How important is the role of time in the debate between young-earth creationists, old-earth creationists, theistic evolutionists, and naturalistic evolutionists?
i) By definition, the time-factor is a defining feature of young-earth creationism. That said, the time-factor is intrinsically important to naturalistic evolution in a way that's not the case for young-earth creationism. For young-earth creationism, the time-factor is inasmuch as proponents think that's what the Bible teaches, and what the Bible teaches is true. So the time-factor is important in association with other essentials, even though the time-factor may not be essential in its own right.
By contrast, millions and billions of years are a necessary condition of naturalistic evolution. That's because intelligence is a far more efficient problem-solving strategy than dumb luck.
Take hacking someone's password or pin number. You could rely on dumb luck. Manually input random numbers. And it's mathematically possible that you'd luck out the very first time. But given the daunting number of possible combinations, it's more likely that you will die of old age before you hit on the right combination.
Or you can do it the smart way. For instance, people often use memorable passwords and pin numbers. Something easy to recall because they associate it with something significant in their life, like a birthdate, address, name of a relative or girlfriend. And some of that information is in the public domain. So, rather than run all the possible permutations, hackers can sometimes take shortcuts.
But because naturalistic evolution is a mindless process, it takes enormous amounts of time to get lucky every once and a while.
ii) Of course, that's, at best, a necessary rather than a sufficient condition. Naturalistic evolution has to get lucky surprisingly often. Take the theory of convergent evolution. Supposedly, evolution blindly developed echolocation on two separate occasions (bats, dolphins), the camera eye on three separate occasions (mammals, jellyfish, squids and octopuses ), and flight on four separate occasions (birds, bats, insects, pterosaurs). Placentals and marsupials are another example. One can ask how plausible that is. If this were a casino, security would be hauling you off to a soundproof room for interrogation–or worse.
If an amateur poker player can stay in the game long enough, he will be dealt winning hands at random. The problem is that, for every winning hand he's randomly dealt, he's dealt many more losing hands. Even if he can afford the initial buy-in, dumb luck will exhaust his little pile of chips long before the next winning hand comes to him by chance.
And that's another problem with naturalistic evolution. For every lucky break, how many times does natural selection deal itself a losing hand? How can evolution stay in the game?
Dropping the metaphor, natural selection needs something to work on. Something to build on. How can a trial and error process succeed if it breaks down far more often than it builds a bridge? Where's the continuity? What keeps things going during a long losing streak?
iii) In addition, evolution is supposed to be an incremental process. Steps rather than skips. Intelligence can take intuitive shortcuts. Compare Capablanca with computer chess. Capablanca could just take things in at a glance. Great mathematicians (e.g. Henri Poincaré, Paul Cohen, Benoit Mandelbrot, Andrew Wiles) can solve problems through a flash of insight. Or take the physical intuition of great scientists (e.g. Newton, Einstein, Pauling, Feynman). Take thought-experiments like Einstein's train and Newton's cannon. By contrast, naturalistic evolution lacks foresight–or even sight. It just lumbers along.
iv) Even if old-earth creationism (i.e. progressive creationism) is correct, it seems to be the right answer to the wrong problem. The real conflict isn't over time scales, but competing narratives. What fills the intervals of time.
And it isn't just a question of sequential or nonsequential narration. The Bible tells a very different story of origins. Not just a question of when it happened, or in what order, but how and what happened.
v) Some professing Christians take refuge in theistic evolution. But is that a satisfactory fallback position?
a) To begin with, what's the relationship between the theistic component and the evolutionary component? Are these independent or interdependent? Are they theistic evolutionists because they think there's convincing evidence for God's existence as well as convincing evidence for evolution, so they simply combine these two propositions? Or do they think God has an instrumental role in evolution?
b) Apropos (a), do they reject naturalistic evolution because they think a mindless process is unable get the job done? Do they think the only feasible form of evolution is guided evolution?
But if a natural process can't succeed without this deus ex machina, why believe in evolution in the first place? If you're invoking God to shore up deficiencies in evolution, isn't that a reason to scap the evolutionary paradigm?
vi) The evolutionary worldview is at odds with the Biblical worldview. At best, theistic evolution says God front-loaded the process. But after that, it unfolds on its own. That's a noninterventionist deity. Essentially evolutionary deism.
By contrast, the Bible depicts an interventionist deity. And not just God. You also have interventionist spirits (angels, demons).
To be sure, the Bible also has a doctrine of ordinary providence. In Scripture, the relationship between miracle and providence is analogous to respiration. Respiration is normally an unconscious process. Self-regulating. An autonomic function. Yet it's possible for us to consciously control our rate of respiration. We can override the default setting. That's useful for swimmers and divers.
