|
Some of the ID claims and arguments are difficult to answer - most of them however stem from a failure to understand the processes and lengths of time involved.
For example, the (pre)Cambrian 'Explosion' is used by them as an example of an argument against traditional Darwinism. The same period is used by pro-evolutionists (like Dawkins for example) to demonstrate the way evolution works in flat fitness landscapes.
I'm suprised no-one has introduced the idea of a fitness landscape into any of these evolutionary discussions since it provides the tools required to understand the complicit migration of entities functioning within complex systems from less to more diverse states. However, I guess we're all pretty much preaching to the converted here.
Using this method explains some of the sticking points IDists have with evolutionary theory as they see it, including the similarities between creatures (the Porsche/Beetle argument) the no-intermediate-evidence argument and the gradualism/catastophism argument.
|