tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post5808468360571004919..comments2024-02-14T03:38:31.560-05:00Comments on An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution: An Evangelical Palaeontology student reviews Lamoureux’s Evolutionary CreationSteve Martinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11734019573868663947noreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-55139435093905457422008-09-13T13:39:00.000-04:002008-09-13T13:39:00.000-04:00Hello again, Charlie.I appreciate your concerns, b...Hello again, Charlie.<BR/><BR/>I appreciate your concerns, but I'm not sure that they follow from anything I've said. Neither Lamoureux nor I (nor any evolutionary creationists I know of) argue that the <I>entire</I> Bible is mythology. The opening chapters may be, in part, but I fail to see why this would prevent the audience from garnering "objective facts about reality". As Christians, we know there's more to reality than what we can experience with our five senses. The literary genre of mythology is therefore just as good as any other at conveying spiritual reality (Paul calls it "expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words", 1 Cor 2:13). To illustrate, Aesop's fable about the boy who cried wolf needn't be an historical account in order for us to learn that lying never pays. That's the beauty of biblical creation account -- it gets its point across regardless of whether we believe it to be historically accurate or not.<BR/><BR/>I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment that Newton's Christian faith is what motivated him to do good science. And Galileo. And Copernicus. These scientists (and many like them) serve as excellent reminders that we do not need to cower from scientific discovery in order to keep our faith intact.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-20429477659722042212008-09-13T11:12:00.000-04:002008-09-13T11:12:00.000-04:00>>>Once we accept that the Bible does not...>>>Once we accept that the Bible does not necessarily contain accurate science, we are free to accept the conclusions of evolutionary science, regardless of whether or not they accord with the Genesis creation account. Using the analogy of human development in the womb (Psalm 139:13-14), Lamoureux presents evolution as just another natural process, ordained and sustained by God, by which the Lord achieves His good will and creates human life. In fact, Lamoureux sees evolution as the perfect creative process by which God both reveals Himself to us in the design reflected in that process (Deus Revelatus), and by which He hides Himself from us in the non-miraculous nature of that process (Deus Absconditus), thereby allowing us as His children the opportunity to truly exemplify our faith in Him. This was a key point that really struck a chord with me. After all, we wouldn't need faith if we could use science to prove God's handiwork in the world.<<<<BR/><BR/>While this is a convenient evasion of the issue of infallibilty and inerrancy of Scripture, it does not really address the problem. Of course the Bible is not a scientific account of creation nor does its historical accounts match modern methods of historiography. But that does not free us to evade the issues so conveniently. The problem is still there and raises even more questions.<BR/><BR/>Is the Bible mythological? Or is it meant to convey objective facts about reality? Is God merely an etiological myth meant to bring ontological questions down to an anthropomorphic level, or is there in reality a personal being who transcends human being and knowledge and the material existence of the universe itself?<BR/><BR/>I might also point out that early scientists like Newton were actually using their faith to do empirical science like astronomy and physics as well. Newton actually used God's creation as the starting premise for his work, not the other way around! Newton surmised that it is reasonable to conclude that God reveals himself in His creation and that it should therefore be trustworthy and uniform such that we may discover something about God from His creation. This is the impetus for Newton's discoveries in astronomy, physics, and the laws of motion and gravity!<BR/><BR/>I hardly think that faith and science can be so easily divorced in earlier times. The postmodern era seems to overlook the obvious here.Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-26798876546218205662008-09-10T22:57:00.000-04:002008-09-10T22:57:00.000-04:00CrevoSome of your statements do more to tear peopl...Crevo<BR/><BR/>Some of your statements do more to tear people away from a belief in God than anything any real scientist would say. Earlier in a comment you said<BR/><BR/><STRONG><I>Geology is going more and more towards catastrophism (not to mention more and more geologists are YECs), ….snip…..</I></STRONG><BR/><BR/>That is just not true. Not in the least. I ask you to take any student, that’s had at least one semester of college geology, and stand in a canyon in Utah, look at 200 million years of geology and ask, <BR/><BR/>“Ok, Where is the proof of the flood?’.<BR/><BR/>To quote Rudy Giuliani recent speech. Zero, Zilch, Nada.<BR/><BR/> Pick up a piece of Conglomerate, and ask, just exactly how was this rock formed? Go to a mountain in Nevada and look at 6000 feet of limestone, formed in an ocean by shells of ocean creatures, and say, just exactly how was that mountain formed? The fact of the matter is, there is no proof of the flood. There is no Noah’s ark. There is no possible solution to putting two of each animal on the ark and seeing the world we have today. <BR/><BR/>The problem is, churches preach the sermon about the flood geology. Children absorb it like little sponges. But then they walk outside, and look around and realize, that the church lied to them about rocks. If the church is going to lie about rocks, then what does that say about the things it says about God.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-11474619303339225002008-09-08T18:39:00.000-04:002008-09-08T18:39:00.000-04:00For what it's worth, octopus and human eyes are de...For what it's worth, octopus and human eyes are deeply homologous (homocratic). That is, while the eyes themselves are convergent, their coding and development are homologous (both eyes are coded by Pax6 genes). Again, this is what you would expect for common ancestry, and not necessarily for common design (after all, an omnipotent common designer can break any rules or patterns he wants).<BR/><BR/>Thanks to everyone for their input in this discussion so far! :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-74682402457173543242008-09-08T15:29:00.000-04:002008-09-08T15:29:00.000-04:00Hi Crevo, sorry to jump in on this but, hey, we ne...Hi Crevo, sorry to jump in on this but, hey, we need a few XX chromosomes on this site! I had a Ph.D in microbiology and after this worked in an evolutionary biology lab for a while- but still managed to maintain a YEC stance. (I had to resort to "God just made it look like that.") Eight months ago, I couldn't bear the cognitive dissonance any more and decided to read some material by evolutionists with an open mind. The genetic evidence for common descent is overwhelming. I could explain away fossils, comparative anatomy and the peppered moth but I could not argue with the genetics, which Pete has already referred to. I'd just like to add that the evidence re human Chromosome 2 means it cannot be anything other than the result of the fusion of two ape chromosomes- unless God deliberately designed our chromosome 2 to make them appear to have evolved from apes. (I googled this but haven't come across any creationist material to explain this away).<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, the distribution of placental/marsupial animal twins is another stumbling block for creation scientists (why did no placental animals migrate to Australia after the flood?!), who are left resorting to very speedy post-Flood evolution http://www.nwcreation.net/marsupials.html<BR/><BR/>I appreciate you haven't got time to read/respond to all these comments. I just think the YEC position is untenable anymore because the evidence for common descent is so overwhelming- if we would but look at it!Clairehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18312634455397243949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-30788400292872797762008-09-07T23:06:00.000-04:002008-09-07T23:06:00.000-04:00Hi crevo, Hmm. If ID is all about intelligent caus...Hi crevo, <BR/><BR/>Hmm. If ID is all about intelligent causation, then I’m not sure we really have a problem. We wouldn’t have a problem because a) I agree that intelligent causation is self evident in humanity & b) I accept not only intelligent causation for the universe, but a grand purpose by an “intelligent designer”. In other words, what ID is trying to prove (rather unsuccessfully from what I’ve seen) I already accept as fact – partly on “faith” (but let’s not start a discussion on the definition of faith :-) ). <BR/><BR/>However, I suspect once we get to the details, we will have a problem. (Partly because the vast majority of ID supporters seem to want to make it about origins - specifically the claim that ID rules out common descent). <BR/><BR/>The short summary is that I don’t view “randomness” or “chance” as in anyway antithetical to an “intelligent designer” or his ability to accomplish his grand purpose. Bartholomew’s “God, Chance, and Purpose” has a good discussion on this.Steve Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11734019573868663947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-24990087739094483352008-09-07T21:57:00.000-04:002008-09-07T21:57:00.000-04:00Crevo,Sorry you are having to answer from so many ...Crevo,<BR/><BR/>Sorry you are having to answer from so many sources at once. Not only does that get confusing but takes quite a bit more time on your end. I'll try to make this my last post and let you go on discussing with others.