Actually it is not incoherent. The claim that AS patterns are particularly problematic for creationism is a religious claim.
Gosh no, not sure how you got that.
ADDED:
Well I’m sorry for the confusion, though I must confess that I’m confused by your question. What you are perceiving as terseness in my answers, I am perceiving in terseness in your questions. Is it not obvious that “X is problematic for creationism” is a religious claim?
Now, you could say that Ken Ham claims ~X, and we observe X, therefore X is problematic for creationism, and this is not a religious claim. In that case, that would be understandable. But of course not only did Ken Ham never say any such thing, more importantly the claim was not particular to any tradition. It was a general claim, encompassing any kind of creationism. It wasn’t a comment on AIG, or whatever.
Keep in mind what the claim is. It is this: “this data is particularly problematic for any model that does not accept common descent.” [emphasis added] So in other words, the claim is: “God wouldn’t likely create X in a non CD way, period–I don’t care what Ken Ham says”. That is a religious claim.
Or if this helps you, the claim is this: “There is not likely a non-CD way that God would create X.” Or, “God likely would create X only via CD”. Again, this is a religious claim.
So I’m not sure what you are confused about. I could expand it if you like:
- Pseudo exons are observed in alternate spliced genes.
- God would not likely create pseudo exons (in a non common descent way such as creationism)
- Therefore pseudo exons are a problem for creationism.
Step 2 is a religious claim. Make sense?
Here is another way to think of it: Imagine that you believed the claim. That is, imagine that you believed that the data is particularly problematic for any model that does not accept common descent. Then of course you would believe in common descent, in spite of all the empirical problems. The metaphysics forces your hand.
By the way, this type of reasoning is common historically. Often it entails claims about disutility, or inefficiency, of non aesthetic designs. And the claims are typically based on relatively new findings which obviously are not well understood yet and, yes, much more is later learned to change the premises of the argument. Junk DNA is not always junk. That is an aside, from relevant in this case.
Then please, explain yourself beyond one-sentence responses. I still don’t know why you’re claiming that Dr. Swamidass is making religious claims in his responses to you.
2 Likes
Not sure how you got the idea that I meant to represent the totality of Wright’s thought on this issue. If I was unclear about that, then my fault.
Well this isn’t about Dawkins, or capital letters, etc. I was making a fairly narrow point about evolutionary thought which, after researching for quite some time, was pleased to see Wright elucidate. I think you may have read more into my point than was there.
No sir. Especially if the problem is because of poor logic or lack of evidence.
Religious groups are free to produce erroneous narratives for all sorts of reasons having nothing to do with religion.
1 Like
I did not claim this.
I am an evolutionary creationist which is a type of creationist. And pseudo exons are not a problem in that model. Also, I grant that God can do whatever he wants, even create de novo beasts with pseudo-exons. Therefore, I did not in anyway say or think that “AS patterns are problematic for creationism.”
Rather, I said that AS patterns are problematic for the scientific models that we know of that do not include common descent.
No it does not, because I did not make or endorse that argument.
I am not arguing against creationism. I am a creationist. It would be silly for me to argue against creation. And that is not what is happening here.
Also, when doing science we are silent about God, and do not consider his influence. God can absolutely create things in a non-CD way. But we have no known scientific model for this. And in science this is all we consider: scientific models and there are no models that explain the data other than CD.
I think you know these distinctions. It should be pretty clear from my writing. I’m left wondering why you misrepresent me. There is some real incoherence to your position here, or a willful ignorance of other people’s points of view.
Of course this seems to be a pattern with you…
5 Likes
It is also worth pointing out the gross misrepresentation of my position here.
That is not and never has been my claim.
I have been very careful to qualify the type of models I am talking about. I am only referring to KNOWN and SCIENTIFIC models. There are no known scientific models that explain the data better than common descent. I have also granted that maybe a non-CD exists out there that works. We do not know it though, and that is not science works. We need to know it and see it work better than CD on the data.
You clearly do not have this non-CD model, or you would have presented it by now.
Moreover, I never said God did not create in a non-CD way. He certain can and could have created things however he liked. Science cannot tell us anything about what God can or cannot do. Maybe He did, but that isn’t science.
5 Likes
Hello Dr. Swamidass,
The three quotes are all from the text of Surprised by Scripture.
1 Like
No. But in any case those are your words, not Joshua’s. He said “To be clear, this data is particularly problematic for any model that does not accept common descent”. That is not a religious claim.