Likewise, natural processes are normally automatic. Like a machine. But agents can intervene at will.
vii) Another problem with theistic evolution is that if you accept evolutionary history, then it seems to be an utterly random process rather than a guided process. "Random" in the sense that world events are independent of what species need to survive. You have natural disasters that result in mass extinction of most species. Whether they survive or perish seems to be an accident of timing. Finding yourself at the wrong place at the wrong time.
The process appears to be groping rather than guided. Uncoordinated. Indifferent to collateral damage. Like a twisted freeway interchange where most onramps and offramps abruptly end–dangling in midair. So many roads to nowhere. So many false starts. So may dead-ends.
If God is directing the evolutionary process, he seems to be hopelessly lost. A driver without a map or compass–much less GPS–who tries out alternate routes to see which, if any, lead to the destination.
Did We Just Get Lucky? (4 min. video) by William Lane Craig
ReplyDeleteThe Big Bang, Multiverses, and the Anthropic Principle Discussed by William Lane Craig by William Lane Craig
Is There Enough Time for Humans to have [Naturalistically] Evolved from Apes? by Dr. Ann Gauger
No evidence that there isenough time for evolution by Dr. Lee Spetner
Was there enough time for naturalistic human evolution to occur on Earth? by William Lane Craig (taken from his debate with Christopher Hitchens)
In a recent report from the National Center for Science Education, which self-advertises as “the premier institution dedicated to keeping evolution in the science classroom and creationism out,” Daryl Domning writes,
DeleteIn truth, many (perhaps most!) evolutionists are theists of one sort or another. Their views are as sincerely and validly held as those of the atheists and have as much (perhaps more!) claim to be representative of evolutionist thinking. Atheists have every right to believe that theists are woefully misguided in failing to see the obsolescence of religion after Darwin; but that is their philosophical opinion, not an infallibly proven proposition of science or logic. [bold added by me]
taken from http://www.reasonablefaith.org/evolutionary-theory-and-theism
In 1879 John Fordyce wrote asking if Darwin believed in God, and if theism and evolution were compatible. Darwin replied that a man "can be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist", citing Charles Kingsley and Asa Gray as examples, and for himself,
Delete"In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.— I think that generally (& more and more so as I grow older) but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Charles_Darwin
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-12041
I agree with some of the criticisms that atheists have made against Ray Comfort's video "Evolution vs. God" but it's worth seeing anyway. Here's a LINK to what I believe to be the entire video. I guess the owners of the video have decided to release it for free. Here's a LINK to watch it directly on YouTube.
DeleteFine-Tuning for Life in the Universe by Hugh Ross
Deletehttp://www.reasons.org/articles/fine-tuning-for-life-in-the-universe
On the Last section, the problem list, a formatting note. You went from letters to lower case roman numerals. To help people to follow your words, you might want to stay with letters. (a. b. c.)
ReplyDeleteThanks for your post.
Rob.
Disagreements notwithstanding, I must say I enjoy your posts, as they are more erudite than what somebody like, say, Ray Comfort would write.
ReplyDelete"And that's another problem with naturalistic evolution. For every lucky break, how many times does natural selection deal itself a losing hand? How can evolution stay in the game? "
When a beneficial mutation occurs, it tends to be distributed among the population. When a harmful mutation occurs, it tends to be rooted out. Hence, the effects of a single beneficial mutation tends to be greater than the effects of a single harmful one.
Even if naturalistic evolution is improbable (P(E|N)<0.5), from a Christian viewpoint, you have P(E|C), a probability that isn't determined the same way as P(E|N).
Of course, we have evidence to go on, so we can ascertain whether evolution actually occurred. The probability of winning the lottery is low, but when you see the winning number correspond to your own ticket number, the prior probability is outweighed by the actual evidence.
"Are they theistic evolutionists because they think there's convincing evidence for God's existence as well as convincing evidence for evolution, so they simply combine these two propositions? Or do they think God has an instrumental role in evolution?"
In my case I would say yes to the first one. To the last question, I would say that God oversaw the process, so it wasn't arbitrary or random. He got what he wanted. I am unable to say what role he had beyond that (whether there were any miraculous interventions or such).
"do they reject naturalistic evolution because they think a mindless process is unable get the job done? Do they think the only feasible form of evolution is guided evolution?"
I am inclined to believe that biological evolution (which excludes stellar evolution, abiogenesis, &c.) is improbable, but possibly not implausible.
"But if a natural process can't succeed without this deus ex machina, why believe in evolution in the first place?"
Because there is evidence to support it.
