Let's study ID: clearly answering Darwin (Introduction)

by dhw, Sunday, February 13, 2022, 12:31 (1012 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: He [Darwin] tries to find an explanation for vestigial structures and concludes that they are hereditary. Of course it’s not evidence for evolution: he is simply trying to explain those facts that might be seen as damaging to his theory: If natural selection gets rid of useless things, why do such useless things survive? He might have added the possibility that if a feature does not cause actual harm, it might survive through heredity.

DAVID: You miss Hunter's point, In Darwin-speak improving fitness is required. If natural selection makes for advances in evolution (with fitness) why didn't natural selection remove the webbings?

Darwin says “heredity”, and I have added my little piece.

DAVID: He shows how critics of design blame only God and ignore natural selection (NS) for blame. Both sides make the same argument about the other.

Fair comment. Thank you. I wish you and he wouldn’t attack Darwin, though, for the bias of those with their own religious or anti-religious agendas. I see nothing wrong with Darwin’s own explanation – especially with my little addition. Do you?

QUOTE: “The theological claim that divine intent is strictly utilitarian is uniquely evolutionary. It makes for powerful arguments for evolution, but the power derives from the theology. Mark this: the stronger the argument for evolution, the stronger its theological commitment. Absent theology, there is little reason to believe the entire biological world arose spontaneously, as evolutionists heroically claim.”

dhw: This is the last straw. The theory of evolution does not purport to explain the origin of life! It seeks to explain Chapter 2 of life, i.e. the origin of species. […] The power of Darwin’s argument lies in his observations of the similarities between organisms, with variations that develop into separate species, suggesting common ancestry. Millions of scientists, faced with the same empirical data, draw the same conclusion, and they include vast numbers of religious people, who acknowledge that the theory does NOT exclude God as creator of the whole process. We do not have to accept all the details of the theory (I for one support common descent wholeheartedly but reject the concept of random mutations as the creative force behind innovation), but that does not in any way invalidate the empirical observations on which the theory is based, and it certainly doesn’t mean that support of the theory draws its power from theology. (dhw's bold)

DAVID: Darwinism is nothing more than a faith, Hunter's point. I agree. As for origin of life, Darwin's ignoring the huge problem is pure cop out. It must be included in all considerations of 'why' we exist.

Darwinism as Darwin offered it is not a faith but a theory. It does not set out to explain “why” we exist, but is confined to explaining HOW life developed from single cells through to the complexities of all life forms including ourselves. Hunter is right to point out that theology must play a part in the discussion, because one theory is that there is a God who designed every species separately, and Darwin could hardly have ignored a theory which had been accepted for so long by so many. But that most emphatically does NOT mean that his theory of common descent draws its power from theology! It is based solely on Darwin’s observation and interpretation of the empirical evidence. As above, the theory regarding the mechanisms whereby the changes take place is of course highly speculative, but even the random mutations concept – which you and I reject – is neither pro nor anti God (although in later editions, he repeatedly mentions the Creator – a fact which atheist evolutionists like to ignore). The theory of natural selection seems to me to be pure common sense: generally those organs and organisms which survive will do so if they are well equipped to survive in the conditions under which they live. I don’t see how that derives its power from theology. Do you?