<BR/><BR/><B>On your nested hierarchy example, I think you missed. </B><BR/><BR/>So lets be clear then. I define nested hierarchy as a structure that does not mix and match and can not be broken, so the 4 cars I reference can not be put into a nested hierarchy. And I consider life to fall into this NH, especially when viewing the DNA where there will be no superfluous similarities. Now you claim that life does indeed mix and match and if this can be shown to me for a decent amount of examples I will consider common descent to be falsified. Given how clear common descent is on different branches of animals, I must admit one or two examples would not suffice, but if there were enough to demonstrate there was no NH then I will abandon common descent.<BR/><BR/>As for the Octopus, that is a good example and one that needs to be explored. I am not familiar with how long ago the Octopus would have diverged from more familiar creatures with eyes to determine whether any similarity is not just shared. What would really be evidence for me though would be if the underlining genetics was the same, not just the outward appearance. The outward appearance might just be the most optimal (roundy shape, eyeball in middle). For instance the "fins" of whales, fish, and penguins look similar but are quite easily identified in the underlying bone structure (and underling DNA) to be modified mammal arms, fish fins, and modified bird wings respectively.<BR/><BR/><B>I think the opposite is the case. The more and more data we find, the more, especially for higher-level taxa, the biochemists are saying that it is "bushes" not "trees".</B><BR/><BR/>No, to the question of the number of possible phylogenetic trees, it is being reduced through better and better dna sequencing (and more dna sequencing at that). I think you are confused by the whole bush vs trees comment. We used to draw fairly straight lines through many of the species we had a variety of transitional forms for (humans, whales, horses, etc) assuming all those species were on the ancestral line. So our tree was pretty sparse. Now it is more recognized that most of these creatures branched away and died out leaving no modern day ancestors, so we have many more branches in our tree until it starts to look like a bush. This doesn't mean that it is still not a branching structure, or that it is not a nested hierarchy, or really have anything to do with the number of possible phylogenetic trees for animals such as mammals (wait, I see a possible source of confusion, I mean possible phylogenetic trees for those species still existing today).<BR/><BR/>Two notes: As stated previously, even if a creature did seem to be transitional, there is no way to prove that particular creature actually was. Indeed, maybe his species was, maybe his own brother was, but we can never tell if that particular animal ever procreated any line still alive today or ever procreated at all.<BR/><BR/>2) I recognize that the "tree" or "bush" will only remain true for creatures that pass along the DNA through sexual reproduction and not by swapping dna or consuming others dna and making it your own like bacteria.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-70990700449883453302008-09-07T14:26:00.000-04:002008-09-07T14:26:00.000-04:00crevo,Our discussion continues to branch into ever...crevo,<BR/><BR/>Our discussion continues to branch into ever smaller units of conversation, so I'm going to try to simply things by speaking to your concerns and broadly as possible, lest things become too hard to follow.<BR/><BR/><B>Re: transitional forms...</B><BR/><BR/>You're obviously contrary to the idea of transitional fossils. It seems you would rather consider something like <I>Gerobatrachus</I> -- with a body plan that looks exactly half-frog, half-salamander in nearly every minute osteological detail -- as some sort of uniquely created being, whipped up by God in a poof of smoke to fill the multi-dimensional morphospace between frogs and salamanders. This is an exaggeration of your position, to be sure, but I don't think I'm far off the mark. Your position reminds me of that taken by the guest in this 3-part audio series here:<BR/>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJjXtx0Hks0<BR/>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71rMB3d0lmE<BR/>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8bl8dISU2w&feature=related<BR/>The host admits that in almost every way, <I>Gerobatrachus</I> nicely fills the morphological gap between frogs and salamanders, as predicted by evolutionary theory. But rather than ceding one to the evolutionists, he simply says, "Well, God could also have miraculously created it that way if He wanted to!" This is just a bogus and intellectually dishonest answer. If every transitional-looking fossil that comes out of the ground can simply be attributed to the undefinable notion of a miraculously "created kind", there is no amount of evidence that could ever convince either him or you otherwise. Every new discovery will simply be considered "variation within a kind". That said, I don't think it's worth discussing transitional fossils any further.<BR/><BR/><B>Re: theology and science...</B><BR/><BR/>First, I agree that the whole of the scientific enterprise hinges on a single assumption -- namely, that for every effect, there is a natural cause. I would hesitate to label this a "theological" assumption as you do, though. If scientists were forced to buy into the idea that God does not work miracles in the world, I doubt if we would have any Christians in the field at all. Rather, this assumption of science is a methodological one. We assume the cause-effect relationship for the sake of narrowing down an infinite set of possibilities to a handful of probable ones. If we didn't, we wouldn't get anywhere. We would be left spinning our tires. Put simply, as scientists, we buy into <I>methodological</I> naturalism, not <I>ontological</I> naturalism.<BR/>Second, we are both in agreement that, given the cause-effect assumption that science makes, science cannot be used to account for miracles of God. To do so, we have to step outside the realm of science and objective hypothesis testing. This is why the study of "organizational principles" you advocate to account for gaps in evolutionary theory will never work because you cannot conduct it in any systematic, objective manner. By doing away with methodological naturalism, you've opened Pandora's box and anything goes. All opinions about God's action in history become equally valid and no consensus can ever be reached.<BR/>Lastly, suffice it to say that I don't think the "systematic gaps" (whatever that means) you speak of exist in evolutionary theory. Are there gaps in our understanding of evolution? Yes. But I think these gaps will continue to close as we continue to investigate the functional integrity of God's creation (the closing of what palaeontologists call "Romer's gap" is a case in point). That has been the legacy of science, after all. Then again, I might be wrong, and we might find that the more we poke and prod, the better established those gaps will become. I guess only time will tell. If I'm right, evolutionary theory will continue to crystalize with the discovery of each new fossil, each new genome, and each new insight into population ecology. If you're right, evolutionary theory will one day be doomed and this idea of common descent will appear only as an historical footnote in biology textbooks. But neocreationists have been predicting the latter since Darwin's time, and when the leaders of the very same Intelligent Design hypothesis you advocate describe ID as something other than a worked out scheme (Johnson) and as fully compatible with common descent (Behe), I think I know which outcome I'll put my money on (if I were a betting man).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-40244912868256556882008-09-06T22:36:00.000-04:002008-09-06T22:36:00.000-04:00Sorry I got busy and forgot to answer followups :(...Sorry I got busy and forgot to answer followups :(<BR/><BR/>Steve:<BR/><BR/>"Your reply, rather than addressing this theological difference, discussed plans to expand science to include “intelligent causation” so I think you either agree with me, or fail to appreciate your own theological presupposition"<BR/><BR/>I think you misunderstood my point. ID does not have to detect God at all. The point of ID is that non-material causes (including human choice) are real. Yes, that is an assumption - possibly classifiable as a theological one, but it is one that I think is a defining part of human experience (if someone here has not experienced the ability to choose, please mention it!)<BR/><BR/>ID <I>can be applied</I> to origins (and often is), but <I>it is not about origins</I>. It is about causation in general. It is about the reality of choice within contingency. Note that one of the seminal works on ID - Dembski's The Design Inference - isn't about origins at all - it is merely about causation. Another ID work that has nothing to do with origins is Schwartz's Quantum Interactive Dualism thesis for the mechanism on how choice influences our bodies.<BR/><BR/>Thus, ID doesn't need to prove God, because ID doesn't even need the origins debate to exist.<BR/><BR/>Jordan:<BR/><BR/>"Actually, we don't even need fossil taxa to see that life is arranged in the pattern of a nested hierarchy."<BR/><BR/>Yes, and I agreed that this was the case. What I pointed out is that a nested hierarchy _without identifiable ancestors_ points to a logical organization, not a physical (i.e. descent-based) cause.<BR/><BR/>"In fact, among vertebrates, the only two groups for which we still have no good transitional fossils are turtles and bats"<BR/><BR/>I disagree here. The problem is that most of what are classified as "transitional" are either (a) within the bounds of what Creationists consider a created kind, or (b) chimeric, and only transitional in the sense that they provide evolutionists clues to how a transition might have happened (to use common evo phraseology), but are not themselves part of the transitional lineage.