Myth of evolution and new drug discovery

[reggieM]

I was quoting from Kitzmiller v. Dover and had Behe’s comments in mind. Here is a section of the transcript with Behe answering questions:

Q. Now you have never argued for intelligent design in a peer reviewed scientific journal, correct?

A. No, I argued for it in my book.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am.html#day12am179

Q. Not in a peer reviewed scientific journal?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am.html#day12am180

A. That’s correct.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am.html#day12am181

Q. And, in fact, there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred, is that correct?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am.html#day12am182

A. That is correct, yes.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am.html#day12am183

Q. And it is, in fact, the case that in Darwin’s Black Box, you didn’t report any new data or original research?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am.html#day12am184

A. I did not do so, but I did generate an attempt at an explanation.

Source

Darwin’s Black Box was written in 1994 - 15 years ago.
Kitzmiller vs Dover was in 2005.
Since then, Michael Behe has done some original research (Edge of Evolution) and has published peer-reviewed work (as evidenced on the page I showed you).

 

[buffalo]

Darwin’s Black Box was written in 1994 - 15 years ago.
Kitzmiller vs Dover was in 2005.
Since then, Michael Behe has done some original research (Edge of Evolution) and has published peer-reviewed work (as evidenced on the page I showed you).

Facts are not allowed Reggie, you should know better than that.

 

[buffalo]

Whether Intelligent Design is Science A Response to the Opinion of the Court in
Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District
By Dr. Michael J. Behe

Introduction
On December 20, 2005 Judge John Jones issued his opinion in the matter of Kitzmiller, in which I was the lead witness for the defense. There are many statements of the Court scattered throughout the opinion with which I disagree. However, here I will remark only on section E-4, “Whether ID is Science.”
The Court finds that intelligent design (ID) is not science. In its legal analysis, the Court takes what I would call a restricted sociological view of science: “science” is what the consensus of the community of practicing scientists declares it to be. The word “science” belongs to that community and to no one else. Thus, in the Court’s reasoning, since prominent science organizations have declared intelligent design to not be science, it is not science. Although at first blush that may seem reasonable, the restricted sociological view of science risks conflating the presumptions and prejudices of the current group of practitioners with the way physical reality must be understood.
On the other hand, like myself most of the public takes a broader view: “science” is an unrestricted search for the truth about nature based on reasoning from physical evidence. By those lights, intelligent design is indeed science. Thus there is a disconnect between the two views of what “science” is. Although the two views rarely conflict at all, the dissonance grows acute when the topic turns to the most fundamental matters, such as the origins of the universe, life, and mind.
Below I proceed sequentially through section E-4. Statements from the opinion are in italics, followed by my comments.

more…

 

[reggieM]

I did not change the analogy in any significant way.

The fact is, you changed it – you didn’t address what it said. As below.

A well-ordered house is a completed house. It is not a house actually while it is in the process of being built. It is a house potentially. A well-ordered, completed house bespeaks intelligent design.

Again, you’re obviously confusing the point. A completed house can be “not well ordered”. St. Thomas was pointing to the order vs a house “poorly ordered” (chaotic, confused, etc).

However, the “symmetry, proportion, dimensions” are observable aspects of the parts. They do not explain the whole.

Nor does the fact that the house was created by an intelligent designer explain the whole.

Of course, it is not the result of chance causes.

Here is where you’d need to prove that. St. Thomas points to a “well ordered house”. That is observable.

Here’s another example, from Stephen Barr’s Modern Physics and Ancient Faith:

in the works of the Latin Christian writer Minucius Felix near the beginning of the third century:

”If upon entering some home you saw that everything there was well-tended, neat, and decorative, you would believe that some master was in charge of it, and that he himself was superior to those good things. So too in the home of this world, when you see providence, order, and law in the heavens and on earth, believe there is a Lord and Author of the universe, more beautiful than the stars themselves and the various parts of the whole world.”

