bertvan writes
quote:
NeoDarwinism argues that biological innovation “just happens, accidentally, for no particular reason”. Then, according to NeoDarwinism, the only known materialistic theory of evolution, “natural selection” somehow turns a collection of these random genetic accidents into biological adaptations. However, no one has come up with even a hint at how natural selection might accomplish such a feat.
Does agnosticism also tells you to use a strawman argument against natural selection?
quote:
Intelligent design proposes that intelligence exists as an aspect of reality. We know humans have the ability to make reasoned, purposeful choices. The same ability to a more limited degree can be deduced in animals. Even single cultured cells display an ability to make simple choices. Swarm intelligence has been observed. Intelligent Design argues that living organisms adapt responsively, intelligently and purposefully. Random accidents in their genomes are defects, some of which are corrected by purposeful genomic mechanisms, but none turn into biological features.
As an agnostic, I don’t speculate about the origin of an organizing intelligence of nature, any more than I speculate about the origin of matter and energy. Only atheists fear the recognition of intelligence as an organizing force of living systems, because they cannot deny the possible involvement of some god in a non material process such as intelligent organization.
This is little better, if better at all, than "goddidit." It's an intellectual dead-end.
By the way, using strawman against an argument will never get you very far.