<BR/><BR/>"Simply saying God did something tells us nothing about how He did it, which is the very type of question science is interested in answering."<BR/><BR/>But the question is - is it answerable by science? For instance, can I tell from looking at a computer program what type of keyboard was used to enter it in? No, and also that is the least important thing about the computer program. And then, if the author of the computer program tells you some details, then disagreeing with him based on circumstantial evidence seems silly. I would instead use the information provided to me by the programmer to understand the layout of the program better.<BR/><BR/>"Science has an evidence-based answer to how God patterned life. And as of yet, no testable alternatives have been offered."<BR/><BR/>Except that science's alternative isn't testable either, it just happens to follow science's materialistic rules. If science's materialistic rules are incorrect, there is no reason to believe it.<BR/><BR/>"[on the grouping things]"<BR/><BR/>I don't disagree that there is a structured grouping. My point is that the exceptions are so stark as to remove the notion that the groupings are based on physical reasons. I have no problem with the large separation in taxonomy between the human and the octopus. But if you look at it based on eyes, then you realize that common descent doesn't explain anything. These are two systems that, though they have some differences, are very much alike in operation. Yet their existence in such different habitats and such different groupings indicate that natural selection was not the one that put these together.<BR/><BR/>"This is quite the blanket statement, so I'm uncertain of what you mean by it."<BR/><BR/>Here's one example question - do beneficial mutations arise by happenstance, or because organisms are precoded to have those mutations occur? More and more we find the latter, yet this is not incorporated as a generalized explanation in evolutionary theory, because it would require that the original organisms _start_ with a very large pool of information. This is excluded on theological grounds, not because the evidence is against it. Over and over the reasons for beneficial mutations is because the genome has specific coding to produce those kinds of mutations, yet it is still claimed that natural selection operates on happenstance mutations, and that the mutations are not predisposed to benefit the organisms. This is a theological hope, not a data element.<BR/><BR/>"Science, by definition (not by etymology), requires natural explanations for natural phenomena."<BR/><BR/>This is all well and good, but for historical events, how do you separate natural from supernatural phenomena? If a phenomena is supernatural, isn't investigating it as if it were a natural phenomena a category error of the highest proportion? Might it not be wise to allow for evidence that your categorization is in error?<BR/><BR/>"Therefore, in science we don't have the luxury of appealing to miracles in order to explain discontinuities in the data because this isn't allowed. By definition."<BR/><BR/>So why should arbitrary definitions be binding in any way on what a believer believes? If evolution is true simply on the basis that science has no other way to investigate it, then I hardly see how we should be encouraging non-scientific Christians to agree, since we have no basis other than a methodological limitation in which to say so.<BR/><BR/>"To do so would put an end to discovery because everytime we come to a gap in our knowledge, we would simply attribute that gap to a miracle of God."<BR/><BR/>This is a red herring. The problem is that whether or not something is natural or supernatural <I>is not decidable by science</I>. However, you are missing the fact that this doesn't mean that it <I>isn't decidable at all</I>. It is only undecidable if we look at science as our only means of knowledge. Since science is limited to looking at chance and necessity, and we know that our everyday lives are full of choice-based activities which involve more than chance and necessity, acting as if science should be running the show (since it is so limited) is simply dumb. Science is powerful when used in the right context. It is misleading or false when used out-of-context.<BR/><BR/>No one, especially me (which I've already stated), is arguing that a gap in knowledge is evidence of God. In fact, I don't know of anyone who believes that. However, systematic gaps are usually evidence of a failed paradigm. And information and organization are usually (actually, always) evidence of design and choice, and choice is above the chance-and-necessity-only rules of science. And this doesn't end investigation, it simply begins it on a different path - looking for the organization principles in charge rather than the original physical causes. With science alone, you are limited to believing in things that make no sense because of an arbitrary methodological rule. However, I think we should use all of our faculties of reason and not science alone.<BR/><BR/>Pete -<BR/><BR/>On your nested hierarchy example, I think you missed. <BR/><BR/>"As a test, I sometimes ask whether cars (say all 2006 Toyota models) or computers, (say all HP from 1996 - 2008) can be put into nested hierarchies. The answer of course is no, because they do not share features in smaller and smaller groupings (human designers just mix and match parts). Even the four vehicles, the 2 and 4 door Corrolas and Cameries can not be put into a nested hierarchy."<BR/><BR/>I would say they are just as much of a nested hierarchy as life is. Again, look at the eye of the octopus and human. It matches your "mix and match parts" of car design very well. <BR/><BR/>"It is slowly converging."<BR/><BR/>I think the opposite is the case. The more and more data we find, the more, especially for higher-level taxa, the biochemists are saying that it is "bushes" not "trees".<BR/><BR/>"But just for the sake of argument assume that they all did, this is irrelevant to the point. The point is whether they are viral insertions . Are you denying this?"<BR/><BR/>I don't know if they are or not. I tend to view retroviral insertions as a "plug-in" mechanism for organisms. Some plug-ins come factory-installed and some get added later, so I am not committed to them being post-creation insertions. They may be, or not. If the cell cannot use the ERV markers for housecleaning activities (such as removing some under certain circumstances), then I would think that they would have to be post-creation. But if the cell can distinguish them, then it is perfectly legitimate for them to just be factory-installed plugins. As of right now, our knowledge of the cell is too early to tell.<BR/><BR/>"how does this change the probability that we will find them at the same location? It makes the odds better for sure, but how much better?"<BR/><BR/>It depends on the ERV, and when it occurred. If Sanford's Genetic Entropy hypothesis is correct, they may have had stronger affinities for certain sites in the past than in modern times.<BR/><BR/>"But assume you did see evidence that traced out a greater number, would that be meaningful to you?"<BR/><BR/>Yes - I would like to see a global pattern among three semi-disparate organisms (close enough evolutionarily that we should be able to trace the signal, but distant enough for Creationists to think they are different created kinds). It would not necessarily convince me to come to your side, but it would certainly pull in that direction, and definitely keep me from ever talking about ERVs as anything but current evidence for common descent.<BR/><BR/>"So find more."<BR/><BR/>Oh, I certainly agree that there is much more research that needs to be done. Hopefully they will complete the chimp sequence fully someday (right now, if I recall correctly, the chimp is sequenced, but the sequence is hung on the framework of the human genome, making the question of ancestry difficult to deduce on the data, since it was assumed for the reconstruction).<BR/><BR/>"Well, here is a link that discusses that case."<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the link! I will check it out.crevohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01454165271895308641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-11771895360947578952008-09-06T20:50:00.000-04:002008-09-06T20:50:00.000-04:00Agreed. Thanks, Jordan.Agreed. Thanks, Jordan.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-21079445747361145452008-09-06T19:20:00.000-04:002008-09-06T19:20:00.000-04:00Crevo: At the beginning of this thread you brought...Crevo: <BR/>At the beginning of this thread you brought up the “theological presuppositions of evolutionary theory”. I don’t necessarily agree with your characterizations of these presuppositions, but I do agree that we all have some theological presuppositions. In fact, I believe the most significant difference between ID and EC positions is theological NOT scientific ie. the common evangelical ID position (I believe) insists that God’s design / purpose must be scientifically detectable where as an evangelical EC maintains that this is not theologically necessary. Your reply, rather than addressing this theological difference, discussed plans to expand science to include “intelligent causation” so I think you either agree with me, or fail to appreciate your own theological presupposition. <BR/><BR/>Pete: <BR/>Thanks a lot for your excellent discussion & for digging up the rebuttal on talk.origins. <BR/><BR/>Edward: <BR/>Welcome. Regarding inerrancy, you may want to check out the previous post <A HREF="http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/08/inerrancy-ignore-it-redefine-it-or.html" REL="nofollow">Inerrancy: Ignore it, Redefine it, or Replace it</A>. Many of us agree that the term inerrancy is unhelpful (the common definition of it is clearly unsupportable & more nuanced definitions should probably just use a different word). Still, I understand why some want to do this. (Enns has put up <A HREF="http://peterennsonline.com/ii/ii-denies-inerrancy/" REL="nofollow">another post</A> on the topic). <BR/><BR/>Re: the Axiel age - and in fact the rise of religion much, much before the Hebrews existed (at least 10’s of thousands of years). Yes, this stuff is very interesting but I don’t see it as particularly troublesome as an Evangelical Christian. A little off topic though .. maybe another post. <BR/><BR/>Re: doubt. I suspect every single Christian experiences doubt. I certainly do. But doubt is not the opposite of faith (as so often thought). A nice little book on this is Alister McGrath’s “The Sunnier Side of Doubt”. <BR/><BR/>Finally Jordan: <BR/>Thanks a lot for both your post & your comments. All were excellent.Steve Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11734019573868663947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-3017389331888233322008-09-05T17:54:00.000-04:002008-09-05T17:54:00.000-04:00I like Lamoureux and also Kenneth Miller, who both...I like Lamoureux and also Kenneth Miller, who both argue in favor of common descent and cite the scientific evidence in droves in the face of creationists who are fellow Christians. <BR/><BR/>However, I don't see the point of claiming a book is inerrant and simultaneously admitting it's a book that contains the ignorance of its day and age. One could use a similar argument to claim the "inerrancy" of any ancient book. <BR/><BR/>Likewise with the "Hidden God" defense of theism. <BR/><BR/>If the hypothesis of "God's hiddenness" combined with the admitted errant passages found in ancient "holy books" do not raise SOME questions and doubts in the minds of Christian theists like Lamoureaux, then what does? <BR/><BR/>The prima facia evidence is that all living multi-cellular beings die. It's happening all around us, we've seen it. There's no contesting the evidence in that respect. What happens after death may be nothing, or a mystery we know very little about. But to claim you have seen behind the metaphysical curtain and know that humanity must come to believe "in Jesus" in order to "inherit and eternal personal existence that consists in praising Jesus," seems like a claim to knowledge that cannot be supported to any great personal degree, nor universally agreed upon. We don't really know in such cases. Some claim to know. But the metaphysical curtain and hiddenness of God, hiding behind natural processes, and hiding behind a book featuring prima facia errors, does not look highly convincing. <BR/><BR/>Speaking of other religions and cultures there's a new book titled THE GREAT TRANSFORMATION by a well known author of religious works that goes into detail concerning what was happening all round the world during "the Axial age," and how different cultures produced different religions and yet during the Axial age they came to concentrate on inner spiritualities rather than archaic rituals, and this happened around the world as cultures grew and scholars arose and people started asking more questions. We are all heirs of the Axial age, and it's a fascinating story. Check out the book, THE GREAT TRANSFORMATION, and the smaller accompanying work by the same author, A SHORT HISTORY OF MYTH. Also check out by another author the book, SPOOK: SCIENCE TACKLES THE AFTERLIFE (a history of the search for scientific proof of the afterlife). Great reading! Even better listening. I've been listening to the cassettes and CDs.Edwardtbabinskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13036816926421936940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-9470707934369265632008-09-04T23:48:00.000-04:002008-09-04T23:48:00.000-04:00Well, here is a link that discusses that case. ht...Well, here is a link that discusses that case. <BR/><BR/>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/<BR/><BR/>The original article is 1985. Appears in 1992 the resolution was discovered. I'm too tired to read this thing carefully at the moment, but I'll let you read it and judge.<BR/><BR/><B>Woodmorappe describes an example of an epsilon immunoglobulin pseudogene that was reported (Ueda et al, PNAS 82: 3712 1985) to be shared by gorilla and man but not by chimpanzee, seeming to contradict the conventional evolutionary view that human ancestors diverged from the gorilla lineage before they diverged from the chimpanzee lineage. Unfortunately, Woodmorappe failed to consider later data from Ueda's laboratory (Kawamura and Ueda, Genomics 13:194, 1992) that were available when Woodmorappe wrote in 1994 (Bible Science News 32:4 p. 12). These more recent data show that DNA deletions destroying duplicated copies of the epsilon immunoglobulin genes (1) occurred independently in human and gorilla lineages (independence was deduced from the fact that the "right" and "left" boundaries of the deleted DNA were completely different in the two species), and (2) also occurred (again independently) in chimpanzee. Thus Woodmorappe's example of a shared pseudogene linking humans to gorilla but not to chimp (in apparent violation of the more recent divergence of human ancestors from chimpanzee accepted by most evolutionists) is incorrect: these are not "shared" pseudogenes but independently arising pseudogenes, and chimpanzee has a similar, though larger, deletion. (I should mention that I cited this same incorrect example in my original version of this essay. However, at the time I wrote--1986--the example was supported by the evidence then available; and I printed a correction in Creation/Evolution after the new data were published. I should also stress that the example of the processed epsilon pseudogene mentioned in section 4.3 above represents a completely different sequence, which no one disputes is shared by humans, chimps and gorillas.)</B>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-19884217011414653492008-09-04T23:26:00.000-04:002008-09-04T23:26:00.000-04:00I don't get this one. This might make sense if we ...<B>I don't get this one. This might make sense if we actually had possession of a lot of species which were the common ancestors of extant groups,</B><BR/><BR/>Some of this was mentioned by Jordan by I want to emphasize a few points. First off, the nested hierarchy pattern I speak of is for living organisms today. If common descent were true, we would find them as such. It is also true that God could create them in this nice pattern. But lets be clear, there is only one pattern that could be true for common descent. There are an infinite number of patterns God could have chosen. So if God did choose to create through instantaneous creation, He did so in the one manor that would also evidence common descent, instead of the infinite number of ways that would disprove it. (Strangely enough, adding whole bunch of inherited but non functional genes inherited from our ances….I mean put in by God once again because it would evidence common descent).<BR/><BR/><B>but these are largely missing, if not entirely missing for the higher-level taxa. </B><BR/><BR/>I used to push this line when I was a YEC. It was pure ignorance on my part and trust in Duane Gish. If you would like to see the myriad of fossil finds representing creatures that either fill lines on the branching tree of life or are closely related (something that is impossible for us to determine short of a time machine), you should read “Evolution: What the Fossils say and why it matters” by Don Prothero. <BR/><BR/><B>Likewise, there are multiple ways of organizing the tree (the standard evolutionary tree is only one way of doing this).</B><BR/><BR/>Jordan already elaborated on this a bit, but organizing on eye size which get you little since it can change rapidly and any convergence would be very difficult to detect. And I hope you are not implying the nested hierarchy is an arbitrary classification. As a test, I sometimes ask whether cars (say all 2006 Toyota models) or computers, (say all HP from 1996 - 2008) can be put into nested hierarchies. The answer of course is no, because they do not share features in smaller and smaller groupings (human designers just mix and match parts). Even the four vehicles, the 2 and 4 door Corrolas and Cameries can not be put into a nested hierarchy. Either you group them first on number of doors and the engine type breaks the nested structure or you group them on engine first and the door number breaks the hierarchy. <BR/><BR/><B>Multiple potential trees - indicates multiple layers of organization and reuse</B><BR/><BR/>We do have several different trees of life, it is the result of gaps in our knowledge, especially poor observation of genetics in the past. It is slowly converging. I’m sure you have heard the often quoted phase, given the number of species and the possible number of phylogenic trees we have now narrowed it down to a precision of more decimal points then we have measured the Gravitational constant in physics. <BR/><BR/><B>On the ERVs - note that most of the premises of the argument have been found to be faulty (ERVs are functional, and do have preferential insertion sites).</B><BR/><BR/>First off, that some ERV genetic material has proved to serve functions does not imply that all nor even many do so. But just for the sake of argument assume that they all did, this is irrelevant to the point. The point is whether they are viral insertions . Are you denying this? You seem to accept they are inserted as later you reference the preferential insertion points (and I will address this point shortly). If they are inserted and they are inserted on the same location on the same chromosome across multiple species then there is a probability associated whether this could happen. But not only that, the ones shared are shared in a nested hierarchy, the same nested hierarchy evidenced through other forms of unrelated genetic evidence. Do you have an alternate explanation for this then common descent? And if you do wish to assert these are not viral insertions, please allow me the freedom to await you original research that can demonstrate such. We catch watch these viral insertions in real time, it is an active field of study since HIV itself is a retrovirus.