There is something paradoxical in the long-running debate over design. On the one hand, we have the older view that the lawfulness of the universe implies the existence of a lawgiver. This is the perspective of the Bible and of ancient religious writers, as we saw from the passages from Jeremiah, Psalms, and Minucius Felix quoted in chapter 9. It was also the view of many pagan writers of antiquity. On the other hand, we have many modern atheists who claim that the laws of nature prove the very opposite: that there is no need of God.

The old Argument from Design is based on the commonsense idea that if something is arranged then somebody arranged it. The reasonableness of this idea can be seen from an everyday example. If one were to enter a hall and find hundreds of folding chairs neatly set up in evenly spaced ranks and files, one would feel quite justified in inferring that someone had arranged the chairs that way. One can imagine, however, that a person might object to this obvious inference, and suggest instead that the chairs are merely obeying some Law of Chairs although often in a secret or hidden way. When we see situations that appear haphazard, or things that appear amorphous, automatically or spontaneously “arranging themselves” into orderly patterns, what we find in every case is that what appeared to be amorphous or haphazard actually had a great deal of order already built into it.

He explains that where random processes create order, we discover that the order is the product of properties of the things that produced the order. In the case of folding chairs, there is no property that will cause them to be arranged neatly when thrown in a room randomly. Thus, we perceive an intelligent designer at work.

 

[reggieM]

This should be a clue for you that Schonborn, as well a little ol’ me, do not see that ID theory is consistent with classical philosophy. Furthermore, Schonborn does not consider ID to be science.

You might want to review Fr. Thomas Dubay’s writings on evolution. Fr. Dubay is trained in Thomistic philosophy as well as having a deep understanding of Catholic spirituality and doctrine.

Designed Beauty and Evolutionary Theory | Thomas Dubay, S.M.

You mean, ID is trying to show that the origin of various organism cannot be explained by Darwinian evolution. Unfortunately, the strategy won’t work because even if an organism or system cannot be explained by means of Darwinian evolution it does not follow that ID has the answer. This is true even if “organisms exhibit characteristics which are analogous to designed systems.”

I’d like to see your proof of that. Again, use forensics or SETI research as an example. Language-like code is found emanating from outer space. According to you, the analogy to human language doesn’t allow SETI to conclude that the communication comes from an intelligent source, right?

At this point there is no hard evidence that evolution theory cannot at some point in the future, if it has not already, provide an explanation. In addition, ID theory has presented no rigorous scientific evidence and experiment to show how complex systems and ID systems came about and when.

If irreducibly complex systems (like human consciousness) came about through the influence of supernatural causes, then you’d be asking ID to explore those causes and determine how they operated. That would be demanding philosophical explanations from ID – which is looking at the scientific evidence.

Again, the challenge remains for you to explain when and how human consciousness arose. You already said that God did it. Now, just explain when and how. Failing that, you’re asking ID to do something that you yourself cannot do. Plus, you’re demaning that ID answer questions that it does not propose to answer.

A structural or “physio-teleological” is metaphysical. You don’t understand classical philosophy.

(Note the teleological distinction between “dynamic order” and “structural order”)

Teleology is order in activity, and is therefore called dynamic order. But there is also the order of structure. Structural order is the harmonious arrangement of diverse integral parts in one pattern or configuration. Thus the frond of a fern or palm has leaflets or blades, arranged along the stern in a recognizable pattern. Structural order is characterized by symmetry and proportion. Symmetry is the repetition of some feature, as in the similarity of two leaflets on opposite sides of the stem, or the two eyes of an animal. Proportion is the gradation of a feature or character according to a more or less fixed ratio; thus in the frond the row of leaflets on either side of the stem is arranged in gradually diminishing sizes from the base to the tip. … structural order is recognized by merely noting its symmetry and proportion, without our being required to know its purpose.
Our experience also warrants the conviction that a highly complicated order cannot result otherwise than from intelligent selection and arrangement of the parts. We cannot so much as lay a tile floor in a simple pattern of alternate colors unless we be allowed to see the color of each tile … The same is true of the construction of the simplest implement or machine. One may construct a photographic camera which with proper adjustment will focus an object before it, but he cannot secure this effect without intelligent selection and arrangement of the materials to that end. Yet every eye regularly represents what is before it, even the most shifting scenes. And if the ordered performances of the eye are worthy of years of study, what shall we say of the order throughout the universe from atom to solar system?
— Fr. James McWilliams, S.J. – Cosmology, p. 16-17

