Evolution and Young Earth

[FaithT]

No, but my reasons are very different than what you'll hear from most creationists.

I've read William Dembski's book The Design Inference, which is where the idea of Intelligent Design began. I think it is an insightful, elegant work and most people who criticize it have never read it and have no idea what they're talking about. With that said, unfortunately, there is a fatal flaw that renders the hypothesis unworkable. ID is not the answer. I believe God designed and created everything. It's just that there is no scientific way to demonstrate it.

Therefore, when biologists say evolution is the best model we have, they are correct. With that said, I think there is also a flaw in their model, and I think there are alternative models that don't cause theological problems that are equally good.

Im confused....you said evolution is the best model we have,then said there are alternative models that are equally good.

 

[Resha Caner]

Im confused....you said evolution is the best model we have,then said there are alternative models that are equally good.

Ah, good catch. I'm sorry about that. Evolution is the accepted model. No alternative has been accepted, so it's de facto the best model they have. As for the alternative I support, that would require a bit of a story.

Whenever a creationist objects to evolution, a biologist will say, "Then find something better." William Dembski tried to do just that, and I commend him for his effort. It's the best so far that's received any attention. I've received that same challenge - find something better. I respond by saying I am not a biologist; I'm an engineer and historian. They say it doesn't matter. If it's a credible idea, it will be accepted, which is a bunch of puffed up nonsense. But, oh well, OK, I'll try.

One of my kids is an RN, so I spent a lot of time being tutored in biology. I created a list of questions and took them to a series of biologists to interview them. I took their answers, did some literature research, and created an alternative hypothesis. I took it to a peer-reviewed biology journal and asked if they would publish it. They said they would if I could get some lab research to go with it. I approached several universities asking how I could do that. They were open to helping me if I could acquire funding ...

… and that's where I had to hit the brakes. I'm 54 years old, toward the end of my career, not the beginning. Obtaining a PhD in biology so I'd have the political pull to get funding is not in my future. But I'm pretty sure I did more to find an alternative than almost anyone else.

 

[FaithT]

Ah, good catch. I'm sorry about that. Evolution is the accepted model. No alternative has been accepted, so it's de facto the best model they have. As for the alternative I support, that would require a bit of a story.

Whenever a creationist objects to evolution, a biologist will say, "Then find something better." William Dembski tried to do just that, and I commend him for his effort. It's the best so far that's received any attention. I've received that same challenge - find something better. I respond by saying I am not a biologist; I'm an engineer and historian. They say it doesn't matter. If it's a credible idea, it will be accepted, which is a bunch of puffed up nonsense. But, oh well, OK, I'll try.

One of my kids is an RN, so I spent a lot of time being tutored in biology. I created a list of questions and took them to a series of biologists to interview them. I took their answers, did some literature research, and created an alternative hypothesis. I took it to a peer-reviewed biology journal and asked if they would publish it. They said they would if I could get some lab research to go with it. I approached several universities asking how I could do that. They were open to helping me if I could acquire funding ...

… and that's where I had to hit the brakes. I'm 54 years old, toward the end of my career, not the beginning. Obtaining a PhD in biology so I'd have the political pull to get funding is not in my future. But I'm pretty sure I did more to find an alternative than almost anyone else.

So what is your alternative?

 

[FaithT]

What happens to the LCMS if scientists prove evolution happened?

 

[Resha Caner]

So what is your alternative?

As long as you understand the details involved are legion … in short it's something I called Rapid Emergence. Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) is a demonstrated phenomena where rather than descent with modification (parents begetting children with different DNA), DNA can be transferred between unrelated species - typically from bacteria to multicellular animals, but hypothetically it could go from anywhere to anywhere.

Second, bacteria are know to mutate their DNA very rapidly.

Third, there have been a series of geological events (ironically about 6 of them) that caused mass extinctions, an explosion in bacterial activity, and a resulting leap in biodiversity.

So, the basic idea is that rather than descent by modification, there were instead focused events of massive HGT from bacterial pools to multicellular animals that created the diversity we see.

 

[Resha Caner]

What happens to the LCMS if scientists prove evolution happened?

