Sunday, March 27, 2011

Creation Versus Evolution: The Real Story

Creationist Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, has been disinvited from homeschooling conferences over comments he made about evolutionist Peter Enns. Both Ham and Enns are conference speakers. As conference organizer Brennan Dean wrote:

Our expression of sacrifice and extraordinary kindness towards Ken and AIG has been returned to us and our attendees with Ken publicly attacking our conventions and other speakers. Our Board believes Ken's comments to be unnecessary, ungodly, and mean-spirited statements that are divisive at best and defamatory at worst.

An Answers in Genesis spokesman, however, explained that they were unaware there was a problem and that conference organizers should not have been surprised by Ham’s warnings that evolution compromises God's word.

On the surface this story appears to be about yet another tiff between creationists and evolutionists. The creationists may use it to remind us that scripture must be vigorously defended while the evolutionists may use it to make yet more appeals for nuanced readings of scripture. And those outside the debate undoubtedly will call for unity. But while all these points are perfectly valid, they miss the real story.

Can scripture accommodate evolution?

Evolutionists sometimes ask me if my religious beliefs can accommodate evolution. Do I criticize evolution objectively, they ask, or do I have religious motives? The answer is that my religious beliefs do not accommodate evolution, but not for the suspected reason.

When evolutionists ask this question they are thinking about the material aspects of evolution. Can your religious beliefs accommodate an old earth and species arising via natural processes rather than miraculous intervention? To this I say sure. With thinkers ranging from BB Warfield to the Roman Catholic Church, I don’t have a particular problem with God creating through his natural laws.

I’m not saying this is easy. True, Genesis does speak of the earth bringing forth some of the species. Is this not at least suggestive of natural processes? And even creationists appeal to limited amounts of evolutionary change. But I do not find either of these very compelling. Scripture does not seem to be easily adaptable to the evolutionary narrative. But saying this is different than saying scripture definitely excludes evolution. For me evolution is not a likely interpretation of scripture, but it is not out of the question. And if it is not out of the question, then it must be considered.

So what is the scriptural problem with evolution? The problem is that evolutionary thinking is, and always has been, motivated by non biblical claims about God. I have discussed this in this blog, but the best place to find these claims is in the evolution literature, both before and after Darwin. Simply put, evolutionary thought is motivated and justified by various claims about how God would create the world. God wouldn’t create all of the many lowly creatures—that is beneath him. God wouldn’t create evil or inefficiency—that would be against his nature. God wouldn’t create particular patterns—that would be capricious. And so forth. In all about a dozen theological and philosophical arguments, that mandate evolution, arose in the Enlightenment years before Darwin. And they were and remain today tremendously influential. They are the reason that evolutionists today insist evolution is a fact, not merely a theory. Evolution is, at bottom, a religious idea developed in polite Christian settings. Today’s atheists, like a conforming teenager who thinks he is in rebellion, rehearse these same arguments as if demonstrating a religious skepticism.

But the Bible will have none of this. Scripture presents a creator who is in control. This creator knows precisely what he is creating. He may use miracles, he may use natural processes, but there are no surprises in the end. This may sound evolution friendly but it is not. This view is not at all accommodative of evolutionary thought. For as evolutionist SJ Gould put it, “Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution—paths that a sensible God would never tread.” Both atheist and theist alike agree god would not have created this mess, and so evolution must be a fact. That is a religious claim that doesn’t pass the scriptural test. (And without its religious claims evolution is left only with its scientific claims which are prima facie absurd). Consider, for example, God’s message to Job regarding the unlikely ostrich:

      “The wings of the ostrich wave proudly,
      But are her wings and pinions like the kindly stork’s?

      For she leaves her eggs on the ground,
      And warms them in the dust;

      She forgets that a foot may crush them,
      Or that a wild beast may break them.

      She treats her young harshly, as though they were not hers;
      Her labor is in vain, without concern,

      Because God deprived her of wisdom,
      And did not endow her with understanding. [Job 39:13-17]

This and other passages do not give hints that creations arose in spite of the creator’s wishes.

The real story

And so the real story is not at the level of mechanism, but at the level of divine intent. And this brings us full circle back to the Ken Ham and the creationists. For while creationists and evolutionists argue about mechanism, they both agree about divine intent. God, they say, did not intend for this evil world. For creationists the problem is solved by the Fall. For evolutionists it is solved by natural law. But where it counts they agree. Consider, for example, how Ham responded to the killer tsunami in the Indian Ocean a few years ago:

Those of us who believe in a literal Genesis have a history, a history concerning the Fall, a history concerning the Flood. So when we look at this world, we’re looking at a fallen world. It’s not God’s fault there are tsunamis. … Death is not God's fault. [Christianity Today, April 24, 2006]

Creationists say God would not use long time periods to create. They say God would not use cruel processes to create. These are claims about divine intent, and that is the real story.

85 comments:

  1. “The wings of the ostrich wave proudly,
    But are her wings and pinions like the kindly stork’s?

    For she leaves her eggs on the ground,
    And warms them in the dust;

    She forgets that a foot may crush them,
    Or that a wild beast may break them.

    She treats her young harshly, as though they were not hers;
    Her labor is in vain, without concern,

    Because God deprived her of wisdom,
    And did not endow her with understanding. [Job 39:13-17]

    This and other passages do not give hints that creations arose in spite of the creator’s wishes.


    That passage reveals a naive anthropomorphic view of ostrich behavior. And in the bargain accuses god of bad design!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Evolution and abiogenesis are actually not mandated on the grounds of what God would or would not do but because of the laws of chemistry and thermodynamics. And you actually know this:

    “For evolutionists it is solved by natural law.”

    Whether God did or did not cause the earthquake in Japan is irrelevant. What is relevant is that God has limited herself to obey the laws of plate tectonics. But while you might agree or disagree with the theological reasons for that it still remains the central assertion of science, an absolute limit to our knowledge or plainly a fact.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Job on ostriches:

    "She treats her young harshly, as though they were not hers;"

    Indeed, most aren't hers, since ostriches have communal nests. Funny that the Author seems unaware of this, or is this Biblical prophesy of kin-selection?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hunter: And this brings us full circle back to the Ken Ham and the creationists. For while creationists and evolutionists argue about mechanism, they both agree about divine intent. God, they say, did not intend for this evil world. For creationists the problem is solved by the Fall. For evolutionists it is solved by natural law. But where it counts they agree.

    This is a howler. Nothing could be further apart than creationism and science. The former begins with the notion that God created the world. The latter does not even mention the concept of a deity. To creationists, God is required to explain the workings of the world. To a scientist, God is irrelevant. Not non-existent, just irrelevant.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Cornelius Hunter said...

    Simply put, evolutionary thought is motivated and justified by various claims about how God would create the world. God wouldn’t create all of the many lowly creatures—that is beneath him. God wouldn’t create evil or inefficiency—that would be against his nature. God wouldn’t create particular patterns—that would be capricious. And so forth.


    Alas, yet another gross misrepresentation of actual evolutionary theory.

    As I just pointed out to Doublee a few days ago, NO ONE in science says "God wouldn't do it that way so evolution must be true". What people do say is "what we find in nature contradicts the idea of creation by an omnipotent benevolent God".

