I know you’re not on speaking terms with me, but do you have a particular column in mind? I can go poking around their website again but in general its just a repeat of arguments from Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off (which to me was build up strawmen and arbitrary models) and their book on Adam (which from my perspective ignored large amounts of publications and hand selected a few to support their model).
Well, sincerely, thank you for that. Let’s attempt a reset together.
For my part, I am here to learn and understand alternative views. But just be aware that I am well versed in the science, and have reached conclusions based on how I see the data. I have no a priori commitment or concern about how God did things, but I do have opinions! And I think that the naturalist paradigm that is somewhat enforced by our culture has affected interpretations to where a lot of people can’t even see where it fails. I think it fails in limited places mentioned in different degrees.
Yes, poorly constructed probability arguments are common on both sides. I am truly shocked at how many times I hear, “hundreds of millions of years” as if that solves something. That’s just one factor in the numerator. Some people increase the numerator and ignore the denominator. Others do vice versa. Assumptions, assumptions, and in the end, finding exactly what you wanted to prove.
Do you have a specific reference to Behe’s?
Crack me up! I read pretty widely, and there are bad ideas all over the map. But the concern you have here is a philosophical one, not a scientific one. “Got help” is vague because intentionality is not reproducible. I would encourage you to consider whether you are arguing from scientism, that only scientifically testable ideas are valid.
Think instead in terms of Crime Scene Investigation, where it may be possible to determine without doubt that something was an intentional action, and not an accident. But then there may be insufficient evidence to determine the perp’s identity. There may be no further hypothesis to develop or investigate. So I don’t think I need to show “how the Divine altered DNA”.
Anyway, I gotta run. Hopefully we can pick this up again. God bless!
Good, this will make things much more interesting. That is a funny introduction to yourself though. Hi I’m Marty and know science pretty well, so be aware. At least you’ve looked at some data yourself though for myself reading RTB material has left me confused at how they come to certain conclusions based upon papers they cite (while ignoring many others).
Here is one example for me that I wrote about in response to a recent article written by Fuz: Reviewing Adam and the Genome - #143 by pevaquark
This to me, is basically cherry picking papers, coming to hasty conclusions and ignoring other studies. I do still stand by my analysis of the tactic that I see a lot of on anti-evolution websites-- “Here is a weakness of this one part of this theory, therefore it is false and my own version is true” (in this quote ‘my own version’ can be YEC, RTB, etc.). All the YEC science articles do it. At least RTB has much more science in it (related to Cosmology) than some others. Maybe you can shine some light on where I’m going wrong here.
Yeah but. We are getting new evidence all the time. As in every day. Here’s another new neat paper:
Popsci article:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/how-sunlight-might-have-jump-started-life-earth
Actual paper: Browse Articles | Nature Chemistry and also referenced in the popsci article: Common origins of RNA, protein and lipid precursors in a cyanosulfidic protometabolism | Nature Chemistry
Note: I hate referencing pop-sci articles as they often dramatize headlines to get readers and clicks on ads but it can help get the gist of highly technical research papers.
Question: RTB?
Ray 
I suppose that’s true, and you’ll get to form your own opinion about it! 
But I guess I’d prefer that someone test that hypothesis first, and not start with the assumption that I’m clueless. Thanks for giving it a try!
Frankly, I’m not pleased with his approach to Adam and Eve either and in general I agree with your assessment. I think that is the weakest thing I’ve seen out of RTB. I also was disappointed and a little disturbed.
I just wrote a paragraph for a discussion I will be leading somewhat related to this:
“It would be good to research some new directions, and when scientists do, they are bound to find more small molecule analogs of subsets of cell-like processes. Cells work the way they do by following natural law, therefore subsets and analogs of their processes should be able to occur naturally. By analogy, if we find a water mill grinding grain, it is no surprise to separately find a waterfall. But much more is needed than finding individual analogs of part of some cellular process. For example, self-replicating RNA is fascinating science, but since they provided an unlimited supply (issue 1) of purified (issue 2) and activated (issue 3) nucleotides (issue 4), they should not yet claim that it is relevant to OoL.”
I respect that in the last paragraph of the popsci article, the researcher in your link is reserved about the implications.
I don’t have access to the papers, so I don’t know if the following is an issue here. But often researchers use a focused wavelength at the “right” frequency to provide the exact activation energy their reaction needs. But “natural” light is broad spectrum, and just as likely to break things as build them. Did they use a particular wavelength in the lab?
