Fascinating article! I love Carl Zimmer. Have read several of his books and many of his articles. Is this article true, in your opinion?
Seems like you are swallowing Dawkinâs definition of evolution whole, and forgetting about the scientific definition. What a shame. I do not trust Dawkins about very much at all, certainly not the philosophical implications of evolution.
The historical, consistent, and scientific definition of evolution is just common descent (CD). There is has been a great deal of debate over the last 150 years about the exact mechanism, and there is currently a âstrategic ambiguityâ in effect about if God could be part of that mechanism. Science makes no claims one way or the other on Godâs action here.
As explained by Eugenie Scott (a non-theist)âŚ
Because creationists explain natural phenomena by saying âGod performed a miracle,â we tell them that they are not doing science. This is easy to understand. The flip side, though, is that if science is limited by methodological materialism because of our inability to control an omnipotent powerâs interference in nature, both âGod did itâ and âGod didnât do itâ fail as scientific statements. Properly understood, the principle of methodological materialism requires neutrality towards God; we cannot say, wearing our scientist hats, whether God does or does not act.
Science and Religion, Methodology and Humanism | National Center for Science Education
Iâll point out that this is from the NCSE, the main political body that organized opposition to ID in the Dover Trial of 2005. NCSE is not a theistic evolutionist group, but an organization devoted to promoting the mainstream science understanding of evolution. To be clear, a God-neutral view of evolution is the dominant view in science right now. Any scientist that tries to argue otherwise is extending science much farther than it can go, and disputing the current consensus.
2 Likes
Here is a key and helpful figure with the caption. It is really interesting genomic work, showing a clear pattern in the data that entirely consistent with common descent. Of course, humans share a common ancestor with birds, and do not âevolve from birds.â
Figure 2. Major genomic events underlying the origin of feathers. The colored backbone of the tree is comprised of three tracks: CNEEs, non-keratin feather genes (n=126), and keratin genes (n=67). Rates of origination of these three genomic classes are indicated by the colors for each stem internode and track in the tree, with blue colors indicating low origination rates and red colors indicating high origination rates. Key events at the level of coding regions (genes) and regulatory elements are indicated. The colors of the silhouettes at right indicate the percent of the feather regulatory component present in the chicken genome inferred to have arisen in the ancestor of each indicated taxon. For example, the fish are inferred to possess about 28% of the CNEEs associated with feather genes in chicken, whereas 86% of the observed chicken CNEEs are inferred to have arisen by the ancestral archosaur, including non-avian dinosaurs.
Hi Steve, and welcome to the conversation! I am glad you have weighed in.
You have put a lot on the table here. I can only hope to begin to flesh things out for you:
You harness natural processes to purposeful ends, as does everyone. Indeed, our technological civilization has been built by our knowledge of, and ability to harness natural processes to our own ends. But whence the purpose, Steve? Left alone, natural processes themselves do not make intentional choices. They cannot make intentional choices. Gravity cannot âsteerâ events to an intended end. Purpose requires choice. Purpose is always the product of a mind. Moreover, when Steve uses natural processes to achieve a desired result, the activity of Steve - an intelligent agent - is often manifested in the physical result produced. For example, if you build a house or a bicycle, we can see clear evidence of the activity of an intelligent agent who had a purpose in mind. We can see that natural processes have been enlisted toward the goal that an intelligent agent had in mind. Thus, the activity of intelligent agency is clearly manifested in living organisms.
Concerning Miller, I think that even your larger context quote does nothing to bail him out. His phraseology that the âlucky historical contingenciesâ are not âincompatible with a divine willâ sheds light only on his belief in God. It does nothing to mitigate his statement about natural processes. Moreover, consider his textbooks. In the first four editions of the textbook âBiology,â which he co-authored, we read: âevolution is random and undirected.â In two editions of his textbook, âBiology: Discovering Life,â he goes even further, saying, âDarwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism.â
But perhaps you are right. Perhaps Millerâs belief is indeed an opposite one. But again, it is not opposite the one I ascribe to him. It is opposite the one he himself teaches. And indeed, this is the way the TOE has always been understood. And that, my friend, is a big problem. A problem that turns believers into atheists.