    Those are two very different arguments. The first would be a false dichotomy, which is one reason why no one makes it. The second is not an argument for evolution, it's an argument against divine intervention.

    The theory of evolution is completely neutral and indeed doesn't even mention any God or Gods. ToE has never said "God definitely wasn't involved", because an omnipotent God could certainly set up natural laws and use evolution as the creative mechanism. All ToE says is that we have lots of evidence a supernatural God wasn't necessary.

    Sadly, Cornelius is like many Christian Creationists and loves to play the persecuted martyr. Science says "there's no evidence a God did this" and they hear "there is no God!". Then they fume and bluster and play the victim.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm a bit confused:

    You refer to Peter Enns as an 'evolutionist.' Maybe he supports evolution in some form (I really don't know), but it seems in training practice he is a evangelical Bible scholar.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Enns

    It seems the fight was over Enns' K-12 Bible Curriculum (not sure if science/evolution is included). In fact, the fracas seems to have erupted over whether there was a global worldwide flood or not.

    Better yet, the organizers seem to come down on the side of young earth creationism, but just thought Ham was a jerk!

    "Here is just one of many examples of Peter Enns rejecting the plain teaching of the Bible and undermining God's Word—he totally rejects a worldwide Flood," Ham wrote on his Facebook page the day after the South Carolina conference."
    ...
    "Ham was not removed for his message about young-earth creation, which the conference organizers agree with, Dean wrote in a public explanation. "Dr. Ham was removed for his spirit not for his message," Dean wrote. "We believe Christian scholars should be heard without the fear of ostracism or ad hominem attacks."

    http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/marchweb-only/kenhamhomeschool.html

    So I'm missing the 'evolution' part, unless evolution means anything scientific that doesn't agree with the young-earth and global flood beliefs of some Christians.

    ReplyDelete
  7. oleg:

    ===
    This is a howler. Nothing could be further apart than creationism and science. The former begins with the notion that God created the world. The latter does not even mention the concept of a deity. To creationists, God is required to explain the workings of the world. To a scientist, God is irrelevant. Not non-existent, just irrelevant.
    ===

    So evolutionists are not scientists?

    The professor insists evolution entails no religion. It is strictly about the empirical evidence. It is a "howler" to think otherwise. Meanwhile they continue to make their religious claims.

    If there is a "howler" here it is this denial that evolutionists are in.

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/02/coyne-evolutionary-arguments-not.html

    This is the nature of evolutionary thought. Evolution is motivated and justified by theological and philosophical claims which mandate that evolution must be a fact. They then turn around and claim it is all just empirical science. You ask them to show why evolution is a fact, and out come the metaphysics again. You point that out and they still insist evolution is just empirical science. They then label you as an "evolution denier" and any suggestion of metaphysics is a "howler."

    Like a fish in water, those who are most indebted to metaphysics are the least aware of it. Evolution is the greatest threat to science today. It is a major rationalist movement that has infected science. And like all rationalist movements, it views itself as good, right and genuine science, skeptics as wrong, nefarious and anti science.

    And as with most rationalist programs, the science is silly. In this case they take the absurdity to the hilt. They insist the world spontaneously arose.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Say what, Cornelius? Which part of evolutionary biology says that "the world spontaneously arose?" You're making it up.

    ReplyDelete
  9. And as with most rationalist programs, the science is silly. In this case they take the absurdity to the hilt. They insist the world spontaneously arose.

    They do? As opposed to what? The stories told in a book that can't even get the biology of ostriches right?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thanks for the answer, Cornelius.

    So, in a nutshell, your religious beliefs are compatible with the material aspects of evolution, but not with the supposed intentions and "justifications" behind the theory. Right?

    Well, even if you were right about the intentions behind ToE, we all know that what one's intentions have nothing to to with whether one's right or wrong, so this shouldn't be really a problem for you.

    On dysteleology as a "justification" or argument for evolution, that is bad philosophy, not science. I know of no one who has seriously put forward anything like that as science, at least since the end of the times of "natural philosophy". If anybody does, it is not bad science, it's not even science. Period. You say dysteleology is a fundamental aspect or some kind "hidden justification" of evolutionary theory. You're plain wrong. I speak for myself, but I'm sure most if not all of us "evolutionists" in this blog do not think of dysteleology as an argument for evolution. Thorton already confirmed this. Also, I have assisted to three university courses on evolution, where evidences for evolution were reviewed. No teacher at any moment even hinted dystelelology.

    We have agreed long ago that dysteleology arguments against creation, by the kind of highly unconstrained [wishy-washy] gods common in modern Christian denominations, are faulty. Of course, this doesn't make the case for evolution any better either. What makes evolutionary theory a strong contender against creation (including "design") hypotheses is that there is no current creation hypothesis that is even marginally scientifically useful.

    She forgets that a foot may crush them,
    Or that a wild beast may break them.


    Don't be silly, God. Ostrich eggs are incredibly difficult to break. A human adult can stand upon them without even making a crack... or perhaps ostrich eggs have evolved since then? ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Cornelius,

    So evolutionists are not scientists?

    Not necessarily.

    Noun, a person who believes in the theories of evolution and natural selection.

    Oxford Online Dictionaries

    A proponent or supporter of evolutionism

    Wiktionary

    2. One who argues that evolution is the correct theory of origins for life on earth (instead of creationism or Intelligent Design). The word was coined by creationists as a way to mischaracterize scientists that denounce creationism. "Evolutionist" implies that evolution is merely an unsupported belief ultimately interchangeable with creationism. In fact, most scientists "believe" in evolution because the of the great amount of research and empirical evidence that supports it. The word evolutionist is a mildly offensive term to most scientists.

    5. a person who rejects Creationism as an alternate theory despite huge amounts of contrary evidence, including radiohaloes in diamonds, and many other minerals.


    urban dictionary

    ReplyDelete
  12. troy:

    They do? As opposed to what? The stories told in a book that can't even get the biology of ostriches right?

    Geoxus:

    Don't be silly, God. Ostrich eggs are incredibly difficult to break. A human adult can stand upon them without even making a crack... or perhaps ostrich eggs have evolved since then? ;-)


    Someone had his head in the sand.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Geoxus:

    ===
    Also, I have assisted to three university courses on evolution, where evidences for evolution were reviewed. No teacher at any moment even hinted dystelelology.
    ===

    I wonder in what context were the evidences presented in those courses. For example, were the evidences presented as revealing substantial scientific problems for evolution? Or were they presented as supporting evolution? Was evolution presented as pretty much a given -- a fact? Or was all the evidence presented without any comment on the standing of evolution. Also, can you summarize the evidences?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Geoxus:

    The word [evolutionist] was coined by creationists as a way to mischaracterize scientists that denounce creationism.

    Or:

    The word [creationist] was coined by Darwinists as a way to mischaracterize design proponents that denounce Darwinism.

    The word evolutionist is a mildly offensive term to most scientists.

    Although I like evolutionist, I personally prefer to use Darwinist. Still, I'm thinking that we, IDers, need another word, a more pejorative word to describe those who misrepresent science in order to advance their lame and absurd religion.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Cornelius said,

    "But the Bible will have none of this. Scripture presents a creator who is in control. This creator knows precisely what he is creating. He may use miracles, he may use natural processes, but there are no surprises in the end."

    This view is not Biblical, or at least a simplistic Biblical interpretation.

