Embracing cDesign
“cdesign proponentsists” was conceived as a term of mockery by Darwinists. But there are people who support both ID and creationism. So if you're comfortable with the term you can use it if you want.
One thing to keep in mind is that ID is more encompassing. So creationism could be called a compatible subset of ID's big tent. But so are other hypotheses created by agnostics and atheists.
Also, many ID proponents would not fit into that type of categorization. Behe is certainly not a creationist in a typical sense, nor is he a theistic evolutionist.
The biggest lie told by atheists is that Intelligent Design does not allow us to identify the "designer" - and that any candidate is therefore equally valid
ID does not prevent identification but ID within its scope itself does not PROVIDE identification. Other means outside of ID need to be used for DesignER Detection. ID itself also does not qualify ID-compatible hypotheses, so in that manner they are "equally valid". But obviously other evidence outside of ID will justify those hypotheses.
Patrick, I'm not sure it is safe to assume that the author was trying to mock, however in light of your comments I shall not let my guard down - as a long-time lurker here I've come to respect your opinion on ID matters.
I personally agree that "cDesign" is not the right kind of language to use as it confuses the entirely secular Intelligent Design with the theologically inspired Creationism. It also sounds like one of those clumsy neologisms like "podcast" or "celebutant". I'm guessing that this word is the original invention of the article's author, so I would urge Billiad to re-consider the way he presents his ideas. What sounds catchy to him might sound crude and uncultured to other ears.
I personally disagree with much of what the above article is proposing, however I am all to familiar with the feeling of having one's point of view excluded from the mainstream simply because of the prejudice of others. ( I hope to blog about my point of view in the next few days. )
I feel that it is one of the key strengths of the ID movement that we are a big-tent which is not in the habit of excluding genuine contributors simply because their ideas do not 100% correspond with our own. Were it not the case I would be violently clashing with every YEC I meet simply because we differ over the relatively unimportant issue of the age of the Earth.
I will save that kind of bickering for our friends the neo-Darwinists whose mockery seems to know no limit.
Jimmy
Thank you for your kind comments.
According to the Nova documentary on the "Dover" trial, the words "cdesign proponentsists” appeared in a draft "Pandas & People" - which is surely one of the most important books of the 20th century!? If this is not true please tell me - and I will gladly withdraw my first post!?
But I am happy for it to be true... Because yes, the Darwinists use the term in mockery, but more fool them! Because this story shows that "beneficial" "mutations" do not happen in nature - they only happen through the will of an intelligent designer... In this case it is the writers of "Pandas & People", in the case of life it is the will of the Divine
Designer.
(In fact, it strikes me now that if any "beneficial" "mutations" ever did appear in a laboratory setting, this could be exciting proof of the power of "will" in design - could it not be the will of the experimenter crating this mutation!?)
Can the Darwinists show any example of words spontaneously forming from random letters to make sensible words? I challenge them here and now to do just that - or to pack up their snake-oil in their carpet bags and leave the investigation of the origins of life to the truly great minds of our time... Minds like Dembski and Behe and Simmons and Wells. (And did you know that 150+ IQ's all but exclusively reject evolution and accept ID!?!?)
And yes, Patrick, I understand that means outside ID are needed to identify the Designer. That is the scope of my current studies in divinity and theology. Once I have completed my higher degrees, my dream is to work in a real science lab alongside real scientists to help devise methods to prove to the godless secular scientific community once and for all not only that the Designer exists, but that His nature (whatever the Designer turns out to be) is Divine.
And Jimmygoddard, I totally agree that the age of the earth is completely irrelevant to the question of our biological origins. You are completely correct. And yet the Darwinists mock us as if we were mindless cretins for saying just that! Their mockery does know no limit. Be comforted that the judgement of the Lord is upon them.
I for one would be glad to wear a t-shirt with the slogan "cdesign proponentsist and proud of it". In fact, if anyone else would like one let me know - we could ask a Christian clothing company to make some up!?
Because this story shows that "beneficial" "mutations" do not happen in nature
Actually, they do. Some via trivial variation like the famous finch beaks. Most are destructive but are beneficial under certain conditions. And then there are a few examples of constructive beneficial mutations that are minor in scope. The problem Darwinists face is that none are IC nor do they qualify as new CSI (modification of pre-existing CSI, yes).
