Monday, November 13, 2006

There is an incredible debate between atheist biologist Richard Dawkins and Christian geneticist Francis Collins in the Time magazine dated November 13, 2006. What struck me the most was how these two men could debate the very divisive topic of God vs. Science in such a civil manner. I'm not accustomed to that in the debates I see or get involved in online. And while I think Francis Collins still made his points much better than Dawkins, Richard refrained from name calling (with the exception of one question). The interesting thing to note is that Collins agrees with Dawkins scientifically. He says, "I don't see that Professor Dawkins' basic account of evolution is incompatible with God's having designed it." I think this way of thinking is beginning to be more widespread among evangelical Christians. Less people are taking the account of creation in Genesis as literal; this paves the way for God to be the catalyst for evolution. At this point, I still disagree, but that's okay.

Excerpts from the debate:

Time: When would [God designing nature] have occured?

Collins: By being outside of nature, God is also outside of space and time. Hence, at the moment of the creation of the universe, God could also have activated evolution, with full knowledge of how it would turn out, perhaps even including our having this conversation. The idea that he could both foresee the future and also give us spirit and free will to carry out our own desires becomes entirely acceptable.

Time: The book of Genesis has led many conservative Protestants to oppose evolution and some to insist that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

Collins: There are sincere believers who interpret Genesis 1 and 2 in a very literal way that is inconsistent, frankly, with our knowledge of the universe's age or of how living organisms are related to each other. St. Augustine wrote that basically is it not possible to understand what was being described in Genesis. It was not intended as a science textbook. It was intended as a description of who God was, who we are and what our relationship is supposed to be with God. Augustine explicitly warns against a very narrow perspective that will put our faith at risk of looking ridiculous. If you step back from that one narrow interpretation, what the Bible describes is very consistent with the Big Bang.

This next one will get long because I want to include what both Collins and Dawkins said. It's an interesting exchange, though I found myself completely flabbergasted at what Dawkins suggested.

Time: Dr. Collins, you have described humanity's moral sense not only as a gift from God but as a signpost that he exists.

Collins: There is a whole field of inquiry that has come up in the last 30 or 40 years--some call it sociobiology or evolutionary psychology--relating to where we get our moral sense and why we value the idea of altruism, and locating both answers in behavioral adaptations for the preservation of our genes. But if you believe, and Richard has been articulate in this, that natural selection operates on the individual, not on a group, then why would the individual risk his own DNA doing something selfless to help somebody in a way that might diminish his chance of reproducing? Granted, we may try to help our own family members because they share our DNA. Or help someone else in expectation that they may help us later. But when you look at what we admire as the most generous manifestations of altruism, they are not based on kin selection or reciprocity. An extreme example might be Oskar Schindler risking his life to save more than a thousand Jews from the gas chamers. That's the opposite of saving his genes. Many of us think these qualities may come from God--especially since justice and morality are two of the attributes we most readily identify with God.

Dawkins: Can I begin with an analogy? Most people understand that sexual lust has to do with propogating genes. Copulation in nature tends to lead to reproduction and so to more genetic copies. But in modern society, most copulations involve contraception, designed precisely to avoid reproduction. Altruism probably has its origins like those of lust. In our prehistoric past, we would have lived in extended families, surrounded by kin whose interests we might have wanted to promote because they shared our genes. Now we live in big cities. We are not among kin nore people who will ever reciprocate our good deeds. It doesn't matter. Just people engaged in sex with contraception are not aware of being motivated by a drive to have babies, it doesn't cross our mind that the reason for do-gooding is based in the fact that our primitive ancestors lived in small groups. But that seems to me to be a highly plausible account for where the desire for morality, the desire for goodness, comes from.

Collins: For you to argue that our noblest acts are a misfiring of Darwinian behavior does not do justice to the sense we all have about the absolutes that are involved here of good and evil. Evolution may explain some features of the moral law, but it can't explain why it should have any real significance. If it is solely an evolutionary convenience, there is really no such thing as good or evil. But for me, it is much more than that. Themoral law is a reason to think of God as plausible--not just a God who sets the universe in motion but a God who cares about human beings, because we seem uniquely amongst creatures on the planet to have this far-developed sense of morality. What you've said implies that outside of the human mind, tuned by evolutionary processes, good and evil have no meaning. Do you agree with that?

Dawkins: Even the question you're asking has no meaning to me. Good and evil--I don't believe that there is hanging out there, anywhere, something called good and something called evil. I think that there are good things that happen and bad things that happen.

Collins: I think that is a fundamental difference between us. I'm glad we identified it.

Am I the only one who noticed that Dawkins said he doesn't believe that there is something called good, but in the next breath said that good things happen? How can good things happen if there is no good?

Time: But to the extent that a person argues on the basis of Scripture rather than reason, how can scientists respond?

Collins: Faith is not the opposite of reason. Faith rests squarely upon reason, but with the added component of revelation. So such discussions between scientists and believers happen quite readily. But neither scientists nor believers always embody the principles precisely. Scientists can have their judgment clouded by their professional aspirations. And the pure truth of faith, which you can think of as this clear spiritual water, is poured into rusty vessels called human beings, and so sometimes the benevolent principles of faith can get distorted as positions are hardened.

That is the best analogy I've ever seen for faith and the fallibility of humans.

Time: Do the two of you have any concluding thoughts?

Collins: I just would like to say that over more than a quarter-century as a scientist and a believer, I find absolutely nothing in conflict between agreeing with Richard in practically all of his conclusions about the natural world, and also saying that I am still able to accept and embrace the possibility that there are answers that science isn't able to provide about the natural world--the questions about why instead of the questions about how. I'm interested in the whys. I find many of those answers in the spiritual realm. That in no way compromises my ability to think rigorously as a scientist.

Dawkins: My mind is not closed, as you have occasionally suggested, Francis. My mind is open to the most wonderful range of future possibilities, which I cannot event dream about, nor can you, nor can anybody else. What I am skeptical about is the idea that whatever wonderful revelation does come in the science of the future, it will turn out to be one of the particular historical religions that people happen to have dreamed up. When we started out and we were talking about the origins of the universe and the physical constans, I provide what I thought were cogent arguments against a supernatural intelligent designer. But it does seem to me to be a worthy idea. Refutable--but nevertheless grand and big enough to be worthy of respect. I don't see the Olympian gods or Jesus coming down and dying on the Cross as worthy of that grandeur. They strike me as parochial. If there is a God, it's going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed.

Yes! Dawkins got something right! "If there is a God, it's going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed."

Here are a few Scriptures that Dawkins may be interested in:

"For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when the perfect thing comes, then that which is in part will be caused to cease." (1Co 13:9-10)

"And the peace of God which passes all understanding shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus." (Phi 4:7)

"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor your ways My ways, says Jehovah. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts." (Isa 55:8-9)

This was an incredible debate to read and I would encourage you to read the whole thing. It's refreshing to read such extreme differences of opinion without the mudslinging.

Update: Jim Jordan has a great post on Dawkin's concluding comments.

Tags: Christianity, Faith, God, Evolution, Richard Dawkins, Francis Collins

Labels: Evolution/Creation, Faith

Posted by Amanda at 11/13/2006 12:21:00 AM

65 Comments

 Jim Jordan posted at 11/13/2006 09:24:00 AM  
Fascinating post.
Dawkins almost seems to come around by the end. In fact he points to the God of the Bible, as your verses make clear. Did you notice his one snafu?