    "But the Lord God called to the man, and said to him, ‘Where are you?" Gen 3:9.

    God is not in control of His creation or He wouldn't have needed to bring on the flood. The flood destroyed most of His creation. This is just one of many examples were God is not in control.

    Cornelius' error in Biblical exegesis is a product of his Protestantism. If he was a Catholic he would realize the God primarily inspired the church over and above a book.

    So on to the topic, I too could believe that God created using evolution if evolution weren't such a ridiculous theory lacking any significant evidence.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  16. Oleg:

    This is a howler. Nothing could be further apart than creationism and science. The former begins with the notion that God created the world. The latter does not even mention the concept of a deity. To creationists, God is required to explain the workings of the world. To a scientist, God is irrelevant. Not non-existent, just irrelevant.

    Well, I am a creationist in the restricted sense that I believe that living organisms were designed and created by one or more intelligent agents. I believe in evolution but my notion of evolution is not the same as that of the Darwinist camp. I call it design evolution because I believe it was engineered. For example, I believe that the human genome was engineered and that the designers used genetic materials that were/are available in existing animals, especially apes.

    Darwinists claim that those who believe in design are not scientists because their hypothesis cannot be falsified, i.e., it does not make a prediction that can be tested empirically. To that I say, bull pucky.

    I am not sure whether others in the ID camp have arrived at the same conclusion but my understanding of design tells me that ID is indeed falsifiable. The way I see it, design evolution make a very specific and falsifiable prediction. It predicts that the evolutionary tree contain non-nested hierarchies (multiple inheritance or genetic material). This is in sharp contrast to the ToE, which predicts strictly nested hierarchies.

    The theory of design evolution (ToDE, if you wish) predicts that, since various genomes can be and have been decoded, we can use computer algorithms to build a comprehensive evolutionary tree from the available genome database and search for non-nested hierarchies in the tree. A good place to start would be with the genomes of echolocating bats and toothed whales. These two species acquired echolocation long after their ancestors hopped on different branches of the tree of life.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Cornelius:

    I wonder in what context were the evidences presented in those courses.

    They were pretty conventional presentations, probably based on textbooks.

    For example, were the evidences presented as revealing substantial scientific problems for evolution?

    No, they weren't. It would be very difficult to find any evidence that is problematic for descent with modification. But later in the corse, we discussed some of the hot topics and problems for the current evolutionary theory, like the evolution of social behaviour and group vs. kin selection.

    Or were they presented as supporting evolution?

    Of course, the class was about evidence for evolution!

    Was evolution presented as pretty much a given -- a fact?

    Yes. These were normal classes for university biology students, teachers rarely use maieutics or the like. Most aspects of biology are presented as factual. Evolution is not different.

    Also, can you summarize the evidences?

    No, it was a long time ago. I can remember very few things, among them the mention of work on Darwin's finches by the Grants and Darwin himself. I think most of the topics were pretty standard textbook examples.

    Now that I think about it, I must have been talking to creationists too long. The teachers actually used the term "examples of x aspect of evolution" rather than "evidences for x" most of the time. Here we don't have a "Darwin on trial" situation.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Louis Savain said...

    Darwinists claim that those who believe in design are not scientists because their hypothesis cannot be falsified, i.e., it does not make a prediction that can be tested empirically. To that I say, bull pucky.


    Why don't you be a good little Creationist then hand tell us what observations would falsify your hypothesis.

    The theory of design evolution (ToDE, if you wish) predicts that, since various genomes can be and have been decoded, we can use computer algorithms to build a comprehensive evolutionary tree from the available genome database and search for non-nested hierarchies in the tree. A good place to start would be with the genomes of echolocating bats and toothed whales. These two species acquired echolocation long after their ancestors hopped on different branches of the tree of life.

    This has already been done. Out of the hundreds of thousands of sequences known, the current count of your 'non-nested therefore designed' genetic sequences is one that can easily be explained by convergence.

    How many non-identical and independently formed amino-acid chains must be found in the tree of life before the 'it was designed' ruse (excuse) becomes ridiculous and nested (evolved) hierarchies become a scientific fact?

    Give us a number please Looie.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Peter said...

    Cornelius' error in Biblical exegesis is a product of his Protestantism. If he was a Catholic he would realize the God primarily inspired the church over and above a book.


    LOL! Don't you just love it when two Creationists get in a scrap over whose version of the Creation fantasy is correct?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Geoxus:

    ===
    Geoxus: Also, I have assisted to three university courses on evolution, where evidences for evolution were reviewed. No teacher at any moment even hinted dystelelology.

    CH: can you summarize the evidences?

    Geoxus: No, it was a long time ago. I can remember very few things
    ===

    So evolutionary thinking entails religious convictions which can be found throughout the literature, then a professor claims there is no such thing, but when asked for simple details he conveniently forgets.


    ===
    I think most of the topics were pretty standard textbook examples
    ===

    The standard textbook examples are metaphysical. So what is it about evolutionists? They insist it is a fact that the world spontaneously arose, their proofs are metaphysical, but they then claim foul when you point it out. "Oh, no, we never did that," is the claim, but then there are no details, except "we used the standard examples." It is precisely these standard examples which are metaphysical. Here are links to what one standard textbook says:

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/07/back-to-school-do-you-know-what-your.html

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/07/back-to-school-do-you-know-what-your.html

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/07/blind-guides.html

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/07/web-weavers.html

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/08/back-to-school-part-3.html

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/08/back-to-school-part-4.html

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/10/back-to-school-part-v.html

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/10/back-to-school-part-vi.html

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/11/back-to-school-part-7.html

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/12/back-to-school-part-viii.html


    ===
    It would be very difficult to find any evidence that is problematic for descent with modification.
    ===

    This gross misrepresentation of science is what evolutionists believe and teach.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Thorton:

    Louis Savain: The theory of design evolution (ToDE, if you wish) predicts that, since various genomes can be and have been decoded, we can use computer algorithms to build a comprehensive evolutionary tree from the available genome database and search for non-nested hierarchies in the tree. A good place to start would be with the genomes of echolocating bats and toothed whales. These two species acquired echolocation long after their ancestors hopped on different branches of the tree of life.

    Thorton: This has already been done.


    No it has not. Your comment reveals your ignorance and stupidity, not to mention your usual dishonesty. Only a single inherited gene (prestin), which is modified in echolocating bats and whales for greater sensitivity to higher audio frequencies, has been studied. Echolocation is orders of magnitude more complex than the ability to detect higher audio frequencies. Get a clue.

    Louis Savain: How many non-identical and independently formed amino-acid chains must be found in the tree of life before the 'it was designed' ruse (excuse) becomes ridiculous and nested (evolved) hierarchies become a scientific fact?

    Thorton: Give us a number please Looie.


    In a parallel thread, you came up with 5000. Did you pull it out of Uranus? LOL.

    ReplyDelete
  22. LOL! Cornelius, you're too funny!

    Standing on your little street corner blog, Bible in hand, screaming "SCIENCE IS WRONG! THE WORLD IS FLAT!!' while the real scientific community tries to politely muffle its laughter.

    Have you figured out the difference between a fact and a theory yet? I bet you can't tell us. Go ahead, try. You can even use Steven J. Gould's words if you like.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Looie, you forgot to tell us what observations would falsify your Design hypothesis.

    You also avoided my question

    How many non-identical and independently formed amino-acid chains must be found in the tree of life before the 'it was designed' ruse (excuse) becomes ridiculous and nested (evolved) hierarchies become a scientific fact?

    That's for all of biology Looie, not just the prestin sequence. Give us a number please.

    ReplyDelete
  24. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Thorton:

    Looie, you forgot to tell us what observations would falsify your Design hypothesis.

    No I did not. You just have a reading comprehension disorder and you believe dishonesty is part of scientific methodology.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Geoxus:

    ===
    It would be very difficult to find any evidence that is problematic for descent with modification.
    ===

    This gross misrepresentation of science is what evolutionists believe and teach. For example, why aren't these problematic for descent with modification:

    1. Lack of mechanism (to which even evolutionists admit)
    2. Uncanny similarities in distant species
    3. Non homologous development pathways
    4. ORFans and novel proteins
    5. Phylogenetic contradictions (not mere noise) at every level. Even evolutionists are dropping the tree metaphor.
    6. Phylogenetic contradictions for early evolution, leading evolutionists to drop common descent.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Louis the Fruit Loop said...

    Thorton: I just realized that you misquoted me. The question that I had asked was:

    How many identical and independently formed amino-acid chains must be found in the tree of life...

    not

    How many non-identical and independently formed amino-acid chains must be found in the tree of life...

    What a jerk you are, Thorton


    I wasn't quoting you at all you moron. I asked an entirely different question using the same format as the question you were using.

    Try reading the whole question instead of just running your big mouth.

    How many non-identical and independently formed amino-acid chains must be found in the tree of life before the 'it was designed' ruse (excuse) becomes ridiculous and nested (evolved) hierarchies become a scientific fact?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Louis the lying Fruit Loop said...

    Thorton: Looie, you forgot to tell us what observations would falsify your Design hypothesis.

    No I did not. You just have a reading comprehension disorder and you believe dishonesty is part of scientific methodology.


    Liar. Tell us what observations would falsify your Design hypothesis.

    ReplyDelete
  29. LOL! Speaking of having a reading comprehension disorder, I notice you deleted your embarrassing post where you accused me of misquoting you.

    How's that foot taste Looie?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Thorton:

    You also avoided my question

    How many non-identical and independently formed amino-acid chains must be found in the tree of life before the 'it was designed' ruse (excuse) becomes ridiculous and nested (evolved) hierarchies become a scientific fact?


    Your question, which is a dishonestly modified version of my question in another thread, makes no sense. There are thousands if not millions of non-identical and independently formed amino-acid chains in the tree of life. Get a clue.

    That's for all of biology Looie, not just the prestin sequence. Give us a number please.

    You're an idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Thorton:

    LOL! Speaking of having a reading comprehension disorder, I notice you deleted your embarrassing post where you accused me of misquoting you.

    What are you, a 12-year old? You took my own question from a parallel thread and modified it. I assumed it was my original question and did not read it carefully. Besides, your question makes no sense. Like I said, you're stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Cornelius,
    So evolutionary thinking entails religious convictions which can be found throughout the literature, then a professor claims there is no such thing, but when asked for simple details he conveniently forgets.

    I guess you must think very highly of me Cornelius, but I must confess I'm not a professor.

    I said that I have never heard arguments from dysteleology in a real evolution class for university students. I think I would distinctly remember if they did, because I've always thought such arguments are don't belong to science. Then you asked me for the details of evidences presented in those classes. I'm afraid I don't remember most of the lectures I've attended to. I tend to assimilate the contents, not to memorise the presentations. But that doesn't mean I couldn't list good examples of evidences for different aspects of evolution, I've done that in this blog before! I just can't precisely remember what those teachers said in their lectures. Don't twist my words.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Louis the lying Fruit Loop said...

    Darwinists claim that those who believe in design are not scientists because their hypothesis cannot be falsified, i.e., it does not make a prediction that can be tested empirically. To that I say, bull pucky.


    Tell us what observations would falsify your Design hypothesis, liar.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Cornelius:
    The standard textbook examples are metaphysical.

    You abuse that word so much, I can't tell any more the meaning of it when you use it.

    Here are links to what one standard textbook says: ...

    I don't see the point of a list of links to posts we have already read and refuted or disregarded as hot air. I commented in some of those myself. Do you expect me to somehow ignore the previous discussions?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Thorton:

    Me: Darwinists claim that those who believe in design are not scientists because their hypothesis cannot be falsified, i.e., it does not make a prediction that can be tested empirically. To that I say, bull pucky.

    Thorton: Tell us what observations would falsify your Design hypothesis, liar.


    Haysoos Martinez! Do I have to repeat myself to accommodate your lack of grey matter? Let me rephrase it for you, dimwit:

    If, after a comprehensive computer analysis of the genetic information contained in various species, it is discovered that there are no multiple inheritance (non-nested hierarchies) in the tree of life at the molecular level, then Design Evolution is falsified.

    It's that simple. Falsifiability is the primary requirement of scientific hypotheses, is it not? So there you have it. Read it and weep, moron.

    ReplyDelete
  36. All quotes from Cornelius,

    For example, why aren't these problematic for descent with modification

    Let's see..

    1. Lack of mechanism (to which even evolutionists admit)

    Mutation and transmission by vertical and lateral transference, I guess?

    2. Uncanny similarities in distant species

    Now, you're conflating two things here, this is not problematic to the fundamental phenomenon of evolution: descent with modification, inheritance of change. But now that you bring it up, convergence and constrained developmental paths, and LGT at the molecular level explain much of that.

    3. Non homologous development pathways

    Again, this is nothing against descent with modification. You seem to imply that it's against CA, but it doesn't. Remember what evolution is about: things change! Constraints sometimes can be overcome.

    4. ORFans and novel proteins

    Idem 3. And there are many good possible explanations for ORFans, like sampling artefacts and long branches.

    5. Phylogenetic contradictions (not mere noise) at every level. Even evolutionists are dropping the tree metaphor.

    Again, nothing against descent with modification.
    We must choose the model for the representation of evolutionary relationships informed by the biology of the organisms we are working with. When simple parent-descendent inheritance is predominant, trees make sense. When things like hybridisation and LGT are more important, more complicated networks are needed. I don't think we'll be dropping the trees for birds and frogs any soon.

    6. Phylogenetic contradictions for early evolution, leading evolutionists to drop common descent.

    Uhm, nothing against descent with modification. When branches are so long, it is perfectly reasonable to expect phylogenetic analysis to be terribly difficult, perhaps it's even impossible to achieve a good resolution. But I don't know what you mean with "evolutionists" dropping universal (I guess?) common descent. Some evolutionary biologists have pointed out the possibility, including Darwin, but I don't know of anybody positively making that case.

    ReplyDelete
  37. CH: The answer is that my religious beliefs do not accommodate evolution, but not for the suspected reason.

    Apparently, what follows will bare no resemblance to arguments that myself or others have made.

    CH: When evolutionists ask this question they are thinking about the material aspects of evolution.

    No, I'm thinking that you hold a belief that the biological complexity we observe represents a boundary where human reasoning and problem solving cannot pass. As such you reject any explanation that is based on human reasoning and problem solving. We must remain forever undecided as to the means, method etc.