In summary, I’m all for more research, but the connections with Origins seem to me almost always way too premature.
And BTW - thanks for re-engaging thoughtfully. Enjoying your feedback!
gotcha. Thanks for the blurb. 
[quote=“Marty, post:72, topic:36197”]
Wow. I’m shocked at your riveted attention to meaningless detail.[/quote]
I’m even more shocked at your claim to know the science, while claiming that Nobel-winning work is “meaningless detail.” Have you brought this up with the Committee in Stockholm?
You’re missing the larger context, Marty. The title of the chapter is “The RNA World,” is it not?
Now, please explain to me what the rest of Meyer’s paragraph has to do with the purpose of the chapter. It’s just a sophomoric recitation of high-school molecular biology, while he makes objectively false claims about:
- The prediction of the hypothesis that ribozyme relics will be found performing non-redundant, essential functions like splicing and translation; and
- The strongest evidence supporting the hypothesis. The most abundant RNA in your body catalyzes the synthesis of all your proteins.
So, Marty, please go through all you claim is context and explain its relevance to the RNA World hypothesis. And if you’re going to claim that Nobel-winning work that confirms a prediction of it in spades is “meaningless detail,” please explain why an Intelligent Designer chose a ribozyme. Meyer can’t, and I doubt that you can either.
Please explain the relevance of the sophomoric description to the RNA World hypothesis, Marty.
No, Marty, you’re dead wrong. Anyone reading in any depth whatsoever about the RNA World hypothesis would learn about the work published in 2000. And many others never thought that the heart of the ribosome was a protein. They thought it was a composite. The astounding thing about the evidence that Meyer deceives his readers about was that NO protein managed to get inserted into the active site.
And your claim that Meyer thought this is not consistent with any evidence.
Yes, the most important one, while he misrepresents the hypothesis itself and drowns his readers in high-school-level molecular biology.
Your claim that the strongest evidence for the RNA World hypothesis is a trivial matter is what is completely unwarranted.
Again, if you think that an ID hypothesis explains the Designer’s choice to use an inferior RNA catalyst, explain it.
[quote]If that’s what constitutes incompetence and dishonesty to you, we have different definitions of the words. I find both of these examples of yours to be among the most trivial and hyper critical that perhaps I have ever seen.
[/quote]Then you should take it up with the Nobel Committee in Stockholm, I guess.
The bottom line is that Meyer writes a chapter on The RNA World but misinforms his readers about both the hypothesis and the strongest evidence supporting it. That’s what ID is about. Not just different interpretations of the same evidence, but concealing and misrepresenting evidence.
1 Like
Wow. Well, I suppose I must appreciate your sincere effort to divine my hidden motives; you clearly seem to understand my intent and purpose far better than I do myself. 
But for what it’s worth, I would be just as quick to defend Richard Dawkins If someone had so similarly mischaracterized a position he espoused in “The God Delusion.”
Concur with all, I think you follow my core perspective, thanks for the thoughts…
I have to concur… I try to visit the “Evolution News &I Views” site occasionally, but I just can’t stomach it. I can occasionally find some interesting nuggets of facts and legitimate observations, but so much of it is just polemic (and comes across with an arrogant chip on their shoulder.). I echo what others have said, that so much of their science seems shoddy, with a heavy agenda, etc., etc.
But at core, I trust the basic philosophy they (in theory) are espousing, however badly executed. The basic BioLogos apporoach, at core, seems to be, "we assume natural forces can exclusively explain all biological phenomena, then, after examining the data, we conclude that natural forces can exclusively explained n all scientific phenomena.
What got me started in this thread was Dr. Swamidass’ very relevant and I think true observation (if I am characterizing it rightly) that, given the basic assumptions of the folks at Answers in Genesis, would we be able to trust that one of their scientists Luke be able to recognize evidence of an old earth if it were really there. Similarly, I have doubts that a scientist committed to methodological naturalism would be able to recognize evidence for design if it were in fact there.
When someone with such a priori commitments tells me that they find no evidence of design, this is categorically unconvincing to me… their very starting point assures us that they would be unable to reach any other conclusion.
[quote=“benkirk, post:43, topic:36197, full:true”]
She would be concentrating on the execution: the who, when, and where. The only mention she would make of design would be in the process of hypothesizing those parameters, no?
