McLatchie on Swamidass

Jonathan McLatchie comments on Joshua Swamidass' theory regarding Adam and Eve and human evolution:

An innovative and provocative attempt to harmonize evolutionary theory with an historical Adam and Eve has recently been proposed by computational biologist Joshua Swamidass of Washington University in St. Louis. [10] Swamidass proposes that Adam and Eve lived approximately six thousand years ago, in accordance with the traditional creationist understanding. He argues that Adam and Eve did not have parents and were in fact created de novo, as described in Genesis 2. Consistent with a face-value reading of Genesis, Swamidass proposes that Adam was formed from the dust of the earth and Eve from Adam’s side. However, Swamidass argues that Adam and Eve were not the first humans. Rather, their genomes became ‘mixed’ with the rest of the human population outside of the garden through interbreeding (that is, humans who, unlike Adam and Eve, arose naturally through evolutionary processes), such that all extant humans can be said to trace their genealogical ancestry back to Adam and Eve, even though their genetic ancestry includes other lineages, unrelated to Adam, as well. Swamidass points out that universal genealogical ancestors (that is, individuals to whom all modern humans can trace their ancestry) are common, arising often throughout human history. Swamidass proposes that “Adam and Eve are to work as priestly rulers alongside Yahweh Elohim, to expand the Garden across the earth. Civilization is rising, and a new era is coming. Their purpose is to welcome everyone into their family, in a new kingdom of God.” [11] Swamidass distinguishes between what he calls “biological humans” and “textual humans.” [12] For Swamidass, “Biological humans are defined taxonomically, from a biological and scientific point of view. From at least AD 1 onward, they are coextensive with textual humans.” [13] On the other hand, “Textual humans are the group of people to whom Scripture refers. I argue that this group is defined by Scripture to be Adam, Eve, and their genealogical descendants, including everyone alive across the globe by, at latest AD 1. They are a chronological subset of biological humans, meaning that some biological humans in the past are not textual humans, but all textual humans are biological humans.” [14]

While Swamidass’ model is superficially attractive in that it does not require positing thousands of gaps in the Genesis genealogies, the problems that it raises are too intolerably great for me to commend Swamidass’ solution. For one thing, in what sense, if any, can non-Adamic biological humans be considered to be fully human? Are they affected by original sin, and did Jesus die to save them? Swamidass conjectures that these biological humans bear God’s image but “are not yet affected by Adam’s fall. They have a sense of right and wrong, written on their hearts (Rom. 2:15), but they are not morally perfect. They do wrong at times. They are subject to physical death, which prevents their wrongdoing from growing into true evil (Gen. 6:3).” [15] The Scriptures, however, make no such distinction between biological humans and textual humans. Swamidass’ view would seem to suggest logically that those individuals who were biological (but not textual) humans are qualitatively indistinct from other animals. But in that case it makes no sense to call their deeds evil, or to postulate that they had a sense of right and wrong. Moreover, if they, as Swamidass suggests, “do wrong at times”, then does this not suggest that Adam’s fall is but one of many falls that have occurred in human history? The theological ramifications that accompany this scenario are too severe for me to entertain Swamidass’ proposal.

"Apparent" theistic evolution

I'm not a young earth creationist (YEC). That said:

Some people criticize YEC on the grounds that it makes God a deceiver if not a liar. He created the world in something like 10,000 years, but he created it with the appearance of age, empirically speaking. Critics say that's deceptive. Some critics even say it makes God a liar.

Some theistic evolutionists may face a similar problem. They say God guided evolution, but they also say we can't detect evidence of design. Such as in entities like DNA, cells, flagella, eyes. Apparently God guided evolution in such a way that his guidance is empirically undetectable. (Otherwise, if design is detectable, why not embrace design like Behe does?) Apparently theistic evolution is empirically indistinguishable from naturalistic evolution. So does this mean theistic evolutionists are making God out to be a deceiver if not a liar?

If theistic evolutionists respond there's nothing necessarily unethical about God's deception, then why couldn't YECs say the same about YEC?

What is evolution?

I've argued against evolution - or more precisely I've argued against certain components of evolution - on many occasions. I use evolution to mean Darwinism or rather neo-Darwinism which is the mainstream theory of evolution today.

That said, oftentimes debates over evolution forget the very basics. They often forget to define what evolution is in the first place. So I'll try to do that now in a hopefully simple manner accessible to most people reading this.

What is evolution? Evolution is the combination of six components:

1. Genetic change over time. A species undergoes change in their genes or alleles over time. (Alleles are simply variants of the same gene.)
2. Gradualism. It takes a long time (generations) to produce genetic change.
3. Speciation. The simple idea is splitting. One or more species can split off from another species.
4. Common ancestry. This is the flipside of speciation. If species can split off from other species, then we can trace the splitting back in time (via fossils and genetic sequences) to find the shared or common ancestor of two or more species.
5. Natural selection. Organisms in the same species may have genetic differences among one another. This in turn impacts their ability to reproduce and survive in an environment. The genes that are more conducive to reproduction and survival will more likely be passed on (heredity) to the subsequent generation while the genes that don't will be less likely to be passed on (heredity) to the subsequent generation. That's in essence what natural selection is.
6. Other mechanisms (besides natural selection). These include genetic drift, gene flow, and random genetic mutations which can cause evolutionary change. The primary mechanism (especially in a large population) is random genetic mutations. Broadly speaking, random genetic mutations are permanent alterations in a gene.

