INTELLIGENT DESIGN EVIDENCE
The Evidence Filter: Example 1
The Evidence Filter: Example 1
Question 1: Does the fossil evidence actually support the theory of unintelligent
causation (i.e., is the evidence consistent with what one would expect to observe
if naturalistic evolution were true)?
Answer 1: No, if the theory is that of gradual change over time proposed by
Darwin. However, if punctuated equilibrium is true as promoted by Stephen J.
Gould, then perhaps yes.
Question 2: What inferences does the fossil evidence actually support (i.e., what
can reasonably or actually be inferred from the observations put forth as
evidence, as opposed to what is purported to be proven)?
Answer 2: The existence of fossils shows that there are many extinct organisms,
all of which appear in the fossil record fully formed. (The supposed links in
lineages are inferences required by the theory of descent with modification but
not otherwise demanded by the evidence.) Many fossils appear abruptly, with no
apparent ancestral lineage (e.g., in the "Cambrian Explosion"), and fossils
thought to be transitional forms are rare. Yet by Darwin's own admission in his
book Origin of Species, the fossil record did not then support his theory because
we should find literally millions and millions of transitional fossils. Darwin
believed that later fossil finds would confirm his theory of gradual descent with
modification. Stephen J. Gould, the preeminent modern evolutionist and Harvard
paleontologist recognized Darwin's fossil problem persisted and was essentially
unchanged from Darwin's day, stating: "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in
the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary
trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their
branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."
[1]
Question 3: Does the fossil evidence also support alternative theories, including
an inference of intelligent causation (i.e., is the evidence consistent with what
one would expect to observe if intelligent design were true)?
Answer 3: Yes. The existence of fossils of extinct organisms, each of which has
all the hallmarks of being intelligently designed, is consistent with what one
would expect to find if the organisms were in fact, intelligently designed.
Question 4: Does the fossil evidence, taken as a whole with other evidence,
weigh more heavily in favor of unintelligent processes of evolution or an
alternative theory?
Answer 4: Taken as a whole, the evidence weighs more heavily in favor of
intelligent design. Consider, as admitted by all knowledgeable Darwinists, that
the fossil record does not support the continuity of gradual development that
Darwinism predicts.[2] However, a fossil record showing extinct organisms
exhibiting the hallmarks of intelligent design is perfectly consistent with what
intelligent design theory would predict.
Question 5: Does the fossil evidence as a whole, taken together with other
evidence, rule out a particular alternative theory?
Answer 5: Possibly. Taken as a whole, the evidence could be construed to rule
out Darwinism. However, and importantly, whatever the fossil record shows, it
cannot rule out intelligent design theory. As long as design can be scientifically
detected, intelligent design theory cannot be ruled out as an explanation of the
fossil record. But, and equally importantly, scientifically detected design in the
fossil record does rule out Darwinism as a theory; Darwinism is the antithesis of
intelligent design.
Footnotes:
1. Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda’s Thumb (New York: W.W. Norton & Company,
Inc., 1980), p. 181. Gould relates a letter from Huxley to Darwin stating his
religious zeal for Darwinism: “I am prepared to go to the stake, if requisite … I am
sharpening up my claws and beak in readiness” (Ibid., p, 179). Huxley, however,
was also concerned that, “You [Darwin] have loaded yourself with an unnecessary
difficulty in adopting Natura non facit saltum so unreservedly” (Ibid.). Huxley knew
what Gould knew, based on his observation that, “The fossil record offered no
support for gradual change: whole faunas had been wiped out during disarmingly
short intervals” (Ibid., pp. 179-80).
2. For example, Ernst Mayr, known as "the Darwin of the 20th century," in his
2001 book entitled What Evolution Is discusses the evidence for evolution in
Chapter 2. In a section headed "What evidence does the evolutionist have," he
predictably discusses first the fossil evidence. Specifically, on page 14 of the
paperback Basic Books edition, he states:
gradualism (a fact Darwin himself recognized, but believed future fossil finds
would fill in the gaps). Then Mayr makes a startling admission. He states:
causation (i.e., is the evidence consistent with what one would expect to observe
if naturalistic evolution were true)?