"The evolutionary worldview is at odds with the Biblical worldview. At best, theistic evolution says God front-loaded the process. But after that, it unfolds on its own. That's a noninterventionist deity. Essentially evolutionary deism."
We simply lack the information to comment on how God guided the process of evolution. Nonetheless, we can say that God oversaw the process, so that there is teleology in nature, and man has a purpose.
"Another problem with theistic evolution is that if you accept evolutionary history, then it seems to be an utterly random process rather than a guided process. "Random" in the sense that world events are independent of what species need to survive. You have natural disasters that result in mass extinction of most species. Whether they survive or perish seems to be an accident of timing. Finding yourself at the wrong place at the wrong time. "
Then again, there are instances where evolution "seems" more guided, e.g. the near-extinction of humans only 40,000 years ago. However, I confess that I do not know God's purpose behind every event of evolutionary history. This is no more a weakness than not knowing God's purpose behind human history, e.g. the Holocaust. That, too, appears unguided and meaningless, but the knowledge that everything happens according to God's purpose assures us that it is not in fact unguided.
I wonder: Why do you think evolution is such an accepted scientific theory, having been exposed to so much confirmation and peer-review? Is it all a conspiracy?
Sorry, that should be "70,000 years ago", not "40,000 years ago", in the penultimate paragraph.
DeleteHi Kaffikjelen,
DeleteI'm not Steve, of course, but if it's okay with you, and you don't mind, I'll just make a quick comment or two in passing? I'll try to come back to this when I have a bit more time.
When a beneficial mutation occurs, it tends to be distributed among the population. When a harmful mutation occurs, it tends to be rooted out. Hence, the effects of a single beneficial mutation tends to be greater than the effects of a single harmful one.
Well, I'd say this is a pretty broad if not sweeping generalization. For one thing, it depends on the population size as well. The effect on a small population size would be quite different than the effect on a large population size.
For another, it depends on where the mutation occurs. For instance, nuclear DNA vs. mtDNA. (BTW, the mutational rate of mtDNA can be relatively higher due to the lack of protection by chromatin.)
For still another, a mutation can occur without being passed on to subsequent generations.
And so on and so forth.
Even if naturalistic evolution is improbable (P(E|N)<0.5), from a Christian viewpoint, you have P(E|C), a probability that isn't determined the same way as P(E|N). Of course, we have evidence to go on, so we can ascertain whether evolution actually occurred. The probability of winning the lottery is low, but when you see the winning number correspond to your own ticket number, the prior probability is outweighed by the actual evidence.
I'm not entirely sure it's possible or appropriate to assign let alone compare probabilities between naturalistic and theistic evolution in the first place, however rough and ready they may be (e.g. <0.5). There are too many unstable variables to consider. Just one factor involved, for example: what's the probability that theism is more likely than atheism? What sort of atheism (e.g. naturalistic)? What sort of theism (e.g. Platonic)?
Also, before we consider theistic evolution, why not scale it back and just consider evolution on its own terms? If evolution is false, then that's the end of the story. No need to posit and speculate about the probability of God guiding neo-Darwinian processes, etc., if neo-Darwinism isn't true in the first place.
I am inclined to believe that biological evolution (which excludes stellar evolution, abiogenesis, &c.) is improbable, but possibly not implausible.
While neo-Darwinian theory can be considered in isolation, I suppose, it can't be forever completely isolated from the debate over the origin of life. If evolution, then inevitably someone will want to know what kicked off the whole shebang.
Then again, there are instances where evolution "seems" more guided, e.g. the near-extinction of humans only 40,000 years ago.
Of course, there are many scientists who dissent from this view. Likewise many Bible scholars. The latter do so in part because it has been used to argue against a historical Adam and Eve.
I wonder: Why do you think evolution is such an accepted scientific theory, having been exposed to so much confirmation and peer-review? Is it all a conspiracy?
Actually, I don't think the consensus is unanimous. My impression is there's a majority view, but there are also minority views. In fact, there are even evolutionists who at the end of the day still subscribe to evolution who nevertheless disagree with fundamental aspects of mainstream modern evolutionary theory (e.g. James Shapiro, Denis Noble). Evolution is hardly the monolithic behemoth that it's often portrayed by many to be.
Sorry, that should be "70,000 years ago", not "40,000 years ago", in the penultimate paragraph.
DeleteSorry, I thought you were referring to a different incident. But I think you're referring to the volcano "super" eruption in Sumatra?
Also, my mistake, the debate over the historical Adam and Eve is different.
