Does the evidence point at one or several creators?

[In situ]

I often hear creationist claim commonality or similarities among the living is evidence for a single common (intelligent) designer/creator. However, I have a small problem to understand exactly how ID's scientific line of evidence works here.

For instance extant tetrapods can be split in two groups, those that do not have an antorbital fenestra (mammals, turtles, amphibians and some reptiles) and those that do (basically the rest). Does the presence of an antorbital fenestra in "half" the terapods means there is two creators? Or take so diverse living beings such as starfishes, a pine trees and a squirrels. Based on the commonality argument, does that mean there is 3 creators? Or if we compare the cat kind, the dog kind, the bird kind and the fish kind, which are said to be four non-overlapping kinds, does that mean there is 4 creators? Etc, etc...

Obviously, I can go on forever with this, and derive any numbers of creators, however, my general question is: considering the difference that indicate more than one creator - what is it with similarities between living beings that justify one to conclude a single common creator?

 

[AV1611VET]

- what is it that is similar between all living things that justify one to conclude a single common creator?

I can't speak for ID, but from a creationist standpoint, I would say the answer lies with a concept called ontological reduction.

In other words, same parts used on different animals to serve different functions.

By way of analogy, you can build a log cabin with Lincoln Logs, or you can build a skyscraper.

If the same piece(s) are used to make the cabin's chimney as they are the skyscraper's spire, then you know how ontological reduction works.

The coccyx one animal has can serve a different function on a human being.

 

[In situ]

I can't speak for ID, but from a creationist standpoint, I would say the answer lies with a concept called ontological reduction.

In other words, same parts used on different animals to serve different functions.

So you are saying ontological reduction imply sameness in some sense?

If, so how does it account for the differences (which was my actual question), i.e. how can we tell a difference, e.g. the antorbital fenestra in tetrapods, is not a sign of a second creator (or second creation event)?

(Accept my excuses for being unclear on that point with my question in the OP - edited my question to make it clear).

Just some other questions for clarifications:
1. You did not mention plants. but I guess ontological reduction must hold true for plant vs animals too in order to conclude a single creator, corrects?
2. Isn't ontological reduction evidence which support evolution as well?

 

[AV1611VET]

So you are saying ontological reduction imply sameness in some sense?

Yes.

Lincoln Logs all come from the same blueprint.

If, so how does it account for the differences (which was my actual question, i.e. how can we tell a difference is not because of a second, third, fourth etc creator)?

You can build a log cabin and a skyscraper with Lincoln Logs.

It doesn't take two different people to do it.

One person can do both.

 

[In situ]

Yes.
You can build a log cabin and a skyscraper with Lincoln Logs.

It doesn't take two different people to do it.

One person can do both.

Let me clarify my struggle to understand with an analogy: you explain to me that all Fords (therapods with an antorbitral fenstra) is made by Ford because all Ford cars are in essence the same. Okay, but that does not explain who made cars marked as Mazda (therapods without an antorbital fenestra).

The antorbital fenestra is a unique trait only found in some tetrapods, but not others. It is not a matter of "a different way to do something with the same stuff", but this is something complete new, not found elsewhere. Call the antorbital fenestra a "brand name" if it helps you understand what the problem is that I am dealing with when trying to determine if there is one or several creators.

But perhaps the antorbital fenestra is not a good example. Let me clarify this by taking mammals as an example instead.

There are several type of mammals, for the sake of simplicity let say there is only two types of mammal. The marsupials (the "Australian" mammals) and placentals, which you and I belong to.

The most well know difference between these mammals is the pouch and how they give birth. But there is a long range of other anatomical differences such a seen below in this picture:

A taxonomist will be able to tell you the the left skulls is from a marsupial and the right one is from placental animal because of the unique signature (differences) found in them. The obvious diagnostic trait (the difference) is the central cavity found in one skull but not the other. These unique signatures identifies the left one as a marsupial and the other as a placental mammal.

Why is it so?

Both animals are still fully functional animals so there is no apparent design reason that comes to my mind onto why mammals are different in this way, i.e. why does not all mammals look the same and why do the same kind of mammals always share the same unique signature not seen elsewhere, i.e. the same within some but different to any others, so it can be used as a shared marker to uniquely identify them as different from anything else?

If I am to follow the design argument here then the evidence tells me I can see (at least) two different kinds of mammals, so it appears to me that we might be dealing with (at least) two different creators, alternatively one creator and several creation events. According to my analogy it looks like we are dealing with different brands of "cars" here.
.
Therefore, based on the evidence, I do not reach the same conclusion as creationists and ID researcher does. So what do I miss? How did ID people reach the conclusions of a single creator?

