{"id":1640,"date":"2014-01-28T17:29:47","date_gmt":"2014-01-28T23:29:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/smilodonsretreat\/?p=1640"},"modified":"2014-01-28T17:29:47","modified_gmt":"2014-01-28T23:29:47","slug":"intelligent-design-is-anti-evolution","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/smilodonsretreat\/2014\/01\/28\/intelligent-design-is-anti-evolution\/","title":{"rendered":"Intelligent Design is Anti-evolution"},"content":{"rendered":"

Some time ago, I had an online debate with a gentleman who both claimed that ID was not anti-evolution and in the very next sentence claimed that all I had to do to refute ID was to prove evolution. \u00a0Such irony. Anyway, this individual has been given a guest post a “popular” (as popular as ID blogs can get) ID blog saying the same thing… again. \u00a0So, I’m reprinting this from our debate (which was almost three years ago). \u00a0His opening statement is here<\/a>.) \u00a0For those of you with a particularly obsessive personality can look here<\/a> to see if he’s changed his thoughts about anything in the last three years. \u00a0My guess is no. \u00a0[Note: I would prefer you no go there, because it’s… how to put this… “a wretched hive of scum and villainy”. \u00a0And I don’t want to give them any more hits than they already get. \u00a0But if you want to, go ahead.]<\/p>\n

Intelligent Design is Anti-evolution<\/strong><\/p>\n

Intelligent Design is anti-evolution.\u00a0 That seems like such an innocuous statement.\u00a0 It should be easy to look at what ID is, what it says, and then decide whether it\u2019s anti-evolution or not.\u00a0 Unfortunately, it\u2019s not that easy.\u00a0 You see, there is no real, formal, consistent definition of what Intelligent Design really is.\u00a0 So we need start there.<\/p>\n

Intelligent Design proponents are quite skilled in modifying, editing, or changing the definition of ID that they are using quickly and subtly in order to avoid being caught out by cold, hard facts.\u00a0 I have personally heard ID described as the designer created the universe and everything in it uniquely, the designer only creates new novel forms of life, the designer only creates things (living and non-) that are complex, and many variations of those three.<\/p>\n

My opponent\u2019s responsibility here is to show that a single coherent and consistent definition of Intelligent Design exists.\u00a0 If he doesn\u2019t do that, then anything else he says is useless because it may or may not apply to what Intelligent Design actually is.\u00a0 Once that single coherent, consistent definition of Intelligent Design exists, then and only then can a discussion about whether it is anti-\u00a0or pro- anything can begin.<\/span><\/p>\n

I submit that, while no formal definition exists, all of the existing definitions and concepts cannot help but lead a rational person to the conclusion that Intelligent Design is anti-evolution.<\/p>\n

Printed Definitions<\/strong><\/p>\n

Some say Intelligent Design is a scientific theory of origins.\u00a0 Some say that it\u2019s an unscientific farce.\u00a0 All we know is\u2026 well, no one really knows what ID is.\u00a0 Including the people who promote it.<\/p>\n

The proposition before us is, \u201cIntelligent Design is anti-evolution\u201d.\u00a0 Before we really get started, let\u2019s make sure we all know what \u2018anti-\u2018 means.<\/p>\n

anti-<\/a>\u00a0(prefix)<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. against; opposing:\u00a0anticlerical ; antisocial<\/em><\/li>\n
  2. opposite to:\u00a0anticlimax ; antimere<\/em><\/li>\n
  3. rival; false:\u00a0antipope<\/em><\/li>\n
  4. counteracting, inhibiting, or neutralizing:\u00a0antifreeze\u00a0<\/em>;\u00a0antihistamine<\/em><\/li>\n
  5. designating the antiparticle of the particle specified:\u00a0antineutron<\/em><\/em><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    I think it\u2019s safe to dismiss the latter two definitions as specific meanings that don\u2019t really apply in this case.\u00a0 However, the first three definitions are all valid uses and, more importantly, they ALL apply in the fact that ID is anti-evolution.\u00a0 ID opposes and is against evolution.\u00a0 ID is the opposite of evolution.\u00a0 ID is a rival to evolution.<\/p>\n

    What is really fun about all this is I will not undertake to define evolution (as my opponent desperately wants me to, so he can attack that).\u00a0 I will use only the words and statements of the proponents of Intelligent Design.\u00a0 They are the ones who lead the movement. They are the ones who cannot decide on a definition of Intelligent Design or even what ID is supposed to say, do, or be.<\/p>\n