Patrick, You are quite right that beneficial mutations can occur, provided we understand "beneficial" in the Darwinist sense of improving chances to leave descendants. However, I am not so sure that the finch beaks provide an example.
For the average finch beak size to increase, it is not necessary to have any mutations at all. In fact, the very, very short time frame in which the average increased and then decreased (just a few years) gives a clue that we are not looking at mutations pushing the average up and then down again. All that is necessary is for a disproportionate number of small beak finches to die. That increases the average beak size. When rains return and the relative number of small beak finches is restored, the average returns to what it was.
If you have a room full of standing people and ask the short ones to sit down, the average height of those still standing immediately increases -- but it wouldn't mean that any individual changed size. If those sitting down stand up again, the average reverts to what it was, just as with the finches.
Behe's new book The Edge of Evolution looks carefully at multiple examples of actual beneficial mutations, but finds that predominantly these modifications are self-damaging and tend to be beneficial in the same sense that it can be beneficial to blow up one of your bridges in war if it prevents an invader from reaching you.
BTW, your earlier clarification about ID not preventing but being unable to provide the identity of the designer is spot on. I agree that the scientific data can only take us so far.
Author Mike Gene has asked ID antagonists (who expect ID to take a position on the designer) how this could be inferred from the scientific data, but none have been able to indicate how this could be reasonably expected.
Hello Patrick
My argument is that beneficial "mutations" within microevolution are not "mutations" at all but are in fact evidence of preloading (by some intelligent designer, perhaps!?). This would of course mean that non-beneficial mutations would have to have an entirely distinct and different explanation. I am beyond certain that non-materilistic investigations of these phenomena will quickly bring results, as it will in all fields where ID Theory is investigated.
There is a very exciting article which could be relevant to such matters at Uncommon Descent by Flannery (a writer I do not know). I hope anyone interested in ID will read it closely.
I also think that this is one of the best arguments against the notion of an ancient earth. From everything I have read, the best evidence for an "old earth" is that a lot of time would have been required for evolution to occur. But since the evidence is that macroevolution cannot and therefore does not occur, then QED the main evidence in favor of an "old earth" falls away. There are some very good articles on this topic at certain websites if anyone would like links. (and I not sure what the linking policy is from this website?)
Denyse O'Leary also has some excellent articles today about how complex life appeared suddenly in the so-called "Avalon Explosion". I am in now way any sort of expert in paleontology or biology, but after reading these articles I can honesty say I have no idea how anyone could possibly believe in Darwinism except through deliberate, willful, deceitful ignorance.
It's possible that SOME but not all forms of constructive microevolution are due to frontloading and/or designed mechanisms triggered by the environment but so far these mechanisms have not be identified (to be fair, scientists are still trying to understand the overall design itself, never mind specific mechanisms). But I highly doubt destructive microevolution is caused by designed mechanisms.
There was a development that I read about some time ago that I have no link for now. Perhaps someone else will remember the specific details.
As I remember it, it was found that bacteria have safeguards against random mutations, but that some of these can be relaxed in stages when the bacteria is under pressure. So, with the safeguards inhibited, the mutation rate was allowed to increase. The experiments may have been exposing them to radiation, but I am not certain.
Sorry I cannot be more specific, but perhaps someone else can be.
As a hypothesis, it is possible that life could be designed to be stable in normal conditions, but have options for flexible revision in times of stress so as to be resilient to survive through difficult conditions.
We do know there can be a cost to mutations such that the revised version is generally less fit than the original. When placed back into competition with the original version, once the original threat is removed, the original version can win out over the mutated one.
bililiad: "I also think that this is one of the best arguments against the notion of an ancient earth. From everything I have read, the best evidence for an "old earth" is that a lot of time would have been required for evolution to occur. But since the evidence is that macroevolution cannot and therefore does not occur, then QED the main evidence in favor of an "old earth" falls away."
In all fairness to all parties, I believe it is important to work toward the common standard of aiming to represent other peoples views accurately and fairly, even if we don't agree with them. I expect you would not want to be misrepresented. So, we should aim to be careful as far as we are able to give others the same consideration of accurate representation.
So, while I'm not aiming to turn this into another "is the earth young" discussion, in all fairness it should be made clear that the needs of evolution are not the best evidence for an old earth or an old universe. It would be a disservice to portray others that way.
