ARTICLE: Evolution: Philosophy, Not Science

[STR Ambassador]

Evolution: Philosophy, Not Science by Greg Koukl

I'm mystified by the opening sentence of an article in Friday's Union Tribune (October 25, 1996). It says, "In his most comprehensive statement yet on evolution, Pope John Paul II insisted that faith and science can co-exist."

So far, so good. I agree with the Pope wholeheartedly on this first point. If you heard my opening address at our conference on Science and Faith, you'd know why I think they can co-exist if they are properly defined. (How science and faith are defined is an important part of answering the question.)

I part ways with the Pope in his next statement. He said that "Charles Darwin's theories are sound as long as they take into account that creation was the work of God."

That's an odd thing to say, it seems to me. I mean no disrespect here at all to Pope John Paul II. But doesn't that strike you as odd? It seems to me that Charles Darwin's theories—scientific theories, theories about the origins and development of things—are either sound or not sound. If they're not sound, you can't baptize them by bringing God into the picture and miraculously make them sound. And if they are sound in themselves, then you don't need to add God to make them work, do you? It's already doing fine on its own. Which is the point of evolution: mother nature without father God.

I don't think evolution works at all. I don't think Charles Darwin's theories are sound, so I'm not in the least bit tempted to baptize them with some form of theistic evolution.

By definition, evolution offered an explanation for how things got to be the way they are without God (I'm referring to what's known as the "general theory of evolution"). This is why it made such a splash. Do you think that if God could be worked into the evolutionary picture, then evolution would have taken off the way it did? Of course not.

Richard Dawkins, author of The Blind Watchmaker and one of the world's preeminent evolutionists, was right when he said that Darwin made the world safe for atheism. But if Darwinism can be easily baptized with theism, how can it be that Darwin made the world safe for atheism? It's precisely because evolution seemed to explain things that used to require the existence of God to explain them that Darwinism became so popular and accepted within ten to fifteen years after Origin of Species was published in 1859. It's precisely because God is out
of the picture that evolution is so appealing.

When you listen to evolutionists like Harvard paleontologist Stephen J. Gould, he's very willing to admit you can believe in God and also be an evolutionist. No problem. But that doesn't mean Gould approves of theistic evolution. Gould means that plenty of his friends believe in God, but their belief in God is a religious thing they do in their closets, inside their homes and behind the closed doors of the churches. They don't mix religion and science, God and evolution, fantasy with fact.

Gould's attitude is typical of other evolutionary scientists. Believe in God if you want. Practice your religious alchemy in the privacy of your own home if you must. Just don't pretend that it has anything to do with the real world. When it comes to the real world, the fact of the matter is that God was not involved in the process. Life evolved through non-directed, materialistic processes. Stephen J. Gould and everyone else who writes on this issue makes that very clear.

When people try to fit God into the process of evolution, that's when evolutionists like Gould stand up and say, "Wait a minute, you don't understand evolution if that's what you think actually took place. Evolution is by chance, not design, and you can't have design by chance."

Theistic evolution means design by chance. That's like square circles, ladies and gentlemen. There is no such thing.

The real question is whether the evidence supports evolution or not, not whether we can baptize evolution with the word "God" so Christians feel comfortable.

To put it simply, lest there be any confusion about the matter, evolution must be dealt with scientifically, on its own merits. Is it an adequate explanation of the origin of things?

I think it's wholly inadequate. Contrary to the Pope's views, the more knowledge we get, the more problems we see with the origin of life by evolutionary means--the more problems we see with the change from one kind of life into another by evolutionary means.

The passage of time and the increase of knowledge haven't helped evolution; they've hurt it. Evolution was popular early on precisely because there was so little information about the process. Now we know much more about the details of biochemistry and genetics, and information theory, and the incredible complexity of even the simplest living thing. It's become evident that evolution is just not capable of explaining life.

You want proof for that? Here, it's very simple. This is my handy-dandy evolution refuter. It's the simplest way I know to right to the heart of the problem, proving that evolution is not based on fact, but on philosophy.

For evolution to be a fact, you must have two things, minimally. First, you've got to have life coming from non-life--abiogenesis. Second, you've got to have a change in that life from simple forms to complex forms over time. You must have the kick-off, and you must have the rest of the game.

Now, here's my question: How did life come from non-life? How did the game get started by evolutionary means. Does anyone know? Guess what? Nobody knows. Oh, there are some ideas and people have suggested some possible ways, but nobody has sketched out any way that really answers the question. There are so many problems and complications. There are competing models that have been suggested, but they're just starting places. They're just ways of saying, "Let's start here, and we'll see where it leads." There are possibilities, but no one knows how it happened, or even how it could have happened in enough detail to be compelling."

Now, here's the kicker. If you don't know how it happened by naturalistic, evolutionary processes, how do you know that it happened by naturalistic, evolutionary processes? Evolution is claimed to be a fact, but you can't have the fact of evolution unless you have the fact of abiogenesis. Yet nobody knows how such a thing could ever take place. And if life can't be shown to have come from non-life, then the game can't even get started.

Then why do we call evolution a fact when evolution can't even get off the ground, based on the information we have right now. The answer you get is always the same: Because we're here. It must have happened. That's called circular reasoning, friends, based on a prior commitment to naturalism that won't be shaken by the facts.

Which proves that this is not about science, it's about philosophy.


Stand to Reason - Training Christians in the areas of knowledge, wisdom, and character - www.str.org - http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/evolution/phnotsci.htm

[Barron]

Snipped for brevity.

Today @ 09:23 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=225497#post225497)
STR Ambassador:

That's an odd thing to say, it seems to me. I mean no disrespect here at all to Pope John Paul II. But doesn't that strike you as odd? It seems to me that Charles Darwin's theories—scientific theories, theories about the origins and development of things—are either sound or not sound. If they're not sound, you can't baptize them by bringing God into the picture and miraculously make them sound. And if they are sound in themselves, then you don't need to add God to make them work, do you? It's already doing fine on its own. Which is the point of evolution: mother nature without father God.

Not exactly accurate. Evolution, like any science, is naturalistic. It attempts to explain the world (or some facet of it) in purely naturalistic terms. That does not exclude God so much as say that God was not required. Some people read this as excluding God, they are wrong. Science is neutral with respect to God unless a claim is made by the believers. So if YECs claim that "Unless the Earth is less than 10000 years old God does not exist" then science can say something about that claim. Science is not saying anything directly about God's existence, only about the claim made by the theist.


I don't think evolution works at all. I don't think Charles Darwin's theories are sound, so I'm not in the least bit tempted to baptize them with some form of theistic evolution.
By definition, evolution offered an explanation for how things got to be the way they are without God (I'm referring to what's known as the "general theory of evolution"). This is why it made such a splash. Do you think that if God could be worked into the evolutionary picture, then evolution would have taken off the way it did? Of course not.

I honestly don't know what you mean here. God appears in no scientific theory that I am aware of. The reason evolution took off was that (like all good theories) it was a powerful synthetic tool. It allowed people to integrate previously unconnected ideas into a cohesive model. Like Maxwell's equations, the wave theory of light, the kinetic theory of gasses, General Relativity or whatever successful theory you like. They allowed people to make sense out of divergent data and observations. At a scientific level "God" had nothing to do with it. It may have had some sociological impact (I'm not well read on the spread of the theory), but for science the question was did to work.

Richard Dawkins, author of The Blind Watchmaker and one of the world's preeminent evolutionists, was right when he said that Darwin made the world safe for atheism. But if Darwinism can be easily baptized with theism, how can it be that Darwin made the world safe for atheism? It's precisely because evolution seemed to explain things that used to require the existence of God to explain them that Darwinism became so popular and accepted within ten to fifteen years after Origin of Species was published in 1859. It's precisely because God is out of the picture that evolution is so appealing.

Dawkins' quote was (I believer) that evolution "made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist". Oddly he might better have said it made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled naturalist, but the point is the same. Evolution is no different from any scientific theory in that it is neutral with respect to God.

The real question is whether the evidence supports evolution or not, not whether we can baptize evolution with the word "God" so Christians feel comfortable.
To put it simply, lest there be any confusion about the matter, evolution must be dealt with scientifically, on its own merits. Is it an adequate explanation of the origin of things?
I think it's wholly inadequate. Contrary to the Pope's views, the more knowledge we get, the more problems we see with the origin of life by evolutionary means--the more problems we see with the change from one kind of life into another by evolutionary means.
The passage of time and the increase of knowledge haven't helped evolution; they've hurt it. Evolution was popular early on precisely because there was so little information about the process. Now we know much more about the details of biochemistry and genetics, and information theory, and the incredible complexity of even the simplest living thing. It's become evident that evolution is just not capable of explaining life.

Contrary to what you think evolution have been strengthened and improved with time. The biggest leap for evolution is, IMHO, genetic science. Darwin proposed evolution by natural selection before any genetic theory existed. In the 40's and 50s when genetics was becoming a science it could have killed evolution dead, but it didn't. Instead it vindicated evolutionary theory and allowed it to be quantified in ways undreampt of in Darwin's day.

You want proof for that? Here, it's very simple. This is my handy-dandy evolution refuter. It's the simplest way I know to right to the heart of the problem, proving that evolution is not based on fact, but on philosophy.
For evolution to be a fact, you must have two things, minimally. First, you've got to have life coming from non-life--abiogenesis. Second, you've got to have a change in that life from simple forms to complex forms over time. You must have the kick-off, and you must have the rest of the game.
Now, here's my question: How did life come from non-life? How did the game get started by evolutionary means. Does anyone know? Guess what? Nobody knows.

While I agree that no one knows the process of abiogenesis, this really doesn't have anything to do with evolution. Evolution studies the change of life forms over time. How those life forms originated is really not part of the issue. Just as NASA can use celestial mechanics to navigate space craft without needing to know how the planets (and stars) got there. If God (or some other supernatural force) brought life into existence on Earth evolution wouldn't change a bit.

We may never know how life began on Earth. Ever. We may have some good models, but the real answer may never be known. There simply isn't enough direct evidence to decide either way. No fossils, no biological imprints, no nothing. We have a rough idea of the environment at the time of life's appearence, but that's a long way from a solid answer. My guess is that we'll end up with several "possible" models, but we won't be able to rule out all but one.

Oh, there are some ideas and people have suggested some possible ways, but nobody has sketched out any way that really answers the question. There are so many problems and complications. There are competing models that have been suggested, but they're just starting places. They're just ways of saying, "Let's start here, and we'll see where it leads." There are possibilities, but no one knows how it happened, or even how it could have happened in enough detail to be compelling."
Now, here's the kicker. If you don't know how it happened by naturalistic, evolutionary processes, how do you know that it happened by naturalistic, evolutionary processes? Evolution is claimed to be a fact, but you can't have the fact of evolution unless you have the fact of abiogenesis. Yet nobody knows how such a thing could ever take place. And if life can't be shown to have come from non-life, then the game can't even get started.

Abiogenesis would not have happened by "evolutionary processes" by definition. Evolution requires the pre-existence of replicating life forms. Once there is a replicating organism we can begin to apply evolutionary principles. Until then we are using bio-chemistry, physical chemistry and whatever else. Evolution can be 100% factual even if biogenesis was performed by God.

Then why do we call evolution a fact when evolution can't even get off the ground, based on the information we have right now. The answer you get is always the same: Because we're here. It must have happened. That's called circular reasoning, friends, based on a prior commitment to naturalism that won't be shaken by the facts.
Which proves that this is not about science, it's about philosophy.

Again, even if abiogenesis is never solved evolution will care not a whit. Saying that abiogenesis somehow trumps evolution is simply incorrect.

As a further point, all science is naturalistic. That's how we know it's science. It answers questions about the world in a purely natrualistic way. That doesn't mean the answers are metaphysically True, only that they are naturalistic. Granted, naturalistic solutions have been incredibly successful in the world, but that still doesn't make them the only truth. Evolution is not metaphysical truth, but it is scientific truth.

Barron

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Well, I would say that evolution has been interpreted in a variety of metaphysical ways and that the fact that it has been interpreted in some ways in a manner that is very antagonistic against theistic belief does not invalidate it as a whole as a fact, a concept that helps us organize information about the world we live in. All Truth is God's truth.

dlw

[chickenman]

this guy knows very little re:evolution

[Socrates]

Today @ 10:52 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=225960#post225960)
Barron:

While I agree that no one knows the process of abiogenesis, this really doesn't have anything to do with evolution.

This is modern revisionism. I've amply shown that another name for abiogenesis is "chemical evolution", and still another is "prebiotic evolution". Scientific American September 1978 was a special issue devoted to evolution, and pp. 62-83 was "Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life" by Richard Dickerson. So scientifically illiterate people like Lobby who keep on falsely accusing me of misusing the term can go take a flying. One quote is:

J.B.S. Haldane, the British biochemist, seems to have been the first to appreciate that a reducing atmosphere, one with no free oxygen, was a requirement for the evolution of life from non-living organic matter.

Note that this has been falsified, in that the evidence against a primordial reducing atmosphere is overwhelming.

[dizzle]

I am issuing a preemptive caution. This is a topic that arouses great passion. This area of the forum is for discussions and interactions with our invited guest Stand to Reason, and discussions here are to be conducted within the guidelines here which are more stringent than other areas of open forum. Thank you.

[Barron]

Yesterday @ 11:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=226273#post226273)
Socrates:

Barron:

While I agree that no one knows the process of abiogenesis, this really doesn't have anything to do with evolution.

This is modern revisionism. I've amply shown that another name for abiogenesis is "chemical evolution", and still another is "prebiotic evolution".

I know people use terms like that, but equating them is a bit of equivocation. Like people that confuse biological evolution with stellar evolution. It's a fault of a limited language.

Now, as DeeDee notes, this can be a ballooning topic, so if you wish to go further into it I'll happily discuss it over in biology. There the question I will ask is:

"How would evolutionary research be done differently if a particular model (natural or supernatural) of abiogenesis was accepted? That is, how would the origin of the first life form effect research into much, much later life forms?"

THanks
Barron

[STR Ambassador]

First in response to dlw's posting, if you are referring to theistic evolution, there are fundamental reasons for rejecting it, too. Evolution, by it's definition, is randomness - the opposite of design. God can't design evolution. There are detailed responses to this on our web site if you'd like to read those. I don't want to spend time reiterating what's been done already. Science in general certainly isn't hostile to theism by nature; but evolution in the macro sense is. If you're referring to micro-evolution, true, that isn't essentially hostile to theism.

Second, in response to Barron, science is not essentially naturalistic. That is not the definition of science. Naturalism itself isn't even science - it's a philosophy that guides how science can be practiced. A cursory look at the history of science reveals many, many influential scientists who were theists and Christians. A good resource for this and a more detailed discussion of the issue can be found in "Christianity & the Nature of Science" by J.P. Moreland. I believe it's published by Baker Books.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

STR Ambassador:

First in response to dlw's posting, if you are referring to theistic evolution, there are fundamental reasons for rejecting it, too. Evolution, by it's definition, is randomness - the opposite of design. God can't design evolution. There are detailed responses to this on our web site if you'd like to read those. I don't want to spend time reiterating what's been done already.

From an open-theistic perspective, which you have acknowledged as an acceptable approach to Christian Theology, one can allow for chance-like, non-designed actions. God can design the parameters along which chance, free-will actions take place and guarantee the final outcome and that there will be order along the way. However, the notion that a free-will action is to render certain what had been uncertain previously permits one to theologically affirm tychism, the reality of chance-like occurrences.

Science in general certainly isn't hostile to theism by nature; but evolution in the macro sense is. If you're referring to micro-evolution, true, that isn't essentially hostile to theism.


Ecological systems do vary. We don't find evidence of human fossils way back in dinosaur times. While this is certainly conflicting with some theisms, it isn't to others and it is more than just abstract speculation/philosophy.

Second, in response to Barron, science is not essentially naturalistic. That is not the definition of science. Naturalism itself isn't even science - it's a philosophy that guides how science can be practiced. A cursory look at the history of science reveals many, many influential scientists who were theists and Christians. A good resource for this and a more detailed discussion of the issue can be found in "Christianity & the Nature of Science" by J.P. Moreland. I believe it's published by Baker Books.

I don't think that one needs be a fundamentalist naturalist to be a scientist. One need not conclude from how much useful research has been done by looking at behavior/regularities from a naturalistic view-point that that is all that there is or should be.

dlw

[Barron]

Today @ 10:49 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=226961#post226961)
STR Ambassador:

First in response to dlw's posting, if you are referring to theistic evolution, there are fundamental reasons for rejecting it, too. Evolution, by it's definition, is randomness - the opposite of design. God can't design evolution. There are detailed responses to this on our web site if you'd like to read those.

I'll pass thanks. I just wanted to point out the problems with your initial post, not get into a detailed debate here (that's for the Biology board).

I don't want to spend time reiterating what's been done already. Science in general certainly isn't hostile to theism by nature; but evolution in the macro sense is. If you're referring to micro-evolution, true, that isn't essentially hostile to theism.

Evolution (or any science) is "hostile" to theism only when theism makes it so. Science in general (and evolution in particular) are neutral with respect to theism. Any conflict is caused not by science, but by claims made by theists.

Second, in response to Barron, science is not essentially naturalistic. That is not the definition of science. Naturalism itself isn't even science - it's a philosophy that guides how science can be practiced. A cursory look at the history of science reveals many, many influential scientists who were theists and Christians. A good resource for this and a more detailed discussion of the issue can be found in "Christianity & the Nature of Science" by J.P. Moreland. I believe it's published by Baker Books.

A better resource is Robert Pennock's "Tower of Babel". Science is by it's very natural naturalistic (methodologically naturalistic to be exact). Science doesn't demand its practitioners be metaphysical naturalists, that's why devout believers of any number of denominations have made huge contributions to science. My best pal in grad school (Physics BTW) was a devout, evangelical christian. Clearly we deeply disagreed about the metaphysics on the universe, but we never, ever disagreed about science.

Again, I think you are just wrong on the nature of science. BTW, I think that Dawkins is likewise wrong on it too when he insists on metaphysical naturalism. Science is methodological naturalism. Period.

Barron

[STR Ambassador]

dlw,

I never affirmed that open theism is an acceptable view of God. We reject it and think it's antithetical to the Bible. But that's another discussion off topic here.

Barron,

There is a lot of good reading on the philosophy of science. I recommended Moreland's book because it's a cogent argument for the compatibility of theism and science, and against naturalism.

STR Ambassador

[Da Lone-Warrior]

STR Ambassador:

dlw,

I never affirmed that open theism is an acceptable view of God. We reject it and think it's antithetical to the Bible. But that's another discussion off topic here.

Barron,

There is a lot of good reading on the philosophy of science. I recommended Moreland's book because it's a cogent argument for the compatibility of theism and science, and against naturalism.

STR Ambassador


Well, your apriori rejection of evolution is on the same grounds that you reject open-theism. It isn't antithetical to the Bible as I'm sure so many of the participants on this board can attest to.

And since this second-tier flows from the first tier sets of belief, this points out the problem of us lacking unity over what the precise nature of those first tier set of beliefs are.

dlw

[Doug TenNapel]

Barron,
you say:
"Contrary to what you think evolution have been strengthened and improved with time. The biggest leap for evolution is, IMHO, genetic science. Darwin proposed evolution by natural selection before any genetic theory existed. In the 40's and 50s when genetics was becoming a science it could have killed evolution dead, but it didn't. Instead it vindicated evolutionary theory and allowed it to be quantified in ways undreampt of in Darwin's day."