    The theory of intelligent design (ID)<\/strong>\u00a0holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection<\/span>.\u00a0ID<\/strong>\u00a0is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.\u00a0\u00a0http:\/\/www.uncommondescent.com\/id-defined\/<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    (my underline, everything else is original) Wait, I thought ID wasn\u2019t anti-evolution.\u00a0 Natural selection is a part of evolution.\u00a0 Most would say that it\u2019s a major part of any evolutionary theory.\u00a0 Yet, Intelligent Design, as found on Uncommon Descent (a blog \u201cServing the Intelligent Design Community\u201d), is defined as being the opposite of or opposing natural selection.\u00a0 Hmmm\u2026 I could stop there.\u00a0 But that wouldn\u2019t be as much fun.<\/p>\n

    \u00a0<\/strong>Intelligent Design:\u00a0<\/strong>An hypothesis that some natural phenomena are best explained by reference to Intelligent Causes rather than to only Material Causes. As such,\u00a0Intelligent Design is the scientific disagreement with, and the falsifying hypothesis for, the claims of Chemical and Darwinian Evolution<\/span>\u00a0that the apparent design of certain natural phenomena is just an illusion. Intelligent design can also be viewed as the Science of design detection applied to natural phenomena.<\/p>\n

    http:\/\/www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org\/Statement_of_Objectives_Feb_12_07.pdf<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    (my underline, everything else original) This is the definition from the Intelligent Design Network, a group that \u201cseeks institutional objectivity in origins science\u201d.\u00a0 Well, that \u201cdisagreement with and a falsifying hypothesis for [evolution]\u201d is pretty strong language. In fact, that is number 1 in our definition of \u2018anti-\u2018.\u00a0 If ID is true, then \u2018Chemical and Darwinian Evolution\u2019 isn\u2019t true.\u00a0 That\u2019s what falsifying means.\u00a0 If X, then not Y.<\/p>\n

    Well, those are two groups in the blogosphere regarding Intelligent Design.\u00a0 Uncommon Descent used to be owned by William Dembski, so I\u2019m guessing that what is written there was approved by him at some point.<\/p>\n

    Before we talk with the actual leaders of the movement, let\u2019s look at one other thing.\u00a0\u00a0Of Pandas and People<\/em>\u00a0is the supplemental textbook that Intelligent Design proponents wanted to have kids use in Dover,Delaware.\u00a0 What does it say about Intelligent Design?<\/p>\n

    Q<\/a>. Could you go, Matt, to P-652? And this is another draft of [Of] Pandas [and People] with copyright 1987?<\/p>\n

    A<\/a>. Yes.<\/p>\n

    Q<\/a>. And Matt, could you pull up the definition and the highlighted text there? That\u2019s changed now, hasn\u2019t it?<\/p>\n

    A<\/a>. Yes, there is a change.<\/p>\n

    Q<\/a>. Could you read the text of this definition section?<\/p>\n

    A<\/a>. \u201cIntelligent 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

    Dover Trial Testimony \u2013 A = Dr. Barbara Forresthttp:\/\/www.talkorigins.org\/faqs\/dover\/day6am2.html#day6am889<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    This is taken directly from the transcript of the Dover\/Kitzmiller trial.\u00a0 In this section of testimony, Dr. Barbara Forrest is reading the definition of Intelligent Design from a draft of the book.<\/p>\n

    Since parts of evolutionary theory states that life did not begin abruptly and that distinctive features were not intact when a new species was specially created (indeed that no new species were specially created), then this flies in the face of evolution.\u00a0 It is the opposite of what evolution claims.\u00a0 I don\u2019t think anyone would agree that any version of evolution supports sudden creation and features already intact.<\/p>\n

    The Leaders of the ID Movement\u2019s Comments About ID<\/strong><\/p>\n

    With very few exceptions, the leaders of the Intelligent Design movement are fellows at or employed by the Discovery Institute\u2019s Center for Science and Culture.\u00a0 These notables include Dr. William Dembski, who has updated Paley\u2019s work of 200 years ago with modern, science\u00a0sounding words and some truly abominable math (which no one understands, can explain, or use. \u00a0Dr. Michael Behe was once a real scientist with a real career.\u00a0 He stopped doing that to start writing books about Intelligent Design.\u00a0 He\u2019s written very few papers since 1996s Darwin\u2019s Black Box and only one of them is \u2018new\u2019 research, but there are no experiments, no data, no nothing in anything he\u2019s written.\u00a0 Also Dr. Jonathon Wells, who got a Ph.D. in molecular and cellular biology for the\u00a0sole purpose of defeating Darwinism<\/a>.\u00a0 These are, along with Stephen Meyer (VP and senior fellow at CSC; and someone I’ve spent a lot of time showing is not \u00a0person to be trusted<\/a>), the leading lights of the ID movement.<\/p>\n