 

[HitchSlap]

The coccyx one animal has can serve a different function on a human being.

Oh my, when coccyxs' go rogue.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/19173...fe-being-worshipped-as-a-monkey-god-in-india/

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hello agian, In situ

I often hear creationist claim commonality or similarities among the living is evidence for a single common (intelligent) designer/creator. However, I have a small problem to understand exactly how ID's scientific line of evidence works here.

On the one hand, I think you’re right to question the way in which generic, "biblical Creationists" like John MacArthur, or proponents of "Creation Science" like Gary Parker and Henry Morris, interpret the facts of biology in such a way as to assume that there is One, and only one, creator. How do they know this?

On the other hand, the praxis by which basic Creationists and Creation Scientists evaluate and conceptualize (or fail to care about) the observable relations within homology shouldn’t be conflated with that of practitioners of an additional (third) position known as Intelligent Design--because the respective praxis for I.D. only allows certain levels of conclusions, being that it is more conceptually restrictive and not so much a direct expression of Christian faith as are the previous two positions. So, let’s make sure that we first of all separate the positions into some basic categories [without including derivative positions, like those who advocate the Day-Age Theory, or the Gap Theory, etc.]: (1)~biblical Creationism, (2) Creation Science, and (3) Intelligent Design.

Of course, a fourth position of "Theological Evolution" is supported by those like Francis Collins, but the praxis involved with this view is different than the ones mentioned above; it is one that relies more on mainstream science. Regardless, we need to make sure we categorize these positions because even though each has been been utilized by various Christians, they don’t all necessarily reason the same way or produce identical types of conclusions; moreover, the position of I.D. isn’t necessarily on the lips of Christians alone, hence the writing of someone like David Berlinski, a self-described secular Jew.

References​

John MacArthur. (2010). Theistic Evolution, Flying Frogs – What Do They Have in Common? At: http://www.gty.org/blog/B100615/theistic-evolution-flying-frogsbr-what-do-they-have-in-common?Term=homology

Gary Parker. (2016). Comparative Similarities: Homology. At: https://answersingenesis.org/biology/homology-comparative-similarities/

David Berlinski. (2009). The devil’s delusion: Atheism and its scientific pretensions. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Francis Collins. (2006). The language of God. New York, NY: Free Press.

For instance extant tetrapods can be split in two groups, those that do not have an antorbital fenestra (mammals, turtles, amphibians and some reptiles) and those that do (basically the rest). Does the presence of an antorbital fenestra in "half" the terapods means there is two creators? Or take so diverse living beings such as starfishes, a pine trees and a squirrels. Based on the commonality argument, does that mean there is 3 creators? Or if we compare the cat kind, the dog kind, the bird kind and the fish kind, which are said to be four non-overlapping kinds, does that mean there is 4 creators? Etc, etc...

So, as an extension of the taxonomy of positions I presented above, your questions here really one pertain to those positions that would assert that the biological structures we can observe and the homology of organisms we can relate are all somehow an expression of a biological plan emanating from a single Creator. A Theistic Evolutionist wouldn’t be very concerned with homology as providing an evidence (or other indicators) of a singular creative power, mainly because she would think that science is directed through the conceptual channels of Methodological Materialism as a scientific praxis. So, as for myself, whether organisms have an antorbital fenestra or not wouldn’t be something that would decisively tell me anything as to whether there is one god, two gods, a million gods..., or none at all.

Obviously, I can go on forever with this, and derive any numbers of creators, however, my general question is: considering the difference that indicate more than one creator - what is it with similarities between living beings that justify one to conclude a single common creator?

If I were to answer for Creationists in general (which I’m hesitant to do), I’d probably say that Gary Parker’s attempt to explain homology from a position of “Creation Science” is the one that is most pertinent as an answer to your questions, and then we should say that his position is combined with the additional assumption that the Bible is the truth about any divine power which may actually exist, permitting the conclusion that there is One God who is Creator of all, and not more.

Peace
2PhiloVoid

 

[In situ]

Hello agian, In situ

Thanks 2PhiloVoid for taking the time to share your thoughts on this.

I am not ready to make my own response yet to your post. However, when I first read it I started to wonder if you have read post #5 or not before you wrote this?

Whether or not you done it might affects how I will respond to you.

 

[Alithis]

I often hear creationist claim commonality or similarities among the living is evidence for a single common (intelligent) designer/creator. However, I have a small problem to understand exactly how ID's scientific line of evidence works here.