    CH: So what is the scriptural problem with evolution? The problem is that evolutionary thinking is, and always has been, motivated by non biblical claims about God.

    What are non-Bibilcal claims based on? Human reasoning and problem solving. And what is the Bible based on? Inside information communicated by a supernatural being. God has revealed the heavenly secrets that make sense of earthly realities.

    No surprises here.

    Again, what's absent is the criteria you use to determine how the biological complexity we observe is beyond human reasoning and problem solving. Why does the boundary exist where you says it does, if anywhere at all? The Bible said so?

    In fact, I'd suggest that revelation, such as found in the Bible, represents an early attempt to explain why good things happen to some people but not others, why wars were lost or won, why drought and famines occurred, etc.

    CH: Simply put, evolutionary thought is motivated and justified by various claims about how God would create the world. God wouldn’t create all of the many lowly creatures—that is beneath him. God wouldn’t create evil or inefficiency—that would be against his nature. God wouldn’t create particular patterns—that would be capricious. And so forth.

    No. We are justified in discarding the claim that "God did it" because it fails to explain the biological complexity we observe and represents a convoluted elaboration of modern evolutionary theory. It's indefensible as an explanation of anything in particular, let alone the biological complicity we observe.

    As such, we discard it.

    Furthermore, you're conflating a critique of what appears to be contradicting claims about God with actually holding a belief about God.

    CH: But the Bible will have none of this. Scripture presents a creator who is in control. This creator knows precisely what he is creating. He may use miracles, he may use natural processes, but there are no surprises in the end.

    The biological complexity we observe must be what God wanted because the Bible depicts God always getting what he wants? Really?

    Furthermore, you seem to be appealing to another apparent contradiction. When we point out that it's unclear how an omnipotent and omniscient being could create other beings that would act in ways he could not anticipate, the usual response is, "God didn't want us to be robots! You wouldn't want to be a robot, would you?"

    So, it seems you already accept an instance where God intended a great range of freedom in the outcome. As such, it's unclear why you accept this degree of freedom in the case of free will, but not in the biological complexity we observe.

    CH: This and other passages do not give hints that creations arose in spite of the creator’s wishes.

    Is God was concerned with micromanaging the exact form that life took? How you know the results of an open-ended process would violate God's wishes?

    Revelation, perhaps?

    CH: For creationists the problem is solved by the Fall. For evolutionists it is solved by natural law. But where it counts they agree.

    Theists are in agreement that a boundary where human reasoning and problem solving cannot pass exist, they just disagree on where it falls. Science, on the other hand, does not assume such a boundary exists.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Pedant and troy, both strain at finding fault (incorrectly I say) with Job chapter 39.

    Pedant doesn't understand language styles and misses CH's point and troy criticizes by finding fault with something that he feels the scripture should have added.

    Yet they will drink any flavor of kool-aid that anyone that calls themselves an evolutionist will serve.

    ReplyDelete
  39. CH said, "This is the nature of evolutionary thought. Evolution is motivated and justified by theological and philosophical claims which mandate that evolution must be a fact. They then turn around and claim it is all just empirical science. "

    I'm not sure if this is deception by evolutionists or is it one of those kind of mindsets that can't really see its own fault or folly? Probably both, but I think its mostly the later.

    Evolutionists reading this should consider what other field of science says things like, “Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution—paths that a sensible God would never tread.” (SJ Gould- atheist).

    Semiconductor design? No Rocket science? No

    How can evolutionists actually stick with real science? By refusing to speak of God or such things in any of their literature. Because this is impossible, it shows that it never was scientifically based. It is a philosophy that hijacks science in order to make it believable.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Geoxus:

    ===
    I said that I have never heard arguments from dysteleology in a real evolution class for university students. I think I would distinctly remember if they did, because I've always thought such arguments are don't belong to science. Then you asked me for the details of evidences presented in those classes. I'm afraid I don't remember most of the lectures I've attended to. I tend to assimilate the contents, not to memorise the presentations. But that doesn't mean I couldn't list good examples of evidences for different aspects of evolution, I've done that in this blog before! I just can't precisely remember what those teachers said in their lectures. Don't twist my words.
    ===

    OK, fair enough.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Louis the Fruit Loop said...

    Me: Darwinists claim that those who believe in design are not scientists because their hypothesis cannot be falsified, i.e., it does not make a prediction that can be tested empirically. To that I say, bull pucky.

    Thorton: Tell us what observations would falsify your Design hypothesis,

    If, after a comprehensive computer analysis of the genetic information contained in various species, it is discovered that there are no multiple inheritance (non-nested hierarchies) in the tree of life at the molecular level, then Design Evolution is falsified.


    LOL! Another moron who doesn't understand the concept.

    No dimwit a lack of observation cannot be a falsification. For a lack of something to be your falsification you'd have to have perfect knowledge of the entire universe. If you limit yourself to just Earth you'd have to have a genetic sample of every creature (not just every species but every last individual) that ever lived over the last 3+ billion years. Even with that, you could always claim that the Designer deliberately created nested hierarchies in the genetic record just to trick us.

    Looks like your brain cramp can't be falsified, which means it's not science. Just as everyone has been telling you IDiots.

    Now that we've established your Design idea can never be 100% falsified, how many genetic sequences that fit into nested hierarchies do we have to observe before we tentatively conclude that your Design hypothesis is false? Give me a number, coward.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Geoxus:

    ===
    1. Lack of mechanism (to which even evolutionists admit)

    Mutation and transmission by vertical and lateral transference, I guess?
    ===

    Well sure, that was the guess. But it hasn't worked out very well, which even evolutionists admit.


    ===
    2. Uncanny similarities in distant species

    Now, you're conflating two things here, this is not problematic to the fundamental phenomenon of evolution: descent with modification, inheritance of change. But now that you bring it up, convergence and constrained developmental paths, and LGT at the molecular level explain much of that.
    ===

    This is today's version of Aristotelianism. They said fire had the quality of dryness and heat. But these are nothing more than descriptive labels. Such qualities should not be taken as explanations. Convergence does not explain convergence. LGT does not explain the squid and human vision systems.




    ===
    3. Non homologous development pathways

    Again, this is nothing against descent with modification. You seem to imply that it's against CA, but it doesn't. Remember what evolution is about: things change! Constraints sometimes can be overcome.
    ===

    You can explain anything.



    ===
    4. ORFans and novel proteins

    Idem 3. And there are many good possible explanations for ORFans, like sampling artefacts and long branches.
    ===

    Explanations such as sampling effects were hoped to work, but the more genomes that were sequenced, the more ORFans were found.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Cornelius, please tell us in your own words the difference between a fact and a theory.

    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  44. Thorton:

    No dimwit a lack of observation cannot be a falsification. For a lack of something to be your falsification you'd have to have perfect knowledge of the entire universe.

    You're dead wrong, cockroach brain. I am sure what I'm about to say will go over your head, but what the heck. I'll give it a try anyway.

    What you said would be true only if the limits of the experiment could not be specified. In this case, it can. Based on my research in the use of hierarchies in the organization of knowledge in the brain (and artificial intelligences), I can confidently predict that this experiment needs to consider only the genomes of a handful of species.

