The Viability of Intelligent Design 2/3 Video

William Lane Craig presents his case for the viability of intelligent design at Indiana University. His opponent was the eminent evolutionary biologist Francisco J. Ayala. This was the first time William Lane Craig had ever publicly debated the subject.

Save & Share:

Christianjr4: He doesn't mean simply change in allele frequency. He means change at the genetic level (ie. mutations that are selected for). He's very clear in his writings that this change represents descent with modification, which clearly can't happen simply by a change in allele frequency. You must have mutations for that. So yes, it does represent a change in genotypes, and no, it doesn't refer to allele frequency as you initially stated was itself evolution.

Christianjr4: I don't know why I come across this disclaimer so often. From my own survey of articles and books on evolution (both on the Internet and not) I find that both the terms macroevolution and microevolution are used by professional biologists. I agree with you that there's no reason to suppose a discontinuity between them. I was never arguing anything like that here. Surely microevolution gives rise to the huge differences we see among individual creatures. The question is how are they generated.

Christianjr4: No, definitely do not believe that mutations happen as a response to the organisms needs, at least by itself. I'm open, however, to the idea that an intelligent designer helped the process along and brought about the necessary changes that give rise to the vast differences in living organisms. And I don't dispute that random mutation can give rise to phenotypic changes. I just question how far that can be extrapolated.

Christianjr4: That's not really the point, at least not mine. My point was that he was unable to respond to a question. His inability to answer the question immediately had nothing to do with them lieing. Notice that he didn't stop the interview after that question was asked of him. He told them to stop filming so that he could try to answer it again, and that's exactly what happened. They stopped filming and then started again with his new answer. Anything that happened after that was after that fact.

archon88: Of course you must have mutations, or you couldn't have different alleles in the first place. That is trivial. The selection process then causes the change in allele frequency that is necessary for evolution proper, as opposed to mere random fluctuations of genotypes (which could hardly be called evolution on its own). Dawkins's definition of evolution comes to mind here: "the non-random survival of randomly varying codes".

archon88: Are you actually denying the ability of mutation to bring about changes in phenotype? If so, there is plenty of counterevidence in microbiology - e.g. the evolution of bacteria that can digest nylon (invented in 1935, so this was hardly "pre-existing" genetic information). I don't really understand what your objection to mutation is.

archon88: The problem here is that there are statistical differences between stochastic and directed processes, so this is quite a strong claim. Mathematical models based on stochastically-varying codes with nonrandom selection criteria have shown the viability of conventional Darwinian theory from the perspective of information theory. If you don't think this idea can be extrapolated to all life, where does the limit of extrapolation lie, and why?

archon88: If you're asking how genotype changes are generated, surely the answer must be mutation (I am not aware of any other process that can generate such differences, and if you are feel free to enlighten me). Bear in mind the need for a causal mechanism, as well as scientific rigour and falisfiability, not vague statements about inferring that something was "probably designed" that don't even necessarily reflect the way we conclude that products of human culture are designed.

divineson05: where's the other half of the debate

MaltyT: Marco evolutionary change?@1:15 What in the heck those Craig mean by that?

gorilla199uncensored: " He told them to stop filming" Ah you know he said that becasue he knew then creationists had LIED to him and tricked their way into his house? What would you do if somone lied and tricked their way in to your house? Not only wasting your time, by invading your home? Offcourse the answer they put on the end was one answer they edited from another part of the interview! Oh did you know he has written chapters answering thqat question published BEFORE that interview?

gorilla199uncensored: "intelligent designer helped" so not only designs but redesigns? Maybe you could a creationist excuse for some of the "designs" of your god? Why did he give humans nippple set and tail DNA but then make it inactive? Why did he give manatess not only hip sockets (for legs that dont exist) but also tends to attach ti the non existant legs? So god creates, homo halabis, neanderthal man etc, then creates man? Why and why arnt they in gods image? (because they are if humans are)

Christianjr4: We are evolved, that's why we have the traits that we do. The point was that intelligent design might be needed for certain results to come about (ie. the origin of life or the development of homo sapiens). I'm not advocating some sort of special creationism so it's not at all problem that we have tail DNA etc. This is to be expected on evolution period. And you completely misunderstand "God's image". It was never meant to be taken literally. It's a metaphor for one's personhood (rationality).