This is a fairly standard definition of evolution. In fact, it's so standard that it's based in large part on Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution Is True!

Now that we have a mainstream working definition, we can begin to voice our concerns and disagreements with evolution (neo-Darwinism). Keeping this in mind, see my earlier post including its comments for many of my own thoughts on evolution.

Some comments on theistic evolution

For what it's worth, here are some comments (revised) on intelligent design and theistic evolution that I recently left in a previous post in a friendly conversation with Eric:

1. I'll use evolution as shorthand for neo-Darwinism. And I'll use ID for intelligent design.

2. To my knowledge, ID is relatively "new" in the sense that Dembski describes it in his chapter "How does intelligent design differ from the design argument?" in his book The Design Revolution. An excerpt is available here. However, ID is "old" in the sense that it's in the same or similar vein as teleological arguments in general (aka arguments from design, which might be more clearly termed arguments for design). This stretches back as far as Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways if not earlier.

3. I'm very sympathetic and greatly appreciate the work of the ID guys. At the same time, I think I'm persuaded by Alvin Plantinga (e.g. "design discourse") and Del Ratzsch (e.g. "the persistence of design thinking") when it comes to assessing their work.

4. My impression is, relatively speaking, secular physicists (cosmology) seem more open-minded about arguments for design (e.g. fine-tuning) than secular biologists. I mean, there are plenty of close-minded cosmologists, but I'm speaking in comparison to secular biologists. Secular biologists seem like the dwarves in the stable in C. S. Lewis' The Last Battle, imprisoned in their own minds, and "so afraid of being taken in that they cannot be taken out". They stick their fingers in their ears and refuse so much as to entertain the possibility of anything other than a strictly material world. I guess most of them take after Lewontin: "materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door". Regarding fine-tuning, see the works of Robin Collins and Luke Barnes.

5. An interesting question to explore is whether evolution itself requires design to operate. By contrast, if the universe and all it contains including life is not designed, then would evolution even be able to get off the ground?

For starters, evolution appears to be goal-directed, that is, it appears to be teleological. It appears to be able to adapt means to ends. However, if the universe and all it contains is not designed, then how would evolution come to be goal-directed? How would it come to be able to adapt means to ends? For example, if all is undesigned, without teleological purpose, then how did the heart come to exist to pump blood to the body? A happy accident? Not to mention all the other functions in every organism on this planet. Multiply all this together and the chances of all these serendipitous events occurring seem improbable to say the least.

Stepping back, what are the chances of the origin of life? Next, of the origin of the first cell? Next, of the origin of the first multicellular organism? Next, of the origin of the first warm-blooded animal? Next, of the origin of intelligence or consciousness? And so on. Each step is not one small step, but a giant leap. A leap as giant as a human being becoming a star-child à la 2001: A Space Odyssey.

And all this is in addition to the chances of finely-turned laws to drive all this, but what are the chances of a law like natural selection in an undesigned universe?

Strategic priorities in apologetics

These can each be resolved by simply setting aside Biblical inerrancy.1 A saved liberal Christian is better than nothing, so reserve the above sub-topics for later.

Let me add that you have a virtual responsibility to ensure that your interlocutor knows that one can be a Christian while accepting evolution.

https://beliefmap.org/apologetics-guide/strategic-priorities

1. This reflects an unfortunate trend among some younger generation apologists. They don't think like theologians. Yet Christianity is a religion, so it's necessary to think like a theologian. 

2. Although the Bible contains many historical narratives, the Bible is divine revelation. It's not just a historical record of events, but theologically interpreted events. God raises up prophets and apostles to speak to and through them. A supernatural process. Consider the altered conscious states of seers like Isaiah, Ezekiel, Zechariah, and John the Revelator. Or consider the theological interpretations of Paul, the author of Hebrews, &c. Or how the Gospels integrate history with theological interpretation. 

3. Is there such a thing as "saved liberal Christian"? Or is that someone with a fundamentally unmodified secular outlook who's tacked on some Christian sentiments? 

How is that better than nothing rather than worse than nothing? If he's satisfied with a bad answer, a wrong answer, he has no incentive to seek a better answer. He took a wrong turn and keeps going in the wrong direction. It's not as if a "saved liberal Christian" is doing God a favor. 

4. Many unbelievers will rightly see it as intellectually evasive when Christian apologists duck objections to the inerrancy of Scripture. That doesn't mean a Christian apologist is obligated to individually run through every objection to the Bible. There are lots of good resources we can point a critic to, viz., Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the New Testament (B&H Academic, 2016); D. A. Carson, ed. The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures (Eerdmans, 2016); James Hoffmeier & Dennis MaGary, eds., Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith? (Crossway 2012); Kenneth Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Eerdmans 2003); John Oswalt, The Bible Among the Myths (Zondervan 2009); Vern Poythress, Inerrancy and the Gospels (Crossway 2012); Peter Williams, Can we Trust the Gospels? (Crossway 2018). If the critic is one of those frivolous people who recycles canned objections but is too apathetic to examine the answers, that's not the responsibility of a Christian apologist. 

5. If evolution is contrary to the Biblical revelation of organic origins, a Christian has no duty to say one can be an inconsistent Christian. While it's possible to be an inconsistent Christian, there's no obligation to commend or recommend intellectual or theological inconsistency. It's not as if a "saved liberal Christian" is doing God a favor. 