    In fact, I am so confident of my understanding of the intelligent design process and the need for multiple inheritance in complex designs that I can limit the number of species to just the extant whales and bats (both with and without echolocation). You can throw in a cow and a rat genomes for good measure.

    The reason that I am so confident in my prediction is that I know that reinventing the wheel is a very bad idea in design. Indeed, the more intelligent the designer, the more he/she will try to reuse previous tried and tested designs even across distant branches of the design tree.

    Read it and weep, meathead.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Neal: I'm not sure if this is deception by evolutionists or is it one of those kind of mindsets that can't really see its own fault or folly? Probably both, but I think its mostly the later.

    Evolutionary thinking represents collateral damage in a cosmic battle of good and evil. Everyone participates on one side or the other, even if they won't admit it or realize it. Of course, theists like Neal and Cornelius can see the deception and folly because they have the inside scoop.

    Neal: Evolutionists reading this should consider what other field of science says things like, “Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution—paths that a sensible God would never tread.” (SJ Gould- atheist).

    Neal,

    It seems you've overlooked the obvious.

    The only fields of science in which anyone even remotely mentions God are those in which theists claim an all-good, all-knowing and all-powerful God plays a direct role.

    For example, science concludes the phenomena we attribute to gravity is caused by a natural force. Theists claim gravity is a natural force created by God as a secondary cause. As such, there is no need to point out the contradiction that would result if perfectly good God was directly pulling on objects according to their mass. God would be directly pulling people to their deaths.

    On the other hand, theists do claim that the biological complexity we observe was directly and intentionally designed by an all-good, all-knowing and all-powerful being. And you're surprised that God is peripherally mentioned?

    Neal: Semiconductor design? No Rocket science? No

    Do theists claim that computers are supernatural? How about rocket propulsion? No and no.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Cornelius Hunter

    It is precisely these standard examples which are metaphysical. Here are links to what one standard textbook says:

    I actually looked at the series and extracted the parts that really are about metaphysical claims. Here they are:

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/11/back-to-school-part-7.html

    "No intelligent designer would design an eye backwards!"

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/10/back-to-school-part-vi.html

    "such orderly change is not expected"

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/07/back-to-school-do-you-know-what-your.html

    "If the theory of evolution is not correct, on the other hand, then such orderly change is not expected.!"

    ReplyDelete
  47. Louis the Fruit Loop said...

    In fact, I am so confident of my understanding of the intelligent design process and the need for multiple inheritance in complex designs that I can limit the number of species to just the extant whales and bats (both with and without echolocation). You can throw in a cow and a rat genomes for good measure.


    If you're so confident then why don't you of one of your fellow IDiots do the analysis and produce the results? The Mammalian Genome Project has already produced preliminary genetic sequencing for the Fruit Bat (non-echolocating), Little Brown Bat (echolocating), and Bottlenosed Dolphin (echolocating). As a legitimate scientific researcher you can request the raw data from NIH. Best fit phylogenetic trees that use all the available data are already available, and none show bats and dolphins grouped together.

    If you had bothered to read the Li and Liu papers I linked to earlier you'd know it was only a specific phylogenetic reconstruction of the prestin that put dolphins with the bats. All others didn't.

    "the same misplacement of dolphin is observed in the Prestin tree reconstructed with only nonsynonymous nucleotide substitutions (Figure S1B); but, when only synonymous substitutions are used, dolphin and cow are correctly grouped with 100% bootstrap support

    The reason that I am so confident in my prediction is that I know that reinventing the wheel is a very bad idea in design.

    The real reason for your blustering confidence is that you have an advanced case of Dunning-Kruger. But you're a Creationist so that's not a surprise.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Thorton: "LOL! Speaking of having a reading comprehension disorder, I notice you deleted your embarrassing post where you accused me of misquoting you. How's that foot taste Looie?"

    In all fairness, I usually delete posts in which I realize I've made an error, though if someone has already responded to my erroneous post, I usually leave it up and clarify, retract, or concede in an additional post.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Neal Tedford::

    Pedant and troy, both strain at finding fault (incorrectly I say) with Job chapter 39.
    Pedant doesn't understand language styles and misses CH's point and troy criticizes by finding fault with something that he feels the scripture should have added.


    No strain at all. May we have your exegesis of God's words?

    ReplyDelete
  50. Scott, evolutionists have over reached. Most people intuitively see the folly of crediting natural forces with the origin and common descent of all life. We do not see life springing forth spontaneously (ever), we see small changes but they have limits (dog and cat breeds, etc) and nothing approaching the claims of evolutionists. So you have a tough sell to the general population from the start.

    On the other hand, people quickly learn about gravity from personal experience. People are not stupid. They know about basic variation, but the leap from growing big tomatoes to explaning the origin and descent of all life is a joke. Evolutionists have failed to make their case. Evolutionists can't tell people how they get from A to Z. Showing people zapped fruit flies and E. Coli mutation is nothing but a sideshow. They have failed to present enough solid details to make their case. We could talk about secondary causes, but evolution is not even a supported causation except in the imagination of evolutionists.

    Evolutionists think that their problems are just a matter of working out the details. They refuse to consider that the reason the pieces are not fitting together for them is that their theory is simply wrong.

    Is it beyond human reasoning and knowledge for a computer microchip to be formed from a sandbar that is struck by lightning?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Hunter:

    1. Lack of mechanism (to which even evolutionists admit)
    2. Uncanny similarities in distant species
    3. Non homologous development pathways
    4. ORFans and novel proteins
    5. Phylogenetic contradictions (not mere noise) at every level. Even evolutionists are dropping the tree metaphor.
    6. Phylogenetic contradictions for early evolution, leading evolutionists to drop common descent.


    Nevertheless, humans are primates.

    http://anthro.palomar.edu/primate/Default.htm

    ReplyDelete
  52. Has any mechanism that can account for LGT or HGT actually been observed to work? I'm just asking.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Google is your friend, Nat. Why are creationists so lazy? I Googled that question to little effect, so I'm justified in asking.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Pedant:

    "Nevertheless, humans are primates.

    http://anthro.palomar.edu/primate/Default.htm
    ===

    I especially liked the photos of darker skinned middle-easterners and the African tribal mother holding her baby next to the other photos of the Apes/Orangutang and their offspring. Never underestimate the power of illustration to say what's really on their minds. Today CNN was barking out in the headlines of a united humankind under that "New World Order". Yeah I can just see a uniting of humanity just over the proverbial horizon with such loving attitudes and actions by whites descended from Europeans.

    And we owe it all to that Great Great white Grand Daddy Charlie. What was it he once mused, oh yeah ---

    “ . . at some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla”
    (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 2nd ed., John Murray, London, p. 156, 1887).

    ReplyDelete
  55. Troy:

    I did try Google. The only mechanism for horizontal gene transfer in eukaryotes I found was retrotransposons shed by cancer cells.

    ReplyDelete
  56. natschuster said...

    Troy:

    I did try Google. The only mechanism for horizontal gene transfer in eukaryotes I found was retrotransposons shed by cancer cells.


