ID musings (was: Judge orders removal of anti-evolutionstickersfrom textbooks inGeorgia school district)

[Barry Roth]

It wasn't me, but it's an insightful idea.  Puts a new spin on "apomorphy" and
"plesiomorphy" too.  Presumably, an intelligent designer would be trying to
improve his/her existing designs, so that an apomorphy would be "better" than
the pre-existing condition it was derived from.  (This presupposes an ID model
that allows some change over time, as opposed to everything created at once in
a rock-hard configuration.)  What, then, is the criterion for "better" and how
would we recognize it?  Greater mechanical efficiency?  Something that confers
greater likelihood on the possessor of leaving grandchildren?  (The latter
being close to "selective advantage" beloved of evolutionists.)  If so, does
that imply foreknowledge on the part of the intelligent designer as to what
conditions will be like a generation or two down the road ...

Or do ID advocates really involve themselves in these kinds of thought trains?

Barry


--- "Frederick W. Schueler" <bckcdb at ISTAR.CA> wrote:

> Richard Pyle wrote:
>
[...]
>
> * it's been pointed out before on this list (by Barry Roth?) that if
> creationists (or intelligent designers) were real scientists they'd be
> occupied with the question that occupied pre-darwinian creationist
> biologists (Linneaus, Agassiz, etc): the delimitation of created
> 'kinds.' That they don't do this (and secondarily don't find any
> characters that delimit these kinds) is evidence of something...
>
> fred.



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com