Does biology need the theory that all life shares a common ancestor?

Faith & Science Conversation
272

Chris,

I have downloaded your two papers and the one from Nature. At the risk that I am making excuses, I am in the middle of writing a book, and the current section deals with enormously complicated chemical kinetics (some with >600 equations); I trust you will be patient and eventually I will provide you with a response. I should re-state that I am not pro-, or against ToE; my position has always been that the theory(s) is nowhere near adequate to justify revision of orthodox theology (eg Adam, Eden, personhood, etc), and if theology were not involved, I would be extremely happy to leave the thing to biologists.

Just as (from the top of my heat) teaser, the Nature paper mentions it is not ‘detracted’ by neutral drift, while on this site, neutral drift is suggested to be central to common ancestry.

I cannot accept you analogy with chemistry - the various disciplines deal with specialised areas and are not in conflict, and theoretical chemistry undergoes all the rigour demanded by physics and maths. This constant appeal to Newton and now chemistry to bolster ToE is unseemly - if anyone can derive maths from variation and natural selection, from first principles (and I am sure you understand this) then all scientist (including myself) would celebrate that day.

Fuller has written many books that also deal with the history of science, paradigms and associated matters. I think you and others may show inordinate disrespect to his achievements, by the hubris inherent in the observation that he is not a biologist. I have looked to other PoS books (Rosenburg, a total materialist, Gerhard, Fuller, Polanyi, to name a few). I cannot find anyone who professes such unreserved acceptance of evolution, evident on this site, whatever their personal position.

Best wished,
George

273

Hi George,

Take all the time you need, I won’t feel put out in any way.

One of Fuller’s main concerns, if I am reading him correctly, is that a scientific theory that successfully uses natural mechanisms to explain some aspect(s) of the universe does not ipso facto rule out intelligent design, broadly construed. I actually agree with that. The explanatory power of physics, chemistry, biology, and other branches of science does not contradict our faith in an intelligent Creator.

Some use the successes of science to attack Christian faith, it’s true. They cite every branch of science, not just biology. But I cannot think of a single doctrine in the traditional creeds of the church universal that is truly contradicted by evolution or any other scientific theory.

Grace and peace,
Chris

2 Likes
274

Apparently, you have read Fuller’s paper and think it is worth discussing, so why don’t you present the argument and we will see how it stacks up. It is a bit difficult to have a conversation with a website. I much prefer discussions with actual people. :wink:

1 Like
275

What evidence would you need to see in order to conclude that the theory of evolution is adequate?[quote=“GJDS, post:272, topic:35756”]
This constant appeal to Newton and now chemistry to bolster ToE is unseemly - if anyone can derive maths from variation and natural selection, from first principles (and I am sure you understand this) then all scientist (including myself) would celebrate that day.
[/quote]

Then consider us in a celebratory mood. Here is a .pdf containing equations used in the field of evolution, including Hardy-Weinberg equilibriums, fitness, mutation, and neutral drift:

One can not be a biologist but still have a firm grasp of the science. Unfortunately, Fuller does not have a grasp of the current state of the science, at least according to what others have said after reading his work. Math has been a central part of the study of evolution for quite some time now, and those claiming otherwise are either ignorant of the science or are trying to willfully deceive their audience.

2 Likes
276

This would also apply to every single theory in science, not just evolution. Finding natural mechanisms for the cause of disease does not ipso facto rule out the possibility that infectious diseases are really caused by demons or gods. Finding a natural mechanism that explains how rainbows form does not rule out the possibility that leprechauns are needed to make those colors. However, I would think that people would tend to accept an evidenced natural mechanism over an unevidenced supernatural one.[quote=“Chris_Falter, post:273, topic:35756”]
Some use the successes of science to attack Christian faith, it’s true. They cite every branch of science, not just biology. But I cannot think of a single doctrine in the traditional creeds of the church universal that is truly contradicted by evolution or any other scientific theory.
[/quote]

I would also agree with that. Atheists and many theists alike agree on one thing, it is a bit silly to base one’s beliefs on a theology that requires facts to be wrong. The “Atheist’s Gambit” is the idea that if a literal Genesis is wrong then the whole Bible is wrong. It is rather strange to see Christians taking up this gambit, especially when it isn’t a necessary part of being a Christian.

