Why is evolution unbelievable?

[frogman2x]

The evolution of milk secretion and its ancient origins. [Animal. 2012] - PubMed - NCBI

Just one of many actual scientific research papers on the origin of mammary glands.

That is the u sual evo respone. They just dogmatically stated that it happened but offered no evidence that caused it to happen.

Correct. That is why you cannot get evolution from variation (or mutations) alone. You need several mechanisms working together to produce a different species. But one must first have variation or there can be no evolution at all.

You need more than variation. You need for a characteristic that neither parent had to pop up in the kid. You can't get a characteristic witrhout the gene for it.

I think of variation as being like the fuel in a vehicle. Fill your tank with gas, and you still won't go anywhere without doing a few other things as well--such as starting the engine and releasing the brake.
But those other things won't get you anywhere either, if you don't have fuel in the tank.

So variation is where we begin the story of how creatures evolve.

Biology does not work that way.

It doesn't particularly matter what the first cell was, so long as it had the capacity to replicate its genome and to do so with high, but not perfect fidelity. What scientists are searching for is not so much the first cell, but the last common ancestor of the current generation of living creatures.

It not only matters, it is crucial to know. If you don't know, you don't know if it had he capicity to replicate its genome. Not only that, it did have the capicity to replicate its genome, but not the genome of another life form. You don't even know what the next life for was. You are walking in the dark and making all kinds of predictions, none of which can be proven.

Names are not much help at this stage, but it is called LUCA (last universal common ancestor).

You dont know that either. What did hte forst life form evolve into?

Did it have the necessary genome to produce a life form other than what it was?

If you don't know what it was, you dont know what it had or didn't have. Guessing is not real science.

Depends on how you view "life form". And at what point you start to define a variation as a different species.

It doesn't matter. You must have a mechanism that allows a charistic to appear in the offspring that neither parent had a gene for.

At some point the descendants of the LUCA divided into two groups; one became the Archaea, the other became the Bacteria. And everything else proceeds from these. Both groups have shown the capacity to develop numerous variations and to branch out into different species.

I hate to keep repeating myself, but wheres the evidence? Please don't just uotes some evo that said it happend. Because of the gene pool of the parents there will always be variation but the offspirng will ALWASY be the same exact species as it prents. You know it's that old "after its kind" thing, which canbe proven scientifically.

This is where you need more background in both genetics and evolution. Yes, all descendants of rabbits will be rabbits, according to the theory of evolution.

This is where you need more background in both genetics and evolution. Genetics teach that without the gene for a characteristic, the offsprng CANNOT acquire the characteristic. If al rabbits remain rqabbits, where is evolution?

They may come to look very different from other rabbits, but they will still have traces of being rabbits. All ancestors of rabbits, OTOH, were not rabbits.

Anothe statement for which you hve no scientific evidence, and you just said "all rabbits will be rabbits according to evolutin."

Rabbits themselves are part of a larger group and came into existence as their non-rabbit ancestors developed varying lineages that went their separate ways.

Anothe dogomatic stateme for which you offer no evidence. That is the usual evo rhetoreic.

On the genetics side, if rabbits with stronger legs survive longer, they are more likely to survive long enough to reproduce--perhaps several times. So the genetic combination which gave them stronger legs will remain in the gene pool.(Are you sure you understand what a gene pool is?)

Let me assure you Inderstand it. This is not about understanding the gene pool. It is about understanding genetics.

It might be that some of one rabbit's children will have weaker legs, but the genes will still be there in other rabbits and in the siblings of those rabbits, and if the rabbits with stronger legs keep on having more surviving and reproducing offspring than others, that variant will keep spreading through the gene pool.

Of course but they will all come out rabbits.

Parents do not have a gene pool. They have a genome. I think you had better learn the difference between gene, genome and gene pool.

I think you need to learn that the kids CANNOT have a characteristic that was not in the gene pool of the parents.

Yes, all children are the same species as their parents. It takes much more than one generation (usually) for part of a population to become a different species. Speciation is usually a slow process of separating the population into non-breeding groups.

More evo rhetoric for which you offer not biological evidence.

Yes, it can. Remember that changes in genes occur usually occur as the genome is replicating. And the only changes that count for evolution are those that occur in the germ cells.

Teh only changes in genes is through a mutation. Otherwise they remain the same. So if the genome is replicating, it is replicating withing the genome, not outside of it. Tht process is not a mechanism for one species to evolve into anothe species.

When you were conceived, you had two copies of your genome: one from your mother and one from your father. When the zygote from which you developed split into two cells, you then had four copies of your genome. And when those cells split, you then had eight. Now you have trillions of cells in your body and all of them have a copy of the genome you inherited from your father and a copy they inherited from your mother.

Of course ant that is why I came out homo-sapian and why my son is homo-sapian and why his childeren are homosapian. It provoes "after its kind."

But, wait, copies of genomes are not always perfect copies. Many of your cells will not have an exact copy of the genome you got from your father. There will be differences. Same with the copies of the copies of the copies of the genome you originally got from your mother. So if you were to compare the DNA in one of your cells with the DNA in a different cell, the chances are that they would not exhibit the same DNA sequence in several respects. <<

Right again. I am taller than my father and my son is shorter than I am. That is variation, but it does not a mechanism for evolution into anothe species.

And so it is possible that a child will have a characteristic which neither of its parents had.

You know very well that there are dormant genes that may not come out in the next generaltion, but the gene was in the parents gene pool and when it is combined with the proper gene, the characteristic will come out in the ofspring.

Again, this shows complete confusion about the process of evolutionary change. You actually don't know what the theory of evolution really says about it. Yes, you can get another species without jumping from one branch to another--in the same way that a branch puts out two or more twigs and a twig puts out two or more leaves.

Of course, agree with you or I am confused. So far all you have done make gogmatic statemend but offered not proof. Here is a good example---"you can get another species without jumping from one branch to another". Please provide the evidence. They twin puts out two leaves that are the same. Have you ever seen an oak leaf on an elm tree?

You can't get a hybrid in humans today, because there is only one species. Possibly in the future, if humans become few and widely separated from each other with no possible way to meet and interbreed, our species may divide into two or more separate species. Then there could be human hybrids.

Speculaton is not science.

It appears this was the case in the past. A sister group to H. sapiens was H. neanderthalensis. And some evidence suggests that there was some mating between the two groups.

Not true. neandedthals were h sapians. Of course the was some mating aand all f their kids wer h sapians also.

Most new species do not occur through bringing two existing species together (hybridization) but through dividing one species into two or more groups that no longer interbreed with each other (speciation). I say most, because there are some instances, especially in plants, where new species have been produced via hybridization. So both scenarios are possible. However, it appears that most new species come about through cladistic speciation (one branch dividing into two).

You keep being dogmatic but fail to offer any evidence.

To get back to our rabbits. At some point in mammalian history, the mammalian main branch produced a branch that we now call the rabbit branch. Since the first rabbit branch was produced, it has divided and sub-divided into hundreds of different families and genera and species of rabbits. But, as required by the theory of evolution, all descendants of that first group of rabbits remain rabbits. Yet there are many, many different species of rabbits. So there was no need for any rabbits to jump to a non-rabbit branch to make new species of rabbits.

What was the rabbit before it was a rabbit? Any new specis of rabbit is still a rabbit. For evoluion to be true, that rabbit must jump(pun intended) into something other than a rabbit. What did rabbits evolve into? To bad you do not have a fossil record to prove it.

Well, I assume you have been to high school and possibly college, yet there are clearly basics you do not understand.

That is very condescending. Agree with me or you do not clearly understand the basics. IMO, you do not u nderstand the basics of genetics.

Now as to professional scientists, yes, I think they understand evolution. I don't think they reject it for scientific reasons.

The ceertainly do reject it on sciedntific reasons. That is their whole purpose in the dispute. If you can't do it on science, there is no use in discussing it.

I admire Todd Wood for being up-front about this. He certainly understands evolution (has a PhD in paleontology from Harvard) and agrees that evolution, from a scientific perspective, is a well-supported theory.

I admire Kenneth B. cumming who has a B.S. from Tufts university and a PhD from harvard and satudied under a leading evolutionists, Ernst Myer, and rejects evolution on a scientific basis. He also taught at Virginia Tech and the Univ of Wis(Eau Clair)

I'll get back to you on this in another post.

Good, bring your evidence.

Hey, even the first multi-cellular life did not have bones, so, of course, the early unicellular life did not.

That is the genetic problem for evolution.

But almost all cells have the capacity to secret minerals which can harden into bone or shell. Some do and some don't. You can be glad of that. After all, when you were a zygote, you did not have any bones either. So how did you get them?