Consider molecular machines …

Wikipedia:
The most complex molecular machines are found within cells. These include motor proteins, such as myosin, which is responsible for muscle contraction, kinesin, which moves cargo inside cells away from the nucleus along microtubules, and dynein, which produces the axonemal beating of cilia and flagella. These proteins and their nanoscale dynamics are far more complex than any molecular machines that have yet been artificially constructed.

The detailed mechanism of ciliary motility has been described by Satir in a 2008 review article. A high-level-abstraction summary is that, “*n effect, the [motile cilium] is a nanomachine composed of perhaps over 600 proteins in molecular complexes, many of which also function independently as nanomachines.”[1]

Welcome to the Molecular Machines

Bacterial Flagellum - Evolution’s Nightmare & Demise

Molecular Mechanism of ATP synthesis
… a 2 minute ride into the nano-universe

DNA Chromosome Wrapping
7 minutes - spectacular and simply amazing …

Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference

Darwin VS Design Molecular Machines

Step-by-step, … gradually building structures from intermediate forms through blind, purposeless, random mutations and unconscious natural selection.*

 

[reggieM]

Facts are not allowed Reggie, you should know better than that.

The Kitzmiller vs Dover references provide a very weak argument against ID. It think you said it before, it’s “science by legal fiat”.

 

[buffalo]

The Kitzmiller vs Dover references provide a very weak argument against ID. It think you said it before, it’s “science by legal fiat”.

Frankly I am surprised the posters of such status would actually reference a judges decision on science. Pretty amazing given the fact they are always quick to challenge any dissenters qualifications. (You have to be a biologist in the inner circle don’t ya know)

 

[edwest2]

It is unfortunate that a courtroom could be a place to get a decision as to what is and is not science. Those interested should read the trial transcript. It does not invalidate the basic thinking behind Intelligent Design and its obvious attributes. The house is not well ordered by itself. However, no challenge to the anti-theist story can be allowed to stand. That said, I am against forcing ideological concepts on anybody. ID research will continue regardless of those who decide to not see that a purposeful order does not come into existence on its own.

Peace,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

Exactly. The same people who demand peer-review before they will consider arguments that oppose their ideas, accept the decision of a judge who has no credentials in science, much less in microbiology.

 

[itinerant1]

Darwin’s Black Box was written in 1994 - 15 years ago.
Kitzmiller vs Dover was in 2005.
Since then, Michael Behe has done some original research (Edge of Evolution) and has published peer-reviewed work (as evidenced on the page I showed you).

Okay, then. I wanted you to point out a particular link and that one will do. I will start there.

 

[itinerant1]

It is unfortunate that a courtroom could be a place to get a decision as to what is and is not science. Those interested should read the trial transcript. It does not invalidate the basic thinking behind Intelligent Design and its obvious attributes. The house is not well ordered by itself. However, no challenge to the anti-theist story can be allowed to stand. That said, I am against forcing ideological concepts on anybody. ID research will continue regardless of those who decide to not see that a purposeful order does not come into existence on its own.

Peace,
Ed

I said nothing about the court’s decision. I was merely using information provided by that situation. That is why I only quoted a few comments from Behe. There is a lot of useful information in the transcript.