As someone who works in science, I can gladly say that there are many, many Christians in the sciences who get along just fine with us crazy atheists. In college, I was taught by multiple professors who attended the same Methodist church, and they saw no conflict between things like the age of the universe or evolution and their faith. The only conflict we see appears to exist within the confines of creationism.

1 Like
277

My point has been all along, and is now, is to question ToE adequacy for revising the Orthodox Christian faith - it seems you have skipped over this. And btw there have been umpteen exchanges on theological matters that are supposedly backed by ToE, and yet I am yet to be persuaded by anything that is sound philosophically or theologically.

Greeting this with the usual “howls” will not do.

Since so many are adamant Fuller is so ignorant, why not find something in the paper I referred to and show us how it is wrong within any scientifically based observation?

Going by a quote from someone is the worst frm of quote mining I have witnessed.

I will use the comical phrase ‘you people’ as I have seen it in a funny Canadian advert. You people have not presented scrap of debate on Fuller’s paper, and even less on a theological argument that would fail because of ToE - this is a bold and general statement. Instead you keep going back to some data collection - you have selection theory, and yet when your own discipline endeavourse to show a correlation between natural selection and some other arbitrary measure of fitness, the result is very weak (in chemistry such a result would be rejected) - I had put this with papers twice on this site without a singe rebuttel from you self-proclaimed experts - and the funny thing is, I do not care if this is accepted or not - it just shows the difficulties you people will not address.

So for any so called debate - come to me with Patristic sources, biblical teachings and ToE - btw, heliocentricity and earth-centricity have been done to death. Fuller’s remarks on Newton and Darwin as theories are spot on.

278

@Chris_Falter

Fuller makes the following remarks:

" …this syndrome in the case of Neo-Darwinism is that the
theory has become rife with internal interpretive tensions, which philosophers
have tolerated by loosening their own criteria for a good scientific
theory. This shift in philosophical standards probably reflects the strong
cultural standing of Neo-Darwinism."

(my take, replace cultural with ideological) and

“… It was the scientific backlash to such shamelessly critical philosophising
that provided an audience for Michael Polanyi and Thomas Kuhn, two
avowedly ‘post-critical’ philosophers who defended normal science as a
philosophy-free zone.”

(take the debate on what is meant by "species: as an example) and

“… (1) ‘Neo-’: There is no ‘Neo-Newtonian’ paradigm because for the two
hundred years following the publication of Principia Mathematica, physics
fully exploited Newton’s theoretical resources to try to resolve standing
anomalies in his original account of the cosmos, especially relating in
matters relating to light and energy.”

(yet how many times is ToE compared to Newtonian physics and gravity?) and a particularly insightful comment:

"…Darwin’s theory of evolution of
natural selection was widely taken to have already run its course in
biology. At that point, Darwin was being kept afloat largely as a political
ideology and a suggestive sociological framework, what we now call
‘Social Darwinism’. Thus, the phrase ‘Neo-Darwinian’ testifies to the role
of Mendelian genetics in enabling Darwin’s scientific resurrection: It
finally provided an explanatory mechanism for natural selection, a process
that had been previously understood only in terms of the shape of natural
history that it allegedly produced. Nevertheless, we might still wonder
about the exact point of grafting Darwin’s original theory to a science,
genetics, whose own research trajectory can be understood without any
specific commitment to natural evolution,

I cannot cut and paste the full paper and for those who value an honest exchange, the paper is accessible and well worth the read. I am not advocating any particular view on Fuller - but I have gone through some of his material, and one of his books, and I find him to be a keen intellect. His remarks on ID are also useful.

I am startled by your comment:

since we have witnessed on this site debates, for example, on Adam and original sin, and the reaction to this, I cannot see any other branch of natural science that has caused so much controversy and disagreement as Darwinian thinking, and yet we have this almost naïve insistence that “it is not so”. I have pointed out the strong ideological slant to ToE and Fuller also pointed out the way the thing is constantly “patched up”. This is driven by ideological commitments, not dispassionate scientific enquiry. I noticed in one paper that Wagner, who is probably the foremost worker on maths of popgen, question aspects of the current thinking - this is healthy.

279

Chris,

I have glanced at the papers you recommended and note his treatment is based on selection theory. I cannot find any derivation of this, so in desperation I turned to Wikipedia. Is this what you base the maths?