For instance extant tetrapods can be split in two groups, those that do not have an antorbital fenestra (mammals, turtles, amphibians and some reptiles) and those that do (basically the rest). Does the presence of an antorbital fenestra in "half" the terapods means there is two creators? Or take so diverse living beings such as starfishes, a pine trees and a squirrels. Based on the commonality argument, does that mean there is 3 creators? Or if we compare the cat kind, the dog kind, the bird kind and the fish kind, which are said to be four non-overlapping kinds, does that mean there is 4 creators? Etc, etc...

Obviously, I can go on forever with this, and derive any numbers of creators, however, my general question is: considering the difference that indicate more than one creator - what is it with similarities between living beings that justify one to conclude a single common creator?

Neither .because evolution doesnt exist.so its like asking what sound is lettuce.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Thanks 2PhiloVoid for taking the time to share your thoughts on this.

I am not ready to make my own response yet to your post. However, when I first read it I started to wonder if you have read post #5 or not before you wrote this?

Whether or not you done it might affects how I will respond to you.

No, I haven't read it. I'll read now and see if there's something I need to address, or at least briefly acknowledge about what you've said.

Thanks for the "heads-up"!

 

[In situ]

Neither .because evolution doesnt exist.

You could as well have said since unicorns does not exists, it is neither.

I.e. it does not even exist a correlation between the two things you mention. So it makes me wonder if you made your post in error, or do you lack the necessary skills to infer a proper conclusion?

 

[In situ]

No, I haven't read it. I'll read now and see if there's something I need to address, or at least briefly acknowledge about what you've said.

Thanks for the "heads-up"!

I am asking because I have concerned about the homologies you mention. It should be clear from post #5 that I am not talking about homologies, if not I will need to clarify myself again to explain the struggle I have to understand the claimed evidence for a single creator.

That said I still need to read your post again to make sure I understand what it is you want to convey.

 

[Alithis]

You could as well have said since unicorns does not exists, it is neither.

I.e. it does not even exist a correlation between the two things you mention. So it makes me wonder if you made your post in error, or do you lack the necessary skills to infer a proper conclusion?

nope.. You just dont like my conclusion.
Let God be true and every man a liar..he is right ..so your wrong.
Thats the way it is .
Repent (it means rethink..)turn and agree with god and be saved from the judgement to come.

 

[MasonP]

nope.. You just dont like my conclusion.
Let God be true and every man a liar..he is right ..so your wrong.
Thats the way it is .
Repent (it means rethink..)turn and agree with god and be saved from the judgement to come.

This is indoctrination gone mad.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I am asking because I have concerned about the homologies you mention. It should be clear from post #5 that I am not talking about homologies, if not I will need to clarify myself again to explain the struggle I have to understand the claimed evidence for a single creator.

That said I still need to read your post again to make sure I understand what it is you want to convey.

Alright. I've read post #5. I think that you may need to clarify some of what you're saying there, because I'm not sure what you're wanting to know or precisely what you'd like for me, a Theistic Evolutionist, to respond to. Moreover, since I'm a philosopher and not a biologist, I might need some 'help' in understanding the conceptual structure of the ideas by which you're assessing your evidence.

Personally, I disagree with I.D. in their thinking that 'design' features can really be ascertained through scientific investigation, despite their theories of "Irreducible Complexity" or whatnot. So, this means I don't see that ANY evidence will tell us that there is any kind of creative capacity taking place; it won't tell us if there are two creative powers, or none. But...I could be dead wrong, and I'm always willing to contemplate the evidence.

2PhiloVoid

 

[In situ]

Gary Parker’s attempt to explain homology from a position of

​

Quick note on what Parker writes about homologies:

"Using descent from a common ancestor to explain similarities is probably the most logical and appealing idea that evolutionists have"​

The problem with what Parker writes here is that this is not the idea biologist use to determine homologies, simply because you cannot assume what you want to conclude. Not very logical nor appealing.

Next sentence is even worse:

"Some think that our ability to classify plants and animals on a groups-within-groups hierarchical basis virtually forces scientists to treat evolution as a “fact.”"​

Now Parker ignores the fact the hierarchy is derived from careful investigations and observations which tells us that all living forms a nested set, i.e. Parker dismiss factual observations as being "imagined".

And when you think it cant get any worse, it does. In the next sentence he writes:

"However, we can classify kitchen utensils on a groups-within-groups basis, but that hardly forces anyone to believe that knives evolved into spoons, spoons into forks, or saucers into cups and plates."​

Now Parker ignore one of the most fundamental properties of life: reproduction.

Reproduction and the nested set of life are two corner stones in Evolutionary Theory which evidence common ancestor. Parker have not even started talk about homologies before he dismiss the two most fundamental and well established facts in biology.

