That leaves the purely empirical, scientific arguments for macroevolution. These are all circumstantial because tons of "convergent" evolution has to be posited for similar functions, anatomy, morphology, molecular sequences, etc. And of course the gaps in the fossil record are large and systematic, and many morphological intermediates are believed to have nothing to do with common ancestry. To get beyond the circumstantiality, then, the argument has been made that "a wise or benevolent God wouldn't have done X," therefore design is ruled out on those grounds alone. But that is a philosophical argument, not an empirical one. But that kind of argument does the lion share of epistemological work for many a macroevolutionist to get them beyond the circumstantiality of the empirical data. Darwin himself had already questioned the existence of a benevolent God on "problem of evil" grounds alone. Dawkins and others are just as explicit in their admissions to the same effect.

Thus, once a benevolent designer is ruled out on philosophical grounds, most people aren't interested in ID at all, because a non-benevolent designer is either uninteresting or counter-intuitive to them. So all the circumstantiality of the empirical evidence is irrelevant to them. Dawkins has even said that he thinks a non-benevolent God, like that posited by Anthony Flew, is a reasonable possibility. But then he seems to forget that he can't have his cake and eat it too. For Anthony Flew questions the very thesis of a purely naturalistic explanation of life precisely on "design" grounds. It seems that theology implications are inseparable from the biological origins debates, as one Federal judge opined. For if life itself is not a product of teleology, we have reason to suspect that our teleological thinking is illusory, just like Dawkins claims, or extremely unreliable.

Post Edited (Similtude) : 9/23/2009 4:28:31 PM (GMT-5)

No arguments were presented at the Dover trial that ID'ers were not already fully aware of. So the Dover trial clearly would have had no impact on the debate.

ID'ists say that just because a 3-wheel vehicle can be "viewed" as transitional to a 4-wheel vehicle, we know that final causes are involved in the origin of both. Now, when someone can algorithmically model the evolution of a 4-wheel vehicle from a 3-wheel vehicle using only non-final causes, or when we can observe such a repeatable evolution, then we're talking science and not philosophical preference. We're nowhere near that.

And Miller does agree that the problem of evil rules out ID. So it is of no avail to contend that such a view of the problem of evil doesn't do the necessary epistemological work for Miller. After all, apart from final causes and naturalistic macroevolution, what other realistically plausible possibilities are there? Once you've eliminated on philosophical grounds one of only two realistic possibilities, then the remaining one is rendered true independent of evidence beyond the microevolution we all observe all the time (unless you want to embrace radical skepticism instead, i.e.).

All other evidence is circumstantial, because equivocal. As such, it leads to contradictory conclusions quite often. The following two quotes by macroevolutionists express the problem succinctly:

"As morphologists with high hopes of molecular systematics, we end this survey with our hopes dampened. Congruence between molecular phylogenies is as elusive as it is in morphology and as it is between molecules and morphology."

"That molecular evidence typically squares with morphological patterns is a view held by many biologists, but interestingly, by relatively few systematists. Most of the latter know that the two lines of evidence may often be incongruent."

Post Edited (Similtude) : 9/26/2009 10:33:49 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Similtude) : 9/27/2009 8:30:42 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Tom) : 9/28/2009 12:42:02 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Sahid) : 9/28/2009 10:31:39 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Sahid) : 9/29/2009 5:30:24 PM (GMT-5)

Got it, Zach. You're against public school because it's compulsory. And you're against government, so you're against the constitution since it is to be enforced--since it is the supreme law of the land. So what difference does it make to you where anyone stands on the matter of what should be taught in public schools since you oppose public education? They're all wrong to you!

ID'ists couldn't care less what people teach in private schools. That, by definition, is a private matter which can't, therefore, have any relevance to the 1st amendment. It's the COMPULSORY nature of public education that creates the problems when you're contradicting people's religious beliefs with speculation. ID'ists, for the most part, don't even advocate teaching ID in public schools. They say teach the controversy about macroevolutionary speculation as it truly exists amongst scientists if we are going to teach what contradicts people's religious beliefs in State education. But many anti-ID'ists have a cow over that, even.

The recent Dover case was over a teacher referring to a book in the library that students could read if they WANTED to learn about the ID perspective. They were taken to federal court for THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!! For you to argue as if the ID'ists are the intolerant ones speaks volumes. ID'ists don't even argue against macroevolution, per se. They merely contend that events (including biological origin events like the origin of the first cell, e.g.) can result from final causes as well as non-final causes. There is much diversity of opinion about the specifics of that amongst ID'ists. They're literally MERELY saying that we can't know scientifically (yet, at least) that there is NOT a designer that had a hand in the origin of certain things, like certain biological origins. And for that, they're taken to court.

Post Edited (Similtude) : 9/29/2009 10:54:08 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Tom) : 9/29/2009 11:45:03 PM (GMT-5)

Daniel: I'm not sure if Behe or anyone else has decided to test his (and Intelligent Designs) testable hypotheses. Last I heard he refused to do the work himself, and I doubt anyone else is going to use their funding to do his research for him.

Jeff: As I understand it, ID per se, is not falsifiable, because it includes thinking everything resulted from a Big Bang. Certain specific ID predictions are. The only way Behe's hypothesis about irreducible complexity can be falsified is by showing that such evolution can happen with a realistic probabilitiy in the posited time frame. We have no empirical reason to believe that it can at this time. But think about it, Daniel. Why are people so rabidly dogmatic about a belief that isn't falsifiable or testable or known to be anything more than a conceivable interpretation of circumstantial data? And yet the anti-ID'ists that act like the world is coming to an end when a teacher recommends to a student a book in the library ARE just that rabidly dogmatic. Why are really smart scientists told they can't be fit to teach science just because they publicly avow that they suspect final causes are involved in certain biological (or non-biological) origin events?

I'm truly amazed how mind-bogglingly dogmatic and intolerant people can be. It speaks volumes about their objectivity. Why would I trust the ability of Miller to properly evaluate equivocal, circumstantial evidence when he's so confused he thinks macroevolution somehow solves the problem of evil? I'll think for myself, thank you very much. And it's people like Miller that act like it's all just self-evident to anyone who isn't literally retarded.

Daniel: Why can't we suggest that the divinely purposed Big Bad was the final cause, and there was no need for anything else?

Jeff: We're talking public schools here. Why would you suggest that in a public school? What evidence do you have for the belief that an initial explosion plus some set of laws plus subatomic indeterminancy minus any final causes after the initial explosion equals the world as we know it? NONE. So why suggest it in a public school room when it contradicts people's religious beliefs? What is that obsession all about? Can't we save such conversations for the pub and church where we don't have captive audiences, and dissenters have time to argue back?

Post Edited (Similtude) : 9/30/2009 7:45:10 AM (GMT-5)