The Inadequacy of Intelligent Design 1/3

The eminent evolutionary biologist Francisco J. Ayala presents his opening case for the inadequacy of intelligent design at Indiana University. He was debating the prominent Christian philosopher and apologist William Lane Craig.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Francisco
• J.
• Ayala
• William
• Lane
• Craig
• Intelligent
• Design
• Evolution

[raoskaos]

Back to Craig...

He doesn't "believe" in evolution, or he denies evolution. Hm...

You know, the problem of agnosticism is problematic one. Kinda think of it...

I think that I'm agnostic about agnosticism... : )

I don't know...

[Christianjr4]

"He doesn't "believe" in evolution, or he denies evolution"

No, his position is more that he neither believes nor disbelieves it, neither affirms nor denies it, neither for or against it etc. That's agnosticism more or less.

[mojorhythm]

@Christianjr4

In one of his Q&A things, he said progressive creationism seems to be most plausible to him, so I guess he has finally come out of the closet as a creationist.

[Christianjr4]

@mojorhythm

Hi mojorhythm. Progressive creationism is not creationism, as commonly understood. It's the view that God intervened in certain circumstances to create new life forms or at least help the process along. More specifically, Craig's view of "progressive creation" is one that embraces macroevolution in most cases, but with the guidance of God. That's very close to theistic evolution. That's hardly creationism.

[herbiepop]

The ID concept is that all things are designed. If that is so design cannot be distinguished from non-design. The watch is designed as is the sand upon which it lies. Design itself becomes a non-identifiable quality.

[michalchik]

You know, the evidence is in. He either needs to come out and say that he is not qualified to render an opinion. Say he trusts the experts in the field, or he need to go get educated and present a coherent argument for or against it. His evolutionary agnosticism hits me as simply pandering to the conservative base while not taking a risk of getting nailed to the wall by people who actually know what hey are talking about. Appease the ignorant and while avoiding the wrath of the competent.

[DigitalDecadence]

@Drgamedood ID is the view that some features of the universe and of life, are best explained by a designer. That is it. You aren't wrong about the Dover trial, but since then ID has been reformed and refined into something which doesn't merely mean 'creationism'. Theistic evolution is ID, but ID isn't theistic evolution always.

[Drgamedood]

@DigitalDecadence Well that isn't how the term "Intelligent Design" is understood by the public, scientific community, etc. It certainly wasn't understood that way during the dover trial. What you're talking about is theistic evolution. "Intelligent Design", as commonly understood, is the denial that evolution can account for the diversity of life. And that a designer was necessary.

Craig seems to come off as an old earth creationist, at least in my opinion.

[DigitalDecadence]

@Drgamedood That isn't always the case. Intelligent design merely means that there was an intelligence behind the creation of the universe and the life within it. it could be God, it could also be the Predator. You seem to be confusing Young Earth Creationists with just Creationists in general.

All theists are Creationists, Ayala, myself and Dr Craig included. But none of us are Young Earth Creationists which is the view you are talking about.

[Drgamedood]

@DigitalDecadence Intelligent Design proponents deny that the evolutionary process can account for the diversity of life. Contrary to what you think, they do NOT think that evolution did happen, that it was "guided by god", but rather that we were all designed in our present form.

[DigitalDecadence]

@Drgamedood It doesn't matter, you are still a creationist. As God started it all, as long as God is in the picture, you are a creationist, which is why this debate is so strange to me.

[Drgamedood]

@DigitalDecadence Not necessarily. you can be a christian and accept theistic evolution. Like Kenneth Miller or Francis Collins.

[DigitalDecadence]

@Drgamedood I'm not sure you understood my comment - if Ayala is a Christian, then he believes ID is true, he cannot be a Christian and not believe that God created the universe. So that's why I'm asking how on earth can Ayala be opposing ID and also remain a Christian theist, the two positions are mutually exclusive.

[Drgamedood]

@DigitalDecadence Unlike some christians, Ayala is intellectually honest enough not to deny well established science and favor pseudoscience nonsense like ID.

[DigitalDecadence]

I'm confused. Ayala is a Christian, how on earth is he NOT ID?

[sonnetxi]

@raoskaos the notion of angosticism isnt that complicated in my mind. the idea is complicated by the limits and ambiguity of the language we use. we use the word "believe to represent different degrees of certainty in different contexts. it can either represent absolute faith, or scientific certainty based on observation. but as you might agree, scientific fact dont represent epistemological truth....this is what makes religion so much more stubborn and superficial than science.