If God is so big and incomprehensible than it would be impossible for us to know Him. He seems to make a leap of faith that it then would be impossible for Him to know us. Romans 3:11 says that it is impossible for us to know God. The fact that we know God is due to our being equipped with a brain, given a faith, and a Word from Him that we can understand.

Christianity is the only religion where God does all the work. Looking outside at the beauty of the natural world whose creation we had nothing to do with, I go from 109 to 110% certainty in my faith.

Thanks for pointing out the Collins/Dawkins debate.

 ontheedgeofmyseat posted at 11/13/2006 09:25:00 AM  
I love that Dawkins said that God would be more vast than anything any theologian has proposed. That's perfect! How fantastic for us that God was not "proposed:" God "is!"

 The Pooflinger posted at 11/15/2006 08:07:00 PM  
Seems to come around? Not at all. No intelligent person would say never to the possibility of a god. Dawkins is an atheist because he sees no evidence for such, but denying the possibility is a statement of faith... not one of reason or evidence.

Also, why is it significance that he mentioned God of the Bible? You did notice that the mention wasn't favorable in the least, didn't you?

Next issue...

ontheedge, you do realize, I hope, that the emphasis on your last sentence is on the phrase "for us", right? Plenty of people all over the world do not see things your way...

Final issue...

Amanda, there is no oxymoron in believing that good things and bad things can happen without the existence of good and bad in the way Dawkins meant them. Good and bad are situation-dependent concepts as far as many people are concerned. If someone can actually define them apart from context, they can do something that no philosopher in history has managed to do.

 Amanda posted at 11/17/2006 11:19:00 AM  
Pooflinger - ontheedgeofmyseat emailed me a comment in response to you because she could not get the comment to work for her (Blogger is frustrating sometimes).

"Pooflinger, I'm sorry I said "for us" instead of "for Christians." The point is that for those of "us" who do worship God, we are so blessed to have a God which is beyond human comprehension.

If our God was something we could grasp, He wouldn't be much of a God. I'm glad He's bigger and more vast than anything I can imagine."

 Amanda posted at 11/17/2006 11:24:00 AM  
Sorry it's taken me so long to respond to you Mr. Flinger of Poo. :)

Good and bad are situation-dependent concepts as far as many people are concerned. If someone can actually define them apart from context, they can do something that no philosopher in history has managed to do.

I think that I'm about to grossly oversimplify this, but I would say that life itself is the context from which you should define good and bad...and that's a context that you can't really have apart from anything else.

Did that make sense at all?

 Weapon of Mass Instruction posted at 11/17/2006 11:37:00 AM  
I think this way of thinking is beginning to be more widespread among evangelical Christians. Less people are taking the account of creation in Genesis as literal; this paves the way for God to be the catalyst for evolution. At this point, I still disagree, but that's okay.


This is what you call theological liberalism. I am sure they would not mind taking you into the fold.

 IAMB posted at 11/17/2006 07:59:00 PM  
Edge, thanks for the clarification.

Amanda, what I'm getting at is that the necessity of context alone makes it so "good" and "bad" are concepts and not absolutes in themselves. Without any context of any kind, would you be able to determine whether something was inherently good or bad? Really, we're probably just going to go in circles on this, but when we were kids getting dizzy was fun... why should it be any different now? ;)

Hey WOMI, you give up trolling atheist blogs and now you've gotta come treat your fellow Christians like dirt or what? Grow up.

 Amanda posted at 11/18/2006 12:13:00 AM  
WOMI:

This is what you call theological liberalism. I am sure they would not mind taking you into the fold.

Did you just ignore the fact that I said I disagree?

Matt:

So let's get dizzy. :)

This may backfire for me, but...

What can you define completely separate from any context? Or, what exists that does not need a context in order to exist?

 Lifewish posted at 11/19/2006 06:26:00 AM  
The interesting thing to note is that Collins agrees with Dawkins scientifically. He says, "I don't see that Professor Dawkins' basic account of evolution is incompatible with God's having designed it."

I think there's a fairly common misconception here. If I understand correctly, Dawkins and co. (including yours truly) do not argue that evolution is incompatible with God. What we argue is that evolution is also compatible with an absence of God. Evolution isn't a positive argument for atheism; it's a smackdown of the Argument from Design.

Paul said: "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" In the modern world, it can be argued to an unprecedented extent that that claim is false.

Of course there are other reasons to accept God's existing beyond the purely objective. But then it becomes necessary to accept that He may not exist for other people (for whom those reasons may not hold). Most Christians seem reluctant to do this.

 Lifewish posted at 11/19/2006 12:10:00 PM  
What can you define completely separate from any context? Or, what exists that does not need a context in order to exist?

Just noticed this comment, and couldn't resist responding. You've gotten slightly the wrong end of the stick. The question isn't whether morality exists independent of context - as you say, nothing does. The question is whether morality exists outside the context of individual human lives.

Atheists tend to believe that the answer is "no". Amongst Christians the answer varies, but a belief in an underlying moral direction to the universe seems to be fairly common (I recall it was a big theme of "Mere Christianity").

 Amanda posted at 11/19/2006 05:05:00 PM  
What we argue is that evolution is also compatible with an absence of God.

I think you missed my point. Or I didn't make my point very well. Probably the latter.

Ordinarily, atheists accuse Christians of disregarding science completely. My point in highlighting that fact was that this is a Christian who clearly agrees with the findings of science. It's funny how we can read the same sentence and draw two completely different conclusions. You saw it as me trying to say that atheists are arguing that evolution is incompatible as God, but that wasn't my intent at all. I merely wanted to show that there are Christians who agree with atheists scientifically.

Paul said: "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" In the modern world, it can be argued to an unprecedented extent that that claim is false.

So you're saying that the creation doesn't prove the Creator. But for some it clearly does.

And maybe I'm mistaken, but isn't that exactly what you're saying Christians are reluctant to accept when you say, "it becomes necessary to accept that He may not exist for other people"?

 Weapon of Mass Instruction posted at 11/20/2006 12:22:00 PM  
Did you just ignore the fact that I said I disagree?



Yes I did. But you also stated that it was ok.

 Amanda posted at 11/20/2006 12:25:00 PM  
WOMI: If you think that it's not okay to disagree with people, then you must be a very lonely man. No one is ever going to agree with anyone 100%. There will always be disagreements.

 Weapon of Mass Instruction posted at 11/21/2006 10:30:00 AM  
Well, if that is what you meant, you may need to clarify. It seems from reading your intro that you had no problem with the integration of evolution with the Bible.

 Lifewish posted at 11/21/2006 01:45:00 PM  
Ordinarily, atheists accuse Christians of disregarding science completely.

I'd tend to disagree with that statement. What atheists accuse Christians (in general) of ignoring is not the findings of science, but rather its uniquely successful method. Creationists, of course, are in the unusual position of being hammered on both counts.

In particular, the scientific method incorporates the idea of parsimony. At present, I'm not aware of any scientific model that incorporates God (as commonly defined) as an essential component. This is despite considerable effort on the part of creationists et al to produce such a model. Hence, it is not parsimonious to believe in God at this time. From this perspective, believing in God is as unscientific as believing in gremlins.

Of course, there are other reasons to believe in something - for example, I always set my watch five minutes fast to ensure that I'm punctual. However, it then becomes somewhat intellectually dishonest to present those ideas as truth to other people, for whom they may or may not be equally useful. It's as if, instead of simply setting my watch fast, I altered every clock in the office - thus confusing my co-workers.

