Oct 172005

One of the popular arguments that DesignDeniersâ„¢ like to trot out against Intelligent Design is, “ID is an argument from ignorance” . The DesignDeniersâ„¢ use this argument to criticize ID for not having enough imagination. In other words, just because Design theorists can’t conceive of how certain biological functions could have come about. It doesn’t mean that it can’t have happen through an unguided naturalistic means. DarwinDefendersâ„¢ claim that this current ignorance is nothing more than a gap in their knowledge. DarwinDefendersâ„¢ have faith that this ignorance will be filled with their increasing knowledge. The DarwinDefendersâ„¢ are proud to be ignorant. Their faith in materialistic naturalism is strong.

For the honest skeptic we recognize that science must work within the confines of empirical evidence, empirical evidence that is observable and available. We can’t base science on faith, fairytales and wishful imagination. From all available data that the scientific world has, Darwinian naturalism is incapable of producing novel organs let alone new distinct species.

DarwinDefendersâ„¢ like the atomists, flat earthers, and the ether supporters have the best explanation for the world. They all recognize that there are gaps in their knowledge. They are confident that their faith in their ignorance will be vindicated in future advances. The problem for the DarwinDefendersâ„¢ is that we now know enough about how evolution works. Like the modern atomic theory, spherical earth and the special relativity have displaced their predecessors; our biological understandings have displaced Darwinian common descent. What the DarwinDefendersâ„¢ are left with is political suppression of their critics through misrepresentation and denial of evidence.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
16 years ago

What evidence have you that “Darwinian naturalism” is incapable of producing new organs? How do you define “organs?” Is a new function for an existing organ different from a new organ?

And what about those new species we have observed to arise? How can you say nature is incapable of producing what we have observed it to produce?

Or are you going to argue that radishes and broccoli are really just the same species in slightly different dress?

16 years ago

Ed, I appreciate your zealot defense of your Darwinian faith, but we must face the facts. Through centuries of artificial selective breeding and over 150 years of the Darwinian storytelling, we just don’t have any empirical evidence of new and novel forms from random mutation and selection. Science can’t operate on disproving a negative. You are right we can’t prove the Darwinism is incapable of producing novel forms, but we just don’t have any evidence of it. We can’t prove there is no tooth fairy either; we just don’t have any evidence of it.

How do I define organs? I doubt you want a technical definition. I will give you a few examples such as the eye, brain, wing, and heart.

And what about those new species we have observed to arise?

Ed, I’ve told you this before but I will repeat it once again. You just can’t call every variation/microevolution of a species a new species, like your ring species example. This is a mere variation of the same species.

To find macroevolution you will have to show evidence of say a cow like animal becomes a giraffe or a eyeless animal develops a compound eye. This is true macroevolution and novel forms.

16 years ago

Ed writes:What evidence have you that “Darwinian naturalism” is incapable of producing new organs?

It is statements such as this (and Ed’s question is a statement), that, if they truly represent the position of Darwinists, would be a flat out admission that Darwinian evolution is virtually unfalsifiable. What Darwinists like Ed want is to hold off final judgment until every last possible evolutionary pathway has been studied and tried…a virtually impossible task given possibilities near inifinity. The demand is simply inappropriate to a true scientific endeavor.

The only answer to such a question is that Darwinists need to show how the tools of naturalism, that is to say, the blind, purposeless, unguided process of RM/NS, account for the full variety of biological systems we observe. Telling us we can walk from L.A. to Japan because you’ve discovered the Hawaiian Islands isn’t an explanation.