    You didn't try very hard. This is the first hit I came up with

    Horizontal Gene Transfer - mechanisms

    ReplyDelete
  57. Everything in the article linked except transformation invovles bacteria. And transformation appears to be mostly artificial.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Thorton:

    If you're so confident then why don't you of one of your fellow IDiots do the analysis and produce the results? The Mammalian Genome Project has already produced preliminary genetic sequencing for the Fruit Bat (non-echolocating), Little Brown Bat (echolocating), and Bottlenosed Dolphin (echolocating). As a legitimate scientific researcher you can request the raw data from NIH.

    First off, a genetic analysis such as the one I am proposing will be expensive because it must be thorough and 100% convincing. Every step and procedure must be clearly explained and the source code for all the computer algorithms must be thoroughly commented before release.

    Second, I know I cannot count on gutless Darwinists like you to do a proper analysis since you boneheaded bozos already assume that your dumb theory is a fact and needs no falsification. Besides, you're all addicted to kissing each other's butts at every opportunity. Your religious fervor makes most Christians look like a bunch of wimps.

    Third, I am not associated with any ID research organization. So I cannot suggest anything to anybody.

    That being said, rest assured that as soon as I can raise or earn the money to finance a thorough study, I will not hesitate to do so. That will come soon enough.

    Best fit phylogenetic trees that use all the available data are already available, and none show bats and dolphins grouped together.

    Look here, you stupid meathead. Every time you open your mouth, a dead vermin falls out of it. Why is that? This is precisely why the research must be carried out with high integrity and in as a professional manner as possible. Your best fit trees are crap and you know it.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Tedford,

    What did God mean when he said about the ostrich that He created:

    "Because God deprived her of wisdom,
    And did not endow her with understanding."

    ReplyDelete
  60. Everything in the article linked except transformation invovles bacteria.

    Nat: scroll down a bit.

    And look up for the role of viruses.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Louis the Fruit Loop said...

    That being said, rest assured that as soon as I can raise or earn the money to finance a thorough study, I will not hesitate to do so. That will come soon enough


    You be sure and do that Looie. Come back and post again when you get some positive results.

    Don't forget to tell us how many sequences that do fit into a nested hierarchy you need to see before your hypothesis is falsified.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Well sure, that was the guess. But it hasn't worked out very well, which even evolutionists admit.

    That kind of cryptic claims effectively deflect any attempt from me to provide an answer, but are hardly convincing.

    This is today's version of Aristotelianism.

    There is no need to be Aristotle to realise that descent with modification doesn't need of CA. Inheritable change without branching happens most of the time.

    Convergence does not explain convergence.

    How kind of you to think that I always confuse processes and their effects. When I said "convergence" I obviously meant the independent acquisitions of phenetic similarity by the action of NS in separate linages of organisms that have similar ecological niches.

    LGT does not explain the squid and human vision systems.

    Silly evolutionary biologists.

    Explanations such as sampling effects were hoped to work, but the more genomes that were sequenced, the more ORFans were found.

    And more of the previous ORFans were "un-found", for being annotation artifacts, LGT, and highly divergent genes.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Goexus:

    Are you talking about the virus that infects amoebas? I understood that to be congectural. It hasn't actually been observed. Correct me if I'm wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Pedant said, "What did God mean when he said about the ostrich that He created:

    "Because God deprived her of wisdom,
    And did not endow her with understanding."


    ---

    I take to mean what it says. It is a simple statement, easy language... what specifically is your question?

    ReplyDelete
  65. natschuster:

    Sorry, seems like I looked over the article too quickly and thought it didn't mention viral transduction in the mechanisms section (transduction is described for prokaryotes, I mentioned it for completeness, though there are cases of viral LGT in eukaryotes too). I don't know anything about the Mimivirus issue. I meant you to scroll down to the Eukaryotes section.

    I found a nice review on eukaryote LGT for you:
    http://www.botany.ubc.ca/keeling/PDF/08NRG.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  66. Tedford,

    In God’s reprimand to Job, He misinterpreted ostrich behavior. Was God ignorant, or what ?

    ReplyDelete
  67. Pedant:

    Since ostriches breed communally, they treat their own offspring the same as the other mother's offspring. And the Alpha female does push some of the eggs of the other females out of the nest. And they aren'r very good mothers so the infant mortality rate is very high. So the Bible wasn't that far off. And remember it was written in a very difficult literary Hebrew, so it doesn't translate easily.

    ReplyDelete
  68. natschuster said...

    Pedant:

    Since ostriches breed communally, they treat their own offspring the same as the other mother's offspring. And the Alpha female does push some of the eggs of the other females out of the nest. And they aren'r very good mothers so the infant mortality rate is very high. So the Bible wasn't that far off. And remember it was written in a very difficult literary Hebrew, so it doesn't translate easily.


    Ahhh, I see. The Bible is written in very difficult literary Hebrew so it's hard to translate.

    What other translations did humans interpreting the Bible get wrong nat? Can you think of any?

    ReplyDelete
  69. Pedant:

    And they aren'r very good mothers so the infant mortality rate is very high.

    I don't know what you have in mind, but I don't think it's fair to say they're bad mothers. Both male and female are very diligent care takers before and after hatching. Sure, they have a high mortality rate, but life's tough.

    I don't know what the "harsh treatment" mentioned in the Bible is about either.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Pedant said, In God’s reprimand to Job, He misinterpreted ostrich behavior. Was God ignorant, or what ?"

    What exactly is your criticism?

    ReplyDelete
  71. Neal Tedford said...

    Pedant said, In God’s reprimand to Job, He misinterpreted ostrich behavior. Was God ignorant, or what ?"

    What exactly is your criticism?


    You God is supposed to be omnipotent and infallible, isn't he?

    Then why does he continually botch simple biology?

    ReplyDelete
  72. Geoxus, if human mothers abandoned their young to be raised at the local daycare, would you consider that good mothering skills?

    If the daycare reached their quota and left the rest outside to die, would that be good parenting skills?

    ReplyDelete
  73. Tedford the idiot said...

    Geoxus, if human mothers abandoned their young to be raised at the local daycare, would you consider that good mothering skills?

    If the daycare reached their quota and left the rest outside to die, would that be good parenting skills?


    If some supposedly omnipotent Deity designed flightless birds that abandoned their young to be raised at the local daycare, would you consider that good designing skills?

    If the daycare reached their quota and left the rest outside to die, would that be good designing skills?

    ReplyDelete
  74. Neal,

    Geoxus, if human mothers abandoned their young to be raised at the local daycare, would you consider that good mothering skills?

    No, though I don't expect women to sit upon their eggs either.

    Ostriches reproduce in harems with a single male, a major hen, and about 1-6 other females. The other females must lay their eggs in the communal nest in order to ensure male care.

    If the daycare reached their quota and left the rest outside to die, would that be good parenting skills?

    That would be harsh, but probably also a good strategy in terms of fitness. I don't know if that ever happens, but the opposite behaviour is documented: sometimes males "adopt" chicks from other breeding groups.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Louis Savain said:

    The reason that I am so confident in my prediction is that I know that reinventing the wheel is a very bad idea in design. Indeed, the more intelligent the designer, the more he/she will try to reuse previous tried and tested designs even across distant branches of the design tree.

