Comments on: Some thoughts on Evolution and Intelligent Design

By: Jonathan G Cannon

Fri, 26 Mar 2010 16:49:02 +0000

Hi Jon. You may be the only one to ever read this comment. My main philosophical problem with Intelligent Design, include what I read of Mike Gene’s version, is that it makes God smaller. I’m not the first person to claim this, so I’m not claiming any novelty. It’s great for someone to go looking for evidence of a front-loading hypothesis as evidence for a designer, but what happens if someone disproves the front-loading hypothesis? Your God is forced to retreat to the next level of uncertainty. This has happened many times in the last 150 years as people have shown how random mutation and natural selection resolve specific objections to the theory of evolution. My personal experience is that the God I believe in grows as I learn more about how he works, both in the physical and in the spiritual realms. I haven’t found anything in Intelligent Design that expands my view of God, but I have found much in evolution that does.

By: Eliza-Anne

Eliza-Anne — Sun, 18 May 2008 12:06:21 +0000

I highly recommend the book “Not By Chance” by Lee Spetner, published by Judaica Press. He is an Israeli physicist whose hobby is researching these issues. He is an expert in the mechanics of mutations. He seems to lean toward a similar take on evolution; that the environment turns on or off certain sections of DNA that are then expressed or unexpressed according to environmental pressures. (Just what is all that junk DNA that supposedly does nothing?) The book is totally fascinating though sometimes hard for a non-scientist to follow. But he shows rather conclusively the impossibility of the complexity involved in genetic information being built up by random chance. For one thing, mutations-~~and he carefully catalogues all types, there aren’t that many~~-are all inclined to perish by virtue of the fact that most organisms are redundant. Fish lay thousands of eggs because only a few are going to survive to adulthood and lay eggs themselves. That means that most mutations are doomed to the early death visited upon nearly all species except a few at the top of the pile. This man is not identified with any of the ID movement people. The book title and cover may be off-putting to some because they make it appear to be an attack on Darwinism. It is a well reasoned, scientifically based exposition on the difficulties with the Neo-Darwinian model that are no closer to explanation today than they were in the 19th century. Establishment scientists may pretend that we have loads and loads of scientific proof of Darwinism but by this they only mean that they have more and more fossils. This only shows change over time. I agree with J. Max that it isn’t time to close the discussion on how this change happened. The current Neo-Darwinian synthesis serves so many political and cultural purposes that it is hard to discuss it rationally and neutrally as it ought to be discussed.

By: J. Max Wilson

J. Max Wilson — Wed, 14 May 2008 07:12:47 +0000

Dimensio These are interesting requests, but I don’t think that I am obligated to rehash every argument readily available in literature by competent professionals. I suggest that you check out the book The Design Matrix by Mike Gene. As the article I recently linked in my Recommended Reading section to the top right cites, it is not just Intelligent Design advocates that are questioning the creative role of Random Mutation and Natural Selection. Dr. Piattelli-Parmarini says: “Look, when Sherman stresses that the sea urchin has, in-expressed, the genes for the eyes and for antibodies (genes that are well known and fully active in later species), how can we not agree with him that canonical neo-Darwinism cannot begin to explain such facts?” I think that the fact that sea urchins have genes for eyes and anti-bodies that could be evidence for front-loading of information.

By: Dimensio

Dimensio — Wed, 14 May 2008 05:05:43 +0000

Please describe the processes involved in the mechanism that implements the “design” of “Intelligent Design”. Specifically, explain the physical processes that were used to “front-load” DNA, as you alleged has occurred. State where these processes have been directly observed, or state the known processes used to directly derive the processes of the “design” mechanism. Explain the specific consequences of these processes occurring such that predictions of the observable aftermath of the event can be derived. Please identify the specific observations that has led you to conclude an event of “front-loading”.

By: Clark Goble

Clark Goble — Thu, 01 May 2008 07:24:26 +0000

I don’t think that’s true David. Rather I think many just get tired talking about it when people don’t attempt to get the facts. Now some are too impatient. And we should expect a lot of ignorance among the populace given the horrible science reporting by the media. However to say this is about politics seems silly – unless you mean the fear by many scientists that the already dismal level of science education in America might get worse.

By: David H. Sundwall

David H. Sundwall — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 06:58:56 +0000

Interesting post. I too lean somewhat to ID over evolution but have more generally concluded that it doesn’t matter too much.

What concerns me even more is that “derisive tone” that so many have towards those who have questions or different theories. I haven’t seen it but I understand that that’s the primary thesis of “Expelled.”

Be it evolution or global warming, many of their proponents seek to silence critics without resorting to the scientific method or facts.

My guess is that too often this to forward a political agenda rather than science.