Re: Is there evidence of design?

From: Pim van Meurs <>
Date: Mon Nov 14 2005 - 16:05:40 EST

Cornelius Hunter wrote:

> Terry:
> Sorry for the terse message, let me elaborate a bit. I wonder if you
> or others find evidence for design in creation, with whatever caveats
> you would attach.You have responded that (i) you do feel there is
> evidence for design (eg, the ETC exhibits function and IC), (ii) but
> such design could have evolved, (iii) and such a process of evolution
> was God-designed and God-guided, and (iv) you have doubts about
> whether the evidence from creation reveals any "superimposed
> purposefulness detectable from the outside."
> My point is that this position easily falls within the ID framework.
> Indeed, if God designed and guided the process it fits well. You asked:
> "Not sure what your last sentence means. If by that you mean that
> evolution is a God-designed, -guided process, and that irreducible
> complexity can arise by such means, then I readily concur. If you
> mean, the process and results evidence some kind of superimposed
> purposefulness detectable from the outside, then I have my doubts."
> Yes, I meant that ID does not rule out evolutionary processes.

It may be helpful to understand what ID actually claims, namely that one
can reliably detect ID in nature. Such a claim becomes less tenable when
one starts moving towards a front loading position in which God
'designed' the original Big Bang for instance or when one argues that
God's guidance is indistinguishable from natural processes.

It's this lack of positive content (among various other reasons) that
makes ID scientifically vacuous.

Of course ID does not rule out evolutionary processes, the evidence is
too strong for that, but ID argues based on flawed logic and science
that it can show that one can nevertheless detect ID reliably and not
just any ID but ID by a transcendent designer.

Let's see what the dictionary says about this:

*tran·scen·dent* Audio pronunciation of "transcendent"
( P ) *Pronunciation Key*
<> (trn-sndnt)

   1. Surpassing others; preeminent or supreme.
   2. Lying beyond the ordinary range of perception: “fails to achieve a
      transcendent significance in suffering and squalor” (National
   3. _/Philosophy./_
         1. Transcending the Aristotelian categories.
         2. In Kant's theory of knowledge, being beyond the limits of
            experience and hence unknowable.
   4. Being above and independent of the material universe. Used of the

If ID were so compatible with evolutionary science, why then is ID so
involved in arguing that evolutionary processes in some cases where our
ignorance does not allow us to establish exact pathways or mechanisms,
could not have happened and 'thus require an intelligent designer'?
Received on Mon Nov 14 16:06:46 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Nov 14 2005 - 16:06:46 EST