What Lies Beneath

[Davian]

This caught my attention, what contrary evidence are you referring to?

That which is in absence.

 

[super animator]

That which is in absence.

Then why do you use the word "contrary" when it means the opposite of something, when that something is nothing to begin with?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

That's a new one for me. So, according to evolutionary theory it was determined - it was certain - that humans would exist in this time and place? Again, I've asked biologists that question before, and they always reply: No, it was not determined. If we reset the clock and started evolution over, humans might not develop the next time around.

If you are answering differently, I'd be curious to know if you have a citation for that. Where does this come from?

The marco world is fairly deterministic. If it makes sense to say that. However, at lower levels there's randomness.

"So, according to evolutionary theory it was determined - it was certain - that humans would exist in this time and place?"

The ToE has nothing to say on that subject. You'd have to look to chemistry and physics for an answer here. And of course philosophy. But with the objective randomness that seems inherent in nature, I don't think that it was determined that humans would exist. Even though chemistry is deterministic. (Isn't it?)

(Sorry, no citations.)

Why is this a problem for creationists?

Because they have their own kind of evolution, too.

 

[Resha Caner]

Because they have their own kind of evolution, too.

I guess I can't quite pinpoint what you're calling evolution. Sometimes it seems you use the word very narrowly, and sometimes very broadly.

Do I, as a creationist, accept that things change? Yes. Do I consider that to be "Evolution" with a capital E (as in related to the scientific theory)? No.

But maybe that depends on what you're calling evolution. So what is the creationist kind of evolution?

 

[Davian]

Sure. So now go one step deeper. We can remove the TE and creationist labels here. Creationists also think creation is guided.

So, why does one group think the emergence of life was guided and another group thinks it was not?

So because I disagree with evolution I don't care about science?

It is my understanding that the theory of evolution is one of the better evidenced scientific theories that there is, better than gravitational theory. Do you accept gravitational theory, and the standard model of physics? Germ theory?

Umm, this seems to be getting twisted up. Every time I say I believe God created the world (which to me implies the term "creationist"), I must then spend the next 100 posts trying to explain that I am not YEC. I was trying to generalize and avoid these labels.

I have seen few details that theists on this board agree on, but for me they do tend to fall into two groups: the "creationist/YEC/floodist/" camp and the "13 byo cosmos + evolution with theism" camp.

That makes for two very different approaches.

The first may be "if things did not happen as per my literal/semi-literal interpretation of my particular holy book, the rest of the story won't come true".

Word are defined by how we use them. "Creationist" carries a lot of baggage with it.

The second is more of a vast, intricate rationale for working backward "scientifically" from a conclusion that they have already made.

As for the group that does not think that evolution was "guided", I would think that would be because they do not have reason/evidence to think so. That would be the case for myself.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I guess I can't quite pinpoint what you're calling evolution. Sometimes it seems you use the word very narrowly, and sometimes very broadly.

Do I, as a creationist, accept that things change? Yes. Do I consider that to be "Evolution" with a capital E (as in related to the scientific theory)? No.

I haven't been spelling evolution with a capital E, except for the abbreviation ToE.

But be that as it may:
"Do I, as a creationist, accept that things change? Yes."
Yes, and whatever problem you see with theistic evolution applies here too. And if you recall, it was you who saw a problem with it. Not me.

But maybe that depends on what you're calling evolution. So what is the creationist kind of evolution?

A very fast "mircoevolution".

 

[Davian]

Then why do you use the word "contrary" when it means the opposite of something, when that something is nothing to begin with?

In the sentence from which you extracted those words, the subject was their beliefs. You then asked about the contrary evidence, of which I do not think there is any.

Perhaps you should rephrase your query.

 

[Resha Caner]

It is my understanding that the theory of evolution is one of the better evidenced scientific theories that there is, better than gravitational theory. Do you accept gravitational theory, and the standard model of physics? Germ theory?

There is a lot of data, yes. How the data is used is often where I take issue.

I haven't had a reason to question current gravitational theory. However, we don't use current gravitational theory in my work. In fact, we don't even use the Newtonian theory. We still use Galileo's formula, which is essentially: W = mg. I don't subscribe to scientific realism, but to more of an instrumentalism. So, do I "accept" gravitational theory? Shrug. It's kind of a non-issue with me.

But the amount of data doesn't really matter. I could bury you in data where, within the accuracy of the measurement, W = mg correlates. Does that make it "right"? No. In fact, I think the statement would be that science knows it's wrong. You only need one example to prove something wrong no matter how many examples say it's right.