<BR/><BR/>But assuming you actually believe they are inserted since you mentioned the preferential insertion sites (and I don’t take you as one who would just throw out multiple lines of rebuttals even if they clearly contradict each other), how does this change the probability that we will find them at the same location? It makes the odds better for sure, but how much better? Let’s just look at two species, humans and chimps, and make some estimates What if there were 50 favored insertion sites. Then the odds of them sharing the same site is 1/50. And lets assume we find that humans and chimps share 5 such ERVs. Now we are at (1/50)^5 that is 0.00000000032 for just two species and five sites. And this is being very optimistic, as there are more then five shared and there are more then 50 favored sites. Now, assume it is a ERV that was shared from a distant common ancestor, so it is shared with all the primates. All probability becomes effectively zero and we are still within the primates. Do you know there are ERVs we share in orthogonal sites with mice… Simply throwing out “there are preferential sites” is not much evidence against common descent and that is without even taking into account the fact that when then are shared, they are shared in a nested hierarchy.<BR/><BR/><B>Also, the study which showed the nested hierarchy only focused on, I think it was 8 fragments out of 98,0000. The rest may conform to the same pattern - I don't know - but the study that everyone points to only looked at 8 of them.</B><BR/><BR/>I know there have been more studies of ERVs then just 8 shared in monkeys and primates. I know there have been studies on reptiles, carnivores, and mice. But assume you did see evidence that traced out a greater number, would that be meaningful to you?<BR/><BR/><B>For example, here is ERV evidence in support of one tree, and here is pseudogene evidence in support of a different one.</B><BR/><BR/>Ah ha! Bouya! Indeed, this is exactly the kind of thing I consider evidence against common descent! Thank you, at least this would imply we are starting to understand each other. I will try to read this paper as best I can,but let me just say in advance, gather up as many of these as you can find. Finding one outlier, (especially for species so closely related) is a start though there are probably possible explanations (the chimp genome losing a particular gene is not only possible but not even uncommon). I'm sure if you dropped a pencil tomorrow and it shot up towards the roof, you wouldn't immediate assume gravity is not pulling downward and it is all a scientific shame. Indeed, there might be metal in the pencil and an electromagnet above the ceiling. But if half of everything all over the world went up we would need to rethink our theories. So find more. If common descent is not true, there should be just as many of these if not more that break every nested hierarchy pattern. This is exactly how humans design, breaking a nested hierarchy with just about every new product. If you can find me cases where errors in pseduogenes are shared with dogs but nothing in between I will abandon common descent.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-45454071943877769762008-09-04T11:31:00.000-04:002008-09-04T11:31:00.000-04:00"I don't get this one. This might make sense if we...<B>"I don't get this one. This might make sense if we actually had possession of a lot of species which were the common ancestors of extant groups, but these are largely missing, if not entirely missing for the higher-level taxa."</B><BR/><BR/>Actually, we don't even need fossil taxa to see that life is arranged in the pattern of a nested hierarchy. We can (and do) design cladograms based on living taxa alone (just look at any molecular phylogeny). The fossils just help to complete the picture.<BR/>Secondly, we DO have many fossil ancestors of common extant groups, including frogs, humans, reptiles, amniotes, mammals, birds, horses, vertebrates, tetrapods, whales, rabbits, snakes... you name it. In fact, among vertebrates, the only two groups for which we still have no good transitional fossils are turtles and bats (although a primitive, non-echolocating bat was described recently).<BR/>Sure, you can argue that God patterned or "organized" life this way. But that doesn't tell us anything we Christians don't already know. Simply saying God did something tells us nothing about <I>how</I> He did it, which is the very type of question science is interested in answering. Science has an evidence-based answer to <I>how</I> God patterned life. And as of yet, no testable alternatives have been offered.<BR/><BR/><B>"kewise, there are multiple ways of organizing the tree (the standard evolutionary tree is only one way of doing this). For example, on gross morphology, we would put the Thylacine with the Wolf. If we went by complex structures, we might be tempted to put mammals near cephalopods, based on similar eye structure. If we went by genes, we would get a different structure as well."</B><BR/><BR/>Yes, on superficial gross morphology, we might be tempted to place the thylacine with the wolf or vertebrates with cephalopods. At the level of the family tree, we might also be tempted to group all the long- and short-haired people separately, or to separate all people who wear Gap clothing from those who wear Old Navy. Of course, this is just silly, and in order to get a more accurate picture of familial interrelationships, we would need to look at the distribution of a number of independent variables like genetic disorders, shape of the face, hair colour and texture, skin pigmentation, genes, etc. It is these shared, derived characters that allow us to acurrately reconstruct a family tree.<BR/>So when we're dealing with the morphology of fossil and extant animals, we don't simply say "this one looks like a dog, this has eyes like a cat..." and group them that way. We look at minute differences in the phenotype and genotype, such as the patterning of the sutures of the skull, the shape of an ankle bone, the number of thoracic vertebrae, and/or a sequence of genetic code, in order to get an idea as to how to best group these things. The more independent variables, the better. If you want to learn more, the following website is useful:<BR/>http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=55<BR/><BR/>Let's get to the theology, finally...<BR/><BR/><B>"But my main theological point is that there have been numerous avenues of inquiry that are simply unexplored because they are a priori assumed unfruitful because they contradict the theologies of those involved."</B><BR/><BR/>This is quite the blanket statement, so I'm uncertain of what you mean by it. If you're saying that you think miraculous creation has been unfairly excluded from the realm of science, I can't say I agree with you. Science, <I>by definition</I> (not by etymology), requires natural explanations for natural phenomena. Therefore, in science we don't have the luxury of appealing to miracles in order to explain discontinuities in the data because this isn't allowed. By definition. To do so would put an end to discovery because everytime we come to a gap in our knowledge, we would simply attribute that gap to a miracle of God. Think about it: Would you argue that God must be miraculously conspiring agaist us because we have yet to find the cure for cancer? If that were the case, there would be no point in further research!<BR/>All this isn't to say that I don't think the world is designed. It is. The Bible tells us as much (e.g., Rom 1:20). But as theologian Howard Van Till rightly points out in an analogy: "the process of <I>designing</I> a truck -- an action of the minds -- is wholly distinct from the process of <I>assembling</I> it -- an action of the "hands" (from <I>Perspectives on an Evolving Creation</I>). Thus, it is entirely possible for something to be both designed <I>and</I> evolved. This is the position I take as an evolutionary creationist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-59736898102430310462008-09-04T08:51:00.000-04:002008-09-04T08:51:00.000-04:00"B) some parts of the Evangelical ID communit..."B) some parts of the Evangelical ID community (don’t know how large this is). Ted Davis has made this point several times on the ASA list over the last couple of years. (Side note: B above does not include i) YEC or ii) those opposed to common descent – it is unclear from your comments where you stand but I suspect you would fall into at least ii & possibly i – is that correct?)."<BR/><BR/>I am YEC, but tend to work pretty closely with ID OECs and ID Evos. For example, here are <A HREF="http://telicthoughts.com/front-loading-from-a-creationist-perspective/" REL="nofollow">some ID Evos who tend to view me quite favorably</A> (and I, them), despite our large gaps of disagreement.<BR/><BR/>"it is theologically **necessary** for design / purpose to be scientifically detectable"<BR/><BR/>I think the issue is that (a) we would like to expand science to include intelligent causes (I am actually beginning work on an ID textbook which doesn't discuss origins at all, but focuses on ways to extend science to include intelligent causes and shows some engineering/computer science applications.)<BR/><BR/>In addition, the universe, as well as life, shows pretty clear marks of design. I've never figured out how this is debatable except in a theoretical sense (scientists should always be allowed to explore new avenues even prior to their being demonstrable publicly, but past this sense I've never understood how people don't look at what is going on and immediately see design. ID is simply formalizing the intuition. However, ID proper deals with causation - whether or choice exists as a reality or not, is while the ID origins debate is an application of this causal structure to origins. See my essay <A HREF="http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/thinking-about-id-as-a-theory-of-causation/" REL="nofollow">here</A>. I'm going to have to cut this post short because my children are feeling slighted :)crevohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01454165271895308641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-39482343127087049862008-09-04T07:03:00.000-04:002008-09-04T07:03:00.000-04:00Crevo, You stated you were glad when Pete said tha...Crevo, <BR/><BR/>You stated you were glad when Pete said that : <BR/><I>“I am totally open to someone showing me that God's miraculous intervention MUST have been present for common descent to be a reality.”