But you haven’t explained the desperate need to limit our focus to “detecting design” instead of execution, timing, and location.
[/quote
Sir,
All the qualifications and additional points that need being considered and claims of a lack of correspondence in the analogy only serve to confirm to me that there is something wrong with this approach.
I begin to feel like Ambassador Stephenson when trying to get an answer out of the Russian ambassador about whether there were missiles in Cuba… "Is it legitimate science to conclude intelligent agency from Hebrew sentences carved into a stone?.. And instead of a simple answer I get all these qualifications about studying execution verses design and whether or not the larger approach should also include questions of timing and location…
And I feel like retorting, "Is it legitimate science to conclude intelligent agency from Hebrew sentences carved into a stone? don’t wait for the translation, answer “yes” or “no”?
These may also be legitimate additional questions you raise… but the inability for anyone to simply give me a simple answer to what seems an obvious, self-evident question only deepens my suspicions about the overall approach.
I thought we covered this already @Daniel_Fisher. I both affirm MN and also recognize evidence of special creation. So this is really not a fair description of the “BioLogos approach”.
I did not start with the assumption about the age of the earth or evolution. That was not my approach. The evidence lead me here.
Once again, I explained that there absolutely is evidence of design. I pointed out exactly how. The point of divergence is about the discourse of science, not about the ability of a MN affirming scientist to recognize design. The rules there make it impossible to recognize evidence of divine design. Outside science though, I do make that leap from the evidence.
You can disagree with me, but what is the value in retreading this ground?
I do not think any one on this thread has said this. We all believe God created us. At the very least, we see evidence for this in Scripture. Most of us see at least some evidence for this in nature too.
It seems like you are arguing against a strawman.
“YES”
We can recognize intelligent agency in science, but we cannot recognize the agency of the Christian God. Even if God carved those tablets, science would conclude that a man somewhere did. If you believed from Scripture something different, that might be warranted. Science, however, might be wrong.
This is also a poor analogy to biology. We recognize design by modeling designers. We recognize intelligence by modeling intelligence. In this case, we recognize intelligence because the letters “look like hebrew text”, a clear model of human technology. There is no analogy in biology that works for divine design.
I already told you how this works and you agreed with me. Why rehash it?
Is this really what you think? I have given you simple clear answers. You even agreed with me in the end.
Who should be suspicious of who?
1 Like
Sir, thank you for this clarification. I hope I did not come across as implying that yours was a position embraced without a serious and genuine endeavor of understanding and following the evidence. But I think this helps me clarifiy my core difficulty. Permit me to clarify, and please correct me if I have misconstrued or misunderstood your position. I hope I am not pestering you, but I do seriously want to better understand your position.
-
I understand that you came, at some point, to embrace the larger Evolutionary perspective, and its attndent methodological naturalism, from your examination of various evidences. I imagine that, examining certain evidences, your prior perspective may have proven inadequate at explaining various phenomena, while the evolutionary perspective was for various reasons a more satisfactory theory in explaining the evidence.
-
For what it is worth, I have followed that pattern to embrace an evolutionary understanding of many, but not all, biological phenomena. I grew up influenced to some extent by stereotypical creationist narrative, and rejected their explanation of various phenomena as less adequate than a recognition of natural forces at work in the world.
3). But, if I understand rightly, when you came to appreciate the evolutionary model, it seems as though you accepted it (or natural forces in general) as an adequate explanation for all biological phenomena (at least after abiogenesis?) - both those you specifically examined, and those whose actual development are unexplained. If so, this is my core difficulty… one can scientifically conclude that evolution is the best explanation for a particular biological phenomenon… but it is a philosophical conclusion that it must therefore be an adequate explanation for all biological phenomena.
- Now, that being said, it does sound like you acknowledge that some things are designed, though you find it inappropriate to claim that as a scientific conclusion. I appreciate this, but remain unconvinced of this as a tenable position… let me unpack, and please correct my misunderstandings:
A. I appreciate that some like Francis Collins see abiogenesis as likely territory where natural forces are inadequate as an explanation, and where God’s direct involvement may well be the cause. Granted, he avoids making this a scientific claim and holds it tentatively… he does not craft it into an argument or try to examine the evidence to reach design as a scientific conclusion. All of that I appreciate.
But what I cannot help but observe is that Collins reached that basic position through scientific considerations. that is, from my reading of him, he has embraced this position on abiogenesis not due (primarily) to faith commitments, nor biblical interpretation or the like… but through his professional, scientificly informed perspective, where he perceives the difficulties of abiogenesis as so insurmountable that he does not see natural forces as an adequate cause.
