Not at all. Vade made the error that evidence regarding evolution, pro or con, informs us as to the mind of God.
Virtually every creationist believes this too.
< a beat >
It's amusing that I just wrote the foregoing before reading your link, because the phrase "the mind of God" comes up in both.
Vade wrote "an intelligent designer wouldn't have to mimic evolution so precisely." That's some grade AAA hubris. And it reprises more of the same from him, via the link you provided:
"In other words, no matter who's doing the designing, for whatever goal, the products of their design are wildly unlikely to fall *exactly* within the many and varied constraints that the results of evolution are."
Vade is lapsing into theology again. Why give ammunition to the ascientific impulses of the creationists?
As a general axiom, scientists make lousy theologians, and preachers make lousy phylogenists.
He said no such thing.
Vade wrote "an intelligent designer wouldn't have to mimic evolution so precisely." That's some grade AAA hubris.
Don't be ridiculous. It's a statement of obvious fact. An intelligent designer wouldn't *HAVE* to mimic evolution precisely. Emphasis on "have to" -- a designer of life forms would not be restricted to only the sorts of results which evolution could produce. This holds true even if the designer is not omnipotent and is just some scientist in a lab somewhere. In the same way, an "intelligent designer" of computer programs (i.e., a computer programmer) "wouldn't have to mimic" the results of a genetic algorithm when he produces his programs, he would be free to write it any way he wants.
I'm baffled that you would find fault with this assertion, since it's so self-evident.
And it reprises more of the same from him, via the link you provided: "In other words, no matter who's doing the designing, for whatever goal, the products of their design are wildly unlikely to fall *exactly* within the many and varied constraints that the results of evolution are."
Same inarguable point. So what's your complaint?
Vade is lapsing into theology again.
No he's not. He's simply stating that intelligent designers (of any type) have more options available to them than do evolutionary processes.
Why give ammunition to the ascientific impulses of the creationists?
This hardly "gives ammunition" to the creationists. On the contrary, it cuts the legs out from under some of their arguments by giving them a hard nut to crack. The question they have to answer is, "of all the myriad ways a hypothetical designer could have made life, why the heck would he/she/it choose to make the results 'evolution-like', if that's not how life actually came about?"
In short, he's pointing out the creationists' "Occam's Razor" problem.
As a general axiom, scientists make lousy theologians, and preachers make lousy phylogenists.
As a general axiom, general axioms don't add much to discussions unless they can be shown to actually apply to the specifics at hand.
He isn't talking to me. Does He talk to you?