The Creationist Explanaton

[Anguspure]

The question was simply: "Why do dolphin tails go side to side and shark tails go up and down? Why are they different?"

We have an evolutionary explanation. We currently don't have a "design" explanation (e.g. assuming the organisms were independently designed and created).

Why would one assume such a thing? There is nothing wrong with positing development of design over time, or even a natural process such as natural selection in the process of creation.

It is the demand for naturalism that limits explanatory possibilities. The exploration of creation is free to follow the evidence wherever it leads (notwithstanding certain religious commitments of many).

Certainly it is common to see development and experimentally initiated selection process in human design, I can see no reason why a Creationist cannot also observe these things and apply them as part of a possible explanation.

The only way to have testable hypotheses (part of the basic scientific methodology) is to have an underlying framework with which to test them: in this case the framework is the universe itself and the assumption that the universe is objective.

For the purpose of method this much is true. However when elements of the Universe point to a reality and purpose beyond the underlying framwork it is only truthful to recognise the inference for what it is.

Statements from biologists like Crick and Dawkins that urge the scientist to ignore what is obvious in front of his face reveal the truth of the underlying metaphysical commitment.

Unless you have a way to objectively test things beyond the "natural", then your objection is moot.

The evidence of highly functionally coherent systems in biology is a very good example of this sort of objective evidence that is nevertheless denied because of a priori metaphysical commitments of Naturalist ideaology.

 

[pitabread]

The shark, which has always lived in the water, has developed the perfect tail for propelling itself through the water. The dolphin has the exact opposite tail. When will the dolphin's evolutionary process catch up to the shark's?

There is no "catch up" process here. The outcome of evolutionary processes are organisms adapted for a particular niche that are capable of successful reproduction. The dolphin's tail appears good enough for its particular niche.

 

[Occams Barber]

The purpose of science is enquiry, perhaps limited to methodological naturalism for the purpose of focus.
But a Scientist that demands that all legitimate enquiry make no reference to reality beyond the natural is a metaphysical claim (that no such possibility exists) and expresses a flawed ideaology.

Tell you what. If you can supply a ruler which can objectively measure the length, width and height of a 'reality beyond the natural' I'm positive that science will include it when collecting data.
OB

 

[dreadnought]

There is no "catch up" process here. The outcome of evolutionary processes are organisms adapted for a particular niche that are capable of successful reproduction. The dolphin's tail appears good enough for its particular niche.

Evolution has more to do than merely "successful reproduction." Evolution is about survival. If a creature ceases evolving simple because it "appears good enough for its particular niche," it will soon be extinct.

 

[pitabread]

It is the demand for naturalism that limits explanatory possibilities. The exploration of creation is free to follow the evidence wherever it leads (notwithstanding certain religious commitments of many).

The problem is that "creation" gives us no way of formulating testable hypotheses, consequently no way of comparing and vetting respective ideas, and therefore no way to build a coherent theory for an explanation of biological design.

This very thread and the lack of any sort of creationist explanation for the difference between shark and dolphin tail anatomy is a testament to that.

The evidence of highly functionally coherent systems in biology is a very good example of this sort of objective evidence that is nevertheless denied because of a priori metaphysical commitments of Naturalist ideaology.

You've missed the point. You need to be able to formulate testable hypotheses. And this means have an objective framework within which to test them.

What is your objective framework for testing a hypothesis based on design?

 

[Anguspure]

Tell you what. If you can supply a ruler which can objectively measure the length, width and height of a 'reality beyond the natural' I'm positive that science will include it when collecting data.
OB

That Science cannot measure something is certainly not the measure of reality.

 

[pitabread]

Evolution has more to do than merely "successful reproduction." Evolution is about survival.

Survival which is measured by successful reproduction.

If a creature ceases evolving simple because it "appears good enough for its particular niche," it will soon be extinct.

Maybe, maybe not. It all depends on environmental changes and the genetic variability in respective gene pools.

 

[AV1611VET]

"Why do dolphin tails go side to side and shark tails go up and down? Why are they different?"

God made them that way.

 

[pitabread]

God made them that way.

I feel we need a scorecard for the number of times this answer has been given.

 

[Anguspure]

The problem is that "creation" gives us no way of formulating testable hypotheses, consequently no way of comparing and vetting respective ideas, and therefore no way to build a coherent theory for an explanation of biological design.

The design inference in respect of functionally coherent systems is entirely testable and in fact used at least informally in every avenue of historical scientific enquiry. It is only in biology that the line is drawn.

This very thread and the lack of any sort of creationist explanation for the difference between shark and dolphin tail anatomy is a testament to that.

I have no problem whatsoever with the identification of a development from mammalian anatomy in aquatic mammals, or with development of fish leading to the tail of a shark.

The problem is not with the explanation that observes common traits and ancestory, rather the issue is with the metaphysical commitment that then claims there is nothing more to see here.

You've missed the point. You need to be able to formulate testable hypotheses. And this means have an objective framework within which to test them.

What is your objective framework for testing a hypothesis based on design?

