Since August, the Discovery Institute (home of Intelligent Design ) published 12 articles directed to me in two months. A 13th articlereferences me anonymously. There are several more from the month before. This comes on the heals of my review in Themelios of the Crossway Theistic Evolution book (please take a look). It seems we have much to discuss.
When will ID learn we are pro-Design?!
I wonder whether a good way to clarify my own position is to explicitly reject “creation versus evolution” as a false dichotomy, to reject “creation by means of evolution only” as ideology, rather than science, and to affirm both “creation” and “evolution” as true together, being as they suggest two different things --enigmatic adaptive novelty, combined with stability and stasis.
Since, as a Christian, I believe that God created nature, and is free to act novelly within it, this is not a “God of the gaps” position.
Could you explain more completely what you meant by that?
Urk. Fitst, anything from EN&V is unlikely to make sense, a priori. Second, it’s a review of a review of a book that never actually talks about the book. Third, it’s just a snide attack on wording. Fourth, it distorts the meanings of various scientific terms, most notably punctuated equilibria.
But I admit I was unable to get to the end, lest I expire from disgust, so maybe there was some meat in there somewhere. Could you please just tell me what you mean so I don’t have to suffer through that crap?
As regards stability and stasis, this:
The late biologist and member of the National Academy of Sciences Lynn Margulis stated, “New mutations don’t create new species; they create offspring that are impaired.”
As regards enigmatic adaptive novelty, especially rapid and complex vectors from the record of natural history… what would you propose?
What we know from our current understanding of evolutionary science. Really powerful stuff.
Certainly, but not adequately or unequivocably explained. Really powerful stuff.
Do you want me to argue with a dead person, or do you agree with the statement? It’s nonsense in at least two ways. First, nobody claims that single mutations give rise to new species; saltationism is not popular, for good reasons. Second, new mutations can result in impairment, advantage, or neither. And the bulk of mutations fall into the last category.
Why won’t you just come out and say what you mean?