A Christian apologist lacks the authority to tell people what biblical teachings they must believe and which they are free to disregard. There can be debates about what Scripture teaches, but the principle is to accept all of divine revelation. 

Could there be design in evolution?

YouTuber apologist Michael Jones is promoting theistic evolution: "Could there be design in evolution?"

Several issues:

1. The idea of theistic evolution has been kicking around since the 19C. The idea that evolution could be guided or directed is nothing new.

2. A fundamental issue is whether theistic evolution is consistent with Biblical revelation regarding the origin of life. Theistic evolutionists typically reduce Gen 2-3 to fiction.  

3. Another issue is whether scientists even have a workable model of evolution.

4. A further issue is the relationship between theistic and evolution. Does evolution have the mechanisms to succeed on its own. Or does it require divine intervention to shore it up?

5. From what I've read, Jones is a metaphysical idealist. But you can't combine metaphysical idealism with belief in a physical external world with organic biological processes like evolution. Those are divergent paradigms. If reality is mental from top to bottom, then the the physical world is an illusion. A psychological projection. 

An interview with Gunter Bechly

"Interview: Gunter Bechly (Paleontologist)"

Answering Swamidass on Theistic Evolution

Ann Gauger has a 3-part series responding to Joshua Swamidass' review of the book Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique:

1. Answering Joshua Swamidass on Theistic Evolution: A Religious Agenda?

2. Answering Joshua Swamidass on Theistic Evolution: What Do Theistic Evolutionists Believe?

3. Answering Joshua Swamidass on Theistic Evolution: Sketchy Science, and a Swerve into Metaphysics

I don't agree with everything, but I still think the entire series is worth reading. Gauger lands several solid punches. Here are a few excerpts:

Craig on random mutations

Here's William Lane Craig's most recent Q&A "#-671 Do 'Random' Mutations Occur by 'Chance'?".

As explained, too many people on both sides of the creation/evolution debate think that “random,” when used by evolutionary biologists to characterize mutations, means purposeless or without direction or by chance. But that’s not at all what they mean. Rather they mean that the mutations occur regardless of their benefit to the organism in which they occur. Such an understanding of “random” is not at all contrary to God’s having a purpose for the mutations that occur or even Himself causing the mutations to occur.

1. If we want a strict biology textbook definition, sure, mutations are "random" in the sense that the mutation that occurs is unpredictable in relation to what is useful to the organism. The mutation that occurs is unrelated to the usefulness of the mutation to the organism.

2. However, that's not always what we're talking about when we talk about random mutations. It depends on the context. Surely (surely!) Craig knows when people debate creation/evolution/ID, they're not always or solely talking about the strict biology textbook definition of random mutations. Rather creation/evolution/ID debates likewise involve questions over more fundamental issues. Such as the existence of God as well as the nature and scope of God's intervention in nature. So the use of both kinds of definitions for random mutations aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

3. To be more specific, in the context of naturalistic evolution (e.g. Dawkins, Coyne), it's legitimate to argue that these mutations are ultimately purposeless or unguided. Given naturalistic evolution, what is the ultimate source of these "random" mutations?

We come to see that evolutionary theory does not assert that the mutations which lie at the root of evolutionary development and, hence, evolution itself occur purposelessly or by chance, as popularizers and even careless scientists often claim. By properly understanding the meaning of “random” in evolutionary theory, we come to see that evolution is wholly compatible with God’s providentially directing the evolutionary process.

However, this doesn't depend on evolutionary theory (neo-Darwinism) in and of itself. Rather, as I've just said, it depends on whether we're talking about (say) theistic evolution or atheistic evolution. The textbook definition of random mutations is consistent with either theistic evolution or atheistic evolution.

I’m implying that the theory of evolution is not incompatible with Christian theism because it does not assert that the mutations which advance evolutionary change occur by chance or without purpose...What I’m implying is that God, while quite able to create fully functional biological organisms de novo, may have instead chosen to create them indirectly by deliberately causing the mutations that drove evolutionary advance.

1. Now, it could be Craig is simply answering this question or objection without offering his personal beliefs about the matter. Perhaps that's the case.

2. However, maybe I'm mistaken, but my impression is Craig has been becoming more sympathetic to theistic evolution as well as more skeptical about the historical Adam and Eve over the years. Again, that's not to suggest Craig currently accepts theistic evolution or denies the historical Adam and Eve. But it seems to me he is at least intellectually sympathetic to both positions, even if that's not his personal conviction.

Take the historical Adam and Eve. It seems to me Craig might be sympathetic in believing either there may not have been a historical Adam and Eve (e.g. Y-chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial Eve lived thousands of years apart from one another), or if there was, then they were "chosen" by God out of a pool of other hominids and "made into" the historical Adam and Eve.

3. If it's true Craig is becoming more sympathetic to accepting theistic evolution and/or denying the historical Adam and Eve, then I presume his main influence is the Christian physician-scientist Joshua Swamidass at Peaceful Science. I think Swamidass is in essence a theistic evolutionist, but he often seems circumspect about saying so explicitly. The latest two Reasonable Faith podcasts involve Swamidass (here, here).