    Now, let\u2019s look at what the actual leaders of the Intelligent Design movement have to say about ID.<\/p>\n

    The theory of intelligent design, as I understand, you\u2019re not inquiring, but we endorse that decision as a policy decision. Also, is an historical scientific theory that raises larger philosophical implications, so the two are equivalent in that respect, and they are, in fact, with respect to their attempts to explain the appearance of design in biological systems, they\u00a0are competitor hypotheses<\/span>.<\/p>\n

    Stephen Meyer \u2013 Kansas Evolution Hearings (http:\/\/www.talkorigins.org\/faqs\/kansas\/kangaroo8.html#p3494<\/a>) (my underline)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    This is from Stephen Meyer\u2019s testimony at the so-called \u2018Kansas Evolution Hearings\u2019.\u00a0 Note the underlined statement.\u00a0 \u201c\u2026they [evolution and ID] are competitor hypotheses.\u201d\u00a0 That fits definition 3 of \u201canti-\u201c.<\/p>\n

    On the other hand, for example, intelligent design, it\u2019s not the only opponent, by the way, of Darwinian evolution.<\/p>\n

    Stephen Meyer \u2013 Kansas Evolution Hearings (http:\/\/www.talkorigins.org\/faqs\/kansas\/kangaroo8.html#p3494<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    Here Dr. Meyer is saying that ID is not only an \u201copponent\u201d of evolution, it\u2019s not the only opponent.<\/p>\n

    What about Michael Behe?\u00a0 What does he have to say?<\/p>\n

    Q<\/a>\u00a0That\u2019s part of the argument for intelligent design, isn\u2019t it?<\/p>\n

    A<\/a>\u00a0That\u2019s a part of the argument to show that there is no other plausible explanation for what we perceive to be as design.<\/p>\n

    Q<\/a>\u00a0Which is part of the argument for intelligent design, correct?<\/p>\n

    A<\/a>\u00a0Yes.<\/p>\n

    Dover Trial\u00a0Testimony \u2013 A = Dr. Michael Behe<\/p>\n

    http:\/\/www.talkorigins.org\/faqs\/dover\/day11pm.html<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    From here we learn that part of the argument for Intelligent Design is that there is no other plausible explanation for what is perceived to be design.\u00a0 So, evolution does not have an explanation for what is perceived to be design.\u00a0 This is not true.<\/p>\n

    Even if we leave aside the truth of either claim (evolution or ID), the point that Behe is making is that one of the two must be correct and one of the two must be wrong.\u00a0 ID says things are designed.\u00a0 Evolution says they are not.\u00a0 It\u2019s that simple.\u00a0 Since things cannot be both designed and evolved, then ID is anti-evolution.<\/p>\n

    Q<\/a>\u00a0Behe says, intelligent design makes no claim about common descent.<\/p>\n

    A<\/a>\u00a0Yes.<\/p>\n

    Q<\/a>\u00a0Pandas says, intelligent design questions the Darwinian notion of common descent. Those are the same thing to you?<\/p>\n

    A<\/a>\u00a0I see this as part of an argument. The \u2014 as I try to make clear in my testimony, intelligent design is seen in the purposeful arrangement of parts, and that is the positive argument for intelligent design. But also, a part of the task of somebody who holds that view is to try to answer other views which claim to \u2014 which claim to explain what intelligent design purports to explain.<\/p>\n

    And one of those is to show where the other theory has problems. And I view this as part of that kind of negative argument that, that while \u2014 that while \u2014 that while intelligent design can live with what data we have, this seems to be a problem for the current theory, as a number of paleontologists have said. And they ve tried to \u2014 they ve tried to fix it up, and they propose these explanations, and perhaps they\u2019re right, but maybe that\u2019s not correct. And if it\u2019s not correct, well then this other theory, this rival theory is \u2014 is \u2014 has some difficulties, but that intelligent design does not. So I see it as part of a negative argument against a rival to intelligent design.<\/p>\n

