Posted by
Michael on Saturday, November 01, 2008 5:47:02 PM
This post is a reply to Reply to Reponse. For context for this post, see Impromptus, Response to Darwin Post, Response to Rob Sheldon, and Reply to Response.
Rob:
You are correct in saying that my paragraph on the definition of species has a contradiction. I should have ended it with "Under what definition of species are non-overlapping breeding populoations the same species?" When the correction is made, the point I was trying to make still applies.
If you show evidence of evolution in many organisms and groups of organisms, and there is no evidence that any organisms were designed, then one can conclude that all organisms evolved as long as there is no contrary evidence. I notice that you haven't given any evidence that a particular organism was designed. A negative argument against theory A does not provide evidence for theory B.
You say that "otherwise he's [Darwin] just another form of theism." The question is not evolution vs. theism, but evolution vs. creationism (including intelligent design). There is no inherent conflict between evolution and theism.
Saying that one cannot "predict the past by looking at the present" does not mean that "miracles do occur", it means that one must look at evidence of past events to understand past events. No one has ever said that one can "predict the past by looking at the present". Lyell's statement that the present is the key to the past (to which I assume you refer) meant that past events were caused by the same basic processes occuring today. We can make observations of the present to prove that the continents are moving, but we must examine rocks and fossils to show where they were in the past, to pick one example. Also, recognizing this does not make intelligent design science because there still has to be evidence of past events. There is evidence for punctuated equilibria and the Cambrian explosion; there is none for intelligent design.
Gradualism, the idea that geological and evolutionary processes always occur at about the same rate, was not "an essential part of Darwin's hypothesis." The core of Darwin's theory was that some members of species are more likely to produce offspring that survive to reproduce as a result of inherited traits. The offspring passs these traits to their offspring, and eventually the trait is spread throughout the population. This process occurs repeatedly until the population becomes a separate species. Saying that this can occur rapidly, punctuating periods of little change, does not change the basic theory.
What known bird lived before Archaeopteryx? Also, why should dinosaur-to-bird evolution be more "obvious" than it already is?
I saw Expelled, and what I had read was confirmed. I assume you have already seen Expelled, so you should explain why the rebuttals to its points at expelledexposed.com are false.
Finally, your statement that "design can "look like evolution" if it wants to" sums up the whole problem with intelligent design. If an intelligent designer is making things look like evolution, how can we trust our senses at all? Without the assumption that, whether or not God exists (and I think you will admit that "intelligent designer" refers to God), He is not creating evidence for a false theory, science cannot function. Even if one sees what seems to be incontrovertible evidence for evolution, by your statement, one can say that the designer is putting a hologram in front of your eyes that makes it look like something is there that isn't. Surely any entity capable of creating a human being can do that. I am not saying God does not exist; I believe that He does, and science cannot answer that question either way. But I also believe that a conclusion based on evidence should only be rejected based on further evidence or a new evaluation of the evidence, not by saying "the designer put that there to trick you."