Biblical creationists say the similarities in DNA arose because the same Creator adapted the same basic code for separate created kinds. If a gene in different creatures encodes a similar protein for a similar biochemical pathway, it’s not because of evolution, but because of a single programmer. This similarity is a hallmark of all human-engineered systems, so why would we not expect to see it in God’s creation?
But Common Descent and Common Descent do NOT look the same. And why would an omnipotent and omniscient designer place “broken code” (like miscopied recipes) in various organisms in patterns which _look like they are useless mutations passed down from ancestors? AIG never explains those problems with their Common Designer idea! Does that seem at all dishonest?
If you went to a family reunion and started noticing similarities among parents and their children, and even in the grandparents and their grandchildren, would you say, “God liked some of these features and decided to reuse them when he made each new generation” or would you assume that you are witnessing the results of genetic inheritance? The patterns we see among organisms are just inheritance and variation according to similar kinds of patterns. Nothing is gained by claiming, “No, God just decided to reuse good ideas when he was specially creating more species!”
I find it interesting that even Ken Ham doesn’t rely for long on his “single programmer” concept of Common Design. Ham claims that entire KINDS—which he says usually means entire taxonomic families—evolved at hyper-speed in the first 200 years after the original kind-pairs left Noah’s ark. (He says that all of the worlds cat family species including lions, tigers, panthers, bobcats, leopards, house cats and many other species quickly developed from Noah’s original cat pairs.) He relies on a totally unbiblical fabrication that assumes evolutionary processes operating at speeds far faster than any biologist has ever claimed!
Of course, there is neither a shred of scriptural evidence nor a shred of scientific evidence for that “theory” which he promotes at both the Creation Museum and the Ark Encounter. Yet he accuses scientists of “mere story telling!”
Dr. Tomkins starts with a strategy aimed at discrediting the process of DNA sequencing. Interestingly, Tomkins doesn’t cite his evidence in this article, but I was able to find another of his articles that does list a single article that is over 6 years old. DNA sequencing technology is rapidly improving in both accuracy and speed and whole genome sequencing is becoming increasingly more practical.
If we set that issue aside, and we take his claim of 85% similarity as fact, that still leaves the issue of the similarities between chimp and human DNA. In fact, it seems even less likely that non-coding regions would be shared between our two species. Tomkins uses the analogy of books to claim “of course they are similar, they have the same author!” But living organisms arise from previous organisms, so the DNA similarities are extremely meaningful. Individual organisms are not uniquely molded, but come from lineages in which these similarities mean a great deal.
My response is short and yet seems to invite aggressive responses. I have no trouble acknowledging ToE is the paradigm for biology, and I feel that its proponents should restrict their discussions to this area. Having said that, I occasionally feel admiration for the effort by biologist as they tackle such extremely complicated R&D. The ToE as summarised by variation and natural selection (even in its neo-version) is to me, as a scientist, a naïve, simplistic bunch of semantics that has poorly served biological research - but again, that should be the concern of bio-scientists.
So why do I, and Orthodox Christian, continue to post on this site? That is a question I am beginning to ask myself - but my motivation was to initially educate myself on the EC/TE vs ID culture war, and this has expanded to a point where I am (perhaps startled) questioning the theological notions put forward on this site regarding ToE. I cannot accept that sincere Christians (some who commendably, put such emphasis in the study of the Bible) would take ToE so seriously.
First, he doesn’t cite any sources whatsoever for his assertions. Not a single one. This means that there’s no way of telling whether he’s getting his information from genuine, actual research, or from some journalist’s garbled misunderstanding of genuine, actual research, or from dishonest quote mining, or even just making things up.
Secondly, his comparisons of human and chimp DNA being only 85% similar were made with several demonstrably flawed misconfigurations of the comparison software. One such study that he undertook was based on a configuration that also gives the absurd result that human DNA is only 89% similar to itself. For a detailed discussion on this and the other problems with his studies, see here: Is 1% a myth? – roohif
As for Tomkins’s claim that the chimpanzee genome was assembled using the human genome as a framework, I’m not familiar with the process of genome sequencing so I’m not able to comment. (Perhaps @Swamidass or @glipsnort or @Sy_Garte might be able to provide some technical details here?) However, even if this were the case, I suspect that there are a whole lot of cross-checks that geneticists can do to make sure that their assumptions are valid. It sounds to me like a more highfalutin version of the old “fossils are used to date rocks and rocks are used to date fossils” claim, which is, of course, clueless nonsense.