    Q<\/a>\u00a0And it\u2019s a negative argument against the part of that argument called common descent, correct?<\/span><\/p>\n

    A<\/a>\u00a0That\u2019s correct, just as my argument was an argument against natural selection. And when people make claims for natural selection, I have to show why that is a poor explanation for what we see.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Dover Trial\u00a0Testimony \u2013 A = Dr. Michael Behe<\/p>\n

    http:\/\/www.talkorigins.org\/faqs\/dover\/day11pm2.html<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    So, here, Michael Behe is saying (under oath, in a court of law) that ID is an argument against common descent.\u00a0 There you go, no problem with that.<\/p>\n

    This last is actually very interesting.\u00a0 Based on this, ID has\u00a0<\/span>multiple definitions<\/strong>.\u00a0 Yet, evolution is not allowed to have multiple definitions (i.e. a fact AND a theory, historical AND predictive, experimental AND observational), but ID is allowed to do this.\u00a0 Interesting double standard there.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Unfortunately, Behe\u00a0isn\u2019t really our best choice for this.\u00a0 Despite being a fellow at the Discovery Institute and writing several books on the subject, he can\u2019t even keep a straight definition of ID.\u00a0 Check the underlined parts of these two statements from the Dover trial:<\/p>\n

    Q<\/a>\u00a0If we could go to page 11 of your report and highlight the underscored text.<\/p>\n

    You say, \u201cIntelligent design theory focuses exclusively on the proposed mechanism of how complex biological structures arose<\/span>.\u201d Correct?<\/p>\n

    A<\/a>\u00a0That is correct, yes.<\/p>\n

    Q<\/a>\u00a0That\u2019s consistent with your testimony today.<\/p>\n

    A<\/a>\u00a0Yes, it is.<\/p>\n

    Dover Trial\u00a0Testimony \u2013 A = Dr. Michael Behe<\/p>\n

    http:\/\/www.talkorigins.org\/faqs\/dover\/day11pm2.html<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    Followed by<\/p>\n

    Q<\/a>. And before we leave the blood clotting system, can you just remind the Court the mechanism by which intelligent design creates the blood clotting system?<\/p>\n

    A<\/a>. Well, as I mentioned before,\u00a0intelligent design does not say, a mechanism<\/span>, but what it does say is, one important factor in the production of systems, and that is that, at some point in the pathway, intelligence was involved.<\/p>\n

    Dover Trial\u00a0Testimony \u2013 A = Dr. Michael Behe<\/p>\n

    http:\/\/www.talkorigins.org\/faqs\/dover\/day12am2.html<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    So, while ID focuses on the mechanism of how complex biological structures arose, there is no actual mechanism.\u00a0 Got that, thanks Michael.<\/p>\n

    BTW: I thought I would include this since my opponent (if he has any sense at all) will bring it up.<\/p>\n

    Q<\/a>. So when you hear a claim that intelligent design is anti-evolution, are those accurate?<\/p>\n

    A<\/a>. No, they are completely inaccurate.<\/p>\n

    \u2026 [snip about 10 sentences, link to original is below]<\/p>\n

    Q<\/a>. Again so does intelligent design question all parts ofDarwin\u2019s theory of evolution?<\/p>\n

    A<\/a>. No. It focuses exclusively on the question of the mechanism of evolution, and I tried to make that clear as this picture shows. This is an issue of something called the reports of theNationalCenter for Science Education, which is a group which strongly advocates for the teaching of Darwinian evolution in school, and I wrote a letter to the editor of The Reports, which was published in an issue approximately four years ago.<\/p>\n

    And here\u2019s an excerpt from that letter where I explain, \u201cThe core claim of intelligent design theory is quite limited. It says nothing directly about how biological design was produced, who the designer was, whether there has been common descent, or other such questions. Those can be addressed separately.\u201d It says, \u201cOnly that design can be empirically detected in observable features of physical systems.\u201d<\/p>\n

    And I go on to say, \u201cAs an important corollary it also predicts that mindless processes such as natural selection or the self-organization scenarios favored by Shanks and Joplin will not be demonstrated to be able to produce irreducible systems of the complexity found in cells.\u201d\u00a0So I tried to clearly explain that the only focus of intelligent design is on the mechanism of evolution<\/span>, or the question of whether or not aspects of life show the marks of intelligent design.<\/p>\n

