But what really interests me is, let’s say that Meyer successfully proves evolution cannot develop new body plans or cannot explain the Cambrian explosion. \u00a0What then? \u00a0Does Meyer think (like most creationists) that it means creationism… excuse me, Intelligent Design… wins?<\/p>\n
Any scientist will say, “of course not”. \u00a0And this is was very important in the Kitzmiller trial. \u00a0Intelligent Design advocates don’t so any science to support ID. \u00a0So is there any support for ID? \u00a0Any evidence for design at all?<\/p>\n
I say that last very, very specifically. \u00a0The reason is that there is nothing, I mean absolutely zero, in the writings of the ID proponents that would even hint about the intelligence in intelligent design. \u00a0Their overriding concern is about the design. \u00a0Indeed, if we assume that design doesn’t require intelligence (and the evidence suggests that this is the case), then evolution is a perfectly valid design agent. \u00a0The ID proponents are actually arguing\u00a0for<\/strong> evolution. But, of course, they aren’t. \u00a0Especially Meyer, Dembski, Behe, and the other Discovery Institute writers. \u00a0They have unambiguously stated that the designer is the Judeo-Christian god of the Bible. \u00a0But they absolutely cannot say it anywhere a court might hear them. \u00a0So, they talk about design instead of the designer. \u00a0It’s as if one could separate the design from the designer… which you can’t do.<\/p>\n You can’t know what the design is like until you understand the limits of the designer. \u00a0If a man is killed by a lightening bolt and there are no high voltage electrical wires around, then they are very safe in calling it an accident. \u00a0Why? \u00a0Because humans can’t create lightening bolts without some pretty hefty technology and Thor doesn’t exist (much to my wife’s sadness).<\/p>\n Unlike what ID proponents wish were true, the designer cannot be separated from the design.<\/p>\n OK, enough ranting. \u00a0While we review this chapter, let’s look for evidence of design or the designer. \u00a0This must be positive supporting evidence, not a God of the Gaps<\/a> argument (or argument from ignorance<\/a>). \u00a0We will also look for any experiments, hypotheses, and\/or data that is used to support any claims. \u00a0Finally, we will see if this is, in any way, falsifiable.<\/p>\n First of all, Meyer opens with a ridiculously useless analogy. \u00a0I have used analogies while teaching, but this one reads like the plot of a bad mystery novel. \u00a0Really. \u00a0But poor writing and analogies aside, it’s useless to what we’re interested in here.<\/p>\n In “Introducing Intelligent Design” Myere says<\/p>\n When the case for intelligent design is made, it’s often hard to get contemporary evolutionary biologists to see why such an idea should even be considered or why discussions of design should play any role in biology at all. Though many biologists now acknowledge serious deficiencies in current strictly materialistic theories of evolution, they resist considering alternatives, that involve intelligent guidance, direction, or design.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Citation Fucking Needed. \u00a0Who are these “many biologists”. \u00a0So far in this series, we’ve examined quotes from Gould, McDonald<\/a>, and Valentine. \u00a0So far, none of them have actually said what Meyer claims them to have meant. \u00a0When McDonald does say that there is a “great Darwinian paradox”. \u00a0Of course, he then spends several pages (with peer-reviewed examples) showing an explanation for the apparent paradox. \u00a0Meyer ignored that. \u00a0Gould is similarly taken totally out of context.<\/p>\n I know of no biologists that have stated that there are serious deficiencies in evolution. \u00a0I have seen them use it as a rhetorical device, but Meyer and other creationists never mention that part. \u00a0We won’t even get into the real problems… like Meyer taking two separate paragraphs from Marshall (separated by 15 pages<\/a>!!) and showing them as being in the same paragraph.<\/p>\n Meyer then says that this resistance is because biologists think that Intelligent Design is religious. \u00a0Well, let’s see…<\/p>\n “Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of <\/p>\n \u201cThe world is a mirror representing the divine <\/p>\n Physics and cosmology suggest intelligent design as a highly plausible and I can’t imagine why anyone would think that the idea of intelligent design as presented by Meyer would be considered religious. \u00a0Unless one has actually read the works of the principle authors of Intelligent Design. \u00a0Even Michael Behe was forced to admit, under oath, that he though the designer was the Christian god<\/a>. (Search for “god” in the text, you’ll find it.)<\/p>\n Now, I freely admit that these same proponents have stated that ID is not about god or anything else, just about design. \u00a0Michael Behe says as much in his trial testimony. \u00a0Of course, he also says that ID is only a mechanistic theory… and that there is no mechanism in ID<\/a>. \u00a0So, I’d be real careful listening to Behe… and the others.<\/p>\n All these quotes do is show the world that ID proponents will say whatever they think that they have to in order to promote their ideas. \u00a0In a church, then they talk about god. \u00a0In a court, they don’t mention god.<\/p>\n If their notion was so good, why the obfuscation?<\/p>\n The Meyer says this:<\/p>\n Perhaps the best way to explain the theory of intelligent design is to contrast it with the specific aspect of the theory of Darwinian evolution that it directly challenges.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n That’s a stupid idea. \u00a0The best way to explain the\u00a0NOTION<\/strong> (it’s not a scientific theory by a long shot) of Intelligent Design is to define it, then show the evidence, then explain the utility of it. \u00a0But we all know that’s not going to happen.<\/p>\n The part that Meyer claims Intelligent Design directly challenges is “the creative power of natural selection acting on random varitions”. \u00a0He correctly states that Dawkins said this gives the appearance of design. \u00a0Note the critical word ‘appearance’.