In doing this, I've have hard to see how Parker can add anything of value, so I am not going to wast my time reading the rest of his nonsense. If you think he has anything to add to my question, please summarize it for me.

 

[In situ]

Alright. I've read post #5. I think that you may need to clarify some of what you're saying there, because I'm not sure what you're wanting to know or precisely what you'd like for me, a Theistic Evolutionist, to respond to. Moreover, since I'm a philosopher and not a biologist, I might need some 'help' in understanding the conceptual structure of the ideas by which you're assessing your evidence.

All I want to know is how one conclude that all life is evidence for one(1) common single creator based on some kind of, to me, unknown "sameness" of life. My interest in this is not to put anyone on trial but to understand the evidence and the reasoning behind the conclusion. As it is now I don't; when I look at the evidence myself I do not reach the same conclusion.

You asked me to clarify the concept, so let me try a third time:

What this is about is not homologs. The structures I am talking about are feature present in one group of organism but not the other. I am not talking about a "lost" structures in one group but a new and different structures, present as a unique feature in only one group of organisms but not any other group, i.e. the feature is not present in any other groups. This kind of structure or feature is not a homolog because a homolog structures must a) be present in both groups, which is not the case, and b) have been shown to have been passed down by inheritance from a common ancestor, which is impossible if it is a new feature only present in one of the groups. A biologist would call this "unique characteristics".

That means I am talking about something new that uniquely singles out a specific group of organisms as very special compared to every other organisms simple because no other organisms outside that group has that kind of unique feature(s). In other words, I can observe unique "signatures" in life, signatures which clearly separate otherwise similar groups of organisms into one or more distinct different groups, even though there seams to be no apparent reason why those unique differences should be there in the first place (as exemplified with marsupial and placental mammals in post #5).

These are observational facts about life. And the question is, why do these differences exists?

Taken the mammalian example in post #5 and evaluated under the creationistic "sameness condition" for a creator I would conclude two creators or perhaps one creator and two creation events. But that is not the conclusion creationists reaches, so how am I to understand the observed difference in mammals or, as given as first example, the antorbital fenestra in some animals but not others?

Therefore my question is, how did creationist come to the conclusion that common sameness exists and that this is evidence of a single common creator?

In other words, why does these differences exists, if not for different creators that created all the different kids? And how do creationists determine "sameness" so that all organisms can be said to be the same kind made by a single common creator?

 

[In situ]

nope.. You just dont like my conclusion.

I don't like your conclusion? What are you talking about?

I don't even understand how you conjured up your first "conclusion", never less this one. I am not even talking about evolution in the OP, so where you got your nonsense "conclusion" from is a complete mystery to me.

I am trying to understand what the differences found in all of life means and how one can come to the conclusion of one single creator by "neglecting" these differences. My questions has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

You responded to my OP by asserting:

"Neither. because evolution doesnt exist.so its like asking what sound is lettuce."​

May I inform you that, in case it have escaped you so far, it is a premises in my OP that "evolution does not exist".

Therefore, I pointed out that your answer does not make any sense whatsoever. To this you now responded that I don't like your "conclusions". Conclusion of what? And what is it am I not supposed to like?

You don't make much sense to me, and I doubt you do to anyone else either. But I will grant you a second chance to improve yourself in my eyes by explaining yourself.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

All I want to know is how one conclude that all life is evidence for one(1) common single creator based on some kind of, to me, unknown "sameness" of life. My interest in this is not to put anyone on trial but to understand the evidence and the reasoning behind the conclusion. As it is now I don't; when I look at the evidence myself I do not reach the same conclusion.

I can understand your interest in the question; and when I look at the evidence, I don’t reach the same conclusion either.

You asked me to clarify the concept, so let me try a third time:

What this is about is not homologs. The structures I am talking about are feature present in one group of organism but not the other. I am not talking about a "lost" structures in one group but a new and different structures, present as a unique feature in only one group of organisms but not any other group, i.e. the feature is not present in any other groups. This kind of structure or feature is not a homolog because a homolog structures must a) be present in both groups, which is not the case, and b) have been shown to have been passed down by inheritance from a common ancestor, which is impossible if it is a new feature only present in one of the groups. A biologist would call this "unique characteristics".

Ok. After reading post #5 and now this, I think I understand better what you’re getting at, and in the case of you’re particular inquiry in your OP, it looks like you’re wanting a qualified explanation from the type of Creationists who think scientific evidence of design in nature indicates a singular god. While your inquiry is legitimate, I honestly doubt that any Creationists have the means to explain their Monotheistic position by way of science alone, without resorting to the use of the Bible to buttress their claim.