It is a misconception that scientists ever "prove" anything. Even scientists will agree with that. Rather, all we have is the latest accepted model.

Regardless, evolution is already the accepted model, and the LCMS is still around, so … nothing happens to the LCMS. It continues on.

 

[FaithT]

As long as you understand the details involved are legion … in short it's something I called Rapid Emergence. Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) is a demonstrated phenomena where rather than descent with modification (parents begetting children with different DNA), DNA can be transferred between unrelated species - typically from bacteria to multicellular animals, but hypothetically it could go from anywhere to anywhere.

Second, bacteria are know to mutate their DNA very rapidly.

Third, there have been a series of geological events (ironically about 6 of them) that caused mass extinctions, an explosion in bacterial activity, and a resulting leap in biodiversity.

So, the basic idea is that rather than descent by modification, there were instead focused events of massive HGT from bacterial pools to multicellular animals that created the diversity we see.

I never should’ve asked....this is ALL over my head, but onto my next question.....what happens to the LCMS if evolution is proven?

 

[FaithT]

I never should’ve asked....this is ALL over my head, but onto my next question.....what happens to the LCMS if evolution is proven?

Sorry, I didn’t see your answer. Evolution is the accepted model but is it correct?

 

[Resha Caner]

I never should’ve asked....this is ALL over my head, but onto my next question.....what happens to the LCMS if evolution is proven?

Sorry. I'd really like to be able to state things that will work for you. If there's any way I can do a better job, please let me know.

Sorry, I didn’t see your answer. Evolution is the accepted model but is it correct?

In my opinion, no. But I always feel obligated to add further explanation. As I mentioned, I'm an engineer. For those of us trained in science, that's not really a problem. I use engineering models that I think have issues, and can use them to produce good stuff for you to buy (smile).

 

[FaithT]

Sorry. I'd really like to be able to state things that will work for you. If there's any way I can do a better job, please let me know.



In my opinion, no. But I always feel obligated to add further explanation. As I mentioned, I'm an engineer. For those of us trained in science, that's not really a problem. I use engineering models that I think have issues, and can use them to produce good stuff for you to buy (smile).

Why do you think scientists haven’t made their case for evolution?

 

[Resha Caner]

Why do you think scientists haven’t made their case for evolution?

Being the tech geek that I am, it would be fun to give you an answer loaded with detail, but I'll try to keep it short and let you ask questions if you want more detail. So, briefly, I believe the history of biology has led to a mixing of terms such that observations of small, local things have been improperly applied to large, universal conclusions.

It would be like observing a Scotsman in a New York deli ordering a fish sandwich for lunch and assuming all Scotsman in the world have eaten fish sandwiches for lunch since time began and will continue to do so until the world ends.

 

[FaithT]

Being the tech geek that I am, it would be fun to give you an answer loaded with detail, but I'll try to keep it short and let you ask questions if you want more detail. So, briefly, I believe the history of biology has led to a mixing of terms such that observations of small, local things have been improperly applied to large, universal conclusions.

It would be like observing a Scotsman in a New York deli ordering a fish sandwich for lunch and assuming all Scotsman in the world have eaten fish sandwiches for lunch since time began and will continue to do so until the world ends.

could you be more specific?

 

[twin.spin]

It is a misconception that scientists ever "prove" anything. Even scientists will agree with that. Rather, all we have is the latest accepted model.

Regardless, evolution is already the accepted model, and the LCMS is still around, so … nothing happens to the LCMS. It continues on.

Nor will evolution scientists ever prove their "latest accepted model" because evolution is based on presumption.

 

[Resha Caner]

Nor will evolution scientists ever prove their "latest accepted model" because evolution is based on presumption.

Not just evolution, but all science is based on assumptions. That's widely recognized.

 

[Resha Caner]

could you be more specific?

Long posts are usually a bad idea, so I'm trying to be brief. But if I'm going to be more specific, we need to lay some groundwork.