That, in a very large nutshell (coconut, maybe), is why atheists - or at least some of them - get annoyed at Christians.

I merely wanted to show that there are Christians who agree with atheists scientifically.

Of course there are. I'm friends with a couple, and a regular reader of the blogs of a few more. I'll happily join with you to browbeat any atheist who doubts the ability of Christians to either accept the findings of science or be excellent professional scientists. Such atheists are, fortunately, rare (as best I can tell).

So you're saying that the creation doesn't prove the Creator. But for some it clearly does.

Individual people may be convinced by whatever evidence they wish of whatever proposition they wish - that's their prerogative. Paul, by contrast, was apparently speaking of the entire human race, which requires a different standard of proof entirely. Individuals can believe that 1+1=3 if they so wish; it is not incumbent upon humanity as a whole to join them without solid supporting evidence.

(I think that also answers your last query - tell me if you want me to elaborate)

 Weapon of Mass Instruction posted at 11/21/2006 03:16:00 PM  
In particular, the scientific method incorporates the idea of parsimony. At present, I'm not aware of any scientific model that incorporates God (as commonly defined) as an essential component.


And there is no scientific method that incorporates the Big Bang but yet most evolutionists espouse it.

 Weapon of Mass Instruction posted at 11/21/2006 03:22:00 PM  
Individuals can believe that 1+1=3 if they so wish; it is not incumbent upon humanity as a whole to join them without solid supporting evidence.

They can also believe that design is a product of an accident or that man came from a monkey but I would also agree that humanity as a whole would not join them without solid evidence. And indeed humanity as a whole has rejected it.

 Amanda posted at 11/21/2006 03:23:00 PM  
And there is no scientific method that incorporates the Big Bang but yet most evolutionists espouse it.

The Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution. The Big Bang involves the origin of life; evolution does not try to explain the origin of life.

Get your facts straight.

 Weapon of Mass Instruction posted at 11/21/2006 03:46:00 PM  
Amanda you sound like an evolutionist.


Who invented the "Big Bang" theory, Santa Clause?

 Weapon of Mass Instruction posted at 11/21/2006 03:59:00 PM  
The Big Bang theory

The Big Bang Theory is the dominant scientific theory about the origin of the universe. According to the big bang, the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions. In 1927, the Belgian priest Georges Lemaître was the first to propose that the universe began with the explosion of a primeval atom. His proposal came after observing the red shift in distant nebulas by astronomers to a model of the universe based on relativity. Years later, Edwin Hubble found experimental evidence to help justify Lemaître's theory. He found that distant galaxies in every direction are going away from us with speeds proportional to their distance.

A Theory Comes to Life
The big bang was initially suggested because it explains why distant galaxies are traveling away from us at great speeds. The theory also predicts the existence of cosmic background radiation (the glow left over from the explosion itself). The Big Bang Theory received its strongest confirmation when this radiation was discovered in 1964 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, who later won the Nobel Prize for this discovery.

Although the Big Bang Theory is widely accepted, it probably will never be proven; consequentially, leaving a number of tough, unanswered questions.

 Lifewish posted at 11/21/2006 04:00:00 PM  
Amanda: one of my primary criteria for the reliability of a source is its willingness to critique its "allies" in any given discussion. On that basis, you have just earned my undying respect.

And there is no scientific method that incorporates the Big Bang but yet most evolutionists espouse it.

You've confused two different concepts. The scientific method is a means of production of scientific models. Broadly speaking, a model is scientific if it makes concrete testable predictions.

The Big Bang hypothesis is part of a model that made extremely accurate predictions of background radiation, among other phenomena - predictions that at the time were made by no other model. Hence, it can be considered scientific. (warning: link contains mild bad language)

They can also believe that design is a product of an accident or that man came from a monkey but I would also agree that humanity as a whole would not join them without solid evidence.

Scientific evidence consists of the production of concrete, testable, confirmed predictions based on a given hypothesis. The model of evolution that invokes a common ancestor for mammals and man has given rise to predictions such as the existence of a vitamin C pseudogene in the human genome and the extreme similarity between one human chromosome and two chimp chromosomes.

Both these predictions were explicitly made based on evolutionary models and then tested in the lab. Both were subsequently found to be accurate. Further details available on request (albeit probably tomorrow - I'm in the UK so need sleep).

Possession of predictive models is a useful means to any goal, and hence can be considered generally useful - useful for the entire human race (and, in fact, for any other intelligent lifeforms out there).

Therefore, in the absence of any strong motivation to the contrary, the human race should provisionally accept the evolutionary model of humanity's origins. In this sense, said model can be taken as being generally true.

Many humans apparently feel a motivation to the contrary. That's their choice to make - but they're making it on the basis of individualised measures of usefulness, rather than in terms of anything that's useful for the human race as a whole. Clocks in offices again - even if the extra 5 minutes happens to help 1/3 of my co-workers, that's because of a set of individual exceptions to the rule; not because of a new general rule.

 Lifewish posted at 11/21/2006 04:02:00 PM  
Although the Big Bang Theory is widely accepted, it probably will never be proven

Show me a scientist who thinks stuff can be proven and I'll show you a mathematician who walked into the wrong lecture hall.

 Weapon of Mass Instruction posted at 11/21/2006 04:06:00 PM  
The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across. It has since expanded from this hot dense state into the vast and much cooler cosmos we currently inhabit. We can see remnants of this hot dense matter as the now very cold cosmic microwave background radiation which still pervades the universe and is visible to microwave detectors as a uniform glow across the entire sky.

 Weapon of Mass Instruction posted at 11/21/2006 04:09:00 PM  
An apparent discrepancy in the Big Bang theory of the universe's evolution has been reconciled by astrophysicists examining the movement of gases in stars.

 Weapon of Mass Instruction posted at 11/21/2006 04:13:00 PM  
Even the much love by atheist Wikipedia states:

For a while, support was split between the "steady state" and "Big Bang" theories. However, the observational evidence eventually began to favor the latter. The discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964 secured its place as the best theory of the origin and evolution of the cosmos.

 Weapon of Mass Instruction posted at 11/21/2006 04:15:00 PM  
Now Amanda maybe YOU should demonstrate the facts to which made you purport:

The Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution.

 Weapon of Mass Instruction posted at 11/21/2006 04:17:00 PM  
Appararently Amanda has been drinking the same coolaid that her evolutionist friends have been drinking.

It seems that she is not changing them, but they (the evolutionist) are changing her.

 Weapon of Mass Instruction posted at 11/21/2006 04:26:00 PM  
You've confused two different concepts. The scientific method is a means of production of scientific models. Broadly speaking, a model is scientific if it makes concrete testable predictions.


Exactly my point. When ID makes a hypothesis using the scientific method, they do not include God in the equation. For you to accuse us of doing so its just as irrelevant as you deem me of accusing you of incorporating the Big bang theory into your model.