</I> <BR/><BR/>and that you <BR/><BR/><I>“thought evolutionary creationism was opposed to Intelligent Design, but this looks like you are supporting it.”</I><BR/><BR/>Ok, this is getting at a very, very important point that we all (Evangelicals interested in science) need to understand IMHO. I believe there is actually a lot of common ground between A) large parts of the Evangelical EC community and B) some parts of the Evangelical ID community (don’t know how large this is). Ted Davis has made this point several times on the ASA list over the last couple of years. (Side note: B above does not include i) YEC or ii) those opposed to common descent – it is unclear from your comments where you stand but I suspect you would fall into at least ii & possibly i – is that correct?). <BR/><BR/>The main difference between these two positions is actually a theological claim. <BR/><BR/>A) The Evangelical ID community believes that a) it is theologically <B>**necessary**</B> for design / purpose to be scientifically detectable. Some (many) would also claim that b) this detectibility has already been demonstrated although most agree much more work needs to be done on the scientific level. But the important point here is that the theological presupposition is the driving factor. <BR/><BR/>B) On the other hand, most of the Evangelical EC community believes that the scientific detectibility of design is NOT theologically necessary, but neither will we rule it out for theological purposes. We believe in miracles (and most of us would believe that miracles were not necessarily reserved for the apostolic era). We do not however, believe that it is necessary to claim that one of those miracles (ie. scientifically unexplainable events with meaning) included the development of life on earth. But I don’t think we rule out the possibility that some miracle of this sort will be demonstrated in the future (most of us doubt this pretty strongly though). In other words, if somehow design was demonstrated at a scientific level, I don’t believe my worldview would be altered that much at all. My faith is based on the life, death, and resurrection of the incarnate and redeeming Christ. How God created the world is very interesting to me, but it really is not a core part of my faith. <BR/><BR/>On the other hand I am very worried that the Evangelicals ID community may be damaging the gospel by focusing on God’s fingerprints in creation (fingerprints that it is unclear he ever intended to leave) rather than Christ crucified. I realize that you don’t need to choose one or the other, but that is certainly an impression one is given much of the time. <BR/><BR/>Other ECs can comment on whether or not the position above (my own) fairly represents theirs as well - I may be assuming my own position is more widespread than it actually is.Steve Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11734019573868663947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-8874008865502107662008-09-04T01:38:00.000-04:002008-09-04T01:38:00.000-04:00"The nested hierarchy pattern exhibited by life ma..."The nested hierarchy pattern exhibited by life makes sense only in the light of common ancestry."<BR/><BR/>I don't get this one. This might make sense if we actually had possession of a lot of species which were the common ancestors of extant groups, but these are largely missing, if not entirely missing for the higher-level taxa. Thus, the pattern does not reveal common ancestry (in which cases we should have common ancestors of most larger groups available - especially considering how static so many groups are in the fossil record), but rather an organizational pattern, which is the product of design. <BR/><BR/>Likewise, there are multiple ways of organizing the tree (the standard evolutionary tree is only one way of doing this). For example, on gross morphology, we would put the Thylacine with the Wolf. If we went by complex structures, we might be tempted to put mammals near cephalopods, based on similar eye structure. If we went by genes, we would get a different structure as well.<BR/><BR/>Basic summary:<BR/><BR/>Tree with known ancestors - indicates evolution<BR/><BR/>Tree lacking ancestors - indicates organizational pattern<BR/><BR/>Multiple potential trees - indicates multiple layers of organization and reuse<BR/><BR/>"everything to do with information theory and nothing to do with theology"<BR/><BR/>My point was that many options were excluded a priori because of a preconception on what God was/wasn't allowed to do within Creation. <BR/><BR/>Pete -<BR/><BR/>On the ERVs - note that most of the premises of the argument have been found to be faulty (ERVs are functional, and do have preferential insertion sites). Also, the study which showed the nested hierarchy only focused on, I think it was 8 fragments out of 98,0000. The rest may conform to the same pattern - I don't know - but the study that everyone points to only looked at 8 of them. <BR/><BR/>For example, here is <A HREF="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11378389?dopt=Abstract" REL="nofollow">ERV evidence in support of one tree</A>, and <A HREF="http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=2987940" REL="nofollow">here is pseudogene evidence in support of a different one</A>.<BR/><BR/>Nested hierarchy? Perhaps, or perhaps they are just similar genomes which have gone through similar histories. You can guess at either side, but the notion of overwhelming evidence is simply not there.<BR/><BR/>One amusing anecdote in this whole idea of genomes giving evidence of the evolutionary tree is <A HREF="http://www.pnas.org/content/103/26/9929.full" REL="nofollow">Pegasoferae</A>, which, by using the same sorts of data to group humans and chimps, you also get horses and bats grouped together.<BR/><BR/>But my main theological point is that there have been numerous avenues of inquiry that are simply unexplored because they are a priori assumed unfruitful because they contradict the theologies of those involved.<BR/><BR/>Also, about the pages you linked to, again, mutations aren't generally random. Some of them occur in absence of stress, but that doesn't put them outside the control of a system (see my previous references). However, many of them are <A HREF="http://www.springerlink.com/content/t03167421u768u61/" REL="nofollow">specifically induced by specific stressors</A>.<BR/><BR/>Pete -<BR/><BR/>I was surprised but happy to see you say "I am totally open to someone showing me that God's miraculous intervention MUST have been present for common descent to be a reality". I thought evolutionary creationism was opposed to Intelligent Design, but this looks like you are supporting it. Basically, this would be Behe's view - in fact he makes the point that Intelligent Design is the saving grace of common descent. I disagree with him for the evidence regarding common descent, but agree with him that the only way to overcome any of these problems would be through Intelligent Design. But the interesting thing is that the theological presuppositions in science (that God could not have intervened or that science must be able to operate independently of God) prevent people from looking down that avenue.crevohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01454165271895308641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-65124188789634105492008-09-03T23:16:00.000-04:002008-09-03T23:16:00.000-04:00I'm with you, Pete. The nested hierarchy pattern e...I'm with you, Pete. The nested hierarchy pattern exhibited by life makes sense only in the light of common ancestry. The only response to this argument I've heard from anti-evolutionary creationists so far is, "Well... God <I>could</I> have designed life that way." Of course, this sort of ad hoc hypothesizing does nothing to explain this pattern -- it only explains it <I>away</I>.<BR/>Sure, scientists may be wrong, and it is possible that some other factor accounts of the hierarchical pattern of life. Until someone comes up with a better explanation, though, we'll keep what we've got because it works. We may still be figuring out the details, and I agree with crevo that there's no shame in admitting that, but an incomplete theory does not make for an incorrect one.<BR/><BR/>Having said that, I want to talk about the <I>theological</I> problems crevo sees with evolution. What problems come to your mind, crevo? (It looks like you tried answering this question earlier, but your entire response had everything to do with information theory and nothing to do with theology, so I'm not sure that you understood the question.