I’m not aware of where you have produced a response - on the science - to Ann Guager’s article or to that of the article provided by Wells. Can you provide these?
Do you agree or disagree with this statement:
Established science is wrong with respect to the proposed mechanism by which evolution works
As for YEC it is such a laughably ridiculous anti-science position that it warrants no attention at all by any serious scientifically minded person, let alone a scientist.
Yes and no. As I have already explained, there is a lot correct, but it is not completely correct. That is why we do research. Moreover, I know that God has been involved, and science does not propose mechanisms for this involvement (nor can it) so it will always be incomplete.
About Gauger and Jonathan Wells, I’ll reiterate my response tonight when I have a bit more time. Or you could just reread this thread again.
Talk to you soon @Rational_Theist_Matt, and I’m glad you are here.
It is sad you would say this. I have a great deal of respect for @Paul_Nelson, Todd Woods and John Sanford. Many others too are thoughtful people, even if they are ultimately wrong.
And if you feel this way, why are you part of the ID movement? They are very clear that YEC is in their camp: Debating Common Ancestry | Evolution News and Cornelius Hunter is one of their regular contributors too, and he is a well known YEC.
So you disagree with this statement:
Scientific theories of Earth history and biological evolution are fundamental to understanding
the natural world, are supported by extensive evidence, and are non-controversial within the
scientific community. These principles of scientific understanding must be central elements of
science education.
EvN does not concur with this statement,.
As I have already expressed to you I am not part of the ID movement but, rather I am a theistic evolutionist who finds the current description by established science of the mechanism for evolution to be contrary to Christian theology i.e. natural selection.
That someone is blatantly wrong on X doesn’t mean they are wrong on A, B and C. That doesn’t mean they should be given serious consideration on X.
Good point. Sorry @Rational_Theist_Matt. It is just a little disorienting when you seem to be arguing for their point of view. If your concern is the theology, can you explain that some more?
What exactly is your theological objections? Science itself makes no theological claims, but perhaps you are concerned that it does not directly reference God’s action or purpose? This would be another place where I think evolution is not complete, because it does not tell us the whole story.
Recently, an interesting discussion ensued on this point on another site:
Dr. Joshua Swamidass, a theistic evolutionist, joined us recently at TSZ. I think the following comment of his will lead to some interesting and contentious discussion and is worthy of its own thread:
… if we drop “Darwinian” to just refer to the current modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, you are right that the scientific account does not find any evidence of direction or planning. I agree with you here and do not dispute this.
So the question becomes, really, is it possible that God could have created a process (like evolution) with a purposeful intent that science could not detect? I think the answer here is obvious. Of course He could. In fact, I would say, unless He wanted us to discern His purpose, we could not.
In my view, then, evolution has a purpose in creating us. Science itself cannot uncover its purpose. I find that out by other means.
The purpose of theistic evolution | The Skeptical Zone
And then ensuses an entertaining conversation (>650 comments so far) where an atheist (keiths) eloquently argues that (1) my position is consistent with mainstream science and (2) my position is logically possible. Probably the most important comment from me is this…
I do not know how God directed evolution, but there are several possible answers.
Perhaps (as Ken Miller muses), God tweeks mutations through manipulating quantum fields.
Perhaps (as Michael Behe argues), God encodes all the required information in the initial conditions of the Big Bang.
Perhaps (as Francis Collins hypothesizes), God sent an asteroid to kill of the dinosaurs to prepare the way for mammals, and then for us. Of course, there are an uncountable number of historical contingencies like this by which God could direct evolution, without ever leaving a signature in DNA for purpose.
Perhaps (as Owen Gingerich alludes), God miraculously inspires some mutations.
Perhaps (as the Molinist explains), God accesses all possible realities and chooses to instantiate the one that produces us.
Perhaps (as the Reformed theologians posit), God does everything through predestination, there is no more conflict with evolution than there is in our perception of free will.
Which of these is it? Or some combination of multiple? Or something I haven’t listed? I do not know. Frankly, I do not really care. What is clear to me is that there are several logically and scientifically consistent ways of resolving the puzzle. Of course, none of these models appears to be detectable to science. So all of these models leaves me with my main claim:
Evolution is purposeful (in my view), but science cannot detect its purpose. The purpose of theistic evolution | The Skeptical Zone
Later on, Keiths took to defending Molinism as a logical possibility (even though he still has his objections from theodicy). And I added.