 Weapon of Mass Instruction posted at 11/21/2006 04:29:00 PM  
Basic Intelligent Design:

i. Observation:
The ways that intelligent agents act can be observed in the natural world and described. When intelligent agents act, it is observed that they produce high levels of "complex-specified information" (CSI). CSI is basically a scenario which is unlikely to happen (making it complex), and conforms to a pattern (making it specified). Language and machines are good examples of things with much CSI. From our understanding of the world, high levels of CSI are always the product of intelligent design.

ii. Hypothesis:
If an object in the natural world was designed, then we should be able to examine that object and find the same high levels of CSI in the natural world as we find in human-designed objects.

iii. Experiment:
We can examine biological structures to test if high CSI exists. When we look at natural objects in biology, we find many machine-like structures which are specified, because they have a particular arrangement of parts which is necessary for them to function, and complex because they have an unlikely arrangement of many interacting parts. These biological machines are "irreducibly complex," for any change in the nature or arrangement of these parts would destroy their function. Irreducibly complex structures cannot be built up through an alternative theory, such as Darwinian evolution, because Darwinian evolution requires that a biological structure be functional along every small-step of its evolution. "Reverse engineering" of these structures shows that they cease to function if changed even slightly.

iv. Conclusion:
Because they exhibit high levels of CSI, a quality known to be produced only by intelligent design, and because there is no other known mechanism to explain the origin of these "irreducibly complex" biological structures, we conclude that they were intelligently designed.

 Weapon of Mass Instruction posted at 11/21/2006 04:32:00 PM  
Intelligent design theory works by looking for the tell-tale signs of intelligent design in biology. We know and understand the sort of information produced by intelligent agents. We can then look for that sort of information in biology. These tell-tale signs include high levels of specified complexity, which we know is always the product of intelligent design. Thus, when we find evidence for specified complexity, we have evidence that there was intelligent designer! Intelligent design theory need not provide some sort of external evidence for an intelligent designer because the theory itself is a legitimate rationale for concluding that the cause of intelligent design was at work.

It should be noted that many theories in science have been accepted even if we didn't totally understand the mechanism, or have direct observational evidence of the mechanism. In fact this is very common in science. For example, plate tectonics was accepted because of overwhelming evidence of continental drift (i.e. fit of continents, earthquakes and volcanic activity along plate boundaries, oceanic spreading centers, paleomagnetic evidence for plate movement, matching fossils on plates on opposite sides of ocean). However, scientists today still do not fully understand the mechanism that allows for the plates to move! (they have some ideas, but it still isn't fully understood.) Nonetheless, no one doubts that the plates move--there is too much evidence that they do move, even if we don't fully understand how. What about gravity. We can measure its strength, put it into equations, and make predictions about what it will do. But does anyone understand the physical reasons why matter is attracted to matter? No. Nonetheless, apples still fall from trees, and life bears the marks of intelligent design.

Finding the tell-tale signs of design itself is enough to infer design. Indeed, archaeologists often find evidence of designed objects, but they don't otherwise have any idea who designed them. But because they look designed, no one doubts they were. Similarly, if we have overwhelming evidence for intelligent design, we can accept design even if some think we don't fully understand the identity of the designer or don't otherwise have any independent evidence for the designer.

 Weapon of Mass Instruction posted at 11/21/2006 04:35:00 PM  
Show me a scientist who thinks stuff can be proven and I'll show you a mathematician who walked into the wrong lecture hall.

Well, I am glad that you agree with me that you need just as much faith to believe in evolution than one does to believe in ID.

 Weapon of Mass Instruction posted at 11/22/2006 10:10:00 AM  
I hear crickets.

 Amanda posted at 11/22/2006 10:20:00 AM  
WOMI: I haven't left the conversation. But I do have a job that has to take priority over my blog. Seeing as how this is a short week, things at work are pretty crazy (not to mention I work at a Rescue Mission and this is Thanksgiving week). Whenever I have the time to sit down and formulate articulate responses to you I will do so.

 Amanda posted at 11/22/2006 12:45:00 PM  
Well, if that is what you meant, you may need to clarify. It seems from reading your intro that you had no problem with the integration of evolution with the Bible.

You just can't seem to accept the fact that I said, "I disagree."

 Amanda posted at 11/22/2006 12:53:00 PM  
Lifewish:

I'd tend to disagree with that statement. What atheists accuse Christians (in general) of ignoring is not the findings of science, but rather its uniquely successful method. Creationists, of course, are in the unusual position of being hammered on both counts.

I'm not sure that I've experienced this personally. Perhaps what atheists say to Christians is different than what you say amongst yourselves? My experience is that atheists automatically assume that because I'm a Christian I must be against science and anything science has ever determined.

Such atheists are, fortunately, rare (as best I can tell).

Maybe you should hang out here awhile. You'll meet some of the most anti Christian atheists on the planet, I believe. That particular group of people has done a great deal of influencing my perception of atheist/Christian relations.

Paul, by contrast, was apparently speaking of the entire human race, which requires a different standard of proof entirely.

It must be understood that Paul was speaking to the Church. He was speaking to a body of believers who clearly already believed in the Creator. Even if he hadn't been speaking to the church, his audience would have been the Jewish folks and even they believe in the Creator. That doesn't encompass the entire human race.

 Amanda posted at 11/22/2006 01:00:00 PM  
Now Amanda maybe YOU should demonstrate the facts to which made you purport:

The Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution.

WOMI: Nothing you said remotely related the Big Bang to evolution. Again I'll say it: The Big Bang is a theory that tries to explain the origin of life. Evolution is a theory that tries to explain how life has been sustained on this planet after it originated.

I believe in neither theory. But at least I've researched it enough to actually know what it is that I don't believe in.

 Lifewish posted at 11/22/2006 02:58:00 PM  
ii. Hypothesis:
If an object in the natural world was designed, then we should be able to examine that object and find the same high levels of CSI in the natural world as we find in human-designed objects.

I had a short discussion with Casey Luskin about this very article (currently the ball's in his court, although that's probably because he's busier than me). The problems with this "example" of the scientific method are threefold:

1) the "hypothesis" that we'll find CSI in nature is in fact not an hypothesis in strict Popperian terms as it is verifiable but not falsifiable (hypotheses are falsifiable but not verifiable). I think Casey intended it to be a prediction (but predictions are both verifiable and falsifiable).

2) the "hypothesis" is something that was well-known as a datum long before Dembski was around and hence can't be considered a prediction, any more than I can "predict" that the sky is blue.

3) the logic used to reach the hypothesis constitutes a fairly blatant attempt to slip the assumption "CSI implies intelligence" past the judges. In reality this assumption, the core of the ID case, is never exposed to testing, or even to rigorous analysis.

A valid ID prediction would tell us something that we didn't know about the universe and that no other model would tell us, that we could then go out and confirm by experimentation. So, for example, Jonathan Wells' centrioles hypothesis would just about qualify (although that had other, milder, issues). Predictivity is the core of science, and it is completely lacking from this example.

ID was actually what originally got me into the creationism/evolution debate - I majored in maths so was very interested to hear of a putative mathematical disproof of evolution. Discovering how sloppy Dembski's work is was something of a disappointment.

"Show me a scientist who thinks stuff can be proven and I'll show you a mathematician who walked into the wrong lecture hall."

Well, I am glad that you agree with me that you need just as much faith to believe in evolution than one does to believe in ID.

Science is concerned with predictivity rather than proof (predictivity merely ensures a proposition's accuracy rather than its absolute truth). Predictivity, pretty much by definition, is not dependent on personal faith.

 Lifewish posted at 11/22/2006 03:27:00 PM  
Moving on to Amanda's comment...

I'm not sure that I've experienced this personally. Perhaps what atheists say to Christians is different than what you say amongst yourselves?

That might well be the case. As best I can tell, my viewpoint is shared by Dawkins, PZ Myers, and most other high-profile atheists. The main difference between us is that, given 30 seconds to present said viewpoint, I'd lay out the logic; they'd lay on the rhetoric.

