The Darwin debate has gone on and on in part due to the design issue and a site like Evo News with its design theme is totally canceled by the mainstream. But the site over and over (along with Uncommon Descent) has useful scholarly research on many issues which never appear in the mainstream propaganda system which includes Google and Wikipedia, two great duds in the legacy of the net (but useful for raw info at many points).
The design issue for me is a no-brainer and I pilfer from EvoNews all the time with nary a worry over the ID propaganda. The issue is simple, both cosmology and evolution show design issues. And in Kantian terms that is not grounds for the proof of the existence of god. It just ain’t. Design is grounds for seeing Design, in nature and evolution. But what does that mean? It seems like you can at least argue that ‘design in nature’ is evidence of intelligence in nature. It seems obvious, but it isn’t. That is why I speak of design, but rarely of ‘intelligent design’. But the ID gambit seems obvious to many, but I remain wary even as I consider issues of design not only in nature but in world history. Historically, although blurred by endless confusion, the failure of the ID argument as against the simple design argument was carried out by the ancient Israelites who saw ‘design in history’ and thought they had evidence of an Intelligent Designer they called…’god’ (? they didn’t use that term, and behind the tradition is a now lost tradition of indirect ‘god reference’: the silent IHVH). But that argument produced millennia of theology and in the end the limits of that argument as it degrades into the superstitious. It seems antiquated now but it is in fact the classic test of the ID argument and the result is a heap of theological rubbish. So we see in practice the way that a ‘sure thing’ design argument ends up in theological chaos.
So the issue of design in nature, and/or intelligent design does not resolve itself easily and hides behind its own obviousness. The issue is fairly clear in the clever and useful Design Specification framework of Dembski: the ID arguments seems to want to claim that intelligent design as in the Old Testament seem to show evidence of the same ‘god’ that is referenced in the old Testament. But that is a violation of Dembski’s argument, I think, because the Old Testament ‘god’ references are not legitimate or independent ‘specififications’ of a ‘god’ entity referenced. As Kant intuited so well the design argument fails a proof of the existence of ‘god’. That doesn’t not validate atheism either: the whole morass/mirage is simple antinommial flip flop, ad infinitum.
It can help to study the eonic effect here: we find design in history but that evidence is not theological but a thesis of ‘design in nature’, often evidence of a teleological ‘something’. We use teleological thinking all the time in the design of machines that have a designed function. Oddly enough we still have no real scientific mathematical theory of that. And the ID argument lurks again here: a machine is obviously the design of an intelligent agent. But that despite much wishful thinking can’t be generalized.
And let it be that that while we have no proofs from the existence if ‘intelligent designers’ of the reality of ‘god’, it might in fact be the case. But our inability to keep terms honest completely blocks entry to such questions.
The theory of natural selection was the co-discovery of two men, but by the mid 1860s one of its progenitors began to reject his own theory. Source: Darwin and the English Class System | Evolution …