DeleteKaffikjelen
Delete"When a beneficial mutation occurs, it tends to be distributed among the population. When a harmful mutation occurs, it tends to be rooted out. Hence, the effects of a single beneficial mutation tends to be greater than the effects of a single harmful one."
i) Don't harmful mutations greatly outnumber beneficial mutations?
ii) What if, say, a harmful mutation compromises the immune system, so that a population loses resistance to a deadly disease? Take hereditary degenerative diseases.
"Of course, we have evidence to go on, so we can ascertain whether evolution actually occurred."
What lines of evidence are you alluding to?
"I am inclined to believe that biological evolution (which excludes stellar evolution, abiogenesis, &c.) is improbable, but possibly not implausible."
That's equivocal. Are you saying biological evolution in general is improbable, or theistic biological evolution in particular?
"Because there is evidence to support it."
Once again, that's equivocal. Evidence for what? Evolution in general, or theistic evolution in particular?
"We simply lack the information to comment on how God guided the process of evolution. Nonetheless, we can say that God oversaw the process, so that there is teleology in nature, and man has a purpose."
What's your evidence that God guided the evolutionary process? What's your evidence that evolution is goal-oriented? What if God took a hands-off approach. What if God is shortsighted (a la open theism)?
"Then again, there are instances where evolution 'seems' more guided, e.g. the near-extinction of humans only 70,000 years ago."
i) Are you saying the survival of species is evidence of divine guidance? If so, does mass extinction indicate lack of divine guidance?
ii) You seem to be using Cro-Magnon as your frame of reference. I doubt Homo erectus or Neanderthal would share your sanguine view of natural teleology.
"However, I confess that I do not know God's purpose behind every event of evolutionary history. This is no more a weakness than not knowing God's purpose behind human history, e.g. the Holocaust. That, too, appears unguided and meaningless, but the knowledge that everything happens according to God's purpose assures us that it is not in fact unguided."
You seem to be taking evolution on faith, as if that's revealed truth.
"I wonder: Why do you think evolution is such an accepted scientific theory, having been exposed to so much confirmation…"
What confirmation do you have in mind?
"…and peer-review?"
That's a circular appeal.
"Is it all a conspiracy?"
Some Darwinians are quite upfront about their antipathy to Christian theism. In addition, scientists can suffer from tunnel vision.
Kaffikjelen
Delete"When a beneficial mutation occurs, it tends to be distributed among the population. When a harmful mutation occurs, it tends to be rooted out. Hence, the effects of a single beneficial mutation tends to be greater than the effects of a single harmful one."
My original statement wasn't limited to mutations. When I said, "For every lucky break, how many times does natural selection deal itself a losing hand? How can evolution stay in the game?"–that applies to natural history in general. All the haphazard threats to the survival of species.
Kaffikjelen
Delete"I wonder: Why do you think evolution is such an accepted scientific theory, having been exposed to so much confirmation and peer-review? Is it all a conspiracy?"
The life sciences are fiendishly complex. It's easy to lose your way in the labyrinth. Evolution supplies a unifying principle. Evolution puts the life sciences into a story. Gives it a plot. Drama. Characters. Linearity.
Never underestimate the power of storytelling. The perennial appeal of a good yarn. Consider the insatiable appetite for new movies.
The evolutionary narrative is more attractive at a distance. Heartless up close.
Theistic evolution softens some of the rough edges. Tries to convert the Darwinian dystopia into a utopia. Alls well that ends well.
Patrick Chan:
Delete"Well, I'd say this is a pretty broad if not sweeping generalization."
Yes, it is a generalization. As I'm not a biologist, I can't really comment too much on specifics, but on a surface level, we can infer that beneficial mutations tend to have greater impact than harmful ones. Micro-evolution basically runs on the same principles as macro-evolution, so any logistical problems with macro-evolution should apply to the micro variant.
"I'm not entirely sure it's possible or appropriate to assign let alone compare probabilities between naturalistic and theistic evolution in the first place, however rough and ready they may be (e.g. <0.5)."
Sure, the calculations aren't simple, but we can make certain considerations so as to put the probability in a certain ball park. With a divine agent behind evolution, problematic odds vanish.
"While neo-Darwinian theory can be considered in isolation, I suppose, it can't be forever completely isolated from the debate over the origin of life."
Perhaps, but as there is no theory of the origin of life yet, we can't tell whether abiogenesis is probable or not.
"Actually, I don't think the consensus is unanimous."
From what I've read and heard, the only relevantly qualified people who deny the common descent of humans and apes, or the possibility of macro-evolution, do so out of religious motivations. (Occasional dissenters are found everywhere, in geocentricism, general relativity, &c.)
"But I think you're referring to the volcano "super" eruption in Sumatra?"