6 Likes
Hello Dr. Hunter,
Okay, you said “It is our modern day Epicureanism.” The only antecedent for the pronoun is in the first sentence of your paragraph:
Evolution, as the word is universally understood by everyone, is a scientific theory about common descent in the realm of biology. From the Oxford dictionary:
Evolution
NOUN
- the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
Consequently, your language led me to believe that you were launching a sharp attack against the biological theory of evolution by equating it with Epicureanism, a philosophy which any Christian would find repugnant.
Are you now clarifying that your use of the word “evolution” was not a reference to the theory in the discipline of biology, but to a metaphysical commitment to Epicureanism? And thus it is possible for a Christian to faithfully serve God and proclaim the gospel, while espousing the biological theory of evolution?
If so, it would be appropriate, I think, for you to accept responsibility for making an ambiguous statement, rather saying that I misread you. 
Perplexedly yours,
Chris Falter
1 Like
OK, good, I’m seeing better your thinking.
Sure, I’ll sign up for that. But …
First, Epicureanism is an important historical component and example of evolutionary thinking, but the latter is quite a bit more complex than (or a super set of, if you like) the former. So we should avoid any kind of equating of the two.
Second, it is very difficult to separate the basic theory of a naturalistic origins which we refer to as “evolution” and its historical and underlying thought, justification, mandate, etc. Certainly leading advocates of evolution, who write and speak on the subject, and so forth, do not separate these. Of course this is not mysterious since from before Darwin, to Darwin, and after Darwin up to today, the metaphysics are an essential driver for the theory. Without the metaphysics you are left with a theory that makes little sense on the science.
Sorry Cornelius, that dog won’t hunt; nor will repeating your argument make it any stronger. Evolution, as a scientific theory, does not depend on “metaphysics” beyond the philosophical underpinnings of any scientific endeavour, including ones you have no theological issues with.
If evolution makes “little sense”, then why does it have the explanatory and predictive power that it does? What is your superior alternative hypothesis? (We keep asking you for one, and you do not provide one).
Why are identical mutations in unitary pseudogenes found in nested hierarchies in primates in the same pattern predicted by shared synteny and overall DNA identity values? Why do placental mammals have vitellogenin pseudogenes? Why do embryonic whales have four limbs and two nostrils? Why do humans, Neanderthals and Denisovans have the same fused chromosome 2? And so on… if you have a better explanation than common ancestry I’d love to hear it.
7 Likes
It is very easy to separate the two. It takes great effort to connect them, and many seem devoted to that effort. We separate them here at BioLogos. And BioLogos (along with Collins) is among the leading advocates of evolution. So it is certainly separable. That is our mission. Join us in that effort.
3 Likes
It is appropriate to consider competing models in science and I am glad you acknowledge this. One (perhaps major) objection to models such as CD is as follows (I will try to be as clear as I can be):
- the theory of evolution has as its fundamental claim that life evolved from simpler forms (needing the LUCA), and this has been taught as the “tree of life”.
- models have been proposed to show transitions from some species to many others over time, using data such as fossils and more recently genetic data - predictions have been made of common ancestor(s), but when anyone asks for verification of such common ancestor, the response is they cannot produce such a species. This, within modelling as I understand the science, is a major weakness in a model.
- common descent of human beings within point 1) is presented as branch of the tree and yet presented as a proven fact - this does not makes sense, since the tree is the hypothesis, not a branch, and the tree is highly speculative…
I do not want to labour the point, and my position is that ToE is a subject for debate amongst biologists - I cannot accept talk of God doing this or that, or that we should label ourselves as evolutionary anything. We are Christians, and some of us seem to have attached great importance to ToE. Thus I find your discussion with Cornelius interesting, but I feel I should say to both parties, do not get the Christian faith mixed up with debates on biology.
@GJDS this is not a good representation of how biologists think about CD or how it functions in biology. Most simply, the common descent of man from a common ancestor with apes is a hypothesis that has been validated by fossil and genetic data. There were alternate models considered (and considered even to this day) that are refining the details. A key thing is predictivity of patterns in the data. But you are a regular here, so let’s pick this up later when things die down with Cornelius. It will be easier to get into the details of this then.
1 Like
A few replies:
-
Evolution does not require a LUCA - it could well have turned out that present surviving lineages arose separately.
-
Why would the fact that ancestral species are not found in the present day be a problem for evolution? Nothing about the theory predicts that ancestral populations would persist unchanged to the present day.
-
The branch of the tree we are on is not at all speculative. We are most closely related to chimpanzees, and then to gorillas, and then to orang-utans, among living species. The hominin tree might be a bit fuzzy in places, but no one doubts that we are more closely related to hominins than to chimps. We even have DNA evidence for extinct hominin relatives - Neanderthals and Denisovans.