I wanted to just remind everyone that we are not the first people to think about these issues. I think one idea particularly important (and to which I am drawn) that I think resolves this paradox is Molinism. This, of course, is exactly what Keiths is talking about. Molinism - Wikipedia
This could explain how things that are “random” can still be purposeful. The proposal here is that God has full knowledge of all possible worlds, and then chooses to actualize the “best possible” world. From our point of view, evolution still looks random (and still even could be fundamentally random), but God exerts His will by choosing the reality that leads to us. This proposal resolves several key challenges.
- It solves the logical problem of theodicy.
So, with all this out there. What exactly is your theological objection to mainstream science’s understanding of evolution?
(@eddie look! I’m talking about divine action!)
I totally agree with that statement. There is nothing theologically or scientifically to disagree with it.
Now, to anticipate your confusion, I totally disagree with the assertion that science’s understanding of our origins is the complete story. Even though science does not detect God’s action or purpose, does not mean it does not exist. I dispute “scientism” (the notion that science is total view of the world) entirely while finding my peace with science, which has proven to find helpful (but partial) understandings of our world
Let us start with Ann. Nearly all her critique is addressed already here: Cancer and Evolutionary Theory - #19 by Swamidass. Until that “response” is answered, it really makes no sense to engage again. If that is what she wants, she can either respond directly to all those points, or retracts the clear errors she has made. I would honestly welcome and respect a retraction. To that I would add @benkirk’s post,
Of course, she is not obligated to respond, and I do not expect continued engagement right now. But until there is a semblance of actually engaging the scientific details, it is hard to take her articles as a legitimate scientific critique. Of course, the comic book critique of cancer biology is pretty funny, but also embarrassing for DI (and anyone else who might make it). I am not taking that is a legitimate scientific point.
==============
About Wells, I quoted him accurately with a link:
TOPS then explicitly rejects several implications of Darwinian evolution.
These include: (1a) The implication that living things are best understood from
the bottom up, in terms of their molecular constituents. (1b) The implications
that DNA mutations are the raw materials of macroevolution, that embryo
development is controlled by a genetic program, that cancer is a genetic disease,
etc. (1c) The implication that many features of living things are useless vestiges
of random processes, so it is a waste of time to inquire into their functions.
Finally, TOPS assumes as a working hypothesis that various implications
of ID are true. These include: (2a) The implication that living things are best
understood from the top down, as irreducibly complex organic wholes. (2b) The
implications that DNA mutations do not lead to macroevolution, that the
developmental program of an embryo is not reducible to its DNA, that cancer
originates in higher structural features of the cell rather than in its DNA, etc. (2c)
The implication that all features of living things should be presumed to have a
function until proven otherwise, and that reverse engineering is the best way to
understand them.
Then added this addendum…
[Note: apparently,Wells complains that this quote is taken out of context. Rather than getting into a protracted debate about what he has and has not said about this (see for example http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/07/thats_another_f.html) I’ll take him at his word that some how what he wrote here is not what he meant. I thought I was representing him accurately, but apparently I was not. Sorry.]
I can take Wells at his word that he thinks that mutations cause cancer. Though he has a great deal of explaining to do for this all to make sense. He writes in From Joshua Swamidass, a Gratuitous Drive-by Hit | Evolution News
My view (then as now) is that cancer cells contain hundreds or thousands of genetic mutations, which contribute substantially to the progression of the disease, but that cancer does not begin (as DNA reductionists claim) with an accumulation of single mutations
I would point out that this is not what the vast majority of the field believes. If that is his position fine. But that also flies in the face of what we know of cancer biology.
My best guess as to what is going on here is that we think that cancer develops like: mutational cause → mutations → cancer. I think Wells is saying that “centrosome turbine malfunction → chromosomal instability (a mutational cause) → mutations → cancer.” Now, it is possible that in some cancers “chromosomal instability (a mutational cause) → mutations → cancer.” Though I know of no case where centrosome turbine malfunction (Wells’s pet ID theory) is remotely taken seriously. Please show me links to people that agree. Moreover, it is very clear that many cancers do not have chromosomal instability (so that is not a universal mechanism).