Yeah, I might have got two separate events mixed up, but the Sumatra eruption illustrates one case where humans survived by the skin of their teeth, which was what I was after.
"Don't harmful mutations greatly outnumber beneficial mutations?"
DeleteI'd haphazard a guess that beneficial mutations are sufficiently plentiful so as to ensure that evolution is possible. Mutations also power micro-evolution, so if beneficial mutations are scarce, then we shouldn't be observing that either.
"What if, say, a harmful mutation compromises the immune system, so that a population loses resistance to a deadly disease? Take hereditary degenerative diseases. "
If the entire population were affected by such a destructive mutation, then I guess they would be destined to hell in a handbasket. But I don't think that's very likely to happen in every case, as the affected individual(s) would be less likely to reach reproductive opportunities, and so the mutation would be rooted out of the gene pool.
"What lines of evidence are you alluding to?"
Genetic evidence, paleontological evidence, biogeographical evidence, and the like.
Evolution simply is the best explanation for all the biological data. It explains why we have non-functional genes in the same location as the functional counterparts in other mammals, it explains the existence of endogenous retro-viruses. Its hypotheses are frequently confirmed (pace the frequent creationist claim that evolution is untestable), as in the case of the discovery of Tiktaalik, an ancient intermediate fossil, whose location was predicted by evolution.
"That's equivocal. Are you saying biological evolution in general is improbable, or theistic biological evolution in particular?"
With divine assistance nothing is improbable. What seems to me to be improbable, is naturalistic evolution, that our evolutionary history should have happened without divine design of some sort.
"Once again, that's equivocal. Evidence for what? Evolution in general, or theistic evolution in particular?"
There is evidence for evolution in general, cf. my listed evidences above.
"What's your evidence that God guided the evolutionary process? What's your evidence that evolution is goal-oriented? What if God took a hands-off approach. What if God is shortsighted (a la open theism)?"
My evidence that God guided the evolutionary process is: 1. evolution is true, and 2. Christianity is true. If Christianity is true, man isn't an accident. I rule out a shortsighted God by e.g. ontological arguments about a greatest possible being.
"Are you saying the survival of species is evidence of divine guidance? If so, does mass extinction indicate lack of divine guidance?"
No, it was intended to show that evolutionary history doesn't solely appear unguided, but that there are also cases where species got surprisingly lucky. However, I reject that we can deduce design and guidance from either lucky breaks or unfortunes in history. It depends on what is God's goal, and I think you'd agree that God didn't intend to create a utopia.
"You seem to be using Cro-Magnon as your frame of reference. I doubt Homo erectus or Neanderthal would share your sanguine view of natural teleology. "
Indeed, not everyone's fate is as happy as ours, but I wasn't meaning to establish teleology from solely one happening. Mostly I derive teleology from my Christian views.
"You seem to be taking evolution on faith, as if that's revealed truth."
If misfortunes in evolutionary history reveal a divine absence, then misfortunes in human history should likewise. God didn't share with us his reasons for permitting the Holocaust, and similarly, I don't need him to tell me what his purposes behind every seemingly non-ideal occurrence of evolution were. My Christian views supply the basis for thinking God is behind history.
"Some Darwinians are quite upfront about their antipathy to Christian theism."
DeleteIf hostility to Christianity explains the prevail of evolutionism, then why are most scientists willing to accept that there currently is no theory of the origin of life? Also, many evolutionists are Christian.
"In addition, scientists can suffer from tunnel vision."
Tunnel vision is corrected by the sheer number of scientist, all of whom have different views and are in different situations, thus furthering their sole unifying cause, namely scientific knowledge. Of course, it probably isn't perfect, but surely it sufficiently safeguards the objectivity of the scientific enterprise. Creationists commonly claim (how I love alliteration) that scientific consensus keeps changing, and so we can't trust it, but that seems to go against your objection here.
"My original statement wasn't limited to mutations. When I said, "For every lucky break, how many times does natural selection deal itself a losing hand? How can evolution stay in the game?"–that applies to natural history in general. All the haphazard threats to the survival of species."
Oh, my mistake. I suppose that you are correct if you claim that such considerations make naturalistic evolution improbable. However, that isn't my outlook, so I'll join you in critiquing it. I'd add that the occurence of evolution therefore is evidence of some sort of intentional agent behind it.
"The life sciences are fiendishly complex. It's easy to lose your way in the labyrinth. Evolution supplies a unifying principle. Evolution puts the life sciences into a story. Gives it a plot. Drama. Characters. Linearity."