Though, IMO, right & wrong, accept & reject are truth statements that don't apply to science. What should be happening is more a determination of boundaries. W = mg works within the boundaries where I apply it. However, I am aware there are boundaries beyond which we have data showing it doesn't work.

[edit] I probably should have clarified my terms. I was using "W" for weight. Sometimes "W" is used for work, in which case the formula is W = mgh, where m = mass, g = a gravitational constant, and h = height.

Word are defined by how we use them. "Creationist" carries a lot of baggage with it.

True. Though I find it frustrating, I would abandon the term "creationist" if I could find a better one. At one point I thought ID might be the new label I was looking for, but it has garnered the reputation of pseudoscience and creationism in sheep's clothing. So, it has it's own baggage.

So what should I call myself? I'll have to pick from the synonyms for "creation". A formationist? A genesist? A poieticist?

 

[Resha Caner]

I haven't been spelling evolution with a capital E, except for the abbreviation ToE.

I understand that. It was me making the distinction as part of a request for you to clarify. The word "evolution" is sometimes used to mean a specific theory regarding allele frequency. It is sometimes used to be the larger process of mutation and selection that explains the descent of species. It is sometimes used as a generic synonym for change (e.g. John's understanding of economics has evolved). I wasn't quite sure how you were using the term.

"Do I, as a creationist, accept that things change? Yes."
Yes, and whatever problem you see with theistic evolution applies here too. And if you recall, it was you who saw a problem with it. Not me.

Umm. Not really. Trees grow. That is change, but not evolution and not a problem for my view. It has been shown that species can adapt to an environment. IIRC most English sparrows brought to North America died until they made several significant adaptations (over many generations). And it got to the point that it was difficult (though not impossible) to breed them with the original English sparrow. However, putting those North American sparrows back into the original environment caused them to change back (over the generations) to English sparrows again.

Is that evolution? Shrug. You can call it that if you want, but it's not justification for extrapolating a case like that to a claim that all species were produced by that process. In fact, I thought universal common ancestry (UCA) was falling out of favor.

Nor does that case require the observed change to be random (unguided, without purpose, etc).

All it demonstrates is that sparrows can adapt. So, I don't see how that causes a problem for me.

A very fast "mircoevolution".

I'm still not following you. Could you maybe give an example of how creationists use this "fast microevolution"?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I understand that. It was me making the distinction as part of a request for you to clarify. The word "evolution" is sometimes used to mean a specific theory regarding allele frequency. It is sometimes used to be the larger process of mutation and selection that explains the descent of species. It is sometimes used as a generic synonym for change (e.g. John's understanding of economics has evolved). I wasn't quite sure how you were using the term.

In the latter sense, but applied to biology: Descent with modification. Except where we have been talking about random mutations. Decent with modification with a specific mechanism.

If you want allele frequencies, there is room for that too.

Nor does that case require the observed change to be random (unguided, without purpose, etc).

All it demonstrates is that sparrows can adapt. So, I don't see how that causes a problem for me.

TEs don't require randomness either. Not that there is a problem with there being a mix of guidance and unguidedness. (It is also not for creationists.)

I'm still not following you. Could you maybe give an example of how creationists use this "fast microevolution"?

Oh, creationsist are not big on using it. Admit, yes. Use, less so. But the fact remains for a creationist. There are how many species around today, and there were only how many kinds on the ark? And how long ago did the global flood happen? That's a whole lot of evolution, or change, or adaption in a preciously short time.

 

[Paradoxum]

So because I disagree with evolution I don't care about science?

Well I would question the way you are thinking about the issue. 'Care' perhaps isn't the right word, it was just the word that came to mind for a quick comment.

Umm, this seems to be getting twisted up. Every time I say I believe God created the world (which to me implies the term "creationist"), I must then spend the next 100 posts trying to explain that I am not YEC. I was trying to generalize and avoid these labels.

So you aren't a young earth creationist, but you don't accept evolution? So where do you think living things came from? God just decided to create them one day?

So, exactly. I think it a bit disingenuous - a strawman - for creationists to throw out labels of "Darwinism" when evolution has moved on from that position. Again, I was asking people to move past those labels. You can call yourself whatever you want. I don't really care what the label is. I care what you think it means.

I'd agree that it is better to get to the substance, but the labels can change how some people think about about the substance.

Still confused.

That bit of mine you quoted didn't really matter that much anyway, so it doesn't matter.

I don't think the universe would exist without God.