Their approach is markedly more effective when it comes to actually convincing people, plus it makes dealing with trolls a doddle. I still prefer mine, though, because it leads to conversations like this :)

Maybe you should hang out here awhile.

I'll check that out.

I'm aware that there are atheists who genuinely loathe religion, rather than just finding it somewhat silly. Possibly such folk are more common in the US - ironically, you've got a far stronger streak of theocracy in your politics than the UK has had in living memory. I don't particularly agree with these people, and I'm fairly sure they're a comparatively small minority.

It must be understood that Paul was speaking to the Church.

If he was only talking to people for whom the creator God could already be considered real, why would he use a phrase like "left without excuse"? That suggests that his claim was targeted more at those who don't believe than those who do.

Just noticed: you seem to be arguing from the position that evidence for a creator God is not necessarily apparent to humanity in general. Is that correct, or am I just losing the thread?

 Amanda posted at 11/22/2006 04:45:00 PM  
you seem to be arguing from the position that evidence for a creator God is not necessarily apparent to humanity in general. Is that correct, or am I just losing the thread?

A combination of the two, I think. I'm not "arguing" from that position. At least, that wasn't my intention if I was.

I do, however, think that's becoming more and more the case. Humanity is moving farther from God with each generation...so then it would make sense that things that were once apparant are no longer so.

 Weapon of Mass Instruction posted at 11/22/2006 06:03:00 PM  
"You just can't seem to accept the fact that I said, "I disagree."

I find it quite amusing (but not surprising) how much better you receive criticism from godless atheists.

Why you use a Christian who believes in evolution to prove that faith is not the opposite of reason, (hen there are so many qualified Christian Scientist who do not believe in evolution
Nevertheless) and say that its ok, baffles me. But then again, you like to scratch the backs of those who have nothing to do with God. That's also baffling.

But the point is so petty, I think it does not deserve further discusion.

 Weapon of Mass Instruction posted at 11/22/2006 06:04:00 PM  
I will continue my comments on Monday.

 Lifewish posted at 11/23/2006 03:19:00 PM  
I do, however, think that's becoming more and more the case. Humanity is moving farther from God with each generation...so then it would make sense that things that were once apparant are no longer so.

So you agree that, these days at least, disbelief in God is a position that's compatible with the available evidence?

Sorry to go on, just trying to ensure we're discussing from the same set of basic assumptions here. Many evangelicals seem to have a strong emotional preference for an answer of "no" here, which then gets them into all kinds of philosophical problems further down the line.

 Amanda posted at 11/29/2006 02:33:00 PM  
So you agree that, these days at least, disbelief in God is a position that's compatible with the available evidence?

I wouldn't state it like that, exactly. I think what you're asking me is if I agree that I can't prove the existence of God based on the "available evidence."

On that point, yes I agree. I can't prove God exists to you any more than you can prove that he doesn't to me.

 Weapon of Mass Instruction posted at 12/01/2006 04:34:00 PM  
1) the "hypothesis" that we'll find CSI in nature is in fact not an hypothesis in strict Popperian terms as it is verifiable but not falsifiable (hypotheses are falsifiable but not verifiable). I think Casey intended it to be a prediction (but predictions are both verifiable and falsifiable).

If it is not a hypothesis and it is not a prediction then what is it?

I am not sure what Karl Popper has to do with the discussion nor how much authority he has over the definition of hypothesis but it sounds to me more of a matter of splitting hairs. But I find it interesting what he states about evolution

In his autobiography Unended Quest, Karl Popper writes, ‘I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme—a possible fromework for testable scientific theories … This is of course the reason why Darwinism has been almost universally accpeted. Its theory of adaptation was the first nontheistic one that was convincing; and theism was worse than an open admission of failure, for it created the impression that on ultimate explanation has been reached.’

Karl Popper views evolution not as a science, but as a ‘possible framework’ on which to build ‘testable scientific theories’. Creationist academics have successfully argued that their belief system is a better framework upon which to build scientific theories.

Carl Wieland from Answers in Genesis comments:

You’re in effect saying that a scientist may not have a broad historical model which has all sorts of supporting data, if one aspect of that model has prima facie problems. You seem to be adopting the Popperian falsification criterion after Karl Popper. Evolutionists tend to regard Popper as a great philosopher of science when they can use this criterion to bash creationists, but regarded him as naïve when he attacked evolutionary theory on the same grounds!

It’s unproductive for us to get embroiled in debates on what counts as ‘science’, since philosophers of science can’t agree. This is especially so when many evolutionists, surprisingly including one as astute as the late Stephen Jay Gould, first attack creation as being ‘untestable’, then go on to explain how it has been examined, i.e. tested, and proven false!

Thomas Kuhn’s famous book on scientific revolutions showed that real scientists don’t work the way Popper said. In reality, scientists can tolerate many anomalies in the ruling paradigm, and it takes a lot for this to be overthrown and replaced with a new paradigm. And Imre Lakatos pointed out on a logical level that theories don’t stand on their own, but are protected by auxiliary hypotheses. The falsification can be applied to one or more of these, while leaving the core theory intact.

ALSO
Don Batten comments:

So, Darwinism never predicted anything, it was modified to accommodate the observations. In fact, because Darwinism is so malleable as to accommodate almost any conceivable observation, science philosopher Karl Popper proclaimed that it was not falsifiable, and therefore not a proper scientific theory in that sense.

What about the predictions of evolution vs creation? The track record of evolution is pretty dismal. On the other hand, modern science rides on the achievements of past creationists

Popper’s notion that evolution is not a falsifiable scientific theory is underlined by the many ‘predictions’ of evolutionary theory that have been found to be incompatible with observations; and yet evolution reigns. For example, there is the profound absence of the many millions of transitional fossils that should exist if evolution were true . The very pattern in the fossil record flatly contradicts evolutionary notions of what it should be like—see, for example, Contrasting the Origin of Species With the Origin of Phyla. The evolutionist Gould has written at length on this conundrum.


Bottom line: You can’t have it both ways.

 Weapon of Mass Instruction posted at 12/01/2006 05:03:00 PM  
the logic used to reach the hypothesis constitutes a fairly blatant attempt to slip the assumption "CSI implies intelligence" past the judges. In reality this assumption, the core of the ID case, is never exposed to testing, or even to rigorous analysis.

So evolution skips the assumption of materialism and the origin of the universe. No complaining about that.

 Weapon of Mass Instruction posted at 12/01/2006 05:06:00 PM  
Science is concerned with predictivity rather than proof (predictivity merely ensures a proposition's accuracy rather than its absolute truth). Predictivity, pretty much by definition, is not dependent on personal faith.

Ha! So I guess science has nothing to prove.

 Weapon of Mass Instruction posted at 12/01/2006 05:10:00 PM  
Nothing you said remotely related the Big Bang to evolution. Again I'll say it: The Big Bang is a theory that tries to explain the origin of life. Evolution is a theory that tries to explain how life has been sustained on this planet after it originated.

Amanda what part from the below quote from Wickepedia (no friend to ID) do you not understand concerning the big bang theory:

"Even the much love by atheist Wikipedia states:

For a while, support was split between the "steady state" and "Big Bang" theories. However, the observational evidence eventually began to favor the latter. The discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964 secured its place as the best theory of the origin and evolution of the cosmos.

 Weapon of Mass Instruction posted at 12/01/2006 05:12:00 PM  
By the way Amanda,

I have yet to here your response. I know that you have time because you took the time to open other threads.

