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 Joshuaās. He said āTo be clear, this data is particularly problematic for any model that does not accept common descentā. That is not a religious claim.
6 Likes
Hello Dr. Hunter,
Okay, you said āIt is our modern day Epicureanism.ā 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 āevolutionā 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, Iām seeing better your thinking.
Sure, Iāll sign up for that. But ā¦
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 āevolutionā 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 wonāt hunt; nor will repeating your argument make it any stronger. Evolution, as a scientific theory, does not depend on āmetaphysicsā beyond the philosophical underpinnings of any scientific endeavour, including ones you have no theological issues with.
If evolution makes ālittle senseā, 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 onā¦ if you have a better explanation than common ancestry Iād 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 ātree of lifeā.
- 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 speculativeā¦
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 letās 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 positionāgreat. But it was hardly a āgross misrepresentation.ā In fact, it was merely taking your words at face value. You now explain you were referring strictly to āscientific models that we know of,ā and that āwhen doing science we are silent about God, and do not consider his influence,ā and that āI am only referring to KNOWN and SCIENTIFIC models,ā and that āScience cannot tell us anything about what God can or cannot do. Maybe He did, but that isnāt science.ā
Great, but that was hardly obvious.
I explained what was a fairly straightforward, obvious interpretation of what you said. You said, āNo, thatās not what I meantāhereās what I meant.ā Greatāconfusion clarified.
But then there is the protest. I should have known, and there must be some nefarious agenda at work. And isnāt that a pattern after all? No, actually it is not a pattern. Iām interested in open, reasoned dialog, not hyperbole, such as your āfear of scienceā claim above.
In fact, taking your words at face value was the only interpretation that made sense given that what you would call ānon scientificā 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 donāt work and that evolution fails scientifically. Clearly any claim by you that strictly āscientificā (again, your term) models which lack CD wonāt 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 āpatternā of misbehavior. If you are looking for a pattern, this is it. Iāve seen this movie before. It wasnāt pretty then and it isnāt pretty now. I, of course, forgive you for your innuendos about me.
Now, about your clarification. What you donāt seem to realize is that you havenāt escaped non biblical, metaphysical claimsāyouāve just morphed them. I think I now better appreciate the extent to which you have forfeited realism. Your demarcation criteria (āwhen doing science we are silent about God, and do not consider his influence ā¦ Maybe He did, but that isnāt scienceā) would not hold up under historical or philosophical scrutiny, let alone biblical. I donāt begrudge you your own philosophy of scienceālet a thousand flowers bloom. But I suggest a little charity when others donāt immediately follow your narrow train of thought. As it stands, your point (āthis data is particularly problematic for any model that does not accept common descentā), 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 youāre doing fine today. Earlier, you said to Ben Kirk:
I am sorry that your experience here is not one of Christian charity. Iām afraid Iām partly to blame for that, too. Thatās 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 youāre fighting is (at least partly) imaginary. When you try to tackle the whole evolutionary paradigm, youāre 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 āinvolvementā is a much softer description than conclusions being āreligiously motivatedā. 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. Letās 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 doesnāt 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
I think it does hunt.
All of the major predictions have failed. And furthermore ā¦
See, it hunts. Dennis you just made my point with these metaphysical / rhetorical questions. Those most beholden to metaphysics are least aware of it. Why do embryonic whales have four limbs and two nostrils? I donāt know, but I do know this type of argument has been used for centuries in a contrastive argument, saying it makes sense under evolution/CD but makes no sense under design/creationism.
Iām not saying this is not a powerful argument. It is. Nor am I saying it is not true. But it is metaphysical, and it drives the argument in spite of enormous empirical problems.
Thanks for your kind note Casper. The answer to your question is a long one, and Iāll try to get back to it later. But for starters, it really has nothing to do with reductionists, atheists, etc. This is where history can help and, in this case, most of it comes from your neck of the woods. For centuries, many ādevout,ā as you put it, Lutherans and Anglicans argued vigorously for a naturalistic origins narrative, for theological reasons. This is true today as well, but the history can provide a nice perspective.