One important way that evolution has been weakened over time is in the fossil record. We have millions more fossils unearthed and it is void of stair-stepped transitional forms. In MY honest opinion, if evolutions is literally happening in every creature that reproduces, there should be tons of transitional species both in the exhaustive fossil record and perhaps in the snapshot of today.

And geneticists have yet to demonstrate where a gene sequence has gained information of any kind through mutation. Again, with such maleable gene sequences, literally every strand should be mutating, gaining some information that helps the species improve their chances of reproducing. It ain't there.

You say:
"While I agree that no one knows the process of abiogenesis, this really doesn't have anything to do with evolution. Evolution studies the change of life forms over time. How those life forms originated is really not part of the issue. Just as NASA can use celestial mechanics to navigate space craft without needing to know how the planets (and stars) got there. If God (or some other supernatural force) brought life into existence on Earth evolution wouldn't change a bit."

But if I said that gnomes were needed before evolution could take place, wouldn't you start your argument against me with, "But gnomes don't exist"? It's an absolutely valid point to demand a model (preferably better than chemical evolution or parallel universes) where evolution would even be possible without a creator. Reproduction is a complex operation...one that might take a few billion years of evolution to come into being. I think it's perfectly scientific to say that a gnome or abiogenesis does not exist. That's a reasonable explanation for why evolution is a non-starter.

How did evolution evolve into being without reproduction to allow for mutation and improvement of the chemicals? Maybe an intelligent designer helped out.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

your new here, so I'll let you know these sorts of arguments have been discussed to the wazoos in some of the natural science forums.

I'd recommend for you to try browsing there.
dlw

[Queen]

:doh: Science, not a philosophy. Silly, silly article :lmbo:

But serious, I mean bacteria and viruses mutate at high rate, animals that are isoloated after the continental drift from the rest of the world (on Islands and Australia) are found no-where else, because they evolved in a different way from ancestors. Fossil records of homoniod species, of species that are extinct and of species that are dated 3 billion years ago. The world changed, species adapted to new environments, like the ice ages.......all those records, all those different kind of birds found on the Galapagos islands. Darwin did not wrote a philosophy. He wrote a scientific theory, that later on was proven by so many scientists. To name two important advisaries Simon Conway Morris and Stephen Jay Gould.....

Life on earth is so old, and the compounds we are build from are found in the universe, Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Hydrogen and so on.....we are stardust.....

Big Bang.....Star clusters.....Solar systems.....Planets........Life....

If life is found on other planets, would you believe that evolution is correct....or is that also the work of one Almighty being?
His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama once said that life on earth is too diverse to be created by one mind! He is right. We have millions of species on this earth and still haven't found all. Imagine the greatest group in the animal Kingdom....Insects! Millions of different insect species....how can one mind created all that? and why is it that we still evolve. The differences between male and female are getting smaller. Evolution is still happening today and will go on forever.....

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[Socrates]

10-01-2003 @ 05:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=226986#post226986)
Barron:

Evolution (or any science) is "hostile" to theism only when theism makes it so.

That's not the point. What matters to me is whether it is hostile to TRUE (aka biblical) theism. It certainly is, because it denies the perspicuity of Scripture and sin-death causality. See Is evolution ‘anti-religion?’ It depends … (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i4/antireligion.asp)

Science in general (and evolution in particular) are neutral with respect to theism.

Science is, but evolution is not science. :poke:

A better resource is Robert Pennock's Tower of Babel.

:lol: He makes some incredible blunders, e.g. claiming that C-14 dating is used to date the earth :dufus:
ignoring the operational/origin science distinction
failing to take into account the Fall
overlooking that Hoyle's probability calculations applied to the origin of FIRST life, so natural selection cannot be invoked
and arguing that the copmplexity of DNA is illusory because it's made of simple building blocks--like saying that a computer program is not complex because its building blocks are 1s and 0s.See more in this critique (http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/area/magazines/TJ/TJv14n2_Pennock.pdf)

Also, Pennock's major thesis about language development is totaly ignorant of linguistics (from Talking point (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v23n2_languages.asp):
Ancient languages were actually extremely complex with many different inflections. There is no hint of any build-up from simpler languages. E.g. in the Indo-European family, Sanskrit, Classical Greek and Latin had many different noun inflections for different case, gender and number, while verbs were inflected for tense, voice, number and person. Modern descendants of these languages have greatly reduced the number of inflections, i.e. the trend is from complex to simpler, the opposite of evolution. English has almost completely lost inflections, retaining just a few like the possessive “–’s”.

English has also lost 65–85% of the Old English vocabulary, and many Classical Latin words have also been lost from its descendants, the Romance languages (Spanish, French, Italian, etc.).

Most of the changes were not random, but the result of intelligence. For example: forming compound words by joining simple words and derivations by adding prefixes and suffixes, modification of meaning, and borrowing words from other languages including calques (a borrowed compound word where each component is translated and then joined). There are also unconscious but definitely non-random changes such as systematic sound shifts, for example those described by Grimm’s Law (which relates many Germanic words to Latin and Greek words).Based on: The development of languages is nothing like biological evolution (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tjv14n2_language.pdf)

Science is by it's very natural naturalistic (methodologically naturalistic to be exact).

<Yawn, stretch> This applies only to operational/observational science, not to origins/inferential science. See Naturalism, Origin and Operation Science (http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp#Naturalism).

Science doesn't demand its practitioners be metaphysical naturalists, that's why devout believers of any number of denominations have made huge contributions to science.

Of course. But this is no excuse to cling dogmatically to a materialistic origin of things which contradicts God's word.

My best pal in grad school (Physics BTW) was a devout, evangelical christian. Clearly we deeply disagreed about the metaphysics on the universe, but we never, ever disagreed about science.

Why would you? I wouldn't disagree with you about physics or chemistry, probably.

Again, I think you are just wrong on the nature of science. BTW, I think that Dawkins is likewise wrong on it too when he insists on metaphysical naturalism.

Good. Nonetheless it is entrenched. And the theistic naturalists are hardly distinguishable for all practical purposes from atheistic ones.

Science is methodological naturalism. Period.

But it seems all too convenient for metaphysical naturalists like Barron to insist on methodological naturalism. Theists have more options open -- i.e. they can consider other data, such as the eye-witness record in Scripture.

[Queen]

Evolution is science PERIOD :tongue:

[Socrates]

Today @ 05:50 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=247406#post247406)
Queen:

:doh: Science, not a philosophy. Silly, silly article :lmbo:

But serious, I mean bacteria and viruses mutate at high rate,

Yes, into bacteria and viruses, not into bacteriologists or virologists. See Has AIDS evolved? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1333.asp), Superbugs not super after all (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/337.asp) and Anthrax and antibiotics: Is evolution relevant? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/1115anthrax.asp).

... animals that are isoloated after the continental drift from the rest of the world (on Islands and Australia) are found no-where else, because they evolved in a different way from ancestors.

Rather, because they were selectively brought to Oz after the Flood because of their nocturnal and reproductive characteristics, or came on land bridges during the post-flood ice age. They died out everywhere else. See How did animals get from the Ark to isolated places, such as Australia? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/migration.asp)

Fossil records of homoniod species, of species that are extinct and of species that are dated 3 billion years ago.

Please tell us more.

The world changed, species adapted to new environments, like the ice ages.......all those records, all those different kind of birds found on the Galapagos islands.

You mean different varieties of the finch kind, with cyclic changes responding to environmental pressures, which if anything support the Creation/Fall/Flood/Migration prediction of rapid variation and even speciation. See Galápagos finches (http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0924ep1.asp#finch).

Darwin did not wrote a philosophy. He wrote a scientific theory, that later on was proven by so many scientists. To name two important advisaries Simon Conway Morris and Stephen Jay Gould.....

Strange that Gould argued that Darwin was deliberately trying to attack the philosophical argument from design. See Darwin’s real message: Have you missed it? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1347.asp)

If life is found on other planets, would you believe that evolution is correct....or is that also the work of one Almighty being?

Let's cross that bridge when we come to it. But this is indeed a major motivation behind SETI.

His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama once said that life on earth is too diverse to be created by one mind! He is right.

Who says? Depends what mind you are talking about!

We have millions of species on this earth and still haven't found all. Imagine the greatest group in the animal Kingdom....Insects! Millions of different insect species....how can one mind created all that?

Why not a mind of infinite intelligence? And the underlying unity of life points to a single designer, while the differences thwart evolutionary rationalizations.

... and why is it that we still evolve. The differences between male and female are getting smaller.

And this is passed on in the DNA?

Evolution is still happening today and will go on forever.....

We might be changing, but do we evolve in the goo to you via the zoo sense?

[Barron]

Yesterday @ 05:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=247169#post247169)
Doug TenNapel:

Barron,
you say:
&quot;Contrary to what you think evolution have been strengthened and improved with time. The biggest leap for evolution is, IMHO, genetic science. Darwin proposed evolution by natural selection before any genetic theory existed. In the 40's and 50s when genetics was becoming a science it could have killed evolution dead, but it didn't. Instead it vindicated evolutionary theory and allowed it to be quantified in ways undreampt of in Darwin's day.&quot;

One important way that evolution has been weakened over time is in the fossil record. We have millions more fossils unearthed and it is void of stair-stepped transitional forms. In MY honest opinion, if evolutions is literally happening in every creature that reproduces, there should be tons of transitional species both in the exhaustive fossil record and perhaps in the snapshot of today.

And geneticists have yet to demonstrate where a gene sequence has gained information of any kind through mutation. Again, with such maleable gene sequences, literally every strand should be mutating, gaining some information that helps the species improve their chances of reproducing. It ain't there.

I don't want to get into the details of this here since this is a board for StR. If you want to copy this to Biology we can discuss it there.

You say:
&quot;While I agree that no one knows the process of abiogenesis, this really doesn't have anything to do with evolution. Evolution studies the change of life forms over time. How those life forms originated is really not part of the issue. Just as NASA can use celestial mechanics to navigate space craft without needing to know how the planets (and stars) got there. If God (or some other supernatural force) brought life into existence on Earth evolution wouldn't change a bit.&quot;

But if I said that gnomes were needed before evolution could take place, wouldn't you start your argument against me with, &quot;But gnomes don't exist&quot;? It's an absolutely valid point to demand a model (preferably better than chemical evolution or parallel universes) where evolution would even be possible without a creator. Reproduction is a complex operation...one that might take a few billion years of evolution to come into being. I think it's perfectly scientific to say that a gnome or abiogenesis does not exist. That's a reasonable explanation for why evolution is a non-starter.

How did evolution evolve into being without reproduction to allow for mutation and improvement of the chemicals? Maybe an intelligent designer helped out.

Evolution is possible simply because imperfect replicators exist. Just like geology is possible simply because planets exist. They do not require cosmology to be understood before geology can be applied. If life was created ex-nihilo evolution would be unchanged (after population stability was reached I suppose). Just like if planets were created ex-nihilo geology wouldn't change.

Again, the question of biogenesis is a very interesting one, just as the Big Bang is interesting. But a complete model is not required to work with the results of those things. And even if we never know the exact origins of life on Earth evolution and biology will be done exactly the same way.

I guess I should close by noting that the search for a natural biogenesis event is the province of science. That's what science does. It looks for natural explanations. This DOES NOT rule out supernatural explanations.

Barron

[Barron]

Today @ 12:12 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=247411#post247411)
Socrates:

That's not the point. What matters to me is whether it is hostile to TRUE (aka biblical) theism. It certainly is, because it denies the perspicuity of Scripture and sin-death causality. See Is evolution ‘anti-religion?’ It depends … (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i4/antireligion.asp)

You are the one making the claim "God does not exist is there was no sin-death causality". Science doesn't make that claim, it merely makes it possible to test your claim. Likewise if a 14th century Catholic said, "God only exists if the Earth is the center of the universe", that's a claim by the religious side, not the scientific side.



Science in general (and evolution in particular) are neutral with respect to theism.

Science is, but evolution is not science. :poke:

Only with regards to specific claims by specific believers. Science is neutral.



A better resource is Robert Pennock's Tower of Babel.

:lol: He makes some incredible blunders, e.g. [list] claiming that C-14 dating is used to date the earth :dufus:


Page reference?


ignoring the operational/origin science distinction
failing to take into account the Fall

Science cannot take into account a supernatural (magical) event.

<snip critique of Pennock on language which is really not the topic at hand>


Science is by it's very natural naturalistic (methodologically naturalistic to be exact).


&lt;Yawn, stretch&gt; This applies only to operational/observational science, not to origins/inferential science. See Naturalism, Origin and Operation Science (http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp#Naturalism).

No, it applies to all science. When it ceases to be naturalistic it ceases to be science. Nothing wrong with not being science, lots of important things in life aren't ruled by science.


Science doesn't demand its practitioners be metaphysical naturalists, that's why devout believers of any number of denominations have made huge contributions to science.

Of course. But this is no excuse to cling dogmatically to a materialistic origin of things which contradicts God's word.


Science can only look for a materialistic (personally I perfer naturalistic as a term) origin. Period. You can see that as a limitation on science, but that is what it does. And I point out again that it is the claim by the theistic side that make science seem hostile to faith. By its natural science is neutral.


Why would you? I wouldn't disagree with you about physics or chemistry, probably.

In my view there is no difference between biology, cosmology, geology and chemistry/physics. In fact those fields (in which we would clearly disagree) are just applications of phsyics, chemistry, mechanics, etc. There is an inherent problem in accepting chemistry and physics and not the deductions those fields make about biology, the age of the earth and all the rest.


Again, I think you are just wrong on the nature of science. BTW, I think that Dawkins is likewise wrong on it too when he insists on metaphysical naturalism.


Good. Nonetheless it is entrenched. And the theistic naturalists are hardly distinguishable for all practical purposes from atheistic ones.

When they do science that is exactly as it shoudl be because (and I know I'm repeating myself) science is neutral. Science can be done by anyone independant of their theistic or religious beliefs (or political beliefs or whatever else). There may be some lazy people that too easily confuse method with metaphysics, but that is their error, not a flaw in science.


But it seems all too convenient for metaphysical naturalists like Barron to insist on methodological naturalism. Theists have more options open -- i.e. they can consider other data, such as the eye-witness record in Scripture.

I only insist on methodoligical naturalism in science. Theists are quite free to consider different metaphysics (in fact that is probably inherent to them being theists, right?), but they cannot call those metaphsyical methods science. It may be a valid search for truth (obviously I disagree, but I've made my position clear), but it's not science.

Barron

[Hoosier]

09-30-2003 @ 07:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=226986#post226986)
Barron:



Again, I think you are just wrong on the nature of science. BTW, I think that Dawkins is likewise wrong on it too when he insists on metaphysical naturalism. Science is methodological naturalism. Period.

Barron

Why would science by necessity be methodological naturalism? Or maybe we just need to define terms. Isn't science better described as the search for knowledge about the phyisical universe/nature? I'm not sure how methodological supernaturalism would work, but surely naturalism per se need not be assumed in order to apply methodology.

Methodology could even be applied to the question of natural or supernatural, let the chips fall where they may. If naturalism is decreed by fiat to be the line of demarcation re: science, then answers might be ruled out no matter how methodological the means to them. That seems to be stacking the deck.

[Hoosier]

10-17-2003 @ 06:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=248023#post248023)
Barron:

If life was created ex-nihilo evolution would be unchanged (after population stability was reached I suppose). Just like if planets were created ex-nihilo geology wouldn't change.


Barron

I don't believe either of those assumptions will hold up, but I'd like to hear your case.

Regarding life, another possible explanation for changing morphology would be the inverse of Darwinistic evolutionary theory. If history is actually a gradual process of lost genetic material and variety, then varying conditions would slowly weed out useless traits (at those epochs) rather than require a mechanism (such as mutation) to bring new traits into being. Change would occur, but more in the nature of stratification.

If planets were created ex-nihilo yesterday geology wouldn't change. If they were created ex-nihilo some indeterminate time ago, then subject to various forces, geology would change. Or did I miss your point?

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Queen:

Evolution is science PERIOD :tongue:

Understandings of evolution are also heavily intertwined with metaphysicaly belief systems.

dlw

[Barron]

Yesterday @ 08:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=272722#post272722)
Hoosier:

Why would science by necessity be methodological naturalism? Or maybe we just need to define terms. Isn't science better described as the search for knowledge about the phyisical universe/nature? I'm not sure how methodological supernaturalism would work, but surely naturalism per se need not be assumed in order to apply methodology.

Methodology could even be applied to the question of natural or supernatural, let the chips fall where they may. If naturalism is decreed by fiat to be the line of demarcation re: science, then answers might be ruled out no matter how methodological the means to them. That seems to be stacking the deck.

Hiya. The idea of methodological naturalism seems to trouble a lot of people. In a way it is like looking for the lost keys under the streetlight. Without naturalism we can make no solid, testable statements about the physical (natural, whatever) world. There literally isn't an objective way to integrate supernaturalism. This may not be clear, but seriously, try to offer some methods for including the supernatural without using a gaps methods ("since science can't explain X it must be supernatual in origin") or preselecting a model of the supernatural ("God" as opposed to "ESP" as opposed to "Maya" or whatever). I think when you try it'll be clearer why methodological naturalism is so crucial to the nature of science.

I should add that science has the advantages of being objective (it works for everyone) and external (it applies to the physical universe), but it has the limitation of being tentative (its conclusions are not absolute). That's the draw back of being limited to the natural.

Oh, sorry for getting all "Socratic Method" here, but I really think it'll be easier to explain if you try to build a supernatural inclusive method.

Barron

[Barron]

Yesterday @ 09:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=272742#post272742)
Hoosier:

I don't believe either of those assumptions will hold up, but I'd like to hear your case.

Regarding life, another possible explanation for changing morphology would be the inverse of Darwinistic evolutionary theory. If history is actually a gradual process of lost genetic material and variety, then varying conditions would slowly weed out useless traits (at those epochs) rather than require a mechanism (such as mutation) to bring new traits into being. Change would occur, but more in the nature of stratification.

You are correct that it would depend on the initial conditions. I was postulating the creation of a single, first organism on Earth. Now if you suppose a first organism that has all this genetic information and then somehow loses it (in going from a bacteria to a badger?) then that would actually contradict a lot of known biology. So we are sort of talking past each other. I was jsut saying that if we just give up on ever finding a naturalistic explanation of abiogenesis and say "God did it" the subsecquent developement of life would still look just like evolution. Because imperfect replicators with selection pressures behave the same no matter where they come from.

It's funny I'm rereading "Finding Darwin's God" and I'm jsut finished Miller's treatment of much that same question! Synchronicity, huh?

If planets were created ex-nihilo yesterday geology wouldn't change. If they were created ex-nihilo some indeterminate time ago, then subject to various forces, geology would change. Or did I miss your point?

In this case we do differ. See geology is the study of the history of rocks. So if the earth popped into existence as is it would carry that historical record. This all to rapidly devolves into the Omphalos problem ("Did Adam and Eve have navels?") that is, the "appearence of age". So looking at the world with science the geologist would say that the Earth was old because that's what naturalistic techniques would say. If a geologist saw a rock literally pop into existence in front of her she would say had the appearence of age. That is, unless all the crystals were prefectly aligned and all teh elements where isotopically pure and stable. In that case there would be no way to judge the age because there is no naturalistic model of the rock's formation.

