Re:I've Had It, Damn It (Score 1)

Virg,

Thanks for your careful, generous response. I would like to make a few more comments:

my theory explains, and your theory explains, but my theory doesn't require a higher outside intelligence to guide it, so it's simpler, therefore more likely.

This is really where the crux of the debate exists between intelligent design and theistic (or purely materialist) evolution. It all comes down to what philosphical presuppositions we have and how we go about evaluating the data, putting together the most plausible explanation that is coherent, elegant and comprehensive. Some would say that design is simpler, while others (like you) would say that "driven by environment, with chance involved" -- dare I say "primarily out of necessity and secondarily out of chance" (??)-- is simpler.

My main point is that it is far from a "done deal" in any scheme that rules out intelligent design. Some Darwinists may have considered that they put the nail into the coffin of "design." But it just will not go away. And it isn't because of any obscurantism or "God of the gaps," it is because that there are good, empirical and rational descriptions that suggest that what Darwin had in mind does not tell the whole story.

Just like in physics, surely the followers of Newton would have held to the universal application of the law of gravity. So it became embarassing when the data was unable to adequately support the law of gravity for objects that are really close together or far apart. That is why it is so marvelous that it was through James Clerk Maxwell's meditations on the triune nature of God that gave him the needed insight into the dynamic nature of the electromagnetic field. This gave the insight that Einstein needed to revolutionize classical physics.

This is why "intelligent design" has so much promise in the field of biological (and other) origins. It might just turn up something that Darwin missed.

The part I came down on you for originally is oversimplifying the Darwinian materialist argument down to "it all just fell together by chance" and then using that to disprove it...... in the future, I do ask that you present your debate against more than just the "all by chance" approach. That part is easy to take down. The "driven by environment, with chance involved" is quite a bit more difficult to damage, and it really is the basis of evolutionary theory.

Your point is well taken that it is an oversimplification to say that natural selection is "all by chance." My apologies for lumping it all under chance in my earlier posts. Nevertheless, I thought I had made myself clear in my last post, but I guess I did not. The "all by chance" or "predominantly chance" view is pretty common, and THAT was what I was originally addressing. Let's face it, there are many evolutionists who think that this is how it works, and they present the argument that way! I don't think Jacques Monod would have framed the argument like you have.

Granted, your view is a lot more sophisticated, and yes, it is more difficult to deal with from an intelligent design viewpoint. At the same time, adequately describing evolution primarily out of the environment (or necessity) still has its own problems, though not as apparent as in the "primarily chance" approach. You are still stuck with trying to assert some sort of internalized "intelligence" or "self-designing" in natural selection without calling it "intelligent" and/or "design." This is more a problem of philosphical description than just "purely science," whatever that is :-)

So the debate continues. And that's a good thing. I am assuming that you would agree?

chmorl