Consequently, your ranting and raving is irrelevant. Especially so, since “if” the court decided that ID is science, I have no doubt whatsoever that you would be saying “See, even the courts have decided that ID is science”. Honesty eludes us sometimes.

I definitely agree that a courtroom is not the best place for this kind of dispute. Primarily because the courts base their decisions about religion on perverted interpretations of the Constitution. The Lemon test for Constitutionality contradicts the original intent of the Constitution about religion. That is, the Lemon test itself is not constitutional.

The Court decided that ID theory has religious underpinnings. I largely agree. However, that is not a true Constitutional reason for keeping it out of public schools. The Constitution merely prohibits the federal government from establishing a religion. History, and the Constitutional debates for ratification of the Constitution, clearly indicate that this means the federal government cannot favor a particular religion over another, as was done in England, by the establishing the Church of England.

Furthermore, by “religion” the Framers generally meant “Christian denomination”. The Constitution then prohibited the federal government from favoring or discriminating against a particular “Christian denomination.” Other religions were not an issue since the Founders and Framers intended this to be a Christian nation. Even Thomas Jefferson, who was a Deist wanted America to be Christian. He even ordered the government to print Bibles to be used as textbooks in school.

The federal Constitution left it open for the individual states to establish a religion. Debates occurred among the states as to whether they would do so. But the once denominationally specific colonies decided to follow the example of the new federal Constitution and not establish in their states a particular religious denomination.

The upshot of this is that under original intent and sound constitutional government, ID could not be kept out of schools based on the fact that anyone thinks it has creationist underpinnings. It could only be kept out or not on a state by state, or even lower governmental level and community level based on some other reasons and arguments, such as it is or is not genuine science.

The fact remains, though, that expert testimony resulted in a decision about ID. The value of the arguments in the courtroom and the court’s decision can be evaluated for their merit in regard to a critique if ID theory regardless of the fact the court is not the best place to decide these kinds of issues, and that the U.S. Supreme Court has totally screwed up the Constitution to suit its own political and ideological proclivities. If Jefferson returned, he would be one angry dude

In addition, I have noted that the Vatican’s official newspaper does not consider ID to be science. Also, Cardinal Schonborn, while not in any means an avid critique of ID as I am, does not consider ID to be science either.

If ID is science and not philosophically garbled, we should then expect Thomist philosophers to be supporting ID. But that is not the case. Accordingly, reggieM will continue quoting classical philosophy, as if it is consistent with ID theory, but dat jes’ ain’t so.

 

[StAnastasia]

Actually, they haven’t. There have been six attempts to refute Michael Behe’s work and all have failed.

Reggie, can you please point me to these attempts? Thanks.

 

[itinerant1]

Frankly I am surprised the posters of such status would actually reference a judges decision on science. Pretty amazing given the fact they are always quick to challenge any dissenters qualifications. (You have to be a biologist in the inner circle don’t ya know)

You seem to specialize in making irrelevant comments. I made no reference whatsoever to any court’s decision. But if you enjoy making irrelevant comments, who am I to object.

 

[buffalo]

But if you enjoy making irrelevant comments, who am I to object.

Then don’t.

 

[edwest2]

I said nothing about the court’s decision. I was merely using information provided by that situation. That is why I only quoted a few comments from Behe. There is a lot of useful information in the transcript.

Consequently, your ranting and raving is irrelevant. Especially so, since “if” the court decided that ID is science, I have no doubt whatsoever that you would be saying “See, even the courts have decided that ID is science”. Honesty eludes us sometimes.

I definitely agree that a courtroom is not the best place for this kind of dispute. Primarily because the courts base their decisions about religion on perverted interpretations of the Constitution. The Lemon test for Constitutionality contradicts the original intent of the Constitution about religion. That is, the Lemon test itself is not constitutional.