In r/K selection theory, selective pressures are hypothesised to drive evolution in one of two generalized directions: r- or K-selection.[1] These terms, r and K, are drawn from standard ecological algebra as illustrated in the simplified Verhulst model of population dynamics:[7]
_d N d t = r N ( 1 − N K ) {\displaystyle {\frac {dN}{dt}}=rN\left(1-{\frac {N}{K}}\right)} _

where N is the population, r is the maximum growth rate, K is the carrying capacity of the local environment, and dN/dt denotes the derivative of N with respect to time t. Thus, the equation relates the growth rate of the population N to the current population size, incorporating the effect of the two constant parameters r and K. (Note that decrease is negative growth.) The choice of the letter K came from the German Kapazitätsgrenze" (capacity limit), while r came from rate…

I also note he seems to compare two models, and favours a single source as the ancestor - before I start another useless search, can you provide some information on the conditions which lead to the presence of this single universal ancestor? If not, how do you deal with a beginning that produces such a UCA?

I would appreciate your help as my time is in short supply for this.

280

I would suggest that there are several reasons why the theory of evolution causes considerable controversy and disagreement - without necessarily being “wrong”. First, evolutionary scientists must attempt to understand what happened millions of years ago based on evidence on the planet today - essentially using what I would call “indirect evidence”. Cosmology is the only other science I can think of that is so dependent on indirect observation. Second, the theory of evolution carries quite a bit of “personal baggage” along with it. Obvious questions arise about humanity, especially among those of us that are theologically inclined to ask those questions. Third, the theory of evolution is massive in scope. The theory depends on many areas of science. Biology routinely depends heavily on Chemistry, but Evolutionary Biology also involves Geology, Physics, and Astronomy, and probably quite a few others. Getting numerous scientists in all these fields to precisely agree on everything associated with evolution is not very likely. I should point out that when the theory of evolution is strongly supported by each of these separate fields, the case for credibility is quite strong.

I would also suggest that to address Fuller’s assertion of the “patched up” theory of evolution relates quite strongly to my first point. When using current clues to try to figure out the past, it is completely reasonable for new evidence to cause adjustments to the theory. For example, some of the more recent findings discussed in these forums about other hominins have forced modifications to what we thought we knew. “Patching up” is going to be routine as the scientific community finds new evidence.

We can illustrate this using the example of criminal forensics. Police detectives use evidence to “recreate” past events. When new pieces of evidence are discovered and a “picture” of a crime scene has to be adjusted, does it invalidate all previous work? Of course not! One could equally criticize forensic scientists for a “patched up” approach to evaluating a crime scene.

I agree that the theory of evolution is susceptible to ideological interpretation, but the presence of ideology does not nullify the science.

281

At no point have I entered into debates on ToE being “wrong” and I guess if I repeat this often enough it may get through I have always stated it is inadequate for claims made for/from it, especially in theological matters. Everyone (and myself) understand it is the paradigm of biology.

Having said that, I would challenge you suggestion (if I read this correctly) that fields such as chemistry support ToE - at no point have I or anyone of my colleagues even hint at ToE for our research. Biologists depend on other fields of science (which I think is what you may mean) but not the other way around.

So my point is to be aware of the vague and vast claims made for ToE and to be circumspect when using it to revise or “correct” scripture and Orthodox theology.

Fuller makes a persuasive case for what I term a circumspect approach to the ToE.

282

I know that is your point. What I am asking is what type of evidence would you need to see in order for ToE to be adequate for revising Orthodox Christian faith. I am trying to get a feel for what you see as the inadequacies of the theory.

If you think the ToE is inadequate because it lacks mathematical models, then the pop gene equations I cited earlier should do away with those inadequacies. We could also discuss the mathematical and statistical methods used to derive and compare phylogenies, if you wish.

283

At the risk of sounding factitious, provide a site which clearly identifies a “bottleneck” of 10-30,000 creatures from which sprang human beings - by this I mean a location, remains of buildings, remains (bones etc) that would equate with 10-30,000 - and while we are at it, provide clear data on the previous populations (I assume many more than 30,000) who were kind enough to become extinct, but just lived just long enough to create the nice bottleneck.

Now before we go of on a tangent, my remarks must be taken in the context of claims that these matters are scientifically proven - a much bigger hurdle than models. I employ computer models and complicated calculations and these in themselves are not proofs, but ways to deal with data, within strictly stated bounds and limitations.