Answer 1: No, if the theory is that of gradual change over time proposed by
Darwin. However, if punctuated equilibrium is true as promoted by Stephen J.
Gould, then perhaps yes.
Question 2: What inferences does the fossil evidence actually support (i.e., what
can reasonably or actually be inferred from the observations put forth as
evidence, as opposed to what is purported to be proven)?
Answer 2: The existence of fossils shows that there are many extinct organisms,
all of which appear in the fossil record fully formed. (The supposed links in
lineages are inferences required by the theory of descent with modification but
not otherwise demanded by the evidence.) Many fossils appear abruptly, with no
apparent ancestral lineage (e.g., in the "Cambrian Explosion"), and fossils
thought to be transitional forms are rare. Yet by Darwin's own admission in his
book Origin of Species, the fossil record did not then support his theory because
we should find literally millions and millions of transitional fossils. Darwin
believed that later fossil finds would confirm his theory of gradual descent with
modification. Stephen J. Gould, the preeminent modern evolutionist and Harvard
paleontologist recognized Darwin's fossil problem persisted and was essentially
unchanged from Darwin's day, stating: "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in
the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary
trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their
branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."
[1]
Question 3: Does the fossil evidence also support alternative theories, including
an inference of intelligent causation (i.e., is the evidence consistent with what
one would expect to observe if intelligent design were true)?
Answer 3: Yes. The existence of fossils of extinct organisms, each of which has
all the hallmarks of being intelligently designed, is consistent with what one
would expect to find if the organisms were in fact, intelligently designed.
Question 4: Does the fossil evidence, taken as a whole with other evidence,
weigh more heavily in favor of unintelligent processes of evolution or an
alternative theory?
Answer 4: Taken as a whole, the evidence weighs more heavily in favor of
intelligent design. Consider, as admitted by all knowledgeable Darwinists, that
the fossil record does not support the continuity of gradual development that
Darwinism predicts.[2] However, a fossil record showing extinct organisms
exhibiting the hallmarks of intelligent design is perfectly consistent with what
intelligent design theory would predict.
Question 5: Does the fossil evidence as a whole, taken together with other
evidence, rule out a particular alternative theory?
Answer 5: Possibly. Taken as a whole, the evidence could be construed to rule
out Darwinism. However, and importantly, whatever the fossil record shows, it
cannot rule out intelligent design theory. As long as design can be scientifically
detected, intelligent design theory cannot be ruled out as an explanation of the
fossil record. But, and equally importantly, scientifically detected design in the
fossil record does rule out Darwinism as a theory; Darwinism is the antithesis of
intelligent design.
Footnotes:
1. Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda’s Thumb (New York: W.W. Norton & Company,
Inc., 1980), p. 181. Gould relates a letter from Huxley to Darwin stating his
religious zeal for Darwinism: “I am prepared to go to the stake, if requisite … I am
sharpening up my claws and beak in readiness” (Ibid., p, 179). Huxley, however,
was also concerned that, “You [Darwin] have loaded yourself with an unnecessary
difficulty in adopting Natura non facit saltum so unreservedly” (Ibid.). Huxley knew
what Gould knew, based on his observation that, “The fossil record offered no
support for gradual change: whole faunas had been wiped out during disarmingly
short intervals” (Ibid., pp. 179-80).
2. For example, Ernst Mayr, known as "the Darwin of the 20th century," in his
2001 book entitled What Evolution Is discusses the evidence for evolution in
Chapter 2. In a section headed "What evidence does the evolutionist have," he
predictably discusses first the fossil evidence. Specifically, on page 14 of the
paperback Basic Books edition, he states:
- "Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a
gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this
is not what the paleontologist finds."
gradualism (a fact Darwin himself recognized, but believed future fossil finds
would fill in the gaps). Then Mayr makes a startling admission. He states:
- "This raises a puzzling question: Why does the fossil record fail to reflect
the gradual change one would expect from evolution?"
|
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |