Intelligent Design is Anti-Evolution (Support Conclusion)

Author note: I’ll be travelling this weekend and honestly, I’m bored with this whole thing at this point.  I was mildly disappointed by my opponent.  He didn’t even try very hard.  So here is my conclusion.  Once I hear that Joe has posted his, I’ll throw it up to and then I think we’re pretty much done.  Maybe in a few decades, I’ll see if Joe wants to actually provide the evidence for ID, but he hasn’t yet.

Ah well… on to my conclusion.  Feel free to discuss at length, here or among yourselves.

Is ID anti-evolution?

 Intelligent Design is anti-evolution.  Intelligent design says that the principles of evolution, including a purely natural (i.e. not supernatural) explanation for the diversity of life, is wrong.  It’s that simple.

 Isn’t interesting that the people I quoted and the people Joe quoted (who are the same people) say different things?  For example, Michael Behe, in a court of law said that ID only talked about mechanisms, yet he admitted that there are no mechanisms for ID.   (And yes, please read Behe’s testimony to the court.  Especially compare his direct and cross testimony.)

 What this should tell you that ID is a slippery animal.  The leaders we both quoted say whatever their audience wants to hear.  Unfortunately, that’s not a realistic way of convincing anyone.

 ID refuses to be defined in a single way.  Even Joe agrees on what the principles of evolution are.  He does get confused when another word is put in front of ‘evolution’, but that happens.  Regardless, we all know what evolution is.

 I’ll repeat some of the quotes that I used.  This isn’t an interpretation game as my opponent thinks.  These are direct quotes from definitions of Intelligent Design and leaders of the ID and every one is from a pro-ID website, book, or testimony (except the last, which is from my opponent himself).

 ID affirms that design is the cause, or at least a main cause, of complex biological information. A theory which would indeed be alternative to ID, and therefore could prove it wrong, is any empirically well-supported “causal theory” which excludes design

 ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc.”

they are competitor hypotheses.

On the other hand, for example, intelligent design, it’s not the only opponent, by the way, of Darwinian evolution.

Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory

then any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient.

Why is it you have to attack ID with your ignorance when all it takes to refute ID is to actually step up and support your position [evolution] with POSITIVE evidence?

Joe cherrypicks his statements from his proponents.  Just as he does from his opponents.  This quote from Joe is very telling.

I have read many.  I just need to find the one that supports my claim (http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2011/05/intelligent-design-is-anti-evolution.html#c5707003472588834261_

 That’s what Joe has done here.  He has ignored statements that don’t agree with his claim. 

 Intelligent Design is anti-evolution.  Everyone, including Joe, has previously said so.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Creationism / ID, Culture, Debate, Evolution, evolution, Science, Society and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Intelligent Design is Anti-Evolution (Support Conclusion)

  1. derwood says:

    “Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc.”

    Golly, that sounds an awful lot like… I don’t know… creationism? Which ID advocates insist ID is NOT NOT NOT.

  2. ogremkv says:

    Which is why the school district in Dover lost. That’s what the book they were going to use said.

  3. Pingback: Intelligent Design is Anti-Evolution – A formal debate | Cassandra's Tears

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s