Yes, it's true that Darwin didn't have all the evidence to prove his theory - and he admits that throughout the Origin. He didn't (couldn't!) know about tectonic plates, or DNA, or the pre-Cambrian microfossils, for example. But I think it's disingenous to suggest that the status of his theory in the 19th century is the same as that of intelligent design today. Darwin was describing a process, a natural mechanism by which diversity could occur, which required nothing beyond the already well known fact that characteristics could be inherited, and that the process by which this happened could be described in terms of rules. ID is describing a mechanism which requires supernatural intervention in an arbitrary way.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2009-02-12 03:46 pm (UTC)