Sure, that could explain some of the fascination of evolution, but I don't see how it would actually get off the ground as a serious scientific theory unless there were something to back it up. Also, the start of the story is missing, as previously mentioned, with no theory of biogenesis, which is odd if thirst for narrative adequately explains acceptance of Darwinism.
Hi Kaffikjelen,
DeleteSorry it's taken me a while to reply. I've been a bit busy elsewhere.
However, I did do a post on the broad topic which you might find interesting (here). More importantly, Steve has done several posts which are well worth reading since he's an exceedingly far sharper thinker than I am or ever can be. And he's also linked to other scholars on the topic of evolution. Anyway, just check out posts under the labels Evolution and Creationism, for example.
I'll just make a couple of comments:
Yes, it is a generalization. As I'm not a biologist, I can't really comment too much on specifics, but on a surface level, we can infer that beneficial mutations tend to have greater impact than harmful ones.
I think the lack of specification on the topic is one of the problems though. We can't generalize here in the same way we might be able to generalize in say physics or mathematics. "Life" is much messier.
Genetic mutations may be beneficial or harmful, but usually are "neutral."
When you say "beneficial mutations tend to have greater impact than harmful ones," this depends on several factors. For example, what do you mean by "impact"?
Where do you expect the "impact" to occur? Are you thinking at the DNA level, other molecular level, cellular level, tissue level, organ level, etc.?
The same mutation may be beneficial in one respect, but harmful in another respect.
Also, a beneficial mutation might not have more impact than multiple harmful mutations (or vice versa).
DNA damage and mutations can occur in non-replicating or replicating cells, etc. This should be taken into consideration.
It's possible for potentially harmful DNA errors and damage to become mutated, but this can be neutralized prior to the fact. Take our skin cells. There's thousands if not millions of DNA damage occurring in our skin cells daily since most people's skin cells come into contact with UV radiation daily (among other things). But our cells have mechanisms which more or less immediately repair the damage.
I could go on, but anyway point being at a minimum you really need to better unpack this idea, I think.
Micro-evolution basically runs on the same principles as macro-evolution, so any logistical problems with macro-evolution should apply to the micro variant.
This isn't directly answering your question, but what I wrote here might be helpful.
Perhaps, but as there is no theory of the origin of life yet, we can't tell whether abiogenesis is probable or not.
Actually, there are plenty of theories for the origin of life on Earth (e.g. RNA world, metabolism first hypothesis, panspermia).
From what I've read and heard, the only relevantly qualified people who deny the common descent of humans and apes, or the possibility of macro-evolution, do so out of religious motivations.
Well, with all due respect, it doesn't sound like you've read a lot in the field then? Whom have you read?
Also, as I said in the comment I linked to, I don't necessarily think it's best to frame the debate in terms of "macro-evolution" vs. "micro-evolution" either. There's a lot more than "macro-evolution" involved.
Kaffikjelen said:
Deletebeneficial mutations are sufficiently plentiful so as to ensure that evolution is possible.
Hm, isn't this circular reasoning?
Mutations also power micro-evolution, so if beneficial mutations are scarce, then we shouldn't be observing that either.
I don't think anyone is arguing over whether we can or can't observe mutations. People on all sides accept mutations can occur.
Of course, "scarce" can be quite relative. For example, beneficial mutations are "scarce" relative to neutral mutations.
If the entire population were affected by such a destructive mutation, then I guess they would be destined to hell in a handbasket. But I don't think that's very likely to happen in every case, as the affected individual(s) would be less likely to reach reproductive opportunities, and so the mutation would be rooted out of the gene pool.
Again, this depends on a number of variables. What population do you have in mind (e.g. one at Chernobyl or Fukushima at the time of the nuclear meltdown), what type of mutations, where did the mutations occur (e.g. germline cells), how were the mutations acquired, are the mutations permanent, are the mutations heritable, etc. Again, see what I asked in a previous comment.
BTW, if mutatations occur while the organism is still an early embryo in utero, then it's quite likely it will die. Mutations especially early in utero are often deadly.
Evolution simply is the best explanation for all the biological data. It explains why we have non-functional genes in the same location as the functional counterparts in other mammals
I wrote a bit about pseudogenes here for example. I'm sure others have written more and better.
it explains the existence of endogenous retro-viruses.
Well, I'm afraid this is just using buzzwords (or buzz terms or the like). You'll have to actually make an argument for why you think the existence of ERVs confirm neo-Darwinism. Are you referring to ERVs in orthologous genes among primates?