First, use of the term "evolution" is confused. When you refer to physics, you speak of studying the interactions of matter. Physics will always be physics, but the theories change. The theory of impetus was discarded long ago and replaced with Newton's Laws (and then Einstein's Relativity). Evolution is referred to as a theory, when in actual practice it is treated like a field of study. The theories underlying evolution, like all the sciences, have also changed over time, yet biologists continue to refer to a theory of evolution, as if it's one thing. I think we should stop referring to it as a theory and call it what it is - a field of study. Evolution, then, is not one theory, but a collection of many, many theories related to morphology, ecology, genetics, etc. If one is to "reject" evolution, then, they need to be specific about what they are rejecting. Unfortunately, to the average biologist, it sounds as if creationists reject all of biology. In my case that is not true. My objections are very specific, but it can take a long time to dig through the mess of misunderstanding to get there.

To the credit of biology, they have separated abiogenesis from evolution. Unfortunately, creationists don't seem to understand that. Much of what they argue about is actually abiogenesis (or sometimes cosmology, geology, or paleontology) rather than evolution. If you ask a biologist, "How did life begin?" they will answer, "We don't know. That study is called abiogenesis, but there is no accepted solution yet."

Next, it is important to understand the difference between quantitative science and qualitative science. Physics is the envy of all science for its ability to be quantitative, that is, to use numbers. It's a goal all science strives for, but not all have reached. What takes its place in some cases is qualitative science, which is based on classifications by characteristic and statistics. It's close to simply being the scientist's opinion, but it would be unfair to take that criticism too far. Qualitative science can be productive, but it's all too easy to hide bad science under the statistics. I'm sure you've heard the quote about lies, #$% lies, and statistics.

Within evolution, genetics (e.g. DNA) is the area that can be quantified. Other areas, such as morphology and ecology are largely qualitative. And guess what the definitions of species are based on ... morphology. Species are a qualitative assessment. DNA, the quantitative aspect of evolution, in the strict sense, only deals with individual organisms. The link, then, between DNA and species is subjective. Further, the conditions that create fossils are very special. It is rare that a dead animal becomes a fossil. Therefore, the "fossil record" consists of a ridiculously small sample of earth's life that was preserved under conditions known to be unusual. The process of reverse engineering what the living organism looked like from a fossil is fraught with difficulty, and even if done successfully it is then a subjective exercise to classify the species of that organism and link it to specific DNA.

And yet, that is the process used to link the observed mutations in DNA to the "tree of life". So, while it's easy to demonstrate a change in allele frequency (the current technical definition of evolution), in no way do I believe that supports all life having a common ancestor (i.e. source population), because that claim is based on questionable qualitative science.

 

[FaithT]

Long posts are usually a bad idea, so I'm trying to be brief. But if I'm going to be more specific, we need to lay some groundwork.

First, use of the term "evolution" is confused. When you refer to physics, you speak of studying the interactions of matter. Physics will always be physics, but the theories change. The theory of impetus was discarded long ago and replaced with Newton's Laws (and then Einstein's Relativity). Evolution is referred to as a theory, when in actual practice it is treated like a field of study. The theories underlying evolution, like all the sciences, have also changed over time, yet biologists continue to refer to a theory of evolution, as if it's one thing. I think we should stop referring to it as a theory and call it what it is - a field of study. Evolution, then, is not one theory, but a collection of many, many theories related to morphology, ecology, genetics, etc. If one is to "reject" evolution, then, they need to be specific about what they are rejecting. Unfortunately, to the average biologist, it sounds as if creationists reject all of biology. In my case that is not true. My objections are very specific, but it can take a long time to dig through the mess of misunderstanding to get there.

To the credit of biology, they have separated abiogenesis from evolution. Unfortunately, creationists don't seem to understand that. Much of what they argue about is actually abiogenesis (or sometimes cosmology, geology, or paleontology) rather than evolution. If you ask a biologist, "How did life begin?" they will answer, "We don't know. That study is called abiogenesis, but there is no accepted solution yet."