So while I am happy to take Wells’s at his word that he thinks mutations are important in cancer, the fact remains:
His written work (including the most recent article) seems to argue that ID requires a totally different understanding of cancer than we currently have in biology. Moreover, I am not the first to notice this; Well’s understanding of ID and cancer is well known: http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/07/thats_another_f.html. If he does not think this is a correct representation of his work, I would love to hear either (1) which parts of his published work he will retract, or (2) how exactly his understanding of cancer is just a non-consequential restatement of the dominant paradigm: that cancer is driven by mutational changes (that can be caused by a whole host of different mutational forces). If he cannot do this, I’m not sure at all what is objection is to me stating that he argues: “ID requires a totally different understanding of cancer than we currently have in biology.”
Now, if Dr. Wells does read this, I hope he is not offended. This is my best attempt to explain his position. Maybe I am wrong, but if I am, I am not the only one confused by his position. I would love for him to explain himself.
In this particular exchange, I do not think ENV’s goal was careful dialogue about science. So it is not surprising if he does not engage. No hard feelings, and I wish him the best.
This is not the lengthiest post I have made on this topic. All of this has been expressed several times and several ways here at BioLogos. I’ve said that (1) I believe that God can act by first cause directly in evolution, (2) that science cannot see this action, (3) and I see several ways He could have directed evolution, but (2) I am agnostic about exactly how He exerts his action.
So, nothing new in this post. I just thought you would appreciate it though =). Sometimes it seems like I answer your questions about divine action, and then you forget my answers just to ask me again another day.
I also do take some offense to the suggestion that I lightly and ignorantly take this position. I’ve known and studied about Molinism and these issues since at least college. Maybe I am not as ignorant as you fear.
It certainly seems that way.
Shouldn’t one apply the same standard to the writing and evidence produced by scientists?
I’m pretty sure William Lane Craig is the one who has popularized this position recently.
[quote=“Eddie, post:192, topic:5673”]
Very clever, to be sure, but it’s hardly in tune with the plain sense of the Biblical texts on creation, and it’s clearly motivated by the desire to keep design completely out of scientific discussion and allow it only at the level of theological discussion… if a medieval thinker offers a possibility of harmonizing Darwinism with Christianity, that thinker is all the rage. [/quote]
Eh. Not so much. The scientists didn’t dredge up Molinism. W.L. Craig is the recent source, and if scientists are attracted to his philosophical musings, it is understandable. Stay away from conspiracy theories! 
Does it really matter? I’m still surprised when anyone treats threads like these as if they are more than conversations. Mostly, it’s people just thinking out loud and responding to whatever direction the discussion headed. These are not published essays or books or even blogs, which at least receive some thought and editing before appearing. Trying to treat these little musings as position papers is giving them far too much importance, in my mind.
My main objectin to mainstream science’s presentation of evolution is that it directly contradicts Christian theology where it is not just a matter of ‘chance’ via a blind, goaless, mindless natural process that the human species is on this planet. Rather, that human species is the crowning creation of God that could not in anyway fail to appear on this planet. I understand why science puts that forward (methodological naturalsm) but that is an assumption as a way of working not something producable by a scientific experiment or testing or observation.
Well evolution isn’t simply a matter of chance, any scientist worth speaking on the subject will tell you that. But evolution aside, how do you feel about rain?
You did note the word chance was in air quotes right? One could remove all mention to chance and my point would remain untouched:
My main objectin to mainstream science’s presentation of evolution is that it directly contradicts Christian theology where it is not just a matter of a blind, goaless, mindless natural process that the human species is on this planet.
I like the rain but am unaware where theology speaks of it… could you point me to that?
Yeah, same with my point about rain.
Hence my question about rain. It’s a blind, goalless, mindless, natural process. But the Bible says explicitly that rain happens as a direct result of God’s specific choices and actions; it rains when He makes it rain, and it stops raining when He makes it stop raining. How do you reconcile that?
I’m unaware of where theology speaks of evolution. Anyway, back to the question, how do you feel about rain? Where does it come from?
“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.