Some or even most IDists don't accept Common Descent because the premise is not science- it cannot be tested.
Let's pick a few IDists at random then. Oh, let's see now. Behe and Dembski...
Behe:
Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it.
For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. ... Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.
The Edge of Evolution, pp 71-2.
Dembski:
More significantly for the educational curriculum, however, is that intelligent design has no stake in living things coming together suddenly in their present form. To be sure, intelligent design leaves that as a possibility. But intelligent design is also fully compatible with large-scale evolution over the course of natural history, all the way up to what biologists refer to as "common descent" (i.e., the full genealogical interconnectedness of all organisms). If our best science tells us that living things came together gradually over a long evolutionary history and that all living things are related by common descent, then so be it.
http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_teachingid0201.htm
So if these two leaders of ID can support common descent what does Joe G know that they don't?
Well it would help your case if you demonstrate how Common Descent can be tested to the exclusion of any alternatives.
ReplyDeleteSo perhaps OM can provide a testable hypothesis for Common Descent- one that includes a mechanism.
>> Well it would help your case if you demonstrate how Common Descent can be tested to the exclusion of any alternatives.
ReplyDeleteWhat alternatives are there Joe G? I'm afraid I can't rule out interstellar bugs from Omega-6 causing a setup that looks exactly like common descent.
>> So perhaps OM can provide a testable hypothesis for Common Descent- one that includes a mechanism.
There's plenty of evidence for common descent, tested and shown to be consistent across multiple strands of evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Where is the first factual error in either of those pages of evidence Joe?
A mechanism? Differential reproduction rates.
>> So perhaps OM can provide a testable hypothesis for Common Descent- one that includes a mechanism.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting when I note that Joe is wrong he goes off at a tangent.
Joe, you make a claim that IDists don't accept common descent. I showed that at least two prominent IDists do in fact accept it.
Therefore you are wrong.
Yet you don't address that point, instead you ask *me* to provide a testable hypothesis for Common Descent. Regardless of if I can or cannot, it does not change the *fact* that your original claim was wrong.
Yet you simply ignore that as if it did not happen and try and avoid the issue.
So, Joe G, are you planning to retract your statement that "most IDists don't accept Common Descent" or are you going to leave it stand even when you've been proven wrong?
Some or even most IDists don't accept Common Descent because the premise is not science- it cannot be tested.
ReplyDeleteSo OM points out a couple and think that refutes what I said.
I never said all IDists reject UCD you ignorant fag.
Then OM links to wikipedia and talk origins- well neither one offers up any evidence for UCD that excludes all alternatives.
And neither offers up anything pertaining to a mechanism.
Also there isn't any genetic evidence that demonstrates the changes required are even possible.
What alternatives are there Joe G?
ReplyDeleteCommon design and convergence you ignorant piece of shit...
What happened OM?
ReplyDeleteAre you afraid to admit you were wrong?
You are a coward and a liar...