I believe that as Christians we are essentially charged to do science, or at the very least assured that science (i.e., the study of creation or the study of General Revelation) will lead to trustworthy and glorifying results-- so much so that we will be left “without excuse.” (Rom 1.)
The bible is silent on the details of the “how” of creation, so I don’t see any conflict with God using the TOE as secondary means–as long as we accept the singular (and untestable) distinction between the TOE and Theistic Evolution–the latter adding only the axiom that the process was never outside of God’s purview or sovereignty. (At least that’s my working definition.) In the lab, TOE and theistic evolution are indistinguishable.
I don’t really understand why Christians who have so much trouble with the possibility of God using evolution as a secondary means do not have trouble with God using gravity (after all, presumably he could keep us grounded and move the planets micron by micron by divine decree–what need is there of gravity?) or QM or thermodynamics, etc.
Could you elaborate on this? Why wouldn’t sincere Christians take a “very good” creation seriously?
When I was a Young Earth Creationist, I saw the Theory of Evolution as a dangerous idea. I thought it was bad science and an effort to replace God with natural processes. Today I distinguish between God as Ultimate Cause and evolutionary processes as the Proximate Causes God chose to use.
Some theologians were very angry that Isaac Newton’s gravitational physics replaced the idea of “God commanded the angels to propel the heavenly bodies in their ordained courses.” They saw the new science as “leaving out God”. I used to look at evolutionary processes in similar ways.
Ironically, I have difficulty understanding why you don’t understand why Sincere Christians are unwilling to accept an aggregate of Old Notions that have become increasingly lumped together:
The Earth is literally less than 6000 years old.
That despite the fossil evidence, even if the Earth was 5 billion years old, Speciation is a genetical impossibility.
That gays are to be shunned and restricted.
That teaching Creationism should be supported by school taxes.
Leaving any fossil based fuel in the ground would be a waste of resources.
Setting aside any one particular item listed above isn’t really the issue. The issue is that in the aggregate, these ideas get wrapped altogether in Western culture and the millenials tend to react against the Entire Aggregation … even when they might be more or less interested in 1 or 2 of the list.
Generally speaking, it has been my experience that the least likely position a millenial would hold (of the items above) is that speciation is genetically impossible even if there was enough time.
Of all the items, I see Speciation as the least controversial to our recent generations.
That is one of my many frustrations with Answers in Genesis. Not only is so much of their material misleading in what it says. It misleads through what it ignores. (Of course, that explains in part why those who depend entirely on Young Earth Creationist ministries for their understanding of the Theory of Evolution and science in general are so poorly informed.)
If more Young Earth Creationists visited these forums, I’d love to hear what they think of AIG’s constant litanies about “biased” scientists and journalists misrepresenting AIG’s positions when AIG so often misrepresents the work of scientists as well as the Christians who disagree with AIG. When I was still a Young Earth Creationist trying to grapple with the realities of science, I was even more disturbed by the behaviors of the “creation science” leaders I had formerly trusted. I kept asking myself “Are they misinformed or are they deliberately misrepresenting the science and the scriptures?” It was very upsetting, especially when I considered how I had been repeating a lot of their misrepresentations and pseudoscience from pulpits for years. (The fact that my errors were sincere and unintentional was little consolation. I struggle with my guilt to this day. I have so many friends in evangelical academia who this kind of personal history.)
I again emphasise that I am expressing my view and am not interested in persuading anyone for or against ToE. I now think I understand how someone may feel if they are given a choice between YEC and OEC/TE.
My view is that ToE as variation and natural selection is semantics, simplistic and inadequate, especially when viewed within the total context of life on earth, the incredible interdependence of all organic life forms, and the complex ecological interplay we are now only beginning to get a vague idea.
I do not see ToE as anything more than an inadequate approximation when viewed objectively, and there are many scientific questions that it just cannot answer, in spite of the insistence by it believers/advocates. To take such a paradigm with all of its uncertainties and inadequacies so seriously as to modify or reject various biblical teachings is mistake imo - to think ToE shows us how God does things, or words to that effect, is far too serious.
