ID: Notes

A comment on Biologos about the real challenge for evolution(ists)   -- the mechanism
http://biologos.org/blog/evidences-for-evolution-part-2a-the-whales-tale/

 

Agreed. Nothing in this article addresses the nitty-gritty about *how the necessary morphological changes were achieved*. It just beats the same old Biologos drum about common genetic features proving common ancestry. The issue isn’t common ancestry; it’s how one form is transformed into another. That’s what we know almost nothing about, and that’s where the scientific research should be focused. Sternberg is pleading for that, but the neo-Darwinians just don’t get it.

 

The problem is that, for the last 50 years or so, the education of engineers and the education of biologists has been radically divergent, and precisely what is needed for a serious theory of macroevolutionary change is the application of engineering insights to biology. I don’t know what it would take to get population geneticists to learn to think like engineers, but I do know that as long as traditional population geneticists are in charge of evolutionary theory, it will never be able to explain how anything occurred in a satisfactory way

Notes: Profiles in ID (Critical)

We have this going for us, however, which the evolutionary naturalists don’t, namely, the evidence and arguments are on our side. It’s therefore to our advantage to discuss intelligent design and naturalistic evolution on their merits. Conversely, the other side needs to delegitimate the debate between intelligent design and naturalistic evolution, casting intelligent design as a pseudoscience and characterizing its significance purely in political and religious terms. As a consequence, critics of intelligent design engage in all forms of character assassination, ad hominem attacks, guilt by association, and demonization.~ William Dembski