Munging Intelligent Design

@Mung posts an interesting article with his critiques of ID.

  • Devolution
  • Rejecting common descent
  • Failure to address how designs are actualized
  • Materialism and Naturalism

“Devolution” is evolution. Stop trying to convince people that evolution and devolution are opposites.

Present the case for common descent. Address the subject of why IDists ought to accept common descent. Stop trying to convince people that ID and common descent are incompatible.

The designs that the science of intelligent design detects had to be actualized somehow. If the design that was detected is not an instance of an actualized design then it is a mistake to infer that it is designed. Tell us how designs are actualized without appealing to acts of special creation by a supernatural designer. There needs to be an alternative to God as The Designer who actualized his designs by something other than natural processes or there will always be a cloud over the claim that ID is a “strictly scientific” theory.

It’s not clear to me how introducing the immaterial into science would work. As things stand right now I see appeals to the non-material or the non-natural as unscientific and at odds with claims that ID is a strictly scientific theory.

@Mung gives an interesting response in the comments too:

IDists should accept common descent because Behe accepts common descent.

I don’t think that’s a good reason. I think it should be accepted based on the evidence for it. Evidence which the people who post articles at EN seem to be unaware of. Or are deliberately keeping hidden.

This is perhaps the greatest sticking point for me and the one most likely to end my direct financial support for the DI. And yes, Gregory, I have expressed my concern on this issue directly to John West in person.

He also writes about deevolution:

How on earth does ID theory propose to distinguish between evolution and devolution. Your guess is as good as mine.

One might suppose that there are actual examples of devolution (whatever that means). They fail to qualify as evolution because … Your guess is as good as mine.

Darwinian evolution can only “devolve” something that was previously perfect (created by God). That so smacks of Young Earth Creationism. And I want nothing to do with YECism.

Original thread ( was hijacked by on off topic discussion; please keep this one on topic.


2 posts were merged into an existing topic: Off Topic: Munging Intelligent Design

Some pretty good critiques if I do say so myself. :slight_smile:


1 Like

Why did you decide to financially support the DI in the first place?

So do you or do you not support the DI financially independently of buying a few books?

1 Like

I am trying to understand the purpose for asking this type of question.

For example, does the question imply that there is an inconsistency in Mung’s viewpoint and providing financial support for DI?


Just to trying to understand what he meant. That is all. Usually people don’t count buying a copy of Darwin’s Black Box as financially supporting DI. It appears @mung had a face to face conversation with John West threatening not to buy an ID book again. That doesn’t make sense to me.


Does anyone wish to discuss the critiques of ID? I assume that’s the topic of this thread, not my personal financial support of the DI.

1 Like

I’d rather discuss ID hypotheses. Are there any, and if not, why aren’t there any?


I’ve seen a massive amount of misrepresentation of ID over the years. Even from Christians who ought to do better when engaging with arguments they disagree with. Also personal attacks against people who support ID. It saddens me. It’s also probably one of the greatest reasons I support the DI.

Do you believe ID accurately represents science?

I’m not sure I understand the question. If, for example, you are asking whether I think they present both sides, such as the evidence for common descent, i would say no.