Polyphonic narration

1. I'd like to consider the hermeneutics of young-earth creationism, old-earth creationism, and theistic evolution. In particular, how does Gen 1-9 map onto natural history according to these three positions? How, if at all, does Gen 1-9 provide guidance for the way primeval history unfolds? 

2. Because YEC operates with a face-value reading, it posits a straightforward correlation between the narrative descriptions and natural history. For YEC, Gen 1-9 is a clear-pane window onto natural history. 

3. Conversely, because the narrative of theistic evolution is at such variance from Gen 1-9, it has several options:

i) Gen 1-9 is pious fiction rather than historical narrative. There's no correlation between Gen 1-9 and natural history. It doesn't operate at that level. Rather, the text teaches "spiritual" truths. 

ii) Gen 1-9 is purified pagan mythology. It's not directly related to what happened. Rather, it corrects prevalent heathen narratives by removing the objectionable features and substituting a theologically orthodox concept. The frame of reference isn't natural history; rather, the frame of reference is pagan mythology, but using that as a foil. But if the template is fiction, then a redacted template is fiction. If the template is a pagan creation myth or flood legend, then after all the impious elements are edited out, the end-result will still be fictional. 

iii) Gen 1-9 is allegory. There's a kind of analogy between Gen 1-9 and natural history, but it's not a recognizable description of what actually happened. You can't use the text as a guide to what really happened. It's like an extended metaphor. The allegory is consistent with any number of scenarios. 

For theistic evolution, Gen 1-9 is a mural. It doesn't show the viewer what's outside. It doesn't show the viewer what lies on the other side of the wall. 

Dumb luck

I'll respond to Jayman's comments on my post:

https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-wasteful-work-of-nature.html  

I don't think "luck" and "chance" are substances; they aren't things that exist in their own right. We label outcomes we can't fully explain as the result of "luck" or "chance" but we have to keep in mind these are not true causes. They are admissions of ignorance.

Take the proverbial coin toss. The coin did not land heads-up because a substance known as "luck" or "chance" caused it to land heads-up. It landed heads-up up because of a variety of factors (launch angle, spin rate, gravity) that are too complex for us to identify precisely each time a coin is tossed in the air.

Evolution did not progress because "luck" or "chance" intervened. It progressed because of specific selection pressures, specific mutations, specific acts of procreation, etc. Because we are not in the position to know all of these causes throughout history we may chalk it up to "luck" or "chance" but we have to keep in mind that we say this because we are ignorant of the precise causes, not because "luck" and "chance" are true causes.

All of this is to say that "luck" and "chance" should not be on the table as real causes for anything. The main question, I believe, is whether the causes we see operating point to a first cause or not.

The wasteful work of nature

This post is primarily about theodical challenges posed by theistic evolution, but I'll use Darwin's statement as a convenient frame of reference:

What a book a devil's chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering, low, and horribly cruel work of nature! 

A. Some apologists respond this type of objection by saying the atheist is illicitly assuming a God's-eye viewpoint. "If I was God, I'd do it this way instead!" 

They counter that you're not God, you're not omniscient, so you're not entitled to assume a God's-eye perspective. For all you know, God may have lots of reasons that don't occur to you. 

This response is usually deployed in response to the argument from evil. And it has a grain of truth, but it's too lax and facile to be a general principle. The danger lies in defending truth by a principle that shields falsehood from scrutiny. A Christian apologist should avoid recourse to arguments to protect Christianity that have the side-effect of protecting cults and false religions. 

For instance, suppose a Christian apologist says Joseph Smith has all the earmarks of a charlatan. Suppose a Mormon counters that for all we know, God might choose someone like Joseph Smith. 

Catholics say the church of Rome is the One True Church founded by Jesus Christ. Evangelicals looks at Rome and exclaim, "Is that the best God could do?" If that's a church which enjoys special protection from error, what does a church look like that doesn't enjoy special protection from error? 

But the Catholic counters, you're illicitly assuming a God's eye perspective! 

Suppose a Christian apologist says it would be deceptive for God to save people through divergent religions that make contradictory claims. Suppose a universalist or religious pluralist counters: How presumptuous for you to divine God's mind and speak on his behalf!  

I'll have more to say about the principle further down.

The natural evil of evolution

This is indeed a challenge for theistic evolutionists (e.g. BioLogos, Catholic intellectuals):

When you look at the full picture of evolution and you consider the 3.5 billion years during which this unfolding drama played out, when there were millions and millions of species that evolved only to be snuffed out and pushed into evolutionary dead ends, and during which time there was at least 5 mass extinctions in which some 70-95 percent of all the living species on earth at that time went extinct, I'm being asked by theists to believe that this was all part of a divine creator's plan who was sitting back and taking pleasure in watching millions of species (whose evolution he allegedly guided) get wiped out one after the other, and then starting all over again, and then wiped them out again and repeated this process over and over, until finally getting around to evolving human beings – which I'm told was the whole purpose of this cruel and clumsy process. 

http://www.atheismandthecity.com/2017/10/why-im-atheist-13-reasons-arguments-for.html

Giving up Darwin

This is from a generally sympathetic review of Meyer's book. The reviewer, a Yale computer science prof., seems to agree that the theory of naturalistic evolution, as currently formulated, can't deliver the goods, but he remains unpersuaded by intelligent design as a satisfactory alternative:

