I sent Afarensis a link to this post by Casey Luskin at the DI blog about human evolution, hoping that he would write up a critique of it. And indeed he has. It's very much worth reading. And it's another example of why most of the arguments made by ID advocates are not at all consistent with Jeremy Pierce's claim that ID is consistent with theistic evolution or the "fully gifted creation" position. If ID only means that a designer set up the initial conditions and natural laws that make the evolution of life possible, likely or inevitable (take your pick), then of what possible use would it be to argue against human evolution?
- Log in to post comments
More like this
So I hear, via the Panda's Thumb, that Uncommon Descent has a new
poster. And he's off to a rollicking good start, with a post
explaining why Christians who accept the fact of evolution are
incoherent and deluded. (As usual, I don't link to UD, due to their rampant
dishonesty in silently altering…
I just finished reading Massimo Pigliucci's Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science. I highly recommend this book as one of the best refuations of creationism out there. Also, he gives a very nuanced view of what science can and can not elucidate. While it won't change…
Orson Scott Card has written a long essay defending Intelligent Design.
Oy, but it is depressing.
It's a graceless hash, a cluttered and confusing mish-mash of poorly organized complaints about those darned wicked "Darwinists". He lists 7 arguments. Then he repeats his list, expanding on them.…
Once again, you, my readers, have come through with some really high-grade crackpottery. This one was actually sent to me by its author, but I didn't really look at it until several readers sent me the same link because they thought it was my kind of material. With your recommendations, I took a…
I'll be doing this one sometime in the next few days...
Bizarre. Just exactly where does Luskin believe human beings came from if they didn't evolve? Mars? Venus? How anyone (outside of the YEC camp) can deny our common ancestry with other primates these days is simply unbelievable.
This is an obvious "human beings are special" post and perhaps a sop to the creationist boosters of ID.
It wouldn't. That's why the creationists are getting off the ID bandwagon. The ID arguments are consistent with creationism (meaning anti-evolution), but the chief architects of the ID movement aren't themselves anti-evolution, if evolution just means common descent and the long time periods of contemporary science. When they say they're anti-Darwinism, that's not what they're opposing. They're opposing the view that there are no discerniblly intelligent causes in nature.