Now Amanda maybe YOU should demonstrate the facts to which made you purport:

The Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution.

 Amanda posted at 12/02/2006 10:35:00 AM  
From NASA's Ask an Astrophysicist:

The big bang theory is the theory that the universe started from a single point, and has been expanding ever since.

From Wise Geek:

The Big Bang theory is science's best explanation of how the universe was created. [...]Since the late 1960s, the Big Bang theory has been the dominant explanation for the birth of our universe.

WOMI:

You have to understand that just becase the word "evolution" is found in the definition you gave, it doesn't mean what you think it does.

To say that the Big Bang describes the origin and evolution of the universe is simply to say that it describes the start and development of our universe. That really has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. From Wikipedia:

In biology, evolution is change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, as determined by shifts in the allele frequencies of genes. Over time, this process can result in speciation, the development of new species from existing ones. All contemporary organisms on earth are related to each other through common descent, the products of cumulative evolutionary changes over billions of years. Evolution is thus the source of the vast diversity of life on Earth, including the many extinct species attested to in the fossil record.


Disclaimer:

I still do not believe in evolution. I do not believe that new species can develop from existing ones. I do, however, believe that adaptation occurs.

 Lifewish posted at 12/02/2006 12:30:00 PM  
WOMD: As a general statement, I'd note that the "argument from copy/paste" is often considered to be impolite as a debating style. This is because it puts the burden of effort almost completely on the person responding to an argument, rather than the person making it.

If it takes you 2 minutes to present an argument, and me 20 minutes to rebut it, then the fact that I haven't rebutted your arguments ceases to be an indicator that your claims are in any way sensible. For this reason, if your goals include sanity-checking your beliefs, it would be in your own best interests to take the time to write posts in your own words.

Note that this issue also means you have absolutely no grounds to complain when people don't respond to your posts with alacrity.

If it is not a hypothesis and it is not a prediction then what is it?

There's no commonly-used term for something that's verifiable but not falsifiable. I tend to think of them as weak predictions - if it hadn't already been known at the time, it would have provided a certain amount of corroboration to the model.

I am not sure what Karl Popper has to do with the discussion nor how much authority he has over the definition of hypothesis but it sounds to me more of a matter of splitting hairs.

Popper was the first person to define a decent terminology for hypothesis testing.

Karl Popper views evolution not as a science, but as a ‘possible framework’ on which to build ‘testable scientific theories’. Creationist academics have successfully argued that their belief system is a better framework upon which to build scientific theories.

I am aware of accurate scientific predictions made by evolutionary biologists. For example, the prediction that primate genomes would possess a vitamin C pseudogene, or that one human chromosome would closely resemble two fused chimp chromosomes, or that stoneflies would possess haemocyanin. More detail available on request.

I am not, however, aware of any accurate scientific predictions made by creationists. Please describe some to me, that way I'll know that there is indeed a genuine scientific controversy. If you can't present any, I see no reason to consider creationism a useful idea.

As best I can tell, evolutionary biology has met Popper's criteria for something to be considered a science. Evolution is practical, functional and effective.

What about the predictions of evolution vs creation? The track record of evolution is pretty dismal. On the other hand, modern science rides on the achievements of past creationists.

I would note that science also rides on the achievements of past alchemists. Often, these were the same individual.

Popper’s notion that evolution is not a falsifiable scientific theory is underlined by the many ‘predictions’ of evolutionary theory that have been found to be incompatible with observations; and yet evolution reigns.

That is because, in general, those were not predictions to which the evolutionary model gave rise. They were instead predictions based on straw men. For example, the "transitional fossils" prediction is based on a model that incorporates vastly higher rates of fossilisation than evolutionary biology does. As such, it is no surprise that they can be coerced into giving predictions that don't fit the facts.

So evolution skips the assumption of materialism and the origin of the universe.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Ha! So I guess science has nothing to prove.

Yeah yeah, very funny...

(Actually, that wasn't bad, I'll have to remember it :P)

 Lifewish posted at 12/02/2006 12:53:00 PM  
I still do not believe in evolution. I do not believe that new species can develop from existing ones. I do, however, believe that adaptation occurs.

Were you aware that there's a species of mosquito that's unique to the London Underground system? It's fairly evidently descended from a very similar species that lives aboveground in London, but the two groups are not interfertile.

As best we can tell, speciation occurs fairly readily. In fact, I'm given to understand that it's something of a hobby amongst biology undergrads to place members of a fruitfly species in two different environments and see how long it takes them to achieve reproductive isolation.

Possibly you meant genus, or family, or order? The problem is that any such attempt to split the living world into distinct "kinds" has usually been followed by the discovery of a transitional fossil or two - Tiktaalik, for example.

 Weapon of Mass Instruction posted at 12/04/2006 05:26:00 PM  
Amanda you are in denial:

1. Firstly, you are going to have to get a more reputable site then what you have chosen. The one you have chosen has very poor (or should I say no) documentation. You brag and deride me about research, but one poorly documented site can hardly be considered good research.

2.Secondly, you fail to address how all the the quotes I gave which links Big Bang Theory with evolution and the origin of life is reconciled with yours. Is there a contradiction? And why?

3. The site to which you reffered me to betrays your position that evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang Theory:

The evidence for a big bang having taken place about 15 to 20 billion years ago is overwhelming, so I naturally believe that it is the case.

The quote above demonstrates that there is evolution in play. The simple things escape you.

 Weapon of Mass Instruction posted at 12/04/2006 05:29:00 PM  
Amanda wrote:

“The Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution. The Big Bang involves the origin of life; evolution does not try to explain the origin of life.”

And then you quote from Wikepidia which states:

“The modern understanding of evolution is based on the theory of natural selection, which was first set out in a joint presentation in 1858 of a pair of papers by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace and popularized in Darwin's 1859 book The Origin of Species.”

“Although there is overwhelming scientific consensus supporting the validity of evolution,[7][8][9][10] it has been at the center of many social and religious controversies since its inception because of its implications for the origins of humankind.[11]”
“Evolutionary biology is a subdiscipline of biology concerned with the origin and descent of species”

Again, Amanda, your desperate desire to find relevance with the ungodly causes you to overlook the simple. Evolution does not only deal with biology. It deals with all branches of science. But allow Wickipedia to betray your position again:

Origin of life studies is a limited field of research despite its profound impact on biology and human understanding of the natural world.

Not only does the above quote demonstrate the direct relationship origin of the universe has with evolutionary biology but also it states that it had a direct impact on it!

Ironically Enough when Wickipedia traces the History of the theory of the Origin of Life it starts with none other than Charles Darwin. Apparently biological evolution and the Big Bang Theory have the same origin. This is because as much as you would like to split hairs, GTE extends not only to biology but also abiogenesis.
GTE Defined :
“The theory of evolution is an explanation for the origin of the cosmos and life on Earth, which is more formally known as the General Theory of Evolution. It was derived from atheistic presupposition, although some theists now espouse to the idea. The theory encompasses the processes of biological evolution, the origin of life, and aspects of cosmic evolution via the Big Bang.”

The general theory of evolution holds to the following historical claims:
• That the universe, Earth, and life on Earth are old to the order of millions and billions of years;
• Abiogenesis: That life on Earth arose spontaneously from non-living chemicals into an as-yet-undescribed self-replicating protocell;
• Common descent: That all organisms on Earth are related to each other, and descended from a single spontaneously-formed protocell;

general theory of evolution should not be confused with biological evolution, which is simply the change that occurs within a population over time. Whereas biological evolution is a demonstrable, repeatable, observable fact acknowledged by both creationists and evolutionists, the theory of evolution is an unfalsifiable historical claim based on unfalsifiable philosophical assumptions, and is disputed by creationists.