[quote=āCornelius_Hunter, post:51, topic:10729ā]
Iām interested in open, reasoned dialog, not hyperboleā¦[/quote]
[quote=āCornelius_Hunter, post:51, topic:10729ā]* This, in a nutshell, is Epicureanism
- this new brand of Epicureanism
- Evolution is nothing more than our modern-day Epicureanism, and it is pathetic
- he is a modern-day Epicurean
- their Epicurean theory
- his fellow Epicurean
- Not only are Stringer and the evolutionists driven by religious sentiment
- The whole idea behind the evolution mythology
- Evolutionists must tell these lies
- Evolution isnāt about the scienceāit never was
- Evolutionists want so badly for evolution to be true they will pervert science to make their case
- These are ridiculous pseudo science lies
- It is complete gibberish[/quote]
You couldnāt make this stuff up.
1 Like
Oh my goodnessā¦ Sweeping generalizations much, Cornelius?
There are dozens of amazing cases where someone hypothesized an undiscovered connection between two speciesā¦ or an as-of-yet undiscovered kind of fossilā¦
ā¦ and Iām not even touching the medical field.
I donāt think youāve read nearly enough to be able to make the kind of statements you make without hesitation or qualification (or examples).
The more you post, the more you demonstrate your lack of depth in any of the multiple disciplines of Evolutionary Scienceā¦
1 Like
Cornelius, none of those are āmetaphysical questionsā - they are straightforward scientific questions. Do you have a scientific explanation for those observations apart from common ancestry or not?
Moreover, simply asserting that an entire field of well-supported science has had all of its āmajor predictionsā fail - but without providing a coherent argument - is denialism. Iām not sure productive dialogue is possible here.
5 Likes
Actually they are metaphysical questions. Let me explain. You asked: āWhy do embryonic whales have four limbs and two nostrils?ā This is classic evolutionary thinking. Rhetorical questions such as this run all through the literature. Iāll give just a few exemplary quotes from the literature:
There are, of course, many more examples where these came from. This is not a positivistic argument. In other words, there is no compelling explanation given for how whales or rhinoceroses could have arisen from chance events and natural lawābecause there is none.
The form of the argument is contrastive. This is well understood. The point is that there are no good alternative explanations. Whatever weaknesses there are in evolution, they pale in comparison to the alternative. Thatās why you ask me what my explanation is. This is all contrastive. It is a powerful argument, but truth claims about God are religious. For you to casually pass this off as not at all metaphysical is simply to be in denial of your own position.
The only way for you to defend your claim would be to, once again, say āI was of course referring to strictly scientific/naturalistic explanationsāI of course agree God can do anything.ā But that, of course, would defeat the entire point you were making. You intended no such thing. Evolutionists never did. You were asserting the veracity of evolution / common descent against against an IDer. As it stands, you are simply in denial of your own position. This is a great example of cognitive dissonance and internal contradiction.
No Dennis, Iām not the one āsimply assertingā things. I provided links to the falsified predictions. Fundamental predictions. So far all Iāve heard is that Iāve provided no evidence, or they donāt count, or some suchābare assertions. So itās really not me who is the one making bald assertions here. I can understand disagreement, but you are simply in denial here. Iām not the one āsimply assertingā things.
Hello Dr. Hunter,
Your audience here includes high-profile geneticists like Drs. Venema & Swamidass, but also interested, lowly peons with MAs in other fields like me. Whenever seemingly big-name folks like you all start debating, folks like me listen in. Weāre thinking, well gosh, generally I consider myself an evolutionary creationist, but maybe this new guy I havenāt seen before on BioLogos sees something I donāt! I should listen up and see what the fuss is about!
Point being, weāre willing to give you a good hearing. (I should add: I think aforementioned high-profile geneticists are similarly willing. But anyway.)
I have to say, as an interested observer, itās frustrating to read 58 comments several of which ask you for substantial discussions of these āenormous empirical problems,ā and yet you continue to dance around the issue and refuse to lay your cards on the table. If youāve got empirical, scientific problems with evolution, why not just discuss them openly? You might win some to your cause!
Otherwise, respectfully, this is sort of a big waste of time (unless, of course, you were aiming to convince everyone that you were bluffing your hand, which is sort of the impression that comes across).
4 Likes