The second case strikes me as a clear case of confirmation bias…
What would we expect the evidence to look like if a human designer were in charge of the process? The obvious way would be to use the same codon for the same amino acid in all species…
So if the codons are different across species, then ID is false because surely if a designer were in charge of the process he would have used the same codon for all species.
Or secondly, here would be a prime opportunity to leave clear and indisputable evidence that Descent is false: when there are multiple codons available for a specific amino acid, use different ones for different species.
But, if the codons are the same, then clearly ID is false because surely a designer would have used different codons across species to demonstrate descent to be false.
Thus in contrast with what we would expect to see with common descent, we clearly see that had a designer been involved, the designer would obviously have used the same codons across species, and would clearly have had reason to use different codons across species.
The third example again, I’m afraid, also grows from either an unawareness or unfamiliarity with the basic precepts of ID, or even creation science, as it is actually held by its proponents. No ID proponent, nor even the most devout proponent of young-earth creation science at AIG or ICR, believes that there was no descent with modification that happened since the time that the designer finished his work of designing.
that fact that some mutations and (micro) evolution have occurred that demonstrate varied mutations of similar effect across species, at some points in the past, that demonstrate descent with modification on a micro-scale is not denied by anyone in this discussion - to my knowledge neither Stephen Meyer, Michael Behe, or Ken Ham would see anything in conflict with their own theories regarding
The inability of guinea pigs to produce vitamin C is the result of that gene being broken in a different way than it is broken in humans, other apes, and monkeys. And the gene in fruit bats is broken in a yet different way than either guinea pigs or the human group.
Again, i’m afraid, using the varied mutations of vitamin C as prima facie evidence against a designer belies an unfamiliarity with the theory that one is critiquing.
How far down this road are you willing to go? If God had wanted to develop an aquatic mammal that first appears in the fossil record right after other mammals were becoming semi-aquatic, and make it look like it fits the pattern of other mammals both before and after it, then yes we agree that God should design it like it is.
I’m afraid you’ve missed the point here, which was suggesting some possible rationale that might make more sense than the way we find the evidence.
And the overall point, which I don’t see you responding to, is that it is you who have come up with extra reasons for God doing what God did in order to make sense of the evidence. You’ve attempted to give some of those extra reasons–God wanted a flying mammal, not another bird… which of course makes us ask why? or why stop there? why not flying primates too? Why not aquatic primates? And of course we don’t have answers to any of those questions. And we don’t need answers to any of those questions on the common descent explanation. It is much simpler and more straightforward.
And you’ve said nothing (yet) about the last of my examples. I’d really, really, like to hear someone explain that one from an ID perspective.
It’s been discussed here before*… God does not want his existence to be scientifically provable, not that there aren’t enormous amounts of evidence pointing to him, à la Psalm 19 and Romans 1. If you can scientifically prove the existence of design, then you have scientifically proven the existence of a Designer.
Was working in it when you asked… I have a hard time really grasping what is being argued, exactly, it sounds to me like going to great detailed scientific methods to prove the sky is blue… but here are the thoughts…
If I were a super-genius genetic engineer… and say I started with some mammal’s DNA as a template for another creature, and then I engineered all sorts of stupendous modifications by introducing numerous intentional mutations in the DNA, to make a very different creature, while making no changes to some 99%+ of the DNA (especially, presumably, the noncoding sections)…
And then we let these two different organisms live and reproduce for some thousands upon thousands of years, and endure all manner of mutations, especially again in the noncoding sections, which all fell out according to the predictable distribution noted by Dr. Schaffner…
and we then examine and compare the DNA of both… including the ~99% of DNA that is noncoding and which presumably would not have had significant natural selection pressure for or against certain mutations…
then the differences between all that DNA, especially the 99% or so that is noncoding, would demonstrate divergences from one another with a near identical frequency to the way mutations are expected to happen…
um, OK… and this would somehow prove that my genetically engineered organism was in fact not really designed? clearly not. hence I am afraid I am failing to see the argument here?
here would be a prime opportunity to leave clear and indisputable evidence that Descent is false: when there are multiple codons available for a specific amino acid, use different ones for different species. For example, in chimps, God could have used CAA every time glutamine is called for in the design plan; in humans, God could have used CAG every time glutamine is called for. That would completely preserve the way chimp and human bodies work (because the same amino acids would still be produced). But it would show that the chimp and human DNA must not have come from a common source because there would be way too many discrepancies at similar positions on their genomes.
It would, but we have no reason to think that is what God’s motive is and it should not be projected back on him. So I guess I don’t know why that would be included in an argument against ID. It is like saying that leaving a trail of crumbs was part of God’s intent, when it isn’t. Sorry, Jim @jstump.
I think your post highlights the real problem with design principles which is you can easily explain away data just making up what the designer could have done or didn’t do.
Ultimately, it seems for whatever reason, the designer happened to make it look as if common ancestry occurred which is arguably more straightforward in the other examples.
The argument about common descent versus common design without common descent requires a degree of Bayesian reasoning. A designer could do something in any possible way. In contrast, common descent should produce certain patterns and not others. So if we find things matching the common descent model, that provides better support for it than for the “well, it could be designed to look like common descent” argument, because the common descent model made a more specific prediction that was fulfilled. [Common descent is, of course, a quite reasonable approach that a designer could take; we should reject a false dichotomy of design versus common descent.]