Almost only counts in horseshoes and handgrandes and if you don' know what he first life for was, you don't know if it has that abiliy.

kermit

 

[Smidlee]

I believe three things were required for me to grow bones:
1) Hardware- matter, proteins, etc
2) energy
3) software- code, information, etc.

The absence of information,code (as well as the right hardware) is the reason why pigs don't grow wings and fly.
Magic is basically the absence of the correct information. All you really need for magic is matter and/or energy. Evolution seems to have a lot in common with magic.

 

[gluadys]

That's a good way to put it. So, what is your philosophy of science? I realize that question could prompt a dissertation, but a brief summary would be preferred if that's possible.

Well, here is a summary written up in Origins: A Reformed look at Creation, Design and Evolution by Deborah & Loren Haarsma. (She is an astronomer and he is a biologist; both are Christians in the Reformed tradition.)

1. Humans are God's imagebearers in this world. Thanks to the abilities God has given us, we can understand, at least in part, how the world works.

2. There are no nature spirits, no capricious gods, no fate. There is only one God who created and rules the world in a faithful, consistent manner.

3. God has established natural laws and faithful covenants with the physical universe. So we are not surprised to discover that nature typically operates with regular, repeatable universal patterns.

4. God was free to create the world in many ways. Humans are limited and sinful. We are not able to understand God's way completely. So our scientific models based on logic and deduction must also be tested by careful experimentation and observation, comparing our models to what God has actually made.

5. Studying nature is worth doing because we are studying the handiwork of God. God has called us to study his creation and be stewards of it.


That is pretty much in agreement with my own take on science.

 

[gluadys]

That is the u sual evo respone. They just dogmatically stated that it happened but offered no evidence that caused it to happen.

Apparently, you only read titles. Even in this abstract there is a summary of what caused it to happen. Since you didn't look at it, here it is.

A variety of antimicrobial and secretory constituents were co-opted into novel roles related to nutrition of the young. Secretory calcium-binding phosphoproteins may originally have had a role in calcium delivery to eggs; however, by evolving into large, complex casein micelles, they took on an important role in transport of amino acids, calcium and phosphorus. Several proteins involved in immunity, including an ancestral butyrophilin and xanthine oxidoreductase, were incorporated into a novel membrane-bound lipid droplet (the milk fat globule) that became a primary mode of energy transfer. An ancestral c-lysozyme lost its lytic functions in favor of a role as &#945;-lactalbumin, which modifies a galactosyltransferase to recognize glucose as an acceptor, leading to the synthesis of novel milk sugars, of which free oligosaccharides may have predated free lactose. An ancestral lipocalin and an ancestral whey acidic protein four-disulphide core protein apparently lost their original transport and antimicrobial functions when they became the whey proteins &#946;-lactoglobulin and whey acidic protein, which with &#945;-lactalbumin provide limiting sulfur amino acids to the young.


For more detail, and to discover how they learned this, you would need to read the complete paper.

You need more than variation. You need for a characteristic that neither parent had to pop up in the kid.

Well, that is variation. And I already covered how it can happen that a trait not found in Mum or Dad can appear in a child. What did you not understand in that explanation?

Biology does not work that way.

It's an analogy. Don't worry about it.

It not only matters, it is crucial to know. If you don't know, you don't know if it had he capicity to replicate its genome.

If it did not have the capacity to replicate its genome, it was not the first life-form. It was something else than a living organism. All life-forms have the capacity to replicate their genome. That is a basic definition of life and if something doesn't meet that definition, it is not a life-form at all. So, the first life-form did have a capacity to replicate its genome, because it was a life-form.

Not only that, it did have the capicity to replicate its genome, but not the genome of another life form.

Right, and it also had the capacity to vary its genome as it replicated. So, it could become the ancestor of different life-forms.

You dont know that either. What did hte forst life form evolve into?

I told you: Archaea and Bacteria.

It doesn't matter. You must have a mechanism that allows a charistic to appear in the offspring that neither parent had a gene for.

Correct. And several such mechanisms have been observed and studied.

Because of the gene pool of the parents there will always be variation but the offspirng will ALWASY be the same exact species as it prents.

You are showing again that you do not know the meaning of "gene pool".

Yes, offspring are always the same species as their parents. That is good evolutionary thinking.

This is where you need more background in both genetics and evolution. Genetics teach that without the gene for a characteristic, the offsprng CANNOT acquire the characteristic. If al rabbits remain rqabbits, where is evolution?

Evolution is in 1) the origin of rabbits from non-rabbits, and 2) the proliferation of different species of rabbits.

Anothe statement for which you hve no scientific evidence, and you just said "all rabbits will be rabbits according to evolutin."

No, I said all descendants of rabbits will be rabbits. But the ancestors of rabbits were not rabbits.

Let me assure you Inderstand it. This is not about understanding the gene pool.

Then why do you keep using the term improperly? Understanding the gene pool is necessary to understanding evolution.

I think you need to learn that the kids CANNOT have a characteristic that was not in the gene pool of the parents.

There you go again. "Gene pool of the parents" makes no sense. Kids can have a gene that neither parent had. That is an observed fact. No amount of ranting and raving with make it not a fact.

Teh only changes in genes is through a mutation. Otherwise they remain the same. So if the genome is replicating, it is replicating withing the genome, not outside of it. Tht process is not a mechanism for one species to evolve into anothe species.

It is a mechanism which in concert with other mechanisms can produce new species. The various mechanisms have to work together. Mutations alone produce variation, but not evolution.



Of course ant that is why I came out homo-sapian and why my son is homo-sapian and why his childeren are homosapian. It provoes "after its kind."

But, wait, copies of genomes are not always perfect copies. Many of your cells will not have an exact copy of the genome you got from your father. There will be differences. Same with the copies of the copies of the copies of the genome you originally got from your mother. So if you were to compare the DNA in one of your cells with the DNA in a different cell, the chances are that they would not exhibit the same DNA sequence in several respects.

Right again. I am taller than my father and my son is shorter than I am.

You missed the point entirely. I am not talking about you being different from your father or son. I am talking about the genome in one cell of your body being different from the genome in another cell of your body, even though both of them trace their ancestry back to the genome you received from your father originally. That original genome you received from your father has given rise to a variety of genomes in your different cells. Ditto with the genome you originally received from your mother.

You know very well that there are dormant genes that may not come out in the next generaltion, but the gene was in the parents gene pool and when it is combined with the proper gene, the characteristic will come out in the ofspring.

Again, that is a completely different topic. What I am getting at is that your own genome varies in different cells of your own body. That variation is not inherited from your parents. It comes about in you as your own cells reproduce.

Here is a good example---"you can get another species without jumping from one branch to another". Please provide the evidence. They twin puts out two leaves that are the same. Have you ever seen an oak leaf on an elm tree?

No, I haven't and I would not expect too. But in the phylogenetic tree, the twig that represents an oak tree can produce two leaves that are two different species of oak tree. Just as with rabbits, all descendants of the first oak tree will be other oak trees. Did you know that there are 600 different species of oak trees?

Ancestry is a different matter. While all descendants will be more species of oak trees, ancestors of the earliest oak trees were not oaks. And it is possible the non-oak ancestor of oak trees and the non-elm ancestor of elm trees were one and the same species.

Not true. neandedthals were h sapians.

Not true. That was a hypothesis at one time, but DNA analysis showed they were not the same species, although they were closely related.

What was the rabbit before it was a rabbit?

Current evidence points to an animal called Gomphus, or one of several very similar mammals from about 55 million years ago. Gomphos - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Any new specis of rabbit is still a rabbit.

Right.

For evoluion to be true, that rabbit must jump(pun intended) into something other than a rabbit.

Wrong. In fact, for evolution to be true, that is one thing that must not happen.

That is very condescending. Agree with me or you do not clearly understand the basics.

Sorry if it sounds that way, but when you make a glaring error like the one just above, you clearly do not understand the basics of evolution. You think evolution means the opposite of what it really means.

IMO, you do not u nderstand the basics of genetics.

When you can use 'gene pool' correctly I will begin to believe you understand genetics.

The ceertainly do reject it on sciedntific reasons. That is their whole purpose in the dispute. If you can't do it on science, there is no use in discussing it.

I am glad you recognize that religious belief is not a valid reason for rejecting evolution. Since evolution is a scientific theory, it can only be undone by science.

But I have not found anyone rejecting evolution who can do so on a scientific basis.

I admire Kenneth B. cumming who has a B.S. from Tufts university and a PhD from harvard and satudied under a leading evolutionists, Ernst Myer, and rejects evolution on a scientific basis. He also taught at Virginia Tech and the Univ of Wis(Eau Clair)

And what are the scientific grounds he cites as sufficient to reject evolution?

 

[Resha Caner]

Your list is pretty good, but I do have a few comments.

