I enjoyed skimming your blog post above. Thank you.
I’m glad to see you affirm your common ground with Behe, and I’m glad to see the following points that you mention (that I agree on as well).
- God designed us all.
- Rejecting Darwinism (all three forms that you mention).
- Finding Greater things (I agree with your points and Behe’s)
Re Affirming Evolutionary “Science” … I agree re the evidence for an old earth.
However, I am skeptical of the alleged evidence for a NATURALISTIC common descent of man with the great apes (largely due to the waiting time problem, and orphan genes, both of which I see as inductive pointers to the inability of naturalistic random-chance means to provide the probabilistic resources needed for natural selection OR genetic drift to create the complex genes, proteins and organ changes needed in the 6-10million year timeframe available for alleged chimp-human luca to man).
I agree with you that the alleged-bad-design-argument is Vacuous (a silly non-argument pretending to be one).
I disagree that that Irreducible Complexity is an already solved problem. It is NOTHING of the sort. NOBODY has demonstrated a step-by-step naturalistic process for formation of the simplest self-replicator (considered as a nanomachine), or EVEN of the flagellum (considered as a nanomachine).
I also disagree that there is any compelling evidence for NATURALISTIC universal common descent and/or a Naturalistic Universal Single Tree of Life. In doing so, I maybe disagreeing with both you and Prof Behe (I do not know his views in detail).
I think that is an overview, of my areas of agreement and disagreement with the key points you mention in your blog post.
An interesting side note -> I am glad that you reject Darwinism (the core mechanism of Natural Selection (NS) as having the ability to create new complex traits and organs). That however, leads to the following…
There are ONLY two core components to Naturalistic Evolution (natural selection and random-chance).
ALL of the proposed mechanisms (in Naturalistic ToE) boil down to one, or the other, or combinations of the two.
If we reject Darwinism, we are rejecting NS as the Core mechanism for the formation of complex Traits and complex Organs.
The problem is that the core mechanism of NS is the ONLY mechanism by which ToE can even remotely claim to explain the origin of complex traits and organs…
So, if we reject NS as the sufficient mechanism, we are left with NO naturalistic mechanism for ToE to create any complex traits, organs or organisms.
The ONLY thing that is left is random-chance. Which is ridiculous (which even biologists would admit).
This means that Naturalistic-ToE has NO valid mechanism for the formation of complex traits, organs, or organisms.
And that is exactly what I would expect if Intelligent Design were true (in contrast to Naturalistic Large-Scale Evolution). This is based on the method of competing hypotheses.
As I have mentioned elsewhere, I subscribe to Bushes of Life with Intelligent-Design Infusions of Bio-functional information at the base of each bush. The patterns we see in the biosphere are much more consistent with this model (ID-Bushes) than with Naturalistic Universal Common Descent or a Naturalistic Universal Single Tree of Life.