History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

The ID/Darwinists wouldn’t dare debate me over the macro effect

August 3rd, 2016 · No Comments

Doug Axe Challenges Bill Nye — Come Visit Us in Seattle, Why Don’t You?

It is correctly noted in the post cited: figures like Nye would rather debate creationists than ID folks. Starting with Michael Denton the ID group as critics of darwinism had an effective counter to selectionist evolution, and they appropriated that work for their ‘Intelligent Design’ gambit. All that came from Denton was cogent, and all the ‘intelligent design’ wrapping was more dubious. Denton did not preach ID although he seems to imply it.
Denton may have been a closet ID-ist, but his critique in his classic book stood as science, in part because his work was taken from scientists, by and large. The critique of darwinism should have been a scientific given by now, but the reign of stupidity created by figures like Dawkins has retarded science here for a generation giving venue to gloating ID gremlins. How on earth did this happen?

The ID group has won the battle over ‘design’, but lost the war. That is, the discovery of design is not, as Kant warned, a proof for the existence of ‘god’. Whether it is proof of the existence of ‘intelligence’ in nature is equally murky, if only because the attempts to exploit such arguments vitiates all of them. The term ‘intelligence’ in nature has no simple definition in science, but that doesn’t make it wrong. We should at least acknowledge that is not surprising some think so. The issue is starkly clear: if you uncover design it does not validate the religious arguments of Biblical adherents, creationist or not. The Old Testament fails as a design argument. And you can’t graft biological onto theological arguments.

But the issue of design remains both ‘undeniable’ and inscrutable. How did ‘scientists’ get into trying to defend the thesis that complex biochemical machines can be assembled via natural selection? The problems here were pointed out clearly by many scientists very early on. But their efforts were not sufficient to forestall what now seems entirely naive: the use of natural selection to promote an atheist perspective. Whatever one’s beliefs here that was ill-advised. The issue of design is not a theological one, it is a question of natural science. And it can be a cosmological question about the limits of nature, but there a Kantian unknowability factor enters. But the action of evolution in nature shows clear evidence of design. And that design factor is still a mystery to all parties.

The question of design becomes overwhelming if we examine the so-called ‘eonic effect’, http://history-and-evolution.com, and ironically exposes the problems with Biblical design arguments. But the macro effect visible in world history shows a truly stunning degree of design. This makes life difficult for Biblical literalists, darwinists, historical materialists, and scientific reductionists.

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

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

Leave a Comment