I have instead tried to comprehend the certainties provided by the physical sciences (separate these from uncertainties and trivialities) and from these consider any conflicts and/or harmonies between my understanding of the Faith and the Sciences.
This approach takes both Faith, and the established areas of science, seriously. My approach also considers the history related to theological debates and controversies - that is a reason to refer to Biblical teachings and the orthodoxy as expounded in the Patristic writings.
I can certainly understand the hesitation to accept evolution, particularly if you see it as contrary to your interpretation of the Bible. Would you be willing to share what part of the science you feel is inadequate?
I cannot find anything in the ToE that is contrary to my Faith so I do not understand your assumption that:
I have made many posts on this subject (perhaps too many) and it becomes tedious to repeat them. I will instead summarise the areas where ToE is simply nonsense:
personhood - this area has been debated and the end result has been that for those who a strict advocates of evolution (eliminative materialists), natural selection has played a trick on human beings in allowing them to believe there is a “self” because it has given them an advantage to survive. I regard such thinking as ludicrous within a scientific context.
as a law of science, ToE lacks any testable basis that can be subjected to the scrutiny all laws of science must undergo. This subject is discussed by books dealing with philosophy of science.
overlaps with (2) and invites irrational arguments = ToE cannot be given a mathematical basis from first principles.
I find this to be a rather strange conclusion for someone to make when they are a professional scientist.
Analysis of Ring Species and “virtual Ring Species” conform to the principles of ToE. They are almost real time exemplars of evolution.
The evolution of bacterial and viral vectors conforms to Evolutionary theory.
I think our “First George” will find that any specific example he might offer of a non-testable hypothesis can be matched with a testable one, when structured in a normative syntax that allows for a test.
Archaeologists and Molecular Biologists make all sorts of testable hypothesis using Evolutionary theory. Some hypotheses are found correct; some are found incorrect. Mileage will vary.
Predictions about what we would find in the whale genotype about baleen whales is a well known example. And the recent Harvard “bacteria table” (in high speed video) would have been impossible to have designed and filmed if bacteria genotypes didn’t respond as predicted to stressors in the bacteria culture.
If Evolutionary Theory had failed any of its fundamental premises generations ago (regarding common descent or speciation), there wouldn’t be a BioLogos today.
I think your comments would be useful if you consulted a few text books dealing with the philosophy of science and how scientists and philosophers, view laws of science. There you will find well constructed arguments for and against particular views - and you may find that even advocates of ToE are willing to admit it is sematic in nature - their persuasive case is that it provides explanatory power to various branches of biology. Your examples simply show that change occurs over time - hardly stuff to worry professional scientists.
If you aren’t familiar with nested hierarchies, why are you recommending checking out a link that mentions neither the term nor the concept of nested hierarchies?
Very familiar with his work. Tomkins seems like a nice guy, but his study is deeply flawed. The data is freely available and I reproduced his work for fun. I found he made some large errors, by excluding some basic controls. Including the controls, we find the human/chimp reads similarity is about 98%. For comparison, the similarity of mice/rats is about 80%.
MIce and rats are the same “kind.” Seems that humans and chimps are too. =)
On the page you linked above you said, “If the Atheist/Evolutionary worldview is indeed true, that the universe, and ultimately life, were created by natural processes, and that there is no God, or afterlife, then any religion which claims to have a truth other than that is false.”
Why do you think atheism and the evolutionary model of biological diversity are one and the same thing? The evolutionary model is no more atheistic in “worldview” than the model of plate tectonics or the weather cycle. As Christians, we affirm that God works in and through all natural processes (including the weather cycle, plate tectonics, and natural selection) since by him and through him and for him all things are created and hold together. The evolutionary model being true does not rule out God’s work in nature or his authority over nature or his ability to use natural processes to accomplish his will.
I don’t believe any of the truth claims in the Bible because science “proves” them, I believe them because I have made an a priori commitment to accept them as God’s true revelation of himself and his work in our world. But believe the Bible and science both describe a single true reality, so if what science calculates about reality conflicts with what I think the Bible says about reality, then I need to figure out where I am understanding something wrong.