I sent Afarensis a link to this post by Casey Luskin at the DI blog about human evolution, hoping that he would write up a critique of it. And indeed he has. It's very much worth reading. And it's another example of why most of the arguments made by ID advocates are not at all consistent with Jeremy Pierce's claim that ID is consistent with theistic evolution or the "fully gifted creation" position. If ID only means that a designer set up the initial conditions and natural laws that make the evolution of life possible, likely or inevitable (take your pick), then of what possible use would it be to argue against human evolution?
- Log in to post comments
I'll be doing this one sometime in the next few days...
Bizarre. Just exactly where does Luskin believe human beings came from if they didn't evolve? Mars? Venus? How anyone (outside of the YEC camp) can deny our common ancestry with other primates these days is simply unbelievable.
This is an obvious "human beings are special" post and perhaps a sop to the creationist boosters of ID.
It wouldn't. That's why the creationists are getting off the ID bandwagon. The ID arguments are consistent with creationism (meaning anti-evolution), but the chief architects of the ID movement aren't themselves anti-evolution, if evolution just means common descent and the long time periods of contemporary science. When they say they're anti-Darwinism, that's not what they're opposing. They're opposing the view that there are no discerniblly intelligent causes in nature.