Re: Stereotypes and reputations

From: Glenn Morton <>
Date: Mon Aug 01 2005 - 17:45:59 EDT

Cornelius Hunter <> wrote:Responding to Glenn and Ted:

I am opposed to evolution because it is not a good theory. I did not say "ID says nothing about evolution." I said: "A common misconception is that ID is at the evolution level; that is, an explanation for how the species arose, and by extension, all of natural history."
GRM: So ID isn't an exlanation of how species arose. If ID doesn't say anything about how species arose, why do people use ID to argue against evolution? You are so inconsistent with this that I think you really don't understand what your fellow ID folks are saying. At the Nature of Nature conference, I heard 5 different ID proposals for how the designer--the non-god from Betelgeuse--inserted new genetic information into the living systems so that new species could come about. These different ideas came from Paul Nelson, Michael Behe, Steve Meyer, and a couple of other guys.Clearly they were trying to explain how species arose. Maybe you should get out more with your fellow ID folks and actually listen to what they say.
Jonathan Wells seems to disagree with your assertion
"From a design perspective, however, it is possible to regard
develoment as an end-directed process. If organisms are designed,
which is to say produced according to a preconceived plan, then in
some sense their final form precedes their embryonic development.
Rather than rolling freely down the hill, the developmental ball is
attracted to its final resting place, which it could conceivably reach
by a variety of routes unless it is prevented from doing so by
obstacles along the way. Such thinking is anathema to neo-Darwinism,
but before Darwin it was commonplace for embryologists to regard
development as an end-directed process." Jonathan Wells, "Recent
Insights from Developmental Biology," in William A. Dembski, ed., Mere
Creation, (Downer's Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1998), p. 51-70,
CH wrote:My arguments against evolution are based on comparing the theory and its claims with what we actually know from biology. Evolution has difficulty with comparative anatomy, small-scale adaptive change, at the molecular level, embryonic development, complexity, etc. The problems I've mentioned here are only a sampling. You are right that design theory doesn't account for why the design changed all the time (at least in my opinion; perhaps some IDers might think otherwise). What was God's reason for biosphere makeovers? I don't know.
GRM: OK< another inconsistency here. In a previous note you claimed that this was not about God, now you talk about God, you claimed that ID had nothing to do with theology and avoided a question in my first post, now you talk about God the designer. Why can't you get your story straight?
GRM: And now you start talking about adaptive change, which IS what drives speciation, when above you claimed that ID had nothing to do with how speciation occurs. Once again, you flip flop in a most ad hoc fashion. Discussing things with you is like trying to nail down jello.

CH wrote: If so, then the many violations of this nested hierarchy would falsify evolution. But the theory remains unfalsified, because in fact this really is not a prediction of evolution; rather, it is yet another whipping boy against creation. Of course, this "God wouldn't create a Linnean pattern" is precisely one of the many strong theological arguments made by Darwin for evolution. Religion trumps science. As with most of Darwin's arguments, it parallels earlier concerns from 17th or 18th c., this time as voiced by Kant and Bernoulli vis-a-vis the solar system.
GRM:Please list these violations. BAld, evidentiaryless assertions are worthless. YOu seem to think that if you say somethign we must automatically believe that you know what you are talking about. Surely you don't think that horses are to be classified with abalone do you?

 Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
Received on Mon Aug 1 17:48:12 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Aug 01 2005 - 17:48:12 EDT