To detect design, one possibility is to have an idea of the designer’s purpose and see how well the object fits with that purpose. This clashes with the ID movements’ insistence that they aren’t starting with any assumptions about who the designer might be. Both pro-design and anti-design arguments tend to make doubtful assumptions about what the goals of God’s design should be. Empirically, it looks like diversity is one of God’s goals in creation, and evolution by natural selection (and other factors) is a good way to achieve that. If that’s the goal, it’s silly to argue about whether the panda could have a more efficient thumb, for example. It works well enough for pandas to get enough bamboo; who cares if they can’t text?
Genetic patterns fit well with the expectations of common descent. Non-coding regions such as the internal transcribed spacers in the rRNA gene regions show patterns of similarity that fit well evolutionarily (as long as multiple copies haven’t led to divergence within individuals, in which case it’s not so tidy, but mutations can do that). The pattern of codon usage shows additional patterns that support common descent, besides those mentioned in the article. There are actually a few different genetic codes. For example, your mitochondrial DNA and your nuclear DNA have some differences in the codon usage, going back to the origin of mitochondria as endosymbiotic bacteria. Why should mitochondria have DNA links to free-living bacteria when they are intracellular organelles? Particular groups of organisms have distinctive codon uses in their mitochondrial code, again tracking the expectations of evolutionary models. The mitochondrial DNA patterns of similarity match well with those of nuclear DNA as well as those based on anatomical understanding of evolutionary relationships. Similarities between certain groups of tRNA genes points back towards a common ancestor of all modern earth life that had a smaller set of amino acids and a simpler genetic code.
Perhaps so, but perhaps then we could agree that folks should refrain from arguing against ID by easily inventing arguments just by making up what a designer certainly would or should or ought to have done?
It is a dangerous game to base arguments on what a creator should have done. That’s the lesson Job learned. But of course none of us can get away from intuitions of what seems right and fits with other stuff we believe.
My goal in this article was to show that the burden of proof should be on the one who denies common ancestry. The features I’ve described fit and make sense from the perspective of common descent. To say they work for common design, you’re going to have to give reasons why a designer would do it that way. And notice that if you can give plausible reasons, that doesn’t undermine descent but merely brings the design explanation back up to the level of the descent explanation.
We all should also stop arguing against evolution “by easily inventing arguments just by making up what the Designer certainly would or should or ought to have done?”
Can we agree that God created all of the life forms on earth? If so, then the question is How did God do this? Those of us who are Evolutionary Creationists say that the evidence points to the case that God designed and created lifeforms using evolution and the natural processes, which God and no one else created.
Now I understand some people think that “natural” means divorced from God, but how so? God made everything. God made everything through evolution. God designed every through Natural Selection. Everything else is a false dichotomy.
Assuming that the designer would be an intelligent designer, would you think he would sit by the riverbank making mudpie plants and animals and humans or do you think he would design a process that would lead to the emergence of plants and animals and humans? To me a designer that creates a process of evolution with a feedback loop called survival fitness that is based on the simple rule of love for one another, e.g. to love thy neighbour like thyselves would be the more plausible designer and a coherent law in line with observed reality that shows me that selfishness within systems leads to system collapse. The only question is if the law and its origin is located within or outside the system and what makes up the system.
Some of the evidence that I see that is “fly in your face” evidence for design has to do with transcription and not only the fact that more than one protein can be made from the same gene, but also other smaller proteins that have another function.
From Google images.
The bits that are cut out, which are the introns, are not junk. They have regulatory functions. I know this video is a bit on the technical side, but it explains quite well the enormous complexity that is to be found in genetics. Regulatory RNA’s: miRNA, siRNA, snRNA, lncRNA - YouTube
This level of complexity arises from random mutations and natural selection??? Smacks of design to me. And not only design, but some intelligence behind the processes of life.
I must say I agree with your observation, your critique here is insightful.
It is one thing to affirm God as the designer of life, and that life, including especially human beings, are as they are by God’s intentional purpose and plan… while asserting that his method of design - common descent, natural selection, mutation, evolution, etc. - is such that cannot be demonstrated empirically to be categorically different than unguided nature.
But it is another thing entirely to explicitly affirm that common descent, etc., as an explanation for why some animals formed rather than others, is to be preferred as an explanation over and against God’s intentional purpose.
Especially given the author’s further argumentation that common descent is a “much simpler and more straightforward” explanation for why animals, including humans, developed as they did, while rejecting God’s intentional purpose and design due to what he perceives as that being a more convoluted explanation…
And thus I could paraphrase the argument…
you have come up with extra reasons for God doing what God did in order to make sense of the evidence. You’ve attempted to give some of those extra reasons–God wanted a walking human, not another kind… which of course makes us ask why? or why stop there? why not flying humans too? Why not aquatic humans? And of course we don’t have answers to any of those questions. And we don’t need answers to any of those questions on the common descent explanation. It is much simpler and more straightforward.
In other words, common descent, over and against God’s intent, is the reason we humans are as we are?
When making arguments like this, should it be any surprise that folks like me believe “evolutionists including BioLogos does not believe in the God Who intelligently designs the universe.”? It is very hard to see how someone who truly and deeply believed that life on earth is as it is because God wanted it this way could make the arguments as presented both in the article and here on this page. Rather, arguments like this certainly seem to belie any claims about believing God to be the ultimate designer, and reveal rather a core belief that human life is as it is strictly because of unguided and unpurposed natural forces.