    Dover Trial\u00a0Testimony \u2013 A = Dr. Michael Behe<\/p>\n

    http:\/\/www.talkorigins.org\/faqs\/dover\/day10pm.html<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    So, Michael says ID is not anti-evolution, yet a mere double handful of sentences later he states that \u201cthe only focus of intelligent design is on the mechanism of evolution\u201d.\u00a0 So, if the mechanism for evolution is correct, then ID is wrong.\u00a0 If the mechanism for ID is correct, then necessarily, the mechanism (which is most of evolution) is wrong.<\/p>\n

    William Dembski\u00a0agrees with Behe here:<\/p>\n

    As for your example, I\u2019m not going to take the bait. You\u2019re asking me to play a game: \u201cProvide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.\u201d\u00a0ID is not a mechanistic theory<\/span>, and it\u2019s not ID\u2019s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.\u201d<\/p>\n

    http:\/\/www.iscid.org\/ubbcgi\/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=000152;p=3<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    Whoops\u2026 OK guys, which is it.\u00a0 Behe\u00a0testified on an oath that he would tell the truth that ID is a mechanistic theory.\u00a0 Then Dembski, who, for all practical purposes, invented the modern ID, says it\u2019s not mechanistic.\u00a0 Which is it?\u00a0 BTW: Dembski bailed out on the Dover trial after being paid to be a witness.<\/p>\n

    Of, course we must remember that Behe had some serious difficulties with his testimony.\u00a0 He doesn\u2019t even know if ID is about the mechanism or not or if there even is one or not.<\/p>\n

    Let\u2019s see what all these leading lights of ID came up with they decided to write a mission plan.<\/p>\n

    We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID).\u00a0Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview<\/span>, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.<\/p>\n

    The Wedge Document (http:\/\/www.antievolution.org\/features\/wedge.html<\/a>) (my emphasis)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    So, ID theory, as its central purpose to replace science with Christianity.\u00a0 So, if evolution is science, then they want it replaced with Christian and theistic science.\u00a0 That sounds pretty anti-evolution to me.\u00a0 And all of these guys signed on to this statement.<\/p>\n

    Now, my erstwhile opponent will immediately bring up the publication from the Discovery Institute that followed the Wedge Document.\u00a0 So, I\u2019ll bring it up first and show, that it really doesn\u2019t matter to the point we\u2019re arguing here.\u00a0 Here\u2019s what that document says.<\/p>\n

    In 1996 Discovery Institute established the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (since named the Center for Science and Culture-CSC).\u00a0 Its main purposes were (1) to support research by scienctists and other scholars who were critical of neo-Darwinism and other materialistic theories of origins, and to support those who were developing the emerging scientific theory of intelligent design;<\/p>\n

    Far from attacking science (as has been claimed), we are instead challenging scientific materialism-the simplistic philosophy or world-view that claims that all of reality can be reduced to, or derived from, matter and energy alone<\/span>.<\/p>\n

    The Center for Science and Culture is not attacking science or the scientific method.\u00a0 It is challenging the philosophy of\u00a0scientific materialism and the false scientific theories that support it\u00a0<\/span>(more on this below),<\/p>\n

    But suffice to say that the theories that have supported scientific materialism are increasingly and demonstrably bankrupt.<\/p>\n

    The Wedge Document \u2013 So What (http:\/\/www.discovery.org\/scripts\/viewDB\/filesDB-download.php?id=349<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    Note that the underlined statements cover everything in the known universe.\u00a0 And therefore includes the principles of evolutionary theory, which are based on methods, mechanisms, and materials that exist solely within this universe.\u00a0 Of course this also applies to every other science or even existence of things.<\/p>\n

    If you have made it this far, then congratulations.\u00a0 You have seen that even when the leading proponents of Intelligent Design say that ID is not anti-evolution, they really don\u2019t mean it or the contradict themselves later.<\/p>\n

    I haven\u2019t talked about Demsbki yet.\u00a0 He\u2019s a signatory to the Wedge Document.\u00a0 He used to own and run uncommondescent.com and he, for all intents and purposes, invented the modern version of intelligent design (borrowing heavily from Paley).\u00a0 What he says simply crushes the idea that Intelligent Design it not anti-evolution.\u00a0 Here are three quotes that should explain his thoughts on the matter completely.<\/p>\n