That means I am talking about something new that uniquely singles out a specific group of organisms as very special compared to every other organisms simple because no other groups of organisms has that kind of unique feature(s). In other words, I can observe unique "signatures" in life, signatures which clearly separate otherwise similar groups of organisms into one or more distinct different groups, even though there seams to be no apparent reason why those unique differences should be there in the first place (as exemplified with marsupial and placental mammals in post #5).

Ok. I’ve learned a couple of things about biology here. (Or, maybe I’ve been reminded of some things I’ve forgotten, since it’s been a long while since my last Biology class.)

These are observational facts about life. And the question is, why do these differences exists?

I don't know. Personally, I'm going to say that evolution took place ...

Taken the mammalian example in post #5 and evaluated under the creationistic "sameness condition" for a creator I would conclude two creators or perhaps one creator and two creation events. But that is not the conclusion creationists reaches, so how am I to understand the observed difference in mammals?

I don't think they have an answer, which probably reflects part of the reason why they are not allowed to teach in public schools.

Therefore my question is, how did creationist come to the conclusion that common sameness exists and that this is evidence of a single common creator?

Well, that is why I said in a previous post that we’d have to take not only what Gary Parker thinks he sees as “scientific evidence” in homology, but we would have to ADD to this the insight that somewhere in his thinking he has had to resort to the Bible to provide the concept of a “divine identity.” Science doesn’t really give us any kind of “divine identity.” At best, some evidences in nature might give the appearance of having been designed, but I’d counter that Creationists are too quick to apply the label of “design” to features in nature that really should just more generically be labeled as “organic order.”

In other words, why does these differences exists, if not for different creators that created all the different kids? And how do creationists determine "sames" so that all organisms can be said to be the same kind made by a single common creator?

Well, I don’t think they can explain it, In situ. This is why Creationists are not very successful in making converts out of scientists and philosophers.

As far as the I.D. crowd goes, you may want to consider that they aren’t a set of homogeneous thinkers. I.D, at the most, simply states that—as they think—design can be detected. But, I.D. as a mode of investigation doesn’t really make explicit assertions that whichever intelligence may have “designed” organic life on our planet, it must also by necessity be a divine intelligence, or even a singular entity. For all that I.D. affirms, it can allow that organic life may be the result of various attempts by multiple Spaghetti Monsters, each competing for a foothold in the universe via our planet … or some other such sci-fi story. Only strict Creationists who try to "use" science are going to say that "the evidence" points to a Single Creator. By contrast, proponents of I.D. won't usually say this, even though they too try to "use" science.

In sum, I guess I’m not going to be much help to you in finding out whether or not various Creationists actually attempt to explain how supposed “design” in nature necessarily indicates a Monotheistic point of origin. If there is such an explanation, I haven’t yet come across it myself. The most I can do is point out differences in the respective praxis of each position (i.e. ~biblical Creationism vs. Creation Science vs. Intelligent Design).

Peace
2PhiloVoid

 

[2PhiloVoid]

​

Quick note on what Parker writes about homologies:

"Using descent from a common ancestor to explain similarities is probably the most logical and appealing idea that evolutionists have"​

The problem with what Parker writes here is that this is not the idea biologist use to determine homologies, simply because you cannot assume what you want to conclude. Not very logical nor appealing.

Next sentence is even worse:

"Some think that our ability to classify plants and animals on a groups-within-groups hierarchical basis virtually forces scientists to treat evolution as a “fact.”"​

Now Parker ignores the fact the hierarchy is derived from careful investigations and observations which tells us that all living forms a nested set, i.e. Parker dismiss factual observations as being "imagined".

And when you think it cant get any worse, it does. In the next sentence he writes:

"However, we can classify kitchen utensils on a groups-within-groups basis, but that hardly forces anyone to believe that knives evolved into spoons, spoons into forks, or saucers into cups and plates."​

Now Parker ignore one of the most fundamental properties of life: reproduction.

Reproduction and the nested set of life are two corner stones in Evolutionary Theory which evidence common ancestor. Parker have not even started talk about homologies before he dismiss the two most fundamental and well established facts in biology.

In doing this, I've have hard to see how Parker can add anything of value, so I am not going to wast my time reading the rest of his nonsense. If you think he has anything to add to my question, please summarize it for me.

I'm not surprised that Parker offers the assessment he does. I don't have anything to add since he doesn't represent my point of view on science or the nature of the theory of evolution. I just cited him because his article is an example of the kind of thought patterns that persist among advocates of Creation Science; I cited him, too, because I didn't understand from your OP clearly that you're not honing in on homology, but more on their explanation of evolutionarily distinct characteristics.