The Court decided that ID theory has religious underpinnings. I largely agree. However, that is not a true Constitutional reason for keeping it out of public schools. The Constitution merely prohibits the federal government from establishing a religion. History, and the Constitutional debates for ratification of the Constitution, clearly indicate that this means the federal government cannot favor a particular religion over another, as was done in England, by the establishing the Church of England.

Furthermore, by “religion” the Framers generally meant “Christian denomination”. The Constitution then prohibited the federal government from favoring or discriminating against a particular “Christian denomination.” Other religions were not an issue since the Founders and Framers intended this to be a Christian nation. Even Thomas Jefferson, who was a Deist wanted America to be Christian. He even ordered the government to print Bibles to be used as textbooks in school.

The federal Constitution left it open for the individual states to establish a religion. Debates occurred among the states as to whether they would do so. But the once denominationally specific colonies decided to follow the example of the new federal Constitution and not establish in their states a particular religious denomination.

The upshot of this is that under original intent and sound constitutional government, ID could not be kept out of schools based on the fact that anyone thinks it has creationist underpinnings. It could only be kept out or not on a state by state, or even lower governmental level and community level based on some other reasons and arguments, such as it is or is not genuine science.

The fact remains, though, that expert testimony resulted in a decision about ID. The value of the arguments in the courtroom and the court’s decision can be evaluated for their merit in regard to a critique if ID theory regardless of the fact the court is not the best place to decide these kinds of issues, and that the U.S. Supreme Court has totally screwed up the Constitution to suit its own political and ideological proclivities. If Jefferson returned, he would be one angry dude

In addition, I have noted that the Vatican’s official newspaper does not consider ID to be science. Also, Cardinal Schonborn, while not in any means an avid critique of ID as I am, does not consider ID to be science either.

If ID is science and not philosophically garbled, we should then expect Thomist philosophers to be supporting ID. But that is not the case. Accordingly, reggieM will continue quoting classical philosophy, as if it is consistent with ID theory, but dat jes’ ain’t so.

Yes, honesty does elude us sometimes. Had all of this been simply about presenting facts and then letting them be judged on their own merits, these sorts of discussions would not be going on. It’s an issue of trust. Human beings are known for ‘working the system’ to their advantage.

People who are non-theists quote the Pope or a priest that happens to agree, or appears to agree, with a materialist ideology they’re promoting. Others are using the same ‘mountains of evolution’ to promote atheism. And then, the biology textbook presents a self-generating, self-contained system that produces organisms. The ideological implications are not lost even on the National Academy of Sciences.

Most people I’ve encountered know about evolution and continue with their lives without referring to it ever again. Yet, the regularity of the posts promoting evolution here clearly points to a linkage with the current media fascination, acceptance and assistance with amorality, paganism and anti-theism.

Cardinal Schoenborn did a fine job in his New York Times article titled Finding Design in Nature. He, and Pope John Paul II, recognize actual design. However, the problem, the only problem for some is “This may affect the current balance of power between theist and non-theist.” That’s too bad, and sad. The facts are buried under ideological concerns.

Peace,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

Reggie, can you please point me to these attempts? Thanks.

You can find four attempts referenced here:

“Reducible complexity” in PNAS

Recall that last year Genetics published a paper purportedly refuting the difficulty of getting multiple required mutations by showing it’s quick and easy in a computer—if one of the mutations is neutral (rather than harmful) and first spreads in the population (tinyurl.com/mxjwdy). Not long before that, PNAS published a paper supposedly refuting irreducible complexity by postulating that the entire flagellum could evolve from a single remarkable prodigy-gene (tinyurl.com/l6kjh4). Not long before that, Science published a paper allegedly refuting irreducible complexity by showing that if an investigator altered a couple amino acid residues in a steroid hormone receptor, the receptor would bind steroids more weakly than the unmutated form (tinyurl.com/kjq4e4 and tinyurl.com/lqav6p). (That one also made the New York Times!) (tinyurl.com/q6w3qq) For my responses, see here (tinyurl.com/meeqfs), here (tinyurl.com/3vzxet), here (tinyurl.com/ln7a6k), and here (discovery.org/a/3415). So, arguably picayune, question-begging, and just plain wrong results disputing IC find their way into front-line journals with surprising frequency. Meanwhile, in actual laboratory evolution experiments, genes are broken right and left as bacteria try to outgrow each other (tinyurl.com/lxvge5). Well, at least it’s nice to know that my work gives some authors a hook on which to hang results that otherwise would be publishable only in journals with impact factors of -3 or less. But if these are the best “refutations” that leading journals such as PNAS and Science can produce in more than a decade, then the concept of irreducible complexity is in very fine shape indeed.