Barron

[Hoosier]

Yesterday @ 06:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=273638#post273638)
Barron:



Hiya. The idea of methodological naturalism seems to trouble a lot of people. In a way it is like looking for the lost keys under the streetlight. Without naturalism we can make no solid, testable statements about the physical (natural, whatever) world. There literally isn't an objective way to integrate supernaturalism.

Barron

I probably created a false impression with my tongue in cheek remark about methodological supernaturalism. My real issue was with the idea that an applied methodology be limited to a search for natural causes, which could be one way of defining methodological naturalism. That was why I asked for clarification. If that was what one meant by methodological naturalism, yet supernatural causation was indeed the state of affairs, science would amount to more of a game than a search for objective truth about reality. I think science is better defined as methodological study of effects, and that the distinction re: naturalism is either meaningless or, like I said, stacking the deck.
(I hope I'm using the quote function correctly.)

[

This may not be clear, but seriously, try to offer some methods for including the supernatural without using a gaps methods (&quot;since science can't explain X it must be supernatual in origin&quot;) or preselecting a model of the supernatural (&quot;God&quot; as opposed to &quot;ESP&quot; as opposed to &quot;Maya&quot; or whatever). I think when you try it'll be clearer why methodological naturalism is so crucial to the nature of science.

Barron

It wouldn't be directly supernatural, but certainly hypothesis, evidence, prediction and falsifiability could in theory be applied to whether a given cause was more like a rational entity than a chance confluences of forces. Are you saying that this would not then be science?



[

I should add that science has the advantages of being objective (it works for everyone) and external (it applies to the physical universe), but it has the limitation of being tentative (its conclusions are not absolute). That's the draw back of being limited to the natural.


Barron

Science has benefits in being objective and applying to reality. Limited to the study of nature? Or limited to natural answers?

[Hoosier]

Yesterday @ 06:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=273644#post273644)
Barron:



You are correct that it would depend on the initial conditions. I was postulating the creation of a single, first organism on Earth. Now if you suppose a first organism that has all this genetic information and then somehow loses it (in going from a bacteria to a badger?) then that would actually contradict a lot of known biology. So we are sort of talking past each other.

Barron

It seems we are. I wasn't speaking of common descent, or a single, first organism. I was thinking of many first organisms of particular types, but with a greater variety of possible traits. Traits which gradually bred out in subsequent generations due to selective pressures.



[
I was jsut saying that if we just give up on ever finding a naturalistic explanation of abiogenesis and say &quot;God did it&quot; the subsecquent developement of life would still look just like evolution. Because imperfect replicators with selection pressures behave the same no matter where they come from.

Barron

I would say that the way things look are the way they look, and that common descent evolution is only one way to try to account for that appearance. If naturalistic causes are the only possible ones we can seek, then multiple abiogenesis events would be even more of a difficulty than the single one is, so everything "looks like" evolution. That's where the metaphysical naturalism sneaks in.




[
In this case we do differ. See geology is the study of the history of rocks. So if the earth popped into existence as is it would carry that historical record. This all to rapidly devolves into the Omphalos problem (&quot;Did Adam and Eve have navels?&quot;) that is, the &quot;appearence of age&quot;. So looking at the world with science the geologist would say that the Earth was old because that's what naturalistic techniques would say. If a geologist saw a rock literally pop into existence in front of her she would say had the appearence of age. That is, unless all the crystals were prefectly aligned and all teh elements where isotopically pure and stable. In that case there would be no way to judge the age because there is no naturalistic model of the rock's formation.

Barron

The study of effects in nature on rocks is silent on natural or supernatural origin, though given particular metaphysical assumptions of uniformitarianism they can postulate things like age. I didn't say that the earth popped into existence as it is, but that doesn't rule out ex nihilo popping in some form, such as part of a singularity event, followed by change, perhaps strictly in response to natural laws, or conditions. Were those conditions engineered, or just some chance confluence?

[HRG_new]

Today @ 05:14 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=274250#post274250)
Hoosier:




It wouldn't be directly supernatural, but certainly hypothesis, evidence, prediction and falsifiability could in theory be applied to whether a given cause was more like a rational entity than a chance confluences of forces. Are you saying that this would not then be science?


If you include additional statements about the identity and/or methods/powers and/or motivations/purposes of this alleged entity, it might become scientific because it can be tested. That's what happens in archaeology.

However, "some unknown rational entity did it with unknown - unlimited in principle - methods/powers and for unknown purposes/motivations" is not a scientific hypothesis. It could explain every observation and thus explains nothing.


Science has benefits in being objective and applying to reality. Limited to the study of nature? Or limited to natural answers?

Supernatural answers are not really answers. They just explain an unknown by referring to a greater unknown.

regards,
HRG.

[Hoosier]

Today @ 10:23 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=274339#post274339)
HRG_new:


If you include additional statements about the identity and/or methods/powers and/or motivations/purposes of this alleged entity, it might become scientific because it can be tested. That's what happens in archaeology.


However, &quot;some unknown rational entity did it with unknown - unlimited in principle - methods/powers and for unknown purposes/motivations&quot; is not a scientific hypothesis. It could explain every observation and thus explains nothing.

HRG.

If evidence of rational engineering exists, then all that really needs to be proposed is a rational entity with sufficient power to bring about the effect. Whether other fields already propose such an entity would not be a strictly scientific question by most even minimalistic requirements assigned to the word. Lines of demarcation between science and non-science though have proven problematic, and been abandoned by almost all philosophers of science. Many still proclaimed by those outside the field carry logical positivistic assumptions, even though positivism itself has been discredited.


[

Supernatural answers are not really answers. They just explain an unknown by referring to a greater unknown.

regards,
HRG.

I think you are simply trying to establish an a priori requirement re: an answer. If a supernatural entity did indeed bring about a given effect, then saying that a supernatural entity could not be posited would by necessity make any proposed answer false. That doesn't seem very desirable, unless the real intent is to bolster an a priori metaphysical position. Unknowns are regularly recognized in science without it crippling additional research into the nature of the things which are known. Certain theories rely heavily on "chance" events, which is really only an admission of ignorance regarding the chain of causation, yet are recognized as science. That exhaustive knowledge of some proposed entity, whether natural or supernatural, does not exist is inconsequential. All we need is sufficient knowledge infered from the effects.

[Barron]

Hiya,

We may want to move this discussion to the science or maybe philosophy boards so as not to co-opt StR's board. I really find the discussion interesting, but I feel a little like we are talking in someone else's space.

Yesterday @ 09:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=274250#post274250)
Hoosier:

I probably created a false impression with my tongue in cheek remark about methodological supernaturalism. My real issue was with the idea that an applied methodology be limited to a search for natural causes, which could be one way of defining methodological naturalism. That was why I asked for clarification. If that was what one meant by methodological naturalism, yet supernatural causation was indeed the state of affairs, science would amount to more of a game than a search for objective truth about reality. I think science is better defined as methodological study of effects, and that the distinction re: naturalism is either meaningless or, like I said, stacking the deck.
(I hope I'm using the quote function correctly.)

You'll find chatting with me that I don't like the word "truth". It has too many meanings to people and can really foul up a discussion. Science is a search (IMHO) not for truth but for accuracy. Truth is a metaphysical concept where accuracy is a methodological one. And, again IMHO, metaphysics cannot be objectively tested. Thus science (if it wants to remain objective) must limit itself to methodological, not metaphysical issues. Science is, I guess, a study of effects and a search for naturalistic explanations (causes maybe) of those effects.

It wouldn't be directly supernatural, but certainly hypothesis, evidence, prediction and falsifiability could in theory be applied to whether a given cause was more like a rational entity than a chance confluences of forces. Are you saying that this would not then be science?

There is no way (without presupposing a supernatural model (or as you'll find I call them "narrative")) to rule in or out any particular supernatural cause. Even if science managed to agree that some events was "supernatural", there's no way to use science to figure out the supernatural cause. I think you are edging a little into Intelligent Design ideas, but if I've misread you please forgive me. The problem with ID is that it relies on the "gap" approach to the supernatural. First off, ID doesn't need to be supernatural. We can discern design in arrow heads and cave paintings. But we can only discern that because we understand the methods used in the design. ID proponents don't offer any method for their Intelligence to use, so all they can say is "nature couldn't do X". Of course this is the gaps approach ("it's supernatural because science can't explain ti naturally") and that doesn't have a good predictive record :-) See, since there is no method, there are no hallmarks of design BY THAT PROCESS. Saying something is designed without talking about how really doesn't have scientific meaning.

Science has benefits in being objective and applying to reality. Limited to the study of nature? Or limited to natural answers?

The last two are the same in my mind. And, I shoudl point out, this is why science doesn't rule God in or out. It is simply silent on the issue either way.

Barron

[Barron]

Yesterday @ 10:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=274277#post274277)
Hoosier:

It seems we are. I wasn't speaking of common descent, or a single, first organism. I was thinking of many first organisms of particular types, but with a greater variety of possible traits. Traits which gradually bred out in subsequent generations due to selective pressures.

I'm not a biologist (I'm a physicist by training) and I'm not deeply versed in the history of that field. But, that said, my guess is that the model of things starting "wound up" and then "winding down" has been considered. The problem is that it doesn't match the observed data. Earlier forms are uniformally less complex and with less "options" than later forms.

I would say that the way things look are the way they look, and that common descent evolution is only one way to try to account for that appearance. If naturalistic causes are the only possible ones we can seek, then multiple abiogenesis events would be even more of a difficulty than the single one is, so everything &quot;looks like&quot; evolution. That's where the metaphysical naturalism sneaks in.

But again, even if there never is a satisfying naturalistic explanation for abiogenesis, evolution would be uneffected. Mutation and natural selection would still apply just the same. Common descent would still be the best fit for the data. That is to say, borrowing from you "the way things look are the way they look" and they uniformally "look" like evolution. The abiogenesis event doesn't "look" like anything because we have only really tangential information about it.

The study of effects in nature on rocks is silent on natural or supernatural origin, though given particular metaphysical assumptions of uniformitarianism they can postulate things like age. I didn't say that the earth popped into existence as it is, but that doesn't rule out ex nihilo popping in some form, such as part of a singularity event, followed by change, perhaps strictly in response to natural laws, or conditions. Were those conditions engineered, or just some chance confluence?

The problem you are running into here is that supernatural origins can never be ruled in or out by science. The geologist looks at the rock and says it looks like it formed from volcanic processes X years ago followed by erosion by water and decay of radionuclides over time, etc. That's all the geologist can say as a scientist. And that's the reason science is silent about the supernatural.

Barron

[Hoosier]

Yesterday @ 09:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=275020#post275020)
Barron:[/i]

Hiya,

We may want to move this discussion to the science or maybe philosophy boards so as not to co-opt StR's board. I really find the discussion interesting, but I feel a little like we are talking in someone else's space.

Barron

I'm new at TW, but found it through STR (which is also a new discovery). It seems to me that our discussion is, so far, centered on the very issue raised in the STR article, if a little obliquely at times. I suspect we're doing pretty much what they hoped for when beginning these subject threads.

I've also seen Dee Dee caution TW members to succumb to a milder "debate methodology"?!? in this area. I haven't explored TW enough to witness the more rough and tumble approach, but used to discuss issues on COMB boards connected to AOL, where decorum was often sadly absent. It didn't bring out the best in me, nor, I suspect, in others, and time that could have been spent examining issues often was wasted on proclaiming victory (real or imagined). Basically, personalities too often entered what should have been reasoned discussion. So far the people at TW seem to treat each other with respect, but I'm still testing the waters.

On top of that, I'm a married man with a wife less than enthusiastic about the time I spend online, and am a paid member of a couple economic/market forums that already push me close to the commitment abyss. For that reason I'm hessitant to get too deep into TW. I'm cursed with opinions and the desire to express and defend them :-), but am not blessed with unlimmited time to do so.

For all of these reasons, if it is acceptable to you, I'd rather keep this discussion here unless it leads us too far afield of the subject heading. Remaining here might even keep us within helpful parameters.




You'll find chatting with me that I don't like the word &quot;truth&quot;. It has too many meanings to people and can really foul up a discussion. Science is a search (IMHO) not for truth but for accuracy. Truth is a metaphysical concept where accuracy is a methodological one. And, again IMHO, metaphysics cannot be objectively tested. Thus science (if it wants to remain objective) must limit itself to methodological, not metaphysical issues. Science is, I guess, a study of effects and a search for naturalistic explanations (causes maybe) of those effects.

Barron

I hope you noticed that I too think "truth" has become a nebulous concept. Why else would I have specifically stated "objective truth about reality"? I think it is important that we carefully define terms, but fear going into our why could lead us upstream on too many tributaries. For instance, your distinction between truth and accuracy struck me, right or wrong (and please forgive me if I'm wrong), as an attempt to purge metaphysics from your position, giving everything you say "objective"status. Language is applied metaphysics in one very real sense. Words are only words, as long as we clarify the meaning we intend to convey if a question arises.

Clarity is best dealt with on a case by case basis, IMHO. If you don't want to use the word "truth" it's okay with me, but I'd rather not be so constrained. If it helps, I'll clarify what I mean by the word. To me "truth" means an accurate description of objective reality. I could build a case that every element of that statement was/is a metaphysical concept, but why head down a rabbit hole? If you need something more from me, or I do from you, we can just ask questions. Is that reasonable?

Metaphysics cannot be empirically tested, but they can be objectively tested if the rules of logic are true/accurate. If the rules of logic are not true/accurate nothing can be objectively tested by what you call science. The rules of logic are one (only one) of the underlying metaphysical presuppositions upon which science of any kind stands. There is no dichotomy between metaphysic and methodology, assumption and supposition or faith and reason. In each case the two are intricately intertwined. Epistomolgy is a process of one side building upon another, verifying with the other, then building again. Even then, the metaphysic is arguably primary, unless brute observation is "method".

And again, if science is a study of effects and an attempt to discover ONLY naturalistic explanations or causes, given at least the logical possibility of supernatural causation, what would be the point of it? Hasn't it become something like the word games we played in elementary school where we looked for every word we could find in "Thanksgiving"? Isn't it, in principle, risking saying that truth/accuracy doesn't matter, only the (arguably) arbitrary "rules"? Granted, it does require some "narrative", but if the given narrative can only be measured against other narratives with the same constraints, then the victory proves little ... or so it would seem. Methodological naturalism is ultimately only justified by metaphysical naturalism if only those models/narratives are in the running.



There is no way (without presupposing a supernatural model (or as you'll find I call them &quot;narrative&quot;)) to rule in or out any particular supernatural cause.

Barron

I suppose we could posit some natural, yet unknown, enity with the power to bring about specific conditions and effects, but what would be the point? For all practical purposes, it is what we've always considered to be a supernatural God.

Or we could claim that no rational agency lies behind anything, or that we must at least assume none does, and conditions beyond all realistic odds have to be some kind of blind luck, then dub it science just because it isn't allowed to consider a rational agency. Again, what would be the point? Besides, statistical science might just get a bit ticked off. After all, they weren't presupposing anything supernatural. It also seems to be a rather selective use of even science which conforms to your criteria, doesn't it?

If statistical science can describe what is "natural" regarding probability, then it ought to be able to describe that which goes beyond natural expectations. Beyond natural is what supernatural means. That is one way that science can point to a supernatural agent.



Even if science managed to agree that some events was &quot;supernatural&quot;, there's no way to use science to figure out the supernatural cause. I think you are edging a little into Intelligent Design ideas, but if I've misread you please forgive me.

Barron

ID is another, separate way that science can point to a supernatural agent.




The problem with ID is that it relies on the &quot;gap&quot; approach to the supernatural. First off, ID doesn't need to be supernatural. We can discern design in arrow heads and cave paintings. But we can only discern that because we understand the methods used in the design.

Barron

I believe you're mistaken about the so called "gap" argument. ID has been working to perfect an interpretive model to objectify design criteria. if that is successful, and a design inference can be recognized, there is no "gap" thinking involved.

Besides, the entire "gap" concept is another issue passe in philosophy of science. Postulates are often inserted into gaps. In my above discussion of statistical science I pointed to one case, common in your own field, where unlikely chance is simply inserted into a "gap". Likewise, in neo-Darwinism creatures who no one has seen, who have left no fossil remains, and who we can only guess about regarding their morphology fill very large "gaps". It seems arbitrary to me to suggest that only otherwise scentific postulates, like a rational designer, who might point to supernatural causes are precluded from filling gaps.

Also, we don't always know the methods used to bring into being a given design, even of human origin. Other times we don't understand the purpose of some artifice, even if we recognize it as a human creation. The pyramids of Gaza would be an example of the former, and certain prehistoric tools the latter.




ID proponents don't offer any method for their Intelligence to use, so all they can say is &quot;nature couldn't do X&quot;.


Barron

Method is another failed demarcation requirement. Gould's punctuated equillibria presents no viable mechanism. Newton's law of gravity did not include a "how" of gravity. Continental drift was a scientific theory prior to plate tectonics. Besides, demanding a mechanistic explanation of a designer with the power to bring about the universe begs the question. The only understanding of mechanistic causes we have are from within the universe. Would you claim a singularity couldn't exist because we don't know where it came from or how it came to be?





Of course this is the gaps approach (&quot;it's supernatural because science can't explain ti naturally&quot;) and that doesn't have a good predictive record :-) See, since there is no method, there are no hallmarks of design BY THAT PROCESS. Saying something is designed without talking about how really doesn't have scientific meaning.

Barron

But saying something existed without saying how does?
I think you're in a bit of trouble there :-)



The last two are the same in my mind. And, I shoudl point out, this is why science doesn't rule God in or out. It is simply silent on the issue either way.

Barron

I really don't think you've made your case.

Regards,
SP

[Hoosier]

Yesterday @ 10:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=275079#post275079)
Barron:



I'm not a biologist (I'm a physicist by training) and I'm not deeply versed in the history of that field. But, that said, my guess is that the model of things starting &quot;wound up&quot; and then &quot;winding down&quot; has been considered. The problem is that it doesn't match the observed data. Earlier forms are uniformally less complex and with less &quot;options&quot; than later forms.

Barron

I'm not a biologist either, and it has been almost six years since I devoted considerable effort to reading up on the subject generally. Since then I've read things here and there, mainly from authors in the ID movement, which have kept me somewhat abreast of particular advances in biochemistry. The model I mentioned though is one that occured to me some time ago while considering the fact that there are extinct species closely resembling extant ones. I've toyed with it exactly because it does match the observable data; at least the observable data I just mentioned.

I've often wondered if any serious work had been done with such a model, but had never run across anything (until recently). My own guess was that after 1859, Origin of Species had so swayed the direction of biology that a potentially fuitfull model at odds with common descent (which was really the heart of Darwin's theory) might have never occured to those active in the field. I've noted that common descent is deeply imbedded in your own presuppositions whenever you mention biology or "the way things look".

I happen to think, like you, that "evolution", in the broader sense of "change over time", is part of "the way things look", but I don't think common descent is there in any "leap out at you" way. When I look at a tree, I really don't feel any kinship (though I'm aware that today there are people who do), and think it takes an a priori commitment to naturalistic common descent to engender that particular warm-fuzzy. When one looks closer than just a tree, at class and genus, or even smaller, at DNA and genes, I still don't think "the way things look" conforms to common descent evolution unless that presupposition is already assumed.