Its hypotheses are frequently confirmed (pace the frequent creationist claim that evolution is untestable)
Theobold is no creationist, but here's what he says:
"Universal common ancestry (UCA) is a central pillar of modern evolutionary theory. As first suggested by Darwin, the theory of UCA posits that all extant terrestrial organisms share a common genetic heritage, each being the genealogical descendant of a single species from the distant past. The classic evidence for UCA, although massive, is largely restricted to ‘local’ common ancestry—for example, of specific phyla rather than the entirety of life—and has yet to fully integrate the recent advances from modern phylogenetics and probability theory. Although UCA is widely assumed, it has rarely been subjected to formal quantitative testing..."
(Source)
as in the case of the discovery of Tiktaalik, an ancient intermediate fossil, whose location was predicted by evolution.
DeleteYou mean this guy?
With divine assistance nothing is improbable. What seems to me to be improbable, is naturalistic evolution, that our evolutionary history should have happened without divine design of some sort.
Of course, a naturalistic evolutionist would say this is a God of the gaps argument.
My evidence that God guided the evolutionary process is: 1. evolution is true
Depends on what you mean by evolution. For example, Jerry Coyne defines evolution thusly: "The first is the idea of evolution itself. This simply means that a species undergoes genetic change over time."
On the face of it, this statement is non-controversial. But the problem begins when Coyne sneaks in the following in his very next sentence: "That is, over many generations a species can evolve into something quite different...Humans, for example, evolved from a creature that was apelike, but not identical to modern apes."
If hostility to Christianity explains the prevail of evolutionism, then why are most scientists willing to accept that there currently is no theory of the origin of life?
As I said earlier, there are plenty of theories for the origin of life. It's just that there's no consensus among scientists on a single theory.
Tunnel vision is corrected by the sheer number of scientist, all of whom have different views and are in different situations, thus furthering their sole unifying cause, namely scientific knowledge. Of course, it probably isn't perfect, but surely it sufficiently safeguards the objectivity of the scientific enterprise.
So how do you define "science" in the first place so that we can have a consensus?
There's no scientific consensus on various aspects of modern evolutionary theory, depending on which particular aspect we're talking about. Different scientists have differenct takes on different evolutionary ideas. Take the vitalists (e.g. Shapiro, Noble) vs. the mechanists (e.g. Dawkins, Coyne). They're all atheists and secularists. Or Google the species problem which in part plays into the debates over speciation as well.
Creationists commonly claim (how I love alliteration) that scientific consensus keeps changing
Not just creationists. But plenty of secularists as well. See folks like Paul Feyerabend, Thomas Kuhn, and Karl Popper.
BTW, since you're a Christian, on at least one level you're also a creationist, i.e., God created the universe and all it contains. Possibly you also believe God fiat created the first life or organism (e.g. the first self-replicating molecule).
Kaffikjelen
Delete"I'd haphazard a guess that beneficial mutations are sufficiently plentiful so as to ensure that evolution is possible."
Sounds like a faith-claim rather than a fact.
"Mutations also power micro-evolution, so if beneficial mutations are scarce, then we shouldn't be observing that either."
i) Aren't there ongoing debates about what mechanisms drive evolution?
ii) Also, opponents of evolution think organisms have some degree of built-in adaptability to new environments.
"If the entire population were affected by such a destructive mutation, then I guess they would be destined to hell in a handbasket. But I don't think that's very likely to happen in every case, as the affected individual(s) would be less likely to reach reproductive opportunities, and so the mutation would be rooted out of the gene pool."
People with hereditary degenerative disorders often live long enough to reach reproductive opportunities, for some these diseases only manifest in adulthood.
Also, within an evolutionary narrative, hominids mate as soon as they reach sexual maturity (i.e. adolescence). Generations are short.
"Genetic evidence, paleontological evidence, biogeographical evidence, and the like. Evolution simply is the best explanation for all the biological data."
Well, I've often stated my own views on that subject–including recently.
"It explains why we have non-functional genes in the same location as the functional counterparts in other mammals, it explains the existence of endogenous retro-viruses."
We need to guard against the temptation of jumping on the bandwagon of fast-moving, highly technical field. Even within the past few years I've seen significant retractions about previous confident claims.
"Its hypotheses are frequently confirmed (pace the frequent creationist claim that evolution is untestable), as in the case of the discovery of Tiktaalik, an ancient intermediate fossil, whose location was predicted by evolution."
Evolution "predicts" intermediates. But creationism doesn't deny ecological intermediates. And Tiktaalik has been analyzed in the creationist/ID literature.
