Darwiniana

History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Design and its confusions

August 11th, 2015 · No Comments

http://www.amazon.com/Debating-Darwin%C2%92s-Doubt-Scientific-Controversy/dp/1936599287/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1439311265&sr=1-1&keywords=debating+darwin%27s+doubt

The issue of information has been injected into the Darwin debate with no particular clarification. The basic design argument has made its case from the ID groups, but, strangely, this has not really resolved the debate over evolution. To me, ‘design’ is a no-brainer (and the term ‘intelligent’ requires proof of who the designer is). The design argument is persistently muddled because it presupposes that the design of history shown in the Old Testament is compatible with biological evolution arguments by design.

The reality seems to be this:
1. design is real and pervasive in biological organisms

2. the Old Testament argument about ‘design’ by ‘god’ in history is mythological

3. so the first above cannot confirm the second

4. the sense of historical design in Israelite history is confused and fails to reckon the larger context of design in the multiplicity of the Axial Age

5. stripped of myth the Old Testament history, united with its Persian part, does indeed show design and suggests some kind of designer, but this is contradicted by the fact that Axial Age Greece, India, China, show similar analogous designs which make no statement about ‘god’. Buddhist is an atheist religion of the Axial period. The designer thus stands beyond theism/atheism dualities…

In the macro effect of WHEE arguments by design apply far better to modernity than to Old Testament history (not the same as what happened!).

The design question has been so muddled by all sides it is impossible to have a discussion.

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

  • There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.

Leave a Comment