2. There are no nature spirits, no capricious gods, no fate. There is only one God who created and rules the world in a faithful, consistent manner.

While I can agree with this as it is written, I'm not sure I like the implications one might draw from it. There may be no "nature spirits", but there are spirits other than God. And while those spirits are not divine, it may be that people view them as gods or that they themselves pose as gods. As such, something of a capricious nature could occur.

3. God has established natural laws and faithful covenants with the physical universe. So we are not surprised to discover that nature typically operates with regular, repeatable universal patterns.

True, but not everything we discover appears to have a pattern. Some things appear random. Unless we someday find the underlying mechanism, we can only speculate as to why something appears random.

My own speculations are as follows. There is no law that is above God - that exists apart from God. All that exists is either a manifestation of God or something He created. At the same time, He has also given us a will (which can be either bound or free depending on one's spiritual state). That we have a will means He has not determined all things.

Therefore, randomness is possible, but it is not of God's doing. Rather, it is a result of what he has released from His control. As such, it is not something He would use.

The conclusion, then, is that if God's creative process appears random to us, it is because it is a complexity that is currently beyond our understanding. If something truly is random, it is not part of God's creative process. As long as it continues to appear random to us, we have no scientific means for distinguishing it. But we do have a moral gage. God is good. If what appears to be random has potentially deletorious effects, then it is not of God and not part of his creative process.

4. God was free to create the world in many ways. Humans are limited and sinful. We are not able to understand God's way completely. So our scientific models based on logic and deduction must also be tested by careful experimentation and observation, comparing our models to what God has actually made.

This is basically a follow-on to what I said about item #3. What are our limitations? If we don't acknowledge them, they'll do nothing but deceive us.

Physics can articulate many things that the other sciences struggle with. One thing I did was an attempt to search out the fundamental principles of biology (whether one calls them assumptions, laws, or whatever). I came up empty-handed. Most of the information I found took a reductionist approach, i.e. that the fundamental laws of biology are the same as the fundamental laws of chemistry/physics. The problem is that people like Huxley and Mayr argued strongly against a reductionist approach. They argued for an emergent approach ... and the debate continues.

So that brings me to a paper by Orzack entitled, "The philosophy of modelling or does the philosophy of biology have any use?" I think it would be worth your time to read it ... unless I do an adequate job of summarizing. I didn't find this paper until recently, but it says almost exactly what I've been trying to say for some time.

He first addresses the disparaging attitude that many scientists take toward philosophy, and acknowledges some of the problems - those mainly being that too often the impact of philosophy is normative (e.g. a moral statement against stem cell research) and too rarely does it impact methodological issues. That leads into a long discussion on biological models that pertains to some of my allusions here.

His focus is on "The strategy of model building in population biology" by Richard Levins, which he notes has propogated at least an additional 490 papers (hopefully that makes it significant). He further extracts 2 claims from Levins. The first claim relates to what is possible when modeling biology and creates specific types of models. The second claim is that "independent" models create a "robust" prediction. IOW, that if different types of evidence produce the same conclusion, that conclusion is stronger.

Orzack rejects both claims, noting that the philosophical debate over modeling has 3 implications for actual modeling practice: 1) The comparisons being made are largely qualitative opinions with no explicit basis, 2) The debate is raising questions that biologists need to ask about their models, 3) Going forward biologists need to change their practices.

From this he raises 3 challenges for biologists, noting toward the end of that section, "A common reaction to a call like this for quantitative testing of biological models is that it is asking too much of such models. ... The capriciousness of the attitude ... is underscored by the longstanding practice of expecting accuracy for some biological models ... The main point here is not that models in biology must yield accurate predictions in order to avoid being deemed as failures; instead, the main point is that models be tested quantitatively (and qualitatively) in such a way that conclusions about model performance be more science than art."

 

[Papias]

Resha wrote:

I don't understand what you hope to accomplish by discussing the LCMS. Are you claiming you know my synod better than I know it myself? My experiences extend beyond my local congregation, while your citations indicate that you are ascribing an authority and reach that is not the case.

Hi Resha -

Sorry if things have lost some niceness. I hope to help a little there.

I mentioned the creationist position of the LCMS in response to your statements that the LCMS wasn't a creationist (read: UCA denying) church. Overall statements of the church can give a broader view that anecdotal experiences of a single person, which of course could only cover a tiny fraction of the LCMS congregations.

Originally Posted by Papias

That's obviously a false accusation - just look back to post #125. I pointed out that you don't understand science because you were trying to say that because an idea is examined by experiment, that it must be in question. That's simply not the case in science, where well-established ideas are examined by experiment all the time. I pointed out that out not because you "disagreed with me", but because you were making an incorrect statement.

You've shifted the goalposts by changinmg the word from "question" to "examine". Is there a difference in a test that "examines" an idea vs. one that "questions" it? What is a falsification test?

​

I used words to try to be more clear about what was going on. As pointed out before, it is a normal part of science to perform verification experiments on conclusions that are well established. That's why your point that the fact that experiments are done to test new methods of UCA experimentation shows doubt in UCA was simply false.

It doesn't matter if you use the word "test", "examine", or "question", as long as you aren't using the word (especially possible with "question") to suggest that the idea is being doubted or suspected as not true. I'm sure you can see how "questioned" suggests that falsehood. After all, you wouldn't want to be doing something that makes it look like a creationist is using words to imply a falsehood, right?

Originally Posted by Papias

No, you are misapplying a statistical concept to an unrelated area.

Are you going to claim that the concepts of "cause" and "correlation" are never used in science except when statistics are being applied?

No, i'm stating that your complaint that the confirmation of a conclusion by many different lines of evidence is violating the statistical idea that "correlation doesn't prove causation" is a misapplication of the phrase.

You can see this from my court evidence example, where different lines of evidence confirm the conclusion. Do we agree that at least for the court case example, that it is correct that the different lines of evidence make the conclusion is more robust?

Originally Posted by Papias

That's the case with UCA - many different lines of evidence (many more than 5) give the same conclusion.
​

List them for me please.

I gave them previously, but can do so again:

• Universal Genetic code
• nested hierarchies
• independant confirmation of the same family tree of life by fossils
• independant confirmation of the same family tree of life by enzymes
• independant confirmation of the same family tree of life by pseudogenes
• independant confirmation of the outer branches of the same family tree of life by ERVs
• independant confirmation of the outer branches of the same family tree of life by atavisms
• independant confirmation of the outer branches of the same family tree of life by anatomy
• independant confirmation of the outer branches of the same family tree of life by ontology
• independant confirmation of the outer branches of the same family tree of life by ERVs
• independant confirmation of the same family tree of life by transposons

Etc.

First, you're shifting the goalposts again. Your statement said "creationist lies"; not all creationists are YEC.

Good point. When I said that, I specifically meant YECs. I agree that it is useful to distinguish between YEC, OEC, TE (or Evolutionary Creationist), and general UCA deniers. No term is short, clear, and well known, so I agree to try to be clear, and ask when I'm not sure what you mean.

So please explain to me what distinguishes these 3 things: lying, ignorance, and incredulity.

Ones own knowledge, which can't be known for certain. However, we can get a good idea of it based on what the person has been shown, if they retract the falsehood when it is pointed out, and so on. Another important factor is certainty of the statement - a false statement stated as if it were well established suggest a lie, since the person is not as likely to strongly state anything if they are ignorant (and reasonable).

These were discussed since you posted, but we can discuss them more if you like. Would you like to?

Third, whether or not my arguments are similar to other creationists is mere coincidence.

This is what is hard to swallow. When some of the top YEC tropes are repeated, often using the same catchwords they use, I hope you can see why I suspected what I did.

Either state openly that you think I'm lying - that I've pulled these ideas from creationist writing - or drop it ... .......
That you can't see the dfference between what I'm arguing and what you think to be "creationist lies" is most definitely frustrating.

Fair enough. I'll drop the approach that you are (knowingly) repeating these, and any implication that you are lying. Sorry for doing so. I hope we can have an open and clear discussion.

Originally Posted by Papias

When you refuse to answer direct questions ....

I have not refused. Have you accepted my terms?

Well, you haven't answered them. Which terms do you mean? Could you repeat them, or give the post # you stated them in?


Blessings-

Papias


Just for reference (in a long thread), here are the questions I had asked:

• If you think there is any serious discussion questioning UCD, please present it, or stop suggesting it exists.
• Maybe I can help. Maybe point out to me where the claim (that correlation means causation) is made at all (on the 29+ website)?
• Why don't you buy the nested hierarchy as evidence?
• Why don't you buy the vestigial features - the many, many structures that always, always match the descent lines shown by genetics, by comparative anatomy, by the fossil record, and by biochemistry as evidence? - How else, other than UCD, would all those "just happen" to line up?
• The "tree of life" has been discarded.
• "consensus conclusions" have been abandonded in the past

Do you agree now that practically no biologists suspect that UCA is false?