Two additional papers (one by Miller and one by Matzke) claimed that the Type 3 Secretion System served as a step in the evolutionary assembly of the Bacterial Flagellum, but it was later shown that the the Flagellum preceeded the origin of the T3SS (which was a loss of function-derivation-devolution of the Flagellum).

 

[StAnastasia]

You can find four attempts referenced here:
Two additional papers (one by Miller and one by Matzke) claimed that the Type 3 Secretion System served as a step in the evolutionary assembly of the Bacterial Flagellum, but it was later shown that the the Flagellum preceeded the origin of the T3SS (which was a loss of function-derivation-devolution of the Flagellum).

Has science taken these “refutations” seriously?

 

[reggieM]

Has science taken these “refutations” seriously?

Science considered the first attempt to be the absolute and total destruction of Dr. Behe’s ideas. He was lampooned and ridiculed in the style that we’re all familiar with. But the odd thing was that we saw further “demolitions” of his ideas. This happened again and again.
So we can see the responses from the scientific community. There have been multiple papers, each taking a different tact, (when supposedly the first one “demolished” his concepts) and even the NCSE admitted that the first claims about the Type 3 Secretion System were false.
Additionally, if one looks carefully at each of the attempted Behe-refutations, we can find comments noting that “the evolution of the bacterial flagellum has been a mystery to science … until now (with this new version of the Behe-Demolition).”
There has been some grudging respect given to Michael Behe just lately.
But of course, mainstream science is very far from accepting that there is - or ever will be – any biological organisms or structures that cannot fully be explained by evolution.
As long as that idea persists, Michael Behe will be marginalized – as ID research itself has been.

 

[itinerant1]

Yes, honesty does elude us sometimes. Had all of this been simply about presenting facts and then letting them be judged on their own merits, these sorts of discussions would not be going on. It’s an issue of trust. Human beings are known for ‘working the system’ to their advantage.

People who are non-theists quote the Pope or a priest that happens to agree, or appears to agree, with a materialist ideology they’re promoting. Others are using the same ‘mountains of evolution’ to promote atheism. And then, the biology textbook presents a self-generating, self-contained system that produces organisms. The ideological implications are not lost even on the National Academy of Sciences.

Most people I’ve encountered know about evolution and continue with their lives without referring to it ever again. Yet, the regularity of the posts promoting evolution here clearly points to a linkage with the current media fascination, acceptance and assistance with amorality, paganism and anti-theism.

Cardinal Schoenborn did a fine job in his New York Times article titled Finding Design in Nature. He, and Pope John Paul II, recognize actual design. However, the problem, the only problem for some is “This may affect the current balance of power between theist and non-theist.” That’s too bad, and sad. The facts are buried under ideological concerns.

Peace,
Ed

I don’t see how any of what you said, whatever merit it may have in itself, addresses my questions to ID supporters on CAF. We were not, at least not recently in this thread, discussing the misuses and abuses of science . That is another topic. I would love to discuss that in another thread, and I would challenge Darwinian ideology, philosophical naturalism, etc. It’s funny to think that if materialist theories of evolution are true, then nothing matters, not even materialist versions of evolution.