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-60977110807018488682008-09-03T20:57:00.000-04:002008-09-03T20:57:00.000-04:00Pete, Welcome back. Good to hear from you again (...Pete, <BR/>Welcome back. Good to hear from you again (it is the same Pete isn’t it?). <BR/><BR/>Crevo: <BR/><I>“I'm curious, then. We know what parts of the Creation account you disagree with - what part of standard evolutionary biology (preferably something standard enough to be in a textbook) would you disagree with on theological grounds?” </I><BR/><BR/>To clarify, I do not disagree with <B>"the"</B> Creation account - I disagree with specific fallible interpretations of Genesis that result in <B>"a"</B> Creation account that, in Conrad Hyers words, <A HREF="http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1332" REL="nofollow">constrict the cosmic dance</A>. <BR/><BR/>As to the science books, frankly, my approach now is (in general) to believe what I read unless there are good reasons not to. Sometimes books / authors / scientists try to smuggle in atheistic metaphysical concepts (eg. extrapolating from randomness to purposelessness) but this occurs rarely from my own experience. <BR/><BR/>Why do I give science books the benefit of the doubt? First, science is not inherently atheistic (see Keith Miller’s <A HREF="http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/05/creation-evolution-and-nature-of.html" REL="nofollow">Creation, Evolution, and the Nature of Science</A>. Second, it seems to me that the vast majority of scientists (of all religious persuasions) demonstrate integrity in their research. (Part of the reason may be that if they didn’t, their duplicity would be discovered & their careers damaged). On the other hand, a lot of anti-evolutionist claims are not only wrong, but also seem downright dishonest. (See <A HREF="http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html" REL="nofollow">index of creationist claims</A> on talk.origins). It is very disconcerting to discover that many Christians are confidently drawing conclusions by (willfully?) ignoring all (often overwhelming) contrary evidence. <BR/><BR/>Re: your claim that there is no evidence for massive species extinction. I **think** what you are saying is that, in your opinion, a) the evidence for an old earth is not overwhelming & b) the generally accepted practices for dating fossils in the geological column is bogus. Is this what you mean? So the “theological” assumption you are talking about here is an old earth – is this correct? <BR/><BR/>Re: dearth & limitations of “beneficial” mutations. Check out my article <A HREF="http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/04/to-mutate-or-not-to-mutate-that-is-not.html" REL="nofollow">To mutate or not to mutate: That is not the question</A> on why "beneficial" might be a confusing terminology – actually, some of the best stuff is in the comments (fortunately many of my readers have a way better understanding of this stuff than I do :-) ). Actually, a better resource might be to go to <A HREF="http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2008/04/mutations-selection-and-bacteria.html" REL="nofollow">Stephen Matheson’s post</A> referenced in my post above or to his recent criticisms of Michael Behe’s arguments (<A HREF="http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2008/08/why-im-not-behe-fan-part-i.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>, <A HREF="http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2008/08/why-im-not-behe-fan-part-iia-malaria.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>, <A HREF="http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2008/08/behe-botches-basic-probabilityhow.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>, and <A HREF="http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2008/08/why-im-not-behe-fan-part-iib-abusing.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>).Steve Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11734019573868663947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-12450855597362937552008-09-03T14:14:00.000-04:002008-09-03T14:14:00.000-04:00I'm not sure how evolution happened (or even wheth...I'm not sure how evolution happened (or even whether it could?!?). What I am sure of is that it DID happen, at least on the very specific claim of common descent (and in that regard, at least on the order of the mammals). This is strongly evidenced by the (morphological) nested hierarchy we find life in today. This would be suspicious enough, though I might find it reasonable that God wished to create in such a specific pattern (indistinguishable from common descent) But then we add all the independent lines of evidence which fall into the same pattern, that of fossils, biogeography, embryology, and organs that serves different purposes by quite clearly are shared among species with a common ancestor. Still, maybe I would let that slide, those are not exact on every level and some unexplained data probably still exists. But then we come to genetics. Now when I referred to the morphological nested hierarchy, I could have just as well said genetic nested hierarchy and even that might not have been the total clincher since you would expect the same genetics to produce the same morphological features (once again, admitting God created in the one specific and only pattern that also evidences common descent, instead of the infinite other patterns that would have proved special creation). But how do you explain the errors in the psudeogenes that fit the same nested hierarchal structure. Or dead genes, like the now famous Vitamin C gene example in humans (and all primates) broken in the same place. And then we come to the nail so thick it will take a truly amazing explanation to pull it out, the ERVs, viruses inserted into our genome in times past, FOLLOWING THE SAME NESTED HIERARCHY STRUCTURE!!! There is only one reasonable explanation for this and SURPRISE SURPRISE, it is the one all the other evidence points to, common descent. At one time (as far back as new world monkeys) we shared a common ancestor with these living species and a singular viral insertion event is now left over in both our genomes in the same chromosome location. Any explanation about how we received these ERVs or tries to suggest we always had them MUST account for the fact that they are found within the primate genome in a nested hierarchy fashion. I have yet to meet a special creationist he even seems to understand this fact.<BR/><BR/>When I see an online back or forth over the evidence of evolution, any such discussion which is not discussing the nested hierarchical pattern of all available and/or measurable properties of life is totally pointless. It is meaningless to argue whether it can happen while ignoring that it obviously did. It seems to me most special creationist apologists are totally ignorant of what a nested hierarchy is, most likely because they learn all their information from AIG or ICR which also seems oblivious to the evidence of common descent (or at least they never talk about it). <BR/><BR/>As we approach questions of random mutation and natural selection, we have gotten way ahead of ourselves. Its like trying to prove my sister doesn't exist by referring to the implausibility of such and such egg and sperm and birth control and whatever, all the while my sister is standing next to me. And almost all of these conversations assume any "evolutionary" explanation is somehow atheist. I am totally open to someone showing me that God's miraculous intervention MUST have been present for common descent to be a reality. Hey, I am a Christian so I believe He created however he did it. I also believe He created me in my mother's womb, and it appears He used the very natural process of sex, conception, gestation, etc. But maybe evolution can't be natural, maybe you can prove mutation plus natural selection is not adequate, fine by me. God plays a role regardless by the very definition of the Christian God, make it as "miraculous" as you want. But none of this would convince me this very creation method was not common descent, that is a testable measurable conclusion that is tested every time a new species is sequenced. <BR/><BR/>The Christian might have warrant to debate the need for a creator in the common descent process to battle off the atheist, who often use it as a tool to exclude God. But for our purposes on this blog it is common descent that the concern, and how that intersects with Biblical history, not ontological materialism. So if there is any desire to defend Genesis by showing evolution wrong, what specifically needs to be addressed is the (overwhelming IMHO) evidence for common descent. I seldom entertain any discussions with a creationists who will not address ERVs. It is a sure sign they don't know what the evidence for common descent actually is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-72501249055562229852008-09-03T08:08:00.000-04:002008-09-03T08:08:00.000-04:00"your #2 (extinct species) is based on a tonne of ..."your #2 (extinct species) is based on a tonne of supporting evidence (from what I understand), all of that evidence based on other well-supported evidence (for example, a very old earth)"<BR/><BR/>Actually, not. Those who are not strict Darwinists don't agree with it. In fact, the first I heard about it was from an <A HREF="http://www.springerlink.com/content/k8231lj2216651m3/" REL="nofollow">evolutionist</A> - he just disagreed with the idea of a Darwinian origin for major groups (he thought the major group origins were based more on horizontal transfer). Changing that single assumption alters the number of presumed existing species by over 90%!<BR/><BR/>"ie. “If we haven’t seen it, touched it, and catalogued it, then it never existed”"<BR/><BR/>That is not my opinion - I'm sure that there are lots of things we haven't catalogued. However, the presumption of Darwinism is the main character of our expectations of the fossil record - a presumption I do not share.<BR/><BR/>As for randomness, there are actually multiple definitions of randomness. My primary source of information about randomness in my paper is Anthony Eagle's "Randomness is Unpredictability" from the British Journal of the Philosophy of Science. I actually agree with you on indeterminancy, and think that randomness in this sense is actually good. However, most biology textbooks, when talking about mutations, aren't just talking about their unpredictability, but rather are talking about whether or not they are inside or outside the control of a system. I would agree wholeheartedly that many of them are randomized (indeterminant within a set), but would disagree that they are random (happening outside biological control) -- at least for the most part (there are certainly some mutations which are outside biological controls, but those are rarely the ones which are beneficial in any context).<BR/><BR/>"From my experience, almost all ECs do – we have to... I would say it is a much truer statement that those that are simply one or the other (ie. either a creationist or an evolutionist) do not think through these things as critically – partly because they have no reason to do so."