I'm perfectly willing to agree that scientists have "made mistakes" in the past - are you perfectly willing to agree that these "mistakes" have been over conclusions that were not at all on the level of well proven facts like UCA?


Do you or do you not agree that any of the "web of life" stuff only relates to the unicellular area of the tree, and has exactly zero effect on the idea that all the animals we see, including us, evolved from a single "trunk", a single -celled organism?


Do you seriously think that all the evidence at 29+ is "extrapolation"?

 

[gluadys]

Your list is pretty good, but I do have a few comments.



While I can agree with this as it is written, I'm not sure I like the implications one might draw from it. There may be no "nature spirits", but there are spirits other than God. And while those spirits are not divine, it may be that people view them as gods or that they themselves pose as gods. As such, something of a capricious nature could occur.

Right, the intent was to distinguish God from the gods of polytheism which are for the most part personifications of functions of nature (Poseidon=ocean, Apollos=sun, etc.). It was not intended to rule out the existence of non-divine spiritual beings such as angels or demons. Nor are these normally presented as nature spirits in the way Naiads or Dryads are.

True, but not everything we discover appears to have a pattern. Some things appear random. Unless we someday find the underlying mechanism, we can only speculate as to why something appears random.

With random, one needs to consider dual vision. Much of science is about discovering regularities (and the causes of such regularities), for the purpose of prediction. One of the oldest sciences is astronomy which was originally developed for the purpose of making astrological predictions. Of course, the astrological side of ancient astronomy has been eliminated from the modern science, but we still use the understanding of various astronomical regularities to make testable predictions.

One I recall was to test the hypothesis that the young earth rotated faster on its axis than it does today. In such a case, the day would have fewer hours. And biological circadian rhythms would be adjusted to that shorter day. It would also follow that there would be a few more days per year. Now, it happens that certain shellfish preserve a record of circadian rhythms in their shells. And these are abundant in fossil as well as living forms for many hundreds of millions of years. So, if it is true that long ago the earth's axial rotation was more rapid than today, one should be able to see that difference in comparing the circadian and annual signifiers in these shellfish fossils with present-day fossils. The experiment was tried, and it was observed that shellfish of 350mya had preserved a circadian rhythm consistent with a 22 hour day.

The power of science is in being able to make such predictions. And such predictions depend on regular patterns being present in nature. So, the scientific understanding of "random" is "not predictable". At least not humanly predictable.

It doesn't necessarily mean not predictable in principle. If we had and understood all the variables and a rate of computing power fast enough to make it worthwhile, one could accurately predict a coin toss or which ball in a lottery machine would be spit out of the mechanism to determine which ticket is the winner. Such things are not inherently random, but they are random to human perception.

They can, however, be known to God, both because God knows all the impacting causal variables, and because God foreknows the outcome anyway. Hence the need to keep in mind the duality of human ignorance and God's omniscience, for what is random to the former is not to the latter.

Most randomness in biological evolution is of this type.

A different level of randomness occurs at molecular scales where quantum randomness is in play. I am not sure to what extent this has impact on changes in DNA sequencing. Most examples I have seen of how mutations occur are well above the quantum level.

My own speculations are as follows. There is no law that is above God - that exists apart from God. All that exists is either a manifestation of God or something He created. At the same time, He has also given us a will (which can be either bound or free depending on one's spiritual state). That we have a will means He has not determined all things.

Therefore, randomness is possible, but it is not of God's doing. Rather, it is a result of what he has released from His control. As such, it is not something He would use.

I would agree up to the final paragraph. It is at least something God permits and therefore part of a system God wills and has declared good. On learning of the conclusions of quantum physics, Einstein famously said "God doesn't play dice." But it appears that Einstein was wrong.

The conclusion, then, is that if God's creative process appears random to us, it is because it is a complexity that is currently beyond our understanding.

For the most part, that would be right, and that would apply to virtually everything in biological evolution that is labelled "random".

If something truly is random, it is not part of God's creative process. As long as it continues to appear random to us, we have no scientific means for distinguishing it. But we do have a moral gage. God is good. If what appears to be random has potentially deletorious effects, then it is not of God and not part of his creative process.

Even this can be a bit misleading. For example, we have a long-standing tradition of considering chaos to be evil or deleterious. But the new studies in chaos theory are providing a new understanding of the role of chaos in creativity, especially in moving to a higher order of complexity and stability. It seems an old order has to be broken down (become chaotic) in order for a more encompassing order to emerge. So, perhaps some of what is apparently evil to us is really God acting to bring about a greater good.

That should not be difficult for a Christian to embrace. God willed Jesus' crucifixion, did he not?

This is basically a follow-on to what I said about item #3. What are our limitations? If we don't acknowledge them, they'll do nothing but deceive us.

Two limitations are obvious. Our perceptions depend on the sensory equipment we have and that is the sensory equipment of primates. We can extend those somewhat with technology, but we tend to extend best what we already rely on most (sight). So we have a different understanding of reality than species who rely primarily on smell or touch and could miss much because we undervalue those senses.

The second is our current knowledge base--which is always incomplete. Yet we have a perverse tendency to treat it as if we knew it all. I am currently reading The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan. He has an interesting section on artificial fertilizer. It was synthesized and thought to be an astounding breakthrough when it was discovered that plants rely primarily on three nutrients (N,P, K) . Trouble is, that although those three nutrients really boost plant growth, plants also need many other micronutrients, and they need the interaction not only of many nutrients, but of a soil ecology rich in fungi and microbes to produce some of the micronutrients we need. It has recently been found that plants grown with mostly artificial fertilizer to provide their nutrition are deficient in polythenols, which are also important to human health. An example of thinking that what we know today is all there is to know.

No doubt there are other limitations. One we have to be wary of is human attitudes toward other humans deemed "inferior". That is an extension of racism and sexism which tends to overlook or even despise the wealth of knowledge in traditional lore of indigenous peoples and women. Or even the USDA discounting the local knowledge of farmers in favour of one-size-fits-all regulation. There are plenty of examples of that outside agriculture as well.

Physics can articulate many things that the other sciences struggle with. One thing I did was an attempt to search out the fundamental principles of biology (whether one calls them assumptions, laws, or whatever). I came up empty-handed. Most of the information I found took a reductionist approach, i.e. that the fundamental laws of biology are the same as the fundamental laws of chemistry/physics. The problem is that people like Huxley and Mayr argued strongly against a reductionist approach. They argued for an emergent approach ... and the debate continues.

Yes, that is an ongoing and lively debate. For my part, I think a Christian view will necessarily uphold the emergent view. John Polkinghorne, a British theoretical physicist turned theologian, says much the same.

So that brings me to a paper by Orzack entitled, "The philosophy of modelling or does the philosophy of biology have any use?" I think it would be worth your time to read it ... unless I do an adequate job of summarizing. I didn't find this paper until recently, but it says almost exactly what I've been trying to say for some time.

He first addresses the disparaging attitude that many scientists take toward philosophy, and acknowledges some of the problems - those mainly being that too often the impact of philosophy is normative (e.g. a moral statement against stem cell research) and too rarely does it impact methodological issues. That leads into a long discussion on biological models that pertains to some of my allusions here.

His focus is on "The strategy of model building in population biology" by Richard Levins, which he notes has propogated at least an additional 490 papers (hopefully that makes it significant). He further extracts 2 claims from Levins. The first claim relates to what is possible when modeling biology and creates specific types of models. The second claim is that "independent" models create a "robust" prediction. IOW, that if different types of evidence produce the same conclusion, that conclusion is stronger.

Orzack rejects both claims, noting that the philosophical debate over modeling has 3 implications for actual modeling practice: 1) The comparisons being made are largely qualitative opinions with no explicit basis, 2) The debate is raising questions that biologists need to ask about their models, 3) Going forward biologists need to change their practices.

From this he raises 3 challenges for biologists, noting toward the end of that section, "A common reaction to a call like this for quantitative testing of biological models is that it is asking too much of such models. ... The capriciousness of the attitude ... is underscored by the longstanding practice of expecting accuracy for some biological models ... The main point here is not that models in biology must yield accurate predictions in order to avoid being deemed as failures; instead, the main point is that models be tested quantitatively (and qualitatively) in such a way that conclusions about model performance be more science than art."