Evolution is an interesting idea and worth considering (Caner says as his fellow creationists gasp). I've considered it, looked at the "evidence" as best I could considering who I am (i.e. not a PhD in biology) and dismissed it. Telling you my whole journey in that regard would likely bore you.

For example: What do you think of the claim that human chromosome 2 is a combination of two ancient ape chromosomes?

I'm going to be honest; I find it hard to believe you've looked at the evidence properly. That really isn't meant to be an insult... I just thought it would be worth saying what I'm thinking.

Everything must be critically analyzed? Even the aesthetic?

I'm not saying that we can't turn our brains off sometimes and just enjoy existence, but I think it is worth thinking about most things to some extent.

Aesthetics is itself a branch of philosophy. It is worth questioning how we think about art, beauty and taste.

I think false beliefs have a horrible tendency to cause unnecessary suffering. Especially when they go unexamined by a majority.

Well, it's more a matter of experiencing that Christ is true rather than that Christianity is true. That's the first thing to understand.

How do you experience that Christ is true/ real?

I was an evangelical charismatic before, so it's likely I can understand whatever type of experience you mean.

 

[souper genyus]

Um, but if I choose not to be fulfilled, then isn't it my purpose not to be fulfilled (since you say we make our own purpose)? And if I succeed in that purpose, then haven't I fulfilled my purpose? So, I am fulfilled by not being fulfilled.

No, having no purpose is not itself a purpose. You are the one playing word games.

Why do we need a "purpose" to be "fulfilled"?

To put it more simply: you don't need purpose in life, but it is preferable. Look into the field of "positive psychology."

 

[Resha Caner]

You are the one playing word games.

Maybe my reply was a bit snarky. That's because it appears to me you are just repeating the same thing - not going any deeper even though I'm asking you to.

To put it more simply: you don't need purpose in life, but it is preferable. Look into the field of "positive psychology."

Again, why? What would evolution say is the advantage (or disadvantage) in a preference by humans to create a purpose for themselves? I'll lead the witness a bit. Some evolutionists flip that type of question. They would say that it's not that science predicts a need for purpose. Rather, it is simply that science has observed that those who think they have a purpose are more likely to survive. OK. If that's so, I would have a follow up question. What is it that people with purpose do that facilitates survival which people without purpose don't do?

 

[Resha Caner]

Well I would question the way you are thinking about the issue.

How would you correct my thinking?

So you aren't a young earth creationist, but you don't accept evolution? So where do you think living things came from? God just decided to create them one day?

Your phrasing makes God's creative act sound flippant, which it wasn't. But yes, God decided to create and so, "In the beginning ..." I expect you know that part.

For example: What do you think of the claim that human chromosome 2 is a combination of two ancient ape chromosomes?

It's a good question. Let me first answer your question with a question. Two minerals - albite (NaAlSi3O8) and anothite (CaAl2Si2O8) have very similar crystalline structures. Does one evolve from the other?

Similarity does not mean connectedness. Or, to use the better known phrase, correlation does not mean causation.

Similarity does make sense. People have speculated on life forms with a different basis than carbon (silicon is thought to be the most plausible alternative). But would it work for a carbon-based and silicon-based life to live together? Probably not. The one that eats the other would get a pretty bad stomach ache. And there would probably be other problems with it as well.

So, while it might make sense that life which has evolved together would be similar, it also makes sense that life which was created together would be similar. God would have known the need for similarity. Is there any reason for showing one of those as a better conclusion than the other? Not really. So why is one chosen over the other for "science"? Hmm. Could it be an underlying philosophy?

I'm going to be honest; I find it hard to believe you've looked at the evidence properly. That really isn't meant to be an insult...

Don't worry about insults. The thread is meant to compare our philosophical differences. So, what do you think I bring to the table that causes me to view the evidence improperly?

How do you experience that Christ is true/ real?

I was an evangelical charismatic before, so it's likely I can understand whatever type of experience you mean.

Yes, the charismatic experience of "spiritual gifts" is one way. However, as Paul warns, it is dangerous when that experience is not grounded. As such, the confessional Lutheran response is that the experience comes through "Word and Sacrament". I also know someone for whom the experience came through the study of history.

But I fear an extended discussion on any of those would just be an intellectual exercise. Maybe the best thing would be to pose the question: What do you trust?

 

[souper genyus]

Maybe my reply was a bit snarky. That's because it appears to me you are just repeating the same thing - not going any deeper even though I'm asking you to.

Again, why?

There is no "why." There is only a "how it came to be so."

What would evolution say is the advantage (or disadvantage) in a preference by humans to create a purpose for themselves?

Evolution doesn't say anything.