[quote=âpacificmaelstrom, post:408, topic:4944, full:trueâ]
I donât think intelligent design is the right place to dig trenches. Intelligent design is the same as creationism in that it assumes that God must interfere with the natural order in order to create. This in turn is an based on the assumption that the natural order is a universe made of physical objects which are somehow independent from God.
With all due respect, I would suggest that you research ID from those who are doing real work in the field, and not from its opponents. ID does not assume that God must interfere. ID theorizes that certain physical effects manifest evidence of intelligent agency. ID is employed in such diverse fields as archaeology, forensic science, and cryptography, to name but a few. To deny the evidence of intelligent agency in living organisms is to de facto promote the rediculous propositions that the most advanced integrated data processing system we have ever encountered and the most technologically advanced engineered systems we have ever encountered have come about in some manner other than intelligent agency.
Are you suggesting that God does not actively intervene in our lives? That He never intervenes or intervened? What do you do with the Resurrection? The miracles of Jesus?
I tell you the truth, the closer I walk with Him, the more I know just how much He actively intervenes in my life. He has miraculously cured two different medical conditions, one of which required periodic surgery in order for me to continue eating solid food. He answers prayers daily. He manipulates people and circumstances to bring about purposeful results as He pleases. He is a God Who is near, not one Who is far off.
âThe effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much. Elijah was a man, with a nature like ours and he prayed earnestly that it would not rain; and it did not rain on the land for three years and six months. He prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth produced its fruitâ
James 5: 16b-18
Of course I know that.
I imagine you do. Sorry how that came off. I wasnât trying to imply you were saying something different.
Hi Joe,
Happy Friday!
For the past 520-something posts or so, pretty much everyone in this thread has been disagreeing with your insistence that the theory of evolution must of necessity be âpurely naturalâ and ânon-teleological.â
We have tried to point out that the theory of evolution, like any scientific theory such as gravity, chemical bonding, and meteorology, properly takes no position on matters of faith and cannot prove or disprove a lack of purpose.
As you explained in your initial post, the insistence that the TOE is purely natural was drilled into you by zealous YEC advocates during your youth. Indeed, you portrayed this stance as a deeply embedded, important part of your identity. So I understand why you might be slow to move in a different direction.
At the same time, in your first post you seemed to be asking how the relationship between faith and science might have been more fruitfully presented to you and those like you.
So Iâm confused when, in response to various formulations of more constructive relationship between science and faith, you have insisted so adamantly on clinging to that âwarfareâ relationship that you learned at the knee of YEC leadership.
I urge you to reflect on why you feel that you must so vociferously insist on warfare between biology and Christianity. A strong majority of biologists, and most especially Christian biologists, do not feel the need to insist on such warfare. So I will restate the question you raised in your original post: must you really be stuck in the warfare paradigm of science-faith dealings? Is there really no way out? Or is there a better way for you to think about this relationship?
The Lordâs blessings on your journey.
EDIT: grammar
2 Likes
It is at this point, @deliberateresult, Joe,that I then ask you for what term YOU ARE WILLING TO CALL
âEvolutionary processes DIRECTED BY GODâ = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ <<<< Question here, Joe
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ⌠donât miss it!!! <<<<<
This question was actually in the posting that you just answered, but chose to ignore:
"1) Someone decides to define evolution as PURELY NATURAL, with no God.
2) And then BioLogos proposes that God is INVOLVED in the process of Evolution
3) So⌠what shall we call this God-Guided Evolution?
EVOLUTION + GOD = [ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ] < What?
If you would come up with a word ⌠I will USE that word⌠and you can stop bothering people."
So, itâs completely up to you now, Joe:
We can use the word Evolution GENERICALLY to mean any process that took millions of years.
And/or we could call Evolution without God, literally, Evolution-without-God;
and/or we could call Evolution WITH GOD, literally, Evolution-WITH-God.
I know you are unhappy about this choice, because it makes it impossible for you to play further word games. But just roll with it, okay?
of course you can claiming that. but i just use evolutionery logic to show how its a funny logic. again- according to evolution the vit pseudogene is evidence that mammals evolved from reptiles. so why not claiming by this logic that human evolved from birds?
