Joined: Oct. 2005
Wow, this is interesting. While a hundred years ago, creationists denied evolution, recently they've had to concede some evolution. Hence the micro/macro distinction. A few of the smarter creationists (not quite a complete oxymoron) have even relented on common descent in the last few years, the evidence being so powerful. Yet they maintain some fiddling was still required, at some point. It looks like DaveScot is actually in that camp:
I think youíre conflating macro-evolution with Darwinian evolution. The evidence in support of descent with modification from a universal common ancestor over the course of billions of years is compelling. Logically arguable but practically undeniable. If you argue against that you get laughed at and Iíll be hard pressed to suppress a chuckle myself. However, descent with modification over billions of years from a common ancestor doesnít speak to whether the process was guided or unguided, planned or unplanned. Here there is compelling evidence, focused upon most famously and contemporaneously by Dembski and Behe, that there almost certainly must be planning and guidance required to produce some of the complex patterns we find in the machinery of life. The source of the planning and guidance may well be outside the scope of science and thereís no scientific evidence to lead us in any particular direction. But detecting a design and identifying the source of design are two different things and the former is in no way dependent on the latter.
Comment by DaveScot ó January 23, 2006 @ 12:28 pm
Most ID Creationists have thrown in on their micro/macro distinction, and so this is going to be yet another source of conflict on Uncommon Pissant.
This is more entertaining than an Hispanic Soap Opera.