I'll lead the witness a bit. Some evolutionists flip that type of question. They would say that it's not that science predicts a need for purpose. Rather, it is simply that science has observed that those who think they have a purpose are more likely to survive. OK. If that's so, I would have a follow up question. What is it that people with purpose do that facilitates survival which people without purpose don't do?

I'm not quite following your question. The only people who truly believe that they have no purpose, no reason for living, attempt suicide. Valuing ones own life does not make survival more likely. It's impossible to live willingly without purpose. That's just a condition of life.

 

[quatona]

I think it would be interesting to discuss the philosophical differences between those with a creationist world view and an evolutionary world view.

I realize the topic will invite a lot of snarky and dismissive replies, but if we can get past that, it could be enjoyable.

Oh, and at this point I'm using "creationist" and "evolutionary" in a very broad sense - not the narrow sense of YEC, Darwinism, etc. So, a creationist view is simply one that believes the material universe was created by the deliberate act of an intelligent being outside the universe. An evolutionary view is one that believes the material universe resulted from innate perfunctory processes.

I don´t think that believing vs. not believing in a creator entity has - per se - any significant implications on your philosophy.
It´s the details of your god concept that may necessitate certain philosophical conclusions.

 

[Upisoft]

I'm glad you pointed this out, because there are some similarities. I would say both accept that physical laws need not be the same everywhere.

I quite disagree with that statement. I myself am content with saying that the physical laws were probably always the same, though we happen to know only very small portion of them.

In other words, current climate situation we all happen to see is not necessarily the same in the past, when most probably all Earth was molten, unlike now. Or there were no O[sub]2[/sub] in the atmosphere. Still the same physical laws were present on very different Earth.

The same can be valid for the Universe as a whole.

 

[KCfromNC]

Your phrasing makes God's creative act sound flippant, which it wasn't.

How do you know this?

It's a good question. Let me first answer your question with a question. Two minerals - albite (NaAlSi3O8) and anothite (CaAl2Si2O8) have very similar crystalline structures. Does one evolve from the other?

Not unless you're claiming that rocks reproduce.

Similarity does not mean connectedness. Or, to use the better known phrase, correlation does not mean causation.

Sure, but when we see specific patterns of connectedness, it does raise questions.

Similarity does make sense. People have speculated on life forms with a different basis than carbon (silicon is thought to be the most plausible alternative). But would it work for a carbon-based and silicon-based life to live together? Probably not. The one that eats the other would get a pretty bad stomach ache. And there would probably be other problems with it as well.

There's lots of stuff I can't eat, and yet that stuff (and me) is still alive today. So what's the problem again? Let's see some actual investigation rather than guessing.

So, while it might make sense that life which has evolved together would be similar, it also makes sense that life which was created together would be similar. God would have known the need for similarity.

You're claiming that an omnipotent god is limited to acting as if it were constrained by normal physical laws? Interesting.

Is there any reason for showing one of those as a better conclusion than the other? Not really.

You don't see a difference between "here's a known mechanism which is consistent with the evidence and with other parts of our theory and also makes successful predictions" and "maybe god did it this way, maybe that way"?

So why is one chosen over the other for "science"?

Because one is science and the other is handwaving apologetics.

Anyway, that sure is a lot of words to say that your proposed explanation for the similarity between human and other ape DNA is goddidit. That's not really an alternative scientific explanation, mainly because it isn't an explanation at all.

 

[Resha Caner]

How do you know this?

I'm not sure this is really worth debating. If you want to disagree with me and say the God of the Bible seems flippant, I'll let you have that opinion.

But, to answer your question, to be flippant is to lack seriousness (per this link: Flippant | Define Flippant at Dictionary.com). Since God loves creation (John 3:16), and based on the way 1 Corinthians 13 defines love, I would not say God's creative act lacked seriousness.

Not unless you're claiming that rocks reproduce.

I expected this might come up, and it's a valid point. I'll note a few things. First, doesn't the evolutionary stance mean it's all just chemistry anyway? Is there really any difference between living and nonliving structural changes? Yes, the processes are different and so we give them different names, but it's all just chemistry isn't it? It's not that evolution means there is something "special" about life. So, I think it's a valid comparison.

Second, there are cases where one material structure does become another even though it's not "alive". I'm thinking of the heating and cooling of iron. My only point is that there are known examples of similar structure where one doesn't necessarily become the other. It might. It might not. Similarity is not enough in and of itself to claim one came from the other.