Sounds like a most interesting paper, though I don't know if I will take time to read it. Many scientists do seem to have an antipathy to philosophy. I suppose many just don't have time for it. But I think it a shame. As you intimated when you asked of my reaction to people who claim to have no philosophy, what this really comes down to is acting on a philosophy they have not examined. Stephen J. Gould wrote many essays on how a person's philosophy directed their research and conclusions. And post-modernists have had a salutary influence in showing how modern science has been pre-disposed toward the view of the upper-to-middle class European/American white male to the detriment of the insights of women, non-whites and people of other cultures. There has been a lot of abuse of indigenous peoples in the pursuit of science. (In my own country it has just come to light that indigenous children in the residential schools were unwitting subjects of experiments in nutrition, which included depriving them of sufficient food and/or essential nutrients during much of the early half of this century.)

So, I agree with him that such antipathy is unwarranted and even dangerous. A scientist may not have much time to devote to the actual pursuit of philosophy, but the philosophical assumptions do need to be examined.

I also agree that models need to be questioned, and even the use of modelling as a way of testing needs to be questioned. Not jettisoned, and I don't see him suggesting that. Modelling has been a very effective way of extending and refining our knowledge. But models are only as good as the assumptions built into them. They enshrine the limitation mentioned above of taking what we know for all there is to know. I like his last phrase "to test models...in such a way that conclusions about model performance be more science than art."

I am not clear as to why he contends that two or more independent routes to the same conclusion do not fortify confidence in the conclusion. Maybe he just means that if all the routes come through models, we need to see whether concurrence comes from the modelling process rather than from independent types of data.

 

[Resha Caner]

Which terms do you mean?

To formalize the discussion. Maybe you don't intend it, but I get the impression you jump straight to refuting me before you even understand what I'm saying. As such, I'm trying to explicitly bring out several things. You didn't want to limit the discussion to 2 rounds per question. I asked you for an alternate proposal, but never saw one. If you don't want to restrict the number of posts I could rewrite my proposal as 4 steps:

A question is posed.
1. Person A gives an answer / takes a position.
2. Person B demonstrates understanding / requests clarification, and challenges the position.
3. Person A provides requested clarifications and answers the challenge.
4. Person B summarizes what they heard, which position they think carries the greater weight, and why.

I guess the steps could last as long as necessary. However, as an example, we wouldn't proceed to Step 3 unless agreed to do so. IOW, Step 2 would end with a concise challenge to Step 1. Currently it seems we get into this tit for tat where every sentence is challenged with a separate sub-thread, and the conversation explodes into an unmanageable web of unrelated conversations. I want to avoid that.

I mentioned the creationist position of the LCMS in response to your statements that the LCMS wasn't a creationist (read: UCA denying) church.

I'm confused how you ever got that from what I said. I didn't mean to convey anything like that. Let me give an example, but before I do, let me suggest this be some practice for the remainder of the discussion (as outlined above). I'm pretty sure I understand your position, so what follows is merely an attempt to explain, not to debate you. I don't need you to reply much beyond, "OK, thanks for the explanation." If you feel a need to reply beyond that, please at least take a brief moment to confirm that you've heard what I'm saying.

Gen 1:25 says, "And God made the beasts of the earth." The LCMS claims this statement is true, but takes no official position on how science might say this occurred (i.e. makes no positive scientific statement). Maybe God collected the material for these beasts with a bulldozer, maybe with a line of angels carrying buckets (I'm intentionally being a bit tongue-in-cheek here). Since the text doesn't say which is true, the LCMS takes no position in favor of "bulldozians" or "bucketers". However, if the bucketers were to say the angels made the beasts and not God, then the LCMS would object that such is a denial of what Scripture says.

The position, then, is that some aspects of evolution contradict Gen 1:25. As such, the LCMS rejects those aspects. We reject anything that contradicts Scripture, but that doesn't mean we put some positive scientific statement in its place. I understand you think there is no contradiction between Gen 1:25 and evolution. Unfortunately I don't know a nicer way to say it other than that the LCMS considers such a position to be an equivocation on the word "made".

It may well be that former President Barry (whom you quoted from the LCMS site) supports YEC. I suspect my own pastor supports YEC. But those are personal opinions, not official church doctrines.

It doesn't matter if you use the word "test", "examine", or "question", as long as you aren't using the word (especially possible with "question") to suggest that the idea is being doubted or suspected as not true. I'm sure you can see how "questioned" suggests that falsehood.

Yes, I do see how the word "question" suggests doubt. And I do doubt UCA, so I can also see why you might conclude that I am putting that doubt in the mouths of biologists when it's not there. But I still think word choice is important here.

I don't see an answer to my question, so I'll give you the scenario as I see it. Popper's challenge with the falsification test is that science doesn't ever prove anything. It never permanently settles an issue. In all cases we proceed with the best known theory until the evidence suggests it needs to be discarded or improved. However, for that theory to be scientific - for it to be more than conjecture - it must be falsifiable. In other words, the theory must make a prediction that via testing can be demonstrated as false.

Every test strives to answer a question (and in that way examines the theories involved), but not every test questions a theory. The question might be, "Did this trait arise via parallel or convergent evolution?" Here the test attempts to determine which model (parallel or convergent) is more likely, but it never questions that parallel or convergent evolution occurs, nor does it challenge the larger question of whether evolution occurs at all. It accepts those as given.

My impression is that Theobald believes UCA, but that he has, in essence, accepted Popper's challenge. He is saying that for the sake of the argument, he will take the validity of UCA as unknown and devise a test that could result in an answer of true OR false. The question, then, becomes "Is UCA true?" Theobald concluded the answer was "UCA is true." His colleagues say the test was insufficient for deciding the point.

This is where my conclusion comes in. The consensus is that Theobald did not decide the point, and a few people offered suggestions of what could be done better, but no one has followed up with another falsification test. As such, the question remains open.

You seem to imply that falsification tests akin to what I just outlined are occurring all the time. If so, then I am unaware of them. Could you give me some examples?

Do we agree that at least for the court case example, that it is correct that the different lines of evidence make the conclusion is more robust?

No, I think your example is one of making an appeal to intuition, something science does not do. Several things in science that I accept go against my intuition. Suppose we have evidence sets A and B which are different "types" (i.e. can't be combined into a single set). The confidence level on set A is 60% (not very good). The confidence level on set B is 90%. Does set B change the confidence level of set A? No, it's still 60%. Does set A raise the confidence in set B? No. If anything set A is dragging set B down. And I bet what will happen is that set A will be discarded and a search begun for a set C with a higher confidence level. Suppose set C is found with a 90% confidence. Is it now legitimate to say that because we have both sets B & C that our confidence is increased because they both have a high confidence? No. That would be cherry picking.

What I hear you saying is that some combination of sets A and B gives a confidence level that is higher than both A and B separately. Unless you can formally demonstrate that to me, it bears no weight.

Don't, however, take me to mean that "correlation is not causation" implies "correlation proves non-causation". That would be silly.

• If you think there is any serious discussion questioning UCD, please present it, or stop suggesting it exists.
• Maybe I can help. Maybe point out to me where the claim (that correlation means causation) is made at all (on the 29+ website)?
• Why don't you buy the nested hierarchy as evidence?
• Why don't you buy the vestigial features - the many, many structures that always, always match the descent lines shown by genetics, by comparative anatomy, by the fossil record, and by biochemistry as evidence? - How else, other than UCD, would all those "just happen" to line up?
• The "tree of life" has been discarded.
• "consensus conclusions" have been abandonded in the past

Do you agree now that practically no biologists suspect that UCA is false?

I'm perfectly willing to agree that scientists have "made mistakes" in the past - are you perfectly willing to agree that these "mistakes" have been over conclusions that were not at all on the level of well proven facts like UCA?

Do you or do you not agree that any of the "web of life" stuff only relates to the unicellular area of the tree, and has exactly zero effect on the idea that all the animals we see, including us, evolved from a single "trunk", a single -celled organism?

Do you seriously think that all the evidence at 29+ is "extrapolation"?

Let me try to quickly knock off a few of these questions. You may not like my answer to some, but I don't see the point of dragging out a debate on a few of these.

"Do you agree now that practically no biologists suspect that UCA is false?" Yes, and I think I've said this several times now.

"... are you perfectly willing to agree that these "mistakes" have been over conclusions that were not at all on the level of well proven facts like UCA?" No. Past science has been mistaken about some very big issues. That's what caused Kuhn's "revolutions".

"Do you or do you not agree that any of the "web of life" stuff only relates to the unicellular area of the tree, and has exactly zero effect on the idea that all the animals we see, including us, evolved from a single "trunk", a single -celled organism?" No. The tree seems to be discarded in more and more areas as time goes on. Doolittle did conceded that large parts of the tree remain intact (despite his provocative title about uprooting the tree of life). However, I don't think it remains as intact as you indicate. Just yesterday I came across a paper that proposed replacing the tree with a web for what I believe were certain types of flowering plants. Unfortunately I left the paper at work. I can send you the reference on Monday if you're curious.