3 Likes
My comment is on the way models are generally verified within the natural sciences. If evolutionary biologists use a different criteria than they should point it out - I think most scientists would be skeptical of such models.
Me thinkest thou doth protest too much. You have clarified your position–great. But it was hardly a “gross misrepresentation.” In fact, it was merely taking your words at face value. You now explain you were referring strictly to “scientific models that we know of,” and that “when doing science we are silent about God, and do not consider his influence,” and that “I am only referring to KNOWN and SCIENTIFIC models,” and that “Science cannot tell us anything about what God can or cannot do. Maybe He did, but that isn’t science.”
Great, but that was hardly obvious.
I explained what was a fairly straightforward, obvious interpretation of what you said. You said, “No, that’s not what I meant–here’s what I meant.” Great–confusion clarified.
But then there is the protest. I should have known, and there must be some nefarious agenda at work. And isn’t that a pattern after all? No, actually it is not a pattern. I’m interested in open, reasoned dialog, not hyperbole, such as your “fear of science” claim above.
In fact, taking your words at face value was the only interpretation that made sense given that what you would call “non scientific” models is what this forum is all about. This forum is a rather open-ended discussion of the interaction of God and creation, science and religion, etc. There are all kinds of comments and questions here about what God did when, etc. It is hardly clear that you are suddenly playing by your own set of narrow rules, not generally observed.
Furthermore, you were, after all, responding to me, an IDer who had just explained that naturalistic explanations don’t work and that evolution fails scientifically. Clearly any claim by you that strictly “scientific” (again, your term) models which lack CD won’t work; would be irrelevant and not contribute to the dialog.
To summarize, there would be no reason for me to expect you to be implicitly using such a narrow, unspoken, limitation on an otherwise obvious face value. It is not suggested by this forum, nor the discussion we were having, and in fact would be a non sequiter.
And then you come down on me with harsh criticism for misrepresenting you, and suggestion a “pattern” of misbehavior. If you are looking for a pattern, this is it. I’ve seen this movie before. It wasn’t pretty then and it isn’t pretty now. I, of course, forgive you for your innuendos about me.
Now, about your clarification. What you don’t seem to realize is that you haven’t escaped non biblical, metaphysical claims–you’ve just morphed them. I think I now better appreciate the extent to which you have forfeited realism. Your demarcation criteria (“when doing science we are silent about God, and do not consider his influence … Maybe He did, but that isn’t science”) would not hold up under historical or philosophical scrutiny, let alone biblical. I don’t begrudge you your own philosophy of science–let a thousand flowers bloom. But I suggest a little charity when others don’t immediately follow your narrow train of thought. As it stands, your point (“this data is particularly problematic for any model that does not accept common descent”), given the actual meaning you have now supplied, is irrelevant and does nothing to attenuate the scientific problems.
That is a constructive response, and I would be delighted to consider this seriously. But I see two problems: I do not see acknowledgement and engagement in (i) the scientific issues with naturalistic origins, and the (ii) role of metaphysics in naturalistic origins thinking.
I get it that there will be disagreement and not everything someone like me says is going to be gladly received. But what I am seeing is a complete lack of engagement. There is no contradictory evidence, or if there is, it is trivial. There is no metaphysics at work, or if there is, it is trivial, etc.
But I appreciate the thought and suggestion, and will keep it in mind.
Hi Cornelius, I hope you’re doing fine today. Earlier, you said to Ben Kirk:
I am sorry that your experience here is not one of Christian charity. I’m afraid I’m partly to blame for that, too. That’s where Screwtape wins points, unfortunately. It was not my intention to make you feel unwelcome here. My joke using that Dutch expression was not meant to come across as harsh. I also appreciated your sense of humor in your reply to it:
Your response of hitting the windmill back sure made me laugh. It actually reminded me of the story of Don Quixote. He was jousting at windmills because he erroneously thought they were evil. In a similar way, I think the enemy you’re fighting is (at least partly) imaginary. When you try to tackle the whole evolutionary paradigm, you’re tilting at windmills, so to speak.
You see, I would not say that there is no religion involved in science at all, because science is still done by people. We all have our worldview goggles. But “involvement” is a much softer description than conclusions being “religiously motivated”. The assertion that the paradigm of common descent is religiously motivated is not fair towards all the scientists of different stripes (including Christians) who work on it. Let’s consider the large number of Christian scientists working within that paradigm. Why would reductionistic naturalism or epicureanism (or anything like that) drive the agenda of these devoutly Christian people? That just doesn’t add up. There are many Christians who appreciate evolutionary theory as an adequate scientific framework, while they flat-out reject the anti-theistic ramblings of Dawkins and other reductionists.
Blessings,
Casper
4 Likes