Amanda is not as complicated as you would like it to be. If the evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life then why is it always mentioned as a basis for its argument?

 Weapon of Mass Instruction posted at 12/04/2006 05:30:00 PM  
WOMD: As a general statement, I'd note that the "argument from copy/paste" is often considered to be impolite as a debating style. This is because it puts the burden of effort almost completely on the person responding to an argument, rather than the person making it.

Lifewish, I do not at all intend to be polite. I am not a scientist so I cannot speak from my own authority. But I can compare and contrast from those who are professionals in their field. This is only sound research in play. As you can note, I offer my own comments as well to propel the debate. If all I offered was a cut and paste, then I can see how you may feel. But obviously I do much more than that. BTW, it took me much more time than 2 minutes to post my reply. In fact I had to first type it out in word so that I can be sure that I was offering a formidable rebuttal backed with sound research.

There's no commonly-used term for something that's verifiable but not falsifiable. I tend to think of them as weak predictions - if it hadn't already been known at the time, it would have provided a certain amount of corroboration to the model.
Well, as I already demonstrated, I think you work to hard in trying to split hairs. If you cannot properly label it, then you have no warrant to disqualify it from it being a sound hypothesis.

I am aware of accurate scientific predictions made by evolutionary biologists. For example, the prediction that primate genomes would possess a vitamin C pseudogene, or that one human chromosome would closely resemble two fused chimp chromosomes, or that stoneflies would possess haemocyanin. More detail available on request.
Accepting your claim to be accurate, the predictions mentioned above could have easily been made by ID scientists. There is no distinction made that indicates that the above predictions can only exist under the evolutionary model.

 Weapon of Mass Instruction posted at 12/04/2006 05:31:00 PM  
I am aware of accurate scientific predictions made by evolutionary biologists. For example, the prediction that primate genomes would possess a vitamin C pseudogene, or that one human chromosome would closely resemble two fused chimp chromosomes, or that stoneflies would possess haemocyanin. More detail available on request.
Intelligent design theory predicts: 1) that we will find specified complexity in biology. One special easily detectable form of specified complexity is irreducible complexity. We can test design by trying to reverse engineer biological structures to determine if there is an "irreducible core." Intelligent design also makes other predictions, such as 2) rapid appearance of complexity in the fossil record, 3) re-usage of similar parts in different organisms, and 4) function for biological structures. Each of these predictions may be tested--and have been confirmed through testing!

 Weapon of Mass Instruction posted at 12/04/2006 05:32:00 PM  
(1) Biochemical complexity / Laws of the Universe. High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures are commonly found. The bacterial flagellum is a prime example. Specified complexity found in the laws of the universe may be another.

(2) Fossil Record Biological complexity (i.e. new species) tend to appear in the fossil record suddenly and without any similar precursors. The Cambrian explosion is a prime example.

(3) Distribution of Molecular and Morphological Characteristics Similar parts found in different organisms. Many genes and functional parts not distributed in a manner predicted by ancestry, and are often found in clearly unrelated organisms. The "root" of the tree of life is a prime example.

(4) DNA Biochemical and Biological Functionality Increased knowledge of genetics has created a strong trend towards functionality for "junk-DNA." Examples include recently discovered functionality in some pseudogenes, microRNAs, introns, LINE and ALU elements. Examples of DNA of unknown function persist, but discovery of function may be expected (or lack of current function still explainable under a design paradigm).

 Weapon of Mass Instruction posted at 12/04/2006 05:32:00 PM  
“I would note that science also rides on the achievements of past alchemists. Often, these were the same individual.”

I am sorry Lifewish but your statement above is wishful thinking at best. But I find it interesting that you did not deny the contributions that Creationists had on science.

 Amanda posted at 12/05/2006 04:38:00 PM  
Were you aware that there's a species of mosquito that's unique to the London Underground system? It's fairly evidently descended from a very similar species that lives aboveground in London, but the two groups are not interfertile.

As best we can tell, speciation occurs fairly readily. In fact, I'm given to understand that it's something of a hobby amongst biology undergrads to place members of a fruitfly species in two different environments and see how long it takes them to achieve reproductive isolation.

That, to me, is adaptation. One kind of fruit fly adapting to be a different kind of fruit fly is still a fruit fly.

I'm talking about actually changing from one animal to a completely different animal...for example a fish turning into a salamander which then turns into a lizard which then turns into an alligator...

It doesn't matter how much adapting a cat does, it will never turn into a dog.

That's what I meant when I said I don't believe in getting a new species from an existing one (I believe this is known as macro evolution, and has never been observed).

 Weapon of Mass Instruction posted at 12/07/2006 05:53:00 PM  
Amanda, you were bragging about how much research you have done and how little I have done.

I am still waiting on your research.


"Amanda is not as complicated as you would like it to be. If the evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life then why is it always mentioned as a basis for its argument? "

 Lifewish posted at 12/09/2006 10:33:00 AM  
[Amanda] That, to me, is adaptation. One kind of fruit fly adapting to be a different kind of fruit fly is still a fruit fly.

So you agree that you were wrong to say "I do not believe that new species can develop from existing ones"?

I'm not just being pedantic here - one of the things that really really annoys people on my side of the fence is a perceived tendency of creationists to shift the goalposts. They say that one species cannot develop from another; you prove them wrong; they move to discussion of cats and dogs (which are completely different suborders, for crying out loud).

If you wish to demonstrate that there are insurmountable barriers that evolution cannot pass, you must first accurately describe those barriers. Otherwise your claim adds absolutely nothing to the sum of human knowledge.

So, pick out a set of "kinds" that you think couldn't have evolved from each other, and I'll happily point to transitionals and other evidence. For example, I already mentioned Tiktaalik - fish body, amphibian neck - as a counterexample to your proposed fish/amphibian distinction.

[WOMD] Well, as I already demonstrated, I think you work to hard in trying to split hairs. If you cannot properly label it, then you have no warrant to disqualify it from it being a sound hypothesis.

I already explicitly described what makes a scientific hypothesis. Not knowing the name for some other concept does not make that concept an hypothesis.

Accepting your claim to be accurate, the predictions mentioned above could have easily been made by ID scientists. There is no distinction made that indicates that the above predictions can only exist under the evolutionary model.

An essential component of the logic for making those predictions was the notion of phylogenetic continuity. A key part of creationism (and, to a lesser extent, of ID) is disbelief in that concept. Hence the predictions could not have followed in the same fashion from the standard creationist or ID models.

Maybe they could have been derived from some other variant of creationism. But they weren't. Creationists had all the same evidence as evolutionary biologists, and failed to derive any such predictions from it. So far ID isn't doing any better - its fruits consist of one failed prediction (Wells' centrioles idea) in fifteen years.

Intelligent design theory predicts: 1) that we will find specified complexity in biology

That's not a prediction. As best I can tell, Dembski produced his definition to try to describe the complexity he saw in nature. Hence said complexity was known to exist before your "prediction" was made.

A key component of the definition of "prediction" is that it must be something we don't know yet. Otherwise I could claim that the sky must be made of water because such a model "predicted" that the sky would be blue.

We can test design by trying to reverse engineer biological structures to determine if there is an "irreducible core."

