Me vs Scott Part 8 Reasons Why Evolution Apparently Didn't Happen Alone
I don't think the case is as open and shut as you claim, Jon. I tend not to spend a great deal of time advocating for ID, and ID is not part of why I believe in God. I'm okay with the idea that evolution may have played a significant role in our present complexity. I do not accept that it happened alone, and I draw that conclusion for two reasons:
1. Scientific studies pointing out that the age of our solar system is not old enough for unguided evolutionary processes alone to have been responsible for life's present complexity
2. The absence of any explanation for how life sprang into being out of non-life
Short version: You provide no evidence that the age of the solar system in insufficient for evolution, and the lack of an explanation for life doesn’t mean god did it you have to prove that.
Longer version: With regards to "1.", which “studies” would those be? More details about the specifics of your claim would be very helpful, because at the moment, I’m not sure whether you’re stumping for YEC nonsense (which would, if true, preclude there being enough time for evolution to have occurred), or for Walter Remine’s nonsense (which is okay with what real science says about the age of the Solar System, but foolishly demands that evolution would necessarily take even longer than that amount of time), or perhaps for some other flavor of nonsense entirely. You might want to browse through the Index to Creationist Claims http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html ; if whatever nonsense you’re arguing for is on said Index, you would be well-advised to, at minimum, read up on the real-science rebuttal(s) to your nonsense, and demonstrate that real science has gotten it wrong in this context. Or, you know, not.
On your "2.", if you’re referring to the fact that abiogenesis is a topic for which we don’t have all the answers, then yeah, you’re right: We *don’t* have all the answers. [shrug] I don’t quite see how you get from “I don’t know” to “therefore, God”, but if that’s what makes you happy, go for it. Just don’t try to force your argument-from-ignorance into school curricula, okay?
If you are, instead, arguing that we have *absolutely no clue whatsoever* about abiogenesis, well, that’s just wrong. We *know* that mindless, undirected chemistry is perfectly capable of generating amino acids without any need for a Designer’s intervention; we *know* that random concatenations of amino acids *can and do* have biologically-relevant chemical properties. Both of these facts being the case, it’s pretty clear that we have *more* than just a clue about abiogenesis, even if the clues we *do* have fall tragically short of the notarized-videotape-of-every-millisecond-of-the-process ‘standard’ of evidence you Creationists demand of real scientists while, at the same time, you *also* are perfectly happy to accept some-guy-said-so as conclusive, irrefutable ‘evidence’ for the Creationist nonsense *you* happen to accept.
But I am very glad to hear that you don’t base your Christian belief on the truth or falsehood of ID. Because there are a couple of fatal problems in the way ID is often used to justify belief in God.
The two that spring to mind are: An unidentified ‘intelligent designer’ doesn’t lead to the conclusion of ‘therefore, God’ – which is often how ID is used to justify the belief in God, despite the fact that there could be any other number or kinds of ‘intelligent designer’ that would not be considered deities – particularly when we allow for unknowable unknowns.
The other is to do with another way that ID is mistakenly used to conclude that the world is designed. The argument goes something like this:
1) X demonstrates specified complexity 2) By definition, that which demonstrates specified complexity is both complex and designed Therefore C) X is designed
The problem with this is that in order to prove that a thing demonstrates specified complexity, the argue-er must first demonstrate that it is both complex and designed. But if the argue-er could have proven that it was designed up front, then they wouldn’t need to bother with the argument itself. If the arge-er cannot prove that X is designed up-front, then they cannot assert that X demonstrates specified complexity.
These two fatal flaws in ways that Intelligent Design is commonly used to justify belief in a cosmic designer are, well… fatal. So it’s good to know you don’t rely on Intelligent Design in this way.
All the same, given that you are an advocate of Intelligent Design, I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on my critique of ID. I’ve presented these problems that I have with ID to other ID proponents and been met with silence or a change in topic. You’re under no obligation to do so, of course. I’m just curious as to what you think.