Granted, he has not developed this into a rigorous scientific argument as Meyer has attempted. But I cannot help but observe he has taken this (however tentative) position due to scientific, not philosophical, reasons. that is, if tomorrow evidence were presented that life could be generated unguided and de novo in a test tube just by adding certain ingredients, I assume that Collins would not maintain his skepticism about abiogenesis from natural causes. His skepticism here stems ultimately from scientific, rather than philosophical or theological, reasons, no?
Not what happened at all.
First, MN is not attendent to evolution. It is misnamed, but was most clearly seen by me in Christian theology from Bacon and Pascal. These were early scientists that certainly did not affirm evolution. MN is better understood as an important type of methodological revelation-driven-theism.
Second, God explains everything. That was never the problem when I was a YEC. The bigger problem was that I was willfully misreading Scripture and looking to human effort instead of Jesus. I had to turn from that idolatry to see the world clearly.
Third, scientifically what changed my mind was learning science actually taught about evolution, and seeing the evidence for itself. All of this is “explained by God”, but I had been lied to about evolution. Evolution explained the data as well as gravity explained the motion of the planets. It was not the whole story, but it was very very close.
Okay, but I think God works through evolution. Even if science gets it right here, it does not have the whole picture. Even when its right, I do no think any scientific explanation is adequate.
No I do not think this. Evolution and natural processes is not a complete explanation of biology. That is an entirely unscientific claim that directly contradicts MN. I do not claim in any way that science gives complete explanations.
That is not what I am saying. Rather, I am saying there is overwhelming evidence pointing to the descent of life to common ancestors. The evidence I know best is in the form of quantitatively verified predictions made by neutral theory about genomes. God could have made us with genomes that proved evolution false. He did not. Why not? Finding no contradiction between evolution and Scripture, I posit that evolution is how God created us. That is why.
This isn’t your call. ID is not scientific conclusion. It violates the rules of science to even ask the question. It deviates wildly from the way how science works. Neither you or I or Meyer or Behe can change this.
Think what you want in your heart, but science is not in your heart. It is a community of discourse in the real world. Even if I did not like them, I could not change them for you. Even if I wanted to. A better way to make sense of this is to learn how science works without trying to hard to redefine it. You do not have the authority to do this. As long as you are trying, you will remain confused.
That is not what he says. Rather, he says that science has not figured out the mechanism of abiogenesis, but he thinks it might exist. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to wonder if this is a place that God’s action was required.
This is not a claim about natural causes. it is a claim about the status of scientific knowledge of these causes. Even if a process were found, we would embrace it as “they way God made the first life.” We would see this an example of God’s wise design in the world, even as Meyer’s arguments for design crumbled. I do not point to the “inadequacy of natural processes” as evidence of design. This is too often an idol.
That is not his claim. This is Meyer’s claim.
One can use scientific data in philosophical and theological reasoning. That is not a bad thing to do at all. For example, look what I wrote in another thread…
See how I am using scientific information in a theological argument? Scientists are allowed to do this as much as we want, as long as we are clear that these reflections are not science themselves. That’s the rules. Collins plays by the rules. So do I. We do not make the rules, but we follow them.
1 Like
Sir, thanks for your further thoughts. I think I can reach a conclusion where we understand each other.
I concur that, given certain methods, that in my analogy, science would come to the (erroneous) conclusion that the letters were carved by a human. The method in this thought experiment will all but guarantee that the scientist would reach an erroneous conclusion. We certainly agree thus far.
Similarly, though, I observe a similar dynamic with methodological naturalism. Hypothetically… if God did directly intervene in the formation of certain biological phenomena and created, say, echolocation, de novo, science would conclude that mutation, natural selection, and population dynamics did it.
That may be what “science” must conclude. But if so, it is inadequate to address my own, personal, core question… which is to ask whether natural selection, mutation, etc. and whatever other natural forces are themselves in fact sufficient explanation for the various amazing phenomena of life. Ultimately, I’m not interested in whether or not any particular conclusion is or is not scientific, but whether it is true,
and I completely appreciate science not being able to give us certain answers. What I am concerned about, though, is a method wherein science would be required by certain rules to give me erroneous answers.
