There are multiple transitional fossils. You claim they don’t exist, and yet there they are.
Until you stop ignoring the evidence your opinions won’t carry much weight.
We have fossils with a mixture of bird and reptile features. They are transitional. They exist.
Irreducible complexity is just an opinion. It is claimed that such features can’t evolve, but no one can present evidence to support this claim.
It’s not about belief. If people are going to claim that evolution can’t produce what they claim is information then they need to present the evidence. This hasn’t been done yet.
How is intelligence an excellent explanation? I haven’t seen ID explain even the most basic observations, such as the nested hierarchy. ID also can’t explain the pattern of transitions and transversions when comparing the genomes of different species:
There are mountains and mountains of evidence that ID can’t explain that common ancestry and evolution explain perfectly.
You can believe what you want to believe, but don’t expect science to change its mind simply because of how strongly you believe something.
“may have.” That’s a pretty weak argument. Just another version of “We don’t know, but it must have been an evolutionary process”–evolution of the gaps.
There are thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of irreducibly complex systems. And reduced–all of them? I’ve seen some pretty lame arguments, but none that are reasonable or convincing.
Where is the evidence that any of these IC systems are a problem for evolution? All we have is peoples’ opinions that it would be difficult for evolution to produce them.
Let’s look at one example, the mammalian middle ear. It is an irreducibly complex system of three small bones: the malleus, incus, and stapes. If you remove one of the bones the entire system ceases to function. The reptilian middle ear has a single bone.
Interestingly, the reptilian lower jaw is made up of three bones while the mammalian lower jaw is made up of just one bone. It is thought that the mammalian middle ear evolved by moving two of the reptilian lower jaw bones into the middle ear. And wouldn’t you know it, we have the transitional fossils to back it up:
![[Figure1.4.3 (cartoon of vertebrate jaws)]](https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/jaws1.gif)
You can see the IC mammalian middle ear evolve in the fossil record, step by step.
Sure, others may have understood the pathways of the sea. That is beside the point–Maury’s independent research was informed by his reading scripture. The point is that the Bible, while not a science book, can and has informed scientific research.
And all we have is people’s opinions that evolution could produce them. But in the real world that we live in, we see all kinds of irreducible systems that are designed by intelligence. Your argument cuts both ways.
What we have is mountains of evidence that species share a common ancestor, and evidence for evolutionary mechanisms being the cause for the differences between them.
We see ice that humans make. That doesn’t mean all ice is made by humans.
Name a few or give a reference. They all go back to “I don’t know how this happened, so it must have been designed and zapped into existence intact.” As for fine tuning, it is philosophically satisfying to think of how everything had to be this way for the universe to exist as it does, but I don’t see any adjustment screws on the universe. I was just putting together a cabinet for my wife, and adjusting those doors is a pain to get it all lined up just right, but with the universe all the parts just fit one way, so there is really no option that we know of.
It is only partially true that evolutionary biology has no goal with respect to God. Sure, you can throw in “evolutionary creationism” as an example. But Richard refers to “the current view of Evolution.” Many of evolution’s staunchest proponents tie it to atheism. Richard Dawkins , “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”
Fine tuning means that the conditions of the universe are sufficient to give rise to life, and that stellar nucleosynthesis can account for the presence of the necessary materials. Given that, are you agreeing that the universe is fine tuned?
The point is that innumerable facts of earth science including oceanography are contrary to YEC.
Isn’t it the YEC’s who say that if evolution is true then the Bible is false?
Science in general has been looked at skeptically by the Church for centuries now. Whenever a natural explanation has been put forward some Christians have seen it as an affront to their beliefs. Even Newton’s descriptions of gravity were met with criticisms from Christians.
There is really no other option that we know of? Of course there is. An immensely intelligent and creative mind. Why do you eliminate or overlook that option? We have many examples of intelligent minds, people made in the image of God, who have created --certainly millions if not billions–of fine tuned systems.