Briefly, even though I do not believe undirected natural processes could ever produce life (whether in billions or trillions of years -- it does not matter -- time is not the main problem), the strongest evidences for an old universe have nothing to do with evolution.
First among them is the fact that we observe events in the heavens that happened millions of years ago. I know of attempts to dodge this (speed of light change, gravitational/relativistic effects, etc.), but they have serious problems and I do not find them to be persuasive. A second category is the strong evidence from radiometric dating. Before responding quickly to this according to what you may have been taught, please study this article, which corrects many mistaken ideas.
Radiometric Dating
A Christian Perspective
by Dr. Roger C. Wiens
http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html
I don't believe God made the universe to look deceptively old. I am persuaded it looks old because it is old. This in no way rescues the extravagant claims made for Darwinian processes. Every scientific claim needs to be scrutinized on its own merits or weaknesses.
I tried to post this to a "blog" on this website, but it hasn't appeared. So apologies if this is a duplicate.
==
I must write anonymously, because where I live creationists and ID Proponents are treated like blithering idiots with nothing useful to say about science.
And yet I am educated, with a law degree and many years of legal practice behind me. Why should I not be entitled to contribute to the debate about the biological origins of life?
It is no exaggeration to say that I risk my professional and social standing just to say here: "Yes, I accept a Creator God, who loves me and has the absolute right to demand that I love Him as he requires". Others may prefer to live without morals and infinite love. But I cannot.
I am every bit as able to read the scientific literature as so-called "professional" biologists... And the credentials of the many hundreds of scientists who support creationism and intelligent design are all the more impressive than those of the evolutionists, for they were earned in the face of overwhelming opposition to faith which has permeated every aspect of our secular society.
We have the Truth behind us, and the twisted logic, godless reason and manufactured evidence of the so-called "educated and intelligent" means nothing.
One thing which surprises me is how the ID Community have not embraced the term “cdesign proponentsists”, much beloved of the Fools who have said in their that that there is no God. I cannot find these words anywhere on the websites of The Discovery Institute , Uncommon Descent or Answers In Genesis, in particular. Yes, these words show the link between Creationism and Intelligent Design, but the evolutionists own "beliefs" (or *lack* of beliefs, they dishonestly claim) prove them wrong.
Yes, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is still a duck. The science of Baraminology says as much. But microevolution has allowed ducks to evolve since the Flood to an extent where different types of ducks may not interbreed, and this analogy holds true to Creationism and Intelligent Design Theory. The two are now so separate and distinct that they are entirely different species. But they are still ducks.
As Religious Conservatives, we should never be ashamed of our past, and thus I say we should embrace the label "cdesign proponentsists" every bit as much as the evolutionists champion their imaginary common ancestor between humans and chimpanzees. The differences is of course we can show *our* common ancestor, in black and white... When the evolutionists can show me a duck which has evolved to not be a duck, or a complete set of transitional fossils showing monkeys becoming human, then and only then will evolutionism be science.
What could be more offensive than the idea of common ancestry? No Christian mother would sleep with a monkey. And yet that is exactly what evolutionism claims - that our great-great-great-great-great-great grandmothers slept with monkeys. If that does not offend you, consider this: evolutionism gives no reason why your sister should not sleep with a monkey. Why should she not give her child the evolutionary advantage of a tail? Without God to guide us, anything is permissible. Even lying with the beasts of the field. Yes, it is easy to see the true motivations of evolutionists. Just look at how much they talk of sex between species.
Another advantage of accepting the term "cdesign proponentsists", is that it clearly shows why Creationism and Intelligent Design are not the same things.
For the ignorant, I should explain that Creationism is the belief that a Creator God created life forms in a mature and fully functioning form, without gods becoming cats, or amoebas becoming bats, or monkeys sleeping with your aunts. Intelligent Design simply claims "that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable."
The biggest lie told by atheists is that Intelligent Design does not allow us to identify the "designer" - and that any candidate is therefore equally valid, be it God, Zeus, The Devil, or even the hateful Flying Spaghetti Monster. They are wrong of course, because at the ends of Intelligent Design, and across our transitional barrier, comes Creationism, which shows that the Creator God is none other than the God of our fathers, the God of Abraham... The Lord our God Jesus Christ, the Saviour.
'bililiad"
login or register to post comments | 0 points