If Meyer were invoking a single intervention by an intelligent designer at the invention of life, or of consciousness, or rationality, or self-aware consciousness, the idea might seem more natural. But then we still haven’t explained the Cambrian explosion. An intelligent designer who interferes repeatedly, on the other hand, poses an even harder problem of explaining why he chose to act when he did. Such a cause would necessarily have some sense of the big picture of life on earth. What was his strategy? How did he manage to back himself into so many corners, wasting energy on so many doomed organisms? Granted, they might each have contributed genes to our common stockpile—but could hardly have done so in the most efficient way. What was his purpose? And why did he do such an awfully slipshod job? Why are we so disease prone, heartbreak prone, and so on? An intelligent designer makes perfect sense in the abstract. The real challenge is how to fit this designer into life as we know it. Intelligent design might well be the ultimate answer. But as a theory, it would seem to have a long way to go.

https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/giving-up-darwin/

That raises a number of general issues, as well as issues specific to intelligent design theory:

i) The reviewer erects a false dichotomy between deistic providence and continuous divine intervention. But it's not as though there can't be something reasonable in-between those two extremes. There's a sense in which the degree of divine intervention is arbitrary inasmuch as God could intervene one more time or one less time. There's no absolute logical cutoff for exactly the right number of times God should intervene. 

ii) Moreover, divine intervention involves tradeoffs. It can be a good thing, but it also has a disruptive impact on the future. As such, there can be too much divine intervention as well as too little. Human existence needs a fair measure of stability and predictability. 

iii) If we view evolution as the process by which life originates and/or diversifies, then evolution is an inefficient process for achieving a long-range goal. Of course, that takes the truth of evolution for granted, which is the very question at issue. 

On this view, some organisms are the means by which other organisms come into existence. So their purpose, if they have a purpose, is instrumental. And if we cast that in terms of theistic evolution, the process is very convoluted and "wasteful", as a way of reaching the final outcome. If, on the other hand, we're talking about naturalistic evolution, then that's not a goal-oriented process to begin with. Species are the incidental byproduct of a blind process. 

iv) If, however, we reject an evolutionary narrative, then life on earth is not primarily a process for deriving newer species from prior species. Prior species don't exist as a bridge to more advanced species. On that view, doomed organisms aren't evolutionary dead-ends, since it never was the primary way of producing new species. 

To take a comparison, sometimes a family line dies out. There are no more descendants. But it doesn't follow that that linage was a waste of time. There's value in individual human lives even if the linage terminates at some point. That's not a blind alley–as if the value of the linage was instrumental, in producing decedents for the sake of descendants. 

v) Suppose we consider old-earth creationism as an alternative to naturalistic evolution or theistic evolution. On that view, species may become extinct, species may be phased in and phrased out, not because God lacks foresight and repeatedly backs himself into a corner (although that is a realistic scenario in open theism), but because not all species can coexist. For one thing, there's not room enough for all species to coexist. 

In addition, some species require a different biosphere. A different atmosphere. Different ratio of oxygen to nitrogen or carbon dioxide. Fauna that require a different kind of flora (e.g. tropical swamps). In that event, creation will be diachronically staged, in part to make room for new species, and in part because the conditions for the life of certain species are variable. 

vi) As for disease prone or heartbreak prone, in Christian theology that's not a design flaw or artifact of creation but a consequence of the Fall. And the Fall has a purpose, too. 

vii) It would still be the case that intelligent design theory is guilty of postulating ad hoc divine interventions to resolve unexplained problems in the fossil record. I'm not commenting directly on that. 

Paradigm shift

The doctrine of creation runs deeply through Scripture and Christian theology. It may not be the gospel itself, but creation is entangled with the gospel through Paul’s teaching on Adam. How we understand creation is also intertwined with how we understand the rest of Scripture, from which we Protestants gain most of our theology. Changing my view on creation requires a reconfiguration of a large part of my understanding of theology, which is not something I take lightly.

You might argue that the science of evolution is entangled with the very foundation of biology and geology and that science cannot be science without evolution. Obviously, I don’t agree with that at all. I see a great deal of flexibility in science, which you do not. Over the centuries, many theories that seemed so obviously true were abandoned for better models, and I have no doubt that trend will continue. Humanity has barely begun to explore God’s creation. We can hardly imagine what discoveries are coming right around the corner.

I also won’t change my mind because I have lingering doubts about this or that issue. I don’t want to adopt a position merely as a way to escape intellectual anxiety. That’s not faith at all. That’s acting in doubt. Every position has unanswered questions. No one gets to understand it all here and now.

http://henrycenter.tiu.edu/2019/02/a-letter-to-the-heretic/

A question about evolution

According to the theory, as I understand it, humans evolved from critters like tarsiers. Is there an upper limit on the degree to which an organism can be scaled up given the original information base? For instance, would any amount of selective breeding produce mice the size of horses? Or would that require the infusion of new genetic information? Just in terms of the difference in scale between humans and tarsiers, is it possible for humans to evolve from tarsier-like critters without the infusion of new information?

Overwhelming evidence for evolution

In this post I'll interact with Darrel Falk's chapter on "Overwhelming Evidence" for evolution in The Fool and the Heretic (Zondervan 2019). Falk is a leading propagandist for theistic evolution. 

It's now time to return to the question of just how solid the evidence for evolution is. In my narrative, I gave one clear example of evolutionary theory leading to a prediction  [about] animals intermediate between fish and four-legged land animals (135).