Barron

But again, even if there never is a satisfying naturalistic explanation for abiogenesis, evolution would be uneffected. Mutation and natural selection would still apply just the same.



Sorry. I got a little ahead of you in my responses. Evolution, change over time, is a pretty powerful observational fact. I'm not sure what could ever effect that. Mutation and natural selection are very weak theories to explain that change, IMHO. The few beneficial mutations one can point to never add information to the organism. Most mutations are undeniably harmful. Selction, by all rights, could only happen very gradually within a population. It has to be forced to explain things like Behe's "mousetraps". Granted, clever people can come up with some sort of plausible speculation to account for complex multi-part "machines", but common descent evolution is hardly "the way things look" at that level. So, even if a satisfactory naturalistic explanation of abiogenesis were postulated, mutation and natural selection would work, or not work, just the same as they do now. According to other fields of science, not work is more likely, and would remain so.

Also, I didn't bring up abiogenesis as a problem for common descent evolution. Common descent stand or falls on its own merits. I did point out that multiple abiogenesis events would create problems (to put it mildly) for naturalistic narratives in general. This means that for the metaphysical naturalist, or even a methodological naturalist who doesn't wan't "science to stop" at the point of a lot of creatures that are simply brute facts (actually an unfounded fear, as science could stil find plenty to do), the tendency to even consider models other than common descent will be a personal struggle. You and I both know that people in general often choose not to follow the truth/accuracy of given sittuations if they would rather something else was. It would be naive to think scientists as a class are somehow superhuman in that regard.





The problem you are running into here is that supernatural origins can never be ruled in or out by science. The geologist looks at the rock and says it looks like it formed from volcanic processes X years ago followed by erosion by water and decay of radionuclides over time, etc. That's all the geologist can say as a scientist. And that's the reason science is silent about the supernatural.

Barron

Actually, it isn't the problem you think it is. Supernatural causation could be inserted anywhere, of course: God made the volcano, the rain, or whatever. Most theists don't use that as a creation argument however. They suggest that God made particular fundamental interactions between physical properties, which we call "laws" of science, and let this account for most operational activity. The weathered rock isn't expected to give much in the way of explanation regarding the natural or supernatural. It's just a rock. It may raise the ultimate questions; why is there anything at all, and why is there anything that can wonder why? But it can't answer them.

Other scientific studies however can point toward something beyond the physical univese we can see and understand. They may not tell us everything about it, and that may really bother some people, but they may give us some clues.


Regards,
SP

[Barron]

11-07-2003 @ 08:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=275369#post275369)
Hoosier:

I'm new at TW, but found it through STR (which is also a new discovery). It seems to me that our discussion is, so far, centered on the very issue raised in the STR article, if a little obliquely at times. I suspect we're doing pretty much what they hoped for when beginning these subject threads.

I've also seen Dee Dee caution TW members to succumb to a milder &quot;debate methodology&quot;?!? in this area. I haven't explored TW enough to witness the more rough and tumble approach, but used to discuss issues on COMB boards connected to AOL, where decorum was often sadly absent. It didn't bring out the best in me, nor, I suspect, in others, and time that could have been spent examining issues often was wasted on proclaiming victory (real or imagined). Basically, personalities too often entered what should have been reasoned discussion. So far the people at TW seem to treat each other with respect, but I'm still testing the waters.


I'm fine either way. I guess DeeDee or StR can poke us if they want us to move.

<snip discussion of language and metaphysics>

Interesting stuff, but not that germaine. But I would be interested in how one goes about testing a metaphysics. You can test for internal consistency, I would think, but not across metaphysical boundaries.

I suppose we could posit some natural, yet unknown, enity with the power to bring about specific conditions and effects, but what would be the point? For all practical purposes, it is what we've always considered to be a supernatural God.

Not at all. It depends on the scope of that entity. God (in the classic, monotheistic sense) is more than the "creator of life" or whatever we posit the supernatural entity to explain. My point is that one cannot test or rule out ANY supernatural entity, force, effect, whatever. Say I claim that computers fail due to gremlins or that djinn move the planets around the sun. How can that be tested or ruled in/out? These are not in any sense "god-like" entities, yet they are still supernatural and outside of science.

Or we could claim that no rational agency lies behind anything, or that we must at least assume none does, and conditions beyond all realistic odds have to be some kind of blind luck, then dub it science just because it isn't allowed to consider a rational agency. Again, what would be the point? Besides, statistical science might just get a bit ticked off. After all, they weren't presupposing anything supernatural. It also seems to be a rather selective use of even science which conforms to your criteria, doesn't it?

If statistical science can describe what is &quot;natural&quot; regarding probability, then it ought to be able to describe that which goes beyond natural expectations. Beyond natural is what supernatural means. That is one way that science can point to a supernatural agent.

Statistics really only work if we can define the full conditions. Like is we say that the path of a thrown object has a vanishingly small chance of following a parabola, until we realize that only gravity acts on the object. The best that a scientific argument from probability can do is say that "we don't know how X happened given our current knowledge". That's a long way from "if we add a magical event this all makes sense". I'm not meaning to be condescending here, but that's what people want to add.

ID is another, separate way that science can point to a supernatural agent.

Science can never point to a supernatural agent. It can point at gaps and then certain scientists can say "there must be magic in that gap". But they are speaking as individuals.

I believe you're mistaken about the so called &quot;gap&quot; argument. ID has been working to perfect an interpretive model to objectify design criteria. if that is successful, and a design inference can be recognized, there is no &quot;gap&quot; thinking involved.

I'm not a fan of the ID people. I think they are pure politics and no science. They don't do science, they don't do experiments, they don't use their "revolutionary" ideas to predict, explain or do anything but try to convince school boards to use their books. Like I siad, not a fan.

Besides, the entire &quot;gap&quot; concept is another issue passe in philosophy of science. Postulates are often inserted into gaps. In my above discussion of statistical science I pointed to one case, common in your own field, where unlikely chance is simply inserted into a &quot;gap&quot;. Likewise, in neo-Darwinism creatures who no one has seen, who have left no fossil remains, and who we can only guess about regarding their morphology fill very large &quot;gaps&quot;. It seems arbitrary to me to suggest that only otherwise scentific postulates, like a rational designer, who might point to supernatural causes are precluded from filling gaps.

Also, we don't always know the methods used to bring into being a given design, even of human origin. Other times we don't understand the purpose of some artifice, even if we recognize it as a human creation. The pyramids of Gaza would be an example of the former, and certain prehistoric tools the latter.

The difference is that Darwinism puts tentative, naturalistic, testable explanations in the gaps. If later work doesn't support it they try another fit. Just as particle theorists posit particles that fit in their models, but discard them if later experiments rule them out (like proton decay or whatever). This is a very real limit on science, but also a big advantage.

Method is another failed demarcation requirement. Gould's punctuated equillibria presents no viable mechanism. Newton's law of gravity did not include a &quot;how&quot; of gravity. Continental drift was a scientific theory prior to plate tectonics. Besides, demanding a mechanistic explanation of a designer with the power to bring about the universe begs the question. The only understanding of mechanistic causes we have are from within the universe. Would you claim a singularity couldn't exist because we don't know where it came from or how it came to be?

Best of my (non-biologist) knowledge, PE used exactly the same mechanisms as gradualism. The argument was about rates of those mechanisms. Of course a divine entity can do whatever it wants in whatever way it wants. And that makes it pretty clear that it can't be tested or treated by/with science.



Of course this is the gaps approach ("it's supernatural because science can't explain ti naturally") and that doesn't have a good predictive record :-) See, since there is no method, there are no hallmarks of design BY THAT PROCESS. Saying something is designed without talking about how really doesn't have scientific meaning.

But saying something existed without saying how does?
I think you're in a bit of trouble there :-)

Positing the existence of something in a testable, naturalistic way is. Like proton decay and neutrinos.



The last two are the same in my mind. And, I shoudl point out, this is why science doesn't rule God in or out. It is simply silent on the issue either way.

I really don't think you've made your case.

Seriously, can you show how you think science ISN'T neutral with respect to God. Until then I'd say my case is pretty good :teeth:

Barron

[Hoosier]

Today @ 08:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=277668#post277668)
Barron:




Seriously, can you show how you think science ISN'T neutral with respect to God. Until then I'd say my case is pretty good :teeth:

Barron

I tried to post this earlier, but kept getting a webboard error. It makes my case regarding the neutrality of neo-Darwinism.

Re: science generally, we would need to agree on a definition first, as I reject methodological naturalism as apt.

I haven’t received any further responses in this subject thread, so thought I would take some time (as I happen to have some today) to bring a few of the things discussed back to the issue raised in the STR article. To wit: Is Evolutionary theory really philosophy? To do this, several distinctions need first be made.

First of all, some sort of evolution, meaning change over time, has obviously occurred. Some (not all) young earth creationists (YEC) try to deny this, accrediting a designer, God, with the specific, mainly stasis, creation of each modern species. From this metaphysical presupposition an attempt to build support through observations and speculation results in a particular kind of science that is routinely ridiculed. It is ridiculed largely because it is metaphysically, not observationally driven. It is not agnostic, but begins from a theistic position that must explain away or ignore all conflicting observations. Is it science? Or is it philosophy? How one responds to that question will make a difference in how they answer the STR question.

Secondly, in the STR piece, Koukle wasn’t speaking about evolution in the sense of change over time. He was responding to the Papal recognition of Charles Darwin’s theory as viable (I paraphrase) as long as it didn’t postulate a naturalistic explanation for sentient and spiritual human beings. Darwin’s theory really attempted to explain all diversity in living beings through small changes selected by natural conditions, based on common descent from a first, simple life form. How much of theory was the Pope recognizing? Was he agreeing with common descent, or with natural selection? Was he giving recognition to descent with modification only, or to the entire Darwinian explanation? Also, the Pope’s response may have been more astute than one might realize on first reading. The commonly accepted paradigm in biology today is not strict Darwinism. Instead it is a refined Darwinism stated in the early 1940’s in response to disarray created in the 1930’s by the new sciences of transmission and population genetics. This was called the neo-Darwinist synthesis, or neo-Darwinist theory (NDT). The Pope did not recognize NDT, and we must wonder if his science advisors knew what they were doing with that recommendation. One distinction between Darwin’s work and NDT is metaphysical. NDT is wedded to random variations, while Darwin backtracked on his first insistence on completely random changes, allowing environment to effect change as well as reinforce it. It seems that Koukle, like most people, conflated Darwinism and NDT. The Pope may not have, which would remove some force from his dismissal of evolutionary theory as philosophy and criticism of the Pope.

This brings me to the third distinction re: evolution theory, and points to where NDT, the most common form of evolution posited, does become metaphysically, not observationally driven. NDT insists on random variation as the driving force of change in both phenotype and genotype. It does not allow environmentally caused variation, because to do so would be a tacit admission that the genome already contained the needed information to respond to changes in the environment. If the genome already contained the information, then one of the questions NDT proposes to answer isn’t answered. Namely; where did the information come from? NDT claims that all information in the genomes of living creatures arose through small additions caused by point mutations or completely random replication errors. If environment actually causes particular replication “errors” to appear in a population, then the information for a given adaptation was already present and simply required something to “turn it on”, or often instead to “turn off” some repressor. This is anathema to advocates of NDT, precisely because it demonstrates that the theory does not explain where the information in genomes originated. It means that the genome has not been programmed accidentally, but instead was preprogrammed for survival in a variety of conditions. The obvious problem with this for most NDT advocates is that it points to a Programmer, but a main tenet of NDT is that no Programmer is needed, and that tenet is metaphysical. It is a philosophical commitment, and is atheistic regarding the development of life (it may allow a God out somewhere on the fringes, but denies the need for one). Barron claims that this theory of evolution is silent re: God, and is basically agnostic, but the fact that NDT insists on random variation undercuts his claim. This insistence betrays the metaphysical/philosophical nature of the NDT narrative, and shows how it is akin methodologically to the type of creationism I pointed to above. It has to ignore or explain away all observations that conflict with it.

So, is it science? Is it philosophy? Is creationism science or theology? Perhaps the answer isn’t so simple. In forensics, for example, science may be applied with the aim of building a case against a particular suspect. Evidence which doesn’t help is often just ignored. Does that mean that it isn’t science? I don’t think so. I think science involves techniques of investigation more than a goal.

However, if science is to lay claim to great epistemic esteem, then it has to do more than build a case. Once again metaphysical words and concepts and values must be chosen and used. Metaphysical commitment to truth (or accuracy) must be chosen in order for science to be “pure”. Honest reporting of results and attempts to integrate all evidence must be observed. The only parameter can be following the evidence where it leads, without trying to impose a priori lines of demarcation to steer results in a particular direction. Basically that would be good science, as opposed to bad science, but even that distinction shows how inescapable are philosophical precepts.

[Barron]

11-08-2003 @ 03:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=276075#post276075)
Hoosier:

I've often wondered if any serious work had been done with such a model, but had never run across anything (until recently). My own guess was that after 1859, Origin of Species had so swayed the direction of biology that a potentially fuitfull model at odds with common descent (which was really the heart of Darwin's theory) might have never occured to those active in the field. I've noted that common descent is deeply imbedded in your own presuppositions whenever you mention biology or &quot;the way things look&quot;.

I happen to think, like you, that &quot;evolution&quot;, in the broader sense of &quot;change over time&quot;, is part of &quot;the way things look&quot;, but I don't think common descent is there in any &quot;leap out at you&quot; way. When I look at a tree, I really don't feel any kinship (though I'm aware that today there are people who do), and think it takes an a priori commitment to naturalistic common descent to engender that particular warm-fuzzy. When one looks closer than just a tree, at class and genus, or even smaller, at DNA and genes, I still don't think &quot;the way things look&quot; conforms to common descent evolution unless that presupposition is already assumed.

I'm not qualified to argue the details of biology. But I will say you are mostly arguing from incredulity. I agree, I don't feel any kinship to trees or slime molds and only a little kinship with dogs and cats. So imagine how hard it was to convince people in the early Darwinian era. And yet it did time and again, and continues to pass every test thrown at it. I really don't think the idea that all these biologists are somehow just "biased" doesn't wash.

Sorry. I got a little ahead of you in my responses. Evolution, change over time, is a pretty powerful observational fact. I'm not sure what could ever effect that. Mutation and natural selection are very weak theories to explain that change, IMHO. The few beneficial mutations one can point to never add information to the organism. Most mutations are undeniably harmful. Selction, by all rights, could only happen very gradually within a population. It has to be forced to explain things like Behe's &quot;mousetraps&quot;. Granted, clever people can come up with some sort of plausible speculation to account for complex multi-part &quot;machines&quot;, but common descent evolution is hardly &quot;the way things look&quot; at that level. So, even if a satisfactory naturalistic explanation of abiogenesis were postulated, mutation and natural selection would work, or not work, just the same as they do now. According to other fields of science, not work is more likely, and would remain so.

Seriously I think you may want to read some non-ID literature. I don't really know if I can convince you that natural selection and mutation are not "weak theories". I will offer that the vast majority of people in the biological sciences differ.

Also, I didn't bring up abiogenesis as a problem for common descent evolution. Common descent stand or falls on its own merits. I did point out that multiple abiogenesis events would create problems (to put it mildly) for naturalistic narratives in general. This means that for the metaphysical naturalist, or even a methodological naturalist who doesn't wan't &quot;science to stop&quot; at the point of a lot of creatures that are simply brute facts (actually an unfounded fear, as science could stil find plenty to do), the tendency to even consider models other than common descent will be a personal struggle. You and I both know that people in general often choose not to follow the truth/accuracy of given sittuations if they would rather something else was. It would be naive to think scientists as a class are somehow superhuman in that regard.

Again, not an expert on history of biology, but I'd be amazed if alternatives to common descent or modifications of it hadn't been considered. The reason we don't hear about them is that they didn't fit the data as well. Why would multiple abiogenesis events be a problem? I realize there are limits to naturalistic science (like abiogenesis may just be too hard to study since it leaves so few traces), but I don't see those a major problems. Even if abiogenesis is forever shrouded in mystery, the later developement can be studied in depth with science.

Actually, it isn't the problem you think it is. Supernatural causation could be inserted anywhere, of course: God made the volcano, the rain, or whatever. Most theists don't use that as a creation argument however. They suggest that God made particular fundamental interactions between physical properties, which we call &quot;laws&quot; of science, and let this account for most operational activity. The weathered rock isn't expected to give much in the way of explanation regarding the natural or supernatural. It's just a rock. It may raise the ultimate questions; why is there anything at all, and why is there anything that can wonder why? But it can't answer them.

Other scientific studies however can point toward something beyond the physical univese we can see and understand. They may not tell us everything about it, and that may really bother some people, but they may give us some clues.

Of course the supernatural can fit anywhere, the problem is not adding it, but ruling it out. You claim the Christian God made life on earth, this other guy says it was Vishnu, someone says it was space aliens with Clark's Law technology, and I say it was time travellers from the future closing a loop in time. How do we rule out any of those or that billions of other possible non-natural explanations? This is why it doesn't work.

Barron

[Hoosier]

Today @ 08:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=277668#post277668)
Barron:



I'm fine either way. I guess DeeDee or StR can poke us if they want us to move.

&lt;snip discussion of language and metaphysics&gt;

Barron

You snipped more than my discussion of language and metaphysics. I think I've also raised some questions that really need to be answered to give science epistemic warrant --- warrant that I think it loses when placed under the constraints you wish to impose.

"And again, if science is a study of effects and an attempt to discover ONLY naturalistic explanations or causes, given at least the logical possibility of supernatural causation, what would be the point of it? Hasn't it become something like the word games we played in elementary school where we looked for every word we could find in "Thanksgiving"? Isn't it, in principle, risking saying that truth/accuracy doesn't matter, only the (arguably) arbitrary "rules"? Granted, it does require some "narrative", but if the given narrative can only be measured against other narratives with the same constraints, then the victory proves little ... or so it would seem. Methodological naturalism is ultimately only justified by metaphysical naturalism if only those models/narratives are in the running."



Interesting stuff, but not that germaine. But I would be interested in how one goes about testing a metaphysics. You can test for internal consistency, I would think, but not across metaphysical boundaries.



Again, to even begin a study of the physical universe certain metaphysical presuppositions must be accepted. You are trying to impose a logical positivist requirement on knowledge, which simply will not work. Ultimately all knowledge is circular, including knowledge obtained through scientific endeavors. It all tests through internal consistency, though external coherence adds epistemic warrant.



Not at all. It depends on the scope of that entity. God (in the classic, monotheistic sense) is more than the &quot;creator of life&quot; or whatever we posit the supernatural entity to explain. My point is that one cannot test or rule out ANY supernatural entity, force, effect, whatever. Say I claim that computers fail due to gremlins or that djinn move the planets around the sun. How can that be tested or ruled in/out? These are not in any sense &quot;god-like&quot; entities, yet they are still supernatural and outside of science.


