How is evolution any different?

Question

I've heard many evolutionists claim that Intelligent Design is a theory of ignorance, that its basic premise is that if we can't explain it then "God dun it!" and I can certainly see their point.

However, how is that any different than evolutionist, who, although they have never observed a natural process which can explain the addition of information to an organism's genome, excuse this lack of evidence by saying "Time is a miracle worker! Give it enough time and anything can happen?"

I understand that time is something that can be understood and it tangible in some respects, but so is intelligence. There are multiple areas of science that incorporate methods of detecting intelligence.

So what's the difference?

Free Thinker

You obviously have no clue what Intelligent Designers believe. None of them believe in a young earth, and on the contrary, they all confirm the big bang theory. Some of them even go so far as to confirm evolution, saying that whatever created the universe as we know it, left it to natural processes afterward.

Vorenhut

The point is that intelligence CAN be detected. If it could not, archeology would be a pointless endeavor. Instead, there are objects that are indisputably of intelligent origin. The problem is that these instances are so obvious as to be taken for granted, but there must be some kind of mental computation we subconsciously use to arrive at such obvious conclusions.

William Dembski wrote a peer-reviewed book called "The Design Inference" which uncovers just that. Ironically, a main component of this methodology incorporates previously given patterns, which the links you sent me to says is required to detect intelligence, and claims that Intelligent Design leaves out.

Answer 1

"they have never observed a natural process which can explain the addition of information to an organism's genome"

false:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

it is certainly true that it's often difficult to tell exactly how some structure formed, mutation by mutation, but it is plainly false to say that mutations that add information have never been observed.

"There are multiple areas of science that incorporate methods of detecting intelligence."

false:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI191.html

intelligence is notoriously difficult to define, let alone detect. science can detect traces of human activity by finding things that nature doesn't produce but humans can - intelligence or design per se has nothing to do with it. many archeological artefacts are of unknown function but we can still be pretty sure that humans made them.

Answer 2

The difference is that there are mountains of evidence supporting evolution. Just because I cant watch Cro-Magnon man morph into a modern day homosapien doesn't mean that there isn't an astounding amount of evidence supporting it.

The average height of people was about 5 feet tall 2000 years ago. This has been *proven*. The average height now is significantly taller. This is pretty hefty evidence of adaptation to ones environment. More and more people are being born without an appendix. Another clue, that useless appendages are being 'phased out' by evolution. Why are people in hot, sunny parts of the world dark skinned, while their counterparts in cold, cloudy climates are pale? Its because dark skin absorbs the suns rays more effectively. with out evolution, how do you explain different races of people? The fact of the matter is, there is a TON of tangible evidence, you just need to ponder it a little more.

Answer 3

Here's the difference. ID makes no predictions. ID can't distinguish evolution from supposed intelligent design. It does nothing. It is not a scientific theory, or even a hypothesis. All ID is is "Gee golly, I can't figure out how that evolved, therefore GOD. QED." It is merely the GOD OF THE GAPS argument repackaged. (Gee Golly I can't figure out how lightning works, therefore Zeus exists and throws it).

Evolution makes predictions. Testable predictions. There is mountains of evidence supporting it including the fossil record, genetic record, and current running experiments. ID has none of those.

Answer 4

its called proof my friend. And besides, the ID backers also claim that the world is less than 10000 years old. So can you really take anything they say seriously? I know this is beating a dead horse but we see evidence in fossils-transitional even (i know, hard to believe considering every ID lobbyist talks about "gaps"). Even today we see flightless birds, gliding squirrels, flying fish, walking catfish, fish with eyes that don't see because they have lived in the deep darkness for millenia, snakes with hipbones, humans with tail bones, whales with leg bones, dolphins with finger bones, the list goes on and on.

The religious are too busy reading their sacred books to read about the reality that surrounds them. its really very sad.

Answer 5

The difference is that your premise is incorrect. The genome of this year's flu virus is slightly larger than last year's flu virus. And, last year's flu virus was slightly larger than the year before.

It's pretty simple. A mutation that adds information occurs quite simply when an extra molecule gets attached. It's pretty easy to reproduce in a lab, I'm told.

That's actual science. Evolution is fact, demonstrable in labs, and predictable with computer models. It's the unifying theory of all biology, psychology, medicine, and environmental science.

Answer 6

Who said that an intelligent design should be static?
It is much more intelligent to let it evolve from chaos towards increased organization, complexity and perfection.

Answer 7

no one is saying time is like god that intelligently designed being. The difference is that one believes that God made everything, the other believes that random happenings throughout time just happened to make things the way they are, nothing intelligent about it.

Answer 8

Just the fact that you think evolution requires "the addition of information" shows that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Did you know that a frog has over 300 times the DNA a human does?

An evolutionary change from amphibian to mammal actually requires a loss of information.

Suddenly your objection doesn't hold as much water does it?

Answer 9

The natural process have been observed. There is the fossil record. You act like evolution is a theory without evidence. There is tons. Read a book, go to the library, study a little.

Answer 10

We can reproduce mutation, natural selection, and speciation in the lab or in computer simulations. You can't reproduce intelligent design in a lab.