I understand how that's consistent with evolution, but how do intermediate forms provide evidence for evolution? How is that distinguishable from animals with hybrid features because it reflects the ecological zone in which they live (e.g. amphibians)?

Rocks that are greater than one billion years old have never revealed a fossil of a multicellular plant or animal…But there is a progression as we move through time to examine rocks that are younger and younger. Fish first appear in rocks of about 500 million years…Amphibians appear beginning in rocks of about 370 million years…Reptiles appear a little later (about 320 million years) and mammals (230) million years) a little later still…The first primates are not found in the fossil record until rocks dated at 55 million years ago…thousands of hominid fossils have now been found, none are found in rocks older than about five million years (pp136-7).

i) What's the point of contrast? I see how that might be a problem for young-earth creationism, although YEC can appeal to mature creation or Omphalism. 

ii) However, I don't see how that's a problem for old-earth creationism. To my knowledge, OEC takes the position that God makes natural kinds ex nihilo, but makes them at different times, phasing them into natural history. The fact that organisms appear at different stages in natural history is consistent with OEC.  

iii) Moreover, that's not just a face-saving explanation to harmonize the natural record with Genesis. Rather, they say the evidence supports OEC. As a matter of fact, organisms with new body plans appear in the fossil record with no evolutionary precursors. 

Rock formations of between two million and five million years of age contain no hominin fossils the world over, except on one continent–Africa. Indeed, no hominin fossils have ever been found in North or South America that are older than about eighteen thousand years…In Asia, hominin fossils are found beginning at about 18 million years and in Europe about one million years. This regional localization is consistent with the hypothesis that hominins were created through a single evolutionary lineage in one area of the world (Africa)…the findings suggest that a group migrated out of African (perhaps over many generations) into Asia a little less than two million years ago, and that some of their descendants in turn eventually made it into Europe. The oceans presented a barrier, of course, to arrival in North and South America… (138).

i) How is that evidence for evolution? Notice that Falk is using an evolutionary narrative and evolutionary categories to interpret the evidence. To classify them as hominins and say hominins appear in the record at particular times takes for granted that these animals are ancestors to modern man. But that's the very question at issue! So his appeal is circular. He hasn't show how that's independent evidence for evolution. To the contrary, he uses the theory of evolution to explain the pattern.

ii) He ignores the multiregional alternative hypothesis. 

iii) Is there evidence that the reputed hominins display recognizably humanoid intelligence, viz. art, music, human problem-solving skills? At what date?

iv) Why would it take them so long to migrate out of Africa? Africa is a fairly inhospitable place to live. There'd be an incentive to explore other regions. 

v) The fact that we find evidence of human occupation in the Old World earlier than evidence for human occupation in the New World is what Genesis would lead us to expect. According to Genesis, man originated in the Old World (Mesopotamia) and fanned out from there.

I've written elsewhere that "the living process of a single cell, and the unfolding and coordination of the plan of a developing embryo, is like a magnificent symphony…Its beauty and process are exactly what we would expect if a loving God…works through time to bring about his purposes. God's initial design and God's providential oversight work through life's processes to bring about creation of new life forms (139). 

Embryology is awesome. How is that comparable to the haphazard evolutionary process, with its many dead-ends?

In chimpanzees and humans, many of the genetic elements are in the exact same location. (Functionally, it has been shown that there is no specific reason that they need to be in the same location.) This is consistent with the hypothesis that chimpanzees and humans descend from a common ancestral species that existed about five or six million years ago and that given how slowly the genetic elements jumped to a new location, most are still in the same location in that common ancestry. If one compares the position of these jumping elements in orangutans, there is a higher percentage that don't occupy the same position in the chromosomes. This is consistent with the hypothesis that orangutans and humans share a common ancestral species…but one that existed deeper in the past…If we examine the distribution of the jumping genetic elements in gibbons, many are still in  the exact same positions as in humans but a higher percentage have shifted. This is consistent with the hypothesis that gibbons and humans decend from a common ancestral species even deeper in the past, allowing even greater time for elements to jump (140-41).

I see how that's consistent with evolution, but it is that evidence for evolution? Suppose it's God's intention to create a world that reflects diversity. In that event, creatures will range along a continuum from most similar to most dissimilar. 

To take a comparison, a deck of cards has different possible combinations. In poker, some hands are more similar while others are more dissimilar, viz. royal flesh, straight flush, four of a kind, full house, flush, straight three of a kind, two pair. Given diversity, there's bound to be spectrum where some are more alike while others are less alike. Where some are closer to the middle while others occupy the opposite ends of the spectrum. The fact that hands can be grouped that way is the logical result of diversity. By the same token, species can be sorted by degrees of similarity and dissimilarity. How are such variations evidence for common ancestry rather than the principle of the plenitude or adaptation to habitat? 

Todd and other young-earth creationists cannot bring themselves to make what I consider to be a very small shift in the way they read the early chapters of Genesis (146).

i) Falk acts as though the only reason evolution leads some people to be atheists is perceived conflict with the Bible. But even if Gen 1-3 (or Rom 5/1 Cor 15) never existed, evolution would still drive some people into atheism because they think the evolutionary record in itself is an indication that we inhabit a godless universe. They see no evidence of transcendent intelligence, benevolence, planning, or prevision in the evolutionary record. No evidence of a mind behind the process, guiding the process. William Provine is a good example. 