If an intelligence or programmer or even moral agent is deemed to be necessary to explain reality as it exists I suppose you could posit gremlins or djinn. Science could not establish the identity of the intelligence. That would fall to theology and philosophy. To say that science is not allowed to seek answers that might include such an intelligence is not the same as what you're describing above. Newton used a "gaps" argument before he understood eliptical orbits, and it later was shown to be spurious. This did not detract from his other data or his contributions to the advancement of science. Likewise, any scientific conclusion pointing to intelligent agency would be subject to the same revision or rejection in light of future discoveries and/or explanation. If there was really some great embarassment in that, as you've tried to imply, many of the scientists in history ought to have red faces. Everyone who resisted Big Bang theory didn't commit suicide or retire from science when they could deny it no longer.



Statistics really only work if we can define the full conditions. Like is we say that the path of a thrown object has a vanishingly small chance of following a parabola, until we realize that only gravity acts on the object. The best that a scientific argument from probability can do is say that &quot;we don't know how X happened given our current knowledge&quot;. That's a long way from &quot;if we add a magical event this all makes sense&quot;. I'm not meaning to be condescending here, but that's what people want to add.



I suspect you do mean to be condescending. There are other ways to make that point. Nonetheless, I've experienced it before and it doesn't ruffle me.

Again, the gravity parabola brings me back to an earlier point. Newton not only didn't, but refused to, offer a mechanism to explain gravity. The law of gravity was still a major breakthrough for science, because it described operational reality. If study of other phenomena demonstrates that design or information is a precursor to reality as it exists, there is no need to offer a mechanistic "how".

I'll have to finish this response later.

Regards,
SP

[Hoosier]

Today @ 08:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=277668#post277668)
Barron:


Statistics really only work if we can define the full conditions. Like is we say that the path of a thrown object has a vanishingly small chance of following a parabola, until we realize that only gravity acts on the object. The best that a scientific argument from probability can do is say that &quot;we don't know how X happened given our current knowledge&quot;. That's a long way from &quot;if we add a magical event this all makes sense&quot;. I'm not meaning to be condescending here, but that's what people want to add.

Barron

Probability can do much more than that. Some things are of such negative magnitutde of probability to be deemed practically impossible. If a theory were to rely on a single such instance it would be somewhat reasonable to beieve that somehow we just got lucky. A theory that requires a series of such low probability events stretches all credulity. There is no fallacy in arguing against it from incredulity. This is particularly true when, as in the case of NDT, the evidence proffered is circumstantial and never clearly demonstrates the mechanisms needed. When a chance of the gaps scenario is almost all that is offered, incredulity is warranted.



Science can never point to a supernatural agent. It can point at gaps and then certain scientists can say &quot;there must be magic in that gap&quot;. But they are speaking as individuals.


Science can point to preexistant information and complexity. Decisions re: how to interpret that would lie with individuals. Some individuals might decide it pointed to a creative intelligence, others might decide it pointed to winning PowerBall every week for 100 years. I suppose that both are filling a gap. In the field of physics the former is where more and more individuals are finding the indicator to point. Biology is in many ways the last holdout for those who don't want to reach that conclusion, but unfortunately for them that bastion is under seige and running short of ammunition.



I'm not a fan of the ID people. I think they are pure politics and no science. They don't do science, they don't do experiments, they don't use their &quot;revolutionary&quot; ideas to predict, explain or do anything but try to convince school boards to use their books. Like I siad, not a fan.



Being a fan is a metaphysical choice. I hope you don't want to confuse your personal feelings with the objective accuracy of any given theory. Your description is also inaccurate. Lab or field work is only one part of scientific "work". Many theoretical scientists don't do experiments. In fact, many fields of science are not based on experiments at all, and don't even allow experiments. For that matter, re: this thread, Darwin did all of his field work early in his life, none of which included expirements, then wrote his results and speculations later in life. You're also inaccurate re: the work done by some of the ID crowd. Thaxton, Bradley, Ross and Behe are all "working scientists", past or present. They are the only ones that immediately come to mind, but are not the only ones.


The difference is that Darwinism puts tentative, naturalistic, testable explanations in the gaps. If later work doesn't support it they try another fit. Just as particle theorists posit particles that fit in their models, but discard them if later experiments rule them out (like proton decay or whatever). This is a very real limit on science, but also a big advantage.


There is nothing testable about what NDT uses to fill gaps. How do you suppose one would test a creature that there is no physical evidence for, no known morphology, and no fossil record of? Basically it is an imaginary creature. That's far worse than an intelligent agent with explanatory power related to a given instance of complexity. These imaginary critters do nothing but fill a gap, and aren't subject to any test I can conceive of. Surely, if you really hoped for a neutral methodology, you would object to them as much as to a "supernatural" agent. I fail to see the advantage you are asserting.



Best of my (non-biologist) knowledge, PE used exactly the same mechanisms as gradualism. The argument was about rates of those mechanisms. Of course a divine entity can do whatever it wants in whatever way it wants. And that makes it pretty clear that it can't be tested or treated by/with science.



Perhaps your seemingly limited understanding of biology indicates that your many positive assertions about it are unwarranted. I thought I was at least interacting with an informed lay person, and hoped that we could possibly explore where the evidence really points without too much instruction.

FYI, PE did not originally posit a definate mechanism, but suggested that the fossil record indicated that some traits accumulated while populations remained in stasis, then sudden bursts of phenotype activity created new forms. The general premise was that mutation still produced adaptations, but to suggest that "exactly the same mechanisms" were active is a gross oversimplification, and very inaccurate. In some ways PE was a new research program, hoping to find other possible mechanisms to account for NDTs inability to reconcile with the fossil record. As PE work progressed, some recognized just how large a pradigm shift was involved. The PE advocates split. Some returned to the idea of many small cumulative changes, seeking a mechanism to hold them in stasis for a sudden burst. Others looked for larger, more fundamental mutation changes to the genotype. The divergence in these positions is actually quite large. In fact, the latter position actually carries some of the implications I mentioned in my other post. It suggests that the information was already present in the genotype, and that the active mutation simply switched it on in some sense. There is now considerable evidence of such circumstances, but I doubt you want my instruction. I'll post some citations in the next couple of days.

Also, I think your last two sentences in the above quote were getting a little churlish. I don't think there's a need for that. Our lives hardly depend on this exchange.


But saying something existed without saying how does?
I think you're in a bit of trouble there :-)

Positing the existence of something in a testable, naturalistic way is. Like proton decay and neutrinos.

[/QUOTE]

You aren't responding to me in entirety. I was specifically speaking of singularities.




Seriously, can you show how you think science ISN'T neutral with respect to God. Until then I'd say my case is pretty good :teeth:

Barron

IMHO, I've done that in the other post re: NDT. I'll await your response.

Regards,
SP

[Barron]

Long reply so I'll get to the other threads tomorrow. Sorry for any delay.

Today @ 12:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=277688#post277688)
Hoosier:

I tried to post this earlier, but kept getting a webboard error. It makes my case regarding the neutrality of neo-Darwinism.

Ditto! We are starting to get several different back and forths going here, so it's getting easy to answer a point in one that really applies to another, etc. I'm terrible about sprawling discussions, but I'll try to be a little more focused.

Re: science generally, we would need to agree on a definition first, as I reject methodological naturalism as apt.

I'm still very unclear as to what you offer in place of MethN (as opposed to MetaN). I don't want to demand that you lay out a complete theory of how to do science without MethN, but some idea would be helpful.

I haven't received any further responses in this subject thread, so thought I would take some time (as I happen to have some today) to bring a few of the things discussed back to the issue raised in the STR article.

Yeah, I rarely read TWeb over the weekend since it glitches my Safari browser and I'm too lazy to bother with IE just for one site. So if I don't reply on the weekend it's not that I'm not paying attention ;-)

To wit: Is Evolutionary theory really philosophy? To do this, several distinctions need first be made.

Are you distinguishing "science" from "philosophy" here? Or do you mean "philosophy" as in "metaphysics"?

First of all, some sort of evolution, meaning change over time, has obviously occurred. Some (not all) young earth creationists (YEC) try to deny this, accrediting a designer, God, with the specific, mainly stasis, creation of each modern species. From this metaphysical presupposition an attempt to build support through observations and speculation results in a particular kind of science that is routinely ridiculed. It is ridiculed largely because it is metaphysically, not observationally driven.

I disagree. YEC is just wrong. It can be ridiculed for a number of reasons (the fact that it is ridiculous being the main one), but the reason it is not accepted is that it is wrong. Not because it is religiously motivated.

It is not agnostic, but begins from a theistic position that must explain away or ignore all conflicting observations. Is it science? Or is it philosophy? How one responds to that question will make a difference in how they answer the STR question.

Again, "philosophy" confuses me here. I can argue that science uses the "philosophy" of MethN. Does that make it a philosophy and not a science? Of course not. MethN is well established as the best method for making objective sense of the external world.

Secondly, in the STR piece, Koukle wasn't speaking about evolution in the sense of change over time. He was responding to the Papal recognition of Charles Darwin's theory as viable (I paraphrase) as long as it didn't postulate a naturalistic explanation for sentient and spiritual human beings. Darwin's theory really attempted to explain all diversity in living beings through small changes selected by natural conditions, based on common descent from a first, simple life form. How much of theory was the Pope recognizing? Was he agreeing with common descent, or with natural selection? Was he giving recognition to descent with modification only, or to the entire Darwinian explanation? Also, the Pope? response may have been more astute than one might realize on first reading. The commonly accepted paradigm in biology today is not strict Darwinism. Instead it is a refined Darwinism stated in the early 1940's in response to disarray created in the 1930's by the new sciences of transmission and population genetics. This was called the neo-Darwinist synthesis, or neo-Darwinist theory (NDT). The Pope did not recognize NDT, and we must wonder if his science advisors knew what they were doing with that recommendation. One distinction between Darwin's work and NDT is metaphysical. NDT is wedded to random variations, while Darwin backtracked on his first insistence on completely random changes, allowing environment to effect change as well as reinforce it. It seems that Koukle, like most people, conflated Darwinism and NDT. The Pope may not have, which would remove some force from his dismissal of evolutionary theory as philosophy and criticism of the Pope.

Again, I am having trouble with your use of "philosophy". Clearly science could care less what the Pope thinks about it. What the Pope did, as I understand it, was to say that evolution (not being specific here) was compatible with Catholic teaching. And the only reason I would bring that up at all was when a creationist says, "Evolution is incompatible with Christianity". To which I would glibly reply, "The Pope tends to differ..." and try to score rhetorical points. The Pope's statement has nothing really to do with the philosophy or metaphysics of science, it has to do with compatibility of modern science and religious teaching.

This brings me to the third distinction re: evolution theory, and points to where NDT, the most common form of evolution posited, does become metaphysically, not observationally driven. NDT insists on random variation as the driving force of change in both phenotype and genotype.

And this insistence is not based on observation? I'm confused. The modern synthesis accepts that environment can effect phenotype, but that those effects are not hereditary, right? And we know that genes do mutate and those mutations are random (statistically at least), right? And those genetic changes are hereditary.

It does not allow environmentally caused variation, because to do so would be a tacit admission that the genome already contained the needed information to respond to changes in the environment.

Well it would be Lamarckism which I thought was pretty much abandoned in the late 19th century or thereabouts.

If the genome already contained the information, then one of the questions NDT proposes to answer isn't answered. Namely; where did the information come from?

Shouldn't we first acertain whether said unexpressed genetic function exists before speculating on its origin? And yes, I'm avoiding the word "information" because it can cause too much confusion. I need a clearer idea of the model you are proposing. Are you saying that early genetic codes included a long list of possible adaptions that might be needed later? That an early mammal had all the genes that would be needed for humans, dogs, and the rest? Or are you arguing that the genes come into being later when needed (bad phrasing on my part)?

NDT claims that all information in the genomes of living creatures arose through small additions caused by point mutations or completely random replication errors. If environment actually causes particular replication "errors" to appear in a population, then the information for a given adaptation was already present and simply required something to "turn it on" or often instead to "turn off" some repressor.

So you are proposing that the genes are there waiting to be turned on? Wouldn't this mean that the earlier organism would have genes of equal complexity to modern animals? And/or that all animals would share the same basic codes with some have different functions turned on? I agree that the modern synthesis does rule out environmental factors as a driving force (although it does recognize that environmental factors can up the mutation rate). But is there any evidence for these preexisting and environmentally driven changes? If not then it would seem the synthesis is the best working model. And I should add that like all scientific theories, the modern synthesis is a working model only. If new evidence and theories come to light it will be changed.

This is anathema to advocates of NDT, precisely because it demonstrates that the theory does not explain where the information in genomes originated.

Again, I think you need to demonstrate that this exists before this is a problem. Clearly if you could demonstrate that mutation was not random, that environment can direct mutation or that various expressions are preexisting in primal DNA this would be a major issue for current thinking. But until then we are just discussing hypotheticals. Just like if the charge wasn't conserved this would be a huge issue in particle physics, but until we show that it isn't...

It means that the genome has not been programmed accidentally, but instead was preprogrammed for survival in a variety of conditions. The obvious problem with this for most NDT advocates is that it points to a Programmer, but a main tenet of NDT is that no Programmer is needed, and that tenet is metaphysical. It is a philosophical commitment, and is atheistic regarding the development of life (it may allow a God out somewhere on the fringes, but denies the need for one). Barron claims that this theory of evolution is silent re: God, and is basically agnostic, but the fact that NDT insists on random variation undercuts his claim. This insistence betrays the metaphysical/philosophical nature of the NDT narrative, and shows how it is akin methodologically to the type of creationism I pointed to above. It has to ignore or explain away all observations that conflict with it.

But you are assuming that it does this without first establishing the cause at hand. If no such data exists then there is nothing to explain away.

So, is it science? Is it philosophy? Is creationism science or theology?

Evolutionary biology is clearly science. The modern synthesis is not received wisdom but rather a working model that can and does change as new evidence appears. Creationism is less clear. I mean it is clear that it is driven by theology, but I think it's expression is more like politics.

Perhaps the answer isn't so simple. In forensics, for example, science may be applied with the aim of building a case against a particular suspect. Evidence which doesn't help is often just ignored. Does that mean that it isn't science? I don't think so. I think science involves techniques of investigation more than a goal.

But the forsensic scientist is using 100% naturalistic means and looks for 100% naturalistic explanations. He is not looking for the intervention of supernatural entities. He can find intelligent agency only when that agency is human and understood. This pretty much rules out the supernaturalistic ID (for note, the Raellians have a form of non-supernatural ID, so the supernatural version is not the only game in town).

However, if science is to lay claim to great epistemic esteem, then it has to do more than build a case. Once again metaphysical words and concepts and values must be chosen and used. Metaphysical commitment to truth (or accuracy) must be chosen in order for science to be "sure". Honest reporting of results and attempts to integrate all evidence must be observed. The only parameter can be following the evidence where it leads, without trying to impose a priori lines of demarcation to steer results in a particular direction. Basically that would be good science, as opposed to bad science, but even that distinction shows how inescapable are philosophical precepts.

Science doesn't look for certainty, only accuracy. It isn't "sure" at all. All it says is "this is the best answer we can get". I don't see how this shows that science isn't neutral. Let me unfairly paraphrase you to make my point. Are you saying that "if random mutation and not environmental effects drive evolution then God doesn't exist"? I mean, you are saying that these aspects of the modern sythesis are somehow unfriendly to religion, thus I have to assume that you think these argue against God somehow. But I would say that they argue not against God but rather against the model you have of Him in your head. Let me ask a perheps unfair question, but, "If the modern synthesis was proven beyond any doubt, would that rule out God in your view?" If so, why?

Barron

[Hoosier]

Yesterday @ 08:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=277712#post277712)
Barron:



I'm not qualified to argue the details of biology. But I will say you are mostly arguing from incredulity. I agree, I don't feel any kinship to trees or slime molds and only a little kinship with dogs and cats. So imagine how hard it was to convince people in the early Darwinian era. And yet it did time and again, and continues to pass every test thrown at it. I really don't think the idea that all these biologists are somehow just &quot;biased&quot; doesn't wash.

Barron

Actually, that was not an argument from incredulity. My reference to trees was a direct response to your claim that "the way things look" is evolutionary. I did not use it as refutation of any larger evolutionary claim, but as a refutation, and a powerful one, of your smaller claim about appearances. You lost the flow of the discussion.

Your claim that NDT passes every claim thrown at it is, I'm afraid, specious. It is also surprising in light of your addmission of limited knowledge on the subject. I'm starting to think all you have are "canned responses" which you offer to theists, and had hoped we might have a better discussion.

The early period after Darwin published had much less understanding of activity within the cell (pretty much none). Since then Darwin's theory was rattled once, after which the neo-Darwing synthesis attempted damage control, and is again under extreme pressure. It appears I'll have to elaborate, but hoped you would have more than the below to offer back:




Seriously I think you may want to read some non-ID literature. I don't really know if I can convince you that natural selection and mutation are not &quot;weak theories&quot;. I will offer that the vast majority of people in the biological sciences differ.



I never said that all I read is ID literature. I said it is mostly what I've read on the subject in the last few years. I'm also able to make a case from what I do know of the subject (biology) without suggesting I need to convince you to read someone's work. If you can't make a case yourself, maybe you are the one who needs to read (or reread) non-ID literature.

Also, your last line is an argument from authority, which is a logical fallacy. Unless the sittuation is nearly universal such an agument carries no weight. A considerable number of preeminent biologists have criticized NDT, and the number is growing besides. That line of argument could well work against you if you try to pursue it. It doesn't matter anyway. The vast number of people in the biological sciences (like all fields) are not the preeminent thinkers. Most get their knowledge "handed down". The strength of a theory rests with its power to explain the facts, not in a popularity contest.



Again, not an expert on history of biology, but I'd be amazed if alternatives to common descent or modifications of it hadn't been considered.



Hmmm. Shades of incredulity? Investigation might be an antidote.





The reason we don't hear about them is that they didn't fit the data as well.

Barron

Actually, you'll be hearing more about them, but some of it is already in the literature. It has to do with the failing of point mutations to add information to the genome, and the fact that recombination mutations tend to access information already present there. NDT absolutely NEEDS mutations to add information (at least a little) to the genome in the majority of adaptations. To date there is no evidence whatsoever of that ability. Some mutations have proven beneficial for organisms, and have been heritable, but they have never added genetic information. Most lose genetic specificity, or information.



Why would multiple abiogenesis events be a problem? I realize there are limits to naturalistic science (like abiogenesis may just be too hard to study since it leaves so few traces), but I don't see those a major problems. Even if abiogenesis is forever shrouded in mystery, the later developement can be studied in depth with science.



Multiple abiogenesis events of simple organisms would be no real problem. Methodological and metaphysical naturalists could just invoke the big "Who Knows?" Granted, it would run afoul of all of the already existing probability problems with any abiogenesis account in spades, but some people think we're the grand prize lottery winners already. The problem lies in the fact that the evidence is begining to point to very complex genomes with the ability to change in non-random ways in response to environmental stimuli. This suggests that morphology is to some degree preprogrammed along possible lines depending on environmental change. It also suggests that the various abiogenesis events, if there were many, either would not have been simple organisms, or would have been simple organisms with the genetic information needed to become complex organism already present. So far the evidence is only that relatively simple organisms do in fact access preexistant information through recombination, but the inferences are powerful. This seems to closely match my musings of several years ago, except the genetic information might not even be lost. It might just be "switched off".