"Do you seriously think that all the evidence at 29+ is 'extrapolation'?" Yes, insofar as it is meant to support larger claims like UCA. But extrapolation does not mean something is false. Stebbins concluded that extrapolation is acceptable ("Deductions About Transspecific Evolution Through Extrapolation from Processes at the Population and Species Level"). I think this paper supports my claim that biologists are extrapolating. Where Stebbins and I would differ is on the validity of that extrapolation.

As we proceed with the next question, I can lay out some of my reasons for questioning the extent of the extrapolation, but I'm hoping we can put aside most of the above questions that I've answered. In fact, I think my answers to the remaining questions will all be very similar. But, to begin, let's take vestigial features.

To begin that discussion, I must first ask you a question. I assume you accept the possibilities of parallel and convergent evolution? The typical example is written as:

Parallel:
A -> S
A -> S

Convergent:
A -> S
T -> S

All I really need at this point is a "yes" or "no". We're not out of Step 1 for this question yet. As such, answering yes does not in any way bind you into accepting my conclusion.

 

[SayaOtonashi]

Genesis was not literal because the word days doesn't mean literal days with outa another word.

he text clearly states that the earth "sprouted" the plants (the Hebrew word deshe,5 Strong's #H1877, usually refers to grasses). The Hebrew word dasha,6 (Strong's #H1876) indicates that the plants grew from either seeds or small seedlings in order to have "sprouted." In addition, these plants produced seeds. The Hebrew word here is zera (Strong's #H2233), which is most often translated "descendants." This makes matters very difficult for the 24-hour interpretation. Not only do the plants sprout and grow to maturity, but produce seed or descendants. There are no plants capable of doing this within a 24-hour period of time. Things actually get worse for this interpretation. Genesis 1:12 clearly states that God allowed the earth to bring forth trees that bore fruit. The process by which the earth brings forth trees to the point of bearing fruit takes several years, at minimum. God did not create the trees already bearing fruit. The text states clearly that He allowed the earth to accomplish the process of fruit bearing through natural means. Because the process of the third day requires a minimum period of time of more than 24 hours, the Genesis text for the third day clearly falsifies the interpretation that the days of Genesis one are 24-hour periods of time.

 

[Resha Caner]

Most randomness in biological evolution is of this type.

That is not my understanding of what is meant. Do you have a citation that articulates the meaning of randomness (or, better yet, non-determination) in evolution? One can't simply use the same words to claim agreement. One must share the same meaning for those words.

I would agree up to the final paragraph. It is at least something God permits and therefore part of a system God wills and has declared good.

We're in danger of conflating meanings here. To which "random" does your statement apply? That which humans cannot predict or that which even God doesn't know? If God doesn't know it, He can't will it. If He knows & wills it, it's no longer random according to how I had used the word.

That should not be difficult for a Christian to embrace. God willed Jesus' crucifixion, did he not?

This also risks conflation ... of good and evil. While it is true that we cannot see the end of all things, and may mislabel something as evil simply because we don't like it, that doesn't mean no evil exists. Just because God uses something to accomplish His will doesn't mean He considers it good. Rather, what Scripture says is that God can turn those things intended for evil into good.

Yes, that is an ongoing and lively debate. For my part, I think a Christian view will necessarily uphold the emergent view. John Polkinghorne, a British theoretical physicist turned theologian, says much the same.

That Christians would support an emergent view does nothing to decide the scientific question.

I am not clear as to why he contends that two or more independent routes to the same conclusion do not fortify confidence in the conclusion.

I believe his comments centered around a few things: 1) That the models typically share too many similar assumptions and therefore aren't actually independent, 2) that the statements are always qualitative - further that those statements are typically brief and phrased as if the idea is self-evident, 3) that no formal definition has ever been given to the idea.

You can see my reply to Papias about the union of confidence levels for 2 data sets A and B to assess my objection to the whole thing.

But I'll take this a slightly different direction. You mention that a model should not pretend to be the sum of all things - and I agree. So, 2 questions. First, what in biology is not a model? Second, is there a biology model where the result could be anything other than evolution?

 

[Resha Caner]

Just yesterday I came across a paper that proposed replacing the tree with a web for what I believe were certain types of flowering plants. Unfortunately I left the paper at work. I can send you the reference on Monday if you're curious.

A clarification. My memory was somewhat incorrect about the paper mentioned above. It isn't proposing what I had suggested, though it does say the current tree is suspect. That paper was:

"Principles and Concepts in the Classification of Higher Taxa" by Heywood.

 

[gluadys]

That is not my understanding of what is meant. Do you have a citation that articulates the meaning of randomness (or, better yet, non-determination) in evolution? One can't simply use the same words to claim agreement. One must share the same meaning for those words.

Several, if you will take citations from the popular writing of scientists for non-scientists. (not being a scientist myself, I have both limited access to, and tolerance for primary scientific literature.)

Here are some samples:

"Some people use the word 'chance' as an alternative explanation to God. ...This is not the scientific meaning of the word 'chance'. ... When scientists use the concept of chance scientifically, they mean simply this: they could not completely predict the final state of a system based on their knowledge of earlier states. In a scientific theory, the word 'chance' is not a statement about causation (or lack of causation); rather it is a statement about predictability." Loren Haarsma in an Essay entitled "Does Science Exclude God?"

Haarsma does note that even scientists sometimes use "chance" to mean :no purpose, no significance of any kind, nothing guiding it, nothing that cares about the final result" and cites George G. Simpson and Douglas Futuyma as examples of this. His response is "when scientists use the concept of chance in this way, they are adding philosophical overtones that go way beyond the scientific meaning."

Keith Miller, (a geologist and no relation to biologist Ken Miller) presents this definition: "Scientifically, chance events are simply those whose occurrence cannot be predicted based on initial conditions and known natural laws. Such events are describable by probablistic equations." He cites lotteries and the weather as commonly understood examples.

Both citations above are from "Perspectives on an Evolving Creation" pp. 75 & 8 respectively.

Speaking of Ken Miller, the biologist, he writes in "Only a Theory": we might begin by asking what is really meant by "random". One might say that "anything can happen" in a random event, but that is not really true. . . . The winner [in a lottery] may be drawn "randomly" but in this case that means picked from a well-defined population of ticket holders and not from all possible individuals who might be happy to receive a prize. So ... we can use ["random"] to refer to an unpredictable outcome chosen from a limited number of possibilities. In a lottery drawing the forces that constrain those possibilities are obvious. The randomly picked lottery winner is limited to the set of individuals who hold tickets. In evolution, the constraints may be less obvious, but they are still there." (Italicised word in original)

Later he concludes "Like tonight's lottery pick, it would be more accurate therefore to describe the nature of genetic change as "unpredictable" instead of "random". We may expect that natural selection will favour the evolution of protective colouration in a certain species that is prey for a larger one and still not be able to predict what form that camouflage will ultimately take.

op cit pp. 140-141

We're in danger of conflating meanings here. To which "random" does your statement apply? That which humans cannot predict or that which even God doesn't know? If God doesn't know it, He can't will it. If He knows & wills it, it's no longer random according to how I had used the word.

God may know and will the system and in doing so permit the free play of unpredictability within it--just as he does with human free will. The system will provide the constraints--a limited set of possibilities--that Ken Miller speaks of. It is not that just anything can happen. There are boundaries to the range of possibilities. So, at that level, God both knows and wills which possibilities may come to pass. But if God chooses to leave which allowable possibility actually comes to pass to the contingencies of history, then within the system, the outcome is random. A matter of permission rather than determination.

This also risks conflation ... of good and evil. While it is true that we cannot see the end of all things, and may mislabel something as evil simply because we don't like it, that doesn't mean no evil exists. Just because God uses something to accomplish His will doesn't mean He considers it good. Rather, what Scripture says is that God can turn those things intended for evil into good.

Exactly my point. God can take and use the evil decisions of humans to work out a good end. That doesn't make those decisions less evil. It speaks rather of the grace of God at work in and through evil to disarm it.

But note that scripture does not put God in merely a reactive mode, picking up the pieces. God is pro-active enough to weave evil into his plans beforehand. So Joseph is able to tell his brothers that although they meant him harm, even their evil intentions were already part of God's plan to preserve their family through the famine. As for the execution of Jesus' of Nazareth, John speaks of it in Revelation as "the lamb slain from the foundation of the world". God's plan doesn't make the betrayal of Judas, the conniving of Annas and Caiaphas or the indifferent callousness of Pilate any less condemnable. But it does mean that these evil attitudes and actions were planned for from the beginning as necessary to the good of resurrection and atonement.