Indeed, many theistic evolutionists are antagonistic towards intelligent design theory. They read the evolutionary record the same way as secular evolutionary biologists and paleontologists. They reject the idea that we can detect divine intervention or direction in the record of natural history. 

ii) I can see how Falk's evidence for evolution would be devastating to Christians who are exposed to it for the first time. Christians who are intellectually defenseless.

iii) When I invoke mature creation, Omphalism, and/or the principle of plenitude, an evolutionist might object that this has nothing to do with science. That's pseudo-science.

However, the question at issue isn't just a scientific claim but a theological claim. The idea of divine creation. Special creation. Creation ex nihilo. It's not out of place to bring philosophical theology to bear when evaluating a theological claim. Indeed, that's unavoidable. 

So there's a methodological question. What's the starting-point? You can have a bottom-up starting-point. Look at the extant evidence and attempt to reconstruct the past from the surviving trace evidence. Reconstruct the past from lingering effects of past events. And that's a legitimate approach.

But there's a top-down starting-point. If the world is the result of divine creation, then we need to consider the nature of creativity. For human agents, that begins with an idea. We make something that corresponds to our idea. The idea comes first. 

From that perspective, mature creation, Omphalism, and/or the principle of plenitude can't be ruled out. Suppose, in God's imagination, he has the concept of a world-history. How could he not? But the point at which the plot begins is arbitrary, in the sense that the plot could always begin a little sooner or a little later. The plot could end a little sooner or a little later. The challenge for a storyteller or screenwriter is how to begin the story and how to end the story.

Likewise, is there an antecedent metaphysical  presumption that the principle of plenitude is false? http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100331692

iv) I can see how some people find young-earth creationism ad hoc. And maybe it is ad hoc to some degree. I myself an not committed to YEC. But even if I was, that's not a fatal concession or a damaging concession. That's because I can see how some people find old-earth creationism ad hoc. 

What is more, theistic evolution is ad hoc. The foundation of theistic evolution is naturalistic evolution. Many or most theistic evolutionists think the evolutionary record is indistinguishable from naturalistic evolution. They don't think there's any discernible evidence of God's providential hand in natural history. That's why they attack intelligent design theory with such implacable ferocity. Instead, they appeal to evidence for God from disciplines outside evolutionary biology and paleontology.

So theistic evolution has a theistic tile floor on a foundation of naturalistic evolution. Some Christian theology (often progressive) tacked onto the framework of an empirically godless process. 

Finally, naturalistic evolution is ad hoc. For instance, it spawns a plethora of harmonistic devices, viz. analogy, ancestral homology, convergent evolution, derived homology, evolutionary reversal, exaptation, homoplasy, spandrel. 

Is it the natural record that yields these distinctions and categories? Or do evolutionists devise them to make the theory of evolution consistent with disparate evidence? So every side in this dispute as the appearance of makeshift explanations.  

v) I can see how evolution seems to be a reasonable explanation for the evidence he presents. Mind you, something can seem reasonable in isolation, but unreasonable when we take additional factors into consideration.

One problem is that his presentation is so one-sided. He cites prima facie evidence for evolution, but fails to mention prima facie evidence to the contrary.

vi) Here's another major problem with evolutionary theory: the evolutionary process is a physical process. The effects of the process are physical products. 

But that raises the question of whether human reason can be the result of evolution. Can something physical generate consciousness? Ironically, the hard problem of consciousness has been formulated by secular philosophers. Card-carrying physicalists. But they admit that the problem is inexplicable. As a matter of principle, mental properties are irreducible to physical operations. If so, that's a fundamental defeater for evolution. If it has no room for human minds, then it's drastically flawed.

A theistic evolutionist might posit evolutionary Cartesian dualism, where, once the brain evolved to a certain level of complexity, that furnishes the platform for embodied souls. But what is that if not a stopgap explanation? 

Roundup on creationism

To my knowledge, these are the most competent books of their kind:

Old-earth creationism

C. John Collins, Reading Genesis Well: Navigating History, Poetry, Science, and Truth in Genesis 1-11 (2018)

Vern Poythress, Interpreting Eden: A Guide to Faithfully Reading and Understanding Genesis 1-3 (2019)

New-earth creationism

Leonard Brand & Arthur Chadwick, Faith, Reason, and Earth History: A Paradigm of Earth and Biological Origins by Intelligent Design (Andrews University Press; 3rd ed., 2016)

John Byl, God and Cosmos (2001)

Jonathan Sarfati, The Genesis Account: A theological, historical, and scientific commentary on Genesis 1-11 (2015)

Andrew Snelling, Earth's Catastrophic Past: Geology, Creation, & the Flood (2014)

Kurt Wise, Faith, Form, and Time: What the Bible Teaches and Science Confirms about Creation and the Age of the Universe (2000)

Todd Wood, Human Genesis [working title (forthcoming). Will concentrate on human origins from a creationist, biblical, theological, and scientific perspective.

Darwinism

Douglas Axe, Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed (2017)

Robert J. Marks et al. Introduction To Evolutionary Informatics (2017)

Stephen C. Meyer, Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design (rev. ed., 2014)

Stephen C. Myer, The Return of the God Hypothesis (2021)

J. P. Moreland et al. eds. Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique (2017)

Ransom Poythress, Richard Dawkins (P&R 2018)

Counting the animals

18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” 19 Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him (Gen 2:18-20).