So, has someone actually taken what is supposed to be a common ancestor to apes and humans and demonstrated an evolutionary descent where the chromosones become those of apes and humans with the noted similarity? I'm not aware of such a thing. I suspect that the conclusion is an extrapolation. Extrapolation is not data, not really even evidence (depending on what you mean by that term).

Third, as I noted, it seems UCA is falling out of favor. So, it seems we can no longer definitively claim that all life came from the same root. As such, I'll bet we could find two species which don't come from the same evolutionary chain, which yet share striking similarities in some way.

I don't know of such an example, but the point is that unless someone can prove it's impossible for two separate evolutionary chains to evolve similar chromosones, such noted similarities are just supposition.

You're claiming that an omnipotent god is limited to acting as if it were constrained by normal physical laws? Interesting.

I wouldn't quite phrase it that way. God has made promises and he keeps those promises. Some of the promises he has made are what we call scientific laws ... though of course there is no claim that science has perfectly articulated those laws.

You don't see a difference between "here's a known mechanism which is consistent with the evidence and with other parts of our theory and also makes successful predictions" and "maybe god did it this way, maybe that way"?

As I pointed out above, I don't think it has been demonstrated that the "known mechanism" links the two chromosomes. As far as I can tell it's an extrapolation.

Whenever I start asking for quantified rather than qualified definitions of these things and the boundaries within which these processes operate the conversation seems to veer off into unrelated territory.

 

[Paradoxum]

How would you correct my thinking?

Well I still don't understand your thinking so that doesn't help.

Your phrasing makes God's creative act sound flippant, which it wasn't. But yes, God decided to create and so, "In the beginning ..." I expect you know that part.

Well I am questioning your understanding, not God Himself. The better (and more Biblical) theology is that God created the Big Bang and then let creatures evolve naturally.

I'm not sure what you think happened. God you think God created the Big Bang, and then created living things in a separate act millions of years later? Or what?

It's a good question. Let me first answer your question with a question. Two minerals - albite (NaAlSi3O8) and anothite (CaAl2Si2O8) have very similar crystalline structures. Does one evolve from the other?

I assume not from how you phrase the question. Is your point just that similar things didn't necessarily evolve? If so I'd say that is obviously true, but doesn't really deal with the theory of evolution.

Similarity does not mean connectedness. Or, to use the better known phrase, correlation does not mean causation.

Similarity does make sense. People have speculated on life forms with a different basis than carbon (silicon is thought to be the most plausible alternative). But would it work for a carbon-based and silicon-based life to live together? Probably not. The one that eats the other would get a pretty bad stomach ache. And there would probably be other problems with it as well.

Yup.

So, while it might make sense that life which has evolved together would be similar, it also makes sense that life which was created together would be similar. God would have known the need for similarity. Is there any reason for showing one of those as a better conclusion than the other? Not really. So why is one chosen over the other for "science"? Hmm. Could it be an underlying philosophy?

No because the theory of evolution came out of mostly Christian nations. The theory came about because living things, from the evidence, looked evolved, not created.

Going back to my example, saying that human chromosome 2 appears to be a combination of two 'ape' chromosomes, isn't the same as saying there are similarities. It isn't saying that these two things are like each other so they must have evolved.

ie: I haven't read up on this recently, but the reason human chromosome 2 looks like it is a combination of two 'ape' chromosomes is because there are endings in the middle of the chromosome. Chromosomes have certain bits at their ends, but in chromosome 2 they are in the middle. That makes sense if it evolved from two chromosomes. It doesn't really make sense for God to do that.

I hope you don't mind if I give another example. In giraffes there is a nerve which goes from the brain to larynx (voice box). But instead of going straight there it take a 15m detour down round past the heart and back up again. That is a bad design, but it completely explained by evolution from fish (because of the organ placement of fish).

This applies to other animals too (including as humans). The giraffe is just a good example though of how silly it is.

Don't worry about insults. The thread is meant to compare our philosophical differences. So, what do you think I bring to the table that causes me to view the evidence improperly?

Well it is probably hard for me to say without knowing better how you think about the issue. But I'd think you might be biased against evolution being true.

Yes, the charismatic experience of "spiritual gifts" is one way. However, as Paul warns, it is dangerous when that experience is not grounded. As such, the confessional Lutheran response is that the experience comes through "Word and Sacrament". I also know someone for whom the experience came through the study of history.

But I fear an extended discussion on any of those would just be an intellectual exercise. Maybe the best thing would be to pose the question: What do you trust?

Well I was trying to see what you think is a justifiable reason to believe.

What do I trust? What do you mean by that? The scientific method has proven to the most effective source of truth, if you mean that.