<BR/><BR/>I'm curious, then. We know what parts of the Creation account you disagree with - what part of standard evolutionary biology (preferably something standard enough to be in a textbook) would you disagree with on theological grounds?crevohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01454165271895308641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-70066184706095433462008-09-03T06:49:00.000-04:002008-09-03T06:49:00.000-04:00Hi Crevo, I agree that biases play a huge part her...Hi Crevo, <BR/>I agree that biases play a huge part here – and frankly, I think that is a good thing. If we all had to work things out from first principles all the time, we would all be crazy or extreme skeptics (probably both). So for example, your #2 (extinct species) is based on a tonne of supporting evidence (from what I understand), all of that evidence based on other well-supported evidence (for example, a very old earth). So I am “biased” to accepting some of the evidence without having to work through the details. On the other hand, it appears to me that you are biased towards the **existing** fossil evidence – ie. “If we haven’t seen it, touched it, and catalogued it, then it never existed”. (Chapters 8 & 9 in “Perspectives on an Evolving Creation” have some good stuff here on the fossil record). <BR/><BR/>Re: “mutations are not random”. Well, that depends on what you mean by random. My understanding is that randomness in scientific circles is all about unpredictability. (eg. I think Loren Haarsma has written about this on several occasions – check the ASA archive). And right now, although we are starting to understand some of the factors that affect mutations in general, we certainly cannot predict individual mutations. So I believe that the vast majority of people (both “creationists” & “evolutionists” – this is confusing categorization since I fall into both groups) are absolutely correct when they say “mutations are random”. <BR/><BR/>I believe the confusion lies in how randomness is often used (and possibly how you meant it to be used above) – I believe you are including the concepts of causation and indeterminacy here. This of course smuggles in a metaphysical concept - with its resulting biases. If by random you mean “indeterminacy”, then I would agree that it is not yet knowable whether mutations are “random” – we don’t know whether it is theoretically possible to calculate mutating behavior (even though I’m a big sci-fi fan, I highly doubt we will ever know). There are materialists that claim true “randomness” does not exist – ie. everything is completely determined. These materialists chide Dawkins et al for not carrying the “true atheist faith” to its logical conclusion – that there is no such thing as free will. Of course, you will get some hyper-calvinists who say similar things because all events are determined by God & that there is no such thing as free-will. <BR/><BR/>For me? A) I suspect that there is true indeterminancy in the physical universe. I do not believe this impinges on the sovereignty of God (see for example “God, Chance and Purpose” by David Bartholomew). B) I also strongly believe that free-will is a gift that God has given to humanity. C) I don’t necessarily see these as tied together – ie. I might end up being wrong about A) but not about B). <BR/><BR/>Getting back to the heart of the matter: theological presuppositions. First, for myself (and I consider myself both a creationist AND evolutionist) I absolutely do think through the theological presuppositions and the theological implications. From my experience, almost all ECs do – we have to. We can’t simply accept our old biases uncritically and we do need to work through the implications. I would say it is a much truer statement that those that are simply one or the other (ie. either a creationist or an evolutionist) do not think through these things as critically – partly because they have no reason to do so. <BR/><BR/>And now I’m getting way off topic of the OP – yikes.Steve Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11734019573868663947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-70438787720505701762008-09-03T01:47:00.000-04:002008-09-03T01:47:00.000-04:00Steve:"Most of us were biased against evolution, a...Steve:<BR/><BR/>"Most of us were biased against evolution, and came to accept it only after looking at the evidence."<BR/><BR/>I don't doubt that. However, whether or not you are biased for or against evolution, a lot of biases exist which slant the evidence in favor of evolutionary theory even within Creation circles. For instance, one thing that I am always correcting Creationists about is the nature of mutations - they are not random, but the Creation community has accepted the assumption that they are. The fact that they, as an entire community, are against evolutionary theory, has not prevented them from inadvertantly latching on to ideas which originated from theological presuppositions contrary to theirs. That is just one example - I'm sure I could find many more.<BR/><BR/>Another, for instance, is the idea that 99.99% of species have gone extinct. There is no evidence for this. It is based on how many species _should_ have existed if evolutionary theory is true. I believe that the number of _catalogued_ fossil species is somewhere on the order of 250,000 and the number of catalogued live species is somewhere on the order of 6,000,000. Those numbers are probably old and off, but the point is that the 99.99% figure that gets thrown around is not based on counts of species in the fossil record, but rather of the number of estimated extinct species would have to exist for Darwinism to have worked. Yet many anti-Darwinists will use that number as if were an empirical fact. <BR/><BR/>The problem is that neither evolutionists nor creationists think to analyze the theological presuppositions behind a lot of the data they are working with, and therefore, even for someone biased _against_ evolution, they may be using data whose interpretation is biased _for_ evolution.crevohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01454165271895308641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-48958549794209653212008-09-03T01:24:00.000-04:002008-09-03T01:24:00.000-04:00"Regardless of whether you feel the theory of evol..."Regardless of whether you feel the theory of evolutionary common descent is is well-supported by the evidence or not, I think it's important for dissenters to remember that the onus is on them to come up with some viable, alternative explanation"<BR/><BR/>I disagree. In science, "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer. Therefore, the onus is always on the person who says that they know something scientifically to show it.<BR/><BR/>"For instance, if I'm holding two contrasting cladograms in my hands that make different interpretations about the interrelationships of certain taxa, I can test these cladograms (read: hypotheses) by seeing which of them best describes new fossil evidence."<BR/><BR/>It's still not equivalent with experimental evidence because of the enormous lack of controls. In experimental sciences, you can control for just about any variable you can think of. In historical sciences, you don't get the controls. Likewise, usually it is not cut and clean, and therefore requires a number of judgment calls, each of which is dependent on the possibilities that the researcher is willing to consider.<BR/><BR/>"What problems are unique to evolutionary theory that you feel we as Christians should be weary of?"<BR/><BR/>One of the biggest ones is the assumption that early life was less complex than modern life. Most evolutionary theory assumes that evolution is capable of _producing_ novelty, as opposed to merely re-using existing structures and codes. Almost all experimental genetics shows <A HREF="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WMD-45R8FW2-39&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9d2d2690cfb38be75f192d0a0481306e" REL="nofollow">an overall downward trend in fitness</A>. The beneficial mutations we do find often wind up being either <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/Symbiotic-Planet-New-Look-Evolution/dp/0465072720" REL="nofollow">borrowed from other organisms</A>, <A HREF="http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=1570296" REL="nofollow">apparently precoded for their new purpose</A>, or <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/Implicit-Genome-Lynn-Helena-Caporale/dp/019517271X" REL="nofollow">part of an implicit/cyclical structure</A>.<BR/><BR/>Experiments such as Lederberg and Luria-Delbruck are often used to show that the mutations are not planned for, but that interpretation is based on the theological assumption that the organism's mutations aren't canalized towards potentially-beneficial spots as a design feature to enhance the population's future fitness (I have a paper coming out about this later this year in Creation Research Society Quarterly).<BR/><BR/>All of these positions assume that:<BR/><BR/>a) earlier organisms (and especially ecosystems if we include symbiosis in the mix) had lower information content than current organisms<BR/><BR/>b) therefore, the origin of novelty in evolution is based on new information being generated through natural selection, rather than pre-existing information simply being uncovered over time<BR/><BR/>While many evolutionists do attest to the truth of some instances of pre-existing information being the cause of mutation, they do not allow it to be the dominant factor, precisely because their theology prevents them from being able to do it, not because of the evidence.<BR/><BR/>For other instances of the theological reasonings that occur in evolution, see <A HREF="http://www.arn.org/docs/nelson/pn_jettison.htm" REL="nofollow">Paul Nelson's essay</A> which was published in Michael Ruse's journal, or <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-God-Evolution-Problem-Evil/dp/1587430533" REL="nofollow">Cornelius Hunter's book</A>.crevohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01454165271895308641noreply@blogger.com