I will try to wrap this up here, so my thanks again for the conversation. Please let me know, though, if I have significantly misunderstood you at any point.
They are only erroneous if you think science gives you a complete view of the world. They are only erroneous if you cannot think outside it. A better way of describing this is that modern science produces an incomplete view of the world. The task of theology is to complete it. The error of scientism is to insist the incomplete answer as complete.
With that view, I do not see conflict on the tablets engraved by God. If God reveals in Scripture he wrote those tablets, your theology completes your view of the science. You trust your theology here, because it is the complete view. Science is not wrong. It is just incomplete.
2 Likes
[quote=“Swamidass, post:94, topic:36197”]
My apologies if I have misrepresented Dr. Collins, but that is what I understood from his words. He seems to base his tentative skepticism that natural forces can explain abiogenesis on scientific observations: the likelihood required macromolecules developed in the required timeframe, the inhospitality of early earth, and his assessment of these origin of life proposals as being adequate explanations. Forgive me if I misunderstood his words, but this is certainly what I got from them:
“Another issue, however–one where I am very puzzled about what the answer will be–is the origin of life. Four billion years ago, the conditions on this planet were completely inhospitable to life as we know it; 3.85 billion years ago, life was teeming. That is a very short period–150 million years-- for the assembly of macromolecules into a self-replicating form. I think even the most bold and optimistic proposals for the origin of life fall well short of achieving any real probability for that kind of event having occurred. Is this where God entered? Is this how life got started? I am happy to accept that model, but it will not shake up my faith if somebody comes up with a model that explains how the first cells formed without divine intervention.”
Appreciated, and I concur. One last question for my clarity, and I promise I will try to wrap up this discussion:
Would you grant it as a legitimate, scientific conclusion for someone to examine a biological phenomenon, and conclude that mutation, natural selection, and population genetics are insufficient to explain that particular phenomenon… so long as they do not go on from there to try to argue to or prove God, divinity, or any other intelligent agency from that basis?
Please forgive my intrusion, Daniel, but I’d like to give this a shot. I have spoken on these forums about the “too tight” relationship between methodological and philosophical naturalism. I find the scientific community is quite frequently philosophically shallow, and unaware of how often and deeply they blur those two.
I think you will find a spectrum on the Biologos forums, those who think natural causes did it all and those who do not, and there are many opinions about what the latter looks like. Some sorta don’t care how it happened, but just want to stop seeing our faith dragged into these discussions.
Yet I would still say that it is not a “scientific” conclusion that there is no natural explanation for some phenomena. Science itself only looks for natural causes.
On the other hand, for a scientist to assert that they will find a natural cause would be a statement from philosophical naturalism. They should look for natural causes, yes, and a scientist that understands philosophy would know when they cross that boundary. Many (maybe most?) don’t. It’s just not their concern.
Unfortunately the science press knows no such boundary! It typically drips philosophical naturalism in every article on things like Origins of Life.
A scientific conclusion would be that “we haven’t found an explanation of these phenomena.” Then beyond science alone (that is, returning to full humanity), someone could say, “And yes, the information we know at this time seems to me to indicate that there is more going on than just natural causes.” I can accept from your quote above that as a scientist and public figure, Dr. Collins has hedged appropriately on this. Others like Dr Tour of Rice U are more a forceful in their critique of contemporary sloppy origins science, but he avoids non-natural considerations, leaving the listener to decide what to think.
People here especially don’t want anyone putting their hope in the failure of science so far to find natural causes for every phenomena. I respect that, but I personally don’t think we need to worry about science finding that everything happened on its own. I think (as perhaps you do) that the data we have now is sufficient for other conclusions. But that discussion, while involving and often about the science, is not itself scientific.
1 Like
Appreciate the observation. Two quick thoughts, if I may, regarding the following thought:
-
Then back to my perennial question: would you then classify SETI, forensics, and archaeology as “unscientific”, since they are prepared to conclude, given the right evidence, that there is no natural explanation for various phenomena within their purview? why or why not?
-
My more specific question, though, is whether or not science can specifically rule out natural selection & mutation as a sufficient explanation for certain complex biological phenomena. My impression is that ID is criticized by some not simply because of its willingness to conclude intelligent agency, but because of its willingness to doubt the basic evolutionary framework whatsoever.
I know I myself have been criticized as an unscientific troglodyte simply for doubting the power of mutation and natural selection to accomplish the various technological marvels that our own best scientists can’t get close to developing.