, Darwin proposed an organizing principle (intelligence) to account for the variety of life as we see it. His "intelligence" or "organizing principle" was natural selection operating on random variation.

The problem with natural selection has been highlighted by Behe. Given the theorized age of the earth and of life on earth, there simply isn't enough time to account for the irreducible complexity that is seen.

Natural Selection is not a sufficient organizing principle/intelligence.

The criticism leveled by ID is valid, imo. Either Natural Selection requires a serious recalibration or we need to look for another organizing principle/intelligence.


19 posted on 10/20/2005 3:30:02 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: xzins
Thank you so much for your excellent post, xzins!

Natural Selection is not a sufficient organizing principle/intelligence.

So very true. It is not that the intelligent design hypothesis replaces evolution theory, it doesn't; the ID hypothesis refers to "certain features" not "all features". It also does not deny that mutation and natural selection occur.

The bottom line, to paraphrase what you said, is that natural selection does not allow for a guide to the system and yet (as an example) we see that animals choose their mates, an "intelligent cause" which evidently would contribute to variation, adaptation, etc.

26 posted on 10/20/2005 7:56:26 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

To: xzins
ID "IS" a criticism of evolutionary theory and problems with it. It has not been presented as an alternative theory, but as a criticism.

In science, the only valid criticism of an existing theory is an alternate theory that explains all of the data as well as, or better, than the existing theory. Examination of areas where an existing theory requires refinement is part of the on-going process of science, something that scientists do every day. What they don't do is to introduce untestable hypotheses as valid alternatives to testable, theory-based, hypotheses.

33 posted on 10/20/2005 9:01:03 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

To: xzins
The problem with natural selection has been highlighted by Behe. Given the theorized age of the earth and of life on earth, there simply isn't enough time to account for the irreducible complexity that is seen.

That's not Behe. Behe believes in evolution and IC. You have your gurus mixed up.

104 posted on 10/20/2005 10:57:45 PM PDT by WildTurkey (I BELIEVE CONGRESSMAN WELDON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson