There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff — we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.
If everyone seeing this today donates $5, we will meet our goal for 2018.
| Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with !
Almost the best of RW
Not yet complete.
ID and Common Descent
The position of ID regarding common descent is mischaracterized. The article says:
"Intelligent design proponents may accept some aspects of common descent, as long as they are allowed to claim that the "designer" interfered with the genes and mutations along the way, then deferring what's not explained to "we don't know" what happened"
This is incorrect. Many ID'ers (such as Behe) accept a fully mechanistic common descent. What is claimed is that the information necessary to produce later evolution was front-loaded either into the original organism or into the big bang. The difference between this and, say, a biologos perspective, is that in this view the origin of life starts information-rich, while in a biologos perspective life starts information-poor. For a fuller explanation, see http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/id-and-common-descent/
Perhaps a better wording would be:
"Intelligent design proponents may or or may not accept common descent, though they usually postulate that the information necessary for diversification was either there from the beginning or continually added through the history of life."
Why was that there?
I added a reference which has been deleted with the question as to why it was there: And Finally the Hounding Duck Can Rest by Carl Zimmer It is there because it is an example of how evolution-deniers make a point of not answering questions. TomS TDotO (talk) 12:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- So why post it under the section title "evidence against common descent"? WëäŝëïöïďMethinks it is a Weasel 12:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to work on this today, and see if I can fix all the links. As I am not a scientist and this is a Cover Story Article, I would appreciate it if someone more qualified double-checked my links. Alternatively, I'd be grateful if someone more qualified handled it, and we could be confident it was done right the first time. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 15:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)