Joined: Oct. 2005
|What I see in most people who support ID is the belief that evolution is implausible, and therefore by a process of elimination what is left to explain living things? |
You might find Judge Jones's opinion enlightening about why this is a terrible argument.
|ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent|
evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed. (5:41 (Pennock)). This
argument is not brought to this Court anew, and in fact, the same argument, termed
“contrived dualism” in McLean, was employed by creationists in the 1980's to
support “creation science.” The court in McLean noted the “fallacious pedagogy
of the two model approach” and that “[i]n efforts to establish ‘evidence’ in support
of creation science, the defendants relied upon the same false premise as the two
model approach . . . all evidence which criticized evolutionary theory was proof in
support of creation science.” McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1267, 1269. We do not find
this false dichotomy any more availing to justify ID today than it was to justify
creation science two decades ago.
ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments
against evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe’s argument that “irreducibly
complex” systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural,
Case 44-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 71 of 139
mechanisms. (5:38-41 (Pennock); 1:39, 2:15, 2:35-37, 3:96 (Miller); 16:72-73
(Padian); 10:148 (Forrest)). However, we believe that arguments against evolution
are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just because
scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that
they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. (2:36-37 (Miller)).
As Dr. Padian aptly noted, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
(17:45 (Padian)). To that end, expert testimony from Drs. Miller and Padian
provided multiple examples where Pandas asserted that no natural explanations
exist, and in some cases that none could exist, and yet natural explanations have
been identified in the intervening years. It also bears mentioning that as Dr. Miller
stated, just because scientists cannot explain every evolutionary detail does not
undermine its validity as a scientific theory as no theory in science is fully
understood. (3:102 (Miller)).
or you might find this refutation from TalkOrigins more persuasive:
Creation and evolution are the only two models of origins.
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 3, 8-10.
1. There are many mutually exclusive models of creation. Biblical creationism alone includes geocentrism, young-earth creationism, day-age creationism, progressive creationism, intelligent design creationism, and more. And then there are hundreds of very different varieties of creation from other religions and cultures. Some of the harshest criticism of creation models comes from creationists who believe other models.
2. Many noncreationist alternatives to Darwinian evolution, or significant parts of it, are possible and have received serious attention in the past. These include, among others,
* process structuralism
(See Wilkins 1998 below for elaboration.)
3. Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive. They coexist in models such as theistic evolution.
Isaak, Mark. 2000. What is creationism? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html
Wilkins, John. 1998. So you want to be an anti-Darwinian: Varieties of opposition to Darwinism. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/anti-darwin.html
Kossy, Donna. 2001. Strange Creations: Aberrant Ideas of Human Origins from Ancient Astronauts to Aquatic Apes. Los Angeles: Feral House.
by the way, I doubt you have an argument against evolution which is not dealt with at the TalkOrigins list of creationist claims: