Does evolutionary theory provide any useful scientific benefit?

Faith & Science Conversation
21

Thanks Zebman. I would agree that increasing knowledge is a benefit generally. In this case however, we were asking about the benefit not of science, but of a particular theory. Even in “pure” research, which often does not have an immediate practical goal, there is an assumption that eventually it will provide some practical benefits, or at least that it could do so, even if we do not yet know what those benefits are. Practical applied research works on practical benefits, and evaluates alternatives. So for example, discovering a particular vaccine for a particular virus strain is applied research that has a practical benefit. Edison’s research on electricity to produce light started off as pure research and then became practical and applied.

Research that does not have any likely practical benefit, will often not get funded and supported. Although one could argue that the Hubble telescope was more pure research which did get funded, but there may be some practical benefits that I am not aware of. In any case, I am just wondering about perspectives on the practical application of this 200 yr old theory. Has it had benefits? Has it made harmful predictions? Has it been neutral?

22

Are you a scientist? Have you done scientific research? If you have, you know that most science that is funded does not demonstrate before hand that it has any economic value what so ever. This type of research is labeled “pure research”. Many of the most important scientific findings that have provided economic benefit had their start as pure research.

If the potential for economic or perhaps social value can be demonstrated (called “practical research”), then yes, that research will get more money. Much of this additional research money will come from private enterprise that believes they can make a profit in the future. Also, much of the practical research is done behind closed doors and is not known about, to protect patents. There are companies now that have attempted to patent specific genes that they have mapped out. So far, the courts have not cooperated.

As to the specific research related to evolution of the species - my point was actually this is kind of a silly question but I did not want to say this initially. The reason I say this is because it does not really matter if it has pragmatic benefit or not, other than that it may get more money for further research.

So, if I WERE to make a judgement if there was a benefit to society of learning more about evolution, I would certainly say there is. For one, it was the basis that drove genetic research which will continue to allow us to ward off many diseases. Also, in the medical world, animal parts are sometimes used to help fix people. It is beneficial to know which animals are most closely related to humans. Finally, I believe that the more we look “under the hood” the more we are likely to eventually find a small label somewhere that says “Made in Heaven, by God” which would be exciting and I believe a benefit.

1 Like
23

Thankyou for your reply, Zebman. Do you think the genetic research for diseases could not have been done without evolution theory? I would also suggest that Linnaes categorized organisms without considering evolution, and so realized that some organisms were more similar to other organisms even without evolution. I would assume the same is possible for observable genetic similarities?

The “made in heaven, by God” has already been seen by many people, I believe, with eyes to see it. Thanks for your comment.

24

@johnZ I think you’ve got a solid and worthwhile question but don’t have enough education in the relevant disciplines to really contribute. Having said that, I stumbled across this article in the faculty restroom shortly after you started this discussion.

Thought it was interesting that natural selection provided the framework for this particular study. The value of this study may not be as tangible as a cure for the common cold, but I’m a Social Science major so I tend to find value in things that others find boring. :smile:

Jim

25

Good one, Jim. :smile: I also read a number of articles from Economist regularly, but missed this one. Evolve is often used as a synonym for change… Most human things change by direction, planning, experimentation, re-direction, and combination. We have some instruments at home including mandolin, violin, piano, ukele. New instruments have been developed, such as bandolin (banjo-mandolin combo), ukele- guitar combo, all of course not by random mutation, but by purposed direction. We all pick (select) our favorites, of course. Sometimes the favorites all work together in a beautiful ecology of music. :grinning:

26

Considering how often scientific breakthroughs covered even by the general mass media depend upon an understanding of evolutionary processes, I’m kind of surprised this question still comes up as often as it does in many venues. Clearly our public education system in the U.S. has for the most part not done a great job of teaching The Theory of Evolution and WHY it is so often called “the very basis underlying an understanding of the biological sciences.”

@johnZ, let’s take agronomy as an example. Millions of dollars worth of new agriculture products (e.g., seed, herbicides, insecticides) have already been generated from the study and application of the evolutionary processes which produced our current food crops and in developing new ones. In the case of corn/maize, scientists have used knowledge of evolution to determine which wild plant species and subspecies evolved and combined to produce the amazing polyploid field and sweet corn varieties we eat today–and then to apply that knowledge to produce better corn varieties by “playing out” the potential “alternate” evolutionary paths in order to produce varieties (and even new species) which are better able to survive climate change and marginal environments. As a former farmer, I have been amazed to learn how agribusiness is putting a lot of their knowledge of evolution into evolving PERENNIAL species to replace the ANNUAL species our world depends upon for most of our foods: corn, wheat, soybeans, rice, sorghum, peanuts, to name a few. Imagine how much scarce resources could be saved with such perennial versions! (And that includes the huge problem of topsoil erosion.) They could be planted one year and then harvested that same year plus several more years thereafter–or with some new species, even multiple harvests in a single year. Another new “sub-industry” will soon be selling bushes and trees which are so efficiently bioluminescent that they will provide street lighting and path lighting after sundown–all without consuming countless kilowatt-hours of electricity per year and without the carbon footprint and environmental costs of power generation.

Those who are unfamiliar with how an understanding of evolutionary processes serves these many new industries and products will claim that all such innovations could be done using other principles and methodologies of the biological sciences. That’s not true but suppose for a moment that they are correct and that there are other ways to make these advancements. Why would any scientist wish to work with one hand tied behind their back? Could many practical advancements in chemistry have been made without an understanding of Atomic Theory? Yes. Indeed, for centuries alchemists depended upon random trial and error for many of their discoveries that led to chemistry as an empirical science. Yet why would anybody want to know LESS about the underlying processes and phenomena which are so important to one’s field of science and thereby provide the theoretical foundations behind the practical applications?

I found this excerpt from JohnZ’s post very interesting:

Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind?

That quotation prompted this response:

It is important when answering this question, to distinguish between the atmosphere of evolutionary theory, and the logic of evolution without which such discoveries could not have happened.

What is the “atmosphere of evolutionary theory”? And what is the “logic of evolution”? Do all scientific theories have their own “atmosphere” and a “logic”? I’m a former science professor and I can’t say that I ever used those terms before nor have I seen those phrases in any science textbook.

Johnz, I get the impression that there is some sort of “fear” of The Theory of Evolution in such wording. Also, the quotation from Dr. Marc Kirschner is–sad to say–a rather infamous quote-mine that I’ve noticed on many anti-evolution websites. You will find it discussed and debunked on countless websites including this science blog, which addresses that topic in very interesting ways. Basically, when you read the quotation in its original context and entirety, Dr. Kirschner was lamenting the fact that biologists often get so focused on their own subfield or specialization such that they don’t always take advantage of and utilize the discoveries from those in other specializations. Therefore, he called for more application of what evolutionary biologists have learned, not less! He was urging all biologists to apply what’s been gleaned by evolutionary biologists to their respective subfields and research specializations.

Unfortunately, whenever I see an ellipsis in such quotations–especially if it comes from an anti-evolution source such as various ID and Young Earth Creationist websites–I’ve got in the habit of verifying the quotation or even looking it up in one of several “quote-mine directories”. You see, I myself was an “anti-evolution activist” long ago as a young greenhorn professor and it was these types of often questionable tactics by my “creation conference weekend” colleagues which conflicted with my ethical values as a Christ-follower. After much tedious study of the Hebrew scriptures and eventually a great deal of personal research into the scientific evidence associated with The Theory of Evolution and billions of years of earth history, I eventually found myself unable to continue as a “creation science” speaker/debater of origins topics. Thankfully, my study brought me to the understanding that there was no conflict between the scientific evidence from God’s creation and the scriptural evidence from God’s Bible. The evidence from both brought me to a harmony and a greater appreciation and thanksgiving for God’s wisdom and power as displayed in his creation, including the evolutionary processes which God used to diversify life on this planet over many many millions of years.)

Even if evolutionary biology had zero “practical applications”, it would be no less essential to a solid foundation in understanding the biosphere of our planet. Moreover, as a Christ-follower and a scientist (retired), I want to know how God decided to create the diverse life we observe all around us. Just as with every other scientific theory which explains some aspect of God’s creation, The Theory of Evolution gives us more reasons to praise God because, as the Psalmist said, “The heavens are declaring the glory of God, and their expanse shows the work of his hands.” The same can be said of the work of God’s hands below that sky, every cell of every species, and every evolutionary process that God ordained to carry out his will for life on earth.

Truly, a process of educating myself in both the scriptures and the creation that began with some considerable hesitation and frustration eventually led to a greater knowledge of God and even more reasons to worship him as my Creator. Now I consider evolutionary processes among the most grand and incredible of God’s creations. Today I am very thankful that I serve a God far more wise and powerful than the very small and limited deity I imagined in my youth. Even many years later, I still feel a bit like Job after God rebuked him. Hopefully, I will no longer ever allow the cherished traditions of my church or “spiritual heroes” to determine what God would and wouldn’t do in engineering his creation. God has given us answers to our questions in his Bible and in his Creation. Both testimony to what God has done. So I no longer accept the answers in one while rejecting the other. God doesn’t contradict himself and God certainly doesn’t plant evidence in his creation that is intended to deceive. As I used to tell my students: “God created it. I observe it. I believe it. And that settles it.” That goes for both of God’s great works of authorship.

27

I think it is important to distinguish between evolution and similarity. In other words, all plants require nitrogen to grow, and a bunch of other nutrients in various amounts. This is a similarity. All plants have dna as a plant development program. This is a similarity. It is reasonable to assume that for similar functions, dna will often have similar subprograms. Since dna consists of similar compounds, no matter which plant or animal it inhabits and controls, it is reasonable to suppose that similar plants would have potential for transferable dna. Perhaps all plants and all animals have similar potential, but the more similar the plant the more likely transferability will work. This applies to similarity of genes, locations of genes, and activation of genes. It is not necessary to say that these plants evolved from each other, although some plants certainly are related to each other in the sense of being able to breed together, fulfilling the definition of variety within species. But design of the plants, orders, families, genera is also a valid conclusion.

If perennial and annual graminae species can be developed from each other in a beneficial result, so much the better, but I do not see why evolutionary thinking would use graminae to develop graminae, while non-evolutionists would attempt to develop a perennial grass from an annual brassica. To attribute the progress to evolutionary thinking is misguided.

Yes, it would be great to have an annual grass that produces wheat for five or ten years, but so far as I know, the trade-offs between the grain yields of annual wheat and the benefits of perrenials have not yet been overcome. The closest is winter wheat, which of course has been around long before evolutionary thinking influenced plant breeding or gmo programs, but is still limited to a biannual plant.

28

Correct! We know that The Theory of Evolution is such an incredibly useful and all-encompassing explanation for the earth’s biosphere not simply because we see so many similarities between various species but because those similarities occur in remarkable nested hierarchies.

Indeed, I find it fascinating that the anti-evolution entrepreneurs at Answers in Genesis, CMI, et al rarely mention or admit the existence of what is one of the most inescapable and foundational arguments for The Theory of Evolution: phylogenetic trees.

In fact, when I ask those who deny The Theory of Evolution what they consider the major arguments and evidence for the theory which appear in biology textbooks, most will say something like “fossils and similarities between species.” If I ask them why they didn’t mention “nested hierarchies”, few know what I’m talking about.

Of course, biologists so often call The Theory of Evolution among the very best supported theories in all of science not just because there are piles and piles of evidence which can be organized under so many different arguments. The Theory of Evolution also provides countless predictions for future discoveries which have been successfully confirmed again and again. Indeed, in each of those cases, the prediction also exposed the theory to potential falsification.

In that regard, after surviving countless falsification tests over a century and a half, The Theory of Evolution saw a hugely significant “potential Waterloo” when genomic testing became not only available but relatively inexpensive. What happened? Scientists found that the very same phylogenetic trees which had been published for many years turned out to be confirmed at the molecular level as well! Furthermore, bold predictions published years before were beautifully confirmed, such as the prediction that humans and the great apes differ in number of chromosomes because humans have a fusion of two ancestral chromosomes. Through genome maps, we now know that human chromosome #2 is that “smoking gun” of joined chromosomes.**

When denialists claim that The Theory of Evolution can’t be subjected to falsification testing, they are ignorant of over 150+ years of rigorous hammering of that theory. It is difficult to imagine any “ultimate falsification testing” more significant and “ruthless” than that which the TOE faced once science had the ability to compare genomes. If the theory hadn’t found thorough confirmation at the molecular level, it would have been “dead meat”, as my grandchildren say! (In lecturing, I’ve sometimes called genomics a case where falsification testing of evolution theory produced “a smoking gun of maximum caliber.”)

I’ve never seen any of the professional denialists take on the phylogenetic trees which support The Theory of Evolution on any sort of rigorous (or honest) level.

FOOTNOTE: Lots of evolution-deniers have fumbled their way to lame arguments against the human chromosome #2 discovery of embedded telomeres, etc. Yet, that is just another reminder that their strategy is always trying to obfuscate science (and complain about details and imagined anomalies) rather than to undertake any sort of systematic refutations of the many, many arguments and evidence for The Theory of Evolution as a scientific paper would. I’ve never seen AIG or CMI publish a point-by-point critique of a textbook’s outline of the foundations of the theory. Instead, it is all trite complaints and catchy slogans [“goo to you”, “Were you there?”, “Science is just knowledge.”] geared toward the science-illiterate general public. They prefer a “microscope” approach in complaining about details rather than dealing with the big picture of why The Theory of Evolution is no less solidly supported than the Germ Theory of Disease. Of course, if Ken Ham were here he would try to play games by complaining about some “imperfection” in the Germ Theory of Disease and then try to draw an analogy from it against evolution! I know how the game works because I was a “creation science” activist long ago.

29

@Professor_Tertius

I have not considered myself a denier of Darwinian evolutionary thinking, nor a believer in it, and for most of my professional career I have been (thankfully) happy to leave it to the biologists. The major reason I have ‘left it to them’ is because I (nor any of my colleagues) have never found anything that would be relevant to our scientific research, let alone provide insights and add intellectual rigour to our work. So I find the unbridled enthusiasm projected by your remarks startling, and perhaps I think it is more in keeping with defending an ideological position and not that of calm reflection typical of a sceptical scientist.

I have often referred to papers by acknowledged evolutionists in which major facets of the theory are questioned, without even a vague scientific response (as yet I have not looked at these much maligned YEC sites, or whatever other names are used to describe your detractors). The remarks of mine have dealt with the broad picture, so perhaps you may respond in a scientific manner. To repeat only two examples I have posted on this forum:

(1) the role of randomness in mutations/variations and natural selection, which is clearly shown scientifically to be well nigh impossible, and
(2) the challenge as yet unanswered, to provide one piece of solid scientific data to verify the prediction, presented as a clear, pictorial representation, of a common ancestor derived from your blessed species tree – which was based on what the authors stated was the largest data base assembled for this purpose, and described by ardent chaps as beautiful.

Since I have not invested anything in Darwinism, I feel that my position in this odd debate is neutral; however I am fascinated by the obvious inability for ardent chaps to jump at the chance to provide a solid scientific defence of the most treasured aspects of Darwin’s theory, such as those presented in the two examples. Surely simple scientific curiosity should be enough motivation, or at least an admission that arguments such as those summarised in points (1) and (2) are valid.

I would also commend Plantinga’s “An Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism” for a reasoned and calm consideration of the broad subject.

30

No thanks. I won’t lie by pretending that they are valid. I also won’t pretend that your claim of neutrality was convincing.

If you wish to pretend that The Theory of Evolution has not survived a century and a half of falsification testing, that is certainly your right. Nevertheless, don’t expect the science academy to find your arguments convincing. If you think that you’ve found a serious flaw in the theory that the academy has overlooked, by all means publish it in a peer-reviewed journal and show by means of compelling evidence that we are all wrong and that you have made an important discovery.

That’s how science works.

However, denying the science because you don’t understand it and don’t like its implications is not the same thing as peer-reviewed debunking of an established scientific theory. Einstein succeeded in demonstrating that Newton’s physics was incomplete. That’s why his name has been a synonym for genius to this day. So, the bar set for you is a high one but if you think that you too have evidence and analysis which debunks a well established scientific theory, The Theory of Evolution, by all means publish it and your ideas will succeed or fail on their own merits. Yet keep in mind that denying it on the basis of lame arguments which were addressed long ago won’t impress anyone.

" …however I am fascinated by the obvious inability for ardent chaps to jump at the chance to provide a solid scientific defence of the most treasured aspects of Darwin’s theory,… "

When you use only slightly veiled insults (e.g. “obvious inability”) to demand that someone provide tedious remedial tutoring on basic science that you’ve already chosen to ignore, I have no reason to donate my time. (I retired from the classroom. Tutoring an unwilling student is not my job. It is a futile exercise.)

The Theory of Evolution doesn’t need my defense, just as the Germ Theory of Disease and the Theory of Photosynthesis do not. And the recycling of ancient lame complaints about evolution theory is boring, especially when you can find such repetitious classics addressed on countless FAQs online. (For such old complaints, you can even get the answers at TalkOrigins.org, which hasn’t been significantly updated in years. Of course, Biologos has lots of FAQ pages as well.) Being “neutral” on any of the aforementioned theories means that you either haven’t yet spent time learning about the evidence which undergirds them or you’ve rejected the evidence outright for ideological reasons. Your choice of words (including the insults) tells me that the feigned neutrality is just posturing. And that just doesn’t interest me, especially when it doesn’t address the title of this thread.

31

@Professor_Tertius

You are entitled to your opinion, but who is insulting who in this exchange?! A fascinating account of how you chaps have behaved over many years can be found in: Revue d’histoire des sciences, T. 61, No. 2 (juillet-décembre 2008), pp. 367-397, Orthogenesis versus Darwinism : The Russian case" by Popov. Why not calm down and respond to that paper (since you feel that you can regard, among others, Wagner, “The Role of Randomness in Darwinian Evolution,” Philosophy of Science, Vol. 79, No. 1 (January 2012), pp. 95-119, as ignorant and lame, but who btw is rather prominent in his field).

32

prof tertius. you said:

"the very same phylogenetic trees which had been published for many years turned out to be confirmed at the molecular level as well! "-

not realy. there is a lot of contradictions findings in the molelcular level:

http://www.nature.com/news/phylogeny-rewriting-evolution-1.10885

" This family tree is backed up by reams of genomic and morphological data, and is well accepted by the palaeontological community. Yet, says Peterson, the tree is all wrong."

“I’ve looked at thousands of microRNA genes, and I can’t find a single example that would support the traditional tree,” he says. The technique “just changes everything about our understanding of mammal evolution”.

and:

so according to your claim - the evolution is now falsified?

secondly- what will disprove the theory in the fossil field?

33

@dcscccc, I will be glad to answer your questions…but first I have to express my surprise: Do you understand that the article tells of how Kevin Peterson (whom you are citing) believes his research on microRNA genes [i.e., molecular data] provides an even better set of relationships (a “tangled tree thicket” as it has been called) which confirms The Theory of Evolution? Do you accept all of his research or just a few convenient parts which you hope to use to deny evolution?

If you are going to accept his statements about the evolutionary relationships which are supported by his study of microRNA genes, you are confirming The Theory of Evolution. I said that the molecular data has been an amazing confirmation of The Theory of Evolution and Peterson’s molecular data agrees with that, right? That’s what your cited article says.

So what I want to know from you is this: Are you saying that we should consider that Peterson’s molecular data is indeed a confirmation of The Theory of Evolution (just as he is saying) OR are you just cherry-picking ONLY the aspects of his work which you think helps your case?

I would also ask you if you really thought such a lame and overused argument that so many denialists pick up at EvolutionNews or a similar propaganda site was going to stump anybody here?

I’m very busy this week but I will try to check in as I can. I’m quite eager to hear your answer. After all, whenever someone cites research which so clearly confirms The Theory of Evolution, selective gymnastics will follow. Do you understand that if Kevin Peterson’s conclusions are:

  1. correct, then he has verified The Theory of Evolution with even more molecular data (from microRNA genes) and…

  2. if they are incorrect, the traditional DNA data continues to support The Theory of Evolution as it always has?

Do you understand that?

EvolutionNews always try to play it both ways but because they don’t allow comments, their readers don’t realize the problem until they repost the argument on some discussion forum.

I’ve already written that I’m retired and don’t enjoy tedious tutoring of basic science—but I’m willing to make an exception in this case and address this topic more fully…but only if you first answer my questions. Is his research valid or invalid…or just the aspects you like are valid? How did you determine your answer?

As a precursor to my answer, I will also point out that I believe that God is not a deceptive creator. His creation is not filled with evidence meant to confuse or trick us, even though I remember some ministers in the 1950’s and 1960’s saying exactly that. (“God put dinosaur bones in the ground to test the faith of His people and to confuse the evil atheist scientists.” At least those who were saying that back then understood that evidence within God’s creation pointed to many millions of years and evolutionary processes. They didn’t try to deny the evidence. They believed we should pass an alleged test from God by ignoring the evidence and accepting their particular interpretation of Genesis 1.)

I trust what creation tells us about the past and the story of life on earth because God is the author of the universe and we can rely on the answers God gave us. They are all around us. I’ll say it again: I believe the answers God gives us, both in the scriptures and in his creation, because he authored both. And if ever the two appear to be in conflict, I know it is because human fallibility has misunderstood one or the other or both. I praise God that I no longer have to be frustrated with the many conflicts I tried to live with when I was a Young Earth Creationist who denied the amazing evolutionary processes God created.

34

@GJDS, do you seriously think it is my job to go read 30 pages from a French journal and then 24 pages of philosophy and then report back to explain them to you? (By the way, if you are going to give assignments, at least provide complete citations. That’s one of the hazards with blindly copy-and-pasting from denialist websites. [Did you get it from EvolutionNews.org? Casey does like to cite those guys.] By the way, the name is Igor Popov. How about telling readers his qualifications and why you are citing him? Also, “Wagner” is Andreas Wagner, if I recall. You see, I don’t have a very good memory at this stage of life but after hearing the same denialist tunes again and again one learns the repetitive lyrics without even trying.)

In any case, this thread is about whether evolutionary theory provides any scientific benefit. With entire industries relying on it, the answer is yes. If you believe your journal articles are helpfully relevant, why not read them yourself and then post summaries here explaining why you think they are important despite their qualifications?

In any case, God is not deterred or baffled by “randomness”–and we see it operating in all sorts of contexts in creation–so if you consider it some sort of obstacle or barrier to the evolutionary processes God created, why not explain why instead of these copy-and-paste reading assignments?

35

@Professor_Tertius

I have given examples and comments to show that the (grand) theory of Darwinian evolution is not what its proponents claim it is - I have also said that this should cause us to pause before modifying Christian theology based on such an exaggerated view based on a limited paradigm found in biology. You and others have taken these odd exchanges to very odd areas and I do not wish to go there. The many citations I provided have shown the limitations and inadequacies of Darwinism wrt theology. I suggest you either become vaguely acquainted with the points I made, or simply do not indulge in your odd rhetoric. Btw if tomorrow you and others (as you gather your many Noble Prizes) were to provide the (mythical) proof of Darwinism you proclaim so loudly, I still would not see a single significant change to Orthodox Theology. Your manners are sadly wanting - no one (and most certainly not me) would seek you to explain anything.

36

I don’t know of any proponents of “the (grand) theory of Darwinian evolution” because I have never heard the term. Sorry. It is entirely new to me.

Being always interested in learning something new, I Googled “the grand theory of Darwinian evolution” and found a total of two hits. (Yes. That’s a “2”.) So I clicked on the option which shows even duplicate/redundant entries. That gave me a total of three.

That suggests to me that I’m not alone in being unfamiliar with the term.

I only know of The Theory of Evolution, the theory from the biological sciences which explains changes in allele frequencies in populations over time.

Perhaps you are contrasting the Theory of Evolution as first explained by Charles Darwin in On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life with all that science has learned in expanding Darwin’s theory, especially Mendelian genetics. The other possibility which comes to mind is Kent Hovind’s “every kind of evolution theory” where he defines no less than six kinds of evolution–but I doubt that anyone will find his list in any science textbook at a major university.

Of course, there are scientific terms involving the word “evolution” in other senses, such as chemical evolution, which can refer to abiogenesis or even the nucleosynthesis in stars. Nevertheless, those are not scientific “evolution theories” per se. And despite the criticisms of some, scientists are still investigating abiogenesis and no compelling theory of abiogenesis has won consensus. (Nevertheless, unless someone thinks that biological life has always existed, abiogenesis must have happened at some point in the past or we wouldn’t be here! Of course, both the Bible and Science agree on abiogenesis** so the unknown is the explanation of how non-living ingredients produced the first biological life.)

** FOOTNOTE: For those who have not stopped to consider how often abiogenesis (biological life from non-living ingredients) appears in the Bible, I usually start with Genesis 1:24:
“And God said, ‘Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.’ And it was so.”
Yes, it couldn’t be much clearer than that. God created a universe where the laws of physics produces as God willed. As the text says, the ERETZ (land) produced living things. Life from non-living ingredients. Abiogenesis. We see it again in Genesis 2:7. HAADAM was formed from “the dust of the ground”. The chemical elements of the earth’s crust are non-living ingredients but God created a universe when the non-living molecules all around us can combine to produce incredibly complex living things.

Mythical? Your claims of “neutrality” are wearing thin.

The fact you want “proof of Darwinism” tells me that you are demanding something no scientific theory provides. (An observer might say that asking for proof indicates that you are unaware of how science works. I doubt that that is the case. Denialism tends to be selectively rational.) If you want proofs you will have to take up mathematics. No scientific theory has every been “proved” or published as a proof. Scientific theories are based upon compelling evidence.

Seeing how you just assigned me 50+ pages of journal articles, I suppose that I could assign you a link to the University of California at Berkeley site where the evidence and arguments for The Theory of Evolution are explained. Yet, I doubt that you would read them. I think your demand is rhetorical pretense, not a request for tutoring. You know and I know that your claim that you were neutral on The Theory of Evolution doesn’t harmonize with your last post.

Clearly, The Theory of Evolution has survived over a century and a half of falsification attempts while amassing more and more huge piles of evidence outlined under a growing list of types of arguments. Moreover, no one has yet published anything to undermine or even cast doubt on The Theory of Evolution. (If they had truly undermined it, they would be just as famous as Einstein when he explained the incompleteness of Newton’s physics. The academy loves and rewards anyone who can show how a scientific theory is in error.)

So the issue is not in waiting for someone here to reproduce what appears in countless textbooks and peer-reviewed journals. You have simply decided to deny all of it. So what would be the point and purpose in our tutoring you again in what you’ve already rejected?

I’ve appreciated Dr. David Levin’s response on the Amazon Book Reviews when someone demands “proof” of The Theory of Evolution from him and then declares the theory absurd. (By the way, he teaches evolutionary biology to medical students at Boston University because today’s doctors need to understand The Theory of Evolution to do their jobs effectively. This is becoming part of the curriculum at more and more medical schools.) Dr. Levin bluntly but truthfully tells denialists on such forums, “Sorry. Your opinion simply doesn’t matter to science. The academy, composed of those with relevant training and knowledge in the relevant fields, determines what is and isn’t compelling evidence and analysis.” So the quality and quantity of debate on a public forum concerning any particular scientific theory won’t change the fact that the evidence for The Theory of Evolution is overwhelming. As so many scholars have described it: It is a theory among the most overwhelmingly attested in all of science. So whether you or I think it good or bad is irrelevant to its continued successes in explaining the diversity of life on earth.

That said, if you are genuinely baffled by evolutionary processes and sincerely want help in understanding the overwhelming evidence and arguments which have made the theory stronger and stronger as more data comes in (e.g., genome mapping was yet another slam-dunk for The Theory of Evolution), I can give you some URLs for the best tutorials. Furthermore, there are lots of excellent resources on this Biologos website. I’m sure those resources and their diagrams/illustrations will be much more interesting than anything I could draft on this limited platform in a little text box. (After all, you’ve already made very clear that you reject everything I’ve explained to you. So I’m happy to send you to experts and their carefully edited tutorials. Sorry, I don’t think any of the authors have the “Noble [sic] Prizes” you wanted.)

However, to end for the evening on an harmonious note, you wrote:

I agree! I’m a born-again, Bible-believing evangelical Christ-follower and leaving behind my devotion to the “creation science” type of Young Earth Creationism and affirming God’s amazing evolutionary processes did not require “a single significant change to Orthodox Theology.” I’m glad to hear that you understand that. Christ-followers need not fear The Theory of Evolution as somehow endangering their faith in the scripture nor think it will overturn their orthodoxy. (In truth, people only have their cherished traditions to lose, which can be difficult but worth the effort.) A lot of people struggle with that fear of changes in their theology so I"m glad to hear that you have already overcome that potential hurdle.

On a final brief note, I will provide this one example of an evolutionary algorithm applied to another field. I’ve written extensively on the use of such simulations to help students understand how non-intelligent, very simple algorithms can produce very complex solutions:

http://rednuht.org/genetic_cars_2/

Even after I understood and affirmed The Theory of Evolution, my intuitive senses still struggled to think that such simple evolutionary processes could over time lead to such complex structures. Fortunately, it was my research involving evolutionary algorithms in non-biological applications where my intuition got an overhaul and I finally “got it” in terms of seeing how The Theory of Evolution really fell into place for me. The link above involves a very simple simulation but there are many others online. In fact, the AVIDA project is also worth reading about, where such algorithms were investigated intensively and “played out” in many new ways. These kinds of tools gave me a much greater appreciation of God’s wisdom and power in building the biosphere by means of evolutionary processes.

Truly the ways of God are wonders to behold. No other phenomena in all of science have expanded my view of God more than the evolutionary processes which diversified life on earth. Yes, working through the science can be very challenging but it is worth every minute of it. The Theory of Evolution absolutely revitalized my understanding of God’s ways and magnified my desire to worship him as Creator of all. Yet most of all it brought a harmony of understanding the Bible and Creation that I never had as a Young Earth Creationist, when I was constantly dealing with contradictions in the evidence and struggling to resolve them. That harmony and peace is something I wish for all Christ-followers.

Fortunately, today’s inquirers have so many more resources available to them, including Biologos. I was basically on my own in figuring out the many flaws in “creation science” and all I had was a relatively sparse and not at all helpful ARPANET (because the full-fledged Internet was still just a hazy dream.)

Some of my exegesis and Biblical linguistics articles appear on my Facebook page but the newer material is at the Bible.and.Science.Forum blog at https://bibleandscienceforum.wordpress.com/

37

@Professor_Tertius

From your latest remarks I have formed the impression that the theory of evolution has played a central role to you and thus has been of far greater importance to you then I would have imagined. I was clear and genuine when I remarked that in my career as a research scientist, I simply did not have any reason to turn to Darwinian theory (or whatever term you wish to use - the grand theory of evolution is my phrase) and found claims such as those by Dawkins annoying. Your remarks explain why you seem to display such ardour for evolution - however I think we are at cross purposes in these exchanges. To summarise, I regard evolution as commonly discussed a theory biologists have used, and not relevant to other fields, while I form the impression you have started from a YEC view (one that truly puzzles me more then theistic evolution (TE)) and then changed to TE.

I cannot pretend to understand the experience of profound changes in one’s outlook, especially if these are important to one’s faith. So in that spirit I would prefer for us to accept that we put a different emphasis on evolution (I as a scientist with an interest in the physical sciences, you perhaps not a scientist but regarding evolution important to your outlook).

I am glad to hear you have found harmony between the teachings of the Christian faith and the sciences - that has been a theme I have supported in virtually all significant posts on this site. I have taken the view that a general understanding of the principle tenets of the sciences (often termed fine tuning and similar phrases) may enable us to achieve such harmony, whereas evolution has been embroiled in so much controversy that it tends to destroy harmony - however I express my opinion in the hope it may be useful to someone.

I wish you well.

38

prof tertius. you said the opposite of what peterson said. here it again:

“I’ve looked at thousands of microRNA genes, and I can’t find a single example that would support the traditional tree "-

so its actually a contradiction to the known tree. the tree has been changed. in other words: evolution predict tree a (base on genomic and morphological data, and is well accepted by the palaeontological community), and then we find a tree b. so how it make the evolution stronger?

after that you actually admit that the evolution cant be falsified, by saying that even if peterson is wrong the evolution dont have any problem.

so i will ask again: what evidence will disprove the claim of commondescent?

39

Face-palm. @dcscccc, please try to focus. I’m going to try to one more time to do what I often did in my lectures: teach Socratically. But it only works if you try to focus and answer my questions. I will address the specifics you are dancing silly about–but first I want you to think in a straight line. Be patient. We will get there.

  1. Where did you first hear about Kevin Peterson’s research?

  2. The news item you cited is dated from June, 2012. Have you investigated to see if you could find anything about Peterson’s “discovery” in a peer-reviewed paper?

(After all, three years have gone by. If Peterson’s claims are valid, he would have published them. Has he?)

  1. Science does not “rewrite the textbooks” based on one news item. Have you ever noticed how often science journalists say “This discovery changes everything we thought we knew!” Has it?
    ===> Is The Theory of Evolution no longer supported by phylogenetic trees being confirmed by the molecular data?

  2. You posted the article in the first place because you think it undermines TOE because you think it upends phylogenetic trees and failed to confirm them, right? Is that what the article actually says?

  3. Has Peterson’s work provided additional data confirming The Theory of Evolution or does his data undermine the theory?

  4. Does the article indicate that Peterson has abandoned The Theory of Evolution? Should he?

  5. Do you think biology textbooks on evolution needs to be rewritten based on Peterson’s work? If so, why? How would you rewrite them? (That is, what would you change.)

  6. Have you seen any headlines in the three years since the news item announcing that a major foundation for The Theory of Evolution, phylogenetic trees, has been debunked? [No. Silly headlines at creationist websites don’t count.]

[I’m starting with the broader questions and working down. Yes, I will address microRNA genes and the phylogenetic trees even though you are probably going to continue dodging my questions.]

40

@dcscccc, does it really seem likely to you, with negligible background and knowledge of the science involved, that you have discovered (with the help of creationist websites) major flaws in one of the most tested and confirmed theories in all of science?

Sure. It’s fun to imagine that you have a special and superior insight into complex topics which Ph.D. scientists have failed to understand. I know the feeling well because I was once a “creation science” speaker/debater. It was exhilarating. It appealed to my pride. As a Christ-follower, I truly believed that my knowledge of the scriptures and personal acquaintance with the Creator brought me special insights. I even quoted to myself the scripture: “If any one lacks wisdom, let him ask of God…” and I wrote these passages on my notebook cover:

However when the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth. John 16:13

But the Comforter, who is the Holy Spirit and whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things. John 14:26

I saw the “all” in “all truth” and “all things”, and thereby convinced myself that “all” of that truth included a superior understanding of paleontology, geology, physics, and biology. (After all, I was a “child of the King”, the Creator of the Universe, and it just made good sense that I would have insight superior to those who didn’t know the God of the Bible.) Plus, my heroes in the “creation science” movement were all “men of God” and their doctrinal beliefs agreed with mine, so I thought it impossible to believe that such devout men could possibly be false teachers, hadn’t conscientiously and honestly checked their misleading quotations, and weren’t careful about their misrepresentations of science, not to mention their misuse of science terminology. After all, I was a respected university professor and students paid a lot of money to learn from me. When I lectured, people wrote it down and studied it. I rationalized that my qualifications in my own field of science proved that I knew how to investigate and understand science in general, especially when I spent so many hours laboring over the writings of my “creation science” colleagues.

I trusted my heroes. I was wrong to do that. (I was young and gullible.) Among other things, I failed to consider their financial motivations for ignoring the scientific evidence and cherry-picking their “science”. When I started checking out the data (including the quote-mines and the Hebrew scriptures) for myself, I started feeling nauseous. Literally.

It’s not an easy trek. But it is worth the effort.