Remember, the reason I make these points is because Biologos has gone to great lengths to try an convince people that Adam is some type of literal fiction, and their rational depends on these population assumptions.

284

From this post, am I understanding it correctly if I say you need a ton of archaeological or paleontological evidence to back up the theory of evolution?[quote=“GJDS, post:283, topic:35756”]
Now before we go of on a tangent, my remarks must be taken in the context of claims that these matters are scientifically proven - a much bigger hurdle than models. I employ computer models and complicated calculations and these in themselves are not proofs, but ways to deal with data, within strictly stated bounds and limitations.
[/quote]

If we are talking about the colloquial version of “proof”, as in proof beyond a reasonable doubt, then there are tons of examples I could point to that prove humans share a common ancestor with other species. Shared endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) is probably one of the more popular examples and are considered to be “smoking gun” evidence for common ancestry[quote=“GJDS, post:283, topic:35756”]
Remember, the reason I make these points is because Biologos has gone to great lengths to try an convince people that Adam is some type of literal fiction, and their rational depends on these population assumptions.
[/quote]

I think we are running into cross purposes here. There are faith based beliefs that directly contradict evidence we find in the world around us. There are also faith based beliefs that are not supported nor are they contradicted by evidence in the world around us. It all depends on what you mean by “literal Adam”. If we are talking about two people founding the entire human population just 6,000 years ago, then that is clearly contradicted by the observed genetic variation in the human population. For some genes there are literally thousands of alleles spread throughout the human population. You can’t get that from a 2 person bottleneck just 6,000 years ago.

If you are talking about a human couple that would leave no detectable genetic evidence in the human population, then it falls under the purview of a religious or faith based belief.

. If you want I could discuss ERVs for a limited number of posts.

285

I hope you do not take offence, but I have discussed many times (too many for my liking, and perhaps for others) genealogical/historical data modelling related to Adam and Eve, and how Biblical teaching conforms to this, so I am not inclined to repeat this. Let us leave it at this _ I have looked at science and faith as deeply as my limited intellect (and God’s grace) would permit, and I cannot see the conflict that is presented on this site. I have suggested that one (of perhaps many) reason(s) for this is the ideology attached to ToE.

I think that is enough from me.

286

If you are willing, perhaps you could clear up one point and I will promise not to respond to it.

I may have missed it in a previous post, but what is this ideology you are speaking of?

287

Yes, that is what I mean, because that is exactly what I said :wink:

Can the ideology of ToE make people prone to overstatement? Absolutely. Scientists should be aware of the ideology and exercise care when making bold claims (which most do!).

Out of curiosity, what claims are made that you find unsupported?

Please remember that BioLogos is not a single individual, so it is misleading to characterize it as such. I could point out quite a few “regulars” here that would disagree with your statement.

288

I mean the ideology that stretches throughout the past 150 years - from superior races, to believing adding rabbits to an ecosystem is good because NS will fix it all - I hasten to add that evolution may not have created ideology, but is has surely made the ideologues feel secure with the so called scientific proof they imagined, especially aggressive anti-theists. However the most glaring ideology is that evolution shows the Bible is somehow wrong - this becomes complicated by others who believe the earth is 6,000 yrs old and that type of nonsense.

289

Yes you are correct - however I have made my comments on things like “evolution is ordained by God” and “evolution is how God creates”. These are poorly constructed statements and would be contrary to Orthodox theology. The other debates should be viewed in this erroneous context.

290

If one were to believe that evolution is God’s tool and not a godless, mindless, purposeless force, would it be possible to construct similar statement in a way you would agree with? Are you objecting to the imprecision of the statement, or objecting to what you see as “contrary to Orthodox theology”? Also, are you using capitalization to refer specifically to contradictions with “Orthodox theology”? I don’t come from an Orthodox background, but lot of Evangelicals would not find such statements contrary to their theology.

1 Like
291

I find this a puzzling comment. Grafting genetics, a theory about how traits are inherited, to Darwin’s theory, a theory about how inherited traits change over time, seems perfectly natural to me. In any case, in practice much of genetics now relies heavily on an evolutionary framework to understand and predict data, to shape research programs, and to provide information about functional genetic elements and their relationship to phenotype.

2 Likes