    How has no creation "scientist" called you on this? The centeral tenet of this blog is that we cant base a scientific theory on what God would or wouldn't do, and here you are doing it. How do you know that it isn't the case where the more intelligent the designer the more ideas and designs flow from his mind so to keep himself interested he is less likely to reuse designs. Maybe for a perfect designer, new designs are as simple as reusing designs. Or maybe god likes the challenge of creating new designs.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Thorton:

    Most of the Bible is written in a Hebrew that is not so hard to understand. Job is written in a different style because it more literary. And the Traditional Jewish approach is to interperate accodringto the Mesora, or tradition.

    The Beta females lay their eggs in the communal nest, and the alpha female pushes some out. And all the young are raised communally, so the females treat their own chicks like the others.

    The point of the passage is to show that, even though there might be poor design, the ostrich was given what it needs to survive, which is good enough. That's a pretty neat trick.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Geonux, said "That would be harsh"

    ---

    Exactly

    ReplyDelete
  78. Neal wrote: People are not stupid. They know about basic variation, but the leap from growing big tomatoes to explaning the origin and descent of all life is a joke.

    But then wrote…

    Neal: Is it beyond human reasoning and knowledge for a computer microchip to be formed from a sandbar that is struck by lightning?

    Neal,

    On one hand, you claim people are not stupid. But, on the other hand, you present a straw man of evolutionary theory?

    - You're focused only randomness while leaving out natural selection.
    - Microchips represent concrete goals. Evolution does not suggest that the outcome we observe was predetermined in exacting detail.
    - Evolution does not suggest that species appeared fully formed

    We've pointed this out time and time again, yet you continue to present the same arguments as if for the first time?

    What should we make of this behavior?

    Statements like this reveal that some people are ignorant regarding the details of evolutionary theory or represent a willful attempt to misrepresent it.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Scott, first, life requires a minimum amount of complexity. Of course that minimum amount of complexity is different than a computer microchip... that life is more complex. So I'll stick with my question to you... "Is it beyond human reasoning and knowledge for a computer microchip to be formed from a sandbar that is struck by lightning?"

    Second, natural selection is not a viable mechanism for selecting neutral mutations, of which, just-right gazillions were necessary. You are left with pure chance.

    Third, I did not specify what kind of microchip, so we'll live it open ended.

    You know you don't have a case if you can't depend on a gradual build-up of complexity. It's a smokescreen to make it seem more believable. The problem is first life is already complex and second you lack sufficient mechanisms to sufficiently explain the rest of the common descent scenario (see neutral mutations for one big problem).

    So with neutral mutation being left to chance, evolution fulfills one of the definitions of ...

    SUPERSTITION: a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition.
    2: a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary

    It's almost like the Webster dictionary people used all the qualities of the theory of evolution to create this definition. It's uncanny.

    Ignorance? Darwin's cell is goo/ modern equivalents. Evolution-of-the-gaps

    Fear of the unknown? Theophobic. Losing funding, academic and career peer-pressure.

    Trust in magic or chance? Neutral mutations, abiogenesis, etc.

    A false conception of causation? Buzz Words

    An irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition? "God wouldn't have done it that way"

    A notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary? Falsified predictions, accommodations

    ReplyDelete
  80. Neal Tedford said...
    Scott, first, life requires a minimum amount of complexity. Of course that minimum amount of complexity is different than a computer microchip... that life is more complex....

    Complexity alone, however defined, isn't a good predictor of life. If it was, the simplest organism must be more complex than our most advanced technologies. In which case a genetic code must be more complex than a computer processing that genetic code, ruling out coded information as a basis for complexity.

    No, a much better way to specify life as we know it is as an object which can replicate, and probably metabolize. True, the simplest confluence of atoms that we may consider alive by that definition can in some sense be measured as complex, but you have given no evidence as to why this must be more or less complex than even a single transistor microchip.

    I wouldn't expect you, or anyone else, to disprove the possibility of abiogenesis. It's still up to its proponents to make a more convincing case as to how its possible. But your proposition that since ligtning doesn't make microchips, life couldn't arise spontaneously is non sequeter. Complexity may be an attribute of life, but it is not necessacarily a criteria. Even if it was, the failure of one random process to make complexity does not mean that no processes will.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Neal Tedford: natural selection is not a viable mechanism for selecting neutral mutations,

    Heh. A neutral mutation is *defined* as one that is not under selection.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Neal: first, life requires a minimum amount of complexity. Of course that minimum amount of complexity is different than a computer microchip... that life is more complex. So I'll stick with my question to you... "Is it beyond human reasoning and knowledge for a computer microchip to be formed from a sandbar that is struck by lightning?"

    Neal,

    First, as I've pointed out several times, you're conflating abiogenesis with evolutionary theory. The question evolutionary theory addresses is the difference between the first known form of life and the life we observe today. This also includes the complexity between species in-between.

    Yes, I realize that it conflicts with your theodicy, so you must reject it, but whether the first form of life was magically created by God, designed by an advanced alien species or hitched a ride to earth on a comet is not the focus of evolutionary theory.

    Neal: Second, natural selection is not a viable mechanism for selecting neutral mutations, of which, just-right gazillions were necessary. You are left with pure chance.

    Neal, you're revealing your ignorance yet again. As Zachriel indicated, a neutral mutation is one that is not under selective pressure.

    For example, a species looses it's ability to synthesize vitamin-c. But at the time, it's food supply is rich in vitamin-c, so it's a neutral mutation. However, should foods rich in vitamin-c become scares due to changes in the environment, such as climate change or the arrival of a species that dominates the supply of vitamin-c-rich foods, this mutation could put them at a significant disadvantage or even cause them to go extinct.

    Neal: You know you don't have a case if you can't depend on a gradual build-up of complexity. It's a smokescreen to make it seem more believable. The problem is first life is already complex and second you lack sufficient mechanisms to sufficiently explain the rest of the common descent scenario (see neutral mutations for one big problem).

    Neutral mutations are a key part of the process. Again, it seems that you're revealing your ignorance on the subject.

    As such, you're conclusion becomes a non-sequitur.

    Furthermore, you seem to be having difficult with my argument. You wrote:

    "Is it beyond human reasoning and knowledge for a computer microchip to be formed from a sandbar that is struck by lightning?"

    I'm suggesting that claims of supernatural causation ultimately represent claims of a boundary where human reasoning and problem solving cannot pass. Biological complexity supposedly represents a class of phenomena that falls ousted such a boundary, which excludes it from being explained by natural causes.

    That such a boundary exists at all, let alone falls where you claim it falls, is your burden to substantiate.

    ReplyDelete
  83. I wanted to know how do we reconcile the verses (like the Genesis v 22-23) of the Old Testament that talk about a number of early humans living for 100s of years (like over 200 years for Adam) with the view that Adam evolved from another species? Human evolutionary theory doesn't accept that early humans had such long life spans. Also the verses about early humans being giants is problematic with the theory.

    Kind regards,
    Mirza

    ReplyDelete
  84. Mirza:

    ===
    I wanted to know how do we reconcile the verses (like the Genesis v 22-23) of the Old Testament that talk about a number of early humans living for 100s of years (like over 200 years for Adam) with the view that Adam evolved from another species? Human evolutionary theory doesn't accept that early humans had such long life spans. Also the verses about early humans being giants is problematic with the theory.
    ===

    Well evolution has been used to explain all kinds of weird creatures. I don't see why it suddenly would be constrained in the case of some oversized humans, if that is what one wanted to explain.

    ReplyDelete