When we know that intelligent minds can create fine tuned systems, it is eminently reasonable to conclude that the fine tuned universe was also created by an intelligent mind.
Why do you refuse to consider that option?
One of the problems is that YEC can’t have a fine tune universe. Part of the fine tuning are the fundamental forces, such as the weak and strong nuclear forces. YEC’s need these values to change in order to produce the changes in radioactive decay that they claim happened in the past.
For science, you need more than an option. You need positive evidence for the cause. If, as a scientist, you want to research intelligent design, then go for it. However, if you are going to conclude intelligent design then you need some positive evidence, not simply a lack of evidence for other explanations.
What’s your point? From all or some or a few Christians? Only Christians? Christians in the present?
Why do you find it remarkable that some Christians initially criticized Newton? How do you find this to be somehow a blot on Christianity in general? Is it only Christians that meet new scientific discoveries are met with criticism or skepticism?
And shouldn’t all new proposed theories be tested to see if they can stand up to criticisms? Of course. The theory is strengthened when it withstands the criticism, and fails when it does not. Seems like a healthy process to me.
It is untrue and unhelpful to promote that there is a genuine conflict between science and Christian belief.
Further, most of the scientific disciplines were founded by Bible believing Christians or at least theists who saw no conflict between faith and science. In fact, they were motivated to explore God’s creation to understand how nature works. They believed that they could investigate nature because it was ordered and designed by a designer rather than chaotic and disordered. Because they saw that law in nature, they knew it required a Lawgiver.
Again, that is beside the point. I am noting that many evolutionists, perhaps even a significant majority, believe that science has proved that the Bible is wrong and that science has dispensed with the need of God as an explanation.
The Bible is true if special creation is true and evolution is false. That is Ken Ham’s position.
The Bible is true, evolution is true and Ken Ham is mistaken. That is the BioLogos position.
@cewoldt Why do you refuse to consider that option?
The criticisms leveled at Newton’s concepts of gravity are the same as the criticisms leveled at evolution. Specifically, evolution is criticized because it is a natural explanation.
They should be tested to see if they stand up to scientific criticisms, not simply subjective opinions.
And yet that is exactly what YEC’s do.
I disagree with those scientists, as do many other scientists. There’s nothing in the theory that demands a disbelief in God. That is true of all scientific theories.
He goes farther than that. Ken Ham states that if evolution is true then the Bible is false. He agrees with those atheist scientists you don’t like.
Good for that clergyman. Young earth creationists at least in part agree with him.
Young earth creationists embrace speciation. Young earth creationists believe that God created “kinds,” to use the biblical designation. From those kinds, species developed, generally from a loss of genetic diversity in the original kind.
Young earth creationists embrace adaptation. They find that organisms were created with the ability to adapt to different environments.
Young earth creationists see natural selection at work. But natural selection is not evolution. It selects from what is available, but does not create new genetic information. It accounts for the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest.
YEC also accepts the idea of survival of the fittest. How is fitness defined? By definition, those individuals that survive are the fittest, so in that sense, the idea is tautological.
…pretend to do science and thus make the Bible subject to it, ignoring the realities of God’s creation (and his sovereignty).
It seems you are asserting that God, using his intelligence, intervenes in the evolutionary process by providentially providing new information. That is certainly contrary to what most evolutionists believe–that it is only a natural process, and that no intelligence is involved. It seems you are in a small minority position among evolutionists, and hold a position that most would find completely contrary to evolutionary theory.
I accept that evolutionary belief is not monolithic. It is fine with me (although my permission is immaterial) that you hold that contrary position. But it does complicate the discussion when there are widely disparate views in play.
I find your argument flawed. There is no necessary or logical connection between denying evolution and denying God’s sovereignty. I deny evolution because I don’t think that neo-Darwinian evolution is true. I both deny evolution and firmly believe in God’s sovereignty and his ability to providentially intervene. God can do whatever he wishes.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.