| Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
| [Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
Responding to Hugh, who said:
[ID advocates] claim is that at least some of [the changes in living
forms] occur by means that evolution cannot account for
Ron wrote:
Well, I can't say I'm up on all the prevailing arguments, but I have to
confess that I've NEVER heard that argument. What you're saying is that
there is an ADDITIONAL argument that GOD is actively interferring in an
ongoing way (and so, presumeably is the Devil)? I would have to think
that
this is limited to an even smaller fraction of the Christian community
than
the strict literalists!
Here is what the Discovery Institute, probably the most visible and
mainstream face of ID advocacy, has to say on this point in their
answer to the second "Top Question" about ID:
<http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign>
2. Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?
It depends on what one means by the word "evolution." If one simply
means "change over time," or even that living things are related by
common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between
evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the
dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends
that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random
mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no
discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species."
(NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim
made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly
challenges.
That seems quite clear to me.