"I rule out a shortsighted God by e.g. ontological arguments about a greatest possible being."
i) Even assuming the ontological argument is broadly sound (Which version? Anselmian? Leibnizian? Gödelian? Plantingian?), that requires subsidiary arguments to prove what makes certain attributes great-making attributes.
ii) Moreover, the evidence of guided evolution must be counterbalanced against evidence to the contrary. You can't treat the alleged evidence for evolution as the standard of comparison, then automatically dismiss counterevidence. For the evidence itself doesn't furnish a standard of comparison. You could just as well take the counterevidence as your standard of comparison.
Hi Kaffikjelen ,
DeleteI've posted a bit more on mutations here.
Cont. No, it was intended to show that evolutionary history doesn't solely appear unguided, but that there are also cases where species got surprisingly lucky. However, I reject that we can deduce design and guidance from either lucky breaks or unfortunes in history. It depends on what is God's goal, and I think you'd agree that God didn't intend to create a utopia."
ReplyDeletei) Since evolution is an ongoing process, how do you know the goal ahead of time? You can't start at the end of an ongoing process and reason backwards, for the process hasn't ended.
ii) Likewise, why assume evolution is guided in the face of such an apparently haphazard and slipshod process?
"Indeed, not everyone's fate is as happy as ours, but I wasn't meaning to establish teleology from solely one happening."
We're talking about entire hominid species or races becoming extinct–just to further the goal? Aside from the inefficiency, isn't that pretty ruthless? Is that just a business expense, like the high mortality rate of serfs conscripted to build St. Petersburg?
"If misfortunes in evolutionary history reveal a divine absence, then misfortunes in human history should likewise."
Evolution isn't revealed dogma. It doesn't merit the same appeal to divine inscrutability. If you say evolution is a guided process, but you automatically discount empirical evidence to the contrary, then your position is arbitrary and fideistic.
"If hostility to Christianity explains the prevail of evolutionism, then why are most scientists willing to accept that there currently is no theory of the origin of life?"
Not for lack of trying.
"Also, many evolutionists are Christian."
They've been given an interpretive framework. They see the evidence filtered through the grid.
"Why do you think evolution is such an accepted scientific theory, having been exposed to so much confirmation and peer-review?...Tunnel vision is corrected by the sheer number of scientist, all of whom have different views and are in different situations, thus furthering their sole unifying cause, namely scientific knowledge. Of course, it probably isn't perfect, but surely it sufficiently safeguards the objectivity of the scientific enterprise."
You have a backwards notion of peer review. In the nature of the case, peer review enforces ideological and institutional conformity. Those who buck the system are banished to Siberia. Look at how entrenched global warming became.
"I'd add that the occurence of evolution therefore is evidence of some sort of intentional agent behind it."
Do you assume that if an airplane crashes, that must be due to intentional agency rather than mechanical error? You seem to begin with outcomes, then simply assume intentional agency must lie behind the outcome.
"but I don't see how it would actually get off the ground as a serious scientific theory unless there were something to back it up."
That assumes evolution is a serious scientific theory, which begs the question. It's certainly taken seriously by many. But, then, so is ufology.
Kaffikjelen
ReplyDelete"My evidence that God guided the evolutionary process is: 1. evolution is true, and 2. Christianity is true. If Christianity is true, man isn't an accident."
That's illogical. God could be deistic. Or God could make nature an adaptive, stochastic system that takes on a life of its own.
"I rule out a shortsighted God by e.g. ontological arguments about a greatest possible being."
Assuming evolution is true, why should we only infer God's character from a priori arguments rather than a posterior effects like natural history?
"No, it was intended to show that evolutionary history doesn't solely appear unguided, but that there are also cases where species got surprisingly lucky. However, I reject that we can deduce design and guidance from either lucky breaks or unfortunes in history. It depends on what is God's goal, and I think you'd agree that God didn't intend to create a utopia."
You have a schizophrenic position. You think we should both judge and not judge the natural record by appearances. On the one hand, you think we should judge the nature record by appearances insofar as it (allegedly) bears witness to universal common descent by macroevolution. On the other hand, you don't think we should judge the nature record by appearances insofar as it bears witness to dysteleology, lack of foresight, lack of planning. On the face of it, natural history (a la evolution) bears witness to a God who's improvising on the fly. If evolution is goal-oriented, then then God is a poor marksman. To all appearances, he must be using nature for target practice to improve his aim. He keeps missing the target. Learning by trial and error. And a slow learner at that.
"If misfortunes in evolutionary history reveal a divine absence, then misfortunes in human history should likewise. God didn't share with us his reasons for permitting the Holocaust, and similarly, I don't need him to tell me what his purposes behind every seemingly non-ideal occurrence of evolution were."
If God used the process of evolution to eventuate man, then why were his means so ill-adapted to his ends? Why so many blind alleys, dead-ends, washed-out bridges, and cul-de-sacs?