    \u201cThe world is a mirror representing the divine life\u2026Intelligent design readily embraces the sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John\u2019s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory<\/span>.\u201d<\/p>\n

    – William A. Dembski, Touchstone Magazine, July\/August 1999.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    and<\/p>\n

    \u201cIf we take seriously the word-flesh Christology of Chalcedon (i.e. the doctrine that Christ is fully human and fully divine) and view Christ as the telos toward which God is drawing the whole of creation,\u00a0then any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient<\/span>.\u201d<\/p>\n

    – William Dembski,\u00a0Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between\u00a0Science & Theology,Downers Grove, InterVarsity Press, 1999.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    and<\/p>\n

    \u201cThe job of apologetics is to clear the ground, to clear obstacles that prevent people from coming to the knowledge of Christ,\u201d Dembski said. \u201cAnd if there\u2019s anything\u00a0that I think has blocked the growth of Christ [and] the free reign of the Spirit and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view<\/span>\u2026. It\u2019s important that we understand the world. God has created it; Jesus is incarnate in the world.\u201d<\/p>\n

    William Dembski\u00a0quoted, Benen, Steve, \u201cThe Discovery Institute\u201d, Church and State Magazine, May 2002. (my underlining in all)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    There you go, from Dembski himself.\u00a0 Any science that is not based in Christ is wrong.\u00a0 Intelligent Design is based on Christ and evolution is not.\u00a0 Therefore ID is anti-evolution in the most fundamental sense.\u00a0 Indeed, ID is anti-science.<\/p>\n

    I\u2019ll bring up one last quote.\u00a0 This one is from my opponent himself:<\/p>\n

    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\u00a0[evolution]\u00a0with POSITIVE evidence?<\/p>\n

    http:\/\/www.antievolution.org\/cgi-bin\/ikonboard\/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=6647;st=1800#entry183930<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    So, my opponent needs to explain why, if ID is not anti-evolution, then all it takes to refute ID is to provide positive evidence of evolution.\u00a0 Almost as if they were competing or opposite hypotheses or something.<\/p>\n

    Finally, I know that my opponent will use the same sources I used (Meyer, Behe, Demsbki) to show that ID is not anti-evolution.\u00a0 However, if he does so, he will introduce a major problem for his entire conceptual framework.<\/p>\n

    If he says that those people say that ID is not anti-evolution and I used the same people to show that it is, then what is ID really?\u00a0 What\u2019s the point of having a \u2018theory\u2019 (in the loosest sense of the word) that can be both anti-something and not anti-something?\u00a0 The theory in question might as well not even exist for the good it does.<\/p>\n

    It would also show that, as seen in Behe\u2019s testimony that I copied, the proponents of ID will say ANYTHING if they think it gets them out of a pickle.\u00a0 They claim that ID is science, then they claim it\u2019s religion.\u00a0 They claim it\u2019s OK with common descent, and then they claim it\u2019s not OK with common descent.\u00a0 I could go on.<\/p>\n

    Even the leaders of the ID movement don\u2019t have a coherent, consistent statement about what Intelligent Design is.\u00a0 JoeG\u00a0has his own idea about what it is, which is completely different from what other pro-ID bloggers say (read Uncommondescent.com comment threads).\u00a0 Dembski\u00a0says one thing, Behe says something else, and then Meyer says something completely different.<\/p>\n

    Unless my opponent can present a clear picture of what ID really is, taking into account everything he states and everything I\u2019ve quoted, then there can be no further resolution.\u00a0 ID is logically inconsistent by being both anti-evolution and non anti-evolution.<\/p>\n

    Since ID, in principle, is a process that determines how organisms came to be, then it is direct competition with its rival, evolution.\u00a0 Intelligent Design is anti-evolution.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Some time ago, I had an online debate with a gentleman who both claimed that ID was not anti-evolution and…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":27,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[24,597],"tags":[650,939,628,283],"class_list":["post-1640","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-creationism","category-featured","tag-anti-evolution","tag-creationism","tag-debate","tag-intelligent-design"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/smilodonsretreat\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1640","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/smilodonsretreat\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/smilodonsretreat\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/smilodonsretreat\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/27"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/smilodonsretreat\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1640"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/smilodonsretreat\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1640\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/smilodonsretreat\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1640"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/smilodonsretreat\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1640"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/smilodonsretreat\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1640"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}