<\/p>\n Meyer also correctly states that humans can use a form of selection to breed animals to enhance a particular trait (more milk, faster growing, more eggs, pretty coat, etc).<\/p>\n Meyer goes on and on about how this gives the appearance of design and then states<\/p>\n Thus, in both Darwinism, and neo-Darwinism,the selection\/variation (or selection\/mutation) mechanism functions as a kind of “designer substitute.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is exactly what I mentioned earlier. If we take the “Design” potion, then evolution is arguably a perfectly capable designer. \u00a0This requires a rather loose definition of design, but note that Meyer chooses not to define design. \u00a0He chooses to use quotes and commentary from others, regardless of what they might have said.<\/p>\n Does anyone really think that Dawkins, Darwin, Ernst Mayr or Francisco Ayala really think that design means<\/p>\n purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object.<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Especially when we’re talking about evolution?<\/p>\n Of course not. \u00a0But Meyer doesn’t talk about that. \u00a0He’s only trying to sow the seeds of doubt. \u00a0All these famous (some might say infamous) biologists are talking about design, there must be something to it. \u00a0But they aren’t talking about design. \u00a0They are talking about the appearance of design. \u00a0Which is not the same thing at all. \u00a0With a little photoshopping, I can have the appearance of a movie star or a WWII fighter ace or an antarctic explorer. \u00a0But I’m not actually a movie star, fighter ace, or explorer.<\/p>\n Meyer even acknowledges it.<\/p>\n Nevertheless, neo-Darwinists regard that appearance of design as entirely illusory, as did Darwin himself, because they think that purely mindless, materialistic processes such as natural selection and random mutations can produce the intricate designed-like structures in living organisms. In this view, natural selection and random mutation mimic the powers of a designing intelligence without themselves being intelligently directed or guided in any way.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Yes. \u00a0This. \u00a0Exactly.<\/p>\n Then he goes on to say<\/p>\n That’s where the theory of intelligent design comes into play. Intelligent design challenges the idea that natural selection and random mutation (and other similarly undirected materialistic processes) can explain the most striking appearances of design in living organisms. Instead, it affirms that there are certain features of living systems that are best explained by the design of an actual intelligence\u2014a conscious and rational agent, a mind\u2014as opposed to a mindless, materialistic process. The theory of intelligent design does not reject “evolution” defined as “change over time” or even universal common ancestry, but it does dispute Darwin’s idea that the cause of major biological change and the appearance of design are wholly blind and undirected.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n OK. \u00a0There’s a lot to break down here.<\/p>\n Let’s just focus on the ID part here. \u00a0We can argue about whether evolution is more than random mutation and natural selection (which it is) later.<\/p>\n What, I wonder, are these certain features of living systems that are best explained by the design of an intelligent agent? \u00a0Behe, the only biochemist in the ID stables[1] has been quoted as saying the immune system is an example of an irreducibly complex system that must be intelligently designed. \u00a0Let me quote him from the Kitzmiller trial<\/a>. \u00a0The “Q” here is the plaintiffs attorney (I believe it is Rothschild) and the “A” is Michel Behe.<\/p>\n Q<\/a>. And in addition to articles there’s also books written on the immune system?<\/p>\n <\/a>A<\/a>\u00a0lot of books, yes.<\/p>\n Q<\/a>. And not just the immune system generally, but actually the evolution of the immune system, right?<\/p>\n A<\/a>. And there are books on that topic as well, yes.<\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nus being created in the image of a benevolent
\nGod.\u201d
\n– William Dembski quoted, Science Test, Church & State
\nMagazine, July \/ August 2000.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\nlife\u2026Intelligent design readily embraces the
\nsacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed,
\nintelligent design is just the Logos theology of
\nJohn’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information
\ntheory.\u201d
\n– William A. Dembski, Touchstone Magazine, July\/August
\n1999.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\narguably best explanation for the exquisite fine-tuning of the physical laws and
\nconstants of the universe and the precise configuration of its initial conditions.
\nSince the fine-tuning and initial conditions date from the very origin of the
\nuniverse itself, this evidence suggests the need for an intelligent as well as a
\ntranscendent Cause for the origin of the universe. Since God as conceived by
\nChristians and other theists possesses precisely these attributes, His creative
\naction can adequately explain the origin of the cosmological singularity and the
\nanthropic fine-tuning. Since naturalism denies a transcendent and pre-existent
\nintelligent cause, it follows that theism provides a better explanation than
\nnaturalism for these two evidences taken jointly. Since pantheism, with its belief
\nin an immanent and impersonal god, also denies the existence of a transcendent
\nand pre-existent intelligence, it too lacks causal adequacy as an explanation for
\nthese evidences. Indeed, a completely impersonal intelligence is almost a
\ncontradiction in terms. Thus, theism stands as the best explanation of the three
\nmajor worldviews theism, pantheism, and naturalism for the origin of the Big
\nBang singularity and anthropic fine-tuning taken jointly. \u00a0Stephen C. Meyer – The Return of the God Hypothesis<\/a>\u00a0(PDF)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
![\"Articles](\"http:\/\/www.talkorigins.org\/faqs\/dover\/immune_evolution_michael_Behe.jpg\")
<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n