Yai ! Mannnn!!! ⌠birds are a small branch of the tree of reptiles. What we define as BIRDS do not appear as a branch until AFTER what we call mammals have ALREADY APPEARED as a DIFFERENT branch lower on the tree⌠where we find amphibians, reptiles and a few other categories.
You gotta read more âŚ
sorry, but what?
Birds evolved from dinosaurs. That we know very, very well.
if human has genes for feathers, and we know that only birds and some kinds of dinos (if you doesnt consider birds as dino) had feathers- then its logical to conclude that human evolved from some kind of bird. so according to evolution principles we need to conclude that human evolved from birds. clear and simple.
If Bats have wings and Birds have wings⌠does that mean Bats got their wings from birds? No.
You have to have the SAME GENES to show common ancestry.
Reptiles have evolved flight two separate times (maybe three?) ⌠not from ancestor that had flight.
Seals, Otters and Whales make their lives in the water ⌠but they do not share a common ancestor that lived in the water. They achieved their entry into an aquatic world three different times, three different ways.
THAT, my good sir, is the power of evolution.
You have thoroughly misunderstood the National Geographic article you are quoting, my friend. Of course, the title doesnât help (âYour Inner Featherâ).
The fundamental point is this: Biologists have discovered that the genes that code for bird feathers, mammal hair, and reptile scales are very similar. In fact, the NY Times Science section published an article today on this very phenomenon.
You are choosing to interpret this genetic similarity in a very different way than the scientific community. Evolutionary logic is simply that highly similar genes point to a common ancestor.
Actually, this is not evolutionary logic. It does not say: âcrocodiles have the VITG1 gene, and humans have a VITG1 pseudogene, therefore humans evolved from crocodiles.â What it does say is that crocodiles and humans have a common ancestor.
Cheers,
1 Like
Hi Chris,
I am not inserting anything into your discussion with dcscccc, but want to make a comment on the term âcommon ancestorâ - I think that these discussions (which need a search of literature dealing with the matter) will show a great deal of generalisation, so that we end up using the term for anything from commonality that is found in all of living entities (sometimes this can mean anything from carbon based life forms, to universal common ancestry), common descent (meant for a lineage that is argued for human beings), and gene pools/population modelling, which may connect various past species based on genetic similarities.
We now also have arguments that seek to define evolution purely as a theory as common descent.
I find such rhetoric to be contrary to scientifically valid discussions - this is particularly obnoxious when these variations are used in arguments that have a negative impact on theological discussions.
Yes, itâs important to use clear language.
The way I am using the term âcommon ancestorâ is simply that, when you trace ancestry backwards for both crocodiles and humans, at some point you will discover a common ancestor for them. Off the top of my head, Iâd say the common ancestor for crocodiles and humans lived at least 200mya, but Iâm just a software architect who likes to read about biology.
As far as I can tell, this is the way biologists generally use the term.
âCommon ancestryâ refers to the theory that, if you trace back far enough (billions of years), you will discover that all living species have a common ancestor. Iâm sure this is a vast over-simplification, but I will have to invite folks with more expertise (like @Swamidass, @benkirk, @DennisVenema, etc.) to provide whatever clarification they feel is warranted for a public forum like this.
Iâm not quite sure what is meant by the term âcommon descent,â but since I didnât use it I will reduce obfuscation by not saying anything about its definition. 
I agree that we need clear language and thinking 
I began discussions some time ago by adopting the meaning you have suggested, and ran up against the debate/controversy that goes along the lines (someone can correct me if needed), that common ancestry means a âtree of life/speciesâ - indicating, as you say, if we go back far enough, we find a common link on this tree, and we eventually go back to a universal common ancestor. The other side claims that we go back far enough, we get a forest (indicating various common ancestors), while another view seems to be a âbushâ, suggesting a vast interlinked situation that may eventually be resolved into a âtrunkâ of commonality.
When I add to this, the view that past epochs included a vast variety of life forms, and then these seemed to disappear and other appear after many millions of years (inferring that some common ancestors may have disappeared), I have to smile when I consider ToE 