Replies

You say that evolution invokes naturalism and then proceed to define it. OK, let’s use your definition. If evolution invokes naturalism and intelligent design does not, then intelligent design must not restrict itself to natural processes as the sole means of extrapolating observations into unobserved events. What are the other means? Super-natural means, of course. I present you a definition from the AHD, as follows:

Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.

I have always agreed that intelligent design does not have to be supernatural. As usual, you have not specifically mentioned which intelligent design you are talking about. Are you referring to the intelligent design that occurs when I assemble a computer from its constituent parts? Or, is it intelligent design in the context of evolutionary biology? To reiterate, I have never claimed that my assembling a computer from parts is not indicative of intelligent design. It certainly is. And, according to your definition of evolution invoking naturalism and intelligent design not invoking naturalism, intelligent design in the context of evolutionary biology includes supernatural explanations.

It's not difficult. The observation that is 'a change in allele frequencies over time' is just as consistent with a created biology that is in decline and is therefore no unique evidence in support of evolution.

It’s just as consistent? Meaning that under the accepted definition of evolution - not your definition – evolution has occurred? Please answer this question directly. To expedite your answer, I will say that it is possible that change in allele frequencies of a population over time is the byproduct of intelligent design. It surely could be. But, hey, that happens to be the definition for evolution. And, you and I both agree that many populations have had their allele frequencies change over time. So, just to make sure you haven’t forgotten my question, I will repeat it: Under the accepted definition of evolution – change in allele frequencies of a population over time – has evolution happened?

I am merely requesting a direct answer. Just like you've never directly said, "God did it," you've also never directly stated that under the accepted definition of evolution, evolution has occurred. To clarify, I am talking about evolution as fact. The theories of evolution all rest on this fact.

Also, your comment in Post 220, "You like the game now that the shoe is on the other foot?", indicates that you are playing the game even though you don't like it. It baffles me that you choose to continue.

"You say that evolution invokes naturalism and then proceed to define it. OK, let’s use your definition. If evolution invokes naturalism and intelligent design does not, then intelligent design must not restrict itself to natural processes as the sole means of extrapolating observations into unobserved events. What are the other means? Super-natural means, of course. I present you a definition from the AHD, as follows:"

"Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces."

No, naturalism merely means no intelligent design. Apparently you admit that mankind is a supernatural creature since man is capable of intelligent design.

"And, according to your definition of evolution invoking naturalism and intelligent design not invoking naturalism, intelligent design in the context of evolutionary biology includes supernatural explanations."

I already explained that intelligent design does not require supernatural explanations because intelligent aliens could have created life on earth. They would be intelligent, use design and not be supernatural if they 'evolved' elsewhere.

"I am merely requesting a direct answer. Just like you've never directly said, "God did it," you've also never directly stated that under the accepted definition of evolution, evolution has occurred. To clarify, I am talking about evolution as fact. The theories of evolution all rest on this fact."

Let me explain again, the 'accepted definition of evolution' is a game where the word is defined to be consistent with observations and the same word is then used to refer to unobserved processes and events. This is a bait-and-switch game that naturalists are quite proud of and actually think means something. It is nothing more than a game, however and many, many people see right through it.

"Also, your comment in Post 220, "You like the game now that the shoe is on the other foot?", indicates that you are playing the game even though you don't like it. It baffles me that you choose to continue."

Lots of things baffle you. Why stop now?

Under the accepted definition of evolution – change in allele frequencies of a population over time – has evolution happened?

I don’t have a problem with Mutation plus Natural Selection in microevolution although I believe the Random Mutation is overrated and most if not all microevolutionary adaptation is the result of more or less randomly selected permutations of preexisting phenotypic options - like shuffling a deck and dealing a hand of cards - no new cards are created even though new hands are created.

I point to dogs as the model species for the limitations of Randmom mutation in microevolution. All are the result of 20 thousand years of selective breeding of a few natural ancestors - wolves, coyotes, and jackals. The result is variation in cosmetics and scale and all variations remain able to produce fertile hybrid offspring while no novel new structural elements such as cell types, tissue types, organs, or body plans emerged. There is no empirical evidence whatsoever that Random Mutation can create novel cell types, tissue types, organs, or body plans.

Explanation of how these structural elements were created is required of any theory of evolution that attempts to explain descent with modification from bacteria to baboons and everything between and around, living or extinct, while remaining in complete accord with the indisputable testimony of the fossil record and experimental biology on living tissue.

That is and has always been the issue.