Uh... it's logically impossible for any functional structure to not have an "irreducible core". Again, there is no possible way this can qualify as a scientific prediction, because it follows directly from any remotely sensible model of the universe, let alone of origins.

2) rapid appearance of complexity in the fossil record

Again, to the extent that this occurs*, it was noted long before creationism was even questioned.

* I'd query whether this is as widespread as your comment would appear to suggest.

3) re-usage of similar parts in different organisms

Again, not a prediction. Still, it does lead to an interesting point: if creationism is true, why does cladistics work?

You see, you're completely right that many organisms have similar-looking appendages, but what you appear not to have noticed is that these things are only similar to the extent that their form dictates their function. For example, the wings of bats, birds and pterodactyls all look fairly similar, because that approximate design is optimal for flight. But their internal structures are completely different.

When we look at similar-seeming creatures from different clades, we generally find the same thing. This is even more clear on a genetic level, where vast cladistic trees are regularly generated and compared with each other. If those trees have no basis in reality, how come they always correspond more or less perfectly?

Is there any good reason for God to create in a fashion so characteristic of continuous evolution, or is this time for another ad hoc cry of "He just chose to do it that way"?

I am sorry Lifewish but your statement above is wishful thinking at best. But I find it interesting that you did not deny the contributions that Creationists had on science.

When I mentioned alchemists I was referring to Isaac Newton - how is that wishful thinking?

Most of those creationists, of course, did not live at a time where there was any known viable alternative to creationism. As such, their lack of belief in evolution is no more indicative than their lack of belief in general relativity.

 Amanda posted at 12/09/2006 10:46:00 AM  
So you agree that you were wrong to say "I do not believe that new species can develop from existing ones"?

No. As I said in that example, it's still a fruitfly.

At this point, I will have to bow out of the conversation. I'm not a scientist by any means (in fact, I hated the subject in school).

This is not an attempt by me to stubbornly try and hold onto my position despite any evidence that may have been given that refutes it. Nor is this an attempt on my part to run from things I don't understand.

The fact of the matter is that if I were to continue in this thread with you Lifewish, I would offer nothing of substance to the conversation. I'm simply ignorant of science beyond the bare minimum basics (and even some of those aren't all that clear to me).

I do hope this won't discourage you from participating in other discussions here...you certainly make it more interesting around here! And you do it so politely, too. :)

 Lifewish posted at 12/10/2006 05:05:00 AM  
No. As I said in that example, it's still a fruitfly.

"Fruitfly" is a family rather than a species. The hierarchy is: variety, species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom.

Of these, "species" is actually the only one that's in any way rigorously defined (the rest are a lot fuzzier). By the most common definition of "species"*, two groups of organisms can be considered different species if no member of group A can produce successful offspring with members of group B. The idea is that there should be no flow of genetic material between the two groups.

So, for example, horses and donkeys are different species - they can produce offspring (mules), but said offspring are inevitably infertile. Lions and tigers are normally considered separate species because there's so little gene flow between them, but strictly speaking they're just varieties - their offspring are often fertile.

By placing fruitflies in different environments and allowing them to adapt to those environments over time, it is possible to produce two groups that are not interfertile. These can therefore be legitimately considered to be different species.

The reason this definition of "species" is so critical is because it does actually mark a key boundary (often referred to as the microevolution/macroevolution boundary). The critical point is this: interfertile organisms are unable to differ too greatly from some average form. That average might change over time, but the group will still adhere to it - the flow of genes ties them together.

Different species, by contrast, experience the opposite pressure. Without the bonds of gene flow keeping the two groups together, it's actually advantageous for them to differ as much as possible so that they're not competing with each other**. The two species can drift apart in form and function, as lions and tigers (for example) have done.

* There are actually a couple of other definitions that get used, but let's not complicate matters further :)

** This only applies to speciation events which are "sympatric" - the two new species are living in the same approximate location. It obviously doesn't apply to speciation events caused by physical isolation ("allopatric" speciation). This is actually an interesting distinction, because it is extremely difficult to prove that sympatric speciation actually happens - it was only conclusively demonstrated in the last few years.

This is not an attempt by me to stubbornly try and hold onto my position despite any evidence that may have been given that refutes it. Nor is this an attempt on my part to run from things I don't understand.

I understand your issue here - debating many of these subjets requires a certain amount of specialist technical knowledge, which quite understandably is not necessarily a priority for you. If there's anything I can help with on that front, just let me know - I'm also a complete amateur at all this, but I find the science fascinating.

Just be aware that the debates that occur online, like this one, don't cover a hundredth part of the debates that occur in proper scientific journals. The reason creationists are ignored by most reputable scientists isn't because of ideological differences; it's because (to quote a biologist acquaintance of mine) those journals publish a hundred pieces of evidence that refute creationism every week. At that point, the debate ceases to be of any real academic interest.

I do hope this won't discourage you from participating in other discussions here...you certainly make it more interesting around here! And you do it so politely, too. :)

I've really enjoyed it, and I'm glad you're happy with my contribution.

 Weapon of Mass Instruction posted at 12/15/2006 11:08:00 AM  
I already explicitly described what makes a scientific hypothesis. Not knowing the name for some other concept does not make that concept an hypothesis.

And I already, disproved it.

Semantics game. It is not a hypothesis, but you do not know what it is.

I guess that's the best evolution can do.

 Weapon of Mass Instruction posted at 12/15/2006 11:11:00 AM  
An essential component of the logic for making those predictions was the notion of phylogenetic continuity. A key part of creationism (and, to a lesser extent, of ID) is disbelief in that concept. Hence the predictions could not have followed in the same fashion from the standard creationist or ID models.

Ha! Hogwash.

And I suppose you need to accept the existence of Santa Clause as well.

 Lifewish posted at 12/23/2006 09:32:00 AM  
(I already tried to write this post once a while back, but Blogger ate it. I'm currently bored enough to reproduce it. Enjoy)

Ha! Hogwash.

OK, I'm going to call your bluff on this. I'll explain the logic that led scientists to this conclusion, and you can either show why phylogenetic continuity is not a necessary assumption for that logic or present an alternative argument. If you go for the alternative argument, you will of course have to explain why no creationist at the time was able to make that argument.

Datum: Humans have 23 chromosomes (per haploid - 46 total)

Datum: Other apes have 24 chromosomes

Premise: Humans and apes share a common ancestor

Therefore: By parsimony, it's reasonable to assume that the common ancestor had 24 chromosomes

Therefore: The human lineage has reduced its chromosome count by 1

Datum: It's possible to reduce a chromosome count either by losing a chromosome or by fusing two existing chromosomes

Datum: Losing a chromosome through natural mutation generally results in nonviable offspring

Premise: Lineages consist of a continuous chain of ancestors and descendants (phylogenetic continuity)

Therefore: Any modification that would result in nonviable offspring cannot occur in a lineage (except at the end of it, obviously)

Therefore: The human lineage did not lose a chromosome

Therefore: The human lineage must have fused two chromosomes

Datum: Such a fusion would be detectable by dye-staining techniques and comparison with chimp chromosomes

Prediction: If we perform such a test, we will find such a fusion

OK, WoMI, your turn now: show how that prediction follows from a model of biology that does not include the notion of phylogenetic continuity.

Post a Comment

  <$BlogBacklinkTitle$>  

<$BlogBacklinkSnippet$>
posted by <$BlogBacklinkAuthor$> @ <$BlogBacklinkDateTime$>

Create a Link