Of course the supernatural can fit anywhere, the problem is not adding it, but ruling it out. You claim the Christian God made life on earth, this other guy says it was Vishnu, someone says it was space aliens with Clark's Law technology, and I say it was time travellers from the future closing a loop in time. How do we rule out any of those or that billions of other possible non-natural explanations? This is why it doesn't work.

Barron

No one said it was supposed to work there. You're arguing with a straw position of your own creation. Does THAT really work most of the time?

[Queen]

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/fun/xray_flash.html

Look......there are similarities in form and functie...

This is a great site to take a look at evolution if your knowledge about it is minimal.....Have fun!

Or just take a look for fun. I think it is a great site

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[Barron]

Yesterday @ 07:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=278417#post278417)
Hoosier:

Actually, that was not an argument from incredulity. My reference to trees was a direct response to your claim that &quot;the way things look&quot; is evolutionary. I did not use it as refutation of any larger evolutionary claim, but as a refutation, and a powerful one, of your smaller claim about appearances. You lost the flow of the discussion.

No, rather you are taking my phrasing a little too simplistically. My point is that when you look at the details of biology, DNA and morphology (even in the light of my admittedly shallow knowledge) the common kinship shows itself. Raw genetic similarity would make this argument, but so would nested heirarchies and common morphologies. And I was pointing out that on the surface of course they don't "look evolutionary". Heck, that was the raw power of the original design arguments. Everything looked well defined and static and, well, designed for their niche. But when scientists look under the surface there is the clear "look" of evolution and common descent and all.

Your claim that NDT passes every claim thrown at it is, I'm afraid, specious. It is also surprising in light of your addmission of limited knowledge on the subject. I'm starting to think all you have are &quot;canned responses&quot; which you offer to theists, and had hoped we might have a better discussion.

Actually I'm speaking more broadly than about specifically "NDT" or the Modern Synthesis. But as I noted in the long reply to you about NDT in particular you haven't offered any claim that it doesn't handle (at least in the area of what it claims to handle). I'm hardly qualified to deal with details of biology (if you want to talk physics I'm much more at home), but I really haven't even seen that.

The early period after Darwin published had much less understanding of activity within the cell (pretty much none). Since then Darwin's theory was rattled once, after which the neo-Darwing synthesis attempted damage control, and is again under extreme pressure. It appears I'll have to elaborate, but hoped you would have more than the below to offer back:

Can you give specific references for me? Again, you are saying there is a problem and "damage control" and "extreme pressure", but not giving any reference to active debate. Help me out. As I said, I'm not big on bio-sci, so I may have just missed them.

I never said that all I read is ID literature. I said it is mostly what I've read on the subject in the last few years. I'm also able to make a case from what I do know of the subject (biology) without suggesting I need to convince you to read someone's work. If you can't make a case yourself, maybe you are the one who needs to read (or reread) non-ID literature.

Yeah, I think this thread has strayed too far into pure bio. My interest is not in defending biology but science in general and the power of methodological naturalism. Clearly I'm better equipped to do that in physical sciences and I usually try to avoid details of biology because I'm not well versed in it (and there are plenty of others who can do a better job (on Biology here for example).

Also, your last line is an argument from authority, which is a logical fallacy. Unless the sittuation is nearly universal such an agument carries no weight. A considerable number of preeminent biologists have criticized NDT, and the number is growing besides. That line of argument could well work against you if you try to pursue it. It doesn't matter anyway. The vast number of people in the biological sciences (like all fields) are not the preeminent thinkers. Most get their knowledge &quot;handed down&quot;. The strength of a theory rests with its power to explain the facts, not in a popularity contest.

The appeal to authority is valid if the authority is generally recognized. I think the appeal to scientific concensus is valid here. If you want to present preeminent biologists criticizing evolution or the specific areas of the modern synthesis you have problems with I'd love to hear it. I'm affraid all you've offered so far are allusions to arguments and problems.

Actually, you'll be hearing more about them, but some of it is already in the literature. It has to do with the failing of point mutations to add information to the genome, and the fact that recombination mutations tend to access information already present there. NDT absolutely NEEDS mutations to add information (at least a little) to the genome in the majority of adaptations. To date there is no evidence whatsoever of that ability. Some mutations have proven beneficial for organisms, and have been heritable, but they have never added genetic information. Most lose genetic specificity, or information.

Are any preeminent biologists making the "information" argument? I've seen a great deal of it from the anti-evolution side, but I'd like to see some mainstream work references. Again, you are claiming a problem, not offering evidence for one.

Multiple abiogenesis events of simple organisms would be no real problem. Methodological and metaphysical naturalists could just invoke the big &quot;Who Knows?&quot; Granted, it would run afoul of all of the already existing probability problems with any abiogenesis account in spades, but some people think we're the grand prize lottery winners already.

Apart from Hoyle and the anti-evolutionists is anyone still making the probability claim? And does it matter? I've said that even if it was non-naturalistic evolution would still run the same way.

The problem lies in the fact that the evidence is begining to point to very complex genomes with the ability to change in non-random ways in response to environmental stimuli.

Reference?

This suggests that morphology is to some degree preprogrammed along possible lines depending on environmental change. It also suggests that the various abiogenesis events, if there were many, either would not have been simple organisms, or would have been simple organisms with the genetic information needed to become complex organism already present.

So you are arguing for early bacteria containing all the needed genetic details for humans and all other species? Again, references?

So far the evidence is only that relatively simple organisms do in fact access preexistant information through recombination, but the inferences are powerful. This seems to closely match my musings of several years ago, except the genetic information might not even be lost. It might just be &quot;switched off&quot;.

Of course the supernatural can fit anywhere, the problem is not adding it, but ruling it out. You claim the Christian God made life on earth, this other guy says it was Vishnu, someone says it was space aliens with Clark's Law technology, and I say it was time travellers from the future closing a loop in time. How do we rule out any of those or that billions of other possible non-natural explanations? This is why it doesn't work.

No one said it was supposed to work there. You're arguing with a straw position of your own creation. Does THAT really work most of the time?

If you want to include supernatural causes in science it really in incumbent on you to show how to decide between competing supernatural claims. Otherwise all you are doing is making ad hoc explanations.

Barron

[Hoosier]

Today @ 01:49 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=278231#post278231)
Barron:


Let me unfairly paraphrase you to make my point. Are you saying that &quot;if random mutation and not environmental effects drive evolution then God doesn't exist&quot;? I mean, you are saying that these aspects of the modern sythesis are somehow unfriendly to religion, thus I have to assume that you think these argue against God somehow. But I would say that they argue not against God but rather against the model you have of Him in your head. Let me ask a perheps unfair question, but, &quot;If the modern synthesis was proven beyond any doubt, would that rule out God in your view?&quot; If so, why?

Barron

Holy mackerel (or should I say herring?), Barron! Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty certain I would have had to state something before you could paraphrase it. I'm also reasonably certain that I've said nothing at all about my metaphysical beliefs except one offhand use of "theist". Whatever it is you are doing, it is definately not paraphrasing.

Neither your speculations or any answers I would give are the least bit germane to our discussion of the metaphysical status of Darwinian evolution. It would be another discussion, for another thread, but one I can't see much point in anyway. In this thread I can only interpret it as some sort of red herring, or maybe an attempt to maneuver toward a genetic fallacy. Either way, I decided to answer it separately. My answer is: forget it. Let's stick to the point.

[Barron]

Today @ 02:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=280168#post280168)
Hoosier:

Holy mackerel (or should I say herring?), Barron! Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty certain I would have had to state something before you could paraphrase it. I'm also reasonably certain that I've said nothing at all about my metaphysical beliefs except one offhand use of &quot;theist&quot;. Whatever it is you are doing, it is definately not paraphrasing.

Neither your speculations or any answers I would give are the least bit germane to our discussion of the metaphysical status of Darwinian evolution. It would be another discussion, for another thread, but one I can't see much point in anyway. In this thread I can only interpret it as some sort of red herring, or maybe an attempt to maneuver toward a genetic fallacy. Either way, I decided to answer it separately. My answer is: forget it. Let's stick to the point.

Forgive my assumptions. I was probably reading more between the lines then was reasonable. I hope you will be able to give a longer reply to the NDT post and that my confusion will be lessened.

I would like to keep this point "alive" though. See I think a great deal of the problems in the creation/evolution debate is people talking past one another. I've posted before on this here: http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6594 Many people want to discuss science when the issue is more theology or politics or emotion. So it helps me to understand where a person is coming from on a topic. In the interest of full disclosure, evolution has pretty much nothing to do with my atheism. My interest in the C/E debate comes from my distaste for pseudoscience and misuses of science. I spent a lot of my life learning science and it rankles me when science is abused or misused. In case you are wondering my frustration is parcelled out to pseudoscience equally, but the new age ESP and UFO crowds are just too flakey to talk too (and the medical quacks are equally pointless).

I also have a genuine affection for religion and I don't want to see it damaged (yeah, hard to believe, an atheist in favor of religion). And I see creationism as a threat to faith.

So, in case it's not already clear, I don't think you come to the C/E debate de novo. I think you most likely come from a religious perspective and feel that evolution is some sort of threat to your faith. Clearly I can't read your mind, but I'm using my previous experiences here and on CARM (great site, BTW) as a guide. So I suppose there is a little genetic fallacy thrown in there (but only if I disregard your argument because of its origin, which I haven't). But I also think that full disclosure of motives can actually make the debate more clear and useful. If you think this devious motive (of protecting science and faith) makes my argument somehow inherently fallacious so be it. I can live with that. But I thought you might like to see most of my cards to avoid confusions.

Barron

[Hoosier]

Yesterday @ 11:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=280279#post280279)
Barron:



Forgive my assumptions. I was probably reading more between the lines then was reasonable. I hope you will be able to give a longer reply to the NDT post and that my confusion will be lessened.



You're forgiven. It isn't really about forgiveness, for cripes sake. It's about keeping on point!



I would like to keep this point &quot;alive&quot; though. See I think a great deal of the problems in the creation/evolution debate is people talking past one another. I've posted before on this here: http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&amp;threadid=6594 Many people want to discuss science when the issue is more theology or politics or emotion. So it helps me to understand where a person is coming from on a topic. In the interest of full disclosure, evolution has pretty much nothing to do with my atheism. My interest in the C/E debate comes from my distaste for pseudoscience and misuses of science. I spent a lot of my life learning science and it rankles me when science is abused or misused. In case you are wondering my frustration is parcelled out to pseudoscience equally, but the new age ESP and UFO crowds are just too flakey to talk too (and the medical quacks are equally pointless).



That's all quite interesting, and might even make an engaging discussion. Quite frankly, I'm sorely tempted to comment on your linked post. Fortunately for me, you have already brought some of those ideas into our discussion, so I will be priveledged to make brief comments as an aside. Basically though, as you pointed out yourself, we're on STR's dime here. Let's try to keep our discussion in orbit around the piece that started the thread.



I also have a genuine affection for religion and I don't want to see it damaged (yeah, hard to believe, an atheist in favor of religion). And I see creationism as a threat to faith.



Clever. I'm probably not the fan of fidiesm you are however. I've also heard it all before.



So, in case it's not already clear, I don't think you come to the C/E debate de novo. I think you most likely come from a religious perspective and feel that evolution is some sort of threat to your faith. Clearly I can't read your mind, but I'm using my previous experiences here and on CARM (great site, BTW) as a guide. So I suppose there is a little genetic fallacy thrown in there (but only if I disregard your argument because of its origin, which I haven't). But I also think that full disclosure of motives can actually make the debate more clear and useful. If you think this devious motive (of protecting science and faith) makes my argument somehow inherently fallacious so be it. I can live with that. But I thought you might like to see most of my cards to avoid confusions.

Barron

Nice of you to play your hand face up. Pointless though. That hand doesn't matter to me. I would simply like to see who can build the strongest logical case re: the metaphysical status of evolutionary theory. Your motives, or my own, have nothing to do with it. Partly because you seem not to understand that, and also partly because it is liable to lead us off track, I'll play mine close until we finish this particular discussion. Sorry, if you think that's "unfair" somehow. I think it is inconsequential to the subject at hand.

[gcomeau]

11-10-2003 @ 12:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=277688#post277688)
Hoosier:

First of all, some sort of evolution, meaning change over time, has obviously occurred. Some (not all) young earth creationists (YEC) try to deny this, accrediting a designer, God, with the specific, mainly stasis, creation of each modern species. From this metaphysical presupposition an attempt to build support through observations and speculation results in a particular kind of science that is routinely ridiculed.

And rightly so... I fail to even see how you can refer to it as a "particular kind of" science. In what possible manner does it qualify when the first step in the process is to toss the scientific method on the scrap heap?

It is ridiculed largely because it is metaphysically, not observationally driven. It is not agnostic, but begins from a theistic position that must explain away or ignore all conflicting observations. Is it science?

In the two sentences immediately preceeding that question you effectively provided the definition of "not science"... the final 10 words in particular. A "position that must explain away or ignore all conflicting observations" is the antithesis of science!

Upon the discovery of conflicting observations is where real science makes it's greatest strides! Blackbody radiation and the photoelectric effect were observations that conflicted with the theory of electromagnetic radiation... and thus Quantum Mechanics was born! It's the reason you're typing on your computer right now. If scientists just explained away or ignored conflicting observations nothing would ever get accomplished!

Also, the Pope’s response may have been more astute than one might realize on first reading. The commonly accepted paradigm in biology today is not strict Darwinism. Instead it is a refined Darwinism stated in the early 1940’s in response to disarray created in the 1930’s by the new sciences of transmission and population genetics. This was called the neo-Darwinist synthesis, or neo-Darwinist theory (NDT). The Pope did not recognize NDT, and we must wonder if his science advisors knew what they were doing with that recommendation. One distinction between Darwin’s work and NDT is metaphysical. NDT is wedded to random variations, while Darwin backtracked on his first insistence on completely random changes, allowing environment to effect change as well as reinforce it.

Hold on right there. The modern evolutionary synthesis most certainly does allow for environment to effect and reinforce changes in a population through the selection of beneficial traits and you are clearly trying to imply here that it does not.

I post on another forum where evolution/creation issues are discussed, several of the posters are professionals in the field... and one of the things they do there just to ensure nobody is wasting time debating strawmen is to post a summary of the modern synthesis once a week for general review.

http://new.carmforums.org/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=112&topic_id=19694&mesg_id=19694&page=

Pay particular attention to points 2, 5, 7, 8, 14 and 17.

It seems that Koukle, like most people, conflated Darwinism and NDT.

This however does not present the same problem you portrayed it as.

This brings me to the third distinction re: evolution theory, and points to where NDT, the most common form of evolution posited, does become metaphysically, not observationally driven. NDT insists on random variation as the driving force of change in both phenotype and genotype. It does not allow environmentally caused variation,

You really need to clarify this claim seeing as on it's surface it is directly conflicting with what the modern synthesis actually states. Can mutations be caused by environmental factors? Yes. Do environmental factors also influence which mutations are preserved and expressed in the population and which are not? Yes. The only thing environmental factors don't do is direct the specific form of the mutation. That's random. If it turns out beneficial, great. If it doesn't it gets selected against.

None of this is 'metaphysics'. Every single point I just listed is observationally based.

because to do so would be a tacit admission that the genome already contained the needed information to respond to changes in the environment.

That's a fairly presumptuous "because", and IMO it's completely off base. They didn't assume any of the above simply because they didn't want to consider the alternative, and suggesting that they did so is completely without any basis in fact.

They concluded it based on observation.

If the genome already contained the information, then one of the questions NDT proposes to answer isn’t answered. Namely; where did the information come from?

Whenever I see anyone using the word "information" in that manner I conclude (with a great deal of confidence) that they have been reading too much Intelligent Design literature.

I will ask you what I always ask them. Define "information" as you are using it in that statement and explain how it can be objectively quantified so that your hypothesis may be tested.

I have yet to get a meaningful answer to that question... but I won't rule out that you could be the first to do so.

NDT claims that all information in the genomes of living creatures arose through small additions caused by point mutations or completely random replication errors. If environment actually causes particular replication “errors” to appear in a population, then the information for a given adaptation was already present and simply required something to “turn it on”, or often instead to “turn off” some repressor.

Not at all! Environmantal factors can indeed cause mutations and nothing whatsoever about that fact so much as implies, let alone suggests with any force, that the "information" represented by the mutation was already present in the genome. Environmental factors are known to cause many very harmful mutations, far more so than beneficial ones, are you suggesting that the genome was encoded in advance by a "Programmer" with the information to activate deadly mutations in itself in response to certain environmental influences?

On what possible grounds could you propose such an idea? If you are proposing a "Programmer" then that programmer must have some purpose for his programming. And besides, the exact same environmental factors are known to cause a wide range of different mutations. Ie: The induced mutations are random. If they were preprogrammed responses to specified stimuli that is not the effect we would observe. Your proposal of a Programmer being involved in such a manner (preprogramming mutations to occur in response to envirnmental changes to allow survival in differing environments) actually flies in the face of the fact that far more mutations are harmful than helpful. If you want to propose a programmer AND remain consistent with the evidence you must conclude that either:

1. He is an inept programmer whose program far more often than not kills or severely inconveniences that which it is supposed to preserve and adapt to it's new environment.

2. He is a programmer of non--negligible skill whose intention was to kill off or severely inconvenience the majority of those individuals whom his program acts on to induce environmentally triggered mutations.

The obvious problem with this for most NDT advocates is that it points to a Programmer, but a main tenet of NDT is that no Programmer is needed, and that tenet is metaphysical.

Not in the slightest. All observed behaviour of the genome can be accounted for by natural processes without ever invoking a programmer... Therefore: no programmer is needed. This is not a philosophical commitment, this is a descriptive statement of the state of affairs which has been observed.

So, is it science? Is it philosophy? Is creationism science or theology? Perhaps the answer isn’t so simple. In forensics, for example, science may be applied with the aim of building a case against a particular suspect. Evidence which doesn’t help is often just ignored.

I hope you aren't suggesting evolutionary scientists ignore evidence.

However, if science is to lay claim to great epistemic esteem, then it has to do more than build a case. Once again metaphysical words and concepts and values must be chosen and used. Metaphysical commitment to truth (or accuracy) must be chosen in order for science to be “pure”. Honest reporting of results and attempts to integrate all evidence must be observed. The only parameter can be following the evidence where it leads, without trying to impose a priori lines of demarcation to steer results in a particular direction. Basically that would be good science, as opposed to bad science,

Quite right. And yet you still had to ask whether or not 'creation science' was really science earlier in this post after yourself stating that it fulfilled not a single one of these criteria?

but even that distinction shows how inescapable are philosophical precepts.

If you can even call such a "philosophical precept".

"Good science must integrate all evidence, follow where the evidence leads, and honestly report the results" could be called a philosophy of science in a superficial sense... but practically speaking it's simply a large part of the definition of science.

-Grant

[dizzle]

Grant, the link has been edited until you reproduce some of the points here for discussion. Our rules prohibit someone to leave the site to have to find the point being made, the link is then given to give proper credit or for futher information.

[gcomeau]

Today @ 01:57 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=284821#post284821)
Dee Dee Warren:



Dee Dee, the points were bullet points of tenets of the modern synthesis detailing manners in which environmental factors direct evolutionary change. What exactly did you want me to produce for discussion? They simply illustrate that the claim that the modern synthesis does not permit such environmental influence is incorrect seeing as the manner in which the environment does exactly that is spelled out IN the synthesis... the simple fact that those entries exist in the overview of the modern synthesis WAS the point. The text of the linked article is lifted directly (with permission) from Futuyama's Evolutionary Biology and simply serves as a quick, summarized general reference for anyone who wants to know what is really encompassed by modern evoltionary theory.

