What if Evolution is Compatible with Design After All?

[John_Harshman]

@Rope

God as Creator has the capacity to purposefully order nature in order to enable such evolution, which makes the emergence of this type of order less surprising on theism than on atheism.

I’m afraid that God offers no explanation for why things are as they are rather than something else, since God, being omnipotent, could as easily have produced that something else or any something else. We have no clue as to the nature or probability distributions of things God might have done. Thus God explains anythiung equally well and equally poorly. Nothing can be said to be either more or less likely given God. On the other hand, we have no way, given current physics, to say whether the universe could have been different, so can’t say that the current universe is of high or low probability. We currently can have no explanation for why the universe is as it is. We can’t even say whether it’s a meaningful question. And God is of no help there.

Then again, given a universe with physics the way it is, and given life, evolution going somewhere interesting is hardly surprising.

@Rope

However, for the purposes of the compatibility of evolution and design

This is a term that needs to be explained before any progress can be made: what does it mean for evolutioin and design to be compatible? More importantly, what do you mean? Behe and Denton both advocate a sort of compatibility. Is yours different?

@Rope

The evolutionary design argument (or evolution-compatible design argument) was described in the original article on PS, in the pieces by Glass and Wahlberg, as well as my response in Zygon.

I will allow that you may think so, but I was unable to find it expressed clearly.

@Rope

The basic idea is that the evolution of complex organisms through the processes studied in mainstream evolutionary biology provides evidence for a Creator who ordered nature in a way to make the process possible, than by the supposition that nature just happens to have that kind of order by chance or necessity. This means that the order of biology provides evidence that supports theism over atheism. Just how strong the evidence - weak, moderate quality or strong - can be disagreed on by proponents on evolutionary design arguments, as can the precise mode of divine action.

What is at least some of this evidence? What is the sort of ordering you’re talking about?

@Rope

I am not sure how to make this basic idea clearer - you stated that the original PS piece and the responses to my book made nothing clear and contained no claims, but when I read them I see claims all over.

What I see is more like a menu of allusions to claims that somebody might make rather than any claims themselves. Is there anything you would like to own?