The next article is really excellent. I hope that @Jongarvey and @eddie take a look too.
Swamidass likes to tell a story of a tree. The tree has an appearance of age, but it is really quite young. His lesson is in the form of a question: Why would God create a tree that looks a hundred years old but that is really only a week old? This story is pitched at anyone who doubts the evidence of neo-Darwinian evolution and favors (as I do not) a young age for creation. Swamidass would say, I think, “Why make life look evolved, if it isn’t?” A fair response would be, “Why make life looks designed, if it isn’t?” Josh rejects the label, but I would ask the same question of any theistic evolutionist.
A couple brief clarifications.
-
I reject neo-Darwinian evolution. It was falsified in the 1960s and replaced with The Neutral Theory of Evolution.
-
I think there are good answers to the question. It is not merely a rhetorical argument, and theologians have responded in good ways: http://peacefulscience.org/category/projects/100-year-old-tree/
-
Regarding Ann’s retort, I believe that life looks designed because it is designed, by a process that is partly explained by evolution. This is true even though I remain unconvinced by ID attempts to formulate this in math and science.
I’ll look forward to responding in more detail. Great questions are raised here, that I hope could lead to increased understanding.