As for now, I was wondering whether any ID supporter here understands why Cardinal Schonborn does not align himself with ID. Why does he think ID is not science? I have quoted Schonborn as saying that his article in the NYT is not support for ID theory because as he says, he was speaking in terms of classical philosophy. (BTW, Schonborn never says much about ID theory. He seems to ignore it for the most part in his discussions of creation and evolution, which are very good discussions.)

So far, no ID supporter on CAF has not even attempted an answer to my questions. Why is that? It’s time for a moment of truth.

 

[itinerant1]

You might want to review Fr. Thomas Dubay’s writings on evolution. Fr. Dubay is trained in Thomistic philosophy as well as having a deep understanding of Catholic spirituality and doctrine.

Designed Beauty and Evolutionary Theory | Thomas Dubay, S.M.

I am familiar with Dubay. In fact, I recently finished his book, The Evidential Power of Beauty: Science and Theology Meet Dubay uses the metaphysical intuition of beauty to challenge neo-Darwinians who deny the existence of design in our fine-tuned universe. You should buy the book. It’s a fascinating read. Dubay also considers creation science as bunk.

If irreducibly complex systems (like human consciousness) came about through the influence of supernatural causes, then you’d be asking ID to explore those causes and determine how they operated. That would be demanding philosophical explanations from ID – which is looking at the scientific evidence.

Not exactly. I question the method that purports to be scientific and concludes that IC systems cannot have evolved. The implication here is that supernatural interventions into nature are rather frequent. Take the issue out of the ID box and ask yourself what kind of supernatural interventions are these. Are they miraculous interventions? I don’t think ID theory goes so far as to be a “god of the gaps theory”, but something about it does not ring true with me.

Again, the challenge remains for you to explain when and how human consciousness arose. You already said that God did it. Now, just explain when and how. Failing that, you’re asking ID to do something that you yourself cannot do. Plus, you’re demaning that ID answer questions that it does not propose to answer.

It’s not a challenge for me to explain in general terms. I have already stated my position many times in these threads. I said that the human body has a pre-history in evolutionary processes. The spiritual soul, which accounts for human consciousness, of course cannot be the product of evolution, and hence it is created directly. That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it.

(Note the teleological distinction between “dynamic order” and “structural order”)

Teleology is order in activity, and is therefore called dynamic order. But there is also the order of structure. Structural order is the harmonious arrangement of diverse integral parts in one pattern or configuration. Thus the frond of a fern or palm has leaflets or blades, arranged along the stern in a recognizable pattern. Structural order is characterized by symmetry and proportion. Symmetry is the repetition of some feature, as in the similarity of two leaflets on opposite sides of the stem, or the two eyes of an animal. Proportion is the gradation of a feature or character according to a more or less fixed ratio; thus in the frond the row of leaflets on either side of the stem is arranged in gradually diminishing sizes from the base to the tip. … structural order is recognized by merely noting its symmetry and proportion, without our being required to know its purpose.
Our experience also warrants the conviction that a highly complicated order cannot result otherwise than from intelligent selection and arrangement of the parts. We cannot so much as lay a tile floor in a simple pattern of alternate colors unless we be allowed to see the color of each tile … The same is true of the construction of the simplest implement or machine. One may construct a photographic camera which with proper adjustment will focus an object before it, but he cannot secure this effect without intelligent selection and arrangement of the materials to that end. Yet every eye regularly represents what is before it, even the most shifting scenes. And if the ordered performances of the eye are worthy of years of study, what shall we say of the order throughout the universe from atom to solar system?
— Fr. James McWilliams, S.J. – Cosmology, p. 16-17

I guess you missed my point about this. My point is not that things are not designed but that ID theory misunderstands design and it actually limits design. Let me pose matters in the form of questions and hopefully that will clarify it for you. I will ask one question for now. I will pose the second question following your answer to this one.

Are there are many systems and organisms in nature that ID theory would say arose in terms of evolution (evolution properly understood, of course)?