That Christians would support an emergent view does nothing to decide the scientific question.

True. So I guess we had better not put all our theological eggs in that one basket.

I believe his comments centered around a few things: 1) That the models typically share too many similar assumptions and therefore aren't actually independent, 2) that the statements are always qualitative - further that those statements are typically brief and phrased as if the idea is self-evident, 3) that no formal definition has ever been given to the idea.

Good criticisms. However, it would appear that his purpose is to improve models and the use of models, not to abandon scientific modelling.

But I'll take this a slightly different direction. You mention that a model should not pretend to be the sum of all things - and I agree. So, 2 questions. First, what in biology is not a model? Second, is there a biology model where the result could be anything other than evolution?

Well, are you asking about data or about theory? A model is a sort of concretization of a theory; it is a hypothetical image of reality as it should exist if the theory is true. So, if you are asking "is there a theory in biology which is not a model?" then, clearly the answer is "no". Because theories are modeled and models are theories. (This applies to all science, not just biology.)

As I understand it, the point of both theory and model is to derive actual real world observations from theory-based logical predictions. And to use the success or failure of model-based predictions about reality to refine models to a closer approximation of actual reality.

As to your second question, I would also say "no", but for pragmatic reasons. No model of biology which excludes evolution has been successful at making accurate predictions about real world biological phenomena. Indeed, often they can make no predictions at all, and hence do not provide a guideline for research. So, it is not worthwhile to use a model that excludes evolution.

 

[Resha Caner]

Here are some samples: ...

OK, thanks for the references.

You don't seem to like it when I phrase it this way, but the only thing I can draw from what you say is that, in your opinion, God has determined creation and evolution is only called undetermined because the complexity is beyond our understanding (at least at this time).

It is not that just anything can happen. There are boundaries to the range of possibilities. So, at that level, God both knows and wills which possibilities may come to pass.

I've got no problem with this (with the exception I note below), but in the end it makes no difference. It's not as if God had to limit the possibilities to make it possible for Him to calculate the outcome - like creation would have gotten away from him if He had made it too big. He could handle an infinite number of possibilities ... and I think it's likely there are an infinite number of possibilities. Even if the possible mutations of a particular strand of DNA are limited, by the time you sum up all existing organisms and their interactions with their environments, if not infinite it's a pretty large number.

But it does mean that these evil attitudes and actions were planned for from the beginning as necessary to the good of resurrection and atonement.

But I disagree with this - specifically the word "necessary." There is no evil that is necessary. If Adam & Eve had not eaten the fruit, Christ's sacrifice would not have been necessary. Even after they ate, God was not required to make the sacrifice - hence the importance of Luke 22:42. It was not that the evil of crucifixion was necessary, but that Christ willing accepted it because God so loved the world. Had God decided to let us all perish in hell, He would have been perfectly justified.

God always makes a way that does not involve evil. And since creation began as good, there was no need for Him to mitigate evil before the Fall. He did not include the deletorious effects of evolution, natural selection, etc. into His creative plan.

Good criticisms. However, it would appear that his purpose is to improve models and the use of models, not to abandon scientific modelling.

Sure, and I agree with that.

As to your second question, I would also say "no", but for pragmatic reasons. No model of biology which excludes evolution has been successful at making accurate predictions about real world biological phenomena. Indeed, often they can make no predictions at all, and hence do not provide a guideline for research. So, it is not worthwhile to use a model that excludes evolution.

Not so fast. First, let's define the features of these models that you think are necessary. I find the definition of evolution very confusing. I never get the same answer twice to the question, "What is evolution?" I stopped asking because I got tired of the snarky, "Well, it's clear to everyone but creationists," type of response. Then I found the paper, "Explanations in Evolutionary Theory" by Bock. That made me feel a little better.

So, I'll venture to ask ... what features are we talking about that these models need?

- - -

This is just a curiosity question. You mention that you don't have access to, nor the tolerance for reading much of the scientific literature. So, you're getting the condensed "party line" so to speak.

All the research I've seen (Pew surveys, etc.) seem to indicate that just as a large percentage of scientists accept evolution, a large percentage are also atheists. So how do you distinguish those two? You accept one conclusion but not another.

 

[sfs]

All the research I've seen (Pew surveys, etc.) seem to indicate that just as a large percentage of scientists accept evolution, a large percentage are also atheists. So how do you distinguish those two? You accept one conclusion but not another.

A survey of scientific faculty at major research universities found that 25% believed in God some or all of the time, while 67% were atheists or agnostics. A follow-up, more detailed survey of a substantial portion of the respondents found that 0% gave any credence to creationism or Intelligent Design.

 

[Resha Caner]

Thanks for the link. I think the study you're citing supports what I was saying.

 

[sfs]

Thanks for the link. I think the study you're citing supports what I was saying.

A smallish but still substantial fraction of scientists are theists. To a pretty good approximation, no scientists are creationists.

 

[Resha Caner]

To a pretty good approximation, no scientists are creationists.

I suppose it depends on how one defines "scientist". The numbers may be small, but they aren't zero. I would suspect that biology has the smallest number of creationists, whereas it might be highest in something like mathematics.

 

[Papias]

Resha wrote:

Originally Posted by sfs

To a pretty good approximation, no scientists are creationists.

I suppose it depends on how one defines "scientist". The numbers may be small, but they aren't zero. I would suspect that biology has the smallest number of creationists, whereas it might be highest in something like mathematics.

OK, remember this discussion?


In post #148 Resha wrote:

Papias wrote:

"Do you agree now that practically no biologists suspect that UCA is false?"

Yes, and I think I've said this several times now.

And now you come back with "not zero" and "the numbers may be small"?

Do you see why I had to ask that over and over to get a clear answer?

I hope to respond to your whole post #148, but when you drag sfs (who is a real scientist) through the same thing I thought we had settled, it's frustrating.

-Papias

 

[Resha Caner]

I hope to respond to your whole post #148, but when you drag sfs (who is a real scientist) through the same thing I thought we had settled, it's frustrating.

I didn't drag sfs into this. He posted a response to something I said to gluadys. And I'm aware of who sfs is. We've spoken before.

Further, the comments were primarily about the views of scientists in general regarding evolution, not biologists and specific views of UCA ... additionally my comment was meant to draw attention to the correlation between belief in evolution, atheism, and science. Now, of course correlation is not causation , but correlation is a good prompting to look for causation.

The response I usually get from the atheist scientists here at CF is that they didn't presume atheism and then pursue science to justify it, but that it was the other way round - pursuing evidence using a scientific method led them to atheism. I'm not sure I believe that, but it gains nothing to poke at such a claim. So, I'd be curious about the breakdown of belief - not as an aggregate - but within the scientific community. Is atheism highest among biologists and lowest somewhere else or is it evenly spread? If so, is there a particular science that leads people to conclusions of atheism ... or are atheists just drawn to a particular science? If it seems centered on a particular science, why? And if we would say that people qualified in one science are not qualified in another (physicists are not biologists), what would that say about the "knowledge" such a science gathers WRT theistic issues?

I'm curious, but it's a digression for this thread.

And now you come back with "not zero" and "the numbers may be small"?

I don't see how this contradicts anything I've said. I'm sorry if it confused you.

It is true that the number is not zero. But as I said, it depends on how one defines "scientist". A few anecdotal examples: I mentioned my college experience. I knew two people in college who had obtained a B.S. in biology, but decided to go no further because of the entrenched nature of evolution. In fact, both of them became pastors. They probably would not meet your criteria as "scientists" but the anecdote leads to an interesting question: Are people who believe in creation turning away from careers in biology? My son did. He considered a career in entomology but is now heading into medicine because the pressure to conform to evolution is less. I can attest to that from personal experience; I was once lectured by a college TA about how it is impossible for Christians to be real scientists. As a 3rd anecdote, my college roommate was a biology major. He went on to get his PhD and works at a university as an entomologist. He is a pastor's son and was a creationist. I haven't spoken to him much over the last several years, so maybe he has "converted".

But the number is not exactly zero. If you think I've agreed that the number of biologists who question UCA is exactly zero, then you were mistaken. It's small, and I'm not aware of any who have published open doubts. As I've said since post #16, the doubts are mine. The conclusions are mine.

 

[gluadys]

OK, thanks for the references.

You don't seem to like it when I phrase it this way, but the only thing I can draw from what you say is that, in your opinion, God has determined creation and evolution is only called undetermined because the complexity is beyond our understanding (at least at this time).

That is one possibility, and could be the actual case sometimes. But it can be more complex.