Next, it is important to understand the difference between quantitative science and qualitative science. Physics is the envy of all science for its ability to be quantitative, that is, to use numbers. It's a goal all science strives for, but not all have reached. What takes its place in some cases is qualitative science, which is based on classifications by characteristic and statistics. It's close to simply being the scientist's opinion, but it would be unfair to take that criticism too far. Qualitative science can be productive, but it's all too easy to hide bad science under the statistics. I'm sure you've heard the quote about lies, #$% lies, and statistics.

Within evolution, genetics (e.g. DNA) is the area that can be quantified. Other areas, such as morphology and ecology are largely qualitative. And guess what the definitions of species are based on ... morphology. Species are a qualitative assessment. DNA, the quantitative aspect of evolution, in the strict sense, only deals with individual organisms. The link, then, between DNA and species is subjective. Further, the conditions that create fossils are very special. It is rare that a dead animal becomes a fossil. Therefore, the "fossil record" consists of a ridiculously small sample of earth's life that was preserved under conditions known to be unusual. The process of reverse engineering what the living organism looked like from a fossil is fraught with difficulty, and even if done successfully it is then a subjective exercise to classify the species of that organism and link it to specific DNA.

And yet, that is the process used to link the observed mutations in DNA to the "tree of life". So, while it's easy to demonstrate a change in allele frequency (the current technical definition of evolution), in no way do I believe that supports all life having a common ancestor (i.e. source population), because that claim is based on questionable qualitative science.

(Sigh) ok, what’s qualitative science?

 

[twin.spin]

Nor will evolution scientists ever prove their "latest accepted model" because evolution is based on presumption.​

Not just evolution, but all science is based on assumptions. That's widely recognized.

If you want to get technical, then yes all science is. However we know that non-creationists are contrary to God and his Word with their presumptive alternative i.e. evolution when God's Word clearly states:

Hebrews 11:3
By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

Colossians 1:16
For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, ...

Revelation 4:11
“You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power,
for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.”
​

 

[Resha Caner]

(Sigh) ok, what’s qualitative science?

Sorry. You asked. Just to help me out, do you understand at least part of what I'm saying? I'm not expecting to change your mind, but it would be nice if you've gained a better understanding of what I've said.

Maybe an example would be better for answering your question. If you're baking a pie, and it calls for 2 1/2 cups of flour, that's quantitative. However, if the recipe calls for 5 handfuls of flour, that is qualitative. Using "handfuls" means everybody will roughly use the same amount of flour, but it's not precise. Even though everybody will be close, every pie is going to turn out differently. In science, being able to repeat what a scientist does is crucial to its veracity. Qualitative science makes that difficult.

Or, have you ever used a gas stove where you were told what color the flame should be to cook something? Qualitative. Electric stoves are quantitative because they can repeatedly send the same amount of electricity to the burner every time.

 

[Resha Caner]

Nor will evolution scientists ever prove their "latest accepted model" because evolution is based on presumption.​

If you want to get technical, then yes all science is. However we know that non-creationists are contrary to God and his Word with their presumptive alternative i.e. evolution when God's Word clearly states:

Hebrews 11:3
By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

Colossians 1:16
For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, ...

Revelation 4:11
“You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power,
for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.”
​

OK.

 

[FaithT]

Sorry. You asked. Just to help me out, do you understand at least part of what I'm saying? I'm not expecting to change your mind, but it would be nice if you've gained a better understanding of what I've said.

Maybe an example would be better for answering your question. If you're baking a pie, and it calls for 2 1/2 cups of flour, that's quantitative. However, if the recipe calls for 5 handfuls of flour, that is qualitative. Using "handfuls" means everybody will roughly use the same amount of flour, but it's not precise. Even though everybody will be close, every pie is going to turn out differently. In science, being able to repeat what a scientist does is crucial to its veracity. Qualitative science makes that difficult.

Or, have you ever used a gas stove where you were told what color the flame should be to cook something? Qualitative. Electric stoves are quantitative because they can repeatedly send the same amount of electricity to the burner every time.

I understand some of this but not all. To put it in a nutshell: is evolution a fact, theory, guess, or something else? What I’m trying to get at is this.....paleontologists claim to have found fossils of beings they believe to be links in evolution from ape to man. Is it true or not?