If God can do whatever he wants then why don’t we see clear and numerous violations of the predicted phylogeny? Why would God be limited to what evolution would produce?
Also, if creationists can’t explain why we see one vestigial organ but not another then they don’t have an explanation for the observed pattern. “God can do whatever he wants” predicts no specific pattern, especially not the one that we observe.
I would argue that it isn’t an explanation, coherent or otherwise.
Because that’s not what he wants. Obviously. Come on, this isn’t complicated.
Your arguments are all about this god and what you think he should/could/would do. Don’t you think that’s silly? I sure do.
Since it predicts no specific pattern, it can’t ever be wrong. Vacuous, sure, but incoherent? Nope.
Oh, I agree, but then we have to haggle about the meaning of ‘explanation.’ Years ago as a Christian I made it a central theme of my writing and speaking to emphasize explanation, and to explain what I meant by ‘explanation.’ Common descent has immense explanatory power and there is no competing explanation. (‘Design’ is similarly not an explanation in my view/use of the term.) When my imaginary conversation partner says “God makes bees fly,” he’s not providing an explanation in the same sense that an expert in biomechanics would. This is separate from issues of coherence, and again, once you have an omnipotent actor in the room, especially if you don’t know what she really wants, then your conversation is perpetually in danger of becoming preposterous.
That is entirely ad hoc. If your explanation can explain any possible data set then it isn’t an explanation. A good explanation can tell us why we see one thing but not another, and that is where the creationist explanation fails.
Well of course it’s ad hoc, and of course it’s a crap explanation. It’s also fully coherent, utterly unassailable on any evidentiary basis, and thoroughly inevitable in a “discussion” about the behaviors and proclivities of an omnipotent being.
You’re rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The YEC argument library includes the unknowable whims of an omnipotent being who has already nullified any demand for evidence or consistency. The YEC can’t provide a competing explanation to rival common descent, but they don’t need one. Come on, we were just discussing the fact that a creationist with a PhD has openly disavowed science by asserting that Christians should trust “intuition” in the face of evidence that contradicts it. That’s insane, like truly totally insane. But these guys are on the Titanic, convinced of its unsinkability based entirely on its claim to be unsinkable. You can call “god likes it that way” vacuous, bizarre, cuckoo, anything you want. But its coherence is guaranteed as long as sane people can say “there’s an omnipotent god acting here.”
As you probably know, Steve, several of us around here have argued quite vehemently against his stance.
This striking and interesting conversation reminds me why the argument from design cannot win the scientifiically informed mind.
Finally, I am reminded once again of the importance of having a faith that is anchored to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Not everyone agrees with the historicity of the event, I know; but it is the one light that shone through the fog of my agnosticism in a very real way. That’s where I stand.
Thanks for being here with us, @sfmatheson and @T_aquaticus. Your contributions are valuable.
Chris
It also highlights how an argument can convince a non-scientist but not convince a scientist. This in no way indicates that the non-scientists are unintelligent or lazy thinkers, its just that they don’t think like scientists. I would think the same thing would apply to the fields of engineering, computer programming, or photography where experts have a much better idea of what works than those who are not in the field. These facts stress once again how gracious and even tempered dialog are needed between scientists and the general public, and why Biologos is a great resource for the Christian community.
I think when we ask “Why didn’t God do…” or “Why would God use…instead of…” is not a good thing to ask.
This is Divine psychology and we can’t ever know what God thinks unless he reveals it to us.
I would say yes and no. I think there is general agreement that God would not create the Earth with fossils already in the ground. The God of Judeo-Christian tradition is not seen as a deity who tries to deceive people. With that in mind, I think it would also be fair to say that if God created each created kind separately that he would not go through an immense amount of extra effort to make it look like these species evolved when they did not actually evolve. There is simply no functional or biological reason why we should see the pattern of DNA divergence that we do other than evolution, so I would think that God would not try to deceive us in directly creating those genomes by artificially putting the evidence for evolution in those genomes. This would also apply to including vestigial organs that follow the same evolutionary pattern of common descent. Why give humans a muscle for lifting a tail that we don’t have, or giving toenails to manatees?
That is a good point.
I had no idea manatees had toenails 
An interesting way (to me) to analyze a Christian denomination is by they claim God can’t do. For example, God can regenerate a person who doesn’t “believe in” Jesus. God can’t create a universe in which existing life forms can evolve in the Darwinian sense.
Now, see, @Reggie_O_Donoghue, you missed this part of his prior postings… and this was his point:
Even if a Creationist cannot come up with a good explanation for vestigial organs, do you think a Creationist would agree with that opinion?
@sfmatheson is drawing a parallel to the infinitely defensible story of Noah and the Flood.
How could anyone in that period build a ship that big? God gave them the inspired knowledge of just how to do that…
But there is no way a wooden ship, using peg technology could make a ship that would with stand a storm of windage exceeding 4 mph (or whatever). God gave Noah access to miraculously strong wood…
… and so on and so on and so on.
Now, for my money, there is a certain curiosity factor in wondering just how a Creationist explains a human with a fully functioning tail. And so you probably expected a Creationist to get in line and tell you about it.
But @sfmatheson was attempting to provide the caveat emptor, that you could end up going down a rabbit hole, trying to dispute with the Creationist why his refutation doesn’t seem so convincing.
It’s been my experience that if someone believes in a Global Flood… there really isn’t anything else they can’t explain to themselves as acceptable.
The Flood Story is the most grievous of all erroneous stories in the Old Testament… even more so than a 6 day creation. Which is why I find it endlessly fascinating to find an Old Earther who doesn’t believe in a global flood - - but denies common descent. The only thing more fascinating is an Old Earther who does believe in a Global Flood… because he’s probably not really an Old Earther.
But @Totti, what the heck is that picture that @T_aquaticus posted? I can’t make it out at all…
That isn’t a toe nail is it?
I know this isn’t going to seem to be relevant…
But do you believe there was a global flood? Judging from your question about vestigial organs, I would expect that you are skeptical about a global flood. Do I have that right?
Perhaps you believe the story of Noah’s ark is an exaggeration of a regional flood.
But why would you doubt a global flood, and yet defend to your last ounce of precious God-fearing blood that the Bible couldn’t possibly be describing a Firm Firmament … and that it must have some other interpretation?
I’m not trolling here… I’m trying to figure out why you (or anyone really) could be skeptical about things I would never dream of being skeptical about, and accept other things as being completely true (or completely misunderstood, etc.).
Because I’m trying to be objective.
What a fantastic and encouraging story. All that effort put into careful, measured explanation of the scientific evidence bore fruit! Thanks for sharing. I hope @BradKramer’s reading this for the testimonials collection.
The grey structure is the front fin and the white blobs are toe nails.
@Wookin_Panub - still hoping you’ll find time to address this question. I’m genuinely curious as to what you think.
Your replies, are my opinion, silly and are indeed trolling (my opinion). The original question, I believe, was intended this way:
Is there any coherent creationist explanation for vestigial organs?
with an implied: “Beyond the trivial answer that God just wanted to do that.”
AIG, with their legion of faults, would not answer “Because God just wanted to do that.” They try (and usually fail) to give an actual explanation.
Yes, everyone understands that some creationists will always answer “because God wanted to do that.” You are not adding the new insight that you seem to think.
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.