The level of functional coherence evident in a system maybe assesed mathematically and then compared against known examples of accidental invention and/or design.

 

[pitabread]

The design inference in respect of functionally coherent systems is entirely testable and in fact used at least informally in every avenue of historical scientific enquiry. It is only in biology that the line is drawn.

If you're talking about pattern recognition of objects (say, identifying cave paintings or rocks used as spear tips), then that's not quite applicable to biology in the fashion you appear to be suggesting. Identification of designed artifacts is based on understanding of processes related to the formation of different observed patterns and the contrast of human-manufactured objects versus naturally occurring formations.

With biology you don't really have that same comparison since biological forms themselves are natural (as they occur in nature) since we don't have an alternative known source of origin. And the patterns we do observe already fit an evolutionary explanation.

I have no problem whatsoever with the identification of a development from mammalian anatomy in aquatic mammals, or with development of fish leading to the tail of a shark.

The problem is not with the explanation that observes common traits and ancestory, rather the issue the metaphysical commitment that then claims there is nothing more to see here.

Metaphysical reasons for origins appears beyond the scope of what is being asked here.

On top of that, you don't actually have a metaphysical explanation for the question at hand. So who cares?

The level of functional coherence evident in a system maybe assesed mathematically and then compared against known examples of accidental invention and/or design.

Are you talking about probability arguments? Because there is a gaping problem with probability arguments when it comes to biology and trying to identify design that way. Namely constructing a probability based on all possible variables (which are unknown) and identifying the probability space of all viable outcomes (also unknown). Generally such probability calculation attempts tend to be highly limited in scope and therefore not particularly meaningful.

 

[AV1611VET]

I feel we need a scorecard for the number of times this answer has been given.

Good.

Label that scorecard: CONSENSUS OF OPINION.

Better yet, label it: ANOTHER CONUNDRUM SCIENTISTS CAN'T EXPLAIN W/O INVOKING DEEP TIME.

 

[pitabread]

Good.

Label that scorecard: CONSENSUS OF OPINION.

Better yet, label it: ANOTHER CONUNDRUM SCIENTISTS CAN'T EXPLAIN W/O INVOKING DEEP TIME.

I prefer to label it, "The stark failure of creationism to provide an explanation beyond Goddidit."

It reinforces that creationism is useless when it comes to understanding the natural world.

 

[adhidw]

My almost 7 year old asked a question the other day and after explaining the answer to him I wondered how creationists would answer the question:

"Why do dolphin tails go side to side and shark tails go up and down? Why are they different?"

Basically, why are shark tails and dolphin tails different morphologically when they serve the same basic function?

How would a creationist answer this question?

There are another more interesting questions than that:

Why should there only one species with exponentially growth in knowledge which is called humans , where the others species absolutely non.

Is it by design , or by chance ?, or is there any relation with the fruit of the tree of knowledge about good and evil in the garden of Eden ?, why should all of others species surely be able to be totally destroyed if the most dominant (human ) want it be done ?, is there any relation with Gen9:2 ?.

Gen9:2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered

 

[Occams Barber]

That Science cannot measure something is certainly not the measure of reality.

In practical terms how can science possibly take into account something it cannot detect and measure?

If you were appointed the Grand PooBah of All Science how would you instruct your Minions to proceed when assessing real world hypotheses in the light of unmeasurable and undetectable supernatural factors?
OB

 

[pitabread]

Why should there only one species with exponentially growth in knowledge which is called humans , where the others species absolutely non.

Larger brain-to-body ratios owing to diet (compared to other apes), development of complex language and writing, development of cooking and agriculture, and the ability to specialize, and store and pass on knowledge.

 

[mark kennedy]

'Tis no laughing matter Mr Kennedy. The collective 'stab in the dark' responses are however proving to be a source of some amusement.
OB

I have no idea what you mean by that and frankly, no interest.

 

[dreadnought]

Survival which is measured by successful reproduction.



Maybe, maybe not. It all depends on environmental changes and the genetic variability in respective gene pools.

You and I both know that the evolution of a species is never ending.

 

[Occams Barber]

There are another more interesting questions than that:

Why should there only one species with exponentially growth in knowledge which is called humans , where the others species absolutely non.

Is it by design , or by chance ?, or is there any relation with the fruit of the tree of knowledge about good and evil in the garden of Eden ?, why should all of others species surely be able to be totally destroyed if the most dominant (human ) want it be done ?, is there any relation with Gen9:2 ?.

Gen9:2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered

You should take this question to a more appropriate forum. There are many Christians who are able to incorporate science and evolution into their Christian worldview.
OB

 

[AV1611VET]

I prefer to label it, "The stark failure of creationism to provide an explanation beyond Goddidit."

It reinforces that creationism is useless when it comes to understanding the natural world.

Ya ... our technological infrastructure depends on knowing if Jonah was swallowed by a head thumper or a face slapper.

 

[dreadnought]

I feel we need a scorecard for the number of times this answer has been given.

Perhaps it's the correct answer.