Christianjr4: "Ah you know he said that becasue he knew then creationists had LIED to him" Then why did Dawkins restart the interview? "What would you do if somone lied and tricked their way in to your house?" I would kick them out, I wouldn't restart the interview with the same question that was asked of me. And by the way, Dawkins never said they edited another part of the interview to make it seem like one interview. Dawkins fully admitted to his not being able to answer the question the first time.

gorilla199uncensored: AS I SAID he did not continue (the answer is edited in from another question) he politely asked them to leave! "Dawkins fully admitted " Ah he admitted to the pause, which at the time was him thinking These lying creationists have invaded my home! What should I do! He didnt do his nut like most people would have but politely asked them to leave. AS I SAID BEFORE HE HAD PUBLISHED CHAPTPERS ON THE SUBJECT PUBLISHED BEFORE THAT INTERVIEW!

gorilla199uncensored: "we have tail DNA " OK so you disagree with the bible claim all animals created......then man created. so you are happy to accept the fact (As many of the people at discovery institute, creators of ID) that man and chimp are evolved frrom a common ancestor? You accept the fact of evolution then? You just say god created the first life? "It's a metaphor for one's personhood" Yes so explain "person hood" why neanderthal man doesnt have it?

cero86: is it cancer or mutations part of ID?

momoseth2: Hey, sorry I've been away for awhile. Consider this, if humans had not interfered with Chihuahuas, would they have evolved? No, they wouldn't have. It is only because of human interaction (i.e. an intelligent designer) with dogs that we do have the various breeds of dogs that we see today. The fossils record is nearly devoid of transitionals. With a few exceptions, the fossil record is not good evidence of evolution. Why else would Gould come up with punctuated equilibrium?

adstanra: no they wouldn't have , but that is not the point. The problem with analogies is that they are never perfect and can be misinterpreted. chihauhaus were selected for by humans, but don't project that onto the cosmos. the analogy was designed to show the varience within wolves and the short time it took for humans to do this.imagine what nature can do over thousands of millions of years! the fossil record is replete with transitional fossils .

adstanra: and common ancestry has been positively confirmed by genetic and molecular biology analysis. Moere and more transitional fossils are being found all the time. Do you know of any transitional fossils from wolf to chihauhaus

gorilla199uncensored: So what? Everything living is always evolving! Fossil record, never has one fossil before it evolved! It does not support my god dun it idea. Theres plenty better evidence eg DNA which proves evolution beyond any extreme doubt (including lying for religion).

momoseth2: If humans had never existed, there would be no chihuahuas. Nature didn't create chihuahuas, man did. It is invalid to state that because humans can do it, nature can do it by itself.

adstanra: I was simply pointing out the variance within the wolf population and the power of selection to effect changes . Do you consider a Chihauhau a wolf anymore? The fallacy comes through anthropomorphism. the temdency of humans to project themselves onto the cosmos. Just because man did this ( a mind) does not mean evolution is guided by a mind!

adstanra: the nested heirarchial bush pattern that emerges time and time again when we look at the biological pattern is consistent with an algorythmic stochastic process. 98 % of the branches on the bush lead to dead ends. This is simply not a determinitive pattern expected from a mind!

momoseth2: I believe your debating theistic evolution with your final bit (I am not a theistic evolutionist). If it had happened naturally, I would consider a chihuahua and a wolf as two distinct species. My point is that the chihuahua would not exist if humans (intelligence) had not interfered.

Author: Christianjr4; Uploaded: Nov 7, 2009; Duration: 7:17; Views: 1320

Tags: william  lane  craig  francisco  j.  ayala  intelligent  design  viability report viability definition viability study viability of fetus viability of a business viability meaning viability scan viability scan pregnancy viability thesaurus viability in pregnancy