Genesis 1:1
"The exquisite engineering seen in biology has always been the big question that needs to be explained. Darwin could have tackled it in several ways. One tactic would be to simply deny any design by claiming that creatures really show overwhelmingly shoddy workmanship, engineering mistakes, or accumulated “junk.”.jpg)
Some evolutionists have taken up this kludge of thinking. Yet, Darwin rejected this “argument from ignorance.” He knew that many people would intuitively conclude that such talk is foolish. Besides, it would most certainly be overturned by future research.
Darwin would have none of that and took a cleverer approach that readily acknowledged features of design.
"The exquisite engineering seen in biology has always been the big question that needs to be explained. Darwin could have tackled it in several ways. One tactic would be to simply deny any design by claiming that creatures really show overwhelmingly shoddy workmanship, engineering mistakes, or accumulated “junk.”
.jpg)
Some evolutionists have taken up this kludge of thinking. Yet, Darwin rejected this “argument from ignorance.” He knew that many people would intuitively conclude that such talk is foolish. Besides, it would most certainly be overturned by future research.
Darwin would have none of that and took a cleverer approach that readily acknowledged features of design.
First, he rolled into his narrative familiar perceptions about the operation of engineered entities. Thus, his narrative requires more discernment to understand its true implications. It’s mentally difficult to disentangle his causation from all others—even design-based ones.
Second, Darwin fully granted that organisms do show exceptional characteristics that are indicative of highly intelligent engineering. But instead of attributing biological design to the agency of a (1) supernatural, (2) conscious, and (3) loving (4) God, Darwin’s narrative flips everything around and tells of a (-1) totally natural, (-2) unconscious, and (-3) cruel process that (-4) enables nature to exercise godlike agency.
Second, Darwin fully granted that organisms do show exceptional characteristics that are indicative of highly intelligent engineering. But instead of attributing biological design to the agency of a (1) supernatural, (2) conscious, and (3) loving (4) God, Darwin’s narrative flips everything around and tells of a (-1) totally natural, (-2) unconscious, and (-3) cruel process that (-4) enables nature to exercise godlike agency.
Stephen Jay Gould gives this insightful history:
"[Darwin] holds that this order, the very basis of Paley’s inference
about the nature of God, arises…as a side-consequence of a causal principle [natural selection] of entirely opposite import….Could any argument be more subversive? One accepts the conventional observation, but then offers an explanation that not only inverts orthodoxy, but seems to mock the standard interpretation….This more radical version lies at the core of Darwin’s argument for natural selection."
ICR
