ID v. EV or DIVE or DIE - V - or I'VE got v. D

I disagree with the proposition being bandied about that intelligent design (ID) and Evolution (EV) are diametrically opposed. They are merely looking at the same observations and using a different word to mean the exact same concept. In ID “Intelligence” is being given to some third party. While in EV “Nature” is given a type of “intelligence” or at least, whatever it is given looks an awful lot like intelligence.

Evolution is that “Nature” (by whatever that word means) “selects” what qualities of variation are “fit” to survive until the next generation. Those qualities that are the strongest, survive, those variations that do not reproduce will not survive. This occurs in nature and is something I do not disagree with nor properly disbelieve.

Now, here’s the rub, when variation becomes so extreme “nature” again “selects” this largely varied creature to develop into a new species that is no longer able to produce offspring with the previous species. This species must either find a reasonably adaptable mate or wither and die. This is where I part company with the EV theorists because this I cannot agree with or believe. What outside force determines at which point a species is “too far”? Well, an EV theorist would answer “environment”, but that simply begs the question. What about the “environment” will lead a species to be transformed into a completely new species? EV – the aspect that led to the variation.

So, then, we must now ask, does variation occur in order to adapt to the environment or does the environment create variations in order to be adapted to. Or, is there a third possibility, that variation occurs, but without any form of purpose or predictability. If it is the first or second possibility then the EV theorist has merely personified nature with intelligence it clearly does not possess (For nature was not intelligent enough not to create rational creatures who would be capable of polluting it in such a way as to destroy it.) If it be the third theory then, and this belief be held to be the accepted scientific paradigm, then, there is NO science for there is NO reason.

If something has no purpose and cannot be predicted than science cannot exist because the true aims of science (See Sir Frances Bacon) are predictability and understanding. Understanding is impossible without a purpose. Therefore, if there is no purpose, there is no science.

It is my position that EV may, in one sense, be harmless and completely mindless not to accept and in another sense EV may destroy the very seat on which it sits.

Evolution, originally and as part of its essential elements, merely states that there are laws in nature and that one of those laws is the law of natural selection. Natural selection, in turn, recognizes that variation occurs in nature and that there seems to be a process to it.

“Not in one case out of a hundred can we pretend to assign any reason why this or that part differs, more or less, from the same part in the parents. But whenever we have the means of instituting a comparison, the same laws appear to have acted in producing the lesser differences between species of the same genus. The external conditions of life, as climate and food, etc., seem to have induced some slight modifications.” - Origin of the Species (Chap. 5 summary, Batnum Classic edition pg. 140)

That variation occurs cannot be reasonably disputed, but that this variation occurs without a processor is absent from reason.

This “process” is explained away as a fundamental law of nature, but that doesn’t answer the truly interesting questions like what is the fundamental law of nature? What is a law without a intelligent rational legislature, poor example because these types of legislatures make laws everyday, but more precisely they are composed of (unarguably?) rational creatures, namely mankind.

For what is intelligence or knowledge or wisdom for that matter without a standard on which to measure it against.

What makes one form of conduct rational and another irrational? What makes one variation succeed and another dwindle? Surely, there cannot be a “rational” or “reasoned” explanation for this phenomena.

In Sum: If evolution, as the atheist means it, be true (and there is much doubt about that going around, not just in religious circles, but within the scientific community as well which is why we’re having this debate, you think there’d be a hubbub if the only people who proffered ID were placed safely behind a pulpit?) then there is no intelligence. If there is no intelligence, then there can be no intelligent design. And, if there is no intelligent designer, there would be no atheists.

The profoundly perplexing problem of a “prime mover”
in the ev-olu…zzz...-tion…zzz…of matter.

There must exist a prime mover even to begin the process of evolution. To borrow from Chesterton, evolution is one of those slow, soft and quiet words that pacifies and hypnotizes the reader into submission without ever really answering an answerable question.
Evolution is the kind of word that satisfies and pacifies a grandmother when being told why her children’s families were late for Sunday dinner. “It was the evolution of traffic mum, it was the slow progress we made from the Church Door to the nature of the countryside, we evolved slowly…were be the vittles?” I would be happy to believe in evolution as a scientific position or even a pseudo religion if it could explain (or even attempt to explain) how something can develop (no matter how slowly) from nothing. It’s a simple question, the kind a child asks from the back seat on long rides to grandmother's house.

I disagree with intelligent design pretty much for the same reasons I disagree with evolution. It doesn’t answer any questions. I especially don’t want ID to be taught to my children in school. Who knows what type of “extra-terrestrial” intelligence people will be shoving down my children’s throats. No, I’ve developed a pretty easy explanation for this whole thing. While it’s the simplest and most easily rejected argument, I also find it to be the most comforting and the most practical and practicable answer. While it is comforting, I also find it the most difficult, perplexing, irrational, and rebellious answer.

“In the Beginning God created….”

I also don’t want this taught to my children in public school for the same reason I objected to the previous “extra-terrestrial” explanation.

While I don’t think it is morally or even philosophically unjustifiable to wonder or debate about the origin of man. Once we can agree that we (mankind) are here and we are somehow different (varry if you rather) from than every other type of creature on earth in this respect. That is when we can get to the real important questions, like what shall we do whilst we are here? and Where are we going to?