I thought this was an interesting post from UcD.
Many, many people seem to misunderstand the relationship between Intelligent Design and Common Descent. Some view ID as being equivalent to Progressive Creationism (sometimes called Old-Earth Creationism), others seeing it as being equivalent to Young-Earth Creationism. I have argued before that the core of ID is not about a specific theory of origins. In fact, many ID’ers hold a variety of views including Progressive Creationism and Young-Earth Creationism.
But another category that is often overlooked are those who hold to both ID and Common Descent, where the descent was purely naturalistic. This view is often considered inconsistent. My goal is to show how this is a consistent proposition…
I see no reason that the descent has to be purely naturalistic. It seems to me that most EC/TEs accept that God is in control of the development of life.
A couple of interesting comments from UcD
I don’t see a large philosophical or theological gap between theistic evolution and common descent ID. What does common descent ID demand theologically that theistic evolution will not allow?
In its most basic form, all ID says is that some things are designed. Of course that is not incompatible with common descent. That is not incompatible with
anything. That’s why people say it’s not scientific.
As Dr. Behe stated:
Scott refers to me as an intelligent design creationist, even though I clearly write in my book Darwin’s Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think evolution occurred, but was guided by God. Where I and others run afoul of Scott and the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is simply in arguing that intelligent design in biology is not invisible, it is empirically detectable. The biological literature is replete with statements like David DeRosier’s in the journal Cell: More so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human (1). Exactly why is it a thought-crime to make the case that such observations may be on to something objectively correct?