I'd like to say a few more things about this passage. The launchpad is Randal Rauser's dismissive comments about young-earth creationism.

i) It's deceptive when folks like Rauser attack young-earth creationism, because their true target is much broader. It's not as if Rauser is an old-earth creationist. I'm quite sure he's a theistic evolutionist. 

More to the point, as you can see from his glowing review of Robin Perry's book (The Biblical Cosmos), it's pretty obvious that Rauser views Gen 2-3 as fictional. So his actual position is far more radical than whether day 6 was a calendar day. 

ii) Scholars like John Walton and Peter Enns say we should interpret Genesis in the way the original audience would understand it. I agree. But there's a bait-n-switch.

When scholars like Walton and Enns classify Genesis as mythology, that's a retroactive classification. That doesn't reflect the viewpoint of the original narrator but the viewpoint of modern scholars who don't believe anything like that ever happened or even could happen. In reality, they are doing the polar opposite of what they claim to be doing: rather than adopting the viewpoint of the original narrator, they superimpose the viewpoint of a modern scholar who regards the outlook of the original narrator as antiquated and erroneous. 

iii) In context, I don't think Gen 2:18-20 means Adam named every kind of animal on earth. Gen 2 is about the land of Eden rather than planet earth. In particular, it's about God preparing the Garden of Eden. Fauna and flora God made for that particular locale, as man's original habitat. That's the setting for vv18-20. So it's quite possible that Adam would have time to name all the animals in the course of one afternoon. That's not unrealistic given the narrative parameters. 

iv) In addition, the function of the naming is to make Adam aware of the fact that he has no human companions generally, as well as no female counterpart in particular. The animals have male and female pairs, but nothing corresponding to Adam. Adam doesn't even need to name every animal in the garden to get the message. A sample would drive home that point. The purpose is not to exhaustively name the animals but to create a point of contrast between animals, including male and female animals, and Adam's lack of human companionship and female companionship. 

(For that matter, there's a difference between naming kinds of animals and naming each individual of the same kind.) 

v) The account itself doesn't say how long it took Adam to name the animals. It doesn't say he had to do it all in one afternoon. The assumption that it all had to happen in the span of one day isn't based on Gen 2, which lacks temporal markers, but the attempt to synchronize Gen 2 with day 6 of Gen 1. I think the reasoning goes like this:

In Gen 1, God creates man and woman on day six, then ceases his creative labors on day seven. In Gen 2, God creates Adam, Adam names the animals, then God creates Eve. If the creation of Eve succeeds the naming of the animals, but precedes the divine rest, then all that has to happen on day 6.

Maybe that's the correct interpretation, but maybe not. As Rabbi Brichto pointed out, there's the OT technique of narrating the same event twice. The first account is simpler or more general while the second account is more detailed. This relates to similar techniques like narrative compression and prophetic telescoping. Applied to the question at hand, day six may mark the terminus ad quo for the creation of man, but not the terminus ad quem. That might also account for the vaguer timeframe of Gen 2. 

Whale evolution

I was asked to comment on this:

For me personally (as a geneticist) comparative genomics (comparing DNA sequences between different species) has really sealed the deal on evolution. Even if Darwin had never lived and no one else had come up with the idea of common ancestry, modern genomics would have forced us to that conclusion even if there was no other evidence available (which of course manifestly isn’t the case). For example, we see the genes for air-based olfaction (smelling) in whales that no longer even have olfactory organs.

https://biologos.org/blogs/dennis-venema-letters-to-the-duchess/ask-an-evolutionary-creationist-a-q-a-with-dennis-venema

I'm not a Cetologist, but neither is Venema. Speaking as a laymen, a few observations:

i) Both old-earth and young-earth creationism make allowance for adaptation and loss of function. For instance, blind cave fish are consistent with creationism. 

ii) From what I've read, one of the challenges facing macroevolution isn't loss of information but the source of new information necessary to generate new organs and body plans. 

iii) I guess what Venema is angling at is that whales have vestigial genes for air-based olfaction because their distant ancestors were land animals. Put another way, the assumption seems to be that marine animals never had any need of air-based olfaction, since their natural element is water. But is that true?

Years ago I saw a nature show in which a killer whale was cruising the shoreline of an island breeding ground for penguins and seals. It doesn't take much imagination to see how air-based olfaction might be useful for a marine predator whose diet includes semiaquatic prey that spends on some time on the beach. Likewise, I saw a nature show in which polar bears hunt beluga whales that surface for air in breathing holes in sea ice. Once again, it doesn't take much imagination to see how air-based olfaction might be useful to sniff out polar bears. That might be too late in the case of breathing holes, but ice flows also have shifting stream-like openings, where it might be useful to sniff out prowling polar bears. And even if there's loss of function in extant species, it might have conferred a survival advantage in the past. 

iv) But even if that's an explanation for why beluga-like or orca-like whales once had air-based olfaction, why whales in general? To take a comparison, I have many organs and body parts, not because I'm human, but because I'm mammalian. By the same token, a dormant capacity for air-based olfaction might be part of the cetacean package, even if it's potential utility is confined to particular species or adaptations. 

v) Finally, here's an overview of the massive hurdles facing whale evolution: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx10NX2Plk4