EDIT: Points reproduced in this thread per mod request. This is, in summary, the major tenets of the modern evolutionary synthesis. Points 2, 5, 7, 9, and 14 in particular detail the role of environmental factors in effecting evolutionary change.

The following text is out of Futuyma's Evolutionary Biology, 3rd ed.

Major Tenets of the Evolutionary Synthesis

The principal claims of the Evolutionary Synthesis are the foundations of modern evolutionary biology. They are known collectively as the Synthetic Theory, and serve as a synopsis of much of contemporary evolutionary theory. Many of these points have been extended, exemplified, clarified, or modified since the 1940s. Although some authors have challenged or even rejected some of these principles, the vast majority of evolutionary biologists today accept them as valid and use them as a foundation for evolutionary research. Subsequent chapters of this book will present evidence bearing on these points.


1. The phenotype (observed physical characteristics) is different from the genotype (the set of genes carried by an individual), and the phenotypic differences among individual organisms can be due partly to genetic differences and partly to direct effects of the environment.

2. Environmental effects on an individual's phenotype do not affect the genes passed on to its offspring. That is, acquired characteristics are not inherited. However, the environment may affect the expression of an organismís genes.

3. Hereditary variations are based on particles - genes - that retain their identity as they pass through the generations; genes do not blend with other genes. This is true not only of those genes that have discrete effects on the phenotype (e.g., brown vs. blue eyes), but also of those that contribute to continuously varying traits (e.g., body size, intensity of pigmentation). Variation in continuously varying traits is largely based on several or many discrete genes, each of which affects the trait slightly (polygenic inheritance).

4. Genes mutate, usually at a fairly low rate, to alternative forms (alleles). The phenotypic effects of such mutations can range all the way from undetectable to very great. The variation that arises by mutation is amplified by recombination among alleles at different loci.

5. Environmental factors (e.g., chemicals, radiation) may affect the rate of mutation, but they do not preferentially direct the production of mutations that would be favorable in the organism's specific environment.


Points 1-5 were important early contributions to the Synthetic Theory from laboratory genetics.

6. Evolutionary change is a populational process: it entails, in its most basic form, a change in the relative abundances (proportions) of individual organisms with different genotypes (and hence, often, with different phenotypes) within a population (see Figure 2.2). Over the course of generations, the proportion of one genotype may gradually increase, and it may eventually entirely replace the other type. This process may occur within only certain populations, or in all the populations that make up a species (see point 11).

7. The rate of mutation is too low for mutation by itself to shift an entire population from one genotype to another. Instead, the change in genotype proportions within a population can occur by either of two principal processes: random fluctuations in proportions (random genetic drift) or nonrandom changes due to the superior survival and/or reproduction of some genotypes compared to others (natural selection). Natural selection and random genetic drift can operate simultaneously.

8. Even a slight intensity of natural selection can (under certain circumstances) bring about substantial evolutionary change in a relatively short time. Very slight differences between organisms can confer slight differences in survival or reproduction; hence natural selection can account for slight differences among species, and for the earliest stages of evolution of new traits.


Points 6-8 were among the major contributions of the mathematical theory of population genetics.

9. Selection can alter populations beyond the original range of variation by increasing the proportion of alleles that, by recombination with other genes that affect the same trait, give rise to new phenotypes. (This point is a contribution from genetic studies of agriculturally based plant and animal breeding.)

10. Natural populations are genetically variable: the individuals within populations differ genetically and include natural genetic variants of the kind that arise by mutation in laboratory stocks.

11. Populations of a species in different geographic regions differ in characteristics that have a genetic basis. The genetic differences among populations are often of the same kind that distinguish individuals within populations. A genotype that is rare in one population may be predominant in another.

12. Experimental crosses between different species, and between different populations of the same species, show that most of the differences between them have a genetic basis. The difference in each trait is often based on differences in several or many genes (i.e., it is polygenic), each of which has a small phenotypic effect. This finding provides evidence that the differences between species evolve by small steps rather than by single mutations with large phenotypic effects.

13. Natural selection occurs in natural populations at the present time, often with considerable intensity.

Points 9-13 were contributions from those geneticists, most of whom had a background in natural history, who studied natural populations.

14. Differences among geographic populations of a species are often adaptive (hence, are the consequence of natural selection), because they are frequently correlated with relevant environmental factors.

15. Organisms are not necessarily different species just because they differ in one or more phenotypic characteristics; phenotypically different genotypes often are members of a single interbreeding population. Rather, different species represent distinct gene pools, which are groups of interbreeding or potentially interbreeding individuals that do not exchange genes with other such groups. This reproductive isolation of species is based on certain genetically determined differences between them. (This is one version of the biological species concept.) Hence, even a mutation that causes substantial change in some phenotypic feature does not necessarily represent the origin of a new species.

16. Nevertheless, there is a continuum in degree of differentiation of populations, with respect to both phenotypic difference and degree of reproductive isolation, from barely differentiated populations to fully distinct species. This observation provides evidence that an ancestral species differentiates into two or more different species by the gradual accumulation of small differences rather than by a single mutational step.

17. Speciation - the origin of two or more species from a single common ancestor-usually occurs through the genetic differentiation of geographically segregated populations. Geographic segregation is required so that interbreeding does not prevent incipient genetic differences from developing.

18. Among living organisms, there are many gradations in phenotypic characteristics among species assigned to the same genus, to different genera, and to different families or other higher taxa. This observation is interpreted as evidence that higher taxa arise through the prolonged, sequential accumulation of small differences,rather than through the sudden mutational origin of drastically new "types.".

Points 14-18 were contributed chiefly by systematists and naturalists who studied particular taxonomic groups.

19. The fossil record includes many gaps among quite different kinds of organisms, as well as gaps between possible ancestors and descendants. Such gaps can be explained by the incompleteness of the fossil record. But the fossil record also includes examples of gradations from apparently ancestral organisms to quite different
descendants. Together with point 18, this leads to the conclusion that the evolution of large differences proceeds by many small steps (such as those that lead to the differentiation of geographic populations and closely related species). Hence we can extrapolate from the genesis of small differences to the evolution of large differences among higher taxa, and can explain the latter by the same principles that explain the evolution of populations and species.

20. Consequently, all observations of the fossil record are consistent with the foregoing principles of evolutionary change (although they do not prove that these mechanisms provide a necessary and sufficient explanation). There is no need to invoke, and in some instances there is evidence against, non-Darwinian hypotheses such as Lamarckian mechanisms, orthogenetic evolution, vitalism ("inner drives"), or abrupt origins by major mutations.

Points 19 and 20 were among the contributions of paleontologists.

-Grant

[dizzle]

Produce the bullet points here then Grant. For future reference please take any questions on Moderating notices to PM or email thanks.

[Hoosier]

11-13-2003 @ 10:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=284313#post284313)
gcomeau:



Hold on right there. The modern evolutionary synthesis most certainly does allow for environment to effect and reinforce changes in a population through the selection of beneficial traits and you are clearly trying to imply here that it does not.

-Grant

Hi Grant,

I wrote you a somewhat longer respose earlier today, but somehow lost it in the "submit reply" process. I'm already pretty involved in responses owed Barron, but think a pretty good percentage of the points you raised will be answered there. If you can bear with me, I think questions like the above will be covered. Sorry that I don't have the time to answer you directly right now.

Regards,
SP

[Hoosier]

11-13-2003 @ 10:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=284313#post284313)
gcomeau:


Whenever I see anyone using the word &quot;information&quot; in that manner I conclude (with a great deal of confidence) that they have been reading too much Intelligent Design literature.

I will ask you what I always ask them. Define &quot;information&quot; as you are using it in that statement and explain how it can be objectively quantified so that your hypothesis may be tested.
-Grant

Hi Grant,

I was doing some painting today, which allowed my mind to wander, and thought about your question. This might not be an exhaustive description, but here goes:

Information is the non-material content of code (language). It originates from a source and is transmitted to a receiver (or possibly stored, and destined not to reach a receiver) through an established system of semantics and syntax to convey a meaning involving abstraction.

I’m not sure what you mean by “objectively” quantified, but it can be statistically quantified by the number of either/or choices in the sense of computer storage capacity. Information, by its nature, entails subjective responses depending on the receiver (their function, capacity, etc.). The amount of information transmitted might not all be received. You are, I assume, asking about genetic information. I don’t have to defend the idea that there is genetic information. That is a common conclusion which no one seems to dispute. Genetic information seems to direct functions in recipients who receive it (cells).

Re: testing, you might as well ask me to quantify matter so that a hypothesis of its existance can be tested. Matter is a boundry condition, and information is a boundry condition of you asking me the questions you did, or any other.

I hope that’s what you had in mind.

SP

[gcomeau]

Yesterday @ 05:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=287974#post287974)
Hoosier:

Information is the non-material content of code (language). It originates from a source and is transmitted to a receiver (or possibly stored, and destined not to reach a receiver) through an established system of semantics and syntax to convey a meaning involving abstraction.

I’m not sure what you mean by “objectively” quantified, but it can be statistically quantified by the number of either/or choices in the sense of computer storage capacity. Information, by its nature, entails subjective responses depending on the receiver (their function, capacity, etc.). The amount of information transmitted might not all be received. You are, I assume, asking about genetic information. I don’t have to defend the idea that there is genetic information.

I don't expect you to, that there is genetic information is effectively universally accepted, however the type of information that genes are accepted to communicate is not of any form that cannot be easily produced purely by evolutionary processes. ID'ers use a different definition of "information" when they make their claims that the "information" in the genome couldn't have been produced naturally but they never actually provide any real rigorous explanations of what that definition IS.

Re: testing, you might as well ask me to quantify matter so that a hypothesis of its existance can be tested. Matter is a boundry condition, and information is a boundry condition of you asking me the questions you did, or any other.

I hope that’s what you had in mind.

Not exactly. I still don't know what kind of information you're talking about when you say there's no way it could have gotten into the genome without a "programmer"... and I'm beginning to suspect you don't either. Information as abstract concept is fine and dandy for philosophical discussions but we're dealing with a concrete quantitative claim when we address ID arguments. They say that there is an amount/type of information in the genome that cannot be produced by evolution. In order to make such claims they have to have some way of quantifying/measuring that information so that they can establish what there is of it and then they need to show what barrier there is to it being produced naturally.

I never see them do it. Ever. All I see is a bunch of handwaving and exclamations that "there's all that information in there... no way did it get there naturally".

And this claim is based on what? I've never gotten past the incredulity stage of the argument.

-Grant

[jonathanmoore]

>>Evolution, by it's definition, is randomness - the opposite of design. God can't design evolution. <<

I am afraid you are mistaken.

That would be like saying that God can't design day and night since not every day and night are the same.

Those Christians who believe that the universe is the work of God can look at evolution as the tool God used to develope life. It is easy to construct strawmen and know them down and claim victory, however it does nothing to further the topic.

Each time we deny positive proof of something and claim our faith is the reason to reject the exposed and verifiable reality we diminish faith until it is less about God and more about our personal ego.

My faith is strenghten by all the new discovereis about life and the universe and everything because I have faith that God is responsible for the universe and as such all that derives from it is at the inspiration of God.

[STR Ambassador]

If we said that God could not create day and night at the same time at the same place would be the same claim as ours, that God can't design and use randomness at the same time in the same way. Day and night at the same place occur at different times and are not a direct contradiction; however saying that God designed the universe using randomness does violate the law of non-contradiction. Day and night, design and randomness are opposites, but don't create a contradiction unless you make the kind of claim as I described above.

If I said that it was day and night (defining these terms specifically) in Los Angeles, CA, on December 22, 2003, at 11:01 p.m. then that is an easy contradiction to spot. It's simply impossible. In the same way, to say God designed this universe using a random process is simply a contradiction and is impossible. It's one or the other.

There is plenty that science has to offer us to appreciate God's creation. But the general theory of evolution is not an option because it necessarily precludes the kind of design even a general and loose interpretation of Genesis can accomodate. Either God created or the general theory of evolution is true; not both.

STR Ambassador

[Gilgaron]

I disagree.

God could easily act in imperceptible ways that would lead to considerable consequences in things that appear random, such as mutation. By manipulating what would otherwise be a random process, it becomes a controlled process like conditions in an experiment.

Thusly by influencing the very core of variety used in evolution, God could use it as a mechanism to create deterministically anything he desired.

In such an instance, things that appear random would in fact be the hand of God fine tuning a deterministic creation.

There is no reason that evolution could not have been the methodology used by a creator. A deity would not be limited to special creation from nothing.

[chickenman]

http://www.fourmilab.ch/hotbits/

is the machine that generates the random numbers designed

its utterly ridiculous to say that something can't be designed because it has elements of randomness in it

one could say that god manipulates the environment to guide natural selection to produce a certain product from random mutations

[ajohnson]

Gilgaron:

There is no reason that evolution could not have been the methodology used by a creator. A deity would not be limited to special creation from nothing.

The question isn't could a creator use evolution as a way for created things to develop, but rather - Did our Creator use evolution in the way it is taught and written about?

It would seem to me that our Creator (as understood by orthadox Christians) wouldn't be worth worshiping if He did use evolution.

Take the woodpecker, think of the unknown suffering for millions of generations before several mutations were in place. To name a few; thickness of the skull, hardness of the beak, attachment of the brain in the skull, attachment of the eyes to the eye socket. Without all of these, the bird would just slam a brittle beak into a tree and shatter the beak - then the bird would starve to death. Or if the beak wouldn't break, the brain would detach from the skull and bounce around. Or the eyes would pop out of the eye sockets. Without all the 'mutations' in place at the same time how or why would a bird continueously bang his head into a tree?

If it was a preditor, surely the preditor would have destoryed all the pre-woodpeckers before every mutation was in place. And because they didn't have long distance communication or a way to record their actions, how did pre woodpeckers located far, far away know what happened in eariler generations to pre-woodpeckers in a dufferent place?

That's just the woodpecker. Don't misunderstand me - I don't have any problems with adaptation within a species. It's evolution (from one species to another) I have a problem with.

I have a problem for several reasons.

1) It goes directly against the revelation from God to man set forth in the canonical Bible. Specifically God claims He made the animals on the ground, in the air, and under the water [including man] (Genesis 1).

2) It doesn't make sense for a logical God to created a primordial soup and every once in a while, add a lightning bolt or an additional ingediant to see what'll happen.

3) I can't see the God we orthadox Christians worship cause His creation to suffer awaiting the 'right' mutations to come along. God already sees and understands the suffering we bring upon ourselves and can't see Him adding to that with evolution.

Again, I'm not talking adaptation.

reguards

AJ

[chickenman]

Take the woodpecker, think of the unknown suffering for millions of generations before several mutations were in place. To name a few; thickness of the skull, hardness of the beak, attachment of the brain in the skull, attachment of the eyes to the eye socket. Without all of these, the bird would just slam a brittle beak into a tree and shatter the beak - then the bird would starve to death. Or if the beak wouldn't break, the brain would detach from the skull and bounce around. Or the eyes would pop out of the eye sockets. Without all the 'mutations' in place at the same time how or why would a bird continueously bang his head into a tree?


what you have described is not evolution


3) I can't see the God we orthadox Christians worship cause His creation to suffer awaiting the 'right' mutations to come along. God already sees and understands the suffering we bring upon ourselves and can't see Him adding to that with evolution.

adaptation requires the "right" mutation
adaptation is evolution

[ajohnson]

Then you need to describe evolution.

I'm joe average - non-biologist, non-physisist. My degrees are in electronics, teaching, and managment.

The definintion I was using was Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1979, pg 393. "A theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origins in other preexicsting types and that distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations"

I spent many years in the military. My job consisted of working outside. I was stationed 5 years in New Mexico. 100 degrees weren't too hot and I had to wear a coat with the temps dipped below 50. Until I lived in Alaska for three years, then 75 degrees was too hot and I was coatless above 35 degrees. Is this adaptation or evolution?

The evolution that is taught in public schools is that slowly, over many generations, mutations happen, cells changes and after thousands of years (or generations, depending on the text book) poof - we now have an 'eye' as you and I know it. In the mean time, generations suffer with this 'partial' evolution until all things needed (in my example the woodpecker) for the species to survive. All other generations failed to survive (died).

I didn't describe adaptation, I described evolution without the scientific language and put it in practical terms dealing with a particular bird. According the evolutionist, the birds came from some other species. According to orthadox Christians, the woodpecker was made the woodpecker, the eagle the eagle, etc. The mommy eagle didn't suddunley give birth to a mutated eagle and it, in turn, became the woodpecker.

But any creature (whether multicell or not) can be described in the terms of what the 'evolutionary' changes would actually mean.

And the question still stands, Did the Creator (described in the canonical Bible) use evolution in the way it is taught and written about?

Regards

[Peptide]

I spent many years in the military. My job consisted of working outside. I was stationed 5 years in New Mexico. 100 degrees weren't too hot and I had to wear a coat with the temps dipped below 50. Until I lived in Alaska for three years, then 75 degrees was too hot and I was coatless above 35 degrees. Is this adaptation or evolution?

This is your body adapting it's perception of hot and cold to it's environment. An evolutionary adaptation can be seen in Aluet and Inuit tribes that live in Alaska. They are able to have a higher body weight compared to Europeans without the detrimental side effects of cardiovascular disease. That is a POPULATION that has adapted to the cold, while your personal example is YOUR BODY adapting it's PERCEPTION of hot and cold.

The evolution that is taught in public schools is that slowly, over many generations, mutations happen, cells changes and after thousands of years (or generations, depending on the text book) poof - we now have an 'eye' as you and I know it. In the mean time, generations suffer with this 'partial' evolution until all things needed (in my example the woodpecker) for the species to survive. All other generations failed to survive (died).

This is what we call a strawman. You are distorting facts in order to knock down distorted facts. For an examples of a primitive eye, look up paramecium. All they have is two opposing photosensitive dots. They can not sense anything except light and dark. They seem to do just fine. This would be the first stage of eye development, and it seems to funciton. Each subsequent improvement would have been kept in the genome and passed to subsequent generations. This is how evolution works, unlike the distortion you have posted. As to the woodpeckers, what if the ancestors to all birds (reptiles) already had an attached brain, etc. The only additions would have been chaning the jaw to a beak, and subsequent changes could have included reinforcing an already adequate skull and beak.

I didn't describe adaptation, I described evolution without the scientific language and put it in practical terms dealing with a particular bird.

No you didn't.

According the evolutionist, the birds came from some other species. According to orthadox Christians, the woodpecker was made the woodpecker, the eagle the eagle, etc. The mommy eagle didn't suddunley give birth to a mutated eagle and it, in turn, became the woodpecker.

Evolution is gradual. Even punctuated equilibrium takes eons longer than what you are describing. Evolution occurs at the population level, while mutation takes place at the individual level. The movement towards speciation is much more gradual than you have defined here.

But any creature (whether multicell or not) can be described in the terms of what the 'evolutionary' changes would actually mean.

Quite a few can be described as sharing a common ancestor with other species, but the specific mutations that led to the speciation are still dificult to ferret out. Mapping the tree of common ancestry is called "cladistics", you may want to do a google search and read up.

