History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Design arguments and the confusions of secular humanists on evolution

July 17th, 2016 · No Comments


A new book from the ID group by Douglas Axe is being promoted, to the total silence of the darwinians. We have addressed design issues here many times and have acknowledged, with a catch, the significance of design thinking. http://darwiniana.com/2016/05/25/design-see-you-and-raise-you/

The ID folks (I usually call them the ID gang) have made their point in the rout of natural selection theory, but, despite the interest of the ‘design inference’ argument, they have produced a theoretical model of design: it remains a metaphysical issue. Unless, of course, we restrict the question to ‘design in nature’ at which point a form of explanation remains to be found. But the expose of biochemical machines as being, if not irreducibly complex, then statistically impossible by natural selection, and ‘more or less’ irreducibly so, because the reduced pieces are irreducibly complex, more or less.
But the rout of the hapless initiates to the Dawkins cult does not forestall the drift of design thinking into a non-religious mode: consider my WHEE: a clear demonstration of a fantastic design in history, the solution to Kant’s Challenge, and a subtle falsification via the data of the Axial Age of the ‘design’ argument in the Old Testament. Ironically the design argument works better outside of theology. In any case, it was always a theoretical folly to think that random evolution could refute design arguments and it remains a puzzle how scientists could have been so fixated by Darwin.
The issue is to understand teleology in scientific terms. WHEE approaches that.

We use the term ‘design’ without the term ‘intelligent’, which prejudices the issue. But biologists fail to see that the design issue points to many valid insights into nature. But the problem is the uncurable tendency to take this as some kind of proof of the existence of ‘god’. If we simply take design as given in nature we are left with a demand to find naturalistic explanations of complex entities.
The darwinians are almost braindead in their attempts to reject the obvious point made by such as Behe that biochemical machines show design. That still fails to explain how they actually arise, not by darwinian natural selection. The ID folks win the argument but lose the war: the issue isn’t theological. The issue is a theory of evolution.

One of the best ways to study design is via WHEE (history and evolution.com) in the context of historical design.

The problem with ID is that its proponents cannot distinguish scientific claims for design from theological claims for design as given by the Old Testament. But the latter have no standing in science. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/75650151/XML_DARW_GC_Axial/9780984702947_txt_Enigma_of_the_Axial_Age.pdf

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

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

Leave a Comment