@Mung posts an interesting article with his critiques of ID.
http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/munging-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 (https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/off-topic-munging-intelligent-design/4012) was hijacked by on off topic discussion; please keep this one on topic.