And the question still stands, Did the Creator (described in the canonical Bible) use evolution in the way it is taught and written about?

And here we come to the crux of the issue. Judging by what you think evolutionary theory states, I could see why you would believe in special creation. However, abusing science by distorting it gets nobody anywhere. As somebody stated earlier, getting rid of psuedoscience is an important part of science. This is why GOOD science education is so important.

Creationists tend to start with a presupposition that the Bible is innerrant, and then force all data and wolrdviews to fit that presupposition. I find the weakness of many creationist arguments is their ad hoc nature. This happens when somebody presupposes the mechanism, and then distorts the data to fit. The biggest problem with ad hoc hypotheses is the untestable nature. This is where methodological naturalism has a leg up. Within science, no theory is accepted unless it can be tested or potentially be falsified through observable data. I have yet to see the ID crowd describe the potential falsifications of their so called theory, or inference. Every possible scenario seems to have an ad hoc hypothesis cooked up for it. If genetic information is shown to increase by one metric, a new metric is found and the contention of "no new information" is once again trotted out. "Design is self-evident" and "common design, common designer" are great for bumper stickers, but say little about predictions or testable hypotheses.

The wall I have run into is this: methodological naturalism works. I have yet to see a supernatural methodology that can shed light on natural phenomena.

Arg, this is much more preachy and off topic than I wanted, so feel free to ignore. However, the last point may be the most cogent to the topic thread.

[C. D. Ward]

its utterly ridiculous to say that something can't be designed because it has elements of randomness in it.
Not only that, but if in fact there is a Creator, then everything is designed, even apparently random processes. How can we separate design from non-design if there is no non-design? How does an "explanatory filter" work if there's nothing to filter out? :huh:

[ajohnson]

As I said in my post, I'm no scientist, nor do I pretend to be.

You are distorting facts in order to knock down distorted facts.

I wasn't distorting fact, I read it out of my son's science text book several years ago.

For an examples of a primitive eye, look up paramecium. All they have is two opposing photosensitive dots. They can not sense anything except light and dark. They seem to do just fine. This would be the first stage of eye development, and it seems to funciton.

Why do you call this 'primitive'? Is it going to 'evolve' more? How do you know this? Why can't it be a complete and fully developed eye for this creature?

As to the woodpeckers, what if the ancestors to all birds (reptiles) already had an attached brain, etc. The only additions would have been chaning the jaw to a beak, and subsequent changes could have included reinforcing an already adequate skull and beak.

Are you stating that the reptiles have their brain attached to the skull in the way a woodpecker does? If not why make this statement? If they did, why/how break the connection for all other birds except the woodpecker?


Evolution is gradual. Even punctuated equilibrium takes eons longer than what you are describing. Evolution occurs at the population level, while mutation takes place at the individual level. The movement towards speciation is much more gradual than you have defined here.

I'm sorry, did I use a time frame?


And here we come to the crux of the issue. Judging by what you think evolutionary theory states, I could see why you would believe in special creation. However, abusing science by distorting it gets nobody anywhere.

I'm learning (on TWEB) that even 'evolutionist' don't agree on many things (read stuff in natural sciences)

Creationists tend to start with a presupposition that the Bible is innerrant, and then force all data and wolrdviews to fit that presupposition. I find the weakness of many creationist arguments is their ad hoc nature. This happens when somebody presupposes the mechanism, and then distorts the data to fit. The biggest problem with ad hoc hypotheses is the untestable nature. This is where methodological naturalism has a leg up. Within science, no theory is accepted unless it can be tested or potentially be falsified through observable data. I have yet to see the ID crowd describe the potential falsifications of their so called theory, or inference. Every possible scenario seems to have an ad hoc hypothesis cooked up for it. If genetic information is shown to increase by one metric, a new metric is found and the contention of "no new information" is once again trotted out. "Design is self-evident" and "common design, common designer" are great for bumper stickers, but say little about predictions or testable hypotheses.

If you say so, but I haven't seen any scientist (physical, mathmatical, biologist, nuclear, etc) not start without a presuposition. Isn't that what a theory could be? esp 5 & 6

from www.dictionary.com

the·o·ry n. pl. the·o·ries
1) A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

2) The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.

3) A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.

4) Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.

5) A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.

6) An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

The wall I have run into is this: methodological naturalism works. I have yet to see a supernatural methodology that can shed light on natural phenomena.

No presupposition in this statement.

We all have biases (me, you, everybody), the real issue is which bias is closer to the truth. By it's very nature and definition, there can be only one truth. The world as it is fits nicely into the Christian world view. I don't go around society with blinders on, nor rose colored glasses.

But then again, what do I know. I'm no scientist, I'm just average joe citizen trying to make a difference in my little world.

Regards,

Alan

[Peptide]

ajohnson,

We can argue the merits of specific evidences and misunderstandings of evolution in another thread, perhaps in the Biology 301 forum. We have both deviated from the original topic, which is the status of evolution as a philosophy or a science. Feel free to take a look at the posts in the Biology 301 forum, I check in over their on a regular basis.


We all have biases (me, you, everybody), the real issue is which bias is closer to the truth.

Indeed. So how do we test which bias is closer to the truth, and by which methodology do we test that bias. Simply stating "mine is better" is a point of preference, no different than an empty assertion. Methodological naturalism has been science's key to eliminating many biases. However, this methodology can not exclude the presence of the supernatural, only rule out its effect as defined by the believers of a defined theology. For instance, a global flood a few thousand years ago has been refuted by modern geology, but this does not rule out the existence of the christian God.

What makes evolutionary theories science instead of philosophy is the testable nature of the theories. The correlation of cladistics with stratigraphy is a perfect example of this testable nature. In cladistics, evolutionary mechanisms are assumed to have acted upon the populations of species found in the fossil record so that shared characteristics and novel characteristics are sorted into a tree that reflects what we would expect to see if evolution were true. This is done independently of what age the fossil is given via dating methods. If evolutionary assumptions were false, then the trees constructed using morphological characteristics should not match up with the independently measured radiometric age. However, the opposite is true. The age and the cladistic tree match up. Also, genetic trees can also be constructed using the same assumptions, and those trees match up with the morphological trees and stratigraphy (age). Name one philosophy that can be measured and tested in such a way. I can't.

Also, can you show any bias in the above test?


By it's very nature and definition, there can be only one truth. The world as it is fits nicely into the Christian world view. I don't go around society with blinders on, nor rose colored glasses.

Everyone has a different "Christian world view". Some are more fundamentalist, in that they believe Genesis should be understood to be a literal history instead of allegory/metaphor. Other christians have no problem with the theory of evolution. They believe in the existence of God and believe that he set up physical laws that would create life on Earth.

And I am glad you don't walk around with blinders on. However, it seems you may have scientific blinders on. I am not saying that you will never understand science or evolution, but it takes more than a cursory glance in a science book to understand the full scope of the predictions and evidence that went into formulating the theory. You might want to check out www.talkorigins.org, it is a pro-evolutionary site but it does often link to creationist sites that contain arguments against what is presented on each page. The best part is, this site supplies evidences and theories that the scientific community has accepted, not the often distorted view that creationist sites trot out. Just a quicky: if you ever see the word "half-evolved" on a creationist site, understand that this word is a fabrication on their part, nothing is ever half-evolved, only fully evolved at that point in time.

But then again, what do I know. I'm no scientist, I'm just average joe citizen trying to make a difference in my little world.

And yet you feel qualified to claim that scientists who have spent years in school and years in the field don't know what they are talking about. You might want to take the position that you may not understand some of the theories or terminology instead of bull-rushing in. I am not saying you are stupid, only that science in general does require some background knowledge before one can discern between poor theories from well-supported theories. For evolution, this could include comparative anatomy, cladistics, ecology, a basic working definition of the theory of evolution, genetics, population genetics, and a general knowledge of actual examples of speciation. However, average joe can still make important observations, but only if he understands what he is arguing for or against. Just as a counter-example, someone who has only a cursory knowledge of christian theology would not be able to argue well against a theologian who had spent years in seminary. This is why I often only lurk in theology threads, it really isn't something that I am experienced in.

Anyway, I hope you don't feel insulted by anything that I posted, only hoping that you understand where I am coming from. Happy posting.

Peptide

[Gilgaron]

The question isn't could a creator use evolution as a way for created things to develop, but rather - Did our Creator use evolution in the way it is taught and written about?
I didn't notice I had a response! I don't read this board often. I'll give you a succinct response, if possible. I didn't read everyone else's response to your response to me, so forgive any repitition. In reality, I am procrastinating on getting back to my studies right now :wink:

It would seem to me that our Creator (as understood by orthadox Christians) wouldn't be worth worshiping if He did use evolution.
Socrates has made a similar argument in the past, as well.

Take the woodpecker, think of the unknown suffering for millions of generations before several mutations were in place. To name a few; thickness of the skull, hardness of the beak, attachment of the brain in the skull, attachment of the eyes to the eye socket. Without all of these, the bird would just slam a brittle beak into a tree and shatter the beak - then the bird would starve to death. Or if the beak wouldn't break, the brain would detach from the skull and bounce around. Or the eyes would pop out of the eye sockets. Without all the 'mutations' in place at the same time how or why would a bird continueously bang his head into a tree?
That's a pretty bad idea of how natural selection would work. There is some trial and error, sure, but the sort of process you describe is not plausible. Imagine the bird pecking at shallow bugs, now a selective pressure for deep boring bugs, and some co-evolution occuring as woodpeckers get stronger and bugs bore deeper.

If it was a preditor, surely the preditor would have destoryed all the pre-woodpeckers before every mutation was in place. And because they didn't have long distance communication or a way to record their actions, how did pre woodpeckers located far, far away know what happened in eariler generations to pre-woodpeckers in a dufferent place?
A predator would not influence pecking behavior, most likely. I suppose it could key off of the sound and get them that way, but it is more likely that a jittery fight or flight response and agile flying would be resultant.

That's just the woodpecker. Don't misunderstand me - I don't have any problems with adaptation within a species. It's evolution (from one species to another) I have a problem with.
There's little effective difference. It's only a matter of scale.

I have a problem for several reasons.

1) It goes directly against the revelation from God to man set forth in the canonical Bible. Specifically God claims He made the animals on the ground, in the air, and under the water [including man] (Genesis 1).
There are several responses to this I've seen from Christian evolutionists, such as the verses where God commands the earth to bring forth the animals. In any event, I always found the most apt argument to be that the Bible is not presented as a science text, but as a manual of salvation. This is analogous to Aesop's Fables being books of morality, not science texts.

2) It doesn't make sense for a logical God to created a primordial soup and every once in a while, add a lightning bolt or an additional ingediant to see what'll happen.
"God works in mysterious ways" It makes equal sense to creation ex nihilo on a planet mostly covered in water, and salt water at that. God would KNOW what wouldn't happen, he wouldn't have to experiment in the same sense as we do, being omniscient (or at least very intelligent).

3) I can't see the God we orthadox Christians worship cause His creation to suffer awaiting the 'right' mutations to come along. God already sees and understands the suffering we bring upon ourselves and can't see Him adding to that with evolution.
It's important to note that God never seems terribly concerned about suffering among anything that isn't human, and apparently all humans are sinful and thusly deserve suffering. There's the OT stuff where he says he likes animal sacrifice, some misc stuff Socrates has mentioned against environmentalism about how animals are ours to use as we please (it was in a thread about driving some pest species to extinction, if you want to go looking). Other life forms suffer at least briefly when we eat them, even plants react to damage in as analogous a response to pain as something without nerves can get.

So, since suffering is already an inherent part of the nonhuman world, and by doctrine humans deserve the suffering they get, I don't think this is a good argument.

In the form Socrates uses of this argument, he puts emphasis on the description of creation as "good" before the fall, in order to preclude the sort of suffering prevalent in nature now, as he believes that scriptural interpretation leads to the conclusion that before the fall all animals were vegetarian. If you agree with his scriptural interpretations, it would be a far stronger position than the one you've presented here. The main problem with his position becomes predator and parasitic mechanisms arising post-flood.

Again, I'm not talking adaptation.

reguards

AJ
I hope I've been helpful.

[Hoosier]

I don't expect you to, that there is genetic information is effectively universally accepted, however the type of information that genes are accepted to communicate is not of any form that cannot be easily produced purely by evolutionary processes.

I'm afraid you're waving your hands, G. Evolutionary processes have never easily explained the origin of information. Information was never even specifically raised until the concept of a gentic code surfaced, when it became unavoidable.

ID'ers use a different definition of "information" when they make their claims that the "information" in the genome couldn't have been produced naturally but they never actually provide any real rigorous explanations of what that definition IS.

Sorry, but you are trying to pretend that a new definition of information is not forthcoming when you have failed to give the 'initial' one. You're trying to concede information while avoiding its implications. Please define the kind of information that can originate and transfer by purely natural processes, which is exactly the issue at hand.



Not exactly. I still don't know what kind of information you're talking about when you say there's no way it could have gotten into the genome without a "programmer"... and I'm beginning to suspect you don't either.

Don't misquote me, please. When I say 'no way' I will gladly defend my position. When I don't, don't claim I did. I also strongly suspect that you are running from the very concept of information, afraid of its implications. Defining information is actually the entire issue of ID, and is a legitimately scientific question (though metaphysical in the long run). Shannon's theory reduced all information to this/that binary code for computational transmission purposes, but it would be absurd for you to admit that the above paragraph you typed had nothing else in it. The transmission of information is a different issue than the origin and outworking of it.

Information as abstract concept is fine and dandy for philosophical discussions but we're dealing with a concrete quantitative claim when we address ID arguments.

Well, really, we just need to define information. Have at it, G! That will give us all the base from which to operate, if you can define it clearly enough.

They say that there is an amount/type of information in the genome that cannot be produced by evolution. In order to make such claims they have to have some way of quantifying/measuring that information so that they can establish what there is of it and then they need to show what barrier there is to it being produced naturally.

You have already admitted that information exists and is recognized (so recognizable). The ID people have in fact been busy defining information (while you've been busy trying to keep it undefined beyond a basic this/that Shannon type transmission law), even if it ultimately undercuts anything you say --- all you posted was ONLY byts after, all according to your constraints; with no other, intellectual, content. It is incumbent on YOU to offer a scientifically (or at least philosophically) valid defense of some other form of information if you expect us to take anything you say as having content. If you can't do that, we should ignore ID, but we should also ignore you!

never see them do it. Ever. All I see is a bunch of handwaving and exclamations that "there's all that information in there... no way did it get there naturally".

Maybe you've been focusing too close. It's hard to see beyond your own hads at times.

And this claim is based on what? I've never gotten past the incredulity stage of the argument.

-Grant

Incredulity is an interesting perspective. It can usually be eliminated with concrete causitive chains and valid explanations coupled with observations. Feel free to bring the NDT into the information age. Everyone else seems to be avoiding the challenge.

[HRG_new]

Hi Grant,

I was doing some painting today, which allowed my mind to wander, and thought about your question. This might not be an exhaustive description, but here goes:

Information is the non-material content of code (language). It originates from a source and is transmitted to a receiver (or possibly stored, and destined not to reach a receiver) through an established system of semantics and syntax to convey a meaning involving abstraction.

I’m not sure what you mean by “objectively” quantified, but it can be statistically quantified by the number of either/or choices in the sense of computer storage capacity. Information, by its nature, entails subjective responses depending on the receiver (their function, capacity, etc.). The amount of information transmitted might not all be received. You are, I assume, asking about genetic information. I don’t have to defend the idea that there is genetic information. That is a common conclusion which no one seems to dispute. Genetic information seems to direct functions in recipients who receive it (cells).

Genetic information directs functions in recipients only in the sense that celestial information (the form of the gravitational potential) directs functions, to wit the orbits of planets, asteroids, comets (the recipients) etc.

It is a metaphor for us to help us understanding what's going on, not a real "substance". Thus naive questions like "where does it come from" are meaningless.

The big difference to the kind of information that is contained in a book is that for the latter there is an encoding mechanism (sentence -> sequence of letters and other characters on paper). However, there is no encoding mechanism for genetic "information". Such a mechanism would have to scan an existing organism and generate a DNA sequence which would generate it. This would be a Lamarckian mechanism, but they have been consistently disproven.

[Hoosier]

Genetic information directs functions in recipients only in the sense that celestial information (the form of the gravitational potential) directs functions, to wit the orbits of planets, asteroids, comets (the recipients) etc.

It is a metaphor for us to help us understanding what's going on, not a real "substance". Thus naive questions like "where does it come from" are meaningless.

Well my friend, I supose the first rejoinder would be that 'naivety is as naivety does'. Gravitational and other constants are 'law'-like regularities, which are at the very least a brute fact from a naturalistic perspective. To describe them as 'laws' would of course be metaphoric without a Law Giver, but the fact that they are recognized as something very 'law-like' is a tacit recognition that there is, in fact, information involved. To claim they demonstrate the power of natural forces to do anything is about as circular as one can get, and the fact that information is involved can't be so easily eluded. But that isn't even where your argument really falls into trouble.

If we recognize celestial information of the type you refer to, as we should, this information is a part and parcel boundary condition of what we call nature. It came with the territory, so to speak, even if we ignore the obvious question about the origin of the territory itself. Genetic information is generally not seen as something that sprung into being along with time, space and matter. It can't just be dismissed as a brute fact like gravity or the speed of light, which are some of the 'natural' parameters which supposedly support any theory of causation. Something in the 'celestial information' has to be connected through a chain of cause and effect to explain the genetic information, which is of a complexity and variety many magnitudes beyond that of the 'laws of nature'. That's exactly why those laws seem inadequate to explain its origin, and why you pointing to the laws as an explanation is naive to the Nth degree.

The big difference to the kind of information that is contained in a book is that for the latter there is an encoding mechanism (sentence -> sequence of letters and other characters on paper). However, there is no encoding mechanism for genetic "information".

You may be demonstrating an even greater naivety, if I correctly understood your point. The information in a book, this post, a musical score or a computer program is carried through language and syntax, but not language and syntax themselves. I could for instance tell you how to play a piano concerto using the English language --- strike the third key left of center, then the second black key to the right of it, etc.. Standard musical notations would tell you the same thing in another language and syntax, demonstrating that the information exists independent of the language and is only transmitted through it. The language is the 'encoding mechanism', and more than one can transmit the same information. Regarding genetic information, the entire reason it is called a 'code' is because it is itself carried in a language. The four bases of a DNA helix are combined in various way to spell out different functions, and these functions can be reverse engineered and transmitted (informationally, if not functionally) into English for a much more cumbersome expression of them --- just as one could theoretically be instructed to play a concerto through the cumbersome transmission media English.

Such a mechanism would have to scan an existing organism and generate a DNA sequence which would generate it. This would be a Lamarckian mechanism, but they have been consistently disproven.

I may or may not have understood that 'scanning' stuff. It seems that you are saying information can only exist if we are able to 'scan' it in its entirety and generate the same result. If I correctly understood you, this would mean that Shakespeare (for instance) only transmitted information when he used words that YOU understand. My postion would be that he transmitted information that was not received, due to communication failure, but not to information paucity. Language and syntax are both the carriers and sometimes barriers through which information moves, as the transmitter and receiver are rarely perfect in their role.

If anything, you are the one who comes across Lamarckian, proposing that genetic information and natural bounday conditions are alike.

Regards.