At the advent of modern science, as it was worked out by Descartes. Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Laplace and others, a view of the physical creation as wholly deterministic developed. The model of the material world was a large and complex clockwork made by God. Not surprisingly, this led theologically to Deism and then to agnosticism and atheism. The heir to this view today is reductionist materialistic determinism a la Daniel Dennet. Everything is an expression of molecules in motion even your "free" choice on what to have for breakfast this morning.

Apart from science, there has always been as well a view that God (or the fates) predetermine all that happens. In this view there is no free will. Every choice you make has already been made by God. Let's call this theistic determinism.

The other theological option is that free will is real, and so the future is at least partially open and non-predetermined. God can override our choices, but often works with them to bring about his purposes even, as we have noted, when our own purposes are evil. In this view, God's purposes will come to pass, but perhaps in ways not foreseen, certainly not foreseen by us, but possibly not even fully foreseen by God, since, in deference to the actuality of our free will, God may need to improvise along the way to bring things to his chosen destination rather than where we would end up without him. An human analogy would be knowing where you want to go, but finding your intended route blocked and having to take a detour. You still get to your destination, but not in the way foreseen. Let's call this theistic indeterminism.

And back to the science of physics, we also know now that at its most fundamental level, the material world is not determined. Of course, we still get regularities, like gravitational attraction between large masses, because the preponderant probabilities allow for little else. So most of the mechanics still work in a quantum based universe as they were calculated to do in a clockwork universe. Nevertheless, even the most rigid of scientific "laws" is now understood to be fundamentally grounded in probability, not necessity. So we have materialistic indeterminism.

These possibilities can combine in interesting ways.

Let's look at an actual event--the impact of an asteroid with the earth some 65 million years ago, which left the crater at Chixculub on the Yucatan peninsula in Mexico.

Here is the position of materialistic determinism as enunciated by Laplace:
We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.
—Pierre Simon Laplace, A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities[41]

Of course, such an intellect does not need to exist for the whole history of the universe to be embedded in its initial physical conditions. So an atheist like Dennett can say that the asteroid's collision with our planet was determined at the moment the universe originated by the very properties of energy and matter.

The question for a theist then would be whether the physical determinism was willed by God (meaning it was both physically and theistically determined) or whether God simply let the necessary physical consequence play out without intervention (physically, but not theistically determined.) The latter is the Deist position. But theologically one could equally well argue that God knowingly and deliberately set the physical clockwork in motion to include the asteroid impact as part of his plan to create humankind.

Another possibility, (beloved of supernaturalists) is that in the ordinary course of things, the asteroid would not have collided with the earth, but God intervened to cause it to do so. (Theistic determinism overrides materialistic determinism).

But now we have physical indeterminism to complicate matters. We know now that it is not possible to meet Laplaces' conditions. No one can know "all positions of all items of which nature is composed" together with all forces acting on them. And given that the universe began as subatomic particles whose motions are quantum probabilities, not necessities, natural history, like human history, is contingent on a past that could have been different. From a materialistic and atheistic POV, the very existence of the solar system, the earth and the asteroid were never necessary consequences of initial conditions. So the collision can be seen as pure "random" accident. It just happened without purpose. This is akin to Stephen J. Gould's position on evolutionary history. If you started again from some point in the past, you would not get an exact replay of the same events.

But let's bring in a theistic view. Again, one possibility is that God determines the indeterminacies. What is pure accident materially, can still be an event which God willed and set into motion. (Material indeterminism overruled by theistic determinism.) This would fit your impression of my position so far.

Yet, again, God may simply allow the accident to happen, and then either choose or not choose to use it as a means to accomplishing other purposes, weaving it into the future in an improvisational way.

So, my actual position then is first a rejection of both unadorned materialistic views. I do not subscribe to either Dennett's strict physical determinism, nor to Gould's completely contingent history.

But when it comes to the various theistic options, I think we can allow for all of them. There is no need to restrict God to one mode of interacting with creation. And in the case of any one event, there is no means of knowing which course of action or non-action was in play.

What we have knowledge of is only the event itself and its material causes and effects. Whether and how God's purposes interacted with the event is beyond our ken, at least in this life. What we are assured of by faith is that nothing can thwart God's purposes. All that God intends will come to fruition one way or another.

I've got no problem with this (with the exception I note below), but in the end it makes no difference. It's not as if God had to limit the possibilities to make it possible for Him to calculate the outcome - like creation would have gotten away from him if He had made it too big. He could handle an infinite number of possibilities ... and I think it's likely there are an infinite number of possibilities. Even if the possible mutations of a particular strand of DNA are limited, by the time you sum up all existing organisms and their interactions with their environments, if not infinite it's a pretty large number.

Metaphysically, that is correct. Nevertheless, having made some decisions about the form and forces of physical existence, many possibilities are ruled out. Even your example assumes that DNA was chosen as the medium of storing and transmitting genetic information. And that means that such information can only be consistent with the molecular structure of DNA. And once DNA is hosted by organisms, the consequences to the organism of changes in DNA limit what can successfully be changed at any point in time. Add in environmental interactions, and you get more limitations. Yes, the totality of all existing organisms is vast, but far from infinite. Further, the options available to any one organism or any species of organisms at any one time is fairly small.

But I disagree with this - specifically the word "necessary." There is no evil that is necessary. If Adam & Eve had not eaten the fruit, Christ's sacrifice would not have been necessary. Even after they ate, God was not required to make the sacrifice - hence the importance of Luke 22:42. It was not that the evil of crucifixion was necessary, but that Christ willing accepted it because God so loved the world. Had God decided to let us all perish in hell, He would have been perfectly justified.

God always makes a way that does not involve evil. And since creation began as good, there was no need for Him to mitigate evil before the Fall. He did not include the deletorious effects of evolution, natural selection, etc. into His creative plan.

What is the Lutheran take on predestination? One ongoing discussion in the Reformed tradition is whether God's sovereign decision on whether a person is among the elect to be saved or not was made before or after the Fall, or even before or after creation. If God predestined all those to be saved before creation, or even after creation but before the Fall, then he did so in full knowledge that the Fall was an inevitable, and perhaps necessary aspect of human free will.

Logically, of course, God could simply have consigned us all to hell. Damnation is just. But would that not require that God act against his own will and nature? I am sure you have heard questions as to how far God's omnipotence carries? Can God create a rock he cannot lift? As I understand it the correct answer is that God can do anything which is not logically contradictory. So it is not a challenge to omnipotence to say that God cannot make a triangle with more or less than three sides and angles. That is simply a logical contradiction for by definition such an object is no longer a triangle. and IMO God acting contrary to his own will and nature (which is to love all of creation) is a similar logical impossibility.

Deleterious effects of evolution? of natural selection?
I wonder what examples you are thinking of.

Not so fast. First, let's define the features of these models that you think are necessary. I find the definition of evolution very confusing. I never get the same answer twice to the question, "What is evolution?" I stopped asking because I got tired of the snarky, "Well, it's clear to everyone but creationists," type of response. Then I found the paper, "Explanations in Evolutionary Theory" by Bock. That made me feel a little better.

I am going to bookmark that article for closer study, but a quick perusal suggests that it is a good place to start. I like that he is basing his assessment on Mayr's analysis of evolution. You might like to check out Mayr's primer on the topic as well. It's a short book called What Evolution Is.

Evolution is a complex theory and does embrace, as Mayr suggests, several sub-theories, so it is not surprising that definition is not easy.

So, I'll venture to ask ... what features are we talking about that these models need?

- - -

Basically, they need to incorporate mechanisms that successfully predict the observed distributions in time and space of organisms and their genes.

This is just a curiosity question. You mention that you don't have access to, nor the tolerance for reading much of the scientific literature. So, you're getting the condensed "party line" so to speak.

Right, though you should include the adjective "primary", but of course I am not just reading one party line. I also get the condensed party lines of Intelligent Design advocates, young-earth advocates, atheist perspectives and so on.

All the research I've seen (Pew surveys, etc.) seem to indicate that just as a large percentage of scientists accept evolution, a large percentage are also atheists. So how do you distinguish those two? You accept one conclusion but not another.

In the same way the scientists who are not atheists do. I said above that I do read something of various "party lines". I have read Walter Brown, Hugh Ross, Michael Denton, Phillip Johnson. I have also read Michael Behe, Stephen J. Gould, Niles Eldredge, Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennet.

But I do have a bias for the writing of evolutionary creationists such as Ken Miller, Denis Lamoureux, Alister McGrath, Francis Collins, John Polkinghorne, Karl Giberson, Bruce Sanguin, John Haught, etc. (Check out more authors on the BioLogos site.) Some of these (Miller, Collins) are more scientist than theologian, some (Sanguin, Haught) more theologian than scientist. A few (Lamoureux, Polkinghorne) have credible backgrounds in both science and theology. So that is the sort of person I look to when negotiating the interface of faith and science.